News & views …
Back to Main
April 22, 2012
Open Thread 2012-11
Comments
A plea to all honest sincere posters here:
Please totally ignore any assholes that clutter up good discussion and analysis. You can’t win by getting into a shitting match with them. Just remember that assholes are too full of shit to possibly compete with. I make it a habit before reading anything to check the poster’s name and just scroll to the next post if a recognized asshole. I you reply I probably am reading your post and it is just more of the same and wastes my time. If this admonition is observed, it will just leave them wallowing in their own excrements and not soil ourselves.
Posted by: juannie | Apr 30 2012 16:10 utc | 101
Here are couple of items of pertinence about Fukushima that I don’t think have been linked to yet.
The first site, Infinite Unknown, is new to me but it appears to be credible. The article points out, among other items of interest, just how lax authorities have been in disseminating important data.
The second by Michel Chossudovsky has several good visuals of fallout and wind patterns.
[all Bold mine]
Fukushima Is Falling Apart: Are You Ready … For A Mass Extinction Event?
…Independent researchers, nuke experts, and scientists, from oceanography to entomology and everywhere in between, having been trying to sound the alarm ever since.
…The scientists most upset are those who have studied the effects of radiation on health. I’ll say it again, so its really clear: we are in big trouble.
The most preliminary reports of soil contamination are starting to come in from the USGS, who has seemed reluctant to share this information. Los Angeles, California, Portland, Oregon, and Boulder, Colorado, so far have the highest radioactive particle contamination out of the entire US.
That being said, every single city tested across the country showed contamination from Fukushima. What is even more alarming, however, about the numbers coming in, is that they are from samples taken April 5th, of last year.
…Reactor #4 building is on the verge of collapsing. Seismicity standards rate the building at a zero, meaning even a small earthquake could send it into a heap of rubble. And sitting at the top of the building, in a pool that is cracked, leaking, and precarious even without an earthquake, are 1565 fuel rods (give or take a few), some of them “fresh fuel” that was ready to go into the reactor on the morning of March 11th when the earthquake and tsunami hit.
… as Senator Wyden is now saying too, we would face a mass extinction event from the release of radiation in those rods.
That is, if we aren’t in one already. Nuke experts like Arnie Gundersen and Helen Caldicott are prepared to evacuate their families to the southern hemisphere if that happens. It is that serious.
…Get informed. Start paying attention to this. Every single statement in this article is verifiable, and I will continue to verify and validate the seriousness of this situation at every opportunity I have.
Fukushima: A Nuclear War without a War: The Unspoken Crisis of Worldwide Nuclear Radiation by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
…Nuclear radiation –which threatens life on planet earth– is not front page news in comparison to the most insignificant issues of public concern, including the local level crime scene or the tabloid gossip reports on Hollywood celebrities.
While the long-term repercussions of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster are yet to be fully assessed, they are far more serious than those pertaining to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine, which resulted in almost one million deaths
…Worldwide Contamination
The dumping of highly radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean constitutes a potential trigger to a process of global radioactive contamination. Radioactive elements have not only been detected in the food chain in Japan, radioactive rain water has been recorded in California: …
Posted by: juannie | Apr 30 2012 16:23 utc | 102
I deleted a bunch of comments from Hu bris on this thread.
Sorry if that makes some comments here look out of context.
He is obviously either too young or too drunk to behave with reasonable manners.
If he continues to behave this way he will get permanently banned.
So: POA gets to scream ‘fuck off’ as much as he likes, but you censor links I posted to Scientific evidence showing that POA is possibly being a bit hysterical?
That’s a tad dishonest IMHO
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 30 2012 17:45 utc | 104
I have little objection to you censoring the more heated comments but Censoring reputable scientific info that casts doubt on POA’s hysteria is a bad precedent to set IMHO
It doesn’t look good when the argument can only be won the argument through censorship
was there something about the link to the scientific peer-reviewed paper that I post whiuch you found to be ‘unreliable’ or ‘unscientific’?
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 30 2012 17:49 utc | 105
“He is obviously either too young or too drunk to behave with reasonable manners.”
yet curiously it was not ME screaming ‘fuck off’ and ‘asshole’ all the time – bit of a double standard there, b, no?
Also I’m curious how two or three links to opposing scientific opinion constitute ‘drunkness’
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 30 2012 17:51 utc | 106
A new research paper finds that some of the alarmist scenarios after the Chernobyl accident have been grossly exaggerated. In all likelihood the same strident alarmism evident after Fukushima is also highly exaggerated.
J. T. Smith, N. J. Willey, J. T. Hancock. Low dose ionizing radiation produces too few reactive oxygen species to directly affect antioxidant concentrations in cells. Biology Letters, 2012; DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2012.0150.
Abstract: It has been hypothesized that radiation-induced oxidative stress is the mechanism for a wide range of negative impacts on biota living in radioactively contaminated areas around Chernobyl. The present study tests this hypothesis mechanistically, for the first time, by modelling the impacts of radiolysis products within the cell resulting from radiations (low linear energy transfer β and γ), and dose rates appropriate to current contamination types and densities in the Chernobyl exclusion zone and at Fukushima. At 417 µGy h−1 (illustrative of the most contaminated areas at Chernobyl), generation of radiolysis products did not significantly impact cellular concentrations of reactive oxygen species, or cellular redox potential. This study does not support the hypothesis that direct oxidizing stress is a mechanism for damage to organisms exposed to chronic radiation at dose rates typical of contaminated environments.
Radiation from the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents may not have been as harmful to wildlife as previously thought.
New research by Professor Jim Smith, of the University of Portsmouth, and colleagues from the University of the West of England has cast doubt on earlier studies on the impact on birds of the catastrophic nuclear accident at Chernobyl in April 1986.
Their findings, published in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters, are likely to also apply to wildlife at Fukushima in Japan following its nuclear disaster in 2011 and represent an important step forward in clarifying the debate on the biological effects of radiation.
Professor Smith, an environmental physicist at the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, said: “I wasn’t really surprised by these findings — there have been many high profile findings on the radiation damage to wildlife at Chernobyl but it’s very difficult to see significant damage and we are not convinced by some of the claims.
“We can’t rule out some effect on wildlife of the radiation, but wildlife populations in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl have recovered and are actually doing well and even better than before because the human population has been removed.” ……. Professor Smith said: “We showed that changes in anti-oxidant levels in birds in Chernobyl could not be explained by direct radiation damage. We would expect other wildlife to be similarly resistant to oxidative stress from radiation at these levels. Similarly, radiation levels at Fukushima would not be expected to cause oxidative stress to wildlife. We believe that it is likely that apparent damage to bird populations at Chernobyl is caused by differences in habitat, diet or ecosystem structure rather than radiation”. …..
Professor Smith has studied contamination at Chernobyl for more than 20 years and regularly visited the exclusion zone for his research. He is author of a major book about the incident, Chernobyl: Catastrophe and Consequences, and is a former member of the International Atomic Energy Agency Chernobyl forum.
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 30 2012 17:58 utc | 107
Hubris @ 107
That only proves anti-oxydants does not protect against radiation-induced oxidative stress, or free radicals.
Wildlife in the exclusion-zone after Chernobyl does pretty well, but then again, most wild-life has a shorter life-span than humans, and consequently are less susceptible to cancerous mutations, and would primarely affect child-mortality in wildlife, as well as it has been proven to do in humans, even beyond exclusion-zones.
As for Fukushima, the Japanese operate with radiation-toleranse 20 times higher than what would constitute exclusion after Chernobyl.
Posted by: Alexander | Apr 30 2012 18:20 utc | 108
And by the way, for the record, this is the first scientific posting on this thread from Hu Bris, what was deleted certainly had minimal scientific value..
Posted by: Alexander | Apr 30 2012 18:24 utc | 109
keyphrase search “the same strident alarmism evident after Fukushima is also highly exaggerated.”
ktwop.wordpress.com
other jewels from that blog:
we are in for a decade or two or three of global cooling
there is no evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has any significant impact on weather or climate
Two years after BP oil spill, natural recovery is much greater than expected
Wikileaks cable reveals the fraud that is the Kyoto protocol
When warming leads to cooling
AGW alarmism going the way of the Y2K panic
No need to panic about global warming
The dark side of the sun in Germany
Benefits of shale gas are real and measurable
Google abandons its backing of renewable energy
Searchable data base for Climategate 2 emails
renewables are far from commercialisation
How many years of global cooling are needed to disprove AGW?
UK reports a huge shale gas find
Net effect of clouds on climate is strongly cooling and not of warming
Malthusian doomsday postponed – indefinitely
Room for all
————————————————————
> was there something about the link to the scientific peer-reviewed paper that I post whiuch you found to be ‘unreliable’ or ‘unscientific’?
————————————————————
Jim Smith former member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
here – try this:
New York Academy of Sciences
Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment
Written by Alexey V. Yablokov (Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia), Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (Institute of Radiation Safety, Minsk, Belarus). Consulting Editor Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger (Environmental Institute, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan).
Volume 1181, December 2009
335 Pages
It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.
The book explodes the claim of the International Atomic Energy Agency– still on its website that the expected death toll from the Chernobyl accident will be 4,000. The IAEA, the new book shows, is under-estimating, to the extreme, the casualties of Chernobyl.
***********************
If the precarious spent fuel pond of Unit 4 overheats, the result will be devastating for Japan and America. Get your emergency supplies and water ready for the possibility if sheltering inside for several weeks at a minimum. Escape to the Southern Hemisphere for average citizens will be virtually impossible after Unit 4 blows into the Jetstream wind.
Billionaires and bureaucrats with private jets may escape with their families.
Everyone else will be collateral damage.
The National Guard will be sorely tested because 70,000 are overseas in combat operations and will be stranded and unable to return to America after an extended Northern Hemisphere fallout event.
———————————————————————-
my measurements are incomplete, but it looks like the ocean is absorbing ~ 80 %
the west coast gets ~ 10 %
the rest of N.America ~ 5 %
northern hemisphere the remaining ~ 5 %
if fukushima blows :
shelter in place for a week or so (in some bad areas)
big jump in background radiation- magnitude increase
some hot rain days
some stay indoor, high radiation days..
Posted by: crazy_inventor | Apr 30 2012 18:30 utc | 110
“And by the way, for the record, this is the first scientific posting on this thread from Hu Bris, what was deleted certainly had minimal scientific value..
“
nor did anyone claim otherwise – and it’s rather dishonest of you to imply that I did.
As I told b, I have no objection to the more heated posts being censored – I object to the very very unevenhanded nature of the censorship – abuse from others was left to stand, while I was targetted, even though at no time did I ever utter words as objectionable as ‘fuck off’.
What B did was delete the scientific evidence I posted – that is dishonest
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 30 2012 18:49 utc | 111
keyphrase search “the same strident alarmism evident after Fukushima is also highly exaggerated.ktwop.wordpress.com”
YOur post is intended as some sort of expose, I take it?
curiously you negelected to expose anything
Equally curiously you are also promoting the work of the website enenews, since you yourself appear to have c&p’d whole chunks of text from that website
@ Alexander “Wildlife in the exclusion-zone after Chernobyl does pretty well, but then again, most wild-life has a shorter life-span than humans, and consequently are less susceptible to cancerous mutations, and would primarely affect child-mortality in wildlife, as well as it has been proven to do in humans, even beyond exclusion-zones.”
Interesting you should mention that
Someone produced a study that claimed that in the ten weeks after Fukushima Infant Mortality rose by approx 5% in the US , compared to the average mortality rate for the preceeding 4 months
Someone out there wondered why the study authors only choose to compare to the previous 4 months, rather than say 6 months or 12 months.
So they back-tracked the infant mortality data for the previous 7 months and found that the average for the 10 weeks after Fukishima was in fact LOWER than that for the 7 months preceeding it, thus proving that the Authors made a deliberate descision to cherry-pick the datea in order to produce a seemingly more alarming result
So I’m always a little sceptical when presented with ‘studies’ which make similar conclusions.
for example there is NO evidence that the Authors of the Study you are quoting took into account that between 1984 and 2000 the Soviet Union collapsed and so did the free health system. this would DEFINITELY have had a MAJOR impact on Cancer Mortality rates in former-Communist countries
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 30 2012 19:09 utc | 112
Where it says ‘4 months ‘ above it should say ‘4 weeks’
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 30 2012 19:12 utc | 113
Also where it says ‘7 months ‘ above it should say ‘7 weeks’
Infant mortality increase in the U.S. after Fukushima?
Very surprising, there are several conclusions to be drawn here:
— There is no spike in infant mortality due to Fukushima. Instead there is an accidental dip during the 4 weeks before the radioactive releases reached the U.S. west coast.
— The infant mortality rate in the northwest U.S. was actually 23% higher in the first 7 weeks of 2011 than after Fukushima, 108 cases in 7 weeks give a weekly ratio of 15.43. We can thus say, by using Sherman and Mangano’s own way of phrasing it, that this amounts to a decrease of 23% and is statistically significant.
— The data for the full time period of weeks 1 – 21 amount to 272 infant deaths over 21 weeks, i.e. a weekly rate of 12.95. This is slightly higher than the weekly rate after Fukushima (12.50).
— Janette Sherman and Joseph Mangano have a lot to explain for us…if anybody cares to listen to them after this low point in their so called scientific careers.any one that wants to intelligently argue with the conclusions of this article would NEED to actually adress the figures (the maths and ‘science’ bit) rather than just attack the source
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 30 2012 19:22 utc | 114
@ Alexander “would primarely affect child-mortality in wildlife, as well as it has been proven to do in humans, even beyond exclusion-zones.”
That is supposition which in all liklihood is incorrect since Dr Smith stated :
“We can’t rule out some effect on wildlife of the radiation, but wildlife populations in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl have recovered and are actually doing well and even better than before because the human population has been removed.”
So not only did the Wildlife recover quite significantly in a relatively short space of time (far shorter than many of the ‘experts’ predicted) but in fact is now doing better than ever.
by simply attempting to dismiss the conclusions of Dr Smiths paper by implying that any radiation effect would be hidden, or would not effect the extant population, because it would only (or primarily) increase the Wildlife infant Mortality, seems to me to be little more than a convenient excuse for you to ignore Dr Smith’s research
Also your stement that “it has been proven to do in humans” needs some evidence behind it, no? Or am I just to accept everything you say as Gospel?
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 30 2012 19:41 utc | 115
@crazy_inventor: > was there something about the link to the scientific peer-reviewed paper that I post whiuch you found to be ‘unreliable’ or ‘unscientific’?
————————————————————
Jim Smith former member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Sorry but simply replying with the man’s name and Job -title is not in any way an intelligent rebuttal of anything I have posted here so far.
basically it’s an admission by you that you are unable to find anything ‘unreliable’ or ‘unscientific’, in the scientific peer-reviewed paper that I posted
It would be much more honest of you to just come out and admit that you were completely unable, as yet, to find anything ‘unreliable’ or ‘unscientific’, in the scientific peer-reviewed paper that I posted, rather than slyly casting aspersions on Dr Smith just because he happens to workj for the IAEA
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 30 2012 19:46 utc | 116
> just because he happens to workj for the IAEA
“The IAEA, the new book shows, is under-estimating, to the extreme, the casualties of Chernobyl.”
nuclear power yes please
New Report in the International Journal of Health Services
12-20-2011
This report, An Unexpected Mortality Increase in the United States Follows Arrival of the Radioactive Plume from Fukushima: Is There a Correlation? published in the International Journal of Health Services today, is not new science, but confirms research done over the decades as to adverse effects caused by radioisotopes to the unborn and the very young because of their rapidly developing cells, immature immunological systems and relatively small weight.
As background, in the 1950s, I worked for the Atomic Energy Commission (the forerunner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) at the Radiation Laboratory, University of California in Berkeley and the US Navy Radiation Laboratory at Hunter’s Point in San Francisco. Near 60 years ago, we learned that radiation could damage animals and plants and cause cancer, genetic damage, and other problems.
The issue of the danger from nuclear power plants is not just the engineering, but biology and chemistry. We have understood for decades where and how radioisotopes interact with life systems.
Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 have half-lives of approx 30 years. It takes 10 half-lives for an isotope to fully decay, thus it will take 300 years or three centuries before radioactive cesium and strontium will be gone.
Cs-134, Cs-137 and Sr-90 continue to be released from Fukushima in tons of contaminated water that is making its’ way across the Pacific Ocean. Cesium concentrates in soft tissue, strontium in bones and teeth, of the unborn and young.
Immediately after Chernobyl the level of thyroid disease increased. Given the large amounts of radioactive iodine (I-131) released from Fukushima, thyroid disease will develop in those exposed in Japan, as well as in those exposed to lesser amounts throughout the northern hemisphere. Public health officials need to anticipate and prepare for these findings.
The highest levels of I-131 measured by EPA in precipitation varied from a high of 390 pico Curies (pCi) in Boise to 92 in Boston, with intermediate levels in Kansas City, Salt Lake City, Jacksonville and Olympia, WA. (Normal is about 2 pCi)
Not every system was evaluated after Chernobyl, but of those that were: wild and domestic animals, birds, fish, plants, fungi, bacteria, viruses—even humans—were altered by the radiation, often for generations.
Birds in the 30-kilometer “exclusion zone” of Chernobyl display small brain size, alterations of normal coloration, poor survival of offspring, and poor adaptability to stress.
Recent, independent studies conducted in Scandinavia shows a decline on academic performance in children exposed during the Chernobyl fallout.
80% of children in Belarus are considered un-well by government standards.
Unless the earth stops turning, and the laws of biology, chemistry and physics are rescinded, we will continue to see sickness and harm spread to the children of Fukushima, the same that occurred after Chernobyl. We ignore history at our peril.
Posted by: crazy_inventor | Apr 30 2012 22:13 utc | 117
irrespective of whatever mud you attempt to fling . . . .
All I see is a tacit admission on your part, that despite attempts by both you and Alexander to dismiss what evidence I have posted here, that you have yet to find ANY flaw in the study linked to earlier.
Nor have you apparently been able to find on the web any reputable info which discredits Dr Smith’s peer-reviewed scientific study, since you would most likely have posted it by now
Also I referred to the study you have just linked to, earlier. If you’d bothered to read the earlier posts you would know that.
After examination of that study and it’s methodology it was clear that the study’s authors were playing fast and loose with the Data – if you’re going to claim that that is not true you’re going to have to do do a damn sight more than just lazily reposting the study in question and then copy&pasting the website name.
Your unwillingness to do anything other than try to shoot the messenger shows that you have no intention of making any honest attempt to address the conclusion that the study you are referring to is SERIOUSLY flawed, and may even qualify legally as a Fraud
Th study authors apparently deliberately left out data which would have shown their conclusions to be incorrect
as I sated earlier:
— There is no spike in infant mortality due to Fukushima. Instead there is an accidental dip during the 4 weeks before the radioactive releases reached the U.S. west coast.
— The infant mortality rate in the northwest U.S. was actually 23% higher in the first 7 weeks of 2011 than after Fukushima, 108 cases in 7 weeks give a weekly ratio of 15.43. We can thus say, by using Sherman and Mangano’s own way of phrasing it, that this amounts to a decrease of 23% and is statistically significant.
It was only be carefully cherry-picking the data for Infant mortality that the authors were able to come to their conclusions.
To delibeately ignore the data that would invalidate your conclusions is not only considered unethical but is quite possibly a deliberate fraud.
So essentially you are now presenting a paper which I have already shown fairly clear and easily understood evidence is seriously flawed.
Like I said earlier – if you wish to continue to present that study as ‘scientific’ you really are going to have to adddress the serious flaws listed in both this post and previous ones.
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 30 2012 22:50 utc | 118
Like I said earlier: It would be much more honest of you to just come out and admit that you were completely unable, as yet, to find anything ‘unreliable’ or ‘unscientific’, in the scientific peer-reviewed paper that I posted.
You seem to think that your argument is best served by slyly casting aspersions on Dr Smith just because he happens to work for the IAEA, or childishly printing the website name just because you hope it will influence people’s opinion of the study itself, to such an extent that , like you, they will refuse to read it and understand what it is saying.
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 30 2012 22:56 utc | 119
For Immediate Release
April 7, 2011
Contact: Joseph J. Mangano
609-399-4343
Odiejoe@aol.com
U.S. RADIATION LEVELS SOAR 20 TIMES FROM JAPAN FALLOUT – IDAHO HIGHEST, 100 TIMES ABOVE NORMAL
Latest EPA Air, Water Data Comparable to Chernobyl Fallout, Chinese A-Bomb Tests
April 7, 2011 – Iodine-131 in U.S. air and precipitation in late March was 20 times greater than normal, due to radiation releases from the meltdowns at Japanese nuclear reactors, according to EPA data.
The highest figures recorded thus far are in Idaho, where an air sample in Boise was 84 times above normal, and a precipitation sample in Boise was 121 times above normal. The highest concentrations in the nation are on the West Coast, Alaska, and Hawaii.
“We can’t assume this radiation is harmless, and must conduct studies to assess any health risks, especially to American infants, and children,” says Joseph Mangano MPH MBA, Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project research group.
Since the earthquake and tsunami in Japan on March 11 caused meltdowns at multiple nuclear reactors at Fukushima, the EPA has been collecting data from its system of 124 radiation monitoring sites throughout the country. I-131 results are as follows:
AIR SAMPLES
From March 18-24, the EPA took 73 air samples at 17 sites, and detected I-131 in 66 of them. A comparison with historical EPA data showed:
The current U.S. median of 0.198 picocuries of I-131 per cubic meter of air was at least 20 times above “normal” levels (0.010) recorded by EPA in early June 1986 when Chernobyl fallout had largely disappeared from the U.S. environment.
Current levels were 46% of peak Chernobyl fallout (0.430, May 11-13, 1986).
Boise ID had a reading 84 times above the normal level in the U.S. on March 23 (0.840, vs. 0.010).
PRECIPITATION SAMPLES
From March 15-21, the EPA took 13 precipitation samples, but did not detect I-131 in any. But from March 22-25, each of 12 samples at 10 sites had detectable levels:
The current U.S. median of 39.6 picocuries of I-131 per liter of precipitation was 20 times above normal levels (2.0) recorded in early May 1986, before Chernobyl fallout arrived.
Current levels were 40% of peak Chernobyl fallout (99.5, May 14-16, 1986).
Boise ID had a reading 121 times above the normal level in the U.S. on March 22 (242, vs.2.0)
Riverside CA, near San Francisco, had a reading 69 times above the normal level in the U.S. (138 on March 22)
Current levels were 52% of the levels in October 1976, after fallout from a large-scale Chinese above-ground atom bomb test reached the U.S. (75.5)
I-131 is a fast-decaying radioactive chemical (half life of 8 days) found only in nuclear weapons explosions and reactor operations. When ingested, it seeks out the thyroid gland, where it kills and injures healthy cells, leading to thyroid cancer and other disorders affecting the organ. I-131 is one of hundreds of radioactive chemicals in reactors, including Strontium-90, Cesium-137, and Plutonium-239. The EPA is tracking several of these chemicals.
To access EPA air and precipitation data, the following web sites can be consulted:
Air: http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/docs/rert/radnet-air-final.pdf
Precipitation: http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/docs/rert/radnet-precipitation-final.pdf
Posted by: crazy_inventor | Apr 30 2012 23:27 utc | 120
Nuclear Power Causes Cancer: What Industry Doesn’t Want You To Know
Dr. Sam Epstein
Huffington Post, Tuesday, August 4, 2009.
University of Illinois public health professor Samuel Epstein MD writes an essay on the health consequences of nuclear power, citing the work of RPHP. Dr. Epstein discusses the considerable evidence linking nuclear reactor emissions with cancer, and calls on the President and Congress to take appropriate action.
http://radiation.org/spotlight/090804_Huffingtonpost.html
Chernobyl:The Gift That Never Stops Giving
We are now finding that threats to human health and the environment from the radioactive fallout of Chernobyl will persist for a very long time. There is an exclusionary zone near the reactor, roughly the size of Rhode Island (1000 sq kilometers), with such high levels of contamination that people are not supposed to live there for centuries to come. There are also “hot spots” throughout Russia, Poland Greece, Germany, Italy, UK, France, and Scandinavia where contaminated livestock and other foodstuff continue to be removed from human consumption. Other examples of contamination abound. But true to form, governments with major nuclear programs or ambitions are silent and are encouraging the view that it’s time we forget about Chernobyl.
Cancer — The Number One Killer — And Its Environmental Causes
The World Health Organization projects that this year cancer will become the world’s leading cause of death. Why the epidemic of cancer?
The cause of the cancer epidemic, as numerous studies have now documented, is largely environmental — the result of toxic substances in the water we drink, the food we eat, the consumer products we use, the air we breathe. But there are powerful interests that profit from pollution and stifle effective governmental regulation.
The Hidden Costs of Nuclear Power
Alec Baldwin
Huffington Post, Thursday, February 25, 2010
Proponents of nuclear power plants never discuss the true costs of such facilities. Mr. Baldwin spells out many of these hidden expenses.
Posted by: crazy_inventor | Apr 30 2012 23:35 utc | 121
this is hilarious
Instead of addressing the flaws, serious ones btw, in Joseph J. Mangano paper, crazy_inventor seems to think that simply repeatedly reposting various links referring to other related work by the author of that seriously and provably flawed study is in some way going to make the very obvious flaws in Joseph J. Mangano paper simply dissappaer.
Such behaviour is imho bordering on completely delusional
Your complete refusal to address the FACT that Joseph J. Mangano very obviously cherry-picked the 4 week time period before Fukishima because it just so happened to give him the lowest Infant Mortality average possible, only proves that you have little interest in any actual scinece and have instead an purely political agenda
=======
No one disputes that radiation causes cancer so why you felt the need to put it forward as some sort of ridiculous counter-argument is curious
My guess is that you are desperately trying to shore of the flagging credibility of of the flawed study’s author Joseph J. Mangano, and the posting of irrelevant info is your preferred method of creatinga smokescreen behind which you can hide the FACT that Joseph J. Mangano was clearly caught in unethical and possibly fraudulent behaviour
Posted by: hu bris | Apr 30 2012 23:51 utc | 122
Like I said several times now: It would be much more honest of you to just come out and admit that you were completely unable, as yet, to find anything ‘unreliable’ or ‘unscientific’, in the scientific peer-reviewed paper that I posted.
Posted by: hu bris | Apr 30 2012 23:52 utc | 123
. . . of course it’s possible that the reason you are repeatedly and deliberately ignoring the serious flaws in Mangano’s work is because you are just not that concerned with ‘honesty’
If this is the case then let me apologise profusely for ever presuming that ‘honesty’ was something with which you might have a concern
Posted by: hu bris | Apr 30 2012 23:55 utc | 124
@ hu bris
I’m posting EPA measurements
what are you posting ?
Posted by: crazy_inventor | May 1 2012 0:12 utc | 125
“I’m posting EPA measurements
what are you posting ?”
really what you are doing is trying to coverup the fact that you are posting also a seriously flawed ‘study’ which has been shown to not woth the paper it was written on
But you can continue to pretend that you’re doing something else if you wish
Posted by: hu bris | May 1 2012 0:18 utc | 126
you are also trying to cover up the FACT that you posted the study even after you were shown clear evidence there were serious flaws with it
Which is why your own honesty, or lack of it, has been mentioned
Posted by: hu bris | May 1 2012 0:22 utc | 127
Highly interesting that you chose to dismiss Dr Smiths work merely because he works for IAEA but that your just fine with Mr Mangano’s work despite being shown clear evidence that Mangano has recently produced work that is SERIOUSLY flawed, and may even qualify legally as a Fraud
That is rather astounding and frankly dishonest double-standard
Posted by: hu bris | May 1 2012 0:34 utc | 128
Severely malformed babies have been killed in Japan
Japan author claims medical workers said malformed babies are being declared as stillbirths or miscarriages.
the claims for what I’ve posted above:
EPA Air, Water Data
From March 18-24, the EPA took 73 air samples
Boise ID had a reading 84 times above the normal level in the U.S. on March 23
From March 15-21, the EPA took 13 precipitation samples
Boise ID had a reading 121 times above the normal level in the U.S. on March 22
390 pico Curies (pCi) in Boise
Riverside CA, near San Francisco, had a reading 69 times above the normal level
—————————————————————–
so, are you saying this data is inaccurate ?
Posted by: crazy_inventor | May 1 2012 0:35 utc | 129
are all Alarmist-types, such as yourself, always this dishonest, or is it just on Monday’s?
Posted by: hu bris | May 1 2012 0:36 utc | 130
“so, are you saying this data is inaccurate ?”
I’ve never made any claim regarding the EPA data, so why you are now trying to imply that I have is again another example of your lack of honesty
I just find it rather disingenuous of you to claim that there’s a problem with Dr Smith’s work, based on nothing at all other than your own prejudice, whereas your completely fine with posting the work of Mr Mangano despite the CLEAR EVIDENCE of the unreliabity of his work
You’ve been asked numerous times to point out ANY flaw in Dr Smith’s paper and yet have been unable or unwilling to do so, yet you have no problem posting the work on Mr Mangano which you knew before you even posted it, was seriously flawed.
One can infer quite a lot from your complete hypocrisy in this matter.
Generally people with even a modicum of respect for principles such as honesty and integrity, take a very dim view of a person that deliberately ignores serious flaws in a paper he agrees with, while attempting to denegrate the reputation of the Author of a paper does not agree with, but is completely unable to poinnt out ANY flaw in that 2nd authors work.
Posted by: hu bris | May 1 2012 0:46 utc | 131
Fukushima Gov’t: Over 35% of young people tested have thyroid cysts or nodules
Japan Physicians Demand Answers: 90% of urine samples contaminated with cesium in city 200km from Fukushima
Anonymous Interview: Medical doctors working in Fukushima say lots of people are dying — “Bleeding, losing hair, and having a bad health condition” (VIDEO)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKpmeLrPLL8
Emergency declared at New Jersey nuclear plant — Multiple fire alarms sound after reactor shuts down — Tests were occurring on emergency cooling system — Cause remains under investigation
Posted by: crazy_inventor | May 1 2012 1:01 utc | 132
so obviously you have no intention of pointing out ANY flaws in Dr Smith’s work.
I can only presume this is because you cannot find any.
Posted by: hu bris | May 1 2012 1:03 utc | 133
There is a frantic effort going on here to try to discredit a growing body of evidence that the Fukushima disaster is not over and in fact is potentially a major world effecting accident waiting to happen. This frantic poster has posted almost three posts per hour between Noon and 8:30 and that doesn’t include the post that b claimed to have deleted. The frantic poster has primarily been trying to cast doubt upon a plethora of information that other posters have obviously spent time diligently researching. The frantic poster’s only linked reference was from what is almost certainly a front group for the Royal elites in Britain who’s agenda is both pro nuclear and pro GMO and have attacked Dr Arpad Pusztai’s who’s research showed adverse effects on rats from GM potatoes. Dr. Pusztai’s research has since been vindicated by independent research. See The Pusztai Scandal Laid Bare
I have a related question. Considering the time spent by the frantic poster during the working hours of the day, and considering the overzealous and immature posts (IMO), what would one surmise his function or agenda to be?
Doubt is and has been the agenda of most large corporations in their attempts to keep their high profits coming from their sale of dangerous and sometimes lethal products foisted upon an uninformed and unaware populous ever since the technique was invented by the tobacco industry back in the 50’s. It is presently used by the industries who’s profits would suffer from any climate change action, any limitation of poisonous chemical sales, from any sanity regarding nuclear power, any knowledge of GMOs adverse effects and still used by the tobacco industry. And this is only a partial listing. See reviews of
Doubt_is_Their_Product and/or Climate Cover-Up
b has offered a high quality blog covering international events primarily but also open to intelligent and considered comments and discussion on most any topic of interest to his readers. This site is a gem of rarity in today’s world of disinformation, lies and propaganda. His integrity and forbearance to different opinions is astonishing. Therefore we are faced with the difficult task of sorting the wheat from the chaff in the comment section. Sometimes the chaff becomes obvious but some of us are still sucked into their lair. It is a shame that those of integrity’s time is so wasted in rebutting the bullshit and readers time is wasted in wallowing through the crap.
Actually in the instance on this thread, the rebuttal has been excellent and stimulated bringing to light new and important information. In the instance of this thread I think the frantic poster’s immature efforts have been counterproductive to his/her agenda. I would thank several for this and for their efforts for keeping a high quality of information flowing here. You know who you are. Thanks.
Posted by: juannie | May 1 2012 1:52 utc | 134
As usual, instead of writing anything related to the science Alarmist-In-Chief juannie indulges in that famous past time of Alarmist-types the world over: Attempted character assassination
juannie, with his best sherlock Holmes cap on, is attempting what I consider to be a rather pathetic smear. He’s trying to maintain that simply because I have made plenty of posts on this subject this is some sort of ‘evidence’ of some ‘nefarious agenda’ on my part
He does this because it’s much much easier than actually finding some reliable info (e.g. NOT from a completley discredited individual such as Mr Mangano) that negates anything I have posted here
The sure mark of a charlatan
That I have the time to post as much as I like here, is no concern of your’s.
Unlike you I’m neither tied to a desk, nor slaving away for some employer. I work for myself and am very well-paid for what I do. Consequently I have no need to work an 8hr day, nor a 5 day week – I work when it please me,
So I have the luxury of arranging to fill my time in any way I please. That you claim this is evidence of something more nefarious is pathetic really
that you claim to find my posting style so suspicious really jsut shows that you’re either a very paranoid individual or a very dishonest one
That you have wasted a couple of hundred words on a completely baseless smear attempt shows you also to be an individual with highly questionable sense of ‘ethics’
Juannie’s tactics above are no surprise though. Despite claiming to be some sort of scientist, juannie ALWAYS resorts to baseless smear attemps when challanged on any of the science relating to this subject of any ‘eco’ related subject where he can run around and create a bit of alarm, such as his favourite – the AGW hoax
As far as I can see, baseless smear attempts and creating Alarm seem to be your sole function here juannie
“. Sometimes the chaff becomes obvious but some of us are still sucked into their lair. “
a ‘lair’ huh?
seriously?
and you’re trying to portray yourself as some sort of ‘honourable’ individual?
When you’re reduced to baseless smear attempts you really have lost any shred of honour or decency you may have onee had, juannie
But then I notice that you true-believer AGW types have rarely let stuff like that bother you. After all, you’re the guys with a ‘noble cause’ right?
Posted by: Hu Bris | May 1 2012 2:33 utc | 135
Astute observors will note that In his latest smeear-attempt/comment, juannie talked about almost anything EXCEPT the actual topic of discussion
GMO
Tobbacco
Oil
etc etc
all the big Eco bug-bears are there – but curiously conspicuios by it’s absence is any actual discussion of the science posted here.
And this form a supposssed ‘Scientist’? tsk tsk juannie.
not exactly the mark of an honest individual IMHO
Posted by: Hu Bris | May 1 2012 2:39 utc | 136
“The frantic poster’s only linked reference was from what is almost certainly a front group for the Royal elites in Britain who’s agenda is both pro nuclear and pro GMO “
I’ll just leave that sitting there so that observers can obtain from it some measure of Alarmist-In-Chief juannie and his thinking regarding any that would dare to disagree with him or question the basis for his non-stop alarmism
But a front group for the Royal elites has a wonderful Alex Jones-ish feel to it, don’t it? very ‘sciency’ indeed
Posted by: Hu Bris | May 1 2012 2:50 utc | 137
oh dear – I’ve gone and made 3 post already – juannie will probably take this as cast iron evidence that I’m in the pay of Monsanto
Posted by: Hu Bris | May 1 2012 2:52 utc | 138
Morocco Bama, retreatbladingxxx, now Hu bris … I’m worried, is it infectious? … who’ll be the next to be hit?
(disclaimer 1: I’m kidding)
(disclaimer 2: not completely)
Posted by: claudio | May 1 2012 2:55 utc | 139
Those interested in reality about life for those millions of humans who live in Pakistan as it is forced into ‘failed state’ status by USuk pols & military determined to kill or repress all Pakistanis opposed to the Fukus coalition dedicated to stripping all resources outta central Asia & the mid-east, may have seen M. SHAHID ALAM’s Counterpunch article on Imran Khan.
I, like M. SHAHID ALAM, subscribe to the belief that if anyone can reverse Pakistan’s decline into a failed state, that one person is Imran Khan.
I could regale with a rational analysis of Imran and exactly how it is someone of his character is Pakistan’s last best hope, but Shahid does a better job of that in his article than I could ever manage.
So instead I will say that as well as having the right credentials on paper, his personality conveys a sense of focussed intensity that is emphasised by an underlying probity quite diferent from the two dimensional self-righteousness most reformist politicians emanate.
The CounterPunch article is actually a bloody long book review. the book being reviwed is Imran Khan’s autobiography, Pakistan: A Personal History .
You will notice that the title contains a hyperlink. That is because the article became so long I decided I would read the book rather than a review of it and came a across an ebook version which is included in a rar archive that the title links to.
The ebook is in pdf, mobi, epub and lit formats all of which are in the rar archive. I scanned it with my anti-virus scanner; everything came up clean. For those interested in Pakistan and/or the Pashtun, this book is a compelling read.
Here is a short excerpt from the prologue that M.Shahid Alam described as being too long & unnecessary:
BLANK FACES. FACES with no expressions. That’s what I remember. About twenty of them had surrounded me and a few were pushing me. I asked them, ‘What is it you want? Do you know what you are doing?’ I could see some had pistols. Beyond the locked gates of the courtyard, people were shoving and shouting. More crowds of students peered down at me from the windows of the floors that ran round the quadrangle as they tried to see what was happening. I was furious. My political party, Tehreek-e-Insaf (‘Movement for Justice’), was allied to this group, as the students that had surrounded me were in the Islamic Jamiat-e-Tuleba (IJT), the students’ wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan’s oldest and most organized religious party. Both Jamaat-e-Islami and Tehreek-e-Insaf were part of the All Parties Democratic Movement campaigning for an end to General Pervez Musharraf’s military dictatorship and the restoration of Pakistan’s chief justice. Yet here these students were working for a dictator who had issued orders to arrest me and behaving just like a gang of street thugs.
Although I had heard tales about the IJT, I had not fully realized the kind of people they were. Everyone on the campus of the university is scared of them. Once known for their ideological views and great discipline, they appear to have degenerated into a kind of mafia or fascist group operating inside the university, bearing guns and beating people up. They stifle debate in an educational establishment that has in its time produced two Nobel laureates – the University of the Punjab was established in the late nineteenth century by the British, in the country’s second city, Lahore. No government dares tackle them, ordinary students at the university are petrified of them and even the party they belong to, the Jamaat-e-Islami, does not seem to be able to control them. Much later I heard the Jamiat activists had been paid large sums of money to turn on me – allegedly by the government.”
The book is a subjectively written modern history of Pakistan, as observed by someone with a wakening social & political consciousness.
Posted by: Debs is dead | May 1 2012 2:56 utc | 140
“Morocco Bama, retreatbladingxxx, now Hu bris … I’m worried, is it infectious? … who’ll be the next to be hit?
(disclaimer 1: I’m kidding)
(disclaimer 2: not completely)”
well b got annoyed at what he termed ‘drunkeness’ – so I am sticking to the science and discussion of it’s veracity and that of the individuals who authored it. So far all I can see is that those arguing against me seem quite prepared to ignore any wrongdoing on the part of Scientists that they agree with, while at the same time making completely baseless semars against Scientists that the disagree with.
It may be a sign of some character flaw on my part, but nonetheless I find such dishonest tactics, on the part of juannie and others, to be quite reprehensible
juannie it appears, has chosen to add nothing further to the discussion but rather pathetic & baseless smear attempts – something I doubt he’ll be censored for, given that his own opinion gels with that of the blog admin
Posted by: Hu Bris | May 1 2012 3:08 utc | 141
so nuclear power safe.,..and the birth deformities in iraq are not due to DU radiation weapons…
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31189.htm
interesting….
Posted by: brian | May 1 2012 3:21 utc | 142
Brian – if you actually took the time to actually read anything posted here, you would have a VERY hard time finding any statement by me that even comes close to what you are trying to attribute to me
I have already admitted that exposure to radiation can cause cancer etc.
I have made no statement relating to iraq – and in fact I agree that DU is not only extremely hazardous when exposed to it, but is in fact used for that very reason – to decimate the civilian population of any region unlucky enough to be the target of such munitions.
Since 1948 the US military have been aware that areosolised DU is likely to wreck havoc with the genetic code of any individual exposed to it. They actually produced a report in 1948 saying exactly that
Nonetheless, DU is not the subject under discussion – nor is DU synomomous with ‘all thing Nuclear’ no matter how much you might want it to be.
Fukishima and it’s likely effect on this world of our is the matter in contention
And so far only one person arguing against me (or just making baseless, and fairly pathetic, smear attempts, as in the case of juannie) has addressed either of the studies I discussed here, and then only so that he could find some very dubious point by which he could justify dismissing entirely the study in question
Posted by: Hu Bris | May 1 2012 3:47 utc | 143
i find many of hubris posts make sense
in any case he should be allowed equal air time as others
as for climate change
the fact that fukus promoted it
n used it as a weapon to bludgeon china
give me pause about its veracity
heck
i have stuck out my head for libya, wiki n now climate change
time to run for cover lol
Posted by: denk | May 1 2012 4:23 utc | 144
BTW: Brian , DU is really only dangerous in it’s aerosolised form
You could probably sit on a pile of it all day long and not get ass-cancer or any other cancer. It emits Alpha particles which don’t travel farther than a few millimeters and can be blocked by clothing etc
but inhale a minute amount of it in it’s areosolised form and yer probably a dead-man walking
Posted by: Hu Bris | May 1 2012 4:57 utc | 145
which is really just my way of saying that you, trying to argue against what I have posted here, using DU as a hook to hang your argument on, is a complete waste of your time and mine
Posted by: Hu Bris | May 1 2012 4:59 utc | 146
thanks for the support Denk – even if a vote of support from you is very unlikely to endear me to mnay here 😉
Posted by: Hu Bris | May 1 2012 5:01 utc | 147
la la lla al laal la la I can’t heeeeeere you
la la ala la dink “if it’s against china it’s probably bad”
la LALA la LA la laa LAA we can’t heeeeeere you
Posted by: crazy_inventor | May 1 2012 5:24 utc | 148
hubris
by now we are all familiar with
*crazy’s standard modus operandi*
i listed lots of evidence to back up my claim that
wiki is a fukusi colloborator
[u might disagree with me on that ;-)]
he couldnt counter any of my points
except keep yaping about china’s alleged persecution of flg, etc
btw crazy
the first time u twisted my name to insult
u’ve the cheek to say its typo
u’ve no shame aint u
try answering hubris questions for a change eh ?
u’ve contribute nothing + except gratuitous insults
this is the kind of troll that ought to be put in the bozo file
imho
Posted by: denk | May 1 2012 6:25 utc | 150
thing is that in putting forward an argument, WITH EVIDENCE, I get the distinct impression that few (if any) of those arguing against me even bother to read any of the evidence before rushing off to try and find something (anything!) to discredit it.
I find this to be very strange behaviour, but also very prevelant on the web. Essentially If I were to argue against something I would actually take the time to at the very least actually understand what it is I am supposed to be arguing against. Obviously I’m in a minority around here, though, in that regard.
it has even become obvious that several of the more voiciferous individuals attempting to argue against what I have said and posted here, don’t even bother to read stuff that they themselves are linking to as ‘evidence’
That’s not even funny. It’s beyond ‘strange’ IMHO
THAT causes me to worry about the future of humankind FAR more than Fukishima
Posted by: Hu Bris | May 1 2012 7:11 utc | 151
sorry to interrupt
crazy, #129..riverside ca is south of LA, about an 7-8 hr drive south of SF.
Posted by: annie | May 1 2012 8:14 utc | 152
Hu Bris @ 115
If you reverse the bold from your quote, the real meaning is clear:
“We can’t rule out some effect on wildlife of the radiation, but wildlife populations in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl have recovered and are actually doing well and even better than before because the human population has been removed.”
As for neonatal mortality after Chernobyl, this and this might clear things up. Actually, there has been published quite a lot of studies after Chernobyl, showing a clear correlation between fallout exposure via food, lactation and placenta, to spontaneous abortion, parinatal mortality and neonatal mortality. Do a quick search on “Chernobyl neonatal mortality”, and you should see a clear trend.
Posted by: Alexander | May 1 2012 9:13 utc | 153
“If you reverse the bold from your quote, the real meaning is clear:
Complete and utter nonsense Alex
Dr Smith is certainly not saying what you appear to be trying to claim he is saying.
Had you bothered to properly read the linked article you would have seen this
“scientists had thought radiation had a dramatic effect on bird populations following the Chernobyl disaster because it had caused damage to birds’ antioxidant defence mechanisms.
Which is pretty straight-forward and easily understood IMHO – but I’ll paraphrase since this seems to be causing you some trouble.
“Scientists THOUGHT that radiation had a very significant effect on Birds they examined because they found changes in Anti-oxidant mechanism in birds they tested.
At the time Scientists thought that changes in Anti-oxidant mechanisms was a definite indicator of the effects of over-exposure to radiation.
Dr Smith has shown that changes in Anti-oxidant mechanisms ARE NOT a definite indicator of the effects of over-exposure to radiation”
Dr Smiths study showed that changes to the Birds Anti-oxidant defence mechanisms CANNOT resasonably be explained by the effects of radiation. . . . .
“We showed that changes in anti-oxidant levels in birds in Chernobyl could not be explained by direct radiation damage.”
“It is well-known that immediately after the Chernobyl accident, extremely high radiation levels did damage organisms. But now, radiation levels at Chernobyl are hundreds of times lower and, while some studies have apparently seen long-term effects on animals, others have found no effect”
Dr Smith only mentioned the absence of humans as a possible reason for the the wildlife growing above it’s pre-chernobyl levels.
The Anti-oxidants and the lack of humans are two very seperate issues which you seem to managed to confuse yourself with
Posted by: Hu Bris | May 1 2012 10:02 utc | 154
“As for neonatal mortality after Chernobyl, this and this might clear things up.”
I have no idea why you are referring to neonatal mortality after Chernobyl. It’s not something I have made any statement about. at no point have I ever claimed that there was any lack of a trend neonatal mortality after Chernobyl
See this is what happens when you don’t properly read what has been written.
Neo-Natal Mortality in Chernobyl is NOT the matter in contention Alex
Nor is Neo-Natal Mortality, or even post-natal Mortality, in Fukishima the bone of contention
the only reason I mentioned Neo-natal anything was to highlight the discredited study of Mr Mangano which I had seen promoted elsewhere by other doomsday merchants (non-MOA affiliated), and to show the ease with which some Scientists will break all rules of ethics just to get the result they want – even Scientists on YOUR side of the argument, Alex (shock horror, . . . I know!!)
The argument is over whether Fukishima itself is likely to cause some sort of global wipe-out of ‘humans’ as we know them, as some of the more hysterical commenters here on this thread would have you believe
I say ‘NOT’ – I presented evidence to back up my conclusion – so far you’re the only person putting forward an opposing argument that has even acknowledged it’s existence – the rest of them just seem to want to pretend that no contradictory evidence of any kind has been posted, and that anyway anyone arguing against them simply MUST be in the pay of Big- Nuke
Posted by: Hu Bris | May 1 2012 10:17 utc | 155
I haven’t seen any convincing evidence of health-consequences from Fukushima, yet, but experience from Chernobyl suggest it will be evident with time.
I don’t find the Sherman and Mangano study persuasive in indicating higher mortality in the US, I don’t see any statistical significance in the numbers used.
Further analysis of larger population data are needed to give any conclusive results from Fukushima exposure and mortality. Both in the US and Japan.
If the pools at FUKUShima go, it will either blast rods into the environment around the Daichi plant, as it happend with pool 3, or most of it can burn off into the atmosphere, which would be really bad. Still the radioactive material from the cores 1, 2 and 3 are actively burning below the mangled buildings, and releasing radioactive smoke to the atmosphere, and water to the sea. Hopefully the pollution process has peaked by now, and started to subside.
Posted by: Alexander | May 1 2012 12:26 utc | 156
“I haven’t seen any convincing evidence of health-consequences from Fukushima, yet, but experience from Chernobyl suggest it will be evident with time.
“
Yes, no doubt there ARE serious health consequences as a result of FUKUshima, but at present they are likely to main local events. But at present I have seen nothing even remotely convincing that would indicate that this has health consequences for anyone outside of Japan & maybe Korea or China. Though the prevailing winds seem to be from the West so Korea & China might easily escape any consequence of note.
So that leaves primarily the US and Canada in the path of anything that might be considered a serious health hazard ****
I don’t wish to sound heartless, but Radiation health consequences in Japan and or even the US and Canada does not constitue ‘Global’.
**** apparently there’s rumours of a radioactive cloud passing over Oz and NZ, so maybe there IS reason for the whole world to basically collectively-shit itself like certain rather vociferous commenters here are so very frequently prone to do. But so far I’ve seen nothing to indicate that the southern cloud is having ANY effect on anything or anyone
Posted by: Hu Bris | May 1 2012 13:15 utc | 157
In the end, this has been an enlightening thread, even if it looked like some hormonal high-school debate-club at times. That’s what is important, having a productive discussion where we can get some perspective on the issue, in that respect, this has been educational, I like to believe, not only for me. Thanks for playing. 😉
Posted by: Alexander | May 1 2012 13:53 utc | 158
Me, I just get pissed off at all the ridiculous Chicken-Little antics of the MOA Doomsday Brigade – both of them seem to have little grasp of anything other than that which confirms their already existing bias – the idea of actually reading something that they might find challanges them and their biases, seems to fill both of them with complete horror.
Posted by: Hu Bris | May 1 2012 14:40 utc | 159
this has been educational, I like to believe, not only for me. Thanks for playing. 😉
indeed it has – I learned that it’s perfectly ok at MOA to scream ‘Fuck Off’ and insert ‘asshole’ into every 2nd sentence, but don’t you DARE trade insults anyone that defends AGW or is Anti-Nuke – otherwise it’s curtains for YOU!
😉
Posted by: Hu Bris | May 1 2012 14:48 utc | 160
The groupthink syndrome
The result is what Janis calls “the groupthink syndrome.” This consists of three main categories of symptoms:
1. Overestimate of the group’s power and morality, including “an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their actions.” [emphasis added]
2. Closed-mindedness, including a refusal to consider alternative explanations and stereotyped negative views of those who aren’t part of the group’s consensus. The group takes on a “win-lose fighting stance” toward alternative views.
3. Pressure toward uniformity, including “a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view”; “direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes”; and “the emergence of self-appointed mind-guards … who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.”[6]
Posted by: Hu Bris | May 1 2012 14:58 utc | 161
– – you’re both spouting pro-nuclear PR
Hu Bris, using one IAEA shill, when the far larger study I posted discredits it.
modeling by one IAEA shill using test tube cells, does not compare to thousands of records translated from russian and compiled into a direct registry of health effects, backed up by the New York Academy of Sciences
and Alexander, posting links from the ‘World Nuclear Association. Representing the people and organisations of the global nuclear profession.’
this is the best data we have :
(this is roughly what POA is saying BTW, along with juannie)
the ocean is absorbing ~ 80 %
the west coast gets ~ 10 %
the rest of N.America ~ 5 %
northern hemisphere the remaining ~ 5 %
if fukushima blows :
shelter in place for a week or so (in some bad areas)
big jump in background radiation- magnitude increase
some hot rain days
some stay indoor, high radiation days..
Alexander, nuclear industry talking points from known shills is not ‘scientific evidence’
Hu Bris that blog is like a case study on PR technique, a catalogue of lies.
Posted by: crazy_inventor | May 1 2012 15:03 utc | 162
Crazy: I’d trust your opinion about as much as I’d trust the utterances of any person that’s shown that they are quite happy to post ‘scientific’ studies which they already know are at beast flawed, and at worst at complete fraud.
Basically if you’re prepared to attempt to decieve people over something as trivial as the dispute which occured here, then I’d guess you’d be prepared to decieve people over just about anything which you considered important
“Alexander, nuclear industry talking points from known shills is not ‘scientific evidence'”
yeah but you see, posting ‘Scientific studies’ which you already knew to be flawed, as YOU did earlier, is not even in spitting-distance of anything even remotely resembling ‘honesty’
Given the lack of honesty on your part I seriously doubt that YOU are in any position to be casting aspertions on anyone elses character
Posted by: Hu Bris | May 1 2012 15:14 utc | 163
@ 162 “this is the best data we have :”
Where did you get those figures from?
Posted by: Marmite | May 1 2012 15:22 utc | 165
yeah what’s yer source on that?
Hopefully your source for those figures has not, fer instance, been involved in any unethical or deceptive practices
THAT would certainly discredit your source a tremendous amount
Think of it as a learning opportunity, c
Posted by: Hu Bris | May 1 2012 15:32 utc | 166
“Hu Bris, using one IAEA shill, when the far larger study I posted discredits it.”
‘discredits’ it, eh?
How exactly does it do that?
‘contradicts’, maybe
but discredit it you would have actually had to have
1) read it – we already know you didn’t do that
2) understood it – first you’d have had to read it.
3) Found some flaw in it – YOu didn’t even make an attempt
4) The only way to ‘discredit’ it would be to actually examine it and then produce something like a report detailing the flaw in it – again we already know you did none of the above
5) gone to google and found a doc written by someone else ‘discrediting’ it by eg. demonstrating a flaw in the methodology – again we can be pretty certain that you were not able to find any such document, otherwise yyou would have posted it already
Essentially it is only ‘discredited’ in YOUR mind and the minds of similarly prejudiced people. Since you apparently never even read the paper, and given that we have already established that you are prepared to decieve people on matters such as this, your opinion on it’s veracity has absolutely NO value at all
BTW: a ‘larger’ study has no inherent ‘greater significance’ in terms of accuracy. What determines the reliability of any study is the methodology and of course the integrity of the scientist conducting it… . . . something you should know by now since you were earlier caught trying to pass of the misleading Mr Mangano’s ‘work’ as ‘reliable’
Well you obviously don’t know much about either ‘science’ OR Statistics Or sampling.
The way these things work in the REAL world is that provided Dr Smith’s study used best-practice in terms of deciding the methodology then his study has at least as much validity as any study you care to mention
Posted by: Hu Bris | May 1 2012 15:53 utc | 167
Sampling started: Tue May 01 11:29:23 2012
60 seconds per sample
threshold = 12
current_average = 35 cpm
current_cpm = 46
592 45
593 46
594 53
595 31
596 58
597 34
598 54
Posted by: crazy_inventor | May 1 2012 16:41 utc | 168
I have banned Hu Bris for now.
I’ll also open a new open thread as this one has been wasted with some useless discussion.
Thanks for posting the data, crazy.
But unfortunately you seem to have misunderstood my original question – possibly it is my own fault as perhaps my question was not clear enough?
here it is again : Who or What is the source of the data you have posted above?
Posted by: Marmite | May 1 2012 17:50 utc | 170
i enjoy reading the many and varied debates and sources of alternative information not readily available in the ‘press’ here at moa..there is always something to learn or reflect upon..but every now and then there is an object lesson in tolerance of difference and that wanton insolence is unecessary…and uncondusive to any form of dialogue
Posted by: lotsofnoise | May 2 2012 3:26 utc | 171
“yet curiously it was not ME screaming ‘fuck off’ and ‘asshole’ all the time – bit of a double standard there, b, no?”
Gosh, I guess I gotta apologize to Hu Bris for callin’ him an asshole and telling him to fuck off. I mean after all, when he posted…
“the real issue is what next for the ridiculous Doomsday Brigade? ;)after it becomes clear that events in Japan are not going to kill us all, or even come close, what will the poor deluded fools latch onto next?”
…I shoulda been able to tell he was just interested in having a nice and sugary civil debate, eh?
So, I’m really sorry, Hu Bris. I had no idea my responses would reduce you to pathetic sniveling and whining.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | May 2 2012 3:33 utc | 172
http://www.theprogressivemind.info/?p=85174
Urgent Request to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
May 1, 2012
To: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
An Urgent Request on UN Intervention to Stabilize the Fukushima Unit 4 Spent Nuclear Fuel
Recently, former diplomats and experts both in Japan and abroad stressed the extremely risky condition of the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 spent nuclear fuel pool and this is being widely reported by world media. Robert Alvarez, Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), who is one of the best-known experts on spent nuclear fuel, stated that in Unit 4 there is spent nuclear fuel which contains Cesium-137 (Cs-137) that is equivalent to 10 times the amount that was released at the time of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Thus, if an earthquake or other event were to cause this pool to drain, this could result in a catastrophic radiological fire involving nearly 10 times the amount of Cs-137 released by the Chernobyl accident.
Nearly all of the 10,893 spent fuel assemblies at the Fukushima Daiichi plant sit in pools vulnerable to future earthquakes, with roughly 85 times more long-lived radioactivity than released at Chernobyl.
Nuclear experts from the US and Japan such as Arnie Gundersen, Robert Alvarez, Hiroaki Koide, Masashi Goto, and Mitsuhei Murata, a former Japanese ambassador to Switzerland, and, Akio Matsumura, a former UN diplomat, have continually warned against the high risk of the Fukushima Unit 4 spent nuclear fuel pool.
US Senator Roy Wyden, after his visit to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on 6 April, 2012, issued a press release on 16 April, pointing out the catastrophic risk of Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4, calling for urgent US government intervention. Senator Wyden also sent a letter to Ichiro Fujisaki, Japan’s Ambassador to the United States, requesting Japan to accept international assistance to tackle the crisis.
We Japanese civil organizations express our deepest concern that our government does not inform its citizens about the extent of risk of the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 spent nuclear fuel pool. Given the fact that collapse of this pool could potentially lead to catastrophic consequences with worldwide implications, what the Japanese government should be doing as a responsible member of the international community is to avoid any further disaster by mobilizing all the wisdom and the means available in order to stabilize this spent nuclear fuel. It is clearly evident that Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 spent nuclear fuel pool is no longer a Japanese issue but an international issue with potentially serious consequences. Therefore, it is imperative for the Japanese government and the international community to work together on this crisis before it becomes too late. We are appealing to the United Nations to help Japan and the planet in order to prevent the irreversible consequences of a catastrophe that could affect generations to come. We herewith make our urgent request to you as follows:
1. The United Nations should organize a Nuclear Security Summit to take up the crucial problem of the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 spent nuclear fuel pool.
2. The United Nations should establish an independent assessment team on Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 and coordinate international assistance in order to stabilize the unit’s spent nuclear fuel and prevent radiological consequences with potentially catastrophic consequences.
Continues…..(with a list of 72 Japanese organizations signing this petition.)
Also…
Endorsed by:
Hiroaki Koide Kyoto University Nuclear Reactor Research Institute (Japan)
Mitsuhei Murata Former ambassador to Switzerland and to Senegal
Board member, Global System and Ethics Society (Japan)
Akio Matsumura Former United Nations diplomat
Robert Alvarez Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, D.C. (USA)
Masashi Goto Former Nuclear Plant Engineer (Japan)
(Perhaps Hu Bris should contact them and see how calling them “deluded fools” works. Maybe he can learn how ya say “asshole” in Japanese.)
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | May 2 2012 3:56 utc | 173
TOKYO??? Think about it.
http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/05/2566720bq%e3%8e%a1-in-edogawa-ku-tokyo/
2,566,720Bq/㎡ in Edogawa ku Tokyo
Posted by Mochizuki on May 1st, 2012 · No Comments
Following up this article..Tokyo is contaminated as the worst place in Chernobyl
39,488 Bq/Kg of cesium (134 + 137) was measured in Edogawa ku in Tokyo. It equals to 2,566,720Bq/㎡.
In the secondary evacuation area in Belarus, it was 555,000 ~ 1,480,000 Bq/m2 of cesium 137.
Even if you consider the data of Tokyo includes cesium 134, still it can be near the maximum limit of the secondary evacuation area in Belarus.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | May 2 2012 4:29 utc | 174
That’s what I feared, the situation is already pretty bad. No wonder they operate with 20 times the limit of Chernobyl. They obviously cant turn the whole of Japan into an exclusion-zone. I wouldn’t want to live in Chernobyl, or any place as radioactive as it.
Posted by: Alexander | May 2 2012 5:13 utc | 175
the problem with radioactivity is that the danger is counterintuitive – you do not feel it, you do not see it, you cannot be sure what the effects are.
I stumbled into this after having bought expensive Japanese Green tea for a cake – without thinking. A friend mentioned the EU had raised the permissable limit of radioactivity in food imports after Fukushima, so I checked where and when the tea was produced – after Fukushima, it was Japanese tea – and considered to ignore warnings and just use it.so I put some internet research and thinking into it and stumbled upon the – also counterintuitive fact – that this stuff does not disappear – never ever in your lifetime and beyond – but you accumulate it in your body. that means every exposure, where and whenever adds to your risk of cancer, never mind how your offspring will look like.
so I did not use it. but a friend accepted the tea gladly though I had explained my reasoning why I did not use it fully. what you do not see, do not feel .. you do not find it dangerous.
even the “scientific”, medical profession does not seem to realize what the effects of radioactivity can be, before it is too late –
August 24, 2010 11:00 AM
Shocking Study: New Breast Cancer Tests Causes Cancer
(CBS) Do the diagnostic tests doctors use to detect breast cancer actually cause cancer?
That’s the shocking finding of a new study of some of the newest, most sophisticated imaging techniques, including breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) and positron emission tomography (PEM).
While the new techniques can be very helpful in diagnosing some tricky cases of breast cancer, they involve the injection of radioactive material, which increase the risk of developing cancer.
Posted by: somebody | May 2 2012 6:48 utc | 176
once the stuff is in the food chain it gets anywhere, remember it adds up in bodies …
http://midnightwatcher.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/study-fukushima-meltdown-may-be-responsible-for-decline-in-new-zealands-muttonbird-population-the-most-unusual-event-in-20-years-of-studies/
Flashback: Fears radioactive muttonbirds headed for New Zealand – “There are fears radioactive muttonbirds could be on their way to New Zealand after the migrating birds were found to have been feeding close to Japan’s ruptured Fukushima nuclear plant. Niwa scientists, who in 2005 attached tracking devices to 19 muttonbirds, also known as sooty shearwaters, found nearly half of them were spending months at a time feeding off the coast of Japan. US researchers have requested samples of dead muttonbirds so they can be analysed, with the expectation that some of them will have absorbed the radioactive isotope Caesium-137, an element that strongly increases the chances of getting cancer.”
Posted by: somebody | May 2 2012 8:29 utc | 177
Fukushima is still releasing radioactive steam to the atmosphere.
Posted by: Alexander | May 2 2012 11:47 utc | 178
A short (4:29 min.) video by Anrie Gundersen. Even NRC chairman Jaczko is beginning to speak some cautionary sense about the nuclear situation:
While traveling in Japan several weeks ago, Fairewinds’ Arnie Gundersen took soil samples in Tokyo public parks, playgrounds, and rooftop gardens. All the samples would be considered nuclear waste if found here in the US. This level of contamination is currently being discovered throughout Japan. At the US NRC Regulatory Information Conference in Washington, DC March 13 to March 15, the NRC’s Chairman, Dr. Gregory Jaczko emphasized his concern that the NRC and the nuclear industry presently do not consider the costs of mass evacuations and radioactive contamination in their cost benefit analysis used to license nuclear power plants. Furthermore, Fairewinds believes that evacuation costs near a US nuclear plant could easily exceed one trillion dollars and contaminated land would be uninhabitable for generations.
Thanks to the efforts of people like Gundersen, Helen Caldicott and Robert Alvarez something may get done before Fukushima gets even worse. And from the way Jaczko is speaking maybe the PTB will begin some real critical and sane thinking about the entire nuclear genie. It sounds like it is already too late for many areas in Japan and my heart goes out to the Japanese victims but perhaps a global catastrophe can yet be averted. As I stated before, I believe it is imperative that we do all we can to bring the nuclear issue onto the front pages until efficacious action is happening.
Excellent links to “Fukushima Diary” POA & Alexander. I’d also recommend keeping an eye on Infinite Unknown. They are posting a lot of pertinent info.
Posted by: juannie | May 2 2012 12:47 utc | 179
Yesterday I called Senator Wyden’s office in Portland to inquire if he had recieved any responses to his letter to the State Department requesting info about what we are doing to assist Japan with this epic emergency. The aide who answered the phone was quite polite until I stated the purpose of my call. Then, he became terse, and said he would call me back. He never did so.
Perhaps Wyden has recieved his script by now. I don’t imagine the whores in DC, particularly Clinton, are too happy with him for deviating from the official smiley face story line about Fukushima.
His Portland number is 503-326-7525.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | May 2 2012 13:10 utc | 180
I’d like to recommend that Hu Bris use The Washington Post for a source from which to glean his “facts” about Fukushima. They seem to value the truth as much as he does….
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/01/trivializing-fukushima/
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | May 2 2012 13:17 utc | 181
At a time when the US are increasing their presence in the far east, why are they finally giving in to Japanese pressure to reduce their presence by 9000 soldiers and their families from Okinawa, an island south of Tokyo? Well, it might have something to do with this.
Posted by: Alexander | May 2 2012 14:37 utc | 182
@PissedOffAmerican
Your petty vendetta with someone that cannot reply is at this point both tedious and chilish.
Perusing the thread I see that you earlier demanded something scientific from him – as far as I can see he provided it.
So far you have ignoired it, choosing instead to avoid the comments section until your opponent no longer had a right of reply.
Your continued crowing about it now is makes you look like a person with a pretty fragile ego.
The ‘Internet Tuff Guy’ act would be a little more convincing and a little less embarrassing to watch if you actually had an opponent.
But at this stage you just end up looking like some silly litlle playground bully
Posted by: Marmite | May 2 2012 16:44 utc | 183
Akihiru Harako, one of the Fukushima 50, spoke on BBC today, without any techical information coming from the interview whatsoever. Only some thoughts on what went thru the workers minds at the time. Strange, seems they made a journalistic non-case out of it, to give the impression of a follow-up.
Posted by: Alexander | May 3 2012 13:26 utc | 184
Yeah, by the way, I think claudio made sence when he suggested this thread for Fukushima-updates.
Posted by: Alexander | May 3 2012 13:29 utc | 185
Here is a interesting article on the status of reactor number 2, the building with least damage of the four. It basically states with straight words how it has completely melted down. This is the only reactor they have been able to examine so far, indicating the others are in much worse shape.
Posted by: Alexander | May 3 2012 13:43 utc | 186
BTW, 70Sv/h is extremely high, and anyone exposed to that kind of radiation would drop dead in seconds. (Dead before they hit the floor.)
Posted by: Alexander | May 3 2012 13:45 utc | 187
Alex, I’m not in b’s head, but using common sense I’d say that updates on Fukushima can be safely posted 🙂 in the current Open Thread 2012-12
this thread, instead, is best for those who want to carry on the preceding squabble
Posted by: claudio | May 3 2012 14:22 utc | 188