Nuclear fallout? / Media blackout?

Lefticus Loonaticus

Have been keeping an eye on this fukushima situation on and off. Have to use the net really, since the media have turned off the story. Probably because of political pressure, because it looks like its really bad.

So anyway, this fukushima reactor, or reactors, have melted down and are spewing plutonium(i think) in a big plume. This plume has made the area uninhabitable, and will eventually make the entire island(s) of japan a no go area. Perhaps japan will have to be evacuated? Who knows. They, the japanese gov and the company involved, dont have control of the situation and appear to be lying about the extent of the catastrophy.

Chernobel was contained in 10 days, fukushima is still going 3 months on. The plume of radiation, because of the amount of reactors that have melted down, is many fold worse than chernobel. This plume has been making its way to the USA and will hit all of the northern hemisphere. When it rains, down it will come.

Some are saying that its already hit the US and Canada and that they have stopped monitering radiation to avoid public panic.

I heard about all this awhile back, wasnt to worried tbh, but then watched this video recently, and I nearly sh1t my pants, which is somthing I dont do lightly :rolleyes:.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMXvpWoHzeE

Its a conference from March 18th with some anti nuclear people. The person speaking talks a little about chernobel aswell as fukushima. Theres also a whole load of other videos and info knocking about with regard to how bad it is. But this one seems to have somone who knows what their talking about so I link it.

Could it really be as bad as she says? Are the governments of the world covering up the scale of it? Is a sizable chunk of the worlds population going to come down with cancer in the future? Is japan going to be abandoned? Whats your opinions people, is it a doomsday scenario or somthing less?

Overheal

Chernobel was contained in 10 days

Not quite.

The worst of the radioactive debris was collected inside what was left of the reactor, much of it shoveled in by liquidators wearing heavy protective gear (dubbed "bio-robots" by the military); these workers could only spend a maximum of 40 seconds at a time working on the rooftops of the surrounding buildings because of the extremely high doses of radiation given off by the blocks of graphite and other debris. The reactor itself was covered with bags of sand, lead, and boric acid dropped from helicopters: some 5,000 metric tons of material were dropped during the week that followed the accident. At the time there was still fear that the reactor could re-enter a self-sustaining nuclear chain-reaction and explode again, and a new containment structure was planned to prevent rain entering and triggering such an explosion, and to prevent further release of radioactive material. This was the largest civil engineering task in history, involving a quarter of a million construction workers who all reached their official lifetime limits of radiation.[42] By December 1986 (7-8 months later), a large concrete sarcophagus had been erected to seal off the reactor and its contents.[61]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

MarkR

Your theory could only stand if individuals were able to perform radiation tests.

jackiebaron

Well it appears that deaths in newborns in the NorthWest of the US has seen a dramatic increase:

Is the Dramatic Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout?

By JANETTE D. SHERMAN, MD and JOSEPH MANGANO
June 12, 2011 "Counterpunch"-- U.S. babies are dying at an increased rate. While the United States spends billions on medical care, as of 2006, the US ranked 28th in the world in infant mortality, more than twice that of the lowest ranked countries. (DHHS, CDC, National Center for Health Statistics. Health United States 2010, Table 20, p. 131, February 2011.)
The recent CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report indicates that eight cities in the northwest U.S. (Boise ID, Seattle WA, Portland OR, plus the northern California cities of Santa Cruz, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Berkeley) reported the following data on deaths among those younger than one year of age:

4 weeks ending March 19, 2011 - 37 deaths (avg. 9.25 per week)
10 weeks ending May 28, 2011 - 125 deaths (avg.12.50 per week)

This amounts to an increase of 35% (the total for the entire U.S. rose about 2.3%), and is statistically significant. Of further significance is that those dates include the four weeks before and the ten weeks after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster. In 2001 the infant mortality was 6.834 per 1000 live births, increasing to 6.845 in 2007. All years from 2002 to 2007 were higher than the 2001 rate.
Spewing from the Fukushima reactor are radioactive isotopes including those of iodine (I-131), strontium (Sr-90) and cesium (Cs-134 and Cs-137) all of which are taken up in food and water. Iodine is concentrated in the thyroid, Sr-90 in bones and teeth and Cs-134 and Cs-137 in soft tissues, including the heart. The unborn and babies are more vulnerable because the cells are rapidly dividing and the delivered dose is proportionally larger than that delivered to an adult.
Data from Chernobyl, which exploded 25 years ago, clearly shows increased numbers of sick and weak newborns and increased numbers of deaths in the unborn and newborns, especially soon after the meltdown. These occurred in Europe as well as the former Soviet Union. Similar findings are also seen in wildlife living in areas with increased radioactive fallout levels.
(Chernobyl – Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Alexeiy V. Yablokov, Vasily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko. Consulting Editor: Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger. New York Academy of Sciences, 2009.)
Levels of radioisotopes were measured in children who had died in the Minsk area that had received Chernobyl fallout. The cardiac findings were the same as those seen in test animals that had been administered Cs-137. Bandashevsky, Y. I, Pathology of Incorporated Ionizing Radiation, Belarus Technical University, Minsk. 136 pp., 1999. For his pioneering work, Prof. Bandashevsky was arrested in 2001 and imprisoned for five years of an eight year sentence.
The national low-weight (under 2500 grams, or 5.5 lbs) rate has risen 23% from 1984 to 2006. Nearly 400,000 infants are born under 2500g each year in the U.S. Most of the increase in infant mortality is due specifically to infants born weighing less than 750 grams (I lb 10 1/2 oz). Multiple births commonly result in underweight babies, but most of the increase in births at less than 750 grams occurred among singletons and among mothers 20-34 years of age. (CDC, National Vital Statistics Report, 52 (12): 1-24, 2005.)
From an obstetrical point of view, women in the age bracket 20 to 34 are those most physically able to deliver a healthy child. So what has gone wrong? Clues to causation are often revealed when there is a change in incidence, a suspicious geographical distribution, and/or an increase in hazards known to adversely affect health and development.
The risk of having a baby with birth defects is estimated at three to four of every 100 babies born. As of 2005, the Institute of medicine estimated the cost of pre-term births in the US at more than $2.6 billion, or $51,600 for each infant.
Low birth weight babies, born too soon and too small, face a lifetime of health problems, including cerebral palsy, and behavioral and learning problems placing an enormous physical, emotional and economic burdens on society as a whole and on those caring for them. Death of a young child is devastating to a family.
As of June 5, 2011, The Japan Times reported that radiation in the No. 1 plant was measured at 4,000 milliseverts per hour. To put that in perspective, a worker would receive a maximal “permissible” dose in 4 minutes. In addition there are over 40,000 tons of radioactive water under that reactor with more radioactivity escaping into the air and sea. Fuel rods are believed to have melted and sunk to the bottom of reactors 1, 2, and 3.
Tepco, the corporate owner took more than two months to confirm the meltdowns and admitted lying about the levels of destruction and subsequent contamination, resulting in “Public Distrust.” Over 100,000 tons of radioactive waste are on the site.
Why should we care if there may be is a link between Fukushima and the death of children? Because we need to measure the actual levels of isotopes in the environment and in the bodies of people exposed to determine if the fallout is killing our most vulnerable. The research is not technically difficult – the political and economic barriers may be greater. Bandshevsky and others did it and confirmed the connection. The information is available in the Chernobyl book. (Previously cited.)
The biological findings of Chernobyl cannot be ignored: isotope incorporation will determine the future of all life on earth – animal, fish, bird, plant and human. It is crucial to know this information if we are to avoid further catastrophic damage.
Janette D. Sherman, M. D. is the author of Life's Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer and Chemical Exposure and Disease, and is a specialist in internal medicine and toxicology. She edited the book Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Nature, written by A. V. Yablokov, V. B., Nesterenko and A. V. Nesterenko, published by the New York Academy of Sciences in 2009. Her primary interest is the prevention of illness through public education. She can be reached at: toxdoc.js@verizon.net and www.janettesherman.com
Joseph Mangano is an epidemiologist, and Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project research group.

Overheal

I'd want to see the data for the same 8 weeks each year before I jumped to a conclusion but it's plausible given that isotopes had been discovered on agricultural land after the incident.

jackiebaron

Overheal wrote: »

I'd want to see the data for the same 8 weeks each year before I jumped to a conclusion but it's plausible given that isotopes had been discovered on agricultural land after the incident.

Your request to examine such data is definitely valid, OH. I'm trying to dig up these figures myself. Incidentally, do you know how radioisotopes travelled from Japan to the Pacific North West of the USA? Would it be airborne or seaborne (if indeed they have)?

WakeUp

Thats some scary sh1t right there. Anyone who has been dilligently following what is happening in Japan will know that this lady is speaking the truth. It is really bad contrary to what CNN, Sky News, whatever are telling you. The Japanese authorities have clearly lied and downplayed the seriousness of what is happening. Most people swallow it.
She also speaks the truth about weapons used by coalition forces in Iraq which is a form of genocide as she rightly points out, a lot of it documented. But people refuse to see or cant see it, the advent of 24/7 "news" stations constantly bombarding people with whatever has a lot to answer for. Peoples attention span isnt what it used to be. Im many peoples eyes beacuse it isnt being reported really anymore Fukishima is yesterdays news, it musnt be that serious or they would be still covering it. It is serious and we are not being told all the facts by our "trusted" would never lie to us always tell the truth "news" channels. Forget about the Japanese government telling the truth. They are lying b@stards. Most governments are.

Run_to_da_hills

The whole method of catagorising nuclear accidents should be reviewed.

Chernobyl was catagorised as a level 7 accident with just one reactor exploding and spewing out radiation. (7 x 1 )

Fukushima has also been catagorised the same level and yet it had three reactors in meltdown and spewing out radiaton. (7 x 3)

People are foolishly led to believe that Chernobyl and Fukushima are the same because they have the same catastrophic accident rating.

The whole method of catagorising should be reviewed to take in the number of reactors involved, IE Fukushima is three times worse than Chernobyl.

Fukushima should now be catagorised as a Level 7 x 3.

Overheal

jackiebaron wrote: »

Your request to examine such data is definitely valid, OH. I'm trying to dig up these figures myself. Incidentally, do you know how radioisotopes travelled from Japan to the Pacific North West of the USA? Would it be airborne or seaborne (if indeed they have)?

I think it was airborne,

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/03/31/1944017/trace-radiation-found-in-spokane.html
http://www.nwherald.com/2011/03/31/low-levels-of-radiation-found-in-west-coast-milk/aefg9mp/
http://www.mycentraloregon.com/news/local/1305135/Radiation-Found-In-NW-Milk.html
http://www.nwherald.com/2011/03/31/radiation-in-milk-not-worth-worry/aq4zb8x/

robtri

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The whole method of catagorising nuclear accidents should be reviewed.

Chernobyl was catagorised as a level 7 accident with just one reactor exploding and spewing out radiation. (7 x 1 )

Fukushima has also been catagorised the same level and yet it had three reactors in meltdown and spewing out radiaton. (7 x 3)

People are foolishly led to believe that Chernobyl and Fukushima are the same because they have the same catastrophic accident rating.

The whole method of catagorising should be reviewed to take in the number of reactors involved, IE Fukushima is three times worse than Chernobyl.

Fukushima should now be catagorised as a Level 7 x 3.

that would hold water if Fukushima spewed out 3 times as much radiation as chernyobl

( i dont know the answer myself)

robtri

WakeUp wrote: »

. They are lying b@stards. Most governments are.

i would go so far as saying all political parties are....

Run_to_da_hills

robtri wrote: »

that would hold water if Fukushima spewed out 3 times as much radiation as chernyobl

( i dont know the answer myself)

The categorising level should also be relative to what it is spewing out, ie whether its Plutonium, Uranium or highly toxic strontium.

robtri

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The categorising level should also be relative to what it is spewing out, ie whether its Plutonium, Uranium or highly toxic strontium.

absolutely agree...

jackiebaron

Overheal wrote: »

I think it was airborne,

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/03/31/1944017/trace-radiation-found-in-spokane.html
http://www.nwherald.com/2011/03/31/low-levels-of-radiation-found-in-west-coast-milk/aefg9mp/
http://www.mycentraloregon.com/news/local/1305135/Radiation-Found-In-NW-Milk.html
http://www.nwherald.com/2011/03/31/radiation-in-milk-not-worth-worry/aq4zb8x/

Interesting shït! Have there been any sickness reports in Hawaii? I would imagine that airborne radioisotopes would have affected that area earlier than the alleged Western US contamination. Unless of course if wind patterns carry currents on a completely different path.

ed2hands

Worrying. As if cancer, autism etc etc hadn't been rising enough already.

Rhys Essien

Surely the Americans would have been using geiger counters regularly since the fukushima accident and dont see radiation levels an issue.

33

Fukishima has vanished from the news, but it's still spewing dirty uncontainable sh1t into the atmosphere and sea, from the start it was uncontrollable, some people were saying "ohh they will sort it easily", they still havent and can't, Japan is the worlds first with technology, but some things just can't be undone, Fukishima is such a thing, it will if it already hasn't become the no 1 nuclear disaster of all time, I believe it has left Chernobyl in the dust a while ago.
But this will not be said, the fallout for gererations to come will be known in time, although to late for the victims of the invisible force, and thats the scary bit, it's totally invisible, geiger counters can pick it up, but beyond what the geigers can detect I think there are other forces, un-detectable that lead to unknown ilnesses, there has to be, there are spectrums of light un-detectable, there is sound un-detectable, there are forces un-detectable from radiation, don't ask for links coz they're not there, I working off probability rather than science.
Maybe I'm wrong?

But within a week or two the plume and it's bye product's had reached most of the northern hemisphere, it's harmless till till its falling with the rain, I dont know the final consequene, but either do most, some that are in the know on such subjects aren't saying a lot, it hasn't stopped releasing this unknown force since the quake and tsunami, and it may go on for years, they can try bury it in concrete, but the closeness to the sea and the ability of melt down just keeps eating through the ground, rock and whatever else, it just keeps melting and contaminating so nobody really knows the end result, there is a media closedown on it, but the stories are still there to be found, it get's worse by the day and consequences bigger than the day before, yet it's not news worthy anymore, or the global nuclear industry are all powerful and mighty that they want it closed down as a story to try continue their potentially deadly work.
I know fossil fuel is coming to an end shortly and the nuclear is the way to go in most's eyes, but seismic activity around the globe is on the increase, say it's not, I wont listen, it is!, we cannot leave a world to our children that is dangerous, 50 years from now there possibly could be 50 Fukishimas, alternative, non pollutant energy is being suppressed and is possible, but money is god for the few, the inhabitants of this planet need to cop on and compromise, we can't just keep taking and taking, it runs out, we need to use nature and what s natural to try pull the planet out of the downward spiral it's on, you can not eat money or gold, nor drink it, can people not see beyond their noses, or a little into the future?, I know some claim to and pretend to be alarmed at it, the earth has a slow puncture and nobody is bothered thinking about it, till the tyre is fukked, but you cannot go to fastfit with the planet, by the time we all realise its gone it will be too late.

Torakx

Is it too harsh for me to wonder, what fool put a nuclear reactor on an island that experiences alot of quakes/tsunami's?
If this is the only source of mass energy that is going to be used we should just pull the plug now.

careca11

Fukishima has disappeared from the media/gov etc because the countries that currently have nuclear/energy/weapons don't want to people to know that nuclear energy/weaponry is probably the single biggest danger to the human population ,

the gov's want people to think that nuclear power is the way to go , as its all to do with money
in the eye's of most countries developing wind/wave energy is simply too expensive

i'd love to get access to a person in japan and tell us all what the hell is actually going on over there , how bad is it,

Run_to_da_hills

careca11 wrote: »

Fukishima has disappeared from the media/gov etc because the countries that currently have nuclear/energy/weapons don't want to people to know that nuclear energy/weaponry is probably the single biggest danger to the human population ,

the gov's want people to think that nuclear power is the way to go , as its all to do with money
in the eye's of most countries developing wind/wave energy is simply too expensive

i'd love to get access to a person in japan and tell us all what the hell is actually going on over there , how bad is it,

Thank God we still have uncensored social networking we can see first hand what is exactly going on out there.

You guys keep saying that it's not mentioned on the evil mainstream media any more, but if you actually look to see if this is true....
Today:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13763601

Yesterday:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13749904

11th of June:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13740003

8th of June:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13699055

7th of June:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13689299

And these are just a few of the stories that mention it.
And then it's just one news website.

It's almost as if you guys reached the conclusion before you actually checked if it was true.

Jeboa Safari

King Mob wrote: »

You guys keep saying that it's not mentioned on the evil mainstream media any more, but if you actually look to see if this is true....
Today:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13763601

Yesterday:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13749904

11th of June:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13740003

8th of June:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13699055

7th of June:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13689299

And these are just a few of the stories that mention it.
And then it's just one news website.

It's almost as if you guys reached the conclusion before you actually checked if it was true.

And there is plenty about Germanys and now Italys rejection of nuclear power following what happened in Japan aswell

ed2hands

It was played down at the very start by Japanese govt of course:
http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=116706&code=Ne2&category=2


It's certainly been reported as King Mob pointed out, but the question is if it's being given appropriate attention?


"Unfortunately, the mainstream media is reporting increasingly less on the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant in Japan. Nonetheless, radioactivity continues to be released into the air and water at the severely damaged facility. Most notably, the Japanese nuclear safety agency announced that actual radiation levels were likely more than double what was initially reported. Clearly the situation is far from under control. In fact, the highest levels yet were recently measured at reactor Unit 1 - 4,000 millisieverts per hour were detected by a robot last Saturday, rendering it unsafe for workers to enter the area. This means that the radiation is so high now that any worker exposed to it would absorb the maximum permissible dose of 250 millisieverts in only about four minutes. According to recent reports from the Japanese government, fuel has melted through the base of reactor Units 1, 2 and 3, and is “pooling” in the outer containment vessels. The report, which has been given to the International Atomic Energy Agency, was revealed by the Yomiuri newspaper, which described a “melt-through” as being “far worse than a core meltdown” and “the worst possibility in a nuclear accident.”
Water remains a primary complication; 15 million highly radioactive gallons await proper treatment and storage. That’s equivalent to about thirty highly contaminated Olympic-sized swimming pools. It is unclear how much of this water has already been released into the Pacific Ocean, but it is likely in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of gallons. A multi-national government panel including Korea, China, Japan, and 14 neighboring countries has been established to monitor the resulting radiation over the next four years. Current research is showing radiation levels hundreds of times above normal off the coast of Japan. This will undoubtedly affect seafood safety and potentially human health. Some scientists estimate that the amount of radiation released into the ocean has already surpassed Chernobyl levels. Soil research findings are also showing contamination levels as high as those found after Chernobyl in some parts of the 230 square mile area of affected land.
Determining exactly how much radiation has been or is continuing to be released is a difficult task that also complicates the situation. Add Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (Tepco) lack of transparency, the Japanese government’s apparent dishonesty and the reality that the earthquake and resulting tsunami disabled on-the-ground radiation monitoring, and it becomes nearly impossible to understand how much radioactivity has been released. Recent charges imply that the Japanese government knowingly withheld radiation readings that indicated a meltdown the day after the earthquake, and intentionally deceived the public by claiming that the nuclear fuel was intact. An interesting interview with environmental scientist and engineer Marco Kaltofen by Fairewinds Associates provides some background on radiation and the releases from the Fukushima nuclear facility.
Child is screened for radiation exposure at a testing centre in Koriyama, Japan. (Wally Santana/AP)

This withholding of information raises the ire of a public whose trust in their government has already been fundamentally shaken. Had the government been honest about the situation, more could have likely been done to protect children from the high levels of iodine-131 that were detected in the days following the quake. Children are more vulnerable to cancers caused by the radioactive element and have been at the center of a growing movement of parents taking action to protect them.
This movement began when the Japanese government increased allowable child exposure limits to 20 times previous levels, equivalent to the international standard for adult nuclear power workers. Concerned parents organized and started petitioning through Green Action Japan. They collected signatures from over 53,000 individuals and 1,074 organizations from 61 countries at the beginning of May. They also began decontaminating school grounds, having given up on the government’s ability (or lack thereof) to take action. After continued pressure, the Japanese government finally conceded by reducing allowable levels to the previous standard of 1 millisievert per year and allotting funds to pay for soil decontamination at schools. Parents are now a few steps closer to ensuring the safety of their children.
Many Japanese citizens are rightly concerned about radiation and its effects. Nearly 5,000 nuclear workers that traveled to Fukushima after the quake now have internal radiation exposure, prompting consideration of testing residents in the Fukushima Prefecture. Two of the emergency workers may have have received radiation doses double the current legal limit of 250 millisieverts. It’s important to note that the original limit of 100 millisieverts was increased for workers at the plant after the disaster began. A group of elderly citizens called the Skilled Veterans Corps believe that they should be the ones to clean up Fukushima, since their advanced age makes them less likely to suffer from cancer after they are exposed to radiation.
Given that one-third of Americans live within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor, the National Academy of Sciences will finally conduct a long overdue study on cancer rates in relation to nuclear facilities in the United States. For more resources and information on the Fukushima nuclear disaster, U.S. nuclear policy or the health impacts of radiation, please visit our Learn About page.
An interesting World Blog by NBC News authored by Robert Bazell describes Japan’s radiation as “a monster you can’t see.” Perhaps this lack of visual impact, lack of a “wow” factor, or absence of billowing clouds of darkened pollution or rivers of fluorescent green liquid spewing forth has caused the nuclear power industry to operate “under the radar” for decades, so to speak. (Images from the aftermath of Chernobyl are conveniently deemed not acceptable to share publicly.) It seems that more than ever, public attention and awareness should focus on the real threat that this power generation source can cause — Germans have made this their focus, and now the Swiss and others are following suit. Where will the United States and our individual states, utilities, local governments and individual citizens fall? An inadvertent and tragic disaster such as Fukushima Dai-ichi should not have to catalyze such evaluation, but it has, and now is the time to decide what will happen next. Which path will we follow?"
http://blog.cleanenergy.org/2011/06/10/japan-radiation-concerns/

brimal

I find it worrying that you guys can watch a Youtube video of a woman throwing out the most sensationalist of claims and take her word for it.

'40% of Europe is still radioactive'
'Farms in Britain their lambs are so full of Cesium they cant sell them'
'Don't eat European food' :rolleyes:
Etc.

Helen Caldicott has a track record of misquoting, misinformation and not being able to back up her claims with credible sources. Just take a look at her ongoing public debate with George Monbiot (Environmental activist)

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/interrogation-of-helen-caldicotts-responses/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/apr/13/anti-nuclear-lobby-interrogate-beliefs?intcmp=239

I would go as far as to say Helen Caldicott plays on our deepest fears about nuclear energy and uses this to keep in the media spotlight and flog another one of her books to us. Every video or article I have ever seen from her she is always saying 'in my book' and/or has her book in front of her in view of cameras.

ed2hands

ed2hands wrote: »

It's certainly been reported as King Mob pointed out, but the question is if it's being given appropriate attention?

So you're wondering whether it's been given appropriate attention by posting an article riddled with links to tons of mainstream media articles?

jackiebaron

Rhys Essien wrote: »

Surely the Americans would have been using geiger counters regularly since the fukushima accident and dont see radiation levels an issue.

How do you know they haven't been using them? And what if they did use them and found that radiation levels were elevated in air or water or soil samples...then what? There's fück all they can do about it.

These articles are from March and they state that the radiation levels found in the West Coast and not believed to be harmful. But we're into June now and that shït is still spewing out of Fukushima:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Radiation+from+Japan+reaches/4519182/story.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/16/local/la-me-0316-california-radiation-20110316


Like I said...these articles are from March and there's been fück all updates since then even though the plant in Japan is still leaking radioactive material. Maybe there is no risk or maybe they're downplaying it but it's not like authorities and the media in the US to pass up on an opportunity to scare the bejaysus out of Joe Public (terror, anthrax, SARS, swine flu, shoe-bombers, boxer-shorts bombers, etc.).

jackiebaron

jackiebaron wrote: »

Like I said...these articles are from March and there's been fück all updates since then even though the plant in Japan is still leaking radioactive material. Maybe there is no risk or maybe they're downplaying it but it's not like authorities and the media in the US to pass up on an opportunity to scare the bejaysus out of Joe Public (terror, anthrax, SARS, swine flu, shoe-bombers, boxer-shorts bombers, etc.).

13 June 2011 Last updated at 14:21 GMT
Fukushima plant: Six more workers exposed to radiation

14 June 2011 Last updated at 12:40 GMT
Fukushima City to give children radiation dosimeters

ed2hands

brimal wrote: »

I find it worrying that you guys can watch a Youtube video of a woman throwing out the most sensationalist of claims and take her word for it.

'40% of Europe is still radioactive'
'Farms in Britain their lambs are so full of Cesium they cant sell them'
'Don't eat European food' :rolleyes:
Etc.

Helen Caldicott has a track record of misquoting, misinformation and not being able to back up her claims with credible sources. Just take a look at her ongoing public debate with George Monbiot (Environmental activist)

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/interrogation-of-helen-caldicotts-responses/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/apr/13/anti-nuclear-lobby-interrogate-beliefs?intcmp=239

I would go as far as to say Helen Caldicott plays on our deepest fears about nuclear energy and uses this to keep in the media spotlight and flog another one of her books to us. Every video or article I have ever seen from her she is always saying 'in my book' and/or has her book in front of her in view of cameras.

Hold on a minute. Neither the OP or anyone else said we took her word for above facts. All OP asked for was discussion. Now have you any comments on the rest of that video? In relation to radiation in Fukishima? Or her facts on radiation?

Monbiots interrogation seems a quite pedantic to me in parts.
I in no way want to associate with Caldicott or her previous work. There are plenty more than her though who agree with her general points. Plenty. But we're scaremongering right? I mean you're not seriously implying that Fukushima is not potentially far worse than Chernobyl are you? Any thoughs on that or are you content to slag off the accompanied vid and leave it at that?

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

So you're wondering whether it's been given appropriate attention by posting an article riddled with links to tons of mainstream media articles?

In short yes.

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

13 June 2011 Last updated at 14:21 GMT
Fukushima plant: Six more workers exposed to radiation

14 June 2011 Last updated at 12:40 GMT
Fukushima City to give children radiation dosimeters

I meant there's been fück all further information about radiation levels in the US/Hawaii. Surely if they detected radiation in Oregon, etc in March and the plant is still belching this crap out then there must be even more of it landing on the US west coast....but not a word.

I actually got the dosimeters article first hand but thanks anyway.

ed2hands

ed2hands wrote: »

In short yes.

But aren't the articles linked attention?
How much more attention is adequate?

jackiebaron wrote: »

I meant there's been fück all further information about radiation levels in the US/Hawaii. Surely if they detected radiation in Oregon, etc in March and the plant is still belching this crap out then there must be even more of it landing on the US west coast....but not a word.

I actually got the dosimeters article first hand but thanks anyway.

Because it's since been more contained and the initial stories were about minuscule amounts of radiation far far far below harmful levels.

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

But aren't the articles linked attention?
How much more attention is adequate?


Because it's since been more contained and the initial stories were about minuscule amounts of radiation far far far below harmful levels.

I don't know. A good bit more than current though, considering the already known attempted cover-up by Japan govt and general lack of transparency. Of course the country is still in mourning, but still it doesn't preclude an forthright evaluation of the risks. There's scaremongering and there's downplaying it. Sure we're all somewhere in the middle aren't we?

Ghost Train

Anyone see the earless rabbit that was born near the plant

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/8574450/Earless-rabbit-born-near-Fukushima-nuclear-plant.html

brimal

ed2hands wrote: »

Hold on a minute. Neither the OP or anyone else said we took her word for above facts. All OP asked for was discussion. Now have you any comments on the rest of that video? In relation to radiation in Fukishima? Or her facts on radiation?

Monbiots interrogation seems a quite pedantic to me in parts.
I in no way want to associate with Caldicott or her previous work. There are plenty more than her though who agree with her general points. Plenty. But we're scaremongering right? I mean you're not seriously implying that Fukushima is not potentially far worse than Chernobyl are you? Any thoughs on that or are you content to slag off the accompanied vid and leave it at that?

Woah! I should have expected that kind of reaction in the CT forum. This is exactly the type of attitude that can give this forum a bad name. The regulars in here are so quick to jump down peoples throats it's amazing.

Anyway..

ed2hands wrote: »

Hold on a minute. Neither the OP or anyone else said we took her word for above facts. All OP asked for was discussion.

'Anyone who has been dilligently following what is happening in Japan will know that this lady is speaking the truth.'
Direct quote from this thread.

ed2hands wrote: »

Monbiots interrogation seems a quite pedantic to me in parts.

Which parts? The parts where he is constantly asking for sources and Caldicott doesn't comply?

ed2hands wrote: »

There are plenty more than her though who agree with her general points. Plenty.

A bit vague here. Which general points are these?


I don't understand what's so wrong about me 'slagging off' Helen Caldicott - as this video is the starting point of this whole thread. Do we have to take her points as fact immediatley and then continue with the debate from there?

I think the anti-nuclear side have a valid argument. I just think Helen Caldicott is not the right person to represent them.

Now please I ask you drop the tone with me in your next reply, it's quite rude.

ed2hands

ed2hands wrote: »

I don't know. A good bit more than current though, considering the already known attempted cover-up by Japan govt and general lack of transparency.

You mean the half assed cover up that lasted less than a week and then was reported in the mainstream media?

But if you don't know what an adequate amount of attention, what basis do you have for concluding the current attention is inadequate?

ed2hands wrote: »

Of course the country is still in mourning, but still it doesn't preclude an forthright evaluation of the risks. There's scaremongering and there's downplaying it. Sure we're all somewhere in the middle aren't we?

But the only scaremongering I'm seeing is the stuff you get here, like invisible magic radiation or this being evidence of the vast global conspiracy.

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

You mean the half assed cover up that lasted less than a week and then was reported in the mainstream media?

But if you don't know what an adequate amount of attention, what basis do you have for concluding the current attention is inadequate?


But the only scaremongering I'm seeing is the stuff you get here, like invisible magic radiation or this being evidence of the vast global conspiracy.

The basis i have for concluding the current level of attention is inadequate is that much of mainstream medias editorial policy panders to establishment sentiment on nuclear policy as everything; the industry, the regulators and the govt are are in bed together as usual it seems, so it makes sense that they would be doing their best to downplay the whole thing as much as possible.

Havermeyer

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

...the media have turned off the story. Probably because of political pressure...

Or, given the fact that this happened a few months ago, half way across the planet - and there are other more relevant/pressing issues for our media to be reporting on - it is now simply old news.

The earthquake in Haiti was major news when that happened last year, and was extensively reported on at the time. The clean up and rebuilding is ongoing over there. However, the news-worthiness of the disaster was dropped from the headlines long ago.

News has a sell-by date. Fukushima became old news, and got dropped. That's what happens - no matter how big the story was at the time.

With regard to Fukushima being the catalyst for a nuclear fallout, who knows? But a story being dropped from mainstream reportage is not indicative of a conspiracy.

ed2hands

ed2hands wrote: »

The basis i have for concluding the current level of attention is inadequate is that much of mainstream medias editorial policy panders to establishment sentiment on nuclear policy as everything; the industry, the regulators and the govt are are in bed together as usual it seems, so it makes sense that they would be doing their best to downplay the whole thing as much as possible.

But how can you call nearly daily reports on a nuclear disaster, months after the fact as well as reporting on the anti-nuclear movement gaining a lot of traction in European countries in the wake of the disaster, downplaying it?

ed2hands

nummnutts wrote: »

Or, given the fact that this happened a few months ago, half way across the planet - and there are other more relevant/pressing issues for our media to be reporting on - it is now simply old news.

The earthquake in Haiti was major news when that happened last year, and was extensively reported on at the time. The clean up and rebuilding is ongoing over there. However, the news-worthiness of the disaster was dropped from the headlines long ago.

News has a sell-by date. Fukushima became old news, and got dropped. That's what happens - no matter how big the story was at the time.

With regard to Fukushima being the catalyst for a nuclear fallout, who knows? But a story being dropped from mainstream reportage is not indicative of a conspiracy.

Fair enough, but Haiti and Fukishima are unfair comparisons. A friend just sent this to me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBEipg81uLw

Havermeyer

ed2hands wrote: »

Fair enough, but Haiti and Fukishima are unfair comparisons. A friend just sent this to me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBEipg81uLw

They're not unfair comparisons. Both were natural disasters.

Fukushima was the result of a massive tsunami, and pretty much became a story of it's own when the extent of the damage to the power plant was realised.

Haiti, as a result of the earthquake, was later hit with a cholera outbreak, which also became a news story of it's own.

Not totally dissimilar.

Lefticus Loonaticus

Cheers for responses people. She could be a bit sensational yeah, but id reckon shes closer to the truth than the WHO or the IAEA. I suppose the authorities feel the need to downplay, for the greater good perhaps, because we may actually need nuclear power for awhile yet.

The alternatives, even if costly and impractical, are still a better idea than even the best dressed scenarios of the pro nuclear lobby. Even if we are lucky enough not to have any more accidents, all the indisposable waste is just gonna keep building up. Countries will keep selling it on the sly to arm manafactuers, who will just keep spreading it about warzones and hope that no one notices.

On a positive note tho, Ireland is geographically one of the furthest places away from japan, so techically speaking, we have the least to worry about :rolleyes:.

(note: theres a much more detailed thread in AH about fukushima http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72729557)

I am pie

From Guardian article on June 7th:

"According to the latest estimates, 770,000 terabequerels – about 20% as much as the official estimate for Chernobyl – of radiation seeped from the plant in the week after the tsunami, more than double the initial estimate of 370,000"

Article was critical of the how the nuclear disaster was handled by the Japanese authorities.

I don't believe the fallout is Chernobyl multiplied by some hysterical factor. A serious disaster with ongoing consequences of course, but not worse than the Ukrainian disaster.

Havermeyer

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

Cheers for responses people. She could be a bit sensational yeah, but id reckon shes closer to the truth than the WHO or the IAEA. I suppose the authorities feel the need to downplay, for the greater good perhaps, because we may actually need nuclear power for awhile yet.

The alternatives, even if costly and impractical, are still a better idea than even the best dressed scenarios of the pro nuclear lobby. Even if we are lucky enough not to have any more accidents, all the indisposable waste is just gonna keep building up. Countries will keep selling it on the sly to arm manafactuers, who will just keep spreading it about warzones and hope that no one notices.

On a positive note tho, Ireland is geographically one of the furthest places away from japan, so techically speaking, we have the least to worry about :rolleyes:.

(note: theres a much more detailed thread in AH about fukushima http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72729557)

I wouldn't be using AH as a resource for useful information on any subject, if I were you. :pac:

ed2hands

brimal wrote: »

Woah! I should have expected that kind of reaction in the CT forum. This is exactly the type of attitude that can give this forum a bad name. The regulars in here are so quick to jump down peoples throats it's amazing.

Anyway..



'Anyone who has been dilligently following what is happening in Japan will know that this lady is speaking the truth.'
Direct quote from this thread.



Which parts? The parts where he is constantly asking for sources and Caldicott doesn't comply?



A bit vague here. Which general points are these?


I don't understand what's so wrong about me 'slagging off' Helen Caldicott - as this video is the starting point of this whole thread. Do we have to take her points as fact immediatley and then continue with the debate from there?

I think the anti-nuclear side have a valid argument. I just think Helen Caldicott is not the right person to represent them.

Now please I ask you drop the tone with me in your next reply, it's quite rude.

Ok Brimal. Point taken regarding tone. Perish the thought that i would want to give this forum a bad name.:)
To just select parts of the vid though, and disregard the rest regarding Fukishima (and indeed the rest of the OP), to state that we all take all her claims as completely true is what i take issue with.
To reiterate, i don't doubt some of her facts are off the mark. She has indeed written plenty about it as i have learned, but has some valid points too no? Not fair to just dismiss her and say she peddles her books IMO.
George Monbiot (the "environmental activist" as you call him) has also just written a book it seems. In favour of nuclear energy. So they are both benefiting from their little debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeXsH32kVXI

Edit: Seeing as Monbiot got his say twice in your earlier post, i'll leave this here to balance it out a little (Caldicotts response):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation

Dude111

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote:

Have been keeping an eye on this fukushima situation on and off. Have to use the net really, since the media have turned off the story.

Yes it is MUCH WORSE THERE than they are reporting!

Mucco

Sorry to spoil the fun, but there's been no media blackout.

The Japan times have reported radiation figures daily:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/radiation-levels.html?date=20110617

They've also had reports every day on the Fukushima incident.

You can believe whatever you want to, but the facts are not hidden.

M

robtri

Dude111 wrote: »

Yes it is MUCH WORSE THERE than they are reporting!

and if no one is reporting this ... how do you know this???

espinolman

King Mob wrote: »

Because it's since been more contained and the initial stories were about minuscule amounts of radiation far far far below harmful levels.

King Mob says its harmless , therefore the radiation must be very harmful .

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

King Mob says its harmless , therefore the radiation must be very harmful .

Have you any reason to believe that radiation levels are at harmful levels anywhere in the US because of the incident?

Can you point out where I've said something untrue?

Have you anything to say about any of my points or are you simply not going to engage in actual discussion as usual#?

nice1franko

Don't think there's a conspiracy here. The lack of coverage is probably down to bad journalism.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/06/201161664828302638.html

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

But the only scaremongering I'm seeing is the stuff you get here, like invisible magic radiation or this being evidence of the vast global conspiracy.

Whatever about your opinion that the media is not downplaying this (i personally think some outlets are)...

http://enenews.com/it-was-even-worse-than-the-worst-imagination-of-the-media-radiation-now-leaking-through-cracks-in-the-containment-and-melted-holes-cnn-video



It could be that you might be nailing your colours to the mast a bit early regarding the lack of effects of your "invisible magic radiation" King Mob.

So i take it you think that Jackiebarons article by Sherman/Mangano is scaremongering and thats why you completely ignored it as possible evidence? In case you haven't read yet, i'll post it here again from another source:

http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/infant-mortality-spikes-along-us-west-coast-fukushima-fallout/

Mangano discussing it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQeDOj2FHpE