Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

Overheal · 13-05-2011 10:07pm

Coles wrote: »

And what if they lied about having three meltdowns? Or a nuclear explosion in a fuel pool that launched massive amounts of plutonium into the atmosphere?

I was hoping to hear something asinine again, just to point out the fallacy that a Nuclear Reactor can not under any circumstance, produce a nuclear explosion. Criticality accidents may occur, but for an explosive chain reaction to occur the mass needs to become supercritical, something that only happens under specific conditions. Namely, the firing mechanism of a nuclear bomb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass#Criticality_in_nuclear_weapon_design

If you think the roof blowing on the plants was a nuclear explosion, you need to go back and understand what actually occurred, which was a buildup of Hydrogen and subsequent hydrogen explosion (Note: Not a Hydrogen Bomb explosion. Just plain old everyday Hydrogen. Just like your mom used to make. If she taught science class that is.) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Explosion_of_reactor_1_building

Or if they misled the public about their plutonium monitoring? You're probably not aware of that, are you?Just as well the Cesium 137 only has a 30 year half life, eh? Should be gone from the environment in a few hundred years. Pity that Plutonium 138 has a 24,100 year half life. It would be great if contaminated seaweed, plankton, fish etc weren't consumed by larger commercially important species that migrate around the Pacific, but that's a bit unlikely, isn't it?

Compare everything you just said and try it hold it up like a candle to the cold war weapons testing programs. The world will keep turning. And not to sound like an ass but these heavier radioactive particles are not going to carry on wind and affect you or I. Very likely they will be dispersed into extremely low concentrations, likely through one of the several methods you mentioned.

Safer than historic fossil fuel generators? Maybe, particularly when you don't include the estimated 985,000 deaths from the Chernobyl incident, but I'd love to see some statistics that show it's safer than a modern gas power plant. It's not safer than Renewables either. And when do you decide that a massive release into the environment of radionuclides with a half life of 24,100 years are no longer harmful? Do you do an 'Andrew' on it and say that there's no problem with releasing massive amounts of radiation into the environment because no one has died (yet)?

Mark my words. Within 6 months the birth defects will have started in Japan. And something else. The Kool-Aid gang will still be claiming nuclear energy is perfectly safe.

"Kool-Aid" is the new Hitler/Nazi reference

Deaths from fossil fuels do not occur only at the point of consumption, it occurs at extraction as well. You'd do well to read up on coal pollution in the Appalachians. Oh and here

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Remember that dams break and people still die installing solar panels and wind farms. Three Gorges has displaced more people and destroyed more land (and historical sites) than Chernobyl did. By a lot. And that was just in the inception, nevermind should anything catastophic ever happen to the Dam. I grant you however that 3 Gorges produces 4.5 times the capacity that Chernobyl had.

andrew · 13-05-2011 10:17pm

Coles wrote: »

Highly unlikely, particularly as provision of water has not been constant.

It's been constant for the last few weeks

We're 2 months after the event now. More people (particularly children and pregnant women) should have been evacuated from a wider zone. The nuclear authorities could not have been anything other than 100% certain of what was occurring at the reactors, particularly the explosion at the fuel pool at Reactor 3. The attempts to silence discussion in the Japanese media (and the silence in Western media) will have a serious impact on human health that could have been avoided.

Baseless assertions. It's a bit difficult to know what's occurring in reactors you've only very recently had access too, I presume. But the fact is nobody outside the plant has a clue what they do and do not know, and whether they should or should not know something. So saying that they do know something and are suppressing information and should know something is silly.

I'm not speculating when I say that massive levels of radiation has been found in fish more than a hundred km from Fukushima, or in seaweed 40km away. Fish eat fish, and radiation levels are likely to accumulate at the upper end of the food chain. It might take 20 years or longer for this to happen, but it is very likely.
Why do you think that? Still think there has just been a 'tiny release of radiation'?

I guess it depends what you define as 'massive.' You seem to define anything above background levels as massive. And I think that because the amounts of radiation released have been in quantities which have only been shown to have stochastic effects. That's what's meant when people say 'likelihood.' Even if the number of birth defects this year went up, in general you'd have to compare this to historical data to be sure that the increase is statistically significant, as opposed to just natural variance, and control for exposure to radiation and other factors. I presume this'll provide a useful natural experiment for people who study that kinda thing.

And again, stop misrepresenting me. Clearly, the release isn't tiny. It's INES Level 7, so it's hardly tiny. But most individual's exposure to radiation has been tiny. Above background levels yeah, but still (what i'd consider) tiny. Not enough to cause immediate harm, just to increase their likelihood of developing cancer by some percentage around 1%. If this isn't the case, show me to be incorrect.

Overheal · 13-05-2011 10:19pm

Coles wrote: »

Yeah? They put in millions of litres of water into Reactor #1 and the gauge didn't budge so they assumed it was fine?

I would have just assumed the gauge was broken. And I'm pretty sure they did too. Why would you assume the gauge was working if everything else in the plant was not?

The Left Hand Of God · 13-05-2011 10:56pm

NeedaNewName wrote: »

A meltdown has occurred. All that has happened is that the definition of a meltdown has been changed.

Not personally bothered as I don't have kids.

People were saying from the start it was bad...so it seems.

Coles · 13-05-2011 11:08pm

andrew wrote: »

Baseless assertions. It's a bit difficult to know what's occurring in reactors you've only very recently had access too, I presume. But the fact is nobody outside the plant has a clue what they do and do not know, and whether they should or should not know something. So saying that they do know something and are suppressing information and should know something is silly.

:rolleyes:The radiation being detected around the plant (and around the world) gave enough information to know that reactions were ongoing within the reactors and that massive amounts of radiation were being released into the environment.

I guess it depends what you define as 'massive.' You seem to define anything above background levels as massive. And I think that because the amounts of radiation released have been in quantities which have only been shown to have stochastic effects. That's what's meant when people say 'likelihood.' Even if the number of birth defects this year went up, in general you'd have to compare this to historical data to be sure that the increase is statistically significant, as opposed to just natural variance, and control for exposure to radiation and other factors. I presume this'll provide a useful natural experiment for people who study that kinda thing.

Are you seriously suggesting that the amount of radiation being released by this ongoing disaster isn't 'massive'? It has already been a massive release of radiation and it is nowhere near complete.

And again, stop misrepresenting me. Clearly, the release isn't tiny. It's INES Level 7, so it's hardly tiny.

Oh? How am I misrepresenting you? Did you not dismiss the release as 'tiny amounts of radiation' in the previous page?

But most individual's exposure to radiation has been tiny. Above background levels yeah, but still (what i'd consider) tiny. Not enough to cause immediate harm, just to increase their likelihood of developing cancer by some percentage around 1%. If this isn't the case, show me to be incorrect.

Link to discussion between Gundersen and Epidemiologist Dr Steven Wing.
It's worth listening to. Seriously.

Coles · 13-05-2011 11:32pm

Overheal wrote: »

I was hoping to hear something asinine again, just to point out the fallacy that a Nuclear Reactor can not under any circumstance, produce a nuclear explosion. Criticality accidents may occur, but for an explosive chain reaction to occur the mass needs to become supercritical, something that only happens under specific conditions. Namely, the firing mechanism of a nuclear bomb.

If you think the roof blowing on the plants was a nuclear explosion, you need to go back and understand what actually occurred, which was a buildup of Hydrogen and subsequent hydrogen explosion.

The criticality did not occur in the reactor. It occurred in the fuel storage pool. The hydrogen explosion triggered the 'prompt criticality'.

Watch the presentation and then tell me I'm wrong.

'Asinine'?

Compare everything you just said and try it hold it up like a candle to the cold war weapons testing programs. The world will keep turning. And not to sound like an ass but these heavier radioactive particles are not going to carry on wind and affect you or I.

Isn't it interesting that the self proclaimed 'pro-nuclear' types always look at the likelihood of any impact on human health from the perspective of the isolated individual, and not from the perspective of the wider society? I find that fascinating.

Dams break and people still die installing solar panels and wind farms. Three Gorges has displaced more people and destroyed more land (and historical sites) than Chernobyl did. By a lot. And that was just in the inception, nevermind should anything catastophic ever happen to the Dam. I grant you however that 3 Gorges produces 4.5 times the capacity that Chernobyl had.

Hydroelectric generation is usually a benefit of a larger civil infrastructural project. Very few dams are built exclusively to exploit a hydroelectric resources, but usually also to control flooding, provide irrigation, provide a water supply reservoir, or to develop an amenity. Why should any loss of life due to a failing dam be attributed to hydroelectricity when the dam was constructed for other purposes?

Coles · 13-05-2011 11:40pm

Overheal wrote: »

"Kool-Aid" is the new Hitler/Nazi reference

No it's not.

gbee · 14-05-2011 12:02am

I think some posters may eat humble pie now, some of us had been saying that a full meltdown had occurred quite a while back.

It was, of course denied, and we were lambasted as "experts" ~ well we were, seemingly. Some posters were chastised over saying that an ongoing reaction was taking place ~ well it was and it still is.

I guess we know for certain now why the American Aircraft Carrier spent three weeks scrubbing her decks for "harmless" levels ..............

Overall, this event has been handled even worse than the big Russian Incident and that was during the Cold War CCCP period, secrecy etc, etc.

andrew · 14-05-2011 12:10am

Coles wrote: »

:rolleyes:The radiation being detected around the plant (and around the world) gave enough information to know that reactions were ongoing within the reactors and that massive amounts of radiation were being released into the environment.

Says Arnie, who has the luxury of not having to be right, and not being accountable to anyone.

Are you seriously suggesting that the amount of radiation being released by this ongoing disaster isn't 'massive'? It has already been a massive release of radiation and it is nowhere near complete.

Oh? How am I misrepresenting you? Did you not dismiss the release as 'tiny amounts of radiation' in the previous page?

The amount of radiation being released is massive. The amount to which individuals are being exposed to is not. Just like it says in the video you linked

Link to discussion between Gundersen and Epidemiologist Dr Steven Wing.
It's worth listening to. Seriously.

So from the video:

"there is no safe dose in terms of the cancer or genetic effects of radiation...assumption that there's a linear relationship...as dose goes down risk goes down but doesn't disappear" (asymptotes toward zero)

In other words, the risk from smaller doses of radiation asymptotes toward zero, approaching it but never reaching zero. So just because the risk exists doesn't mean it's so significant that we should care.

"In some cases, probably increase the likelihood of cancer of 10,20% (for workers)"

So the MAX that ANY individual's risk has increased, is by 20%. And for that, you've to actually be on site. Fair enough i wouldn't take a 1/5 gamble with cancer, but if that's the maximum risk to which anyone is exposed, then the chances for people far away from the plant must be much better.

"FDA should sample fish...but for any individual worrying about fish there are other things to worry about...as a collective be concerned...but as individuals don't be concerned""

Yup, like I said, the risk to any one individual is so small is to be negligible.

"the things we don't plan for causes accidents"

Just thought that this was funny. Well of course that's the case...if it was planned for, then it wouldn't have caused an accident. Duhh.

Finally, be careful you don't drink too much Kool-Aid yourself; Arnie Gunderson's in the business of environmental and energy litigation. He's not exactly an unbiased source.

It was, of course denied, and we were lambasted as "experts" ~ well we were, seemingly. Some posters were chastised over saying that an ongoing reaction was taking place ~ well it was and it still is.

No it's not. Proof? And a meltdown was confirmed pretty early on, that isn't news.

Overall, this event has been handled even worse than the big Russian Incident and that was during the Cold War CCCP period, secrecy etc, etc.

Etc's are a poor substitute for actual knowledge, of which it would seem you have very little.

Coles · 14-05-2011 10:07am

andrew wrote: »

The amount of radiation being released is massive. The amount to which individuals are being exposed to is not. Just like it says in the video you linked

In other words, the risk from smaller doses of radiation asymptotes toward zero, approaching it but never reaching zero. So just because the risk exists doesn't mean it's so significant that we should care.

So the MAX that ANY individual's risk has increased, is by 20%. And for that, you've to actually be on site. Fair enough i wouldn't take a 1/5 gamble with cancer, but if that's the maximum risk to which anyone is exposed, then the chances for people far away from the plant must be much better.

Yup, like I said, the risk to any one individual is so small is to be negligible.

But the issue here is not the health impact on any single individual. What is important is the long term impact on human health across the society. I have no worries about my own health (as an individual), but I certainly worry about the health of the Japanese, particularly future generations.

As I said before, isn't it interesting that the self proclaimed 'pro-nuclear' types always look at the likelihood of any impact on human health from the perspective of the isolated individual, and not from the perspective of the wider society?

vibe666 · 14-05-2011 2:10pm

andrew wrote: »

Says Arnie, who has the luxury of not having to be right, and not being accountable to anyone.

do you mean this Arnie?

In April 2010, Gundersen released a report (commissioned by several anti-nuclear groups) which explored a hazard associated with the possible rusting through of the AP1000 containment structure steel liner.

it's funny how people can accuse people of blindly 'drinking the kool-aid' that is being fed to us, but then do exactly the same thing themselves by following blindly following the 'expert' opinion of someone who has anti-nuclear lobby groups as a major source of income. :rolleyes:

just because someone is paid by the men in green instead of the men in black suits, it doesn't mean they aren't pushing their own agenda.

yes, i'm sure the whole truth is out there somewhere, but i doubt it is very firmly on either side of this debate, but rather somewhere in the middle as a mixture of the two.

BUT i'm sure the 'Cole-Aid' gang will be nothing short of delighted to hear that someone who had been working at Fukushima has actually died of *something* (nobody seems sure exactly what yet), as he was apparently wearing full protective gear and was not exposed directly to radioactive substances in the job he was doing according to this: http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/14_15.html

A worker at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant fell unconscious at work on Saturday and later died.

The worker in his 60s complained of ill health while working at a waste processing facility. He worked for a subcontracting firm of Tokyo Electric Power Company.

The man was taken to a medical office in the plant, where he was found to have lost consciousness. He was then taken by ambulance to a hospital in Iwaki City and confirmed dead shortly after 9:30 AM. The cause of his death is unknown.

Tokyo Electric says the worker had been transporting equipment since Friday. He was scheduled to work for 3 hours from 6:00 AM on Saturday.

The company says the worker had put on a full protective suit and was not exposed to radioactive substances.

This was the first time that a worker at the Daiichi plant died after the March 11th

meanwhile, in other Japan related news, the number of people who have died SINCE the earthquake has now topped 500 souls, but of course that's hardly going to be at all important here now that you all have a decent scrap of news about a single death that just *might* *potentially* be related to big scary nukes. :rolleyes:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_31.html

NHK has learned that at least 524 survivors of the March 11th disaster have died -- many of them due to stress and fatigue.

NHK contacted 241 hospitals in the 3 disaster-stricken prefectures in northeastern Japan.

It found the number of survivors who have died due to wide-ranging effects of the disaster reached 347 in Miyagi, 123 in Fukushima and 54 in Iwate.

41 percent of the deaths occurred during the first 2 weeks after March 11th. 26 people have died since the start of May, and the figure continues to rise.

Nearly 90 percent of the victims were aged 65 or older. But children as young as 2 have also succumbed to hypothermia and infectious diseases.

62 percent of the deaths involved cardiac and respiratory failures, including heart infarction and pneumonia.

Most deaths in the first 2 weeks following the disaster were related to shock, or due to the loss of power to medical equipment.

But the causes of deaths during the most recent 2 weeks were more preventable. They include fatigue and stress caused by extended stays at public shelters, which led to declines in immunity and high blood pressure.

Jichi Medical University Professor Kazuomi Kario has treated patients in disaster areas.

He says deaths can be prevented by improving food, sleep and living conditions. He says it is a great shame to lose people who have survived the quake and tsunami.

go nuts lads, you've been gagging for a fukushima related death to shout about for 2 months now ever since you had that 'near miss' at the beginning with the guy who had a crane fall on him.

andrew · 14-05-2011 5:48pm

Coles wrote: »

But the issue here is not the health impact on any single individual. What is important is the long term impact on human health across the society. I have no worries about my own health (as an individual), but I certainly worry about the health of the Japanese, particularly future generations.

As I said before, isn't it interesting that the self proclaimed 'pro-nuclear' types always look at the likelihood of any impact on human health from the perspective of the isolated individual, and not from the perspective of the wider society?

Because every power source (probably not renewables though) has a societal impact, and will probably kill someone, somewhere. And based on that metric, nuclear is still the safest kind of energy there is, certainly safer than coal and burning stuff in general. That's why pro-nuclear people are pro-nuclear.

Coles · 14-05-2011 8:48pm

vibe666 wrote: »

BUT i'm sure the 'Cole-Aid' gang will be nothing short of delighted to hear that someone who had been working at Fukushima has actually died of *something*...

Is this type of abuse tolerated on this site?

Shameful comment, but typical of someone who has run out of rope. And factually incorrect too.

Through out his thread I have presented sources of information that aren't available in the mainstream media. Everything that I have written has come to pass, while your sources - the nuclear industry - have been shown to have repeatedly lied about the true nature of this disaster.

So why are you attacking me?

Overheal · 14-05-2011 9:14pm

The criticality did not occur in the reactor. It occurred in the fuel storage pool. The hydrogen explosion triggered the 'prompt criticality'.

Watch the presentation and then tell me I'm wrong.

'Asinine'?

Intriguing (and long, I skimmed), but surely if it was a nuclear explosion there would have been far more Heat, copious amounts of Light Energy and destructive impact? A "Mushroom cloud" is inconclusive evidence.

Isn't it interesting that the self proclaimed 'pro-nuclear' types always look at the likelihood of any impact on human health from the perspective of the isolated individual, and not from the perspective of the wider society? I find that fascinating.

Isnt it interesting how scientists in general discuss control groups? At the same time you fail to refute what I've said, concentrations will diminish and 'wider society' will be left largely unfazed.

Why should any loss of life due to a failing dam be attributed to hydroelectricity when the dam was constructed for other purposes?

Thats stretching things a bit. The Hydroelectric Dam's primary role is Hydroelectric (Ghasp) Power. If it's aim is to reduce flooding it shouldnt require the creation of a 600km reservoir, destroying thousands of historical landmarks and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.

Coles wrote: »

No it's not.

Yes, well done you. Spend some time in the politics forums. Go ahead and run a bi-lateral search for Kool Aid and Hitler.

Is this type of abuse tolerated on this site?

Shameful comment, but typical of someone who has run out of rope. And factually incorrect too.

Through out his thread I have presented sources of information that aren't available in the mainstream media. Everything that I have written has come to pass, while your sources - the nuclear industry - have been shown to have repeatedly lied about the true nature of this disaster.

So why are you attacking me?

Heh, you'll also find others who refer to "The Kool Aid" are the ones who claim to hold "The Truth" or are otherwise in posession of obfuscated sources and evidence "That the mainstream media doesn't want you to see". :rolleyes:

Wow you've really been drinking the SF kool-aid

keep drinking the ( fianna fail ) kool aid

You are drunk on Obama Kool-Aid

thanks for the kool aid BILL

OBAMA! OBAMA! OBAMA! Pass me more Kool-Aid please!

Fact is, the Dept of Finance is SO drunk on their own kool-aid that their numbers ...

I keep hearing about this Kool Aid too..Must be good

Congrats on completely missing the point entirely. More Kool-Aid?

Why is kool-aid an insult??

You must be drinking too much of that sinn fein kool-aid ...

We thank you for the Kool-Aid, reverend Bertie

Agreed. Only the partisan Kool-Aid drinkers can't see that

You do you should probably ease off the Joe Higgins Kool Aid

in in 2012, then it'll be time to drink the Kool-Aid

You guys are way off the mark linking Kool Aid with racism ...

There are already plenty of irrational pro-Israeli kool aid drinkers on here

With all due respect, how much culturally relativistic Kool-Aid does one need to drink ...

people in Ireland in 2010 are drinking "United Ireland at all costs" Kool-Aid ...

blah blah blah kool-aid, is that all you've got to say

(All actual quotes by actual users)

I think some posters may eat humble pie now, some of us had been saying that a full meltdown had occurred quite a while back.

Of course. But the need is still there to balance things into perspective. At the start of this thing people worried Japan would disappear in a fireball and Ireland would wake up to Toxic Rain, etc.

Coles · 14-05-2011 9:42pm

Overheal wrote: »

At the same time you fail to refute what I've said, concentrations will diminish and 'wider society' will be left largely unfazed.

I sense progress! Now have a look at the Fairewinds presentation about the impact of radiation on wider populations (the Dr Steven Wing interview). The gist of it is that with a release of radiation a high dose on a low population can be expected to cause the same number of cancers as a low dose on a large population.

And I have never suggested there is any significant risk for us as individuals in this country. If you want to set up strawman arguments, fire ahead.

Thats stretching things a bit. The Hydroelectric Dam's primary role is Hydroelectric (Ghasp) Power. If it's aim is to reduce flooding it shouldnt require the creation of a 600km reservoir, destroying thousands of historical landmarks and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.

I was refering to hydroelectricity in general, and not about any particular scheme.

At the start of this thing people worried Japan would disappear in a fireball and Ireland would wake up to Toxic Rain, etc.

Link please. It sounds like one of your strawman arguments.

If I remember correctly the initial concern was about the impact of the earthquake and tsunami. All my contributions have related to the impact of the radiation on Japan and on the Japanese people. There is legitimate concern about radiation reaching Ireland, but I don't think it should worry anyone yet.

Coles · 14-05-2011 9:53pm

And rather than just attacking me for posting information, how about you guys post some of your own?:eek:

I've repeatedly asked you guys to do that, but you haven't. Why not? Post some good news stories about how the situation is under control and there's really nothing to worry about.

All you do is attack me, insult me, slander me, act like asses, and make fools of yourselves. Come on! I'd really love to hear some good news about Fukushima.

andrew · 14-05-2011 10:19pm

Coles wrote: »

And rather than just attacking me for posting information, how about you guys post some of your own?:eek:

I've repeatedly asked you guys to do that, but you haven't. Why not? Post some good news stories about how the situation is under control and there's really nothing to worry about.

All you do is attack me, insult me, slander me, act like asses, and make fools of yourselves. Come on! I'd really love to hear some good news about Fukushima.

You're being attacked for posting information, not about the situation itself (ie. what the water level is in the reactors, etc) but scaremongering articles.

Here's some good news about Fukushima: After being hit by a huge Tsunami one of the biggest earthquakes ever, and several powerful explosions, a 40 year old nuclear power station has held up sufficiently that nobody has died from radiation. In fact, only 2 people have suffered from doses high enough to warrant a hospital visit. I'd count that as good news. But news outlets tend not to write stories about how everything is ok, since it's not very interesting. And if they did, they'd probably be accused of 'downplaying' the disaster.

Coles · 14-05-2011 10:51pm

andrew wrote: »

You're being attacked for posting information, not about the situation itself (ie. what the water level is in the reactors, etc) but scaremongering articles.

Show me some examples, please. I have posted only informative articles. If you want to see nice pictures of butterflies and baby lambs then use Google. Are you sure this thread is for you?

You've posted nothing of interest. Nothing informative. Nothing new. Nothing but insults and bullsh*t. I assume that this response (as a moderator on this site) is an endorsement of the attack on me by Vibe666 where he stated that I would be happy that a worker had died at the power plant? Is that your position too? Shameful, childish, and deeply unfair.

Here's some good news about Fukushima: After being hit by a huge Tsunami one of the biggest earthquakes ever, and several powerful explosions, a 40 year old nuclear power station has held up sufficiently that nobody has died from radiation. In fact, only 2 people have suffered from doses high enough to warrant a hospital visit. I'd count that as good news. But news outlets tend not to write stories about how everything is ok, since it's not very interesting. And if they did, they'd probably be accused of 'downplaying' the disaster.

So everything is ok? Link please.

andrew · 14-05-2011 11:21pm

Coles wrote: »

Show me some examples, please.

You've posted nothing of interest. Nothing informative. Nothing new. Nothing but insults and bullsh*t.

Me? Link please. I've posted several links to informative updates about the reactor's status, and in backing up thing's I've said. And I havn't insulted you. In comparison, you constantly refer to pro nuclear people as having drank the 'Kool Aid,' which suggests that we're spas who can't think for ourselves, as well as variously calling people 'clowns' and fools, which is a bit rude.

These are the links you've posted in this thread which pertain to Fukushima:

One
Two
Three
four
five

Plus several Fairewinds videos.

Apart from number 4, every one of those links is basically OMG CANCER. While I do find the Fairewinds stuff good, there's also a definate bias there (unsuprising, given Arnie's current source of income). That's why I feel that you've been fearmongering; every one of your links has been about how, possibly, maybe, the radiation released could kill someone. And that's not even taking into consideration your other posts, which have argued that even tiny amounts of radiation well below legal levels are dangerous, when, factually, they're not (as I showed in that post about the babies and the milk).

So everything is ok? Link please.

Nowhere in that post did I say everything is ok. Again, you continually to misrepresent what I've said.

I assume that this response (as a moderator on this site) is an endorsement of the attack on me by Vibe666

I'm not a site mod, I mod the Economic forum. I'm just a regular user otherwise. If you have a problem with a post, report it.

vibe666 · 14-05-2011 11:56pm

Coles wrote: »

Is this type of abuse tolerated on this site?

Shameful comment, but typical of someone who has run out of rope. And factually incorrect too.

i'm sorry, did it upset you that i've flipped round a term and used it against you that you yourself introduced to the thread and have used time and time again to post derogatory comments about anyone here who disagrees with your anti-nuclear stance? :rolleyes:

Coles wrote: »

All you do is attack me, insult me, slander me, act like asses, and make fools of yourselves.

its funny that you didn't seem to think that when the shoe was on the other foot a couple of weeks ago. didn't you get banned from AH and have to take a week off for doing exactly those things to other posters?

i honestly don't see anything anywhere near to the levels of abuse directed at you compared to what you have dished out to people here since you joined the thread, so why the high horse all of a sudden?

how about if you can manage to treat other poster with enough respect to stop referring to people as the 'kool-aid gang' when talking about pro-nuclear posters, maybe the 'cole-aid' gang won't catch on and we'll all be better off.

Coles · 14-05-2011 11:56pm

andrew wrote: »

These are the links you've posted in this thread which pertain to Fukushima:

One
Two
Three
four
five

Plus several Fairewinds videos.

Apart from number 4, every one of those links is basically OMG CANCER.

No, they're absolutely factual, and nowhere is there any mention of cancer. There's no point in ignoring the reality of this disaster because radiation causes cancer. We're all big boys here, no?

While I do find the Fairewinds stuff good, there's also a definate bias there (unsuprising, given Arnie's current source of income). That's why I feel that you've been fearmongering; every one of your links has been about how, possibly, maybe, the radiation released could kill someone.

And all your posts are saying that it won't cause fatalities. But EVERYBODY knows it will! It is absolutely inevitable. You can not release that much radiation on a continuing basis into a densely populated area and not cause fatalities. That's not scaremongering. It's reality.

And that's not even taking into consideration your other posts, which have argued that even tiny amounts of radiation well below legal levels are dangerous, when, factually, they're not (as I showed in that post about the babies and the milk).

I have argued that radiation in breast milk is potentially harmful. I have argued that having a radiation limit for tapwater and trying to apply it to breast milk is foolish. I have argued that pregnant women and infants should have been evacuated for the contaminated areas. Coincidently, this argument was echoed by Gundersen a week after we debated it. I have argued that radionuclides are dangerous when ingested or inhaled.

You have argued that radiation is not harmful and no one has died and anyway it doesn't matter because we're really far away.

Nice.:rolleyes:

If you have a problem with a post, report it.

Of course I reported it, and it's a shame that the comment still stands. I suppose it sets a new standard of abuse that we should all aim for in our exchanges.

vibe666 · 15-05-2011 12:02am

Coles wrote: »

I assume that this response (as a moderator on this site) is an endorsement of the attack on me by Vibe666 where he stated that I would be happy that a worker had died at the power plant? Is that your position too? Shameful, childish, and deeply unfair.

it wasn't an attack on you specifically, it was directed at the 3 or 4 posters in the thread that are in your 'gang' who have been clamouring for sensationalist news since this started 2 months ago and posting all the wildly inflammatory links from every crackpot conspiracy website going in the hope that something sticks.

Coles wrote: »

Of course I reported it, and it's a shame that the comment still stands. I suppose it sets a new standard of abuse that we should all aim for in our exchanges.

why is it that the people most guilty of abuse in these types of threads are always the ones who complain the most when it comes back to bite them on the backside?

since you have no problem labelling anyone who is pro-nuclear as the 'kool-aid gang' i figured you'd be happy for anyone anti-nuclear to fly the flag for the 'cole-aid gang'.

problem?

Coles · 15-05-2011 12:06am

vibe666 wrote: »

i'm sorry, did it upset you that i've flipped round a term and used it against you that you yourself introduced to the thread... blah blah blah...

You stated that I was happy that the Japanese worker had died. Shameful and childish.

its funny that you didn't seem to think that when the shoe was on the other foot a couple of weeks ago. didn't you get banned from AH and have to take a week off for doing exactly those things to other posters?

I was banned because I responded to someone who, just like you, had nothing to offer this debate, and was only intent on derailing this thread by insulting me. I called him a fool. Instead of calling you a fool, I'll just ask for an apology.

i honestly don't see anything anywhere near to the levels of abuse directed at you compared to what you have dished out to people here since you joined the thread, so why the high horse all of a sudden?

I have a very low tolerance for bullsh!t. The only contributor I was dismissive towards clearly didn't have any understanding of the topic and was arguing from a position of absolute ignorance.

I have posted information that is backed up with either references or links. Why have you posted nothing but insults?

Coles · 15-05-2011 12:15am

Now lets just leave it there (after I get my apology, of course). This is getting tedious and dull.

Post some good news stories!! With links!

Coles · 15-05-2011 12:27am

Need more time?

Try google.

andrew · 15-05-2011 12:28am

Coles wrote: »

No, they're absolutely factual, and nowhere is there any mention of cancer. There's no point in ignoring the reality of this disaster because radiation causes cancer. We're all big boys here, no?

Actually, the first link mentions cancer. And clearly radiation causes cancer, we're not debating that. My point has been that the radiation release doesn't significantly increase an individual's likelihood of getting cancer, and so isn't something to be worried about.

And all your posts are saying that it won't cause fatalities. But EVERYBODY knows it will! It is absolutely inevitable. You can not release that much radiation on a continuing basis into a densely populated area and not cause fatalities. That's not scaremongering. It's reality.

I have argued that radiation in breast milk is potentially harmful. I have argued that having a radiation limit for tapwater and trying to apply it to breast milk is foolish. I have argued that pregnant women and infants should have been evacuated for the contaminated areas. Coincidently, this argument was echoed by Gundersen a week after we debated it. I have argued that radionuclides are dangerous when ingested or inhaled.

Coles wrote: »

I have posted information that is backed up with either references or links. Why have you posted nothing but insults?

Nope, my posts just say that any individual's risk of getting cancer hasn't increased by much. This is probably the tenth time you've misrepresented what I've said. And I went through all your posts in this thread (procrastination is a helluva drug) and the only links you posted are the ones i mentioned, plus the fairewinds ones. So if perhaps you could back up your claims about the tapwater, that'd be nice. And references, other than Fairewinds, saying that the explosion at reactor 3 was a criticality? And references saying that TEPCO have been lying to people the entire time. And some estimates regarding the number of cancers this accident will cause.

You have argued that radiation is not harmful and no one has died and anyway it doesn't matter because we're really far away.

That's about the tenth time you've misrepresented me. I havn't argued radiation isn't harmful.

Of course I reported it, and it's a shame that the comment still stands. I suppose it sets a new standard of abuse that we should all aim for in our exchanges.

Look, you're just as guilty as anyone of insulting people on this thread, as well as misrepresenting me constantly. You were even banned for it. So, if there's a standard for abuse, you're the one who set it.

vibe666 · 15-05-2011 12:29am

Coles wrote: »

You stated that I was happy that the Japanese worker had died. Shameful and childish.
I was banned because I responded to someone who, just like you, had nothing to offer this debate, and was only intent on derailing this thread by insulting me. I called him a fool. Instead of calling you a fool, I'll just ask for an apology.

if/when you deserve an apology for something you'll get one, but don't hold your breath.

again, i'll copy/paste it a second time as you appear to have missed it the first time round.

vibe666 wrote: »

it wasn't an attack on you specifically, it was directed at the 3 or 4 posters in the thread that are in your 'gang' who have been clamouring for sensationalist news since this started 2 months ago and posting all the wildly inflammatory links from every crackpot conspiracy website going in the hope that something sticks.

Coles wrote: »

I have a very low tolerance for bullsh!t. The only contributor I was dismissive towards clearly didn't have any understanding of the topic and was arguing from a position of absolute ignorance.

that is actually a totally ridiculous and laughable comment. you have been nothing but dismissive and abusive to anyone and everyone who disagrees with you and you were banned for abusing one poster after several warnings for repeatedly abusing pretty much anyone in the thread who was pro-nuclear.

you toned it down for a while when you came back, but the kool-aid references are still there and the levels of abuse are rising again just as they did before.

Coles wrote: »

I have posted information that is backed up with either references or links. Why have you posted nothing but insults?

i've already posted 2 links about japan & fukushima on this page of the thread and i've posted many many links and information about the tsunami and earthquake in japan as well as fukushima in the past, but since you repeatedly keep dismissing anything and everything posted that disagrees with your viewpoint, and since neither i nor anyone here who isn't anti-nuclear share your viewpoint anything we post is going to be worthless in your eyes, just as the majority of what you post is worthless guff to the rest of us.

geetar · 15-05-2011 2:08am

Coles wrote: »

Is this type of abuse tolerated on this site?

Shameful comment, but typical of someone who has run out of rope. And factually incorrect too.

Through out his thread I have presented sources of information that aren't available in the mainstream media. Everything that I have written has come to pass, while your sources - the nuclear industry - have been shown to have repeatedly lied about the true nature of this disaster.

So why are you attacking me?

ok, you for one got banned, so dont pretend to be mr-goody-two-shoes all of a sudden.

your guilty of a few things. mainly posting one sided arguments from the same scientist over and over again. try a different "expert" for once.

i dont think people have really too much of an issue with what you are saying, its the way you present your argument that gets people angry. placing this ---->:rolleyes: beside any counter arguments is quite stupid really.

there has been very few people here claiming that radiation isnt harmfull, but rather that the situation wasnt harming the population. you claim to have some holy source of information and an inside scoop on the whole situation, but infact all you are doing is relaying sensationalist exaggerated news and claiming it to be fact, with little cross reference to verify what your saying. that makes people lose faith in the validity of your argument.

the situation is not good in japan, who knows how it is going to play out in the coming months. one thing is for certain, very few people are up to date with what is actually unfolding. the majority of information is speculation and opinions. please try not to give these as facts, and get upset when we dont jump on the disaster doomsday bandwagon.....:rolleyes:

AskMyChocolate · 15-05-2011 2:26am

Overheal wrote: »

Yes: TEPCO lied about the Full Meltdown "thing". So they had/have a full meltdown situation. Perhaps a couple. Idiotic thing for them to do. Impact globally? I still doubt it. Waters around Japan are probably not very friendly though. Still Pro-Nuclear? Yes, the statistics still show it far less harmful per capita than any other fuel source. Thats no comfort to the Japanese, but it's the truth. Coal, Oil and Gas have their own share of negative side effects.

I do suspect this will not be the last nuclear crisis but we cannot be afraid to keep innovating. I'd rather not spend the next 300 years relying on fossil fuels and strip mining. The Mk1 reactor designs have to be retired though, imo.

http://gizmodo.com/5801376/its-official-fukushima-was-hit-with-a-nuclear-meltdown

Cheers mate. Yeah, I rememder asking, about four thousand posts ago if there was a danger to the marine environment, as Japan relies heavily on fish (although they import a lot of it). Everybody seemed to think that there was no danger. Things seem to have got a lot worse since, although hopefully not to a level of endangering the whole marine eco-system. These people just can't seem to catch a break.:(

Coles · 15-05-2011 10:40am

Here's a really excellent update on the situation at Fukushima. Well worth watching. There's so little good information available in the mainstream media now, and any discussion of the issues involved gets derailed by lunatics.

It's shocking how little good news is coming out of Fukushima.

Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

Comments