Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Nuclear fallout? / Media blackout?

24567…14

Comments

  • #32
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭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?


  • #33
    Ghost Train
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,814 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #34
    brimal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,221 ✭✭✭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.


  • #35
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #36
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Havermeyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭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.


  • #38
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • #39
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭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


  • #40
    Havermeyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭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.


  • #41
    Lefticus Loonaticus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 201 ✭✭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)


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    I am pie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭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.


  • #43
    Havermeyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭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:


  • #44
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭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


  • #45
    Dude111
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,771 ✭✭✭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!


  • #46
    Mucco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 717 ✭✭✭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


  • #47
    robtri
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭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???


  • #48
    espinolman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭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 .


  • #49
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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#?


  • #50
    nice1franko
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭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


  • #51
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Media black out, nuclear accident in America several days ago?

    http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/18-Jun-2011/US-orders-news-blackout-over-crippled-Nebraska-Nuclear-Plant-report

    google it


  • #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ed2hands wrote: »
    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
    So again you still say the mainstream media is downplaying it then post something that links to a mainstream media source discussing the topic.
    The quote “It was even worse than the worst imagination of the media” comes from a CNN video.

    So which media outlets aren't downplaying it and how do you tell the difference?
    ed2hands wrote: »
    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.
    Well I was referring to 33's which said:
    33 wrote: »
    ...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?
    Would you call this claim rational or supported?
    ed2hands wrote: »
    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/
    It's very much scaremongering.
    First the headline and the article don't match up. The article shows no actual evidence that radiation caused a single one of those infant deaths.
    Correlation does not imply causation.


  • #54
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    With respect, just because there are reports in the media and TV doesn't refute my claim that the severity of it was downplayed just as it doesn't back up your claim that it was. It's subjective anyway isn't it? For the record i'm not claiming there was any sort of blackout on it, though some in the industry would have liked that no doubt.

    The official line from Tokyo was completely different from reality and TEPCO were denying any meltdown for the first few weeks. It turned out it was people like Arnie Gunderson that were closer to the truth about this. So the officials were lying basically.


    I take your point that the article shows no actual evidence that radiation caused the infant deaths, and would like to see the full figures for infant deaths going back a bit further in case the previous period that it was compared to was just unusually low.
    Am not well up on how the effects of all forms of radiation can actually be measured regarding deaths and cancer. One mans scaremongering is another mans thorough investigation regarding possible causes...

    Edit:
    CNN Host of that video i put up: "No one ever suspected that we had three simultaneous core meltdowns, 100 percent core damage and that sea water of all things stopped a tragedy from taking place. The media if anything, we now realize downplayed the real impact of the accident."
    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


  • #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ed2hands wrote: »
    With respect, just because there are reports in the media and TV doesn't refute my claim that the severity of it was downplayed just as it doesn't back up your claim that it was. It's subjective anyway isn't it? For the record i'm not claiming there was any sort of blackout on it, though some in the industry would have liked that no doubt.
    So what exactly leads you to believe that the situation is any worse than what's being reported?
    You haven't been showing anything at all to suggest there's any downplaying at all, let alone in the media as ordered by their shadowy masters.

    So since you don't believe that their is a blackout, you disagree with the exact claim made by the OP?
    ed2hands wrote: »
    The official line from Tokyo was completely different from reality and TEPCO were denying any meltdown for the first few weeks. It turned out it was people like Arnie Gunderson that were closer to the truth about this. So the officials were lying basically.
    Or you know if you weren't looking for a conspiracy it could be that the company spokespeople simply didn't have good information at the time?
    ed2hands wrote: »
    I take your point that the article shows no actual evidence that radiation caused the infant deaths, and would like to see the full figures for infant deaths going back a bit further in case the previous period that it was compared to was just unusually low.
    So why don't you actually go find them out before you start posting a rather suspect article? Why don't they explain that in the article in the first place?
    Why doesn't the article make the very important point that correlation doesn't imply causation.
    I mean if you didn't want to have a over-sensational headline these are very simple and honest things you should be putting in the article.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Am not well up on how the effects of all forms of radiation can actually be measured regarding deaths and cancer.
    So do you think that 33's claim of magic invisible radiation is a rational levelheaded claim that is justified and suuported?
    ed2hands wrote: »
    One mans scaremongering is another mans thorough investigation regarding possible causes...
    But the scaremongering you've been posting doesn't seem particularly thoroughly researched.


  • #56
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Edit:
    CNN Host of that video i put up: "No one ever suspected that we had three simultaneous core meltdowns, 100 percent core damage and that sea water of all things stopped a tragedy from taking place. The media if anything, we now realize downplayed the real impact of the accident."
    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

    So again you're using a mainstream media report on how bad the situation is to prove the point that the mainstream media is downplaying how bad the situation is.
    How does this make sense to you?

    Let's put it another way: If the mainstream media is being ordered to downplay the disaster by whoever, why was the report you linked allowed to go out?


  • #57
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    ed2hands wrote: »
    I take your point that the article shows no actual evidence that radiation caused the infant deaths, and would like to see the full figures for infant deaths going back a bit further in case the previous period that it was compared to was just unusually low.

    If you extend the period of time before fukishima to ten weeks (i.e. the same length of time as after) then it shows this increase well, wasn't.
    ten weeks before the total was 129 deaths, and as per the article, the ten weeks after comes to 125 deaths.
    A minor drop, actually.

    the numbers themselves can be found here, which is the weekly mortality report from the CDC.

    Also, i am not sure if a simple average is the best way to interpret this data, but that's an aside.


  • #58
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    King Mob wrote: »
    So again you're using a mainstream media report on how bad the situation is to prove the point that the mainstream media is downplaying how bad the situation is.
    How does this make sense to you?

    Let's put it another way: If the mainstream media is being ordered to downplay the disaster by whoever, why was the report you linked allowed to go out?


    Yea, well, as i said of course there are some media reports about it.
    You are sort of misrepresenting or misinterpreting what i'm trying to put across.

    I'm not claiming that the nuclear industry has last word on everything thats broadcast or that they can say whats allowed to go out and whats not.
    I'm not claiming that they have enough power or are that stupid that they think they could get away with trying to completely cover up what is going on there. My opinion King Mob is that it has been downplayed in the media in general in subtle ways and very possibly with pressure from the nuclear industry, not some sort of simplified evil conspiracy you're trying to ascribe to me.


  • #59
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Yea, well, as i said of course there are some media reports about it.
    You are sort of misrepresenting or misinterpreting what i'm trying to put across.

    I'm not claiming that the nuclear industry has last word on everything thats broadcast or that they can say whats allowed to go out and whats not.
    I'm not claiming that they have enough power or are that stupid that they think they could get away with trying to completely cover up what is going on there. My opinion King Mob is that it has been downplayed in the media in general in subtle ways and very possibly with pressure from the nuclear industry, not some sort of simplified evil conspiracy you're trying to ascribe to me.
    So what evidence do you have of this?
    What exactly leads you to this conclusion?

    Which media outlets are reporting the "truth" and which are not?
    How exactly are you telling the difference?

    So since you don't believe that there is a blackout, you disagree with the exact claim made by the OP?


  • #60
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    King Mob wrote: »
    So what evidence do you have of this?
    What exactly leads you to this conclusion?

    Which media outlets are reporting the "truth" and which are not?
    How exactly are you telling the difference?

    This is going in circles now. If you read back this thread i explained to you already exactly why i'm of the opinion it was downplayed in general.

    Asking for evidence is all well and good when you are safe in the knowledge that i won't be reasonably able to do this as it's a completely subjective matter is it not? Whether or not it deserved the banner headline on such-and-such a day? Pointless getting into that.
    It's the same as me asking you for evidence that it was reported adequately and with the correct amount of urgency (or lack of urgency) required. You can only give your opinion, not evidence as such.

    The only thing that is clear and not in dispute is that the authorities lied.
    King Mob wrote: »
    So since you don't believe that there is a blackout, you disagree with the exact claim made by the OP?

    No i don't agree there was a complete media blackout and have never stated i did. The OP was asking for opinions on this anyway, not making claims.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ed2hands wrote: »
    This is going in circles now. If you read back this thread i explained to you already exactly why i'm of the opinion it was downplayed in general.
    You haven't. You've only posted articles which show the mainstream media reporting on the disaster almost daily. You haven't shown anything other than your seemingly plucked out of the air opinion that the disaster is being downplayed.
    You've offered nothing at all to show that anyone involved in any part of the nuclear industry has pressured any media outlet to do anything.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Asking for evidence is all well and good when you are safe in the knowledge that i won't be reasonably able to do this as it's a completely subjective matter is it not? Whether or not it deserved the banner headline on such-and-such a day? Pointless getting into that.
    But I have asked you for something that can evidence your opinion:
    Show us examples of media sources that aren't downplaying the disaster and explain how you are telling the difference.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    It's the same as me asking you for evidence that it was reported adequately and with the correct amount urgency (or lack of urgency) required. You can only give your opinion, not evidence as such.
    Again: daily reports on the disaster, seems adequate to me.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    The only thing that is clear and not in dispute is that the authorities lied.
    And what is this based off exactly?
    ed2hands wrote: »
    No i don't agree there was a complete media blackout and have never stated i did. The OP was asking for opinions on this anyway, not making claims.
    Except the very first line of the thread says otherwise.
    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. Probably because of political pressure, because it looks like its really bad.

    So why do you think the OP made this claim when it wasn't true?


Advertisement