Nuclear fallout? / Media blackout?

Lefticus Loonaticus · 21-08-2011 01:05PM

But why would it harm the world economy? It would only wreak japanese exports, which is big ya, but not a cataclysm.

I think people should be aware that japanese products are potentially highly irradiated, whatever the economic cost.

Also, that RT report mentions that the media blackout is due to the nuclear industry pulling strings. RT is russian state basically, so if they are reporting such accusations this means that the power group behind the nuclear industry is a group that does not have any sway within Russia. Just an interesting observation.

jackiebaron · 24-08-2011 01:23PM

Dude111 wrote: »

Yes but thats BETTER than people unknowingly being affected by this wouldnt you say??

Well yes it would be better. But money men don't see it that way. They kill toddlers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc for oil profits. They're hardly going to have any qualms about peoples' health if it interfere's with the bottom line.

musings · 07-10-2011 03:17PM

Just read on the Guardian website that another work has died at the fukushima complex

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/07/fukushima-power-plant-worker-dies

This is the third worker to die on the complex since May. TEPCO deny that any of the deaths are related to Radiation.

Does anyone else think that there must either
a) a few lies are being told or
b) there is a serious problem at Fukushima's canteen

ed2hands · 07-10-2011 03:58PM

musings wrote: »

Just read on the Guardian website that another work has died at the fukushima complex

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/07/fukushima-power-plant-worker-dies

This is the third worker to die on the complex since May. TEPCO deny that any of the deaths are related to Radiation.

Does anyone else think that there must either
a) a few lies are being told or
b) there is a serious problem at Fukushima's canteen

Yes.

You might want to read this little-reported on fact too. :

http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/tepco-says-it-has-lost-contact-with-143-nuclear-plant-workers

Edit

Good Vid by Arnie Gunderson detailing how govt, industry and regulators are in bed together:
http://www.fairewinds.com/updates

hooradiation · 07-10-2011 05:30PM

musings wrote: »

Just read on the Guardian website that another work has died at the fukushima complex

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/07/fukushima-power-plant-worker-dies

This is the third worker to die on the complex since May. TEPCO deny that any of the deaths are related to Radiation.

Does anyone else think that there must either
a) a few lies are being told or
b) there is a serious problem at Fukushima's canteen

Reports said he had worked three hours a day and had been exposed to a total of 2.02 millisieverts [mSv] of radiation, well below the 100mSv per year level at which, experts say, the risk of cancer increases.

I'll go with secret option c]
People who work at nuclear power plants can die from things other than radiation poisoning.

ed2hands · 07-10-2011 05:57PM

Check out the headline of the Guardian article;
Fukushima: third worker death 'not related to radiation'

According to that article, the mans death is still being investigated, but of course nuclear officials have come out and said his death was
"unlikely to have been caused by exposure to radiation."

So the article says "unlikely", but the headline says "not related to radiation"

The people at the Guardian obviously know a lot more than TEPCO or else it's another case of misleading journalism relating to Fukushima. I know which one my money's on.

07-10-2011 06:15PM

ed2hands wrote: »

Check out the headline of the Guardian article;
Fukushima: third worker death 'not related to radiation'

According to that article, the mans death is still being investigated, but of course nuclear officials have come out and said his death was
"unlikely to have been caused by exposure to radiation."

So the article says "unlikely", but the headline says "not related to radiation"

The people at the Guardian obviously know a lot more than TEPCO or else it's another case of misleading journalism relating to Fukushima. I know which one my money's on.

Note the inverted commas in the headline, indicating it is paraphrasing TEPCO's statement.

So it's either e people at the Guardian obviously know a lot more than TEPCO or else it's another case of misleading journalism relating to Fukushima or someone is using a misunderstanding of something as evidence of a vast conspiracy.
I which my money's on.

ed2hands · 07-10-2011 06:27PM

King Mob wrote: »

Note the inverted commas in the headline, indicating it is paraphrasing TEPCO's statement.

So it's either e people at the Guardian obviously know a lot more than TEPCO or else it's another case of misleading journalism relating to Fukushima or someone is using a misunderstanding of something as evidence of a vast conspiracy.
I which my money's on.

So your money's on the strawman you've just constructed. Gotcha.

07-10-2011 06:39PM

ed2hands wrote: »

So your money's on the strawman you've just constructed. Gotcha.

It's not a strawman, you are using the idea that the Guardian having a headline that seems more definite than what the company said implies that they are involved in a cover up.

However that is clearly nonsense as the headline has inverted commas showing that it is simply paraphrasing what the statement says in a concise way.

So why exactly do you think the statement you're basing your opinion on is in inverted commas?

ed2hands · 07-10-2011 06:52PM

Nope. I've not used the words vast conspiracy or cover-up so it is a strawman.
All i was pointing to and stated is that it's a misleading banner headline, which it is. The cause of death has not even been established, but of course TEPCO have released their statement hastily, and the Guardian has regurgitated with bells on.
Why didn't the headline just read "Fukushima worker death being investigated"? Would have been more accurate if you ask me.
It's shoddy journalism and misleading. That was my point.

07-10-2011 07:02PM

ed2hands wrote: »

Nope. I've not used the words vast conspiracy or cover-up so it is a strawman.

So then you don't think that the guardian is misreporting this on purpose?

ed2hands wrote: »

All i was pointing to and stated is that it's a misleading banner headline, which it is. The cause of death has not even been established, but of course TEPCO have released their statement hastily, and the Guardian has regurgitated with bells on.
Why didn't the headline just read "Fukushima worker death being investigated"? Would have been more accurate if you ask me.
It's shoddy journalism and misleading. That was my point.

But why is it misleading?
What did you think the inverted commas were there for?

ed2hands · 07-10-2011 07:33PM

King Mob wrote: »

So then you don't think that the guardian is misreporting this on purpose?

I don't know. It's a possibility of course but wasn't my point. All i'm saying is that i think it's a misleading banner and pre-mature speculation. Just don't think they should be swallowing TEPCO statements and exagerrating them for the banner. TEPCO themselves have not said "not related to radiation"
Hope that answers the other question too.

07-10-2011 07:45PM

ed2hands wrote: »

I don't know. It's a possibility of course but wasn't my point. All i'm saying is that i think it's a misleading banner and pre-mature speculation. Just don't think they should be swallowing TEPCO statements and exagerrating them for the banner. TEPCO themselves have not said "not related to radiation"
Hope that answers the other question too.

But how are they swallowing what TEPCO are saying?
By clearly stating what were the statements they made?

How are they exaggerating or misleading or engaging in pre-mature speculation?

Should they not have reported what TEPCO was saying?

What other possibilities are there to explain why the headline had inverted commas other than the one I gave?

Also note how you're shifting the goalposts. You started off by claiming that the Guardian was reporting that something was definite while TEPCO was only it was unlikely.
Now you're saying that they are swallowing what TEPCO is telling them.

Also your point is still very nebulous and non-committal.
Do you think that the Guardian's "misreporting" was just incompetence or on purpose?

musings · 07-10-2011 07:52PM

ed2hands wrote: »

Yes.

You might want to read this little-reported on fact too. :

http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/tepco-says-it-has-lost-contact-with-143-nuclear-plant-workers

Edit

Good Vid by Arnie Gunderson detailing how govt, industry and regulators are in bed together:
http://www.fairewinds.com/updates

There are an awful lot of little reported facts about this disaster it seems.
I think this disaster shows that the western world is every bit as good as the Soviets were for releasing misinformation when its in its interest to do so.

In a way I can see why they are doing it (i.e to avoid panic on a small island with 120 million people). But I would hope that they would learn lessons from this whole disaster for the future safety of the world, rather than the usual nuclear is safe and radiation is harmless nonsense we keep being told.

ed2hands · 07-10-2011 08:08PM

King Mob wrote: »

But how are they swallowing what TEPCO are saying?
By clearly stating what were the statements they made?

By using it in the banner as a positive statement.

King Mob wrote: »

How are they exaggerating or misleading or engaging in pre-mature speculation?

TEPCO are engaging in pre-mature speculation and the Guardian exagerrated it in the banner. All in my opinion of course.

King Mob wrote: »

Should they not have reported what TEPCO was saying?

Of course they should.

King Mob wrote: »

Also note how you're shifting the goalposts. You started off by claiming that the Guardian was reporting that something was definite while TEPCO was only it was unlikely.
Now you're saying that they are swallowing what TEPCO is telling them.

If shifting the goalposts means giving you an expanded view of my personal opinions on this, then yes that's what i'm doing. If it means i'm trying to avoid something or go back on something i've said up above, then no i'm not.

King Mob wrote: »

Also your point is still very nebulous and non-committal.
Do you think that the Guardian's "misreporting" was just incompetence or on purpose?

I already told you when you asked the first time. I know not.

I do think they should be a little more wary of TEPCO statements instead of splashing their response on the headline before the cause of death has even been established. It's not irrational to doubt TEPCO statements.

07-10-2011 08:23PM

ed2hands wrote: »

By using it in the banner as a positive statement.

TEPCO are engaging in pre-mature speculation and the Guardian exagerrated it in the banner. All in my opinion of course.

Of course they should.

But they don't use it in the banner as a positive statement.
The inverted commas show it's a paraphrasing of a statement.

Why else are the inverted comma's there?

ed2hands wrote: »

If shifting the goalposts means giving you an expanded view of my personal opinions on this, then yes that's what i'm doing. If it means i'm trying to avoid something or go back on something i've said up above, then no i'm not.

No you started claiming that the Guardian was saying different things to TEPCO, but are not saying that they said the same thing.
These are conflicting positions that you cannot logically hold at the same time.

ed2hands wrote: »

I already told you when you asked the first time. I know not.

Fair enough then.

ed2hands wrote: »

I do think they should be a little more wary of TEPCO statements instead of splashing their response on the headline before the cause of death has even been established. It's not irrational to doubt TEPCO statements.

And again, it's clear from the context and punctuation that they were paraphrasing a statement in the headline.
At no point do they actually ascribe any validity (or other judgements) to TEPCO's statements, they simply report the facts that TEPCO said these things.
So how should they have been more "wary"?

ed2hands · 07-10-2011 08:58PM

Yes i understand what your point was about inverted commas and paraphrasing.
The Guardian have taken TEPCO's statement that they think cause of death from radiation is unlikely, and paraphrased it in the banner to read "death not related to radiation"
My view on it was that this is misleading. Nothing more.

King Mob wrote: »

No you started claiming that the Guardian was saying different things to TEPCO, but are not saying that they said the same thing.
These are conflicting positions that you cannot logically hold at the same time.

I'm trying to explain myself logically and clearly. To the casual or rushed reader, ie someone who would only have read the headline, it would be taken from it that the man did not die from radiation.

King Mob wrote: »

So how should they have been more "wary"?

IMO by maybe going with what a lot of other outlets went with as a headline, which was more or less "Fukushima- Nuclear plant worker dies".
Anyway that's my two-bob take on it.

07-10-2011 09:08PM

ed2hands wrote: »

Yes i understand what your point was about inverted commas and paraphrasing.
The Guardian have taken TEPCO's statement that they think cause of death from radiation is unlikely, and paraphrased it in the banner to read "death not related to radiation"
My view on it was that this is misleading. Nothing more.

But now you're being misleading.
The headline does not say: "death not related to radiation"
It says: "...Death 'not related to radiation '".

You're leaving out the inverted commas and are there distorting what they are saying.

So they are not saying that radiation is not the cause of death but are saying that's the statement made by the company.

One would have thought this was clear...

ed2hands wrote: »

I'm trying to explain myself logically and clearly. To the casual or rushed reader, ie someone who would only have read the headline, it would be taken from it that the man did not die from radiation.

Oh, so they're only targeting people who don't read the full article?

If people are just deciding what's fact from the headlines alone (or like you, misread headlines), that's really their own problem.

ed2hands wrote: »

IMO by maybe going with what a lot of other outlets went with as a headline, which was more or less "Fukushima- Nuclear plant worker dies".
Anyway that's my two-bob take on it.

But they do say that as well, they are also indicating that they have more information than simply someone died, specifically a statement from someone.
Just like how they report every other news story.

The only difference is that people are looking for proof of a conspiracy on this one.

ed2hands · 07-10-2011 09:24PM

I'm not being misleading. My points are clear as day. No point in trying to make them any clearer for you.

07-10-2011 09:28PM

ed2hands wrote: »

I'm not being misleading. My points are clear as day. No point in trying to make them any clearer for you.

And all of your points (even the ones you backtracked to) all fall apart because of the inverted commas you keep leaving out.

You've shown nothing at all to support your claims of shoddy journalism, instead showing just why you'd make a bad journalist: don't quite get the basic practices of journalism and are unabashedly biased.

ed2hands · 07-10-2011 09:52PM

King Mob wrote: »

And all of your points (even the ones you backtracked to) all fall apart because of the inverted commas you keep leaving out.

You've shown nothing at all to support your claims of shoddy journalism, instead showing just why you'd make a bad journalist: don't quite get the basic practices of journalism and are unabashedly biased.

Thankyou.

shedweller · 08-10-2011 12:21AM

I think it's safe to say that anything really dangerous will be kept quiet. we will be kept busy with x-factor or what have you. Any discussion i see here re important **** is silenced quickly. Lets talk about ufo's instead. Yes, much more important. facepalm

Voodoo_rasher · 02-11-2011 09:53PM

"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."

No doubt the full extent of this man-made calamity is being hushed up.

Should be harder to do from December onwards - 9 months on and probably reports of deformed births..

Have a look at rense.com and see all the article, video links devoted

to Japan if you scroll down past the lurid adverts, thanks.

http://enenews.com/high-concentrations-cesium-137-hit-canada
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2011/10/29/ocean-absorbed-79-percent-of-fukushima-fallout/
http://australiancannonball.com/2011/10/30/japanese-government-still-refusing-to-evacuate-fukushima-children/

http://fukushima-diary.com/2011/10/what-must-be-done-for-melt-out/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FukushimaDiary+%28Fukushima+Diary%29 - hydrovolcanic explosion wtf?

pacquiao · 03-11-2011 01:37AM

New Explosion At Reactor #2 Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9Vw1tEx9Tw

Dude111 · 05-11-2011 11:48PM

shedweller wrote:

I think it's safe to say that anything really dangerous will be kept quiet.

Yes thats the scariest part of this!!!

gbee · 06-11-2011 10:37AM

If they are claiming to have found another element, this reactor had never stopped and we did have effectively a nuclear explosion at Di-1/2 ~ something we believed could not happen.

Now we are truly facing a Chernobyl like explosion as the still running reaction has gone up another phase.

Dude111 · 07-11-2011 02:39AM

No the matter IS QUITE SERIOUS!!!!!!

psychward · 07-11-2011 02:45AM

Dude111 wrote: »

Yes thats the scariest part of this!!!

What can we do about it even if we know anything ?

musings · 29-11-2011 10:02PM

The head of Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant which suffered the world’s worst atomic accident in 25 years earlier this year has been admitted to hospital, it emerged today.
Masao Yoshida, 56, who was in charge when a massive earthquake and tsunami struck on March 11, will be replaced in his post as director from Thursday, plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) confirmed.
An official declined to give details of Mr Yoshida’s illness, but told a news conference there was no indication it was caused by radiation exposure.
Mr Yoshida has been on the site for more than eight months since the disasters knocked out crucial cooling systems, causing reactor meltdowns.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2067166/Fukushima-nuclear-plant-boss-Masao-Yoshida-hospital-NOT-radiation.html#ixzz1f88NCTVW

Isn't it amazing that all these guys dropping dead and falling seriously ill at this site has nothing to do with radiation?

Voodoo_rasher · 07-12-2011 03:03PM

Suppose its hard for him to live a lie. To follow the demands of Tepco in

keeping that threat to humanity running.

Any reports from their maternity hospitals about numbers of congenital

defects spiking owing to exposure to abnormal levels of radiation? that will be

a difficult story to hush up..Its all of nine months since so this outcome must be due.

Nuclear fallout? / Media blackout?

Comments