FUKUSHIMA earthquake and tsunami thread and aftermath

[shipbuilder]

The tone IS the same as any other MSM report - completely agree. Let's not frighten the public.

Let's not even give them the information so that they can decide for themselves if it's safe to eat tuna or swim in the Pacific.

It isn't just me..

Here's a more scientific approach (I actually got the image I posted from a google image search for "tuna fukushima", so I don't know where it came from:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/nuclear-cheerleaders-use-voodoo-science-to-pretend-low-levels-of-radiation-are-safe-or-even-good-for-you.html

Here it is about as official as it gets:

http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/10/6377/2013/bgd-10-6377-2013.pdf

http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf

and some background largely unreported:

http://fukushimaupdate.com/fukushima-subcontractor-fires-employees-for-whistle-blowing/

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=28599

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23307-us-soldiers-sue-over-fukushima-radiation-exposure.html

So please don't try to tell me the BBC are doing a good impartial job.

Perhaps you may have made a better case for yourself by referring to these sources in the first place, rather than attacking another poster and the BBC?

On the other hand -

The second link claims that dangers of low levels of radiation are understated.

The third link claims that levels of radiation are much higher than normal.

The fourth link claims that high levels of radiation were released and have caused health issues.

The fifth link reports that soldiers are claiming health effects, although the author links to sources that claim low levels of radiation and quotes a scientist who says that health effects would take longer to develop.

So not exactly a consistent picture. I would say that the BBC largely takes the New Scientist line.

All you have shown here is that the media in general do not report stories in huge detail, tend to use 'official' data to report and that further research into any topic will reveal other points of view.

Not really very surprising?

[snowflux]

No, it's uncertainty that's dangerous.

At the moment, I have no way of knowing exactly the level of risk involved with the use of nuclear power[1]. Without that knowledge, I'm firmly in the "thanks, but no thanks" camp.

[1] By that, I mean that official declarations on the radiation levels after an accident seem to be always laughably underestimated (cf. Chernobyl, Fukushima). Which means I cannot trust the official scientists any more. And the only other people measuring the radiation levels are the tree huggers, which means that I have no trustworthy data at all...

Now apply the same logic to every other form of energy generation, and you'll be sitting in the dark.

[Bloo Loo]

Now apply the same logic to every other form of energy generation, and you'll be sitting in the dark.

we have been burning carbons for thousands of years.

We stop burning it when smoke gets in our eyes..

and for this reason, we use smokeless fuels in the UK, particulates filters in cars and add gas filters to power plants.

One cant see radiation, most people cant detect it, and we rely on our lying Governments to protect us...do you see a difference? Bear in mind scumbag Company managers have been known to dump known toxic waste into rivers, into lakes and aquafers, allowed run off from their fields, all without one iota of giving a frack for the people they damage...and you would like me to trust the Nuclear Lobby, or the Tax the Carbon lobby?...( meanwhile allowing Chinese power generation to remain filthy dirty and fail to penalise them with import taxes).

Edited July 12, 2013 by Bloo Loo

[snowflux]

you are suggesting I have an extreme view. Thats why you cant understand it....because its not true.

I wrote that you were expressing extreme concern (about the use of nuclear power). Are you not extremely concerned about the use of nuclear power?

If it's any consolation, I also used to oppose nuclear power and am still not exactly enamoured wiht it. However, in the face of new evidence and thinking, I've come to accept its use as a lesser evil.

[snowflux]

we have been burning carbons for thousands of years.

We stop burning it when smoke gets in our eyes..

and for this reason, we use smokeless fuels in the UK, particulates filters in cars and add gas filters to power plants.

One cant see radiation, most people cant detect it, and we rely on our lying Governments to protect us...do you see a difference? Bear in mind scumbag Company managers have been known to dump known toxic waste into rivers, into lakes and aquafers, allowed run off from their fields, all without one iota of giving a frack for the people they damage...and you would like me to trust the Nuclear Lobby, or the Tax the Carbon lobby?...( meanwhile allowing Chinese power generation to remain filthy dirty and fail to penalise them with import taxes).

You can't see increasing levels of CO2, either, but for some reason assume that it doesn't matter. Double standards again on your part.

[Bloo Loo]

You can't see increasing levels of CO2, either, but for some reason assume that it doesn't matter. Double standards again on your part.

I dont need to...i see taxes where they say CO2 is rising...

I am told its heating up, I am told its cooling, I am told its the contrails, I am told its CO2 is a cooling mechanism. There is no conclusion, there is thesis.

Now where is that virtually free energy from nuclear....of course it never existed, because the cost of containment and disposal is never factored in....in fact, they had so much waste, they leave it in tanks of ever cooling water.

[fluffy666]

Of course, energy, by its nature is dangerous...people die in cars, electrocutions and other things every day. You cant produce energy without side effects...its just impossible.

But, Nuclear remains in the environment for way beyond 50 generations....and Fukushima is going to be pumping this poison out for ever as far as I and my family are concerned.

The CO2 emissions will not be 'scrubbed' totally for about 100,000 years.

The Cesium and Strontium isotopes have a half-life of about 30 years; the actinides (U, Pu etc) don't actually move much - they will kill you if you eat them, but that applies to a lot of things.

But let's put it like this.

You have no option but to play Russian Roulette. The only option you have is how many chambers are loaded.

[Bloo Loo]

The CO2 emissions will not be 'scrubbed' totally for about 100,000 years.

The Cesium and Strontium isotopes have a half-life of about 30 years; the actinides (U, Pu etc) don't actually move much - they will kill you if you eat them, but that applies to a lot of things.

But let's put it like this.

You have no option but to play Russian Roulette. The only option you have is how many chambers are loaded.

all I know, is that the more CO2, the more plants thrive.

My personal belief is that CO2 is (so im told) rising due to the burning down of rainforests so plants are not there to consume it. whether it heats or warms the Earth, I dont think we can do much while Globalist *****sters are making money in China.

[Onion Boy]

I find this comment to be one of the scariest I have ever seen here.

Do you get spoonfed all your news from the BBC or something?

The real news media have been screaming about this and all the other leaks since it happened.

Did you know the leader of the explosion response team af Fukushima died of cancer a few days ago?

You know, your friendly BBC aren't going to talk about this (and you actually pay for that cr*p!).

BTW, don't eat the tuna, they concentrate heavy metals like mercury anyway - but that must also apply to Caesium-137 (half-life 30.7 years) , Strontium-90 (half life 28.8 years) etc.

What's happened in fuku

No. But when msm admit to something such as this, it either means the truth is opposite or is on the same pole but far, far worse. Seems it might be the latter in this case, unless it's a conspiracy to drive up seafood prices and/or force trade embargos on certain states.

You came across a tad abusive there, bit rude really.

I only woke up a few weeks ago to "the way" believe it or not. Wish I hadn't. There are still things I've yet to consider in light of my born again status - radiation cover ups is one of those particularly pertinent. I have family living close to decommissioned nuclear submarines.

[Mr Jib Fingers]

Next stupid question.

Won't the radiation in the pacific ocean be incredibly diluted? It's the largest ocean on earth and gets miles deep in the middle.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

I only woke up a few weeks ago to "the way" believe it or not. Wish I hadn't. There are still things I've yet to consider in light of my born again status - radiation cover ups is one of those particularly pertinent. I have family living close to decommissioned nuclear submarines.

If I understand your comment correctly, you and a fair few other people I would warrant - the financial shenanigans going on around the world, the NSA thing, the interventions in the Middle East and Asia, all sorts, often in broad daylight, take your pick. We really are in sore need of something to take our mind off things.

For all things Fukushima, this news aggregate site, maintained by a couple of independent conspiranauts, features stories that sometimes don't travel beyond Far Eastern media...

Fukushima Update

[The Masked Tulip]

no need to dig - there's a standard technique for lowering the permeability of a rock mass that comprises injecting a cementiceous grout at high pressure from a series of drill holes in a closly spaced pattern. This is used in the constructions of dams to prevent excessive leakage off the water beneath the dams foundation. I'd be surprised if the plant didn't have one in the first place, but it may not have been been extensive enough to stop the volume of contaminated water now present.

I suppose the radioactivity is the problem now in doing anything like this - getting the kit in place would be difficult, let alone actually doing the work?

I read that the plant's manager - who led the attempt to save the plant - died this week from cancer of the throat. He was just 57. Brave man.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

Next stupid question.

Won't the radiation in the pacific ocean be incredibly diluted? It's the largest ocean on earth and gets miles deep in the middle.

That'd depend on what mechanism you'd expect to mix all that waste up evenly across the Pacific. And how long you'd expect it'd take to do the job.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Nuggets Mahoney

[@contradevian]

Next stupid question.

Won't the radiation in the pacific ocean be incredibly diluted? It's the largest ocean on earth and gets miles deep in the middle.

This is the main risk as I see it:

[Mr Jib Fingers]

That'd depend on what mechanism you'd expect to mix all that waste up evenly across the Pacific. And how long you'd expect it to do the job.

Well I wouldn't expect it to get mixed up evenly, just it to get mixed up a bit with the tides and waves etc. and because it is so large even a small amount of dilution would massively reduce the radiation in each part.

It can't all clump together when crossing the entire Pacific Ocean to the US can it?

[Mr Jib Fingers]

This is the main risk as I see it:

Ah ok now I'm starting to see the dangers thanks.

Absolutely terrifying.

[longtomsilver]

Next stupid question.

Won't the radiation in the pacific ocean be incredibly diluted? It's the largest ocean on earth and gets miles deep in the middle.

My old science teacher used to say the secret to pollution is dilution which is true to an extent. However where bio magnification comes into play if it's in there it'll get sent up the food chain in ever significant quantities.

Don't eat tuna, not even if it's from the moon.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

Well I wouldn't expect it to get mixed up evenly, just it to get mixed up a bit with the tides and waves etc. and because it is so large even a small amount of dilution would massively reduce the radiation in each part.

It can't all clump together when crossing the entire Pacific Ocean to the US can it?

I wouldn't bet on that

edit: another factor, on top of ocean currents, is that living things can concentrate nasties the further they are up the food chain; small fish eat the filter feeders, bigger fish eat the smaller fish, we eat the bigger fish...

Edited July 12, 2013 by Nuggets Mahoney

[DeepLurker]

Now apply the same logic to every other form of energy generation, and you'll be sitting in the dark.

Not really. One counter-example: the downsides of hydro power have been known pretty much from the word go [1]. There will be slow changes over time as we gain new knowledge e.g. when the economic impact of the loss of migrating fish is better understood, and the next generation of dams are modified accordingly.

Contrast this with events in the nuclear industry, where knowledge of the positive/negative impacts seems to judder from day to day. One day it's all dandy, the next we are told that the release of radioactive material is actually an order of magnitude higher than previously thought.

Basically, when I'm given numbers about a proposed dam, I can more or less trust them. Not so with nuclear power.

[1] risk of rupture, displaces population, loss of farmland, etc...

[The Masked Tulip]

This is the main risk as I see it:

Nah, this is.

[The Masked Tulip]

Or this:

[@contradevian]

Comparing nuclear cwith other forms of energy is basically like comparing car deaths with aeroplane deaths.

With the former there are a lot more of them but you hear little about them. The latter tend to be catastrophic.

I refuse to get worked up about Fukushima and radiation leaking out into the environment.

We are just going to have to live (or die) with higher and higher amounts of radiation.

There are risks to modern life, and there is a lot higher probability of other things getting you first.

The only alternative would be to go back to being hunter gatherers, foraging in the woods.

Laughable really. getting upset about radiation leaking into the Pacific, then jump into a car and pump out a load of particulates into the atmosphere from the exhaust pipe.

[alexw]

risk calculations are of course a nonsense...we only need to look at banks to see what happens when you pile risk upon risk upon risk.

1 10,000 year event piled on another and another becomes very quickly a 10 year event.

Based upon insurance premiums the industry would have to pay for full indemnity, the risk of catastrophic nuclear accidents is on average 1 occurring every 40 or 50 years.

Of course this was using costing data from before fukushima, so I'd expect that the insurance industry now expects catastrophic accidents to occur significantly more often than that.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

I refuse to get worked up about Fukushima and radiation leaking out into the environment.

We are just going to have to live (or die) with higher and higher amounts of radiation.

There are risks to modern life, and there is a lot higher probability of other things getting you first.

The only alternative would be to go back to being hunter gatherers, foraging in the woods.

Laughable really. getting upset about radiation leaking into the Pacific, then jump into a car and pump out a load of particulates into the atmosphere from the exhaust pipe.

I'd be a lot more worked up if I lived on the West Coast of America.

Yes, we are going to have to live with higher levels of radiation. wrt to the plants already in place, it's a done deal.

I'm not sure that we should be resigned, if that's your implication, to continued escalation in perpetuity though.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Nuggets Mahoney

[Scunnered]

I believe there are concentration of plastic bags in some parts. And if so for plastic bags....

I think it might well be completely different. A plastic bag (or part of one) is absolutely huge compared to individual radioactive atoms. The transport mechanisms in the oceans may not be the same for both. Don't know for sure though...