Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

FUKUSHIMA earthquake and tsunami thread and aftermath


  • Please log in to reply
6619 replies to this topic

#6376 Bloo Loo

Bloo Loo

    Ripened on the Diversity Vine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,334 posts
  • Location:Essex-the land of Equality
  • About Me:Im Bloo yabba dee yabba die.

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:11 PM

Just because you don't understand the reasoning behind a prediction does not make it a guess. I don't understand why you would dismiss the hazards of one form of energy generation out of hand, while expressing extreme concern about the hazards of another, even though both are subject to uncertainties.


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

Your
country is at risk
if you
do not keep up repayments
on a gilt or other loan secured on it





#6377 shipbuilder

shipbuilder

    HPC Senior Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,371 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:15 PM

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..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NHtbi1Q4aZ8#at=174

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.washingto...od-for-you.html


Here it is about as official as it gets:
http://www.biogeosci...0-6377-2013.pdf


http://www.radiation...ubs/HS42_1F.pdf




and some background largely unreported:
http://fukushimaupda...histle-blowing/


http://www.scirp.org...x?PaperID=28599


http://www.newscient...n-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?

#6378 snowflux

snowflux

    HPC Senior Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,139 posts
  • Location:Mercia

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:16 PM

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.

#6379 Bloo Loo

Bloo Loo

    Ripened on the Diversity Vine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,334 posts
  • Location:Essex-the land of Equality
  • About Me:Im Bloo yabba dee yabba die.

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:22 PM

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 by Bloo Loo, 12 July 2013 - 01:23 PM.

WARNING

Your
country is at risk
if you
do not keep up repayments
on a gilt or other loan secured on it





#6380 snowflux

snowflux

    HPC Senior Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,139 posts
  • Location:Mercia

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:22 PM

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.

#6381 snowflux

snowflux

    HPC Senior Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,139 posts
  • Location:Mercia

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:29 PM

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.

#6382 Bloo Loo

Bloo Loo

    Ripened on the Diversity Vine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,334 posts
  • Location:Essex-the land of Equality
  • About Me:Im Bloo yabba dee yabba die.

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:35 PM

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.
WARNING

Your
country is at risk
if you
do not keep up repayments
on a gilt or other loan secured on it





#6383 fluffy666

fluffy666

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,187 posts
  • Location:Bath-ish

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:57 PM

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.

#6384 Bloo Loo

Bloo Loo

    Ripened on the Diversity Vine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,334 posts
  • Location:Essex-the land of Equality
  • About Me:Im Bloo yabba dee yabba die.

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:19 PM

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.
WARNING

Your
country is at risk
if you
do not keep up repayments
on a gilt or other loan secured on it





#6385 Onion Boy

Onion Boy

    HPC Poster

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 03:32 PM

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.
Posted Image



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.

#6386 Mr Jib Fingers

Mr Jib Fingers

    HPC Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 718 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 03:52 PM

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.

#6387 Nuggets Mahoney

Nuggets Mahoney

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,057 posts
  • About Me:Doesn't believe anything.
    Has many suspicions.

Posted 12 July 2013 - 03:53 PM

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
edit: typo

"The problem with quotes on the internet is that many are not genuine." - Abraham Lincoln


#6388 The Masked Tulip

The Masked Tulip

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,375 posts
  • Location:Swansea, West Wales

Posted 12 July 2013 - 03:55 PM

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.
The success or failure of your deeds does not add up to the sum of your life. Your spirit cannot be weighed. Judge yourself by the intention of your actions and by the strength you faced the challenges that have stood in your way.

The people closest to you have been trying to tell you that you have made a difference. That you did change things for the better. The Universe is vast and we are so small. There is really only one thing that we can ever truly control - whether we are good or evil.


The political triumph of the American Right has been to advance relentlessly the economic interests of the country's richest people, while emphasising a swath of moral, social and foreign policy issues that motivate and certainly distract middle-class and poor voters.

#6389 Nuggets Mahoney

Nuggets Mahoney

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,057 posts
  • About Me:Doesn't believe anything.
    Has many suspicions.

Posted 12 July 2013 - 03:56 PM

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 by Nuggets Mahoney, 12 July 2013 - 04:00 PM.

edit: typo

"The problem with quotes on the internet is that many are not genuine." - Abraham Lincoln


#6390 aSecureTenant

aSecureTenant

    Formerly Socially Housed and 'Steed'

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,938 posts
  • Location:Yorkshire
  • About Me:Vote LABOURTORY. You have no choice!

Posted 12 July 2013 - 03:59 PM

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:

Posted Image

"Capitalism has defeated communism. It is now well on its way to defeating democracy" ~ David Korten

“To think output and income can be raised by increasing the quantity of money, is like trying to get fat by buying a larger belt” ~ John Maynard Keynes 

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users