Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

andrew

Coles wrote: »

There's no argument, only information.

If you want to keep score on the cancer deaths, fair enough, but it's going to be a very long game.

Incidently, is the disaster worse than you initially thought? Is there any threshold where you start accepting that what has occurred is actually harmful to human health? Does it even warrant reporting in your opinion?

Yeah, it's definitely worse than it appeared it'd be toward the beginning of this thread; at first, it wasn't anticipated that any radiation would be released. And I don't deny that it's been harmful to human health on a statistical, stochastic level. I just think that some posters, are a) exaggerating the health effects, and b) constantly posting (too much)* about the health effects. By the tone of some posts (and the overuse of the emoticon) you'd swear millions of people are going to drop dead because of this. And there's more to this than just the fact that people will probably die, but all we see are what potential impact the latest tiny amount of radiation detected will have.

*Obviously, people can post what they want, it's their prerogative. It's just what I think.

Coles

And on a lighter note...
Justin Bieber's Crew Mutinies Over Japan Trip

Justin Bieber's crew is staging a mutiny over the prospect of the heartthrob's tour going to Japan. The tour is currently in Australia, where some crew members told manager Scooter Braun that they wouldn't go to Osaka and Tokyo on May 17 for fear of radiation from the recent nuclear disaster at Fukushima Daiichi. Braun told the crew, "Man the f*ck up and do the right thing by these kids."

Coles

And meanwhile, the crisis continues.

Hardly any water in Reactor No. 1 after flooding effort - Enenews

“Containment vessel is likely to be broken and leaking”

And tea from a Prefecture south of Tokyo has Cesium levels in excess of the permissible levels. Link. Expect Japan to increase the limits.

Excellent concert is aid of the Red Cross in Japan was held in the Button Factory during the week.

The Japanese are to use giant tents to try and contain radiation over power plant. That seems very bizarre. But I suppose they have their reasons.

heres the link.

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/news/japan-nuclear-reactors-giant-tents-dpgonc-20110513-fc_13185892

shedweller

Jake1 wrote: »

The Japanese are to use giant tents to try and contain radiation over power plant. That seems very bizarre. But I suppose they have their reasons.

heres the link.

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/news/japan-nuclear-reactors-giant-tents-dpgonc-20110513-fc_13185892

Thats one way to keep down the spread of radioactive material. But only the airborne stuff, how are they going to deal with the radioactive material leaking into groundwater?:(

Anyway, how is the clean up going on elsewhere, outside the exclusion zone?

Overheal

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Sorry, I'm a neutral. Does the fact that the pro-nuclear self-satisfied people have stopped posting, mean anything?

Is everything locked down? I may be becoming paranoid, but I worry when only the anti-nuclear people are posting.

Is there an update? Well, it's not in the news so everything must be grand.

Honestly people, from both sides, is there an update?

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

andrew

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.

Did they lie, or just not know? Can't find the source now, but I read that they recalibrated a water meter recently, only to find that the water level was lower then expected, meaning all of the rods were exposed.

Coles

andrew wrote: »

Did they lie, or just not know? Can't find the source now, but I read that they recalibrated a water meter recently, only to find that the water level was lower then expected, meaning all of the rods were exposed.

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


Watch the Fairewinds presentations.

YouTube - Fukushima - One Step Forward and Four Steps Back as Each Unit Challenged by New Problems

My name is URL

andrew wrote: »

Did they lie, or just not know? Can't find the source now, but I read that they recalibrated a water meter recently, only to find that the water level was lower then expected, meaning all of the rods were exposed.

I hope they were lying withholding the full truth.. not knowing would be hella worse given their level of expertise and the grave situation that they were dealing with.

Coles

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.

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? Or if they misled the public about their plutonium monitoring? You're probably not aware of that, are you?

Impact globally? I still doubt it. Waters around Japan are probably not very friendly though.

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?

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.

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.

Helix

Coles wrote: »

Maybe, particularly when you don't include the estimated 985,000 deaths from the Chernobyl incident,

the higest figures ive EVER seen from any sort of reliable source were 500,000 and even then they admitted that a lot of it was pie in the sky

andrew

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?


Watch the Fairewinds presentations.

YouTube - Fukushima - One Step Forward and Four Steps Back as Each Unit Challenged by New Problems

Well no, perhaps they thought it was leaking at such a rate that the vessel was remaining half full.

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? Or if they misled the public about their plutonium monitoring? You're probably not aware of that, are you?

Maybe they have lied. Or maybe they don't know. Or maybe they don't want to say anything unless they're sure. Yer man Arnie can say maybe there was a criticality, it's easy for him. He's allowed to speculate. But TEPCO can't say it was a criticality unless they're 100% certain it was one.

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?

As I'm sure you know, an element's half life isn't indicative of it's danger necessarily. And you're still speculating hugely. Maybe fish will become massively contaminated and a threat to human health. Or maybe they won't.

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

I didn't say there was 'no problem.' Just that it's not as serious as has been made out to be, given nobody has died. Certainly, the disaster hasn't been as damaging as other sources of fuel, like coal (disputed Chernobyl statistics notwithstanding). Yeah nuclear can be dangerous, but i'd still rank it on the 'safe' end of the scale; certainly no worse than coal. You're completely misrepresenting pro nuke people when you claim anyone has said that Nuclear is 'perfectly' safe. Acceptably safe maybe, but nothing's perfectly safe.

I'd mark your words, but there's no point. It'll be decades before there'll be enough data to figure out whether there's been a statistically significant increase in anything.

Coles

andrew wrote: »

Well no, perhaps they thought it was leaking at such a rate that the vessel was remaining half full.

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

Maybe they have lied. Or maybe they don't know. Or maybe they don't want to say anything unless they're sure. Yer man Arnie can say maybe there was a criticality, it's easy for him. He's allowed to speculate. But TEPCO can't say it was a criticality unless they're 100% certain it was one.

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. Of course it's not too late, but...

As I'm sure you know, an element's half life isn't indicative of it's danger necessarily. And you're still speculating hugely. Maybe fish will become massively contaminated and a threat to human health. Or maybe they won't.

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.

I'd mark your words, but there's no point. It'll be decades before there'll be enough data to figure out whether there's been a statistically significant increase in anything.

Why do you think that? Still think there has just been a 'tiny release of radiation'?

Overheal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overheal wrote: »

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

No it's not.

gbee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.