Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Rafterman

Setting the record straight on Fukushima

51 posts in this topic

OK all you Fuku-pocalypse types, have at it. Brian Dunning does a comparison of three major nuclear accidents and lets you know what, if anything, you need to worry about with regards to Fukushima (not much as it turns out). Podcast and transcript at the link:

http://skeptoid.com/episode.php?id=4397&comments=all#discuss

Fukushima vs Chernobyl vs Three Mile Island

Years after the disaster, some claim that Fukushima radiation is still going to cause widespread death.

Conclusion:

This is the central thesis of science reporters who have been desperately trying to respond to scientifically illiterate fearmongerers printing headlines like "Your Days of Eating Pacific Ocean Fish Are Over" and "28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima". Our planet's entropy has, long ago, already rid itself of any credible threat from the Fukushima radiation, outside of the immediate evacuation zone. Fishing has long been suspended from Daiichi's vicinity, so there is no way that eating a legally caught fish can give you any significant Fukushima radiation.

The Fukushima disaster will probably end up being the most expensive industrial accident and cleanup in history, but it has certainly not been among the most dangerous, thanks largely to Japan's prompt action. The newest World Health Organization assessment concludes:

...No discernible increase in health risks from the Fukushima event is expected outside Japan. With respect to Japan, this assessment estimates that the lifetime risk for some cancers may be somewhat elevated above baseline rates in certain age and sex groups that were in the areas most affected.

Clearly it wasn't good, but if you want to be able to develop proper response plans, you have to understand the correct facts about the situation. Absurdly exaggerated and sensationalized reports do not help anyone; rather they increase confusion, and decrease our ability to respond to such events appropriately.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Rafterman, I have been meaning to read this article since it was emailed but keep forgetting.. He clears up a lot of BS very succinctly.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people seem to forget just how big the ocean is, and how anything, however :cry: it might seem, will be literally a drop in the ocean.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the post! I'm not a fearmonger over radiation topics in general but the constant draining of this mess worried me. And I think if the cleanup of the used fuel causes a fire we still have a chance at an even bigger mess but at least we don't have to worry about losing Cali :w00t: someday if all the fruits and nuts were harvested I might actually like to live there - wonderful climate!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...No discernible increase in health risks from the Fukushima event is expected outside Japan.....

What about accumulation of cesium and strontium in predator (eg tuna) species that are known to live longer and travel distances after food. Living longer means potentially more accumulation of toxins, and chasing prey species could take them in and out of exclusion zones. Is there No discernible increase in health risk because no one is checking...because we simply dont know?, that shouldnt imply everything is OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...No discernible increase in health risks from the Fukushima event is expected outside Japan.....

What about accumulation of cesium and strontium in predator (eg tuna) species that are known to live longer and travel distances after food. Living longer means potentially more accumulation of toxins, and chasing prey species could take them in and out of exclusion zones. Is there No discernible increase in health risk because no one is checking...because we simply dont know?, that shouldnt imply everything is OK.

If you looked at the numbers, I think you've got much more to worry about with regards to mercury contamination in those types of fish than anything Fukushima has done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...No discernible increase in health risks from the Fukushima event is expected outside Japan.....

What about accumulation of cesium and strontium in predator (eg tuna) species that are known to live longer and travel distances after food. Living longer means potentially more accumulation of toxins, and chasing prey species could take them in and out of exclusion zones. Is there No discernible increase in health risk because no one is checking...because we simply dont know?, that shouldnt imply everything is OK.

OK, here are two figures from V.Maderich, J. Environ. Radioactiv. (in press):

individual dose rate eating seafood*

Maderich_et_al_Fig11d_zps8819881f.gif

(note dose rates in 1950/1960s)

for block 90 (try to find it in first glance...)

Maderich_et_al_Fig2b_zps6ea4748a.gif

And thats accounting yearly releases from Fukushima NPP, not just initial deposition right after accident.

Edited to add *

Edited by bmk1245
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's quite interesting. It was probably to do with all that Nuclear testing in the 50s and 60s, a lot of which went on in the Pacific, didn't it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's quite interesting. It was probably to do with all that Nuclear testing in the 50s and 60s, a lot of which went on in the Pacific, didn't it.

Yeap.

And another bit:

temporal changes of 137Cs in surface waters (boxes 1-6; AppendixB )

Hirose_figAppB2_zpsb4161588.gif

map of Pacific boxes (Fig 4.):

Hirose_fig4_zps94b0d7e0.gif

(K.Hirose, M.Aoyama, Deep-Sea Res. II, 50(17-21) (2003) 2675-2700.)

Edited by bmk1245
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here are two figures from V.Maderich, J. Environ. Radioactiv. (in press):

individual dose rate eating seafood*

Maderich_et_al_Fig11d_zps8819881f.gif

(note dose rates in 1950/1960s)

for block 90 (try to find it in first glance...)

Maderich_et_al_Fig2b_zps6ea4748a.gif

And thats accounting yearly releases from Fukushima NPP, not just initial deposition right after accident.

Edited to add *

Excellent find and it confirms what was said in the podcast quite nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I've often said around here, unfortunately the folks who push all of this stuff know that there is a ready and accepting audience just waiting to eat all of it up as soon as they put it out there. They have also learned that they can blatantly lie about a topic and not only will their supporters believe them, but they will actually fall on their swords defending their lies.

And yet these same people call folks like us Sheeple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, new here. I just did a quick search on Google for "number of deaths caused by Fukushima", specifically looking for deaths caused by radiation and not by the earthquake or the evacuation afterward. While I have seen some bogus reports that state "14,000" have died so far (usually 14,000 Americans...), and other reports that "thousands" may die from this, I can't find one single death, to this date, related to my search. Does anyone have any other info, more detailed perhaps? Because, at this point, the Fukushima "disaster" doesn't seem to be one that has cost one single human being his/her life. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia, which I don't know if you've seen, does seem to agree:

Although no short term radiation exposure fatalities were reported,[11] some 300,000 people evacuated the area, approximately 18,500 people died due to the earthquake and tsunami, and as of August 2013 approximately 1,600 deaths were related to the evacuation conditions, such as living in temporary housing and hospital closures.[12] The exact cause of the majority of these evacuation-related deaths were unspecified because that would hinder the deceased relatives' application for financial compensation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster , says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am real glad Mr Dunning has set the record straight. :)

*throws tranquilisers in bin*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry (AAS) and Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) are used to detect anomalies in paintings and materials. If an element is present that the investigators know was not used historically in objects of this type, then the object is not authentic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You know how they do testing on paintings from before Nagasaki and hiroshima?

They test the oils.

If they carry no radiation, which all classics painted before WW2,do . where ever they were in the world.

The radiation clouds from dropping the bombs on Japan, went worldwide, and we're absorbed by the most interesting things.

Didn't matter if they painting was in Italy, NYC or Australia.

Now isn't that just so interesting?

This is how they test for forgeries. If a painting that was allegedly painted in 1856,carries no radiation, it's a forgery.

Just ask an art expert.

So, if fukushima is spewing that much more radiation for this much longer, it's just a nice story it's doing nothing, worldwide.

Edited by Simbi Laveau
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New class action lawsuit filed by US sailors aboard USS Ronald Reagan. It turns out the ship sailed as close as 1 mile to the reactor, and for as long as 5 hours in a nuclear plume from the accident. Snow fell through the plume and those aboard reported a distinctly metallic taste to the air as the precip brought the contamination down on the ship.

http://tinyurl.com/mdec3rh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm sounds legit to get credible info from a blogger who just rewritten article from somewhere else..

Just to be clear.. radioactive poisoning is happening... first signs happened at Alaskan coast. Seals had skin lesions, couple of bears were reported to loose fur and had open bleeding wounds,.. and more.. Even food grown near fukushima tells a horrible story of what is happening.

This situation is presented mildly by the media since no one wants panic.. and since the quantity of radioactive material spilled in ocean is enormous it will affect certain areas around the coast of Japan and Alaska.. Worse case scenario is that it manages to flow to California...

Information is just being suppressed too hard so there wont be panic in certain areas.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, yes, disregard anything from a blogger, never mind whether they might or might not have any qualifications in what they're talking about. And of course, disregard anything in the Mainstream media, they're all part of the conspiracy. No, I get all my information from trustworthy sources, like Alex Jones. Do you really imagine that wounds on bears in Alaska would be likely to be due to radiation from Japan?!?!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right you are Colonel--believe ONLY what you're told by the mainstream media. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right you are Colonel--believe ONLY what you're told by the mainstream media. :tu:

Ditto for believing anything as long as it's NOT mainstream media.

When will you learn that a sheep of another flock is still a sheep?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right you are Colonel--believe ONLY what you're told by the mainstream media. :tu:

As opposed to only believing anything in, say, Ebooks that are available on the internet .... ? :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly better source, actually stolen and not credited by Common Dreams:

http://www.huffingto..._b_4759831.html

"It says Tepco failed to disclose that the $4.3 billion nuclear-powered aircraft carrier was being heavily dosed from three melt-downs and four explosions at the Fukushima site. The Reagan was as close as a mile offshore as the stricken reactors poured deadly clouds of radiation into the air and ocean beginning the day after the earthquake and tsunami. It also sailed through nuclear plumes for more than five hours while about 100 miles offshore."

I might add that the Reagan is a nuclear powered vessel and would have all the necessary radiation monitoring equipment and medical staffed trained in such things.

New class action lawsuit filed by US sailors aboard USS Ronald Reagan. It turns out the ship sailed as close as 1 mile to the reactor, and for as long as 5 hours in a nuclear plume from the accident. Snow fell through the plume and those aboard reported a distinctly metallic taste to the air as the precip brought the contamination down on the ship.

http://tinyurl.com/mdec3rh

Edited by Xynoplas
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just an update on fuel removal from Unit 4: 638 fuel assemblies (of total 1533) already removed.

(source)

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have a gieger counter. I see waves of dangerous radiation levels coming across the midwest. It isn't constant, is intermittant. It is unknown to me if this is a normal condition or if we are getting the Japan radiation and no one is telling us about it.

I do know that after the accident, the radiation levels at the nearest nuclear energy plant jumped into the dangerous levels and remained there for a while, according to the gov. watchdog in this state that monitors these things. I called him and asked about it, when I started using the geiger counter.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a gieger counter. I see waves of dangerous radiation levels coming across the midwest. [...]

Since you have "gieger counter", you can answer simple question: what dangerous radiation levels are. In numbers please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.