@metal-brain saidFrom your article:
I eat very little fish just because mercury is a concern. I would never eat fish from the coast of Japan.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/helen-caldicott-the-fukushima-nuclear-meltdown-continues-unabated/5574756
Fish swim thousands of miles and tuna, salmon and other species found on the American west coast now contain some of these radioactive elements, which are tasteless, odourless and invisible. Entering the human body by ingestion they concentrate in various organs, irradiating adjacent cells for many years.
Yet you continue to avoid my questions:
Is there any evidence that, outside of Japan, this is bad?...
and... If nuclear energy is bad because of a few meltdowns that released radioactivity, then why isn't fossil fuel extraction also bad when it releases radioactivity?
07 Apr 19
@wildgrass saidI didn't avoid any question that is relevant. I NEVER claimed there was any evidence that outside of Japan it was bad. Does that mean the Japanese should just suck it up and eat radioactive fish in the future that is a lot worse than today?
From your article:Fish swim thousands of miles and tuna, salmon and other species found on the American west coast now contain some of these radioactive elements, which are tasteless, odourless and invisible. Entering the human body by ingestion they concentrate in various organs, irradiating adjacent cells for many years.
Yet you continue to avoid my ques ...[text shortened]... leased radioactivity, then why isn't fossil fuel extraction also bad when it releases radioactivity?
Some fish have been caught off the west coast of Canada and California that had elevated levels of radiation. The fact it could get worse in the future should concern you, but you are in denial and think that anything outside of Japan doesn't matter. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but it matters to a lot of Japanese people.
Helen Caldicott is right, there was a coverup at Fukushima and it was early on. There was an explosion that ejected the fuel rods from a reactor and it was well known and covered up. I watched the news and remember it well. I actually had to hear the truth from Alex Jones of all people. The corporate news media in the US pretended it didn't happen. Then they admitted it did.
The coverups have not ended. Even you think only radiation levels at the Bering Straight are relevant. Have you ever thought that radiation levels close to Japan matter too? Why do you accept unreasonable omissions so willingly? Do you condone the coverup?
08 Apr 19
@metal-brain saidYou never claimed there was evidence it was bad, you just keep posting articles claiming it MIGHT be bad. That's fear mongering 101.
I didn't avoid any question that is relevant. I NEVER claimed there was any evidence that outside of Japan it was bad. Does that mean the Japanese should just suck it up and eat radioactive fish in the future that is a lot worse than today?
Some fish have been caught off the west coast of Canada and California that had elevated levels of radiation. The fact it could ge ...[text shortened]... Japan matter too? Why do you accept unreasonable omissions so willingly? Do you condone the coverup?
Why is it ok to release radiation if you're extracting fossil fuels, but it is not ok to release radiation in a once-a-decade nuclear disaster?
(Alex Jones has admittedly peddled harmful nonsense under periods of "psychosis". I don't know why anyone would listen to him about anything.)
08 Apr 19
@wildgrass saidThis is what you said:
You never claimed there was evidence it was bad, you just keep posting articles claiming it MIGHT be bad. That's fear mongering 101.
Why is it ok to release radiation if you're extracting fossil fuels, but it is not ok to release radiation in a once-a-decade nuclear disaster?
(Alex Jones has admittedly peddled harmful nonsense under periods of "psychosis". I don't know why anyone would listen to him about anything.)
"Is there any evidence that, outside of Japan, this is bad?"
I never said outside of Japan. All of your sources are saying fish caught outside of Japan are safe. None of them are saying fish caught off Japan's coast near Fukushima were always safe. They may say they are safe now, but not that they were always safe and not that they will not be unsafe to eat in the future.
That is reality 101
@metal-brain said
That is reality 101
They may say they are safe now, but not that they were always safe and not that they will not be unsafe to eat in the future.
You can say that about almost anything. Here you are fear mongering about nuclear radiation, but replace "nuclear" with "cell phones", "fertilizer", "vaccines", "bunny rabbits", "baby strollers" or "nuclear radiation concentrated from fossil fuel extraction methods" and you have the exact same thing. We don't know what we don't know but we should speculate as to how bad the unknowns are because we don't like those things.
08 Apr 19
@wildgrass saidExact same thing? Bull crap!They may say they are safe now, but not that they were always safe and not that they will not be unsafe to eat in the future.
You can say that about almost anything. Here you are fear mongering about nuclear radiation, but replace "nuclear" with "cell phones", "fertilizer", "vaccines", "bunny rabbits", "baby strollers" or "nuclear radiation concentrated from ...[text shortened]... on't know but we should speculate as to how bad the unknowns are because we don't like those things.
@metal-brain saidThey may say nuclear radiation emitted (on a constant daily basis) from oil and gas drilling is safe now, but not that they were always safe and not that they will not be unsafe in the future.
This is what you said:
"Is there any evidence that, outside of Japan, this is bad?"
I never said outside of Japan. All of your sources are saying fish caught outside of Japan are safe. None of them are saying fish caught off Japan's coast near Fukushima were always safe. They may say they are safe now, but not that they were always safe and not that they will not be unsafe to eat in the future.
That is reality 101
09 Apr 19
@wildgrass
"cell phones", "fertilizer", "vaccines", "bunny rabbits", "baby strollers"
You need to educate yourself about radiation. This is basic science.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/radiation-sickness1.htm
09 Apr 19
@metal-brain saidI'm concerned about this sentence:
I didn't avoid any question that is relevant. I NEVER claimed there was any evidence that outside of Japan it was bad. Does that mean the Japanese should just suck it up and eat radioactive fish in the future that is a lot worse than today?
Some fish have been caught off the west coast of Canada and California that had elevated levels of radiation. The fact it could ge ...[text shortened]... Japan matter too? Why do you accept unreasonable omissions so willingly? Do you condone the coverup?
There was an explosion that ejected the fuel rods from a reactor and it was well known and covered up.Things that are "well known" cannot be covered up.
We knew about explosions due to hydrogen build up from the zirconium steam reaction at the time. Fuel rod displacement at the scale you are describing seems unlikely. However, since that would also tend to stop reactions and they are macroscopic and collectible I'm not sure I see any additional problem.
@metal-brain saidThe point was related to an article exaggerating the "danger" of Fukushima-derived radiation in waters off the coast of Canada, which (even if you spent hours a day swimming in that water for years) would correlate to orders of magnitude lower exposure than a dental X-ray.
@wildgrass
"cell phones", "fertilizer", "vaccines", "bunny rabbits", "baby strollers"
You need to educate yourself about radiation. This is basic science.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/radiation-sickness1.htm
It seems we have lost all sense of perspective as it relates to risk. Of course radiation poisoning is a thing, but I don't know if there were any cases of radiation poisoning associated with Three Mile Island and only a few hundred associated with Chernobyl. I am pretty sure more people have died from stroller accidents than nuclear facility-related radiation poisoning.
@wildgrass saidI think you are certainly correct about that.
I am pretty sure more people have died from stroller accidents than nuclear facility-related radiation poisoning.
And, as my previous web-links clearly showed, certainly MANY times more people have died from fossil fuel pollution than from radiation poisoning!
So it would seem highly logically inconsistent for somebody to argue against nuclear on environmental grounds and yet NOT do so for fossil fuels!
If we shouldn't have nuclear for environmental reasons then certainly we shouldn't have fossil fuels (use of via burning them) for environmental reasons! You cannot have it both ways.
And I say all this even though I am not a big fan of nuclear in particular, generally favoring renewables instead albeit not necessarily to the total exclusion of some nuclear. But that is PURELY because of my economic considerations rather than my environmental considerations. There is a hell a lot of hysterical nonsense claims said about the dangers of nuclear, which is typically consists of either MASSIVE exaggerations and/or plain falsehoods, and, either way, doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny.
10 Apr 19
@deepthought saidThat is why it was exposed so quickly. It was to prevent panic so it was only meant to be temporary. The film was available though. It came out very quickly because of that. People asked "if those are not fuel rods that fell on the ground what were they?". Then they had to admit it.
I'm concerned about this sentence:There was an explosion that ejected the fuel rods from a reactor and it was well known and covered up.Things that are "well known" cannot be covered up.
We knew about explosions due to hydrogen build up from the zirconium steam reaction at the time. Fuel rod displacement at the scale you are describing seems unlikely. ...[text shortened]... o stop reactions and they are macroscopic and collectible I'm not sure I see any additional problem.
10 Apr 19
@humy said"And, as my previous web-links clearly showed, certainly MANY times more people have died from fossil fuel pollution than from radiation poisoning!"
I think you are certainly correct about that.
And, as my previous web-links clearly showed, certainly MANY times more people have died from fossil fuel pollution than from radiation poisoning!
So it would seem highly logically inconsistent for somebody to argue against nuclear on environmental grounds and yet NOT do so for fossil fuels!
If we shouldn't have nuclear for enviro ...[text shortened]... ASSIVE exaggerations and/or plain falsehoods, and, either way, doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny.
There is no evidence many people have died from fossil fuel pollution. That article you posted is basing that claim on an estimate and not actual deaths proven to attributed to fossil fuel pollution. Furthermore, for all I know some of them were suicides by carbon monoxide.
Your source of info is bunk.
10 Apr 19
@wildgrass saidHere is an excerpt from the link I previously posted. It is a quote from Helen Caldicott.
The point was related to an article exaggerating the "danger" of Fukushima-derived radiation in waters off the coast of Canada, which (even if you spent hours a day swimming in that water for years) would correlate to orders of magnitude lower exposure than a dental X-ray.
It seems we have lost all sense of perspective as it relates to risk. Of course radiation poisoning ...[text shortened]... ure more people have died from stroller accidents than nuclear facility-related radiation poisoning.
"The Japanese government has told doctors that they are not to talk to their patients about radiation and illnesses derived thereof, and in fact if the doctors do do that, they might lose their funding from the government. The IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency interestingly set up a hospital – a cancer hospital – in Fukushima along with the Fukushima University for people with cancer, which tells you everything.
So there’s a huge, huge cover up. I have been to Japan twice and particularly to Fukushima and spoken to people there and the parents are desperate to hear the truth even if it’s not good truth. And they thanked me for telling them the truth. So it’s an absolute medical catastrophe I would say, and a total cover up to protect the nuclear industry and all its ramifications."
https://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-an-ongoing-global-radiological-catastrophe-a-huge-coverup-dr-helen-caldicott/5672265
Is it not true that The Japanese government has told doctors that they are not to talk to their patients about radiation and illnesses derived thereof as Caldicott stated?
@metal-brain saidWhat a completely preposterous assertion!
There is no evidence many people have died from fossil fuel pollution.
Sorry! Nobody here is convinced!
It took me just a 2 minute google search to find yet more websites confirming many people have died from fossil fuel pollution:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/25/air-pollution-kills-7m-people-a-year
"...Air pollution 'kills 7 million people a year' ..."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/apr/26/the-missing-maths-the-human-cost-of-fossil-fuels
"...Each year, 6.1 million lives are lost prematurely due to air pollution. ..."
https://qz.com/568450/fossil-fuels-kill-more-people-every-year-than-wars-murders-and-traffic-accidents-combined/
Fossil fuels kill more people every year than wars, murders, and traffic accidents combined...
...These figures come from the 2012 Climate Vulnerability Monitor. In 2010, some 4.5 million deaths could be attributed to air pollution, ..."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/12/air-pollution-deaths-are-double-previous-estimates-finds-research
"...
The number of early deaths caused by air pollution is double previous estimates, according to research, meaning toxic air is killing more people than tobacco smoking.
The scientists used new data to estimate that nearly 800,000 people die prematurely each year in Europe because of dirty air, and that each life is cut short by an average of more than two years. ....
The new research, published in the European Heart Journal, indicates that while air pollution hits the lungs first, its impact via the bloodstream on heart disease and strokes is responsible for twice as many deaths as respiratory diseases.
..."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/11/07/pollution-kills-more-people-than-anything-else/#4ca75a7f1a35
"...
The most comprehensive report to date on the health effects of environmental pollution shows that filthy air, contaminated water and other polluted parts of our environment kill more people worldwide each year than almost everything else combined – smoking, hunger, natural disasters, war, murder, AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
..."
I mean, DERR, air pollution is a well-known big killer!
So, can you show us any websites that explain how all the above is just a myth?