Home | Community | Message Board

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Original Sensible Seeds USA West Coast Strains   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
Offlinenonlocal
Shroomer
Male


Registered: 11/15/10
Posts: 170
Loc: B.C, Canada Flag
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
Re: CAUTION! 2011 mushrooms in northern hemisphere contaminated by Fukushima [Re: ToxicMan]
    #14471543 - 05/18/11 02:35 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

^^

Of course...I believe the OP is only looking out for our best interests. 

But the point remains, if the radiation situation reaches a point where we have to worry about it on the other side of the globe, then mushrooms (even though they tend to accumulate metals, radiation etc.. more than other plants,organisms) will be the least of our concerns.

Any post like this, despite its best intentions, elicits more fear than prevents harm...and that is something we could do less with.


--------------------


“Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.” -Gandhi

"The revolution will not be televised"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
Re: CAUTION! 2011 mushrooms in northern hemisphere contaminated by Fukushima [Re: nonlocal]
    #14471609 - 05/18/11 03:09 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

While it's good to remain vigilant, there seems no health risk associated with the Fukushima accident for anyone in the Americas or Europe. I've discussed this issue extensively in the Japan Earthquake thread in the pub; those of you who have followed the discussion there, know my viewpoint on this. Personally, I wouldn't be bothered in the least to pick some tasty mushrooms in Europe and the US, and I most certainly will when the opportunity presents itself.

A while ago, I have made a post referring to a rather random and small collection of publications of the accumulation of radioisotopes in mushrooms. The gist of the post is that there are two important factors that determine the extent to which mushrooms accumulate such isotopes: the species, and the location. Species seem to differ very much in terms of tendencies towards bio-accumulation. As to location: if there are no or very little radioisotopes around, then they won't be present in mushroom tissue in significant amounts either. A lot of the research that is available on this subject is based on mushroom collections in Europe after the Chernobyl accident. Note that the Chernobyl fallout dropped right over Europe, while most of the Fukushima cloud was blown over the ocean where it diluted considerably before reaching North America.

I agree wholeheartedly with ToxicMan's earlier post in this thread. The fact that we can measure heightened levels of radioactivity does not automatically mean that those levels are actually dangerous. When picking mushrooms, it's much more relevant to note if they aren't growing in a spot where they are likely to pick up significant amounts of regular heavy metals (lead, mercury) due to industrial activities nearby, than to worry about any radiation.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefoxtym
Stranger
Registered: 02/15/10
Posts: 61
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: CAUTION! 2011 mushrooms in northern hemisphere contaminated by Fukushima [Re: nonlocal]
    #14472354 - 05/18/11 09:56 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

nonlocal said:
^^

Any post like this, despite its best intentions, elicits more fear than prevents harm...and that is something we could do less with.




I liked the post. The good thing about the discussion forum is the perspective it delivers. With the large amount of complex science and politics involved in the nuclear issue and the relatively small amount of truth reported by the MSM, the more internet discussion the better. I for one am extremely interested in knowing whether/when the air I breathe has become carcinogenically equivalent to cigar smoke or the wild mushrooms I eat like the worst junk food. BTW for ones who live by the principles of individual liberty and property rights like me, getting unhealthy stuff dumped on our property without our consent is a clear rights violation, let alone forcing us to ingest even a small amount of the toxin. If I want toxic stuff on my property or in my body, I am the ONLY one that is supposed to decide such things. So on one hand I am glad to hear that levels of radiation are relatively low, but OTOH most of those relative perspectives could be put in better context - and ALL of them IMO should be viewed in context of clear violations of pollution laws and property/individual rights. And regarding the “fear mongering” accusations, I think we are all stable-enough thinking adults here who aren’t going to panic at the prospect of bad environmental news. I have listened to the whole range of opinions – all the way from John Stossel to Helen Caldicott – and I’m not panicking.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
Re: CAUTION! 2011 mushrooms in northern hemisphere contaminated by Fukushima [Re: foxtym]
    #14472367 - 05/18/11 10:01 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

foxtym said:
If I want toxic stuff on my property or in my body, I am the ONLY one that is supposed to decide such things.



Sorry mate, we have just one world and we share it with 6 billion people. That means that our actions will influence each other's lives. You may not like it, but the fact is inescapable.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejacobensis
captain
Male

Registered: 01/15/11
Posts: 318
Loc: comunist/socialist/ usa Flag
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
Re: 2011 mushrooms in northern hemisphere contaminated by Fukushima warning [Re: nonlocal]
    #14472393 - 05/18/11 10:08 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

nonlocal said:
I grew up in Poland and when I was 7, we took a direct hit from the Chernobyl fallout (without being warned by the Communist regime!).  None of my family, friends or friends of friends were directly affected by radiation sickness.

While I appreciate your concern, and will continue to keep an eye out on the matter, I highly doubt that my conifer forests on the west coast of Canada will be affected in any significant way.  I'm not going to live my life full of fear.  And let's face it, if the mushrooms on the coast are fucked, then so are the fish, the soil etc...A more salient discussion might be what happens when you keep your laptop or cellphone close to your nutsack

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2008/09/radio-waves-fro.html



so, YOU ARE POLISH! HA! HA! HA!


--------------------
There are 2 types of people, mycophobes and mycophiles R.Wasson


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefoxtym
Stranger
Registered: 02/15/10
Posts: 61
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: CAUTION! 2011 mushrooms in northern hemisphere contaminated by Fukushima [Re: koraks]
    #14473405 - 05/18/11 01:46 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

koraks said:
Quote:

foxtym said:
If I want toxic stuff on my property or in my body, I am the ONLY one that is supposed to decide such things.



Sorry mate, we have just one world and we share it with 6 billion people. That means that our actions will influence each other's lives. You may not like it, but the fact is inescapable.




Sorry mate, I miss your point. Surely you aren’t opposing the idea of individual liberty and property rights. I mean being forced to breathe other people’s virus-laden exhalations in public may be an inescapable fact of life (that falls well below the point of a rights violation), but being forced to breathe and eat other people’s radioactive particles is certainly not.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemylfgur
Untitled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/10
Posts: 1,282
Loc: Ohio Flag
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
Re: CAUTION! 2011 mushrooms in northern hemisphere contaminated by Fukushima [Re: foxtym]
    #14473452 - 05/18/11 01:54 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

foxtym said:
Quote:

koraks said:
Quote:

foxtym said:
If I want toxic stuff on my property or in my body, I am the ONLY one that is supposed to decide such things.



Sorry mate, we have just one world and we share it with 6 billion people. That means that our actions will influence each other's lives. You may not like it, but the fact is inescapable.




Sorry mate, I miss your point. Surely you aren’t opposing the idea of individual liberty and property rights. I mean being forced to breathe other people’s virus-laden exhalations in public may be an inescapable fact of life (that falls well below the point of a rights violation), but being forced to breathe and eat other people’s radioactive particles is certainly not.



Unless particles of Iodine-131 were raining down from the clouds and being incorporated into the plants, grass, and animals on earth. Nobody's forcing you to eat irradiated food but when all food has levels of contaminants in it from the haphazard actions of others, your liberty to eat contaminant-free food is nonexistent.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefoxtym
Stranger
Registered: 02/15/10
Posts: 61
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: CAUTION! 2011 mushrooms in northern hemisphere contaminated by Fukushima [Re: mylfgur]
    #14474751 - 05/18/11 06:35 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

mylfgur said:
Unless particles of Iodine-131 were raining down from the clouds and being incorporated into the plants, grass, and animals on earth. Nobody's forcing you to eat irradiated food but when all food has levels of contaminants in it from the haphazard actions of others, your liberty to eat contaminant-free food is nonexistent.




Sorry, I don’t get your point either. Are you disagreeing with the concept of individual liberty, or just making an exception in the case of nuclear fallout? You make it sound as if rights violations eliminate rights. While it is true that mass rights violations reduce individual liberty, it certainly doesn’t refute the concept. Or maybe you are somehow less outraged at mass violations than with smaller violations. ??


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepsylosymonreturns
aka Gym Sporrison
Male


Registered: 10/16/09
Posts: 13,948
Loc: Mos Eisley,
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
Re: CAUTION! 2011 mushrooms in northern hemisphere contaminated by Fukushima [Re: foxtym]
    #14475460 - 05/18/11 08:57 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

i wish you guys wouldnt call it fear mongering. this isnt the war on terror. this is a realistic problem and its not getting any better. infact its a hundred times worse now that building 4 is pretty much ready to collapse! you may not hear about it on the regular news because its fuckin bad!! listen to some university/college radio that is not full of shit and you may change your mind.



my girlfriend is pregnant so radiation and unborn childeren actually worries me. this shit doesnt mix well. just like how your worried about fall out on your property, how angry would a family be when 10 years down the road their 10 year old has cancer from this mess!!


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineToxicManM
Bite me, it's fun!
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 6,722
Loc: Aurora, Colorado
Last seen: 12 hours, 16 minutes
Trusted Identifier
Re: CAUTION! 2011 mushrooms in northern hemisphere contaminated by Fukushima [Re: psylosymonreturns]
    #14475711 - 05/18/11 09:45 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

OK, calm down. Let's review the numbers again, and put them into a more useful, easy to understand form.

At the highest levels being measured, they're seeing 396 microsieverts per hour. If we imagine living at that spot, 24 hours a day, for the next year (and assume that things stay the same), with *no* shielding at all, you would receive a dose of about 3.5 sieverts. With minimal medical attention, that would cause acute radiation sickness (hematopoietic syndrome), and you would have about a 50% chance of dying, probably from an infection your weakened immune system couldn't fight off. Of course, nobody in their right mind is going to stay at that spot for anywhere that sort of length of time.

If you move to the other spots being reported on in the immediate area, the doses go down to roughly 1/10 and 1/30 of the above numbers. The risk would be correspondingly less, and after one year you wouldn't have come down with acute radiation sickness at either spot.

Let's look at your risk of cancer. For all of us, the basic risk of cancer is 20% (yes, 20% of us will die of it). The best way to evaluate the risk is to determine the additional risk you get from an exposure.

Now, let's suppose you go to that hottest spot above, and hang around for 4 days, with no shielding. The dose of radiation you will have received will increase your chance of getting cancer (lethal or otherwise) by about 1 in 500 (that's 0.2%). If 2,000 of us were to do this all at once, on average about 4 of us would get cancer (which might not be a lethal one).

Do you drive or ride in a car? Your risks of problems from that are certainly far higher than your risks from this radiation.

Currently, your risk of being hit by lightning are higher than the risk of getting cancer from the radiation in Fukushima (I will assume you live in the US).

To realistically assess risk, you need to compare the new risk with risks you take all the time in your everyday life. In this case, the risks are very low.

Happy mushrooming!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIeponumos
Mycophile/Phytophile
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/02/09
Posts: 4,850
Re: CAUTION! 2011 mushrooms in northern hemisphere contaminated by Fukushima [Re: ToxicMan]
    #14475756 - 05/18/11 09:55 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

ToxicMan said:
OK, calm down. Let's review the numbers again, and put them into a more useful, easy to understand form.

At the highest levels being measured, they're seeing 396 microsieverts per hour. If we imagine living at that spot, 24 hours a day, for the next year (and assume that things stay the same), with *no* shielding at all, you would receive a dose of about 3.5 sieverts. With minimal medical attention, that would cause acute radiation sickness (hematopoietic syndrome), and you would have about a 50% chance of dying, probably from an infection your weakened immune system couldn't fight off. Of course, nobody in their right mind is going to stay at that spot for anywhere that sort of length of time.

If you move to the other spots being reported on in the immediate area, the doses go down to roughly 1/10 and 1/30 of the above numbers. The risk would be correspondingly less, and after one year you wouldn't have come down with acute radiation sickness at either spot.

Let's look at your risk of cancer. For all of us, the basic risk of cancer is 20% (yes, 20% of us will die of it). The best way to evaluate the risk is to determine the additional risk you get from an exposure.

Now, let's suppose you go to that hottest spot above, and hang around for 4 days, with no shielding. The dose of radiation you will have received will increase your chance of getting cancer (lethal or otherwise) by about 1 in 500 (that's 0.2%). If 2,000 of us were to do this all at once, on average about 4 of us would get cancer (which might not be a lethal one).

Do you drive or ride in a car? Your risks of problems from that are certainly far higher than your risks from this radiation.

Currently, your risk of being hit by lightning are higher than the risk of getting cancer from the radiation in Fukushima (I will assume you live in the US).

To realistically assess risk, you need to compare the new risk with risks you take all the time in your everyday life. In this case, the risks are very low.

Happy mushrooming!




:billymaythumbup:


--------------------
]


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefoxtym
Stranger
Registered: 02/15/10
Posts: 61
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: CAUTION! 2011 mushrooms in northern hemisphere contaminated by Fukushima [Re: ToxicMan]
    #14475983 - 05/18/11 10:37 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

ToxicMan said:
Now, let's suppose you go to that hottest spot above, and hang around for 4 days, with no shielding. The dose of radiation you will have received will increase your chance of getting cancer (lethal or otherwise) by about 1 in 500 (that's 0.2%). If 2,000 of us were to do this all at once, on average about 4 of us would get cancer (which might not be a lethal one).





Thanks for the reassurance, but…

I’m always suspicious of minimal cancer-rate predictions, which often only sound plausible because the etiology of cancer is so inexact. I mean when it comes to associating cancer with a cause, death statistics are often skewed because it can’t be proven. You could have a 100% increase in cancer fatalities for a whole country for 50 years and still see nuclear stats that show a zero increase – solely because it can’t be proven. Am I wrong?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineToxicManM
Bite me, it's fun!
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 6,722
Loc: Aurora, Colorado
Last seen: 12 hours, 16 minutes
Trusted Identifier
Re: CAUTION! 2011 mushrooms in northern hemisphere contaminated by Fukushima [Re: foxtym]
    #14477048 - 05/19/11 06:05 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

I’m always suspicious of minimal cancer-rate predictions, which often only sound plausible because the etiology of cancer is so inexact. I mean when it comes to associating cancer with a cause, death statistics are often skewed because it can’t be proven. You could have a 100% increase in cancer fatalities for a whole country for 50 years and still see nuclear stats that show a zero increase – solely because it can’t be proven. Am I wrong?




Since that's not how the data was collected and the models constructed, yes. If an attempt had been made to do things as you described, they would have failed, as you predict.

The cancer statistics were created by following various populations for long periods following exposure, and they carefully also monitored control populations. It is rather involved, but there are a bunch of test populations available for various reasons. While no particular cancer can be attributed specifically to radiation exposure, it is entirely reasonable to attribute a change in cancer rates in a population to causes such as this.

Cancer rate predictions due to radiation exposure are based on a linear non-threshold model. That is to say that historic evidence shows that there is a linear relationship between the level of exposure and later incidence of cancer. Is there any debate on this? Of course there is - these models are, if anything, too willing to predict new cancers, especially for low level exposures to radiation. If there is an error here, it is that they might be overstating the risk. As someone who works with radiation, that's exactly how I want such a model to work.

A century or so ago, these data and models didn't exist. X-rays and other radiation sources were used fairly indiscriminately. After all, you can't sense radiation at all. You can't feel it or even tell that it's there without special instruments. When people started getting sick, especially with much higher rates of cancers, investigations were started. They're still studying this stuff and refining the models. But people that work with radiation now have life spans and cancer rates that are basically the same as everybody else. That tells me that the measures being taken are working, and that the models are pretty good.


Incidentally, I applaud your skepticism. Too few people are willing to think these things through, much less raise their voice and say that they have doubts. Keep doing that - the world will always need it.

Happy mushrooming!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefoxtym
Stranger
Registered: 02/15/10
Posts: 61
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: CAUTION! 2011 mushrooms in northern hemisphere contaminated by Fukushima [Re: ToxicMan]
    #14477269 - 05/19/11 07:29 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

ToxicMan said:
Cancer rate predictions due to radiation exposure are based on a linear non-threshold model. That is to say that historic evidence shows that there is a linear relationship between the level of exposure and later incidence of cancer. Is there any debate on this? Of course there is - these models are, if anything, too willing to predict new cancers, especially for low level exposures to radiation. If there is an error here, it is that they might be overstating the risk. As someone who works with radiation, that's exactly how I want such a model to work.





In this case, I hope I am wrong. Yet I’m still skeptical. Let’s take Chernobyl. Why is there such a huge discrepancy of opinion on the fatalities; ranging from 31 to nearly a million? I mean if there is such a standard linear model as you claim, why does wikipedia report this?

“Estimates of the number of deaths potentially resulting from the (Chernobyl) accident vary enormously: Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers.[9] A UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests it could reach 4,000.[10] A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout.[11] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[12] A Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 excess deaths occurred between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination.[13]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineToxicManM
Bite me, it's fun!
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 6,722
Loc: Aurora, Colorado
Last seen: 12 hours, 16 minutes
Trusted Identifier
Re: CAUTION! 2011 mushrooms in northern hemisphere contaminated by Fukushima [Re: foxtym]
    #14477472 - 05/19/11 08:53 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I will have to take some time and read those reports and let you know.

Looking at a few basic figures, about 5,000,000 people were in the area that was contaminated and can be considered exposed. A figure between 4,000 and 60,000 doesn't seem unreasonable, given that we don't know an awful lot, such as exactly how much actual exposure there was for each person in that large area. Exposure would have to include consumption of food or water with contamination, and radiation is much worse when the source is inside you.

Figures of 200,000 or 985,000 do not seem credible. That higher figure is reasonably close to the number of people we would normally expect to die of cancer in a population that large. I think we would have heard a lot more if the cancer rate doubled among that many people, and I'm not hearing that. Remember, only excess cancer rates count for this sort of thing, and that high figure is around what we would expect with no exposure at all. I actually know people who grew up in those areas, and I don't hear stories anything like 40% of the population dying of cancer, and that's what would have to be happening for that 985,000 figure to be true.

Again, I will try to find and read those reports, but expect that to take some time. These reports tend to be long and dry and not very exciting to read.

Happy mushrooming!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemylfgur
Untitled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/10
Posts: 1,282
Loc: Ohio Flag
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
Re: CAUTION! 2011 mushrooms in northern hemisphere contaminated by Fukushima [Re: foxtym]
    #14477565 - 05/19/11 09:22 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

foxtym said:
Quote:

ToxicMan said:
Cancer rate predictions due to radiation exposure are based on a linear non-threshold model. That is to say that historic evidence shows that there is a linear relationship between the level of exposure and later incidence of cancer. Is there any debate on this? Of course there is - these models are, if anything, too willing to predict new cancers, especially for low level exposures to radiation. If there is an error here, it is that they might be overstating the risk. As someone who works with radiation, that's exactly how I want such a model to work.





In this case, I hope I am wrong. Yet I’m still skeptical. Let’s take Chernobyl. Why is there such a huge discrepancy of opinion on the fatalities; ranging from 31 to nearly a million? I mean if there is such a standard linear model as you claim, why does wikipedia report this?

“Estimates of the number of deaths potentially resulting from the (Chernobyl) accident vary enormously: Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers.[9] A UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests it could reach 4,000.[10] A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout.[11] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[12] A Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 excess deaths occurred between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination.[13]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster



The WHO and IAEA intentionally underreported the rates of thyroid disorders in Belarus and in the eastern EU. You should be wary of the official estimates, they don't want to publish anything that will demonize nuclear power because we need it. I read the Greenpeace report, it's pretty interesting. Also, the WHO claims that no one died from radiation and that the death toll of Chernobyl is less than 50 individuals, all from the fire. They're pretty much bullshitting.

I wasn't arguing against individual liberty earlier. Obviously you can choose what you want to do but if the situation at fukushima is actually grave, it's affecting more than just fukushima--it could be affecting a large majority of life on earth (plants/animals through water) in consistent, minimal manners that you really can't avoid.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefoxtym
Stranger
Registered: 02/15/10
Posts: 61
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: CAUTION! 2011 mushrooms in northern hemisphere contaminated by Fukushima [Re: ToxicMan]
    #14478040 - 05/19/11 11:20 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

ToxicMan said:
I will have to take some time and read those reports and let you know.

Looking at a few basic figures, about 5,000,000 people were in the area that was contaminated and can be considered exposed. A figure between 4,000 and 60,000 doesn't seem unreasonable, given that we don't know an awful lot, such as exactly how much actual exposure there was for each person in that large area. Exposure would have to include consumption of food or water with contamination, and radiation is much worse when the source is inside you.

Figures of 200,000 or 985,000 do not seem credible. That higher figure is reasonably close to the number of people we would normally expect to die of cancer in a population that large. I think we would have heard a lot more if the cancer rate doubled among that many people, and I'm not hearing that. Remember, only excess cancer rates count for this sort of thing, and that high figure is around what we would expect with no exposure at all. I actually know people who grew up in those areas, and I don't hear stories anything like 40% of the population dying of cancer, and that's what would have to be happening for that 985,000 figure to be true.

Again, I will try to find and read those reports, but expect that to take some time. These reports tend to be long and dry and not very exciting to read.

Happy mushrooming!




We appreciate you providing expert information and looking into it more. But at this point, I think I can make this point. With such a wide range of scientific opinion about the harm that resulted from a major accident that happened 25 years ago, it’s hard to trust any one prediction for the multiple (and ongoing) accidents at Fukushima; of which many key details are lacking, and present yet another unknown: ocean contamination. (Sorry if we are getting away from the topic of mushroom contamination.)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefoxtym
Stranger
Registered: 02/15/10
Posts: 61
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: CAUTION! 2011 mushrooms in northern hemisphere contaminated by Fukushima [Re: mylfgur]
    #14478052 - 05/19/11 11:24 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

mylfgur said:
The WHO and IAEA intentionally underreported the rates of thyroid disorders in Belarus and in the eastern EU. You should be wary of the official estimates, they don't want to publish anything that will demonize nuclear power because we need it. I read the Greenpeace report, it's pretty interesting. Also, the WHO claims that no one died from radiation and that the death toll of Chernobyl is less than 50 individuals, all from the fire. They're pretty much bullshitting.

I wasn't arguing against individual liberty earlier. Obviously you can choose what you want to do but if the situation at fukushima is actually grave, it's affecting more than just fukushima--it could be affecting a large majority of life on earth (plants/animals through water) in consistent, minimal manners that you really can't avoid.




Yes, I think we have the same concerns here.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGerman Kahuna
Facepalmer of Stoopid
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/31/08
Posts: 15,798
Loc: On a Chemical Vacation
Re: CAUTION! 2011 mushrooms in northern hemisphere contaminated by Fukushima [Re: foxtym]
    #14478104 - 05/19/11 11:35 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

foxtym said:
Quote:

koraks said:
Quote:

foxtym said:
If I want toxic stuff on my property or in my body, I am the ONLY one that is supposed to decide such things.



Sorry mate, we have just one world and we share it with 6 billion people. That means that our actions will influence each other's lives. You may not like it, but the fact is inescapable.




Sorry mate, I miss your point. Surely you aren’t opposing the idea of individual liberty and property rights. I mean being forced to breathe other people’s virus-laden exhalations in public may be an inescapable fact of life (that falls well below the point of a rights violation), but being forced to breathe and eat other people’s radioactive particles is certainly not.




You see, the same people that hold high the values of personal liberty and freedom and property are usually the most outspoken capitalists as well and when you say "eh, you are making a lot of PERSONAL money with this PERSONAL industrial plant of yours on your PERSONAL PROPERTY, how about you install some filters, so you stop polluting the air WE ALL breath?" they are the ones that scream "OMG! Regulations! Get the guns out, the commies are coming!!"
If there is one thing I am more allergic to than radioactive mushrooms it is economic and social Libertarianism.


--------------------
"Vegetarian" [ /ˌvedʒəˈteəriən/] - Ancient slang meaning "village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride".


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
Re: CAUTION! 2011 mushrooms in northern hemisphere contaminated by Fukushima [Re: foxtym]
    #14478665 - 05/19/11 01:33 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

foxtym said:
Quote:

koraks said:
Quote:

foxtym said:
If I want toxic stuff on my property or in my body, I am the ONLY one that is supposed to decide such things.



Sorry mate, we have just one world and we share it with 6 billion people. That means that our actions will influence each other's lives. You may not like it, but the fact is inescapable.




Sorry mate, I miss your point. Surely you aren’t opposing the idea of individual liberty and property rights.



I'm not opposing the idea, I'm simply trying to tell that it's a fairytale. Your liberty ends where it touches someone else's. In today's world, that fact is inescapable. I advocate freedom of choice, but that doesn't come with the guarantee that your can enjoy unlimited choice. Some decisions are made for you, and while I agree that it is bad practice to expose others to health risks, the fact is that we all do that in various ways in our daily lives. Assuming that there's a way to escape that, for example by enforcing individual liberty and property rights, is a means of fooling yourself that will ultimately lead to conflict and outright war.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Original Sensible Seeds USA West Coast Strains   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Pictures of Poisonous Mushrooms
( 1 2 3 all )
Anonymous 18,954 43 03/11/03 07:26 AM
by Anonymous
* About contamination of wild shrooms. Mahakala 3,036 19 09/17/02 03:04 PM
by Shadler77
* What is Europe's mushroom capital??? Huxley 2,630 6 03/29/03 04:49 AM
by mjshroomer
* Northern CA, Hunt MurkFist 1,205 4 04/22/03 01:53 PM
by Anonymous
* Hunting Trip Questions for Northern CA Moon_Tea_Brewer 1,394 2 02/13/03 09:55 AM
by angryshroom
* Northern Michigan Mushrooms dan420 2,225 1 08/13/02 12:11 PM
by StInvetroThomas
* Mushroom ID Request!
( 1 2 all )
Moon_Tea_Brewer 14,362 22 03/19/11 11:05 AM
by German Kahuna
* Picking mushrooms at 3am in central florida rules (sorta) NinjaPlease 3,072 10 04/19/03 04:04 PM
by f8L

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: ToxicMan, inski, Alan Rockefeller, Duggstar, TimmiT, Anglerfish, Tmethyl, Lucis, Doc9151, Land Trout
4,849 topic views. 1 members, 16 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.