|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
Re: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- How bad is it, really? [Re: Moonshoe]
#18862825 - 09/19/13 12:21 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, the alliteration is kind of cool, I gotta admit that. Nothing wrong either with trying to inform people. It's a complex issue though. It's definitely a bad situation that has been handled pretty abominably from the start, but even then it's hard to tell how bad things really are.
And in a situation like that, it's all too easy to get conjecture mixed up in real information, making it hard to separate the two and get a grip on what's really going on. Take for example the criticality accidents mentioned by Wiccan_Seeker; there has been speculation that one has been observed, but no firm evidence that it actually happened even once, let alone several times. It is little things that make it very difficult to distinguish between how bad the situation is and how bad it could be or have been.
Also, Enlil has a point concerning the selection of sources. Bias is not always in the information itself; it is usually present even more in the selection that is offered.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- How bad is it, really? [Re: koraks]
#18862844 - 09/19/13 12:26 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
a big disaster sells.
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
Re: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- How bad is it, really? [Re: akira_akuma]
#18862855 - 09/19/13 12:28 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Hey, look on the bright side: radiation is the pretty much the only slow killer that really makes the news consistently. All the other ones that claim many more lives are mostly ignored by the mass media.
|
Moonshoe
Blue Mantis


Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
|
Re: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- How bad is it, really? [Re: Enlil]
#18862876 - 09/19/13 12:34 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Yeah, but you're really only choosing sources that comport with your view. Anything that doesn't is omitted. That's pretty much exactly the kind of agenda pushing that Koraks is talking about.
I am being completely honest when I say that in the course of 2 years of researching this subject, I found virtually zero sources that were encouraging in any way or that made any kind of reasonable case that this is not the worst industrial disaster in human history.
I did see maybe 2-4 articles that took a comforting tone, but they were totally insignificant by comparison to the endless amount of consistency in the other more ominous reports. There is a total consensus in the media now about what is happening in Japan. There really is no legitimate alternative view. This is not a matter of opinion but a matter of hard facts. We objectively know how many fuel rods are stored there, how many reactors melted down, how many tons of radioactive water are being dumped into the pacific daily, how many risks are present in the clean up operation, how many becquerrels of radiation are being emitted and have been emitted, etc.
The facts and numbers are all known. Fukushima is what it is, and we have now learned what it is.
This quote probably best sums up the reality of the situation, which is simply not in any legitimate dispute any more.
"With hydrogen explosions ripping off the roofs of reactor buildings, three reactor cores spewing radiation unabated, one spent fuel pool on fire, another spent fuel pool suffering an explosion that scattered its fuel rods for miles, water poured in to cool the reactors flowing out from the bottom due to damaged pressure vessels and containments, millions of litres of radioactive water accumulating in the basement of the plant and draining out into the ocean, radiation levels in the Pacific Ocean spiking to unheard of levels, Reactor 4 of the plant tipping due to softening of the ground and threatening to collapse, groundwater in danger of getting contaminated, extremely dangerous MOX fuel in Reactor 3, fallout from Fukushima detected as far away as North America and Europe within a week of the accident ... the Fukushima accident is in an apocalyptic downward spiral.
Clearly, the Fukushima accident is worse than Chernobyl. The Chernobyl accident involved a single reactor. The Fukushima accident involves three reactor cores (of Units 1, 2 and 3) and four spent fuel pools (of Units 1, 2, 3 and 4). Each spent fuel pool has fuel rods equivalent to several cores each. In all, that’s the equivalent of as many as twenty reactor cores! Fukushima is clearly the biggest industrial catastrophe in the history of mankind.
the situation at the spent fuel ponds of Reactor units 1 to 4 is also very bad. Indications are that at least in one of the pools (or if not there, then in the reactor core of Unit 3), the fuel is reaching criticality.
In Reactor 4, the big problem is that the building housing the spent fuel pool has partially sunk and is threatening to collapse
But what if the building housing Reactor 4 collapses before the fuel is shifted into canisters? Gundersen, a kind of living legend in the field of nuclear engineering, recommends that if this reactor topples due to an earthquake or some other reason, the people of Tokyo should simply get on a plane and get out of there.
BIGGER THAN CHERNOBYL Reality—Level 8 Accident
Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency now admits (in its June 6 press release) that the Fukushima nuclear plant, in just the first week after the accident, released 770,000 trillion becquerels of radiation,
Furthermore, this figure does not include the radiation released into the ocean, which is probably as much.
he calculated that the total radiation releases from the Fukushima plant are so high that they amount to three INES 7 accidents!
By the end of May, many nuclear engineers were saying that Fukushima had gone way beyond the scope of the Chernobyl accident and called upon the IAEA to revamp its INES scale and create a new level—Level 8—to categorise it!
Radiation from the Fukushima plant has spread to all across the globe. Not only countries near Japan, like South Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, China and Russia, but also countries far away, across the Pacific Ocean, from Canada to the USA and Mexico, and even Switzerland, Iceland and France,
In the US, tests have detected elevated levels of radioactive iodine and cesium in milk and vegetables produced in California; elevated levels of radioactivity have been found in drinking water in numerous municipalities from Los Angeles to Philadelphia; radiation has also been detected in milk in Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Vermont and Washington. Cesium-137 has been found in rainwater samples from Boise, Idaho and Montpelier, Vermont.
Americium, which is more toxic than plutonium, has been found in New England (a region in the northeastern corner of America).
Probably the worst impact of the Fukushima accident on life on Planet Earth is going to be its contamination of the oceans. Millions of litres of highly radioactive water from the crippled Fukushima plant has leaked or been deliberately released into the Pacific Ocean; scientists have discovered that its radioactive impact far outstrips the Chernobyl disaster.
The Fukushima accident is actually so huge that even the INES scale does not capture its true magnitude—the accident is far bigger than the worst accident imagined by the IAEA."
--------------------
Everything I post is fiction.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,505
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- How bad is it, really? [Re: Moonshoe]
#18862885 - 09/19/13 12:37 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I linked the WHO report for you, which pretty much says that there won't be significant casualties outside of Japan, and you didn't put it among your "facts"...that sounds like cherry picking to me.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
Re: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- How bad is it, really? [Re: Moonshoe]
#18862901 - 09/19/13 12:41 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Moonshoe said: This quote probably best sums up the reality of the situation, which is simply not in any legitimate dispute any more.
I don't think it's a very good quote, actually. It looks very specific and objective at first glance, until you actually read it and notice that no specific data are offered anywhere. Moreover, the formulation is such as to emphasize the drama of the event, which makes it a really poor source of information (but an impressive read if you're looking for something to fuel fear or anger at the situation). There are actually very few sources that really make an attempt to convey facts in an unbiased as possible manner. The quote you offered clearly isn't one.
|
Moonshoe
Blue Mantis


Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
|
Re: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- How bad is it, really? [Re: Enlil]
#18862909 - 09/19/13 12:44 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I posted my own compilation of research, which I had in a word file. It doesn't include your sources, because I didn't find them when doing my research. Please feel free to post any additional sources of your own in this thread. That goes for everybody else to.
And I don't deny that I intentionally extracted quotes about the severity of the problem, because that is what I was looking for and that is what I consider most relevant. However I linked the sources if anyone wants to read the entire articles. I just extracted the most interesting and important quotes because I knew people wouldn't read it otherwise and it would be way too long.
As I said though, anyone who researches this topic will see that the quotes in the OP are totally confirmed and represent the majority of available information. There is a consensus about the key facts on this issue.
--------------------
Everything I post is fiction.
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
Re: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- How bad is it, really? [Re: Moonshoe]
#18862924 - 09/19/13 12:47 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Moonshoe said: And I don't deny that I intentionally extracted quotes about the severity of the problem, because that is what I was looking for and that is what I consider most relevant./quote] So you're not so much trying to inform, but trying to convey the severity of the situation. That's legitimate too (pushing an agenda can be legitimate, after all), but then call it that and don't pass it off as a collection of facts. But you edited out that bit already
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,505
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- How bad is it, really? [Re: Moonshoe]
#18862943 - 09/19/13 12:52 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
In the OP, you said:
"This event continues to unfold, and as it does I will continue to update this thread, not with my own ideas or beliefs, but simply with the news and research I come across"
Yet, when you came across a 200 page report written about it by the WHO, you didn't add it to the OP...Why? Because it contradicts your thesis about how serious the situation is.
It's all rhetoric, dude. I don't have a problem with rhetoric, but don't pretend you're not advocating a position.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Moonshoe
Blue Mantis


Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
|
Re: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- How bad is it, really? [Re: koraks]
#18862946 - 09/19/13 12:52 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I am trying to inform about the severity of the situation. It is a collection of facts, just a collection of facts selected and organized according to a theme, that of "how bad is it really" (which was the original title of the thread).
It couldn't be any other way, if the facts were not selected according to some criteria it would be a huge and useless post about anything and everything most of which would have been irrelevant and boring.
--------------------
Everything I post is fiction.
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
Re: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- How bad is it, really? [Re: Enlil]
#18862951 - 09/19/13 12:54 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
You assume he didn't find the WHO report. It is entirely possible that he overlooked it. In that case it's not so much a sign of selective quoting, but of really poor research. Either way, the selection of sources that he offers is unnecessarily biased in the end - whether intentionally or not.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- How bad is it, really? [Re: koraks]
#18862953 - 09/19/13 12:54 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
it's boring, alright.
|
Moonshoe
Blue Mantis


Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
|
Re: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- How bad is it, really? [Re: Enlil]
#18862955 - 09/19/13 12:55 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: In the OP, you said:
"This event continues to unfold, and as it does I will continue to update this thread, not with my own ideas or beliefs, but simply with the news and research I come across"
Yet, when you came across a 200 page report written about it by the WHO, you didn't add it to the OP...Why? Because it contradicts your thesis about how serious the situation is.
It's all rhetoric, dude. I don't have a problem with rhetoric, but don't pretend you're not advocating a position.
The OP contains none of my own words, just facts I came across in my research.
As I already explained the reason your report wasnt in the OP is because I compiled that list in a word document some time ago and it was only my own research, I didn't add anyone elses.
As you may notice I have not yet added any additional sources to this thread (although I plan to) so don't take it personally.
again, whats stopping you from posting it here yourself?
I am not advocating a position, I am providing evidence to support a conclusion, which was not my own to begin with. Simply that this is the greatest industrial disaster in human history. That is a conclusion I read in the course of my research, and the OP shows the factual evidence.
--------------------
Everything I post is fiction.
|
Moonshoe
Blue Mantis


Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
|
Re: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- How bad is it, really? [Re: koraks]
#18862963 - 09/19/13 12:56 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koraks said: You assume he didn't find the WHO report. It is entirely possible that he overlooked it. In that case it's not so much a sign of selective quoting, but of really poor research. Either way, the selection of sources that he offers is unnecessarily biased in the end - whether intentionally or not.
Anyone who thinks my research is selective and biased has an obvious task- simply find all the evidence that Fukushima is not as bad as my research suggests, quote the relevant parts and link the sources.
If the research in the OP is wrong, prove it.
Post the contradictory evidence.
--------------------
Everything I post is fiction.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,505
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- How bad is it, really? [Re: koraks]
#18862965 - 09/19/13 12:58 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koraks said: You assume he didn't find the WHO report. It is entirely possible that he overlooked it. In that case it's not so much a sign of selective quoting, but of really poor research. Either way, the selection of sources that he offers is unnecessarily biased in the end - whether intentionally or not.
No, koraks..I specifically linked him the report, and some quotes in it. He even responded to that post by quoting my link to the report. He clearly saw it and chose to omit it.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
Re: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- How bad is it, really? [Re: Moonshoe]
#18862966 - 09/19/13 12:58 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Moonshoe said: I am trying to inform about the severity of the situation. It is a collection of facts, just a collection of facts selected and organized according to a theme, that of "how bad is it really" (which was the original title of the thread).
Selected using what criteria? Organized how? Look, I can't blame you for having poor research skills; not everyone is a professional researcher. Just be aware of the possibility that you might be incredibly biased yourself and that it shows in the collection of information that you offer. Also try to distinguish between 'facts' and 'information'; the latter involves interpretation, while the former doesn't. It's an important difference in this instance.
Again, I'm not contesting the severity of the situation; I just think that it is best served by an objective (as far as possible) and well-balanced supply of information.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,505
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- How bad is it, really? [Re: koraks]
#18862972 - 09/19/13 12:59 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78218/1/9789241505130_eng.pdf
"No acute effects of radiation exposure such as acute radiation syndrome or skin injuries have been observed among the general population" - page 66
"To date, no radiation injuries have been observed among Fukushima Daiichi NPP emergency workers as a result of the accident (i.e. no cases of acute radiation syndrome or skin injuries). None of the seven reported deaths among emergency workers is attributableto radiation exposure." - page 67
"This health risk assessment concludes that 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." - Page 9
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Moonshoe
Blue Mantis


Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
|
Re: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- How bad is it, really? [Re: koraks]
#18862985 - 09/19/13 01:02 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koraks said:
Quote:
Moonshoe said: I am trying to inform about the severity of the situation. It is a collection of facts, just a collection of facts selected and organized according to a theme, that of "how bad is it really" (which was the original title of the thread).
Selected using what criteria? Organized how? Look, I can't blame you for having poor research skills; not everyone is a professional researcher. Just be aware of the possibility that you might be incredibly biased yourself and that it shows in the collection of information that you offer. Also try to distinguish between 'facts' and 'information'; the latter involves interpretation, while the former doesn't. It's an important difference in this instance.
Again, I'm not contesting the severity of the situation; I just think that it is best served by an objective (as far as possible) and well-balanced supply of information.
Selected according to the criteria of relevance to answering the question "how bad is Fukushima"
Organized by extracting from each article the most relevant parts and posting them in a condensed compilation.
I actually am a professional researcher, amusingly enough. I am quite literally a professional researcher. Of course I do not polish my posts on the shroomery the way I do my academic or professional work, I spend far too much time doing these side projects as it is.
As I said, if you feel my research is not representative or accurate, the onus is on you to show this by posting the contradictory sources that you can find.
--------------------
Everything I post is fiction.
Edited by Moonshoe (09/19/13 01:04 PM)
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
Re: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- How bad is it, really? [Re: Moonshoe]
#18863006 - 09/19/13 01:08 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Moonshoe said: Selected to according to the criteria of relevance to answering the question "how bad is Fukushima"
How did you determine to what extent each source answered that question and what the quality of the answer was?
Quote:
Organized by extracting from each article the most relevant parts and posting them in a condensed compilation.
What did you base your selection on? The appeal the quotes had on you personally?
Quote:
I actually am a professional researcher, amusingly enough. I am quite literally a professional researcher.
Then you should know what I'm talking about and be very forthcoming in acknowledging that you gave us a pretty biased account of matters and you were way too eager to pass off emotional interpretations of web journalists as facts.
|
Moonshoe
Blue Mantis


Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
|
Re: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- How bad is it, really? [Re: Enlil]
#18863009 - 09/19/13 01:09 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks for posting your source Enlil. Its not so hard to do now is it?
In relation to the significance of the study you posted showing a low estimate of deaths from Fukushima, a few comments are relevant:
"The japanese rely heavily on sea food, and you can't restrict fish from entering contaminated areas, so the japanese are going to be accumulating contaminants. Over time, we are going to be seeing some major reproductive issues. Fukushima hasn't even happened yet; it's happening."
"it takes 5 years for a thyroid tumor to develop and 15 or more for other cancers to develop. the world health organization is not allowed by law to investigate the Chernobyl disaster or any other involving the nrc. even if they were allowed to investigate, it would be very hard to prove the cause of death, therefore we are relying on privately funded correlative statistical research. "
This. It is incredibly hard to detect radiation caused cancers because of the high background rates of cancer from other causes. If someone in Japan or America gets cancer, how do we know if fukushima was the cause? Its an incredibly hard, almost impossible task to establish, especially because cancer can take years to develop.The dea that no one will die from this based on that out dated study saying 150 deaths is totally meaningless.
We simply cant begin to estimate the deaths for decades at least, but that doesn't mean their wont be any. You cant insist on pretending Fukushima was a discreet event whose impact can be assessed when it obviously cant because it is ongoing and the long terms implications change every day as a result (and have been dramatically worsening ever since that article was published).
This isnt a car accident where you just count the bodies right away. This is a long term, ongoing, constantly changing disaster where the ecosphere is slowly but steadily being contaminated with highly carcinogenic radioactive particles.
Short term thinking is blinding when there have since been further leaks of contamination so severe as to recieve their own IAEA disaster ratings which were not even factored in to that projection!
We have learned a lot about How bad fukushima is since that article was published.
The reason there are not more reported deaths is because the people who will die wont do so for years or decades, combined with the fact that Japan, TEPCO and the nuclear industry are desperately trying to downplay the severity of this disaster and scientists are being prevented from doing adequate research on what is happening. Japan is especially likely to cover up deaths from radiation because they are now the leading bid to host the 2020 Olympics! They know that bid will be jeapordized if someone reports deaths or cancers from Fukushima, or the severity of the ongoing risk there, and they have a huge and obvious vested interest in covering it up. Furthermore they know if the world realizes how bad the leakage of radiation is they will likely block imports of food and other products from Japan, which could tank Japan's economy badly.
Unless in case a worst case scenario plays out in which case quick deaths from radiation poisoning (instead of slow deaths from cancer) are very likely.
--------------------
Everything I post is fiction.
|
|