Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

  1. #21
    Mildly Hostile
    505's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    03-16-18 @ 04:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,363

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    Yours first because of the antagonism...
    1 - You never addressed my question, you simply called it an assertion and ignored it. So you have yet to make a single ACTUAL point here yet grandstand like you know what you're talking about. Which you clearly don't since you haven't even been able to answer a simple question.

    2 - I only had time to address a single post this morning, so, don't take that as not looking at physical data, for me to ADDRESS the physical data I have to look at that and other sources to see how well it is corroborated.

    3 - You're only shocked cause you speak out of this arrogant ignorance where you ignore facts that you choose and pretend like that causes you a win...
    1. I addressed your question. You asked "So, is anyone else less then convinced that Chernobyl was a bigger disaster?" I disagreed, and then posted all of the reasons why Chernobyl was the bigger disaster.

    2. I wasn't just talking about this one time. You make it a habit to not look at the actual data, and instead resort to getting your info from that alarmist puke Jones and his radio show. You then parrot whatever his new flavor of the week is, thinking that nobody can see that is what you're doing.

    3. No, saying I was shocked was obviously being very sarcastic. Not surprised to see you twist that one around too though... next to ignoring physical data it is your favorite thing to do.
    Disclaimer: If you are offended by the above post, and you aren't a SJW or truther, grow a pair.

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 01:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Quote Originally Posted by 505 View Post
    1. I addressed your question. You asked "So, is anyone else less then convinced that Chernobyl was a bigger disaster?" I disagreed, and then posted all of the reasons why Chernobyl was the bigger disaster.
    Actually, you posted a wiki page about Chernobyl WITH NOTHING to explain the comparison, then you announced my question was a statement... So fail 1.

    2. I wasn't just talking about this one time. You make it a habit to not look at the actual data, and instead resort to getting your info from that alarmist puke Jones and his radio show. You then parrot whatever his new flavor of the week is, thinking that nobody can see that is what you're doing.
    Oh, all those times that I've never sourced Jones (unless it was specifically on a subject related)... can you back up that statement beyond that?? Jones does not own the BBC, or the University of Berkeley, or well... or any of the sources I've put up here... so another fail.

  3. #23
    Mildly Hostile
    505's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    03-16-18 @ 04:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,363

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    Actually, you posted a wiki page about Chernobyl WITH NOTHING to explain the comparison, then you announced my question was a statement... So fail 1.
    Mcfly, I posted all of that AS the comparison. NONE of that happened with Fukushima. Comprende?



    Oh, all those times that I've never sourced Jones (unless it was specifically on a subject related)... can you back up that statement beyond that?
    Yup. Jones' new flavor of the week is crying about how this is the biggest disaster EVER and we're all DOOOOOMED. Then you come in here saying the same. Not surprising at all.
    Disclaimer: If you are offended by the above post, and you aren't a SJW or truther, grow a pair.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 01:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Quote Originally Posted by 505 View Post
    Mcfly, I posted all of that AS the comparison. NONE of that happened with Fukushima. Comprende?
    Yes, let's just ignore 3/4 of the news reports on the subject of the past month and I'd have to agree with you.

    Yup. Jones' new flavor of the week is crying about how this is the biggest disaster EVER and we're all DOOOOOMED. Then you come in here saying the same. Not surprising at all.
    Umm... not sure how to break this to you, but this issue has been plastered throughout news headlines for the whole month that this has been going on.... oh and also, it's only cause you are only capable of black/white thinking that it comes across as "we're all doomed" that I'm talking about... and having looked through what other doctors and physicists, news headlines, MSM experts, etc have been saying to filter out the fact from the fiction... and well, the reality is that we are not all doomed, that this IS a big deal that will impact at least the northern hemisphere for years, and Japan proper for decades if not centuries or longer in areas.

    All this nonsense about radiation being safe and in some cases the claims of 'good for you' is at the least very foolish messages to send out...

  5. #25
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,479

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    McFly! Your Computer is emitting radiation! Run, Man, RUN!!!!!!

  6. #26
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,479

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Afraid of Radiation? Low Doses are Good for You

    ...TV reporters and journalists, and, consequently, most Americans believe that low doses of radiation are harmful. People have "radiophobia" — the fear that any level of ionizing radiation, no matter how small, is dangerous. Why? For one thing, the news media fosters it because fear sells. Scary stories about the dangers of radiation keep people tuned in. Another reason, which lies deeper in the collective psyche, is that this phobia expresses the deep-seated sense of revulsion that Americans feel over the devastation and loss of life caused by the atomic bombs that its country dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. A third, more correctable reason is that the relationship between radiation dose and its biological effects is believed to conform to the "Linear (No-Threshold) Hypothesis," or "model." Regulators use this model to predict the number of cancer deaths that low doses of radiation are assumed to cause and then cite these predictions to justify their draconian radiation safety standards.

    This is how the linear hypothesis works: After America developed the atom bomb, tested it, and dropped two on Japan investigators learned that 600 rem — 600,000 mrem — of radiation constitutes a lethal dose (it is 100 percent fatal), and 50 percent of people exposed to 400 rem will die of radiation sickness. Signs and symptoms of radiation sickness — such as vomiting, diarrhea, bleeding, sore mouth, weakness, and hair loss — begin to appear when a person receives 75 to 100 rem. This hypothesis assumes that there is no threshold beneath which the deleterious effects of radiation cease to appear. Even very small doses will cause cancer in some people, if a large enough group is exposed. It predicts, for example, (in a simplified form) that 0.0625 percent of people exposed to a 500 mrem dose will die from radiation-induced cancer, a rate extrapolated in a linear fashion from the mortality rate observed at higher doses. Although this is a very low rate for a dose of this amount, when applied to a large group of people it gets scarier. For a population of one million people who are exposed to 500 mrem of ionizing radiation, the linear model predicts that 625 people will die from radiation-induced cancer. If 10 million people, in a city like New York, are exposed to this dose, 6,250 deaths are assumed to occur.

    Regulators acknowledge that a prediction like "there will be 62,500 deaths in 10 million people exposed to 500 mrem of radiation" is an assumed risk. It is based on the assumption that "any exposure to ionizing radiation carries with it some risk," as the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) regulation puts it. Known and documented health-damaging effects of radiation — radiation sickness, leukemia, and death — are only seen with doses greater than 100 rem. The risk of doses less than 100 rem is a black box into which regulators extend "extrapolated data." There are no valid epidemiologic or experimental data to support linearly extrapolated predictions of cancer resulting from low doses of radiation. (Proponents argue that some studies support this model, but they "capriciously misrepresent" the data in those studies and apply the linear hypothesis in an a priori fashion to make the data fit, ignoring data that does not.)

    Contrary to what is perceived to be true, the actual truth is that ionizing radiation in low doses does not cause cancer (or genetic defects). It, in fact, has a beneficial effect on one's health. There are epidemiological studies and scientific data on health effects from low to moderate doses of ionizing radiation that show it decreases the risk of cancer. Government authorities and regulators — including the news media — ignore this data...

  7. #27
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,479

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Americans are exposed to an average 200 mrem of natural and medical radiation per year. Natural background radiation comes from cosmic rays, isotopes of uranium and thorium in the bricks, plaster, and concrete of buildings, and radioactive potassium. Radioactive potassium in our bodies generates about 25 mrem of radiation per year — more than the EPA safety limit. It comes from potassium-40, a naturally occurring radioactive isotope of potassium. People that suffer from radiophobia and think that they would be better off without that source of radioactivity in their bodies can take comfort in knowing that organisms grown in the laboratory consuming only non-radioactive potassium-39, with no potassium-40 in their diet, develop severe growth defects. The radiation that potassium-40 in our cells provides is vital for our health.

    People who live in Ramsar, Iran, a resort on the Caspian Sea, are exposed to natural background radiation of 79,000 mrem per year, 5,266 times more than what the EPA's 15-mrem/year radiation safety standard allows. The local river and its streams have a high concentration of radium, which is 15 times more radioactive than plutonium. Its 2,000 residents do not have an increased incidence of cancer, as the linear hypothesis would predict, and their life span is the same as that of other Iranians. Fortunately, for that resort, EPA regulations don't apply there, or to people in Guarapari, Brazil, who get 17,500 mrem of radiation per year with no ill effects.

    One place with high background radiation where EPA regulations do apply is a park in Santa Fe, Fountainhead Rock Place. It has radioactive rock of volcanic origin that emits 760 mrem of gamma radiation, 14 times the allowed amount. Regulators, however, have chosen to make an exception here and have not closed the park off to the public.

    A process known as radiation hormesis mediates its beneficial effect on health. Investigators have found that small doses of radiation have a stimulating and protective effect on cellular function. It stimulates immune system defenses, prevents oxidative DNA damage, and suppresses cancer.

    Accordingly, atom bomb survivors in Nagasaki who received 1,000 to 19,000 mrem of radiation have had a lower incidence of cancer, especially with regard to leukemia and colon cancer, than the non-irradiated control population. And it is turning out that Japan's atom bomb survivors are living longer. They have a death rate after the age of 55 that is lower than matched Japanese people not exposed to radiation.



    Another important epidemiological study has tracked the cancer mortality in people exposed to radiation from a thermonuclear explosion in 1957 in the former Soviet Union (in the Eastern Urals). Investigators followed 8,000 people who lived in the area for the next 30 years. The group exposed to 12,000 mrem (120 mSv) had a substantially lower cancer mortality compared with a non-irradiated control group, exposed only to a normal 100 mrem of natural background radiation. The group that received a considerably higher dose of 50,000 mrem (500mSv) had a not quite as good but still statistically significant decrease in cancer mortality. The same thing is seen with shipyard workers. Those that work on nuclear powered ships have a lower mortality than non-nuclear workers. Investigators matched 29,000 nuclear workers (many received more than 5,000 mrem of radiation) with 33,000 non-nuclear workers. The linear hypothesis predicts that the non-nuclear workers will live longer. The hormesis model predicts, correctly, that just the opposite would happen.

    The radiation hormesis model explains why residents of radon spa areas (in Japan, Germany, and central Europe) and people who live in homes that have high radon levels also have a decreased incidence of cancer. But perhaps the most impressive study that shows just how good low dose radiation can be for you is one just published in the (Spring 2004) Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.



    In Taiwan (in the early 1980s), 180 apartment buildings were built with recycled steel that was accidentally contaminated with Colbalt-60. The buildings' occupants, 4,000 people, lived in them for more than 10 years before their radioactive state was discovered. The amount of radiation they received ranged up to more than 1,500 mrem per year. (Colbalt-60 has a half-life of 5.3 years.) The cancer mortality, over a 20-year period, in the radiated occupants was 97 percent less (3.5 deaths per 100,000 person years) than that of the general population of Taiwan (116 deaths per 100,000 person years). Even the incidence of congenital heart malformations in the children they bore was reduced. This carefully done study shows, as its authors put it, that "chronic radiation [far above EPA limits] is an effective prophylaxis against cancer."...


    etc, etc, etc....

  8. #28
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    34,681
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    The waters surrounding Japan are already showing huge radiation increases, and the crisis still has no solution in sight. Hysteria won't help the situation, but the Japanese scientists in charge of the nuclear program are clearly aware that the potential for long-term catastrophe in Japanese fishing areas and perhaps around the globe most certainly exists. Japan doesn't have huge swaths of land that can remain unused and fallow, as did Chernobyl. If their relatively small island is contaminated, as much of their food and dairy products in the area have already been, this could be a disaster for their country the likes of nothing the world has seen.

    The worst part is that nobody has any idea how this can be stopped... or if it can be stopped at all. This is bad. It frankly doesn't get much worse.

  9. #29
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    54,690

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    The waters surrounding Japan are already showing huge radiation increases, and the crisis still has no solution in sight. Hysteria won't help the situation, but the Japanese scientists in charge of the nuclear program are clearly aware that the potential for long-term catastrophe in Japanese fishing areas and perhaps around the globe most certainly exists. Japan doesn't have huge swaths of land that can remain unused and fallow, as did Chernobyl. If their relatively small island is contaminated, as much of their food and dairy products in the area have already been, this could be a disaster for their country the likes of nothing the world has seen.

    The worst part is that nobody has any idea how this can be stopped... or if it can be stopped at all. This is bad. It frankly doesn't get much worse.
    HUGE RADIATION INCREASES*

    *in the 100 foot area immediately surrounded the leak.

    Dilution does wonders for stuff like this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    We have no reason not to believe him. [North Korean Dictator and Mass Murder Kim Jong-Un] has been very honest and accommodating.

  10. #30
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    34,681
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    HUGE RADIATION INCREASES*

    *in the 100 foot area immediately surrounded the leak.

    Dilution does wonders for stuff like this.

    Japan Nuclear Crisis Raised To Chernobyl Level

    Japanese authorities have revised the severity of the accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant to the highest level possible, putting it on par with the 1986 Chernobyl accident. NPR's Richard Harris provides an update on the condition of the Japanese reactors...


    Japan Nuclear Crisis Raised To Chernobyl Level : NPR



    The chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Tuesday that the situation in the wake of the Japanese nuclear reactor crisis is static but not yet stable.

    On the day that Japan bumped up the seriousness of its nuclear accident from a Level 5 to a Level 7 priority, on par with the Chernobyl disaster, a Senate committee heard from U.S. environmental officials, scientists and NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko...


    NRC chairman: Reactor situation in Japan is static but not stable - CNN.com


    What we have here is a level 7, on-par with Chernobyl disaster taking place in a crowded island nation with no land to spare, not a huge rural zone easily set aside to rot for 1,000 years as Chernobyl was fortunate enough to have.

    This disaster is also ongoing, with no end in sight and has potential catastrophic affect for Japan, because its evacuation zone is continuing to grow, as is the zone of food, livestock, and product contamination. Their local fisheries are in jeopardy as radioactive water continues to contaminate the ocean surrounding them.

    I think if the scientist in charge of Japan's entire nuclear program finds the situation dire enough that he breaks down in tears, the rest of the world should not be dismissing the potential catastrophe this country faces as basically no big deal. It may not be a very big deal to most of the world, but it is a very big deal... a huge deal... for the Japanese, and may be for generations to come.
    Last edited by DiAnna; 04-12-11 at 11:17 PM.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •