• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

I know you like the pretty pictures, but you should read the link, or get someone to read it to you. Disinformation and misinformation flow from you like water over Niagara Falls. Why do you think there is a huge concrete sarcophagus over the area at Chernobyl? What are they trying to protect you from?

Pictures ?

LOL !!

You didn't even know what "Corium" was before you entered into this debate. You showed up with your generic corporate hate and your made up scenario's and I "corrected " you.

Next time post data and do it with integrity, that way I won't have to school you anymore.
 
Pictures ?

LOL !!

You didn't even know what "Corium" was before you entered into this debate. You showed up with your generic corporate hate and your made up scenario's and I "corrected " you.

Next time post data and do it with integrity, that way I won't have to school you anymore.

Post number 10 of this thread. First mention of corium, by guess who, yours truly. Back to your crayons.

"I don't recall debating anyone so misinformed. Fukushima was built with and inadequate seawall in a place that had stone tsunami markers identifying previous tsunami levels. These were ignored by the engineering geniuses with the hugely safe design parameters and cost effectiveness mitigating factors. Translated. Screw the people. If it happens we'll claim it was an unforeseeable act of nature and laugh all the way to the bank. Remember the stone tsunami markers. There are no excuses here. Right now the molten coriums from the three reactors are in unknown locations somewhere beneath their original locations. Most likely will cook their way into the underground flowing water that will cool them and send their deadly mother lode into the Pacific, slowly and deadly. Hubris and arrogance combine with greed to engineer a disaster of cataclysmic proportions. Yeh, them nukes gotta be wonderful stuff.
 
Post
number 10 of this thread. First mention of corium, by guess who, yours truly. Back to your crayons.

"I don't recall debating anyone so misinformed. Fukushima was built with and inadequate seawall in a place that had stone tsunami markers identifying previous tsunami levels. These were ignored by the engineering geniuses with the hugely safe design parameters and cost effectiveness mitigating factors. Translated. Screw the people. If it happens we'll claim it was an unforeseeable act of nature and laugh all the way to the bank. Remember the stone tsunami markers. There are no excuses here. Right now the molten coriums from the three reactors are in unknown locations somewhere beneath their original locations. Most likely will cook their way into the underground flowing water that will cool them and send their deadly mother lode into the Pacific, slowly and deadly. Hubris and arrogance combine with greed to engineer a disaster of cataclysmic proportions. Yeh, them nukes gotta be wonderful stuff.

You lying publicly about Fukishimas corium being exposed is not the same thing as being "informed".

But I supppose the best your'e capable of is posting a previous comment embolded.. LOL !!
 
You lying publicly about Fukishimas corium being exposed is not the same thing as being "informed".

But I supppose the best your'e capable of is posting a previous comment embolded.. LOL !!

Fukushima 2013 « nuclear-news

"The nuclear industry, which wants to continue to expand, fears Fukushima being widely discussed because it undermines their already weak economic potential. But, the profits of the nuclear industry are of minor concern compared to the risks of the triple Fukushima challenges.

The second thing that must be faced is the incompetence of TEPCO. They are not capable of handling this triple complex crisis. TEPCO “is already Japan’s most distrusted firm” and has been exposed as “dangerously incompetent.” A poll foundthat 91 percent of the Japanese public wants the government to intervene at Fukushima.

Tepco’s management of the stricken power plant has been described as a comedy of errors. The constant stream of mistakes has been made worse by constant false denials and efforts to minimize major problems. Indeed the entire Fukushima catastrophe could have been avoided:


“Tepco at first blamed the accident on ‘an unforeseen massive tsunami’ triggered by the Great East Japan Earthquake on March 11, 2011. Then it admitted it had in fact foreseen just such a scenario but hadn’t done anything about it.”

The reality is Fukushima was plagued by human error from the outset. An official Japanese government investigation concluded that the Fukushima accident was a “man-made” disaster, caused by “collusion” between government and Tepco and bad reactor design. On this point, TEPCO is not alone, this is an industry-wide problem. Many US nuclear plants have serious problems, are being operated beyond their life span, have the same design problems and are near earthquake faults. Regulatory officials in both the US and Japan are too corruptly tied to the industry.

Then, the meltdown itself was denied for months, with TEPCO claiming it had not been confirmed. Japan Times reports that “in December 2011, the government announced that the plant had reached ‘a state of cold shutdown.’ Normally, that means radiation releases are under control and the temperature of its nuclear fuel is consistently below boiling point.” Unfortunately, the statement was false – the reactors continue to need water to keep them cool, the fuel rods need to be kept cool – there has been no cold shutdown. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/10/25/the-global-threat-of-fukushima/"

"Why TEPCO is Risking the Removal of Fukushima Fuel Rods. The Dangers of Uncontrolled Global Nuclear Radiation, Global Research, 24 Nov 13 By Yoichi Shimatsu After repeated delays since the summer of 2011, the Tokyo Electric Power Company has launched a high-risk operation to empty the spent-fuel pool atop Reactor 4 at the Dai-ichi (No.1) Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant.

The urgency attached to this particular site, as compared with reactors damaged in meltdowns, arises from several factors:

- over 400 tons of nuclear material in the pool could reignite

- the fire-damaged tank is tilting badly and may topple over sooner than later

- collapse of the structure could trigger a chain reaction and nuclear blast, and

- consequent radioactive releases would heavily contaminate much of the world.

The potential for disaster at the Unit 4 SFP is probably of a higher magnitude than suspected due to the presence of fresh fuel rods, which were delivered during the technical upgrade of Reactor 4 under completion at the time of the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami. The details of that reactor overhaul by GE and Hitachi have yet to be disclosed by TEPCO and the Economy Ministry and continue to be treated as a national-security matter. Here, the few clues from whistleblowers will be pieced together to decipher the nature of the clandestine activity at Fukushima No.1"

"The Global Threat of Fukushima, counterpunch A Global Response is Needed WEEKEND EDITION OCTOBER 25-27, 2013 by KEVIN ZEESE AND MARGARET FLOWERS ”………….An estimated 300 tons (71,895 gallons/272,152 liters) of contaminated water is flowing into the ocean every day. The first radioactive ocean plume released by the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster will take three years to reach the shores of the United States. This means, according to a new study from the University of New South Wales, the United States will experience the first radioactive water coming to its shores sometime in early 2014.

One month after Fukushima, the FDA announced it was going to stop testing fish in the Pacific Ocean for radiation. But, independent research is showing that every bluefin tuna tested in the waters off California has been contaminated with radiation that originated in Fukushima. Daniel Madigan, the marine ecologist who led the Stanford University study from May of 2012 was quoted in the Wall Street Journalsaying, “The tuna packaged it up (the radiation) and brought it across the world’s largest ocean. We were definitely surprised to see it at all and even more surprised to see it in every one we measured.” Marine biologist Nicholas Fisher of Stony Brook University in New York State, another member of the study group, said: “We found that absolutely every one of them had comparable concentrations of cesium 134 and cesium 137.”

In addition, Science reports that fish near Fukushima are being found to have high levels of the radioactive isotope, cesium-134. The levels found in these fish are not decreasing, which indicates that radiation-polluted water continues to leak into the ocean. At least 42 fish species from the area around the plant are considered unsafe. South Korea has banned Japanese fish as a result of the ongoing leaks.

The half-life (time it takes for half of the element to decay) of cesium 134 is 2.0652 years. For cesium 137, the half-life is 30.17 years. Cesium does not sink to the ocean floor, so fish swim through it. What are the human impacts of cesium?……..

There is no end in sight from the leakage of radioactive water into the Pacific from Fukushima. Harvey Wasserman is questioning whether fishing in the Pacific Ocean will be safe after years of leakage from Fukushima. The World Health Organization (WHO) is claiming that this will have limited effect on human health, with concentrations predicted to be below WHO safety levels. However, experts seriously question the WHO’s claims………"
 
One of three things happened:
1) Some blog told you about this paper, with the "28%" "in North America" "attributable to Fukushima" interpretation. You accepted this interpretation without question, but knew I would be skeptical about a blog so just posted the paper. Without reading it.
2) You did read the paper, or at least the abstract, and deliberately lied about it.
3) You did read the paper, or at least the abstract, and your reading comprehension is appallingly bad.

Tell me which one it is.

(this paper does not say what you think it says)

1- you defend the charge that you ignore facts that do not suit your opinions by admitting that you ignored the paper.

An you were also wrong because it was an interview with the doctors involved in the study explaining their findings and discussing the paper that just got published in a journal of pediatrics.

Also false, had you even made it as far in your honest rebuttal to facts by even reading the one paragraph abstract, would have known that this is not a valid charge.

You didn't even read it, by your own admission.

Tell me, what is it that you think this paper is saying and tell me what I said that was wrong about it??

Oh and tell me, how many times greater than background levels was the exposure while you are at it?

Of course, as usual, you will come back with more nonsense to cover for your deliberate ignorance.

Number 3 is the winner: appallingly bad reading comprehension.
 
Number 3 is the winner: appallingly bad reading comprehension.

Knowing Mcfly, I would have guessed number 1. After a quick google search for "28% Fukushima" and seeing that the third (and original date-wise) hit is for Alex Jones, I would say without doubt that number 1 is correct. He gets all of his "news" from AJ. This of course does not mean that bad reading comprehension or flat out lying is not in play as well, wouldn't be the first time for either.
 
Knowing Mcfly, I would have guessed number 1. After a quick google search for "28% Fukushima" and seeing that the third (and original date-wise) hit is for Alex Jones, I would say without doubt that number 1 is correct. He gets all of his "news" from AJ. This of course does not mean that bad reading comprehension or flat out lying is not in play as well, wouldn't be the first time for either.

I still think bad reading comprehension is at fault. For evidence, Mcfly took a paragraph in which someone accused him of not reading the article and interpretted that as the poster admitting that they themself didn't read the article. That's pretty bad.
 
Ok, tell me what the paper says; use quotes... link is back a couple pages.

Oh, we know you went back and checked after I called you out on it. Then you discovered your mistake and have been desperately trying to justify it.
 
Oh, we know you went back and checked after I called you out on it. Then you discovered your mistake and have been desperately trying to justify it.

Excuses... no, I'm challenging you to tell us ALL what it says, using quotes from the document.

Look, I've obviously been lacking in reading skills. This way, since you claim to be honest, will be able to demonstrate what I should have read.

Btw, if you are manipulative, I will then have the chance to demonstrate that, once again.
 
I still think bad reading comprehension is at fault. For evidence, Mcfly took a paragraph in which someone accused him of not reading the article and interpretted that as the poster admitting that they themself didn't read the article. That's pretty bad.

Instead of actually quoting the article.

No, it shows that he did not read by the fact of asking the question as he did.... not to mention that the person responded to has a long track record of this same style of dishonesty.

It's pretty bad when all I get is an attack against me rather than attacking the information.
 
Knowing Mcfly, I would have guessed number 1. After a quick google search for "28% Fukushima" and seeing that the third (and original date-wise) hit is for Alex Jones, I would say without doubt that number 1 is correct. He gets all of his "news" from AJ. This of course does not mean that bad reading comprehension or flat out lying is not in play as well, wouldn't be the first time for either.

Oh another person on the attack me, I said I heard it in an interview with a doctor that was involved in writing the peer - reviewed paper.

Now the discussion is about who I am as opposed to the information on the table.

Just pathetic.
 
Oh another person on the attack me, I said I heard it in an interview with a doctor that was involved in writing the peer - reviewed paper.

Now the discussion is about who I am as opposed to the information on the table.

Just pathetic.

I wasn't attacking you. I was attacking your deceptive presentation of that research. You picked out the 28% outlier and declared that trend to be both "across North America" and "attributed to Fukushima." In reality, it was only one state and the author specifically did not attribute it to Fukushima. He suggested they need more research.
 
I wasn't attacking you. I was attacking your deceptive presentation of that research. You picked out the 28% outlier and declared that trend to be both "across North America" and "attributed to Fukushima." In reality, it was only one state and the author specifically did not attribute it to Fukushima. He suggested they need more research.

1- no, because I explained that when I said this surge was in the us that I meant in the us as opposed to in Japan where the problem would be worse.

2- they were looking at values of I-131 rates that have increased over 200 times since Fukushima. (Unless you know of something else that would cause radioactive iodine to increase that much)

3- Further study is needed because as you know correlation is not equal to causation... A study of the CAUSE would be required to explain the correlation of increased I-131 exposure and thyroid problems in newborns.

Now, go back and tell me how that is wrong using quotes from the paper, or link to another paper disputing I-131 and it's relation to hyperthyroidism.

Of course you won't cause you're dishonest to the point of it being a joke, further evidenced by the fact that you repeated the same argument that I had already addressed previously.

Like usual I expect more dancing around and side stepping the issue because your position is not supported by any facts.
 
Oh another person on the attack me, I said I heard it in an interview with a doctor that was involved in writing the peer - reviewed paper.

And where was that interview being conducted? Perhaps on the Alex Jones InfoWars show?

Now the discussion is about who I am as opposed to the information on the table.

Just pathetic.

If you'd stop with the paranoid alarmist style of blowing things WAY out of proportion, maybe this wouldn't keep happening. You always do this. Below is what I am talking about...

...to claim its "no big deal" is somewhere between ignorant and delusional.

In the big explosion radioactive debris was found 20km away, and the smoke, dust, and flames sent all sorts of particles into the atmosphere where it's now circling the earth.

...the background radiation of the northern hemisphere is now double the southern hemisphere.

I-131 rates that have increased over 200 times since Fukushima.


It's seriously like you are running around waving your arms and screaming "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE", and then you try to act like you're the only one being rational when somebody tells you "no we're not".

And then as for this exchange with Deuce...

You picked out the 28% outlier and declared that trend to be both "across North America" and "attributed to Fukushima."

Where you claim...

no, because I explained that when I said this surge was in the us that I meant in the us as opposed to in Japan where the problem would be worse.

Sorry, but I gotta call bull**** on that one pal. You CLEARLY said:

there's already been a 28% surge in thyroid problems in north America that can be attributed to Fukushima.

Why can't you ever just go back and actually read what you wrote, before trying to twists things into "no, I didn't say THAT"?

It's right ****ing there man. Then you have the nerve to claim he doesn't have any facts and is side-stepping? :lamo
 
And where was that interview being conducted? Perhaps on the Alex Jones InfoWars show?

Relevance?

Does going on InfoWars refute his peer - reviewed and published paper?


If you'd stop with the paranoid alarmist style of blowing things WAY out of proportion, maybe this wouldn't keep happening. You always do this. Below is what I am talking about...










It's seriously like you are running around waving your arms and screaming "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE", and then you try to act like you're the only one being rational when somebody tells you "no we're not".

Too bad you haven't really paid attention to my points.

Even in a worst case scenario, I mean absolute worst case, this is not a life ending situation. Unless you live in that region of Japan.

If you live on the west coast, it's more a matter of accepting that if you are the unlucky one to ingest some hot particles, it might be 5-20 years later, but there will be health consequences.

And then as for this exchange with Deuce...



Where you claim...



Sorry, but I gotta call bull**** on that one pal. You CLEARLY said:



Why can't you ever just go back and actually read what you wrote, before trying to twists things into "no, I didn't say THAT"?

It's right ****ing there man. Then you have the nerve to claim he doesn't have any facts and is side-stepping? :lamo

I know what i said, but look at the context. I was responding to the stupidity that the radiation and radioactive debris is not a concern and will not harm anyone.

So, in that context I was saying that the paper was relevant to the us, and by implication, not in Japan where the situation is undoubtedly far worse.

What is still really pathetic in this is that you also can't deal with the peer - reviewed paper that was linked, and instead focus on ME.

You are right I misspoke, and I will choose my words more carefully next time, since I know how even one word out of place is enough to completely divert from the topic at hand.

If you guys cared even slightly about honest discussion instead of playing these stupid lame word games trying to one up the other side, we could have some productive discussion that might lead to actually fixing some of these problems.

Think about it; 3 major nuclear accidents within less than 100 years... it's not life ending, but seriously, how many more of these accidents can occur before the ecosystem just dies?

Since some dummies seem to think that radiation is nutritious and delicious. .. The thought is probably that no bad can happen.
 
Relevance?

It establishes a pattern. During the 5 years we've been talking on here, you seem to exclusively get your news from that alarmist crackpot. He lies about things and twists stuff around until it fits his narrative so he can get more website/radio traffic. He constantly spews bs and lies Mcfly.

Does going on InfoWars refute his peer - reviewed and published paper?

If he is the type that subscribes to Alex Jones' nonsense, then yes I will question the validity of his paper. The big problem is, you guys that like one conspiracy seem to like them all. That is a problem for somebody like me that likes FACTS... Not wild speculation and twisted numbers to make paranoid people take notice, tune-in, donate, etc.

Too bad you haven't really paid attention to my points.

I was waiting for you to actually make one.

Even in a worst case scenario, I mean absolute worst case, this is not a life ending situation. Unless you live in that region of Japan.

Where are the mass body counts from that region of Japan then? Can you even find ten? Five? ONE?

If you live on the west coast, it's more a matter of accepting that if you are the unlucky one to ingest some hot particles, it might be 5-20 years later, but there will be health consequences.

Okay fair enough, but if that is the point you were trying to make when you were seemingly freaking out about "a 28% surge in thyroid problems in north America that can be attributed to Fukushima", then I honestly think you should work on how you initially present things a little better. Those two statements you made are miles apart.

I know what i said, but look at the context. I was responding to the stupidity that the radiation and radioactive debris is not a concern and will not harm anyone. So, in that context I was saying that the paper was relevant to the us, and by implication, not in Japan where the situation is undoubtedly far worse. What is still really pathetic in this is that you also can't deal with the peer - reviewed paper that was linked, and instead focus on ME.

I was pointing out the stupidity in constantly using Alex ****ing Jones as your source of info on pretty much everything all over this forum. It's always the same. You take that fringe side that JUST KNOWS SOMETHING IS WRONG and inject it into everything. Doesn't matter what the topic is, it's always "darn it, I know something is wrong and that the governments are lying and that everyone is out to get me. It gets old.

You are right I misspoke, and I will choose my words more carefully next time, since I know how even one word out of place is enough to completely divert from the topic at hand. If you guys cared even slightly about honest discussion instead of playing these stupid lame word games trying to one up the other side, we could have some productive discussion that might lead to actually fixing some of these problems.

You're right. Let's get back on track here and have a productive discussion on debatepolitics that will fix "problems" (that largely don't exist) in the freaking nuclear power industry. I am sure that their agents are tuning in and will take notes. So you start. How should we best fix this since you are definitely more informed than I am about what these "problems" are?

Think about it; 3 major nuclear accidents within less than 100 years...

That's actually pretty good when you think about it. How many other gigantic worldwide industries can even come close to claiming such a low failure/accident rate?

it's not life ending, but seriously, how many more of these accidents can occur before the ecosystem just dies?

Uhm... "before the ecosystem just dies? Lots.

Since some dummies seem to think that radiation is nutritious and delicious. .. The thought is probably that no bad can happen.

It's about perspective. You often turn things into one extreme or the other, when the correct answer is more in the middle. I don't think anybody here honestly thinks that radiation in all forms is "nutritious and delicious", but the situation at Fukushima is not some boogeyman either. We all experience more radiation from simple daily tasks than we will ever see from what was a relatively major disaster. That is just a fact.
 
It establishes a pattern. During the 5 years we've been talking on here, you seem to exclusively get your news from that alarmist crackpot. He lies about things and twists stuff around until it fits his narrative so he can get more website/radio traffic. He constantly spews bs and lies Mcfly.

That's not true, I get news from all sources I have the time to absorb.

Again, how is this RELEVANT to this peer - reviewed paper that showed an increase in thyroid issues in newborns in the wake of exposure to radioactive iodine from Fukushima? ?


If he is the type that subscribes to Alex Jones' nonsense, then yes I will question the validity of his paper. The big problem is, you guys that like one conspiracy seem to like them all. That is a problem for somebody like me that likes FACTS... Not wild speculation and twisted numbers to make paranoid people take notice, tune-in, donate, etc.

Oh, so this doctor is wrong by association... it's this type of nonsense argument that has you in the ignore list (that I overlooked in the hopes that you actually had a point to make)



I was waiting for you to actually make one.

This is asinine.


Where are the mass body counts from that region of Japan then? Can you even find ten? Five? ONE?

Of course, when you consider only those that got a heroic dose of radiation and died of poisoning, the numbers are between 0 and 5.

However, I found this ( http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf) that, while not being a conclusive count does add a few extra deaths, again, on the us side of things.

The deaths do follow the trend within the same time period after the Chernobyl disaster.

Okay fair enough, but if that is the point you were trying to make when you were seemingly freaking out about "a 28% surge in thyroid problems in north America that can be attributed to Fukushima", then I honestly think you should work on how you initially present things a little better. Those two statements you made are miles apart.

Only because of the arrogant declaration that nobody will be hurt by the radiation.

It's delusional thinking... and naturally, reality sounds like freaking out next to delusion.


I was pointing out the stupidity in constantly using Alex ****ing Jones as your source of info on pretty much everything all over this forum. It's always the same. You take that fringe side that JUST KNOWS SOMETHING IS WRONG and inject it into everything. Doesn't matter what the topic is, it's always "darn it, I know something is wrong and that the governments are lying and that everyone is out to get me. It gets old.

This is wrong on more levels than is worth pointing out, and more importantly, it's not even relevant.


You're right. Let's get back on track here and have a productive discussion on debatepolitics that will fix "problems" (that largely don't exist) in the freaking nuclear power industry. I am sure that their agents are tuning in and will take notes. So you start. How should we best fix this since you are definitely more informed than I am about what these "problems" are?

Oh there's no problems at Fukushima. Well I'm glad your uninformed and delusional statement has a real impact on reality.

From the start this should have been an international cleanup effort bringing in all the top experts around the world....


That's actually pretty good when you think about it. How many other gigantic worldwide industries can even come close to claiming such a low failure/accident rate?

Uhm... "before the ecosystem just dies? Lots.



It's about perspective. You often turn things into one extreme or the other, when the correct answer is more in the middle. I don't think anybody here honestly thinks that radiation in all forms is "nutritious and delicious", but the situation at Fukushima is not some boogeyman either. We all experience more radiation from simple daily tasks than we will ever see from what was a relatively major disaster. That is just a fact.

This is a gross oversimplification, it puts exposure to radiation on the same level as ingestion of radioactive particles, then it also treats gamma radiation (what you pick up with a Geiger counter) in the same way as alpha and beta emissions. They are not the same.

You are obviously not aware that the analysis from Chernobyl puts the number between 35 and 985000 premature deaths due to that radiation... but if a person gets a low dose that gives them cancer 5 years later, then it's treated as unrelated. Makes it easy to show the safety of these systems.

Yes, nuclear is highly efficient, clean and safe.... until it goes wrong, then it goes horribly wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom