Tohoku Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Disaster!!!

[Yokohammer]

Can an admin move these to tokyo tech or sum thing ?

I started a new thread here (as "not news" so it won't appear on the top page):
http://www.fuckedgaijin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=300689#post300689

Since I'm not a mod I haven't moved any of our previous RC related comments, but at least we can continue the conversation and pursue any future variations there.

[Coligny]

You remember all those talks aboot "safe levels" of radiation exposure...

Seems not so much in fact...

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/05/01/1420228/scientific-jigsaw-puzzle-fitting-the-pieces-of-the-low-level-radiation-debate

But by twisting enough the meaning of few keywords... can still ring trus if yu are delusionnal enough...

But put simply:

"Ionizing radiation causes cancer. More ionizing radiation causes more cancer. There is no "safe dose", though there is a certain unavoidable dose."

[Yokohammer]

You remember all those talks aboot "safe levels" of radiation exposure...

Seems not so much in fact...

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/05/01/1420228/scientific-jigsaw-puzzle-fitting-the-pieces-of-the-low-level-radiation-debate

But by twisting enough the meaning of few keywords... can still ring trus if yu are delusionnal enough...

But put simply:

"Ionizing radiation causes cancer. More ionizing radiation causes more cancer. There is no "safe dose", though there is a certain unavoidable dose."

You're doing that "selective edited quoting" thing again.

Not only are you quoting a comment on the article (by a commenter named "Anonymous Coward" even), not the very reasonable and balanced BOS article itself, but you omitted the all-important, defining last sentence of the comment, which is "So we're all at risk of cancer if we live long enough."

As in ... (full comment by Anonymous Coward on a Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article):

Ionizing radiation causes cancer. More ionizing radiation causes more cancer. There is no "safe dose", though there is a certain unavoidable dose. So we're all at risk of cancer if we live long enough.

And here's the full abstract for the article itself:

Abstract

Quantitative risk estimates from exposure to ionizing radiation are dominated by analysis of the one-time exposures received by the Japanese survivors at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Three recent epidemiologic studies suggest that the risk from protracted exposure is no lower, and in fact may be higher, than from single exposures. There is near-universal acceptance that epidemiologic data demonstrates an excess risk of delayed cancer incidence above a dose of 0.1 sievert (Sv), which, for the average American, is equivalent to 40 years of unavoidable exposure from natural background radiation. Model fits, both parametric and nonparametric, to the atomic-bomb data support a linear no-threshold model, below 0.1 Sv. On the basis of biologic arguments, the scientific establishment in the United States and many other countries accepts this dose-model down to zero-dose, but there is spirited dissent. The dissent may be irrelevant for developed countries, given the increase in medical diagnostic radiation that has occurred in recent decades]

It's a longish article, but well worth the read. Here's the conclusion in full:

Conclusion

The public, legislators, and journalists are often at a loss to deal with the charges and counter charges that surface in the debate over low-level radiation exposures. It does not help to listen to industry leaders, nuclear activists, or individual researchers, who, one after another, propound their competing images of the underlying truth. Given the complexities, the only alternative for most people is to rely on scientific committees, like the BEIR committee and UNSCEAR, recognizing that the sci- entific jigsaw puzzle is incomplete. Not all pieces fit correctly, but a reasonable idea of the true situation emerges from the recognizable image visible from the pieces already assembled.
It is now reasonably clear that protracted exposure does not protect against radiation-induced cancer. Rather, it is the cumulative radiation exposure from all sources that must be examined. In developed countries, the average accumulated dose from medical procedures is now so high that a significant percentage of the population in these countries will be above 0.1 Sv. Therefore, this population will be primed for radiation-induced, delayed cancers from releases from nuclear reactors or dirty bombs, even using the hypothetical dose-response models of the LNT dissenters. There is no longer a convenient excuse to avoid using the LNT to estimate consequences from real or projected releases of radioactive materials, even when the dose of concern is below 0.1 Sv.
Particularly when it comes to cost-benefit decisions on retrofitting reactors or planning for spent-fuel pools, regulations that depend on estimates of cancer risks are using LNT slope coefficients that are decades out of date (see Brock and Sherbini, 2012, in this issue of the Bulletin). Thus, pressure to update regulations may build, as awareness grows of the five-to-tenfold disparity between the risk estimates per unit dose recommended by scientists today and the older values still used by regulators in cost-benefit calculations for determining allowable doses.

Sounds reasonable to me.

The full pdf version of the article is here:

http://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/3/13.full.pdf

[Coligny]

My "put it simply" was not an article quote... but effectively a repost of one of the comment that was seemingly not so bad at countering the current insanity of "small exposure is good for your health"...

The second part of the post was not bringing anything new. Just expanding the "unavoidable dose" part... Putting too much emphasize on this... is just on open gate to go back to the current game of using "unavoidable" used instead of admissible...

Removing redundancy is not selective quoting...

[Yokohammer]

My "put it simply" was not an article quote... but effectively a repost of one of the comment that was seemingly not so bad at countering the current insanity of "small exposure is good for your health"...

The second part of the post was not bringing anything new. Just expanding the "unavoidable dose" part... Putting too much emphasize on this... is just on open gate to go back to the current game of using "unavoidable" used instead of admissible...

Removing redundancy is not selective quoting...

The commenter is saying that since we are all exposed to radiation all the time, and since exposure to radiation causes cancer, then we're all at risk of getting cancer if we live long enough. That's what the comment means. When you omit "So we're all at risk of cancer if we live long enough" you're changing the meaning of the comment, which is most definitely not removing redundancy, it's selective quoting.

If it's your personal opinion, that's fine (and I don't necessarily disagree), but if it is a personal opinion it should be expressed as such and not as a quote.

And we still don't really know for sure whether the linear no-threshold model is totally worthless, or whether hormesis theory is bullshit for that matter. We're talking about 1~2% increases in cancer rate observed in high-exposure nuclear workers, and much lower rates in the general population. It looks as though we're seeing slightly increased cancer rates across the board due to prolonged low-level exposure, but the final verdict is not in.

What's the "normal" cancer rate in the general population? One doctor recently told me that about one in four people die from cancer. That's 25%. With that as a backdrop we're trying to determine what sub-decimal percentage is due to radiation. That's a pretty tough challenge.

I don't want to get cancer either, but since my chances of eventually dying from some kind of cancer are around 25% even without radiation ... you see where I'm heading with this ...

Radiation can cause cancer. We know this.
Alcohol can cause cirrhosis of the liver and cancer. We know this too.
Cigarette smoke, food coloring, dioxins, industrial solvents ... hydrogenated oils, sodium nitrite (food preservative) ... barbecued meat, sunlight ...

[Mike Oxlong]

Coligny is one of the few here to make the distinction between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. It's kinda important...

[Coligny]

Iz not exactly rocket science...



Unless you start talking shit aboot UV's...

[Mike Oxlong]

Clearly I'm still learning, but...just can't accept the BED as anything more than sophistry. K40 around since, well forever, we evolved with it over millions of years. Got a homeostasis thing going on. Cs137 around since, whenever the first successful nuclear detonation happened, I'm guessing around 1945. And that's not the only isotope to worry about, just the one in the news the most...

[Coligny]

The same way some people insisted loudly on ranking Fukushima to insist that it was ok since it was less than Chernobyl... Forgotting how... irrelevant it was to compare both... since they are effectively so different that the only thing they can claim in common are the vague denomination of "powerplant go poof".
In fact most of the technicalities related to nuclear science are totally moot... Everytime you read radioactive cesium or iodine... just replace with WD40 and see what you would do...

Would you eat beef meat tainted with WD40, would you drink tea leave tainted with WD40, would you burn in regular incinerator without the proper filters wood or debris tainted with WD40, would you swim on a beach where sand and seawater are tainted with WD40, would you live in a house where the wall are dripping WD40 ?

No matter if you love or hate WD40... It don't sound like a good idea...

Now apply the favorite wave of fear dismission tactic used: "it's science you can't understand" applied to radionucleids with enough posturing and twisted logic it just try to compel you to surrender out of humility... I don't understand so I must listen to those who claim they do...

Trouble being... you don't care aboot these technicalities... NBC events all more or less call for the same main response (with few specific branching, the bacteriologic threat being the worse for the population), evacuate, quarantine, destroy livestock, sterilize the farmland and call it a day.
Not many question are needed to evaluate:
-is it tainted or suspected
-can it be replaced by something not tainted

Unless your ressources are so scarce that your have literally no choice. which is not the case here...

The current futile attitude of penny pinching shown, direct threat or not, will be seen in tomorrow as a pathetic new low for capitalism.

[IparryU]

The same way some people insisted loudly on ranking Fukushima to insist that it was ok since it was less than Chernobyl... Forgotting how... irrelevant it was to compare both... since they are effectively so different that the only thing they can claim in common are the vague denomination of "powerplant go poof".
In fact most of the technicalities related to nuclear science are totally moot... Everytime you read radioactive cesium or iodine... just replace with WD40 and see what you would do...

Would you eat beef meat tainted with WD40, would you drink tea leave tainted with WD40, would you burn in regular incinerator without the proper filters wood or debris tainted with WD40, would you swim on a beach where sand and seawater are tainted with WD40, would you live in a house where the wall are dripping WD40 ?

No matter if you love or hate WD40... It don't sound like a good idea...

Now apply the favorite wave of fear dismission tactic used: "it's science you can't understand" applied to radionucleids with enough posturing and twisted logic it just try to compel you to surrender out of humility... I don't understand so I must listen to those who claim they do...

Trouble being... you don't care aboot these technicalities... NBC events all more or less call for the same main response (with few specific branching, the bacteriologic threat being the worse for the population), evacuate, quarantine, destroy livestock, sterilize the farmland and call it a day.
Not many question are needed to evaluate:
-is it tainted or suspected
-can it be replaced by something not tainted

Unless your ressources are so scarce that your have literally no choice. which is not the case here...

The current futile attitude of penny pinching shown, direct threat or not, will be seen in tomorrow as a pathetic new low for capitalism.

and they want old people to eat the contaminated rice to give the farmers some monies...

Evacuate, quarantine (if needed), destroy produce and livestock, put up a damn fence, put a few guards out there (or you can just used the same people who wave flags at you to make sure you dont walk into a construction site...) and get those people in a new area that would create jobs... (need new buildings, more people == more money to be spent and made, schools would need more teachers or another school, more daycare, etc. blah)

just pretend that there are rabid bears, alligators, camel spiders, and warewolves in that area and get everyone the fug out.

I am gonna miss FG

[JLR]

Not taking a side just dumping more info.


If you have time to kill. Or if lazy skip to the 25 minute mark.

http://www.fairewinds.com/content/arnie-gundersen-kgo-radio-disaster-lingering-fukushima-daiichi-unit-4

article

http://www.alternet.org/health/155283/the_worst_yet_to_come_why_nuclear_experts_are_calling_fukushima_a_ticking_time-bomb?page=entire

[matsuki]

Unless your ressources are so scarce that your have literally no choice. which is not the case here...

The current futile attitude of penny pinching shown, direct threat or not, will be seen in tomorrow as a pathetic new low for capitalism.

and they want old people to eat the contaminated rice to give the farmers some monies...

...all for the good of the emperor cuntry economy image

Prioritize like a teenager and pray for Jappppan

[JLR]

Cue dramatic music here (bah bum bummmmm)


http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2012/05/14/19754736.html

[IparryU]

Japan's very unscientific views on contamination

So, over a year gone now and Japan is still deep in the mess left from the March 11 earthquake / tsunami / radioactive meltdown. I'm sure most of you have seen the crazy before and after pictures of the progress as the Japanese have ganbare'ed to their limits. Also, citizen pressure has led to the deactivation of all but two nuclear power facilities which will in fact be shutdown this whole month (source).

And, although shareholders plan to sue TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company, who is at fault for the meltdown) for some 67 billion dollars, I still find myself wondering why TEPCO isn't shelling out money to the government and the nation. Why isn't TEPCO bankrupt right now? Why hasn't some other group stepped up to show that nuclear power can and does work in the right hands?

All that aside, sit back and laugh at these completely unscientific yet very agreeable perspectives on Japan's contamination. Thanks to Testosterone Pit who says these have been circulating the Japanese interwebs for a few months now.

MUST LOOK AT THE SOURCE FOR THE PICTURES

[matsuki]

MUST LOOK AT THE SOURCE FOR THE PICTURES

Bwahahahahaha, this will fuck them the worst...



...and besides bribing a bunch of bloggers/PR people with no actual scientific credibility to say "Japan is safe," this place keeps looking worse and worse in the mystical land of gaikoku

[IparryU]

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

the power plants are only bad if they are not maintained or prepared for fucked situations...

...like being built on fault-lines in an earthquake-prone cuntry, for instance?

[IparryU]

...like being built on fault-lines in an earthquake-prone cuntry, for instance?

but they are so close with nature, I don't think that is an issue SDH... you Heathen.

[Coligny]

...like being built on fault-lines in an earthquake-prone cuntry, for instance?

And manned by arrogant idiots...

Never underestimate th3 hooman factor...

[Mike Oxlong]

Brains melting down after Japan tsunami

EMOTIONAL stress caused by last year's tsunami resulted in part of some survivors' brains shrinking, according to scientists in Japan who grasped a unique chance to study the neurological effects of trauma...

[IparryU]

Brains melting down after Japan tsunami

Imagine if the govt would have evacuated the people... say to another prefecture and gave them real housing and some support for a new life.

i said this before, but a migration of people in one area would give it a good beginning for new money, new life, and props to the J-govt... but no.

[Coligny]

Everyday more proof that Fukushima was effectively nothing to be compared to Chernobyl. Because mentionning Chernobyl would make people pannic and shit... cause it was a communist disaster and we all know that commies are worse at everything...

WHILE IN FACT... AND JUST... FOR NOW... the current release of Cesium 137 is 4 times higher than in Chernobyl... (and counting btw...)

Before you discard the source as being from ENews... they are just quoting and estimate from Tepco... Yes... I know... the Tepco people can't distinguish their head from their arses... but since this number fit my usual argumentation... I'll go openly with it... (just hoping they are not publishing it to cover for worse news to come)

[Coligny]

Also to keep you in a good mood:

Narac model of particle travel for March 14 2011. While not explicictly stated the data seems to have been made available real time or near real time as the accident was developping.



The full PDF compiling data in a brochure published on Feb 24 2012 is here: http://www.ral.ucar.edu/nsap/events/fukushima/documents/Session1_Briefing3-Sugiyama.pdf

[Mike Oxlong]

[Coligny]

New study shows two things:

1- Severe Nuclear Reactor Accidents Likely Every 10 to 20 Years, European Study Suggests
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120522134942.htm

2- You can back absolutely anything with serious looking statistics... once again... garbage in, garbage out...

[Ganma]

Brain shrinkage seen in Tohoku PTSD cases
Emotional stress over last year's deadly quake and tsunami in the Tohoku region caused the brains of some survivors to shrink, according to scientists in Japan who had a unique chance to study the neurological effects of trauma.[/QUOTE]

[Coligny]

Dood... five post higher...

[Typhoon]

[Coligny]

[Typhoon]

Pure comedy gold from your link: . . .

The only comedy gold here is radiation porn addicted you.