Anything you'd like to know about Fukushima?

[RobertEarl]

I've got more than a few links and a couple of well educated ideas about Fukushima, so if there is something you'd like to know ask and I will do my best to answer.

[TBA]

1. Where do I start?

I guess the big question is: Is it reasonable to hope they will ever get the situation under control?

[RobertEarl]

3. Good question

There has been some reduction in air emissions, but the water borne pollutants are not decreasing much. They have been filtering some water and storing that water but they are running out of room for those tanks and those tanks of concentrated pollutants have been leaking.

Given that 3 cores' exact location are not known, it is questionable how and when the cores will be recovered.

An underground ice wall is planned to stop groundwater flow but it is hitting serious hurdles.

The Fukushima situation is unprecedented and the working conditions are very dangerous. It may take another few years before a viable prognosis can be delivered. They have stated that total recovery would take maybe 40 years.

[TheNutcracker]

103. Well we know the salmon are swimming through it as they swim far lenghts during season.

[orpupilofnature57]

2. How much poison is still being unleashed ?

[RobertEarl]

4. Undetermined amounts.

As I said above, air emission have decreased from previous year's amounts.

From what I have read, at this stage - 3 years- strontium 90, a bone cancer causing agent is the most expected poison coming for the area.

Tritium levels just reported off the coast are at record highs.

The core locations are being flooded with water to keep them cool and that water is leaking into the ground and passing through underground tunnels into the pacific.

No doubt when the reactor containments first burst, and the water in the cores was released, was the worst case scenario, being as that water had very high levels of core material which washed into the pacific. Some of it was filtered out by the soils but now would be getting moved along as the groundwater flows.

[betsuni]

5. 50 confirmed thyroid cancer cases in Fukushima children

and 39 new suspected ones. Yet on TV the other night I saw prime minister Abe prancing around Fukushima eating cherries and visiting a hospital to observe a thyroid test as we are told not to listen to rumors and misinformation connecting that little incident in Fukushima with ill health. At least all the nuclear apologists on the non-Japanese message boards have been pretty quiet lately. They used to mock anyone who even suggested a very slight increase in cancers was a possibility, yammering on about how bananas have natural radiation and you have X-rays and get in airplanes so don't be ridiculous, a bit of radiation is practically GOOD for you. They and the Japanese government would prefer us to forget how rare thyroid cancer in children is. Poor kids and their families.

[Mnemosyne]

6. Can it actually be fixed? I have great doubts of the possibility. Thanks! nt

[RobertEarl]

7. Let's hope so

There are quite a few plants that may be needing 'fixing' before too long, so let's hope the nuclear engineers soon figure out how to 'fix' a blown up plant.

Previously, since they thought they would would never have to handle a fixing, not much thought went into fixing a blown up plant. Now fixing has become a new industry.

[Mnemosyne]

11. And their fortunes increase as they 'fix'. Sickening. Thanks. nt

[RobertEarl]

13. Who can afford this fixing?

Only governments can afford the fixing. Privatizing profits and subsidizing the losses, all over again.

[SidDithers]

8. I'll stick to sources that know what they're talking about, thanks...nt

Sid

[NuclearDem]

9. How much is TEPCO paying you?

[SidDithers]

10. Heheh...

Sid

[closeupready]

38. It's a 'secret'? Hehe

[bananas]

12. Reactor core fragments detected in Europe?

I saw articles about it a few weeks ago, but didn't have time to read them.

[RobertEarl]

14. On enenews.com

http://enenews.com/professors-nuclear-fuel-fragments-fukushima-found-europe-study-significant-part-fukushimas-radioactivity-hot-particles-film-air-filter-norway-photo

Don't have the direct link to the article beyond Enenews.com but here is the headline:

“Nuclear fuel fragments” from Fukushima found in Europe — 10,000+ kilometers from reactors — Study: Plume “directly from N. America” — Hot particles a “significant part” radioactive releases — Quickly spread over entire hemisphere — Film shows core material on Norway air filter

And there is this old report about fragments being found all over the N. hemisphere.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110407121343.htm

[bananas]

15. Thanks! nt

[zappaman]

16. no thanks. Your source is shit and...

You have consistently demonstrated no knowledge about this event.
Kinda sad.

[Generic Other]

17. So what do you have that's better?

Ene News collects news from multiple sources -- mainstream as well as Japanese. I have read links to NYTimes, Reuters, BBC, science journals and university studies. They are one of the only sites even making such an attempt. So you don't think any of their sources are valid. But you offer nothing of value yourself. Why do so many on DU spend all their energy trying to prevent others from seeing for themselves what is and what isn't useful information? Mocking someone else for trying to keep abreast of the issue makes you look more foolish than the one you are mocking.

[zappaman]

18. Yes

http://deepseanews.com/2014/01/all-the-best-scientifically-verified-information-on-fukushima-impacts/

Many many other sources too.
Since this poster has claimed a tidal map showed radiation and believes starfish that started dying 30 years ago were victims of time traveling radiation fron Fukushima, I will listen to more informed people.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/ENENews

[Generic Other]

21. Thanks

I bookmarked that.

Also, the starfish die off discussion was very informative as the locals in my area had no clue what was causing it. The fact that some asked about Fukushima is not a crime though. It was a legitimate question that was examined, and while most came to the conclusion (as I did) that Fukushima did not cause it, it did not mean we were wrong to ask.

I don't post articles on DU about Fukushima anymore because I find that being ridiculed and mocked for caring is not worth it. That doesn't mean I don't care or don't want good info. I have family in the area. They are in complete denial as to the dangers. I worry for them.

[hobbit709]

22. Asking and continually insisting that Fukushima is responsible is not the same thing.

[Generic Other]

24. I just checked the ene news site

There is an article about people in Fukushima having nosebleeds. Including the mayor. Now I don't know what causes adults to just start having nosebleeds, but I am certainly suspicious.

Same with the kids having thyroid issues. I am willing to read whatever information attempts to understand what is happening. I don't like those who insist they know the answers on either side especially if part of knowing the answer means shutting down the discussions that don't fit one's own particular theories.

I don't much trust the Japanese government who has made it illegal for their citizens to criticize TEPCO. I don't entirely trust the pro-nuclear or the anti-nuclear factions to post objectively without being influenced by their positions. Still, I read what they have to say and make up my own mind.

I can see that ene news has a tendancy to overdramatize the information by creating sensational headlines. It's why at DU we post the actual headlines. Still, it is wrong to simply dismiss the information without bothering to examine it when there are so few sites monitoring the situation.

[hobbit709]

26. I was referring to the OP continually blaming Fukushima for the starfish no matter what evidence

to the contrary. Same goes for his Radiation map that was actually a tsunami wave height map.and when called out on this he doubles down. Like the boy that cried wolf, no one believes you when you repeatedly spout the same lies.

[RobertEarl]

36. Your sources are wrong, hobbit

Radiation is a likely cause of the sea star wasting. Radiation has been present in the pacific for a long time. There have been several wasting events over the years. Radiation from manmade nuclear events has not been ruled out by anyone but science deniers.

As for your claim about the radiation map... total bs.

You must have been looking in the mirror when you talk about the boy who cried wolf. For it is you who is totally wrong and not to be trusted.

[hobbit709]

37. Do you take something for your delusions?

[RobertEarl]

42. I'm not deluded

I follow the science wherever it leads.

You should delete your personal attacks, then go read enenews.com.

Please. You are embarrassing yourself here.

[FBaggins]

65. You aren't?

I follow the science wherever it leads.

No you don't. You run far afield of reality and somehow convince yourself that the unicorn you're following is "science".

Let's review the most recent evidence, shall we?

Radiation is a likely cause of the sea star wasting.

Radiation is in no sense a "likely cause".

Radiation has been present in the pacific for a long time. There have been several wasting events over the years.

Radiation has been present all over the world for as long as there have been sea stars. There's no difference between the "man-made" radiation and the natural radiation... except that the natural stuff is there in far larger amounts. If those levels of radiation were dangerous to sea stars... they never would have evolved in the first place.

There's no correlation at all between levels of man-made radiation and prior wasting events. The most obvious example being Fukushima... where the water off the coast saw significant (if temporary) increases in "man-made radiation" (particularly on the sea floor) - yet there are no reported wasting events off Japan (or that side of the Pacific).

Radiation from manmade nuclear events has not been ruled out by anyone but science deniers.

What cleverly-worded BS. They haven't ruled out little green men in UFOs either.

Radiation from manmade nuclear events (or any other source) has not been ruled-in by any scientist. Not one.

Yet you think "the science" says that it's a likely cause?

[RobertEarl]

68. Yes, It is likely

I see you present no science to the contrary. Because there is no science to the contrary.

But you do say there is no difference between man-made and natural radiation, which as we all know is bs.

CS-134, a man-made atom which comes from nuclear reactions emits radiation that is not natural. Also it is very toxic. Lots of Cs-134 came over to the west coast and was deposited on the sea and land.

Rain washed it into the nearshore where the sea stars live. The sea stars eat mussels which filter out elements from sea water and hold those elements in their bodies. That is basic science.

Knowing how toxic Cs-134, and Cs-137 is, then it is a good theory that the sea stars were polluted with Cs, leading to maladies. Maladies which the marine scientists have yet to come to a conclusion about what is causing the maladies.

We do know the ocean has had many doses in years past of man-made nuclear atoms. And there have been other occasions of sea star wasting disease No one has ever produced any solid reason for the wasting. All they have is theories and I have mine; Radiation from radioactive Cesium is a killer, and the sea stars were dosed with it.

[SidDithers]

70. ...

Sid

[NuclearDem]

74. That was quite possibly one of the least comprehensible posts on Fukushima ever.

Radioactive word salad.

[zappaman]

77. Well, with this response you "own" the thread!!!

[AnalystInParadise]

82. I had mussels from Oregon last night

I feel a little melt-y, but that could just be from the radioactive stupid of your incessant yammering.

[RobertEarl]

112. New fan club member?

You fit in well.

No refuting of anything, just more childish name calling.

You should delete your post. You have only embarrassed yourself.

I need a better class of fan club.... sigh.

[FBaggins]

93. You're really making that "I'm not deluded" claim less and less viable.

I see you present no science to the contrary. Because there is no science to the contrary.

You frequently "see" things that aren't there (and miss things that are).

I gave you all the science that's possible. If you claim that leprechaun flatulence causes starfish wasting, all that science can say is that there's no evidence of that at all. You're committing a negative proof fallacy and trying to shift the burden of proof onto those who point out that your claim has no connection at all to reality. There is no correlation between so-called "man-made radiation" and starfish wasting. None at all. That's all that science can say (and all it needs to say)... and I "presented" that from the start.

But you do say there is no difference between man-made and natural radiation, which as we all know is bs.

Nope. It's exactly the opposite (as is so often the case with your nonsense). There is no difference. None. See below for the science.

CS-134, a man-made atom which comes from nuclear reactions emits radiation that is not natural.

Wrong. CS134 is "a man-made atom"... but the radiation that comes from it is not different because the emitter is "man-made". Cs134 is a beta emitter. Beta radiation is either an electron (β− or a positron (β+). In this case it's an electron. That electron is no different from any other electron. The only difference in an electron emitted from one radioactive element and another is the amount of energy contained in that emission.

In the case of cs134, the (β− particle has a mean energy of 0.157 MeV. That happens to be virtually identical (.156) to the high-end of the scale for Carbon 14 beta emissions (far more common in the ocean than cs134) and a fraction of the energy in a (β− emission from Potassium 40 (up to 1.33 MeV), and about half of the energy in the (β− particles given off by Rubidium 87 (.283 MeV).

Read that paragraph again... that's the science involved here... all easily accessible from public sources. The radiation that the starfish receive from those natural sources is the same radiation (electrons) that they would get from cesium 134... except that the natural sources are hundreds to thousands of times the level of the cesium-sourced electrons (and usually at higher energy levels).

In short... there isn't anything at all behind your "emits radiation that is not natural" bs.

Also it is very toxic.

This is also nonsense.

Note that there are two distinct factors involved here. Radio-toxicity (already debunked) and chemical toxicity. It would be easy to point out that you claiming "it's very toxic" is not a scientific statement that justifies the following conclusion "knowing how toxic it is"... but we don't need to do that - because again the science is very clear. Isotopes don't impact chemical toxicity. That's why you take stable iodine to protect your thyroid against radio-iodine. They're chemically the same. So when you're thyroid absorbs lots of one... it keeps it from absorbing too much of the other. Simply.

The problem for your theory is that while cs134/137 are "man-made"... cs133 is natural... and far FAR FAR more common in the sea than 134 or 137. So if the poor sea stars were dying off due to chemical toxicity of cesium... there wouldn't be any sea stars. That's why you can't present a scientific source regarding the chemical toxicity of cesium... because the ones that are out there only list minor mental impacts on animals at doses many millions of times higher than what is needed for your argument.

We do know the ocean has had many doses in years past of man-made nuclear atoms. And there have been other occasions of sea star wasting disease

There's no substance to that claim. You have to provide some level of correlation (prior events taking place down-plume from Chernobyl... or corresponding to nuclear testing... etc). But you've got nothing... and in fact the reverse is true (the areas most-dosed by cesium have shown no wasting... while areas with wasting show no detectable contamination).

No one has ever produced any solid reason for the wasting. All they have is theories and I have mine

Right... which is precisely as credible as the leprechaun flatulence theory. Which is to say... not at all. They haven't proven what causes it... so any theory is valid/likely?

[hobbit709]

100. Is leprechaun flatulence anywhere near as powerful as hippopotamus flatulence?

Enquiring minds and all that!

[RobertEarl]

106. Very good

The electron emitted from Cs-137, 134, in the pacific is not natural. It is man-made. It is artificial. I wasn't there until man made it and placed it there.

[FBaggins]

108. Here's hoping that you're really the sock-puppet that so many anti-nukes think you are

Because it would be very hard to accept that any real Democrats (past elementary school) believe that nonsense.

Hint... there is no such thing as a "man-made electron"

[RobertEarl]

109. That's it?

All you have is cheap personal attacks?

The emitting of the electron from the Cs137 is a product of man.

There was very little, if any CS137 in the pacific before man introduced it. And now there is a massive unknown quantity of it in the pacific. It is deadly, it wasn't there before, it is artificial. Denial of that basic science reminds us of climate deniers.

[FBaggins]

110. Did you even read it?

All you have is cheap personal attacks?

You claimed that the electrons were man-made. I told you that there was no such thing as a man-made electron. That's a simple fact and a clear factual refutation of your nonsense. Even if you care to describe some other part of the comment (intended to make you pay attention) as an "attack" (personal or otherwise... cheap or otherwise)... it's clearly not "all I have".

That electron was probably part of a hydrogen atom back at the beginning of time... then it was part of a helium atom... then through many nuclear reactions over billions of years until that same electron was part of a uranium235 atom. Then one day in a reactor, a friendly neutron came along and split that atom into Cs134, a rubidium atom (IIRC - which, btw, is where the Strontium comes from), some mass conversion to energy... and a couple more neutrons to keep the party going.

Throughout this multi-billion-year lifespan... it has been the same electron. It doesn't matter whether mankind was involved in whatever atom it's in today... it's an electron. And if it's emitted from that atom (whether natural or "man-made&quot ... it's a beta particle.

The impact of that beta particle on living tissue has nothing whatsoever to do with the atom that the electron last had a relationship with... not even a little bit. All that matters is what it is (an electron) and the amount of energy that it's carrying.

It doesn't matter even a little bit that CS137 didn't exist in the pacific before mankind put it there... because chemically it's identical to natural cesium that has been there... and radiologically, its beta emissions are identical to any other beta- emission with the same energy.

[RobertEarl]

111. And now there is more

Lots more. More than was there before man produced it and put it in the pacific.

Y'know, you should put up your own thread about all this. I doubt anyone is reading your stuff here.

C'mon, do like i do and post OP's in GD about Fukushima. How come you never do?

[FBaggins]

113. Nope. Not lots more.

An infinitesimally insignificant amount. Not even a rounding error on the naturally-occurring beta emissions that sea life has lived with since it evolved.

There were, at last estimate, somewhere between 100 and 1,000 curies of Cs134 released into the ocean by Fukushima. Somewhere around four times that amount total (counting atmospheric and ocean releases of both 134 and 137). So call it between 400-4,000 curies.

There are 380,000,000,000 curies of Potassium 40 alone in the ocean. That would be a .000001053% increase if we assume the high-end of the Fukushima estimates and if potassium 40 were the only natural beta emitter in the ocean.

It isn't.

Y'know, you should put up your own thread about all this. I doubt anyone is reading your stuff here.

Not at all. The best part about this is that the only people on DU who would ever fall for such "man-made electrons"/WIPP was a nuclear explosions/ Fukushima is heating up the Pacific/ nuclear explosion in SFP #4/etc. etc. ad nauseum baloney pretty much all tend to find their way to your latest rant eventually. And the rest of DU doesn't need such information. Most of them either support or oppose nuclear power on far more rational grounds.

Why waste their time? Far more efficient to just correct your nonsense when I see it.

[RobertEarl]

114. Hahaha

You know you'd be roundly roasted.

The science i tend to read is NOT your psuedo-stuff, but from real science sources. Yours is just more of the "Nukes are safe" genera and is easily refuted.

The northern pacific ocean has been polluted with massive amounts of chemical toxins that are deadly to all life forms. These toxins are toxic for many, many years. The lifeforms in the ocean live in those toxins 24/7/365.

That's just simple science which you deny.

I do look forward to a good roast, please, put it out there for all to see.

[FBaggins]

115. At least you can laugh.

Though I suspect it's not as health a sign as it might otherwise be.

BTW - Why are you still here? Didn't you see the big news? "Special Broadcast Fukushima Unit 4 Major Fire (may have blown up?) May 20th 2014 – Japan and North America may need to evacuated?"

I figured you would be logged off and in the bomb shelter by now.

The science i tend to read is NOT your pseudo-stuff, but from real science sources.

Nope. In some cases it's entirely made up (there are ZERO "real science sources" associating pacific ocean heating or sea star wasting with Fukushima. Not. A. Single. One.). In the other cases (as for instance with the Woods Hole citations)... you can't understand what you're reading (since they don't agree with you even a little bit).

The stuff you "tend to read" is just like the "Major Fire" cr@p above.

I do look forward to a good roast, please, put it out there for all to see.

Is this thread not on GD? Do you see anyone jumping on here to defend your "man-made electrons" nonsense? Anyone at all?

Do you think anyone has forgotten that E/E contains some of the most anti-nuclear DUers... and none of them consider your nonsense to be anything more than tinfoil-hat-woo? That they believe that your raison d'etre' is to make the anti-nukes (and perhaps Democrats in general) look stupid?

I start lots of science-based threads... but I don't start new threads like "There is no such thing as a man-made electron" because 99+% of DUers would just say "Duh! Who thought there were?".

[RobertEarl]

116. You should post an OP

Of course you would be lost without being able to personally attack someone, so i get your reticence.

Your claims that radioactive cesium is safe, is all anyone needs to know to make sure they discount whatever follows that bit of non-science based talk.

[FBaggins]

117. Can't post without some logical fallacy, eh?

Your claims that radioactive cesium is safe

I made no such claim. In large concentrations it can certainly be dangerous. There were places near the plant in the early days of the accident where the amounts of radiocesium were quite dangerous.

What I pointed out was that there wasn't enough of it physically to have a chemical impact when diluted by an entire ocean... and radiologically it was dwarfed by the natural beta emitters that were already there.

If you swallowed a gram of Cs134 (about five billion Bq)... you would be in pretty bad shape. It isn't "safe".

Arsenic isn't safe either... like radiation sickness, it caused diarrhea and headaches... but you consume it every day and the chances that today's headache are caused by arsenic are pretty slim (though unlike Fukushima radiation... millions of people a year are impacted).

I can say that without anyone misunderstanding that I'm trying to pretend that arsenic is safe.

Well... anyone rational that is.

[RobertEarl]

118. Wow

Ok so imagine you are a fish in the sea. Now there is all this radioactive cesium in the water, with you. You eat it, it runs through your gills.

Are ya with me?

The longer you live, the more radioactive cesium you have in, or pass through your body. It adds up. Sooner or later it reaches a level where it overwhelms your immune system. Basic science. It's there, it's deadly, and there is more coming.

[FBaggins]

123. Time to introduce yet another basic science concept.

It's hilarious that you continue to spout your own imaginings and then add "it's science" or "it's basic physics" as though that were true. But let's move on.

Ok so imagine you are a fish in the sea.

Ok... I'm a fish in the sea.

Now there is all this radioactive cesium in the water, with you. You eat it, it runs through your gills.

Are ya with me?

One imagines that you will eventually realize that the amount actually matters. "All this" is hardly scientific. But ok... I'm with you.

The longer you live, the more radioactive cesium you have in, or pass through your body. It adds up. Sooner or later it reaches a level where it overwhelms your immune system.

Nope. That's incorrect.

The basic science concept that you now need to review is "biological half-life". Go ahead... look it up.

That is... just like everything else you take in... you eventually excrete it... it doesn't "build up until it overwhelms your immune system" Then, of course, there's the physical half-life of the element - but let's not complicate things (or tease you with the notion that your immune system has anything to do with it)- though that's why none of the people/fish have any radio-iodine left despite "swimming in it" for weeks. In humans, the biological half-life for cesium ranges from 50-150 days.

I'm a fish... so I don't know what the BHL is for my species. We'll just use 50 days as an example. That means that I'm constantly excreting about 1%/day of whatever cesium I have in my body. Once that 1%/day equals the amount that I'm taking in per day... it reaches equilibrium and your ongoing exposure won't climb any more.

Incidentally... this is why some people thought that the banana dose was a bad example. Yes... bananas contain potassium 40 (which gives you an internal beta radiation dose).. and yes, that dose is higher than most of the Fukushima examples that we've seen... but your body is full of potassium 40 and it's largely in equilibrium due to constant intake and biological half-life depletion. So there's no additional dose from the new intake. As the fish swimming in "all this radioactive cesium", I reach a point of equilibrium and the dose does not increase. In fact... as the levels of cesium in the sea around me declines (as it clearly did) that equilibrium level falls as well. This is why the fish off Fukushima have almost universally low cesium contamination in them now... despite three years of swimming through that water.

For fish off the West Coast of the US... the expected cesium contamination rate (once the sea-plume arrives) is so low that the equilibrium concentration within the fish can't possibly rise to the level of even a small fraction of the natural beta dose that they're receiving all the time. Therefore... no impact.

Which... BTW... is exactly what ALL of the scientists have been saying.

[NuclearDem]

122. I swear to God that's what it has to be at this point.

That they believe that your raison d'etre' is to make the anti-nukes (and perhaps Democrats in general) look stupid?

If this whole act isn't just brilliant performance art, it's got to be someone trying to make rational anti-nuclear folks look batshit crazy by association.

[FBaggins]

124. It's not the only possibility.

But I can't think of alternatives that are particularly flattering.

[RobertEarl]

127. It's only because I care

I care about people and the environment.

The basic facts that man-made nuclear radiation is deadly is not something that i will deny. I get why some do, it is scary. Denial of the fact that the pacific ocean is polluted with man-made nuclear radiation is not something any sane person would do.

[FBaggins]

128. The guy pushing the tinfoil hats "cares" too.

It's just that he has no rational basis for what he's caring about.

[RobertEarl]

129. So why do you care?

And why won't you post an OP saying there is nothing to worry about?

[FBaggins]

130. Because I don't like Democrats looking stupid

I don't want innocent googlers to show up at DU and think this woo is what passes for normal among Democrats. It's fine for them to find it unchallenged on right-wing (infowars) or UFO-nutjob (godlikeproductions) sites... not here.

And why won't you post an OP saying there is nothing to worry about?

You really lack any sence of nuance... don't you? You really can't see any ground at all between this woo and "nothing to worry about"???

Really?

[RobertEarl]

131. Heh

You are wise to not post your own OP about the general conditions and future of Fukushima.

I think we are done here. The search engines have surely picked this up and you are already famous. Take a bow!!

[X_Digger]

136. Expect to see this one quoted back to you, frequently.

Saving it for posterity:

The electron emitted from Cs-137, 134, in the pacific is not natural. It is man-made. It is artificial. I wasn't there until man made it and placed it there.

When someone appears to get taken in by your nonsense, I'll be sure to quote this post as a demonstration as to why that's a bad idea.

[RobertEarl]

142. Oh

You think the man-made cesium137 is natural?

This is what I am saying: The electrons emitted from the man-made cesium137 is not a natural occurrence in the pacific.

I need a better class of fan club members.... sigh

[AnalystInParadise]

81. Take your pick....

http://www.mayoclinic.org/symptoms/nosebleeds/basics/causes/sym-20050914

I am suspicious of people who suspect nefarious causes to nosebleeds.

[Generic Other]

86. People in Fukushima report this is happening

along with the rise in children with thyroid problems. These are unusual events not related to normal symptoms such as your link describes. These are symptoms of people lioving in the danger zones.

Or do you believe that it is perfectly safe to live near Fukushima? Would you choose to live there with your children? Do you think any concerns the citizens have can be dismissed because you happen to believe they are not impacted?

Jesus H. Christ. What will convince people here that the people of Fukushima who are living with the danger know better than us what kind of health issues they are facing?

Why isn't anyone mad that the Japanese government is threatening to arrest anyone who dares to speak out? To me this is evidence of a cover-up of massive proportions. Showing footage of the emperor eating strawberries in Fukushima does not assuage my concerns.

BTW, they are discussing nosebnleeds and other symptoms at Berkeley's nuclear engineering department. Perhaps it is time to quit being so dismissive and actually examine the evidence? Nosebleeds are a symptom of nuclear radiation poisoning.

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4635

Clearly, others are not so certain they have all the answers as you seem to be.

[FBaggins]

87. So?

Someone in Fukushima gets a nosebleed and thinks that it's caused by radiation and their opinion is supposed to matter more than decades of medical science? They "know better than us" what's causing a nosebleed?

That's pretty ridiculous.

along with the rise in children with thyroid problems

There has been no rise in children with thyroid problems. There has been an increase in the diagnosis of already-existing thyroid problems... caused entirely by the greater diagnostic tools being used that would otherwise never come into play. They've confirmed this by using the same diagnostic tools on children far away from Fukushima and finding the same rate of abnormalities.

Yes... this rate is higher than Dr Caldicott would ever discover by palpation... but that's because none of these kids would have shown up with such a crude diagnostic exam.

Why isn't anyone mad that the Japanese government is threatening to arrest anyone who dares to speak out?

Few people are mad about that because it's hard to get mad about something that isn't happening. People "speak out" about Fukushima in Japan constantly... and they aren't getting arrested.

BTW, they are discussing nosebleeds and other symptoms at Berkeley's nuclear engineering department.

And the people at the nuclear engineering department are getting a belly laugh reading posts from anonymous posters showing up with those kinds of comments. Those weren't Berkeley students or faculty... it was an open forum just like this is.

Nosebleeds are a symptom of nuclear radiation poisoning.

You don't realize how ridiculous that is, do you? Nosebleed (along with hair loss and diarrhea) are symptoms of radiation poisoning... at exposure levels thousands to tens of thousands of times above what Fukushima residents were exposed to (1-2 sieverts... not micro/millisieverts - higher for headaches and diarrhea) and the exposure needs to be in a short period of time. More importantly... symptoms occur within hours of exposure (not years later) and they're either gone or you're dead a few days later.

In fact, one of the most reliable signs connecting these symptoms to radiation poisoning is the amount of time between the exposure and the symptoms. There has never been a connection made between micro-millisievert doses and nosebleeds years later.

OTOH... millions of people in Japan get nosebleeds every year (some chronically)... and millions get diarrhea (often at the same time). If you're in Fukushima and paranoid by nature (or prone to internet woo salesmen), you'll likely believe that the nosebleed was caused by radiation... but you won't "know better" than the rest of the world what caused it. In fact, you're less likely to.

[Generic Other]

89. Look up Japan's new state secrets act

More energy being put into suppressing info than uncovering it.

Meanwhile Japanese leaders eat cherries and plant rice at Fukushima.

[FBaggins]

90. I'm well aware of the act

It does not do what you claim it does.

Sorry... it's as simple as that.

[Octafish]

72. ''rationalwiki''

http://lesswrong.com/lw/f5b/the_problem_with_rational_wiki/

[zappaman]

78. "ENENews"

Not surprised you don't care about sources since you regularly use RW sources.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/10/1268742/-Misinformation-on-Fukushima-Energy-News-Misleads-its-Readers#

Enenews....

[Octafish]

84. If that were true, it would be cause for banishment.

But since it's not, it shows what kind of poster you are.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4635475

[NuclearDem]

92. That thread you link to is more revealing of you than anyone else.

All it shows is that when an argument isn't going your way, you'll use any shill gambit or fallacious argument as an escape hatch.

[Octafish]

94. Good.

Going through there, I see it says a lot about you, too.

[NuclearDem]

97. You mean the one post where I call out a logical fallacy?

Yeah, really revealing that I know a bullshit argument when I see it.

[Octafish]

99. No, the way you write.

It shows a certain, je ne sais quoi.

[NuclearDem]

102. If you've got something to say Octafish, say it.

What does the way I write say about me?

[Octafish]

104. A lot.

They're your words.

[NuclearDem]

121. What the fuck is with this cryptic shit?

If you've got something to say, fucking say it. Unless all you have are attempts to poison the well and completely deflect feom the matter at hand.

So say it. What does my writing style say about me, other than that tautological "my words are mine"?

[Rex]

125. All I can think of when I see rationalwiki is, "Foxnews - fair and balanced news".

YOU really need to put the word into your title? The agenda is THAT transparent?

Like when people start off their sentence with, "To be honest with you"...really? So ALL THOSE OTHER TIMES you were just pulling my leg!?

Sorry...I was born at night, just not LAST NIGHT!

[SidDithers]

132. Three words: Paul Craig Roberts...

Octafish, April 2012:

VDARE is a pro-white power hate site founded by an immigrant NAZI.

Does Paul Craig Roberts have an official affiliation with the organization or do they simply re-post his articles?

If Roberts is a member or supporter of VDARE, I'll stop reading him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=548911


Octafish, December 2012, posting an article from Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2079919

And again, as recently as Feb 2014:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4504297


Paul Craig Roberts is a white-nationalist asshat, Pat Buchanan loving racist shitbag right-wing source. You know this. You've been told this on multiple occasions, yet you continue to use him as a source, despite your claim that you wouldn't.

Why is that?

Sid

[Octafish]

135. He called the Bush GOP, part of what I call the BFEE, 'Brownshirts.'

In the 2012 article, he stands up for Gov. Don Siegelman, railroaded by Karl Rove and the BFEE.

In the other article he called the heads of the secret government, another part of the BFEE, "GESTAPO."

Don't you share those sentiments?

Do you have anything to say about what he wrote?

And you still haven't explained why what I post matters so much to you.

[SidDithers]

137. And he's a racist, white-nationalist...

Me? I don't have any use for those types of writers. They should be shunned and marginalized, not promoted by ostensibly progressive posters.

Sid

[Octafish]

138. Post proof. Your word doesn't count for more than your opinion.

You still won't say why what I write is so important to you.

[SidDithers]

139. Proof that PCR is a white-nationalist?...

Haven't we been through this before? If I recall, I gave you proof back in 2012, and you said you wouldn't read him anymore.

The guy is a Buchanan loving, anti-immigration, racist piece of shit.

He promotes VDARE.com, which you yourself described as a "pro-white power hate site founded by an immigrant NAZI"

He wrote a fundraising letter for them a few years ago. Here's the internet archive version:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070208212620/http://www.vdare.com/appeals/072506_pcr.htm

And I quote:

There are many ways to lose a country. One is to be overrun by excessive immigration. Too many immigrants who do not assimilate change the culture and the language. VDARE.COM is the premier site that addresses this issue.

Or how 'bout this glowing review of Buchanan's "Death of the West"?
http://web.archive.org/web/20110719200202/http://www.vdare.com/roberts/west_future.htm

But the most fearsome fact is that the demonization of white people in the universities today is more extreme than the demonization of the Jews that was a prominent feature of German university life for 60 years prior to the rise of National Socialism.

Demonization of whites is the weapon used by multiculturalists to breakup western civilization. But teaching hatred has other consequences. Demonization has already demoralized some whites, making them ashamed and fearful of their skin color.

By the time whites become political minorities, decades of demonization will have prepared the ground for legislation prohibiting their propagation and, perhaps, assigning them to the gulag as a final solution to “the cancer of human history.”

And you're legitimizing him, by promoting his writings and giving him exposure.

Sid

[NuclearDem]

140. Oh God, I think I need a shower after reading those links.

[Octafish]

147. You poor thing.

Hope you're feeling better.

[NuclearDem]

149. So you don't see the problem with those pieces?

Yeah, it's all just a conspiracy to discredit you. Sid must have put a gun to your head and forced you to link to the writings of someone you were shown held these views.

[Octafish]

150. When someone has an agenda, it shows.

My agenda is different from what SidDithers says it is.

I used two articles to demonstrate what the fascists are doing to the nation.

What's his agenda, or your agenda, for that matter?

[NuclearDem]

151. To maybe not have a white supremacist asshat given exposure?

Who told you about the Agenda though? Was it Dave again? It's always Dave. I swear to God this COINTELPRO gig has more leaks than Dave's going to have when I find him.

[zappaman]

141. How anyone would promote that writer on anything but a RW hate site is beyond me.

Gross.

[Octafish]

148. ''Promote'' in this case is a loaded term.

I'd say, "You know that." But, I don't know that.

[Octafish]

146. Why do you work so hard to demonize me?

Nowhere did I promote him or any of that crap you found.

[RobertEarl]

19. You nailed that, Generic Other

Enenews.com just posts news from other sources. It is a great compilation of news from around the world. Then there are the commenters who are some of the wiser and smart people one can discuss this issue with.

So you can tell that the person you were replying to should not be given any credit since they don't know what they are talking about.

[SidDithers]

27. The Environment and Energy group is an excellent place for Fukushima discussions...

Mostly because of what's not there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1127

Sid

[Generic Other]

28. What's not there is any Fukushima news

At least not on the front page. So not much help if we are interested in staying informed on this issue. DU is not the place to find any real discussions of the ongoing disaster taking place. Partly this is due to a lack of information coming from Japan. I open every thread on the topic mostly to find people quarreling about whether there is anything to be concerned about. I am beyond that argument. I am looking for something more substantive than the usual DU bickering.

[SidDithers]

32. There have been plenty of Fukushima discussions in E&E...

You may have to go back a few pages, because there's not really much new coming out of Fukushima right now.

The best part of E&E is that Hosts recognize that ENEnews isn't a reliable source, and threads using ENEnews as a primary source are usually locked. This, for the most part, keeps most of the discussions in the realm of reality rather than conspiracy and pseudoscience.

Edit: this thread is on the front page right now:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112769137

Sid

[closeupready]

40. Sorry your portfolio has a lot of nukes in it.

But you know what? It is what it is. Hehe.

[Generic Other]

88. Some DU members spend all their energy trying to suppress discussions

If I believed posters at DU, I would conclude that living in Fukushima carries no more risk than eating bananas, that children with thyroid problems or nosebleeds are simply anomalies, that TEPCO has the situation under control, that nuclear is the best source of energy with little risk, yadda yadda.

Meanwhile my relatives breathe this shit everyday, grow their crops in it, raise their kids in it and are now prohibited by law from speaking out about it.

I pretty much do not trust any DUers' views on this issue based on reading multiple threads that do not deal with the information but simply mock posters who express concern or post links to articles. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the issues rather than simply pile on anyone who dares post on Fukushima. Because that is what all this constant mocking, ridiculing and nasty snark on Fukushima threads is really about -- intimidating people who seek answers. And it comes from people who have no more real expertise than those they ridicule. I used to post links to Fukushima here, but it became clear to me very quickly that no one here really knew what they were talking about. Just hot air. And those who wanted to discuss issues were mobbed every time they dared to post on the topic.

I do not believe that EneNews has NO valid information to offer. They post translations of Japanese articles, mainstream news, science, etc. You don't like some of the posts, questions, experts' views -- so you try to shut down discussion of the topics raised. If DU was held to the standard that you hold EnewNews to, there would be very few threads posted here.

I do believe that if the experts lie, misinform or deliberately withhold info, the citizens must seek out the answers for themselves. Where ever they can find that information. And since others have already stated that posters are banned from the E&E group for unorthodox opinions or for daring to link to EneNews, I find such dogmatic blanket dismissal revealing. It suggests that conclusions that do not conform to your preconceived notions are dismissed without even being considered. That is not scientific method. That is denialist thinking. Or worse. It is biased science meant to deliberately understate dangers.

Nothing that the naysayers turned soothsayers at DU say changes the fact that we do not know what damage years of contamination by TEPCO's reactors may cause the environment.

[RobertEarl]

119. Thanks, Generic Other

People like you are why I put up with the abuse.

[LWolf]

20. How will all of that mess affect the pacific nw in the us, and any place else it might wash around?

[Generic Other]

30. That is the important question

And until we have answers, I refuse to close off any source of information.

[malaise]

23. Get this thread to the greatest page

Keep up the good work on this disaster

[RobertEarl]

34. Thank you malaise

I get why people want to 'kill the messenger'.

There is so little good news to be had from Fukushima and the news that does come out puts a real black eye on the corporate mentality of nuclear power and big power generators.

Not only have the corporate big power generators been a main cause of global warming, they now are the main cause of manmade nuclear radiation polluting the entire planet. Anyone who had faith in those corporate dealings is now confronted with the fact they were sucked in by the lies. It is difficult for some to deal with.

Again, thanks.

[malaise]

45. I don't get it

It's the same as denying climate change or hiding 100 year floods. Better to discuss and prepare than to ignore - just my two cents.

[MineralMan]

25. Lots of things. And when I want to know the

answers, I go to reliable sources to find them. DU is not one of those sources, unfortunately. Neither are advocacy websites that pick and choose what they excerpt to support their position.

[Generic Other]

29. So who is reliable?

We really can't dismiss any voices IMO. Of course we need to filter for ourselves what sources are reliable, but I am not going to act like a flat earther and just dismiss exploring all possibilities because someone told me to.

[MineralMan]

31. There's no single source.

Often, it takes some work to dig out the actual facts. There are, however, sources that are not accurate or that bend the facts to suit an agenda. They are advocacy sources. Any such source should be checked against other sources.

For every question, the careful person will investigate multiple sources, but ignoring the ones with doomsday headlines and links to other advocacy sites is a good idea.

Everyone finds his or her own sources. Some are good ones. Others are historically bad ones. I prefer to leave those judgments to the individual.

[MineralMan]

52. I beg your pardon.

I was banned from that site eight years ago, in 2006 for "anti-freeping." What on Earth does that have to do with nuclear power or Fukushima?

Your ad hominem post is irrelevant to this thread.

I'm sorry, but your post makes no sense at all.

[closeupready]

53. It's not for me to grant pardon for having participated over there.

But it is a fact that you did, and admited to it on several occasions here before, without much remorse.

So for you to question a source's reliability here on DU from a respected long-term member of DU is rich.

[MineralMan]

54. It's still irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

It's a complete non sequitur.

That you think it is relevant says a lot. Now, I'm done with this subthread, and this thread in general.

[NuclearDem]

55. Well that was just a gratuitously unnecessary personal attack.

Not to mention not having the slightest bearing whatsoever on whether certain sources about Fukushima are reliable or not.

[closeupready]

56. Whatev. Alert on it, if that's how you feel.

[SidDithers]

64. ...

Sid

[snooper2]

33. Good radiation kills bad radiation, if you rig up your microwave correctly

and blast the both sides of your head for 6.23 minutes each, it will eliminate any effects from Fukushima!


Proven! Tested and Proven RobertEarl! PROTECT YOURSELF!

[RobertEarl]

35. You actually tried that?

Too bad you didn't ask for my advice first. But after reading your little ditty, I now have compassion for you and your errorful ways. Your having tested your theory explains a lot. Good luck!

[snooper2]

39. My whole family does it, every Sunday night after the sun sets (don't do it during daytime)

Protect yourself RobertEarl!

[JEB]

43. Seems like a group of DU people are more

interested in quashing discussion and sharing of information and opinions rather than actual information. The amount of vitriol directed at certain posters and sites like Enews seems way over the top. It is like we all are supposed to just forget about the ongoing release of radiation into our world.

[RobertEarl]

44. I do need a better class of fan club

They have this game of kill the messenger, they love to play.

I get that this situation is one where denial is much more comfortable. Ignorance is bliss, goes the old saying.

[hobbit709]

46. You have a fan club like Louie Gohmert has a fan club.

And his claims have as much validity as yours.

[RobertEarl]

51. Louie is a nuke lover

I am an anti-Nuclear Dem.

[NuclearDem]

58. Oh you sneaky sneaky.

[NuclearDem]

47. There's no quashing of discussion.

There's simply pointing out that the OP has demonstrated repeatedly that he's not particularly well-informed on the issue and warning people to take his claims with a whole salt mine.

Separating nonsense from reality isn't persecution, it's how we reach the truth.

[closeupready]

59. Yup. Same tactics as Monsanto's DU resident shill.

Start a thread about GMO foods, and there you go, lol.

[laundry_queen]

120. Yep.

They are very predictable.

[AnalystInParadise]

83. Quashing??

God no, let the deluded man post all he wants. When he posts some real science, I will have nothing to say, because I am usually silent the first time something happens. So no, most of us have no desire to quash Robbie, mock him on the other hand? Yeah.....I mock creationists, pseudo-science nuts and global warming deniers all the same.

[seveneyes]

48. When will the molten corium reach the center of the Earth?

[RobertEarl]

49. It won't

It would be good if it did, that way it could hardly find its way back into our atmosphere.

[RobertEarl]

57. In fact

Burying the waste nearer to the center of the earth is the preferred method of disposal of nuclear waste. So if it went there on its own, it would make burial less expensive.

[Orrex]

50. Any truth to the reports of a 330-foot lizard rampaging over the countryside?

[Brother Buzz]

60. Imperial units are so yesterday

Most guesstimates indicate the rampaging lizard is mere 50 meters tall (that's 167 feet to all you Imperialist dogs).

[Orrex]

61. Who said anything about height?

I heard it was a lizard with 165 pairs of legs.

[NuclearDem]

62. Centipilla!

[Brother Buzz]

63. Height? This one was about five hundred feet high....

when it passed over my home

[Codeine]

76. Taken out by a flying blade from a wind turbine.

Finished off by screaming coyotes.

[zappaman]

79. I give this a 9/10

Add in that the coyotes climb trees and you score a perfect 10!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

66. I'm afraid that I wouldn't trust your answers. N.T.

[RobertEarl]

67. I am certainly open to debate

Or correction, or whatever.

[Octafish]

69. Where can scientists find funding for Fukushima research?

It would seem there'd be a big "demand" for data.

[RobertEarl]

71. They have gone begging for funding

They have gone so far as to beg from citizens and non-profits who have gladly given them money.

For some reason the governments have refused to do any sampling. I guess they are sacred of the results? Certainly, the government scientists would lay out the facts and facts are the last thing the government wants us to know.

If the facts were known, it would show the government has bloody hands. Not just from nuclear power but from nuclear bomb testing.

If one is unconvinced about what government is trying to hide, one can simply ask: Why did they quit testing weapons in the air? They quit because it was radiating everything and radiation kills. It really is that simple.

[Octafish]

73. TEPCO and the governments of Japan and USA, plus United Nations...

...should be funding research and making the data available for public review. The fact they don't is worrisome, especially when considering those entities all reported zero or little global health impact from Fukushima without publicly and explicitly specifying their political and economic connections to nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

[Codeine]

75. "Well-educated"?

From what I've read of your posts you'd have difficulty passing a rigorous high school science course -- you're utterly unqualified to expound on this issue, as demonstrated by the sources onto which you glom.

[zappaman]

80. Duh.

That's how you get chicks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=279013

[Octafish]

85. Sources like Gregory Jaczko, Arne Gundersen and Helen Caldicott.

As opposed to which of your sources? TEPCO?

[NuclearDem]

91. Oh spare us.

Last edited Wed May 21, 2014, 11:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Robert has shown repeatedly he doesn't know what he's talking about. When he's not citing ENENews, he's misrepresenting and cherrypicking data from studies which ultimately say the exact opposite of the point he's trying to make.

One doesn't need to be a TEPCO shill to know that.

And just for good measure, that false dilemma you posed is utter nonsense. There are more viewpoints on this than either TEPCO or the moonbat fringe of the anti-nuclear movement.

[Octafish]

95. NuclearDem, does your paycheck depend on the nuclear business?

If not, you've got an interesting hobby, labeling people who don't agree with you as "the moonbat fringe of the anti-nuclear movement."

BTW: I've posted no false dilemma at all. I listed three sources, each known for veracity. TEPCO is known for lying and incompetence.

[NuclearDem]

96. Oh God, we've been over this before.

That rather anemic attempt at poisoning the well was as pathetic then as it is now.

I've been using "nuclear" in email addresses and usernames all across the net since I was 12. I stuck with it because it makes remembering log-ins easier.

And yes, you've posted a false dilemma. Either the sources you listed, or TEPCO. Complete exclusion of the middle.

So, you accuse me of painting anyone who disagrees with me as "moonbat" (not true, there are plenty of people I disagree with on fission power that aren't moonbat in the slightest), while yourself accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a nuclear industry or TEPCO shill.

[Octafish]

98. I don't ask everyone. Just you.

You never answered the first time I asked.

[NuclearDem]

101. Bullshit.

I answered the first time, and you went on to accuse me of being a return troll or a sockpuppet.

[Octafish]

105. Not at all.

Don't recall reading you ever answering. Searched on GOOGLE. Nothing.

BTW: Here's that thread where you said pretty much the same thing you just said:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4439021

Going from memory: somewhere on DU I remember you posted that you worked with nukes in the military. Couldn't get that to turn up, so I asked.

[NuclearDem]

107. Before I left the service, I was assigned to the 97th at Offutt.

I've probably said something about STRATCOMM at some point, but I wasn't assigned to it at any point.

[Generic Other]

133. "the moonbat fringe of the anti-nuclear movement..." HUH?

I heard most of the moonbats in my state used to work for Hanford. A lot of them are dead today. Or have cancer. Not many new moonbats to be found, but they keep looking.

You sound a lot like a smoker calling non-smokers names while huffing and puffing and blowing smoke in their faces.

[NuclearDem]

134. Let's fix that analogy.

It's more like I'm an anti-tobacco activist calling out other activists who cherrypick and misrepresent data from cancer and emphysema studies to scare the general populace and appeal to emotion rather than reason. I do it because when emotions die down and people actually read the studies and find out they were lied to, they'll wonder why, if anti-tobacco activists had some case against it, they would have to lie to make it.

To be clear, I am unequivocally anti-fission power and anti-nuclear weapons, because the evidence shows that they are dangerous to human health, the environment, and life as we know it.

When I see people on the moonbat fringe of this movement saying the West Coast is going to get "fried" by radiation, or that seastar wasting syndrome is caused by Fukushima radiation, or that a pound of plutonium would give everyone on earth cancer, or that Chernobyl was responsible for a million deaths, I absolutely am going to speak up and make every effort to distance myself and other rational nuclear skeptics from them. We have a case completely founded in the evidence; there's absolutely no need to scaremonger or lie to make a point.

[RobertEarl]

143. Bull

There is science that details as false everything you have claimed.

And you say: "We have a case completely founded in the evidence;"

You have not presented any evidence. You can easily post an OP detailing your evidence, but you don't.

You just are not credible. You say that you believe nukes are bad but every time someone posts how bad nukes are, you set off running around with your hair on fire.

[NuclearDem]

144. Oh not this again.

There is science that details as false everything you have claimed.

What exactly would that be? That fission power and nuclear weapons are dangerous to human health, the environment, and life as we know it?

Or are you saying there's evidence that the laundry list of bogus claims I rattled off in the last paragraph are indeed false? Because you would be 100% right about that.

You have not presented any evidence. You can easily post an OP detailing your evidence, but you don't.

I'm not posting anything about fission power or nuclear weapons because as far as issues go, anti-nuclear advocacy is fairly low on the ladder of topics I feel are important to address.

Situationally, as in say, when the START treaty was up for renewal, I absolutely discussed it.

You just are not credible. You say that you believe nukes are bad but every time someone posts how bad nukes are, you set off running around with your hair on fire.

I point out how your attempts to link every ecological disaster to Fukushima are ridiculous, and how bad you're making the rest of the anti-nuclear movement look with claims like that. You are not the paragon of anti-nuclear. In fact, you're doing more to damage the movement than the industry could have ever dreamed to do by making us all look like hysterics who don't have a firm grasp of biology, chemistry, or physics.

All you've managed to accomplish here is unite pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear posters in their annoyance at your claims.

[Generic Other]

145. When numbers are deliberately obscured

it is hard to find the correct one. We don't know for example how many cancer deaths are directly attributable to nuclear accidents, testing, or improper waste storage. We do know that governments seem reluctant to compile statistics. They feed our fear by downplaying it. They give us fluff stories with politicians eating Fukushima strawberries, then when we are distracted, they quietly raise the allowable dose of radiation schoolchildren can be exposed to.

Meanwhile, people keep getting sick, the government keeps lying about how many and why, and nothing changes.

[Rex]

126. There is plenty I would like to know about Fukushima. Sadly I believe only Mother Nature

will be the one with the answers. Too much money and power invested in how this plays out, for me to trust human intentions.