"Japanese Chernobyl" sounds scary but the tsunami is far greater disaster

[Bonobo]

Look at the numbers below and compare it to the over 20,000
that will have died from the tsunami.

http://www.oasisllc.com/abgx/effects.htm

Question 2. How many cancer deaths have occurred among
atomic-bomb survivors and how many of these can be attributed
to radiation?
Analyses of deaths due to cancer among the Life Span Study
cohort of atomic-bomb survivors from 1950 through 1990,
published in Radiation Research (146:1-27, 1996), are
summarized in Table 2. These results are for survivors who
were exposed to significant radiation doses (See Question 11).


Table 2. Summary of cancer deaths in the Life Span Study
cohort of 
atomic-bomb survivors, 1950-1990
___________________________________________________________________________

                                  Estimated number    
Percentage of deaths
 Cause of      Total number         of deaths due          
attributable
  death         of deaths           to radiation            to
radiation
___________________________________________________________________________

 Leukemia          176                    89                  
  51%

 Other types
 of cancer*      4,687                   339                  
   7%

 Total           4,863                   428                  
   9%

___________________________________________________________________________

*Solid cancers, such as stomach, lung, breast, colorectal and
liver cancers

The number of cancer deaths among the 36,500 Life Span Study
survivors who were exposed beyond 2.5 km is 3,177, including
73 leukemia deaths and 3,104 deaths from cancers other than
leukemia.
The proportion of cancer deaths attributable to radiation
exposure is higher among those who were exposed closer to the
hypocenter, as in the case of deaths due to injuries from the
blast, heat, or radiation. Table 3 presents data on the size
of the studied population and the number of cancer deaths in
relation to distance from the hypocenter for the approximately
50,000 survivors with significant exposures (See Question 10).


Table 3. Cancer deaths among atomic-bomb survivors, 1950-1990,
by distance 
from hypocenter
____________________________________________________________________________

                                  Leukemia               
Other cancers*
                        _______________________    
________________________
 Distance
   from                                Percent                
   Percent
 hypocenter   No. of      No. of     attributable     No. of  
 attributable
   (km)       persons     deaths     to radiation     deaths  
 to radiation
_____________________________________________________________________________

   <1            810        22           100%           128
         42%

 1.0-1.5      10,590        79            64%          1156   
      18%

 1.5-2.0      17,370        36            29%          1622   
       4%

 2.0-2.5      21,343        39             4%          1781   
     0.5%
_____________________________________________________________________________

[aquart]

1. So you've missed the point entirely.

You can't prevent a tsunami. You CAN prevent a nuclear disaster. GUESS HOW?

[Bonobo]

3. What point did I miss?

I am responding to the fact that people here are treating the nuclear disaster as worse than the tsunami.

I am explaining that it isn't even close.

Which part of THAT do YOU not get?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JDPriestly]

23. How does the size of this meltdown compare to the other

exposures the OP is discussing?

[Bonobo]

25. That is indeed the question.

I am assuming that the 2 nuclear bombs were a greater source of dangerous radiation, but I am no expert and can't really say.

I posted the atomic bomb deaths because it seemed like it must be a bigger radiation release, but I'm sure it is complicated.

[BrookBrew]

30. It is worth looking at the dozens we detonated here in open air

the government sent men into the explosions with dosimeters. The findings are available in several studies and written up in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 1973. Obviously their health was impacted and it can be traced to measurable doses of radiation. Problem is that fear and agenda pimping has a big head start on rational thought.

It is complex but not so complicated people cant think it through. People claiming it is worse than Chernobyl are just fucking stupid, its not even ballpark. Like a car wreck is the same as the holocaust. Same as people who claim no global warming and that MMR caused autism can live with saying ignorance like that.

Time will prove these people wrong and then they can live with themselves for spreading bullshit allover the internet to push their agenda.

The contingency in Japan is triggered at 100 people suffering from radiation sickness, 100 has not happened. 26,900 people less than are basically known dead. I think that number could over double.

[kristopher]

34. Scale of Chernobyl

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former. Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

<snip>

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations. Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination. Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups. From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

That is in an area far less vulnerable and far less densely populated than Japan.

[Bonobo]

36. There is wide disagreement.

World Health Organization said 4,000 deaths. You say 1 million (nice round number!)/

Who is right?

----------------
Controversy over human health effects

The majority of premature deaths caused by Chernobyl are expected to be the result of cancers and other diseases induced by radiation in the decades after the event. This will be the result of a large population (some studies have considered the entire population of Europe) exposed to relatively low doses of radiation increasing the risk of cancer across that population. It will be impossible to attribute specific deaths to Chernobyl, and many estimates indicate that the rate of excess deaths will be so small as to be statistically undetectable, even if the ultimate number of extra premature deaths is large. Furthermore, interpretations of the current health state of exposed populations vary. Therefore, estimates of the ultimate human impact of the disaster have relied on numerical models of the effects of radiation on health. Furthermore, the effects of low-level radiation on human health are not well understood, and so the models used, notably the linear no threshold model, are open to question.
Given these factors, several different studies of Chernobyl's health effects have come up with substantially different conclusions and are the subject of considerable scientific and political controversy. The following section presents some of the major studies on this topic.

[kristopher]

41. No, there really isn't. There is the nuclear industry on one side and everyone else on the other.

See post 40.

[Bonobo]

45. No, you see post #44. The study you cite appears to be a joke

and decidedly UN-scientific.

Greenpeace is not exactly unaffected by ulterior motives.

[kristopher]

50. See posts 47 48 and below // NYAS stands by validity of study.

"The Academy is committed to publishing content deemed scientifically valid by the general scientific community, from whom the Academy carefully monitors feedback. "

http://www.nyas.org/AboutUs/MediaRelations/Detail.aspx?cid=16b2d4fe-f5b5-4795-8d38-d59a76d1ef33

[bananas]

2. There were about a million deaths from Chernobyl

I don't know why you're comparing the earthquake to atomic bomb survivors when your post title says "Japanese Chernobyl".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x283519

Dr. Alexey Yablokov, co-author of “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment," and a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, warned today that the consequences of the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan could be comparable to or potentially greater than the health and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl reactor explosion on April 26, 1986 in Ukraine.

Speaking at a press conference in Washington, DC, Dr. Yablokov said: “We are seeing something that has never happened – a multiple reactor catastrophe including one using plutonium fuel as well as spent fuel pool accidents, all happening within 200 kilometers of a metropolis of 30 million people. Because the area is far more densely populated than around Chernobyl, the human toll could eventually be far worse in Japan.”

Dr. Yablokov’s book calculated that as many as one million people had likely died as a result of the Chernobyl accident, figures far higher than other “official” reports. He said the book had been met “mostly with silence” from bodies like the World Health Organization who have “avoided discussion” about the findings.

<snip>

[Bonobo]

4. A million? Are you sure?

Because I call bullshit.

And if you can't substantiate it with a link, that's all it is.

[bananas]

5. I just posted a link.

edit to add: watch the video, I'll see if I can dig up a link to the report.

edit to add:
Here's a link to the report with an audio interview with the editor: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x268452

[Bonobo]

6. You posted a link to a DU thread.

I can post several links to actual studies that place the numbers at at least 3 orders of magnitude less than the million you claim.

Why?

Because your claim is utter bullshit.

[bananas]

9. Follow the instructions here:

http://nuclearfreeplanet.org/articles/read-or-download--chernobyl--consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment-for-free.html

[Bonobo]

16. In this case, since I can post studies that show much lower numbers..

People must be left to believe what they WANT to believe since I assume neither you nor I can make an accurate assessment of the veracity of one study over another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have been burdened with the continuing and substantial decontamination and health care costs of the Chernobyl accident. Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers. Estimates of the number of deaths potentially resulting from the accident vary enormously; the World Health Organization (WHO) suggest it could reach 4,000 while a Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more. According to WHO, mid-2005 about only 50 deaths could be directly associated with the Chernobyl disaster<5>.

[kristopher]

35. No, that isn't how science works.

This is the latest study and it EXPANDS on the research done earlier. This is the best available information. Rejecting science is a hallmark of what kind of person?

[Bonobo]

37. It does not build upon the earlier study. It uses different numerical models.

Controversy over human health effects

The majority of premature deaths caused by Chernobyl are expected to be the result of cancers and other diseases induced by radiation in the decades after the event. This will be the result of a large population (some studies have considered the entire population of Europe) exposed to relatively low doses of radiation increasing the risk of cancer across that population. It will be impossible to attribute specific deaths to Chernobyl, and many estimates indicate that the rate of excess deaths will be so small as to be statistically undetectable, even if the ultimate number of extra premature deaths is large. Furthermore, interpretations of the current health state of exposed populations vary. Therefore, estimates of the ultimate human impact of the disaster have relied on numerical models of the effects of radiation on health. Furthermore, the effects of low-level radiation on human health are not well understood, and so the models used, notably the linear no threshold model, are open to question.

[kristopher]

40. Do you understand how statistical analysis works?

You are agreeing with the structure of research that is specifically used in an attempt to under-report the consequences of environmental impact by creating a far too strict model for determining cause and effect. For example, using the type of criteria you are claiming is the only acceptable method of investigation resulted in huge undercounts of civilian fatalities associated with the Iraq invasion.

The authors of the Lancet study used a well designed method of sampling and well understood methods of statistical analysis to determine that civil casualties in that war exceeded 900,000 IIRC instead of the 10K or so that morgue body counts concluded.

Why do you trust studies that are controlled by people with vested interests in the outcome instead of paying attention to equally qualified researchers with no vested interests?

"Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former. Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia."

[Bonobo]

44. The report you cite has been disavowed and is rather unscientific actually.

"Why do you trust studies that are controlled by people with vested interests in the outcome instead of paying attention to equally qualified researchers with no vested interests?"

"Author Alexy V. Yablokov was also one of the general editors on the Greenpeace commissioned report also criticizing the Chernobyl Forum finds published one year prior to the Russian language version of this report."

If you think that Greenpeace does not have a vested interest in the outcome as compared with the World Health Organization, I don't suppose we can really ever come eye to eye on this thing.

Even the New York Academy of Sciences that published that "report" you cite have disavowed it.



I do not consider the book a legitimate academy report for a number of reasons:

1. It is not a new study and does not bring any new or unpublished information to light. It is a translation of a book by the same authors that was published in 2007.

2. The preface of the report states that the writing was undertaken "with the initiative of Greenpeace International". The acknowledgement states that the authors "provided original material or reviews of specific topics to Greenpeace International," and ends by saying, "This English edition would have been impossible without Dr. Janette Shennan-Nevinger, who tirelessly scientifically edited our very rough translation." Sherman-Nevinger is known for, inter alia, her work with Alec Baldwin and Ernest Sternglass on the discredited Tooth Fairy Project ( www.radiation.org ).

a. The introduction to the report states the reason that it is not an acceptable voice for science: It blatantly denies the legitimacy of the scientific method. "Some experts believe that any conclusions about radiation based disease require a correlation between an illness and the received dose of radioactivity. We believe this is an impossibility. … It is not necessary to calculate standard errors … Today's 'scientific protocols' with, for example, 'confidence intervals' and 'case control' are not perfect. … It is correct and justified for the whole of society … to use the enormous database collected by thousands of experts."

In other words, one can report a much larger number of "Chernobyl victims" if not limited by the usual scientific practice of using only direct correlation of statistically significant data. That is certainly true. The data cited in this report were accumulated by stumbling across correlations of various illnesses of symptoms, regardless of where such symptoms have ever been known to result from irradiation. Most have not. Conceding that such post hoc pattern building is generally discouraged by scientists, the authors argue that in the Chernobyl situation, it is required. There is no attempt to replicate or peer-review the data. The need for statistical significance is specifically denied.

b. The author's theory of radiation damage is bizarre. "One physical analogy can illustrate the importance of even the smallest load of radioactivity: Only a few drops of water added to a glass filled to the brim are needed to initiate a flow… We simply do not know when a only a small amount of additional Chernobyl radiation will cause an overflow of damage and irreversible change in the health of humans and in nature." Water flow in a toilet works that way because it has a siphon; a glass of water does not. But more important, no evidence is offered to support this unorthodox theory of radiation damage. "Exposed to radiation" does not necessarily mean injured, as implied.

d. The Ukrainian government offered incentives for citizens to declare themselves "Chernobyl victims." The original contract with the Soviet government promised that any person injured by the reactor would be fully taken care of, at the expense of the Russian government. This provision came to include housing, hospitalization, and other medical care and cash. The program became so lavish and expensive that resentment grew against the "victims," who were judged to be parasites. There were even fund-raising tours through the United States and elsewhere by malformed 'Chernobyl victims" who didn't even all live in or near Chernobyl.

[kristopher]

46. NYAS did not disavow the report. The industry tried to get them to though.

What they said was that they publish valid studies without judging the content and that the study met the requirement for publication, in other words, it was properly done,
It is clear that in spite of your protest to the contrary you are, in fact, a nuclear power supporter.

"By your words and deeds you shall be known."

[Bonobo]

47. Here is their quote. It certainly sounds like they are stepping away from it.

"The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences issue “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment”, therefore, does not present new, unpublished work, nor is it a work commissioned by the New York Academy of Sciences. The expressed views of the authors, or by advocacy groups or individuals with specific opinions about the Annals Chernobyl volume, are their own. "

[kristopher]

48. Why did you cherry pick that part and leave off the link?

Statement on Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences volume entitled “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment”
Annals volume 1181, published December 2009
Posted 4/28/2010

NEW YORK—“Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment,” Volume 1181 of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, published online in November 2009, was authored by Alexey V. Yablokov, of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Alexey V. Nesterenko, of the Institute of Radiation Safety (Belarus), and the late Prof. Vassily B. Nesterenko, former director of the Belarussian Nuclear Center. With a foreword by the Chairman of the Ukranian National Commission on Radiation Protection, Dimitro M. Grodzinsky, the 327-page volume is an English translation of a 2007 publication by the same authors. The earlier book, “Chernobyl,” published in Russian, presented an analysis of the scientific literature, including more than 1,000 titles and more than 5,000 printed and Internet publications mainly in Slavic languages, on the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster.

The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences volume “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment,” therefore, does not present new, unpublished work, nor is it a work commissioned by the New York Academy of Sciences. The expressed views of the authors, or by advocacy groups or individuals with specific opinions about the Annals Chernobyl volume, are their own. Although the New York Academy of Sciences believes it has a responsibility to provide open forums for discussion of scientific questions, the Academy has no intent to influence legislation by providing such forums. The Academy is committed to publishing content deemed scientifically valid by the general scientific community, from whom the Academy carefully monitors feedback.

The Academy is committed to publishing content deemed scientifically valid by the general scientific community

http://www.nyas.org/AboutUs/MediaRelations/Detail.aspx?cid=16b2d4fe-f5b5-4795-8d38-d59a76d1ef33

Since you selected only the section below (when it is an obviously incomplete picture of their position) we also now know that you are willing to shame yourself by presenting misleading data. Why? What is so important to you that you are willing to do that? O person who has pure motives would do it.


"The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences issue “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment”, therefore, does not present new, unpublished work, nor is it a work commissioned by the New York Academy of Sciences. The expressed views of the authors, or by advocacy groups or individuals with specific opinions about the Annals Chernobyl volume, are their own."

[Bonobo]

49. "Shame myself"?

You are accusing me of what exactly?

[kristopher]

51. You attempted to misrepresent the position of NYAS - that would cause ME shame.

I assumed it would you also - especially since you embrace Japanese values.

[Bonobo]

52. I did no such thing.

I quoted the part that I thought best represented my interpretation that they were politically trying to step away from a full endorsement of that study.

By the way, YOU presented the cited study as a new one when in fact it is merely a translation of work done back in 2007.

Why do you have such faith in the 1 million number they cite as killed by Chernobyl.

You and I both know what "statistical analysis" means and we both know it is entirely dependent on the values you input it at the beginning that will determine the results you get.


From the publication:

'"Some experts believe that any conclusions about radiation based disease require a correlation between an illness and the received dose of radioactivity. We believe this is an impossibility. … It is not necessary to calculate standard errors … Today's 'scientific protocols' with, for example, 'confidence intervals' and 'case control' are not perfect. … It is correct and justified for the whole of society … to use the enormous database collected by thousands of experts."

In other words, this study required no direct correlation between radiation exposure and subsequent illnesses in determining the number of victims. That sounds like good science to you, Kristopher?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VoteProgressive]

7. I think you are missing the point that Nukes are man made. But carry on. nt

[Bonobo]

8. That has zero to do with the point I am making.

My only point is that the tsunami is the greater tragedy.

So what does what you said have to do with that?

Answer = nothing.

[PoliticAverse]

10. Shouldn't you have compared it to Chernobyl ?

Since that's the comparison in your post title.
And also a nuclear bomb detonation is unlike a reactor accident.

[Bonobo]

11. Huh? What?

I am comparing it to the tsunami because they both are the big news items that happened in Japan, that plus the earthquake.

There is talk here on DU that it is the "greatest disaster to happen to humanity in millenia", but it isn't even the greatest disaster to happen to Japan in the last 2 weeks.

The tsunami is the greater disaster.

Do you see now why I did not compare it to Chernobyl?

[bananas]

13. But your thread title is "Japanese Chernobyl", then you compare it to atomic bombs

You do know the difference between an atomic reactor and an atomic bomb, don't you?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Urban Prairie]

17. Ongoing damaged reactors' damaged spent fuel rods in damaged pools and are exposed to the elements

CONTINUING to emit radiation ever since, to be more exact.

How is this ongoing disaster even remotely comparable to the Chernobyl explosion and fire or especially nuclear bombs?



:shrug:

[grahamhgreen]

18. Why don't you go over there and help put out the nuclear fire, if you love nukes so much?

[Bonobo]

19. Yeah, that is EXACTLY what I said. Bonobo: "I love nukes".

Now get a life, ok?

[uppityperson]

29. That was uncalled for. Seriously. You still have time to edit.

[Zoeisright]

20. Here's the HUGE difference you're completely ignoring:

The tsunami is a NATURAL DISASTER that we can't prevent.

Nuclear power is poisonous and filthy and uncontrollable, and we DON'T have to have them.

Sheesh.

Unrec.

[Bonobo]

21. So you think the tsunami is not as big a disaster as the nuclear situation?

20,000 deaths is not as serious because why?

[Arugula Latte]

22. We won't know how many deaths result from Fukushima for years to come.

That doesn't mean it won't rival the tsunami deaths, or not approach it remotely, or maybe surpass it by a big margin. It's still too early to say.

[Kalun D]

32. Because

Tsunami deaths are by and large unavoidable

whereas nuclear radiation deaths are entirely avoidable

[kristopher]

38. You seem to be trying to encourage acceptance of nuclear power. Is that true?

If it is, can you explain why you believe it is worth the costs we've seen.

How those costs compare to other events like the tsunami isn't a relevant point about the NEED for nuclear power, which is the centtral issue, isn't it?

So do you want to build more nuclear power? If so, would you share why you believe that to be true?

Thanks.

[Bonobo]

39. If you think that, I assure you it is purely the product of your imagination plus projection.

I have no such purpose.

[kristopher]

42. I didn't accuse, I asked for clarity. Would you answer?

[Bonobo]

43. I just did. nt

[hunter]

27. Let's see, we don't have to build cities in tsunami zones either.

Which describes the entire USA coast, by the way.

Heck, we don't even have to have children, and it would probably be better if we didn't.

Humans are poisonous and filthy and uncontrollable, and we DON'T have to have them...

I'm looking forward to the depopulation of the world...

:sarcasm:

[enki23]

24. yes, and the heat death of the universe will be very bad for any remaining human life

so, hey. shut up about that silly, miniscule tsunami already wouldja? I've got all the goddamned red herrings to eat, and I'm sick of all the interruptions.

[grahamhgreen]

26. Let's NOT build any more tsunami's, then!

[uppityperson]

28. I wonder if people are looking at it differently, depending on where they live.

Of course the 20,000 who died is a huge disaster. Especially for those directly involved with family, community, friends, etc etc than for those who know no one there and are only reading about it, watching videos, etc. My heart breaks for those who died, for those who lived and have to deal with the aftermath. I assume many feel the same, no matter where they are. But for you Bonobo, it is much more personal.

As far as the nuke goes, we fear it may impact a larger community and those who live down wind, down ocean, down whatever see it as possibly affecting them directly.

Then there is the natural vs unnatural disaster aspect, though the earthquake (natural) is directly responsible for the tsunami (natural) which caused the nuke plant failures (man made error of not having enough backup systems). Some can be prevented, some only prepared for. Nuke plant failures are caused by things that can be partially prepared for, in some cases more better prepared. But still they fall back onto humanity.

I grew up post WW2, cold war, atomic warnings, duck and cover times, fearing deep down nuke attack. So for me I have to intellectualize how far and what damage can be caused by a meltdown/etc rather than let me omg fears run away with me. For me, my fear is widespread thyroid damage. Again, living down wind of nuke testing and growing up drinking milk with every meal, I know many people who have faulty thyroids which I presume were affected by that nuclear crap.

Japanese Chernobyl does indeed sound scary. Japanese Tsunami has killed many many many people for whom I grieve. I find myself capable of grieving for those killed and those who survived, while still being concerned about the nuclear issue.

I don't know if this will make sense, hoping it does.

Of course there are some here who prefer dichotomous thinking and focus on one thing at a time. Can't please everyone.

Best wishes to you and yours and all.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.