Fukushima... and you thought that just went away?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e-years-later/

It's interesting to me that people accuse the 'mainstream media', whatever that's supposed to mean, of being untrustworthy, but are ready to accept what a few youtube videos have to say.

Some very reputable organizations – among them, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations Science Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation – have stated publically that they think Fukushima will not cause any radiation-related deaths in Japan, and almost certainly not in the rest of the world.

Yeah, right.... I wouldn't trust anything the UN says as far as I could throw the whole lot of them, and I suppose it is just a coincidence that the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency is Japanese.

If you prefer to believe what the mainstream media tells you is the truth, then of course that is your right. However I choose to believe what appears to be more truthful and accurate from my own understanding and review of available facts provided. Of course, there is always the possibility of "garbage in, garbage out" concerning the provided information, but I doubt you can claim this cannot apply to you and your preferred information sources too.

As for Fukushima specifically, when will they be able to stop the source of radioactive contamination? For that matter, WHERE are the radioactive reactor cores that have melted RIGHT NOW, and what can they do about containing them? Are you claiming that the reports of extremely high radioactivity that have been reported are just bogus, or are just not dangerous? Were all the expensive safeguards to try to prevent a reactor core meltdown then just a waste of money and effort if that result is just not dangerous at all?

Personally, I am not going to be knowingly eating Alaskan king crab, probably for the rest of my life. And I will be seriously considering not buying any produce coming out of California as well for the foreseeable future. What you do is your own business, and honestly I would find it difficult to care less about what you do concerning your own health and welfare. If you want to go build sand castles on the shores of the Pacific with potentially radioactive contamination, have at it. I think I would have less to lose by being wrong than you would by being wrong.

I refuse to live in terror is about the long and short of it. Living in fear of, well, the shadows doesn't appeal to me in the least.

Considering life depends on radiation, the word itself doesn't frighten me, and I choose critical analysis rather than fearmongering.

Originally Posted by Nova_C

I refuse to live in terror is about the long and short of it. Living in fear of, well, the shadows doesn't appeal to me in the least.

Considering life depends on radiation, the word itself doesn't frighten me, and I choose critical analysis rather than fearmongering.

There is also the condition known as "living in ignorance of actual danger".

Perhaps the word "radiation" doesn't frighten you, and certainly it shouldn't, but to studiously ignore the potential to being exposed to excessive amounts of radiation might not be what you are describing as "critical analysis" of this situation at Fukushima.

Personally, I just cannot see how anyone can downplay the danger of multiple nuclear reactor core meltdowns. THREE (3) nuclear cores melted down, are emitting enormous amounts of radiation, no one knows where those melted cores are now, and the technology to *fix* this problem does not exist. Plus this is happening at the western edge of the Pacific Ocean, with currents in that body of water moving radioactive contaminated water to the west coast of the USA. Untold quantities of radioactively contaminated water has been flowing into the Pacific Ocean for nearly six (6) years now. And your opinion is that this is of no consequence whatsoever?

Again, if a nuclear core of a reactor melting down is of no concern, then why all of the failsafes at nuclear reactors precisely to keep this from happening? The companies building those things just love to throw their money away trying to prevent such an inconsequential event? Yeah, I'm sure that is the answer.

And FYI, no, I'm not living in terror at all. I doubt any long term effects will affect me in my lifetime, but I believe I am being circumspect about shortening my live by being ignorant and/or stupid about the potential of living in ignorance about this event. If that is your choice, then so be it. I truly and honestly hope I am wrong and you are right. My posting such things on my sites is for those people who may be ignorant of what is going on by it being downplayed by the paid talking heads that want to avert any sort of panic that truth may cause. Honestly, if you think they actually knew some terrible truth about what is going on, it would have been plastered all over the news for the past several years? You CAN'T be that naive.

Yeah, I know some minor radiation is unavoidable, but to not take rational steps to limit your exposure to AVOIDABLE radioactively, really isn't all that smart, in my opinion. In such cases, I would suggest that your "critical analysis" is flawed. In the case of Fukushima, perhaps it could be fatally flawed for some people close to the problem if ignored.

But to each their own. Everyone is welcome to use their own brain and make their own decisions about such things. I will continue to post about such things here that I find of interest and/or concern regardless of whether you like it or not.

I'm not sure how not stressing about to mere existence of radiation equates to thinking there's nothing dangerous about it. I'm not afraid of water, but I still think there should be lifeguards at pools and I'm well aware that I can drown in it.

So, digging into this further, what I've found is that there is a ton of fearmongering out there, including news articles claiming that the cores were spread across the whole of Japan, that 8 quadrillion times the safe level of radiation is being released and dates of articles that don't make any sense (Articles from 2015 talking about 3 missing cores alongside articles from 2014 talking about found cores). So all I can do is go with reputable sources.

And frankly, the WHO and IAEA are more reputable to me than bloggers and websites with absolutely no obligation to tell the truth.

Besides, I'm old enough to remember the Chernobyl disaster. People thought that was the end of the world, too.

Originally Posted by Nova_C

I'm not sure how not stressing about to mere existence of radiation equates to thinking there's nothing dangerous about it. I'm not afraid of water, but I still think there should be lifeguards at pools and I'm well aware that I can drown in it.

So, digging into this further, what I've found is that there is a ton of fearmongering out there, including news articles claiming that the cores were spread across the whole of Japan, that 8 quadrillion times the safe level of radiation is being released and dates of articles that don't make any sense (Articles from 2015 talking about 3 missing cores alongside articles from 2014 talking about found cores). So all I can do is go with reputable sources.

And frankly, the WHO and IAEA are more reputable to me than bloggers and websites with absolutely no obligation to tell the truth.

Besides, I'm old enough to remember the Chernobyl disaster. People thought that was the end of the world, too.

Oh really? And what exactly makes YOUR sources obligated to tell the truth?

So are you saying now that you believe the situation at Fukushima is likely dangerous? I'm not stressing over it neither, as I have mentioned, but I do believe that SOME people really need to be that could be impacted by it.

So in your book, anyone pointing out the highly likely seriousness of the Fukushima situation is "fearmongering"? So your belief is that information concerning the core meltdowns should simply be ignored since it is a non issue? You STILL haven't told me how a nuclear core meltdown should not be considered serious, and why exactly all the effort and expense has been expended by the power companies running those plants just exactly to try to prevent such an event from happening.

As for your alleged claims that people are actually claiming that those melted cores have spread all over Japan, I'm sorry, but that is just not believable, and I would not believe such claims neither. Melted cores would most certainly melt straight down from the point where they began to melt onto a glob of extremely heated radioactive material. And as far as I am aware, there is not a thing anyone can do about it. But writing off ALL accounts about Fukushima because you may have found some that are unrealistic, does not negate what actual facts that others have relayed.

And comparing Chernobyl to Fukushima is ingenuous. Just look at a map and see if you can figure out why that is the case. I'll give you a hint, though. Isn't one is right on the edge of the Pacific Ocean? And isn't one not near a similar large body of water? Do you THINK that might be significant concerning the environment?

But in any event, if you believe even Chernobyl is not a health safety issue, I'm sure you can buy land there for a song if you are interested in moving there. Quite likely the land values in Japan, at least in proximity of Fukushima will likely do the same, I would imagine. So save your money. There will be bargains to be had for those who believe that the radiation there is a non-issue.

The OP for this thread claimed a coverup. That's the part I find hard to believe.

If you insist on arguing with a strawman so you can safely ignore anything that challenges your beliefs, that's on you, not anyone else.

Let me elaborate:

I am, of course, aware of the dangers presented by disasters at nuclear facilities. Radioactivity in sufficient amounts can have deleterious effects on life in the surrounding area. The exclusion zones in Ukraine and now Japan are likely to remain for a very long time. The inability to deal with this disaster effectively is also something that can't be ignored.

But this notion that all the international organizations are somehow trying to cover these things up is something I balk at. I am immediately suspect of any claim when it attempts to convince that there is some kind of evil plot at work. This doesn't mean there can't be - but there are a lot of claims out there that require total suspension of critical thinking in order to accept, and the notion that basically everyone is trying cover up the disaster at Fukushima is one I don't believe.

I mean, why? What on earth do they have to gain? These plants are old and obsolete and having nothing to do with modern reactors, so covering up the disaster has no benefit for furthering the development of nuclear energy. There's no money to be made because the plants are already unrecoverable and the exclusion zone means the whole area is basically undevelopable now.

So, yes, nuclear disasters are serious, are dangerous, and must not be ignored, that this is some kind of massive cover up for.....reasons, I don't believe.

Originally Posted by Nova_C

Let me elaborate:

I am, of course, aware of the dangers presented by disasters at nuclear facilities. Radioactivity in sufficient amounts can have deleterious effects on life in the surrounding area. The exclusion zones in Ukraine and now Japan are likely to remain for a very long time. The inability to deal with this disaster effectively is also something that can't be ignored.

But this notion that all the international organizations are somehow trying to cover these things up is something I balk at. I am immediately suspect of any claim when it attempts to convince that there is some kind of evil plot at work. This doesn't mean there can't be - but there are a lot of claims out there that require total suspension of critical thinking in order to accept, and the notion that basically everyone is trying cover up the disaster at Fukushima is one I don't believe.

I mean, why? What on earth do they have to gain? These plants are old and obsolete and having nothing to do with modern reactors, so covering up the disaster has no benefit for furthering the development of nuclear energy. There's no money to be made because the plants are already unrecoverable and the exclusion zone means the whole area is basically undevelopable now.

So, yes, nuclear disasters are serious, are dangerous, and must not be ignored, that this is some kind of massive cover up for.....reasons, I don't believe.

So, you don't believe that even Japan has any reason to try to cover up this disaster? Or at the very least, downplay the seriousness of it? And you can't fathom a reason why?

Well, let's look at some rational possibilities.

(1) Japan exports a lot of commodities, do they not? Do you suppose that the perceived potential radioactive contamination of such products could possible affect the marketability of them? In particular, food stuffs? How would that affect their economy? Would Japan government officials therefore have any incentive whatsoever for a coverup?

(2) TEPCO itself may have an enormous liability for the contaminants their plant is dumping into the environment. And not just in Japan. Do you think their board of directors would be inclined to try to downplay the spread of contamination and the potential negative health effects, not just in Japan, but in every other country potentially affected?

(3) Governments tend to fear panic of the populace. One proven technique to try to avert panic is to either completely quash the source of the bad news, or at least gloss it over with some paid talking heads quoting "scientific studies" that compare radiation to something benign, like sunlight and other natural sources of low level radiation. I remember reading a while back where some nuclear "experts" wanted to measure radiation in something they termed "sunshine units".

Got enough reasons now? Or are you so averse to the believe that conspiracies can actually exist, that you just accept everything the mainstream media takes at face value, even the lack of information you don't see as being indicative of "all is well here, folks"?

As for the sources of the information I find, well, sorry, but I just find that what I see and read from alternative news sources is just a whole lot more believable than what gets through the filters of the mainstream media. Yeah, some of it can be pretty off the wall, and certainly has to go through my own filter of reasonableness, but at least that is MY filter, and not someone else's.

If there is a source of absolute truth that you are aware of, please point me to it. Along with a believable reason of WHY that source can be 100 percent relied on, please.

Oh, and back to your statement about "exclusion zones". It appears you are stating that you agree that radiation can be dangerous, and dangerous to a degree that entire areas could be unhealthy to be in. Well, in Fukushima's case, what exactly is this exclusion zone? Is it static? Will that zone expand as the radioactive contamination continues to leak from those extremely hot (both temperature and radioactivity wise) melted nuclear cores? How FAR will that exclusion zone eventually spread before the radioactive sources are neutralized? WHEN will that neutralization take place?

I take it that you don't consider potential danger worth considering? Would you prefer to just ignore such potentials or would you rather process across a broad spectrum of sources outside of what the mainstream media feeds you in order to be able to make your own more educated decisions?

You don't have to accept everything you read. But I doubt you could disagree that the more sources available, the better the chances that you are seeing some truth somewhere in the mix.