dontbelievethehype comments

Posted in: Japan's 'long war' to shut down Fukushima nuclear plant See in context

For a very basic overview of why nuclear power is finished, the Economist Jeremy Rifkin was asked if nuclear power would, or would not, be a solution to the climate crisis as some people like to use a very basic argument that it doesn't emit CO2 (even though they forget how we have to mine for uranium).

Jeremy is an extremely influential economist who advises the European Union and its member states, the sovereign Wealth Fund, and many major institutional investment houses and economic bodies in the US and Europe. If people like him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Rifkin are saying Nuclear power is over, there is a reason.

If anyone would like an explanation of the economic principles of nuclear power and why it is much more expensive, much more risky, and is not a viable energy source, watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwIvGJJ_dtU. Its honest and to the point. I would really like responses to what he is saying.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Japan's 'long war' to shut down Fukushima nuclear plant See in context

This isn't just a long war to clean up the disaster, its on of the biggest, most difficult to fix, man made industrial accidents in modern history. Its 2 years into it and we still don't know the state of the melted fuel (corium), where it is, and if it's "contained". We still don't have the technology to even get close enough to find where the melted fuel is...

To Japan's credit extremely smart and dedicated people will be working on this for their entire professional careers. In 50 years time there will be masters and Phd students who would have recently graduated, and possibly retired their professional working careers only working on cleaning up the Fukushima reactors.

The future of of nuclear power is over, its done, its toast, and its for purely economic reasons. The only people championing nuclear power now are those who are heavily invested in it, and have the most to lose from its downfall. For medical and defense purposes it will always have a place, but as an economic and environmentally safe form of power, its proven itself as a failure because its too expensive to use and maintain, and when things go wrong, its too expensive to clean up!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: Grim reminder See in context

The monitoring posts are to show that a particular area has been decontaminated, or is not contaminated, but, the problem is they are static and only cover a small area, and airborne radiation. If there was another disaster they would be useful and serve as an early warning relay to supplement SPEEDI. They would have been really useful for all those residents who had no idea what was coming their way on the week after 3/11 when SPEEDI data was withheld from the public..

This was broadcast last year, sorry its all in Japanese.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msoteVTiguY

If anyone is interested but does not understand Japanese you can get the basic overview of the video by looking at this blog http://kiikochan.blog136.fc2.com/blog-entry-2308.html and using google translate. Its simplistic but will give you an idea of what it is they are discussing.

Its not all negative as once we understand what the black substance is, and how it is accumulating radiation (and what type of radionuclides) it may be beneficial for decontamination efforts, you certainly don't want to inhale it or eat it (no mud pies). Professor Hiroaki Koide is the old man with glasses testing the samples, the young man on the right being interviewed collected a sample from station in Tokyo which was very contaminated, and he as made a map that shows radiation in the form of becquerels per kilogram (Bq/kg).

FYI, Hiroaki Koide works at Koyoto University, in the Research Reactor Institute, and he is in the Radioactive Waste management division, therefore he is very qualified to be make assertions about how radioactive these substances are. He is extremely anti-nuke, so I'm sure someone will be along to disqualify him http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/en/research_div/nse/nes/rwm.

I'm personally not against the monitoring posts but there are numerous videos on youtube that indicate that areas even 10 meters away from monitoring posts in Fukushima prefecture are showing high levels of contamination, in the form of the black dust (黒い物質). This may make parents who have no idea about the effects of radiation on children feel that it is safe for their children to play in a park that has mini-hot spots that are technically classified as nuclear waste, as pointed out by Professor Koide. Until researchers understand the mechanisms of the black dust, it may mean even areas that have had a lot of decontamination efforts might be re-contaminated.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Posted in: WHO: Small cancer risk after Fukushima accident See in context

Heda_Madness:

I'm wondering why it would be ludicrous to compare Chernobyl to Fukushima? Anyone working in this area is already comparing, and will continue to do so due to the dangers and technology needed to clean up the mess....

Every single nuclear engineer that I know is doing comparisons, as are physicists, as are nuclear experts. I think anyone with rudimentary knowledge of this would agree, that Fukushima is incredibly more complicated due to the type of Fuel, the containment situation, and the volume of fuel we are dealing with and that Fukushima is not "small potatoes". 9/11 is the worst industrial accident ever, in modern history and I would argue that it will probably be the worst (hopefully) for a long long time.

We need to compare because after 3 Mile island, there has not been a comparable event....

Here are some very basic comparisons that any engineer will begin with.

How many plants at Fukushima were permanently shut down and what is the state of those plants, as compared to Chrenobyl?

What is the total weight of Fuel and what type of Fuel was in use or being stored when comparing Fukushima or Chernobyl?

Where is the fuel now, and what state is it in when comparing Fukushima and Chernobyl?

Is Chernobyl or any of the 6 plants still having containment problems?

Which disaster is going to cost more to contain, and eventually clean up?

How many engineers are going to be needed to clean up the disasters, and what personal radiation dosage will they be allowed to accumulate?

We learned a lot about what can and does go wrong from the Russians, to discount that is naive.

I would really like you to expand on the "Fukushima is small Potatoes compared to the disaster at Chernobyl" opinion, because I don't see any nuclear engineers agreeing with you, anywhere?

One really good way of comparing the two disasters is to look at what type of radioactivity was released, this is something to mull over on a cold (according to Yahoo weather) Sunday in Japan http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120308/srep00304/full/srep00304.html

Thanks :-)

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: Japan riled by WHO's Fukushima cancer warning See in context

No Miso:

Thanks for the frank reply, I agree with you that the blog does have an agenda, but what I am concerned with is the results of the survey. It is ongoing of course but, the results are deeply alarming to me as they are to anyone who has knowledge of thyroid medicine.

What concerns me is that the number of children who have been tested and have abnormalities, and the speed at which people are willing to discount the qualified researchers, even though that particular blog may have an agenda. It seems to me that there are posters here that will find a way to discount this research or use basic statistics to say there is nothing to be worried about, and I have to ask myself, why?

If you are concerned with the blog, then look at who is conducting the research and their professional qualifications, and how they are doing the research. The research is sound, they are qualified and they are doing it in a way that can not be hijacked by either pro or anti nuke actors, and they are trying to be impartial even when they are studying their friends and colleagues children, and in some cases their own. Take it for what its worth, but Fukushima University is doing their best while being under a lot of pressure and scrutiny from many sides. Also remember they are monitoring their own friends and family in many cases, I know from doing research myself that this is extremely painful and hard to do it without bias.

The blog is irrelevant if you look at the data of the report, in my free online opinion.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: Japan riled by WHO's Fukushima cancer warning See in context

No Miso:

I would like to know how you came to the decision that The Radiation Medical Science Center of Fukushima Medical University has an agenda.

Not trying to be rude, but the blog is offering a translation of the findings of The Radiation Medical Science Center of Fukushima Medical University and their ongoing assessment of children, so I am wondering what agenda Fukushima Medical University has?

And for the record, I do not agree with Steve Mcgrew.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Japan riled by WHO's Fukushima cancer warning See in context

Cabadje: You kindly responded to my post, with great gusto and bravado. You didn't seem to reply to my accusations that TEPCO is, and was, a corrupt entity that can not be trusted further than their share certificates can be thrown. You didn't respond to my post that, YES, national news networks have reported that there is a cover-up in regards to radiation monitoring and reporting. You did cherry pick the points that are easily debated in an online, anonymous discussion.

I hope that you have taken the time to read the WHO report, if you have I would like you to point out which references they cite that pertain to current thyroid research in Fukushima, and what date the references were published. Look at the dates of the publications they cite, they are summarizing and making inferences on research that is barely 1 year old, and published buy organizations such as TEPCO that we can legally and logically argue are corrupt, and they do not look at the independent research and peer reviewed research of Chernobyl, unless that research has met IAEA approval.

For the non-academic people out there, which is most of us, I'm asking why did the WHO only make assumptions using IAEA approved publications of radiation research, and not independent and peer reviewed research that exists.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Posted in: WHO: Small cancer risk after Fukushima accident See in context

Cabadaje unfortunately, or fortunately there will be a way to track cancer and mortality rates in Fukushima and Japan, proving causality in a court room for compensation is a different matter which is what the the Japanese government is really concerned about. The already spiking incidence of thyroid abnormalities in Fukushima in Children (especially females) is alarming to anyone who knows about Thyroid medicine or research. Sure someone will post some old research about how COMMON it is for kids to have abnormalities or its 'stress induced', but the facts speak for themselves. We are already seeing the effects of this and its coming on earlier than Chernobyl.

And Cabadaje, are you really saying that there hasn't been any reports of manipulation of data, falsifying records, shielding of dosimeters, decontamination of monitoring posts in the national news? Just because TEPCO is using outsourced third party employment agencies doesn't mean its not happening, it just means they can shift the blame. Do you know anything about the history of TEPCO and the number of times the government of Japan has investigated them, and what the findings were? They have a deeply ingrained history of coverups and controversies, its all there online for you to find yourself. To their credit they are being surprisingly open about engineering efforts, which are monumental but their credibility is frankly, MUD.

Have any of you actually read the WHO report? Its on their website, 98 pages and I just finished it. Not a peep about plutonium in there.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: WHO: Small cancer risk after Fukushima accident See in context

Which countries fund the WHO and the IAEA?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: No ill health effects seen in residents near Fukushima plant yet: researcher See in context

Thanks Basroil, much appreciated. It seems your quite good at doing basic academic research. Let me assist you with some of your comments, I don't mean to be rude, but either your ignoring my questions or not up to date with modern research. Please excuse my lack of experience in quoting and referencing material here, as I am new.

You replied:

basroil Feb. 17, 2013 - 10:33PM JST As with Chernobyl, nobody cares enough before hand to make those studies. And since ultrasound analysis of nodules is fairly new, nobody wanted to cut out thyroids of "perfectly healthy" children just for that information. Even in more modern times, there hasn't been much research into it because nodules are incredibly common.

Are you actually saying that thyroid research is new? Nobody cares?? There is an extremely well developed area of academic and medical research in this area, to deny this is illogical. Radiological research and treatment of cancer is deeply concerned with the thyroid and lymphatic systems, as you know of course... Do you understand how long we have been using ultrasound for thyroid research? Ultrasound is the most accepted method of early identification of nodules, and cysts... Modern times... Like over 1300 published peer reviewed articles into ultrasound and thyroid research http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-0-387-77634-7_1?LI=true ??

These guys would disagree with you in relation to the "incredibly common" nodules http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18806721. "The incidence of thyroid nodules in children is estimated to be 1 to 1.5% based on clinical examination. Children with thyroid nodules, compared to adults with thyroid nodules, have a fourfold greater risk of developing malignant thyroid disease. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev. 2008 Sep;6(1):14-23. Thyroid nodules and cancers in children. Josefson J, Zimmerman D.

The esteemed Japanese researcher into the after effect of cesium in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki areas, who also was the head of Thyroid Association, Mr. Shunishi Yamashita of Japan, co-authored this beauty https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B68f83tqq7QuNTVkOVdrNzlRWUk/edit?pli=1, which when you read states that children in Nagasaki, which had a higher background count of cesium than Fukushima, is at 0.0% nodules (incredible common??) and 0.8% cysts. That is less than 1% of the population of children in those areas, statistically insignificant if you want to bring maths into the sheep herding (sheeple!).

Based on Mr. Yamashita's work, who is the current dean and professor at the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at Nagasaki University, and was the head of the Japan Thyroid association, we can assume that the average incidence of thyroid nodules and cysts is less than 1% of the population in Children in Nagasaki, and therefore Fukushima, prior to 3/11. How is that incredibly common my friend?

I will ask you again, what is the average incidence rate of thyroid cysts, and nodules, prior to 3/11, and after, in children under the age of 18, in the Fukushima prefecture of Japan?

The information and answer to my question is public and available, and to anyone who knows anything about this area, is frightening. Hopefully your research skills can find it and share it with us lay people (sheeple).

I eagerly await your humble reply.

TLDR Disclaimer: For people who are in the TLDR (Too long Didn't Read) boat, I am asking what was the average % of children under the age of 18, in Fukushima prefecture, who had thyroid problems, before, and after 3/11, as sampled by the Radiation Medical Science Center of Fukushima Medical University. By problem a mean a cyst, or nodule, both of which are INCREDIBLY UNCOMMON in children under 18, and usually (statistically) lead to a type of cancer and/or removal of the thyroid organ.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Posted in: No ill health effects seen in residents near Fukushima plant yet: researcher See in context

Heda_Madness and Basroil, you both seem up to date on this. Just wondering if either of you have any information of the pre-3/11 average incidence of thyroid cysts/nodules greater than 3mm in children living in Fukushima (or Nagasaki/Hiroshima), and what it was post 3/11, and currently is based on the total number ultrasound examinations. Just looking for facts so we can all be informed.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.