You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
Medical Journal Article: 14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Reactor Disaster Fallout
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Impact Seen As Roughly Comparable to Radiation-Related Deaths After Chernobyl; Infants Are Hardest Hit, With Continuing Research Showing Even Higher Possible Death Count.
An estimated 14,000 excess deaths in the United States are linked to the radioactive fallout from the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan, according to a major new article in the December 2011 edition of the International Journal of Health Services. This is the first peer-reviewed study published in a medical journal documenting the health hazards of Fukushima.Authors Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman note that their estimate of 14,000 excess U.S. deaths in the 14 weeks after the Fukushima meltdowns is comparable to the 16,500 excess deaths in the 17 weeks after the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. The rise in reported deaths after Fukushima was largest among U.S. infants under age one. The 2010-2011 increase for infant deaths in the spring was 1.8 percent, compared to a decrease of 8.37 percent in the preceding 14 weeks.The IJHS article will be published Tuesday and will be available online as of 11 a.m. EST at Radiation and Public Health Project . Just six days after the disastrous meltdowns struck four reactors at Fukushima on March 11, scientists detected the plume of toxic fallout had arrived over American shores. Subsequent measurements by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found levels of radiation in air, water, and milk hundreds of times above normal across the U.S. The highest detected levels of Iodine-131 in precipitation in the U.S. were as follows (normal is about 2 picocuries I-131 per liter of water): Boise, ID (390); Kansas City (200); Salt Lake City (190); Jacksonville, FL (150); Olympia, WA (125); and Boston, MA (92). Epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, MPH MBA, said: "This study of Fukushima health hazards is the first to be published in a scientific journal. It raises concerns, and strongly suggests that health studies continue, to understand the true impact of Fukushima in Japan and around the world. Findings are important to the current debate of whether to build new reactors, and how long to keep aging ones in operation."Mangano is executive director, Radiation and Public Health Project, and the author of 27 peer-reviewed medical journal articles and letters. Internist and toxicologist Janette Sherman, MD, said: "Based on our continuing research, the actual death count here may be as high as 18,000, with influenza and pneumonia, which were up five-fold in the period in question as a cause of death. Deaths are seen across all ages, but we continue to find that infants are hardest hit because their tissues are rapidly multiplying, they have undeveloped immune systems, and the doses of radioisotopes are proportionally greater than for adults."Dr. Sherman is an adjunct professor, Western Michigan University, and contributing editor of "Chernobyl - Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" published by the NY Academy of Sciences in 2009, and author of "Chemical Exposure and Disease and Life's Delicate Balance - Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer."The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issues weekly reports on numbers of deaths for 122 U.S. cities with a population over 100,000, or about 25-30 percent of the U.S. In the 14 weeks after Fukushima fallout arrived in the U.S. (March 20 to June 25), deaths reported to the CDC rose 4.46 percent from the same period in 2010, compared to just 2.34 percent in the 14 weeks prior. Estimated excess deaths during this period for the entire U.S. are about 14,000.
EDITOR'S NOTE: A streaming audio replay of a related news event will be available on the Web at Radiation and Public Health Project as of 4 p.m. EST/2100 GMT on December 19, 2011. Embargoed copies of the medical journal article are available by contacting Ailis Aaron Wolf, (703) 276-3265 or aawolf@hastingsgroup.com.
SOURCE Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman, International Journal of Health Services
Copyright (C) 2011 PR Newswire. All rights reserved
Keep in mind that this happened in Japan, which is pretty much the most prepared country in the world for earthquakes. While I'm sure no contingency plan is comprehensive enough to deal with the magnitude of the disaster that hit Japan, if there's anywhere on the planet I'd want to be when a 9.0 hits, it would probably be Japan.
You've seen the pictures. Some people went back to work the next day. Roads and shit were repaired in weeks, not months. Basically, if this meltdown happened somewhere else...MAYBE things wouldn't have gone as well?
That being said, I don't have anything against nuclear power. Most of the fears associated with it are antiquated.
Governments Worldwide Raise Acceptable Radiation Levels Based Upon Politics ... Not Science
Governments Worldwide Raise Acceptable Radiation Levels Based Upon Politics … Not Science
Posted on January 24, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog
Instead of Protecting People, Governments Cover Up by Raising “Safe” Radiation Levels
American and Canadian authorities have virtually stopped monitoring airborne radiation.
Neither American nor Canadian authorities are testing fish for radioactivity.
Does that mean that we don’t have to worry about radiation from Fukushima?
It is a little hard to know, given that what is deemed a “safe level” of radiation is determined by politics … rather than science. For example, current safety standards are based on the ridiculous assumption that everyone exposed is a healthy man in his 20s – and that radioactive particles ingested into the body cause no more damage than radiation hitting the outside of the body.
And one of the main advisors to the Japanese government on Fukushima announced:
In the real world, however, even low doses of radiation can cause cancer. Moreover, small particles of radiation – called “internal emitters” – which get inside the body are much more dangerous than general exposures to radiation. See this and this. And radiation affects small children much more than full-grown adults.
Indeed, instead of doing much to try to protect their citizens from Fukushima, Japan, the U.S. and the EU all just raised the radiation levels they deem “safe”.
Nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen says that high-level friends in the State Department told him that Hillary Clinton signed a pact with her counterpart in Japan agreeing that the U.S. will continue buying seafood from Japan, despite that food not being tested for radioactive materials.
And the Department of Energy is trying to replace the scientifically accepted model of the dangers of low dose radiation based on voodoo science. Specifically, DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley Labs used a mutant line of human cells in a petri dish which was able to repair damage from low doses of radiation, and extrapolated to the unsupported conclusion that everyone is immune to low doses of radiation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=oe2fMMaVE7Q
In reality, not only is there overwhelming evidence that low doses of radiation can cause cancer, but there is some evidence that low doses can – in certain circumstances cause more damage than higher doses.
As I pointed out in April:
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists reported that one of the best-known scientists of the 20th century – Dr. John Gofman – also believed that chronic low level radiation is more dangerous than acute exposure to high doses. Gofman was a doctor of nuclear and physical chemistry and a medical doctor who worked on the Manhattan Project, co-discovered uranium-232 and -233 and other radioactive isotopes and proved their fissionability, helped discover how to extract plutonium, led the team that discovered and characterized lipoproteins in the causation of heart disease, served as a Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California Berkeley, served as Associate Director of the Livermore National Laboratory, was asked by the Atomic Energy Commission to undertake a series of long range studies on potential dangers that might arise from the “peaceful uses of the atom”, and wrote four scholarly books on radiation health effects.
Over 400 Degrees Celsius
Pretending that the Fukushima reactors achieved a state of “cold shutdown” was a political – rather than scientific - decision.
Tepco itself said the state of cold shutdown could only continue so long as the temperature within the nuclear reactors stayed below 100 degrees Celsius. (Because the thermometers within the reactors have a 20 degree margin of error, Tepco says that any reading over 80 degrees violates the conditions for a cold shutdown.)
As Bloomberg notes today:
Tokyo Electric Power Co. said the temperature in one of the damaged reactors at its Fukushima nuclear station rose to levels above safety limits even as it injected increased amounts of cooling water.
One of three thermometers indicated the temperature at the bottom of the No. 2 reactor pressure vessel rose to 93.7 degrees Celsius (200.7 Fahrenheit) today, higher than the 80 degrees limit, Ai Tanaka, a spokeswoman for the utility known as Tepco, said by phone today.
***
The thermometers have a margin of error of as much as 20 degrees.
But major Japanese news sources Yomiuri and Jiji note that the thermometer in reactor 2 has since climbed to 272.8 degrees Celsius, and then hit the upper limit of the thermometer at 400 degrees Celsius (752 degrees Fahrenheit).
In other words, the thermometer is showing temperatures more than 4 times higher than the 100 degree Celsius limit for cold shutdown.
Tepco claims that such a high reading means that the thermometer must be broken, and is maintaining its declaration of cold shutdown based upon the reading of other thermometers. Of course, the fuel is moving around, so there could be hot spots and cooler spots within each reactor.
Of course, Tepco could be right: the thermometer could be broken. But I am not yet convinced, given that – ever since the earthquake last year – Tepco has repeatedly claimed that an instrument is broken whenever there is a new reading of things gone haywire. (Indeed, one Japanese writer said that Tepco’s spokesman sounded “testy” when asked how Tepco knew that the thermometer was broken.)
In good news, a second, nearby 4-reactor nuclear complex which almost melted down last March – the Fukushima Daini complex (referred to as the Fukushima “2″ complex), which is 7 miles away from the infamous, leaking 6-reactor Fukushima Daiichi complex – apparently is in a true state of cold shutdown.
Diplomat Akio Matsumura is warning that the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan may ultimately turn into an event capable of extinguishing all life on Earth.
Matsumura posted a startling entry on his blog following a statement made by Japan’s former ambassador to Switzerland, Mitsuhei Murata, on the situation at Fukushima.
Speaking at a public hearing of the Budgetary Committee of the House of Councilors on March 22, 2012, Murata warned that “if the crippled building of reactor unit 4 – with 1,535 fuel rods in the spent fuel pool 100 feet (30 meters) above the ground – collapses, not only will it cause a shutdown of all six reactors but will also affect the common spent fuel pool containing 6,375 fuel rods, located some 50 meters from reactor 4,” writes Matsumura.
In both cases the radioactive rods are not protected by a containment vessel; dangerously, they are open to the air. This would certainly cause a global catastrophe like we have never before experienced. He stressed that the responsibility of Japan to the rest of the world is immeasurable. Such a catastrophe would affect us all for centuries. Ambassador Murata informed us that the total numbers of the spent fuel rods at the Fukushima Daiichi site excluding the rods in the pressure vessel is 11,421.
Matsumura then asked Robert Alvarez, former Senior Policy Adviser to the Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for National Security and the Environment at the U.S. Department of Energy, about the the impact of such an additional catastrophe at Fukushima.
Containing radiation at the crippled facility will be not small feat, Alvarez explained. “Spent reactor fuel cannot be simply lifted into the air by a crane as if it were routine cargo. In order to prevent severe radiation exposures, fires and possible explosions, it must be transferred at all times in water and heavily shielded structures into dry casks,” Alvarez told Matsumura.
He then said the 11,138 spent fuel assemblies stored at the Fukushima plant contain “134 million curies is Cesium-137 — roughly 85 times the amount of Cs-137 released at the Chernobyl accident as estimated by the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection.”
“It is important for the public to understand that reactors that have been operating for decades, such as those at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site have generated some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet,” he concluded.
Matsumura admits this is an astounding number and one difficult to comprehend. He wrote that 85 times more Cesium-137 than released at Chernobyl “would destroy the world environment and our civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of human survival.”
Akio Matsumura sent a letter United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. “It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of Japan and the whole world depends on NO.4 reactor. This is confirmed by most reliable experts like Dr. Arnie Gundersen or Dr. Fumiaki Koide,” he wrote to Ki-Moon. “The world has been made so fragile and vulnerable. The role of the United Nations is increasingly vital. I wish you the best of luck in your noble mission.”
No word yet if this situation even registers on the United Nations’ radar screen.
panic panic panic, doom and gloom, the sky is falling, we're all going to die, the terrorists have won, etc. etc.
Serious question: between this and the solar flares and who knows whatever else you're setting your hair on fire over this week... why do you even bother living? Why not just kill yourself and get it over with rather than living every day afraid of your own shadow? It must be a terrible way to exist, so sure that something beyond your control will surely destroy you tomorrow.
BTW, did you know that 100% of people who die of cancer have breathed the Earth's air and drank the water? Better stop doing both - they're killers!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Seriously, people should think before posting these craps.
With the 3 worst nuclear accidents (three miles, Chernobyl and Fukushima) counted, nuclear power still is and by far the safest power generating method out there.
Not to mention it is also THE cleanest power generating method. Thorium is supposed to be an even clear method, but its technology is still at least 20~30yr away from a full scale commercial implementation.
Why bother living? LOL. The idea of living and talking about real issues, is worth the price of being alive. Maybe you should go back to your sports and porn instead of trying to spout BS about how great radiation is.
Yes because 9/10 reactors in use are running past the design life of 20 years on average. Just because they arn't all exploding at the same time doesn't mean they are safe what so ever. Are you trying to tell me hydro power is by far the safest power generating method out there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hehe
Seriously, people should think before posting these craps.
With the 3 worst nuclear accidents (three miles, Chernobyl and Fukushima) counted, nuclear power still is and by far the safest power generating method out there.
Not to mention it is also THE cleanest power generating method. Thorium is supposed to be an even clear method, but its technology is still at least 20~30yr away from a full scale commercial implementation.
Yes because 9/10 reactors in use are running past the design life of 20 years on average. Just because they arn't all exploding at the same time doesn't mean they are safe what so ever. Are you trying to tell me hydro power is by far the safest power generating method out there?
Why bother living? LOL. The idea of living and talking about real issues, is worth the price of being alive. Maybe you should go back to your sports and porn instead of trying to spout BS about how great radiation is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death2Theft
Yes because 9/10 reactors in use are running past the design life of 20 years on average. Just because they arn't all exploding at the same time doesn't mean they are safe what so ever. Are you trying to tell me hydro power is by far the safest power generating method out there?
Yes, REAL ISSUES. We, as human, are not perfect. Our technologies is prone to failure despite our best effort, but we learn from it and move on.
I don't promote radiation. I'm simply arguing that no other method for generating power is more stable, efficient, environmental friendly and powerful than nuclear.
Yes, we know most reactors are based on older design and still run the risk of the same failure. But the idea is to learn from Fukushima and better protect our old reactors while moving forward with plans of upgrading to new gen of reactors. Simply boycotting is not a logical move but rather a civil movement or political interest. Germany plans to shut down all its nuclear power plants. Where is it going to get all the power it needs? Buying them from France, a country that produce 70% of power using nuclear. You are telling me that it makes sense?
It is an excellent system in theory, but as soon as you include human error, it becomes a whole new beast.
Radiation can, and will kill you if you let it. Radiation sickness leading to death will be slow and painful, and it might even last for years. You will lose all of your hair, your skin will become cancerous, you will start to lose feeling in your limbs, you will slowly become mentally ill as the cells in your brain decay.
There are many things to think about before you decide whether nuclear energy would be best for your area of residence. If there is a flaw in the system when a plant is built, it will show later on, and it might end up destroying the environment for generations to come, and it might end up killing you.
In conclusion, tampering with radiation is a serious undertaking, and it is not to be taken lightly. Like playing with fireworks, and having your hand blown off.
In conclusion, tampering with radiation is a serious undertaking, and it is not to be taken lightly. Like playing with fireworks, and having your hand blown off.
There are always great consequences when accident happens. The WORST hydroelectric failure caused death of over 200,000 people while affecting 11million others.
We don't wish to blow our hands off, but when we get burned, we learn from it and prevent it from happening to others again by promoting awareness and/or safety procedures rather than banning fireworks entirely.
The only logical argument that I have heard against Nuclear power is that Natural Gas is dirt cheap right now, so this will take away some of the demand for nuclear energy as more and more countries increase their NG usage.
Nuclear energy is currently cheap and efficient and most companies should continue developing it. Energy needs of the planet is growing at an alarming pace and only way to make it sustainable is to go nuclear.
Most of these developing countries have shiet loads of Coal, but coal basically fucks up your lungs. Nuclear seems like the way to go.
And burning both coal and LNG produces greenhouse gases, which if you buy into the climate change panic, will slowly cook us to death. "Pollution" in the traditional sense isn't much of a problem anymore with modern clean-burning methods, but burning ANY carbon-based fuel WILL necessarily produce carbon dioxide.
Ultimately, there is NO form of energy production that is 100% without effect on the planet. Even "golden children" like solar, wind and tidal power have their side effects, besides not being able to reliably produce large amounts of electricity on an constant basis. So it has to come down to risk management; balancing the amount produced vs. the potential harm. Nuclear fission produces immense energy from relatively little raw material and with proper planning and handling, relatively little impact. Hydroelectric leaves no long-term-damaging residue but floods large areas of land for its reservoirs. Hyrdo, however, simply isn't viable where there aren't large amounts of water available and large areas to contain those reservoirs.
Beyond all that, the only real answer is for people to reduce their demand for electricity.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Yet no one can address the life span cycle of nuclear powerplants and what happens to the "waste by products". Why are no reactors shut down until an accident happens? Why are plants designed to run for 20 years still running? Just because the people that are in charge are accepting bribes to keep these things running doesn't mean the rest of the population should trust those "in charge" to keep them safe.
Yet no one can address the life span cycle of nuclear powerplants and what happens to the "waste by products". Why are no reactors shut down until an accident happens? Why are plants designed to run for 20 years still running? Just because the people that are in charge are accepting bribes to keep these things running doesn't mean the rest of the population should trust those "in charge" to keep them safe.
So where, then, is the anger and outrage over the slow death that coal power is providing? In America alone, over the last 10 years there have been 35 deaths a year (average) within coal mines; not including the fact that the average coal miner will lose 20-30 years of his life from dealing with that crap underground. Nor taking into account the ridiculous amounts of carbons that are put into the air nor the smoke and other environmental degradation that comes along with it.
Yet no one can address the life span of a coal mine and what happens to the "waste by products". Why are no mines shut down until an accident happens? Why are miners who were not designed to do it working for 20 years still working? Just because the public ignores a slow death doesn't mean the rest of the population should trust those "in charge" to keep them safe.
Why are no reactors shut down until an accident happens? Why are plants designed to run for 20 years still running?
Simple: because people keep using more and more electricity. As long as there's a demand for more power, someone will have to keep supplying it. As long as nuclear remains one of the most efficient and least troublesome sources of that electricity, the plants will keep running. Supply and demand, nothing more complicated than that.
Quote:
Just because the people that are in charge are accepting bribes to keep these things running...
You have proof of this, of course? (Hint: "proof" does mean random weblinks from self-style "experts").
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Well please provide the proof that your pulling out of your ass, as far as I can see cherynobl has had 1million deaths. Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Chernobyl Radiation Killed Nearly One Million People: New Book
Just because the death certificate doesn't say death due to nuclear radiation doesn't mean that it doesn't kill you over time, I'd take a quick death from any other form of energy vs the slow unknown agonizing death from radiation.
“In samples of dehydrated seaweed taken on March 15 near the North Vancouver SeaBus terminal, the count was zero; on March 22 it was 310 Bq per kilogram; and by March 28 it was 380 Bq/kg.” -Vancouver Sun
No worries bro it's not like the rest of the planets future depends on what happens with reactor 4 or anything. http://akiomatsumura.com/2012/04/682.html http://www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/framese...ess/130411.php
Last edited by Death2Theft; 04-13-2012 at 10:55 PM.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
