Not Newsworthy, But . . .

What does make the world turn?
Bart Stewart
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:27 pm
Contact:

Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Bart Stewart » Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:29 pm

Fukushima has been spewing four hundred to one thousand tons of radioactive water from three melted reactors into the Pacific Ocean every day -- for the last four years.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29430
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gord » Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:36 pm

So, where's our Godzilla then?

I want a Godzilla!
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11030
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:38 pm

Yes.................. and diners on the West Coast of USA are refusing to eat Pacific fish as a direct result.

.........................but Nuke power is "safe" according to Big Corporate Welfare shills.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Bart Stewart
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Bart Stewart » Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:50 pm

Gord wrote:So, where's our Godzilla then?

I want a Godzilla!

I don't think he's posting today. Oh . . . different spelling.

Well, be patient, something pretty scary may yet rear up out of the sea because of this.

There is no end in sight, after all. They can't find the corium. Your best indication as to how bad this situation is may be the on-going news blackout.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy freak, but the fact is no news outlet will touch this story, and it can't be for for lack of importance. Seriously, any web search on Fukushima turns up only stories from minor news outlets. Blogs, and itty-bitty news sites. Most articles on Fukushima seem to come from a single source! An energy news site called enenews.com/

Here is a dispatch from about a year ago. They found traces of the corium out in the ocean itself!

http://enenews.com/video-fukushima-cori ... cean-water

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Thu Feb 18, 2016 8:37 am

The jist of this article - now a month and a half old, is that TEPCO is doing all it can to restrict radioactive water from being released into the ocean. It doesn`t mention actual/estimated volumes that do reach the ocean.

http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/201 ... na/022000c

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19778
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Feb 18, 2016 10:32 am

And what does get out is disbursed over the entire Pacific Ocean. Calm down, folks.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

Bart Stewart
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Bart Stewart » Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:33 pm

TJrandom wrote:The jist of this article - now a month and a half old, is that TEPCO is doing all it can to restrict radioactive water from being released into the ocean. It doesn`t mention actual/estimated volumes that do reach the ocean.

http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/201 ... na/022000c

The title of the article says it all: "Radiation-Contaminated Water at Fukushima Plant On The Rise."

The first sentence: "FUKUSHIMA -- Efforts to reduce the amount of radiation-contaminated water at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant have proven helpless, and the overall amount of such water has actually increased, it has been learned."

No, this article doesn't list an estimated volume of water reaching the ocean. It does say "While TEPCO had boasted that it was able to significantly reduce risks at the plant thanks to the completion of the impermeable wall, the situation still remains unstable ... TEPCO aims to cut the influx of groundwater into reactor buildings to somewhere under 100 tons a day by the end of fiscal 2016 ..."

They say they think they can get the plant decommissioned by "2041 to 2051." I guess a lot depends on if they can ever find the corium. Anyway, Tepco generates more lies than electricity.

Bart Stewart
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Bart Stewart » Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:46 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:And what does get out is disbursed over the entire Pacific Ocean. Calm down, folks.

We have been far too calm all along. How do you account for the astounding news media silence on this subject?

The entire Pacific Ocean will not be destroyed by Fukushima. Fine. That's deeply gratifying, since it means life on earth will continue.
Now the big questions, how much of the Pacific Ocean will be destroyed by Fukushima, and for how many centuries?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3450
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lausten » Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:01 pm

Bart Stewart wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:And what does get out is disbursed over the entire Pacific Ocean. Calm down, folks.

We have been far too calm all along. How do you account for the astounding news media silence on this subject?

The entire Pacific Ocean will not be destroyed by Fukushima. Fine. That's deeply gratifying, since it means life on earth will continue.
Now the big questions, how much of the Pacific Ocean will be destroyed by Fukushima, and for how many centuries?

"News" is usually something that happened today that wasn't happening yesterday. So once something becomes persistent, it is only on the news in the form of a special report or the occasional update. Exceptions would be things like hostages being held, or someone decides they are going to report on a hunger crisis in Ethiopia or something. News usually doesn't become an advocate though, and I don't see why anyone thinks it is their job.

That's what Greenpeace does. They take the normal commerce of whaling, and make it news. Cultures that are more oppressed than us understand this. Americans think you get it on the news once, then somebody will take care of it.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19778
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:08 pm

Bart Stewart wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:And what does get out is disbursed over the entire Pacific Ocean. Calm down, folks.

We have been far too calm all along. How do you account for the astounding news media silence on this subject?

The entire Pacific Ocean will not be destroyed by Fukushima. Fine. That's deeply gratifying, since it means life on earth will continue.
Now the big questions, how much of the Pacific Ocean will be destroyed by Fukushima, and for how many centuries?

There's news, and there's people who don't pay attention to the news. You're Cat 2.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Thu Feb 18, 2016 8:08 pm

That article did say that TEPCO continues to build those storage tanks for that contaminated water....

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29430
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gord » Thu Feb 18, 2016 8:54 pm

Bart Stewart wrote:How do you account for the astounding news media silence on this subject?

Whut? :|

https://www.google.ca/search?q=Fukushim ... ma&tbm=nws

I don't see any "astounding silence" on the subject of Fukushima. (Or hear it. Or not hear it. Or in any other way detect it.)
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19778
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Feb 18, 2016 10:36 pm

In fact, we're blathering about it in this thread.

And a billion others on the 'net where someone bursts in waving THE NEWS.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Thu Feb 18, 2016 10:44 pm

Bart Stewart wrote:Fukushima has been spewing four hundred to one thousand tons of radioactive water from three melted reactors into the Pacific Ocean every day -- for the last four years.


Bart - do you have a link for this claim?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29430
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gord » Fri Feb 19, 2016 12:43 am

I'm more of a blitherer.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Fri Feb 19, 2016 1:17 am

Bart Stewart wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:And what does get out is disbursed over the entire Pacific Ocean. Calm down, folks.

We have been far too calm all along. How do you account for the astounding news media silence on this subject?

The entire Pacific Ocean will not be destroyed by Fukushima. Fine. That's deeply gratifying, since it means life on earth will continue.
Now the big questions, how much of the Pacific Ocean will be destroyed by Fukushima, and for how many centuries?


Actually - I wanted to answer your question - from my perspective. The question being: How much of the Pacific Ocean will be destroyed by the Fukushima meltdown, and for how many centuries?

IMO - it is still too early to tell, but... even the ocean near the reactors has not been placed off limits for fishing. By `destroyed`, I would take this fact as supporting my opinion that `none of the Pacific Ocean has been destroyed to date`. Placing it off-limits would either be a Japanese government action - or the local fisheries association action, in recognition that fish from this area would be unsaleable. That this hasn`t yet happened, IMO, is sufficient for me to believe this status is reasonable and acceptable`. (The fisheries agency has suspended fishing for some species since 2011 for 20km., but has not relinquished fisheries `rights`.)

But we don`t know the future, and it is possible that IF TEPCO accepts the Nuclear Regulatory Agency recommendation and releases low-level contaminated water - that either the government or fisheries association might indeed shut down local fishing. (This has happened near the Toyama reactor, on the other side of Japan due to a leak there some years back.) But should that indeed occur, my best guess is that a very limited area would be affected - possibly as large as 200 square kilometres (10x20) immediately adjacent to the Fukushima reactor.

Then, for How many centuries? That would depend upon what was released - but given that they are filtering the water, I suspect that only short half-life contaminates would be released, and thus restrictions might be best estimated at a century or two at most.

(Edit - increased my area restriction estimate to 200sq kilometers, clarified a current `suspension` for some species, added below link.)

http://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000031595.pdf

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Feb 19, 2016 3:24 am

Bart Stewart wrote:There is no end in sight, after all. They can't find the corium. Your best indication as to how bad this situation is may be the on-going news blackout.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy freak, but the fact is no news outlet will touch this story, and it can't be for for lack of importance. Seriously, any web search on Fukushima turns up only stories from minor news outlets. Blogs, and itty-bitty news sites. Most articles on Fukushima seem to come from a single source! An energy news site called enenews.com/


IIRC, the Nikkei plummeted 13% by lunchtime on the first trading day after the Fukushima disaster began, and it almost certainly would've plummeted further had they not shut down the Tokyo Stock Exchange a few hours early. After that emergency stock market shutdown it became much more difficult to find updates on the disaster.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Fri Feb 19, 2016 3:30 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Bart Stewart wrote:There is no end in sight, after all. They can't find the corium. Your best indication as to how bad this situation is may be the on-going news blackout.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy freak, but the fact is no news outlet will touch this story, and it can't be for for lack of importance. Seriously, any web search on Fukushima turns up only stories from minor news outlets. Blogs, and itty-bitty news sites. Most articles on Fukushima seem to come from a single source! An energy news site called enenews.com/


IIRC, the Nikkei plummeted 13% by lunchtime on the first trading day after the Fukushima disaster began, and it almost certainly would've plummeted further had they not shut down the Tokyo Stock Exchange a few hours early. After that emergency stock market shutdown it became much more difficult to find updates on the disaster.


Sooo one business day after after the disaster - it became `much more difficult` to get updates? Didn`t all updates come after the disaster, and not before? :sinking:

Woosh..........

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Feb 19, 2016 3:58 am

TJrandom wrote:Sooo one business day after after the disaster - it became `much more difficult` to get updates? Didn`t all updates come after the disaster, and not before? :sinking:

Woosh..........


The tsunami hit the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant on Friday 11 March 2011. The three nuclear meltdowns began occurring on Saturday 12 March 2011. However it turns out that the sharpest drop was on the second trading day after the disaster began (15 March 2011), and the total drop for 14 March and 15 March 2011 was 17%. It also turns out the Tokyo Stock Exchange normally closes at 3pm , hence my mistaken recollection that it was shut down early around lunchtime. Nevertheless, I was following news of the disaster very closely at the time and I recall news updates being much less frequent right after that really big drop on 15 March 2011.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Fri Feb 19, 2016 4:10 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Sooo one business day after after the disaster - it became `much more difficult` to get updates? Didn`t all updates come after the disaster, and not before? :sinking:

Woosh..........


The tsunami hit the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant on Friday 11 March 2011. The three nuclear meltdowns began occurring on Saturday 12 March 2011. However it turns out that the sharpest drop was on the second trading day after the disaster began (15 March 2011), and the total drop for 14 March and 15 March 2011 was 17%. It also turns out the Tokyo Stock Exchange normally closes at 3pm , hence my mistaken recollection that it was shut down early around lunchtime. Nevertheless, I was following news of the disaster very closely at the time and I recall news updates being much less frequent right after that really big drop on 15 March 2011.


Those were hectic days - when accurate information, correct understandings of the situation, and proposed solutions were all wanting. Rumours were spreading faster than accurate news, people were evacuating, strategy meetings were being held, aftershocks were occurring, and people were still dying. If there was a reduction in news updates, I suggest it could have been caused by almost anything.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Feb 19, 2016 4:43 am

It was a serious reduction, it looked and felt like a media blackout.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10210
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:40 am

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/ ... 97d1fd51e7

Fukushima is a serious and deadly problem. But the cause of that problem is politics, not radiation.

A paranoid, and moronic government forced 200,000 people into a hasty and ill advised evacuation. Of those 200,000 people, according to a recent study, an estimated 1,600 died of the stress. Elderly people, and people with weak hearts cannot handle that kind of forced stress.

As far as radiation is concerned, it is all a storm inside a microscopic thimble. We know from experience (a place in Iran) that people can be exposed to 200 millisieverts of radiation per year with no ill effects. Radiation within a couple blocks of Fukushima is way lower than that!

As far as release into the sea is concerned, there might be a slight increase in radiation locally, but the oceans are huge and the dilution factor is huge. The oceans of the world contain about 50 billion tonnes of Uranium 235. What is entering from Fukushima is utterly trivial by comparison.

The only people likely to be harmed by the radiation from Fukushima are those courageous people who entered the power station to shut things down.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Fri Feb 19, 2016 6:14 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:It was a serious reduction, it looked and felt like a media blackout.


It may well have been - since early on false rumours were rife. The US embassy saying `no worry`, and the French saying – immediate evacuation to anyplace not in Japan. Could well be that the project team decided to issue news updates – only when there was accurate news to report.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19778
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Feb 19, 2016 2:50 pm

Tracking Wildlife in Chernobyl: The Emotional Landscape of a Disaster Zone

Tracking Wildlife in Chernobyl: The Emotional Landscape of a Disaster Zone
By Amy McDermott | February 18, 2016 12:32 pm

Wild boar on the run near an abandoned village. (Credit: Valeriy Yurko)
(This post originally appeared in the online science magazine Hawkmoth. Follow @HawkmothMag to discover more of their work.)

Nature is taking back Chernobyl.

Three decades after a flawed nuclear reactor spewed radioactive material over 200 towns and villages across the borders of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, trees grow through abandoned houses, owls hoot from rafters, and boar nest in old barns.

A handful of scientists study this ecosystem firsthand. Last year, a collaboration of American, Belarusian, and English researchers published the first study finding that large mammals are likely doing better than they were before the accident. Populations rebounded and grew, even in the first years after the disaster. Today, numbers of elk, deer, and wild boar are comparable to those in regional reserves.

The effects of radiation on general animal communities are still somewhat unclear. Brown frogs and barn swallows showed evidence of genetic abnormalities in ecosystems close to the reactor, but in eight of Chernobyl’s lakes and streams, heavily irradiated areas did not have fewer species of fish or water bugs than less-contaminated sites. Research has indicated no significant pattern between radiation levels and aquatic species diversity.

That’s not to say that nuclear disasters are good for wildlife, scientists caution. But humans, it seems, were worse than radiation. For researchers working in the Exclusion Zone today, that can be an emotional irony.


Article continues.

The "fatal fallout" fallacy still haunts us from the '50s.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

Bart Stewart
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Bart Stewart » Fri Feb 19, 2016 3:25 pm

Gord wrote:
Bart Stewart wrote:How do you account for the astounding news media silence on this subject?

Whut? :|

https://www.google.ca/search?q=Fukushim ... ma&tbm=nws

I don't see any "astounding silence" on the subject of Fukushima. (Or hear it. Or not hear it. Or in any other way detect it.)

I frankly cannot fathom how you can enter the word "Fukushima" in Google, and get Bloomberg, The Observer, The Asahi Times, and other well-known media outlets, and anytime I enter the precise same word in the exact same search engine all I get is 9-11Truther.com, and Fred's Energy Chat, and Freakout Review. I kid you not. Baffling. I may have to resort to paranormal explanations for that one. Or vaccines, maybe. I do searches for Fukushima periodically over the years, and there's never a name news outlet, always some blog or something. Hence my complaints above about a news black-out.

I still insist that the public are not being kept well-informed on the matter. I am something of a news junkie, but you have to dig for updates on Fukushima. Brittany Spears hairstyles receive more coverage. And it's not as if this is entirely a Japanese issue. I don't subscribe to the idea that the entire Pacific is doomed, but there is no end in sight. The last update I read said they still cannot find the corium. It wouldn't take the destruction of the entire Pacific Ocean to poison a hell of a lot of the seafood that is marketed around the world, and decimate marine wildlife.

Ironically, just as I sat down to write this post I saw the news that there has been another earthquake off the Fukushima coast, just now, barely an hour ago! Amazing coincidence.

https://www.rt.com/news/332990-fukushim ... pan-coast/

It's only a 5.1, but maybe there will be some little blip in the news about it.

Bart Stewart
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Bart Stewart » Fri Feb 19, 2016 3:32 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Tracking Wildlife in Chernobyl: The Emotional Landscape of a Disaster Zone

Tracking Wildlife in Chernobyl: The Emotional Landscape of a Disaster Zone
By Amy McDermott | February 18, 2016 12:32 pm

Wild boar on the run near an abandoned village. (Credit: Valeriy Yurko)
(This post originally appeared in the online science magazine Hawkmoth. Follow @HawkmothMag to discover more of their work.)

Nature is taking back Chernobyl.

Three decades after a flawed nuclear reactor spewed radioactive material over 200 towns and villages across the borders of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, trees grow through abandoned houses, owls hoot from rafters, and boar nest in old barns.

A handful of scientists study this ecosystem firsthand. Last year, a collaboration of American, Belarusian, and English researchers published the first study finding that large mammals are likely doing better than they were before the accident. Populations rebounded and grew, even in the first years after the disaster. Today, numbers of elk, deer, and wild boar are comparable to those in regional reserves.

The effects of radiation on general animal communities are still somewhat unclear. Brown frogs and barn swallows showed evidence of genetic abnormalities in ecosystems close to the reactor, but in eight of Chernobyl’s lakes and streams, heavily irradiated areas did not have fewer species of fish or water bugs than less-contaminated sites. Research has indicated no significant pattern between radiation levels and aquatic species diversity.

That’s not to say that nuclear disasters are good for wildlife, scientists caution. But humans, it seems, were worse than radiation. For researchers working in the Exclusion Zone today, that can be an emotional irony.


Article continues.

The "fatal fallout" fallacy still haunts us from the '50s.

Idyllic. Well, maybe the money is wasted on fancy containment domes. Doesn't seem to be any big deal.
Maybe folks will start flooding back in to reclaim that prime Pripyat real estate.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19778
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Feb 19, 2016 3:41 pm

I hope not, the threat of radiation is the only thing keeping those animals from being abused. I wouldn't mind if humans moved into the containment domes.

However, I see you're invested in the disaster scenario. Wave that flag!
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

Bart Stewart
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Bart Stewart » Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:25 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:However, I see you're invested in the disaster scenario. Wave that flag!

No, not really, I just see conflicting information and generally inadequate information on Fukushima. If it's really as safe as it says in that Forbes article above, then let's hear more about that. Let's hear something, on a more regular basis. Otherwise the public will inevitably fill in the blank with their imagination.

The story is too big to be as under-reported as it is. No doubt part of it is the Japanese bureaucratic mentality, which is famously Kafkaesque to the extreme.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19778
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:43 pm

Problem is there is coverage on the issue, it's just not topical enough for the Sunday Supplements.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29430
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gord » Fri Feb 19, 2016 6:10 pm

Bart Stewart wrote:I frankly cannot fathom how you can enter the word "Fukushima" in Google, and get Bloomberg, The Observer, The Asahi Times, and other well-known media outlets, and anytime I enter the precise same word in the exact same search engine all I get is 9-11Truther.com, and Fred's Energy Chat, and Freakout Review. I kid you not. Baffling. I may have to resort to paranormal explanations for that one. Or vaccines, maybe. I do searches for Fukushima periodically over the years, and there's never a name news outlet, always some blog or something. Hence my complaints above about a news black-out.

I'm pretty sure we're all being tracked by Google. When I was looking for pictures of Snake Island last year, I would occasionally find some while searching for completely unrelated things -- like when I was googling the evolution of the Barbie doll, and two of the images I was shown were of Snake Island that I'd never seen before.

{!#%@}' Google. Stop tracking me you bastards! :shakefist:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19778
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Feb 19, 2016 6:57 pm

Log out of Google. Don't allow cookies. Kill the guy who's tracking you.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10210
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Feb 19, 2016 7:11 pm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/ ... 45909749d2

This thread illustrates the amazing desire some people have for disaster. A fascination, and a tendency to believe always that things are really, really bad, when they are not. Quite simply, the disaster in Japan was the earthquake and the tsunami. The Fukushima nuclear power plant problem is tiny by comparison.

It may be worth while comparing it to Chernobyl. Fukushima is the SECOND worst nuclear power station accident. It released one tenth the radiation compared to Chernobyl. Yet Chernobyl never became the massive disaster predicted. As some more enlightened people showed in the posts above, it has now become a fabulous wild life preserve. But how many people did Chernobyl kill?

During the actual Chernobyl melt down, some 31 people died. Within a few years after, some 4,000 to 6,000 people developed thyroid cancer. However, this cancer is the least dangerous of all cancers, and the most treatable. Only 16 actually died. So 47 people were fatal victims of Chernobyl from the accident at the time and from thyroid cancer afterwards. Of course, there is the possibility that many came down with fatal leukemia or other cancers. But the local statistics do not show even a blip in the incidence of such cancers. If Chernobyl caused more 'normal' cancers, they are hidden within statistical variation.

Bearing in mind that Fukushima was only 10% as bad, that would imply a total death rate of about 4 to 6 people from the radiation. That will probably be true bearing in mind that there were a number of workers who bravely entered the plant after the accident to shut things down and they received large doses of radiation. We salute those heroes and their sacrifice.

Any rational person, though, should condemn the ignorance based and reckless actions of the Japanese government, who panicked and killed an estimated 1600 people through forced evacuations.

Let me tell you of a REAL power plant disaster, rather than this storm in a tea cup. In the 1970's in China, at the hydroelectric plant of Banqiao, the dam burst. Nearly 200,000 people died and 11 million were left homeless. Yet no one ever claims hydro plants are dangerous, while numerous alarmists warble on about the terrible risk of nuclear power.

The truth is that nuclear power plants have pretty much the best safety record of any method of generating electricity.
(See the reference above)

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19778
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Feb 19, 2016 7:50 pm

And seriously, there are worse threats.

Image

Better pix for Lance:

Last edited by Gawdzilla Sama on Fri Feb 19, 2016 7:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Fri Feb 19, 2016 7:51 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:And seriously, there are worse threats.

Image


Yes - like coal fired power plants.....

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10210
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:12 pm

Good point TJ

An interesting piece of data is the simple fact that coal ash from coal burning power plants contains more radioactive waste than the waste from nuclear power plants of the same output over the same time.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11030
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:03 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Good point TJ

An interesting piece of data is the simple fact that coal ash from coal burning power plants contains more radioactive waste than the waste from nuclear power plants of the same output over the same time.

That is a fascinating factoid. Only if you have it off the top of your head: is the toxicity of the waste roughly the same, ie-how many tons of waste to be harmfully radioactive for the next 100K years sort of "reality" we continue to ignore.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10210
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:46 pm

Bobbo

The difference here between radioactive waste from coal and radioactive waste from nuclear power is simply dilution. The radioactive waste from coal is not seen as such a problem because it is mixed in with millions of tonnes of chemically toxic coal ash. The total problem from coal is massively worse, but the concentration of radioactive waste is lower, so it is viewed as less of a problem.

The truth is, as other have pointed out, that generating electricity by burning coal is much, much more dangerous than doing it from a modern nuclear reactor.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19778
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:26 pm

"Clean Coal" gets the "{!#%@} for Virginity" award.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3279
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Feb 26, 2016 12:28 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:"Clean Coal" gets the "{!#%@} for Virginity" award.



well, someone has to clean up those dirty mine shafts and mountain tops full of the black stuff.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19778
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:11 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:"Clean Coal" gets the "{!#%@} for Virginity" award.



well, someone has to clean up those dirty mine shafts and mountain tops full of the black stuff.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.


Return to “Science, Technology, and Mathematics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest