BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Other Energy Options  Hop To Forums  Nuclear Power    Fukushima Disaster updates
Page 1 2 3 4 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Fukushima Disaster updates
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
~Computers have enabled people to make more mistakes faster than almost any invention in history...
Mitch Ratcliffe



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
John,
This thread is about Fukishma, not the tsunami.
Adding a long off topic post to hide the pages where you were shown to be completely wrong won't make
you look any more creditable.

It's amazing what some people will do to make themselves look knowledgeable and hide their mistakes.
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Medical Journal Article: 14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Reactor Disaster Fallout

By Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman, International Journal of Health Services
Published: Monday, Dec. 19, 2011 - 8:10 am

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19, 2011 -- Impact Seen As Roughly Comparable to Radiation-Related Deaths After Chernobyl; Infants Are Hardest Hit, With Continuing Research Showing Even Higher Possible Death Count.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- 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 http://www.radiation.org. 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 http://www.radiation.org 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



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
There are approximately 6200 deaths per day in the US from all causes, about 35% from cardiovascular disease, and about 24% from cancer.

Obviously, far more die from causes related to self inflicted obesity than what might might be attributed to Fukushima fallout.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Debris from Japan tsunami expected to arrive in Alaska; flotsam washes up in Washington

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
First Posted: December 19, 2011 - 10:37 am
Last Updated: December 19, 2011 - 3:39 pm

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Debris from the tsunami in Japan nine months ago has not been detected on Alaska shores, but that may be because harsh weather is keeping people from beachcombing.

Debris has been reported in Washington and British Columbia and Alaskans should be seeing it soon, the Anchorage Daily News (http://bit.ly/siyuky) reported Monday.

The Alaska Panhandle has been hit hard by storms but the area around Craig on Prince of Wales Island could be the first place where debris from the March 11 tsunami lands, said Dave Gaudet of the Marine Conservation Alliance.

Dave Gaudet of the Marine Conservation Alliance says the Alaska Panhandle has been hit hard by storms but the area around Craig on Prince of Wales Island could be the first place where debris from the March 11 tsunami lands.

Alaskans could see tons of debris from Japan's tsunami washing up on coastal beaches soon. Gaudet said he had been in touch with people in Craig who had said bad weather was making it impractical to scout around the sprawling and sparsely inhabited island, which is about 500 miles north of Tofino in the middle of the west coast of Vancouver Island. Tofino is where Canadian television on Wednesday showed photos of bottles and metal containers that had washed up.

A Russian ship in September reported encountering a very large stretch of debris 2,000 miles from Japan. By some estimates the area of the debris field is twice the size of Texas.

Experts warn that debris should be approached cautiously because the earthquake and tsunami damaged nuclear facilities and water contained in items that float across the Pacific Ocean may be radioactive.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ttommy:
John,
It's amazing what some people will do to make themselves look knowledgeable and hide their mistakes.
Yes, john is a pretty amazing person.
He does seem to be trying very hard to change the subject.

quote:
Originally posted by john galt;
Obviously, far more die from causes related to self inflicted obesity than what might might be attributed to Fukushima fallout.
Did you post a statistic about dieing from obesity? I missed it.
You were right to go with my 75% correction instead of your 85%
 
Registered: October 04, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Only a complete and utter arse would even think to try and belittle the deaths from a Nuclear Disaster by comparing it to Obesity.

No Doubt that same arse will try to tell us about nuclear power being safe and clean again before long and downplay the horrific and unfair deaths it will cause.

The depths some people will stoop to is nothing short of amazing, but incredibly disgusting.
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
To summarize: Future nuclear reactors should not use 40 year old obsolete designs. Nuclear reactors in tsunami zones should have back-up power systems that are tsunami proof. Seems rather obvious, doesn't it?

Nobody does self righteous anti-nuke hypocrisy better than someone from a country like Australia that mines and supplies uranium for the rest of the world. Everything else they say is just prevaricating to avoid the obvious. Watching such experts at their craft is always amusingly entertaining. Keep up the good work, mate!!! Wink



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
POLLUTION DEATHS FROM FOSSIL FUEL-BASED POWER PLANTS

1. Global death toll from the pollution from fossil fuel burning-based electricity generation. It is estimated that 0.3 million people die annually world-wide from societally-imposed, fossil fuel-based electricity generation pollutants (carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, volatile organics and heavy metals, notably mercury) and 170,000 people die annually world-wide from coal burning-based electricity generation (see: http://green-blog.org/2008/06/...000-people-annually/ )

17,000 might die from a one time nuclear reactor accident. In just that year coal killed 10 rimes more than nuclear, and in most years nuclear deaths are 1/1000th of the ongoing coal deaths.

2. Canadian estimate of coal-based power pollution deaths. An Ontario, Canada, Ministry of Energy study found that the “true cost” (in cents/kWh) of coal burning-based electricity (taking the environmental and human cost into account) could be 4-5 times the “actual market price” and that pollution from coal plants producing 27 TWh/year (20% of supply) kills 668 people per year in Ontario (population 12.2 million) (see: http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836).

3. Australian fossil fuel-based power pollution deaths. The data in #2 suggest that coal plants producing 77% of Australia's annual 255 TWh of electricity from 51 GW capacity (i.e. 0.77 x 255 = 196.4 TWh/year; see: http://www.uic.com.au/nip37.htm ) might kill about 196.4 TWh x 668/27 TWh = 4,859 people annually in Australia (population 21 million); in Australia 255 bn kWh x $0.04/kWh = $10.2 bn; 0.77 (coal-based) x $10.2 bn = $7.85 billion; $7.85 bn /4,859 deaths means that Australian electricity consumers pay for electricity @ $1.6 million per fellow Australian killed by coal.

4. International comparisons of fossil fuel-based power pollution deaths. “Annual coal-based electricity deaths” [“total annual fossil fuel-based electricity deaths”] are 170,000 [283,000] (the World), 11,000 [13,000] (India), 47,000 [47,500] (China), 49,000 [72,000] (the US), 3,400 [6,900] (the UK), 4,900 [5,400] (Australia) and 2,700 [3,800](Canada) as compared to 110 [360] (heavily renewable-based New Zealand) (see: http://green-blog.org/2008/06/...000-people-annually/ ; http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836 ). [The total fossil fuel-based deaths are upper limits deriving from a crude assumption, in the absence of readily available data otherwise, of the same mortality from gas burning as from coal burning. In reality, pollutants (pounds per Billion Btu of energy input) from gas, oil and coal burning are as follows: carbon dioxide (CO2) (117,000, 164,000, 208,000, respectively); carbon monoxide (CO) (40, 33, 208), nitrogen oxides (N2O and NO i.e. NOx) (92, 448, 457); sulphur dioxide (SO2) (1, 1122, 2591); particulates (7, 84, 2744); and Mercury (0.000, 0.007, 0.016) i.e. deaths from gas burning for power may be expected to be lower than for coal burning (see

Agnes Malouf and David Wimberley, “Health hazards of natural gas”, Environmental health, 2001 http://www.environmentalhealth.ca/summer01gas.html .]

In the United States, three coal-fired power plants reported the largest toxic air releases in 2001 :

CP&L Roxboro Steam Electric Plant in Semora, North Carolina. The four-unit, 2,462 megawatt facility is one of the largest power plants in the United States.
Reliant Energy's Keystone Power Plant in Shelocta, Pennsylvania.
Georgia Power Bowen Steam Electric Generating Plant in Cartersville, Georgia.

The Environmental Protection Agency classified the 44 sites as potential hazards to communities, which means the waste sites could cause death and significant property damage if an event such as a storm, a terrorist attack or a structural failure caused a spill. They estimate that about 300 dry landfills and wet storage ponds are used around the country to store ash from coal-fired power plants. The storage facilities hold the noncombustible ingredients of coal and the ash trapped by equipment designed to reduce air pollution.


Sulfur dioxide emissions [Acid rain]

86 coal powered plants have a capacity of 107.1 GW, or 9.9% of total U.S. electric capacity, they emitted 5,389,592 tons of SO2 in 2006 – which represents 28.6% of U.S. SO2 emissions from all sources.

Emissions from electricity generation account for the largest share of U.S. greenhouse gases, 38.9% of U.S. production of carbon dioxide in 2006 (with transportation emissions close behind, at 31%). Although coal power only accounted for 49% of the U.S. electricity production in 2006, it was responsible for 83% of CO2 emissions caused by electricity generation that year, or 1,970 Tg of CO2 emissions. Further 130 Tg of CO2 were released by other industrial coal-burning applications.

Mercury pollution

U.S. coal-fired electricity-generating power plants owned by utilities emitted an estimated 48 tons of mercury in 1999, the largest source of man-made mercury pollution in the U.S.[16] In 1995-96, this accounted for 32.6% of all mercury emitted into the air by human activity in the U.S. In addition, 13.1% was emitted by coal-fired industrial and mixed-use commercial boilers, and 0.3% by coal-fired residential boilers, bringing the total U.S. mercury pollution due to coal combustion to 46% of the U.S. man-made mercury sources. In contrast, China's coal-fired power plants emitted an estimated 200 ± 90 tons of mercury in 1999 , which was about 38% of Chinese human-generated mercury emissions (45% being emitted from non-ferrous metals smelting)fueled by coal. Countries exporting coal to China are complicit.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Death Rate From Nuclear Power Vs Coal?

by John Johnston on 03/24/2011

in Earth,Politics,Technology
Death rate from nuclear vs oil vs coal

Seth Godin recently posted this simplified chart,



from an altogether more complicated one. He maintains that this is a simple yet non-exaggerated version of the complicated one. The point is that for each person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die from coal. This is adjusted for how much power is produced by each method of power generation.

He also points out that if we were to take into account such things as deaths from environmental impacts yet unmeasured, due to climate change caused by fossil fuel emissions for instance, the chart would skew even more.

[or other yet unmeasured consensus held beliefs in events like alien visitation or the 2nd coming of Christ, which of course would also skew the graph in yet unforeseen or unknown ways. There's simply no way to know for certain, when one is postulating on futures based on faith.]

His post is actually focused on the triumph of coal marketing, that we are surprised at what this data shows. How come many of us didn’t already know this? I think it is fair to say that most people don’t think coal is that much of a killer, but there you have it.

Many of us even know that we consume mercury from deep-sea species of fish, yet many of us still don’t connect the dots back to coal – at least not consciously.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
John is so right in pointing out that it is pollution like that coming from coal fired power stations that is causing climate change.
I just hope all you people are listening to john when he says that the climate change is caused by coal fired power stations.
John, this is an excellent site that supports your view.
http://www.sixdegrees.org.au/c...auses-climate-change
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
He also points out that if we were to take into account such things as deaths from environmental impacts yet unmeasured, due to climate change caused by fossil fuel emissions for instance, the chart would skew even more.
 
Registered: October 05, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Seth Godin's chart is based on the deaths per watt from toxic pollution from burning coal, vs toxic pollution from nuclear or oil, and as stated does not include any unproven hypothetical effects like human induced climate change or the accumulation of unicorn farts in the stratosphere.

Like John Johnston states, there will always be those who can't grasp such distinctions, but that's what makes their fantasy world possible.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jacobh:
John is so right in pointing out that it is pollution like that coming from coal fired power stations that is causing climate change.
I just hope all you people are listening to john when he says that the climate change is caused by coal fired power stations.
John, this is an excellent site that supports your view.
http://www.sixdegrees.org.au/c...auses-climate-change
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
He also points out that if we were to take into account such things as deaths from environmental impacts yet unmeasured, due to climate change caused by fossil fuel emissions for instance, the chart would skew even more.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's Hilarious given galts posts on the global warming thread!!
Entirely fitting given his hypocritical and completely non creditable comments, but hilarious just the same.

The entertainment this forum and some members provide just can't be beat anywhere!
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:

Nobody does self righteous anti-nuke hypocrisy better than someone from a country like Australia that mines and supplies uranium for the rest of the world. Everything else they say is just prevaricating to avoid the obvious. Watching such experts at their craft is always amusingly entertaining. Keep up the good work, mate!!! Wink


Oh no! Certain "Canadians" do it soooo much better!
We'd Love to take credit but the facts and figures I posted a page earlier proves we just aren't in the hunt when it comes to Hypocrisy!

I mean one guy here rubbishes a whole country for using coal not the nuke power he champions, but comes from a country with Nuke power that still generates more power from coal that he tries to lay a guilt trip on other for using!!!!
I ask you, how shamefully hypocritical is that??

But instead of being embarrassed and learning to shut up to prevent himself looking any more idiotic, he then champions Nuke as being so safe and rubbishes the accident rate of coal power generation when the country HE comes from uses HYDRO power that causes more deaths than Nuke!

And yet this same person has the gall and stupidity to try and call others hypocritical.

When you see stuff like that, you know any thing they say can't be taken seriously but the more you prove them wrong, the more aggressively they continue on shoving their foot even further down their throats.

You can look at the statements here and learn to use Google to find the proof for yourself.

In case anyone missed them, here are a few interesting examples again for your reading pleasure...


quote:
Originally posted by Ttommy:
Speaking of Hypocrisy John, What does Canada do with all the spent fuel from those nice, clean 18 reactors it has?
I suppose it just spreads it over the ground does it because used nuclear fuel is so safe and environmentally friendly isn't it?

I'm wondering if you realize or just trying to ignore the facts that will get in the way of yet another one of your very authoritative sounding but completely flawed and twisted rants
that canada actually generates more electricity from " dirty polluting coal" as you dramatise it than it does your pet champion nuke power.

What was that about hypocrisy John?

quote:
Could the radiation escaping from Fukushima be from Australian uranium.

Oh my, that would be inconveniently embarrassing wouldn't it?

Actually, seeing Canada is a bigger Uranium exporter than Australia and sells their Uranium to Japan, Most likely the by your accusations of blame, Canadian uranium is most likely the material laying vast tracts of land to waste and poisoning people In Japan and the US.

Oh, And you mentioned something about Hypocrisy before there John??


quote:
Lost: 10+ ostriches. Large birds, temperament unknown. Please do not feed or approach. If sighted, contact the Fukushima Nuclear Exclusion Zone commander immedia---+++ATH0+++


Tell Me John, what is this " 20Km Exclusion zone" around the Fukushima nuclear plant for and why do they have it when nuclear is such a clean non polluting energy source.

And why are people in Japan being told not to eat fish and why are Cows and pigs inside this " Exclusion Zone" Being Killed?
I heard there was a lot of Land around Chernobyl where people aren't allowed to live anymore. Why is that John??


quote:
Anyone can master Google and do the math.

I Googled " coal fired power plant exclusion Zones" and all it came up with was a lot of references to Nuclear exclusion Zones. That's not what I was looking for at all!
Google must be wrong.... or there aren't any coal fired power plant exclusion zones where people aren't allowed to live... surely not after what you were saying John!



quote:
Number of people killed or injured by nuclear power vs.
Number of people killed or injured by coal fired pollution


Ya know John, When I looked that up, it said more people were killed by coal that nuclear.
And I found something else too.....

They also quote hydro as causing more deaths that Nuclear.

quote:
According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, in the province, approximately 26,000 people died from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected. Official estimates of the number of people killed by the disaster have run as high as 230,000 people.
The death toll of this disaster was declassified in 2005.

AND.... I found that 58% of Canada's electrical generation is Hydro based.

Now I'll get you to explain that hypocrisy thing to me John because I'm a bit confused given the statements and accusations you are making and the facts I'm looking up as you suggested on Google.

But something else i found out.... Even though the amount of nuke power is relatively low, the PERCENTAGE of power generated is HIGHER than hydro generated power.
That's an interesting twist isn't it John?
I wonder how that could be seeing Nuke is so safe and Clean as you say???

So to sum up a few points relating to what you have said John:

* Canada generates more power with " Dirty Polluting coal" than your pet favorite nuke power,

* Hydro which Canada generates 58% of it's power from causes more deaths than nuke power overall,

* Nuke power causes more deaths per TW generated at a disproportional rate to Hydro,

* Canada sells more Uranium than Oz and sells it to Japan so is more likely to be the source of the current nuclear contamination ruining the environment across the globe.

* There are no areas of land currently rendered unhabitable by Coal power but hundreds of thousands of square miles rendered useless by nuke power,

* There are no food sources currently rendered inedible by coal power but many on land and sea by nuke power.



Oh my john,
Is your face going to be red.

quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
Could the radiation escaping from Fukushima be from Australian uranium.

Oh my, that would be inconveniently embarrassing wouldn't it?

"The fall-out (both radioactive and political) from last month's Fukushima nuclear plant disaster continues to be felt around the world as well as in Japan.

One of the three countries which supply uranium to Japan is Canada, whose Cameco Corporation is the world's biggest "yellowcake" provider.

Indeed Tepco - the utility responsible for operating the failed Fukushima plant - has itself partnered with Cameco in "developing" Canada's huge Cigar Lake uranium mine."

It looks like the uranium in the Fukushima disaster was Canadian.
That is so sad.
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Oh Dear!

Once again having a look at Johns information shows it's not all he made it out to be!

quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
Death Rate From Nuclear Power Vs Coal?

Seth Godin recently posted this simplified chart,



quote:
Marketing guru Seth Godin turns data on deaths-per-terawatt of energy produced into an easy-to-understand chart


Hmmm, This "Seth Godin" is a MARKETING GURU... ????
What would a marketing Guru know about something like deaths caused by nuke and coal power generation??

Let's have a look at what he is famous for:

quote:
SETH GODIN has written thirteen books that have been translated into more than thirty languages. Every one has been a bestseller. He writes about the post-industrial revolution, the way ideas spread, marketing, quitting, leadership and most of all, changing everything.

American Way Magazine calls him, "America's Greatest Marketer," and his blog is perhaps the most popular in the world written by a single individual. His latest book, Poke The Box is a call to action about the initiative you're taking - in your job or in your life, and Seth once again breaks the traditional publishing model by releasing it through The Domino Project.

As an entrepreneur, he has founded dozens of companies, most of which failed. Yoyodyne, his first internet company, was funded by Flatiron and Softbank and acquired by Yahoo! in 1998. It pioneered the use of ethical direct mail online, something Seth calls Permission Marketing. He was VP of Direct Marketing at Yahoo! for a year.


As to what others have said about his comments on the coal Vs. Nuke subject:

quote:
What Godin forgets is that nuclear deaths could greatly increase after Fukushima. Let’s pray that they don’t.
Today’s nuclear plants are unsafe in the short run and their waste is dangerous for future generations; tomorrow’s advanced nuclear plants may be a pipe-dream.


quote:
A marketing guru makes a easy to understand graph.

It is just not serious to take the smallest findable number of death due to the Chernobyl disaster with 4,000 and not even mentioning that other evaluations of studies in different regions sum up to almost 1,000,000 death. Weather all this unexplained increases in death rates are directly to Chernobyl is not clear. Furthermore there is a hidden number of death which are not included in any studies.
On the other hand he included all victims of air pollution which can be spotted much easier (it is usually the lung).



quote:
Do not agree with figures. For example, at the Fukushima, Japan nuclear power station, it has been evacuated, people lost everything, for those who did not lose their homes, they most probably cannot return within their lifetimes.
Because of the high radiation hospitals had to evacuate their patients, over one hundred died being moved to other locations. With a nuclear power station, it is the long term residual effects that end up causing the most damage, this is not in any graph.

The hospitals in Nagasaki are still there, they are still studying the effects of the bombing even after a little less than 70 Years. This article is obviously pro Nuclear, the excuse I always loved was Nuclear power station problems have never killed anyone and it’s true, however the collateral damage and later deaths can be attributed in a large part to those power plants.

In Fukushima many people are old and cannot afford to rebuild their lives again, in my opinion, Tokyo Power company stepped on many people like insects all for a profit.



Yeah, well Nice try John but claiming what a marketing guru says as being fact on a scientific subject with billions at stake just doesn't seem overly trustworthy does it?
I'll bet if the money was right, he'd be able to market Leprosy and the plauge as a wonderful thing that everyone should hope they catch!

When it comes to issues to do with nuke power, I'll take my info from a man who's qualifications and reputation are unquestioned, not to mention his track record in forecasting problems and disputing official nuke propaganda which has also been proved to subsequently be unfailingly accurate by the very people he disputed in the first place by their own admission.

I'll put my faith into what this guy says:

http://fairewinds.com/updates
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Fukushima radiation was detected in at least 15 states in the Lower 48 in the months after the disaster, mostly in the Western U.S. The federal Environmental Protection Agency has classified the amount of radiation reaching the U.S. from Fukushima as well below the levels needed to affect human health. No deaths have been officially attributed to Fukushima, in both the U.S. and Japan.

Those findings conflict with a new study released Tuesday in the December issue of International Journal of Health Services. It attributes an estimated 14,000 U.S. deaths to Fukushima.

The study said there was an estimated 4.5 percent increase in the number of deaths in the U.S. in the 14 weeks after the accident compared to the same period in 2010, compared to a 2.3 percent increase in the 14 weeks before. The study links the increase to Fukushima fallout.

But critics have questioned whether conclusions in the study can be supported by data, and say there isn’t a clear link between the deaths and increased radiation. The study was conducted by anti-nuclear activists Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman.

Scientific American technology editor Michael Moyer called the study “flawed” in a blog post Tuesday, criticizing the authors for “sloppy, agenda-driven work.”

Kelley read the study Tuesday, and agreed it doesn’t include enough data to make the connection between Fukushima radiation and deaths in the U.S.

“It’s all innuendo,” he said. “There’s nothing backed up by fact.”



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4  
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Other Energy Options  Hop To Forums  Nuclear Power    Fukushima Disaster updates

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014