I'm with you, Paul The #4 reactor fire, that would send contaminates into the atmosphere, looks to have been contained; but, I have to wonder where all that seawater runoff is going? I know that doesn't make this a global disaster, but certainly a mess that we could live without!
Brian On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:18 PM, marbux <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:51 AM, JS Kaplan <kg...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > I have set off radiation detectors at Schipol, Newark, Gatwick, and > > Dulles airports. > > Big deal. Usually flights crossing the Rockies and those > > near-circumpolar flights > > to Europe are exposed to higher radiation than normal. Triggering a > detector > > in and of itself is no cause for alarm nor is it indicative of global > > radiation > > contamination. > contain > I agree that in isolation such information would not be conclusive > evidence. > > > Then you are aware of the importance of not being an environmental > > whack job. Having the most reliable data and keeping clear of bandwagon > > hysteria ploys separates the geeks from the freaks. Scaring the public is > > a tactic and usually isn't a means to make friends. > > The "environmental whack job" you're talking to has won a large number > of lawsuits involving toxic substances where both human exposure and > the resulting hazard and injuries were squarely at issue, despite the > concerted efforts of the best lawyers multinational polluters could > hire. Which is but to say that I've managed to convince both judges > and juries that my case was solid. > > I also hope that you might agree that false reports of safety are far > more dangerous than false reports of hazard, since the former tend to > result in people not taking precautionary measures. > > As to your "scare tactic" allegation, so far I haven't said a word > about the hazard, only explained that Jim's following statement was > erroneous: > > "The amount of radiation you can expect to receive is zero. Anyone who > tells you that we in the U.S.A. are going to receive any dose at all > is ignorant of how this works, or is trying to sell advertising." > > > What isotope has been released with that kind of half-life? > > I guess you haven't been paying close attention to the relevant news > reports. At Fukushima, reactor plant 3 lost coolant and exposed at > least the top three meters of its fuel rods to the atmosphere, > resulting in at least partial fuel rod melting and at least several > releases of radioactivity. Still unresolved is whether that reactor's > spent fuel pool also lost coolant. Wikipedia has been doing a pretty > fair job of keeping up with the situation at that plant. > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Reactor_unit_3 > >. > > Reactor 3 uses mixed uranium and plutonium oxide (MOX) fuel. It takes > little study of the partial meltdown situation thus presented to > comprehend that both uranium-238 and plutonium oxide would be among > the components of the radioactivity that was released from this plant. > > How do you > > suppose > > it will hitch a ride across the entire Pacific Ocean > > Perhaps rather than writing another treatise for your benefit, I could > refer you to The New York Times report of a leaked U.N. Comprehensive > Test Ban Treaty Organization report predicting that fallout from the > Fukushima plants would reach the U.S. by March 18? > <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/science/17plume.html?_r=2&hp>. > Really, this is a no-brainer if one understands even a smattering of > the science involving particulates suspended in airborne aerosols. > > and in what > > quantities? > > I don't know and neither does anyone else, despite the multitude of > public relations statements being spewed on mainstream media about the > expected doses being harmless to human health. > > Perhaps > > there might be a future issue outside of Japan, but for now seeing as > Japan > > imports almost everything and is in pretty piss poor shape, how about > > lending > > a hand over there before sending premature alarms up here? > > Sorry. I've made a financial contribution but don't expect to do much > more than that. I've got other fish to fry. > > I have lived > > through > > Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Russian and Chinese nuke tests and my > mom > > and uncle were exposed to more fallout in the 40's and 50's and we are > > doing fine. > > Let's see ... That sampling of three people can tell me exactly what > about a potential cancer incidence of 1 per million people exposed, > which would still cause hundreds of deaths in the U.S.? The fact that > you weren't hit by a bolt of lightning is no proof that no one is ever > hit by lightning. Your argument is a logical fallacy. > > The regulatory posture of the federal government remains unchanged > since the seminal work in 1979: > > "The self-replicating nature of cancer, the multiplicity > of causative factors to which individuals can be exposed, the > additive and possibly synergistic combination of effects, and the > wide range of individual susceptibilities work together in making it > currently unreliable to predict a threshold below which human > population exposure to a carcinogen has no effect on cancer risk." > > Inter-Agency Regulatory Liaison Group Work Group Report on the > Scientific Bases for Identification of Potential Carcinogens and > Estimation of Risks." 44 Federal Register 39869, 39876 (July 6, > 1979). > > And for that reason, government risk assessments for carcinogens > assume a linear relationship between dose and response, that there is > no "safe" dose of a carcinogen. > > More directly to the point, no one yet has even proposed a > pharmacological mechanism by which substances that cause cancer might > have a "no effect" level. At least in theory, a single atom or > molecule of a cancer-causing substance that acts at the genetic level > can trigger uncontrolled cell division. Moreover, we still have no > means whatsoever for assessing the risks of substances -- like some > varieties of radio-active particles --- that cause cell mutations. > > Yet we are currently being bombarded with "news" reports that the > fall-out from the Japanese reactors will result in doses so low in the > U.S. that there will be no risk. Such statements have no scientific > basis. There will be risk, although the severity of the risk is > debatable. But such debate --- if principled --- will frankly admit at > the outset that there will be a very wide degree of scientific > uncertainty in any conclusion reached as to the risk. > > > I think I'll take Mr. Darrough's opinion seeing as he actually works > > inside Oregon > > State's reactor and has seen duty on two US nuclear wessles. > > That makes it all the more important that when Jim writes something > that is erroneous, the error should be brought to his attention, > correct? Or perhaps you think bug reports are a useless exercise? > > > Folks, I am usually among the first to call conspiratorial foul and yell > > about > > government greed and disinformation. I also have a son stationed 40 miles > > from Tokyo who has yet to be recalled. The fact is, Japan is very far > away > > and the nuclear radiation emitted from these disasters, while dangerous > > at the sites, is not YET a threat outside Japan. > > That is a mere wish, not an established fact. I am very sorry that > your son has not been evacuated from Japan along with the families of > members of the military and of the State Department. It's very > unfortunate, but the U.S. government has a long and sordid history of > needlessly exposing members of its military to harmful levels of > radiation (in atomic bomb testing). > > But that might be fairly attributed to those who have arrived at the > wrong answer to the question, "if a tree falls in the woods and no one > saw it, did it fall?" The slimy part of atomic energy is the history > of doses once claimed to be safe that turned out to be harmful, claims > that were based on no more than scientific uncertainty, on no one > having seen that tree fall. > > > Can we keep guessing, non-primary sourced information, agendas, and > > emotional > > content not pertinent to Linux etc off of here? > > Like you just did? I did not start this conversation. I merely brought > an error to the attention of the person who did start the thread. I > agree that the discussion is off-topic, but writing a rant on the same > subject and ending it with a plea for no more to be said exhibits just > a bit of a double standard, yes? If you wanted to ask that the > conversation end, I think it would have been more appropriate not to > continue it yourself in the same post. > > If you want to make > > statements > > and suppositions prior to any damaging affect reaching Oregon, how about > > posting them on cnn.com or in the Weekly please? > > No. Because I've nowhere else seen anyone claim that zero fallout from > the Japan nuclear incidents would reach the U.S. Even the folks who > claim that the doses will be harmless acknowledge that the fallout is > going to reach our shores. Jim was in error and I called the bug to > his attention. > > I responded where the subject was raised by someone else. Why no > similar plea to the others who posted in this off-topic thread? Oh > yeah. It 's because I'm an "environmental whack-job." Right. > > Name-calling "usually isn't a means to make friends." > > Best regards anyway, > > Paul > _______________________________________________ > EUGLUG mailing list > euglug@euglug.org > http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug >
_______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list euglug@euglug.org http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
