From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of ghib...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 2:02 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:01:26 PM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
Ground water contamination levels at the sampled well site of 54,000Bq/ liter
NHK <http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20140213_22.html> , Feb. 13,
2014: Record cesium level in Fukushima plant groundwater — [Tepco] says water
samples taken from a newly-dug well contained the highest levels of radioactive
cesium detected so far in groundwater at the site [...] the record levels
suggest that the leakage point could be near the well. [...] 600 times the
government standard for radioactive wastewater that can be released into the
sea. It is more than 30,000 times the level of cesium 137 found in water
samples taken from another observation well to the north last week. [...]
[Tepco has] yet to determine where the leak originates.
In general the dangers arsing from nuclear fission power are grossly
exaggerated. It's far and away the best answer to greenhouse emissions, that is
also realistic. If we'd been building nuclear power stations the fracking
locomotive wouldn't be the unstoppable force that it has become.
on
>>Many ways the dangers are blown out of proportion.. Even catastrophic
>>meltdown that blow the roof off and spread the love like Chernobyl, do not
>>result in a tiny fraction of the disasters that the standard models predict.
>>Ten's of thousands were predicted to die. In the end, just 40 deaths from
>>Chernobyl, and most of those the people sent in to get control in the
>>aftermath.
Dude – even the Report of 2005
<http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/chernobyl/pdfs/pr.pdf> (by the IAEA,
WHO, and UNDP, agencies that cannot by any stretch of the imagination be
described as hostile to the advancement of nuclear power) put the Chernobyl
ultimate death toll at 4000 – a figure that is one hundred times bigger than
the 40 deaths you believe are attributable to this atomic disaster. The 4000
figure has been challenged and criticized as being far too low and that over
the decades the extra cancer deaths ultimately caused by this disaster have
been far higher. For example: “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for
People and the Environment” published by the New York Academy of sciences;
authored by Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor
to the Russian president; Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in
Belarus; and Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident
director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences
of Belarus; put the extra cancer deaths attributable to the Chernobyl disaster
at almost one million – a figure that is 25,000 times greater than the 40
deaths you seem to believe caps the death toll for Chernobyl. I believe you are
ignoring many thousands of horrible cancer deaths that were triggered by this
disaster; and even the IAEA agrees that many thousands of people died from
radiation induced cancers.
To claim that only 40 people died as a result of the Chernobyl disaster is an
act of spreading propaganda; it is un-scientific.
There have been revolutions in station design since plants like fukishima were
built, and that disaster isn't shaping up to the dire predictions either.
What most of all this derives out of, are long standing questions about the
level of risk associated with exposure to radiation at low doses up to
somewhere below the 200 mark. There's no firm evidence of substantial risk.
There's plenty of evidence for genetic protection. There's a whole plethora of
statistics we could reasonably expect if low dose exposure was anything like
the risk that still sits there in the model. Airline cabin crew should have
higher frequency cancer for all that time so near space for one example. They
don't.
Conversely there are some major natural radiation hotspots in the world. You'd
expect those areas to produce more cancer and radiation poisoning related
disease. But the opposite is true. People exposed to dramatically higher doses
of radiation (inside the low dosage spectrum), actually become lower risks.
There seems to be a triggerable genetic response when levels increase.
I'm over-compensating in the other direction a bit here. Not because I love the
bomb, but if you only knew the power of the dark side.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
