Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Post-Fukushima: Seven Billion Deaths Predicted [View all]FBaggins
(26,748 posts)87. Let's compare the facts you claim and see who is really living off of "opinion"... shall we?
The Sec. of the DoE, Moniz, stood in Japan and called Fukushima a Global Event.
And it is a global event. That's entirely different from agreeing that it's a health risk to billions of people around the globe.
The science says that radioactive material from Fukushima has been found all over the N. Hemisphere.
That's true... but also irrelevant unless you buy into the entirely anti-scientific claim that "man-made radiation" is somehow dangerous in amounts thousands of times lower than so-called "natural radiation". But no actual scientists believe such nonsense. In fact, it isn't physically possible.
The leading Oceanographer group in the US, Woods Hole, thinks they will find radioactive material from Fukushima on the west coast, factually labeling the event "unprecedented and ongoing" in the Pacific ocean.
It is unprecedented and we will find radioactive material from Fukushima along the West Coast. None of that is debatable.
But you leave out that the group you here call the "leading Oceanographer group in the US"... are the same people that you ignore over and over and over again when they tell you the same things that I've been telling you. That Fukushima is no threat to sea life off the coast... no threat to humans in the US... and that natural background radiation (and even decades-old fallout) dwarfs the doses from Fukushima.
Oh... and on edit... Woods Hole provides an answer to one of your prior questions:
In terms of total release of radioactive materials as opposed to local concentrations how do the Fukushima leaks compare to those from previous radioactive releases, such as from weapons testing in the 1960s?
The total global fallout number for caesium from the 1960s tests was around 950 petabecquerels (a unit of quantity, rather than concentration). Chernobyl was around 100. Fukushima? Were still debating that number. Fifteen to 30 is a rough estimate.
And it is a global event. That's entirely different from agreeing that it's a health risk to billions of people around the globe.
The science says that radioactive material from Fukushima has been found all over the N. Hemisphere.
That's true... but also irrelevant unless you buy into the entirely anti-scientific claim that "man-made radiation" is somehow dangerous in amounts thousands of times lower than so-called "natural radiation". But no actual scientists believe such nonsense. In fact, it isn't physically possible.
The leading Oceanographer group in the US, Woods Hole, thinks they will find radioactive material from Fukushima on the west coast, factually labeling the event "unprecedented and ongoing" in the Pacific ocean.
It is unprecedented and we will find radioactive material from Fukushima along the West Coast. None of that is debatable.
But you leave out that the group you here call the "leading Oceanographer group in the US"... are the same people that you ignore over and over and over again when they tell you the same things that I've been telling you. That Fukushima is no threat to sea life off the coast... no threat to humans in the US... and that natural background radiation (and even decades-old fallout) dwarfs the doses from Fukushima.
Oh... and on edit... Woods Hole provides an answer to one of your prior questions:
In terms of total release of radioactive materials as opposed to local concentrations how do the Fukushima leaks compare to those from previous radioactive releases, such as from weapons testing in the 1960s?
The total global fallout number for caesium from the 1960s tests was around 950 petabecquerels (a unit of quantity, rather than concentration). Chernobyl was around 100. Fukushima? Were still debating that number. Fifteen to 30 is a rough estimate.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
95 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
ha! i made a similar comment recently about the hyped dangers of halley's comet in 1910.
unblock
Oct 2014
#1
I don't understand why it's become a joke to worry about that nuclear disaster.
LawDeeDah
Oct 2014
#58
Let's compare the facts you claim and see who is really living off of "opinion"... shall we?
FBaggins
Oct 2014
#87
Let's have a little more from the source you just claimed was authoritative...
FBaggins
Oct 2014
#88
That's about as helpful as a "news report" saying there is absolutely nothing wrong at all. nt
Electric Monk
Oct 2014
#2
I'm guessing roughly 7 billion died in the century before Fukushima too.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Oct 2014
#3
yes, like much preaching, the puritans' sex-hatred was firmly rooted in hypocrisy.
unblock
Oct 2014
#21
"Getting life insurance is like betting on a sure thing..and hoping you lose." Dick Gregory
Tierra_y_Libertad
Oct 2014
#8
Yeah, no kidding. And YOU will never be the beneficiary of it, either, if it's your policy.
calimary
Oct 2014
#43
Looks like it is you who is whining. I simply pointed out the obvious. nt
ChisolmTrailDem
Oct 2014
#16
It's the same sort of bullying and pile-on, that nadine was subjected to and left because of.
MerryBlooms
Oct 2014
#81
I don't believe you. I think this post was made to mock DUers that don't agree with you
LawDeeDah
Oct 2014
#67
My fiance's daughter's cookies look like that, which is why I chose the image. I'm waiting on a
ChisolmTrailDem
Oct 2014
#45
I had to buy larger pants the other day. So, I'm good to go =) Nom, nom, nom! nt
ChisolmTrailDem
Oct 2014
#50
Unless they tame that aging gene...then who knows, it may be 250 years. nt
ChisolmTrailDem
Oct 2014
#40
How very clever. You aren't claiming that billions will die is a fact only
rhett o rick
Oct 2014
#61
Pancreatic, Thyroid and Prostate cancer are a bitch...so maybe not 7 bil...but if the one someone you love
Tikki
Oct 2014
#55
The mortality rate for all injuries, diseases, accidents, and crimes is 100%.
True Blue Door
Oct 2014
#79
Well, I just stumbled upon an Apocalyptic website to see all their predictions.
freshwest
Oct 2014
#84