More Fukushima Scaremongering Debunked

Another day brings another science-free but hysteria-packed screed of terror about how radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant incident will bathe all of us in torrents of cesium-soaked death. A few months ago, I took on one of these rambles, Gary Stamper’s not at all melodramatic “At the very least, your days of eating Pacific Ocean fish are over” and determined that nothing of the sort is even close to true, with the evidence behind it either willfully misinterpreted or simply incorrect.

Now it’s time to get the knives out for a newer piece of Fukushima scaremongering, published just over a week ago on “Activist Post.” While it’s just as wrong and hysterical as Stamper’s piece, it’s also just as popular, with 28,000 shares on Facebook already. It’s sad that far more people are drawn in by crap than in the debunking of said crap, but that doesn’t mean we stop spreading the correct message: that the radiation released by Fukushima, while serious enough to be cleaned up and monitored, is having a negligible effect on everyone but the unfortunate people living in that area.

28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima

And we’re off to the races: specifically, the Gish Gallop, a fallacious debating technique that involves overwhelming your opponent with information, without any regard for its accuracy. Also, I’d like to know what “absolutely fried” means. Is it measurable? Is there a unit that denotes “absolutely fried” as opposed to “mostly fried” or “somewhat fried?” How many AF’s (absolutely frieds) does the radiation from Fukushima contain? And what’s a survivable dose of AF’s? I have many questions about the science underlying this clearly scientific measuring tool.

Michael Snyder
Activist Post

According to his blurb on Activist Post, Michael Snyder is a former Washington D.C. attorney who now publishes The Truth. His new thriller entitled “The Beginning Of The End” is now available on Amazon.com.

Snyder’s site appears to be some kind of Christian doomsday prepper clearinghouse, and his novel is about (surprise) the economic collapse of America. So if you’re looking for a way to incorporate hoarding precious metals into your fellowshipping, Snyder is your man. None of this is a knock against him, but he does seem to have a vested interest in trying to convince you the world is about to end. Spoiler alert: it’s not.

The map below comes from the Nuclear Emergency Tracking Center. It shows that radiation levels at radiation monitoring stations all over the country are elevated. As you will notice, this is particularly true along the west coast of the United States.

map

The name “Nuclear Emergency Tracking Center” sounds a lot like a government regulatory body. It’s so incredibly the opposite of that. The website is a slapped together map of the supposed radiation levels at nuclear sites around the world. It’s got no indication where it’s getting its information or what it means, but it does have a fee based service that will alert you to radiation spikes anywhere in the world. And Bible quotes.

Every single day, 300 tons of radioactive water from Fukushima enters the Pacific Ocean. That means that the total amount of radioactive material released from Fukushima is constantly increasing, and it is steadily building up in our food chain.

I already covered this in the Stamper piece, and why it seems much worse than it actually is. The short of it is that 300 tons of radioactive water is literally a drop in the bucket compared to the 187 quintillion gallons that make up the Pacific Ocean. Whatever radioactivity is in that water will be diluted to the point of harmlessness.

[…]
We are talking about a nuclear disaster that is absolutely unprecedented, and it is constantly getting worse.

It’s not unprecedented. Chernobyl remains the worst nuclear disaster in human history, much worse in virtually every measurable way than Fukushima.

The following are 28 signs that the west coast of North America is being absolutely fried with nuclear radiation from Fukushima…

Bring it, list. Bring it.

1. Polar bears, seals and walruses along the Alaska coastline are suffering from fur loss and open sores…

Stamper referenced the same article that Snyder does. And if I may be so bold as to quote myself: “The article Stamper links to specifically says ‘Reuters noted that preliminary studies do not support a theory that the disease is due to contamination from the tsunami-wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.‘”

Citing an article that specifically refutes the point you’re trying to make is not the way to make that point.

2. There is an epidemic of sea lion deaths along the California coastline…

There is an epidemic of sea lion deaths along the west coast, happening for as-yet unknown reasons. But it’s sea lion PUPS dying, not sea lions as a whole. Radiation does not distinguish whether an animal is young or old, so it’s highly unlikely, if not impossible, that Fukushima has anything to do with this.

3. Along the Pacific coast of Canada and the Alaska coastline, the population of sockeye salmon is at a historic low. Many are blaming Fukushima.

And they would be wrong. Sockeye salmon stocks are low in Canada’s Fraser Basin, with experts in the field researching a number of causes for it. But it’s a decline that began in 1992, long before Fukushima was scaring the crap out of people.

4. Something is causing fish all along the west coast of Canada to bleed from their gills, bellies and eyeballs.

Just as “many” does not equal “people who understand this stuff,” “something” does not equal “Fukushima.” The link Snyder sites doesn’t even talk about “fish all along the west coast of Canada.” It mentions one school of herring found to be mysteriously bleeding. The cause of this is unknown right now, but even the biologist who discovered the herring isn’t blaming Fukushima – and she discovered them before the plume of radiation would have reached Canada.

5. A vast field of radioactive debris from Fukushima that is approximately the size of California has crossed the Pacific Ocean and is starting to collide with the west coast.

I don’t know where the “size of California” bit comes from, and I can’t find any reputable source to back it up. There is a large field of debris from the post-earthquake tsunami that will hit the west coast, but interestingly, the link Snyder cites has another link to a BBC article that says it won’t happen until March, 2014. And the debris is not likely to have anything more than traces of radioactivity.

6. It is being projected that the radioactivity of coastal waters off the U.S. west coast could double over the next five to six years.

True, and nothing to be concerned about, given how low the current radioactivity level of the west coast is. To quote Dr. Claus Boning from the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany: “The levels of radiation that hit the US coast will be small relative to the levels released by Fukushima. […] But we cannot estimate accurately what those levels will be because we do not know for certain what was released by Fukushima.”

7. Experts have found very high levels of cesium-137 in plankton living in the waters of the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and the west coast.

This is entirely expected and in keeping with a radioactive leak. The amount of radioactivity in the plankton will continue to decay as it moves up the food chain, staying well within Japan’s newly-raised acceptable levels of becquerels per kilogram of foodstuffs.

8. One test in California found that 15 out of 15 bluefin tuna were contaminated with radiation from Fukushima.

Yet another link Snyder cited without actually reading. It references a CNN article that states: “Tissue samples taken from 15 bluefin caught in August, five months after the meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi, all contained reactor byproducts cesium-134 and cesium-137 at levels that produced radiation about 3% higher than natural background sources.” (Emphasis mine)

A 3% increase in radiation is negligible. It’s around the same amount of additional exposure you get flying in a plane, or sleeping next to someone. If that worries you, then it’s time for separate bedrooms.

9. Back in 2012, the Vancouver Sun reported that cesium-137 was being found in a very high percentage of the fish that Japan was selling to Canada…

Again, perfectly within expectations. It’s why Japan has since banned the selling of seafood from the Fukushima area.

10. Canadian authorities are finding extremely high levels of nuclear radiation in certain fish samples…

See #9. Making the same point over and over doesn’t magically make it more correct.

11. Some experts believe that we could see very high levels of cancer along the west coast just from people eating contaminated fish…

There is absolutely no compelling evidence to support this assertion, and a great deal of solid scientific research that refutes it.

Serious, no foolin' science.

Serious, no foolin’ science.

12. BBC News recently reported that radiation levels around Fukushima are “18 times higher” than previously believed.

Entirely possible. Also totally out of context, backed up by nothing and not relevant at all to the west coast of North America.

13. An EU-funded study concluded that Fukushima released up to 210 quadrillion becquerels of cesium-137 into the atmosphere.

What does this mean? Is that a lot? What’s the context? How long will it take to spread and to dissipate? Is this unacceptably high? Has it been confirmed by other studies? Don’t ask Snyder, because he only will give you a big scary number, not what the number means.

14. Atmospheric radiation from Fukushima reached the west coast of the United States within a few days back in 2011.

True and irrelevant. Small amounts of atmospheric radiation reached the west coast shortly after the disaster. It had no effect on the people or sea life in the area.

15. At this point, 300 tons of contaminated water is pouring into the Pacific Ocean from Fukushima every single day.

Say this twice, ten times, a thousand times. It will never, never mean something other than what it means.

16. A senior researcher of marine chemistry at the Japan Meteorological Agency’s Meteorological Research Institute says that “30 billion becquerels of radioactive cesium and 30 billion becquerels of radioactive strontium” are being released into the Pacific Ocean from Fukushima every single day.
17. According to Tepco, a total of somewhere between 20 trillion and 40 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium have gotten into the Pacific Ocean since the Fukushima disaster first began.
18. According to a professor at Tokyo University, 3 gigabecquerels of cesium-137 are flowing into the port at Fukushima Daiichi every single day.

Three more claims that lack any kind of context to put them into perspective. And again, the vastness of the Pacific Ocean will render the radiation in these terrifying-sounding numbers diluted well past the point of danger.

19. It has been estimated that up to 100 times as much nuclear radiation has been released into the ocean from Fukushima than was released during the entire Chernobyl disaster.

What the article Snyder cites actually says is: “In October, a U.S. study – co-authored by oceanographer Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist at the non-profit Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Woods Hole, Massachusetts – reported Fukushima caused history’s biggest-ever release of radiation into the ocean – 10 to 100 times more than the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe.”

First, this a number that actually makes quite a bit of sense, given that Fukushima took place on the Pacific Ocean, and Chernobyl took place in the middle of Ukraine, far from any ocean.

Furthermore, in an FAQ on the Woods Hole website, Buesseler himself dismisses the hysterical claims about the radiation from Fukushima. If the person who actually gave the quote isn’t worried about it, why on earth should you be?

20. One recent study concluded that a very large plume of cesium-137 from the Fukushima disaster will start flowing into U.S. coastal waters early next year…

Will start flowing? WILL? Wait, I thought we were being Absolutely Fried!!! I demand an explanation for this inconsistency!

Since that’s not likely to come this decade, I’ll say this is yet more willful misinterpretation disseminated by Gary Stamper and carried on by Michael Snyder. Watch the clip from the Helmholtz Centre study. Get the context behind what this actually means. Then see if you’re still afraid. You probably won’t be.

21. It is being projected that significant levels of cesium-137 will reach every corner of the Pacific Ocean by the year 2020.

See #20. Then hit your head against the wall and weep for the scientific illiteracy of those who twist these facts into hysteria.

22. It is being projected that the entire Pacific Ocean will soon “have cesium levels 5 to 10 times higher” than what we witnessed during the era of heavy atomic bomb testing in the Pacific many decades ago.

This baseless, out-of-context and unsupported claim comes from Arnie Gundersen, a former engineer turned anti-nuclear activist. Take it with several thousand grains of salt.

23. The immense amounts of nuclear radiation getting into the water in the Pacific Ocean has caused environmental activist Joe Martino to issue the following warning…Your days of eating Pacific Ocean fish are over.

We’ve now hit an irony implosion of epic proportions. I don’t know who Joe Martino is, but he didn’t originate the ridiculous claim that “your days of eating Pacific Ocean fish are over.” Gary Stamper did. For a blog post spewing purported scientific facts, not getting this simple attribution right is, frankly, a little embarrassing.

24. The Iodine-131, Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 that are constantly coming from Fukushima are going to affect the health of those living the the northern hemisphere for a very, very long time. Just consider what Harvey Wasserman had to say about this…

Harvey Wasserman is another anti-nuclear activist with a vested interest in trying to make Fukushima seem as horrific as humanly possible. He is also, quite notably, not a scientist nor someone with any background in how radiation works. The piece he wrote that Snyder used as proof has no scientific citations of any kind.

25. According to a recent Planet Infowars report, the California coastline is being transformed into “a dead zone”…

I can’t even.

26. A study conducted last year came to the conclusion that radiation from the Fukushima nuclear disaster could negatively affect human life along the west coast of North America from Mexico to Alaska “for decades”.

This is a misinterpretation (surprise!) of the findings of a study from the open access journal Chinese Science Bulletin. Here’s what it actually says (in section 3.3): “The radioactive isotope [cesium-137] with a half-life of 30.1 years, can negatively affect human life for decades, so the transport and diffusion process of [cesium-137] should raise concern.”

The study is right, this should raise concern. This is why scientists study and monitor these things. But “concern” does not equal “panic.” The overall findings of the study agree completely with the Helmholtz Centre study: that cesium-137 levels will increase as the radioactive plume spreads, and then decrease as it dissipates.

27. According to the Wall Street Journal, it is being projected that the cleanup of Fukushima could take up to 40 years to complete.

This is TEPCO’s projection of how long the decommissioning of Fukushima will take. How it equates to “the west coast is being absolutely fried by radiation” is completely beyond me.

28. Yale Professor Charles Perrow is warning that if the cleanup of Fukushima is not handled with 100% precision that humanity could be threatened “for thousands of years”…

The Huffington Post is well known for the dubiousness of its scientific claims. That doesn’t make this particular claim wrong, but it does diminish its authority somewhat. Perrow himself is a sociology professor, has no background in nuclear science, and gives no evidence to support his claim that botching the Fukushima cleanup will threaten us for eons to come. He simply says it, then goes on at length about the history of nuclear accidents.

Are you starting to understand why so many people are so deeply concerned about what is going on at Fukushima?

I understand it completely. It is something to be concerned about – which is why scientists and researchers, people who do this kind of thing for a living, are testing and researching what kind of impact the incident is actually having. Concern does not mean panic. It certainly doesn’t mean spreading hysteria-inducing claims around the internet with no thought given to how true they are – or if they’re true at all.

Edited to add: I’ve written a third volume of skeptical examinations of claims about the Fukushima disaster, including the apocalyptic hysteria regarding the removal of fuel rods; and a fourth volume about rumors that surfaced after that.

About Mike Rothschild

Mike Rothschild is a writer and editor based in Pasadena. He writes about scams, conspiracy theories, hoaxes and pop culture fads. He's also a playwright and screenwriter. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/rothschildmd.
This entry was posted in Energy, Pseudoscience and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

506 Responses to More Fukushima Scaremongering Debunked

  1. Justin Nnoix says:

    25. According to a recent Planet Infowars report, the California coastline is being transformed into “a dead zone”…

    I can’t even.

    HILARIOUS!!! i spit out food laughing at this perfect response.

    • I spit out tuna that was caught in the Pacific Ocean, incidentally off of the California coastline, when I read this. Some of it went up my nose. Then I poured on the tarter sauce and cleaned my plate! Ha!

      Actually, I don’t eat fish but if I did I would throw a “WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!” party at my place, complete with fresh fish caught in the Pacific Ocean and soda containing high fructose corn syrup.

    • John Denys says:

      That was a good one!

    • morgellon says:

      the FACTS of the matter are these: Chernobyl’s release and meltdown potential were HALF of the smallest of SIX of Fuku’s reactors (reactor #1). there were THREE full core corium meltdowns, one which exploded MOX fuel out into the atmosphere. Chernobyl damage was limited by its being landlocked. It was not on the seacoast where daily releases of at least 400 tons per day could propagate WORLDWIDE via ocean contamination. Dragging in Chernobyl as a comparison- right there the source should be dismissed as a shil- since Fuku is 1000X greater.

      SIX reactors vs ONE? How can Fuku be less dangerous than Chern? This writer and his line are a joke, just like his entire hideous family. This article is exactly what you’d expect from someone like him. A Monstrous, pathological joke.

      • ChazH says:

        And he thinks his argument about the sea lion pups dying instead of the older somehow makes his point. Apparently it never occurred to him that the young of any species is more vulnerable to toxins than the adults.

        • Adrien Burke says:

          Lost all credibility at “Radiation does not distinguish whether an animal is young or old,” ……… Yes it does. Radiation affects women more than men, children more than adults, and of course, the fetus. That is why, when evacuation was ordered in the wake of the far milder 3 Mile Island disaster, pregnant women and children were the ones ordered to evacuate.

        • Sugarsail says:

          sea lions routinely have die-offs from domoic acid toxicity and it tends to effect the young more. A similar condition causes die offs in starfish. There is no connection to nuclear stuff here. The hysterics fail to overcome the null hypothesis argument (that something other than nuclear radiation can cause die offs and just because an animal dies doesn’t mean it from Fuku).

          • ask412 says:

            Sugarsail wrote; ” … something other than nuclear radiation can cause die off” Generating unfounded fear is the problem and at the core of “scare mongering”.

            Any thinker hates scare mongering. As it does far more harm than good, but then that is the point.

            Still it is an effective propaganda tool.

            A central issue in conditioning individuals or groups towards apathy and in this case to nuclear weapons and energy industry incidents.

            Due diligence is required with a healthy dose of critical thinking, setting aside personal biases developed by our life conditions.

            ____________

            Try this article to test your due diligence.

            “USS Ronald Reagan sailors report cancers after Fukushima rescue mission”

            Questions that need answering;

            Why is there little coverage in mainstream media of this very specific incident?

            How could such a critical issue be suppressed?

            Why is it only the affected who have become outspoken?

            Just who do you believe is motivated to keep this incident very low on the public radar?
            ____________

            http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/the-stream/the-stream-officialblog/2013/12/16/uss-reagan-sailorsreportcancersafterfukushimarescuemission.html

        • Nick says:

          you lose all credibility and respect if you are talking about toxins in regards to nuclear contamination, the 2 have absolutely nothing in common besides the fact that both could have detrimental effects to your health. please do a BIT of research before posting your idiocy.

        • Dan says:

          The gov. Troll that wrote this page is a lyer! And because of him people will die! May God forgive you, for being apart of the lie that will kill life for thousands of years!

          • Dan says:

            Mike your last name tells me what you are about! Did you get your 30 peices of silver?

          • ask412 says:

            Dan wrote; ” … last name tells me what you are about! … ” Denigrating anyones family group just demonstrates an unevolved set of values. Which in turn raises the question if these comments are not seeded by the nuclear weapons and energy industry. Creating this type of propaganda has been a political strategy used for many centuries.

          • Eric Hall says:

            Do you have evidence for this? And as an aside – if you are referring to the god of the bible, he doesn’t approve of name calling either – “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.”

      • Bill says:

        We, however, have the glorious advantage of twenty years of technological, tactical and scientific advances and preparations. Also note, the Pacific ocean has probably effectively absorbed a large quantity of the radiation without taking much damage to the ecosystem. It is the size of all the land put together, and the fallout has distributed over a large area to drastically reduce the effect- unlike in Chernobyl.

        And your typing is probably more hideous than his family, for that is somehow uglier than Australian polotics.

      • QuantumDave says:

        I’m very puzzled by your reply there, morgellon. You say a lot of things very quickly; to counter you, I have to explain more fully.

        * You say Chernobyl’s release is half of Unit 1’s release.
        … Wrong. Chernobyl had 180 tons of fuel; Unit #1 (the smallest) had 69 tons of fuel. It’s more like, Chernobyl was like three Unit #1’s. (6*3=18).

        * You say there are THREE corium meltdowns.
        … Wrong. The fact is, *no one knows* if or how much fuel melted, nor how far it may have travelled downwards, or sideways, or who-knows-what. That’s something TEPCO is trying very hard to find out. It’s *extremely* difficult. Why? The radiation in the reactor rooms. Recently Unit 1’s floor reads 4,700mSv/h. Translation: 4.7 Sv/Hr. More translation: 1 Sievert = 100 Roentgens/REM’s, which is where the radiation gets fatal. 4.7 Sieverts -> 470 RADS = you are definitely dead. (People vary in radiation tolerance, but if you stay in the reactor floor, you’re dead in about 12 minutes.)

        * You say Unit 3 exploded MOX fuel into the atmosphere.
        …Wrong. Completely false. While there were hydrogen-oxygen explosions, none broke into the RPV’s where the MOX is.
        *You say Chernobyl’s damage was limited because it’s landlocked.…
        …Wrong (again). Think for a second. Since Chernobyl was landlocked, the plume of radioactives went all over the countries in very densely populated Europe. Fukushima went over … the ocean. (Oceans are not very dense in people.)

        * You say more about Chernobyl not being right on an ocean..
        … Oh, Sheesh! Chernobyl output goes into the Dnieper River, (“One of the largest rivers in Europe”), which continues right on to The Black Sea. I suggest you look up the city of Kiev (3+ million people) on Mapquest. Now guess what’s upstream from Kiev on the Dnieper? Look for yourself. Chernobyl. A 2 hour drive from Kiev to Chernobyl will bring you there. (Why, there are even tourist agencies that can take you on a tour .. no kidding!)
        Both Chernobyl and Fukushima have access to the oceans, or to a big river that goes to the ocean. It ends up in the planet’s oceans. Good enough, or now do you want to quibble about how big a river the Dnieper is?

        — Dave

        p.s. Brian, I fouled up leaving this reply the first time through. Could you delete the other? *sigh*

        • PaR says:

          Looks like another disinfo piece meant to lull the sheep back into their sleep (especially those ‘Christian’ sheep)… It’s just a little radiation .. the food, water and air are perfectly safe to consume.. The rain and snow are fine to play in… Heck, lets eat ‘snow’ cones! Now move along.. nothin here to see folks!

          It seems somebody didn’t bother to read those FOIA docs? You know, the ones documenting the steady stream of Cesium, Plutonium, Uranium, Tritium and the like, falling on US citizens (since 2011) and pouring into our ocean (by the millions of tons) and our government comparing those isotope dose levels to those of Chernobyl (only these are 3x worse), taking Potassium Iodode themselves to protect against thyroid absorption from the massive amounts of radionucleides spewing into our environment.. Oh, and documenting when the US Govnmt and the NRC received those alerts from the 18 nuclear sites across the US who reported elevated radiation levels, just before shutting down the sites (and once the radiation levels began to rise from their own readers).. also documenting their crazed efforts to conceal the truth, including but not limited to contacting the media and all Govnmt entities to stop reporting about Fukushima (CNN, NYT, Huff Post, NBC/ABC/MSNBC, etc) from the American people… Insisting the “story”, i.e. the truth, remain only within the “federal family”… Ring any bells?

          A more beleavable piece would be to see you put your money where your mouth is.. You really believe the non-sense you’re selling to your readers, then prove it to them! Let’s see you and your family (if it’s safe for their families, it’s safe for yours) eat a STEADY diet of Pacific caught fish & seafood, Pacific Coast seaweed & kelp (lots of sushi now), locally grown fruit & veggies, breath the air and swim in the ocean all from the California Pacific Coast. Catalog daily, by video, the proof .. then and only then will I risk my family and my well being on your word. Anyone who trusts your word or the word of anyone saying radiation at ANY level is safe, instead of being their own investigator, deserves the good health that folly will bring them.

      • Anonymous says:

        If you have to make fun of the person you are debating with you discredit your entire statement. Just thought you should know, douchebag.

      • Better safety standards and improvements in technology? Also, better reaction to it. It’s still being monitored, Chernobyl is a ghost town these days.

      • Woody says:

        I get the sense that the author of this article is more interested in pretending to be intelligent than actually being intelligent. This is a serious threat to the planet and he’s leveraging his ability to make pimp non-substantive arguments to get blog-hits? <— what's wrong with humans. Look at this argument:

        23. The immense amounts of nuclear radiation getting into the water in the Pacific Ocean has caused environmental activist Joe Martino to issue the following warning…Your days of eating Pacific Ocean fish are over.

        We’ve now hit an irony implosion of epic proportions. I don’t know who Joe Martino is, but he didn’t originate the ridiculous claim that “your days of eating Pacific Ocean fish are over.” Gary Stamper did. For a blog post spewing purported scientific facts, not getting this simple attribution right is, frankly, a little embarrassing.

        How interesting, if you see your colleague made an attribution problem in this article: http://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/01/04/i-started-chasing-radiation-and-ended-up-following-the-money/

        Looks like "for a blog post spewing purported scientific facts, not getting this simple attribution right is, frankly, a little embarrassing."

        When you make stupid arguments, you look stupid.

      • jane says:

        exactly.

      • justin says:

        I agree totally. The author of this article is probably being paid by the government to stop the flow of truth. Stupid liberals believe anything the government says….especially since theyre mostly all on government aid….

      • Ayaime says:

        Not to mention where japan sets geographically. On the ring of fire, and Marianas trench where microbial life stems. People are clueless. The govt. And scientists with hold the greatest threat of this on going catastrophe a 7 on the scale. It may not be ch ernoble. But it’s becoming Cher noble amd over time will be worse than any th ING this whole world can possibly imagine. To be the people, in eventual universal knowledge as the species who killed the planet.

        • Noah Dillon says:

          Japan does not sit on the Mariana Trench. That trench is the deepest point in the ocean. An island cannot be the deepest point in the ocean, since it sticks out of the ocean. The two are also more than 1,000 miles away from one another. Scientists actually share with urgency the greatest threats possible to the human race, warning about global warming, economic inequality, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and so on. The way we know all these things are so dangerous is because scientists study them. Fukushima was nowhere near being as bad as Chernobyl, and it’s gotten better, not worse. Human beings will not kill the planet, but we won’t be here forever. The planet and life on it will go on for a very long time after we’re gone. Life in general is much more resilient than human beings in particular. There are life forms that can survive in boiling acid, in poisonous sludge, at depths that kill most creatures, and so on.

    • Jim says:

      We will all know the truth of this event in Ten years, I bet this Mike guy will be eating his words, his entire basis of attacking other articles is doing nothing towards making his own case here. There are far to many unknowns in this situation for anyone to make a rational judgement. Time is going to tell us the truth, based on the past actions of our Government, history has taught us they are not a reliable source, the scientists are funded by the very corporations who will benefit by this story being downplayed, I suspect this Mike guy is also funded by those sources. Follow the money and you always find the truth.

      • Paid shill gambit is boring.

        • loggy says:

          Really Mikey? Who do you assert is paying shills like the one above? Sounds like a sweet gig. Or was it just an off-handed comment merely meant to entertain.

        • John Denys says:

          Well Mike, just think of the company you’re in. I’m sure Randi, the SGU crew and Brian have been called shills more times than they can count. There should be an award for skeptics if they’ve been called a shill one hundred times. If anyone has been called a shill more than one hundred times I’ll buy them an ice cream or a beer at any conference. Hmmm.. Maybe I should make it one thousand times.

          • ask412 says:

            Good call John Denys. That offer of a beer sounds safe …

            Still, heckles out of frustration seem inane.

            John Denys wrote; “Well Mike, just think of the company you’re in.” How true.

            When any here dismiss a premiss, all that is left is the lines of logic, leaving the questions:
            * Are there any lines of logic in response?
            * Is there a point of difference based on values?
            * What are the values based on?
            * Are the values relevant?
            * Are the values from a well developed stage of thought?

            Because being wilfully blind to others motives due to vested interest make any lines of logic appear ineffectual.

            Critical thinkers can easily see if the motive is an evolved one or just driven to promote the status quo.

          • QuantumDave says:

            (re: ask412’s reply) — quoted here:

            “Critical thinkers can easily see if the motive is an evolved one or just driven to promote the status quo.”

            But who decides if the motive is “evolved” (and in what way, and from what, and who), or if the motive is “driven” (in what way, and why, and [probably] who)?

            And why is it “easy” to see?

            These are questions in philosophy that go way, way back. Way back. Way, way, way back.


            Okay, I admit it, I don’t *know* how far back, so I’ll just say “way, WAY, waY, YAM, back” and try to fake it through. Greeks? Sumerians? Any Psychology 101 class at a universery?


            I seem to recall that the only question that could be answered was, “Can we doubt what we’re thinking?”. Well, yes, because we’re thinking that doubt. So we exist.

            After that, things pretty much go into the mud. Soon you find yourself listening to Neil Young songs — the REALLY depressing ones.

            And you find yourself with a degree in Computer Science and working knowledge of punch cards, line printers, 1600 bpi magnetic tapes (ah, 6520 bpi was just a dream), and the usual Temple Of Computer types that hang around there.

            Yup, I learned all that stuff, to find out that when I graduated, this incredible new thing, the “micro-computer”, had come out, and made all I’d learned in college absolutely obsolete.

            It was *not* easy for me to see the motives of the college.
            Or if they even have a motive.

            I’ll leave off here before you start snoozing,

            Dave

          • ask412 says:

            Thanks for the comment 

            QuantumDave wrote; “But who decides if the motive is “evolved”… [driven] in what way, why, who…?”

            That depends on a personal, or group^ worldview. What stage of development the person or group^ is on and altitude. The status quo of the group, enforced by the political centre of gravity.

            In the case of an individual in corporate culture their values generally are based on the current meritocracy. A first tier advanced stage of development.

            While at home and going to Church the values may sit on the earlier rules must be obeyed Abrahamic value set*. An earlier human level of development. This does not take into account, intelligence, or if anyone is better than another. [level blue stage of development]
            So that ‘group’ decides the motive for behaviour, action and values held in the culture.

            Who decides what level of thought ‘we’ as individuals are on?
            We do. It is an interior issue.
            With groups^ it is the centre of gravity.

            This is a very narrow illustration of the integral nature of human values.

            The ‘who’, as in studies in human development is below.

            Hope it helped give context and further clarity to the comment.

            Appreciate the conversation QuantumDave. 
            ______________

            ‘Levels of thought demonstrated across many areas of study in human development, an evolving body of knowledge. Links to strategic foresight / futurist tools;

            https://www.flickr.com/photos/kentbye/3932191927/sizes/o/in/photostream/

            The simplest visual, is this chart of work pioneered by Don Beck.
            Left side shows the stages of human development in SDi** colours;

            http://www.formlessmountain.com/AQALchart12.jpg
            ______________
            * ☪ ✡ † ☨ ✞ ✝
            ^ groups = any collective community of humans e.g. a nation, a state, a local community, a family
            ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Dynamics

        • dirk says:

          The last name says it all. The Rothschild family has been talking about population control for years. That family is the controlling interest of the world bank. Which owns the federal reserve, and every central bank in the world. The rothschild family is the most evil thing known to mankind. Every single one of them should be beheaded. And the gold in their swiss vaults should be sent back to the countries that it came from. I mean ROBBED from. And for anybody to say that Fukushima is nothing to worry about is not only stupid, it criminal. Something a Rothschild would say.

          • Mudguts says:

            I think that sort of sentiment marks you as absolutely delusional and its incitement to violence..

            Dirk, Come back and apologise to the skeptics community for that vile post.

    • Kaitensatsuma says:

      I thought “If Only” 😛

      • ask412 says:

        Kaitensatsuma wrote; “I thought “If Only” …” Yes, if only the US had not entered into an arms race building nuclear weapons.

        Instead focus would be on what are called alternative technologies that are actually “failsafe”.*

        Driving the need for plutonium and there would have been no legacy of nuclear power and millions of tonnes of nuclear waste all over the planet.

        Fukushima, Chernobyl incidents would not have happened.

        The Ukraine would not have to wait half a million years for the decay in nuclear material to make their city safe again. Neither would Japan.

        Best of all the disinformation about nuclear power being safe would not exist.

        People would be fully aware that nuclear technology can provide

        “No Failsafe”.
        _________________
        * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-safe

  2. Thank you for the article!
    I’d like to add to #6 “radioactivity in ocean could double” The small error Dr.Boning does is to not clarify he is talking about man-made Cs-137 radioactivity only. For scientist there is no confusion, but the public might take it literally out-of-context.
    So pre-Fukushima had 1-2Bq/m3 from atomic testing, and Fukushima will add 1-2Bq/m3 after some dilution, a doubling.
    However, ocean water contains 0,04% Potassium with a natural activity of 31Bq/g, that is 12000Bq/m3 of activity in oceans, so the increase Fukushima adds is from 12002Bq/m3 to 12004Bq/m3, combined total.

    #17 “20 trillion and 40 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium have gotten into the Pacific Ocean” And 8.1 sextillion exists there naturally, so about an increase of 1 in 200 millions.

    Regards,

  3. Josh DeWald says:

    This is awesome! Posted on my Facebook… I’ll be interested if there are people still convinced the list was accurate and come back with a response. I’ve seen a lot of people do the “If only X% of this is true, it’s still scary!” But looks like X may be very low indeed.

    • Thanks, Josh. Sadly, people get scared by big numbers and long lists, even if the numbers are totally out of context and the lists are made up of mostly things that aren’t true. Hence, we have Skeptoid.

      • Bill says:

        The Berquerel figures are interesting: the Berquerel is nnicknamed the ‘Bugger-all’ by physicists because it is so small, as they use Giga-berquerels. But then again, it might be bigger in human aspects.

      • In relation to the big number scare, exactly. Watching a congressional a hearing few year ago on radiation exposure on airplanes, when asked how much exposure would some receive on a flight (NYC to LA I think), the “expert” stated 2500 pico-rem. The immediate response was, “I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want no 2500 pico-rem!” Really, pico-rem? They could have said 2.5 nano-rem, or .0025 micro-rem, or .0000025 milli-rem, or .000000025 rem, but now go for maximum impact with pico-rem. Obviously the Congress had no idea what the expert was talking about or how significant that exposure really is.

    • Jim says:

      Josh, Mike has engaged in a lot of mis information in his article here and is down playing this very serious sitatution, he has reversed what happens in Biological Magnification, trying to imply that dilutes up the food chain, negating the word magnification.. lol

      He is also implying that you can dilute cesium in the Ocean, another moronic statement, you can only disperse these molecules and a single molecule is enough to give a human cancer.

      The meltdown is going into the water table, the water table is flowing out to the ocean, we have no means of solving this situation, we don’t hold the technology or tools to resolve it. This is not going to be hidden by these con men in the long run. Con men that depend on Government/Corporate Grants for their research work, they are an unreliable source for the truth as they have an interest in their money continuing.

      • Jim, the most environmentally friendly solution to the waste water problem is to disperse it into the ocean; unfortunately it’s politically intractable.

        I encourage you to continue your studies on this matter, from a factual science perspective rather than an ideological perspective. Nature doesn’t care about anyone’s ideology.

      • Eric Hall says:

        Jim – do you have evidence of this single molecule causing cancer thing? Because, you do realize there are many radioactive elements that occur naturally – and we’d all be dead if this was true.

      • Anonymous says:

        Cesium is an element, an atom. It’s not a molecule. A single photon (that’s a light particle) can give you cancer. Care to guess how many if those you encounter on a daily basis?

      • Linda says:

        Jim has it correct. Biomagnification is at work. There are varied interests in dumbing down this growing disaster.The fish industry, the Government, the Nuke industry, tourism, etc. But this is just too large to hide.

        • ask412 says:

          Anonymous “Cesium is an element, an atom” Just who do you think you are dealing? Eight year olds …

          This kind of semantics is just petty.

          Anyone who believes man made nuclear material has no effect on the environment immediately and over hundreds of thousands of years needs to verify their beliefs using a qualified biologist or environmental scientist.

          Currently the information discounting the harm man made nuclear particles comes from is one source.

          Can your critical thinking stretch to which industry that source is?

          Perhaps even to why they say “there is no harm”?

          Sure we need to be aware of ‘inane scare mongering’, but we still need to use discernment about seeded disinformation.

          For what it’s worth I see right wing ‘think tanks’ seeding the scare mongering ‘dissolving starfish’ stories.

          But having said that; ‘it’s just my opinion, experience and highly subjective.’

      • QuantumDave says:

        Let’s see. Jim left his reply on January 6, 2014: “The meltdown is going into the water table, the water table is flowing out to the ocean…” yada yada, then stuff doesn’t dilute, blah blah, then “a single molecule is enough to give a human cancer”, *snicker* *snicker*.
        (I’ve seen these three dogs before at various scare-tactic websites.)

        I guess my question is, “Jim, It’s January 19th. Why aren’t we all dead?
        Why is Fukushima no worse than it was back on January 6?” In fact, it’s better.

        Whatever happened to, oh, “Unit 4’s foundations are turning into mud, and it’ll collapse”, “the corium has reached the soil”, “my wife doesn’t understand me”, and other disasters which… did not happen… and which … have been quietly removed from discussion.

        The truth is boring and tedious by comparison. Real engineering often is. (For example, it’s way boring to pour a bunch of concrete … but you end up with Hoover Dam.)

        The Japanese really do have a plan to decommission Units 1-4, which sets down the specific order they want to fix things, and target dates. It looks damned good to me. It also looks good to the IAEA. The workers at Fukushima really are working their way, from goal to goal, along their plan. Many goals achieved are things so obvious they show up on routine TV. For example, putting up a support frame for one of the reactors.

        Japan has, amazingly, asked for international help. That must have been very difficult from a face-saving point of view. I was one of the people who sent in decommissioning methods.Their plan and timeline looks good, and they’ve achieved some of the goals, and they’re holding to their schedule.

        Of course, that’s boring. It is engineering, but it’s boring.

        The fuel pool in Unit 4 is doing fine, and a bunch of rods have been removed from it. This didn’t surprise me, because at Hanford, Washington, fuel rods (the size of coke cans) were routinely pushed through the reactor and down into a pool of water. And this was done in 1944. No computer control. Rods banged into each other all the time.

        Here’s a prediction: The high-tide of Fukushima scare-mongering is past. The really scary stuff is all in the past.

        From here on, it will just get less and less scary, and more and more boring.

        It’s getting time to move on. “Nothing’s happening here”.

        Thanks,
        Dave

        • ask412 says:

          ” … yada yada, then stuff doesn’t dilute, blah blah, then “a single molecule is enough to give a human cancer”, *snicker* *snicker*.
          (I’ve seen these three dogs before at various scare-tactic websites.) Point made, step of the ‘fearmongering’ and onto science.

          So far all that has come in comments is regurgitated meme from conservative think tanks.

          Not once have you dealt with the long term effects from these man made particles on the human genome. Not to mention the almost infinite living diversity of our planets living systems.

          It is pointless parroting disinformation and denigrated actual nuclear scientists long term research. These issues are not short term, ‘the average human’s’ lifetime is crucial, but the implications are for generational damage is immense.

          Nuclear particles ingested create a diverse range of issues. Plutonium alone goes directly to male gonads* , mutating male chromosome for generations.

          From the comments there is a clear lack of understanding of the current body of knowledge in the field of genomics. Even those with a rudimentary grasp of the current science around genomics in K10- K12 can see comments are shot from the hip.

          ___________
          * http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v256/n5518/abs/256577a0.html

          • Loggy says:

            ask412, these are knowledgeable folk, they would be quite aware of the biological effects you have highlighted. My suspicion is that they are okay with it. “Small price to pay”? Fanbois maybe?

          • ask412 says:

            Loggy wrote; ” … suspicion is that they are okay with it. “Small price to pay”? Fanbois maybe?”

            After months here and several conversations, there is only three reasons they ignore the science;

            1) the value system will not consider any other scenario than the nuclear industry could not possibly be dangerous.

            2) they actually think they have the full story on human epidemiology surrounding radioactive isotopes.

            3) they are fully aware, and are prepared to defend the position out of vested interest.

            It is obvious why “fear mongering” is done.

            It’s out of out of ignorance of the science involved e.g. CAM practitioners and their followers. Let’s face it anyone who believes in homeopathy or naturopaths have questionable thinking processes.

            It doesn’t take much for lobby groups like the Heartland Institute to seed disinformation to CAM thinkers.

            After all they have fifty year old track record of this type of behaviour.

        • Loggy says:

          So Dave, what *is* this plan to recover the melted cores?
          Am I wrong in thinking that this depends on the question: have any of the cores escaped containment? It’s just that you sound so relaxed and confident: “yada yada”, “blah blah”.
          Your post above is fine if I’m not interested in the details that you so clearly have a grip of. So tell me, how does one deal with a breached core? Hypothetically of course Dave. Oh and another point you could clear up for me oh confident one: if one molecule (nay atom) would not give a human cancer, would two? Or is it more because I must have missed the official announcement on what is the safe limit of exposure to nuclear particles, of say, plutonium or strontium.
          Being glib about nuclear accidents just comes across as wrong. Somehow it seems to display a lack of respect but I may just be imposing my own standards on others again, my bad if so.

          • ask412 says:

            “Why is Fukushima Daiichi contaminated water coming issue important ?” http://fukushima-diary.com/

            One of the only sources outside the Japanese media system is the journalist Mochizuki Cheshire Iori he has a blog reporting on the activity. But operates outside the Government, TEPCO and the IAEA by reporting. In the interest of balance it is regularly gets scanned for information.

            Due diligence makes analysing the data here crucial to your critical thinking process, essential for true skeptics.

            His latest column show the extent of the cover up around the three China Syndrome incidents at Fukushima Daiichi, the ongoing contamination and its wider effect.

            “Fukushima Diary has been featuring the contaminated water issue since last summer and it’s been killing the web traffic of this site. Lol” Mochizuki
            ____________

            http://fukushima-diary.com/2014/01/column-why-is-contaminated-water-issue-important/

          • QuantumDave says:

            Loggy, perhaps this will help. When scientists and technicians at the Manhattan Project accidentally ingested some plutonium, they promptly formed a group called, “PuUP” — “Plutonium, you pee”. Chapters of this club opened up in Chicago, at Lawrence-Livermore, and so forth.

            I am relaxed about this whole Fukushima thing. I have a great deal of respect for the sheer size of the Pacific, and of the multi-megaton nuclear tests that went on in the 1950’s and 1960’s there.

            No one knows the real status of Units 1,2, and 3. Why worry about it until we know more? The water injection seems to have stabilized matters and TEPCO is moving quite slowly and quite carefully, which is the way to go here.

            I hope this helps.

            — David

  4. christian says:

    What’s most fascinating in all this is the idea of a closet industry of people quoting one another for proof of their claims. That’s the impression I get – anti nuclear activist A proves his point by quoting anti nuclear activist B and presumably vice versa. It’s like saying that Islam must be true because I can quote lots of Muslims who think it is.

    • Ken Burnside says:

      Sadly, it’s not a closet industry. It’s peer review, which, don’t get me wrong, is the current best-practice we have for research validation…but is basically what you’re describing.

      http://narrative.ly/pieces-of-mind/nick-brown-smelled-bull/ is an example of how the same process runs in scientific journals.

      My first rule of thumb: Anyone who gives you a Single Scary Ratio or Multiple without giving you the numbers it’s derived from? They’re peddling the finest of fertilizer stocks.

      • John Denys says:

        I wouldn’t trust Narratively. I clicked “All Stories” and the very first one was a profile of a ghost hunter. There was not one bit of skepticism about whether ghosts exist at all. A little farther down there was an article about communicating with dead people. Not what I would consider a reliable source.

      • Sugarsail says:

        actually no Ken, peer review is merely a process that journals use to insure scientific rigor. It is unfortunately subject to the same amount of group-think as a religion and should not be mistaken for REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT, which is something completely different and IS the best-practice we have for research validation. The public’s lack of understanding of the scientific method is the reason people aren’t able to critically debunk the BS they are fed on a daily basis.

    • b4in.info check out the ariginal article and references…. who took them out???

    • morgellon says:

      you mean like CBS NBC CNN etc. Show us the WMDs Mr Rothschild.

      • Yup! And so many more…follow money and ownership… of nuclear…government….jobs- taxes- security- pensions- on the lives of others- Is it really worth it???? DEATH? MURDER? foe what paper money? That is nothing… Life is evertthing!

        • ask412 says:

          Christine Darbyson wrote; “Yup! And so many more…follow money and ownership… of nuclear…government….”

          You seem surprised. Why?

          The basis of hard critical thinking is a logical line of argument.

          Posting random sites who carry the Abrahamic dystopian idea and meme of humans descending from a perfect to an imperfect state is an anathema to most people. [in other words blogs carrying what is seen as unsourced reliable data]

          Because those who still carry these values believe their version of ‘truth’ will allow God’s protection, if not family or personally their whole country. In this case the whole US of A.

          Those who have other values are already part of the military nuclear energy bloc and need to be addressed with respect due.

          So all the efforts to connect any genuine scientific, engineering and geopolitical overview becomes lost in branding. Commonly as nut jobs etc.etc.

          Next time you post, step back and for complete an accurate analysis of;

          Who are these commenters for nuclear energy industry are.

          Why they are here and what their values are.

          Then demonstrate some respect for their view, even if it is misguided. The most obvious clue to the values in play here is in the title.

          • David Powell says:

            I work as an operator of a major nuclear power plant in the eastern US. Ask any of the thousand people who work at the plant what our first mission is… the answer is always “Health and safety of the public”. Yes, we make electricity, but we are trained and trained and trained and monitored and monitored and tested and tested to ensure we react conservatively in the face of any challenge to the plant.

          • ask412 says:

            David Powell wrote; ” … operator of a major nuclear power plant in the eastern US” Fantastic.

            ” … we are trained and trained and trained and monitored and monitored and tested and tested to ensure we react conservatively” Point well made, we would expect no less. Trained as well as the operators and engineers at Fukushima no doubt, all care was taken within the maintenance parameters.

            It does not change the fact that the ‘state’ underwrites any major incident and that is funded by your fellow citizens, with the risk spread nationally.

            How much information on the risk have you received or studied that is outside the nuclear weapons and power complex?

    • Sugarsail says:

      it’s a symptom of any paranoid narcissistic group, much like religious fundamentalists. Self congratulatory absorption and ad hominem attacks on those that are critical of their position.

      • ask412 says:

        Pretty good summary Sugarsail.

        Called cognitive bias in psychology, the inability to distinguish between facts presented and the national group or personal value systems.

        My caution to us all over cognitive bias, is that scare mongering has done great damage smoke screening the facts as they roll in. Scare mongering done largely in ignorance. Since due diligence is a personal matter and it needs to be rigorous, no matter what our beliefs.

        The biggest tell currently there is a large issue ensuing with radiation in the US, is this tender for Potassum Iodide by Department of Health and Human Services Dec 06, 2013 3:35 pm.*

        This fact raises far more questions than the ‘deniers’ could possibly justify.

        _______________
        *
        https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=5cd0c1800435272c80ad292aeb9d1ba7&tab=core&tabmode=list&amp;
        _______________
        Ongoing Fukushima nuclear incident issues in 2014

        http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/30/us-fukushima-workers-idUSBRE9BT00520131230

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/01/fukushima-ghost-towns-high-radiation-levels-tsunami

        http://sandiegofreepress.org/2014/01/uss-ronald-reagan-sailors-to-refile-suit-for-fukushima-radiation-poisoning/

      • ask412 says:

        This Potassum Iodide quote request raises more questions than any denier or nuclear lobbyist could possibly justify.

        Just why is there a request by Department of Health and Human Services for the supply of Potassum Iodide and in quantities needed in 2014?

        Just to be clear this is;

        14,000,000 doses Potassum Iodide

        that are only used to protect the Thyroid from radiation poisoning and then largely in children.

        _____________

        https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=5cd0c1800435272c80ad292aeb9d1ba7&tab=core&tabmode=list&amp;

        • Irritated Kalifornian says:

          When I googled “potassium iodide request” I get a link to info wars & Alex Jones.

          • ask412 says:

            Irritated Kalifornian wrote; “I get a link to info wars & Alex Jones.” I just scanned his data and if ever there is a source of disinformation this guy would have to be in the top ten in the US.

            What is interesting is through your ‘net history’ your search engine has thrown up an idiot up as a source.

            Can only recommend science / history scanning based on University papers and legitimate credible sources.
            _____________

            The belief that the nuclear weapons and energy industry does not keep the public fully informed is literally ‘alien’ concept. An anathema to most mindsets, so forms an integral part of their values and vision.

            However the critical thinker can scan through propaganda, and be open to far more information.

            “To discover the truth in anything that is alien, first dispense with the indispensable in your own vision.”
            ~ Leonard Cohen ~

          • Irritated Kalifornian says:

            Due diligence? nope. Just reminds me of the stories about the DHS buying loads of ammunition or the one about FEMA having all those coffins stockpiled. Am not a fan Alex Jones & info wars just mentioned that that was where I found the story. Which should be self explanatory. What else do you know about my net history?
            oh yeah, I can quote people too, How about this one ” the great enemy of the truth is often not the lie, deliberate & contrived & dishonest but the myth, persistent, pervasive & unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion w/o the comfort of thought… ”
            or this one ” tis a tale told by an idiot full of sound & fury… signifying nothing.”

          • ask412 says:

            Irritated Kalifornian wrote; “Just reminds me of the stories about the DHS buying loads of ammunition”

            Why does that not surprise me?

            You probably are unaware of the values you just exposed in that comment.

            “tis a tale told by an idiot full of sound & fury… signifying nothing.”

            So true.

          • Irritated Kalifornian says:

            Well you would know of course.

        • Irritated Kalifornian says:
        • Irritated Kalifornian says:

          oops sorry that’s April 2012. My bad.

        • It appears HHS also ordered 1.4 million doses of potassium iodide…way back in 2005. http://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/2005pres/20050318.html

          Seems like it’s a pretty standard Health and Human Services purchase. Maybe Homeland Security can drop them off in the 2,600 street tanks they didn’t buy.

          • ask412 says:

            Mike Rothschild wrote; “Seems like it’s a pretty standard Health and Human Services purchase …”

            Could not agree more or put it better myself.

            For over sixty years US citizens have been conditioned to accept preparation for large scale nuclear incidents.

            Routine, sure, it could be, is this likely?

            Time will tell.

            The irritation with scare mongering is fully justified and should be encouraged.

            One thing is certain, discounting harm as glibly as you do is not very scientific.

            So far all the data is not in regarding the contamination and it’s repercussions. This will take decades for marine scientist to analyse and that is just one discipline within earth sciences.

            So I am sticking with Carl Sagan’s Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking, rather than your depth of intelligence on the subject.

            After all given the tone of this site any conclusion based on current science and the geopolitical situation would be rash within this very short timeline.

            ____________

            http://goo.gl/JadVU3

        • QuantumDave says:

          On the potassium-iodide request, take the solicitation number, (14-284-SOL-0015A) and Google it. With a little time reading stuff, going from agency to agency, I’ve found out what this is about, and I have zero problems with it.In fact, it’s a good move.

          You say that this request raises more questions than any denier or nuclear lobbyist could possibly justify.

          Now look. I am *not* a denier. No way! I am *definitely* not a denier!

          :-)

          I also don’t work as a “nuclear lobbyist”.
          (And I have to wonder, what does a “nuclear” lobbyist do? Button-hole members of Congress for a bill giving protons “equal status” in the atom? Try to get “transparent observer” status to quantum physics?)

          Well, let’s go on a thrilling, Indiana Jones – type adventure and track down the evil conspiracy that is doubtlessly at work here!

          This purchase is for 700,000 packets. Each packet has 20 pills. The pills are 65 mg potassium iodide. Interestingly, the child dose is 65mg, but the adult dose is twice that, 130 mg.
          Each dose (65/130) protects your thyroid from radioiodines for one day.
          So 20 pills is, uh, 20 days for a kid, and 10 days for an adult.

          The request comes from DHHS, Health and Human Services, or possibly the Department of Homeland Security. (Wow! The chase! The excitement is compelling! )

          So we google, “DHHS” +”14-284-SOL-0015A” .

          (I hear you starting to snore).

          Okay, okay, I’ll cut to the chase.

          If you’ll drop by the CDC … “Center for Disease Control”, you’ll find out that
          FEMA originated this request, in the 2002 timeframe. It’s for something they call Project Bioshield. What they’ve done is stock up on remedies for various unpleasant things that terrorism might bring. So they’ve stocked up on anthrax vaccinations, smallpox, and so forth.
          One other thing they stocked up on was potassium-iodide.
          This all goes into something called the SNS, which is the “Strategic National Supply”.
          The idea of the SNS is to be able to handle a multiple-state problem; they literally have cargo pallets loaded with all this stuff, and can deliver it to your state in a hurry.
          The state level does all the distribution.

          Believe me, you’ll be reading government documentation. I was just thrilled with the documents updating how much potassium iodide should be checked during a periodic disaster-exercise, and that 6 years between counts of KI are enough.

          Let me recommend a place or two to look-see:

          http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/emergency/kiguidelineshhsfinaldraft11082004.pdf

          “In accordance with the provisions of Section 127 of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, P.L. 107-188, (the Bioterrorism Act), this document provides guidelines for States and local agencies regarding acquisition of potassium iodide (KI) from the Strategic National Stockpile and for the State or local stockpiling and/or distribution of KI and its utilization in the event of a radiation release from a nuclear power plant. “

          However, other agencies caught a whiff of money to be had (I mean, come on, this is a bill to increase protection against Bio-terrorism; who’s going to vote against THAT?)

          So wander over to the CDC, and it will tell you MUCH more than you ever wanted to know about SNS. (Note: Everything in the world shows up if you just Google “SNS”. It’s an acronym for damn nearly everything).

          http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/stockpile/stockpile.htm

          That page has enough links, pictures, and so forth to stun a goat. Not only will you find out about the SNS, you’ll find out … EVERYTHING about the SNS. And they are proud of themselves.

          http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/publications/A_Natl_Strategic_Plan_for_Preparedness.htm
          will at least show you how many bazillion other government agencies were consulted.

          You can then drop by Congress, in 2004-ish testimony before the House of Reps, where the head guy, I think from FEMA, talks about this Act and the efforts to comply…

          By 2007, they had bought 1.7 million child-sized liquid doses, and that contract was extended to another 3 million doses.

          Try:

          http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/emerg-preparedness/about-emerg-preparedness/potassium-iodide.html

          Be sure not to miss the FDA’s … for heaven’s sakes … SPREADSHEET about this.

          Hey…, that was DEFINITELY somebody else snoring?

          Quick, how can I keep them awake?

          Ummmm… errrrr….

          “Government adds 700,000 person protection against radioidiones… err. Boring.

          Government Adds Protection For The Whale Community … ?

          Oh, well.

          Enjoy. I spent an interesting couple of hours finding out that the government is doing exactly what it should be doing re: bio and nuclear terrorism.

          thanks,
          Dave

          • Irritated Kalifornian says:

            The thing that irks me is “So what?” How is putting up a request from the government inform or educate some one about Fukushima? How does it help the lay- person understand the situation? It serves no useful purpose. It’s just another way to spin the story.

          • ask412 says:

            Irritated Kalifornian wrote; ” … How is putting up a request from the government …no useful purpose. It’s just another way to spin the story.” The US citizens faith in ‘authority’ without question is highlighted once again.

            This is where a true skeptic is different. Because all information has a purpose. All data is useful applying principles outlined by Carl Sagan’s Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking.

            Raising just how imperative studies on the effects to our environment from these incidents are essential and need daylight.

            Just when did anyone hear a government proposing a long term investigation around these incidents?

            Yet the long term studies would be invaluable.
            ___________

            http://goo.gl/cMwU22

          • Jay says:

            That was very well written. I gotta be honest. I was also on the phone with my government and was told I was being stonewalled about how much radiation hit us in 2011 after telling off the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization.

  5. Anon says:

    This article is too long and too fragmented to read.

    • Extremely fragmented. Seems to contradict itself, too. #9 & #10 don’t jive, either. And… if you are trying to convince people to listen to reason, you should never insult them.

      • Anonymous says:

        The people Rothschild* is attacking are the ones writing this dreck, not the readership. Why would he waste his time trying to “persuade” those authors that they’re wrong. What does Michael Snyder, Christian prepper and author of apocalypse porn, gain by convincing himself the world is NOT ending?

        *And I love the idea of an article attacking conspiracy theorists being penned by a guy named “Rothschild”

        • QuantumDave says:

          Aaand you get an instant and permanent ignore, for attacking Mike because he has a last night.
          I realize you might think you’re “anonymous”, but the way you write is like a fingerprint.
          Enjoy Hell.
          — Dave

      • Sam says:

        Not true. Anyone who mindlessly buys into this fear-mongering crap needs to be publicly insulted and shamed. This is the only way that some of them will learn, and that’s good enough.

      • John Denys says:

        You know the list is from a different article don’t you?

      • ask412 says:

        jessaminnetJessa Minnet wrote; ” … if you are trying to convince people to listen to reason, you should never insult them” Appreciate the comment and could not agree more.

        With the caveat that is real for the people capable of listening. As you know that is dependent on their life conditions and personal development.

        Read the tone, language, biases and what Machiavelli wrote over 500 years ago fits many contributors on this thread.

        There are three classes of intellects:
        1) one which comprehends by itself.
        2) another which appreciates what others comprehend;
        3) and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others.
        The first is the most excellent, the second is good, and the third is useless.

        ~ Niccolò Machiavelli ~
        May 3 1469 – June 21 1527

  6. Freke1 says:

    All true (probably) but You could just as well write a post about how clever it is to build nuclear reactors on earthquake prone land with millions of people living there thinking it’s safe. Why don’t skeptoids debunk the industry or the government? Debunk the FED for example. Debunk the global warming denial funding, debunk the TARP, debunk the NSA surveillance, debunk the revolving door between the FDA and the food industry. Think of things in a historical context, all fiat currencies go to their real value (zero) and the impire collapses, earth has pole shifts and is hit with meteors causing havoc and climate change, the oil is finite and we can’t even burn what we’ve found already (due to the tipping point/runaway green house effect), the Yellowstone supervolcano will erupt again. If You see nuclear power plants on faultlines in that context it’s just a disaster waiting to happen. Have we seen the last tsunami? Have we seen the last California mega earth quake? Look forward, think ahead, what’s gonna come. It’s not like the radiation level is going down, the uni feeds drop, americans get slimmer, the climate stabilizes and the electric planes and cargo ships are here already. Only now (24 years later) are scottish sheep farmers free of Chernobyl’s radioactive fall out:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scottish-sheep-farms-finally-free-of-chernobyl-fallout-2020059.html
    Again debunk the safety of Your country’s energy policy fx. to get both sides covered pls.
    Just an idea. Don’t bother if You don’t want to.

    • John Denys says:

      Gish gallop.

      • Moral Dolphin says:

        Freke does it all the time.. Challenge him on it. You get the same answers..

        Its pretty refreshing from the normal run of the mill “the sky is falling” set.

        Freke, so what do you think of having entire populations being threatened by tsunamis and earthquakes by building in these geo-unstable regions.

        From memory, The fukushima incident was as predicted, the lest injurious event amongst many many terrible outcomes in a disaster.

        In fact, as badly managed as the Fukushima incident was post disaster, it still was as normal, many times safer than any equivalent industrial system knocked over.

        The real fact is, Conspiracists dont get the point that tens of thousands perished in the event and still they quote the worst example for fear mongering there is. But that is conspiracism at its best.

        Personally, this is profoundly distasteful behaviour on the heels of a panic merchant media that still publishes garbage on the incident to date.

        Makes you feel a bit closer to being a charitable and compassionate conspiracist doesn’t it?

        I really dont know how this shift in focus has helped anyone lost of affected by the tsunami disaster. Maybe patronisation by westerners is appreciated in some regions. Even if its in regions in the west.

        • Freke1 says:

          the good citizens of fx. San Francisco must really be happy go lucky, live by the moment kind of people. I followed cyclone Yasi live – not my idea of fun. Mobile homes in Tornado Alley makes a lot of sense to me. Don’t fight nature unless there is no other way.

    • Pavel says:

      What does the Federal Reserve have to do with Fukushima, what the NSA surveillance have to do with the Fukushima, etc?

      You’re basically criticizing the author for staying on topic.

    • QuantumDave says:

      “… the uni feeds drop…”

      I’m sorry, but I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Could you enlighten me?

      — Dave

  7. David Small says:

    Hmmmmm … one Michael Snyder posted 28 items here of how we’re all gonna die. The current trendy way to die is Fukushima radioactivity. Going back in time, I seem to remember when I was younger, “Nu Nukes” was trendy, with notable physicist Jackson Browne. And there was a bit of interest in alien abductions back when. I know this dates me to the Jurassic Age. Sorry.
    I see that he has a book out, “The Beginning of The End”. And he runs a web site called,
    (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/) … $4 at Amazon.
    Now, I’m sure that Michael is unbiased and pure as the driven snow. I’m not *accusing* him of *anything*. No, really! See, I’m not crossing my fingers! I too am only motivated by my deep concern for Humanity.
    However … when he’s predicting a FukuDisaster … I begin to wonder. I admit it.
    Seems like there might be a bit of a conflict of interests — scared people buy books with titles about “The Current Crisis Today”.
    I am *not* saying that he’s using Fukushima here to scare people, because scared people buy books about disasters and how to live through them and such.
    Thank you for reading what I didn’t say you shouldn’t.
    — Dave

  8. Brian Tucker says:

    You must keep off long flights if you’re keeping your radiation exposure that low. I measured the exposure on a round trip flight from Seatac to Charleston SC with a Navy issued thermoluminescent dosimeter and recorded 12 mrem, about the same amount I received standing watch next to the reactor on a submarine in roughly 80 days.

    • QuantumDave says:

      It’s kind of ironic. The only way to approach zero radiation is to put a thousand feet of ocean above you, which filters out cosmic rays and hard gamma and such.

      The only way you can really get to that safe point is, of course, to work on a US nuclear-powered submarine.

      — Dave

  9. Irritated Kalifornian says:

    My personal gripe is the way Fukushima is always compared to Chernobyl. The only similarities between the two events was that they both happened at Nuclear power plants.

  10. Susan gerbic says:

    Thank you for this blog, came in my inbox in time for someone close to me to have heard a story on the radio and start telling me a lot of the claims you discuss.

  11. David Small says:

    Mike, I really like your debunking here. Concise and to the point.

    When I saw the “Being Fried” twaddle, I, too, wrote up a reply.
    Ya know what? It’s a lot of fun to point out how silly that article was.
    (I gave special awards to stuff like “all life on the West Coast is dead”,
    a completely stunning, spectacular 56-word run-on-sentence. Reading it is like being hit with a hammer between the eyes.)
    Another award went to the Sociology prof thinking he knows reactor physics.
    (Alas, not much has changed from college, has it?)
    Did you catch where he edited the “radiation map” to change all those green symbols into red ones? (Just go the website.)
    I truly enjoyed him playing big-number-pile on — he quotes four different people all insisting their number was right.

    Unfortunately, my reply is close to 5,000 words. I’m really unsure if I should post it here. I think it’d give you a smile, but yes, it’s long.
    Do you want to look it over?

    Thanks, Dave

    • ask412 says:

      Thank you jessaminnetJessa Minnet a voice of an aware individual.

      That will fall on deaf ears, but well intended and appreciated. Quoting a source with liability on this matter is clever and encouraging. Using an evolved set values not demonstrated by those crouching behind a wall of very limited liability of the energy industry, designed to quarantine the elite within MLP transitional corporation.

      What is true is scare mongering as it is termed is damaging the brand and this is an anathema to the power and wealthy courtiers of this questionable experiment by dead and dying generations. Leaving a legacy of the nuclear production cycle lasting longer than even current generations will never no the true metrics of.

      The fact there is three China Syndrome events from this Fukushima incident ignored. The writer here dismissing this as just one reactor failure. How can anyone know the effect underground where the hot fuel has drilled down through concrete to the artesian water?

      As of October 2013 reactor rods in these melted reactors are being removed from damaged repositories where possible. If there is a failure in this procedure or an earthquake the world will shudder.

      The biggest problem is TEPCO have run out of experienced ‘plant maintenance engineers’. They never did have the needed commissioning engineering and experience needed to deal with this nuclear incident. The escalation of contamination in the region clear evidence of this. Neither did they have commercial insurance, as no actuary in the world will step up and take the risk with nuclear energy production.

      Then there is the glaring issue of information.
      All the press releases are guided and vetted by the IAEA the nuclear military and energy authority controlling all information. So using what line of logic does anyone believe the information on the contamination risk is minimal?

      Particularly when we see the dominance of digital information used by the gov/military bloc recently highlighted globally.

      Naive, unaware of the sheer ability of control containing any ‘climate of fear’ that might generate and damage the nuclear branding further.

    • PeterJ says:

      Fairewinds isn’t exactly an unbiased source regarding nuclear energy.

      http://atomicinsights.com/arnie-gundersen-caught-on-video-lying-about-risk-of-radiatio-
      released-during-fukushima-event/

      • ask412 says:

        Seriously. Why not?

        This is an issue of critical thinking. Are you saying that the biases front and center are not clear and distinct?

        On the other scale just who are the ideas Tradewinds are challenging?

        The answer to that rhetorical question; ‘The IAEA and the whole nuclear energy industry worth trillions of dollars as an income stream.’

        The point is; are you so biased by the power and leverage of the industry that Tradewinds is to be discounted?

        If so that is not how critical thinking works. Bias is accounted for critiqued and part of the thinking.

        What motive are you challenging Tradewinds on? Is it vested interest?

        It would be interesting to have a response.

      • Sorry Fairwinds is reputable? Has anyone seen the queries about this arnie dude? His is known psyop as is Leuren Meuret. Oopsy! One big fat red flag for me with the latter is the mention of 6 reactors melting, um some of them were in shutdown and why does reactor number 3 looks like a bombsite with a reactor nowhere to be seen an ejected fuel rods? It was nuked and reactor number 4 was empty as was 5 and 5.

        Japan was nuked by Israel and they have a Stuxnet virus system, for any meltdowns and things like reactor number 3 to blow up they would have to use bombs to get past the safety systems. Japan has a gun to their head by those who initially nuked them both at Fukushima (hence the strong radiation there) and the “tsunami” was caused by a nuke and don’t everyone else agree that for a 9 eathquake, why was there buildings standing when Kobe which was weaker was toppled?

        Also the date 311 or to me 11/3, smells of illuminati to me.

      • ask412 says:

        Seriously. Why not?

        This is an issue of critical thinking. Are you saying that the biases front and center are not clear and distinct?

        On the other scale just who are the ideas Tradewinds are challenging?

        The answer to that rhetorical question; ‘The IAEA and the whole nuclear energy industry worth trillions of dollars as an income stream.’

        The point is; are you so biased by the power and leverage of the industry that Tradewinds is to be discounted?

        If so that is not how critical thinking works. Bias is accounted for critiqued and part of the thinking.

        What motive are you challenging Tradewinds on? Is it vested interest?

        It would be interesting to have a response.

        • Peter says:

          Who/what is tradewinds? If you can’t even read my reply, maybe you shouldn’t be lecturing me on not being a critical thinker.

          Maybe you can tell me what ideas fairewinds are challenging because i can’t seem to find a clear mission statement between all the poorly sourced scaremongering about nuclear power they are disseminating on their site.

          And saying that fairewinds is challenging ‘the IAEA and the whole nuclear industry worth trillions of dollars as an income stream’ isn’t exactly critical thinking either. “Fairewinds energy education” seems to be all about challenging the problems regarding the nuclear energy industry but not the problems regarding the coal, gas and oil industry which have a higher death toll and are causing a lot more pollution than the nuclear industry.

          • ask412 says:

            Interesting comment. But failed line of logic.

            The IAEA is denying there are serious issues and these are on record. As is the source within your links, and known nuclear industry lobbyist.

            Gunderson is one of several nuclear industry engineers saying the opposite. From this perspective every point he has raised has proved true on the timeline of the Fukushima incident events.

            For a man with credibility and experience what is to be gained financially?

            So what else is he doing but challenging the status quo? Blowing the whistle.

            The world knows what the US military block does to people like this. Just research the source of your data and value system in play. Please do not believe me.

            Peter wrote; “…After all nuclear energy industry but not the problems regarding the coal.”

            Brilliant observation, five gold stars.

            Arnie Gunderson is a specialist nuclear scientist / engineer.

            Why would he comment on the carbon energy industry?

            The thread is discussion about the idiocy of ‘scaremongering’ generating a climate of fear around nuclear energy.

            Which is definitely foolish as there are genuine health concerns and issues of denial. People’s lives at risk and respect is due.

            All scaremongering does is galvanise opinion and anyone coming with a bias cannot see past it.

          • Peter says:

            ask412 says:
            “November 1, 2013 at 11:20 pm
            Interesting comment. But failed line of logic.

            The IAEA is denying there are serious issues and these are on record. As is the source within your links, and known nuclear industry lobbyist.

            Gunderson is one of several nuclear industry engineers saying the opposite. From this perspective every point he has raised has proved true on the timeline of the Fukushima incident events.”

            Ah, so IAEA and nuclear lobbyists cannot be believed because they are pro-nuclear but Gunderson is saying the opposite must therefore be right? And you are accusing me of following a failed line of logic? I think you don’t know what critical thinking is.

            I don’t think Gunderson is wrong because he is against nuclear industry, I think Gunderson is wrong because he is wrong.

          • ask412 says:

            Thanks for the comment Peter, apologies for the late reply.

            Support of nuclear as an energy choice is not just support of the concept and potential. You are backing transnational corporations application of it.

            Peter wrote; “Ah, so IAEA and nuclear lobbyists cannot be believed because they are pro-nuclear but Gunderson is saying the opposite must therefore be right…I think you don’t know what critical thinking is.”

            Critical thinking includes awareness of biases, not just our personal biases but those associated in the subject matter. An awareness of the issues in play, an acceptance biases do exist.

            Having examined your answer there is only one conclusion:

            That there is a personal belief that the primary directive of profit before corporate social responsibility-CSR suits your beliefs. That’s ok, if that works for you and is respected.

            The questions for everyone examining sources around nuclear power, inclusive of ‘whistleblowers’ is relatively simple.

            1.) Do we trust an individual or group who is prepared to go against the transnational corporate primary directive of profit before CSR?

            2.) Do we trust an individual or group who supports transnational corporations and primary premise of profit before CSR?

            In law; transnational / national corporations and MLA operate with indefinite life and limited liability.

            This limited liability protects executive, shareholders, stakeholders, MLP and financiers from legal liability.
            CSR is not mandatory, except in a few regions and certainly not in the US or Japan. To add another layer limiting liability the nuclear industry inclusive of energy production answer on incidents only to IAEA.

            What is interesting is no actuary in the world will insure these transnational corporate entities engaged in any nuclear power production. Insurance is left to the taxpayer via their government, very clever if you can sell it and from the comments here they have.

        • QuantumDave says:

          I admit, I’m tired of hearing about “critical thinking”. I realize you are superior to me in every way, but I’m just burned out on seeing it in virtually every note you leave.

          However, it pains me to mention that you’re out of date on facts.

          Perhaps what you say might have been true in the 1960’s, with high budgets, secrecy, and so forth. But those days are long gone. It just plain sucks to be in the nuclear industry.

          The heady days of multi-thousand warheads were 1970 or so, mounted on MIRVs …they are all gone. (In fact, there are no warheads in the Army and the Navy. Strategic Air Command was mothballed in the 1990’s. We do keep around some B-52’s, but they tend to be used for regular bombing stuff.)

          The US civilian nuclear reactor business died in late 1970’s.

          You said, ‘The IAEA and the whole nuclear energy industry worth trillions of dollars as an income stream.’

          If this were true, then how come there have not been any nuclear reactor orders in the US since late 1970’s?

          ( It’s sort of difficult to pay the bills without any sales.)

          The two main nuclear weapons plants, LANL and LLNL, are struggling to keep afloat, looking for new research they can do. Rocky Flats, which used to make plutonium cores for nukes, was decommissioned somewhere around 2004, and that plant is *gone*. This means we don’t have the capability to make a nuclear core, except possibly making a few by hand.

          You might want to skip on saying that it’s a “secret” that nuclear reactors make plutonium. A reactor has so many neutrons flying around that some will stick to a U-238 nucleus, and make Pu-239.

          That fact was first published in 1946 in Henry Smythe’s excellent book about the Manhattan Project, and is in most of the nuclear databooks I have. It’s also in Richard Rhode’s book, Los Alamos Primer, and the Reactor Handbook (since U-238 in a reactor makes more fuel, in the Pu-239) It’s all over the place online. That is what the Hanford Reactors were for — to make, atom by atom, plutonium.

          We sure don’t need anymore plutonium. Why on earth would we bother making more when we have (literally) tons on-hand, plus the Soviet stuff we bought, blah blah blah, yada yada yada. It’s a pain in the ass to store.

          Some gets blended into uranium to make MOX fuel rods. Some U-235 gets blended into U-238 to make fuel rods, and basically get *something* with all that stuff hanging around.

          Take a look at the Pantex website. Pantex is where they take apart nuclear weapons. Last time I dropped by, the amount of plutonium they had was measured in tons.

          • ask412 says:

            QuantumDave wrote; “I admit, I’m tired of hearing about “critical thinking”. I realize you are superior to me in every way, but I’m just burned out on seeing it in virtually every note you leave.” If the tone of comment reflects critical thought it is left alone, unfortunately many commenters have done little higher education and do not understand the concept. After all, it is essentially formalised skepticism and a core principle or premise of the site. Just step off if it the ‘term’ is repeated and offends your core values. Because the idea of skepticism is why most of us are here, the fact you are accepting the fifty year old political solution about this issue really is a question for your interior, not mine.

            _________________

            Firstly, lets deal with your perception of my superiority. This cultural default lept to is one very destructive part of the Abrahamic line of values and can only recommend resistance. These values originate from ‘humans’ descent from a perfect state in the garden of eden just over 6,000 years ago and denigrating into a ‘current’ imperfect state and a ultimate dystopian end. This leads to cultural classifying of those worthy of gods favour in rapture or being saved from the inevitable man induced Armageddon. Ergo certain human individuals are superior, more worthy, a principle that still motivates many cultures. Obvious examples are The Third Reich, and Fundamentalist Islamic regimes, I leave other current parallels to your discernment. Adding a meritocracy carries this as a baseline or foundation as a central premise, best called a relic of earlier values.

            I don’t buy into this dystopian descent of humans or the current level of development of the meritocracy. But see individuals and groups it in context of human evolution.

            Put simply it is just another relic of tribal belief. I am highly aware that many have not developed values past this level of thought. This does this make me superior. But just a person on a different stage of development, who due to my life conditions have been able to read widely and have the privilege of higher education.
            __________________

            QuantumDave wrote quoting me; ” … ‘The IAEA and the whole nuclear energy industry worth trillions of dollars as an income stream.’ [QD] If this were true, then how come there have not been any nuclear reactor orders in the US since late 1970? s?”

            Trillions of dollars have literally been spent and will continue to be spent and many people lose sight of the long term real world cost issues with the nuclear industry. It is after all integral to the military / Government bloc.

            Firstly; power generation has been a cover for production of weapons grade plutonium, there is no escaping this most basic fact. Why else has there been a raging debate in geopolitical terms over new nuclear states, Iran as a recent example?

            Secondly; Design, commissioning, power production / maintenance, decommissioning, ongoing waste storage and long term environmental damage are included in my comment. The cost of any nuclear plants full cycle has only been estimated from within the industry and projecting into their imagined future. Just when were forward projections on such a scale accurate? In this case never, because the timeline exceeds generations literally and no plant has been fully decommissioned. [ “Mr Fox looking after the hen house” a classic metaphor we all live with. The IAEA Mr Fox ]

            As for transparency, only someone living a delusion would believe we have any transparency from multinational corporations, particularly the Military / Government / nuclear industry. Even more so in light of all the whistleblowers who have surfaced over the last few decades exposing hidden geo-political agendas of multinational corporations, there partnerships and integral nature with governments. Groups who leverage local laws with wealth / power for profit before humans and have legally given indefinite life as corporate entities.
            __________________

            “… tons on-hand, plus the Soviet stuff we bought, blah blah blah, yada yada yada. It’s a pain in the ass to store.” Interesting comment.

            So how and why does this answer why the man made plutonium came into existence?
            Why has there been ‘no need’ to build more nuclear power plants? That is a question you have already answered in context of the US political scene. Again I will reiterate, many lose sight of the full cost of the nuclear cycle, taking part of the cycle as slice of truth.

            QuantumDave wrote; “… It’s sort of difficult to pay the bills without any sales…” Sales of what, just power?
            Naive comment, given all the numerous streams of income corporations derive within the Military Government nuclear industry. Power production is a is a relatively small income channel and diminishing with efficiencies with the trending reduction in consumption.

            As for cost of the whole nuclear industry, have you seen just how little the US population earn lately?

            Looking at the US spending and general earnings might give you a broader perspective of just how much the US Military / Government Bloc* has cost taxpayers.

            Can only recommend some due diligence and actual deep thought. When all is said and done if you are comfortable with your constructed reality, step off and leave the thinking to others.

            Just keep on cheering using faith in the tribe and accept no responsibility for unevolved behaviour of the cultural centre of gravity.
            ________________

            * http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/11/daily-chart-15 

            http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/01/daily-chart-8 http://goo.gl/8Mhqej

            http://goo.gl/8Mhqej

    • John Denys says:

      Fairewinds just seems to be a aggregator of anti-nuclear articles taken from any random source. The stories often loop back by quoting Arnold Gundersen. If you want to read what he thinks then Fairewinds is your source. Other than that I would be skeptical.

  12. Harm Korten says:

    Some good points, some bad points. Some arguments, some opinions. Some facts, some assumptions…. Reminds me of the pieces by the doomsday folks. This piece is hardly a debunk of anything, merely an alternative narrative with some factoids.

    I tend to follow my gut feeling and common sense … These tell me there’s a lot of truth in the doomsday narrative, just blown out of proportion (as usual) and facts are usually glued together creatively to come up with surprising conclusions.

    Overall, I believe Fukushima is a real problem, seeing too many reports that would suggest this. Perhaps not of the magnitude som suggest. Your evaluation seems way too positive and simply seems aimed to cherry pick the ‘dumber’ of the doomsday folks, pick up their weakest arguments and obliterate those. It’s of course a logical falacy to think you thereby debunk the entire premises of Fukushima being a huge problem to Japanese, the ocean and world population as a whole.

    http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1848433/the-ocean-is-broken/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg4YWZIgivc

    • John Denys says:

      The article you provide a link to is inaccurate. Power poles in Japan are made of cement. They’re maintained by NTT and are right outside my door. He also claims to have seen many things that don’t float, like a chimney, near Hawaii. Seems like the author just made up the whole thing.

      According to Wikipedia the guy in the video, Chris Busby, sells supplements that he claims will protect people from radiation. I’m sure I don’t need to point out to most of you that it’s an enormous red flag when someone talks about a danger and just happens to be selling the antidote.

      • Moral Dolphin says:

        Dammit John.. you have just ruined my chances of selling infinite homeopathic arnica (1500C) through skeptoid..

        Damn you!

      • ask412 says:

        John Denys wrote; “According to Wikipedia the guy in the video, Chris Busby” Interesting.

        So your sources researching nuclear industry environmental issues are put out by the IAEA, wikipedia and pro nuclear blogs.

        Great if that works for you here is an appropriate link.
        ________________________
        http://goo.gl/l0FPyP

        • John Denys says:

          What are your sources and why do you believe them?

          • ask412 says:

            Great starting point, and a good stage* to hold a conversation on. “So your sources researching nuclear industry environmental issues are put out by the IAEA, wikipedia and pro nuclear blogs.” ask412

            John Denys wrote responding; “What are your sources and why do you believe them?”

            Overcoming denial* is a not easy. Appreciate the honesty in a public forum. What sources would you like?
            ___________________
            *http://goo.gl/snPo9m

          • John Denys says:

            So if the IAEA and Wikipedia are not to be trusted what are your sources? Also, what was the line of reasoning that lead you to decide that those sources were better? If you have the time, could you give some instances in which the IAEA or Wikipedia are mistaken on a substantive issue with regards to the Fukushima plant?

        • John Denys says:

          By the way Paul, do you think it is a good sign when someone is warning of a danger and selling an expensive antidote. A Google search of Chris Busby fills your screen with articles about his “radiation pills” and how they are quackery.

          • ask412 says:

            John Denys wrote; “radiation pills” and how they are quackery.

            Missed this earlier, apologies. You have evidence this is quackery do you?

            I correspond with Chris Busby and no one would make vast profit out of what he does.

            If you want a real world comparison, take a look at what a typical multinational corporation does routinely.
            Projecting ‘corporate motive’ of our meritocracy onto Busby’s value set just demonstrates your own.

            His intent could not be further from your tone and implication if he tried.

            But that requires a different perspective or value set to appreciate and I am aware of your level of thought.

            So its all good, no problem.

            The comment is just a useless heckle and it certainly has no relevance to the commenters point. But it is typical of all you comments.

      • But he is rocking a cool beret. Points for that.

    • Moral Dolphin says:

      Harm, that is precisely what Mike R set out to do..isolate the “dumber” (almost creationist galloping) argument from the debate. This started off a few months ago all about the US being perceived as having a monstrous burden wrt contamination initiated from a disaster in Japan.

      The japanese experience and comparisons were not ever taken into account, it was just the US conspiracist knee jerk to champion their cause. I am absolutely sure the posters Mike R criticised do not even care about the tsunami and the effects. They just care about rhetoric.

      Is Mike R correct to do so? certainly, if we focussed on the feckless operations around the clean up and compared that clean up to deadly industrial events that were also associated with tsunami, we note there is a hell of a lot of cherry picking going on..

      That is the responsibility of a skeptoid blogger to point out in their blogs. Fallacies are their bread and butter. Pointing out each and every fallacy from a wild and hairy wish list from a clearly fundamentalist position (we dont like reactors) is par for the course and should be noted when reporting garbage posts going viral.

      I am sure Mike R could follow many posts with “Ah! you have compounded another fallacy in the post that I reported on. Thanks for that, I’ll save your fallacy for another follow up on nuclear hysteria”.

  13. John Denys says:

    Here in Japan after the Fukushima accident many people and parties, especially the communists (JCP) wanted all nuclear power plants shut down immediately. The problem I have with this is that when you stop producing electricity in one way you have to either cut down on use or increase production in a different form. I’m not enough of an idealist to think that people will significantly cut down power use.

    People talk about lofty goals for 2020 or 2050 but take a look at 2012 at this graph : http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10391

    The article goes on to explain:
    “Between 1987 and 2011, nuclear generation accounted for an average of 30% of Japan’s total generation. As a result of the nuclear outages, fossil-fueled generation of electricity rose to 90% of Japan’s total electricity output during 2012, with 8% from hydro and only 2% from nuclear.”

    The problem with fossil fuels is of course greenhouse gas emmissions. Another nasty fact is that burning fossil fuels, especially coal, releases mercury into the environment. Here’s a link to the Wikipedia article on the mercury cycle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_cycle#cite_note-Pacyna-4
    Note the Anthropogenic emissions of mercury section.

    I think the debate on electricity production should be carried out with the pros and cons of all sources of energy taken into consideration, not with slogan or scaremongering.

  14. Interesting, hey Mike, your last name is Rothschild. Any chance your a pawn of the power elite who’s job is to distract and dis-credit the population from the truth? Less than three months after the disaster an independent study at Cal-State Berkley detected radiation in the drinking water of San-Francisco at 10,000 times the allowable amount. The government starts buying up all the potassium iodide while telling the population not to do anything, that everything is fine? That makes sense. When radiation started showing up in milk they just raised the allowable amounts? This is all documented fact and just within months of the disaster, we are now at two and half years. It doesn’t take an expert to figure out that things should be much worse at this point. During World War II the Japanese sent hot air balloon bombs over the pacific on the jet stream, and many of them actually made it. This is documented fact. So I suppose the you’re going to debunk the jet stream now? The more likely explanation is that our government and the Japanese government are covering up the truth and do not want to inform the public about what is going on. There have been countless nuclear experts that have spoken out on this matter and the severity of the situation. I suppose you know better about this than a nuclear scientist? Give me a break man! All you people who are lapping up this drivel need to wake up. By the way, even if not all of the information contained in these articles is accurate, does not mean that there is not an actual crises going on. It may only be affecting the Japanese severely at this point, but it ‘s only a matter of time before it affects us all in a more delayed manner.

  15. John Denys says:

    Another issue when comparing energy sources is the number of deaths involved. At Fukushima 2 men died in a hydrogen explosion. In US coal mines the number of deaths has been:
    2006 47
    2007 34
    2008 30
    2009 18
    2010 48
    2011 21
    2012 20

    Here’s a link to the US Dept of Labor site: http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/FactSheets/MSHAFCT10.HTM

    In China the number of deaths per year has decreased recently but is still staggeringly high.
    2000 5,798
    2001 5,670
    2002 6,995
    2003 6,434
    2004 6,027
    2005 5,986
    2006 4,746
    2007 3,770
    2008 3,210
    2009 2,631
    2010 2,433
    2011 1,973

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_China#By_year

    When pollution and deaths in the mines are taken into account it seems to me that nuclear power is actually a safer choice.

    Of course the best choices are solar and wind but they never seem to be an economically viable choice. Germany touts itself as being green but it still generates over half its electricity from fossil fuels.

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html

    • Irritated Kalifornian says:

      Don’t they also buy power from France? Seems I read that somewhere.

      • John Denys says:

        According to the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (Statistisches Bundesamt) :

        As in the six years before, Germany on balance was an electricity-exporting country in 2012. The Federal Statistical Office (Destatis) reports on the basis of data provided by the four large transmission system operators that 43.8 terawatt hours (TWh) were imported to Germany via the European electricity grids in 2012. Over the same period, Germany exported 66.6 TWh, which is a surplus of 22.8 TWh.

        In a Wall Street Journal article I read:

        The main destinations for German-produced electricity were the Netherlands, Switzerland and Austria, said the statistics office, citing data supplied by Germany’s four power transmission grid operators.

        The main sources of power imports into Germany were France, Denmark and the Czech Republic, it said.

  16. Mark Wilmoth says:

    http://www.netc.com is run buy an Internet dial up service and if you think that website is crappy, you should see how crappy their business/Hot Springs Arkansas tourist website is.http://www.hsnp.com

  17. j says:

    debunked with hardly any facts… nice one

  18. demonaghan says:

    Radiation takes a while to kill sometimes. Sometimes it affects the reproductive cells in mammals and birth defects happen to the next generation. Take a look at what has happened in Fallujah because of the depleated uranium municions left behind by the USA. Horrific. The young are the ones who will suffer from this the most.

    • This is a perfect example of why the public needs to be scientifically literate. Depleted uranium – depleted of its fissile content – is not significantly radioactive. It is less radioactive than a glow-in-the-dark sticker or watch dial.

      • ask412 says:

        According to the IAEA the overarching global authority on the nuclear military / energy industries.

        Since they reject all medical evidence contrary to this, what else would they say? The outcome is called politicised science.

        Something the Heartland Institute has used effectively and still does.

        http://youtu.be/OoASZyihalc

        • Peter says:

          If you don’t believe the IAEA you could obtain some depleted uranium yourself and test the radioactivity with a geiger counter.

          • Actually I have a piece here in my office — it’s readily available as it’s used in a variety of industrial products and applications (ask Professor Google for examples). Though I admit I’ve never had occasion to point a Geiger counter at it.

          • ask412 says:

            Ignorance can be damaging, but it is fixable. This comment is deliberate strawman line of logic and a fallacy.

            Science is out on depleted uranium* and nothing can be done about it, except the usual denial.

            The strawman strategy is commonly used by lobbyist in big tobacco and other transnational corporation avoiding liability.

            If denial works for that’s ok by me, as it’s transparent from this altitude.
            _________________________
            *http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013402003914

          • QuantumDave says:

            Just order some from unitednuclear.com. Or a rock from eBay.

            It’s kind of funny when you run your Geiger Counter on those, because after the initial thrill of it clicking away, you realize it’s just a damn rock.

            :-) Dave

    • Moral Dolphin says:

      No, this is another amped up story that doesn’t work demonaghan. Copied from Rense 2004 and net transmitted to suit conspiracists.

      Please read something a bit more scientific than rense copies.

  19. sigivald@gmail.com says:

    A becquerel is one radioactive decay event per second.

    20 billion of them is nothing in terms of radiation release; serious radiation release events are measured in petabecquerels (10^15, 6 orders of magnitude larger).

    (e.g. the Kyshtym disaster in the former USSR released ~74 PBq off-site.)

    20 bBq a day in the pacific is background noise; the (estimated) radioactive activity in the Pacific total is HUGE.

    Mostly Potassium, at 28 Bq/g of water. The Pacific is (per Wolfram Alpha) 6.6×10^20 liters, and thus (at 1025 or so g/l) we get … 1.91×10^25 Bq of radioactive potassium decay in the Pacific.

    That’s 20bBQ a day (2X10^10) vs just under 2×10^25.

    Fifteen orders of magnitude difference between the claimed daily addition and the “normal, natural” total.

    (One might maybe not want to eat fish from RIGHT at the discharge point, since they’d be concentrating it; but to worry about the entire ocean? Innumerate.)

    • Moral Dolphin says:

      I think the hyperbole was aimed at micron sized bits of sintered materials containing alpha emitters in the previous article. These wouldnt be a problem but I left a few questions just to tease the guy into doing a bit of research and GASP.. deriving a few values.

      Why derive? He said he was a physcist.

      As to the rest, the guy above with the units and multiples problem has the right idea. So correct is he a nice follow up reply on natural alpha emitters would look dandy.

      People learn more when they get ideas..

  20. John Denys says:

    I wonder how Snyder thinks the radiation from Fukushima could cross the Pacific and affect an area from Alaska to Mexico and yet people are still alive in Fukushima prefecture. My wife’s uncle lives in Iwaki city (about 30 miles from the power plant) and hasn’t been “absolutely fried” yet. It’s almost as if Snyder doesn’t realize that as something fans out it generally gets weaker.

    • John Denys says:

      By the way, I know talking about one guy is anecdotal evidence so there’s no need to point it out. Thanks anyway.

      • Moral Dolphin says:

        People all over the region live and work, fish and swim John. This isnt anecdote, this is an indication that conspiracist hyperbole is about as accurate as the hyperbole surrounding any other such event.

    • Linda says:

      John, as something fans out, it gets weaker? Not cesium.Study it. Biomagnification.

  21. quinndiesel says:

    I have one problem with this piece. It makes the claim that the radioactivity will dilute and therefor be harmless. While this is true in the immediate future, it may not be the case as it gets concentrated up the food chain. A perfect example of this is mercury. It’s concentrations in the water are very low, but it gets concentrated in the ocean predators, many of which we eat (tuna?). A similar concept can be seen in wild boar from Germany and Easter Europe. Radioactivity, which was dilute and harmless in the soil has concentrated in them and many are unsafe to eat.

    • Eric Hall says:

      Mercury is different chemically, so compared to other elements (including radioactive ones) it will behave differently in ocean creatures (and humans). Also – radioactive materials are radioactive because they decay into other elements (and eventually stable elements). They are not analogous.

      • QuantumDave says:

        Eric, I agree. People don’t realize how very different elements are to each other. And radioactives add weirdness to all that.
        Plutonium has to be the weirdest metal *ever*. Depending on the temperature, it acts like five competely different elements.
        Magnetic field? Conducts electricity? What’s its critical mass?
        (And for heaven’s sakes, can it be stabilized? )

        I suggest the Plutonium Handbook. It’s about two inches thick, in an attractive yellow hard cover, from the American Nuclear Society.

        Sometimes I think I should just post the books in my library of things nuclear, so people know what to look for. It was hard for me to learn this stuff, and some books (“The Curve of Binding Energy” are extremely informative and written in plain language.

        thanks,

        Dave

  22. Bruce Norbeck says:

    All I can say is that I found the article quite easy to read & understand, so I’m not sure why people are calling it “fragmented.” I’ll stop there, as I don’t have the scientific knowledge to contribute anything meaningful.
    OTOH, I can’t help suspecting I’m not alone in my scientific ignorance.

  23. This is the original article with the buried references: who took them out? HMMM 28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Fried With Fukushima Radiation | Alternative
    b4in.info
    By Michael Snyder | Economic Collapse | October 20, 2013 | 3:25am EST We are talking about a nuclear disaster that is absolutely unprecedented,

  24. Funkmon says:

    You said radiation wouldn’t hurt pups more than adults…is that true? Most things kill children more than adults. Got a source on that?

  25. John Denys says:

    I should have asked this when there were more people active in the discussion but does anyone have any podcasts they would recommend that talk about nuclear issues.
    Thanks for your help.

  26. Is there any which isn’t with the psyops?

    P.S. I too find it funny that with the nukes people in Japan are still there as well! Just shows you how manipulated things are!

    I too noticed about the Rothschild surname as well, but there CAN be good members of the family also and we also have to look for the Knights of Malta in this as well – they are the “army of the vatican” so to speak.

    • John Denys says:

      It doesn’t seem like Mr. Suzuki knows anything at all about the Fukushima plant. He says, “Three out of the four plants were destroyed in the earthquake and in the tsunami.” There are six reactors there. The idea that the whole west coast of North America would have to be evacuated in ridiculous hyperbole. The Fukushima disaster released 10-30% of the radiation of the Chernobyl accident. Was all of the Ukraine or Belarus evacuated? It seems Mr. Susuki has more passion about the issues than facts.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Units_4.2C_5_and_6

      • John Denys says:

        The other guy in the video David Schindler knows how many reactors there are but thinks that six of them failed. He doesn’t seem to have many facts about the accident either.

      • Dave says:

        Dear sir where did you get this information that Chernobyl one reactor melt down pollutes more then three reactors melt down in fukushima, What is your reference to your above statement. please share this so i can know the truth.

  27. This is a great example of how so many activists seem to think that it’s okay to misrepresent information, mine for correlation, and straight up lie if it advances their cause–undermining things for people who care not only about the environment, but intellectual honesty as well. The ones speaking the loudest are usually the most full of shit. People who are actually committed to the truth tend to speak in understated tones, make constant qualifications, and say things like “I could be wrong.” They also tend to get drowned out by screaming dogmatists.
    Two relevant quotes:
    “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” – Mark Twain
    “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” – Darwin

  28. RemainCurious says:

    I’m no fan of fear mongering, however it is crucial to be informed about events that could potentially affect not only the entire western United States, but the Northern Hemisphere. Never-before-attempted-critical-fuel-rod-removal-that-could-cause-a-nuclear-explosion-anyone? This is happening now and, even though the US Dept. of energy has become involved (is this a good sign?), there is no significant coverage of this global issue. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19073-risky-repair-of-fukushima-could-spill-15000-times-the-radiation-of-hiroshima-create-85-chernobyls and http://japandailypress.com/us-to-help-tepco-with-dangerous-fukushima-fuel-rods-removal-0438954/

  29. Irritated Kalifornian says:

    I am not a scientist,but please explain how fuel rods from a power plant could detonate & cause a “nuclear” explosion.

  30. Irritated Kalifornian says:

    The truth can’t even find it’s shoes let alone put them on. And “never before attempted” fuel rod removal? Really? Fuel rods have never been removed before?

    • RemainCurious says:

      Spent fuel rods have never been removed from a damaged spent rod pool. Fuel rod removal is a precision exercise in the best case scenario; in these circumstances this procedure is indeed unprecedented.

      Did you even read the article, or follow it’s sources? Or did you dismiss it o of hand based upon bias? It appears that the “fear mongering” you claim might be getting the best of your ability to analyze information from multiple perspectives.

      I’ll admit that perhaps I was imprecise in describing it as a “nuclear explosion”, however if the fuel rods are removed improperly they could easily start a fire which, or potential explosion, would release massive amount of radiation.

      A quote from Robert Alvarez, former Senior Policy Adviser to the Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for National Security and the Environment at the U.S. Department of Energy:

      “In recent times, more information about the spent fuel situation at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site has become known. It is my understanding that of the 1,532 spent fuel assemblies in reactor No. 304 assemblies are fresh and unirradiated. This then leaves 1,231 irradiated spent fuel rods in pool No. 4, which contain roughly 37 million curies (~1.4E+18 Becquerel) of long-lived radioactivity. The No. 4 pool is about 100 feet above ground, is structurally damaged and is exposed to the open elements. If an earthquake or other event were to cause this pool to drain this could result in a catastrophic radiological fire involving nearly 10 times the amount of Cs-137 released by the Chernobyl accident.

      The infrastructure to safely remove this material was destroyed as it was at the other three reactors. Spent reactor fuel cannot be simply lifted into the air by a crane as if it were routine cargo. In order to prevent severe radiation exposures, fires and possible explosions, it must be transferred at all times in water and heavily shielded structures into dry casks.. As this has never been done before, the removal of the spent fuel from the pools at the damaged Fukushima-Dai-Ichi reactors will require a major and time-consuming re-construction effort and will be charting in unknown waters. Despite the enormous destruction cased at the Da–Ichi site, dry casks holding a smaller amount of spent fuel appear to be unscathed.

      Based on U.S. Energy Department data, assuming a total of 11,138 spent fuel assemblies are being stored at the Dai-Ichi site, nearly all, which is in pools. They contain roughly 336 million curies (~1.2 E+19 Bq) of long-lived radioactivity. About 134 million curies is Cesium-137 — roughly 85 times the amount of Cs-137 released at the Chernobyl accident as estimated by the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP). The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi site contains nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel).

      It is important for the public to understand that reactors that have been operating for decades, such as those at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site have generated some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet.”

      Source: http://akiomatsumura.com/2012/04/682.html

      • RemainCurious says:

        From the Japan times:

        “In November, Tepco plans to begin the delicate operation of removing spent fuel from Reactor No. 4. There are 1,300 used fuel rod assemblies in a pool above the reactor. They weigh a total of 400 tons, and contain radiation equivalent to 14,000 times the amount released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. The spent-fuel pool, standing 18 meters above ground, was damaged by the earthquake and tsunami and is in a deteriorating condition. It remains vulnerable to any further shocks, and is also at risk from ground liquefaction. Removing its spent fuel, which contains deadly plutonium, is an urgent task.

        Even under ordinary circumstances spent-fuel removal is a difficult task, normally requiring the aid of computers. But due to the damage, removal of spent fuel from Reactor No. 4 and the five other reactors will have to be done manually. This work will be undertaken in arduous conditions, increasing the risk of yet another mishap.

        And if something does go wrong, the consequences could be far more severe than any nuclear accident the world has ever seen. If a fuel rod is dropped, breaks or becomes entangled while being removed, possible worst case scenarios include a big explosion, a meltdown in the pool, or a large fire. Any of these situations could lead to massive releases of deadly radionuclides into the atmosphere, putting much of Japan — including Tokyo and Yokohama — and even neighboring countries at serious risk.”

        http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/08/29/commentary/government-must-take-over-fukushima-nuclear-cleanup/#.Unrs02TEpZu

        • Eric Hall says:

          the other thing is scale can sometimes be misleading. 14,000 times the release – but what is the time frame? I can say my friend drank 700 times the water as I did – but if I then say he drank that over two years versus my amount which was just today, it starts to make more sense.

  31. Irritated Kalifornian says:

    When an article starts off with scare stuff like 15,000 x Hiroshima & create 85 Chernobyls, it’s time to step back. That is fear mongering at its worst.

  32. Yep. Those links tick off all the boxes. Anti-corporate gibberish? Check. Scary out-of-context numbers presented without sufficient scientific proof to back them up? Check. Naked scaremongering? Check. Sources of information comprised almost entirely of anti-nuclear activists and websites? Check.

    Of course the fuel rods should be removed safely. Everyone wants that. But should something go wrong, Tokyo won’t be vaporized and the west coast won’t be made a radioactive cinder.

  33. Irritated Kalifornian says:

    slow news day ? no deadly storms? no mass shootings, no new wars ? anything? Bring out the Fukushima fuel rod stories.

  34. Irritated Kalifornian says:

    Yeah I read the article, & I didn’t read anything new or different than what I have been reading. I realize the rods are not just cargo, & I could rattle off some stats & quotes like you did. The most disturbing thing about the story is it’s scary sounding headline, what the heck is 85 Chernobyls anyway? or 15000 Hiroshimas? it sure sounds scary, but what does it mean? What information is that supposed to impart?Other wording in the article is also annoying such as if or when it “blows”. I do not take the subject lightly which is why I have been following it for so long. You went from saying “nuclear explosion” to start a fire, or explosion, ( nuclear or not ? you didn’t specify.) big difference there, & how would the fuel detonate? Regards I.K.

  35. Patrice Ayme says:

    People who advocate ecology and are against nuclear power in general, especially future nuclear energy technologies, are either ignorant fools, or complete fake.

    On the other hand, they get lots of mileage from the lethal fossil fuels industry and the bleating mob mentality of the luddites.
    http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/40-billion-earths-yes-no/

  36. Anonymous says:

    Good article, shame your last name’s Rothschild though since it’s mostly truthers that believe this stuff anyways! xD

  37. @ChazH – radiation is not a “toxin.”

    • Loggy says:

      Jeez Mike, I’ve been following this for a while and while I like a good debunk, I have to ask the question: are you for real?!

      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/radiotoxicity

      • QuantumDave says:

        Sheeesh, people still hassling Mike over his last name…
        It reminds me of 6th Grade in school.
        C’mon, people, lay off of him. He’s written a very good debunking of the hysteria surrounding Fukushima.

        — thanks,
        David

        • loggy says:

          RUOK Dave?

          I’m afraid you’ve got your facts wrong and I’m here to debunk them 😉
          I clearly went nowhere near his name.

          So one of a few things has happened here:
          1. You were drunk and replied to the wrong post; drink less.
          2. You deluded yourself to think I was indeed talking about good ole Mike’s surname; smoke less.
          3. You are throwing up a diversion to protect Mike’s weird assertion relating to toxicity; get a hobby.

          Granted, there may be another possible reason for your faux pas so if none of my 3 guesses have hit the mark feel free to inform me as to where I have erred.

          If asked, I’d advise against using the anti-Semitic tactic against me again as it may come across as shouty.

          BTW, did something bad happen in 6th grade that you’d like to talk about? lol

          • ask412 says:

            Interesting comment, loggy. The ‘toxin’ sat on the thread highlighting the source of most of Mike Rothschild’s data. A ‘faux pas’ or parapraxis?

            The epidemiological meaning of toxin does not exclude cellular damage caused by a radionuclide natural or manufactured.

            As you are aware, ‘toxin’ is not really a ‘term’ that carries any other meaning except in the nuclear industries vocabulary.

            As QuantumDave wrote; “… a very good debunking of the hysteria surrounding Fukushima” Still, that is very subjective.

            What is also interesting is most supporters of the Disney Generations dream of safe, free energy from nuclear power also fail to grasp global warming and subsequent climate change issues globally. Instead differing toward values promoting ‘conservation’ of capital.

            But agree Mike Rothschild has put a genuine case against an emotional reaction towards disinformation and hysteria that acts a smoke screen re-enforcing bias for and against. A very clever propaganda tool now fine tuned by lobbyist and their agencies*.

            A strategy used by Russia* in Crimea and the Ukraine during the first half of 2014 challenging European energy de-coupling.

            Another interesting fact is the adversarial mindset on the planet carries a beleif system from a thousand year old punitive set of tribal values^. And that all the major conflicts between nations originate from the same dominating unevolved level of thought.^
            _________
            * http://goo.gl/kr9pai
            ^ http://goo.gl/NDMwmG

  38. Kevin says:

    Keep it up Mike, more on Alex Jones’ fearmongering please!

  39. Anonymous says:

    I’ve been around a lot longer then than anyone I read here. I’ve heard all this before. However it was about those reeducation camps in Germany during WWII. Even with photos no one believed the horror of the death camps. Now we have young people who can’t believe such a horrible thing could have happened. Yes, the 3 reactors on mainland Japan are KAPUT!! It takes 300 million gallons of water to keep 1,300 radioactive rods from blowing. Thats 300 million a day folks and the government of Japan still doesn’t know what to do. As Mr. Torres my 7th grade science teacher told me back in well back some time ago. “Nothing goes nowhere, everything goes somewhere!” Watch for the demise of the plakton loving whale I believe the Baleen Whale. That would indicate that enough of their food source has been contaminated to kill one of the worlds largest mammals. We are next.

    • John Denys says:

      There should be a name for the fallacy of arguing on the basis of what some teacher supposedly told you decades ago. One, you probably don’t remember the science correctly if that is your best source. Two, it shows you haven’t been reading anything about the subject lately.

    • Eric Hall says:

      I did a quick conversion of units here – 300 million gallons is a cube a little over 100 kilometers on a side. I have a feeling that is a bit of a gross exaggeration.

    • ask412 says:

      Appreciate the comment. Respect the effort to explain from your altitude, still hecklers come with the territory.

      Anonymous wrote; “…been around a lot longer then than anyone I read here … enough of their food source has been contaminated to kill one of the worlds largest mammals” This is part of the problem, very few understand the integral nature of life on earth. Only able to frame our planets ecosystems against human constructed complexity. The orders of magnitude of difference are totally opaque*.

      So the conditioning toward consumptive values of our era bias every thought.

      Until our integral position is grasped by the centre of gravity, any warning about the consequences just does not matter. Put human existence into the time frame of the cosmos and the arrogance in many comments is apparent. In evolutionary terms we have just started and are still struggling with tribal values.

      We can only hope we evolve past this stage, because our technology and values mean the consequences could be terminal for our species.
      __________________________
      * http://goo.gl/C1E110

  40. John Denys says:

    Just out of curiousity, how many of you have kept up on the WHO reports on the effects of Chernobyl? Here’s a link if you’re curious: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/index.html

    • ask412 says:

      John Denys wrote; ” … how many of you have kept up on the WHO reports” Many.

      What is interesting is all the WHO heath reports on nuclear incident effect are vetted by the IAEA the industries self regulatory authority, The whole nuclear weapons and energy industry self appointed group of regulators.

      This is a separate body to the UN and report directly to the Security Council. Their power is sacrosanct as they are at the apex of information disseminated by the UN about anything.

      Transparency issues surrounding the military bloc inclusive of the United States is obvious to a critical thinker.

      • John Denys says:

        Paul, Paul, Paul, if you think the WHO, IAEA, the US military and, as mentioned in another post, TEPCO are all somehow connected then I just can’t be bothered trying to explain reality to you. My only advice would be to read less fiction and watch fewer movies.

        • ask412 says:

          That works for me as a typical corporate strategy projecting the issue away by pretending the IAEA does not represent the military nuclear industry.

          John Denys; “if you think the WHO, IAEA, the US military and, as mentioned in another post, TEPCO are all somehow connected I just can’t be bothered trying to explain reality to you”

          “I just can’t be bothered trying to explain …” Understandable.

          This is a totally unfalsifiable statement and according to you mine is not. Yet anyone can read from the IAEA site they oversee the military nuclear sector.

          The WHO is not commanded by the IAEA, all the data around medical incidents related to the nuclear industry submitted to the UN are vetted by the IAEA.

          After the IAEA has reported their position on the data to the UN Security Council. It is the Security Council that release medical data pertaining to nuclear issues to be published.

          The World Heath Organisation does not have the ‘connection’ you intimate to the IAEA, it is censored by them.

          There literally ‘is’ no command connection between the IAEA and WHO. The command connection is the UN Security Councils oversight of WHO with the UN General Assembly.

          Both the IAEA and the Security council are representing military groups. The IAEA is only subordinate to the UN Security Council. With the IAEA quarantined by Security Council during routine reports in the UN General Assembly.

          This is the main geopolitical arena after all, just how dumb do you think the planets military bloc are?

          Your comment either reflects a nuclear lobbyist brief or someone modelling their language.

          • John Denys says:

            Here’s an article from RationalWiki on your favorite conspiracy theory:

            The WHO-IAEA conspiracy is a conspiracy theory stating that the World Health Organization is subordinate to the International Atomic Energy Agency when it comes to publishing research about the health effects of radiation and nuclear technologies, or in other words, that IAEA has veto power over any “inconvenient” information coming from the WHO. This theory traces back to an actual agreement between the two agencies reached in 1959, which contains nothing of the sort. The theory is often used by the anti-nuclear movement to dismiss WHO reports on nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl, which show that the health effects of radioactive releases are generally minor and far less severe than impacts from the fear of radiation.

            Text of the WHO-IAEA agreement

            Below is the full text of the first article, which is the most relevant.

            “”
            AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY AND THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
            Article I – Co-operation and Consultation
            1. The International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organization agree that, with a view to facilitating the effective attainment of the objectives set forth in their respective constitutional instruments, within the general framework established by the Charter of the United Nations, they will act in close co-operation with each other and will consult each other regularly in regard to matters of common interest.
            2. In particular, and in accordance with the Constitution of the World Health Organization and the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and its agreement with the United Nations together with the exchange of letters related thereto, and taking into account the respective co-ordinating responsibilities of both organizations, it is recognized by the World Health Organization that the International Atomic Energy Agency has the primary responsibility for encouraging, assisting and co-ordinating research on, and development and practical application of, atomic energy for peaceful uses throughout the world without prejudice to the right of the World Health Organization to concern itself with promoting, developing, assisting, and co-ordinating international health work, including research, in all its aspects.
            3. Whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement.

            Anti-nuclear campaigners typically show the third clause without showing the second. The highlighted part of the second clause recognizes that the IAEA cannot order WHO to do anything that would hinder its mission. The WHO itself has also stated that it is not subordinate to the IAEA.

          • ask412 says:

            Good to see a reply. John Denys wrote:
            “Here’s an article from RationalWiki on your favorite conspiracy theory: …”

            Flooding this converstion with lines of copy from lobbyist agencies will not work in this conversation.

            Neither will branding political awareness and critical thinking as a ‘conspiracy theory’. That might work as a heckle in your region, but not here. But the passion in the jingoism is noted.

            Then there is the attempt at linking a 1959 document to the current geopolitical arena. This also is disappointing to read and relatively naive in the extreme.

            Most importantly in the reply there is no accounting for the reporting of the IAEA directly to the Security Council and by default the General Assembly.

            Not to mention the routine censoring used by the military on record from the start of the whole nuclear industry in the 1930s/40s. Neither can anyone in light of recent transparency around secrecy strategies take the line of logic refuting this seriously.

            From this perspective, can only recommend a conversation with a political scientist or listening to a lectures on the basics. Perhaps using “The Prince” by Nicolo Machiavelli as a foundation for study, complimenting it by reading current era analysis with application to our era**.

            Appreciate the effort in comment.

            However the foundation of any hard critical thinking hinges on comprehension of context, biases positive or negative and a credible line of logic. Which are the very basic of analysis.

            There is no room for nativity around political and military censorship. It is what it is.
            ____________________________
            * Free copy of “The Prince” – http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm
            ** http://www.cqpress.com/product/Encyclopedia-of-Political-Science.html

          • ask412 says:

            What is opaque to so many is the primary use of ‘nuclear energy reactors for power’ is its source for weapons grade nuclear material * .

            The ‘story’ of power production when analysed just a cover to placate those conditioned enough to believe it is essential for energy. Now resold as a ‘green washed’ clean technology, another one for the politically naive unevolved mindset.

            Not since the break in diplomacy with Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavī ruler of Iran overthrown in February 1979 has the US been able to negotiate a such a significant deal.

            It is clear to the widely read, the main reason Israel is so hostile to the concessions given to Iran is slowly and surely they are coming under the control of the IAEA. The very idea an anathema to all Israelis who live surrounded by others of the adversarial Abrahamic mindset and under constant threat.

            So there is a new member of the ‘nuclear weapons club’, and it another country with Abrahamic ** adversarial set of values. Not a good sign for peace, security and safety of the whole planets ecosystem.
            ____________

            * https://theconversation.com/uranium-plutonium-heavy-water-why-irans-nuclear-deal-matters-20694

            ** http://goo.gl/3R6eW5

    • John Denys says:

      This is the second time this junk has floated up.

      This article is rubbish. In Japan telephone poles are made of cement. This is because they are stronger in typhoons and hold up well in coastal environments.

      Please read the other comments before posting nonsense. Thank you.

      • ask412 says:

        John Denys wrote; “This article is rubbish. In Japan telephone poles are made of cement. This is because they are stronger in typhoons and hold up well in coastal environments.”

        “This article is rubbish” Yes, using your analytical strategy.

        Actually Japan mostly has concrete and steel power an landline poles. Having embarked of a change over during the last twenty year due to increasing timber values.

        The tensile strength is not as great an issue as cost, because most of the outer prefecture were the last to rollout and many timber poles still exist in the country today.

        That is why the Tsunami washed them out to seat in March, 2011.

        “Please read the other comments before posting nonsense. Thank you” Self righteous indignation is noted.

        But hardly the mindset of a skeptic using University level critical thinking principles. More like another heckle. Sigh …..

  41. Markito says:

    Doesnt Iodine 131 have a half-life of a few hours? its what they use when taking XRays or MRI scans to check function of the kidneys. Hardly going to fry the living sh!t out of you is it?

  42. ask412 says:

    Markito wrote; “Doesnt Iodine 131 have a half-life of a few hours? its what they use when taking XRays or MRI scans to check function of the kidneys. Hardly going to fry the living sh!t out of you is it?”
    “Doesn’t Iodine 131 have a half-life of a few hours?” No, it is about eight days.

    That means that half of the quantity can still aggregate in a mammal and cause mutation of cells 8 days after ingestion. In human terms in the thyroid, in children’s terms this a critical area of growth hormone as their cells are dividing and growing at a faster rate. Particularly when in the natural cycle of growth spurts, that happen unannounced.

    Do you need to see medical text or pictures of the outcomes on children?

    Markito wrote; “Hardly going to fry the living sh!t out of you is it?” No, you are an adult.

    But I would put money on you not downing an Iodine-131 child damaging dose during its full decay life.

  43. fjseligson says:

    What i gather from Mike R’S remarks are that most of these assertions of danger might not be as serious as is claimed. That is not comforting at all, for he could be wrong, and his “sorry” a few years from now would not help us. “Better safe than sorry.” Just to pick one bone, fish do not stay in one place. They CAN GET INFECTED WITH RADIOACTIVITY AND SWIM OVER HERE EASILY TO KOREA, EVEN ACROSS TO California, ESPECIALLY IF EATEN BY A BIGGER FISH, WHICH CONSEQUENTIALLY WOULD BECOME INFECTED. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ONLY ONE FISH WHO HAS SWALLOWED OR WHOSE BODY HAS BEEN SOAKED OR WHO HAS EATEN INFECTED SEAWEED OR OTHER FISH, BUT MILLIONS OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS.i’D RATHER ERR ON THE SIDE OF THE WORSE CASE SCENARIO THAN THE BEST. THEN WE WOULD HAVE A STRONGER CALL TO IMMEDIATELY NEEDED ACTION.

  44. saxa says:

    Nuclear Exodus: Pandora’s Promise Was A Lie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrZZNzC3f8g

  45. While some of these counter arguments may be plausible, this article is filthy with ad hominem attacks, cherry picking and straw man fallacies.

  46. Lol – this guy’s a Rothschild? hahaha.. He’ll be safe in his deep underground base if anything goes wrong..

  47. So how long does the dumping of radiation continue into the Pacific Ocean and into the atmosphere? When does this then become a concern to humanity? Although nobody wants to fear monger, but when does humanity have to become alarmed by this constant spewing of radiation into nature? Mr. Mike Rothschild, do you have the answer to this question? If not, don’t you believe that humanity should be concerned about this on going spilling of radiation into nature? This has been going on for nearly three years now!!!

    • I don’t think humanity should be alarmed at the radiation leak. It’s certainly not a good thing, and the plant needs to be decontaminated, but that’s in progress, and seems to be going well, (if slowly) so far.

      As I’ve said in all three Fukushima pieces I’ve written, the amount of radioactive water leaking seems like a lot, but compared to the vast scale of the Pacific Ocean, it’s not. Compare it to dropping a few drops of red food coloring in a pool. The further you get from the place where you dropped them, the more they dilute, until they barely exist anymore. Isn’t that how homeopathy works?

      There’s no evidence that radiation from Fukushima is having the catastrophic effect that the anti-nuclear panic merchants claim it’s having. We should all keep an eye on the situation and seek out news from reputable, scientifically sound sources.

      • ask412 says:

        Mike Rothschild wrote “I don’t think humanity should be alarmed at the radiation leak.” You haven’t done you homework then, because the evidence of damage these man made nuclear particles have on the ecosystem is well known and recorded as an integral part of current science.

        No doubt the Navy personal attending the tsunami ripped coast of Fukushima, Japan thought just like you. Now the evidence of radiation damage is coming out and those effected early are in now not in denial. Still it will be forty years before all the mutation damage from ingested particles becomes evident, plenty of time fro those responsible to discard evidence. The big question is ‘why is there no major studies being done of the Fukushima residents’? That raises more questions than any denial.

        Many peoples personal take on this reads just like the denial around asbestos and the US government and many other denied that for over hundred years.

        Really you need to check you stand, the evidence has forty years to surface. And the environmental decontamination attempts will be running even longer. If you could do a vox pop of the average Japanese taxpayer they would be far less certain they you are. They are far better informed and unlike you have not been nuked as a nation.

        As for catastrophe, I agree against the background of issue of environmental damage the nuclear issue is just one of many the US is directly responsible for. To focus on this one incident of three China Syndromes at Fukushima is naive, no matter how bad they are. But to deny the damage, blindly believing the government/military story is just not clever.

        Because history is full of those responsible washing their hands clean of any stench and we have more than enough recent incidents to demonstrate your faith is misplaced.
        _________________
        http://nypost.com/2013/12/22/70-navy-sailors-left-sickened-by-radiation-after-japan-rescue/

        • ask412, I am in full agreement with your statement. Believing that Fukushima is not every bit the catastrophe that it truly is would be naive at best.

        • Assuming these sailors all did contract some form of radiation poisoning, this would have happened with a much closer proximity and dosage than anything that could possibly be hitting the west coast.

          And I don’t “blindly believe” the “official story.” I believe the science. And the science refutes virtually all of the hysterical claims coming from panic-driven websites like ENE News and globalrearch.ca.

          • QuantumDave says:

            This thread, re: fukushima scare-mongering, is simply the most fun to read and gives me a smile in my mailbox, and wins my annual award for Most Consistently Great Website, for 2013. Thanks, Mike!
            I hope this gives you a smile:
            * * *
            A Contest Suggestion!
            My suggestion would be: Hold a contest for the most lame-brained, science-fantasy, completely idiotic “Fukushima News”. In other word: Fictional. (For those people out there who do not know, “Fictional” means “Not Truthful”.)
            A typical entry might be, “All Life In The Universe To End In Two Weeks”.
            * * *
            A Grand Prize!
            The Grand Prize will be a pint of water from San Diego, in the Pacific Ocean. (*sigh* yes, I have to tell some people where San Diego is.)
            Yes!, it will be!! the LAST Radiation-Proof Ocean Water!!! For All Time!!!! From The Hopelessly Contaminated Pacific!!!!!
            (Okay, I added that just to get to 5 exclamation points).
            *** Your Entry! !!!!!
            A contest entry needs to have several qualities (to abuse the word “quality”):
            * First, it MUST say it’s a FICTIONAL contest entry. (How else can we know if it’s a contest entry or more sludgeware propaganda?)
            /* Sanity Free Zone */
            * Must regard radiation as an evil, malignant, but poorly understood, instantly fatal *disease*, that can be spread by casual sex or on public toilets, or, too much masturbation (look, we’re all grown-ups here, we can pass this Important Information among us);
            * Must sell Potassium Iodide as a radiation cure-all;
            * Must know that radiation will kill you, on average, when you approach 84 years (86 for women);
            * Optional: Extra points for living in California (and I’ve lived there!);
            * Must show an IQ approaching zero (the value of X as X approaches 0);
            * Corollary: Must show a general down-to-earth rationality of 1 / X, as X approaches 0.);
            * Allowed Tolerance in the Corollary: Leary’s Law (“must show signs of taking a lot of acid”);
            * Does not know what “X approaches 0″ means;
            * Must regard the Pacific Ocean as having one gallon of glowing water;
            * Thinks a neutron is about the size of a green pea;
            * Show intelligence as open, powerful, and spiritually flexible as 7 kilograms of plutonium-239, rapidly assembled;
            * Be willing to quote the very damndest sources, about which I’ll discuss:
            *** Discussing Very Damndest Sources:
            * Must quote “experts” such as Helen “A million people have died from Chernobyl” Caldicott, or “Overpopulation will cause cannibalism by the 1980’s”, Mr. Population Bomb himself, Paul Ehrlich;
            * Must quote noted physics experts as… Jackson Brown, (from those dreadful “No Nukes!” concerts (*shudder!*) — I burned my No Nukes t-shirt that a humorist in my family sent me), or perhaps the epic, “Could not find his underwear without a 12 person search team” , IAEA’s Hans Blix. If we want Fukushima to never be fixed, station Hans Blix there, or as he’s called in Japan, “Hans Bricks”, pun intentional. (Ah, those happy-go-lucky Japanese having their fun…)
            * I think the most important item:
            *** Must show a willingness to buy, buy, buy books, membership to various Secret Fukushima News websites, and thus pay the people I call “the usual suspects”. ***
            {What, you think they’re writing this stuff out of some fuzzy, global concern for mankind? I’m sorry to have to tell you this, IT’S THEIR JOB. They work on it 9-5 and they hawk their books at regional shows. It’s just a book business, okay?}
            [From “The KookAuthor Spotting Guide”, which I wrote and will sell you a copy for just $49.95 in three easy payments! Operators are standing by!)
            In terms of sheer immoral conduct, writing KookWare books. Really. Can’t we get all these Kookware authors onto a South Pacific island (say, Eniwetok or Bikini) and run some indiscriminate, very high yield thermonuclear tests there? (That means, “H-Bomb”. You’re welcome). We did 15 megatons on March 1, 1954 — a good sign! I think KookWare authors would, overall, be much improved if they were converted into highly actived dust and go hover in the ionosphere for several centuries.
            Hey … it just hit me… March 1, 2014 will be the 60th Anniversary of Castle-Bravo’s nuclear test! Wow, I gotta write this up! (OK. Sorry.)
            (*sigh* Look for a book about “Ever-Lasting Life After Being At Ground Zero”. You know someone is going to write it…)
            A Kookware Promising Sign: Look for kookware authors who were into The Population Bomb (Paul Ehrlich) back when that was trendy, even though it promised cannibalism by the 1980’s; (Ehrlich, Amazon, from $7 to a jaw-dropping-pure-unbelievable-mercenary $17.95). Ye gods!, 18 bucks for a bunch of predictions already proven false? This guy could sell to Tim Turner or Donald Trump!
            Look for kook-ware authors who were abducted by aliens and-wrote-a-book-about-it-to-buy (say, Whitley Streiber), when that was trendy, (Whitley, Amazon, $4.95 — no longer trendy)
            Look for kook-ware authors who were very, very anti-nuke, and-wrote-a-book-about-it-to-buy (say, Whitley Streiber, Amazon, $14.50)
            Look for kook-ware authors who sold a lot of books about Mayan fantasies coming to pass in December 22, 2012. (Whitley, $9.75 from Amazon!) (Ah, little did they suspect that Hans Blix started that whole fuss with one mistake in a press conference.)
            Look for kook-ware authors who are writing books about global warming and climate change (Has Whitley done this yet?), now that it’s trendy. (Whitley, Amazon, $5.98, Kindle edition). As a class, they want to get as many “Kook Dollars” as possible out of Fukushima before sheer boredom and overinflation of the threat makes people bored with this.
            (Sadly, I’m not kidding about Kook-ware writers. It’s rather interesting to buy them some drinks at regional shows and talk about what the next trendy thing will be. They all share the same view, that people who buy this stuff are going to buy, buy, buy, and it might as well be them who gets the “Kook Dollars”.
            The ones I’ve talked with generally *despise* the Kooks who would believe this stuff.]
            *** UP AND COMING: THE SECRET LEVELS THAT DON’T WORK, (e.g., DIA)
            Becoming Trendy: They also want to convince otherwise sane people (okay, yes, with DIA, as sane approaches zero), that there is a secret lower level to the Denver International Airport (that’s the Airport That Looks Like A Circus Tent), where aliens are supposed to work. That’s called “Deep Underground Military Bases”, and its acronym, oh-so-fitting, is “D.U.M.B.” I think someone dreamed this up and wrote this as a joke, and were astonished that people believed it…
            Speaking as someone who’s been in Denver a long, long time, and watched the DIA construction, which took about twice as long as predicted, and cost about double the prediction (with cost overruns that would even stun Congress!), and as someone who has been through this same airport many a time..
            Denver Saying: “To Get to DIA, first, drive East to Nebraska, then drive North to Wyoming”.
            If indeed there are aliens actually at DIA in deep underground offices, boy, are they ever pissed. (They pass time talking at the Methane Cooler talking about what they did to get stationed in such a dump.)
            With that amazingly, yet uniquely, DIA quality:
            Their phones don’t work, but when they’re off-hook, they emit that WEE-WEE-WEE sound, carefully invented by the Bell Labs to stun herds of goats.
            The restrooms don’t work, but may be fixed as quickly as 2050.
            Water drips everywhere. The power flickers on and off. The escalators dont work. Their computers are IBM AT 80286’s.
            They have carefully complied with ISO 9000 and ISO 9001.
            * * *
            My only contest concern is that it may, indeed, not be possible to dream up something as stunningly bad as some of the Eco-Vigiliante-Druids comments I’ve seen here.
            Have a Population Bombed, Fukushng:a-radioactive, alien-abducted, globally warmed,g and !Happy Holiday Season!
            Take care,
            David

          • I don’t profess to be an expert in all this “nuclear radiation contamination stuff”, but what do you make of this video of radiation readings on a San Francisco beach.
            http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/radiation-poisoning/fukushima-radiation-hits-san-francisco-dec-2013.html

          • Well, it’s missing any kind of context as to what the number means, for one thing. It’s also missing controls, or anyone else doing any kind of scanning. Basically, it’s a video of a guy with a thing and the number on the thing fluctuates when he goes closer to the water. Maybe his scanner is broken. Maybe the sun is doing it. Who knows? Not the guy making the video.

            Or am I supposed to panic and throw reputable science out the window because a guy had a thing with a number?

          • ask412 says:

            Mike Rothschild wrote; “I don’t “blindly believe” the “official story.” I believe the science.” Which is the primary reason this site and your articles are of interest personally. Blindly believe? Interesting point.

            Just makes a person wonder why the defence of the indefinable military blocs value set when its very legality is questionable.
            _____________

            The use of “nut jobs” is as old as politics itself. Machiavellian projection diverting attention is a political science in our era and largely transparent to the ignorant. Most political interns after service are acutely aware of this reality, choose to accept it or walk away.

            If a a person is more science oriented than politically, this does not mean we should not question our own biases and ‘story’. After all they are just a construct of our imagination, even if it is detail focused.

            The hardest issue in critical thinking is putting aside our biases. We are predisposed to scan out information that does not suit our personal ‘story’.

            Not to mention it is easy to discredit anyone who sees the IAEA information control of the integral weapons and energy industry. But it is what it is and this is the military and be total politically biased not to see the harm done. The military bloc has been developing a culture of secrecy and righteously justify in this whole nuclear arena.

            To naively accept the IAEA have not manipulated the metrics of human and environmental harm over the course of their lengthy control is just not clever thinking.

            Worst of all a tragic waste of intelligence.

            I watched “The Butler” and recall the tone of decent and opposition to change in thinking.This quote applies just as well to our values in this era, as in Kings when fighting for basic civil rights.
            _____________

            “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.” ~ Martin Luther King Jr. ~

        • QuantumDave says:

          When I see the sailor’s lawyer saying “The USS Ronald Reagan was the distance of two football fields away from Fukushima”, my oh-give-me-a-BREAK! alarm goes off.
          300+300ft = 600 feet
          No captain of a major naval vessel would let it get that close to a shoreline. There’s those rocks and coral reefs and stuff that rips the bottom out.
          A carrier generally has a sharp eye on the airspace for 200 miles around, and is surrounded by support ships that do things like knock out anti-ship missiles.

          Radiation safety is taken extremely seriously in the US Navy. It’s Hyman Rickover’s legacy. There are two very very powerful reactors in that carrier, one for propulsion, one to make steam to toss aircraft into the air. If there’s any leak at all on the reactor side, say the primary loop, the Navy wants to know about it post-haste. You can bet your cookies there are radiation detectors all over the place.

          (Heck, we first found out about Chernobyl when a Swedish nuclear plant worker set off the door radiation alarm. They traced it to the bottom of his shoes, which had picked up some guck that had rained down from the sky. Did some chemistry, they knew it was from a nuclear plant (235/238 isotope is like a fingerprint), and a pretty good idea *which* nuclear plant. FINALLY the Soviets admitted they’d had a problem.)

          On a slightly more humorous note, I like the lawyer talking about the woman sailor who apparently was first hit. 2nd paragraph, he mentions how testicular cancers had to be removed. Say what?

          Now, this is California, where you don’t wave to your neighbor, you serve your neighbor with a lawsuit.

          This looks to me like Yet Another lawyer trying to get a class action suit going, because of the high percentage he’ll collect.

          * * *
          *sigh*

          People rarely get sick from actual radiation. What they get sick over is the *stress* of all the anti-nuclear hype. Three Mile Island gave off almost no radiation but it scared the population to have police cars going around telling people to evacuate.
          This is my chief objection to all the Fukushima-Is-The-End-As-We-Know-It twaddle. People get sick worrying about it.

          Please don’t spread fear.

          — dave

          • Irritated Kalifornian says:

            I believed that case was recently dismissed by the judge. Not enough evidence.

        • QuantumDave says:

          Sadly, I cannot respond to most of your notes, they have no “reply” button. Umm, help?

  48. Brian Fischer says:

    My prayers have been answered Fukushima fallout is debunked!!!! Whaahoooo!!! May I eat fish again kind sir.AnD how about some cesium for my newborn after all it affects all humans the same. You haven’t debunked crap my fellow man. ; ).

  49. Razorbath says:

    This author claims that because you don’t drop dead instantly its not bad for you. Glad he cleared that up I’m going to take up smoking again if I don’t die in one day it must not be bad for me.

    • By your comment, I’m assuming you’re under the impression that radiation dose calculations don’t take dose-over-time into account. That’s not correct. In fact it’s the whole reason such calculations are needed.

      • Razorbath says:

        They make the dose time comparison comparable to an x-ray. This contamination is different then an xray because its continuous and doesnt take into consideration the ingestion of hot particles or the concentrating of the contamination by animals and plant life. I understand your point though Brian. Not really sure why some people seem to have a need to downplay this though. Its not good anyway you look at it. If it was no big deal then they should just shove all 4 reactor buildings into the ocean and build condos with a nice view of the not contaminated sea life.

        • I’m not sure what you’re referring to regarding X-rays, but your point about shoving the whole thing into the sea is actually not too far off (though more than a little exaggerated). The biggest problem we have here is one of politics, not of science. The most environmentally friendly solution to the waste water storage is to disperse it into the sea, but that’s politically intractable.

          • Razorbath says:

            Given the way the tanks are constructed and a 95% chance of seismic activity happening in the area in the next 3 years i think you’ll get your wish.

            I think it’s kind of immoral to say that dispersing is the best solution. Why should all life forms be forced to suffer this accident? What about those that encounter all this contamination before its “diluted” ?

      • Razorbath says:

        https://soundcloud.com/cknwnewstalk980/simi-sara-tue-sep-17-hour-2#t=17:56

        I actually am a supporter of Nuclear power and I think that there needs to be more innovation and investment in advancing this technology to be safer. For example the generators used for the cooling pumps alternate power could have remained intact if there was a sealed chamber with a snorkel keeping them functioning while submersed. Not an impossible feat of engineering IMHO.

  50. Anonymous says:

    well done!

  51. Who ever wrote this is as bad or worse than the article they’re bashing. He makes judgments, guessing and statements backed by no evidence or sources to counter. Horrible writing and article.

  52. Anonymous says:

    When I started to read the “take down” trying to debunk the Fukushima “fear mongering”, I stopped after the comment about radiation killing sea lion PUPS and not the adults. Whoever wrote this article is stupid. Just like humans……… our children are more susceptible to radiation than adults. Try as you will but there’s a very good reason BRAWM stopped posting their monitoring results a few months after Fuku……it’s to hide the increasing amounts of radiation pelting the west coast of the USA. Can’t risk scaring the sheep you know. Well west coast, enjoy your elevated rates of cancer that will be hitting you in 5-15 years. Enjoy what’s left of your lives.

    • Jim says:

      Yep, his lack of knowledge on biological magnification was also revealed, it concentrates the radioactive material up the food change, it does not degrade up the food chain like he claimed in his article here. Far better to err on the side of the more critical then this corporate puppet.

      • Jim, I’m fascinated by your characterization of the author as a corporate puppet. How would companies profit by telling people that an imagined threat does not exist? On the contrary, spreading fear and planting rumors, then selling products to take advantage of the fear, has been a fundamental of business for centuries.

      • Shaggy says:

        Seawater everywhere contains many naturally occurring radionuclides, the most common being polonium-210. As a result, fish caught in the Pacific and elsewhere already have measurable quantities of these substances. … cesium [forms] a salt taken up by the flesh that will begin to flush out of an exposed fish soon after they enter waters less affected by Fukushima. By the time tuna are caught in the eastern Pacific, cesium levels in their flesh are 10-20 times lower than when they were off Fukushima.

        Cesium will still be more concentrated in larger, carnivorous fish higher up the food chain, such as bluefin tuna than in smaller fish with diets consisting more of plankton and algae, but because it will “flush out” of the fish’s flesh, concentrations will not necessarily mount over time.

        An area of greater concern to Buesseler is the increasing quantity of strontium-90 detected in the waters near Fukushima. Unlike cesium, strontium accumulates in bone rather than muscle, and it is not rapidly flushed from the fish. The good news here is that aside from consumers of small fish such as sardines, which are eaten bone-in, most diners will not be eating strontium.

        http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/12/2612961/fukushima-seafood/

  53. Noneya says:

    Hey buddy, if you want to keep eating fish from the Pacific, have at it. Me, I’m kinda a common sense guy. If there’s a floater at the other end of the pool, I’m not getting in (even though I understand dilution).

    With that said, if private people are going to go through the trouble of sharing (uncalibrated) radiation data, and reports of weird, possibly related phenomenon, I’m going to pay attention. It’s all we’ve got. After all, the only official response we got was that the government cranked up the healthy dose limits. LOL. Hell, the President even vacationed in Hawaii (I wonder if he let his girls play in the water?).

    Why consider all that unsubstantiated data? Because we can. Not to mention that we can actually see the turd floating at the other end of the pool. Also – we don’t have to eat Pacific ocean fish. It’s not like there aren’t options.

    • loggy says:

      ” we don’t have to eat Pacific ocean fish. It’s not like there aren’t options.”
      Yeah like giving them a break from over-consumption.

  54. Anonymous says:

    Haha and which government agency paid to have this written??

    • Skeptard! says:

      This clowns blog is called Skeptoid! Its his perogitive to be skeptical of everything on earth. This asshat “blogger” probably doesnt even believe there was an oil spill in the gulf! Im in Edmonton Canada, reports on Dangerous Radiation levels here began to surface in 2012. My gieger counter arrives in a couple weeks! Weooo

  55. Anonymous says:

    This is a list of reasons why you should question some things that have been said, not any kind of debunking at all. Debunking is official and brings evidence to the table that proves other information wrong, not just asking questions about information. And yeah, I own a geiger counter and live in San Francisco, CA, right on the coast, levels are past 150 milirems which makes the “urgent” alarm go off… AND its intensified when the mist comes off the ocean, soooooo explain how harmless that is please?

    • That doesn’t make sense — an mrem is described in amount over time. So you are measuring what: mrems per second, per century…??

    • Scott says:

      Most likely 150 counts per minute (cpm) which may be slightly elevated but not “dangerous”. Don’t go camping in the mountains with your meter or you may have apoplexy. I live in a Rocky Mountain state with a normal background between 100 cpm up to 200 cpm in my home (not radon casued). 150 millirem per hour (mR/hr) would indicate there is more than Fukushima isotopes in the area and would be a concern in a public area. Instruments do require regular calibrations as the electronics “float” and physical “bumps and bruises” can cause erroneous readings. Finally, if you have a multiplyer switch, you may want to confirm which multiplyer you were on; if the probe was open window or closed; many other factors to consider.

  56. Scott says:

    Goodness sakes. I’ve read through most of the comments and realize we are doomed! ask412 is stuck in a reality I would like to visit but acknowledge is inescapable once entered – the matrix comes to mind. There is no way out of his rabbit hole. There is no explanation that will suffice and that in itself is a industrialist explanation for why it is wrong. In computer code, he is stuck in an endless if-then-else loop. But I digress…

    A couple of basic items which bothered me. First, many of the fission products are “short lived” isotopes; or more correctly, radioisotopes. Dilution and time for transport (focus on air here) result in rather low levels reaching the US and imapcting our children (it is true human children and unborn are most susceptible to effects of ionizing radiation – Law of Bergonie & Tribondeau ). It is statistically possible (versus probable) a slight increase in thyroid complications would/could occur due to the iodine isotiopes involved. The prophylactic use of potasium iodide (KI) is specifically for this purpose and is effective up to approximately an hour after initial exposure (oral versus inhalation modes – much more to this than you might think) and could be provided even after initial esposure if further continuous exposure is anticipated. Of course, side effects and sensitivities must be considered when dosing. There are complete college classes and professional training courses on this topic alone. Of course, according to ask412, they would all be biased by the “complex” (what I use to call “the man”!) So be it…then our great scientific minds are also controlled by “the man” and industrial complex and the human race is doomed to being biological batteries.

    Another issue that bothered me is the concept of explosions. Reactor fuel is not of sufficient enrichment to create a nuclear explosion. Explosions associated with reactors are normally hydrogen based in these situations. Uncontrolled fission reaction would definitely cause extreme temperatures and even material fires which in turn would release more fission products, much like wood fires release carbon based emissions – contaminated smoke.

    I’ve not even started on the run-off and ocean plume concepts. Many have provided quality information oriented to this matter. Orders of magnitude play a significant role in the ground/water plume. And yes, I work in a radiaiton protection role with a focus on public protection. I am part of the matrix but have a mind of my own. I am a child of science (physics, mathematics, electronics) and get to work with some awesome equipment to insure the people I serve are informed and provided with factual data and information. I know ask412 and others stuck in a one dimensional plane will not accept, much less enlighten themselves with information outside of that one dimension. Although I can comprehend and accept some of the distrust and cynicysm they express, I find their unyielding approach to be sorrowful.

    Finally, the issues aired by most are either one exteme or another. Pick away the extremes and generally (from a scientific distributive process approach), you’ll find the truth somewhere in the middle. A Gaussian approach to statistics and yes ask412, that too is industrial complex based. It tends to work unless another approach is warranted such as binomial or poisson which are not practical in this sentient application. This event warrants factual, honest information so citizens can make informed decisions and challenge “the man” as appropriate.

    • ask412 says:

      Scott wrote; ” …. In computer code, he is stuck in an endless if-then-else loop” Of values unfathomable to you.

      The worldview is integral, but I respect your altitude as I was once on it and fully grok your ‘cryptic’ meme.

      For those who don’t Scott fully backs the the Government Military nuclear complex producing power as cover story.

      Plutonium production has been primary purpose, the adversarial edge and need to dominate life on earth. Well on track with jingoistic biases in play.

    • ask412 says:

      Scott – The Continuing Issue of Wilful Blindness.

      Keywords here are; ‘twice as harmful’ – ”5 million becquerels per liter’ of radioactive strontium-90′ – ‘plant knew about record high measurements’ – ‘groundwater’ – ‘ocean’ – five months’ before telling the country’s nuclear watchdog’

      The legal limit of dispersion of Strontium-90 is – 30 becquerels per liter vs the reality of ‘5 million becquerels per liter’ of radioactive strontium-90 they dispersed in reality.

      Nothing has changed, the structures weaken, the groundwater flows inland and out to the ocean.

      “Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) said late on Wednesday it detected 5 million becquerels per litre of radioactive strontium-90 in a sample from a groundwater well about 25 metres from the ocean last September. That reading was more than five times the broader all-beta radiation reading taken at the same well two months earlier. Reuters *”

      Below is the first piece about Fukushima Daiichi from Japan Times in over two months. The Nuclear Incident Blackout unable to keep this quiet however.

      “TEPCO took months to release record strontium readings at Fukushima” ^ [14 Feb 2014]

      ” … the operator of Japan’s wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant knew about record high measurements of a dangerous isotope in groundwater at the plant for ‘five months’ before telling the country’s nuclear watchdog, a regulatory official told Reuters.”

      “Strontium-90, which has a half-life of around 29 years, is estimated to be ‘twice as harmful’ to the human body as cesium-137, another isotope that was released in large quantities during the meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in March 2011. The legal limit for releasing strontium into the ocean is 30 becquerels per liter.”

      ” …. detected 5 million becquerels per liter of radioactive strontium-90 in a sample from a groundwater well about 25 meters from the ocean last September” Not the legal limit of thirty becquerels.

      It is very interesting many here are wilfully blind to these key facts about contamination and how serious this incident actually is.

      ________________

      * http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/13/uk-japan-nuclear-fukushima-strontium-idUKBREA1C09620140213

      ^ http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/tepco-took-months-to-release-record-strontium-readings-at-fukushima?utm_campaign=jt_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=jt_newsletter_2014-02-14_AM

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium-90#Biological_activity

  57. Molly says:

    I work for International Medcom Inc. in Sebastopol, Ca. in which we make handheld Geiger counters and other radiation monitoring systems. I am in this information everyday and I deal hands on with our customers who have alot concerns coming up especially lately. My boss and CEO Dan Sythe wrote this blog http://www.geigercounter.com yesterday about the hype that is happening around Fukushima. There are also some other blogs posted there that he has written that you all might be interested in. Dan is a brilliant, level headed and wise man and I trust him in knowing what he is speaking about with regards to this issue. Enjoy!

  58. Man of Truth says:

    I think the idiot working for the nuclear lobby who wrote this article must have been exposed to large amounts of radiation while in his mothers womb. You are a complete retard, your article is one of the most pathetic attempts to add a smoke screen on this whole affair I have seen to date. My temper is bubbling hotter than the corium currently melting into the ground at Fukushima. I could list about a hundred things you have written which are so stupid and false it upsets me reading them, but I don’t have enough time. Do the world a favour, prove what your saying and go to Fukushima, and have a look inside whats left of one of these three melted reactors, I am certain you will not be harmed if radiation is as harmless as you make out. I guess all those poor sods on the ronald regan are all lying and making up about cancer just for some free compo. Before you write any more articles about this please do a little research on radiation and its effects on life. And also accept that the radiation is in the air (from 3 huge explosions and superheated nuclear fires), type “fallout” in a google search and see how this might have happened, and also diluting it in the pacific does not make it less dangerous, it is what it is and will remain for a very long time yet, get even the smallest amount in your body and you will suffer so much before it kills you words cannot describe. We are all at risk, everywhere on earth, its true panicking will not save you, but being ignorant, spreading lies and doing nothing is not the answer either.

    • “I could list about a hundred things you have written which are so stupid and false it upsets me reading them, but I don’t have enough time.”

      Can you list ten?

    • Eric Hall says:

      There is a difference between standing next to spent nuclear fuel and standing on the west coast of the United States. Did you know the burner on your stove also puts out radiation (Infrared radiation). If I hold my hand a couple feet away from the burner, I don’t get hurt. If I hold it an inch from the burner, I get a serious burn.

      The Fukushima situation is dangerous for those in the immediate area of the plant. Certainly that should give us pause to at least reconsider how we implement nuclear power as part of the overall global energy needs. But to claim standing next to the core is the same as standing on the west coast of the US doesn’t make sense scientifically.

  59. radiation does not dilute, it bio-accululates as it moves up the food chain. so keep eating that sea food so we weed out th complete morons quicker.

    better yet, since you think its safe go voluteer to help clean it up.

    only total morons would think polluting our air water and food for 5 billion years to boil water to make electricity is a wise business model.
    Nuclear scientists are soul- less evil whores who should be prosecuted for genocide.

    • QuantumDave says:

      Paul, since you’re so down on nuclear scientists, I think you should (immediately) turn off your computer, now and in the future. Go to your circuit breaker panel and switch them all off.
      Go to your air-conditioner/heater and turn it off.
      Now, go donate every single electrical appliance you have to some feel-good organization.
      Goodbye lightbulbs, microwave, coffee maker, TV, cable, and of course your computer.
      Sell *everything* that needs electricity or that was constructed using electricity.

      If you won’t do this, you are a hypocrite, in a big way.

      Most people don’t really understand that electricity is civilization, and losing it is pretty much the same as going backwards 150 years.

      I seriously doubt you have the skillset necessary to ust live day to day in 1864.

      And as you sit, alone in the dark, with perhaps only a candle for light, huddled in your blankets because it’s so cold, perhaps gnawing on a raw squirrel’s drumsticks, smelling the remaining food in your refrigerator spoiling, then let’s see if you still feel that the engineers and scientists, who formerly brought you electricity, are dark and evil souls which you accuse of genocide.

      “Fanaticism is redoubling your efforts when you’ve lost sight of your goals.”

      Good bye,
      David

  60. ask412 says:

    QuantumDave; ” … since you’re so down on nuclear scientists…” That’s one of the most biased opening statements anyone has opened with on this thread. Because all the evidence that demonstrates the risks comes from scientist, specialist, management staff from the nuclear field.

    Projecting motive onto others says more about personal values than anything else.

    Paul Kneevers wrote; “… only total morons would think polluting our air water and food for 5 billion years to boil water to make electricity is a wise business model.” On this sad fact Paul is right and tragically it happens to be our reality.

    The primary reason humans have pursued nuclear energy is the symbiotic nature of nuclear weapons production and electrical power.

    Just how blind are people to the cold war proliferation, stockpiling and paranoia encircling the Government Military Nuclear bloc that has driven US, Japanese and other cultures to nuclear energy dependency. Fostering support without personal examination of the science, with fanatical adherence to values promoted and the considerable long term risks evident to all life on earth. Evidence in plain sight available from higher education institutions or simply from our local libraries.

    There is many professionally compiled scenario from foresight practitioners outlining the feasible engineering details of living with sustainable clean energy. We actually have viable alternatives, just where do you suppose the disinformation we do not comes from?

    If it is a choice to discard alternative energy solutions accepting the status quo, then at least prove it is unviable to yourself. Coming to a conclusion from a genuine depth of understanding and not shallow political memes outlined in comments.

    All we can hope is humans evolve enough to see the integral nature of life on earth and use our technology with an advanced value set. After all we are evolving as a species not degenerating, by falling back on the dystopian belief in ‘scripture’ our tribal relics. So far the Abrahamic values dominate human culture and can be seen at the centre of all major conflicts.

    Life on earth exists in an integral way, the simplistic belief man does not need to consider this is childish, an eight year olds perspective.

    Our real world exists with almost immeasurable integrating systems.

    Our mistake is actually comparing human made complexity in systems with the planetary systems supporting all life. That is childish, naive, evidence of an undeveloped value set and certainly an unevolved line of logic.

    QuantumDave wrote of Paul Kneevers; “Fanaticism is redoubling your efforts when you’ve lost sight of your goals.”

    Well his goals are not global domination, leveraging wealth and power with corporate wealth for a limited few, now firmly established by whistleblowers as the one percent.

    It pays to remember the US Government / Military / corporations currently employ more people than any other group on the planet.

    Just where does their bias get mentioned in comments here?

  61. Anonymous says:

    NEWS FLASH! YOU ARE ALL GOING TO DIE ANYWAY!

    • ask412 says:

      Anonymous wrote ; “NEWS FLASH! YOU ARE ALL GOING TO DIE ANYWAY!”

      Why the need to shout at others breaking long standing net conventions shouting in caps.

      People might misconstrue your intent was to bully rather than engage in conversation.

      As for our inevitable death.

      Did you understand plutonium accumulating in the food chain from man made nuclear activity is accumulated in the male gonads.

      Due to the Plutonium half life that means generations of males are affected by orders of magnitude.

      Mutating DNA for hundreds and thousands of years on and on till it is spent …

  62. steph says:

    Its amazing that no one on here is speaking of alternative energy sources. Pollution by man does not have to be inevitable and should not be joked or mocked away. The rivers where I live use to be filled with river dolphin and clear (1600s)..now you can not see the bottom and the fish are contaminated. Large corporations make millions off of the ruin of our lands..It is a shame that the people we call ‘savage’ were the people who respected nature and lived in co existence with nature. We destroyed them and any remaining native cultures are currently being destroyed globally in the name of the all mighty dollar..who does it benefit? you ? me? no please it benefits the large corporations and the politicians whom get their pockets lined pushing their agendas thru. This thread is not acceptable. If we do not start defending our god given rights of life and the natural order,who will?
    Please accept my apologies if some one did mention this I could not read all of the posts as it was to disheartening to hear how callous we have become and how easy it is to explain away the health of our planet.

    PS no matter how “little” of a spill you have convinced yourself this is..The bottom line is our oceans are not a dumping ground for nuclear waster, military explosions, atomic bombs, trash, and so many other horrific occurrences..You know the sea life only has one sea and we only have one earth..take care of it

    • ask412 says:

      steph wrote ; ” Its amazing that no one on here is speaking of alternative energy sources….” Not really, this site claims to be skeptical. But draws the line at examining their personal value system and questioning a lifetime of support of nuclear industries power production.

      Utterly blind to the damage and cover story of power generation used to hide plutonium production for the military over the last sixty years.

      Alternative power production an anathema to multinational corporate partnerships, cutting into the profit channels of nuclear, coal, gas and oil.

      These are corporations who leverage wealth, power and influence to have legislature written to suit their agenda of profit before social responsibility. Protecting executive by limiting personal liability while giving corporation indefinite life in law.

      Look around. Europe have charged and hunted down corporate executives behaving this way. Stopping bailouts for corporate financial crisis, but what does the US culture model. In the US the opposite is true as history records encouraging corporate welfare and immunity from responsibility.

      Many on this site simply have not evolved the necessary value systems to see alternative energy as a viable. A paradigm shift of thinking many evolved cultures have developed already.

      • QuantumDave says:

        ask412 said, “steph wrote ; But [this site] draws the line at examining their personal value system and questioning a lifetime of support of nuclear industries power production.”

        [Perhaps other people have looked at this situation and come up with a different answer than yours. (Imagine!) Anyone in the nuclear industry has thought about this. Many people, including me, weigh the costs/benefits of nuclear energy and think it should be done. But to be fair, I know people who don’t think nuclear is the way to go. I respect both of their opinions.
        I think it’s notably arrogant to say that these people have “not examined their personal value system” simply because their conclusions don’t match yours.]

        “Utterly blind to the damage and cover story of power generation used to hide plutonium production for the military over the last sixty years.

        [Actually, most nuclear secrets, (and that ‘cover story’), was first published in “Atomic Energy for Military Purposes”, in 1945. (It’s also referred to as the “Smyth report”). It’s a notably thorough and well-written history of the Manhattan Project. You want parts 7 and 8 in http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/SmythReport . It discusses the Hanford plutonium-production reactors in depth. (Hanford is by *far* the source of most of the US plutonium.)

        The scientists, and General Groves, were quite concerned that after World War II was over, nuclear knowledge would stay secret, because a public who doesn’t know about nuclear energy cannot make informed decisions concerning it. It cuts to the core of the entire democracy / secrecy balance.

        The military paid for it to be written, published and given away to the public. Thus, the military has sure done a spectacularly bad job of keeping this ‘cover story’ secret, for the last 69 years.]

        “These are corporations who leverage wealth, power and influence to have legislature written to suit their agenda of profit before social responsibility. Protecting executive by limiting personal liability while giving corporation indefinite life in law.

        [Actually, when Eisenhower started up “Atoms for Peace” various utilities found they could not get insurance on something that new and untested. Producing power with a nuclear reactor was barely 10 years old! So the government became the insurance company. It was far more a practical matter of getting things moving, in an entirely new science, than some conspiracy theory.

        Because nuisance-lawsuits are so common, people will not be executives, e.g., targets, without some form of liability protection. ]

        “Look around. Europe have charged and hunted down corporate executives behaving this way.

        [“hunted down”? What, do they have bloodhounds baying as the executive foxes run through the forest?

        Seriously. Be extremely careful who you choose to hate. It’s very easy to manipulate people through hate and fear. You’ve already dehumanized those “executives”, who, putting it mildly, are *not* all the same. Steve Jobs was an executive, as was Bill Gates. Do they appear different to you?

        Listen to yourself.

        [ Those awful executives! They’re unwilling to believe what you do, so they must be re-educated! They need to be forced into a new paradigm! Dammit, hold his head down into the water! They need to “evolve” — or be hunted down! Then we can all take steps on the Five Year Plan into the Bright New Soviet Future!”]

        Many on this site simply have not evolved the necessary value systems to see alternative energy as a viable.

        [Yes, clearly my value system is not as “evolved” as yours; I don’t think a calculator is optional.

        Perhaps I, too, should be forced into the “ask412 re-education & brainwashing camp”.

        Or, perhaps, you could Rent-A-Gulag. Siberia has some that may offer attractive pricing.

        You’ll make more profit for yourself if the Gulag costs less than a camp in the US. ]

        A paradigm shift of thinking many evolved cultures have developed already.

        [History shows that some paradigm shifts were truly awful ideas.]

        — David

        • ask412 says:

          QuantumDave wrote; “Seriously. Be extremely careful who you choose to hate. It’s very easy to manipulate people through hate and fear.” One very serious point.

          I don’t hate your culture but there is an awareness of where at the stage of human development the culture is. The tone of and comment just a twisted and bitter projection onto my values.

          But it was an interesting history lesson, even if it was revision. Appreciated.

          Considering the tone of your extensive comment. It breaks down to two issues.

          One hit the mark; no one has done anything about this imbalance out of fear of ‘Reds’, with it’s the need to dominate and keep promoting nuclear weapons.

          Fear of regressing to an 18th century philosophy based on communism. Which all anthropologist and historians see as a failed concept.

          The other a threat, if I don’t follow your cultures rules, it’s curtains for us.

          Heads up QuantumDave;
          the world has evolved through that set of values, fear of the Red Devil gone with other relics of long past era early last century.

          The current model for a democracy is Swiss and Swedish, where people are culturally happier, because their system works.

          Countries where socialism means, medical care, a good pension after retiring, maternity leave for males and females, child care, long paid vacations, education through University and post graduate study that’s free and of course free public transport. A culture with equilibrium, where everyone is cared for regardless of their ability.

          With the added side benefit, their tax payers are happier and more satisfied. Certainly far more wealthy, with more disposable income than North Americans.

          Best of all they don’t have the world’s largest prison population, with a high ratio of incarcerated members of their society.

          Where as the North American culture is driven by the Abrahamic value system fully functional in law, with the religious right of centre re-enforcing 2000 year old values.

          Values like the death penalty, punitive laws for crime and civil disobedience. All thriving in perfectionist meritocracy headed by transnational corporate elite and their partners.

          Carrying a cultural centre of gravity certain humans are descending from perfection to a dystopian end at Armageddon. A place where regression is eminent unless freedom is upheld, while it has been eroded by corporations with unlimited life and no liability long ago.

          A country where only the good, right true and armed, will be able to protect their families from the chaos of degeneration that is inevitable.

          Your culture is crawling with your message from TV drama shows to science based S/F scenario where the dystopian theme runs rampant.

          “Be extremely careful who you choose to hate. It’s very easy to manipulate people through hate and fear” A projection of personal values if ever I heard it.

          A country where most of the wealth is focused on the US Government / Military Bloc and the diversion of funding to global domination.

          Yet another value of the Abrahamic value system of domination of the earth.

          All signs of an unevolved set of cultural values, even if you believe in evolution you and everyone is affected unless they have developed through these early tribal values.

          From this worldview you have the gall to warn me …..

          Seriously open your eyes, or read about the current geopolitical situation.

          Just where is this freedom, if your history demonstrates social welfare for corporations?

          Something all European cultures have grown through, after all they have evolved out of the 20th century and have left the 2000 year old values behind for the relics they are.

          • QuantumDave says:

            Thank you for taking the time to write such an interesting and thought-provoking reply.
            (No, I’m not being sarcastic or anything negative).
            I’m going to need to think about it for awhile.
            One question while I think about this … I see you writing, “I don’t hate your culture”.
            Might I ask which/what culture are you in? (Again, I’m genuinely curious)
            One thing I like about you and your writings is your passion. It’s very clear that you care a great deal about events like Fukushima.
            We may not agree about everything, but I believe the world needs more passion; it’s often the driving force that keeps humanity improving.
            Rock on!

            Thanks,
            David

        • ask412 says:

          QuantumDave wrote; “Might I ask which/what culture are you in?”

          My culture is not as well developed as Swiss, Swedish or Danish. Even the German with 52% of the workforce still in manufacturing and that is with a high currency value.

          In many areas we have repressed the domination of the Abrahamic values, but have not gone far enough.

          Recently our political centre has chosen to back a very right wing group controlling conservatives and they will govern for four years. The regressive legislation being tabled as we speak. Pushed by a the leader of the party that carries similar values to your cultural centre, but the rest he leads do not.

          Neither do the other major parties here, because our political centre of gravity is centred between right and left, the imbalance between currently is small.

          This anomaly exist because the extreme right wing played on ‘political refugees’ coming to our country. Basing an effective campaign on ‘fear’, pushing the negative feelings not facts strategy.

          Australia has been know as egalitarian for many decades.

          However there are those not seek to tear it down.

          The TPP is a good example of that. As US corporate laws will override our well honed legislation and allow US based transnational / partnerships and corporations to do what they want, ignoring our corporate laws and fair trade principles.

          “… clear that you care a great deal about events like Fukushima.” I care about the disinformation spun around the domination of nuclear weapons.

          Fukushima is front and centre of this issue, because the reactors are GE, the US has many and Japanese issues are yours also. When one has eyes wide open and the value system to discern.

          “Trust us we know best'; just isn’t good enough anymore. Is it?

          ____________

          While you are pondering what I wrote in the previous comment, see also the result of decades of QE. The FED have lowered US income right under everyones nose for many years;

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/income-inequality-crisis_n_4221012.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

  63. Anonymous says:

    Godzilla has been sighted by Japanese dolphin fisherman in international waters north of Hawaii.

  64. Irritated Kalifornian says:

    @QuantumDave One could say Hitler had passion. Why the flip- flop QD? I too am really curious.

    • ask412 says:

      Irritated Kalifornian wrote; ” One could say Hitler had passion. Why the flip- flop QD?”

      Plenty of people have passion e.g. a group of New Guinea head hunters* who were passionate enough about the cause of illness being sorcerers. That killing and eating them to prevent more illness was right good and beneficial to the tribe.

      Passion comes with all value sets. It’s not exclusive it’s a human quality, part of our DNA and essential for human evolution.

      But values are different, they evolve in people and groups of humans, some never evolve past certain stages. All other levels of though unfathomable.

      Just like the head hunters worldview, even if could potentially grow through this tribal level of thought. They are blind to the reality others see.

      Irritated Kalifornian wrote; “Why the flip- flop QD?” [QuantumDave]

      Are you frightened he will evolve to another altitude and develop a different worldview able to see what is opaque on other altitudes?

      Interesting, the fear. As old as humans.
      ________________________
      * http://youtu.be/Tsak9oclPJ4

    • QuantumDave says:

      Urk! Sorry, I didn’t mean to cause a fuss. I need time to think about this. I have an intuitive hunch that would be a good idea.

      A very smart person once told me that if I only listened and talked to people that agree with me, how can I learn something truly new?

      I’ve always thought that was a beautiful idea.

      I’m a writer, and when I get a hunch like this, I really try to sit down and grind though it and try to understand.

      I wish I had more details, but I’m trying to figure them out..

      Thanks,

      Quantum David

      p.s. Something in a quantum state is in a potential reality. Something has to happen for it to move from potential reality into really-exists reality. I’m in a quantum state about nuclear power. I know why it’s a good power source, yet many people (including some pretty high power nuclear scientists) don’t think it’s wise to do it.

      Hence my quantum state about it.

      • ask412 says:

        Personally I have no issue with using nuclear power with the following caveat;
        the activity needs to be away from seismic activity and buried deep enough below the earth surface China Syndrome events don’t matter.

        Waste storage should be at the same level below the earths crust and humans need to have a demonstrated waste management system alive longer than the half life of the man made material plutonium.

        So far there is no guarantee there will be a continuous human management / maintenance system longer than decades.

        Given the toxicity of the material we just haven’t developed the technology to cope with it hundreds of thousands of years of safe storage of nuclear waste.

        No government or political system has lasted nearly long enough.

        These are the facts and facts are not feelings.

  65. Irritated Kalifornian says:

    No, I do not fear the evolution of Quantum Dave. I merely asked , Why?

    • ask412 says:

      Irritated Kalifornian wrote “No, I do not fear the evolution of Quantum Dave. I merely asked , Why?

      Good you are aware others are a different altitudes, curiosity is how we evolve our value systems.

      It will be interesting to read just where they are for both.

      Appreciate the response Irritated Kalifornian.

  66. Anonymous says:

    Here you go Mikey ! Debunk this, as witty as you are. It should be easy for you to hide the facts. Then spoon feed your flocks of sheep!
    http://fukushima-diary.com/2014/02/tepco-plans-to-discharge-tritium-to-the-sea-up-to-30000000-bqm3/

  67. 345 says:

    Well it’s looking like your going to be eating your words now. Japan admits their monitoring has been faulty to say the least. Now that your debunking has been debunked I would suggest a career change and name change. Your family will suffer from this tragedy like all others will,except yours will look at you with disgust.

    • This is an odd comment. Can you elaborate?

      • 345 says:

        From my 50+ years of observation as regards this planet we all call home, It’s my assumption that we’ve done a very poor job of considering the long term consequences of our short sighted behaviour. It’s becoming quite clear that three nuclear melt downs that have not stopped puking radioactive substances into the Pacific Ocean and continued fallout ever increasing upon our heads would to me seem highly concerning. The deafening silence and most of the shallow don’t worry debunking of these issues lead me too a state of alert. Now it will be much more difficult to convince me to trust any level of reassurance coming from elected officels, media and so forth. There are so many issues in this world of today it’s very easy to disconnect and only focus on ones own personnel needs, But in the darkness of fukushima poisoning our children and their bleak contaminated inheritance that’s in store for them, I would say the lack of concern is chilling. We could be in some serious trouble and so might be the Pacific Ocean and all that’s in it. This isn’t a oh well get over it situation. Government scandal after government scandal and I’m expected to TRUST “who”? What a tangled web we weave when we try to “Deceive”. There has been a lot of suspicious/fishy reports and if there’s a mass cover up concerning our safety then I would expect things could get really ugly. I will leave it at that. No disrespect intended.

    • ask412 says:

      Appreciate the comment.
      345 says wrote; ” Your family will suffer from this tragedy like all others will …” One thing is certain we are all in this together, this is one space ship we are all evolving on.

      Being offensive alienates people, Brian’s opinion needs to be respected. His life conditions, system of values differ from yours and others.

      The prime problem is all the information coming out about safe release of man made nuclear radiation comes from one central source.

      The Military Government Nuclear Energy Industries overarching body the IAEA. They have set the benchmarks around contamination and all are pushing the line of ‘safe levels’.

      Even the WHO has no final say, neither are studies submitted to WHO presented to the IAEA ever likely to see support unless they are favourable to their 1940/50s ‘benchmark’ of human contamination. Based around the drive for plutonium production for nuclear weapons the old paradigm and legacy we suffer today. Even thought there is plenty of plutonium.

      The major issue is the IAEA data around safe levels is subjective data.
      Mr.Fox is looking after the Henhouse is the correct metaphor for this unique situation.

      345 says wrote; “Well it’s looking like your going to be eating your words now …” This does not help, because supporters of the IAEA like Brian Dunning actually have the utmost faith in the ‘Military Nuclear Energy Industries version of events.

      Even as skeptical as they are, cannot see the value in due diligence and critical analysis of the ‘benchmark’ by applying the principle of falsifiability to the IAEA lines of logic. Not to mention their extensive package of data on ‘nuclear safety’.

      So their position on this is solid, based on their value system and life conditions. Which is ok, understandable.

      All we can do is wait and hope the evolve through this level of thought and develop new values.

      So being adversarial is just not a good strategy.

      Lets face it, the strategy is a relic of an earlier stage of human development. No forgetting when it is used in a militant, totally way counter productive.

      Below is a video that illustrates and unevolved value set*, unable to use freely available twenty first century information about human health.

      It is interesting to watch and observe.

      Our reality completely opaque to those on lower altitude, our worldview literally impossible to grasp or imagine.

      Some feed back would be interesting, see what you think 345.
      The serious question though is;
      are there parallels with the whole nuclear industry managed by the IAEA?

      _____________

      * http://youtu.be/Tsak9oclPJ4

      • 345 says:

        I believe the parallels are that there’s been so much invested in nuclear that it’s to big to fail regardless of mountains of nuclear waste that there is no way of dealing with in the long term. I believe greed has blinded rational thinking and the consiqences are beginning to unfold. On a global scale fukushima is a grand example of what’s coming down the pipe at us earthlings. I’ve become Leary of all sea food and time will be the only answer to my fears. In the meantime I’m open to the opinions of anyone who may have one, so long as it’s Bio-logica! Blah blah blah. Talk is cheap. Regards345/square.

        • ask412 says:

          Appreciate the comment and agree with the context surrounding the Military / Government Nuclear Energy Industry.

          345 says: wrote; ” I’ve become Leary of all sea food and time will be the only answer to my fears.” As Leary experimented with every known drug on the planet.

          Does that mean you eat every known eatable seafood in the ocean?

          Do you mean that you will pay for aggregating all the man made toxins in long lived sea creatures?

          If so, with your understanding, why not eat the smaller younger seafood?
          After all it is common scientific knowledge there is little if any aggregation of man made toxins in young fish?

          Plus, it has been known for decades that this approach makes ‘seafood resources’ sustainable.

          As the larger fish are the breeding stock and best left in the ocean. Particularly if there is fish lineage millions of year old is under threat of dying from DNA mutation.

          345 says: wrote; ” … I’m open to the opinions of anyone who may have one, so long as it’s Bio-logica! ”

          Does that mean exploring the anthropological parallels to our current value system using the New Guinea people in 2013* is of no interest?

          I wrote; “Some feed back would be interesting …” with reference to the video below. But got no response.

          Any reason there was no comment or interest in human value systems?

          A purely ‘biological’ function driven by chemicals in the brain of all humans.

          _____________

          * http://youtu.be/Tsak9oclPJ4

  68. Anonymous says:

    You do know when anger is involved you are wrong. Feelings tend to accompany bullSh&%. Facts are facts and no reason to get so involved. If you feel some excitment when figuring out you are wrong and have a definite mental disability, should get some help.

    • ask412 says:

      Point well made. – Put simply “feelings are not facts”

      So who is the “You” in “You Do Know … should get some help”

      It’s a mystery to those following the thread, please enlighten us
      as the comment has no ‘link’ to another.

      Be careful you aren’t projecting your values onto others though.

      My long dead Grandmother chided us kids with;

      “evil thinkers are evil doers” an old Scottish / Celtic truism

      and unless your context is sound the ground can be shaky,
      pointing four fingers back at you pointing one.

      Just saying …. Anonymous

  69. Sid says:

    This is a whole lot of christian belief bashing and there is ZERO evidence provided to support the many false claims. ie: the bleeding herring were only found THIS past October,2013,so it is not possible to have found these fish BEFORE the Fukushima Plume arrived on the west coast of North America,which has been continually arriving since March 17,2011. The ocean plume is really just starting to reach us now and to further insult us,you claim radiation delutes! What a felocy lie that is! Radiation contaminates everything it contacts,there is no delution only delusion to anyone whom actually believe whatever they read as fact. We must do our own investigations to find truth and nothing but truth! I recommend everyone buy their own radiation detecters and get out there and test everything including food and “smart meters” There is your proof we are being lied to in so many ways,not just Fukushima!

    • QuantumDave says:

      Sid, it’s not true that “Radiation contaminates everything it contacts”. We live in a sea of radiation and we do just fine. We evolved in a sea of radiation and our bodies handle it.
      Do you know the types of radiation?
      Alpha radiation is essentially the core of a helium atom. Two protons, two neutrons. It can barely penetrate two cm (1 inch) of plain old air. A sheet of regular old paper stops it. Your t-shirt stops it. (However, it’s not a great idea to inhale it or to eat your Wheaties with alpha particles for milk).
      Beta radiation is essentially a photon (light). It’s also pretty easy to stop. But not a good idea to get a beta-emitter on your skin and then avoid a shower for weeks.
      Gamma radiation is what most people think “radiation” is. It’s x-rays. (No, really. The border between x-rays and gamma rays is still up in the air). Depending on how much energy it has, it can penetrate, and get stopped by things like bones, which is why we use x-rays.
      Finally, neutrons are also rather penetrating, and of all the types of radiation, they can go into an atom and jumble up its core, something like your mother-in-law visiting. However, it definitely does not do this all the time. Sometimes it’s a major bitch to get a neutron to stick. A good example would be tritium, which is a hydrogen atom that needs two neutrons stuck to it. Getting a neutron to stick requires a very high powered reactors with billions, trillions, quadrillions, and petabillions (feel free to correct me) of neutrons flying around. Since all modern US nuclear weapons use tritium, and it only lasts 12 years, we, uh, have run out. I guess Congress finally passed a bill to re-open a tritium manufacturing reactor, I believe, in Oak Ridge.

      3 feet of dirt will stop a gamma way. So will 3 feet of reinforced concrete.
      3 feet of dirt will stop a neutron. Stopping it yields a gamma ray, so you need another 3 feet to stop the gamma.

      As you read this you’re getting hammered by cosmic rays, which are even more powerful than gamma/x-rays. You’re probably breathing in radon, since radon is a uranium breakdown-chain product, and dilute uranium is all over the place in the US, notably in the 4-corners area. Heck, I measured my parents’ radon levels with a Geiger Counter and found the activity in their basement was about twice that of their living room. A trip in an airline will give you a dose, because you’re mostly above the atmosphere, which helps shield you.

      The one thing about “radiation” which can cause harm is the fear of it. That stresses people. And stress ages and kills people. The word “radiation” is so demonized that people react in fear of it.

      I hope this helps calm things down a bit.

      Thanks,
      Quantum Dave

  70. Sidney H. says:

    I posted much evidence to debunk this site of lies yet no posting is displayed from me! These jerks are HIDING the truth and spreading more lies!

  71. Dan says:

    You and all of the evil people like you covering up the truth about what is killing and will kill life all over.. (yes kids.) You will be held accountable for the deaths. You can save your soul, repent stop lying about fukushima. All of your lies are killing people!!!

    • Dan, can you point us to any of these victims? Where are they? Are there any radiation deaths on the books?

      • Well, there’s well documented cases of workers suffering rad sickness, and certainly those sailors on the Ronald Reagan accumulated some pretty hefty doses…..
        No where near as bad as Chernobyl apparently, but there have been some upticks of thyroid cancers and so on……I think it’s better to err in the direction of caution here….Why wouldn’t we want to absolutely do the best we can to isolate radioactive waste and to prevent the effects on all ecosystems and organisms, not just humans?

  72. Heitor says:

    Just a comment. So we don´t have to worry because radiation released from Fukushima automatically and instantly disperses into 187 quintillion gallons of ocean? Did you just create the lightspeed cesium dispersion theory??? I don´t wanna create panic either, But 300 tons of water per day is actually 300.000 liters per day. Per year that equals aproximately 110 million liters of water. I am no environmentalist here, but I know the ocean is a vital element to this planet, so I do infer that preocupation and care is sensible. My immediate concern is the death of coastal life, coral and fish, plankton that is permanent to the region. Secondly the contamination of fish that migrate and go through the region. I read something about contamination of tuna, whether it is true or false, I am alarmed. Thirdly, what exactly is the percentage of ocean water that can be contaminates before we cause a worldwide environmental disaster?? And how much is Japan paying for that? Or is there no international responsibility in these cases yet? So I don´t really want to contest your inferences, really. I just don´t have a mocking attitude and a mathematical trust in what is jeopardy to life. A nuclear plant that is 90% safe is not safe at all. The last place on Earth to build nuclear power plants is in Japan. What I would really like is for someone to post a more trustworthy link with comments from scientists, researchers and governments to add some data and analysis to what is going on there and how long Fukushima will continue to be an issue. I would be nice if you had several sources posted Mike Rothschild. Otherwise, your comments are as true and as sound as anyone’s. I noticed some people from the comments have posted some links. I haven´t read any yet. Still, you consider this.

    • Heitor – If you truly want to inform yourself, do so. It’s not Mike’s job. Calling him names and being argumentative does not inform yourself either.

      • QuantumDave says:

        Brian,
        I really feel for Mike. It’s a long standing tradition to shoot the messenger. Good grief, he even gets hassled about his name!
        He is a more patient person than I am …
        — Dave

    • ask412 says:

      Heitor wrote; “What I would really like is for someone to post a more trustworthy link with comments from scientists, researchers and governments … [on] how long Fukushima will continue to be an issue.” Keyword is ‘trustworthy’ and that is highly subjective.

      Nuclear contamination is really a long term issue as many generations of living things will accumulate particles with long half lives.*

      Particularly as the whole nuclear industry has been set up under the premiss of plutonium production** and continues the branding story despite the current glut.***
      We have a situation where the information on all global ecological health is overseen by the IAEA^. Even the World Health Organisation [WHO] has to submit any environmental studies to be vetted for approval via the UN Security Counsel.

      All the messages about nuclear safety and possible damage to our earth systems come from within the industry.

      Is this a conspiracy? No, it is front and centre. Just a typical military strategy, as the IAEA are the controlling body for energy production and weapons.

      This is where our due diligence becomes important.

      Do we believe those promoting the nuclear weapons body about human safety of this industry? Particularly as the purpose of nuclear weapons is ‘domination of humans’, with death and system destruction integral to the plan.
      ____________
      * https://theconversation.com/lessons-from-edo-japan-can-help-fukushima-recover-16017
      ** http://goo.gl/J7DP5a
      *** One example among many of the plutonium glut [300kg] http://goo.gl/eAwbdP
      IAEA structure
      ^ http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/structure/index.shtml#note2
      ^ http://gnssn.iaea.org/regnet/Pages/structure.aspx

      • It’s certainly a mess….until nuclear weapons disappear, nuclear power plants will be running. The whole thing is so suicidal, it just seems obviously undesirable to say the least. We have a long ways to go as a species before we can be trusted with these materials, but perhaps climate change will take care of the problem….

        • Irritated Kalifornian says:

          What do nuclear weapons have to do with the running of nuclear power plants?

          • ask412 says:

            Irritated Kalifornian wrote; “What do nuclear weapons have to do with the running of nuclear power plants?” Can answer that if you are serious, even thought is a strange question as it is assumed most comprehend the integration of nuclear weapons and energy production.

            From the very inception of nuclear power production connection to nuclear weapons has existed because both require fissile materials. It has been the primary premiss of the nuclear industrial complex to have a symbiotic relationship to weapons.

            Some of the technology that can be used to produce or purify a fissile material for a nuclear power plant could also be applied to producing nuclear weapons.

            There are three main fissile materials that are used in nuclear reactions:

            Uranium-233 (233U)
            Uranium-235 (235U)
            Plutonium-239 (239Pu)

            In addition, Plutonium-240 (240Pu) and Plutonium-241 (241Pu) are produced and consumed in Nuclear

            Power production but neither can be used for Nuclear Weapons.

            The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was designed to limit the spread of Nuclear Weapons.

            In exchange for full access to the most advanced Uranium fuels and nuclear technology, countries must agree to detailed inspections by the IAEA.

            In the past the IAEA has not always successfully detected non-compliance. As one example of responsibility of the IAEA, has been success in detecting suspicious behavior of nuclear powers, such as in North Korea.

            ________
            *http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/S1_Safeguards.pdf

        • QuantumDave says:

          Steve, did I read this correctly?
          “until nuclear weapons disappear, nuclear power plants will be running.”

          I don’t understand this…

          Yes, nuclear power plants do produce plutonium, but they also burn a lot of that made-plutonium inside the reactor, which extends the service life of the reactor core.

          I’d be happy to give you sources on this. In general The Reactor Handbook, I and II, are the best places to look. The authors did a terrific job on this book. My conclusion is that Samuel Glasstone cannot write a bad book; it’s a law of Nature that says so. :-)

          Jimmy Carter closed down used-reactor-waste recycling. The French do recycle, and they have far less of this stuff hanging around. You can hammer on the waste inside a reactor and break it down.

          The power levels, and amount of time a core is run, vary greatly between plutonium-production and power-production.

          It’s more like, for a given batch of plutonium, are we going to use it for nuclear weapons, or for nuclear power plants?

          (I’m staying away from the exotics here, like Pu-238, which supply power to deep-space probes).

          Thanks,

          David

      • QuantumDave says:

        A reply to ask412’s listing of elements involved in nuclear power and nuclear weaons. I can’t reply to his note (there’s no little “reply” link there) so I’ll reply here. And by the way: why is there, or is there not, a “reply” link on various notes?

        * * *

        Ask412: “There are three main fissile materials that are used in nuclear reactions:

        Uranium-233 (233U)
        Uranium-235 (235U)
        Plutonium-239 (239Pu) …”

        [Dave replies: Your list is a bit short for my tastes.
        How’s about I do my own list, with commentary about why it matters, with some nuclear context?

        * * * * * * * * * *
        Hydrogen, Protium, Deuterium, Tritium

        Let’s see…

        Proton Count (element #1) (neutron count)
        #1 is just a proton in the middle being circled by a lonely electron, looking for a date.
        Hydrogen-1 (called “Protium”. 0 neutrons.
        Hydrogen-2 (“D-deuterium” 1 neutron.
        Hydrogen-3 (“T-“tritium” 2 neutrons.

        Deuterium occurs naturally can be distilled out of regular ol’ sea water.

        Tritium is very, very hard to make. You take some deuterium liquid and stick it into a really high powered reactor, because you need trillions of neutrons flying around to stick to one atom of deuterium. The difference between a reactor made to produce plutonium vs. tritium, are substantial, and there were big arguments in the 1950’s about which type to build.

        D-T? Why?

        Deuterium and Tritium are usually parts of any modern weapon design.

        A mixture of “D-T” is splooshed into the core of the implosion assembly, and as the reaction starts to kick in, the D-T starts doing a hydrogen reaction, spitting out more neutrons than a cat in a bathtub.
        This *greatly* increases the efficiency of the explosion.

        In fact, it makes such a difference that it’s one of the safety mechanisms in modern weapons. If the D-T mix isn’t sprayed into the core at the precise amount with precise timing (and we’re on a time scale here of 10 nanoseconds per neutron split), then the bomb will fizzle. (Bombs are pretty much “done” fissioning at around 1,000 nanoseconds (1 micro sec). (For fun, I think it’s 2^80th power to get to the ball park.)

        Other safety mechanism do completely classified things (probably) to the high-speed implosion timing, and screw it up unless it’s really supposed to go off.

        Several H-bombs have gotten loose from aircraft accidents, etc, and even though the implosion explosions went off, the nuclear detonation didn’t.

        [Varying the D-T amounts and timing is said to be how “dial-a-yield” works. The pilot in the cockpit dials up how much he wants to set off. The reason for this is to be able to use small explosions to take out the enemy while not wiping out your troops.]

        A Kilo-What?

        You get about 20 kilo-tons from each 1 kg “burned”.
        It’s hard to imagine that effect. Think about that number this way:

        A ton is 2,000 pounds; in this context, TNT. (We have “standardized” on the stuff that explodes to make it exactly 2,000 pounds of TNT). And believe me, just 1 kilogram of TNT makes quite an impressive explosion).

        A kilo of anything (sheep feathers?) is 1,000 sheep feathers.
        So:
        1 kilo-ton is 1000 heaps of 2,000 pounds, which is 1000 x 2000 = which is 2 million pounds.
        So, a 1 kiloton “yield” is a release of 2 million pounds of TNT. That’s the energy yield from 1 kg (2.2 lbs) of U-233/235/238/239 and other tasty elements.

        20 kilos is 20 x 2 million which is 40 million pounds of TNT.

        20 kilotons is pretty much considered “A good first try”. Every country that’s ever embarked on a nuclear weapons program has gotten 20 kilotons on their first try.

        Then, of course, there’s N Korea

        The exception, of course, is North Korea, who got an explosion so small that for awhile we thought maybe they’d just stacked up a big pile of regular ol’ explosives and set it off. Finally, we air-sampled some radioactive xenon (I think) and yes, they did get a… very… small… yield.

        (A sarcastic friend of mine said, “The first blip on the seismograph is the poof-blip! of the weapon going off. The second “blip!” is the nuclear scientists being shot.)

        Numbers of about 500 tons ( 1/2 of 1 kiloton) have been published.

        After getting another embarrassing semi-fizzle (7 kt), N. Korea’s spokeswoman, Lois Lerner, said, “We can’t document it, because our dog ate the paperwork and those pesky hard disks.”

        “Besides, we were *trying* for a low-yield, lightweight bomb, as part of our rocket program.”

        And, of course, the N. Koreans are looking for any other IRS employees for hire.

        More Numberium

        People don’t seem to know what a “kiloton” is. Here’s a small look.

        20 kilotons is considered to be a pretty small bomb. Nagaski’s implosion-plutonium design got about 20 kt yield. Hiroshima’s uranium bomb was poorly designed and got about 12 kt. (From time to time people rework these numbers.)

        The uranium bomb isn’t inherently less powerful. The best designer at Los Alamos, Ted Taylor, got about 500 kilotons from a uranium device (half a megaton).

        Those are “atom bombs”, “A-bombs”.

        So let’s bump them up by 1,000 and look at “H-bombs”.

        1 kiloton X 1,000 = 1 “mega-ton”. So that’s
        2 million X 1,000 pounds TNT, or, 2 *billion* pounds, which is truly awe inspiring. We did a test series of very high yield numbers at the Castle Series and others. We then discovered that the upper atmosphere was getting a bunch of fallout shot up into it, and that in turn was falling on all sorts of countries, including the US.

        The Russians caught up, with some enthusiasm, and around 1962 set off a 50+ megaton device pretty close to the N. Pole (Novia Zemla) and leveled the place, and anything in a real big ballpark.

        What the Russians did not have was very sophisticated guidance systems. We did. The thing about a nuclear explosion is the effects fall off as the CUBE of distance. So it drops off like this:

        (say, it starts at 100).
        1 mile: 65536 units of energy delivered
        2 miles: 8192 units (no, that’s not a typo)
        3 miles: 4 units energy delivered
        4 miles: 1.5 or so unit energy delivered

        So you can see that the effects drop off really quickly. This is why Civil Defense had a point. If you weren’t right in the blast zone, you had a real chance of surviving.

        We went with a high-accuracy weapon design, and we currently use about 350 kt, which can be easily boosted by wrapping the core in U-238, to 475 kt.

        The Russians did not have the accuracy, so they just made the biggest bombs imaginable. Typical was 20 megatons.

        The thing is, whichever you use, plutonium or uranium, it’s *heavy*. These are some of the heaviest elements known. Lifting a ton of uranium using a missile is quite a bitch of a task. (I refer you to The Rocket Equation, where 90% of any rocket has to be fuel).

        So the Russians got good with heavy-lift boosters, and we got good with high precision boosters.

        Both our countries have substantial stocks of U-235 and Pu-239.

        Right now, reactors for our power grid are busy burning this stuff, so that’s a net gain.

        Element 20: Cadmium

        Cadmium is used widely in the energy-producing arena to absord neutrons, thus slowing down the nuclear reaction.

        Element 40: Zirconium

        Zirconium is what we make fuel rods from — stack a bunch of uranium slugs (about 3% high-test) into a zirconium tube. This metal has the unique properties to make it survive in a reactor. In fact, we built up an entire zirconium industry from zip in the 1950’s.

        Element 43: Technetium, has the property of not existing naturally. You make it by bombarding other elements in a reactor. A variety of elements are this way.

        Element 31, Gallium, is what you must mix with Pu-239 to make it less temperature-sensitive.

        Element 90, Thorium,isotope 232. Considered very fissile. Generates radon gas. Real problem in places like Denver, Colorado. (I ran a count of my parent’s basement and it was far higher than their living room; there’s lots of uranium distributed very widely but at low percentages. Uranium miners tend to die from radon inhalation.)

        Current candidate for Reactors We’d All Like To See Built because of how safe it is and how useful it is.

        I believe the “Cue” test at the Nevada Testing Site was a thorium core. It yielded about half that was expected. Richard Rhodes does note that “many” tests of thorium were run. I can check this for you if it’s important; generally Rhodes got his facts correct.

        Element 92, Uranium, in flavors (isotopes) of 233, 235, and surprisingly, 238.
        (I believe the U-233 is neutron-uptaked Thorium-232. So-called “breeder reactors” often use this, and it’s worthwhile. Shippingport did this and the US Naval Reactors took a look. The current US nuclear subs have a reactor design that “never has to be changed”, likely because it’s busy breeding U-233 as it’s running.)

        -235 is very fissile. It’s about 0.007 of uranium found naturally (yes, 0.7 of 1 percent). It’s a bitch to separate it from natural uranium. 1/10th of the entire U.S. Power Grid went into separating uranium at the huge plants in Tennessee.

        When it’s done, the left over uranium (mostly -238) is called “depleted uranium”, and has a variety of interesting little uses.

        -238 is fissile *if* the neutrons smacking it are over 1 MeV in energy. Why am I bothering to mention this? Because in a hydrogen bomb, the chief output from a hydrogen-hydrogen reaction is a bunch of very energetic neutrons (14 MeV is one of six or so of them; there are several reactions with different energy output).

        So we wrap the hydrogen “gadget” part in U-238, and a bunch of the U-238 then fissions, and releases an awesome amount of energy.

        The long-known “secret” of the hydrogen bomb is that the hydrogen part is wrapped with uranium. About one-half of the total yield is from fissioning uranium-238.

        In “Castle Bravo”, 1 May, 1954, the first full-scale test of a solid-fueled hydrogen bomb, total yield was about 15 megatons, and half that was uranium-238 going off. This was 3 times more than we thought it would go. (Predicted yield was 5 megatons, and it made a helluva mess to the testing area. It also scared the heck out of everyone who saw it.)

        I recommend the Youtube videos of Castle Bravo. If you look at the right one, you have a view of some palm trees; the radiated energy from Bravo sets the trees smoking, then the wind hits and blows them away.

        If you clean up the video, you’ll also see the thermal reaction take out birds in mid-air.

        How do we know this? Because fisherman aboard the “Lucky Dragon” (thus proving that names like “lucky”, or “13”, should not be used on ships) sailed into the fallout area, and were heavily dusted by the fallout cloud. Killed one crewman, the rest got very ill from radition poisoning. When it got back to Japan, first, everyone screamed (big diplomatic fuss), and second, the scientists there analyzed the fallout, and were surprised to see such a large amount coming from split-uranium (e.g., the common elements from a fission, stuff like barium and xenon).

        Only one thing hammers U-238 apart, and that’s high energy neutrons, and the rest is straight engineering. (I was amused to see an “open source” re-working of the H-bomb by some people with some excellent software for particle physics).

        It’s quite possible this knowledge made its way to the Soviet Union and kick-started their hydrogen program. Legend has it that water collected from snow, as the radioactive cloud went over Russia, was accidentally dumped down the sink at the Mayak labs.

        Pu-239

        Pu-239, which is either called “ploot” (like “lute”) or plut (like a golf putt), (AND DOES ANYONE KNOW?) is the usual designer’s element of choice. It kicks out way more neutrons upon fissioning than the others. Pu-239 is pretty much inevitable when you run a reactor. Reactors are usually fueled with 97-ish % U-238 and 3% U-235. There are trillions of neutrons flying around in there, and some split U-235, releasing more neutrons. The really interesting thing is U-238. When a neutron smacks that, it “sticks”, making U-239.

        U-239 is like your ex, it’s not very stable.

        That beta-decays to Neptunium-239. This means that one neutron spontaneously changes into an proton, of all things, which bumps the element number up 1 (to Neptunium), and emits some radiation.

        That, in turn, beta decays to Plutonium-239.

        Plutonium is about the weirdest element known. It has five totally different states (phases) depending on its temperature. (It about drove the chemists crazy trying to figure it out). Stuff like the critical mass varies by temperature. So, you could heat up a pan on the stove, let it cross the phase boundary, and make certain the amount in the pan is critical at lower temperatures, then turn off the oven and don’t return for several thousand years.”

        Sometimes 2 or more neutrons “stick” to U-238, and we end up with Plutonium-240 or -241. They’re usable as nuclear material. The bummer part is they are much more reactive (they spit out neutrons like mad compared with regular old Pu-239). Back in the 1940’s we had to invent a whole new technology, implosion, to set off the Pu-239 contaminated up to Pu-240 or Pu-241.

        Technology has improved and what I’ve read is that high-speed timing has made firing -240 or -241 possible.

        There’s an oddball one here: Plutonium-238.
        It’s used in the space program as the power supply for deep-space probes. What it does is get hot. It’s very good at that. Then, you take a funny mixture of metals (“Peltier Junction”) that have two properties:
        1) If you send current into the mix, one side gets hot, one side gets cold. Very useful for hot CPU’s.
        Now used in cars as a useful freezer.

        2) If you heat up one side (Pu-238) and cool the other (deep space) you get electricity out.

        I don’t know how Pu-238 is made.

        The elements above Plutonium have funny names and do funny things. Americium-241 is in your smoke detector.

        [ Dave ends his well over-written thoughts. ]

        “Ask: In addition, Plutonium-240 (240Pu) and Plutonium-241 (241Pu) are produced and consumed in Nuclear Power production but neither can be used for Nuclear Weapons.”

        Dave: “This is widely thought but advanced technology makes it possible. Also, we have taken big-time steps to reduce the amount of -240 and -241 that comes out of the reactors.”

        I hope this has been interesting. Every now and then I get an urge to write responses…

        Enjoy.

        Thanks,

        Dave

        • ask412 says:

          The comment is appreciated.

          QuantumDave wrote; ” Your list is a bit short for my tastes.
          How’s about I do my own list, with commentary about why it matters, with some nuclear context?” Yes, accepted. Still ‘short’ is subjective. The comment is welcomed as context.

          Thanks for illustrating the integration of energy production and nuclear weapons manufacture.

          QuantumDave wrote; “There’s an oddball one here: Plutonium-238 .. It’s used in the space program as the power supply for deep-space probes.” The comment provides an interesting segway as these are not the only satellites that have used this type of power supply. Many ‘weaponized satellites’ put in near earth orbit have as well.^

          These weaponized satellites burn up when their orbit decays hitting the atmosphere showering our ecosystem in Plu 238 with a half life of 87 years. We both know that means toxicity at close proximity to all life on earth for double that time.

          Earlier in the thread I wrote ” … Plutonium-240 (240Pu) and Plutonium-241 … neither can be used for Nuclear Weapons.

          QuantumDave wrote explaining the use of Plutonium-240 (240Pu) and Plutonium-241 by the nuclear weapons and energy industry ; “ … advanced technology makes [use]… possible. Also, we have taken big-time steps to reduce the amount of -240 and -241 that comes out of the reactors”

          QuantumDave wrote; ” we have taken big-time steps to reduce the amount … that comes out …” Understandable. There is an abundance of both, as unused fissile material, ‘waste’ or ‘unburnt’ material. Extra production just creates storage timelines and ‘risk’ most are willfully blind too.^

          Interesting comments; “…we have taken big-time steps…” implies a group. Have you been consulting or employed in the nuclear weapons and energy industry now or in the past?

          If so, can you direct me to ‘the industries’ reference links for future reference? It would be very useful and respected.

          ^ keyword searches:
          production uncertainty
          inventory discrepancy
          ^ http://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs22wood.pdf

        • Loggy says:

          Thanks Dave, well written.

    • Yes…..one word: bioaccumulation….

  73. Hillary says:

    Super funny a guy with the last name Rothschild wrote this

    • QuantumDave says:

      First — clearly I don’t understand the forum software. When I clicked on “Reply” about Hillary’s April 13 comment, the forum told me I was leaving a comment for Dan.
      (Dan? Dan??) My apologies to people who have received replies from me concerning someone else’s comment…

      Second – Look. Could we all just agree that hassling Mike Rothschild about his last name belongs in 7th grade, and not here?

      (For heaven’s sakes! It’s not like Mike filled out an application to have that name! I would imagine he had very little choice in the matter. I speak as a parent.) :-)

      Third — I don’t think I’ve ever seen Mike lash out at someone, especially over their name.
      I *do* see that the people hassling him are on basically anonymous accounts, and don’t give their last name.

      Fourth — if there really is a Huge International Conspiracy to Rule The World, then I hope Mike is helping run it, because he’s obviously a pretty nice guy.

      Fifth — This forum is a better place for having Mike in it. Let’s try to keep it that way.

      Thanks,
      Dave

      • Thanks, Dave. Your check is in the mail. I pay my shills in Iraqi dinars, is that cool?

        • QuantumDave says:

          (whisper to Mike: “How long does it take a Rothschild check to clear the banks at, for example, Wells-Fargo? I could understand it taking under a minute, or, it taking months …

          I appreciate the dinar’s, as long as they’re not pre-Revolution “Shah Dinars”.

          I understand there may be a fire sale in enriched uranium…)

          For the rest of the forum people, please ignore the discussion behind the curtain…

          — Dave

  74. Karin Craig says:

    oh, so we are going to be okay after all – and totally despite all the shit we’ve done to the planet…whew!!!

  75. Mr. Truth says:

    There are scientific studies done on all the drugs the drug companies are pumping into the system yet people die everyday from adverse reactions to these so called miracle drugs. Follow the money and you’ll find the answers. Do you think for a minute our government wants to let the real truth surface from Fukushima? Are you people in that much denial? Wake up America!

    • What is the real truth? No one even in TEPCO knows what the heck is going on under those power plants…..As far as pharmaceuticals go, the risk-benefit analysis is applied, just like it is with nuclear power. The problem is the numbers may be wrong, or in the case of Fukushima for instance an accident that seemingly was against astronomical odds actually happened. I’m not saying this is the best way to go, but we tacitly agree to this bargain with the devil all the time – every technological tool has it’s negative side, and as time goes on we are learning more about the net effects – perhaps risk assessment will have to be changed, because I think the sum of all the deleterious side effects and environmental effects may be more than the sum of the parts….
      Perhaps all this is academic – if we don’t survive climate change none of this will matter, but I think at this point everyone in the world understands the undesirability of nuclear power….

  76. Tina says:

    I wish the terrible things happening at Fukushima would be discussed rationally on TV news. I wish corporations and government would be honest and I think young athletes should not compete in Tokyo. What has occurred in Japan can occur here with 23 GE reactors of the same design. You can pretend the sky isn’t blue and the grass isn’t green but the facts are the facts. The sky is generally considered to be blue and the grass generally what most of us call green.

  77. QuantumDave says:

    Tina,
    The TV News is generally entertainment — “infotainment”.
    Discussions of neutron-uptake and quantum probabilities would put viewers to sleep, so they don’t much make the news.

    (Terry Pratchett noted that people don’t want the “new”s, they want the “old”s, news that they are comfortable with.)

    — Dave

  78. Karen Gaur says:

    That farmed tuna is the only tuna being fed to consumers is a lie. Private citizens not trusting the media (can’t say that I blame them) have tested canned tuna from the super markets and found them to be contaminated with radiation. Also, another lie that California is not being affected by the Fukushima radiation. Again private citizens are taking their Radiation Detectors to beach areas and some are getting readings of radiation levels 3 times higher than safety allows.

    • Eric Hall says:

      Karen – I suggest reading all of Mike’s posts and also pick up some info on the basics of physics. https://skeptoid.com/blog/tag/fukushima/

      Radiation is all around us all the time. In its most generic terms, it can mean anything from electromagnetic waves to energetic electrons. A banana and mushrooms have more radiation than a can of tuna because they contain alot of potassium and some potassium is of a radioactive isotope. We contain radioactive carbon.

      As far as citizens being able to measure radiation – the big problem is these instruments require careful calibration. It is very easy to misinterpret results because the instrument is reading incorrectly. Mike address this in one of his posts as well.

    • Karen that Geiger counter beach video is an old hoax, revealed and discussed in numerous places, including specifically on this blog: http://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/01/04/i-started-chasing-radiation-and-ended-up-following-the-money/

      Always remember, basic science literacy is your friend, not your enemy.

      • QuantumDave says:

        (Hmmm. I did a “reply” click to Brian’s message (about the hoax of radiation in the Bay Area), and the system tells me I’m leaving a reply for Steven Hillmuffin. I’ll be interested in seeing where this posts…)

        Brian, I took a Geiger Counter, and a Scintillator, up from Denver into the mountains. The number of clicks per minute went straight up! I was surprised at how high the count got.

        Then, I realized how dumb I was being. The mine that supplied most of the US supply of uranium was just few miles N of there. The formation has little mines scattered around it.

        (And, if I were evil and dark, I’d make a video of the counts in the parking lots of the casinos up in Central City.)

        Enjoy,

        Dave

  79. My only comment here is that I think you do a disservice to Dr. Perrow; his conclusions may be open to question, but Perrow has made a study of how (and why) “accidents” occur–the culture of accidents, if you will.

  80. Good to see some healthy skepticism on this…..No one seems to worry about the leaks at Mayak (massive amounts of nuclear waste simply washing down the river!) or the many other sites where nuclear waste is leaking…..We should be cleaning up those messes too…..

  81. Umi Fujii says:

    Thanks Mike for your article. Sadly so many are so deep into conspiracy paranoia they will not read it through. Sorry for the conspiracy nuts who keep referring to your personal surname. I wonder how many of them will believe I am a mountain?

    • QuantumDave says:

      The fukushimaemergencywhatcanwedo.blogspot gives this error message when I tried to check it out:

      “Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.”
      It’s probably an Error 404.

      Thanks,
      David

      • ask412 says:

        Appreciate the heads up Herve Courtois alias D’un Renard, the locally based blog on Fukushima incident may prove useful.

        It was hot difficult to find as a site QuantumDave.

        All the keywords were the for a google search were posted by Herve Courtois alias D’un Renard.

        Personally I have not researched it and will access its value. But on the surface there is no issue with the links and reporting. As the sources are well known are outside nuclear industries umbrella and familiar.

        However if you have bought into the ‘corporate ‘ line by the military industrial complex any information that contradicts your value system will be useless.

        ___________

        * http://fukushimaemergencywhatcanwedo.blogspot.com.au/

        • QuantumDave says:

          I routinely report Error 404’s and other website problems. Web administrators don’t always know that a link has broken, etc. In return I appreciate it when people let me know about glitches in my online stuff.
          That’s all I was saying.
          Thanks,
          David

          • ask412 says:

            FIve Gold Stars – QuantumDave

            However, the page was dead, the site was not …

            I routinely make spelling errors due to my dyslexia, but don’t feel the need to report them, just sayin …

  82. Big Bob Bailey says:

    How wrong you are…[remaining deleted by editor]

    • Eric Hall says:

      Bob – we do allow people to express their viewpoint here on Skeptoid – even if they don’t have evidence. You will notice that in the comments. However, personal insults and name-calling towards authors or other people commenting on the blog is not tolerated, especially in the way you did in your comment. You can repost your comment if you refrain from the personal attacks. This is why your comment was edited.

  83. Andy says:

    “Let them eat radioactive food”…

    Sounds like an eugenicist dream plan.

    Think about it once more.

  84. Gamine says:

    There are a lot of people who, as they pass away quickly and painfully from all the ailments radiation causes and exacerbates – they’re gonna deserve every moment of their agony.

    According to Professor Yury Bandazhevsky, former director of the Medical Institute in Gomel, Belarus, only 50 Bq/kg (becquerals per kilogram) of body weight lead to irreversible lesions in vital organs. He studied the harrowingly crippled and deformed victims of Chernobyl firsthand. He’s had far more experience in this matter than anyone posting on this schill of a blog.

    And Chernobyl used graphite for fuel. Fuku used plutonium and uranium. I’ve heard of graphite pencils but wonder why if Chernobyl’s fuel was hotter than what Dai-ichi used, there are no plutonium and uranium pencils for little Timmy and Dorothy.

    There’s also a vast difference between natural radiation and manmade. Isotopes like Potassium 40 are kept at a constant low level in the body by a process called ‘homeostasis’. Eat a couple becquerals and your body eliminates the same amount. Whereas particles like Cesium and Strontium are mistaken for vital minerals, are then absorbed directly into organs and bone where they proceed to bombard the body’s cells with subatomic bullets, devastating the surrounding tissue for up to 20 cells deep, all around. Decidedly that’s all that’s required to cause severe irritation that can then go cancerous; and if the person isn’t eating proper fortified nutrition?

    They’re toast.

    Three scientists working at the GEOMAR Research Center for Marine Geosciences in conjunction with scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory showed that radiation on the West Coast of North America could end up being 10 times higher than in Japan: “After 10 years the concentrations become nearly homogeneous over the whole Pacific, with higher values in the east, extending along the North American coast with a maximum (~1 x 10-4) off Baja California.”

    There’s also that viral projection map from the NOAA showing emission for only Unit 1 and only showing the rate and range of release of Cesium 137 spewing so much radiation it covered the entirety of the United States. And there are 1,300 other isotopes they didn’t include. Granted some last only for seconds, but Uranium 238 last for a full life of 450 BILLION years. That bad boy is directly responsible for the babies of Fallujah being born so deformed and in such numbers, the doctors of that region commanded the women to stop having babies.

    Never seen a banana cause that.

    This is a useless debate because the function of this site is not to hear the facts but to keep the docile, dumbed down public contentedly dying off. They won’t deserve that end, but the ones who already know better, may you go down with the dire pain of each of those innocents x every becqueral still spewing out of Fukushima, and TEPCO recently admitted they’re hemorrhaging 8 billion becquerals per d-a-y into the Pacific Ocean, while there’s not a word in the mainstream media.

    How dare you defend Omnicide. You are the quintessential scum of the Earth.

    • I couldn’t agree with you more!! This site only serves to pacify the people into their eventual nightmarish death that will be caused by the radiation being spewed out of Fukushima!!!

    • QuantumDave says:

      *sigh*

      The hardest thing to get across to people is that nuclear reactors are pretty dull. They’re just water boilers, like a tea-kettle. Heck, reactors have been named “Tea-Kettle”.

      The big deal is simply this. When you burn something, you get an energy release called “electron-volts”. The hottest burning reactions get about 10 electron volts per atom.

      Uranium gives ten million electron volts of energy per atom. That’s 6 orders of magnitude more energy! One pound of uranium has the same energy potential as one million pounds of, say, coal. And when you burn those million pounds of coal, you create pollution.

      People have been taught to fear “radiation”. It’s among the most negatively-loaded words anywhere (like, for example, “Hitler”). But… if you read your history, you’ll find out that competing energy sources (notably coal) deliberately demonized reactors so their coalmine jobs wouldn’t go away. They did this by demonizing “radiation”. Far more people have been killed in coal mine accidents than in ANY nuclear accident. We’re still polluting our air with coal-burning electrical plants. Wonderful.

      In truth the universe is naturally full of “electro-magnetic radiation”. I can only describe it as “beautiful”. A wave constantly changes from electrical to magnetic and magnetic to electrical (“electro-magnetic”), and it’ll go across the known universe. What beautiful elegance! When you see the stars at night, this is what you see.

      What people fear, in radiation, is “gamma radiation”. Look, gamma radiation is a rather small part of all electromagnetic radiation. Gamma radiation is the next thing up from X-rays, in fact, the border between them is very nebulous.

      Gamma radiation is just a particularly high energy, high frequency electromagnetic radiation. But so is radar, TV, radio, sunshine, colors, and other (beautiful) things.

      It’s such a shame that the beauty of how the universe works isn’t taught compared to the fears of “radiation”.

      3 feet of dirt blocks gamma radiation. Look this up yourself.

      The actual body count at Chernobyl was about 57 people who died from massive radiation exposure while putting out the fires there and such.

      I, too, read all the “A million people will die!” dire predictions about Chernobyl.

      It hasn’t happened.

      There are non-fatal thyroid removals among kids there, because the Soviet government did not issue iodine tablets to them, which would have blocked radioactive iodine uptake in the thyroid. The Soviet Union was still trying to keep Chernobyl secret, so on May Day, kids went to parades and such in Kiev and other places close to Chernobyl.

      While Professor Yury Bandazhevsky may have said what you say, the actual truth is this:

      No one knows for sure the amount of “radiation”, or uranium/plutonium exposure, that a person can take. You can find this out for yourself really quickly by looking it up. Various sources disagree with each other in a big, big way. NO ONE REALLY KNOWS!

      There have been quite a few studies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People there who got a massive dose ( > 500 Roentgens) died. So we originally assumed that people exposed to any radiation there would die early.

      But… they didn’t die. This surprised a number of scientists. Your body seems to be able to handle a moderate amount of radiation just fine.

      WE STILL DON’T KNOW.

      Some very smart people have tried their very best to set safe standards for radiation doses that were tolerable to workers in radioactive industries. This started with radium and X-rays back at the turn of the 20th century and has fumbled along since. In the 1950’s, I believe, it was 10 Roentgens (10,000 millirems). Another time, it was 10 millirems. Now it’s 6 millirems in the nuclear industry and 3 millirems otherwise. But that’s a guess. The numbers have changed a lot. People still argue about these numbers. Many people think they are ridiculously low.

      When background radiation is about 324 millirems in a year, it becomes more and more difficult to figure out what will actually hurt a worker. 3 millirems, with a background exposure of 324 millirems, is a hundred times lower than natural radiation.

      The EPA, in a rare moment of sanity, threw up its hands and said, “Okay, okay, just try for the lowest amount of radiation possible”. This is called ALARA: “As Low As Reasonably Achievable”.

      See, people get dosed with radiation all the time. It’s almost impossible not to. There’s cosmic rays raining down on us, there’s radon from the widely scattered uranium all over the place. Yet somehow we seem to fumble along and our bodies handle it. As you read this, you’re getting a mild dose of radiation.

      (Ironically, the only way to achieve zero radiation exposure is to be on a deep-diving submarine, a U.S. nuclear sub being almost perfect.)

      We evolved with this radiation. Our bodies show that.

      The most modern thing I’ve seen is that radiation tends to trigger the self-healing part of the body. There are weird results showing up for low-level radiation exposure. Some of the people studied, who have had low radiation exposure all the time, live longer than people not exposed. Possibly the most famous was workers in Taiwan whose building was accidentally made of slightly radioactive steel. They are healthier and live longer than other people in Taiwan.

      Obviously this does not help to settle the question, “How much radiation can a person take?”

      We only really know that a massive dose will kill you. We don’t understand bodies and radiation.

      Back when Fukushima had a real bad week, there were all sorts of dire predictions about how the whole Pacific would be contaminated, how California’s beaches have become a dead zone, and so forth. (In fact, this thread of replies shows this very well; it’s worth re-reading.) One of the more hilarious statements was that lack of broken glass and beer cans on the California beaches meant it was a “dead zone”. Give me a break.

      Let me be blunt: They lied to you.

      I saw one map of radioactivity detection in the US where the author deliberately Photoshopped all the Pacific area detection stations from “Green” to “Red”. This has been seen all over the place. Doubtlessly he would say that he was trying to raise concern… blah blah blah… but the fact is he faked it.

      It hasn’t happened.

      It just hasn’t happened! I know this is really boring compared to being afraid and angry, but it’s the truth.

      Okay, let’s wander through your reply…

      “And Chernobyl used graphite for fuel. Fuku used plutonium and uranium. I’ve heard of graphite pencils but wonder why if Chernobyl’s fuel was hotter than what Dai-ichi used, there are no plutonium and uranium pencils for little Timmy and Dorothy.”

      ** A few things here need to be updated.

      “And Chernobyl used graphite for fuel.”

      ** In no way was Chernobyl’s graphite a “fuel”. That’s like saying that motor oil is a “fuel”. Nope. It just helps a bunch with the wear on moving parts.

      ** You don’t understand the function of graphite in a reactor. Graphite is simply carbon. Graphite is what pencils are made of. Graphite is also an excellent lubricant that doesn’t draw dust like oils do; you can buy it and shoot it into locks, etc. It can also burn if you really try. You are largely made of carbon and water.

      ** When a uranium-235 atom splits, the released neutrons are very high speed and very energetic. That’s not good for a sustained reaction; the neutrons must be slowed greatly to hit another U-235 atom. We slow them down with a “moderator”. Graphite is very good for this, as is heavy water. The neutrons bounce off the graphite/heavy water atoms, and each collision, they lose more energy. After they become “thermal” neutrons (one way of describing their lowered energy), they’re ready to split another U-235, and so forth.

      “Fuku used plutonium and uranium”.

      ** Fukushima’s reactors are BWRs (“Boiling Water Reactors”). They use regular ol’ water. (Okay, yes, it’s purified water). Its moderator is water.

      ** In any reactor, there are billions of neutrons flying around. Every now and then a U-238 atom gets hit by a neutron, and instead of splitting, the neutron sticks. Now, it’s U-239. This beta decays into neptunium, then beta decays to plutonium, in, oh, a day or two. Possibly 2 weeks; I haven’t looked this up in awhile.

      ** This plutonium is useful in a reactor because it will split and release neutrons and energy. The reactor thus takes an un-burnable U-238 atom and makes fuel, plutonium-239. The plutonium is then split and burned, just like U-235. So the fuel-life and efficiency of the reactor go up.This is a smart thing to do. It recycles the plutonium. Most modern countries do this; we don’t, another regrettable decision of thousands from President Jimmy Carter. So we have used fuel rods, with usable plutonium fuel in them, sitting in water pools by reactors. That’s stupid. The French have pioneered a technique for taking radioactive fuel rods, recycling the uranium-233 and Pu-239, and reducing them to pinches of dust by placing them into a special reactor. That would get rid of 90-some percent of the used fuel rods, etc.

      “I’ve heard of graphite pencils but wonder why if Chernobyl’s fuel was hotter than what Dai-ichi used, there are no plutonium and uranium pencils for little Timmy and Dorothy.”

      ** I have trouble understanding this sentence. What do you mean by “hotter”? Temperature? Neutron flux? Burnup rate?
      I’ve just told you that Fukushima uses boiling water as a moderator. Water boils at 212F/100C degrees. That’s well away from, let’s say, 451F degrees, where paper ignites (as in Ray Bradbury’s “Farenheit-451″). I fail to understand how boiling water @212F/100C is “hotter” than a graphite (burns at 1400F/800C) reactor pile.

      ** I also don’t understand “there are no plutonium and uranium pencils…”
      Graphite is very cheap. Plutonium is made atom-by-atom and is extremely expensive.
      Look, when a usable quantity (one mole) is made, it’s, 2,030,000,000,000,000,000,000 plutonium atoms. (If I expanded the 6.02 x 10^23rd right there…)
      Separating U-235 out used up 1/10th of the entire US Power Grid for decades. Again, it’s extremely expensive stuff.

      ** Biologically, uranium is Yet Another Heavy Metal, like Courteney Love (ouch!). It’s not really good for you but it’s not much different than any other heavy metal. You don’t get one atom in you and die immediately.

      ** Plutonium has been demonized with labels like, “The world’s deadliest atom” and so forth. When workers at Rocky Flats and Los Alamos and Lawrence-Livermore were exposed, it showed up in their urine samples. They promptly formed a club, “UPPU” (“You Pee Pu [Plutonium]”) People who are frightened and think they’re going to die do not form clubs with funny names. They’re professionals and they’re not worried; why are you?

      Many studies have shown that the thing that causes cancers in nuclear industry workers were actually caused by the solvents and such that chemists used in the 1950’s. We only know now they were carcinogenic, and we’ve banned their use.

      “… And there are 1,300 other isotopes they didn’t include. Granted some last only for seconds, but Uranium 238 last for a full life of 450 BILLION years.”

      The universe is about 14 billion years old. Nothing is older than that.

      Uranium-238’s half life is about 4.4 billion years, which, rather interestingly, is the same as the life of the Earth.

      There’s a rather… large… difference between 4.4 and 450. It’s two orders of magnitude — 100 times – wrong.

      Okay, Uranium-235’s half life is around 700 million years, true, but it is only 0.007 of natural uranium

      Try: GOOGLE: “What is the half life of uranium?”
      “How old is the universe?”
      “How much radiation per day?”

      Thanks,

      Dave

      p.s. Really, the crud in your note about how this site is merely a schill is not only wrong, it’s amazingly wrong (possibly a “million times” wrong?), and only a person who has chosen to remain uneducated, and only listens to rabid anti-nuclear activists, would say such things. Check your damned facts, buddy, before you essentially libel/slander this site.

      • ask412 says:

        QuantumDave wrote: “Sigh … ” Yes, we all did

        Gamine wrote: “According to Professor Yury Bandazhevsky, former director of the Medical Institute in Gomel, Belarus, only 50 Bq/kg (becquerals per kilogram) of body weight lead to irreversible lesions in vital organs. He studied the harrowingly crippled and deformed victims of Chernobyl firsthand.”



        Quantum Dave where your comments have always been challenging as there is a need to address sweeping generalisations with a pro industry cultural blend of truisms. In other words ideology supporting the MIlitary Nuclear Energy Industry that is on a par with religion.

        There is no reference to refuting Professor Yury Bandazhevsky or his work in your response to Gamine using counter citation. Nor anything else for that matter. However it is transparent the 2060 word rant is unsound.

        Because just using Wikipedia as a source of information on nuclear particles natural and man made anyone could refute your belief; nuclear contamination is mostly harmless.

        But dismissing the disastrous outcomes surrounding Chernobyl and Fukushima just go to far with that inane premise raising the obvious question around wilful blindness.

        Case in point; is this line of logic is one of the most preposterous statements around man made radiation I have ever read; 

        “The most modern thing I’ve seen is that radiation tends to trigger the self-healing part of the body. There are weird results showing up for low-level radiation exposure. Some of the people studied, who have had low radiation exposure all the time, live longer than people not exposed” 

 ~ QuantumDave ~

        This style of argument we would expect to read on a CAM brochure or blog. – http://goo.gl/dYwQuB
        Blogs where something as ludicrous as suggesting a bottle of homeopathic sugar water is a legitimate vaccination method for Ebola is not unusual.

        So the comment fails under the umbrella of pseudoscience, next to contrails as evidence of geo-engineering, perpetual motion machines, hypnosis and lizards running world governments etc.etc.

Even an IAEA consultant or representative would never dare to make such unscientific, blatantly ideological comments on a media thread.

        The premise of this article is about the undereducated emotive thinker latching onto sensational bylines like ‘Melting Star Fish’ and promoting a climate of fear. What irony.

        

As anyone can read your emotive and defensive response is just as farcical as it utterly flies in the face of the body of accumulated scientific knowledge. There is no attempt to justify nuclear particles behaviour citing medical professionals papers or articles or use reference data backing your premise. 

So it follows there is no serious attempt to explain the scientific methodology involved in accurately analysing and measuring radioactive releases from either Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi, including the impact of hot particles on human physiology, let alone life on earth.
 


        As for complaining: ‘Plutonium has been demonized with labels like, “The world’s deadliest atom” 

        Let me remind you plutonium is integral to the most singular destructive force humans have deliberately created. The nuclear weapon.

        It carries the brand of the ‘The world’s deadliest atom‘ because of the central role in destruction, as well the particles deserved toxicity in proximity to life on earth.

        Furthermore this deadly branding is the ‘point’ the military argued for in the very creation of all nuclear weapons and their maintenance. So this statement is either the most blatant lie deliberately fostering disinformation or one of the most overt examples of cognitive bias here.

        Yet more irony in the final comment; “Check your damned facts, buddy … “ In response to Gamine, when there is nothing but anecdotes from you: http://goo.gl/oaqL2A

        Quantum Dave any credibility you once had on the thread just evaporated in a metaphorical puff of smoke.


        • loggy says:

          Good one ask412, reading QD’s post brought up the same response in me but also totally demotivated me at the same time. Besides, I had work to do…

        • Gamine says:

          Like I said? Some are going to deserve their death. Not most, but definitely, some….

          Have fun.

        • jay says:

          A very intelligent argument. But I think I’m going to side with Einstein on this one.

          • jay says:

            Reptilian brain function is a common psychological recorded condition btw. It does not mean there are lizard people running around. and there are Harvard medical professors claiming Chernobyl caused a million deaths. Who are you again?

          • ask412 says:

            The real world issues that the world’s core nuclear members of the UN Security Council, that is the People’s Republic of China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States are ignoring around the Chernobyl incident all these years later is the genetic deformation of living cells.

            The consequences of widespread nuclear contamination, ergo ingestion of radioactive nuclear material and health consequences are so severe on developing young cells other countries medical professionals / NGOs are stepping up and assisting out of compassion to correct.^

            While those ignorant of real world nuclear incidents in North America are in reactionary denial, willfully blind to these issue they will continue to fester and the industry will go unchecked putting profit before social responsibility.
            _________________
            http://goo.gl/zO8f8o
            http://goo.gl/WyMkV6

  85. QuantumDave says:

    Actually, I really do like ask412 (believe it or not). So many people choose apathy, but he writes fairly well and definitely has passion for this subject. I respect him for that. I’d buy him a beer anytime.

    Nuclear weapons frighten him, as they do me.

    I chose to learn all I could about that subject because the unknown is always the most frightening.

    There are two shelves with nuclear-related books in my collection. They range from straight engineering (“The Reactor Handbook” to nuclear facts (“The Effects of Nuclear Weapons”) to anti-nuke (“The Secret That Exploded”) to pro-and-anti-nuke (John McPhee’s superb profile of Ted Taylor, “The Curve of Binding Energy”).

    I find all these books to be fascinating! And to a large degree, they form the nuclear science I think is true.

    (I lend them out to local authors, of any ideology, who want to get accurate nuclear information. Some are very out-of-print but superb, like Chuck Hansen’s “U.S. Nuclear Weapons”, a history of each US nuclear weapon, which the DOE attempted to censor.)

    The main problem with answering ask412 is, while I can cite the references I’m using, they get slapped down as just part of the “MIlitary Nuclear Energy Industry” conspiracy and its propaganda. And I’m just a deluded part of their “ideology”. For example, I write “…sweeping generalisations with a pro-industry cultural blend of truisms.”

    I have a sinking feeling that no matter who I cite, they’re part of this Conspiracy. I can defend any paragraph I wrote, except my sources are part of the Conspiracy. That way lies madness.

    I call “foul” on his reply to “There are weird results showing up for low-level radiation exposure”. While ask412 had fun shooting that idea down, he clearly didn’t read the word summarizing my assessment: “weird”. The word “weird” is a synonym of “bizarre” (look it up!). I’m certainly NOT saying it’s true, I think it’s “BIZARRE”, okay?!? (I don’t know, perhaps I didn’t write that paragraph clearly enough?)

    It’s also weird :-) that facts such as “The Earth is 4.4 billions of years old.” or that graphite is not a nuclear fuel aren’t mentioned in his reply. Are those “facts”, or just more “sweeping generalizations”? Or pro-industry truisms? I can defend every paragraph I wrote. Alas, my sources are (then?) part of a Conspiracy.

    Where does he draw the line between me making statements of well-known and generally accepted nuclear science, dating back to Madam Curie, or how nuclear reactors work, to the fiercely argued about effects of radiation exposure on the body? If the effects of radiation on the body are still being argued about by well qualified scientists, I think the sane thing to do is to reserve judgment on the subject.

    Thanks,
    Dave

  86. Matilda says:

    So this Fukushima disaster is no biggie and nothing to be concerned with then?

  87. Philippe Benoit says:

    A debunking review, from someone with Rothschild as a last name, makes completly no sense. Protecters of the 1% and largest corporations have ZÉRO credibility when it comes to debunking the truth about world affairs, Sorry. You should write in the wall street journal instaid. The 1% have their “debunkers” all over the place to put shame and ridiculise anyone they want to, and this author is one of them.

  88. jay says:

    Funny, scientists at Simon Fraser University are claiming all of our salmon will be above the Japanese Governments safety limit for cesium in about a year. Care to add that? It was presented at the most recent SETAC conference with thousands of scientists from around the planet.

    • Eric Hall says:

      You misunderstood the conference paper then. What J. Alava said was that continued monitoring is important. If the rate of radiation leaked into the ocean is 20 times what it is currently, then in those few species near the top of the food chain would exceed Japan’s action level (but not Canada’s). So he is advocating more monitoring to make sure the models stay up to date.

        • Eric Hall says:

          I pulled the full text and what they are saying is that the current level, even in there model, doesn’t cause it to get above that level. What it does say is more monitoring needs to be done so that if the levels get higher, we can make sure to more carefully monitor the food supply. The level in the water required to get to the Japanese safety level? 20 times the current level. That’s what it says. I read it in the same paper to which you refer in the link.

      • Jay says:

        You commented in 3 minutes claiming you read an entire scientific paper. Please quote where you read such items.

        • Eric Hall says:

          After you posted the comment at 6:40am WordPress time, I pulled the article up. I had to search for a bit to find it, but I was able to find it in about 5 minutes. I spent about 20 minutes with the paper and found your claim was incorrect. Here was your claim:

          Funny, scientists at Simon Fraser University are claiming all of our salmon will be above the Japanese Governments safety limit for cesium in about a year

          What they did was say that the current [Edit: the 2013 level] measured activity is 5.0 x 10^-4 Bq/L. At that rate, the levels in salmon never get to even the Japanese safety level. They then used a study from 2013 to say what the Cs-137 levels might be in 2014 (why not just use the actual data available??). That level in Rosi [sic] et al says it could be as high as 0.01 Bq/L. If they use that highest level, the model predicts salmon would get above the Japanese limit, but not the Canadian limit.

          Well, I looked at several data points available from various sources, and about the highest level I could find within 1000 km of the West Coast was 6 Bq/m^3 or 0.006 Bq/L. Most along the coast are between 1 and 2 Bq/m^3 or 0.001-0.002 Bq/L – thus 5 to 10 times less than the highest predicted level in Rossi et al (2013). Thus the model predictions do not match the reality of the conditions. Based on the formula given for their simplified model they used, this would keep salmon well below the Japanese safety limit using the current data.

          I would agree the monitoring should continue. And that’s what Alava concluded. I also have a problem with him using a projection for 2014 when real data was available. Based even on Alava model, we are currently OK.

      • Jay says:

        And since I know professor Alava I guess I can just go ask him.

      • Jay says:

        I completely understand the skepticism, however the Rossi model is the low end of a completely unpredictable spectrum. Is this really something we want to down play? The Behrens model is showing a significant difference with massive bioaccumulation effects. Which side of history do you want to be on?

        • Eric Hall says:

          I’m saying Rossi’s predictions and the reality of what we are measuring is incorrect. That paper published early in 2013 hasn’t become reality. This means the model is wrong and needs to be adjusted since the predictions don’t match reality.

          Should we monitor? Yes? But I think the real data is showing us the danger is not that high and if it gets to a level of concern it will happen more slowly than we originally thought – meaning we have plenty of time to prepare.

      • Jay says:

        How are we supposed to prepare? I know maybe three people that are even familiar with cesium. That paper was published nov 2014

        • Eric Hall says:

          The Rossi paper was published in 2013. Alava presented at a conference (thus it isn’t really even a paper) in late 2014 – and based it on a paper making a prediction about 2014 but was published in early 2013 (Rossi). It would be like making a weather forecast for Saturday based on Wednesday’s data instead of today’s data.

          • Jay says:

            Eat more salmon.

          • Jay says:

            He also has access to numerous spectrometers so I’m going to trust him over you.

          • Eric Hall says:

            He didn’t use data. He used a projection. A huge difference.

            If a weather model says a hurricane is going to hit Florida in 2 weeks, you of course are cautious and watch the data more closely. You don’t completely alter your plans for it. You take more data – send out extra instruments. If it starts to get closer to danger you take more precautions if the data still shows the danger. So far – this looks like it will be a tropical depression instead of a Category 5 hurricane. Of course it could change, but so far the data is showing the forecast was off the mark from a couple weeks ago.

          • Jay says:

            Can we not take preventative measures based on projections to not screw the entire planet?

          • Jay says:

            Which data from a few weeks ago are you referring to exactly?

          • Eric Hall says:

            I’m saying you can go to various sources and get data gathered by scientific ships and coastal monitoring stations run by universities and look at what they are measuring. Most of it is public, though I did also look at resources I get access to through work.

          • Jay says:

            I’m sorry if I’m coming across as an asshole. I just really think this is important,

          • Jay says:

            There are charts in his report showing levels above Japanese limits. Can you please screen shot your reported infirmation and post it

          • Eric Hall says:

            Those charts are not current levels, they are model outputs based on the higher estimate of CS-137 than what we are actually seeing. You can find it in his report – you are apparently looking at it.

            I don’t want to screen shot it as I get access through my work and posting screen shots of it here would be a violation of the agreement between my employer and the publisher.

          • Jay says:

            Are you referring to professors Buesseler or the the Victoria scientists? I’m fairly confident in their data recording however they are not really discussing bioaccumulation

          • Eric Hall says:

            There is data from David Suzuki’s institute, along with Universities in California, Oregon, and Washington all recording data. Hell – if pseudo scientist Suzuki can’t get readings high enough to cause alarm, I don’t think anyone can.

            FYI: I deleted your comment where you decided to use profanity and call me names. My employer knows of my blog and I prefer to keep my job. Thanks.

          • Jay says:

            I can’t even understand why you’re downplaying this? What exactly is motivating you to say this isn’t an issue?

          • Jay says:

            It’s like you’re saying the oil spill didn’t happen in the gulf. Seriously dude.

          • Jay says:

            There are charts in the upper right hand corner of the PDF.

            http://www.researchgate.net/publication/268982476_A_Marine_Food_Web_Bioaccumulation_model_for_Cesium_137_in_the_Pacific_Northwest

            Please show proof of your claims now.

          • Eric Hall says:

            OK – using your chart information, it says about the second chart reflecting levels above the safety limit:

            future scenario with (CW) = 0.01 Bq/L; (CS) =1.0 Bq/kg dw

            That future scenario refers to the Rossi data – as what it also shows on the chart:

            Cs seawater activity data were obtained from Smith et al. (2013) to simulate current conditions (i.e. using 5.0 x 10-4 Bq/L), and from Rosi et al. (2013) for a future scenario over the 2014-2020 time period (i.e. 0.01 Bq/L).

            That’s my proof. He says right in the paper the chart showing a level above the safety limit is based on the Rossi predictions plugged into his model. His model also includes another prediction of Cs-137 uptake by plankton, also based on a 2013 paper making those predictions (again, also indicated in your chart). It isn’t ACTUAL DATA IN THE MODEL, but predicted levels.

            The conclusion in the chart states:

            While current 137Cs activities do not indicate a health concern for the consumption of fish products by human populations in the west coast of Canada, 137Cs activities may achieve levels in upper trophic levels that may pose health risks in wildlife species. A rigorous monitoring program would also support the further development of the model and improve the ability to forecast 137Cs activities in marine organisms and uptake in human populations that consume sea products.

            So again, the CS-137 levels MAY ACHIEVE LEVELS – not that they have, but they may. I honestly don’t know how you are reading this differently than that.

          • Jay says:

            You just agreed with my original statement that scientists are predicting our salmon to be above Japanese Government guidelines in roughly a year. Do you just like arguing?

          • Eric Hall says:

            No I don’t agree with that. A scientist (singular, one) made a presentation in which his model using another model predicts salmon will be above the Japanese safety (but not the Canadian) safety limit. There is a huge difference. You tried to, in your claim, make it seem like because he presented this at a conference it made it fact. It doesn’t. I also pointed out flaws in his methodology. And if you believe his conference presentation, then you have to believe it entirely – which includes putting the more current data into his equation and find out that at those levels the safety limit is not exceeded.

            I am not arguing. I am having a scientific discussion. There is a difference between the two.

  89. Jay says:

    Are you familiar with bioaccumulation? Because that is what was discussed in Pr Alava’s study. Which university to you teach at again?

  90. Jay says:

    Please feel free to delete as many of my comments as you like. I apologize for my profanity. It really frustrates me to see people lie about a scientific report and not show any proof. Especially on a website people go for accurate information. Still waiting on those screen shots.

  91. Jay says:

    Since when did David Suzuki buy a spectrometer or Geiger counter? You’re just taking out of your a*s now. I added a star so you don’t delete this one.

    • Noah Dillon says:

      Instead of inserting an asterisk you could also just not put it in those terms. I feel like it might be better to just say that you think he’s wrong instead of reaching for the strongest possible pejorative you can think of. You could also take at face value that what’s being presented here isn’t a lie, but an attempt to grapple with the evidence. Like all science, it’s susceptible to being shown as wrong, but that doesn’t mean that anyone’s lying.

      Have you ever listened to Intelligence Squared US? It’s a debate program on NPR. It has really good examples of people engaging in heated and contentious debates without slinging profanities or questioning the motives of their opponents or accusing anyone of lying. I think it’s a great model for exactly these kinds of exchanges, which can be productive if they’re not immediately reduced to name-calling and paranoia and back-biting.

      • Jay says:

        No, he is flat out lying and making stuff up.

        • Eric Hall says:

          Here is the open source stuff. It takes very little time to search “David Suzuki radiation ocean” to find his blog and thereby the data

          http://www.ourradioactiveocean.org/results.html

          • Jay says:

            Ken Buesseler from WHOI runs that website I watched him speak here in November. Not David Suzuki.

          • Eric Hall says:

            No – you are missing the point. The DATA is collected by David Suzuki’s institute (at least most of the data points from farther out in the ocean). The website isn’t the data. It aggregates the data in a public place I provided to you instead of doing screen shots of my data source through work. It is the same data though, and it tells you the source of the data on each data point. I am not sure how that changes my point.

          • Jay says:

            I have a bumper sticker from him for CMER

      • Jay says:

        I know Professor Alava, this moderator is completely creating false information.

        • Eric Hall says:

          You know him, thus it makes what I am saying false? Thats pretty much a non-sequiter. Look at what he wrote, and look at the charts. He says if his model is run at the levels assumed by regulatory right after the accident, the levels stay below safety limits. If his model is run using Rossi predictions (made in early 2013), then Alava gets levels above the Japanese safety limit. But I question using a prediction which is over 18 months old when there is plenty of real data to use. However, I think the conclusion of his presentation is correct in that Rossi’s predictions are probably at the high end of reasonable and that we should monitor the levels with more granularity so that if the levels do get to Rossi levels we should do more fish testing.

          I simply cannot see how you see that as unreasonable.

      • Jay says:

        I appreciate your diplomatic approach. But this guy is false quoting someone I know and calling it evidence. He is making stuff up and runs this website.

        • Eric Hall says:

          FYI I do not run the website. I blog here. I moderate here. I simply will not tolerate attacks against me or any blogger that do not add anything to the conversation. I am not making anything up. If screen shots are so easy, show me, with a screenshot, where Alava stated the levels are already there. Show me where he said these are the current levels measured in salmon. He didn’t.

  92. Jay says: “Eat more salmon.”

    I do. Usually once a week. And I feed it to my young son. All without fear of Fukushima radiation. I don’t just talk the talk about not living in fear, I walk the walk. Jay, if you want to buy thyroid pills and lead underwear and run around screaming that the sky is falling and the ocean boiling, you can do that. I choose not to, relying on the wisdom and research of those whose job it is to know better.

    • Jay says:

      Like the scientists I know personally testing things with their $100,000 spectrometers? Your attitude is everything that is wrong with this world. Think of your kid’s future for one minute.

    • I have been following your site for a while. I have read the recent flurry of posts between Eric and Jay. I am not a nuclear scientist so I am not in a position to tell whether or not Fukushima has caused “enough” damage that it will effect all of us at least in the northern hemisphere. There are many reports that go back and forth. We are going onto four years of this power plant leaching radiation into the water and air; when is this going to be stopped? How much more of this can be disregarded, as you Mike do all the time, before we truly are at a point of no return? I personally believe that this is not at all a good situation and the fact that world leaders are not taking this at all seriously is at the very least negligent at best! I for one will not eat anything out of the Pacific Ocean, I can do with out it. And who knows how much of this radiation spewed into the atmosphere will effect us and future generations. As a site such as this one continues to refute (debunk) the problems with this radiation outbreak, wouldn’t it serve a better purpose at rallying people to demand that all countries get together to once and for all remedy the Fukushima problem! To continue to sweep this obviously horrible situation under the rug is simply not acceptable!

      • Eric Hall says:

        I don’t think anyone is sweeping it under the rug. We are simply making a scientific evaluation of the danger, and currently it is still not something which will have a great effect on anyone not near the plant.

        How long will it effect us? It isn’t a black and white answer. If every scrap of fuel stored at the plant were to spontaneously experience fission and turn into CS-137, and we took all of that CS-137 and dumped it in the ocean, it would come out to be about 10 Bq/m^3 of water. 1 m^3 is equal to 1000 Liters. As a comparison, a banana has over 100 Bq per banana. So if we consider the top 100 meters of the ocean to be 2.5% of the ocean volume (a rough estimate based on average depth), and that all of the radiation will stay in the top 100 meters, that gives us 400 Bq per 1000 liters of water.

        Obviously there are some absurdities there. Not all of the fuel is going to turn into radioactive nuclei. It also isn’t going to disperse immediately to all of the ocean water at once. So instead, we should monitor the data and let the data guide us as to whats safe. We are exposed to radiation every second of our life in the food we eat, the sun, the soil…everything has some radioactivity. It is important to be aware of it, monitor it – but not live our life scared of it.

  93. So Eric, the plan is to continue to monitor a bad situation and not try to remedy it, is that what I’m again hearing from the “debunking” crowd?!!

    • Loggy says:

      @AmericaWakeUpNow, if you know of a potential remedy, some way to cure this festering ulcer you should spit it out, for humanities sake man!
      What else are we capable of doing AFTER a nuclear disaster? Aside from pissing on it, nothing of course. You know, the entire basis of the opposition to nuclear electricity production.
      And yes, we do just monitor it and we do keep repeating how bad a situation it is. Just not loudly enough for my comfort is all.

      • As I have stated before, I am not a nuclear scientist so I unfortunately can not come up with a solution. My problem with people just going around saying well it really isn’t bad enough to harm us and there is nothing to worry about we are monitoring it, is that that attitude just ends up feeding complacency. This site happens to commit itself to debunking conspiracy theories. Well it isn’t a conspiracy theory that there is a real problem at Fukushima that will eventually effect humanity, and not in a good way. I could respect sites like this one more if it actually tried to get the followers of this site (which seems to be quite a few) information on how they could get their voices heard by the agencies that are held accountable for tragedies such as this one. I can’t believe for one second that if world leaders got together that something more could be done to alleviate the current problems at this nuclear power plant.

        • Eric Hall says:

          Oh – I guess we have nothing to do with this then? https://www.iaea.org/front

          Or this? http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve.html

          Stoking the fire of fear is certainly not the job of a website promoting science and reason. Are we concerned? Sure. I don’t think any of us who write here would be able to say we don’t share some concern over this plant or nuclear power in general. However, the amount of concern should be based in science. I have, more than once, calculated the worst case scenario in these comments – meaning if every bit of fuel were to spontaneously experience fission and become the particles of concern. Even at that, we don’t reach a level which would cause a global catastrophe. It is very bad for those near there. For the rest of us, it is worth monitoring, but it is pretty unlikely we will reach a level which requires action.

          The purpose of the series of pieces on this is to debunk the outright lies, and put the disaster into perspective – using science.

          • Eric you have provided links to these two sites U.S.NRC and IAEA. I have not seen Skeptoid promote these sites. By the way, how are these two organizations actively working to curtail the Fukushima crisis? All I see is the same old we’re monitoring the situation. You state there could be no danger even if all the fuel experienced fission. So in your opinion even the worst case scenario could not harm humanity, then why even bother monitoring what’s going on there?

          • Eric Hall says:

            The reason you would monitor it would be because the dispersal of the material would not be uniform. Meaning, people within a couple hundred kilometers could face some danger if something dramatic happened. But if one looks at it from a global perspective, it simply cannot be disastrous for the whole world – because the scale of the amount of fuel versus the size of the earth don’t match up.

            If I empty a can of pepper spray on the sidewalk, it probably isn’t good for the people near me. But for a person a town over – a few molecules of capsaicin might make it over, but it isn’t going to cause any harm. If a truckload of pepper spray turns over, it might be bad for the whole town – a little less for the next town – but the next county won’t have much of an issue.

            There isn’t an unlimited amount of fuel at Fukushima. For those nearby, it is still a situation worth watching closely.

          • Loggy says:

            There is paradoxically however massive limits on can be done about the site itself.
            To me the global perspective is not “stop eating seafood” (though that would feature if we were discussing ecological sustainability) but rather “See?!, Now carefully decommission all the old reactors.” And “NO! You cannot apply for yet another extension to the legal life of this reactor”.

            The West Coast of the US is currently fine so you can all keep heading down your own personal mine shafts at breakneck speed.
            The real effects of a nuclear disaster are immediately adjacent to the festering reactor itself. Maybe spare a thought for those people there between bouts of West Coast Fever.

          • Eric Hall says:

            I would agree we should take the old style plants offline. The design of most plants is 50+ years old, and we have better, safer methods of producing nuclear power. The problem is, safer nuclear is way more expensive than coal – though because people don’t consider the long-term costs of coal, safer nuclear would probably be a better option. With such massive up front costs, the only way to build them is with government subsidy or massive increase in electric costs – neither of which are favorable politically. Thorium, pebble bed, and a few other designs all show promise, but no one is willing to pay for them – well perhaps the Chinese will.

          • Eric I got the Chernobyl information from the World Nuclear Association site:

            http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Appendices/Chernobyl-Accident—Appendix-2–Health-Impacts/

            Again, because I’m not properly schooled in nuclear science, I’m out here asking questions about the whole nuclear power agenda. I hope that in the future people that are out on the internet today telling people that everything will be alright will still be around 20 years from now to continue to back up their earlier claims.
            I have questions about so many things when it comes to these nuclear power plants, but one that really burns me is why many of these plants have been built where they are. Fukushima being built near “the ring of fire” fault lines, Diablo Canyon Nuclear power plant built with in a mile of the Shoreline fault lines! The World Nuclear Association estimates that 20 percent of all nuclear power reactors worldwide operate in areas vulnerable to earthquakes. As I said before, I’m not schooled in nuclear science, but I can clearly see that there are several more problems that we will be facing in the future with these power plants. And maybe you are right and we skate past this Fukushima crisis relatively unscathed. But, will we be lucky the next time another crisis occurs?

          • Eric Hall says:

            Fukushima did not have a problem with the earthquake. The problem was with the Tsunami. I don’t have a problem with building plants where earthquakes happen because they are made to withstand all of that plus some. Fukushima should have never happened – all someone had to do was say “Generators below grade? That’s stupid.” That’s poor planning.

            I still don’t see where your 600,000 number comes from – other than the about 600,000 considered “liquidators.” That is a much different than how it affects people in the area or around the globe. Using the Soviet Union as a representation of how the world treats their workers is not exactly a high standard.

          • Okay Eric now you’re splitting hairs. The tsunami was cause by an earth quake. The World Nuclear Association article states that a study shows 192,000 Russian, 74,000 Belarusian, 291,000 Ukrainians effected adversely, mortality to be caused by Chernobyl crisis. So excuse me, not 600,000 but 557,000, again this is an estimate that does not include the “unclear” amount of others effected by the subsequent fall out. Again, as I stated before, people do not trust what they are being told because history has shown them that what they were told just is not true. How do you build these nuclear plants with out having all aspects of the operation thought out. To this day spent fuel rods are being stored with out a definite plan for disposal of these rods. Spin it any way you would like Eric, but the fact remains that these plants are clearly a human crisis waiting to happen.

          • Although there are problems with nuclear power, there are deadly physical environmental dangers to the population with fossil fuels. An equally problematic question with no plan for the long term. Nuclear issues are really no different when it is compared to the respiratory and environmental impact of burning fossil fuels en mass. We already have a human crisis due to energy production and nuclear is at least part of the answer.

          • Noah Dillon says:

            Hey AmericaWakeUpNow, the Japanese power plants were built in the early 1970s using a design from the 1950s. They were supposed to have been decommissioned long before the disaster and doing so would have averted ALL of it. It wasn’t a secret and no one was lied to about that. There just wasn’t adequate pressure put on the responsible parties to follow through with safety measures. I don’t feel like that’s really indicative of the safety of nuclear power generally, especially since designs for newer plants are safer, more productive, and smaller, using far more fuel to produce far less waste with much, much, much shorter half-lives, and far fewer risks overall. Furthermore, the amount of poisoning, environmental, and social harm done by traditional sources of fuel (such as coal, gas, and petroleum) by far totally overwhelms that of the three nuclear disasters on record. Deepwater Horizon got a lot of press, but there’s usually dozens of well fires and oil spills along the gulf coast every single year. Giant vats of waste from coal mining, which poison local groundwater and fry whole riverbeds to death, are the norm in many parts of the country. Mountain top removal, black lung, heavy metals, mine collapse, pipeline leaks, spilled crude, etc. etc. These are far more common and far more devastating than nuclear power, no matter how you measure it.

          • Noah Dillon says:

            Did you know that coal ash produces more environmental radioactive material than nuclear power?

          • I have been getting comments like yours about fossil fuels. For the record, I would like to see this whole fossil fuel/big oil economy come to a crashing end once and for all. I find it hard to believe that all technologies have advanced except for the burning of fossil fuels for energy. Now I have seen several “zero point” energy concepts come and go. If you say that there might be an agenda at hand to keep current standards as is, especially on a site such as this one, you will be laughed off of the site and branded a conspiracy theorist. Again, for the record, I would love to see other alternatives to nuclear and fossil fuels to generate power. I am sure that they exist.

          • Loggy says:

            “Fukushima did not have a problem with the earthquake”
            “The jumper was not killed by the fall however the sudden deceleration proved fatal”
            “Reagan wasn’t the problem, it was Reaganomics”
            “Guns don’t kill people, massive hemorrhages do”
            “Hitler didn’t kill six million Jews, people following out their orders did”

            #astoundinglogicdisconnect

          • Fukushima didn’t have a problem until there was an earth quake that caused a tsunami.
            A jumpers decision to jump off of a building nearly always proves fatal.
            Reagan did not understand economics.
            Guns don’t kill people, a person pulling the trigger on a gun pointed at another person kills people.
            Hitler’s orders definitely caused the death of a lot of unfortunate people.

            I’m sure that we all learned a lot from these play on words.

          • Noah Dillon says:

            Fukushima had a problem with 40-year-old reactors built with a 60-year-old design and bad governance exacerbating those risks. If they had been decommissioned on time this wouldn’t have happened.

          • And how many instances exist just like Fukushima through out the world?

          • 7 million premature deaths linked annually to air pollution? So how many fukushimas a year to equal that number?

          • I am reprinting a previous reply to Noah Dillon so that you understand my position on fossil fuels also:
            I have been getting comments like yours about fossil fuels. For the record, I would like to see this whole fossil fuel/big oil economy come to a crashing end once and for all. I find it hard to believe that all technologies have advanced except for the burning of fossil fuels for energy. Now I have seen several “zero point” energy concepts come and go. If you say that there might be an agenda at hand to keep current standards as is, especially on a site such as this one, you will be laughed off of the site and branded a conspiracy theorist. Again, for the record, I would love to see other alternatives to nuclear and fossil fuels to generate power. I am sure that they exist.
            So as you see I’m not a proponent for fossil fuels either. But to turn a blind eye to a possible future nuclear power plant crisis doesn’t make that potential crisis go away.

          • Noah Dillon says:

            Yeah, obviously alternatives to fossil fuels exist: solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear. They’re all good options, and they’re all much, much, much better than fossil fuels. Everyone who voluntarily (unpaid) contributes to the Skeptoid Blog, I’m pretty sure, would be 100% in favor of eliminating the use of fossil fuels as an energy source, so your supposition that anyone here is happy with the consumption of petrochemicals is way, way, way off.

            Did you know, for instance, that fly ash from burning lignite (coal) produces more nuclear pollution than nuclear power? Did you know that when Japan recently shut off their nuclear power plants (including brand new, much safer, much more efficient, much more productive Generation III reactors), they had no other clean sources of energy and so had to resort to more energy production with fossil fuels?

            The oil and gas industry loves it that people are freaked out about nuclear power. They absolutely love it, because if people aren’t using nuclear power and there isn’t much demand for renewables, then they’re the only alternative.

            So what I’m saying here and in my previous comment is that perhaps instead of advocating against a clean energy (which benefits the oil and gas industry), you should be advocating FOR renewables. Germany gets more than 30% of its electricity from renewables because their people DEMANDED RENEWABLES, not because they fought AGAINST NUCLEAR.

          • I don’t believe that I implied that anyone on these recent comments were happy using petro products to produce power. I for one am not and I don’t condone the use of petro fuel to produce power. My contention is that we do have the potential for more and greater nuclear disasters given age, positioning, etc… of these existing nuclear power plants. Odds are that in the future we will finally experience a disaster that will effect a mass amount of humans. Fukushima is an example of coming problems. Nothing is being done to insure that another nuclear disaster won’t cause humanity great harm. I cited a couple of articles that you did not address. You claim that there are zero problems with existing nuclear plants, but those articles say otherwise.

          • Noah Dillon says:

            I was confused then, when you said “If you say that there might be an agenda at hand to keep current standards as is, especially on a site such as this one, you will be laughed off of the site and branded a conspiracy theorist.” And I’m also confused by “This site only serves to pacify the people into their eventual nightmarish death that will be caused by the radiation being spewed out of Fukushima!!!” I’m a contributor to Skeptoid and I pretty much know the other contributors and no one I’ve ever read here has ever expressed any interest in maintaining the current construction of the world’s energy production, nor sought to pacify and kill anyone. You’d pretty much have to be some kind of horrific psychopath to do that and I think most people aren’t wired that way.

            I’m also confused as to why you’d claim that I said “there are zero problems with existing nuclear power plants.” Where did I say that? A lot of nuclear power plants are old and decrepit and need to be decommissioned, as Fukushima horrifically illustrates. That doesn’t mean that nuclear power is wrong.

            I can’t fact check all the uncited claims in the NIRS talking points. Some of this stuff sounds doubtful, some sound like misrepresentations, others sound like worst-case scenarios, much of it seems like reasonable concerns that could be better used in making nuclear power safer rather than non-existent. Or, as I said previously, you could advocate for the development and further deployment of other forms of clean energy: solar, wind, geothermal, etc. Really I think that’s probably the best use of your time and resources. As I said before, prohibiting nuclear power without renewables in place to make up the difference means that we’ll shift back to a reliance on oil, gas, and (far more dangerous nuclear pollution from) coal. I advocate for renewables and more (newer, safer, more efficient) nuclear power.

            I think this is really cool and indicative of the possibilities currently being unexplored in favor of putting more greenhouse gases, ash, and other pollutants into the air:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UXXwWOImm8

          • When I asked you how many instances like Fukushima may be out there, your response was “zero”. The cost of decommissioning a nuclear power plant being a billion dollars is why in my opinion many older plants are not off line today. Zero point energy that I am talking about are like magnet generators, etc…which is usually tied into conspiracy theories because they come and go with their inventors running into many unusual and questionable situations. I feel that people should always question those in authority especially when it comes to possible issues that may effect their health. An anyway you slice it, there have been many questionable activities involved with nuclear power plants just as you have had with the fossil fuel industry. The articles that I cited question nuclear power plants that are constantly leaching radiation into the water and atmosphere.

          • Noah Dillon says:

            Yeah, OK, but again that’s not a problem specific to nuclear power. It’s a problem of regulation and governance for all electrical power production. And, again, it’s obviously far cheaper to decommission 40-year-old power plants and build new ones than it is to clean up disasters like Fukushima, the Duke Energy spill, Exxon-Valdez, etc. etc. So I still don’t get your point. The way that the over-aged power plant in my hometown got closed down is that people made a big deal out of it until officials were forced to act, which they (citizens) probably should have been doing 10 to 15 years earlier.

            I don’t know what you mean by a magnet generator. I think most turbines in power plants use magnets to generate energy. But free energy doesn’t exist. That’s why some inventors are called cranks: they claim that they’ve invented something that defies the laws of physics. None has ever been shown to work, though many have patents. If you can show me one that does work you could win a million dollars, and you’d probably stand to make billions off of governments, corporations, and citizens. No one likes fossil fuel companies and despite their immense wealth, they’re not as powerful as one might imagine. Like, the Kochs hired a guy to do a climate change study for them, thinking it would come back in their favor, and he said that he had been a denier, a “skeptic,” and after reviewing all the data on behalf of the Kochs, came back and said, “I was wrong, climate change is real, manmade, and a very serious problem.” So, if they can’t control the scientists that they’ve hired, and the can’t quash solar panel companies or nuclear power, and they can’t stop people from getting patents or making YouTube videos and instructional websites, then there must be some other impediment to free energy generators working. That impediment is that they don’t work.

          • Noah have you ever heard of “dark winter”? Check it out and then talk to me about climate change. And as far as zero point energy goes,( permanent magnet generators) when the patent offices don’t allow people to use “perpetual motion” in their patent for an invention, than all zero point generators go out the window! Why won’t the patent office let people apply for a patent using perpetual motion in their inventions?!! Well there couldn’t be a conspiracy a foot to keep the status quo fossil fuel and nuclear power industry afloat, could there?!! Has anyone ever looked into what the foundations of many of our sciences were built upon? Start with an untrue foundation and everything built upon it will also be untrue. Where does electricity really come from? And I’m not talking about passing a magnet through copper winding. Aren’t we surrounded by energy!!

          • Dave says:

            About perpetual motion (are we drifting off topic here?)…

            It always seemed to me that if you get an object up to escape velocity from the Earth and Sun (say, have an Apollo astronaut throw a wrench out the hatch), that it’s reasonable to assume it’s going to stay in motion virtually forever. It may well stay in motion far after humanity is gone. Is this not “perpetual motion”?
            I believe the density of intersteller space is one hydrogen atom per cubic meter, so it isn’t going to slow down soon.

            (And, of course, Voyager and such have left our solar system entirely, yet they still transmit back to us. The people who built those (JPL) deserve a Nobel prize.)

            I believe it’s currently assumed in quantum physics that there are “virtual particles”. They pretty much pop into existence in pairs, one regular matter, one antimatter. They collide, then pop out of existence. Apparently this goes on all the time. So the universe isn’t empty space; at the lowest level, it’s full of activity.

            Any comments / explanations would be welcome!

            Thanks,
            Dave

            p.s. Wow, lots of activity in the Fukushima subject … and I still don’t know why I can only reply to certain notes and not others…

          • I’m not sure, but when I’m replying to a person on this comment thread, is it being directed to that person or does it just become a general comment with all the rest of the comments here? I guess that drifting off the subject might be what you can call it, but it all does tie together in the whole production of energy debacle. Dave have you heard of “dark winter”? And do you know why the patent office does not allow people to incorporate perpetual motion in their inventions. I believe that allowing perpetual motion in patents is a key to a possible zero point energy fix.

          • QuantumDave says:

            Noah, I’m not able to directly reply to your question about permanent magnet generators/alternators, so I’ll reply here.

            People use alternators for things like cars, as you probably do, but they’re also cost-effective for windmills, micro/mini-hydro power generation, and other stuff. Generators/Alternators work by spinning a coil through magnetic fields. You can spin the coil through a stationary field, you can spin the field around a stationary coil, or you can spin them both, as long as they’re spinning relative to each other. Designs abound. This is truly Nikola Tesla territory; he invented AC motors, generators/alternators, 3-phase power, transformers, spark plugs (no kidding), and so forth.

            An alternator’s “stationary” magnets are electromagnets, which create the magnetic field which another coil spins in, putting out electricity. The fanbelt spins that coil.

            So there’s a startup problem: you have to have some current to at least energize the electromagnets, so the alternator can start making electricity.

            Once there’s a bit of startup electricity, the alternator will spin a coil through that electromagnetism, and can start putting out serious electricity, which will make the alternator electromagnets put out a bigtime electromagnetic field, which helps it put out a lot of current, and do stuff like recharge the battery.

            Fortunately even cars whose batteries are very drained usually still have enough voltage and current to put out a weak magnetic field in their alternator. That’s why you can push-start a dead car with a manual transmission. Get the car rolling, pop the clutch, that’ll spin the engine, the alternator’s weak field will make enough electricity to really spin up and make a lot of electricity, it’ll put out more, the ignition coil will start putting out sparks to the sparkplugs, and you’re running. You do need to wait for the battery to charge, and not let the car die at a stoplight, etc.

            Alternators can put out a *lot* of current; 50-70+ amps is not unusual for a modern car, 300 amps not unusual for buses, and so forth. That’s why the main wire from the alternator to the battery is so thick, and also why alternators tend to be located physically close to the battery; even very thick wires have some resistance, and a few ohms makes a huge difference on a 12 volt circuit.

            So someone said, “If we take the electromagnets out of an alternator, and substitute in supermagnets (the rare-earth magnets that are relatively new), we won’t have to use up electricity to energize the electromagnets!”

            I looked over various websites about this some time ago, and some struck me as genuinely well engineered kits. You unbolt your alternator, take it apart, remove the electromagnets, and put in the permanent magnets, then bolt it all up and put it back in your car / whatever.

            If I were engineering a power system for a remote location where solar wasn’t practical, I’d probably use a permanent magnet alternator, because it can be spun up from complete-zero and work.

            The mistake people have made with this is assuming it’ll give “free energy”, because it doesn’t have to spin up the electromagnetism coils. Yes, it takes the electromagnet load off the system. However, that’s just plain not the main loads on the car power system! It does nothing for the starter (200 amps), headlights (20+ amps), air conditioning clutch (10 amps at least) back window heating leads (I’ve never measured those), the ignition coil (10 amps), and lots of other stuff (windshield wipers, motors to move your seat around, etc). The alternator has to support those. At low RPM the battery helps support the load, because the alternator doesn’t work well at low RPM. And if you have an extreme music system, you already know about installing a super-capacitor (10 Farads — not a typo) on the power wire headed to the amplifier, because the bass notes will seriously pull down your car’s whole electrical system, and amplifiers whose power suply goes away on bass notes sound terrible.

            Other “free energy” sites I’ve seen have a generator or alternator connected to a motor, and the output of the generator is connected to the motor. Depending on their relative efficiencies, this can run for awhile, but stuff like the ball bearing mounts, air resistance, Lenz’s law about induced current’s electromagnetism repelling the inducing magnetism, and so forth always bring the efficiencies down from 100%. (And 100% isn’t “free energy” to begin with.)

            (I’ve never seen anything that would put out free energy, except for politicians, whose hot air could possibly energize a Peltier junction. Okay, that’s just nerding out, but I love this stuff.)

            There are some pretty cool little “minimalist motors” online. I like the one consisting of one battery and one paperclip. The paperclip spins around the battery. It’s always fun trying to figure out how something like that works — and how the inventor came up with it.

            Most people haven’t had the experience of turning an alternator or generator (or some DC motors) by a hand crank, and *feeling* what happens when an electrical load is put onto it. First it’s easy to spin, then you put the load on, and wham! All the sudden, it’s very hard to turn that generator, whether the generator has permanent magnets (most hobbyist generators have them) or a self-excited field coil, which is more alternator-land. It’s truly hard to spin a generator enough to light a 100 watt bulb.

            Another example is when you’re jumping a dead car, connecting a running car to a dead car, the moment you put on the jumper cables, the running car will go, “Ungh!” and idle more slowly. The running car’s alternator is seeing a big-time new load and is trying to supply electricity to just about a bottomless pit, which is the dead car’s battery. With excellent jumper cables you can maybe start the dead car with the running car’s battery directly, but all too often you need to leave them connected for a bit while the dead car’s battery charges up some. It’s going to take around 200 amps to spin the starter motor, in particular when it’s cold.

            One tip: Alternators aren’t very efficient at all at low RPM’s. Take the running car up to 2,000 or 3,000 RPM when jumping cars, so the alternator can be jamming out 60 amps. That’ll start charging the dead car’s battery (well, if the dead battery is still usable; regular batteries can only survive a few complete drains).

            Something I need to look into is how permanent magnet systems control the output of the alternator. My guess would be putting in a transistor to regulate the output, but I don’t know.

            Looks like I’ve run on and on again. Oh, well, for a long time I wrote articles and was paid based by the word count, so I tend to write long.

            I hope you had fun with this reply, anyway!

            Thanks,
            Dave

            p.s. I really do welcome replies and comments.
            I learn a lot in this forum.

          • Noah Dillon says:

            By “Dark Winter” do you mean “Nuclear Winter”? Yeah, OK, sure. That’s a result of nuclear weapons, which I would agree should be dismantled and banned. No argument there. And it’s certainly not any kind of argument against the threat of global warming by fossil fuels, so it’s kind of a non-sequitur in that regard.

            As to perpetual motion patents: https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/patents.htm There are a bunch. They’ve never gone into production, despite the protected financial benefits available to the patent holders, because they’re unworkable devices. The literally do not work as intended. That’s not evidence of any conspiracy, just physics.

            Yes, every scientist looks into the foundations upon which science is built. I don’t know what that means. Science is built on the scientific method: hypothesis, test, analysis, conclusions, repeat. Evidence-less conjectures are ignored until evidence appears, falsified results are thrown out in favor of better results. That’s science in a nutshell. Everything is open to investigation, all results are subject to falsifiability, from a small study to the laws of physics. Better, repeatable results are more useful than unrepeated idiosyncrasies and outliers. What else are you asking about?

            What do you mean “Where does electricity come from?” It can be made in a lot of ways. Rub your sock-covered feet on the rug and you’ll generate static electricity, though the expenditure of calories and materials will be far higher than the amount of electrical energy you get out of the exercise. We are not “surrounded by energy.” Look up the definition of energy: “a measurement of the potential ability to do work or cause change.” That doesn’t mean you can invent electrical power from nothing. The reason that the fundamentals of electrical engineering, chemistry, physics, and so on are so pervasive: they work where ideas like perpetual motion machines do not. If you can falsify Newton’s laws, please, be my guest. If you’ve got a working perpetual motion machine the JREF will give you a million dollars and I will be the first person to invest in your company. I’m pretty sure anyone here would love to throw money at that sort of thing. Good luck.

          • Lisa Barth says:

            It’s my understanding that the U.S. patent office does not, Not, accept ideas for perpetual motion machines, but that they require the inventor to have a working model. Is this correct?

          • To both Noah and Dave, I can’t seem to be able to reply to one or the other because you two have this game of answering to the others ones replies. Are you the same person? As I was commenting on before, “Dark Winter” is NOT a nuclear winter! Here’s a site that you two can look into: http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/dark-winter-cold-global-cooling/2014/11/16/id/607672/ .
            You say that we are not surrounded by energy, what about the radiant energy given off by our sun, is that not energy? When you rub your sock against the carpet or pass a magnet through a copper winding, where is that electricity coming from, where is it being harvested (generated) from? Is electricity a parlor trick that just appears when you pass a magnet through copper winding? I know you Dave and Noah feel that everything is scientifically cut and dry and there seems to be no such thing as conspiracy. But what about people like Preston Tucker who was basically railroaded by the “big three” and put out of business just because he developed an automobile that would have forced big car manufactures to spend money to meet new expectations. Or T.H. Moray’s invention “Moray Valve” that the patent office refused to patent. How about Stanley Meyer and his cheap water fuel cell to run cars. And Eugene Mallove’s cold fusion energy. Where are all of Nicola Tesla’s research papers? I believe that these people were not given their due and were not given a platform to even prove or disprove their inventions. You two live and die by the laws of thermodynamics and such, but remember, some laws were made to be broken. Someday these laws that you have completely based your lives upon may just end up being proven wrong. I hope to be here when that day comes. The mere fact that the patent office will not even consider a patent on an invention using perpetual motion, tells me that there is something foul going on here.

          • Noah Dillon says:

            Nah, man, I’m not the same person as Dave. Newsmax is a junk news site. It’s extremely impoverished and you can tell in part by its reliance on banner ads, links to sponsored content, and inline ads for goods and services. It’s basically just a way of leveraging clicks for money with no real intellectual integrity. It thinks you and anyone else who reads it is dumb, gullible, and ready to fork over your cash. No, the sun is not going to cause a global winter as, apparently, goes the hypothesis of “Dark Winter.” All evidence points away from that save for this one guy promoting the idea. The Earth has been getting hotter and hotter and we’re now looking at long-term drought in much of the country, as is happening all over the globe.

            Dude, I really don’t understand what your point is if you’re talking about us being surrounded by energy in that way. We have solar panels. They’re patented and in widespread use. We have electricity conduction with coils and magnets. None of that suggests that we can have perpetual motion machines. And certainly it doesn’t go anywhere towards a conspiracy. Look: as I said before, Germany and Japan are basically like the US except that they get more of their energy from nuclear power and renewables. Does that mean that the fossil fuels industry isn’t as powerful in those places as it is in the US? Or does that mean that those states have made decisions that they want other forms of electricity production and they’re going to mandate them. I’d say the latter, pretty clearly.

            Parts of Tesla’s archive were sold to the Yugoslav government by his nephew. It’s still there. As far as I know, the Yugoslavs have no death beams, free energy, teleportation devices, or any other thing that would allow them to rule the world and be the richest people on the planet. So what’s the evidence that his work is being suppressed?

            What about Preston Tucker? Who cares? Why haven’t Ford and Chevy crushed Toyota, Honda, BMW, Tesla Motors, etc? Why, actually, have their shares of the market been systematically reduced by the competition? They obviously aren’t masters of the Universe. Look at Detroit.

            Have you ever actually looked into the physics of a water fuel cell? It doesn’t work because you have to put more energy in than you get out of it.

            Sure, man, if you can demonstrate that the laws of thermodynamics can be replaced by a more effective set of laws that explain as many phenomena or more, then the scientific community is all ears. That’s what science is about: falsifiability. That’s its bedrock foundation. I just heard a report on NPR today that scientists are rethinking the historical narrative about the spread of the black plague, because it actually doesn’t make sense. We’ve taken Pluto off the list of planets. The hypothesis of global cooling has been revised and redescribed. We now understand that the globe is warming, not cooling. It was once believed that light travels through a substance called aether. Darwin didn’t think mass extinctions were possible. We’ve refined and removed and added hypotheses for the origins and development of life and of human history. We’ve established that biological information is carried in DNA. Newton was effectively replaced by Einstein, and Einstein, despite his skepticism, has been augmented by Quantum Mechanics. This is all the same scientific method, and its also probably the only means by which you’ll ever discover something that supersedes the laws of thermodynamics, if such superior laws exist.

            AGAIN: As in my previous comment with the URL, there are NUMEROUS patents for perpetual motion machines. None of them have gone to market and none of the patents have been brought to court because such machines do not work. If you still believe there’s a conspiracy afoot, I do encourage you to consult the Internet and YouTube, where you will find an unending stream of such devices, shared publicly for anyone who wants to buy and/or replicate them. Have you ever built such a machine? If so, please let me know what the results were. If you have not, I’d be happy to supply you with several patented blueprints and you can give it the proverbial whirl. Good luck, man.

            Also: Cold fusion is a form of nuclear power, similar to an H-bomb. I’m surprised you’re in favor of that, given your stance on fission, though I suspect you support it only because it sounds like there’s some conspiracy out there that gets you excited. From what I’ve heard from people I trust to be more informed about this than me (namely my brother, an electrical engineer and building geek), we’re liable to see the first cold fusion plants up and running within a decade or two. That’s really exciting. There’s more than enough fusion fuel around to power everything on Earth, emissions free, for a very, very, very long time.

          • There are several articles dedicated to Dark Winter. I don’t think that fluffing this theory off because I provided one article from Newsmax, a publication that you don’t approve of, doesn’t really put this issue to bed. We have been on global warming for at least two decades and I have yet to see large areas of inhabited coastal areas underwater due to global warming. I do believe that our planet goes through periods of warming and cooling and has been doing this for eons. Your brother is an electrical engineer, correct? Have him explain to you exactly how electricity occurs. Everywhere I look I can’t find where the patent office has patents on perpetual motion, because patent offices do not accept claims for perpetual motion machines. If I’m incorrect, please show me a patent. You are a very well educated and articulate person. Sometimes people that have gone through higher education tend to pigeon hole themselves.They become so sure of everything that they were taught, that thinking outside of the box is not an option. It is a shame that great minds are wasted because they are not taught to go beyond the text books to see if these current laws and theories can be bent or broken. I do have different beliefs and feel that there is much more to this life than meets the eye. We need more people that are willing to question everything and not just take for granted everything that they are taught through government schooling. I do like the comments back from you and Dave. And can appreciate the view points set forth.

          • Eric, I got a good laugh at your joke here about major coastal areas lost due to global warming! First of all, it is speculated that it will take another 10 years before this island supposedly goes under. As we all saw with Al Gore’s dire predictions about 10 years ago, none of it came to fruition. In addition, this is an island key, a barrier island. Barrier islands are often effected by changing ocean currents that make building on some barrier islands not always a smart idea. I do give you an “A” for effort though!

          • Eric, I read your article here, that I assume you show cased on “Skeptoid”. Impressive piece of literature, I’ll give you that, you are very educated and you put up a very good argument for global warming. All I’m asking for is proof that somewhere in the world, inhabitable coastal property has gone under with in the past two decades due to global warming. We can investigate coastal areas where ancient civilizations once occupied and see that there are many ancient cities that are now under water. But I doubt that we can attribute that to the burning of fossil fuels that caused global warming. I do believe that this planet goes through cooler and warmer periods, it at least seems to point to that being the case for several eons. Maybe the Earth has been experiencing a warming period for thousands of years that has seen the ice age rolled back and the continued melting of the polar caps (at least the northern caps). Just send me some pictures or an article showing massive coastal properties going under water, displacing massive populations of people.

          • Eric Hall says:

            Mr. America – the problem with your searching is that if you start with the conclusion (climate change is a hoax), you will certainly find articles which fit your conclusion.

            Science doesn’t care about your opinion. It cares about data. For example, in response to your #2 link:

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html

            Let me ask you a basic question – what are the frequencies which carbon dioxide readily absorbs?

            Start there. Then tell me my physics is wrong.

            I might also suggest: http://skeptoid.com/blog/2011/06/15/i-global-warming-skeptic/

          • Eric Hall says:

            Your newsmax one is even funnier – as in for example in their number 4 and number 5 points they basically prove warming is actually happening in the very reporting they did. I applaude their honesty, but they actually show data which demonstrates warming is happening and is not a hoax as the title would claim. Fascinating.

          • Eric,
            Again, I put those two articles in showing extremely small increases in sea level because I do feel that our planet goes through constant climate change, it is the course of natural on this planet. My feelings about politicians continually duping the public by fear mongering has to stop. Let’s look at this situation in a reasonable manner, stop running around with our hair on fire and come to real conclusions that take into consideration both sides of the coin. There are plenty of issues on both sides that make sense, we have to stop arguing and come to a middle ground. I don’t like the use of fossil fuels, but using global warming agendas to then push other agendas such as nuclear power isn’t the correct way to go about this either. I have taken issue with the fact that any talk of perpetual motion machines that could possibly lead to a zero point energy fix is completely prohibited. Everyone in the “scientific” community point to the Laws of Thermodynamics as the be all, end all of any discussions having to do with perpetual motion machines. There have been many examples of these machines that may work, but the USPTO will not even give these inventors the time of day to show case their works. In my opinion the second law of thermodynamics is suspect at best! Let these inventors have their due and people in the scientific community need to stop calling them crack pots and conspiracy nuts, they may actually have something worth while to show the world.

          • Eric Hall says:

            The thing is – they don’t show that. I am trying to tell you, your sources are wrong. They are not scientific papers – they are conjecture based on an already reached conclusion and they are trying to fit data to that conclusion.

          • Noah Dillon says:

            Did you read that OSS Foundation article? Because it actually kind of undermines your claims against global warming. I don’t know why I should be persuaded about the evidence of global warming by the signature of a psychologist, in the same way that an anti-psychology petition by a climate scientist doesn’t tell me anything about psychology.

            I also don’t understand your whole position, I think: anti-nuclear, anti-oil and gas, but also anti-climate science, anti-laws of physics. Am I forgetting something? So what’s your positive argument about how the world should be constructed? Every man has a perpetual motion machine to power who knows what? I mean, cellphones, computers, cars, etc., anything that needs a power source, is produced by a corporation, which you also seem paranoid about. So how do you think we should live? I mean, I’m seriously, earnestly asking because I’m interested and it seems unclear what you want.

          • Already went over most of this, I believe that Eric has gone over pretty much the same line of questioning. I find it hard to believe that all aspects of our lives have seen enormous leaps in technology except for our ability to produce energy. Still getting the lion share of our energy by burning fossil fuels for nearly 150 years and nuclear energy for over 60 years. Yet people such as yourself don’t seem to be interested in possibly going outside of the box and finding new solutions to very old problems. Just content in the status quo and happy to sit there feeling justified in your position. Pushing the same old rhetoric and carrying the same old tired torch that there is nothing better then what we currently have. Any talk outside the realm of your stringent schooling is total blasphemy. And people who are at least trying to find answers, are met again and again by people like yourself and others like those on this site with ridicule. Your time in my opinion, would be better served in not being so cynical, thinking that you have all the answers. How about trying to help find the solutions that the world needs. Or no, let’s not do anything and continue to let the big corporations take us to where ever they please, good or bad. Paranoia about corporations, not at all, these corporation have done just a fine job of steering the boat of humanity, right Noah!!

          • Eric Hall says:

            Again, let me ask you a very basic question – what are the wavelengths Carbon Dioxide absorbs? What is the relationship of transmission of these wavelengths to the amount of CO2? You keep posting stuff – but refuse to answer my basic question. Let’s start with the science. The basic science. This will help me determine where I should start posting.

          • Eric Hall says:

            Do you want me to link the almost 25,000 papers which all provide evidence the earth is warming and humans play a part in it? I’m not sure where I should start.

            I might just suggest instead http://www.skepticalscience.com/

          • AWUN I think your perfectly justified in putting your money into free energy machines. Just leave mine out of it. If I want to throw my money away I’ll buy some penny stocks instead. Just a personal preference for disposing of unwanted income on scams.

          • Nobody has asked you to put your money into anything. Many other people have already invested their own money and can’t get the patent office to even give their machines consideration. If these inventions are such a scam, and some may not work, then all the more reason to ferret them out. But when you take a stance as the USPTO has, it just leads to more suspicion.

          • QuantumDave says:

            Personally, I’ve read about / seen some things which interest me from an energy-source standpoint, and from a scientist-nerd standpoint.

            The first is quantum physics.

            Quantum physics is not that old in science terms — it was first invented around 1895, by Max Planck. Its first big-time use was by Albert Einstein in 1905. Call it ~~ a hundred twenty years.

            Basically quantum physics is a probability calculator. For a given experimental setup, it’ll spit out the probability that something is going to happen.

            Einstein (and Nikola Tesla!) hated quantum physics, because: You can’t “pry the lid off” the quantum calculator to see how the damned thing works. If you follow a strict set of rules, you can write a Schrodinger state equation, and the calculator will crunch and give you the probabilities something will happen. Anbd if you don’t follow the rules (for example, if you don’t have the right observer), then the quantum calculator will be useless.

            We just don’t know how it works!

            In general you have to give up mental pictures to do quantum, and both Einstein and Tesla were amazingly good at mental pictures – it’s no surprise they hated quantum physics.

            The main reason learning quantum theory is so hard is that people have to un-learn things they’ve been taught. Quantum forces you to think in new ways and a lot of people just can’t make that learning-cliff jump.

            Heisenberg figured out a new part of quantum physics: There’s a limit to what we can know about particles at the atomic level. That was about 1925.

            Richard Feynman and Julian (can’t remember last name) shared a Nobel Prize for figuring out QED: Quantum Electro-Dynamics.

            But Feynman enjoyed toying with quantum physics, and breaking rules. He was able to push the limits of quantum theory, rather than just taking those rules as The Laws Chiseled Into Stone. For example, Feynman invented a new rule: You can break the rules of quantum physics as long as you didn’t break them for too long a period of time.

            Quantum theory is getting … stodgy. We need bright, fresh minds to stretch it, and even better, to try to come up with a unified field theory that includes things like quantum gravity. So far, that hasn’t happened. It reminds me a great deal of science in the 1800’s. Back then we thought everything was figured out, but there were just a couple things that were wrong … and they turned out to force a revolution in science.

            We need more Feynmans who are not afraid to confront quantum physics and to try radical new ideas! Quantum physics currently has some very troubling aspects which, as Feynman put it, “are possibly just papered over”. He said that at his Nobel Prize speech.

            A universe that works in quantum-digital (1,2,3,4) ways, rather than the analog ways we think of (slide smoothly from 1 to 4) has *very* interesting possibilities. For example, a particle can hyperjump out of a black hole. Black holes do die. They diffuse via “Hawking radiation” as the particles inside do a very improbable, but allowed by quantum theory, “jump”. (Steven Hawking came up with this idea).

            A quick example is tunnel diodes. You can buy them for almost nothing at Radio Shack. In them, an electron “tunnels” through an insulator and gets to the wire on the other side. But we know it isn’t really tunneling, that’s just the term we assigned to it. (Nerd humor). The electron really hyperjumps from one side of the insulator to the other. It literally exists, before the insulator, then it exists on the far side of the insulator, without ever showing up inside the insulator.

            That’s a real-world useful quantum effect. There’s a lot of them!

            The second is faster-than-light information travel.

            The speed of light was thought to be the speed limit of, well, everything. That’s Einstein’s Relativity.

            We know about a pair of particles, one with +1 spin, one with -1 spin. The Quantum Rulebook says, they *must* be the opposite of each other. They’re called “entangled”.

            And Einstein almost immediately saw “spooky action at a distance”, back around 1934, with this entanglement business. It’s this:

            Move just one of them away from the other. Then we can flip the spin on the local particle, and the distant particle *must* flip, too. Apparently this is *instantaneous*. (We have now done this in labs).

            This gives us the possibility of radio that works by entangled particles. No interference, no loss with distance. And a whole bunch of possibilities open up.

            There are computers that run using light – literally, all lasers. AT&T/Bellcore had one, and it was the fastest machine anyone had ever seen.

            However, AT&T didn’t know how to market it. (As the joke goes, “If AT&T invented Eternal Life, they wouldn’t be able to market it.”) But the principles of a pure-light transistor and such are all worked out. It can be done.

            Now try that same trick using light that’s “faster than the speed of light”. The results should be interesting.

            The third is quantum computers. We already have some crude ones up and running. They can solve Sudoku puzzles with brute force almost instantly, by trying every possible combination of numbers, all in parallel. The NSA is drooling to get quantum computers, and may already have them, because a quantum computer can decrypt encrypted messages that use the PGP / RSA protocols – yes, even 4096 bit keys — in seconds. (Those are presently considered “military-grade” encryption — very secure.)

            These are going to be the Star Trek-like computers.

            Most of us now have Captain Kirk’s communicator: the cell phone. Personally I enjoy seeing SF come true!

            The fourth is the static electricity levels in the air. Between the ground and the ionisphere, there’s about 50 volts per foot of altitude. The current is extremely low, but, you can actually measure it with a delicate enough meter. (This is where us old vacuum-tube-voltmeter users really shine.)

            When a thunderstorm is near, the amount of electricity per foot of altitude really jumps up: 10,000 volts/foot. You can use it as a storm predictor.

            Tesla figured out that when lightning happens, a circular wave of electricity went into the ground and spread out. He could detect thunderstorms even at some distance, in 1898. That’s basically how Your WeatherPerson shows you where lightning struck after a storm.

            While the current is pretty low, you can feed it into a capacitor, providing it’s not too “lossy”. I haven’t kept up with capacitor technology, but supercapacitors might offer some ideas.

            And there you go, free energy.

            Perhaps build up a bank of low-loss capacitors that can be “spun”, in effect, so there’s always one cap charging, and one cap depleting. When the depleting one is dead, move to the next capacitor.

            Hmmmm… perhaps, store the current in a magnetic field? This is basically a switching power supply – that’s how your PC’s power supply works: it meters in electricity to a magnetic field, and meters it out from the magnetic field to the computer.

            There is very low loss from an inductor spun around a circle of iron.

            Any electrically conductive object that isn’t touching the ground can help provide electrons. (This idea dates back to Ben Franklin, if I recall correctly).

            The fifth is dark matter and dark energy. This will be another revolution. We really don’t know much about dark matter and dark energy, apart from the fact they do seem to be out there, and their gravity distorts light. Lots of people are trying to figure this one out, because more than half the universe is made of dark matter.

            The sixth and last one I’ll list here is: Why are galaxies moving away from ours? There’s a huge black hole in the center of our galaxy, and gravity should be pulling galaxies together.

            But it isn’t. They’re actually accelerating away from each other.

            Einstein decided that gravity would always be an attracting effect. He later said that was his biggest mistake; the math doesn’t prove gravity has to always attract.

            We need to understand this. There’s people working on quantum gravity. There’s a whole bunch of very very puzzled scientists and physicists trying to figure this out.

            If we understand actually understand gravity, we may be able to do fantastic, Science-Fiction-esque things.

            I’ll leave you with a question — maybe someone here knows the answer.

            I’ve always wondered that if the universe is really 14 billion years old, and the galaxies are at direction vector we know relative to the Earth, at whatever speed (from redshift), then why can’t we “run them backwards in time” and find the point in space where the Big Bang happened?

            As Einstein put it, “The most important thing is imagination.”

            There’s a whole world of bright people out there trying to figure stuff out. Instead of arguing over what other people say (who generally have a political agenda), why not help figure stuff out? Seems like a better use of time. And before someone says I’m wasting time here, hey, I find it helps me think to write things down and bounce them off other people.

            Thanks,

            Quantum Dave

          • Quantum Dave you are not wasting your time here. You truly are one of the few very educated people here willing to explain your positions with out being condescending and arrogant. I enjoy reading your posts and admire your open mind to many possibilities that might be out there for others to find in the future. You don’t seem to be imprisoned with in a box built by agendas, that is a breath of fresh air. Thank you for your insight. I was not afforded the possibilities of higher education when I was a young man. I do enjoy learning new things and keeping an open mind to the possibility of new and more intriguing finds in our universe. An open mind is key to unlocking new inventions and possibilities!

          • Loggy says:

            “I’ve always wondered that if the universe is really 14 billion years old, and the galaxies are at direction vector we know relative to the Earth, at whatever speed (from redshift), then why can’t we “run them backwards in time” and find the point in space where the Big Bang happened?”

            I’ve asked the same question myself and luckily it was to a researcher in the field itself.
            He kept his answer simple however I only gleaned a small understanding from it 😉
            Simply put: everywhere is the centre of the universe. Here, there, anywhere. Because.. everything banged. Everything was in one infinitesimal place and it all banged. All expanded. So if you prefer: there is no centre.

            Unless, again, I have misinterpreted what I have also read and heard elsewhere.
            It’s too complex so it’s fun to stretch the grey matter around it.

            ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

            Here’s that answer I got albeit to a slightly different question which was:
            “we can look ‘back’ at light emanating from very early on in the universe. Simply put; how did we beat it ‘here’? It has been traveling at C for 13 billion years and yet we are already here waiting for it’s arrival.”

            Answer:
            “I can never turn down a cosmology question. Here’s the deal.

            The problem is the mental image of the whole shebang. If you think of the big bang as an explosion in an empty space, then the fastest moving material is the furthest away. This kind of works for the Big bang (its called the Milne model), except for the problem you point out – light travels the fastest, and should be long gone by now.

            We could try to save the situation as follows. In the very early universe, light can’t travel very far before it scatters of something (electrons, usually). So for the first 300,000 years, the light doesn’t just take off into empty space, but stays locked in with the matter. The universe expands fastest in its earliest stages, so what we are seeing in the microwave background is light trapped that was trapped by matter in the early universe, was released after 300,000 years, by which time it had been carried so far away by the expansion of the universe that its taken the age of the universe to reach us here.

            This is slightly better, but still not quite right. The problem is that we’re still thinking of the big bang as stuff expanding into empty space. Actually, the big bang happened everywhere. There is no place we could go in the universe and charge tourists to step right up and see where it all began.

            Think of a balloon, with ants everywhere on the surface. If we now blow up the balloon, then every ant sees every other ant moving away from it. This is what we see with galaxies. Now if we throw on some fireflies (still stuck on the surface), the light emitted by the fireflies in the early universe will simply travel about the surface of the balloon (its a 2 dimensional universe). The ants could see this light at later times, but there is no problem with beating the light anywhere. The light is everywhere.

            This explanation also works for an infinite universe. We’re simply seeing other parts of the universe. No faster-than-light expansion is needed.

            Incidentally, this doesn’t necessarily mean that our 3D universe is embedded in extra dimensions.”

            My brain hurts :p

          • Eric Hall says:

            As I’ve said many times – can humans overcome global warming? I think so. Is the earth and does the earth warm on its own? Yes, but at a much, much slower pace. So the problems we face are the speed at which it happens and the fact a decent chunk of our economy and population are very close to the ocean.

            Thermodynamics is an interesting thing. When things change phase (like ice to water), the temperature doesn’t change. So, 0C ice becomes 0C water. Now that the ice is getting less, the ocean is warming – and pretty fast too. Plus, any of that ice based on land now adds to the volume of the ocean.

            So again – I thin kit is something we can overcome. But to bury our head in the sand and deny the science behind it is silly, and costly. The longer we wait to mitigate the effects (either by cutting carbon or by protecting coastlines or moving inland) – the more it will cost. We should probably do a little of each.

          • Eric, if there truly is global warming. I highly doubt that man’s existence on this planet has anything at all to do with it.

          • Noah Dillon says:

            Here’s the first patent I found: http://www.google.com/patents/US20070246939

            There’s also that list I sent you earlier with all the other patented perpetual motion machines. I don’t think that your denial that such patents exist puts the issue to bed.

            Thanks for the flattery, it’s really not at all the point. Sometimes people pigeonhole themselves by denying stuff just because they don’t like authority. I’m not a fan of power myself, but I am a fan of reality. I think that if you want to challenge the toxic power of fossil fuel companies, it might be best to acknowledge that 1) global warming is real and the burning of fossil fuels contributes to it, 2) there are alternatives to fossil fuel energy production, 3) those alternatives are not magical perpetual motion machines, which have been patented, repeatedly, 4) most forms of electricity production require far more energy input than you get as output, meaning that yeah, you can get electricity by manipulating the electrons of atoms, but it’s a lot harder to get that energy from a vat full of electric eels or by rubbing your socks on the carpet than it is to get it from solar, wind, nuclear, gas, coal, and oil power.

            There is a lot more to life than meets the eye. You can discover it via the scientific method, which is the same method that builds and destroys laws, theories, hypotheses. Scientists do question things everyday. No one pays them to repeat what we already know. If that were the case they’d still be telling us that the Earth revolves around the sun, that evolution doesn’t exist, that the Internet is an impossibility, that man will never fly or go to the moon, and that burning whale oil, wood, and dung are the only fuels and man-made lights one could ever use.

            I’m a big believer in the power of public education and higher ed. It’s the best tool to get people to ask questions about crackpot conjectures, default assumptions, and the biases of conventional wisdom. I learn about how I’m wrong everyday.

          • I see the link you provided for a perpetual motion machine patent “application” and I’m sure that there are several applications, but as stated in Encyclopedia Britannica, “Scientific and governmental sanctioning bodies have looked askance at perpetual-motion claims for many years. Since 1775 the French Academy of Science has refused to correspond with anyone claiming to have invented a perpetual-motion machine. The British and U.S. patent offices have long refused to expend time or energy on such claims”. Here are some links that state that patent offices will NOT patent perpetual motion machines:

            http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/452518/perpetual-motion

            http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2006/aug/31/guardianweeklytechnologysection2

            http://inventors.about.com/od/pstartinventions/a/Perpetual_Motion.htm

            A person could put applications in for a patent on a perpetual motion machine, but the patent offices will not even entertain looking at these inventions! Why won’t they give these inventors the chance to prove that their machines might actually work? The USPTO hides behind the laws of thermodynamics and will not even give these inventors the time of day! Noah, don’t you see this as being a little unusual? If they are so secure in their position with the laws of thermodynamics, then take these inventors on and prove that their machines do not work!

          • Noah Dillon says:

            I just checked a few of the perpetual motion machines listed in the original URL I provided and they all received patents. So… I guess you’re wrong.

            The patent system in the US is a complete mess. Their disinterest in approving patents for machines that are claimed to break the laws of physics seems like the least of their problems. “Hide behind the laws of thermodynamics” sounds akin to me like you denying I’m your grandmother is “hiding behind the fact that you are your mother’s son.” You’re hiding behind the rules as they should be, not the bureaucracy as it operates. There shouldn’t be more than one patent for a lot of things, and yet there are. There are huge patent wars going on right now, with companies both claiming that they have patents for things like phone calls and credit card payment processing. There are patent trolls that create horrendous problems for lots and lots of people.

            I don’t really see why it’s so important to patent such a machine. Is that stopping people from building them? I made some furniture the other day. I don’t have a patent for it. No one stopped me from making it. All those people with perpetual motion machines are being prevented from making and selling them because they don’t have a certificate from the federal government?

            Show some evidence that the rules of thermodynamics can be superseded and we can talk about the possibility of machines that can take advantage of that. However, everything we use right now, from an old fashioned campfire to satellite phones relies on the operability of the laws of thermodynamics and no one has yet found something that makes better predictions and has greater accuracy for describing the same phenomena. Maybe instead of making negative claims about what shouldn’t be, you could do what scientists tend to do and provide some evidence for things that are. I can’t do this anymore. You and I see the problems of the world very, very differently and you don’t seem interested in being open to any kind of evidence that disrupts or complicates whatever your position is, nor in providing any kind of solutions except for overturning the laws of thermodynamics with some other unspecified set of physical properties and patenting perpetual motion machines. Good luck with those windmills you’re tilting at.

          • Noah Dillon says:

            Zero. The nearest similar incident was Chernobyl, which was a much larger disaster and used almost the same generation of nuclear reactors, which, as I said before, is part of the problem. Those power plants were 40 years old. No power plant should be operating for that long, no matter how it produces energy. How many incidents in the last year can we name for oil, gas, and coal disasters? Here’s an abridged rundown of 2013: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/17/3056321/year-fossil-fuel-disasters/

            Compare the economic, environmental, and human costs of those events to Fukushima, Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl. The entire list of nuclear disasters during the 20th and 21st centuries is shorter than that list from two years ago, which doesn’t include Deep Water Horizon, Exxon Valdez, that massive coal sludge contamination in West Virginia last year, mines catching fire or collapsing outside of 2013, etc. etc.

          • Decommissioning a nuclear power plant can cost a billion dollars. As the two articles that I previously cited state that there are many existing plants that are leaking radiation above permissible levels. Are those plants part of the “zero” that you are talking about? What is your take on zero point energy?

          • Noah Dillon says:

            I don’t understand your point about the cost of decommissioning a power plant. Yeah. It’s expensive. It’s cheaper than they’ll pay now, definitely. It doesn’t put people’s lives at risk. You know, this isn’t a problem just with nuclear plants. I used to live near a small coal plant that was supposed to be decommissioned and was kept open an extra 20 years. It was terrible. It caught fire repeatedly, caused excessive pollution to the local community. And in the end it was closed and the city realized that they’d spent a whole lot more money than if they’d just done the expensive thing in the first place.

            Yeah, your previously cited article by an anonymous “Daily Mail Reporter,” whatever that means (are they just not citing the AP?) repeats several times that radiation can be dangerous, but the leaks they’re discussing ARE NOT. They are not good, certainly, but they aren’t comparable to Fukushima, or even to that coal pond that is still causing problems to people in West Virginia.

            I don’t know what you mean by “zero point energy.” I have a feeling it’s not the same as the quantum mechanical definition of zero-point energy. If you’ve read my previous comments, you can tell that I don’t like fossil fuels.

  94. I know that Chernobyl may have been a different situation. Now nearly 30 years since that disaster the long term effects on humanity are a concern. I believe that when we experienced that disaster the same attitude was taken. Basically we were told that everything would be alright and that the situation was being monitored. The World Nuclear Association (2009) states that at least 600,000 people in the immediate areas were adversely effected and that it was still “unclear” how badly effected populations were to the subsequent fall out. There have been large increases in thyroid cancers as well as many other cancers that are now being attributed to Chernobyl. What I am getting at is that this nuclear disaster shows the same ear markings as Fukushima when it comes to how it has been handled. Given this situation, you can hardly blame people that don’t believe what nuclear regulatory organizations tell them about Fukushima’s effect on them!!

    • Eric Hall says:

      [citation needed]

      Hell, even Greenpeace doesn’t get a number that high.

      Also keep in mind the danger with Chernobyl was/is a much different concern than that of Fukushima. The plant designs are entirely different.

      • QuantumDave says:

        Dear Moderator:

        I’m trying to understand the forum software here.

        On some notes, I can leave a reply. On others, I can’t.
        Could you explain to me why?
        No, I don’t think you’re censoring the forum, I think it’s me doing “pilot error”.

        Could it be I need to change some setting so I follow threads ?

        For example, I can reply to:

        AmericaWakeUp from Feb. 9,
        Eric Hall from Feb. 10,

        But I can’t reply to Noah Dillon from Feb. 16th.

        Many thanks,
        Dave

        • Noah Dillon says:

          Hey Dave, I don’t know how it works either. No one is censoring the forum. It’s something built into WordPress and I don’t think there’s a way to alter it.

          • Eric Hall says:

            Dave – WordPress comments have a limit to how far they will allow them to nest. If you want to reply to someone in a particular thread that has reached the nest limit, go up to the comment which is at the second farthest indent and hit reply. Your comment with then appear at the bottom of the last nest – I hope that makes sense.

    • QuantumDave says:

      One major difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima is… the Internet. It’s easy for people to post data, and if they’d get in trouble for revealing things, they can post them on sites like Wikileaks. And yes, it’s also easy for idiots to publish conspiracy theories, outright forgeries, and such.

      But the biggest difference is the government. The Soviets did not want any bad news about Chernobyl to get out. I believe Chernobyl was the largest nuclear reactor station ever built in the USSR, and a source of pride, then it did a Titanic on them. Heck, it took until a Swedish nuclear plant worker’s shoes tripped an entrance radiation alarm for us to find out there was fallout! By analyzing the fallout, and directions of it, we traced it to Chernobyl pretty quickly.

  95. Eric,
    It is not my opinion, there is plenty of evidence in those articles and many others that quell this hysteria about global warming. My contention from the beginning is that if we are experiencing “global warming” it has nothing to do with man’s activity on this planet. This planet has had several climate change events for eons, way before man was here burning fossil fuels. If you are so inclined to give dirty politicians more of your hard earned dollars in the name of “global warming” than do so, I don’t want too. What is Al Gore going to do with the carbon credit money to so call turn things around? I have heard not one plan that states what these crooks will do with all this extra money!!

    • Loggy says:

      AmericaWakeUpNow says:
      ““global warming” it has nothing to do with man’s activity on this planet.”

      How are you okay with the fact that well over 20% of the CO2 currently in our atmosphere was put there by us, recently? One fifth!
      Did you know we know this by studying carbon isotopes?

      I for one am very glad it was not oxygen that turned out to be the byproduct of our energy generation because have you seen what happens if you boost oxygen levels by a few %? Plenty burney and not very lifey. Not impressive enough? What if we increased the amount of liquid water here by 25% to run our toaster? Is my point clear?

      Name one natural system where you can increase one component by 25% and not fuck it up entirely. Nothing comes immediately to mind for me but that’s probably due to the shock of reading your post 😉

      • What were the CO2 levels at different points of this planet’s history? Let’s say during “prehistoric” times?

        • Loggy says:

          Answering a question with a question hey?

          I’ll try to combine my question with yours to see if you’d prefer to try and answer that instead:

          What percentage of the CO2 levels at different points of this planet’s history did human activity contribute? Let’s say during “prehistoric” times?

          (By prehistoric times I’ll assume >4000 years so plenty of scope.)

        • Loggy says:

          For me, to know that CO2 has fluctuated over time is also to know at every point it was one the most fundamental gases in the atmosphere for temperature sensitivity.
          At every point.

          I combine that with the fact that we have increased “our” current mix by >20%. I couldn’t
          Bingo!
          Yet another consequence of large scale industrialisation. For anybody to be surprised by that let alone deny it is truly ponderous.

          “..the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is unprecedented in Earth’s history”
          http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/01/13/207334/science-kiehl-ncar-paleoclimate-lessons-from-earths-hot-past/

          • Do you ever take natural events that happen on this planet such as volcanic events in any of your equations?

          • loggy says:

            Ah so, proof you either did not read the article or do not understand what paleoclimate research is about. Which is exactly what you are referring to in your odd question regarding past climates.
            “Volcanic events”, where else do you think most CO2 came from before we started guffing it out by the gigaton? Google these:
            Big carbon cycle
            Small carbon cycle
            And see your doctor if pain persists.

          • And volcanic events today do not increase the CO2 in the atmosphere? These events don’t factor into increased CO2 today, is that what your saying? If that was the cause for our CO2 in the past, then volcanic action today is still increasing the CO2 in our atmosphere! So come on and let’s see all your man made CO2 along with the CO2 from natural events. What, nobody ever factored that in? That would be too convenient for your argument, wouldn’t it?

          • loggy says:

            This’ll be like an Easter Egg hunt for you, google this:

            “less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities”

          • loggy says:

            When you say “past”, do you realise how big that is?
            How much time that is? Hint: more than 6 thousand years.

          • Loggy says:

            Okay, I do apologise for my language as you are the second person today accusing me of coming on too strongly.
            I still think you are both too soft though :)

            I believe however that you do yourself a disservice if you conflate my horrible rudeness with ignorance.

            I’m a bit tired of Johnny-come lately’s to the CO2 pollution problem. 30 years ago (where were you back then anyway?) there was ample(?) time for kindly arguments Ad infinitum.

            You’ll just have to excuse me for not affording you the luxury of unperturbed ignorance.

            Again, my sincere apologies.

        • Loggy says:

          “it brings home the fact that fossil fuel combustion, land use practices, and human activities have increased the CO2 concentration in Earth’s atmosphere by more than 20 percent since I was born (He doesn’t seem very old ed). Wow!”

          – Dr. David Crisp
          Principal Investigator,
          Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 satellite mission

        • Loggy says:

          Oh and BTW:
          “This planet has had several climate change events for eons”.
          Yep, you bet ya britches it has.

          And I’ll bet your longjohns that every time it chanced it changed slowly enough for most biological systems and species to adapt without unsustainable loss. My presence here being my best evidence.

          Did you know human presence coincides with the greatest measured levels of global biodiversity?
          It will be some kind of seriously perverse tragedy when we bring that to an end.

          #AnybodyWakeUpNow

          And now, back to Fukushima…

          • Well then clearly the answer is to increase nuclear power use and maybe throw in an extinction event to get rid of mankind, how about that for an answer!! I think that you mankind ego is on over load!! This planet will have several more climate changes in the future whether mankind is here or not.

          • loggy says:

            “how about that for an answer”
            Pretty poor actually, you’ll need to do it over. It does not address the actual question regarding the human attributable portion of the current CO2 component of our atmosphere and how you ‘feel’ about it. Something you only seem to want to dodge, so relax, I’ll desist with this tack.

            “Do you ever take natural events that happen on this planet such as volcanic events in(sic) any of your equations?”
            The take home message and the truly good news here is that they are not my “equations”.
            You are well behind on your homework, I suggest working through it on your weekends if you wish to catch up.

          • Not your equations, but you like to throw them around as if they were. How about finding someones equations that factor in natural events that also put CO2 into the atmosphere and get back to me when you’ve got your homework done.

          • loggy says:

            Do you seriously believe CO2 from volcanism is *not* “factored” in to *all* paleoclimate data?
            Including today’s data?

            It’s either denial (you exhibit other signs of this as well, so this is a frontrunner in my mind) or you simply do not read much about what you like to talk lots about.

            CO2 from volcanism is included in all data (as if it could be left out!!).
            CO2 from volcanism is also easily identifiable and discernible from other sources by examining the isotopes.

            Tap tap, is this thing on?

          • loggy says:

            Also, are you just a mindfully ignorant troll? I need to know so I can decide whether to ignore your uninformed questions.
            Or maybe you are a cuckoo, pretending to be ignorant so people will just tell you what is what, saving yourself many hours of reading? If so, please kindly fuck off.

          • The way in which you conduct yourself on these comment threads speak volumes about your true ignorance. Relying on vulgar language and name calling is tantamount to what little children do when they can’t come up with intelligent answers to what troubles them. Sound a little familiar to your situation maybe?

          • loggy says:

            Nice diversion, I’ll take the bait.
            Did I call you a name? No.
            I asked you to clarify your position, which you have not.
            If you don’t like potty language then I don’t know what to say..

            You could only take that what I said personally if you are the troll or the cuckoo that I suggested.
            If you do not like that assertion you should address questions that are asked directly of you, lest you be misunderstood my thin-skinned friend.
            Keep in mind you can always answer by saying ‘I don’t know’.

            If busting me for rudeness ‘proves’ your ‘point’ and insinuating I lack intelligence and good conduct negates mine then this is not the discussion I thought it was.

          • Just want to make you aware that when someone resorts to the language and disparaging remarks that you’ve been making, you just come off as a very ignorant person. I don’t know if anyone would want to converse with someone that acts in this manner. I for one don’t and will no longer be conversing with you. Your points are well taken all though I feel skewed towards your agenda.

          • loggy says:

            “Happy” anniversary.

  96. All windscreen repairs are designed to stop the damage from cracking further and regain as much of the original strength of your windscreen before the damage occurred.
    Your damage is subject to harsh road conditions and containments before being repaired such as rain and road grime which can effect optical clarity

  97. ask412 says:

    Hi Loggy,
    I appreciate the effort handling the circular logic of any global warming skeptic.

    So I thought you might enjoy this quote recently from;

    Ben van Beurden,
    Chief Executive Officer (CEO),
    Royal Dutch Shell on February 12, 2015.

    “Yes, climate change is real. And yes, renewables are an indispensable part of the future energy mix,”

    Ben van Beurden believes it is time for his industry to take a more active role in the conversation about climate change and become “less aloof.”

    That putting a price on carbon is a “crucial” part of lowering emissions and addressing climate change, he said at an industry conference in London February 12, 2015
    ______________

    Angus Gillespie, Shell Vice President for CO2 remit
    outlines Shell’s position;
    on global warming and subsequent climate change.

    • Impact of climate change is a major business risk
    • Acknowledgment of the issue inside Shell for over 15 years
    • Dedicated CO2 team with cross-Shell remit
    • Robust assets, competitive products now and in the future
    ______________

    Angus Gillespie Shell Vice President for CO2

    • video of Stanford Lecture:

    http://goo.gl/qdEk4s

    • graphics source :

    http://goo.gl/t2ZIS6

  98. Spartacus says:

    Its very, very simple. Fill you’re bath tub with water. Get some red food coloring. Start Dripping the red food coloring into the tub. Do this everyday. Eventually, all the water will turn red. It might take a long time, but it will happen. Its only a matter of time.

    (do it and prove me wrong)

    The writer has obviously never seen the effects of radiation on actual people, either. Search “Chernobyl’s Lost Children”. Then you will understand the gravity of the situation, we our all in, its not fear mongering it is FACT.

    This type of radioactive material causes deformation in children (even in micro amounts) and cancer in adults. You can not dispute this, it is FACT.

    With that being said the Japanese people will suffer greatly because of ignorance and pride. The rest of the world will suffer indirectly, in the years to come.

    Until the nuclear material is secured and cooled properly, there will always be the danger of uncontrollable nuclear fission and there is enough stored there to kill the entire planet, if there is a reaction. This is a scientific FACT, that can not be disputed.

    People can avoid it, by simple not consuming anything that comes from the ocean. It was polluted, long before the meltdown, anyways.

    Finally, never trust a Rothschild, they have there own agenda and it has nothing to do with helping humanity, but more to do with enslaving it.

  99. Ayaime says:

    I am not a doomsday prophetier, nor a scare mongerer, yet “1. nuclear particles, do not dilute, they live a half life, multiply and it’s off spring live double the length” -science^^ 2.; the ring of fire, and Marianas trench host a plethora of micro organisms, some yet to be documented. Some theorize, even our DNA and organism construct stems from the birth of said organisms located 7 plus miles below where magma and water meet cresting a flourishing environment for microscopic organisms, even evolution.

    You’ve debunked nothing. Look at a map, read real science and don’t pick and choose. I’m sorry I even read this and contributed to the pockets of people who keep placing shades over the publics eyes.

    • Noah Dillon says:

      Your first part is COMPLETELY wrong. Nuclear particles do not multiply, otherwise the entire world would be radioactive. We’re constantly bombarded by radiation from the stars and sun. Radioactive particles do not live and don’t produce “offspring,” nor do they produce anything that exists for twice as long. They can be diluted. There are radioactive particles in dilute concentrations all over the world and throughout the Universe. They are more dangerous in high concentrations. A half life is the amount of time it takes half of the particles in a given amount of radioactive matter to decay. That’s an abstraction used for measurement. Radiation is a very broad term that includes sunlight, X-rays, and UV. Of course there are micro-organisms living and evolving in the depths of the ocean. So what? I don’t understand the rest of your comment about DNA. You seem to miss a lot of basic science.

    • Mudguts says:

      Ayaime.. that was drivel… Do a science degree and come back..

      There doesnt seem to be a way of getting people to teach themselves how to calculate simple things.

      On Fukushima? I’d be quite happy to own a home there, surf, fish and work. But its pretty clear that even the japanese have high standards and wont let us gobble up their real estate.

      I think I have been happily declaring that since the start of the first post examining fear mongering.

      Would I move to California tho? Probably.. somewhere nice and quiet once they have their mandatory vaccinations program going.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>