Fenrakk101 wrote:
Murph deserves a medal for all that research



As for the incident being "more serious than the media lets on," I put almost no weight on that argument. Media is a broad term that extends beyond the TV, and there are countless reputable sites (Huffington Post being just one of them) that report on global incidents that American news will never tell you about. None of them have expressed such a high level of panic, and it's not because they're ignorant of the situation. Your argument is based entirely on the notion of, "I want to believe (x), so I'll ignore every article claiming (y) and every proof against (x) because that's not what I want to believe."



As Murph said, I appreciate that your thread has made me more informed of the situation, but that is thanks moreso to Murph's research than to your sensationalist claims trying to garner attention. I wouldn't worry about the meltdown, whether you live in the States or even in Japan (unless you're in a contaminated area, in which case you've already received some sort of instructions or safety measures from the government).

I apologize for my over-reaction. I only meant to inform, but I misled. Sorry.

Igncom1 wrote:
Not to mention 'nuclear-activist' when we still use oil and coal which are frankly far worse...





I mean stand for clean power, that all well and good. But pick your battles, and fight the worst ones first.

Windmills - many of them! But then I get reminded of this Comic:

Not to mention 'nuclear-activist' when we still use oil and coal which are frankly far worse...





I mean stand for clean power, that all well and good. But pick your battles, and fight the worst ones first.

Just had to add this article I came across this morning:



"Fukushima apocalypse: Years of 'duct tape fixes' could result in 'millions of deaths' "

By Christina Consolo





Christina Consolo is an opthamology photographer and researcher via taking a Duke university workshop (not even a degree). She turned nuclear-activist some time ago, but doesn't have any experience or credentials remotely related to the field. She's an eye expert and photographer; here's her linked-in, she has no appreciable degrees/certifications (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/christina-consolo/36/b60/889). Sorry, calling yourself an expert doesn't make you one.



Reddit reply to article, by an actual expert:

http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1kku96/fukushima_apocalypse_years_of_duct_tape_fixes/

Nosferatiel wrote:
Look at the citations. If there are none, that's totally unreliable in the first place. If there are citations of themselves, I'd also distrust this, in general.

There are some people around with such ridiculous theories, that they start circle-citing themselves to gain some credibility on paper.

Yeah not very common to cite yourself, unless its follow-up research. Not so good if its the basis for new research.



Besides citations, the author's aim and affiliations can be just as useful in picking out shoddy research. (I was curious and did some reading....oh boy looks like another long post..)



The 'most scientific' article discussed, "Elevated airborne beta levels in Pacific/West Coast US States and trends in hypothyroidism among newborns after the Fukushima nuclear meltdown",

Authored by Joseph (JJ) Mangano and Janette Sherman.



Both are vocal activists against nuclear energy and hold major positions in the non-profit Radiation and Public Health Project, which publishes anti-nuclear 'research' articles.

Read up a bit more on the group. They've been at it for years, and no one takes them seriously enough to publish research refuting it because there is little supporting it. They used this to support their argument that the 'truth' was being hidden, so the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission served up this ♥♥♥♥♥ slap in 2004 :

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tooth-fairy.html



Good read:



Cause-and-Effect Relationships and Scientific Methodology





Authors of the Radiation Public Health Project reports have stated or implied that claimed statistical associations between cancer rates and reactor operations are cause-and-effect relationships. However, statistical association alone does not prove causation, and well-established scientific methods must be used to determine that for two things that appear to be associated over time, it can be concluded that one causes the other.



A simple example helps illustrate this point. A college professor gives the following example of a causal inference: “In the winter I wear boots. In the winter I get colds. Therefore, boots cause colds.” A strong statistical association exists between wearing boots and the health effect of colds. There is, however, an argument about whether boots cause colds.



There are principles of good science that are recognized by the scientific community such as whether a study can be replicated; whether it has considered all data or was it selective (e.g., in the population or in the years studied); whether a study evaluated all possible explanations for the observations; was the data used evaluated for validity and reliability; and whether the study’s conclusions were subjected to independent peer review, evaluation and confirmation.



There are a number of questions about the Health Project studies with regard to methodology, assumptions, and conclusions. Generally, these studies have not followed good scientific principles.



Frequently, they have

• not established control populations for study;

• not examined the impacts of other risk factors;

• used very small sample sizes to draw general conclusions;

• not performed environmental sampling and analysis;

• selectively chosen to ignore data in certain geographic locations or during certain periods of time because they did not “fit”;

• not subjected their data to the independent peer review of the scientific community as a whole; and

• used an incorrect half-life for Sr-90 which gives a false impression that strontium levels in the environment are decaying more rapidly than in baby teeth.



The evaluation of health effects from exposure to radiation is an ongoing activity of the NRC’s involving public, private and international institutions. The NRC routinely seeks out new scientific information that might reveal health and safety concerns. It reviews independent studies of nuclear safety issues and embraces opportunities to inform the public about the results of such reviews. Based on all the preceding discussion, NRC finds there is little or no credibility in the studies published by the Radiation Public Health Project.

Nasarog wrote:
You didn't mislead, you panicked. That happens often because our news is so one sided and singular in it's nature. It's very difficult to find a story that covers more than one aspect of an event these days.

This, so true. No worries DesertFoxx, take it as a learning experience to always check your sources like others have said. Always think along the lines of "Its too good to be true".

You also have the classic, namely the same bunch of ridiculous theorists citing each other.



That way, if you don't know better, you think that the information is verified, at it quotes something else.



Usually, I try to make sure the sources are respectable institutions, be it Labs, NGOs, Universities or others. (For example, as far as nuclear energy goes for France, the CRIIRAD is - in my eyes - a better source of information than the press releases from EDF).



In those internet /wikipedia / tweeter days, makes sense to double- and triple-check everything. The problem is not anymore getting the information, it is more sorting it out.

Nosferatiel wrote:
Look at the citations. If there are none, that's totally unreliable in the first place. If there are citations of themselves, I'd also distrust this, in general.

There are some people around with such ridiculous theories, that they start circle-citing themselves to gain some credibility on paper.

Look at the citations. If there are none, that's totally unreliable in the first place. If there are citations of themselves, I'd also distrust this, in general.

There are some people around with such ridiculous theories, that they start circle-citing themselves to gain some credibility on paper.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
Check the sources for the articles too, they are often easily respectable (for example, if it was a study by NASA) or easily disregarded (like some of the sources the original article here referred to). If the article doesn't have sources, I wouldn't even take it seriously.

Yeah, ofc, I always do that



E.g. at statistics I look for the amount of people they have asked, etc.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
Check the sources for the articles too, they are often easily respectable (for example, if it was a study by NASA) or easily disregarded (like some of the sources the original article here referred to). If the article doesn't have sources, I wouldn't even take it seriously.

Yeah, ofc, I always do that



E.g. at statistics I look for the amount of people they have asked, etc.

Tredecim wrote:
You are right - that's why I try to read different newspapers from different countries.

Check the sources for the articles too, they are often easily respectable (for example, if it was a study by NASA) or easily disregarded (like some of the sources the original article here referred to). If the article doesn't have sources, I wouldn't even take it seriously.

Nasarog wrote:
You didn't mislead, you panicked. That happens often because our news is so one sided and singular in it's nature. It's very difficult to find a story that covers more than one aspect of an event these days. WHat happened in Fukushima is pretty bad, but it's not the worst. What made it stand out was the current news cycle and how everyone covers the same occurrence and tries to outdo each other. Then add in bloggers and internet sleuths, and it's very difficult to tell truth from fiction these days.

You are right - that's why I try to read different newspapers from different countries.

DesertFoxx wrote:
I apologize for my over-reaction. I only meant to inform, but I misled. Sorry.

You didn't mislead, you panicked. That happens often because our news is so one sided and singular in it's nature. It's very difficult to find a story that covers more than one aspect of an event these days. WHat happened in Fukushima is pretty bad, but it's not the worst. What made it stand out was the current news cycle and how everyone covers the same occurrence and tries to outdo each other. Then add in bloggers and internet sleuths, and it's very difficult to tell truth from fiction these days.

We don't hear much about the aftermath of Fukushima incident these days, but this is a serious issue that is already affecting west coast states, and will affect everyone on Earth in several decades.



In fact, the term, "aftermath" seems premature as the incident is ongoing; radioactive water is leaking to Pacific Ocean as we speak, and the potential collapse of plant 4 will pose a significant threat to our environment and all lives on this planet.



Here is a radiation picture taken in March 2012. It only took about an year to spread that much.







Here are the examples of the effects the radiation from Japan is having on America. I will post a link below so you can read related articles yourselves.



1) "Samples of milk taken across the United States have shown radiation at levels 2000 percent higher than EPA maximums."



2) "The highest detected levels of Iodine-131 in precipitation in the U.S. were as follows (normal is about 2 picocuries I-131 per liter of water): Boise, ID (390); Kansas City (200); Salt Lake City (190); Jacksonville, FL (150); Olympia, WA (125); and Boston, MA (92)."



3) "The study, conducted by scientists with the Radiation and Public Health Project, found that babies born shortly after the incident were 28 percent more likely to suffer from congenital hypothyroidism than were children born in those states during the same period one year earlier. In the rest of the U.S., which received less radioactive fallout, the risks actually decreased slightly compared with the year before."



Note that radiation can travel through both wind and sea currents.



Avoid sea food, and try not to consume products from Japan and west coast states.



Oh, and don't go to Japan. Rich Japanese people are already evacuating the country, and their government actually considered evacuating Tokyo back in January. It's that terrible. There are talks that it may even lose its sovereignty (especially if plant 4 collapses). It all sounds exaggerated, but things are a lot worse than the media lets on, and the radiation from the incident is equivalent to several hundreds of Hiroshima bombs. It's just not the same.



Try this article:



http://jeromiewilliams.com/2013/04/12/holy-fukushima-radiation-from-japan-is-already-killing-north-americans/

Oh sweet Austria, not a single plant in our country but manye right around the borders.



Ps: Nos: Not a Meltdown, but Majak is missing! (so many people don't know about it)

Murph deserves a medal for all that research



As for the incident being "more serious than the media lets on," I put almost no weight on that argument. Media is a broad term that extends beyond the TV, and there are countless reputable sites (Huffington Post being just one of them) that report on global incidents that American news will never tell you about. None of them have expressed such a high level of panic, and it's not because they're ignorant of the situation. Your argument is based entirely on the notion of, "I want to believe (x), so I'll ignore every article claiming (y) and every proof against (x) because that's not what I want to believe."



As Murph said, I appreciate that your thread has made me more informed of the situation, but that is thanks moreso to Murph's research than to your sensationalist claims trying to garner attention. I wouldn't worry about the meltdown, whether you live in the States or even in Japan (unless you're in a contaminated area, in which case you've already received some sort of instructions or safety measures from the government).

Igncom1 wrote:
I would love to display the effects of environmental damage that coal power plants have caused when compared to nuclear, just to put it into perspective.

Yeah, good idea

Isn't it preferable considering conventional fuel sources?

Igncom1 wrote:
I would love to display the effects of environmental damage that coal power plants have caused when compared to nuclear, just to put it into perspective.

Regardless, nuclear waste is a wee bit more concerning in the shortterm.

I would love to display the effects of environmental damage that coal power plants have caused when compared to nuclear, just to put it into perspective.