What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Meltdown in Japan's Reactors (1 Viewer)

'bueno said:
'mcintyre1 said:
'Otis said:
What have been the health consequences so far to this radiation? Anyone hurt yet?
Click to expand...
"Five workers have died since the quake and 22 more have been injured for various reasons, while two are missing. One worker was hospitalized after suddenly grasping his chest and finding himself unable to stand, and another needed treatment after receiving a blast of radiation near a damaged reactor."http://www.thestar.c...p-meltdown?bn=1
Click to expand...
This is an example of where people like David can make an assumption that will affect their opinion of the dangers of the situation. Needing treatment after receiving a blast of radiation is not defined, nor can we evaluate what that means. How much radiation and what type is relevant to the health risk imposed. It also does not state how the workers died or were injured, leaving those how ware reacting emotionally to perhaps conclude that their deaths and injuries were related to exposure to radiation. For all we know they died or were injured by the tsunami. This is what I mean by not giving us enough information. I hate the way news is reported. And I do have to ask whether there is a political agenda behind the way it is reported as well.
Click to expand...
How about leaving me out of your opinions? Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Sinn Fein said:
'JaxBill said:
U.S. stocks sank deeper into the red on Wednesday after the European Union's energy chief warned of "possible catastrophic events" in the next few hours.
Click to expand...
http://online.wsj.co...316-709939.html
Click to expand...
But doubts are growing about the situation. Stocks plunged and Treasurys rallied after the Europe's energy chief warned that there could be further catastrophe at the nuclear site. However, his spokeswoman said he had no specific or priviledged information on the situation.
Click to expand...
It bothers me when people in position of responsibility do this. He has obviously fed the flames of fear here, with no more knowledge or expertise that what any layman would have. And he is in a position where his actions have consequences.
 
Thanks for the great links some of you guys have been providing. :thumbup:

I wish things would be more civil in the thread but then it wouldn't be the FFA, would it? :D

 
'Fennis said:
'David Dodds said:
a good table showing the status of everything here.

From the Atomic Power Review:

Status of nuclear power plants in Fukushima as of 19:00 March 16 (Estimated by JAIF)

http://www.jaif.or.j...1300273535P.pdf
Click to expand...
careful the red status may scare Otis. Let's just go ahead and make everything green.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, did you say something? I was sitting here with my pencil and pad tallying up the civilian body count in the vicinity of the power plant.Ok done.

 
Economist

Nuclear energy

Risk of meltdown

Mar 15th 2011, 15:45 by R.M. | WASHINGTON, DC

YESTERDAY I was going to recommend William Saletan's piece in Slate on America's reaction to the situation at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The columnist pushes back hard against calls to freeze nuclear-power development in America. To some, though, the piece must now seem poorly timed—the situation in Japan has since grown more dire, as radiation levels at the plant have shot up, workers have been evacuated and people in the surrounding area have been told to stay inside. But I believe his point still holds, even if his description of the situation is no longer accurate.

Mr Saletan argues that America needs to learn the right lessons from the incident in Japan, consider the relative costs of nuclear energy, and not overreact to a specific crisis caused by two unusually horrific natural disasters.

If Japan, the United States, or Europe retreats from nuclear power in the face of the current panic, the most likely alternative energy source is fossil fuel. And by any measure, fossil fuel is more dangerous. The sole fatal nuclear power accident of the last 40 years, Chernobyl, directly killed 31 people. By comparison, Switzerland's Paul Scherrer Institute calculates that from 1969 to 2000, more than 20,000 people died in severe accidents in the oil supply chain. More than 15,000 people died in severe accidents in the coal supply chain—11,000 in China alone. The rate of direct fatalities per unit of energy production is 18 times worse for oil than it is for nuclear power.

Even if you count all the deaths plausibly related to Chernobyl—9,000 to 33,000 over a 70-year period—that number is dwarfed by the death rate from burning fossil fuels. The OECD's 2008 Environmental Outlook calculates that fine-particle outdoor air pollution caused nearly 1 million premature deaths in the year 2000, and 30 percent of this was energy-related. You'd need 500 Chernobyls to match that level of annual carnage. But outside Chernobyl, we've had zero fatal nuclear power accidents.

I've been trying to think of a good analogy for a nuclear meltdown. At first a plane crash or terrorist attack came to mind, because they are all rare, but have an outsized effect on public opinion. But this isn't quite fair to nuclear energy, because whereas plane crashes and terrorist attacks have been very likely to result in civilian deaths, nuclear meltdowns have not. Chernobyl is the obvious exception, but that plant didn't meet the safety standards of even the mid-1980s, and the accident there has been blamed on significant errors in operation. The other two major meltdowns at civilian nuclear plants—at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and the Lucens reactor in Switzerland—resulted in zero fatalities and had no provable negative health effects. Plants have gotten much safer since those incidents. As Mr Saletan points out, according to one analysis, "plants being constructed by today's standards are 1,600 times safer than early nuclear plants, in terms of the predicted frequency of a large radiation leak."

The incident at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant may change this history, but it shouldn't change our calculations about nuclear energy all that much. While we are likely to gain valuable insights for improving the safety of nuclear energy from Japan's experience, the main lesson seems to be that we should avoid building nuclear power plants in areas with considerable seismic activity. In America, that lesson obtains to only a small number of plants. For example, there are four reactors at two plants in California, in San Clemente and near San Luis Obispo. The nuclear plant in San Clemente is built to withstand a 7.0 earthquake, and apparently withstood a 7.2 quake last year. But that sounds less reassuring since Friday's 8.8 quake.

So far, America's politicians have reacted with admirable composure to the events in Japan. As David Weigel reports, "no one in Washington is abandoning support for nuclear power", including the president. Public statements have reflected a weighing of the potential costs of nuclear energy against the very real, but much less spectacular costs of its alternatives. That's a good thing. A great thing would be if these politicians also pushed for better alternatives.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for your long bio-post, Bueno. As I expressed before, I am grateful to you and the others (even Wilked!) who are providing information on this subject. I don't know what Igbomb's problem is with you (seems irrational) and don't really care.

David Dodds has also provided plenty of information to read. I don't find myself agreeing with David's outlook; I tend to be more optimistic (or "uncaring", depending on who you're listening to). But David, you have consistently produced one piece of information after another, and I appreciate it. Even when you post stuff that sounds awfully dire, the fact that it often gets refuted later makes me feel better. In any case, I would rather have all the info out there to see. Thanks to everyone.

 
US Energy Chief Says Partial Meltdown Has Occurred At Fukushima, Urges All US Citizens Within 80 KM (50 miles) To Evacuate

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'timschochet said:
Thanks for your long bio-post, Bueno. As I expressed before, I am grateful to you and the others (even Wilked!) who are providing information on this subject. I don't know what Igbomb's problem is with you (seems irrational) and don't really care. David Dodds has also provided plenty of information to read. I don't find myself agreeing with David's outlook; I tend to be more optimistic (or "uncaring", depending on who you're listening to). But David, you have consistently produced one piece of information after another, and I appreciate it. Even when you post stuff that sounds awfully dire, the fact that it often gets refuted later makes me feel better. In any case, I would rather have all the info out there to see. Thanks to everyone.
Click to expand...
Pick a side Tim. Nobody likes a suck up.
 
'David Dodds said:
People here are claiming that the readings are good 20 feet from the plant. Can you guys provide a link for that?I have read a lot on this and I have not seen a single article confirming this "fact" at all.Were these the same readings that were so good that they told all of the workers to leave because they were too high? Those facts seem to be in dispute with one another.Thanks in advance. So far in this thread I have learned than hydrogen explosions at nuclear reactors are good news, sea water flushes are part of the operating manual, when you send 600 people home and keep just 50 it's because there is no work to do, cooling is mandatory, but if you forget to do it, nothing really happens anyway. All is good. Wiffle ball tournament to start next week on the site.
Click to expand...
David...with all due respect, I didn't realize you could be so incredibly fececious.NOBODY has suggested what you proffer they have. What we have done is point out and add facts, and try to explain WHY the things which are happening are not nearly the "end of the world" disasters you and others wish to make them out to be.A house fire is bad enough...you're assuming that house fire is turning it into a large explosion which threatens the whole city just because the flames are big.We have REPEATEDLY said that even in this disaster, the chances of significant long lasting radiological impact on the general public are slim to none, and that the steps and information presented to this point suggest that those odds are DECREASING, not increasing.
 
'renesauz said:
'David Dodds said:
People here are claiming that the readings are good 20 feet from the plant. Can you guys provide a link for that?I have read a lot on this and I have not seen a single article confirming this "fact" at all.Were these the same readings that were so good that they told all of the workers to leave because they were too high? Those facts seem to be in dispute with one another.Thanks in advance. So far in this thread I have learned than hydrogen explosions at nuclear reactors are good news, sea water flushes are part of the operating manual, when you send 600 people home and keep just 50 it's because there is no work to do, cooling is mandatory, but if you forget to do it, nothing really happens anyway. All is good. Wiffle ball tournament to start next week on the site.
Click to expand...
David...with all due respect, I didn't realize you could be so incredibly fececious.NOBODY has suggested what you proffer they have. What we have done is point out and add facts, and try to explain WHY the things which are happening are not nearly the "end of the world" disasters you and others wish to make them out to be.A house fire is bad enough...you're assuming that house fire is turning it into a large explosion which threatens the whole city just because the flames are big.We have REPEATEDLY said that even in this disaster, the chances of significant long lasting radiological impact on the general public are slim to none, and that the steps and information presented to this point suggest that those odds are DECREASING, not increasing.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but level heads don't sell newspapers and they don't drive website traffic. ;)
 
'Sheriff66 said:
Yeah, this all seems totally safe like the people "in the know" keep claiming..

Click to expand...
:rolleyes: This is getting frustrating.Saying your're over-reacting and it's not as bad as you make it sound in NO WAY equates to "totally safe" or "nothing wrong"

 
'renesauz said:
'David Dodds said:
People here are claiming that the readings are good 20 feet from the plant. Can you guys provide a link for that?I have read a lot on this and I have not seen a single article confirming this "fact" at all.Were these the same readings that were so good that they told all of the workers to leave because they were too high? Those facts seem to be in dispute with one another.Thanks in advance. So far in this thread I have learned than hydrogen explosions at nuclear reactors are good news, sea water flushes are part of the operating manual, when you send 600 people home and keep just 50 it's because there is no work to do, cooling is mandatory, but if you forget to do it, nothing really happens anyway. All is good. Wiffle ball tournament to start next week on the site.
Click to expand...
David...with all due respect, I didn't realize you could be so incredibly fececious.
Click to expand...
New here?
 
Latest from Kyodo. This is a good snapshot on where things are today:

Steam at Fukushima No. 3 reactor, massive water injection planned

http://english.kyodo...1/03/78704.html

This part of this article seems a bit troublesome:

"Meanwhile, the science and technology ministry said the radiation level in Namie, Fukushima Prefecture, on Tuesday was around 6,600 times higher than normal. The town lies within the area where residents have been urged to stay indoors."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'timschochet said:
Thanks for your long bio-post, Bueno. As I expressed before, I am grateful to you and the others (even Wilked!) who are providing information on this subject. I don't know what Igbomb's problem is with you (seems irrational) and don't really care. David Dodds has also provided plenty of information to read. I don't find myself agreeing with David's outlook; I tend to be more optimistic (or "uncaring", depending on who you're listening to). But David, you have consistently produced one piece of information after another, and I appreciate it. Even when you post stuff that sounds awfully dire, the fact that it often gets refuted later makes me feel better. In any case, I would rather have all the info out there to see. Thanks to everyone.
Click to expand...
Thanks Tim. Some people are critical of it, but I think one deserves to know what a poster's level of expertise is on a subject. I've done a number of different things in my careers, so I can understand why some people who may stay in one industry their entire career can doubt the breath of experience i have, but to each his own.
 
'Cliff Clavin said:
'David Dodds said:
and now some of these 50 need to sleep. Should we send in additional people? Nope. Let's just use less than 50 as the problems escalate just like the paragraph above the sea water flush tells us to do.
Click to expand...
Hi David,With your in-depth Nuclear Power Plant knowledge (primarily after plants have been hit by earthquakes and tsunamis) exactly how many people are required to handle the situation? Thanks,Cliff
Click to expand...
:blackdot:
 
'David Dodds said:
'bueno said:
'mcintyre1 said:
'Otis said:
What have been the health consequences so far to this radiation? Anyone hurt yet?
Click to expand...
"Five workers have died since the quake and 22 more have been injured for various reasons, while two are missing. One worker was hospitalized after suddenly grasping his chest and finding himself unable to stand, and another needed treatment after receiving a blast of radiation near a damaged reactor."http://www.thestar.c...p-meltdown?bn=1
Click to expand...
This is an example of where people like David can make an assumption that will affect their opinion of the dangers of the situation. Needing treatment after receiving a blast of radiation is not defined, nor can we evaluate what that means. How much radiation and what type is relevant to the health risk imposed. It also does not state how the workers died or were injured, leaving those how ware reacting emotionally to perhaps conclude that their deaths and injuries were related to exposure to radiation. For all we know they died or were injured by the tsunami. This is what I mean by not giving us enough information. I hate the way news is reported. And I do have to ask whether there is a political agenda behind the way it is reported as well.
Click to expand...
How about leaving me out of your opinions? Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
If you don't like being a target, don't paint one of your back, my friend.
 
Cliff and others, I am choosing to refrain from posting my opinion today and just posting news headlines. I think that's more helpful for everyone.

 
'David Dodds said:
My conspiracy sites are now reporting this:- IAEA SAYS CORE DAMAGE AT UNITS 1-3 CONFIRMED, SITUATION "VERY SERIOUS"- IAEA SAYS FUEL RODS EXPOSED IN UNITS 4, 5 AND 6- IAEA SAYS HIGHER RADIATION LEVELS FROM DAMAGED JAPAN REACTORS- IAEA SAYS TOTAL OF 4 JAPAN UNITS HAVE CORE DAMAGE
Click to expand...
David...not trying to be rude....but core damage has been expected from day one. The problem is that people automatically equate "core damage" with Chernobyl. That's like equating some idiot opening his car door too quickly in a parking lot (and scrathing/dinging your door) to wrapping your car around a telephone pole at 80 MPH.ANY lose of sheilding integrity means higher radiation levels. Wall blows out from Hydrogen explosion and radiationlevels go up...that's not saying a dang thing useful.Exposed fueld rods, whether recently in use, or 5 years out of use, will result in higher local radiation levels.Here's the problem.....people continuously equate radiation to it's source. Until that SOURCE somehow become airborne...the radiation measurements are largely immaterial. Relatively small distances are more than adequate protection from the radiation provided the source (the fuel) stays relatively intact....and the source (fuel) stays relatively intact as long as it's kept SOMEWHAT cool. It's a friggin mess. Cleaning these planst up to the normal standards will be virtually impossible, but the risk to the general public and the macroenvironment is still very low, and DECREASING daily.NONE of those statements means as much as you are projecting.
 
'David Dodds said:
Cliff and others, I am choosing to refrain from posting my opinion today and just posting news headlines. I think that's more helpful for everyone.
Click to expand...
Dodds, I for one, want to see your opinion. You seem to analyze facts and project possible outcomes well as opposed to waiting for gvt agencies to tell us when its time to worry. That said, do you think there's a chance of this contaminating our soil?
 
Great article on the "Fukushima 50": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366670/Japan-earthquake-tsunami-French-claim-scale-nuclear-disaster-hidden.html

Apparently, we've been mistaken all along, there are not 50 workers, there are 180 workers that operate in 50 man shifts. Just goes to show how little outsiders really know about what is going on out there.

Some excerpts:

Japanese emergency teams say they are 'not afraid to die' as they face dangerous levels of radiation in the fight to stop catastrophe at the tsunami-hit Fukushima nuclear plant.

...

The group of 180 employees rotate shifts working at the plant in teams of 50 men. The men - nicknamed the 'Fukushima Fifty' - had this morning been pulled back 500 yards from the complex as radiation levels became too dangerous.

However the technicians later headed back in to the reactors for difficult and dangerous work, wearing radiation suits and gas masks or oxygen tanks that provide little protection from the invisible radiation rays bombarding their bodies.
Click to expand...
 
'bueno said:
'renesauz said:
David...with all due respect,
Click to expand...
LOL - I always laugh at this phrase, because most people mean it as they don't have any respect.
Click to expand...
:) I have a ton of respect for David actually. But I honestly believe he's been far too negative on this topic, and has interpreted virtually every possible piece of news in only the most negative possible light.To be fair, I think most folks do that because of a fear of the unknown. Radiation scares the bejesus out of most people.
 
This is from another message board I go on (related to hockey), and this is a post from a Calgarian living in Northern Japan, close to the situation:

The chernobyl comparisons are over-reactions. All the leaked radiation so far has been from steam released.^Most of the radiation particles released actually break down almost immediately upon release into the air. So yeah the levels could drop very quickly after a spike. The workers temporarily retreating is a precautionary measure, not an all is lost scenario. The only two types of particles that may pose a threat are Iodine and Caesium. Here is part of an article, I will post the link.

Radioactive iodine decays quite quickly. Most will have disappeared within a month. Radioactive caesium does not last long in the body - most has gone within a year. However, it lingers in the environment and can continue to present a problem for many years.
Click to expand...
Also the Iodine is quite easy to prevent by taking Iodine pills or eating foods containing Iodine as your body will then not absorb any more Iodine.Here's the link to the BBC article:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12732015I recommend just turning off the CNN garbage. Starting to piss me off, I don't know how many hours I've just spent answering emails and skyping with family and friends who think I'm dying from radiation. Another post from Paul Atkinson who just attended a conference in the British Embassy in Japan. Sorry it's a bit long:
I have just returned from a conference call held at the British Embassy in Tokyo. The call was concerning the nuclear issue in Japan. The chief spokesman was Sir. John Beddington, Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, and he was joined by a number of qualified nuclear experts based in the UK. Their assessment of the current situation in Japan is as follows:* In case of a 'reasonable worst case scenario' (defined as total meltdown of one reactor with subsequent radioactive explosion) an exclusion zone of 30 miles (50km) would be the maximum required to avoid affecting peoples' health. Even in a worse situation (loss of two or more reactors) it is unlikely that the damage would be significantly more than that caused by the loss of a single reactor.* The current 20km exclusion zone is appropriate for the levels of radiation/risk currently experienced, and if the pouring of sea water can be maintained to cool the reactors, the likelihood of a major incident should be avoided. A further large quake with tsunami could lead to the suspension of the current cooling operations, leading to the above scenario.* The bottom line is that these experts do not see there being a possibility of a health problem for residents in Tokyo. The radiation levels would need to be hundreds of times higher than current to cause the possibility for health issues, and that, in their opinion, is not going to happen (they were talking minimum levels affecting pregnant women and children - for normal adults the levels would need to be much higher still).* The experts do not consider the wind direction to be material. They say Tokyo is too far away to be materially affected.* If the pouring of water can be maintained the situation should be much improved after ten days, as the reactors' cores cool down.* Information being provided by Japanese authorities is being independently monitored by a number of organizations and is deemed to be accurate, as far as measures of radioactivity levels are concerned.* This is a very different situation from Chernobyl, where the reactor went into meltdown and the encasement, which exploded, was left to burn for weeks without any control. Even with Chernobyl, an exclusion zone of 30 miles would have been adequate to protect human health. The problem was that most people became sick from eating contaminated food, crops, milk and water in the region for years afterward, as no attempt was made to measure radioactivity levels in the food supply at that time or warn people of the dangers. The secrecy over the Chernobyl explosion is in contrast to the very public coverage of the Fukushima crisis.* The Head of the British School asked if the school should remain closed. The answer was there is no need to close the school due to fears of radiation. There may well be other reasons - structural damage or possible new quakes - but the radiation fear is not supported by scientific measures, even for children.* Regarding Iodine supplementation, the experts said this was only necessary for those who had inhaled quantities of radiation (those in the exclusion zone or workers on the site) or through consumption of contaminated food/water supplies. Long term consumption of iodine is, in any case, not healthy.The discussion was surprisingly frank and to the point. The conclusion of the experts is that the damage caused by the earthquake and tsunami, as well as the subsequent aftershocks, was much more of an issue than the fear of radiation sickness from the nuclear plants.Let's hope the experts are right!So basically: -Are the radiation levels in the evacuated zone dangerous: Yes-Are the radiation levels in the surrounding prefectures dangerous and or lethal: No-Is the plant going to blow up hollywood style like an atomic bomb: No-Is every precautionary measure taken by the government here being blown out of proportion into some kind of doomsday sign: Yes-Are the radiation leves dangerous to people in Japan farther away from the evac zone: No -Are the radiation levels going to be dangerous to people out of country and worldwide: Ridiculous
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
from the same poster from Japan, he makes an EXCELLENT point:

On a bit of a side note, actually just had a skype conversation in the wee hours this morning(in Japan time) with my mother because she was watching CNN and feared for my life. After I explained the situation here from another point of view she calmed down and made a very good point. If they actually showed more of what the people in northern Japan are going through; thousands confirmed dead and tens of thousands missing and feared dead. Not to mention hundreds of thousands displaced and now homeless, many without adequate food and clean water supplies, they might be able to create more awareness of the situation which would help with getting aid and donations to the area. The rescue operations are being seriously hampered by constant quakes and aftershocks, which if centered offshore bring the threat of another tsunami. Instead of just focusing on fear-mongering about the troubled nuclear reactors. Over-using phrases like meltdown, critical, nuclear catastrophe, etc., and attaching them to mental images of widespread destruction and deathly disease while seemingly ignoring a lot of the facts, often doing a poor job in translating Japanese to English, and flubbing some of the numbers.
Click to expand...
 
'David Dodds said:
Cliff and others, I am choosing to refrain from posting my opinion today and just posting news headlines. I think that's more helpful for everyone.
Click to expand...
I don't think the fan cartoon qualifies as a news headline. In fact, it's really just posting your opinion, no?
 
'Incogneto said:
from the same poster from Japan, he makes an EXCELLENT point:

On a bit of a side note, actually just had a skype conversation in the wee hours this morning(in Japan time) with my mother because she was watching CNN and feared for my life. After I explained the situation here from another point of view she calmed down and made a very good point. If they actually showed more of what the people in northern Japan are going through; thousands confirmed dead and tens of thousands missing and feared dead. Not to mention hundreds of thousands displaced and now homeless, many without adequate food and clean water supplies, they might be able to create more awareness of the situation which would help with getting aid and donations to the area. The rescue operations are being seriously hampered by constant quakes and aftershocks, which if centered offshore bring the threat of another tsunami. Instead of just focusing on fear-mongering about the troubled nuclear reactors. Over-using phrases like meltdown, critical, nuclear catastrophe, etc., and attaching them to mental images of widespread destruction and deathly disease while seemingly ignoring a lot of the facts, often doing a poor job in translating Japanese to English, and flubbing some of the numbers.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The Media need to stop attaching words to my mental images.
 
So I'm driving around this morning flipping channels on the radio, as I always do, and I turn to the progressive station, and there's an expert who states very firmly that before this is over the radiation released is going to kill 55,000-60,000 people in Japan alone, from Leukemia, and that the number could be much higher. He also stated that nearly a million people died from Chernobyl, and that thousands who lived near Three Mile Island got cancer and died, though this was hushed up by the United States government.

So then I switched to a conservatve station, and there's an expert who states very firmly that this situation, while serious, will not result in a single death to the public, and probably only a couple of deaths to the workers there now, who are not, despite media reports, risking their lives. He also stated that the situation was serious because of it's economic effects only, there was no risk to public health.

I dunno. I guess both sides are repeating what they already believe?

 
'timschochet said:
So I'm driving around this morning flipping channels on the radio, as I always do, and I turn to the progressive station, and there's an expert who states very firmly that before this is over the radiation released is going to kill 55,000-60,000 people in Japan alone, from Leukemia, and that the number could be much higher. He also stated that nearly a million people died from Chernobyl, and that thousands who lived near Three Mile Island got cancer and died, though this was hushed up by the United States government. So then I switched to a conservatve station, and there's an expert who states very firmly that this situation, while serious, will not result in a single death to the public, and probably only a couple of deaths to the workers there now, who are not, despite media reports, risking their lives. He also stated that the situation was serious because of it's economic effects only, there was no risk to public health. I dunno. I guess both sides are repeating what they already believe?
Click to expand...
hence the 3 sides to every story line.yours, mine, and the truth...
 
'timschochet said:
So I'm driving around this morning flipping channels on the radio, as I always do, and I turn to the progressive station, and there's an expert who states very firmly that before this is over the radiation released is going to kill 55,000-60,000 people in Japan alone, from Leukemia, and that the number could be much higher. He also stated that nearly a million people died from Chernobyl, and that thousands who lived near Three Mile Island got cancer and died, though this was hushed up by the United States government. So then I switched to a conservatve station, and there's an expert who states very firmly that this situation, while serious, will not result in a single death to the public, and probably only a couple of deaths to the workers there now, who are not, despite media reports, risking their lives. He also stated that the situation was serious because of it's economic effects only, there was no risk to public health.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the update.
 
'IvanKaramazov said:
'timschochet said:
So I'm driving around this morning flipping channels on the radio, as I always do, and I turn to the progressive station, and there's an expert who states very firmly that before this is over the radiation released is going to kill 55,000-60,000 people in Japan alone, from Leukemia, and that the number could be much higher. He also stated that nearly a million people died from Chernobyl, and that thousands who lived near Three Mile Island got cancer and died, though this was hushed up by the United States government. So then I switched to a conservatve station, and there's an expert who states very firmly that this situation, while serious, will not result in a single death to the public, and probably only a couple of deaths to the workers there now, who are not, despite media reports, risking their lives. He also stated that the situation was serious because of it's economic effects only, there was no risk to public health.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the update.
Click to expand...
hey c'mon it was in an existing thread. Baby steps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wrigley
Chernobyl: You didn’t see this thread, because it’s not here (Potential Spoilers)
7 8 9
Replies
436
Views
24K
Faust
Faust

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top