perceptions_now wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 2:10pm:


As far as evacuation is concerned, it's not always risk free.  If you received radiological results  that was showing a downwards trend over several days, but it was say twice the recommended level for evacuation, and you knew that a significant part of the radiation was due to radioiodine which has a short half life and that people in the affected area have been advised to take iodine tablets,  you have limited resources, and evacuation of these people may cause more problems than it may solve, would you be tempted to say - let's give it a few days? (because the way trends are going, it will be ok within a week)

Things are not always as clear cut as it may appear, and it's pointless looking for people to blame.  Do you blame TEPCO for the design, or the government departments for accepting the design, or if you were there at the inevitable public meeting, would you have raised the objection that hey - maybe we could have a bigger tsunami than design? - why haven't you people thought about that?....

Do you blame the NRSI for not always making the right decision instantly at a time of enormous pressure?

If a motorist ran over and killed one of your loved ones, would you be one of those people crying for his blood, when the actual root cause of the accident is still unknown? Would you hang him from the nearest tree, and later read the report that the mechanic didn't tighten the  bolt correctly on the brake system, because his mind was on something else?

Scandals are seldom as cut and dried as you might think.

Let's suppose you decide to evacuate 10,000 people , and as a result, somebody gets killed. Two months after the event, you look at the radiological data that said that the excess exposure would result in one death in 10,000 over 20 years. Which would be be the preferred outcome?

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 4:54pm:


Well, perhaps you could divide the amount of contamination in the '11,500 tonnes' (which is more likely litres) by the TOTAL amount of water in the world oceans??

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 5:34pm:



Why haven't YOU produced a chemical analysis???

Surely Greenpeace has made something up...

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 5:57pm:


In WHICH country???
It IS in Australia...but what are the laws in Japan???

Has anyone taken the time to see why the tides are taking this water, after it leaves Fukushima?

If it is initially going up & down the Japanese coast and the waste is being deposited into seaweed, shellfish & fish, then I can see a FEW problems, in Japan & that's before we look further afield?

This whole thing is crazy - why isn't there an international agency conducting testing, gathering experts and driving a timely plan with an objective of 'least impact' overall?

I hear some of you screaming, "BUT THIS IS JUST TOO BIG TO CONTROL - we've gotta trust the Corporate Operator and their 'affiliated' national regulator to make the best decisions in this time of crisis".

I say, "BULLSHTYE" - THE POTENTIAL SHORT, MEDIUM AND LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES ARE CATASTROPHIC - AND THIS RADIOACTIVE CONTAINMENT EFFORT IS TOO BIG TO BE ALLOWED TO FAIL!"

Moreover, I say, "FUKUSHIMA SERVES AS A LESSON TO HUMANITY THAT NUKES ARE INHERENTLY DANGEROUS AND NOT WORTH THE RISK - EVER!"

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 5:57pm:


What's a complete chemical analysis? I know that they would test for chemicals that are likely to be present in the effluent.

But would they test for Gadolinium in paper mill effluent? Of course not.

Your comments on legal requirements are as wooly and off the wall as your thinking about this crisis.  Your technical input consists of blatant untruths from the Greenpeace site, such as "A release of 5kg of Pu will give everybody on Earth Cancer."

How many cigarettes do I have to smoke to give me a 100% chance of getting cancer? What about peanut butter ? If I have peanut butter on my toast every morning will that result in cancer? (are you 100% sure?)  

Do you even understand the distinction between 'dumping' and inadvertent release?

I can't imagine how these Greenpeace activists in Japan can possibly survive this crisis. I predict that they will all die from the effects of an aneurism while trying to think of bigger and better hyperboles. Either that or the veins will pop in their eyeballs.

How many people will they scare to death in the process?

How many analytical chemical analyses were carried out by TEPCO and the Japanese Authorities on the 11,500 tonnes of radioactive water that was discharged into the sea?

Where are the results?

I recall the AMSSIVE JAPANESE UPRROAR when the Russian nuclear subarine discharged a small amount of radioactive water int eh Sea of Japan.

Japan was leading the charge on the International stage that condemned this dispicable act and environmental/health crime (and rightly so).

Now we have TEPCO who has found the CORPORATELY cheapest option of discharging what they say is low level radioactive waste water into the ocean that DOES NOT pose any threat to human or marine life.

LOL

They just dismissed the entire world medical opinion that has existed since Madam Curie died of cancer almost a centrury ago WITH one simple corporate media stroke of the pen

And to see the corporate apologists in this forum froth at the mouth as they defend this criminal behaviour with identical spin and deceit says a lot about how deep people can plunge into the abyss of ignorance and greed