# Since I live in CA....this is a little troubling...Fukushima



## CeeCee (Jan 9, 2014)

http://themindunleashed.org/2013/08/at-very-least-your-days-of-eating.html

i got this off a conservative forum so I don't know if it is a true.y objective article or not.


----------



## That Guy (Jan 9, 2014)

Welcome to the future.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 9, 2014)

I believe the Fukushima situation is very severe, and they are actively stopping anyone in that area from speaking out about what is really happening.  Here's a bit of what was discussed on the CoasttoCoast am radio show, which often speaks of events that are swept under the rug by the media for various reasons.  I love seafood, and have enjoyed some wonderful camping vacations on the Oregon Coast, we went out fishing on the big boats and loved it...but common sense tells me that the seafood will be inedible in the next couple of years. 



> Three nuclear energy experts (Scott Portzline, Arnie Gundersen, and Kevin Kamps) in separate hours, discussed the status of the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, the cover-ups of scientific data, as well as general issues about nuclear power, and nuclear waste.
> 
> Last week there was a spate of false reports about Fukushima's Unit 3 having new radiation plumes of steam coming from it, and that people living on the West Coast should prepare to evacuate, Portzline detailed. While this was a hoax, the climate of uncertainty around Fukushima has been created by the lack of truth from TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company), as well as the US government, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, he commented.
> 
> ...


----------



## rkunsaw (Jan 9, 2014)

I've no doubt the reports will be diminished or exaggerated according to the agenda of those reporting, but there is no doubt that tons of debris from the Japanese tsunami has washed ashore all along the west coast from California to Alaska. That debris must have followed the oceans currents and it did not go toward Vietnam.

I do believe the effect will be minimal but it certainly bears watching.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 9, 2014)

You just have to go beyond the TV news, and research things yourself if they're important to you...then piece things together and use common sense to come to a reasonable conclusion.  I don't trust anything I read anymore, but am open-minded to hear what people are reporting.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 9, 2014)

SeaBreeze said:


> You just have to go beyond the TV news, and research things yourself if they're important to you...then piece things together and use common sense to come to a reasonable conclusion.  I don't trust anything I read anymore, but am open-minded to hear what people are reporting.



That's it in a nutshell. 

Used to be we could (or _thought_ we could) accept media reports as gospel. Now we need to learn to research, back-check and generally keep a jaundiced eye on anything until we figure out the truth. 

The media report is just the beginning ...


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 9, 2014)

The more I read about it all the less I know and as I'm not really all that  worried about one more poison to feed on I'll leave further research on hold.

That debris washing up seems to be more wind than current driven. 
The debris on the US W.coast arrived there much faster than would be expected if it was carried by the current alone, that takes a lot longer.

 e.g. a smallish boat which capsized but didn't sink, 18 months ago off  WA has turned up on an island off Madagascar. 
 It's been floating just  below the surface and is covered in barnacles etc so it appears to have  been carried by the current there, *against* the prevailing winds.  Had it  been floating at the surface it would have blown ashore back in OZ.

Ocean currents, like wind, operate differently at different levels and take different directions. It depends on which level current the contaminated outflow settles into that determines which direction it will travel.

I can't find much recent research into, or detailed maps of currents and won't be spending the day reading scientific papers so ...  



The boffins are studying and tracking it and the current map used on the interview I saw was a lot more detailed than any I can find on the 'net, and showed 'swirl' patterns emanating from the main current usually seen depicted that does eventually reach the US coast.  The 'swirl' he indicated the contamination was entering turned back toward Asia.

Was that a total fabrication??  Maybe...  most of the other stuff we see is too, so place your bets on your favourite theory and keep your fingers crossed.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 9, 2014)

Here's a Geiger counter tour of a food coop in Chapel Hill, NC. All the readings are within normal limits.






Yet the government assures us we're safe ...

[video=youtube_share;VppkLCQf4n8]http://youtu.be/VppkLCQf4n8[/video]

I feel SO much better.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 9, 2014)

Diwundrin said:


> Was that a total fabrication??  Maybe...  most of the other stuff we see is too, so place your bets on your favourite theory and keep your fingers crossed.



Well, put it this way - I won't be knowingly eating any fish from Japan in the near future.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 9, 2014)

'Knowingly' being the operative word.

I won't eat anything 'knowingly' that ever lived in the Mekong either but....  where'd the prawns in the fried rice come from?  What and where does the stuff in fish cakes come from?  The worst ones of those I ever ate came from S.Africa. God alone needs to know what was in them.  But they didn't kill me, or make me sick even, just tasted disgusting.

We see 'Bassa' or similar or 'Nile Perch' labels on slabs of stuff that appears vaguely fishy but  looks more like  pale veiny beef and can only be some form of carp that once lived in an unnamed sewerage enhanced river in foreign parts.
 
What's on the label doesn't necessarily bear any factual connection with the contents these days.  

If it comes down to no other options,  I'd prefer to eat slightly radioactive fish than those full of cadmium and mercury and who knows what else including e-coli.  Radiation build up takes longer to kill you I'm told.


----------



## dbeyat45 (Jan 9, 2014)

Worth a read ... may allay some concerns:
[h=1]What You Should and Shouldn’t Worry about after the Fukushima Nuclear Meltdowns [/h]http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-worry-about-after-fukushima-nuclear-disaster


----------



## Casper (Jan 9, 2014)

_*Even with the fresh seafood we see in stores today that are "local product"......local to where???

It's a bit of a lottery.....we haven't bought fresh fish for a long while because of not knowing where it comes from....
I'm just glad that I'm not a real seafood lover anyway.....:shark:*_


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 9, 2014)

> But, with the exception of bottom-feeding fish  and sessile (immobile) filter feeders caught in the immediate vicinity,  any radionuclides from Fukushima have been diluted by the vastness of  the Pacific to insignificant quantities. The extra radionuclides from  Fukushima are simply not enough to create a dose large enough to cause any human health effects outside the immediate vicinity of the stricken nuclear power plant.



That seems comforting... until the next para. which cites excess carbon dioxide and climate change as 'scientific' answers.





> Nor is the radioactive contamination from Fukushima the cause of changes  to Pacific sea-bottom life observed in recent years off the U.S. west  coast, as the marine scientists at Deep Sea News recently noted. Those shifts most likely stem from the copious quantities of carbon dioxide spewed by fossil fuel–fired power plants  that are changing the climate and, thus, the tiny plants known as  phytoplankton that serve as the base of the oceanic food chain.



Seems no matter what you read, or where you read it, they're all having a bet each way and covering their arses, and ongoing funding grants,  with nods to the Climogod religion..... siiiigh.  How can we take anything at face value any more?

Maybe we should just get on with living for today and keeping a peeled and beady eye instead on the that bus that is more likely to kill us than any of the more dramatised, global dooming prophecies we're are constantly being bothered with.


----------



## dbeyat45 (Jan 9, 2014)

The media etc is besotted with _global warming/climate change_ .... AND, there is hardly a scientific paper I have read that doesn't mention the words somewhere in the body, discussion or conclusion.  Hence the 97% figure which John Cook arrived at by scanning the *text*, not the intent of the papers he examined.

Keywords:  Crooks, scam, jail, anti-science, pathetic.


----------



## rkunsaw (Jan 10, 2014)

The seafood we eat mostly come from right behind our house But even so with natural levels of mercury and who knows what else we can't be sure of what's in the fish we eat. 

I'll take my chances with the fish I catch though.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 10, 2014)

Horse meat never did the French any harm......it was the deceit that made us so angry; profiteering.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 10, 2014)

Diwundrin said:


> I won't eat anything 'knowingly' that ever lived in the Mekong either but....  where'd the prawns in the fried rice come from?  What and where does the stuff in fish cakes come from?  The worst ones of those I ever ate came from S.Africa. God alone needs to know what was in them.  But they didn't kill me, or make me sick even, just tasted disgusting.
> 
> We see 'Bassa' or similar or 'Nile Perch' labels on slabs of stuff that appears vaguely fishy but  looks more like  pale veiny beef and can only be some form of carp that once lived in an unnamed sewerage enhanced river in foreign parts.
> 
> ...



Well, I suppose I should indulge in some transparency here and state that the only "fish" I eat these days is canned tuna fish. I figure the worst that can happen is I get some dolphin or mercury in my tuna . layful: 

I don't mind if I start rising when it gets warm, as long as I don't glow.


----------



## Pappy (Jan 10, 2014)

You're ok, Phil. Charlie sez so.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 10, 2014)

Sorry, Charley - only the _best_ tuna gets to be Star Kist! 

I wonder where that leaves MY brand, Bumblebee ...


----------



## That Guy (Jan 10, 2014)

I ain't never eatin' nothin' never again!


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 10, 2014)

But that is the heart of the conundrum isn't it? I tend to the opposite view..... I can't be bothered any more; and, it hasn't killed me yet.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 10, 2014)

There are times that I am really glad I don't like shellfish, except prawns. Now....what shall I eat tonight?


----------



## basefare (Jan 10, 2014)

.
may, have to eat those oil soaked shrimp from the Gulf or some of that frozen Atlantic fish.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 29, 2014)

More on Fukushima...http://www.globalresearch.ca/28-sig...with-nuclear-radiation-from-fukushima/5355280


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 29, 2014)

SeaBreeze said:


> More on Fukushima...http://www.globalresearch.ca/28-sig...with-nuclear-radiation-from-fukushima/5355280



Thanks for that link, Sea - that's scarier than the things living under my bed. :cower:


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 29, 2014)

Re SB's link.  These people make their living by pandering to the paranoia of conspiracy theorists.  Also those breathless 'facts' are couched in less than proven terms..  examples below.



> *Many* are *blaming* Fukushima......  *Something* is causing fish all along the west coast of Canada to bleed from their gills,
> ... It is being projected...  _(never trust computer modelling 'projections.')  _...   *One test* in California found that 15 out of 15 bluefin tuna were contaminated with radiation from Fukushima.  _(which test where and by whom?)   _... Some experts believe_ ... (real experts know.)   _...   It has been *estimated* .... 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…  _(but didn't a previous point already say that it had gotten there as was affecting fish already? Should they get their stories straight?}_  ....  .  *21.* It is being *projected*.... *22.* It is being *projected*... *27.* According to the Wall Street Journal, it is being *projected*...
> Are you starting to understand why so many people are so deeply concerned about what is going on at Fukushima?...  _ (Yes, because sites like this blow it out of proportion to elicit donations from the scared sh*tless.)_



Never put 100% faith in what you read on any site with a donation button on it.

There may very well be casualties long term from Fukishima, but they haven't really *proven* that yet. They still presume, estimate, suspect, and project about it.  And the figures and projections change radically depending on what site you are reading.

As to the 'projected' dangers, how many are dropping like flies in  Japan?  Around 130 was the figure I saw, with 'perhaps' another 2,500 in  big risk of cancer in the future.  You'd think it would affect the  people living near the plant, and still eating the fish, first wouldn't  you?  Not saying there's no danger lying in waiting, just saying that  trucks kill more of us than radiation sickness.

 There is also not a bloody thing anyone can do about it now except help them mitigate any continuing pollution!  Pointing at nuclear energy as being the universal bad guy and closing down nuke plants like it's excorsizing the Devil or something is a reaction that needs a lot of thinking about.

It wasn't nuclear energy that caused that disaster.  It was pure human negligence and a lack of standards and control of them.  Human stupidity caused it.  Closing down nukes to protect us from ourselves is simply nannying taken to extreme.  Shooting offenders against keeping to safety standards is all that's required to ensure nuclear safety.

Japan went that road.  They closed down all their nuke power plants.  Guess what direction Japan's deficit is heading on the economic scale?  
A graph showing the direct correlation between the return to fossil fuel generation and the deficit is self evident.  It's sending them broke!

What if all yours were to shut down overnight?  Could the US manage okay without it now?  Could Europe?  
 What's the answer to Fukishima?  What are the suggestions for dealing with nuclear power generation?

It's a cleft stick without diligent attention to safety issues.  A few hundred thousand, maybe,perhaps,projected, affected by radiation or a few million dead of hunger, and cold?
Sometimes we just have to accept that sh*t happens but it's not always exactly due to the cause we immediately suspect.

The improved availability of nuke power allowed population to grow to it's present numbers and level of technology, the price of that is utter reliance on it.  'Green' technology is nowhere near replacing it.  So how do you wanna go?  

Japan will be okay, they can go back to burning whale oil. 

...  sorry couldn't resist that dig,  but what goes round comes round, one way or another. No free lunches.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 29, 2014)

"Green technology is nowhere near replacing it".

Oh, rly? 

If it isn't, it's not from lack of ability. It's because the utility companies are fully backing nuclear as the power of choice, because it's there, already in place, and they don't wan t to interrupt their money train.

It's because the fat-cat politicians and lobbyists would miss their kick-backs from those same utilities.

You know, there IS a point where cynicism, instead of helping, can hurt.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 29, 2014)

Here's a blog site of a committed Environmentalist who backs nuclear power.  Who'da thort?
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

It's not just cynicism, I know how much input vested interests have in this... on both sides.  The headlong race over the environmentally obsessed   cliff of cutting out fossis AND nuclear fuel is every bit as cynical,  in not listening to any alternative suggestions to cover us in the interim until Green technology does become viable, you know. Doing something futile for the sake of doing it to appear 'environmentally pious'  is a waste of time and money.

 Neither side of the argument has everything down pat 100%  there must be compromises made by both sides.  Hopefully they will be made on logical acceptance of the facts of life's costs for existing on this planet,  and not purely by greed, emotion, and disinformation.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 30, 2014)

Diwundrin said:


> Here's a blog site of a committed Environmentalist who backs nuclear power.  Who'da thort?
> http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/



Do you TRULY believe that the IAEA and WNN folks are disinterested parties? Do you think that a "committed environmentalist" (small "e" to de-emphasize the political aspect) can't be bought? 

It's run by a scientist and university professor - do you think he's beyond reproach? That he's even in touch with the real world, sitting up there in his ivory tower? 

Do you think the estimable Dr. Brook eats fish from the California coast? Drinks from the public water supply? No, he's down under, where the currents don't have even a quarter of the effect they have on the Western American coast. 

"Sustainable nuclear energy" - yeah, it sure is - it'll keep poisoning us through our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren! 



> It's not just cynicism, I know how much input vested interests have in this... on both sides.  The headlong race over the environmentally obsessed   cliff of cutting out fossis AND nuclear fuel is every bit as cynical,  in not listening to any alternative suggestions to cover us in the interim until Green technology does become viable, you know. Doing something futile for the sake of doing it to appear 'environmentally pious'  is a waste of time and money.



Of course I'm not as OCD on this topic as some, but I wasn't aware that it was such a black-and-white issue. Nobody I know is telling us to shut down every reactor tomorrow, sink the oil platforms and close the valves on the gas supply. Of course there would be a wind-down period, but if the conversation is not entertained by both sides then nothing is going to happen, and when it comes to the money aspect THAT is the Prime Directive.

Who has the money? Certainly not the Alternative Energy folks. Only 13% of the U.S. energy bill is footed by them. 

But change is coming - it HAS to. Otherwise we're going to be seeing more and more Fukushimas. 




> Neither side of the argument has everything down pat 100%  there must be compromises made by both sides.  Hopefully they will be made on logical acceptance of the facts of life's costs for existing on this planet,  and not purely by greed, emotion, and disinformation.



I'm just truly astonished that you don't see the lethality of nuclear, as well as the environmental costs of coal, gas and oil. It seems as if you wouldn't trust a radiometer shrieking out a heavy-metal anthem while passing it over your tuna fish sandwich, instead passing it off as a glitch.

We've raped the Earth far too long with non-renewable fuels, the de-weaponization of nuclear energy has proven far too high a risk - the only _sane_ answer is renewable resource utilization. Fighting tooth and nail for the creation of yet more ticking time bombs while you build all those solar panels is folly.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 30, 2014)

> Do you TRULY believe that the IAEA and WNN folks are disinterested  parties? Do you think that a "committed environmentalist" (small "e" to  de-emphasize the political aspect) can't be bought?
> 
> It's run by a scientist and university professor - do you think he's  beyond reproach? That he's even in touch with the real world, sitting up  there in his ivory tower?



*They're believed and above reproach when they claim to be proving 'the science' of Climate Change!    *


(Kachinnng!)


Wassamadda, do we only believe the ones that agree with us?  





> Of course I'm not as OCD on this topic as some, but I wasn't aware that  it was such a black-and-white issue. Nobody I know is telling us to shut  down every reactor tomorrow, sink the oil platforms and close the  valves on the gas supply.



No Greenies in your Government then?  Ours send delegations of feral protesters to close down the Newcastle coal loader every couple of weeks and demand that Australia stop selling coal. They want CSG mining stopped. They worry about the Natural Gas wells in the Timor Sea in case they kill a turtle.  They protest about oil wells anywhere and to keep them busy someone moots drilling on the Gt B. Reef and they go mental!   They also blow their foofoo valves at the mention of nuclear power, so yes, here, they want ALL power generation other than solar, closed down.  Now!  They held the balance of power in the Senate, would you believe!  So they blackmailed the hung Parliarment for all they were worth.  We get rid of most in July when the half Senate turnover takes place and hopefully they'll be heard less. I think all but one got tossed out, but Warri is the numbers gal.




> I'm just truly astonished that you don't see the lethality of nuclear,



What?  Because a few have fallen over spectacularly?  How many 'disasters' have there been again? 2?  Against how many nuke power stations that have never had a hiccup? 100s?  Remind me.

More likely to suffer and die from coal pollution than radiation from power plants if you live close to one.  Perspective please.


----------



## dbeyat45 (Jan 30, 2014)

Phil,  what do *you* see as "the environmental costs of coal, gas and oil" ?


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 30, 2014)

Diwundrin said:


> *They're believed and above reproach when they claim to be proving 'the science' of Climate Change!   *
> 
> 
> (Kachinnng!)
> ...



Please, keep climate change out of this.

I don't only believe those that agree with me - I'm poking holes in your paper god. 




> No Greenies in your Government then?  Ours send delegations of feral protesters to close down the Newcastle coal loader every couple of weeks and demand that Australia stop selling coal. They want CSG mining stopped. They worry about the Natural Gas wells in the Timor Sea in case they kill a turtle.  They protest about oil wells anywhere and to keep them busy someone moots drilling on the Gt B. Reef and they go mental!   They also blow their foofoo valves at the mention of nuclear power, so yes, here, they want ALL power generation other than solar, closed down.  Now!  They held the balance of power in the Senate, would you believe!  So they blackmailed the hung Parliarment for all they were worth.  We get rid of most in July when the half Senate turnover takes place and hopefully they'll be heard less. I think all but one got tossed out, but Warri is the numbers gal.



You're using the actions of a miniscule percentage of wackadoos to justify nuclear power? 



> What?  Because a few have fallen over spectacularly?  How many 'disasters' have there been again? 2?  Against how many nuke power stations that have never had a hiccup? 100s?  Remind me.



Number of worldwide incidents since 1952 recorded by the IAEA and from reports gathered independently (since, surprise, surprise, the IAEA does NOT report all occurrences) - *33*.



On a scale of 1-7, there has been one *7* - Chernobyl. Fukushima was rated a *5*. In addition to those we have one *6*, three *5*'s, five *4*'s, five *3*'s, five *2*'s and 12 - *1* or unders. 

Please don't ask me to count the number of oil spills, coal mining disasters, gas explosions or other events that, if they didn't take lives outright, further eroded the earth.



> More likely to suffer and die from coal pollution than radiation from power plants if you live close to one.  Perspective please.



Dying from coal pollution is insidious, just like dying from radiation. We tend to put out stats that show only immediate deaths, not long-term diseases. 

I don't know about your neighborhood, but I live within *100 miles of 5 nuclear plants*. If any of them go, I'm toast. Here's a few of the major U.S. reactors (104 total) contained within 65 plants - 



An IAEA report shows the number of mortalities from people living near a nuclear power plant had increased thusly:

Due to Leukemia, all ages: 
         Before plant: 258
         After plant: 6,077

Due to All Cancers except Leukemia, all ages:
         Before Plant: 8,991
         After Plant: 141,635

That's just normal, everyday living - and dying - around nuclear plants, without explosions or major natural disasters.

Tell me again how safe nuclear power is?


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 30, 2014)

dbeyat45 said:


> Phil,  what do *you* see as "the environmental costs of coal, gas and oil" ?



You're kidding, right?

Like you haven't seen the effects of living in a coal-mining town? Of oil spills? Natural gas explosions? The burning of gasoline and kerosene in vehicles? 

I'm not getting into a climate thing here with you - I have no desire to do that. I'm just wondering that you don't see how the earth is being polluted by these fuels ...


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 30, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> Please, keep climate change out of this.
> 
> I don't only believe those that agree with me - I'm poking holes in your paper god.


No.  You don't wriggle out that easy.  You describe 'my' source as _"It's run by a scientist and university professor - do you think he's   beyond reproach? That he's even in touch with the real world, sitting up   there in his ivory tower?"  _  What I'm pointing out is these are the exact same types used as proof of expertise when it comes to the C.change argument.   It's not about climate change, it's about what credentials we accept depending on what we point we want to make.   





> You're using the actions of a miniscule percentage of wackadoos to justify nuclear power?



No. and you know it!   You said _"Nobody I know is telling us to shut  down every reactor tomorrow, sink  the oil platforms and close the  valves on the gas supply."_
I'm merely informing you that yes, there are people who want to close everything down with no back up system.  We don't even have nuke power stations so I presume it's everyone else's they want close.  Yes they're wackos, they're 'Greens.'   





> Number of worldwide incidents since 1952 recorded by the IAEA and from reports gathered independently (since, surprise, surprise, the IAEA does NOT report all occurrences) - *33*.
> 
> View attachment 4713
> 
> ...



I said 'disasters'..  not incidents.  





> Dying from coal pollution is insidious, just like dying from radiation. We tend to put out stats that show only immediate deaths, not long-term diseases.
> 
> I don't know about your neighborhood, but I live within *100 miles of 5 nuclear plants*. If any of them go, I'm toast. Here's a few of the major U.S. reactors (104 total) contained within 65 plants -
> 
> ...



I lived in a coal town for 10 years.  It was measured that around 39,000 tonnes of dust settled on that town per annum.  
It had a frightening amount of cancers.  People all round me were developing cancer. Brain tumors, breast cancer colon and cervical cancers. Lung cancers of course but not one could pin them on coal. I don't know of any children with leukemia so can't comment on that.

 One doctor though gave up his practice to devote his full time to studying children there who had asthma way out of all proportion to the National average.   Towns with underground mines didn't have those figures, but Singleton  is surrounded by huge open cut mines and they are studying the premise  that the blasting chemicals are more likely to be triggering the cancer  cluster and the asthma.  It's also heavily sprayed with agri chems.  for pastures and crops.

Coal itself can cause lung cancers, although it's more to do with the silica dust than the coal dust.  A branch of my family have been coal miners for generations in that area, working underground,  and none of them had asthma.  A few died of silicosis induced lung cancer but not the range of cancers evident in the Hunter Valley region now.  It's more than coal to blame.

Could you imagine the hoohah if there had been a nuke plant there?  Would they all have been caused by radiation?

How many are dropping off early because of those plants around you?  Are there proven cancer clusters caused by them?  What's the life span of  the people who work there every day?  Do they last a week or 20 years or what?  Do any live long enough to retire?  If we are to believe the scare mongers then it would be a death sentence not a job.  Are no agri or other chemicals used in heavy industries  that could perhaps be carcinogenic?  Were the clusters around Love Canal nuclear power plant caused?

As before, perspective.  

I don't mind in the least that they eventually phase out coal powered energy, and nuclear, when they find something viable to replace them with.

 I hate the pollution more than most, I've lived with it at it's worst.  But coal is cheap, reliable, efficient and at present, at least here in OZ, utterly irreplaceable.  We can't just stop using it because we've been too scared to build nukes and are now 20 years behind the world and looking at 10 more to build any at all.  Nobody has the billions to spare to set up solar arrays that could replace a fraction of the power coal or nuke generates.  We're too small and scattered a population for it to ever pay it's way.

I'm not out to trash the planet. I simply state the bleeding obvious to the blinkered environmentally obsessed.

I'm not some mad scientist trying to irradiate the planet either.  I know there are dangers in nuclear power.  But they are dangers that can be controlled.  That's up to us. Build them and look after them better.  

 Too many want to live in some magic Utopia where everything is safe, and perfect, and cheap, and doesn't interfere in their lifestyle or weigh on their conscience.  Life ain't like that.  There are trade offs.  They can have their nice clean air with nuke power while they set about inventing that magic Green renewable energy that no one but the rich can afford to use.  That's really all I'm trying to point out.

... and if that didn't make sense, tough, I'm tired and outa 'gas'.  Calling time out.  'night. fftobed:


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 30, 2014)

Diwundrin said:


> ... and if that didn't make sense, tough, I'm tired and outa 'gas'.  Calling time out.  'night. fftobed:



 Okay, I'll rant and rave at you another day - I've got a few things to take care of myself. Sleep tight, don't let the irradiated bedbugs bite.


----------



## Davey Jones (Jan 30, 2014)

Juast a matter of time before all this craps reaches the Atlantic coast.


----------



## That Guy (Jan 30, 2014)

Davey Jones said:


> Juast a matter of time before all this craps reaches the Atlantic coast.



Not to worry.  Our fearless leaders have determined everything is A-OK...


----------



## gar (Jan 30, 2014)

No problems here I don't eat seafood LOL


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 30, 2014)

That Guy said:


> Not to worry.  Our fearless leaders have determined everything is A-OK...



Why am I strangely NOT assured?


----------



## That Guy (Jan 31, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> Why am I strangely NOT assured?



Oh, ye of little faith.  Obviously a candidate for reeducation...


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 31, 2014)

That Guy said:


> Oh, ye of little faith.  Obviously a candidate for reeducation...



* packs bag and runs away to Micronesia *


----------



## Davey Jones (Jan 31, 2014)

I thought we all loved "Made in Japan" stuff.


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Jan 31, 2014)

I was just looking at some pictures of the fish that are getting tumors, and other deformities from the radiation. I am including the link here to the article, and the pictures. Some of these fish are pretty awful to look at, but it sure shows us what kind of fish are being caught and processed as food. 
I love seafood, and especially salmon and oysters, but reading this article is enough to make me think that maybe I don't want to be eating it anymore.

http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/news/232-pat


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 31, 2014)

Happyflowerlady said:


> I was just looking at some pictures of the fish that are getting tumors, and other deformities from the radiation. I am including the link here to the article, and the pictures. Some of these fish are pretty awful to look at, but it sure shows us what kind of fish are being caught and processed as food.
> I love seafood, and especially salmon and oysters, but reading this article is enough to make me think that maybe I don't want to be eating it anymore.
> 
> http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/news/232-pat



I don't doubt political leaders are not forthright about the pollution caused by Fukushima. Our consumption of seafood has been cut drastically. Even so, I like to look at the source of internet news; this Turner Radio Network appears to be a real can of worms:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/turnerhealthcanadaconcealinghoax06jan14.shtml

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/hal-turner


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 31, 2014)

Here's another link that sort of debunks the Fukushima panic. 

http://deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation-and-the-fukushima-disaster/

I don't know what to think. But I like to read both sides of the issue.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 31, 2014)

Thank YOU Jr!!  



Do yourselves a favour.  Make a cuppa cawfee, settle comfortably, and read this rather long but extremely well explained and illuminating article.

Unless of course you get off on flapping around like headless chooks screaming the sky is falling.  No cure for that syndrome, sorry.

Firstly the pictures:  If those tumours and lesions are caused by radiation in the oceans they swim in then why don't they *ALL* have them?

I've seen those white fungal eggy things growing on goldfish in living room tanks.  They're fungal, not radioactive.
A seal with a chunk of face missing is more likely to have had a close encounter with something toothy than with radioactivity. 
Polar bears with chunks of fur missing are a rarity are they?  They don't shed or rip bits out of each other on a seasonal basis then?

Tasmanian Devils are verging on extinction from a tumorous growth on their faces that eventually kills them. It's finally been pinned as viral infection.   No radiation involved.  Have to find something else to make that one sound really really scary won't they?

Want pictures of perfectly healthy wild animals living in Chernobyl? and likewise healthy humans around Fukishima?  No?  thought not.

The MAPS.  As I said before they are total bullsh*t!  Read the part of the article about them.

The DANGER:  It's perfectly safe to swim in the sea around Fukishima which registers no higher radiation levels than average over ALL oceans... everywhere... there is radiation in everything... even sunlight!  You wanna live in a lead box?  At least wait until you die,to do that,  live life as it comes for now, preferably calmly.
Radioactive material is heavy, it sinks, it doesn't bob about like dust on the surface to be carried anywhere far at all.  I wouldn't eat bottom feeders from around Japan but that's about the scariest it really gets.


Not saying this one is any more 100% right than any other garbage we read on Facebook and the 'Net but at least have a look at the other side's, the non scare mongering side's, view of the situation.  The more we learn, the less scared we become.  It works, try it.

Here's the link again.
http://deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-...hima-disaster/


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 31, 2014)

... and the study by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) in California recently showed that the number of dead sea creatures blanketing the floor of  the Pacific is higher than it has ever been in the 24 years that  monitoring has taken place, a phenomenon that the data suggests is a  direct consequence of nuclear fallout from Fukushima. The results were published in _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_.

I agree that there are insane articles, but I also believe there are cover-ups. The truth, as always, probably lies somewhere in-between.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 31, 2014)

That's the place to look for them. 
But you have to cover the boundaries to define where the centre lies, can't judge by looking in only one direction.


----------



## Anne (Jan 31, 2014)

I don't see how there could *not* be any problems from that 'incident', but I'm not going to panic or stop eating seafood because of that.  We don't eat much of it since the price is so ridiculous on most of it, anyway, and considering what chemicals we've consumed in other foods for eons...why stress over it.

I try to keep in mind that media adores stirring panic over whatever story is current, and the sky is falling constantly.  Ok, maybe that's an exaggeration too, but it's not worth a breakdown - and, yes, I like to hear both sides before deciding.


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 31, 2014)

Here's something interesting from a marine ecologist. He claims that all the maladies caused by industrial pollution is being blamed on Fukushima. 

http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=15903

I'd say he knows more than your average bear.... Lol - he at least knows more than I do


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 31, 2014)

Like I said, I don't know the facts, and I'm certainly not a proponent of one side or the other - but I think that article calls for a plate of Oysters Rockefeller


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 31, 2014)

Half the battle of getting enough info to form a balanced opinion is knowing where to look for it, thans Jr, never would have thought to look into those ones you found.

Love  "Southern Fried Science"...  how apt!

More excerpts to entice readers to avail themselves of some counter arguments to the scary headlines.

e.g.


> Headline:  _ 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._
> 
> Explanation:
> waffle of details of radiation types etc.....ending with....
> ...



More gems debunking the hair tearing hollering of the original link of this thread await those interested.

*Even 100% truthful statements ain't necessarily so if they are twisted and presented out of context! * 

Knowing how that's done is interesting, knowing or at least suspecting,  WHY it's done is vital!

It's easy enough to do, I do it all the time to score points in verbal jousts.  

 (Just ask Warri and Phil, they're onto me.)
 I even do it for nuthin, imagine how much fun it would be if there was a dollar in it?  Show me the money and I'll write up something about whatever you're scared about that will knock your socks off. 



What about the peril surrounding us of the massive amounts of lethal Dihydrogen Monoxide that we are ingesting every day?  
Been scared about that one yet?   Anyone miss out?


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 31, 2014)

jrfromafar said:


> Here's something interesting from a marine ecologist. He claims that all the maladies caused by industrial pollution is being blamed on Fukushima.
> 
> http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=15903
> 
> I'd say he knows more than your average bear.... Lol - he at least knows more than I do



He's not so smart ... he claims Cesium-137 has a half-life of 70 days, when in fact its half-life is *30 years*. Quite a few orders of magnitude of an error, I'd say, and if he's THAT far off on ONE subject then his entire rant is suspect.


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 31, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> He's not so smart ... he claims Cesium-137 has a half-life of 70 days, when in fact its half-life is *30 years*. Quite a few orders of magnitude of an error, I'd say, and if he's THAT far off on ONE subject then his entire rant is suspect.



Hmmm... He sure is wrong about that - maybe too soon to order those oysters...


----------



## SifuPhil (Feb 1, 2014)

jrfromafar said:


> Hmmm... He sure is wrong about that - maybe too soon to order those oysters...



Sometimes - heck, ALL the time lately - it becomes tiresome to back-check all these people. It used to be, back before the Internet, that we had people we could trust to tell us the truth, the well-researched truth. Brinkley, Huntley, Kronkite, Reasoner ... we don't have their equivalents on the 'Net. We can't trust anyone to tell the truth. 

That's why more and more I'm simply withdrawing from the news.


----------



## jrfromafar (Feb 1, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> Sometimes - heck, ALL the time lately - it becomes tiresome to back-check all these people. It used to be, back before the Internet, that we had people we could trust to tell us the truth, the well-researched truth. Brinkley, Huntley, Kronkite, Reasoner ... we don't have their equivalents on the 'Net. We can't trust anyone to tell the truth.
> 
> That's why more and more I'm simply withdrawing from the news.



Very true. I recall Abraham Lincoln said that over 50% of what you read on the internet is false.


----------



## dbeyat45 (Feb 1, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> Sometimes - heck, ALL the time lately - it becomes tiresome to back-check all these people. It used to be, back before the Internet, that we had people we could trust to tell us the truth, the well-researched truth. Brinkley, Huntley, Kronkite, Reasoner ... we don't have their equivalents on the 'Net. We can't trust anyone to tell the truth.
> 
> That's why more and more I'm simply withdrawing from the news.


Smart move Phil .... if we had any true investigative reporters these days, we would have known long ago that the AGW theory was bogus.


----------



## Davey Jones (Feb 1, 2014)

jrfromafar said:


> Here's something interesting from a marine ecologist. He claims that all the maladies caused by industrial pollution is being blamed on Fukushima.
> 
> http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=15903
> 
> I'd say he knows more than your average bear.... Lol - he at least knows more than I do




He must be a Democrat.(g)


----------



## That Guy (Feb 1, 2014)

Davey Jones said:


> He must be a Democrat.(g)



Democrat Shmemocrat.  When we fall for the petty divisions that keep us infighting . . . well, divide and conquer sounds familiar.  Only if we all pull together with the goal of toppling the corrupt power structure keeping the populace conveniently sedated with news of useless fear mongering will true improvements to the living conditions of all the people be realized.  I can dream can't I . . . ?!?


----------



## SifuPhil (Feb 1, 2014)

jrfromafar said:


> Very true. I recall Abraham Lincoln said that over 50% of what you read on the internet is false.



That's probably because he only had dial-up ... 



dbeyat45 said:


> Smart move Phil .... if we had any true investigative reporters these days, we would have known long ago that the AGW theory was bogus.



Alas, now we'll never know for sure ... 



That Guy said:


> Democrat Shmemocrat.  When we fall for the petty divisions that keep us infighting . . . well, divide and conquer sounds familiar.  Only if we all pull together with the goal of toppling the corrupt power structure keeping the populace conveniently sedated with news of useless fear mongering will true improvements to the living conditions of all the people be realized.  I can dream can't I . . . ?!?



... and The Dude of the Waves, his body clad in the baggiest samite trunks, held aloft his Rip Curl board from the bosom of the water, signifying by Divine Providence that he, That Guy, was to carry on the fight for Independent Thinking ...


----------



## That Guy (Feb 1, 2014)

I love my different drummer...!


----------



## Diwundrin (Feb 1, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> Sometimes - heck, ALL the time lately - it becomes tiresome to back-check all these people. It used to be, back before the Internet, that we had people we could trust to tell us the truth, the well-researched truth. Brinkley, Huntley, Kronkite, Reasoner ... we don't have their equivalents on the 'Net. We can't trust anyone to tell the truth.
> 
> That's why more and more I'm simply withdrawing from the news.



How sure are you that they weren't playing exactly the same media games back then as now?  How could we know?

Somewhat contentious ramble....  


Spoiler



Take the whole Kennedy legend.   The JFK we, or at least I, saw through media reports was a very different persona than was  obviously 'sold' in the US.    We had access to reports and opinions from our own, and the UK's news feeds as well as some from the US and they didn't always gel at all.  The reporting in the US of things Kennedy amounted to pure propaganda compaired other opinions.  The more irreverent and cycnical attitudes from 'foreign' media threw much of the whole thing into an entirely different light.
The 'Camelot' mirage, seemingly swallowed whole as a wonderful Disney movie in the US, we were seeing  more as Woody Allen would have made it. It was scary and funny at the same time.

Imagine if the Murdoch press had taken a set on JFK and chosen to 'do a job' on his personal life?  A 'real' job, as they've done on a few here and the UK.  But Rupe's press wasn't in evidence back then and the US media seemed to treat JFK with absolute reverence so how much faith can you put in everything else you were getting from those sage and trusted journos of the past?  You only got what they wanted you to see.

Sorry to say it but 'we/I' have, in the past, considered the US somewhat naive in their outlook on world doings.  There were those voices who went against the flow but they were considered a bit 'radical' by the majority thinking.  Any revelations that didn't fit the propaganda only appeared in scandal mags and 'radical' rags, and in folk music.  

Of course our view that the US people were naive was only based on an overall knowledge gleaned, again, from media and movies.
We didn't have the internet to converse with those people one on one as we do here, on this forum for example.  Did we really know anything much at all about how our different 'cultures' ticked, as individuals?  

We generalise about cultures based on the outer shell of what we see of them, we never before had the opportunity to see those cultures at grass roots level.  So was it really the population who appeared naive, or was it the media who presumed everyone was?  Even today we tend to only see the biggest idiot handy who is grabbed to comment on some newsy event.  The media desperately want to portray everybody as idiots who need their superior intelligence for 'guidance'.

Of course there really are plenty of idiots out there but is it the media's brief to con them?  Or to present facts fairly to educate them?
I must admit to wondering if America wasn't every bit as under the thumb of propaganda as were the Communist nations they derided so vehemently.

That the McCarthy era ever happened there has to tell you some deeper agenda to control the media was in play  back then  surely?  
Why would they have been so afraid of any leftist views getting into the ears of the population?  

It was self evident that Communism was never going to be an option chosen by the US people.  So what were they really so afraid of,  if not merely a different viewpoint being expressed, that might have spoiled the pretty picture they were painting of how things were, and where America stood in the World?

Why are Americans so constantly surprised and disappointed that they are resented by others in the World who see things differently to how they are painted in the US? How do the American people think they are viewed from 'outside?'   What was sold as 'liberation' in the US media is an 'invasion' by other media accounts.  
Was that other viewpoint ever given much of an airing?  Was the massive amounts of foreign aid painted as a virtuous bestowing of assistance to less fortunate nations by the US media, while being seen as pure bribery and cynical payoffs from other viewpoints?  

I think we get the message in OZ that what we 'aid' Indo with is little more than extortion payments, and that aid 'donated' in Asia is paving footpaths to build businesses along.  We have a few basket cases in the S.Pacific to support for no returns but the majority of aid money goes to our own benefit, or to the benefit of the pollies who want to impress the UN with our taxpayers' munificence to advance their own future careers in it's ranks.  

I'm feeling a bit game this morning, haven't even had a coffee yet but I'm genuinely curious and we're talking media spin and public perceptions formed from it so I'll risk it and ask.
:shark:

What was your individual reactions to seeing the live footage of Dubya's first bombs hitting Bagdhad?  Do you remember what you were thinking watching that?  How was the media presenting it?  Was any journo opinion of possible ramifications given?  Or was it all 'gung ho' we'll show them stuff?  Do you remember?

I can remember it vividly.  I sat and watched and waited for the countdown to the deadline. Various  foreign corro journos reporting from the M.East expressed deep concern for outcomes if it went ahead.  Did any of those reports get seen there?

 I still believed, up until the last second, that sanity would prevail and the threat not be carried out.  But when those first explosions came I thought "Oh no.  This is SO wrong!  This is just wrong!"

It went against what America was supposed to personify. Against what even I still harboured hope was basically what it really did personify. 
It was 'sold' as being a 'War against Terror' and upholding American values of peace and justice, but was it?  
Bombing Baghdad appeared more like what China did to Tibet!
It amounted to killing a Country to get rid of one man.
And not even against the right 'man' or people at that!

It wasn't the action of the peacekeeping World's policeman, it came across as a petty vengeful reaction of a thug,  that inflicted destruction on all, to avenge the actions of a few.    Wasn't it Osama that bombed the Towers, not Saddam?  So what did Baghdad have to with that 'righteous revenge' thing again??

 Then the cynical view that it was Big Oil, not America wreaking vengeance set in.  That was the day America 'lost it' status wise in the view of me and many I think.  It was deeply disappointing.
But again, that was just the view from 'here.'  And we too are only able to make judgement based on what the media allows us to see.  Although I suspect we may have a wider range to choose from.  We seem to know a lot more about the World than it knows, or cares to find out, about us.

Not that I gave a tinkers about the Arabs at heart, but it was just 'diplomacy' at it's absolute most moronic.  What's happened since proves I wasn't far out in that. But what was your views of it from your living rooms?  What did you think of it? Were you a little worried, like the rest of us, about the 'rightness' of it?  Were you even as interested in it as I was?
What exactly did you think the real reason for it was?  Doesn't matter what the reason was, just curious to know how you viewed it personally.
How long did the American public 'buy' that War against Terror propaganda?  Did you ever really buy it, personally?

However we view any nation doesn't reflect on it's population as a whole, we only see it as it's Government presents it.  It's great to be able to look behind the smoke and mirrors and hear what it's people actually think about it all.  That can be a whole other picture.

We have never had any illusions of our position on the World totem pole.  OZ never had any real status to protect and so we could afford to look more closely and cynically at ourselves and have a laugh at our politicians' diplomatic mistakes. It was only other Nation's diplomatic mistakes that got us into any real trouble.  Being the little guy has it's advantages sometimes.:friendly_wink:


----------



## SifuPhil (Feb 1, 2014)

To be honest, I don't even recall the bombing. It's the kind of thing that I filter out, because to allow all of that into my "mind palace" (thanks, Sherlock) would make the place unlivable.

I'm like a lot of other people - I just want to live my life, and it's hard enough doing that with all the media-generated static we have nowadays. 

Another thing is that in my personal timeline Vietnam was winding down just as I was coming of age, and I recall listening to all the arguments pro and con and thinking how insane it all was, and how neither side was right. That set the mold for future world affairs for me.

Short-sighted? Yes. Not a "responsible citizen of the world"? Probably. I pick and choose my battles; if I opened myself up to everything the world is throwing at me I'd be in a padded cell. I live in a small world, one that I understand and trust. Anything outside the orbit of that world is suspect and has to really prove itself before it gains admission.


----------



## Diwundrin (Feb 1, 2014)

I can relate to that.  I see myself as watching and commenting on what I can see through the electronic spy holes in my low profile, well camouflaged safe little bird hide.   What and how things are happening around me is fascinating to watch while I hold no desire whatever to physically participate in it.  

Some things I don't want to see or know about either. But I can only cut them out if they don't impinge on what else is going on.
If they are part of the cause for something then I bite the bullet and find out as much as I need to know about how they fit the picture.

I'm fairly much restricted to mental exercise now and have the time to indulge the curiosity, but realise most don't and aren't near as interested in looking into the whys and wherefors of events. It's like a jigsaw puzzle and finding the pieces that fit is the most fun to be had from it.   I've learned to love learnin' new stuff to satisfy curiosity as a hobby.  But to each his own.

That you 'don't even remember the bombing' adds volumes to my views on how we are affected by what media tells us. Why was I riveted by watching historic events live when others hardly recall them?  
... and you think you may be OCD, what's that make me??.:hypnotysed:


----------



## SifuPhil (Feb 2, 2014)

Diwundrin said:


> ... and you think you may be OCD, what's that make me??.:hypnotysed:



ADHD? 

I'm now wondering what percentage our genetic preferences play in watching or doing. As they tell us in those cheesy motivational seminars there are dreamers and there are doers, the doers being lauded as world-changers while the dreamers are relegated to some virtual old-age home.

Yet the act of doing is sure to bring about complications, some of which are going to be less than pleasant. People look in awe at the movers and shakers of the world, those who boldly stride into the fray and "fix things", but it's that very attitude that has lead us into wars, famine and the Edsel. 

Much better to sit and watch the human comedy from the sidelines, at least after you've made your _own_ appearances on the stage. I think there comes a point where the rah-rah no longer affects us, where the entreaties to push-push-push fall on deaf ears. We've been there and done that, and if the results of our efforts were less than amazing we might be too gun-shy to try again. 

That's when we become spectators.


----------



## Diwundrin (Feb 2, 2014)

I never forget a line from a still trying hard hazbeen comedian who turned to painting up in the hills with other well heeled urban hippies. 
When asked what the lifestyle was like in that community he said "It's the place where failed bitter city folk to go lead arty crafty lives."   bingo!  I think of it every time I get inspired to daub.  :rofl:

Ever the dreamer here I'm afraid, don't think I ever actually finished a big project in my whole life. Love designing 'em but once I get that right it's enough. It just gets filed.


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Feb 2, 2014)

Di, I can really relate to what you are saying about watching out from your little safe place, and trying to discern what is going on in the world. 

I seem to take turns from trying to search out the information to see what the real truth is, to the pendulum swinging back the other way, and I don't even pay attention to what is going on, and just think about something simple (and actually related to my life) like planting flowers or veggies for my little garden.

We used to just have news, first from the radio, and then tv, and it was pretty much all the same, just one view of things.
Now, we have the internet, and we have actual input from eyewitnesses, that don't agree with the original story; plus the alternative news sources, that report some pretty far out views, like Queen Elizabeth being an alien lizard person. 
We have  to pick our way through the diverse reports, and try to decide what is true, if any. 
So, I enjoy reading about all of the different views, and entertaining the possibility that the world is totally different than we are being told.  
Maybe the intervention theory is right, and we were created by aliens, or developed from hybrids.  Maybe not, but it is very intriguing to read about these ideas, in any case.

I remember when the 9-11 attacks were first announced, they said over the radio that the plane headed for the White House had been shot down by the military, but after that one early announcement, it was changed to the "hero story" of the passengers overcoming the terrorists, and crashing the plane. 
When they were chasing down the so-called renegade police officer in California, I was listening on the scanner, and you could plainly hear him screaming as he tried to surrender, and they were shooting him, and forcing him back inside to burn alive. Yet, the official report was that he refused to give up, and committed suicide. (He probably did commit suicide, since he had no other option than burning to death, but he was definitely NOT allowed to surrender when he tried to come out.)

So, much of our news is slanted one way or another, and we can either pick our way through the conflicting stories, looking for truth, or just go and plant our flowers, and forget it all.


----------

