| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dove
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Posts: 271
Location: USA/Japan
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| My Japanese friends (Tokyo, Yokohama) don't trust what the government or what TEPCO says, but what can they do? Moving really isn't an option. Hope for the best? Yes, that's kind of what it comes down to. But I guess that is what Japan--a country with a history of typhoons, earthquakes, tsunamis, wars--has always done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mrguay84
Joined: 03 Dec 2009
Posts: 125
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm just wondering if jobs have become slightly easier to find in the 'meltdown zone'.
As others have said, it seems most Asian Cities are so polluted that a bit of radiation might not make that much of a difference. I still want to go to Japan but am torn between that and also being able to see the sun and blue sky. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Apsara
Joined: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 2142
Location: Tokyo, Japan
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I still want to go to Japan but am torn between that and also being able to see the sun and blue sky. |
I'm guessing you haven't been to Japan? There is absolutely no comparison whatsoever between the levels of air pollution here and in other cities in Asia. Japan has probably the strictest vehicle emissions standards in the world, and in Tokyo you will see the sun and blue sky every day that the weather is fine.
It is nothing at all like the situation in places like Beijing, Shanghai or New Delhi, where you can barely see the tops of tall buildings most days the air is so filthy, and not even close to cities like Bangkok or Ho Chi Minh City which are not quite as bad as China but much worse than Japanese cities.
I'm not sure why you think that you won't see blue sky or sun in Japan, but that's not the case at all- anyone who suggests that it's that bad is seriously overstating the situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kornan DeKobb
Joined: 24 Jan 2010
Posts: 242
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pitarou wrote: |
| Kornan DeKobb wrote: |
| I am willing to bet that in about three years time, we'll start to see a spike in thyroid cancers like we did in Chernobyl and downwind from the Hanford plant in Oregon. |
Uh-huh. You do know that kids in the vicinity of Fukushima were screened for radioactive iodine as soon as practically possible, don't you?
As I said earlier, I don't trust the authorities here. The NHK news has a distinctly "Big Brother is taking care of you" feel to it these days. Some issues certainly get downplayed or just go unreported. But still, there are other sources of data (that's data -- not wild speculation) available and, on the whole, I'm confident that things aren't nearly as bad as you're suggesting. |
Only time will tell. Be back here on April 15, 2016 and let's see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kornan DeKobb
Joined: 24 Jan 2010
Posts: 242
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess you may as well stay in Japan after all, as the radiation is going everywhere. OTOH, all you need is another earthquake/tsunami for Building #4 to go, then it is pretty much game over for the entire country. Why is nobody preparing to seal and encase those rods?
Here's some data for you:
100% of Bluefin Tuna off California contaminated with Fukushima radiation
The bad news is that it is only going to get worse...
As KGTV San Diego explains:
| Quote: |
| The real test of how radioactivity affects tuna populations comes this summer when researchers planned to repeat the study with a larger number of samples. Bluefin tuna that journeyed last year were exposed to radiation for about a month. The upcoming travelers have been swimming in radioactive waters for a longer period. How this will affect concentrations of contamination remains to be seen. |
One of the studies� authors told the BBC:
| Quote: |
| The fish that will be arriving around now, and in the coming months, to California waters may be carrying considerably more radioactivity and if so they may possibly be a public health hazard. |
Japanese and U.S. officials � of course � are pretending that the amount of radiation found in the bluefin is safe. But the overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is no safe level of radiation � and radiation consumed and taken into the body is much more dangerous than background radiation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tsian
Joined: 10 Jan 2012
Posts: 85
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The samples Madigan, Fisher and colleague Zofia Baumann examined came from fish caught by recreational anglers near San Diego. The concentrations of both isotopes of cesium totaled about 10 becquerels per kilogram of dry weight, according to their findings.
By comparison, naturally occurring potassium-40 levels average about 350 bq/kg. A becquerel is a unit of radioactivity equal to one nuclear disintegration per second. |
From the CNN article.
So trace amounts of radiation continue to be found. Nothing new here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pitarou
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 1116
Location: Narita, Japan
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I take issue with this quote which you pulled from the article:
| Kornan DeKobb wrote: |
| But the overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is no safe level of radiation � |
Scientifically, there three models of response to low doses of radiation:
1. Hormesis -- "a little radiation does you good"
2. Threshold -- "a little radiation does you no harm"
3. No-threshold -- "all radiation is bad"
There is not enough data to pick out which model is correct. It's true that most regulators adopt the no-threshold model, but that is a philosophical consensus, not a scientific one.
As for me, given that the effects of low levels of radiation are too small identify, I'd say that they are too small to worry about. For all practical purposes, a low dose is safe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr_Monkey
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 661
Location: Kyuuuuuushuuuuuuu
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But the overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is no safe level of radiation |
If you believe this, then you know nothing of radiation and nothing of science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cool Teacher
Joined: 18 May 2009
Posts: 930
Location: Here, There and Everywhere! :D
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This last bit reminds me of the Simon and Garfield song, "I'd rather be a fishmonger than a scaremaonger!" 
| Quote: |
| Japanese and U.S. officials � of course � are pretending that the amount of radiation found in the bluefin is safe. But the overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is no safe level of radiation � and radiation consumed and taken into the body is much more dangerous than background radiation. |
If theres no such thing as a safe level of radiaton then everyone is in trouble because there is radiation all around us all the time.  And how much more dangerous is "condumed" radiation anyhow? 
Mind you I think that govenments are always lying especially when their lips are moving!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Glenski
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 12844
Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kornan DeKobb wrote: |
| But the overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is no safe level of radiation |
Not really. Perhaps it is more accurate to state that the overwhelming consensus from scientific wielding types who don't understand science is that...
If you think there is no safe level, then you are simply wrong.
Sunblock protects against some radiation, but not 100%.
Same with sunglasses. Do you go outside or live in the dark?
Science has measured and determined safe levels for foods and water and general exposure.
Science has also created devices to measure exposure time/amount.
But, if you cannot be convinced, throw away all radiation-generating devices like TVs, cell phones, microwave oven, iPod/iPad, etc., wrap yourself in lead and live underground in total darkness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cool Teacher
Joined: 18 May 2009
Posts: 930
Location: Here, There and Everywhere! :D
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Glenski wrote: |
| Kornan DeKobb wrote: |
| But the overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is no safe level of radiation |
Not really. Perhaps it is more accurate to state that the overwhelming consensus from scientific wielding types who don't understand science is that...
If you think there is no safe level, then you are simply wrong.
Sunblock protects against some radiation, but not 100%.
Same with sunglasses. Do you go outside or live in the dark?
Science has measured and determined safe levels for foods and water and general exposure.
Science has also created devices to measure exposure time/amount.
But, if you cannot be convinced, throw away all radiation-generating devices like TVs, cell phones, microwave oven, iPod/iPad, etc., wrap yourself in lead and live underground in total darkness. |
This^^^^^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
G Cthulhu
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Way, way off course.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Glenski wrote: |
| Kornan DeKobb wrote: |
| But the overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is no safe level of radiation |
Not really. Perhaps it is more accurate to state that the overwhelming consensus from scientific wielding types who don't understand science is that...
If you think there is no safe level, then you are simply wrong.
Sunblock protects against some radiation, but not 100%.
Same with sunglasses. Do you go outside or live in the dark?
Science has measured and determined safe levels for foods and water and general exposure.
Science has also created devices to measure exposure time/amount.
But, if you cannot be convinced, throw away all radiation-generating devices like TVs, cell phones, microwave oven, iPod/iPad, etc., wrap yourself in lead and live underground in total darkness. |
Glenski, I'm shocked and horrified that you could say such things! Your callous disregard for the Proven Scientific Accepted Facts about this are terrible: lead poisoning is bad.   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Apsara
Joined: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 2142
Location: Tokyo, Japan
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wish this forum had "like" buttons- several posts on this page deserve them!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rxk22
Joined: 19 May 2010
Posts: 1629
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, on the polluted part. Japan does have pollution, especially Kanto, and Kansai. Though nowhere near on the level of China.
I think that the Japanese wanna be level is getting pretty bad as of late. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmatt
Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd started a thread on this subject earlier and while the responses were great, I still think that it's hard to really know what to think...
A while ago, read this article about cesium found on groundsheets at a Suginami school (right near where I used to live---and where we'll be living if me & my family come back):
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201112140064e
I was home in New England for Christmas and was talking to an uncle who is a nuclear engineer and has worked at plants up and down the east coast. Said (no surprise there) that cesium detection was a bad sign and that the situation in Japan was pretty bad, in his perspective. Now, I suppose he's no expert, but it was worrying---especially when we have young children. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
