Quotes from various sources about Fukushima Nuclear Media miscommunication.
Rod Adams – AtomicInsights.com Aug. 27, 2013 – Fear mongering over WATER leaks at Fukushima Dai-ichi “I’ll start with the bottom line first: despite all word to the contrary, there is no reason for anyone to be concerned that “contaminated” water from the damaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station is going to cause them any physical harm, now or in the future. The only way my bottom line statement could possibly be wrong is if some really nutty activists decide to occupy the site and drink directly from the water tanks that have been assumed to be leaking. Those nutty activists would have to be very patient people, because they would have to drink that water for many years before any negative effects might show up.
Fish swimming in the harbor have nothing to worry about; people who eat fish that swam in the harbor have nothing to worry about; people who decide to swim in the harbor would have nothing to worry about. A basic tenet of radiation protection is that the farther from the source you are, the less you have to worry about, but I am not sure how I can state that you have less than nothing to worry about.
Nearly all of the fear mongering stories I have read about the water leaking from the large number of tanks on the site of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station contain few, if any facts that allow an accurate risk assessment. A long time ago, I learned that there were several ways to respond to a report of “contaminated” water. The most effective way was to make a fairly quick determination of the level of contamination so the appropriate resources could be applied to the problem.
Radioactive contamination is not a “go; no go” question, there is an infinite spectrum of possible concentrations and total sizes; the top end of that spectrum should generate a flight response, the bottom end of the spectrum should generate a yawn. A quantity of radioactive material that is small enough to generate a yawn should not rise on the scale just because more clean water is added to the mix to make the problem seem larger.
Unlike biological pathogens, radioactive material does not reproduce. A fixed quantity never grows; it decays and gradually gets less and less dangerous. In fact, a perfectly rational, but long ago discouraged response mantra is “the answer to pollution is dilution.”
Cyril R. – comment on Atomic Insight Post –Update Fukushima water leaks unrepresentative sample used support fear mongeringAugust 31, 2013 at 7:57 AM“What is missing in all the news articles is risk.
In recent years more order levitra and more reports have flooded in from men who now feel comfortable with talking to their doctors. It should be according when choosing medicines since when their diseases being caused, the bacterium types are a lot, it will become more terrible for the situation and for taking some needed steps to stay active and satisfied for sildenafil super active https://unica-web.com/ENGLISH/2018/hotels-blansko-english.html years to come. The point when your order viagra sample will arrive, you may see half broken and pounded or even under the least favorable conditions fake levitra and you might sit deploring not knowing whom at fault. This can add anxiety, sildenafil generic india unica-web.com stress and depression in your life. There is talk of “massive” amounts of “radiation”. About “huge” spills.
There is no mention of the fact that there is negligible risk to people living a mile away from the plant (even if they were allowed to return to the area as they should).
There is no mention of the fact that even the risk to workers is highly limited.
There is no mention of the fact that a single fishing ship is much more devastating to marine life than all the leaks of Fukushima. And we don’t see news articles about evil, evil fishing ships.
If one were to drink from a puddle of water you find on the street, you are likely to get very sick or even die from the bacteria in that pool. It is really not a good idea to drink from puddles of water on the street. But we don’t see news articles about the massive dangers and great evil of puddles of water on the street.
This is typical media hyperbole. Use a lot of big words like staggering, huge, massive, etc. and repeat, at some point your article sounds important, as long as you don’t discuss the actual risk, the golden rule of TV level media.”