In the post you quoted from, ALL of your quotes are quoted in full. Kinda hard to convince anyone (execpt total wackos like yourself) that I have twisted your words. When I leave your quotes in full and then you say what I have quoted you out of context, it makes you look stupid.

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: I can bend and twist everything you say too and then call you a idiot. It would just make me as low as you are. You can leave things in context or stop quoting them. I love how left out the bit, where you called bs on people hearing containment breach on the news, because they didn't have a link. No, links to live tv or radio, btw. So keep spinning, time is showing everyone your game.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 10-23-2011).]

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: In the post you quoted from, 100% of your quotes are quoted in full. Kinda hard to convince anyone (execpt total wackos like yourself) that I have twisted your words. When I leave your quotes in full and then you say what I have quoted you out of context, it makes you look stupid.

Ok, lets play that game.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Keep down playing, I had said the pressure vessel was breeched, you called bs. I said the containment vessel was breached you called bs. Guess what, time has shown I was right. I am saying there is at least some fuel in the basement, you call BS. If history repeats, I will be right and you will be wrong again. Have a nice day, and phonedawgz anyone can go back through these threads and see I am telling the truth so trying to marginalize me won't work. Time for another strategy. Oh look, you are wrong again. You did not say 'there is at least some fuel in the basement", what you said is quote Originally posted by dennis_6: I am sure they are on target for cold shutdown, thats not hard when most of the rods are in the basement. And look what I said about there being fuel in the basement YESTERDAY quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: ...I did NOT say there is or is not fuel in the basement. and regarding melting of the core and breaching of the containment systems here is what I said quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Remember also there is no way for them to know what is exactly happening inside the core. There are no webcams inside the pressure vessel. The only way they know what is happening is to look at what is coming out and sometime later to disassemble it. That will happen sometime but far into the future. ...... And look what I said back on 4/1 quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Chernobyl didn't have a "full melt down". It had an explosion and fire of the core and graphite components. Chernobyl did not have containment. Burning graphite combined with radioactive particles caused a highly radioactive plume. This is nothing even remotely close to that. Chernobyl was a crime when it was built. Anyone who said containment could not be breached was clearly mistaken. Containment is intended to contain the radioactive particles. Clearly containment can be breached. Clearly you people have no idea what is going on. Clearly you have no intentions of actually understanding what is going on. Clearly all you want to do is pump up this into the largest possible accident you can. It's extremely frustrating trying to again and again and again try to put the actual facts straight. So if you are successful at damning nuclear power and then burn up more coal instead thus killing the world will you be happy? I'd much rather work with the REAL facts. And on 4/3 quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: An exploding core is not a melting core. Blow up the core and then worry about the rods melting? I don't think so. The rods were already breached. Then the graphite fire sent radioactive particles in the air. Kinda hard to have a 'full meltdown' when you no longer have a full core. Kinda hard to have your definition of 'full meltdown' that 'breaches containment' when the Russian plant lacked containment. Here is a piece of the graphite core that was ejected in the explosion. The hole is for a control rod to be inserted. I see you failed to quote where supposedly I said the containment could not be breached. You lack credibility. Your made up 180+ people to die lacks any credibility. Well actually most of your statements here lack any credibility So in short you again and again are wrong. You again and again and again and again state that I said this or I said that when I didn't. You are a person who clearly feels no need to use actual facts when you can just make them up. As you can see by the previous quote, I used to say your statements lacked credibility. Then I later I called you a wacko for continuing to post those kind of things. Then I went to calling you an idiot for posting things that clearly weren't based on facts. You continue to post statements that you attribute to me that are just things that you have made up in your mind. That is what makes you an idiot dennis_6

First off I have been talking about the melted fuel in the basement for a long time, I didn't quote myself and you picked the damn line that suited your propaganda best. I can't know how much of the core is in the basement, but I can make a fairly safe guess that there is some in the basement.
Do you remember this? "
Your "worse than thought is a rehash of the same story you posted twice so far" It quote the same fault laden "study" from the same people who are getting weak minded people to believe things that aren't true. Do you believe if you post a version of it a forth time it will become more truthful?

Your "Melt through of pressure vessels" story talks about a leaking pressure vessel but then has a picture of something totally different. More misleading journalism. "
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/F.../HTML/083464-20.html

Hope you didn't forget that, you were calling bs on the pressure vessel leaking because of the damn picture the article used.

I love the Russian plant lacks containment, lol Shows how off you are. The reactor vessel is part of the containment systems and so is the building. It just lacked a containment vessel. I also love how melted fuel, does not = meltdown. Core explosion yes, but melted fuel indicates melt down. So lets recap, explosion, and then remaining fuel melts, and it melts into the basement in Chernobyl. So Chernobyl had a core explosion and a melt down.

See how easy this slander game is? Try changing tactics.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 10-23-2011).]

Maybe you can learn a lesson here.

I didn't change the story. I didn't extrapolate that steam coming from the ground means there the remains of the core are in the basement. I didn't even comment on the story other than the underline and bold. And what I underlined and bolded was a statement that the people there thought it was UNLIKELY. They didn't say it 'was' or it 'was not'.

What you need to do is wait for the scientists to determine what is happening before you make your conclusions. Yes it seems unlikely a hot spot in the middle of a baseball field is from radiation from Fukushima. However if that spot is where drainage water collects and concentrates, the that does make sense.

Don't change the story

Don't add to it

Don't try to extrapolate it into what you want it to be.

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: I love the bold and the underline because you have just backed the wrong horse again. Sunday, Oct. 23, 2011 Science ministry reverses government claims after on-site survey finds high amouts of cesium Kashiwa hot spot linked to Fukushima Kyodo, Staff report CHIBA — The science ministry said Sunday the high radiation detected on city-owned land in Kashiwa, Chiba Prefecture, is emanating from cesium that was probably ejected by the crippled Fukushima No. 1 power plant, contradicting earlier government claims. When the Kashiwa Municipal Government first received a report about an airborne radiation reading of 57.7 microsieverts per hour at the site, it said the radiation was unlikely to be related to the Fukushima disaster because it was coming from such a tiny area. On Sunday, the science ministry and the city government found a side ditch near the reported hot spot during a joint survey and said it is highly likely that rain tainted with fallout from the Fukushima plant was running into nearby soil. Earlier surveyors who dug deeper into the soil at the hot spot recorded higher levels of radiation, leading some experts to speculate that the contaminated soil came from elsewhere and might have been deliberately buried there. But the ministry has confirmed that rain water is leaching out of the ditch and into the soil at the spot, ministry officials said at a new conference Sunday. Up to 276,000 becquerels of cesium per kilogram of soil was detected 30 cm below the surface of the hot spot Friday after an abnormal level of airborne radiation was found earlier in the week, the municipality said. "If fallout from the Fukushima plant naturally falls onto the ground, it'd be unthinkable that the radiation level would be higher deep in the soil than on the surface," said Masako Sawai, researcher at Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, a Tokyo-based antinuclear activist group, before the science ministry's press conference Sunday. The Kashiwa government and the science ministry also conducted a second on-site survey Sunday to study the cesium. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20111023x1.html

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 10-23-2011).]

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Maybe you can learn a lesson here. I didn't change the story. I didn't extrapolate that steam coming from the ground means there the remains of the core are in the basement. I didn't even comment on the story other than the underline and bold. And what I underlined and bolded was a statement that the people there thought it was UNLIKELY. They didn't say it 'was' or it 'was not'. What you need to do is wait for the scientists to determine what is happening before you make your conclusions. Yes it seems unlikely a hot spot in the middle of a baseball field is from radiation from Fukushima. However if that spot is where drainage water collects and concentrates, the that does make sense. Don't change the story Don't add to it Don't try to extrapolate it into what you want it to be.

So you bolded and underlined the "unlikely" to be from Fukushima for no reason? lol

You are wrong again and again and again and again

Keep on working on the NEG bar. I see it is growing.

And now you are tryng to go back and restate your statements where you were wrong before. And you are still wrong

No Chernobyl did not have a containment structure. It lacked containment. Containment is what is around the pressure vessel. Having no containment around the pressure vessel means it lacks containment. Yes this is using the standard definition of containment. The one that the non-wacko world uses for containment.

Wrong again and again and again and again and again.

Guess what? The rest of the world also knows you are wrong

Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/artic...198421680697248.html

quote Second, Chernobyl had no containment structure. When the graphite caught fire, it spouted a plume of radioactive smoke that spread across ...

PBS Frontline
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pag...dings/chernobyl.html

quote Nor were the Chernobyl reactors protected by containment structures like those required for U.S. reactors

Stanford
http://www-formal.stanford....gress/chernobyl.html

quote he 16 RBMK reactors, of which the Chernobyl plant was one, are built without containment shells. In other reactors, the containment shell will keep almost all ...

http://themoderatevoice.com...an-is-not-chernobyl/

quote In addition, all western (modern) reactors must have a containment building; Chernobyl did not have one

Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/Wo...obyl-key-differences

quote The Chernobyl reactor was new, it was undergoing tests, and it had very little structural containment measures

ProPublica
http://www.propublica.org/a...not-chernobyl/single

quote Chernobyl's reactor had no containment structure. The RBMK reactor at Chernobyl "was regarded as the workhorse of Soviet atomic energy,

Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/arti...dUSL3E7FC0NG20110412

quote Chernobyl had no containment structure and nothing stopped the trajectory of ...

And what is the word for the person who continues to push his wrong statements as right?

Thats right.

Idiot

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 10-23-2011).]

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: You are wrong again and again and again and again Keep on working on the NEG bar. I see it is growing. And now you are tryng to go back and restate your statements where you were wrong before. And you are still wrong No Chernobyl did not have a containment structure. It lacked containment. Containment is what is around the pressure vessel. Having no containment around the pressure vessel means it lacks containment. Yes this is using the standard definition of containment. The one that the non-wacko world uses for containment. Wrong again and again and again and again and again. Guess what? The rest of the world also knows you are wrong Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/artic...198421680697248.html And what is the word for the person who continues to push his wrong statements as right? Thats right. Idiot

Well I glad you admit you are, now lets go back and revisit this. Any building will provide some degree of containment, I did not say chernobyl had a specialized containment building. I mean if they can sell the tents in fukushima as being a form of containment I am sure the concrete walls over the reactor in chernobyl was some degree of containment before they were blown to hell.
You have said yourself in the past, a intact reactor vessel is the first line of containment, chernobyl also had that, till the explosion. What chernobyl lacked was a containment vessel, but it would have blown apart too, so thats irrelevant. The only reason my red bar is growing is because people tire of this back and forth, and they don't want to hear the Fukushima is getting worse. You on the other hand are telling them everything is not as bad as I claim, and they want to hear that. However when the full extent of the Fukushima event is exposed, I doubt they are going to appreciate your falsehoods and manipulations.

So you are still insisting that Wall Street Journal, PBS Frontline, Stanford, themoderatevoice.com, Christian Science Monitor, ProPublica and Reuters all got it wrong and don't know what they are talking about?

Or otherwise maybe it just is that you are still an idiot.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 10-23-2011).]

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: So you are still insisting that Wall Street Journal, PBS Frontline, Stanford, themoderatevoice.com, Christian Science Monitor, ProPublica and Reuters all got it wrong and don't know what they are talking about? Or otherwise maybe it just is that you are still an idiot.

Funny you questioned any source that wasn't nuclear industry when they disagreed with your views. Insisting on only trusting "real scientist" Also funny that you are not commenting on your own words which indicate Chernobyl had to levels of containment. lol

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 10-23-2011).]

And at the end Chernobyl still did not have a containment vessel.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: And at the end Chernobyl still did not have a containment vessel.

Didn't claim it did, however a containment vessel would not have helped, and Chernobyl did have some levels of containment, just poor ones. Though I doubt anything would have contained a core explosion, and for all Fukushima's containment, it seemed to maybe bought them a little time, but ultimately all containment failed to some degree.

This is what the soviet union considered containment, just because westerners don't doesn't mean it did not, now I won't argue that its not a half @ssed attempt at containment, because it is.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 10-23-2011).]

Wikipedia on Containment:


Containment building
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


NRC drawing of containment building.
A containment building, in its most common usage, is a steel or reinforced concrete structure enclosing a nuclear reactor. It is designed, in any emergency, to contain the escape of radiation to a maximum pressure in the range of 60 to 200 psi[citation needed] ( 410 to 1400 kPa). The containment is the fourth and final barrier to radioactive release (part of a nuclear reactor's defence in depth strategy), the first being the fuel ceramic itself, the second being the metal fuel cladding tubes, the third being the reactor vessel and coolant system.[1]
Each nuclear plant in the US is designed to withstand certain conditions which are spelled out as "Design Basis Accidents" in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The FSAR is available for public viewing, usually at a public library near the nuclear plant.
The containment building itself is typically an airtight steel structure enclosing the reactor normally sealed off from the outside atmosphere. The steel is either free-standing or attached to the concrete missile shield. In the United States, the design and thickness of the containment and the missile shield are governed by federal regulations (10 CFR 50.55a), and must be strong enough to withstand the impact of a fully loaded passenger airliner without rupture.[2]
While the containment plays a critical role in the most severe nuclear reactor accidents, it is only designed to contain or condense steam in the short term (for large break accidents) and long term heat removal still must be provided by other systems. In the Three Mile Island accident the containment pressure boundary was maintained, but due to insufficient cooling, some time after the accident, radioactive gas was intentionally let from containment by operators to prevent over pressurization. This, combined with further failures caused the release of minimal amounts of radioactive gas to atmosphere during the accident.[3]

----

Nope - Chernobyl did not have a containment building under this definition.

But as a normal wacko anti-nuke liberal, you are trying to re-define the term, so you can say your argument is correct.

You are still wrong again, and again and again and again and again and again

And you are still an idiot.

Your own words indicate Chernobyl had at least two forms of containment.
Intact fuel rods and intact reactor vessel. That was the case pre core explosion.
They did have what they considered a containment building, just because its not up to the western standards does not make it not one.
I have posted links proving that. So you can quit with the slander, and for once admit you were wrong, but you are not man enough, you are just a sad bitter person. I feel sorry for you.

Yep

Your wacko sites can try and say there was containment however by the definitions of the free world, they did not.

quote A containment building, in its most common usage, is a steel or reinforced concrete structure enclosing a nuclear reactor. It is designed, in any emergency, to contain the escape of radiation to a maximum pressure in the range of 60 to 200 psi

Nope it didn't have it.

Nope it would not have ever been able to have been built in the US

Nope you are not going to convince Wall Street Journal, PBS Frontline, Stanford, themoderatevoice.com, Christian Science Monitor, ProPublica and Reuters with your wacko attempt to redefine containment.

Nope - trying to redefine the definition of containment to the building around the reactor, or redefining it to a tent does not convince anyone but anti-nuke wackos like you

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 10-23-2011).]

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Yep Your wacko sites can try and say there was containment however by the definitions of the free world, they did not. Nope it didn't have it. Nope it would not have ever been able to have been built in the US Nope you are not going to convince Wall Street Journal, PBS Frontline, Stanford, themoderatevoice.com, Christian Science Monitor, ProPublica and Reuters with your wacko attempt to redefine containment. Nope - trying to redefine the definition of containment to the building around the reactor, or redefining it to a tent does not convince anyone but anti-nuke wackos like you

Because the western world is the only part of the world that matters, and you really should check the sources, one was wiikipedia which you vouch for, the other was a bulletin for atomic scientist. The other sources you may not agree with, however the other two should be on your acceptable list. WSJ and any other news agency just repeats what they are told, its not like their reporting over this disaster has been completely accurate. Really, you need to man up and admit when you are wrong instead of slandering.

If the western standard for anti lock brakes required disc brakes all the way around, and the russian standard allowed for rear drum brakes, would you say the russian car doesn't have anti lock brakes because they don't meet the western standard? See how your logic fails.

"The second weakness is that Chernobyl had only partial containment. " [39]

Diagram-6 No upper containment at the Chernobyl Reactor No. 4 [No upper containment at the Chernobyl Reactor No. 4]

Result of inadequacy

* the partial containment was bypassed and went out the top of the reactor core where there were no leak-tight boxes.
* the hot fuel and graphite were exposed to air because of no containment on the top of the reactors.

If the containment were complete, the water and steam from the broken pipes would have made the atmosphere of the building similar to a rain forest when experiencing a tropical storm. Therefore, the water would have dissolved almost all the cesium and radioactive iodine that was freed. The cesium and iodine would not get out even if the containment leaked. This chemical reaction did not occur at Chernobyl because the hot fuel and graphite were exposed to air as mentioned above.
http://library.thinkquest.o...e/safety.system.html

and their source for this
39 The Social Impact of the Chernobyl Disaster, p. 22.
Chernobyl did have a PARTIAL containment structure, deal with it, just because the media keeps reporting a error, doesn't make that a fact. Now deal with that, you were wrong. Its ok to be wrong here and there, but don't cover it by slander.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 10-23-2011).]

The collected words of phonedawgz from this thread, yes, I went through all 37 pages to date.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Totally incorrect. Well actually most of your statements here lack any credibility Liberals fool only themselves when they claim to be 'moderate' or pro the side they attack. Again you are wrong and have no idea what you are talking about. Again you are wrong. May I suggest you do some basic research before you start typing. Again you are wrong. May I suggest you do a basic search before you start typing. Just because there is a keyboard on your computer doesn't mean you should be changing the facts of the story to meet your wacked out ideas. There are scientists who theorize that radiation in low doses are actually good for you. Clearly Professor Morse at Berkeley doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about. Sorry don't bother trying to convince me with leftist propaganda. Is it that they are truly ignorant of the actual facts or is it that they are delusional about the fringe sciences that their 'facts' are based on? Sounds like the definition of ignore to me. More wacko reports Your story is wacko Make that "same wacko story" The non-thinking wackos will read it and believe it. What do we know for sure: No cloud of radioactive gas that drifted over populated areas It's more likely that I would die from the stress of reading wacko nuclear posts than die from one of the power plants that you posted about. One more false wacko statement made by the alarmists in this thread. wack·o (wk) also whack·o (hwk, wk) n. pl. wack·os also whack·os Slang A person regarded as eccentric or irrational: So if your mother's 401K mutual fund has investments in TEPCO, you would wish her ill will? What about liberals make them think businesses and the people who run them, and/or own them are somehow evil? (JazzMan's reply: My mother's dead.} Was it her 401K that did her in? Stick to being alarmist. You do much better when you don't have to deal with scientific facts. Doing so will give the people of the area the knowledge that they are living in an area that is within acceptable levels of radiation. You know you have a trash news source when they digest the news down to the statement "Eating radioactive beef is good for you" There must be small nuclear reactors in those cell phone towers Or do you think you are smarter than all of them just because you are a leftist wacko? One more reason I have left this thread alone is your lack of any respect for the truth Yep, in my mind that makes you a wacko. I don't question the idea that other liberals also think like you. Now that's kinda impossible to monitor the radiation everywhere, isn't it? And you think the big concern the kids have is about elevated but overall safe radiation levels in some food in Japan. We have a word for that.. Heartless? - Well yes but not quite the word I was looking for. Liberal? - Well again that fits but also not the word I was looking for. So if you are not looking for an argument I'd suggest you stick to actual facts and give up the personal attacks. Fukushima is a serious problem. It is the larges nuclear accident since Chernobyl. It is not a problem to be brushed off. We need to learn from our problems and do our best not to repeat them. And there is the problem with alarmist wackos. Here's one more wacko website: You are wrong again. Yes, I think the word ignoramus is appropriate in this situation. ...just makes you ignorant. ...reveals that you are not too bright. You show time and time again that you have no understanding of logic or the science of what is going on. Just one more wacko story that makes no sense. There were no meters to measure the releases of radiation. I am the guy who won't let you the lackie spew your liberal agenda on this forum unchallanged. You are really appear to be not too bright Dennis So question Dennis. Are you really this stupid? Or are you just yanking my chain? Or maybe like many liberals you really don't care what the real truth is. What you would really like is to just ignore the truth because it gets in the way of what you want to believe? Clearly I can see why you guys are wacko about this kind of stuff. You need to think about things before you blindly assume the worst. If you buy into that, you too are wacko Sorry that it doesn't allow you to spew your bullshit ideas Yeah you idiot. What does is that you can attempt to spew your liberalism. What you are is an idiot. Again and again and again you read things but just don't have the ability to comprehend what is actually said. He misspelled ocean. Wrong again And again And again And still wrong and again I think there needs to be quite a bit of concern about the long terms effects of the radiation levels in the area around the Fukushima power plant. I think there needs to be concern about the radiation levels of the food stocks from around the area. But before any conclusion is made, more information and studies are needed. Until that is completed, it is prudent to proceed in assuming a 'worst case' scenario. The truth won't be on some wacko alarmist site like enenews.com. A wacko site, enenews, reports a wacko site, Fukushima Diary reports that the press knew about this months ago and the press conspired with Tepco to concealed this information. Or is it that you are just making up stories again and again and again. and again. Facts don't mean anything to wacko who is only intent on telling a story. No you idiot. You are the idiot who makes up 'facts'. Yep - standard liberal tactics. Believe any wacko who says what you want to hear but ignore science. Yep - standard liberal tactics. Believe any wacko who says what you want to hear but ignore the facts. You still are an idiot. Stop saying and doing idiotic things and I will stop calling you an idiot. ...is one of the things that makes you a typical liberal wacko. ...from my point of view, the liberal movement has always seemed to attract and retain some of the weakest thinkers. In the Fukushima cluster f of mind numb individuals who feel the need to re-post wacko stories - I think that is just an orgy of wackies with no apparent leader. Ah, wrong again. (and again, and again, and again, and again) Well it doesn't make it a fact except to the wackos. You really would be much better off just not saying anything. That way you won't look so ignorant. You don't have even a clue do you? You really are an idiot. ...is indeed an idiot. Oh wait, you are also one of those wacko liberals who just make up the facts to fit the story you want to tell also. Oh look, you are wrong again. So in short you again and again are wrong. You again and again and again and again state that I said this or I said that when I didn't. You are a person who clearly feels no need to use actual facts when you can just make them up. As you can see by the previous quote, I used to say your statements lacked credibility. Then I later I called you a wacko for continuing to post those kind of things. Then I went to calling you an idiot for posting things that clearly weren't based on facts. You continue to post statements that you attribute to me that are just things that you have made up in your mind. That is what makes you an idiot dennis_6 (execpt total wackos like yourself) You are wrong again and again and again and again Wrong again and again and again and again and again. Guess what? The rest of the world also knows you are wrong Or otherwise maybe it just is that you are still an idiot. But as a normal wacko anti-nuke liberal, you are trying to re-define the term, so you can say your argument is correct. You are still wrong again, and again and again and again and again and again And you are still an idiot. You are an idiot ...anti-nuke wackos like you

Idiot, whacko, those seem to be the predominant pejoratives, but there are so many more.

I find it ironic that earlier he refers to anyone who listens to NPR as "mind-numbed", etc, yet here at the end he repeatedly refers to PBS' Frontline as an authoritative source. Now, I realize that public radio and public television are two separate things, but they cross-air program material and both are under the umbrella of CPB. I guess they're left wing whackos when they don't support your point, and authoritative and factual when they do support your point.

Funny how that works...

BTW, it's been 227 days since this disaster started unfolding. Still are more than 60,000 refugees (some accounts put it closer to 100,000) who are being prevented by force from returning to their lives to start rebuilding. Thousands of farms whose harvests and produce is either rotting in place or has been disposed of, presumably with no recompense to the farmers.

There is no end in sight. No real schedule when these folks, these victims of Fukushima, will be allowed to return. If ever. Seven months in and still no plan...

Govt to check Fukushima pollen / Cedar pollen may carry cesium on the wind, but at 'harmless' levels

The Yomiuri Shimbun

The Forestry Agency will start checking for radioactive substances in cedar pollen in Fukushima Prefecture as early as next month in response to the crisis at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, the agency said.

There is very little data in Japan or elsewhere in the world about pollen from plants grown in areas with high levels of radiation. If high levels of pollen-borne radiation are found, the Environment Ministry plans to release the data at the end of this year together with its forecast of the expected amount of cedar pollen to be dispersed in the air next spring.

The agency plans to pick male cedar flowers in the no-entry zone and check them for radioactive cesium, it said.

"As it will be the first such survey, we honestly don't know how much we will find. We'd like to obtain objective figures by making an accurate survey," an official of the agency said.

According to the agency and the Fukushima prefectural government, the prefecture has about 184,500 hectares of national and private cedar forests, accounting for about 20 percent of the total forests in the prefecture.

The agency has yet to decide the size of the areas to be surveyed, it said.

According to the Social Welfare and Public Health Bureau of the Tokyo metropolitan government, the wind sometimes carries cedar pollen more than 200 kilometers.

"It depends on the velocity and direction of the wind. Pollen is said to fly from dozens to hundreds of kilometers. When a survey was conducted by helicopter, pollen was found as high as 5,000 meters in the air. It is highly likely that pollen from Fukushima Prefecture reaches the Tokyo metropolitan area," said Norio Sahashi, a visiting science professor at Toho University and an authority on pollen.

But specialists say people do not have to worry too much about the effect of the pollen on human bodies.

"Even if pollen from radiation-contaminated areas does contain radioactive cesium, the amount people will take in is expected to be very limited. From the standpoint of radiation exposure, the amount is at a level that can be ignored," said Satoshi Yoshida, an expert on radiation ecology and a senior researcher at the Research Center for Radiation Protection of the National Institute of Radiological Sciences.

Yoichiro Omomo, special advisor at the Institute for Environmental Sciences, said, "Those who are allergic to cedar pollen do not need to worry too much as long as they take ordinary measures."

In late March, many inquiries were received by the Meteorological Agency and local governments about a yellowish residue found in gardens and elsewhere in the Kanto region.

Many residents apparently feared the residue was a radioactive substance from the crippled nuclear power plant, but it turned out to be pollen from the Kanto region.

The Environment Ministry began receiving inquiries from some local governments about whether radioactive substances will be contained in next spring's pollen, prompted by local residents' concerns on the subject.
(Oct. 24, 2011)
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy...al/T111023002966.htm

In previous post a while back I have posted articles that state Fukushima cesium release was bout 1/5th of chernobyl.
I had also posted a article that stated Fukushima was equal to 168 Nagasaki atomic bombs.
The reactors have leaked since then.

Chernobyl's death toll is from 50 to 100,000's depending on who you ask.
Chernobyl caused high cancer rates.

Now a picture is worth a thousand words, so while phonedawgz can play this off as wacko, see for yourself. If they don't stop the radioactive leak, this is Japan's future.



Yeah, phonedawgz this is all gonna blow over and nothing is going to come of it.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 10-24-2011).]

Here is a link to the World Health Organization's report on the health effects of Chernobyl.

No graphic pictures

No music

Just the reports from scientific studies of what actually happened.

http://www.who.int/ionizing...obyl_report_2006.pdf

Science doesn't need dramatic music.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 10-24-2011).]

Watch the whole video. Dramatic music ends quickly. Funny how so many dicovery channel shows have dramatic music and no one complains.

Discovery channel SHOWs are shows. They are not scientific studies.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Discovery channel SHOWs are shows. They are not scientific studies.

You really are insane, Discovery channel and the History channel both have documentaries, the dramatic music, does not mean its fiction. You really will latch on to anything, no matter how absurd, to try and discredit a opposing view.

Here are some cold hard facts, but you will call it wacko, because it disagrees with your viewpoint.
http://www.newscientist.com...nobyls-children.html

And another
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/...e/nature/1319386.stm

and more
"Birth Defects: Maternal exposure to radiation can cause severe organ and brain
damage in an unborn child. Five years after the disaster, the Ukrainian Ministry
of Health reported three times the normal rate of deformities and developmental
abnormalities in newborn children, as well as in increased number of
miscarriages, premature births, and stillbirths. (4)
• Genetic Mutations: Hereditary defects in Belarusian newborns increased in the
years after the disaster. (8) Scientists have observed that congenital and hereditary
defects have passed on to the next generation.
www.chernobyl-international.../chernobylfacts2.pdf

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 10-24-2011).]

A documentary on the discovery channel or the history channel is not a scientific study

Dennis... You're not helping your case. You're clutching at straws.
You're looking like a fool, here. Jeez.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: A documentary on the discovery channel or the history channel is not a scientific study

Never said my video was a scientific study, I just stated that you can't just wave your hand and dismiss footage because it has dramatic music. The images were not that of someones imagination, they were real.

I can wave my hand and dismiss it because medical disfigurements and other issues happen with children and infants all the time. It would be totally out of the norm if they did not happen.

Are there multiple scientific studies that show that indeed there was an increase in these? Read the WHO report.

Yes btw, there were a significant increase in one particular cancer that the WHO report stated.

So some footage of disfigured children along with the claim that the disfigurement just must somehow be caused by Chernobyl only goes to foster victim attitude.

If you read the WHO report, it states that the mental issues from the people feeling like they are in the helpless victim group is one of the actual biggest 'illness' that has come from Chernobyl.

Wackos running around screaming that they somehow 'know' that this must be caused from Chernobyl only hurt the people affected.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: I can wave my hand and dismiss it because medical disfigurements and other issues happen with children and infants all the time. It would be totally out of the norm if they did not happen. Are there multiple scientific studies that show that indeed there was an increase in these? Read the WHO report. Yes btw, there were a significant increase in one particular cancer that the WHO report stated. So some footage of disfigured children along with the claim that the disfigurement just must somehow be caused by Chernobyl only goes to foster victim attitude. If you read the WHO report, it states that the mental issues from the people feeling like they are in the helpless victim group is one of the actual biggest 'illness' that has come from Chernobyl. Wackos running around screaming that they somehow 'know' that this must be caused from Chernobyl only hurt the people affected.

I dismiss the WHO report, its industry biased. The WHO also claims that only about 50 people died from Chernobyl, and while that is true of deaths that happened during the crisis, others surely died later. Everyone knows that a dose that doesn't make you drop dead, can cause cancer. If you die of cancer from exposure to unsafe radioactive levels, its still part of the death toll. The WHO has protected the nuclear industry in the past, and they continue to do so.

As for mutations read this.
http://articles.latimes.com...ct/09/local/me-40943

From your link
http://articles.latimes.com...ct/09/local/me-40943

quote The mutations in humans did not affect health.

I guess that blows your bleeding heart mutation post out of the water.

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: I dismiss the WHO report, its industry biased. The WHO also claims that only about 50 people died from Chernobyl, and while that is true of deaths that happened during the crisis, others surely died later. Everyone knows that a dose that doesn't make you drop dead, can cause cancer. If you die of cancer from exposure to unsafe radioactive levels, its still part of the death toll. The WHO has protected the nuclear industry in the past, and they continue to do so. As for mutations read this. http://articles.latimes.com...ct/09/local/me-40943