No, I am not the one trying to turn a article into something it isn't. I also realize you are trying to get quite a few post in front of the other articles I posted. Standard phonedawgz diversion, argue over something pointless before someone sees something that sheds light on the situation in Fukushima.
IP: Logged
11:53 PM
Dec 17th, 2011
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
The point I am making is that some WACKOs pre-determine what is a danger in a situation and then constantly harp on it. When the WACKOs do that they give the public a WRONG impression as to what is really happening. Worrying about radiological hazards in the Flotsam and ignoring the more dangerous biological ones is a CLEAR example of how your WACKO harping can actually harm individuals. Your ongoing fear mongering shows insensitivity and boarders on cruelty to those involved. Your intentional distortion of the truth shows a clear lack of character.
The story CLEARLY indicates misguided attention to the real dangers. Your retort "The rest of the story was about the a field of debris 2 times the size of Texas. I am sure that covers the biological hazards." is simply idiotic.
If you don't want to be called an idiot, stop acting like one.
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 12-17-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:01 AM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
The point I am making is that some WACKOs pre-determine what is a danger in a situation and then constantly harp on it. When the WACKOs do that they give the public a WRONG impression as to what is really happening. Worrying about radiological hazards in the Flotsam and ignoring the more dangerous biological ones is a CLEAR example of how your WACKO harping can actually harm individuals. Your ongoing fear mongering shows insensitivity and boarders on cruelty to anyone involved. Your intentional distortion of the truth shows a clear lack of character.
The story CLEARLY indicates misguided attention to the real dangers. Your retort "The rest of the story was about the a field of debris 2 times the size of Texas. I am sure that covers the biological hazards." is simply idiotic.
If you don't want to be called an idiot, stop acting like one.
You truly have no shame.
IP: Logged
11:32 AM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Editorial: Gov't declares cold shutdown at nuclear plant, but crucial steps lie ahead
Nine months after the outbreak of an unprecedented nuclear disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant, the government has declared a stable "cold shutdown" at the plant, representing a major milestone in its handling of the disaster.
The public has keenly waited for the nuclear reactors to be brought under stable control, but Japan is still standing on thin ice and is miles away from a situation where it can really declare that the crisis is under control.
In the meantime, rebuilding the lives of residents near the crippled plants has been an urgent critical challenge. On the occasion of its latest political declaration, the government needs to renew its resolve to settle the crisis and achieve regional recovery.
The disaster-hit reactors are certainly now in a more stable condition. However, the phrase "cold shutdown" usually refers to suspension of a sound reactor. The fact that the government is attempting to apply this term in a severe accident in which three reactors have suffered core meltdowns should be called into question. The government should rather explain in detail the possibility of any additional explosions and whether a recriticality accident has been ruled out.
Simulations suggest that nuclear fuel has melted inside the reactor containment vessels, eroding their concrete floors. Although Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), the operator of the stricken nuclear plant, has indicated that melted fuel has also been cooled down by water, this is nothing but speculation. We urge the utility and the government to find a way to ascertain the precise condition of the fuel.
Only the No. 1 reactor at the Fukushima plant has had a cover installed over it. Similar covers should be placed over the other reactors as soon as possible. The circulating water cooling system remains hastily arranged, and careful attention needs to be paid to prevent a leakage of water contaminated with radioactive materials.
The treatment of contaminated water, which has been accumulating due to an influx of underground water into reactor buildings, has been another source of concern. The utility must quickly respond to this problem.
While TEPCO has set forth government-approved plans to secure the safety of equipment to keep the nuclear plant in a stable condition over the next three years, the ongoing nuclear crisis has shown that secondary and even tertiary safety devices could fail simultaneously. Officials should take decisive measures to prevent any recurrence of such a crisis.
It is expected that the government will soon reorganize the radiation-contaminated no-go zone and planned evacuation zones around the plant into three zones. Even in areas with low levels of radiation, thorough decontamination work and health checks are needed to ensure residents can return home. Naturally, such efforts by themselves are far from sufficient.
The nuclear crisis has contaminated a farming belt, and it will be difficult for residents to return to their homes without re-establishing new foundations for their livelihood. While Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has referred to plans for the government to purchase contaminated land, the nation's politicians face an unprecedented challenge in dealing with areas where residents' homecoming will remain difficult over long periods of time.
The government is set to submit special bills on the recovery of Fukushima during the ordinary Diet session next year. It bears a heavy responsibility to respect the voices of residents and embody Fukushima's recovery from a long-term perspective as it aims to bring the seemingly infinite nuclear crisis under control.
52 Workers at TEPCO Nuclear Plant Infected with Norovirus
Tokyo, Dec. 17 (Jiji Press)--A total of 52 workers at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s <9501> crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant have been infected with norovirus, the utility said Saturday. The workers, who are employees of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. <7011> and affiliated companies, were installing storage tanks for sludge accumulated after radioactive water decontamination. Some of them was hospitalized but most are getting better after receiving treatment. The number of patients may increase further, according to the plant operator, known as TEPCO. According to TEPCO, the workers reported symptoms such as high fever, diarrhea and vomiting on Thursday on their way from their accommodation to an office of Mitsubishi Heavy in the town of Hirono, Fukushima Prefecture. The patients totaled 35 as of Thursday and grew to 52 on Friday, when norovirus was detected in some of them. The office was disinfected and an investigation of the infection route was launched.
The European Commission (EC) has released an energy roadmap presenting various scenarios for meeting its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Nuclear energy, it says, will remain an important part of Europe's power generation mix.
The commission suggests that in order to achieve its goal almost all of Europe's energy production will need to be carbon-free. It says that its newly-published Energy Roadmap 2050 sets out a range of scenarios under which this can be achieved without disrupting energy supplies and competitiveness. "People's well-being, industrial competitiveness and the overall functioning of society are dependent on safe, secure, sustainable and affordable energy," it noted.
The EC said that its analysis is based on seven illustrative scenarios, created by combining in different ways the four main decarbonisation routes for the energy sector - energy efficiency, renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage (CCS). However, it notes that although none of the scenarios is likely to materialize, "all scenarios clearly show a set of 'no regrets' options for the coming years."
There are several common elements in all decarbonisation scenarios, the commission said. These include that the demand for renewable energy will grow; energy savings will be crucial; the role of electricity will increase; capital investments will increase; and, fossil fuel use will decrease.
The roadmap notes, "All scenarios show electricity will have to play a much greater role than now (almost doubling its share in final energy demand to 36-39% in 2050) and will have to contribute to the decarbonisation of transport and heating/cooling."
While the share of renewable energy rises substantially in all seven scenarios - achieving at least 55% in gross final energy consumption in 2050, up from the current level of some 10% - nuclear power will be needed to provide a significant contribution in the energy transformation process in those member states where it is pursued. The EC said that while it remains neutral on the question whether or not member states should use nuclear power, it "remains a key source of low carbon electricity generation." Under the scenarios, the highest penetration of nuclear is seen as 18% of primary energy consumption, slightly up from the current 14%. In the lowest case, where reactors currently under construction are used in 2050, while existing ones and decommissioned and not replaced, nuclear would only contribute 3% of primary energy.
According to the roadmap, "Nuclear energy is a decarbonisation option providing today most of the low-carbon electricity consumed in the EU." The scenario analysis shows that nuclear energy contributes to lower system costs and electricity prices. "As a large scale low-carbon option, nuclear energy will remain in the EU power generation mix," the roadmap says. However, it notes that "some member states consider the risks related to nuclear energy as unacceptable," but "others continue to see nuclear energy as a secure, reliable and affordable source of low-carbon electricity generation." Safety costs and the costs for decommissioning existing reactors and disposing of waste are likely to increase, the EC says. However, it notes that "new nuclear technologies could help to address waste and safety concerns."
The commission says, "The document describes the consequences of a carbon-free energy system and the policy framework needed. This should allow member states to make the required energy choices and create a stable business climate for private investment, especially until 2030." It added, "Gas, oil, coal and nuclear figure in all scenarios in different proportions, allowing member states to keep flexible options in their energy mix provided a well connected internal market is achieved quickly."
The EC says that economies of scale are needed. It suggests that "a European approach will result in lower costs and secure supply compared to national parallel schemes. This includes a common energy market which should be completed by 2014." Member states, it says, are already planning national energy policies for the future, "but it is necessary to join forces in coordinating their efforts within a broader framework."
The commission said that the energy roadmap will be followed by "further policy initiatives on specific energy policy areas in the coming years, starting with proposals on the internal market, renewable energy and nuclear safety next year."
According to Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger, "Only a new energy model will make our system secure, competitive and sustainable in the long-run." He added, "We now have a European framework for the necessary policy measures to be taken in order to secure the right investments."
Jean-Pol Poncelet, director general of Foratom, the European nuclear trade body, welcomed the publication of the energy roadmap. He said, "The nuclear industry strongly supports on-going efforts to secure Europe's low-carbon energy future. It is convinced that considerable long-term investment in both renewables and nuclear energy is essential, thereby maintaining Europe's nuclear technology leadership." Poncelet added, "We very much hope that the EC will help create the market conditions that will favour such investment."
The European Commission (EC) has released an energy roadmap presenting various scenarios for meeting its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Nuclear energy, it says, will remain an important part of Europe's power generation mix. . . .
I wonder how this EC energy roadmap will be received in Germany, which seems to have turned its back on nuclear power after the Japanese problems. Nuclear energy will remain an important part of Europe's power generation mix--but not in Germany?
IP: Logged
12:25 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Hajime Shiraishi's moment of truth came when her online video news show, at the time relatively unknown, decided to buck the government line and call a story as it saw it.
On March 11, after an earthquake-driven tsunami damaged the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the world waited anxiously to see how its fragile reactors would fare.
Later that day, plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co., or Tepco, announced on national TV that all was well: The utility was on top of the accident. No radiation had been released into the atmosphere. Return to regular programming.
Mainstream media dutifully reported that story. But not Shiraishi's "Our Planet TV," which soon broadcast a live interview with five Japanese reporters in Futaba City, a community near the stricken plant. The reporters, who had covered the Chernobyl disaster, told a very different tale.
"They held up Geiger counters showing the level of radiation was almost beyond calculation," said Shiraishi, a former network TV journalist who co-founded the Internet venture in 2001, hosts the show and reports many of its stories. "They'd never seen anything like it."
For Shiraishi and others, that broadcast was a turning point, a moment many see as marking a profound shift in the trust younger Japanese place in government and media. Since that show, "Our Planet TV" viewership has shot up from about 1,000 to more than 100,000 as people have begun to seek alternative sources of information.
The change appears to be largely generational. For many older Japanese, the government remains a trusted, paternal overseer. But younger Japanese are now consulting the Internet and other information sources, rather than depending on major media.
Many people also have become more vocal in their criticism of how Tokyo bureaucrats — many with ties to the nation's powerful nuclear power industry — withheld information in the early days of the disaster. Officials now say they did so to avoid a public panic.
One Internet site has featured 600,000 comments by people describing how they no longer believe the reassurances issued by either the central government or Tepco about nuclear safety.
Such skepticism is considered rare in a nation where citizens from an early age are taught to respect authority. As a rule, Japanese don't wage noisy public protests like their South Korean neighbors. Most people observe rules and expect others to do so as well: They don't jaywalk, preferring to obediently wait — often in large groups — for the traffic light to change even on an empty street. They carefully line up for public transportation and rarely talk on their cellphones while riding buses or trains.
But when it comes to radiation, residents have decided to take matters into their own hands. In what has become known as the "measurement movement," young families in this nation long known for safety and hygiene have acquired their own Geiger counters and dosimeters to gauge radiation exposure. Many of the devices can be purchased at DVD rental stories, where they are stocked next to the latest blockbuster movies.
Others check the Internet for daily radiation updates.
As the central government has relaxed radiation limits for food, nuclear workers and even school playgrounds, residents have established community groups to take collective action to ensure that the levels remain safe.
The Radiation Defense Project, for instance, which grew out of a Facebook discussion page, has taken steps such as collecting money to take soil samples on school grounds in Tokyo and elsewhere and have them analyzed at private testing facilities.
Even after the Tokyo city government tried to reassure residents, announcing that it would conduct radiation tests on samples of store-bought food, consumers remain doubtful. Some independent groups have established free, on-the-spot analysis of radioactive isotopes in food products at stores in Fukushima prefecture, where the nuclear meltdown took place.
Once nearly ignored by the public, nuclear physicist Ryugo Hayano is amazed by the attention he's been receiving. Since 2008, the 59-year-old Tokyo-based scholar has made regular Twitter posts about his research, attracting about 3,000 followers before the March disaster.
But after the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown, Hayano took an interest in radioactive fallout. He tweeted that foreign news reports of the isotope cesium spilling into the atmosphere were a dangerous sign for public health. Within three days, his following soared to more than 150,000.
Hayano explains his sudden popularity by noting that many Japanese, including himself, believe they're not being told the whole story by the nation's traditional information outlets.
"Whether TV news or the government, people are now criticizing authority in fundamental ways they didn't before," said Hayano, a graying, dapper man with a white handkerchief in the breast pocket of his maroon blazer. "They're making accusations about ministers hiding information, or not releasing it quickly enough. They've come to learn that they cannot trust the government like they did before March 11."
Hayano said he doesn't know how far the distrust will reach, or whether Japanese, young and old, will return to their conformist ways once the radiation danger has passed. But for now he's working hard to fill the information gap.
These days he regularly posts links on Twitter to interpretive charts that break down statistics released by the government and utilities. "It's analysis they're not getting anywhere else," he said.
Shiraishi's "Our Planet TV" also strives to keep independent information flowing. The weekly broadcast features stories on Japanese conducting their own radiation tests on breast milk, food and even the piles of rubble that still remain across northeastern Japan.
Viewer response has been overwhelming. Many send notes of praise, along with unsolicited donations, explaining that they want to help keep this information source open. Since March, "Our Planet TV," which relies solely on viewer contributions, has seen such support increase tenfold.
In one recent show, Shiraishi interviewed officials at a charity that has set up free medical consultations for mothers and schoolchildren in the Fukushima area.
Another guest was a cancer researcher who emphasized that no matter what assurances the government has made about public safety, children were showing up with "new clinical symptoms of low-dose radiation exposure."
That show brought the highest-ever number of viewers.
"As soon as we broadcast anything about radiation, viewership just goes through the roof," Shiraishi said. "People tell us that they're now just learning that what the government has been telling them all along might just be a fairy tale."
Maybe they will just buy their nuclear power from France.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
I wonder how this EC energy roadmap will be received in Germany, which seems to have turned its back on nuclear power after the Japanese problems. Nuclear energy will remain an important part of Europe's power generation mix--but not in Germany?
IP: Logged
01:45 PM
Dec 19th, 2011
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Here you go phonedawgz, a scientific journal article. I know you will call BS and wacko so have fun with that. You kept calling for peer reviewed info, well here it is. ----------------------
Impact Seen As Roughly Comparable to Radiation-Related Deaths After Chernobyl; Infants Are Hardest Hit, With Continuing Research Showing Even Higher Possible Death Count.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- An estimated 14,000 excess deaths in the United States are linked to the radioactive fallout from the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan, according to a major new article in the December 2011 edition of the International Journal of Health Services. This is the first peer-reviewed study published in a medical journal documenting the health hazards of Fukushima. http://www.prnewswire.com/n...llout-135859288.html
Authors Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman note that their estimate of 14,000 excess U.S. deaths in the 14 weeks after the Fukushima meltdowns is comparable to the 16,500 excess deaths in the 17 weeks after the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. The rise in reported deaths after Fukushima was largest among U.S. infants under age one. The 2010-2011 increase for infant deaths in the spring was 1.8 percent, compared to a decrease of 8.37 percent in the preceding 14 weeks.
The IJHS article will be published Tuesday and will be available online as of 11 a.m. EST at http://www.radiation.org.
Just six days after the disastrous meltdowns struck four reactors at Fukushima on March 11, scientists detected the plume of toxic fallout had arrived over American shores. Subsequent measurements by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found levels of radiation in air, water, and milk hundreds of times above normal across the U.S. The highest detected levels of Iodine-131 in precipitation in the U.S. were as follows (normal is about 2 picocuries I-131 per liter of water): Boise, ID (390); Kansas City (200); Salt Lake City (190); Jacksonville, FL (150); Olympia, WA (125); and Boston, MA (92).
Epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, MPH MBA, said: "This study of Fukushima health hazards is the first to be published in a scientific journal. It raises concerns, and strongly suggests that health studies continue, to understand the true impact of Fukushima in Japan and around the world. Findings are important to the current debate of whether to build new reactors, and how long to keep aging ones in operation."
Mangano is executive director, Radiation and Public Health Project, and the author of 27 peer-reviewed medical journal articles and letters.
Internist and toxicologist Janette Sherman, MD, said: "Based on our continuing research, the actual death count here may be as high as 18,000, with influenza and pneumonia, which were up five-fold in the period in question as a cause of death. Deaths are seen across all ages, but we continue to find that infants are hardest hit because their tissues are rapidly multiplying, they have undeveloped immune systems, and the doses of radioisotopes are proportionally greater than for adults."
Dr. Sherman is an adjunct professor, Western Michigan University, and contributing editor of "Chernobyl - Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" published by the NY Academy of Sciences in 2009, and author of "Chemical Exposure and Disease and Life's Delicate Balance - Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer."
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issues weekly reports on numbers of deaths for 122 U.S. cities with a population over 100,000, or about 25-30 percent of the U.S. In the 14 weeks after Fukushima fallout arrived in the U.S. (March 20 to June 25), deaths reported to the CDC rose 4.46 percent from the same period in 2010, compared to just 2.34 percent in the 14 weeks prior. Estimated excess deaths during this period for the entire U.S. are about 14,000.
EDITOR'S NOTE: A streaming audio replay of a related news event will be available on the Web at http://www.radiation.org as of 4 p.m. EST/2100 GMT on December 19, 2011. Embargoed copies of the medical journal article are available by contacting Ailis Aaron Wolf, (703) 276-3265 or aawolf@hastingsgroup.com.
SOURCE Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman, International Journal of Health Services Back to top
Sunday, December 18, 2011 #Fukushima I Nuke Plant: 230 Tonnes of Leaked Water Is Rather "Hot"
I forgot to update the news of 230-tonne leak at Fukushima I Nuke Plant but toward the end of TEPCO's press conference on December 18, the initial result of the nuclide analysis came in, and the number was rather high.
Cesium-134:
*
The trench water: 4200 becquerels/cubic centimeter (or 4.2 million becquerels/liter) *
The water dripping from electrical duct: 0.13 becquerels/cubic centimeter (or 130 becquerels/liter)
No news yet on other nuclides, though Asahi Shinbun says cesium-137 was 5400 becquerels/cubic centimeter. If that's the case, the cesium total would be 9600 becquerels/cubic centimeter of 9.6 million becquerels/liter. It is not as radioactive as the untreated, contaminated water (which is about 100 times as radioactive than this trench water), but still high for a plant that has achieved a "cold shutdown".
TEPCO should announce the result of the analysis in today's press conference.
In the press conference, TEPCO repeated it didn't exactly know where the water had come from or when (anytime between April and December 18), though they said it must be either groundwater or dew condensation water. So the press had to speculate or use their own judgment to write up their articles.
Yomiuri took the safe (TEPCO's) line saying the water is groundwater. (Never mind that the groundwater in the trench is so "hot", where as nearby subdrain water is not.)
Asahi and Jiji Tsushin took the daring line saying the water is from the nearby building that stores the highly contaminated, pre-treated water.
Kyodo News took the best of both worlds as it said the trench water must have come from the highly contaminated, pre-treated water stored in the nearby building, and it got diluted by the water dripping from the electrical duct which does seem like groundwater judging from the cesium density.
TEPCO does say the trench does not connect to the ocean, but all that means may be that the trench does not directly connect to the ocean. As far as I know, no one has come up with the detailed drawing of the plant's network of drains and trenches and how they are connected. http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/...t-230-tonnes-of.html
IP: Logged
07:41 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
I suppose you believe there was an increase of 14,000 deaths in the US from Fukusima.
It was a peer reviewed science journal that you spoke so highly of, stating nothing I posted had any value because it didn't come from one. Now that the scientist are agreeing with my perspective [read TEPCO lying] and you are revealing to all what a liar you are. You really are not intelligent, maybe well versed and good with semantics, but a fool none the less. Claiming my reports are nothing but journalist looking for ratings and not real science. Then I post a peer reviewed scientific journal and thats wacko too. You can't have it both ways, and I hope the members here call you on your lies. I hope that check you are getting, makes the special place in hell worth it.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 12-19-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:45 PM
Dec 20th, 2011
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Most of what Dennis posts here is reposts of reporting from other news sources. Any attempt to discredit his words can only apply to his words, not those of the reporters that he reposts here. To that extent, your attempt to discredit his information will always fail, because in effect you are saying that everyone is discredited. That may work for the media conspiracy theorists, but in the real world it's simply not true.
Second, you attempt to use peer-reviewed science as the only indicator of information validity, in essence saying that if it isn't a peer-reviewed published study then it cannot be true or valid. That concept does not apply in this ongoing disaster/tragedy. It would be like the news reporter saying, "There may be hostages in the building, but we can't confirm until the scientists finish their study and are published in a peer-reviewed journal." [/[ That's a very stupid and irrelevant way of looking at it.
In reality, much of the information that Dennis has posted has been relevant, pertinent, and of reasonable accuracy for the type reporting being done. Sure, he's made some gaffs, but he himself never claimed he's an authority. Mostly he's been digging up info and posting it in this thread because that's the exact speficic reason this thread was created: To keep us informed.
Nobody knows what the exact long-term consequences of this man-made nuclear disaster will be, but we have some good ideas based on studying Chernobly for the last quarter century. So far, the biggest consequences of Chernobyl have been ongoing stabilization and cleanup costs that are a significant percentage of the local economy, and large areas of land lost to forestry and human use. Most reasonable-minded people can look at Fukushima and realize that it is going to be very expensive to remediate. Unlike Chernoby where much of the contamination was just left in place across the lands and the lands marked illegal to inhabit, the contaminated areas of Japan will have to be cleaned up, nearly every square inch. The population density of the Chernobyl area was already fairly low, and given the size of the then USSR and current states there was plenty of places to move families, farms, and businesses to. Japan, on the other hand, has some of the highest population densities in the world. The reason for this is simple to understand: They're an island nation, and not even a particularly big one at that. There is no place to move everyone to, no empty lands to turn into new farms, homes, businesses, towns, and cities to replace those lost to Fukushima. With no empty lands to expand to, the areas contaminated by the nuclear disaster will have to be cleaned up regardless of cost.
The remediation costs of Chernobyl are in the billions and still counting a quarter century later, and they spent almost nothing on cleanup other than the immediate industrial complex area. No attempt has been (or likely will ever be) made to decontaminate the hundreds of square miles of lands and farms, cities and towns, homes and schools. It is quite reasonable to believe that cleanup costs for Fukushima will equal, or exceed, those of Chernobyl. A scientific study could quantify that, but it takes perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars to commission a study like that, and in this case it proves nothing.
Dennis: It's painfully obvious that phonedawgz is only trolling in this thread, contributing nothing to the thread topic, and only seeking to bait you into further arguments where he can use semantic attacks to try and discredit not you, but the information that you post here. You're not as skilled at using semantics as a weapon as he is, that weakness is what attracts people like phonedawgz; they always gravitate to the weaker because the weaker are easier to bully and dominate.
I for one appreciate your efforts so far to contribute to this topic. It's important, and it helps us to further understand the effects of this man-made disaster which will linger for decades if not centuries past the point when all traces of the earthquake and tsunami are gone.
Probably the best thing would be to pretend phonedawgz just doesn't exist. Many forums offer the member to click a button to automatically ignore a pest like him (her? it?), but sadly we don't, so we will have to resist the temptation of being baited into pointless semantic games with him.
See others have called you on the peer reviewed bit, now that I have posted a peer reviewed journal that goes against your industry funded lies, admit that you are nothing but a liar. Your BS is not sustainable, it is catching up with you, the more the truth comes out, the bigger the liar people will realize you are.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 12-20-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:00 AM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
I am sorry to have to tell you this Mr. Wacko, but you can't use JazzMan's post to show anything about the truthfulness of my posts. Even YOU should know that much.
You really have made me really laugh twice now on your latest foolish posts.
quote
Originally posted by dennis_6: See others have called you on the peer reviewed bit, now that I have posted a peer reviewed journal that goes against your industry funded lies, admit that you are nothing but a liar. Your BS is not sustainable, it is catching up with you, the more the truth comes out, the bigger the liar people will realize you are.
IP: Logged
04:13 AM
PFF
System Bot
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Looks like your wacko scientist already has taken back his claim that the 14,000 deaths were caused by Fukushima.
quote
But he [Mangano] told MedPage Today that the researchers can't rule out factors other than the Fukushima radiation that might have accounted for the excess.
"There are probably a variety of factors that could be linked to this excess of 14,000 deaths," he said. "But it does raise a red flag."
And here is what his peer said when he reviewed the "work"
quote
On the contrary, any link between the deaths and the radiation released by the reactors is "very, very unlikely" simply because the levels are low, according to Richard Morin, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.
Morin told MedPage Today that such an acute effect would be unlikely, unless radiation levels were four or five orders of magnitude higher than those reported by Mangano and Sherman, and the whole body of the victim was exposed.
Typically, he said, the effect of low-level ionizing radiation doesn't appear until years after the exposure.
Morin, who is chair of the American College of Radiology's safety committee, said an earlier public report by the authors on the same issue -- preceding the journal article -- "has not been taken seriously by the scientific community."
Just like your posts that "have not been taken seriously by the Fiero community."
NRC Head Jaczko Satisfied With Response to Fukushima Crisis
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko said he’s satisfied with Tokyo Electric Power Co. (9501)’s efforts to end the crisis at the wrecked Fukushima atomic plant.
The melted fuel in the reactors at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant has cooled enough to prevent any further releases of radiation beyond the station, Jaczko told reporters today in Tokyo after a visit to the station.
He spoke four days after Japanese officials declared that the reactors, which were damaged by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, have been brought to a state known as cold shutdown. Some nuclear scientists disputed that the term accurately described conditions at the plant. Jaczko called the declaration a “tremendous milestone.”
“I feel very comfortable that they have completed really the requirements that are necessary to move on to the next stage,” he said. “There’s really no energy left in the reactor to have an off-site release of radiation.”
So your stating peer reviewed journals can be wacko? Wow, I thought in the past you criticized me for not quoting real science like you did. Thats the point in the whole conversation. A source is legit when you quote it, but if I quote anything that disagrees with you its wacko. Hence you are a liar.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 12-20-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:55 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
From your source it seems like you forgot to include this "The researchers also reported that some EPA samples of precipitation, air, water, and milk showed levels of radioactivity "hundreds of times above normal."
I also noticed you didn't bold preceding the journal article, which basically states that before being published in a journal he wasn't taken serious. Quite a different meaning than you are trying to suggest.
I also love how you only cut and pasted certain sections of your source, because the entire article does not exactly paint the same picture as you are trying to suggest with the few sentences you quoted. I believe they call a half truth, a lie.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 12-20-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:04 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
NRC Head Jaczko Satisfied With Response to Fukushima Crisis
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko said he’s satisfied with Tokyo Electric Power Co. (9501)’s efforts to end the crisis at the wrecked Fukushima atomic plant.
The melted fuel in the reactors at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant has cooled enough to prevent any further releases of radiation beyond the station, Jaczko told reporters today in Tokyo after a visit to the station.
He spoke four days after Japanese officials declared that the reactors, which were damaged by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, have been brought to a state known as cold shutdown. Some nuclear scientists disputed that the term accurately described conditions at the plant. Jaczko called the declaration a “tremendous milestone.”
“I feel very comfortable that they have completed really the requirements that are necessary to move on to the next stage,” he said. “There’s really no energy left in the reactor to have an off-site release of radiation.”
Besides he said the plant doesn't have enough energy to spit out any radiation. That is incorrect. He should have said it isn't producing enough power to.
But if even the anti-nuke wacko says it is cold, that should be more than enough to say it is cold.
quote
Originally posted by dennis_6: You can't use him to support your claims, you already called him a wacko that has no clue.
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 12-20-2011).]
IP: Logged
03:24 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Besides he said the plant doesn't have enough energy to spit out any radiation. That is incorrect. He should have said it isn't producing enough power to.
But if even the anti-nuke wacko says it is cold, that should be more than enough to say it is cold.
You said he didn't have a clue, which means he doesn't know what is going on at all. Were you wrong then or are you wrong now?
IP: Logged
03:33 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Researchers Trumpet Another Flawed Fukushima Death Study
In June I wrote about a claim that babies in the U.S. were dying as a direct result of Fukushima radiation. A close look at the accusation revealed that the data used by the authors to make the argument showed no such thing. “That data is publicly available,” I wrote, “and a check reveals that the authors’ statistical claims are critically flawed—if not deliberate mistruths.” The authors appeared to start from a conclusion—babies are dying because of Fukushima radiation—and work backwards, torturing the data to fit their claims.
Now the authors have published a revised study (PDF) in the International Journal of Health Services. A press release published to herald the article warns, “14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Fallout.” This is an alarming accusation. Let’s see how the authors defend it.
First, the authors assert: “In the United States, Fukushima fallout arrived just six days after the earthquake, tsunami, and meltdowns.” They provide no evidence for this assertion, no citation to back up their facts. The authors then note that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency monitored radioactivity in milk, water and air in the weeks and months following the disaster. Ah, here must be the data, the careful reader hopes. Alas, “the number of samples for which the EPA was able to detect measurable concentrations of radioactivity is relatively few,” the authors write. They then conclude, with evident disappointment, that “clearly, the 2011 EPA reports cannot be used with confidence for any comprehensive assessment of temporal trends and spatial patterns of U.S. environmental radiation levels originating in Japan.” In other words, the EPA didn’t find evidence for the plume that our entire argument depends on, so “clearly” we can’t trust the agency’s data.
Yet even if there isn’t evidence for a plume, where do all the dead people come from? Here, from the abstract, is the chain of reasoning: “U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35 percent of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46 percent from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34 percent increase in the prior 14 weeks….Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths.” In sum: Sloppy statistics killed 14,000 people.
To unpack a little more, the authors take mortality figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports. I talk a little about these reports in my original piece. Suffice it to say that they are an incomplete record of deaths in the U.S. (as the authors acknowledge). The authors draw a hard line at the week of March 20, 2011, the 12th week of the year. They sum up all deaths around the country for both the 14 weeks preceding and the 14 weeks following March 20, 2011. They do the same for 2010. They find the CDC reports include 4.46 percent more dead people in the 14 weeks after March 20, 2011, than the reports did in the 14 weeks after March 20, 2010. The 14 weeks preceding March 20, 2011 (presumably before the radiation plume arrived and spread across the land) include only 2.34 percent more dead people than the 14 weeks preceding March 20, 2010. Since the CDC only reports on about 23.5 percent of all deaths, the authors claim, they helpfully multiply the supposed “excess” by 1/0.235 to arrive at the final number of 13,893 deaths.
No attempt is made at providing systematic error estimates, or error estimates of any kind. No attempt is made to catalog any biases that may have crept into the analysis, though a cursory look finds biases a-plenty (the authors are anti-nuclear activists unaffiliated with any research institution). The analysis assumes that the plume arrived on U.S. shores, spread everywhere, instantly, and started killing people immediately. It assumes that the “excess” deaths after March 20 are a real signal, not just a statistical aberration, and that every one of them is due to Fukushima radiation.
The publication of such sloppy, agenda-driven work is a shame. Certainly radiation from Fukushima is dangerous, and could very well lead to negative health effects—even across the Pacific. The world needs to have a serious discussion about what role nuclear power should play in a power-hungry post-Fukushima world. But serious, informed, fact-based debate is a difficult enough goal to achieve without having to shout above noise like this.
IP: Logged
03:44 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Is the political pressure you are referring to the investigation into him that Congress is doing?
‘I Will Listen’
Jaczko said he had “no intention” of stepping down. His colleagues said they were both willing to work with the chairman and skeptical that he would take a new approach.
“If he is committed to changing his way of doing business and behavior, then I will listen,” Commissioner William Ostendorff told the Senate Environment and Public Works committee during a Dec. 15 hearing. “If we had great confidence that things were going to change, we would not have sent the letter to the White House.” http://www.bloomberg.com/ne...-scana-reactors.html
IP: Logged
04:32 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
More on new study of excess deaths in US after Fukushima (AUDIO & VIDEO)
Nuclear Hotseat just released an audio interview with Dr. Janette Sherman, co-author of the study, available here: http://lhalevy.audioacrobat...915-d129d40fa502.mp3 Description: Sherman makes reference to the attacks she and her co-writer faced after the paper was first published, and talks about what they did to submit this second paper to the medical journal for peer review.
Full article in the December 2011 International Journal of Health Services: An unexpected mortality increase in the United States follows arrival of the radioactive plume from Fukushima: Is there a correlation?
MedPage Today: Japanese Reactor Leaks Linked to U.S. Deaths
Here is the NEI’s take, some of which actually holds water — The press release stated “14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Reactor Disaster Fallout”, but during the press conference Mangano said the link to Fukushima was not definite.
Phonedawgz, since your version of the article was missing a link, here is the full version. Its amazing how you still miss the point about why I posted the journal entry in the first place. It was from "real" science. If the "real" science is wrong, then a lot of your arguments are without merits, if the "real" science is right, a lot of your arguments are without merit. I never stated if I believed the journal entry or not. You assumed, I just let you make a fool out of yourself. ----------------- By Michael Moyer | December 20, 2011 |
ShareShare ShareEmail
Nuclear powerplant Temelin, Czech Republic
In June I wrote about a claim that babies in the U.S. were dying as a direct result of Fukushima radiation. A close look at the accusation revealed that the data used by the authors to make the argument showed no such thing. “That data is publicly available,” I wrote, “and a check reveals that the authors’ statistical claims are critically flawed—if not deliberate mistruths.” The authors appeared to start from a conclusion—babies are dying because of Fukushima radiation—and work backwards, torturing the data to fit their claims.
Now the authors have published a revised study (PDF) in the International Journal of Health Services. A press release published to herald the article warns, “14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Fallout.” This is an alarming accusation. Let’s see how the authors defend it.
First, the authors assert: “In the United States, Fukushima fallout arrived just six days after the earthquake, tsunami, and meltdowns.” They provide no evidence for this assertion, no citation to back up their facts. The authors then note that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency monitored radioactivity in milk, water and air in the weeks and months following the disaster. Ah, here must be the data, the careful reader hopes. Alas, “the number of samples for which the EPA was able to detect measurable concentrations of radioactivity is relatively few,” the authors write. They then conclude, with evident disappointment, that “clearly, the 2011 EPA reports cannot be used with confidence for any comprehensive assessment of temporal trends and spatial patterns of U.S. environmental radiation levels originating in Japan.” In other words, the EPA didn’t find evidence for the plume that our entire argument depends on, so “clearly” we can’t trust the agency’s data.
Yet even if there isn’t evidence for a plume, where do all the dead people come from? Here, from the abstract, is the chain of reasoning: “U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35 percent of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46 percent from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34 percent increase in the prior 14 weeks….Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths.” In sum: Sloppy statistics killed 14,000 people.
To unpack a little more, the authors take mortality figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports. I talk a little about these reports in my original piece. Suffice it to say that they are an incomplete record of deaths in the U.S. (as the authors acknowledge). The authors draw a hard line at the week of March 20, 2011, the 12th week of the year. They sum up all deaths around the country for both the 14 weeks preceding and the 14 weeks following March 20, 2011. They do the same for 2010. They find the CDC reports include 4.46 percent more dead people in the 14 weeks after March 20, 2011, than the reports did in the 14 weeks after March 20, 2010. The 14 weeks preceding March 20, 2011 (presumably before the radiation plume arrived and spread across the land) include only 2.34 percent more dead people than the 14 weeks preceding March 20, 2010. Since the CDC only reports on about 23.5 percent of all deaths, the authors claim, they helpfully multiply the supposed “excess” by 1/0.235 to arrive at the final number of 13,893 deaths.
No attempt is made at providing systematic error estimates, or error estimates of any kind. No attempt is made to catalog any biases that may have crept into the analysis, though a cursory look finds biases a-plenty (the authors are anti-nuclear activists unaffiliated with any research institution). The analysis assumes that the plume arrived on U.S. shores, spread everywhere, instantly, and started killing people immediately. It assumes that the “excess” deaths after March 20 are a real signal, not just a statistical aberration, and that every one of them is due to Fukushima radiation.
The publication of such sloppy, agenda-driven work is a shame. Certainly radiation from Fukushima is dangerous, and could very well lead to negative health effects—even across the Pacific. The world needs to have a serious discussion about what role nuclear power should play in a power-hungry post-Fukushima world. But serious, informed, fact-based debate is a difficult enough goal to achieve without having to shout above noise like this.
(Image by Li-sung at Wikipedia Commons.) About the Author: Michael Moyer is the editor in charge of technology coverage at Scientific American Follow on Twitter @mmoyr.
Radioactive material discovered in water around Sequoyah Posted: Dec 20, 2011 1:29 PM CST Updated: Dec 20, 2011 1:29 PM CST By Rich Sobolewski, Director of Interactive Content - bio | email
(WRCB/AP) – Radioactive material has been found in the groundwater around the Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant.
Tennessee Valley Authority officials have reported finding elevated levels of tritium in a groundwater sample taken from one of two new onsite monitoring wells at the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant.
TVA says these elevated levels pose no threat to the health and safety of the public.
"The newly installed groundwater monitoring wells were placed in an area known to have contained tritium that was previously reported," Sequoyah Plant Manager Paul Simmons said. "The health and safety of the public are our primary concern, which is why providing additional monitoring capability to the plant's groundwater wells is an important measure for protecting the community and the environment."
There are a total of 16 groundwater monitoring wells on the Sequoyah site. The highest level found in the sampling on Friday, December 16, was approximately 23,000 picocuries per liter. A "curie" is the standard measure for the intensity of radioactivity contained in a sample; a picocurie is one trillionth of a curie.
None of the Sequoyah groundwater monitoring wells is used for drinking water or irrigation purposes and no potable water wells are downstream of where the tritium was found. Additionally, TVA confirmed no detectable levels of tritium in any sampling of the Tennessee River where the plant discharges water.
"Sequoyah voluntarily communicated to federal, state and local officials these elevated sample results due to TVA's own conservative decision-making process and in accordance with a groundwater protection initiative established by the nuclear industry in 2006, " Simmons said. "TVA is reviewing the new monitoring well sample results, determining the cause of these elevated levels and how they relate to the previously reported releases of tritium."
An Associated Press investigation published earlier this year found tritium leaks at 75 percent of the commercial nuclear power plants in the United States.
The number and severity of the leaks has been escalating, even as federal regulators extend the licenses of more and more reactors across the nation.
Tritium, which is a radioactive form of hydrogen, has leaked from at least 48 of 65 sites, according to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission records reviewed as part of the AP's yearlong examination of safety issues at aging nuclear power plants. Leaks from at least 37 of those facilities contained concentrations exceeding the federal drinking water standard - sometimes at hundreds of times the limit.
October 31, 2011, Sequoyah installed two new groundwater monitoring wells in an area known to have contained previously reported releases of tritium in an effort to further characterize and validate the scope of the plume.
On December 16, 2011, elevated levels of tritium were identified in water samples taken from one new onsite monitoring well.
The tritium levels were confirmed to be greater than 20,000 pCi/L which is the threshold for drinking water. No groundwater monitoring wells are used for drinking or irrigation purposes onsite.
Phonedawgz, since your version of the article was missing a link, here is the full version. Its amazing how you still miss the point about why I posted the journal entry in the first place. It was from "real" science. If the "real" science is wrong, then a lot of your arguments are without merits, if the "real" science is right, a lot of your arguments are without merit. I never stated if I believed the journal entry or not. You assumed, I just let you make a fool out of yourself. -----------------
What is this rambling supposed to mean?
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 12-20-2011).]
IP: Logged
08:05 PM
Dec 21st, 2011
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Once again the would-be world savers Janette Sherman (MD) and Joseph Mangano (something) are pushing for another round of scaremongering dressed in a scientific coat. They have got their nonsense about increased US infant mortality due to Fukushima published in a peer-reviewed journal. This time they have extended their faulty study and extrapolated the effect for the entire US. Lo’ and behold, 14 000 deaths so far, they claim! The article, published in the International Journal on Health Services, can be found here. For a bit more easy reading, the press release here will probably do.
We will not spend too much time on scrutinizing this study, and others are already on to it, for instance Michael Moyer in Scientific American, and Barbara Feder Ostrov in Reporting on Health. Furthermore, S&M have not made any amends for their first two faulty attempts (our comments here and here), and since the new article follows the same line of reasoning, we can only condemn them for trying to push the same lousy trick a third time. This is political activism from anti-nuclear icons, it is not science.
Joseph Mangano shows the size of his remaining credibility From the media releases about this, we find some interesting statements by Mangano in Medpage Today:
In a telephone press conference, Mangano said the finding is a “clarion call for more extensive research.”
But he told MedPage Today that the researchers can’t rule out factors other than the Fukushima radiation that might have accounted for the excess.
“There are probably a variety of factors that could be linked to this excess of 14,000 deaths,” he said. “But it does raise a red flag.”
This is indeed a clarion call. It is a call for celebrities like Alex Baldwin and Christie Brinkley to start contemplating what kind of nut-crack that they support financially. And it does raise a red flag, the umpire raises the red flag after three strikes. Sherman & Mangano, you’re OUT!
Mangano and Sherman have released another bogus study seeking to scare people about radiation
by Rod Adams on December 20, 2011 in Antinuclear activist, Health Effects Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman are at it again with their infamous efforts to scare as many people as possible about the effects of atomic radiation. With much fanfare and a coordinated issuance of press releases, they announced the publication of a new “study” claiming that radiation released by the three reactors at Fukushima Daiichi that melted in March 2011 has already resulted in the death of approximately 14,000 babies in the United States.
Fortunately, word travels fast in the internet era, so there are already well-documented articles that completely refute this new study and point to the almost unbelievably large errors in its methods, data and conclusions. You can find one of these on the Scientific American Observations blog at Researchers Trumpet Another Flawed Fukushima Death Study and on NEI Nuclear Notes at Joseph Mangano Contradicts His Own Press Release on Fukushima Research.
Though competitive debaters may be taught to shy away from attacks on the credibility of their opponents, one of the primary tenants of scientific inquiry is that researchers must strive to maintain their credibility so that others can trust their work. It only takes one example of fudged data or bogus claims for a scientist to be relegated to the dustbin and able to publish their work only in marginal journals with little or no respect or impact. They often manage to keep making a living, just as snake oil salesmen can continue to make a living by opening up shop in a new town.
Both Mangano and Sherman have a history of publishing questionable papers or documents that were specifically designed to increase fears of radiation, even if the radiation is at levels so low that careful researchers cannot find it.
You truly have no shame.
