8.9 Magnitude quake hits offshore Japan

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Water is the most dangerous chemical known to humans.

Because sharks live in it, right?

[CaptainCrunch]

[HOOT]

Up to 4,000 dead, 10,000 missing. It's horrible that possibility 15,000 people have lost their lives but when you see the video that number seems very low.

[zamler]

Regarding Chernobyl, it's true that radiation has damaged the ecosystem, to what extent no one is exactly sure. But what is sure, is the diversity and numbers of wildlife is far greater than when humans were there. Nature is thriving in the area, and animals are showing far lower incidents of cancers than what was predicted.

The above is based on several articles I've read, and a couple of documentaries. Nature does indeed find a way.

edit - here is one of the docu's I saw several years ago.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Up to 4,000 dead, 10,000 missing. It's horrible that possibility 15,000 people have lost their lives but when you see the video that number seems very low.

I think you have their Early Warning Systems and drills they have done in the past to thank for that.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I do not agree that Chernobyl was overblown as a disaster.

A 30 Sq KM radiated exclusion zone, up to an estimated 50,000 deaths among the rescue workers and others due to long effects (WHO).

No, that is not even close to being correct. THE WHO REPORT VERY CLEARLY STATES THAT IS NOT TRUE. and I even linked the short version in this thread, and quoted the essential parts.

I guess I'll do it again.

I'm sorry for the tone, but I've just been recently been explaining this to several different people. It seems there's just a general inability to read reports in the world.

Here is the report itself:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Boo.../chernobyl.pdf


Here is the part you are looking for:

How many people died as a result of the accident and how many more are likely to die in the future?
...
The number of deaths attributable to the Chernobyl accident has been of paramount interest to the general public, scientists, the mass media, and politicians. Claims have been made that tens or even hundreds of thousands of persons have died as a result of the accident. These claims are highly exaggerated. Confusion about the impact of Chernobyl on mortality has arisen owing to the fact that, in the years since 1986, thousands of emergency and recovery operation workers as well as people who lived in ‘contaminated’ territories have died of diverse natural causes that are not attributable to radiation. However, widespread expectations of ill health and a tendency to attribute all health problems to exposure to radiation have led local residents to assume that Chernobyl-related fatalities were much higher.

The number of deaths due to acute radiation syndrome (ARS) during the first year following the accident is well documented. According to UNSCEAR (2000), ARS was diagnosed in 134 emergency workers. In many cases the ARS was complicated by extensive beta radiation skin burns and sepsis. Among these workers, 28 persons died in 1986 due to ARS. Two more persons had died at Unit 4 from injuries unrelated to radiation, and one additional death was thought to have been due to a coronary thrombosis. Nineteen more have died in 1987–2004 of various causes; however their deaths are not necessarily — and in some cases are certainly not — directly attributable to radiation exposure. Among the general population exposed to the Chernobyl radioactive fallout, however, the radiation doses were relatively low, and ARS and associated fatalities did not occur.

The international expert group predicts that among the 600 000 persons receiving more significant exposurers, the possible increase in cancer mortality due to this radiation exposure might be up to a few per cent. This might eventually represent up to four thousand fatal cancers...

[QUOTE]

Apart from the dramatic increase in thyroid cancer incidence among those exposed at a young age (my note: about 4000 cases, with 99% recovery rate, 9 deaths, it's in the report), there is no clearly demonstrated increase in the incidence of solid cancers or leukaemia due to radiation in the most affected populations.

Most of recovery operation workers and people living in the contaminated territories received relatively low whole-body radiation doses, comparable to background radiation levels accumulated over the 20 year period since the accident.

It should be noted that the average doses received by residents of the territories ‘contaminated’ by Chernobyl fallout are generally lower than those received by people who live in some areas of high natural background radiation in India, Iran, Brazil and China (100–200 mSv in 20 years).

And for those of you who will take the short version (of the same report), here it is, again:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/.../en/index.html

And I quote:

As of mid-2005 fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster

So yeah, many people will have their lives shortened, eventually. Most of those have not (based on statistical estimations) happened yet, 25 years after the fact. We're propably talking a death count of something in the hundreds. Which is of course notable, but I'd still take something like that every year if it meant we could rid ourselves completely of coal (which kills hundreds of people every bloody day globally.)

[HPLovecraft]

Did CNN really interview Hiroshima survivors and ask them about radiation exposure?

[nik-]

At this point I'm actually embarrassed for CNN. They are getting hysterical. It's sad what that network has become to chase ratings.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Did CNN really interview Hiroshima survivors and ask them about radiation exposure?

Did you actually see this or hear it? Please don't be true.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Did you actually see this or hear it? Please don't be true.

It's one of the videos on the front page of CNN right now.

[socalwingfan]

Originally Posted by nik-

At this point I'm actually embarrassed for CNN. They are getting hysterical. It's sad what that network has become to chase ratings.

When they used their "meterologist" to explain what a Nuclear Meltdown was - I permanently blocked the channel on our TV. Just a brutal network - I get embarrassed for them when I watch.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by nik-

At this point I'm actually embarrassed for CNN. They are getting hysterical. It's sad what that network has become to chase ratings.

Totally agree, the CNN coverage has been downright painful, and in particular concering the nuclear issue.

Almost like they're trying to incite panic.

[afc wimbledon]

I have to say I am suprised at the lack of Chernobyl spirit amongst the workers at the plant, I pretty well assumed that Japanese technicians would refuse to leave the plant regardless of radiation levels, for family and emporer etc.

I can't say I blame them mind you.

[GirlySports]

The most hilarious part about CNN's coverage is they have Anderson Cooper standing on a street corner in the middle of nowhere. No television, no computer, no resources. He's useless there. He's not a reporter, he's the anchor of the show, put him in a studio so that if news really does break, he can break it!

Also, Anderson will say "There's a live news conference going on right now, we'll try to get you the details as soon as we can but I can't hear it, I'm just being told by my producers that there is one" Well come on, don't tell us there's a news conference... just go to the news conference live so we can listen to it!

Originally Posted by socalwingfan

When they used their "meterologist" to explain what a Nuclear Meltdown was - I permanently blocked the channel on our TV. Just a brutal network - I get embarrassed for them when I watch.

The meterologist said yesterday that a low pressure front works the same way in Japan as it does in New York and if the winds blows the radiation to towards the people that's bad and if towards the oceans it's good.

I did not know that.

[Dogbert]

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sho...pagenumber=159

I've looked around, and this is the best news source I've found - which is kind of sad if you think about it. News pops up on the SA Forums three or four hours before any of the major networks have it.

[secol]

if it's true the spent rods have boiled off all the water that really sucks

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I have to say I am suprised at the lack of Chernobyl spirit amongst the workers at the plant, I pretty well assumed that Japanese technicians would refuse to leave the plant regardless of radiation levels, for family and emporer etc.

I can't say I blame them mind you.

Don't be surprised when your first assumptions turn out to have been right.

[Cowperson]

Video of a loyal canine, staying with his injured companion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theloo...-in-the-rubble

Cowperson

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Dogbert

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sho...pagenumber=159

I've looked around, and this is the best news source I've found - which is kind of sad if you think about it. News pops up on the SA Forums three or four hours before any of the major networks have it.

Thanks for the link, that thread has some great info. From said thread I got this link: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/

Not sure if it has been posted yet but a great, very simple, breakdown of the situation (facts) in Fukashima that everyone should be able to understand.

[united]

Originally Posted by Dogbert

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sho...pagenumber=159

I've looked around, and this is the best news source I've found - which is kind of sad if you think about it. News pops up on the SA Forums three or four hours before any of the major networks have it.

The first post in that thread is well done as an overview. Worth checking out for anyone.