Skip to main content

View Diary: The Fukushima Nuclear Accident is Far From Over (51 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Has Any Serious Person Suggested (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryfry, Mcrab, SpeedyGonzales

    that the skin loss is due to radiation?  No!!!

    More likely global warming which is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

    Nuclear is the solution.

    The Republicans are begging for more rope. Give it to them!!!

    by nuketeacher on Sun Apr 08, 2012 at 08:08:36 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Be pretty cool to have a solution that we (5+ / 0-)

      could use safely. That last sentence sounds more emotional than rational.

      Poverty = politics.

      by Renee on Sun Apr 08, 2012 at 08:30:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  HaHaHaHa! (11+ / 0-)

      Riiiiiiiiiiight.

      Pure coincidence that seals walruses and polar bears, don't get this "unusual" event, which are precisely the signs of radiation poisoning, then after Fukushima -- and the plume maps are easily accessible showing the drift to Alaska -- suddenly, they do.

      Can't possibly be connected, right? How could any serious person insist that there can't be any connection?

      How could any serious person suggest that now, all of sudden, this is due to global warming, when we've had decades of global warming with no such signs appearing. "Unusual mortality event" means "not usual."

      A serious, but skeptical, person would have responded "hmmm, interesting, might be, needs more study" at the least. Instead you blame something which has never been, instead of dealing with what has actually happened? Whyever?

      Please start thinking and stop giving in to the emotional, irrational, identification with the nuke industry.

      No point talking to you, as you'll clearly bend over backwards to make 2+2 anything but 4, if that's what it takes.

      Adios.


      Today, if you exist... that's already suspicious.

      by Jim P on Sun Apr 08, 2012 at 08:37:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  according to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AaronInSanDiego

        Reuters

        Preliminary studies showed that radiation poisoning is not the cause, temporarily ruling out a theory that the animals were sickened by contamination from the tsunami-wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.
        •  And the conductor of those studies would be? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino

          The article doesn't say.

          These creatures didn't get signs typical of radiation poisoning, the maps showing radiation drifting over Alaska are in the public space, now the creatures have signs typical of radiation poisoning.

          Not proof, certainly, and of course the issue of proving could only be done if we were following the seals, walruses, and polar bears around when/if they ingested radioactive elements and then followed the radioactive bits into their body to see what would happen. Or put them through a full body scanner geared to detect radiation.

          And true, correlation does not prove causality.

          But on the other hand, causality has not been suspended on earth, last I heard.

          Wildlife, no signs of a specific illness; accident; wildlife with signs of specific illness.

          To rule out causality is completely irrational.


          Today, if you exist... that's already suspicious.

          by Jim P on Sun Apr 08, 2012 at 07:55:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I love how nukelovers all turn to... (9+ / 0-)

      ...coal sux as their last defense against the realities of the dangers of nuclear power generation.  Pay no attention to the nuclear dangers behind the curtain.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site