Skip to main content

View Diary: Initial Survey of Fukushima Children Finds No Detectable Internal 137-Cesium (208 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I find your response "amusing," too. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Drewid, ozsea1, Sandino, Joieau

    Like I said, I've been impressed with your posts, to date. But, your rush to discredit the source, when it's about information that has LITTLE to do with what you're citing in your post, has me wondering where you're coming from...perhaps even moreso than before I read this last comment from you.

    There are some very alarming, new facts presented in this piece. I'm not a big fan of Vice. Only read the article by accident, in fact. I never visit the site, deliberately.

    But, I find the rush to downplay any negative information quite interesting, since little information presented in the Vice story overlaps the specific topics about which you're reporting.

    Apples vs. oranges...yet you rush to discredit the information, which the reporter claims is BASED upon other studies and highly scientific data, in many instances.

    Frankly, at this point, considering your responses here, I'm now disappointed in the approach you're taking to my question.

    For starters: 137-Cesium isn't even mentioned in the Vice article, and it's the focus of your commentary. Yet, you immediately attempt to discredit sourcing, which is only limited in its description in the Vice article.

    I'm not a fan of Vice. Never will be. I had been impressed by your posts until now. But, you've done yourself no favors in your responses in this thread, IMHO.

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 10:44:30 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Hi bobswern (7+ / 0-)

      Maybe I am missing something.  Can you point out the highly scientific data that the vice story is based upon.  I'd be happy to check out the references.

      •  If the EPA can lie to the public about toxicity... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ozsea1, Sandino, Joieau

        ...in lower Manhattan immediately after 9/11, and then for a decade after that (and there's a history spanning many generations of this kind of behavior from our government when it comes to these types of stories, as well), I'd prefer to err on the side of questioning all information than just blindly accepting it as fact. When you add to that the stream of lies coming from TEPCO, et al, there's very little credibility to be had from these sources claiming information to the contrary.

        But, I digress. The reality is, what the Vice article is reporting has virtually little to do with the specifics about which you're reporting here.

        We don't know enough about the information sourcing in the Vice article. It's not particularly good. (I think I've read pages at Vice five or six times in my life until now; and then only by accident.) But, I find your defensiveness and immediate willingness to dispute facts--facts reported by the journalist relating to at least SOME topics of which you do NOT maintain expertise, in terms of participating in studies, I might add--"interesting."

        "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

        by bobswern on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 10:57:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bob, you came into this diary (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kasoru, Susan from 29

          putting forth an article that you say the diarist is being defensive about...but then you're also admitting the source is sketchy and that you have no love for it. Why is the article even worth mentioning, or anywhere near as credible as the study put forth by the diarist?

          While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

          by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 05:12:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Hi bobswern (9+ / 0-)

      I reread the vice post.  There is not a single link that goes to a scientific study.  It is all media.

      •  It's not annotated; however it's about topics... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ozsea1, Sandino

        ...unrelated to your focus upon 137-Cesium toxicity.  If you're looking for annotated scientific studies, Vice--and virtually of the MSM, for that matter--is the wrong place to seek that information.

        The studies upon which YOU are reporting here, however, have little or NOTHING to do with the specific subjects mentioned in the Vice story, too!

        Where are you attempting to take this thread now?

        I'd like to see some unbiased scientific studies about this info, as well.

        Reiterating, your defensiveness/combativeness is to the point of being alarming.

        "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

        by bobswern on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 11:00:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hi bobswern (8+ / 0-)

          You brought up the vice story. You brought it up in a critical light of my diary. If you agree it has nothing to do with the post and its information is unvalidated fine.  

          You wrote:

          I've been impressed; now I'm questioning your diaries, after reading this: "No One Wants You to Know How Bad Fukushima Might Still Be," By Johnny Magdaleno, Vice, Aug 19 2014
          What is it about the Vice article that leads you to question information in my diaries? I am particularly driven to find out how bad Fukushima might be for those of us living on the west coast and the marine ecosystem of the northeast Pacific.  So I think I might fundamentally disagree with the title of your article.
          •  Dr. Dale Klein... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ozsea1, Sandino, Joieau

            ...is widely quoted throughout the Vice story. He's, obviously, qualified to speak on these subjects...which have little or NOTHING to do with your defensiveness and singular focus upon 137-Cesium, which is only ONE aspect of the "fallout" from Fukushima.

            Here's some info on Klein, from the Vice article...

            ...He was appointed to chair the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission by President Bush in 2006 and, after stepping down in 2009, he served as the organization’s commissioner in 2010. Now, in addition to being associate director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas, he’s part of an international TEPCO advisory panel and visits Japan three to four times a year to work with officials as they struggle to helm a largely ad hoc clean-up effort...
            For the record, I'm pretty sure he's not myopically focused upon 137-Cesium toxicity, since there are a myriad of aspects relating to the fallout from Fukushima which you do not cover. Yet, you attack sourcing of reports about those other aspects? Go figure?

            "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

            by bobswern on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 11:10:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hi bobswern (8+ / 0-)

              The article I report upon measured 137-Cs. You brought up the vice article to question my other diaries.  I am not sure I follow your reasoning.  The vice article does not cite peer-reviewed research. That is what I write about.

              •  Your posts here are quite myopic... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ozsea1, Sandino, Joieau

                ...but they ARE very well done. That being said, I'm sure they convey a false sense of security to at least some of those laypeople here that are reading them. In fact, up until the past day or two, I could count myself in that group, at least to some extent. But, now, I more fully realize there's much MORE to this Fukushima fallout story (I always knew there was more to this story; but, it's now "more confirmed") than just the 137-Cesium "angle" to it, as is self-evident in the Vice article, and other aspects of this story as they're being reported by other media outlets. Lately, however (and it's due to other info, above and beyond the Vice story), I'd say I'm a bit more aware of that greater truth than I was a few days ago.

                It's nice to be reassured that we have little to worry about as far as the 137-Cesium fallout from Fukushima's concerned. That being said, there are many other aspects to this story that may be deeply troubling to our world, going forward.

                For starters, the overall seriousness of this nightmare--based upon the Vice report, alone--may be much greater than we've been led to believe, to date and in general.

                "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

                by bobswern on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 11:38:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hi bobswern (5+ / 0-)

                  Thank you for the kind works about the article.  The article was written about a specific article dealing with 137-Cs.  I find that applying the term myopic to it is odd given that the focus was purposeful.  If you prefer to obtain information from Vice about the Fukushima disaster that is your prerogative.  

                  I  share your opinion that there is cause for concern with respect to the Fukushima disaster.

                  I am not sure I understand the motivation behind your last number of posts.

                •  Don't buy into the "no Cs137" line (2+ / 4-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sandino, cville townie
                  Hidden by:
                  Ozy, Kasoru, Joffan, charlatan

                  wherever it comes from, Bob. Might as well ask this diarist how come he & colleagues are seeking so much funding for their 'monitoring' of US west coast waters, fish and kelp beds for Cs137 if there's no 'detectable' Cs137 even in Fukushima prefecture.

                  If that is true, his own projects - and Buesseler's - are total scams.

                  There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                  by Joieau on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 06:51:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This post rises to the same CT (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Kasoru, T100R, Joffan, Susan from 29

                    bullshit that climate deniers use to attack climate scientists. Accusations of fraud are serious, just ask Mann.

                    I realize that MC's diaries challenges the 'information' in your so-called diaries with actual scientific facts and peer-reviewed literature, and that can be frustrating for you. But why don't you do us all a favor and confine your fraudulent rhetoric in your own diaries instead of crapping in diaries that prefer to use data and science, and people who prefer facts can steer clear of your diaried trainwrecks. Deal?

                  •  obviously, the diarist is part of the . . . . . (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Kasoru, T100R

                    tumblr_m97z6aLRpZ1r4sd0zo1_1280

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 08:12:41 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Cherry picking sources (6+ / 1-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Lenny Flank, Wee Mama, Kasoru, T100R, Susan from 29, tarkangi
                      Hidden by:
                      Sandino

                      is the essence of their arguments. It's to be expected.

                      But accusations of academic fraud when it comes to receiving grant funding is serious, and should be absolutely shunned unless it is supported by actual evidence. It's worse than even the usual 'shill' HR'able accusations.

                      •  I quite agree (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Wee Mama, Kasoru, T100R, Sandino

                        I've been anti-nuke since the 70's (I lived in Pennsylvania during Three Mile Island and worked with Greenpeace and Sierra Club), but science is science. My gripes with nukes are economic, political, and social, not scientific. And the anti-science CT crackpottery of too many of those on my own side is utterly embarrassing to me.

                        There are plenty of good reasons to oppose nukes and the nuke industry. We don't need to make stupid shit up.

                        In the end, reality always wins.

                        by Lenny Flank on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 08:31:42 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I lived in Pennsylvania (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          cville townie, Sandino, ozsea1

                          during Three Mile Island too, though I was not an anti-nuke working with Greenpeace and Sierra Club. I was a nuke. And worked with the team that took over the radiation monitoring and control job at TMI2 after the contracted outfit on duty the morning of March 28, 1979 all ran like hell. Abandoned their posts, so to speak, because they were terrified.

                          Our job was to monitor on-site radiation levels and quantify those, monitor the radiation going out into the environment from the facility and quantify all of that, process and record all the radiation exposure data from on-site TLD/dosimeters and off-site detectors, and generate the the plume maps - complete with dose levels - from data gathered by helicopter crews cycling on an every 15 minute schedule in the first weeks. Neither Greenpeace nor Sierra Club knew what the dose ranges were, what kind of crap was causing those and how it was getting out the stack 24-7 following the meltdown. Hell, they didn't even know the damned thing melted and exploded, did they? We did.

                          You had no clue about cesium levels or fuel particulates because nobody ever talked about those, did they? I have not made up any stupid shit at any point in any of my coverage of the Fukushima disaster, nor have I made up any stupid shit here. The stupid shit is what is coming from TEPCO, the Japanese government, the entire world's nuclear industry and lobbyists, pet government not-really regulators, and IAEA. Oh, and dedicated "fund us and we'll show you there's nothing to worry about!" self-appointed but entirely uneducated on the specifics 'experts'.

                          If you are embarrassed by me, you are being pretty silly (as well as overly sensitive). I've not pretended to anything. I am/was an actual 'expert' on radiological matters, and one of the only human users of this particular website who has real life hands-on experience with nuclear reactor meltdowns. It is not the least bit difficult to calibrate a body scanner to ignore certain energy level signatures. I have personally seen it done, tested it myself.

                          There were two at TMI2. One for the macho day labor grunts who kept ignoring HP instructions on stay-time, couldn't be bothered to keep their respirators on and were prone to doing stupid things. One for the concerned public that never found anything real (beyond their K40 levels). I ran a contaminated worker [I131] through both one day, within an hour's time span. He pegged the hand-helds and pass-through - major decon time - after which the on-island scanner pegged him with enough left over on his forehead to have to wear a stocking cap for the next month so he wouldn't radiate other people. Beta burns of skin and nose/sinuses presented within minutes of exposure.

                          The public scanner at the Visitor's Center found no I131 at all. Zip. Zero. None. Quelle surprise.

                          Given the levels of new contamination in food, water and general environment recently logged in Fuku prefecture as well as outside of it (from the big dump last year when they did the debris removal at unit 3) I am having a hard time buying that there's no cesium accumulation in infants/babies. Unless they ingest no breast milk or local foods and water. Many parents in the area are doing just that, as those precautions have been well publicized in the area. Were the subjects so selected? Would that be noted in the paper? Why, or why not? Has anyone looked at strontium levels? Why, or why not? You know what 'they' (nukes) say... Where there's cesium, there's strontium.

                          They have tested more than 300,000 children in Fukushima prefecture and notable contaminated others for thyroid abnormalities since the disaster started. Thus far it's racked up more than 80 cancers and a whole lot more precancerous conditions. Which is orders of magnitude higher than the 'normal' rate of one or two per million per year. Iodine's gone now, has been for awhile (barring further criticalities). The cesium is still there. It will be there for about 300 years more. People who live there are dosed daily with gamma from cesium (and other shit) all around them all the time. People who live there, breathe the air and eat the food/drink the water/cow's milk are bioaccumulating a chronic level of internal gamma+beta containation, and will for as long as the cesium and strontium (+ other shit) is there contaminating the environment. Science is science.

                          This shit doesn't just "go away" because someone may want it to. It's there, and it counts as excess radiation dose above 'natural' background. Radiation dose is cumulative. Apparently all the babies tested have parents who are trying actively to minimize their dose. That's great. But given what I know about nukes and their proclivities, I wouldn't want to bet my own child/grandchild's life on any of these people's heartfelt public service commitments. Your choice, as it ever has been, is yours.

                          There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                          by Joieau on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:50:05 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Hi Joieau (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru, cville townie, tarkangi

                            If I understand your comment correctly you are suggesting that the authors calibrated their gamma-spectrometer to ignore energies associated with 137-Cs either through incompetence or in order to purposely produce fraudulent data?

                            It is not the least bit difficult to calibrate a body scanner to ignore certain energy level signatures.
                            The data clearly demonstrate that no 137-Cs was detected in any of the children scanned so far but was detected in standards used to calibrate the detector and determine MDA's.
                          •  I mentioned an 'out' in my comment, MC. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ozsea1, Sandino, cville townie

                            I have been working since 3/11/11 with people on the ground in northeastern Japan to monitor levels and counsel the people on how to minimize their excess radiation dose. That very much includes not feeding newborns or infants animal or breast milk from local sources, or using the water to mix formula. And when the baby starts eating foods, to avoid local. I hope that these reported negatives for 100 select babies reflect the good that effort is doing. What it was aimed at doing from the beginning. If that's working I am very glad.

                            I've also noted how these things are calibrated - daily or several times daily - for whatever reason they are calibrated. And that not all the reasons are 'good'. I've not met these people, haven't tested their machines, don't know how accurate or not accurate their readings are, who their chosen subjects were, or who comprised the 'control' group. If there was one. Because I'm not going to pay $35 for a look-see. All I got was the abstract, and the corporate promo for the scanners.

                            I hope your source is fully on the up. That would be very nice. I've just cautioned about SOP on such things, as I have some experience with how nuclear deceptions are propagated and how you could be sorry just months down the line that you believed the hype. A result that returns NO cesium in the entirety of the tested population is pretty odd on a number of levels.

                            Especially given what has come to light from #3 debris removal (and subsequent recontamination of crops and water), from just 2 days' worth of monitoring last year and crop testing THIS year. Could be the select test subjects, could be mal-calibrated scanners. Either one will produce a nil measurement. You may hope there is no cesium contamination in the Fukushima area of Japan, but that would be a very empty hope. This isn't talking about levels in fish off California or Vancouver, you know.

                            Just saying.

                            There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                            by Joieau on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 03:28:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  can you point us to another source which (0+ / 0-)

                            HAS detected cesium in children in the area?

                            Or is it your contention that EVERYBODY who is measuring radiation levels in Fukushima is paid, bribed or controlled by TEPCO, and is therefore lying and part of the conspiracy . . . ?

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 03:57:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  how about cancer in children? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Joieau

                            would that work?

                          •  how about you answer the question (0+ / 0-)

                            That would work.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 05:39:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  two more words (0+ / 0-)

                            "No answer".

                            (shrug)

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 08:05:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ps---I assume all the pearlclutchers who are quick (0+ / 0-)

                            to HR people for being "rude" will now flock to HR you, as they certainly would if I had posted that, and therefore demonstrate that their outrage is NOT just partisan and selective and aimed only at people they don't agree with.

                            Or not.

                            (sigh)

                            Hypocrites, all.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 08:07:31 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Cancer? (0+ / 0-)

                            What kind of latency periods are you assuming? Did you read nothing about the Chernobyl accident?

                          •  Hi Joieau (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cville townie, Joieau

                            Measurements indicate that there clearly is 137-Cs contamination of in the Fukushima area of Japan. Many of the studies I link to that aim to understand the extent of radioisotope release and distribution in air, soil and water document this clearly.  

                            There is no argument, I do not think, that the impacts on the human population will be most significant there as when one considers that most of the releases ended up in the Pacific it is mainland Japan that took the brunt of the terrestrial deposition.

                          •  Hi Joieau (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cville townie, Joieau

                            If you have been involved in helping to mitigate the exposure of Japanese people to Fukushima derived radioisotopes you should be commended.

                            You would be interested, I think, to read another study looking for 137-Cs burdens in Fukushima adults that can be found here

                          •  easy enough (0+ / 0-)

                            little piece of aluminum added.

                          •  with respect . . . . . (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru, Ender

                            I pay no attention to unsupported conspiracy theories about "hiding data" and "faking test results". Whether it comes from anti-nukes, anti-GMOs, creationists, global-warming deniers, or anyone else. Those have been the cries of crackpots everywhere, forever.

                            Back them up accusations like that with proof, and I'm all ears. Until then, it's just CT arm-waving.  (shrug)

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 03:14:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ps-I've been in fights were there WERE real actual (0+ / 0-)

                            conspiracies to hide data and evidence. Back in the 90's I was part of a local coalition that was fighting a cement company that was burning toxic waste in its kiln as fuel. The company deliberately rigged the computer and altered the data so it would not show any emissions above the legally mandated limits. It went on for several months.

                            They were caught, they paid a fine that you would not believe, and the company officers were fired and came within an inch of getting their ass thrown in jail (they plea-dealed out).

                            How'd they get caught? One of their own employees ratted them out.

                            That's why I tend to doubt any conspiracy theories that depend upon people not blabbing. People always blab.  (shrug)

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 03:34:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  with respect... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ozsea1, Sandino, cville townie

                            meh. I responded civilly and more than adequately to your spurriously tossed slurs. Whatever.

                            There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                            by Joieau on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 03:44:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  obviously, I am part of the . . . . . (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru

                            tumblr_m97z6aLRpZ1r4sd0zo1_1280

                            (sigh)

                            TEPCO pays me on alternate weeks, when Monsanto does not.

                            Like I said, I am embarrassed to have people like this on my side.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 03:50:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Strangely enough, (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ozsea1, Sandino, cville townie

                            others are not. You'll have this, I guess.  I don't mind at all that you are "embarrassed" by my existence. I'm certainly not embarrassed by yours. Quite used to it in fact. You're just another one, just like the other ones.

                            My job was never to do "research" on radioactive contamination from TMI2 (or Chernobyl, or Fukushima). My job was to get the goods, produce the technical reports on the nature and severity of the accident, and testify before Congress and the NRC about that particular nuclear crapload. Back when they were still pretending it never happened at all. And following Fukushima, I am the one who "wrote the book" [literally] on how to minimize exposures - in Japanese - for the people of northeastern Japan. I'd love nothing better than to know it's made a difference.

                            What have you been up to lately, other than tossing CT allegations and pretending to more knowledge than you own?

                            There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                            by Joieau on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 04:22:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  (sigh) (0+ / 0-)

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 05:38:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And Cigarette Scientists (0+ / 0-)

                            who presented decades of results showing how harmless smoking was?  

                          •  this is typical anti-science CT crapola (1+ / 2-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rodentrancher
                            Hidden by:
                            Sandino, cville townie

                            First, the big bad cigarette conspiracy failed miserably.  Not only does everyone on the planet known that smoking causes cancer, but the cigarette companies themselves, by law, have to pay for public-service ads telling everyone so, and have a label on every pack of cigarettes sold. Cigarettes are also ILLEGAL to sell to minors or to advertise in most places. If that is your example of a corporate conspiracy hiding evdience, then I wish EVERY "conspiracy" was that "successful".

                            Second, the existence of one conspiracy does not establish the existence of another. If cigarette companies did conspire, that does not mean therefore that Bush and Cheney also conspired to carry out and hide the 9-11 attacks (as the Truther nutters claim they did). Nor does a cigarette conspiracy mean there is a nuclear conspiracy, or a GMO conspiracy, or a flying saucer conspiracy, or a moon landing conspiracy. It is a standard tactic of anti-science kooks everywhere to wave their arms and declare "if X lied about Y, then how do we know A isn't lying about B, huh!!???!!"  It's a bullshit rhetorical tactic that has no connection to reality.

                            If you think there is a global conspiracy led by TEPCO or Jews or the Illuminati or whoever, to hide data and falsify evidence, then let's see the evidence for the existence of this conspiracy. Otherwise you are no different than the John Birch Society, waving your paranoid arms about communist conspiracies behind every tree, and you deserve to be taken no more seriously.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 05:18:58 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  thanks for the improper HR for disagreement (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rodentrancher, ebohlman

                            (sigh)

                            The emotional tribalism here is silly.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 03:54:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and another improper HR for disagreemnt gets added (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ebohlman

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sun Aug 24, 2014 at 07:15:56 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ps--the "F U" to me still goes un-HR'd, proving (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ebohlman

                            that all the arm-waving about "rudeness zomg!!" is just a bullshit excuse to HR people for disagrement, and their hurt-fee-fee outrage is selective and partisan, and only applies to people they don't agree with.

                            Hypocrites, every one of them.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sun Aug 24, 2014 at 07:24:51 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  'Accusations of academic fraud' (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Joieau

                        is a blatant distortion of the comment. You should apologize to the diarist and the commenter for putting something like that out. Your stretch to HR by making this false attack is just lame.

                        •  with respect . . (0+ / 0-)

                          whenever anyone on any side of any issue declares we should reject data and evidence from the other side because "well, they lie!!!!!", especially without any proof whatever that any lying has in fact happened, then we are listening to ideology, not to evidence or data.

                          If someone has evidence of a vast global conspiracy to hide  radiation measurements or to falsify them, then let's see it.  Until then, it's no different than the 9-11 Truthers squawking that Bush and Cheney lie therefore they planned the 9-11 attacks. It's just arm-waving CT.

                          Extraordinary claims, and all that.

                          In the end, reality always wins.

                          by Lenny Flank on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 03:38:17 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  My statement was directed ay Oxy (0+ / 0-)

                            and his despicable distortion. No accusation of academic fraud had been leveled at MarineChemist and claiming otherwise does him a great disservice. When it is done just to justify an HR, it is itself HR worthy.

                            You cannot deny the possibility of systematic bias, and the Cigarette Scientists learned their stuff from the systematic deception and deflection practiced by the military-nuclear complex beginning with the ABCC.  In general you are right, but all results in this area deserve scrutiny because of heavy regulatory capture and perverse incentives. Your very questions about 'has anyone else found more cesium in kids' or 'is everyone doing scanning in on the CT' reveals an inherent problem when in fact those scans are performed by a single entity that has access to the equipment. I am not making claims about their accuracy, but the situation is very different, in terms of access to raw data, from that of climate scientists looking at public records of temperature, CO2, ice levels, etc.  Conflating any questions about the results coming from quasi-official entities with CT is simplistic at best.

                          •  if anyone has evidence of a vast global conspiracy (0+ / 0-)

                            to hide evidence or to falsify data, then let's see it.

                            Otherwise, it's just arm-waving paranoid CT crackpottery that deserves only to be ignored. Just as it is when the global-warming deniers, the creationists, the ESP researchers and the Bigfoot fans make the same claim.

                            People who claim science is a corporate conspiracy, or that science should be accepted or rejected depending on its source for ideological reasons, are, by definition, "anti-science".

                            I have no sympathy for anyone, on any side of any issue, that is anti-science.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 05:08:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The commenter (0+ / 0-)

                            came out and said that if the results were true, then MC's applications for funding were scams.

                            I'm not HR'ing the commenter because the commenter doesn't agree with the diary, or has questions about the data, but because the commenter came out and accused the diarist of grant fraud.

                            Understand?

                      •  and once again an improper HR for disagreement (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ebohlman

                        In the end, reality always wins.

                        by Lenny Flank on Sun Aug 24, 2014 at 07:14:55 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Hi Joieau (7+ / 0-)

                    Thanks for your comment. I have heard an overwhelming call from the public here in Canada for monitoring and access to quality data. I expect the same demand exists in the USA.  It would seem monitoring is the prudent thing to do rather than just to speculate as to what environmental levels might be.

                  •  hey joieau (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Joieau

                    you may know better then i do,  but,
                    doesnt' CS-137 decay by Beta emission to Ba-137,
                    so shouldn't the search be for Beta, not Gamma?

                    •  The barium-137m (0+ / 0-)

                      is responsible for all the gamma emitted by a collection of cesium-137, but that works well for detection purposes. The emission spectrum is right there in the cesium signature for ID purposes. While cesium-137's half-life is just over 30 years, barium-137's half-life is a mere ~150 seconds. So this is a fine indicator of the activity of the cesium, because all its decayed/ing atoms are themselves decaying very rapidly. Thus are easily measured. The beta is harder to detect (especially in an air sample as opposed to a swipe or filter reading), so they just go for the gamma. That's the same gamma that'll zap you when you're around cesium, even if you don't ingest any.

                      If you ingest/inhale it, your insides get the full effect of the betas. Which are nasty and particulate, do a lot of damage.

                      There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                      by Joieau on Sun Aug 24, 2014 at 11:18:45 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  bob, if you want to pin Jay down. (0+ / 0-)

                  ask him one question.

                  He will never, ever, ever, ever answer.

                  What is the source term of release to the Fukushima.

                  and how much confidence he puts in that number.

                  •  Hi patbahn (0+ / 0-)

                    A quick search of my responses to you on this site when source is mentioned can be found here.

                    It was quite a trip down memory lane for me.  My most recent response to your question was given on 08/01/2014 and can be found here.

                    My answer is the same if you would care to read.  To quote my response:

                    Most recent estimates of source terms for various elements (131-I, 137-, 134-Cs, 90-Sr and Pu) are linked to in my diaries.

                    A comprehensive discussion of the plant inventories and release estimates can also be found in the following text:

                    Fukushima Accident: Radioactivity Impact on the Environment

                    written by Povinec, Hirose and Aoyama

                    The calculations are based on the best measurements of radionuclides in the environment post Fukushima by the international scientific community.

                    You can find a detailed inventory of the reactors and spent fuel pools and release estimates here which I have compiled.

                    The posts are fully referenced and are based on the scientific communities best estimates given measurements of radionuclides in air, soil and water globally.

                    I am more confident about these estimates because they are based on measurements than any anecdotal or speculative estimates that can appear in non-peer reviewed grey literature, the popular press etc.

                    •  and your confidence in them? (0+ / 0-)

                      ???

                      •  obviously, MarineChemist is a part of the (0+ / 0-)

                        tumblr_m97z6aLRpZ1r4sd0zo1_1280

                        As is, no doubt, ANYONE who is insufficiently supportive of you.

                        Apparently that includes me, too, even though I am on the same anti-nuke side as you, but I reject all the unsupported silly CT paranoia  that comes from my side. Which makes me insufficiently supportive as well, and therefore obviously part of the TEPCO Conspiracy (tm)(c) too.

                        (snicker)

                        In the end, reality always wins.

                        by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 08:13:37 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Hi patbahn (0+ / 0-)

                        I am not sure what confidence means to you but I can report what current uncertainties are for estimates.  These uncertainties are not identical for each radionuclide.  For example, the best estimate at present for the release of 137-Cs to the ocean comes from the study of Tsumune et al. (2013) which I have reported on in earlier diaries.

                        Using simulations and direct measurements they determine 3.6+/-0.7 PBq was released directly to the ocean. So this is known roughly within 20%.  Conservatively, most releases are likely known to within a factor of 2-5 and perhaps at worst within a factor of 10.  For comparison the marine scientific community knows the amount of carbon fixed by photosynthetic carbon about as well.

                        If you read the Tsumune et al. paper they also estimate 134-Cs and 131-I releases.  The other primary literature can be found in my links above and in other diaries.

                        •  given Povinec cites TEPCO as his data source (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Joieau

                          for I-131, shouldn't you be a lot more skeptical?

                          •  can you cite a different source that gives (0+ / 0-)

                            different figures, please?

                            Or do you just want to make up numbers of your own out of thin air because you don't believe ANY source because they are all part of the big conspiracy?

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sun Aug 24, 2014 at 04:20:37 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  let's assume TEPCO was lying, and the "real" (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ebohlman

                            figures are, say, a thousand times bigger than TEPCO's figures.

                            How would that effect the measured amount of radiation at various distances from the plant?

                            How would TEPCO prevent anyone from measuring the levels at varying distances from the plant and seeing that they don't match TEPCO's figures?

                            Why has no one done so? Why have all the released measured figures, from everyone who has measured them at any place, instead been consistent with the figures released by TEPCO?

                            Either (1) everyone who has ever made any measurements of the radiation levels, anywhere, has been part of the big conspiracy to "hide the truth", or (2) TEPCO's figures were reasonably accurate to begin with.

                            Which do you think is true, and why?

                            And if it's the "conspiracy" thingie, tell us how the conspiracy works. How, exactly, does TEPCO prevent anyone anywhere from measuring radiation levels, particularly if, as you seem to think, the "real" levels are much higher and traveled much further from the plant than TEPCO had admitted (indeed, if I listen to some of the crackpots, the Fukushima radiation is killing polar bears in Alaska--and should be readily measurable anywhere in the entire Pacific Ocean). How does TEPCO prevent anyone from measuring and reporting those levels? Does it sdend out patrols across the Pacific looking for people taking measurements? Does it bribe the editors of science journals to prevent any such measurements from being published? Does it lock violators away in a secret prison in Honshu?

                            Or is everyone, everywhere, with any capability of measuring radiation, also in on the conspiracy? Just how big IS this conspiracy, anyway? Is there anyone anywhere who is NOT "in on it" . . . ? (What about MarineChemist--is he in on it too? How about ME--am I part of the conspiracy?)

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sun Aug 24, 2014 at 04:52:02 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hi patbahn (0+ / 0-)

                            He also relies on the work of Chino et al. (2011)which modeled 137-Cs and 131-I releases compared to environmental monitoring data

                            The data used in the estimation are from the web sites of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), the Japan Chemical Analysis Center (JCAC), and JAEA

                            You should remember that these estimates have been compared with far-field monitoring of air and precipitation, seawater and soil measurements.  If the deposition of radioisotopes were orders of magnitude higher or lower then far-field studies would indicate large errors in source term estimates.  Skepticism is an inborn trait of professional scientists.  Measurements in the literature support the source term estimates I give above.  Alternatives are not evidenced based.  I would be happy to review estimates you provide.  Recall that measurements made by the international scientific community demonstrated that radioisotopes were being directly discharge to the coastal ocean despite TEPCO's initial claims.  Observation based estimates are important.

                          •  so why do you think (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Joieau

                            the Source term at Fukushima is 10% the source term
                            at Chernobyl?

                          •  Hi patbahn (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ebohlman

                            Because that is what measurements in air, soil and water indicate.  

                          •  Not so. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            patbahn

                            A new study published in the September 2014 issue of the journal Atmospheric Environment documents the transport and deposition of radionuclides from Fukushima throughout the entire northern hemisphere, and fixes the total releases (so far) at 126 PBq on the low end for just cesium, which handily outstrips Chernobyl's 105 PBq total cesium [National Academy, 1995].

                            There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                            by Joieau on Sun Aug 24, 2014 at 11:31:18 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i would like to see Cullen's comment on Marzo. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Joieau

                            ..

                          •  Hi Joieau (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ozy

                            Please take the time to read the Marzo study rather than relying on ENENews to interpret it for you.  The Marzo study uses the source estimates of Chino et al. (2011) that I linked to above with updates from Katata et al (2012)

                            An early quantitative estimation of the amount of radioactive material discharged in the atmosphere has been provided by Chino et al. (2011) by coupling environmental monitoring data with atmospheric dispersion simulations, then updated by Katata et al.
                            (2012) with a more detailed description of the emission from the morning of 12 March to late night of 14 March. The total amount of radioactivity has been estimated in 12.6 PBq of 134-Cs and 137-Cs, and 128.2 PBq of 131-I.
                            They do not make new source estimates but report the ones I gave above with the same uncertainties.

                            Unlike what you say above that:

                            fixes the total releases (so far) at 126 PBq on the low end for just cesium, which handily outstrips Chernobyl's 105 PBq total cesium
                            There is a factor of at least 5 uncertainty in the estimates as I have said above both above and below the estimates reported by Chino et al. and Kanata et al.  What your friends at ENENews have done is to multiply the estimates by 5 assuming the high end only, not the low end as you assert.

                            From ENENews:

                            As the study notes “uncertainty associated with this source term has been estimated… to be a factor of 5 or greater.” Using only a factor of 5, the result is 63 PBq of 137Cs (5 x 12.6) and 63 PBq of 134Cs (5 x 12.6) released at Fukushima — 126 PBq total. According to an estimate by the National Academy published in 1995, “35 PBq of Cs-134 and 70 PBq of Cs-137 were released” at Chernobyl — 105 PBq total.
                            The source could just as easily be 5 fold lower (plus or minus).  That is the way error of estimates work.  But not in ENENews world.  You should really be more critical of your sources.  They recently "reported" on a radio interview I gave and got neither the name of the show nor the host of the show right.  Makes you wonder.

                            The study highlights the importance of the source term for calculating collective doses and concludes that:

                            The consequent effective dose to the population over a 50-year period, calculated by considering both external and internal pathways of exposure, is found to be about 40 mSv in the surroundings of Fukushima Dai-ichi, while other countries in the northern hemisphere experienced doses several orders of magnitude lower suggesting a small impact on the population health elsewhere.

                            When you look at the measurements made of air and kelp, for example, along our coast here in North America they support about a factor of 10 lower 131-I and 137-Cs, 134-Cs deposition following Fukushima when compared with Chernobyl.  So if the releases from Fukushima for 131-I and 137-Cs were greater than Chernobyl we would not expect these kind of measurements.  We might expect to see significantly higher 131-I and Cs isotopes in the air and kelp. But we do not.  Despite the fact that the path and time from release to deposition from Fukushima to our coast are both shorter than from Chernobyl.  The data is not consistent with greater releases from Fukushima when compared to Chernobyl.

                          •  There have been (0+ / 0-)

                            enough widely divergent puff pieces and a few real attempts to quantify the initial releases to offer a large choice range. Some of us can add 1+1+1 and recognize that there was not a single meltdown/blowout at Fukushima, but 3, all involving larger cores than Chernobyl boasted. All 100% melted, right through the vessels and long ago exited the known to be inadequate containments to Parts Unknown. Along with unshielded SFP fires that were involved not at all at Chernobyl. Why, just moving some debris over a 4-hour period last August puffed 1-4 PBq's of cesium into the air to be deposited as fallout up to 200 kilometers away. Again. Still (they're removing the tent on unit 1 right now, fixing to do some more lovely "debris removal" that's going to puff a whole lot more). Which is not to mention the tens of millions of becquerels exiting airborne on a 24-7 basis for the past 3.5 years.

                            What YOU would 'expect' and what others who know better might 'expect' can (and will) be quite different. S'okay. You've certainly made the pro-nukes here happy, and that's all you can really 'expect' to do with this kind of thing.

                            Fear not. I just dropped by to express my skepticism of this 'study' by the inventors of BABYSCAN that you've introduced in yet another attempt to sell the notion that not even Fukushima prefecture is contaminated with enough cesium to bioaccumulate. I have seen just this sort of not-so clever game plan before. As I mentioned, unless ALL of the children tested have lived in hermetically sealed, HEPA-filtered environments, eating/drinking absolutely nothing local over the past 3.5 years, it is physically impossible for there to have been a 100% nil finding at "better than 50 Bq/body" sensitivity. Why, there are a good many places here in the U.S. where children tested at that sensitivity level would set off the alarms, just from leftover bomb testing debris. Zero in Fukushima is ridiculous.

                            Oh, and no. They won't be releasing any further testing results, unless they deem them "necessary." Which, given the 100% nil result from 100 'selected' children, is never going to happen because the government of Japan has forbidden doctors in the region from suggesting or testing for radiation damage to residents - anyone who believes their health issues are radiation related are turned away at the door. Which for all practical purposes makes this [New! Improved!] scanner ensconced at the medical facility merely another tool for covering up the damage done and ongoing.

                            I'm done dead-threading, will simply await your next item of 'scientific proof' that Fukushima is harmless to ecosystems and humans across the board, including in northeastern Japan.

                            There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                            by Joieau on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 09:51:09 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hi Joieau (0+ / 0-)

                            You say

                            I'm done dead-threading, will simply await your next item of 'scientific proof' that Fukushima is harmless to ecosystems and humans across the board, including in northeastern Japan.
                            At no point in the diary have I stated that Fukushima is harmless to ecosystems and humans across the board.  I don't believe in setting public or health policy by anecdote however.  The paper reports measurements of 137-Cs in Japanese children from Fukushima.  They do not find any.

                            Having a hypothesis and trying to disprove it with observations and or experimentation is the basis by which we learn about our world using the scientific method.  If you are not interested in this approach then you are free to read other diaries and websites where anecdotal evidence is valued over hard won measurements.

                            My view of the Fukushima disaster is shaped by the measurements made by the international scientific community. My view changes to match this evidence.

                          •  how can that be if . . . . (0+ / 0-)

                            . . . the big evil corporations are stopping everyone from measuring anything . . . ? (snicker)

                            It always amuses me how the anti-science CTers of all sorts (from creationists to flying saucer fans) all wave their arms all about the big enormous scientific conspiracy to prevent them from doing any research boo hoo hoo---then in the very next breath without missing a beat they blare all about the wonderful scientific research they do which they say proves them right.

                            Apparently internal consistency is not a priority for them.  

                            But hey, now that you've shown that the whole "we can't measure the radioactivity and publish our results because TEPCO Conspiracy boo hoo hoo !!!!" claim is just bullshit, let's hear about these measurements.  What levels do they show, and what level of initial release is calculated from those measured levels?

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sun Aug 24, 2014 at 01:09:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ps--it is worth quoting from the abstract of (0+ / 0-)

                            this study:

                            By means of an atmospheric dispersion Lagrangian code and publicly available meteorological data, the atmospheric dispersion of 131I, 134Cs, and 137Cs have been simulated for three months after the event with a spatial resolution of 0.5° × 0.5° globally. The simulation has been validated by comparison to publicly available measurements collected in 206 locations worldwide.

                            The simulation shows that the radioactive plume, consisting of about 200 PBq by adding contributions from 131I, 134Cs, and 137Cs, has been transported over the entire northern hemisphere depositing up to 1.2 MBq m−2 nearby the NPPs to less than 20 Bq m−2 in Europe. The consequent effective dose to the population over a 50-year period, calculated by considering both external and internal pathways of exposure, is found to be about 40 mSv in the surroundings of Fukushima Dai-ichi, while other countries in the northern hemisphere experienced doses several orders of magnitude lower suggesting a small impact on the population health elsewhere.

                            And by this study's very existence, we see that the claims that people are being prevented from doing measurements and reporting them boo hoo hoo, are just bullshit.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sun Aug 24, 2014 at 01:21:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so stop focusing on the measurement (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Joieau

                            and go to a blackboard.

                            tot up the Isotope load at Chernobyl based upon fuel
                            and decay processes.

                            Then Do the same at Fukushima.

                            then compare that to the pincovec paper.

                          •  Hi patbahn (0+ / 0-)

                            If you go to the sources I have taken the time to cite for you and to point you toward you will see that, not surprisingly, this has been done.  The Povinec, Hirose and Aoyama book in particular is quite comprehensive.  There is more material at the Fukushima site but given the conditions during the meltdowns there was less mobilized to the environment compared to Chernobyl.  Please do a bit of reading rather than speculating at this point.

                          •  when povinec makes the library (0+ / 0-)

                            i will put in on my reading list

            •  This is part of the deception of the article. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kbman, Kasoru, Susan from 29

              Klein is quoted in places, but nothing about what he says supports the deception and fabrication emanating from the rest of the article - in particular the three paragraphs you originally quoted.

              I imagine that he would be very unhappy to see the spin that is put on his words - for example, when his desire to see Tepco improve its responsiveness to media stories is suddenly transformed into the myth of universal deception that has been constructed to allow anti-nuclear groups to discount any positive information from Tepco.

              This is not a sig-line.

              by Joffan on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 11:29:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The deception and fabrication of TEPCO and... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ozsea1, Sandino, Joieau

                ...the Japanese government (all which have been documented), since the three reactors at Fukushima melted-down, are far greater and far more real than any baseless DECEPTIONS and related innuendos that you may be claiming in your comment.

                "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

                by bobswern on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 11:41:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Or, actually, no, they haven't been documented (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Susan from 29

                  Just claimed and re-claimed and over-interpreted out of not very much material.

                  Deception and fabrication has been easy to find among those who wish to promote the doom and drama, however. For example, there was a campaign mid-2012 among such people to circulate a fiction that unit 4 building was tilted and sinking (and about to annihilate the northern hemisphere, in more extreme versions). Totally untrue. Ran like mad in the media for months.

                  This is not a sig-line.

                  by Joffan on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 12:19:46 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Tepco has documented it themselves (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bobswern

                    they keep releasing new numbers that bump the old ones up by an order of magnitude.

                    •  Pick an example. (0+ / 0-)

                      Come on, let's get into this. Give me two Tepco statements where the second one shows that the first one was active deception.

                      This is not a sig-line.

                      by Joffan on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 11:11:06 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  'Active' deception (0+ / 0-)

                        You want to play moving goalposts like that, play with yourself.
                        Anyone who has been paying attention knows how unreliable Tepco's figures have been, but they have always initially low, and extremely so. Thanks for showing us all what you're up to.

                        •  how exactly does TEPCO prevent anyone ELSE (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Ender

                          from measuring the radioactivity levels, anywhere, at any time, and publishing their findings for the entire world to see . . . . ?

                          How exactly does this global conspiracy to hide data, work? How does TEPCO prevent someone in, say, San Francisco Bay from measuring the radioactivity in the water or the fish and presenting his or her measurements?

                          In the end, reality always wins.

                          by Lenny Flank on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 03:41:29 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Tepco keeps people off their site (0+ / 0-)

                            and out of their bay. They own the sampling equipment at their plant, control it and the publications of its raw data. Others can measure elsewhere, and use models to infer source terms. This is not the same thing, and many studies simply rely on Tepco claims rather than attempting independent estimates. And it is not cheap to do comprehensive testing of radionuclides in a wide area, which would be required to accurately deduce the amount and composition of contamination released by Tepco.

                            You have claimed to oppose nuclear on political and economic grounds, and I tend to fall into that category, but part of those problems manifests in the conflict of interest between owning the best equipment and expertise for evaluating releases on the one hand and facing liability and corporate devastation due to those releases on the other.  This is why periodic feel-good radiation denialism results must be scrutinised. They have lost the benefit of a doubt and the assumption of good faith.

                            Why is the WHO prevented form working on nuke releases by the UN in favor of an agency with the dual roles of regulating and promoting nuclear energy?

                          •  the Pacific Ocean is pretty damn big (0+ / 0-)

                            How does TEPCO keep anyone out of it? Do they send naval patrols to check every ship in the sea to make sure they are not taking samples for testing? Do they confiscate samples when they find them, or detain people taking them?

                            This is just paranoid fantasy.

                            You have claimed to oppose nuclear on political and economic grounds
                            I have not "claimed"--I am.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 05:10:11 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  they barred Greenpeace (0+ / 0-)

                            from Japanese controlled waters.

                          •  that was for WHALING protests. (0+ / 0-)

                            It didn't have a damn thing to do with radiation or Fukushima.

                            (sigh)

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 05:41:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ps--they cannot possibly bar any ship from (0+ / 0-)

                            "Japanese waters", since the entire Japanese Navy isn't big enough to patrol every square mile of Japanese territorial waters looking for Greenpeace ships.

                            What they DID so was (1) bar Greenpeace ships from Japanese ports, and (2) run to intercept the Greenpeace ships whenever they showed up near a Japanese whaling ship in territorial waters.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 05:53:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  it's a secured area, you can't get in (0+ / 0-)

                            and measure up close.

                          •  and yet people have done so . . . . . (0+ / 0-)

                            Oh, and if the crackpots are gonna wave their arms and yell that there is radiation off the California Coast from Fukushima, then that means it can be measured anywhere in the Pacific Ocean.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 05:42:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, let's defend TEPCO's behavior... n/t (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sandino

                "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

                by bobswern on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 11:46:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  When they are falsely accused? Why not? (0+ / 0-)

                  After all the outcome of circulating doom and despair groundlessly is that real people needlessly give themselves up to despair. Do you regard this as a worthy objective?

                  This is not a sig-line.

                  by Joffan on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 12:21:27 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  it's idiotic (0+ / 0-)

                    It's like declaring that if I say the 9-11 Truther conspiracy kooks are just kooks, that means I am "defending Bush and Cheney's behavior".

                    It's silly horse shit, and it saddens me to see crap like this at the presumed "reality-based community".

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 06:45:47 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's your analogy that's complete crap (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Metric Only

                      There really have been people spreading tales of imminent doom that are completely groundless, and avoiding accountability by smearing any information from Tepco with that very wide brush.

                      I have no idea how your analogy works into that scenario at all.

                      This is not a sig-line.

                      by Joffan on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 08:56:52 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  well, it works like this: (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Joffan, Metric Only

                        1. people declare their groundless conspiracy theories about radiation killing whales in California or whatever, and declare that anyone who disagrees with the silly conspiracy theory is defending TEPCO

                        2. people declare their groundless conspiracy theory about Dubya and Cheney planning 9-11 or whatever, and declare that anyone who disagrees with the silly conspiracy theory is defending Bush and Cheney.

                        (Are you sure your reply was meant for me . . . . ?)

                        In the end, reality always wins.

                        by Lenny Flank on Sun Aug 24, 2014 at 04:23:53 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  Must talk about 137, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ozsea1, bobswern

          never mind 134 or strotium and other heavies.

          Some people do not argue in good faith. Their only purpose is to disrupt and cause strife. Best to not engage them.

          by Drewid on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 11:08:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  That's flat-out incorrect... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ozsea1, Sandino

        ...here's one example: Concerns Over Measurement of Fukushima Fallout, David McNeill, The Chronicle of Higher Education, via The New York Times, March 16th, 2014

        If you're looking for direct links to academic studies, you'll have to go about two or three layers (farther) down...many references to these studies are available from the top down, however.

        "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

        by bobswern on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 12:08:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Marine Chemist always says hi. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobswern, Sandino, chmood, Kasoru

      Some people do not argue in good faith. Their only purpose is to disrupt and cause strife. Best to not engage them.

      by Drewid on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 11:05:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What are these "very alarming, new facts"? (0+ / 0-)

      bobswern , please pick a couple and let's discuss them.

      Negative information is easy to generate and often hard to demonstrate its fictional nature.

      This is not a sig-line.

      by Joffan on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 11:35:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There are plenty of citations in the piece... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ozsea1, Sandino

        ...here's one of them: Concerns Over Measurement of Fukushima Fallout, David McNeill, The Chronicle of Higher Education, via The New York Times, March 16th, 2014

        "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

        by bobswern on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 11:59:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  OK... so what is the alarming fact? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elfling

          and that's a link, not a citation, just for clarity.

          The Chronicle of Higher Education is the No. 1 source of news, information, and jobs for college and university faculty members and administrators.

          Based in Washington, D.C., The Chronicle has more than 70 writers, editors, and international correspondents.

          Online, The Chronicle is published every weekday and is the top destination for news, advice, and jobs for people in academe. The Chronicle's Web site features the complete contents of the latest issue; daily news and advice columns; thousands of current job listings; an archive of previously published content; vibrant discussion forums; and career-building tools such as online CV management, salary databases, and more.

          ... from their "about" page.

          This is not a sig-line.

          by Joffan on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 12:09:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Hi bobswern (7+ / 0-)

          No. The David McNeil piece is not a citation to primary, peer-reviewed literature.  The link is to the New York Times. McNeil works for The Chronicle of Higher Education which is a newspaper and website and his affiliation is listed in his author line.

          You will note too that the article you link to needed to be corrected as it misstated its facts in the original version:

          Correction: March 17, 2014

          An earlier version of the headline with this article misstated the actions of the Japanese government. There are deep differences over how to determine the health impact of the Fukushima disaster. The authorities are not ‘‘squelching” efforts to measure the effects of the accident.  

          if you read to the bottom of the article.  Please read what I write and what your sources write more carefully.  I stated above that:
          I reread the vice post.  There is not a single link that goes to a scientific study.  It is all media.
          The study you cite is not a scientific study.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site