Skip to main content

Published in Scientific Reports Nature May 15, 2014 -

The biological impacts of ingested radioactive materials on the pale grass blue butterfly

A massive amount of radioactive materials has been released into the environment by the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident, but its biological impacts have rarely been examined. Here, we have quantitatively evaluated the relationship between the dose of ingested radioactive cesium and mortality and abnormality rates using the pale grass blue butterfly, Zizeeria maha. When larvae from Okinawa, which is likely the least polluted locality in Japan, were fed leaves collected from polluted localities, mortality and abnormality rates increased sharply at low doses in response to the ingested cesium dose. This dose-response relationship was best fitted by power function models, which indicated that the half lethal and abnormal doses were 1.9 and 0.76 Bq per larva, corresponding to 54,000 and 22,000 Bq per kilogram body weight, respectively. Both the retention of radioactive cesium in a pupa relative to the ingested dose throughout the larval stage and the accumulation of radioactive cesium in a pupa relative to the activity concentration in a diet were highest at the lowest level of cesium ingested. We conclude that the risk of ingesting a polluted diet is realistic, at least for this butterfly, and likely for certain other organisms living in the polluted area.
[Diarist's emphasis]

Note that the LD50 level - the amount of internal contamination with cesium that will kill half [50%] of the test population of butterfly larvae - is just under 2 becquerels [disintegrations per second]. Also note that bioaccumulation of cesium in the larvae was highest at the lowest level of ingestion - this means that uptake of cesium, a potassium mimic in biological tissues, was highest in caterpillars consuming the least contaminated leaves. The implications of that do seem a bit alarming.

A previous field study had documented a decrease in the abundance of insects - particularly butterflies - in the contaminated region, while another documented a high incidence of morphological abnormality (mutations) in gall-forming aphids. This study quantifies physiological effects on a prevalent butterfly species in the polluted area, even to documenting how much cesium in the diet it takes to reach a 50% lethality level, and a 50% abnormality rate. The researchers conducted controlled experiments in the lab to reach their conclusions. From the Discussion section of the publication -

The relevance of our results to humans remains undetermined and will remain so because of the impossibility of controlled experiments [of this type] in humans. However, it should be noted that we sampled contaminated leaves from Fukushima City, which many people inhabit as though nothing had happened, and from Hirono Town, which some people returned to inhabit. Moreover, our results are consistent with the previous human results after the Chernobyl accident, in which infant mortality increased sharply in West Germany and in the United States. Gould and Sternglass (1989) speculated that the increased infant mortality rate immediately after the Chernobyl accident may have been caused by the ingestion of radioactive iodine. Although they used a logarithmic model rather than a power function model to fit their dose-response relationship, both models share a sharp non-linear increase at low doses. Implications of the half lethal and abnormal doses we obtained in the present study will impact future discussions on the effects of radioactive exposure on other organisms, including humans.
[Diarist's emphasis]

In view of the heavy-handed push by pro-nuclear lobbyists, governmental lapdogs, vested industry interests and 'experts' from various academic and/or scientific disciplines to diminish or dismiss altogether public concerns about environmental contamination from the Daiichi disaster, this confirmation of dangers to biological life forms from chronic low-level exposures to radioactive contamination should help to remind people that such dangers did not magically disappear just because Fukushima made it perfectly clear that multiple meltdowns, exploding reactor plants and burning spent fuel pools can happen in the real world.

Meanwhile, back at the plant...

Record high radiation in seawater off Fukushima plant
[May 17, 2014]

Radiation has spiked to all-time highs at five monitoring points in waters adjacent to the crippled Fukushima No. 1 power station, plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Friday.

The measurements follow similar highs detected in groundwater at the plant. Officials of Tepco, as the utility is known, said the cause of the seawater spike is unknown.

[Diarist's emphasis]

"Unknown," eh? Hardly. Tepco reported tritium readings from the in-port sampling stations at levels that went as high as 1,900 Bq per liter, along with 840 Bq/L of strontium-90.  Which is known to cause bone cancer and is considered 100 times more dangerous than cesium. We have heard from various scientists monitoring the Pacific for cesium that strontium is not considered an issue because it is produced at only 50% the rate that cesium is produced by nuclear reactors. But the biological damage factor renders such assurances moot.

At two monitoring sites outside the port tritium levels were reported to be 8.7 and 4.3 Bq/L (the second site is 3 kilometers from the facility). Strontium levels were not reported for these sites, but at the ratio noted in the in-harbor measurements, strontium levels would exceed normal regulatory limits.

At any rate, Tepco ran out of temporary storage tank space to store contaminated groundwater awhile back, and is now setting up "a bypass system to prevent further buildup." This involves, in the utility's own words, simply letting the water leak into the Pacific as-is.

The utility also plans to start releasing the built-up tank water to the ocean by Wednesday of this week. These releases, we are informed, will be diluted so as not to exceed legal limits. What they might be diluting it with to achieve such low levels is not specified, but it can't be the grossly contaminated groundwater they're going to be "simply" pumping straight into the ocean.

All of these figures and assurances from Tepco and METI should be taken with a sizeable grain of salt, given that 'official' release figures from both the utility and the Japanese government have been so regularly found to be low by several factors of ten that it's entirely reasonable to multiply by 10 or 100 routinely, and sometimes by 100.

Bottom line here is that there's really nothing that Japan can or will do - even with the help of the entire nuclear world - to stop the constant releases of deadly radionuclides from their destroyed reactors at Fukushima. The best anyone could hope for was that airborne releases and new fission product releases would diminish over the first year or two, and they did. Once the corium flows reached the leaky groundwater flooded basements/earth, waterborne releases became the primary concern. They have been attempting for nearly two and a half years to minimize those, but have now reached the limits of their delaying tactics and the bulk must be released to the Pacific. These will continue essentially forever, and be most dangerous to organic life for several hundred years. What might be doable to diminish that damage is not what anybody has seriously suggested BE done, and not what anybody's going to do. Over the centuries and millennia to come the bulk of nuclear garbage produced at Daiichi will get out, the webs of life on planet earth will have to live (and/or die) with it.

How many more Fukushimas will humanity have to suffer before putting an end to this Worse-than-Sith technology? Which we all know by now is 'good' for only two things: 1. Mass Death & Destruction, and 2. Boiling Water (plus Mass Death & Destruction).

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Great diary, thank you! (20+ / 0-)

    I don't understand why there isn't a world council on this right now actively trying to find solutions to the unthinkable disasters that are ongoing all over the planet because of Fukushima.  And the disastrous results won't be over anytime soon.  How can anyone be in love with nuclear power at this moment?  How could anyone propose to build another reactor anywhere, ever?

    •  Thanks, Debs2. (16+ / 0-)

      Considering they've been promising for half a century that they'd figure out (surely, someday) something 'safe' to do with the waste they generate that's deadly for 10,000 to 100,000 years - but haven't yet and are never likely to - the love affair some people have with nuclear technology is obviously all about Big Power. Whether that's Big Power politically in terms of 'doomsday' weaponry or Big Power in terms of guaranteed publicly funded undreamed-of wealth, they all understand the bottom line is Death & Destruction writ large and never-ending.

      Or, since I used the Sith analogy, is definitely an over-fondness for the dark side of the Force... §;o)

      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 May 18, 2014 at 12:57:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hi Joieau (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PeterHug, Morgan Sandlin, nojay, Wee Mama

        Thanks for the diary.  You state the following:

        Tepco reported tritium readings from the in-port sampling stations at levels that went as high as 1,900 Bq per liter, along with 840 Bq/L of strontium-90.  Which is known to cause bone cancer and is considered 100 times more dangerous than cesium. We have heard from various scientists monitoring the Pacific for cesium that strontium is not considered an issue because it is produced at only 50% the rate that cesium is produced by nuclear reactors. But the biological damage factor renders such assurances moot.
        If you go to the original data you will note that Energy News and Japan Times mistakenly report, as you do, that 840 Bq/L of 90-Sr was sampled at the 1F, Between the water intake channel of Unit 1 and Unit 2 (lower layer).  90-Sr has not yet been quantified and the number refers to total beta activity.  You can find the number that Energy News and Japan Times mistakes for 90-Sr by searching for the "840" in the following document that reports the results. In past measurements of groundwater etc. 90-Sr activity has been about 1-2 orders of magnitude lower than total beta (e.g. results from Jan. 24, 2014).  It would be useful to wait to see what the actual 90-Sr numbers are in seawater.  

        You also mistakenly state that 90-Sr is produced at only 50% the rate of cesium in nuclear reactors.  The production ratio is about 1:1 with fission yields of 5.8% for 90-Sr and 6.2% for 137-Cs.  You can find this information in the following open access study by Smith and co-workers and references within.

        Measurements of air, rain, soil and seawater support that about 30-10,000 times less 90-Sr was released from Fukushima compared to 137-Cs. 90-Sr also does not bioconcentrate to the degree that 137-Cs does.  So given its lower activity in the environment and lower potential to bioconcentrate the relative risk posed by Fukushima 90-Sr is likely lower than the risk presented to organisms by 137-Cs.

        It is disappointing to see poor reporting (in this case attributing total beta counts to 90-Sr and activities offered without context) and misinformation on this important issue.  When Energy News publishes a highly redacted and misinterpreted story, very few readers go to the primary data and links in the story.

        •  And what, exactly, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino, Creosote, lunachickie

          is the nifty filtration method Daiichi has been using to keep strontium from being released along with all other radionuclides? Since you claim to know the details, and all.

          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 May 18, 2014 at 03:37:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hi Joieau (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nojay, Wee Mama

            It is just a bad, inaccurate, "news" story you rely on that reports "record high" "strontium-90" activities that are neither record high nor 90-Sr.  If you look in the column next to the 840 Bq/L total beta counts at IF in the lower layer in the original data report there are 1600 total beta at 1F, Between the water intake channel of Unit 1 and Unit 2 in the surface layer.  At the same site but at the surface roughly double the 840 record value. The value they latched onto in this particular data report was a record for that particular sampling point but not for Fukushima at all. Japan Times and Energy News are trying to grab headlines.

            And there is no special technology. The releases that occurred to the atmosphere in March-April 2011 to both the atmosphere and ocean were much much higher in 137-Cs activity compared to 90-Sr activity given that 90-Sr is much less volatile and mobile under the conditions that prevailed at that time.  

            Now, given that subterranean groundwater discharge is the dominant release term, the relative activity of 90-Sr to 137-Cs is likely to increase in the coastal ocean.  This is because 137-Cs is more likely to bind to particle surfaces in the soil than is 90-Sr especially in higher salinity conditions as seawater infiltrates groundwater near Fukushima.  However, because the release rates now are so small (10,000-100,000 times less now) when compared to rates in March and April 2011 the absolute activity of 90-Sr in coastal and open ocean seawater is likely to be very small (much lower in the North Pacific than post atmospheric weapons tests in the 20th century) and not likely to represent a significant radiological health risk.

            •  Volatility has nothing to do with (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sandino, Creosote, newpioneer, lunachickie

              the amount of strontium present to be released to water. To air, yes, if said releases don't involve exploding reactors or burning spent fuel pools. Where there's cesium, there's strontium. It's an industry adage for a reason.

              I haven't talked here about levels anywhere outside Fukushima province (for the leaves fed to the caterpillars in the research) or outside the 3 km sampling range (for tritium/strontium levels) cited herein.

              Hence you are attempting to argue things not topical to this diary.

              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 May 18, 2014 at 07:19:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hi Joieau (0+ / 0-)

                Your diary does not cite any strontium levels at all which was my point.  I am not arguing but simply stating a fact if one goes to your primary data source and not a Energy News or Japan Times article.

                Your diary states that there was 840 Bq/L 90-Sr in the sample collected at 1F.  There was not.  I made that simple observation above and it is easy to edit your diary to fix it.

                If you read the links about 90-Sr released to the environment you will note that most of the terrestrial samples, that are directly relevant to your diary, were collected in Fukushima Prefecture (see Steinhauser et al. 2013 open access).  Because of its relatively low volatility the amount of 90-Sr deposited to land was up to 4 orders of magnitude lower than 137-Cs even at the gates of the nuclear power plant itself.

            •  You didn't answer the question, did you? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sandino, Joieau
              what is the nifty filtration method Daiichi has been using to keep strontium from being released along with all other radionuclides?
              Your word-salad is most unintelligible, even though it looks like it might be saying something....oh, I don't know, "important".

              "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

              by lunachickie on Mon May 19, 2014 at 08:23:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Sr-90 offshore from Fukushima Daiichi (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joieau, MarineChemist, Creosote

          The NRA and TEPCO have been testing seawater and sea bottom sediments (which they call "marine soil") for Sr-90 for some time now, usually a few weeks or months after they were taken. Testing seems to be prioritised for Cs-134 and Cs-137. I don't know what lab protocols are being used to determine Sr-90 levels in samples.

           Lessee, I was looking at some results (PDFs) a few weeks ago, here's one with samples taken close to the site.

           Sr-90 measurements close to the plant (north and south, on the coastline) as well as a few km out to sea. The samples were taken in mid-February this year, results reported at the end of March. Just north of the site the Sr-90 measurement is 0.03 Bq/litre, just south it's 0.017 Bq/litre. Further out from the coast the Sr-90 level is below detection, less than 0.009 Bq/litre.

  •  The Pale Grass Blue Butterfly (7+ / 0-)

    I thank you and salute you, post author, and Zizeeteria Maha.  You, butterfly,  gave your life that we may know that this polution was lethal to you.  We now have proof from the tiniest fragments of your remains that tell us how your life was taken from you because of  the radio-active by-products released into the environment.  You eat of the poisoned leaf.  The Fukushima Disaster must be studied now and predictions made to realize impact on all of us: who are the most vulnerable to getting this radiation poisoning?  What of the Japanese people, they must contend with so much now?  

  •  Not saying nukes are great, but.... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    science, NoMoJoe, 6412093, buddabelly

    not seeing the 'mass death and destruction' thing back here on planet earth.

    A grand total of two TEPCO workers died in the Fukushima accident up front, both evidently from traumatic injuries. Several others have died of cancers automatically ascribed to the accident by nuke opponents, though it will take years to determine whether TEPCO workers and residents of the region will in fact suffer higher than expected cancer rates. Even allegations of higher thyroid cancer rates in kids are dubious because the intensive screening being applied is guaranteed to uncover more thyroid abnormalities than in an equivalent un-screened population elsewhere.

    Meanwhile, more than 300 Turkish coal miners died in yet another coal-related disaster last week, one of countless thousands over the history of coal mining and burning. And thousands of people die in the United States alone every year due to air pollution from burning coal. Not to mention all the mercury poisoning our children that leaches into the environment from the entire coal cycle, from mining to disposal of waste ash.

    Are nukes bad? Sure. But on one side with coal we have tens of thousands of deaths already, every friggin' year, just in America. It's far worse in China. Oh, and global warming, which is now guaranteed to lead to literally millions of premature human deaths, and mass extinction of other forms of life on a mind-boggling scale. On the other side, we have massive amounts of fear-mongering and radiation phobia, with an actual level of environmental harm that pales in comparison to what coal is already inflicting on us.

    •  Um, no (9+ / 0-)

      "On the other side, we have massive amounts of fear-mongering and radiation phobia, with an actual level of environmental harm that pales in comparison to what coal is already inflicting on us."

      When externalized costs are accounted for, then your statement becomes laughably inaccurate.

      Coal vs nukes (in their current form) ?

      Well, that's like saying that some parts of Hell are three degrees cooler than others.

      “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

      by ozsea1 on Sun May 18, 2014 at 01:43:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No he is right (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PeterHug, Ralphdog

        there are 1.5 million deaths per year due to atmospheric pollution, the trace radioactivity found in coal smoke is millions of times more abundant than the airborne radiation released from nuclear power.

        the highest level of tritium measured in the harbor in front of the power plant is 1,400 Bq per liter.  The U.S. EPA safe drinking water standards for tritium is 740 Bq per liter.

        so yeah, they are not nearly producing the number of deaths that coal is.

        Be the change that you want to see in the world

        by New Minas on Sun May 18, 2014 at 02:16:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  citation, please (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joieau, newpioneer, Sandino
          there are 1.5 million deaths per year due to atmospheric pollution, the trace radioactivity found in coal smoke is millions of times more abundant than the airborne radiation released from nuclear power.

          “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

          by ozsea1 on Sun May 18, 2014 at 03:27:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  cite (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ralphdog

            http://www.nytimes.com/...

            this is only china, if you include india and then the rest of the world it easily becomes > 1.5 million

            Be the change that you want to see in the world

            by New Minas on Sun May 18, 2014 at 07:58:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm sorry, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joieau

              I know this is going to hurt a lot of reporting here, but the New York Times is simply no longer credible to a lot of people.

              Maybe a more independent link would be helpful? I'm sure there is one that doesn't link back to the NYT, though you might have to search for more than 30 seconds to find it...

              "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

              by lunachickie on Mon May 19, 2014 at 08:16:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The problem with assertions (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lunachickie

                of massive death and destruction from coal pollution is that it's purely a statistical exercise in assigning guesstimates of percentage contribution to deaths (of various causes). An exercise not allowed for deaths from nuclear pollution.

                For instance, my mother suffered all her life - born in the '20s - from both asthma and emphysema. For which she took far too many pharmaceuticals and harmful-in-themselves lung 'treatments' for far too many years, some combo of which caused a horrible case of osteoporosis. For which she took Fosamax and a couple of other pharmaceuticals in addition to the forever added-to other pharmaceuticals, that made the osteoporosis much worse. Finally, she was diagnosed with COPD, for which she earned 24-7 oxygen.

                She fell putting on pajama bottoms next to her bed one night and broke her femur, hip, three vertebrae and both wrists. Decided she was done, starved herself to death at the age of 72. I am quite sure the statistical massagers count her among their coal-death millions, and there's nobody to argue or complain like they do when the same methodology is applied to regular nuclear dumping and oopses that release nasty isotopes to the environment that contribute to all sorts of nasty medical conditions even if they never cause or contribute to cancer, their most prevalent result.

                Hence we get this double standard where coal causes massive death but radiation doesn't. It's complete bullshit either way, even though the crap from both sources is nasty enough to eliminate asap from our world.

                Oh, and by the way, my mother died of too many doctors and too many drugs, complicated by a body that crapped out well before her mind did. I consider it doctor assisted suicide. Coal contributed less to it than the paper mills, which dumped so much nasty-smelling chemical/ particulate crap into the air where she lived that it ate the paint right off of houses and cars, making the air sickly sulfur yellow. "No Danger To Human Lungs," they pronounced confidently for years and years when people complained, lying through their crooked teeth. Just like nukes. For whom the standard disclaimer in ALL PR is "No [Immediate] Danger To The Public." IOW, it's not enough to vaporize you on the spot. Any death caused that occurs more than 30 days in the future doesn't count. THAT is bullshit too.

                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 May 19, 2014 at 09:29:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yup (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Joieau
                  IOW, it's not enough to vaporize you on the spot. Any death caused that occurs more than 30 days in the future doesn't count. THAT is bullshit too.
                  Agreed. The advocacy for nukes never takes that kind of reality into account, and it's sickening.

                  "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

                  by lunachickie on Mon May 19, 2014 at 10:40:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  have you seen pictures (0+ / 0-)

                of Beijing lately?

                Be the change that you want to see in the world

                by New Minas on Mon May 19, 2014 at 10:34:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm sorry (0+ / 0-)

                  did you have a link other than one from the NYT or that leads back to them?

                  I thought my request was pretty clear the first time...

                  "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

                  by lunachickie on Mon May 19, 2014 at 10:41:10 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  hmmm do you google (0+ / 0-)

                    since the link was to a report generated by a non-affiliated group there should be plenty of reporting on it.  

                    lessee:  heres one

                    I would like you to consider what is safer:

                    not believing what the NYT reports and getting the information directly from the source that they are reporting on

                    or

                    not believing any source that the NYT reports on.

                    it seems to me that the second would allow the NYT to censor any important information because all they would need to do is report on it and no one would believe them and the source would be discredited. . .

                    Be the change that you want to see in the world

                    by New Minas on Mon May 19, 2014 at 12:35:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Hm, I didn't make the claim (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Joieau

                      so it's not incumbent on me to back it up.

                      Now that we've gotten this "source" business out of the way--finally, goodness, I didn't realize I'd have to be a fucking dentist about it--would you mind actually addressing how the arguments you seem to be supporting have a thing to do with nukes?

                      Because it is obvious to the reader, assuming they're paying attention, that you've not taken into account

                      When externalized costs are accounted for
                      And I hate obfuscation, don't you? You know what I hate even more? People who make the kind of "arguments" summed up very nicely by ozsea here:
                      Coal vs nukes (in their current form)? Well, that's like saying that some parts of Hell are three degrees cooler than others.
                      You guys are just going to have to stop being so stubborn about acknowledging your love for coal being a primary motivator.  IMO, it's got to be love. What else is there?

                      "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

                      by lunachickie on Mon May 19, 2014 at 01:48:59 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You (0+ / 0-)

                        are the one that brought up sources

                        now you don't want to consider the sources

                        because you don't want to consider the issue

                        because you aren't discerning

                        coal-fired power plants will destroy future GENERATIONS of humanity.  I am talking about billions of human beings.

                        they MUST all be shut down in the next 20 years.

                        hows that for loving coal?

                        Be the change that you want to see in the world

                        by New Minas on Mon May 19, 2014 at 09:33:00 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yeah, I asked you for a source to back up your (0+ / 0-)

                          claim.

                          You seemed to have a real problem with a simple request. You still do, apparently, because now you're just not making a lick of sense.

                          "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

                          by lunachickie on Tue May 20, 2014 at 09:30:00 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  whatever (0+ / 0-)

                            I gave you several links

                            the last was from the world health organization

                            Be the change that you want to see in the world

                            by New Minas on Tue May 20, 2014 at 10:11:21 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And it took about ten posts more than it should (0+ / 0-)

                            have taken, in order to even get that much.

                            Here's an idea--drop the shovel and back away slowly. You're entirely too unskilled with it and you're liable to hurt yourself.

                            "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

                            by lunachickie on Tue May 20, 2014 at 11:17:32 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  bullshit (0+ / 0-)

                            I posted a link immediately after you requested one.

                            perhaps you should try to address the issue at hand instead of making up bullshit arguments that are easily verified to be untrue

                            number of posts for me to add a SECOND reference: 1
                            time it took to respond to your request 2.5 hours.

                            your response to the information: nothing

                            misrepresentation is deception.  
                            you are a liar.

                            Be the change that you want to see in the world

                            by New Minas on Tue May 20, 2014 at 12:20:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Does the word RELEVANT (0+ / 0-)

                            mean a fucking thing to you?

                            Apparently not, as round and round and round you still want to go....  

                            "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

                            by lunachickie on Tue May 20, 2014 at 02:05:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  we were talking about (0+ / 0-)

                            air pollution and deaths associated with it.

                            those are the links that I posted.

                            so. . ..?????

                            what is your problem???

                            Be the change that you want to see in the world

                            by New Minas on Tue May 20, 2014 at 02:46:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Thats why, when the NYT reports (0+ / 0-)

                I click on the reference link that they are reporting on.

                how about "The Lancet" as a study of air health and pollution risks.

                http://www.thelancet.com/...

                Be the change that you want to see in the world

                by New Minas on Mon May 19, 2014 at 10:43:30 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  also, whenever this discussion comes up (7+ / 0-)

          it's always, "but! but! look at Cooooaaaalllll"

          I am not advocating Coal, Neither is the diarist.

          So, FAIL by comparing two entirely different thermal-electric production systems, BOTH OF WHICH ARE FUCKING TOXIC AS HELL AND THREATEN THE PLANET.

          Equally lethal; as in, if you're dead, you're dead.

          That we still have to burn coal at all is a despicable state of affairs.

          That you pronuke ------z present nukes vs coal as an either/or black and white choice is another FAIL.

          “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

          by ozsea1 on Sun May 18, 2014 at 03:40:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not so. I am *not* pro-nuke. (0+ / 0-)

            Seriously, Fukushima has rendered nuclear power completely non-viable going forward, even for former supporters like myself. Stick a fork in it, it's done, because the entire fiasco proves beyond a doubt that the nuclear industry is too stupid, greedy, dishonest and incompetent to be trusted with a technology that is so unforgiving.

            But, it still must be pointed out that the actual harm inflicted on humanity by nuclear power has been and remains trivial compared to the damage still being done every single day by coal. The anti-nuclear hysteria is vastly out of proportion to the reality.

            Yes, nuclear waste stays dangerous for centuries. But guess what? So do poisonous mine tailings. So does the ash left over from burned coal. So do the thousands of tons of mercury emitted by burning coal. And the billions of tons of carbon dioxide may end human technological civilization.

            •  without building out new nuclear (0+ / 0-)

              power we will generate too much CO2 emissions trying to convert to renewable power in time.

              We need to build new nuclear so that we have CO2 - less energy to produce solar and wind and energy storage infrastructure (as well as electric transportation and decentralized food production)

              without this we will cook in 30 years.

              Be the change that you want to see in the world

              by New Minas on Sun May 18, 2014 at 08:01:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ain't gonna happen. (6+ / 0-)

                Not even GE 'believes-in' nukes anymore.

                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 May 18, 2014 at 08:45:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Too late to build new nukes (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Creosote, newpioneer, ozsea1, Joieau

                With 10 years of construction that is very CO2 heavy, it will be decades before any new nukes start paying back the huge amoun of energy anconsumed and CO2 produced by their creation. With that budget, much more cost-effective renewable technologies could have been built.

                •  reference please (0+ / 0-)

                  "With 10 years of construction that is very CO2 heavy, it will be decades before any new nukes start paying back the huge amoun of energy anconsumed and CO2 produced by their creation. "

                  A reference on this please.  Preferably a little better than Helen Caldicott.

                  •  No (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sandino, Joieau

                    reference needed when you know all about it anyway, so it shouldn't be hard for you to disprove the comment.

                    "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

                    by lunachickie on Mon May 19, 2014 at 08:21:34 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  According to Nature (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    lunachickie

                    yes The Nature:

                    The largest source of carbon emissions, accounting for 38 per cent of the average total, is the “frontend” of the fuel cycle, which includes mining and milling uranium ore, and the relatively energy-intensive conversion and enrichment process, which boosts the level of uranium-235 in the fuel to useable levels. Construction (12 per cent), operation (17 per cent largely because of backup generators using fossil fuels during downtime), fuel processing and waste disposal (14 per cent) and decommissioning (18 per cent) make up the total mean emissions.
                    Did you not know that concrete production was a huge CO2 producer?
                    •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      raoul78

                      Thanks, that publication at Nature looks like a good one to look over.   The stuff about nuclear carbon footprints is mostly based on one study by Benjamin Sovacool, I see.

                      You might take a look at this pdf:
                        http://www.parliament.uk/...

                      I particularly like "Figure 2", the range of carbon footprints for different low carbon technologies.

                      (Having a percentage breakdown within a technology is interesting, but not really the main issue, is it?)

                  •  What, you've never encountered (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sandino

                    the hilarious canard that wind generation is too outrageous in CO2 production because there's concrete in the footers? Have you ever SEEN a nuke? That's some serious concrete. And that doesn't even count the amount of steel in those behemouths, the more-deadly-than coal mining, the ridiculous pollution of both tailings storage and enrichment/fuel fabrication, and transportation beginning to end. A tailings dam outside of Gallup burst back a few decades ago and left up to 6 inches of radium salts all along the banks of the Rio Puerco where the Navajo children play and the livestock are watered...

                    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 May 19, 2014 at 09:36:52 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  it takes more concrete (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      raoul78

                      to generate the same amount of electricity

                      if you are building wind turbines.

                      If you use coal fired electricity in the manufacturing process of wind turbines

                      you produce significantly more co2

                      than if you did it using nuclear power

                      Be the change that you want to see in the world

                      by New Minas on Mon May 19, 2014 at 09:36:51 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  LOL!!! (0+ / 0-)

                        Right on cue.

                        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 Tue May 20, 2014 at 07:08:19 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  what is the amount of concrete per turbine (0+ / 0-)

                          Do you know how many wind turbines it takes to generate the comparable amount of energy?

                          in 2011 the average wind turbine was 1.75 MW

                          http://www.nawindpower.com/...

                          with an annual average capacity factor of 32.4% (varies
                          by state - California is 22%

                          http://www.windaction.org/...

                          so lets say you want to replace the energy of 1 nuclear power plant, say, diablo canyon nuclear power plant (2,240 MW of generation capacity)

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                          the AWEA reports that there was 1.7 million yards of concrete used to install 6,700 wind turbines in 2012.

                          so lets do some math:

                          Average annual capacity = .22
                          average wind turbine size = 1.75 MW
                          average annual wind turbine equivalent size (at 100% capacity) = .22 * 1.75MW = .385 MW

                          Size of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant = 2,240 MW

                          number of wind turbines needed to replace Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power plant = 2,240MW / .385 MW = 5,818 wind turbines.

                          since 1.7 million yards of concrete was used to install 6,700 wind turbines then by a ratio we can find how much concrete 5,818 wind turbines would need:

                          (1,700,000 yards / 6,700 wind turbines) * 5,818 wind turbines = 1,476,000 yards of concrete:

                          how much concrete in diablo canyon?

                          the NEI saysthat the average nuclear plant uses 400,000 yards of concrete  

                          new nuclear power plants will use 1/5 as much concrete (so the diablo canyon equivalent would be about 200,000 yards.)

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                          So yeah,  building new wind turbines take about 7 times as much concrete per unit of electricity.

                          Be the change that you want to see in the world

                          by New Minas on Tue May 20, 2014 at 08:48:35 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  by the way (0+ / 0-)

                            I am not "for" nuclear except that I believe, based on my calculations, that without it we are pretty much fucked.  so I want to know what it will take to fix our current trajectory, that climate change mountain is looming large in the cockpit windows, from my perspective.

                            thanks for bringing up the point about concrete, I had no idea how much concrete went into those footpads, makes sense though, that is a whole Hell of a lot of torque.

                            Be the change that you want to see in the world

                            by New Minas on Tue May 20, 2014 at 08:53:21 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  I doubt the math works out on this (0+ / 0-)

              "Seriously, Fukushima has rendered nuclear power completely non-viable going forward, even for former supporters like myself. Stick a fork in it, it's done ..."

              I might go with this if I thought we had something else that would generate major amounts of power without greenhouse gas emissions.

              Solar enthusiasts have reasons to feel encouraged of late, but look at how far they've got to go before they'll cover even a small percentage of the US energy budget... 40% is still from coal, and methane is problematic -- methane leaks from stuff like fracking could make it's lower CO2 emissions moot.  

              So yeah, Fukushima makes words like "public relations disaster" inadequate, but giving up on the nuclear issue means giving up on climate change.

          •  Coal is the reality (0+ / 0-)

            "it's always, "but! but! look at Cooooaaaalllll"
            I am not advocating Coal, Neither is the diarist."

            You don't have to advocate Coal.  Coal is what's going to happen if we can't do anything else.  Coal is what's happening.  

            Coal is the reality, and if you're going to call yourself "reality based" you need to face it.

            •  LOL! (0+ / 0-)

              Sorry, but there are other realities than "coal". It's just a matter of being louder than the greedheads.
               

              "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

              by lunachickie on Mon May 19, 2014 at 08:27:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  There's lots we can do. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sandino

              Or could do, if we didn't have to fight All the Money and All the Power on Earth to do anything at all. We don't even have to boil water - kinetic energy on this planet is abundant, all we have to do is harvest it. Plus direct solar, improving almost daily, as are storage technologies.

              It won't kill a single American to have to do their laundry and AC during the day rather than at night. It won't kill a single American to replace their lighting and/or appliances with energy efficient technology.

              It's NOT ABOUT "Coal vs. Nukes." Never was. There isn't enough money on Earth to replace every ready-to-melt nuclear rustbucket plus building the couple thousand new soon-to-be rustbuckets it would take to dent global warming by 2050. Hell, they still don't have a way to deal with the waste from the last 40 years' worth of atom-smashing. Can't happen and won't. Might as well get used to that, because it's reality.

              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 May 19, 2014 at 09:44:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  If you use epidemiological inference (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Creosote, newpioneer, ozsea1, Joieau

          to count coal deaths then you have to allow those methods for the health impacts of nuclear power too. At which point the health toll per kwh becomes more even. And if we count the potential casualties for the tons of plutonium we have produced which we do not seem to be able to store safely for a few decades, we have to think about some 240,000 years. At that point the coal casualties look insignificant.

    •  You know, that's just really (9+ / 0-)

      SUCH a crock of shit. 'Normal' childhood thyroid cancer rates are a fraction of one - that's 1 - per year per million. Meaning doctors would see one every couple or few years or so.

      The last report from Fukushima (before the medical reporting lid was clamped down) documents 50+ cases of childhood thyroid cancer in the 3 years following the Daiichi Disaster, among the <250,000 children tested.

      That's not the least bit "fuzzy" of a number, it's an outrageous spike that literally has no other explanation. Unless they want to go ahead and claim their nukes (Japan was chock full of 'em) were dumping gross amounts of I131 into the environment since well before Daiichi happened, so as to say Daiichi's three melted-through blown-up reactors "didn't dump that much" or "it takes more than 5 years to develop."

      So, which crock of shit are you attempting to claim here? Or are you trying to claim that childhood thyroid cancer is actually endemic in northeastern Japan, it's just that nobody ever noticed kids with thyroiod cancer before Daiichi?

      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 May 18, 2014 at 02:39:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Check this out. (0+ / 0-)

        Epidemiology is a complicated subject. As a physician I actually know quite a bit about it.
        Here is a link that explains what may well be going on.

        "50+ cases" falls into the grey zone where causation is nowhere near certain, and may still be an artifact of intensive screening.

        Please, no ad-hominem. I'm just trying to keep things reality-based.

        •  Try it this way... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cotterperson, Creosote, lunachickie

          From an 'average' over time of 1 case of childhood thyroid cancer every three years or so

          to

          50+ cases of childhood thyroid cancer in three years.

          ...because that's what we're talking about here. Obviously something drastic has happened to cause this sudden precipitous rise in childhood thyroid cancers, wouldn't you agree?

          Now. What has happened that might effect childhood thyroid cancer rates in a region notable primarily for an abundance of natural iodine in the diet (very low rates of hyper/hypo thyroidism and childhood thyroid cancer)? They didn't suddenly stop consuming seafood. They didn't suddenly stop growing vegetables and rice in soil rich in natural iodine because it's an island in the Pacific Ocean.

          What DID happen was three megawatt reactors melted down, melted through and blew up, at least two grossly overloaded spent fuel pools burned for days, just 3 years and 2 months ago at Daiichi. And dumped so much radioactive garbage on the countryside that they had to evacuate a "dead zone" that remains and will always remain uninhabitable, and exposed the population to huge amounts of radioactive iodine-131. Which is known very well to cause thyroid cancer, particularly in children.

          So. What big epidemiological event are you blaming for this sudden outrageous rise in childhood thyroid cancer?

          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 May 18, 2014 at 05:27:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You evidently didn't read the link. (0+ / 0-)

            It's entirely possible there is no increase in thyroid cancers in kids. You might see the same artifactual 'increase' in apparent rate if you applied the same intensive screening to a population of U.S. kids. (Or, if you try asserting that we're downwind of Fukushima, try western Asia).

            It's the PSA problem all over again. The adoption circa late 1980s of universal PSA screening in the U.S. caused an overnight 800% jump in apparent prostate cancer rates. But the mortality rate didn't change at all. That tells us that the apparent rate increase was fictitious.

            •  If you believe it's so (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joieau

              then why don't you simply write your own diary on it?

              It's entirely possible there is no increase in thyroid cancers in kids

              "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

              by lunachickie on Mon May 19, 2014 at 08:19:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Ah, I'll bet you say that to (0+ / 0-)

              all the girls. And claim there was no increase in thyroid cancer from Chernobyl too, right? One might wonder why the nuclear world keeps pouring billions into 'new' technology to try and keep that damned wreck isolated. They're doing diddly-squat about Daiichi. Because it sits right on the ocean. I'm betting they're hoping against hope global warming hurries up, the better to submerge the whole mess sooner...

              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 May 19, 2014 at 09:50:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Don't misunderstand me; not claiming that... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                raoul78

                Fukushima is harmless. To the contrary, it's an ongoing environmental calamity, one with potential future health risks that may be extremely serious.
                What I am saying is that we should be as accurate as possible about the true hazards and not uncritically accept allegations that are later proven to be baseless.

                The environmental movement has been repeatedly and often accurately criticized for alarmism on prior issues, and this has badly damaged efforts to address genuine catastrophes like global warming. So we need to get our facts right.

                •  What facts have I misrepresented here? n/t (0+ / 0-)

                  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 May 19, 2014 at 07:43:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "Mass death". (0+ / 0-)

                    We're nowhere near that kind of marker. Possibly never will be.

                    •  Excuse me? (0+ / 0-)

                      How old are you? I'm old enough to remember exactly why nuclear technology was developed in the first place, and why it was farmed out (with huge subsidies) to utilities who could then charge the public directly for the ever so useful production of plutonium.

                      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 Tue May 20, 2014 at 10:45:48 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  How about (0+ / 0-)

                  an update on the latest confirmed cases of thyroid cancer in Fukushima children? 17 new confirmed cases since the last report (February of 2014), bringing the number of confirmed and suspected thyroid cancers to 90.

                  Numbers are increasing rapidly at this point. They will continue to increase over the next couple of decades.

                  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 Tue May 20, 2014 at 11:31:25 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Commence (7+ / 0-)

    bar-raising in 3...2....1...

    Seriously. Someone will surely drop by before too long, to tell you that you're just all worried for nothing because there are other things to worry about. Or something.

    "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

    by lunachickie on Sun May 18, 2014 at 01:31:48 PM PDT

    •  Someone already has (6+ / 0-)

      There are no rules, only the illusion of rules.

      by Drewid on Sun May 18, 2014 at 01:52:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah. Who needs butterflies? (8+ / 0-)

      Or bees... or any "lesser creature" or life form than we More Hallowed Than Thou humans. We can always survive (for awhile) on Soylent Green...

      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 May 18, 2014 at 01:54:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ...or perhaps they simply have a different (0+ / 0-)

      approach or information to offer.

      Kos Nuke diaries are a disappointment in their inability to accept serious debate.

      Wonders are many, but none so wonderful as man.

      by Morgan Sandlin on Sun May 18, 2014 at 02:40:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Serious debate" (10+ / 0-)

        about what? My diary links and reports on the findings of controlled experiments related to cesium contamination in the Fukushima area and how it affects the chosen insect species studied. Further, it reports on current increased and increasing contamination being released to the Pacific from Daiichi, including tritium and strontium.

        Nowhere in my diary do you find mention of coal burning or the pollution associated with coal pollution. That is because that is not the subject of my diary. All attempts to veer into "discussion" of coal burning or pollution is a transparent attempt to hijack my diary.

        I do not look kindly on hijack attempts. If you have issues with coal (and we all do), write up a nice diary about it and you can discuss it in relation to any other energy sources you like. Just keep it out of my diary, because I consider that "Being A Dick."

        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 May 18, 2014 at 02:52:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Excuse me...but I didn't write anything about coal (0+ / 0-)

          ...and my opinion of most of the DKos Nuke diaries remains the same.

          I keep hoping for change...but it hasn't happened yet.

          Wonders are many, but none so wonderful as man.

          by Morgan Sandlin on Sun May 18, 2014 at 02:58:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The objection lodged (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lunachickie, cotterperson

            was specific to coal, which is an attempted hijack of this diary. Again, if you want to see a nukes vs. coal diary, write one. Because this one ain't it.

            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 May 18, 2014 at 04:15:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ....and if you want to see a diary with lively (0+ / 0-)

              participation and individuals feeling free to ask questions, impart imformation, etc., you may wish to expand your horizons.

              ....or you can simply talk to your cheerleaders.

              Wonders are many, but none so wonderful as man.

              by Morgan Sandlin on Sun May 18, 2014 at 04:23:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Says you (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Joieau, cotterperson, newpioneer
                and if you want to see a diary with lively participation and individuals feeling free to ask questions
                You meant to say "relevant questions", of course.

                Oh, I'm sorry, you mean you thought you should be shown deference, even when you vomited an obviously-unrelated question onto a diary discussion? You may wish to expand your horizons...

                "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

                by lunachickie on Sun May 18, 2014 at 05:20:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I didn't ask a question.... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  buddabelly

                  but your response is typical of these diaries. Knee jerk accusations without taking the time to even look at a thread's history.

                  I brought nothing into the diary but a concern regarding being more accepting of, or having a greater ability to engage, individuals with a question or difference of approach.

                  I don't ask for deference, but I do wish this issue was covered on DKos with a more welcoming and less defensive manner.

                  There are some very interesting and concerning issues that could be discussed regarding the nuclear arena here, but who is going to bother bringing them forth when there is this bizarre little clique that aren't open to the idea that others may have something to contribute.

                  Dkos is brilliant as a resource on many issues, but in the Nuclear arena we simply could do better.

                  Wonders are many, but none so wonderful as man.

                  by Morgan Sandlin on Sun May 18, 2014 at 07:27:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  No END to the condescension and contempt, eh? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lunachickie, Sandino, Joieau

                You sound good, dude, yet you come in here as one of the usual suspects, to insult and diminish on a regular basis.  Your superficial politeness does not conceal your wish that Joieau would just SHUT UP AND GO AWAY.

                NOT unlike our "respected" MarineChemist, who just can't stand the idea that he's neither as experienced as Joieau NOR as well-trained IN THE APPLICABLE RADIATION OR HEALTH SCIENCES, so he offers very polite insults and a thick smear of contempt to EVERY post Joieau makes.  Sadly for him - and you - smug arrogance is unconvincing and unattractive.

                I suggest you and Professor Jay T Curran take this advice to heart:  when I want to join a comfortable conversation w/ self-important white folks - trust me, I know how to find 'em.  SINCE you bring nothing else with you beyond the desire to see conversations like this one STOP entirely, may I VERY cordially invite you to STOP coming around?

                You're really only embarrassing yourselves.  If you want to keep it up, get some training.  AND some manners.

                trying to stay alive 'til I reach 65!

                by chmood on Mon May 19, 2014 at 05:34:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Sadly, it isn't only the nuke diaries...this place (0+ / 0-)

        has lost too many of the active participants imo and hasn't picked up any quantity of quality to compensate....

        We'll see but I think that watching the numbers drop in Jotter's diaries is quite sad....

        Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
        I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
        Emiliano Zapata

        by buddabelly on Mon May 19, 2014 at 07:43:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ask yourself why the participants have (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino, Joieau

          stopped coming around. There is a reason for this:

          I think that watching the numbers drop in Jotter's diaries is quite sad....
          Well, actually, there are a few reasons, but one of the biggest ones, IMO, is the idiocy that "site moderation" has become, as well as all the "commenters" who just can't keep from vomiting their precious "concerns" all over attempts at adult discussion, often to the point of deliberate distraction. And I am fucking sick of it.

          The idea is to stop conversation. Shame on those who do it with their selfish agendas taking precedence over all else. Shame on them.

          "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

          by lunachickie on Mon May 19, 2014 at 08:10:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I don't understand this part (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    worldlotus
    Also note that bioaccumulation of cesium in the larvae was highest at the lowest level of ingestion - this means that uptake of cesium, a potassium mimic in biological tissues, was highest in caterpillars consuming the least contaminated leaves.
    how is this possible?

    Be the change that you want to see in the world

    by New Minas on Sun May 18, 2014 at 02:18:00 PM PDT

  •  A cautionary note (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Toyotabob7, Wee Mama

    I'm a bit mistrustful of the article because the authors favorably cite the widely discredited work of Gould and Sternglass on alleged effects of Chernobyl on U.S. infant mortality. In view of the devastating critiques of that work, responsible authors would not be citing it that way.

    Michael Weissman UID 197542

    by docmidwest on Sun May 18, 2014 at 04:50:52 PM PDT

    •  A cautionary note to the critics (0+ / 0-)

      "devastating critiques" are meaningless here.

      "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

      by lunachickie on Mon May 19, 2014 at 08:30:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why? (0+ / 0-)

        The Gould paper claimed a 3% increase in U.S. infant mortality caused by contamination levels less than 1% of those in Europe. There's no way that could happen without an enormous increase in European infant mortality, which didn't occur. This was such an obvious point, among other major problems, that you have to wonder why someone would still be citing that paper seriously.

        Michael Weissman UID 197542

        by docmidwest on Tue May 20, 2014 at 09:58:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You know, I once lodged a (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandino, docmidwest

      "devastating critique" of an assertion made by oceanographer Ken Buesseler (quite the media star these days) specific to work on ocean pollution from Daiichi. His assertion, clear as day in black and white was that polonium-210 is "The Most Prevalent Radionuclide In The World's Oceans."

      I pointed out to a colleague of his who posts here exclusively on the subject of diminishing public concerns about Daiichi pollution of the Pacific that the claim is blatant bullshit. That colleague tried hard to justify the claim, but any 4th grader could Google up a list of the most prevalent radionuclides in the world's oceans and find out that polonium-210 is #10 on a list of 10. It really is that simple.

      I don't know if Buesseler actually made that claim in his published research, or if he ever corrected it because it's flat-out not true. He did take down the promotional web page with the assertion, though. After more than a month.

      Asserting easily falsified bullshit in one's scientific research and posturing is certainly "devastating." You'd think scientists would welcome notification of errors in their work, if for no other reason than maintaining their position in the scientific community. Alas, not so with some scientists, whose egos are bigger than their paychecks.

      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 May 19, 2014 at 10:05:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hi Joieau (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raoul78

        It is quite simple.  You write:

        Further, it reports on current increased and increasing contamination being released to the Pacific from Daiichi, including tritium and strontium.
        and
        Tepco reported tritium readings from the in-port sampling stations at levels that went as high as 1,900 Bq per liter, along with 840 Bq/L of strontium-90.
        Neither of which are factually based when it comes to 90-Sr.

        It is just another example of Energy News fooling the public with cleverly parsed information.  

      •  Hi Joieau (0+ / 0-)

        I hadn't followed that previous exchange, and am not quite sure what it means here. My point was that although the new butterfly article might be correct, for all I know, there's something off about the way the authors cite the obviously wrong Gould work. It makes me distrust them a bit. I guess your saying you had a parallel experience with some author taking the other side.

        Michael Weissman UID 197542

        by docmidwest on Tue May 20, 2014 at 09:52:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You may believe (0+ / 0-)

          Gould's work is "obviously wrong," but that doesn't make it wrong. That the nuclear industry claims so is a pretty darned good reason to pay attention to what he was saying.

          To condone the use of statistics in order to claim Millions Of Deaths Annually Caused By Coal while decrying the use of statistics to document adverse health effects of nuclear pollution is... disengenuous at best. I don't fall for corporate propaganda that easily, but there are certainly plenty who do.

          No one is shocked or surprised that nukes and their pocket protectors would try to distract from this current research specific to Fukushima. It is to be entirely expected in response to ALL research that tends to show the adverse effects of the disaster. Hell, right here in the comments there's denial that a 500+% increase in childhood thyroid cancer in Fukushima province means that childhood thyroid cancer has increased. THAT is some "obviously wrong" right there!

          ...and nobody with two brain cells to rub together would buy it. We're talking cancer in children. Most people don't think that is something that should be dismissed out of hand, no matter what self-serving bullshit nukes are serving.

          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 Tue May 20, 2014 at 10:42:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Evaluating these claims (0+ / 0-)

            doesn't amount to deciding if all pro-nuclear claims are true vs. all antinuclear claims are true. The Gould claim was that US infant mortality increased 3%, due to radioactive contamination that was about 1% of that in Europe. That couldn't plausibly have happened without an enormous effect in Europe, and there was no such effect.

            "The use of statistics" likewise is not some broad category that is always ok or always bogus. Gould's use was bogus, with no reliable background, etc.

            Again, the butterfly gang might be right, but they don't have good scientific judgement so I wouldn't just assume that they are.

            Michael Weissman UID 197542

            by docmidwest on Wed May 21, 2014 at 06:19:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site