Is The Fukushima Radiation Being Blown Out of Proportion?

[Wind]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ok9bPgKt_WI

[Shannon]

I'm laughing at the Asian tourist guy being interview by vice in the beginning ...

Vice: " aren't you worried about the radiation?"

Tourist: "no, the tour guide said it's safe ."

Pffft! Yeah seems totally safe! Even if it were, I don't think the tour guide would be the my end of questions.

Now, someone is making money off tours of the place..seems shady to me. But I don't know nuthin

[shaberon]

Well...what would be the proportion?

Sorry this will be in what's scientifically known as "stupid American units": millirem.

1 mSv = 100 mrem

You could get a start plinking on an EPA estimator: https://www.epa.gov/radiation/calcul...radiation-dose

Which allows for the biggest variable, medical procedures. It does not account for much terrestrial variation. For instance, Charlottesville, Virginia sits on a significant pitchblende seam: https://www.dmme.virginia.gov/commercedocs/PUB_38.pdf

And that's going to be present in pretty much all granite & shale formations, i. e., mountains, to some degree.

Physicists tell us about why we're radioactive here: http://physicscentral.com/explore/ac...nandhumans.cfm

And they created their own estimator, showing how certain medical procedures are far beyond any other radiation sources: http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/dosechart/

Besides those, radon gas in the house is a huge factor, as well as whether you consume organics. Conventional fertilizer is nothing but a massive payload of detriment for all kinds of reasons.

No one can quite agree on a threshold for safety, but our baseline is well above zero. Statistical average they say is about 620 mrem/year, or .62 mSv. Taking 1 mSv in a single bite would definitely be risky business.

[TargeT]

Posted by Saint Theresa (here)
Now, someone is making money off tours of the place..seems shady to me. But I don't know nuthin

until you realise it's a "small business" and they are probably there almost 10000000x the time their customers are (ie, they are exposed FAR FAR FAR beyond what you ever would be as a customer.. I own a tour guide business myself, if it were toxic to ride horses into the ocean I would know by the first day if not the first month........).

so what do you think now, just based on observational evidence?

Posted by shaberon (here)
No one can quite agree on a threshold for safety, but our baseline is well above zero. Statistical average they say is about 620 mrem/year, or .62 mSv. Taking 1 mSv in a single bite would definitely be risky business.

Yeah, humans are stupid as hell, I agree.

1msv in .0001 (if it was a 1msv/.0001 ratio of exposure) seconds would be bad(as long as it's duration was 10000 seconds or more), just like 1000 kelvins of temperature at .1 seconds would be bad..... but 100 kelvins spread over a year.. well that is what keeps us alive and healthy.. the fact that we cannot discern between the two is what makes us stupid and manipulatable..... for centuries, we are NOT GOOD at time line variation, we just cannot conceive of timelines greater than our immediate discomfort.. this is why election cycles are paced very shortly, those people know our psychological proof matters not when emotion is involved.

[TargeT]

Posted by Mike (here)
relentlessly annoying.

Honestly, this is kind of how youre coming off.

Fair enough, but honestly it's not often that you are attacked directly (though subtly) by the owner of the forum you are discussing a topic on.

In fact, **** it, I shall go the route of Giovanni.. emotional outbursts seem to get attention here. Good bye

I honestly have a lot better use of my time, the 1000s of hours of research I spent on radiation could have been used to further my carrer or my horse rescue. I'm way too stressed for this kind of thing right now, break time for me. i'll see you all whenever.

[onawah]

Target, I think Mike's post summed it up pretty well insofar as a big reason why you are not getting the kind of responses you seem to expect from other Avalonians.
You target a few statistics and points that Bill and I and others have made, and you ignore the rest, yet you are happy to sling arrows at other's opinions, while your own is apparently sacrosanct.
But I will say again, since (beyond the obvious non-candidates) we still DON'T REALLY KNOW who among the "experts" is telling the truth, who's lying, and who actually knows or doesn't know, whether ANY of the measurements or statistics we are getting from them are accurate or not--and I think we agree on that, at least--so I really don't see much point in going into the kind of debate that you seem to be itching for, and I don't have time for it, in any case.
If someone else does, please, have at it; I'm about done.

How long was it before the "experts" let us know that mammograms cause breast cancer? (And there are still attempts at coverup about that.)
But it gives me no comfort to know that medical procedures are giving people higher doses of radiation than fallout is--I knew that already, in any case, but I don't want anyone or any life form, for that matter, to be exposed to ANY potentially risky toxins, especially the most vulnerable ones, and I'm sure there are much safer forms of healing than radiation.
All your minimizing of the dangers makes me think that you have a tough guy complex, and if anyone is worried about their health, or the health of their loved ones or the planet, the animals, the plants, the soil, etc. to you they are just pussies and fair game for your sarcasm and ridicule, including Bill Ryan.
It doesn't sound like you are really very comfortable with the position you have taken, either...

So why not think about giving it a rest, already?

[onawah]

Well, that last post from me was made after Target registered his decision to leave, but hopefully he will reconsider, like Gio has apparently, since I see he hasn't actually unsubscribed.
Cooling off before taking action is often the wisest thing to do,

[DNA]

Posted by Mike (here)
Well, thats the problem with excessive caffeine TargeT. It's like the poor mans cocaine - it heats the brain to a full boil, leaving the mouth to act as a fulminating exhaust. It gives one the false impression that everything one says is brilliant and witty, when in fact it can be more accurately described as relentlessly annoying.

Wow Mike, have you gone after school special? Who died and elected you Nancy Reagan? No offense, this is your first post on this thread and the only comment you have to make is calling out the driving force on this thread as being "relentlessly annoying"?
Do you have an opinion as to the thread topic, or faced with an opinion you are not in agreement with you have decided to indict someone on character rather than
the topic you are in disagreement with?

Posted by Mike (here)
Honestly, this is kind of how youre coming off. I tell you this as someone who hugely admires your contributions when theyre a little less hyper and self righteous. And look, I speak from experience. It takes one to know one, as they say. At least with me, when I get all wired like that, the debate becomes less about sincerely making a sound point and more about my ego and the manic desire to "win". I see this happening with you.

I honestly do not see what you are talking about. It might make it easier to make your point if you were to quote a specific area that you are upset about. As far as what TargeT has posted on this thread, as far as I'm concerned it has been top notch.
In the case of this thread TargeT has honestly taken the links and information people have posted and he has gone through the trouble of digesting that material and then remarking on the content.
How many folks actually do that? How many folks actually do that,,when it comes to the content "they" have posted themselves?
Very few.
Most of the times folks start whole threads on this forum without having watched the video, or read the article they are posting.
TargeT takes the time to actually listen to the folks who have an opinion contrary to his own.
Almost no one on this forum does that.

Posted by Mike (here)
And its not that youre not making good points backed by good science etc, because you are. But its the way youre making them. Have you ever been around a really smart guy who is on coke or overcaffeinated...a smart guy who is determined to demonstrate his smartness until his tongue bleeds and his jaw swells up in protest? As you know, it is profoundly irritating....especially when you yourself are sober. You're not there yet, but youre kind of on the path..I say this with respect..and as someone who likes reading your stuff. Truly.

TargeT has been the driving force on this thread. I haven't noticed his being out of line one way or another. He has an opinion and he has backed it up rather well from what I've seen. So rather than sit on the sidelines and rub my goatee while nodding in affirmation I will state that I don't see what you are talking about.

[onawah]

I still think Mike had a point, DNA, and I think he said it pretty nicely.
It's more a "guy thing" sort of discussion, one that I don't want to get involved in because I come at the whole issue from more of a woman's perspective, and women are traditionally more concerned about the welfare of children and other beings, who are, like women, more vulnerable to toxins of all kinds than men are, in general.
But I will say that it looks to me like you are pretty much pointing the finger at Mike the same way that you are accusing him of doing with Target,and actually being a lot more hostile.
It's not so much about the statistics or the debate itself as the kind of energy that has been generating on this thread.
Perhaps to you it seems fine and even, but to others, maybe not so much.
I've been willing to admit that I don't know for certain what the truth may be, and Target has admitted it too, and yet he keeps on putting forth his case that radiation is pretty harmless and even healing.
If we has that opinion, that's OK, but somehow it hasn't seemed to be OK that others have different opinions, because he continues to try and make them look foolish, though his arguments are actually cherry picked and incomplete.
That just doesn't quite add up as totally benign, somehow, now does it?

[Mike]

It's a cumulative thing Marcus. Not just this thread. And no, I'm not going to go back thru all his posts for your benefit.

I won't go the sarcastic route with you because A) I like you...and B) i'm much better at it than you are ..and I'd like to remain friends.

I like TargeT. I appreciate his scientific bent. I really do. We need more people like that here. But there are other things I dont really like. Ive identified them above.

Ive said my peace. If you want to continue the discussion, pm me ok?

[DNA]

Posted by onawah (here)
I still think Mike had a point, DNA, and I think he said it pretty nicely.
It's more a "guy thing" sort of discussion, one that I don't want to get involved in because I come at the whole issue from more of a woman's perspective, and women are traditionally more concerned about the welfare of children and other beings, who are, like women, more vulnerable to toxins of all kinds than men are, in general.
But I will say that it looks to me like you are pretty much pointing the finger at Mike the same way that you are accusing him of doing with Target,and actually being a lot more hostile.
It's not so much about the statistics or the debate itself as the kind of energy that has been generating on this thread.
Perhaps to you it seems fine and even, but to others, maybe not so much.
I've been willing to admit that I don't know for certain what the truth may be, and Target has admitted it too, and yet he keeps on putting forth his case that radiation is pretty harmless and even healing.
If we has that opinion, that's OK, but somehow it hasn't seemed to be OK that others have different opinions, because he continues to try and make them look foolish, though his arguments are actually cherry picked and incomplete.
That just doesn't quite add up as totally benign, somehow, now does it?

I appreciate it when a person has the guts to say something that is contrary to the flow of the river.
I think it's possible part of his presentation is in knowing that he is pretty much on his own and as such he is used to getting tag teamed on this account.

Posted by Mike (here)
It's a cumulative thing Marcus. Not just this thread. And no, I'm not going to go back thru all his posts for your benefit.

I won't go the sarcastic route with you because A) I like you...and B) i'm much better at it than you are ..and I'd like to remain friends.

I like TargeT. I appreciate his scientific bent. I really do. We need more people like that here. But there are other things I dont really like. Ive identified them above.

Ive said my peace. If you want to continue the discussion, pm me ok?

And speaking of getting tag teamed, it sure felt like someone tagged you into this discussion rather than you really wondering in here organically.


I like you as well Mike. You know that. And that is probably why I was a little blunt in my post, but if I was a little blunt you came out guns blazing.
Again making an analogy that dude is the coke head at the party is again, well, that is in the realm of making an apology plain and simple.
And I really think you should apologize.

[Mike]

Here's the irony: I *did* just wander in here...I wandered in here because I like Target's posts! (In general...except when...well...just read my earlier post I guess)

We're killing this thread with off topic posts. I tell you what: i'll apologize if you erase your d!ck video

Seriously, I'm not calling anyone a coke head. Ive taken cocaine and its not too terribly different from being really wired off caffeine. Thats all I was saying...

..and I can't really say any more than that.

[DNA]

Posted by Mike (here)
Here's the irony: I *did* just wander in here...I wandered in here because I like Target's posts! (In general...except when...well...just read my earlier post I guess)

We're killing this thread with off topic posts. I tell you what: i'll apologize if you erase your d!ck video

Okay okay, well it seemed like this was an orchestrated hit. But if you say not, it's cool, there is no way I'm calling you a liar. But you really want me to remove the d!ck video? Cause I think that it is hilarious, but if you want I'll take it down and just leave the link.

Posted by Mike (here)
Seriously, I'm not calling anyone a coke head. Ive taken cocaine and its not too terribly different from being really wired off caffeine. Thats all I was saying...

..and I can't really say any more than that.

Then no offense bro, but you have never done good coke. And I suppose that is all I'm really going to say about that.

[Mike]

Orchestrated hit??? brother, you are giving me wayyyyyyyy too much credit. It's true that onawah and I have been good friends for a long time here, but a tag team hit squad we are not

(...maybe youve never really had good espresso)

[Ewan]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by TargeT (here)

this is not the first time you've posted a link to something with no summary, if you don't have the time to do that I don't have the time to listen to it

I was assuming that informed members here know exactly who Matthew Stein is. Maybe in your case I made a misjudgment!

Seriously Bill? That looks distinctly like an ego response and as such not in keeping with your general demeanor.

Is everyone feeling alright, because there seems to be more of this going on than normal.

Defending your viewpoint should never get adamant in my opinion, having discovered myself to be in error more times than I can remember has taught me that much.

We have no real knowledge to speak of, unless one is genuinely enlightened. That leaves us with trying to filter facts from a dung heap of information. It's okay to discuss things. It's not okay to start throwing toys out of the pram.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Ewan (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by TargeT (here)

this is not the first time you've posted a link to something with no summary, if you don't have the time to do that I don't have the time to listen to it

I was assuming that informed members here know exactly who Matthew Stein is. Maybe in your case I made a misjudgment!

Seriously Bill? That looks distinctly like an ego response and as such not in keeping with your general demeanor.

That was very gentle. You may have missed TargeT's sarcastic earlier response.

Posted by TargeT (here)

In fact, **** it, I shall go the route of Giovanni.. emotional outbursts seem to get attention here. Good bye

TargeT, we've placed you on sabbatical, assuming we correctly understand that was your request.

(Aside: we PMed Giovonni, and he's told us he does NOT want to retire or take a sabbatical, but is just resting up a little. That's 100% fine and welcome, and we're pleased he'll be staying on the forum as a respected, much-loved and highly valued member.)

TargeT, you're similarly respected and valued. Mike told you this. But just get some needed sleep, lay off the strong coffee a little, and you'll be welcome back here any time. Simply e-mail us to let us know.

Your comments have become quite a bit more extreme recently, as Mike fairly, kindly, commendably honestly, and accurately pointed out. You weren't 'attacked' here by me... your sarcasm about my post of Matthew Stein's C2C interview wasn't necessary. It's been building for a while, and you really do need to take a genuine short break. So we do thank you for being aware of this yourself.

[3(C)+me]

I have lurked on this whole thread because I live on the west coast and I have no plans on leaving anytime soon so this topic is of great interest to me. From all the posting from, Fukushima is doing terrible damage, to the opposite.

I am more confused then ever. But from what I can gather radiation does damage to the body then it is of a certain strength and the person is at a certain distance from it. I am talking about humans, but what about the animals in the sea, do we know what dumping tons of radioactive material is doing to them?

This topic is chock full of misinformation and that makes me highly suspicious that their are things certain 1% don't want us to figure out.
Can low continual levels radiation be damaging, I am not sure.

I didn't post because I had nothing to add but from the personal dynamics I was not sure I could post something I would later regret.
I can be very direct to a fault. I will admit that.

Yes, I can observe here and else where people are on edge, but some people do not know how to self regulate, like a bull in a china shop, they keep at it. Like banging their head against a wall.
The ability to self-regulate now is the name of the game.

[shaberon]

It's normal for the body to make cancer cells everyday, and usually it identifies them and gets rid of them. The first weakness in its response is when endocrine hormones are thrown off rhythm, mostly caused by the contamination of our food supply. Thus, some people can combat the effects of low level radiation better than others.

Another reason that made me want to join this forum besides the overall quality is that Bill does a superb job of moderation, probably a step beyond anything I could ever achieve personally. As humans, we're often under the "five blind men and the elephant" syndrome. It's quite a testy dynamic to have to deal with, and I hope we are all trying to unlearn doing it with "iron fist" methods.

[Andrew]

Regarding Galen Winsor's testimony and video lecture imo is one of the best whistleblowing films released and hasn't been DEBUNKED yet, gets swept under the rug by Bill Ryan.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Andrew (here)
Regarding Galen Winsor's testimony and video lecture imo is one of the best whistleblowing films released and hasn't been DEBUNKED yet, gets swept under the rug by Bill Ryan.

I don't know if this constitutes 'sweeping anything under the rug', but using Advanced Search to check exactly what I wrote back in 2013, you'd see that two of my considered posts on this said:

My honest opinion of Galen Winsor:

There seem to be three possibilities (in no special order here) -->

• He's a freak of nature (not an insult: there may be something remarkable about his body that most other bodies don't share)
• He's lying or deluded (or has been paid to lie)
• There's something about radiation that we don't yet understand.

There may well be anecdotal evidence that Galen Winsor was able to survive (and even enjoy!) high doses of radiation, but we can't take this unique case to mean that everyone else is quite wrong and that there's a vast conspiracy to convince us that radiation is dangerous while in fact it's perfectly safe.

It'd be extremely dangerous folly to look the other way, with our telescopes to our blind eyes, convincing ourselves -- because many people really want to believe it! -- that there's no problem. I suggest that we just can't afford to take that risk.

What that means in practical terms is different for each person. Personally, I'm happy not to be living on the North American Pacific coast, I take iodine supplements routinely, and I'm curtailing my intake of tuna (which accumulates radiation as it's so high on the food chain). Otherwise, I'm relaxed. But if Fukushima #4 containment building collapses, as appears quite possible, we may well have a huge, huge problem that could seriously affect a very wide area indeed.

More recently, 12 days ago, I wrote (much more concisely): "I don't believe a word of it" — which I don't. (You want me to lie? )

I'm not telling you what to believe. But if you want to swim in that radioactive water, be my guest... I won't be diving in to rescue you.