Mari
Sokka
I Love Psychology
Posts: 142
|
Post by Mari on Mar 18, 2011 22:19:34 GMT -5
I personally think any radiation escaping into the air is doing somewhat damage, radiation poisoning causes fatal cancers, cancers that aren't cured by immunosurpressants. It is said that it's not doing any real harm to human health, but who can predict that on a cellular level? Being Chernobyl had 4,000 or so people who suffered from cancer fatalities I don't see why we shouldn't be the least bit concerned with the harm of radiation even in small amounts. Now I'm saying this from a local level not a global catastrophe.
I also don't think it's doing any good on our already deteriorating ozone layers either. I think the problem needs to be controlled sooner than later so we can focus on the other specifics of Japan right now.
|
|
|
Post by Gran Gran on Mar 19, 2011 14:40:22 GMT -5
I personally think any radiation escaping into the air is doing somewhat damage, radiation poisoning causes fatal cancers, cancers that aren't cured by immunosurpressants. It is said that it's not doing any real harm to human health, but who can predict that on a cellular level? Being Chernobyl had 4,000 or so people who suffered from cancer fatalities I don't see why we shouldn't be the least bit concerned with the harm of radiation even in small amounts. Now I'm saying this from a local level not a global catastrophe. I also don't think it's doing any good on our already deteriorating ozone layers either. I think the problem needs to be controlled sooner than later so we can focus on the other specifics of Japan right now. 4000 cancer fatalities from Chernobyl? Having been in Europe at the time and considering the upfrontness of the soviet apperatus with information (muahahahaha, yeah, right), I highly doubt those numbers are accurate. The again, a lot of people died well before having had a chance to develop cancer. But so far the situation is vastly different, thank God. The Japan reactor is still largely contained, the Chernobyl one literally blew the roof off and released all kinds of material into the environment. Also, we are constantly exposed to radiation. More in some places, less in others. We take plane trip, we get an X-Ray, we live in an area with naturally ocuring radiation, like Radon or Uranium ores. There will be fallout from the reactor, no pun intended. So in the closer areas there will likely be no inhabitation possible for a long time. But hopefully it won't be a huge area, like in Chernobyl (though they have been conductin studies in the abandoned areas, observing how the wildlife is reclaiming human property and how nature is taking over and coping with things.But the Ukraine has a lot of land to spare...Japan...not so much)
|
|
|
Post by GROOONK'D on Mar 19, 2011 19:23:39 GMT -5
Fun fact, the areas of Tokyo got a temporary increase of radiation when reactor 4 was still burning that brought it up to the same level as the average level in Denver.
|
|
Mari
Sokka
I Love Psychology
Posts: 142
|
Post by Mari on Mar 21, 2011 20:56:56 GMT -5
And we wonder why cancer is such pandemic... Especially in countries of eastern Europe... Another fun fact, 1 in 2 people will develop cancer sometime in their lives, wonder what shot this level up from 1900?
|
|
|
Post by GROOONK'D on Mar 21, 2011 23:03:23 GMT -5
I meant that the radiation level was literally insignificant. You are exposed to more radiation eating a banana than being in Tokyo right now.
Incidentally the massive amounts of coal plants across the globe produce exponentially more radiation than all of the nuclear plants put together.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Mar 22, 2011 1:08:09 GMT -5
"Work to restore power to reactors at the quake-hit Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station resumed Tuesday morning, despite signs of smoke rising from reactors No. 2 and 3. Earthquake survivors in Japan are faced with a new challenge: what to do with their dead loved ones. In a country with a tradition of cremation, the prospect of mass graves raises tension. WSJ's Mariko Sanchanta and Yumiko Ono discuss. "Japan’s nuclear safety agency said Tuesday that it detected higher-than-permitted levels of radioactive materials in seawater near the plant, raising the possibility that contamination from the power station could spread to marine life." blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/03/22/at-a-glance-mixed-signals-at-fukushima/This is in NO WAY AT ALL WHATSOEVER SHUT UP like Chernobyl AT ALL. It CANNOT BECOME LIKE IT. Sorry about the caps but GET IT THROUGH YOUR GOD DA.MN HEADS. **** the media for doing this. This situation is so blown out of proportion it is crazy. Go actually read about Chernobyl and the situation around it before you start comparing every nuclear incident to it. Chernobyl was something that could, literally on a physical level, never happen again. As mentioned before, part of the anxiety is that there has been so little definitive information on exactly how bad it is or how close they are to a full solution. Its easily the worse nuclear plant disaster since Chernobyl which was ranked as Nuclear Alert Level 7 and Japan's own nuclear authorities have already raised its nuclear alert level to 5. So forgive the caps and the paraphrase but GET THAT THROUGH YOUR GOD DA.MN HEAD.
|
|
|
Post by GROOONK'D on Mar 22, 2011 8:38:19 GMT -5
It's literally the only nuclear disaster since Chernobyl.
|
|
|
Post by Gran Gran on Mar 22, 2011 12:30:48 GMT -5
Aight guys, this is not CT, so we all need to be civil. Well, we need to be civil on CT, too, bu that's not the point.
I am not surprised that the radiation levels in the ocean near by are elevated. How bad it is going to be, again, it depends on the material that was washed out to sea.
|
|
|
Post by syarafire on Mar 22, 2011 17:30:04 GMT -5
VP is correct in that this is in no way "like Chernobyl" (and in fact cannot be like Chernobyl) and any portrayal as such is a blatant exaggeration. It's just a very bad comparison. The measured radiation levels in Tokyo, while slightly higher than average, are still far, far below the threshold of danger and the comparison to living in Denver for a year is accurate. This, while long, is a very informative lecture that's relevant to the topic. The real tragedy here is the earthquake and tsunami and it just seems like everyone's jumping on Fukushima Daiichi as a reason why NUCLEAR ENERGY IS BAD AAAAAAAA. But regardless, I encourage everyone to donate if at all possible because this is terrible. ):
|
|
|
Post by goten0040 on Mar 22, 2011 20:27:45 GMT -5
That's an unnecessary comment.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Mar 22, 2011 23:00:04 GMT -5
VP is correct in that this is in no way "like Chernobyl" (and in fact cannot be like Chernobyl) and any portrayal as such is a blatant exaggeration. It's just a very bad comparison. The measured radiation levels in Tokyo, while slightly higher than average, are still far, far below the threshold of danger and the comparison to living in Denver for a year is accurate. This, while long, is a very informative lecture that's relevant to the topic. The real tragedy here is the earthquake and tsunami and it just seems like everyone's jumping on Fukushima Daiichi as a reason why NUCLEAR ENERGY IS BAD AAAAAAAA. But regardless, I encourage everyone to donate if at all possible because this is terrible. ): What would you consider to be a fair and relevant comparison of the risks involved? Considering the distance of Tokyo from the site of the Nuclear plant, I find it a really quite a straw man argument. I went thru all the post on this thread and cant see where anyone said it was exactly "like Chernobyl". Chernobyl is just a point of comparison for a worse case scenario- quite possibly the only one we have. Im sure there are many people who are oveacting outside this thread but the I think most of the concerns expressly raised by people on this thread have been far more moderate and justifiable. I certainly agree that the Nuclear plant disaster is just part of the greater tragedy of the earthquake and the tsunami and should be considered in the overall context but I dont find it neccesary to belittle the possible risks from the ongoing crisis at Nuclear Plant. Gran Gran- The last line of my previous post was a direct paraphrase of vector's own comment. No rudeness was intended-just a shared sense of emphasis.
|
|
|
Post by syarafire on Mar 23, 2011 0:38:06 GMT -5
The Chernobyl comparison was brought up, though. The fact is, things can deteriorate extremely rapidly and you could have a Chernorbyl event within a matter of hours. Of course it's not prudent to go "oh, let's ignore the nuclear power plant issue because it is clearly unimportant!" because it was a Big Deal. But using Chernobyl as a point of comparison is misleading to people who don't understand the differences between nuclear reactors today and the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl that make it impossible for an event like that to occur. The situation at Fukushima is a problem and nobody is denying that - just denying that this is going to cause radiation poisoning and cancer and death. The measured radiation levels have been in μSv (one millionth of a Sievert) thus far, and the effects of radiation poisoning normally start at 1 Sv. Nobody is trying to belittle what's going on. Naturally, assessing the risks of any crisis is important, but considering how little attention the negative effects of coal plants gets in comparison to this, it seems odd to be so fixated. I'd rather cut this derail short for now to focus more on news and updates, but if anyone wants to make a thread in Critical Thinking go right ahead.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Mar 23, 2011 3:22:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Gran Gran on Mar 23, 2011 7:47:16 GMT -5
LOL, US halts Imports...
That is somewhat a ridiculous notion at this time to even bother thinking about that.
It was a huge earthquake AND a Tsunami, yes, this is expensive.
However. Chernobyl and Fukushima can only be compared on age.
From what I can tell, from memory, in the Soviet model reactor a lot of safeguards that were standard even at that time in the rest of the world were just not build, thus the reactor could just blow the roof off and release all sorts of radioactive material into the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by syarafire on Mar 23, 2011 11:42:38 GMT -5
Even if they were built at around the same time, they are completely different.
The worst that could happen in this situation is the spent fuel rods catching fire and then continuing to burn, which seems to have been averted for the time being. It's all been generally good news concerning Fukushima lately, compared to what was happening before.
The amount of people affected by this is just awful, though.
|
|