Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 22:11:51 +0000, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Mark Allread scribeth thus environment€¦radiation that doesn't stop at the West Coast. BioSuperfood is priceless in that regard." -- Jeff Rense end quote He the same copywriter for Russ Andrews perchance;?.... More like Rus (single 's')Andrews, see ... http://www.deceptionartist.com/single.html |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 18-Dec-16 9:48 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message ... On Saturday, 17 December 2016 18:43:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote: harry wrote Rod Speed wrote harry wrote http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff like siting it where a tsunami can be a problem. That's exactly where Hinkley Point is sited. Dont get tsunamis there, stupid. You really are a thicko aren't you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristo...l_floods,_1607 That's not a tsunami, stupid. Trivial to make it immune to floods like that. They did, in fact, take account of that event in their flood planning. IIRC, the outer defences will withstand 50% higher water and the critical systems have their own independent and better defences. -- -- Colin Bignell |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On Sunday, 18 December 2016 09:48:15 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message ... On Saturday, 17 December 2016 18:43:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote: harry wrote Rod Speed wrote harry wrote http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff like siting it where a tsunami can be a problem. That's exactly where Hinkley Point is sited. Dont get tsunamis there, stupid. You really are a thicko aren't you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristo...l_floods,_1607 That's not a tsunami, stupid. Trivial to make it immune to floods like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunam...ure_tsunam is |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
"Nightjar" wrote in message ... On 18-Dec-16 9:48 AM, Rod Speed wrote: "harry" wrote in message ... On Saturday, 17 December 2016 18:43:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote: harry wrote Rod Speed wrote harry wrote http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff like siting it where a tsunami can be a problem. That's exactly where Hinkley Point is sited. Dont get tsunamis there, stupid. You really are a thicko aren't you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristo...l_floods,_1607 That's not a tsunami, stupid. Trivial to make it immune to floods like that. They did, in fact, take account of that event in their flood planning. IIRC, the outer defences will withstand 50% higher water and the critical systems have their own independent and better defences. Yeah, they just stuffed up a bit of the detail and it would have been completely trivial to make Fukushima completely immune to that tsunami so they could have just yawned when it happened. |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
"harry" wrote in message ... On Sunday, 18 December 2016 09:48:15 UTC, Rod Speed wrote: "harry" wrote in message ... On Saturday, 17 December 2016 18:43:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote: harry wrote Rod Speed wrote harry wrote http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff like siting it where a tsunami can be a problem. That's exactly where Hinkley Point is sited. Dont get tsunamis there, stupid. You really are a thicko aren't you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristo...l_floods,_1607 That's not a tsunami, stupid. Trivial to make it immune to floods like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunam...ure_tsunam is Trivial to make it immune to those too. Fukushima would have been immune to that one too, they just ****ed up a bit of the design detail. |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? Harry won't tell us... Andy |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On Sunday, 18 December 2016 21:02:27 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? Harry won't tell us... Andy Are you so thick you can't find out for yourself? https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/radiatio...llion-japanese |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 19/12/2016 09:05, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 18 December 2016 21:02:27 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? Harry won't tell us... Andy Are you so thick you can't find out for yourself? https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/radiatio...llion-japanese Why not answer the question? |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 19/12/2016 09:09, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/12/2016 09:05, harry wrote: On Sunday, 18 December 2016 21:02:27 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? Harry won't tell us... Andy Are you so thick you can't find out for yourself? https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/radiatio...llion-japanese Because to admit that the answer is close to zero would not support his scare story agenda? Even solar power kills more people per TWh generated than nuclear. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 19/12/16 13:56, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. some estimate 0, and they have been so far correct. |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 18/12/16 10:33, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 17 December 2016 18:43:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote: harry wrote Rod Speed wrote harry wrote http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff like siting it where a tsunami can be a problem. That's exactly where Hinkley Point is sited. Dont get tsunamis there, stupid. You really are a thicko aren't you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristo...l_floods,_1607 You really are a thicko aren't you? "A chiselled mark remains showing that the maximum height of the water was 7.74 metres above sea level" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristo...l_floods,_1607 Now look at what ****ed up Fukushima, "The tsunami waves reached run-up heights (how far the wave surges inland above sea level) of up to 128 feet (39 meters)" http://www.livescience.com/39110-jap...ami-facts.html |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. Only the nutters. The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received exposures of more than 10mSv. The French Institute for Radiological Protection & Nuclear Safety took measurements that indicated that, outside the plant, levels were unlikely to exceed 30mSV/y for the first year and falling thereafter. There is absolutely no evidence for any adverse effects from an exposure level below 100mSv/y and people quite happily live in areas where the natural background radiation can give doses as high as 50mSv/y OTOH, around 761 people were identified as having died as a direct result of the evacuation. -- -- Colin Bignell |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 19/12/2016 11:56, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. So implausible as can be discounted out of hand. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 19/12/2016 12:47, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. Only the nutters. The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received exposures of more than 10mSv. The French Institute for Radiological Protection & Nuclear Safety took measurements that indicated that, outside the plant, levels were unlikely to exceed 30mSV/y for the first year and falling thereafter. There is absolutely no evidence for any adverse effects from an exposure level below 100mSv/y and people quite happily live in areas where the natural background radiation can give doses as high as 50mSv/y and to put those figures into context: https://xkcd.com/radiation/ 50mSv being the maximum annual dose permitted for people working with radio nucleotides. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 19/12/16 15:10, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/12/2016 12:47, Nightjar wrote: On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. Only the nutters. The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received exposures of more than 10mSv. The French Institute for Radiological Protection & Nuclear Safety took measurements that indicated that, outside the plant, levels were unlikely to exceed 30mSV/y for the first year and falling thereafter. There is absolutely no evidence for any adverse effects from an exposure level below 100mSv/y and people quite happily live in areas where the natural background radiation can give doses as high as 50mSv/y and to put those figures into context: https://xkcd.com/radiation/ 50mSv being the maximum annual dose permitted for people working with radio nucleotides. and there being strong evidence that you need over 100mSv in a SINGLE DOSE to actually measurably increase cancer risks. |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 19/12/16 14:47, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. Only the nutters. The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received exposures of more than 10mSv. I have had more than that from cat scans and angiograms. The French Institute for Radiological Protection & Nuclear Safety took measurements that indicated that, outside the plant, levels were unlikely to exceed 30mSV/y for the first year and falling thereafter. There is absolutely no evidence for any adverse effects from an exposure level below 100mSv/y and people quite happily live in areas where the natural background radiation can give doses as high as 50mSv/y OTOH, around 761 people were identified as having died as a direct result of the evacuation. yip. That's the sort of murderous **** harry is.Solar Panels and lack of reliable electricity kills more people than nukes ever have. |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 19/12/2016 11:56, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. What do they think is going to happen to cause that? |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 19/12/16 16:13, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/12/2016 11:56, mechanic wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. What do they think is going to happen to cause that? Mass alteration of the laws of physics and biology to match the discredited LNT radiation models. |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On Monday, 19 December 2016 09:39:12 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/12/2016 09:09, dennis@home wrote: On 19/12/2016 09:05, harry wrote: On Sunday, 18 December 2016 21:02:27 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? Harry won't tell us... Andy Are you so thick you can't find out for yourself? https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/radiatio...llion-japanese Because to admit that the answer is close to zero would not support his scare story agenda? Even solar power kills more people per TWh generated than nuclear. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ Tens of thousands of lives have been shortened. If these people had remained near the zone,there would have been more deaths/lives shortened. But they were evacuated and given iodine pills. |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On Monday, 19 December 2016 12:47:39 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. Only the nutters. The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received exposures of more than 10mSv. Because they were evacuated. |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 19/12/16 18:20, harry wrote:
Tens of thousands of lives have been shortened. Lie. If these people had remained near the zone,there would have been more deaths/lives shortened. Lie. But they were evacuated and given iodine pills. True. Not that they needed any. i-131 contaminatin was almost non-existent. "A later, 12 April 2011, NISA and NSC report estimated the total air release of iodine-131 at 130 PBq and 150 PBq, respectively €“ about *30 grams*" Wow. Just over an ounce of radioactive iodine. |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
"mechanic" wrote in message ... On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. Just because someone plucks some number out of their arse... |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
"harry" wrote in message ... On Monday, 19 December 2016 09:39:12 UTC, John Rumm wrote: On 19/12/2016 09:09, dennis@home wrote: On 19/12/2016 09:05, harry wrote: On Sunday, 18 December 2016 21:02:27 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? Harry won't tell us... Andy Are you so thick you can't find out for yourself? https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/radiatio...llion-japanese Because to admit that the answer is close to zero would not support his scare story agenda? Even solar power kills more people per TWh generated than nuclear. Tens of thousands of lives have been shortened. That claim is straight from your arse, we can tell from the smell. If these people had remained near the zone, there would have been more deaths/lives shortened. Far fewer actually given how many died due to the evacuation. But they were evacuated And that killed FAR more than would have died if they hadn't been. and given iodine pills. |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 19/12/2016 16:22, harry wrote:
On Monday, 19 December 2016 12:47:39 UTC, Nightjar wrote: On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. Only the nutters. The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received exposures of more than 10mSv. Because they were evacuated. Harry, that link you gave said that 1700 people were killed as a result of the evacuation. The number you won't give is now officially one - that is one person's family has been paid compensation because it is possible his death was caused by the radiation he received working on the cleanup. (Possible, not certain) If I suggested a vaccine against flu, and it killed 1700 people there would be an outcry - and that's a disease that kills on average 600 people a year. There is no evidence whatsoever that the number of deaths from Fukushima would have been higher than the 1700 that the evacuation killed, which means that the fear of radiation - which you share - killed many more people than the radiation itself. You need to put these things into perspective. How many people would die if we relied on coal? How many people would die if the power goes off one cold January night when the wind isn't blowing, and the sun doesn't shine? Andy |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 12/19/2016 1:10 PM, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/12/2016 12:47, Nightjar wrote: On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. Only the nutters. The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received exposures of more than 10mSv. The French Institute for Radiological Protection & Nuclear Safety took measurements that indicated that, outside the plant, levels were unlikely to exceed 30mSV/y for the first year and falling thereafter. There is absolutely no evidence for any adverse effects from an exposure level below 100mSv/y and people quite happily live in areas where the natural background radiation can give doses as high as 50mSv/y and to put those figures into context: https://xkcd.com/radiation/ 50mSv being the maximum annual dose permitted for people working with radio nucleotides. And that is for special cases only, the general figure being 20 mSv. |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 12/19/2016 12:50 PM, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/12/2016 11:56, mechanic wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. So implausible as can be discounted out of hand. Perhaps someone has added up the global numbers for the next million years. |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:50:47 +0000, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/12/2016 11:56, mechanic wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. So implausible as can be discounted out of hand. http://www.theecologist.org/News/new...ill_ die.html https://www.elsevier.com/connect/5-y...h#human-health https://www.techinasia.com/japan-youtube-protest http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=11668 |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 19/12/2016 17:19, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harry wrote: On Monday, 19 December 2016 09:39:12 UTC, John Rumm wrote: On 19/12/2016 09:09, dennis@home wrote: On 19/12/2016 09:05, harry wrote: On Sunday, 18 December 2016 21:02:27 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? Harry won't tell us... Are you so thick you can't find out for yourself? https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/radiatio...r-still-affect s-32-million-japanese Because to admit that the answer is close to zero would not support his scare story agenda? Even solar power kills more people per TWh generated than nuclear. Tens of thousands of lives have been shortened. If these people had remained near the zone,there would have been more deaths/lives shortened. But they were evacuated and given iodine pills. That's Chernobyl you're thinking of. Where there were no iodine pills given. And the WHO estimate is up to 4000 lives "shortened". But no one knows by how much. And that's over a time period when millions will die of cancer anyway. So your numbers for Fuk are cock. As usual. The WHO published some quite detailed reports: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/.../2005/pr38/en/ "The reports estimate for the eventual number of deaths is far lower than earlier, well-publicized speculations that radiation exposure would claim tens of thousands of lives. But the 4000 figure is not far different from estimates made in 1986 by Soviet scientists, according to Dr Mikhail Balonov, a radiation expert with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, who was a scientist in the former Soviet Union at the time of the accident." -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
"mechanic" wrote in message ... On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:50:47 +0000, John Rumm wrote: On 19/12/2016 11:56, mechanic wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. So implausible as can be discounted out of hand. http://www.theecologist.org/News/new...ill_ die.html Just because some ****wit claims something... https://www.elsevier.com/connect/5-y...h#human-health Just because some ****wit claims something... https://www.techinasia.com/japan-youtube-protest Just because some ****wit claims something... http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=11668 Just because some ****wit claims something... |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 19/12/2016 21:59, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:50:47 +0000, John Rumm wrote: On 19/12/2016 11:56, mechanic wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. So implausible as can be discounted out of hand. http://www.theecologist.org/News/new...ill_ die.html https://www.elsevier.com/connect/5-y...h#human-health https://www.techinasia.com/japan-youtube-protest http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=11668 Someone else who obviously does not read the links they post. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 19-Dec-16 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
On Monday, 19 December 2016 12:47:39 UTC, Nightjar wrote: On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. Only the nutters. The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received exposures of more than 10mSv. Because they were evacuated. An exercise that directly resulted in the deaths of 761 people who, had they remained, would still not have received dangerous doses of radiation. -- -- Colin Bignell |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 19-Dec-16 9:59 PM, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:50:47 +0000, John Rumm wrote: On 19/12/2016 11:56, mechanic wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. So implausible as can be discounted out of hand. http://www.theecologist.org/News/new...ill_ die.html Which bases its predictions on the discredited linear no threshold model. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/5-y...h#human-health The links from which include information on the benefits of low dose exposure to radiation. -- -- Colin Bignell |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 19-Dec-16 5:19 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harry wrote: On Monday, 19 December 2016 09:39:12 UTC, John Rumm wrote: On 19/12/2016 09:09, dennis@home wrote: On 19/12/2016 09:05, harry wrote: On Sunday, 18 December 2016 21:02:27 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? Harry won't tell us... Are you so thick you can't find out for yourself? https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/radiatio...r-still-affect s-32-million-japanese Because to admit that the answer is close to zero would not support his scare story agenda? Even solar power kills more people per TWh generated than nuclear. Tens of thousands of lives have been shortened. If these people had remained near the zone,there would have been more deaths/lives shortened. But they were evacuated and given iodine pills. That's Chernobyl you're thinking of. Where there were no iodine pills given. And the WHO estimate is up to 4000 lives "shortened". But no one knows by how much. And that's over a time period when millions will die of cancer anyway. The WHO used the linear no threshold model to come to that conclusion. They did so intentionally, because it gives the worst case. However, there is absolutely no evidence of harm from doses below 100mSv and, if that is taken as the lower limit, the number at any risk at all falls to around 2,200 clean up workers. However, although radiation induced leukaemia is known to appear around 2-3 years after exposure and hard cancers should appear within 20 years, neither have appeared in statistically larger numbers than they would in the general population. Drinking and suicide are considered to be much more probably causes of death among the clean-up workers. So your numbers for Fuk are cock. As usual. I think we can safely assume that for anything Harry posts. -- -- Colin Bignell |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 20/12/2016 09:55, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 5:19 PM, Tim Streater wrote: In article , harry wrote: On Monday, 19 December 2016 09:39:12 UTC, John Rumm wrote: On 19/12/2016 09:09, dennis@home wrote: On 19/12/2016 09:05, harry wrote: On Sunday, 18 December 2016 21:02:27 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? Harry won't tell us... Are you so thick you can't find out for yourself? https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/radiatio...r-still-affect s-32-million-japanese Because to admit that the answer is close to zero would not support his scare story agenda? Even solar power kills more people per TWh generated than nuclear. Tens of thousands of lives have been shortened. If these people had remained near the zone,there would have been more deaths/lives shortened. But they were evacuated and given iodine pills. That's Chernobyl you're thinking of. Where there were no iodine pills given. And the WHO estimate is up to 4000 lives "shortened". But no one knows by how much. And that's over a time period when millions will die of cancer anyway. The WHO used the linear no threshold model to come to that conclusion. They did so intentionally, because it gives the worst case. However, there is absolutely no evidence of harm from doses below 100mSv and, It amazes me that people still use LNT for predictions when there is copious evidence that its hopelessly inaccurate. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 20/12/16 15:31, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 11:32:03 +0000, John Rumm wrote: It amazes me that people still use LNT for predictions when there is copious evidence that its hopelessly inaccurate. I have a sneaking idea that the NRPB still uses it as a guiding principle when setting radiation exposure limits, BICBW. well yes, that's the whole point. The industry is held to unbeleivably tight emissions, but they are totally unnecessary. And lead to serous public misunderstanding and fear in the face of radiation levels that are simply not an issue at all. http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/P...ear_Energy.pdf "Radiotherapy of deep cancers would not be possible if LNT was applicable." "At Hiroshima and Nagasaki these (bombs) promptly killed at least a quarter of the population of 429,000. In 1950 when reliable records were compiled, only 283,000 survivors could be traced, and their medical health has been followed ever since. Individual doses have been reconstructed for 86,955, knowing where they were when the bomb detonated and checked with their radiation history as recorded by chromosome abnormalities and unpaired electron densities (ESR) in their teeth. The average whole body dose was 160mSv from the acute X-ray and neutron flux. An unknown number of citizens succumbed to ARS and some will have died of cancer before 1950, but most cancers would be expected in the period 1950-2000 and these data are available. Similar data for inhabitants of other Japanese cities have been analysed for comparison. Of those with a reconstructed dose 10,127 died of solid cancers compared to 9,647 expected from data on other cities; for leukaemia the numbers are 296 and 203. These numbers mean that overall cancer rates increased by 1 in 15 due to the radiation. For the 67,794 survivors with doses less than 100mSv the numbers are 7,657 and 7,595, and for leukaemia 161 and 157. The extra deaths (measure as 62 and 4) are smaller than the typical random error to be expected statistically (90 and 13), and so cannot be considered significant measurements at all. So for these 67,794 people all that we can say is that the cancer risk is not much more than 1 in 1000. For comparison, the chance of dying in a road accident in a lifetime varies between 3 and 6 in 1000. So for all practical purposes there is a threshold of risk at 100mSv - what happens at lower doses is unmeasurable, even when nuclear bombs are dropped on two major cities and the health of the survivors is followed for 50 years. " "The accident at Chernobyl was more than 25 years ago and what happened, who suffered and how, has been extensively reported in publications by the World Health Organisation, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Authority. The known loss of life as a result of radiation exposure includes the 28 firefighters who died of ARS and 15 children who died from thyroid cancer. They report that there is no firm evidence for any other loss of life due to radiation, either individually identified or statistically shown. "The higher numbers sometimes reported are based on paper calculations simply multiplying risk coefficients (eg 5% risk of death per Sv) with low doses rates near natural levels accumulated by many people and added up over many years. Such coefficients are a feature of the discredited LNT model. But *even the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) that still champions LNT* has cautioned that such calculations €śshould be avoided€ť." |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On Monday, 19 December 2016 12:47:39 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. Only the nutters. The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received exposures of more than 10mSv. The French Institute for Radiological Protection & Nuclear Safety took measurements that indicated that, outside the plant, levels were unlikely to exceed 30mSV/y for the first year and falling thereafter. There is absolutely no evidence for any adverse effects from an exposure level below 100mSv/y and people quite happily live in areas where the natural background radiation can give doses as high as 50mSv/y OTOH, around 761 people were identified as having died as a direct result of the evacuation. -- -- Colin Bignell They had low radiation exposure because they were evacuated. If they hadn't been evacuated, most would be dead by now. |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On Tuesday, 20 December 2016 09:27:26 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 4:22 PM, harry wrote: On Monday, 19 December 2016 12:47:39 UTC, Nightjar wrote: On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. Only the nutters. The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received exposures of more than 10mSv. Because they were evacuated. An exercise that directly resulted in the deaths of 761 people who, had they remained, would still not have received dangerous doses of radiation. -- -- Colin Bignell So why haven't they all gone back? |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 20/12/16 17:47, harry wrote:
On Monday, 19 December 2016 12:47:39 UTC, Nightjar wrote: On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. Only the nutters. The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received exposures of more than 10mSv. The French Institute for Radiological Protection & Nuclear Safety took measurements that indicated that, outside the plant, levels were unlikely to exceed 30mSV/y for the first year and falling thereafter. There is absolutely no evidence for any adverse effects from an exposure level below 100mSv/y and people quite happily live in areas where the natural background radiation can give doses as high as 50mSv/y OTOH, around 761 people were identified as having died as a direct result of the evacuation. -- -- Colin Bignell They had low radiation exposure because they were evacuated. If they hadn't been evacuated, most would be dead by now. Blatant lie. |
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 20/12/16 17:48, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 December 2016 09:27:26 UTC, Nightjar wrote: On 19-Dec-16 4:22 PM, harry wrote: On Monday, 19 December 2016 12:47:39 UTC, Nightjar wrote: On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION? More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000. Only the nutters. The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received exposures of more than 10mSv. Because they were evacuated. An exercise that directly resulted in the deaths of 761 people who, had they remained, would still not have received dangerous doses of radiation. -- -- Colin Bignell So why haven't they all gone back? Politics. The Jap government is torn between 'we overreacted. its all a load of cobblers and we should never have evacuated you ' and 'we will clean this up so that even the most ardent green idiot will say how well we have done' The problem lies with te regulatory regme which s massively conservervative, and the stupidity of harry ^H^J^H^H^H the public, who think that any breach of the regulatory regime is a 'disaster'. To put that into perspective Fukushima was classed as a radiation event the same level as Chernobyl, the worst possible radioactive release. And yet no one has died, or will die. Or even get sick, as a result. More people died at Chappaquiddick... |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter