+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Fukushima has had no effect on Hawaii (/showthread.php?tid=17697)
RE: Fukushima has had no effect on Hawaii - ElysianWort - 10-08-2016
Exactly Eric. Case and point. Don't trust media or government. Government controls media.
RE: Fukushima has had no effect on Hawaii - HereOnThePrimalEdge - 10-08-2016
Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year
...
I'd guess that one more or less flight to the mainland would represent a substantially higher radiation dose than any we are likely to get from Fukushima.
...
If I skip my daily banana for breakfast, that'd probably cover it...
Thanks for the context geochem. People forget we're exposed to radiation and toxins on a regular basis. The stress from worrying about radiation from Fukushima in Hawaii is probably more detrimental to a person's health than any actual Fukushima radiation they may have been exposed to. If... they were exposed...
No fathers or mothers think their own children ugly; and this self-deceit is yet stronger with respect to the offspring of the mind. -Miguel de Cervantes, novelist (1547-1616)
RE: Fukushima has had no effect on Hawaii - TomK - 10-08-2016
ElysianWort,
"So what's the deal scientists and people who are in the know? Does radiation not spread as much through the ocean as through the atmosphere?"
geochem gave a very comprehensive response to you, so won't develop the argument too much more. But will add this:
The original article Chas posted, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-02/fukushima-radiation-has-contaminated-entire-pacific-ocean-and-its-going-get-worse , used an illustration that does not reflect the distribution of radioactivity. The image shows the energy distribution caused by the earthquake and how it propagated through the Pacific. You have to bear in mind that it does not show water being transported at ~500 mph, but instead shows how the wave energy propagated through the Pacific. All the water did was go up and down, and for the radioactive particles to travel the Pacific, they have to be carried by water.
Water is an excellent attenuator of radiation. Alpha and Beta radiation are both fairly short range and water would prevent that radiation spreading more than a few inches. Gamma radiation travels long distances quickly, but guess what? Not very far in water. That's why water is used to shield nuclear reactors.
After the earthquake, the radioactive particles could only affect other places after being carried by currents, and the Pacific Ocean is enormous, hence the dilution.
As for a government conspiracy, well, no. There are too many researchers with equipment to measure radioactivity, both in the air and in the ocean. There is absolutely no way the government could control all of these people. I hear the same argument about a killer asteroid heading towards the earth and the government covering it up. It's impossible, there are too many people who would know this for it not to become public knowledge.
My recommendation: whenever you see a non-science website use that image of the energy map from NOAA and mentions a radioactivity threat, treat it with an awful lot of skeptism.
RE: Fukushima has had no effect on Hawaii - MarkP - 10-09-2016
In a former life I was a member of the Engineers and Architects of Hawaii and attended Friday luncheons where we took turns hosting speakers on topics of interest to the group. I forget who the host was or who the speaker was this one time but the topic was the threat from electro-magnetic radiation from power lines. Somebody pointed out that as an unseen potential hazard, radon was far worse (documented and all whereas EMF not so much) and the speaker said he had often made the same point himself. The usual reaction he got was along the lines of "Yeah, we already have to worry about that, so we don't want to have the EMF thing on top of that". No attempt is made by the general public to prioritize risks based on facts, only on emotion. The speaker went on to summarize by saying "People don't want to die weird". I have to agree. We all accept the risks of driving on roads with drunk, impaired, or otherwise incompetent drivers. We smoke and eat diets that give us heart disease and diabetes. Then we turn right around and claim allergies to EMF which is something totally unsupported by science, or while living on an active volcano that has been venting H2S for centuries, claim that the geothermal plant is making us sick.
RE: Fukushima has had no effect on Hawaii - HereOnThePrimalEdge - 10-09-2016
risks of driving on roads with drunk, impaired, or otherwise incompetent drivers.
...
We smoke and eat diets that give us heart disease and diabetes.
...
living on an active volcano that has been venting H2S for centuries,
"People don't want to die weird"
And why should we? We already live weird, so is it too much for us to ask that we don't die weird too?
No fathers or mothers think their own children ugly; and this self-deceit is yet stronger with respect to the offspring of the mind. -Miguel de Cervantes, novelist (1547-1616)
RE: Fukushima has had no effect on Hawaii - TomK - 10-09-2016
bananahead,
"whenever someone try for compare Chernobyl and Fukushima, you have to look at the countries, the USSR are full slimy criminals.. Japan not so much so... USSR tried to keep their prob out of the news and cover it all up, Japan not so...
Comparing Fukushima and Chernobyl ... Chernobyl was many many times worse [...]"
Chernobyl was worse not because it happened in the USSR, but the structure housing the reactor exploded exposing the reactor to the atmosphere. As a young 18-year old physics student at the time, we actually carried out measurements in standing water for a few days after the explosion, and the amount of radioactivity increased significantly. This was due airborne particles from the reactor being blown by the wind over the UK. Other places, closer to Chernobyl, saw much higher readings. In the subsequent weeks and months, several areas used for farming were closed due to the high levels of long-lived radioactive particles on the ground. I believe there are still areas in the UK that can't be used for farming as the radioactive products that contaminated the land have long half-lives.
Fukushima was different. Some radioactivity was released into the atmosphere, but most went into the ocean. It was disastrous for the local area and still is, let's not forget that, but the Fukushima disaster had little affect on other countries whereas Chernobyl did.
That's why Chernobyl was a bigger disaster; it affected much of Europe as well as the old USSR. Nothing to do with the citizens of those countries.