Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
Just thought I'd set the record straight.
http://health.hawaii.gov/irhb/japan2011/
"The results of past and present monitoring show that residents of Hawaii have not been exposed to levels of radiation from Fukushima that would be deemed a significant health risk, and that levels are far below any level of public health concern. "
Even seafood from Japan is safe:
"To date, FDA has no evidence that radionuclides from the Fukushima incident are present in the U.S. food supply at levels that would pose a public health concern. This is true for both FDA-regulated food products imported from Japan and U.S. domestic food products, including seafood caught off the coast of the United States. Consequently, FDA is not advising consumers to alter their consumption of specific foods imported from Japan or domestically produced foods, including seafood."
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
There may have been some effects, sales of tinfoil possibly increased.
Posts: 148
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2014
quote:
Even seafood from Japan is safe:
"To date, FDA has no evidence that radionuclides from the Fukushima incident are present in the U.S. food supply at levels that would pose a public health concern. This is true for both FDA-regulated food products imported from Japan and U.S. domestic food products, including seafood caught off the coast of the United States. Consequently, FDA is not advising consumers to alter their consumption of specific foods imported from Japan or domestically produced foods, including seafood."
Not arguing the point here, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Your statement does not follow from the quoted passage.
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.
—#8201;Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
There were some positive effects, some people would've learned that radiation isn't quite as scary as they thought.
The geiger counter industry got a good boost too.
Posts: 1,099
Threads: 71
Joined: Jan 2009
quote:
Originally posted by PaulW
There were some positive effects, some people would've learned that radiation isn't quite as scary as they thought.
Or that the Pacific is a big chunk of water.
Cheers,
Kirt
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
Indeed. Take a flight from Honolulu to Tokyo and grab a window seat if you can. More than 8 hours of travelling at 500 miles an hour and nothing but water, everywhere. Hour after hour after hour after hour. That's a lot of dilution.
Posts: 1,674
Threads: 81
Joined: Aug 2014
And what is your knowledge of radioactivity and how thermal-nuclear melt downs work Paul? I have a simple college degree in biology and took a few chemistry courses. I am not bragging at all here but I have some basic knowledge about the topic. I am ignorant here compared to many. You are so confident that the Hawaii and the pacific ocean will feel no ill effects. I know about geography and how far Japan is away. I find it funny that you went out of the way to start an new thread saying fukushima has had no effect. I'm sure that our islands dairy cows had spiked levels of radiation in the milk after the event. I remember it being talked about on the evening news. A reputable source.
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
When it was pointed out to the creator of the other thread that it was a lie, he laughed and kept it there. So this is for balance.
There was indeed increased radioactivity detected but - this is important - it is a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of what could possibly be harmful.
It's lie putting a drop of arsenic into a lake. It's all about the dose.
Too many people think any radioactivity is dangerous. It isn't. There is a lot of hysteria about that.
Posts: 785
Threads: 6
Joined: Apr 2012
quote:
Originally posted by PaulW
It's like putting a drop of arsenic into a lake. It's all about the dose.
Too many people think any radioactivity is dangerous. It isn't. There is a lot of hysteria about that.
There's a lot of hysteria about a lot of things - it's like some people are getting a dose of paranoia with their cheerios every morning.
Chill people, you're gonna die - but the likelihood that you're gonna die from technology today is a damn-sight lower in any given year than it was 100 years ago that you were gonna die from
lack of technology ...
And to carry this rant to its logical conclusion, you're far more likely to die from lifestyle choices that you make than you are from any incidental or accidental exposure to chemical or radiological contaminants (
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/news/c...p-5-causes).
