Life In 19x19
http://prod.lifein19x19.com/

Fukushima
http://prod.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10744		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  Aidoneus [ Sat Aug 23, 2014 1:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Fukushima
http://time.com/worlds-most-dangerous-room/
Author:  Joaz Banbeck [ Sat Aug 23, 2014 3:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fukushima
That's nothing. You should have seen the top players room at Go Congress.
Author:  sybob [ Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fukushima
Thank you for bringing this article to our attention.
It is sad as it is. Wish it had more media coverage, and more effort by everyone to try to make a stop to that mess.
Author:  Aidoneus [ Fri Oct 03, 2014 3:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fukushima
I've been following the news, though the MSM in the U.S.A. lost interest. Although some of the attention is just speculation about possible consequences to ocean life, there has been ample evidence of under-reporting of exposure among workers at the site. Now, it seems that the initial amounts of radioactive materials released into the environment were vastly under estimated: http://enenews.com/japan-tv-alarming-ne ... m-plant-wo
Author:  DrStraw [ Fri Oct 03, 2014 4:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fukushima
It depends on what media you read as to whether it is under-reported or not. As I never watch the Main Stream Morons I don't notice the lack. Go to Startpage and type in "natural news" fukushima. You'll get plenty of information. And that is just one of the alternative sites which I thought of first. There are several others which produce reliable information.
Author:  Aidoneus [ Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fukushima
DrStraw wrote:
It depends on what media you read as to whether it is under-reported or not. As I never watch the Main Stream Morons I don't notice the lack. Go to Startpage and type in "natural news" fukushima. You'll get plenty of information. And that is just one of the alternative sites which I thought of first. There are several others which produce reliable information.


I thought that it was clear that I was referring to under-reporting by the MSM. Although I continue to read the New York Times on a daily basis--if for no other reason than to see the official establishment position or rifts in it--most of my non-scientific reading comes from non-MSM sources. As for Natural News, I keep a skeptical mind concerning its reporting--the same as for everything that I read.
Author:  DrStraw [ Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fukushima
Aidoneus wrote:
DrStraw wrote:
It depends on what media you read as to whether it is under-reported or not. As I never watch the Main Stream Morons I don't notice the lack. Go to Startpage and type in "natural news" fukushima. You'll get plenty of information. And that is just one of the alternative sites which I thought of first. There are several others which produce reliable information.


I thought that it was clear that I was referring to under-reporting by the MSM. Although I continue to read the New York Times on a daily basis--if for no other reason than to see the official establishment position or rifts in it--most of my non-scientific reading comes from non-MSM sources. As for Natural News, I keep a skeptical mind concerning its reporting--the same as for everything that I read.


You should keep a skeptical mind on everything you read. The best way to get good information is to triangulate from multiple points (heptangulate?) RT is a good source of information, but it is biased in the same way the USMSM is, but not as much so I think. However, I use it as a single data point, the same as Natural News. The only people who are not well-informed are those who are informed by a single source.
Author:  Aidoneus [ Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fukushima
DrStraw wrote:
Aidoneus wrote:
DrStraw wrote:
It depends on what media you read as to whether it is under-reported or not. As I never watch the Main Stream Morons I don't notice the lack. Go to Startpage and type in "natural news" fukushima. You'll get plenty of information. And that is just one of the alternative sites which I thought of first. There are several others which produce reliable information.


I thought that it was clear that I was referring to under-reporting by the MSM. Although I continue to read the New York Times on a daily basis--if for no other reason than to see the official establishment position or rifts in it--most of my non-scientific reading comes from non-MSM sources. As for Natural News, I keep a skeptical mind concerning its reporting--the same as for everything that I read.


You should keep a skeptical mind on everything you read. The best way to get good information is to triangulate from multiple points (heptangulate?) RT is a good source of information, but it is biased in the same way the USMSM is, but not as much so I think. However, I use it as a single data point, the same as Natural News. The only people who are not well-informed are those who are informed by a single source.


Having a quick mind, or a quick pen, is not always best, yes? ;-)
Author:  Aidoneus [ Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fukushima
My wife and I are getting pretty old, so we both liked this joke:

A concerned husband went to a doctor to talk about his wife. He says to the doctor, "Doctor, I think my wife is deaf because she never hears me the first time and always asks me to repeat things." "Well," the doctor replied, "go home and tonight stand about 15 feet from her and say something to her. If she doesn't reply move about 5 feet closer and say it again. Keep doing this so that we'll get an idea about the severity of her deafness." Sure enough, the husband goes home and does exactly as instructed. He starts off standing about 15 feet from his wife in the kitchen as she is chopping some vegetables and says, "Honey, what's for dinner?" He hears no response. He moves about 5 feet closer and asks again. No reply. He moves 5 feet closer. Still no reply. He gets fed up and moves right behind her, about an inch away, and asks loudly, "Honey, what's for dinner?" She replies, "For the fourth time, vegetable stew!"
Author:  Aidoneus [ Thu Oct 09, 2014 11:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fukushima
Proposal to freeze radioactive water: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 76195.html
Author:  DrStraw [ Thu Oct 09, 2014 12:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fukushima
Aidoneus wrote:
Proposal to freeze radioactive water: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 76195.html


Great idea. Sell ice cubes to terrorists.
Author:  cyclops [ Sun Oct 12, 2014 3:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fukushima
as raw material for a dirty bomb
Author:  sybob [ Thu Feb 19, 2015 6:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fukushima
Sadly I bring this up again.
MUST READ
Australian headline, ABC, Febr. 18, 2015
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-18/japan-prepares-to-restart-their-nuclear-power-program/6142528
Let it sink in for a minute or two.
What has this world become?
Author:  sybob [ Thu Feb 19, 2015 6:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fukushima
Haha.
If the number of views is an indication, and/or the number of replies, then cats are more important to go players / forum members than the environment.
Well, I suppose they are .....
Author:  DrStraw [ Thu Feb 19, 2015 6:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fukushima
sybob wrote:
Haha.
If the number of views is an indication, and/or the number of replies, then cats are more important to go players / forum members than the environment.
Well, I suppose they are .....


You expect replies in less than 9 minutes? I have only just seen your post.

I have not seen the link that you posted as I do not adulterate my live with content from the MSM (Main Street Morons). But I had seen that in several of the alternative sites I read and I am totally disgusted with it. I cannot imagine what they are thinking about. As I am sure many people here do, we have friends in Japan who are not happy about the whole situation.
Author:  HermanHiddema [ Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fukushima
sybob wrote:
Sadly I bring this up again.
MUST READ
Australian headline, ABC, Febr. 18, 2015
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-18/japan-prepares-to-restart-their-nuclear-power-program/6142528
Let it sink in for a minute or two.
What has this world become?


I'm happy to see they have not let this incident scare them off nuclear power. Nuclear power is a safe and clean form of energy, which is absolutely essential in curbing global warming.
Author:  tentano [ Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fukushima
The main problem Japan has is that it's either use the existing nuclear reactors, or burn imported fossil fuels. One of these costs a lot more.

I really wish they'd seize the moment and push renewables like geothermal or maybe tidal generators. The amount of investment needed to make that change, though...

I'm still baffled TEPCO is allowed to be in charge of anything anymore. They've done their utmost to obliterate any potential for trust, systematically lying about the extent of the disaster until it was too obvious to hide anymore.

The suspicion lingers that they're still hiding more bad news, and the only way it could be put to rest is if they're done cleaning up and some neutral inspectors go over the entire area to measure if the radiation is back to normal levels. And even then the land will be treated as if it were cursed.
Author:  Bonobo [ Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fukushima
HermanHiddema wrote:
Nuclear power is a safe and clean form of energy, which is absolutely essential in curbing global warming.
I couldn’t disagree more.

To clarify: In theory, I’d agree to the first part. This means: IF we know all about this, and IF we can manage every involved process to 100%.

But this is the Real Word, with Real People. We DON’T know everything about this (for example, just recently Belgium warned about the fact that steel apparently deteriorates a lot faster under radiation), and Real People make mistakes.

And mistakes that happen with radioactive material and with radiation can have consequences that we cannot manage, consequences we may have to care about for thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. But if you think we’re doomed anyway, well, then nuclear energy may be OK. Why shouldn’t our species have some more light in its last 50 years, no? <shrug>

But I can see how this topic can quickly drift away from science to politics …

Greetings, Tom
Author:  DrStraw [ Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fukushima
The town of Burlington, Vermont, recently announced that it is entirely powered by renewable energy. Admittedly it is a small town (but the largest in the state) and there is an issue of scalability, but it does show that we can survive without either nuclear or fossil fuel if we try hard enough.
Author:  HermanHiddema [ Fri Feb 20, 2015 6:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fukushima
I am talking about the Real World, with Real People. Real world experience shows that accidents are rare. Statistically, based on real world experience, nuclear power is safe. Nothing theoretical about it.

If you want to stay away from the politics, and look at the science only, then the statement "Nuclear power is safe and clean" is as close as you're going to get to the scientific consensus.
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/