Equipped To Survive Equipped To Survive® Presents
The Survival Forum
Where do you want to go on ETS?

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#256965 - 02/28/13 02:37 PM WHO pronounces Fukushima cancer risk
unimogbert Offline
Old Hand

Registered: 08/10/06
Posts: 882
Loc: Colorado
Is very low.
Yes, there is some elevation of risk. But it's very small.

http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/who-small-cancer-risk-after-fukushima-accident-1.210007

Considering the magnitude of the destruction I think that's pretty amazing.

Top
#256967 - 02/28/13 03:06 PM Re: WHO pronounces Fukushima cancer risk [Re: unimogbert]
Pete Offline
Veteran

Registered: 02/20/09
Posts: 1372
on the one hand it seems like positive news - and we don't want to discount that.

On the other hand ... it's clear to me that not much is understood about Fukushima yet. Now we know that apparently at least one (possibly several) reactors went through melt-downs that were big enough to destroy the reactor containment. So the highly radioactive fuel has leaked out and is .... somewhere. But no-one knows for sure where that is exactly. Possibly somewhere in the ground beneath the reactor building. Do we have some guarantee this stuff won't seep through cracks, get into groundwater, and flow out into the ocean?

Who is really monitoring all these events and being completely open and trnasparent about the radiation risks??

Pete2

Top
#256969 - 02/28/13 04:42 PM Re: WHO pronounces Fukushima cancer risk [Re: Pete]
hikermor Offline
Geezer in Chief
Geezer

Registered: 08/26/06
Posts: 7705
Loc: southern Cal
A bit of a positive development is the ability to trace and more fully understand fish migrations across the pacific as a result of Fukushima-induced radioactive particles:

www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-fukushima-radiation.
_________________________
Geezer in Chief

Top
#256970 - 02/28/13 04:54 PM Re: WHO pronounces Fukushima cancer risk [Re: unimogbert]
Pete Offline
Veteran

Registered: 02/20/09
Posts: 1372
Geee ... thanks Geezer in Chief.
Now you're makin' me feel super-positive about this THING.
I'm gonna quit ordering tuna sandwiches from Subway - if they don't do something about this :-)

Pete2

Top
#256974 - 02/28/13 08:16 PM Re: WHO pronounces Fukushima cancer risk [Re: unimogbert]
MoBOB Offline
Veteran

Registered: 09/17/07
Posts: 1219
Loc: here
Well, if the tuna are radioactive, you can buy a pallet of it in cans. Put them in the basement, run water lines through it and get unlimited heat and hot water for the house. crazy
_________________________
"Its not a matter of being ready as it is being prepared" -- B. E. J. Taylor

Top
#256982 - 02/28/13 11:13 PM Re: WHO pronounces Fukushima cancer risk [Re: MoBOB]
unimogbert Offline
Old Hand

Registered: 08/10/06
Posts: 882
Loc: Colorado
Bob- you are thinking of F I S S I O N.
Not F I S H I N'......

Fish don't rise to the level of fissionable material.

There may well be long term health effects but they'll probably not equal the prompt destruction of people and property from the tsunami.

Top
#256996 - 03/01/13 10:40 AM Re: WHO pronounces Fukushima cancer risk [Re: unimogbert]
spuds Offline
Old Hand

Registered: 06/24/12
Posts: 822
Loc: SoCal Mtns
No,the chance you will get cancer from it is either Zero or 100%,there is no in between.I wouldnt be too happy if I was that lucky 100%.

Top
#256998 - 03/01/13 01:05 PM Re: WHO pronounces Fukushima cancer risk [Re: unimogbert]
Arney Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 09/15/05
Posts: 2485
Loc: California
It's interesting to see the headlines in various news sources over the release of this report. Japanese authorities are upset and say the risk has been overhyped and overblown. Other articles say the risk has been minimized and downplayed.

Personally, I'm a skeptic until real data comes out, although that will be after the fact by that time. I lived in Manhattan during 9/11 and I remember how the City of New York, the EPA, and various other agencies swore up and down on their mothers' graves that the air on the pile at Ground Zero was safe. Look how well that turned out for first responders who worked that scene.

These cancer risk models are only as good as the data that goes into them, and data on radiation levels are not very good. Heck, the EPA turned off their radiation monitors shortly after the disaster. Hmmm, now why would they do that?

There is ongoing monitoring of radiation in the Fukushima area, but when you read about these monitoring stations, it's laughable. Typically, an area is decontaminated, the topsoil is dug up and trucked away, a brand new concrete platform is poured, and then the monitoring station is placed on top of the slab. Concerned citizens record far higher radiation levels just a few meters away in the soil than what the official station measures.

Regardless of what the actual risk is, the people in the region suffer tremendous psychological stress to this day, and they and their children will be stigmatized for the rest of their lives, the same way that their grandparents and greatgrandparents who lived anywhere near Hiroshima and Nagasaki were stigmatized after we dropped atomic bombs on them. The Japanese are extremely cohesive, but conversely, if you're seen as "different", the negative impact can be even more extreme.

I lived in Japan and IMHO I'd say the stigmatization ranks up there with being permanently identified as a sex offender in the US in terms of discrimination in making friends or finding a spouse, in housing, in employment, in being alienated from your own relatives, etc. I know suicides have been up in the Fukushima region, and that will likely continue for years or even decades.

A recent article on the topic. Very bleak. After Fukushima: families on the edge of meltdown

Edit: I should clarify my point from above. If these residents try to move away from the contaminated areas, they will be stigmatized by the new people around them. Additionally, if they stay put, there is great peer pressure not to "make waves" or do things that upset other people, so there is constant subtle and not-so-subtle pressure to act like nothing is wrong. Most of us have heard that famous Japanese saying, "The nail that sticks up gets hammered back down." It's a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't dilema for these residents.


Edited by Arney (03/01/13 04:12 PM)

Top
#257009 - 03/01/13 04:59 PM Re: WHO pronounces Fukushima cancer risk [Re: unimogbert]
spuds Offline
Old Hand

Registered: 06/24/12
Posts: 822
Loc: SoCal Mtns
Per that article directly above....Hmmmm....so nodules in 42% of children's thyroids is 'low risk' as stated in OP link???? Not in my book.I dont want nodules on my thyroid or my children's,thank you very much,so I call that harmful.As if thyroid issues arent bad enough as it is now.There's more to thyroid disease than just cancer.
------------------
This was too late to prevent their exposure to iodine-131, a radioisotope with a half-life of about eight days, that attaches to the thyroid gland. Iodine-131 is believed to be the cause of hundreds of cases of thyroid cancer among children in Chernobyl. As of February 2013, Japan has tested 133,000 children in Fukushima and found abnormal thyroid cysts and nodules in 42% of them. Three cases of cancer were confirmed and another seven were suspected cases "with an 80% chance of malignancy". The issue is bound to escalate further.
-----------------
How terrible for those poor people.I wont fight the nuclear debate beyond saying my heart goes out to the victims for sure.

And me,personally,doesnt want to live by a Nuke or within fallout range,Like is happening across ocean,however small.Not my cup of tea,but looks like I dont have much choice regardless.Thats the part that bugs me,having no control over the risk whether I support it or not.

That said,do you have your Iodine pills,store of seaweed or Kelp? Thats a reasonable prep,I have mine now,didnt before.And when it happens,stocks are GONE,so if interested best do it now.Kelp and seaweed makes some fine soups too,so not a bad thing IMO.

Here,scroll down is a nice list of iodine levels in seaweeds and safety concerns

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Iodine%20in%20Seaweed.pdf
------------------

Top
#257016 - 03/01/13 05:53 PM Re: WHO pronounces Fukushima cancer risk [Re: unimogbert]
Am_Fear_Liath_Mor Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/03/07
Posts: 3078
Quote:
Is very low


Cancer from Nuclear Fall Out does not exist! (Nuclear apologist propaganda by the WHO and other vested interest)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Busby

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9pk42kdL4k

When 100,000s/Millions start dying from Lung Cancer over the next 20-30 years in Japan the Fukushima event will be not blamed, but the up take in Smoking Tobacco (although it eventually took 100 years to make that connection, and is still denied by the Tobacco industry) will. Those that never smoked; Passive Smoking of course!



Edited by Am_Fear_Liath_Mor (03/01/13 06:01 PM)

Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >



Moderator:  MartinFocazio, Tyber 
December
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
Who's Online
0 registered (), 710 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Aaron_Guinn, israfaceVity, Explorer9, GallenR, Jeebo
5370 Registered Users
Newest Posts
Missing Hiker Found After 50 Days
by Ren
Today at 02:24 PM
Leather Work Gloves
by KenK
11/24/24 06:43 PM
Satellite texting via iPhone, 911 via Pixel
by Ren
11/05/24 03:30 PM
Emergency Toilets for Obese People
by adam2
11/04/24 06:59 PM
Newest Images
Tiny knife / wrench
Handmade knives
2"x2" Glass Signal Mirror, Retroreflective Mesh
Trade School Tool Kit
My Pocket Kit
Glossary
Test

WARNING & DISCLAIMER: SELECT AND USE OUTDOORS AND SURVIVAL EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES AND TECHNIQUES AT YOUR OWN RISK. Information posted on this forum is not reviewed for accuracy and may not be reliable, use at your own risk. Please review the full WARNING & DISCLAIMER about information on this site.