Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, September 24, 2011
Panic Japan's New Normal
Posted by Goldy on Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 1:03 PM
Those irresponsible fear mongers at the New York Times are at it again:
Government officials on Saturday ordered more tests after detecting elevated levels of radiation in rice crops near the crippled nuclear power plant at Fukushima.
Radioactive substances have already been discovered in beef, milk, spinach and tea leaves, leading to recalls and bans on shipments. But officials have been especially worried about rice, a staple that makes up a significant part of the Japanese diet. Japan grows most of the rice that it consumes.
Five hundred becquerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium have been detected in rice grown 35 miles from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the highest permissible level under Japan's recently revised food safety standards. I guess that means that legally, it's safe to eat. But I sure as hell wouldn't feed it to my daughter.
The fact that Japan economically contorts itself in its effort to be self-sufficient in rice, tells you everything you need to know about the central role of this staple in Japanese culture. That many Japanese must now question if Japanese-grown rice is safe to eat, can't help but be a blow to the national psyche.
1
...you do realize that governments intentionally set the highest permissible level to be well below the level at which it becomes dangerous, right? Would you take your daughter on a plane ride?
2
@1 And the governments that produce propaganda like this are trustworthy?
http://youtu.be/K8SK28htqbg
I've still been unable to see a workable definition of "safe dose" that can stand up to honest scrutiny.
http://youtu.be/K8SK28htqbg
I've still been unable to see a workable definition of "safe dose" that can stand up to honest scrutiny.
3
@2: So...you used inaccurate and misleading propaganda produced by the USA in the 1950s about surviving a nuclear bomb blast...to demonstrate that standards for radioisotopes in food set by the Japanese government today are not trustworthy?
Okay, I'll play your game. This bit of WHOLESOME AND ACCURATE propaganda about home gardening, produced by the British government in the 1940s, clearly shows that my I am right and you are wrong.
Okay, I'll play your game. This bit of WHOLESOME AND ACCURATE propaganda about home gardening, produced by the British government in the 1940s, clearly shows that my I am right and you are wrong.
4
Observe the effect of nuclear disasters: Instead of the stimulative surge of rebuilding and improvement that might follow the typical catastrophic industrial failure, a deceptive peacefulness formed of birdsong and the sigh of the wind in the trees re-emerges from underneath the silenced human cacophony. Animals and plants, free to do as they please, spread out comfortably, heedless of the ionic energies, and more than willing to embark on further mutative adventures as the price for territory in which to exist. Ironically, industrial scale nuclear poisoning has the effect of creating natural preserves of unparalleled size. It is a perverse form environmental preservation.
5
How much do I have to donate to Strangercrombie to make it so Goldy doesn't post Nuke stuff for a year?
7
Blows to Japan's national psyche aren't the tragedy you'd think they might be. Take away a Japanese's neuroses and anxieties and you'd find there's not much there left to make a personality out of.
8
I'm glad our President wants the United States to build more nuclear power plants. I'm sure our form of free market regulation will ensure nothing like this will ever happen in the United States...EVER!!! HA HA HA LOL!!!!!
10
Seattle's New Normal, too. Check out the nifty animation at the bottom of this:
http://cerea.enpc.fr/en/fukushima.html
And Tokyo is toast:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c…
http://cerea.enpc.fr/en/fukushima.html
And Tokyo is toast:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c…
11
@ 9 Uhhhh, Arkansas is the nations leading rice producer and exports more rice to Japan than Texas by far. California is number two... Cali and Arkansas produce medium grain for the Japanese market....
12
Do you take your daughter on airplanes? Do you let your daughter watch tv or use a computer? If so you are exposing her to RADIATION.
The legal levels are so low even exceeding them is not cause for concern as a health reason. Go be scared of something that might actually harm you instead of the boogy man ok?
The legal levels are so low even exceeding them is not cause for concern as a health reason. Go be scared of something that might actually harm you instead of the boogy man ok?
14
@Goldy, I assume that at some point early on someone called you fearmongering and hysterical on this subject - but I don't know, because it was months ago.
Whatever it was, though, the way you start (nearly?) every nuke post with some backhanded slap at whoever that was (e.g., "Those irresponsible fear mongers...") has become boring and childish, and makes me think less of you. Get over your hurt feelings already, and just write.
Whatever it was, though, the way you start (nearly?) every nuke post with some backhanded slap at whoever that was (e.g., "Those irresponsible fear mongers...") has become boring and childish, and makes me think less of you. Get over your hurt feelings already, and just write.
16
Sorry, but yeah, what everyone else already said .... can't really add more to it. ;) Here I thought you had actually done some real research into nuclear energy ... because of the title, but now I see the old adage "sarcasm is lost over the internet".
17
500 bequerels (I swear you only use these idiotic units to piss me off) is equal to about .01 microcuries. The average human body has 4400 bequerels from eating bananas. These posts are becoming progressively more retarded. Get a grip.
19
Try eating Brazil Nuts. Those suckers are LOADED with radium and other nasties. Way, way beyond this Japanese rice. Ever try those, Goldy? If so, you are DOOMED.
20
The radioactivity of a few bananas is sufficient to trigger radiation sensors used to detect possible smuggling of nuclear material at U.S. ports.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equi…
Just stop eating. NOW, dammit!
The most NUKE-ULAR foods are
potatoes, kidney beans, sunflower seeds, and nuts. Especially Brazil Nuts, weighing in at 4x bananas in DEATH-dealing.
Evil conspiracy, all of it. NOOOKS! OH NOES!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equi…
Just stop eating. NOW, dammit!
The most NUKE-ULAR foods are
potatoes, kidney beans, sunflower seeds, and nuts. Especially Brazil Nuts, weighing in at 4x bananas in DEATH-dealing.
Evil conspiracy, all of it. NOOOKS! OH NOES!
21
@20 What's happened is that they scared people with nuclear bombs, so now everyone associates radiation with something that's not natural and is deadly, while the media eats it up because they make money on fear and ignorance, so they have no reason to report the whole truth. If people knew that everything they've learned to fear is so common in their lives, no one would have a reason to read most of the news, blogs, etc. Most people fail to realize everyone has had nuclear power with almost no incident for almost all of our lives. Take a look at the people who worry most about nuclear to, they often seem to hate everything about our modern science and technology and appear to want nothing more than humans returning to the stone age.
24
My God, that jumble of meaningless verbiage @21 gave me the best laugh of the day. Holy shit, that's some serious crazy.
25
You can't prove otherwise, so you resort to personal "attacks" ... how ironic. If you want to live without modern technology then go ahead, do it, otherwise you prove that you only care about attacking something instead of looking to the future.
26
http://safetyfirst.nei.org/ask-an-expert…
“The tiny amounts of detected radioactive materials from Fukushima pose no threat to human health. They represent, at most, only a tiny fraction of what we receive each day from natural sources, such as the sun, the food we eat, the air we breathe and the houses we live in.”
“The tiny amounts of detected radioactive materials from Fukushima pose no threat to human health. They represent, at most, only a tiny fraction of what we receive each day from natural sources, such as the sun, the food we eat, the air we breathe and the houses we live in.”
27
KittenKoder dear, The NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). You're using them as a impartial source? Really?
I'm sure you can find something validating your opinion without having to go to corporate lobbyists who are paid huge amounts of money to sway sweet, naive dears like you.
Now, I have a huge pile of socks to darn, so I'll be right here waiting for you when you find a better source.
I'm sure you can find something validating your opinion without having to go to corporate lobbyists who are paid huge amounts of money to sway sweet, naive dears like you.
Now, I have a huge pile of socks to darn, so I'll be right here waiting for you when you find a better source.
28
@27 If you hate corporations, hate corporations, don't pretend to actually care or even know about something to make an excuse to hate corporations feel warm and fuzzy. There is no such thing as impartial in any report, they are ALL bought and sold on the market. I direct you to #20 .... that's as impartial as you'll get.
29
Kitten dear, you're distraught.... I'm just trying to help you with your critical thinking skills. How do you expect to get into a good college with such a one-dimensional way of thinking?
There's an old saying, "Consider the source". That means you should look at what a person or group is saying, and think about why they are saying it. That goes for everything in life, not just corporations and lobbying groups.
For instance, If you're out at one of your young people hangouts, and an attractive buck tells you how pretty you are, you should think about what his motives are BEFORE you go sleep with him. That way, you won't end up crying into your pillow when he leaves at 2:30am, because you thought he meant it "for realz".
As for corporations, I simply adore them when they do the right thing. Most of my career has been spent working for corporations. They've put a car in garage and a chicken in the pot. But, like everything in life, moderation is key. That's why I am for regulation.
Just wear your thinking cap dear, and try not to be so naive. That's all I'm saying.
And when you get a credible source, I'm still here with these darn socks......
There's an old saying, "Consider the source". That means you should look at what a person or group is saying, and think about why they are saying it. That goes for everything in life, not just corporations and lobbying groups.
For instance, If you're out at one of your young people hangouts, and an attractive buck tells you how pretty you are, you should think about what his motives are BEFORE you go sleep with him. That way, you won't end up crying into your pillow when he leaves at 2:30am, because you thought he meant it "for realz".
As for corporations, I simply adore them when they do the right thing. Most of my career has been spent working for corporations. They've put a car in garage and a chicken in the pot. But, like everything in life, moderation is key. That's why I am for regulation.
Just wear your thinking cap dear, and try not to be so naive. That's all I'm saying.
And when you get a credible source, I'm still here with these darn socks......
30
http://www.our-energy.com/energy_facts/n…
http://casenergy.org/nuclear-energy/case…
http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/…
@29 I do consider the source, and look where the source gets funding and such, which is why I say there is no impartial source that's published, none. However, the points made by the pro-nuclear energy arguments are more moderate, they are not saying everyone should have access to nuclear material, just that's it's "the best solution" as the risks are lower than anything else which can produce enough energy for the people's needs. As for "young" ... I think you underestimate my age, not to mention I don't "hang out" anywhere. However, Goldy is using a fearmongering tactic, which is made worse by abusing a natural disaster that hurt people. As for "credible" ... EVERYONE decides what is credible to them based on what they agree with, period. Any source that opposes your view you will rationalize as not being credible. This is why many people have stopped talking and now just bicker instead of looking at facts. So far the anti-nuclear crowd has just shown opinions, what-ifs, and could-bes, the only real facts come from those who have something to sell on the matter. You can't say "it's #### some measurement" and expect people (like Venomlash) to actually know what that means, but to word it as "it's less radiation than in food" at least gives you a clear picture of what it is. There was a study to show that people don't really understand studies ... ironic but true ... and that the numbers are used much how Goldy did here, to make their opinion appear as fact. Karlheinz and Prompt demonstrated that the number is not a huge number, especially when compared to other sources, common every day sources you see everywhere. But when faced with this truth, the morons who think they actually understand something will often resort to personal attacks (flaming) and attempt to spin off the topic into something unrelated (like you just did) using nonsense.
More...
http://casenergy.org/nuclear-energy/case…
http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/…
@29 I do consider the source, and look where the source gets funding and such, which is why I say there is no impartial source that's published, none. However, the points made by the pro-nuclear energy arguments are more moderate, they are not saying everyone should have access to nuclear material, just that's it's "the best solution" as the risks are lower than anything else which can produce enough energy for the people's needs. As for "young" ... I think you underestimate my age, not to mention I don't "hang out" anywhere. However, Goldy is using a fearmongering tactic, which is made worse by abusing a natural disaster that hurt people. As for "credible" ... EVERYONE decides what is credible to them based on what they agree with, period. Any source that opposes your view you will rationalize as not being credible. This is why many people have stopped talking and now just bicker instead of looking at facts. So far the anti-nuclear crowd has just shown opinions, what-ifs, and could-bes, the only real facts come from those who have something to sell on the matter. You can't say "it's #### some measurement" and expect people (like Venomlash) to actually know what that means, but to word it as "it's less radiation than in food" at least gives you a clear picture of what it is. There was a study to show that people don't really understand studies ... ironic but true ... and that the numbers are used much how Goldy did here, to make their opinion appear as fact. Karlheinz and Prompt demonstrated that the number is not a huge number, especially when compared to other sources, common every day sources you see everywhere. But when faced with this truth, the morons who think they actually understand something will often resort to personal attacks (flaming) and attempt to spin off the topic into something unrelated (like you just did) using nonsense.
32
Catalina, you're being incredibly rude and patronizing and Kitten is making a pretty decent point. Thank you delbert for posting that.
33
Please enlighten me as to how I was anymore "rude and patronizing" than anyone else on this thread? Kittenkoder posted a link from a nuclear industry lobbyist organization to back up her claim, and I called her on it. She replied, saying that I must hate all corporations. I told her I adore well-regulated corporations. and she needs more impartial sources, she provided them.
I am not particularly anti-nuclear. We have to get power somehow, and you only have to look at the Canadian shield region of Canada to see what coal-generation is doing, or the former mountains of West Virginia to see the effect of coal extraction. My concerns about nuclear are the disposal of the waste by-products that remain lethal well past the all of human history, the incredible amount of cold water required for cooling that is released back into rivers as hot water, and the fact that when something goes wrong, it really, REALLY goes wrong. Why does that get everyone's panties in a bunch?
If I wanted religion, I'd be over at St. Peter's right now. You true believers are just touchy.
I am not particularly anti-nuclear. We have to get power somehow, and you only have to look at the Canadian shield region of Canada to see what coal-generation is doing, or the former mountains of West Virginia to see the effect of coal extraction. My concerns about nuclear are the disposal of the waste by-products that remain lethal well past the all of human history, the incredible amount of cold water required for cooling that is released back into rivers as hot water, and the fact that when something goes wrong, it really, REALLY goes wrong. Why does that get everyone's panties in a bunch?
If I wanted religion, I'd be over at St. Peter's right now. You true believers are just touchy.
34
Um... Goldy, you do understand that people accused you for fear mongering for the hyperbole about possible contamination dangers HERE, in the Pacific Northwest, right? Right?!?
And, on a completely unrelated topic, how are those veggies from your garden tasting these days?
(You're not feeding this year's crop of potentially Fukushima fallout contaminated greens to your own precious daughter are you? The horror!!! Don't make me have to call CPS on you!)
And, on a completely unrelated topic, how are those veggies from your garden tasting these days?
(You're not feeding this year's crop of potentially Fukushima fallout contaminated greens to your own precious daughter are you? The horror!!! Don't make me have to call CPS on you!)
35
Gulf seafood is safe to eat, the Deepwater Horizon was contained, radiation is good for you, even though infant mortality increased 35% in the Pacific Northwest right after Fukushima, that's a good thing because the planet is overcrowded as it is.
36
"Five hundred becquerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium have been detected in rice..."
First of all, you mean "Five hundred becquerels per kilogram of rice resulting from contamination with cesium-137 have been detected..."
Second, that makes this 'contaminated rice' precisely twice as radioactive as a typical banana. So, you know, everyone throw out all your bananas and then let's all go protest the evil corporate supermarkets now that we have uncovered their evil plot to irradiate us all with bananas.
First of all, you mean "Five hundred becquerels per kilogram of rice resulting from contamination with cesium-137 have been detected..."
Second, that makes this 'contaminated rice' precisely twice as radioactive as a typical banana. So, you know, everyone throw out all your bananas and then let's all go protest the evil corporate supermarkets now that we have uncovered their evil plot to irradiate us all with bananas.
39
The infant mortality claim is absolute bullshit.
See:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obse…
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2011/06/fu…
That being said, most the apologists in these comments are fucking morons. The dangers posed to Japan by contamination are significant and will not be resolved for many many years, and likely never. Chernobyl has yet to be mitigated in any substantial way other than by human displacement. We have not in twenty years developed many significant or cost-effective methods to decontaminate vast swaths of land and waters, and are unlikely to develop any methods to do so in Japan in the foreseeable future.
The attempts to ridicule this reality by pretending an INES 7 multiple nuclear meltdown event with containment failures is somehow comparable to EATING A FUCKING BANANA is ridiculous.
See:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obse…
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2011/06/fu…
That being said, most the apologists in these comments are fucking morons. The dangers posed to Japan by contamination are significant and will not be resolved for many many years, and likely never. Chernobyl has yet to be mitigated in any substantial way other than by human displacement. We have not in twenty years developed many significant or cost-effective methods to decontaminate vast swaths of land and waters, and are unlikely to develop any methods to do so in Japan in the foreseeable future.
The attempts to ridicule this reality by pretending an INES 7 multiple nuclear meltdown event with containment failures is somehow comparable to EATING A FUCKING BANANA is ridiculous.
41
@33 It just seemed that people were being overly condescending to Kitten. That means you're talking down to someone. :P
To address your other concerns, I still think we can spare a single mountain in the middle of nowhere to put all of that stuff (it's a big planet), cold water to hot water is the least of our concerns but we should try to minimize the environmental impact (not to mention this should be common to any plant with a steam cycle). And I think we're trying to show, even when things go really really bad, they're not as bad as they seem. We can use the radiation bogeyman all we want but it still doesn't seem to match things like the Kingston Fossil Plant spill. Where was the persistent posting outrage from that?
@39 Yes, we must think of the thousands of people who have died as a result of this catastrophic event.
To address your other concerns, I still think we can spare a single mountain in the middle of nowhere to put all of that stuff (it's a big planet), cold water to hot water is the least of our concerns but we should try to minimize the environmental impact (not to mention this should be common to any plant with a steam cycle). And I think we're trying to show, even when things go really really bad, they're not as bad as they seem. We can use the radiation bogeyman all we want but it still doesn't seem to match things like the Kingston Fossil Plant spill. Where was the persistent posting outrage from that?
@39 Yes, we must think of the thousands of people who have died as a result of this catastrophic event.
42
Well then, Prompt, I must remember that KittenKoder is a precious flower who cannot defend herself, and it falls to your shoulders to take up the burden. It seems condescending to me, but I know how sensitive the religious can be.
As for the rest of your sermonette, just how, dear Prompt, are we to get all that radioactive waste to that one lovely, remote location? And however shall we protect/defend it for the ten thousand years or so it would take to make it moot? I'm sure your liturgy provides for that, and I wish you would let the rest of us know what it says.
I'm so glad that you - a Slog poster like myself - have solved the issue of water temperatures in an increasingly hot environment. But I do wish you'd pass your solution on to the people who actually have the education and training to be in a position to worry about it.
As for your TVA poster child: If you were to read my post correctly - but I know how busy the clergy gets, especially on a Sunday - you would see that I don't give coal a pass. Indeed, I really think that - given as much energy towards fixing it as we do towards people like you apologizing for it - Nuclear might be a viable energy source. But you, like a sleazy Realtor, want us to buy the house while ignoring the inadequate foundation, unstable slope, and poor wiring, telling us to just trust you, while your betters (don't try to tell me you own a utility) laugh all the way to the bank.
Hope that wasn't too condescending for you. You really should try to work on your faith, if this is the road you wish to travel down.
As for the rest of your sermonette, just how, dear Prompt, are we to get all that radioactive waste to that one lovely, remote location? And however shall we protect/defend it for the ten thousand years or so it would take to make it moot? I'm sure your liturgy provides for that, and I wish you would let the rest of us know what it says.
I'm so glad that you - a Slog poster like myself - have solved the issue of water temperatures in an increasingly hot environment. But I do wish you'd pass your solution on to the people who actually have the education and training to be in a position to worry about it.
As for your TVA poster child: If you were to read my post correctly - but I know how busy the clergy gets, especially on a Sunday - you would see that I don't give coal a pass. Indeed, I really think that - given as much energy towards fixing it as we do towards people like you apologizing for it - Nuclear might be a viable energy source. But you, like a sleazy Realtor, want us to buy the house while ignoring the inadequate foundation, unstable slope, and poor wiring, telling us to just trust you, while your betters (don't try to tell me you own a utility) laugh all the way to the bank.
Hope that wasn't too condescending for you. You really should try to work on your faith, if this is the road you wish to travel down.
43
Timrr @34: Please cite the post in which I fear mongered about radioactive contamination here in the Pacific NW.
44
My issue with nuclear power is that while I think it is worth exploring as an energy source, we would have to regulate it very strictly and I just can't see that happening in this political climate any time soon.
45
@42 Your insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is of any particular religion is proof enough that you are not truly interested in human safety or lives. Since this new information has developed I now know one thing about you, you are no better than the christian idiots I have learned to hate calling themselves Mormons. Thank you for playing, I got trolled and failed to realize it, congrats.
46
@42 I'm really not trying to start an argument with you, but your patronizing manner is inappropriate, and I imagine anyone addressed like this would be offended. But this is the internet so I'll try not to get too spun up about it.
To transport the waste, we'd use a train, as we always do. And there's nothing to "defend". If someone wants that crap, more power to them. You can't exactly make a bomb from it if that was your concern.
Your concern about "water temperatures in an increasingly hot environment" I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you referring to climate change brought about by the condensation cycle of a nuclear plant? That's the equivalent of saying that climate change could be caused by the warmth of people peeing in the ocean.
I never said nuclear was perfect, but it is hardly riddled with faults. If you'd like to learn more about it, I can use my ample education and training to teach you, or you can look at some of the other abundant resources available.
@43 I think it was Eli who was posting about contamination reaching Washington.
To transport the waste, we'd use a train, as we always do. And there's nothing to "defend". If someone wants that crap, more power to them. You can't exactly make a bomb from it if that was your concern.
Your concern about "water temperatures in an increasingly hot environment" I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you referring to climate change brought about by the condensation cycle of a nuclear plant? That's the equivalent of saying that climate change could be caused by the warmth of people peeing in the ocean.
I never said nuclear was perfect, but it is hardly riddled with faults. If you'd like to learn more about it, I can use my ample education and training to teach you, or you can look at some of the other abundant resources available.
@43 I think it was Eli who was posting about contamination reaching Washington.
47
@44 American nuclear power is one of the most heavily regulated (and arguably overregulated) industries on the planet.
48
28
"There is no such thing as impartial in any report, they are ALL bought and sold on the market."
Do you ever stop and ponder how stupid you are, KittenKoder?
"There is no such thing as impartial in any report, they are ALL bought and sold on the market."
Do you ever stop and ponder how stupid you are, KittenKoder?
49
@39 "The attempts to ridicule this reality by pretending an INES 7 multiple nuclear meltdown event with containment failures is somehow comparable to EATING A FUCKING BANANA is ridiculous."
No, not ridiculous: either your deliberate misstatement of my position because you have no intellectual integrity, or an inability to comprehend what you read. My comment concerned the consumption of the rice mentioned in the story relative to a naturally radioactive and widely eaten food, not eating or being directly exposed to 'corium.'
Given that:
*a reading of 500Bq of cesium-137/1kg of rice equates to 0.5Bq per g of rice,
*and the dry mass of a typical serving of rice is about 50 grams,
*the radioactivity of one serving of rice works out to 25Bq (0.5Bq/g * 50g = 25Bq).
*An 'average sized' banana gives off about 15Bq from the decay of naturally occuring potassium-40
So, the radioactive exposure from the rice would be about twice as much as you'd get from a banana. But I can understand what you're trying to do: if someone disagrees with your opinion, it's easier to distort their words until you can claim they're idiots or monsters than it is to counter with your own fact-based argument.
No, not ridiculous: either your deliberate misstatement of my position because you have no intellectual integrity, or an inability to comprehend what you read. My comment concerned the consumption of the rice mentioned in the story relative to a naturally radioactive and widely eaten food, not eating or being directly exposed to 'corium.'
Given that:
*a reading of 500Bq of cesium-137/1kg of rice equates to 0.5Bq per g of rice,
*and the dry mass of a typical serving of rice is about 50 grams,
*the radioactivity of one serving of rice works out to 25Bq (0.5Bq/g * 50g = 25Bq).
*An 'average sized' banana gives off about 15Bq from the decay of naturally occuring potassium-40
So, the radioactive exposure from the rice would be about twice as much as you'd get from a banana. But I can understand what you're trying to do: if someone disagrees with your opinion, it's easier to distort their words until you can claim they're idiots or monsters than it is to counter with your own fact-based argument.
50
Goldy, I know everyone is piling on you for your claims, and I'm not eager to join in, but I really really want you to answer one question, here in this thread.
Did you get your daughter vaccinated?
Because there is a wave of problems stemming from people refusing childhood vaccinations, despite practically unanimous statements from scientific and medical organizations that there is no risk to children from the standard vaccinations, specifically MMR.
So I know that this is not a complete parallel -- you run no extra risk to your child's health by finding an alternative rice source (although given that the alternative would probably be Chinese rice, it might be a parallel after all) but what I really want to know is whether you believe all these governments when they talk about vaccines.
If you refused to get your daughter vaccinated, fine, that's consistent, and it's your right. If not, though, I want you to tell me what the difference is between governments telling us which medicines are safe and telling us which foods are safe. So will you tell me, please?
Did you get your daughter vaccinated?
Because there is a wave of problems stemming from people refusing childhood vaccinations, despite practically unanimous statements from scientific and medical organizations that there is no risk to children from the standard vaccinations, specifically MMR.
So I know that this is not a complete parallel -- you run no extra risk to your child's health by finding an alternative rice source (although given that the alternative would probably be Chinese rice, it might be a parallel after all) but what I really want to know is whether you believe all these governments when they talk about vaccines.
If you refused to get your daughter vaccinated, fine, that's consistent, and it's your right. If not, though, I want you to tell me what the difference is between governments telling us which medicines are safe and telling us which foods are safe. So will you tell me, please?
51
@7 and @15
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn and TheVripper.
Do you guys own guns? If so, please shoot each other's balls off. The world doesn't need any more of your shitty DNA leaking into the gene pool.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn and TheVripper.
Do you guys own guns? If so, please shoot each other's balls off. The world doesn't need any more of your shitty DNA leaking into the gene pool.
52
Catalina is condescending to *everyone* he disagrees with. It's his on line persona, at least in SLOG; this is not new behavior, brought out especially for Koder Kitten.
Venomlash, I'm not sure, but I think you and Koder Kitten are on the same side in this argument. I know, it's a surprise, but here we are.
Venomlash, I'm not sure, but I think you and Koder Kitten are on the same side in this argument. I know, it's a surprise, but here we are.
53
Kitten Koder, sorry for screwing up your name earlier. The painkillers must have gotten to me. I apologize.
54
@47: Fuck off, goober.
If it weren't for massive government intervention, we would have ZERO nuclear plants in the USA, because it's NOT PROFITABLE OR LOGI$TICALLY FEASIBLE to build and operate a nuclear plant in an unsubsidized & unregulated free market.
That massive regulatory burden is an attempt to prevent accidents which could render massive portions of the United States permanently uninhabitable, and say, preventing the need to evacuate and permanently relocated ALL OF NEW YORK CITY.
Also: complete cognitive failure in linking to a fucking HERITAGE article as some kind of "argument."
For or against nuclear energy, safety is the primary goal, and you DON'T achieve operational safety without significant, overbearing, transparent, and RELENTLESS public oversight.
If it weren't for massive government intervention, we would have ZERO nuclear plants in the USA, because it's NOT PROFITABLE OR LOGI$TICALLY FEASIBLE to build and operate a nuclear plant in an unsubsidized & unregulated free market.
That massive regulatory burden is an attempt to prevent accidents which could render massive portions of the United States permanently uninhabitable, and say, preventing the need to evacuate and permanently relocated ALL OF NEW YORK CITY.
Also: complete cognitive failure in linking to a fucking HERITAGE article as some kind of "argument."
For or against nuclear energy, safety is the primary goal, and you DON'T achieve operational safety without significant, overbearing, transparent, and RELENTLESS public oversight.
55
@50: I have brutally ridiculed the anti-vaxers on numerous occasions. So yes, my daughter is thoroughly vaccinated.
Given a choice between rice known to be contaminated with 500 bequerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium, or rice not known to be contaminated, I'll go with the later, in the same way that I choose organic for my daughter when reasonably available. And FYI, most of the rice I cook with at home either comes from California or Thailand... the latter due to my culinary preference for Jasmine rice.
Given a choice between rice known to be contaminated with 500 bequerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium, or rice not known to be contaminated, I'll go with the later, in the same way that I choose organic for my daughter when reasonably available. And FYI, most of the rice I cook with at home either comes from California or Thailand... the latter due to my culinary preference for Jasmine rice.
56
Actually, I don't consider myself to be condescending to everyone - just the self-important types. The rest of the time I aim for grandiose and self-depreciating.
And I try to avoid obscenities, and research anything I put out there, using at least a nominally impartial source, like this one about nuclear power plants and water discharge.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/bu…
And I try to avoid obscenities, and research anything I put out there, using at least a nominally impartial source, like this one about nuclear power plants and water discharge.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/bu…
57
Right. So, Goldy, do you wonder if there might be something in common between making people afraid, with no justification at all, of their children becoming autistic and mentally handicapped because the vaccine manufacturers lied to them, and you making people afraid that the rice in Japan is deadly, despite government claims to the contrary? Because really, all I see here is a bunch of experts saying it's safe, and you saying you just don't trust them, for no apparent reason except ... what? You think them nuclear physicists is all liars?
58
@57:
That a completely false equivalency. MMR vaccine is extremely safe, extremely effective, and profoundly helpful to human health of the individual and the broader community. It is unquestionably a public good. It is beneficial in the aggregate, absolutely.
Food supplies contaminated with low to moderate levels of radioactive isotopes is not a safe, effective, and positive medical treatment for anything.
Elevated levels of radiation due to the meltdowns have been found in numerous kinds of foods across a broad area. Some of those foods exceeded the safety limits set by the government (which may not be particularly conservative limits), and in a couple cases some of those foods have reached markets and been consumed by people. In the aftermath of wide areas of farmland becoming contaminated to varying degrees with radioactive materials, IT IS EMINENTLY REASONABLE for people to be concerned about whether the foods they are eating are safe. The government has rapidly caught up in testing foods from affected areas, PARTLY DUE TO PUBLIC OUTCRY from earlier ineffective attempts to ensure food safety by, essentially, issuing vague guidelines to farmers and producers that they hoped would be followed. Well, farmers are not nuclear physicists. That didn't work with beef, and contaminated beef made it to market because it wasn't tested.
There is absolutely a legitimate fear of contamination entering the food supply, and in some foods becoming concentrated over time, which increases risk. In the aftermath of Chernobyl, most of the health consequences were most certainly caused by eating contaminated foods. Until you have a very robust measuring and testing regimen across HUGE areas of land, and scores of different products, it is ENTIRELY REASONABLE TO HAVE CONCERNS.
There were scores of people (who did not have a fucking clue) who in the earliest days of this disaster equally demeaned and criticized anyone who was afraid of a meltdown or widespread release of radioactivity from the plant because 1) it wouldn't melt down and 2) there were containment structures).
Well 100% of those people WERE FUCKING MISTAKEN. The reactors DID melt down, and the containments WERE breached.
The apologists have a batting average of .000 right now. And you expect me to be comforted by trusting TEPCO and the Japanese Government which tried to pretend for weeks and weeks that everything was alright, that everything is still alright? Give me a fucking break. If people weren't CONCERNED about food safety and contamination, the government probably wouldn't be lifting a finger right now. They've built their entire energy policy on nuclear, the Japanese government is hardly an objective and trusted source on this issue given their behavior time and again in the aftermath of the meltdowns.
The experts are NOT calling this safe. There isn't really very much in the way of expertise in the health effects of long-term exposure to low or moderate levels of radiation. Do you think there have been any long-term and in-depth studies after Chernobyl? No. The experts don't really know what the safe levels are, they're largely guessing.
More...
That a completely false equivalency. MMR vaccine is extremely safe, extremely effective, and profoundly helpful to human health of the individual and the broader community. It is unquestionably a public good. It is beneficial in the aggregate, absolutely.
Food supplies contaminated with low to moderate levels of radioactive isotopes is not a safe, effective, and positive medical treatment for anything.
Elevated levels of radiation due to the meltdowns have been found in numerous kinds of foods across a broad area. Some of those foods exceeded the safety limits set by the government (which may not be particularly conservative limits), and in a couple cases some of those foods have reached markets and been consumed by people. In the aftermath of wide areas of farmland becoming contaminated to varying degrees with radioactive materials, IT IS EMINENTLY REASONABLE for people to be concerned about whether the foods they are eating are safe. The government has rapidly caught up in testing foods from affected areas, PARTLY DUE TO PUBLIC OUTCRY from earlier ineffective attempts to ensure food safety by, essentially, issuing vague guidelines to farmers and producers that they hoped would be followed. Well, farmers are not nuclear physicists. That didn't work with beef, and contaminated beef made it to market because it wasn't tested.
There is absolutely a legitimate fear of contamination entering the food supply, and in some foods becoming concentrated over time, which increases risk. In the aftermath of Chernobyl, most of the health consequences were most certainly caused by eating contaminated foods. Until you have a very robust measuring and testing regimen across HUGE areas of land, and scores of different products, it is ENTIRELY REASONABLE TO HAVE CONCERNS.
There were scores of people (who did not have a fucking clue) who in the earliest days of this disaster equally demeaned and criticized anyone who was afraid of a meltdown or widespread release of radioactivity from the plant because 1) it wouldn't melt down and 2) there were containment structures).
Well 100% of those people WERE FUCKING MISTAKEN. The reactors DID melt down, and the containments WERE breached.
The apologists have a batting average of .000 right now. And you expect me to be comforted by trusting TEPCO and the Japanese Government which tried to pretend for weeks and weeks that everything was alright, that everything is still alright? Give me a fucking break. If people weren't CONCERNED about food safety and contamination, the government probably wouldn't be lifting a finger right now. They've built their entire energy policy on nuclear, the Japanese government is hardly an objective and trusted source on this issue given their behavior time and again in the aftermath of the meltdowns.
The experts are NOT calling this safe. There isn't really very much in the way of expertise in the health effects of long-term exposure to low or moderate levels of radiation. Do you think there have been any long-term and in-depth studies after Chernobyl? No. The experts don't really know what the safe levels are, they're largely guessing.
59
@3 Not a game, nor am I interested in playing "right" vs. "wrong." For a more recent example of a government lying about the dangers of radioactivity in a real situation you need to look no further than the Japanese government's initial response to Fukushima.
What I love about the bullshit in this thread is that once this accident became a pretty bad situation in Japan, these people immediately pivot to banana equivalent doses or their brilliant vocational knowledge of x-ray tech, citing no definitive information on so-called "safe doses." Prompt is among the usual suspects who chime in with this pseudo-rationalist claptrap in support of an industry funded mainly by deficit spending. So yeah, how dare we regulate that shit--the little that we do when we take the costs and they take whatever profit they can get from subsidies, etc?
In fact, as @58 points out, prompt was among those saying it would never melt down and oh that radiation is less than you'd get from transcontinental air travel. No one has responded, however, to the legitimate concern that adding radiation to background, or equivalent doses, or the yearly exposure...is probably not a good thing. Yes, many people have died suddenly from the initial tragedy. How many more will die or get sick because they can't escape continuous exposure to higher levels of radiation?
What I love about the bullshit in this thread is that once this accident became a pretty bad situation in Japan, these people immediately pivot to banana equivalent doses or their brilliant vocational knowledge of x-ray tech, citing no definitive information on so-called "safe doses." Prompt is among the usual suspects who chime in with this pseudo-rationalist claptrap in support of an industry funded mainly by deficit spending. So yeah, how dare we regulate that shit--the little that we do when we take the costs and they take whatever profit they can get from subsidies, etc?
In fact, as @58 points out, prompt was among those saying it would never melt down and oh that radiation is less than you'd get from transcontinental air travel. No one has responded, however, to the legitimate concern that adding radiation to background, or equivalent doses, or the yearly exposure...is probably not a good thing. Yes, many people have died suddenly from the initial tragedy. How many more will die or get sick because they can't escape continuous exposure to higher levels of radiation?
60
Also, please tell me where bananas are a staple eaten for breakfast, lunch, and dinner in mass quantities, in various forms.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (60) RSS