Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma [Archive]

12-24-2013, 01:14 PM

IT IS TIME TO ASK FOR MONITORING OF RADIATION
I have posted some links that are very informative and will give you an idea
of how important it is to get informed, Stay Grounded and Centered and Make Choices for
Everyone from a place of Love and Wisdom.

Now is not the time to binge and go UNCONSCIOUS.....it may all be a dream on one level and
the relative reality is the radiation is here and we live on the front line and we have some great
choices to protect our bodies and to support CHANGE....Radical Change......(inside and out).

I have attached some info I found very helpful...daily routines for protection etc so you do not
leave here feeling overwhelmed and hopeless.

I feel we are past the 12th hour...and are in the FIRST HOUR of the New Beginnings.......It is:
:heart: Time to Embrace and Embody the magnificent Radiant, Loving, Wise Being that you are!
:heart: Time to Show up..... be with our emotions and then plant our feet firmly in the ground of BEING
:heart: Time to be Unwavering in our conviction to the Truth of who WE really ARE
...............With Awareness and Breath as your Guides LETS move forward and Create Change for ALL of US.

Please do your homework, this is only meant to be a guide for the beginning of something AWE inspiring.
Be gentle with yourself and allow the emotions to be fully felt and then allow them to vanish into the space of Awareness from hence they came.
YOU are the ONE you have been waiting for....now is the time to let your wings unfurl and FLY with the Passion and Courage of The Divine.:waccosun::waccosun::waccosun:

I am sure Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, John Lennon all have a front row seats :wink:

LETS DO IT!!!!

Sasha Monique

12-26-2013, 04:26 PM

Yes!

Fukushima Response has started monitoring food and water because our government is not yet doing this. Many of us are calling Jerry Brown and the White House comment line daily to urge for testing and to ask that the US intervenes in Japan to stop the 400 tons daily flow of radioactive water into the Pacific, as well as international supervision of the rod removal.

I am one of the initiators of the Fukushima Response Wellness Circle to share strategies and resoureces to stay healthy on the spiritual, emotional and physical levels as this continues to unfold. We are putting on an event to educate the larger community as to what we can do as citizens.

We need more responders. Please join us!

Warmly,

Sasha

IT IS TIME TO ASK FOR MONITORING OF RADIATION
I have posted some links that are very informative and will give you an idea
of how important it is to get informed, Stay Grounded and Centered and Make Choices for
Everyone from a place of Love and Wisdom.

Now is not the time to binge and go UNCONSCIOUS.....it may all be a dream on one level and
the relative reality is the radiation is here and we live on the front line and we have some great
choices to protect our bodies and to support CHANGE....Radical Change......(inside and out).

I have attached some info I found very helpful...daily routines for protection etc so you do not
leave here feeling overwhelmed and hopeless.

I feel we are past the 12th hour...and are in the FIRST HOUR of the New Beginnings.......It is:
:heart: Time to Embrace and Embody the magnificent Radiant, Loving, Wise Being that you are!
:heart: Time to Show up..... be with our emotions and then plant our feet firmly in the ground of BEING
:heart: Time to be Unwavering in our conviction to the Truth of who WE really ARE
...............With Awareness and Breath as your Guides LETS move forward and Create Change for ALL of US.

Please do your homework, this is only meant to be a guide for the beginning of something AWE inspiring.
Be gentle with yourself and allow the emotions to be fully felt and then allow them to vanish into the space of Awareness from hence they came.
YOU are the ONE you have been waiting for....now is the time to let your wings unfurl and FLY with the Passion and Courage of The Divine.:waccosun::waccosun::waccosun:

I am sure Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, John Lennon all have a front row seats :wink:

LETS DO IT!!!!

Dogenzip

12-27-2013, 05:03 PM

Thank-you for posting this. Monitoring of our food, water and rainfall are long overdue.
EPA has raised the 'safe' standards for radioactivity in food.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for assistance with this important endeavor.
Paul-André

afinenettle

12-28-2013, 04:21 PM

Please do give me a call. I have 10 lbs of salmon and a couple lbs of seaweed I am wanting to test. I have googled like mad and dont find any companies that do that. Dont know where else to turn?
Kate 824-9543

Thank-you for posting this. Monitoring of our food, water and rainfall are long overdue.
EPA has raised the 'safe' standards for radioactivity in food.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for assistance with this important endeavor.
Paul-André

12-28-2013, 07:33 PM

Hello
Thanks so much for replying. I am new to the area and also a Canadian so not familar with the US policies etc...so I would Lovvvve some help in getting info to others and myself on how we can create some
impact with this all. Please contact me at [email protected]. I will be starting a silent retreat Jan 1 for one month but will be checking emails occassionally and will go to rallys/meetings etc even tho I will be silent.
Thanks so much.
K:yinyang:

Thank-you for posting this. Monitoring of our food, water and rainfall are long overdue.
EPA has raised the 'safe' standards for radioactivity in food.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for assistance with this important endeavor.
Paul-André

12-28-2013, 07:34 PM

Hi Sasha, Lets connect and make the info you have available, really available to everyone so we can create some change.
Please email me asap as I will be doing silent retreat Jan 1 to Jan 31. Thanks soooo much.
K

Yes!

Fukushima Response has started monitoring food and water because our government is not yet doing this. Many of us are calling Jerry Brown and the White House comment line daily to urge for testing and to ask that the US intervenes in Japan to stop the 400 tons daily flow of radioactive water into the Pacific, as well as international supervision of the rod removal.

I am one of the initiators of the Fukushima Response Wellness Circle to share strategies and resoureces to stay healthy on the spiritual, emotional and physical levels as this continues to unfold. We are putting on an event to educate the larger community as to what we can do as citizens.

We need more responders. Please join us!

Warmly,

Sasha

Jude Iam

12-28-2013, 11:13 PM

great. please keep me/us all in the loop for both the information dispersal and event planning and day-of.

everyone who's awake to this reality realizes the vital importance and urgency -
and will support as if our lives and the future depend on it…

blessings, jude

Hi Sasha, Lets connect and make the info you have available, really available to everyone so we can create some change.
Please email me asap as I will be doing silent retreat Jan 1 to Jan 31. Thanks soooo much.
K

Fillie

12-29-2013, 08:57 PM

MB these guys know:
https://radiationnetwork.com/

Please do give me a call. I have 10 lbs of salmon and a couple lbs of seaweed I am wanting to test. I have googled like mad and dont find any companies that do that. Dont know where else to turn?
Kate 824-9543

podfish

12-30-2013, 08:09 PM

Posting a bunch of numbers or links to references really only works when preaching to the choir, so I'll skip the effort - but let me suggest something well worth your while, if you're putting any energy into monitoring radiation:
look up how much comes from exposure to the sun, and to radon in most of the U.S., and include that in your considerations about how to respond to environmental radiation threats. Don't just react to something because it's new, shiny and exotic - if you're concerned about your exposure to radiation, it makes sense to consider all sources.

And go to the trouble to do a little basic addition to see what level's you're talking about. You might even do a little research into the fate of long-term survivors of the attacks in Japan.

jbox

12-31-2013, 09:25 AM

Please do give me a call. I have 10 lbs of salmon and a couple lbs of seaweed I am wanting to test. I have googled like mad and dont find any companies that do that. Dont know where else to turn?
Kate 824-9543

I can't help you with the seaweed but I'll be happy to take the 10 lbs of salmon and test it and let you know if I suffer any ill effects. I assume its local wild salmon?

amidhelle

01-02-2014, 02:48 PM

HI Sasha,

I am interested in joining the Fukushima Response Wellness Circle! I am currently reading a book, Fukukshima Meltdown and Modern Radiation: Protecting Ourselves and Our Future Generations by John Apsley, MD, ND, DC. I would like to discuss some of his ways to protect ourselves (ie pectin, eating vegetarian, etc.). I also am interested in be part of a group that supports eachother spiritually and positively during this sad, unreal crisis! Please contact me at [email protected]

Namaste,

AmiDhelle

Yes!

Fukushima Response has started monitoring food and water because our government is not yet doing this. Many of us are calling Jerry Brown and the White House comment line daily to urge for testing and to ask that the US intervenes in Japan to stop the 400 tons daily flow of radioactive water into the Pacific, as well as international supervision of the rod removal.

I am one of the initiators of the Fukushima Response Wellness Circle to share strategies and resoureces to stay healthy on the spiritual, emotional and physical levels as this continues to unfold. We are putting on an event to educate the larger community as to what we can do as citizens.

We need more responders. Please join us!

Warmly,

Sasha

afinenettle

02-02-2014, 02:03 PM

Thank you so much Paul for testing my seafood so carefully. My seaweed and the coho salmon from the gulf of Alaska tested low and safe for radiation....this time. Coho salmon has the shallowest migration out to sea of any species I know of n- but still travels many hundreds of miles out.
Kate Sullivan

IT IS TIME TO ASK FOR MONITORING OF RADIATION...

BManna

02-03-2014, 04:11 PM

Who is Paul & what kind of testing was found to verify radiation contamination? (I'm not seeing any related parts of this thread.) Is there some testing service available, or general results which would be helpful for the public?

Thank you so much Paul for testing my seafood so carefully. My seaweed and the coho salmon from the gulf of Alaska tested low and safe for radiation....this time. Coho salmon has the shallowest migration out to sea of any species I know of n- but still travels many hundreds of miles out.
Kate Sullivan

Dogenzip

02-03-2014, 08:14 PM

Yes, It is necessary to demand State and federal governments monitor air, water and food weekly and post the results.
Write, fax, phone elected reps. Explore the possibility of cooperatively funding our own food testing lab in Sebastopol. Speak to Dan Sythe at MedCom about this. The time ripe.

IT IS TIME TO ASK FOR MONITORING OF RADIATION

Scott McKeown

02-04-2014, 06:37 PM

IT IS TIME TO ASK FOR MONITORING OF RADIATION

Yes, It is necessary to demand State and federal governments monitor air, water and food weekly and post the results.

Actually, it is fairly well known that the Environmental Protection Agency monitors radiation at hundreds of sites throughout the country in every state, including 13 sites in California. They operate 24 hours a day and are updated with graphs several times a day. You can read the results online here:

(https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/#CO)https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2014-02-05_14-02-57.png (https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/#california)
https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/#california

Additionally, the EPA monitors samples of rain, drinking water, and milk for radiation on a routine schedule and posts those results online as well.

However, I imagine none of this will satisfy the conspiracy theorists who will claim there is a massive conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and government employees who are purposefully hiding the truth, for some apparent reason.

I can just imagine the job interview where a young scientist to be hired by the EPA is informed that in order to get the job he must be willing to falsify data and threaten the lives and health of tens of millions of Americans, something much more critical than NSA spying. Yet it's amazing how thousands of these people have been hired without one Snowden yet stepping forward.

Scott

Dixon

02-04-2014, 07:04 PM

25248Darknet memorandum 2/4/14 -- Sonoma County Division-- Level 51 Clearance Only

Excellent disinformation effort, Agent McKeown! The recent program of Ravitchment seems to have had a salutary effect on your level of professionalism. You will receive an extra ration of Soylent Green this evening. Since the CVS pick-up window is not yet operational, you may pick it up at the GMO and Toxics Dissemination Department in the back of Whole Foods.

Cthulhu fhtagn.

Terminate this message immediately.

Operation Shadow Central Darknet Out

Actually, it is fairly well known that the Environmental Protection Agency monitors radiation at hundreds of sites throughout the country in every state, including 13 sites in California. ...

arthunter

02-04-2014, 08:00 PM

I'm greatly relieved to hear that everything is under control and that there's absolutely no danger of radiation from Fukashima becoming a problem ... phew ... well done Scott ! ...

Now could someone please write to the insurance companies about this? ... because they're busy adding radiation exclusion clauses to their policies.....

https://www.turnerradionetwork.com/news/251-mjt

Jude Iam

02-04-2014, 08:41 PM

scott, presumably you care not whether what you eat is GMO or not, because you trust the FDA and find no reason to be suspicious of industry ties. right?

you so very confidently cite the EPA as monitering radioactivity, and as the ultimate arbiter of public health issues and that lays it all to rest - just relax and let the government let us know if and when to worry...

actually, Ken Buesseler, head scientist at Woods Hole, MA, one of the world's top ocean science facilities, said that no one is monitoring the radioactivity in the Pacific Ocean.

perhaps you'd address this list, or say, at least the first dozen items; maybe our fine reptilian overlord with his admirable command of irony can take on the second dozen...if it merits your attention enough to research - perhaps it warrants only your quick and satirical reply...

a challenge: discredit the material presented, or acknowledge your lack of standing to tackle it, let alone dismiss.
looking forward to reading your response to the information we all have to work with, jude

https://ecowatch.com/2014/02/02/50-reasons-fear-fukushima/

50 Reasons To Fear the Worst from Fukushima Harvey Wasserman (https://ecowatch.com/author/hwasserman/) | [This is the first in a two part series]
Fukushima (https://ecowatch.com/?s=fukushima)’s missing melted cores and radioactive gushers continue to fester in secret.

Japan’s harsh dictatorial censorship has been matched by a global corporate media blackout (https://www.nukefree.org/ralph-nader-japans-fukushima-secrets-syndrome) aimed—successfully—at keeping Fukushima out of the public eye. But that doesn’t keep the actual radiation out of our ecosystem, our markets … or our bodies. Speculation on the ultimate impact ranges from the utterly harmless to the intensely apocalyptic (https://ecowatch.com/2013/12/11/japans-new-fukushima-fascism/) . But the basic reality is simple: for seven decades, government Bomb factories and privately-owned reactors have spewed massive quantities of unmonitored radiation into the biosphere. The impacts of these emissions on human and ecological health are unknown primarily because the nuclear industry has resolutely refused to study them.

Indeed, the official presumption has always been that showing proof of damage from nuclear Bomb tests and commercial reactors falls to the victims, not the perpetrators.

And that in any case, the industry will be held virtually harmless.

This “see no evil, pay no damages” mindset dates from the Bombing of Hiroshima to Fukushima to the disaster coming next … which could be happening as you read this.

Here are 50 preliminary reasons why this radioactive legacy demands we prepare for the worst for our oceans, our planet, our economy … ourselves.

1. At Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945), the U.S. military initially denied (https://japanfocus.org/-Greg-Mitchell/3581) that there was any radioactive fallout, or that it could do any damage. Despite an absence of meaningful data, the victims (including a group of U.S. prisoners of war) and their supporters were officially “discredited” and scorned.

2. Likewise, when Nobel-winners Linus Pauling and Andre Sakharov correctly warned (https://paulingblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/talking-about-the-limited-test-ban-treaty/) of a massive global death toll from atmospheric Bomb testing, they were dismissed with official contempt … until they won in the court of public opinion.

3. During and after the Bomb Tests (1946-63), downwinders in the South Pacific and American west, along with thousands of U.S. “atomic vets,” were told their radiation-induced health problems were imaginary (https://www.ratical.org/radiation/KillingOurOwn/) … until they proved utterly irrefutable.

Continues at https://ecowatch.com/2014/02/02/50-reasons-fear-fukushima/

Actually, it is fairly well known that the Environmental Protection Agency monitors radiation ...

Scott McKeown

02-05-2014, 12:01 AM

This is too classic. Yet another example of how a discussion of an issue is too often made personal on this bulletin board.

Here's how it goes:

Person A (along with others) puts up a post on wacco complaining that the government isn't doing any monitoring of radiation and demands it be done. Here is an example:

Yes, It is necessary to demand State and federal government monitor air, water and food weekly and post the results.

Person B then points out that, in fact, the government is indeed monitoring radiation through hundreds of monitoring sites all over the country and posts the results daily.

Person C then pointedly and personally calls out Person B for posting the facts about the government monitoring of radiation. Apparently the criticism is because the government cannot be trusted.

you so very confidently cite the EPA as monitering radioactivity, and as the ultimate arbiter of public health issues and that lays it all to rest - just relax and let the government let us know if and when to worry...

So it's damned if the government is not monitoring, damned if the government is monitoring. And while at it, take it out of the realm of a discussion of ideas and facts and make it personal.

I think we can do better, folks.

Scott

Scott McKeown

02-05-2014, 12:58 AM

Here we have a different example of how a discussion is taken out of the realm of issues and ideas and taken into the realm of the personal on this bulletin board.

Here is how this example goes:

Person A responds to a previous posting about a specific issue, in this case about whether the government is monitoring radiation. Person A comments about government monitoring stations and current monitoring capacity.

Persons B and C then take the discussion out of the realm of ideas and personally call out Person A about issues that were not addressed or mentioned by Person A.

I'm greatly relieved to hear that everything is under control and that there's absolutely no danger of radiation from Fukashima becoming a problem ... phew ... well done Scott ! ...

Here Person B calls out and attacks Person A about the issue of potential danger -- becoming a problem -- even though Person A did not mention anything about potential danger, only about current government radiation monitoring capacity.

...a challenge: discredit the material presented, or acknowledge your lack of standing to tackle it, let alone dismiss.
looking forward to reading your response to the information we all have to work with, jude

Here Person C calls out and attacks Person A not with a challenge of the content of Person A's posting -- about government radiation monitoring stations -- but rather with a long screed about Fukushima in general.

Can we please not call people out personally and attack them for things they did not write about in their posts? And can we please keep the discussion in the realm of ideas and not make it personal?

Scott

arthunter

02-05-2014, 05:01 AM

And here's how Person A discredits and casts doubt on anyone who does not share Person A's opinion about the subject ... if we're now talking about personalizing the issue instead of responding to Person B's and Person C's factual information about the subject, then I think that we can begin here ....

How about responding to the facts that Person B and Person C posted? ... are you now saying that you didn't imply that there's nothing to worry about by labeling all who worry about this as "conspiracy theorists" and citing government measurements? ... aren't you confident that the government will keep taking measurements and alert us if we need to evacuate?

However, I imagine none of this will satisfy the conspiracy theorists who will claim there is a massive conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and government employees who are purposefully hiding the truth, for some apparent reason.

I can just imagine the job interview where a young scientist to be hired by the EPA is informed that in order to get the job he must be willing to falsify data and threaten the lives and health of tens of millions of Americans, something much more critical than NSA spying. Yet it's amazing how thousands of these people have been hired without one Snowden yet stepping forward.

Dogenzip

02-05-2014, 11:55 AM

Hello Scott,
I wish I had your confidence in the EPA and government testing of radiation levels in the environment and in our food.

Unfortunately the EPA has arbitrarily raised the so called 'safe' levels of radioactivity. Please refer to the Peer site and to Forbes Magazine site whose links are below: These are not radical or conspiracy-minded organizations.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/04/10/epa-draft-stirs-fears-of-radically-relaxed-radiation-guidelines/

https://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/2013/04/08/white-house-approves-radical-radiation-cleanup-rollback/

It is what we do not know which is most troubling. We don't know the cumulative impacts of ongoing radioactive water being pumped into the ocean by Fukushima on a daily basis, since no US agency is testing the ocean waters. Nor do we know whether the various modeling of ocean current transport will significantly dilute the radioactive isotopes heading our way. Climate modeling of the transport of ocean based radioactivity to the atmosphere remains rudimentary.

Past reassurances by government agencies of the safety of the nuclear industry have proven to be false.

I wish I will be proven wrong, and that your optimistic view prevails.

Cordially,
Paul-André

Scott McKeown

02-05-2014, 01:45 PM

Hello Scott,
I wish I had your confidence in the EPA and government testing of radiation levels in the environment and in our food.
....I wish I will be proven wrong, and that your optimistic view prevails.

(sigh)

Here we are with yet another perfect example of what I just wrote about earlier. I'm being called out and drawn into a discussion made personal about a position I never took.

Since I'm being drawn in...

What are my optimistic views? Seriously, where did I say I was optimistic in this thread? About what?

To refresh your memory, you made multiple posts complaining there was no government radiation monitoring and demanded that it be done.

Monitoring of our food, water and rainfall are long overdue.

Yes, It is necessary to demand State and federal governments monitor air, water and food weekly and post the results.

I pointed out there is massive government radiation monitoring of air, water, and food happening all the time at over a hundred sites all over the country, and all the data is available to anyone online here (https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/).

Then you shift the focus onto me personally and shift the issue to instead being about that you don't trust all that government radiation monitoring of air, water and food that is going on. Which leads one to ask, which is it? Why demand that monitoring happen if you don't believe it when it happens?

Regarding EPA safety standards (which is an entirely different subject from the subject of this thread) you are welcome to determine your own standards of safety. Radiation levels are posted publicly and updated multiple times a day from over a hundred sites that you can access at https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/. Anyone can do the research and come to their own conclusion about what they consider to be safe levels of radiation and look at the data online and see if that level is being surpassed. The data is not being hidden.

What I DO have confidence in is that the radiation monitoring stations are not rigged and that the radiation level data being put out online is relatively accurate overall. If the data were rigged that would require the collusion of many hundreds, perhaps over a thousand scientists and government employees who are involved in a conspiracy to intentionally falsify the data. Is someone really going to argue here that all these hundreds of monitoring sites are indeed rigged and giving out false data?

In the meantime, please hold me accountable to the positions I actually take, and not just make stuff up.

Scott

02-05-2014, 02:29 PM

Hello Friends,
I would suggest you all use this precious energy (of bantering) for buying our own meter....$700 and post any great sources and do your homework and stop the waging of fingers. Not very becoming.

andrew espinoza

02-06-2014, 06:23 AM

Hey Scoot an FYI. Do your homework before you post your facts....your wrong about EPA Radnet. Yes your links are correct and yes the EPA is supposed to do all that you say....but NONE of the monitoring stations in Ca are working at the moment, I checked, you should try it. They have been offline for a while on fact as of Jan. 19 2014, 81 stations are offline/down and only 41 are active. Also a number of them through out the nation have been offline at various times for exntended periods of time for the past 3 yrs. All this verifiable through the website station history...
You also said this statement
"However, I imagine none of this will satisfy the conspiracy theorists who will claim there is a massive conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and government employees who are purposefully hiding the truth, for some apparent reason."
People care about life on this planet. People care about the future of their lives and of the planet.. period. and thus they or I feel that pollution and garbage are kinda of out of control and do conrtibute to a loss of life/environment. Fukushima added another type of pollution to the planet, in a form that is life threatening for all species. Its natural for us to want clarification from authorities, especially when the EPA sites are down...You labeled people here inappropriately.

Valley Oak

02-06-2014, 09:31 AM

The following article was published by the Press Democrat on February 5, 2014

Searching for signs of Fukushima radiation on North Coast (https://pressdemocrat.com/article/20140205/articles/140209762)

https://pix.pressdemocrat.com/20140205/ARTICLES/140209762/story.jpg (https://pressdemocrat.com/article/20140205/articles/140209762)

Scott McKeown

02-06-2014, 10:55 AM

Hey Scoot an FYI. Do your homework before you post your facts....your wrong about EPA Radnet. Yes your links are correct and yes the EPA is supposed to do all that you say....but NONE of the monitoring stations in Ca are working at the moment,

Below are the links to active and working RadNet radiation monitoring stations in these California cities where you can get real-time data. Check out the links for yourself. Also please read the article posted by Edward Mendoza above that describes other efforts by government scientists who are monitoring for radiation along the North Coast.

San Jose -- https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/radnet-sanjose-bg.html

San Francisco -- https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/radnet-sanfrancisco-bg.html

San Diego -- https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/radnet-sandiego-bg.html

San Bernardino -- https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/radnet-sanbernardino-bg.html

Sacramento -- https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/radnet-sacramento-bg.html

Los Angeles -- https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/radnet-losangeles-bg.h (https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/radnet-losangeles-bg.html)tml

Fresno -- https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/radnet-fresno-bg.html

Eureka -- https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/radnet-eureka-bg.html

Anaheim -- https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/radnet-anaheim-bg.html

Look, again, I did not comment about the potential danger of radiation from Fukushima, or for that matter about pollution in general or species being threatened or people caring for the future and the planet, etc. I just commented on the fact that there is considerable monitoring for radiation going on by government scientists. This is just a fact. I did not make any conclusions about the monitoring other than it is going on.

We can criticize ideas but please let's not attack each other personally here.

Scott

arthunter

02-06-2014, 11:25 AM

I think that your comment about "conspiracy theorists" felt like a personal attack to a lot of concerned people. As Jude pointed out, there is a long history of cover ups about similar dangers in the past. Cover ups needn't be malicious ... they can just be a ploy to stop widespread panic and destruction of certain industries ... for example, I am also very concerned about our hard working fishermen in the face of all of this ...

Based on Jude's facts I think that we are correct to monitor the situation carefully in whatever way that we can. Also, the reality of the insurance companies already guarding against radiation insurance claims is not exactly comforting...

Labels of any kind just get in the way of this discussion and can seem insulting. Let's just stop all of that and focus on the task at hand, ok?

I am grateful for the information presented here, including yours, because I realize that my concerns are mirrored by others in the community who are watching the situation carefully. May we continue to share information and resources without name calling of any kind ....

We can criticize ideas but please let's not attack each other personally here.

Scott[/QUOTE]

Scott McKeown

02-06-2014, 12:03 PM

New word definition:

wac-co-ize
/wak/o/īz/
tr. v wac-co-izid, wac-co-iz-ing, wac-co-izes,
Wac--co-ized
1. To be personally called out by name and humorlessly attacked online after posting a humorous critique or fact that goes counter to the prevailing and accepted alternative tribal-cultural worldview. Contents of waccoize attacks often seem emotionally based and usually include attacks for positions not taken or mentioned in the original posting that generated the waccoize attack. Waccoizing usually occurs in progressive-left communities and is very often associated with fear-based issues and/or issues commonly known as a "conspiracy theories".
"Jason completely agrees with the need to be vigilant with monitoring for Fukushima radiation, but he was totally waccoized by six people when he posted that scientific paper."

Dixon

02-06-2014, 01:00 PM

Searching for signs of Fukushima radiation on North Coast (https://pressdemocrat.com/article/20140205/articles/140209762)
From the article: "Fukushima’s crippled reactors are still leaking tainted water, at a rate of 300 tons — nearly 72,000 gallons — a day, according to a National Geographic report last year.
The Pacific Ocean, with 187 quintillion gallons (187 with 18 zeroes) of water, dilutes Fukushima’s discharge..."

Just for fun, I did some very loose calculations of how polluted the Pacific would be if we assume 72,000 gallons/day for 3 years (the Fukushima disaster took place a little less than 3 years ago) and also assume equal distribution of the pollution throughout the Pacific's 187 quintillion gallons of water. (Both are presumably false assumptions but may be a starting point.)

72,000 gal/day = 26,280,000 gal/year = 78,840,000 gal/3 years. Dividing that by the number of gallons of water in the Pacific (187 quintillion plus or minus a teaspoon), we get .000000000000421604278, which, if I calculated correctly, equals a little over .4 part per trillion. As this is infinitesimal, nearly as dilute as some homeopathic remedies, the probability that it could hurt anyone would seem to be similar to the probability that homeopathic remedies could have any effect other than to trigger placebo effects, i.e., approximately zero.

Mitigating considerations:
1) I didn't take into account other sources of radiation in the Pacific.
2) The real average daily discharge is likely to be somewhat, and maybe a lot, more or less than the current 72,000 gal/day figure.
3) We don't know how long the discharge will continue, nor at what rate. I personally have no idea whether even the total amount of radioactivity that could possibly be discharged from Fukushima is enough to present a substantial risk to us.
4) Of course the pollution won't be evenly distributed. Local concentrations here and there may well be lethal to humans, though even this danger decreases rapidly the further the stuff gets from Japan.
5) I'm not an engineer type, so my calculations could be waaaaay off. :dunno: (It's fun anyway. I'm easily entertained. I'm a cheap date, ladies!)

So, I don't know if anyone outside of some of our Japanese sisters and brothers will die from this. I did the calculations for fun--and to clarify that, because most folks including me are quite innumerate, numbers which strike us as huge may not be quite so big in the overall scheme of things. The concept "a drop in the bucket" applies even when the drop is huge (to us), if the bucket is almost incomprehensibly huger.

Scott McKeown

02-06-2014, 01:29 PM

I think that your comment about "conspiracy theorists" felt like a personal attack to a lot of concerned people.

Okay, fair enough. My intention was to be somewhat humorous. Putting it into context, here is from my original posting on this thread with the part about "conspiracy theorists":

However, I imagine none of this will satisfy the conspiracy theorists who will claim there is a massive conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and government employees who are purposefully hiding the truth, for some apparent reason.

I didn't realize how hugely insulting it apparently is to the people who do claim that there is such a conspiracy to refer to them as "conspiracy theorists".

So, I apologize to all the people on this forum who claim there is a massive conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and government employees who are purposefully hiding the truth about Fukushima radiation levels on the West Coast. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings so much by referring to you as a "conspiracy theorist".

Scott

arthunter

02-06-2014, 01:55 PM

Thank you Scott ....

You know when you're talking about government agencies, the suppression of information really isn't that difficult ... you just label that information "classified" meaning that anyone who discloses it will go to jail for treason ... I find it strange that any of the monitoring stations should be inactive at this particular time in history, don't you?

I just posted in the "Conspiracy Quiz" thread ... it's a video of an ex-Air Force member who was threatened for trying to alert co-workers about shipments of dangerous chemicals that have been linked to ChemTrails ... btw, this was her job .... watch the video ... it might be enlightening ....

And thank you for starting that thread ... these are issues that need discussing ...

Okay, fair enough. My intention was to be somewhat humorous. ...

andrew espinoza

02-06-2014, 03:54 PM

Fair enough Scott, we are both wrong because you said this earlier
Actually, it is fairly well known that the Environmental Protection Agency monitors radiation at hundreds of sites throughout the country in every state, including 13 sites in California. They operate 24 hours a day and are updated with graphs several times a day. You can read the results online here:
Yet there are only 81 sites active in the USA. Not hundreds
and even though they test milk and water...they do not test our food supply for fuku or any radiation..
And you aslo said,
pointed out there is massive government radiation monitoring of air, water, and food happening all the time at over a hundred sites all over the country, and all the data is available to anyone online here (https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/).
Hey Scott thats the EPA link they dont test our food supply let alone the Pacific Ocean...get your info staright Scott
and im not a conspiracy person...I dont care if naked men want to run around bohemian redwoods playing grab ass and network about business...and i dont care whom is calling the shots in washington that has ties to some cult or whatever blundergroup...

Below are the links to active and working RadNet radiation monitoring stations in these California cities where you can get real-time data. ...

andrew espinoza

02-06-2014, 04:27 PM

1) The north pacific ocean is where the discharge of fuku rad. is going into, so cut your numbers in half becasue they give you the total gallons of the whole P.Ocean. And that may not be correct either because the P.Ocean is not perfectly cut in half nor is the earth a perfect sphere, let alone the underwater topography. you get my point its not exact science they are giving us

2) TEPCO has acknowledged that its at 400 tons now, they admitted this recently or last fall. Also TEPCO wants to dump, thats right dump more radioactive water into the Ocean because they are running out of room to put storage tanks full of radioactive cooling water.

3) I dont think its less due to this admittal and the fact they really don't even know where the coriums are located, the mass of nuclear melted rods and material (source of radiation) that may have escaped the containment vessel. Meaning it burned a hole through the floor and may be in contact with groundwater which adds to the 400tons being leaked/discharged. Or maybe it didn't no one knows and thats f'd up.

4) Thats Ok they dont know when its going to stop discharging either, they say 3 yrs or 40 yrs but they don't know because they have no clue where or at least they aren't telling anyone...so yes there is distrust hence the demands on testing in the north pacific.

5) all the reactor buildings are in super bad shape from all the damage sustained from earthquake, tidal wave and meltdown/explosions... structural integrity is in a super bad state. and reactor 3 (or 4) still has the fuel rods they are trying to remove, if they screw one removal up then it will set off the rest of them we will all get nuked by radiation plumes and japan will be out of the picture..its really that bad over there...this is all info from the TEPCO and other non-conspiracy sites.

...
Just for fun, I did some very loose calculations of how polluted the Pacific would be if ...

Jude Iam

02-06-2014, 06:53 PM

FOR THE RECORD: scott, i did not attack you. i challenged your stance (yes, could have been more kind/ diplomatic) but certainly not ad hominum attack. for easy reference, read my post below.

ON THE OTHER HAND, calling someone a 'conspiracy theorist' or their ideas 'conspiracy theories' ISdismissive and disrespectful - and denigrates the possibility of true dialogue.
ever onwards, in our mutual growth towards truth and love, jude

________________________________________________
scott, presumably you care not whether what you eat is GMO or not, because you trust the FDA and find no reason to be suspicious of industry ties. right?
you so very confidently cite the EPA as monitering radioactivity, and as the ultimate arbiter of public health issues and that lays it all to rest - just relax and let the government let us know if and when to worry...
actually, Ken Buesseler, head scientist at Woods Hole, MA, one of the world's top ocean science facilities, said thatno one is monitoring the radioactivity in the Pacific Ocean.
perhaps you'd address this list, or say, at least the first dozen items; maybe our fine reptilian overlord with his admirable command of irony can take on the second dozen...if it merits your attention enough to research - perhaps it warrants only your quick and satirical reply...
a challenge: discredit the material presented, or acknowledge your lack of standing to tackle it, let alone dismiss.
looking forward to reading your response to the information we all have to work with, jude
______________________________________________

.
New word definition:

wac-co-ize
/wak/o/īz/
tr. v wac-co-izid, wac-co-iz-ing, wac-co-izes,
Wac--co-ized
1. To be personally called out by name and humorlessly attacked online after posting a humorous critique or fact that goes counter to the prevailing and accepted alternative tribal-cultural worldview. Contents of waccoize attacks often seem emotionally based and usually include attacks for positions not taken or mentioned in the original posting that generated the waccoize attack. Waccoizing usually occurs in progressive-left communities and is very often associated with fear-based issues and/or issues commonly known as a "conspiracy theories".
"Jason completely agrees with the need to be vigilant with monitoring for Fukushima radiation, but he was totally waccoized by six people when he posted that scientific paper."

.

arthunter

02-06-2014, 07:00 PM

Yes, there's also a risk from airborne contaminants ....

This is one of the best articles that I've read ... it's very complete and includes opinions from most credible sources of information .... it also includes a thorough discussion about minimizing the risks ...

https://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/12/fukushima-radiation-hits-west-coast.html

Scott McKeown

02-07-2014, 01:03 AM

Hey Scott thats the EPA link they dont test our food supply let alone the Pacific Ocean...get your info staright Scott

The EPA does test radiation levels in milk which is a good indicator of accumulated radiation in the food supply, just as testing kelp is a good indicator of radiation levels in the ocean, as reported in the PD article yesterday (https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20140205/articles/140209762).

There are other government agencies doing radiation testing for the food supply as well, including the FDA. One can easily argue there should be way more testing than is currently being done, but nevertheless there is some testing being done: https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm247403.htm

Additionally, various state governments are doing there own testing, such as the Radiologic Health Branch of the California Department of Public Health: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Pages/RHB-RadReport.aspx
(https://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Pages/RHB-RadReport.aspx)
Also the State of Oregon (among other states) has their own testing program: https://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironments/RadiationProtection/RadiationMonitoring/Pages/index.aspx

The PD article (https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20140205/articles/140209762) reports about some of the testing of local Pacific Ocean water being done by various government agencies and universities.

We can quibble over whether there are only 81 active EPA RadNet radiation monitoring stations (https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/) or over 100 as the EPA claims, but that's missing the larger point which is that there is considerable monitoring and testing of radiation being done. It dispels the claim, as stated multiple times earlier in this threat, that there is no government testing or monitoring of radiation being done whatsoever. Such disinformation is not helpful and contributes to an unnecessary state of fear. There are a lot of good people at the EPA and other agencies doing good work.

Of course, it's always important to stay vigilant and not just accept all official stories on face value. But it is also a disservice to make false claims that create a false fear narrative. At the moment, most scientists do not expect there to be harmful levels of radiation from Fukushima on the West Coast (significant above current background levels and other existing sources). But it remains a possibility. While it would certainly be nice to have more monitoring, at least we can know there is a fair amount of monitoring already being done.

Scott

andrew espinoza

02-07-2014, 07:33 AM

Hello Scott,
No quiblle just pointing out your misinformation, I know it wasn't your intention. And to be honest you need to inform yourself a little better on this particular subject...if you are going to moderate this discussion. Becasue all you have done is cut and paste from the PD article...You have not even looked at any of these links just like you didn't look at the EPA .
and
-the CDPH testing is reactive for discharge from exisitng reactor sites/spent fuel storage locations in CA, the test they conduct at those locations are for discharge from those sites and not from fuku...so in other words they are reactive and not proactive. they are not testing for the same radioisotopes that are from fuku..there are signature rad. isotopes.
-and yes the FDA knows all about radiation in fact they use it on our food supply, remember they irradiate our food.
But im done with this and wish you the best

Scott McKeown

02-07-2014, 08:18 AM

all you have done is cut and paste from the PD article...You have not even looked at any of these links just like you didn't look at the EPA .

Please show what I cut and pasted from the PD article. Not sure how one can claim I didn't even look at the links I provided.

There is a lot to explore through the California Public Health Radiologic Health Branch (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Pages/RHB-RadReport.aspx) site link I provided. Here is something on the very first page:

Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 114755, RHB conducts routine monitoring of radioactive materials in the environment, including radioactive materials in media such as air, milk, food, and water in locations and certain frequencies. Below are the results of that monitoring for the years 2011 through 2013.

RHB has responded to numerous requests surrounding the safety of California residents from past and current incidents at the Fukushima nuclear power plants in Japan. Information from Federal agencies, State programs, as well as RHB’s own sampling results, conclude there are no health and safety concerns to California residents.

RHB also recently responded to reports of elevated radioactivity readings on California’s beaches in the vicinity of Half Moon Bay. Preliminary data indicates the elevated radioactivity is due to naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM), not Fukushima related activities. The NORM on the beaches is not causing an impact to public health. A final investigation report will be posted on its website within the next few weeks.

arthunter

02-08-2014, 01:21 AM

A new report from San Diego ...

https://www.storyleak.com/scientists-confirm-fukushima-radiation-california-kelp-2/

Dixon

02-08-2014, 01:47 AM

Andrew, feel free to re-calculate with your corrected figures. In any case, it's all just ballpark estimates at this point, due to so many uncertain variables, as I mentioned. My point was and is that we should be aware that the emotional wallop of large numbers can trigger in us exaggerated estimates of danger. Humans are notably bad at quantifying risk, sometimes way overestimating it and other times way underestimating. Just think of all the people who are terrified of being killed by "terrorists" but not of cigarettes.

Having said that, I do share your distrust of the corporate/government/media interests that spin this stuff, due mainly to their huge conflicts of interest. I assume that the real danger is probably somewhere between what they're saying and what some of the "sky is falling" types are saying. That's usually the case.

1) The north pacific ocean is where the discharge of fuku rad. is going into, so cut your numbers in half because ...

andrew espinoza

02-08-2014, 09:50 AM

Hi, No thanx on the re-calc. Its not that important....I do agree with you though, we humans tend to scare easy, due to lack of understanding, and vive versa we tend not to react appropriately due to lack of understanding...a cunundrum indeed,so yes its important to stay grounded and demand for appropriate testing and devulgence of info from the involved parties... so for instance

It took TEPCO 2 MONTHS TO TELL THE WORLD IT HAD 3 MELTDOWNS
AND 2 YEARS TO ADMITT DAILY DISCHARGES OF GUESSTIMATION OF 300TONS(NOW 400)
AND 3 YEARS HAVE GONE BY WITH NO CHANGE....
YES THATS SLIGHTLY ALARMING...

so on the discharge of rad. from fuku...no studies have prooven that it will "dilute" as we would like it to, that would be better...yet, (read the whole article, it sheds some light on the issue...We dont know the full effects of what this will do...
"Studies from previous releases of nuclear material in the Irish, Kara and Barents Seas, as well as in the Pacific Ocean, show that such radioactive material does travel with ocean currents, is deposited in marine sediment, and does climb the marine food web."
https://e360.yale.edu/feature/radioactivity_in_the_ocean_diluted_but_far_from_harmless/2391/

One scenerio from this paper that I assume may happen, it may/will dilute in the current its trapped with, so then its dispersed, in higher concentrations as compared to outside that current...thats why there may be hotspots so to speak...but yes we dont know enough yet... this is why testing will alevaite fears or tell us not eat certain foods, out of the pacific..

and this says it all by A. Einstein
"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.”

Andrew, feel free to re-calculate with your corrected figures. In any case, ...

arthunter

02-08-2014, 10:23 AM

Dixon, ... with all due respect ... this is an important conversation and it would be nice if we could consider all points of view without any derogatory innuendo ... "sky is falling" types? ... is that someone who does a lot of research and feels that the issue is important to discuss? ... what ever it references, it's a personal opinion ( yours ) which stands in the way of good, open discussion ... I could describe those who aren't worried about this as "head in the sand" types, but I don't .... that would just be non-productive ...

[QUOTE=Dixon;176306...
Having said that, I do share your distrust of the corporate/government/media interests that spin this stuff, due mainly to their huge conflicts of interest. I assume that the real danger is probably somewhere between what they're saying and what some of the "sky is falling" types are saying. That's usually the case.[/QUOTE]

Dixon

02-08-2014, 04:51 PM

Arthunter, thanks for letting me know that you've interpreted my "sky is falling" remark as a derogatory innuendo. I certainly don't want to hurt your feelings, so let me clarify: In almost everything, there will be moderate positions, as well as extreme positions at both ends. This holds true for, e.g., heights, weights, IQ, etc. as well as people's positions on social issues (slavery, liberal/conservative, militarism, etc.) In a debate about something like Fukushima, there will be extremists on the "wildly exaggerated danger" end and those on the "deep denial of danger" end. Colloquially, these could fairly be called the "sky is falling" folks and the "head in the sand" folks. We could reasonably disagree about where to draw the lines that divide those realms, but the existence of extreme positions is plain fact in nearly every area of human discourse.

If you took my wording personally because you assume 1) that I meant to include you in the "sky is falling" camp and 2) that you don't think that's a fair assessment of your position, well, let me say this: Some things you've said in the past do lead me to feel that there might be an element of paranoia in your perceptions, but I'm not sure that's true and, even if it is, it may not be affecting your thinking about this particular (Fukushima) issue. As a committed rationalist, I can't lean too hard in either direction in a dispute unless I've researched at least two sides fairly thoroughly, and since I haven't found time to do that, I'm pretty much agnostic about Fukushima as well as other issues you've discussed. So, while any argument like this will inevitably have both "sky is falling" and "head in the sand" extremists, I cannot take a position as to whether your position is entirely reasonable (it may be) or a bit off-base. I hope that helps to soothe your feelings and that you don't feel slapped around, nor dislike me.

Dixon, ... with all due respect ... this is an important conversation and it would be nice if we could consider all points of view without any derogatory innuendo ... "sky is falling" types? ... is that someone who does a lot of research and feels that the issue is important to discuss? ... what ever it references, it's a personal opinion ( yours ) which stands in the way of good, open discussion ... I could describe those who aren't worried about this as "head in the sand" types, but I don't .... that would just be non-productive ...

arthunter

02-08-2014, 06:36 PM

Actually Dixon, I wasn't personally offended because I have no conclusions about Fukushima ... no one does ... we're all just exploring information at this point ...

What I object to is wording which might stifle contribution because I want to hear every point of view ...

If you start labeling people who are contributing research and opinions as "conspiracy theorists" and "sky is falling types", even if you truly feel that way, then you are discrediting someone's point of view, and as several people have pointed out, usually these people have done the most research on the subject, and often this research is completely ignored by the person doing the discrediting ... this seems to be pattern in fact ... factual information is completely ignored as the person is discredited ....

In fact, your past diagnosis of my information as leaning towards "paranoia" had little affect on me because at the same time you were admitting to having limited time to do the research required to fully understand all of the possibilities ... Other members of the community did do the research, or had personal experiences which added to my information, and contacted me privately to express this, and of course, these opinions meant more to me ...

Yes, I agree with you, people will be all over the place with regards to any given issue, but unless we know for sure what's really going on, someone who you would label "a sky is falling type" might be correct ... perhaps the sky is falling and perhaps you just can't see it because you're not doing the same amount of research and you personally lean towards being a "head in the sand type" ....

The difference here is that no one is saying, "Dixon, your head is in the sand" ... that would be judgemental and derogatory ... would it not? ... and, seriously, I will not play those games with anyone on this forum ... everyone has a right to their opinion without be labeled and discredited in any way ....

Arthunter, thanks for letting me know that you've interpreted my "sky is falling" remark eas a derogatory innuendo.

Dixon

02-08-2014, 07:39 PM

What I object to is wording which might stifle contribution because I want to hear every point of view ...
Well, it sounds like you don't want to hear my point of view if it includes the fact that there will unavoidably be "sky is falling" folks in a discussion like this one.

If you start labeling people who are contributing research and opinions as "conspiracy theorists"...

Please note that I have never used the term "conspiracy theorists" as a pejorative, if at all. In fact, I have ruffled some feathers in the skeptical community and risked the disapprobation of my skeptical friends by insisting that we cannot refute a position simply by labeling it a conspiracy theory, even if it is one, as some conspiracy theories turn out to be true. How about giving me a little credit, arthunter?

...and "sky is falling types"...
Note that I didn't specify any particular person or group of people, nor even any particular position, as a "sky is falling" type. I simply alluded to the fact that such extremes will exist in these discussions. I stand by that.

...even if you truly feel that way, then you are discrediting someone's point of view...
Taking any position on anything implicitly discredits the point of view of those who disagree with us. Your expression of your opinion on this topic or on any topic does that. I would hope you have the same tolerance for others' disagreement with you as you'd like them to have for yours.

...and as several people have pointed out, usually these people have done the most research on the subject...
Yes, but how often have they researched two or more sides, rather than just pursuing evidence that agrees with their positions?

...and often this research is completely ignored by the person doing the discrediting ... this seems to be pattern in fact ... factual information is completely ignored as the person is discredited ....
Yeah, that happens all the time, from both sides of the issue, and it sure sucks! I hope you don't think I'm doing that, 'cause I'm not. (If you disagree, please show an example of my discrediting something without having looked at the research.) I'm wondering if you've been looking at the research which is skeptical of your positions before discrediting it, arthunter.

...unless we know for sure what's really going on, someone who you would label "a sky is falling type" might be correct ... perhaps the sky is falling and perhaps you just can't see it because you're not doing the same amount of research...
That's always a possibility, which is why I've refrained from taking a position on the issue. Though, having said that, the more extreme a person's position is in either direction, the less likely it is to be true.

...and you personally lean towards being a "head in the sand type"....
Ha! To the arch-conservative, nearly everyone is too liberal, and to the arch-liberal, nearly everyone is too conservative. Likewise, to those nearer the "head in the sand" end of the spectrum, nearly everyone is a "sky is falling" type, while to those nearer the "sky is falling" end of the spectrum, nearly everyone is a "head in the sand" type. Isn't that your experience? I consider myself a more balanced type; I'm not far enough in either direction to please either camp much, plus my uncertainty bothers those who think they're certain.

The difference here is that no one is saying, "Dixon, your head is in the sand" ... that would be judgemental and derogatory ... would it not?
There's a difference between insult and constructive criticism, though closed-minded folks will tend to experience constructive criticism as insult. IF the person saying that my head is in the sand is open to my evidence that it's not, then their statement is not judgmental in any bad sense, nor is it derogatory; it's an attempt at constructive criticism, even if they happen to be wrong. So, I'm not offended by such an attribution as long as the person is willing to discuss it openly. The "derogatory" attribution may be true! If it is, they've done me a favor by saying it.

... and, seriously, I will not play those games with anyone on this forum ...
Constructive criticism is not a game. It's an important part of the dialogical truth-seeking process.

...everyone has a right to their opinion without be labeled and discredited in any way ....
There's nothing at all wrong with labels as long as they're accurate, not phrased in needlessly hurtful ways, and open to discussion. As far as discrediting goes, any time you assert your position as true, you're implicitly discrediting all contradictory positions. So let's not cultivate a false righteousness based on the illusion that we don't discredit others' views like those mean people do.

arthunter

02-08-2014, 08:58 PM

You've made some really good points, Dixon ... thank you for taking the time to explain yourself ...

By including "conspiracy theorists" in the discussion I wasn't suggesting that you said it ... it's just a term that has been used frequently on this forum and so I included it ...

My point here is simple ... yes, we will disagree, and there will be a spectrum of opinion from one extreme to the other ... agreed ... but, in my opinion, all of the positions on that spectrum are valid until proven otherwise and therefore none of those positions deserve a derogatory label ... "sky is falling type" is a term which sounds like a bunch of crazies running around terrified over nothing .... but there certainly have been instances in our history where our worst fears have been realized, and sometimes the eventual revelations have been much worse then we could have imagined ...

Conversely, there have certainly been fears that were completely unfounded and never materialized so that end of the spectrum is also valid ...

I'm simply suggesting that we drop language that could be insulting so that the full spectrum of opinion is encouraged .... we can disagree with each other without discrediting each other ... your conclusions can be wrong, but that doesn't mean that you're necessarily deficient in the common sense department ....

Well, it sounds like you don't want to hear my point of view if it includes...

Shandi

02-09-2014, 09:15 AM

I appreciate that so many people have researched this subject. I have not, and will not.

We all know that governments, not just ours, don't always tell the "factual" truth. So, we have good reason not to trust them. I think the only way around this is not to look to them for protection, on any level, unless it benefits them, for some reason.

Opinions are just that, perspectives based on limited knowledge, experience and pre-disposition to the subject at hand.

There are many movements where citizens can make a difference in turning things around, or changing policies, and have. The housing meeting I attended on Feb. 3rd was one of those situations. I didn't have any factual knowledge of the homeless situation in Sonoma County, other than helping a homeless family last year, and taking in a homeless man for the past 10 months. I experienced homelessness, but was never on the street.

The reason I attended was to gather knowledge, and to see what efforts were being made about this real time tragedy in communities. People are dying from being homeless. Children are going unsheltered because they're afraid to be in shelters with homeless adults. This is something we can take action on, if we really care about people. There are many things we can do, depending on our interests. They may involve helping people, animals, plants and any living thing. We get to chose. Hopefully we each choose something that resonates in our hearts, and is a way to make the desired changes.

This meeting was the 2nd. The first was in July 2013. The next one will be in April. The purpose of these meetings is to get community input, for "CHANGING POLICY". This is an area where we can make a difference. One of the suggestions was to organize a "TASK FORCE", which is an excellent way to change policy. I've asked that the results/notes of the meeting be posted here, so that those who are interested may be informed.

I don't know what I can do about the Fukushima radiation contamination. I don't have $700 to do my own testing, and in reality am not that keen on trusting any organization, no matter how well intentioned they may be. How many people in our community trust WHOLE FOODS, then find out things like they buy from suppliers who grow in sewage sludge? Still trust them?

I've said it before, and it's nothing new. The greatest thing we have to fear is FEAR itself. That alone can do so much damage, even if we're not really exposed to the thing we fear. FEAR is not the answer.

Thanks to all of you who have done extensive research (on both sides) to share with us.

Valley Oak

02-12-2014, 03:30 PM

How about if we listen to the experts. Dr. Michio Kaku, physicist, is interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now regarding Fukushima:

https://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/13/expert_despite_japanese_govt_claims_of

25329

Dixon

02-13-2014, 02:37 AM

Dr. Michio Kaku, physicist, is interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now regarding Fukushima
Kaku, of course, makes some good points, such as about Tepco and the Japanese government downplaying the danger (which comes as no surprise). But this video is nearly 3 years old; it's from just shortly after the incident. One wonders if Kaku would express the same level of concern now. Also, he only makes one comment relevant to the danger Fukushima radiation may pose to us in the USA, when he says that the toxicity of the sea water decreases rapidly the further it gets from Japan.

Valley Oak

02-13-2014, 10:51 AM

Yes, it is dated but still has some important relevance.

The best thing would be for someone to do the research on highly qualified, scientific input from people like Kaku and publish it on this thread. I'm also pretty sure that Kaku himself has opined on Fukushima fairly recently and this would be a great addition to this topic of Fukushima and radiation poisoning, etc.

But this video is nearly 3 years old; ...

arthunter

02-13-2014, 11:09 AM

Here's a recent interview with Kaku ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ColhrJF4mHs [Dec 7, 2013]

and here are some older interviews with him ...

https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=kaku+fukashima&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

The best thing would be for someone to do the research on highly qualified, scientific input from people like Kaku and publish it on this thread.

Dixon

02-13-2014, 09:34 PM

Here's a recent interview with Kaku ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ColhrJF4mHs [Dec 7, 2013]
This one was posted to YouTube in 2013, but it's the same old interview from 2011 that Edward linked to above!

andrew espinoza

02-14-2014, 05:49 AM

Out of curiousity, what kind of information/research are you looking for about this?
Unfortunately this type of event has never happened in our history, The nuclear industry was never ready for this, period. There is no technology to clean up or remove nuclear radiation or there is no way to clean it up from the environment (in theory but not practice), The industry does not know how to store it properly, or obviously how to contain it in an emergency situation...

The bottom line with all this mess, is money, not energy and not peace. Its a huge industry and it goes against ther intial claims that it will be cheap..it costs more to produce nuclear enegy than coal or nat gas let alone against real renewables...

But the info your looking for may already be out there.
Studies?... what they know is what was learned from studies after bomb detonations from the 50's/60's, Cherynoble and other previous nuclear reactor mistakes...

Yes, it is dated but still has some important relevance.

The best thing would be for someone to do the research on highly qualified, scientific input from people like Kaku and publish it on this thread. I'm also pretty sure that Kaku himself has opined on Fukushima fairly recently and this would be a great addition to this topic of Fukushima and radiation poisoning, etc.

Valley Oak

02-14-2014, 11:23 AM

Can you please dig up this information somewhere or are there references that we can follow to do the research ourselves?

Thanks.

Out of curiousity, what kind of information/research are you looking for about this?
Unfortunately this type of event has never happened in our history, The nuclear industry was never ready for this, period. There is no technology to clean up or remove nuclear radiation or there is no way to clean it up from the environment (in theory but not practice), The industry does not know how to store it properly, or obviously how to contain it in an emergency situation...

The bottom line with all this mess, is money, not energy and not peace. Its a huge industry and it goes against ther intial claims that it will be cheap..it costs more to produce nuclear enegy than coal or nat gas let alone against real renewables...

But the info your looking for may already be out there.
Studies?... what they know is what was learned from studies after bomb detonations from the 50's/60's, Cherynoble and other previous nuclear reactor mistakes...