backtop


Print 84 comment(s) - last by homerdog.. on Mar 24 at 10:03 AM


"Breaking news, my radiation levels have quadrupled" -- well we have some good news for you, Dr. Gupta. Contrary to your claims, peer-reviewed research indicates you're safe.  (Source: CNN.com)

A study conducted in Ramsar, Iran, a place where natural background radiation levels were even higher, showed people had no scientifically notable adverse affects.  (Source: High Background Radiation Areas of Ramsar, Iran)

This appears a cut-and-dry case of sensationalism on the part of several major media corporations. The unfortunate victim is nuclear power, as the public is growing misinformed by these high-profile, but factually inaccurate pieces.  (Source: Google Images)
Peer reviewed research indicates there's no significant health risk of current radiation levels

Yesterday we posted an editorial on an MSNBC article describing the quake "risk" facing U.S. nuclear plants.  In our piece we discuss factual accuracy issues in that article and its overall sensational tone in failing to immediately address the supporting study's key conclusion -- that we're at extremely little risk.

I.  CNN Claims Tokyo Residents May be in Danger

This morning CNN.com aired a similar story entitled "Gupta: 'My radiation levels quadrupled'".  The video featured none other that CNN.com's respected chief medical correspondent, Sanjay Gupta Ph.D.  

In it he discusses how he's been tracking his radiation level during his time in Tokyo, Japan with a pocket dosimeter, following the minor leakage of radiation from a damaged Tokyo power plant in the Fukushima district.

In the video he begins by conservatively stating, "Interestingly, my levels quadrupled over the last 36 hours that I've been wearing this. Which in and of itself may sound concerning, but to put it in a little bit of context, it's actually not that much higher than the levels you would get with background radiation.  It is higher for sure, and that makes sense given that if you're measuring the air outside here in Tokyo official reports say its twenty times higher in terms of radiation levels that in normally is."

CNN.com's John King continues to try to prod Dr. Gupta to try to speculate that residents are at risk.  He states, "Your caution and perspective is very valuable.  Let me ask this way -- if you've quadrupled in the last 36 hours, if it takes a couple of weeks, a couple of months to get this containment effort under control at this complex and there's a release of consistent levels of what we've seen over the past couple days, what happens then.  You mentioned you are exposed to radiation you would get in a year in a matter... what happens if, people are exposed for... 7 more months.  Does it then become a risk?"

Now this was a curious assertion.  No one knows how long it will take to control the release, but seven months certainly seems like it would require a negligently slow effort.  And is it correct to be speculating on perspective scenarios when you could be covering the actual story that's occurring?

Dr. Gupta's responds there could be some risk under the scenario while going on to qualify the differences between long-term exposure and short-term exposure.  He also mentions possible routes of contamination such via food and drinking water.  And before he can put any more context or disclaimers on those numbers, Mr. King cuts him off.

II. The Real Risk?  Likely None, Says Peer-Reviewed Research

So what is the real risk?  Nowhere in the interview did they actually give a precise figure.  And that's because the medical community isn't sure if there is one, if they're following peer-reviewed research. 

Consider if John King's wild scenario did play out, the Tokyo population could be exposed to approximately 8.6 mSv per year.  To put this in context, people in Yangjiang, China receive 3.51 mSv per year naturally; in Guarpan, Brazil, 5.5 mSv naturally; in Kerala, India 3.8 mSv naturally; and in Ramsar, Iran 10.2 mSv naturally [source].  

A study [abstract] [full text] in the peer-reviewed journal Health Physics examined the population of Ramsar, Iran.  

It concluded, "Specifically, inhabitants of high background radiation areas had about 56% the average number of induced chromosomal abnormalities of normal background radiation area inhabitants following this exposure. This suggests that adaptive response might be induced by chronic exposure to natural background radiation as opposed to acute exposure to higher (tens of mGy) levels of radiation in the laboratory. There were no differences in laboratory tests of the immune systems, and no noted differences in hematological alterations between these two groups of people."

In other words, people exposed, in the real world to radiation levels higher than John King's worse case scenario were no unhealthier than people in the U.S. or elsewhere.

To be fair, John King essentially goaded Dr. Gupta into stating a risk, postulating increasingly extreme scenarios.  And Dr. Gupta likely tried to postulate a response based on certain animal tests that suggested that low-level radiation exposure could have some adverse effect.  But there's been no comprehensive study in the real world that's showed similar effects in humans.

By contrast to CNN.com's sensationalism, ABC's Hawaii affiliate had a refreshing, scientifically sound piece entitled "Everyone Receives Background Radiation."  In that piece they write:

"Somewhere around 5,000 millirems per year for several years would be dangerous," said [Toufiq Siddiqi, with Global Environment & Energy in the 21sr Century].

Leaked radiation at the Japanese nuclear power plants has been reported below that level, so far.

So not all news articles are sensationalizing the story, apparently -- just a number of them.

CNN.com should beware using factually inaccurate fear mongering to support page views.  Making scientific claims in the media that are contradicted by peer-reviewed research is questionable.  About the only good thing is that the site later changed the title of the link on its homepage to the slightly less sensational "Gupta: Explaining radiation levels" -- but his conclusions are still flawed, according to peer-reviewed research.

The media is certainly profiting off of drumming up public fervor with wild nuclear scare stories.  Unfortunately, many of these stories appear to be utterly factually inaccurate.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This sucks.
By AssBall on 3/17/2011 3:40:59 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
So not all news articles are sensationalizing the story, apparently -- just a number of them.


More like most of them. Especially the ones that reach the most viewer-ship. It's BS. The nuclear regulatory commission has already said their is little to no chance of danger to America especially.

Like most people aren't already mental retards about nuclear power.... Christ....




RE: This sucks.
By JasonMick (blog) on 3/17/2011 3:46:06 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
More like most of them. Especially the ones that reach the most viewer-ship. It's BS. The nuclear regulatory commission has already said their is little to no chance of danger to America especially.


Ah, if only I had more hours in the day to debunk the mounds of bunk that these publications are churning out.

Honestly I haven't seen coverage of this quality since I learned of "Batboy" being real in The National Enquirer.

To be fair, while this lasts I'm going to spend one piece per day debunking a major news org I haven't yet touched, assuming they are spreading misinformation.

I've covered MSNBC and CNN --here's looking at you next, Fox News and ABC (national) News... I've seen your homepages. Clean up your act.


RE: This sucks.
By Frumious1 on 3/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: This sucks.
By JasonMick (blog) on 3/17/2011 4:30:16 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The ironic thing is that....


I'm sorry you disagreed with one or more of my past articles.

If you have a problem with my coverage, I urge you to point it out.

I never claim to be perfect. Everyone makes mistakes.

My point in writing this (and the previous piece) was not to attack CNN or MSNBC. Rather, it was to help them be less disingenuous and more factual.

Anyways, your comment is rather off topic here, so if you have an issue with THIS article, please share it... if not, please eagerly await trying to discover when and/if you feel I made a future factual error. I'll look forward to hearing from you someday!


RE: This sucks.
By jamesjwb on 3/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: This sucks.
By jamesjwb on 3/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: This sucks.
By JasonMick (blog) on 3/17/2011 4:59:17 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
your wikileaks coverage is a biased disgrace. There, pointed out for you.


What precisely do you think was biased about Wikileaks coverage?

I don't know about the people who wrote the stories I'm critiquing w.r.t. the nuclear stuff, but I'm quite OPEN to criticism.

I think a lot of people got offended because I revealed Wikileaks founder Julian Assange called on hackers to be anarchists in a seminal 90s book on hacking.

But that's 100 percent factual. And I think it was definitely worth noting, and I was I believe the first to dig it up. If anything, I'd argue that's quality journalism.

Just because you don't like the facts, doesn't mean they aren't important and real.

That said, let's leave it at this -- next time I write on Wikileaks (which again, probably won't be for a month or so), please point out if I make a mistake a politely suggest correction. I would appreciate that and be happy to talk to you then!

You're way off topic, though btw, so back to the discussion...


RE: This sucks.
By SKiddywinks on 3/17/2011 8:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, it was more the constant use of the term "cyber-espionage", which was entirely non-factual.

Plus, while his calls in the 90s for anarchy and the like are something to consider when Assange says anything, I don't think you can hold them against him 10-20 years later as if he is still saying similar things. If he calls for anarchy now, fair enough, but 10 years is a long time and kind of irrelevant unless he is doing the same now. Kudos for finding it out, but it wasn't incredibly important imo.

But I apologise for continuing the off topic; the last two editorials have been excellent and I have linked to them many times while posting in threads where people seem to be thinking it could be the end of the world as we know it w.r.t Fukushima.

People just love a good disaster. It must be the excitement. I love a good disaster to, to be fair, but purely because I find it enjoyable to sit back and listen to the uninformed masses, before telling them all to STFU and get a clue. And then posting links like this and others I have found on my travels.


RE: This sucks.
By Azethoth on 3/18/2011 12:43:20 AM , Rating: 5
Just the facts sir. What we need to know is what to do during the coming radioactive mutant zombiepocalypse. Maybe an article on how to prepare. Which movies / video games should we use? Are 28 Days Later fast zombies likely? Are headshots enough or do we need to practice Deadspace dismemberment? If the zombies pick up mutant powers, do we need to avoid radiation or embrace it so we can match their powers? If the Zombies mostly grunt and groan in Japanese how do we understand them? Is there an app for that?


RE: This sucks.
By homerdog on 3/24/2011 10:03:41 AM , Rating: 2
Jason, your history at DT leaves me very puzzled. Almost over night I went from unilaterally disagreeing with or avoiding everything you wrote to.. well, the opposite of that. And this happened right around the time of masher's departure. *conspiracy theory goes here*

Anyhow nice article.


RE: This sucks.
By W00dmann on 3/18/11, Rating: -1
RE: This sucks.
By W00dmann on 3/19/11, Rating: -1
RE: This sucks.
By JHBoricua on 3/20/2011 11:28:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ever notice how Mick rates me down, but never responds to debate me? Shows he knows his limitations in this life.
What was that you said about ego?


RE: This sucks.
By phantom505 on 3/20/2011 11:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah we get it. If it's FUD you agree with then it's ok. If it is FUD you don't agree with it is not.

Bottom line is you rarely bother inserting fact when it goes against your point and you just rant about it instead.

Everything you write is an editorial. Sadly the "news" won't admit it. Go watch BBC or Al-Jazeera (OMFG Muzzelums!), or any number of other foreign outlets if you want to know what is going on anymore.


RE: This sucks.
By Celestion on 3/20/2011 1:56:13 AM , Rating: 1
You have an iPenis Nano.


RE: This sucks.
By Solandri on 3/17/2011 4:42:47 PM , Rating: 3
On day 2 of the nuclear accident, CNN had Wolf Blitzer interviewing the Japanese ambassador live. Their lead-in to the story was that the fuel rods in the reactors might be suffering a meltdown. His first question to the ambassador was if there was a meltdown in progress? The ambassador said he had heard there might have been some melting, but the situation was not so out of control yet for a meltdown to be possible.

This seemed to throw Wolf a bit off track. He seemed to be a bit lost as to what to do since the interviewee had just refuted the lead-in they were running on. He then spent the next 5 minutes essentially asking the same question over and over, phrased slightly differently each time, trying to get the ambassador to say that there was a meltdown, or even admit that it might possibly turn into a meltdown.

But to their credit, their coverage has been much better of late. I think many of them got a crash course on nuclear physics overnight. Gupta has been one of the better ones, always putting the Sievert radiation readings into terms regular people can understand (x times normal background, like a chest x-ray, etc). They still go for the sensationalist headlines, and the hosts tend to get carried away. But at least now they are letting the experts the get on finish with their explanations, instead of interrupting them to ask a speculative question.


RE: This sucks.
By JasonMick (blog) on 3/17/2011 6:01:29 PM , Rating: 5
If you watch the actual video (linked) of the John King interview it almost borders on being comical.

It's clear he's going to keep trying to ask Dr. Gupta rephrased questions until he claims there to be a danger.

He pauses midway through his sentence, seemingly forgetting how long Dr. Gupta said it would take to get a year's worth of "average" exposure. Then, without finishing his sentence, he begins to ask if there'd be a risk after "...", pauses and just suddenly throws out the figure "seven months".

It's kind a new twist on the old "How do you feel about people saying you beat your wife?" logical fallacy. You keep asking the same question in a more and more extreme fashion until you hear the phrase you're looking for.


RE: This sucks.
By bobny1 on 3/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: This sucks.
By Dorkyman on 3/18/2011 5:47:22 PM , Rating: 3
Brest...isn't that a city in France?

It would help your case if you cite actual statistics.

From what I've read, there have not been very many radiation-caused cancer deaths (outside of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). None for Three Mile Island. Some deaths from Chernobyl, but that reactor was a completely different design and almost behaved like a "dirty bomb" when it melted down.


RE: This sucks.
By retrospooty on 3/18/2011 9:24:45 AM , Rating: 2
bah... CNN sold their soul years ago. Now they are more concerned with ratings and opinions than actual facts or news.


RE: This sucks.
By Moishe on 3/18/2011 3:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
I would agree, but their ratings suck.... and they still toe the liberal line... so I guess their ideaology (religion) comes first.


RE: This sucks.
By gamerk2 on 3/18/2011 10:02:47 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
This seemed to throw Wolf a bit off track. He seemed to be a bit lost as to what to do since the interviewee had just refuted the lead-in they were running on. He then spent the next 5 minutes essentially asking the same question over and over, phrased slightly differently each time, trying to get the ambassador to say that there was a meltdown, or even admit that it might possibly turn into a meltdown.


To be fair, isn't asking if theres a possibility of a meltdown a valid question?


RE: This sucks.
By Xonoahbin on 3/18/2011 12:05:02 AM , Rating: 3
Jason, I usually criticize you, which really isn't anything personal.. it normally has to do with my perspective on media.

That being said, I appreciate this editorial. The mainstream media is fear mongering as per normal. Thanks for pointing it out.


RE: This sucks.
By MrTeal on 3/18/2011 10:45:34 AM , Rating: 2
Try ABC next. I was reading this article on their site
http://abcnews.go.com/International/japan-nuclear-...

Read the bottom of the first page. 170 mSv at 30km? I sure hope they're wrong on that one, or everyone in the 30km zone if going to be very sick in a couple days.
Way to fact check, ABC.


RE: This sucks.
By thurston on 3/19/2011 10:48:46 PM , Rating: 3
Please include NPR in your editorial series.


RE: This sucks.
By BruceLeet on 3/17/2011 4:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
I can't watch CNN for more than 2 minutes because of the FUD. Not in their message but in the reporters own dignity and "professionalism", dare it be used here.

FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt to the layperson.


RE: This sucks.
By walk2k on 3/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: This sucks.
By JasonMick (blog) on 3/17/2011 5:39:01 PM , Rating: 4
Well since you sound like a rational authority here, how long do we all have before our impending doom?


RE: This sucks.
By gamerk2 on 3/18/2011 10:10:01 AM , Rating: 2
Invalid argument, Mick; he linked to a source, and quoted them. Find it odd he's suddenly collapsed...

For the record, I work for a company thats currently rush-shipping gamma-ray camaras to Japan. And from what I've seen/heard, there are certainly pockets of dangerous radiation thoughout the plant, and the areas immediatly surrounding it. It certianly helps that the worst of it is currently blowing out to sea, and not toward the mainland.

The situation also continues to deteriorate, as the water covering teh spent rods is believed to be almost gone. And its supected at least one reactor already lost its secondary containment. Likewise, multiple outlets have reported that levels in the plant itself are at levels considered deadly.

Frankly, CNN's done its job from what I've seen. First you ask: Is there a meltdown? Next, how likely one is to occur. Then, how would one happen, who would be at risk, how long will it take to clean up, etc. Everyone is very edgy, considering Tokyo's proximity to the plant, but
I haven't seen anything wrong with CNN's lines of questioning.

Finally, isn't your "report" of media sensationalism a bit...sensationalistic?


RE: This sucks.
By kilkennycat on 3/19/2011 4:21:11 AM , Rating: 2
Zero danger to the US from this accident. Not at all so to Japan. Remember Japan is only the size of California with a population of 127 million. Not far to run from air-borne radiation-particles, especially Cs-137. You might have noticed that the winds at Fukushima since the earthquake have been light and always blowing out to sea.

The 4 damaged reactors have rapidly-drying holding-ponds with a total of ~ 500,000 fuel rods, partly or fully exposed to the air apart from any debris covering them. The massive hydrogen explosions pretty well verify that the zirconium tubing on the fuel-rods has been oxidizing in the water-vapor and significant disintegration of the rods has been taking place ( @ > 1500degrees C). The emergency crews have only been able to douse one reactor (#3) so far and the success here is doubtful; with each dousing, massive amounts of steam appear and then die down after the dousing.

Anyway, we are left with at least 3 reactor buildings open to the air, full of debris and rapidly drying out. Strong on-shore winds are likely to blow large amounts of radioactive dust from the interior of the roofless buildings into the air, putting the emergency crews into instant jeopardy and potentially scattering particles far inland. The air-borne danger to the Japanese population is not over until ALL of those open radiating structures are either truly flooded with water on a continuing basis (each spent-fuel pond normally contained ~2700 tonnes of water), isolated from the atmosphere by some impervious cover, or completely buried in sand/boron/lead. And typhoon season is only a few months away...


RE: This sucks.
By Xcpus on 3/20/2011 10:40:41 PM , Rating: 2
Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not an objective source. They have been filled up with executives who tend to have strong ties to the Nuclear industry.

I'd rather rely on the science itself (since I can understand it) than some talking head with a big smile, fancy business suit and BMW 7 series car.


It's CNN
By MeesterNid on 3/17/2011 3:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
I claim that CNN may be in danger.




RE: It's CNN
By spread on 3/17/2011 4:16:23 PM , Rating: 2
We're all going to DIE!!!! Lock up your valuables, nail down your children and tape up those windows and maybe you can survive to prowl the apocalyptic wasteland as a mutant. More news 11.


RE: It's CNN
By Baltar on 3/17/2011 4:36:26 PM , Rating: 1
Hide yo kids, Hide yo wife.. Hide yo kids, Hide yo wife.. And hide your husband coz they rapein every1 up in here!


RE: It's CNN
By kattanna on 3/18/2011 11:27:56 AM , Rating: 2
most people who have watched cnn over the many years know all to well the following

its not news.. its cnn

they used to be great.. not so much anymore.


RE: It's CNN
By Uncle on 3/18/2011 2:27:12 PM , Rating: 3
If I remember, when Turner sold CNN to Time Warner, that's when cnn became a tabloid competing with fox news.I pity the Americans who have to listen to Tabloid sensationalism TV news broadcasts. Anyone with intelligence watches PBS or CBC out of Canada.


RE: You're the same guy who wrote the MSNBC article
By 91TTZ on 3/18/2011 10:00:16 AM , Rating: 3
Politics has no place in science.


RE: You're the same guy who wrote the MSNBC article
By rcc on 3/18/2011 1:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
I agree!!

Too bad the scientists and politicians don't.

Well, to be fair there are a few scientists that agree, but their more "politically astute" collegues don't listen to them any more, it's bad for their careers.


By GulWestfale on 3/18/2011 9:53:29 PM , Rating: 1
mick has always been a right-wing nut. wikileaks are terrorists, personal freedoms should be restricted or abolished for the sake of 'security', etc etc... if you've only noticed this now, you must be new here.


By mkrech on 3/18/2011 12:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
So, honesty equates to left bashing. I am glad to see that you are acknowledging this long known fact.

But seriously, maybe you should back off that statement and actually address the content of what Mick has posted.


Money in their pocket
By SGforce on 3/17/2011 3:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder who stands to gain if countries shy away from nuclear power because of bad pr?

I think somebody is convincing these "news" corporations to up-play for reasons beyond sensationalist entertainment news.




RE: Money in their pocket
By VahnTitrio on 3/17/2011 4:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
Fear sells, and news stations have always done this. Radiation is very poorly understood by the general public, so it's an easy topic to fear monger with. Just read some of the stories "Reactor 4 on fire" followed by 5 or 6 paragraphs of the potential ramifications. Then there will be one quick line "oh yeah, they put it out though".

The stories are filled with speculation and misinformation. I don't even want a news story anymore, just give me some radiation levels at various points around the plant real time and I will decipher what is happening at the plant from those.


Today's nuclear is WAY dangerous!
By fireofenergy on 3/21/2011 12:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
Did I say dangerous, I meant to say...
Toxic and long lived waste issues should void any further considerations for today's typical Light Water Reactor. The LWR uses less than 1% of uranium, a costly (and weapons provocative) endeavor. This current approach to nuclear energy is like more peak than peak oil and IS dangerous (as it requires way too many safeguards). The LWR system is just an old dinosaur that industry loves and the rest of us should hate.

The LWR should be banned!

Enter the way nuclear SHOULD be done: The liquid fluoride THORIUM reactor...
Had LFTR been the primary choice for our nuclear energy, we would not have 10,000 year waste storage issues and possible nuclear meltdowns. We would not have nuclear weapons either... We would have 100 times the energy from a kg of fuel (with 99 times less waste, whose waste decays to acceptable levels ~300 times faster).

With LFTR, we would have been totally energy independent, would not need to be concerned about peak oil (and uranium) and would have plenty of process heat to electrify "all the cars" at any time without need to convert billions of acres over to renewable energy.
We would have a lower CO2 count too, not to mention all the extra money drained for foreign oil and the human costs of oil wars...

I believe the wastes from the LFTR for a persons ENTIRE LIFETIME of power requirements adds up to a pea sized pebble. Multiply that by, say 15 times the human population, (assuming 1 cubic centimeter per person) and the total waste footprint would be about 1 km square by just over one meter high. That's for 100 billion people living at the Western standard! If that is still too much, such minute amounts could be rocketed to a single small crater on the moon for a fraction of total energy produced.

Search LFTR (and never promote LWRs again!)




By fireofenergy on 3/21/2011 12:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
Why is this post buried in the middle (I just posted it!)


By 91TTZ on 3/17/2011 4:43:24 PM , Rating: 3
There's too much misinformation going around in the news regarding the radiation levels. It seems as if they don't understand what the dangers are and aren't. At least the Japanese seem to understand going from the precautions I see them taking.

For one, the news stations measuring radiation levels at the instant and then trying to make predictions of long term risk based on that data doesn't tell nearly the full story. I even heard Sanjay Gupta saying that there's not much use wearing a dust mask since the radiation goes through it, and that there's no point for the Japanese technicians to wave the radiometers in front of people. It sounds like he's missing the point.

Here's the real deal:

If you're standing next to a radiation source and absorb some non-lethal level of radiation for a few minutes, it's probably not going to hurt you in the long term since you can move away from it and be removed from that danger. Wearing a dust mask isn't going to stop the subatomic particles that are being emitted. But this isn't the real danger.

The real danger is if you have a fire and there's radioactive smoke/dust being emitted. In that case, you'll have the usual heightened instantaneous radiation level but the real danger is what happens when someone ingests that debris. This is why you see the technicians measuring the radiation level at the surface of people's bodies, to see if they've been exposed to any radioactive debris.

If you swallow it, depending on what material it is, the body may either excrete it (subjecting you to radiation internally for a few days) or it may use it to build bones or organs (subjecting you to radiation internally for the rest of your life). This is the reason you see people taking iodine pills, to saturate the thyroid with non-radioactive iodine and prevent the body from absorbing radioactive iodine and using it as a nutrient.

If you inhale it you'll have particles irradiating your lungs for the rest of your life. Since exposure is intensity x time, having even low level radioactive particles in your body can cause major problems down the road. This is why you see people wearing the dust masks, to prevent breathing in radioactive dust.

If you can avoid ingesting it, you'll greatly limit your exposure in the long term.




Weirdos of the year...
By croc on 3/18/2011 1:07:44 AM , Rating: 3
...must be the Californians that are cleaning pharmacy shelves of potassium iodide. Ror one, it will not do much good (unless you are REALLY young) and for two, the prevailing breezes do not blow that way...




This article is bogus...
By MrJustin5 on 3/20/2011 1:29:58 AM , Rating: 1
I do not know why there are a few blogs and so called "news reports" saying this is a minor issue and that radiation is not dangerous. You dweebs will no doubt rate me into the ground for telling the truth. As the last commentor accurately pointed out: The Government lied about Chernobyl as well. They downplayed that for a long time before the truth came out.

You've got Ann Coulter saying RADIATION IS GOOD FOR YOU! Yeah right. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/ann-coult...

For one, this is not a Routers or Associated Press article, this is Jason Mick's Blog... it might as well be a Wayne's World Special Episode about the Japan Nuclear Meltdown and how it is a "non-threat".

Jason Mick - you disappoint me for being a relatively smart guy and writing this garbage. Did you get paid by the U.S. Government, PG&E, G.E. or the NRC to write this crap? Please answer me. Or are you really just an idiot?

JASON MICK - please watch this documentary, you need a refresher course. Its 1 hour 30 mins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiCXb1Nhd1o

The moment nuclear plant chief WEPT as Japanese finally admit that radiation leak is serious enough to kill people
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367684/Ja...

Radioactivity found in food and water in Japan: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/19/japa...

Jason, didn't you see that 3rd explosion where giant black chunks of the internal reactor get blown sky high and fall to the ground?

Don't you know that the reactor uses MOX fuel? It has about 7% PLUTONIUM IN IT?!!! Don't you read this stuff? Do you know how much more deadly plutonium is?

Don't you understand governments around the world have the worst track-record for telling the truth? Do you think we can trust what this corporation and government is telling us? That Boss of the nuclear plant who broke down crying, because they dont want to lie anymore.

Plutonium threat at Japan reactor, expert warns http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-20042852-76.html

What is most stressing is if either the food and water is contaminated and you INGEST radioactive particles... also if you inhale it or somehow it gets into your body.

I have a life and I do not have all day or night to point out whats wrong with your little opinion blog, Jason. You better get up to speed on what is really going on over there and the severe health consequences, rather than argue with some CNN coverage.




RE: This article is bogus...
By Dorkyman on 3/22/2011 11:33:09 AM , Rating: 2
Let me guess. You think 9/11 was an inside job, right?


wow dailytech what happened!!??!!
By coparofl on 3/17/2011 4:03:42 PM , Rating: 2
what happened!!!! when did you actually become factual!!!!?????? and not warming alarmists? or climate change alarmists pushing your agenda!

new editor?




If you actually watch/read CNN...
By masamasa on 3/17/2011 7:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
I use to watch and read CNN, only to discover over time that were selling 'hype' or 'trash' news. A lot of the facts reported are inaccurate, but more importantly the news itself is junk. You're better off with Reuters or BBC if you want real news, unless of course you like all the crap that CNN spews out.




It's really quite simple...
By kfonda on 3/17/2011 7:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
What happened is that the guys from Anonymous infected the Large Hadron Collider with the Stuxnet worm. This caused a black hole just off the coast of Japan which caused an earthquake which caused a tsunami which caused the cooling system at the reactors to fail starting the count down to the destruction of the world in about 650 days (December 21, 2012).

Seems pretty obvious to me.




Experts
By JimboK29 on 3/18/2011 8:00:51 AM , Rating: 2
I like how everyone is an expert all of a sudden.




Meh...
By jay401 on 3/18/2011 11:30:39 AM , Rating: 2
Considering how often governments (especially ours) lies and then a decade later they come out and admit levels of such-and-such were much higher or such-and-such was more dangerous than they admitted at the time, I place little weight on anything they have to say on this subject.

It's one tactic our leadership learned well from studying the Soviets during the Cold War: Whenever opportune, lie to your populace and paint a different picture than reality, whether worse of better than it really is. By doing so, you can sway public opinion and manipulate fears, and you can get away with nearly anything. By the time they figure out the truth, it will be too late and/or nobody will care anymore.




By djc208 on 3/18/2011 11:40:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Somewhere around 5,000 millirems per year for several years would be dangerous," said [Toufiq Siddiqi, with Global Environment & Energy in the 21sr Century].


Except that per OSHA regulations http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_docum...

Employees are permitted to recieve up to 5000 millirem (mR)/year (1250 mR/quarter) whole body dose. So according to the government 5000 mR/year for "many years" is considered safe, and you may in fact go higher under certain cercumstances.

I work in nuclear power. Our locally allowed limits are much lower than the OSHA regs, but we have people that can routinely get 2000-3000 mR/year, and have for 30+ years with no attributable health effects.




By T2k on 3/20/2011 11:08:40 AM , Rating: 2
...so what do you expect from him?

He was caught flat-out LYING on the screen about Michael Moore and "Sicko" but Moore NEVER GOT any airtime for the correction. Gupta is ALWAYS on the side of the Big Pharma and the parasites called HMOs, he's the archetype of a corrupt, disgusting scumbag (assuming he's not totally incompetent bungler.).

Seriously, why would anyone trust anything this crook says, I don't know...




Peer Reviewed?
By Xcpus on 3/20/2011 10:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
Most Peer Reviewed research shows that with each incremental increase in mSv there is an identical increase in Cancer rates.

The two correlate. What these studies conclude is that the percentage is so small that the odds of one getting cancer are slim to none.

Radiation is, however, linked to Cancer in every single peer reviewed study I have ever read (including those from MIT).

An incremental increase in mSv results in an incremental increase in Cancer rates.




By overlandpark4me on 3/22/2011 8:06:53 PM , Rating: 2
This article is right on the money, but the colons from those two meagerly viewed networks just can't stand it when someone doesn't line up with their world view as told to them by those "news" outlets. Those two "networks" have been flying by the, "don't let a good tragedy go to waste" mission statement for a while now, and their ratings have proven it. An episode of SpongeBob draws more in one episode than MSNBC's daily viewer total. Too funny.




By overlandpark4me on 3/17/2011 6:53:43 PM , Rating: 1
Never let a crisis go to waste, right? This is the perfect vehicle to scare people into supporting the ban on next gen nuclear. It's also a way to up their audience. The only problem is a few hundred people watch CNN and that other P.O.S NBC crap wagon. MSNBC quoted a huffington article the other day from a f ing blogger like it was real news. Maybe we can quote from TMZ for our "hard news" next. The CBS affiliate in K.C. is famous for scaring it's viewers into watching the weather 20 minutes later, only to find out that the "tornado" was near St.Louis. What a bunch of losers.




Hilarious
By SunTzu on 3/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: Hilarious
By JasonMick (blog) on 3/17/2011 4:25:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
spends his every waking moment hating and editorialising


You must not think I'm awake very often, seeing as I've written a limited number of pieces on Wikileaks/its founder Julian Assange. Perhaps 1 or 2 a month, at most, I'd say.

quote:
the horribly womanhating r@pist leader it has.


Wow that's a pretty wild conclusion you've offered up. I'm glad I've never said anything like that. Honestly I think the charges against Assange in Sweden seem fishy given the accuser's CIA ties. But honestly you or I don't know enough about the real situation to comment. What I DO say is leave it to the Swedish authorities to sort out.

Now I hAVE mentioned in the past is that Julian Assange has proclaimed that hackers should act as anarchists, in past works he wrote/contributed to. This is a FACT, plain and simple. Read Suylette Dreyfus's The Underground if you fail to understand that.

Ultimately I'm not judging whether Wikileaks or what it's done is good or bad. But I do offer up factual backed commentary on why certain actions might be harmful, helpful, or questionable, and/or possible motivations for those actions (backed, again, by facts).

Sorry that made you so eager to insult and discredit me.


RE: Hilarious
By PReiger99 on 3/17/2011 7:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
So when people question you about your (absurd) claim that Wikileaks is a terrorist organization involved in cyber espionage, claims you have made and failed to support with the slightest evidence (one of your article even had pictures of talibans (presumably Al-Qaida) aside it), you brandish this old "he claimed hackers should be anarchists not hawks" quote like a man warding off a vampire with a cross.

Red herring?


RE: Hilarious
By dBoze on 3/17/2011 7:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
"Dr." != PhD necessarily. Gupta is a medical doctor (MD).


RE: Hilarious
By JasonMick (blog) on 3/17/2011 7:58:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So when people question you about your (absurd) claim that Wikileaks is a terrorist organization involved in cyber espionage,


They are involved with cyberespionage.

That's what it's called when you encourage individuals to steal documents from national governments.

Particularly when 95 percent of your documents are stolen from a SPECIFIC country's national government (e.g. the U.S.).

I don't recall saying Wikileaks was a terrorist org.

I did mention that Taliban leaders thanked the site for its publications and said they were going to try to use it. That was originally reported by Newsweek.

Unfortunately I lack the resources to go over to Afghanistan and validate their statement myself.

I can believe Newsweek's claim, though. The Taliban have computers. They aren't (all) illiterate. And the leaked documents embarrass the U.S. Why wouldn't they try to use them, at least as a propaganda tool?

So they said that and I put a pic of the Taliban fighters. It seemed appropriate to put on an article about the Taliban's response to the leaks.

quote:
you brandish this old "he claimed hackers should be anarchists not hawks" quote like a man warding off a vampire with a cross.


Old? I believe the book was published in 1997, just a few years before he founded Wikileaks. I doubt he would write that unless he believed it then.

It seems if there's any red herring here, it's your assertions...


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/17/2011 5:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
If there was any real problem you would see the USA evacuating military bases and military families that aren't all that far from that power plant. Thus far there has been none of that. Do you really think the international community doesn't have their own teams at or near the plant monitoring the situation?


By kdogg4536 on 3/17/2011 8:39:11 PM , Rating: 3
They are doing exactly that! Military families have been given an option to evacuate by private transportation and be reimbursed. If enough families choose to leave they are prepared to use military transport to get the job done. AFAIK the military personal will stay for now. Not a mandatory evac but going this far seems to validate it being a real problem. As reported on CNN...


By Kurz on 3/17/2011 11:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
>.> maybe they are being offered to leave because the country got wrecked by one of the largest recorded earth quakes and a Tsunami?

Honestly... Unless you are right next to the plant I don't see the danger.


Follow the money
By zebalow on 3/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: Follow the money
By darckhart on 3/17/2011 5:27:06 PM , Rating: 5
Since you only used 4 plants in Illinois in proximity to fault lines:
If they're built on the same 35 year old design,
AND get hit by a 9.0 earthquake,
AND followed by 10+ 6.0 level aftershocks,
AND followed by a freakin tsunami,
AND lose all backup and e-power,
AND secondary/tertiary/etc containment fails,
then I might get worried.


RE: Follow the money
By GulWestfale on 3/17/2011 8:11:48 PM , Rating: 4
mick complaining of needless, idiotic sensationalism in the media? what, afraid of the competition?


RE: Follow the money
By JasonMick (blog) on 3/17/2011 5:45:51 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Do you have financial interests in the nuke industry


No.

quote:
(stocks?).


No. I have intellectual interests in truth and combating misinformation. You, my friend seem to be quite misinformed.

quote:
4 plants in Illinois are within the proximity of a major fault line, so asking about plans if more then one is affected by the disaster is not out of line.


The Japanese plant sustained a 9.0 magnitude quake with NO damage. The crisis now is due to tsunami flooding. Are you suggesting that Illinois will be engulfed in a tsunami?

That is an extraordinary scenario you have envisioned, there...

quote:
The radiation levels might not be so critical, but long time effects are. Charnobyl is farther from Poland then Tokyo from their plant, but over the years following the Charnobyl disaster over 35000 cases of cancer in children, was thought to be the cause of it.


I'm curious what this "Charnobyl" is you speak of. It sounds pretty bad.

Hopefully it wasn't caused by gross negligence and an improperly maintained plant like Chernobyl was.

Because otherwise it bears little relevance to a discussion to America's well maintained plants.

quote:
Do you have kids Jason?


Not that it's any of your business, but no I don't, but yes I'd like to someday.


RE: Follow the money
By zebalow on 3/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: Follow the money
By someguy123 on 3/17/2011 6:20:19 PM , Rating: 2
It's not hard to imagine a natural disaster damaging any form of power generator. Not hard to imagine the world being destroyed instantly by a rogue comet, either, because that's all it is: imagination.

On the other side, reality, a reactor was hit by a 9.0 earthquake and survived, and came close to surviving a tsunami at the same time. Said reactor isn't even cutting edge in security.

Why must everything against nuclear be based on imagination and horrendously unlikely outcomes? How about focusing on hard facts and actual outcomes for once?


RE: Follow the money
By zebalow on 3/17/2011 6:29:30 PM , Rating: 1
The epicentre was 80 miles out in the see, what if it was closer?
Quakes are measured by the amount of energy they release if the fault line is shorter, the quake will be more violent at the same scale.

On the other hand - lighten up, all news organisations are reporting shocking news to get you to watch commercials, so they can make money.
So go ahead bit up on them they do deserve it.
This blog is live - I like that!


RE: Follow the money
By JasonMick (blog) on 3/17/2011 6:38:58 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The epicentre was 80 miles out in the see, what if it was closer?


Do you mean if the fault line magically moved miles closer to shore? That would be an alarming situation indeed. Let me know when that happens...

quote:
Quakes are measured by the amount of energy they release if the fault line is shorter, the quake will be more violent at the same scale.


And all faults are NOT equally active. Basic college geology will teach you that. What was your point again?

quote:
On the other hand - lighten up, all news organisations are reporting shocking news to get you to watch commercials, so they can make money.


So you're starting to develop understanding.

quote:
So go ahead bit up on them they do deserve it.


"bit up on them"?

What does that even mean? Send them requests for data?


RE: Follow the money
By JasonMick (blog) on 3/17/2011 6:34:14 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
There is no nuke plant in the US that was build for charity - all of them were build to make money.


What a great crime, they're trying to make money!

Not a fan of capitalism, eh?

Well perhaps you should consider that solar, wind, and fossil fuel power ALSO aren't "for charity" and are designed to "make money".

If you must persist in your paranoid logic, please be consistent and shut off all the lights in your house/apartment now.

quote:
Parts of the reports that were done until now could be "cooked" like Enron's books, or the rest of the corporate America.


Well let's just throw a paranoid conspiracy party and celebrate.

quote:
This accident gives people in power something to think of, hence the new questions.
I don't care if you have kids, but I hope you will - it gives you a different perspective on life.


I doubt if I do have kids it will make me resistant to logic and reason as you appear to be.


RE: Follow the money
By zebalow on 3/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: Follow the money
By Nutzo on 3/17/2011 7:21:40 PM , Rating: 3
No, the real crime is the when the government takes more money in taxes than the corporation keeps in profit, like with oil.

It's also criminal that the government taxes (federal/state/local/income/sales) can take over half a persons income, yet people demand even higher taxes on the "rich"


RE: Follow the money
By JasonMick (blog) on 3/17/2011 7:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The crime of making money is when corporation are trying year over year have gains of 10-20% without any new investment.


What large company has 10-20% gains with NO new investment? Please share your remarkable insight with us.

quote:
They're doing it on our backs, or by cutting workers or corners.


Well, if a company is abusive why do you buy their products/work for them???

quote:
Being obligated by law to make money - that's the worst law that we have.


We're obligated by law to make money?

quote:
And Jason I don't want sound like.. - nvr mind.
I am most likely twice your age.
So, to be better at what you do - grow up a bit, or stop blowing.


Perhaps you are my elder.

Not to sound ageist, but you may wish to get checked for dementia.


RE: Follow the money
By Dorkyman on 3/22/2011 11:43:58 AM , Rating: 2
Jason, hang in there. We are surrounded by nutjobs whose verborrea would be welcomed by Pravda 50 years ago.

Funny thing is, they probably don't even know what I'm talking about.


RE: Follow the money
By Wiggy Mcshades on 3/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Follow the money
By Moishe on 3/18/2011 3:52:10 PM , Rating: 1
That's not a crime. It may be borderline unethical, or clearly unethical in some cases, but it''s not a crime. At least in (most) of these cases they are providing a service or producing something for what they charge.

The government on the other hand produces nothing and always drains a portion of what everyone else produces.

Is government necessary? Yes, but due to its very nature, it is inefficient and prone to corruption. The best government is the smallest one, the one most kept "in check."


RE: Follow the money
By SKiddywinks on 3/17/2011 8:47:43 PM , Rating: 3
You do realise that Chernobyl full on blew its top, right? And that the only reason it did so was because the Soviets didn't care too much for standards and safety when building it, nor whilst operating it?

And I think anyone in their right mind would be against the massive waste of money that another check on nuclear plants would be after only three years since the last one.


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki