What's next?, next war Romanians could be part of

Which brings us in a neat circle right back to my initial point. In theory Cbernobyl had the potential to make the entire Northern Hemisphere go FUBAR. It did not. Not even SNAFU. People still live long lives in its vicinity. As previously mentioned, Bucharest (never mind Iasi, Botosani) is quite close and it seems you are well.
The Japanese will clean it. You will not even notice a difference.
Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on August 23, 2013 11:13 am

Fukushima is an ongoing crisis, we do not know what could happen. Let's hope you are right, but do you have a crystal ball to be so certain of the outcome?

Comparisons between Fuku and Cernobal are tricky and naturally there are differences between the two incidents, the situations are not identical, but in terms of potential harbringer of bad outcomes I believe Fuku surpasses Cernobal by far.

Number of meltdowns: Fuku 3 - Cernobal 1
Nuclear fuel in reactors: Fuku 1,600 tons - Cernobal 180 tons
Spent fuel pools present: Fuku YES - Cernobal NO
Sarcophagus: Fuku NOT YET (molten cores are not cool yet, 2.5 years have passed) - Cerno YES (construction started 2 months after accident, finished 5 months later).

They expect to keep pouring water over the molten cores for another 7 years, 24/7:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/23/...E97M0FD20130823

Which begs the question: "if this is so bad, why are the effects not evident?". As you said it has been more than 2 years. Surely, if radiation was the main reason why there is cancer in this world (as you seem to think), this should cause a noticeable spike in the number of cases of cancer.
Or maybe I am right? Maybe the existence of cancer in the world is not linked to the existence of radiation? Maybe cancer is caused by all sorts of things.
Radu

I never said radiation is the main reason why there is cancer.

It will take some time before a causal link between the accident and a rise in cancer cases will be scientifically made. And this link will not be "bullet-proof" precisely because cancer and other health problems have many causes.

TEPCO/the Japanese government will be in denial mode for some time anyway. Look at how they even deny that the death of the plant's manager had anything to do with the accident:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...-of-cancer.html

As you can see TEPCO expects the effects to be seen 5-10 years after the accident. So it's still early according to them.

And there will be plenty of attacks on the findings, coming from other scientists who will disagree with the findings. That will go on for maybe another 5-10 or more years until some kind of mid-range scientific "consensus" will be reached.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on August 24, 2013 09:52 pm

Well Imperialist, this is what you said... effectively you said that it is radiation that causes cancer, not "other stuff".
That prompted my response that radiation is not the cause of cancer, i.e. cancer exists even without radiation.

As for the Fukushina director who got cancer... well, I do not know. When one man gets cancer in Fukushima, that is a regretable tragedy. It would be proof of your argument if everyone got cancer at the same time to the same extent (like Bhopal). His job is a coincidence but not a statistical anomaly.

Radu

I did say radiation causes cancer, but where did I say "not other stuff"? You can use the quote function.

If you check what was said in the thread you will easily see that what I said was:

The world did not end but a lot of people get cancer and blame it on smoking, eating habits or other stuff, completely oblivious to the possibility that they may have breathed in or ingested some radionuclides some years ago.

So all I did was include radiation among the possible causes of cancer. To which you replied "radiation does not cause cancer". To which I replied it does.

So where did I say radiation is the leading cause of cancer?

As for the rest, sure, it's a big coincidence. And Fukushima is not a problem. It's a "furuncul". That's your opinion and I'll respect it although I have a different opinion.

Ok, I agree that my phrase was not good/clear enough. Maybe it would be better if I said "Radiation is not cancer" or maybe "there is cancer without radiation" or even "radiation does not automatically give you cancer". I already explained all of these points in my subsequent posts. I already said that radiation can actually kill you even without giving you cancer. I already said that I am aware that radiation is a carcinogen. But I refuse to believe that ingesting a "radioactive nucleotide" is all it takes for cancer to occur.

When I said radiation does not cause cancer" it was in the context of your claim (now repeated) that all it takes for cancer to occur is to "ingest radionucleotides" at some stage. That implies that radiation is the main "ingredient" of cancer. Your statement implies that you can smoke and do "other stuff" and be OK as long as you avoid "ingesting radionucleotides".

For proof of a link between radiation and cancer, a coincidence is not enough. You need a significant statistical anomaly. Compare the incidence of cancer per capita between Kiev (Chernobyl) and, let's say, La Paz or Perth or Slobozia. If statistically the incidences of cancer are significantly higher in Kiev, that would be "evidence". But why are anti-nuclear activists not using such hard facts/numbers to prove their case? Because statistics are not in favour of that argument.

Let me give you an example of the "glamour power" of radiation. I went to the Peace Museum in Hiroshima, close to ground zero. It is harrowing. Atomic bombs are nasty. 40 thousand people killed in one bombing. Terrible tragedy and the museum makes this very poignant. I must say that I was moved. But... the fire-bombing of Japan by the Americans caused tens of times more victims. One single incendiary-bombing of Tokyo killed 50 thousand people in one night. More than Hiroshima, but using conventional bombs and incendiary bombs. In the museum in Hiroshima there is a wall with the petitions that the mayor of Hiroshima sends on every 9 August to the leaders of nuclear powers. In his letter he, as the representative of a city that was destroyed by atomic power, demands an end to nuclear armament. A very worthy cause I agree! BUT... how many letters do you think he (or the mayor of Tokyo) sent to anyone asking for an end to incendiary/conventional bombs that killed more people (and kept doing it afterwards, still do today) than Hiroshima? None!

Radiation has more appeal. It is glamorous.

Don't get me wrong, I still believe radiation is bad news and best avoided. What I do not agree with is the panic and terror spread by sensationalistic journalists and exaggerating activists.

Radu

It's probably too early to gauge the severity of the effects only 2.5 years after the accident. The severity of the accident however can be deduced by the fact that they're still pouring water over the melted cores and will continue to do so for another 7 years. The severity of the risks still present can be deduced too.

Regular people will have to come up with their own opinion by looking at the arguments of anti-nuclear activists (who are exaggerating) and the arguments of those that are on the nuclear industry's or government's payroll (who are downplaying the whole thing). The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

I also believe the major news outlets are trying to offer a balanced view and are far from being sensationalistic and panicky.

Finding the "middle" is not like balancing a seesaw. The sides are not equal.
Radu

Well, the 2020 Olympic Games are going to Fukushima! Ehem... sorry, Tokyo!
Is it safe?
Is it safe?

On the other side of the world, though, here are the boys again!
Rogozin the „diplomat”
Russian „trade agreement”

Those Olympic Games will be very special. Swimmers will use their gills, runners will set new records using their 2 extra feet...

You forgot Syria.

What about Syria? Nothing is going to „really” happen there - of course, except the regular, by now, bloodbath... Does anyone think Obama will attack?

This post has been edited by MMM on September 10, 2013 01:22 pm

Chinese nuclear subs
Hey! Since when???

Obama does not attack...he is afraid of Russia.

What do you mean "since when"?

Regarding Obama - I don't think he's afraid of Russia, he's afraid that the US economy will go "belly up". And he probably doesn't want to start a major war considering he won the Nobel Peace Prize.