This message was self-deleted by its author

[Drew Richards]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Drew Richards) on Sun Aug 25, 2013, 01:57 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

1. I'm not discounting this...

But using Answers.com for a source is like using About.com as a source.
Not what one would call reliable.

I'd like to see a proper source with a proper study. Not unsubstantiated claims from a search engine.

[Drew Richards]

6. Who.int the origins of the article has some pretty interesting statistics

[malaise]

2. We were warned

California, Hawaii, Alaska, Oregon, and Washington were found to have radioactive material 211 times normal levels several days after the nuclear accident at Fukushima. The remainder of the United States showed lower but still elevated levels of radioactive fallout.


The cover up is frightening.

[Yo_Mama]

3. Complete misinformation

There was not in fact any fallout that changed background radiation according to everything I could find.

Dose of reality here:
http://depletedcranium.com/shameful-study-claims-fukushima-radiation-effected-us-babies/

[Drew Richards]

5. And you are using a third party to discredit another third party report..not the WHO report

[Drew Richards]

4. Oh horshit go read some of the many research papers on who.int hundreds of the worlds scientists

Agree.

Here is just one of many articles on fukushima and its documented repercussions from fallout in japan and the west coast.

This is just one of many reports that the original linked used for their article.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/91/6/13-030613/en/

[wtmusic]

9. Horseshit yourself. WHO says 'no observable impact' outside of Japan.

"Japan's 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster will put people living nearest to the nuclear power plant at a slightly elevated risk of cancer in the coming years. However, the disaster will have no ‘observable' impact in the rest of Japan or other parts of the world, according to a health risk assessment by the Geneva-based World Health Organization (WHO).

The assessment also expects no increases in miscarriages, stillbirths or physical and mental disorders in babies born after the accident, but does expect that one-third of the emergency workers at the plant will have an increased risk of cancer.

The WHO report has triggered a wide range of reactions. The Japanese environmental ministry contended that WHO is ‘overestimating’ the risk of cancer while environmental group Greenpeace accuses WHO of downplaying cancer risks.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/03/fukushima-nuclear-disaster-cancer-risk-increase

[pscot]

7. This doesn't seem credible

[Ms. Toad]

8. The headline is misleading.

No comment on whether the article is reliable (I haven't verified that), but nothing in the articles indicates a confirmed increase in fukishima cancers.

What the article says is congenital thyroid abnormalities have increased, and that additional monitoring for cancers is warranted. That is not the same as determining that cancers caused by fukishima have increased.

[liberal_at_heart]

10. I'm on the west coast and I have a BRCA gene mutation that puts me at higher risk for breast and

ovarian cancer. I'm not worried about Fukushima. Don't get me wrong, I may avoid fish for a while but I'm not going to freak out over Fukushima.