So it turns out that nadinbrzezinski was correct re Fukushima

[malaise]

Unit one did suffer a complete meltdown in 2011
http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pe/2015/03/tepco-fukushima-nuclear-unit-1-did-melt-down-in-2011-accident.html
<snip>
TEPCO released results from a three-day study in February of the Unit 1 reactor building jointly with the International Research Institute for Nuclear Decommissioning. The two companies collected data until March 10. The project used cosmic rays to inspect the interior of the building. By analyzing the flow of muons, which are subatomic particles generated when cosmic rays collide with the atmosphere, TEPCO was able to generate X-ray like images of the interior of the reactor. Muons can pass through concrete and iron, but they are blocked and change direction when they hit high-density substances such as plutonium and uranium, creating a “shadow.”

TEPCO said the fuel had melted because there were no shadows around the reactor’s core, and the fuel had likely melted and fallen to the bottom of the building into a containment vessel. The operator also said there was no accumulation of water in the core of the reactor pressure vessel.

TEPCO said the results confirmed previous assumptions of a meltdown. The utility plans to continue measurement until it gains enough data to conduct a statistical analysis, and said the data gained will help it work out a plan to remove the debris, most likely by robots due to the high amounts of radiation in the reactor.

----------------------
Let's call it what it was and is - a global coverup. There are folks who don't want you to know and some of them post here.

[peacebird]

1. Wonder what the radiation level of the ocean is over there?

[Helen Borg]

4. Could that be why my Akami burned my tongue recently?

Last edited Tue Mar 24, 2015, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)

[Scootaloo]

10. Was the tuna caught in those waters?

You know that using a Japanese word for the cut of fish doesn't mean that's where the fish is from, of course...

[Joe Chi Minh]

19. I haven't eaten fish

for a long time. And I live in Scotland.

[Buzz Clik]

108. Your decision not to eat is based on what?

Are you under the impression that local fish in Scotland is contaminated by Fukushima radiation?

[Joe Chi Minh]

182. I won't quote the official figure for the spike of radiation

gas near Tokyo, which extended across the whole of the northern hemisphere soon after 3/11. I'd prefer you think me a scaremonger than be one.

The oceans are not hermetically sealed, by the way. Or do you think the stricken creatures in the Pacific still alive, have just been hit by some very, very mysterious viruses?

[Buzz Clik]

184. Fish breathe from the atmosphere?

Not eating fish because of radiation from Japan is not well founded.

However, given the history of dumping radioactive waste into the Atlantic by European countries...

[Joe Chi Minh]

185. See the addenda in my post above. eom.

[Buzz Clik]

189. I read it. It makes no sense to me.

Don't worry about it. I'm moving on.

[Octafish]

337. From 2014: More radiation in some Oregon tuna following Fukushima

Though cesium levels have tripled, the tuna is still safe to eat, researchers say. -- USA Today

My problem isn't that the tuna is not safe to eat (Ha! What's a little plutonium between friends, eh?). The problem lies in the lack of research published since March 11, 2011 on just how much radiation has been released, is getting released, is reaching where, and is of what type, for starters. Considering how three atomic reactors in full meltdown is unprecedented in history, and its effects are global, it should attract a little bit of scientific curiousity.

[NuclearDem]

339. Plutonium and cesium are not the same thing.

And from your own link:

Still, those levels were a thousand times lower than the maximum safe level set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

"You can't say there is absolutely zero risk because any radiation is assumed to carry at least some small risk," said the study's lead author, Delvan Neville, a graduate research assistant in OSU's Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics. "But these trace levels are too small to be a realistic concern."

So I have no idea where you're getting "not safe to eat."

[Octafish]

341. Feel free to enjoy the sea's bounty.

Here's Helen Caldicott on the differences between cesium and plutonium:

The impact of the nuclear crisis on global health

by Helen Caldicott on May 1, 2014 in Uncategorized
By Helen Caldicott, Volume 4, Issue 2 2014, Australian Medical Student Journal

1 May 2014

Due to my personal concerns regarding the ignorance of the world’s media and politicians about radiation biology after the dreadful accident at Fukushima in Japan, I organized a 2 day symposium at the NY Academy of Medicine on March 11 and 12, 2013, titled ‘The Medical and Ecological Consequences of Fukushima,’ which was addressed by some of the world’s leading scientists, epidemiologists, physicists and physicians who presented their latest data and findings on Fukushima. (10

Helen CaldicottBackground

The Great Eastern earthquake, measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale, and the ensuing massive tsunami on the east coast of Japan induced the meltdown of three nuclear reactors within several days. During the quake the external power supply was lost to the reactor complex and the pumps, which circulate up to one million gallons of water per minute to cool each reactor core, ceased to function. Emergency diesel generators situated below the plants kicked in but these were soon swamped by the tsunami. Without cooling, the radioactive cores in units 1, 2 and 3 began to melt within hours. Over the next few days, all three cores (each weighing more than 100 tonnes) melted their way through six inches of steel at the bottom of their reactor vessels and oozed their way onto the concrete floor of the containment buildings. At the same time the zirconium cladding covering thousands of uranium fuel rods reacted with water, creating hydrogen, which initiated hydrogen explosions in units 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Massive quantities of radiation escaped into the air and water – three times more noble gases (argon, xenon and krypton) than were released at Chernobyl, together with huge amounts of other volatile and non-volatile radioactive elements, including cesium, tritium, iodine, strontium, silver, plutonium, americium and rubinium. Eventually sea water was – and is still – utilized to cool the molten reactors.

Fukushima is now described as the greatest industrial accident in history.

The Japanese government was so concerned that they were considering plans to evacuate 35 million people from Tokyo, as other reactors including Fukushima Daiini on the east coast were also at risk. Thousands of people fleeing from the smoldering reactors were not notified where the radioactive plumes were travelling, despite the fact that there was a system in place to track the plumes. As a result, people fled directly into regions with the highest radiation concentrations, where they were exposed to high levels of whole-body external gamma radiation being emitted by the radioactive elements, inhaling radioactive air and swallowing radioactive elements. (2) Unfortunately, inert potassium iodide was not supplied, which would have blocked the uptake of radioactive iodine by their thyroid glands, except in the town of Miharu. Prophylactic iodine was eventually distributed to the staff of Fukushima Medical University in the days after the accident, after extremely high levels of radioactive iodine – 1.9 million becquerels/kg were found in leafy vegetables near the University. (3) Iodine contamination was widespread in leafy vegetables and milk, whilst other isotopic contamination from substances such as caesium is widespread in vegetables, fruit, meat, milk, rice and tea in many areas of Japan. (4)

The Fukushima meltdown disaster is not over and will never end. The radioactive fallout which remains toxic for hundreds to thousands of years covers large swathes of Japan and will never be “cleaned up.” It will contaminate food, humans and animals virtually forever. I predict that the three reactors which experienced total meltdowns will never be dissembled or decommissioned. TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) – says it will take at least 30 to 40 years and the International Atomic Energy Agency predicts at least 40 years before they can make any progress because of the extremely high levels of radiation at these damaged reactors.

This accident is enormous in its medical implications. It will induce an epidemic of cancer as people inhale the radioactive elements, eat radioactive food and drink radioactive beverages. In 1986, a single meltdown and explosion at Chernobyl covered 40% of the European land mass with radioactive elements. Already, according to a 2009 report published by the New York Academy of Sciences, over one million people have already perished as a direct result of this catastrophe. This is just the tip of the iceberg, because large parts of Europe and the food grown there will remain radioactive for hundreds of years. (5)

Medical Implications of Radiation

Fact number one

No dose of radiation is safe. Each dose received by the body is cumulative and adds to the risk of developing malignancy or genetic disease.

Fact number two

Children are ten to twenty times more vulnerable to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults. Females tend to be more sensitive compared to males, whilst foetuses and immuno-compromised patients are also extremely sensitive.

Fact number three

High doses of radiation received from a nuclear meltdown or from a nuclear weapon explosion can cause acute radiation sickness, with alopecia, severe nausea, diarrhea and thrombocytopenia. Reports of such illnesses, particularly in children, appeared within the first few months after the Fukushima accident.

Fact number four

Ionizing radiation from radioactive elements and radiation emitted from X-ray machines and CT scanners can be carcinogenic. The latent period of carcinogenesis for leukemia is 5-10 years and solid cancers 15-80 years. It has been shown that all modes of cancer can be induced by radiation, as well as over 6000 genetic diseases now described in the medical literature.

But, as we increase the level of background radiation in our environment from medical procedures, X-ray scanning machines at airports, or radioactive materials continually escaping from nuclear reactors and nuclear waste dumps, we will inevitably increase the incidence of cancer as well as the incidence of genetic disease in future generations.

Types of ionizing radiation

X-rays are electromagnetic, and cause mutations the instant they pass through the body.
Similarly, gamma radiation is also electromagnetic, being emitted by radioactive materials generated in nuclear reactors and from some naturally occurring radioactive elements in the soil.

Alpha radiation is particulate and is composed of two protons and two neutrons emitted from uranium atoms and other dangerous elements generated in reactors (such as plutonium, americium, curium, einsteinium, etc – all which are known as alpha emitters and have an atomic weight greater than uranium). Alpha particles travel a very short distance in the human body. They cannot penetrate the layers of dead skin in the epidermis to damage living skin cells. But when these radioactive elements enter the lung, liver, bone or other organs, they transfer a large dose of radiation over a long period of time to a very small volume of cells. Most of these cells are killed; however, some on the edge of the radiation field remain viable to be mutated, and cancer may later develop. Alpha emitters are among the most carcinogenic materials known.

Beta radiation, like alpha radiation, is also particulate. It is a charged electron emitted from radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and iodine 131. The beta particle is light in mass, travels further than an alpha particle and is also mutagenic.

Neutron radiation is released during the fission process in a reactor or a bomb. Reactor 1 at Fukushima has been periodically emitting neutron radiation as sections of the molten core become intermittently critical. Neutrons are large radioactive particles that travel many kilometers, and they pass through everything including concrete and steel. There is no way to hide from them and they are extremely mutagenic.

So, let’s describe just five of the radioactive elements that are continually being released into the air and water at Fukushima.

Remember, though, there are over 200 such elements each with its own half-life, biological characteristic and pathway in the food chain
and the human body. Most have never had their biological pathways examined. They are invisible, tasteless and odourless. When the cancer manifests it is impossible to determine its aetiology, but there is a large body of literature proving that radiation causes cancer, including the data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

1. Tritium is radioactive hydrogen H3 and there is no way to separate tritium from contaminated water as it combines with oxygen to form H3O. There is no material that can prevent the escape of tritium except gold, so all reactors continuously emit tritium into the air and cooling water as they operate. It concentrates in aquatic organisms, including algae, seaweed, crustaceans and fish, and also in terrestrial food. Like all radioactive elements, it is tasteless, odorless and invisible, and will therefore inevitably be ingested in food, including seafood, for many decades. It passes unhindered through the skin if a person is immersed in fog containing tritiated water near a reactor, and also enters the body via inhalation and ingestion. It causes brain tumors, birth deformities and cancers of many organs.

2. Cesium 137 is a beta and gamma emitter with a half-life of 30 years. That means in 30 years only half of its radioactive energy has decayed, so it is detectable as a radioactive hazard for over 300 years. Cesium, like all radioactive elements, bio-concentrates at each level of the food chain. The human body stands atop the food chain. As an analogue of potassium, cesium becomes ubiquitous in all cells. It concentrates in the myocardium where it induces cardiac irregularities, and in the endocrine organs where it can cause diabetes, hypothyroidism and thyroid cancer. It can also induce brain cancer, rhabdomyosarcomas, ovarian or testicular cancer and genetic disease.

3. Strontium 90 is a high-energy beta emitter with a half-life of 28 years. As a calcium analogue, it is a bone-seeker. It concentrates in the food chain, specifically milk (including breast milk), and is laid down in bones and teeth in the human body. It can lead to carcinomas of the bone and leukaemia.

4. Radioactive iodine 131 is a beta and gamma emitter. It has a half-life of eight days and is hazardous for ten weeks. It bio-concentrates in the food chain, in vegetables and milk, then in the the human thyroid gland where it is a potent carcinogen, inducing thyroid disease and/or thyroid cancer. It is important to note that of 174,376 children under the age of 18 that have been examined by thyroid ultrasound in the Fukushima Prefecture, 12 have been definitively diagnosed with thyroid cancer and 15 more are suspected to have the disease. Almost 200,000 more children are yet to be examined. Of these 174,367 children, 43.2% have either thyroid cysts and/or nodules.

In Chernobyl, thyroid cancers were not diagnosed until four years post-accident. This early presentation indicates that these Japanese children almost certainly received a high dose of radioactive iodine. High doses of other radioactive elements released during the meltdowns were received by the exposed population so the rate of cancer is almost certain to rise.

5. Plutonium, one of the most deadly radioactive substances, is an alpha emitter. It is highly toxic, and one millionth of a gram will induce cancer if inhaled into the lung. As an iron analogue, it combines with transferrin. It causes liver cancer, bone cancer, leukemia, or multiple myeloma. It concentrates in the testicles and ovaries where it can induce testicular or ovarian cancer, or genetic diseases in future generations. It also crosses the placenta where it is teratogenic, like thalidomide. There are medical homes near Chernobyl full of grossly deformed children, the deformities of which have never before been seen in the history of medicine.

The half-life of plutonium is 24,400 years, and thus it is radioactive for 250,000 years. It will induce cancers, congenital deformities, and genetic diseases for virtually the rest of time.

Plutonium is also fuel for atomic bombs. Five kilos is fuel for a weapon which would vaporize a city. Each reactor makes 250 kg of plutonium a year. It is postulated that less than one kilo of plutonium, if adequately distributed, could induce lung cancer in every person on earth.

Conclusion

In summary, the radioactive contamination and fallout from nuclear power plant accidents will have medical ramifications that will never cease, because the food will continue to concentrate the radioactive elements for hundreds to thousands of years. This will induce epidemics of cancer, leukemia and genetic disease. Already we are seeing such pathology and abnormalities in birds and insects, and because they reproduce very fast it is possible to observe disease caused by radiation over many generations within a relatively short space of time.

Pioneering research conducted by Dr Tim Mousseau, an evolutionary biologist, has demonstrated high rates of tumors, cataracts, genetic mutations, sterility and reduced brain size amongst birds in the exclusion zones of both Chernobyl and Fukushima. What happens to animals will happen to human beings. (7)

The Japanese government is desperately trying to “clean up” radioactive contamination. But in reality all that can be done is collect it, place it in containers and transfer it to another location. It cannot be made neutral and it cannot be prevented from spreading in the future. Some contractors have allowed their workers to empty radioactive debris, soil and leaves into streams and other illegal places. The main question becomes: Where can they place the contaminated material to be stored safely away from the environment for thousands of years? There is no safe place in Japan for this to happen, let alone to store thousands of tons of high level radioactive waste which rests precariously at the 54 Japanese nuclear reactors.

Last but not least, Australian uranium fuelled the Fukushima reactors. Australia exports uranium for use in nuclear power plants to 12 countries, including the US, Japan, France, Britain, Finland, Sweden, South Korea, China, Belgium, Spain, Canada and Taiwan. 270,000 metric tons of deadly radioactive waste exists in the world today, with 12,000 metric tons being added yearly. (Each reactor manufactures 30 tons per year and there are over 400 reactors globally.)

This high-level waste must be isolated from the environment for one million years – but no container lasts longer than 100 years. The isotopes will inevitably leak, contaminating the food chain, inducing epidemics of cancer, leukemia, congenital deformities and genetic diseases for the rest of time.

This, then, is the legacy we leave to future generations so that we can turn on our lights and computers or make nuclear weapons. It was Einstein who said “the splitting of the atom changed everything save mans’ mode of thinking, thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe.”

The question now is: Have we, the human species, the ability to mature psychologically in time to avert these catastrophes, or, is it in fact, too late?

Disclaimer: The views, opinions and perspectives presented in this article are those of the author alone and does not reflect the views of the Australian Medical Student Journal. The accuracy, completeness and validity of any statements made within this article are not guaranteed. We accept no liability for any errors or omissions.

References

(1) Caldicott H. Helen Caldicott Foundation’s Fukushima Symposium. 2013; Available from: http://www.helencaldicott.com/2012/12/helen-caldicott-foundations-fukushima-symposium/.

(2) Japan sat on U.S. radiation maps showing immediate fallout from nuke crisis. The Japan Times. 2012.

(3) Bagge E, Bjelle A, Eden S, Svanborg A. Osteoarthritis in the elderly: clinical and radiological findings in 79 and 85 year olds. Ann Rheum Dis. 1991;50(8):535-9. Epub 1991/08/01.

(4) Tests find cesium 172 times the limit in Miyagi Yacon tea. The Asahi Shimbun. 2012.

(5) Yablokov AV, Nesterenko VB, Nesterenko AV, Sherman-Nevinger JD. Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment: Wiley. com; 2010.

(6) Fukushima Health Management. Proceedings of the 11th Prefectural Oversight Committee Meeting for Fukushima Health Management Survey. Fukushima, Japan2013.

(7) Møller AP, Mousseau TA. The effects of low-dose radiation: Soviet science, the nuclear industry – and independence? Significance. 2013;10(1):14-9.


Originally published: http://www.amsj.org/archives/3487

SOURCE: http://www.helencaldicott.com/the-impact-of-the-nuclear-crisis-on-global-health/

I'll take her word over the nuclear industry's any day. Just going by history, that's the smart thing to do.

[zappaman]

343. I had sushi last night!

The scallops were particularly great and they weren't even glowing!
Next time you come out to California, my friend, I'm buying!

[Octafish]

354. Live Long and Prosper.

I hope to take you up on your offer.

[zappaman]

356. Back at ya!

[NuclearDem]

344. "Just going by history, that's the smart thing to do."

You and I must be thinking of two different Helen Caldicott's. The one I know published an editorial in the NYT pushing a repeatedly-debunked study attributing nearly a million deaths to Chernobyl, falsely attributing the study to the NYAS, and had said editorial subsequently retracted by the NYT when all of this came to light.

Why you insist that that woman is in anyway trustworthy confounds me.

[Octafish]

355. Glad you understand, then.

You didn't have to, though, for me to wish that I hope you never suffer ill effects from the radiation from Fukushima.

[NuclearDem]

357. Understand what exactly? That Helen Caldicott is utterly untrustworthy?

[Octafish]

358. No, you are wrong on that. Caldicott has dedicated her life to healing.

Helen Caldicott, MD

PHYSICIAN - AUTHOR - SPEAKER

The single most articulate and passionate advocate of citizen action to remedy the nuclear and environmental crises, Dr Helen Caldicott, has devoted the last forty two years to an international campaign to educate the public about the medical hazards of the nuclear age and the necessary changes in human behavior to stop environmental destruction.

Born in Melbourne, Australia in 1938, Dr Caldicott received her medical degree from the University of Adelaide Medical School in 1961. She founded the Cystic Fibrosis Clinic at the Adelaide Children’s Hospital in 1975 and subsequently was an instructor in pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and on the staff of the Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Boston, Mass., until 1980 when she resigned to work full time on the prevention of nuclear war.

In 1971, Dr Caldicott played a major role in Australia’s opposition to French atmospheric nuclear testing in the Pacific; in 1975 she worked with the Australian trade unions to educate their members about the medical dangers of the nuclear fuel cycle, with particular reference to uranium mining.

While living in the United States from 1977 to 1986, she played a major role in re-invigorating as President, Physicians for Social Responsibility, an organization of 23,000 doctors committed to educating their colleagues about the dangers of nuclear power, nuclear weapons and nuclear war. On trips abroad she helped start similar medical organizations in many other countries. The international umbrella group (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War) won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. She also founded the Women’s Action for Nuclear Disarmament (WAND) in the US in 1980.

Returning to Australia in 1987, Dr Caldicott ran for Federal Parliament as an independent. Defeating Charles Blunt, leader of the National Party, through preferential voting she ultimately lost the election by 600 votes out of 70,000 cast.

She moved back to the United States in 1995, where she lectured at the New School for Social Research on the Media, Global Politics and the Environment; hosted a weekly radio talk show on WBAI (Pacifica)in New York; and was the Founding President of the STAR (Standing for Truth About Radiation) Foundation on Long Island.

Dr Caldicott has received many prizes and awards for her work, including the Lannan Foundation’s 2003 Prize for Cultural Freedom and twenty one honorary doctoral degrees. She was personally nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Linus Pauling – himself a Nobel Laureate. The Smithsonian has named Dr Caldicott as one of the most influential women of the 20th Century. She has written for numerous publications and has authored seven books, Nuclear Madness (1978 and 1994 WW Norton) , Missile Envy (1984 William Morrow, 1985 Bantam, 1986 Bantam) , If You Love This Planet: A Plan to Heal the Earth (1992, W.W. Norton); A Desperate Passion: An Autobiography (1996, W.W. Norton; published as A Passionate Life in Australia by Random House);The New Nuclear Danger: George Bush’s Military Industrial Complex (2001, The New Press in the US, UK and UK; Scribe Publishing in Australia and New Zealand; Lemniscaat Publishers in The Netherlands; and Hugendubel Verlag in Germany); Nuclear Power is Not the Answer (2006, The New Press in the US, UK and UK; Melbourne University Press in Australia) War In Heaven (The New Press 2007); revised and updated If You Love This Planet (March 2009); and Loving This Planet (The New Press; 2013).

She also has been the subject of several films, including Eight Minutes to Midnight, nominated for an Academy Award in 1981, If You Love This Planet, which won the Academy Award for best documentary in 1982, and Helen’s War: Portrait of a Dissident, recipient of the Australian Film Institute Awards for Best Direction (Documentary) 2004, and the Sydney Film Festival Dendy Award for Best Documentary in 2004.

Dr Caldicott currently divides her time between Australia and the US where she lectures widely. In year 2001, she founded the US-based Nuclear Policy Research Institute (NPRI), which became Beyond Nuclear. Currently, Dr Caldicott is President of The Helen CaldicottFoundation/NuclearFreePlanet.org, which initiates symposiums and other educational projects to inform the public and the media of the dangers of nuclear power and weapons. The mission of the Foundation is education to action, and the promotion of a nuclear-energy and weapons-free, renewable energy powered, world.

The Foundation’s most recent symposium, co-sponsored by Physicians for Social Responsibility was held at the New York Academy of Medicine in March 2013, 2013. It was entitled The Medical and Environmental Consequences of Fukushima helencaldicottfoundation.org, download at http://www.totalwebcasting.com/view/?id=hcf.

A book – Crisis Without End — emanating from the conference proceedings and edited by Dr. Caldicott will be published by The New Press in the Spring of 2014.

From 2010 to 2013 Dr Caldicott hosted a weekly radio show If You Love This Planet which aired on many community and other public radio stations internationally. From 2007 to 2009 she was also a member of the International Scientific Advisory Board convened by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the then Prime Minister of Spain.

SOURCE w/ links and CV: http://www.helencaldicott.com/about/

Gee, an MD who's accomplished all that. As I've just a lowly BA, I admire her accomplishments. What's your degree in, NuclearDem?

[NuclearDem]

360. Her MD didn't stop her from falsely attributing a bogus study to the NYAS.

I'm not saying she doesn't deserve credit for her work as a doctor, but her statements on nuclear power and radiation have been ridiculously inaccurate.

[Buzz Clik]

342. There are more than 1,000 articles concerning Fukushima radiation in the scientific literature.

These articles cover every conceivable topic.

If you have no way of accessing scientific journals, I would be glad to help. What specifically interests you?

[Octafish]

346. Please do. News coverage of Fukushima disaster has minimized health risks to general population.

Science Daily reported a new analysis finds that U.S. news media coverage of the Fukushima disaster largely minimized health risks to the general population. Researchers analyzed more than 2,000 news articles from four major U.S. outlets.



Here's more:

News Coverage of Fukushima Disaster Found Lacking

American University sociologist’s new research finds few reports identified health risks to public

By Rebecca Basu
American University, March 10, 2015

Four years after the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, the disaster no longer dominates U.S. news headlines, though the disabled plant continues to pour three tons of radioactive water into the ocean each day. Homes, schools and businesses in the Japanese prefecture are uninhabitable, and will likely be so forever. Yet the U.S. media has dropped the story while public risks remain.

A new analysis by American University sociology professor Celine Marie Pascale finds that U.S. news media coverage of the disaster largely minimized health risks to the general population. Pascale analyzed more than 2,000 news articles from four major U.S. outlets following the disaster's occurrence March 11, 2011 through the second anniversary on March 11, 2013. [font color="green"]Only 6 percent of the coverage—129 articles—focused on health risks to the public in Japan or elsewhere. Human risks were framed, instead, in terms of workers in the disabled nuclear plant.[/font color]

Disproportionate access

"It's shocking to see how few articles discussed risk to the general population, and when they did, they typically characterized risk as low," said Pascale, who studies the social construction of risk and meanings of risk in the 21st century. "We see articles in prestigious news outlets claiming that radioactivity from cosmic rays and rocks is more dangerous than the radiation emanating from the collapsing Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant."

Pascale studied news articles, editorials, and letters from two newspapers, The Washington Postand The New York Times, and two nationally prominent online news sites, Politico and The Huffington Post. These four media outlets are not only among the most prominent in the United States, they are also among the most cited by television news and talk shows, by other newspapers and blogs and are often taken up in social media, Pascale said. In this sense, she added, understanding how risk is constructed in media gives insight into how national concerns and conversations get framed.

Pascale's analysis identified three primary ways in which the news outlets minimized the risk posed by radioactive contamination to the general population. Articles made comparisons to mundane, low-level forms of radiation;defined the risks as unknowable, given the lack of long-term studies; and largely excluded concerns expressed by experts and residents who challenged the dominant narrative.

[font color="green"]The research shows that corporations and government agencies had disproportionate access to framing the event in the media, Pascale says. Even years after the disaster, government and corporate spokespersons constituted the majority of voices published. News accounts about local impact—for example, parents organizing to protect their children from radiation in school lunches—were also scarce. [/font color]

Globalization of risk

Pascale says her findings show the need for the public to be critical consumers of news; expert knowledge can be used to create misinformation and uncertainty—especially in the information vacuums that arise during disasters.

"The mainstream media—in print and online—did little to report on health risks to the general population or to challenge the narratives of public officials and their experts," Pascale said. "Discourses of the risks surrounding disasters are political struggles to control the presence and meaning of events and their consequences. How knowledge about disasters is reported can have more to do with relations of power than it does with the material consequences to people's lives."

While it is clear that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown was a consequence of an earthquake and tsunami, like all disasters, it was also the result of political, economic and social choices that created or exacerbated broad-scale risks. In the 21st century, there's an increasing "globalization of risk," Pascale argues. Major disasters have potentially large-scale and long-term consequences for people, environments, and economies.

[font color="green"]"People's understanding of disasters will continue to be constructed by media. How media members frame the presence of risk and the nature of disaster matters," she said.[/font color]

SOURCE with Links: http://www.american.edu/media/news/20150310-Fukushima.cfm

Almost should just bold and make green the entire article, seeing how Rupert Murdoch and the rest of CIABCNNBCBSFixedNoiseNutworks won't do their jobs. That's why I post on DU, you know, to share the news.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026367729

Please feel free to post all you can on Fukushima, Buzz Clik. I look forward to learning what's missing from the corporate owned news.

[Buzz Clik]

347. I'm not posting 1200 articles.

However, I'd be happy to provide access to a bunch of articles on specific subjects (none of which deal with new coverage of Fukushima).

[Octafish]

351. Content Analysis helps us understand the news coverage.

Which is sorely lacking for those interested in Fukushima and its impact on their lives, families, nations and planet.

Fukushima vs. Chernobyl: Coverage of the Nuclear Disasters by American and Canadian Media

Ivan Katchanovski
University of Ottawa

2012

APSA 2012 Annual Meeting Paper

Abstract:
This study compares the American and Canadian television coverage of the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan with that of the Chernobyl (Chornobyl) accident in Ukraine. These two disasters were the biggest accidents involving nuclear plants in the world. The first research question is whether political factors, such as Japan, in contrast to Ukraine, being an ally of the United States and Canada, affected the coverage of these accidents by American and Canadian television networks. The second question is whether the U.S.-Canada differences in the coverage of the Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters reflected differences in the American and Canadian political cultures. Previous studies generally have focused on the media coverage of a single nuclear accident, and they typically were limited to the media reporting in one country. This paper uses content analysis of television news reports concerning the Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters for more than one year since the beginning of the nuclear accident in Japan in March 2011. It analyzes more than 250 references, comparing the two disasters in news programs of the most popular TV networks in the U.S. (ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox) and Canada (CBC and CTV). Specific news reports are identified with the help of keyword searches of transcripts of the television programs in the LexisNexis database. The content analysis involves both a general comparison of the Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents and a comparison of specific aspects, such as causes of the accidents, radiation release, liquidation of disasters, and health consequences. The study shows the importance of political factors in the media coverage of the nuclear disasters. [font color="green"]It offers support for the indexing model and finds significant differences in the coverage by ideological orientation in the U.S. and public versus private networks in Canada. Convergence in the coverage outweighs political culture differences between the U.S. and Canada.[/font color]

Number of Pages in PDF File: 28

Keywords: Fukushima, Chernobyl, nuclear disasters, political communication, Canada, United States, media

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2108667

I look forward to learning from you Buzz Clik. If you're too busy to post, though, I understand.

[AtheistCrusader]

137. If you encountered enough radioactive material in your food to burn your tongue on contact,

you would not be here posting about it now.

[FBaggins]

191. It's probably the wasabi

It's a whole 'nother world when Westerners get the real stuff by mistake.

[Helen Borg]

353. There was some greenish paste on the side...

[Buzz Clik]

349. Might have bitten into a spent fuel rod. They can be warmish.

[hopemountain]

61. and let us remember -

the radiation levels potentially harmful to lifeforms were re-designated shortly thereafter.

[stevenleser]

216. Depending what you mean by "over there" a few hundred miles away its pretty low

http://radiationnetwork.com/Japan.htm

[daleanime]

2. Kick....

[bananas]

3. They still don't know where the core went

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/20/national/tepco-confirms-nearly-fuel-melted-sank-vessel-fukushima-1-unit/

However, the scan — based on tomography imaging that made use of elementary particles called muons — did not look at the bottom part of the reactor, where the molten fuel would have pooled. So some experts suggested that it was not possible to tell whether the fuel had indeed been contained.

<snip>

“We presume that despite the meltdown, the fuel is still in the containment vessel,” said Tomohisa Ito, a spokesman for the International Research Institute for Nuclear Decommissioning, a special research unit involved in dismantling the troubled plant.

“But we still need to directly check the situation one day using remote-controlled robots,” he said.

[AtheistCrusader]

138. It's in the containment. Because unless it teleported away, it sure hasn't been found

outside the containment.

[RobertEarl]

139. It is not contained...Duh!

If it was contained there would be none in the air or in the ocean.

Surprised you still are using TEPCO false assertions. I thought you had been educated? Guess not?

[AtheistCrusader]

145. I said the Core. Which is now corium.

Or rather, bannas said "core".

Corium radiates .... RADIATION. There's also plenty of particulate matter carried by the cooling water, which is also radioactive.

The corium is, as I said, inside reactor 1. If it was outside, you'd know. The 'containment' is leaking water, yes. Lots of it. The torus was admitted to be damaged in the explosion. The core isn't in the torus. It's in the catchment at the bottom of the containment. It probably burned a ways into the catchment. Anywhere from 60-90 centimeters into it. About 35 inches. The fucking slab is 299 inches thick. (Tepco says 70cm, but the data has been opined on by independent experts, and a range of 60-90cm is the general consensus.)

It's Leaking. Oh fuck yes, the hydrogen explosion blew, likely, large holes in the torus. Water is coming out. Yes indeed. It's a fucking mess. But that ~300-inch thick catchment floor? Intact.

[RobertEarl]

152. Intact?

And you know this, how? You don't. Not at all.

In fact, you even admit your magical containment is leaking water, but here's your real magic: Leaking water, but not leaking hot corium which was so hot it melted the steel?

What is your agenda? And how many times are you going to embarrass yourself regarding Fukushima?

[AtheistCrusader]

154. I said the catchment.

You keep attempting to change what I said to introduce vulnerabilities. I was very specific. The containment is leaking. The catchment floor is intact. Not only has the corium not burned its way to the water table, throwing massive geysers of radioactive steam into the sky, but there are also no known forces that could have acted on that ~300 inch thick steel plated layer of concrete, that could have broken it.

The water is coming out the sides, specifically at the torus, and probably at a few of the places in the containment where pipes go in/come out to carry steam and coolant. Places damaged by the hydrogen-fueled explosion. The Torus is most certainly broken.

Catchment floor? No. Charred, undoubably. Pitted, eaten into by the corium, concensus is, about 30-40 inches into it. That's it.

Until there is evidence otherwise, there is no reason to think the core was hot enough to burrow through the catchment, but then just mysteriously stop before hitting the water table.

There are also elemental traces of various kinds that we could sample from the grounds around the foundation, to know if the core burrowed through. Again, no evidence that it has.

[RobertEarl]

155. There have been a number of steam events

Last edited Sun Mar 22, 2015, 10:26 PM - Edit history (1)

The cameras on site videoed those events.

TEPCO has been pumping water into the buildings thereby covering the corium in an attempt to limit reactive explosive steam events. But, as recorded on the videos, steam events have occurred.

And they admit that groundwater is seeping into the area you describe as catchment. So, even they admit that your catchment is not containing the corium. You don't know where the mass of corium actually is, besides that which is already in the environment, and no one knows, not even TEPCO where the mass is, so why do you pretend to be the expert?

ETA: you can have the last word, I do hate beating dead horses.

[AtheistCrusader]

159. There was a plan, not too long back, to possibly dispose of radioactive waste by glomming it into a

ball and letting it burrow its way to the earth's mantle, using its own decay heat.

Those 'steam events' have nothing whatsoever to do with the core hitting the water table. If the corium was under the building, you'd fucking know.

You have confused water seeping into the BASEMENT with radioactive water coming out of the containment. The catchment is underwater, inside. The bottom surface of the containment.

"So, even they admit that your catchment is not containing the corium."

No, they don't. You are fully misconstruing what they said. They are quite specific that, to the best of their data, it's 70cm into the surface of the catchment. Some independent experts have said as much as 90cm. That means just under seven HUNDRED centimeters of reinforced concrete to go.

I have in no way pretended to be an expert. I have re-iterated what TEPCO and other, non-TEPCO beholden experts have said, based on multiple types of evidence.

France has actually been working to thicken the base of Unit 1 of the Fessenheim reactor to bring it up to the standards we see in Fukushima. Fukushima Dai-ichi reactor 1 has a basement AND a containment/catchment. They are going to dig under the reactor vessel of Fessnheim unit 1 and build the sort of thick catchment Fuku-1 has, because all Fessenhem-1 has is a basement/foundation.

[delrem]

171. That sounds like a fabulous plan! I hope they try it!

I like radiation.
I got bit by a radioactive spider, once, and now I have super powers.
Everybody should just chill out and wait for their turn to be bit by a radioactive spider. It'll happen sure enough.

[AtheistCrusader]

174. In all seriousness, France should decommission that ancient piece of crap.

It was their very first production reactor.

[snooper2]

192. right on time LOL

[delrem]

289. Oh good, I've got a follower!

I'm glad you share my sense of humor.

[Capt. Obvious]

250. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Mon Mar 23, 2015, 01:04 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Intact?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6401652

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Arguments should be presented without all the personal attacks. It's rude, disruptive and inappropriate. This poster has a reputation for being conspiratorial and abusive to those who question his conspiracies. This really makes DU suck.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 23, 2015, 01:10 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attack isn't necessary.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: From Wiki's random article generator:

The Northern Ireland civil rights movement dates to the early 1960s, when a number of initiatives emerged which challenged inequality and discrimination in Northern Ireland. The Campaign for Social Justice (CSJ) was founded by Conn McCluskey and his wife, Patricia. Conn was a doctor, and Patricia was a social worker who had worked in Glasgow for a period, and who had a background in housing activism. Both were involved in the Homeless Citizens League, an organisation founded after Catholic women occupied disused social housing. The HCL evolved into the CSJ, focusing on lobbying, research and publicising discrimination. The campaign for Derry University was another mid-1960s campaign.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is a back and forth, I'm inclined to leave it

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Veilex]

251. Alert results

I was one of the leave-it-alone voters.

On Mon Mar 23, 2015, 01:04 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Intact?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6401652

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Arguments should be presented without all the personal attacks. It's rude, disruptive and inappropriate. This poster has a reputation for being conspiratorial and abusive to those who question his conspiracies. This really makes DU suck.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 23, 2015, 01:10 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attack isn't necessary.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: From Wiki's random article generator:

The Northern Ireland civil rights movement dates to the early 1960s, when a number of initiatives emerged which challenged inequality and discrimination in Northern Ireland. The Campaign for Social Justice (CSJ) was founded by Conn McCluskey and his wife, Patricia. Conn was a doctor, and Patricia was a social worker who had worked in Glasgow for a period, and who had a background in housing activism. Both were involved in the Homeless Citizens League, an organisation founded after Catholic women occupied disused social housing. The HCL evolved into the CSJ, focusing on lobbying, research and publicising discrimination. The campaign for Derry University was another mid-1960s campaign.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is a back and forth, I'm inclined to leave it

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[RobertEarl]

255. Thanks to both of you

Gives me some faith in the whole jury idea.

[rhett o rick]

472. So you conclude that since "they can't find it" it's has to be still in the containment?

Yet they have been unable to prove it's still in the containment. And if it burned thru the containment and melted into the ground beneath, I don't know of any method to "find it". Do you have any sources that indicate that they know it's still in the containment?

[AtheistCrusader]

475. If it melted into the ground under the plant, even 20 feet, the radioactive steam plume would

still be circling the planet on the trade winds. It would have hit the ground water table right under the plant.

It's still inside. It undoubtedly damaged the catchment, but it went less than 1/10th of the way through it, best guess based on the known energy involved. Same known quantity of energy that TEPCO used to calculate and inform the world that yes, in fact, the fuel payload HAD fully melted through the RPV back in June 2011, which was confirmed in this finding linked in the OP. (They went back and forth a couple times, in October they re-ran the numbers and thought it might still be in the six inch thick carbon steel RPV, but cooler heads prevailed, it melted through and landed in the catchment of the containment.)

Even the evidence that Gunderson over at 'fairewinds' posted showed no corium outside the containment, rather, radioactive sediment being washed out by the leaking coolant water, and settling in the torus room.

That's bad, but it's not 'ball of molten corium burrowing into the earth' bad.

[rhett o rick]

476. I agree there is no proof that it's left the containment. I would like to find

a scientist or engineer, not on the payroll of Japan that would explain how the containment can hold the molten corium and how long it will hold it. I assume the containment is concrete. Is the corum being cooled? If so wouldn't the cooling water be turned into steam? Where can I get this information other than from the Japanese government?

[AtheistCrusader]

477. It is being cooled, actively.

And tepco is struggling to filter the radioactive sediment out of the coolant water. That's part of the problem of the buildup of radioactive water at the site, they can only recycle the water so many times.

Some steam is coming from the building at times, but the core is only giving off decay heat now. Hot by our standards, but not hot enough to continue to chew through the floor. If the corium mass went critical again, then it could generate enough heat to do so, but the catchment is designed with criticality posions, and to geometrically separate the corium blob in such a way as it cannot achieve criticality again.

If it was hot enough to escape the RPV it was hot enough to burrow somewhat into the catchment floor, but only so far. The same margin of safety is being built into the first French reactor built, because that reactor was built without a containment at all...
That aspect of the design can probably be considered proven at this point, even if everything ELSE did apparently completely fail.

(This is why, while I am generally positive about the idea of nuclear power, I don't trust corporations and governments to implement it anymore.)

[FBaggins]

478. Some things to consider

What you've asked for necessarily involves taking the words of experts, who pretty much universally agree with the posters that you view as biased toward nuclear power - and thus may dismiss them.

So let's begin with things unrelated to Fukushima that you can confirm for yourself. Go ahead and do a search for "corium" and "Chernobyl" and look at the photos. Most of the photos that will rise to the top of the search were taken within the first year after the disaster.

Ask yourself "what stopped that core?"

Things to consider:
* The Fukushima reactors were shut down roughly an hour before power was lost, so the core was producing somewhere around 2% of the heat that it produced at full power.
* By comparison, Chernobyl's design flaws caused the core to power UP. As it melted down, it was actually producing much more heat than at full power. This means that the corium was producing scores of times as much heat (available for burning through concrete) as at Fukushima
* They had trouble keeping water on the core at Fukushima... but at Chernobyl the core exploded and then burned in the open air. They tried to dump sand/water from helicopters, but that was necessarily less effective.
* There was no ongoing water spray (and possibly ground water) reaching the core (obvious from the photos). Yet somehow the corium failed to burn through the foundation or remain molten.

So perhaps the better question would be "on what basis would anyone think that the cores at Fukushima would continue to burn their way through much more concrete?"

If so wouldn't the cooling water be turned into steam?

The amount of heat produced by the corium is a knowable (and continually declining) figure (certainly within a reasonable margin of error). At this point (as with Chernobyl's corium), the heat produced is likely below that which would be carried away by air circulation at temperatures well below the boiling point of water. Thus even if they weren't spraying water, it would be unlikely to be able to flash water to steam. There just isn't enough heat. With the water spray, the temperature on the surface of the corium is probably quite warm to the touch, but not "hot".

how the containment can hold the molten corium and how long it will hold it.

The easiest answer is that it's precisely what it was designed to do. Note that from early on, there were retired experts who claimed that this design couldn't contain a total loss of cooling accident because the core would melt down so quickly that it would still be producing too much heat when it reached the bottom of the primary containment... so the corium would remain too liquid and (rather than burning through the base of the containment) would spread to the outer edges of the upside-down metal "bulb" and burn through the sides and into the torus room.

Those concerns were one of the main reasons that the design was replaced with better containment options in later reactors... but the folks who continued to claim from this that the Mk1 design "couldn't" contain the corium missed the critical distinction that Fukushima did not have that absolute loss of cooling accident while running. The hour of cooling plus decay of short-half-life elements made a huge difference... and it's why the cores tool many hours to melt down.

Where can I get this information other than from the Japanese government?

Old NRC reports and design reviews. Nuclear physics and reactor textbooks. Decay heat curves, etc.

[FBaggins]

194. A ridiculously disingenuous post

You want people to believe that there's a possibility that the core burned it's way through the primary containment vessel and is now somewhere deep in the ground under the buildings.

This, of course, is total nonsense. There is doubt what percentage of the fuel is still above the fuel plates (if any), what percentage is at the bottom of the RPV, and what percentage is sitting at the bottom of the PCV. There's even some doubt as to how many centimeters into the concrete the corium was able to burn...

... but there's no rational thought that says that it's well outside of those options (which "they don't know where it went" strongly implies.

[Demeter]

5. Another one for the reviled "conspiracy theorists"--IT's a Conspiracy (fact), not a theory!

The dungeons are full of ideas imprisoned for their Political Incorrectness....

[Rex]

106. YEP. The gatekeepers have DU just the way they like it.

Binary thinking with no speculation on any topic. It's why so many have fled this site. Critical thinking skills get mocked by the gatekeepers.

[villager]

115. Snark and mockery are how you help transform an "underground" into a site....

...that just rehashes status quo POVs. Especially when that snark is aimed at anything that dares question that status quo...

[FBaggins]

197. It isn't even "one"... let alone "another one"

Note how to OP strongly implies that nadinbrzezinski claimed that unit one suffered a meltdown and naysayers denied that (and specifically that TEPCO hid that fact)...

None of that is true. It was clear from the start that there was a meltdown and the current data is consistent with what TEPCO has said for years.

[Bonobo]

6. She also said half a million would die.

So not so much.

[Orrex]

7. More than half a million if you count starfish.

[malaise]

8. Immediately? n/t

[snooper2]

195. Well, around 56 million people die every year...

[uberblonde]

13. That depends on how long you wait.

And of course officials will "explain" they're not from the meltdown, just like they did after Three Mile Island. One way to limit the results is to use a short latency period for the evaluation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident_health_effects

[mercuryblues]

21. exactly

The survivors from that area are now scattered into different regions. It will be easy enough to hide the uptick of various cancers and other deaths as a result of this. By the time the dots are connected it will be too late. Of course the company will fund various "science research" that will say these illnesses and deaths are the result of anything from poor diet to genetics. Anything but massive radiation exposure. Just google Occidental Petroleum and Suzie B Komen for the template.

[Hekate]

84. Eventually. Cancer doesn't kill overnight.

[NuclearDem]

128. But half a million is still a ridiculous overestimate.

Chernobyl, which was by all accounts far worse, is only expected to be responsible for 4,000 cases.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/

[RobertEarl]

144. You have a ridiculous underestimate

Chernobyl was one reactor, Fukushima was at least three and numerous old fuel pools.

Russia at the time was an oppressed country with no freedom of press, so the story was suppressed. Now Japan is suppressing the press in Japan like Russia did about Chernobyl.

But... Gorbachev did state that one reason the USSR collapsed was because of Chernobyl. And the population death rate of the former USSR is going down. Greenpeace has studies detailing almost a million deaths from Chernobyl.

[NuclearDem]

149. On top of all that, Chernobyl turned me into a newt.

And ruined Christmas for everybody.

[Hekate]

156. It certainly ruined Xmas for the residents of a rather large region...

...as well as those in the town who were grossly exposed.

Whether you now resemble Gingrich is open to debate.

[Joe Chi Minh]

183. There are some wonderful families in Scotland who

hosted a little holiday for young Russian children whose health was badly affected by the Chernobyl radiation. Whether any of the children are still alive or in better or worse health, I don't know.

[LanternWaste]

270. No doubt. Chernobyl too, was simply a minor error...

No doubt. Chernobyl too, was simply a minor error with few long-lasting effects or victims, and ruined Christmas for no one person. (I'm guessing petulant banality is best answered in kind... however, please feel free to move the goal-posts should the desire arise to better maintain a thin veneer of relevance to the topic)

[FBaggins]

274. Chernobyl was no minor error

Serious design flaws (graphite in the core... no real containment... a dangerously high positive void coefficient... we could go on) caused a "minor error" to turn into a disaster. But the triggering event was entirely manmade, not an unprecedented natural disaster.

Now... it's reasonable to look back and find people who were worried about tsunamis predictions or small design differences with other reactors that would have avoided the meltdowns, but that's really an entirely different class of error.

[NuclearDem]

275. Not what I said at all.

Chernobyl was a catastrophe. Thousands of people will get thyroid cancer as a result, and it's rendered part of Ukraine uninhabitable.

What my post was in response to was a poster citing an oft-debunked study claiming the Chernobyl disaster was responsible for a million deaths. Even if every single one of the cancer cases is fatal, that number is off by 99.996%. The Chernobyl hysteria is fraught with nonsense like that.

[FBaggins]

277. Your math is off

While a million is ridiculous, there were clearly more than 40 deaths from Chernobyl. That's just the number who died in the immediate aftermath from radiation sickness.

It's reasonable to assume that estimates in the thousands are likely accurate given the number of full-sievert+ doses that so many liquidators received.

[NuclearDem]

278. Point taken.

[AtheistCrusader]

177. "Chernobyl was one reactor, Fukushima was at least three and numerous old fuel pools."

So fucking what. The mode of failure is so spectacularly different the comparison is ridiculous. Fukushima was bad, but WITH 3 reactors plus fuel pools, plus a fourth fuel pool, it still didn't release as much radiation as Chernobyl did. WITH ALL THAT; still a smaller disaster.

Best estimates, Chernobyl threw 5,200 PBq of radiation into the sky. Fukushima's estimates have risen from somewhere between 340 to 800 PBq, now revised up to 900PBq.

That single RBMK reactor threw more than 5x the burning, radioactive shit, into the sky, as we can figure came out of Fukushima. The vast bulk of the mass of the RBMK core came out to say hello to the world.

Fukushima has a contaminated groundwater/seep into the ocean problem that is difficult to estimate, and difficult to control, which doesn't apply to the Chernobyl site, but there's still an order of magnitude difference between the two industrial disasters.

[Joe Chi Minh]

186. Horlicks! Absolute rubbish.

The spike in gas radiation starting near Tokyo and extending across the northern hemisphere soon after 3/11 was astronomically higher than normal. I don't use the term, 'astronomically' lightly.

[AtheistCrusader]

190. I'm trying to figure out what this is supposed to be an objection to.

Post 144 expressed incredulity that Chernobyl could be worse, based on the fact that Fukushima had 3 reactors and 4 fuel pools in the incident.

That's a ridiculous metric. One should compare total radiation release, which, I gave the numbers to Fukushima as best understood at this time. Astronomically higher than normal is within the parameters I gave. Fukushima WAS BAD, yes. On it's own, it's the second worst disaster of its type.

But as I said, it was not as bad as Chernobyl itself. Multiply Fukushima Dai-Ichi 1-3 by five, and you still exist within the margin of error between the two estimates.

[Joe Chi Minh]

335. No.

Feb 13, 2015 ... The peak β radioactivities… are 11.0 and 92.4 times larger than their local average ..... Fukushima is thousands of times worse than Chernobyl:.
enenews.com/magazine-fukushima-catastrophe-changed-world-worst-nuclear -accident-history-like-having-chernobyls-poisoned-entire-landscape...

[FBaggins]

211. Keep in mind that there's more to it than that...

It's likely that Fukushima released more bq's of noble gas (and we can even agree that it's because there were three reactor meltdowns rather than one), but those can safely be ignored from a dose perspective.

The larger difference is that Chernobyl's "containment" (sic) exploded and the core burned in the open air. A higher percentage of Fukushima's release was in shorter-lived isotopes, while Chernobyl released far more in the way of longer-lived isotopes.

It would be reasonable to discuss a measure of "becquerel/years" - by which measure Chernobyl was almost certainly far more than ten times worse (perhaps 100 times).

Then, of course, almost all of Chernobyl's release ended up over populated land areas while the vast majority of Fukushima's ended up in the sea (or groundwater around the plant). Those same Bqs aren't as available to theoretically damage human tissue.

Penultimately, for all their flaws in communication, Japan's response was many times better than Russia's. They almost certainly avoided low-hundreds of thyroid cancer cases by timely evacuation and temporary food bans while the radioiodine dissapeared.

Lastly, for all the nonsensical talk of "hot particles" that the lunatic fringe used to harp about... Chernobyl very likely did produce some (because of the explosion and fire) - while Fukushima didn't

[pintobean]

9. This OP sure looks like it could be hers.

[lonestarnot]

29. Whut?

[pintobean]

32. !

Whut?

[WilliamPitt]

50. Heh.

Yeah, malaise has spent 127,000+ posts lulling us all into a false sense of security that she's not actually nadinbrzezinski.

This place cracks me the fuck up.

[pintobean]

56. Original Post

One would assume that you would know by now that "OP" can mean two different things. Context can be a clue...

... never mind.

[Rex]

95. pintobean...

[Rex]

94. Good catch, now he is backtracking like mad.

He meant the OP! Which of course is what you meant. I swear I have no idea why anyone would fall for something so obvious. Cuz you know OP can have to different meaning etc.. don't ask for an explanation, he backed himself into a corner so NM is the best you will get from that one.

[pintobean]

97. So nice of you to grace us with your brilliant observations.

I wonder who could have alerted on that post.

[Rex]

100. pintobean...

[Hekate]

80. Why? Because she turned out to be right after all? PS: Not the same person. nt

[PeaceNikki]

83. There is a jury out on this reply.

[PeaceNikki]

85. Jury is back.

On Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:43 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

This OP sure looks like it could be hers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6398390

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

If you've got something to say, say it. If not STFU...

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:54 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What a horrid alert. The poster merely said the OP sounds like it could be one of Nadin's. You don't like pintobean? The line forms to the right, but this alert is silly and the comments amplify that.

I hope this goes 0-7 so that the alerter steps away from the button for at least a short while.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree with the alerter, in that pintobean has something more to say, as he always has regarding nadine. There has NEVER been a post either about nadine or posted by nadine, that this guy hasn't shown up to harass and attack. He's a bully and should have been tossed from this site long ago, unfortunately, this particular post doesn't meet the guidelines for hiding.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[pintobean]

86. Thanks.

[PeaceNikki]

88. I was #2. Shitty alert.

I don't always agree with you, but that was a stupid and spiteful alert.

[pintobean]

89. I thought it was funny.

The alerter didn't have the guts to say it in the thread for fear of an alert, so s/he alerted to say it. The things that happen here sometimes...

[PeaceNikki]

91. He/she knows full well that sometimes juries are vindictive assholes and will hide because they

don't like the alertee.

[pintobean]

92. Oh yeah, the shot in the dark alert.

It happens often.

I like Malaise. I wasn't taking a shot at her. I just made an observation. I think that was obvious, but I guess the alerter was hoping it wasn't.

[truebrit71]

122. I'm the alerter. You're a grave-dancing bully.

I hope you feel really proud of yourself.

Alert away.

[pintobean]

124. Looks like we were spot on.

BTW... who died?

[AtheistCrusader]

147. Can you explain what you're going on about here?

Some of us have no idea what you're referring to.

I've looked back, looks like most of my vitriolic threads on this issue didn't involve Nada at all, so some background would be helpful.

[freshwest]

173. Sincerely, are you talking about Nadin? She is still active, her last post was March 6th.

I think she'll be back, if that is who you think is gone. I never understood why some people gave her a hard time, though.

[snooper2]

202. It isn't grave dancing if she wasn't canned LOL...words mean stuff

She kind of posted (as noted below) on March 6th...

But deleted it, I guess that doesn't count? I think she forgot that she didn't post here anymore

[Octafish]

394. Perhaps ''Bullying'' is a better word for what you are thinking of.

Grave Dancing is a great phrase to describe a certain type of Bully.

Words do mean stuff, snooper2. Like "Beating a Dead Horse."

Sometimes words can express much more than their mere meanings.

[truebrit71]

120. As opposed to the stupid and spiteful post?

Got it. Bullying is okay by you. Good to know.

[PeaceNikki]

127. Um, let's review:

"This OP sure looks like it could be hers."

vs

"If you've got something to say, say it. If not STFU... "

One of these statements, in my opinion, demonstrates bully-like behavior and one does not.

I think you and I disagree on which.

[pintobean]

205. The suspension came because you kept attacking DUers

A bit ironic, don't you think?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

206. Indeed I did. Bully DUers, who apparently can't take what they dish out. Oh, and btw, I

have no hides now and those same bullies will have a severely difficult time suspending me again.

[pintobean]

208. I don't see anyone else whining

but, you didn't bully anyone, you just think you did.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

209. It's clear you're my #1 fan. I wasn't back from suspension for 2 seconds before you

were all over me.

Shot in the dark alerts? Uh-huh....

[pintobean]

210. Ha. Bullshit

Your imagination doesn't match reality. I had no idea when you were off suspension, nor do I care.
Funny, you replied to, and about, me in this thread, but in your mind, I'm stalking you. And, you admitted to trying to bully me.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

213. Where did I say I was trying to bully you? Are you part of the crew I was referring to? Also,

I wasn't trying to bully anyone. I was CALLING OUT their (your?) bullying of nadin. Also, you say you didn't know I was off suspension and you don't care, but you were certainly there as soon as I began posting again.

I'm placing you on ignore. You won't get me suspended again.

[pintobean]

214. Lol. Maybe you should re-read this sub-thread.

Last edited Mon Mar 23, 2015, 11:35 AM - Edit history (1)

The only person to get you suspended was you. Ignoring me can't fix that.

Edit to add - you self deleted your reply to the jury results where you said you agreed with the juror comment that I was a bully. That's about as cheesy as it gets.

[PeaceNikki]

217. There seem to be a LOT of people who think it's cool to cry bully while bullying themselves.

In addition, nadin gave as good as she got. Actually, often first. Often worse.

[rhett o rick]

294. Yes the rationalization to blame the victim. Even if you are right and I don't

believe you are right, "she started it" isn't reason to bully. And that's what it's called especially when 5 or 6 pile on with the ridicule and mocking in post after post. It looked to me like she was trying to stand up to the bullies and I would hope you would respect that. But the bullies won.

Nadin did fight back but there were others that didn't and just left. I am sure you have a rationalization as to why we don't want them here. As I see it the worst thing one can do is try to fight them on their playing field. IMO Nadin made that mistake. The other mistake is to run away as others have here, and let the bullies win. The best way to fight the bullies is to ignore them. Or just respond to them politely and on subject. They hate that.

Funny thing about those here that deny this is happening.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

193. Stupidest thing I've read all day...so far. nt

[chervilant]

11. These pathetic TEPCO minions

need to watch The Battle of Chernobyl to understand just how difficult and deadly will be this cleanup.

And, I am sure all those who belittled us for being concerned should watch it, too.

[Buzz Clik]

109. LOL! I think they know it will be hard....

... without referring to pop culture.

[AtheistCrusader]

150. Um, no. Not in the slightest.

Chernobyl exploded, you know that right? Not just 'blew up'. Fukushima Dai-ichi certainly suffered explosions as well. But Chernobyl's core went north of 33gw thermal output, before the instrumentation failed, and stopped recording, and fully exploded. No containment. When the lid flipped over, that's it yo. That was the bare, naked, burning core thrown INTO THE SKY. Probably around 80% of the entire mass of the core burned, or was flung out of the housing. Fully naked. No containment.

Reactor 1 in the Dai-ichi complex is the worst of the 3, and its core is sitting there, in the catchment, inside the containment housing that Chernobyl's RBMK's doesn't even have. That generation RBMK has no containment at all. Do you understand that? No containment. I feel compelled to say it several more times.

Fukushima had containments. They scrammed the cores. And yes, they cooked when the cooling failed, and melted through the RPV, but they didn't get through the containment that Chernobyl didn't even have. The hydrogen explosions just made a fuckawful mess out of everything. That's it. Spread contamination. They didn't huck the cores, burning, INTO THE SKY. There's a slight difference in scope and scale here.

Chernobyl reactor 3's bitumen roof caught fire when pieces of the core from reactor four, fuel and graphite, landed on it. Slightly different.

[chervilant]

175. Oh, goodie.

Someone who takes pleasure in condescension, negation and derogation! What fun! NOT!!

I know what happened at Chernobyl AND I know what happened at Fukushima. I have been an anti-nuke activist for 42 years.

I also know that this kind of post is your MO. In the recent past, I have considered putting you on my IL for precisely this type of snarky bs. Obviously, it's past time. Buh-bye.

[AtheistCrusader]

176. Yeah, because your post 11 had none of that. Later.

[NuclearDem]

187. Well, which is it?

I know what happened at Chernobyl AND I know what happened at Fukushima. I have been an anti-nuke activist for 42 years.

Do you know what happened at Fukushima or Chernobyl, or are you a veteran anti-nuclear activist?

Because to be honest, most anti-nuclear activists I've known are among the least informed about nuclear power.

[chervilant]

222. Which is it?!?

Do you understand the conjunction I used? Shall I clarify for you? I know what happened at Chernobyl. I ALSO know what happened at Fukushima. I have made it a point to do the research necessary to understand nuclear power, and to understand both of the catastrophes.

I get the impression that you are a pro-nuke individual. If this is so, we will have to agree to disagree, because--"to be honest"--I've learned that pro-nukes will gnaw on their "nuclear power is great!" bone until the cows come home.

[NuclearDem]

266. Woosh.

What I meant was that anti-nuclear advocates tend to:

* Grossly exaggerate the effects of Chernobyl/TMI/Fukushima. Whether it's Fukushima "frying the West Coast" or a million dead from Chernobyl, those exaggerations are in no way supported by evidence.

* Understand very little about radiation or nuclear power systems at all. The most common things here involve dosages, effects of radiation on the body, and containment systems.

* Conflate nuclear weapons with nuclear power. It's a ridiculous appeal to emotion based on people's completely rational fears of nuclear war.

And yes, I am pro-nuclear, though much more in favor of fusion's potential over fission.

[chervilant]

269. Woosh?

I get it. You think you're the most erudite, informed pro-nuker on the planet, and you want everyone to see how handily you can rebuke/insult anti-nuke activists.

Yawn...



(You've progressed from sophomoric drivel to insupportable accusations. Get thee away to my IL, where you belong.)

[NuclearDem]

272. That was a bit unnecessary.

You think you're the most erudite, informed pro-nuker on the planet,

Hardly. I consider myself capable of having a conversation without overreacting and throwing a tantrum.

and you want everyone to see how handily you can rebuke/insult anti-nuke activists.

I insulted no one. I put out an observation about the anti-nuclear movement, and so far, you're working very hard to support that observation.

You've progressed from sophomoric drivel to insupportable accusations. Get thee away to my IL, where you belong.

I can certainly go all the anti-nuclear literature and find plenty of evidence supporting those accusations. But hey, if you just want to plug your ears and go LA LA LA instead, knock yourself out.

[G_j]

298. nonsense

how arrogant

[NuclearDem]

300. Bring nonsense to a discussion about real issues and science,

you can expect to get your feelings hurt a little.

Call it arrogance if you wish, but every single time a discussion comes up in GD about nuclear power, I see at a minimum two of those points brought up.

[G_j]

303. I'll call it what is

You broad rushed "anti-nuclear" people as being misinformed and stupid, to put it simply. Taking on an air of authority, doesn't make one the authority. I've been seeing that approach quite often around here.

[NuclearDem]

304. I'm not claiming any authority.

I stated an observation about the anti-nuclear movement.

[wordpix]

281. I"m betting Tepco will drag its feet until 2 generations later

most will forget and the radioactive mess will be covered over with a tangle of invasive vines

[chervilant]

292. Have you seen the naysayers herein?

Belittling my posts and those of other anti-nuke activists, like we don't know diddly about nuclear energy and catastrophes like Chernobyl, and Fukushima. I am appalled at the number of pro-nukers who resort to personal attacks, and derogate those of us who are (and have long been) concerned about the dangers of nuclear energy.

Also, I think you are right. TEPCO seems unwilling to expend the time and money required to address this disaster. It will take decades to "clean up" this mess, and -- as with Chernobyl -- there will be a significant portion of Fukushima that will remain uninhabitable.

[NuclearDem]

301. Your posts are being "belittled" not because you're an anti-nuclear poster

but because you're either making ridiculous statements conflating nuclear weapons with nuclear power, or behaving petulantly and refusing to have any sort of discussion.

Exhibit A: The fact that you won't see this post, because I'm on your ignore list.

So, please spare us the persecution complex nonsense.

[paleotn]

12. And do these supposed "clean up robots" currently exist?

it's not easy hardening electronics against the kind of ionizing radiation likely to be encountered in Unit 1. Or were they developed already and are just stored somewhere, awaiting the inevitable? I find that hard to believe.

Then, of course, where is the core? Probably at the bottom of the containment vessel, but may have melted through the concrete floor.

[cstanleytech]

16. Well lets see, the article said "most likely by robots" so I lean towards "not yet".

Could they be built to work in such conditions? probably.
After all if some can built to work on Mars I dont see why some cant built to work for a while to help clean up nuclear waste though long term disposal is going to be a pita.

[paleotn]

20. I might be wrong....

....but Unit 1, with a melted core somewhere inside (or not), is a much more energetic environment than traveling to Mars or rolling around on the martian surface for a few years. They can be built, but when? A year from now? 5 years? Then what? Like you mentioned, what do we do with the huge amounts of radioactive pieces parts?

This just reiterates what I've said for years....granted the chances of a significant failure are small, but by the very nature of nuclear power, if it does happen ( And it will. It's just a matter of time.) it will be catastrophic beyond anything we can imagine and completely out of our control. Thus, Fukushima.

[cstanleytech]

55. No idea on the time period it could be a year or it could be ten years from now

but the biggest problem IMO is going to be finding a safe enough location to store the waste whenever they do manage to get them built.

[alfredo]

51. A good robot

[paleotn]

77. Ha! Hey, kamichi...whatever your name is...We've got a job for you. (nt)

[alfredo]

111. Retirement package?

[herding cats]

90. An 'octopus' robot with eight limbs developed to clear rubble in Fukushima, Japan

I read about them just yesterday.


http://phys.org/news/2015-03-octopus-robot-limbs-rubble-fukushima.html

[wordpix]

282. and who will clean up robots & where will the radioactive materials go?

something that in this country the geniuses in Congress have never dealt with except for our trillion$ sunk into the NV hole that was never used

[Brother Buzz]

285. We could just toss it into the ocean and forget it like we used to do

From 1946 to 1970, the sea around the Farallones was used as a nuclear dumping site for radioactive waste under the authority of the Atomic Energy Commission at a site known as the Farallon Island Nuclear Waste Dump. Most of the dumping took place before 1960, and all dumping of radioactive wastes by the United States was terminated in 1970. By then, 47,500 55 gallon steel drum containers had been dumped in the vicinity, with a total estimated radioactive activity of 14,500 Ci. The materials dumped were mostly laboratory materials containing traces of contamination. Much of the radioactivity had decayed by 1980.

44,000 containers were dumped at 37°37′N 123°17′W, and another 3,500 at 37°38′N 123°08′W.

Location shown on graphic does not match the lat and lon given for the two dumping sites. Lat and lon actually are further west by about 9 nm which places both sites off the continental shelf. This significantly changes the potential effects on the fishery and makes any mapping and recovery effort much harder.

The exact location of the containers and the potential hazard the containers pose to the environment are unknown. Attempts to remove the barrels would likely produce greater risk than leaving them undisturbed.

Waste containers were shipped to Hunters Point Shipyard, then loaded onto barges for transportation to the Farallones. Containers were weighted with concrete. Those that floated were sometimes shot with rifles to sink them.

In January 1951, the highly radioactive hull of USS Independence was scuttled in the area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farallon_Islands#Nuclear_waste_dump

Do I really need to add that sarcasm smiley thingy?

[NaturalHigh]

14. I think we're a long way from knowing...

just how bad this really is.

[mopinko]

15. once again we had the story here first.

that's why i love this place.

[malaise]

18. Ditto

[elleng]

35. Yes, and a great DUer

who has since 'withdrawn.'

[marym625]

17. K&R!

Thank you for this

[Holly_Hobby]

22. Yep. Thanks for this n/t

[NickB79]

23. As I recall, the debate was whether or not the core melted THROUGH the containment vessel

And these results show that, in fact, it likely did not penetrate the containment vessel:

the fuel had likely melted and fallen to the bottom of the building into a containment vessel.

[bananas]

28. No, the idiot pro-nukes kept claiming a meltdown was impossible, even after it already happened.

See, for example, http://www.democraticunderground.com/11277017

Thu Feb 16, 2012
One year on, Fukushima is still spinning
Jim Green

The first anniversary of the Fukushima disaster is fast approaching and it promises to be another silly-season for Australia's pro-nuclear zealots.

They have form. While the crisis was unfolding in March last year, Ziggy Switkowski advised that "the best place to be whenever there's an earthquake is at the perimeter of a nuclear plant because they are designed so well."

Switkowski wants dozens of nuclear power plants built in Australia - dozens of places to shelter from earthquakes.

Even as nuclear fuel meltdown was in full swing at Fukushima, Adelaide University's Professor Barry Brook reassured us that:
"There is no credible risk of a serious accident... Those spreading FUD at the moment will be the ones left with egg on their faces. I am happy to be quoted forever after on the above if I am wrong ... but I won't be."

...

[NickB79]

54. I was referring to the debates here on DU, between DU posters

Within a few weeks of the earthquake, even most of the ardent pro-nuke DU'ers pretty much accepted that a melt-down had in fact taken place.

What then occurred was months and months of arguments here about where the corium went, and if the concrete containment vessel under the reactors was breeched. Anyone can search DU for the phrase "corium" to see thread upon thread about it.

For example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x308671

Do you remember the claims by Gunderson about unstoppable corium melting down into groundwater and bedrock formations?

[AtheistCrusader]

133. HYDROVOLCANIC EXPLOSIONS!

Reactor Pressure Vessel integrity was assumed to be shit when it wouldn't hold water anymore. Pretty clear clue some or all of the fuel melted through the bottom of the RPV and landed in the catchment.

Most of the remaining argument was actually around whether the cerium would melt through the containment and escape. Gunderson, etc sure seemed confident it would, would encounter groundwater, and explode, throwing huge radioactive steam clouds.

Which, obviously, has not happened. The corium is hot as hell, no doubt, but it can't bore through the containment. So, we've just got to deal with the bits of highly radioactive material coming out of the cores, carried by water, since the steam condenser torus, and other parts of the containment aren't water tight anymore. (blown to crap with the hydrogen explosions)


I don't see the debate getting any better either, because a lot of the people commenting have no idea what RPV and containment actually constitutes.

Everyone was convinced of the meltdown within a couple weeks. Sucks, but it seems the coolant was knocked out by the quake, reactors scrammed and melting, before the tsunami even arrived.

Edit: Here's one of the ridiculous threads.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/http/images/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x637239

[FBaggins]

215. Can you back that up?

Citations from DU regulars would be nice.

You linked to a then-year-old out-of-context quote from another source... and though he was among the most optomistic in the first couple days of the incident and did make mistakes - though nothing even approacing those of Busby, Caldicott, Gundersen (who continues to claim that there was a nuclear explosion), or Nadin - even he never said that a meltdown was impossible.

Don't worry... I won't be holding my breath.

[pintobean]

218. That member can't reply due to a hidden post. /nt

[FBaggins]

224. Hadn't gotten down to that... oh well.

I'm sure that at least ONE of the anti-nuke fringe here can back up the claims of the thread with at least ONE example?

You know... something she claimed that others here disputed... and she turned out to be right? Something to go on apart from the claim?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

53. That excerpt sounds like a hopeful guess to me.

Not a 'this is what we know' sort of statement.

[FLPanhandle]

24. TEPCO admitted there was a meltdown as early as May 2011

For example:

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/05/fukushima-update-tepco-admits.html

13:27 24 May 2011
Andy Coghlan, reporter

Owners of the nuclear plant at Fukushima crippled by the earthquake and tsunami admitted today that two more of the six reactor units at the facility probably underwent meltdowns soon after the disaster on 11 March.

TEPCO acknowledged last week that fuel rods in reactor unit 1 probably melted down within as little as 16 hours of the quake.

Today, the company said that there were probably meltdowns in reactor units 2 and 3 as well, after the tsunami destroyed cooling systems needed to prevent meltdown through overheating of fuel rods.

Unit 3 probably melted down first, on 13 March, followed next day by Unit 2, after water levels fell below those needed to keep fuel cool enough to avoid meltdown. A day later, on 15 March, faulty valve systems led to an explosion in unit 2 which led to leakage of radioactive water into the sea.


The only thing that changed is for the fact they've conducted their study to use technologies to prove what they already knew.



I'm not a fan of nuclear power nor TEPCO's response, but this is not what I would call a "global cover-up".

[pintobean]

25. Minor detail.

[stevenleser]

198. In other words, no cover up, and Nadin was repeating readily available information

I'm also not a fan of nuclear power and I think TEPCO's response to the crisis has been criminal.

But like you said, no "global cover up".

[FBaggins]

221. It was long before that

They (and the Japanese government) were saying that a meltdown was likely by the second day after the incident began. It was confirmed as a full meltdown within a couple months (a week or two prior to your example)

Of course that's hardly the only reason to believe that the OP is nonsense.

[stevenleser]

241. Unfortunately, those that really need to take this in and internalize it will not do so.

Many folks seem enthralled by the idea of a conspiracy that they have "discovered" and are "in the know" about.

[TheKentuckian]

26. Many now conflate facts with official propaganda from industry and the state entities

under their thrall.

Anything out of alignment with the propaganda from those that make out hand over fist as a result of their lies is deemed to be a conspiracy theory to shut down discussion that might lead away from padding pockets and the accumulation of power.

[Cleita]

27. Propaganda is the only thing the nuclear energy industry has and it's very

effective. I live downwind from the El Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. PG & E, who operates the plant has been very effective in promoting their BS. I find myself talking to a brick wall every time I try to engage a resident in a conversation about the real dangers of the plant because the residents here have been so effectively brainwashed. The plant has hired it's own scientists to peddle their palaver that is opposite what non-aligned scientists are saying. They contribute to civic projects and schools so that it further erodes any opposition.

Yet, it sits on three earthquake faults in a state famous for earthquakes and the frackers are making progress in trying to move in by buying Tea Bagger politicians in local government offices. The plant is not built to withstand an 8 magnitude quake, yet it sit right next to the Pacific Ocean and less than a hundred miles from the bread basket of Americq, the San Joaquin Valley.

[bananas]

31. I'm astonished at the reckless propaganda and spin.

Astonished and amazed.
Speechless, sometimes.

[malaise]

180. Couldn't say it better

[rhett o rick]

474. Right. The denier's try to bully discussions but screeming conspiracy theory

as if that will shut up those seeking the truth. They don't want the truth, they can't deal with the truth. They live on propaganda.

[treestar]

30. That will be great for her ego

She'll be even more insufferable!

And how many people have windmills killed in the past month?!

[lonestarnot]

33. Why are you so into her ego?

[treestar]

36. lol

the OP is about her rightness!

[lonestarnot]

39. And you are dissatisfied that the possibility that she may have been correct may create a large ego?

[treestar]

76. She had that already.

She was always right, and opposing her was "bullying." Local news doesn't go in GD was one thing, and she kept putting it up to boast of being a journalist. Then she got some pushback on the relative obscurity of her publication. And some wild claims. I was always amused at the tone which was as if she had discovered some great big news story - this is going to be big folks kind of stuff.

[stevenleser]

199. See #24. She was repeating readily available information that was not covered up. nt

[lonestarnot]

309. So for that she was banned or whatthefuckever?

This place is getting to suck. I mean really suck. It is not a fun place much any more. And yes you contribute to the atmosphere of whatever conformity it is you expect from presence of internet personalities that have things to contribute that you do not approve of in your judgments of them. Deterioration of this site is almost intolerable. All the good writers have disappeared. I have foregone posting much anymore. Am no longer addicted to this place. Have fun in all your glory of condemning those that apparently aren't here anymore to defend themselves.

[FBaggins]

316. She was in no sense banned

She decided that if the other kids were unwilling to play by her rules... She would take her ball and go home...

...only to find that it wasn't her ball.

[lonestarnot]

364. So in your response you refer to a ball, she had 1 ball, but it wasn't hers, so what the fuck is

that really?

[FBaggins]

369. Was the analogy really that difficult to understand?

The point is that she wasn't in a position to tell Skinner how to run his site (i.e., take the ball away from others who were using it).

Her behaviour was unacceptable and she wasn't willing to accept that judgement from the community standards process of DU... so she appealed to the site owner to change the system - and couldn't take that she needed to look in the mirror for the source of her problems here. So she left... nobody banned her.

[stevenleser]

329. She's not banned. She posted as recently as a few weeks ago.

She didn't like the feedback she got from some folks so instead of modifying her behavior she decided not to post anymore.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=2641

[lonestarnot]

365. As a yellow fucking dog democratic, some refer to me as my way or the highway here, and lock or mock

everything I post too. What's a gal to do, put up with that shit or fight every visit here. Certainly not fun putting up with that, this place is really different than it was when I first came here seeking camaraderie from fellow democrats. We used to stick together here as democrats, but I see all kinds of other types of shit going on here that is not that any more. Maybe not posting is a good idea. But I plan to continue to post whatever until I get banned for saying something someone doesn't like, but will continue to vocally support democrats. End of that fucking story. See you stevenleser.

[bananas]

34. It will be awful for the turdblossoms who attacked her!

Except on DU, where Skinner, Elad, and Earlg could have stopped the cyber-bullying,
instead, they encouraged it by their absence.

[treestar]

37. I don't think she was bullied.

Probably how she characterized push-back of any kind. She claimed to be an expert on anything when someone tried to argue and attacked the other person for their not having her experience in the field.

[ScreamingMeemie]

38. I was not close to her, and I have no allegiances to anyone in this ridiculous battle...

but, yes, she was bullied. Characterized by posts about her in GD that weren't even started by her. By the relentless protected-by-the-anonymity-given-by-a-computer-screen loud people who only wish to draw attention to themselves. It's one of the reasons I participate less and less on DU and limit my "experience" to only those posts I am truly interested in and keep the majority of DUers at far-arm's length. People DO bully those they disagree with here and continue to poke sticks and keep notebooks, etc. It's one of the sucky things about DU.

[pintobean]

47. I agree, maybe with the exceptions

of Obamanaught/bikeman and Sad-Cafe. They gave her shit no matter what she posted.

[darkangel218]

58. And yet you befriend him on DI. Lol.

[pintobean]

62. That's total bullshit.

Not unexpected, though.

[darkangel218]

64. Is it??

I wont link to DI, but you know it is absolutely true.

[darkangel218]

67. And lets forget for a moment about how other posters treated her.

Were you nice to Nadin? How did you personally treat her?

[Rex]

101. Oh shit! Tell me you are being sarcastic.

If not, big hint...everyone in this thread that all the sudden seems to be defending the nuclear industry, stalked her without mercy.

[Rex]

98. LOL! And you were soooo nice to her too!

[pintobean]

102. !

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=2641

[Rex]

103. So you are skinner now!?!

And didn't stalk her relentlessly? Okay, nice distraction there. You are such a huge hypocrite pretending you are not one of her main stalkers!

It's like you expect people to forget the years and years here!

pintobean...

[pintobean]

132. Somebody had a little boo-boo

oopsie

[G_j]

57. agreed

I saw that too.

[treestar]

73. She could be pretty acidic herself

That I recall - I don't picture her as a delicate flower. She made her own high profile here. I know she put me on ignore because she thought that my Queen Elizabeth avatar meant I was an authoritarian. She and another poster were talking about me, which is pretty rude. I think I tangentially disagreed with her on something. So her crying bully seemed to be a bit of a posture.

[darkangel218]

78. "So her crying bully seemed to be a bit of a posture"??

Whow...

[bravenak]

87. I agree.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

461. The notebook keepers are really creepy, keeping tabs on posters and then pulling out links

to threads and comments made weeks, months, and a decade+ ago.

That shit creeps me out.

[cwydro]

46. I agree with you . nt

[Cleita]

49. She was mercilessly bullied.

I followed her posts and the posters who bullied her from post to post. Yet, alerting was useless because often the juries would rule in favor of the bully, who would move on to her next post. If you had seen the overall crap thrown at her for many months, you would not say that. Some of the bullies have been finally handed their pizza, but many are still here attempting to undermine other posters who put up posts of substance.

[darkangel218]

59. +1

[ChisolmTrailDem]

463. Most, if not all, of the bullies are right here in this thread, doing their thang and

getting away with it all day long, every day.

[Cleita]

465. Now they are all in one place.

Bookmark this thread for reference.

[cui bono]

140. She absolutely was bullied.

I barely saw any of it, but I saw enough because every time she posted it seemed someone jumped in with no point to make other than to ridicule her. Sometimes she was OTT to me as well, but so are a lot of people on here and they never get the same treatment she did.

I would hope all those who participated have grown up. We all seem to condemn it when we hear stories about it, and yet some of us engage in it ourselves.

[rhett o rick]

161. There was way more than "push-back". Ridicule and mockery

from a core group that always seem to show up in her threads. They justified their mockery by saying she was exaggerating and therefore deserved to be mocked and bullied. I have seen a number of good people leave because of the bullying. One of them just recently came back only to find that she was mocked for leaving and coming back. They couldn't just leave her alone. And what surprises me is that those that I've seen get bullied are all females. That's not what surprises me, but I notice that they don't get any help from those that should be helping.

Some people apologize for the bullies because they rationalize that the victims "deserved it". That's always the bullies' justification. "She deserved to be bullied because she was ____________ (fill in the blank)".

Anonymous message boards are heaven for bullies.

[treestar]

170. She was a bully herself

This posturing is absurd.

[rhett o rick]

231. Exactly. We live in a bully culture. It's everywhere and there is always the justification

that "the victim deserved it". Especially when people try to fight back. That is used for further justification. And let's talk about numbers. You say she was a bully and apparently that's the justification for the group attacks of mockery and ridicule. I bet you can find mockery and ridicule in this thread. There is never an excuse for mockery and ridicule, especially by a group of people aimed at one person.

[treestar]

324. She did earn some mockery

Always posting in this fashion like she'd just discovered something that was really big. And making wild claims and getting mad when other posters showed there was nothing to them.

She put me on ignore for bringing up a point and then posted about me for a few exchanges with another poster. That's bullying. I'm sure I would have come up for more had she not put me on ignore.

[rhett o rick]

330. The is a message board for "politically liberal" posters. "Wild claims", IMO, are not only

expected, they are welcome. Of course we can counter the "wild claims" or ignore them, but should only censor when they violate the TOS and/or CS. We, as political liberals, should never belittle or put people down because of their "wild claims". But some seem to think it's their self-righteous duty to smite those with "wild claims", and that all tools are justified including mockery and ridicule. This is absurd for posters that are politically liberal. It is expected behavior from conservative authoritarians.

The point isn't whether someone "earns mockery" but whether we lower ourselves to using it as a tool to belittle someone.

[stevenleser]

200. Given the facts and link of post #24 above, criticism seems warranted. nt

[rhett o rick]

232. Of course disagreements are appropriate, and maybe criticism of someone's stand on an issue,

but it's never appropriate to gang up on someone and ridicule them.

"Self-righteousness is the devil's masterpiece to make us think well of ourselves." Thomas Adams.

[stevenleser]

240. "It's never appropriate to gang up on someone and ridicule them" - Define that for me...

... I have never seen you jump in and defend someone who posts an OP saying they think Hillary is the only and best choice and then is promptly "ganged up on and ridiculed". And there has been and will be plenty of opportunity for you to do that. I don't see you doing it.

Is it OK to gang up on and ridicule someone if they post racism or homophobia or sexism?

For better or for worse, DU does not have a civility requirement in the TOS. I wish it did. I would be happy to conform to it.

The reality is that just about everyone here reserves the right to be tough on people they disagree with. If you upset a large portion of the DU community, the reaction is going to seem like ganging up and ridiculing.

[rhett o rick]

259. "Is it OK to gang up on and ridicule someone if they post racism or homophobia or sexism? "

In different words, "Is it ok to bully someone if you are on the side of goodness." Of course not. What a great excuse to bully someone if you think they are a racist.

If the person violates the TOS or CS, we have means of dealing with them. Self-Righteous bullying is not needed.

"Self-righteousness is the devil's masterpiece to make us think well of ourselves." Thomas Adams

[Warren Stupidity]

179. Oh she was bullied. Every damn post of hers was sent to the hosts forum

as inappropriate for gd. She had a crew of obsessive stalkers.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

464. And they're all right here in this thread, attracted no doubt by the sweet

nectar of the nick "nadinbrzezinski".

[rhett o rick]

473. She ruined their fun when she stopped posting.

They still bad-mouth her but it's no fun if she doesn't fight back.

[FLPanhandle]

44. What exactly was she right about anyway?

The reactor melted down? TEPCO said that just months after the tsunami.

What exactly was this grand prediction that came true?

[AtheistCrusader]

134. It's not bullying to say 'you're wrong' when you're wrong, or 'you're blowing this out of proportion

' when doing that, etc.

[Brickbat]

136. This.

[rhett o rick]

295. Well of course not. No one said it was. Typical strawman argument.

Bullying is bullying. It's obvious. But the self-righteous believe that ok to bully for goodness. Nadin made some strange claims. And it is perfectly acceptable on a message board where people claim to be "politically liberal" to call her on her claims and refute them. But some get a perverse pleasure at ganging up on someone that is viewed as "wrong" or weak and ridiculing and mocking that person. It's especially brave in unanimity and in groups.

You say it's "blowing it out of proportion" because you don't want to believe it happens. Nadin isn't the only person that has been the victim of self-righteous bullying. She is the one that fought back. Others simply have left.

I would hope that "politically liberal" posters here in DU would have empathy. Something missing in conservatives.

"Self-righteousness is the devil's masterpiece to make us think well of ourselves." Thomas Adams

[stevenleser]

296. It's not a strawman. That is what happened. People disagreed with her and her interpretations.

She did not take disagreement well.

People continued to disagree with her and how she saw things. She suggested bullying was taking place. She appealed to Skinner. Skinner examined the situation and basically said the problem was that Nadin did not figure out how to get along with fellow DUers.

[rhett o rick]

299. I guess you think that rationalization is the key to happiness. Many of us saw what happened.

All of DU saw the bullying. You can deny it, but it was obvious. Maybe Nadin didn't respond properly but it was sickening to see the gang ups. Multiple bullies would, as you put it, "continued to disagree with her" (code for ridicule), over and over and over. Shame on those people that were getting some kind of jollies from their self-righteous bullying. Even if she was wrong she didn't deserve that. And your rationalization is sad to say the least. And let me remind you, especially you, that Nadin isn't the only one subjected to the abuse that you somehow rationalize as ok. One female I remember a few months ago came back after she left with a bitter farewell. The bullies couldn't react fast enough to attack her, criticizing that she left in a huff.

Bullies are cowards and have to work in groups.

"Self-righteousness is the devil's masterpiece to make us think well of ourselves." Thomas Adams

[stevenleser]

302. Nope. My opinion is backed up by the person who can see all posts/alerts/etc.

She posted a lot of stuff, it had very strident opinions and attracted a lot of criticism. The same folks who object to the way she says things and her generalized bent tended to have objections.

This is nothing new on DU. The folks who tend to disagree with me show up in most of my OPs to criticize me, and they show up to disagree with most of my comments. The same folks over and over. That doesn't mean they are bullying me. They simply don't like the way I see things. And Nadin had some personality characteristics that made it worse, someone else under this OP called it egotism, I think she had a greatly exaggerated opinion of herself and that came out in her posts and how she talked to people, particularly those with whom she disagreed.

[rhett o rick]

306. Good grief. "My opinion is backed up by the person who can see all posts/alerts/etc."

Wow. How exactly are your opinions backed by the admins? Do you have super powers here in DU? If you think that, that explains a lot. The ultimate self-righteousness, "My opinion is backed by the person who can see all posts/alerts/etc." Wow, it must be either God or Skinner. I had no idea. Well I guess if you speak for Skinner, then there is nothing more to say. Your behavior is blessed.

[FBaggins]

312. "God or Skinner" Lol.

It was Skinner (though for DU purposes there isn't much difference) and no-one needs to "speak for him"because he spoke for himself (linked elsewhere on this thread).

She whined that she was being set upon and he told her that she was the problem... not all the people she imagined were out to get her.

"See all alerts" is relevant, because it means that he's in a position to know whether they represented a concerted effort to game the system against her... or just a clear reflection of her ongoing violations of community standards.

[stevenleser]

328. Yep. You didn't read all the posts under this OP, did ya?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=2641

Skinner
1. I'm going to be blunt.

The problem here isn't the jury system. The problem is you. Sometimes it takes a while, but eventually most DUers figure out how to get along with other DUers. My suggestion is that you try to do it too.

[rhett o rick]

331. And you see that as vindication for her treatment. You missed the point by a mile.

My point isn't whether or not she behaved badly or not. That's for hosts, juries and Skinner to decide. My point is that just because you think she is misbehaving or even if Skinner thinks she is, is not justification for mocking and ridiculing. Instead of leaving her alone, some saw an opportunity to push her further and felt they had goodness on their side.

The bullying behavior hasn't been limited to Nadin. She fought back which was used for further bullying. But others have been bullied to the point of leaving. Some think it's their duty to keep DU cleansed of people that don't fit, others see it as good fun.

[stevenleser]

333. See posts #305, #310 and my #332 below nt

[pintobean]

336. I've never seen you defend anyone else.

Nadin is an intelligent adult, but many of her defenders treat her like a child. Why the white knight treatment for her?

[rhett o rick]

359. Your post insinuates that you've been in all the threads that include

bullying. I find that particularly interesting. And I hope you recognize that logically the fact that you've never seen me defend anyone else does not mean that it's a fact. In fact it would make no sense that I only defend Nadin. I've had to defend myself a few times and have defend a few others most of whom have left DU.

A couple of weeks ago, one of DU's most liked and prolific posters posted and without thinking used a source that the bullies think is an excuse to attack. Even pointing out to the bullies that the same story was posted elsewhere, didn't slow down the attacks. I think it's like blood in the water. I messaged the poster and they were close to leaving. Pointing out that they didn't need the harassment.

"but many of her defenders treat her like a child. " So you agree that she has many defenders? Doesn't that imply that there is a reason she needs defending? Her defenders are not defending her stands on issues but defending her against the gang-up bullying that is really ugly when done to anyone. It seems you admit that bullying happens, you just think it's justified. Bullies always blame the victim. "I didn't want to do it, but they made me." I think it would be obvious that it's the bullies not the victims that bring DU down.

[ScreamingMeemie]

297. That is my "thing" with these things. Like the continuation of "used car salesman" stuff.

In threads where it wasn't even mentioned. That, and not simply telling someone they are wrong, is where the idiotic, juvenile behavior comes in. And to see posters claim innocence right before they go back to it is depressing and certainly not empathetic.

"Gave as good as she/he got" is a shit statement.

It's like the stupid, fucking "Better Believe It" Shit. Grow the hell up, people. I couldn't stand Better Believe, but I'm a grownup.

[rhett o rick]

307. If a female wears a mini-skirt and goes into a bar in a bad neighborhood and gets harassed,

who should we blame. In DU the bullies would say that she asked for it. They blame the victim and then rationalize how it's the victim's fault. Most of the time, the victim of bullying here in DU are females. I would think that they would get understanding from the females that post here.

Nadin fought back and that infuriates the bullies. But it gives them justification for continued attacks. She dared to fight back but there have been others that didn't fight back but decided to just leave. What a shame.

Why the bullies have so much power here is something I don't understand.

[FBaggins]

314. That's a nonsensical and false analogy

The more accurate analogy would be a drunk female walking into a bar and hitting both male and female patrons... then complaining when they defended themselves that it was really them harassing her because she was a female (despite the fact that many of the victims of her abuse were themselves female)...

... Then she complains to the police and gets enraged when they review video of the incident and tell her that she was the offender.

For the record.Nadin and I clashed mite than once... and I think this thread is the first time I knew that she was female.

[LordGlenconner]

220. To be fair it was rouge wind turbines

Causing cancer clusters etc.

That one was a personal favorite. Repeated as fact by her and defended to the death by her many sycophants here.

[treestar]

325. That one was pretty strange.

What was it called, "The East County News?" That made her a "journalist."

Now I remember another one. There was a Comics Convention in San Diego. She identified a couple of men who were there in uniform as from the CIA or the NSA or something. There was this big debate and of course many posters thought they were just ordinary security guards. That got her really mad. You weren't supposed to ever try to minimize her wild claims.

[SidDithers]

40. nadin said lots of things about Fukushima...

the vast majority of which were complete horseshit.

That she, maybe, got something right among her myriad bits of nonsense, does not make her "correct re Fukushima".

She's the proverbial blind squirrel.

Sid

[bananas]

42. Bully apologists defend their bullying.

Their was no attempt by the bullies (aka assholes) to a meeting of minds or agree to disagree.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

113. horsehockey...

on more than one occasion i held out an olive branch only to be thrashed with it... she wasn't fond of having her errors pointed out and contradicted with facts. if you disagreed with her, even when you presented it in a logical and factually based manner, you were still a bully in her eyes and the eyes of her supporters.

so, i gave up trying to be nice. i simply pointed out her failures where they were and when i agreed with her on something, i would speak up as well... but i guess i was on her iggy-list.

sP

[HuckleB]

43. Thanks for bringing honest, evidence based perspective to this topic and to DU.

[tammywammy]

48. +1 n/t

[Cleita]

68. You can't say that unless you are an expert on how the nuclear energy

industry operates and then lies about how they operate. I don't think you know much about it to offer an opinion.

[LordGlenconner]

219. I doubt "Nadin of Arc" is an expert either

And yet it didn't stop her from spraying nonsense all over this forum.

[Cleita]

223. Nadin lives close to the Onofre nuclear plant which fortunately has been

shut down. I live close to the El Diablo nuclear plant which is still operating. Due to proximity, we are both pretty knowledgeable about the dangers and the numerous lies the industry promotes world wide. No, we are not experts in the narrow sense of the word, but betcha both of us know a helluva lot more on how these plants operate and the dangers they present than you do. Fukushima was the reality lit large of all the misgivings we had about the industry prior to the meltdown. They are not telling the whole truth, but it's not hard to deduce from the evidence we do have as to what is going on. Nadin had the courage to write about it. Now go away and learn something about this before you accuse anyone of shit you know nothing about.

[LordGlenconner]

225. And I live close to an area with many earthquakes

Therefore I am an expert on earthquakes.

Self proclaimed, of course.

Just like Nadin.

[FBaggins]

228. How on earth did that make sense to you?

Seriously (and please don't pretend that you're being bullied)... the fact that you live close to a reactor somehow adds even one iota of credibility?

Now go away and learn something about this before you accuse anyone of shit you know nothing about.

Wow... the irony of that post is palpable.

[Cleita]

230. Excuse me, but...

I'm an activist with a group of scientists and other concerned citizens who do everything we can to learn about the real danger these plants present. We have so much empirical evidence that is being ignored that it's staggering. The industry is very effective in spreading their propaganda and lies. So you can make fun of me if you like but the facts can't be ignored no matter how much the industry tries to put lipstick on that pig.

[FBaggins]

234. Sorry... I can't do that.

You haven't provided such evidence at any point in the past when we've communicated here. You just make stuff up and declare that it's true (or repeat others who have done the same). As, for instance, with your ridiculous claim that large earthquakes neccessarily create dangerous tsunamis and that Diablo Canyon is thus at risk for same.

This clearly evidencing ignorance of both tsunmis/earthquakes and the specifics of that plant.

And please... save us all the waste of time and don't repost the ridiculous photo of sand dunes while claiming that they're actually tsunami damage. It's not quite as dishonest at the "Australian Radiation Service" map that that Caldicott continues to use, but it's certainly up there.

[Cleita]

239. I don't bother to address people who have their minds already made up and that

would be you. I and others are working on gathering data, which I may or may not post on DU in the future. More important to me and my associates is getting the attention of our elected reps to shut down the plant. We are fighting the powers of PG & E, Duke Energy and other players but you can wallow in your little pool of delusion all you want. The fact that you have drank the El Diablo propaganda KoolAid is disturbing. I know they have scientists on the payroll that claim all is well in the kingdom, but they are omitting facts on the danger of a tsunami. However that is not my main concern but the contamination with radiation of our fisheries and agricultural land.

[FBaggins]

256. How ironic

Good thing most others don't have that standard. Wouldn't you get lonely?

I and others are working on gathering data

You're "working on gathering data" are you? This because living next to a fault line also makes you a seismologist?

I've got news for you. You aren't gathering data... you're getting played. There are legitimate reasons for some people to oppose nuclear power, but the Caldicotts/Busbys/Gundersens of the world can't make enough money pitching just to the reasonable opponents. They will manufacture "expert" "reports" saying whatever you like... because that's how they make their living (selling to the irrationally fearful and then using that manufactured "evidence" to scare more innocent people in the hopes that they can convince them to chip in financially.

No doubt the data gaterng is to try to refute the recetly-released report that even a 10,000-year quake that crosses over to multiple faults in the area... doesn't endanger the plant.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PG-E-Diablo-Canyon-nuclear-plant-can-withstand-6131396.php

However that is not my main concern but the contamination with radiation of our fisheries and agricultural land.

You think that Diablo Canyon has done that? Hmmm... go ahead and try to shut them down (only to watch PG&E replace the generation with natural gas which actually HAS killed people (not long before Fukushima)

[Cleita]

261. I don't have to be a seismologist because there are seismologists already on the

job. Here's what PG & E's own, hired for pay, seismologist has to say about it.

Ancedotally, Cal Tech seismologists, although reluctant to say so in public, have said off the record to a local radio newsperson that El Diablo won't share what they have found with Cal-Tech that runs the foremost seismological lab in the state and perhaps the country. Why all the secrecy if things are so safe?

[FBaggins]

264. What an incredibly deceptive hatchet job of a video.

You get to claim that he's talking about whatever you want to claim he's talking about. How much more convenient can you get?

Let's take a look at some larger quotes:

The new information has shown us that the assumptions and models used in the 1970s to develop the current design spectrum overestimated how strong the ground would shake compared to what we know now. The research confirms that the plant is designed to withstand seismic events and that the safety -related equipment and systems can perform their function during and after a major earthquake.

Did you note the bit they didn't cut out that talks about that data being due in a couple months? Here's a more recent video where he talks about how the data reduced the uncertainty... though nothing I can likely say to someone without a science/statistics background about "uncertainty" not meaning what you think it does will make much difference..

Note that the presentation is to a group of independant seismologists acting as peer review. So much for secrecy, eh?

[Cleita]

265. Sure.

[FBaggins]

271. Thank you for proving my point

Nadin (and apparently you) too frequently took a "don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind"... all while acting as though it's you who prefers not to deal with people who are not open to new information and others who can't fight fair while debating.

No rational person could watch that video and conclude that it was a product of reasonable minds who just let the facts say what they say.

For the record... there were several such peer review meetings, yet

[Cleita]

273. No. Thank you for proving my point that none of you Nuke jocks are interested in

a real discussion. As for the meetings you mention, they are all on YouTube. I just couldn't be bothered to waste my time spoon feeding them to you, but you can go look at your leisure.

[FBaggins]

276. Sorry... we may never know

You have yet to present a "real discussion".

As for the meetings you mention, they are all on YouTube. I just couldn't be bothered to waste my time spoon feeding them to you, but you can go look at your leisure.

"Sure"

So when you claimed that they weren't sharing any data with other seismologists... you now admit that you were being intentionally deceptive?

I don't see a third possibility.

Hint - There is nobody at A4NR who would respond with "Oh... that's ok then" to any amount of data - no matter how conclusive. Until they cease with the obviously dishonest "wasn't designed for" BS... they are unworthy of your attention.

[LordGlenconner]

290. "Nuje jocks"

Oh that's an all-timer.

[Cleita]

293. Never mind. Mobile device changes the spelling of words, but you know what I mean.

Now why don't you go make fun of the Freepers who really can't spell

[wordpix]

284. you should educate yourself - start here with Nuclear Roulette

http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Roulette-Dangerous-Energy-Source/dp/160358434X

I read it and the case against nuclear power is staggering

[FBaggins]

286. What an interesting spelling error

You obviously intended to say "entertain" and it came out as "educate".

Spellcheck on a smartphone?

Are you Alex Jones ? I'm not sure that anyone else finds Gar credible (with good reason)

[wordpix]

457. I know, FB, reading is such a chore, especially when it comes with footnotes

from experts, which you clearly are not

[FBaggins]

459. The footnotes are actually the funniest part

I mean... along with the notion that he (and obviously you) consider them to be experts.

Hint... the majority of the footnotes that I've reviewed might as well be enenews links.

[wordpix]

283. +1000

[SidDithers]

235. I live near a Ford automotive manufacturing facility...

I think that makes me a mechanic.

Sid

[zappaman]

242. I live within 30 miles of San Onofre!

Now I know...I'm an expert!

[Cleita]

243. Of course not because you don't care to learn about it.

I have bothered to learn about it. That's the difference.

[zappaman]

246. Oh noes!

Why you got to rain on my parade?

[Brother Buzz]

248. If you're such an authority on San Onofre, perhaps you can refute this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4955350

[zappaman]

252. Yes it was all removed and placed into starfish breeding grounds.

That's why they are melting.
Duh.

[treestar]

326. I live relatively close to Three Mile Island

and even closer to Salem Nuclear Plant, which is operating.

[Cleita]

345. Then you should be concerned.

It only takes one accident to contaminate a place for 50,000 years. There are no fixes after an event.

[Rex]

105. Sid...

[RobertEarl]

114. Sid said lots of things about Fukushima

Which he was totally wrong about.

And some people here think sid a science major? Bwahahaha!!

[NuclearDem]

126. Speaking of being wrong on Fukushima.

[RobertEarl]

130. Yes, you too, wrong

You are just embarrassing yourself now.

[snooper2]

204. this coming from somebody who said the ocean is "dead"

Shit, duck, they chemtrailing my fucking building again!

[Cleita]

244. Now he's claiming to be an auto mechanic in mocking me.

Unfortunately, he's succeeded in mocking himself.

[cui bono]

168. And some people say lots of nothing in a vast majority of their posts. n/t

[stevenleser]

201. And if you see post #24 above, crediting her with getting this "right" is laughable. nt

[RobertEarl]

45. Yes she was, mostly

There are signs of continuing small reactions in the former cores, and, NO, TEPCO does not know the exact locations of what remains of the core material.

Some of it we do know where it is. It came over in the air, it is in the ocean and some of it is still at Fukushima. Where exactly at Fukushima -- whether in the ground or not, we may know in 20 years or so.

In the meantime, the water they are flushing over the core material to keep it cooled, picks up bits and pieces of that core material and carries it into the ocean.

[darkangel218]

60. +1

[bvar22]

52. Everybody RELAX!

"I know SCIENCE, this is not a melt-down. They're just venting a little steam."

These plants are perfectly safe because they have redundant back-up systems.
They are SO safe that they can be built on known active fault lines and tsunami zones!

Anybody worried about this is just a Henny-Penny Luddite.
Did I mention that I know Science & you don't?


You mean like that ^.
Yes. I DO remember, and I remember the screen names of those that drove a good, thoughtful, contributing DUer off this board.

[darkangel218]

63. Same people now pat themselves on the back saying that she was not bullied, or only one certain

poster bullied her.
I remember clearly from the Meta forum who her bullies were. It wasn't that far back. They didn't make innocent remarks now and then, they just simply followed her around and personally attacked her every chance they got.
And now she's gone.

"Funny" to see one of her stalkers in this thread though. What a nerve!

[bvar22]

66. I noticed.

"Funny" to see one of her stalkers in this thread though. What a nerve!

!

[PCIntern]

69. That's how it works here now...

it's like Bad Junior High School shit. The bullies are rewarded and accepted by those who are not bullied out of fear that one day they will be the victim.

She was driven off this Board sure as I'm sitting here.

[darkangel218]

70. Couldnt agree with you more. thank you. nt

[Zorra]

74. The DU RW corporate strawman motto: "To Deflect and Pretend". nt

[malaise]

79. The empirical evidence will silence them all eventually

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-11/fukushima-radiation-levels-high-four-years-after-disaster/6297718
<snip>
Four years ago today Japan was hit with a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and massive tsunami that caused widespread destruction, leaving almost 22,000 people dead or missing and triggering a crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.
Video: Fukushima residents take cancer testing into their own hands (ABC News)

The triple nuclear meltdown was the world's worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl.

About 120,000 people still cannot return their homes because of high radiation levels, but the issue of long-term health implications like cancer are causing the greatest concern and controversy in Japan.

Before the disaster, there was just one to two cases of thyroid cancers in a million Japanese children but now Fukushima has more than 100 confirmed or suspected cases, having tested about 300,000 children.

Megumi Muto's daughter Nana has undergone scans to determine if the lumps in her thyroid glands have grown. In a small number of cases, these lumps can develop into cancer.

[MisterP]

65. "well, they admitted it, therefore there can be no coverups because they inevitably fail"

yours truly, The Iron Voice

[newthinking]

71. But they are trying. It is illegal to report anything related to it without government approval.

Really.

[G_j]

72. I am glad to see others express their observations that Nadin was bullied

and it's not just an opinion. It happened.

[malaise]

75. She was bullied

and targeted as well.

[G_j]

82. such a shame

a long time member who actually contributed content, in stark contrast to those targeting her.

[malaise]

93. +1,000

[Logical]

116. Really, ok, link to the WORST example of someone bullying her. nt

[Agschmid]

160. Nope, thats not our job.

Many of us saw it, and remember it. We don't need to have a blue wall of links to back that up... hell I actually remember participating a few times, at least I have the balls to admit it.

Sure when I did it, it was because she was blatantly wrong (that doesn't make it right that I did it).

[Hekate]

81. Thanks, Malaise.

A toast to Nadin

[PCIntern]

112. Hear Hear!!!

k and r

[libodem]

279. Cheers

[SixString]

99. K&R!!

[Rex]

104. I see her fan club is hard at work, seems some are missing.

Don't worry as soon as they see this thread, they will be in here to mock her too. She turned out to be right about something, seems to drive some here moonbat crazy.

Strange.

[malaise]

118. Indeed

I'm always happy when DUers are proven correct...even those with whom I have differences and Nadin and I disagreed on some issues. I still loved most of her posts.

[AtheistCrusader]

135. Everone knew they melted in march 2011.

It was pretty clear tepco didn't want to admit it, but they did. The evidence was undeniable.

What we learned in this is, the entire fuel payload of reactor one melted through the bottom of the RPV. It was not previously known if the whole load melted or not.

[blackspade]

110. I never doubted nadinbrzezinski

This was obviously a total shitstorm and coverup.

[AtheistCrusader]

142. And yet, here we are in Dec 2011, talking about how TEPCO stated all the fuel melted from

the RPV in Reactor 1.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101445366

Some fucking coverup. Almost 4 years later IT HAS BEEN REVEALED.... what... we already knew. Almost four years ago... Yeah.

[blackspade]

237. Not sure why you are replying to me.

I'm unclear as to what your anger issues toward fellow DU members are over this colossal corporate fuckup.

Are you saying that this is a ho-hum event that no one should be concerned with?
Are you saying that TEPCO has been transparent and forthright in their information distribution to the public?

Or are you intent on picking at anyone that has reservations about nuclear power?

Do tell.

[AtheistCrusader]

247. Where's the coverup?

Nada was 'right' in some respects, sure. But THIS article, THIS data point, Tepco admitted years ago. This article/information release confirms/proves what everyone including Tepco was publicly stating in 2011. Previously it was generally accepted, now we know.

I love nuclear power. Always have. But I no longer trust corporations motivated by profit, nor governments, to implement it with the correct margin of public safety. And that is near-tears levels of rage-inducing frustration for me, because here on the west coast, all signs point to 'we're fucked' from climate change/mostly coal and petrochemical burning. We're fucked folks. If the drought predictions are even half true, we're fucked.

In WA, we get 72% of our power from Hydro. That's vulnerable to drought. The Columbia generating station reactor is also vulnerable to drought. Uses the river as it's ultimate heat sink. All that shit can go offline in a drought. Meaning, we won't have power to run desalinization plants we OUGHT to be building *RIGHT NOW*. We've foregone gigawatts of generating capacity here on the west coast. Satsop. SONGS. Just written off.

It's going to get real uncomfortable around here, real quick if this mega drought materializes. We had a chance to ease the pain, and we didn't. We can't build wind/solar/tidal fast enough to make up for the gigawatts we threw away. AND we have to build the desalinization plants still.

We're lined up to experience a perfect storm of very little power, just gas, wind, and solar, and no water. Fucked.

[blackspade]

253. And that is were we differ on this particular issue, a narrow focus.

I'm looking at things broadly, in that there are always coverups when corporate profits are on the line. This is no exception, though the ramifications are far beyond the liability for say, malfunctioning airbags.

That said, I have never been in favor of nuclear power. I never will be.
I think you just effectively made a great argument about one of the outstanding issues with this type of power generation.
Other issues include the massive costs, associated with their construction, maintenance, and decommissioning in both financially and environmentally, costs of mining, extraction, and disposal of the fuel, safety..... the list goes on.

I agree with you completely on the issues that face the West. Unless there are some drastic lifestyle, economic, and political changes, there will be an immense amount of suffering and loss. I would say move east, but we will be just as screwed.

[AtheistCrusader]

257. The cost is the primary problem.

To save on cost, they skimp on safety. From the site location, to the studies of the local tectonics, to the actual safety equipment itself. Corners that shouldn't be cut are cut to preserve the budget. Even SONGS had safety equipment that Fukushima lacked. (Innundation proof backup generators. Fukushima Dai-ichi's generators were swamped. Destroyed.)

So for these reasons, yeah, I no longer support nuclear power. Clean, if you can get it to work, but I don't trust anyone to do it anymore.


I agree, moving east might not help. Wait till the Ogallala Aquifer dries up.

[mike_c]

117. I don't have any dogs in this fight...

...but I would like to point out that an assumption based on bias is STILL an assumption based on bias if the evidence later proves it 100 percent correct.

This reminds me of all the DUers (myself included) who "knew" that Iraq had no WMDs, and that Bush lied to congress and the world. Yes, it turned out that we were correct, but at the time most statements to that effect were not supported by any real evidence. Some were-- some posters cited UNSCOM reports and such-- but most simply stated their convictions. That those turned out to be right doesn't make them any less based upon preconceived bias at the time.

If Nadine had data to present, that's one thing. But if she simply "knew" that unit one had melted down, and that TEPCO was lying because they're TEPCO, then she was just as guilty of wild supposition as some DUers apparently accused, whether she turned out to be correct or not.

[RobertEarl]

129. wild supposition?

Videos shown around the world gave evidence of a massive explosion of the reactor 1 building. Inside that building was a nuclear core capable of reaching 5000 degrees F temperature. Meltdown of the reactor core was quite obvious.

Mere common sense informs anyone with an ounce of reason that the core had a meltdown. It was no wild supposition. Your statements are plain false and should be deleted to protect what remains of your integrity?

[cui bono]

148. It's not as if nadin was the only one saying it. All you had to do was read/listen to some real

news sites, not the corporate media sites/channels, especially those who have skin in the game.

[AtheistCrusader]

163. You mean like CNN?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/06/japan.nuclear.meltdown/index.html

June 2011. Full meltdowns, all three reactors.

[cui bono]

167. Well there you go. Even better. n/t

[stevenleser]

207. This is what I have been arguing regarding Iraq and WMD as it pertains to Democrats who voted

for IWR versus people who claim they should have known all along. You said it better than I did and I will be phrasing it that way going forward. PM me if you want credit. Assumptions based on bias and without firm evidence are still assumptions based on bias even if later proved correct.

In the case of this TEPCO situation, see #24. Claiming she had some special knowledge or intuition when this information was readily available, well, its giving her a credit she does not deserve.

[G_j]

263. There was even doubt within the Bush administration about WMDs

And I still don't understand why anyone would err on the side of war.

http://reportingsandiego.com/2015/03/20/the-national-intelligence-estimate-that-led-to-war/

The National Intelligence Estimate that Led to War
BY NADINABBOTT

March 20, 2015 (San Diego) Jason Leopold at Vice News has written a good article on the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that led directly to the Iraq War. They also have the document there, if you wish to download it and read it. We did that.

What we found in the document was partially surprising. There was no full agreement on Iraqi efforts to build a nuclear program. From contemporaneous reporting, including in the New York Times, we expected full agreement by members of the administration. Remember those aluminum tubes? Yes, those ones that were referenced by then Vice President Dick Chenney regularly, as if they were proof. Surprisingly, it’s in the NIE. the Department of Energy did not agree they were meant for a nuclear program. Here from the assessment:

“DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program. See page 81 and 84 for DOE and INR views respectively on the likely alternative use of these tubes).”

The report is full of moments like this. Where the worst case scenario is presented. It was the same worst case securing, which was very overstated, that was presented to the public on the Sunday shows.

There was one point of the NIE that seemed to be pulled from today’s headlines. It reads like this: “If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a year.”

[G_j]

254. as for Iraq

there was great scepticism from weapons inspectors themselves, the bogus aluminum tubes, the yellow cake BS, and a myriad of reasons to err on the side of not going to war.

[DemoTex]

119. I am fortunate to have a back-channel to Nadin.

She has my back during fire season (and I am on my way to AZ for Fire Season 2015). NB is an incredible source of all sorts of info!

[malaise]

121. Stay safe and remember to post some more of your magnificent photos

[Phlem]

125. Could you ask her for her blog contact for Phlem?

She gave it too me once and my freaking computer crashed.

I would very much appreciate it DemoTex.

[Agschmid]

158. .

http://reportingsandiego.com/category/analysis/

That?

[Phlem]

172. yea

I've just known her for a while, just wanted to stay in touch.

[Phlem]

141. Thank You.

I missed her. She contacted me, I owe you.

[Phlem]

123. She's still around isn't she?

She's one of my Fave's.

[wildbilln864]

131. yet again. n/t

[WillyT]

143. K & R !!!

[OilemFirchen]

146. I HATE that she was FORCED to go away and NEVER posts any more!

Except she wasn't: I have requested to have my account permanently closed. I would like that to be done.

And she does: Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:31 PM

[SidDithers]

151. Hehe...

Thanks for posting those.



Sid

[RobertEarl]

153. SID, don't ever leave DU, please!

You provide lots of entertainment!

[PosterChild]

157. LOL, a global coverup...

... complete with the public release of an official study conducted by TEPCO and the International Research Institute for Nuclear Decommissioning. Quite the cover up that is!

[RobertEarl]

164. You did well

You just showed an example of how the PTB can release a sliver of info and people who are not interested in a thorough examination are more than happy to claim: "Case closed. What's on tv?"

[AtheistCrusader]

169. Well, they have time machines, so, how are you going to fight that?

May 12, 2011
http://www.thewire.com/global/2011/05/fukushima-full-meltdown-made-official/37671/

[PosterChild]

480. Then again....

... I just might Be one if thise powers that are! Bwah ha ha ha!

[AtheistCrusader]

162. And here's TEPCO admitting that in June 2011.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/06/japan.nuclear.meltdown/index.html

Late to the party there.

[NuclearDem]

165. Strangest strategy for a coverup ever.

[AtheistCrusader]

166. It's like they hid it in plain sight.

I guess nobody watches CNN.

[marym625]

178. This story is so important

8th so many different ways.

It's something that should be kept in the public eye all day everyday. But MSM, as usual, isn't even reporting it.

K&R

[stevenleser]

203. See post #24. It was reported right away. Nadin didn't reveal any new info. nt

[Joe Chi Minh]

181. For once I see some sense in

a cover-up. Anyone understand what I mean? Putting off the evil day. Man doesn't have an answer to radiation. Different if it could be remedied. The only remedy will come 'when knee shall bow', it looks to me.

[stevenleser]

212. Two points, first, see #24. No cover up in terms of melt down. Second, there is an answer to

radiation. Distance.

Get within 100 feet of Fukushima or Chernobyl without protection and you are going to die.

Get 100 miles away from either and you are going to be fine.

[Joe Chi Minh]

334. On balance, I would prefer people to believe you. But it's a terrible dilemma.

[Octafish]

188. Nothing to see here. Move on. I mean, ''Muon.''

Muon scans confirm complete reactor meltdown at Fukushima Reactor #1

By Joel Hruska
ExtremeTech on March 20, 2015 at 3:28 pm

EXCERPT...

Scans like the above appear to support TEPCO’s position that melt-through occurred, but the organization’s trustworthiness and understanding of the conditions at Fukushima Daiichi have been called into question multiple times since the accident. Conditions at the facility have been repeatedly misrepresented (or were simply inaccurate), and the company ignored multiple safety reports and warnings that the plant was vulnerable to a tsunami in the first place.

What happened to the fuel rods is more than an academic question. Reactor #1 contained an estimated 125 tons of uranium dioxide, zirconium, steel, boron carbide, and inconel, and finding out where the corium flowed is critical. TEPCO has announced that unlike Chernobyl, which is slowly being sealed inside a layer of concrete, they intend to scrap reactor Daiichi 1, 2, 3, and 4. This makes it particularly critical to understand where the corium is in order to facilitate its eventual removal. The scrapping process is a long one — it’ll take an estimated 30-40 years to finish, and the company won’t start removing reactor fuel until ten years after the accident.

-- http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/201706-muon-scans-confirm-complete-reactor-meltdown-at-fukushima-reactor-1

[CountAllVotes]

226. nadinbrzezinski

I liked her very much. It is a shame what has been done to her and many other old DU posters like myself.

If you are around Nadin, I wish you the very best.

We need people like you that have intelligence and brains that can see the reality of things!

Miss you Nadin.

[calimary]

308. I miss her too.

Still love you, nadin! I miss you too!

[chervilant]

227. Some of them ("folks who don't want you to know")

have posted herein above, but seem to be indulging in personal attacks rather than pro-nuke rhetoric. I have added one such to my IL, but the other is--thus far--too insipid to warrant a space on my ever growing list of verbal bullies, misogynists, sexists, racists and heterosexists.

I have an Omni magazine article that was published in 1980. Did you know that citizens proximal to above-ground tests were actually told when the tests were scheduled and were encouraged to have breakfast on the hoods of their cars so they could watch the mushroom clouds?!? Of course, this went awry when the wind shifted and several people were dosed with excessive radioactivity. The unhealthy doses of radioactivity and the resulting health issues were kept secret until intrepid reporters uncovered the cover-up.

I cannot understand why anyone supports nuclear power. If we had devoted as much time and money to wind and solar alternatives, everyone could have electricity without ginormous monthly bills.

[FBaggins]

229. You really can't tell the difference between a reactor and a nuclear bomb?

When they were forced to admit the damage that had been done, there were lots of studies correlating the doses that those people received and the damage that was done...

... nobody in Japan (let alone here in North America) came anywhere close to those dose rates or absorbed doses.

But hey... they both have "nuclear" in their names so it's really all the same thing... and anyone saying otherwise is obviously bullying you. And... of course... lumping those who disagree with you in with "misogynists, sexists, racists and heterosexists" is entirely appropriate behavior in your mind... right?

[chervilant]

233. Wow...

Are you tag-teaming with other pro-nukers to post yet another condescending, disingenuous response so that I can SEE it?!? I did NOT say that a nuclear reactor is the same as a nuclear bomb. How ridiculous! I did not say that anyone posting a response to me is a verbal bully (although if the shoe fits...).

This pathetic grasping at straws to discredit me or my posts says more about you than it says about me. And, yes, those who disagree with me by posting patronizing, snarky replies (such as yours) are likely to land on my IL. You've been there before, so I won't miss you at all.

[NuclearDem]

236. Then what on earth was the point of your story about nuclear testing?

A story which you immediately followed up with wondering why anyone would support nuclear power.

Nuclear weapons are not the same thing as nuclear power. Conflating the two is disingenuous.

[LordGlenconner]

291. My guess is the poster didn't know the difference

Initially then looked it up after you called them out on it.

[FBaggins]

238. Paranoia much?

You're seriously going to claim that people that you have on ignore are conspiring to get a reply that you're forced to see?

You do know that when you put someone on ignore... it doesn't impact the rest of the DUers, right? Everyone else would be able to see it and let you know (and... frankly... such behavior would be worthy of an alert and hide IMO). Heck... I'd imagine that someone who was stalking you would prefer to post ridicule in replies that you couldn't see (and thus couldn't refute) so that everyone else would see it.

I did NOT say that a nuclear reactor is the same as a nuclear bomb. How ridiculous!

You should read your post again. There's no question that your second and third paragraph drew a connection between support for nuclear power - and the impact of those bomb tests. IOW - The reply was perfectly reasonable.

I did not say that anyone posting a response to me is a verbal bully (although if the shoe fits...).

That could be true... I'm not stalking your posts and wouldn't know. But the thread is full of such claims when refering to people who really were just providing Nadin with facts. Yes, it often got heated, but every case that I can remember was something that she started.

[Cleita]

245. I'm old enough to remember that. They told lies at the expense of

people's lives back then and they are lying today.

[Octafish]

249. Top Secret Turds

From 2005: Know Your BFEE: American Children Used in Radiation Experiments

Some busted links - the names, events, dates, and sources still stand, though.

[chervilant]

262. Thanks for that link.

I think one of your posts should be linked here:

THE RADIATION STORY
NO ONE WOULD TOUCH

by Geoffrey Sea

Sea is an Oakland-based writer, radiological health physicist, and international activist on radiation issues. He is the founder and director of In Vivo: Radiation Response and the Atomic Reclamation and Conversation Project of the Tides Foundation, and a co-founder of IRIS: International Radiation Injury Survivors.
Suddenly, at the close of 1993, the public was bombarded with "news" about the feeding of radioactive substances to pregnant women and mentally retarded students, about the unethical irradiation of workers, soldiers, medical patients, and prison inmates, and about the government's own internal fears that these experiments had "a little of the Buchenwald touch." But the story that appeared in The Albuquerque Tribune (circulation: 35,000) on November 15-17, and was then projected into the national headlines by the forthright admissions and initiatives of Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary, was hardly new.

By 1984, activists and researchers across the country were systematically investigating the human experimentation PROGRAM and attempting to bring it to public attention. By 1986, documentation of the program was massive, solid, and publicly available.

I am among those who persistently tried to get national media coverage of this outrageous example of government wrongdoing. To say that the media were reluctant to listen would be an understatement. The fact is that, for more than a decade, documentation was ignored and facts were misreported.

What follows is a chronology of significant events in the strange history of this important story -- one that began to receive adequate coverage only after almost all the victims were dead and most of the perpetrators retired:

1971: The Washington Post reveals that a research team at the University of Cincinnati, under the leadership of Eugene Saenger, has been irradiating "mentally enfeebled" patients -- all of them poor and most of them black -- at dose rates known to have harmful effects. The aim of the research, funded by the Department of Defense: to discover whether and under what conditions soldiers on an atomic battlefield would be cognitively imparied.

CONTINUED...

http://archives.cjr.org/year/94/2/radiation.asp

I pity those who are so resistant to cognitive dissonance that they'll say/do anything in support of nuclear energy, despite ample evidence of the pernicious dangers of radioactivity.

[Octafish]

268. Absolutely, that is Top Secret Turds II

The story Mr. Sea, http://archives.cjr.org/year/94/2/radiation.asp" target="_blank">Columbia Journalism Review (cached), and you have reported is telling of our times, the Atomic Age of National Security. We see it in the lack of coverage of Mr. Sea's important story and in today's lack of coverage of Fukushima. The co-ordinated smear artistes who descend on any who question the status quo or motives of the national security state also are a tell.

More light on the apologists for nuclear madness:

Fission. Reactors. Plutonium. The Bomb. Command. Control. Secret Government.

The story connects a few dots from the present day back to World War II.

Fukushima, Plutonium, CIA, and the BFEE: Deep Doo-Doo Four Ways to Doomsday



War crime, Yakuza, Secret Government. Why not?

Japan’s Nuclear Industry: The CIA Link.

By Eleanor Warnock
June 1, 2012, 10:18 AM JST.
Wall Street Journal Blog

Tetsuo Arima, a researcher at Waseda University in Tokyo, told JRT he discovered in the U.S. National Archives a trove of declassified CIA files that showed how one man, Matsutaro Shoriki, was instrumental in jumpstarting Japan’s nascent nuclear industry.

Mr. Shoriki was many things: a Class A war criminal, the head of the Yomiuri Shimbun (Japan’s biggest-selling and most influential newspaper) and the founder of both the country’s first commercial broadcaster and the Tokyo Giants baseball team. Less well known, according to Mr. Arima, was that the media mogul worked with the CIA to promote nuclear power.

SNIP...

Mr. Shoriki, backed by the CIA, used his influence to publish articles in the Yomiuri that extolled the virtues of nuclear power, according to the documents found by Mr. Arima. Keen on remilitarizing Japan, Mr. Shoriki endorsed nuclear power in hopes its development would one day arm the country with the ability to make its own nuclear weapons, according to Mr. Arima. Mr. Shoriki’s behind-the-scenes push created a chain reaction in other media that eventually changed public opinion.

SNIP…

Mr. Shoriki, backed by the CIA, used his influence to publish articles in the Yomiuri that extolled the virtues of nuclear power, according to the documents found by Mr. Arima. Keen on remilitarizing Japan, Mr. Shoriki endorsed nuclear power in hopes its development would one day arm the country with the ability to make its own nuclear weapons, according to Mr. Arima. Mr. Shoriki’s behind-the-scenes push created a chain reaction in other media that eventually changed public opinion.

CONTINUED...

http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2012/06/01/japans-nuclear-industry-the-cia-link/

After President Carter was out of office, it was pretty much full-steam ahead for the Japanese bomb during the Pruneface Ronnie-Poppy Bush years. Hence, Fukushima Daiichi Number 3 and other select Japanese reactors were set up to process plutonium uranium fuels.

United States Circumvented Laws To Help Japan Accumulate Tons of Plutonium

By Joseph Trento
on April 9th, 2012
National Security News Service

The United States deliberately allowed Japan access to the United States’ most secret nuclear weapons facilities while it transferred tens of billions of dollars worth of American tax paid research that has allowed Japan to amass 70 tons of weapons grade plutonium since the 1980s, a National Security News Service investigation reveals. These activities repeatedly violated U.S. laws regarding controls of sensitive nuclear materials that could be diverted to weapons programs in Japan. The NSNS investigation found that the United States has known about a secret nuclear weapons program in Japan since the 1960s, according to CIA reports.

The diversion of U.S. classified technology began during the Reagan administration after it allowed a $10 billion reactor sale to China. Japan protested that sensitive technology was being sold to a potential nuclear adversary. The Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations permitted sensitive technology and nuclear materials to be transferred to Japan despite laws and treaties preventing such transfers. Highly sensitive technology on plutonium separation from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site and Hanford nuclear weapons complex, as well as tens of billions of dollars worth of breeder reactor research was turned over to Japan with almost no safeguards against proliferation. Japanese scientist and technicians were given access to both Hanford and Savannah River as part of the transfer process.

SNIP...

A year ago a natural disaster combined with a man-made tragedy decimated Northern Japan and came close to making Tokyo, a city of 30 million people, uninhabitable. Nuclear tragedies plague Japan’s modern history. It is the only nation in the world attacked with nuclear weapons. In March 2011, after a tsunami swept on shore, hydrogen explosions and the subsequent meltdowns of three reactors at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant spewed radiation across the region. Like the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan will face the aftermath for generations. A twelve-mile area around the site is considered uninhabitable. It is a national sacrifice zone.

How Japan ended up in this nuclear nightmare is a subject the National Security News Service has been investigating since 1991. We learned that Japan had a dual use nuclear program. The public program was to develop and provide unlimited energy for the country. But there was also a secret component, an undeclared nuclear weapons program that would allow Japan to amass enough nuclear material and technology to become a major nuclear power on short notice.

CONTINUED...

http://www.dcbureau.org/201204097128/national-security-news-service/united-states-circumvented-laws-to-help-japan-accumulate-tons-of-plutonium.html

Those of who have seen The World at War series on the tee vee are familiar with the black and white footage and great narrative chronicling the main events and figures of World War II. One of those episodes was entitled "The Bomb" and featured an interview with John J. McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War to President Roosevelt and President Truman.

Here's part of what Mr. McCloy said about the Atomic Bomb – the use of which he counseled only as a last resort, after warning Japan to surrender (around 29:10 mark of Part 2):

“Besides that, we’ve got a new force, a new type of energy that will revolutionize warfare, destructive beyond any contemplation. I’d said, I’d mention the bomb. Mentioning the bomb, even at that late date, in that select group, was like, it was like they were all shocked. Because it was such a closely guarded secret. It was comparable to mentioning Skull and Bones at Yale – which you’re not supposed to do.”

After the war, McCloy was the United States High Commissioner to Germany, administering the U.S. zone of occupation, making him one of the front-line leaders of the Cold War. In that capacity, one of the questionable things he did was to forgive several NAZI industrialists and war criminals.

The great cartoonist Herb Block, HERBLOCK, depicted McCloy holding open a prison door for a NAZI, while in the background Stalin took a photo (if anyone has a copy or link to the cartoon, I’d be much obliged). About 15 years later, Mr. McCloy served the nation as a member of the Warren Commission.

While he wasn’t a member of Skull and Bones, McCloy certainly worked closely with a bunch of them, including Averell Harriman and Prescott Bush. As a Wall Street and Washington insider, "Mr. Establishment" he was called, Mr. McCloy used the offices of government to centralize power and wealth. That is most un-democratic.

Mother Jones goes into detail:

The Nuclear Weapons Industry's Money Bombs

How millions in campaign cash and revolving-door lobbying have kept America's atomic arsenal off the chopping block.

— By R. Jeffrey Smith, Center for Public Integrity
Mother Jones
Wed Jun. 6, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

Employees of private companies that produce the main pieces of the US nuclear arsenal have invested more than $18 million in the election campaigns of lawmakers that oversee related federal spending, and the companies also employ more than 95 former members of Congress or Capitol Hill staff to lobby for government funding, according to a new report.

The Center for International Policy, a nonprofit group that supports the "demilitarization" of US foreign policy, released the report on Wednesday to highlight what it described as the heavy influence of campaign donations and pork-barrel politics on a part of the defense budget not usually associated with large profits or contractor power: nuclear arms.

As Congress deliberated this spring on nuclear weapons-related projects, including funding for the development of more modern submarines and bombers, the top 14 contractors gave nearly $3 million to the 2012 reelection campaigns of lawmakers whose support they needed for these and other projects, the report disclosed.

Half of that sum went to members of the four key committees or subcommittees that must approve all spending for nuclear arms—the House and Senate Armed Services Committees and the Energy and Water or Defense appropriations subcommittees, according to data the Center compiled from the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics. The rest went to lawmakers who are active on nuclear weapons issues because they have related factories or laboratories in their states or districts.

Members of the House Armed Services Committee this year have sought to erect legislative roadblocks to further reductions in nuclear arms, and also demanded more spending for related facilities than the Obama administration sought, including $100 million in unrequested funds for a new plant that will make plutonium cores for nuclear warheads, and $374 million for a new ballistic missile-firing submarine. The House has approved those requests, but the Senate has not held a similar vote on the 2013 defense bill.

CONTINUED...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/nuclear-bombs-congress-elections-campaign-donations

It isn't ironic or coincidental. It is the Establishment, the in-group, the Elite, the One-Percent that’s pretty much gotten the lion’s share of the wealth created over the last 50 years. The same group that’s pretty much had their fingers on the atomic button ever since the Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as profited from the development of nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and the almost continuous state of war since then. For lack of a better term, I call them the BFEE, or War Party.

OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002794278

[malaise]

267. Yep

Thanks for both links

[Gothmog]

258. I miss Nadine

[Android3.14]

260. In other news,

Some dang fool announced something everyone already knew.

How do some of these folks manage such high posting numbers?

[wordpix]

280. "previous asumptions of a meltdown"---really???? Tepco was proclaiming no meltdown

in 2011 when they were trying to keep the meltdown "managed" for the media

[FBaggins]

288. Nope... they most certainly were not.

You're entitled to your own reality... but please don't try to con others into buying it

They were done with "no meltdown" within a day or two (which was about the first time that they had enough data to make a reasonable judgement). By March 14th (the second day after it started they were already shifting from one meltdown to three - and the Japanese govrnment was also reporting it.

[Octafish]

321. TEPCO didn't admit any meltdowns until May, two months after the fact.

Fukushima update: TEPCO admits more meltdowns

So, other than that, they have a near-spotless record for failing to tell the truth.

[stevenleser]

338. TEPCO and the Japanese government said a meltdown was likely two days after the event.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/13/partial-meltdown-possible-japan-nuclear-plant-death-toll-estimates-soar/

[Octafish]

340. Don't worry. By then, TEPCO's credibility was already shot.

TEPCO: Plutonium is not dangerous. Where's the Boss?

"It is not a health risk to humans," the company said.

[stevenleser]

366. No, it wasn't. nt

[Octafish]

374. Fukushima: They Knew

From Greg Palast*

Fukushima: They Knew

This month marks the 3rd Anniversary of the Fukushima Nuclear disaster.

By Greg Palast for FreePress.org
Monday, March 10, 2014

EXCERPT...

I was ready to vomit. Because I knew who had designed the plant, who had built it and whom Tokyo Electric Power was having rebuild it: Shaw Construction. The latest alias of Stone & Webster, the designated builder for every one of the four new nuclear plants that the Obama Administration has approved for billions in federal studies.

But I had The Notebook, the diaries of the earthquake inspector for the company. I'd squirreled it out sometime before the Trade Center went down. I shouldn't have done that. Too bad.

All field engineers keep a diary. Gordon Dick, a supervisor, wasn’t sup- posed to show his to us. I asked him to show it to us and, reluctantly, he directed me to these notes about the “SQ” tests.

SQ is nuclear-speak for “Seismic Qualification.” A seismically qualified nuclear plant won’t melt down if you shake it. A “seismic event” can be an earthquake or a Christmas present from Al Qaeda. You can’t run a nuclear reactor in the USA or Europe or Japan without certified SQ.

This much is clear from his notebook: This nuclear plant will melt down in an earthquake. The plant dismally failed to meet the Seismic I (shaking) standards required by U.S. and international rules.

Here’s what we learned: Dick’s subordinate at the nuclear plant, Robert Wiesel, conducted the standard seismic review. Wiesel flunked his company. No good. Dick then ordered Wiesel to change his report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, change it from failed to passed. Dick didn’t want to make Wiesel do it, but Dick was under the gun himself, acting on direct command from corporate chiefs. From The Notebook:

Wiesel was very upset. He seemed very nervous. Very agitated. [He said,] “I believe these are bad results and I believe it’s reportable,” and then he took the volume of federal regulations from the shelf and went to section 50.55(e), which describes reportable deficiencies at a nuclear plant and [they] read the section together, with Wiesel pointing to the appropriate paragraphs that federal law clearly required [them and the company] to report the Category II, Seismic I deficiencies.

Wiesel then expressed his concern that he was afraid that if he [Wiesel] reported the deficiencies, he would be fired, but that if he didn’t report the deficiencies, he would be breaking a federal law. . . .

CONTINUED...

http://www.gregpalast.com/fukushima-they-knew-3/

Which is why TEPCO, Japan, Nuke Inc and the USA went out of their way the other day to play up the tsunami's role:

Tsunami, not Quake, Seen as Main Cause of Fukushima Accident

by Mari Iwata
Wall Street Journal, Oct. 8, 2014

Japan’s nuclear regulator said Wednesday that the tsunami following the March 11, 2011, earthquake–not the quake itself–was the main cause of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

The conclusion matters because of the implications for other nuclear-power plants. Virtually all of Japan is prone to earthquakes, but some places are relatively protected from tsunamis. Currently all of the nation’s 48 reactors are offline, and the government is weighing whether to restart some next year.

In the March 2011 nuclear accident, three reactors melted down after the plant lost main and backup power, paralyzing cooling systems.

The Nuclear Regulation Authority studied why the No.1 reactor lost backup power and concluded on Wednesday in a report that the tsunami was the main cause, based on data about temperature, pressure and other parameters. Those data were stable immediately after the earthquake hit at 2:46 p.m., suggesting the plant didn’t suffer critical damage until the arrival of the tsunami some 45 minutes later.

A previous investigation by Japan’s parliament had left more room for the possibility that the earthquake itself did significant damage.

The regulator said it would translate the report into English and post it on its website. The Japanese-language version is here.

“You cannot say there was no damage by the earthquake at all. But you can say the major cause was the tsunami, looking at the data,” said Tamotsu Kozaki, a nuclear engineering professor of the Hokkaido University.

CONTINUED...

http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2014/10/08/tsunami-not-quake-seen-as-main-cause-of-fukushima-accident/

Which is not what the scientists said, way back when they were warning TEPCO, which elected to take the cheapskate's way out.



Here's a bit to add to the atomic pile:

Masanobu Shishikura: The Man Who Predicted the Tsunami in 2009.

British scientist 'predicted nuclear power station problem'

Toshiaki Sakai: Utility Engineer Warned of Tsunami Threat at Japanese Nuclear Plant in 2007

Apart from venting hot air in committee meetings, TEPCO did nothing, and hoped for the best. That's the cheapskate's way.

[FBaggins]

370. Sorry Octa, it's your credibility that is "shot" in this case.

This post is a perfect example. You have been shown multiple times that nobody ever said that plutonium wasn't dangerous. That was your imagination entirely... yet you continue to repeat it (destroying any credibility that you might have when judging other related events as the one you're discussing now).

For the current discussion - you must yet again be reminded that you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. You clearly claimed that they didn't admit the meltdown until two months later when that simply wasn't true. There's no room for debate or nuance... it's just flat wrong. Two months later (many MANY months faster than TMI) was when they first had data to confirm that there had been a FULL meltdown and that it had happened within the first day... but they (and yes, the Japanese government) DID report that at least two of the reactors experienced meltdown within a couple days of the event. At least a couple of the pro-nuclear posters here on DU were also saying so by that point. Nobody was trying to hide it because there was no possible WAY to hide it. You don't need to believe in TEPCO's honesty... just recognize that if there are hydrogen explosions and large amounts of cesium being released... the fuel in the reactor had to have been damaged. Once they told us that the fuel was uncovered, it was only a matter of time befor fuel damage unless they could get it covered again quickly.

Given all of the errors in the predictions and claims of the anti-nuclear fringe, I know that it's convenient to be able to claim that "they" were lying all along... but you don't get to reinvent reality for your own purposes. If deluding yourself helps you sleep at night, but all means continue... but trying to con others into buying into that delusion should be beneath you.

[Octafish]

375. It's what TEPCO said, FBaggins. ''It is not a health risk to humans.''

TEPCO says plutonium found on quake-damaged plant grounds

By the CNN Wire Staff
March 28, 2011 -- Updated 1735 GMT (0135 HKT)

okyo (CNN) -- Some plutonium found in soil on the grounds of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant may have come from its earthquake-damaged reactors, but it poses no human health risk, the plant's owners reported Monday.

The element was found in soil samples taken March 21-22 from five locations around the plant, the Tokyo Electric Power Company told CNN late Monday. The company said it was equivalent to the amounts that fell on Japan following aboveground nuclear weapons tests by other countries in past decades.

"It is not a health risk to humans," the company said. But it added, "Just in case, TEPCO will increase the monitoring of the nuclear plant grounds and the surrounding environment."

Plutonium is a byproduct of nuclear reactions that is also part of the fuel mix at the plant's No. 3 reactor. It can be a serious health hazard if inhaled or ingested, but external exposure poses little health risk, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Three plutonium isotopes -- Pu-238, -239 and -240 -- were found in soil at five different points inside the plant grounds, Tokyo Electric reported. It said that plutonium found in two of the samples could have come out of the reactors that were damaged by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that ravaged northern Japan.

CONTINUED...

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/28/japan.nuclear.plutonium/?hpt=T2

See, that's why I try and source where I get my thoughts. TEPCO claimed plutonium was not dangerous. Funny, it also shows me where your credibility is at, FBaggins.

[FBaggins]

433. It most certainly is NOT what they said.

It's laughable that you then go on to pretend that if people would just show you where you were wrong... you would admit it. I would VERY much like to see an example of that.

''It is not a health risk to humans.''

As has been pointed out to you several times, that only supports your statement if "it" is "plutonium in general"... rather than referring to the specific detection of plutonium that is the subject of the article. It clearly wasn't. You've never been able to support otherwise.

You've been given several analogies. If you're on well water then you almost certainly have arsenic in your tap water (quite likely if you're on a municipal supply as well). The county health authorities are likely to tell you that "it is not a health risk to humans"... and they would be correct to do so. You would be dishonest (particularly after correction) to claim that the county said instead that "arsenic is not dangerous"

The plutonium that they found wasn't a health risk to humans - because the levels were consistent with those that people in Japan have lived with for decades from fallout. You've just never been able to come to terms with the reality that plutonium from weapons testing (and actual combat use in the case of Japan) is massively higher than the largest amount that Fukushima could have released. Radioiodine release from Fukushima is a worthwhile topic... and obviously the cesium release was quite substantial and worthy of ongoing study and evaluation... but no matter how much you prefer to care about plutonium, it just isn't a big deal when talking about Fukushima because the failure modes just didn't lend themselves to plutonium releases.

[Octafish]

435. It's what TEPCO said, FBaggins. ''It is not a health risk to humans.''

"It is not a health risk to humans," the company said. But it added, "Just in case, TEPCO will increase the monitoring of the nuclear plant grounds and the surrounding environment." -- http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/28/japan.nuclear.plutonium/?hpt=T2

Just because you say so, even if you use CAPS, doesn't change what TEPCO said.

[FBaggins]

437. "Just because you say so, even if you use CAPS, doesn't change what TEPCO said."

How ironic that you make thing up out of whole cloth like that and imagine that it's others who have nothing but repetition.

You're honestly going to try to spin to others here that the pronoun "it" in that sentence (despite the context of the article) refers instead to plutonium in general? Your only excuse here would be if you now confess that English is at least your third language.

And, of course, as usual... you'll never reply to the specifics of the analogy that is exactly parallel. Far easier to just pretend it doesn't exist, eh?

But keep on pretending that all anyone has to do is point out your errors and you'll be happy to accept responsibility.

[Octafish]

441. What did I make up? It's what TEPCO said. I even gave you a link to CNN.

Have you any idea how dangerous plutonium is? Here's what DOE says about it:

DOE-STD-1128-98

Guide of Good Practices for Occupational Radiological Protection in Plutonium Facilities

EXCERPT...

4.2.3 Characteristics of Plutonium Contamination

There are few characteristics of plutonium contamination that are unique. Plutonium
contamination may be in many physical and chemical forms. (See Section 2.0 for the many
potential sources of plutonium contamination from combustion products of a plutonium fire
to radiolytic products from long-term storage.) [font color="blue"]The one characteristic that many believe is
unique to plutonium is its ability to migrate with no apparent motive force. Whether from
alpha recoil or some other mechanism, plutonium contamination, if not contained or
removed, will spread relatively rapidly throughout an area. [/font color]

SOURCE (PDF file format): http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/07/f2/doe-std-1128-98_cn2.pdf

Why do you find that funny? I'm trying to protect people from the health effects of plutonium.

[FBaggins]

445. The link you provided refutes your story.

Nowhere do they claim that plutonium isn't dangerous. They merely (correctly) point out that the specific discovery doesn't represent a threat.

Have you any idea how dangerous plutonium is?

Unlikely you... I know precisely how dangerous it is... and my knowledge is backed up by real experts, not some long-retired pediatrician with no relevant expertise at all who makes up demonstrably false claims like a few pounds of the stuff would kill everyone on the planet if spread thinly enough. This despite the fact that many tons of the stuff have been spread incredibly efficiently (see below).

It is very dangerous even is small amounts... just not that small.

More importantly, I understand what you keep dodging (and which you will likely never be able to come to grips with even in private). The total plutonium release from Fukushima cannot have exceeded a low (double digit) number of grams... because the cores (and spent fuel) didn't explode or burn and Plutonium isn't volatile enough to be releases in quantity from that type of meltdown. The Nagasaki explosion alone represented 100+ times as much plutonium (and infinitely more "hot particles&quot and it was spread so efficiently by a nuclear explosion.

Given the half-lives of plutonium isotopes, that one bomb continues to be far more of a risk than any recent plutonium release (and there were many MANY more bombs after than one). As has been pointed out many MANY times now... the Fukushima release is so small by comparison that they have to get VERY lucky to even find a sample where they can distinguish a signature that allows them to believe that they found some plutonium from Fukushima... because the already-existing fallout is so much larger that the Fukushima plutonium is drowned out.

The one characteristic that many believe is unique to plutonium is its ability to migrate with no apparent motive force. Whether from
alpha recoil or some other mechanism, plutonium contamination, if not contained or removed, will spread relatively rapidly throughout an area.

You may have posted that a hundred times by now. I'm not sure that you've ever said why you feel it's relevant. Care to try now?

[FBaggins]

447. Let's see how others read that pronoun

From one of your threads at the time:

Safety officials said the small amounts of plutonium found at several spots outside the complex were not a risk to humans .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4793340

How strange. Why did they waste so many words if what Tepco really meant was that plutonium itself was not dangerous?

Correction to my earlier post. Apparently the Caldicott nuts weren't claiming a couple pounds of plutonium could kill everyone... it was a single ounce.

[Octafish]

452. Others? That's what I posted.

For those interested in learning more than finding the ideal emoticon, why this is important:

In these images, the building containing Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Reactor 3 explodes.
The thing ran on fuel rods that contain a mixture of plutonium and uranium oxide.



TEPCO has been lying from Day One. The company's boss continued his holiday driving tour the day of the disaster. On this side of the great ocean, the U.S. government has not done a very good job of keeping the public abreast of Fukushima and the dangers it represents. It fired Gregory Jaczko, the head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, after he pointed out the emergency in public.

One important thing everyone should know is the incredible amounts of plutonium -- one of the most deadly elements known -- that have been introduced into the environment from Fukushima.

Here's some more of what everyone on DU and around the entire planet should know:

DOE-STD-1128-98

Guide of Good Practices for Occupational Radiological Protection in Plutonium Facilities

EXCERPT...

4.2.3 Characteristics of Plutonium Contamination

There are few characteristics of plutonium contamination that are unique. Plutonium
contamination may be in many physical and chemical forms. (See Section 2.0 for the many
potential sources of plutonium contamination from combustion products of a plutonium fire
to radiolytic products from long-term storage.) [font color="red"]The one characteristic that many believe is
unique to plutonium is its ability to migrate with no apparent motive force.[/font color] Whether from
alpha recoil or some other mechanism, plutonium contamination, if not contained or
removed, will spread relatively rapidly throughout an area.

SOURCE (PDF file format): http://energy.gov/hss/downloads/doe-std-1128-98

Why I bring this is up: This is information about Fukushima and plutonium that people have a right to know, yet is what the press and governments of the United States and Japan apparently want people to forget. Thank goodness news and information aren't censored on DU.

[stevenleser]

379. Yep. We've got posts with links with proof. Doesn't matter. That person will never admit they are

wrong.

[Octafish]

381. Show where 'that person' is wrong, stevenleser.

On this thread or any post I make, I stand by what I write. If I make a mistaken, I admit it and say, "Thanks!"

Go through my journals on DU3 or DU2 and show where I'm wrong. I'll admit it.

You'll also find what's needed to indict the warmongers and banksters who make a killing off wars without end for profits without cease.

For some reason, I had hoped you'd see that was the important point.

[NuclearDem]

382. "and show where I'm wrong. I'll admit it."

No you won't. What you'll do is you'll accuse any poster stupid enough to take this bait of smearing you, tag-teaming with other posters to smear you, or of deflecting from "real issues" (actually, you seem to have started on that already), and then proceed to post completely unrelated stories trying to tie everyone back to Umgar the Caveman to the BFEE.

On top of that, I know you won't because you never have. You cite racists and antisemites. You cite Helen Caldicott. You believe telepathy actually exists. You've delved into crop circle nonsense. You've cited the widely-discredited Seralini paper, and that's just the list of things I can think of in the morning without any coffee.

It's been explained to you how all of those are complete nonsense, and not once have you retracted any related posts.

So this:

Go through my journals on DU3 or DU2 and show where I'm wrong. I'll admit it.

is an utterly bold-faced lie.

[SidDithers]

383. Absolutely nailed it...

Be ready for the inevitable alert, but you've spoken absolute truth here.



Sid

[Octafish]

386. ''Be ready for the inevitable alert.'' That's the mark of a shitheel, SidDithers of DU.

Is hitting the Alert your preferred "tactic"? When you can't argue the facts, shut down the discussion in any way possible. That's the sign of a bully.

Unless the post contains hate speech, I'll let other's words stands because that's what separates me from the shitheels. I like to let people see other's thoughts as their words stand more as an indictment of what they are more than anything I can complain about.

So, like I've been asking you for years, show where I'm wrong, SidDithers of DU.

[SidDithers]

389. I didn't say that you'd alert, octafish of DU...

Hell, I won't even alert on you for calling me a "shitheel", but someone else might.

Oh, and you're wrong every time you promote a racist, homophobe or anti-Semite as a reputable source at DU.

Sid

[Octafish]

390. Show where I've done that, otherwise it's just a smear, SidDithers of DU.

I've asked you, repeatedly over the years, to show what you term my "propensity for promoting and legitimizing the work of noted bigots, racists, homophobes and conspiracy theorist lunatics. You're a guy who thinks white-nationalist Paul Craig Roberts and insane homophobe Wayne Madsen are credible, and appropriate sources for use on a progressive message board."

Seeing how you fail to actually show any of that, I want these to be in the record for all DU to see:

Where I quoted Roberts when he supported Don Siegelman:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022073759


Where I quoted Madsen recently to document the business links between Bush and bin Laden:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6059251


Where I first quoted Madsen on DU2 in 2003 (earlier examples exist, but none so illustrative):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x610051


Where you smear Naomi Klein, making me think the practice is your speciality:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5318151


You will note that I did not support any theory, smear, or lie; I only posted what these people wrote. And as far I as I knew or know, none of these people are anything like what you describe, SidDithers of DU.

What's a person called who repeats something that is not true, SidDithers of DU?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6193428

[pintobean]

391. You don't know half as much as you think you do.

[Octafish]

393. So what? What do you know, pintobean?

Going from your posts, I'm still waiting to learn something worth knowing.

[Octafish]

384. So what if I write about things you don't like? Show where I'm wrong.

Writing I cite "racists and antisemites" rather than actually, you know, backing that up with examples shows exactly what kind of poster you are, NuclearDem.

[NuclearDem]

385. You've had those examples presented to you constantly.

Paul Craig Roberts has ties to white nationalist VDARE.com, and one source you cited recently was one of the early proponents of "Jews carried out 9/11." When you've used those sources, people have pointed that out to you. I know because I've seen them, and I know you know because you've responded to those posts.

That you continue to use those sources despite their bigoted ties, how do you say, "shows exactly what kind of poster you are", Octafish.

[Octafish]

387. Seeing how you fail to actually show any of that, I want this to be in the record...

Where I quoted Paul Craig Roberts, note he wrote in support of Don Siegelman:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022073759

So where am I anti-Semitic there, NuclearDem? No where, which makes your allegations nothing but a smear.

[NuclearDem]

388. "nothing but a smear."

Like clockwork.

I said you cite racists and antisemites. I didn't say you are a racist or an antisemite. The problem lies with you directing traffic to bigots.

[Octafish]

392. So you can't show where I'm a racist or an anti-Semite.

That is a lot different from what you wrote, NuclearDem.

So, to keep your smear going, you indicate I drive traffic to racist and anti-Semitic sites.

OK. Show where I do that.

[NuclearDem]

399. So you're saying you've never linked to Roberts' or Bollyn's own websites?

Because the former believes whites are under attack in this country and the latter believes in a Zionist Occupied Government.

[Octafish]

403. So, you don't have a case, NuclearDem.

Seeing how I didn't write any of that.

[Octafish]

397. So, you can't show where I wrote any of that, NuclearDem.

I'm proud of what I write on DU, NuclearDem. That's why I bother.

[SidDithers]

395. Just to be fucking clear, here...

Are you saying Paul Craig Roberts is not a racist? Or are you saying that you don't know that Paul Craig Roberts is a racist?

Are you saying Wayne Madsen is not a homophobe? Or are you saying that you don't know that Wayne Madsen is a homophobe?

Are you saying that Christopher Bollyn is not an anti-Semite? Or are you saying that you don't know that Christopher Bollyn is an anti-Semite?

All of theses writers are ones that you've promoted at DU. And yes, promoted is exactly the right fucking word, because you're not linking to them to say "look at the crazy shit these asshats are saying". You're linking to them because their words support some argument you're making or some theory you're pushing.

So which is it? I'll give you the links once you answer the question.

I just want to know which links I need to give you - the ones demonstrating that the writers you're promoting and legitimizing are racists, homophobes and anti-Semites, or the links demonstrating that you've been made aware that these writers are racists, homophobes and anti-Semites.

Sid

[Octafish]

396. Don't get mad, SidDithers.

You made the allegations about me. Show where I do any of that.

I've asked you before.

[SidDithers]

398. Answer my questions, and I'll show you...

Are you saying Paul Craig Roberts is not a racist? Or are you saying that you don't know that Paul Craig Roberts is a racist?

Are you saying Wayne Madsen is not a homophobe? Or are you saying that you don't know that Wayne Madsen is a homophobe?

Are you saying that Christopher Bollyn is not an anti-Semite? Or are you saying that you don't know that Christopher Bollyn is an anti-Semite?


There's no doubt that you've linked to these odious writers. A simple google site search will show that you've used, and defended your use, of these writers as sources. Hell, you did it again in this thread.

What's to be determined is if you promoted these writers because you didn't know they were racists, homophobes and anti-Semites, if you promoted these writers because you don't think they're racists, homophobes and anti-Semites, or if you promoted these writers because you don't care that they're racists, homophobes and anti-Semites.

I'll show you exactly what you want me to show you, when you tell me exactly what it is you want to see.

For example, if you don't think Christopher Bollyn is an anti-Semite, I'll give you links showing that Christopher Bollyn is an anti-semite. If you say you didn't know that Christopher Bollyn was an anti-Semite, I'll give you a link where you were told that Christopher Bollyn was an anti-Semite. Different links for different answers to the questions above, octafish of DU.

Sid

Sid

[Octafish]

401. Here you go, SidDithers of DU.

I've asked you, repeatedly over the years, to show what you term my "propensity for promoting and legitimizing the work of noted bigots, racists, homophobes and conspiracy theorist lunatics. You're a guy who thinks white-nationalist Paul Craig Roberts and insane homophobe Wayne Madsen are credible, and appropriate sources for use on a progressive message board."

Seeing how you fail to actually show any of that, I want these to be in the record for all DU to see:

Where I quoted Roberts when he supported Don Siegelman:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022073759


Where I quoted Madsen recently to document the business links between Bush and bin Laden:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6059251


Where I first quoted Madsen on DU2 in 2003 (earlier examples exist, but none so illustrative):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x610051


Where you smear Naomi Klein, making me think the practice is your speciality:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5318151


You will note that I did not support any theory, smear, or lie; I only posted what these people wrote. And as far I as I knew or know, none of these people are anything like what you describe, SidDithers of DU.

PS: Bookmark this thread. You must've missed the last time you spread the same smear:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026178887#post110

[SidDithers]

409. Figures...

About what I'd expect. You can't even answer a simple question.

All right. Fuck it. Here's Christopher Bollyn, 'cause he's the most recent.


Here's you linking to, and promoting, author Christopher Bollyn
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6348520

Here's the link from the ADL documenting Bollyn's anti-Semitism:
http://blog.adl.org/anti-semitism/christopher-bollyn-september-11-anti-semitism-2

Here's me, telling you Christopher Bollyn is an anti-Semite, and providing you with a link from the ADL giving evidence that Bollyn is an anti-Semite.
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6350328




As far as I can see it, there are only 4 scenarios. You can correct me if I'm wrong.

1. Maybe you didn't know Bollyn was an anti-Semite, when you linked to him. Most DUers would apologize and delete the link to the anti-Semite when made aware of that authors views.

2. Maybe you don't think Bollyn really is an anti-Semite. I can only provide a link to the ADL. I can't make you read it.

3. Maybe you know that Bollyn is an anti-Semite, but you don't care.

4. Maybe you know Bollyn is an anti-Semite, and you share his views.


Personally, I believe that scenario 3 is the truth.


Want me to do the same with Paul Craig Roberts and Wayne Madsen? Or is one example enough for you?

Note to the inevitable jurors. Octafish is asking for documentation. I'm providing it in response to his request, not as a call-out.

Sid

[Octafish]

410. I notice you're goading me on by repeating the same falsehoods, SidDithers of DU.

Are you trying to get me angry so I post something you can Alert on?

That is a bullying tactic.

[SidDithers]

412. What's the falsehood, octafish of DU?...

Do you deny that you linked to and promoted Christopher Bollyn? That's not false, because the proof is right here:
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6348520


Is it false that Christopher Bollyn is an anti-Semite? Maybe, but not according to the ADL:
http://blog.adl.org/anti-semitism/christopher-bollyn-september-11-anti-semitism-2


Is it false that you know of Bollyn's anti-Semitic views? Nope, you were made aware of Bollyn's anti-Semitic views right here:
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6350328


So, where's the falsehood octafish?



Sid

[Octafish]

415. Keep repeating that, SidDithers of DU. It doesn't change your smear.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026398318#post401

OT Question: Want to know why I like to make certain you are identified as SidDithers of DU?

Answer: I respect SidDithers of SCTV.

[SidDithers]

417. Keep dodging, Octafish of DU...

And when you continue to promote anti-Semitic, or homophobic, or racist writers at DU, I'll show just what kind of people you think are credible.

Every. Single. Time.

Sid

[Octafish]

419. Show where I ''promote anti-Semitic, or homophobic, or racist writers at DU.''

If you could, you would.

But you can't, so you don't.

"Trolling is a art.'' -- SidDithers of DU.

[SidDithers]

420. Oh FFS...

I just did, but I'll do it yet again.

Christopher Bollyn is an anti-Semite.
http://blog.adl.org/anti-semitism/christopher-bollyn-september-11-anti-semitism-2

Here you are promoting and legitimizing him at DU:
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6348520


Amazing that you pretend that these links haven't already been provided to you.

Sid

[Octafish]

421. Roll your eyes, too, for added effect.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6193428

[SidDithers]

423. Still dodging...

In #410, you accused me of posting a falsehood, octafish of DU.

Where's the falsehood?

You promoted an anti-Semitic writer at DU. You were made aware that the writer is an anti-Semite, and given proof of his anti-Semtism.

All of those statements are absolutely true.


Sid

[Octafish]

424. You wrote I promoted them, which is not true, SidDithers of DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026089110#post60

It's like a habit with you.

[SidDithers]

425. You're absolutely promoting and legitimizing them...

Own it.

Sid

[Octafish]

426. That is not true, SidDithers of DU. Why do you continue to repeat it?

And how do you find the time?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022073759#post52

It adds up to years of your life. Interesting obsession, in a way.

[SidDithers]

427. It is true, octafish. Why do you continue to deny it?...

You're linking to these authors because their opinions support a position you're taking.

You're promoting their opinions, excusing their racism or anti-Semitism, and legitimizing them.

An author like like Christopher Bollyn has no place at a progressive messageboard. His anti-Semitism disqualifies him.

But you promote him, despite his odious views.

Own it.

Sid

[Octafish]

431. Poor you. I own what I post. What do you own?

I stand behind what I post, which is why I bother to reply to you. Odd how you have to repeat a smear on a subthread which should be of no concern to you, but you keep showing up like clockwork. I've asked you about your persistence over the years.

As for what you "own," or "add to the discussion," that requires facilities with which you seem to have extensive familiarity but I can not discern. Like when I ask you to show where you actually contribute to discussion about the BFEE.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023849451#post35

[zappaman]

432. you "own" what you post?

so you "own" the fact that you continually use hateful, anti-semite and/or homophobic sources?

Here's you using Paul Craig Roberts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022073759#post44

He's done fundraising for racist hate site VDare.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070208212620/http://www.vdare.com/appeals/072506_pcr.htm

This is from his positive review of Pat Buchanan's book, "Death of the West"...

But the most fearsome fact is that the demonization of white people in the universities today is more extreme than the demonization of the Jews that was a prominent feature of German university life for 60 years prior to the rise of National Socialism.

Demonization of whites is the weapon used by multiculturalists to breakup western civilization. But teaching hatred has other consequences. Demonization has already demoralized some whites, making them ashamed and fearful of their skin color.

By the time whites become political minorities, decades of demonization will have prepared the ground for legislation prohibiting their propagation and, perhaps, assigning them to the gulag as a final solution to “the cancer of human history.”

http://web.archive.org/web/20110719200202/http://www.vdare.com/roberts/west_future.htm

But enough about him, how about Wayne Madsen, another piece of shit you like to link to, whom the Nation describes as a rightwing journalist?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6057873

Here's good ole Wayne telling us Obama leads a secret gay life.

Or right-wing journalist Wayne Madsen, whose eponymous newsletter is the source on Obama’s visits to the bath house and who revealed how Obama used basketball pickup games to pick up men. Obama, Madsen says, had homosexual trysts with Representative Artur Davis, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and Senate majority leader Bill Frist!

http://www.thenation.com/article/170787/whats-behind-rights-obama-gay-conspiracy#

He's also good buddies with Jerome Corsi. Nice, huh?

Like some more examples of you promoting the writings of anti-semites? Ok!
Here you are posting an article that relies n Israel Shamir as a source...
http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5888050

Shamir claims to be a renegade Russian Jew, born in Novosibirsk, but currently adhering to the Greek Orthodox church. He is notorious for Holocaust denial and publishing a string of antisemitic articles. He caused controversy in the UK in 2005, at a parliamentary book launch hosted by Lord Ahmed, by claiming: "Jews … own, control and edit a big share of mass media."

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jan/31/wikileaks-holocaust-denier-handled-moscow-cables

Here's you linking to a banned anti-Semitic troll where you refer to him as "a great DUer"...
http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5888735

I could provide more examples if you'd like.
But in every instance, you were told your sources were "questionable", yet you don't seem to give a shit.

So, will you "own" this?

[Octafish]

434. Tag Team is so second banana, zappaman.

Where I quoted Roberts when he supported Don Siegelman:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022073759


Where I quoted Madsen recently to document the business links between Bush and bin Laden:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6059251


Where I first quoted Madsen on DU2 in 2003 (earlier examples exist, but none so illustrative):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x610051


Going from your writings, zappaman, I can't think of a single thing of yours I'd want to own.

[zappaman]

458. Yes, I knew you would not own your use of anti-Semites and homophobes.

You never do.

[SidDithers]

438. It's absolutely amazing that he denies promoting these writers...

when there's link after link after link showing him doing exactly that.

Sid

[tammywammy]

442. He's okay with posting them as long as they back up whatever theory he's promoting.

Because well that specific article isn't anti-Semitic or homophobic so it's okay for him to use.

At least he "owns" his use of anti-Semitic and homophobic authors.

[Octafish]

453. How'd you find this subthread?

How is it you wrote almost the same thing SidDithers of DU wrote?

What are the odds?

[tammywammy]

460. It's an open public discussion board.

You can note I posted a reply in this thread days ago. This morning I was curious on why it was back up on the first page of GD. I read it. I replied.

I can't help it if both Sid and I have similar ideas about your motivations for continued linking to anti-Semitic and homophobic persons that happen to support whatever theory you're pushing.

[Octafish]

462. Thanks! That's logical.

What theory am I pushing here? I wanted post on Fukushima, apart from having to defend myself from the varied mischaracterizations of my writings and positions.

[Octafish]

479. ''Link after link,'' as in your link saying the same thing.

For instance, I quoted Paul Craig Roberts in regards to Don Siegelman:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022073759#post44

Here's what it says, in its entirety:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True to your form, I do find you critical of me for quoting Paul Craig Roberts. Here's what he wrote about the subject you avoid:

Going to Jail for Being a Democrat: How Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman Got Roved

Once a popular governor of Alabama, Siegelman was framed in a crooked trial and sent to prison by the corrupt Bush administration.

By Paul Craig Roberts
CounterPunch, via AlterNet
March 2, 2008

Don Siegelman, a popular Democratic governor of Alabama, a Republican state, was framed in a crooked trial, convicted on June 29, 2006, and sent to Federal prison by the corrupt and immoral Bush administration.

The frame-up of Siegelman and businessman Richard Scrushy is so crystal clear and blatant that 52 former state attorney generals from across America, both Republicans and Democrats, have urged the US Congress to investigate the Bush administration's use of the US Department of Justice to rid themselves of a Democratic governor who "they could not beat fair and square," according to Grant Woods, former Republican Attorney General of Arizona and co-chair of the McCain for President leadership committee. Woods says that he has never seen a case with so "many red flags pointing to injustice."

The abuse of American justice by the Bush administration in order to ruin Siegelman is so crystal clear that even the corporate media organization CBS allowed "60 Minutes" to broadcast on February 24, 2008, a damning indictment of the railroading of Siegelman. Extremely coincidental "technical difficulties" caused WHNT, the CBS station covering the populous northern third of Alabama, to go black during the broadcast. The station initially offered a lame excuse of network difficulties that CBS in New York denied. The Republican-owned print media in Alabama seemed to have the inside track on every aspect of the prosecution's case against Siegelman. You just have to look at their editorials and articles following the 60 Minutes broadcast to get a taste of what counts for "objective journalism" in their mind.

The injustice done by the US Department of Justice (sic) to Siegelman is so crystal clear that a participant in Karl Rove's plan to destroy Siegelman can't live with her conscience. Jill Simpson, a Republican lawyer who did opposition research for Rove, testified under oath to the House Judiciary Committee and went public on "60 Minutes." Simpson said she was told by Bill Canary, the most important GOP campaign advisor in Alabama, that "my girls can take care of Siegelman."

Canary's "girls" are two US Attorneys in Alabama, both appointed by President Bush. One is Bill Canary's wife, Leura Canary. The other is Alice Martin. According to Harper's Scott Horton,a law professor at Columbia University, Martin is known for abusive prosecutions.

CONTINUED...

http://www.alternet.org/story/78407/going_to_jail_for_being_a_democrat%3A_how_alabama_gov._don_siegelman_got_roved

That was way back in 2008. Note how Paul Craig Roberts made clear the criminality of the Bush justice department in framing Gov. Siegelman.

Which reminds me when the subject of Don Siegelman comes up on DU, you have added zero, siddithers of DU.

[FBaggins]

439. You misunderstand what "own" means in this context

It really means that he'll stick by it no matter how ridiculous it seems... while pretending that he has nothing to be embarrassed about.

[SidDithers]

436. Obviously, you don't own it...

otherwise you'd take responsibility for your promotion of racists, anti-Semites and homophobes at DU.

Sid

[stevenleser]

402. It seems at least three other people beat me to it. nt

[Octafish]

404. So what? Tag Team.

Show where I posted something in error, I'll be happy to correct my mistake.

Seeing how you don't, stevenleser, that tells me where your mind is at.

[NuclearDem]

405. I've three out of the four.

What you'll do is you'll accuse any poster stupid enough to take this bait of smearing you, tag-teaming with other posters to smear you, or of deflecting from "real issues" (actually, you seem to have started on that already), and then proceed to post completely unrelated stories trying to tie everyone back to Umgar the Caveman to the BFEE.

Just need a BFEE link and I've got Bullshit Bingo.

[Octafish]

407. Remind me where you've contributed anything on this thread about Fukushima.

I can't find it.

[NuclearDem]

411. Neither have you.

You've contributed absolutely nothing new or relevant.

[Octafish]

413. Disagree. While I've spent a lot of time defending myself from your baseless accusations...

...I did address the question:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026398318#post188

Here's something else readers might appreciate:

From Greg Palast*

Fukushima: They Knew

This month marks the 3rd Anniversary of the Fukushima Nuclear disaster.

By Greg Palast for FreePress.org
Monday, March 10, 2014

EXCERPT...

I was ready to vomit. Because I knew who had designed the plant, who had built it and whom Tokyo Electric Power was having rebuild it: Shaw Construction. The latest alias of Stone & Webster, the designated builder for every one of the four new nuclear plants that the Obama Administration has approved for billions in federal studies.

But I had The Notebook, the diaries of the earthquake inspector for the company. I'd squirreled it out sometime before the Trade Center went down. I shouldn't have done that. Too bad.

All field engineers keep a diary. Gordon Dick, a supervisor, wasn’t sup- posed to show his to us. I asked him to show it to us and, reluctantly, he directed me to these notes about the “SQ” tests.

SQ is nuclear-speak for “Seismic Qualification.” A seismically qualified nuclear plant won’t melt down if you shake it. A “seismic event” can be an earthquake or a Christmas present from Al Qaeda. You can’t run a nuclear reactor in the USA or Europe or Japan without certified SQ.

This much is clear from his notebook: This nuclear plant will melt down in an earthquake. The plant dismally failed to meet the Seismic I (shaking) standards required by U.S. and international rules.

Here’s what we learned: Dick’s subordinate at the nuclear plant, Robert Wiesel, conducted the standard seismic review. Wiesel flunked his company. No good. Dick then ordered Wiesel to change his report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, change it from failed to passed. Dick didn’t want to make Wiesel do it, but Dick was under the gun himself, acting on direct command from corporate chiefs. From The Notebook:

Wiesel was very upset. He seemed very nervous. Very agitated. [He said,] “I believe these are bad results and I believe it’s reportable,” and then he took the volume of federal regulations from the shelf and went to section 50.55(e), which describes reportable deficiencies at a nuclear plant and [they] read the section together, with Wiesel pointing to the appropriate paragraphs that federal law clearly required [them and the company] to report the Category II, Seismic I deficiencies.

Wiesel then expressed his concern that he was afraid that if he [Wiesel] reported the deficiencies, he would be fired, but that if he didn’t report the deficiencies, he would be breaking a federal law. . . .

CONTINUED...

http://www.gregpalast.com/fukushima-they-knew-3/

Which is why TEPCO, Japan, Nuke Inc and the USA went out of their way the other day to play up the tsunami's role:

Tsunami, not Quake, Seen as Main Cause of Fukushima Accident

by Mari Iwata
Wall Street Journal, Oct. 8, 2014

Japan’s nuclear regulator said Wednesday that the tsunami following the March 11, 2011, earthquake–not the quake itself–was the main cause of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

The conclusion matters because of the implications for other nuclear-power plants. Virtually all of Japan is prone to earthquakes, but some places are relatively protected from tsunamis. Currently all of the nation’s 48 reactors are offline, and the government is weighing whether to restart some next year.

In the March 2011 nuclear accident, three reactors melted down after the plant lost main and backup power, paralyzing cooling systems.

The Nuclear Regulation Authority studied why the No.1 reactor lost backup power and concluded on Wednesday in a report that the tsunami was the main cause, based on data about temperature, pressure and other parameters. Those data were stable immediately after the earthquake hit at 2:46 p.m., suggesting the plant didn’t suffer critical damage until the arrival of the tsunami some 45 minutes later.

A previous investigation by Japan’s parliament had left more room for the possibility that the earthquake itself did significant damage.

The regulator said it would translate the report into English and post it on its website. The Japanese-language version is here.

“You cannot say there was no damage by the earthquake at all. But you can say the major cause was the tsunami, looking at the data,” said Tamotsu Kozaki, a nuclear engineering professor of the Hokkaido University.

CONTINUED...

http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2014/10/08/tsunami-not-quake-seen-as-main-cause-of-fukushima-accident/

Which is not what the scientists said, way back when they were warning TEPCO, which elected to take the cheapskate's way out.



Here's a bit to add to the atomic pile:

Masanobu Shishikura: The Man Who Predicted the Tsunami in 2009.

British scientist 'predicted nuclear power station problem'

Toshiaki Sakai: Utility Engineer Warned of Tsunami Threat at Japanese Nuclear Plant in 2007

Apart from venting hot air in committee meetings, TEPCO did nothing, and hoped for the best. Isn't that how you roll, NuclearDem?

[stevenleser]

406. Tag team? I'm not allowed to sleep, and if I do, and someone else answers, it's a "tag team"?

This is how accusations of imaginary bullying and "tag-teaming" start.

This is a discussion forum with a ton of people on it. Multiple responses to posts is to be expected.

[Octafish]

408. Right...''imaginary bullying.''

So, what have you to say about Fukushima?

[stevenleser]

414. I'm losing track of the discussion you have changed the subject and moved the goalposts so many

times.

I've already told you my position on whether Nadin scored some big scoop on Fukushima. I've also sent you links showing that two days after the Tsunami, the Japanese Government and TEPCO were saying that reactor #3 had likely melted down.

[Octafish]

416. You accused me, ''that person'' as one who never admits being wrong.

I asked you to show me where I was wrong and you didn't. If pointing that out confuses you, I can't help you.

[stevenleser]

418. Correct. You don't admit it. You fall back to accusations of bullying/tag teaming or you change the

subject or move the goal posts. You have done that several times now under this OP alone.

[Octafish]

422. If that were true, there'd be no need to get personal.

Going back over our posting history, I have yet to find a single example where you correct me on a matter of fact.

If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to admit it. The thing is, you haven't shown where.

[FBaggins]

440. Why don't you instead show us where you HAVE admitted to being wrong?

Don't worry. I doubt that anyone will hold their breath waiting.

[Octafish]

444. Do you have an example?

Then you don't really have anything, but you knew that, FBaggins.

[FBaggins]

446. I've given you several.

You failed each test... and likely will again on the last one - without ever defending your position beyond claiming that you were actually correct.

[Octafish]

448. Where you failed to comprehend TEPCO said PLUTONIUM ''is not a health risk to humans''?

Here's where I first brought it up on DU, March 28, 2011:

"It is not a health risk to humans." -- http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Octafish/778

That was less than 3 weeks after the triple meltdown at Fukushima NPP.

Can you imagine how you'd now be if you'd been responding to that all these years?

[FBaggins]

450. That one proves you wrong as well.

Some plutonium found in soil on the grounds of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant may have come from its earthquake-damaged reactors, but it poses no human health risk, the plant's owners reported Monday.

4th grade grammar would have taught you that the pronoun "it" clearly refers not to an imagined "plutonium in general"... but "some plutonium found in soil".

The post just below that that you'll have trouble with makes clear where your problem is here. Since you think that it only takes a few atoms for the stuff to be deadly, you can't see any logical space between "plutonium in general" and a specific find of plutonium. Heck... it takes MANY more than "a few" atoms just to be able to detect the stuff, so obviously you assume that if it can be detected, it's dangerous... and thus if Tepco is saying that a detectable amount is NOT dangerous... they much be claiming that the substance itself poses no danger.

The problem of course is that your foundational understanding was flat wrong, and you still can't come to grips with it.

[Octafish]

454. No need to be insulting. You forgot the link.

I'd appreciate it if you'd hold the condescension for TEPCO, they're the ones who said "it poses no health risk to humans" after Reactor 3 blew up.

[FBaggins]

455. That wasn't insulting, it was giving you the benefit of the doubt

I was trying to come up with some rational basis for how you could continue to be so wrong. The misunderstanding of how toxic the stuff is combined with your penchant for not accepting error provided me a way to connect the two without this being intentional deception on your part.

Or did you mean the 4th grade comment? That's not me calling you a 4th grader. That just happens to be about the point where we learn that you that the antecedent gives the pronoun its meaning, not something outside the context of the sentence that you get to make up on your own. But that doesn't mean you're a 4th grader. Some people still get that wrong on the SATs... some people never seem to get it. 4th grade is just when you should have learned it.

[FBaggins]

449. Here's an easy one

In post 12 you claim that plutonium is so dangerous that ingesting just a few atoms will kill you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4793340

[FBaggins]

466. Another easy one

You must have gotten distracted and just missed the last one by accident. Right? I think that's what must have happened the last couple times that you refused to accept the error.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4867792

This is a disaster of unimaginable magnitude. Tons of cesium-137 and plutonium-238 released in the meltdowns, explosions and destroyed spent fuel tanks.

Please select the largest estimated release from any credible source and tell me how much cesium and plutonium that represents in tons.

[hrmjustin]

287. I miss Nadine and hear from her from time to time.

But I understand why she felt her time here was done.

[tkmorris]

305. This thread, and it's 186 recs, is the saddest thing I've ever seen on DU

Have you people forgotten Nadin completely? Does no one remember the ridiculous claims she would make and then BURN WITH FIRE anyone who pointed out that what she was claiming simply wasn't possible? Does no one recall how she claimed to be an expert on everything from Disaster Response to Marine Science (and everything in between) even though she she never knew the first thing about any of those topics?

How about the time she insisted that over 6 feet of hail had fallen on a city in Mexico, but we never knew it because our media wouldn't report it? Not "crunchy" enough she would say. Her ignore list grew by twenty that day at least. Oh, yes, that was the thread where she insisted that there were 60cm in a meter. All while holding herself forth as the Science expert.

Or how about breathlessly reporting that a wind turbine had tossed one of it's blades a mile away? It was of course shown to her to be impossible but all she did was snarl at anyone who suggested otherwise, then decided to argue instead that wind farms cause cancer. Somehow.

Then there was the time she declared that an armed revolution was clearly underway in Mexico because she COULDN'T COMPLETE A FUCKING PHONE CALL.

There are quite literally dozens of example like these. Hell, most of you were here; you know it's true.

She posted here at DU for a long time and yes, there were a few posters who, after reading mountains of her journalistic stylings, were less than kind in telling her that they found her opinions to be a little light on logic. I wasn't one of those, but I can certainly understand why she irritated people the way she did. Praising her now, for being right about Fukushima (which she wasn't BTW), makes me wonder if some folks aren't engaging in reminiscing through rose-colored glasses. Or beer goggles.

[pintobean]

310. Jay Polk, Michelle's dress, Maddow's reporting

Massive self-deletes. Constant attacks on mods, hosts, juries, admin, and DU as a whole.

Yet, when she made constructive posts, that were free of snark and condescension, she got support and recs from nearly everyone, even those on her special iggy list. It's a shame that those were few and far between, because she was capable of some good stuff.

[joshcryer]

313. Jury results:

On Mon Mar 23, 2015, 09:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Jay Polk, Michelle's dress, Maddow's reporting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6406962

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Massive self-deletes. Constant attacks on mods, hosts, juries, admin, and DU as a whole. " personal attack against the OP (malaise). Please hide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 23, 2015, 09:58 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster is talking about Nadin, not OP. Stop fake alerting alerter. Late night jury though, coin toss, congrats if you get a hide.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This and the post it replies to are attacks against Nadin, who has absented herself from the forum. I think that's bad form. This is not an attack on malaise, so I suspect the alert will fail.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[FBaggins]

315. What an odd alert

I don't see how it can be read as a personal attack on Nadin...let alone the OP

It ess an accurate description of her behavior... including some of her redeeming qualities. It wasn't flattering to be sure, but it wasn't a personal attack.

[pintobean]

317. I guess the alerter was hoping for

four idiots and/or people who are as filled with as much hate as the alerter appears to be.

Did you see the results up-thread? The alerter said I should STFU.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026398318#post85

[SidDithers]

320. I got called a "motherfucker" in the alert on my post...

On Sun Mar 22, 2015, 04:29 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

nadin said lots of things about Fukushima...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6399375

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Yeah, the usual impotent alert on this poster, who can never do anything wrong at DU. But sometimes you just gotta alert on this bullying motherfucker.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 22, 2015, 04:37 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Love the alert, but I'm afraid the post itself isn't really a personal attack on nadin, so I must regretfully vote to leave it.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attack
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Very personal attack--inappropriate for DU.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Who is he bullying? The person doesn't post here anymore. And even if she did, it's not over the top. Things like this are said everyday to DU'ers. The alerter of this needs to be looked at because the last part of the alerting is definitely over the top. I hope this gets alerted to admin. Leave this.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: When you can't make a case against a bullying attack without a bullying attack, I'm gonna hit the don't hide button.

Sid

[pintobean]

322. I'd rather be a "motherfucker"

than an "impotent" alerter.

I hope at least one of the jurors alerted on that impotent, abusive, alerter.

Great stuff, though. Thanks for sharing.

[Brickbat]

319. Jay Polk. A classic.

The non-denial denial.

[joshcryer]

311. I didn't have a problem with them.

Sometimes people post hyperbole or exaggerate, I don't have a problem with that, because humans tend to do things like that without realizing it. I know I have been caught doing that in a lot of instances. I regret it when I go overboard. It is what it is.

[FSogol]

318. +1. LOL n/t

[treestar]

323. +1 thank you

The idea of her as a victim of bullying is absurd. She was the one who made things unpleasant as soon as you argued any point. I recall not even arguing directly, just suggesting a question. She said, "I am done with you" and then started posting about me with another poster.

You recall more in detail what she was like. I remember the wind turbine thing. Eventually we were laughing about how absurd it was. I guess that's supposed to be "bullying" her.

[tammywammy]

327. I got put on the "iggy" list during the 60cm = 1 meter kerfuffle.

Asking for any kind of proof of 4 feet of hail got you on the list.

And how can anyone forget the Jay Polk incident? A special ops admitting he was in Syria and was killed in action. Based off a freaking Facebook post. The non-denial denial from his command.

And don't forget the spoiler alert fiasco when she started labeling all her posts "spoiler".

[stevenleser]

332. I wish it were more uncommon that nonsense is celebrated here by a certain group.

If one's posts go in the general direction that group wants to see, it doesn't matter how ridiculous or unsupported it is, or how many folks chime in to provide facts with links that contradict it completely, it gets rec'd and celebrated.

Your post, and Pintobean's response are right on regarding Nadin's contributions here on DU. And she did all of what you note, while being completely arrogant about being right in every case. Even when folks responded with tons of evidence that she was wrong, she steadfastly refused to acknowledge it and either put those folks who responded on ignore or belittled them.

When more and more people caught on to her act and would respond to challenge her problematic statements and assumptions, she, and some of her defenders characterized it as "bullying".

Tons of folks commented to her that her unsupported statements and behaviors were an issue and she refused to acknowledge it. Finally, in response to a post to the admins, Skinner himself said that the issue was her inability to get along with fellow DUers http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=2641 . He rarely does that, so for her to have elicited that kind of a response from him shows that her behavior was really problematic.

[rhett o rick]

348. You are trying to prove she deserved being bullied. Really? Granted a large number

of posters here thought she exaggerated her stories, but that's not an excuse for ganging up and ridiculing her. And you are using Skinner's statement as your justification. I doubt that's what he intended.

I am curious what you think that continued ridicule would accomplish. What is the goal? Drive the person off the site? Teach them to think like you? Seriously, what could be the goal for mocking posters?

[stevenleser]

350. No, that is your strawman. nt

[rhett o rick]

361. Strawman? Let's look at what you said.

"When more and more people caught on to her act and would respond to challenge her problematic statements and assumptions, she, and some of her defenders characterized it as "bullying"." If she was doing something that violated the TOS or CS then alerts were in order. However, she posted information that apparently you and a group of others (always the same posters) saw as exaggerated and necessary to "challenge her problematic statements and assumptions" (can't type that with a straight face). Now I can see justification to "challenge problematic statements and assumptions", but when a group of 6 to 8 individuals continue to "challenge" repeatedly from post to post and thread to thread, it becomes bullying. I think you know what bullying is but you think there are times when it's appropriate and maybe even needed (to punish certain behavior). I've asked this before but yet to get an answer. What do you see as the desired outcome from ridicule and mocking? Or continued "challenge her problematic statements and assumptions". What is the intent? Trying to teach someone to change their behavior? Maybe run them off as if they were a scourge?

[stevenleser]

363. I know what I said. And it is not what you said that I said. nt

[malaise]

368. Precisely

[FBaggins]

371. Ah... I think I "get it" now

It isn't ignorance of what occured at the time...

... it's that neither of you understand what the word "bullying" means.

[rhett o rick]

373. I am fully aware of what "bullying" is and a number of other posters have commented on the

bullying. I have talked to a few other people, mostly females that have been victims here. Some stayed or came back and some left. I would love for you to tell them that they don't know what the word means.

[stevenleser]

378. Correct. "Bullying" to them means a lot of people disagreeing with them or one of their friends.

You're not allowed to point out problems with their positions or logic. That's bullying.

[hrmjustin]

362. Talk about the thread that never ends.

[Gothmog]

380. I opened this thread hoping to see a response by Nadine

She was posting on DI with me for a while and she was great

[hrmjustin]

400. I talked to Nadine the other day.

She is fine and misses her friends.

[Gothmog]

428. Thanks

I miss Nadine. For a while she was active and very effective on DI

[hrmjustin]

429. I don't see her coming back.

It is possible but I doubt It. She is doing well with her job and she is happy.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

467. I am in touch with her too and I agree. nt

[hrmjustin]

468. I am glad she is doing well and pursuing her career and hobbies with vivigor.

She sends me her articles from time to time.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

469. Me too, hrmjustin :) nt

[Bonobo]

367. Mega Thread and I still don't see what she was so right about...?

Where is this earth shattering revelation that she made that was not already being discussed everywhere?

Can someone just post a link already?

[FBaggins]

372. Nor will you

This is a pretty standard M.O. of the anti-nuke fringe (which is not to be taken to refer to the large number of regular DUers who just happen to oppose nuclear power on more rational grounds). I can't tell you how many times over the years one of them will try to score points by claiming that I was "wrong all along" on Fukushima... or that I claimed that western reactors couldn't melt down... (or similar).

I've always been able to say that I'm open to taking responsibility for my errors if they would just point to the actual posts... and never once have I received such evidence. This, of course, is because it happened only in their own fevered imaginations.

I doubt very seriously that Nadin ever made a post claiming that Fukushima Unit 1 had melted down - while other DUers disagreed with her. I therefore doubt that you will ever be presented with evidence of same.

[leveymg]

376. You were never worth the trouble to research, Baggins.

But always an indispensable guide to nuclear industry talking points and data. Thank you for continuing to work this board - good enemies, and all that.

[FBaggins]

443. Some people apparently don't think that their credibility is worth it either

Why debate actual positions (particularly when they don't support your argument) when it's so much easier to build strawmen instead?

Here's what a mere five minutes found as some examples:

Less than five months after the accident - you were predicting that things would get much worse and they would have to evacuate a larger area - and that the area will have to be abandoned for agriculture for years... yet agriculture wasn't abandoned and hasn't had significant problems (the rice crop for even the following harvest was barely impacted at all).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4943771

Just a couple years ago you were still holding on to the hope that no new reactors would be build in the US... yet five are under construction and there's every indication that SMRs are on the way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112735085#post3

Likely one of the classics (and so topical for this conversation) was your defense of Arnie Gudersen's errors. Somehw you never got around to backing up the claim then that pro-nukes denied meltdowns were possible and Arnie knew what he was talking about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112721525#post27

[leveymg]

470. It appears I was mostly right about what was happening, Baggins, and you got it wrong.

I seem to recall you were among a a group of meltdown deniers at the time, and that group also was in denial about the inevitability of escape and dispersal of highly radioactive steam and water. As for your assertion that five additional reactors will go on line in the coming years, those are permits, and even if they were all built that is a fraction of those that will be decommissioned during the same period. As for point three, see my response to number one, above.

You're defending the Eastern Front, and it's only a matter of time before it's over.

[FBaggins]

471. Your memory is lousy

As apparently may be your reading comprehension. You seriously compare your statements on those three threads to what actually happened and think "looks like I was mostly right"?

Now I'm really stuck I can't figure out whether the problem is memory... or math skills ("mostly&quot ... or reading comprehension... or just grasp of reality. * (Yes - these are all jabs meant in fun - you were actually one of the less-irrational on the subject at the time - I remember a number of decent arguments... just not these).

I seem to recall you were among a group of meltdown deniers at the time,

Your memory is flat wrong. I was in fact among the first to label it as such.

and that group also was in denial about the inevitability of escape and dispersal of highly radioactive steam and water

But... of course... you're entirely comfortable making that claim yet again without any evidence despite being called on it... because it's just not worth your time to back it up... right?

Steam/gases were inevitable once they couldn't keep the cores covered... water leaks were only slightly less probable (and that ended with explosions). The stuff I was denying was the likelihood of total containment failure (the core escaping), or Chernobyl-like core explosions, fires, etc.), or any real likelihood of ongoing criticality restarting. All of which was correct.

As for your assertion that five additional reactors will go on line in the coming years, those are permits,

They're units under active construction, not just permits. Construction is essentially complete on the first of the five and it's undergoing testing (pressure, etc.) with initial fuel loading expected this summer.

even if they were all built that is a fraction of those that will be decommissioned during the same period.

That remains to be seen, but would hardly be a surprise given the age of the existing fleet. What does that have to do with whether new units are being built?

You're defending the Eastern Front, and it's only a matter of time before it's over.

You're living in a fantasy world and it's only a matter of time before you'll have to return to reality.

[JEB]

377. You can't see it, and you can't smell it either

[randome]

430. .

Someone! Please think of the children!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Jamastiene]

451. nadinbrzezinski has been right about a lot of things.

K&R for nadinbrzezinski

[FBaggins]

456. True... and some of them were even about Fukushima

But they were almost exclusively times when she was pointing out that RobertEarl's fantasies were too nutty for even her tastes.