So me, like many others, have pretty much moved on from caring Fukushima. Japan's recent strong economy and Yen is getting cheaper, it's no wonder why Hong Kong travelers are all leaving to visit Japan at a record high in years.
But hear me out on this: Don't go to Japan.
It pains me to say this because it had always been a dream of mine to go to Japan, I loved anime since I was in primary school and my dad broke a promise and so even now I haven't been to Japan. And since the incident is pretty much quiet down, I thought I might travel to Japan sometime with my friends.
A few days ago, my dad came home after his evening class.
He told me that of one horrible news: His class mate's cousin traveled to Japan while she was pregnant a few months ago. They went to Tokyo where most consider is safe. Her baby is found out to be missing an ear when she gave birth.
Malformations are fairly common and that whale thing was found washed up in Mexico. Radiation levels in some parts of Japan are concerning and I would make sure to get informed before travel, but I want to remind everybody that radiation is made out to be this scary thing because it's misunderstood.
This might be an interesting video to watch. It's made by a physicist/university teacher. He's controversial and kind of a dick about many social issues but I think he knows them sciences. The danger is overhyped.
hmm I understand your concern but it's also possible that her child had a major malformation which still happen in ike 2% of the pop or something(if I recall correctly). I don't think you can point to her going to Japan and then say her child was missing an ear due to it. That's not really proof that it's due to radiation.
On January 16 2014 13:43 lichter wrote: None of the things you posted can be directly linked to the Fukushima incident. Purely anecdotal evidence hardly means anything.
I've been to Japan thrice since the incident, albeit in the Kansai area, and I haven't developed superpowers yet
You became a writer for TL. That's a major power up
On January 16 2014 13:43 lichter wrote: None of the things you posted can be directly linked to the Fukushima incident. Purely anecdotal evidence hardly means anything.
I've been to Japan thrice since the incident, albeit in the Kansai area, and I haven't developed superpowers yet
that's the problem, you should have developed superpowers now! You might be a more lucky one, or maybe the short term exposure is not as powerful on you as an adult. no, but all seriously, take care. The problem of radiation is that once it enters your body, I don't think you can ever remove it.
I know it is hard to prove when it comes to long term effects as the Chernobyl has shown. But I am really worried. Japan is so inactive on these issues, the Japanese yoshinoya actually is using rice that is planted in Fukushima. who can be sure their exports are being monitored properly D:
On January 16 2014 13:43 lichter wrote: None of the things you posted can be directly linked to the Fukushima incident. Purely anecdotal evidence hardly means anything.
I've been to Japan thrice since the incident, albeit in the Kansai area, and I haven't developed superpowers yet
that's the problem, you should have developed superpowers now! You might be a more lucky one, or maybe the short term exposure is not as powerful on you as an adult. no, but all seriously, take care. The problem of radiation is that once it enters your body, I don't think you can ever remove it.
I know it is hard to prove when it comes to long term effects as the Chernobyl has shown. But I am really worried. Japan is so inactive on these issues, the Japanese yoshinoya actually is using rice that is planted in Fukushima. who can be sure their exports are being monitored properly D:
I don't buy much Japanese products but you raise a good point. They should be more proactive in containing the radiation if that's the problem. I think there will be problems long term but who knows just how bad it would be.
It's scary that 300 tons of radioactive water are leaking into the Pacific per day. Did the plume that was supposed to reach California by 2014 get there yet?
This isn't a problem that is local to Japan, either, like Chernobyl was, because the Fukushima plant was on the ocean. Edit: I was mistaken, Chernobyl was not a local problem. Thank you for addressing this. The ocean is global, so it seems like a global catastrophe that is just getting worse the longer the problem goes unsolved.
What's to be done? I suppose we will all die of cancer from being irradiated?
I would imagine that the radiation had little to do with the child's deformation. You note that she was pregnant before going to Japan, and I cannot imagine that her stay was extended. It is more likely that it is by chance that such a thing happened.
I first thought this was satire, but in case anybody in here are actually serious:
Future cancer deaths from accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima are predicted to be elevated for certain types of cancers such as leukemia, solid cancers, thyroid cancer and breast cancer.
Estimated effective doses from the accident outside of Japan are considered to be below (or far below) the dose levels regarded as very small by the international radiological protection community.
If your father's cousin's hairdresser's stepsister actually had her child damaged by radiation from staying in Tokyo, it would be of extreme interest to the scientific community.
Are you seriously trying to insinuate that a short stay in Tokyo led to a malformation in child development? Are you joking? Have you even thought that if that was actually true there would be hundreds of thousands of deformed infants throughout Japan right now? This is so ignorant and sensational that it's just absurd.
On January 16 2014 15:37 koreasilver wrote: Are you seriously trying to insinuate that a short stay in Tokyo led to a malformation in child development? Are you joking? Have you even thought that if that was actually true there would be hundreds of thousands of deformed infants throughout Japan right now? This is so ignorant and sensational that it's just absurd.
cmon, he's just trying to raise awareness of the issue or at least remind us that it's not over yet although I do agree that there is no correlation between the two.
On January 16 2014 15:37 koreasilver wrote: Are you seriously trying to insinuate that a short stay in Tokyo led to a malformation in child development? Are you joking? Have you even thought that if that was actually true there would be hundreds of thousands of deformed infants throughout Japan right now? This is so ignorant and sensational that it's just absurd.
While I am not really entirely sure about that particular child case, I don't know how much it would take to make the infant in the womb deform, all I know is that she has been drinking water which is radio active, the food is likely to be radio active and everywhere has a stronger radiation than the nature rate.
Either way, I just want to give you all a warning because I actually live relatively close to a nuclear disaster and we don't know how much of the influence there is upon our lives for the next hundreds of years and we keep on eat the food produced there. and it's scary when japan isn't releasing more accurate data and keep hiding the reading numbers.
On January 16 2014 15:37 koreasilver wrote: Are you seriously trying to insinuate that a short stay in Tokyo led to a malformation in child development? Are you joking? Have you even thought that if that was actually true there would be hundreds of thousands of deformed infants throughout Japan right now? This is so ignorant and sensational that it's just absurd.
While I am not really entirely sure about that particular child case, I don't know how much it would take to make the infant in the womb deform, all I know is that she has been drinking water who is radio active, the food is likely to be radio active and everywhere has a stronger radiation than the nature rate.
Either way, I just want to give you all a warning because I actually live relatively close to a nuclear disaster and we don't know how much of the influence there is upon our lives for the next hundreds of years and we keep on eat the food produced there.
I like how I almost died due to that report (Bavaria hell yeah). Not that I see a dramatic increase in deaths of infants though. The thing with "radiation statistics" is that you often find what you wanted to find without questioning. I remember few reports on cancer being linked to people living close to nuclear power stations. This turned out to be wrong, because they simply scanned better and more in that particular area than in the rest of the country, consequently allowing them to find more early-stage cancer. As long as I don't quite know where these numbers came from and what they include and what not, the report is questionable.
On January 16 2014 15:37 koreasilver wrote: Are you seriously trying to insinuate that a short stay in Tokyo led to a malformation in child development? Are you joking? Have you even thought that if that was actually true there would be hundreds of thousands of deformed infants throughout Japan right now? This is so ignorant and sensational that it's just absurd.
While I am not really entirely sure about that particular child case, I don't know how much it would take to make the infant in the womb deform, all I know is that she has been drinking water which is radio active, the food is likely to be radio active and everywhere has a stronger radiation than the nature rate.
Either way, I just want to give you all a warning because I actually live relatively close to a nuclear disaster and we don't know how much of the influence there is upon our lives for the next hundreds of years and we keep on eat the food produced there. and it's scary when japan isn't releasing more accurate data and keep hiding the reading numbers.
The pdf shows absolutely no such things. It shows larger increases in monthly child mortality five times between 2006 and 20013, than what happened after the Fukushima incident, i.e. that the increase fits perfectly well with the pattern of random fluctuations and was not caused by a surge in radioactivity.
It really depends on length of stay (and any possible exposure) and also at what period in her pregnancy that she was in while there. She could have been past the point where ears would have been developed. Plus if it was for a visit (meaning short term) in an area considered low risk for radiation it is highly highly unlikely that there is a link.
A lot deformations of that nature due to radiation are from long time exposure of the mother/father whose sex cells were damaged in someway, though not always. Still likely needs a larger amount of exposure then what she was subjected to though.
On January 16 2014 17:25 nunez wrote: all you nonchalant, "move along, there's nothing to see" bastards will be the first one to be devoured.
lol I am really looking forward to the new godzilla movie. Also did you know the skin of godzilla is made to resemble the Keloid scars on the WW2 atomic bomb survivors
I went to Tokyo about a month after Fukushima, it was no issue. People are always afraid of things they don't understand, but honestly, it's not all that hard to check the effects of the leakage etc. It's bad, to be sure, but it's not even close to as dangerous as you make it seem.
Oh my good, do you really believe this? If you can really be convinced by such an anecdotal evidence (the missing ear thing), then you should immediately stop thinking for youself and hire experts in any given topic to make life decisions for you. Because this kind of argument can be found for anything. Just get a number cube, toss it many times, use the numbers as indices to a book you find closest to you, pick random words, arrange them into a vaguely meaningful sentence and you are certain to find a story somewhere that seemingly proves it. This kind of logic: "something terrible is happening, but they don't want to tell you about it" is like the real cancer (as oposed to that one you are supposedly gonana get if you visit Japan) for our society. It's exactly the reason why we keep burning fossiles to get energy, instead of saving them for the billion better uses they have - because "nucelar thingies are scary". Yes, there are accidents, yet they have killed or ijnured an absurdly tiny number of people when compared to what coal-bunring power plants did during their regular operations. But when tens of thousands people die slowly and silently, nobody cares, while when hundreds get irradiated, it's the worst thing in the world. It's exactly like planes vs. cars - noone cares about the thousands that die in cars every year, but any plane crash with a hundred passangers is a worldwide tragedy and people are much more afraid to fly than to drive, even though it's statistically moronic.
On January 16 2014 17:25 nunez wrote: all you nonchalant, "move along, there's nothing to see" bastards will be the first one to be devoured.
lol I am really looking forward to the new godzilla movie. Also did you know the skin of godzilla is made to resemble the Keloid scars on the WW2 atomic bomb survivors
There is no determinant link between Fukushima and those malformations that you listed. Of course, people should no doubt be aware of radiation and its many effects on health and all, but they shouldn't be made scared to go to Japan and visit one of the most culturally rich countries just because of it.
On January 16 2014 14:35 hp.Shell wrote: This isn't a problem that is local to Japan, either, like Chernobyl was, because the Fukushima plant was on the ocean.
The radiation from Chernobyl reached Finland, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Poland, Norway, Ukraine etc...
First I want to be clear, I am not against nuclear power. (But I am not pro nuclear energy either) I believe in technology but I don't believe in human operations.
Secondly, the purpose of this blog is to warn you guys that Japan situation can be a lot worse because of a complete lack of coverage recently. The pacific ocean leak only went on a page 3 on newspaper and quickly dismissed on the next day. If you travel there, please take care. My suggestion is a NO, it's by no means I am going to stop you or give you death threats for going, but I would strongly suggest you not to go. especially if you know someone who is pregnant, please tell her not to go. There is no rush into going there now.
Thirdly, Japanese exports, which Hong Kong does import a fair bit, might not even be monitored for radiation. We rarely get any reports from Japan about the current situation. these reports are released usually when things have gone bad. The potential of a leakage into pacific ocean, is actually warned by officials a few months ago. But what made it to the headline? the leak, not the warning. The last time Hong Kong ever received any news about food might be contaminated was this: http://enenews.com/govt-officials-all-japan-risk-food-water-contamination-fukushima-future-land-contaminated-250-kilometers-plant-video
The reason why I use the missing ear case is because it reminded me how little we know about the situation.
I might be entirely wrong, it might not be this bad. But I just want to give you all a warning since I don't want any of you having problems.
Please avoid leaving your house. Sunlight includes harmful radiation that may cause cancer! Or birth defects! Also driving places is pretty risky, so you probably shouldn't do that either. Motor vehicle accidents are one of the leading causes of premature death.
I mean, "by no means I am going to stop you or give you death threats" (lol) but you should really avoid going outside or driving because "I don't want any of you having problems".
:/
Okay that probably comes across as unecessarily inflammatory and rude, but I'm making a point. Life is dangerous. The idea that the absolutely trivial amount of radiation that you might acquire by visiting japan is remotely relevant is incredibly frustrating because its simple scare tactics and has nothing to do with reality.
On January 17 2014 02:54 ETisME wrote: wow I guess I need to clear out a few things:
First I want to be clear, I am not against nuclear power. (But I am not pro nuclear energy either) I believe in technology but I don't believe in human operations.
Secondly, the purpose of this blog is to warn you guys that Japan situation can be a lot worse because of a complete lack of coverage recently. The pacific ocean leak only went on a page 3 on newspaper and quickly dismissed on the next day. If you travel there, please take care. My suggestion is a NO, it's by no means I am going to stop you or give you death threats for going, but I would strongly suggest you not to go. especially if you know someone who is pregnant, please tell her not to go. There is no rush into going there now.
Thirdly, Japanese exports, which Hong Kong does import a fair bit, might not even be monitored for radiation. We rarely get any reports from Japan about the current situation. these reports are released usually when things have gone bad. The potential of a leakage into pacific ocean, is actually warned by officials a few months ago. But what made it to the headline? the leak, not the warning. The last time Hong Kong ever received any news about food might be contaminated was this: http://enenews.com/govt-officials-all-japan-risk-food-water-contamination-fukushima-future-land-contaminated-250-kilometers-plant-video
The reason why I use the missing ear case is because it reminded me how little we know about the situation.
I might be entirely wrong, it might not be this bad. But I just want to give you all a warning since I don't want any of you having problems.
Peace? T T
yet, most likely, nothing happens because the dose is so small. Even "tons of irradiated water" are not that big of a deal since the actual dose is so small. please do provide actual evidence before shouting fire. otherwise you are just spreading irrational fear.
sheesh, so many overdramatic posts. OP just wanted to bring attention to something that he thought was important to know. If people disagree with him(I did in my post earlier), that's fine but there's no need to be obnoxious when posting in his blog. I'm not referring to anyone specific, only those who did what I mentioned. OP, again, thanks for your genuine concern. I am hoping to visit Japan at some point in the future but will try to keep your blog in mind when I do
On January 17 2014 02:54 ETisME wrote: I might be entirely wrong, it might not be this bad. But I just want to give you all a warning since I don't want any of you having problems.
On January 17 2014 02:54 ETisME wrote: I might be entirely wrong, it might not be this bad. But I just want to give you all a warning since I don't want any of you having problems.
This is how I feel about it as well. It seems like it could be bad, and there are videos on youtube of people in the west part of the us with geiger counters showing higher levels. BUT, they could have the switch on the wrong setting, the ocean could in fact be so massive that it poses no real threat, etc.
Mostly, I'm a guy who is easily drawn into huge fear in this type of situation, when there are people talking about a huge catastrophe, I'm one who gets really afraid of the worst possibility. So part of me is saying it's just me being overly concerned.
I'm also finding it difficult to do actual worthwhile research on the subject. Most of the stuff I find is just people saying what they think someone else said about it. But I mean, when I said Chernobyl was localized (it wasn't of course) I said so as a result of my research. I haven't done any research on that before now, so I've been pretty ignorant. I learned that the government sent in the military to dump a bunch of concrete on it, the idea being to contain it inside a massive piece of earth.
So my research methods aren't the best either.
Anyway, I'll try to just stop worrying so much about it. I do have a life after all.
I have recently become aware of more intelligible resources on youtube specifically on the nature of the water near California. In short, it is typical to get a high geiger reading when immediately taking samples of rainwater. This is due to radon washout, which clears in 1-2 weeks, from my limited knowledge.
I have seen spectrometer analysis of such a sample, not only a geiger reading. The video with only the geiger reading was what was making me fearful. The video that includes spectrometer analysis of a different sample explains that there are potentially very low (trace) levels of Cs137 present in Virginia. This is not to say Fukushima is not a disaster, but that its effects, both in California and Virginia, are currently much smaller than many youtube commenters and video publishers claim. According to the new source providing the spectrometer analysis, anyway.
I just wanted to share this information I have found with anyone who might be reading and becoming scared by watching too many youtube videos. It has certainly made me more serious in developing a critical analysis of information purporting to be serious.
On January 16 2014 14:35 hp.Shell wrote: This isn't a problem that is local to Japan, either, like Chernobyl was, because the Fukushima plant was on the ocean.
The radiation from Chernobyl reached Finland, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Poland, Norway, Ukraine etc...
Yeah, Chernobyl was a far more global disaster than fukushima. The fact that it spills into the ocean is not even close to a big of a deal as people make it seem. Yes, it might be scientifically possible to detect changes in radiation outside of Japan, but we are talking levels so low that there's probably a bigger change in radiation between your house and the outside of your house. The vast majority of the waste falls to the bottom of the ocean just outside the leakage, where it's actually harmful.
Chernobyl on the other hand threw massive amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere where the weather spread it over a huge part of central/eastern europe. In fact, the Chernobyl disaster was detected in Sweden first (unusual readings at a swedish nuclear powerplant), which is what uncovered the disaster because Sovjet did not let anyone know about the accident until Sweden harassed them about the heightened radiation levels.
On January 16 2014 15:12 lichter wrote: This chart is also pretty good at showing how ridiculous most of our 'radiation' concerns are
This chart is extremely misleading. It's using random examples which are absolutely incomparable. Why do they compare one year of normal exposure to 2 weeks in the Fukushima exclusion zone? Why does the normal exposure figure include all radiation sources including food, travel and medical examinations while the Fukushima figure only accounts for radiation in the environment? Is the mammogram figure right next to the "2 weeks at Fukushima exclusion zone" figure supposed to tell me that staying at the contaminated environment is just as safe or as dangerous as this medical exam? Is the reader supposed to know that the benefit of mammograms does not outweigh the risks in women under 40? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammography) Are all the medical scans mentioned in the chart even comparable to living in a contaminated area, considering that most people are scanned rarely (not at all), while living in an irradiated zone means constant exposure?
Furthermore, there is a distinct lack of any explanation and comparison of the different dangers associated with the different radioactive elements released in Fukushima. For example, you can be fine living next to a relatively large quantity of Caesium-137 as long as you keep a distance of say 10m all the time. You'll barely be able to measure any radiation from it unless you place it right on top of your Geiger counter. However, already miniscule amounts of Caesium-137 in your body can lead to cancer. Such exposure can occur e.g. from food. Since it has been released in Fukushima, there is a very valid concern that contaminated food might pose a serious health risk to the population. Pretty much the same applies Strontium-90.
Also, the chart fails to demonstrate what kind of effect even a small increase in health risk has on a large population. Let's say, there is an incidence of cancer related to increased radiation of 0.5%. For a single person, the danger is barely increased. In a population of 1 million however, there would be 5000 cases of cancer due to this radiation.
Overall, this chart is completely useless to anyone who has no previous knowledge about radiation. Additionally, it is very misleading for assessing the dangers of the radiation released in Fukushima since it completely omits the danger from short-to-medium-lifetime fission products, which are the most accute health concern
On January 16 2014 15:12 lichter wrote: This chart is also pretty good at showing how ridiculous most of our 'radiation' concerns are
This chart is extremely misleading. It's using random examples which are absolutely incomparable. Why do they compare one year of normal exposure to 2 weeks in the Fukushima exclusion zone? Why does the normal exposure figure include all radiation sources including food, travel and medical examinations while the Fukushima figure only accounts for radiation in the environment? Is the mammogram figure right next to the "2 weeks at Fukushima exclusion zone" figure supposed to tell me that staying at the contaminated environment is just as safe or as dangerous as this medical exam? Is the reader supposed to know that the benefit of mammograms does not outweigh the risks in women under 40? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammography) Are all the medical scans mentioned in the chart even comparable to living in a contaminated area, considering that most people are scanned rarely (not at all), while living in an irradiated zone means constant exposure?
Furthermore, there is a distinct lack of any explanation and comparison of the different dangers associated with the different radioactive elements released in Fukushima. For example, you can be fine living next to a relatively large quantity of Caesium-137 as long as you keep a distance of say 10m all the time. You'll barely be able to measure any radiation from it unless you place it right on top of your Geiger counter. However, already miniscule amounts of Caesium-137 in your body can lead to cancer. Such exposure can occur e.g. from food. Since it has been released in Fukushima, there is a very valid concern that contaminated food might pose a serious health risk to the population. Pretty much the same applies Strontium-90.
Also, the chart fails to demonstrate what kind of effect even a small increase in health risk has on a large population. Let's say, there is an incidence of cancer related to increased radiation of 0.5%. For a single person, the danger is barely increased. In a population of 1 million however, there would be 5000 cases of cancer due to this radiation.
Overall, this chart is completely useless to anyone who has no previous knowledge about radiation. Additionally, it is very misleading for assessing the dangers of the radiation released in Fukushima since it completely omits the danger from short-to-medium-lifetime fission products, which are the most accute health concern
There's a disclaimer at the bottom that you should take the time to read. It's for reference and gives an idea of scale.
I forgot to mention, the woman in the video is Helen Caldicott. She is an anti nuclear activist but also is a runner for for Nobel prize So she isn't some random talker
EPT
![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/radiation.png)
![[image loading]](http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/1369839/godzilla-o.gif)
![[image loading]](http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/350/d/e/gorilla_whale_lineart_by_nightlyre-d4jbc3v.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pVLFFi8CmJQ/T4dnHuF2VyI/AAAAAAAALDQ/sVO2LiMHOtE/s1600/godzilla046.jpg)
