Thread is about the various issues surrounding Japan in the aftermath of the recent earthquake. Don't bring the shit side of the internet to the thread, and post with the realization that this thread is very important, and very real, to your fellow members.
Do not post speculative and unconfirmed news you saw on TV or anywhere else. Generally the more dramatic it sounds the less likely it's true.
On December 24 2011 10:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: The posts linking to "experts" saying it's worse than Chernobyl is a good example of people falling for an appeal to authority.
Chris Busby is the man behind the "1,000,000+ deaths" claim.
He's also behind a business selling quack radiation cures:
^ And nuclear experts say that the nuclear contamination in Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl.
Those "nuclear experts" mostly aren't.
Are you a nuclear expert? Do you know about enews? It's a highly respected source when it comes to energy, especially nuclear energy.
Also it's not just Chris Busby, but also a whole lot of nuclear scientists from the international community and the guy who said 1,000,000+ cancers was NOT Chris Busby in that video. Also it's 1,000,000+ cancers, not 1,000,000+ deaths, please read what the article actually says and the video expands on it.
Nevertheless, I know that Chris Busby and the international nuclear committee is a whole lot more educated on nuclear chemistry/physics than most posters on TL.net. Before bringing out some stupid conspiracy theory, read the facts about the Japanese government trying to hide to avoid criticism by international nuclear experts.
Posting a 33 min Youtube vid isn't the best idea to try and prove a point. An article from a respected website would be better. I can respect Gundersens opinion because he's an expert, but even then, he's only one expect. His estimate of 1m cancer cases is going to need more support than just his estimate. He made that estimate based on his experience from The 3 Mile Island incident and an epidemiological study done by a Dr Steve Wing. That's all fine and good, but making an estimate like that on the fly is going to need more support and research before it can be take seriously. Something like a comprehensive report written by Gundersen would be nice.
I don't see why you would respect the opinion of Busby anyways, he's a con man that deliberately sold "Anti radiation medicine" for ridiculously jacked up prices to vulnerable people, and they did fuck all. He does have a PhD in Chemical Physics and a BSc in Chemistry, but his recent work on radiation has been heavily criticized (Notably his Second Event Theory and Photoelectric Effect Theory), and he never seems to get his research peer reviewed (big red flag). He loves making claims that are foggy at best about his estimates regarding cancer incidences and deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima citing "calculations" made with his colleagues. They estimate 1.4m people dead from Chernobyl and a similar amount will follow from Fukushima. This is weak speculation, he based his estimations off a report from a "New York Academy of Sciences" publication, that was actually a non peer reviewed Russian book that had some limited support from math models. IE his opinion regarding nuclear physics is a confusing mix of sources that he cherry picks, and his own quack theories. He isn't an expert, and shouldn't be regarded as so. He also started a conspiracy theory that
"alleges the Japanese Government is involved in a conspiracy to spread radioactive contamination throughout Japan, in an effort to hide cancer clusters from epidemiologists and thus hinder litigation"
Lmfao, I rest my case. I think he's more concerned with selling his "Anti radiation cures" than doing reputable science. That doesn't seem to be going well for him.
I don't have any comments about what the Japanese government has done to try and cover up the severity of the incident (If there is a cover up), as I haven't read about it.
While I agree that his source is basically complete junk, an appeal to authority is not a fallacy. In fact, unless you yourself are a nuclear physicist, you would be appealing to authority with any contribution you made. And even if you were a physicist, you would still be dependent on the authority of the people taking the measurements.
I would disagree, an appeal to authority is when you say "He's right because he's a scientist/economist/engineer/whatever," not "His measurements are correct." That's an appeal to the authority of the evidence, which is not really an appeal to authority... well, a better way to say it would be that evidence or reason are the only authorities you can logically appeal to.
But in most cases, you yourself don't have the knowledge to make a judgement on the evidence, or apply reason to technical details. I'm not a physicist, but I am a scientist, and it really does become pretty apparent that you're trusting someone somewhere unless you did the work yourself or are an expert in the field. You see this even when dealing with things that are even slightly outside your area of expertise.
But I agree that "These guys correctly collected, analysed and presented their data" is a much more likely proposition than "this unrelated person with a vaguely connected line on their CV is absolutely correct even when speaking about a situation they have no direct knowledge of."
On December 24 2011 12:49 affinity_12 wrote: Why are my sources completely junk? Who would you rather believe, the Japanese government who is hardcore censoring any information harming the image of Japan or sources from nuclear experts (whether they are pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear) who actually know what they are talking about? Or would you rather just listen to some guy on TL.net telling you he's a nuclear expert and saying that nuclear experts are "junk"?
I'm not trying to be offensive but some of the comments on this topic remind me of people who just talk out of their ass. I want a discussion based on authority figures, not some made-up bullshit by the media. The media is censored and it does it well.
I'm not trying to say Japan has no chance of recovery. However the fact is that it is just as worse and many sources from nuclear experts say the degree of contamination in Japan is far worse than the Chernobyl disaster in Chernobyl. Notice how they're not saying how far the radiation has spread to other countries other than Japan because thankfully the winds during and after the incident were blowing westward toward the ocean, not towards China or Korea.
Your sources are junk because you linked a badly put together article on what amounts to a borderline conspiracy theory website that doesn't even cite its original sources, but just links other media sites with the amusingly excitable label "EXPERT" next to one or two.
I would not be particularly surprised to hear the fallout from Fukushima is worse than reported by the Japanese government - in fact I think that's likely. But your source is certainly not sufficient to convince me of that.
Because I'm bored, I clicked through a half dozen of the better links on the bottom of that page. Busby is known to be biased and to have made outrageous claims. Mironova worked as a vaguely related engineer for a little while and left to be an anti-nuclear activist. That's the only label she needs. The most neutral proponent there is Reisch, but he's only extrapolating from the number of people that live nearby coupled to a vague assertion - made from the comfort of his home in Sweden, no less - that the reactors collapsed more seriously than reported. Reisch has also recently died, not that that's immediately relevant to his statement.
Either you present actual data showing that Japan's radiation levels are higher than the Government is letting on, or you directly cite demonstrably neutral authorities which say that is the case. Since you have no such data, nor does anyone I've seen, if you want to be even halfway convincing your sources need to be absolutely watertight. The vast majority are not even close.
Why is it a conspiracy theory website? I've been on it and it certainly didn't seem "conspiracy" to me, just opinions by nuclear experts. However, no-one has official data so that's why there are experts quoting estimated figures.
I still believe that the severity is worse than that of Chernobyl. Chernobyl seemed worse because the fallout spread to Europe to some extent, however Japan's fallout is mainly concentrated in Japan, not anywhere else. So in relative terms, Japan's impact on area is smaller.
However the degree of contamination (which is the no. of radiation particulates per km^2) is higher in Japan than it was in Chernobyl.
On December 24 2011 13:08 affinity_12 wrote: The severity of Japan's nuclear disaster has changed dramatically since March 2011. Around March 2011 people were saying that there is no way Fukushima could be of similar scale as Chernobyl. A few months after, they put Fukushima and Chernobyl as the same level in terms of the severity of the nuclear incident. At present, nuclear experts are saying the degree of contamination of Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl.
On December 24 2011 10:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: The posts linking to "experts" saying it's worse than Chernobyl is a good example of people falling for an appeal to authority.
Chris Busby is the man behind the "1,000,000+ deaths" claim.
He's also behind a business selling quack radiation cures:
^ And nuclear experts say that the nuclear contamination in Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl.
Those "nuclear experts" mostly aren't.
Are you a nuclear expert? Do you know about enews? It's a highly respected source when it comes to energy, especially nuclear energy.
Also it's not just Chris Busby, but also a whole lot of nuclear scientists from the international community and the guy who said 1,000,000+ cancers was NOT Chris Busby in that video. Also it's 1,000,000+ cancers, not 1,000,000+ deaths, please read what the article actually says and the video expands on it.
Nevertheless, I know that Chris Busby and the international nuclear committee is a whole lot more educated on nuclear chemistry/physics than most posters on TL.net. Before bringing out some stupid conspiracy theory, read the facts about the Japanese government trying to hide to avoid criticism by international nuclear experts.
Posting a 33 min Youtube vid isn't the best idea to try and prove a point. An article from a respected website would be better. I can respect Gundersens opinion because he's an expert, but even then, he's only one expect. His estimate of 1m cancer cases is going to need more support than just his estimate. He made that estimate based on his experience from The 3 Mile Island incident and an epidemiological study done by a Dr Steve Wing. That's all fine and good, but making an estimate like that on the fly is going to need more support and research before it can be take seriously. Something like a comprehensive report written by Gundersen would be nice.
I don't see why you would respect the opinion of Busby anyways, he's a con man that deliberately sold "Anti radiation medicine" for ridiculously jacked up prices to vulnerable people, and they did fuck all. He does have a PhD in Chemical Physics and a BSc in Chemistry, but his recent work on radiation has been heavily criticized (Notably his Second Event Theory and Photoelectric Effect Theory), and he never seems to get his research peer reviewed (big red flag). He loves making claims that are foggy at best about his estimates regarding cancer incidences and deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima citing "calculations" made with his colleagues. They estimate 1.4m people dead from Chernobyl and a similar amount will follow from Fukushima. This is weak speculation, he based his estimations off a report from a "New York Academy of Sciences" publication, that was actually a non peer reviewed Russian book that had some limited support from math models. IE his opinion regarding nuclear physics is a confusing mix of sources that he cherry picks, and his own quack theories. He isn't an expert, and shouldn't be regarded as so. He also started a conspiracy theory that
"alleges the Japanese Government is involved in a conspiracy to spread radioactive contamination throughout Japan, in an effort to hide cancer clusters from epidemiologists and thus hinder litigation"
Lmfao, I rest my case. I think he's more concerned with selling his "Anti radiation cures" than doing reputable science. That doesn't seem to be going well for him.
I don't have any comments about what the Japanese government has done to try and cover up the severity of the incident (If there is a cover up), as I haven't read about it.
I never said that I respect Busby's opinion but I just implied that Busby's opinion is probably correct to some degree. Of course he's not the most credible source because he's interested in making money however he does have an expert opinion and that alone is more credible than biased government figures.
Busby's just a small part of that website. Gundersen who is quoted more often at that website is more respectable. How many more nuclear experts need to speak out before people actually know what's going on in Japan? Japanese people are brainwashed into thinking that the situation is alright, however they have been misled by the Japanese government.
I don't know if Gundersen's prediction of 1,000,000+ cancers is correct, however I'd say it is an accurate estimate since TMI was a much smaller incident than Fukushima and that incident still saw an explosion of cancers after it.
On December 24 2011 10:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: The posts linking to "experts" saying it's worse than Chernobyl is a good example of people falling for an appeal to authority.
Chris Busby is the man behind the "1,000,000+ deaths" claim.
He's also behind a business selling quack radiation cures:
^ And nuclear experts say that the nuclear contamination in Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl.
Those "nuclear experts" mostly aren't.
Are you a nuclear expert? Do you know about enews? It's a highly respected source when it comes to energy, especially nuclear energy.
Also it's not just Chris Busby, but also a whole lot of nuclear scientists from the international community and the guy who said 1,000,000+ cancers was NOT Chris Busby in that video. Also it's 1,000,000+ cancers, not 1,000,000+ deaths, please read what the article actually says and the video expands on it.
Nevertheless, I know that Chris Busby and the international nuclear committee is a whole lot more educated on nuclear chemistry/physics than most posters on TL.net. Before bringing out some stupid conspiracy theory, read the facts about the Japanese government trying to hide to avoid criticism by international nuclear experts.
Posting a 33 min Youtube vid isn't the best idea to try and prove a point. An article from a respected website would be better. I can respect Gundersens opinion because he's an expert, but even then, he's only one expect. His estimate of 1m cancer cases is going to need more support than just his estimate. He made that estimate based on his experience from The 3 Mile Island incident and an epidemiological study done by a Dr Steve Wing. That's all fine and good, but making an estimate like that on the fly is going to need more support and research before it can be take seriously. Something like a comprehensive report written by Gundersen would be nice.
I don't see why you would respect the opinion of Busby anyways, he's a con man that deliberately sold "Anti radiation medicine" for ridiculously jacked up prices to vulnerable people, and they did fuck all. He does have a PhD in Chemical Physics and a BSc in Chemistry, but his recent work on radiation has been heavily criticized (Notably his Second Event Theory and Photoelectric Effect Theory), and he never seems to get his research peer reviewed (big red flag). He loves making claims that are foggy at best about his estimates regarding cancer incidences and deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima citing "calculations" made with his colleagues. They estimate 1.4m people dead from Chernobyl and a similar amount will follow from Fukushima. This is weak speculation, he based his estimations off a report from a "New York Academy of Sciences" publication, that was actually a non peer reviewed Russian book that had some limited support from math models. IE his opinion regarding nuclear physics is a confusing mix of sources that he cherry picks, and his own quack theories. He isn't an expert, and shouldn't be regarded as so. He also started a conspiracy theory that
"alleges the Japanese Government is involved in a conspiracy to spread radioactive contamination throughout Japan, in an effort to hide cancer clusters from epidemiologists and thus hinder litigation"
Lmfao, I rest my case. I think he's more concerned with selling his "Anti radiation cures" than doing reputable science. That doesn't seem to be going well for him.
I don't have any comments about what the Japanese government has done to try and cover up the severity of the incident (If there is a cover up), as I haven't read about it.
I never said that I respect Busby's opinion but I just implied that Busby's opinion is probably correct to some degree. Of course he's not the most credible source because he's interested in making money however he does have an expert opinion and that alone is more credible than biased government figures.
Busby's just a small part of that website. Gundersen who is quoted more often at that website is more respectable. How many more nuclear experts need to speak out before people actually know what's going on in Japan? Japanese people are brainwashed into thinking that the situation is alright, however they have been misled by the Japanese government.
I don't know if Gundersen's prediction of 1,000,000+ cancers is correct, however I'd say it is an accurate estimate since TMI was a much smaller incident than Fukushima and that incident still saw an explosion of cancers after it.
He's not an expert AT ALL, and he's EXTREMELY biases with an obvious agenda, so I don't know why you keep protecting him. I still can't comment to what degree the Japanese have downplayed the incident if any as I haven't done any research. Giving some credible sources would be nice. And for the second point, I'd have to say more than one. Give me some damning evidence from multiple sources that are credible and I'll take the claim more seriously. And I'm sorry, but your opinion bears no weight unless you're an expert which I take it your not.
On December 24 2011 10:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: The posts linking to "experts" saying it's worse than Chernobyl is a good example of people falling for an appeal to authority.
Chris Busby is the man behind the "1,000,000+ deaths" claim.
He's also behind a business selling quack radiation cures:
^ And nuclear experts say that the nuclear contamination in Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl.
Those "nuclear experts" mostly aren't.
Are you a nuclear expert? Do you know about enews? It's a highly respected source when it comes to energy, especially nuclear energy.
Also it's not just Chris Busby, but also a whole lot of nuclear scientists from the international community and the guy who said 1,000,000+ cancers was NOT Chris Busby in that video. Also it's 1,000,000+ cancers, not 1,000,000+ deaths, please read what the article actually says and the video expands on it.
Nevertheless, I know that Chris Busby and the international nuclear committee is a whole lot more educated on nuclear chemistry/physics than most posters on TL.net. Before bringing out some stupid conspiracy theory, read the facts about the Japanese government trying to hide to avoid criticism by international nuclear experts.
Posting a 33 min Youtube vid isn't the best idea to try and prove a point. An article from a respected website would be better. I can respect Gundersens opinion because he's an expert, but even then, he's only one expect. His estimate of 1m cancer cases is going to need more support than just his estimate. He made that estimate based on his experience from The 3 Mile Island incident and an epidemiological study done by a Dr Steve Wing. That's all fine and good, but making an estimate like that on the fly is going to need more support and research before it can be take seriously. Something like a comprehensive report written by Gundersen would be nice.
I don't see why you would respect the opinion of Busby anyways, he's a con man that deliberately sold "Anti radiation medicine" for ridiculously jacked up prices to vulnerable people, and they did fuck all. He does have a PhD in Chemical Physics and a BSc in Chemistry, but his recent work on radiation has been heavily criticized (Notably his Second Event Theory and Photoelectric Effect Theory), and he never seems to get his research peer reviewed (big red flag). He loves making claims that are foggy at best about his estimates regarding cancer incidences and deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima citing "calculations" made with his colleagues. They estimate 1.4m people dead from Chernobyl and a similar amount will follow from Fukushima. This is weak speculation, he based his estimations off a report from a "New York Academy of Sciences" publication, that was actually a non peer reviewed Russian book that had some limited support from math models. IE his opinion regarding nuclear physics is a confusing mix of sources that he cherry picks, and his own quack theories. He isn't an expert, and shouldn't be regarded as so. He also started a conspiracy theory that
"alleges the Japanese Government is involved in a conspiracy to spread radioactive contamination throughout Japan, in an effort to hide cancer clusters from epidemiologists and thus hinder litigation"
Lmfao, I rest my case. I think he's more concerned with selling his "Anti radiation cures" than doing reputable science. That doesn't seem to be going well for him.
I don't have any comments about what the Japanese government has done to try and cover up the severity of the incident (If there is a cover up), as I haven't read about it.
I never said that I respect Busby's opinion but I just implied that Busby's opinion is probably correct to some degree. Of course he's not the most credible source because he's interested in making money however he does have an expert opinion and that alone is more credible than biased government figures.
Busby's just a small part of that website. Gundersen who is quoted more often at that website is more respectable. How many more nuclear experts need to speak out before people actually know what's going on in Japan? Japanese people are brainwashed into thinking that the situation is alright, however they have been misled by the Japanese government.
I don't know if Gundersen's prediction of 1,000,000+ cancers is correct, however I'd say it is an accurate estimate since TMI was a much smaller incident than Fukushima and that incident still saw an explosion of cancers after it.
He's not an expert AT ALL, and he's EXTREMELY biases with an obvious agenda, so I don't know why you keep protecting him. I still can't comment to what degree the Japanese have downplayed the incident if any as I haven't done any research. Giving some credible sources would be nice. And for the second point, I'd have to say more than one. Give me some damning evidence from multiple sources that are credible and I'll take the claim more seriously. And I'm sorry, but your opinion bears no weight unless you're an expert which I take it your not.
Information on Christopher Busby's education:
Busby obtained a BSc in Chemistry with First Class Honours from the University of London, and then did research for the Wellcome Foundation (applying spectroscopic and analytical methods to chemical pharmacology and molecular drug interactions). He was elected a Member of the Royal Society of Chemistry although he has not been a Member since 1984. He later gained a PhD in Chemical Physics at the University of Kent, researching Raman spectro-electrochemistry.
He has a PhD in chemical physics (which covers a lot of nuclear chemistry/physics) and you're saying he's not an expert? He might be a biased expert, but saying he's "not" an expert itself is extremely biased. I don't trust him either so I don't know why you're accusing me of "protecting" him.
Also, Gundersen is probably one of the most neutral experts in nuclear chemistry/physics and he's the one who said he predicts at least 1,000,000 cancers from Fukushima alone. He also said that the concentration of the radiation particulates in the air are likely higher in Fukushima than that of TMI and Chernobyl. What you don't understand is that there are no exact figures from the Fukushima disaster because it is censored. What I'm trying to say is that the only reliable information comes from nuclear experts who have been to Japan to discuss with the Japanese nuclear agency.
Though that would not be 100% transparent because TEPCO themselves are trying to keep themselves alive, nuclear experts like Gundersen have more reliable information to offer than media sources or opinions from non-experts.
I never said that I respect Busby's opinion but I just implied that Busby's opinion is probably correct to some degree. Of course he's not the most credible source because he's interested in making money however he does have an expert opinion and that alone is more credible than biased government figures.
Busby's just a small part of that website. Gundersen who is quoted more often at that website is more respectable. How many more nuclear experts need to speak out before people actually know what's going on in Japan? Japanese people are brainwashed into thinking that the situation is alright, however they have been misled by the Japanese government.
I don't know if Gundersen's prediction of 1,000,000+ cancers is correct, however I'd say it is an accurate estimate since TMI was a much smaller incident than Fukushima and that incident still saw an explosion of cancers after it.
I haven't read everything on this incident yet, but I wanted to comment on what counts as "enough nuclear experts." I'm a PhD student in physics (admittedly not focused on nuclear), so I feel like I have some firsthand experience with trusting scientific expects.
Bottom line is, you need a LOT more than 2 people with PhDs in the field to support these claims before they will be taken seriously. I am sure that I can find at least 2 Physics PhDs who will claim that every major scientific theory (Newtonian Gravity, Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity, Standard Model, etc....) is 100% incorrect and that their theory is the right answer. They'd probably also claim that the moon landing was a hoax, to boot.
Before any kind of action is agreed upon from the perspective of the scientific community, you need a consensus that involves hundreds or possibly thousands of experts in the field. This consensus is primarily reached through the peer-reviewed literature. Even if you think that the peer-reviewed literature is skewed or corrupt, choosing to not even attempt to participate it is the fastest way to be branded as a crackpot and ignored.
You can claim that the relevant information is being censored, and that may be true, but until more people can independently verify the data that has been collected/reported, don't expect everyone to agree with your opinion. You'd have to find a 'smoking gun' before I'd believe that there is a deep conspiracy at work here.
I never said that I respect Busby's opinion but I just implied that Busby's opinion is probably correct to some degree. Of course he's not the most credible source because he's interested in making money however he does have an expert opinion and that alone is more credible than biased government figures.
Busby's just a small part of that website. Gundersen who is quoted more often at that website is more respectable. How many more nuclear experts need to speak out before people actually know what's going on in Japan? Japanese people are brainwashed into thinking that the situation is alright, however they have been misled by the Japanese government.
I don't know if Gundersen's prediction of 1,000,000+ cancers is correct, however I'd say it is an accurate estimate since TMI was a much smaller incident than Fukushima and that incident still saw an explosion of cancers after it.
I haven't read everything on this incident yet, but I wanted to comment on what counts as "enough nuclear experts." I'm a PhD student in physics (admittedly not focused on nuclear), so I feel like I have some firsthand experience with trusting scientific expects.
Bottom line is, you need a LOT more than 2 people with PhDs in the field to support these claims before they will be taken seriously. I am sure that I can find at least 2 Physics PhDs who will claim that every major scientific theory (Newtonian Gravity, Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity, Standard Model, etc....) is 100% incorrect and that their theory is the right answer. They'd probably also claim that the moon landing was a hoax, to boot.
Before any kind of action is agreed upon from the perspective of the scientific community, you need a consensus that involves hundreds or possibly thousands of experts in the field. This consensus is primarily reached through the peer-reviewed literature. Even if you think that the peer-reviewed literature is skewed or corrupt, choosing to not even attempt to participate it is the fastest way to be branded as a crackpot and ignored.
Yes I agree that we need peer reviewed sources from many different nuclear experts to get a clear picture of what is going on. Nothing will be 100% transparent until exact unbiased figures are obtained from Japan. However I find that it will be highly unlikely since the Japanese government is censoring most of the information from the nuclear disaster.
Until then, you have just one guy that makes his arguments on youtube and information from a dodgy site.. I'm all for going against the mold but after getting sucked into the last few pages.. Affinity you're propping up a wildly unsupported theory.
On December 24 2011 13:49 Probe1 wrote: Until then, you have just one guy that makes his arguments on youtube and information from a dodgy site.. I'm all for going against the mold but after getting sucked into the last few pages.. Affinity you're propping up a wildly unsupported theory.
And what do you have to offer? Can you offer some insight and exact figures of the degree of contamination at Fukushima/Japan? If not, rather than saying that it is my "wildly unsupported" theory, try convincing the international nuclear committee that you think otherwise.
On December 24 2011 10:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: The posts linking to "experts" saying it's worse than Chernobyl is a good example of people falling for an appeal to authority.
Chris Busby is the man behind the "1,000,000+ deaths" claim.
He's also behind a business selling quack radiation cures:
^ And nuclear experts say that the nuclear contamination in Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl.
Those "nuclear experts" mostly aren't.
Are you a nuclear expert? Do you know about enews? It's a highly respected source when it comes to energy, especially nuclear energy.
Also it's not just Chris Busby, but also a whole lot of nuclear scientists from the international community and the guy who said 1,000,000+ cancers was NOT Chris Busby in that video. Also it's 1,000,000+ cancers, not 1,000,000+ deaths, please read what the article actually says and the video expands on it.
Nevertheless, I know that Chris Busby and the international nuclear committee is a whole lot more educated on nuclear chemistry/physics than most posters on TL.net. Before bringing out some stupid conspiracy theory, read the facts about the Japanese government trying to hide to avoid criticism by international nuclear experts.
Posting a 33 min Youtube vid isn't the best idea to try and prove a point. An article from a respected website would be better. I can respect Gundersens opinion because he's an expert, but even then, he's only one expect. His estimate of 1m cancer cases is going to need more support than just his estimate. He made that estimate based on his experience from The 3 Mile Island incident and an epidemiological study done by a Dr Steve Wing. That's all fine and good, but making an estimate like that on the fly is going to need more support and research before it can be take seriously. Something like a comprehensive report written by Gundersen would be nice.
I don't see why you would respect the opinion of Busby anyways, he's a con man that deliberately sold "Anti radiation medicine" for ridiculously jacked up prices to vulnerable people, and they did fuck all. He does have a PhD in Chemical Physics and a BSc in Chemistry, but his recent work on radiation has been heavily criticized (Notably his Second Event Theory and Photoelectric Effect Theory), and he never seems to get his research peer reviewed (big red flag). He loves making claims that are foggy at best about his estimates regarding cancer incidences and deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima citing "calculations" made with his colleagues. They estimate 1.4m people dead from Chernobyl and a similar amount will follow from Fukushima. This is weak speculation, he based his estimations off a report from a "New York Academy of Sciences" publication, that was actually a non peer reviewed Russian book that had some limited support from math models. IE his opinion regarding nuclear physics is a confusing mix of sources that he cherry picks, and his own quack theories. He isn't an expert, and shouldn't be regarded as so. He also started a conspiracy theory that
"alleges the Japanese Government is involved in a conspiracy to spread radioactive contamination throughout Japan, in an effort to hide cancer clusters from epidemiologists and thus hinder litigation"
Lmfao, I rest my case. I think he's more concerned with selling his "Anti radiation cures" than doing reputable science. That doesn't seem to be going well for him.
I don't have any comments about what the Japanese government has done to try and cover up the severity of the incident (If there is a cover up), as I haven't read about it.
I never said that I respect Busby's opinion but I just implied that Busby's opinion is probably correct to some degree. Of course he's not the most credible source because he's interested in making money however he does have an expert opinion and that alone is more credible than biased government figures.
Busby's just a small part of that website. Gundersen who is quoted more often at that website is more respectable. How many more nuclear experts need to speak out before people actually know what's going on in Japan? Japanese people are brainwashed into thinking that the situation is alright, however they have been misled by the Japanese government.
I don't know if Gundersen's prediction of 1,000,000+ cancers is correct, however I'd say it is an accurate estimate since TMI was a much smaller incident than Fukushima and that incident still saw an explosion of cancers after it.
He's not an expert AT ALL, and he's EXTREMELY biases with an obvious agenda, so I don't know why you keep protecting him. I still can't comment to what degree the Japanese have downplayed the incident if any as I haven't done any research. Giving some credible sources would be nice. And for the second point, I'd have to say more than one. Give me some damning evidence from multiple sources that are credible and I'll take the claim more seriously. And I'm sorry, but your opinion bears no weight unless you're an expert which I take it your not.
Busby obtained a BSc in Chemistry with First Class Honours from the University of London, and then did research for the Wellcome Foundation (applying spectroscopic and analytical methods to chemical pharmacology and molecular drug interactions). He was elected a Member of the Royal Society of Chemistry although he has not been a Member since 1984. He later gained a PhD in Chemical Physics at the University of Kent, researching Raman spectro-electrochemistry.
He has a PhD in chemical physics (which covers a lot of nuclear chemistry/physics) and you're saying he's not an expert? He might be a biased expert, but saying he's "not" an expert itself is extremely biased. I don't trust him either so I don't know why you're accusing me of "protecting" him.
Also, Gundersen is probably one of the most neutral experts in nuclear chemistry/physics and he's the one who said he predicts at least 1,000,000 cancers from Fukushima alone. He also said that the concentration of the radiation particulates in the air are likely higher in Fukushima than that of TMI and Chernobyl. What you don't understand is that there are no exact figures from the Fukushima aster because it iscensored. What I'm trying to say is that the only reliable information comes from nuclear experts who have been to Japan to discuss with the Japanese nuclear agency.
Though that would not be 100% transparent because TEPCO themselves are trying to keep themselves alive, nuclear experts like Gundersen have more reliable information to offer than media sources or opinions from non-experts.
I don't see him as being an "Expert" because all of his theories he's come up with are GARBAGE. Have you read about his actual work into nuclear physics? Just parroting his PhD in Chemistry isn't enough to give his opinions and research validity. Only proper science does that, and he's really shitty at it. Is he an expert in Chemical Physics? Sure. Is he in Nuclear physics? From what I've read of his publications, absolutely not.
And I've already given my opinion on Gundersens work, and the answer is simple. There needs to be much more work done, by many more people, before the figures can be taken seriously.
On December 24 2011 10:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: The posts linking to "experts" saying it's worse than Chernobyl is a good example of people falling for an appeal to authority.
Chris Busby is the man behind the "1,000,000+ deaths" claim.
He's also behind a business selling quack radiation cures:
^ And nuclear experts say that the nuclear contamination in Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl.
Those "nuclear experts" mostly aren't.
Are you a nuclear expert? Do you know about enews? It's a highly respected source when it comes to energy, especially nuclear energy.
Also it's not just Chris Busby, but also a whole lot of nuclear scientists from the international community and the guy who said 1,000,000+ cancers was NOT Chris Busby in that video. Also it's 1,000,000+ cancers, not 1,000,000+ deaths, please read what the article actually says and the video expands on it.
Nevertheless, I know that Chris Busby and the international nuclear committee is a whole lot more educated on nuclear chemistry/physics than most posters on TL.net. Before bringing out some stupid conspiracy theory, read the facts about the Japanese government trying to hide to avoid criticism by international nuclear experts.
Posting a 33 min Youtube vid isn't the best idea to try and prove a point. An article from a respected website would be better. I can respect Gundersens opinion because he's an expert, but even then, he's only one expect. His estimate of 1m cancer cases is going to need more support than just his estimate. He made that estimate based on his experience from The 3 Mile Island incident and an epidemiological study done by a Dr Steve Wing. That's all fine and good, but making an estimate like that on the fly is going to need more support and research before it can be take seriously. Something like a comprehensive report written by Gundersen would be nice.
I don't see why you would respect the opinion of Busby anyways, he's a con man that deliberately sold "Anti radiation medicine" for ridiculously jacked up prices to vulnerable people, and they did fuck all. He does have a PhD in Chemical Physics and a BSc in Chemistry, but his recent work on radiation has been heavily criticized (Notably his Second Event Theory and Photoelectric Effect Theory), and he never seems to get his research peer reviewed (big red flag). He loves making claims that are foggy at best about his estimates regarding cancer incidences and deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima citing "calculations" made with his colleagues. They estimate 1.4m people dead from Chernobyl and a similar amount will follow from Fukushima. This is weak speculation, he based his estimations off a report from a "New York Academy of Sciences" publication, that was actually a non peer reviewed Russian book that had some limited support from math models. IE his opinion regarding nuclear physics is a confusing mix of sources that he cherry picks, and his own quack theories. He isn't an expert, and shouldn't be regarded as so. He also started a conspiracy theory that
"alleges the Japanese Government is involved in a conspiracy to spread radioactive contamination throughout Japan, in an effort to hide cancer clusters from epidemiologists and thus hinder litigation"
Lmfao, I rest my case. I think he's more concerned with selling his "Anti radiation cures" than doing reputable science. That doesn't seem to be going well for him.
I don't have any comments about what the Japanese government has done to try and cover up the severity of the incident (If there is a cover up), as I haven't read about it.
I never said that I respect Busby's opinion but I just implied that Busby's opinion is probably correct to some degree. Of course he's not the most credible source because he's interested in making money however he does have an expert opinion and that alone is more credible than biased government figures.
Busby's just a small part of that website. Gundersen who is quoted more often at that website is more respectable. How many more nuclear experts need to speak out before people actually know what's going on in Japan? Japanese people are brainwashed into thinking that the situation is alright, however they have been misled by the Japanese government.
I don't know if Gundersen's prediction of 1,000,000+ cancers is correct, however I'd say it is an accurate estimate since TMI was a much smaller incident than Fukushima and that incident still saw an explosion of cancers after it.
He's not an expert AT ALL, and he's EXTREMELY biases with an obvious agenda, so I don't know why you keep protecting him. I still can't comment to what degree the Japanese have downplayed the incident if any as I haven't done any research. Giving some credible sources would be nice. And for the second point, I'd have to say more than one. Give me some damning evidence from multiple sources that are credible and I'll take the claim more seriously. And I'm sorry, but your opinion bears no weight unless you're an expert which I take it your not.
Information on Christopher Busby's education:
Busby obtained a BSc in Chemistry with First Class Honours from the University of London, and then did research for the Wellcome Foundation (applying spectroscopic and analytical methods to chemical pharmacology and molecular drug interactions). He was elected a Member of the Royal Society of Chemistry although he has not been a Member since 1984. He later gained a PhD in Chemical Physics at the University of Kent, researching Raman spectro-electrochemistry.
He has a PhD in chemical physics (which covers a lot of nuclear chemistry/physics) and you're saying he's not an expert? He might be a biased expert, but saying he's "not" an expert itself is extremely biased. I don't trust him either so I don't know why you're accusing me of "protecting" him.
Also, Gundersen is probably one of the most neutral experts in nuclear chemistry/physics and he's the one who said he predicts at least 1,000,000 cancers from Fukushima alone. He also said that the concentration of the radiation particulates in the air are likely higher in Fukushima than that of TMI and Chernobyl. What you don't understand is that there are no exact figures from the Fukushima aster because it iscensored. What I'm trying to say is that the only reliable information comes from nuclear experts who have been to Japan to discuss with the Japanese nuclear agency.
Though that would not be 100% transparent because TEPCO themselves are trying to keep themselves alive, nuclear experts like Gundersen have more reliable information to offer than media sources or opinions from non-experts.
I don't see him as being an "Expert" because all of his theories he's come up with are GARBAGE. Have you read about his actual work into nuclear physics? Just parroting his PhD in Chemistry isn't enough to give his opinions and research validity. Only proper science does that, and he's really shitty at it. Is he an expert in Chemical Physics? Sure. Is he in Nuclear physics? From what I've read of his publications, absolutely not.
And I've already given my opinion on Gundersens work, and the answer is simple. There needs to be much more work done, by many more people, before the figures can be taken seriously.
It may only be a youtube video but he's far more an expert in the field than what you believe him to be
Arnie is an energy advisor with 39-years of nuclear power engineering experience. A former nuclear industry senior vice president, he earned his Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in nuclear engineering, holds a nuclear safety patent, and was a licensed reactor operator.
During his nuclear industry career, Arnie managed and coordinated projects at 70-nuclear power plants around the country. He currently speaks on television, radio, and at public meetings on the need for a new paradigm in energy production. An independent nuclear engineering and safety expert, Arnie provides testimony on nuclear operations, reliability, safety, and radiation issues to the NRC, Congressional and State Legislatures, and Government Agencies and Officials throughout the US, Canada, and internationally. In 2008, he was appointed by the Vermont Senate President to be the first Chair of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Oversight Panel. He has testified in numerous cases and before many different legislative bodies including the Czech Republic Senate.
Oh yes there's more.... :7
As the former vice president in an engineering organization, Arnie led the team of engineers who developed the plans for decommissioning Shippingport, the first major nuclear power plant in the US to be fully dismantled. He was also an invited author on the first DOE Decommissioning Handbook. Source term reconstruction is a method of forensic engineering used to calculate radiation releases from various nuclear facilities after nuclear incidents or accidents.
Arnie is frequently called upon by public officials, attorneys, and intervenors, to perform source term reconstructions. His source term reconstruction efforts vary. Arnie has calculated exposures to oil workers, who received radiation exposure while working on wells. He has also calculated radiation releases to children with health concerns, who live near a nuclear facility, like the one that carted radioactive sewage off-site and spread it on farmers' fields. Finally, he has performed an accurate source term construction of the radiation releases from the Three Mile Island nuclear accident.
So before you go claiming he isn't an expert i suggest you actually look up what kind-of Expert he is.
Game, set, match. Here are some very informative videos he has released ever since the start of the disaster. Even though he was somewhat limited to information by TEPCO and the government of Japans censorship of much information coming out.
On December 24 2011 10:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: The posts linking to "experts" saying it's worse than Chernobyl is a good example of people falling for an appeal to authority.
Chris Busby is the man behind the "1,000,000+ deaths" claim.
He's also behind a business selling quack radiation cures:
^ And nuclear experts say that the nuclear contamination in Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl.
Those "nuclear experts" mostly aren't.
Are you a nuclear expert? Do you know about enews? It's a highly respected source when it comes to energy, especially nuclear energy.
Also it's not just Chris Busby, but also a whole lot of nuclear scientists from the international community and the guy who said 1,000,000+ cancers was NOT Chris Busby in that video. Also it's 1,000,000+ cancers, not 1,000,000+ deaths, please read what the article actually says and the video expands on it.
Nevertheless, I know that Chris Busby and the international nuclear committee is a whole lot more educated on nuclear chemistry/physics than most posters on TL.net. Before bringing out some stupid conspiracy theory, read the facts about the Japanese government trying to hide to avoid criticism by international nuclear experts.
Posting a 33 min Youtube vid isn't the best idea to try and prove a point. An article from a respected website would be better. I can respect Gundersens opinion because he's an expert, but even then, he's only one expect. His estimate of 1m cancer cases is going to need more support than just his estimate. He made that estimate based on his experience from The 3 Mile Island incident and an epidemiological study done by a Dr Steve Wing. That's all fine and good, but making an estimate like that on the fly is going to need more support and research before it can be take seriously. Something like a comprehensive report written by Gundersen would be nice.
I don't see why you would respect the opinion of Busby anyways, he's a con man that deliberately sold "Anti radiation medicine" for ridiculously jacked up prices to vulnerable people, and they did fuck all. He does have a PhD in Chemical Physics and a BSc in Chemistry, but his recent work on radiation has been heavily criticized (Notably his Second Event Theory and Photoelectric Effect Theory), and he never seems to get his research peer reviewed (big red flag). He loves making claims that are foggy at best about his estimates regarding cancer incidences and deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima citing "calculations" made with his colleagues. They estimate 1.4m people dead from Chernobyl and a similar amount will follow from Fukushima. This is weak speculation, he based his estimations off a report from a "New York Academy of Sciences" publication, that was actually a non peer reviewed Russian book that had some limited support from math models. IE his opinion regarding nuclear physics is a confusing mix of sources that he cherry picks, and his own quack theories. He isn't an expert, and shouldn't be regarded as so. He also started a conspiracy theory that
"alleges the Japanese Government is involved in a conspiracy to spread radioactive contamination throughout Japan, in an effort to hide cancer clusters from epidemiologists and thus hinder litigation"
Lmfao, I rest my case. I think he's more concerned with selling his "Anti radiation cures" than doing reputable science. That doesn't seem to be going well for him.
I don't have any comments about what the Japanese government has done to try and cover up the severity of the incident (If there is a cover up), as I haven't read about it.
I never said that I respect Busby's opinion but I just implied that Busby's opinion is probably correct to some degree. Of course he's not the most credible source because he's interested in making money however he does have an expert opinion and that alone is more credible than biased government figures.
Busby's just a small part of that website. Gundersen who is quoted more often at that website is more respectable. How many more nuclear experts need to speak out before people actually know what's going on in Japan? Japanese people are brainwashed into thinking that the situation is alright, however they have been misled by the Japanese government.
I don't know if Gundersen's prediction of 1,000,000+ cancers is correct, however I'd say it is an accurate estimate since TMI was a much smaller incident than Fukushima and that incident still saw an explosion of cancers after it.
He's not an expert AT ALL, and he's EXTREMELY biases with an obvious agenda, so I don't know why you keep protecting him. I still can't comment to what degree the Japanese have downplayed the incident if any as I haven't done any research. Giving some credible sources would be nice. And for the second point, I'd have to say more than one. Give me some damning evidence from multiple sources that are credible and I'll take the claim more seriously. And I'm sorry, but your opinion bears no weight unless you're an expert which I take it your not.
Information on Christopher Busby's education:
Busby obtained a BSc in Chemistry with First Class Honours from the University of London, and then did research for the Wellcome Foundation (applying spectroscopic and analytical methods to chemical pharmacology and molecular drug interactions). He was elected a Member of the Royal Society of Chemistry although he has not been a Member since 1984. He later gained a PhD in Chemical Physics at the University of Kent, researching Raman spectro-electrochemistry.
He has a PhD in chemical physics (which covers a lot of nuclear chemistry/physics) and you're saying he's not an expert? He might be a biased expert, but saying he's "not" an expert itself is extremely biased. I don't trust him either so I don't know why you're accusing me of "protecting" him.
Also, Gundersen is probably one of the most neutral experts in nuclear chemistry/physics and he's the one who said he predicts at least 1,000,000 cancers from Fukushima alone. He also said that the concentration of the radiation particulates in the air are likely higher in Fukushima than that of TMI and Chernobyl. What you don't understand is that there are no exact figures from the Fukushima aster because it iscensored. What I'm trying to say is that the only reliable information comes from nuclear experts who have been to Japan to discuss with the Japanese nuclear agency.
Though that would not be 100% transparent because TEPCO themselves are trying to keep themselves alive, nuclear experts like Gundersen have more reliable information to offer than media sources or opinions from non-experts.
I don't see him as being an "Expert" because all of his theories he's come up with are GARBAGE. Have you read about his actual work into nuclear physics? Just parroting his PhD in Chemistry isn't enough to give his opinions and research validity. Only proper science does that, and he's really shitty at it. Is he an expert in Chemical Physics? Sure. Is he in Nuclear physics? From what I've read of his publications, absolutely not.
And I've already given my opinion on Gundersens work, and the answer is simple. There needs to be much more work done, by many more people, before the figures can be taken seriously.
It may only be a youtube video but he's far more an expert in the field than what you believe him to be
Arnie is an energy advisor with 39-years of nuclear power engineering experience. A former nuclear industry senior vice president, he earned his Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in nuclear engineering, holds a nuclear safety patent, and was a licensed reactor operator.
During his nuclear industry career, Arnie managed and coordinated projects at 70-nuclear power plants around the country. He currently speaks on television, radio, and at public meetings on the need for a new paradigm in energy production. An independent nuclear engineering and safety expert, Arnie provides testimony on nuclear operations, reliability, safety, and radiation issues to the NRC, Congressional and State Legislatures, and Government Agencies and Officials throughout the US, Canada, and internationally. In 2008, he was appointed by the Vermont Senate President to be the first Chair of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Oversight Panel. He has testified in numerous cases and before many different legislative bodies including the Czech Republic Senate.
As the former vice president in an engineering organization, Arnie led the team of engineers who developed the plans for decommissioning Shippingport, the first major nuclear power plant in the US to be fully dismantled. He was also an invited author on the first DOE Decommissioning Handbook. Source term reconstruction is a method of forensic engineering used to calculate radiation releases from various nuclear facilities after nuclear incidents or accidents.
Arnie is frequently called upon by public officials, attorneys, and intervenors, to perform source term reconstructions. His source term reconstruction efforts vary. Arnie has calculated exposures to oil workers, who received radiation exposure while working on wells. He has also calculated radiation releases to children with health concerns, who live near a nuclear facility, like the one that carted radioactive sewage off-site and spread it on farmers' fields. Finally, he has performed an accurate source term construction of the radiation releases from the Three Mile Island nuclear accident.
So before you go claiming he isn't an expert i suggest you actually look up what kind-of Expert he is.
I was talking about Chris Busby, not Gundersen. I already acknowledged he's an expert.
On December 24 2011 10:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: The posts linking to "experts" saying it's worse than Chernobyl is a good example of people falling for an appeal to authority.
Chris Busby is the man behind the "1,000,000+ deaths" claim.
He's also behind a business selling quack radiation cures:
^ And nuclear experts say that the nuclear contamination in Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl.
Those "nuclear experts" mostly aren't.
Are you a nuclear expert? Do you know about enews? It's a highly respected source when it comes to energy, especially nuclear energy.
Also it's not just Chris Busby, but also a whole lot of nuclear scientists from the international community and the guy who said 1,000,000+ cancers was NOT Chris Busby in that video. Also it's 1,000,000+ cancers, not 1,000,000+ deaths, please read what the article actually says and the video expands on it.
Nevertheless, I know that Chris Busby and the international nuclear committee is a whole lot more educated on nuclear chemistry/physics than most posters on TL.net. Before bringing out some stupid conspiracy theory, read the facts about the Japanese government trying to hide to avoid criticism by international nuclear experts.
Posting a 33 min Youtube vid isn't the best idea to try and prove a point. An article from a respected website would be better. I can respect Gundersens opinion because he's an expert, but even then, he's only one expect. His estimate of 1m cancer cases is going to need more support than just his estimate. He made that estimate based on his experience from The 3 Mile Island incident and an epidemiological study done by a Dr Steve Wing. That's all fine and good, but making an estimate like that on the fly is going to need more support and research before it can be take seriously. Something like a comprehensive report written by Gundersen would be nice.
I don't see why you would respect the opinion of Busby anyways, he's a con man that deliberately sold "Anti radiation medicine" for ridiculously jacked up prices to vulnerable people, and they did fuck all. He does have a PhD in Chemical Physics and a BSc in Chemistry, but his recent work on radiation has been heavily criticized (Notably his Second Event Theory and Photoelectric Effect Theory), and he never seems to get his research peer reviewed (big red flag). He loves making claims that are foggy at best about his estimates regarding cancer incidences and deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima citing "calculations" made with his colleagues. They estimate 1.4m people dead from Chernobyl and a similar amount will follow from Fukushima. This is weak speculation, he based his estimations off a report from a "New York Academy of Sciences" publication, that was actually a non peer reviewed Russian book that had some limited support from math models. IE his opinion regarding nuclear physics is a confusing mix of sources that he cherry picks, and his own quack theories. He isn't an expert, and shouldn't be regarded as so. He also started a conspiracy theory that
"alleges the Japanese Government is involved in a conspiracy to spread radioactive contamination throughout Japan, in an effort to hide cancer clusters from epidemiologists and thus hinder litigation"
Lmfao, I rest my case. I think he's more concerned with selling his "Anti radiation cures" than doing reputable science. That doesn't seem to be going well for him.
I don't have any comments about what the Japanese government has done to try and cover up the severity of the incident (If there is a cover up), as I haven't read about it.
I never said that I respect Busby's opinion but I just implied that Busby's opinion is probably correct to some degree. Of course he's not the most credible source because he's interested in making money however he does have an expert opinion and that alone is more credible than biased government figures.
Busby's just a small part of that website. Gundersen who is quoted more often at that website is more respectable. How many more nuclear experts need to speak out before people actually know what's going on in Japan? Japanese people are brainwashed into thinking that the situation is alright, however they have been misled by the Japanese government.
I don't know if Gundersen's prediction of 1,000,000+ cancers is correct, however I'd say it is an accurate estimate since TMI was a much smaller incident than Fukushima and that incident still saw an explosion of cancers after it.
He's not an expert AT ALL, and he's EXTREMELY biases with an obvious agenda, so I don't know why you keep protecting him. I still can't comment to what degree the Japanese have downplayed the incident if any as I haven't done any research. Giving some credible sources would be nice. And for the second point, I'd have to say more than one. Give me some damning evidence from multiple sources that are credible and I'll take the claim more seriously. And I'm sorry, but your opinion bears no weight unless you're an expert which I take it your not.
Information on Christopher Busby's education:
Busby obtained a BSc in Chemistry with First Class Honours from the University of London, and then did research for the Wellcome Foundation (applying spectroscopic and analytical methods to chemical pharmacology and molecular drug interactions). He was elected a Member of the Royal Society of Chemistry although he has not been a Member since 1984. He later gained a PhD in Chemical Physics at the University of Kent, researching Raman spectro-electrochemistry.
He has a PhD in chemical physics (which covers a lot of nuclear chemistry/physics) and you're saying he's not an expert? He might be a biased expert, but saying he's "not" an expert itself is extremely biased. I don't trust him either so I don't know why you're accusing me of "protecting" him.
Also, Gundersen is probably one of the most neutral experts in nuclear chemistry/physics and he's the one who said he predicts at least 1,000,000 cancers from Fukushima alone. He also said that the concentration of the radiation particulates in the air are likely higher in Fukushima than that of TMI and Chernobyl. What you don't understand is that there are no exact figures from the Fukushima aster because it iscensored. What I'm trying to say is that the only reliable information comes from nuclear experts who have been to Japan to discuss with the Japanese nuclear agency.
Though that would not be 100% transparent because TEPCO themselves are trying to keep themselves alive, nuclear experts like Gundersen have more reliable information to offer than media sources or opinions from non-experts.
I don't see him as being an "Expert" because all of his theories he's come up with are GARBAGE. Have you read about his actual work into nuclear physics? Just parroting his PhD in Chemistry isn't enough to give his opinions and research validity. Only proper science does that, and he's really shitty at it. Is he an expert in Chemical Physics? Sure. Is he in Nuclear physics? From what I've read of his publications, absolutely not.
And I've already given my opinion on Gundersens work, and the answer is simple. There needs to be much more work done, by many more people, before the figures can be taken seriously.
It may only be a youtube video but he's far more an expert in the field than what you believe him to be
Arnie is an energy advisor with 39-years of nuclear power engineering experience. A former nuclear industry senior vice president, he earned his Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in nuclear engineering, holds a nuclear safety patent, and was a licensed reactor operator.
During his nuclear industry career, Arnie managed and coordinated projects at 70-nuclear power plants around the country. He currently speaks on television, radio, and at public meetings on the need for a new paradigm in energy production. An independent nuclear engineering and safety expert, Arnie provides testimony on nuclear operations, reliability, safety, and radiation issues to the NRC, Congressional and State Legislatures, and Government Agencies and Officials throughout the US, Canada, and internationally. In 2008, he was appointed by the Vermont Senate President to be the first Chair of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Oversight Panel. He has testified in numerous cases and before many different legislative bodies including the Czech Republic Senate.
Oh yes there's more.... :7
As the former vice president in an engineering organization, Arnie led the team of engineers who developed the plans for decommissioning Shippingport, the first major nuclear power plant in the US to be fully dismantled. He was also an invited author on the first DOE Decommissioning Handbook. Source term reconstruction is a method of forensic engineering used to calculate radiation releases from various nuclear facilities after nuclear incidents or accidents.
Arnie is frequently called upon by public officials, attorneys, and intervenors, to perform source term reconstructions. His source term reconstruction efforts vary. Arnie has calculated exposures to oil workers, who received radiation exposure while working on wells. He has also calculated radiation releases to children with health concerns, who live near a nuclear facility, like the one that carted radioactive sewage off-site and spread it on farmers' fields. Finally, he has performed an accurate source term construction of the radiation releases from the Three Mile Island nuclear accident.
So before you go claiming he isn't an expert i suggest you actually look up what kind-of Expert he is.
I was talking about Chris Busby, not Gundersen. I already acknowledged he's an expert.
Ok thank-you so why are you dismissing a youtube video he is in then.
On December 24 2011 13:49 Probe1 wrote: Until then, you have just one guy that makes his arguments on youtube and information from a dodgy site.. I'm all for going against the mold but after getting sucked into the last few pages.. Affinity you're propping up a wildly unsupported theory.
And what do you have to offer? Can you offer some insight and exact figures of the degree of contamination at Fukushima/Japan? If not, rather than saying that it is my "wildly unsupported" theory, try convincing the international nuclear committee that you think otherwise.
please stop defending these crazy theories.. why are you defending them? are you attached to them as if they are your own? does it cause you emotional distress because you have put a lot of time into reading these 'unsupported' theories?
you don't seem to realize how easy it is to obtain a PhD in physics (that is, there's so many different thesis that you could pick one off the top of your head).
the degree of radioactive contamination in soil/food etc in fukushima is definitely enough to harm people - however i have read countless nutjob alarmist posts that started as soon as the meltdown started. we had: RADIOACTIVE CLOUD COULD KILL AMERICANS. many of these theories revolved around the US being harmed. the internet likes to click on these links. free blog views to a lot of people. they were all completely unfounded and based off each other. EARTHQUAKE + TSUNAMI CAUSED BY HAARP some people seriously believe there exists the means to generate enough energy to vibrate an entire tectonic plate via the atmosphere. what? RAINWATER HAS 131 TIMES THE LEGAL DRINKING WATER LIMIT FOR IODINE-131 i don't even want to start on this very recent one - not only did they pick the outlier from the data sheet - the site they referenced the data from doesn't exist. even at this level it would only take 1 month of rainwater storage to reduce the levels of iodine-131 to 4 times the legal 'drinking water' limit. not to mention dilution. also not to mention the fact that anyone with a western diet will not absorb much of this iodine 131 from the water and will have little to no increased risk of thyroid cancer.
this conspiracy shit is seriously retarded. the interests of the government of japan is to protect their country's wellbeing - why would they want to censor information? how would it impact any of it? they already have the responsibility of planning rebuilding of entire towns that were hit by the earthquake/tsunamii combo. 20,000 people died. screening of food. monitoring of radiation levels.
luckily the plant has now been declared to be in cold shutdown. ie, it leaks no more than it would have in normal operation.
perhaps you should educate yourself on the types of harmful radiation people are exposed to each year by everyday activity. this is a nice, illustrative chart from xkcd. + Show Spoiler +
the interests of the government of japan is to protect their country's wellbeing - why would they want to censor information? how would it impact any of it? they already have the responsibility of planning rebuilding of entire towns that were hit by the earthquake/tsunamii combo. 20,000 people died. screening of food. monitoring of radiation levels.
TEPCO admitted to censoring information from the start in collusion with the government of Japan. They never even informed the public until weeks after that there had been full melt-downs which they should have evacuated people from the disaster area immediately which was not done. (With the severity of the disaster that is difficult but at-least they should have tried to inform the public)
As for the censoring of information throughout the entirety of the disaster yes of course they want to protect their own people.
But there is also another thing that concerns the government of Japan and that is money. Tourism/Exports will be harmed if information about harmful radiation levels get-out. Even if one part of the Ocean/Land near Fukushima is affected by the vast majority of radiation people will still be inclined not to want food-products from Japan just because of the chances etc...
As for protecting the Tourism industry its pretty much self-explanatory why they wouldn't want information getting out. Think about.
Gonna pick up a PhD in physics tomorrow, since they are so easy to get.
Some dude that probably struggled with the soft math in HS saying PhD in physics are easy to get wtf.
On the surface Busby does seem to have gone crackpotty. But Gundersen seems very legitimate.
As for Tepco and Japanese government, they have been lying and covering up and being fraudulent all the time. If you were familiar with nuclear reactors in Japan you would have known before the earthquake they can't really be trusted as they have tried to cover up accidents before.
When you read back this thread and see what was posted just after the earthquake happened you will see those with a physics background of at least affinity already knowing how bad it may become while the laymen who have to trust in mainstream media are generally confused because they believe Japanese government and Tepco.
Why would the Japanese government lie? Dude, even our western governments lie. Japan is an Asian country. They don't have the western outlooks we have. We know they lied. We have known from day 1. You can read it in the thread. It was obvious to anyone with a degree in physics that they were lying. TL members told us right here they were lying. The lies were just that bad. Why they make such bad lies? Because they are incompetent and because they can probably get away with it anyway.
A problem with getting info on nuclear physics as a layman is that most nuclear engineers are paid for my companies in the nuclear industry. They don't bite the hand that feeds them. It is actually better to listen to more independent scientists rather than engineers.
One piece of propaganda is that a little radiation has no effect. It has. Every bit of radiation you get increases the risk you get cancer. Bananas are radioactive. Yes, a banana adds to the probability you get cancer. Many people get cancer without ever being exposed to special sources of radiation. Radiation is everywhere around us. When you get old and you don't die from heart diseases, you probably get cancer. Because of this you want to avoid all radiation exposure whenever possible. With every increase in radiation you get, no matter how minuscule, so also goes up the risk of cancer by a minuscule amount. Now when you have enough people, some will die directly because of the additional radiation they got. You dodge a million of bullets but then that 1 bullet kills you. That's why radiation is so tricky to talk about and to estimate the effect of a radiation disaster.
Another tricky bit is that people who know most about physics and particles or nuclear engineering often know very little about what radiation does to the human body. The whole radiation-human body-cancer angle is poorly understood. Especially so compared with all the particle physics and nuclear reactor stuff that's all rock solid and obvious.
NHK: Radiation so high at Reactor No. 3 that still no gas detector in place — “Building must be decontaminated” just to install device (VIDEO) Nuclear Watch: Next Steps, NHK, Dec. 22, 2011:
At 2:30 in
Reactors 1 and 2 have gas detectors installed But At reactor 3 the radiation level is too high and no detector has been added Building must be decontaminated so gas detector can be installed as soon as possible
EPT
![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/radiation.png)
