Radioactve Iodine linked to Japan found in Glasgow

[Lollybrolly]

Sky news reporting now!

In all the organisations I've worked for, top execs have spent days and days rehearsing what would happen if a plane fell on us, a revolution occurred, or whatever. They just must do that in the nuclear industry. Don't they?

Sakura, I've seen similar 'fob offs' by 'experts' or at least sidestepping as you mention. It's as if there is something that someone is deeply concerned about that they're not mentioning, or is this just my own irrational fear? Other types of radiation that are less likely to spread but a possibility? Radiation in the sea entering the food chain?

Is Badgerpaws correct and this situation simply can't and won't get any worse? If so why is this message not being communicated clearly? Is it merely the media wanting to sell papers so hyping up non-existent risks as many here are saying?

"Don'T they?"

I think I already know the answer

Like most things, surely the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. Of course the media are scaremongering, getting their facts wrong, and muddling the science - that's what the media do best.

And of course Chernobyl is an extreme example, where a bad situation was made much worse by the reflex secrecy of the Soviet state.

And yes, I'm certain that nuclear power companies do plan for when things go wrong.

But - Japan is notoriously seismic; nuclear reactors were still built there (as a manufacturing driven economy with no coal, gas or oil, its not surprising). As I understand it, there are also (ageing) nuclear reactors in seismically active areas in the United States.

We know that both private companies and states will - not always, but sometimes - behave in ways that are not 100% driven by concern for public safety, whether that is because of pursuit of profit, state prestige, or even structural incompetence. That can cause big problems when you throw it into the mix with something as potentially dangerous as nuclear power.

On a separate note, I'd be interested to know how close the supporters of nuclear power would be happy to live to a nuclear power station? I would certainly be very wary of buying a house within say a 30 mile radius.

I think the BBC is very sensationalist, yes, but I always knew that. I hate that channel. It might as well be the AmericanBC

But it's the sidestepping and fob-offs by the experts that has worried me. The secrecy of TEPCO, nobody giving a straight answer. The nuclear physicist on here gave me the earthquake fob off to a direct question of mine about the nuclear issue.

The nuclear industry has not done itself any favours.

Takver, what happens is, the people who make money out of industry don't live on its doorstep. They all live in the big cities and offer local councils and poorer areas back handers to let the plant be built. At least that's what happens in Japan.

Just like they bury toxic waste in Wales. WHy not bury it in London? WHy should Wales have to keep it?

I honestly don't think the media are scaremongering. I think they are being told off very severely if they even stray near the truth. I also think the silence about plutonium, caesium and strontium is very weird. All the talk is of iodine, and that is the least worst of the radioactive emissions.

I'd just like to throw in this argument to all those who say green energy can't give us the energy we 'need':

Maybe we don't NEED that energy. Maybe we could all learn to live on less, ALL cover our homes in solar panels and do our bit. ALL grow mushrooms in our fridge . We don't NEED 99% of the energy we use.

We use it because it's there, readily accessible and (currently) doesn't cost too much.

When energy costs rise, we will find ways of reducing our dependency on it.

Why do you think this is Sakura? Is it simply they don't want to be 'liable' if they say 'there's absolutely nothing to worry about, it will always purely be a localised issue' even if that's what they believe? Perhaps it's as simple as that and therefore nothing to worry about it real terms unless very close.

Has any 'expert' actually said the above? Because I sense that other countries, much further away, seem irrationally (?) worried about this situation. But again is this due to media hype?

"Are you seriously suggesting that nuclear power development doesn't make a lot of money for investors, stakeholders, city councils and hangers on?"

No.

What I am saying is that claiming "they don't plan ahead" is clearly utter nonsense and easily proved as such. And therefore any group who runs around shouting out nonsense like that quickly drowns out any rational and genuine criticism there might be.

On the other hand saying "they don't plan enough because of X" is something much better.

"Are you going to tell me that despite there being an increased amount of kids with leukemia in cities next to a power plant there is 'no connection' to the plants?"

Without seeing the figures no I'm not.

This is an example of a genuine criticism that is harmed by nonsensical and easily disproved claims.

"It would never mention health risks unless there actually were health risks/ IT's been minimizing the risks all the way"

I've posted up a link that has the numbers and the health guidelines (here).

Either you disagree with that, in which case explain why.

Or you accept it, in which case you also accept that there is no current health risk, the health risk would be if the levels continue to be where they are for long periods of time and that the warnings are a precaution for reasons that depend on how cynical you are.

quite rachelmummy, that's my vending machine argument

Norham, TEPCO is worried that people will protest against nuclear energy (as they are already doing in Tokyo) and the industry will suffer.
If there are future health effects on people it will be very difficult to prove that each particular case is linked to this disaster. As we've seen with the increased amount of Leukemia cases next to power plants, companies will keep pretending that health problems are one off, inexplicable, and random.

Japan has lots of plans to build more plants. I doubt the people will let them go ahead now. But who listens to the people, hey? they'll probably carry on building them anyway. And I'm being serious.

Badgerspaw,

You've confused me with another poster. It was someone else who was asking you about the planning ahead.

My point was this:

"Are you seriously suggesting that nuclear power development doesn't make a lot of money for investors, stakeholders, city councils and hangers on?""

And your answer was "NO"

Which is the only point I'm making here

I see what you mean, Sakura. But why no 'expert' willing to stick their neck out and say with almost certainty a local problem and simply can never escalate/spread any significant global radiation as totally impossible? What is the worst that can really happen? Is it that no one really knows?

Well, the scientist that came on here was a very nice chap, and he was confident that it was a local problem and I believe him on that point.

The problem for me is: I am local

"You've confused me with another poster. It was someone else who was asking you about the planning ahead."

But you did appear to post this...

"sakura Wed 30-Mar-11 13:15:36

no, they don't plan ahead grafenstol they just pocket the backhanders and it's tally ho"

So have I misread it? Did you say that that don't plan ahead? Apologies if I've got in a muddle or someone else has a very similar name...

Whoever did say that that is the sort of statement that is very harmful to reasoned opposition to the nuclear industry as it's so clearly nonsense, which makes it easier for them to paint the opposition in a very bad light.

"I'd be interested to know how close the supporters of nuclear power would be happy to live to a nuclear power station? I would certainly be very wary of buying a house within say a 30 mile radius."

I've repeatedly lived within that radius of a nuclear power plant, and while aware of it it never struck me as being anything to worry about.

yes that was a quip in response to another poster's point, not the main thrust of my argument at all.

My main point is:

"Are you seriously suggesting that nuclear power development doesn't make a lot of money for investors, stakeholders, city councils and hangers on?""

and then just general anger that the industry isn't legitimate

Put your money where your mouth is Badger, come to my place and we'll send your kids (not mine) into the sea for a swim

seriously, nobody is going to let their kids swim in a radioactive sea, so this "I have lived repeatedly withing a 30 mile radius" is not a successful argument

"yes that was a quip in response to another poster's point, not the main thrust of my argument at all."

OK.

While I do believe in the nuclear argument I also believe that it is vital that the industry and the science behind it is held to constant and rational examination and questioning.

So no I don't totally trust the industry.

And that is why I get so frustrated at the facts of what's going on being abused by certain groups. While it might gain them short term gains through playing the fear card in the longer term it seriously damages their long term credibility.

"Put your money where your mouth is Badger, come to my place and we'll send your kids (not mine) into the sea for a swim"

I'd have to look into the numbers for the sea, all I know off the top of my head is that the levels in the tap water would have to remain as high for many months to pose any health risk to even a baby.

"this 'I have lived repeatedly withing a 30 mile radius' is not a successful argument"

I actually agree with you there, but someone asked if anyone has lived that close, and I have, though I accept that it proves little.

I think Glaswegians have better things to worry about than Iodine levels. We have Faslane up the road, nuclear subs going up and down the Clyde, occasionally, y'know, getting grounded etc. And boy are we looking goward to the 'upgrades' to Trident. One accident, one terrorist 'incident' and it's Goodnight Vienna for us.

Badgerspaws, how can you say that fukushima has not been devastating to the people who have had to leave their homes in a 20-30km zone, and to those in Tokyo who can't drink the water? I think I have a very different idea of 'devastating' to yours.

Not to mention the financial impact on Japanese trade and tourism. What are you thinking?

exactly Ingrid. they've just had to leave, they can never go back because the incident has been upgraded to a level 6 so far (chernobyl was a 7)

Can't grow a veg patch, can't patch up their communities. I read that post-Chernobyl there was a very high suicide rate among the evacuees. Again, a sense of hopelesness and pointlesness at knowing the area you grew up in and lived all your life is now covered with dangerous invisible dirt

"Badgerspaws, how can you say that fukushima has not been devastating"

Compared to all the other devastation and the Chernobyl fantasies being thrown around this isn't yet a nuclear disaster.

And as to the tap water...

At the highest recorded dose in Tokyo "an infant could receive a radiation dose of about 10 microsieverts from drinking one litre of the tap water, meaning one would have to drink a litre per day for a year to receive a dose of between 1 and 10 millisieverts."

And that has to be compared to "the normal 2.4 millisieverts per year from background radiation". The BBC concluded "so the extra risk from drinking tap water in Tokyo for a year would be far less than that of someone moving, say, from London to Cornwall for a year."

And as said drinking the water with that level of iodine for a year is impossible, it's no longer being produced and has a half life of 8 days. So we've either passed the peak level or soon will.

And I'm willing to be proved wrong but hasn't the advice to avoid the water if possible ("it is still safe to use if there is no alternative") in Tokyo now been lifted?