Radioactve Iodine linked to Japan found in Glasgow

[Lollybrolly]

Sky news reporting now!

elvisgirl, you've already told me you're in the industry and it's clear you have a vested interest in making out that farmers must loooove the fact they don't have to do any work because their farms are polluted by radiation
When the reality is it destroys farmers

I had a lot of patience with you on that other thread, I considered all your pro arguments but I have come to the conclusion this past week that for the most part all they're fob offs

Reducing power most certainly is realistic

Did you know that one vending maching uses the same amount of electricity as a house. For what? So you can have cold drinks anytime, anyplace. The American dream. Whoo hooo!

What possible vested interest could I have in pointing out that some farmers did not behave with the subsidies appropriately? If I worked at Trawsfynydd I may well have been able to benefit financially from the ring of farmers asking workers to bring out material to fraudalently spike their samples with,or if I worked for the EA & was approached by the hopefully small number of farmers who were bribing the monitors to falsify their readings, but I am just relaying some info on the subject I happen to know from my background. Persons with & without integrity are found across the board. I am not in the industry either-as previously stated elsewhere on MN I worked at Imperial College, a university so not attached to any commercial interests (except its own).

My local cinema has vending machines next to the food outlets, which is madness. But reducing things like that is insignificant compared to the power consumption of things like, say, industrial smelters, which will be always be needed & in increasing numbers unless the population levels off.

Vested interest or not, it's irrelevant - unless you're trying to argue that the accident did farmers a favour? I don't quite see how you can swing that, if so - however unscrupulous some may have been in cashing in on it.

Well, I'm seriously thinking I may have to join you as a vegan, Elvisgirl, or at least a vegetarian. Can't see myself eating fish anytime in the near future, nor lamb.

yes, that 's what elvisgirl is arguing Ingrid: that a radiation polluted farm is a positive outcome for the farmers

And BAdgerpaws is insisting that this is not evn a nuclear disaster, just because it happens not to be a disaster for her

The dead bodies cannot evn be pulled from the sea because they're so steeped in radiation. They can't be cremated because nobody can handle them.
THere are little children cooped up in school gymnasiums because their homes are next to Fukushima and they can't return.

I would say it's a pretty big fucking nuclear disaster for SOME people, (not for others, of course)

I think the media are seriously underplaying the global impact of this situation.

From what I've read (not in the mainsteam media) it seems that 'meltdown' has already occurred in more than one reacter. This can lead to the 'China Syndrome' - where the fuel melts through the earth leading to a massive explosion when it hits the water table. It doesn't help that reacter 3 has MOX fuel (blend of plutonium/uranium) which is uber deadly.

Also I have a friend in the US and she tells me that radiation has already been found in milk and rainwater. I am a mum of 6 myself and am quite freaked out.

I really hope someone who knows what they're talking about can reassure me because I don't trust TEPCO!

Here is a video which is about as non-sensationalist (but still dire) as I could find.

At last, Muffincrazy, someone who agrees with me that the media are underplaying the global impact of this.

There are plenty of reports of radiation being found in milk in Washington and elsewhere in the states.

Apparently food imports from Japan are being banned by various countries, but it would be good to know how careful governments are being. Why is there no information about this?

Yum, fish! Yum, lamb. Give it here. You're a long time dead. In Glasgow, there's far more likely to kill you than radiation. They outta be more concerned with that fact that two boys from the same city can be born in different areas and one has a life-expectancy about 25 years lower than the other due to poverty, malnutrion, substance abuse, work accident and violence.

That YouTube video is very interesting, Muffin, thanks.

Yes, grafenstolz, I think we are being seriously kept in the dark - lest the masses start to really panic!

Another link with lots of disturbing info:

blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/04/01/breaking-radiation-san-francisco-18100-drinking-water-limits-13014/

This is interesting:

The comparisons between internal and external exposure are misleading. Think of radiation as being akin to germs. Externally, like on your hands, germs are no big deal ? your skin protects you. But once inside the body, it?s a different story entirely. Radiation can be thought of in a similar way. CAT scans and x-rays are examples of external exposure, but milk is going into the body, and internal exposure is much more dangerous. Plus, we know that contaminated milk is an early warning sign ? it?s now virtually certain that radiation is working its way into vegetables and other food products.

The research is fairly solid on how much radiation can be ingested into the body with no health impact: The answer is none. There is no safe level of exposure. Period.

The thing that worries me more is the plutonium. Apparently you only need to breathe or ingest the slightest particle for it to be lethal.

The problem is that there is now no way of cooling the reacters, because nobody can get near, so an explosion when the meltdown mass reaches the water table seems highly likely (sending a MASSIVE plutonium cloud into the atmosphere).

As I say, if anybody can reassure me that I'm worrying for nothing please do.

Incidentially, a Japanese cargo ship has already been turned away from China because of radioactivity - this will certainly kill the Japanese economy - and have global economic repurcussions too.

I really hope everyone understands I am not trying to panic anybody.

In fact I hope someone like Badgerspaws will be along in a minute to set my mind at rest...

BUT....... here is Michio Kaku, a a world-leading physicist and what he has to say on the matter.

'The research is fairly solid on how much radiation can be ingested into the body with no health impact: The answer is none. There is no safe level of exposure. Period.'

Damn. Guess we're all doomed to die then.

Honestly, people, the genie's out of the bottle wrt to Fukushima. It's done now.

Best we can do now is the last thing one of the Fukushima 50 requested of his family: Live well.

I would find it easier to take that approach, expat, if I didn't have kids.

We're not all doomed to die at all, but it would be useful if we were getting honest information about what's going on in Japan and what can be done about it.

I intend to live well, but I'll do anything I can from now on to stop the bastards lining their pockets on the backs of the health of little children for the sake of vending machines and naff theme parks, neon lights and casino parlours.

Sakura, Leo Hickman has written about vending machines in today's Guardian

here.

But it's a bit of a weird article, considering Hickman is meant to be a bit of an eco-warrior. It implies that the march of the vending machine is indeed unstoppable.

Interesting how people in the US are finding it impossible to buy Potassium Iodide now (this protects the thyroid from radiation).

There have been reports that the government has bought up all supplies

I've been banging on about vending machines since FUkushima began

How many journos are crawling over MN....?

The only reason the march of the vending machine is unstoppable is because everyone's in Coke's pocket. Oh, and the nuclear industry's too...

In fact, skim-reading his article, it's clear that his assignment was to spin a positive light on vending machines and nuclear power
I've just been reading today about how newspaper and magazines writers are often told that their articles must have a particular slant to please the various stakeholders. An interesting example I read was of a woman journo who was told by her editor that she had to write an article portraying suburban pill-popping housewives as ecstatically happy with their lives- not reveal the truth of their misery. SHe turned it down, lost her job and had great difficulty finding another one. I doubt much has changed.

I've met him and I don't know why he's written such a wimpish article. He's very tall agreeable.

Vending machines aside...

I think Fukushima may turn out to be the biggest environmental disaster EVER (they didn't admit Chernobyl was a 'problem' for 2 months).

I hope I am wrong.

Well, that's what I think, too. I can't believe journalists haven't got it yet, either.

They must read something other than industry press releases.