Ah, but are those areas uninhabitable because they're too radioactive, or
because people think they are too radioactive?
Remember that all of the deaths from Fukushima, except one in September of
this year, were caused, not by radiation, but by the panic about the
radiation. Those are two very different things.
And, if you really believe Harvey Wasserman is an objective observer and
reporter on the situation, then I don't think there's much point in
discussing it further, since there's no source that you and I are likely to
agree on as being credible.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 8:40 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Fukushima
But one thing that you haven't commented on is the actual negatives that
occurred as a result of the nuclear accidents. There are areas that become
uninhabitable. People lose their homes. There are diseases that occur years
later, aside from whatever deaths and injuries may occur at the time. In the
case of Fukushima, fish were affected. Remember that oil spill in 2010?
People are still suffering from the effects today. So the fact that some
people feel that the end justifies the means, is just an example of how
people's value systems differ. My feeling is that we're screwed whether it's
the fossil fuel industry making the money or the nuclear energy industry
making the money because both have disastrous effects on human life and the
environment. I'd like the government subsidies to both industries to stop
and that money be used, instead, to subsidize conversion to green energy and
whatever research it takes to make all the green energy resources viable.
But it's not going to happen because money rules the world. It determines
what information is disseminated and how budgets are formulated and who gets
elected.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 7:29 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Fukushima
Okay, in all fairness, I should add that an antinuclear activist doesn't
have to even necessarily deliberately lie. He can present things in such a
way as to emphasize the negative and understate or even omit the positive,
or just leave out the caveats that a conscientious observer would when
presenting his case. It's conceivable that he may not even be aware that
he's doing it. But if he is emotionally invested in a certain outcome, in
this case, the end of nuclear power, then how likely is it that he would
make any statement that could be interpreted as being anything other than
negative, even apocolyptic?
Either way, either by deliberate lying, or just by a biased presentation
which overstates the negative and leaves out or minimizes the caveats or the
positive, he is certainly not a credible source for anyone wanting an
objective report on which to make judgments about what really happened, or
what is likely to happen in the future.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 7:08 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Fukushima
I hope you read the last one also. It would also be a good idea to find
material written by Arnie Gundeersen. What is most interesting, is that I
couldn't find anything at all, written in US media about the subject, nor
could I find more than the one article, written about what is known about
the present Situation. But I don't think that what is described about what
things looked like two years after the accident is invalidated because the
person quoted is an activist opposed to nuclear energy development.
Activists don't lie about what they'er opposed to. They make speeches and
write articles and demonstrate. But emergy companies and large corporations
do lie. Tobacco companies lie. Pharmaceutical companies lie. Exxon Mobil
lied. And the big corporations bribe doctors and scientists to lie. Who
would bribe someone to lie about what happened when there was an accident at
a nuclear power plant?
Some green emergy company?
Yes, I did say that I thought that workers who were sent in to control the
leaks, had died, but I thought I remembered that and hadn't looked it up
recently or quoted numbers. Given my faulty memory these days, I'm certainly
not sure that I'd remember that accurately. But I may have heard it on
Democracy Now which covered this in great detail. That was seven years ago.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 5:47 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Fukushima
Well, I've read the CounterPunch article first, since you said it was the
most informative.
Interesting. There are some points here that I think are definitely worth
considering. I note them below. But the article is problematic in a number
of ways.
Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, the source they quote most often is
this Harvey Wasserman, who is described, even in the article, as a nuclear
activist. So why should I trust that he is a credible source? You don't
trust my source, who used to be an antinuclear activist but now has changed
his mind, so why should I trust someone who has a vested interest in playing
up the consequences and potential consequences of Fukushima?
Also, I notice they didn't mention any worker deaths. They did discuss low
worker morale, which is indeed an issue they should do something about, but
no worker deaths due to the accident. You claimed that workers had died
after the accident.
Furthermore, they mention radiation releases into the Pacific ocean, but not
the level of radiation. Just because radiation is released, does not
necessarily mean that it is harmful to humans. As one of the articles I
posted points out, you get increased radiation on a plain flight. If the
levels of radiation are seriously harmful, they should be able to say so and
give numbers. Which leads to my final problem.
Finally, the article admits that they don't even know the impact of these
releases. Quoting:
"The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiation is in
the process of writing a report to assess the radiation doses and associated
effects on health and environment.
When finalized, it will be the most comprehensive scientific analysis of the
information available to date examining how much radioactive material was
released, how it was dispersed over land and water, how Fukushima compares
to previous accidents, what the impact is on the environment and food, and
what the impact is on human health and the environment."
So they admit, (kind of under the radar as it were), that they really don't
know what the consequences were, which means that all the talk here about
apocolyptic threats is pure speculation. And five years later, where's the
catastrophic impact that was supposed to have arrived on our West coast
shores?
Now one other point, in addition to the concern over worker morale is that I
think it might be a plausible argument that the cleanup should be taken away
from TEPCO. It is indeed a concern when an apparently incompetent or even
just careless company is running the show.
Having said that, with regard to the article overall, While there are
certainly some facts mixed in here, large parts of this are hype and
speculation, not factual, and a lot of it is based on a guy who clearly has
an interest in overplaying the situation.
If this is your most informative article, I think one could be forgiven for
just skipping the rest. But I'll give at least one other a try and see if it
is more substantial than this one.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 4:14 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Fukushima
This first article, regarding plans to build a nuclear plant in Great
Britain, is a sales pitch for nuclear energy. Read carefully and along with
the damage, briefly mentioned, is the clear message that the accident would
not have taken place, had it not been for humor error and attempts to save
money by cutting corners, two things that are typical behavior.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/19/uk-government-new-plant-
fukushima-nuclear-disaster-warning
On the other hand,
https://progressive.org/magazine/shadow-fukushima/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2013/10/25/the-global-threat-of-fukushima/
And 6 years later
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/09/fukushima-nuclear-cleanup-falt
ers-six-years-after-tsunami
The most informative article is the one from Counterpunch.
Miriam
