Friday, June 24, 2011

Notes and Dead Babies From the Fukushima Apocalypse

People really like to exaggerate. People really like to bend the truth to fit their agenda.

Most times that agenda is politically or financially motivated. At other times that agenda is pure and simple narcissism and those who are guilty of this are very many. These people insist upon being right no matter what and no matter how much facts get in the way.

Not being an expert on everything, and with a mass media background and much news experience, I like to stick with the facts... Just the facts.

 And that doesn't include innocents killed in wars for oil.

The people who have an agenda are easier to understand than the narcissists, money is a great motivator. The motivation of a narcissist is a dark and strange place. 

Many narcissists are so often completely illogical that they write things and fail to recognize to comical nature of their comments.

In my post of June 20, entitled, Return of the Coal Industry and; Massive Health Problems and; Deaths Because of it, I wrote (and linked) to proof that about 3.3 million people a year, every year, die from pollutants from coal and oil based industrial pollutants. I also linked to proof that, per unit of energy, for every one person who has died from nuclear power, 4,000 die from coal industrial uses alone. Throw in oil and the death rate is more than 5,000 times and that doesn't include millions killed in wars for control of that oil. 

But the anti-nuclear crowd can't have that. They cannot argue with facts so they come up with nonsense comments. Like this one that was directed to me on Twitter:

"Is it OK for you to portray nuclear risk so low that someday coworkers will lose health, cannot feed their kids cuz they're dead?"

Yes, thank you. If you consider the level of risk so low then that is your value judgement. I portray the facts. That is what I deal in. What do you have to say about the fact that many more people die from coal or oil pollution than nuclear power? 

Also, those people working at Fukushima are not slave workers. This is not ancient Egypt or 18th century slave nations. Those people can quit that job anytime they wish. If they die? Well, have you never heard of life insurance? It was created for just such unforeseen emergencies as, well.... death.

Or is that case different if, as you say they "cannot feed their kids cuz they're dead," due to a much larger killer than nuclear energy; the coal industry and oil industry? Where are your protests about that which is demonstrated and proven as a bigger killer and destroyer of our environment?

By the way, I've noticed that protesting the oil industry is not the trendy flavor of the week... It sure was in the 1970's!

I sure do wish school's would start teaching math and logic as well as critical thinking skills. Our world sure could use it.... 


In a post yesterday, I blasted a writer for calling Fukushima "Japan's nuclear apocalypse."

It is total and complete nonsense to hyper bloviate and call Fukushima a "nuclear apocalypse." That's just total and complete rubbish.

I already explained what the definition of apocalypse is. It is defined as: "imminent destruction of the world and the salvation of the righteous. There's also great or total devastation and doom." 

Get that? Destruction of the world. Doom. Death. Everyone dead. This is not a fender bender.

About the BP Oil spill, some writers were even calling that an apocalyptic event. Total deaths? 11 so far. Many health issues and many more deaths to come most probably. But factually, only 11 so far. You call that apocalypse?

They called Chernobyl "apocalypse" too. So far, the total number of predicted dead from Chernobyl? According to the Chernobyl Forum: 4,000. You call that apocalypse? Very unfortunate for those who died, but hardly what I'd call "apocalypse." 

There's been a litany of events over the past 150 years that have been called apocalypse. The biggest one that comes to mind was World War II. How many people were killed in WWII? Over 60 million

They called that one apocalypse too. 60 million is a lot of deaths, but still not the apocalypse. Last I looked humanity was still infesting this planet. 

Words have meanings and when those words are misused, they become tools of propaganda. Intelligent people would be wise to take notice. Chernobyl happened over 25 years ago. They called that apocalypse? Laughable. Did you know that, since Chernobyl, over 17,500,000 people have died in car accidents worldwide? Over 1.2 million people per year and over 3,200 people per day die in car accidents worldwide! I suppose if we are going to be so loose with our terminology I could say that if you want to avoid the apocalypse, then you'll want stay out of your car and off the roads.

The total number of deaths from the Fukushima "Nuclear apocalypse" so far? 


And this event at Fukushima some are calling "Japan's nuclear apocalypse"? Pardon me if I do not soil my pants in fear like some people are doing.

NOTE: Finally a big thanks to Michael Distacio of Rock Challenge Japan for reminding me of this great article. It heartens me that Scientific American, a journal of science publication, criticized the same article as I did. The only difference is that while I railed on Arnie Gundersen's nonsense. The Scientific American took other scientists to task:  

"...physician Janette Sherman MD and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano published an essay shedding light on a 35 per cent spike in infant mortality in northwest cities that occurred after the Fukushima meltdown, and [sic] may well be the result of fallout from the stricken nuclear plant.” The implication is clear: Radioactive fallout from the plant is spreading across the Pacific in sufficient quantities to imperil the lives of children (and presumably the rest of us as well)."


That data is publicly available, and a check reveals that the authors’ statistical claims are critically flawed—if not deliberate mistruths.

Read more here.


James said...

Yes! Thanks for that link to the debunking of that infant mortality thing. I read the report and my bullshit detector went off. I took a quick look and saw they were using the CDC data - first flag was that the "Pacific" region listed 16 different cities, but that author only listed 8 cities with the increase in mortality. "Cherry-pick much?" I said to myself? That CDC data goes back to at least 1996 so the report author only using the last few months of data was also very suspect. "somebody really ought to check this lady's work," I said to myself. (Yes, I do talk to myself quite a bit, particularly when I think I am being very clever.)

VERY glad to see that someone did. Although I have to cynically assume that the debunk will not be nearly as well-publicized as the original claim. :-/

Murasaki Shikibu said...

I have stopped reading articles that are blatantly anti-nuclear, because unfortunately many of them are unscientific and emotional. I personally do not think nuclear energy is 'safe', but there are many unsafe things in the world besides nuclear energy.
Since the tsunamis hit the Fukushima plant more people have died from e.coli, not to mention a whole mess of other things.

Anonymous said...

I'm curious to know your views on post-Fukushima food safety issues, Mike.

Are leafy vegetables from Fukushima and surrounding prefectures ok? And what about fish from along the coast above and below Fukushima.

Please enlighten us.

See Otter said...

You wrote:
About the BP Oil spill, some writers were even calling that an apocalyptic event.

Longtime net commentator Michael Ruppert was stating that the BP oil event would partially depopulate the entire Southeastern USA and cause the fall of the government.

Top 3 New Video Countdown for May 6, 2023! Floppy Pinkies, Jett Sett, Tetsuko!

   Top 3 New Video Countdown for May 6, 2023!!  Please Follow me at: Check out my Youtube Channel: ...