You can’t, Big Nature has too big a lobby.
Completely untrue.
While the box jellyfish has caused quite a few deaths in Australia, the numbers are nothing like 44 per year. According to the government of Australia’s Northern Territory, the total deaths caused by the box jellyfish is just over 60 people since 1883.
Seriously? Nobody here is watching the news? Try Google news.
This phrase will work “In hindsight, we could have moved a little quicker”
This one has the most honest description of the press conference
I don’t think any top US officials were surprised by the announcement.
What did you find reassuring? That’s a scary article, and the other recent articles there are pretty scary too.
Lets remind all that before you, or other of the “emergency doors are locked” posters, said that all workers were being evacuated and then nothing was being done to prevent a meltdown and further explosions, so the disaster was headed for the worst scenario and that was the end of it. That was a few days ago.
There was no acknowledgment that that alarmist bit was not accurate, the situation is scary enough, but I have to assume that you have no concept of perspective.
You must be one of those box jellyfish apologizers!
Guess the site I ran across was a bit wrong with 5500 deaths since 1884.
Perschmecktive. I’ve never been one of the “edal” posters, whatever that means. I’m talking about news articles that are being read by everyone on the internet right now.
The linked article is reassuring. How? Because it doesn’t have “Chernobyl” and “China Syndrome” sprinkled liberally throughout? If you actually read the articles - for comprehension this time! - they’re not reassuring.
Radiation deniers are having a hard time keeping up the brave face.
The “I read it on the internet so it must be true” is not a good reason to reassuring yourself that the alarmist position is the accurate one.
What I have seen time and time again is that the articles (that many times are not linked to, and I do not wonder why) in reality do not say what the alarmists claim they say.
Once again, can you cite what it was said? It is clear the apology was also for not being prepared better for the disaster (Actually it seems to be more related to the apparent beach of etiquette for not doing even a token one before as I think it is demanded by Japanese custom), not that radiation was deadly for all.
I wonder if anybody still actually and really believes that a situation where you can’t even get helicopter near a plant, that’s burning, does anyone truly really believe no radiation is escaping? Seriously?
And that if the first hint of it arrived in California a week later, do you really think nothing was leaking after the first huge explosion? Does anyone really believe that? Like, true believer belief?
As for the ‘deadly’ part, maybe some people still actually think it’s not anything serious, because it hasn’t impacted a populated area yet. Like, if it doesn’t kill you within a day, it can’t be deadly?
1st Straw man.
2nd Straw man.
And third straw man, you are out.
Out of having anyone that is serous on taking you in kind.
I guess that’s an answer then. The true radiation denier still believes.
If its good enough for Fox Moulder, its good enough for me.
I guess it has to be spelled for slow minds. 
There are radiation levels that are harmful to humans, but so far they are inside or next to the nuclear plants. And the latest reports are that those levels are lowering.
Now, that was mentioned by many sources and I have said so also before, so unless you are an idiot, you will have to acknowledge that we mention that there is radiation, so stop being criminally reckless and concentrate on the evidence and not to increase fears unnecessarily.
Perhaps I see the problem.
A lot of radiation is of very limited effect, based on proximity. You can get a lethal dose at close range, but a few hundred yards away, only a “not good” dose. A hundred miles away, you are getting a bigger dose from the luminous wrist watch on the guy walking past you.
Good point.
I’m going to resurrect this thread later in the year after cleanup operations are complete.
If it’s not still going by that time.
Yes. The real danger to the population from the Fukushima disaster has been the possibility of long lived radioisotopes being released into the air as particulate debris through explosion or by being carried aloft by convection along with steam or smoke from fires. Most of the radioactive material released has been in the form of gases, most of which have been isotopes with very short half lives.
This is why those of us familiar with nuc. plants, through work experience or education, made such a big deal about the primary containment, and why the biggest worry over the past week has been the spent fuel cells rather than the reactor cores.
So what some of us find reassuring in reports is that it’s becoming increasingly unlikely that any significant releases of the bad particulate stuff will be possible, and the radiological part of this disaster can be confined to the relatively small area of the reactor facilities, instead of exposing downwind inhabitants for 100’s of miles (if the winds shifted away from prevailing patterns), or permanently making a 20 kilometer radius around them uninhabitable.
This has been very bad, but that badness is a relatively small part of the horrifying natural disasters themselves.