State what as fact? That workers are being exposed to high levels of radiation and are getting sick from it? I already quoted Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano acknowledging 21 cases of radiation sickness so far. It is a fact, that you can’t suffer from radiation sickness if you haven’t been exposed to high levels of radiation.
Maybe Yukio ‘Jack Bauer’ Edano was mistranslated. It should be easy enough to cite that he was mistranslated.
Otherwise, radiation sickness and exposures to high levels of radiation is already established fact.
"A number of the workers at the plant have been exposed to high levels so often that some will inevitably succumb to some kind of radiation poisoning and/or cancers. These brave people have stayed and worked to try to mitigate this disaster full knowing that** they will probably die.** "
Ah, I see your point. It’s not wildly irresponsible speculation though. There are articles being circulated on mainstream news sites quoting workers as saying things like they’ve decided among themselves they’re prepared to die, and are more or less resigned to their fate, which includes radiation sickness, cancer and death.
Whether they will “succumb” to these things or not remains to be seen. One really good thing about this happening in Japan is anyone who falls ill is going to get love-bombed with the best and most expert medical care money can buy. I won’t be surprised at all if the survival rate of these workers is much higher than the Chernobyl workers, most of whom were sent home with a few bucks in their pocket, and a piece of paper saying they didn’t get much radiation exposure.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Ah, I see your point. It’s not wildly irresponsible speculation though. There are articles being circulated on mainstream news sites quoting workers as saying things like they’ve decided among themselves they’re prepared to die, and are more or less resigned to their fate, which includes radiation sickness, cancer and death.
[/QUOTE]
No…you are reporting widely circulated speculation coming from the mainstream media news sites. Have you noticed the distinct lack of details? And that much of the commentary is coming from the workers themselves SPECULATING on their possible fates? Workers who in many cases don’t know where they friends or families are (because they are most likely dead), who are working in very trying conditions with little rest and a lack of food? You think perhaps that, maybe, just maybe, such workers might be feeling a bit depressed, and maybe letting that depression show?
Conversely, if you HAVE some actual detailed facts, instead of a one line quote from some MSM news outlet merely repeating the same one liner from other news sites then you could present it. Oh, but you can’t because it’s all a government coverup…or something. Right?
I showed you what’s on the IAEA web site. It’s not very detailed, but it’s more detailed than anything YOU’VE shown. Feel free to show some actual facts…otherwise, as Gary Kumquat says, you are just playing the wild speculation game.
You continue to amuse me. If the IAEA doesn’t say it, it doesn’t exist. Then, you blather on about lack of food, little rest and depression as if these are facts.
What does the IAEA have to say about your speculation? If the IAEA doesn’t explicitly say it, it isn’t true. Moreover, if the IAEA doesn’t say it, then it’s categorically false. In your head, that is.
Or newspapers have run articles highlighting the bravery of the people doing the work, talking up the risks that they face so they can run hero pieces to sell papers…you know, like news papers do? Brave workers say they are prepared to die in battle to save japan, more on page 3, 4 and 5. See also heartbreaking photos of stray pets starving away, etc.
Which then various mooks are presenting here as cast iron fact. Then, when for example someone points out that either it’s the mother of all coverups or exposure rates to date are seriously minor risk, even for the 22 workers with doses over 100 mSv, same mooks just accuse them of being nuclear deniers, or being naive, or what the fuck ever.
This gets tiresome. So, as I mentioned before, isn’t it so much easier to claim you’re right when you just make shit up. I mean, why don’t I go the whole FXM? I’ve just been shown photos of the reactors, and it’s a veritable garden of Eden where Elvis is having a nice cup of tea with Gandhi. Fuck me, isn’t nuclear energy just wonderful. You want a cite? You can fucking google it yourself, don’t be so bastard lazy. Why should I have to do any legwork to prove my claims, you’re just in denial and are probably a paid stooge of the windpower mafia (etc, etc, ad nauseam)
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
You continue to amuse me. If the IAEA doesn’t say it, it doesn’t exist. Then, you blather on about lack of food, little rest and depression as if these are facts.
[/QUOTE]
And you merely bore. It’s like you think that no one can scroll up and see what I actually wrote. On the assumption you are just too stupid to be able to read it, I’ll translate using small words. The IAEA cite actually had some few details. The cites you’ve thus far provided are one liners with no details at all…or they are human interest stories discussing things with the workers themselves and then pretending they are experts in what’s going on. If you have some facts, feel free to post them. Otherwise, you gots nuffin.
Clear enough?
They have given details and are involved directly in the process there. Their web site is updated every day, with special updates as important events take place. As a snap shot of what’s happening I’ve found them to be more detailed than the bullshit YOU are posting, true. Are they the be all and end all? No…never said they were. But they have more information in one place than any other site I’ve seen. You disagree? Feel free to post a link to a more comprehensive site that has a log of what’s happening every day. Thus far, you’ve gots nuffin but out of the ass bullshit, wild ass speculation, knee jerking fear and your old stand by deception.
Please cite where the IAEA has confirmed any of this silliness. Otherwise, you and **Xtisme **really need to get on the same page.
When someone points out it’s the mother of all coverups they are simply making shit up and criticizing their opponent for shit they themselves just made up.
As long as it passes the IAEA test, say what you like, I guess.
I prefer more than one biased source for my information, but that’s just my little quirk.
Believe me sweets, I rely on people being able to scroll up and see what you really say.
The IAEA isn’t allowed to say anything without Japan’s approval. That’s the way it is. You are not going to read anything from the IAEA until it’s been vetted by the Japanese. You don’t seem to understand the IAEA’s function. They are a government and industry mouthpiece promoting nuclear safety. That’s what they do, and it’s no conspiracy.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Please cite where the IAEA has confirmed any of this silliness.
[/QUOTE]
Um…you want Gary to cite from the IAEA his observations about the types of stories you’ve been linking too being human interest pieces, or one liners with no details about 21 workers having ‘minor radiation sickness’ (whatever that means)?? Seriously?
We don’t need to be on the same page. Unlike you guys, we don’t need to be in lock step with the fear and crazy speculations and conspiracy theories. Our jobs are much easier, since it only involved making you and the rest of your bunch look like idiots…and you guys do most of the work.
Sort of like the Truthers, ehe? Very compelling.
Feel free to use another reputable cite.
No, you prefer to use deception, wild speculation and knee jerking fear…and it’s not just your little quirk, but seems to be the same for your other buddies as well. At least you can articulate your idiotic concepts better than gonzomax, and you don’t come out nearly as crazy seeming as Le Jac, FXM or TSS, so I guess that’s something.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Believe me sweets, I rely on people being able to scroll up and see what you really say.
[/QUOTE]
Really? Because here is what I actually said:
[QUOTE=XT]
I showed you what’s on the IAEA web site. It’s not very detailed, but it’s more detailed than anything YOU’VE shown. Feel free to show some actual facts…otherwise, as Gary Kumquat says, you are just playing the wild speculation game.
[/QUOTE]
And your response:
See, no where did I say or even imply that the IAEA is the be all or end all, or if they don’t say it it doesn’t exist. In fact, what I said was they while they lack a lot of detail, they simply have more detail than you’ve thus far provided. I then went on to say that if you have something better, feel free. Getting back to your rant, it was almost like you either didn’t read what I actually wrote, or, knowing you, figured that others wouldn’t be able to scroll up a few posts to look and would thus just take your word for it. Like I said, you are a deceptive little mega-weasel.
So you keep saying. I’m sure any cite that disagrees with your fundamental world view is going to be categorized as simply a government or industry mouth piece. The thing is, even if that’s the case, you’ve been singularly unable to point to what’s actually said in the IAEA reports showing they are being deceptive or evasive or whatever…you’ve not even tried to address what they are saying in fact, but instead merely handwaved the whole thing away with assertions that they are a corrupt source without the need to address the content. How’s that working out for you, outside of the gonzomax, FXM and TSS crowd?
I don’t think I’ve called the IAEA deceptive or evasive. I call them biased and I remind everyone what they are, and what their mandate is. That’s not using deception.
Speaking of the IAEA being deceptive, I would point out that the IAEA’s claim of only 4,000 total Chernobyl deaths has been contradicted by Ukraine, Russia, eyewitnesses, doctors, scientists, other EU countries, and is pretty indicative of what we can expect from the IAEA when they summarize this “event” later. That’s not conspiracy theory.
[QUOTE=The Second Stone]
Evacuee commits suicide rather than move.
[/QUOTE]
Good grief…seriously? :rolleyes:
The guy was 102 years old for the gods sake. I’m sure they weren’t asking him to leave because they feared he’d get cancer 40 years down the pike. Of course, your article goes on to say (despite the sensational headline):
The fact that you seem to feel it needs to be is, well…fuck, I have no idea what that means. That you are a fucking nutball?
Wow, you’re kind of a cold, heartless, inhuman monster, aren’t you? You really are determined to dehumanize anyone, and any number of someones, who stand between you and your nuclear dream?
You need to find this out for yourself as you refuse to credit anything anybody else might post and point out to you, but the official nomenclature for a nuclear accident is an “incident”. There have been US deaths from “incidents”. Your other google search term should be “Idaho”. I have referred to the Idaho deaths a number of times in this thread, but it’s long and I don’t expect a pro nukie to actually read an opposing post. It was a nuclear reactor. Note that I do not claim it was a power plant.
The fact is that there have been dozens of incidents that the public knows about and because of the large number of US Navy reactors there may be dozens more that we don’t know about.
In other exciting news, No. 4 at Fukushima is now open air and fissioning, supposedly at a very low level. Hopefully they are telling the truth about it being at a low level.
