Japan And The Marshall Islands In The Nuclear Age

[jpak]

http://www.countercurrents.org/alcalay270311.htm

When the dangerous dust and gases settle and we discover just how much radiation escaped the damaged Fukushima reactors and spent fuel rods, we may never know how many people are being exposed to radiation from the burning fuel rods and reactor cores, and how much exposure they will receive over time. Minute and above-background traces of Iodine-131 are already showing up in Tokyo's water supply - 150 miles southwest of the leaking reactors - and in milk and spinach from 75 miles away. The Japanese government has recently warned pregnant women and children to avoid drinking Tokyo tap water

Aside from sharing the dubious distinction of both nations having been at the receiving end of America 's nuclear weapons, Japan and the Marshall Islands now share a second dubious distinction. The unleashed isotopes of concern from the damaged Japanese reactors - Iodine-131, Cesium-137 , Strontium-90 and Plutonium-239 - are well known to the Marshall Islanders living downwind of the testing sites at Bikini and Enewetak atolls in the central Pacific, following sixty-seven A- and H-bombs exploded between 1946-58. In fact, it is precisely these isotopes that continue to haunt the 80,000 Marshallese fifty-three years after the last thermonuclear test in the megaton range shook their pristine coral atolls and contaminated their fragile marine ecosystems.

The U.S.' largest hydrogen bomb - Bravo - was 1,000 times the Hiroshima atomic bomb, and deposited a liberal sprinkling of these and a potent potpourri of 300 other radionuclides over a wide swath of the inhabited atolls in the Marshalls archipelago in March 1954.

The Rongelap islanders 120 miles downwind from Bikini received 190 rems <1.9 Sv> of whole-body gamma dose before being evacuated. The Utrik people 320 miles downwind received 15 rems <150 mSv> before their evacuation. Many of the on-site nuclear workers at Fukushima have already exceeded the Utrik dose in multiples.

<more>

[WheelWalker]

1. Remembered.

:kick:

[DeSwiss]

2. K&R

And thanks for the link.

[FBaggins]

3. How many have exceeded the Utrik dose in multiples?

None.

Unless the "multiple" is "1.2"- then the answer is "a couple".

[SpoonFed]

4. Who's responsible?

So, let's talk hypothetical and theory:

Who exactly is responsible for these two or a couple or 1.2 if we assume (let's just assume) they die from their exposure (fer sure) from this event?

Or was it just an eventually and no big deal?
Is this one of those times when one is too many?

[FBaggins]

5. "fer sure"?

That dose is barely at the level where they have a slightly higher risk of cancer over the course of their lives... and you're sure they're going to die from it?

But ok... let's talk hypothetically. Say a hundred of them die. Who is responsible? Tens of thousands died as a result of the overall disaster... how many of those deaths will have blame assigned? Just the ones that have a trefoil next to their name on a list?

Is this one of those times when one is too many?

What do you mean "one" of those times? What are some of the other times? If one guy falls off of a wind turbine in a freak gust of wind... who is responsible? Do we need to get rid of all wind power to avoid this eventuality?

What if ten people die in an accident at Solar Tres when a lightning strike causes a pipe to spray them with molten salt? Whose fault is it and will we give up on solar power?

As Heinlein put it... men aren't potatoes. One is always "too many", but that doesn't mean whatever was involved in a death must be banned.

[SpoonFed]

6. Yes, I agree. Ban this shit.

> let's talk hypothetically

That's what I said.

> Tens of thousands died

No. Only one died, in this hypothetical situation.

> That dose is barely at the level

No. We're not redirecting as usual, we're discussing one hypothetical radiation death related to this nuclear disaster.

> If one guy falls off of a wind turbine

We're not talking about wind turbines, and we're not talking about the effects of gravity, either.

> What if ten people die

No. Again, we're talking about one hypothetical radiation death due to this disaster. I know it's hard for you to follow when I write it so simply and I don't give you too much to use to try to strawman and redirect. It's a direct question.

> that doesn't mean whatever was involved in a death must be banned.

So is that going to be your final answer? The closest you can come to saying that a death from radiation is (in this hypothetical situation) the fault of the reactor operators, aka the power company, or the nuclear industry is to say that men are not potatoes?

Good work you.

Then you're going to try to put the words in my mouth that I was suggesting a ban?

Well, thanks for that. Since you've made my argument for me, I do believe the nuclear lobby and industry are not willing to live up to one single death from this lethal and uncontrollable technology and that yes, we should ban the fucking shit if you are any indication as to the level of responsibility and honest, clear headed-ness that humanity should come to expect from those with vested interest (financial, ego or otherwise) in this clearly *beyond risky*, border-line insane endeavor.

Yes, I second you on that Mr. Baggins. Thank you.

[FBaggins]

7. So are you a hypocrite or do you apply the same standard elsewhere?

It's a simple question... which you appear desperate to dodge.

No. Only one died, in this hypothetical situation.

Yes... and I'm trying to find out whether you assign blame whenever one dies.

[SpoonFed]

8. your lame redirects grow tiresome

I asked the question.
I made it as simple and as unambiguous for you to understand.
You failed to answer it.
You attempted to redirect.
You failed.
You started a personal attack.
Who's the hypocrite, oh master?

[FBaggins]

9. You not liking and answer is not the same thing as me not making one.

And the answer to your final question is quite clear.

Dodge all you like. I pointed out your double standard and you want to run from the consequences.

Tough luck. If all you can debate is a straw man... where does that leave you?

[SpoonFed]

10. Actually...

You adding a question mark to every thing you typed in your message, making every single single sentence a question is why you haven't answered the question. If you answered the question, that sentence or paragraphs would end with a period.

You die-hard science types always do poorly on the language proficiency stuff.

[FBaggins]

11. Never heard of the Socratic method, eh?

Answering a question with a question is entirely valid.

Among other benefits, it helps to politely point out to your interlocutor that the basis of his question is pretty clueless.

You don't like the answers because they force you to face the erros you've made... but that's not really my problem, now is it?

[SpoonFed]

12. I knew you'd cop out with some lame excuse...

Answering a question with a serious of questions (in order to misdirect and) in order to avoid the question is your lame, sophomoric way to avoid answering a simple direction effing question, ('cause you're shilling for the industry, I've gotta assume).

The fact that nuclear power can result in death even in a hypothetical circumstance is clearly off limits and off your talking points. You can get off the high intellectual horse since it appears to be one of those coin operated rides for the kids at the mall near the grocery store.

PS. Please look up definitions of question and then answer in the dictionary and get back to me, mr philosopher.

[FBaggins]

13. "to speak or write in response; make answer; reply"

Sure seems to fit.

Does your dictionary say "must answer as my strawman argument requires"?

The fact that nuclear power can result in death even in a hypothetical circumstance is clearly off limits and off your talking points.

Not at all... as long as you're willing to admit that other power sources can ALSO result in death... and historically have resulted in FAR MORE.

But you're not, now are you? Because it would leave your argument right where it started... without foundation.