Comparison of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents: A review of the environmental impacts

AndyMayhew


You can't. Although maybe the fact that is has been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal may help? Why would you think it faulty??????

And by faulty, what do you mean?

Were you qualified to question it, I think it highly unlikely you'd not be able to read it!

There are many studies that are wrong and I do get to read things for myself because I am not a follow the leader kind of person.

Faulty studies are faulty making their conclusions incorrect. Things like using small sample sizes, or funding from biased sources can make studies faulty.

Your last sentence is ironic.

"were I qualified I wouldn't be qualified" hahaha maybe you are not qualified but I can understand quite a bit.

SubTruth
reply to post by Human0815

 

Are there paid posters pushing planned agendas on ATS ? Posts like this really make me wonder I have seen your posts before and to be honest it is almost like you are pushing pro-tepco propaganda.

I am not really and expert on this but if it walks like a duck......................Members and readers around the world can make up there own minds.

It is very easy to derail a exchange of Information in a way
like you do!

Can't you see that nearly all the Forums are full of People
who have no interest in a real Discussion about this Topic
of Fukushima?

Why is that so and who benefit from it?

Look, why do you dislike the Information in my first Posting,
why do you want that Fukushima release/d more Pollution than
Chernobyl, why do you need more suffering People than in
the Ukraine, Belo-Russia, Bulgaria, etc. and why do you suggest
that everyone who is not swimming
with the common Forum is a Shill?

This is not a Witch-hunt but a Search for the Truth!

Why do you try to attack me but not the Topic?

You can't hide Radiation and we are able to measure her,
you can't hide Disintegrations of Radioactivity!

Dustytoad

Faulty studies are faulty making their conclusions incorrect. Things like using small sample sizes, or funding from biased sources can make studies faulty.

There are any thousands of scientific papers published every year which you do not read.

Why do so presume this particular one is faulty? You have no reason, other than the fact that like all the thousands of others, which you do not question, it is published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Seems to me you simply don't like it that the abstract shows that it does not agree with your view that Fuskishima is much worse that Chernobyl

Edit: of course, if you are so sure the paper is wrong, perhaps you have your own published study showing so? In which case, fair enough. Let's see it. Unless your paper is also hidden behind a paywall?

reply to post by AndyMayhew


I don't believe anything I cannot read, and I actually do read lots of studies if I can find them. I never said this study was bad, but it means nothing without being able to read it.

You are focusing too much on me.

Tell me how they came to their conclusions. I will call out anything that isn't proven on all sides. You do not know me stop pretending. You like forming conclusions without data obviously with all your guesses about me.

I don't guess. I know.

Get it?

This pretty much sums up my opinion on the entire Fukushima mess and its comparison to Chernobyl:

The radiation dumped by Fukushima into the environment has exceeded that of the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe, so we may stop calling it the second worst nuclear power disaster in history. Total atmospheric releases from Fukushima so far are between 5.6 and 8.1 times that of Chernobyl, according to the 2013 World Nuclear Industry Status Report. Prof. Komei Hosokawa, who wrote the Fukushima section, told London’s Channel 4 News, “The situation is not under control. Almost every day new things happen, and there is no sign that they will control the situation in the next few months or years.”

www.counterpunch.org...

Fukushima far exceeds Chernobyl. Millions of lives are threatened. Perhaps future independent studies will explain. They'll be too little to late to help victims.

Source: rense.com...

In this dataset, the simulation from NOAA's HYSPLIT model shows a continuous release of tracer particles from 12-31 March at a rate of 100 per hour representing the Cesium-137 emitted from Fukushima Daiichi. Each change in particle color represents a decrease in radioactivity by a factor of 10. Radioactivity decreases due to removal by rainfall and gravitational settling. Decay is not a factor for Cesium in this short duration simulation compared to its 30 year long-half life. The air concentration would be computed from the particle density so it is only partially related to the color scale. The released particles are followed through the end of April using meteorological data from the 1-degree resolution NOAA global analyses.

www.sos.noaa.gov...

This picture is 'as of the end of April 2011' which as we all know has been continuing ever since. Comparing Fukushima to Chernobyl is like trying to compare dumping a gallon of toxic soup (Chernobyl) to a full on fire hose spewing toxic soup 24/7/1000 and counting. Yes, Chernobyl was a huge catastrophe - but it was a "one" time blow out that spewed over land and was entombed. Fukushima just keeps on spewing and pouring hundreds of tons of poisoned water day after day after day after day.

Is pathetic how it's being mismanaged. Anyone who doesn't think this is an extinction level event is not looking at the real data especially considering there's no end in sight to the poisons. Is lucky for Japan it's on the east coast and travels mostly east away in the wind and water - but it sure as hell sucks for the entire Pacific ocean and North America!