What, because i said you are full of it? Wow, you are precious these days aren't you....

You have no sense of perspective at all Hardtack... Zero deaths v's more than 20,000, yet you are still carrying on about the Nuclear plant like it was far, far worse.

Laughable.

No, because that is exactly what you were like on Demonology. Saying I'm full of it doesn't really have much of an affect, but I am pointing out that rather than looking at any facts, you prefer to play the man in orderr to deflect from the issue.

As I said, look at the results in 10 years time... and in the meantime, try reading a few reported projections from reputable institutes such as Stanford University, to get some insight.

Surely you cannot be so stupid as to think the effects of radiation are going to be manifesting themselves in the space of a year. Surely you cannot be so stupid as to believe thatr the thousands who were moved out of the area are going to be repatriated any time soon (if ever). And surely you cannot be so stupid as to believe that the relocation of those thousands of people evacuated as a result of the radiation is not hitting the public purse.

Laughable? Yes, I suppose your blinkered view of things would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

".......the lower bound for the estimater being 15 and the upper bound 1100".

Forgive me if i have some issues with guestimation that varies by the gigantic amount in the report. They may as well have said they have NFI. Of course, when this report was released, the stupid reporter from Fauxfacts used the higher figure and stated something along the lines of " The death toll may be as high as", when they could have just as accurately said "May be as few as"... But of course bed wetters love pushing the hysteria.

The report in The Age stated "RADIATION from Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant may cause as many as 1300 cancer deaths globally, according to a study that showed fallout from the Tokyo Electric Power Company's crippled reactors may be deadlier than predicted." Of course they used the higher figure when the same report also stated the the most likely number is 150 (Still just a guess).......... Now correct me if i am wrong (im not) but isnt the lower figure much closer? If so, why use the much larger firgure if not to make it seem far worse than it is?

More paranoid hysteria.

Read more: http://www.theage.co...l#ixzz24MLCb9nc

Edited August 23, 201212 yr by ding

I have no idea how these estimations work, but it seems to be a standard practice and does not appear to be because someone has an agenda to push... we will know in 10 years I suppose. But their "guesstimations" are no more ridiculous than your claims of zero deaths so early in the piece.

My argument is, and always has been, that nuclear energy is fine as long as the plants are built with appropriate safety measures and correct maintenance procedures... in both cases (Chernobyl and Fukushima - and 5 Mile Island?), it was pretty obvious, things had not been very well thought out or managed.

Edited August 23, 201212 yr by hardtack

I rarely venture over here and only did by mistake today when a thread I wanted to read redirected me to the general board; now I can see why.

I thought I'd been transported to Demonology and nearly had my own meltdown. Before you throw a tizz Hardtack that was a joke but not meant trivialise Japan, the people of Japan or any visitors to Japan. Furthermore it was in no way intended to be racist and nothing you can conjure up in your mind will alter that.

I think I will go back to the non confrontational Footy board now.

I have no idea how these estimations work, but it seems to be a standard practice and does not appear to be because someone has an agenda to push... we will know in 10 years I suppose. But their "guesstimations" are no more ridiculous than your claims of zero deaths so early in the piece.

My argument is, and always has been, that nuclear energy is fine as long as the plants are built with appropriate safety measures and correct maintenance procedures... in both cases (Chernobyl and Fukushima - and 5 Mile Island?), it was pretty obvious, things had not been very well thought out or managed.

Of course you are right about appropriate safety measures. No argument here.

How many deaths have there been Hardtack? I still reckon the total is zero. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

Still have a hell of a long way to go to come close to the toll Mother Nature exacted. The scaremongering so far has been laughable.

Demonology lives on.

EDIT:

I see RobbieF got in first:

I thought I'd been transported to Demonology and nearly had my own meltdown.

Japanese oil refiner seeks switch to solar cells

Showa Shell Sekiyu, a Japanese oil refiner, plans to become a global leader in solar-cell output as it diversifies to benefit from clean-energy subsidies.

Showa Shell will increase production efficiency and cost competitiveness to “top levels in the world,” it said today in its five-year management plan. The company also intends to lead the development of solar modules, which use photovoltaic cells.

Japan began an incentive program in July to promote alternative power generation following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. That prompted companies such as mobile carrier Softbank Corp. and Tokyo-based Showa Shell to expand in solar energy as demand climbed.

“Once we gain a foothold in Japan, we want to gain ground in the international market,” Showa Shell President Jun Arai said today at a press briefing. The company is seeking to reduce the cost of CIGS solar panels - thin-film units using copper, indium, gallium and selenium - by about half in 2017, he said.

Showa Shell’s Energy Solution business posted a 19 per cent jump in 2012 sales to 78.2 billion yen ($815 million), while its operating loss narrowed to 15.4 billion yen from 28.8 billion yen, a February 14 filing showed. The division comprises solar-cell production and sales, as well as wholesale power supply.

Japan is poised to become the world’s third-largest market for solar power this year, according to forecasts from researcher Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/japanese-oil-refiner-seeks-switch-to-solar-cells-20130219-2eo3j.html#ixzz2LJ3jZM3A

Japan: Typhoon Etau floods send hundreds of tonnes of contaminated Fukushima water into ocean

By Hannah Osborne | International Business Times

Flooding caused by Typhoon Etau has sent hundreds of tonnes of contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the ocean, a Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) spokesperson said.

Rain overwhelmed the site's drainage pumps, they added.

Tepco is storing massive quantities of contaminated water that was used to cool melted fuel in the reactors damaged by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami that devastated the site.

In a statement regarding Typhoon Etau earlier in September, the company said the site was at risk from the storm.site as standard procedure for construction sites.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/japan-typhoon-etau-floods-send-114536837.html#6N100ok

Edited September 11, 20159 yr by dee-luded

After over two years I thought it was time for an update.

No. of deaths attributed to radiation from Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster ?

Zero.

This is good news, right ?  Probably not for some.

Eight years since Fukushima and one death has been attributed; and an unlikely attribution at that.

The worker in question died of lung cancer, which isn't the type of cancer typically attributed to exposure to radiation.

Four other cancer patients have been attributed to Fukushima, which are more likely due to the cancer type, but none have yet died.

This was never the disaster some hoped it would be, despite the hysterical reports. 

I don't believe in the climate change hoax, but if you do, you should be a champion of nuclear energy.

On 3/17/2019 at 1:18 PM, ProDee said:

Eight years since Fukushima and one death has been attributed; and an unlikely attribution at that.

The worker in question died of lung cancer, which isn't the type of cancer typically attributed to exposure to radiation.

Four other cancer patients have been attributed to Fukushima, which are more likely due to the cancer type, but none have yet died.

This was never the disaster some hoped it would be, despite the hysterical reports. 

I don't believe in the climate change hoax, but if you do, you should be a champion of nuclear energy.

ProDee you wont get much love around here promoting facts. And I'll cop that myself when I bagged Weid in a post on the main forum because I perceived he was a poor contested mark. You came back with an evidence based response showing his stats and in that area they were above average. Appreciate the logic and evidence provided but we will argue about that in another thread. I still disagree.

Fukishima was a wild like saving gift that as you say probably never killed a sole. How many birds have been saved because there was a nuclear plant on the foreshore at Fukushima and not an 18th century technology, giant blade in the sky that chops up wild life? The danger to wild life is only important to leftists if it can be used as a tool to prevent capitalist projects.

When I was a kid growing up (no where near early enough to see our last premiership) I used to watch solar car races on tv, promoted by the universities and it was fascinating. Solar was the future. The technology was leading to further and further distances being able to be travelled (raced) by vehicles. I was a massive believer. I loved the races and different shapes of the vehicles to try and maximise the sun power they could achieve.

20 years on solar has proven to be a lemon. Technology in general has improved exponentially. What computers, mobile phones, GPS and the like have done over that period have changed our lifestyle. Solar was the rising star, had all the funding, was a more understood technology and it has barely improved. The technology in my oven, couch and fridge has improved more than solar over the period.

A major problem with western society is the lefties are so desperate for capitalism to fail, they stymie the technology that can advance us as humans and a healthy planet, under the guise of environmentalism.