Measure P

Measure P
GMO Contamination Protection Ordinance

Sunday, April 3, 2011

NY Times contributor confirms California rainwater 181 times above drinking water standards for radioactive iodine-131

34 comments:

  1. Things don't look so good. Enjoy every day for what it is.
    If ever there were a time to be alive and awake it is now. Don't put things off or let them slip away.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tom,

    It doesn't look good if you rely on prisonplanet for your analysis. When you have 15 minutes to spare, go to the original paper that all this scarifying is spun from. Take the time to really understand it. Try to go into it with the assumption that the authors (scientists using scientific methods) are releasing their findings in a non-political way and are not puppets of the nuclear industry or government shills or whatever other ridiculous monikers Alex Jones is trying to pin on them.

    I think you'll find that rather than enjoying "every day for what it is" and being "alive and awake" and not letting things "slip away" and other tragic endings, you'll see that it is the people of Japan who need to do these things.

    ReplyDelete
  3. LOL. Even I don't quote Prison Planet.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 06, take the time to understand that a nuclear power plant exploded and is still leaking. What kind of propaganda would calm YOUR nerves? I will tell you: sell it through prison planet, alex jones etc. and YOU won't give a shit. Suddenly exploding nuclear reactors and things like cumulative effects of all previous nuclear disasters and weapon tests don't seem so bad to you. How many upper atmosphere nuclear detonations conducted by the US alone between 1950-1980? Take fifteen minutes to lookitup and a few days to think about it.

    ...and the machines yell at everybody that cigarettes cause cancer. Smoke em if you got em! It's not pessimism, it's reality that needs to be addressed head on.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't look for propaganda, I look for science. And then I think for myself. The scientists are telling us what this all means if we have the willingness to digest it. If you don't believe the people who provided the data in the first place, there is nothing that can be said to convince you of anything other than THE SKY IS FALLING.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Who said the sky is falling? Why the hyperbole then? A nuclear reactor exploded 5,000 miles away and is still leaking. After chernobyl, countless people died 1,000 miles away. Countless more developed all kinds of cancers and health problems (and yes many died) 2,000 miles away. We're 5,000 miles away in a direct line of jetstream fire. The most toxic chemicals known to man are being poured into the ocean right this very second. Take some real time to think about it. "The scientists" are telling us this is very bad, and the cumulative effects are even worse. You're looking at the incident and the immediacies. Open your mind, broaden your scope and support some change instead of demonstrating your personal mode of looking the other way.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for the link,06em. The blogger doesn't tell us that the result is from one sample that is an obvious outlier in the data set, that the standard is an allowable daily dose rate, that I131 has a half-life of eight days, or that the report concludes that the radiation levels do not present a risk. But I guess that doesn't matter if you're a charlatan environmentalist from Trinidad who's not really responsible for anything.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for that info, Anonymous 9:32. It's infinitely better to know the levels might only be a mere 20 times above safe levels, that the blankets of radiation will just wash away into inert nothingness after a few months, and that the general risk (of an early death) is retained to additions of cumulative compounds.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Riiight, 9:34. Don't open your mind if it might threaten your grooviness.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "reactor exploded"
    "countless people"
    "direct line of jetstream fire"
    "most toxic chemicals"
    "poured into the ocean"
    Nope, no hyperbole there.

    And as I pointed out above, it is dense to suggest the scientists are somehow suspect (as you do with your double quotes) but still accept their data as evidence of this being "very bad" for us.

    And another thing -- why do you assume I wouldn't "support some change" when I have said nothing about change? Are you so blinkered by your own "personal mode of looking" that you can't understand how a person could accept scientific conclusions but not be a cheerleader for nukes? Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Should I take this opportunity to practice routine complancence? Or should I wait until the next disaster? Or the one after that? It does everybody's grandchildren a disservice to ho-hum calls to change our industry's ways...sooner than later.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If 10:04 is responding to my last post, I ask you again:
    And another thing -- why do you assume I wouldn't "support some change" when I have said nothing about change? Are you so blinkered by your own "personal mode of looking" that you can't understand how a person could accept scientific conclusions but not be a cheerleader for nukes? Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 06, you're putting words in my mouth just the same. At this point in history you either get it or you don't. You're what's refered to as a "stick in the mud", and I'm sure you have a title for me. Don't feel bad (I know you don't), you're not alone. Enjoy your time, it's universal wisdom not exclusive to nuked japanese people. Adios!

    ReplyDelete
  14. The EPA’s tardy response to widespread alarm about radiation in rain and the air has been sharply criticized by Daniel Hirsch, a nuclear policy lecturer at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

    "It’s troubling that the EPA has to date not provided any precipitation data of its own, while measurements that have been made by states and others across the country are indicating somewhat surprising elevations of iodine-131,” Hirsch said Friday.

    A rooftop water monitoring program managed by UC Berkeley’s Department of Nuclear Engineering detected substantial spikes in rain-borne iodine-131 during torrential downpours a week ago.

    Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12cPx)

    ReplyDelete
  15. If "getting it" means ignoring facts, I guess I don't get it. As for labels, I try not to assign labels or put people in boxes unless, over time, they show themselves to be entirely predictable. And even then, just when I think someone is predictable, they surprise me. People are complex. This issue is complex.

    If you truly want to get rid of nukes (I think that is your position) you weaken the cause when you ignore or denigrate scientific statements and data that don't support your view. I can assure you that in the upcoming political debates, those who continue to support nukes will not ignore science. Is it not better to know all the data and scientific views if you hope to argue people away from nukes?

    Tom: Did you get a chance to read the original paper I linked to? What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  16. "I can assure you that in the upcoming political debates, those who continue to support nukes will not ignore science. Is it not better to know all the data and scientific views if you hope to argue people away from nukes?"

    People have been saying that loud and clear since the 1950's.

    ReplyDelete
  17. ...so your assurance is not only meaningless, the past 60 years say it's almost guaranteed to be wrong. Politicians will say and do what they've done for the past 60 years at least. You weaken "the cause" by denouncing critics of the system rather than the system itself. "Things are bad in part because you're not protesting correctly". Nobody's impressed by your knowledge of bogus websites.

    ReplyDelete
  18. o6em, I checked out the paper. It is very scientific and written that way. From what I can tell, they are saying that everything is fine because what they are finding has a short half life and by the time it gets to Ca. it is mostly harmless.

    The fact that it is showing up leads me to believe Plutonium may be on the way. If that shows up, it has a half life of 250-thousand years. I would think that would be of concern but I’m not a scientist.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 1. What I'm assuring you of is that the proponents of nuclear energy will use science -- will clobber their opponents over the head with it -- so it is better to understand what that science is. There's no "wrong" to that, it's just the way things work.
    2. If you believe that politicians are incapable of changing their views, then I guess it maybe does make sense from your point of view to ignore the science and go with a non-scientific No Nukes bumper sticker approach. Good luck with that. I'll go with being informed.
    3. Cause/case. I meant to say weaken the 'case', but I suppose if getting rid of nuclear energy is a cause, then 'cause' it is. I just disagree with you about there being a system that we can be either for or against. To me it is sloppy (and simplistic) thinking to rail against The System -- it's like complaining about The Man. I mean how can one even talk about the specifics of something if it's part of The System, right?
    4. As to "not protesting correctly" I'd have to say yes, too often the left puts most of their energy into drama and don't devote enough energy into doing the needed but difficult work of slogging through reports in the sometimes multiple hundreds of pages to find out just exactly how we're being screwed -- or if we actually are. In this case it's a simple 10 page pdf. Have you read through it?
    5. As to bogus websites, what is bogus about the Cornell University Library site that provides eprints of scientific papers? Or are they just another part of The System?

    ReplyDelete
  20. It's like complaining about specific facts and figures of today in light of the bigger picture that's spanned decades, isn't it? The left? You destroy your own case, especially about simplemindedness regarding complex issues, by polarizing politics. You don't relate your own way of thinking and speaking to that of people who quote bogus websites. You're standing on the other side of the line pointing fingers at your own "team"...no two ways about it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm not a scientist either, Tom, so I struggle through it just like you. I do know that there are a bunch of different isotopes which are products of nuclear energy and, by extension, this kind of disaster. They each have their own half-lives and are more or less likely to be able to travel the distances involved based on size and if they were propelled into the jet stream. What I got from the paper is that the iodine that was detected is one with a short half life of a week and that the amounts of the other detected isotopes seemed to follow the amounts of the iodine one in terms of when they peaked and then fell. Since the spent rods in the cooling ponds would not contain the iodine (because of length of time since the rods were pulled compared to short lifespan of the iodine isotope) it is a sign that the isotopes in the spent rods (which have much greater quantities of the really nasty stuff) didn't make their way by explosion into the jet stream. I think I have that right, but if anyone with a better aptitude for reading science papers wants to correct me, feel free. This is not to say that the leaking of radiation into the immediate surrounding of the reactors in Japan isn't a concern. I think that that radiation (which seems to be be very unlikely to reach the US) is a major bummer for the Japanese because it does contain the really nasty stuff in quantities that can do harm. That's why I said what I did in my original comment.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I don't look for propaganda"

    ...no kidding.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 1:49 -- I'm assuming you're the same anonymous I've been arguing with today?
    1. I'm sorry if you don't like facts and figures. How can we even discuss this if you just want to go with the big picture? I guess my answer to your question is "no", because I can't quite tell what you're getting at.
    2. If insisting that scientific principles have a place in discussions about nuclear energy is politicizing than I guess ... I don't know ... what ... leaving science out of the mix helps us all agree?
    3. So you're drawing an equivalency between bogus websites and the Cornell site? Huh? This is the second time you've come back to criticizing my way of thinking. It's been my observation that people who focus on the mindsets of other ought to question why they keep doing that.
    4. As for being on a team (I thought you didn't want to politicize?) I'm on the team that champions facts and science and uses that knowledge to help people. Which one is that? Are you on that team?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ooh, burn, 2:11, you got me there. Nothing spells propaganda like the scientific method.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "It's been my observation that people who focus on the mindsets of other ought to question why they keep doing that."

    Scientifically speaking, this reply should be creating a paradox vortex in your brain. I understand your posts, you don't care to understand that all this has been discussed verbatim for decades. I'll sleep a little better knowing that because of this incident, countless people...many of them children today...will only suffer sooner later, instead of later sooner.

    Not with a bang, but a whimper...

    ReplyDelete
  26. You've misunderstood my posts from the beginning, which is why you keep talking about "this" having been discussed for decades as if I was on one side of a discussion about whether nukes were safe or something. I've never said anything remotely like that, but if your delusion makes it so, than keep on keepin' on. I'm glad you'll sleep better, though.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I haven't misunderstood your posts at all. I want to see more intelligent people like yourself get angry about all the bullshit, rather than nitpick our peers. The world needs it. The suggestion box has no bottom...official complaint forms are falling right into the garbage as always. Substitute "The System" and "The Man" with "the status quo".

    ReplyDelete
  28. Check the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District's website: www.ncuaqmd.org. There is a link to real-time monitoring data from Eureka.

    ReplyDelete
  29. On the bright side, plutonium is one of the heaviest substances on earth. It would have to get caught up into the jet stream to have any real chances of getting over here.

    ReplyDelete
  30. On another bright side, maybe we'll all get RADIOACTIVE SUPERPOWERS!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous, at least you're keeping a positive spin on this!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Tom, it's always the crux of discussing stuff like this, isn't it? It's not cynical or pessimistic or negative to address the downward slope of the big picture...it's reality, and it seems like a lot of people don't want to face it...or something.

    Encountering somebody who "gets it" is always refreshing.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yeah, I know what you mean. There is no reason to burry our heads in the sand just because there doesn't seem to be much we can do about.

    The more we share and know, the better off we are.

    ReplyDelete

US Senator Joe Liberman, WTC 7 Did Not Occur