[LINK] Radiation

Tom Koltai tomk at unwired.com.au
Thu Mar 17 12:51:26 AEDT 2011

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Michael 
> Skeggs mike at bystander.net
> Sent: Thursday, 17 March 2011 9:56 AM
> To: link at anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Radiation
> While the issues of declining fossil fuel availability make 
> alternatives critical, I don't understand what impact that 
> has on the reality of what is happening in Fukushima. At 
> every stage over the past few days, the developing situation 
> has been revealed as progressively worse, while the 'cool 
> heads' have proven consistently wrong. 

Err, we should wait a while on that one... I think you might be wrong in
the long term.
Which is my point. 
What good can be achieved by discussing the issue ?
How much FUD can be generated by hyping the issue ?

On the balance, less good can be generated versus the damage that is
occurring from the FUD.
If the Naysayers are right, their time will come.
If the naysayers are wrong, who will bother to try to patch up the
reputation of the individuals, companies/industries that have been
damaged by the Naysayers ?
I don't imagine CNN going on air wearing sackcloth and bleating mea
culpa as the worlds oil price goes through 150$ per barrel...

But on their next annual report, there will be a small spike in March
2011, advertising and syndication revenues for March... UP 6%.

Sorry Mike, but destroying the economy for the sake of a couple of
shareholders should never be acceptable.

>In this thread the 
> example of "not to worry, the fuel rods are under 16 feet of 
> water" was trotted out, while I hear this morning on the ABC 
> that these are, in fact, exposed.
> The company that owns this plant has a history of safety 
> cover ups, to the point where the Japanese prime minister is 
> reportedly furious about the timeliness and quality of 
> information being released. I suggest scepticism and prudent 
> risk management should be applied for those on the ground in Japan.
That sounds like almost every large corporation, all of whom, believe
they are a law unto themselves and beholding to no politicians...
> Fossil fuels, and especially coal, have dramatic health and 
> environmental consequences,
I agree Michael. I'm a 52 year old male living in Sydney Australia.
Where 36% of all health care costs are related to respiratory
complications. [1]
As the number of smokers decrease, without the corresponding decrease in
hospital admissions or COPD deaths, I wonder what will be blamed...
Would it be a nuclear melt-down in Japan that probably won't kill even
one person ?
So I agree with you in part. But to understand why Journalists feel the
need to hype the incident in Japan is at least as interesting as finding
out how the Government intends to provide financially for the persons
that will be suffering respiratory illnesses in the next thirty years...
And.. They are linked in so many ways as to make even the best
conspiracy theory look lame in comparison.

In Australia, there is no nuclear industry. Nuclear power belongs to the
We would be living in a different world had Lucas Heights been

> but arguing that because of this 
> failing, nuclear doesn't, when in the midst of a 
> multi-reactor meltdown 200km from Tokyo is a bit obtuse. 
Therein lies the problem.

What multi-reactor meltdown ?
Have the containment domes been breached ?

Ahhh, yes, you have probably been reading some of the journalism stuff.

Well most of it, unfortunately, is apparently wrong.
Supposition and philosophical whatif scenario debate has no business
being sold as news. It destroys economies and creates extremely negative
emotions amongst the persons living in the area.

    Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or
mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as
obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession,
punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is
suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a
third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind,
when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or
with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person
acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering
arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

    - Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1

I consider telling the people of Tokyo that they are Fcuked is a form of
extremely refined but nevertheless abhorrent torture and I despise any
organisation or Bureaucracy that has to engage in that sort of activity
using the pretence that they need to keep the public informed.


[1] Chronic respiratory diseases in Australia - Their prevalence,
consequences and prevention
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare August 2005

More information about the Link mailing list