Japan crisis - the worlds economic outlook?

MrEnglish

vivatifosi wrote: »

In the case of Chernobyl, the number of people who are believed to have died from cancer in the years after the explosion were extrapolated from the background rate over previous years and that's how the cancer rates (particularly thyroid due to not giving out the iodine tablets) were arrived at.

I do wonder in the case of Japan whether the picture will be more complicated as stress also causes cancer. So you have a situation where people may arguably get cancer as a result of the radiation, but also as a result of the sheer stress of seeing their houses and families washed away. It is a horrible situation and I wonder whether we are underplaying the effects of the tsunami by concentrating purely on the radiation - possibly because people think it will travel here and affect us - which the tsunami never would have.

Alex Jones claims that already there have been cases a radiation sickness but its been covered up. The official story in Japan was it was stress and worry that caused it. Could be true but I dont think so.

What was the numbers of deaths from Chernobyl all over Europe in the last 2 decades? Some say its in the millions. But you are right they could say some of those were just stress related cancer deaths.

But in time what will be the death toll in Asia and West USA from the radioactive fallout?

FTBFun

MrEnglish wrote: »

Alex Jones claims that already there have been cases a radiation sickness but its been covered up.

What - the man who claims that the US government set up 9/11 also claims there is a conspiracy in Japan too?

Who'd have thunk it?

ninky_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

I wonder whether we are underplaying the effects of the tsunami by concentrating purely on the radiation - possibly because people think it will travel here and affect us - which the tsunami never would have.

i'm not sure if that is the case. with tsunami / earthquake there is a sense that is beyond the control of humans whereas radio active release from nuclear power stations is within control and directly the result of human innovation / mistakes. there is no point discussing natural phenomena other than things that could maybe be done to minimise the impact (moving coastal populations etc).

the nuclear disaster is also massively hampering rescue / recovery - it's not public attitude that is hampering it.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

How many do you think?

hundreds of thousands.

in terms of global human population and cancer cases that is still small so it will be hard to notice any trend.

Really2

ninky wrote: »

radio active isotopes in US food chain show cesium 137 in milk.

not sure about the "safe" levels. afaik there is no safe level of cesium 137 to ingest. a single isotope will continue to give off radiation that can alter dna directly to the cells it rests by for your life and beyond.

the only positive that can be thought of here are other negatives such as other chemicals in our environment can cause cancer too. not very heartening really.

http://www.squattable.com/news/040911/radiation-detected-drinking-water-13-more-us-cities-cesium-137-vermont-milk

Cesium 137 has around a 30 year half life, after that point it becomes barium 137 a stable isotope (non radioactive)
Iodine 131 is likely to be the most likely cause for cancer (as it is taken up by children easily) but the amount found outside of japan and it's 8 day half life (becomes a stable form of xenon) it is very unlikely to cause any increase cancer risk outside japan.

In reality we uptake radioactive cesium in food anyway as it is naturally occurring. and the trace amounts taken up will be very small for most of the world.
A day out in the Sun or a tooth xray will more than likely subject you to more lifetime radiation than what you will be subjected to via the lifetime of Japan accident. (unless you live near the plant).
Not drinking milk will have a far greater risk to health than any miniscule radiation risk.

PS nuclear weapons testing in the west USA means levels of Cesium 137 have been higher there for the last 40 years+. (note it does not say the cesium came from japan or that it was higher?, Iodine 131 will have as it only comes from fission)

ninky_2

Really2 wrote: »

Cesium 137 has around a 30 year half life, after that point it becomes barium 137 a stable isotope (non radioactive)

half life doesn't mean it all turns into barium after 30 years.

if radiation is so safe why the massive exclusion zone? are they just misguided?

i'm kinda tired of this "it's just like having an xray" nonsense.

Milla_2

ninky wrote: »

half life doesn't mean it all turns into barium after 30 years.

if radiation is so safe why the massive exclusion zone? are they just misguided?

i'm kinda tired of this "it's just like having an xray" nonsense.

Me too. What a load of BS.

What about all those with radiation sickness now who are being told its just stress and there is no danger. Its only the same as having lots of cat scans and xrays. BS.

ninky_2

something else that has gone under the radar...the EU quietly raised the levels of radioactivity that is acceptable in foodstuffs by 20 times in response to the japan crisis.

http://www.ukipmeps.org/blog_view_3750_EU-increases-radioactive-limits-of-Japanese-food.html

Really2

ninky wrote: »

half life doesn't mean it all turns into barium after 30 years.

if radiation is so safe why the massive exclusion zone? are they just misguided?

i'm kinda tired of this "it's just like having an xray" nonsense.

it means 50% will have changed within 0-30 years with the rate getting faster towards the 30 year period most would be changed after 30 years.

No one is saying it is safe but the exclusion zone radiation compared to the exposure in world wide milk samples are two very different things.

Think of it as talcum powder if I threw talc at you from 2 feet away you would be exposed to more than that if I had thrown it at you from 6,000 miles away.
Japan will have a legacy of nuclear related illness, outside japan (and inside japan) risk and exposure are lessened by exposure (being distance)
Chernobyl released a massive amount in to the atmosphere due to a graphite core (no longer used) fire sending a massive radioactive plume (30,000ft high) over a very large area.
The nature of the reactors now means although very serious effects are going to be more localised.
Although less radiation exposure is better it is best not to cause to much fear or over state the risk of potential illness on a world wide scale.

You are exposed to radiation from CRT Tv's Granite, Bricks, the Sun, smoking etc.
Getting a perspective on general radiation exposure is a useful tool and makes you realise in many places on earth natural radiation can be far higher over a life time just based on how close you are to the sun and what rock you live on or what your house is made of.

Really2

ninky wrote: »

something else that has gone under the radar...the EU quietly raised the levels of radioactivity that is acceptable in foodstuffs by 20 times in response to the japan crisis.

http://www.ukipmeps.org/blog_view_3750_EU-increases-radioactive-limits-of-Japanese-food.html

Food stuffs from japan not all food stuffs, they have not increased the safe dosage in any EU food or for any other country.
PS any actual proof of this other than a blog? it is not reported in an news wires, just blogs.