Japan crisis - the worlds economic outlook?

Poshbird

bendix wrote: »

Where do I claim I own silver bullion directly? I said I own PMs directly and indirectly. I have shares in key mining companies, alongside funds in all types of assets. I also have a few ounces of gold acquired a decade or so ago. Like i said, all part of a carefully balanced portfolio.

And that's why I'm totally ambivalent about being bearish or bullish. My assets form part of a 20 year program to go from a zero asset / zero debt position, to one that will see me retired in my late forties in 2-3 years time. It's an approach that means I don't spend my time worrying about a decline in a particular asset, nor get excited about a bull-run in another. And it's an approach that means I don't need to spend my waking hours feverishly searching for websites and commentators that support my world view because, frankly, you've all got eggs in one basket.

But let's go back to our Japanese workers. Do you really believe they had their flesh burned off their legs to the bone by radioactive water and, if so, what is your source for that nonsense?

Eye witness reports said the flesh was burned so badly the bone was visible. I do not know if it was all 3 men or only one. I have given the links already.

The fact is they were wearing NBC suits and boots. The fact that it got through this protective clothing makes the statement factual that it ate through their protective boots.

May be in your world it's fine to step in radioactive water 10,000x safe levels. As long as you are wearing NBC protection right Bendix?

Oh mabe they all had holes in their boots, that would explain why you say all the news reports are wrong who say it got through their protective clothing?

Ninky did you get a chance to look at those Guardian links? Those pictures are really something.

There is a decent amount of data backing up the claim that it was the quake that actually caused much of the trouble BEFORE the tsunami hit. That is what the Guardian is hinting at.

Doesnt look good for nuclear power going forward.

Interesting from my link in the Guardian :

Japan's shift towards renewable energy, meanwhile, is expected to gather momentum later this week.
The prime minister, Naoto Kan, will unveil plans at the G8 summit in Deauville, France, to require all new buildings to be fitted with solar panels by 2030, the Nikkei business newspaper said.

-

That is a lot of silver going to be needed because you can not make solar panels without silver.

I can see the rest of the world following along these lines as the general public do not want more nuclear power stations.

FTBFun

Poshbird wrote: »

Eye witness reports said the flesh was burned so badly the bone was visible. I do not know if it was all 3 men or only one. I have given the links already.

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20110327/NEWS04/303279916

(you linked to this earlier)

Government spokesman Yukio Edano urged Tokyo Electric Power Co. to be more transparent, two days after two workers at the tsunami-damaged Fukushima Dai-ichi plant suffered skin burns when they stepped in water that was 10,000 times more radioactive than levels normally found near the reactors.
“We strongly urge TEPCO to provide information to the government more promptly,” Edano said.
The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, or NISA, said TEPCO was aware there was high radiation in the air at one of the plant’s six units several days before the accident. And the two workers injured were wearing boots that only came up to their ankles – hardly high enough to protect their legs, agency spokesman Hidehiko Nishiyama said.

1. There is nothing about the bone being visible - it just says "skin burns"
2. There is no mention of it burning through their suits - in fact the suits and boots appeared to be inadequate.

Can't believe i'm wasting my time with this nonsense to be frank.

EDIT: none of your links make reference to bones showing - that was you referring to Alex Jones' show.

Poshbird

So their boots were inadequate, as I said it went through their boots. This is what the reports said, there is no denying it ate through or burned through it doesnt matter what word you use it went through their boots!

If you search there are countless reports from many different sources all over the world that say the same thing. It did go through their boots one way or another, end of.

bendix

FTBFun wrote: »

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20110327/NEWS04/303279916

(you linked to this earlier)



1. There is nothing about the bone being visible - it just says "skin burns"
2. There is no mention of it burning through their suits - in fact the suits and boots appeared to be inadequate.

Can't believe i'm wasting my time with this nonsense to be frank.

EDIT: none of your links make reference to bones showing - that was you referring to Alex Jones' show.

I assume you meant they were adequate, FTB.

If the complaint was that they were burned because their boots were too short, it's fair to assume the water splashed them above their boots, suggesting that the boots protected them just fine.

There is also an online telegraph.co.uk report which said that the victims were sent home after a day or two in hospital.

Dont expect our resident conspiracy theorist to believe this, though. They only trust that valued source, Alex Jones.

bendix

Poshbird wrote: »

So their boots were inadequate, as I said it went through their boots. This is what the reports said, there is no denying it ate through or burned through it doesnt matter what word you use it went through their boots!

If you search there are countless reports from many different sources all over the world that say the same thing. It did go through their boots one way or another, end of.

The boots were inadequate in that they were too short, for goodness sake. There is no evidence it burned through the boots. In fact, all the reports I've just read of it after googling, states that the water 'splashed over' the boots. As the criticism is that they were wearing ankle boots, that suggests the water went over the boots on onto their legs, NOT ate through them.

Honestly, this is like jogging through treacle.

Poshbird

bendix wrote: »

I assume you meant they were adequate, FTB.

If the complaint was that they were burned because their boots were too short, it's fair to assume the water splashed them above their boots, suggesting that the boots protected them just fine.

There is also an online telegraph.co.uk report which said that the victims were sent home after a day or two in hospital.

Dont expect our resident conspiracy theorist to believe this, though. They only trust that valued source, Alex Jones.

There you go again making up things, where have I ever claimed to be or ever even mention anything about conspiracy theories? Is this something important to you Bendix?

Why do keep talking about reptiles and new world order, conspiracy theories, and more importantly what has all this got to do with this forum? You are the only one who talks about these things, no one else is interested.

Can you take all this nonsence somewhere else, we are not interested in such things here.

Back on topic the NBC suits were indeed inadequate because they are supposed to provide protection from nuclear biological and chemical threats. If the seal on the boots went on all 3 men's boots is that the conspiracy theory you keep banging on about? Give it a rest.

bendix

How many times do we need to keep pointing out the obvious to you. YES, they were inadequate because they WERE ANKLE BOOTS.

The radioactive water splashed OVER those boots, touching and burning their skin.

There is absolutely no evidence that it burned through the boots and then their flesh, and yet as recently as post 424 you state that as a categorical, undeniable fact.

Why?

FTBFun

bendix wrote: »

I assume you meant they were adequate, FTB.

I did thanks. Typing in a bit of a rush there.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

5/25 @ 204 Sv/hr
5/24 @ 192 Sv/hr
5/23 @ 201 Sv/hr
5/22 @ 196 Sv/hr
5/21 @ 36.2 Sv/hr
5/20 @ 46.5 Sv/hr
5/19 @ 36.3 Sv/hr
5/18 @ 45.4 Sv/hr

http://thechemistryresource.com/blog/2011/05/highest-radiation-dose-yet-at-reactor-no-1-%E2%80%94-204-sieverts-per-hour-in-drywell/

Poshbird

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

5/25 @ 204 Sv/hr
5/24 @ 192 Sv/hr
5/23 @ 201 Sv/hr
5/22 @ 196 Sv/hr
5/21 @ 36.2 Sv/hr
5/20 @ 46.5 Sv/hr
5/19 @ 36.3 Sv/hr
5/18 @ 45.4 Sv/hr

http://thechemistryresource.com/blog/2011/05/highest-radiation-dose-yet-at-reactor-no-1-%E2%80%94-204-sieverts-per-hour-in-drywell/

If it keeps going up at that rate, what will this mean to those of us who are not nuclear scientists? How does it compare with Chernobyl?

I know they are different events and people keep saying you should not compare them, but its the nearest event to use for comparison.