Fukushima

thegmanifesto

Peacock
Gold Member
I would love to believe it.

Not sure if those scientists are on the payroll of the Oil Industry.

The "American Chemical Society" sounds suspect at best.

I would be more interested to hear from fishermen and people that dive in the gulf.

BP had to pay out $4.5 billion in damages so far (and counting, I believe) so I would guess some fish died as a result.

I thought maybe you live on The Gulf and know it first hand ie you swim, dive and fish in it on a daily basis. Is that the case?

There are plenty of scientists that work for the pharmaceutical industry that will tell you their drugs are safe as well.

The point I am trying to make is that just because we don't hear about it in the news doesn't mean damage happened.

Hell, The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill hasn't been in the news for 25 years, and there are still contaminated areas in Alaska and fish and wildlife populations that have never recovered.
 

The Lizard of Oz

Crow
Gold Member
Come on G, you're a smart dude. Are you serious? People that live there and fish there will tell you the world ended to get as much cash as humanly fucking possible (and I wouldn't even blame them for it). Any "disaster" is an endless cash cow. These shrimp fishermen would much rather just have some beers on uncle Sam than go back out into the Gulf.

There is nothing sinister about the American Chemical Society. It's not a special interest group, it's the main association of academic researchers in chemistry. In the same way there is an American Physical Society, an American Mathematical Society and so on. In this case it was just a conference for prominent scientists in the fields to present their findings.

These scientists are on the (rather modest) payrolls of the universities where they teach, not the big bad oil industry.

The real lies are coming from the environmentalist groups who have zero expertise, but every incentive to overhype and exaggerate the damage. The NWF report on the Gulf spends two pages on a single sick dolphin they found somewhere. WTF? These people have no shame.
 

thegmanifesto

Peacock
Gold Member
The Lizard of Oz said:
These shrimp fishermen would much rather just have some beers on uncle Sam than go back out into the Gulf.

You live on the Gulf and know these guys?

----

Out of curiosity, did you grow up in a beach town, or in a landlocked area?
 

The Lizard of Oz

Crow
Gold Member
G,

That's like asking me if I live in the projects when I give you the stats on welfare fraud. :laugh:

Seriously, G, I've shown you the latest and best science. That's what we need to look at.
 

thegmanifesto

Peacock
Gold Member
The Lizard of Oz said:
G,

That's like asking me if I live in the projects when I give you the stats on welfare fraud. :laugh:

Seriously, G, I've shown you the latest and best science. That's what we need to look at.

I knew the answer.

I was just was looking for confirmation.
 

The Lizard of Oz

Crow
Gold Member
I'm learning some alpha moves here G let me see if I have 'em right:

Make it personal. Change the subject.

At this rate I think I'll still be standing come the 15th round. ;)
 

thegmanifesto

Peacock
Gold Member
The Lizard of Oz said:
I'm learning some alpha moves here G let me see if I have 'em right:

Make it personal. Change the subject.

At this rate I think I'll still be standing come the 15th round. ;)

When you take things personal, you lose in the first.
 

The Lizard of Oz

Crow
Gold Member
Hagler_vs_Hearns.jpg
 
Yeah things are really bad in Japan right now I heard.


Pre Fukushima hamster:


:hamster2:




Post Fukushima hamster:










[attachment=15324]
 

Attachments

  • godzillamininfo1954.jpg
    godzillamininfo1954.jpg
    89.2 KB · Views: 506
There is controversy about the long terms effects of the Chernobyl disaster.

About two percent of all births around the world have birth defects. And it is unclear if that figure is greater among those exposed to the radiation.

Of cause - of those exposed to the radiation - any birth defects tend to get attributed to Chernobyl. Even though birth defects take place every hour of every day - all over the world.
 

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Gold Member
But that can be measured, and quite easily. Just record all birth defects in, say, a 100 km radius around Chernobyl. Then divide them into concentric circles and compare their annual birth defect (or cancer or whatever) rates per 1000 births/events/people and use a statistical test if it significantly different than one would expect from a normal distribution. From what I know, it has been shown that there is a significant increase, about 100 to 400% depending on the particular ailment.

However, it's interesting that overall it isn't such a large number. I once did a calculation of how many people would die each year in New York from tripled cancer rates if the Indian Point power plant suffered a meltdown (this would pretty much be a worst-case scenario, a meltdown near a global metropolis)... and the number was still smaller than deaths from coal mining around the world. Go figure.

That said, of course you need to be cautious when someone throws out data like "100 000 birth defects recorded in the Chernobyl area", because they obviously include the natural rate instead of just the increase.
 
The Chernobyl disaster was the best thing that happened in the twentieth century.

Let me explain why...

Mikhail Gorbachev was leader of the Soviet Union at the time of the disaster. And he became incensed at the cover-up carried out by Soviet officials as to the seriousness of the situation.

This inspired him to question the Communist system as a whole and led to him enacting the policy of "Glasnost" (which can be translated as openness) whilst leader of the Soviet Union.

And from there - the dismantling of the Soviet Union, the fall of Communism and the end of the Cold War quickly followed.

Slate.com did an article explaining all this earlier in the year:

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...oviet_union_gorbachev_s_glasnost_allowed.html
 
It is a strange thing when you look at statistics.

You have these people saying nearly a million dead and you have the IAEA saying 4000 people.

One thing to think about is this. If we didn't have nuclear power - how else would we generate the energy we need?

If we used coal power stations - then we would have to compare the number of deaths caused by coal (due to accidents and pollution) versus the number of deaths caused by the occasional nuclear leak (and possible future deaths if nuclear waste is not stored properly for the next few thousand years).

So - when you look at the number of deaths - it is important to bear in mind how many deaths we would have had also - had an alternate energy source being used.
 

thegmanifesto

Peacock
Gold Member
cardguy said:
It is a strange thing when you look at statistics.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

Yeah, that is part of my point why you can't listen to these scientists (not to mention so many are industry funded).

It reminds me of that one Spain thread when I was bitch slapping like 10 forum members at the same time when they were trying to say there was a "prostitution epidemic" in Spain.

I was basically just saying that I have seen prostitution more common in other places.

Then they were quoting some UN statistics or something about prostitution.

And I was saying there are no accurate statistics on prostitution. I mean how the hell are they going to compile statistics on prostitution?

I humiliated them all and bitch slapped them so bad they were calling for my banning from the forum.

(Remember this was back when on one thread guys would be complaining about the Feminization of Males, and on another thread complain about how "The G is way too mean and abrasive on the forum")

(And then on another thread complain about how "bullying" is over exaggerated in America, and on another thread complain about how I was "bullying" members of the forum. Ah, those were the days).

Same thing with these disasters. Bottom line, the statistics are bs and these scientists don't know jack.

I would much rather talk to fishermen or divers, surfers, swimmers than some landlocked scientist dork on the payroll of Big Oil or the Nuclear industry.

Remember if these scientists were so smart, they would have prevented that problem from happening in the first place, right?

I am going to go surf. Little waves today and warm water.
 

soup

Owl
Gold Member
That's interesting - my friend from Spain says that prostituition is huge over there because of the repressed sexuality having to do with the church. He told us a story about ass fucking a ho in alleyway in Barcelona.
 
Yeah - I agree with your scepticism. Nassim Taleb often preaches the same thing.

Now the issue of statistics has reminded me of an interesting subject. Jaron Lanier raised the following issue in his recent book 'Who owns the future?' (it is a nice book - but a bit rambling at times).

Okay - so we are soon to enter the world of 'driverless cars' (which Google are currently testing).

And this will be a great thing since cars operated by computers will be safer than those operated by people.

But even though the number of deaths on the roads each year (nearly 33 thousand in 2010) will dramatically fall. Our perception of the dangers of driving will rise.

Since - in the future we can imagine that hundreds/thousands of cars will be operated by the same computer servers. And as a result - even though there will be alot less deaths. The car crashes (when they occur) will be much more devastating - with perhaps hundreds dying in one incident due to a giant technical glitch in the computer's software/hardware.

So - in the future - driving a car might be similar to flying in a plane. Even though planes are safer than cars - people feel less safe since plane crashes are much more devastating than car crashes. And grab inifinitely more media attention than the many car crashes which take place each day.

Of course planes feel less safe on a psychological level as well - since your life is in somebody else's hands. Although the same is true when it comes to other road users as well.

So - it will be interesting to see if people become more scared of driving cars even though they will be safer. Since no technology is perfect - it may be the case that giant crashes (as is the case today with planes) will take place a couple of times each decade or so.

As scuh - on a psychological level - our relationship with cars will change.
 

The Lizard of Oz

Crow
Gold Member
thegmanifesto said:
Chernobyl Death Toll: 985,000, Mostly from Cancer

It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.

This number of almost 1 million excess deaths from Chernobyl is completely incredible and fails the most basic common sense tests. Does anyone really believe that 1 million excess deaths from radiation related cancers can go unnoticed?

Here is a good review demolishing the nonsense book on which this is based (abstract and full pdf, respectively):

http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/32/2/181/pdf/0952-4746_32_2_181.pdf

http://www.nyas.org/asset.axd?id=8b4c4bfc-3b35-434f-8a5c-ee5579d11dbb&t=634507382459270000

Incidentally, the website that posted this 985,000 number ("Global Research") is a lunatic hard-left environmentalist propaganda shop. Their other articles are parody level screeds about "weather warfare", "Gaza students appeal to the world", "pact with the nuclear devil" and so on. This is where you really have to question the source.

Chernobyl was a real disaster, and the 4,000 number may be somewhat of an underestimate. But 985,000 is sheer lunacy.

This stuff gets tricky. Some stats really are manipulated for ideological or other purposes. You have to look at the quality of the research, what methodology was used, what other people are saying about it. You also have to look at whether the conclusions pass the common sense test.

For example, G is quite right to be suspicious of claims of "prostitution epidemics" and of "bullying epidemics". These are exactly the kinds of shoddy studies that use bad methodologies to arrive at ideologically pre-determined conclusions. They are also easy to debunk by a bit of observation. Is there really bullying all around us? Are the really underage sex slaves in every other basement? These ideas are self-evidently ludicrous and can only be sustained by willful suspension of disbelief.

In the case of the studies that I cited about the Gulf recovery, this is solid research done by good scientists. The special interests are on the other side -- environmentalist loons who are motivated to hype every disaster.

By the way, one thing that is being lost in all the back and forth is that the science behind the Gulf research is actually fascinating and would probably interest a lot of guys here. What they found is that there is a huge number of species of bacteria that live in the Gulf that basically digest the oil. When there is a big spill, these bacterial populations explode exponentially (because there is more food for them) and they soak up the oil at exponentially faster rates than would be possible before the spill.

It's really not that surprising when you think about it, because there's always been seepage of oil into the Gulf, and over time these species have evolved to take advantage of it. In this way, the Gulf ecosystem, like so many others, is self-regulating and self-stabilizing. What people are finding more and more is that natural ecosystems are much more resilient than anyone understood. One can even use the faddish Taleb idea of "anti-fragility" in this context. Natural ecosystems are precisely the sort of thing that's expected to have built in anti-fragility.

The ecogenomics that is used to study these bacterial populations is something that I do know quite a bit about and it's fantastic cutting edge science. There will be a lot more of that in years to come.
 

...

Crow
Gold Member
I find great irony in this thread

The same guys who believe Fukushima and the Gulf of Mexico are okay because scientists said so are the same one...

...damming economists and bankers who say the economy is improving and there's not a recession anymore.

It proves again that people will believe what they want to believe. Some will believe what an economic scientist says but not a nuclear scientist and vice-versa.
 

thegmanifesto

Peacock
Gold Member
Cattle Rustler said:
I find great irony in this thread

The same guys who believe Fukushima and the Gulf of Mexico are okay because scientists said so are the same one...

...damming economists and bankers who say the economy is improving and there's not a recession anymore.

It proves again that people will believe what they want to believe. Some will believe what an economic scientist says but not a nuclear scientist and vice-versa.

Agreed.

That is why I said that these scientists don't know what the f*ck they are talking about.

How many economists called the last crash?

And how many put their money where their mouth was and made money off it like Michael Burry and Kyle Bass?

I would rather talk to people that use the ocean daily and get their opinion.

---

Furthermore, to me it just makes sense that The Gulf is f*cked up.

Pour a quart of Quaker State in a fishtank and see what happens.
 
Top