Sign in to follow this  
Manekineko

Fukushima plants after the quake

Recommended Posts

well... if any "important" info (negative) is not given by the authorities.... at least to me the obvious reason for leaving out any such info would be the ambition to avoid panic... Guess that the "right" thing to do is not always to tell an exact truth from their perspective...

Saw an article btw that must be counted to the "team of light"....http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-reactors-pose-no-risk-2011-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a very different situation from Chernobyl, where the reactor

went into meltdown and the encasement, which exploded, was left to burn for weeks without any control. Even with Chernobyl, an exclusion zone of 30 miles would have been adequate to protect human health. The problem was that most people became sick from eating contaminated food, crops, milk and water in the region for years afterward, as no attempt was made to measure radioactivity levels in the food supply at that time or warn people of the dangers. The secrecy over the Chernobyl explosion is in contrast to the very public coverage of the Fukushima crisis.

As born in one of the countries affected by Chernobyl (even that it was much more than 30 miles away from the site you suggest), I can only disagree. I am not sure what your words are based on, but my advise would be to be a bit more careful with your health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a very different situation from Chernobyl, where the reactor

went into meltdown and the encasement, which exploded, was left to burn for weeks without any control. Even with Chernobyl, an exclusion zone of 30 miles would have been adequate to protect human health. The problem was that most people became sick from eating contaminated food, crops, milk and water in the region for years afterward, as no attempt was made to measure radioactivity levels in the food supply at that time or warn people of the dangers. The secrecy over the Chernobyl explosion is in contrast to the very public coverage of the Fukushima crisis.

As born in one of the countries affected by Chernobyl (even that it was much more than 30 miles away from the site you suggest), I can only disagree. I am not sure what your words are based on, but my advise would be to be a bit more careful with your health.

I'm not sure what your words are based on either. Can you cite any evidence for substantially greater health problems for those who were "much more than 30 miles away" from Chernobyl?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a very different situation from Chernobyl, where the reactor

went into meltdown and the encasement, which exploded, was left to burn for weeks without any control. Even with Chernobyl, an exclusion zone of 30 miles would have been adequate to protect human health. The problem was that most people became sick from eating contaminated food, crops, milk and water in the region for years afterward, as no attempt was made to measure radioactivity levels in the food supply at that time or warn people of the dangers. The secrecy over the Chernobyl explosion is in contrast to the very public coverage of the Fukushima crisis.

As born in one of the countries affected by Chernobyl (even that it was much more than 30 miles away from the site you suggest), I can only disagree. I am not sure what your words are based on, but my advise would be to be a bit more careful with your health.

I'm not sure what your words are based on either. Can you cite any evidence for substantially greater health problems for those who were "much more than 30 miles away" from Chernobyl?

This is so incredibly ridiculous and even offensive to lots of people, but anyway, read that for a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is so incredibly ridiculous and even offensive to lots of people, but anyway, read that for a start.

Whatever and however, I always thought this was a major catastrophe in terms of deaths. Reading a bit deeper for the first time, it appears the death toll was 48. Forty eight, counting people who died later of cancer. Talk about mass media hysteria. Every life is precious etc., but "the biggest nuclear catastrophe to date" caused 48 deaths? And you want to tell me the media doesn't cause mass hysteria, but just "tells it like it is"??? I'll bet you if you ask anyone how many died at Chernobyl, you will get answers in the thousands. I was sure that was the case. 48?? The ONLY reason we think there were thousands of victims is the biased, agenda-driven (did someone say "money"??), "bought" media.

Edited by Kintamayama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is so incredibly ridiculous and even offensive to lots of people, but anyway, read that for a start.

Whatever and however, I always thought this was a major catastrophe in terms of deaths. Reading a bit deeper for the first time, it appears the death toll was 48. Forty eight, counting people who died later of cancer. Talk about mass media hysteria. Every life is precious etc., but "the biggest nuclear catastrophe to date" caused 48 deaths? And you want to tell me the media doesn't cause mass hysteria, but just "tells it like it is"??? I'll bet you if you ask anyone how many died at Chernobyl, you will get answers in the thousands. I was sure that was the case. 48?? The ONLY reason we think there were thousands of victims is the biased, agenda-driven (did someone say "money"??), "bought" media.

Well, no, not really.

Depending on where you look:

Greenpeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en...-deaths-180406/

Magma: http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/Howbad.htm

World Nuclear Organization: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html

A book on the subject: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=20908

Guardian (London) via Taipei Times: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/arch...3/26/2003299311

It's too soon to do an accurate body count, because some effects might not come to fruition for years. Yes, the numbers vary wildly, and immediate deaths were few, but among those who had to clean up the mess there was apparently an insanely high death rate over the next several years. The fact of the matter is that illnesses and death from Chernobyl won't be sudden. The final tally might never be known, except that those affected overall in the long term will certainly be more than 48. Likely in the four- or five-figure range.

Not to mention that, to this day, large swatches of land are off-limit no-mans-land:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chernoby...on_map_1996.svg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-Nuclear Press Puts Japanese Lives at Risk

Japan currently faces a real emergency. As a result of the earthquake and the ensuing tsunami, thousands of people are dead, and tens of thousands more are missing and may be trapped under rubble, severely injured, and in danger of death by thirst or suffocation. There are over 500,000 people without shelter, with a blizzard on the way, and even the as-yet unscathed could soon face death from epidemics caused by thousands of unburied corpses.

At such a time, nothing could be more scandalous than the current campaign by much of the international press to spread panic over trivial emissions of radiological material from several disabled nuclear power stations.

Let us be clear. Compared to the real disaster at hand, the hypothetical threat from the nuclear stations is zero. The reactors in question were all shut down four days ago. The control rods have been inserted, and the cores have been salted with boron. It is physically impossible for them to sustain a fission reaction of any kind at this point, let alone cause another Chernobyl. Only the fission-byproduct decay heat remains, and it is fading fast as the short half-life material (which accounts for most of the radioactivity) performs its decay reactions and ceases to exist. At this point, the total heating power in the reactors is only about 0.3 percent of what it was when the reactors were operating. That means that a system previously capable of generating 1,300 megawatts of heat would now yield 4 megawatts thermal — about the same as that emitted by a dozen 100-horsepower automobile engines. The Japanese engineers can certainly deal with that with water cooling. And even if they were to stop, there just isn’t enough heating power in the system anymore to generate a dangerous plume of radioactive materials, which is doubly impossible at this point since all the more active short half-life stuff is already gone.

No, the threat does not come from the power plant, but from panic spread by press misinformation. After Three Mile Island, the press spread hysteria as well, but at least there conditions in the rest of society were normal, and so the only victim of the press campaign was the nuclear industry.

But there is a real emergency in Japan right now, of epic proportions, which has to be dealt with as effectively as possible. That emergency is not nuclear radiation, but the need to rescue the trapped and the injured, shield the homeless from the elements, and to prevent an epidemic. In this case, panic induced by press misinformation could cause the deaths of multitudes of people, both by inducing them to take unwise actions, as well by scaring away those who might otherwise try to rescue them.

By diverting people from the real emergency at hand, this radiation scare could kill thousands.

Edited by Otokonoyama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5sakN2hSVxA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

After all of the media hysteria of the time, few people remember that absolutely nothing happened at Three Mile Island except the release of some radioactive steam that was the equivalent of a few xrays.

Edited by Asojima

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is so incredibly ridiculous and even offensive to lots of people, but anyway, read that for a start.

Whatever and however, I always thought this was a major catastrophe in terms of deaths. Reading a bit deeper for the first time, it appears the death toll was 48. Forty eight, counting people who died later of cancer. Talk about mass media hysteria. Every life is precious etc., but "the biggest nuclear catastrophe to date" caused 48 deaths? And you want to tell me the media doesn't cause mass hysteria, but just "tells it like it is"??? I'll bet you if you ask anyone how many died at Chernobyl, you will get answers in the thousands. I was sure that was the case. 48?? The ONLY reason we think there were thousands of victims is the biased, agenda-driven (did someone say "money"??), "bought" media.

Well, no, not really.

Be that as it may, bottom line-it's nowhere near the numbers people are throwing around. I guess we each have our own agendas nuclear wise, huh? There is no question that the liberal, anti-nuclear forces are doing their best to make the most of this. And their success is apparent as countries world-wide are now reviewing their peaceful nuclear power usages.

Edited by Kintamayama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anti-Nuclear Press Puts Japanese Lives at Risk
Japan currently faces a real emergency. ....

Really? You quoted an article from The National Review? Are you serious?

Do you have any comments about the content, or are you just dropping in to say you have nothing to say? I'm left wondering if you are serious... (Holiday feeling...)

The message in the link above is the same as that of other people who have thoughtful comments, not a bunch of wild hyperbole.

31.gif

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/plecture/bmonreal11/

Edited by Otokonoyama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is so incredibly ridiculous and even offensive to lots of people, but anyway, read that for a start.

Whatever and however, I always thought this was a major catastrophe in terms of deaths. Reading a bit deeper for the first time, it appears the death toll was 48. Forty eight, counting people who died later of cancer. Talk about mass media hysteria. Every life is precious etc., but "the biggest nuclear catastrophe to date" caused 48 deaths?

Now, that exactely is the problem. While "only" 48 people died directly because of radiation disease, the "biggest nuclear catastrophe to date" caused thousands of deads, health-impaired persons and birth defects, which even clearly pro-nuclear studies indicate. The problem is that usually you cannot link those excess cases of cancer and stuff directly to Chernobyl, which is a great thing for the pro-nuclear propaganda.

I think the final sentence of one of the studies mentioned in the Wikipedia article hits a nail on the headl: "Our results, which are based on very large numbers of cases, indicate that Chernobyl fallout had a detrimental effect on reproductive health in central, eastern, and northern parts of Europe, but causal inference is of course difficult."

Anti-Nuclear Press Puts Japanese Lives at Risk

At such a time, nothing could be more scandalous than the current campaign by much of the international press to spread panic over trivial emissions of radiological material from several disabled nuclear power stations.

Let us be clear. Compared to the real disaster at hand, the hypothetical threat from the nuclear stations is zero. The reactors in question were all shut down four days ago. The control rods have been inserted, and the cores have been salted with boron. It is physically impossible for them to sustain a fission reaction of any kind at this point, let alone cause another Chernobyl.

It's ridiculous to comment on something like that and nothing can be gained from it so I shouldn't do it, but well:

those "trivial emissions" caused TEPCO and the government (not the international press) to evacuate a huge area and resettle thousands of people. And don't tell me it was the pressure of the media that forced them because if there were no danger TEPCO officials would tell us immediately but even they acknowledge the situation to be serious.

The reactors were indeed shut down long ago now, but apparently it takes a long time for the nuclear fuel rods to cool down (talk about an emergency shut down...) or why are they still trying to cool them? Why are there still 50+ workers, firemen and soldiers working on the plant if it is not necessary? Would you tell the families of them that there is no real danger and no need for their loved ones to work there and risk their health? Or would you even tell them that they are not risking their health because there are only "trivial emissions"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anti-Nuclear Press Puts Japanese Lives at Risk
Japan currently faces a real emergency. ....

Really? You quoted an article from The National Review? Are you serious?

Do you have any comments about the content, or are you just dropping in to say you have nothing to say? I'm left wondering if you are serious... (Holiday feeling...)

The message in the link above is the same as that of other people who have thoughtful comments, not a bunch of wild hyperbole.

Ok, believe in what you believe in.. All my points are listed above in multiple posts.

Just the fact that people are bemoaning the Western Media hype, and I try to point out non-biased fact-based sources in an effort to bring some kind of moderation to the scene, and then you drag an article from one of THE most right-wing, propagandist, hard-line publications out there....

Well, hey, it's your call. Something like that just surprised me. The article completely goes against everything presented here and other relevant sources, completely ignores basic facts as presented even up to an hour ago. and is wrong on so many levels.

But as I said. You believe in what you believe in. Not gonna argue. Not worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's ridiculous to comment on something like that and nothing can be gained from it so I shouldn't do it, but well:

those "trivial emissions" caused TEPCO and the government (not the international press) to evacuate a huge area and resettle thousands of people. And don't tell me it was the pressure of the media that forced them because if there were no danger TEPCO officials would tell us immediately but even they acknowledge the situation to be serious.

The reactors were indeed shut down long ago now, but apparently it takes a long time for the nuclear fuel rods to cool down (talk about an emergency shut down...) or why are they still trying to cool them? Why are there still 50+ workers, firemen and soldiers working on the plant if it is not necessary? Would you tell the families of them that there is no real danger and no need for their loved ones to work there and risk their health? Or would you even tell them that they are not risking their health because there are only "trivial emissions"?

Clearly you are very emotional about the issue. It is coloring your writing. Nobody here, or anywhere I've seen, has called emissions inside the plant itself "trivial", nor stated that the workers at the plant are not at risk. What we are talking about is the public at large.

Ok, believe in what you believe in.. All my points are listed above in multiple posts.

Just the fact that people are bemoaning the Western Media hype, and I try to point out non-biased fact-based sources in an effort to bring some kind of moderation to the scene, and then you drag an article from one of THE most right-wing, propagandist, hard-line publications out there....

Well, hey, it's your call. Something like that just surprised me. The article completely goes against everything presented here and other relevant sources, completely ignores basic facts as presented even up to an hour ago. and is wrong on so many levels.

But as I said. You believe in what you believe in. Not gonna argue. Not worth it.

Again, you resort to ad hominem attacks, rather than take issue with any of the points in the article. You are of course free to do so, but to then make allegations of errors and claims it contradicts "relevant" sources (which you don't care to list) leads you right back into the problem of an unstated argument and no evidence to back up your very general claims. You haven't made the effort to tackle the information in the next link I provided, as you had no institution to attack. If you'd bothered to check out the author in The National Review article, you may not have been so quick to cry foul.

Edited by Otokonoyama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh for fucks sake! Radiation risk or no radiation risk who gives a shit!

PEOPLE NEED HELP!

Exactly-people need help, and the radiation "scare" is taking the focus away from exactly that. But "people in need' is not half as sexy as "it's the end of the world soon."

Edited by Kintamayama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever and however, I always thought this was a major catastrophe in terms of deaths. Reading a bit deeper for the first time, it appears the death toll was 48. Forty eight, counting people who died later of cancer. Talk about mass media hysteria. Every life is precious etc., but "the biggest nuclear catastrophe to date" caused 48 deaths?

Now, that exactely is the problem. While "only" 48 people died directly because of radiation disease, the "biggest nuclear catastrophe to date" caused thousands of deads, health-impaired persons and birth defects, which even clearly pro-nuclear studies indicate. The problem is that usually you cannot link those excess cases of cancer and stuff directly to Chernobyl, which is a great thing for the pro-nuclear propaganda.

I think the final sentence of one of the studies mentioned in the Wikipedia article hits a nail on the headl: "Our results, which are based on very large numbers of cases, indicate that Chernobyl fallout had a detrimental effect on reproductive health in central, eastern, and northern parts of Europe, but causal inference is of course difficult."

Every single article says quite plainly that regarding the people dying afterwards, it is extremely difficult to ascertain who died as a direct cause of this and who died without any connection to the radiation ("causal inference is of course difficult)". And again, you write "thousands of deaths" as if it's a known truth. What are your sources for these numbers? Sure, many people's lives were changed forever by this, but so were people's life altered by the tsunamis alone in a much wider radius. The point is nothing catastrophic has happened yet, and everyone sees it as a foregone conclusion. We humans are hysterical beings. The Y2K bug comes to mind, where a few people made a fortune feeding on human nature. Many other examples for generating mass hysteria about nothing (not that what is happening here is nothing, it's something all right, but not anywhere near the hysteria the mainstream press is generating for a profit..) but you probably know that.

Edited by Kintamayama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That leaves us with flying radioactive material as the source of virtually all of the radiation being detected elsewhere. The highest radiation level that had been detected in Fukushima Prefecture by the evening of March 17 was 30 microsieverts (a microsievert is one-one thousandth of a millisievert) or lower, with most measurements at around 2 to 5 microsieverts. Compare that to a CT chest scan, a single one of which will expose the recipient to approximately 6,900 microsieverts. Even if a level of 30 microsieverts were to be maintained, one would have to stand outside for 230 continuous hours to be exposed to the same amount of radiation as a CT scan.

Let's see ... In the past year, I've had 3 4 CT scans, a radioactive dye lymph node mapping and 2 PET/CT full body scans (in addition to the CT, you get injected with a radioactive sugar which attaches itself to active cells, mainly cancer, but also brain and a few other areas). And other than the second head and third arm growing out of my right shoulder, I'm fine! For those still humour-impaired, I'm fine other than the melanoma in my liver I'll probably start chemotherapy for on Monday.

Edited by Kofuji

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, all I'm saying is that I have a problem with anyone who trivializes the nuclear issue going on @ Fukushima.

In a fuel-rod-heats-produces-hot-water-produces-steam-drives-turbines-creates-electricity scenario, anything that comes out of a reactor that isn't electron juice is simply bad news. I don't think it gets simpler than that. Anything else makes people die. Slowly. Not good.

It doesn't matter how many are affected, or how long it takes to kill them. Even if it's only 1 person. That's already too many. That's my worry in a nutshell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh for fucks sake! Radiation risk or no radiation risk who gives a shit!

PEOPLE NEED HELP!

Exactly-people need help, and the radiation "scare" is taking the focus away from exactly that. But "people in need' is not half as sexy as "it's the end of the world soon."

I don't think that's true. Nobody denies that people need help, but of course the only way to help from outside of Japan is to donate money, so why should you not be allowed to talk about the radiation "scare" as well. I could even imagine (though it is somewhat paradox) that more money is donated in foreign countries because the national media keeps covering the catastrophe longer due to the ongoing nuclear danger.

Now, that exactely is the problem. While "only" 48 people died directly because of radiation disease, the "biggest nuclear catastrophe to date" caused thousands of deads, health-impaired persons and birth defects, which even clearly pro-nuclear studies indicate. The problem is that usually you cannot link those excess cases of cancer and stuff directly to Chernobyl, which is a great thing for the pro-nuclear propaganda.

I think the final sentence of one of the studies mentioned in the Wikipedia article hits a nail on the headl: "Our results, which are based on very large numbers of cases, indicate that Chernobyl fallout had a detrimental effect on reproductive health in central, eastern, and northern parts of Europe, but causal inference is of course difficult."

Every single article says quite plainly that regarding the people dying afterwards, it is extremely difficult to ascertain who died as a direct cause of this and who died without any connection to the radiation ("causal inference is of course difficult)". And again, you write "thousands of deaths" as if it's a known truth. What are your sources for these numbers?

Well I clearly stated that it is difficult to establish that connection and I didn't say "thousands of deaths" (though I believe it to be that many and even the very conservative IAEA study of 2005 suggested 4000 excess cancer deaths) but rather "thousands of deaths, health-impaired persons and birth-defects" (read the article I cited above about the latter) so I'm far from maintaining any "known truth". Personally I'll go with the TORCH study of 2006 (mentioned in the Wikipedia article I already cited), which states for example:

• about 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths are predicted, 7 to 15 times greater

than the figure of 4,000 in the IAEA press release

• predicted excess cases of thyroid cancer range between 18,000 and 66,000 in

Belarus alone depending on the risk projection model

• other solid cancers with long latency periods are beginning to appear 20 years after

the accident

• Belarus, Ukraine and Russia were heavily contaminated, but more than half of

Chernobyl’s fallout was deposited outside these countries

• fallout from Chernobyl contaminated about 40% of Europe’s surface area

• about 2/3rds of Chernobyl’s collective dose was distributed to populations outside

Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, especially to western Europe

Look, all I'm saying is that I have a problem with anyone who trivializes the nuclear issue going on @ Fukushima.

Well said, the same holds true for anyone trivializing what happened at Chernobyl and that was what brought me into this discussion...

Edited by Flohru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even one person who may die of radiation from Fukushima years from now is bad but worse is even at this moment elderly people are dying in evacuation centers because of no heat or medication or adequate food, water and blankets. Already two dozen people have died in evacuation centers because of these reasons.

A major factor that materials do not reach these centers is because of overly elevated radiation scare - not enough drivers are going in the areas and even those who go, they would not be able to get there because there are shortages of gas or oil at gasoline stations in the regions because only few gasoline trucks are going there to re-stock the stations as they do not enter the no-go zone.

Many foreign media and governments accused Japanese governments for setting 25 or 30 km radius to be no-go zone and asking them to extend them quickly to 50 or 80 km without understanding one of the major reasons they could not do so is if they have extended the zone, they would have to evacuate hundred of thousands of people right away and they simply do not have enough transportation and gas or infrastructure capacity to carry out such an operation right now. If everyone can get out on their own, great but almost all gas stations are closed and absolute shortage of gas and fuel and remember most are elderly and sick without any means of transportation.

Many of the people who are still in 25 to 30 km zone are indeed elderly and sick and their family. To move these people they would need to bring in hundreds of ambulances and specially trained medical personnel. If they extended the zone prior to these people moved out, they would have simply run out all medicine, food and water and fuel in these stricken areas. So things are as not simple as some want to make out to be. There are priorities and the highest priority is to save as many people's lives as possible by moving them out safely. Focusing solely on the nuclear issue will not help the majority of those suffering or trying to help them now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well said, the same holds true for anyone trivializing what happened at Chernobyl and that was what brought me into this discussion...

I'm not trivializing anything. I just said the number of fatalities was much lower than I initially thought, all the "projections" in the article you quoted notwithstanding. The mass media is harping on the number of possible fatalities and not on "projections" and , say, the damage to the environment. So I noted the fact that actual deaths are much lower than I thought. Of course it's not ALL the media, but it's the LOUD media, as usual, and it is worldwide, and is definitely not based on fact, but on possibility. and it is taking away the focus from the real pressing issues at hand.

I also said there is a wide spread scare campaign going on and I stand by my words.

Edited by Kintamayama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5sakN2hSVxA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

After all of the media hysteria of the time, few people remember that absolutely nothing happened at Three Mile Island except the release of some radioactive steam that was the equivalent of a few xrays.

Do you think you should be trivializing this? It was a big story back then and was supposed to be the beginning of the end of America as we know it. It still is regarded by many as the third worst nuclear disaster ever... Oh, the scare stories we read daily back then. A lot of "projection" of deaths going on, IIRC..

Fact- the constant enemy of the merchants of hysteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, all I'm saying is that I have a problem with anyone who trivializes the nuclear issue going on @ Fukushima.

I'm more concerned with what actually happened than with what might be (according to sources I personally don't believe). I'm concerned with 20,000 dead (best case scenario) and many thousands left homeless, heatless in below zero weather etc. etc.. you get my drift. This happened, the nuclear catastrophe may or may not happen (let's all pray it won't), but still hasn't. Precautions are being taken, maybe a bit late, but are in place. I focus on facts and not projections and doom prophecies. If you call that trivialization of the nuclear issue, so be it. I call it priorities and keeping things in perspective.

Edited by Kintamayama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, all I'm saying is that I have a problem with anyone who trivializes the nuclear issue going on @ Fukushima.

I'm more concerned with what actually happened than with what might be (according to sources I personally don't believe). I'm concerned with 20,000 dead (best case scenario) and many thousands left homeless, heatless in below zero weather etc. etc.. you get my drift. This happened, the nuclear catastrophe may or may not happen (let's all pray it won't), but still hasn't. Precaution are being taken, maybe a bit late, but are in place. I focus on facts and not projections and doom prophecies. If you call that trivialization of the nuclear issue, so be it. I call it priorities and keeping things in perspective.

Fair enough. YMMD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this