13 comments on “Please go and get a dictionary you fool

  1. From the original article:
    At Fukushima, the reactors were built to withstand a 7.9 magnitude quake. But then, they were hit with a 9.0 quake.

    And, yet, it was the tsunami that did the damage. The tsunami risk in Louisa County, Virginia or Buchanan, New York is what? Negligible?

    And from Arnald’s article:

    The annual cumulative radiation dose in one district of Okuma was estimated at 508 millisieverts, which experts believe is high enough to increase the risk of cancer.

    Okay. So the Japanese government is going to stop people going home somewhere around the 100 mSv mark yet, at five times that does, the most alarmist thing the Guardian can come up with is “high enough to increase the risk of cancer.”

    Remember that the regulatory doses are not set on safety grounds, statistical or even anecdotal, but on the “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” principle.

    And, Arnald, yes. 20,000 deaths is a greater tragedy than rendering some 80,000 people homeless. And anyone who suggests otherwise is vile. Or a member of the Optimum Population Trust. But I repeat myself.

  2. It was a ‘tragedy’ for the anti-nuclear campaigners – a nuclear reactor destroyed without lots of deaths. It’ll have set their cause back by decades.

  3. Fuckwits. Pedantic fucking fuckwits.

    Jesus. Of course *no deaths* is less tragic than *lots of deaths*, but the implication is that you think that decades of contamination, known future RNA mutations (see Chernobyl, denialists) and the preceding corporate overstatements of safety, cover ups, and wastage of public money, and you can see why anyone with half a fucking ounce of intelligence would see this as serious issue.

    “A few piles of very expensive scrap metal…”

    That’s all Tim cares. It’s no wonder the world is so shit.

  4. Mr Evil, if only I could give you a +1 for “And, Arnald, yes. 20,000 deaths is a greater tragedy than rendering some 80,000 people homeless. And anyone who suggests otherwise is vile. Or a member of the Optimum Population Trust. But I repeat myself.”

    It’s absolutely sick.

  5. Twenty thousand people died, for sure. That is a hard, verifiable statistic. And Arnald, who seems to be displaying the same level of knowledge about physics as he does in most areas (except he’s even more frothing today) is trying to compare some as yet unknowable (but much, much smaller) number of future deaths with the original disaster. That’s just unhinged. Cover ups? Denialists? You’d have to believe that every nuclear physicist and radiation biologist in existence is in the pay of the nuclear industry to think there’s some sort of attempt to deny there will be more than a tiny excess effect on mortality. At the level of contamination released at Fukushima, the effects will be barely statistically detectable, if at all. The first nuclear pile went critical nearly 80 years ago. In that time the total fatalities from nuclear accidents of all kinds (including radiotherapy accidents) is less than 5,000. In 80 years, almost everybody dies. Fifty-six people died straight away at Chernobyl. All the rest had to be statistically inferred. Might be 4,000 excess. It’s been 25 years since Chernobyl. What fraction of everybody alive back then is dead today?

    Just to pick up one further point: decades of contamination? From which isotopes released during the event? The bulk of the contamination was from iodine 131, which decays after about 8 days to xenon 131, which is stable (that means, not radioactive, in case some of you weren’t keeping up at the back of the lass.) Most of the rest, a much smaller amount, was cesium 137, which has a longer half life, but doesn’t bioaccumulate to the extent iodine does (and because it has a much longer half life, it’s much less radioactive.) It’s been 24 weeks or 21 half-lives since the tsunami. That means the activity of the iodine is one two millionth of what it was immediately afterwards. Thus far, no long term health effects from radiation have been reported, and no more than a tiny number have had even short term effects.

    Typical bloody Luddite: hears the word ‘radiation’, shrieks, and pulls his skirt over his head.

  6. The greenies proved their relentless twattiness with the German nuclear decision – “never let a crisis go to waste”

  7. This here Graun screaming reminds me of that conspiracy theory a few months back involving that nuclear plant in Nebraska that was perpetually TWENTY FOUR HOURS!!!!1 away from blowing up and destroying the American Mid-West when it got flooded.

    Turns out, nothing happened.

    Funny, that.

  8. ” but the implication is that you think that decades of contamination, known future RNA mutations”

    A problem for retroviruses maybe, I am not sure why other lifeforms should worry about RNA mutations.

  9. Come on, ChrisM, give Arnald the microbiologist some credit. He pretty obviously means mutations in the portion of the DNA that is responsible for coding the synthesis of aminoacetyl tRNA synthetase enzymes, thus affecting their behaviour attaching polypeptides during protein synthesis in ribosomes.

    Or he could just be a cunt. Bit of a toss-up.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>