Ann Coulter on Radiation, This might blow your mind!

[Lancecastor]

That's not going to happen. Attacking the person is sooo much easier.

And Ann Coulter was born with a bullseye on his chest.

I don't read her Neo Nazi propaganda and don't know why you would, but if she's saying that people overstate the effects of radiation in terms of deaths, I agree.

Tree huggers over-state, greed-mongers under-state.

 

[Shagly]

Not exactly...

When Einstein was wrong, he had the grace to admit the same.

...And Einstein went back to the drawing boards to correct the mistakes.

E=Mc2

 

[sigh]

The main problem I have with the article is that I don't accept her assertion that the media has been telling us that ALL levels of radiation are dangerous, which (in addition to being her prime thesis) is a blatant lie. To the contrary, EVERY day I watch this unfold on the news at least one reporter points out the difference between normal, ambient radiation exposures and what's leaking out of those reactors now, and compares both to the established safe levels various groups have assigned to radiation exposure.

Every day since this began we've told the difference between safe levels of radiation and what's considered to be not safe. Every day. Makes you wonder what sort of news programs Ann Coulter is watching.

And if anyone doesn't understand that radiation exposure can be a good thing, they should crawl out from under their rocks and read up on x-rays, CT scans, radiation therapy and the like and stop blaming the media for their profound ignorance.

 

[thør]

The amount of radiation used in nuclear medicine is well above that allowed for workers in the nuke industry.

 

[sigh]

The amount of radiation used in nuclear medicine is well above that allowed for workers in the nuke industry.

Of course there's a substantially different risk/benefit ratio between the two as well.

 

[thør]

Of course there's a substantially different risk/benefit ratio between the two as well.

Indeed........just changing the latency date......

 

[JustaSCOUNDREL]

March 17, 2011
Putting Chernobyl in Perspective
By Josh Gilder

With the world gripped by fear that the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants may turn into “another Chernobyl,” perhaps it’s worth examining just how bad Chernobyl actually was.

There’s no doubt that the scale of the accident was unequalled, either before, or so far in Japan, since. The Soviet-style nuclear reactor had been built without a containment structure, and when the graphite moderator components caught fire, they spewed more than 400 times more radioactivity into the environment than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Some 5 million people lived in the immediately affected area of the Ukraine, but all Europe became paralyzed by fear as hourly news reports tracked the radioactive cloud across the continent. Estimates at the time were of “tens of thousands” of lives lost, and pregnant mothers from Sweden to Italy underwent abortions for fear that their babies would be born with radiation-induced abnormalities.

This, indeed, remains the persistent image of Chernobyl to this day, as newscasts warn that winds may carry the Fukushima radioactivity as far as the West Coast of the United States. But before we start duct-tapping our windows again, we can get some perspective from those who have actually studied the effects of the Chernobyl fallout.

In 2006, 20 years after the accident, a group of eight UN agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organization, assessed the damage in a study incorporating the work of hundreds of scientists and health experts from around the world.

It turns out that two decades after the fact, the death toll had not reached the tens of thousands that were predicted. In fact, fewer than 50 deaths could be directly attributable to radiation from the disaster, almost all of them among rescue workers who had been exposed to massive amounts of radiation on the disaster site at the time of the fire and its immediate aftermath. In addition, nine children in the area died of thyroid cancer that is thought to have been caused by radioactive contamination, but even among the nearby population, there was neither evidence of decreased fertility nor of congenital malformations that could be attributed to radiation exposure.

Any loss of life, particularly among children, is tragic. But clearly the mass causalities that were almost universally predicted – not just by the newshounds, but by the many “experts” who commented at the time – have not materialized. “By and large,” the report concludes, “we have not found profound negative health impacts to the rest of the population in surrounding areas, nor have we found widespread contamination that would continue to pose a substantial threat to human health…”

It is worth putting even the UN’s low casualty figures in perspective. As the report notes, over 1,000 onsite reactor staff and emergency workers received heavy exposure to high levels of radiation on the first day of the accident, and some 200,000 workers were exposed in recovery operations from 1986-1987. But only 50 had died of cancer 20 years later.

Exposed children are more at risk from thyroid cancer, but the recovery rate – even in the Soviet Ukraine – was 99 percent. The health experts could find no evidence of increased rates of leukemia or other cancers among the affected residents.

All this encouraging news does come with one caveat. Scientists are divided over how many increased cancer deaths might be expected over the following 20 years – that is, three to four decades after the accident.

Based on a statistical model that assumes all radiation exposure is cumulative and that there is no threshold under which radiation produces no adverse affects on the human body, the report concludes that an additional 4,000 people will die of cancer. As about 1,000 of these would have died from cancer anyway, this represents only a 3 percent increase which the report admits “will be difficult to observe.”

Many question whether it will happen at all. The no-threshold hypothesis, while it forms the basis of U.S. regulatory law, is consistently refuted by real-world evidence. The residents of the Rocky Mountains receive some three times the natural background radiation as people living on the Gulf Coast, for instance, but the incidence of cancer is actually lower in the Rockies.

One might also expect that if the no-threshold theory were correct, at least some of the 200,000 workers exposed on-site at Chernobyl after the initial emergency would have developed cancers, but the UN scientists found none. The no-threshold theory, in fact, seems to have an increasingly tenuous scientific rationale, which is why the French Academy of Science and National Academy of Medicine issued a report a few years ago blasting the theory as “not based on biological concepts of our current knowledge.”

None of this takes away from the heroism of the emergency workers at the Fukushima plants who are taking real risks to bring the reactors there under control, nor the need to take reasonable precautions for the surrounding population, especially children. But it is worth keeping in mind the other startling conclusion of the UN study, which was that alongside the radiological effects, the crippling “mental health impact” caused by widespread misinformation was “the largest public health problem created by the accident.” In other words, the most dangerous fallout form the accident is fear. The way to prevent it is for the media to present more balance in the reporting and “expert” commentary the public is currently receiving in massive doses.

Josh Gilder is a Senior Director of the White House Writers Group.

http://www.realclearscience.com/arti...ve_106233.html

Several years ago I was taking a course on Ionizing Radiation. I saw a graph that death rates ve. doses of ionizing radiation.
The graph showed a decrease in rates with low doses of radiation and then at a point the death rate increased.
I don't remember where the data came from and all of my notes are gone now.

 

[JustaSCOUNDREL]

In 1982-1983, several apartments in Taipei City, Taiwan, were
built with structural steel contaminated with cobalt-60. Chen et al.
noted the total cancer death rates for radiation-exposed adult
occupants and controls in the city were comparable when the
apartments were first occupied. As both groups aged, the cancer
mortality rate in the radiation-exposed group decreased while the
cancer mortality rate of controls increased. The cancer mortality
rate of those who had lived 9–20 years in these buildings was only
3%that of the general adult population. Chen et al. concluded: “The
experience of these 10,000 persons suggests that long-term
exposure to radiation, at a dose rate of the order of 50 mSv (5 rem)
per year, greatly reduces cancer mortality.…”
The results found for gamma exposures also appear to hold for
mixed radiation exposures. An important example of reduced
cancer mortality following increased radiation (Figure 4) is a
compilation of eight epidemiologic studies with 123,785 exposed
nuclear workers and 199,395 carefully selected unexposed control
workers from the same work sites. Although some studies
overlapped each other, the total cohort comprised 12 million
person-years. Exposures were measured by film badges. Each
study indicated that cancer mortality rates decreased with increased
exposures. Using a weighted average exposure of 2 cSv,
extrapolation of these data indicated an average body burden of 50
cSv would reduce cancer death rates to zero. When this dose was
divided by the weighted average of 34 years exposure, the data
suggest that 18 mSv/y would reduce cancer incidence so much that
it would become a minor cause of death.

http://www.jpands.org/vol13no2/luckey.pdf

 

[phrodeau]

Somebody should start a thread about the health benefits of smoking tobacco.

 

[stephen55]

...And Einstein went back to the drawing boards to correct the mistakes.

E=Mc2

Try again...

 

[stephen55]

Try again...

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/E=mcsq.jpg


He had a little help...

 

[JustaSCOUNDREL]

stephen55 I had hoped you might have a post on at least my second post. What I found especially interesting is the writers stated they initially had preconceived ideas about radiation exposure. After looking at their results they had to change their minds.

Your post on Iodine and I 131 was excellent. You did fail to mention I131 is also used for thyroid ablation in cases of thyroid cancer or hyperthyroidism.

The advantage of I131 instead if thyroidectomy is if the cancer has metastasized the I131 will be taken up by the new cancer site and will be destroyed also. The ablation dosage is in the multicurie range.

I am sure you are well aware if this but it would have been nice to include in your discussion.

While I agree I131 is bad for healthy thyroids I believe the potential threat to North America is vastly overblown.

 

[stephen55]

stephen55 I had hoped you might have a post on at least my second post. What I found especially interesting is the writers stated they initially had preconceived ideas about radiation exposure. After looking at their results they had to change their minds.

Your post on Iodine and I 131 was excellent. You did fail to mention I131 is also used for thyroid ablation in cases of thyroid cancer or hyperthyroidism.

The advantage of I131 instead if thyroidectomy is if the cancer has metastasized the I131 will be taken up by the new cancer site and will be destroyed also. The ablation dosage is in the multicurie range.

I am sure you are well aware if this but it would have been nice to include in your discussion.

While I agree I131 is bad for healthy thyroids I believe the potential threat to North America is vastly overblown.

When right wing speech writers/ spin doctors start telling us not to worry about radiation, I get very worried. Not so much about radiation as I do about spin doctors. If the speech writer/spin doctor worked for Ronald ("Well, evolution is just a theory") Reagan, I get even more worried.

Let's have a look at how this particular spin doctor goes to work.

The no-threshold hypothesis, while it forms the basis of U.S. regulatory law, is consistently refuted by real-world evidence. The residents of the Rocky Mountains receive some three times the natural background radiation as people living on the Gulf Coast, for instance, but the incidence of cancer is actually lower in the Rockies.

People who get more background radiation have less cancer is the message that this guy wants you to accept.

Not bad for an example of spin doctoring but pure crappola as an example of the pathophysiology of carcinogenesis.

Cancer is caused by a multitude of factors and radiation is but one. Environmental pollutants, self ingested substances, exposure to carcinogenic toxins, viruses, diet, parasites, genetics, ...the list goes on and on.

If the people on the Gulf Coast have higher rates of cancer than people living in the Rockies, it sure as hell isn't because they receive less background radiation. If that was the case, then all people living at low elevation all over the world would have higher rates of cancer than people living at altitude and that simply isn't true.

Spin doctors make their living by taking something bad and putting a positive spin on it. Or, by putting a negative spin on something positive.

It's a well paid profession with a long and prestigious history. I have no doubt that these people sleep well at night. Fucktards usually do.

 

[Ransack]

I've not seen anything that actually supports the statement that the people around Chernobyl had a diet deficient in iodine in the first place.

Second, if one's iodine intake is adequate, you still absorb iodine. The only store in the body for iodine is in the thyroid. That's where it goes. It may not stay very long, but that's where it goes. While it's there, it does it's beta decay thing and causes thyroid carcinoma.

It doesn't have to be incorporated into T3 or T4 to be carcinogenic, you idiot.

You don't see where Coulter is wrong because you don't want to see where Coulter is wrong.

Some day, I'm sure some geneticist will identify the gene that allows a certain percentage of the population to take the word of Ann Coulters over all of the word of epidemiologists, oncologists and nuclear physicists.

Of course, the science types are busy doing their thing while Ann Coulter does her very different thing.

I'm not a fan of AC, but you're wrong

 

[Songcatcher]

Dear human species, Japan eqrthquakes are man-made. Please refer to the below data. Many quakes occur at the fixed point repeatedly. Natural quakes never show such behaviour.

These quakes are produced by Mr. David Rockefeller of CFR.

2011.3.15 .17:30: 　Scale:１ 41゜36.0'N　 141゜36.0'E　 80km　 M:3.1 Offshore Tomakomai
2011.3.16 .05:27: Scale:３ 41゜30.0'N　 140゜12.0'E　 10km　 M:2.8 Western Toshima

2011.3.12 .08:05: 　Scale:３ 39゜42.0'N　 141゜48.0'E　 10km　 M:4.7 Iwate coastal
2011.3.11 .16:04: 　Scale:４ 　 39゜ 0.0'N　 142゜30.0'E　 20km　 M:5.8 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.12 .19:53: 　Scale:４ 　 39゜ 0.0'N　 142゜30.0'E　 0km　 M :5.8 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.13 .18:25: 　Scale:３ 39゜ 0.0'N　 142゜42.0'E　 0km　 M :5.5 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.12 .00:02: 　Scale:２ 　 39゜ 6.0'N　 142゜30.0'E　 0km　 M :5.0 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.12 .11:43: 　Scale:３ 　 39゜ 6.0'N　 142゜30.0'E　 40km　 M:5.2 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.13 .06:58: 　Scale:３ 　 39゜ 6.0'N　 142゜30.0'E　 10km　 M:5.4 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.11 .20:37: 　Scale:５弱 39゜ 6.0'N　 142゜36.0'E　 30km　 M:6.4 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.12 .15:19: 　Scale:４ 　 39゜12.0'N　 142゜30.0'E　 10km　 M:5.4 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.13 .07:31: 　Scale:３ 　 39゜12.0'N　 142゜30.0'E　 20km　 M:5.7 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.14 .15:44: 　Scale:３ 　 39゜12.0'N　 142゜30.0'E　 20km　 M:5.4 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.11 .16:38: 　Scale:４ 　 39゜12.0'N　 142゜48.0'E　 30km　 M:5.9 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.11 .21:16: 　Scale:４ 　 39゜12.0'N　 142゜48.0'E　 0km　 M :6.0 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.11 .22:08: 　Scale:２ 39゜18.0'N　 142゜24.0'E　 0km　 M :4.8 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.11 .15:41: 　Scale:４ 39゜24.0'N　 142゜ 6.0'E　 50km　 M:5.7 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.12 .23:43: 　Scale:４ 39゜30.0'N　 142゜42.0'E　 30km　 M:6.1 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.11 .20:58: 　Scale:４ 39゜36.0'N　 142゜18.0'E　 0km　 M :5.5 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.12 .22:27: 　Scale:２ 39゜36.0'N　 142゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:5.3 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.12 .12:02: 　Scale:３ 　 39゜36.0'N　 142゜54.0'E　 10km　 M:5.8 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.13 .06:48: 　Scale:３ 　 39゜36.0'N　 142゜54.0'E　 0km　 M :5.5 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.16 .15:29: 　Scale:３ 39゜54.0'N　 142゜18.0'E　 40km　 M:5.6 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.13 .15:19: 　Scale:３ 40゜ 6.0'N　 142゜ 6.0'E　 50km　 M:4.3 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.11 .15:49: 　Scale:３ 40゜12.0'N　 142゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:5.8 Iwateoffsore
2011.3.11 .19:11: 　Scale:４ 38゜54.0'N　 141゜18.0'E　 10km　 M:5.7 Iwate inland, south
2011.3.15 .06:14: 　Scale:２ 39゜ 0.0'N　 141゜ 0.0'E　 10km　 M:4.1 Iwate inland, south
2011.3.14 .07:13: 　Scale:２ 39゜ 6.0'N　 141゜18.0'E　 120km M:4.2 Iwate inland, south

2011.3.12 .05:08: 　Scale:３ 40゜24.0'N　 138゜54.0'E　 10km　 M:5.0 Akita　offshore
2011.3.12 .04:47: 　Scale:４ 　 40゜24.0'N　 139゜ 6.0'E　 10km　 M:6.4 Akita　offshore
2011.3.12 .09:39: 　Scale:２ 　 40゜24.0'N　 139゜ 6.0'E　 10km　 M:4.4 Akita　offshore
2011.3.13 .03:48: 　Scale:１ 40゜24.0'N　 139゜12.0'E　 10km　 M:4.0 Akita　offshore
2011.3.16 .09:57: 　Scale:１ 39゜30.0'N　 140゜24.0'E　 10km　 M:2.4 Akita　inland　south
2011.3.14 .07:38: 　Scale:２ 　 39゜36.0'N　 140゜24.0'E　 10km　 M:2.9 Akita　inland　south
2011.3.14 .07:46: 　Scale:３ 　 39゜36.0'N　 140゜24.0'E　 10km　 M:3.0 Akita　inland　south
2011.3.14 .20:57: 　Scale:２ 　 39゜36.0'N　 140゜24.0'E　 10km　 M:3.0 Akita　inland　south
2011.3.15 .09:54: 　Scale:３ 39゜36.0'N　 140゜30.0'E　 10km　 M:3.9 Akita　inland　south

2011.3.12 .10:04: 　Scale:３ 37゜54.0'N　 141゜30.0'E　 60km　 M:4.8 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.13 .08:25: 　Scale:５弱 37゜54.0'N　 142゜ 0.0'E　 10km　 M:6.2 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.12 .06:01: 　Scale:３ 37゜54.0'N　 142゜36.0'E　 0km　 M :5.4 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.12 .01:57: 　Scale:２ 38゜ 0.0'N　 142゜ 6.0'E　 20km　 M:4.8 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.16 .04:01: 　Scale:３ 38゜ 0.0'N　 142゜12.0'E　 0km　 M :5.8 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.11 .21:13: 　Scale:４ 38゜ 0.0'N　 142゜30.0'E　 10km　 M:6.1 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.11 .23:29: 　Scale:２ 38゜ 6.0'N　 142゜ 6.0'E　 20km　 M:5.2 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.11 .20:39: 　Scale:４ 38゜12.0'N　 142゜18.0'E　 40km　 M:5.6 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.11 .18:27: 　Scale:３ 38゜18.0'N　 142゜ 0.0'E　 50km　 M:5.3 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.11 .19:39: 　Scale:２ 38゜18.0'N　 142゜12.0'E　 20km　 M:4.9 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.11 .21:55: 　Scale:３ 38゜24.0'N　 142゜12.0'E　 60km　 M:5.1 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.16 .23:46: 　Scale:４ 38゜30.0'N　 141゜48.0'E　 50km　 M:5.2 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.11 .19:13: 　Scale:３ 38゜36.0'N　 142゜ 0.0'E　 40km　 M:5.3 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.15 .04:28: 　Scale:３ 38゜42.0'N　 141゜48.0'E　 40km　 M:5.0 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.12 .13:06: 　Scale:３ 38゜42.0'N　 141゜54.0'E　 70km　 M:5.2 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.12 .00:36: 　Scale:２ 38゜42.0'N　 142゜36.0'E　 0km　 M :5.2 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.13 .18:52: 　Scale:３ 38゜48.0'N　 142゜ 0.0'E　 50km　 M:5.5 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.11 .15:46: 　Scale:４ 38゜48.0'N　 142゜18.0'E　 10km　 M:5.7 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.12 .23:03: 　Scale:３ 38゜48.0'N　 142゜36.0'E　 0km　 M :5.8 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.12 .22:24: 　Scale:３ 38゜54.0'N　 142゜18.0'E　 80km　 M:4.8 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.12 .02:15: 　Scale:３ 38゜54.0'N　 142゜24.0'E　 10km　 M:4.9 　Miyagi　offshore
2011.3.11 .20:31: 　Scale:４ 38゜12.0'N　 140゜30.0'E　 0km　 M :5.3 Miyagi　south
2011.3.11 .03:14: 　Scale:３ 38゜48.0'N　 140゜54.0'E　 10km　 M:3.5 Miyagi　north
2011.3.11 .21:33: 　Scale:３ 37゜48.0'N　 142゜48.0'E　 10km　 M:5.2 Sanriku offshotre
2011.3.12 .21:54: 　Scale:３ 37゜48.0'N　 143゜ 0.0'E　 10km　 M:5.9 Sanriku offshotre
2011.3.12 .11:30: 　Scale:３ 37゜54.0'N　 143゜18.0'E　 10km　 M:5.3 Sanriku offshotre
2011.3.11 .14:46: 　Scale:７ 　 38゜ 0.0'N　 142゜54.0'E　 10km　 M:7.9 Sanriku offshotre
2011.3.11 .15:06: 　Scale:５弱 38゜ 0.0'N　 142゜54.0'E　 10km　 M:7.0 Sanriku offshotre
2011.3.11 .15:26: 　Scale:４ 38゜ 0.0'N　 144゜42.0'E　 10km　 M:7.2 Sanriku offshotre
2011.3.11 .01:55: 　Scale:２ 38゜ 6.0'N　 143゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:5.3 Sanriku offshotre
2011.3.11 .06:50: 　Scale:１ 38゜24.0'N　 143゜30.0'E　 10km　 M:4.5 Sanriku offshotre
2011.3.12 .10:35: 　Scale:３ 38゜36.0'N　 143゜ 0.0'E　 10km　 M:5.8 Sanriku offshotre
2011.3.12 .18:41: 　Scale:３ 38゜36.0'N　 143゜ 6.0'E　 10km　 M:5.1 Sanriku offshotre
2011.3.11 .07:44: 　Scale:１ 38゜36.0'N　 143゜24.0'E　 10km　 M:4.8 Sanriku offshotre
2011.3.12 .05:11: 　Scale:３ 38゜48.0'N　 142゜48.0'E　 0km　 M :6.1 Sanriku offshotre
2011.3.11 .16:29: 　Scale:５強 39゜ 0.0'N　 142゜48.0'E　 0km　 M :6.6 Sanriku offshotre
2011.3.13 .22:43: 　Scale:３ 39゜ 6.0'N　 143゜18.0'E　 10km　 M:5.0 Sanriku offshotre
2011.3.12 .04:03: 　Scale:４ 39゜18.0'N　 143゜18.0'E　 10km　 M:6.2 Sanriku offshotre
2011.3.12 .01:12: 　Scale:２ 39゜24.0'N　 143゜48.0'E　 10km　 M:5.7 Sanriku offshotre
2011.3.11 .18:47: 　Scale:２ 39゜24.0'N　 143゜54.0'E　 10km　 M:5.7 Sanriku offshotre
2011.3.11 .18:42: 　Scale:３ 39゜30.0'N　 143゜ 0.0'E　 40km　 M:5.6 Sanriku offshotre
2011.3.16 .00:24: 　Scale:３ 40゜24.0'N　 143゜24.0'E　 10km　 M:6.0 Sanriku offshotre

2011.3.11 .16:15: 　Scale:４ 　 36゜36.0'N　 142゜12.0'E　 10km　 M:6.8 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .18:59: 　Scale:２ 　 36゜36.0'N　 142゜12.0'E　 10km　 M:5.0 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .20:17: 　Scale:３ 　 36゜42.0'N　 141゜48.0'E　 30km　 M:5.7 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .11:34: 　Scale:３ 　 36゜42.0'N　 141゜48.0'E　 0km　 M :5.2 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.13 .08:41: 　Scale:３ 　 36゜42.0'N　 141゜48.0'E　 30km　 M:5.2 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .06:55: 　Scale:３ 36゜54.0'N　 140゜54.0'E　 10km　 M:3.9 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .22:47: 　Scale:３ 　 36゜54.0'N　 141゜12.0'E　 50km　 M:4.9 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .03:44: 　Scale:４ 　 36゜54.0'N　 141゜12.0'E　 40km　 M:5.0 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.14 .15:52: 　Scale:４ 　 36゜54.0'N　 141゜12.0'E　 40km　 M:5.2 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.13 .23:28: 　Scale:３ 　 36゜54.0'N　 141゜18.0'E　 40km　 M:4.4 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.16 .12:23: 　Scale:２ 　 36゜54.0'N　 141゜18.0'E　 20km　 M:4.6 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.16 .18:15: 　Scale:３ 36゜54.0'N　 141゜30.0'E　 30km　 M:4.6 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .05:34: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 141゜18.0'E　 40km　 M:5.0 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.13 .15:00: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 141゜18.0'E　 40km　 M:4.7 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .22:29: 　Scale:３ 37゜ 0.0'N　 141゜24.0'E　 40km　 M:4.5 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .05:25: 　Scale:３ 37゜ 0.0'N　 141゜48.0'E　 30km　 M:4.9 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .00:58: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 6.0'N　 141゜12.0'E　 20km　 M:4.2 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.14 .04:27: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 6.0'N　 141゜12.0'E　 30km　 M:4.2 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .19:35: 　Scale:４ 　 37゜ 6.0'N　 141゜24.0'E　 40km　 M:5.1 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .22:15: 　Scale:５弱 37゜ 6.0'N　 141゜24.0'E　 40km　 M:6.0 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.15 .16:48: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 6.0'N　 141゜24.0'E　 30km　 M:4.3 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.13 .05:41: 　Scale:３ 37゜ 6.0'N　 141゜30.0'E　 50km　 M:4.7 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.14 .02:04: 　Scale:３ 37゜ 6.0'N　 141゜36.0'E　 30km　 M:4.4 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .03:11: 　Scale:３ 37゜ 6.0'N　 142゜ 0.0'E　 40km　 M:6.0 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .21:38: 　Scale:２ 37゜ 6.0'N　 142゜12.0'E　 50km　 M:4.7 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .11:52: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜12.0'N　 141゜12.0'E　 10km　 M:5.0 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .21:34: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜12.0'N　 141゜12.0'E　 50km　 M:3.9 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.15 .03:35: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜12.0'N　 141゜12.0'E　 40km　 M:4.3 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .14:45: 　Scale:３ 37゜12.0'N　 141゜18.0'E　 30km　 M:4.5 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .01:05: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜12.0'N　 141゜30.0'E　 40km　 M:4.6 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .02:30: 　Scale:４ 　 37゜12.0'N　 141゜30.0'E　 10km　 M:5.1 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .00:06: 　Scale:３ 37゜12.0'N　 141゜48.0'E　 30km　 M:5.3 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .08:55: 　Scale:３ 37゜12.0'N　 141゜54.0'E　 30km　 M:4.7 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.15 .18:50: 　Scale:３ 37゜12.0'N　 142゜30.0'E　 10km　 M:6.3 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.15 .20:06: 　Scale:３ 37゜12.0'N　 142゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:5.2 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .22:33: 　Scale:４ 37゜18.0'N　 141゜ 6.0'E　 30km　 M:4.5 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .18:15: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜18.0'N　 141゜18.0'E　 30km　 M:4.8 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .18:34: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜18.0'N　 141゜18.0'E　 40km　 M:4.8 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .04:16: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜18.0'N　 141゜18.0'E　 30km　 M:4.1 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .10:14: 　Scale:４ 　 37゜18.0'N　 141゜24.0'E　 20km　 M:4.5 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.13 .07:59: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜18.0'N　 141゜24.0'E　 40km　 M:4.4 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.16 .22:54: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜18.0'N　 141゜24.0'E　 30km　 M:4.6 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.14 .13:45: 　Scale:３ 37゜18.0'N　 141゜36.0'E　 40km　 M:4.7 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .00:26: 　Scale:２ 37゜18.0'N　 141゜42.0'E　 30km　 M:5.0 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .10:46: 　Scale:３ 37゜18.0'N　 141゜48.0'E　 40km　 M:6.4 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .17:05: 　Scale:３ 37゜18.0'N　 142゜12.0'E　 30km　 M:5.8 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .00:32: 　Scale:２ 37゜18.0'N　 142゜18.0'E　 20km　 M:5.3 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.13 .03:09: 　Scale:４ 37゜24.0'N　 141゜18.0'E　 30km　 M:4.5 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .06:34: 　Scale:４ 　 37゜24.0'N　 141゜24.0'E　 20km　 M:4.8 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.14 .15:18: 　Scale:４ 　 37゜24.0'N　 141゜24.0'E　 30km　 M:5.3 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .19:21: 　Scale:３ 37゜24.0'N　 141゜48.0'E　 60km　 M:5.5 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.13 .21:44: 　Scale:３ 37゜24.0'N　 141゜54.0'E　 10km　 M:4.7 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .17:47: 　Scale:３ 37゜24.0'N　 142゜30.0'E　 20km　 M:6.0 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.13 .20:37: 　Scale:３ 37゜24.0'N　 142゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:6.0 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .17:31: 　Scale:４ 　 37゜30.0'N　 141゜18.0'E　 30km　 M:5.8 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .17:41: 　Scale:５強 37゜30.0'N　 141゜18.0'E　 30km　 M:5.8 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .21:21: 　Scale:４ 　 37゜30.0'N　 141゜18.0'E　 0km　 M :4.9 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .02:56: 　Scale:４ 　 37゜30.0'N　 141゜18.0'E　 30km　 M:4.4 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .04:45: 　Scale:４ 　 37゜30.0'N　 141゜42.0'E　 30km　 M:5.2 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.16 .13:14: 　Scale:４ 　 37゜30.0'N　 141゜42.0'E　 20km　 M:5.6 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .23:10: 　Scale:３ 37゜30.0'N　 141゜54.0'E　 40km　 M:5.1 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .00:51: 　Scale:２ 　 37゜30.0'N　 142゜30.0'E　 20km　 M:5.2 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .16:35: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜30.0'N　 142゜30.0'E　 0km　 M :4.8 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.16 .20:45: 　Scale:３ 37゜36.0'N　 141゜30.0'E　 50km　 M:4.4 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.13 .07:13: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜36.0'N　 142゜ 6.0'E　 0km　 M :6.0 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.15 .22:38: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜36.0'N　 142゜ 6.0'E　 20km　 M:5.6 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.16 .04:53: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜36.0'N　 142゜ 6.0'E　 30km　 M:5.0 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .16:54: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜42.0'N　 141゜42.0'E　 30km　 M:5.5 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .17:54: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜42.0'N　 141゜42.0'E　 40km　 M:4.8 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .20:01: 　Scale:４ 37゜42.0'N　 141゜48.0'E　 40km　 M:5.5 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.12 .09:25: 　Scale:３ 37゜42.0'N　 142゜ 0.0'E　 50km　 M:4.9 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.14 .15:13: 　Scale:４ 37゜42.0'N　 142゜42.0'E　 10km　 M:6.3 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .18:52: 　Scale:３ 37゜48.0'N　 141゜42.0'E　 40km　 M:4.8 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.11 .22:56: 　Scale:３ 37゜48.0'N　 141゜54.0'E　 40km　 M:5.3 Fukushima offshore
2011.3.15 .16:44: 　Scale:１ 37゜18.0'N　 140゜24.0'E　 20km　 M:3.1 Fukushima Nakadori
2011.3.16 .05:53: 　Scale:３ 36゜54.0'N　 140゜48.0'E　 30km　 M:4.5 Fukushima Hamadori
2011.3.12 .10:12: 　Scale:３ 37゜ 0.0'N　 140゜48.0'E　 10km　 M:4.8 Fukushima Hamadori
2011.3.15 .07:29: 　Scale:３ 37゜ 6.0'N　 140゜42.0'E　 0km　 M :4.4 Fukushima Hamadori
2011.3.12 .08:11: 　Scale:４ 37゜12.0'N　 141゜ 0.0'E　 0km　 M :4.8 Fukushima Hamadori

2011.3.12 .03:59: 　Scale:６強 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:6.6 Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .04:12: 　Scale:４ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:4.3 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .04:21: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 0km　 M :3.9 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .04:32: 　Scale:６弱 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:5.8 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .04:44: 　Scale:４ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:4.4 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .05:21: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 0km　 M :3.7 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .05:42: 　Scale:６弱 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 0km　 M :5.3 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .05:51: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 0km　 M :3.0 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .06:34: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 0km　 M :4.2 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .07:18: 　Scale:４ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:3.9 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .09:29: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:2.7 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .10:33: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 20km　 M:4.0 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .10:42: 　Scale:４ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:3.6 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .12:41: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:3.0 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .13:43: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:3.7 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .14:55: 　Scale:４ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:4.0 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .18:36: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 20km　 M:3.7 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .22:05: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 0km　 M :2.6 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .23:35: 　Scale:５弱 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:4.4 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .23:54: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 0km　 M :2.5 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.13 .00:44: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:4.0 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.13 .03:47: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:3.6 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.13 .23:28: 　Scale:４ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 30km　 M:3.9 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.14 .15:38: 　Scale:４ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:4.0 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.15 .10:41: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 0km　 M :2.0 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.16 .19:00: 　Scale:２ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 0km　 M :2.7 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.16 .19:52: 　Scale:１ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:2.4 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .05:03: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜42.0'E　 0km　 M :3.9 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .05:57: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜42.0'E　 20km　 M:3.2 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .11:19: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜42.0'E　 0km　 M :2.8 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.15 .05:40: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 0.0'N　 138゜42.0'E　 0km　 M :2.9 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.12 .04:16: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 6.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 10km　 M:3.7 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.16 .06:15: 　Scale:３ 　 37゜ 6.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 20km　 M:4.0 　Niigata Chuetsu
2011.3.16 .20:11: 　Scale:１ 　 37゜ 6.0'N　 138゜36.0'E　 0km　 M :2.7 　Niigata Chuetsu

http://richardkoshimizu.at.webry.info/201103/article_96.html

 

[Powertone]

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/33acpqa.jpg

She tried having her Adam's Apple reduced with radiotherapy.

oh...never mind

 

[patrick1]

Here is the 20-years-on report on the effects of Chernobyl:

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241594179_eng.pdf

It does not seem to me to come to the conclusions Josh Gilder, a man with his own political agenda, draws from the same source in the article cited above. The report is cautious, but expects gradually the further effects of Chernobyl to show up in morbidity statistics. There are known latency periods - periods before effects show up - whose existence is partly verified, alas, by data from Japan.

People writing here seem unaware that Soviet, post-Soviet and European people have spent billions since 1987 to mitigate the effects of Chernobyl. We have cared for people, changed land use including what we grow where, slaughtered and monitored livestock - 24 years on, here in the UK, sheep in certain areas still have to be checked annually, because of radiation carried on the wind to us from Chernobyl - and engaged in a great deal of research. Every year where I live in the UK a small group of Belarus children come, to breathe healthier air and see another life. Our lives and attitudes right across Europe have been deeply affected by understanding how far-reaching, over time and distance, a nuclear accident can be. Those writing here who belittle the human, social effects seem to me terribly glib and patronising.

Here's a strange by-product of looking at the evidence. You will find if you read the WHO report on mortality above, that a far worse cause of earlier death in Ukraine and Belarus than the Chernobyl incident over the 20 years to 2006 was the collapse of the Soviet state. Perhaps those interested in this evidence will be arguing for the return of Communism, which seems a more evidence-based policy to help people live longer than what Ann Coulter has to say.

 

[dicknjane]

How do you even make a mistake like this? That is waaaaaaaay beyond the they're/their type of typo or error. That is on a whole new level of wtf stupid.

Fuck you Eva Braun. Simple mistake from not proof reading. I suck at typing so my mind is way ahead of my fingers.

Do you spend your time cruising porn boards looking for grammatical/spelling errors? Must be fulfilling.

 

[Songcatcher]

CAUTION! 3-11 SEISMIC TERRORISTS ARE STILL AROUND.

Dear human species, Japan quakes are man-made!
http://richardkoshimizu.at.webry.info/201103/article_96.html

3-11 perpetrator's volcano eruption program
http://richardkoshimizu.at.webry.info/201103/article_92.html

Fukushima Nuke Power Plant : Nothing serious.
http://richardkoshimizu.at.webry.info/201103/article_91.html

Daily quakes at exactly same latitude/longtitude
http://richardkoshimizu.at.webry.info/201103/article_78.html

Look at this clear evidence of ARTIFICIAL QUAKES
http://richardkoshimizu.at.webry.info/201103/article_77.html

3-11 Seismic Terrorism: Tokyo Quake Emegency Info!
http://richardkoshimizu.at.webry.info/201103/article_52.html

Artificial earthquakes in Japan by D Rockefeller
http://richardkoshimizu.at.webry.info/201103/article_40.html

Judaism calendar and magnitude terrorism
http://richardkoshimizu.at.webry.info/201103/article_97.html

http://richardkoshimizu.at.webry.info/201103/article_102.html