4 ms·

'Did too' says Greenpeace. (Link to their report, from near the end of the Guardian article: https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-japan-stateless/2021/03

by etiam 6y ago

'Did too' says Greenpeace. (Link to their report, from near the end of the Guardian article: https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-japan-stateless/2021/03/ff71ab0b-finalfukushima2011-2020_web.pdf https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-japan-stateless/20... )

sputr 6y ago
Greenpeace isn't exactly a trustworthy entity on this topic. Their anti-nuclear position is, first and foremost, ideological (as is with the entirety of the green movement). Does not mean that they are wrong. I also don't see them purposefully modifying information aka. lying. But the probability of their biases getting in the way of objective reporting is non-trivial.
- etiam 6y ago
  Well expressed, and I largely agree with your assessment. But certain Japanese politicians/authorities/corporations aren't exactly neutral, disinterested parties in this matter either, so I think some adversarial discourse is helpful here, and at least the best we'll get. For clarification, I'm mainly reacting to the headline rather than the thyroid cancer survey. I don't have an opinion either way about that without seeing much more background, and that seems more complex than I'll have time to dig into today.
  - bart_spoon 6y ago
    This report isn't from Japanese authorities, its from the UN.
- willis936 6y ago
  You don’t have to accuse Greenpeace of lying; their lies are already well documented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Greenpeace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Greenpeace
mpweiher 6y ago
Can you point me to the place in the article where it actually talks about radiation impacting the health of locals? All I could find was complaints that the acceptable-safe radiation limit had been raised, and that a few selected locations within the area had levels that were slightly above the previous and well below the new levels. Nothing about actual health damage from radiation.
liminvorous 6y ago
As far as I can tell they are just saying the same things about radiation exposure as everyone else, but making them sound scary. I didn't see any evidence of health damage, though I didn't read too closely. I haven't looked into Strontium 90 health effects specifically though, does anyone have good sources for how concerning that is?

by etiam 6y ago

sputr 6y ago

Greenpeace isn't exactly a trustworthy entity on this topic. Their anti-nuclear position is, first and foremost, ideological (as is with the entirety of the green movement). Does not mean that they are wrong. I also don't see them purposefully modifying information aka. lying. But the probability of their biases getting in the way of objective reporting is non-trivial.

etiam 6y ago
Well expressed, and I largely agree with your assessment. But certain Japanese politicians/authorities/corporations aren't exactly neutral, disinterested parties in this matter either, so I think some adversarial discourse is helpful here, and at least the best we'll get. For clarification, I'm mainly reacting to the headline rather than the thyroid cancer survey. I don't have an opinion either way about that without seeing much more background, and that seems more complex than I'll have time to dig into today.
- bart_spoon 6y ago
  This report isn't from Japanese authorities, its from the UN.
willis936 6y ago
You don’t have to accuse Greenpeace of lying; their lies are already well documented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Greenpeace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Greenpeace

mpweiher 6y ago

Can you point me to the place in the article where it actually talks about radiation impacting the health of locals? All I could find was complaints that the acceptable-safe radiation limit had been raised, and that a few selected locations within the area had levels that were slightly above the previous and well below the new levels. Nothing about actual health damage from radiation.

liminvorous 6y ago

As far as I can tell they are just saying the same things about radiation exposure as everyone else, but making them sound scary. I didn't see any evidence of health damage, though I didn't read too closely. I haven't looked into Strontium 90 health effects specifically though, does anyone have good sources for how concerning that is?