3 ms·
> "We don't found" and "does not exist" are different terms. "Report couldn't prove damage" would be a much better title, or at least closer to truth. You are
by user-the-name 6y ago
> "We don't found" and "does not exist" are different terms. "Report couldn't prove damage" would be a much better title, or at least closer to truth.
You are the one who just said "Waters radiation near the plant was measured at several million times the legal limit". Was that or was that not the case?
- pvaldes 6y agoRadiation in the sea can be positively measured. What the report claims is like somebody claiming that there is not radiation in the sea because they couldn't found it in a sample. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But the worse is that the report authors seem to be very, very carefully, circumnavigating the evidence, that is not so difficult to find in fact. An example that fish eaters (AKA 100% of Japanese people) could find interesting: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-4-431-55537-7.pdf https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-4-431-55...
- user-the-name 6y agoYou made a specific claim, "Waters radiation near the plant was measured at several million times the legal limit". That is a lot stronger than "Radiation in the sea can be positively measured". What are you basing this claim on?
- pvaldes 6y agoInternational Atomic Energy Agency. NOAA, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Woods Hole Oceanographic, Japanese Fisheries agency, Japanese Ministry of Technology MEXT, Fukushima prefecture, etc etc... and the own TEPCO reports. Is not a secret than Iodine-131 exceeded by 5 millions the legal limit and Cesium-137 in seawater raised from 0.1 to 100000. Consult the bibliography.
- user-the-name 6y agoWhere?
- pvaldes 6y agoIn the bibliography.
- user-the-name 6y agoI am asking you for a direct link to a source that backs up your claim of "millions of times" higher radioactivity.