3 ms·

Magnitude 5.8 earthquake has struck Fukushima

14 points by gslin 3y ago

ProllyInfamous 3y ago
[flagged]
- jjulius 3y ago
  The Wiki on the incident states: > No adverse health effects among Fukushima residents or power station workers have been documented that are directly attributable to radiation exposure from the accident. and > Radiation exposure of those living in proximity to the accident site is expected to be below 10 mSv, over the course of a lifetime. In comparison, the dosage of background radiation received over a lifetime is 170 mSv. Very few cancers are expected as a result of accumulated radiation exposures and residents who were evacuated were exposed to so little radiation that radiation-induced health effects were likely to be below detectable levels. There is no increase in miscarriages, stillbirths or physical and mental disorders in babies born after the accident. Do you have data that shows otherwise?
  - paganel 3y ago
    > No adverse health effects among Fukushima residents or power station workers have been documented that are directly attributable to radiation exposure from the accident. Not the OP, but who has done those studies? Were they an independent international institution? Meaning not directly connected to Japan, the Japanese government and to Japanese big companies in any way, shape or form?
    - jjulius 3y ago
      IAEA is one of the three sources cited for that statement, as is the WHO and a Japanese institution. Whether or not the IAEA (or other institutions who have made similar statements) passes your stated litmus test, however, doesn't really prove such assertions wrong, especially in the absence of data that can prove otherwise, which I'm struggling to find.
      - paganel 3y ago
        The IAEA is in fact the only institution that I can trust from that list, Iraq 2003 made me trust them, but I'd leave anything WHO-related as politically-tainted (this recent pandemic has proved it) and, as I've said, anything directly related to Japan itself is tainted by definition when it comes to Fukushima. The question now is how much of a say the IAEA had in that study, i.e. it they only rubber-stamped it with their approval or if the data came directly from them?
stray 3y ago
[flagged]
- jjulius 3y ago
  ... with regards to...? Edit: My assumption is that OP is concerned about nuclear-related issues as a result of this earthquake. Those are unfounded, as the nuclear plant has been offline since 2012.
- rambojohnson 3y ago
  what are you talking about
wk_end 3y ago
A magnitude 5.8 earthquake isn't particularly significant - especially not in a nation as seismically prepared as Japan.
imchillyb 3y ago
Anyone want to venture a guess as to what an earthquake of any magnitude could do to the little molten blob of goo at the bottom of a very deep hole?

14 points by gslin 3y ago

ProllyInfamous 3y ago

[flagged]

jjulius 3y ago
The Wiki on the incident states: > No adverse health effects among Fukushima residents or power station workers have been documented that are directly attributable to radiation exposure from the accident. and > Radiation exposure of those living in proximity to the accident site is expected to be below 10 mSv, over the course of a lifetime. In comparison, the dosage of background radiation received over a lifetime is 170 mSv. Very few cancers are expected as a result of accumulated radiation exposures and residents who were evacuated were exposed to so little radiation that radiation-induced health effects were likely to be below detectable levels. There is no increase in miscarriages, stillbirths or physical and mental disorders in babies born after the accident. Do you have data that shows otherwise?
- paganel 3y ago
  > No adverse health effects among Fukushima residents or power station workers have been documented that are directly attributable to radiation exposure from the accident. Not the OP, but who has done those studies? Were they an independent international institution? Meaning not directly connected to Japan, the Japanese government and to Japanese big companies in any way, shape or form?
  - jjulius 3y ago
    IAEA is one of the three sources cited for that statement, as is the WHO and a Japanese institution. Whether or not the IAEA (or other institutions who have made similar statements) passes your stated litmus test, however, doesn't really prove such assertions wrong, especially in the absence of data that can prove otherwise, which I'm struggling to find.
    - paganel 3y ago
      The IAEA is in fact the only institution that I can trust from that list, Iraq 2003 made me trust them, but I'd leave anything WHO-related as politically-tainted (this recent pandemic has proved it) and, as I've said, anything directly related to Japan itself is tainted by definition when it comes to Fukushima. The question now is how much of a say the IAEA had in that study, i.e. it they only rubber-stamped it with their approval or if the data came directly from them?

stray 3y ago

[flagged]

jjulius 3y ago
... with regards to...? Edit: My assumption is that OP is concerned about nuclear-related issues as a result of this earthquake. Those are unfounded, as the nuclear plant has been offline since 2012.
rambojohnson 3y ago
what are you talking about

wk_end 3y ago

A magnitude 5.8 earthquake isn't particularly significant - especially not in a nation as seismically prepared as Japan.

imchillyb 3y ago

Anyone want to venture a guess as to what an earthquake of any magnitude could do to the little molten blob of goo at the bottom of a very deep hole?