Olympic Organizer Wants To Feed Athletes Fukushima Produce

New submitter Grady Martin writes: Toshiaki Endo, Japan's government-appointed parliament member in charge of planning for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, has expressed hopes of supplying the Olympic/Paralympic village with foods grown in Fukushima [Google's autotranslation], stating, 'Using foods from Fukushima in the village is another possibility. I wish to strengthen ties with ground zero in numerous ways.' Would you eat it?

Comments

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, yes I would.

This so called article is simply scaremongering of the highest order. You should be ashamed!

Re:Yes.

[Applehu Akbar]

Crops from this particular area are undoubtedly better tested than any other food in the world.

Re:Yes.

[perlwannabe]

Here is some information on testing:
http://www.rt.com/news/219799-...

Re:Yes.

[Mr D from 63]

Anyone who is surprised by the fact that the long term effects of the Fukushima event won't live up to the FUD, might want to question those sources.

Re:Yes.

[fustakrakich]

Crops from this particular area are undoubtedly better tasting than any other food in the world?!

Um, I would have to.... Oh.... So sorry...

Re:Yes.

[Applehu Akbar]

100 becquerel for kg in the rice? Inasmuch as background is 4500 bq inside the human body, you're going to have to add some radium watch dial scrapings for flavor.

Re:Yes.

[Midnight Thunder]

Yes, yes I would.

This so called article is simply scaremongering of the highest order. You should be ashamed!

Myself I would say yes, on the condition it has been cleared by the Japanese health and safety regulators. If it shown to be bio-equivalent, then why should we be worrying? I would say this of food from any source.

Re:Yes.

[Mr D from 63]

That was clever. now you have a convenient excuse to ignore the facts. Its amazing what people will manufacture in their minds to see the world the way they want to see it. If the equipment were proven accurate right in front of you, no doubt you would find another excuse, and in the end you can always call it a grand conspiracy so you don't have to face reality.

Radiation detection can easily be done do many orders of magnitude greater than needed for this test. You have no basis do doubt the equipment. The food is out there so independent folks can easily test it if they like.

Re:Yes.

[AmiMoJo]

Reading comprehension failure. I didn't say that the equipment wasn't accurate, in fact I'm sure it is. I imagine it is properly calibrated and checked regularly. That's not the problem.

Sample size is an issue. If you test a large sample with a single detector it might give a low reading for say a palette of vegetables. The problem is that one vegetable might have a dangerous concentration of cesium, but it averages out over the palette. That's actually how the test is done by the way, it's not just speculation, and NHK demonstrated this failure mode is possible.

I prefer testing and proof over speculation and assumption.

This is a common mistake made by nuke fans. They think that because there is some equipment that checks fit some problem they can assume it is taken care of. In practice, it requires someone to design a test and others to carry it out correctly.

Re:Yes.

[Mr D from 63]

You prefer testing, but when you get it you throw out baseless doubts, and latch on to them. You fail to understand the levels of radiation we are dealing with and how easy it is to be accurate, even with large samples.

Re:Yes.

[AmiMoJo]

In what way is a known failure mode, tested carefully and repeatable, "baseless"?

I should point out that in the documentary where they did this test, it was actually scientists from a university (might have been Narita, I forget) working with the farmers to improve their detection methods. The farmers actually care, they want the highest standards both to protect people and to instil confidence in them.

It's kind of hilarious that you would accuse me of not understanding "levels of radiation". It's generally not the levels that are a problem, it's the nature of the radioactive material that is the primary concern with food. Potassium, fine, caesium, not so much.

Re:Yes.

[Kagetsuki]

You're an idiot. No such laws exist and there have been constant news stories about Fukushima and agriculture there.

There are radioactive hot-spots in many places all around the world. Just for reference none of the radioactive hot spots in Tokyo come close to the radioactivity of the famous black sand beaches in Brazil.

The vegetables from Fukushima are safer to eat then the FUD you've been stuffing down.

Re:Yes.

[siddesu]

Come on. I'm not a fan of either nuclear or the Japanese government, but that's just crap.

I don't know where in Japan you live, but in our jichikai (which is somewhere in the 24 districts of Tokyo) the old ladies had a contract with a private lab to test for "radiation poisoning" in early March 2011 already. They bought two geiger counters too, and even walked about for months measuring stuff. To their huge disappointment, not much was found. This was a completely private effort, that is, the "government" was not involved in any way.

If the jichikai tests had found something, anything, the news and the Internets would be all over the place (see below **). At the least, I would have heard about it. Also, I doubt ours was the only jichikai that went from totally unconcerned to seriously over-equipped and over-zealous about detecting radiation.

They were not the only ones measuring. Virtually every university, public or private, is doing measurements. So do or did many supermarket chains for a while. If there was a massive radiation contamination, it would have been found and reported. You can easily dig day-by-day data about radiation measurements, including independent ones, if you speak a little Japanese. Yes, they are still measuring.

As for the 'hot spots' in Tokyo, I recall two. One was a large cache of radium buried in a private garden by the grandkids of a watch repairman, who passed away in the 60s, the other was some equipment that was disposed of similarly by a company. Neither had anything to do with Fukushima, and IIRC, both were found by citizens with geiger counters and both made huge news on the TV, all channels covering and discussing them for days **. Care to mention what other spots are there, which were caused by Fukushima and I don't know about?

To wrap it up, it is quite impossible to hide a large scale contamination in Japan in the long run, because people here are health-conscious and wealthy enough to be able to run all kinds of tests independently, and the media, while not completely without influence, are free to cover what they want and some dislike the current government enough to publish anything that will harm its image.

So, either provide serious evidence about this conspiracy, or just shut up.

Re:Yes.

[KGIII]

If you are sure the testing is good then why did you question it? And you accuse them of reading comprehension issues...

Re:Yes.

[AmiMoJo]

Sorry, I can't explain it any more clearly than I already have done. If you don't understand... I can't help.

Re:Yes.

[countach]

Possibly, but the Japanese government were caught out in a cover up on this disaster from the beginning. Are they still covering up? Probably not, but when you can't trust the government, why would you risk it?

Re:Yes.

[Mr D from 63]

Actually, you simply can't explain it. There are many possible failure modes, we could list them all, but you fail to explain what information you have to indicate this particular failure occurred or is likely to occur. To do so would require you to put for the details of actual testing process, the peripheral checks in place, etc.

Re:Yes.

[DNS-and-BIND]

You're an anti-nuclear activist, if there is any science explaining why you're factually wrong on any issue, you'll simply rationalize it away as TEH CORPORASHIONS bribing people and keep going with your pre-concieved notions. There's a reason people call environmentalism a religion. Its believers are not easily shaken from truths they know are infallible. Try convincing a Christian "thou shalt not steal" doesn't mean what it means. Same thing.

Re:Yes.

[AmiMoJo]

Your argument would be more effective if it wasn't a rather poor ad-hominem attack. Try making a specific argument based on logic.

Re:Yes.

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Actually, you simply can't explain it. There are many possible failure modes, we could list them all, but you fail to explain what information you have to indicate this particular failure occurred or is likely to occur. To do so would require you to put for the details of actual testing process, the peripheral checks in place, etc.

AmiMoJo doesn't say the tests are bullshit - simply that they might be. You, on the other-hand say the test results are accurate. Conflating a healthy scepticism with outright rejection makes your claims that AmiMoJo is biased, biased.

She's correct - there are non-zero risks, and reasons why the results might be biased. Those are facts.

She may be wrong about it "probably being safe". That's an opinion.

If you are seriously proposing that governments don't fudge facts you need a reality check. If you were an "anti-nuclear activist" you'd still need a reality check. Those are facts.

This is the same government that recently lowered the limits from 500bq for rice to 100bq. The limits for milk is 50, and water 10. Just because bananas have higher levels doesn't make them unsafe - neither does it make lower levels safe. If you believe otherwise I've got some land to sell you at Wallatinna - great for growing vegetables, well outside the restricted zones at Woomera, Maralinga, and Emu Field. Background levels are lower than 100bq, all the caesium and strontium is long gone - it's just a light dusting of plutonium left, as long as you don't breathe the dust you'll be fine. Trust me - it barely moves in water so your food will be safe. Well maybe the odd atom. But that won't do someone with your convictions any harm - the average bq will be well below that of a banana. If that does bother you try Oodnadatta - even lower levels. And if it's the half-life that bothers you try a little pulonium or lead 210 the waste from the scrubbers at a coal powered power station in Victoria - that won't even register on a geiger counter (though it will show if you rub it on an exposure metering badge). I'll handle the stuff (and have when prospecting around an old refinery) - but I know better than to allow even a few atoms inside my body.

Would I eat the food from Fukushima? Maybe the rice. Root vegetable and fungi? Only if each item I ate had been checked - not just the pallet. And I'm not an "anti-nuclear activist". I own a farm, and I've worked for a company that cleaned up contaminated soils - so I know damn well how some things move through soil, and how different plants concentrate them - do you?.

I also know a bit about bio-remediation. Caesium is a bitch to clean up because it's so water soluble. It's concentrated by mycorrhizal fungi, particularly the ones that associate with plant roots. Raise the water table, inoculate barrel clover seed with mycorrhizia, and harvest the barrel clover and you may remove most of the caesium. Better than wasting the land. The solution to contaminated land is not "grow crops and eat them".

I'd certainly avoid any mushrooms grown from that water table - they all accumulate metals to some degree (which is why they're good for remediating metal contaminated soils).

Tests around Chernobyl demonstrated transfer factors of 0060 to 019 for Caesium-137 with cucumbers, radish, tomatoes, and parsley. The soil is quite safe to walk on - the food is not safe to eat.

tl;dr Chernobyl was different, and levels were higher - but the same factor apply - concentration of caesium varies according to the movement of water in the soil and is concentrated by fungi and plants. You're free to put what you want in your mouth.

Re:Yes.

[Mr D from 63]

AmiMoJo doesn't say the tests are bullshit - simply that they might be. You, on the other-hand say the test results are accurate.

No, I am not saying they are accurate. I am saying that the insinuation that these tests are not accurate is baseless. Its quite easy to throw out those questions in order to instill doubt, then convenient to hide behind the "might".

Your remaining points are valid, and tests should be done and done right in order to make sure we are all safe.

Re:Yes.

[Demonoid-Penguin]

LOL fucking noob.

After Fukushima Japan passed a new law to forbid journalist from reporting anything about it.

While sites like Enenews have been reporting how all the underground water has been polluted near Fukushima.

There are even radioactive hot spots in Tokyo.

And many Japanese are faking the origin of the food so that they could export radioactive food.

The Japanese are fucked.

No more fucked than us Australians. We chose Homebush for the site of the "Green" Olympics because it was so heavily contaminated. Then we got caught lying about the mercury clean up - several times. All so a few companies could make a few fast bucks and the government save money, and face. Mercury - one of the main problems at Homebush, is actually not difficult to clean up, and one company (FineMetals) came up with a process to make it profitable - but instead it was decided to pay (buddy deal for Thiess) to have some of it dug up and dumped elsewhere.

The dioxin problem was kept fairly hidden until after the Olympics.

Re:Yes.

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Thanks for a reasonable response - I confess it's not what I expected.

AmiMoJo doesn't say the tests are bullshit - simply that they might be. You, on the other-hand say the test results are accurate.

No, I am not saying they are accurate. I am saying that the insinuation that these tests are not accurate is baseless. Its quite easy to throw out those questions in order to instill doubt, then convenient to hide behind the "might".

I didn't read it as an insinuation - just a reasonable doubt. But that may be my own bias.

The best explanation I know of for the risks associated with exposure to radioactive material is.

When they play the Grand Final in Australian Rules Football the game begins with the large banners with the team logos on field. The teams run through the banner. From a distance the holes aren't apparent - up close they're shredded. Radioactive material has a similar effect on the human body - it punches holes in cells. Enough radiation causes damage the results in cells losing the information necessary to develop - so they simply divide, and divide without purpose. Cancer.

So the problem is cumulative.

I live in a very radioactive environment, Austalia. That's partially natural as the result of being a very old continent/island where once large mountains have eroded over time exposing the heavier metals that precipitated from high pressure solutions pushed up by volcanic activity along the Pacific Rim of Fire - i.e. gold, silver, lead, uranium. Uranium decays to radioactive lead - a soft element that gets moved by water and wind. That wound up being washed into sand banks that became sandstone - the radon gas from houses built of sandstone adds to that cumulative level.
Prospectors made use of aboriginal legends of sickness country to determine where uranium deposits were likely to be. That had the added benefit of making mining in those areas simpler as few aboriginal people resided there (but not always - encroachment by settlers changed things).

Radioactive lead and polonium accumulated in coal - coal is burnt and the heavy metal elements are concentrated downwind of the power stations(*2). With corresponding increased cancer rates. The same materials are also concentrated in the waste from iron (and lead) refining - which was then used as a cheap source of fertiliser (as is guano from areas contaminated by fallout from testing areas) - so it gets into the food chain where exposure is far more problematic. Though not as problematic (sort of) as the shorter half-life materials like lead 210 which is water soluble (more of a problem in soft water than hard).

Radioactive materials are also found in crude petroleum - which results in those elements accumulating around routes of high diesel fuel usage. Also with increased cancer rates.

Then you have the British nuclear testing which did spread radioactive material(
*1) over far wider areas than what they publicly acknowledged. Even when they were eventually forced to do clean-ups - they were fairly shoddy. The material they removed was packed into 44-gallon drums and then dumped just outside of Sydney Harbour - a big fuck you from the British. There are other sources of radioactive material, a large site where radium was dumped in Adelaide, the same wind borne material the whole world copped from various international test programs and those stupid nuclear earthmoving programs in Alaska. Plutonium from explosions moves around a lot in it's radioactive lifetime.

The first point is that it's not a matter of determining whether the level of radioactivity in food is a problem in it's self - it's whether the level is enough to reach that "tipping point" of the cumulative amount required to do

Re:Yes.

[Mr D from 63]

I notice that in all of your descriptions of risks above, you miss the key ingredient of risk analysis which is probability. That is required in order to have perspective.

And there is not a clear economic benefit to lie about health risks. Rather, there is great political risk, particularly in the aftermath of Fukushima, to be caught in a lie that far outweighs, IMHO, any monetary benefit from selling this relatively small amount of food. In addition, there is ongoing testing and trends, so purposeful manipulation becomes hard to cover up from that standpoint as well. Not to mention the number of eyeballs that are focused on everything that is happening.

Re:Yes.

[arnon_jaya]

butterfly in fukushima, mutated. source : http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc... from google 'butterfly fukushima'

Re:Yes.

[Demonoid-Penguin]

I notice that in all of your descriptions of risks above, you miss the key ingredient of risk analysis which is probability. That is required in order to have perspective. And there is not a clear economic benefit to lie about health risks. Rather, there is great political risk, particularly in the aftermath of Fukushima, to be caught in a lie that far outweighs, IMHO, any monetary benefit from selling this relatively small amount of food. In addition, there is ongoing testing and trends, so purposeful manipulation becomes hard to cover up from that standpoint as well. Not to mention the number of eyeballs that are focused on everything that is happening.

I gave examples of why I don't trust government - if you apply those risk assessment to those instances you'd arrive at the conclusion that the Australian government would never take those risks - or the British government (especially the digging up bodies to test the bones for radioactivity after Maralinga). In each case it was inevitable the involved parties would get caught - and they definitely knew that at the time. I also explained my understanding as to why they went ahead and did so anyway.

If performing risk management is part of your job - especially security, then we'll have to agree to professionally disagree. Well established human biases says people will act exactly the opposite from that (as they did in the examples I gave) - it's one of the few areas of game theory I agree with. If people can get away with it for a little while they'll generally consider that an acceptable risk - it's a biased consideration, but it also works - getting caught for something you did a long time ago attracts less anger than getting caught in the act.

BAT shares are still a good investment. So are Union Carbide, Monsato, and Hardies. Not one single banker involved in the poison mortgages has suffered for the crimes.

There is far more at stake than the sale of a paltry amount of food.

Re:Yes.

[DNS-and-BIND]

See? You just brushed it away. If I made an "argument based on logic" you'd have an answer for that too. Because logic is the white man's way of imperialism. No, seriously, I've actually seen this said. Environmentalism and anti-nuclear beliefs aren't anything that can be swayed by logic or reason. There isn't anything that anyone can say that will make you stop believing that nuclear ANYTHING could possibly be good. You're religious, and I'll bet ten dollars you look down on religious people and call them idiots. I can understand why you are, though, because if you actually looked at yourself with logic your belief system would fall apart and you'd have to rethink everything, and humans HATE doing that.

Re:Yes.

[Demonoid-Penguin]

See? You just brushed it away. If I made an "argument based on logic" you'd have an answer for that too. Because logic is the white man's way of imperialism. No, seriously, I've actually seen this said. Environmentalism and anti-nuclear beliefs aren't anything that can be swayed by logic or reason. There isn't anything that anyone can say that will make you stop believing that nuclear ANYTHING could possibly be good. You're religious, and I'll bet ten dollars you look down on religious people and call them idiots. I can understand why you are, though, because if you actually looked at yourself with logic your belief system would fall apart and you'd have to rethink everything, and humans HATE doing that.

Are you allergic to dictionaries? It's patently obvious you have no understanding of what logic means.

Your premises are false and your arguments invalid.

A premise like "People don't take taxis everyday" is an example of a false premise. You believe you are right, but that's something you never test with critical thinking. Hence your inability to distinguish correlation from causation. Ironically you accuse other of faith based beliefs. All your posts in this thread demonstrate is that: you have no argument (they are fact free, the only argument you present is ad hominem); pure vitriol (there's no logical argument you've made in this thread) - peppered with shouting, is the hallmark of someone who won't examine their own beliefs due to an over-investment in an emotion based judgement. Ironic.

You may be right but you've failed to demonstrate it. Perhaps if you took a few deep breathes you might be able to.

Re:Yes.

[AmiMoJo]

You can't measure the potential danger in becquerels, you also have consider the type of radioactive substances in the food. Potassium isn't a problem as the body regulates it and ensures that it does not concentrate in areas where it could do damage. Caesium, on the other hand, can cause cancer even in small quantities if it ends up in organs and sits there gently irradiating them for decades.

It's the reason why so many children have to have their thyroid glands removed. Small amounts of radioactive particles accumulate there, and it is particularly vulnerable to that kind of damage leading to cancer, despite the measurable emissions being very low.

Re:Yes.

[DNS-and-BIND]

It doesn't matter. What are you going to say, some random stranger on an internet forum explained things to you the right way, and suddenly you changed how you think about nuclear power? That's never, ever gonna happen. It's a deeply-seated belief, and you'll never give it up, because to do that you'd have to re-examine your entire self. Anti-nuclearism is a religion, plain and simple. It doesn't matter how many citations from Wikipedia I throw in, you'll never, ever change your mind. Hell, if you actually did, you'd be socially ostracized by friends you've had for decades. You might even get fired if you work at an NGO or somesuch.

Re:Yes.

[Demonoid-Penguin]

It doesn't matter. What are you going to say, some random stranger on an internet forum explained things to you the right way, and suddenly you changed how you think about nuclear power? That's never, ever gonna happen. It's a deeply-seated belief, and you'll never give it up, because to do that you'd have to re-examine your entire self. Anti-nuclearism is a religion, plain and simple. It doesn't matter how many citations from Wikipedia I throw in, you'll never, ever change your mind. Hell, if you actually did, you'd be socially ostracized by friends you've had for decades. You might even get fired if you work at an NGO or somesuch.

Speaks volumes of you says nothing of me. I used to be staunchly anti-nuclear. I doubt I'm a corner case.

Your logic is demonstrably false - otherwise everyone who was brainwashed into religion as a child would never change their views. They do - but I guess that's something else you'll ignore while you tell yourself you're a critical thinker (hint: you're just critical).

Re:Yes.

[MrKaos]

They do - but I guess that's something else you'll ignore while you tell yourself you're a critical thinker (hint: you're just critical).

Absolute gold!!!

Would you eat it?

[sound vision]

Would you eat it? Depends on how radioactive it is.

Re: Would you eat it?

[aliquis]

I've drank 1500 bq / liter water for 15? years time.

I doubt a few greens during some days would make much of a difference.

Re: Would you eat it?

[fustakrakich]

More like how many toxic elements are included...

Yeah, the Roundup will kill you first.

Re: Would you eat it?

[Kagetsuki]

The rice and vegetables being discussed here are not being raised in the exclusion zone. Fukushima is a 13,780 km prefecture with a very large amount of agriculture. Less than a percent of the total land zoned for agriculture before the quake/disaster in contained in the exclusion zone.

Now please proceed to shove your FUD up your ass.

Re: Would you eat it?

[MrL0G1C]

Of course, everyone knows that contact with radioactive substances causes you to develop super-powers.

How does it taste?

[mschaffer]

If it tastes good and it doesn't glow too much, why not eat it?

Athletes: Bring a Geiger Counter...

[NicBenjamin]

And have a long talk with your team doctor about how radioactive is too radioactive to be safe.

There's a lot of natural radioactivity in the world your body deals with every day, so just coming from Fukushima is not that scary.

In other news...

[Karmashock]

... Olympic organizer has decided to spend more time with his family.

or

In other news, Olympic committee signs binding deal to have f'ing anything else to provide food for the games.

or

In other news, Olympics relocated to Chernobyl because why not.

Look, offering the food up is one thing and I'm sure its "mostly" fine. I wouldn't eat the sea food but the rest is probably fine. But you're not making that the only option. That's going to get a rebellion on your hands.

Re:In other news...

[kuzb]

In other news, another pseudo-intellectual on /. offers up an opinion.

Re:In other news...

[Karmashock]

In what way did my comment suggest to you that I'm a pseudo intellectual?

And what does that term even mean to you?

I find it ironic that someone making unqualified insults backed by non-falsifiable arguments suggests that someone else is a pseudo intellectual.

Your comment can't be audited because it isn't complete.

You're not saying X person because variable 5 = Y bad thing.

You're just saying X person = poopyhead.

and you presume to judge my intellectual credibility?

https://youtu.be/-5LEYG5TqaI?t...

No really.

Would I eat it?

[fustakrakich]

Sure.. At my age what could happen to me now? But nobody under 50 should get near it.

Re:Would I eat it?

[fustakrakich]

No! It is pure FUN! (Fissures, Ulcers, Nuclear particles ripping apart your very being!)

Re:Would I eat it?

[TWX]

I'm not so sure it is FUD. If the most common conditions from exposure to a toxin manifest 30-40 years after that exposure, and if there really aren't many other conditions that result from that exposure, then it's good sense for people in their twenties to avoid exposure that could hurt or kill them in their fifties or sixties. For someone in their fifties or sixties the symptoms won't manifest until upwards of a century, and the rest of their bodies are probably already breaking-down or they're already dead, so it doesn't matter.

We're seeing that now. Asbestos exposure 30-50 years ago is giving people Asbestosis or Mesothelioma now. These patients didn't really see any symptoms for three decades; now their lungs either don't work efficiently enough or are growing tumors. My father-in-law has it a bit; when I started dealing with cabling in old buildings I made a point of being careful to minimize my exposure.

Re:Would I eat it?

[Mr D from 63]

I'm not so sure it is FUD. I

You are not sure because the FUD you have heard over the years has influenced you.

Radiation and Asbestos health impacts have both been well studied, so if you are using that as an example, then you should very confident that eating the food is safe because we have the data . But, you don't because of the FUD.

Re:Would I eat it?

[JimMcc]

Written, I sure, by somebody under 40. I'm 57. If the adverse affects may manifest themselves in 30-50 years then I would start being at risk at 87. Given my health, my genes, and medical science, barring any accident, I fully expect to live into my late 80's or even into my 90's. To blithely dismiss the risks to people in their 50's or 60's is pretty calloused. Perhaps you'll view your longevity differently once you're in your 50's.

Re:Would I eat it?

[MrKaos]

then you should very confident that eating the food is safe because we have the data . But, you don't because of the FUD.

Alternatively, it is being cautious. Now you believe it is fine and prepared to take the risk so go ahead and eat it, you believe that every bit of food will be checked and every part will be ok, so go ahead and take the risk, the odds are in your favour and you'll probably be ok.

However bio-accumulation and radio-analogues are not FUD. Ingest them and you will get a cancer if the odds aren't in your favour.

Your whole point is like telling someone to put their balls on a table and hand you a knife. If you want to take the risk, you put your balls on the table.

Re:Would I eat it?

[Mr D from 63]

Your whole point is like telling someone to put their balls on a table and hand you a knife. If you want to take the risk, you put your balls on the table.

Not even remotely. The whole point is related to actual vs perceived risk. I your 'balls on the table' scenario, the actual risk seems quite unknown. There is not data to support a risk based decision.

A more appropriate comparison would be someone choice to walk a few steps with their shoelaces untied before stopping to tie them. They could fall down and get injured. They are aware and understand the risks, and they are able to decide based on that. People act accordingly when they understand the risks, and when they don't they act according to their perceptions of it.

Eating this food is extremely low risk, to the point where there is not really even a measurable impact, but people perceive it as higher risk based on FUD induced perceptions. By comparison, riding in a car is a much much greater risk, but still acceptable to the same people. People don't avoid riding in cars because they understand the risk.

Some people who buy in to the FUD regarding immunizations make bad decisions, because their perceptions of the risk are wrong.

Re:Would I eat it?

[MrKaos]

Not even remotely. The whole point is related to actual vs perceived risk. I your 'balls on the table' scenario, the actual risk seems quite unknown. There is not data to support a risk based decision.

Well if there is no data to support a decision then only a fool would expose themselves to the risk of developing cancer. Since it is not possible to examine all the food produced there, there is an actual risk of ingesting radioisotopes. That means there is an actual risk of developing cancer from eating it.

They are aware and understand the risks, and they are able to decide based on that. People act accordingly when they understand the risks, and when they don't they act according to their perceptions of it.

There are two key input facts. 1) Bio-accumulation or radioisotopes occur. 2) The Fukushima plants released radioisotopes. So to properly asses the risk of eating Fukushima food you would need to use a geiger counter over the meal so that you could assume responsibility for the risk for yourself and fully understand the risk.

It would be foolish to say that there is no risk, when there is one. So for most people it is just simpler to not expose themselves to that risk.

Some people who buy in to the FUD regarding immunizations make bad decisions, because their perceptions of the risk are wrong.

Well that is a really bad comparison because by not immunizing a person they are exposed to a risk, i.e. you are taking a risk by not immunizing (plus you are risking others).

By not eating Fukushima food you are not exposing yourself to a risk of ingesting radioisotopes.

Re:Would I eat it?

[Mr D from 63]

Well, you get off to a bad start because there is much data available about exposure risks.

Re:Would I eat it?

[Mr D from 63]

What you fail to include in your discussion of risk is probability. You only discuss potential consequence, but that is not enough to evaluate a risk. And in absence of knowing probability, risk perception is skewed, a central element to my point. The data for exposure risk is known, it generally shows extremely low probability of negative health impacts. But most folks don't realize just how low that is compared to many of the things they do daily.

By not eating Fukushima food you are not exposing yourself to a risk of ingesting radioisotopes.

By not riding in a car, you are not exposing yourself to the risk of death or injury by car accident. But you do it anyhow. By not eating food from anywhere but an organic garden in your yard, you are exposing yourself to the risk of any harmful chemical (natural or man-made) that could have found it way to the food..... I could go on and on but it is as meaningless as your quote without amounts and probabilities.

Re:Would I eat it?

[MrKaos]

What you fail to include in your discussion of risk is probability. You only discuss potential consequence, but that is not enough to evaluate a risk. And in absence of knowing probability, risk perception is skewed, a central element to my point.

A discussion of probability is only possible when the quantities of radionuclide effluent from the Fukushima disaster is generally available. I will remind you that the Japanese government has a media blackout so hard data on what type and how much radionuclides were released is not available. You are welcome to contribute that data to the discussion so probability can be assessed.

It is pointless complaining to me about the lack of data as I would also like to see it. Until such data is made available then we will just have to deal with uncertainty. It is safe to say though it is more than nothing.

The data for exposure risk is known, it generally shows extremely low probability of negative health impacts. But most folks don't realize just how low that is compared to many of the things they do daily.

The point is not that it is low, it is that it exists at all and how much increase in risk we can expect as the radionuclide effluent is absorbed into the foodchain.

By not riding in a car, you are not exposing yourself to the risk of death or injury by car accident. But you do it anyhow.

A more honest comparison would be a risky activity like bungee jumping, an unnecessary risk that you choose as compared to driving car which is a necessary risk you control.

Until we get data on what and how much radionuclides were released we won't be able to quantify the risk. If you're happy to eat Fukushima food, go ahead, you'll probably be ok.

Re:Would I eat it?

[Mr D from 63]

A more honest comparison would be a risky activity like bungee jumping, an unnecessary risk that you choose as compared to driving car which is a necessary risk you control.

Eating is a necessary thing. We do it all the time. We don't bungee jump every day as a normal activity. We ride in cars unnecessarily quite often. At least your analogies are heading in the right direction compared to your starting point.

And, we do have data that shows low level radioactive exposure risk. Levels are a key component and are easy to measure and monitor. To insinuate that levels do not matter is really something that has no real world practical basis. You would not get in a car as often if the risk were higher, that is the level of exposure, or accident rate, were high enough. Levels do matter.

You want to apply this 'if it exists at all' avoidance philosophy in this case, my guess is you do not apply it similarly in areas of similar or even much greater risk where your perception is different. If you've eaten any food unnecessarily that might have been exposed to a pesticide, for example. Have you gotten any unnecessary exposure to sunlight? Have you walked on a slippery sidewalk unnecessarily? The list is likely quite long of the things that qualify.

Re:Would I eat it?

[MrKaos]

Eating is a necessary thing. We do it all the time.

However, eating food from Fukushima that has potential radionuclide contamination is not necessary.

And, we do have data that shows low level radioactive exposure risk.

I think you are confused. I am referring to how much and what type of radio isotopes were released from Fukushima nuclear plants. If you have that data, then you have been able to by-pass the Japanese government's censorship and I would urge you to share it.

The list is likely quite long of the things that qualify.

Surprisingly you managed to mention things I consider to be stupid risks that I make a specific effort to avoid. I consider eating food from Fukushima a stupid risk to take, relative to the impact. If you are prepared to take a stupid risk then go ahead.

Re:Would I eat it?

[Mr D from 63]

You state eating the food is a stupid risk, but you don't seem to really know what that risk is. The fact that you use things like bungee jumping as a comparable risk tells me your risk perception is way out of whack with reality, which was my point. The fact that you subjectively qualify it as a 'stupid risk' is meaningless in this discussion, as you have no measure for that. The fact that you qualify it as 'unnecessary' and therefore just avoid it is your convenient method to ignore the actual risk and risk perception elements. It does not mean your advice to avoid is based on any practical measure. You would simply recommend wasting that food, or a person not eating what they want when they want it. And to not do so is stupid? I could counter, but that would be subjective and unproductive

I have also clearly pointed out that many car rides you take are likely unnecessary, yet much more risky, and you still take them. As I stated, and your responses are confirming, it is all about risk perception which in the case of the food in question is not in line with reality for many people.

Re:Would I eat it?

[MrKaos]

You state eating the food is a stupid risk,

No, what I said was eating food from Fukushima that has potential radionuclide contamination is not necessary.

To be even more specific eating *any* food with a potential carcinogenic radioisotope load from the fallout of a nuclear reactor. Eating that is a stupid risk. I won't eat that food because I am not stupid.

Only a very stupid person would eat food from the Fukushima province due to the fact that the risk of radioisotope contamination is unknown.

That is what being stupid is.

you don't seem to really know what that risk is

However I understand that the impact is potentially serious cancer.

The fact that you use things like bungee jumping as a comparable risk tells me your risk perception is way out of whack with reality, which was my point. The fact that you subjectively qualify it as a 'stupid risk' is meaningless in this discussion, as you have no measure for that.

Due to the fact that there is no data available on how much radioisotopes are released I have no way to make an immediate assessment on which food is safe based on the type of food and I choose not to take that risk because the impact is cancer of some part of the body. It is an unknown risk that is unnecessary.

I also informed that bungee jumping exerts enough force at the bottom when sprung to increase the blood pressure enough to damage the nerve endings in the back of your eyes, so yeah, I think that is a stupid risk.

Skydiving, rock climbing, ju jitsu competition, body surfing a 3 metre + swell, track racing, soccer, rugby league and flirting with a hot woman however are calculated enough of a risk for an adrenalin rush.

No - nothing wrong with my risk perception, nor am I risk adverse.

The fact that you qualify it as 'unnecessary' and therefore just avoid it is your convenient method to ignore the actual risk and risk perception elements.

If I could guarantee the food had a radioistope load - would you eat it?

If I can't guarantee that it doesn't have a radioistope load - would you eat it?

It does not mean your advice to avoid is based on any practical measure.

My advice is to avoid eating food from any area where there is radioactive fallout because it is a stupid and pointless risk with serious health impacts if you are unfortunate enough to eat food with radioisotope contamination.

Re:Would I eat it?

[Mr D from 63]

Ahh, I see you avoid responding to the unnecessary car riding. Do you never take an unnecessary car ride?

You say you are risk averse...I wonder how often and how evenly you apply that. I also suspect that just like everyone else, you take "unnecessary' risks on a daily basis that are much greater than eating food that has been screened to ensure levels are below threshold. So, no, you don't know what those levels are, but you do know they are below the threshold, which is a known level, and far below level show to have any negative health correlation.

We are all skewed by risk perception. Its OK. I am too.

Re:Would I eat it?

[MrKaos]

Ahh, I see you avoid responding to the unnecessary car riding. Do you never take an unnecessary car ride?

No, I said track racing. Last vehicle I took out was 300+hp on a dirt track. Ask me to get in a car with four teenagers though and I doubt I'd do it.

You say you are risk averse...I wonder how often and how evenly you apply that.

I said No - nothing wrong with my risk perception, nor am I risk adverse. which means I take risks - usually calculated.

So, no, you don't know what those levels are, but you do know they are below the threshold, which is a known level, and far below level show to have any negative health correlation.

No, the threshold is unknown. Looking at what is happening to insect species the probability is it is quite high. The athletes will be ok though, every bit of the food will be screened. As for those who this whole charade is about, the japanese consumer, this is a construct to put their mind at ease so they will be good little consumers.

We are all skewed by risk perception. Its OK. I am too.

My perception is based on the science and an understanding of the impact. The impact is so high it isn't worth the risk.

I notice you avoided my questions:

If I could guarantee the food had a radioistope load - would you eat it?

If I can't guarantee that it doesn't have a radioistope load - would you eat it?

Re:Would I eat it?

[Mr D from 63]

You are full of straw, man.

You certainly avoided my question quite intently. So let me ask again; Do you ever take an unnecessary car ride?

We both know why you are avoiding an answer. Because the answer is YES and in completely undermines your insistence that your choices are based on science and understanding.

To answer both your questions, would I eat food from Fukushima with a defined amount of contamination, the answer is YES, if that level was measured to be below the safety thresholds set by Japan using the methods they established. So, YES, I would do so with no worries.

Do you take unnecessary car rides?

Re:Would I eat it?

[MrKaos]

Do you take unnecessary car rides?

I thought about this for about 5 minutes, so that you would get a sincere and truthful answer. I'm a busy person, I don't get a chance to do unnecesary driving - fuck I wish I had the time for that. Additionally I've got cycling to work on my mind next so I don't have to drive there either and get additional exercise.

So sincerely, NO. I do not.

We both know why you are avoiding an answer. Because the answer is YES and in completely undermines your insistence that your choices are based on science and understanding.

Well, there again you would be wrong. Having a good understanding of the science is how I assess the risk.

In reality I didn't want to talk about a car analogy because I think only stupid people make car analogies. They are quite a simple machine compared to a Nuclear reactor which is simpler still compared to the fascinatingly complex and destructive way radioisotopes get into the foodchain and ultimately the body where it triggers cancer.

I don't blame you, most people cannot grasp such complexity, I'm still learning.

You are full of straw, man.

The question was *specifically* constructed not to qualify levels to expose you to the uncertainty. So we could see your glowing straw, man.

To answer both your questions, would I eat food from Fukushima with a defined amount of contamination, the answer is YES, if that level was measured to be below the safety thresholds set by Japan using the methods they established. So, YES, I would do so with no worries.

Your answer tells me you are ignorant of the facts and are unable to take personal responsibility for the risks.

With an understanding of the process of bio-accumulation and how radioisotope micronutrient analogues are deposited and accumulated in the body via metabolic processes you would conclude that it is a stupid risk not worth taking. However if ignorance of the risk and impact is your thing, go ahead.

What you are trying to do is make out there is something wrong with making a perfectly sane informed choice, quite an irresponsible, even sociopathic thing to do.

No, I'm not afraid of radiation before you start with that. My concern is radioisotope ingestion, a perfectly reasonable, rational, considered, informed, researched and valid thing to avoid to minimise exposure to a carcinogenic element.

Screening doesn't remove the uncertainty, it just reduces it.

With sufficient accumulation in the body a radioisotopes alpha, beta and gamma emissions maybe sufficiently energetic to damage either my person or my genome creating tendencies in future offspring for transgenic disease. I don't think there is a car analogy convoluted enough to describe that.

Actually there is. Imagine you took and unnecessary car ride everyday and suffered a collision enough to cause some minor damage. The only thing is first the damage only expressed itself after 6 years and second you keep suffering every impact, over and over. Eventually, your bodies ability to heal itself would be overwhelmed. Additionally, in the time it takes to manifest, potentially critical damage was done to any of your potential offspring as well.

You would introduce yourself to such a risk of that impact by making *exactly* the decision you would make, so don't complain that you weren't warned.

Re:Would I eat it?

[Mr D from 63]

Your whole summary is quite telling. You say you use scientific methods to evaluate risk, yet you repetitively ignore probability. Probability is central to scientific evaluation of risk.

And you demonstrate your ignorance to the actual risk by comparing eating this screened food to racing cars and bungee jumping. The risks of the latter are many orders of magnitude greater.

You can go on and on about bio-accumulation and generally state that it is going to result in all these horrible outcomes, but reality shows that those outcomes will almost certainly not occur from ingesting such small amounts. Interesting you talk of the body's ability to heal in a car crash but not the human bodies ability to remain healthy despite the biological interactions that your fear. And you do not always heal from injury, rather many injuries increase risk of stroke from clotting for example, ro debilitating nerve damage... it is quite entertaining to me to see you blow that off.

If you applied your same logic regarding zero exposure to radionuclides to other things our do, you would certainly avoid any unneeded exposure to sunlight/UV, because you, as you accuse me, must be stupid and ignorant to allow any at all to hit your skin because of the horrible outcomes that might occur, I can see the cancer growing in my mind! Do complain to me when that happens.

I think you would be surprised to find out about all the potentially harmful chemical and contaminants you eat from out normal food supply chains, and how those risks compare with eating this screened food from Fukushima.

And to top it off, you seem to think that you are so objective that you are not subject to skewed risk perception influencing your decisions. But you are fooling yourself because we all are subject to it, and those that are most likely to be skewed significantly by it are those that don't understand just how susceptible they are.

With that, I'll let you follow with another poor example, using some activity which is much much riskier, I'll let you follow with a strawman that completely avoids discussion of probabilities, and I'll let you go on thinking that you are not taking any unnecessary risks in your life that are many times greater than eating the food of topic. I'll you you go on believing your own little facade that your absolute zero exposure philosophy is being equally applied throughout your decisions in life.

You have clearly answered all my questions.

Re:Would I eat it?

[MrKaos]

Your whole summary is quite telling. You say you use scientific methods to evaluate risk, yet you repetitively ignore probability. Probability is central to scientific evaluation of risk.

So is data. Where do you propose I get the data on the Fukushima fallout from to caclulate those probabilities if the Japanese government is withholding or not collecting it?

Without data you cannot calculate the probability so all you are left with is uncertainty. You said yourself [don't] tell us levels don't matter, when they certainly do. Now when the very same argument is in front of you you say that levels don't matter when calculating the probability. I feel that is a hypocritical way of twisting the argument around and it is clear you are now becoming emotional because the premise of your argument has collapsed.

I'll let you follow with a strawman that completely avoids discussion of probabilities

No, you continue to refuse to acknowledge that a discussion of the probabilities can only be statistical and thus abstract without supporting data as opposed to the the discussion surrounding possibilities that are based on known facts and the known impact. To answer your accusation here is my abstract discussion of the probabilities:

• Athletes eating this food will probably be ok and probably be used to justify that eating food from Fukushima is safe.
• The entire exercise will probably be used by the nuclear industry as justification to not compensate the Fukushima farmers.
• Screening tons of food produced will probably be expensive and ultimately inneffective.
• Some people will probably die of cancer from eating food from Fukushima 6-15 years after they habitually eat it.
• Some people will probably suffer from cancer from eating food from Fukushima 6-15 years after they habitually eat it.
• Some people will pass transgenic disease to their offspring via damaged dna.

There is your discussion of probabilities, if it isn't what you think it should be - then you discuss the probablites. Your next predictable response will be to accuse me of spreading FUD from such an abstract discussion because I should magically know what you are talking about because you are too mentally lazy to.

And you demonstrate your ignorance to the actual risk by comparing eating this screened food to racing cars and bungee jumping. The risks of the latter are many orders of magnitude greater.

Really, and just how did you calculate that without data on how much and what type of radionuclides were released?

You can go on and on about bio-accumulation and generally state that it is going to result in all these horrible outcomes, but reality shows that those outcomes will almost certainly not occur from ingesting such small amounts.

The reality is until there is data on those amounts we don't know if it is a little or a lot. Everything you have said is speculation. Available data shows that the bio-accumulation is already occurring based on what is already happening to insect species. Existing peer reviewed studies on low level tritium emissions don't conclude what you are saying.

Interesting you talk of the body's ability to heal in a car crash but not the human bodies ability to remain healthy despite the biological interactions that your fear.

I welcome your citation of how this occurs. Please provide citiations on how the body remains healthy after ingesting radionuclies like pu-239 and sr-90 as these are the type of materials ejected in the Fukushima reactor explosion.

If you applied your same logic regarding zero exposure to radionuclides to other things our do, you would certainly avoid any unneeded exposure to sunlight/UV, because you, as you accuse me, must be stupid and ignorant to a

Re:Would I eat it?

[Mr D from 63]

You don't see too read very well

Now when the very same argument is in front of you you say that levels don't matter when calculating the probability.

I never said that, you change the words to suit your attempts at making a point. I actually said you need to know the levels AND the probabilities, the max levels are sufficient, we know that from the testing. How hard is this to understand.

Yo might want to worry about what you eat elsewhere. Acceptance limits in the EU and US are more than 10 times higher than in Japan, and in turn there is no known or observed health risks at 100 times those levels. The information is out there.

Re:Would I eat it?

[MrKaos]

You don't see too read very well

Well I just started to need glasses for reading, but I'm still ok on the computer. Quite an odd attack, btw

Now when the very same argument is in front of you you say that levels don't matter when calculating the probability.

I never said that, you change the words to suit your attempts at making a point.

That's right, it's annoying isn't it - you have been doing it to me throughout this thread. I'm glad you got that point.

I actually said you need to know the levels AND the probabilities,

Well even if you did you would be wrong because you need to know the levels to understand the probabilty via a statistical analysis.

the max levels are sufficient,

Of what? Radionuclides or Radiation. And which type of radionuclide and testing method?

we know that from the testing.

What we know from Oppenhiemer's research is that a microgram of pu-239 in something is a fatal dose for a human being once ingested. How do you propose to detect a microgram of pu-239 in a pallet full of food that is mostly water, since *water* moderates radiation???

Should every single head of lettuce be scanned to make sure or would it just be easier to not bother scanning it and potentially let someone die a painful death?

How hard is this to understand.

Because you are rambling and making no sense. I've given you several opportunities to stop with your dignity intact. I have been kind and good humoured. The premise of your "argument" has been utterly demolished yet you continue to make a fool of yourself.

Yo might want to worry about what you eat elsewhere.

Yo, maybe, but simple choices of the source of origin are adequate to ensure my food safety for radionuclides. It is highly probable that the east coast of the US was dusted with fallout from Fukushima, you might want to worry about that if you eat food from that region.

Acceptance limits in the EU and US are more than 10 times higher than in Japan, and in turn there is no known or observed health risks at 100 times those levels.

You show me this evidence and all the other things to back your other baseless claims that shows they aren't just pure, unadulterated bullshit.

The information is out there.

Indeed it is, and I am in possession of some to challenge your ignorance, starting with the so called "benign" substance Tritium. Notice the citations are from peer reviewed studies - notice the quality of my references and research. This is the difference between your and my argument, mine is based in fact and yours in fiction.

Tritium is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter. This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells. The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects. From those works;

Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin. Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water. Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium. (Komatsu)

Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses. Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.

(Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts. (Dobson, 1974) Organically bound

Re:Would I eat it?

[Mr D from 63]

Tritium is quite harmless in small amounts, and leaves the body quite quickly if ingested.It is probably the least harmful of any radionuclide.

Do you know how many things in your body cause "mutations and cell death"? I'm sorry to inform you that it is happening in your body right now, and at levels much greater than anything solely caused by a small tritium ingestion. In fact, you get more cell damage and mutations from exposure to UV that you could ever expect to get from tritium exposure from a nuclear plant. That is even when using sunscreen, btw.

What you fail to overlook in your self-proclaim 'scientific' analysis is the human bodies capacity to deal with 'cell death and mutations'.

Presenting the information they way you do, without comparison to anything else, without likelihood of actual health impacts at realistic ingestion levels, is simply a method to push FUD.

You have shown your true colors, proven you don't use scientific analysis by ignoring proper risk analysis methods, and seeming fail to understand what is going on in your body every day. You are a waste of time.

Re:Would I eat it?

[MrKaos]

Tritium is quite harmless in small amounts, and leaves the body quite quickly if ingested.It is probably the least harmful of any radionuclide.

Really? I've just provided you with 'The information is out there'. You're telling me your trite little flippant 'some guy on the internet sentence' is more authoritive than actual peer reviewed scientific research on the subject of Tritium and you 'probably' know better than all those with doctorates in the subject.

What was I thinking how could I believe all those fellows over Mr D from 63 whose overwhelming authority on the subject of radionuclides (a word he just learned but still doesn't quite understand) should ultimately dispel the works of those who are actually paid to do that work.

Quick let's get you over there to make them defend there findings all over again and you can explain to them how wrong they are.

You are a waste of time.

hahahaha - thanks for the cherry on the cake. After thoroughly demolishing your 'argument' about unnecessary car rides and how you said plutonium is good in baby food. I put one of your posts into one of our language analysers and this is what it said about you:

You are explosive, inconsiderate and opinionated.

You are intermittent: you have a hard time sticking with difficult tasks for a long period of time. And you are unstructured: you do not make a lot of time for organization in your daily life. Experiences that give a sense of well-being hold some appeal to you.

We've found that it is quite accurate.

Re:Would I eat it?

[Mr D from 63]

Please, make a list of all the thing that are presently causing 'cell damage and mutations' in your body. Then tell me why you are worried specifically about tritium.

You purposefully avoid and discussion of practical exposure levels and risk. Until you do, you are a waste of time.

Re:Would I eat it?

[MrKaos]

Please, make a list of all the thing that are presently causing 'cell damage and mutations' in your body. Then tell me why you are worried specifically about tritium.

Transgenic disease, decreased brain weight of offspring. However you are more likely to have been exposed to sr-90 or even plutonium. It is in your food chain and ultimately you are likely to be exposed to it because you don't know what steps will reduce your possibility of exposure. I don't care what the probability is because it won't affect me.

More than likely, if you have children, your failure will cause them to suffer because they will be more sensitive to the exposure than you are. Your ignorance won't protect them from that or unnecessary car analogies.

You purposefully avoid and discussion of practical exposure levels and risk.

No, I answered that. You consistently avoid the fact that data is not available on how much and what types of material were released and are using deception to try and recover your now shattered ego.

It's ok, I know you will become even more dogmatically sceptical and make even more ridiculous arguments about nuclear issues without fact. I want you to.You show traits of being a fanboi. Did you know the nuclear industry calls you a 'useful idiot'?

You've been offered the facts for your lazy disorganized mind and cannot process them because the social proof from Nuclear industry PR has destroyed your objectivity. You've failed so completely to counter a single argument presented in every exchange.

Until you do, you are a waste of time.

What a graceless, sore loser, how sad for you to be so afflicted by group think and unable to challenge you assumptions. The discussion was over long ago, but please continue to make a fool of yourself for my amusement.

Re:Would I eat it?

[Mr D from 63]

What do you know, another list of horrible things, but no discussion of exposure levels, probabilities, etc. Until you even try to discuss those vital components, you are certainly wasting time.

Re:Would I eat it?

[MrKaos]

What do you know, another trite vapid, shallow response empty of reason and fact. Even when I did discuss those vital component you ignore it and pretend you have said something profound.

You're just wrong and can't admit it and now you want to use your expert ad hom attack skills because that's what you do.

But go on pretending.

Re:Would I eat it?

[Mr D from 63]

Are you saying it is wrong to evaluate risk using probability and levels of exposure? If so, then I'll simply have to disagree.

Re:Would I eat it?

[MrKaos]

Are you saying it is wrong to evaluate risk using probability and levels of exposure? If so, then I'll simply have to disagree.

No, as I have said several times, I am saying you can't calculate probability without knowing levels.

You need to know how much of each radioisotope was released, to determine how many doses were release in the environment. You need it's chemical toxicity and how alpha, beta and gamma energetic it is. Then you need to know how long it's decay cycle is and then repeat it for the daughter products. Then you can start to determine statistic probabilities over time and the effect on populations with modelling.

You have to do that with every radioisotope - because some elements will be benign and some highly toxic, however by understanding what it analogues you can then say what food it is likely to end up in.

Additionally, I specifically mentioned levels of pu-239 (remember 1 microgram) and that you didn't answer how you would detect that in a pallet of food? Further the studies I referenced also mentioned levels and what damage occurred with tritium. How would you detect how much of a particular bit of water is in water? and how much of it will end up being organically bound?

Don't tell me levels don't matter. If you don't know how many doses of what are out there you can't calculate probability at all. Would you expect to know how far you can go in your car without knowing how much fuel you have?

And the Japanese government is withholding that information, as I have said.

Do I strike you as a mindless reasonless anti-nuker or as someone with educated concerns? Has it occurred to you I might not be as anti-nuke as you assume? I've been pretty good humoured with you, so what's it gonna be Mr D? Are you going to be a fanboi or challenge your assumptions?

Re:Would I eat it?

[Mr D from 63]

Do I strike you as a mindless reasonless anti-nuker or as someone with educated concerns?

You strike me as someone who has no ability to perform usable risk comparison, and one who makes excuses for not doing so. I can't know your reason or agenda for doing so, it could be nuclear FUD induced paranoia, shilling, or a simple inability to compare risks objectively.

For the Fukushima food, you know the testing levels which indicate the exposure levels. You should know the risks associated with those levels (likelihood of a negative health impact), and you should be able to make a reasonable comparison to similar risks we experience in everyday life for perspective. But you have done none of those.

Re:Would I eat it?

[MrKaos]

How disappointing. Given an opportunity to discuss based on science and reason I see that you have chosen the fanboi route. It is clear you are unable to challenge this argument and instead choose to attack me as your only remaining option for a response.

So far, the best you have is a car analogy driven at sufficient max levels to see if the information is out there. You are ridiculous.

I can't know your reason or agenda for doing so, it could be nuclear FUD induced paranoia, shilling, or a simple inability to compare risks objectively.

Alternatively, you are ignoring the facts and science and your only remaining option is an ad hom attack to provoke an emotional response. How droll and primitive. It's what you fanbois do though.

For the Fukushima food, you know the testing levels which indicate the exposure levels. You should know the risks associated with those levels (likelihood of a negative health impact), and you should be able to make a reasonable comparison to similar risks we experience in everyday life for perspective. But you have done none of those.

I have, several times and whilst we know exactly how toxic each element is and the dose, you are saying levels and doses in the environment don't matter and are irrelevant to calculating the probability of encountering it in food.

One gram of plutonium released from Fukushima is one million fatal doses.

Until you can convince the Japanese government to provide data on how many kilograms of radioisotopes are released calculating probability is not possible. You say that I am making excuses whilst ignoring the fact that it is a *reason*, something you are unfamiliar with. Somehow, in your delusion, that is my failing, clearly showing that you are a dogmatic skeptic fanboi.

You are being obstinate to attempt to claw your way back from the fact that your argument has been crushed and that humiliation is too much for you to deal with.

As I have said there is nothing in this conversation for me.

Re:Would I eat it?

[Mr D from 63]

Isotope content is proportional to level of radioactivity. That is why they use that method to screen. Its not that hard to understand. It is the most effective way to measure. The content is under the limits. Your question of how many kilograms of plutonium are in the food is a prime indicator of your ignorance, as there was likely less than 55 grams in total released to atmosphere. Intensive screening plant and ground testing throughout the district shows plutonium contamination is quite minimal (that might be an overstatement, but I'll be conservative). Even with that, screening ensures it is not a problem.

I have ignored no facts, you just like to present only partial info and claim you do not have enough info to judge safety when there are clear standards and methods to do so and they are being followed.

I hate to inform you that similar methods are used to screen toxins from foods we all eat regularly.

Re:Would I eat it?

[MrKaos]

Isotope content is proportional to level of radioactivity.

I think you actually mean, radioactivity level is proportional to radio-isotope content subject to if it is organically bound and how much water is in the food to moderate the alpha, beta and gamma emmissions.

That is why they use that method to screen. Its not that hard to understand.

Just send me a link to a screening machine that can detect a microgram of plutonium in a pallet of lettuce. Or show me a mathematical model that accounts for radioisotope uptake and very large spatial variability between and within landscape units and all the other variables used to determine it statistically. Its not that hard to understand.

It is the most effective way to measure. The content is under the limits.

Show me your calculations for a calculated risk go ahead and eat it, Caveat Emptor!!

Your question of how many kilograms of plutonium are in the food is a prime indicator of your ignorance,

No, Until you can convince the Japanese government to provide data on how many kilograms of radioisotopes are released calculating probability is not possible.

as there was likely less than 55 grams in total released to atmosphere.

That's 55 million fatal doses. Distributed evenly in the Japanese population about 1 in three people will probably die. If we use Max Levels everyone dies.

Intensive screening plant and ground testing throughout the district shows plutonium contamination is quite minimal (that might be an overstatement, but I'll be conservative).

iWell people gamble all the time, go right ahead.

Even with that, screening ensures it is not a problem.

Well if you want to take that risk, Bon Apetit! Caveat Emptor!!

I have ignored no facts, you just like to present only partial info and claim you do not have enough info to judge safety when there are clear standards and methods to do so and they are being followed.

Cite those standards and I'll check them out. The information is out there.

I hate to inform you that similar methods are used to screen toxins from foods we all eat regularly.

Well at least I won't have concerns about radio isotopes. Its not that hard to understand.

Re:Would I eat it?

[Mr D from 63]

You really think detecting the radioactivity from a micro-gram of any radioisotope is difficult? Common lab equipment these days can detect molecules in parts per trillion.

You also need to learn a little more about the transport mechanisms that are in play. You don't get clumping, you have fairly steady dispersion of trace elements. It is easy to do sample testing of areas. Some things like mushroom will collect cesium, those mechanisms are well understood, but you won't just get a high concentration, and I would consider micrograms a huge concentration by comparison, of plutonium. For the samples testing, micrograms are still too big a scale

I'm still chuckling about hour kilograms of plutonium question. Its like asking how many miles long you fingers are. It shows a lack of appreciation of scale, just the kind of thing I have been talking about with regard to risk perception.

You can easily detect even a remotely unsafe concentration of plutonium or radioactive source from quite some distance.

And so, you asked me to cite the methods being used.. and only now you are telling me that you are not aware of have not even looked in to that? How is you ignore such a central thing in your so called "scientific" analysis? Let me know if you really ignored that when making your claims please.

Re:Would I eat it?

[MrKaos]

You really think detecting the radioactivity from a micro-gram of any radioisotope is difficult? Common lab equipment these days can detect molecules in parts per trillion.

Well you're talking about detecting radioactivity which isn't isn't molecules and what you are talking about is done in the controlled environment of a lab, not in a food distribution centre. But I'm sure the cost of that equipment and the expertise required to operate and maintain it won't impact the price of lettuce too much, especially if you don't mind paying a premium to eat food that has some probability of heath impacts, then you just eat it.

You can easily detect even a remotely unsafe concentration of plutonium or radioactive source from quite some distance.

Well if you think your belief system will keep you safe then eat it.

I'm still chuckling about hour kilograms of plutonium question.

I'm still chuckling about how you are so confident about eating this food, I'll keep a look out for your Darwin award entry. And people said you wouldn't amount to anything, you'll show them!!!

You should support the nuclear industry by only eating food from fall-out zones to the rest of us don't have to eat it. You eat it!!

How is you ignore such a central thing in your so called "scientific" analysis?

That's what you call it. I call it providing you with the studies on tritium to expose your dogmatic skepticism, which it did. To answer your question though, it's not unnoticed that you avoided answering the question *again* and turned it around like a predictable fanboi. It's what you do.

I think it's stupid will but if you want to prove how smart you are by taking those odds, then put your faith and awesome risk perception talents into some infallible human operated detection process to protect you from eating food that potentially has radio-isotope fallout from a nuclear accident, and eat it.

Do let me know how it turns out for you.

Re:Would I eat it?

[Mr D from 63]

So, now you are moving to assuming the equipment is not capable, nor the operators. Again, that comes not from any insight or understanding, but more from lack of knowledge and misconceptions. It is quite easy to operate radiological test equipment.

Still stuck on your subjectiveness, aren't you. I don't see anything in this post above that is thought out as far as a scientific risk.

I am confident that eating the food is fine because I understand the levels we are dealing with and just how low risk it is. You can call me stupid, but you clearly are the one here that does not understand the underlying methods. You have demonstrated it multiple times in our conversation. And instead of admitting you really don't have the knowledge, you just retreat and call me stupid. Very scientific of you.

You have been clearly influenced by nuclear FUD, and don't even realize it.

Re:Would I eat it?

[MrKaos]

So, now you are moving to

and you to not answering questions. Send data on equipment that can pick up a microgram sized emitter in a ton of lettuce. The information is out there.

assuming the equipment is not capable, nor the operators. Again, that comes not from any insight or understanding, but more from lack of knowledge and misconceptions. It is quite easy to operate radiological test equipment.

If there is even a need to scan food for radionuclide contamination then it is wise to avoid it. It's not hard to understand.

Still stuck on your subjectiveness, aren't you. I don't see anything in this post above that is thought out as far as a scientific risk.

You still haven't evaluated the science with citations and references I sent you. You still haven't sent anything to back up your claims. So eat it.

I am confident that eating the food is fine because I understand the levels we are dealing with and just how low risk it is.

I'll avoid it because I understand the process of bio-accumulation as a result of repeated exposure to eating food from that area. Just eat it.

You can call me stupid,

Thanks.

but you clearly are the one here that does not understand the underlying methods. You have demonstrated it multiple times in our conversation.

Of scanning equipment sensitivity, absolutely - that's why I asked you to send me details of such a machine. You are acting as if you work with them so send me a link so I can see for myself, I am sincerely interested.

You keep avoiding it.

And instead of admitting you really don't have the knowledge, you just retreat and call me stupid. Very scientific of you.

I am always learning more. I've defended my argument with science on tritium so you are describing yourself. If you have some information to back up what you say, produce it, send me the knowledge. That is one of the reasons the internet exists.

I've been clearly influenced by nuclear PR, and I don't even realize it.

FTFY. I've read the works I sent and others because the nuclear industry is as fascinating as it is hideously complex.

If you want to pretend otherwise, then you are just stupid.

Tomorrows headlines:

[rstanley]

Toshiaki Endo tenders his resignation, effective immediately. Says he needs to spend more time with his family.

Re:Is it trendy to go along with it?

[Anonymous Coward]

moron

Re:No

[fustakrakich]

Yeah, I heard about that.. What is Kobe's beef?

competitors bring their own food

[Gravis Zero]

this is only an issue for spectators because all the competitors bring their own food for good reason.

competitors don't want...
* to become ill from food you aren't used to eating.
* to get disqualified because a jingoistic jerk spiked their food.

Re:competitors bring their own food

[DNS-and-BIND]

This is why the Olympics are no fun any more. It's not about who is the fastest or the strongest: it's about whose doctors are the best. If there's a decisive advantage to eating a special kind of cabbage instead of eating the local cabbages, that's just bullshit. There shouldn't be, even though any Olympian would laugh at me and tell me I don't understand how it all works. I do.

There's still a competition going on, but it's not the kind of competition I like to watch.

Re:typo,..

[Demolition]

typo,.. (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25, 2015 @10:49AM (#50181561)

produce -> products

No, it's not a typo. According to the OED, produce is:

[MASS NOUN] 1 Agricultural and other natural products, collectively. Example: dairy produce

Heck no it's radioactive!!!

[burtosis]

Oh wait that's just the regular potassium in bananas. Next time you think of radioactive decay in foods think of the children, namely the baby foods.

Re:Heck no it's radioactive!!!

[burtosis]

Absolutely. It's not like the random stuff I get at the store is guaranteed to come from a better spot nor was it likely tested for a single God damn thing. Hell you could label it organic ffs.

Re:Heck no it's radioactive!!!

[Kagetsuki]

1. The exclusion zone has been shrinking due to cleanup efforts.
2. The rice and vegetables being discussed here are not being raised in the exclusion zone. Fukushima is a 13,780 km prefecture with a very large amount of agriculture with. Less than a percent of the total land zoned for agriculture before the quake/disaster in contained in the exclusion zone.

Now please proceed to shove your FUD up your ass.

This ignores the team diet requirements:

[Elfich47]

Most competitors are on very regimented diets. The last thing they want to do is upset their digestive tracks in the days leading up to a major competition. Teams routinely bring their own food with them. This was a "story" during the Russian winter Olympics when the Russians tried to put a hold on Chobani yogurt that was coming in the country by the pallet (amoungst all the other food coming in). The news was trying to drum it up as a disaster (right next to the wild dogs wandering around in the hotels).

I expect to see the Japanese Olympic committee push the idea of Fukashema produce; the teams will mouth polite noises at the appropriate points - and then continue with the diets that have been developed and tracked for each team member.

As competitors are knocked out of competition you will see more variation and experimentation in their diets. Anyone that is still in competition will be adhering to their diets.

Re:This ignores the team diet requirements:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's 'tract', not 'track'.

Re:This ignores the team diet requirements:

[Kagetsuki]

Actually food is made available in Olympic villages and outside food is often restricted due to concerns over doping. There's tons of stories relating to this from the Beijing Olympics. Usain Bolt even recalled eating nothing but chicken nuggets and cola for two days before his record run because it was the only food available he felt was safe.

Re:Is it trendy to go along with it?

[Applehu Akbar]

You mean like the sushi I had yesterday? That Pacific Ocean?

No

[anarcobra]

Simple reason:
If it's radioactive I don't want to eat it.
If it's not radioactive I'm not missing out on anything. Someone else can be the guinea pig.
Why take the chance, just to show how progressive I am?

Go for it!

[king neckbeard]

Radiation + World Class Athletes = Superheroes

With Japan, it's easy to test food safety

[Opportunist]

There is one question that needs answering: Would they allow their Tenno to eat it?

If so, it most certainly is absolutely safe. If not, well, I would wonder why.

Re:With Japan, it's easy to test food safety

[Kagetsuki]

If you're actually wondering; yes, on several occasions the Emperor (and the Empress) have eaten both vegetables and rice from Fukushima while visiting farming communities there. Furthermore, government officials including the PM have done the same.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, everything you eat is radioactive.

If it weren't, it would have to be salt, or water - though common water is also radioactive.

Everything organic that you eat has Carbon 14 in it, and that is radioactive.

The air you breath contains carbon 14....

It isn't that something is radioactive that kills you. It is HOW MUCH radiation you get over HOW SHORT A TIME.

If the amount of radiation you get is below your cellular regeneration, you won't notice it.

Re:No

[reboot246]

Maybe it's because he didn't win the championship?

Re:Is it trendy to go along with it?

[mrchaotica]

How how about the Fukushima bottled water company products as well?

No, because bottled water is mind-bogglingly wasteful. I avoid drinking it whether it's radioactive or not!

Also, either the produce is safe, or it isn't. If it's safe, it's irrelevant that it came from Fukushima.

Would you not?

[SuperKendall]

There is likely more radiation is food grown in various parts of America than from Fukushima.

In fact if you eat bananas at all from anywhere, you are absolutely getting way more radiation than from any produce grown in Fukushima.

There are so many natural sources of radiation you deal with every day, including the sun...

It's really a shame people can't be at all rational around radiation and apply the same kind of one-drop rule that racists use to justify their own crazy statements and thoughts.

Re:No

[ClickOnThis]

Posting to undo a mis-mod. I ment to score this informative, not funny.

Re:Yes. Shit.

[TheRealHocusLocus]

sites like Enenews have been reporting how all the underground water has been polluted near Fukushima.

Web sites like Enenews are full of shit.

That's saying a lot. Even shit is not really full of shit, it is mostly comprised of (wholesome, drinkable) water. With Science and Special Equipment we can separate the shit particles from the water, but only a fool would attempt this with a inappropriately configured or blunt instrument like the human tongue.

Reading Enenews for information on Fukushima or nuclear topics in general is like trying to separate out shit with your tongue. It may be possible to do it on small scale, since there are bits of fact scattered around there, but when all is said and done you wind up with a mouth full of shit.

It doesn't take a lot of shit to create a world of shit, since we have a low tolerance for knowingly eating shit. People who believe that the whole world is turning to shit enjoy reading Enenews because it gives them a delicious sense of hopelessness, and even the most secular will find there a yummy stew of End Times Crap, Brought To You By Science! (tm) that they can savor without buying into the whole god-thing.

If you ever tire of the shit, visit Hiroshima Syndrome where Leslie Corrice has gathered an amazing amount of Fukushima information from the early days of the disaster. He also calls out the shit that has appeared in news sources through the world, and does it with an amazing amount of diligence and patience. I read the whole damned site and sent him a couple of contributions because his willingness to sift through shit is a noble endeavor worthy of recognition and reward.

Re: Is it trendy to go along with it?

[jrumney]

I'm curious, did you eat seafood from the Pacific Ocean before 2011?

Probably

[drolli]

I am over 40, the main exposure in question should be Caesium 137, and 20km around the reactor AFAIU no foods are grown.

Taken my average lifespan, the expected difference between the area in question and areas further away/areas where i lived/the exposure we all got in 70s and 80s, i dont see any objective reason against it.

Re:No

[tbq]

From Wikipedia: Kobe beef ( Kbe bfu?) (KO-BEH) refers to beef from the Tajima strain of Wagyu cattle, raised in Japan's Hyogo Prefecture according to rules as set out by the Kobe Beef Marketing and Distribution Promotion Association.[1] The meat is a delicacy renowned for its flavour, tenderness, and fatty, well-marbled texture. Kobe beef can be prepared as steak, sukiyaki, shabu shabu, sashimi, and teppanyaki. Kobe beef is also called Kobe niku (?, "Kobe meat"), Kobe-gyu (?) or Kobe-ushi (?, "Kobe cattle") in Japanese.

Re:No

[fustakrakich]

:-) Thanks. I appreciate the effort, but it wasn't exactly the nature of my question.

Food Ideas

[foods ideas]

Food Ideas - http://foodsideas.com/