Slashdot Mirror


Japan Announces Withdrawal From International Whaling Commission, To Resume Commercial Whaling (straitstimes.com)

Japan is withdrawing from the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and will resume commercial whaling next year, a government spokesman said on Wednesday, in a move expected to spark international criticism. From a report: "We have decided to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission in order to resume commercial whaling in July next year," top government spokesman Yoshihide Suga told reporters. "Commercial whaling to be resumed from July next year will be limited to Japan's territorial waters and exclusive economic zones. We will not hunt in the Antarctic waters or in the southern hemisphere," Mr Suga added.

The announcement had been widely expected and comes after Japan failed in a bid earlier this year to convince the IWC to allow it to resume commercial whaling. Tokyo has repeatedly threatened to pull out of the body and has been regularly criticised for catching hundreds of whales a year for "scientific research" despite being a signatory to a moratorium on hunting the animals. Mr Suga said Japan would officially inform the IWC of its decision by the end of the year, which will mean the withdrawal comes into effect by June 30. Leaving the IWC means Japanese whalers will be able to resume the hunting in Japanese coastal waters of minke and other whales currently protected by the commission. But Japan will not be able to continue the so-called scientific research hunts in the Antarctic that has been exceptionally allowed as an IWC member under the Antarctic Treaty.

141 of 274 comments (clear)

  1. Dear Japan by Red_Forman · · Score: 2

    The UK does not hunt whales. Why can't you copy that, too?

  2. Re: Good for them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I tried raw whale last time I was in Japan. The only way I can describe it is that it was exactly how I imaged chewing on a used tampon would be.

    I might try cooked whale next time, but I can't imagine it would be that good either.

    I honestly can't imagine there is a huge market for whale meat. And my guess the market is about as large as the horse meant market in Japan. (Which I also tried raw in Japan and didn't enjoy it)

  3. Just Japanese Territory by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As long as it is only in Japanese territory their choice but how long they take to put the whale down should be taken into account, a cruel extended death should be banned and any method should require pretty much instant death for the whale. Not that I would eat whale or promote it's killing but prevention of cruelty to animals laws should apply.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:Just Japanese Territory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nothing prevents Japan from doing the same in international waters. IWC is a voluntary organization, their ability to enforce anything is exactly zero.

      "should be banned" - it doesn't work like that in international relationship, the only way to ban Japan is if they accept the ban voluntarily.

    2. Re: Just Japanese Territory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Feed them alcohol, fried foods and tobacco. You know, the way America kills Its whales.

      Oh, and supersize it.

    3. Re:Just Japanese Territory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "should be banned" - it doesn't work like that in international relationship, the only way to ban Japan is if they accept the ban voluntarily.

      Tell that to America banning other countries trading with Iran, and Canada for arresting Meng because of it.

      Following America’s example, maybe other countries could start arresting Japanese executives related to whaling companies.

    4. Re:Just Japanese Territory by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately animals tend not to respect international borders. The UK is just now discovering this with Brexit and fishing rights too. It really depends if the waters in Japanese territories are important to whales, e.g. they use them as spawning grounds.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re: Just Japanese Territory by jd · · Score: 1

      International waters aren't Japanese.

      Extinction doesn't give a shit about possession.

      Whales are no different from any other international traveller, beyond higher intelligence. That doesn't depend a whole lot on your view of whale intelligence. They don't belong to Japan.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:Just Japanese Territory by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      I may be anecdotal but animals may, in fact, respect borders if their survival depend on it.
      We have a natural park where fishing is forbidden, and not only there are a lot more fish than the areas right next to it but they also easier to approach. In other area, they keep their distance, especially if you carry a harpoon. Yep, they also recognize harpoons and know the approximate range in order to stay out of it.

    7. Re:Just Japanese Territory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Shhh. People don't like to know that power and aggression exists. And not all nations are equal.

    8. Re:Just Japanese Territory by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

      This commission existed exactly for that: to ensure sustainable and non-cruel hunting of whales. But it got captured by countries not dependent on whaling industry so they used it to shut down commercial whaling to gain an economic advantage. But this failed because it's not based on legally binding international agreements and countries are free to leave. So Japan and other countries with whaling industry have no other choice than to abscond from this commission and make a new one.

    9. Re: Just Japanese Territory by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      We can strongly discourage this behavior by applying an export tax on what they make. Just like we can discourage America ignoring global warming by taxing their exports. I see no evidence we care enough to do either.

    10. Re:Just Japanese Territory by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      To be honest, no one in Japan likes eating whale. They only do whaling to prove that they can.

    11. Re:Just Japanese Territory by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but selling other foods to Japan is also voluntary, so is supplying fuel to their ships, giving overseas port access, giving tourist visas to Japanese people , buying products made in Japan.

    12. Re:Just Japanese Territory by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

      "No one in the world is that dumb."..... I can see Trump saying "Hey guys, hold my beer". Japans one saving grace is that Trump probably has no idea where Japan is.

  4. Because the UK does not give money to politicians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Whalehunters do give money to Japanese politicians. Lots of money.

    Japanese politics is all about money.

    If this has a negative impact on the 2020 Olympics, then whaling will be banned just as quickly.

  5. Research by ArchieBunker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ah yes "research" whales that just happen to end up in the fish markets.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Research by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Well yes, wouldn't want to waste the meat unnecessarily while carrying out the very real research of how many whales we can pointlessly kill before people care.

  6. Re:Well, whales go extinct in 2024 by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Whales shouldnÃ(TM)t be hunted for food at all. They are nearly extinct.

    "Whales" comprise around 90 different species, some of which are endangered and some which are quite numerous.
    Among the species which are classified by IUCN as Least Concern (i.e. not qualifying for a near threatened, vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered status) are Bowhead Whales, Southern Right Whales, Common Minke Whales, Humpback Whales, Grey Whales, and various dolphins.
    The Minke whale, which is currently the most common catch for whalers, is quite abundant, with over 180,000 in the North Atlantic alone.

  7. I don’t see the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Animals hunted and used everywhere around the world. Species are going extinct all around the world. I don’t know why people act outraged when the cute or glamorous ones are the victims. So if we’re gonna be outraged about this, we should just probably stop destroying the planet in the 1000 other ways. “They” always claim we’ll slow down economic progress, disrupt economies, etc, but somehow they’re perfectly fine with automation, globalization and Walmart ruining your hometown, by saying new jobs and economies will develop. So, by the same logic, if we eliminated environmental destruction and animal exploitation, we’d have new earth friendlier economies emerge.

    1. Re:I don’t see the difference by sheramil · · Score: 1

      Animals hunted and used everywhere around the world. Species are going extinct all around the world.

      Humans aren't. We need some general-purpose Manshonyaggers to thin out their sickly breed.

    2. Re: I don’t see the difference by jd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because a rat isn't intelligent. Some whales have neocortex mass:body mass ratios about 1.5x that of humans.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:I don’t see the difference by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Didn't we tell you that combining Ecstasy, Meth and Purple Drank was a bad thing?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re: I don’t see the difference by jd · · Score: 1

      It's straight brain mass to body mass that doesn't work for large animals.

      Can you provide a link?

      Still think you'll find the long finned pilot whale does very well.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  8. Re: Good for them! by gravewax · · Score: 5, Informative

    Even in Japan there isn't much of a market for it, it is not something people enjoy eating and was traditionally only eaten as a source of food when there was not much else. There have been stories about how even much of their "scientific" whaling meat gets wasted as it isn't popular.

  9. Re: Good for them! by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

    Well if theres not much of a market for it less whales get killed. Win win problem solved.

  10. Whales, Walls, Obsession by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    "This research is delicious!"

    Japan has a strange obsession with whale meat.

    1. Re:Whales, Walls, Obsession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is not strange at all. After WWII, occupied West Germany was plundered by the former Allies for a while, but with the start of the Cold War, the focus shifted from revenge to opposing the Soviet Union and the emerging Communist bloc. By the end of the 40s, the anti-Nazi policies were scrapped, the criminal past of the NSDAP members and the Nazi government officials was forgotten and forgiven, they were given prominent roles in the German "recovery", and a lot of money was poured into the German economy in the form of foreign aid.

      Nothing like that happened in Japan until after the Korean war. The Japanese were basically left to starve for a whole decade by the US. When the occupation power was petitioned for help (which is their responsibility according to international law), the administration of McArthur suggested that Japan should hunt whale meat for satisfying protein deficiency. This is how the modern whaling came about.

    2. Re:Whales, Walls, Obsession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They really don't. For a while Whale meat was essential for them to survive. But it is not particularly pleasant and not liked much even in Japan. The Japanese public in general are against whaling and don't like Whale meat. Their is a small aging (but influential population) that does want to keep it and more importantly don't like being told they can't have it.

    3. Re: Whales, Walls, Obsession by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Japan hates it. Schools won't touch it, neither will the poor. Oligarchs and politicians do, which is why their behaviour is strange. Mercury poisoning.

      Whale meat is massively subsidized but ends up dumped or sold to Norway at a loss.

      The subsidies are all that keep the industry profitable. Nobody sane wants the stuff.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Whales, Walls, Obsession by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      I knew this could be be blamed on America somehow. Everything that happens in the world is always America's fault. All others lack agency and cannot make decisions for themselves.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re: Whales, Walls, Obsession by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The high mercury content is in the meat from toothed whales - dolphins, porpoises, false killer whales, etc. - which aren't as well-protected by the IWC. They eat fish, which allows the mercury to build up over several tiers of the food chain, causing mercury to concentrate. It's the same reason we have warnings about eating too much tuna - they're on top of the food chain too so have built up high concentrations of mercury. (The mercury originally came from gold mining, but nowadays mostly comes from burning coal.)

      The whales affected by resuming commercial whaling are baleen whales. Those are filter feeders which only occasionally eat fish. They primarily eat plankton and krill, which are very low on the food chain so there's been no chance for mercury to build up. Their meat will be considerably if not acceptably lower in mercury content.

      So from a mercury contamination standpoint, the resumption of commercial whaling would actually mean the "whale meat" a Japanese consumer buys in a store would on average have less mercury. That could potentially make it more palatable to Japanese, schools, and the poor.

    6. Re:Whales, Walls, Obsession by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Behaving like a bull in a china shop has this effect as a result, yes.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    7. Re:Whales, Walls, Obsession by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      America killed nary a whale and somehow people find a way to blame us. It's such bullshit. When you wonder why we're withdrawing from the world, it's because of shit like this.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    8. Re:Whales, Walls, Obsession by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Not fast enough for my taste.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    9. Re:Whales, Walls, Obsession by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      Two things.

      First, it is hard to argue it was a necessity. The GP post upthread is correct to point out the role of the US in jump-starting the whaling industry (the US even outfitted and managed the first whaling fleet of postwar Japan), but the story doesn't end there. Whaling provided protein to Japan in the first two decades post-WWII, while it was too poor to import meat. Consumption peaked out around the late 50s and early 60s, after which it declined sharply to nearly zero today.

      https://i.imgur.com/rUybGN4.pn...

      What happened in the meantime? Correct, a Marshall-like event. Because of its use of Japan in the Korean and Vietnam war, the US poured an enormous amount of money on Japan after 1955. Japan recovered economically very quickly and began to import meat - poultry, pork and beef. This spelled the end of the whaling demand. Had the US occupational administration been less racist, and acted as they did in Germany, there would be no whaling industry and no problem to discuss.

      Now, your second question, why does whaling continue today, given the lack of demand?

      It is a very simple thing - a lot of money is being poured on the industry by the politicians who own it. The current PM, Shinzo Abe's base is in whaling country. A large group of politicians close to him also has a significant interest in receiving those subsidies. They get the votes from the area, which are guaranteed, and in exchange, guarantee the subsidies, a large part of which they receive anyway.

      In other words, the Japan whaling fiasco is a classical public finance failure, started by an irresponsible, short-sighted policy.

    10. Re:Whales, Walls, Obsession by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Wow, another denial of agency of POC and an insistence that America rules the world. We don't rule the world. That's wrong. By the way, Merkel is the leader of the free world and has been since we pulled out of the Paris agreement. Go bother her and tell her country to spend trillions on the doomed "world order" project. It's bankrupting us, just like it did every other culture that tried.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  11. Not sure the problem by Susurrus · · Score: 1

    What is the difference between hunting whales and all the other animals we eat (besides tastiness level but that's opinion based)? Never understood why this is an issue or why it keeps coming up. Could you imagine if there was a Muslim community pressuring the world not to eat pig and being able fine those that do? Or a Hindu one for cow? Wouldn't go over well. So they just don't eat it and stay out of our dietary business. Why are whales an exception? I have had whale bacon, whale curry, and whale steak just to try it (and piss off hippies) but honestly wasn't a fan. That being said, there are clearly people that do like it and a market so to each their own.

    1. Re:Not sure the problem by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

      Because there really isn't a way to quickly kill such a large animal.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    2. Re:Not sure the problem by magusxxx · · Score: 1

      Because in the past whale hunting had nothing to do with the meat. And it was disgusting.

      Ambergris is a substance in the whale's intestine which was widely used for perfumes. Many whalers would only worry about harvesting this stuff and throw the rest of the whale back in the ocean.

      In 2015 a whole whale's estimated value was about $25,000.

      According to Wikipedia... "A 1.1-kilogram (2.4 lb) lump of ambergris, found on a beach at Anglesey, Wales, was sold to a French buyer for £11,000 [$14,000] at an auction in Macclesfield, England, on 25 September 2015."...That's about $5,800/lb.

      So why weigh down a boat full of meat you have to cut up and refrigerate? When you can just get the ambergris from several whales at once and be done with it.

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    3. Re:Not sure the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure there is. It just leaves the meat a bit radioactive.

    4. Re:Not sure the problem by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is the difference between hunting whales and all the other animals we eat (besides tastiness level but that's opinion based)?

      Whales are the only animal they eat that can't be farmed. Hunting and gathering is sustainable only for small human populations, which is why a large percentage of the fish we eat are being farmed today, over the dead bodies of environmental romantics.

      The whale population has revived since the nineteenth century age of whaling, but resuming hunts would make whales as threatened as bison were until we started farming them.

    5. Re:Not sure the problem by guacamole · · Score: 2

      Not true. Whale oil was highly prized in the 19th century, and well into 20th, and had many applications. (as a side note, whale oil based additives used to be very important in vehicle transmissions)

    6. Re:Not sure the problem by magusxxx · · Score: 1

      I'm talking recent past. Hence the 2015 info.

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    7. Re:Not sure the problem by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"What is the difference between hunting whales and all the other animals we eat"

      Whales are a high-order mammal with great intelligence (like dolphins and apes). We evolved [humans] tend to place a increasingly high stigma on killing and eating animals as they get closer to us on the scale of intelligence.

      Plus many whales are endangered or struggling species.
      Plus they have very long lifespans with low birth rates.
      Plus they can't be farmed.
      Plus the hunting methods of killing them tends to be incredibly cruel/slow.

    8. Re:Not sure the problem by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Whales are the only animal they eat that can't be farmed

      What about tuna.

    9. Re:Not sure the problem by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Tuna is a fish. All of the animals we routinely eat are now farmed, and a large percentage of the fish. Farming of tuna is a hard problem because it’s a wide-ranging top predator species, but the Japanese are working on a tuna farming project, because this fish is highly valued in Japanese cuisine.

    10. Re:Not sure the problem by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What about it? For canned tuna it's mostly wild. In Japan for sashimi and other prepared meals Bluefin is ranched tuna.

    11. Re:Not sure the problem by idji · · Score: 1

      There is also the issue of eating an animal that is as old or older than you yourself. These animals have relationships that last decades. When you eat them you are eating someone's relative or friend, who was relying on them for companionship and/or survival.
      Why eat someone like this when a million sheep are slaughtered all the time, and are in no risk of vanishing?

    12. Re:Not sure the problem by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The issue is not just age, but whales being large-brained cetaceans. We don't really know much about their state of consciousness.

    13. Re:Not sure the problem by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I really can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. If whaling is so useless and unnecessary, why hasn't it stopped on its own?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  12. Re: Good for them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    doesn't work that way in Japan sadly. The government will support the industry to keep it going so they don't lose face.

  13. Re: Good for them! by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

    No, get real, if a shoe company or box company started losing money permanently do you think they'd stay open for giggles, especially if nobody liked these shoes or boxes? No companies going to keep whaling if theres no money in it. Crazy activists on the other hand will stick with their causes no matter what. Thats why they ban mammoth ivory even though it could save the elephants.

  14. Re: Good for them! by gravewax · · Score: 5, Informative

    Japan has kept them open losing money for 30 years now in the guise of scientific whaling. Various Industries all over the world are funded by governments while making a loss with no real prospect of ever turning a profit.

  15. Re: Good for them! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    No, get real, if a shoe company or box company started losing money permanently do you think they'd stay open for giggles

    If the shoes or boxes are in fact generating nationalist giggles, then yes.

    That would remain true if their gross sales were actually low. If you put a camera in people's faces, do they pretend to like it? Then yes, easy call. They would do it.

  16. its on by johnjones · · Score: 1

    the Japanese people need to stand up and be counted...

    is this acceptable for the government of japan to deplete stocks and allow China to take the moral high ground ?

    1. Re: its on by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Uh... china has already depleted nearly all wildlife already in their territory. Hence the reason for their false islands and territorial claims. Not sure they have any moral high ground to stand on.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  17. Re:Because the UK does not give money to politicia by yuvcifjt · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Japanese politics is all about money.

    What a strange thing to say - and American (or any democratic / capitalist) politics isn't about money?!

    There's probably no other country in the World who is as well funded by large corporate interests as USA - look up lobbying (bribing).

  18. Re:Good for them! by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

    Don't let yourselves be burdened by the know-nothing western leftards.

    I also say we bring back whaling, let's just give it a try.. My parents whaled on me when I was a kid, and I turned out ok.

  19. Re: Good for them! by Jarwulf · · Score: 2

    The only source that insinuates that there is no demand is from antiwhaling propaganda. Japan for its part says its not profitable simply because they by definition don't allow a profit since its supposed to be scientific. Why not let them whale? They only hunt common species. If theres no demand like you say they'll eventually get bored of it as the old people die off and problem solved. On the other hand high demand means the Japanese will have an incentive to pour billions more into research and funding than whiny envirowackos are willing to do to save and increase whale populations of those they hunt and those they want to hunt bringing more delicious tastes and delectable food options into the world cuisine.

  20. Re: Good for them! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    In fact the only whale delicacy served is thin, very expensive, slices of kujira no tama, or testicle. There is no dietary reason why they would want to resume large scale whaling.

  21. Re: Good for them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No it isn't the only source at all. Their have been studies done both in and external to Japan. Whale meat is Bland and smells bad when cooking, it was only ever consumed during times of food shortages and is pretty much hated in all but a tiny percentage of the population there. The problem becomes the Government happy to perpetuate a dead industry just to save face, thousands of whales will die and other countries will use this as an opportunity to start up the industry again be it for the perfume industry, the whale oil or ancient remedies.

  22. Re: Good for them! by jd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fosdil fuels lose so much, they need a 23 trillion dollar subsidy every year. Don't see them closing.

    No, government egos are quite capable of keeping the undead animated. The whaling industry is such a zombie.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  23. Re: Good for them! by jd · · Score: 1

    No, they don't make money. Neither side does. Whalers are given money, they don't make it, and protestors lose money.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  24. Re: Mixed feelings by jd · · Score: 1

    Whales have territories, no different from humans, only whales can't move due to food and temperature constraints.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  25. Re:Well, whales go extinct in 2024 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've eaten grilled shark steak. Very tasty! Whales are sort of like sharks so I expect whale meat is very tasty too.

    Wut?!?!

    Yeah, not really. They're just about as far apart as jawed vertebrates can be.

    Understanding basic biology isn't one of your strengths, I take it.

  26. Re: Good for them! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    Who ever said "make money" is the sole reason that everything happens? Seriously, there are other motivations, people. Look into them.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  27. Fukushima and fisheries by MrKaos · · Score: 2

    One day we might get some independent data on the amount of radionuclides in Japanese fisheries considering the amount of radioactive effluents the ongoing Fukushima disaster is putting into their food chain. I wouldn't be surprised if they know all this and opening up options for themselves.

    The volcanic region made seafood a rich harvest for Japan and now they have poisoned it. Bio-accumulation of radionuclides in the food chain is real no matter how much Japan suppresses information. It will continue to poison the Pacific until we take the clean-up effort away from TEPCO and make it an international issue that we address with maximum priority to stop it spreading any further.

    That would be the honorable thing to do.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:Fukushima and fisheries by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      One day we might get some independent data on the amount of radionuclides in Japanese fisheries considering the amount of radioactive effluents the ongoing Fukushima disaster is putting into their food chain.

      I suppose it is easy to get them yourself, just buy a bit of Japanese fish and a Geiger counter, or send it to a lab for more precise measurements.

    2. Re:Fukushima and fisheries by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Until Fukushima Japan had no limits on radioactivity of foods. After Fukushima they quickly introduced some which are similar to those standards set in other countries.

      People were critical of the level since (just like you) people can't seem to fathom how a nuclear disaster didn't irradiate the oceans, and they continue to be critical despite the fact that lowing the limit any further would effectively ban Japan from eating any bananas from anywhere in the world.

      Yeah that's right, if you worry about radiation, eat Fukushima fish and not USA grown bananas.

    3. Re:Fukushima and fisheries by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's this widespread mistaken belief that radiation is not normal, and is only created by nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors. Radiation is completely normal and is everywhere around you.

      The highest radiation dose most people receive in a year actually comes from their own bodies. There's a naturally occurring radioactive isotope of potassium, and our nervous system needs potassium to function. Likewise, foods high in potassium can give you an elevated radiation dose. The radiation sensors at our border checkpoints designed to detect terrorists trying to smuggle in a dirty bomb are forever being triggered by cat litter, tiles, and foods high in potassium like bananas, nuts, etc..

      After that comes rocks - mainly granite, but also things like beach sand. They have trace amounts of natural uranium which is radioactive. Having granite countertops in your kitchen substantially increases your annual radiation dose. The radon which can build up in your basement if you live in the mountains comes from rocks. Radon is one of the byproducts of uranium's natural decay chain.

      After that is cosmic rays from space. Living at higher altitudes increases your exposure to this radiation source, since there's less atmosphere above you to absorb it. A transcontinental flight exposes you to about as much additional radiation as a medical x-ray. All the people who fled Japan after Fukushima by flying home unwittingly subjected themselves to more radiation during the flight than they would have received from Fukushima if they had just stayed in Japan.

      Anyhow, uranium is water soluble. As a result, seawater has a much higher concentration of natural radionuclides than you normally encounter on land. So if you're that paranoid about radiation, you shouldn't swim in the ocean (you shouldn't even go to the beach, where the sand and sun will irradiate you). The increase in radioactivity from pre- to post-Fukushima is tiny compared to natural levels. The reason we know it's coming from Fukushima is not because the water has suddenly become radioactive. It's because the radioactivity is coming from certain isotopes which have short half-lives so have long since disappeared as a natural radiation source. Fukushima was the only recent event which created a bunch of those short-lived isotopes, so we know that if we detect radiation from those isotopes, that they must have come from Fukushima.

    4. Re:Fukushima and fisheries by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      People were critical of the level since (just like you) people can't seem to fathom how a nuclear disaster didn't irradiate the oceans

      As you seem unable to tell the difference between radiation and radionuclides and clearly are uninformed about the mechanisms of bio-accumulation whilst mis-characterizing my point I am going to presume that you simply don't know what you are talking about.

      Clearly, you do not know the difference between external and internal radiation exposure and how that would occur.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    5. Re:Fukushima and fisheries by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      One day we might get some independent data on the amount of radionuclides in Japanese fisheries considering the amount of radioactive effluents the ongoing Fukushima disaster is putting into their food chain.

      I suppose it is easy to get them yourself, just buy a bit of Japanese fish and a Geiger counter, or send it to a lab for more precise measurements.

      It would close to impossible to detect a microgram of pu-239 in a head of lettuce, which is a fatal dose if absorbed in chloride form. Sending all of the food you eat to a lab to check it is devoid of radio-isotopes is also clearly tedious and impractical.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    6. Re:Fukushima and fisheries by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I am talking about radionuclides not radiation, in the context of internal as opposed to external radiation exposure. You're ignoring toxic man-made elements, no-one ever got internal radiation exposure rocks on the ground and there is a big difference in toxicity between Strontium 90 and potassium in bananas as an example.

      Your points all refer to external radiation exposure and are either a transparent attempt to re-frame my points into the limits of your understanding or an attempt to manipulate the reader.

      Anyhow, uranium is water soluble.

      As is plutonium. Especially in chloride form when exposed to seawater. You're misleading people into thinking that solubility leads to dilution where in reality it is the basis for bio-accumulation into the foodchain. You appear uneducated on the mechanisms of this and bio-concentration and ignore that the ocean is a dynamic and living environment.

      Fukushima was the only recent event which created a bunch of those short-lived isotopes, so we know that if we detect radiation from those isotopes, that they must have come from Fukushima.

      Fukushima is an ongoing event, the disaster is still uncontrolled as it is releasing 400 tons of radionuclide laden water into the ocean *everyday*. Everything in your post appears to be an attempt to mislead people into underestimating the seriousness of this continuing disaster by attracting them with explanations that require very low levels of cognition to absorb.

      The reality is that this is a very complex nuanced subject that demands careful study to be able to glean an understanding. When this is combined with the suppression of information (as the Japanese governments have legislated) and agents of misinformation then it is little wonder that people are confused and unable to effectively form opinions that lead to actions that can resolve the situation.

      There is nothing benign about four nuclear reactors, in an earthquake and flood zone releasing toxic radionuclides into the ocean and trusting that the situation will be resolved by the same group who got us into this mess in the first place.

      Fukushima also threatens US agriculture and thus is an international issue which requires the international community to step in and resolve as the Japanese government is lacking any effective sovereignty in the matter.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    7. Re:Fukushima and fisheries by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      Until Fukushima Japan had no limits on radioactivity of foods.

      Complete bullshit. Japan has had the limits that are recommended by the IRCP, ICRU and IAEA and their predecessors in its national laws since about the time it became a member of these. The laws are regularly updated to reflect the most recent recommendations.

    8. Re:Fukushima and fisheries by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Not at all. Both radioactivity and radionuclides are referenced in the standard that Japan put out. But you didn't bother to google did you, you just got caught up on one word.

    9. Re:Fukushima and fisheries by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign...

      Reference, read the first line. Your turn. Can you point to where the recommendations by the IRCP ICRU and IAEA were legally binding in Japan before the Fukushima incident?

    10. Re:Fukushima and fisheries by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      The first line is written by some illiterate idiot who also does not understand how radiation regulations work. You just regurgitate it because you're no better.

      Radiation safety legislation is not specific to foods. It basically establishes maximum activities above which any substance, be it food, drink, baby toys or industrial equipment needs specific, strict and hard to obtain license to handle. The recommendations come from the above organizations, and are enacted in the radiation protection legislation.

      In Japan, the Radiation Protection Law was enacted in 1957, and in 2001, when I last needed to know about it, was in sync with the ICPR recommendations from 1990.

    11. Re:Fukushima and fisheries by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You could have just said you don't have a reference to link. But since you have a head full of names and numbers you can provide one right?

    12. Re:Fukushima and fisheries by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      Of course I have links, you can start reading here:

      http://www.rist.or.jp/atomica/...

    13. Re:Fukushima and fisheries by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Not at all.

      I note that your attempt to deflect attention from the subject, which is bio-accumulation of radionuclides.

      But you didn't bother to google did you, you just got caught up on one word.

      Because it is an important word that demonstrates the lack of precision in your retort.

      Both radioactivity and radionuclides are referenced in the standard that Japan put out.

      Do share.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    14. Re:Fukushima and fisheries by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I note that your attempt to deflect attention from the subject, which is bio-accumulation of radionuclides.

      I note your attempt to deflect attention from the subject: Safety of the food chain.

      Good work though. You moved the goal posts so far your original post doesn't make sense anymore. I mean since you only seem to care about bio-accumulation rather than the final safety of what you catch I assume all that stuff about being a rich harvest for Japan is irrelevant, poisoning is irrelevant, and somehow you mentioned your concerns about the food chain several times yet seem to not care about the standards that govern it.

      Your thought process is truly strange. Have you considered donating your brain to science?

    15. Re:Fukushima and fisheries by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Oh I see. You're one of those refugees from when Slashdot Japan shutdown. Well your link contains no English text so I'll consider that you're final word and incredibly pointless word.

    16. Re:Fukushima and fisheries by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      Well, it is hardly my fault that you're illiterate, but you started the argument with your fake news article.

      Next time you try to make a witty comment, pick a subject you know something about.

      Although it is obvious why this may be hard for you :)

    17. Re:Fukushima and fisheries by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I note that your attempt to deflect attention from the subject, which is bio-accumulation of radionuclides.

      I note your attempt to deflect attention from the subject: Safety of the food chain.

      Bio-accumulation of radionuclides in the food chain is real no matter how much Japan suppresses information. That's where we started.

      Safety of the foodchain cannot be assured anymore and this problem will continue to get worse until the Fukushima reactors are bought under control.

      Good work though. You moved the goal posts so far your original post doesn't make sense anymore. I mean since you only seem to care about bio-accumulation rather than the final safety of what you catch I assume all that stuff about being a rich harvest for Japan is irrelevant, poisoning is irrelevant, and somehow...

      There is no "final safety of what you catch". Now you take your chances that Japanese Fisheries and US Agriculture is poisoned with radionuclides from the Fukushima reactor. That is why we need to get proper information and have an international effort to control this ongoing disaster.

      Both radioactivity and radionuclides are referenced in the standard that Japan put out.

      Do share.

      you mentioned your concerns about the food chain several times yet seem to not care about the standards that govern it.

      As you have refused to supply a link, when asked, to what you are talking about I can only presume these standards are in your imagination.

      Your thought process is truly strange. Have you considered donating your brain to science?

      The ad hominem attack is the retort of someone without an argument or capacity to reason. However to answer your question sincerely the brain is only the hardware upon which the mind resides. The reason it is strange to you is because you have been deceived out of your ability to think for yourself so when you see someone able to think for themselves it is a strange and uncomfortable experience for you.

      Your "arguments", indeed your entire method of arguing relies on pre-digested ideas that you have picked up from the abundance of propaganda that the Nuclear Industry's PR machine produce to make it easy for useful idiots to waste the time of people who actually can think. Only you can decide if this condition is permanent for you.

      I don't blame you for utilizing these conceptual packages however it is a sign that you are easily manipulated out of the pre-conditions for original and critical thought.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  28. Re:Well, whales go extinct in 2024 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wow, another one of those "it swims in the Ocean, so it's fish" people. Get an education, ffs.

  29. But it does by jd · · Score: 1

    His campaign to diminish experts and abuse the environment have been a source of inspiration for lunatics the world over.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  30. Re: Because the UK does not give money to politici by jd · · Score: 1

    And America ranks badly on corruption, pollution, destruction of endangered species, destruction of areas of special scientific interest, destruction of history...

    That it's the same in every othet corrupt nation shouldn't be a shock.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  31. Re: Well, whales go extinct in 2024 by jd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Blue Whale numbers haven't risen significantly since whaling stopped and many species are on the Red List.

    Most species that aren't are turning out to be multiple species, due to isolation. Right Whales are an example of that. By recategorizing according to genetics, sevwral whale species went from ok to critically endangered.

    We still know nothing about the Lone Voice, the lonliest whale on the planet, other than he's the last of his kind.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  32. Re: Good for them! by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

    Horse steak is pretty good and you can put pretty much anything in sausage. There's still a big, not very animal friendly, horse meat industry in Europe and Argentine.

  33. Re: Well, whales go extinct in 2024 by jd · · Score: 3, Informative

    Southerm Right Whales turned out to be two distinct species, a few years back. The list has not been updated to reflect that, yet, but the two species have about half the numbers in each.

    It makes a huge difference.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  34. Re: Good for them! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    I live in Spain, I can think of at least four shops within 100 yards that only sell horse meat.

    (I live next door to a big food market)

    --
    No sig today...
  35. Re:Good for them! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    This will make America look great by comparison, therefore conspiracy.

    --
    No sig today...
  36. Re: Good for them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Corn in the US is one such industry. Itâ(TM)s crazy how much tax is spent on it. And then it goes right into unhealthy foods.

  37. Re: Good for them! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Except it is easy to turn up the marketing so everyone would want it.
    Being the amount of meat you can get from one whale, it makes them a rather profitable target for hunting. The profit from a caught whale is worth upgrading a normal fishing ship to a whaling ship.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  38. Re:Because the UK does not give money to politicia by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

    My guess is that whaling in Japan is similar to coal in the US. Both are dying industries that still have enough political clout to get money from the government to prop up their businesses and keep them going long past when they should have died.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  39. Re: Good for them! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    The problem is in the US we mostly raise Horses as Pets, some farmers use them for utility purposes, such as ranching, but that can be replaced with ATV, however they keep Horses for mostly personal reasons, So eating them just seems wrong.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  40. Disappointing and difficult to understand. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    Japan is generally respectful of nature. They have a slightly different value system than whats promoted by the typical modern western intellectualism.

    They subscribe to ancestor worship, Buddhist doctrine. That the movies of The Superstar became an unlikely hit in Japan, much liked by the older generation shows they have some strong value system not visible to the West.

    So, it is particularly disappointing that they don't value whales and they seem to condone exterminating a species. Hope something changes and they begin to see whales in a different light.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Disappointing and difficult to understand. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Huh? The Japanese are people. I don't know what you think makes them immune from arsehole wasteful industries that bribe politicians to keep their dying business afloat.

  41. Re:Good for them! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Well it isn't the Republicans Fault, there is a global trend towards nationalism, and regressing back into the old traditional ways, even if we don't know what they are, or why they were followed to begin with.

    There are a lot of stresses happening to world society today, many of them are bigger then any one country and these problems are not limited to particular borders. These complex problems are way too abstract for average citizen. So our primal urge of when there is a problem that we cannot confront, Hide in a deep dark cave and close the opening is in place. This urge means things like closed borders, doubling down on traditions, grouping together with people most similar to yourself. And basically try to reset society back to a time where you had felt good with.

    The problem is our instincts are not the best course of action for the problem. It is like an opossum playing dead on a busy street. These are problems that require work, planning, sacrifice and thought to solve. Not a gut feeling.

    But because it is so stressful many people gut feeling is a strong motivation.

    Now in America Row v Wade and the Abortion debate with Region (a source strongly tied to old traditions) Democrats decided to go on the Pro-Choice side, while the Republicans went on the Pro-Life side. This connected many of the religious groups to the Republicans. Which lead to a lot of people who value traditions and the old way to that party. Turing its culture to what we see today.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  42. Their actual plan by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    Their actual plan is to get us down to only 2 humpback whales, in the hopes of attracting starships from the future. They can then capture one and harvest the technology.

    1. Re:Their actual plan by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Funny

      Their actual plan is to get us down to only 2 humpback whales, in the hopes of attracting starships from the future. They can then capture one and harvest the technology.

      The part that was cut out of the script was that after finding out what what had happened, Space Whales invaded earth to harvest Japanese people for research purposes.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:Their actual plan by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Hikaru Sulu: "D'oh!"

      "oh my!"

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  43. It's Sad... by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    It's sad to have to destroy such an intelligent animal into pieces--to prove the point that it's not so different than killing wales.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  44. Re: Good for them! by kurkosdr · · Score: 1

    If by "subsidy" you mean not taxing fossil fuels to oblivion then let me tell you this is not what a subsidy is. Fossil fuels will remain the most affordable source of fuel for the next decade (but probably not the decade after that), so any rollback of existing taxes whose sole purpose was to deprive individuals of this cheap source energy is a good thing. Not everyone is a commie living in a cold apartment and without access to a car.

  45. Re:Good for them! by kurkosdr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's not that the problems imposed by unfettered globalism are complex, it's that there are no solutions to those problems that are satisfactory to the majority of people living in developed nations. For example, a true globalist moves his factories from the US to China (Foxconn) to save 10 dollars in production costs per piece, and then considers moving again to Vietnam because there are factory workers there willing to work for even less. This creates a problem for people who work in manufacturing jobs in the US and see those jobs moving to Asia. And no, not everybody is an MIT graduate that can work in the design department of Apple, some people want to work in manufacturing. Then there is the other problem of "open borders" bringing in too many people who are capable of only for menial jobs and can't even speak the local language, and there is already an overabundance of labour for these kinds of jobs in developed nations, and automation will reduce demand for such jobs anyway. Again, no solutions that are satisfactory to the citizen of a developed nations exist for that problem, and the only "solution" is to throw money at the problem that could be spent towards the native citizens. So, the solution that is chosen by most voters is to back out of unfettered globalism and impose tarrifs and closed borders. Unfettered globalism proponents should propose proper solutions instead of engaging in nonsensical smear campaigns against nationalism.

  46. Re: Good for them! by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    Apparently everything needs to be simple enough for you to grasp or it just doesn't exist.

  47. Spock isn't going to be happy by mpercy · · Score: 1

    Will have to make a return time voyage to stop them.

  48. Arm the Whales? by Toad-san · · Score: 1

    Has anyone considered working with the whales on how they can defend themselves? Just a thought.

  49. Re:Good for them! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    However the problem isn't globalism. Because you are even explaining how all these countries are failing their manufacturing workers, by playing the "Race to the bottom" game. There has been growth in US manufacturing, mainly due to investments in technology. The US let its manufacturing infrastructure slide, the US has been and still is good at making BIG Items. Cars, Trucks, Industrial equipment. Asia once rebuilt after WWII, had took on making small things. The US had no problem with this, because small things were the cheap stuff that they couldn't get staff to run an efficient company anyways, and BIg things were was all the money.

    However as we moved from industrial to technology economy. The small things were no longer toys and trinkets. But vital parts of the economy. And Asia manufacturing was prepped to make such tiny things. While the US still likes to make big things. The US can try to make small things with limited success, however it doesn't have the support infrastructure for it, so it is more expensive. Employee wages are only a minor part of the equation.

    Without globalization the United States probably wouldn't be a technology innovation hub as it is today, and we would probably be in a much worse situation. Because globalization beyond expanding worker base to different countries, it also expands the number of customers by almost 20 times.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  50. Re: Good for them! by greythax · · Score: 1

    Just because there isn't much of a market for the meat, doesn't mean the whale has no economic value. Hell, perfumers pay top dollar for sperm whale vomit that washes up on shore. The market is a strange place.

    On a separate note, I think announce that Japanese whaling ship numbers have recovered enough that we are restarting our industry of pirating whalers. Each whaling ship harvested has enormous economic benefit, and the industry as a whole can employ many peg legged captains and scurvy dogs.

  51. Re:Good for them! by kurkosdr · · Score: 1

    See, the problem with unfettered globalism is that it enables the "race to the bottom". If there are no tarrifs, nobody has an incentive to make things in the US when they can go to China, India or Vietnam and make the same things but pay workers significantly less and also have less environmental regulations to deal with. The only reason the US still manufactures trucks is a special tarrif imposed on imported trucks which inhibits a "race to the bottom" for that particular kind of product.

  52. Re:Good for them! by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

    You have obviously never looked a whale in the eye. They are intelligent beings that have as much right to life as you. Nobody's survival depends upon eating whales. Maybe a moral argument could have been made a couple of hundred years ago, but today its not civilized behavior.

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.
  53. Re:Well, whales go extinct in 2024 by arth1 · · Score: 2

    But how long would whales last if every major country returned to commercial whaling?

    How long would deer last if we all returned to deer hunting?

    The solution is the same - monitoring the populations and setting quotas accordingly.

    Outright bans cause problems too - the migratory bird hunting ban here in the US, for example, where enormous flocks of Canadian geese wreak havoc, the populations having exploded (in part due to corn fields and golf courses, and in part due to killing off their other predators).

    For whales, some of the whale species are in direct competition with otherwise sustainable fishing, and some are even threatening other vulnerable marine life that's at risk of extinction. Sure, if we stopped overharvesting and polluting the oceans, it would be less of a problem, but fat chance of that. As it is, our mass hunting fish and shrimp without also culling their predators like whales is becoming a real problem.

  54. Re: Good for them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They have government sponsored workshops to teach people how to eat whale meat.

    This is in Japan mind, where pretty much everyone eats sushi.

  55. Save the whales! by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

    Collect the whole set.

  56. Re:Good for them! by dinfinity · · Score: 1

    Well it isn't the Republicans Fault

    In a way, it is.
    - The financial crisis in 2008 was definitely made possible by deregulation of Wallstreet and the push for laissez faire in general. The ripple effect it had is still felt in countries where nationalism is on the rise. Specifically, it rallied people around the idea of national austerity in economically hard times which led to more income inequality (with most of those responsible going unpunished or even largely unimpacted). So there is also plenty of blame to go around for those (rightwing) governments that have facilitated said income inequality.

    - War-mongering in the Middle East has been a mostly Republican affair and it has certainly cultivated religious hatred worldwide (back and forth) as well as created many, many refugees. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not implying that the Middle East would have been some peaceful oasis without Western 'interventions', but in hindsight I believe we can be fairly sure that we haven't really helped.

    The problem is our instincts are not the best course of action for the problem. It is like an opossum playing dead on a busy street. These are problems that require work, planning, sacrifice and thought to solve. Not a gut feeling.

    To me that describes the rightwing approach to governing pretty well. Driven by instincts and gut feelings to a large degree and representing the world in an overly simplified fashion.

  57. Re:Good for them! by Tailhook · · Score: 1

    However the problem isn't globalism. Because you are even explaining how all these countries are failing their manufacturing workers, by playing the "Race to the bottom" game.

    That's pretty cool. Somehow you've gotten your mental gymnastics to the point where you can cite a problem that is clearly facilitated by globalism, but somehow not attribute it to globalism.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  58. Translation: by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    "They can do what they want in their own country unless it's something very specific I care about. "

    Does that kind of sum up your post?

  59. Re: Good for them! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    You're speaking nonsense. There's enough demand that Japan has, in the recent past, resorted to importing whale meat from Iceland.

  60. Re: Good for them! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Horseshit. The US has enough oil reserves to be completely independent if they so choose. "No blood for oil" is a slogan dreamed up by retards.

  61. This news shouldn't be here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against spreading this news and I'm not pro-hunting but Slashdot isn't the place for it.

    This isn't news for nerds no matters how you want to look at it and I cannot ignore that.

  62. It's only sensible. by SEE · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are a whole bunch of species of whale that are neither particularly smart nor anywhere near endangered, like the common minke whale. Anyone who isn't a vegetarian has no business pretending there's a moral issue here.

    And the general IWC moratorium, now over three decades old, is in blatant defiance of the purpose stated in the convention that established the IWC -- to make the whaling industry orderly, in order to increase whale stocks, so that more whales can be hunted. A general ban on commercial whaling isn't what the Japanese signed up for, and it's ludicrous to claim they should be bound to keep going along with the abuse of a treaty that's been perverted against its explicit text.

    1. Re:It's only sensible. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Most environmental issues are the same way. Motte and bailey strategy. Take a public, reasonable sounding position that hides your real, extreme views. Then when you're challenged retreat to the defensible position. When people stop listening take your real stance.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:It's only sensible. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      but they'll also be killing whale species that are smart and have spindle cells (believed to have role in developing advanced intelligence compared to other animals) in brain that only humans, great apes and elephants do.

      In other words, we already protect land mammals (primates) believed to have a high capacity for self-awareness and suffering... shouldn't whales get the same consideration?

  63. On, balance, maybe better? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Reading through the summary it seems like maybe having Japan hunt whales near Asher they live, may be better than having them hunt whales around Antartica (which is what they were doing).

    Antartica still has a long way to go to recover from the whaling days, and if they are hunting locally maybe it will be more sustainable.

    Too bad they can't just give up whaling altogether though,

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  64. Re: Good for them! by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    You are the only retard here. Oil is a commodity sold on a global market. If oil prices rise, they rise everywhere. The only way to go completely independent would be to declare oil a strategic resource and ban all imports and exports of it. That would kill your economy overnight.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  65. Re:Well, whales go extinct in 2024 by arth1 · · Score: 1

    Quite. You can tell what they are when they fly over and go "honk, eh".

  66. Re:Good for them! by currently_awake · · Score: 2

    When wages fall or are stagnant while the cost of living rises people get upset and Nationalism flourishes. The lesson of History shows: Either the Rich spread the money around or the poor spread the pitchforks and torches around.

  67. You know this may be a hidden way to kill it by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Think about it, commercial whaling will be done only for profit. The things they did with research disguising was government paid. And all indications are that the younger generation despise whaling, and the older one only did it as a tradition (not for the horrid taste). Often whale meat was left to rot because nobody bought it. Thus if it is commercial whaling only... a few may try... Then with collapsing market and nobody buying it, it dies out. Win win on the long run : the japanese government can pretend it did what it's people wanted (well a few of them) and it is not their fault if the market don't buy, and in the long run they can point the finger that the whale number don't drop and tell people "see : nothing bad happens".

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  68. Re: Good for them! by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

    You're somewhat ignorant of US foreign policy and its motivation.

    Also, reserves is not the same thing as affordable oil.

    The US has a long-standing policy of installing (or trying to) friendly terrorist regimes where cheap, easy to extract oil is available.

    Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, most of the small Gulf "countries" which only have oil wells and US bases, etc.

  69. Re: Good for them! by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

    There is no demand. This is a simple fact. Nobody in Japan likes whale meat, even the whalers prefer other meats.

    https://i.imgur.com/rUybGN4.pn...

  70. Re: Good for them! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    You are the only retard here. Oil is a commodity sold on a global market. If oil prices rise, they rise everywhere.

    Hurr durr, thanks Einstein! And having a fuckload of oil they could sell for way more money would be so horrible for the US economy!

  71. Territorial waters by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Commercial whaling to be resumed from July next year will be limited to Japan's territorial waters and exclusive economic zones

    We can trust them for that until they will have extinguished whales presence in their exclusive economic zones, but after that?

  72. Thank you for the PSA, nuclear lobby by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    I don't know what I would do without my daily dose of paid PR cleanup for the nuclear industry here on slashdot.

  73. Re: Good for them! by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    It is. Imagine paying European prices to fill up your car. Then count the money you'd have left for everything else.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  74. Re: Because the UK does not give money to politici by jd · · Score: 1

    You seem to know a lot about where I live, work and what I think.

    Please, tell me.

    I'd be fascinated to learn.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  75. Whale isn't particularly healthy choice by foxalopex · · Score: 1

    Whales are near the top of the food chain and long lived mammals and so they tend to bio-accumulate a huge load of heavy metals and other toxins in the oceans. They're probably not really advisable things to eat on a regular basis if you value your health.

  76. Re: Well, whales go extinct in 2024 by gravewax · · Score: 1

    You were in normay, a piece of old boot leather would have tasted delicious compared to the local food.

  77. Shameful by Camarillo+Brillo · · Score: 1

    Just terrible, like all the other senseless animal slaughter world wide of dissappearing species. Screw you Japan, you have lost my respect