Olympic Organizer Wants To Feed Athletes Fukushima Produce 149
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?
Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, yes I would.
This so called article is simply scaremongering of the highest order. You should be ashamed!
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Crops from this particular area are undoubtedly better tested than any other food in the world.
Re: (Score:1)
Here is some information on testing:
http://www.rt.com/news/219799-... [rt.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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 partic
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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. (Score:4, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I can't explain it any more clearly than I already have done. If you don't understand... I can't help.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 m
Re: (Score:2)
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 perfor
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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!!!
Re: (Score:2)
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. Shit. (Score:2)
sites like Enenews [enenews.com] 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 s
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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"
Re: (Score:2)
LOL fucking noob.
After Fukushima Japan passed a new law to forbid journalist from reporting anything about it.
While sites like Enenews [enenews.com] 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 [uow.edu.au]" 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 [wikipedia.org], 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)
Would you eat it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
Of course, everyone knows that contact with radioactive substances causes you to develop super-powers.
Re: (Score:2)
More like how many toxic elements are included...
Yeah, the Roundup will kill you first.
Re: (Score: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. 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.
How does it taste? (Score:2)
If it tastes good and it doesn't glow too much, why not eat it?
Athletes: Bring a Geiger Counter... (Score:3)
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... (Score:2)
... 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: (Score:2)
In other news, another pseudo-intellectual on /. offers up an opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
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... [youtu.be]
No really.
Would I eat it? (Score:1)
Sure.. At my age what could happen to me now? But nobody under 50 should get near it.
Re: (Score:1)
But nobody under 50 should get near it.
There is no basis for this at all, it is pure FUD.
Re: (Score:1)
No! It is pure FUN! (Fissures, Ulcers, Nuclear particles ripping apart your very being!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 st
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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 lev
Re: (Score:2)
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 japanes
Re: (Score:2)
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 J
Re: (Score:2)
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 bec
Re: (Score:2)
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 rea
Re: (Score:2)
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. [slashdot.org] 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
Re: (Score:2)
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 ou
Re: (Score:2)
Well I just started to need glasses for reading, but I'm still ok on the computer. Quite an odd attack, btw
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 nuclea
Re: (Score:2)
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 understa
Re: (Score:2)
You purposefully avoid and discussion of practical exposure levels and risk. Until you do, you are a waste of time.
Re: (Score:2)
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 wo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 comp
Re: (Score:2)
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 e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 stati
Re: (Score:2)
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, a
Re: (Score:2)
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 the
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 repea
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Tomorrows headlines: (Score:1)
competitors bring their own food (Score:3)
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.
Heck no it's radioactive!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:1)
It's 'tract', not 'track'.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
No (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Posting to undo a mis-mod. I ment to score this informative, not funny.
Go for it! (Score:2)
With Japan, it's easy to test food safety (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Would you not? (Score:2)
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.
Probably (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
moron
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the sushi I had yesterday? That Pacific Ocean?
Re: Is it trendy to go along with it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, I heard about that.. What is Kobe's beef?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not a typo. According to the OED, produce is:
[MASS NOUN] 1 Agricultural and other natural products, collectively. Example: dairy produce