Fukushima showing signs of possible meltdown.


GALTGULCH8

Recommended Posts

Your first question contained an important point worth addressing, while your second obfuscates that point by trying to conflate a physical issue with a moral one. So that's why I let it pass by unresponded. However, I'm glad you brought this up as it allows me to further clarify my view by offering an description of why I do what I do. :smile:

Greg

It's more accurate to say you cannot integrate the two answers so you just answered one question.

--Brant

the easy one (morality can be objectified making it more than a "view" while being a view)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Your first question contained an important point worth addressing, while your second obfuscates that point by trying to conflate a physical issue with a moral one. So that's why I let it pass by unresponded. However, I'm glad you brought this up as it allows me to further clarify my view by offering an description of why I do what I do. :smile:

Greg

It's more accurate to say you cannot integrate the two answers so you just answered one question.

--Brant

the easy one (morality can be objectified making it more than a "view" while being a view)

That's because a physical characteristic and a moral principle are two different things. And to try to make the same what is not the same only clouds the original issue.

So by not addressing the second allowed me to make my point about the first. Your unwillingness to even acknowledge the existence of the original comment is purely your own free choice. I'm merely noting that fact.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

300 tons of water in the entire pacific. It wont even register on the Geiger counters. Any radioactive particles will be complete diluted and dispersed. The heavy ones will fall to the ocean floor. Out of sight, out of mind.

The amount of additional radiation carried away from Japan will be completely swamped by natural cosmic radiation that delivers energetic charged particles to the earth constantly. Even if there were not a single reactor on the planet we are being zapped by radiation every second of every day.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That's true.

The Geiger counter constantly registers no matter where it is from the moment it's turned on. Whatever happens I'll be able to directly measure it, because there's no other way to confirm it without some kind of device to detect it. I checked an open can of tuna today and it's no higher than background.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your first question contained an important point worth addressing, while your second obfuscates that point by trying to conflate a physical issue with a moral one. So that's why I let it pass by unresponded. However, I'm glad you brought this up as it allows me to further clarify my view by offering an description of why I do what I do. :smile:

Greg

It's more accurate to say you cannot integrate the two answers so you just answered one question.

--Brant

the easy one (morality can be objectified making it more than a "view" while being a view)

That's because a physical characteristic and a moral principle are two different things. And to try to make the same what is not the same only clouds the original issue.

So by not addressing the second allowed me to make my point about the first. Your unwillingness to even acknowledge the existence of the original comment is purely your own free choice. I'm merely noting that fact.

Greg

As I understand what the original comment was, it's something you've stated and restated and restated. As for the rest, you keep mixing up things--which include "views"--with knowledge of them. Naturally enough the result is the obfuscation you object to. "Physical" and "moral" can share the same context. The former is man a corporeal being and the latter is something inside the man, his moral sense. Even if we say that sense is subjective that subjective is/can be objectified qua knowledge.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wont even register on the Geiger counters. Any radioactive particles will be complete diluted and dispersed. The heavy ones will fall to the ocean floor. Out of sight, out of mind.

Sure that's what you think!

Then the Giant Crab Monsters will emerge from the deep and devour all of human kind...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

moralist,

You said, "I checked an open can of tuna today and it's no higher than background."

Was the tuna fished out of the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean?

I don't know what becomes of radioactive atoms of Plutonium, Strontium, Iodine or Cesium if they are dispersed in the ocean. Do they all settle to the bottom as the currents take them away from Fukushima?

But wouldn't those particles dispersed in the air in a plume find their way into cropland where they would be taken up by plants, eaten by animals we eat or harvested and taken to supermarkets or farmstands?

gg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

moralist,

You said, "I checked an open can of tuna today and it's no higher than background."

Was the tuna fished out of the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean?

I have no idea. That's why I got a Geiger counter to be able to find out for myself, and won't need to trust what the government lawyers say. There may come a time when it's necessary to test our food, so right now I'm doing this just for practice so as to be familiar with the process.

I don't know what becomes of radioactive atoms of Plutonium, Strontium, Iodine or Cesium if they are dispersed in the ocean. Do they all settle to the bottom as the currents take them away from Fukushima?

But wouldn't those particles dispersed in the air in a plume find their way into cropland where they would be taken up by plants, eaten by animals we eat or harvested and taken to supermarkets or farmstands?

gg

I don't know that either, but now I don't need to try to guess the answer to the question:

"Is it safe?"

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now how probable is it that this was not a set up?

An amateur video of a Geiger counter showing what appear to be high radiation levels at a Coastside beach has drawn the attention of local, state and federal public health officials. Since being posted last week, the short video has galvanized public concerns that radioactive material could be landing on the local coastline after traveling from Japan as a result of the 2011 meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi reactors.

http://www.hmbreview.com/news/health-officials-respond-to-beach-radiation-scare/article_8c7e7fb0-74de-11e3-9c9d-001a4bcf887a.html?mode=story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now how probable is it that this was not a set up?

I don't know... but it would be way easy to fake. All I do know is that our beach was radiologically clean up to the time it was tested. Taking our own readings cuts through all the bullshit.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now how probable is it that this was not a set up?

I don't know... but it would be way easy to fake. All I do know is that our beach was radiologically clean up to the time it was tested. Taking our own readings cuts through all the bullshit.

Greg

Precisely. One of my students proudly cited a study, IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, no less, in support of gun control.

Good student, unfortunately, I was aware of the study and had looked at the eternals.

He learned a constructive lesson. Went on in life to do outstanding things.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now