VETERANS: Service people are expendable

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/36-signs-the-media-is-lying-to-you-about-how-radiation-from-fukushima-is-affecting-the-west-coast_012014

36 Signs The Media Is Lying To You About How Radiation From Fukushima Is Affecting The West Coast

Michael Snyder
The Truth
January 1st, 2014

*** begin quote ***

#4 71 U.S. sailors who assisted with the initial Fukushima relief efforts have developed serious diseases such as testicular cancer, thyroid cancer, Leukemia, “unremitting gynecological bleeding” and brain tumors since that time as a result of exposure to radiation coming from Fukushima.

*** end quote ***

Where is the media?

Where are the liberals?

Where are the astro-turf anti-nuke people?

It just demonstrates the crony capitalist big Gooferment bias!

# – # – # – # – #   

One Response to VETERANS: Service people are expendable

  1. One of the things I’ve learned well in researching the lies behind the smoking bans is to look critically at statistics whenever they’re being used to promote a political point of view. While it very well COULD be that there’s a real Fukushima effect here, it’s possible that it’s either a lot smaller (or even nonexistent) than this story makes it appear. Consider the following:

    This report says 71, but another said there were fifty, and a third said “at least half of the 70-plus sailors have some form of cancer” which is 35.

    According to this: http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nimitz/ the carrier has slightly over 6,000 crew, so that’s about 1/2 of 1% of the crew reporting some form of cancer over a period of two years. I don’t know if 1/2 of 1% for all types of cancers, new and possibly pre-existing, in two years is really that unusual, even given that most of the population is under 50. A certain proportion of those cancers are probably ones that might normally not be detected in that population because they’d still be symptomless and undiagnosed (e.g. early prostate/breast/thyroid types of cancer) but were investigated because of heightened concerns after the mission.

    Also I noticed the statement about radiation levels being 300 times the “safe” level. I’d have to know more about what the details were, *BUT* I would suspect, that in normal behavior of any group pushing a story like this, they’d use the same trick the Antismokers use all the time: confuse “peak level” measurements with EPA-type average “safe” estimates for 24 hours or 365 days. That’s a VERY important confusion. I talk about it in TpbakkoNacht like this:

    ====
    Another trick favored and featured by antismoking researchers in this area is similar to the one used in the outdoor smoke studies: focusing on the momentary conditions of what they call “peak concen­trations” (i.e., the “microplumes” mentioned a little earlier), while deliberately confusing those exposures with ones that last continuously over 24-hour or 365-day EPA guideline periods.

    Think back to the last time you were in a car or a social situa­tion with a smoker sitting right next to you. Occasionally, the air will waft the wrong way and, for a moment, a concentrated plume of smoke will blow right into your face (or into a researcher’s “sniffer monitor”) from the burning tip of the cigarette. It doesn’t happen often in a moving car with the windows cracked even moderately open, but even then, such moments occasionally exist.

    That is what is meant when researchers cite figures for peak concentrations. Such figures are completely meaningless when com­pared with the EPA outdoor air standards for contaminants inhaled and exhaled with every breath, for 24 hours a day / 365 days a year, but that is exactly the comparison Antismokers make when presenting these “smoking in cars pollution studies” to the public. For individual tiny discrete moments, the air quality in a particular few cubic centimeters of space in these cars could indeed be far worse than the EPA’s level for 24-hour constant and inescapable exposure. Actually, if that were all the air one had to breathe, it’s unlikely even the hardiest adult would survive for a single hour. But in terms of a moment of exposure, it’s kind of like having a cup of coffee at 160 degrees[1] and taking a tiny little sip from it – you’ll enjoy it and your health won’t be damaged at all. But if I immersed you in a cannibal’s kettle at 160 degrees for 24 hours, you’d be soup. Heck, you’d be deader than a hard-boiled egg in 24 minutes!! That’s why you should ignore the “peak readings” in stories about studies like these: they’re nothing but a propaganda tool used to frighten innocent people.

    The EPA itself – even though it doesn’t issue press releases warning about it – is actually quite aware of the danger of this sort of misuse of their data and cautions against it in their official documents. In their guidelines for the proper scientific interpretation and public use of their data, they explicitly warn against taking data for any period of less than 24 hours and applying the 24-hour standards to such findings.[i] While Antismokers will speak of those guidelines when referring to findings covering periods of a few hours, minutes, or even seconds, the EPA’s strict rule of application calls for observations shorter than 24 hours to be averaged out over full 24-hour periods with unmeasured periods set to a pollution level of zero for meaningful comparisons to their health standards.

    Such a strict application is clearly not reasonable in extreme situ­ations – e.g., with our cannibal kettle or cup of java, or in a garage with a very high carbon monoxide reading for twenty minutes – but the EPA’s warning is clearly meant to prevent precisely the kind of wanton abuse that is so often employed in antismoking arguments regarding briefer exposures outdoors, in cars, or even during an eight-hour workday. That warning has been consistently, blatantly, and deliber­ately ignored by antismoking advocates in their quest to terrify the nonsmoking public and increase support for smoking bans.

    [1] Actually somewhat cooler than the service industry standard of about 180 degrees Fahrenheit.
    [i] http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/pmfinal.pdf, p. 42/47.
    ===

    Soooo… as you can see, while the story MAY be true in its technical details (what I call “accuracy” in Brains and TN), it may NOT be true in terms of actual truth — which is a very different concept. It’s the sort of thing like where a rich politician says he gives regularly as much as he feels he can afford to organized charity and the homeless…. and then fulfills that promise by dropping a penny each year into a Salvation Army bucket and then throwing another one at a guy sleeping on a vent.

    In the carrier case of course you also have the money motivation: any sailor with ANY chance of a claim is certainly going to be encouraged to sign onto a lawsuit against a big rich Japanese company. And the big problem there is exactly what we’ve seen here in the US with malpractice medical lawsuits: when you have enough people suing for big enough winnings then the basic product price climbs astronomically.

    LOL! Soooo… those are my preliminary thoughts on the Aircraft Carrier. More than you ever wanted, eh?

    :>
    MJM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,032 other followers

%d bloggers like this: