Will you temporarily stop purchasing Japanese Greens?

[a.serrao]

Contaminated food "a short term issue - will be disappearing over the next month or two".
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/wo ... &hpt=hp_c2

I don't think is that simple, otherwise why Ukrainian government, after more than 25 years, still prohibits cultivation of edible food in the outskirts of Prypiat, exclusion zone?

[Stentor]

Contaminated food "a short term issue - will be disappearing over the next month or two".
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/wo ... &hpt=hp_c2

I don't think is that simple, otherwise why Ukrainian government, after more than 25 years, still prohibits cultivation of edible food in the outskirts of Prypiat, exclusion zone?

I don't know. I'm just assuming that the director of the radiological research center of a renowned American university knows more about this stuff than any of us.

[AdamMY]

I did state this earlier, but the scope of the effects of the surrounding environment from this is likely to be much different than Chernobyl, each has their own concerns. Part of the problem with Chernobyl was due to the type of reactor it was, and when it ran into problems, the graphite separating the rods caught fire, and the fires launched all sorts of radioactive material into the air, which then fell all over the surrounding area's. This did not happen in Japan to nearly the extent it did with Chernobyl.

What actually concerns me the most about what happened in Japan is the amount of radioactive water that was released into the Pacific ocean. It was addressed slightly in that video.

[a.serrao]

I don't know. I'm just assuming that the director of the radiological research center of a renowned American university knows more about this stuff than any of us.

Obviously he knows more than us.
The point is another though: sometimes people get paid for saying something on tv. It's like conflict of interests. We in Italy have many university professors that advocate the safety of the nuclear energy.
Is nuclear safe?
I don't think. Despite this, they say it is.
I trust only the facts, not something that someone says on tv.
Am I skeptical. Sure I am.
How do americans say: "better safe than sorry"?
I think this is a perfect way of thinking.

Plus the nuclear crisis is far from over. That means more radioactive materials get emitted in the atmosphere as time goes on. The professor in that video doesn't mention the bioaccumulation theory and the fact that radioactive water in the sea evaporates and falls again inland as rain.

[Xell]

I don't know. I'm just assuming that the director of the radiological research center of a renowned American university knows more about this stuff than any of us.

Obviously he knows more than us.
The point is another though: sometimes people get paid for saying something on tv. It's like conflict of interests. We in Italy have many university professors that advocate the safety of the nuclear energy.
Is nuclear safe?
I don't think. Despite this, they say it is.
I trust only the facts, not something that someone says on tv.
Am I skeptical. Sure I am.
How do americans say: "better safe than sorry"?
I think this is a perfect way of thinking.

Plus the nuclear crisis is far from over. That means more radioactive materials get emitted in the atmosphere as time goes on. The professor in that video doesn't mention the bioaccumulation theory and the fact that radioactive water in the sea evaporates and falls again inland as rain.

Nuclear energy is actually a lot cleaner than most current sources, especially compared to fossil burning. What makes nuclear power dangerous, is greedy people. It's same as with people, who are afraid of flying and think cars are a lot more safer. And so far more people died from extraction of fossil fuel, than from nuclear power plants. Check how much people died only during coal mining and those accidents keep on happening. So, about which facts are you speaking about?

Most radioactive particles got in air with steam, when they dropped pressure several times at the beginning. So now there won't be any such big releases anymore. How i understand now biggest concern is getting radioactive particles in ground water.

Radioactive water evaporates? How much radioactivity can evaporated water carry? First of all, to evaporate it needs to be at surface.

Also about radiation, if you believe facts, so far only level of ~100 mSv per year lead to increased cancer risks. And heavy radioactive iodine poisoning can lead to increased risk of thyroid cancer.


p.s.
For now there are hard facts regarding tea, most of Shizuoka teas are safe to drink, but contain small level of radioactive particles. Everything starting from Uji had no increases at all. Everything else is just speculation and creation of panic similar to all those media, i.e. missing common sense.

[Chip]

Well, unfortunately, the governor of Shizuoka certainly did not help matters and certainly created an air of distrust that will not be quieted for at least months or perhaps until next year's harvest. I personally prefer the aracha testing across the board.

This is very unfortunate for the newest wave of victims, including the Tea farmers of Shizuoka.

From another topic today ...

Just opened 2010 organic Warashina Supreme from the O-C. Warashina teas from Shizuoka for 2011 are showing up "hot" and will likely not be seen for at least a year, at least not what we are used to seeing.

Too bad, as they are also an excellent source for organic asamushi.

So, although I will continue to support Japanese tea growers from other prefectures (and just got 4 more shincha), I have decided to not buy 2011 Shizuoka tea for at least 3 months when I will take another look at the situation .., too many smoke and mirrors for now and this saddens me greatly.

[Xell]

Regarding Shizuoka i think it's right and there is base for not buying it. Levels of contamination is different and testing is slow, i would wait too. However i don't see a problem getting something from Uji or other more south regions.

I'm trying not to get food products that were produced near Fukushima too, at least until some time will pass and more information will be available. Since they can't test everything right away and government is really slow with acting

[a.serrao]

Since it's not vital for me drinking japanese green tea, I will not buy any shincha.
Regarding radiation: I think the Fukushima accident is worse than they want us to think. Nuclear power is not cleaner than fossil fuel at all, imho. Where are you going to put the nuclear wastes? There's no place on earth that is safe 100%. Not to mention that still many reactors were engineered to produce byproducts intended to make atomic bombs.
The way to go are renewable sources (solar, hydrogen, wind, biomasses) and REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMES imho.
Nobody seem to care to say: the most important thing is to REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMES.

[lkj23]

radioactive strontium was found today 3 kilometers from the power plant, at the botton of the ocean.

People who likes to know about radiation, I recommended see what greenpeace found with nuclear waste. Better if you see in your language. After minute 2:45

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9RhDs9_ijY

[Xell]

Since it's not vital for me drinking japanese green tea, I will not buy any shincha.
Regarding radiation: I think the Fukushima accident is worse than they want us to think. Nuclear power is not cleaner than fossil fuel at all, imho. Where are you going to put the nuclear wastes? There's no place on earth that is safe 100%. Not to mention that still many reactors were engineered to produce byproducts intended to make atomic bombs.
The way to go are renewable sources (solar, hydrogen, wind, biomasses) and REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMES imho.
Nobody seem to care to say: the most important thing is to REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMES.

With shincha it's already little bit late anyway. For me doesn't really matter will you buy japanese teas or not, what i wonder is reason for this. I.e. what makes some people be so careful with one matter, while not paying attention to many other things or facts. For example tea from Kagoshima, most south tea growing region. What makes you think it can be dangerous? There was zero increase in Uji tea, Kagoshima is ~600km from Uji in a straight line.

For now in most countries there are only two possibilities, fossil fuel and nuclear. Solar, water or wind is possible only in some places and can produce quite little amount expect some rare occasion, where people can build huge dam with big water source. Solar panels are highly toxic and no recycling is done now, everything is being disposed. Hydrogen is not a power source, but a power storage, since you have to spend a lot more energy to produce it.

Regarding nuclear vs fossil. How many oil spills happened in history? Do you believe they cleaned up their mess completely and it didn't reach you in food or water? No one is talking about places, that are completely unusable because of oil in earth, dying nature etc. Or many thousands of dead personnel, who died in different accidents. You don't have to go far back, remember huge oil spill in Mexican bay? How many tons of highly toxic chemicals were dropped in ocean to hide consequences of that spill? Somehow people forgot about that huge incident really fast. Here how it's starting to show up in people http://gulfofmexicooilspillblog.com/201 ... poisoning/ Still believe fossil fuel is cleaner?

I think nuclear power is necessary step until better power source will be found. BUT, one important thing. I really hate, that nuclear power energy is in hands of private companies. Only if government handles it and bears full responsibility will they make all necessary security steps. Now they ignore a lot of security measures to get a bit higher profits.

This conversation is off-topic, but could not resist, really interesting matter


p.s.
Solution to power problems exist already for a while, but probably will be never realized because of many hostile countries that value their independence too much. Global power grid, there is interesting video about it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fVI3BRBC6o

[JBaymore]

Where are you going to put the nuclear wastes? .

Gee... how about dumping them into the AIR of the entire planet like we do with all the byproducts of combustion? THAT'S a great place to soil our own nest. Let's get rid of nuclear and build more coal or oil fired power plants so we won't have to store relatively low volumes of nuclear wastes somewhere .

Radioactive waste is the SAME problem as CO2. It is NO different. It is creating waste junk in support of our lifestyle that can kill us.

CO2 is a BIG issue a the moment... and we are screwing up more of the world with that seemingly innocous gas than all of the nuclear accident stuff combined. Also look at stuff like the mercury spewing out of the coal fired power plants.

We are very good (thanks to the Cold War) at finding and tracking radiation in the environment. We seem to know where minute amounts go with great aclarity. So THAT situation is well documented. But how CO2 is screwing up the world... that we do not understand so well. So we have trouble realizing that it is a signficant problem too.

ALL of our common energy sources are creating crap that is harming the planet and has the potential to harm people. Even the "green" stuff requires manufacturing operations and mining operations and heavy equipment running. All of that kind of stuff that causes damage to the planet. Look at the energy consumed in producing silicon solar cells. Look at the copper mining operation to create huge amounts of wire windings for generators that are hooked to hydro projects. Look at the bulldozers pushing dirt at he hydro dam project. Look at he metals used for the drills and piping to get down to the geothermal sources.

At least we TRY to packge up and keep the radioactive wastes in one place.

The way to go are renewable sources (solar, hydrogen, wind, biomasses) and REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMES imho..

Of COURSE it is. And add hydro and geothermal to that list. But that is not going to be an instant changeover. We've spent a long time perfecting the burning stuff to make power.... and also quite a while figuring out the basics of nuclear. It will take quite a while to figure out the rest to a parctical level.

In the meantime... the world still needs power.

Don't believe me.... voluntarily go turn off everytrhing that runs on any kind of fossil or nuclear fuel in your household for 24 hours. Heat, cooling, lights, computer, TEAPOT, car, and so on. It is OK to build a fire with wood....... but ONLY if that wood was not cut with fossil fueld chain saws nor transported by a fossil fuled vehicle.

The issue for the planet now is not America or Japan or Europe......... it is China and India. They are modernizing and wanting all the wonderful stuff that those of us in the Western world have taken for granted for years. Are you going to tell them 'no"? Even if you do, do you think they will listen? And if we have enjoyed the fruits of polluting the planet to its current state....... who are we to tell someone else that they cannot have those same benefits?

HOPEFULLY they will see the "writing on the wall".... given the perspective we now have....... and invest into the alternative energy sources more than the West has done so far in our development. But there are no guarantees that they will; fossil fuels are easier and faster in the short term. People tend to want things NOW.

Nobody seem to care to say: the most important thing is to REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMES.

That is because it is basically impractical and impossible to have this happen at a level that will have a real impact on the situation. People want to have heat in their homes, be able to travel for work and pleasure, and to have stuff like teas from Japan in America. Or to be able to travel to Japan or China or ?????? to visit or work.

If American and Japan and Europe went on a total efficiency binge today..... it would not offset the increases in energy demands form China and India.


The REAL issue for the planet is that there are already too many people for the plant to support. Many of us back in the 60's were onto this crucuial thought back then...... with the "Zero Population Growth" movement. But that too is not a popular concept...... that a couple should have only 2 kids.

So certainly be smart in whre you buy teas and food.... but don't over-react.

best,

................john

[Chasm]

Others have already covered the point quite well that nuclear power is cleaner and safer than fossil fuels. What particularly blows me away is that people say they don't like radiation, but they don't object to the coal industry, which spreads a lot more radiation over a lot more people than anything to do with nuclear power.

Nobody seem to care to say: the most important thing is to REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMES.

Whom? Yelling about it without specifics just makes it sound like you're probably some kind of bigot (which must certainly be a mistake), since there are some pretty stark racial lines dividing those who use the most per person versus those who use the least. Quite a lot of the world's population needs to use more energy, not less, so at whom in particular are you yelling?

[Chip]

eh hem, did I mention I am still buying Japanese greens ...

[Chasm]

Me too. Can't live without 'em.

[Chip]

Me too. Can't live without 'em.

+1 ... though I guess some might say, "can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em."