Shock report: Fukushima fish FORTY TIMES less DEADLY than a pint of beer

Today’s desperate search for a Man Bites Dog story takes us to Canada, where the Linear No-Threshold Model allows the writer to do some fanciful sums:

About 800 people worldwide will get cancer from radiation due to Fukushima in fish eaten to date, according to Georgia Straight calculations. […] Half the cancers will be fatal. About 500 will be in Japan; 75 will be due to Japanese fish exports to other countries; and 225 will be from fishing in the Pacific by nations other than Japan.

Let’s get rid of the silly figure of 225 from other nations first – this is most likely (they don’t show their sums) by giving everyone in the world two becquerels per kilo of fish eaten and applying the Linear No-Threshold Model to get the answer.

Now, 500 cancers with 250 fatalities from two and a half years fish-eating for the population of Japan would work out as about 1 death in 1.2 million per year or 0.083 cases per 100,000 population, the usual way these figures are quoted. Looking at a random article from a Google search on booze, 20,000 Americans per year keel over from cancer caused by alcohol, and 35% of them are drinking 1.5 standard measures (around about a pint of beer, for instance) or less. Taking 200 million as the adult population of the USA, we get a risk of about 1 in 28,600, or 3.5 cases per 100,000, or 42 times more deadly for even just the moderate drinkers.

There’s also a number of other flaws in their assumptions such as the distribution of caesium testing points that I’ll leave it up to the reader to discover…

Next they interview scientists and “scientists”, including dear old Arnie Gundersen. :roll: Let’s have a look:

“Apologists say it’s a large ocean”

Heh, that word is catching.

“150,000 more people in Germany would die of cancer each year if all food had radiation at the European Union ceiling”

:facepalm: If we perform the same maths, I wonder how many Germans die from cancer from Brazil nuts and bananas every year?

“All this BS about natural radiation is used as an excuse to expose us to more radiation through their nuclear-industry processes”

I make that six people representing various anti-nuclear bodies, versus one not very articulate (or made to look not very articulate) anti-scaremongerer.

Finally, via Eido, here a doctor speaks about the Fookoofrankenfish risk being, err, one in five million!

Leave a comment ?

84 Comments.

  1. Actually O Reilly is right

    The definition of FOOKOOSHIMAR that impressed gave, and that was more or less endorsed by Ken sounds nice and sensible. Here it is again:

    “The sense I get from it, is not someone who denies that anything you have said, but someone who takes facts they don’t understand along with the ramblings of a few unqualified oddballs whose livelihood depends on the anti-nuclear money, mix it with a bit of scary-sounding language and turn it from “there has been a terrible disaster at a badly-run nuclear power plant in Japan, which is causing massive hardship for the local population, there could be some long term health effects and cleaning this up is going to be a difficult and costly nightmare” to a smug “you’re all going to die; Tokyo is IRRADIATED; all the children have thyroid cancer;”

    But in practice you guys haven’t been using FOOKOOSHIMAR like this, but basically put the label on anyone/any article that was even so slightly critical of nuclear power. What you want is not fact-based objective reporting, but simply cheerleading for nuclear power. Hell, even the article about Fukushima mostly being a PR problem right now, not comparable to Chernobyl wasn’t really good enough. It lacked enthusiasm. :roll: For articles that then not only lack enthusiasm, but must have been sponsored by the all powerful anti-nuclear lobby then you have a nice 3 step program:

    1: Show how ridiculous the article is. A few selected lines commented, some of the arguments good, some not so much, but then step 1 isn’t really the important step.

    The heart of the program is step 2:
    Discredit the author, sources etc. That’s so important Ken even felt the need to do it in the Brian Victoria piece, where it wasn’t needed, the guy did a good enough job with the “radiation sickness student”. That’s FOOKOOSHIMAR yes…
    Discrediting the author then: substep a, is it Gundersen or Caldicott or something like that,then already discredited. (not sure why, don’t really know them, but according to you guys it’s a no no to be them) Substep b: Link the auther or sources to them. In any way. They could have agreed with them that Pepsi is better than Coke (a position I fully support and whoever disagrees is a moron) and nothing else, doesn’t matter, linked to those 2, out. Substep c: Link them to the “anti nuclear movement”. Substep d: Show that they haven’t written extensively enough about radiation. And then everybody is discredited. c and d get most everyone, after all if you’ve written about nuclear energy and you’re critical of it, you’ll very likely be put in the “anti nuclear movement”, if you haven’t written much, well d) covers you.
    Basically impossible to survive this devilish step 2.

    Step 3 then is only needed if something happens in Fukushima. Another fuckup like the 100, no 1800, 2200 thing. Then the answer is: TEPCO, it’s all TEPCO. Implying that if it wasn’t for TEPCO nothing would have happened in the first place and if, then it would be all ok now. Which it is anyway, if TEPCO stops creating problems….
    About the Tepco bit: A Jeff Kingston article covered that pretty well. Acording to him TEPCO was regarded as the poster child before Fukushima… I would have suspected just like all others, but.. Point against Kingston’s assessment is that the Onagawa plant survived the quake and tsunami well. Fukushima didn’t. But after the initial fuck up (with help from the predecessor of the NRA (which is a completely different thing now of course, see Kingston again for an other viewpoint)… what exactly do we expect of TEPCO. A bit more than uncalibrated instruments after more than 2 years, yes, but the challenges are huge. Keep everything cool, reinforce everything, you don’t want another earthquake and not be prepared, store the contaminated water somewhere, sometimes in the far future get the spent rods out of the pools, find the cores somewhere, maybe a classified in metropolis can help, then recover those cores. Let’s not pretend that nothing can happen. Which you don’t when asked, but do whenever there is a non cheerleading article. There will be fuckups like the water leaks again. And again. And again. Hopefully nothing more serious than those water leaks. And while there is no need to be enthusiastic about water leaks, it’s not really a huge problem either as far as I know. Don’t drink it. And fuckups will happen under anybodies watch, too easy to just yell TEPCO.

    So… O Reilly IMO is right, the way you have been using FOOKOOSHIMAR is basically just a discussion killer. Ok if I got it right the site isn’t really for discussions, more a “destructive” anti Debito side. Which isn’t really necessary since he discredits himself with each new article, if he makes a sensible point he then compensates it with 500 idiocies.. But yeah, can be fun. Don’t even mean “destructive” that negatively, I like being destructive too, just that more serious topics like Fukushima maybe would deserve a bit more than debitos delusions of greatness.

    ReplyReply
  2. It’s a lot simpler than that. A Fookooshimar uses bullshit to spout bullshit because they either hate nuclear power (most of them) or hate Japan and enjoy having another excuse to tilt at the windmill that is Japan Inc. (the Debito fans)

    ReplyReply
  3. @Kenico:

    “Fookooshimar” is not a discussion killer as you’ve described it. It’s a word used to set the parameters of a debate that veers away from reality all too often. The principles are simple:

    1. Use good sources.
    2. Be honest about the limits of your own understanding.

    Is this unreasonable?

    Think on this: since near the beginning of this crisis, people like me following these simple parameters, have been quite consistently saying that – as far as we understand – the health effects of Fukushima are going to be very small if detectable at all. And that is what is now, slowly, slowly, being accepted by all the talking heads. That’s not because we guessed lucky; it’s because we cut the bullshit merchants out of our thinking and followed good sources. If I was going to be wrong, it was because the best experts were going to be wrong.

    I think you’ve misunderstood the problem with your apparently favoured sources. The main issue is credentials: why should I listen to these people in this article? Do you have a better set of criteria for judging expertise in a subject you know little about than someone’s education and training, publications, and reception in the wider research community, Kenico?

    I don’t reject people because they’re anti-nuclear. There are pro-nuclear talking heads I also won’t cite because they fail this test. I recognise that I am not an expert, and have to rely on objective criteria. Do you try to so this? I don’t think you do, and that is one sign of a Fookooshimar.

    Part of the problem is that by claiming few can pass my criteria for expertise, you effectively claim that very few people in the world publish regularly in respectable journals on radiation and health at a professional and research level. I’ve no idea where you got this idea from. There are loads. It’s a whole field. You’ve ended up engaging in the fantasy that the cranks out forward: that mainstream science is a conspiracy against the common people, and that certain science is suppressed.

    It’s tedious, but checking credentials does involve getting a bit familiar with the field, with search tools like Google scholar and PubMed, and with how to assess journals. However, I’m sure in other situations you’d agree that it’s important to do this because it can be so easy for people to fake credentials: look at the blooming industry of alternative medicine supported by people with Internet-ordered doctorates, or climate change deniers who operate “think tank” fronts for their activities.

    You complain about guilt by association – by which you refer to my noting with whom and where your apparently favoured experts get published. This is the second part of credential-checking: if the person does not look like a straightforward bona fide expert, then why are they in the newspaper? Where have they come from? It then becomes relevant if they have burnished their star by working with people who are known to be cranks, and with organisations known to promote bad science. It becomes relevant if they earn their income from having a certain point of view.

    To be honest, I’m suspicious of your claim not to know who Caldicott and Gundersen are, but the problem with them is categorically not that they are anti-nuclear, but that they say things which are false on a regular basis. Busby too: and he’s also been caught fixing data. And they all earn money by doing it. In the absence of any other information about someone, their associating with these people is a reasonable ground for thinking them suspect.

    Put it like this: how would you feel about a doctor who claims to be a cancer specialist but whose writings on cancer mainly appear in the British Journal of Homeopathy? Would you want your child’s health looked after by a doctor who champions the disgraced former doctor Andrew Wakefield? Would you want advice on diabetes from the editor of Crystal Healing Monthly? Would you want a scientologist as your psychiatrist?

    Logically, these associations don’t mean the person is necessarily wrong, but you’d be justified in giving them wide berth in the absence of evidence that they’re a genuine expert.

    Ultimately here’s the thing you’ve yet to realise: pretty much all the anti-nuclear experts in the media are from a few tight groups of activists with good media contacts posing as experts. Journalists go to them to get the soundbites they want to fit the story they’ve already written. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that headline-seeking journalists are really objective and diligent when they report on science?

    As for being honest about the limits of your own understanding and knowledge: this is what underpins the complaint about people throwing around large scary numbers. What was all that stuff you wrote about the numbers? About the drinking water safety limits? Do you have no interest in finding out what the numbers actually mean for health? Isn’t that at all important to you? As it stands, what you wrote makes it sound like you think a lot of people are going to die because of the leaks. Do you believe that, or was it an exercise in impressionistic fear?

    All I ask for is an honest commitment to find the truth. You, and others who come to this site to shout at us, don’t seem capable of making that commitment. It’s the behaviour of people like J O’Reilly – who cannot even enter into a civil discussion about what counts as evidence – that make me feel that I’m probably making the right, honest choices here.

    ReplyReply
  4. @Digdug:

    That too. :cool:

    ReplyReply
  5. Fukushimaar! I get it!
    But what do you call a dozen long time foreign residents who are bitter, angry, petty, paranoid, and stuck living in a country whose laws relegate them to second class citizens. They are unable to leave because they lack the social skills needed to succeed in their home countries, and as a result, they delude themselves into thinking they live in a Utopia that can do no wrong?

    ReplyReply
  6. @Arnold Picker: I’m pretty sure the folk around here don’t live in the US. I could be wrong though… :shock:

    ReplyReply
  7. @KT88 – ah, I forgot the other lovely quality of the japologist apologist; typical cynical Brits who have a curious hatred for anything American. (strange, since Brits are the one group in Japan who complain about how much they hate their country and never want to return)

    ReplyReply
  8. @Arnold Picker:

    Let’s put aside your compulsive desire to fantasise about the careers and qualifications of people who commit the egregious criminal offence of having a different opinion to you, could you give a few concrete examples of how you’re treated like a slave or a second-class citizen because of your ethnicity or nationality?

    ReplyReply
  9. By the way, quite apart from friends, I rather like a lot of American things. Their TV has become brilliant recently. And while I don’t want to return to the UK (I have a happy family life and a career I enjoy here) I enjoy my trips back.

    ReplyReply
  10. @VK:
    And perhaps more importantly, how the official treatment of non-citizens in Japan differs significantly from the official treatment of non-citizens in the US or other nations?

    ReplyReply
  11. @VK:
    @VK wow, through gritted teeth, I’m sure, you admit to liking “some” American TV, and posibly some American friends (which I doubt very much).

    Guess I was totally off base on that one, eh!

    ReplyReply
  12. @Arnold Picker: VK asked you a question Arnold. No intention of answering or are you just going to continue your weak trolling?

    ReplyReply
  13. @Arnold Picker:

    Arnold, has it ever occurred to you that people in Japan have been treating you badly not because of the colour of your skin but because of the content of your character?

    ReplyReply
  14. @Arnold Picker:

    But what do you call a dozen long time foreign residents who are bitter, angry, petty, paranoid, and stuck living in a country whose laws relegate them to second class citizens.

    debito fans.

    Next question!

    ReplyReply
  15. 1. Use good sources.
    2. Be honest about the limits of your own understanding.

    Is this unreasonable?

    No, but incomplete

    3. Be aware of your own bias
    4. Make an effort to understand the thought process of the others involved in a discussion

    Is that unreasonable?

    I think you’ve misunderstood the problem with your apparently favoured sources.

    Who are my apparently favoured sources?


    I don’t reject people because they’re anti-nuclear. There are pro-nuclear talking heads I also won’t cite because they fail this test. I recognise that I am not an expert, and have to rely on objective criteria. Do you try to so this? I don’t think you do, and that is one sign of a Fookooshimar.

    Ok, let’s see then. Can you help me with an example of an anti-nuclear activist/scientist that you think is reliable?

    Part of the problem is that by claiming few can pass my criteria for expertise, you effectively claim that very few people in the world publish regularly in respectable journals on radiation and health at a professional and research level. I’ve no idea where you got this idea from. There are loads. It’s a whole field. You’ve ended up engaging in the fantasy that the cranks out forward: that mainstream science is a conspiracy against the common people, and that certain science is suppressed.

    Ok, so you’ve indirectly called me a Fookooshimar, a crank now, anything else you’d like to get off the chest?

    To be honest, I’m suspicious of your claim not to know who Caldicott and Gundersen are, but the problem with them is categorically not that they are anti-nuclear, but that they say things which are false on a regular basis. Busby too: and he’s also been caught fixing data. And they all earn money by doing it. In the absence of any other information about someone, their associating with these people is a reasonable ground for thinking them suspect.

    Didn’t know who Caldicott (wasn’t sure about the spelling mostly when I wrote the last post) and Gundersen were before starting to read here, which isn’t that long ago.. Googled them since then, but I’m certainly not a specialist on either of them. Busby… never heard of him, if it’s necessary that I know him tell me.

    It’s tedious, but checking credentials does involve getting a bit familiar with the field, with search tools like Google scholar and PubMed, and with how to assess journals. However, I’m sure in other situations you’d agree that it’s important to do this because it can be so easy for people to fake credentials

    All nice and good and it seems you do invest a lot of time in checking those credentials. Which of course isn’t a bad thing. But the point is: Wouldn’t it be more effective, easier, and in the end honest to actually check what they say and show they are wrong there? Ah, nice forum signature I read a while ago “Il ne faut jamais juger quelqu’un sur leur fréquentation, Judas avait des amis irréprochable” Something like: Never judge people by their acquaintances, Judas had irreproachable friends… Anyway, some disproving of “points/arguments” is going on here, but IMO not enough. Focus more on the actual science, less the persons. And actually the whole FOOKOOSHIMAR really has played out it’s usefulness by now. It’s a label used to dismiss arguments, opinions without having to actually say why. You of course were the worst person to answer to my post… since you actually often DO research and thus argue why somebody is a Fookooshimar, so the complaint applies less (if at all to you) while the rest mostly seems to be happy with just yelling FOOKOOSHIMAR. The result is: Somebody writes something that doesn’t sound convincing, his connections are fishy? = FOOKOOSHIMAR. Which shouldn’t be the case. Disprove their points, if that’s too complicated in a specific case, doubt him, don’t accept his theory/point/argument without a more reliable source, sure. But he’s not automatically a Fookoshimar. A label that as I said is thrown around way too much. Ah, like the 6 guys in the JT Have your say thing: The big boss here wrote something like “4 tending dangerously to Fookooshimar.” Can somebody tell me which 4 and why they qualify as “almost Fookooshimars”?

    Ultimately here’s the thing you’ve yet to realise: pretty much all the anti-nuclear experts in the media are from a few tight groups of activists with good media contacts posing as experts. Journalists go to them to get the soundbites they want to fit the story they’ve already written. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that headline-seeking journalists are really objective and diligent when they report on science?

    You’re correct on the assumption that I fail to realize that. My turn to call you a crank. “A conspiracy by anti nuclear activists (who do it for money) and the media to distort the truth” The tea party tactic, the climate change denier tactic, you really really want to be associated with those groups?

    As for being honest about the limits of your own understanding and knowledge: this is what underpins the complaint about people throwing around large scary numbers. What was all that stuff you wrote about the numbers?

    Not sure which numbers you are referring to. 100 to 1800 to 2200? What was your problem or concern with that?

    About the drinking water safety limits?
    I didn’t talk about drinking water safety limits, sorry.
    Do you have no interest in finding out what the numbers actually mean for health?
    Pay attention please..that’s what I ask YOU (as this site) to do, instead of relying on a label and on the messenger. Find out what the numbers mean, disprove or prove the numbers, not on “step 2”
    Isn’t that at all important to you?
    What, health? Not really, otherwise I wouldn’t smoke.
    As it stands, what you wrote makes it sound like you think a lot of people are going to die because of the leaks.
    Can you point me to the passages in my post that make you believe that?
    Do you believe that, or was it an exercise in impressionistic fear?
    Don’t drink the water was sound advice I thought. Since I wasn’t writing about Perrier or San Benedetto, Evian or Gerolsteiner, Nongfu Spring or Suntory Mineral water, tapwater from Osaka or from Tokyo, but about the WATER LEAKS at Fukushima, I thought it was clear that my advice was not to drink the water from the water leaks in Fukushima. I simply assumed it wasn’t a healthy thing to do. No checking of what scientists say about it, maybe I was too fast in issuing said advice. If I’m wrong, tell me, I’ll happily retract my advice.

    All I ask for is an honest commitment to find the truth. You, and others who come to this site to shout at us, don’t seem capable of making that commitment.

    Thanks for the endorsement.
    Again, can you point me to
    -where I shout
    -where I lead you to believe that I’m not capable of making that commitment.

    ReplyReply
  16. @Arnold Picker: Indeed, I suppose I could have easily substituted France or Germany as contemporary immigrant nations in which extra-nationals are treated like “second class citizens”. I was to quick on the trigger…

    Well, since the only valid criticisms are those made by those interlopers from the Anglosphere in the land of the Japonaise about the Japonaise, let’s get to it gents!

    I hate Japan. AMEN!
    Japanese are bad, mmkay? Hurrah!
    Japan is a police state! Tell it lark it iz!
    Right are on the rise! Woah!
    Japanese are a unified single mind! That’s right!
    Incompetence, corruption and scandal are unique Japanese properties woven into the very fabric of Japanese culture, as unique as the four seasons! You know it’s true.

    Wow, I feel so much better. Like one of those turds that after wiping the paper comes away clean.

    Huh? Oh no you didn’t! I would never use a Washlet! That Chrysanthemum trash is a fascist plot to take away “our” right to illegally dodge tax, not pay into the pension etc.

    Ha! Take that Japan and take that apologists.

    Can I join the cool kids club now?

    ReplyReply
  17. Picker: “But what do you call a dozen long time foreign residents who are bitter, angry, petty, paranoid”

    Debito.org?

    “living in a country whose laws relegate them to second class citizens”.

    You misunderstand. Except for Eido Inoue, nobody who posts here is a citizen AFAIK. We are residents or immigrants. Second-class residents? I am treated well and live well, better than most Japanese in fact. I own a house, land, and have a business.I get full health access, a pension, all municipal services. I could go on indefinitely.
    YMMV- which says more about you than anything else.

    “they lack the social skills needed to succeed in their home countries”

    Well this is a new one. I thought the standard whiner’s rationalization was to blame their cross-cultural ineptitude on The (Japanese) Man (although we all secretly know that the real cause is the combination of their own intercultural awkwardness and odious personal hubris based upon a sense of entitlement).
    But for AP, an inability to fit in in Japan is re-cast as a virtue, since apparently those of us who manage to integrate here due to our cross-cultural competency must be able to do so because we are lacking integrative skills in our birth countries. Go figure.

    “who have a curious hatred for anything American”

    Oh yes, America the ultimate civic role model for the rest of the world, where all citizens and residents live equally under the law. You know, the country with the greatest degree of income disparity among advanced nations, stratified and ghettoized, where people of certain ethnicities have much less access to health care, education, legal aid (check the number of incarcerated citizens by ethnicity or social status), security, and generally work in jobs where they serve the favoured people. The land where a George Zimmerman case pops up with alarming regularity, the home of draconian Homeland Security and NSA spying (BTW- have you run the immigration gauntlet as a non U.S. citizen visiting the U.S. recently?).

    Give me resident’s status in Japan over your vaunted U.S. citizenship once with each meal and twice at dinner.

    But yes, your civics textbooks inform you that in America the populace are truly citizens, whereas in other countries they are merely ‘subjects’. And your ilk, egged on by radio show hosts and gun lobbyists, buy this hook, line, and sinker then parrot the same type of tripe when abroad.

    “thinking they live in a Utopia that can do no wrong?”

    Why do you hate Japanese children?

    ReplyReply
  18. @Kenico:

    To be clear: you didn’t know anything about three very well-known actors in the anti-nuclear movement in Gundersen, Busby or Caldicott. You also are, by your own inadvertent admission, unfamiliar with the extent of mainstream research in radiation and health (…”Show that they haven’t written extensively enough about radiation. And then everybody is discredited.”) Yet you still thought you knew enough to criticise people? You just presumed what I said was unjustified?

    You see that thing you said about bias? Apply it to yourself first. Either that, or, as I said above, be careful about how much you actually know. Be honest with yourself. Don’t bluster.

    I’m even more surprised than with Gundersen that you’ve never heard of Busby. He was the one marketing useless mineral supplements to children in Fukushima as radiation protection. At four times the market price.

    You’re also complaining that we’re not interested in the water issue and what these numbers mean. I’m afraid you’re wrong again. It hasn’t been dealt with in this particular thread, but for example here Ken gives a rough and ready explanation of the geographic extent of the danger of that 2200 mSv/hour reading, which can be measured in centimetres. If you’re genuinely interested in how very high readings have a limited effect, read about the inverse square rule and about the three different types of ionising radiation and how far they travel. This is not the only thread we’ve had on Fukushima.

    As for dealing with experts, you say something which gets to the heart of why it’s important to know the limits of your understanding:

    “it seems you do invest a lot of time in checking those credentials. Which of course isn’t a bad thing. But the point is: Wouldn’t it be more effective, easier, and in the end honest to actually check what they say and show they are wrong there?”

    Hey, do you have a degree in Radiology? Nuclear physics? Nuclear medicine? Nope? Me neither. And that’s the point. Unless the errors made are very simple (which is not unheard of, mind you), I am not in a position to judge the merits of someone’s scientific work. So who is in such a position? Simple: people who do have all these degrees, and work and publish as professional scientists – the gatekeepers for good publications, good university positions and good reputations. It’s possible to fake a good track record on the surface, so it does take time to confirm for sure that someone is probably not reliable. On the other hand, showing that someone is probably reliable on the science in question is usually a very quick process, as it’ll be easy to find their CVs and lists of publications, including how much they are cited by others.

    This leads to the rather dubious question you ask:

    Can you help me with an example of an anti-nuclear activist/scientist that you think is reliable?

    No, I can’t. I really can’t. I have looked. At first I was astonished at this, but now, to be honest, I expect it. I was also astonished at how the same few names kept cropping up either directly or at one direct remove as “experts”. Now it’s kind of a hobby finding out their connections.

    The question is dubious because it suggests objectivity is the same as balance. That I can’t think of anyone reliable in the area who is also an anti-nuclear activist may in your eyes be evidence of my bias. For me, it’s evidence that the anti-nuclear movement has a serious reality problem.

    Finally, you said:

    I thought it was clear that my advice was not to drink the water from the water leaks in Fukushima

    You took all those words just to say that? :roll: Remind me, as I seem to have mislaid the comment: who here is suggesting that anyone drinks untreated water directly from the cooling system of a nuclear power plant? You want to know why I don’t think you can make a commitment to finding the truth?

    ReplyReply
  19. As a follow-up to my (as yet unanswered) question to Mr. Picker, how would you say Japan measures up to the UK, where apparently even the citizens are treated as second-class citizens.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/antiracism-campaigner-and-immigration-caseworker-sent-go-home-text-messages-by-home-office-8886200.html

    ReplyReply
  20. @Sublight – Arnold Picker here. I could give two shits about how the UK treats its citizens or how VK curiously thinks George Zimmerman is the flash point for all of America’s racial evils (Hey VK- I’m not even American!)I don’t live in the UK or US.

    I’m simply pointing out the glaring problems Japan presents with no laws against racial discrimination and labour laws that would make Goebbles proud.

    This is no secret. Anyone that has lived here for more than 5 minutes recognizes the problem.
    God forbid a “furringer” ( see “Fukushimaar”)should start to ask for a few human rights accorded in other 1st world countries which Japan so desperately wants to be a part of.

    I reiterate. You are a house negro. You probably have no way out of the country. You are a sad and lonely person.

    ReplyReply
  21. @Arnold Picker:

    Could you give an example of human rights that you are being denied?

    Oh, a couple of points: Goebbels was a propaganda minister. What does he have to do with labour law? And it’s “I couldn’t care less.” “Could” (which doesn’t make literal sense) is used by people who parrot things without thinking. Like people who use the word “irregardless”.

    ReplyReply
  22. @Arnold Picker:

    You also haven’t explained why you say “house negro” and not “house slave”, given that you’re referring to the phenomenon and not to Malcolm X’s speech.

    These questions to you are really starting to back up here. You really ought to think of answering them.

    ReplyReply
  23. “living in a country whose laws relegate them to second class citizens”.

    Though technically it is true for the typical debito fan

    A visa as “specialist in humanities”, you know, the visa given to people with a college degree but no actual valuable skills, does usually limit them to second class status as English teachers at Baby-Go-Boom-Boom-Happy-Land-Lucky-School!(TM)

    So you can see how they feel the system is against them and their useless non-skills.

    ReplyReply
  24. @Digdug:

    I really don’t like job snobbery. Some people have genuinely happy lives here doing the formally unskilled teaching gigs. Some of them get a kick out of being really good at it. They see it as a decent way of getting money to support doing other things – just like an awful lot of people in any country: work is there to support a lifestyle; it’s not a mission.

    Instead, Arnold’s problem appears to be chronic culture shock. He seems not very good at living abroad. For me the comedy is that whenever one asks for examples of racism, he doesn’t answer. ffs, there is racism in Japan, but it’s not directed at Arnold. Instead, he suffers ill treatment because he’s a nob end.

    The really interesting question is whether he’d get more abuse back in his own country for being an unpleasant racist twat, or here.

    ReplyReply
  25. The Chrysanthemum Sniffer

    “Could you give an example of human rights that you are being denied?”

    Well, I heard about this guy who tried to get into an onsen once….

    ReplyReply
  26. @The Chrysanthemum Sniffer:

    Yes, it’s a savage indictment of Japan that the court in the Otaru case refused point blank to recognise a case of racial discrimination, let alone offer any compensation.

    Er….

    Hold on….

    :shock:

    ReplyReply
  27. @Arnold Picker: The important point being: if one is treated like a second-class citizen in Japan, then in which countries would one not be treated as a second-class citizen, and why?

    ReplyReply
  28. @sublight: Pfft. You just don’t get it, man! It’s like discrimination. Residents don’t get the same rights as (naturalised) citizens. Ahma tellin’ ya, it’s a Japanese conspiracy to enslave tha wu-horld!

    ReplyReply
  29. The Chrysanthemum Sniffer

    OK, so let’s test the theory being presented here. VK, Ken, what’s wrong with this piece?

    http://www.japanfocus.org/-Adam-Broinowski/4009

    ReplyReply
  30. The Georgia Straight is just a free weekly found in bars and shops around Vancouver. It’s filled with band listings, bar reviews, personals etc.. No one in their right mind would pick a copy of TGS up and take an article on Fukushima seriously any more than we would with an article about Fukushima in Metropolis or Kansai scene. The article was just some padding. Most likely people would skip over it straight to the movie listings or whatever. Shame you wasted so much time on it.

    ReplyReply
  31. Ken on the phone

    @The Chrysanthemum Sniffer: I saw that earlier but haven’t had time to do it. It’s possibly the worst Japan focus article I’ve seen, with a number of so inaccurate facts that I can only imagine they were deliberately inserted to mislead.

    ReplyReply
  32. @The Chrysanthemum Sniffer:

    Truly dreadful. The sourcing is an utter joke. Here’s an example:

    Despite a municipal government campaign to encourage residents to prioritise family, community and the land (the kizuna project), along with staged apologies, promotional drives for Fukushima produce, distribution of free dosimetry meters to potential returnees, decontamination and construction programs, and even miracle cures for cancer,14 the public are also being told to make their own decisions regarding the risks of radiation exposure.

    That footnote 14 is a link to how a medical centre in Chiba has bought up Israeli technology for dealing with breast and possibly lung cancers, which are not the cancers most typically associated with radiation exposure from nuclear accidents. The source makes no mention whatsoever of Fukushima.

    Still, it’s a handy example for our friend Kenico. I had a quick look at the sources for radiation and health, and we have:

    * Snake-oil salesman and data-fiddler Chris Busby several times (including his front group European Committee on Radiation Risk, run out of his own house)
    * A tinfoil hat blog called “SimplyInfo” (fukuleaks.org) on the 40% of Fukushima kids have thyroid nodules compared to 1.6% at Nagasaki meme. It references Fookooshimar film-maker Ian Thomas Ash.
    * Yablokov (All excess deaths as the USSR collapsed were due to Chernobyl).
    * Brian Victoria (friend of Caldicott), the man who thinks a student got radiation sickness in Kyoto, via a tinfoil hatted blog called Savekidsjapan (Is Shinzo Abe a CIA agent???!!eleventy-one)
    * In one footnote alone, Mycle Schneider, Hiroaki Koide, Helen Caldicott and Arnie Gundersen.
    * Conspiracy theory blog globalresearch.ca
    * Medicine, Conflict and Survival, the in-house journal of the international arm of conspiracy theorist Caldicott’s PSR
    * Academic fraudster Anders Pape Moller and his sidekick Tim Mousseau

    as well as several blogs, some of which are run anonymously.

    To be fair, Adam Broinowski does mention proper scientists, but only to dismiss them as overly optimistic based on a series of large-looking numbers that he does not explain the meaning of.

    Adam Broinowski is “an Australian Research Council post-doctoral research fellow at Culture, History and Language, College of Asia and the Pacific, the Australian National University. His book Cultural Responses to Occupation in Japan: The Performing Body during and after the Cold War is forthcoming in 2014.” Does he really think he’s qualified to judge that mainstream scientists are wrong, and barely qualified or unqualified professional activists, several of whom have been caught either cheating, misleading or downright lying in their work, are right?

    If this is his idea of sourcing, who the hell awarded him a PhD?

    ReplyReply
  33. The Chrysanthemum Sniffer

    Look. The guy is as good as a medical doctor. It says it right there. His dissertation was about bodies. Who are you to doubt his exegesis on what people say about radiation in Fukushima, VK?

    ReplyReply

Leave a Comment


NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Trackbacks and Pingbacks: