LeftieBiker wrote:We should be fearing our own inability to deal with macro-scale disasters.
I wouldn't classify Fukishima as a macro scale disaster.
While it's heartening to know that the Fukushima disaster doesn't cross your personal danger threshold, it is bouncing off the ceiling of the highest level of 'nasty' that the nuclear disaster folks track. It's a 7 out of 7 - which is in the same ballpark as Chernobyl. Except that Chernobyl didn't continue to dump millions of tons of contaminated water into the world's largest fisheries for years after it blew the way Fukushima continues to do.
DanCar wrote: As previously stated the radiation levels are barely detectable compared to other sources. On the flip side, fear is good. Only the paranoid survive and will make things safer.
It's easy to make off-angle comments to try to trivialize concerns, isn't it? Keep something in mind, DanCar: While many humans believe they're at the 'top of the food chain' and therefore there will 'always' be plenty for us to eat, we're actually part of a complex food web and our existence relies on the stability of that web. The relatively low but chronic emissions from Japan are negatively affecting the bottom of the web. Climate change, our chemical pollution, radioactive water, and all the other garbage we're choosing to ignore is already negatively impacting the human experience - and it's just getting started.
Denial might provide temporary relief from pangs of conscience, but it will not stop the damage done when the consequences roll in.