Let's examinie the credibility of Arnie Gunderson AKA #1 Fukushima Fear Monger

Each passing day I believe more and more that Fukushima has been blown waaaay out of porportion. It's not denial, it's deductive reasoning. This is the only place other than bias anti nuke activists where the fear mongering continues.

If this is fear mongring, then the Japanese themselves would be the worst fear mongers. They will shutdown the last of their 55 reactors on May 5th 2012. Would they give up ALL of their nuclear power production out of "fear mongering"? Of course not, they are in a state of natural, justified and very understandable FEAR! Because their situation deserves to be FEARED!

OP, I suspect much more your motives for doubting Arnie Gunderson.

True

That's a good article 100% the truth

How is anything 100% truth?

He is not Mr. Knowitall but he is the best
of the Anti-Nuclear Circus!

His "Fear-Mongering" is justified because
of the danger of Nuclear Plants!

For me he is one of the few i trust a bit.

He made already a few Mistakes in F'Shima
but everyone done so, there is No-0ne who is
free of Misinterpretations!

What are your qualifications to be determining whether it's true or not?

They said the same thing about Chernobyl, and it's not even over yet, and the outcome is much worse then what was expected, and so will be Fukushima.

Collection of statements by Arnie Gundersen, and debunks
[link to nuclearpoweryesplease.org]

The guy who wrote the article is a Global Warming Holocaust Believer and professional fearmonger for the nuclear power industry.

Human society is changing climate & ocean chemistry – what do we DO about it?

Rod Adams · May 3, 2012 ·

There was a scene in the ABC documentary titled I Can Convince You About … Climate” that featured Bjorn Lomborg, the self proclaimed “Skeptical Environmentalist”. Lomborg acknowledges that human activity is causing the climate to change due to changing atmospheric chemistry, but he thinks that the proposed solutions are either too expensive, not effective, or require giving up too many of the benefits of our fossil fuel-powered industrial society. He believes that we have some time to do better and thinks that a $100 billion per year world wide research and development program will lead to cheaper and better solutions in 20 – 40 years.

[link to atomicinsights.com]

If you'll do a search you can see that some of us having been calling Fukushima a media psyop from day one.

Fukushima is bad. Not Cherbobyl bad, but close... Bottom line is we ARE playing woth fire when it comes to nuclear energy. Hopefully we learn from Fuku because another disaster is inevidable... But Fuku wont kill us all. It wont even kill most of Japan...

It wont even kill most of Japan...

So tell us about your qualifications to be making these statements, OP.

Average Joe bystander with common sense. Don't take my word for it though. Wait 5 or 10yrs and you'll see. Fuku will kill 2 million between now and then. That is still a very frightening and sad outcome. Far from ELE

Oh no! Transparent nuclear lobbiests hated him even BEFORE Fukushima?

You mean he's not just a Johnny-come-lately but truly is what he says, a long-time advocate for much higher nuclear safety standards, especially in his home state, Vermont?

SCANDAL!

/sarcasm.

OP you are entitled to believe what you want to believe what you want about Fukushima. If you're really thinking about it and you've come to that conclusion - I'll agree with you, it's not denial as it is for most people.

Understand that some of us have a very different conclusion about it after careful consideration, and we are not all "fearmongers." One place we may differ, you and I, is that I always look up the background of whoever is expressing an opinion on Fukushima, and if they are paid by the nuclear industry, that's information to me. Another place is that I always, always, ALWAYS thoroughly investigate any claims... from "fallout is just like bananas" to "fuel fleas have a known human lethality rate of 1/1000 or higher" to...whatever. I investigate it until I get to understand how much of that claim is really truth and how much is not. This is not something easily simplified and takes me HOURS. In any case, I think it's worthwhile because I think this is very important stuff to know.

So we disagree - But as long as you have an open mind, ear, and eye, to goings-on, who could ask for more? Perhaps you are right after all. I put those odds lower than my being struck by lightening in the next hour, but, it would be really, really, REALLY nice if it were true.

Anyway, kudos for really giving it a think, even if we disagree.

Whoops. Nix one of the extraneous "believe what you wants" at the beginning of my comment. I wasn't trying to be that...err....philosophically vague.

It should have read,

"you are entitled to believe what you want, OP."

+ 1

So you have no training in either the nuclear or medical fields whatsoever.

Okay.

So how exactly did you come up with this '2 million' number, given your total lack of qualifications in these fields?

[link to www.japanprobe.com]

Gundersen: Move south of equator if Unit 4 fuel pool goes dry — Like cesium from all 800 nuclear bombs ever dropped on Earth, except all at once (VIDEO)


[link to enenews.com]

Isn't he (A. Gundersen) only a Nuclear Engineer
and not an Architect?

How can you believe him but not Tepco who assured
that this will not happen even when we face a EQ
similar to 03/11?

We need more People, not only Arnie!

Why Arnie Gundersen’s Claims on Low Level Radioactive Waste Are Baffling
In order to classify anything as radioactive waste, it takes more than simply triggering a Geiger counter.

However, if someone finds materials that have been irradiated and they're not a licensee, all sorts of different regulations come into play. In the case of Japan, the levels of radiation found beyond Fukushima Prefecture -- and that includes the Tokyo metropolitan area -- are so low that Ralph told me that he can't imagine any criteria that would require the soil there to be disposed of. Furthermore, without seeing the report from the lab that Gundersen used, it would be impossible for any radiation protection professional to completely evaluate his claims.

When you look at it in those terms, it can be easy to see why the fact that the AP reported Gundersen's findings was so alarming. If an actual radiation professional can't properly evaluate Gundersen's statements unless the lab results are available for scrutiny, then how in the world could the reporter who wrote the story?
[link to neinuclearnotes.blogspot.se]

Last Edited by The real and almighty Atom-Boy on 05/04/2012 07:35 AM

Well, that'll be one way of dealing with it, I guess.



After all, it's worked so well with a whole bunch of other stuff so far.

I get signs. As soon as I first heard of the fukushima disaster 2000000 popped in my head

Oh, okay. You get signs.



1,000,000 credibility points for you!

I'm just as credible as Gunderson.

What that article failed to mention is that gundersen sacrificed his brilliant career and lost his job because he reported safety violations by his own employer.

A man who would do that, face years of lawsuits, lose large sums of personal fortune defending himself, lose considerable income and friends and go against the industry he had worked his whole life to be a part of...is very credible.

And you are not, opie.

derp

~
wb

Afaik he got kicked out and needed to work
as a Teacher!

And his Curriculum Vitae is faked too,
at least some parts of it!

Docket No. 50- 423


Gundersen Declaration Dominion MP3 8- 26- 08, Page 2 of 16
3. The Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone has retained me as an expert witness in
the above captioned matter.
4. I have a Bachelor’s and a Master’s Degree in Nuclear Engineering from Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute (RPI) cum laude.
5. I began my career as a reactor operator and instructor at RPI in 1971, progressed to
the position of Senior Vice President for a nuclear licensee, and I am currently an
internationally recognized energy advisor and vetted expert witness on nuclear safety
and engineering issues.
6. I have more than 37- years of professional nuclear engineering experience and nuclear
safety oversight including, but not limited to: nuclear saf ety expert witness testimony;
nuclear engineering management and nuclear engineering management assessment;
prudency assessment; nuclear power plant licensing, licensing and permitting
assessment, and review; nuclear safety assessments, public communicatio ns, contract
administration, assessment and review; systems engineering, structural engineering
assessments, cooling tower operation, cooling tower plumes, nuclear fuel rack design
and manufacturing, nuclear equipment design and manufacturing, in- service
i nspection, criticality analysis, thermohydraulics, radioactive waste processes and
storage issue assessment, decommissioning, waste disposal, source term
reconstructions, thermal discharge assessment, reliability engineering and aging plant
management assessments, archival storage and document control technical patents,
federal and congressional hearing testimony, and employee awareness programs.

[link to fairewinds.org]

^^^^ THIS x 1,000,000