[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by acjama

Thanks for the corrections. Some were indeed due to honest misunderstanding (those are better out than in), but some where well-used propaganda technique to take example in the farthest side of the direction the opponent is going and ridiculing that. Oh well, sometimes it works.

If you were referring to my response... I don`t think that I was using any sort of propaganda. If you, any family or friends is one of those extra terminal illnesses... All the figures in the world aren`t going to make you feel any better.
The point I was trying to make is that the raised risk for the amounts that people are being exposed to in Fukushima are very hard to prove as increasing risk. The studies for those low amounts are so very scattered around the board that some of them show *lower* rates of cancer for those exposed... I am definitely not going to say that radiation is good for you by any stretch, but when it is so incredibly hard to find any negative effects that you find the opposite in some cases... I am not going to feel all that stressed about the levels.

And since I did not fail anybody, I don't need to understand actions of those who let little children piss cesium and tell them "everything is actually really good!". That's not how human world works.
(Can anybody guess which propaganda technique was used there? )

I haven`t seen anyone telling people that it`s all okay let alone "good". What I do see is that they are unsure of the levels of exposure, but that they`re testing and trying to determine the levels of internal exposure.
You can`t just tell everyone to find somewhere else to live. There is no way to prevent the exposure at this point - the event has already occurred. What they can do is try to find out to what extent people were actually exposed, and take further precautions. Please clarify how they are "letting" the kids have this exposure, and how they can NOW prevent it. ("This should never have happened" is not a valid answer as it already HAS happened.)

I said before and will say again, going to Fukushima won't probably come to a bad end, but aggressive zero-tolerance towards increase in radiation exposure is not only proven to be possible, it is also the only ethical approach.

It is a serious toss-up dependent on the situation, really. When the exposure is minimal, is it more ethical to send people away from their homes, familiar surroundings, and the areas they have lived their entire lives? As you acknowledge above, people are not mere statistics. There are countless things that would make people safer - there are countless locations people live that are a risk in some way. When we get down to it, all the people of Japan would likely have a much lower statistical risk of suffering from a natural disaster (earthquake, typhoon, tsunami) if they all moved out of the country... But that certainly isn`t going to compel everyone to move.

The question now isn`t "should we let there be lots of radiation?" but rather "what is best for the people who live in areas that have experienced contamination?"