Star-viking's past comments

  • 7

    Star-viking

    This is conspiracy-theory level stuff - wacky!

    Posted in: S Korean media slam Abe's 731 jet photo

  • 0

    Star-viking

    TheDevilsAssistantMay. 03, 2013 - 10:16PM JST

    Everyone gets that no pollution＝bad, however, how that affects climate is questionable. If pollution was a factor, how did earth come out of the Ice Age? Didn't know there were automobiles and factories millions of years ago.

    But, of course, there has to be an excuse for that too.

    Earth came out of previous Ice Ages because of the changing orientation of the Earth in its orbit. These affect how much heat North Pole gets from the Sun. If the heat decreases, we get and Ice Age, and once it increases we come out of the Ice Age. Man-made pollution is not required.

    Satisfactory? In your opinion, maybe. One question. Will the earth ever have an Ice Age again?

    From past cycles, after a few ten thousand years. However, with the increased warming from human activity, many scientists think it is doubtful we will have an Ice Age for a very long time.

    Posted in: Snow falls in Hokkaido as cold spring continues across Japan

  • -1

    Star-viking

    I've read the report. Looks pretty reasonable. Any comments from others who have read it?

    Posted in: Fukushima produces first thesis on effects of internal radiation exposure on children

  • -1

    Star-viking

    If anyone is actually interested in reading the report it's at: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/pjab/89/4/89_PJA8904B-01/_article

    Posted in: Fukushima produces first thesis on effects of internal radiation exposure on children

  • 1

    Star-viking

    PaulJApr. 22, 2013 - 04:28PM JST

    And they were for the totalitarianism of British rule which caused countless famines throughout the country, the Jallian Bagh Massacre and the subsequent acquittal of General Dyer and a policy of divide and rule which left the country so broken that the subsequent partition caused a bloodbath.

    Totalitarianism? Most of India's affairs were dealt with by Indians - including agriculture, which lead to the dreadful situation in Bengal in 1943 when the Provincial Governments would not permit grain surpluses to be sent to Bengal.

    Dyer acquited? He was forced to resign and leave India. Should have been hung, but that is a different matter.

    Divide and rule? One of the most over-used and nonsensical phrases - it's up there with the "Military-Industrial Complex". India was divided before the British came, with hundreds of princely states, each owing allegiance to other larger states. The ideal of India as a nation came to bloom with British control of most of the Indian subcontinent. As for partition, this came because the Hindus and Moslems could not live with each other, not because of any British machinations. Same holds for Ireland.

    Posted in: Victory over Japanese at Kohima named Britain's greatest World War II battle

  • 1

    Star-viking

    House Atreides Apr. 22, 2013 - 03:09PM JST

    Which veterans do you think receive the Freedom Fighters Pension in India today? Those that served in the British Indian Army or those that served in the Indian National Army? Here are the numbers from 2010:

    "There are 22,468 freedom fighters under Netaji Subash Chandra Bose's Indian National Army category. Every pensioner gets Rs.11,331 a month, besides enjoying other facilities, including free travel on trains."

    Pretty brain-dead comment. The soldiers of the BIA became soldier of the Indian Army. They get their pensions.

    And how many INA volunteers were allowed to join the Indian Army? Not a lot. Nehru agreed to this before the end of the Raj, and kept the bargain though he could have voided it.

    Posted in: Victory over Japanese at Kohima named Britain's greatest World War II battle

  • 4

    Star-viking

    Agreed. We had a wee bit of shaking in Yamagata, but thankfully nothing like that in 2011.

    Posted in: M5.8 quake strikes off Miyagi

  • 0

    Star-viking

    Laguna Apr. 07, 2013 - 05:32PM JST

    "But it said the contaminated water was unlikely to flow into the sea."

    which is particularly unreassuring as, in the grand scale of things and considering that radioactive water must go somewhere, the sea would be the best place?

    It will probably reach the sea eventually, travelling through the groundwater layer. What is probably meant is "unlikely to reach the sea anytime soon".

    On one hand, it is nice that TEPCO has begun to publicize problems promptly; on the other hand, analysis (and whether this comes from TEPCO or from the newswriters themselves) is sorely lacking

    The problem is that analysis takes time. As for newswriters doing analysis, I don't think that happens greatly here in Japan.

    Posted in: New radioactive water leak reported at Fukushima plant

  • 0

    Star-viking

    Farmboy Apr. 07, 2013 - 05:04PM JST

    “We have determined that a minimal amount of water was feared to have leaked from the tank although there was no decline in the level of water inside the tank,” it said in a statement

    Is that like spending 10 of the 100 dollars in your wallet, but still having one hundred dollars left?

    More like taking a drop of beer out of a beer keg - no noticeable decline in the level of beer.

    Posted in: New radioactive water leak reported at Fukushima plant

  • 0

    Star-viking

    VerisimilitudeApr. 07, 2013 - 04:50PM JST

    So the looking glass is in Guam.. if that is the case, the Global Hawk is just a joint publicity stunt. May god forgive us, if the cornered beast pounces, and we react in kind.

    No, that report was unconfirmed. Anyway, the E-6s have 4 other stations they regularly have to deploy to, so Guam may not be the destination. Also from the same source an update on the B-1s they did not land at Guam.

    As for the Global Hawk being a publicity stunt - it's a reconnaissance asset. Bombers and strike aircraft need up-to-date data on their targets, especially if they are mobile targets.

    Ref: http://deepbluehorizon.blogspot.it/2013/04/b-1bs-practicing-to-pound-north-korea.html

    Posted in: U.S. military to deploy unmanned spy plane in northern Japan

  • 0

    Star-viking

    GaijinVaderMar. 15, 2013 - 09:36PM JST

    I know it's not the point, but ask any Londoner, we'd love more heatwaves. The temperature only occasionally made it over 20C last summer and the rest of the time it was either completely overcast or pouring with rain. It has been like this for the last 3 years.

    However, Wiki gives London as reaching 30 degrees C on the 1st of October 2011, and 28 degrees C that April. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London

    We also had heatwaves in the UK in August 2012 http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/19/uk-weather-heat-wave-continue_n_1805150.html ...and May http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/9285122/Britain-to-nudge-30C-as-heatwave-sparks-rush-to-the-beach.html and September http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/9527368/Scorching-September-temperatures-bring-mini-heatwave.html

    Posted in: Climate fixes need cautious consideration

  • 0

    Star-viking

    sangetsu03Mar. 15, 2013 - 08:31AM JST

    Cold weather records were broken in many parts of Japan this winter, as well as elsewhere, yet little is mentioned about these incidents.

    Really? Any references to these broken records?

    Posted in: Climate fixes need cautious consideration

  • 0

    Star-viking

    BertieWoosterMar. 11, 2013 - 08:04PM JST

    The reliance on nuclear power killed Tohoku.

    Please, "killed Tohoku"? What fantasy world do you live in? Tohoku is not a nuclear wasteland. We are, however, suffering from bad publicity that stems from comments such as yours.

    Posted in: Thousands across Japan rally against nuclear power

  • -1

    Star-viking

    BertieWoosterMar. 12, 2013 - 07:39PM JST

    Yet another alternative to Nuclear Power:

    (BBC): Japan extracts gas from methane hydrate in world first

    It can be done!

    Houray! Let's Global Warming Japan!!!

    Posted in: Thousands across Japan rally against nuclear power

  • 0

    Star-viking

    Dennis BauerMar. 13, 2013 - 09:37AM JST

    All those who say it is not a problem, should move to there then.

    Is that a way of saying you are incapable of winning the argument with logic?

    Posted in: Activists fault WHO report on Fukushima radiation

  • 0

    Star-viking

    BertieWoosterMar. 12, 2013 - 09:50PM JST

    Dr Helen Caldicott is worth listening to.

    There is an article that appeared in the Guardian that anybody living in or visiting the Tohoku area needs to read:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation

    Thanks for your concern Bertie, but I think we're pretty safe in Tohoku. As for Dr Caldicott, it is hard to take seriously someone whose "educational" pronouncements are obviously false. From your link:

    "Mr Monbiot, who is a journalist not a scientist, appears unaware of the difference between external and internal radiation

    Let me educate him.

    The former is what populations were exposed to when the atomic bombs were detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; their profound and on-going medical effects are well documented. [1]

    Internal radiation, on the other hand, emanates from radioactive elements which enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption."

    She sounds very convincing, until you remember the word "nuclear fallout":

    "*About 15 kg of plutonium was used in the Nagasaki A-bomb, but only 1 kg was fissioned and the rest (14 kg) was released into the environment. *" - Fate of Plutonium Released from the Nagasaki A-Bomb, Japan - A.Kudo et al.

    "The vertical migration of 90Sr and 117Cs produced by the explosion of the atomic bomb in 1945 was investigated in an unsaturated soil layer in the Nishiyama area of Nagasaki...These results suggest that since fallout 137Cs and 90Sr have remained in the surface soil for a long period of time, we should pay significant attention to radiological effects of nuclear accidents." - Yasunori Mahara

    "Unfissioned plutonium (239+240Pu) along with fission products (including 137Cs) were released from the Nagasaki A-bomb on 9 August 1945 and deposited in the eastern side (Nishiyama) of the city of Nagasaki. The concentrations of these radioactive materials were determined in 47 undisturbed surface soils collected..." - A.Kudo et al.

    So Caldicott is either a liar or a fool. The people of Nagasaki were exposed to internal radiation.

    However, her piece is worthwhile in that it links to George Monbiot's article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

    Posted in: Activists fault WHO report on Fukushima radiation

  • 0

    Star-viking

    DoublespeakMar. 10, 2013 - 07:04PM JST

    Nuclear power is one of the dirtiest things on the planet, using chemicals strong enough to kill the entire population of the earth several times over.

    Sorry, you're using the wrong word: chemicals are where atoms are joined together into molecules, what you're talking about could be defined as elements or isotopes.

    The protestors mentioned in this news article are demonstrating against the unacceptable risks associated with nuclear power generation.

    I didn't know they had the expertise to define and assess the risks.

    Posted in: Protesters in Tokyo demand end to nuclear power

  • 2

    Star-viking

    telecasterplayerMar. 10, 2013 - 12:49PM JST

    Germany is proving the whole world can go to solar right now and not give up a single convenience. The reason Japan keeps poison power is a government in bed with the profiteers, and a timid electorate desperately seeking a father figure to guide it.

    I think the 200,000 low-income households in Germany who saw their electricity cut-off because they couldn't afford the hiked prices counts as inconvienient. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-s-nuclear-phase-out-brings-unexpected-costs-to-consumers-a-837007.html

    Posted in: Protesters in Tokyo demand end to nuclear power

  • -1

    Star-viking

    SquidBertMar. 08, 2013 - 08:31AM JST

    Nuclear vs. CO2 is a false dilemma.

    Really? You must expand on your statement. Why is it a false dilemma?

    Posted in: Japan's 'long war' to shut down Fukushima nuclear plant

  • -1

    Star-viking

    dontbelievethehypeMar. 07, 2013 - 11:25PM JST

    If anyone would like an explanation of the economic principles of nuclear power and why it is much more expensive, much more risky, and is not a viable energy source, watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwIvGJJ_dtU. Its honest and to the point. I would really like responses to what he is saying.

    Ok, I watched the video. He says that in order to make an impact on climate change Nuclear would have to be at 20% of the global power supply, from what he says is 6%. Now I have to say this is rubbish - even 6% counts, as the goal is to minimize CO2 emission. But he goes on that this means that the 400 existing plants have to be replaced by 1600 new plants - and by his calculations that would require a nuclear plant to be built every 30 days.

    First, 20% divided by 6% and multiplied by the 400 old plants gives 1333 new plants needed - not the 1600 figure Rifkin seems to pull out of the air. Not a good indicator of his attention to detail.

    Second - is 3 reactors every 30 days impossible as he suggests? In the 80s a new reactor was coming on-line every 17 days, and in the case of France they quadrupled their nuclear power from 1980 to 2000. It does not seem an impossibility to hit a 20% target.

    Thirdly, Rifkin says that even if they did that it would take 40 years to reach 20% of world energy needs. Let's leave aside the fact that this gives 1460 reactors - again, not the 1600 he says are needed, what power would they produce? If we are conservative we're talking about 1GW per reactor (and that is very conservative), but what that gives is 1460 GWs. To get the amount of energy this produces in a year we multiply by 8760 (hours in a year) and get 12789600 GW hours of electrical energy, dividing by 1000 get the more convenient figure of approx 12798 TW hours. The world electricity production in 2009 was approx. 20,300 TW hours (from the IEA/OECD), so Rifkin's figures give nuclear producing over 60% of the world's electricity in 40 years. Sure sounds better than 20% - or maybe we can hit his mythical 20% target earlier?

    The man sounds authoritative, but he can't even make his own figures add up. I advise disregarding him as a source of information.

    Posted in: Japan's 'long war' to shut down Fukushima nuclear plant

View all