Space Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 Following what is potentially the worlds worst nuclear disaster after the damage the tsunami caused to the nuclear power stations in Japan, what reasons could there be for some of the large world news groups such as the BBC, SKY and CNN hardly reporting anything about what's going off at the Fukushima nuclear power station (and also 3 of the others which were badly damaged)? Do they think that people will forget about it all because they're not reporting anything? If so, why do they want us to? It seems strange to me, and it definitely seems like there's a huge news black-out on the whole subject. What are your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Squirrel Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 Well, firstly, Fukushima has a long way to go before it reaches Chernobyl proportions so is still a way off being the worlds worst nuclear disaster. And secondly, the main reason for the news blackout on this event is due to the current situations in Libya and Syria not to mention a small, quiet society wedding that took place yesterday.... But that was so quiet and unreported, it may have passed you by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Posted April 30, 2011 Author Share Posted April 30, 2011 Well, firstly, Fukushima has a long way to go before it reaches Chernobyl proportions so is still a way off being the worlds worst nuclear disaster. The last I heard, Japan had raised the alert to the highest level. You'd have thought there'd be a little more news on that for a start. Then there were rumours that they were pumping tons of highly radioactive water back into the sea. Maybe a little more info on that would be appreciated, after all, it may affect more than Japan? Thousands of people died in the tsunami, thousands were and still are homeless (at a guess). All hardly reported in the main news groups now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old_Bloke Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 Because the mainstream news outlets blew it out of all proportion in the first place, perhaps? Now they've taken the opportunity of Syria, Libya and the Royal Wedding to quietly drop their hysteria around Fukushima and save themselves the embarrassment of owning up to their earlier sensationalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 Then there were rumours that they were pumping tons of highly radioactive water back into the sea. Maybe a little more info on that would be appreciated, after all, it may affect more than Japan? The only information to be provided on that issue is that it isn't true and never was. The level of radioactivity in the water being pumped back into the sea is unlikely to affect even plankton, let alone fish, let alone humans who eat the fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_dave Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 The last I heard, Japan had raised the alert to the highest level. You'd have thought there'd be a little more news on that for a start. Then there were rumours that they were pumping tons of highly radioactive water back into the sea. Maybe a little more info on that would be appreciated, after all, it may affect more than Japan? Thousands of people died in the tsunami, thousands were and still are homeless (at a guess). All hardly reported in the main news groups now. They report the things that sell, people will only read about things for a certain amount of time. They want new stories, not old ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Posted April 30, 2011 Author Share Posted April 30, 2011 Because the mainstream news outlets blew it out of all proportion in the first place, perhaps? Now they've taken the opportunity of Syria, Libya and the Royal Wedding to quietly drop their hysteria around Fukushima and save themselves the embarrassment of owning up to their earlier sensationalism. Well that's certainly a credible possibility.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 They report the things that sell, people will only read about things for a certain amount of time. They want new stories, not old ones. Exactomondo! To the OP, 'news' is whatever it is that sells; not, whatever it is that's actually newsworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 Incidentally, here's two excellent radio documentaries about the disaster at Chernobyl. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b010mckx/Fallout_The_Legacy_of_Chernobyl/ Events in Japan have reignited controversy around the safety of nuclear energy, reviving memories of the world's worst nuclear accident, at Chernobyl. But just how bad was the worst? What were the real health consequences of Chernobyl? On the 25th anniversary of the disaster Nick Ross travels to Ukraine, to the ruined plant itself, to meet survivors and to talk to scientists and doctors to try to unravel the truth. Has Chernobyl turned out to be the health catastrophe that anti-nuclear campaigners claim? How much of our fear of radiation is rational and how much is based on myth and propaganda surrounding the Chernobyl accident? http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00g4l4r/The_Documentary_Alive_In_Chernobyl_Episode_1/ On the 25th anniversary of the nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl power plant, presenter Olga Betko travels to Chernobyl - in her native Ukraine - to find the people who are living in what is known as the "dead zone". In the last week of April 1986, when the nuclear reactor exploded, many power station workers and their families were evacuated. It was not until a week later that many local rural families and farmers who also lived in the 'Exclusion Zone', were also evacuated to cities. This documentary follows the stories of a number of small groups of elderly rural people who have defied the radiation and returned from the cities to live in their abandoned villages, once again working the land they love. Olga Betko visits these tiny remote communities to see how they are surviving in isolation and also looks at how people there are recovering a poisoned homeland. Our knowledge about the radiation risks to health are still very limited. Although we know that high levels of radiation are bad, with much of our data taken from a rather horrific study taken out on the people of Japan in 1945, our knowledge about the health risks of low level radiation is almost non-existent. As the Nick Ross programme mentions, there is some evidence that low level radiation exposure may actually be beneficial. It is certainly true that the health risks have been over-exaggerated, and the media loves to over-exaggerate as the 1st few days of the Fukushima accident prove. A while ago I was somewhat anti-nuclear power, but I have now become convinced that nuclear power is the way to go. I reckon that the Fukushima accident will prove to be a tipping point, which many environmentalists will point to and say that was the moment they changed their minds from anti to pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Posted April 30, 2011 Author Share Posted April 30, 2011 to the OP, 'news' is whatever it is that sells; not, whatever it is that's actually newsworthy. So a huge explosion in a nuclear power plant, the Japanese government stating that the damage is much worse than they originally thought and aren't sure what to do next (from about a month ago), thousands of people dying in a tsunami and thousands more homeless isn't newsworthy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.