Main menu
You are here
Fukushima: Nature in the Danger Zone (2021)
Primary tabs
Wed, 08/17/2022 - 22:44 — TheCorsair00
This torrent has no flags.
| Size | Seeds | Peers | Completed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.24 GiB | 0 | 0 | 390 |
On the east coast of Japan sit towns abandoned by humans since 2011’s fateful nuclear disaster at Fukushima. It’s an area thought no longer suitable for life, though the animals residing there beg to differ. In this one-hour special, we venture into life in a nuclear disaster zone, following an international group of experts investigating the animals who defy all odds and thrive despite the toxic landscape. Watch as we try to understand the wild, dangerous and the surprising in Fukushima: Nature In The Danger Zone.
- Log in to post comments
Comments
so nuclear radition is a conspiracy theory?
Is there more on this fact? I recall some scientist that used to eat radiated sand from ground zero of a nuclear blast, and other such stunts... going around the country claiming it is all a hoax. anyone remember his name?
Radiation
Perhaps nuclear radiation and its effects on life is still not fully understood. But in this documentary they research certain animals that seem to be resistant or have actually somehow evolved ways of deflecting things like nuclear radiation in their system.
I am not familiar with the person you mentioned, but I think humans are possibly more resistant to radiation, at least for more than a decade until it may show up as various cancers etc...
gaylen windsor (sic?)
gaylen windsor (sic?)
there is more to the story than we've been told. this 'documentary' is so ridiculously contradictory that it requires immediate dismissal for using so many logical fallacies.
gaylen windsor (sic) was a famed nookyalurrr scientist. he ate uranium (i do believe it was uranium but correct me if im wrong) to show that nuclear science is as bonkers as gender theory
cheers!!
The real conspiracy
is who detonated the nuke that caused the Tsunami that trashed Fukushima.
Tectonic weapon
...or possibly triggered the earthquake with directed energy weapons.
This was an awful film. The
This was an awful film. The narratrix has this perky London accent but doesn't seem to know what the script means, and doesn't know some of the words. She says "brave new world" at LEAST four times, constant repetition of what has already been said, a plethora of "meanwhile, back at the lab, John and Jane are about to discover" blah blah blah.
As for the science, I detected NO evolution involved. Wild boars store radio-isotopes in their muscle tissue, that's the only possible case of evolution and natural selection, but this is non-sense, this is an adaptation latent in their genome, and not that latent. In other words, this evolution happened a long time ago.
The rest is a case for some kind of natural selection: animals which shelter in actual shelters receive less radiation, ergo those which don't simply die off.
Even the contention soil microbes, bacteria, fungi and lichen aren't consuming leaf-litter on the forest floor isn't supported by any evidence at all: they don't mention the amounts of accumulated biomass before Fukushima, we are just supposed to infer this is happening based on what one observer noted at Chernobyl.
The dumbshit narratrix doesn't seem to understand the difference between radiation and radioactive particles, and says alpha rays only harm you if you ingest them. What she/they meant to say was that alpha-particle emitters are harmful if they get inside tissue.
This film just proves to me humanity is getting stupider and stupider, and so of course there will be more Fukushimas and idiotic non-responses and manias this way and that, rabid anti-nuclear positions and uninformed pro-nuclear power positions. By the way, "brave new world" comes from Shakespeare, not Huxley. Worst of all, the cinematography wasn't up to snuff at all. They showed the same forest sow with piglets six or seven times and it wasn't an interesting image to begin with. Half the time they film "inside the nuclear exclusion zone," there are cars and trucks driving by in the background. The music is singularly ill-fitting for the subject matter as well. Two thumbs down, no stars.
Criticism that's constructive ...
... is rare and valuable. Well done.
ConCen wrote:
Thanks. As I said, I'm protective of the documentary format.
Production value
Well, it certainly is not a BBC David Attenborough high-caliber production, but it seemed to me to have at the very least an interesting premise that one does not hear or think about that often. I didn't really have an "anger management issues" type of response to watching it whatsoever, it's just a standard nature documentary, from what I can tell.
Yeah, I'm just really
Yeah, I'm just really disappointed with the downfall of the documentary genre over the last decade. Anger management, good point.
I can understand that. I
I can understand that. I find myself very cynical and angry towards standard cable television, popular movies/TV shows and the news, if I am ever watching it anymore. I can hardly handle it!