Beneficial Microorganisms for gardening & mitigation
EM products. This is a good stuff. I know people who use it in their Super Gardens.
http://www.emrojapan.com/monthly-message/content/409.html
"In 1998 an experiment was done using EM™ in an area made off limits in Belarus, the country downwind from the Chernobyl accident; in this experiment, when 5 liters of EM•1® was sprayed on 10 a of land, within half a year the amount of radiation had dropped by 15%. Afterwards, in an experiment conducted in the Ukraine in an area off limits because of Chernobyl, we found that a half year after being treated with EM™ there was 30-35% less radiation. Both of these countries are black soil regions, with lots of organic material in the soil, the right conditions for EM•1® to multiply.
Taking these conditions into consideration, if we were to apply these results to Japan, we would try to use 50 liters of Activated EM•1® per 10 a, 100kg of rice bran, which helps increase microorganisms, per 10 a, 200-300 kg per 10 a in the case of farmland. Results should be clear within 40 days or so, and when measurements are taken, if sufficient results are not seen, then EM•1® alone in the same amounts should be sprayed on the soil again. Phototrophic bacteria have the power to utilize powerful energy. Because of this, it has the power to selectively bond with radioactive material in the soil. Therefore, when EM•1® is activated in the soil, radioactive material is removed by EM, and crops cannot absorb the radioactive material. In addition, because a phenomenon that had been predicted takes place, namely the shift to utilize the energy of radioactive elements, Cesium 137, which supposedly has a half-life of 30 years, disappears within one year."
Fraudulent on its face
I assume that Japan has the necessary criminal fraud statutes to deal with these kinds of dangerous claims.
NOT-NOT-NOT "Phototrophic bacteria have the power to utilize powerful energy. Because of this, it has the power to selectively bond with radioactive material in the soil. Therefore, when EM•1® is activated in the soil, radioactive material is removed by EM, and crops cannot absorb the radioactive material. In addition, because a phenomenon that had been predicted takes place, namely the shift to utilize the energy of radioactive elements, Cesium 137, which supposedly has a half-life of 30 years, disappears within one year." NOT-NOT-NOT
not sure why you're saying not, not, not
I'm not a scientist, but perhaps you are. Can you give us a reason why the EMs could not "bind" cesium isotopes in some way as to make them harmless? Have you ever worked with them?
If I had a garden or farm that was contaminated, I'd try just about anything to mitigate the soil. But then I use homeopathic remedies for health issues and they are also maligned.
To answer your question: Yes, Japan has the "necessary criminal fraud statutes to deal with these kinds of dangerous claims". The authorities arrested a guy for claiming that the Zeolite he was selling could bind isotopes. Zeolite. The stuff Japan clean-up crews are using to bind isotopes. The stuff that was baked into cookies and given to children to eat after Chernobyl.
But a guy has the "audacity" to sell it to folks so that they can protect themselves during the early releases and he's arrested. Of course, he was also claiming that the radiation levels were higher than TEPCO or the govt. was reporting. I think he was arrested for "causing alarm" and the Zeolite was a cover.
Who, exactly, is dangerous in that scenario? And who wouldn't try something like EM, zeolite, boron, homeopathy or any other natural, harmless substance to try to mitigate these contaminants? Internally or externally. Can't knock it until you've tried it, can you?
And no, I have no $ interest in EM. I have just seen how it cleans up septic and grey water systems, restaurant grease drains and heavily polluted water. It also makes compost fast and is a wonderful foliar feed for gardens.
Glad to
.
The following statement, is ridiculous upon its face, "Cesium 137, which supposedly has a half-life of 30 years, disappears within one year."
QED
Yes, it does seem far
Yes, it does seem far fetched and basically impossible. However, since I have not tried it, I can't judge it one way or another. But I'd try it if I had a plot to clean up. Can't hurt, can only help the soil, even if it just makes it more "fertile".
I'm not sure what QED means...
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
QED is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase "quod erat demonstrandum" ("that which was to be demonstrated"), a notation which is often placed at the end of a mathematical proof to indicate its completion.
A fairly comprehensive FALLACY Reference:
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Logical_Fallacies_by_Todangst
Argument from Ignorance
Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam occurs when one's premises state that nothing is known with certainty about a subject, and one's conclusion states something certain. The most common error is to claim that when a certain thesis is not proven, the opposite thesis must be true. The fallacy is not committed if qualified researchers have failed after extensive and exhaustive attempts to demonstrate some phenomena, and the conclusion at hand states that what they have attempted to demonstrate is not so.
In short, this argument occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true. (Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In science, we assume that an unproven is not true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.) Here is an example:
"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
In scientific investigation, if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event didn't occur. Also, this fallacy is recognized by the very ones who use it - in other circumstances. For, while an apologist may maintain that a belief in god is validated by a lack of negating evidence, the apologist himself has absolutely no problem whatsoever denying the reality of other gods without his requirement for negating evidence.
See also: "Correct by Default Fallacy"