Prepare for a slow and agonizing death

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Denny Crane said:
Of course it is dangerous to be right at the spot where the radiation is. I'm not at all claiming that there is that sort of safety. The good news is that the people who are near the radiation are trained to deal with it; the rest have long been evacuated.
Click to expand...

This is simply not the case. This thread is riddled with proof and admissions by all sides that TEPCO has no "nuclear disaster experts" in their employ, not even at the highest levels of their corporation. Nor does the Japanese government, who has relied 100% on the false information and lying reassurances from TEPCO that all is well. No progress has been made in nearly 3 years to contain the rapidly spewing radiation in the Pacific Ocean, nor has any practical solution or remedy been considered.
 
MARIS61 said:
This is simply not the case. This thread is riddled with proof and admissions by all sides that TEPCO has no "nuclear disaster experts" in their employ, not even at the highest levels of their corporation. Nor does the Japanese government, who has relied 100% on the false information and lying reassurances from TEPCO that all is well. No progress has been made in nearly 3 years to contain the rapidly spewing radiation in the Pacific Ocean, nor has any practical solution or remedy been considered.
Click to expand...

The radiation can spew into the ocean at this rate for 200 years with minimal or no ill effects beyond a short distance from the reactor. 200 years.

What this thread is filled with is unnecessary alarm over a perceived level of threat that isn't there. And lies like "there are no nuclear disaster experts." TEPCO was nationalized (taken over by the government) in 2012.

Have a banana. You'll die a slow and agonizing death more from the radiation in those than from Fukushima.
 
Denny Crane said:
The radiation can spew into the ocean at this rate for 200 years with minimal or no ill effects beyond a short distance from the reactor. 200 years.

What this thread is filled with is unnecessary alarm over a perceived level of threat that isn't there. And lies like "there are no nuclear disaster experts." TEPCO was nationalized (taken over by the government) in 2012.

Have a banana. You'll die a slow and agonizing death more from the radiation in those than from Fukushima.
Click to expand...

Empty, unsupported nonsense.
 
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mmckinzie/fukushima_radiation_risks_from.html

Assessing the Radiation Risks Associated With the Leaks at Fukushima
Thomas B. Cochran, Ph.D., September 2013

To keep the risk below 1x10-5 the consumer must limit his/her dietary intake to less than 10,000 Bq of cesium-137. Therefore this risk limit would be reached after eating about 0.7 kg of fish meat. While this is a conservative estimate of what is required to achieve a low risk, one could make a good case for quarantining fishing off the Japanese coast near Fukushima, which of course is what the Japanese government has done.

Near the west coast of the United States the maximum projected concentration is about 30 Bq/m3 some three years after the initial release. This is 5,000 times less than the 150,000 Bq/m3 concentration we have assumed near the Japanese coast. Therefore, to keep the risk below 1x10-5 the consumer must limit his/her dietary intake to less than about 3,000 kg (3 tonnes) of fish. In other words, do not worry about eating fish taken from US coastal waters. Since the concentration projected for waters near the Hawaiian Archipelago are even less than that projected for the West Coast, the same admonition applies to Hawaii.

...

Case 2: Chronic Leakage into the Sea from Fukushima.

From samples of seawater, Jota Kanda of Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology estimated last year that about 0.3 TBq of radioactive material are leaking into the sea each month. And in this article in New Scientist, Ken Buesseler says the Kanda estimate is probably the best he is aware of, and closely matches figures released on 21 August by TEPCO, of 0.1 to 0.6 TBq per month for cesium-137 and 0.1 to 0.3 for strontium. At an average leak rate of 0.3 TBq/month, it would take more than 6,000 years to equal the 22 PBq release assumed under case one above. Consequently, the current chronic leaks do not increase the risks associated with consuming fish caught in waters off the west coast of the United States or Hawaii.

Case 3: Recent leaking tanks. It has been reported in the press that a storage tank containing 24 terra-Becquerels (TBq = 1x1012 Bq = 1,000 billion Bq) of radioactivity in in 300 cubic meters of water was leaking.

Let’s be exceedingly conservative by assuming all the radioactivity is cesium-137 and all of it leaks into the groundwater and from there into the sea over a very short period of time. The source term, 24 TBq, is about 1,000 times smaller (and a couple of years later) than the source term used in modeling by Rossi, et al. Clearly, this does not change the conclusions regarding eating fish caught near the West Coast or Hawaii.

CONCLUSIONS
For the foreseeable future, one should avoid eating fish caught near Fukushima. Buesseler says that during his own sampling survey in waters 30 to 600 kilometres from Fukushima in June 2011, three months after the meltdown, the highest levels he found were 3 Bq/liter of cesium-137. This suggests that the consumption of fish caught in these waters would not represent a significant risk to individuals. There is not a significant radiological risk to individuals associated with consuming fish caught near the West coast of the United States and Hawaii.

Ken Buesseler notes that the north Pacific contains an estimated 100 PBq of cesium-137 from H-bomb testing in the 1960s, so the fallout from Fukushima is adding only a fraction of that. Total discharges from the Sellafield nuclear plant in the UK released 39 PBq over 40 years of operation, according to Buessler.
 
http://bellona.org/news/uncategoriz...ive-waste-and-nuclear-reactors-in-arctic-seas

The catalogue of waste dumped at sea by the Soviets, according to documents seen by Bellona, and which were today released by the Norwegian daily Aftenposten, includes some 17,000 containers of radioactive waste, 19 ships containing radioactive waste, 14 nuclear reactors, including five that still contain spent nuclear fuel; 735 other pieces of radiactively contaminated heavy machinery, and the K-27 nuclear submarine with its two reactors loaded with nuclear fuel.

D'oh!
 
http://www.newscientist.com/article...tive-water-be-dumped-at-sea.html#.UwuL6ZK9KSM

Other parts of Fukushima are certainly leaking. From samples of seawater, Jota Kanda of Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology estimated last year that about 0.3 terabecquerels (TBq) of radioactive material are leaking into the sea each month.

Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts says the Kanda estimate is probably the best he is aware of, and closely matches figures released on 21 August by Tepco, of 0.1 to 0.6 TBq per month for caesium-137 and 0.1 to 0.3 for strontium.

He points out that the north Pacific contains an estimated 100,000 TBq of caesium-137 from H-bomb testing in the 1960s, so the fallout from Fukushima is adding only a fraction of that. Total discharges from the Sellafield nuclear plant in the UK released 39,000 TBq over 40 years, he says.

Buesseler says that during his own sampling survey in waters 30 to 600 kilometres from Fukushima in June 2011, three months after the meltdown, the highest levels he found were 3 Bq of caesium-137 per litre of seawater. By comparison, the natural weathering of rocks results in about 10 Bq of radioactive potassium-40 making it into each litre of seawater.

On an international level, even if all the waste from Fukushima was dumped neat into the Pacific, dilution would eliminate any radiation risks to distant countries like the US, says Simon Boxall of the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, UK.

The ocean would be the safest place for the waste water, says Geraldine Thomas, who runs the Chernobyl Tissue Bank at Imperial College London. "But to make that politically acceptable they have to talk to the local population. They have to make people understand that low levels of radiation don't matter because we're all exposed to it all the time."
 
Another disaster this week due to inconceivable incompetence.

Scientists Warn: Fukushima Radiation Gaining Strength In Pacific

Written by: Daniel Jennings Current Events February 21, 2014

The danger from Fukushima continues to grow.

On Wednesday, more than 100 tons of radioactive water leaked from a storage tank at the Japanese nuclear power plant that was damaged after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

The tank apparently overflowed because somebody forgot to close a valve, a spokesman for the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) told the media. The open valve caused the tank to fill up and water to flow out onto the ground. The site of the leak was just 700 yards from the Pacific Ocean.

The utility only became aware of the leak because a worker spotted water dripping out of a pipe. The leak should further concern Americans and Canadians because there have been reports that radiation from Fukushima has reached the West Coast. Off the Grid News reported that an unidentified man had detected high levels of radiation with a Geiger counter on a beach south of San Francisco in December. Local government officials deny there is a problem, The Half Moon Bay Review reported.

Scientist: radiation levels could increase across Pacific

Radiation from Fukushima could get stronger as it crosses the Pacific in currents, some scientists are warning. Scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the GEOMAR Research Center for Marine Geosciences believe Fukushima radiation that reaches the West Coast could be 10 times stronger than when it left Japan.

The radiation is getting stronger because it is becoming more concentrated and not diluted by currents, a study published in the scientific journal Science China Earth Sciences claimed. The study’s author, GuiJun Han, predicted that water that reaches the West Coast will contain “pockets and streams of highly concentrated radiation.”

Radiation from Fukushima could eventually cover the entire North Pacific and flow as far south as Baja California in Mexico. The study also predicted that high radiation levels will remain in the Pacific for as long as 10 years.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11430-012-4520-2

http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/...ushima-radiation-gaining-strength-in-pacific/
 
Your study by Chinese scientists was quickly picked up be the Russian newspaper and was then completely debunked.

I'll grant you that you found a bullshit story in the internet.
 
Scientific American magazine:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-to-worry-about-after-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/

When it comes to radiation, the nuclear weapons testing conducted from the 1940s to the 1980s contributed orders of magnitude more radioactivity to the oceans than Fukushima (even when combined with Chernobyl, a much larger nuclear catastrophe). There is also an estimated 37 x 10^18 becquerels worth of radioactivity in the oceans from naturally dissolved uranium in seawater anyway, which some view as a future nuclear fuel source but is not generally considered a health risk. (A becquerel measures the rate of radiation emission.) And there are other naturally occurring radioactive elements in seawater as well, such as polonium.

That means the tuna caught in the Pacific have always been naturally radioactive (and pose less risk than dental x-rays, as the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution notes). Or as marine scientist Ken Buesseler of Woods Hole put it in a scientific paper on the subject published in 2012, "though [cesium] isotopes are elevated 10 to 1,000 [times] over prior levels in waters off Japan, radiation risks due to these radionuclides are below those generally considered harmful to marine animals and human consumers, and even below those from naturally occurring radionuclides."

Marine scientists have calculated that, based on all the radioactive particles released (or leaking) from Fukushima, a dose due to this most recent nuclear accident would add up to a total of roughly one microsievert (a unit of radiation exposure) of extra radiation—roughly one tenth the average daily dose most Americans experience, one fortieth the amount from a cross–North America flight and one one-hundredth the exposure from a dental x-ray. This also means that no one in the U.S. should be taking potassium iodide pills, especially because there has been no radioactive iodine issuing from Fukushima for several years now. (Radioactive iodine has a half-life of just eight days, meaning that all of it was gone within three months of the March 2011 nuclear accident in Japan.)

Likewise, the debris from Fukushima that has begun to arrive on U.S. shores is also relatively benign. In fact, any radiation from the flotsam is likely to have far less an impact than the novel species it may carry with it across the Pacific, which could potentially spark a biological invasion.
 
hrm... oceanographers with all the best radiation detection gear, or a nut job on the beach with a geiger counter. Which to believe. Whoever MARIS wants me to?

So is there some sort of huge conspiracy among all the scientists who actually physically go near Fukushima and measure the radiation and examine the sea creatures, the IAEA, the governments, and so on.

Except they're all on the wrong side of any supposed conspiracy. What's there for them to gain by taking part in the conspiracy? Are the oceanographers going to lose their funding for reporting MARIS level of alarm if it were true? I don't see why they would.

The Japanese do have a plan. At Chernobyl, the Russians just buried the reactor in some enormous amount of concrete and made the area off limits for a couple centuries. The Japanese chose not to go that route, but rather to try and clean up the mess and make the land habitable again within a few decades.

Your Chinese report cited by the globalconspiracytheory.org type site you keep quoting is published in one place - the China Earth Sciences Journal. That's only in a country that censors the internet, forces abortions to control population, and features slave labor. Good find on your part. Too bad it's not cited by any respectable science outlet.
 
Denny Crane said:
Your study by Chinese scientists was quickly picked up be the Russian newspaper and was then completely debunked.
Click to expand...

Your geography is nearly as bad as your complete ignorance of nuclear physics. I feel like I'm arguing with an Alzheimer's patient.
http://www.noaa.gov/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is America's oldest scientific agency.

NOAA is an agency that enriches life through science. Our reach goes from the surface of the sun to the depths of the ocean floor as we work to keep citizens informed of the changing environment around them.

From daily weather forecasts, severe storm warnings and climate monitoring to fisheries management, coastal restoration and supporting marine commerce, NOAA’s products and services support economic vitality and affect more than one-third of America’s gross domestic product. NOAA’s dedicated scientists use cutting-edge research and high-tech instrumentation to provide citizens, planners, emergency managers and other decision makers with reliable information they need when they need it.

NOAA's roots date back to 1807, when the Nation’s first scientific agency, the Survey of the Coast, was established. Since then, NOAA has evolved to meet the needs of a changing country. NOAA maintains a presence in every state and has emerged as an international leader on scientific and environmental matters.

GEOMAR is in Germany, and is a world leader in oceanic research.

http://www.geomar.de/en/centre/about-geomar/

GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research is the successor to the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences (IFM-GEOMAR) which was founded in January 2004 through the merger of the Institut für Meereskunde (IfM) and the Research Center for Marine Geosciences (GEOMAR). The institute is a member of the Helmholtz Association and employs more than 750 scientific and technical staff.

The institutes’ mandate is the interdisciplinary investigation of all relevant aspects of modern marine sciences, from sea floor geology to marine meteorology. Research is conducted worldwide in all oceans and adjacent seas.

The institute has four major research divisions:

Ocean Circulation and Climate Dynamics
Marine Biogeochemistry
Marine Ecology
Dynamics of the Ocean Floor.

In addition, GEOMAR contributes to the Cluster of Excellence "The Future Ocean" and the collaborative research centre SFB754: "Climate-Biogeochemistry Interactions in the Tropical Ocean", funded by the German Science Foundation (DFG).

GEOMAR cooperates closely with the University of Kiel in the education of future marine scientists. Curricula include “Physics of the Earth System: Meteorology – Oceanography – Geophysics” for the Bachelor’s degree and internationally oriented Master’s courses such as “Climate Physics: Meteorology and Physical Oceanography” and “Biological Oceanography.” The institute also provides additional contributions to other curricula, such as Geology and Geophysics. GEOMAR also has cooperative programmes with other universities around the world, and special programmes for pupils and teachers aim to stimulate interest in the marine sciences at an early stage.

In addition, the institute operates four research vessels, state-of-the-art equipment such as the manned submersible JAGO, the deep-sea robots ROV KIEL6000, PHOCA and ABYSS as well as several major laboratories, access to high-performance computing facilities and an attractive public aquarium.

GEOMAR is among the three leading institutions in the field of marine sciences in Europe. Jointly with the National Oceanography Centre in the United Kingdom and Ifremer in France, GEOMAR has established the “G3 group” of national marine research centres.

GEOMAR cooperates with a number of small companies active in marine technology and science, some of which were founded by former staff members of the institute.

In addition, GEOMAR is active in a number of national and international committees and strategic alliances such as the German Marine Research Consortium (KDM), the German Climate Consortium (DKK), the Partnership for Observation of the Global Oceans (POGO) and the Marine Board of the European Science Foundation.
 
Your site lies. Sorry to break it to you.

Here's what the guys from GEOMAR actually say:

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/50176

Claus Böning, Erik Behrens and colleagues from the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel used global ocean circulation models to simulate the movement of a tracer which was continuously injected into Japanese coastal waters over several weeks. They then modelled its spreading and dilution in the Pacific Ocean for 10 years.

“We were of course not surprised that there is a mixing effect, but we were surprised at how quickly the tracer spread,” Claus Böning, co-author of the study, told environmentalresearchweb. “Within one year it will have spread over the entire western half of the North Pacific and in five years we predict it will reach the US West Coast.”

However, Böning points out that, due to considerable mixing and dilution, the level of radioactivity reaching the US will be much lower than that released by the Fukushima plant. “The levels of radiation that hit the US coast will be small relative to the levels released by Fukushima,” he said. “But we cannot estimate accurately what those levels will be because we do not know for certain what was released by Fukushima.”



You can rest easy MARIS:

Tentatively assuming a value of 10 petabecquerel (PBq) for the net 137Caesium (Cs) input during the first weeks after the Fukushima incident, the simulation suggests a rapid dilution of peak radioactivity values to about 10 Bq/m³ during the first 2 years, followed by a gradual decline to 1–2 Bq/m³ over the next 4–7 years. The total peak radioactivity levels would then be about twice the pre-Fukushima values. “While this may sound alarming, these levels are still lower than those permitted for drinking water,” said Böning.
 
Neither has anything to do with my posts, my sources, the thread topic, or the NOAA.

Just Denny Crane and his bag of strawmen and red herrings.
 
MARIS61 said:
Neither has anything to do with my posts, my sources, the thread topic, or the NOAA.

Just Denny Crane and his bag of strawmen and red herrings.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they do. Your source outright lied about the situation. It cited sources that do not support the assertions it made. It contained no quotes because the quotes do not support the lie they were trying to get you (and succeeded!) to believe. They don't cite any specific article published anywhere that I can find. The articles I did find say your site is bullshit.

GEOMAR, dude. GEOMAR. I showed you what they actually did say, and it's not what your site said. Get it?

The two snopes links addresses the fact that a number of sites got suckered into writing up articles based upon internet hoaxes.

You've been hoaxed.
 
Denny Crane said:
Your site lies. Sorry to break it to you.

Here's what the guys from GEOMAR actually say:

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/50176

Claus Böning, Erik Behrens and colleagues from the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel used global ocean circulation models to simulate the movement of a tracer which was continuously injected into Japanese coastal waters over several weeks. They then modelled its spreading and dilution in the Pacific Ocean for 10 years.

“We were of course not surprised that there is a mixing effect, but we were surprised at how quickly the tracer spread,” Claus Böning, co-author of the study, told environmentalresearchweb. “Within one year it will have spread over the entire western half of the North Pacific and in five years we predict it will reach the US West Coast.”

However, Böning points out that, due to considerable mixing and dilution, the level of radioactivity reaching the US will be much lower than that released by the Fukushima plant. “The levels of radiation that hit the US coast will be small relative to the levels released by Fukushima,” he said. “But we cannot estimate accurately what those levels will be because we do not know for certain what was released by Fukushima.”



You can rest easy MARIS:

Tentatively assuming a value of 10 petabecquerel (PBq) for the net 137Caesium (Cs) input during the first weeks after the Fukushima incident, the simulation suggests a rapid dilution of peak radioactivity values to about 10 Bq/m³ during the first 2 years, followed by a gradual decline to 1–2 Bq/m³ over the next 4–7 years. The total peak radioactivity levels would then be about twice the pre-Fukushima values. “While this may sound alarming, these levels are still lower than those permitted for drinking water,” said Böning.
Click to expand...

GEOMAR. You wrote up a big post praising their credentials. Read what they actually said. Quotes and everything. Oh yeah, this article is linked from their paper here:

http://www.geomar.de/en/news/article/fukushima-wo-bleibt-das-radioaktive-wasser/

Look at the URL - www.geomar.de.
 
NOAA

http://rt.com/usa/fukushima-debris-island-texas-266/

The NOAA graphics have led to numerous media reporting about an island of rubbish moving towards the US.

The agency was forced to alleviate the concerns in an article saying there was “no solid mass of debris from Japan heading to the United States.”

“At this point, nearly three years after the earthquake and tsunami struck Japan, whatever debris remains floating is very spread out. It is spread out so much that you could fly a plane over the Pacific Ocean and not see any debris since it is spread over a huge area, and most of the debris is small, hard-to-see objects,” NOAA explains on its official webpage.

The agency has stressed its research is just computer simulation, adding that “observations of the area with satellites have not shown any debris.”

...

Other concerns such as radiation, meanwhile, have been downplayed. On its website, the NOAA says, “Radiation experts agree that it is highly unlikely that any tsunami-generated marine debris will hold harmful levels of radiation from the Fukushima nuclear emergency.”

Independent groups like the 5 Gyres Institute, which tracks pollution at sea, have echoed the NOAA’s findings, saying that radiation readings have been “inconsequential.” Even the release of radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear reactor shouldn't be a grave concern, since scientists say it will be diluted to the point of being harmless by the time it reaches American shores in 2014.
 
Every link, denial or guesstimate provided by Denny predates August of 2013, when it was discovered that radiation had been spewing nonstop into the ocean since March 2011.

Obviously, any and all conclusions before 08/2013 are useless since they were based on a short term release with no future release of radiation.
 
Denny Crane said:
NOAA

http://rt.com/usa/fukushima-debris-island-texas-266/

The NOAA graphics have led to numerous media reporting about an island of rubbish moving towards the US.

The agency was forced to alleviate the concerns in an article saying there was “no solid mass of debris from Japan heading to the United States.”

“At this point, nearly three years after the earthquake and tsunami struck Japan, whatever debris remains floating is very spread out. It is spread out so much that you could fly a plane over the Pacific Ocean and not see any debris since it is spread over a huge area, and most of the debris is small, hard-to-see objects,” NOAA explains on its official webpage.

The agency has stressed its research is just computer simulation, adding that “observations of the area with satellites have not shown any debris.”

...

Other concerns such as radiation, meanwhile, have been downplayed. On its website, the NOAA says, “Radiation experts agree that it is highly unlikely that any tsunami-generated marine debris will hold harmful levels of radiation from the Fukushima nuclear emergency.”

Independent groups like the 5 Gyres Institute, which tracks pollution at sea, have echoed the NOAA’s findings, saying that radiation readings have been “inconsequential.” Even the release of radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear reactor shouldn't be a grave concern, since scientists say it will be diluted to the point of being harmless by the time it reaches American shores in 2014.
Click to expand...

A good example of media misdirection by manufacturing red herrings.

There is not now, nor was there ever a public concern about radioactive debris reaching our shores. It never happened. The concern is and always was the destruction of sea life which is what keeps the world alive.

NOAA makes no safety assurances whatsoever about the damage occurring and/or likely to occur over the rest of our and our descendants' lifetimes.
 
MARIS61 said:
Every link, denial or guesstimate provided by Denny predates August of 2013, when it was discovered that radiation had been spewing nonstop into the ocean since March 2011.

Obviously, any and all conclusions before 08/2013 are useless since they were based on a short term release with no future release of radiation.
Click to expand...

Untrue. All the articles say there's been continued leakage.

Hint: jlprk's article was about nothing actually new.
 
Prepare for a long and happy life, MARIS. Unless you want to create agony for yourself.
 
Who knew at the start of this thread that the title would be self-referential.

I wonder what's its half life?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top