The Fukushima Disaster
Guest avatarLoginRegisterLost password


New reply
Home
 
  • 242 Votes - 3.76 Average
The Fukushima Disaster
Author Message
09-20-2013 03:17 AM#1291
Anonymous KritterIncognitoAnonymous
 
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
İmage
09-22-2013 04:10 PM#1292
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Here's another chart that explains radiation doses ... from wikipedia.

İmage
09-23-2013 01:23 AM#1293
Below Average GeniusMember
Posts: 1,940Joined: Apr 2013
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(09-22-2013 04:10 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Here's another chart that explains radiation doses ... from wikipedia.

İmage

Thanks for the chart. It must be taken issue with, nonetheless.

As mentioned in my message #1285 of this thread the chart makes all radiation risk equal by comparing the radioactivity of Potassium-40 from bananas to man made Cesium-137.

But the SAME amount of cesium-137 is well over 10 million times MORE toxic than the banana's radioactivity.

The radioactivity of a banana is: .0000071 Curies per gram.
The radioactivity of Cesium-137: 88.0000000 Curies per gram.

Divide 88 by .0000071 and you get 12,400,000 times more toxic!

One gram of cesium-137 has the same amount of radioactivity as 10 tons of Potassium-40!

Two grams of cesium-137 makes an entire acre of land uninhabitable, yet a field of banana trees does not make that land uninhabitable.

The nuclear energy apologists like to confuse the thinking about the relative danger of their products and do so by factors of 12 million or more!

This is not a difficult question to answer when the real numbers are used. Radioactivity such as we are seeing from Fukushima is as dangerous as anything you have ever considered. It has 14,000 times the amount of radioactivity as did the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, which did not turn out well for the people living there.

This is 14,000 times worse.

As was pointed out before, radioactive material is not dilutable like chemicals are. It keeps burning regardless of how many people it has already killed.

Pray for me. hug.gif
09-23-2013 05:05 PM#1294
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Well Beyond, as a layperson in this area, I can only try to believe the opinions of the experts in this field. They say radiation disperses within 48 hours, as well as degrades in time. Here's one more chart that simplifies radiation doses.

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663509/info...een-so-far

The video below explains - somewhat - how this ice wall experiment will be built and work, or rather not work. damned.gif





Quote:The prime minister, Shinzo Abe, said he understood the growing concern at home and overseas about the state of the plant but said his government was now "taking the lead" to solve the problem. "To do that we are resolutely implementing drastic measures."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...y-new-high
09-23-2013 11:37 PM#1295
Below Average GeniusMember
Posts: 1,940Joined: Apr 2013
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(09-23-2013 05:05 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Well Beyond, as a layperson in this area, I can only try to believe the opinions of the experts in this field. They say radiation disperses within 48 hours, as well as degrades in time. Here's one more chart that simplifies radiation doses.

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663509/info...een-so-far

The video below explains - somewhat - how this ice wall experiment will be built and work, or rather not work. damned.gif





Quote:The prime minister, Shinzo Abe, said he understood the growing concern at home and overseas about the state of the plant but said his government was now "taking the lead" to solve the problem. "To do that we are resolutely implementing drastic measures."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...y-new-high

As I've mentioned twice before, so-called dilution (dispersion) is a smoke screen. There is zero relevance to how diluted or dispersed the radiation is. Dilution applies when talking about chemical reactions, not nuclear disintegrations. Maybe they talk about dilution as a way to assuage the public because it is something the public can grasp - even though it has no bearing on the effects of radiation.

Nuclear disintegrations cause harm by changing the physical chemistry of the cells without changing the radioactive material's ability to do it again and again, millions or billions of times. There is no chemical reaction, thus the radioactive material isn't "tied down" to one reaction.

This latest chart uses the same failed concept that the Potassium-40 radiation in a banana is the same as the high energy radiation from Cesium-137 and from high energy Strontium. Is was pointed out before, Cesium is 12.4 MILLION times more dangerous than the Potassium-40. IOW, the charts are preposterously misleading.

the chart refers to millisieverts when it is Curies that make the difference.

You could build a treehouse in the middle of a banana tree farm and spend your entire life there eating bananas every day three times a day and never be affected by the radiation from the Potassium-40.

But if there were 2 grams of radioactive Cesium-137 within an acre, the land would be uninhabitable because you'd be exposed to 176 Curies of radiation.

You might be tempted to look at the chart and assume that 176 Curies is the same as a 176 millisieverts, IT IS NOT!!

There are 37 BILLION bequerels to one Curie. To convert the Curie into sieverts it requires a computation of the bequerels, times the amount of time exposed, times the energy signature of the particular radioactive isotope.

The bottom line is this, if you put 100 or a 1,000 people in the banana field contaminiated with 2 grams of Cesium-137 to live all of them would be dead within a year. Most would die within a few weeks.

People just don't grasp how serious this is.

Pray for me. hug.gif
09-24-2013 12:58 AM#1296
LilDoozeyMember
Posts: 142Joined: Sep 2013
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
OMG this Fukushima crap has me mad bro. How the F%ck can these people do something like that?! Its the beginning of the end! And i think its BS, they r polluting our water and killing a bunch of animals! DAMN THEM!!!coffeetime.gif
09-24-2013 01:22 AM#1297
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
The WHO and other experts keep telling us the 'dilution' in the sea reduces the radiation to safe levels. I've also read this for the new Fuk leaks. Why should we believe otherwise? Why isn't the U.S. and Canada up in arms, considering the plumes are headed that way?

Quote:Luckily, two ocean currents off the eastern coast of Japan — the Kuroshio Current and the Kuroshio Extension — has diluted the radioactive material so much that its concentration fell well below the World Health Organization’s safety levels within four months of the Fukushima incident.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/fukushima...8C11050755

The radioactive plume is heading U.S./Canada way in 2014, but how much radioactivity will there be?

İmage
09-24-2013 04:18 AM#1298
Below Average GeniusMember
Posts: 1,940Joined: Apr 2013
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(09-24-2013 01:22 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  The WHO and other experts keep telling us the 'dilution' in the sea reduces the radiation to safe levels. I've also read this for the new Fuk leaks. Why should we believe otherwise? Why isn't the U.S. and Canada up in arms, considering the plumes are headed that way?

Quote:Luckily, two ocean currents off the eastern coast of Japan — the Kuroshio Current and the Kuroshio Extension — has diluted the radioactive material so much that its concentration fell well below the World Health Organization’s safety levels within four months of the Fukushima incident.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/fukushima...8C11050755

The radioactive plume is heading U.S./Canada way in 2014, but how much radioactivity will there be?

İmage

You shouldn't believe them because what they say makes no sense. They are saying things because they don't want to alarm the public to the real dangers. Only radioactive iodine disperses in 48 hours.

So what they've done here is to tell a lie by only telling part of the truth. Iodine is but one of the radioactive products they are dealing with. For instance, Cesium-137 lasts 30 years just for one half life. That isotope is one of the major radioactive compounds being dealt with.

Thus to say the radiation from Fukushima is only a threat for 48 hours is a lie inteneded to deceive the public.

You need to understand the huge difference between a chemical reaction and a nuclear reaction to more fully understand .

Let's try an example by comparing the dangerous chemical chlorine to Cesium-137. If you were given a 16 ounce tumbler that was half bleach (8 ounces) and half water you could not drink it or it might kill you.

No one else would die from your experiment because the chlorine compound would perform a "one and done" reaction with your cells.

But if the eight ounces of bleach were mixed in a 1,000,000 gallon drum of water, you could drink the water with the bleach in it without any apparent harm short term or long term.

Next, if you had a 16 ounce tumbler of water that had 1 gram of Cesium137, you couldn't drink it without dying. In fact the water might boil away.

After you drank it, anyone who came near to you would need to wear radiation protection because the Cesium is not "one and done." It kills by changing the physical chemistry (the shape) of your fatty acids. No chemical reaction occurs where two or more different compounds form new compounds.

The Cesium-137 is just as intact as before. It's lifespan is determined by it's half life. It takes at least 10 half life periods to significantly reduce the atomic reactions of a signle molecule.

This means you would become radioactive and so would anyone who comes in contact with you. Whereas the chlorine in your body would affect no one else in the room, it wouldn't matter how many people entered the room if you had radiation poisoning. It could be one, ten or even 100 people and they would all be exposed to the same radiation danger.

But here is where the real difference lies.

No matter how many gallons of water you put the one gram of Cesium-137, it's still just as dangerous as it was when it was in the 16 ounce tumbler - except the water wouldn't boil away.

Let's take it a step further. Take the 16 ounce tumbler of 50/50 water and chlorine and take 1/8th of a teaspoon from it and put each 1/8th teaspoon into 10 tumblers and added in 16 ounces of water to each of the ten tumblers. Ten people could each drink from the highly diluted tumblers and probably wouldn't feel much of a negative effect if any.

But every person just being near the 10 tumblers of radioactive water would be irradiated.

You might recall that a couple workers were found to be exposed to 1,800 millisieverts while being next to the water drums at Fukushima. Had there been 10 people, they would all have the same or similar overexposure because it is an invisible wave of energy that is hitting them.

The wave distorts fatty acids (changes their shape) such that they can't transport oxygen into one or more cells. The cell turns rancid and spreads the rancidity from cell to cell.

Chemicals are generally good for one chemical reaction. Thus chlorine can damage one compound in the body, one and done.

Nuclear reactions are waves of energy so they can affect billions of cells. The energy they emit is slowed down only by time, not by dilution.

Yes, if the nuclear isotope in diluted in a huge amount of water, it does prevent a nuclear chain reaction, so in that sense dilution has a positive effect. But even that is misleading because the isotope will get filtered into some seaweed which will be eaten by marine life and so on, up the food chain. The radioactivity doesn't slow down while this is occurring.

It feels like I still haven't explained this adequately. For that failing, I apologize.

Pray for me. hug.gif
09-24-2013 05:49 AM#1299
SoftyIncognitoAnonymous
 
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
And the other problem is things like Strontium,,,

have the same valence electrons as Calcium,,,

so your body stores it in bone,,,and Iodine of course

our body uses,,,which makes these extra dangerous,,,

none of it is good,,,but some types will pass through,,,

unused...

(:X
09-24-2013 08:43 PM#1300
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
[quote]Low levels of radioactive cesium from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident turned up in fish caught off California in 2011, researchers reported Monday.

The bluefin spawn off Japan, and many migrate across the Pacific Ocean. Tissue samples taken from 15 bluefin caught in August, five months after the meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi, all contained reactor byproducts cesium-134 and cesium-137 at levels that produced radiation about 3% higher than natural background sources
[quote]

http://intellihub.com/2013/05/29/absolut...radiation/

There's that word 'LOW' again.

Damage control news: vermiculite...who would have thought.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...5/abstract
09-24-2013 11:29 PM#1301
Below Average GeniusMember
Posts: 1,940Joined: Apr 2013
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
[quote='UniqueStranger' pid='138162' dateline='1380044591']
[quote]Low levels of radioactive cesium from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident turned up in fish caught off California in 2011, researchers reported Monday.

The bluefin spawn off Japan, and many migrate across the Pacific Ocean. Tissue samples taken from 15 bluefin caught in August, five months after the meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi, all contained reactor byproducts cesium-134 and cesium-137 at levels that produced radiation about 3% higher than natural background sources
[quote]

http://intellihub.com/2013/05/29/absolut...radiation/

There's that word 'LOW' again.

Damage control news: vermiculite...who would have thought.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...5/abstract
[/quote]

The question that isn't answered in the first article referring to the 3% above background level is whether they are equating Potassium-40 with Cesium-137 or not. The bequerels could be the same but the curies wildly different.

Also keep in mind if we are exposed to a radiation source for a split second, such as from an x-ray, that is one thing. But if the x-ray machine was left running while we stood there for several minutes, it would have a hugely negative effect on the person.

The tuna that is swimming around exposed to this 3% increase 24/7 for a year is like the person standing in front of the x-ray machine that is left on.

Pray for me. hug.gif
09-24-2013 11:39 PM#1302
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
I did read somewhere that radiation exposure effects are cumulative within the body.

Flaxseed is now claimed to protect from radiation exposure - well, in mice.

Quote:The researchers gave flaxseed to mice. Some got it before radiation exposure, and some after exposure. Twice as many of the mice survived compared to healthy mice that didn’t get flaxseed. But the results went far beyond survival. Flaxseed-fed mice had higher body weight and less lung inflammation. Lung fibrosis was significantly limited. Fibrosis causes irreversible stiffening of tissue. Most importantly, these benefits occurred even in mice given flaxseed AFTER radiation exposure.

http://hsionline.com/2012/05/29/undoing-the-damage/

Actually from thinking about absorption of radioactive isotopes a little more, from my previous post of vermiculite and now flax, both absorption substances, it may be feasible.
09-26-2013 08:40 AM#1303
Below Average GeniusMember
Posts: 1,940Joined: Apr 2013
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(09-24-2013 11:39 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  I did read somewhere that radiation exposure effects are cumulative within the body.

Flaxseed is now claimed to protect from radiation exposure - well, in mice.

Quote:The researchers gave flaxseed to mice. Some got it before radiation exposure, and some after exposure. Twice as many of the mice survived compared to healthy mice that didn’t get flaxseed. But the results went far beyond survival. Flaxseed-fed mice had higher body weight and less lung inflammation. Lung fibrosis was significantly limited. Fibrosis causes irreversible stiffening of tissue. Most importantly, these benefits occurred even in mice given flaxseed AFTER radiation exposure.

http://hsionline.com/2012/05/29/undoing-the-damage/

Actually from thinking about absorption of radioactive isotopes a little more, from my previous post of vermiculite and now flax, both absorption substances, it may be feasible.

That's good to hear.

Zeolite is another substance that can trap radiation. It comes from volcanic ash. One of the top experts, Arnie Gunderson, has said that if they had dug trenches and put zeolite in and around the facility, it would have done a great deal to reduce the radioactive footprint. But now he says it's too late. You'd think it would still help some.

His estimate was that it would cost a half a trillion dollars which far exceeds TEPCO's wallet. The cost of this accident will far exceed a trillion when all is said and done.

Pray for me. hug.gif
09-27-2013 06:59 PM#1304
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
I found this interesting article about which natural foods help detox and/or repair the damaging effects of radioactive isotopes.

http://livelovefruit.com/2013/09/natural...-exposure/

An apple a day...

Quote:Apples & Sunflower Seeds

Apples and sunflower seeds contain high levels of pectin which helps to bind and remove radioactive residues from the body. Particularly, these two foods protect against caesium-137 which collects in the endocrine glands, pancreas, thymus and heart. Caesium-137 emits gamma rays, as well as beta rays which are incredibly toxic to the cells in our body. Consuming plenty of apples, and a healthy amount of sunflower seeds is a perfect snack addition to your day, and can help protect your body from radiation.
09-28-2013 01:20 PM#1305
MaddoggMember
Posts: 126Joined: Apr 2013
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Here's a good question what type of fish is still safe to eat? Maybe someone who follows this more closely has some insight! I love wild alasken salmon, this still a safe choice uhoh.gif

It's always darkest before it turns absolutely pitch black
09-28-2013 11:36 PM#1306
Anonymous KritterIncognitoAnonymous
 
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(09-28-2013 01:20 PM)Maddogg Wrote:  Here's a good question what type of fish is still safe to eat? Maybe someone who follows this more closely has some insight! I love wild alasken salmon, this still a safe choice uhoh.gif

No I wouldn't chance it. I would say its a high risk, from what I've have read from others online, who are more knowledgeable than me on the subject. I would stay clear from seafood. Labeling is not honest anyway. Plus the oceans are being over fished as it is. I would recommend doing some research at this site and keep monitoring it for updates. http://sccc.org.au/archives/2861

also see 24th September 2013 – American safety limit for the imports of Japanese food is 12 times more lax than Japan.
http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/09/ameri...han-japan/
JP Gov “There is no technology to remove Tritium from contaminated water”/Appeal international world for technology.

Comment:

Tritium density in the storage tanks at Fukushima is approx. 100,000,000,000 Bq/m3, half life 12.32 years. It combines with oxygen to form a liquid called tritiated water, T2O.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritiated_water
Hugh amounts of Tritiated water would have to be flowing into the Pacific Ocean as they can’t filter it out.
[url] http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/09/jp-go...logy/[/url]

http://www.nsr.go.jp/committee/yuushikis...006_04.pdf

http://www.nsr.go.jp/committee/yuushikis...kanshi_wg/

28.08.2013 - Radioactive water may contaminate entire Pacific Ocean in 6 years!

http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=150718

http://www.arirang.co.kr/Player/News_Vod...Seq=150718
10-03-2013 08:22 PM#1307
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Quote:Another day, another radioactive-water spill. The operator of the meltdown-plagued Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant says at least 430 litres (110 gallons) spilled when workers overfilled a storage tank that lacked a gauge that could have warned them of the danger.

http://globalnews.ca/news/879667/overflo...fukushima/

sad2.gif ...no gauge!!!??? What's left to say about this that I haven't already said? sad2.gif
10-04-2013 04:54 AM#1308
Below Average GeniusMember
Posts: 1,940Joined: Apr 2013
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(10-03-2013 08:22 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
Quote:Another day, another radioactive-water spill. The operator of the meltdown-plagued Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant says at least 430 litres (110 gallons) spilled when workers overfilled a storage tank that lacked a gauge that could have warned them of the danger.

http://globalnews.ca/news/879667/overflo...fukushima/

sad2.gif ...no gauge!!!??? What's left to say about this that I haven't already said? sad2.gif

The end of the world brought to you by the unwillingness to hire a decent plumber.

Pray for me. hug.gif
10-05-2013 07:01 PM#1309
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Quote:About 800 people worldwide will get cancer from radiation due to Fukushima in fish eaten to date, according to Georgia Straight calculations. The Straight results relied on a widely used cancer-risk formula developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as well as radiation levels in 33,000 fish tested by the Japanese Fisheries Agency.

Half the cancers will be fatal. About 500 will be in Japan; 75 will be due to Japanese fish exports to other countries; and 225 will be from fishing in the Pacific by nations other than Japan.

And that’s likely only a small part of the actual long-term cancer impacts from eating the fish. Two nuclear experts who saw the Straight’s figures said the real cancer toll could be 100 times higher—or 80,000 cancers.

http://www.straight.com/life/497646/fish...-fukushima

Don't eat Pacific Ocean caught fish unless you know for sure it is safe...and who do we trust to tell us that information?

"The CFIA did more radiation tests on Japanese food imports in the Vancouver region in September and October 2012; it still hasn’t released those results. Asked why the information has not been made public, Koutsavakis said that it is still being analyzed a year later: “It’s just a matter of doing the work based on the risk. That’s why it took longer.”

What the hell does that mean?
10-05-2013 08:13 PM#1310
Below Average GeniusMember
Posts: 1,940Joined: Apr 2013
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(10-05-2013 07:01 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
Quote:About 800 people worldwide will get cancer from radiation due to Fukushima in fish eaten to date, according to Georgia Straight calculations. The Straight results relied on a widely used cancer-risk formula developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as well as radiation levels in 33,000 fish tested by the Japanese Fisheries Agency.

Half the cancers will be fatal. About 500 will be in Japan; 75 will be due to Japanese fish exports to other countries; and 225 will be from fishing in the Pacific by nations other than Japan.

And that’s likely only a small part of the actual long-term cancer impacts from eating the fish. Two nuclear experts who saw the Straight’s figures said the real cancer toll could be 100 times higher—or 80,000 cancers.

http://www.straight.com/life/497646/fish...-fukushima

Don't eat Pacific Ocean caught fish unless you know for sure it is safe...and who do we trust to tell us that information?

"The CFIA did more radiation tests on Japanese food imports in the Vancouver region in September and October 2012; it still hasn’t released those results. Asked why the information has not been made public, Koutsavakis said that it is still being analyzed a year later: “It’s just a matter of doing the work based on the risk. That’s why it took longer.”

What the hell does that mean?

damned.gif

Some possibilities as to what Koutsavakis meant:

1- The guys doing the testing maxed out on their annual exposure, so they are looking for new suckers to replace them

2- They are waiting for the government to raise the official safe levels so that the fish can be declared safe under the new regulations.

3- His dog ate his homework.

4- Koutsavakis is looking for a promotion so he can get the hell away from radioactive fish.

5- "Mind your own beezwax, Mister! We did the test. That's all YOU need to know....um, waiter, cancel the grilled tuna and bring me another martini."

Pray for me. hug.gif
10-05-2013 08:18 PM#1311
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(10-05-2013 08:13 PM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(10-05-2013 07:01 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
Quote:About 800 people worldwide will get cancer from radiation due to Fukushima in fish eaten to date, according to Georgia Straight calculations. The Straight results relied on a widely used cancer-risk formula developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as well as radiation levels in 33,000 fish tested by the Japanese Fisheries Agency.

Half the cancers will be fatal. About 500 will be in Japan; 75 will be due to Japanese fish exports to other countries; and 225 will be from fishing in the Pacific by nations other than Japan.

And that’s likely only a small part of the actual long-term cancer impacts from eating the fish. Two nuclear experts who saw the Straight’s figures said the real cancer toll could be 100 times higher—or 80,000 cancers.

http://www.straight.com/life/497646/fish...-fukushima

Don't eat Pacific Ocean caught fish unless you know for sure it is safe...and who do we trust to tell us that information?

"The CFIA did more radiation tests on Japanese food imports in the Vancouver region in September and October 2012; it still hasn’t released those results. Asked why the information has not been made public, Koutsavakis said that it is still being analyzed a year later: “It’s just a matter of doing the work based on the risk. That’s why it took longer.”

What the hell does that mean?

damned.gif

Some possibilities as to what Koutsavakis meant:

1- The guys doing the testing maxed out on their annual exposure, so they are looking for new suckers to replace them

2- They are waiting for the government to raise the official safe levels so that the fish can be declared safe under the new regulations.

3- His dog ate his homework.

4- Koutsavakis is looking for a promotion so he can get the hell away from radioactive fish.

5- "Mind your own beezwax, Mister! We did the test. That's all YOU need to know....um, waiter, cancel the grilled tuna and bring me another martini."

I really should not laugh at that, but...
10-05-2013 09:46 PM#1312
Below Average GeniusMember
Posts: 1,940Joined: Apr 2013
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(10-05-2013 08:18 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(10-05-2013 08:13 PM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(10-05-2013 07:01 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
Quote:About 800 people worldwide will get cancer from radiation due to Fukushima in fish eaten to date, according to Georgia Straight calculations. The Straight results relied on a widely used cancer-risk formula developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as well as radiation levels in 33,000 fish tested by the Japanese Fisheries Agency.

Half the cancers will be fatal. About 500 will be in Japan; 75 will be due to Japanese fish exports to other countries; and 225 will be from fishing in the Pacific by nations other than Japan.

And that’s likely only a small part of the actual long-term cancer impacts from eating the fish. Two nuclear experts who saw the Straight’s figures said the real cancer toll could be 100 times higher—or 80,000 cancers.

http://www.straight.com/life/497646/fish...-fukushima

Don't eat Pacific Ocean caught fish unless you know for sure it is safe...and who do we trust to tell us that information?

"The CFIA did more radiation tests on Japanese food imports in the Vancouver region in September and October 2012; it still hasn’t released those results. Asked why the information has not been made public, Koutsavakis said that it is still being analyzed a year later: “It’s just a matter of doing the work based on the risk. That’s why it took longer.”

What the hell does that mean?

damned.gif

Some possibilities as to what Koutsavakis meant:

1- The guys doing the testing maxed out on their annual exposure, so they are looking for new suckers to replace them

2- They are waiting for the government to raise the official safe levels so that the fish can be declared safe under the new regulations.

3- His dog ate his homework.

4- Koutsavakis is looking for a promotion so he can get the hell away from radioactive fish.

5- "Mind your own beezwax, Mister! We did the test. That's all YOU need to know....um, waiter, cancel the grilled tuna and bring me another martini."

I really should not laugh at that, but...

lmao.gif Laugh! Laugh! That's WHY I wrote it!

I little humor brings the point home.

Pray for me. hug.gif
10-06-2013 03:54 PM#1313
ShadowMrs. Buckwheat
Posts: 13,527Joined: Feb 2011
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
chuckle.gif Good one BAG.

This is ... damned.gif

10-06-2013 04:16 PM#1314
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
I signed the petition at Nukefree.org...please take a moment to sign it?

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/the-wor...rce=search

http://enenews.com/nuclear-engineers-fuk...rted-video

Read #5...now we have to worry about Plant #3. damned.gif
10-06-2013 09:08 PM#1315
Below Average GeniusMember
Posts: 1,940Joined: Apr 2013
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(10-06-2013 03:54 PM)Shadow Wrote:  chuckle.gif Good one BAG.

This is ... damned.gif


That's an excellent video, Shadow. It explains things simply and visually in a way that illustrates what the danger is. Thanks for sharing it.

Pray for me. hug.gif
10-06-2013 10:47 PM#1316
Below Average GeniusMember
Posts: 1,940Joined: Apr 2013
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(10-06-2013 04:16 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  I signed the petition at Nukefree.org...please take a moment to sign it?

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/the-wor...rce=search

http://enenews.com/nuclear-engineers-fuk...rted-video

Read #5...now we have to worry about Plant #3. damned.gif

Thank you for the second link especially. There is a video from Arnie Gunderson that is really good.

Pray for me. hug.gif
10-07-2013 10:42 PM#1317
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(10-06-2013 10:47 PM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(10-06-2013 04:16 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  I signed the petition at Nukefree.org...please take a moment to sign it?

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/the-wor...rce=search

http://enenews.com/nuclear-engineers-fuk...rted-video

Read #5...now we have to worry about Plant #3. damned.gif

Thank you for the second link especially. There is a video from Arnie Gunderson that is really good.

Did you mean this video by him? I watched the video below and he certainly makes it very clear what exactly is going on and what is required.

http://fairewinds.org/media/fairewinds-v...ma-daiichi
10-08-2013 04:26 AM#1318
Below Average GeniusMember
Posts: 1,940Joined: Apr 2013
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(10-07-2013 10:42 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(10-06-2013 10:47 PM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(10-06-2013 04:16 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  I signed the petition at Nukefree.org...please take a moment to sign it?

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/the-wor...rce=search

http://enenews.com/nuclear-engineers-fuk...rted-video

Read #5...now we have to worry about Plant #3. damned.gif


Thank you for the second link especially. There is a video from Arnie Gunderson that is really good.

Did you mean this video by him? I watched the video below and he certainly makes it very clear what exactly is going on and what is required.

http://fairewinds.org/media/fairewinds-v...ma-daiichi

That is the one. cheers.gif

Pray for me. hug.gif
10-09-2013 03:55 PM#1319
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Quote:The workers removed the wrong pipe from equipment at the plant, sending toxic water spilling onto them and the entire floor of the facility housing a set of three units designed for primary, partial water treatment, said Yoshimi Hitosugi, the spokesman for Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09...68891.html

sad2.gif
10-20-2013 08:36 PM#1320
Lisa BoxxIncognitoAnonymous
 
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
New reply
Home





Free TopSite


DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS)

Kritterbox.com - Current events, paranormal, UFO, conspiracy, politics, ancient lost treasure, ancient technology, tech, music and more! This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site. This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental. All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception. No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com. Fair Use Notice:This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion. Copyright © 20011 - 2016 kritterbox.com