#Login Register


  • 241 Vote(s) - 3.75 Average
Home 


The Fukushima Disaster
03-16-2013, 05:50 PM #1,186
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(03-16-2013, 05:38 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  If the scientists don't know, it looks like nobody really knows.

Quote:It is likely that the area of contamination is not being contained by mere fishing nets. It will be years before a complete picture and full know the extent of radioactive contamination in ocean fish supply. It might be best if marine research is conducted locally with our own coastal seals, and with transparent results updated every six months.


If you don't eat the fish that just means more for me. They had a sale on solid white down at the store and I stocked up.
03-16-2013, 05:53 PM #1,187
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,129 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
(03-16-2013, 05:50 PM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(03-16-2013, 05:38 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  If the scientists don't know, it looks like nobody really knows.

Quote:It is likely that the area of contamination is not being contained by mere fishing nets. It will be years before a complete picture and full know the extent of radioactive contamination in ocean fish supply. It might be best if marine research is conducted locally with our own coastal seals, and with transparent results updated every six months.


If you don't eat the fish that just means more for me. They had a sale on solid white down at the store and I stocked up.


Well, then eat hearty...or rather eat cesiummmy.
03-16-2013, 06:44 PM #1,188
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(03-16-2013, 05:53 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(03-16-2013, 05:50 PM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(03-16-2013, 05:38 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  If the scientists don't know, it looks like nobody really knows.

Quote:It is likely that the area of contamination is not being contained by mere fishing nets. It will be years before a complete picture and full know the extent of radioactive contamination in ocean fish supply. It might be best if marine research is conducted locally with our own coastal seals, and with transparent results updated every six months.


If you don't eat the fish that just means more for me. They had a sale on solid white down at the store and I stocked up.


Well, then eat hearty...or rather eat cesiummmy.


"Sigh"...
http://www.vitalchoice.com/shop/pc/artic...sp?id=1787
We tested our Pacific seafood last March, and it passed with flying colors … see our sidebar, “Vital Choice Pacific seafood tested very safe.”

Unique you are precious and I hate to see you worried unnecessarily.

So lets commit some math here.

Lets assume the california tuna have 3 bq/kg of cesium-137. The specific activity in a gram of caesium-137 is 3.215 terabecquerel.

1 Kg x 3 ppm of natural cesium = 3 µg of Cesium. Just to be safe we will say 1.5 µg natural cesium.

3 Bq/3.215*10**12 = 9.3312597200622083981337480559876e-13 = 0.9 ng

That changes the amount of Cesium about 0.05% (half a part in a thousand). That is much less than the natural variation in the amount of Cesium in fish.
03-16-2013, 09:59 PM #1,189
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,129 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
(03-16-2013, 06:44 PM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(03-16-2013, 05:53 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(03-16-2013, 05:50 PM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(03-16-2013, 05:38 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  If the scientists don't know, it looks like nobody really knows.

Quote:It is likely that the area of contamination is not being contained by mere fishing nets. It will be years before a complete picture and full know the extent of radioactive contamination in ocean fish supply. It might be best if marine research is conducted locally with our own coastal seals, and with transparent results updated every six months.


If you don't eat the fish that just means more for me. They had a sale on solid white down at the store and I stocked up.


Well, then eat hearty...or rather eat cesiummmy.


"Sigh"...
http://www.vitalchoice.com/shop/pc/artic...sp?id=1787
We tested our Pacific seafood last March, and it passed with flying colors … see our sidebar, “Vital Choice Pacific seafood tested very safe.”

Unique you are precious and I hate to see you worried unnecessarily.

So lets commit some math here.

Lets assume the california tuna have 3 bq/kg of cesium-137. The specific activity in a gram of caesium-137 is 3.215 terabecquerel.

1 Kg x 3 ppm of natural cesium = 3 µg of Cesium. Just to be safe we will say 1.5 µg natural cesium.

3 Bq/3.215*10**12 = 9.3312597200622083981337480559876e-13 = 0.9 ng

That changes the amount of Cesium about 0.05% (half a part in a thousand). That is much less than the natural variation in the amount of Cesium in fish.


That coming from a company with a profit to be made.

"Sigh".
03-16-2013, 10:47 PM #1,190
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(03-16-2013, 09:59 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(03-16-2013, 06:44 PM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(03-16-2013, 05:53 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(03-16-2013, 05:50 PM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(03-16-2013, 05:38 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  If the scientists don't know, it looks like nobody really knows.


If you don't eat the fish that just means more for me. They had a sale on solid white down at the store and I stocked up.


Well, then eat hearty...or rather eat cesiummmy.


"Sigh"...
http://www.vitalchoice.com/shop/pc/artic...sp?id=1787
We tested our Pacific seafood last March, and it passed with flying colors … see our sidebar, “Vital Choice Pacific seafood tested very safe.”

Unique you are precious and I hate to see you worried unnecessarily.

So lets commit some math here.

Lets assume the california tuna have 3 bq/kg of cesium-137. The specific activity in a gram of caesium-137 is 3.215 terabecquerel.

1 Kg x 3 ppm of natural cesium = 3 µg of Cesium. Just to be safe we will say 1.5 µg natural cesium.

3 Bq/3.215*10**12 = 9.3312597200622083981337480559876e-13 = 0.9 ng

That changes the amount of Cesium about 0.05% (half a part in a thousand). That is much less than the natural variation in the amount of Cesium in fish.


That coming from a company with a profit to be made.

"Sigh".


If they were losing money I wouldn't believe them.


Vital Choice Seafood, Inc. in Bellingham, WA is a private seafood processor, DBA "Vital Choice".
They have footnotes at the end of the article for all their sources.

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManua.../ucm074576
Looked up the FDA info - it takes 1200 Bq/kg for you to glow in the dark, the measly 3 Bq/kg in japanese fish won't even help you find your way around the house at night.
03-16-2013, 11:21 PM #1,191
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,129 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
Then let's look at the aftermath of wildlife now Chernobyl accident, in particular, the accumulation factor of Cesium in the metabolism of the boar.

Quote:In her view, it is also important to consider whether the metabolism of boars may facilitate the accumulation of the radioactive isotope above the limits considered as safe.

http://english.sina.com/world/2013/0308/569481.html

Quote:The controversy ideally will spur better-designed studies, perhaps by critics. It’s about time for renewed interest in the impact of radiation on Chernobyl wildlife. More than a quarter century has passed since that disaster. Fukushima showed us there will be more in the future.

If we are to make smart energy choices, science needs to learn a lot more about the risks of chronic, low-level environmental radiation. We still don’t know how safe is really safe. Earth’s nuclear wastelands are natural laboratories for asking many of these questions.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and...s_and.html

There's still so much we don't know.
03-17-2013, 12:39 AM #1,192
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
"Sigh". Still having problems with editing timeouts...
03-17-2013, 01:11 AM #1,193
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(03-16-2013, 11:21 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Then let's look at the aftermath of wildlife now Chernobyl accident, in particular, the accumulation factor of Cesium in the metabolism of the boar.

Quote:In her view, it is also important to consider whether the metabolism of boars may facilitate the accumulation of the radioactive isotope above the limits considered as safe.

http://english.sina.com/world/2013/0308/569481.html

Quote:The controversy ideally will spur better-designed studies, perhaps by critics. It’s about time for renewed interest in the impact of radiation on Chernobyl wildlife. More than a quarter century has passed since that disaster. Fukushima showed us there will be more in the future.

If we are to make smart energy choices, science needs to learn a lot more about the risks of chronic, low-level environmental radiation. We still don’t know how safe is really safe. Earth’s nuclear wastelands are natural laboratories for asking many of these questions.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and...s_and.html

There's still so much we don't know.


From Wiki:
"There were no casualties caused by radiation exposure, approximately 25,000 died due to the earthquake and tsunami, with an analysis of the quantity of radiation released, and the number of people exposed, the range is 0 to a hundred cancer deaths in the coming decades.
...

In 2013, two years after the incident, the World Health Organization indicated that the residents of the area were exposed to so little radiation that it probably won't be detectable. They indicated that a Japanese baby's cancer lifetime risk would increase by about 1%.

The incidents are rated at level 7 rating on the International Nuclear Event Scale. The total amount of iodine-131 and caesium-137 released into the atmosphere has been estimated to exceed 10% of the emissions from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.[16][17] Frank N. von Hippel, a U.S. scientist, has estimated that the release of radioactivity is about one-tenth that from the Chernobyl disaster and the contaminated area is also about one-tenth that that of Chernobyl; he also estimates "on the order of 1,000" people will die from cancer as a result of their exposure to radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi disaster.[18][unreliable source] According to a June 2012 Stanford University study, the radiation released could cause 130 deaths from cancer (the lower bound for the estimater being 15 and the upper bound 1100) and 180 cancer cases (the lower bound being 24 and the upper bound 1800), mostly in Japan. Radiation exposure to workers at the plant was projected to result in 2 to 12 deaths.[19][unreliable source] At the time of the incident at Chernobyl, high numbers of deaths were forecast, some reaching as high as a million deaths, however, later studies have disproven these high estimates, and the damage from radiation was drastically less then predicted."


The actual Chernobyl deaths are estimated at around 4000. Original estimates for the Chernobyl went as high as a million. From a profession standpoint - anyone who estimated over 40,000 is incompetent and should be fired. Actually that is a bit generous, there are only 64 deaths directly attributable to Chernobyl radiation.

It is pretty obvious to any except the biased, that with far less than 1/10 of the radiation on the land area of the country there are going to be a couple hands-full of deaths from Fukushima. The number might run as high as 1/3 of the evacuation deaths (which raises questions about the wisdom of the evacuation).

The reason for the huge over estimates is use of the linear-no-threshold model of radiation exposure that overestimates deaths by over 100 X (times). The linear-no-threshold model was developed by a dishonest antinuclear activist. The linear-no-threshold model performs as if it was developed by a dishonest antinuclear activist.
03-18-2013, 07:40 PM #1,194
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,129 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
Chernobyl mutations - 30 years after.

03-20-2013, 12:46 AM #1,195
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(03-18-2013, 07:40 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Chernobyl mutations - 30 years after.

http://youtu.be/ZjSBiOUZNLE



İmage

İmage

Chernobyl upchucked part of the reactor core into the air. The radiation is measured in kBq/m2. The radiation around Fukushima is measured in Bq/m2.

Chernobyl is a good idea what "bad" looks like, Fukushima not so much.
03-20-2013, 04:55 PM #1,196
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,129 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
Well, let's just wait and see what will be the cumulative effects...it's early days yet.

Quote:While the long-term repercussions of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster are yet to be fully assessed, they are far more serious than those pertaining to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine, which resulted in almost one million deaths (New Book Concludes – Chernobyl death toll: 985,000, mostly from cancer Global Research, September 10, 2010, See also Matthew Penney and Mark Selden The Severity of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster: Comparing Chernobyl and Fukushima, Global Research, May 25, 2011)

Quote:The realties, however, are otherwise. Fukushima 3 was leaking unconfirmed amounts of plutonium. According to Dr. Helen Caldicott, “one millionth of a gram of plutonium, if inhaled can cause cancer”.

Quote:The crisis in Japan has been described as “a nuclear war without a war”. In the words of renowned novelist Haruki Murakami:


“This time no one dropped a bomb on us … We set the stage, we committed the crime with our own hands, we are destroying our own lands, and we are destroying our own lives.”

Quote:“Hazardous radioactive elements being released in the sea and air around Fukushima accumulate at each step of various food chains (for example, into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow’s meat and milk, then humans). Entering the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, continuously irradiating small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years often induce cancer”. (Helen Caldicott, Fukushima: Nuclear Apologists Play Shoot the Messenger on Radiation, The Age, April 26, 2011)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-a...tion/28870
03-28-2013, 03:23 AM #1,197
iBryson Member
Posts:109 Threads:6 Joined:Mar 2013
The Damn Japs let loose some DOOM let me tell you!
They were PISSED off 60 years ago when we Americans Used them For the TWIN Cities Experiment! Now their so hooked to Radioactivity They Experiment on them selves!

What a mess this turned out to be! And this was just 1 Plant! Can You imagine The entire east coast of the United states!

Lets take for instance a Nibiru style event (Not that thats Real or anything!) But just say there was something that disrupted the entire surface of the earth!

Can you imagine the Contamination!! shït I don't even wanna think about that anymore!

Holy Crapola Something new to DOOMSTERBATE OVER!


It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

03-28-2013, 04:33 AM #1,198
jason doom Member
Posts:45 Threads:2 Joined:Mar 2013
boy thing are always looking up , huh? drpressing isn't it? all this radioactive land and mutations and we still havent learned our lesson . this guys disappointed in humanity...

beercheer.gif
03-28-2013, 04:21 PM #1,199
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,129 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
(03-28-2013, 04:33 AM)jason doom Wrote:  boy thing are always looking up , huh? drpressing isn't it? all this radioactive land and mutations and we still havent learned our lesson . this guys disappointed in humanity...


Me too and I have been for a very long time. sad2.gif
03-29-2013, 03:50 AM #1,200
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(03-28-2013, 04:21 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(03-28-2013, 04:33 AM)jason doom Wrote:  boy thing are always looking up , huh? drpressing isn't it? all this radioactive land and mutations and we still havent learned our lesson . this guys disappointed in humanity...


Me too and I have been for a very long time. sad2.gif


You guys always seem gloomy in this in thread. That is why I always like to bring good news.

http://jrr.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/1/88.full.pdf
According to a 1989 report from the National Institute of Radiological Sciences in Chiba, Japan, however, the current environmental radiation level (1.0 mSv/y) in Nagasaki was almost as low as background in other areas in Japan.

The current background radiation in Tokyo is 1.1mS/y - higher than Nagasaki (when I checked Nagasaki it was only 0.8 mS/y)

(03-20-2013, 04:55 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Well, let's just wait and see what will be the cumulative effects...it's early days yet.

Quote:The realties, however, are otherwise. Fukushima 3 was leaking unconfirmed amounts of plutonium. According to Dr. Helen Caldicott, “one millionth of a gram of plutonium, if inhaled can cause cancer”.
Courtesy of Wiki:
A commonly cited quote by Ralph Nader, states that a pound of plutonium dust spread into the atmosphere would be enough to kill 8 billion people. However, calculations show that one pound of plutonium could kill no more than 2 million people by inhalation. This makes the toxicity of plutonium roughly equivalent with that of nerve gas.

Several populations of people who have been exposed to plutonium dust (e.g. people living down-wind of Nevada test sites, Nagasaki survivors, nuclear facility workers, and "terminally ill" patients injected with Pu in 1945–46 to study Pu metabolism) have been carefully followed and analyzed. These studies generally do not show especially high plutonium toxicity or plutonium-induced cancer results, such as Albert Stevens who survived into old age after being injected with plutonium. "There were about 25 workers from Los Alamos National Laboratory who inhaled a considerable amount of plutonium dust during 1940s; according to the hot-particle theory, each of them has a 99.5% chance of being dead from lung cancer by now, but there has not been a single lung cancer among them



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, 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 © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com