#Login Register


  • 241 Vote(s) - 3.75 Average
Home 


The Fukushima Disaster
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
09-20-2013, 03:17 AM #1,291
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
İmage
09-22-2013, 04:10 PM #1,292
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,717 Threads:412 Joined:Jun 2012
Here's another chart that explains radiation doses ... from wikipedia.

İmage
09-23-2013, 01:23 AM #1,293
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,692 Threads:129 Joined:Apr 2013
(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 #1,294
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,717 Threads:412 Joined:Jun 2012
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 #1,295
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,692 Threads:129 Joined:Apr 2013
(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 #1,296
LilDoozey Member
Posts:138 Threads:45 Joined:Sep 2013
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 #1,297
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,717 Threads:412 Joined:Jun 2012
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 #1,298
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,692 Threads:129 Joined:Apr 2013
(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 #1,299
Softy Incognito Anonymous
 
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 #1,300
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,717 Threads:412 Joined:Jun 2012
[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 #1,301
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,692 Threads:129 Joined:Apr 2013
[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 #1,302
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,717 Threads:412 Joined:Jun 2012
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 #1,303
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,692 Threads:129 Joined:Apr 2013
(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 #1,304
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,717 Threads:412 Joined:Jun 2012
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 #1,305
Maddogg Member
Posts:117 Threads:12 Joined:Apr 2013
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



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