#Login Register


  • 239 Vote(s) - 3.74 Average
Home 


The Fukushima Disaster
01-03-2014, 11:48 PM #1,366
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,820 Threads:441 Joined:Jun 2012
I found up to date reports on this site, but you have to register.

http://nucleus.iaea.org/sso/NUCLEUS.html...g/inisnkm/

..and this about rainwater leakage.

http://nucleus.iaea.org/sso/NUCLEUS.html...g/inisnkm/

I need an nuclear engineer to explain these number to me...any takers?

https://allegedlyapparent.wordpress.com/...ion_units/

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampli...alculation

More reading for you conspiracy theorists and doomtards. I'm still reading...

http://allegedlyapparent.wordpress.com/r...e_effects/
01-04-2014, 08:35 AM #1,367
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:2,452 Threads:233 Joined:Apr 2013
(01-03-2014, 12:16 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  And another odd happening from my source, the scientists at Tepco have announced that they are taking a New Years break and will resume speaking with the press on January 6th.

I'm not sure, but if there was a nuclear explosion there wouldn't they all be rushing back there at this time? blink.gif

http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/12/tepco...s-holiday/

The excuse used to postpone future reports wouldn't give me a lot of confidence. How in the world can they be running an incredibly high risk operation with the removal of fuel rods and not report daily how they are proceeding!

Their unwillingness to REPORT what is going on should send shivers up your spine.

Pray for me. hug.gif

01-04-2014, 03:02 PM #1,368
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,820 Threads:441 Joined:Jun 2012
(01-04-2014, 08:35 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-03-2014, 12:16 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  And another odd happening from my source, the scientists at Tepco have announced that they are taking a New Years break and will resume speaking with the press on January 6th.

I'm not sure, but if there was a nuclear explosion there wouldn't they all be rushing back there at this time? blink.gif

http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/12/tepco...s-holiday/

The excuse used to postpone future reports wouldn't give me a lot of confidence. How in the world can they be running an incredibly high risk operation with the removal of fuel rods and not report daily how they are proceeding!

Their unwillingness to REPORT what is going on should send shivers up your spine.

Hey BAG, why not register on this site as there are up to date reports. I'm just not sure how to read the measured results. Maybe you could help here.

http://nucleus.iaea.org/sso/NUCLEUS.html...g/inisnkm/
01-05-2014, 01:36 AM #1,369
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:2,452 Threads:233 Joined:Apr 2013
(01-04-2014, 03:02 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-04-2014, 08:35 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-03-2014, 12:16 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  And another odd happening from my source, the scientists at Tepco have announced that they are taking a New Years break and will resume speaking with the press on January 6th.

I'm not sure, but if there was a nuclear explosion there wouldn't they all be rushing back there at this time? blink.gif

http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/12/tepco...s-holiday/


The excuse used to postpone future reports wouldn't give me a lot of confidence. How in the world can they be running an incredibly high risk operation with the removal of fuel rods and not report daily how they are proceeding!

Their unwillingness to REPORT what is going on should send shivers up your spine.

Hey BAG, why not register on this site as there are up to date reports. I'm just not sure how to read the measured results. Maybe you could help here.

http://nucleus.iaea.org/sso/NUCLEUS.html...g/inisnkm/

Thanks for the invite, Unique. The problem is that I don't trust the IAEA to give full and complete information or even accurate information. It's populated by nuclear apologists. It didn't help any that El Baradai (sp?) was their former head.

Pray for me. hug.gif

01-05-2014, 07:34 AM #1,370
Softy Incognito Anonymous
 
(01-03-2014, 04:06 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  The radiation map at Fukushima is showing a reading of 142,000 at this minute.

What is odd is that the map always has a green badge for that area. The badges are highly misleading. It must work on a moving average. Thus a 142,000 reading is about average for that spot.

Their readings change perhaps as often as every minute, so your reading could differ from the 142,000 reported here.

http://netc.com/

Yeah,,,that green badge got me wondering wtf as well,,,

sure we are not alone in that,,,strange,,,and it seems it is

always green,,,never changes on any I have seen,,,

over time...

(:X
01-05-2014, 05:57 PM #1,371
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,820 Threads:441 Joined:Jun 2012
(01-05-2014, 01:36 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-04-2014, 03:02 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-04-2014, 08:35 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-03-2014, 12:16 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  And another odd happening from my source, the scientists at Tepco have announced that they are taking a New Years break and will resume speaking with the press on January 6th.

I'm not sure, but if there was a nuclear explosion there wouldn't they all be rushing back there at this time? blink.gif

http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/12/tepco...s-holiday/


The excuse used to postpone future reports wouldn't give me a lot of confidence. How in the world can they be running an incredibly high risk operation with the removal of fuel rods and not report daily how they are proceeding!

Their unwillingness to REPORT what is going on should send shivers up your spine.

Hey BAG, why not register on this site as there are up to date reports. I'm just not sure how to read the measured results. Maybe you could help here.

http://nucleus.iaea.org/sso/NUCLEUS.html...g/inisnkm/

Thanks for the invite, Unique. The problem is that I don't trust the IAEA to give full and complete information or even accurate information. It's populated by nuclear apologists. It didn't help any that El Baradai (sp?) was their former head.

I would agree all the measurements and information is confusing if one is not a nuclear engineer, but are all of them apologists, or are they actually stating facts?
01-05-2014, 11:16 PM #1,372
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:2,452 Threads:233 Joined:Apr 2013
(01-05-2014, 07:34 AM)Softy Wrote:  
(01-03-2014, 04:06 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  The radiation map at Fukushima is showing a reading of 142,000 at this minute.

What is odd is that the map always has a green badge for that area. The badges are highly misleading. It must work on a moving average. Thus a 142,000 reading is about average for that spot.

Their readings change perhaps as often as every minute, so your reading could differ from the 142,000 reported here.

http://netc.com/

Yeah,,,that green badge got me wondering wtf as well,,,

sure we are not alone in that,,,strange,,,and it seems it is

always green,,,never changes on any I have seen,,,

over time...

(:X

Yes, the shield colors are a total sham. If a location has had previous higher numbers, it appears to affect subsequent colors.

What's the point of providing color coding when Fukushima can get a green with the reading right now of 143,000? Same with the other nearby locations that are typically 4,000 to 5,000.

Pray for me. hug.gif

01-08-2014, 04:13 PM #1,373
Shadow Incognito Anonymous
 
Conjoined whale calves found dead in Mexican lagoon in world's first documented case of Siamese gray whales

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...hales.html

No idea if this has anything to do with Nukushima but... it's odd. And very sad.
01-08-2014, 04:25 PM #1,374
NODOOM Truthtard
Posts:4,897 Threads:522 Joined:Sep 2012



Life is like a penny, you can spend it on what you like, but you can ONLY spend it once.


https://twitter.com/NigelLondon2014

01-09-2014, 02:02 AM #1,375
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:2,452 Threads:233 Joined:Apr 2013
(01-05-2014, 05:57 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-05-2014, 01:36 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-04-2014, 03:02 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-04-2014, 08:35 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-03-2014, 12:16 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  And another odd happening from my source, the scientists at Tepco have announced that they are taking a New Years break and will resume speaking with the press on January 6th.

I'm not sure, but if there was a nuclear explosion there wouldn't they all be rushing back there at this time? blink.gif

http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/12/tepco...s-holiday/


The excuse used to postpone future reports wouldn't give me a lot of confidence. How in the world can they be running an incredibly high risk operation with the removal of fuel rods and not report daily how they are proceeding!

Their unwillingness to REPORT what is going on should send shivers up your spine.

Hey BAG, why not register on this site as there are up to date reports. I'm just not sure how to read the measured results. Maybe you could help here.

http://nucleus.iaea.org/sso/NUCLEUS.html...g/inisnkm/

Thanks for the invite, Unique. The problem is that I don't trust the IAEA to give full and complete information or even accurate information. It's populated by nuclear apologists. It didn't help any that El Baradai (sp?) was their former head.

I would agree all the measurements and information is confusing if one is not a nuclear engineer, but are all of them apologists, or are they actually stating facts?

You might want to check out this story about the IAEA agreeing in writing to WITHHOLD/CONCEAL information about Fukushima.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/201...alresponse

Pray for me. hug.gif

01-09-2014, 03:05 AM #1,376
NODOOM Truthtard
Posts:4,897 Threads:522 Joined:Sep 2012
shocked.gif wtf2.gif doom.jpg

Life is like a penny, you can spend it on what you like, but you can ONLY spend it once.


https://twitter.com/NigelLondon2014

01-10-2014, 02:57 PM #1,377
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,820 Threads:441 Joined:Jun 2012
(01-09-2014, 02:02 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-05-2014, 05:57 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-05-2014, 01:36 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-04-2014, 03:02 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-04-2014, 08:35 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  The excuse used to postpone future reports wouldn't give me a lot of confidence. How in the world can they be running an incredibly high risk operation with the removal of fuel rods and not report daily how they are proceeding!

Their unwillingness to REPORT what is going on should send shivers up your spine.

Hey BAG, why not register on this site as there are up to date reports. I'm just not sure how to read the measured results. Maybe you could help here.

http://nucleus.iaea.org/sso/NUCLEUS.html...g/inisnkm/

Thanks for the invite, Unique. The problem is that I don't trust the IAEA to give full and complete information or even accurate information. It's populated by nuclear apologists. It didn't help any that El Baradai (sp?) was their former head.

I would agree all the measurements and information is confusing if one is not a nuclear engineer, but are all of them apologists, or are they actually stating facts?

You might want to check out this story about the IAEA agreeing in writing to WITHHOLD/CONCEAL information about Fukushima.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/201...alresponse

I glanced over the agreement and it is somewhat confusing, in that their aim appears to be to provide public awareness on radiological effects of public health, yet the information is treated as confidential and highly classified and the IAEA has no freedom to act independently. dunno.gif

http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/images/fmu-iaea.pdf
01-11-2014, 05:25 AM #1,378
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:2,452 Threads:233 Joined:Apr 2013
(01-10-2014, 02:57 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-09-2014, 02:02 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-05-2014, 05:57 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-05-2014, 01:36 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-04-2014, 03:02 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Hey BAG, why not register on this site as there are up to date reports. I'm just not sure how to read the measured results. Maybe you could help here.

http://nucleus.iaea.org/sso/NUCLEUS.html...g/inisnkm/

Thanks for the invite, Unique. The problem is that I don't trust the IAEA to give full and complete information or even accurate information. It's populated by nuclear apologists. It didn't help any that El Baradai (sp?) was their former head.

I would agree all the measurements and information is confusing if one is not a nuclear engineer, but are all of them apologists, or are they actually stating facts?

You might want to check out this story about the IAEA agreeing in writing to WITHHOLD/CONCEAL information about Fukushima.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/201...alresponse

I glanced over the agreement and it is somewhat confusing, in that their aim appears to be to provide public awareness on radiological effects of public health, yet the information is treated as confidential and highly classified and the IAEA has no freedom to act independently. dunno.gif

http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/images/fmu-iaea.pdf

Here's how I see it. The IAEA isn't so stupid as to say, "Hey folks, we're going to cover up the stuff that would have you running at us with pitchforks."

No what they do is dress up the same action under the rubric of proprietary information. The IAEA works for TPTB. They know what their role is and they follow it.

Their job is to make the TPTB look good and to make us look the other way.

Pray for me. hug.gif

01-11-2014, 06:49 AM #1,379
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,820 Threads:441 Joined:Jun 2012
(01-11-2014, 05:25 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-10-2014, 02:57 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-09-2014, 02:02 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-05-2014, 05:57 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-05-2014, 01:36 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  Thanks for the invite, Unique. The problem is that I don't trust the IAEA to give full and complete information or even accurate information. It's populated by nuclear apologists. It didn't help any that El Baradai (sp?) was their former head.

I would agree all the measurements and information is confusing if one is not a nuclear engineer, but are all of them apologists, or are they actually stating facts?

You might want to check out this story about the IAEA agreeing in writing to WITHHOLD/CONCEAL information about Fukushima.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/201...alresponse

I glanced over the agreement and it is somewhat confusing, in that their aim appears to be to provide public awareness on radiological effects of public health, yet the information is treated as confidential and highly classified and the IAEA has no freedom to act independently. dunno.gif

http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/images/fmu-iaea.pdf

Here's how I see it. The IAEA isn't so stupid as to say, "Hey folks, we're going to cover up the stuff that would have you running at us with pitchforks."

No what they do is dress up the same action under the rubric of proprietary information. The IAEA works for TPTB. They know what their role is and they follow it.

Their job is to make the TPTB look good and to make us look the other way.

I invision it this way, that they don't know what the hell they are dealing with and will work together to not freak the public out...or freak out the public.
01-19-2014, 06:09 PM #1,380
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,820 Threads:441 Joined:Jun 2012
sad2.gif The Japanese officials are into total denial. Crazy s***t.



http://truth-out.org/news/item/21169-fuk...nt-go-away

From same article...

"Health officials in San Mateo County confirmed the radiation spike in snow but remain ‘befuddled’ as to its cause.":

Why are all gov't officials either befuddled or puzzled?



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