#Login Register


  • 241 Vote(s) - 3.75 Average
Home 


The Fukushima Disaster
01-10-2014, 02:57 PM #1,381
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,881 Threads:420 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 #1,382
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,773 Threads:136 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 #1,383
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,881 Threads:420 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 #1,384
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,881 Threads:420 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?
01-20-2014, 01:50 AM #1,385
The Survivor Truthtard
Posts:5,013 Threads:522 Joined:Sep 2012
Japan TV: ‘Problem on their hands’ at Fukushima, constant flow of water pouring from foot-wide leak at Reactor 3; “They don’t know where water it’s coming from” — WSJ: Radiation level spikes 60-fold in seconds nearby.

http://enenews.com/japan-tv-problem-at-f...d-in-secon

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


https://twitter.com/NigelLondon2014

01-22-2014, 10:17 PM #1,386
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,881 Threads:420 Joined:Jun 2012
So, my nuclear engineer nephew, whose favorite words are "It's only background radiation!", posted this for everyone, which he also says "...is based on science" ... not doom (my words).

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Fukushim...story.html
01-23-2014, 03:51 AM #1,387
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,773 Threads:136 Joined:Apr 2013
(01-22-2014, 10:17 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  So, my nuclear engineer nephew, whose favorite words are "It's only background radiation!", posted this for everyone, which he also says "...is based on science" ... not doom (my words).

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Fukushim...story.html

I'm in a foul mood right now based on unrelated issues, so let me apologize for my bluntness.

Your nephew is full of the same crap every nuclear apologist is full of. For instance let me quote from the linked article:

"OSU’s Delvan Neville, a co-investigator on the project said: “To increase their normal annual dosage of radiation by just one per cent, a person would have to eat more than 4,000 pounds of the highest (radiation) level albacore we’ve seen.”

This is pure deadly bullsh!t. Neville is basing his statement on the utterly false idea that natural background radiation and highly refined Cesium-137 or highly refined strontium are the same.

They are even 1,000,000 shades of gray the same. As I wrote before in Post: #1293:

"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!"


So when these idiots claim the Fukushima radiation in the food is safe, they are either LYING or they are IGNORANT. Natural background radiation has been with us since the beginning of time.

But Cesium-137 is a manmade isotope that is 12.7 MILLION times more potent gram for gram. Trying to compare the two is like saying a grain of sand is like a large boulder. A boulder can crush a car whereas a grain of sand is not even noticed.

Pray for me. hug.gif
01-23-2014, 03:56 AM #1,388
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,881 Threads:420 Joined:Jun 2012
I am begging to believe that this nuclear science is flawed. damned.gif
01-23-2014, 04:19 AM #1,389
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,773 Threads:136 Joined:Apr 2013
(01-23-2014, 03:56 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  I am begging to believe that this nuclear science is flawed. damned.gif

Please don't beg to believe something that is false. The truth sets us free, Wanting to believe in something simply because it is more comforting doesn't usually end well.

Don't take my word for it. Ask your nephew these two questions:

How many curies are there in one gram Potassium-40 found in a banana?

How many curies are there in a gram of Cesium-137?


Watch him squirm. But insist on the answer.

You or I could spread a couple truck loads of bananas on the ground and be in no danger.

But one gram of Cesium-137 (which is 1/454th of an ounce) would contaminate two acres of land for the rest of our lives so much that it would be unlivable.

Pray for me. hug.gif
01-23-2014, 05:24 PM #1,390
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,881 Threads:420 Joined:Jun 2012
(01-23-2014, 04:19 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-23-2014, 03:56 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  I am begging to believe that this nuclear science is flawed. damned.gif

Please don't beg to believe something that is false. The truth sets us free, Wanting to believe in something simply because it is more comforting doesn't usually end well.

Don't take my word for it. Ask your nephew these two questions:

How many curies are there in one gram Potassium-40 found in a banana?

How many curies are there in a gram of Cesium-137?


Watch him squirm. But insist on the answer.

You or I could spread a couple truck loads of bananas on the ground and be in no danger.

But one gram of Cesium-137 (which is 1/454th of an ounce) would contaminate two acres of land for the rest of our lives so much that it would be unlivable.

It's just difficult for me knowing which truth is the truth.

I can't simply ask him those two questions, without any background information; he will ask me what do I already know of curies and what is my reason for asking, etc. dunno.gif
01-23-2014, 06:58 PM #1,391
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,773 Threads:136 Joined:Apr 2013
(01-23-2014, 05:24 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-23-2014, 04:19 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-23-2014, 03:56 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  I am begging to believe that this nuclear science is flawed. damned.gif

Please don't beg to believe something that is false. The truth sets us free, Wanting to believe in something simply because it is more comforting doesn't usually end well.

Don't take my word for it. Ask your nephew these two questions:

How many curies are there in one gram Potassium-40 found in a banana?

How many curies are there in a gram of Cesium-137?


Watch him squirm. But insist on the answer.

You or I could spread a couple truck loads of bananas on the ground and be in no danger.

But one gram of Cesium-137 (which is 1/454th of an ounce) would contaminate two acres of land for the rest of our lives so much that it would be unlivable.

It's just difficult for me knowing which truth is the truth.

I can't simply ask him those two questions, without any background information; he will ask me what do I already know of curies and what is my reason for asking, etc. dunno.gif

Tell him some a--hole asked you to ask him. See if he gives you a straight answer. If he doesn't, you have your answer.

Pray for me. hug.gif
01-23-2014, 09:00 PM #1,392
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,881 Threads:420 Joined:Jun 2012
OK, I asked him.

Quote:While its continued use is discouraged by NIST[3] and other bodies, the curie is widely used throughout the US government and industry.

Why is using the curie discouraged?
01-24-2014, 01:20 AM #1,393
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,773 Threads:136 Joined:Apr 2013
(01-23-2014, 09:00 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  OK, I asked him.

Quote:While its continued use is discouraged by NIST[3] and other bodies, the curie is widely used throughout the US government and industry.

Why is using the curie discouraged?

According to wikipedia the change was made because the symbol for Curie © gets mixed up with another mathematical symbol ©. The symbol for bequerel is Bq.

The important thing to understand is the difference in the amount of curies between the radiation in naturally occurring substances and the super highly refined man made radioactive material.

There is no such thing as Cesium-137 in nature. That alone should set off alarm bells.
But the concentration of the radioactivity in the purified Cesium-137 is more like a ship's fog horn implanted in your ear in terms of the loudness of the warning.

Pray for me. hug.gif
01-27-2014, 08:37 PM #1,394
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,881 Threads:420 Joined:Jun 2012
Prof. Masaki Shimoji - "It's a nightmare".






sad2.gif
02-09-2014, 10:23 AM #1,395
ocker1 Member
Posts:2,028 Threads:789 Joined:Mar 2011



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