It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Japan Times: ‘Records shattered’ at Fukushima — Radiation levels surge after typhoon

page: 2
40
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Long, LONG time lurker. First time poster, actually I just created an account today. So, hurray for my inaugural post?

Just wanted to dispel some fears about the spike in activity in Fukushima due to the Typhoon.

Intrptr has it right in why these spikes occur, but it seems the original post contains some standard fear tactics, namely in the numbers. 150,000 becquerels of radiation really isn't much at all. For reference, the natural levels of Potassium-40 in the average human body emits (roughly) 250,000 Bq per minute. So, your own body is delivering more radiation to you than the levels listed here.

So yes, this is a spike in activity, but not one people should be worried about. Honestly, if you're going to be wearing a hat next rain because you fear Fukushima radiation, I suggest you never fly in a commercial airliner again.
A huge spike in Tritium releases means a huge spike in Uranium-235 and Plutonium-239. Fukushima is leaking hundreds of different isotopes into the environment; We should be very concerned.




posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I'm "kinda" concerned... I'm also concerned about the "Big E." I just hope I have the kahones, or however that's spelled, to bounce, while I still can... With this problem, though, I might be headed in the wrong direction.
lol, kinda.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 04:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Some additional information about the measurements from the Japan Times Article: Tritium up tenfold in Fukushima groundwater after Typhoon Phanfone

Some 150,000 becquerels of tritium per liter were measured in a groundwater sample taken Thursday from a well east of the No. 2 reactor. The figure is a record for the well and over 10 times the level measured the previous week.
In addition, materials that emit beta rays, such as strontium-90, which causes bone cancer, also shattered records with a reading of 1.2 million becquerels, the utility said of the sample.
...............
Tepco also revealed that, at a separate well also east of the No. 2 reactor, a groundwater sample was giving off a record 2.1 million becquerels of a beta ray-emitting substance, nearly double the level from a week earlier.
The cesium activity in the sample was 70 percent higher at 68,000 becquerels.
...............
Readings hit record highs at three points after the heavy rain caused by the typhoon, but the utility said it does not know why.


Some of the beta radiation readings are as high as 2.1 million becquerels per liter of water. That's 2.1 million particle emissions per second per liter of water.

The information that was presented in the article only mentions two of the three records broken. I wonder what the readings for the third one were.

From the Harvard Natural Sciences Lecture Demonstration:

"There are 1.2 radioactive atoms of 40K for every 10,000 nonradioactive atoms of potassium. There is of the order of 140 g of potassium in an adult who weighs 70 kg, and 0.0169 g consists of the 40K isotope. This amount of 40K disintegrates at the rate of 266,000 atoms per minute. Of every 100 disintegrations, 89 result in the release of beta particles with maximum energy of 1.33 MeV, and 11 result in gamma photons with an energy of 1.46 MeV. All of the beta particles and about 50 percent of the gamma rays are absorbed in the body, giving annual doses of 16 mrad from the beta particles and 2 mrad from the gamma rays."


You got some of your units wrong.

266,000 particle emissions per minute = 4433 becquerels (particle emissions per second)
The material quantity on which this measurement is based is of a 70kg human.
So an apples-to-apples comparison of the Harvard Demonstration and the Fukushima measurements would be closer to:
Fukushima: 2.1 million becquerels per liter (1kg) of water.
Harvard: 63.3 becquerels per kilogram of body mass (mostly water)

I just wanted to comment on the math error.
Thanks


Dex



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Aids, Ebola, MERS, Tepco...Is someone trying to tell us something...

Pointless putting your fingers in your ears with these issues going global..

To quote a UK old TV sitcom character from Dad's Army, "We're all doomed"



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 04:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Long, LONG time lurker. First time poster, actually I just created an account today. So, hurray for my inaugural post?

Just wanted to dispel some fears about the spike in activity in Fukushima due to the Typhoon.

Intrptr has it right in why these spikes occur, but it seems the original post contains some standard fear tactics, namely in the numbers. 150,000 becquerels of radiation really isn't much at all. For reference, the natural levels of Potassium-40 in the average human body emits (roughly) 250,000 Bq per minute. So, your own body is delivering more radiation to you than the levels listed here.

So yes, this is a spike in activity, but not one people should be worried about. Honestly, if you're going to be wearing a hat next rain because you fear Fukushima radiation, I suggest you never fly in a commercial airliner again.


If u believe that I'm sure tepco has a nice job for u

The pay is great. The health plan ...not so much

Go spend a few days

Eta see yiur math error above




posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

You are correct, I am sorry I did get my math wrong. I didn't see the "per minute" in the study information. Your math appears to be solid. Apologies!

Don't get me wrong, I'm worried about what's happening at Fukushima. It's an environmental catastrophe on an unprecedented level. I'm very concerned about how lackadaisical the cleanup operation seems to be. I just feel that sometimes the fear train gets roarin' and everyone is jumping aboard. The disaster won't turn Japan into radioactive wasteland, nor will it turn the U.S. West Coast into a wasteland either. I agree with many posters here that my main concern is for marine life.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun


I just feel that sometimes the fear train gets roaring' and everyone is jumping aboard.


We won't "fear" though, we have you to derail the train before it even leaves the station.

Human, is that you?



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
Oh yeah .... remember Fukishima, that still not contained NUCLEAR reactor that the media haven't talked about for over two years?

When Chernobyl blew, the word gave the Russians a VERY hard time until they contained it, there was story after story in the news.

For some reason, the Japanese seem to get carte blanche on not containing one of the worst environmental disasters of the decade so far.


HUGE differences. First of all, Japan did not lie and try to hide the fact that a disaster had occurred, poisoning tens of thousands of people downwind. Second, this IS NOT the wide open festering nuclear fire that Chernobyl was. Third, they ARE trying their best to fix this. For crying out loud do you honestly think that they are just sitting there doing nothing?! Here's an idea: If you know so much, why don't YOU get your expert rear end over there and solve this. Yeesh...



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

Putting aside personal attacks, I agree with most of what you said with one caveat:

TEPCO has made mistakes regarding the handling of this disaster from the beginning. Yes they are trying their best, but their best isn't making things better as quickly as it could have been done.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

The final difference is that the disaster in Japan came as a result of a 9.x earthquake and enormous tsunami beyond recent historical records. In chernobyl it came from complete operator incompetence and major design flaws. Supposedly that design was considered dangerous enough that the USSR never put any of them in Russia itself---just the other non-russian states got the "glory".

There was a catastrophe there---but the effect of the tsunami itself was the biggest catastrophe. The radiation now is an expensive PITA but it is not an environmental 'catastrophe'.

In the long run, global warming sure will be a catastrophe so much larger and the effect of fukushima will be to reduce use of nuclear fission prematurely while people are still using fossil fuels. As in Germany---where coal use is going UP.
edit on 14-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Welcome to the community!



a reply to: DexterRiley

You are correct, I am sorry I did get my math wrong. I didn't see the "per minute" in the study information. Your math appears to be solid. Apologies!


As a long time lurker, I'm sure you know that if someone makes even the simplest error in presenting evidence, they'll get called on it. However, some of us are more diplomatic than others in presenting corrections.



Don't get me wrong, I'm worried about what's happening at Fukushima. It's an environmental catastrophe on an unprecedented level. I'm very concerned about how lackadaisical the cleanup operation seems to be. I just feel that sometimes the fear train gets roarin' and everyone is jumping aboard. The disaster won't turn Japan into radioactive wasteland, nor will it turn the U.S. West Coast into a wasteland either.


That's one of the nice things about this community. Everyone has a different perspective, and they are free, and invited, to present their opinion. Your opinion, and evidence, slowed the "fear train" a bit and made some of us think and do a little homework.

From my perspective, I wanted to make sure that this information wasn't being represented inconsistently. The baseline measurements are non-trivial, but the increase in radioactive content is the most disconcerting part. Especially since the scientists at Tepco don't know why.


I agree with many posters here that my main concern is for marine life.

Well one thing is for sure, that's one of the worst possible places to disturb the food web. The marine environment is at the lowest level of the food web for most species on this planet. If you kill a tree at the roots, you kill the entire tree.


Dex



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Hello and welcome .. can i just say that your avatar is BRILLIANT
but i have to block it off with my hand it is so busy so to speak, sorry to moan lol.. iam old.. get orf my lawn



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

A typical commercial flight nets you a total radiation dose of about 4 µSv per hour at cruising altitude.

The radiation reported at Fukushima is a fraction of that.


I know who this poster is from another forum. Even used the same ole shtick about "long time lurker". I can probably tell you right now everything he is going to post in the next few days, almost word for word.

I need to pop some popcorn because if he posts the same stuff that he posts on the other forum... these people on ATS will eat him alive and I got a front row seat.

Not going to reply to his posts... I just wanna enjoy the show... this should be very entertaining.

A wise word to the "new" poster from a long time poster... this site is heavily moderated.... personal attacks are not tolerated like they are on the other forum and will very quickly get you banned so be very careful what you say to/about the people here. Trying to derail threads by switching topics will result in removal of your posts by the moderators. I strongly suggest you spend some time reading back through the hundreds of posts before bringing up stuff that has already been discussed. It will also give you a feel for what is allowed and what isn't.

None of the long time posters here, myself included, buy into the Fukushima doom porn, so you will find a home here in that respect,,,but trying to tell people here that no one will get cancer from Fukushima or no one died from radiation at Chernobyl will not go over very well. Just sayin.


"A typical commercial flight nets you a total radiation dose of about 4 µSv per hour at cruising altitude. The radiation reported at Fukushima is a fraction of that."


You, sir, are off to a flying start. That's maybe, oh I don't know, about the 10th time that comparison has been tried on this forum. I don't even have to reply to that because there are others who will jump all over that statement. You have just set a precedent for yourself on where you stand and now all you have to do is defend that remark. Good luck to you on that one.

External doses from an airplane flight and ingested internal doses from a nuclear accident are as different as a man and a bear and a pig...not even in the same ball park...it's kinda like saying nuclear power is safe because bananas are radioactive. This also has been discussed and debated at length. Once again, the search function is your friend.



edit on R362014-10-15T02:36:37-05:00k3610Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Long, LONG time lurker. First time poster, actually I just created an account today. So, hurray for my inaugural post?

Just wanted to dispel some fears about the spike in activity in Fukushima due to the Typhoon.

Intrptr has it right in why these spikes occur, but it seems the original post contains some standard fear tactics, namely in the numbers. 150,000 becquerels of radiation really isn't much at all. For reference, the natural levels of Potassium-40 in the average human body emits (roughly) 250,000 Bq per minute. So, your own body is delivering more radiation to you than the levels listed here.

So yes, this is a spike in activity, but not one people should be worried about. Honestly, if you're going to be wearing a hat next rain because you fear Fukushima radiation, I suggest you never fly in a commercial airliner again.


The whole potassium thing has been debated and debunked many times on here...

If your going to go down the whole silly naturally occurring potassium-40 is in your body so Fukushima is harmless crap, please use the search function and reply to one of the many various existing threads where it has been debated in length. It serves no purpose to re-hash the same old cliches over again.


edit on R362014-10-15T01:36:43-05:00k3610Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R222014-10-15T02:22:04-05:00k2210Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

Looks like the new poster and his numbers got a little mixed up. I wonder how many people actually bought into it. Glad to see someone set them straight.......Bravo.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 07:29 AM
link   
There are a few people here (Japan) that have monitored the Russian disaster and have over 10 years experience with research. There is a changing of the food chain that is more highly radiated than others. Spiders seem to have the highest radiation level. They don't know why yet. Good thing we don't eat spiders.
edit on 10u49302014-10-15T07:30:49-05:00304910am7 by musicismagic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I don't know which other forum you're referring to, but I can assure you that this is my first few days posting here. If this other poster you're referring to is also posting regarding Fukushima, I can tell you now that I am not her/him.

My original post contained some mathematical errors, these have been pointed out, and I have acknowledged them. It was a mistake on my part.




None of the long time posters here, myself included, buy into the Fukushima doom porn, so you will find a home here in that respect,,,but trying to tell people here that no one will get cancer from Fukushima or no one died from radiation at Chernobyl will not go over very well. Just sayin.


I never implied or suggested that. There WILL (more) be people who get sick and die from this disaster. And the number of cancers and death as a result of the Chernobyl disaster were (in my opinion) VASTLY under reported.



External doses from an airplane flight and ingested internal doses from a nuclear accident are as different as a man and a bear and a pig...not even in the same ball park...it's kinda like saying nuclear power is safe because bananas are radioactive. This also has been discussed and debated at length. Once again, the search function is your friend.


I'm quite familiar with the differing effects of Alpha, Beta, and Gamma radiation. I wasn't trying to downplay the effects of ingested radiation, either. I was only attempting to ease some the "doom porn" implications of the article. I apologize if I offended you in any way, that was not my intent.




If your going to go down the whole silly naturally occurring potassium-40 is in your body so Fukushima is harmless crap, please use the search function and reply to one of the many various existing threads where it has been debated in length. It serves no purpose to re-hash the same old cliches over again.


I never suggested or implied that Fukushima is harmless at all. Quite the opposite. Fukushima has been (as I've posted above) a huge environmental catastrophe and will plague the Japanese people for decades if not centuries. The 40K comparison was to give people the idea that radiation is a part of our lives every day. While the increase at Fukushima is certainly concering, it doesn't warrant people scrambling to buy hats to cover themselves the next time it rains here in the U.S.

Again, I sincerely apologize if my posts have offended you at all.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Well worded reply SR. Welcome, I think you'll do OK here. Star



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
enenews.com... icist-cancer-certainty-one-radioactive-particle-inhaled-ingeste

Japan Times: Fukushima fallout in N. America at 400,000,000,000,000 Bq of Cesium-137 — Study: Hazardous on a ‘continental scale’ — Physicist: “Cancer a certainty” if one radioactive particle ingested — CBS: Inaccurate internet reports stoked fear radiation had somehow come our way (VIDEO)

thats a really big number
I'm concerned

Hiroshima was a mere 89
400,000,000,000,000 divided into 89 is 4,494,382,022,471 Hiroshima bombs going off over 3 and a half years. You aren't concerned
edit on 15-10-2014 by Asynchrony because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Why can't the poor Japs get a break.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join