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.

 

Troubled waters: Nuclear radiation found in B.C. may pose health concerns

page: 2
42
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdamuBureido
a reply to: jrod

ahemm!

I'd be more worried about dangers closer to home than attack whatever scapegoat the authorities offer up.

Fukushima anniversary: B.C. looks south to closest nuclear plant



An almost featureless long, flat stretch of highway leads to the Columbia Generating Station, near Hanford, Washington – the closest nuclear plant to B.C. and one that raises questions of how safe Canadians are in the event of a disaster to our south.

Only 550 kilometres from Vancouver, the facility – a slightly newer model than Fukushima's General Electric Mark 1 plants – rises like a cube from the fields, unlike the famed cones of the Simpsons or the ill-fated Three Mile Island plant.

Concerns raised over Washington reactor



The crisis at a Japanese nuclear plant is raising new concerns in B.C. about a similar nuclear reactor in Washington, about 400 kilometres southeast of Vancouver.

The Columbia Generating Station, near Hanford, Wash., uses the same kind of radioactive fuel rods as the Fukushima reactors, but its operators say the U.S. plant is safer.

"We're a newer reactor, by about 15 years," said Energy Northwest spokesman Mike Paoli. "We're a larger reactor."

However, when the station went into operation in 1984, the Hanford area was believed to be geologically safe.

Now, studies show geological faults that run from Vancouver Island to Hanford.

Mount St. Helens sits to the west of the reactor and seismically active Yellowstone National Park is to the east.

Also, while the Columbia reactor was built to withstand a 6.9 earthquake, geologists now believe there is a potential for tremors could hit a magnitude of 7.5.


it's become fashionable to blame the japanese lately.
as if nuking them 3 times weren't enough

Japan was nuked twice. At Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Unless you're also referring to the Fukushima disaster as a nuclear attack.




posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: AdamuBureido
a reply to: jrod

ahemm!

I'd be more worried about dangers closer to home than attack whatever scapegoat the authorities offer up.

Fukushima anniversary: B.C. looks south to closest nuclear plant



An almost featureless long, flat stretch of highway leads to the Columbia Generating Station, near Hanford, Washington – the closest nuclear plant to B.C. and one that raises questions of how safe Canadians are in the event of a disaster to our south.

Only 550 kilometres from Vancouver, the facility – a slightly newer model than Fukushima's General Electric Mark 1 plants – rises like a cube from the fields, unlike the famed cones of the Simpsons or the ill-fated Three Mile Island plant.

Concerns raised over Washington reactor



The crisis at a Japanese nuclear plant is raising new concerns in B.C. about a similar nuclear reactor in Washington, about 400 kilometres southeast of Vancouver.

The Columbia Generating Station, near Hanford, Wash., uses the same kind of radioactive fuel rods as the Fukushima reactors, but its operators say the U.S. plant is safer.

"We're a newer reactor, by about 15 years," said Energy Northwest spokesman Mike Paoli. "We're a larger reactor."

However, when the station went into operation in 1984, the Hanford area was believed to be geologically safe.

Now, studies show geological faults that run from Vancouver Island to Hanford.

Mount St. Helens sits to the west of the reactor and seismically active Yellowstone National Park is to the east.

Also, while the Columbia reactor was built to withstand a 6.9 earthquake, geologists now believe there is a potential for tremors could hit a magnitude of 7.5.


it's become fashionable to blame the japanese lately.
as if nuking them 3 times weren't enough

Japan was nuked twice. At Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Unless you're also referring to the Fukushima disaster as a nuclear attack.


sou da!
that is correct...

and there always seems to be a nuclear power plant nearby all these "radiation from fukushima" sites
heck you live in japan, you'd know by now about any large number of rad related deaths.

and as you've rightly pointed out people have an irrational fear of radiation.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdamuBureido

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: AdamuBureido
a reply to: jrod

ahemm!

I'd be more worried about dangers closer to home than attack whatever scapegoat the authorities offer up.

Fukushima anniversary: B.C. looks south to closest nuclear plant



An almost featureless long, flat stretch of highway leads to the Columbia Generating Station, near Hanford, Washington – the closest nuclear plant to B.C. and one that raises questions of how safe Canadians are in the event of a disaster to our south.

Only 550 kilometres from Vancouver, the facility – a slightly newer model than Fukushima's General Electric Mark 1 plants – rises like a cube from the fields, unlike the famed cones of the Simpsons or the ill-fated Three Mile Island plant.

Concerns raised over Washington reactor



The crisis at a Japanese nuclear plant is raising new concerns in B.C. about a similar nuclear reactor in Washington, about 400 kilometres southeast of Vancouver.

The Columbia Generating Station, near Hanford, Wash., uses the same kind of radioactive fuel rods as the Fukushima reactors, but its operators say the U.S. plant is safer.

"We're a newer reactor, by about 15 years," said Energy Northwest spokesman Mike Paoli. "We're a larger reactor."

However, when the station went into operation in 1984, the Hanford area was believed to be geologically safe.

Now, studies show geological faults that run from Vancouver Island to Hanford.

Mount St. Helens sits to the west of the reactor and seismically active Yellowstone National Park is to the east.

Also, while the Columbia reactor was built to withstand a 6.9 earthquake, geologists now believe there is a potential for tremors could hit a magnitude of 7.5.


it's become fashionable to blame the japanese lately.
as if nuking them 3 times weren't enough

Japan was nuked twice. At Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Unless you're also referring to the Fukushima disaster as a nuclear attack.


sou da!
that is correct...

and there always seems to be a nuclear power plant nearby all these "radiation from fukushima" sites
heck you live in japan, you'd know by now about any large number of rad related deaths.

and as you've rightly pointed out people have an irrational fear of radiation.
I thought as much, thanks for clearing that up. The fear is irrational most of the time, yes. I attribute most of that fear to the Dunning-Kruger Effect. People educate themselves about radiation only far enough to know they should be absolutely terrified of it. Is radiation terrifying? Yup. But education beyond "It's bad stuff" I think is necessary to establish exactly HOW fearful one should be. The detection of radioactive isotopes is certainly concerning, but not entirely unexpected given the gravity of Fukushima.

It is rather interesting these detections are happening within a stone's throw of other Nuclear sites, but I trawl the NRC nuclear event reports pretty frequently and there haven't been any reported incidents at these areas lately. Not to say there hasn't been any, but at the very least if it IS happening it's not being reported.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I saw somewhere that about 3/4ths of US nuclear plants have released tritium in to their local environment. It is apparent that nuclear is not a clean and safe way provide power. The Atomic States of America is a good documentary to watch on the issue.

I am not trying to be an alarmist, I just want accurate information and one of those who believe there has been a cover-up at the hands our governments. They do not want a mass panic.

I do believe there is a good information that shows Fukushima is causing problems with the food chain. The model that 'predicts' the Pacific whales radiation levels in 30 years. From the OP:


A more persistent danger to people and marine life is radioactive Cesium 137, which has a half-life of 30 years, and bioaccumulates in the food chain.

Researchers developed a model based on the diet of fish-eating killer whales along with the levels of Cesium 137 detected and predicted (less than 0.5 becquerels per cubic metre, a measurement of radioactivity) by other researchers in the Pacific waters offshore of Vancouver Island.

The models suggests that in 30 years, Cesium 137 levels in the whales will exceed the Canadian guideline of 1,000 becquerels per kilogram for consumption of seafood by humans — 10 times the Japanese guideline.


www.vancouversun.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skid Mark
I've noticed a lot of commercials on TV for cancer stuff. Also I've noticed how a lot of drugs they push on TV have cancer listed as a side effect. I'm not sure if it all goes back to Fukushima but it's a hell of a coincidence.


i domt know why you think drugs and fukushima are related. apples and oranges.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

To be honest, I'd rather live a block from a Nuclear Power Station than a Coal Power Station.

Radiation exposure immediately around a properly functioning Nuclear Power Plant is about 1% greater than the normal environmental background exposure.

The fly ash emitted by a Coal Power Plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

I agree that Nuclear Fission as a power source should be phased out. The long-term dangers are too high. But Traditional power plants on the whole are much worse for the environment around it than a nuclear power station.

I keep my fingers crossed that LENR reactors will be commercially viable in the next decade or so.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
What's sad is, while they may be considered safe in the soils they are testing, this is on the other side of the Pacific Ocean! Imagine how dangerous they are out in the ocean?

It makes sense any media outlet will try to downplay this. No one wants a public outcry, whether justified or not.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: jrod

To be honest, I'd rather live a block from a Nuclear Power Station than a Coal Power Station.

Radiation exposure immediately around a properly functioning Nuclear Power Plant is about 1% greater than the normal environmental background exposure.

The fly ash emitted by a Coal Power Plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
.. .


I seriously doubt you are being honest with that statement. My life experience has taught me that when someone starts a statement like "To be honest..." they are often anything but truthful.

Comparing coal ash to radiation exposure from say tritium is comparing apples to oranges.

Nuclear power is not clean and it is apparent that the regulatory agencies are more concerned about protecting their product and profits than looking out for public safety.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
To play the devils advocate.....

Why can't the headline be:

Nuclear radiation found in B.C. may/may not pose health concerns


If it MAY, there is always the chance that it MAY NOT.

Just sayin.




top topics



 
42
<< 1   >>

log in

join