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.

 

Record radiation at Fukushima power plant could kill person in under 1 hour – reports

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Deadly radiation levels of up to 9.4 Sieverts per hour have been recorded at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant – enough to kill a person in less than an hour if directly exposed, local media reports.

The mortal radiation reading was taken in a small room, using a remote-controlled robot, where a pipe leads to the containment vessel of the No. 2 reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, JIJI Press reported, citing Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO).

The reading of 9.4 sieverts (Sv) per hour was taken during the September 4-25 checks. According to the operator, the highest levels of contamination were measured on the floor. TEPCO did not offer any further details. The company will start the decontamination process that it hopes to complete by December.
Record radiation at Fukushima power plant could kill person in under 1 hour – reports


If there is a silver lining to all this, it will be watching the shills try to spin this into something reasonable. "At least you have a whole hour to live, that's much better than dying in thirty minutes." The shills are going to have a very tough job ahead, not much wiggle room there.


The fact is, Machio Kaku told us what to expect shortly after the Fukushima disaster.


www.youtube.com...

Quoting Kaku from the video above:


And, when they evacuate, the thing's gonna be in free fall. Meltdown is inevitable once they have full evacuation.


We've already got reported meltdowns in three of the six original reactors at Fukushima Daiichi. However, what I believe Kaku was referring to above was all six of the original reactors melting down after Fukushima Daiichi is evacuated. Why am I using the phrase "original reactors"? Because a new nuclear reactor was constructed for the operation of the "ice wall" and I would assume that one will eventually meltdown as well after Fukushima Daiichi is evacuated.

Why is it time to start thinking about the evacuation of Fukushima Daiichi? Once the radiation levels throughout the plant get anywhere near the levels mentioned in the article above, evacuation of Fukushima Daiichi will be necessary.

Quoting people from around the net:


[...]The day WILL come when the amount of radiation reaches the point where both Humans and Robots can no longer work at the power plant. When that occurs, there will be no one and/or robots to control the increasing levels of radiation and essentially, the radiation will exponentiate over time.

There is ANOTHER nuclear power plant (Fukushima Daiini) 10 miles north of Daiichi. It has several reactors too. When DAIICHI goes viral, the other one will, too. There are a total of 53 nuclear power plants in Japan. When the above two go out of control, they ALL will become too radioactive to control.

[...]There are a lot of people who believe that Edgar Cayce's prediction "…And the greater part of Japan must go into the sea" will come to pass. If that's true than we're talking around 30+ Fukushimas being dumped into the ocean all at once. That will essentially kill all of the plankton in the ocean imho and then most will die from lack of oxygen.

[...]with 437 (roughly) "Poison Pills" in the form of nuclear power plants scattered around the world.[...] Any significant interruption to society (IE grid power goes down) for even a few days will result in each of those reactors blowing up, or blowing down in a meltdown.[...] As more and more plants progressively fail, the cumulative radiation from so many plants will destroy all life on Earth, down to microbes and bacteria.

edit on 31-10-2015 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

S&F anyone who thinks this incident has been handled properly to include building the plants in that location ....yah have to wonder about their reasoning ability..

Thorium reactors are the way to go but since they can't provide material for bomb making there seems to be little interest.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   
So if nuclear power is so dangerous, why does Obama want to give it to iran?



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
So if nuclear power is so dangerous, why does Obama want to give it to iran?


Duh so they too can make bombs !



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Nah, he's dumb enough to just give them bombs.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   
And starfish are pulling themselves apart on the Pacific Coast
at record count; diminished in numbers unseen in my
lifetime and nary a word in the "news".


edit on 1-11-2015 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   

There is ANOTHER nuclear power plant (Fukushima Daiini) 10 miles north of Daiichi. It has several reactors too. When DAIICHI goes viral, the other one will, too. There are a total of 53 nuclear power plants in Japan. When the above two go out of control, they ALL will become too radioactive to control.


Some people should not be allowed access to computers.

Fukushima is fine. Over 4 years later and Japan is still here. It's just a dead zone for teh next 50,000 years. No big deal.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 03:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
So if nuclear power is so dangerous, why does Obama want to give it to iran?


So they can sabotage the plant and destroy Iran obviously.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I'm very much anti-nuke and feel that the public has been underserved by both media and governments. However, I feel that part of your thread is overblown and not helpful to the cause. You addition to the thread of "Quoting people from around the net" includes a "prophesy" on a furthering of the accident that is entirely without foundation. Words such as those tend to turn off people that have some knowledge of the incident and on the other hand, needlessly scare the Hell out of those less informed.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Profusion

I'm very much anti-nuke and feel that the public has been underserved by both media and governments. However, I feel that part of your thread is overblown and not helpful to the cause. You addition to the thread of "Quoting people from around the net" includes a "prophesy" on a furthering of the accident that is entirely without foundation. Words such as those tend to turn off people that have some knowledge of the incident and on the other hand, needlessly scare the Hell out of those less informed.


How do you interpret Machio Kaku's comments from the video in the original post?


And, when they evacuate, the thing's gonna be in free fall. Meltdown is inevitable once they have full evacuation.


As I wrote in the original post, I think he was alluding to full meltdowns and unmitigated fallout from all six (it would now be seven) nuclear reactors at Fukushima Daiichi. He also said in that interview:


But, the main thing is to stop it because if this thing has an uncontrolled release of radioactive fission products, we're gonna lose a good chunk of Northern Japan. Japan as a nation's integrity could actually be threatened.


I think when you put the quotes from around the Internet in the context of Kaku's comments from the video, posting the quotes is perfectly logical. But, that's just my opinion.

When Kaku said, "we're gonna lose a good chunk of Northern Japan" would that include an evacuation of Fukushima Daiini? Only he knows if that's what he meant. But, I think it's reasonable to conclude that he may have meant that.

I feel we have to look at what an evacuation of Fukushima Daiichi will mean. Will it mean an eventual evacuation of Fukushima Daiini? Only time will tell. The poster above who commented, "Fukushima is fine. Over 4 years later and Japan is still here." is obviously basing their conclusions on what has happened up until now and not on what will be happening in the future.

That's what really matters because complete unmitigated meltdowns of SEVEN reactors at Fukushima Daiichi will be a completely different world compared with the three meltdowns we have now (where the impacts have been mitigated by human intervention).

I believe Kaku was making a bold prediction in that video:

"And, when they evacuate, the thing's gonna be in free fall. Meltdown is inevitable once they have full evacuation."

He predicted unequivocally that Fukushima Daiichi will be evacuated. With this news and other news like it, that's looking more likely everyday.

We can only speculate what that will mean in the big picture. That's why I posted the quotes from around the Interent, all we've got is wild speculation at this point because we're completely in uncharted territory.

ANY predictions by anyone at this point concerning the effects of Fukushima Daiichi is wild speculation so I don't see why the wild speculation I posted is necessarily worse than anyone else's wild speculation. It may turn people off but I'm hoping for an open discussion here. If that turns people off than what can we do? Self-censor in the hope of reaching a wider audience? I've come to the conclusion that this issue isn't going to get a wide audience so I don't think how it's presented matters much.


edit on 1-11-2015 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion

Quoting people from around the net:


How wise.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Really, you honestly put "quoting people from around the net"?

Take your first "around the net quote"

Explain to me the logic of two different plants going viral means all the others will.

Being honest the OP was a good read until that part ..
edit on 1-11-2015 by opethPA because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 07:32 AM
link   
it's a bad show alright



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: opethPA
Really, you honestly put "quoting people from around the net"?

Take your first "around the net quote"

Explain to me the logic of two different plants going viral means all the others will.

Being honest the OP was a good read until that part ..


You can see where Fukushima Daiini is relative to Fukushima Daiichi in the map below.



I'll analyze what you mentioned in reference to the map above:


The day WILL come when the amount of radiation reaches the point where both Humans and Robots can no longer work at the power plant. When that occurs, there will be no one and/or robots to control the increasing levels of radiation and essentially, the radiation will exponentiate over time.


The poster that made the predictions above obviously stated their case as a totally foregone conclusion. If you've read what I've posted in this thread, you'll know that I don't consider any of what's quoted above to be a foregone conclusion. But, the poster I quoted was basing what they wrote below on what they wrote above. If you don't think what's written above is possible then you may as well stop reading here.



There is ANOTHER nuclear power plant (Fukushima Daiini) 10 miles north of Daiichi. It has several reactors too. When DAIICHI goes viral, the other one will, too. There are a total of 53 nuclear power plants in Japan. When the above two go out of control, they ALL will become too radioactive to control.


Here's where the map posted above comes in. If Fukushima Daiichi is evacuated then could the area where humans could not inhabit spread to Fukushima Daiini? You have to answer yes to that question to move past this point concerning whether or not the theory is a possibility in your mind. But, if you believe that that's possible then the rest of the theory is absolutely possible. Just look at the map above. There are two more nuclear power plants that are basically right next to Fukushima Daiini.

If you've accepted the necessary assumptions to get this far, then the assumption that those two nuclear plants next to Fukushima Daiini are going to meltdown is a certainty IMHO. Then the rest of the argument becomes a certainty as well IMHO.

You have to make assumptions to get that far. But to understand why I posted the theory above, it was just to get a conversation going as I did. I'm glad for that because this thread has made me even more confident that the domino effect mentioned in the original post of this thread is very likely.

For those that missed my second post in this thread, I'll repeat the following:

We can only speculate what that will mean in the big picture. That's why I posted the quotes from around the Interent, all we've got is wild speculation at this point because we're completely in uncharted territory.

ANY predictions by anyone at this point concerning the effects of Fukushima Daiichi is wild speculation so I don't see why the wild speculation I posted is necessarily worse than anyone else's wild speculation. It may turn people off but I'm hoping for an open discussion here. If that turns people off than what can we do? Self-censor in the hope of reaching a wider audience? I've come to the conclusion that this issue isn't going to get a wide audience so I don't think how it's presented matters much.
edit on 1-11-2015 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   
There's nothing to spin that you haven't already. Decommission is ongoing, with expectation to remove fuel rods by 2020. Kaku made a prediction that hasn't been fulfilled, and you believe facts are as good as wild speculation.

Not shilling or spinning, just calling out an ignorant fear monger.

edit on 1-11-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
There's nothing to spin that you haven't already.


There has been no "spin" in this thread by me. In order to come to an understanding of the potential ramifications in a situation as complex as Fukushima Daiichi, one must consider many different possibilities. I'm just offering some possibilities for debate. That's no different from what you just did in your post in this thread.


originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Decommission is ongoing, with expectation to remove fuel rods by 2020.


Source?


originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Kaku made a prediction that hasn't been fulfilled


You're stating that as a fact. Can you prove that? I've read opinions by very knowledgeable people that say that Fukushima Daiichi may have been evacuated already.


originally posted by: pl3bscheese
you believe facts are as good as wild speculation.


Now you're making a statement about me personally. How did you come to that conclusion? Give me the specific quote(s) that led you to that conclusion please.


originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Not shilling or spinning, just calling out an ignorant fear monger.


What have I written that would qualify me as "ignorant"? What I have written that would qualify me as a "fear monger"?

You're using terms there that have definitions. I want you to prove that the definitions of your allegations apply to what I've written.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
There's nothing to spin that you haven't already.


There has been no "spin" in this thread by me. In order to come to an understanding of the potential ramifications in a situation as complex as Fukushima Daiichi, one must consider many different possibilities. I'm just offering some possibilities for debate. That's no different from what you just did in your post in this thread.


It's entirely different. You make my point. You believe wild speculation is valid, just cause. I stick to the facts.



originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Decommission is ongoing, with expectation to remove fuel rods by 2020.


Source?

Seriously, you're gonna make all these threads and tell me to get you an easy to find source for this? Are you truly so jaded that you only look for the doom and glood threads related to Fuku? Find it youself, in less than a minute.




originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Kaku made a prediction that hasn't been fulfilled


You're stating that as a fact. Can you prove that? I've read opinions by very knowledgeable people that say that Fukushima Daiichi may have been evacuated already.


It is a fact, don't take what I said out of context. He was speaking in terms of full meltdown of all reactors. There was a confirmed meltdown on reactor 1, and partial metldowns on 2, and 3. It hasn't been fulfilled. People have been in and out of the site over the years.



originally posted by: pl3bscheese
you believe facts are as good as wild speculation.


Now you're making a statement about me personally. How did you come to that conclusion? Give me the specific quote(s) that led you to that conclusion please.


It's in this own damned thread. Your own reasoning is paraphrased in my words.



originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Not shilling or spinning, just calling out an ignorant fear monger.


What have I written that would qualify me as "ignorant"? What I have written that would qualify me as a "fear monger"?

You're using terms there that have definitions. I want you to prove that the definitions of your allegations apply to what I've written.


You have no scientific understanding whatsoever. I've continuously called you out in thread after thread trying to provide perspective, and you do your best to ignore this because you can't grasp anything that I'm saying. How the hell can you not see your threads as nonsensical fear-mongering? The titles are sensational, they're taken from grabage sites, and if they have a credible primary source are so far out of context I'm left to wonder if anyone bothers to read the original. You're spreading propaganda, plain and simple.

I can't prove squat to you, because you lack the intellect.
edit on 1-11-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese
A lot of it might be sensationalised doom porn, but Fukushima is a huge event. Over 100,000 had to leave the exxclusion zone (310 sq miles) permanently because of it.

An article about the exclusion zones:
www.aljazeera.com - Life in Fukushima radioactive exclusion zones...

The CLEANUP cost in japanese dollars--up through march 2015--is:
www.japant imes.co.jp - ¥189 billion in public money spent on Fukushima cleanup so far...

Given it was (apparently) estimated in 2011 they'd need something like ¥184 billion to rebuild, this shows just how far off they were. The costs are mounting. it's not a small thing at all what has happened.

That's JUST the cleanup cost. What about the initial affects on the food exports? What of the shutdown of all nuclear power plants in Japan? The first one was only recently turned online on August Augusted 11 2015. Or maybe reduced tourism from other countries because of radiation fears? What of other panics which must have ensued? Cancer rates probably won't go up substantially, but they were probably slightly bumped up. What of the ecosystems? What of the towns/cities and land which was evacuated, clearly leaving behind probably billions in economic worth?

It doesn't seem to be as bad as Chernobyl or as bad as the doom porn makes it out to be though. Here's an example:
www.newscientist.com - Don’t compare Fukushima to Chernobyl...
www.france24.com - Four years after Fukushima, ‘new Chernobyl’ fears unfounded...
www.greenpeace.o rg - Yes, things are very bad at Fukushima but it’s not the Apocalypse...

Regardless of how bad it all is, nuclear power has definitely been dealt an enormous blow to its sexiness. Germany is just one of many nation turning away from it. Even France is slowing down. Ray Kurzweil's claim that solar power would be competitive with fossil fuels before 2025 probably won't happen, but it might turn out to be sexier to many whether or not it's cheaper. Many things are dominated by how people feel.
edit on 11/1/2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonnywhite
a reply to: pl3bscheese
A lot of it might be sensationalised doom porn, but Fukushima is a huge event. Over 100,000 had to leave the exxclusion zone (310 sq miles) permanently because of it.

An article about the exclusion zones:
www.aljazeera.com - Life in Fukushima radioactive exclusion zones...


That article is from 2014. They keep reopening areas every few months.


The CLEANUP cost in japanese dollars--up through march 2015--is:
www.japant imes.co.jp - ¥189 billion in public money spent on Fukushima cleanup so far...

Given it was (apparently) estimated in 2011 they'd need something like ¥184 billion to rebuild, this shows just how far off they were. The costs are mounting. it's not a small thing at all what has happened.


I've never said it wasn't a significant event for Japan, only tried to bring perspective that the actual environmental damage and health consequences are concentrated to the Fukushima prefacture, and surrounding region. Economic costs can be measured by the nation. The global impact is minimal.


That's JUST the cleanup cost. What about the initial affects on the food exports? What of the shutdown of all nuclear power plants in Japan? The first one was only recently turned online on August Augusted 11 2015. Or maybe reduced tourism from other countries because of radiation fears? What of other panics which must have ensued? Cancer rates probably won't go up substantially, but they were probably slightly bumped up. What of the ecosystems?


Again, not going to deny it's a huge dent to the local and national economy. It is. The local ecosystems will bounce back in time, but not in the immediate area while radiation continues to be vented into the ocean. The global ecosystem? We have much more issues from the collective actions of humanity. This doesn't help, but when put into it's proper perspective is just another drop in the bucket.


It doesn't seem to be as bad as Chernobyl or as bad as the doom porn makes it out to be though. Here's an example:
www.newscientist.com - Don’t compare Fukushima to Chernobyl...
www.france24.com - Four years after Fukushima, ‘new Chernobyl’ fears unfounded...
www.greenpeace.o rg - Yes, things are very bad at Fukushima but it’s not the Apocalypse...


That's pretty well what I've been saying. It's not a non-issue for the local area, and surrounding region, but it's essentially a non-issue for the planet when you bother to look around and see all the other mucking around we're doing, and the planet continues to take the beatings while life goes on for the other 7.3 billion inhabitants of the planet.


Regardless of how bad it all is, nuclear power has definitely been dealt an enormous blow to its sexiness. Germany is just one of many nation turning away from it. Even France is slowing down. Ray Kurzweil's claim that solar power would be competitive with fossil fuels around 2020 probably won't happen, but it might turn out to be sexier to many whether or not it's cheaper.


I'm all for doing away with nuclear as better options become economically viable. When we're speaking of ROI, or rather grid-parity in regards to solar compared to conventional energy sources, this has already been reached in many locations of the world, in part because of government tax-deductions, but they will go away in the coming years as prices for panels continue to plummet. Just a few years ago you were looking at ~$2 per watt, now this can be had for about $.70 a watt. I think by 2020 or shortly after you'll see perhaps 1/3 of the planet reaching grid parity, with the majority of the rest to follow by the end of that decade.
edit on 1-11-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join