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 levels of Fukushima radiation detected off West Coast

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Dec 3, 2015 (emphasis added): Higher levels of Fukushima cesium detected offshore — Scientists monitoring the spread of radiation in the ocean from the Fukushima nuclear accident report finding an increased number of sites off the US West Coast showing signs of contamination from Fukushima. This includes the highest detected level to date from a sample collected about 1,600 miles west of San Francisco.

.......

Ken Buesseler, WHOI: “These new data are important for two reasons… the changing values underscore the need to more closely monitor contamination levels across the Pacific. Second, these long-lived radioisotopes will serve as markers for years to come for scientists studying ocean currents and mixing in coastal and offshore waters… [F]inding values that are still elevated off Fukushima confirms that there is continued release from the plant.”
Link


I believe this is bad news for everyone. But, it's particularly bad news for the people who will be getting their water from the Carlsbad Desalination Plant.

Is desalination bad for Carlsbad?

Let's not forget what we're dealing with:

Risk Expert: “High risk” of nuclear holocaust at Fukushima — Plant to keep emitting radioactive materials “for a thousand years or so” (AUDIO)

Why wouldn't anyone expect the contamination from Fukushima to keep getting worse for that entire "thousand years or so”?

The fact is, no one has any idea how the Fukushima disaster will play out because it's unprecedented. The following video presents a fairly realistic and frank assessment of the situation IMHO.


www.youtube.com...




posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Is eleven atomic disintegration's per cubed meter of seawater dangerous?

If so, please provide references.

I found this just now.



For example, the roughly 0.0169 g of potassium-40 present in a typical human body produces approximately 266,000 disintegrations per minute, which equates to about 4,400 disintegrations per second or 4.4 kBq of activity.
Becquerel

Doesn't seem like much.
edit on 3-12-2015 by ringdingdong because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ringdingdong

thats because its [ the OP " SOURCE " ] is fear-mongering aimed squarely at the scientifically illiterate



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

That makes sense. Another source seems to confirm that.



SOME INTERESTING Bq VALUES

1 human adult 100 Bq/kg x 70 kg = 7,000 Bq

1 kg of coffee 1,000 Bq

1 kg superphosphate fertilizer 5,000 Bq

The air in a 100 sq meter Australian home (radon) 3,000 Bq

The air in many 100 sq meter European homes (radon) up to 30,000 Bq

1 household smoke detector (with americium) 30,000 Bq

Radioisotope for medical diagnosis 70 million Bq

Radioisotope source for medical therapy 100,000,000 million Bq (100 TBq)

1 kg of 50-year old vitrified high-level nuclear waste 10,000,000 million Bq (10 TBq)

1 luminous EXIT sign with tritium (1970s) 1,000,000 million Bq (1 TBq), or 27 Curies

1 kg uranium ore (Canadian, 15%) 25 million Bq

1 kg uranium ore (Australian, 0.3%) 500,000 Bq

1 kg low level radioactive waste 1 million Bq

1 kg of coal ash 2,000 Bq

1 kg of granite 1,000 Bq, as in kitchen counter tops.
Facts & Information About Radiation Exposure
edit on 3-12-2015 by ringdingdong because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ringdingdong
Is eleven atomic disintegration's per cubed meter of seawater dangerous?

If so, please provide references.

I found this just now.



For example, the roughly 0.0169 g of potassium-40 present in a typical human body produces approximately 266,000 disintegrations per minute, which equates to about 4,400 disintegrations per second or 4.4 kBq of activity.
Becquerel

Doesn't seem like much.


Doesn't seem like much Yet!
Give it a couple more years and we might be seeing a huge rise in levels.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

Okay do you have any reason to believe that or is it just fear? Feels like fear to me.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ringdingdong
a reply to: VoidHawk

Okay do you have any reason to believe that or is it just fear? Feels like fear to me.


Not fear, just a possibility.

A few years back I worked a small fishing trawler for about a year, and I noticed water does not always get as mixed as we might think it does.
Large rivers of fresh water that empty into the ocean often remain a river of fresh water even while in the sea!
I've no idea how long they remained like that, but I could visibly see them stretching for at least 30 miles from where they first entered the sea. Fresh water in the ocean looks dark.
If fresh water can travel without mixing, then possibly waters of differing temperatures or salinity might also remain unmixed.
If that water happened to pass by the hot (radioactive) area who knows how far it might travel without mixing.

Like I said, not fear, but a possibility.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I just had a thought. I do that sometimes. But isn't this a perfect opportunity for America to dump their own nuclear reactor waste in their own waters with the fukushima disaster to blame it on. Just a thought.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cloudbuster
I just had a thought. I do that sometimes. But isn't this a perfect opportunity for America to dump their own nuclear reactor waste in their own waters with the fukushima disaster to blame it on. Just a thought.


Are you sure you actually put thought into that question? No, that would be the dumbest thing yet. We are not going to substantially contribute to the destruction of the environment willingly.

Wow...



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Hey guys,

Working in the nuclear field, with some people that responded to Fukushima, I can tell you that these types of things are to fear monger the people who don't know anything about radioactivity, the legal limit for cesium137 in drinking water is 10 bacqurels per liter. That's 10 disentigrations per second, in one liter. In one cubic meter there are 1000 liters... This is nearly 1/1000 of the legal limit for you to drink day in and day out with 0 effect. That being said cesium137 can also be a natural isotope and seeing 11 bacqurels isn't definitely just natural, but very well could be.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   


Is eleven atomic disintegration's per cubed meter of seawater dangerous?

When did they start measuring radiation like this ? Dang, I miss the old days when it was simply measured in RADS on my badge that I had to wear.




posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   


Is eleven atomic disintegration's per cubed meter of seawater dangerous?

When did they start measuring radiation like this ? Dang, I miss the old days when it was simply measured in RADS on my badge that I had to wear.




posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog



Is eleven atomic disintegration's per cubed meter of seawater dangerous?

When did they start measuring radiation like this ? Dang, I miss the old days when it was simply measured in RADS on my badge that I had to wear.



It's measured that way on occasion in Europe, and mostly because bacqurels can be made to sound scarier than the more common ways of measuring. I.e. 1 Curie of cesium 137, contains 37billion (37,000,000,000) bacqurels



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   
I was not suggesting that America do that, I'm saying that it would be something that the people who look after the waste might do as I can imagine it must very expensive to dispose of nuclear waste properly. Good gods I do not even support nuclear power i thankfully come from a nuclear free country. Infact I remember as a child going on huge protest marches to keep our country nuclear free. I also remember having repetitive nightmares as a child of nuclear explosions after watching the movie The Day After., which is not about a melt down but a bomb. reply to: spirit_horse


edit on 3-12-2015 by Cloudbuster because: Spelling mistake ok



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cloudbuster
I was not suggesting that America do that, I'm saying that it would be something that the people who look after the waste might do as I can imagine it must very expensive to dispose of nuclear waste properly. Good gods I do not even support nuclear power i thankfully come from a nuclear free country. Infant I remember as a child going on huge protest marches to keep our country nuclear free. I also remember having repetitive nightmares as a child of nuclear explosions after watching the movie The Day After., which is not about a melt down but a bomb. reply to: spirit_horse



You know that there are countries (France for one) that power from nuclear facilities is leading power source , right ? Have you heard anything like this from France? The Fukishima disaster was mostly location.




posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Accidents do happen like Chernobyl for example. Perhaps countries like France need to start looking at more safer ways of producing power and public need to look at more ways to cut down on power consumption and reliance. a reply to: Gothmog



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chromium51

originally posted by: Gothmog



Is eleven atomic disintegration's per cubed meter of seawater dangerous?

When did they start measuring radiation like this ? Dang, I miss the old days when it was simply measured in RADS on my badge that I had to wear.



It's measured that way on occasion in Europe, and mostly because bacqurels can be made to sound scarier than the more common ways of measuring. I.e. 1 Curie of cesium 137, contains 37billion (37,000,000,000) bacqurels


Good OLD MIT

Explained: rad, rem, sieverts, becquerels
When they put it in Sieverts , that I understand.
I will go with their answer.

edit on 3-12-2015 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   
if this data point is 1600 miles off the coast of San Fran, what does it have to do with desalination in Carlsbad? How well-versed are you in radioactive isotopes and the metrics for measuring them? Moreover, the thresholds of contamination and the effects resulting from said contamination? Context is key.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cloudbuster
Accidents do happen like Chernobyl for example. Perhaps countries like France need to start looking at more safer ways of producing power and public need to look at more ways to cut down on power consumption and reliance. a reply to: Gothmog


And , for the winning answer: look down from your post...check out MIT's answer even on the current time after the disaster.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: ringdingdong

thats because its [ the OP " SOURCE " ] is fear-mongering aimed squarely at the scientifically illiterate




Scientific dummy here could you please explain your stance..... Arnie Gunderson has been reporting since day one of this disaster and to me it sounds like there is serious problem....

I would believe him over the profit driven Japanese government, from your statement you clearly understand what is going on could please tell me why it is fear mongering ?




top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join