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.

 

So what's the fuss?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I was reading www.abovetopsecret.com... and I can't see where all this alarmist carp is coming from. The cited article does mention "the readings are very low" adding "but drinking water is used in so many things people consume it does create a long term method of ongoing exposure." If you check out the values specified at radioactivity.nsr.go.jp... "very low" is actually an understatement. Also according to en.wikipedia.org... "Radiocaesium does not accumulate in the body as effectively as many other fission products (such as radioiodine and radiostrontium). About 10% of absorbed radiocaesium washes out of the body relatively quickly in sweat and urine. The remaining 90% has a biological half-life between 50 and 150 days."




posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Lisit

"Low readings" is a misnomer. They want you to think its lower than threshold harmful, but leave a lot out.

It depends what kind of radiation, where and how the readings are taken, and whether the source of the 'radiation' is external or internal to the body.

Internal sources of radioactive contamination are the most harmful, there is no smallest acceptable amount, even nuclides are unstable and emit harmful ionizing radiation to nearby cells while in the body.

The other thing they don't address is bio accumulation, the absorption of elements over time, building up in the system, especially in the bones and connective tissues.

Heres some basics…



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Lisit

If it's already in the drinking water,even in small amounts,surely it's very present in the area?



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

The samples were actually collected from tap water.


a reply to: Ericthedoubter

That it certainly is but to what extent? That's what I'm inquiring.

Here's another ominous thread: Radioactive Water From Fukushima Is Systematically Poisoning The Entire Pacific Ocean

"Tepco said on Friday that a cumulative 20 trillion to 40 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium had probably leaked into the sea since the disaster. The company said this was within legal limits.

Tritium is far less harmful than cesium and strontium, which have also been released from the plant. Tepco is scheduled to test strontium levels next."

40 trillion is a grim number but just what are the implications?

en.wikipedia.org...

You can see that for comparison at Chernobyl 85 PBq caesium-137 was released for example, a PBq is 1000 trillion Bq.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lisit
a reply to: intrptr

The samples were actually collected from tap water.


a reply to: Ericthedoubter

That it certainly is but to what extent? That's what I'm inquiring.

Here's another ominous thread: Radioactive Water From Fukushima Is Systematically Poisoning The Entire Pacific Ocean

"Tepco said on Friday that a cumulative 20 trillion to 40 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium had probably leaked into the sea since the disaster. The company said this was within legal limits.

Tritium is far less harmful than cesium and strontium, which have also been released from the plant. Tepco is scheduled to test strontium levels next."

40 trillion is a grim number but just what are the implications?

en.wikipedia.org...

You can see that for comparison at Chernobyl 85 PBq caesium-137 was released for example, a PBq is 1000 trillion Bq.


I think a lot would depend on whether you believe that there is a "safe" amount of man made radiation. That is something that you really need to decide on a personal level by researching it.

If you look back through the Fukushima threads, a lot of that has been covered on both sides of the fence... some believe that there is a safe level, or that even some levels of man made radiation are beneficial to the human body, others believe that any amount of man made radiation should be avoided. I fall into the latter group.

It's a topic that people feel strongly about and will do anything they can to convince you that their point is the only correct point of view...

All I can recommend is to do the research and make your own decisions, and not be influenced by others.

I, personally, gave up eating anything that comes out of the Pacific Ocean shortly after 3/11/11. But at the same time, I would not tell you or anyone else to follow my example, because it is a purely personal decision on my part after learning way way more about radiation than I cared too after the Fukushima disaster.

Internal vs. external exposure is a huge factor as well.

When man made radiation is ingested internally, to put it very simply... one of four things will happen:

1. The radiation tracks across a cell and the cell is unaffected.
2. The radiation tracks across a cell and the cell is killed.
3. The radiation tracks across the cell and causes damage to the cell, but the cell is able to repair itself prior to replication.
4. The radiation tracks across the cell and causes damage to the cell, but the cell is unable to repair itself prior to replication.

4 is where you run into mutations and cancer. 2 is where radiation can be beneficial in killing cancerous cells...

It's more or less spin the wheel of fortune and see what number comes up... 1,2,3 or 4.
edit on R342016-02-01T17:34:34-06:00k342Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R362016-02-01T17:36:13-06:00k362Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I appreciate your thorough response. I'm European but that's not to say I'm not concerned for those more directly affected or the fragile marine ecosystem.



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join