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 declares 'nuclear emergency' after quake

page: 507.htm
513
<< 504  505  506    508  509  510 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   

edit on 3-4-2011 by Nucleardoom because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SDoradus
 


I'll never work again at anything that pays well do to an on the job injury.
i'm to big a risk when you got such a pool of younger employees with more talents, Anyhow i'm not worried about me.
I was just wondering and asking a question that some house wife might ask and get the holy hell scared out of her.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone

They are reading here...TY for posting. Hope they expand on that one sentence in a follow up story. Like, what site, when...did they actually retrieve them this time....little things like that.


You couldn't retrieve them. Any machinery there would be permanently contaminated, and any workers sent up there could end up carking it beside them. And the bodies themselves would be so radioactive they'd have to be disposed of as nuclear waste.

I'm guessing all they'll just censor photos of that area from now on, out of respect for the victims' families, and then use that as an excuse to censor all pictures coming out of there.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Does anyone know if by chances some of the surfaces or equipment in the reactor builds have incorporated the uses of radiation sensitive paint?

In my line of work a lot of the components I deal with have thermal sensitive paint coatings so I did a little digging on if a radiation sensing paint existed. I found a research article from 2007 on just such a paint. Possibly someone would have an educated guess on what areas or components in the plant to look for that a change in color would indicate strength and type of radiation.

This project appears to be a DoE and DARPA effort that is from a few years back. I've no idea if requiring paints/coatings like this are an industry requirement either. Seems like a good idea in hindsight.


Paints are being developed and tested that might ultimately be able to detect radiological agents in the environment by incorporating special pigments into an organic polymeric binder that can be applied as a paint or coatings. These paints detect radioactive sources and contaminants with inorganic or organic scintillation or thermo-luminescent pigments, which are selected based upon the radiation (α, β, γ or n) to be detected


Smart Surfaces: New Coatings &
Paints with Radiation Detection
Functionality


Also, so many thanks to everyone pursuing new information and insight in this thread. I'm hoping for a coffee table version, but I think it's pushing a couple volumes now.


Soul

edit on 3-4-2011 by Soulwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS, PEOPLE.

You know what's off-topic and trolling. Use the Alert function, it doesn't give them the attention they crave.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by windwaker
 


Yes, I've been relying on that site more and more. I trust the Europeans much more than either the JapGov or US/Canada govs, and I've been using those models to gauge my own safety in Vancouver quite a bit the last few days since I found it. Fewer vested interests in disinfo in this situation, IMO. Don't trust any of the gov supported rad networks now, and even UFC Berkeley data showing high levels in milk and rainwater are now kinda iffy since they "corrected" their reports.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SDoradus

Originally posted by rbrtj
reply to post by zenzen
 




--

edit on 3-4-2011 by SDoradus because: Add table



Thanks for the table. As it is it's a useful reference point.
edit on 3-4-2011 by zenzen because: missed a



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00

Originally posted by elouina
Could fine screening somewhere down the line, be used to prevent this?


It could, and especially if you're right about it sinking to the bottom from the weight. (And oh man, the full diapers....yeah, I feel that pain!
) I'm not versed on how sediment behaves on the shoreline, especially next to a huge seawall like that, but if it settles and stays, absolutely.

But that's what the "usefulness" will rest on----whether it stays or gets sucked out to sea. If it gets sucked out, I think the dilution factor of it being liquid water would be better than soft edible crystals.
edit on 3-4-2011 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)


This substance does break down eventually. I had a feeling it would, so I looked it up. It takes about 4-6 months. Plus I am also wondering about oversaturation in saline conditions. Wouldn't the break-down process be accelerated?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Wertwog
 


Yeah, and if you cruise the forum posts at UCBerkeley, you'll see that their "wet lab" should be wide open now that there's been no/little rain to test, and they were finally going to get around to testing milk after the weekend. Well, plenty of time, no rain, all the milk they could want still flying off the shelves.....and........

....crickets? Seriously? One milk test and that's it? Thanks, Berkeley.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by imlite

Originally posted by OuttaHere
I am looking for someone knowledgeable to identify the circled structure below, also does anyone know what reactor building this video still is from?:




Notice the larger, rounded shape below it, to which it appears to be attached. I am not so sure this is the lid, as was discussed in an earlier POST.

I wonder if we are looking at this:




... with some kind of service walkway around it? I know this is a stretch, but it just doesn't look like the lid to me. If it is the lid, what is that curved structure on top of it?

If I am right, then the whole top half of the steel vessel (not just the lid) has completely blown off. Otherwise the structure I am seeing could not be sitting there at a 45 degree angle up against the side of the building like that.

Thoughts?







Its Reactor 4 looking in on the partially damaged side.

You Tube video here:

www.youtube.com.../u


I'm trying to catch up to the thread (am on pg 502) after work, but I wanted to respond to this.




I dont think they are a match exactly. There are some similarities but if you look at the distance from the top of the ring and support assembly to the flare of the rounded section it seems to be off by about 45% from the B&W photo.

excerpt from a U2U from SA437.

There were some other comments that it was not likely the case, however there were also several other posts supporting the possibility that this was indeed the reactor. Everyone is still thinking that the picture is from 3, but I maintain it is from 4.

It's from a series originally posted by Zorgon and called out by someone else(VinceH). Go back and look at all of them and they are from reactor 4, you can clearly see the yellow top in several of the photos in that series in close proximity. Read all the timestamps.

I remembered the B&W photo and the similarity immediately popped out at me. If you look at the red/green band along the top of the upper, color photo and compare it to the topmost portion that you see in the B&W photo, they match quite a bit. The next portion down looks like the part where it flanges out to the main portion of the cylinder down. It does appear a bit shorter in the B&W, but I think that is because the platform that the workers use to walk around is making it appear so.

The color photo looks like there are plates missing from the flanged portion, though I do not know their construction. redneck would be more capable in this regard. It depends on if the reactor is welded on a frame or if all of the shell pieces are welded to each other only. Am I making sense here?

If we take into account the recent reports of the tremendous noise heard from reactor four as well as the cracks in the asphailt and building, then it's possible that what they heard was the reactor breaking loose. Reember, that earthquake lasted for 5 minutes. The energy it released alone outweighs everything else since by a large amount.

We know the site is build directly on the bedrock and that the megathrust slip that took place very nearby shook the plant with such tremendous force, I would not be surprised if half the water didn't just slosh out from that alone.

I had considered this done and closed, but it might not be.

Back to the thread, I be you people have added 3 more pages in the time it's taken me to post this.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by TheRedneck
 




www.iaea.org...
A Proliferation Resist Fusion Breeder For THorium Fuel Cycle
.


edit on 3-4-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)


the bullet points in the conclusion of the above paper originally linked by Unity_99 paint a frightening possibility I agree, I don't believe anything like that will happen in this case (no reason, just don't) but the fact that we have developed such a procedure and are using it in places is nuts.

Those bullet points sum up the production of MOX as well as its use, a longer sustaining (near perpetual?) reaction with no need for refueling .. not good.
edit on 3-4-2011 by bitbytebit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by OuttaHere
I am looking for someone knowledgeable to identify the circled structure below, also does anyone know what reactor building this video still is from?:







Could it be this, the top of the reactor minus it's cap?



Note it should be surrounded by concrete walls which are missing!



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 




No clue. I'm totally uneducated about its physical properties, I just know it can be very poisonous to infants and babies, so I used cloth diapers for about a year. Beyond that, your guess is as good as mine. Either way, though, if it ends up in the sea, it's bad, because it's supposed to be keeping it out of the sea, LOL. If it gets in, it's just going to cause damage one way or another. Poison the food chain from the bottom up, or head start into the middle of the chain......just accelerates our exposure, I guess. 30+ years starts to make it not matter much. It's not like they're going to be able to get it all with this polymer, so this will just add an interestingly macabre side-plot to the whole thing.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by SDoradus
 


Thank you for the chart and your time, now I can help neighbors who need help wrapping their collective brains around this instead of saying it is to complicated I'm just going to pray it will go away.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


I think you scared them, lol. But seriously, it's a bit ridiculous how they went about their waffling, I mean they could have come up with a better excuse that explained the rad level they saw, instead they just ended up with a mislabled and destroyed sample? They clearly underestimated the impact of their finding and implications to their "funding"... sigh. All through this it's been amazing to me to see how clearly we are being systematically blinded to the truth, it's awesome to see the power in action and terrifying to think how easily and callously the PTB go about exercising it.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Wertwog
 


Considering the sheer amount of blatant cover-ups, lies and half-truths regarding this incident, we should all be very, very scared about what's really happening and what's really going to happen. The sum of all of this misinformation is: the people in charge are clueless and terrified...even the leader of the free world.

It's a "All the king's horses and all the king's men..." moment. Soon everyone will realize this when they are not distracted by American Idol and Lady Gaga.

One guy on Twitter had the revolutionary idea of going into the reactors and taking the fuel rods out.

The masses are clueless!
edit on 3-4-2011 by windwaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by windwaker
 


This level of "cluelessness" is understandable given the steady diet of distraction the average person is being fed. Add to that an aversion to anything negative or "bubble bursting", then spice that up with some "no immediate impact to human health" topping and you've got a nice lie-latte to have with your Gaga.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Wertwog
 


I agree and the fact that the local news or regional news is brought out in a formnat for people with 6th grade education.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by zenzen

Originally posted by rbrtj
reply to post by zenzen
 


840.000µSv per hour is how deadly compared to 100CPM=alert level here in the state?


Really couldn't say.

Could anyone patch together a table showing the relative comparison between the various ways of reporting the µSv/Sv/CPM/becquerels, starting from, say, 1mSV. Or point me to one?

I could probably figure one out eventually but I'm no scientist or mathematician, so it may take me a while.
edit on 3-4-2011 by zenzen because: (no reason given)


Here is a start, xkcd chart, taken from academic chart credited at end

and when I can find the link to another conversion chart that was earlier in this thread ill post that.

ETA: well im way too late, yeah that chart above is much better.
edit on 3-4-2011 by bitbytebit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by bitbytebit
 


Oh yes... This is a good chart, this is the one i was looking for!




top topics



 
513
<< 504  505  506    508  509  510 >>

log in

join