It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Nuclear Jet Stream North America

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Regenmacher
80- 150 knot winds, and majority at mid-Pacific at 150 kts via latest analysis:
(this is not a predicted forecast, it's a satellite analysis using Doppler)

4800 miles from Tokyo to Seattle.
Average jet stream speed at 130 kts = 150mph approx.
Total travel time 32 hours.

edit on 12-3-2011 by Regenmacher because: typo

The information from that website is updated every 6 hours, so your current estimates may not be applicable in the next 6-12 hours. However based on the current situation with the reactor there is no danger for nuclear fallout contamination for western US and lower western canada. It will be time to worry if the plant goes into nuclear meltdown which i highly doubt

EDIT: NHK just said radiation levels are not rising. There you have it, the situation is fine
edit on 12-3-2011 by thedeadwalkk because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:59 PM
Dr. Kaku pipes in and claims it's a Chernobyl in the making:

Still debatable how much rad-gas is being vented. Japan nuclear techs lost all their credibility when they could see the pressure was at critical levels and they didn't say a word, until after it exploded. Then they doubled the distance of the evac zone, after the fact.

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:03 PM
reply to post by Regenmacher

Kaku, is one of he smartest people on the Earth..

What he just said, is what I have been saying..

edit on 12-3-2011 by Bicent76 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by Regenmacher

Well it's not really a chernobyl in the making. Chernobyl had no containment procedures AT ALL, and no one even bothered to try and contain areas outside chernobyl for days, and people weren't alerted about chernobyl for days
edit on 12-3-2011 by thedeadwalkk because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:07 PM

Originally posted by burntheships
Ok, found a reliable article here that is adressing this:

I am quoting from another thread, for obvious reasons.

Originally posted by burntheships
More from same article

Coming In Hot: Impact on North America

Panic is uncalled for, since cesium contamination poses a long-term rather than short-term threat, which can be reduced with timely countermeasures.

1. Pacific Jet Stream: In the spring season, the jet stream moves eastward from Japan toward the United States. Heated isotopes, riding on a cushion of steam and oceanic updrafts, will rise to the west-east jet stream at altitude 20,000 feet or higher. Areas of radioactive fallout are difficult to predict since these depend on local wind currents, temperatures, rainfall and other factors. The jet stream will cross the following states: California, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois and possibly further depending on surface winds. Cesium can be expected to fall unevenly, so monitoring is vital to determine the long-term threat level.

2. Cesium Fallout: Dispersal in the jet stream will greatly dilute the concentration of radiation, but the long half-life of cesium will constitute a health threat to humans and animals. Following the Chernobyl disaster, much of Western Europe was cesium-contaminated. Populations were given dosages of iodine, a neutron blocker. A notable rise in cancer was reported. Some countries banned the feeding of infants with breast milk, due to the concentration of radiation in human organs.
edit on Sat Mar 12 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS

I'm sorry, but at this moment, I am having a DIFFICULT time accepting this as a "reliable news article".

As it states in the quote from the article, which I did indeed go to, to verify:

"The jet stream will cross the following states: California, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois and possibly further depending on surface winds."

What, does my state, UTAH, have a magical shield of some sort over it?!?! Utah is to the right/east of Nevada... left/west of Colorado... and under/south of Idaho!!! Oh yeah, and we have a stateline connecting to Wyoming too! I can be across that stateline in 90 minutes.

So this "jet stream" is going to completely avoid UTAH?!?! Right!!! Had this "reliable article" actually looked at a map of the United States, Utah would be CLEARLY shown on it.

Sorry, but this really bugs me.

edit on 12-3-2011 by UtahRosebud because: typo

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:10 PM
I just listened to an actual RATIONAL discussion on what might occur.

First point was this reactor is nothing like Chernobyl and the comparisons are well, nutty.

An event like Chernobyl is not possible and worst case scenario it would still be containable.

The casing around the Core is still intact, only the shell of the building was destroyed by the hydrogen reacting with the oxygen around the cloud.

It was refreshing after all the fear mongering on the Media and the Internet to see somebody familiar with the Plants there to discuss reality. Unfortunately I was listening to this in the background in another room while I'm working and did not catch the experts name. He explained the difference in the type of Reactor but I was unable to stop what I was doing to write anything down. Clearly though this comparison to Chernobyl is pure nonsense. If it gets shown again I'll get more.

I'm not sure they will want to show it again as they went right back to fear mongering and misleading, even after being given real facts. I'm rather disappointed in the fear mongering on ALL the MSM, not to mention the madness here.

Anyway, we are in no danger here and it's just fear mongering at it's worst going on here. Deny Ignorance my butt.

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:18 PM
Kinda hard to understand how we detonated hundreds of nukes out west, yet reactors on the other side of the world can pose more of a threat?


posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:25 PM
I posted this in reply to a question on another thread asking about how this compares to chernobyl, and it would seem to answer a few questions people have here, too:

As a side comment, please quit arguing theory about the jet stream and simply load GoogleEarth with the weather layer enabled and look for yourself. You can see how long it takes for the clouds to make their way from there to here, wherever your particular here is. Where the clouds go, so go the radioactive particles.

on to the reply:

Different reactor type, different design, vastly different levels of training and maintenance tell the story.

However, it probably simply means a difference in how long it takes for them to meltdown, unfortunately, and fortunately. The bad part is that they will most likely meltdown, the good part is that it will be semi-controlled.

There will be some radiation leakage no matter what, the question is one of scale. Assuming a containment vessel breach there will be a significant amount of radiation released. I assume that out of five overheating reactors, they will get unlucky on at least's just too much to hope for that they will achieve 100% containment and success under the working conditions.

So what does this mean?

Based on past experience of previous failures, not much beyond the immediate area, not immediately. It will spread via the jet stream fairly quickly, drop randomly in random strength. Any ill effects are most likely to turn up in cattle and othe herbivores first, and get concentrated up the food chain, causing random mutations and various cancers over time.

Whatever its effects, they will take a lot of time to play out, and the most likely outcome will be a relatively small no-go zone for at least a few decades while they decontaminate. Bad for locals, but probably not too much of a much for everyone else.

But still, it is yet another stress factor in an already over-stressed system.

It's the subtle things that escape your notice that usually bite you.

Btw, I base this opnion on training and experience: one of my last assignments in the USAF was Squadron Disaster Preparedness NCO. I was trained to calculate radiation spread from nuclear attacks that would effect my duty station based on distance, winds aloft, weather, and weapon type/strength. I would then monitor exposure times and decide who should be tasked with how much exposure. The hard part was the knowledge that I would be required to triage the situation and decide when someone was so overexposed that they were expendable. So I'm pretty aware of the consequences of fallout.

In the short term, from what I can tell from the reports, the situation is extremely grave and very much a matter of luck. Another quake strong enough near enough and it won't make how skilled the crews are: one or more will melt down.

What matters most is how fast it goes so.

Worst case is very hard to predict but should follow the general parameters I've outlined: locally extremely bad and persistent, globally not immediately dangerous, but still consequential over the long term. More cancers, mostly.
edit on 12-3-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:49 PM
reply to post by apacheman

So would you say current dangers are low? but if a meltdown occurs dangers will be high?

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:55 PM
You should consider your selfs lucky you dont live in northern canada (like myself) Most the pollution that goes into the air ends up here sooner or later.

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

The problem is they are using a experimental fuel made with plutonium. The core is now heated to the point it can't be cooled. Fall out is 100%.

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:03 PM
Looks like we have two official stories in direct opposition now.

Meltdown Caused Nuke Plant Explosion: Safety Body

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) said Saturday afternoon the explosion at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant could only have been caused by a meltdown of the reactor core.

Nikkei crashed hard into the close too:

edit on 12-3-2011 by Regenmacher because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:17 PM
reply to post by thedeadwalkk

Locally there is high danger, hence the evacuations.

But about the only direct consequence you personally will experience is most probably a higher degree of cancer risk, type dependent upon the composition of the fuel, i.e., the balance of iodine, strontium, cesium, etc...each has a bias for different organs.

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:24 PM
reply to post by jlafleur02

4 days.

Below Oregon on current jetstream.

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:25 PM
reply to post by Janky Red

I was looking at that earlier today. It will really depend on how high into the atmosphere that the radiation reaches. So far I have not seen any indication that it has gone beyond a couple thousand feet, although we do have to consider evaporation and any isotopes that will carry upward. I am no expert though, only guessing.

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:29 PM
At the moment everyone in the USA has more risk of posioning from automobile exhausts than they do from a tiny bit of radiation leak in Japan - or put it another way, how many people died from radiation in the USA as a direct result of Hiroshima? Which was much, much, much, worse ......
edit on 12-3-2011 by Essan because: typo

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:34 PM
reply to post by minkey53

Hate to say it and apologies if there is already another thread on this but if you go onto the Harrp Website, you will see that they turned it on just before the Earthquake happened in Japan.

Evidently, this is the same for the one in Chili, Haiti, China and many others. The same depth at 6.21 miles and also rainbow like stuff / clouds going on in the sky for a few hours beforehand, like a build-up of something in the air etc.

Below is the link to the Harrp website and you can clearly see, it has been off for some time now but was turned on at the same time as Japan's Earthquake.

If this is true, the Government in charge of Harrp should be tried in Court for Murder!

Can we get something straight here? The link you posted is to the fluxgate magnetometer. That is NOT HAARP being turned on, that is the effect of the solar flares. The magnetometer - note the word magnetometer measures the strength of the magnetic flux that comes from the Sun. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the atmospheric heating.

Basically you are saying the Sun should be tried for murder!

IF that what "was turned on" before Haiti etc then actually what you are saying is that solar flares DO affect earthquakes.

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:48 PM
reply to post by Essan

Gee, I hate agreeing with you Essan, but sometimes I have to!

In addition to the fallout from Hiroshima there are many more nuclear test that have been done in China, America and elsewhere that have released far more radiation. Even Chernobyl was less radiation than just two of the atmospheric bursts that have been raining radiation on the world ever since and are still doing so.

Then there is Mighty Oak where radiation was released under cover of Chernobyl.

That site is packed with info including the two tests that gave off more than Chernobyl.

There is also a link to a PDF of the fallout trajectory, however I think that might be a bit high up. Time will tell.

Remember also that what you get we get a bit later!

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:52 PM
Well when the Chernobyl reactor melted I lived in the Netherlands. We also were scared what would happen to us . But 25 years later I'm still alive with 2 healthy kids. The distance between japan and the states are much greater as Chernobyl and the Netherlands so don't worry !

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:52 PM
Say hello to karma: seems a lot are thinking this radiation will fallout on the western united states, supported by “jest streams move from west to east” Now I am doubtful that a ground level nuclear melt down can get 23,000+feet up into a jet stream, and 5,133miles, but Im no expert.

can someone else weigh in on this?

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in