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.


Will America's Nuclear Power Plants Fail in an 8.0 Earthquake?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

+10 more 
posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:29 PM
A Timely Overview of the West Coast
Nuclear Power Facilities


Permit me, if you will, a bit of old business that has taken center stage. I am starting writing this Friday, 8:00 PM EST 11 March 2011.

Perhaps the current solar storms and increased earthquake activity are related. This post from 18 February 2011 postulates the correlation between geomagnetic storms and earthquake activity on Earth.

Dodged a Solar Bullet

When the ejection is directed towards the Earth and reaches it as an interplanetary CME (ICME), the shock wave of the traveling mass of Solar Energetic Particles causes a geomagnetic storm that may disrupt the Earth's magnetosphere, compressing it on the day side and extending the night-side magnetic tail. When the magnetosphere reconnects on the nightside, it releases power on the order of terawatt scale, which is directed back toward the Earth's upper atmosphere. THIS CANNOT BODE WELL FOR THE LIVING CREATURES ON EARTH...ya think?.

The terawatt is equal to one trillion (10 to the 12th power) watts (1 TW). The total power used by humans worldwide (about 16 TW in 2006) is commonly measured in this unit. The most powerful lasers from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s produced power in terawatts, but only for nanosecond time frames. The average stroke of lightning peaks at 1 terawatt, but these strokes only last for 30 microseconds. Wiki

This site has space weather with Sun & Solar Wind, Magnetosphere, Ionosphere & Thermosphere real-time simulation data of the space environment, should one be interested in such things.

NiCT Space Weather Simulation

Here is another good site to track these things in case you don't already have it.


OK, on to new business.

One would be prudent to lconsider at this latest 8.9 earthquake and tsunami in Japan as wake-up call. The possibility of a similar scenario closer to mainland U.S. is all to real. The potentially affected regions in the homeland are showing increased signs of instability. There is a plethora of excellent threads here on ATS to keep one up to date on the latest earthquake info, so I needn't go there.

I am looking at another part of the story that perhaps needs focused attention. If such an earthquake event happened in Alaska, there might be only a couple hours notice of an impending tsunami, or less. Anyone living near coastal areas be advised. This is not a drill. If one waits until the moment one can see the wave, it might be too late. Just be aware.

In this discussion, we will be evaluating any relationships between the 8.9 quake in Japan and direct effects to our nuclear infrastructure on the West Coast. Not pointing any fingers or making specious claims, we will merely identify facilities and present facts and let the reader utilize said info for further investigation if one is so inclined.

Let's look at the nuclear power plant failure aspect that has been thrust into the forefront by todays news of the unfolding disaster at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, one of 55 total in the country. Upon the 8.9 quake, power had been turned off at 11 units so far.

Japan authorities have announced they turned off 11 nuclear units without causing any damage. The country has 55 total such units.

An emergency situation had been declared at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. The Japanese Economy Ministry announced power supply to one of the units has been stopped because its cooling system has failed. There are no reported radiation leaks.

Electric power has been cut off in many regions of the country – over 4 million homes are reported to be without power in the capital Tokyo. Many fires are burning, including one in an oil refinery near the capital. 22 aftershocks have been registered after the initial one with magnitude between 5.4 and 6.5 on the Richter scale, according to the US Geological Survey.

Perhaps the news that Japanese nuclear reactors have been damaged and that clouds of official deception are already rising above them will cool the revival of enthusiasm for building new nuclear plants here in the US, spearheaded politically  by President Obama and okayed by major green groups using the cover of alleged AGW, as long ago planned by the nuclear industry.

How's this for timing? Another what if?

The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, closed since Monday following the major earthquake in the north of Japan is now known to be placed directly above a significant geological fault line. This line was thought to be inactive until it caused Monday’s earthquake, measuring 6.8 on the Richter scale.

Let me get this straight. Up until the earthquake, they knew that the facility was situated on a fault line and they knew that it was, it caused the earthquake?

The world’s largest nuclear power plant has been closed indefinitely, as it was designed only to cope with earthquakes of a magnitude up to 6.5.

In Japan? Even in the U.S., the nukes on the fault lines in California are said to be able to withstand 7.5 on the Richter scale.

The quake has caused a number of accidents at the plant, calling into question its safety. Mildly radioactive water leaked into the sea whilst four hundred barrels of radioactive waste toppled over, 40 of them spilling their contents. There were, in total, fifty malfunctions at the plant following the earthquake.

What is mildly radioactive?

And how much leaked into the sea?

Is it still leaking after the big one on Friday?

Where does one find this list of "50 malfunctions" so we here in America can learn from this disaster? This may be extremely timely information.

Japan is the third largest user of nuclear energy in the world, using it for over 30% of their energy. However, it is also country that suffers from frequent tremors, and questions are now being asked about the suitability of such a power source for a geologically volatile country.

Does this mean that the U.S. is vulnerable to potential fallout from this event? Can we look at Chernobyl for any relative information?

Northern Africa was hit with “more than 5% of all Chernobyl releases.” The finding of  Cesium-137 and both Plutonium-239 and Plutonium-240 “in accumulated Nile River sediment is evidence of significant Chernobyl contamination,” it says. “Areas of North America were contaminated from the first, most powerful explosion, which lifted a cloud of radionuclides to a height of more than 10 km. Some 1% of all Chernobyl nuclides,” says the book, “fell on North America.” (Karl Grossman: The Consequences of Chernobyl) Source

Altogether, fallout from Chernobyl was registered in all of the Northern Hemisphere. The only places that were affected enough to affect human health was in Europe and the Soviet Union. The US, Canada, and Japan all set up monitoring services to check Students and Tourists from USSR and Western and Eastern Europe. The Chernobyl accident, combined with the effects of the Three Mile Island incident, put an end to the development of nuclear power plants. Since 1979 no new nuclear power plants have been built, causing the eventual diminishing of nuclear power.

So what effect, if any, has the earthquake and subsequent tsunami had on U.S. nuclear power plants? The ones on the West CoastThe chart below displays the tsunami travel times and the approximate amount of time facilities have to prepare..

Had the massive 8.9 Richter-scale earthquake that has just savaged Japan hit off the California coast, it could have ripped apart at least four coastal reactors and sent a lethal cloud of radiation across the entire United States.

The two huge reactors each at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon are not designed to withstand such powerful shocks. All four are extremely close to major faults. All four reactors are located relatively low to the coast. They are vulnerable to tsunamis like those that hit as many as fifty countries.
San Onofre sits between San Diego and Los Angeles. A radioactive cloud spewing from one or both reactors there would do incalculable damage to either or both urban areas before carrying over the rest of southern and central California.

What if Chernobyl Hit America?

Chernobyl Winds Over America

Then came the announcement from PG&E, the owner of Diablo Canyon, that it was shutting down operations as a direct result of the tsunami warning. Not a peep about possible earthquake preventive measures. Remember, the San Andreas fault is in close proximity and Diablo sits atop the Hosgri Fault.

Jim Becker, Site VP Diablo Canyon Power Plant speaks with KSBY
"...Diablo Canyon was built to withstand certain levels..." and when pressed, admitted to 7.5 relating (specifically) to the San Andreas Fault. He stumbles on,"...earthquakes relating to the Hosgri fault, (which runs directly under Diablo) is at a different level that I don't remember ..."

San Francisco, March 11, 2011 — In a move PG&E Corp. calls routine, the power producer shut down its Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant due to a tsunami warning in California.

Much of the West Coast is under a tsunami warning following the 8.9 magnitude earthquake in Japan that has sent tsunami waves across the Pacific Ocean.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said there is nothing wrong with the plant, but a tsunami warning requires the plant to shut down as a precaution. The NRC said the plants are located in an area that the expected waves should not impact, and furthermore that the plants are designed to deal with the sort of waves heading for the California coast.

The U.S. Geological Survey also reported that a six-foot surge hit the Diablo Canyon area, where the nuclear-power plant is operated by Pacific Gas & Electric. But officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission stated that all operations were normal there as well as at another nuclear plant on the coast at San Onofre, north of San Diego.

“The Diablo Canyon plant is well protected against tsunami conditions as required by NRC regulations,” the agency said in a press release. “The NRC has staff at the plant keeping track of the plant’s response.”

As of 21:00 EST, it appears that there has not been wholesale shutdowns of nuke facilities here in the United States, but there have been a couple anomalies that have been found to be of interest.

This one on 10 March 2011 at 16:49 EST. Does this have anything to do with the Japan earthquake and geomagnetic instability?

NRC: Event Notification Report for March 11, 2011


"At 1549 (CST) on 03/10/2011 with the plant shut down and the reactor defueled, power was lost to Safeguards 4160 Volt Bus 6. Diesel Generator B started and re-energized Bus 6.

"At the time of the event, Bus 6 was energized from the Main Auxiliary Transformer (MAT) on backfeed. The event was caused by opening of substation breaker TA2066 as the result of an error by technicians working In the substation.

"All equipment operated as expected for the voltage restoration to Safeguards Bus 6. Safeguards Bus 5 remained energized from offsite power through the Tertiary Auxiliary Transformer during the event.

"Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Train A remained In operation during the event. Spent Fuel Cooling Train B was restarted following restoration of power to Bus 6.

"The loss of the MAT also resulted in the loss of non-safeguards 4160 V Buses 1-4. In response to the loss of power to Bus 4, the Technical Support Center (TSC) / Station Blackout (SBO) Diesel started and failed to load onto 480 Volt Bus 46. This resulted in a loss of power to the Technical Support Center. The loss of power to the TSC is being reported as a loss of Emergency Assessment Capability. At 1632, the TSC/SBO Diesel Generator tripped due to the failure of the output breaker to close and provide power to its support equipment. The cause of the failure of the TSC/SBO output breaker to close is unknown at this time."

The licensee is investigating the cause of the breaker being opened and failure of the TSC/SBO diesel to load. One Spent Fuel Pool cooling train was in service throughout the event and no pool heatup occurred.

The licensee notified the NRC Resident Inspector.

Emergency Class: NON EMERGENCY
10 CFR Section:
50.72(b)(3)(xiii) - LOSS COMM/ASMT/RESPONSE

This "Loss of Station Power" occurred at the Kewaunee Power Station near Green Bay, Wisconsin on Thursday, 10 March 2011..

Location: Kewaunee, WI (27 miles ESE of Green Bay, WI) in Region III 

Operator: Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.

Operating License: Issued - 12/21/1973

License Expires: 12/21/2013

Docket Number: 05000305
Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor

Electrical Output: 556 MWe
Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Two-Loop

Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure

A New York operating facility (power reactor) reported that their loss of power was attributed to "high winds"on 10 March 2011, 20:15 EST. Notice that both the primary and backup equipment failed. Where was that equipment made?


"Loss of power to radiological monitoring equipment (primary and backup). This constitutes a major loss of emergency assessment capability per Nine Mile Point procedures. The cause of the loss of monitoring equipment is a downed 13.2 kV power line. Monitoring capability was restored at 0100."

The loss of power was caused by high winds, and the grid operator was able to restore power at 0100 EST.

The NRC Resident Inspector has been notified.

Emergency Class: NON EMERGENCY
10 CFR Section:
50.72(b)(3)(xiii) - LOSS COMM/ASMT/RESPONSE

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1

Location: Scriba, NY (6 miles NE of Oswego, NY) in Region I 

Operator: Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC

Operating License: Issued - 12/26/1974

Renewed License: Issued - 10/31/2006

License Expires: 08/22/2029

Docket Number: 05000220
Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor
Electrical Output: 621 MWe

Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 2

Containment Type: Wet, Mark I

Nothing else was reported to be out of the ordinary to the NRC during this period.

Now, back to West Coast nuclear facilities.

Diablo Canyon is at Avila Beach, on the coast just west of San Luis Obispo, between Los Angeles and San Francisco. A radioactive eruption there would pour into central California and, depending on the winds, up to the Bay Area or southeast into Santa Barbara and then to Los Angeles. The cloud would at very least permanently destroy much of the region on which most Americans rely for their winter supply of fresh vegetables.

Which makes this bit of trivia more interesting: In addition to two other 'malfunctions' at U.S. nukes perhaps attributable to the Japanese 8.9 Earthquake, we have a
"state of emergency" at Diablo Canyon due to the earthquake/tsunami.

Notification Date: 03/11/2011
Notification Time: 04:40 [ET]
Event Date: 03/11/2011
Event Time: 01:23 [PST]
Last Update Date: 03/11/2011


The licensee declared a notice of unusual event as a result of a tsunami warning issued for the coastal areas of California. The tsunami warning is a result of a 8.9 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Japan. The licensee is in EAL HU1.5, 'Tsunami Affecting the Protected Area'. The NRC remains in the normal response mode.

The NRC Resident Inspector has been notified.

Emergency Class: UNUSUAL EVENT
10 CFR Section:
50.72(a) (1) (i) - EMERGENCY DECLARED

Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 1

Location: Avila Beach, CA (12 miles WSW of San Luis Obispo, CA) in Region IV
Operator: Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Operating License: Issued - 11/02/1984

License Expires: 11/02/2024

Docket Number: 05000275
Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor

Electrical Output: 1151 MWe
Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop

Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure

Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 2

Location: Avila Beach, CA (12 miles WSW of San Luis Obispo, CA) in Region IV 

Operator: Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 

Operating License: Issued - 08/26/1985

License Expires: 08/26/2025

Docket Number: 05000323
Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor

Electrical Output: 1149 MWe
Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop
Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure

California also has four commercial nuclear power plants and an experimental plant that are no longer in operation. These include:

• The Santa Susana Sodium Reactor Experimental (SRE) was a small sodium-cooled experimental reactor built by Southern California Edison and Atomics International at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, near Moorpark in Ventura County. It came on line in April 1957, began feeding electricity to the grid on July 12, 1957, and closed February 1964. This reactor used sodium rather than water as a coolant and produced a maximum of about 7.5 to 20 megawatts (electric). It was considered as the country's first civilian nuclear plant and the first "commmercial" nuclear power plant to provide electricity to the public by powering the near-by city of Moorpark in 1957. On July 26, 1959, the SRE suffered a partial core meltdown. Ten of 43 fuel assemblies were damaged due to lack of heat transfer and radioactive contamination was released. The plant has subsequently been dismantled. For more, please visit the U.S. Dept. of Energy's website at:

• The Vallecitos Nuclear Power Plant near Pleasanton, California, was jointly built by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and General Electric Company and operated from 1957 to 1967. This was a small, 30-megawatt power plant. On October 19, 1957, Vallecitos connected to the electrical grid and became the first privately funded plant to supply power in megawatt amounts to the electric utility grid. The plant was shut down in December 1967. The plant is in SAFSTOR and there are no plans for any significant dismantlement in the foreseeable future. All nuclear fuel has been removed from the site.

• The 63 MW Boiling Water Reactor at the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant in Eureka was in operation by PG&E from August 1963 to July 1976. It was the seventh licensed nuclear plant in the United States. It was closed because the economics of a required seismic retrofit could not be justified following a moderate earthquake from a previously unknown fault just off the coast. It was permanently shut down July 2, 1976, and retired in 1985. The plant was then placed in SAFSTOR (with spent nuclear fuel rods stored in water pools on site) until anticipated full decommissioning in 2015.

This means that there is a significant amount of radioactive material stored at this site and succeptible to seismic events,

• The 913 MW Pressurized Water Reactor at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant, located about 25 miles south of Sacramento, is owned by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District in and was operation from April 1975 to June 7, 1989. It was closed by public referendum.

Where is the paperwork?
Decommissioning Report?
Final Survey?
Verification Surveys (Interim and Post)?
DOE Final Out Certification?
Was there any waste ever generated?
Where is it now?

• The 436 MW San Onofre Unit 1 Pressurized Water Reactor was in operation from January 1968 to November 30, 1992. It was closed by its owners rather than incur $125 million in required modifications.

Where is the paperwork?
Decommissioning Report?
Final Survey?
Verification Surveys (Interim and Post)?
DOE Final Out Certification?
Was there any waste ever generated?
Where is it now?

Just for those in the need to know .

SAFSTOR - A method of decommissioning in which a nuclear facility is placed and maintained in a condition that allows the facility to be safely stored and subsequently decontaminated (deferred decontamination) to levels that permit release for unrestricted use. (NRC: Glossary -- SAFSTOR)

"Deferred decontamination" and "unrestricted use" are doublespeak for never having to face the situation with a workable plan, but spend an inordinate amount of money on "process."

And now, to sunny Southern California.

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2

Location: San Clemente, CA (46 miles SE of Long Beach, CA) in Region IV

Operator: Southern California Edison Co. 

Operating License: Issued - 02/16/1982
Expires - 02/16/2022

Docket Number: 05000361
Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor

Electrical Output: 1070 MWe
Vendor/Type: Combustion Engineering

Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3

Location: San Clemente, CA (46 miles SE of Long Beach, CA) in Region IV

Operator: Southern California Edison Co. 

Operating License: Issued - 11/15/1982
Expires - 11/15/2022 

Docket Number: 05000362
Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor

Electrical Output: 1080 MWe
Vendor/Type: Combustion Engineering

Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure

Out of a total of 108 operating nuclear power plants in the United States, in the coastal states of California (4), Oregon (0) and Washington (1) there appears to be a total of 5 operating sites... but, as usual, that is not the whole story. For example, Oregon is listed as having 'none.'

In Oregon alone, there are at least 3 more nuclear facilities that must be considered, one of which has been "decommissioned," and these plants still store nuclear materials on-site awaiting disposal. (Supposedly at Yucca!)

(1) Trojan Nuclear Power Plant

The iconic 499-foot-tall (152 m) cooling tower, visible from Interstate 5 in Washington, was demolished via
dynamite implosion at 7:00 a.m. on May 21, 2006. This event marked the first implosion of a cooling tower
at a nuclear plant in the United States.

The Trojan Nuclear Plant was Oregon’s only nuclear power plant. It operated for almost 17 years, from March 1976 to January 1993. Portland General Electric (PGE) owns the Trojan nuclear plant and is responsible for its decommissioning.

In 1978, the plant was closed for nine months while modifications were made to improve its resistance to earthquakes. This followed the discovery both of major building construction errors and of the close proximity of a previously unknown fault line. The operators sued the builders, and an undisclosed out-of-court settlement was eventually reached. The Trojan steam generators were designed to last the life of the plant, but it was only four years before premature cracking of the steam tubes was observed.

Trojan Nuclear Power Plant was a pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant in Rainier. The only nuclear power plant in Oregon was shut down twenty years early, after a cracked steam tube released radioactive gas into the plant in 1992. It cost $450 million to build the plant, and it is expected to cost the same amount, at least, to make it go away. In 2001, the 1,000-ton 1,130-megawatt reactor was encased in concrete foam, and coated in blue shrink-wrapped plastic, then shipped up the Columbia River on a barge to the Hanford Nuclear Site in Washington, where it was placed in a 45 foot deep pit, and covered with six inches of gravel, making it the first commercial reactor to be moved and buried whole.

While operating, Trojan represented more than 12% of the electrical generation capacity of Oregon. For comparison, more than 80% of Oregon's electricity came from hydropower from dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, with the rest mainly from fossil fuels.

The spent fuel rods, however, are still stored on site, as they are at all the other 108 or so commercial reactors in the country. Almost 800 rods are in a pool, next to the Columbia River, awaiting the possible opening of the Yucca Mountain radioactive storage facility in Nevada.

Trojan has about 790 spent fuel assemblies stored in the Trojan Spent Fuel Pool. Each assembly is 12 feet long and about 10 inches square. The decommissioning plan calls for PGE to transfer the spent fuel from the pool to dry casks. The dry casks would be located on a concrete pad located in the northeast corner of the Trojan site. Even after the rest of the site is decommissioned, the spent fuel storage area will remain under Council jurisdiction until the federal government can establish a national spent fuel respository. At this point, we do not know when that will happen.

That's one story that's been floated and apparently accepted by whomever is supposed to be watching these people. Another facility "awaiting the possible opening of the Yucca Mountain radioactive storage facility in Nevada." This policy by itself has kept the nuclear energy industry in business for decades more than necessary, IMHO.

It is important to remember that no progress has been made for decades as to the 'final solution' for the disposal of waste from nuclear power generation. Remember the Yucca Mountain scam? Each of these facilities generates a poison that must be kept locked away from any contact with human interaction for thousands of years. Who is responsible for this? You might be surprised to find out how many nuclear reactors are situated on or near major fault lines... like all of them in California.

(2) Reed College Research Reactor

Picture of a TRIGA reactor core. The blue glow is caused by Cherenkov radiation.

The Reed Research Reactor (RRR) is a research nuclear reactor located on-campus at Reed College in Portland, OR. It is a pool-type TRIGA Mark I reactor, built by General Atomics in 1968 and operated since then under licence from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Maximum thermal output is 250 kW. The reactor has over 1,000 visitors each year and serves the Reed College departments of Physics, Chemistry, and others.

(3) Oregon State University Radiation Center

The reactor is a Mark II TRIGA reactor with a maximum thermal output of 1.1 MW and can be pulsed up to a power of 3000 MW for a very short time. The fuel is low enriched uranium. Operation began in 1967.

The Oregon State University Radiation Center (OSURC) is a research facility that houses the nuclear reactor at Oregon State University (OSU) in Corvallis, Oregon. The Oregon State TRIGA Reactor (OSTR) serves the research needs of the OSU nuclear engineering department along with other departments (notably medical applications).

There is a large graphite slab that serves the purpose of diffusing neutrons from the reactor which can then be used in Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT). The OSURC has a special gas irradiation facility where the reactor can produce Ar-41 gas and ship it to anywhere within 24 hours.

Washington state has one operating power station, the Columbia Generating Station, and the closed Hanford facility which had nine (9) reactors and has 2/3 of all high-level nuclear waste by volume in the U.S., and 2 more facilities undergoing decommissioning: Framatome Richland and the University of Washington.

Columbia Generating Station

Location: Richland, WA (20 miles NNE of Pasco, WA) in Region IV 

Operator: Energy Northwest 

Operating License: Issued - 04/13/1984

License Expires: 12/20/2023

Docket Number: 05000397
Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor

Electrical Output: 1190 MWe
Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 5 

Containment Type: Wet, Mark II

Washington State University Reactor

The Washington State University Reactor (WSUR) is housed in the Washington State University Nuclear Radiation Center (WSUNRC), and was completed in 1961. After completing the extensive application and design process with the help of contractors from General Electric they broke ground in August of 1957 and the first criticality was achieved on March 7th 1961 at a power level of 1W. They gradually increased power over the next year to achieve their maximum licensed operating power of 100kW.

The aim of the research at WSU is to improve the selectivity and efficiency of the process to reduce waste to very small and relatively easily manageable amounts.

A future of abundant electrical power and well-managed nuclear waste animates the usually carefully measured conversation of Don Wall. He volunteered to teach Chem. 490 on top of his other responsibilities at the nuclear reactor because he believes the young generation might be open to fresh ideas about what he considers “green” energy. In the face of carbon concerns and rapid worldwide industrialization, nuclear power creating abundant electricity is part of Wall’s vision for the future.

“Nuclear energy is clean, safe, and reliable,” he says. “It’s a baseload power source that can keep the lights on during a still night when solar and wind are not available. It’s much cleaner and safer than coal, which we still lean on heavily in this country for electrical generation.”

This is the line of bravo sierra that has been spoon-fed the public since the dawn of this magical "too cheap to meter" power source. Again, these corporate doublespeak robots ignore the fundamental problem: what to do with the waste? And he is sidestepping the cost factor, even when waste is left out of the equation, nuclear power is more expensive than other power sources. How expensive? I leave that up to the people responding to this.

Wall likes to point out that France gets about 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants. France recycles its fuel rod waste and, in fact, does the same on a commercial basis for some other nations.

“That could be us,” Wall says. Yeah, that's what to do - follow the French. What is their magical solution to the problem?

The MSM and the USGOV entities would like to make you think that if the nuclear facility is closed, there is no longer any danger to the public. There is the problem that many of these sites, many of which contain the truly-toxic stuff like Cesium-137, Plutonium, Iodine-131 and Strontium-90, with radioactive half-lives ranging from 20,000 to 200,000 years, are situated near known fault lines. If there is a significant seismic event, one might think that these 'closed' sites may be affected.

This from Wiki makes an interesting read.

The radioactivity of all nuclear waste diminishes with time. All radioisotopes contained in the waste have a half-life—the time it takes for any radionuclide to lose half of its radioactivity—and eventually all radioactive waste decays into non-radioactive elements. Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other creatures for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radioisotopes remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for millennia.

Is it just me? Hundreds of thousands of years does not mean centuries. And the USGOV entity in charge of all of this? The DOE (Department of Energy). This is their mandate regarding nuclear waste disposal:

Department of Energy Five Year Plan FY 2007-FY 2011 Volume II

Environmental Strategic Goal: To protect the environment by providing a responsible
resolution to the environmental legacy of the Cold War and by providing for the
permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste.

Due to historic activities typically related to radium industry, uranium mining, and military programs, there are numerous sites that contain or are contaminated with radioactivity. In the United States alone, the Department of Energy states there are "millions of gallons of radioactive waste" as well as "thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and material" and also "huge quantities of contaminated soil and water." Despite copious quantities of waste, the DOE has stated a goal of cleaning all presently contaminated sites successfully by 2025.

Here is only one example of potential problem sites in America not otherwise covered herein. Check out "Superfund" and follow that twisted trail for a while. You'll be amazed at how many are awaiting the Holy Grail of Yucca Mountain.

The Fernald, Ohio site, for example, had "31 million pounds of uranium product", "2.5 billion pounds of waste", "2.75 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris", and a "223 acre portion of the underlying Great Miami Aquifer had uranium levels above drinking standards." The United States has at least 108 sites designated as areas that are contaminated and unusable, sometimes many thousands of acres.

DOE wishes to clean or mitigate many or all by 2025, however the task can be difficult and it acknowledges that some may never be completely remediated. In just one of these 108 larger designations, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, there were for example at least "167 known contaminant release sites" in one of the three subdivisions of the 37,000-acre site. Some of the U.S. sites were smaller in nature, however, cleanup issues were simpler to address, and DOE has successfully completed cleanup, or at least closure, of several sites.

It is a common misconception that nuclear waste has to be stored in a cave after its 20-year decommissioning process. Wiki

Do you see what is taken as 'truth' by the people who rely on Wiki for reference. Look carefully at how the statement is worded. The words 'wishes', 'difficult' and 'never' and 'remediated' are used. Who do you think wrote that? Does that imply that all nuclear waste is 'safe' upon a 20-year decommissioning process?



It was the home of nine nuclear reactors used to produce plutonium, which was needed for atomic weapons.

The Hanford Site is a mostly decommissioned nuclear production complex on the Columbia River in the U.S. state of Washington, operated by the United States federal government. The site has been known by many names, including Hanford Works, Hanford Engineer Works or HEW, Hanford Nuclear Reservation or HNR, and the Hanford Project. Established in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project in the town of Hanford in south-central Washington, the site was home to the B Reactor, the first full-scale plutonium production reactor in the world. Plutonium manufactured at the site was used in the first nuclear bomb, tested at the Trinity site, and in Fat Man, the bomb detonated over Nagasaki, Japan.

The weapons production reactors were decommissioned at the end of the Cold War, but the manufacturing process left behind 53 million U.S. gallons (204,000 m³) of high-level radioactive waste that remains at the site. This represents two-thirds of the nation's high-level radioactive waste by volume. Today, Hanford is the most contaminated nuclear site in the United States and is the focus of the nation's largest environmental cleanup. While most of the current activity at the site is related to the cleanup project, Hanford also hosts a commercial nuclear power plant, the Columbia Generating Station, and various centers for scientific research and development, such as the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the LIGO Hanford Observatory. Wiki

The Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, where radioactivity was released from 1944 to 1971.

U.S. Government Poisons Americans in "Test"

The "Green Run" was a secret US Government release of radioactive materials on December 2–3, 1949, at the Hanford Site plutonium production facility. Radioisotopes released at that time were supposed to be detected by US Air Force reconnaissance. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the US government have revealed some of the details of the experiment. Sources cite 5,500 to 12,000 curies (200 to 440 TBq) of iodine-131 released.

There are some indications contained in the documents released by the FOIA requests that many other tests were conducted, although the Green Run was a particularly large test. Evidence suggest that filters to remove the iodine were disabled during the Green Run.

The project gets its name from the processing of uranium at Hanford. Due to the higher radioactivity involved, batch processing waited 90 to 100 days to allow the uranium isotopes to decay. For the Green Run test, a batch was run with only a 16 day cooling period. The unfiltered exhaust from the production facility was therefore much more radioactive than during a normal batch.

That specifically indicates that unfiltered iodine was released on the public. But, that was then, this is now; we're still dealing with the same group of people, doublespeak gobbledegook on how safe they are keeping us from the nasty stuff that is a necessary byproduct of power generation.

Still with the waste thing...

The most significant challenge at Hanford is stabilizing the 53 million U.S. gallons of high-level radioactive waste stored in 177 underground tanks. About a third of these tanks have leaked waste into the soil and groundwater. As of 2008, most of the liquid waste has been transferred to more secure double-shelled tanks; however, 2.8 million U.S. gallons of liquid waste, together with 27 million U.S. gallons of salt cake and sludge, remains in the single-shelled tanks. That waste was originally scheduled to be removed by 2018. The revised deadline is 2040.

So what does this mean? TPTB seem to think that nothing needs to be done because if it is put off so far in the future it will be non consequential for them...the same line that they have been spewing for decades.

Nearby aquifers contain an estimated 270 billion U.S. gallons of contaminated groundwater as a result of the leaks. As of 2008, 1 million U.S. gallons of highly radioactive waste is traveling through the groundwater toward the Columbia River. This waste is expected to reach the river in 12 to 50 years if cleanup does not proceed on schedule. The site also includes 25 million cubic feet of solid radioactive waste.

Grand opening of the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF).

Under the Tri-Party Agreement, lower-level hazardous wastes are buried in huge lined pits that will be sealed and monitored with sophisticated instruments for many years. Disposal of plutonium and other high-level wastes is a more difficult problem that continues to be a subject of intense debate. As an example, plutonium has a half-life of 24,100 years, and a decay of ten half-lives is required before a sample is considered to be safe.

The Department of Energy is currently building a vitrification plant on the Hanford Site. Vitrification is a method designed to combine these dangerous wastes with glass to render them stable. Bechtel, the San Francisco based construction and engineering firm, has been hired to construct the vitrification plant, which is currently estimated to cost approximately $12 billion.

Construction began in 2001. After some delays, the plant is now scheduled to be operational in 2019, with vitrification completed in 2047. It was originally scheduled to be operational by 2011, with vitrification completed by 2028.

Again, put the problem off into the future, and it disappears from view today. Here's a little-known gem that is in plain sight on our home-owners insurance policies and we (I did) just sign away our right to reimbursement in return for lower rates...?

By the federal Price-Anderson Act of 1957, the owners of the destroyed reactors---including Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison---would be covered by private insurance only up to $11 billion, a tiny fraction of the trillions of dollars worth of damage that would be done. The rest would become the responsibility of the federal taxpayer and the fallout victims. Virtually all homeowner insurance policies in the United States exempt the insurers from liability from a reactor disaster.

And here we have a 'closed' nuclear adjacent to an operating power plant.

Fromatome, Richland, Washington

Located in southeastern Washington near the Tri-Cites area of Walla Walla, Pasco and Richland. This is the local EMA's take on the situation.
Prepared by Walla Walla County Emergency Page 2
Management Department, October 2003

Hazard Overview
The nuclear facilities operated by the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) and
the Energy Northwest are located at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Benton
County, which is about 16 miles to the closest point of Walla Walla County
(Burbank) and about 55 miles from the City of Walla Walla.

The USDOE facilities include nuclear waste storage tanks and research laboratories.

The Columbia Generating Station is an 1180-megawatt boiling water reactor used to produce
electrical power, operated by Energy Northwest, a commercial power producer.

It was formerly known as Washington Nuclear Power Plant #2.

A significant hazard requiring emergency planning stems from the presence of
large quantities of radioactive materials from the various separations, waste
store, research and power generating station. These materials, although
contained, could affect public health and environment in the event of a release
during a major accident.

Even this plant seems beset with backup generator problems. This in from April, 2010.

RICHLAND -- A small fire prompted authorities to declare an alert Saturday at the Columbia Generating Station, the only commercial nuclear power plant in Washington.

No radioactivity was released, and the plant on the Hanford nuclear reservation remained operating.

The alert was declared at 1:44 p.m. when the plant's control room received an alert from a sensor of an electrical fire in a building adjacent to the reactor building, said Energy Northwest, which operates the plant.

The fire was in a backup transformer that supplies electricity to parts of the plant when needed.

And lastly the 'decontaminated' reactor at the University of Washington.

The skeleton of the nuclear reactor inside the More Hall Annex was once one of the main technological staples of the University of Washington. When deactivated in 1988, the room that held the reactor was stripped of paint for safety. Photo by Jesse Barracoso.

University of Washington Nuclear Reactor Building also known a More Hall Annex; opened in 1961, the reactor stopped operating in 1988, fuel rods were removed in the years that followed, decontamination continued in 2006. Added to Washington State list of historic places in 2008 and to the National Register of Historic Places in 2009.

From April 1961 to June 1988, the UW operated a 100-kilowatt Argonaut research reactor, one of about 10 built for research universities in the United States. Designed at the Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago in the late 1950s and installed with funds from federal grants, the Argonaut reactor was at the center of the UW’s nuclear engineering department, an elite graduate-level program, for nearly 30 years.

The fuel took the form of approximately 60-100 enriched uranium-aluminum alloy plates about three feet long, four inches wide and 1/4 of an inch thick. Purified, recirculated tap water flowed in the half-inch spaces between the plates to absorb and take away the relatively low amount of heat produced.

Between 1989 and 1990, the uranium fuel was removed from the reactor’s core and shipped to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in eastern Washington for disposal. The reactor sat dormant through the ‘90s, partially dismantled and in “safe storage,” while the UW waited for funding from the Washington state Legislature. The building was used as offices, storage and a robotics laboratory for the College of Engineering.

The number of civilian research reactors at universities has declined from approximately 60-70 during the Cold War to about 30 today, including these still-functioning reactors at Oregon State University, Reed College and WSU.

So what about all the rest of the waste that has been / is stored all around the USA? What happened to the idea of storing it in Yucca Mountain? Is this yet another deception? Which side of the fence is Obama and friends really on?

Double attack on US nuclear waste fees
10 March 2011

Funding for Yucca Mountain has come from a levy of 0.1 cents per kWh of nuclear power, which currently adds up to about $770 million per year. Nuclear utilities - and therefore their customers - have now paid a total of over $31 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund.

The government was supposed to use this money to create a permanent nuclear waste disposal site by 1998.

Around $7 billion was spent and much progress made, but Yucca was cut off from funding in May 2009 by President Barack Obama and energy secretary Stephen Chu.

Where, oh where is the waste going now? Is any of it being trucked around the country to a location different from the nuclear facility where the waste was generated?

Having submitted an 8600-page application to build Yucca Mountain under President George Bush and his energy secretary Sam Bodman, the DOE under direction from Chu and Obama moved to withdraw it in May. Spending on Yucca is now set at the absolute minimum level, while the $24 billion balance of the fund remains with the US Treasury earning substantial compound interest of over $1 billion per year.

Let's see...that's a couple billion there should be about $26 billion available. How does one actually verify that this is a correct and true amount and where is the entry on the ledger? Is it really there? Can I touch it?

Here is where O'Bama made sure the process is still in process with no real movement regarding the safe disposal of radioactive waste. Why are the power companies allowed to utilize this "to cheap to meter" power source?

This, however, was rejected by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's independent Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). The DoE had no right to substitute its own ideas in place of those legislated by Congress, said the ASLB, and is bound by law to complete its work at Yucca Mountain unless Congress acts to supercede the previous legislation.

"Completing the work" at Yucca Mountain means what? Does that imply that the money is conveniently tied up by legalize and not available towhatever entity is charged with the work?

Data generated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) shows that the site is so porous that the mountain itself contributes almost nothing to waste isolation. Instead, DOE relies almost completely on a system of engineering fixes, the most outlandish of which are waste disposal containers that must last for at least one million years combined with approximately sixty miles of tunnels lined with thousands of titanium drip shields that DOE does not plan to install for 100 to 300 years or more.

This is exactly the bravo sierra that portrays what is wrong in America. What moron wrote that proposal, had somebody sign off on one million year containers and actually got it in print as something that DOE proposes? And how much money has been spent already on Yucca? There is a thread by itself - and probably a dangerous one. But, I'm afraid, this level of mentality runs deep in government service.

Nevada and independent scientists who have studied the composition of the proposed containers have shown they will corrode in a few hundred years or less. In addition to the fundamental deficiencies of the site itself, Yucca Mountain is located thousands of miles from most of the accumulating waste, a factor which presents great risks to communities over the thousands of miles the waste would travel during the forty to fifty years such transportation would be required. In short, Yucca Mountain cannot perform the function for which it is intended. Indeed, the project is fraught with a host of insurmountable technical, safety, environmental, and institutional problems that simply cannot be engineered around or ignored. Source

In the meantime, Obama has created a 'Blue Ribbon' commission on radioactive waste management. It is hearing evidence from a range of stakeholders on waste management methods including reprocessing, recycling and the use of burner reactors as well as the widely accepted geologic disposal method as proposed for Yucca Mountain. (World Nuclear News)

And now you have an idea what might be affected if there is a major seismic event on the West Coast. It is not only the operating plants put forth by the MSM, but the entire array of past facilities that must be factored into any type of response mechanism.

The bottom line is that an electrical power grid down due to an earthquake spells big trouble to our nuclear reactors. Perhaps these sites will aid in further research into what's in your back yard.

NRC: Map of Power Reactor Sites

Nuclear Regulatory Commission List of Power Reactor Units

Radiation Network

BBC NEWS | In Depth | Chernobyl

Now, you have more of the necessary information to make informed decisions regarding proximity to nuclear-related facilities.

Also, if you can't live for at least a month with the water and power going off right now, please consider that the New Madrid is also "overdue" and maybe it is really time to do something about it...

May your 2011 see you embracing its highest potential.

In Peace & Light

American Red Cross

Dodged a Solar Bullet

Cometgate ! Elenin + 2005 YU55 + Nibiru

Surviving the American Food Crisis of 2011

The Domino Effect of February 2011 - I Had a Dream About America's Future

edit on 13/3/2011 by thorfourwinds because: typo

edit on 13/3/2011 by thorfourwinds because: lynx

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 01:03 AM
reply to post by thorfourwinds

Another great informative post to awaken the masses close to all these facilities to have a plan of escape from the disaster,and as you know the people of japan are accustomed to the siren call and know its not a test,I feel for all the unfortunate folks who did not have the time to react or became complacent.
Yawl, folks this is relevant for discussion what will you all do and are you aware.How safe are we,after recent events globally the plates are moving and anywhere around the globe could release energy from that techtonic movement.
Great post Thor,great to see you still out there

edit on 14-3-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 01:27 AM
Hellacious post! Definitely some food for thought here!

From all the accounts I've been reading lately the plant in Japan was built to the hilt, loaded with safety features. i think in comparison some of our older plants are going to be in trouble if they ever see an 8.0 quake, we can only HOPE that the NRC is doing it's freaking job and watching these things.

What's troubling is that some of our plants have had trouble without any additional help from mother nature, not only 3 Mile Island but the Davis-Besse plant with its cracked and corroded reactor lid. Not exactly reassuring.

This is a serious wake up call for the NRC to review all these plants for readiness in the event of a quake. It's also a wake up call for those who live around them! If you do, go to FEMA ( and download these:

Nuclear Power Plant Emergency

Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 01:32 AM
Great thread!

I feel that after the number achieved on the Richter scale, 9.0 should be a minimum requirement. Especially if they were built on a fault line.

I'll have to re-read it all, so much information to take in.

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 01:52 AM
Some additional stats if you want to compare US, EU and Japanese Nuke plants:

Most EU plants conform to ISO3XXX and bury their reactor cores to about 250M (minimum) depth.
In the US they're buried to about 200 - 400M, with the older ones less than that.
In Japan the minimum is 500M, and heavily reinforced. The Fukushima core was 800M beneath the surface.

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 08:30 PM
I am under the impression it was the tsunami and not the quake that damaged the plant.

Is that not true?

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 08:48 PM
Yes, but not directly, the real damage was caused by the failure of power backups to keep the reactor cooled. No pumps, no water to cool = meltdown. Eventually they got seawater in there to keep the reactors cool. Had those cores not been so heavily reinforced and deep (like those in the US or EU) this would be a far greater disaster, and they still aren't out of the woods.

posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 03:56 PM
However hard you try, nuclear cannot EVER be justified. We must ditch it NOW.

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 07:52 AM

Originally posted by WilhelmFink
However hard you try, nuclear cannot EVER be justified. We must ditch it NOW.


Thank you for your time, consideration and participation.

We completely agree and have launched this thread to do something about it.

America's Being Nuked - Can We Together Stop the Madness Before It's Too Late?

Please join us there, bump and flag and tell a friend to do the same!

We are amassing a database of current, pertinent information to aid in the complete understanding of this worldwide crisis so as to be able to offer viable, realistic, real-world solutions.

First, we must awaken the masses to the very real fact that the USGOV/EPA/FDA is going everything in their power to hide the truth from we, the people.

Knowledge is power - come join us, have a read, and please post a comment, more information, whatever.

Welcome to the struggle and onward through the fog!

In Peace, Love & Light


posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 08:47 AM
reply to post by thorfourwinds

April 24, 2011

Radiation Infographic
by Sean Bonner

This graphic is helpful in understanding much about radiation.

A veritable plethora of information awaits the discerning student at:

America's Being Nuked - Can We Together Stop the Madness Before It's Too Late?

In Peace, Love & Light


posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:45 PM

Originally posted by NuclearMitochondria
Great thread!

I feel that after the number achieved on the Richter scale, 9.0 should be a minimum requirement. Especially if they were built on a fault line.

I'll have to re-read it all, so much information to take in.


Thank you for your kind words of encouragement and participation.

We will return to add content after contending with an F-3 tornado here in Rabun County.

If you check our other threads, you may find other items of interest.

In Peace, Love & Light


posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:03 AM

... who can say that and keep a straight face?

19 May 2011
At this time, there is no public health threat in the U.S. related to radiation exposure. FDA, together with other agencies, is carefully monitoring any possibility for distribution of radiation to the United States.

At this time, theoretical models do not indicate that significant amounts of radiation will reach the U.S. coast or affect U.S. fishing waters.

Perhaps this will interest you also:

23 April 2011
Japan Nuclear Iodine Radiation In San Francisco Milk Over 2600% Above EPA Drinking Water Limit

10 May 2011
Hawaii Farmers Treating Milk With Boron After Finding Radiation 2400 Times Above Safe Levels


This was around the same time that the EPA stopped Fukushima nuclear radiation tests on milk, drinking water and rainwater saying the levels of radiation were constantly dropping and posed no health risks.

EPA officials, however, [color=limegreen]refused to answer questions or make staff members available to explain the exact location and number of monitors, or the levels of radiation, if any, being recorded at existing monitors in California.

Margot Perez-Sullivan, a spokeswoman at the EPA’s regional headquarters in San Francisco, said the agency’s written statement would stand on its own.

IMHO, these people theoretically work for we, the people, and this type of behavior should not be tolerated!

Where are those people that actually are aware (and care)?

From the lackluster response to many threads dealing with this subject, one might surmise that there are not enough of us - or that we are not connecting in a collective voice to shout from the rooftops:

America's Being Nuked - Can we Together Stop the Madness?

In the unlikely scenario that pollutants could affect fish that have traveled to the U.S., FDA will work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to test seafood caught in those areas. Together, FDA and NOAA will also inspect facilities that process and sell seafood from those areas.

The FDA has claimed that there is no need to test Pacific fish for Japan nuclear radiation reports the Anchorage Daily News but when drilled on details by the reporter, the FDA [color=limegreen]refused to answer questions and gave the reporter the run-around.

The FDA says there will be no testing of fish until NOAA testing finds cause for alarm but NOAA [color=limegreen]refuses to answer questions on what kind of monitoring has been done.

25 April 2011
New EPA Radiation Tests Show Cesium in California Rainwater at Highest Level Since Crisis Began

3 May 2011
Hot Radioactive Particles in Seattle at 50% of Levels Seen in Tokyo

OK... 50% of what? Are we, the people, to be the least bit alarmed? Do the EPA and FDA have the best interests of the American people at the forefront of decision-making? Are we really screwed? Does anyone read this? Does anyone care?

Interesting. As we write this, David Morrison (NASA mouthpiece) is in the History Channel talking about ELE's - specifically doomsday asteroids (1,100 1 kilometer or larger). 6,000 to one odds. (More on this buffoon in Cometgate2).

Space Guard Survey promoted heavily as a "... not to worry, feel good" piece. (Bangs head on desk and reaches for Vice-Grips).

But we digress. Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

3 April 2011
140,000 Times More Iodine-131 Released at Fukushima Than Three Mile Island… Using March 22 Estimates

3 May 2011
Radiation In US Food Will Be Nationwide Problem, Not Just Regional, From Fukushima Nuclear Radioactive Fallout

3 June 2011
5.77 microsieverts per hour of radiation measured near Tokyo at ground level — Government “is desperately trying to keep it quiet...”

And from our friend Alexander Higgins:

U.S. Radiation Map

Updated With Real Time EPA RadNet Japan Nuclear Radiation Monitoring For Every Major City In America On A Single Page

In Peace, Love & Light


posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:29 AM

We are truly amazed that presenting what is a pure fact - without any spin associated to it - can generate such an outbreak of insecurity and outright fear-driven responses.

We had always expected that readers here can receive and interpret facts as presented, instead of demanding filtering for what some deem is unpleasant information.

We urge that sub-segment to immediately and permanently orient their attention to other media outlets that does the prefiltering for them, as per the government's mandate of not spreading panic.

Check this out:

Government Radiation Expert Deconstructs Myth Of “Safe” Radiation Levels
Nuclear radiation expert and renowned Government radiation expert, Chris Bubsy, deconstructs the myths and propaganda of so-called “safe” levels of nuclear radiation.

Since the Fukushima accident we have seen a stream of experts on radiation telling us not to worry, that the doses are too low, that the accident is nothing like Chernobyl and so forth. They appear on television and we read their articles in the newspapers and online. Fortunately the majority of the public don’t believe them.
And in an interview with me in Stockholm in 2009, Dr Jack Valentin, the ex-Scientific Secretary of the ICRP conceded this, and also made the statement that the ICRP risk model, the one used by all governments to assess the outcome of accidents like Fukushima, was unsafe and could not be used. You can see this interview on the internet, on

Why is the ICRP model unsafe?

Because it is based on “absorbed dose”. This is average radiation energy in Joules divided by the mass of living tissue into which it is diluted. A milliSievert is one milliJoule of energy diluted into one kilogram of tissue.

As such, it would not distinguish between warming yourself in front of a fire and eating a red hot coal. It is the local distribution of energy that is the problem.

The dose from a singly internal alpha particle track to a single cell is 500mSv! The dose to the whole body from the same alpha track is 5 x 10-11 mSv. That is 0.000000000005mSv. But it is the dose to the cell that causes the genetic damage and the ultimate cancer.

The cancer yield per unit dose employed by ICRP is based entirely on external acute high dose radiation at Hiroshima, where the average dose to a cell was the same for all cells.

Please go to the source to read the full story - it is well worth your time. He concludes with this:

There is a gap between them and us.

Between the phoney scientists and the public who don’t believe what they say.

Between those who are employed and paid to protect us from radioactive pollution and those who die from its consequences.

Between those who talk down what is arguably the greatest public health scandal in human history, and the facts that they ignore.


Joseph Conrad wrote: “After all the shouting is over, the grim silence of facts remain.”

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

Traces of radiation from the crippled nuclear plant in Japan are being detected in states from California to Massachusetts, carried across the Pacific on broad rivers of wind. But state officials say there is no public health risk.

OK....let's investigate that statement a bit further.

Let's start with this from the Wall Street Journal:

Radiation Detected in U.S.

U.S. states, which aren't recommending protective measures for the public, are reporting tiny amounts of radioactive iodine known as Iodine-131 that is seen in the early stages of a nuclear reaction. It has a short half-life of eight days, meaning that in that time, half of it will have decayed to a non-radioactive state, a process that will continue until it is undetectable, Mr. Matus said.

In Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, public officials said radiation found in rainwater last week posed no threat to drinking water. Pennsylvania repeatedly tested the drinking water from six regions in the state over the weekend, but detected no Iodine-131, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett said in a statement Monday.

People might "get alarmed by making what would be an [color=limegreen]inappropriate connection from rainwater to drinking water," Mr. Corbett said in a statement.

We offer the following article without comment:

28 March 2011
Radioactive Iodine-131 in Pennsylvania Rainwater Sample is 3300%
Above Federal Drinking Water Standard

Governor Corbett Says Public Water Supply Testing Finds No Risk to Public From Radioactivity Found in Rainwater, Pennsylvania Office of the Governor, March 28, 2011:

The (Iodine-131) numbers reported in the rainwater samples in Pennsylvania range from 40-100 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). Although these are levels above the background levels historically reported in these areas, they are still about 25 times below the level that would be of concern. The federal drinking water standard for Iodine-131 is three pCi/L. …

On Friday, rainwater samples were taken in Harrisburg, where levels were 41 pCi/L and at nuclear power plants at TMI and Limerick, where levels were 90 to 100 pCi/L.

Corbett emphasized that the drinking water is safe and there is no cause for health concerns. …

“Rainwater is not typically directly consumed,” Corbett said. “However, people might get alarmed by making what would be [color=limegreen]an inappropriate connection from rainwater to drinking water. By testing the drinking water, we can assure people that the water is safe.” …

This is not the radiation you seek... move along...

How Safe Is the Rain in America?

Prevailing winds routinely waft plumes of dust, coal-smoke, wild-fire soot, industrial grit and other microscopic particles from Asia to North America, several atmospheric scientists said.

Carried up by the rising warm air in the region around the damaged Fukushima plant, particles of radioactive isotopes such as Iodine-131 and Xenon-133 are being carried at about 50 miles per hour by winds blowing from west to east in a band of the atmosphere called the troposphere, about 6,500 feet to about 30,000 feet or more above the ground.

Generally, "the stuff will be spread in a long stream and, as it spreads, it becomes quite dilute," said research scientist Tony VanCuren at the California Air Resources Board.

Under current conditions, particles from the Fukushima complex would take about a week or so to cross the Pacific.

Typically, the particles will stay aloft until washed out of the air by rain or buffeted to lower altitude by turbulence, creating an unpredictable patchwork of fallout.


4 April 2011
Cesium-137 Threat Grows While MSM Remains Silent

Cesium-137 has been detected in drinking water and milk here in the United States. Cesium and Tellurium were found in Boise, Las Vegas, Nome and Dutch Harbor, Honolulu, Kauai and Oahu, Anaheim, Riverside, San Francisco, and San Bernardino,  Jacksonville and Orlando, Salt Lake City,  Guam, and Saipan while Uranium-234, with a half-life of 245,500 years has been found in Hawaii, California, and Washington.

The EPA has radiation monitoring sites situated around the country.

Radioactive isotopes spread through the atmosphere accumulate in milk after they fall to earth in rain or dust and settle on vegetation, where they are ingested by grazing cattle. Iodine-131 is known to accumulate in the thyroid gland, where it can cause cancer and other thyroid diseases. Cesium-137 accumulates in the body’s soft tissues and bone marrow where it increases risk of cancer.


The corporate media in the West is downplaying and basically ignoring the threat. On the one hand, the EPA tells us Cesium-137 is appearing in milk and water around the country, while on the other telling us not to worry.

The EPA said in March that “while they were above the historical and background norm, the levels weren’t considered harmful to human health.”

The agency sounds the alarm about radioactivity in cigarette smoke while minimizing the risk from an out-of-control nuclear plant that continues to spew radioactivity on an hourly basis... continuously!

Something is seriously wrong when a supposedly free media and government agencies in the U.S. downplay or completely ignore the threat.

“On April 4, the Japanese government also has requested the Japan Meteorological Society and Japanese universities not to release data from radiation measurement to avoid “public panic”. Rainwater samples have all demonstrated elevated concentrations of radioactive Tellurium-02, Ruthenium-04 and Technetium-04.

“280 sensors to measure radiation release from atomic bomb testing were established under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1996. These sensors are detecting levels equivalent to Chernobyl releases. One scientist, Gerhard Wotawa, noted, ‘I’ve never seen data like this in my career.’

So how do we deal with disaster?

Austria, Germany, Canada and Australia have banned eight episodes of The Simpsons dealing with nuclear crisis.

The Simpsons, now in its 24th season with 480 episodes, has been one of the few outlets to show the greed of nuclear operators, groveling toadies and a complacent public to a mainstream television audience — meltdowns caused by jelly doughnuts!

Kopp Online, Xander News and other non-English news agencies are reporting that the EU implemented a secret “emergency” order, [color=limegreen]without informing the public, that increases the amount of radiation permitted in food by up to 2000% (20 times) the previous food standards.

According to EU bylaws, radiation limits may be raised during a nuclear emergency
to prevent food shortages.

4 April 2011
Radiation Detected In Drinking Water In 13 More US Cities,
Cesium-137 In Vermont Milk

Radiation has reached the EPA's maximum contaminant level in some milk samples.

Radiation from Japan has been detected in drinking water in 13 more American cities, and Cesium-137 has been found in American milk—in Montpelier, Vermont—for the first time since the Japan nuclear disaster began, according to data released by the Environmental Protection Agency late Friday.

Milk samples from Phoenix and Los Angeles contained Iodine-131 at levels roughly equal to the maximum contaminant level permitted by EPA in drinking water, the data shows. The Phoenix sample contained 3.2 picoCuries per liter of Iodine-131. The Los Angeles sample contained 2.9.

The EPA maximum contaminant level is 3.0, but this is a conservative standard designed to minimize exposure over a lifetime, so EPA does not consider these levels to pose a health threat. The FDA, not the EPA, regulates milk.

UPDATE: The FDA's Derived Intervention Level for Iodine-131 in milk is much higher: 4700 picoCuries per liter.
Read why.

Radioactive isotopes accumulate in milk after they spread through the atmosphere, fall to earth in rain or dust, and settle on vegetation, where they are ingested by grazing cattle. Iodine-131 is known to accumulate in the thyroid gland, where it can cause cancer and other thyroid diseases. Cesium-137 accumulates in the body’s soft tissues, where it increases risk of cancer, according to EPA.

A rainwater sample collected in Boise on March 27 contained 390 picocures per liter of iodine-131, plus 41 of cesium-134 and 36 of cesium-137. EPA released this result for the first time yesterday. Typically several days pass between sample collection and data release because of the time required to collect, transport and analyze the samples.

But the EPA drinking-water data includes one outlier—an unusually, but not dangerously, high reading in a drinking water sample from Chatanooga, Tennessee.

The Watts Bar Dam site in Spring City, Tennessee

The sample was collected at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Sequoyah nuclear plant. A Tennessee official told the Chatanooga Times last week that radiation from Japan had been detected at Sequoyah but is “1,000 to 10,000 times below any levels of concern.”

The 1.6 picocures per liter reported by the EPA on Friday is slightly more than half the maximum contaminant level permitted in drinking water, but more uniquely, it is many times higher than all the other drinking water samples collected in the U.S.

5 April 2011

The flow of highly radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean near Japan's distressed nuclear power plant has stopped, the plant's owners said.

The water was escaping from a concrete pit with a large crack in it, the Tokyo Electric Power Co. said. Officials said the company used a substance called liquid glass to seal the crack and the leak stopped Wednesday morning.

The release of radioactive waste has raised concerns in Japan and elsewhere about the safety of seafood. On Tuesday, Japan's government set its first radiation safety standards for fish after radioactive contamination in nearby seawater was measured at several million times the legal limit.

[color=limegreen]TEPCO insisted that the radiation will rapidly disperse and that it poses no immediate danger.

But an expert said exposure to the highly concentrated levels near the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant could cause immediate injury and that the leaks could result in residual contamination of the sea in the area.

12 April 2011
Nuclear Professor “Surprised” by Radioactive Seaweed South of Seattle

… KIRO 7 obtained samples of seaweed from Budd Inlet near Olympia two weeks ago. Professor Kris Starosta (a nuclear scientist) at Simon Fraser University confirmed the presence of radioactive Iodine Monday.

“We have seen Iodine 131 in the sample you sent us,” he said. “I think it’s pretty clear by now this must be Iodine 131 from releases from Fukushima.” …

“I think it is surprising,” Starosta said. “I guess I was assuming it wouldn’t reach this far, but it did.” …

12 April 2011
Fukushima Meltdown Could Trigger Atomic Explosion

A British professor and expert on the health effects of ionizing radiation told Alex Jones today evidence points toward a nuclear explosion occurring at the Fukushima Daiichi complex. Two explosions at the plant in March were described as hydrogen gas explosions by Japanese officials and the corporate media.

Using ratios of the radionuclides Xenon 133 and Xenon 133m which they measured by gamma spectrometer, the Russians demonstrated that the Chernobyl explosion was a fission criticality explosion and not principally a hydrogen explosion as has been claimed.

“I believe that the explosion of the No 3 reactor may have also involved criticality but this must await the release of data on measurements of the Xenon isotope ratios,” he writes in a statement on Fukushima and Chernobyl emailed to

Busby further notes that the surface contamination and of dose rates 60 kilometers out from the Fukushima site on March 17 exceeded that released at Chernobyl.

He explains in his statement that the damaged reactors at Fukushima “are now continuing to fission. It is hoped that there will be no separation of plutonium and possible nuclear explosion. I feel that this is unlikely now.” Short of an actual plutonium explosion, the reactors remain open to the air and will continue to “fission and release radionuclides for years unless something drastic is done.”

Dr. Busby noted a precedent for the dire scenario now unfolding – a nuclear explosion at a plutonium production reprocessing plant in the former Soviet Union in 1957.

The incident at the Mayak facility was the second-worst nuclear accident in history after the Chernobyl disaster. The explosion released 50-100 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste and contaminated a huge territory in the eastern Urals.

The Soviets kept the explosion secret for 30 years. According to a report on the accident, about 400,000 people in the region were irradiated following the explosion and other incidents at the plant.

Ural Mountains Radiation Pollution

17 April 2011
Have the Real Cesium-137 Fallout Maps Been Hidden From the Public?

Compare these two images.

First the publicly released Cs-137 total column fallout map for 24th March. This analysis was made on 26th March.

Now the map on the server here for the same time on the same date. The key gradient is the same. This analysis was made the day before, on the 25th March.

That's right, it shows the Northern Hemisphere getting absolutely plastered with radioactive Cesium-137. If this is incorrect, why is it kept on file and not the public one?  If it is the real version, why is it not publicly released?

19 April 2011
High Levels Of Caesium And Xenon Nuclear Fallout Found In Japan Radiation Forecasts Not Being Shown To The Public

We previously reported that Dutchsinse, who has been falling the Japan nuclear radiation forecasts being generated by different scientific organizations, stumbled across an entirely different set of radiation forecasts not released to the public.

Censored Japan Nuclear Radiation Forecasts Not Released To Public Found?

Japan nuclear radiation forecasts produced by the Norwegian Air Institute have apparently been censored and never released to the public. Here are three videos discuss these forecasts and making there existence public knowledge.

And this particular nugget from TEPCO:

19 April 2011
Current Status at Fukushima Daiichi
Workers have been struggling to prevent a nuclear disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

Here's the current status of each of the six reactors. 
Last updated April 19, 2011.

20 April 2011
Comparison Of Censored And Uncensored Japan Fukushima Nuclear Radiation Fallout Forecast

Cover-up of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Radiation Fallout Forecasts Exposed!
We previously reported on the steady concentrated stream of Nuclear radioactive fallout heading toward the US and Canada.

We now have for the first time a side-by-side evaluation of two radiation fallout forecasts. On the left is the censored version released to the public downplaying the levels of radiation spreading around the world. On the right is the same uncensored forecast.

And now for something completely different:

27 April 2011


America's Worst Nukes

Poorly-regulated nuclear power plants had 13 'near-misses' in 2010.

This is a great photo-essay put together by Rolling Stone Magazine and well-worth the read.

Arkansas Nuclear One
Location: Russellville, AR
Owner: Entergy
Near-miss: Security problems prompted the NRC to conduct a special investigation.
Details not publicly available.

Source: Union of Concerned Scientists, The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety

And that, my friends, were some highlights from April, 2011.

In Peace, Love & Light


posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:33 PM

Thank you for your participation and comments.

We sincerely appreciate all who take the time to voice an opinion.

Why are there so few?

It seems from the lack of participation on this forum that more people are interested in the foreskin discussion or Dancing With the Stars than the [color=limegreen]possible poisoning of our children, land, waters, atmosphere, etc. forever!

However, slightly thinning the herd may not be what TPTB have in mind - or is it? Thank you for your comments and desire to learn more about the situation that has been successfully kept out of the MSM.

Perhaps, after partaking of this post dealing with only a few of the headlines from only the first two weeks of May, you may be able to offer additional opinions. As you may readily discern, we are carefully setting the stage for our call to action.

We look forward to a lively discourse.

2 May 2011
Fukushima forecast shows Cesium-137 and Iodine-131
Over Northwestern US on May 5 (VIDEOS)

These forecasts are (were) an interesting source of information that the USGOV/EPA does not provide in any way, shape or form to we, the people, of America.

Go figure. The EPA shuts down radiation monitoring in the U.S., and now, NILU is off the air.

Here is one of the last forecasts of Xenon-133 from 16 April 2011.

Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU)
Fukushima Potential Releases, Xe-133 Total Column for April 15-April 19, 2011,
Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU), April 15, 2011.

This what one gets now when looking for the forecasts.

Our apologies...
The item you requested does not exist on this server or cannot be served.
Please double check the web address or use the search function on this page to find what you are looking for.
If you know you have the correct web address but are encountering an error, please contact the Site Administration.
Thank you.
404 Not Found

What is really going on that TPTB do not want us to be aware of what is being monitored? Why is no one else sounding the alarm? Does anyone else really care? Is anyone reading this? Why do we feel so alone in this quest for the truth? It does not matter.

Our side will continue to shine a light on the darkness with the hope that others will join in the quest in time to make a difference. The quality of life and the future of humanity may very well be in question at this point in time.

What we may or may not do will be the difference.

It is now time to take a stand and make a choice.

As we are all here "to catch fish," it is now time to decide if you are a Fisher Person - or a Master Baiter.

Only time will tell.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

2 May 2011
Highly Radioactive Sewage Found 30+ Miles From Fukushima Plant

Cesium levels up to 334,000 becquerels per kilogram
Local officials in Koriyama City, [color=limegreen]50 kilometres west of the plant, said they found sewage sludge containing 26,400 becquerels of radioactive caesium per kilogram, Jiji Press reported, from reduced sewage, had 334,000 becquerels per kilogram, Jiji said.

The caesium could have been released by explosions and fires at the nuclear plant after the quake and tsunami, and been washed into the sewage system by rain, the officials were quoted as saying. [...]


Remember the torrential rains that inundated the West Coast a few days after 3/11?
(If the discerning student is interested, we can search the archives and probably find the readings of iodine, xenon and cesium for those dates and locations. Westcoast are you there? Ellensburg'65 calling fellow Bulldogs...)

One might wonder what the readings might be in the sewers of San Luis Obispo, San Francisco, Portland, Vancouver and Fairbanks, Alaska.

How silly to even comprehend such a thing. After all, the EPA has informed us that there is nothing to worry about and all is well... move along... this is not the radiation you seek.

While the MSM is making good their campaign to make the sheeple comfortable with the idea that the situation in Japan is "stable," we are faced with not only the Fukushima disaster, but yet another crisis in the making in Japan.

2 May 2011
URGENT: Radiation leaks from fuel rods suspected at Japan’s Tsuruga nuclear plant

Radioactive Xenon up 75,000%
Leaks of radioactive materials from fuel rods have been suspected at a nuclear power plant in Tsuruga, the Fukui prefectural government said Monday, citing a rise in density of the toxic substances in coolant water. [...]

According to Japan Atomic, 4.2 becquerels of iodine-133 and 3,900 becquerels of xenon gas were detected per cubic centimeter Monday, up from 2.1 and 5.2 becquerels, respectively, during previous measurements conducted last Tuesday.

"Per cubic centimeter.." "Per cubic kilogram..."

It would seem that the persons responsible for writing these press releases or news stories are purposely attempting to befuddle the average reader.

Let's look at the above statement and the story preceding it.

2.1 to 4. 2 becquerels of Iodine-133 is easily understood as doubling - 200% of the previous reading.

5.2 to 3,900 becquerels of Xenon gas is 75,000%. Is that a lot? Compared to what?

What is the relationship of becquerels per cubic centimeter to becquerels per kilogram?

How many becquerels fit in a breadbox?

Why would there be two - so different - methods of sharing this information?

Do many people really understand what is being presented here?

Does anyone really care?

Back in the USA...

We offer the following statement from the EPA without comment:

3 May 2011
May 3 Statement by EPA

After a thorough data review showing declining radiation levels related to the Japanese nuclear incident, EPA has returned to the [color=limegreen]...routine RadNet sampling and analysis process for precipitation, drinking water and milk

As always, EPA's RadNet system of more than 100 stationary monitors will continue to provide EPA scientists near-real-time data on the slightest fluctuations in background radiation levels.

Due to the consistently decreasing radiation levels, EPA is evaluating the need to continue operating the additional air monitors deployed in response to the Japan nuclear incident. EPA will continue to analyze air filters and cartridges from all air monitors as they arrive at the laboratory and will post the data as available.

In accordance with [color=limegreen]normal RadNet protocol, EPA will be analyzing milk and drinking water samples on a quarterly basis and precipitation samples as part of a monthly composite. The next round of milk and drinking water sampling will take place in approximately three months.

It is important to note that all of the radiation levels detected by RadNet monitors and sampling have been very low, are [color=limegreen]well below any level of public health concern, and continue to decrease over time.

EPA continues to work with federal partners to monitor the situation in Japan and stands prepared to accelerate radiation sampling and analysis if the need arises. Data will continue to be available on EPA's public website.
RadNet Sampling Data

[color=limegreen]...routine RadNet sampling and analysis process for precipitation, drinking water and milk

(Insert appropriate expletive here!) We are, again, at a loss for words...

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Coincidentally, yes, Virginia, there are nuclear facilities in America that may be in some sort of danger too, although there has been little coverage of these events in the light of the importance of the "Weinergate" scandal. (This false flag was almost as stupid as the Charlie Sheen train wreck that gobbled up so much of the allotted time/space for "news.")

It's the economy, stupid. (Oops! Another thread, another time.)

3 May 2011
Radioactive release from nuke plant less than 150 miles from New Orleans

Nuclear Event – North-America
RSOE Emergency and Disaster Information Service, May 3, 2011:
• Event type:    Nuclear Event
• Date / time [UTC]:    03/05/2011 [May 3] – 02:56:08
• Area:    Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Plant
• County / State:    State of Mississippi
• City:    Port Gibson

Event Description:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is investigating after a radioactive element is found in the Mississippi river. Authorities say it started at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant in Port Gibson. They say they went to check for standing water in an abandoned unit, and found a build up of water. They decided to pump it out, and after taking a sample, they discovered the chemical “tritium” had been released into the river. Officials say the River has diluted the radioactive material, and is not causing harm to the people. Right now the incident is under investigation. There’s no word on how much Tritum was pumped into the water.

6 May 2011
Nuclear Expert: EPA Abandoning Radiation Monitoring To Ensure There Are No Measurements Above Levels Of Concern

The Bay Citizen quotes Daniel Hirsch, a nuclear policy lecturer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, as saying the EPA is [color-orange]purposely abandoning radiation monitoring to ensure that radiation measurements can be taken that will above levels of concern.

Hirsch is also quoted as saying “I really am horrified” about the “staggering” EPA announcement that the EPA will return to testing radiation levels in rainwater, drinking water and milk every three months.

That means the next radiation monitoring results aren’t planned to be released until August.

Would a class-action lawsuit and/or a court order force the EPA to release these results now?

Can't one of these hackers lurking on ATS hack the EPA and/or EDi to provide we, the people, the information that we, the people, theoretically own? (Anon - do something about this travesty - after all, we are all in this together... radiation is non-selective and unforgiving.)

Why are more caring citizens/activists not stepping forth and lending support?

Where are the attorneys on ATS when they are needed?

Please step forward and give us some advice, please. Something must be done to retain our rights to this potentially life-saving information.

The future could very well rest on this actionable point...?

The abandonment of radiation testing by the feds also comes on the heels of an announcement from a top environmental scientists that food across the entire United States will be affected by the Fukushima nuclear radioactive fallout and an analysis from Japan’s top nuclear expert that [color=limegreen]reactors 1, 2 and 3 have all suffered a complete nuclear meltdown.

The EPA’s announcement was made even in the face of the fact that the levels of radiation being released from the Fukushima nuclear power plant have just hit an all-time high and radiation levels detected in independent milk samples in the US continue to rise.

The EPA ignored these reports from only two days before their astounding "denial of service" to the American taxpayer. Why do we, the people, continue to pay that company, EDi, when they are not monitoring radiation levels in all states in the United States?

There has to be an angle to swing the balance of power in our favor - or we run the chance of contamination on an unimaginable scale.

Where are the debunkers/shills/dis-info agents on this issue? Someone step up to the plate and prove our theory wrong. Please prove us wrong.

What happens if an EMP fries all electrical devices? Does that mean that all 104 active reactors in the U.S. suffer a meltdown at the same time when there is no power to run the cooling process? Is that the true Achilles heel?

When one takes the unsolvable nuclear waste issue and couples it with this EMP-Armageddon scenario, it becomes clear that nuclear power needs to be replaced ASAP with clean, renewable energy.

Something is very wrong here.

From our friend Alexander Higgins:
9 May 2011
Mislabeled XENON Forecast Map Shows Massive Nuclear Radiation
Fallout Cloud Over US

While playing around with the URL’s for Japan nuclear iodine forecasts I discovered a nuclear radiation forecast that was accidentally placed on the ZAMG website. The scientists inadvertently uploaded a radiation forecast showing a massive cloud of Fukushima Xenon radiation spreading over Japan and the United States instead of the iodine forecast for May 9, 2011.

One might ask why this type of information is being withheld from we, the people?

Onward through the fog...

11 May 2011
This is the last iodine-131 public forecast by NILU. Why?

9 May 2011
This is the last Cesium-137 public forecast by NILU. Why?

Perhaps because of pesky little stories like this:

11 May 2011
Japan: Compared To Radiation Dumped Into Pacific Ocean Today’s Release Of Half Billion Becquerels Is Nothing

Japan downplays release of 500 million becquerels of nuclear radiation by saying it is nothing compared to the amount radioactive material that has already been dumped into the Pacific Ocean by TEPCO from the Fukushima nuclear plant.

Today TEPCO was forced to release 500 million becquerels of nuclear radiation from the Fukushima nuclear reactor into the environment at the Fukushima nuclear reactor to lower the radiation levels inside the plant. In recent days, levels of radiation have been measured high as [color=limegreen]700 millisieverts per hour (which would be deadly to workers in just a few hours) over the course of the last few days.

Japan downplayed the massive release nuclear radiation into the environment by saying the levels are only a small fraction of the amount TEPCO has already to dumped into the Pacific Ocean. Almost undoubtedly American corporate news will try to spin the release of radiation from by running another headline saying the levels in reactor 1 have dropped once again. That is, of course, if once the radioactive dust settles the levels inside reactor 1 do actually drop.

Are these fine folk at TEPCO ever going to be brought up on charges for this deadly discharge?

METI’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency disclosed on May 8 that opening the double door between the reactor building and the turbine building of the Reactor 1 at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant will release the total of 500 million becquerels of radioactive materials into the environment.

The amount of radioactive materials this time would be 1/300th of the amount released into the ocean when 10,000 tons of water with comparatively low-level contamination was intentionally released; [color=limegreen]there is no effect on the environment, according to NISA.

Does that imply that (300 x 500,000,000 = ) 150,000,000,000 (150 TRILLION) becquerels of nuclear radiation was released into the environment?

Does the average person really understand the difference between million, billion, trillion?
(Jump in here, CLP or Phage, if you wish, and help us understand this situation, please.)

And there is no effect on the environment, according to NISA???

Is this the referenced 10,000 tons "of low-level radioactive water?"

Tokyo Electric disposing of low radioactive water in Pacific
TOKYO, April 5, Kyodo

Tokyo Electric Power Co. on Monday took the unprecedented measure of dumping 10,000 tons of low-level radioactive water in the Pacific Ocean from a facility at its crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power complex to make room for the storage of more highly contaminated water, which is hampering restoration work at the plant.

With the total amount of water to reach 11,500 tons, including contaminated groundwater from near the No. 5 and No. 6 reactors, the government said the disposal was unavoidable in order to secure safety. The level of radioactive substances in the water is up to 500 times the legal limit permitted for release in the environment.
As for the impact of the disposal of the 11,500 tons of water, TEPCO said an adult's annual dose would be around 0.6 millisieverts if the person ate seaweed and fish caught nearby every day for a year, which is still about a quarter of the annual dose a person is usually exposed to from natural sources.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

TEPCO estimates the added radiation because of the operation will be 0.44 microsieverts maximum within Fukushima I Nuke Plant. NISA, using SPEEDI, estimates 0.77 microsieverts of added radiation if the wind is from the east at 1 meter/second. Both numbers are lower than 1/1000th of 1 millisievert (1,000 microsieverts) which is the annual allowable radiation limit for the general public.

According to NISA, 500 million becquerels is the total of radioactive iodine-131, cesium-134 and cesium 137. The number was calculated by multiplying the amount of radioactive materials inside the reactor building that TEPCO measured on May 7 by 25,000 cubic meters (volume of the building). NISA assumed the radioactive materials to be released from the height of 29 meters (upper part of the reactor building) for 8 hours.

12 May 2011
NILU ends public forecasts as map shows large radiation clouds now over US, Canada (VIDEOS)

Thank you for your interest in the FLEXPART products for Fukushima. The Forecast system is no longer running.

“These products are highly uncertain based on limited information for the source terms. Please use with caution and understand that the values are likely to change once we obtain more information on the overall nature of the accident.” -NILU.

Well, isn't this a fine kettle of fish?

Wonder who leaned on NILU?

12 May 2011
TEPCO: Bigger Breach in No. 1 Reactor Core Than Expected

Serious setback” to stabilize Fukushima
One of the reactors at Japan’s crippled nuclear power plant has been damaged more severely than originally thought, officials said Thursday — a serious setback for efforts to stabilize the radiation-leaking complex. [...]

The findings also indicate a greater-than-expected leak in that vessel. Radioactive water pouring from troubled reactors has pooled around the complex, hindering work to bring the plant under control. [...]

The low level of water indicates that the core of Unit 1 had a bigger breach than expected, said TEPCO spokesman Junichi Matsumoto. [...]

13 May 2011
Fukushima Radiation Plume

The Norwegian Institute for Air Research is NO LONGER posting the plume maps below with the surface concentration of the different radioactive materials (Iodine 131, Caesium 137 & Xenon 133) from the nuclear disaster in Japan as it dispersed across the Pacific Ocean.

Why? Is it because of radioactive forecasts such as this?

This is one of the last screencaps of the FLEXPART Fukushima Potential Releases: Xenon-133, 16 April 2011.

Although the Iodine 131 & the Caelsium 137 plume has been dispersing throughout the Pacific, traces of I-131 have been found already in milk in Washington State on 3/25/11.
I-131 has an eight days half-life so it decays pretty quickly although the longer this situation lasts, the more the accumulative effects.

Surprise, suprise:

Fukushima Radiation Plume Forecast
last modified 2011-05-13 11:26
Thank you for your interest in the FLEXPART products for Fukushima.

The Forecast system is no longer running.

We have discontinued our Flexpart forecast of the atmospheric dispersal of radionucleides from Fukushima. This due to the fact that we do not have access to reliable release rates reflecting the current situation at the plant to be used as input to our simulations.

It is likely that the release of radioactive material is significantly reduced compared to the initial period, and ...that [color=limegreen]levels no longer pose a health risk at distance from the plant.

We thank you for your interest in our FLEXPART products.

"... levels no longer pose a health risk at distance from the plant."

All is well... move along... go back to your homes ... there is nothing to see here...
...this is not the radiation you seek...

And there is a lot more to come.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

In Peace, Love & Light


posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 09:43 PM
Whats with the photos of the burning gas plant.
Photos like that are disinformation and have nothing to do with the reactors in japan.
They also make your post look like a propaganda piece.

Some problems i found with your post that are incorrect information.

Had the massive 8.9 Richter-scale earthquake that has just savaged Japan hit off the California coast,

There are no crustal boundary plates or any other super faults within 2000 miles off the Calif coast capable of a 8.9 Richter-scale earthquake.
That leaves only two ways you would get a tsunami close to the one that hit japan.
That is a super undersea landslide at Hawaii possible but one has never happen in recorded history.
Or a asteroid impact of a MAJOR rock in the pacific.

The U.S. Geological Survey also reported that a six-foot surge hit the Diablo Canyon area,

This tsunami wave was in the harbor area and classed as a terrain amplified wave.
The Diablo Canyon plant does not set in a area subject to these terrain amplified waves.

The radioactivity of all nuclear waste diminishes with time. All radioisotopes contained in the waste have a half-life—the time it takes for any radionuclide to lose half of its radioactivity—and eventually all radioactive waste decays into non-radioactive elements. Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other creatures for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radioisotopes remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for millennia.

there is only one way to get rid of all this spent fuel.

That means building new reactors of a special type and burning up this fuel.
there are a couple type of these special reactors

The best part about these special reactor is they are meltdown proof.

They can also burn thorium and depleted uranium when we run out of spent reactor fuel.

All while generating clean power that the US needs.

And we could fuel them for 2000 years in the US before we would run out of fuel.

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 10:05 PM
what can i say other than This thread must be good ,its just that i dont have the time or attention span to read it.To answer the thread title ,I would say Yes.
edit on 19-6-2011 by 12voltz because: of the falling birds

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:48 AM

Originally posted by ANNED
Whats with the photos of the burning gas plant.
Photos like that are disinformation and have nothing to do with the reactors in japan.
They also make your post look like a propaganda piece.

Some problems i found with your post that are incorrect information.

Had the massive 8.9 Richter-scale earthquake that has just savaged Japan hit off the California coast,

There are no crustal boundary plates or any other super faults within 2000 miles off the Calif coast capable of a 8.9 Richter-scale earthquake.
That leaves only two ways you would get a tsunami close to the one that hit japan.
That is a super undersea landslide at Hawaii possible but one has never happen in recorded history.
Or a asteroid impact of a MAJOR rock in the pacific.

The U.S. Geological Survey also reported that a six-foot surge hit the Diablo Canyon area,

This tsunami wave was in the harbor area and classed as a terrain amplified wave.
The Diablo Canyon plant does not set in a area subject to these terrain amplified waves.

The radioactivity of all nuclear waste diminishes with time. All radioisotopes contained in the waste have a half-life—the time it takes for any radionuclide to lose half of its radioactivity—and eventually all radioactive waste decays into non-radioactive elements. Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other creatures for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radioisotopes remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for millennia.

there is only one way to get rid of all this spent fuel.

That means building new reactors of a special type and burning up this fuel.
there are a couple type of these special reactors

The best part about these special reactor is they are meltdown proof.

They can also burn thorium and depleted uranium when we run out of spent reactor fuel.

All while generating clean power that the US needs.

And we could fuel them for 2000 years in the US before we would run out of fuel.


We appreciate all comments and participation and thank you for joining the discussion and we are pleased to answer your questions. Thank you especially for the info on the special reactors. This information, as well as the info that zorgon linked, may be critical to solving this problem. We look forward to contributor's comments on this possibility.

Whats with the photos of the burning gas plant.
Photos like that are disinformation and have nothing to do with the reactors in japan.
They also make your post look like a propaganda piece.

Electric power has been cut off in many regions of the country – over 4 million homes are reported to be without power in the capital Tokyo. Many fires are burning, including one in an oil refinery near the capital. 22 aftershocks have been registered after the initial one with magnitude between 5.4 and 6.5 on the Richter scale, according to the US Geological Survey.

One might have noticed that the photos in question are of the burning gas plant and taken off Japanese television describing the "many fires burning near the capital." There was never any intention of misleading anyone in any way.

There are no crustal boundary plates or any other super faults within 2000 miles off the Calif coast capable of a 8.9 Richter-scale earthquake.

Even if Robin Marks or Puterman made the above statement, we would still request links and proof.

That leaves only two ways you would get a tsunami close to the one that hit japan.
That is a super undersea landslide at Hawaii possible but one has never happen in recorded history.
Or a asteroid impact of a MAJOR rock in the pacific.

Because something has not been recorded as happening does not make it so.

Please describe to us the tsunami height, speed and impact potential to the West Coast if Japan slid into the sea. (There are threads on ATS that have dealt directly with this before and somehow got overlooked in your (ONLY) two ways.)

This tsunami wave was in the harbor area and classed as a terrain amplified wave.
The Diablo Canyon plant does not set in a area subject to these terrain amplified waves.

Not to be redundant, but, even if Robin Marks or Puterman made the above statement, we would still request links and proof.

And the beat goes on...

We flash back to 28 April 2011 (seems like an eternity ago) to remind us that in three days from this date, the EPA will discontinue monitoring for radiation on a daily basis in favor of every three months.

Fukushima Japan Nuclear Radiation Levels Spike Highest Yet — 1,120,000 Microsieverts per Hour

Radiation levels detected at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan rise to the highest levels yet hitting 1.2 sieverts per hour as TEPCO announced that it may not be able to follow through with the 9 month plan to stop the radiation leaking from the Fukushima nuclear reactor in Japan.

A nuclear engineering professor from Kyoto adds that depending on the source of the high levels the plan to entomb the reactor to permanently end the radiation leak may not work at all. That statement echoes similar sentiments from nuclear expert Arnie Gunderson.

For conversion purposes, 1.12 seiverts per hour = 1,120 millsieverts pert hour = 1,120,000 microsieverts per hour.
More simply 1 sievert = 1000 millisievert = 1,000,000 microsieverts

16 May 2011
Reactor No. 1 Core Had Total Meltdown and Uranium Fuel May Be Outside Containment Building

Nuclear reaction could have restarted

As Nature News’ Geoff Brumfiel reports, workers went into the unit recently “to recalibrate some of the sensors on the reactor.” Much to their surprise and dismay, they found that the core experienced a total meltdown.

The zirconium alloy tubes that hold the uranium fuel pellets during normal operation all warped and the uranium is now lying at the bottom of the pressure vessel, or possibly even outside of it in the basement below or outside the concrete containment building.

With all the fuel piled up at the bottom, there is some danger that the nuclear reaction could have restarted. As of now, engineers on the scene aren’t sure what happened.

[...] Reactor restart? [...]

Some have theorized that with all the fuel at the bottom of the vessel, unit 1 may have actually restarted its nuclear reactions. If that had happened, the fuel would be pumping out some portion of its normal 1380 megawatts of thermal power—probably enough to melt through the thick steal reactor pressure vessel. It would have dropped onto a concrete slab below (the basemat), where it would have hopefully been spread out, effectively diffusing the chain reaction. [...]

[A] note from the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF) quotes Banri Kaieda, the nation’s Economy, Trade and Industry Minister, as saying that it is “a fact” that there were holes created by the meltdown. That would likely mean at least some of the uranium fuel is now lying on the basemat below, or perhaps even outside the concrete containment.

16 May 2011
Melted Fuel in Reactor No. 3 Appears to Have Burned Through Pressure Vessel–
Loaded With Rods Containing Plutonium

And like the No. 1 reactor, the melted fuel appears to have created holes in the pressure vessel of the No. 3 reactor, according to the data of Tokyo Electric Power Co. released May 16. [...]

At the No. 3 reactor, the melted fuel may have burned through the pressure vessel to the containment vessel, the data showed. [...]

According to the data, the pressure in the pressure vessel of the No. 2 reactor dropped at 6:43 p.m. on March 15. A similar drop in pressure also took place at the No. 3 reactor at 11:50 p.m. on March 16.

Those declines were apparently the result of holes made in the pressure vessels. [...] it appears that melted nuclear fuel formed new holes in the pressure vessels. [...]

Radioactive materials, such as technetium, produced when nuclear fuel rods are damaged, have been detected in water in the No. 3 reactor building. That discovery has raised speculation that the melted nuclear fuel has breached the pressure vessel and landed in the containment vessel.

17 May 2011
Huge Problems: All Parts of Fuel Rods Appear to Have Melted at all 3 Reactors Admits TEPCO

Data shows meltdowns occurred at the No. 2 and No. 3 reactors of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, creating huge problems for the plant operator that had presented a more optimistic scenario. [...]

Goshi Hosono, special adviser to Prime Minister Naoto Kan, acknowledged the likelihood of meltdowns at the No. 2 and No. 3 reactors.

“We have to assume that meltdowns have taken place,” Hosono said at a news conference May 16. [...]

“When highly contaminated water was found at the No. 2 reactor building in late March, we recognized that a meltdown had taken place. So I informed the government,” [Haruki Madarame, chairman of the Nuclear Safety Commission] said. [...]

TEPCO had said it believed that only a portion of the nuclear fuel rods had melted. Now, it appears that all parts of the fuel rods have melted. [...]

17 May 2011
Molten Fuel Made It Outside of Containment Vessel at Reactor No. 1

Pressure Vessel is “completely broken” says Kyoto U. nuclear professor

Research Reactor Institute, Kyoto University Professor Akira Hiroshi Koide is “If 冷Yasenaku loss of power in the reactor can lead to early meltdown should have been able to assume.’s TEPCO it has limited fuel damage The description will be completely mistaken.. too late publication of the data well, “he said.

TEPCO In this analysis, “damaging the pressure vessel is not large,” but explained, Assistant Professor Koide the “pressure vessel is completely broken, a hole in the bottom of the vessel containing the molten fuel, reactor are causing a large amount of contaminated water leaking in the basement of the building “to estimate. [...]

EX-SKF Translation

[...] According to TEPCO, the data analysis shows that damage to the RPV is not extensive. However, (Hiroaki Koide of Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute) thinks “The RPV has been completely damaged, the melted core bore a hole at the bottom of the Containment Vessel, causing the large amount of contaminated water to leak into the ground beneath the reactor building.” [...]

The following is from a statement by TEPCO and reported by CNTV.

17 May 2011
Reactor No.1′s Fuel Rods “Completely Melted” Admits TEPCO

BEIJING, May 17 (Xinhuanet) -- The operator of the Fukushima Nuclear plant, TEPCO, says it's trying to determine whether the facility was actually damaged by the earthquake on March 11th, rather than the resulting tsunami.

TEPCO also says fuel rods in the facility's number one reactor have completely melted down.

A spokesman for TEPCO has outlined a new analysis of the crisis.

A review of data suggests the number 1 reactor's fuel rods were fully exposed within five hours of the quake, causing them to heat rapidly.

By the next morning - just 16 hours later - the rods had largely melted down. If the new data analysis is correct, it means the facility was mainly damaged by the quake itself - NOT the resulting tsunami, as previously thought.

The No. 2 and No. 3 reactors are thought to have gone through a similar process, but with only 30 percent damage to their fuel rods.
TEPCO has now decided to send a new team inside the plant to check the accuracy of the findings.

In response, Prime Minister Naoto Kan told Japan's parliament that the company will release an updated timetable for resolving the crisis on Tuesday.

But Kan said stabilization of the reactors would still be limited to within six to nine months.

The new findings come as Japan on Friday ordered residents outside the established thirty-kilometer exclusion zone to leave their homes. Around 8-thousand people are to be relocated by the end of the month.

And we close with a breaking story from our friend Alexander Higgins:

Confirmed: EPA Rigged RADNET Japan Nuclear Radiation Monitoring Equipment To Report Lower Levels Of Fukushima Fallout

The EPA re-calibrated (rigged) Japan nuclear radiation monitoring equipment causing them to report lower levels of radioactive fallout after the Fukushima nuclear meltdown than what was detected before the disaster.

I recently programmed an application to pull all of the EPA radiation monitoring graphs for all major US cities and complied them into an easy to use web interface. Of course we took the data being reported with a grain of salt under the suspicion that the Feds were fiddling with the results.

Now, an investigative report looking into why the much of the EPA radiation monitoring equipment was offline when the Fukushima nuclear meltdown occurred reveals that EPA has in fact rigged radiation monitoring equipment to report lower values of radiation.

This could indeed be the smoking gun that the EPA did not want to come to public scrutiny.

Read on.

RadNet – the EPA’s front-line, radiological detection network is severely flawed and suffers from maintenance and reliability issues.

The lack of consistent data and the number of units offline (a techie term for broken) at the time they were most needed shows that the EPA was not prepared for this emergency.

Besides that fact the broken system left us all unprotected; the confusion, apprehension and fear witnessed as people try to wade through the incomplete and inaccurate data online is evidenced by an exchange on the UC Berkely website over this RadNet graph:

The graph shows that this monitoring station was one of the units actually running on  3/11.

The readings were significantly higher prior to 3/11 and drop to a much lower level afterwards.

This is an indication that the units were running in an uncalibrated condition and were adjusted only after the events at Fukushima.

Which, of course, brings up the question:

Who is responsible for assuring that the system is up and running?

The EPA contracted this responsibility to a private company, Environmental Dimensions, Inc.

Environmental Dimensions, Inc (EDI) has provided maintenance for EPA’s RadNet monitoring systems under a sole-source contract which can be viewed at the end of this article. The base amount of the contract is $238,000.00. This does not include materials and travel, which is billed back to the government as needed.

The contract was awarded to what is stated as a “Woman-owned 8(a) Small Disadvantaged Business“.  The disadvantaged woman in this case is EDI company president Patricia S. Bradshaw, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense appointed by George Bush.

This from the EDI website:

Environmental Dimensions, inc. (EDi), provides quality environmental technical support services to: the Department of Energy (DOE) and its National Laboratories; US Army Corps of Engineers; Bureau of Indian Affairs; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and other government and commercial entities across the nation.

EDi is a woman-owned, small disadvantaged business with over 20 years of experience and a proven track record for delivering superior project management and other related technical support services.

Our success is based on our goal to not just meet our client’s expectations, but to exceed them! This is solidified by having a complete understanding of our client’s needs and having the ability to respond to those needs in a timely manner.

We credit our ability to do so through our management’s commitment to recruit and maintain highly qualified staff. EDi is a small business with prime contracting and subcontracting experience. EDi’s professional project managers possess many years of experience delivering superior project management for multi-faceted projects.

Over our many years of doing business, we have amassed a strong reputation for on-time delivery in the following areas of expertise:

• Program Development
• Project Management
• Waste Management
• Radiological Support Services
• Site/Facility Characterization
• Decontamination & Decommissioning
• Beryllium Support Services
• Maintenance and Operations
• Instrument Rental, Calibration, and Repair
• Other Technical Support Services

Could it possibly be that the corporate management at EDI formed the company not out of an altruistic sense of patriotic duty but to cash in on inside information and connections?

Who would think that the ONLY company entrusted to monitor radiation in the United States would also have the time and manpower to be involved in so many other operations.

Continuing along this line of thinking, here is some more information on their website today.

This project overview states that there are 80 monitors nationwide, not the 140 that EDi portends to have but refuses to release a concise list of. One might wonder if the "government-furnished equipment" is referencing the actual monitors themselves.

RadNet Overview

RadNet is a national network of monitoring stations that regularly collect air, precipitation, drinking water, and milk samples for analysis of radioactivity. The network has been operating continuously since 1973 and has been used to track environmental releases of radioactivity from nuclear weapons tests and nuclear accidents and to document the status and trends of environmental radioactivity. Data collected by RadNet and more detailed information on the RadNet system can be found at  Another source of RadNet data, including a searchable database, is

Air Monitoring
The RadNet CDX Web site focuses on air monitoring.  Air monitoring stations are sited throughout the United States, designed to detect and record various types of airborne radiation. RadNet has been upgraded to provide near real-time monitoring, and EPA continues to expand the network each year. 
The RadNet air network uses two different types of monitors: fixed (stationary) and deployable (mobile).

1. Fixed Air Monitors: Permanently mounted and continuously operating, each fixed monitor contains a high-volume air sampler, gamma and beta radiation detectors, and a computer that controls the monitor and sends data to a central database at least once an hour. The individual detectors within each monitor can discriminate between different types of radiation, including those that are naturally occurring. See the left side of Figure 1.

2. Deployable Air Monitors: Deployable monitors are portable and can be used for exercises and for rapid deployment in response to real events.  The monitors have high- and low-volume air samplers, a gamma radiation level monitor, a data logger, and telecommunication systems that send data to the central database.  Although deployable monitors do not discriminate the energy of gamma radiation, they do provide gamma exposure rates. See the right side of Figure 1.

Figure 1: Fixed (top) and Deployable (bottom) Monitors

Understanding the Data from the Fixed Monitors
Purpose of RadNet. RadNet is designed to provide information to decision makers and other professionals during radiological emergencies. During normal times, RadNet establishes and verifies background levels of radiation and documents any changes that might occur.

What Radiation Is Detected
RadNet fixed air monitors record gamma radiation from both natural and man-made gamma-emitting sources on the ground and in the air. Many forms of natural radiation – such as cosmic radiation and radon gas – fluctuate throughout the day in response to changing weather conditions. These daily and hourly fluctuations in radiation levels are normal.

Specific Radionuclide Detection
Although there are many radionuclides, each radionuclide emits unique radiations (energy), which can be used like a fingerprint to identify it. By studying the radiation energy spectrum, experts can discern which radionuclides are present around a monitor.

To make the identification process more efficient, RadNet organizes the gamma energy spectrum into ten contiguous ranges, termed Regions of Interest (ROIs). The fixed monitors report total gamma detections (counts) within each ROI. By tracking the long-term changes of values within each ROI at each monitor, one can roughly determine the increase or decrease of radionuclides at a specific location. These fluctuations may be routine, or they may indicate an abnormality. To precisely identify radionuclides, scientists at NAREL download the entire spectrum and analyze it using additional software. This feature is not available on the CDX Web site.

Data for Most Users. For most users of the RadNet CDX Web site, comparing radiation values from one ROI of one monitor over time will provide the most useful information. Such data will track the long-term fluctuations within a specific energy range at a single location. Comparing values between different locations will not provide useful information – because each reading depends heavily on the natural radioactivity present in each location.

Similarly, comparing the count totals within one ROI to the count totals in another ROI at the same location will not provide useful information; each ROI associates with a specific gamma energy range, and little can be understood by comparing the aggregate total of one range to that of another.

Understanding the Data from the Deployable Monitors
As stated above, radiation levels routinely fluctuate from hour-to-hour and day-to-day. The deployable monitor provides the overall gamma radiation level near the monitor. These levels are expected to vary as they do for the fixed monitors. Typical fluctuations can cause the overall gamma radiation level near a deployable monitor to change by a factor of two or even more.

Let's take a look at who is associated with this enterprise. It might be interesting to back-track these individuals... just saying.

John Rodell - Chief Operating Officer
Chris Edgmon - Project Manager
Tim Lee - Project Manager
Ross Dimmick - Project Manager
and, of course, Patricia S. Bradshaw, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

Did Mrs. Bradshaw’s former DOD employment open the door?

Did the fact that she heads a woman-owned business give her company a competitive edge?

Is it possible that is a deliberate attempt to keep the truth from we, the people?

EDI’s revenues have doubled in each of the past three years and they currently have 90 employees spread across offices in Albuquerque, Denver and Oak Ridge.

And there are only 140 (?) monitors for all 50 states and possessions?

Now that they are checking the monitors every three months, what are these employees doing to earn their keep?

Does this situation pass the smell test?

This same company also performs radioactive waste remediation and decontamination services for a number of government-funded projects.

Do they follow the same cost-cutting, profit-maximizing philosophy as it appears that their maintenance and calibration division practices?

Updating Japan’s Nuclear Disaster

Japan’s March 11 earthquake/tsunami-caused nuclear disaster affects millions of people regionally and throughout the Northern Hemisphere. But you’d never know it from most major media reports, downplaying an unfolding catastrophe.

However, there nevertheless exists the radiation wafting across the world on a daily basis. The situation has not improved any from day one. We should all endeavor to be aware of the dangers of even "small" amounts of radiation.

"Other toxins aside, no amount of radiation is safe." In her book Nuclear Madness, Helen Caldicott explained:
“Lower doses of radiation can cause abnormalities of the immune system and can also cause leukemia five to ten years after exposure; (other) cancer(s), twelve to sixty years later; and genetic diseases and congenital anomalies in future generations.”

“Radioactive iodine releases from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi reactors may exceed those of Three Mile Island by over 100,000 times….While Chernobyl had one source of radioactivity, its reactor, there are seven leaking radiation sources at the Japanese site. Together, the three damaged reactors and four spent fuel pools at Fukushima Daiicho contain (much) more long-lived radioactivity, notably cesium-137, than the Chernobyl reactor.”

Moreover, all radiation, especially large amounts, is harmful, cumulative, permanent and unforgiving.

“The radioactive (iodine-131) fallout is now as much as 73 percent of the daily radiation emitted from Chernobyl following its meltdown disaster.” For cesium-137, it’s 60%.

“I hate to say it, but I am pessimistic….We have to think of all six (reactors) going down, and the possibility of that happening is not low.”

To be continued...

In Peace, Love & Light


posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 08:59 PM

For your edification and enjoyment:

IAEA Briefing on Fukushima Nuclear Accident
3 May 2011, 19:50 UTC

Atoms for Peace
The IAEA is the world's center of cooperation in the nuclear field. It was set up in 1957 as the world's "Atoms for Peace" organization within the United Nations family. The Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technologies.

Our Work
The IAEA works for the safe, secure and peaceful uses of nuclear science and technology. Its key roles contribute to international peace and security, and to the world's Millennium Goals for social, economic and environmental development.

We find the following information from the IAEA News to be disconcerting, to say the least.

Add the fact that today is 17 July the latest update is from 2 June 2011, and one might wonder WTF?

We will merely highlight certain areas of this report, and hope to set the hook for others to investigate all of these assertions further.

25 April 2011

Management of On-site Contaminated Water
According to the 25 April evaluation by NISA of the report submitted by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), there is a little less than 70 000 tonnes of stagnant water with high-level radioactivity in the basement of the turbine buildings of Units 1, 2 and 3.

...a little less than 70,000 tonnes of stagnant water with high-level radioactivity in the basement of the turbine buildings of Units 1, 2 and 3.

This amount and date should be added to the database on reported amounts of radioactive water being sloshed about.

We are sure that the numbers do not add up correctly in the long run.

The stagnant water (around 120 m3) in the basement of the turbine building of Unit 6 was transferred to a temporary tank on 1 May.

To our way of thinking, this statement indicates a finalization of the process.


The transfer of stagnant high-level radioactivity water from the basement of the turbine building of Unit 6 was resumed on 2 May.

120 cubic meters... why this statistic in different terms than tonnes?

A cubic meter of water weighs one metric tonne. So, 120 c/m = 120 tonnes.

Why confuse the issue?

How much more high-level radioactivity water is there to transfer?

[color=limegreen]It has always been our contention that the information so vitally necessary to our survival as a species is intentionally garbled by utilization of a myriad of terms - much like radiation readings - to confuse the reader.

Work to block the Unit 2 trench pit was started on 1 May.

What are the dimensions and where does this trench go / connect to?

Why does it need to be blocked?

Is this a part of the suspected MOX nuclear weapons facility?

Plant Status
On 27 April TEPCO provided an update of the estimated percentage of core damage for Units 1, 2 and 3 following an assessment (the values assessed previously which TEPCO had provided on 15 March are given in parentheses):
Unit 1: 55% core damage (70%) 15% DECREASE
Unit 2: 35% core damage (30%) 5% INCREASE
Unit 3: 30% core damage (25%) 5% INCREASE

(Color added for emphasis.)

This reflects a revised assessment [color=limegreen]rather than any recent changes in conditions in the reactor cores.

Hey, team, does this jive with previous info released by TEPCO and/or the JAPGOV?

Still blowing smoke...

White "smoke" continues to be emitted from Unit 2 and Unit 3. There was no more white "smoke" seen emanating from Unit 4 as of 21:30 UTC on 25 April or from Unit 1 as of 21:30 UTC on 30 April.

In Unit 1 fresh water is being continuously injected into the reactor pressure vessel through the feedwater line at an indicated flow rate of 6 m3/h using a temporary electric pump with off-site power.

In Unit 2 and Unit 3 fresh water is being continuously injected into the reactor pressure vessel through the fire extinguisher line at an indicated rate of 7 m3/h using temporary electric pumps with off-site power.

On 29 April TEPCO checked the status inside the reactor building of Unit 1 using a remotely controlled robot and confirmed that there was [color=limegreen]no significant leakage of water from the primary containment vessel. Nitrogen gas is still being injected into the containment vessel in Unit 1 to reduce the possibility of hydrogen combustion inside the containment vessel. The indicated pressure in the reactor pressure vessel is still increasing.

The indicated pressure in the reactor pressure vessel is still increasing.

This would seem to indicate that there are no leaks in the RPV as of today, 29 April 2011.

Perhaps an important point to remember.

In Unit 1, the indicated temperature at the feedwater nozzle of the reactor pressure vessel is
142° C and at the bottom of reactor pressure vessel is 106° C.

Hot water (286.7˚ F) is being injected at 6 tonnes/hour.

Where is this water going?

Why hot water? We thought the objective was to cool.

In Unit 2 the indicated temperature at the feedwater nozzle of the reactor pressure vessel is 118 °C. The reactor pressure vessel and the dry well remain at atmospheric pressure. On 28 April an amount of 43 tonnes of fresh water was injected into the spent fuel pool using the spent fuel pool clean-up system.

Why the difference in water temperature?

Where is this fresh water coming from that it is hot?

On 28 April an amount of 43 tonnes of fresh water was injected into the spent fuel pool using the spent fuel pool clean-up system.

Does this indicate that the SFP "clean-up system" is back to fully operational status?

On 2 May an amount of 55 tonnes of fresh water was injected into the Unit 2 spent fuel pool using the fuel pool clean-up system.

In the matter of only 4 days, where did the previously-injected water go? If it was filled only on 28 April, 55 tonnes of water is "missing" from the SFP clean-up system, indicating something less than fully operational... n'est-ce pas?

Or is all back to "normal" and merely "circulating" the water? If so, where did the water go?

In Unit 3 the indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the reactor pressure vessel is 99 °C and at the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel is 124 °C. The reactor pressure vessel and the dry well remain at atmospheric pressure.

Again, why the difference in water temperature?

There has been no change in the status in Unit 5 or in the common spent fuel storage facility.

OK now for you "anti-scattering agent" buffs.

Spraying of anti-scattering agent at the site is continuing. An area of about 1 000 m2 on the south side of the turbine building of Unit 4, and an area of about 4 400 m2 of the surface on the slope around the former main office building, near the on-site gymnasium and on the west side of the shallow draft quay, were sprayed on 1 May.

And now, for something completely different.

2. Radiation Monitoring
The daily monitoring of deposition of caesium and iodine radionuclides for the 47 prefectures continues. Deposition of Cs-137 and Cs-134 was detected in six prefectures on 2 May. The values reported ranged from 2.6 Bq/m2 to 19 Bq/m2.

Compared with recent data, deposition of these radionuclides has been detected in fewer prefectures and in lower amounts than for previous days.

Recent data being the immediately preceding 51 days since 3/11?

"Fewer prefectures" and "lower amounts than for previous days" is Newspeak - Doublethink- Goggledegook - Bravo Sierra - it all means the same - disinformation.

Gamma dose rates are measured daily in all 47 prefectures.

[color=limegreen]A general decreasing trend has been observed in all locations since around 20 March.

How is this possible?

Does this even seem feasible - or is the fix already in at this early date?

Take particular look of the low descriptions being used in the following portion of this travesty.

Gamma dose rates reported on 2 May remain at 1.7 µSv/h for Fukushima prefecture and 0.11 µSv/h for Ibaraki prefecture.

The other 45 prefectures had gamma dose rates of below 0.1 µSv/h, falling within the range of local natural background radiation levels.

Gamma dose rates reported specifically for the eastern part of Fukushima prefecture, for distances of more than 30 km from the Fukushima Daiichi plant, ranged from 0.1 µSv/h to 19.7 µSv/h, as reported on 2 May.

Since 1 April there has been [color=limegreen]one remaining restriction on the consumption of drinking water relating to I-131 (with a limit of 100 Bq/L), which is applicable only for [color=limegreen]one village in the Fukushima prefecture and [color=limegreen]only for infants.

According to the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), I-131 was detected in one prefecture on 29 April, with a reported value of 0.22 Bq/L; in two prefectures on 30 April, with reported levels of 0.04 Bq/L and 0.10 Bq/L respectively; and in one prefecture on 1 May, with a reported level of 0.38 Bq/L. Cs-137 was reported on 30 April in only one prefecture, with a measured level of 0.05 Bq/L.

All these levels are [color=limegreen]below the limits set by the Japanese authorities for the restriction of water consumption due to the presence of radionuclides. The other samples did not show levels of radionuclides above the detection limit for I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137.

This implies that there was no I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137, which simply is not the case.

Food Restrictions
On 1 May restrictions were lifted on the distribution of raw unprocessed milk in Fukushima prefecture from the city of Minamisouma (limited to Kashima-ku and excluding Karasuzaki, Ouchi, Kawago and Shionosaki areas) and Kawamata town (excluding Yamakiya area).

That's great news, right? After all, only on 19 March did this news come out regarding the contamination of milk in Japan.

Japan Finds Radiation in Milk, Drinking Water
FUKUSHIMA, Japan (AP) - In the first sign that contamination from Japan's stricken nuclear complex had seeped into the food chain, officials said Saturday that radiation levels in spinach and milk from farms near the tsunami-crippled facility exceeded government safety limits.
Six workers trying to bring the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant back under control were exposed to more than 100 millisieverts of radiation - Japan's normal limit for those involved in emergency operations, according to Tokyo Electric Power Co., which operates the complex. The [color=limegreen]government raised that limit to 250 millisieverts on Tuesday as the crisis escalated.

Officials said the crisis at the plant appeared to be stabilizing, with near-constant dousing of dangerously overheated reactors and uranium fuel, but the situation was still far from resolved.

And, perhaps , the quote of the day from 19 March 2011:

We more or less do not expect to see anything worse than what we are seeing now,
said Hidehiko Nishiyama of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.

Not to be outdone with this gem:

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano, meanwhile, insisted
the contaminated foods pose no immediate health risk.

3. Marine Monitoring
The marine monitoring programme is carried out both near the discharge areas of the Fukushima Daiichi plant by TEPCO and at off-shore stations by MEXT. (The locations of the sampling positions have been provided in previous briefings.)

Increased radioactivity in the marine environment occurred by aerial deposition and by discharges and outflow of contaminated water with a high radioactivity level.


Marine Discharges
In a news release issued on 25 April, NISA communicated its evaluation of a report submitted by TEPCO on 21 April in relation to contaminated water with a high radioactivity level that flowed out from Unit 2 of the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

The outflow rate is estimated to have been approximately 4.3 m3/h. The concentrations of the relevant radionuclides, estimated from measurements, were 5400 MBq/L of I-131, 1800 MBq/L of Cs-134 and 1800 MBq/L of Cs-137.

The outflow rate is estimated to have been approximately 4.3 m3/h.

Exactly what amount of contaminated water with a high radioactivity level are we talking about?

(Another instance where the water database comes in handy.)

4.3 cubic meters/hour is 4.3 tonnes/h, right?

How many hours are we speaking of, or is this an on-going situation?

Seawater Monitoring
The activity concentrations of I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137 in sea water at the screen of Unit 2 were measured every day from 2 April to 30 April. The [color=limegreen]concentrations fell by several orders of magnitude from initial values of more than 100 MBq/L at the beginning of April to less than 10 kBq/L for Cs-134 and Cs-137 on 30 April, with a continuing decreasing trend.

These figures also seem to be incorrect in both the numbers quoted and the inference that all are on a "continuing decreasing trend."


However, levels of I-131 remained at around 100 kBq/L from 26 April to 30 April at this sampling position. The sandbags containing Zeolite® absorbers that were placed at several locations between Unit 2 and Unit 4 to reduce the concentrations of Cs-134 and Cs-137 seem to be effective.

The concentrations of the relevant radionuclides at the other TEPCO sampling positions show a [color=limegreen]general decreasing trend up to 30 April.

Monitoring performed by MEXT at off-shore sampling positions consists of:

Measurement of ambient dose rate in air above the sea;
Analysis of ambient dust above the sea;
Analysis of surface samples of seawater; and
Analysis of samples of seawater collected at 10 m above the sea bottom.

The analysis for almost all sampling positions has shown a general decreasing trend in concentrations of the relevant radionuclides over time.

Samples were taken at stations 1 - 10 every four days after 2 April. Activity concentrations at MEXT sampling points 30 km off-shore are significantly lower than those at TEPCO sampling points 15 km off-shore. None of the activity concentrations of I-131 and Cs-137 in surface samples taken from points 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and S-3 on 27 April and from points 2, 6 and S-4 on 25 April were above the detection limits. Samples taken from points 4, 8 and 10 showed concentrations of Cs-137 between of 10.5 Bq/L and 40 Bq/L. Only the sample from point 10 had an I-131 activity concentration, at 21.5 Bq/L, that was above the detection limit.

Samples were taken at the recently added off-shore stations at the Ibaraki prefecture on 25 April. There were no activity concentrations of I-131 and Cs-137 in the surface layer of sea water that were above the detection limits.

Radiation Monitoring in Ports
On 22 April the Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) issued guidelines for radiation measurements in ports in Japan in order to provide foreign port authorities with accurate data. The guidelines cover gamma dose rate measurements for export shipping containers and shipping as well as radiation monitoring of the atmosphere and of sea water in ports.

And this is an "official" report issued to the public.

No wonder the cover-up is so complete... disinformation everywhere.

Will we stand for much more of this?

In Peace, Love & Light


posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:33 PM

Thank you for a great question and perhaps this may interest you also:

22 June 2011
Newspaper Reports Massive Fukushima Nuclear Radiation Testing Blackout In Canada

Following recent reports of radiation saturation doubling, private companies, government agencies and universities in Canada are refusing to get involved in Fukushima nuclear radiation fallout testing at any level.

The Canadian newspaper The Beacon is reporting that following recent media reports that radiation saturation has doubled local farms attempted to get their soil tested for nuclear fallout to be sure that the food that they are selling is safe.

Much to the surprise of the newspaper and the farmers private testing companies, government agencies and universities all refuse to test the soil or get involved on any level.

The newspaper points out that the refusal is particularly shocking following reports that [color=limegreen]Japan has admitted to covering up the amount of radiation released from the Fukushima nuclear power plant, now admitting to 100% nuclear meltdown in 3 nuclear reactors and a radiation release comparable to Chernobyl levels.

The Beacon says [color=limegreen]while no government radiation tests have been conducted, the Canadian health department insists that everything is fine and is there is no cause for concern.

Why does this sound familiar?

Health Canada Says, "No Worries."
Farmers in Central Newfoundland who were open to having their land tested for radiation contamination, will not have this work done by government agencies and private companies in Newfoundland and Labrador.
In the June 2 edition of The Beacon, it was discussed how the release of radiation from the Fukushima plant in Japan could potentially be poisoning Canadian soil, and possibly central Newfoundland. [color=limegreen]Evidence from various radiation monitors and news reports have shown that it has become a worldwide issue, and given that the airspace is shared, Canada and the U.S. have been directly affected as well.

Even though local farmers have not tested their soil and water, Nita Abbott of LA Farms, near Gambo, expressed an interest in having her land tested to ensure they’re selling a safe product.

The newspaper contacted private testing companies, government agencies, and universities to inquire if they would consider testing local farms. [color=limegreen]All of them said they were not interested in getting involved at any level.

Health Canada also reported that everything is normal.

Even though no official testing has been done in central Newfoundland, Ms. Abbott speculated, “I guess they feel they don’t have evidence to take it further.”

Worldwide concern

Even though central Newfoundland is considered safe, reports by numerous media establishments have shown that radiation saturation has doubled recently. According to a CNN report, Arnie Gundersen, Chief Nuclear Engineer, said hot particles are showing up in North America.
Nuclear engineers have also been finding hot particles or fuel fleas, which can cause cancer, around the world.

In Tokyo in April, measurements indicated that there are about [color=limegreen]10 hot particles a day, which is a high level of concern in what a normal person would breathe.

In Seattle, for instance, it went down to about five hot particles a day, which can lodge into lung tissue, the digestive tract or bone, and over time can cause cancer.
Media reports south of the border suggest that Japan was downplaying the severity long after people were being affected.

To this, Health Canada is insisting there is [color=limegreen]no cause for concern.

In Seattle, for instance, it went down to about five hot particles a day, which can lodge into lung tissue, the digestive tract or bone, and over time can cause cancer.

This cannot bode well for living creatures on Planet Earth, including the Pacific Northwest and Canada. We used to live near 15th & Pike in downtown Seattle, and the very thought of dying the slow death of radiation poisoning in such a beautiful city is reprehensible... well, actually, any place seems reprehensible at this time...

Hot particles have made their way across the Pacific, and at least the data for the Pacific NW indicates very high concentrations, the average person in Tokyo breathed about 10 hot particles a day, and the average person in Seattle breathed in 6.

Hot particles present significant health hazard when ingested or entered the body by other means.

They are several orders of magnitude more dangerous than the same amount of radiation emitted from a large source over the whole body because if ingested or inhaled, they do damage to cells at close proximity.


Does this imply that everyone in the affected area (entire West Coast of America) is already radiated "beyond repair?"

Somehow, this information seems appropriate here.

At certain stages of evolution, cosmic "humanities" discover new forms of science beyond the apparent control of matter. Structured dematerialization and materialization are part of them.

This is what your humanity has reached in a few laboratories, in close collaboration with other extra-terrestrial creatures at the cost of hazardous compromises that remain purposely hidden from you by some of your representatives.
Peace does not mean not making war, it consists in becoming what you are in reality: a same Fraternity.
We reached the conclusion that freedom is built every day as a being becomes aware of himself and of his environment, getting progressively rid of constraints and inertias, whatever they may be.

Despite the numerous, brave and willing human consciences, those inertias are artificially maintained for the profit of a growing centralizing power.

Until recently, mankind lived a satisfying control of its decisions.

But it is losing more and more the control of its own fate because of the growing use of advanced technologies, which lethal consequences on the earthly and human ecosystems become irreversible.

You are slowly but surely losing your extraordinary capacity to make life desirable. Your resilience will artificially decrease, independently of your own will. Such technologies exist that affect your body as well as your mind.

We are of the opinion that this radiation poisoning of our Fragile Planet must be addressed (and solved) by others than the inept cretins who are failing at this point.

How can we assist this this to occur? Who will listen and take heed?

For infants it’s a terrible valley of death we have created for them. As we shall see for years all of them have been born with already polluted bloodstreams and [color=limegreen]now the very young ones are dying in greater numbers on the west coast of the United States since Fukushima blew up.

After the first week, officials had enough information to call for evacuation of a wide area in Japan and also Hawaii, Alaska and the entire West Coast of North America. They really should have evacuated all of northern Japan and also the West Coast but that was almost as impossible as evacuating the entire planet or the entire Northern Hemisphere.

Evacuation of Planet Earth might be the best way for humanity to avoid the terrible nuclear, heavy metal and chemical toxicity we are now facing all at the same time.

Avoiding exposure is always the best plan but [color=limegreen]there is no way to avoid breathing in air contaminated with tiny hot particles.

Inhalation issues are much more frightening than ingestion issues because you can pick and choose what you eat and drink but you can’t buy bottled air.

Nuclear Toxicity Syndrome is about how to survive in nuclear and chemical hell.

But one cannot do what is necessary to survive hell if a person doesn’t know they are living in one.

We feel that perhaps the time is now for concerned citizens to demand accountability from their respective governments.

Obviously, Health Canada and the US/EPA do not have the best interests of their citizens at heart. Is it the same in other countries? In your country?

The question is why?

Are not these agencies made up of caring, feeling, breathing individuals who share the same fate as we, the people?

Or, have they been deceived into believing that they will be a part of the "saved" ones and the radiation will not deform or kill them, their children, their children's children, etc?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch.

22 June 2011
CNN: "They lied to us:" Fukushima Radiation Release Comparable To Chernobyl,
100% Meltdown In 3 Reactors

Michio Kaku: In the last two weeks, everything we knew about that accident has been turned upside down.

We were told three partial melt downs, [color=limegreen]... don’t worry about it.

Now we know it was 100 percent core melt in all three reactors.

[color=limegreen](We were told) that minimal radiation was released.

Now we know it was comparable to radiation at Chernobyl.

And as far as evacuation, (we were told), 12 miles and that is it. [color=limegreen]
You don’t have to evacuate more than 12 miles.

Now they find hotspots, 4 hot spots, outside the evacuation zone.

34,000 school children now have radiation badges when they go to school...

Finally, some coverage in the MSM... such as it is, but a lot of peeps watch CNN.

The real question here is what will it take for the peeps to finally "get it" and do something?

Fukushima ‘still a ticking time bomb’
CNN: As a reported within hours of the earthquake and Tsunami, with hours not even a day, there were already statements from the company (TEPCO) and International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) saying there had been safe shut down of all reactors and we know now of course in the end that simply wasn’t true.

[color=limegreen]But from the very beginning they were trying to tell us that this was a safe situation.

Kaku: Within hours of the accident we now know it was like the Keystone Cops.

People that are clueless, headless, just running around crazy, not knowing what to do.

We can now reconstruct that accident minute-by-minute, hour-by-hour and we can see this chaos that erupted in the leadership ability.

CNN: What is happening to the people that are working there now?

Kaku: Well, as you know, [color=limegreen]workers are getting sent in and they are getting a year's worth of radiation within just 10 minutes at a time.

At Chernobyl, 600,000 workers had to be mobilized. Each one going in for just a few minutes and each one getting a medal from Gorbachev.

CNN: This will be a Hundred Year Cleanup?

How long with this take to cleanup in your view?

Kaku: 50 to 100 years.

CNN: And we are not there yet.

[color=limegreen]We are not even to the point of talking about the cleanup yet because they haven’t stopped the reaction.

It is still happening.

Kaku: Clean up hasn’t even started yet.

They are not even looking at getting to cold shutdown until next year.

Cold shutdown is when boiling stops. There is boiling water right there at the reactor releasing radiation into the environment and [color=limegreen]releasing radiation into gigantic vats.

CNN: How are they storing and disposing of this stuff?

Kaku: That is the killer (pun intended?) because we have all of these vats that are filling up now and [color=limegreen]they may have to dump it into the ocean again.

At that point the Chinese, the Koreans, the fisherman they get up all in arms because there is so much damage (to the reactor cores) that every time you put water (into the reactors to cool the fuel rods that are melting down) it just leaks right out again, highly radioactive, and it is filling up at the site right now.

CNN: So what do they do with it?

Kaku: Right now, they are just counting the gallons as they pile up desperately trying to bring more vats in but [color=limegreen]once they saturate they are going to have to dump and at that point it is another crisis.

Tepcospeak !

If one is truly interested in this particular part of this disaster, we have written about the thousands of tons and millions gallons of water being injected/sprayed/dropped - and thousands of tons and millions of gallons lost (?) misplaced (?) leaked out ?) - take your pick or add one of your own theories, as the numbers simply do not add up.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

CNN: Lets talk about the radiation in the environment, in the atmosphere.

We have been told that it would be [color=limegreen]measurable but a miniscule amount on the US West Coast
and around the world?

Is that true?

Kaku: It is still minimal around the world (based on what we are being told from government reported radiation readings). Most of the damage is concentrated within 20 to 50 miles of the reactor. That is where we have the hotspots, that is where we have 20 times normal amounts of (annual adult) radiation (limits) in school yards outside of the evacuation zone.

Kaku: But in New York City, (based off government released radiation measurements) you can actually see it in the milk. You can actually see it has iodine, 131, actually spiked a little bit in our milk in New York City, but it is very small.

CNN: Just even hearing that, though, even hearing that you can detect it, that there’s a catastrophe, the worst industrial catastrophe in history, we can see it in milk in New York, that’s frightening.

Kaku: That’s right. This could be the grand daddy of all industrial accidents topping Chernobyl at $200 billion, topping the Gulf Oil Spill at $15 billion, topping the Columbia and Challenger disasters out in space at about $10 billion.

[color=limegreen]This could be the world record holder for an industrial accident.

Kaku: Realize Chernobyl was one core’s worth radiation causing a $200 billion accident and it is still on going.

Here we have 20 cores worth of radiation.

Three totally melted, one damaged and the (rest in) spent fuel pools, 20 cores worth of highly radioactive materials.

Leave us not be too hasty with accolades, and leave us not be fooled; it is not as if CNN or any other corporate media outlet is doing any real journalism here... where are Anderson Cooper or Gupta now?

In Africa - where it is comparatively safe. Gupta was in Japan early on and skedaddled when he figured out the real deal... just saying.

Throughout this disaster, all the media has done is echo statements from US (EPA/FDA), JAPGOV officials and TEPCO, neglecting to do any real investigative journalism and reporting stories that were so blatantly false and non-nonsensical because it was the "official story coming from the Government."

The MSM has lied to we, the people, and will continue to do so.

Now, one might ask, what are we, the people, going to do about it?

For those of us who think we are somewhat alone in our feelings on this nuclear insanity issue that has the future of humanity (as we now experience it) at stake, we offer this assessment from a poster on Blogs.


"Ticking time bomb" is correct.

If the melted cores do fully breach their containment vessels by literally burning their way through the bottoms of the containment vessels, then you can instantly have a situation where tons of molten core material hits the huge volume of water pooled in the bottoms of the reactor buildings.

The resulting explosion would obliterate what is left of the buildings and blow off the tops of the primary containment. It may be only a matter of time before this actually happens, and this is the reason why Kaku recommends the Chernobyl option of burying the cores with tons of boron, sand and concrete.

No, the reactors did not shut down immediately after the control rods were inserted. Inserting the control rods merely begins the weeks long process of eventually achieving cold shutdown. You need to do some research about nuclear reactors.

It is factually correct that the nuclear reactions have NOT been stopped. This is why far more radiation than was "expected" is showing up in the water filtration system which keeps breaking down.

In fact, it may be impossible to completely stop the nuclear reactions now that the cores have fully melted down into giant masses of molten slag since it is now impossible to moderate the nuclear reactions occurring at the center of the giant masses of molten core material.

And here is another view:

Swarming Bee Theory

I give Mr. Kaku a lot of credit for making a continued effort to speak openly about the situation in Fukushima.

What does it take to see, really. What does it take?

I cannot believe there are people on here who expect to be taken as representing a real viewpoint and are still, in the face of THREE core meltdowns, containment pools blown into the upper atmosphere, etc, persisting with the fallacy that because no one DIED this month everything will be ok.

It is nothing short of insanity to persist with this debate over the merits of nuclear fission used in applications like this.

Nuclear fission as practiced today is an antiquated technology, dangerous beyond measure, as in LITERALLY beyond measure. Some of the components of radioactive waste have a half life of 200,000 years, some 700,000 years, some more that that. Far longer than any administration in the history of our good country, that's how long.

It is remarkable to me that the rabid right wing tea partiers etc are always whining about the country swinging left.
The truth is it is money and power.

If we turn our attanetion of it; smoodfedswskjjwejjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjl wjk

A pound of plutonium could kill every human being on the planet.

And yet we continue to allow ourselves to be drawn into arguments with self-serving profiteers, people and corporations with no fealty to the US or to life in general, but rather to profit at any cost.

This highly organized miliitant faction of the US government in concert with the multi national energy cartel is working hard to have us believe this is actually a rational and reasonable alternative to aggressively reducing our current demand (like in Las Vegas counties for ex) combined with a solid commitment to alternative energy development.

It's nuts.

There really is no good reason to continue.

All plants should be immediately shut down and decommissioned.

The nuke plants shouid be scrapped.


How about it, "Nuke Team ATS?"

Obviously, TEPCO hasn't stopped the reaction(s), as continuously rising levels of I-131 indicate that there are uncontrolled nuclear reactions going in the melted cores and/or elsewhere.

Which may lead one to this question:

Considering that the boron additive utilized to moderate the fission process has a lifespan directly corresponding to the proximity to the radioactive material and the amount of materials being released, where are we on that timetable?

Specifically, has the boron reached the end of its lifespan and does the remaining "dead boron" accumulate and further hinder additional boron injections?

And an interesting comment from this poster regarding censorship on another forum:

Fukushima 'still a ticking time bomb' – In the Arena - Blogs
majia nadesan

Hi Michael I'm glad you responded to my comment because it provides proof my comment was posted before being taken down by some sort of censor.

I'm reposting. Let us see how long it is up this time.

First of all, it is not at all clear that workers at Fukushima have not died. Read the article: Contract workers registered with TEPCO have mysteriously disappeared from the contractor’s employment records. Mainichi: "Whereabouts of 30 nuclear power plant subcontractors unknown: Health Ministry"

Good catch!

We actually thought something was up along those lines and received some interesting comments here:

Second, there is considerable evidence of ongoing fission at the Fukushima plant reactors given the ongoing production of Iodine-131, which has a 8 day half life.

See Gunderson’s Fairewinds updates and Washington’s blog for an essay with citations on ongoing criticality

Third, spent-fuel pool #4 is an ongoing cataclysmic disaster. Building #4 was damaged by #3’s explosion and the spent fuel pool in #4’s attic was reported by the NYT to be cracked.

This pool is full of rods and is leaking water and was recently found to be 2/3 empty, meaning there was a high likelihood that the fuel rods were exposed.

Fourth, de-contamination of the radioactive water has not gone well and has had to be stopped over and over because of various problems

Fifth, radiation releases continue to be very large

“Estimates of the radioactive materials emitted double doors opening to the Fukushima No. 2 unit building 1.8 billion becquerels”


Well said.

We can only add to that, this:

Deny Ignorance.

In Peace, Love & Light


posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 01:30 PM
So... did they survive or what?

It was only a 6.0... but in an area where they are very rare...

Is everything alright?

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in