Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Current animated Jet Stream..NUCLEAR FALLOUT

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Think of a big volcano
the ashes will go by the wind and will travel very far

Nuclear radiation are worse in term of delivery system
it can travel far more distance by the wind

a huge volcano from the past covered the entire earth under 1 meters
dont underestimate the nuclear fallout .. especially if there is a highway jetstream




posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by dangerish
 

You understand that potassium iodide only offers some protection from a single radioactive isotope don't you?

If you don't you should learn more about what you plan on putting in your body, why, and if there may be unpleasant side effects.

This is not anywhere near a global disaster.

Thanks for pointing out the iodide fallacy. I think that smoking a little harder would offer some resistance against 'harmless' levels of radiation. Cigarettes have been known to offer defense against certain airborne contaminants, by way of forming a biofilm of sorts, for the lungs, airways. So, don't wanna run out of smoke now. Thanks to obama for the tax. Make my life a little harder, in any way he can.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I think we're already getting radiation here. But it will be so much bigger soon. They had 20 years of spent fuel there and all the waters boiled away? They got to Chenobyl's reactor. This has the potential of being ever so much bigger than Chenobyl and a global event.

And with the 19th, I am waiting on this date, because the west coast also has nuclear plants. I don't know whats going down, but to me, it could be the worse case scenario.



This follows a line from New Zealand to Japan an then predicting to west coast. This talks about the billions of fish dead off the coast of California, that were earthquake fish, prewarning. The moon tidal will be at its highest point on Friday, from now till 2016 and these are the things that gave him very accurate prediction in the past. He calls it a seismic _



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by starless and bible black
 


So basically you are saying "Smoke em if ya got em!" Thats a comfort. HA.

Could the initial explosions have already send particulated radioactive material into the atmosphere? Like material that has been contaminated by the leak, but maybe not the actual fuel yet?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 




Each reactor has the radioactivity of 1000 Hiroshima bombs

That is a meaningless statement. What kind of "radioactivity" exactly? 1000 times what exactly? Does a meltdown release all of that "radioactivity" into the atmosphere? How does it do that? Does the containment vessel offer no protection?

You realize that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were pretty insignificant in comparison the later devices don't you?
How do you define worse?
More fallout? Higher intensity radiation? Longer half life?

How much fallout from those 100+ atmospheric tests in the Pacific made it to the mainland?
How much fallout from those 100+ atmospheric tests in Nevada made it to the east coast (much less 5,000 miles)?

edit on 3/16/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack
 

You realize that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were pretty insignificant in comparison the later devices don't you?
How do you define worse?
More fallout? Higher intensity radiation? Longer half life?

How much fallout from those 100+ atmospheric tests in the Pacific made it to the mainland?
How much fallout from those 100+ atmospheric tests in Nevada made it to the east coast (much less 5,000 miles)?


Odd, everyone knows you know the answers but you'd prefer to ramble on..
You're supposed to be the expert, not me..



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

I'm asking you. You're the one with the vague claims.

You're the one who seems to think that the reactors in Japan present more of a risk to North America than the Pacific and Nevada weapons tests.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Short-lived isotopes release their decay energy rapidly, creating intense radiation fields that also decline quickly. Long-lived isotopes release energy over long periods of time, creating radiation that is much less intense but more persistent. Fission products thus initially have a very high level of radiation that declines quickly, but as the intensity of radiation drops, so does the rate of decline.

nuclearweaponarchive.org...

I already gave my opinion Phage, as you did..
I said bombs are designed to use up as much of the material as possible to create a big BOOM..
The majority of what's left declines very quickly...Unlike a meltdown.....



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



You're the one who seems to think that the reactors in Japan present more of a risk to North America than the Pacific and Nevada weapons tests.


Now you're just lying or misreading my posts..
I never mentioned North America..
I just gave my opinion that your are wrong in stating radiation from weapons testing is more "scary stuff" than radiation from a reactor meltdown..

Way to twist it mate..



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

You're right. I lost track of the conversation from last night. My apologies.
But the context is the danger posed to North America by the reactors in Japan.
edit on 3/16/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack
 

You're right. I lost track of the conversation from last night. My apologies.
But the context is the danger posed to North America by the reactors in Japan.
edit on 3/16/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Well you are right that it's a long way to blow over..
Some mention them silly balloons but that's not a reasonable comparison to heavier compounds..

The amount that reaches the US would depend on many things.
It's more the conflicting reports that bother me..
Apart from the reactors there's apparently thousands of spent fuel rods..



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   





posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


ROFLOL... phage your a riot for reporting that as T&C.

I now think there is something to this thread more than ever.

I guess I'd better go get some iodine pills. Thanks OP for the thread



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Honestly from an outsiders perspective as I just started reading this thread, It looks like backinblack is goading Phage into an argument and then putting in "I heard" claims and denying he needs to source or back up those claims farther than "well I heard it on ATS". Posting a wiki link to nuclear bombs in general does nothing to prove your claim that they use up their elements more/quicker when used compared to a melt down.

As far as the thread goes I think it is pretty much just like every other japan/west coast nuclear fallout coming everyone gonna die thread. I guess people like to assume/fantasize the worst so when the better scenario pans out they feel good about it?

That is pretty natural I think.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join