It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Source: Minuscule Radioactive Fallout Reaches U.S.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlBeMet


It is now here, not the end times oh no amount people have been posting lately or is it?

"about a billion times beneath levels that would be health threatening"
A billion? Really?

It would be nice if they releases the actual numbers. I guess in good time, after the fact they will.

Does anyone have hard data we could compare to the supposed "billion times beneath levels"

-Al


www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


We are always in contact with radiation of one sort or another. In fact the cells in our bodies , the food we eat, the houses we live in, and the soil in our backyards all emit radiation of varying degrees, from various sources. We get radiation from space, and we get it from uranium, and potassium and christ knows how many other radiological sources in nature.

However when dealing with human health in terms of radiation its generaly accepted that most folks recieve about 100 to 200 millirem per year in radiation (which is equal to 1 or 2 millisieverts) 70 to 80 millirem come from natural sources, and 11% of that figure actualy is emitted by materials within our own bodies, and sleeping next to someone for eight hours exposes you to 2 millirem, and I could go on for a fair while with this crap but Im not going to . PUNCHLINE TIME!

For those working in the industry, the maximum whole body dose of radiation is 5,000 millirem . A whole body dose of 500 rem (or 500,000 millirem) will kill you outright, although it will take a week or two, and a dose of 100 rem (100,000 millirem) will give you rad sickness.
I sincerely doubt that anyone has yet come into contact with levels even approaching this .

However, in terms of cancer risks to the public, this is actualy difficult to discern. For a start , every body is different, and I mean that in a very literal sense when weakness against radiation and cancer are concerned. Some people just do not get cancer that easily, others however get skin cancers from going out on a pleasant day in March (Im probably closer to this end of the scale myself
must be all the celtic blood eh?) .

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) no one has ever been able to pin down, exactly what doseage you can aquire before increasing your risk of cancer and similar health defects, purely because no two peoples bodies react the same way , in terms of how well they absorb radiation. Trying to put a figure on it would be like trying to guess how many of the worlds mosquitos are effected by drinking the blood of smokers. Furthermore, actualy experimenting to find out would be frankly barbaric, far worse than Porton Down and thier nerve gas malarky.




posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
If I'm understanding this radiation measurements thing correctly, and you want to compare it to electricity... this meter is only telling us part of the story, like it's reading current. Don't we also need to know the intensity of the radiation to determine it's possible health effects(like we need the voltage also to find watts)? Shouldn't we be watching a meter that is calibrated and set to display µSv/hr in order see the health repercusions?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
This is a table for CPM that can give you an idea of the rads being registered... this put's cali at 0.1




posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
we all gonna die soon or later in CA



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Arrius
 


Live stream from LA doesn't seem to be working at the moment.
There is a note on the screen but I can't make it out.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
And is this first plume not just the tip of the iceberg.
As radiation leaks are continuing in Japan would it
not be feasible to say more is on the way to the
west coast. .



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   

edit on 18-3-2011 by crazydaisy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 

That's mR/hr. Millirem, not rads. 1rad=1000 mR

Do you know what type of counter is being used? Without knowing that the chart doesn't help much.

edit on 3/18/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by crazydaisy
 


That very much depends on the wind speed and direction from here until the end of the release of matter. In any case, I really do not think that the levels to which the US will be exposed, pose any actual threat to the area they will land on, or any one in that area.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Breath in one of those specks, get it stuck in your lung. Then tell me it is a billion times below what will hurt me.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Hey Phage... do you know of any websites which give a multi unit comparison for all the different measuring scales for radiation. I looked, and couldnt find... If anyone knows of it, I figure you are the chap to ask.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I can't help but wonder: If everyone is so convinced that the Japan radiation is so bad, how in the HELL did the US--never mind just the West Coast--survive the bombing of Japan in WWII?

I almost hate to say this, but people--simmer down! This much unreasoning fear is not good for the soul. Yes, governments lie--constantly--indeed, it's so overpowering that it makes it impossible to know when they might be telling the truth. And using minimizing phrases like "about a billion times beneath levels that would be health threatening" is the exact the type of patronizing BS that naturally makes us want to throttle them.

But blindly reacting to things out of fear, and looking for and reinforcing each other's most fearful instincts, instead of doing something useful, like--I don't know--maybe a little Googling for facts! isn't helping matters any.

Good Lord, guys....



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 

That's mR/hr. Millirem, not rads. 1rad=1000 mR

Do you know what type of counter is being used? Without knowing that the chart doesn't help much.

edit on 3/18/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)
\


This is the device they are using: www.medcom.com...

It's in CPM mode which looks likely is mR/h counts. However they are not making that clear on their website which is located here: www.enviroreporter.com...

Operating Range:
mR/hr: .001 to 100.0
CPM: 0 to 350,000
Total: 1 to 9,999,000 counts
µSv/hr: .01 to 1,000
CPS: 0 to 5,000

It seems most likely this is mR/hr in the CPM seen in the counter.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 

I'm not sure what you mean. Rad to Rem to Sievert is pretty straight forward. If you mean converting detector counts to a dose, it depends on the detector.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


We are never going to see Uranium or Plutonium from these reactors reaching America at least not by Air or Water. Food from Japan perhaps more likely... such as fish near the reactor moving the material outwards into the oceanic food-chain could potentially add contamination to the food supply. I do suspect this will be heavily screened.

What we are getting is Ionizing radiation and it's not isotopes. The isotopes likely will fall into the ocean along the way because they are heavy.

That said, how much ionizing radiation will become a problem for our health in the long term? I will have to do some more research.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


Gamma Sensitivity: 3500 CPM/mR/hr referenced to Cs-137

It's a sensitive instrument. That would put the dosage closer to (and probably less than) .02 mR/h
Normal background.
edit on 3/18/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
If I'm understanding this radiation measurements thing correctly, and you want to compare it to electricity... this meter is only telling us part of the story, like it's reading current. Don't we also need to know the intensity of the radiation to determine it's possible health effects(like we need the voltage also to find watts)? Shouldn't we be watching a meter that is calibrated and set to display µSv/hr in order see the health repercusions?

 

You're correct. Just like current is "how many electrons passed this point in the past second," CPM is "how many individual radioactive particles passed this point in the past minute." You also need to know the sensitivity of the meter; in the case of our intrepid live-video meter (the Inspector), it's got a sensitivity of 3,500 millirads per hour, with a maximum of 100 mR/hr (in which case, the CPM would show 350,000). Thus its ratio is 58,333 counts per rad. When it shows 45 CPM, it equates to 0.013 mR/hr. So, for this particular dosimeter (to save you some math), just divide the CPM by 3,500,000 to get the equivalent mR/hr. Its peak of, what was it, 65 CPM? That'd be the same as 0.0186 mR/hr. And to get sieverts, you divide the rads by 100; 0.0186 mR/hr is 0.186 µSv/hr. This is getting more long-haired than I'd intended, but you get the idea. One of those Chertoff Scanners at all of our fine airports gives you a 10 mSv dose, apparently, which is the same as a hundred chest X-rays, or one full entire single rad. "Safe." I despise Michael Chertoff.

Anyway, counts per minute divided by 3500000 equals millirads per hour, but only for that particular dosimeter. Hope that helps...
edit on 3/18/2011 by Thought Provoker because: Even after all that, I still got some math wrong... must be getting old...



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


Gamma Sensitivity: 3500 CPM/mR/hr referenced to Cs-137

It's a sensitive instrument. That would put the dosage closer to (and probably less than) .02 mR/h

edit on 3/18/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Right and no where lethal where popping iodine pills is needed. As for health effects, hard to say as we know cancer is already on the rise as a result of many factors of industrialization and technology like wireless devices, cellphones etc.

Personally, I am concerned about the increase of radiation on the planet. Less is best. My real concern is for the people in Japan as they will take the brunt of this problem. It's not a crisis that is going to be resolved easily, looks like another Chernobyl like problem with a touch of plutonium and spent fuel rods mixed in.

I am really on the fence as to how bad of a disaster this will end up being. Seems like lots of radioactive material is at that site and it's not something to take lightly. Best thing to do is get the facts right and be aware of the developments as they unfold.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
I can't help but wonder: If everyone is so convinced that the Japan radiation is so bad, how in the HELL did the US--never mind just the West Coast--survive the bombing of Japan in WWII?

I almost hate to say this, but people--simmer down! This much unreasoning fear is not good for the soul. Yes, governments lie--constantly--indeed, it's so overpowering that it makes it impossible to know when they might be telling the truth. And using minimizing phrases like "about a billion times beneath levels that would be health threatening" is the exact the type of patronizing BS that naturally makes us want to throttle them.

But blindly reacting to things out of fear, and looking for and reinforcing each other's most fearful instincts, instead of doing something useful, like--I don't know--maybe a little Googling for facts! isn't helping matters any.

Good Lord, guys....


I'm going to absorb the ignorance factor of this comment and provide the straight out FACTS on the items mentioned...

Comparing a nuclear detonation to a nuclear reactor is the same thing as comparing a single apple pie produced by the Hostess Bakery to all the apple pies Hostess produced that day... and guess what, if not contained, then compare the next days output, and the next, and the next, and the next... a nuclear reactor is the Atomic weapon THAT NEVER STOPS DETONATING UNTIL CONTAINED!!...

Now compare that to the 6 (six) reactors billowing radio active apple pies at Fukushima Dai-ichi !



Radiation also has another brilliant feature I still have yet to see ANYONE disclose - so I will. Certain types of radiation are chronic killers. That means it will accumulate in the body and not leave it, but build up and sit there and emit poisons throughout your body. the more particles you accumulate, the more you will radiate.

Nough said.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Ah... sorry , wasnt very clear was it. I was talking about a table that would help folks figure out what the readings on thier detectors mean, no matter what the unit of measurement they are using might be. I know the conversions are simple, but some folks still get pretty confused. I found a site that explained it to me earlier but the wording was pretty radical.
Last time I studied nuclear energy as part of my secondary education, the only measurement that mattered was rad. Now there are umpteen variations on that theme .







 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join