Just in! Nuclear Radiation Fallout in Washington State reaches 62 rads!

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I just got off the phone with a friend inside the Government in Washington State.
He states that the 22nd of March a reading of 62 Rads was recorded. This is a serious amount on radiation. He advises to check readings from foreign countries for accurate fallout counts.
Linked here: www.bestmetalresearch.com...




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I have no reference point when dealing with rads.

How many rads are equivalent to 100 msv?!



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by redgreen
I just got off the phone with a friend inside the Government in Washington State.
He states that the 22nd of March a reading of 62 Rads was recorded. This is a serious amount on radiation. He advises to check readings from foreign countries for accurate fallout counts.
Linked here: www.bestmetalresearch.com...


I need to know REM's. I should get to a chart.

Denver has been spiking to 70+ for days in CPM

I have 36 CPM in Portland and 21 CPM in Vancouver right now.
edit on 23-3-2011 by Analyze76 because: Current Readings
edit on 23-3-2011 by Analyze76 because: a new edit



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
as three dog would say:
pop some rad away for good measure.

in all seriousness though...thats ridiculous...be careful all you folks on the west coast. obviously our government and media are completely ok with people being irradiated



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by redgreen
 


Looks like the predictions that said the "miniscule" amounts that were first read would increase,
as the first readings were from the small releases in Japan's Fukishima Nuclear Disaster.

The larger releases came in the second and third explosions, so the danger will increase.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by XelNaga
 


Even if they are being irradiated what should the gov/media say? Please evacuate the west coast? that would probably cause more harm than radiation.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Awesome! Just in time for me to head back to Washington next week to get back to work.

I'm just going to work long enough to get together enough money and move back to Colorado permanently, it at least won't be as bad as the west coast is going to see this year.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


This may help you answer that question:

www.vaughns-1-pagers.com...



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
THAT SUCKS! I live on the west cost.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by n0tsan3
 


Says the guy in Florida, what would you say if you were in Seattle?

Hey if it ain't happenin' to me who the F cares right?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
How many rad does it take to kill a human?



About 500 to 1000 RADS is enough to kill a human. it takes between 1-5 days for the radiation to kill all the cells in a human body. About 50,00 to 100,000 RADS causes death within minutes or hours.....


from wiki
wiki link



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
From what I understand, and I may be wrong, but it isn't dangerous until 150. If this is the case it's not even half way there. I don't see the problem. If I am understanding incorrectly help me to understand.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Just so you lknow, Colorado has been consistantly two to three times the seattle tacoma area. on radiation network this week as I have been watching. They also have us at much lower readings even than we were at yesterday. I have been taking half of an iodine tablet every morning now for a week. I realize it has limited application, but it does help for radioactive iodine in the air, so my family and I will continue to take it until they get this contained and under control. In a month I would lot rather learn that I took it for nothing than that I did not take it and needed it.

Funny how this has just fallen off the news too, I watched yesterday for 45 minutes to finally get a 30 second blurb about the reactors. Mass distraction indeed.

Peace...



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Any evidence other than "a friend said"?
62 rads per minute?
62 rads per hour?
62 rads per day?
edit on 3/23/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Just wanted to throw a bit of info out there on Colorado:


The Radiation levels on the stations in Colorado are higher on average than the others because some are at elevations as high as 8,000 to 9,000 feet, where there is less atmospheric shielding from the cosmic rays that make up most of what we call the background radiation count.


source: www.radiationnetwork.com...

Also that website has live monitoring of radiation levels if you haven't seen it yet, and it is NOT run by the government.

www.radiationnetwork.com...

Everything looks pretty normal.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimpish
 

Although those numbers are higher then they were a couple of weeks ago - sorry didn't take a screen shot before



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
If this is true I would imagine that the radiation does not stop at the west coast, it would most likely continue eastward. If these readings are correct then it must be much worse in Japan and surrounding areas. I have no proof or any expertise in radiation and how it falls out but I have a hunch this is much worse than they are letting on. I sure hope I am wrong. If it made it to the west coast in 2 weeks it would probably reach the east coast shortly after.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by bphi1908
 


no I'm saying there would be tons of death if you evacuated an ENTIRE STATE. Think about just evacuating LA by itself. Gridlock, people starving to death trapped on the highway with no fuel in their vehicle. It just seems like a bad idea to panic people because of something that might not actually be as bad as the death toll of a mass evacuation.
edit on 23-3-2011 by n0tsan3 because: spelling



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Converting rads to sieverts requires some math and extra info, but it works about like this.

First, you have to convert rads to grays. 100 rads=1 gray, so 62 rads= .62 gray.

Then you need to know the type of radiation to convert to sieverts, because to convert from gy to Sv requires multiplying the amount of radiation in grays by weighting factors. Let's assume for the sake of explanation that it's full body gamma radiation, which requires no further math and sets the lowest baseline for the amount of exposure with its weighting factors of 1. That equates 1 gray of gamma radiation to an equivalent dose of 1 sievert. That makes .63 gray into .63 sievert. (For the record, 100 rems is typically called at 1 sievert, as the rem is the associated equivalent dose for the rad.)

To convert sieverts to millisieverts, move the decimal place the correct number of spaces over.
So... 62 rads of gamma radiation=.62 gray gamma radiation=.62 sievert=620 millisievert (Close to reported levels of one of the radiation spikes, so either the spike was much higher than reported, or the Pacific ain't so great at dissipating radiation; either way, the world and the Japanese people were lied to.)

According to modern medicine, however you slice it, that is enough radiation to cause a decreased white cell and other blood count, but not induce illness in a healthy person. That means it's quite enough to cause genetic damage in any person, and it may be enough to compromise the immune response of individuals with diseases such as leukemia or HIV in which decreased white cell count is already an issue.


Originally posted by Agarta
From what I understand, and I may be wrong, but it isn't dangerous until 150. If this is the case it's not even half way there. I don't see the problem. If I am understanding incorrectly help me to understand.


It is dangerous at anything above high background radiation, like just existing day to day in Denver or other places with a high, natural radiation level. Radiation sickness can hit as low as 100 rems, but cancer and birth defect-inducing levels are much, much lower. (As far as I know, science has not quantified the lower threshold for genetic damage by radiation.)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by blackcat99
 


They fluctuate, but they are right about the same as they have been since I started watching them about a week ago; mostly in the low to mid 20's on the west coat.





new topics
 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join