Video - ABC News Plutonium Leaking and Spreading U.S. in Danger.

So what's happened since that report? I noticed it in the story he says "It's been 2 weeks since the quake and Tsunami" so that would date this video around the 25th March or so.

Uh oh national security.. there it is.

Originally posted by avatar01
plutonium is heavy. It will not float around in the atmosphere.

The media is just trying to scare you. DONT BREATHE YOU MIGHT DIE!

I believe this, but why does the media want to scare people?

Wish my dad was still around. He was in charge of civil defense for our neighborhood back in the day... I think just before I was born. The one book I got from his library is dated 1950, and was recommended by the Atomic Energy Commission for people involved in civil defense. I have not opened it since 1998. On the inside of the leaves it has an article page dated March 1955 and has a graph showing radiation from ground zero out. Hmmm, heres an article from March 1954,Life magazine with a pic of Japanese guy. Then there's a hand made graph he drew showing some kind of psi up to 84,000(mi radius I guess). In the back are some handwritten notes on Fission and Fusion and roentgens/hr from GZ. I remember he tried explaining this stuff to me once. Wish I had paid more attention.
According to this book on p 345, for a "median Lethal Dose", initial symptoms mayb e nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, and malaise(dose over whole body), and "after the first day or two the symptoms disappear and several days to two weeks may elapse(latent period) in which the patient feels relatively well. This is followd by a recurrence of the illness, witkh the symptoms, including fever, severe diarrhoea, and the steplike rise of temperature,..."
The book also mentions that the rate of absorption makes a big difference in how sick you get. Of course this is alpha, beta, and gamma rays, not Plutonium.

the book states that a median lethal dose would be around 400 r of radiation over the whole body, fatal to aboujt 50 % of humans exposed. Also if part of the body was shielded, a larger dose would be tolerated. Even clothing is some sort of shield. Medium lethal dosage is generally at about 4,200 feet from GZ of an atomic explosion.

OK on p 358359 it states that the chances of radioactive material entering the system after an atomic explosion are minimal. "Thus, no form of illness or injury due to internal radiation has been reported following the high air bursts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even when there is considerable contamination of the ground, due to fission products, plutonium or uranium, it would be a matter of great difficulty for an appreciable quantity to enter the blood stream."
Hmmm that is strikingly different from that report of the guy talking about one particle. The book is called "The Effects of Atomic Weapons" , The Combat Forces Press wash DC August 1950

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
OK on p 358359 it states that the chances of radioactive material entering the system after an atomic explosion are minimal. "Thus, no form of illness or injury due to internal radiation has been reported following the high air bursts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even when there is considerable contamination of the ground, due to fission products, plutonium or uranium, it would be a matter of great difficulty for an appreciable quantity to enter the blood stream."
Hmmm that is strikingly different from that report of the guy talking about one particle. The book is called "The Effects of Atomic Weapons" , The Combat Forces Press wash DC August 1950

I've learned that the rads from weapons decrease sharply compared to radiation from an exposed reactor.

reply to post by randyvs


So, are you saying that the exposure to a nuclear weapon is not nearly as dangerous as exposure to elements from a nuclear reactor?
This is pretty scary stuff and I've been taking my vitamins which do contain iodine. I just ran across this book and realize that there are variations in how people are exposed. I don't know where Caesium and Xenon fit into this spectrum? But that MOX fuel contains weapons grade materials right?
And I'm also guessing there is a difference between a one time explosion and the radius of affected areas as opposed to a continual dosage of various elements.
I am also assuming that the iodine 131 showing up in places like Crystal river nuke plant (my neighborhood) and Pennsylvania were from the initial hydrogen explosion at Fukushima. There's so much more to learn for me.

Now we have Canada turning off their fallout detectors and America raising their food safety limits to allow for more radiation.


www.naturalnews.com...


The mass radioactive contamination of our planet is now under way thanks to the astonishing actions taking place at the Fukushima nuclear facility in Japan. As of last night, TEPCO announced it is releasing 10,000 tons of radioactive water directly into the Pacific Ocean. That 2.4 million gallons of planetary poison being dumped directly into the ocean.

This water is being released because they have run out of places to keep it on land. It's too deadly to transport anywhere else, and all the storage pools around Fukushima are already overflowing. So they're dumping it into the ocean, then calling it "safe" because they claim the ocean will "disperse" all the radiation and make it harmless.

But because there's more radioactive water being produced every day at Fukushima, this process of releasing radioactive water into the ocean could theoretically continue for years, easily making Fukushima the worst nuclear disaster in the history of our world.

Yes there is a plan, but you're not in it

Obama, of course, is trying to best his Canadian counterpart by simply urging the American people to do nothing in the case of radioactive fallout. Don't worry, my little consumer sheeple, you don't need to prepare in any way whatsoever, Obama says from his nuclear fallout shelter that's stocked with 10 years of food, water, emergency medical supplies, government ammunition and military communications equipment. It's okay for the President to prepare for emergencies, I guess. Just not YOU.


Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

reply to post by Seekeye2


Yes, I like the Natural News site. And to think, in the 50s they were doing all that testing. I really feel like I've been in the Twilight Zone with this, and how bizarre to get more data from a book from 1950 than from the govt.

reply to post by muzzleflash

The atomic weight of Plutonium is (244)g·mol^-1

The molar mass of Plutonium varies with the specific isotope in question - the longer uranium-238 has been irradiated the greater proportion of the heavier isotopes of plutonium are created. The average molar mass therefore varies with the irradiation time. 244 sounds heavy given the most common plutonium isotope has a molar mass of 239. Just fy.

In a pound of Plutonium there are how many atoms?? Cmon now Chemistry 101 here.

2.5*10^21 atoms per gram of plutonium. I don't use the outdated imperial system.

There is only 6billion humans alive on Earth roughly, and if it only takes 1 good plutonium atom to ruin their life,

The worlds oceans contain 41,000EBq of radiaoctivity, which means 41,000*10^18 decays occur per second in the ocean. Using your logic since it only takes one radioactive decay to cause cancer, over the course of a year there is enough natural radioactive decay to ruin the lives of everyone on earth 2.0*10^19 times over. If you think 99% of it is still in the ocean then decrease that to 6.8*10^17 times the earths population each year. If you don't get it already, it is an entirely useless statistic which assumes that somehow all the radioactive material is distributed evenly to every single person, that every single decay somehow managed to damage DNA, that none of the DNA repair mechanisms work, and that the damage caused is enough to cause cancer.

This claim is totally absurd. To share that amount of plutonium among the world's population would yield a dose of less than one tenth of a microgram of plutonium per person. Then it would have to be carefully delivered to every individual. That such an idea could have any currency at all rests on the discredited "hot-particle theory" where a single speck of plutonium lodged in the lung was supposed to eventually produce a cancerous lesion. Such a cancer, if initiated, would show up later in life in competition with those caused by cigarette smoking and air pollution. A more damning rebuttal of this claim stems from the nuclear weapon tests conducted in the atmosphere prior to the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty of 1963. Before that ban came into effect the explosions of atomic and hydrogen bombs released somewhere between three and eight tonnes of plutonium into the atmosphere in the finely divided form demanded by the hotparticle theory. Noting that life expectancies across most of the globe have not fallen dramatically since 1963 suggests that ten thousand times half a kilogram of plutonium is still not enough to produce the dire effect predicted. An American expert on risk analysis, Professor Bernard Cohen, has publicly challenged anti-nuclear activist Ralph Nader that he, Cohen, will eat as much plutonium as Nader will eat pure caffeine, a substance that is comparably dangerous. The unaccepted challenge is now (2005) nearly three decades old. Cohen complains that he has written Nader and his supporter Senator Ribicoff personal letters without any reply from either of them. Another scientist outraged by the specious claims about plutonium was Dr Eric Voice, who worked at British nuclear facilities at Dounreay and Harwell. A firm believer in nuclear power generation, he determined to prove in a most dramatic way that Nader was wrong. In his seventies, Dr Voice volunteered to be a human guinea pig and was injected with plutonium-237, a more active isotope than plutonium-239. He died in 2004 at the age of 80 of motor neurone disease – not radiation induced cancer.

source.

This isn't to say that plutonium isn't dangerous, but rather that the actual dangers need to be put into context and explained properly without using useless irrelevant unrealistic statistics. All nuclear reactors (except thorium ones which create an enormously small amount) contain plutonium unless the fuel is fresh - the longer the irradiation time the more of it. MOX fuel includes plutonium right from the start, which makes it somewhat worse than regular fuel. Chernobyl did contain a large amount of plutonium and released a large amount of Plutonium. Most of the radioactivity however, still comes from Cesium-137. I think burning plutonium (in a reactor) creates somewhat worse fission products than uranium, but I'm not sure.

reply to post by muzzleflash

No, the dangers are being constantly downplayed and ignored.
People are so scared they are willing to tell themselves outright lies and other nonsense to convince themselves everything's gonna be fine in the end. You're wrong.

I agree with most of what you said although.... not this. This event is getting a massive amount of media attention and the event is not being ignored by the public or the media especially compared to other far worse problems that occur. Perhaps the only reason that this is happening is because it involves radiation and is a large single incident which the media can play out like a slow motion disaster movie. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing - I guess it's both - because at least the issue is being recognized. What isn't being recognized is the fact that since Fukushima around 1000 americans have died due to coal, biofuel policy has killed up to 17,000 people due to famine, 30,000 americans have died from smoking related illnesses and 31,500 Indian children between the ages of 1 and 5 have died of respiratory disease because their families still cook with wood or cattle dung. The list goes on. How much coverage has any of this got?

Where was the media and ATS during these events?

(For comparison, Chernobyl will kill between around 9000 people.)

I'll tell you where.

They were silent because nobody cares about thousands of small incidents that add up.

Originally posted by avatar01
plutonium is heavy. It will not float around in the atmosphere.

While I agree with the idea that some are overhyping this (while others are grossly underhyping it), the idea that "plutonium is heavy" and thus "will not float in the atmosphere" is flat out wrong.
www.atsdr.cdc.gov...

Plutonium can be transported in the atmosphere usually when it is attached to particles in the air. It can be deposited on land or water by settling or by rain. Plutonium can stick to particles in soil, sediment, and water.

I don't know about you, but to me this:

appears to be the type of incident in which plutonium could find plenty of airborne particles to hitch a ride on.

I have always been of the mind that until we find a safe way to dispose of super-hazardous nuclear waste, we shouldn't be building or using anything nuclear.

It is asking for trouble - and now we got it.

I still don't understand why these things are built almost on top of a fault line - nothing is earthquake-proof, is it?

reply to post by muzzleflash


What I find incredible is that they talk of it being equal to X-Rays and Cat scans like we have them everyday.
I've only ever had 2 x-rays in my whole life and don't have them unless absolutely necessary because of the risk, of which my DOCTOR advised me of.
So if the medical fraternity are advising patients to only have X-Rays unless absolutely necessary, how is it that these nuclear people can bandy around the comparison likes it's a walk in the park?

EPA to raise limits for radiation exposure and Canada turns off fallout detectors.

" (NaturalNews) The mass radioactive contamination of our planet is now under way thanks to the astonishing actions taking place at the Fukushima nuclear facility in Japan. As of last night, TEPCO announced it is releasing 10,000 tons of radioactive water directly into the Pacific Ocean. That 2.4 million gallons of planetary poison being dumped directly into the ocean.

This water is being released because they have run out of places to keep it on land. It's too deadly to transport anywhere else, and all the storage pools around Fukushima are already overflowing. So they're dumping it into the ocean, then calling it "safe" because they claim the ocean will "disperse" all the radiation and make it harmless.

But because there's more radioactive water being produced every day at Fukushima, this process of releasing radioactive water into the ocean could theoretically continue for years,"

Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

reply to post by Seekeye2

Sorry Double Post - think it's time I was off to bed

reply to post by avatar01


My friend, its not over hyped if you are playing with peoples lives, and right now there are literally millions on the line at least and will be until all this garbage is done being tossed into the sea and atmosphere.

here you go.... economictimes.indiatimes.com...
This is getting to be scary...on my thread, it's more about the possibilty of a huge explosion or a total collapse of the facility....this is not good at all!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by StealthyKat
here you go.... economictimes.indiatimes.com...
This is getting to be scary...on my thread, it's more about the possibilty of a huge explosion or a total collapse of the facility....this is not good at all!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The use of seawater to cool the reactor and rods sat a little uneasy with me. We all know how corrosive salt is but also if the water is being boiled off then surely there will be salt left behind. There is 4 ounces of salt in every gallon of sea water. And they are pumping untold thousands of gallons.wiki.answers.com... Interesting fact from that link

One gallon of sea water has 4 ounces of salt in it, on average. This means that if you dried the sea out to obtain the salt in it, there would be enough salt to put a layer of the chemical around the world 147 feet thick!

Read more: wiki.answers.com...

economictimes.indiatimes.com...

In graphic new detail, it suggests that the water in the plant's reactor 1 is "severely restricted and likely blocked" because slumping fuel and salt from the seawater that workers have used as a coolant were likely blocking pathways for circulation.

Originally posted by Seekeye2
This just goes from bad to worse. Apparently it is not measured by Geiger Counters either and the US is in Danger.
When are we to get some good news on this - it gets more frightening every day. Just when you think it's going away - I wish!

______beforeitsnews/story/536/839/Dreaded_News_Pluptonium_Leaking_and_Spreading.html

______beforeitsnews/story/536/531/US_in_DANGER_Plutonium_NOT_measured_by_Geiger_Counters.html

"Just when you think it's going away" . . . sorry but just had to say this: anyone paying attention to alternative news sites - not MSM - knows that we've yet to experience the moment when anyone could think this is going away! Nothing is contained - nothing getting "fixed" - getting worse by the day - polluting the entire Northern Hemisphere - still potential meltdowns of rods - Japanese haven't a clue or a plan to stop this - sandbags to keep highly radioactive water from going into the Pacific - potential destruction of quality of life for hundreds of years. Time for an intervention by world's top nuclear physicists to come up with a plan before it's too late.