Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Deadly Levels of Radiation Detected in Tokyo at Ground Level

page: 4
105
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by dreams n chains
 


I'm pretty sure it was a bad idea to set up a nuclear reactor in an earth quake prone area. how did they not forsee this?




posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
I have heard the radiation in the East is slightly worse than that in the central and western part of the city. But this is the first thing I have seen anywhere outside of Fukushima itself with those kinds of numbers. No other readings in that area are anything close to that. This, to me suggests he is either faking it, or he his machine is broken, or perhaps he has stumbled upon an anomalous cloud or "hot spot" of radiation. If the latter, we need to know about it and to determine how many such places there are.
I haven't seen anyone else mention this and loam said something about going to another street corner to measure it so I think you folks are missing something here.

The location he selected was not a random street corner on the ground.

When rain falls, it can cleanse radioactive particles out of the air, which then hit the ground, and the water then of course moves toward drains, carrying some fine silt with it. There can be small depressions in the street that can catch some of this fine silt, and it looks like he found such a depression, as it looked to me like that silt was deposited there either by wind or rain, probably rain.

Now this means he could probably walk to all the other street corners in the area, which didn't have this silt, and not find anything like these levels. What he is measuring is a "hotspot". So if you want to look for more hotspots like that, the way you might find them is, the next time it rains, and the streets start to dry up, look for little pools of standing water, where the water accumulates and takes longer to evaporate, and leaves little deposits of fine silt. That's where I'd expect you'd most likely find higher concentration levels of radioactivity, there, and in the water that goes into the sewer system, and the sewer sludge.

Unwanted radioactive sewage sludge piling up

Officials believe that radioactive materials from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant flowed into sewage pipes with rainwater and were condensed during sewage treatment....
At a sewage treatment facility in Tachikawa, western Tokyo, bags of incineration ash occupy half of an underground warehouse.

A cement company has refused to accept it since radioactive cesium and iodine were found from sludge and ash.
This also means I have no reason to doubt that you aren't finding anything and I also have no reason to doubt that the guy in the OP video found something, it really doesn't suggest any kind of hoax or conflict to me at all. That's just the way this stuff works. I'm a former radiation worker who was licensed by the NRC to handle radioactive material, so I had to take lots of training courses about this radioactivity to get my license. I also had to wear one of those dosimeter badges constantly so my exposure could be monitored. So obviously I have no deathly fear of radiation to purposely expose myself to it, but I do have a rational understanding of it, and what it can do.


Originally posted by TheUniverse
Do you know how many hot particles we would be inhaling per day in the Great lakes Region? In North America.! Specifically the Eastern Lakes.

Because i am wondering how much less(most-likely) or more it is than the west coast.
No, I don't. Arnie Gunderson only quoted 10 per person per day in Tokyo, and 5 per person per day in Seattle, he didn't quote any other figures. I found this a little surprising, but not too surprising. Tokyo is substantially closer, but, it's also usually upwind. So while we might have expected Seattle to have a much lower exposure than Tokyo, it's only half which is not as much lower as some might have expected.

Being further east of Seattle, you certainly wouldn't expect your exposure to be any greater than in Seattle, in fact it's probably less. If you want me to guess, my guess is it's probably at least one and no more than four particles per day.Look at the jet stream maps from accuweather here: www.accuweather.com... As you can see, the jet stream is currently blowing air from the west coast into the great lakes area, though sometimes you folks get your air from Canada in which case it's usually colder and probably less radioactive.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Suv3yor
I'm pretty sure it was a bad idea to set up a nuclear reactor in an earth quake prone area. how did they not forsee this?
It was foreseen. TEPCO ignored warnings from its own scientists:

A new IAEA report says Tepco ignored tsunami hazard warnings by its own scientists



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


That is incredibly good info, thanks.

I am going to see if I can adopt your recommendation next time I take a measurement. The sky is cloudy so we might get rain soon.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 

You're welcome!

Let us know what you find. I'm curious.

I'm also curious to know what they are going to do with all that radioactive sludge that's piling up in Tokyo. It sounds like their storage space is filling up so they need to figure out something soon, or find more storage space.

I think that radioactive sludge problem is a pretty good indication that the OP video could be quite true without any hoaxing.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

I'm a former radiation worker who was licensed by the NRC to handle radioactive material, so I had to take lots of training courses about this radioactivity to get my license. I also had to wear one of those dosimeter badges constantly so my exposure could be monitored. So obviously I have no deathly fear of radiation to purposely expose myself to it, but I do have a rational understanding of it, and what it can do.


One other thing I'd like to ask you -- Can you give me any other recommendations for getting the most out of my geiger counter here in Tokyo? I am not a professional, and I knew absolutely nothing about radiation before this event. I've had to give myself a crash course in all this, and it hasn't really been easy for me. So I'd certainly appreciate any advice, if you have any.

I have come to understand the basics, and I have been continuiously monitoring the ambient air radiation, which so far has been elevated but not extreme. I take measurements indoors and outdoors, from various elevations. All seem to tally more or less with what is being reported elsewhere. I've tried holding it close to the ground, to various surfaces, to water (standing and running) and food. I don't know if the way I am doing it is effective, though.

The way you describe in your post above seemed very informative so I thank you for that.

Can you reccomend any way to get more accurate readings of food and water, for example? What about soil? What about different surfaces, materials, etc? You recommended silt measurement; I'm on it. Are there any other locations, etc. that you can think of that I should measure? Any comments would be most appreciated.

edit on 6/10/11 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
OK I just now went outside and took two measurements of a silted-over area near a manhole cover in Roppongi. The last rain was less than 24 hours ago. I got a reading of 0.29 uSv/h which is, in fact, the highea reading I have gotten yet, ever. Nowhere near as high as the guy in the video, to be sure. But he did it right after the rain.

You have my attention.

Next will be to find a drain area. I will try now.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I think that is a very valid point, there will obviously be more radioactive dust where it has gathered in larger quantities and been taken there from a wider area by rain water. However my concern would be wind blow particles being breathed in to the lungs. If I was in japan I would wear a respirator outside at all times. As Somebody said just one speck of radioactive plutonium breathed into a lung could cause cancer.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
This entire topic is a nightmare without end. However, I HAVE seen some counter-evidence which gives me small amounts of hope. Mainly, I've read that some level of radioactivity is EXPECTED in dust, supposedly due to "the natural decay of Uranium isotopes in the earth's crust." While this seems plausible, I have to wonder: if people had been able to measure, say, the radioactivity of common household dust in 1900, 1940, 1950, then every decade, and then now (post-Fukushima), whether we would not see a disturbing upward trend from the nuclear tests of the 40's and onward. Basically, there was already Plutonium floating around sporadically from those nuclear tests. With a half-life of 24,000 years (or much more), it's not like the Plutonium went away. I guess it may have slowly washed away into the recesses of the ecosystem until it wasn't a huge problem for humans, but still, some people developed cancers as a result of it (I could link you to videos confirming that exact thing if you want)

Anyway, my point is we really don't have enough info. How many hot particles would have been detected before Fukushima? I'm guessing it would not have been zero. When you breathe one in, what are the odds of it sticking to the lung? What things can we do to help purge these particles from our bodies, what things can we do to minimize exposure? We can't really stop this nightmare, all we can do is try to deal with it as best we can.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   
so i have a question. what is the worst case scenario & how can it affect the US & around the world?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by drsfinest72
so i have a question. what is the worst case scenario & how can it affect the US & around the world?


I've read doomsday reports that the worst-case scenario is the entire facility going critical, being un-approachable and the 6 reactors spewing so much radioactive garbage into the atmosphere that it will eventually kill all human life (and most other life) on earth. However, I have a hard time believing that without very clear math to back it up, and that math was never presented. So for the moment I'd say that's in the realm of fantasy.

The real worst-case scenario IMO is that several of the reactors will remain in a meltdown/melt-through state, spewing some level of radioactive particles/material into the atmosphere and water on a long term basis (on the order of years appears very likely.) That sustaining human life in say, 1/2 or more of Japan may become really... unwise (like many areas of the Ukraine after Chernobyl.) That Alaska, Hawaii, Canada, the US, maybe China and other countries nearer to Japan (but not directly downwind) will receive enough radioactive particles to seriously spike a wide variety of cancers, mutations in babies and still-births.

In fact, there is strong scientific evidence for me to state that even here in America, many people WILL die as a result of just what has been released so far. But when I say "many people", that is a very hard thing to put a number to. Say it's "only" 10,000 people, and their deaths will be distributed between now and 20 years from now. Are they going to really know that this caused it? Probably not. A good statistician would be able to say the effect happened, but any one person isn't going to know they breathed in a plutonium particle from Fukushima which caused their cancer.

I've been saving up a lot of good links on the topic. I suggest everyone watch the following videos, made long before this disaster, on the topic of nuclear contamination from fallout and nuclear plants, and their dramatic effect on cancer incidence:

Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass on Nuclear Contamination and Cancer "A Tsunami of Knowledge"






And I used to like the rain...
edit on 10-6-2011 by Observer99 because: Added title for video clips



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
reply to post by loam
 


Thanks for your sympathy...I'm doing fine, actually. "Going long" on Japan when everyone was freaking out and rushing for the exits has been a major win for me so far. We'll see if the luck holds up.



Hope you won't mind and excuse me for being curious mate!


But what kind of businesses is doing great in Japan when everyone else was rushing for the exits? do you mean the exit by other competing foreigners?

Did you see a chance with them being gone (a vacuum being filled - situation) - and you decided to act upon it (this opportunity?)

Sorry for asking, but this made me rather curious - what are you doing over there?

edit on 10-6-2011 by Chevalerous because: sp



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Chevalerous
 


Hi...sorry, but I'm not going to get into it. For our purposes, my only business here is reporting in to ATS from time to time with any information or photos that might be of interest. I love ATS and I feel it is my duty to let you people know if something is really different from what's being reported elsewhere. So far, I have not had any reason to do that. I also haven't really been following the Japan threads here, but this one caught my eye. So I will be taking some new measurements.

Speaking of which, within the last few hours I tested two more places, in the Azabu area. The first was a drain and the second was a kind of concrete area into which gutter water drained. I looked for places that were silt-heavy and still moist from yesterday's rain. The readings I took (at around 18:30-18:40 Japan Time). The readings were 0.36 uSv/h and 0.30 uSv/h, respectively. I find these readings unpleasantly high and I need to look into this matter more seriously.

It's raining now (or it was about 30-minutes ago) so hopefully I'll have a chance to do some fresher post-rainfall readings tonight or tomorrow AM.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   
what would be really interesting is if he had tried the same experiment with a geiger counter in his sink.
i.e., is tap water radioactive in Tokyo?
if it is, then there is a really big problem....



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   
So japan is pretty much done for now? Why are the people still there? Should they not be moving like now?

What happens in 5 years when the island is empty, do we do anything with it? Should we construct like the worlds largest landfill for the world since nobody will ever be able to repair anything?

With all the oil still in the ocean, and now radiation spewed all over the world, how much more can we, and the planet take?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Jrocbaby
 


Do you have any idea how many people are in Japan? 127,560,000. Where would they move to? You can't just move people to another country. Well over 22,000 died from the tsunami. Meanwhile silent thunder is still happily living there I see. No doubt sipping his fine wine and chilling like he was the day this all happened.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Bunny born without ears near Fukushima



the-diplomat.com...
edit on 10-6-2011 by conar because: (no reason given)


www.unscear.org...


according the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the worldwide annual natural radiation dose per individual is 2.4 mSv/year, or 0.27 μSv/hour.
edit on 10-6-2011 by conar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ItCameFromOuterSpace
Is this more radiation than what came from the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima nd Nagasaki? If not, it doesn't really seem to be a threat outside of Japan.


The atomic bombs did most of their damage through blast and thermal effects. They did produce radiation fallout, but once the bombs exploded that was it, no more radiation release.

With a reactor meltdown, the radioactive emissions and particles just keep on being emitted until somehow stopped. So in terms of radioactivity, a reactor meltdown is much worse than an atomic bomb going off. I read somewhere on the net that "A nuclear reactor leak can give off 1000 times the radiation of an atomic bomb explosion." And it just keeps on going until the leak or meltdown is contained.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 




Hi...sorry, but I'm not going to get into it.


Okey!...I certainly understand that, and I will respect that with no further questions regarding this - I was just curious!

But please keep us posted about your radiation readings - and please post if you find any divergence and discrepancies from the official readings in comparison to yours.

And if you would stumble upon something interesting, please feel free to post that information here immediately!!


Keep up the good work - thanks for keeping us informed about the situation in Tokyo!



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by soaringhawk
reply to post by Jrocbaby
 


Do you have any idea how many people are in Japan? 127,560,000. Where would they move to? You can't just move people to another country. Well over 22,000 died from the tsunami. Meanwhile silent thunder is still happily living there I see. No doubt sipping his fine wine and chilling like he was the day this all happened.


Well we can't because society has a values disorder, we value $$$ over life, human and animal.

We CAN feed the world
We CAN give education to every human being on this planet including college
We CAN stop starting wars with people that pose zero threat at all
We CAN give open arms to 127,560,000 people, but we cannot make that risk to our economies ect.

We DON'T because of the natural greed to have more money, no matter the cost to others, we take peoples homes from them if they don't have money, we don't give other humans food or water if they do not have money, we don't because that would mean someone would have to pay for it with no immediate financial gain.

You would think that taking care of your people to create healthier,happier,smarter, citizens that live longer, and can get clean food/water multiple times a day would be your #1 priority so your country can expand and flourish.

I read something that said the cost of our wars in the past decade+ could of given every american a home with free healthcare and college education.

edit on 10-6-2011 by Jrocbaby because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join