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.

 

Fukushima already ten times worse than Chernobyl

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Fukushima already ten times worse than Chernobyl in ocean waters, suggests data.


Natural News Recent readings taken roughly 19 miles out to sea from the Fukushima nuclear power facility in Japan have revealed radioisotope levels ten times higher than those measured in the Baltic and Black Seas after the massive Chernobyl disaster. Because Fukushima is much closer to water than the Chernobyl plant is, the ongoing fallout there is shaping up to be far worse than Chernobyl, at least as far as the world's oceans are concerned, and time will tell just how devastating this massive disaster will be on the entire world as radiation continues to circulate around the globe.


10 Times Worse.. yet it is getting hardly any coverage..

Because of the media blackout a lot of people seem to think that the situation has somehow resolved itself..



Various atomic experts are now in agreement that the unfolding situation in Japan truly is "as serious as it gets in a nuclear disaster." Even the Japanese government itself is now admitting the grave reality of the situation, having recently announced it will submit a report to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) explaining the details of the melt-throughs, which basically mean that radioactive fuel appears to have burned through the outer containment vessels of the reactors and have gone directly into bare earth.


To what extent could this effect the whole world? Our planet is in such a delicate balance, how disastrous could a massive level of radiation hitting the ocean be?

The BP disaster has the potential to be life threatening enough as it is and now this..

Its getting out of hand.

Natural News
edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Since Natural News also claims that HAARP caused the earthquake, I'd look for a more reliable source to interpret the data.
edit on 6/11/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Another source for the story here.

What, because its not in the MSM its not the truth?

They are reporting on data, the source doesn't matter as much as the data does.

Edit to add older sources in regards to radiation in the ocean: Here and h ere and here if you like prison planet: www.prisonplanet.com...

The level of radiation hitting the ocean is only going to continue to rise.


edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)

edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)

edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)

edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TechUnique
 


Because the MSM are not reporting this anymore we all think everything is ok. The saying goes; out of sight out of mind.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TechUnique
 


agree. atsers are funny, hating the msm in one thread but requiring it as proof in another.

this is, and has been, a massive disaster from the start and our govt has done nothing to help. we have allowed the japanes to kill off a big portion of the planet while obama golfs. just like bp.

now we cant eat from the gulf or the pacific. food shortages anyone?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TechUnique
 

Reporting on what data? That's the point. Where is the data? At least the MSM usually provides a source so that what they claim can be verified, so that the context of the statements can be seen.

The only thing we get from Natural News and other blog type "alternative news" sites is the same recycled sound bites (linked back to other "articles" on the same site) from a month ago but given a new bold headline.



edit on 6/11/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
perhaps not 10 times... think moore doubble.. in long term



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TechUnique
10 Times Worse.. yet it is getting hardly any coverage..


Yes but you have to remember that Fukushima was right next to the ocean........Chernobyl was not....so therefore it is reasonable to think that Fukishima radiation levels would be much higher than Chernobyl as far as oceans are concerned.

According to newspaper reports the total radiation estimated so far is "only" 20% of that of Chernobyl.
www.guardian.co.uk...

So your 10 times worse than Chernobyl title is somewhat misleading and dare I say alarmist.

edit on 11-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TechUnique
 

Reporting on what data? That's the point. Where is the data? At least the MSM usually provides a source so that what they claim can be verified, so that the context of the statements can be seen.

The only thing we get from Natural News and other blog type "alternative news" sites is the same recycled sound bites (linked back to other "articles" on the same site) from a month ago but given a new bold headline.



edit on 6/11/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


My point in my previous post was that there have been high levels of radiation from the Fukushima event recorded in the ocean, from 'Valid' News sources a few months ago.

Because of this, coupled with the continuation of this event it is reasonable to suggest that this event could be 20 times worse than Chernobyl even without data. Especially considering how close this is to the sea and there being 3 full meltdowns.

Instead of arguing over sources lets face facts.

There is a high level of radiation leaking into the sea. What worldwide effects can be expected and speculated and what can we do, if anything, to prepare.
edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Logical one
 


Here is a similar number, 16% - note 'leaked into the air'. Some translations and sources differentiate it from sea/ocean dose.

Jun. 11, 2011 3:19 AM ET
Anti-nuke protests in Japan, 3 months after quake
JAY ALABASTER, Associated Press

hosted2.ap.org/IDMOS/e0478123c3cf489bb836130ffdbd2b5f/Article_2011-06-11-AS-Japan-Earthquake/id-497edea632444bd7a13c437b49ecf4d4

(...)

Government reports released earlier in the week said the damage and leakage were worse than previously thought, with nuclear fuel in three reactors likely melting through their main cores and larger containment vessels. Radiation that leaked into the air amounted to about one-sixth of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986 — double previous estimates.

(...)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TechUnique
 


Instead of arguing over sources lets face facts.
Yes, let's talk about facts. You're off to a great start.

Because of this, coupled with the continuation of this event it is reasonable to say that this event could be 20 times worse than Chernobyl even without data.
Who need pesky data to jump to conclusions?


Here's what Natural News says:

Recent readings taken roughly 19 miles out to sea from the Fukushima nuclear power facility in Japan have revealed radioisotope levels ten times higher than those measured in the Baltic and Black Seas after the massive Chernobyl disaster


Here's what the original source said, from May 18.

"When it comes to the oceans, however," says Buesseler, "the impact of Fukushima exceeds Chernobyl."

Radionuclides in seawater have been reported from the Fukushima plant's discharge canals, from coastal waters five to ten kilometers south of the plant, and from 30 kilometers offshore.

"Levels of some radionuclides are at least an order of magnitude higher than the highest levels in 1986 in the Baltic and Black Seas, the two ocean water bodies closest to Chernobyl," says Buesseler.

www.nsf.gov...

It does not say "Fukushima is ten times worse than Chernobyl". It says the impact exceeds Chernobyl.

It does not say that radioisotope levels ten times greater than Chernobyl were found 19 miles out to sea. It does not say where those levels were found. It does not say which radioisotopes were at those levels. It does not say what those levels were. What "impact" was there on the Black Sea? Ten times a low level of contamination does not mean a high level of contamination.

Yes, much of the radioactive material from the Fukushima reactors will end up in the Pacific Ocean rather than on land as it did from Chernobyl. The situation is bad enough without the overblown alarmist distortion.


edit on 6/11/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TechUnique

There is a high level of radiation leaking into the sea. What worldwide effects can be expected and speculated and what can we do, if anything, to prepare.
edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)


You have to remember that nuclear bombs were routinely tested in the ocean by the US only a few decades ago.
And much waste radiation gets dumped at sea......who knows how much has already been leaked into the ocean already.

Radiation levels will also dilute in water.

That is not to say the situation shouldn't be monitored though, but it's too early even for radiation experts to speculate on long term effects if any.
Rest assured though a team of scientist have been sent to the region to study the impact on the ocean

www.miamiherald.com...

So I say let them do their job before speculating too much.


edit on 11-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join