Prestigious doctor: US nuclear 'Baby valley of death,' Millions to die

page: 13
139
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


I'm sorry Aeons. that last reply was supposed to be addressed to Angelic.
My Bad

But just the same, I think I see our problem. Your speaking in terms of post disaster.
See I'm thinking that it was no mistake to build these plants where they did. Pre disaster.
Then they just let time or possibly some new technology to come along and take it's course.
edit on 21-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Diablo

edit on 21-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Unfortunately there is no way to stop the release of particles with known solutions, and even more unfortunately there is nothing an individual can do in a normal life to prepare or protect themselves. I suppose some people might like to go hibernate in a cave for a couple of hundred years, but short of that we are really pretty helpless.

Supposedly it cannot be entombed like chernobyl.

I have said in other threads, I believe every university physics and engineering student should be tapped for innovative solutions and "out-of-box" thinking, but at this moment there is no solution and there is nothing you can do to protect yourself.


ok you want to talk solutions
1. build large numbers of gas or air centrifuges station them at fukishima and "downstream" to remove particulates from the air
2, build large numbers of water centrifuges station them off the coast from fukishima and filter all sea water in the area
3, de ionizers to "shake" the particles out of the atmosphere and robotic "surface clearners"

if we think we just have to sit here and wait we are wrong
a company developed water centrifuges to remove oil from water and with a few mods and alot of help we could "mass produce" these and develop air centrifuges and start to purify our world

to not try is crazy

xploder



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


Did you notice how the radiation chart went DOWN after Fukushima? It's a conspiracy.


Doesn't change the fact that you posted simulations. What is your incentive for scaremongering?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


Did you notice how the radiation chart went DOWN after Fukushima? It's a conspiracy.


Doesn't change the fact that you posted simulations. What is your incentive for scaremongering?


questions
what is your incentive for downplaying the data?
would you rather we just "pretended" that this will have no effect?
how much plutonium would be required to poisen every human on earth?
how much was released in the hydrogen explosions?

i feel you are being obtuce and by downplaying the accident weather you realise this or not
WE ALL BREATHE THE SAME AIR
so this means you are also at risk here

why are you so motivated to label anyone as a scare monger ?
is the truth to much for you to bear?

the truth is you have your head in the sand
the nuclear industry has sentinced us all
and you seem to want to ecuse the death of millions if not billions of people

if you are paid in any way to preform this "debunk" you are infact culpable in these deaths

BABYS DIE FIRST
then the rest of us

xploder



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


Did you notice how the radiation chart went DOWN after Fukushima? It's a conspiracy.


Doesn't change the fact that you posted simulations. What is your incentive for scaremongering?


questions
what is your incentive for downplaying the data?
would you rather we just "pretended" that this will have no effect?
how much plutonium would be required to poisen every human on earth?
how much was released in the hydrogen explosions?

i feel you are being obtuce and by downplaying the accident weather you realise this or not
WE ALL BREATHE THE SAME AIR
so this means you are also at risk here

why are you so motivated to label anyone as a scare monger ?
is the truth to much for you to bear?

the truth is you have your head in the sand
the nuclear industry has sentinced us all
and you seem to want to ecuse the death of millions if not billions of people

if you are paid in any way to preform this "debunk" you are infact culpable in these deaths

BABYS DIE FIRST
then the rest of us

xploder

I'm not downplaying the fact that there is no risk to North America. The only risk was to the Fukushima 50, stop fearmongering.

I guess that's what keeps TPTB in charge, keeping the stupid fearful.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


See, putting a reactor close to a water source makes some sense. I'll give that much.

Not having a back up generator because one expects that their power grid is invicible - that's just arrogant.

What I like about Daiichi now is that is has sunk several feet on the coast line. If another big shaker happens, I'd like to understand how anyone thinks they'll maintain containment when the reactors are under water.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


ok last time
how much mox was stored ABOVE the reactors?
when the hydrogen explosions occoured what did they "spray" into the environment?
how much plutonium would be required to poisen the entire world?
how much is that per person?

WHY DO YOU IGNORE THESE QUESTIONS
i expect an answer from you

xploder



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
See, putting a reactor close to a water source makes some sense. I'll give that much.

Now you're talking some sense.

Originally posted by Aeons
Not having a back up generator because one expects that their power grid is invicible - that's just arrogant.

Yes, it's soooo arrogant to not have a backup generator for a water pump in a power generating station. Thanks anyway, General Electric.

Originally posted by Aeons
What I like about Daiichi now is that is has sunk several feet on the coast line. If another big shaker happens, I'd like to understand how anyone thinks they'll maintain containment when the reactors are under water.

Simple, they would just put wall structures to section off a bay where the plant is. It would actually be pretty logical, like a free, giant spent fuel tank that would be VERY efficient at containing the radiation.

Fear, fear, fear.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 



I'm not downplaying the fact that there is no risk to North America. The only risk was to the Fukushima 50, stop fearmongering.

I guess that's what keeps TPTB in charge, keeping the stupid fearful.


i counter you statment with
if the people really knew the facts here
they would take to the street and demand the truth
and anyone who was involved with this COVER UP
would be equally as hated

so self presevation is now considered stupid
ANYONE NOT UNDERSTANDING THE INFORMATION
please post to me and i will do what i can

your GO BACK TO SLEEP SHEEP attitude is really getting me angry

please answer the questions in my last post

xploder



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


here is a idea of how "safe these things really are

BRACEVILLE, Ill. – Radioactive tritium has leaked from three-quarters of U.S. commercial nuclear power sites, often into groundwater from corroded, buried piping, an Associated Press investigation shows.

The number and severity of the leaks has been escalating, even as federal regulators extend the licenses of more and more reactors across the nation.

Tritium, which is a radioactive form of hydrogen, has leaked from at least 48 of 65 sites, according to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission records reviewed as part of the AP's yearlong examination of safety issues at aging nuclear power plants. Leaks from at least 37 of those facilities contained concentrations exceeding the federal drinking water standard — sometimes at hundreds of times the limit.


link to ap source

so how safe is this tech?
how can you deny ignorence and not read this and answer some questions
1. how safe can it be if leaks are the norm?
how much radiation do you accept as "safe"
do you really understand the dangers

i expect an answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you spout crap and dont answer the questions

xploder



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 





See, putting a reactor close to a water source makes some sense. I'll give that much.


And I'm all agreeable to that. So construction of a plant includes a manmade reservior. Not the pacific.

I can only see the construction of these plants, on fault lines, in the path of potential tsunamis, as a crime of negligible intent. I mean what, did they just suddenly decide all the tsunamis in history were over ? Nothing but calm seas ahead ?
edit on 21-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by undo
 


Explanation: I wouldn't have any clue as to that as I didn't base any of my equations on any such data sets.

I approached the situation in an idealized and global manner as much as I could.

I used the acute deaths from radiation sickness data from Chernobyl as a known case of deaths from an event such as Fukushima is.

That gave me a very basic baseline of garanteed deaths world wide from the Chernobyl event.


There's where your first error came. Winds move material about, and not all material gets distributed evenly over the globe... or handed to every individual person on the globe. So most of it would move within local air masses and (since it's heavier than air) fairly rapidly fall out of the atmosphere. If it gets to the ocean, it goes to local and some global ocean currents.

Distribution follows the inverse square law. So if you're 2 miles away, the dosage is 1/4th (not 1/2) of what it would be at ground zero. If you're 3 miles away, it's 1/8th.

Etc.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Byrd
 


not to mention how a bad economy effects mortality rates, as people without work tend to have various issues, such as depression related issues and nutrition related issues (pregnant women are supposed to eat well but if they don't have money or access to programs that allow them to buy proper food (such as the wic program)) that may effect infant mortality rates


That, too. I also thought about temporary (migrant) workers -- including ones who are there legally.

In addition, the data they selected does NOT show what the children died from. If you search for some articles (I searched for Sacramento, April, 2011) I see information on children being accidentally suffocated while sleeping with an adult. At least one of those deaths was a homicide police report here

A second was SIDS or "not suspicious" in any case

Radiation deaths follow a very identifiable process. These... people who wrote the "paper" (I hesitate to give it that title) apparently don't know how to identify radiation poisoning (suspicious in someone claiming to be a physician), don't know how to check CDC reports, have no idea how to correlate local CDC reports with things like, oh... a lot of flu in the area (which causes infant deaths.)

This is just "scare tactics" and it's frankly unethical.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2

Prestigious doctor: US nuclear 'Baby valley of death,' Millions to die



www.examiner.com

Sunday, the prestigious Doctor Mark Sircus released a new report concurring with a host of scientists and other doctors giving evidence that people of Japan and United States have been subjected to dangerous levels of radiation since Fukushima nuclear plant meltdowns, and also subjected to a tight cover-up by authorities and media, the result of which will be millions of baby deaths and new cancer victims.
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 20-6-2011 by Mdv2 because: (no reason given)
edit on Mon Jun 20 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: attempt to fix title


This may sound silly but I have been noticing my dogs breathing while outside is much more labored. He's had all his shots and has never been this way before.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Aeons
 


well didn't they use more than one kind of nuclear bomb in their tests?


Nope. U235 was the only thing they were using back then.


Not to nitpick, but (I am).


Test: MET
Time: 19:15 15 April 1955 (GMT)
11:15 15 April 1955 (PST)
Location: Nevada Test Site (NTS), Frenchman Flats
Test Height and Type: 400 Foot Tower Shot
Yield: 22 kt


MET stands either for "Military Effects Test" or "Military Effects Tower" (according to Frank Shelton). This was a LASL test of a composite U-233/plutonium bomb core (the first test by the U.S. to use U-233) in a Mk 7 HE assembly. The 30 inch diameter spherical implosion system weighed 800 lb.

The primary purpose was to evaluate the destructive effects of nuclear explosions for military purposes. For this reason, the DOD specified that a device must be used that had a yield calibrated to within +/- 10%, and the Buster Easy device design was selected (this test gave 31 kt and used a plutonium/U-235 core). LASL weapon designers however decided to conduct a weapon design experiment with this shot, and unbeknownst to the test effect personnel substituted the untried U-233 core.
1



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


You made a very informative post. One that shows the EPA has been monitoring the situation (While implying I suppose, they are lying about it?)

As I said, an informative post, did you want to compare all the research you did against the data available from Chernobyl so you can predict something from all this?

Because everything you posted has little meaning otherwise.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 



We have both covered the good doctor's essay.

She is an activist and the other person in the OP article has been paid for by the anti-nuclear lobby.

The primary thing wrong with the good doctor's numbers is that she failed to pin the new deaths against the live birth rate. Which would have given us a percentage of children that died.

So if more children were born in the second statistic, it could have been a lower mortality rate.

Fear mongering, at it's best.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Byrd
 


thanks for that info. what is the difference between it and say the stuff
coming out of fukishima?


Well, there's a lot less coming out of Fukushima than came out of Hiroshima's bomb. For a basic rundown on how a nuclear power plant works, look at this "How Stuff Works" link. Most radiation is very short-lived, and a lot of it can't actually pass through a few layers of paper or tinfoil. Only a few of the particles can travel long distances and penetrate things like concrete bunkers.

So... if you had, say, 100 particles come out of a reaction, you'd get about twice as many fragments of short-lived radioactive elements (like strontium), a small number of gamma rays (capable of doing damage), a small number of beta and alpha particles (which can't penetrate buildings) The inverse square law would apply, so if you had 100 gamma rays at ground zero and they fan out 360 degrees -- and measured the amount of radiation at 1 foot away, you might have a significant number of particles hit your surface. But two feet away and the number hitting you is 1/4th that of 1 foot away. 3 feet away is 1/8th the amount. 4 feet away is 1/16th the amount.

You're in more danger from a volcanic explosion with dust impacting the amount of water absorption and changing local weather patterns.

I grew up in the era when they tested nuclear bombs above ground. If you're curious, eyeball the stats of the towns around Alamogordo, New Mexico, which was a nuclear testing ground for awhile and where they deliberately fired off a number of nuclear bombs. Use those stats for a baseline.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Bachrk


This may sound silly but I have been noticing my dogs breathing while outside is much more labored. He's had all his shots and has never been this way before.

 


If you live somewhere seasonal, it could be a good indication that summer has arrived. Or yes maybe it's the radiation...



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


It makes no sense. Tokyo is earthquake and storm proof. The skill that went into the design and construction of the city is cutting edge, and really does show how far we have advanced technologically. Then they go and build nuclear reactors on unstable ground?





top topics
 
139
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join