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

reply to post by boncho

Fair enough, as I said, the milk was an example of detectability, not danger, and it was cited from this vid. My point with the Dr. Kaku's report was to address the notion of whether radiation harm done abroad and specifically here on the west coast is genuine, now or potentially. 'Minimal' was the word used. Additionally, the fact of media mis-info, for whatever reason, is part of the debacle.

reply to post by adeclerk


acually i am in favour of flywheels and energy recycling systems like some F1 cars have,
and in new zealand we are nuclear free

totally nuclear free

and in no time the tech will be in cars
and with assistence from power generation tech
make it posable to both reduce carbon but to also lessen demand on the grid
the oil company shell has sold their petrol stations all over the country
do you wounder if they know something we dont?

nuclear is yesterdays technology and is a toxic legacy our ansestors will endure

people say there is no alternative
does anyone keep up with science?
there is no longer a need for nuclear

the govenments own policies steer us in that direction
nuclear (tarted up as green) but very dangerous
or acual green tech
think about that for a second
the new superconducting engines for large ships

ALL the caculations that say Nuclear is better is based on yesterdays tech
ALL of the danger for older plants based on yesterdays (60 year old) designs
and the older they get the worse it will be
look at UE they cant pay for chernobil to be repaired and "recovered"

and we are to asume over time they wont cut corners

Nuclear Free New Zealand asks its big brother America
Please Go Nuclear Free
xploder

reply to post by adeclerk

Sounds like I'm hitting some kinda nerve so you're pulling out the sheeple card. What's next, I'm a disinfo agent?

You wish......

The lack of intelligence and maturity displayed in some of your posts and threads indicates you are of the "troll" variety.

we dont need or want nuclear

Solar energy is fine when the sun is shining. But what about at night or when it is cloudy? To be truly useful, sunshine must be converted to a form of energy that can be stored for use when the sun is hiding.

The notion of using sunshine to split water into oxygen and storable hydrogen fuel has been championed by clean-energy advocates for decades, but stubborn challenges have prevented adoption of an otherwise promising technology.

A team of Stanford researchers may have solved one of the most vexing scientific details blocking us from such a clean-energy future.

The team, led by materials science engineer Paul McIntyre and chemist Christopher Chidsey, has devised a robust silicon-based solar electrode that shows remarkable endurance in the highly corrosive environment inherent in the process of splitting water.

source

and this is one of many interesting new techs

xploder

I've read most of the comments, and after about an hour it dawned of me... The Source being myself... lol but can't all this radiation about the plants just be a cover up for what the cell phones have done, and to make it so that proof is contaminated?

reply to post by boncho


I wish I had the power to applaud you but I just wanted to thank you for pointing out how ridiculous the source in the OP was. Surely, if millions of people were to die we would have heard about it by now, and I don't think a doctor practicing in oriental medicine is capable to make judgment calls like this. This is why more people need to do source-checking, as you've said! It is incredibly crucial to having intelligent discussion! Nice work!

I'm currently reading through and am on page 8, but I wanted to post a couple of things to be pondered over whilst I get caught up.

The potential danger of exposure to plutonium was recognized early in 1944 by its discoverer, Glenn Seaborg. He was aware of the similarity of the radioactive properties of plutonium and radium and of the extreme toxicity of the latter element which caused bone cancer in man after deposition of microgram quantities in the body.

I don't think you can get much more credible a source than the discoverer of plutonium as to it's toxicity.

When milligram quantities of plutonium first became available to Los Alamos chemists and metallurgists, efforts to live with what was considered to be safe contamination levels were hampered by the fact that portable alpha counters and continuous air samplers had not yet been developed.

This is the basis for a common misconception many people have, plutonium, an alpha emitter, will not register on a normal Geiger counter, you have to have very specialized equipment to even detect it; which Tepco did not have at the beginning of this madness.

To evaluate the possible consequences of bone doses of this magnitude, we must refer to animal data, particularly that in dogs given plutonium intravenously. The oldest and most extensive of these studies has been carried out at the University of Utah Medical School.

Beagles, it breaks my heart, but the knowledge gathered is invaluable.

However, we do know that the tumor incidence decreases and the time required for tumors to develop increases as the amount of plutonium injected i s reduced.

Sounds like a pretty direct correlation to me, but what do I know?

These observations have prompted numerous investigators to predict no adverse biological effects ( e . g . , practical threshold) below certain levels of injected plutonium. This point has not been accepted by everyone and has not been proven unequivocally for alpha-emitting radionuclides.

So, they had dissenters even then saying that radiation was not harmful despite the evidence readily apparent.

However, these animal data must be interpreted with caution, as lung tumor incidence is essentially 100 percent at the lowest plutonium exposure levels.

What's that you say?

Is that ONE HUNDRED PERCENT?

Ok, I thought so, just checking...

In man, Langham estimated 100 rads to the lung as a completely empirical judgment as to a level "at or above which biological consequences may ensue in a small population of limited distribution."

What does that equate to in terms we can grasp? I am asking for some help on this one, a break down of the energy related to quantity of plutonium needed to produce said amount would be great here.

Source for above quotes. Research Org LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LAB., N. MEX.

Granted this is for plutonium workers in the Manhattan Project, so it is a given that they would be exposed to a concentrated amount for an extended period, though the I don't think you can get much more credible a source for the DANGERS of plutonium than this.

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by jimnuggits
It is more than apparent who you are, and what your motivation is.

Who am I? Why don't you share these details on the board?

Originally posted by jimnuggits
To say that there is no real data in that post is about as transparent as you can be.

Where is it? Link, source, etc. Please.

Originally posted by jimnuggits
No amount of money is worth selling your soul, friend.

Hell, I wish there was money in debunking. It's a thankless job, unfortunately. If I lead just one person away from ignorance, I'll be happy.

Wow, the ignorant wanting to lead the ignorant? You should run for political office, maybe POTUS is your calling?? You could probably even continue to receive your mental health tax credit in a position like that.

“The answers to life's problems aren't at the bottom of a bottle, they're on TV!”
Homer Simpson

reply to post by Mdv2


Where is the report that this doctor released? It does not exist. Radiation can be measured by an idiot like me so I imagine a doctor could do the same. No data, no report= HOAX!!!!! The radiation levels near the plant are much less than the levels of the average airplane flight anywhere. Millions more will die from flying.

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by Mdv2

 

Where is the report that this doctor released? It does not exist. Radiation can be measured by an idiot like me so I imagine a doctor could do the same. No data, no report= HOAX!!!!! The radiation levels near the plant are much less than the levels of the average airplane flight anywhere. Millions more will die from flying.

Wow, calling hoax already? And you've measured the levels near the plant yourself? Or maybe you're taking someone's word for that information? So where is YOUR proof to back up these 'claims' that levels are 'much less than the average airplane flight'? Surely there's no way the only company that could possible provide that information and has admittedly lied about the true severity of the problem since day one would ever under-report the radiation levels there.

Perhaps you'd like to move your family a little closer to the plant, maybe the extra rads would be good for your health?

Well, at least you did admit 'an idiot like me' so you do you know your limitations.

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by Mdv2

 

Snip

The radiation levels near the plant are much less than the levels of the average airplane flight anywhere. Millions more will die from flying.

This is from April, so it is a bit dated, but let's compare:

This conversion chart will help

The highest rates were 0.66 mrem per hour during a Paris-Tokyo flight and 0.97 mrem per hour on the Concorde in 1996-1997.

Source

That would be:

1 mrem = 10uSv
10x0.97=9.7uSv

Looking at that map I see three readings that are above that amount, which was taken over two months ago at this point so it in by now quie a few more areas would read at greater amounts due to the fact that the plant has been CONTONUOUSLY spewing radioactive contamination into the surrounding atmosphere. Not toe tikn the Pacific ocean.

Originally posted by buskey

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by Mdv2

 

Where is the report that this doctor released? It does not exist. Radiation can be measured by an idiot like me so I imagine a doctor could do the same. No data, no report= HOAX!!!!! The radiation levels near the plant are much less than the levels of the average airplane flight anywhere. Millions more will die from flying.

Wow, calling hoax already? And you've measured the levels near the plant yourself? Or maybe you're taking someone's word for that information? So where is YOUR proof to back up these 'claims' that levels are 'much less than the average airplane flight'? Surely there's no way the only company that could possible provide that information and has admittedly lied about the true severity of the problem since day one would ever under-report the radiation levels there.

Perhaps you'd like to move your family a little closer to the plant, maybe the extra rads would be good for your health?

Well, at least you did admit 'an idiot like me' so you do you know your limitations.

edit on 22-6-2011 by buskey because: (no reason given)

I did take a course in the Air Force, designed for idiots, on radiological monitoring. People with thier own "gieger counters" are all over the US and they have not found the dangerous levels the fearmongerers claim. I would post the graph I saw of comperable levels of radiation, but it could be labled a hoax also. If you are so frightened by radiation you might want to move your family several hundred miles from any xray machine. But then, there is the sun's radiation. Looks like you have no safe place on earth to live, or maybe you are exaggerating the risk a bit. I cannot find this report.

reply to post by jadedANDcynical


The average from your map is lower than the average from high altitude flight. This proves my point, does it not? I don't mean to underplay the severity of this disaster, but the radiation is not as hot as many think it is. there is the problem of particles getting on or in people, that would never really happen with solar radiation while flying. Nasty Fukashima stuff, but it is not going to kill millions.

After reading what this prolific fearmongering doctor has spewed out, I belive he is a danger to children, even more than the radiation from Japan. He is catering to the ignorant and dismissing decades of legitimate research with outright lies. He should be arrested.
imva.info...
He just wants your money.

reply to post by earthdude



It is absolutely fallacious to compare background radiation to fallout.

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by jadedANDcynical

 

The average from your map is lower than the average from high altitude flight. This proves my point, does it not? I don't mean to underplay the severity of this disaster, but the radiation is not as hot as many think it is. there is the problem of particles getting on or in people, that would never really happen with solar radiation while flying. Nasty Fukashima stuff, but it is not going to kill millions.

Let's look at some current readings shall we?

Masanori Monma, principal of the Kashima Elementary School in Minami Soma, borrowed a portable Geiger counter from the science ministry. Last month, he got a reading of 2.1 microsieverts an hour at a ditch next to a school flowerbed, about 35 times higher than in downtown Tokyo and at the top end of the annual safety limit for radiation exposure.

Source


Compare that to this:

Average individual background radiation dose: 0.23μSv/h (0.00023mSv/h); 0.17μSv/h for Australians, 0.34μSv/h for Americans[6][11][12] The hourly doses are 1.6μSv/h (0.0016mSv/h, equivalent to 14mSv/year) in the city of Fukushima and 0.062μSv/h (0.000062mSv/h, equivalent to 0.54mSv/year) in Tokyo as of May 25, 2011.[13] Highest reported level during Fukushima accident: 204 Sv/h for the gas/steam inside the primary containment (drywell) of one of the reactors (note the reading is not micro or milli Sv, but Sv/h). [14]

Wiki

So we are looking at levels that are around 9x(rounded down) background radiation, not even taking into consideration that background is different than internal ionizing radiation or indistrial/bioaccumulation.

The radioactive particulates will disperse far and wide, being scattered on the wind and ocean currents; some areas will acquire more than others, this is nothing near a universally equal diostribution of fission byproducts.

The reactors still are not contained in any form or fashion. Nor will they be in any kind of near time frame.


Let me ask you a question, if I were to light a campfire in a football stadium and tell you you could safely stand in the flames and not get burned because the average temperature of the stadium would not be appreciably affected, would you do so?

Then think about this. As a result of the random nature of the diffusion (NOT dilution) of the radioactive particles, there will be random hotspots and you would have no idea one was forming around you.

It's a long slow burn man.

ETA: and then here's this:
60km from Fukushima : 81 uSv/hr or 800+ times acceptable levels of radiation

The question is why?

Why is this happening?

Is it a retaliatory attack for what haarp did to japan?

Originally posted by BanMePlz
Is it a retaliatory attack for what haarp did to japan?

Yes, yes it is. Japan is angry that HAARP is gently heating the ionosphere. So they are sending their irradiated fish our way.

Im ignoring the fool above me, you can see why.

Anyway.

Its possible that the facility was hacked.

Or they have a scalar weapon of their own, hence the flooding around the reactors.

It doesnt seem like a coincidence but rather a retaliatory attack.

Either that, or they could be destroying the earth because they know when the E.T.'s come they will lose. So they will drop the cupcake and step on it before they give it up.