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.
From your link.
You forgot part of the quote of the disclaimer on NILU’s site: “The products should be considered informational and only indicate ‘worst case scenario’ releases. From what we’ve learned recently, it seems releases of this magnitude have not yet occurred. “
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by thorfourwinds
On the simulations you are posting there used to be a disclaimer on the site apparently:
From your link.
You forgot part of the quote of the disclaimer on NILU’s site: “The products should be considered informational and only indicate ‘worst case scenario’ releases. From what we’ve learned recently, it seems releases of this magnitude have not yet occurred. “
You can learn more about NILU stopping their simulator here, from the boys at Berkeley.
They are in the Nuclear program at Berkeley and they have been monitoring air tests Here.
Seeing that 90% of your position is built of NILU data which is simulation data and not actual data. You argument is pretty weak. I suggest a revamp.
Originally posted by Shadowalker
reply to post by boncho
Its a byproduct of the reaction that is still going on within the melted reactor cores. There is your answer. It will continue to exhaust as well as all of the noble gasses as long as they try to cool the cores with seawater. Those gasses had nothing to do with the explosions. I hope you know that or your a bigger rube than people think you are.
I'm done with you Boncho. Your 'edumacation' is shoddy and your circular argument is off topic and flawed at every step. Didn't you just post your big test? think on that.
1
According to the research team, updrafts in a low-pressure system passing over the disaster-stricken Tohoku region on March 14-15 carried some of the radioactive dust that had collected about 1.5 kilometers above the plant to an altitude of about 5 kilometers. The jet stream then caught the dust and diffused it over the Pacific Ocean and beyond.
What was his argument and how is it weak?
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by muzzleflash
What was his argument and how is it weak?
Unless his argument was, "I have simulations that are not based on real data, look at them". The argument is weak.
You do not even know my position on the issue. If you are assuming you do, you are probably wrong.
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by thorfourwinds
(...)
Seeing that 90% of your position is built of NILU data which is simulation data and not actual data. You argument is pretty weak. I suggest a revamp.
PLEASE KEEP TESTING
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-05-06 19:32.
I want to second, third and fourth this request. PLEASE, you are all we have since the EPA has decided that this is a "non-event." The best that we may get with the EPA is a retrospective that will only be of value as a "lesson learned."
I can "read" it now...."In hindsight, so-and-so from the EPA admits that the May 2011 decision to stop additional testing of water, milk and other food products in the US, including those products that come from some of America's most agriculturally productive regions, and which were most affected by the radiation plumes, was probably premature given the ongoing nature of the radioactive emissions from Fukushima..."
Radiation levels detected at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan rise to the highest levels yet hitting 1.2 sieverts per hour as TEPCO announced that it may not be able to follow through with the 9 month plan to stop the radiation leaking from the Fukushima nuclear reactor in Japan.
A nuclear engineering professor from Kyoto adds that depending on the source of the high levels the plan to entomb the reactor to permanently end the radiation leak may not work at all. That statement echoes similar sentiments from nuclear expert Arnie Gunderson.
For conversion purposes, 1.12 seiverts per hour = 1,120 millsieverts pert hour = 1,120,000 microsieverts per hour.
More simply 1 sievert = 1000 millisievert = 1,000,000 microsieverts
Nuclear reaction could have restarted
As Nature News’ Geoff Brumfiel reports, workers went into the unit recently “to recalibrate some of the sensors on the reactor.” Much to their surprise and dismay, they found that the core experienced a total meltdown.
The zirconium alloy tubes that hold the uranium fuel pellets during normal operation all warped and the uranium is now lying at the bottom of the pressure vessel, or possibly even outside of it in the basement below or outside the concrete containment building.
With all the fuel piled up at the bottom, there is some danger that the nuclear reaction could have restarted. As of now, engineers on the scene aren’t sure what happened.
[...] Reactor restart? [...]
Some have theorized that with all the fuel at the bottom of the vessel, unit 1 may have actually restarted its nuclear reactions. If that had happened, the fuel would be pumping out some portion of its normal 1380 megawatts of thermal power—probably enough to melt through the thick steal reactor pressure vessel. It would have dropped onto a concrete slab below (the basemat), where it would have hopefully been spread out, effectively diffusing the chain reaction. [...]
[A] note from the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF) quotes Banri Kaieda, the nation’s Economy, Trade and Industry Minister, as saying that it is “a fact” that there were holes created by the meltdown. That would likely mean at least some of the uranium fuel is now lying on the basemat below, or perhaps even outside the concrete containment.
[...]
more
And like the No. 1 reactor, the melted fuel appears to have created holes in the pressure vessel of the No. 3 reactor, according to the data of Tokyo Electric Power Co. released May 16. [...]
At the No. 3 reactor, the melted fuel may have burned through the pressure vessel to the containment vessel, the data showed. [...]
According to the data, the pressure in the pressure vessel of the No. 2 reactor dropped at 6:43 p.m. on March 15. A similar drop in pressure also took place at the No. 3 reactor at 11:50 p.m. on March 16.
Those declines were apparently the result of holes made in the pressure vessels. [...] it appears that melted nuclear fuel formed new holes in the pressure vessels. [...]
Radioactive materials, such as technetium, produced when nuclear fuel rods are damaged, have been detected in water in the No. 3 reactor building. That discovery has raised speculation that the melted nuclear fuel has breached the pressure vessel and landed in the containment vessel.
more
Data shows meltdowns occurred at the No. 2 and No. 3 reactors of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, creating huge problems for the plant operator that had presented a more optimistic scenario. [...]
Goshi Hosono, special adviser to Prime Minister Naoto Kan, acknowledged the likelihood of meltdowns at the No. 2 and No. 3 reactors.
“We have to assume that meltdowns have taken place,” Hosono said at a news conference May 16. [...]
“When highly contaminated water was found at the No. 2 reactor building in late March, we recognized that a meltdown had taken place. So I informed the government,” [Haruki Madarame, chairman of the Nuclear Safety Commission] said. [...]
TEPCO had said it believed that only a portion of the nuclear fuel rods had melted. Now, it appears that all parts of the fuel rods have melted. [...]
more
Pressure Vessel is “completely broken” says Kyoto U. nuclear professor
[...]
Research Reactor Institute, Kyoto University Professor Akira Hiroshi Koide is “If 冷Yasenaku loss of power in the reactor can lead to early meltdown should have been able to assume.’s TEPCO it has limited fuel damage The description will be completely mistaken.. too late publication of the data well, “he said.
TEPCO In this analysis, “damaging the pressure vessel is not large,” but explained, Assistant Professor Koide the “pressure vessel is completely broken, a hole in the bottom of the vessel containing the molten fuel, reactor are causing a large amount of contaminated water leaking in the basement of the building “to estimate. [...]
[...] According to TEPCO, the data analysis shows that damage to the RPV is not extensive. However, (Hiroaki Koide of Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute) thinks “The RPV has been completely damaged, the melted core bore a hole at the bottom of the Containment Vessel, causing the large amount of contaminated water to leak into the ground beneath the reactor building.” [...]
BEIJING, May 17 (Xinhuanet) -- The operator of the Fukushima Nuclear plant, TEPCO, says it's trying to determine whether the facility was actually damaged by the earthquake on March 11th, rather than the resulting tsunami.
TEPCO also says fuel rods in the facility's number one reactor have completely melted down.
A spokesman for TEPCO has outlined a new analysis of the crisis.
A review of data suggests the number 1 reactor's fuel rods were fully exposed within five hours of the quake, causing them to heat rapidly.
By the next morning - just 16 hours later - the rods had largely melted down. If the new data analysis is correct, it means the facility was mainly damaged by the quake itself - NOT the resulting tsunami, as previously thought.
The No. 2 and No. 3 reactors are thought to have gone through a similar process, but with only 30 percent damage to their fuel rods.
TEPCO has now decided to send a new team inside the plant to check the accuracy of the findings.
In response, Prime Minister Naoto Kan told Japan's parliament that the company will release an updated timetable for resolving the crisis on Tuesday.
But Kan said stabilization of the reactors would still be limited to within six to nine months.
The new findings come as Japan on Friday ordered residents outside the established thirty-kilometer exclusion zone to leave their homes. Around 8-thousand people are to be relocated by the end of the month.
(Source: CNTV.cn)
more
I recently programmed an application to pull all of the EPA radiation monitoring graphs for all major US cities and complied them into an easy to use web interface. Of course we took the data being reported with a grain of salt under the suspicion that the Feds were fiddling with the results.
Now, an investigative report looking into why the much of the EPA radiation monitoring equipment was offline when the Fukushima nuclear meltdown occurred reveals that EPA has in fact rigged radiation monitoring equipment to report lower values of radiation.
RadNet – the EPA’s front-line, radiological detection network is severely flawed and suffers from maintenance and reliability issues.
The lack of consistent data and the number of units offline (a techie term for broken) at the time they were most needed shows that the EPA was not prepared for this emergency.
Besides that fact the broken system left us all unprotected; the confusion, apprehension and fear witnessed as people try to wade through the incomplete and inaccurate data online is evidenced by an exchange on the UC Berkely website over this RadNet graph:
The graph shows that this monitoring station was one of the units actually running on 3/11.
The readings were significantly higher prior to 3/11 and drop to a much lower level afterwards.
This is an indication that the units were running in an uncalibrated condition and were adjusted only after the events at Fukushima.
Environmental Dimensions, Inc (EDI) has provided maintenance for EPA’s RadNet monitoring systems under a sole-source contract which can be viewed at the end of this article. The base amount of the contract is $238,000.00. This does not include materials and travel, which is billed back to the government as needed.
The contract was awarded to what is stated as a “Woman-owned 8(a) Small Disadvantaged Business“. The disadvantaged woman in this case is EDI company president Patricia S. Bradshaw, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense appointed by George Bush.
Environmental Dimensions, inc. (EDi), provides quality environmental technical support services to: the Department of Energy (DOE) and its National Laboratories; US Army Corps of Engineers; Bureau of Indian Affairs; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and other government and commercial entities across the nation.
EDi is a woman-owned, small disadvantaged business with over 20 years of experience and a proven track record for delivering superior project management and other related technical support services.
Our success is based on our goal to not just meet our client’s expectations, but to exceed them! This is solidified by having a complete understanding of our client’s needs and having the ability to respond to those needs in a timely manner.
We credit our ability to do so through our management’s commitment to recruit and maintain highly qualified staff. EDi is a small business with prime contracting and subcontracting experience. EDi’s professional project managers possess many years of experience delivering superior project management for multi-faceted projects.
Over our many years of doing business, we have amassed a strong reputation for on-time delivery in the following areas of expertise:
• Program Development
• Project Management
• Waste Management
• Radiological Support Services
• Site/Facility Characterization
• Decontamination & Decommissioning
• Beryllium Support Services
• Maintenance and Operations
• Instrument Rental, Calibration, and Repair
• Other Technical Support Services
RadNet Overview
RadNet is a national network of monitoring stations that regularly collect air, precipitation, drinking water, and milk samples for analysis of radioactivity. The network has been operating continuously since 1973 and has been used to track environmental releases of radioactivity from nuclear weapons tests and nuclear accidents and to document the status and trends of environmental radioactivity. Data collected by RadNet and more detailed information on the RadNet system can be found at www.epa.gov... Another source of RadNet data, including a searchable database, is www.epa.gov...
Air Monitoring
The RadNet CDX Web site focuses on air monitoring. Air monitoring stations are sited throughout the United States, designed to detect and record various types of airborne radiation. RadNet has been upgraded to provide near real-time monitoring, and EPA continues to expand the network each year. The RadNet air network uses two different types of monitors: fixed (stationary) and deployable (mobile).
1. Fixed Air Monitors: Permanently mounted and continuously operating, each fixed monitor contains a high-volume air sampler, gamma and beta radiation detectors, and a computer that controls the monitor and sends data to a central database at least once an hour. The individual detectors within each monitor can discriminate between different types of radiation, including those that are naturally occurring. See the left side of Figure 1.
2. Deployable Air Monitors: Deployable monitors are portable and can be used for exercises and for rapid deployment in response to real events. The monitors have high- and low-volume air samplers, a gamma radiation level monitor, a data logger, and telecommunication systems that send data to the central database. Although deployable monitors do not discriminate the energy of gamma radiation, they do provide gamma exposure rates. See the right side of Figure 1.
Figure 1: Fixed (top) and Deployable (bottom) Monitors
Understanding the Data from the Fixed Monitors
Purpose of RadNet. RadNet is designed to provide information to decision makers and other professionals during radiological emergencies. During normal times, RadNet establishes and verifies background levels of radiation and documents any changes that might occur.
What Radiation Is Detected
RadNet fixed air monitors record gamma radiation from both natural and man-made gamma-emitting sources on the ground and in the air. Many forms of natural radiation – such as cosmic radiation and radon gas – fluctuate throughout the day in response to changing weather conditions. These daily and hourly fluctuations in radiation levels are normal.
Specific Radionuclide Detection
Although there are many radionuclides, each radionuclide emits unique radiations (energy), which can be used like a fingerprint to identify it. By studying the radiation energy spectrum, experts can discern which radionuclides are present around a monitor.
To make the identification process more efficient, RadNet organizes the gamma energy spectrum into ten contiguous ranges, termed Regions of Interest (ROIs). The fixed monitors report total gamma detections (counts) within each ROI. By tracking the long-term changes of values within each ROI at each monitor, one can roughly determine the increase or decrease of radionuclides at a specific location. These fluctuations may be routine, or they may indicate an abnormality. To precisely identify radionuclides, scientists at NAREL download the entire spectrum and analyze it using additional software. This feature is not available on the CDX Web site.
Data for Most Users. For most users of the RadNet CDX Web site, comparing radiation values from one ROI of one monitor over time will provide the most useful information. Such data will track the long-term fluctuations within a specific energy range at a single location. Comparing values between different locations will not provide useful information – because each reading depends heavily on the natural radioactivity present in each location.
Similarly, comparing the count totals within one ROI to the count totals in another ROI at the same location will not provide useful information; each ROI associates with a specific gamma energy range, and little can be understood by comparing the aggregate total of one range to that of another.
Understanding the Data from the Deployable Monitors
As stated above, radiation levels routinely fluctuate from hour-to-hour and day-to-day. The deployable monitor provides the overall gamma radiation level near the monitor. These levels are expected to vary as they do for the fixed monitors. Typical fluctuations can cause the overall gamma radiation level near a deployable monitor to change by a factor of two or even more.
EDI’s revenues have doubled in each of the past three years and they currently have 90 employees spread across offices in Albuquerque, Denver and Oak Ridge.
more
"Other toxins aside, no amount of radiation is safe." In her book Nuclear Madness, Helen Caldicott explained:
“Lower doses of radiation can cause abnormalities of the immune system and can also cause leukemia five to ten years after exposure; (other) cancer(s), twelve to sixty years later; and genetic diseases and congenital anomalies in future generations.”
“Radioactive iodine releases from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi reactors may exceed those of Three Mile Island by over 100,000 times….While Chernobyl had one source of radioactivity, its reactor, there are seven leaking radiation sources at the Japanese site. Together, the three damaged reactors and four spent fuel pools at Fukushima Daiicho contain (much) more long-lived radioactivity, notably cesium-137, than the Chernobyl reactor.”
Moreover, all radiation, especially large amounts, is harmful, cumulative, permanent and unforgiving.
“The radioactive (iodine-131) fallout is now as much as 73 percent of the daily radiation emitted from Chernobyl following its meltdown disaster.” For cesium-137, it’s 60%.
“I hate to say it, but I am pessimistic….We have to think of all six (reactors) going down, and the possibility of that happening is not low.”
more
I believe your position is simply to slow the process down a bit. Spread confusion, increase doubt, possibly try to bait people into assassinating their own characters.
It's quite an interesting position to have on a topic actually. Very interesting.
I wonder why someone would do that? HMMMM....
We flash back to 28 April (seems like an eternity ago) to remind us that in three days from this date, the EPA will discontinue monitoring for radiation on a daily basis in favor of every three months.
Which, of course, brings up the question:
Who is responsible for assuring that the system is up and running?
The EPA contracted this responsibility to a private company, Environmental Dimensions, Inc.
Originally posted by boncho
I thought that was what other people are doing. Posting incomplete or dubious information. Sensationalizing or fear mongering. I have only rebutted claims or picked out vague claims in this thread. I have taken no position and I have not offered my position on the crisis in Japan.
(...)
19 May 2011
At this time, there is no public health threat in the U.S. related to radiation exposure. FDA, together with other agencies, is carefully monitoring any possibility for distribution of radiation to the United States.
At this time, theoretical models [color=limegreen]do not indicate that significant amounts of radiation will reach the U.S. coast or affect U.S. fishing waters.
source
... who can say that and keep a straight face?
23 April 2011
Japan Nuclear Iodine Radiation In San Francisco Milk Over 2600% Above EPA Drinking Water Limit
source
10 May 2011
Hawaii Farmers Treating Milk With Boron After Finding Radiation 2400 Times Above Safe Levels
source
EPA officials, however, [color=limegreen]refused to answer questions or make staff members available to explain the exact location and number of monitors, or the levels of radiation, if any, being recorded at existing monitors in California.
Margot Perez-Sullivan, a spokeswoman at the EPA’s regional headquarters in San Francisco, said the agency’s written statement would stand on its own.
In the unlikely scenario that pollutants could affect fish that have traveled to the U.S., FDA will work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to test seafood caught in those areas. Together, FDA and NOAA will also inspect facilities that process and sell seafood from those areas.
The FDA has claimed that there is no need to test Pacific fish for Japan nuclear radiation reports the Anchorage Daily News but when drilled on details by the reporter, the FDA [color=limegreen]refused to answer questions and gave the reporter the run-around.
The FDA says there will be no testing of fish until NOAA testing finds cause for alarm but NOAA [color=limegreen]refuses to answer questions on what kind of monitoring has been done.
source
25 April 2011
New EPA Radiation Tests Show Cesium in California Rainwater at Highest Level Since Crisis Began
source
3 May 2011
Hot Radioactive Particles in Seattle at 50% of Levels Seen in Tokyo
source
On CNN Arnie was asked, “So should people on the West Coast be worried?
Gundersen side-stepped just a bit saying, “Well, the average person breathes in about 10 cubic meters a day, and the filters out there for April show that they were breathing in, per day, about five particles.
It only takes one of these particles to trigger a cancer.
Now these are charged, which is why we call them ‘fuel fleas’ since they latch onto lung tissue. [color=limegreen]We’re at a point now where you just can’t run from the particles that are still in the air. We call them ‘fuel fleas’ also because they’re incredibly small, smaller than the thickness of your hair.”
more
3 April 2011
140,000 Times More Iodine-131 Released at Fukushima Than Three Mile Island… Using March 22 Estimates
source
3 May 2011
Radiation In US Food Will Be Nationwide Problem, Not Just Regional, From Fukushima Nuclear Radioactive Fallout
source
3 June 2011
5.77 microsieverts per hour of radiation measured near Tokyo at ground level — Government “is desperately trying to keep it quiet...”
source
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by thorfourwinds
It seems you have put a lot of time into the issue. My suggestions are:
We flash back to 28 April (seems like an eternity ago) to remind us that in three days from this date, the EPA will discontinue monitoring for radiation on a daily basis in favor of every three months.
Get data from the EPA website, or get official documents that highlight the changes they have made to policy and compile them.
Also, discount Natural News. Unless they offer sources that you can look into. Stay away from blogs and alternative media sites unless it is just to develop leads.
Also, if you are planning on spending a lot of time on the subject. Try and collect as much gov data as possible and compare it to past, and present.
Compile a very large block of data from Chernobyl documents (Tons out there) and compare them to Japan data as it is being released. If you are good at math you may also be able to cross reference things that come out of Japan that will or will not add up with Chernobyl data. ex: Chernobyl lists more radiation with less damage, [color=limegreen](Implying Japan is fudging numbers) etc. etc. -This would be most useful as a benchmark numbers after effects from Japan disaster build up over time.
Not sure how clear my post is but continue your stuff. You are making a great effort. I just think you need to scrutinize more.
For the first two days after the accident, the wind blew east from Fukushima towards monitoring stations on the US west coast; on the third day it blew south-west over the Japanese monitoring station at Takasaki, then swung east again. Each day, readings for iodine-131 at Sacramento in California, or at Takasaki, both suggested the same amount of iodine was coming out of Fukushima, says Wotawa: 1.2 to 1.3 × 10 to the 17th becquerels per day.
(...)
In the 10 days it burned, Chernobyl put out 1.76 × 10 to the 18th becquerels of iodine-131, which amounts to only 50 per cent more per day than has been calculated for Fukushima Daiichi. It is not yet clear how long emissions from the Japanese plant will continue.
Similarly, says Wotawa, caesium-137 emissions are on the same order of magnitude as at Chernobyl. The Sacramento readings suggest it has emitted 5 × 10 to the 15th becquerels of caesium-137 per day; Chernobyl put out 8.5 × 10 to the 16th in total – around 70 per cent more per day.
New Scientist
Well, I spent three weeks following that Fukushima story doggedly... then in the end I found out three things...
1) Except for a handful of people and those that live in the area... NO ONE CARES...
2) We are still here... 1000's of nuke tests (especially near my home town) medical radiation, space radiation, CME's, cell tower radiation, microwave radiation... etc etc.. and we are STILL HERE.. and world population is increasing exponentially
3) Radiation is good for you