LARGEST radiation release to date!!! And Fukushima radiation 168 times of Hiroshima atomic bomb!

page: 7
87
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91

Nuclear bombs are nothing compared to nuclear reactors. Nuclear bombs are practically cell phone radiation compared to reactors. This is because one is a direct release of energy, the other is slow.



Yes, and what people don't see is that the US has been ruling the world, along with its 5 allies, for several decades, through the fear of nuclear war. The fear of this war, is the fear of everyone dying. If not from the blast, then from the radiation ... Terminator style doomsday scenario.

What does fukushima tell you? It tells you, basically, that a nuclear war is nothing to fear. It's an upblown and overrated scare tactic, that has no basis in reality.

Now, we are at world war III. The World Economy was attacked, starting on 911 and now it turns out that those who did it, are the US and NATO's allies.

Prepare for anuclear war ...

That is why it's being systematically downplayed ... mainly to make people not aware, and knowledgable about the radiation, so the scare tactic scenario will continue to work. Although the MSM would say it was not to make people panic ... which is true, of course, because the panic is unessecary.
edit on 31-8-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


that's not really accurate at all. 2 nuclear bombs aren't going to poison the Earth. 40,000 will destroy all life and prevent any future life for thousands of years.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


A nuclear war would cause many immediate, short term, and long term deaths, and by the creation of nuclear winter and widespread radioactive contamination, the end of the human race.

By comparison, nuclear reactor meltdowns would create radioactive contamination, and long term deaths.

I don't think the latter would convince all the sheeple that nuclear war was a good idea. Both are bad.

Nuclear war sure scares the cr@p out of me, there's no way off this crazy prison planet.

The consensus of opinion on the big thread is that vested interests are downplaying the disaster, which seems more likely. Unless, of course, the same vested interests would be selling the weapons. Oh dear I feel a panic attack coming on.





posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Flyinghaggis
 


I'm not all that sure what you're talking about, sorry.

What I so know is that nuclear reactors are far more dangerous than nuclear weapons. You can use a number of nukes in war without much damage, but use them all, and you're killing the planet. That's all I know.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
that's not really accurate at all. 2 nuclear bombs aren't going to poison the Earth. 40,000 will destroy all life and prevent any future life for thousands of years.


Now, let us assume this is true.

Then we are hostage by 5 nations (USA, China, Russia, Britain and France), who basically say that they will kill all life on earth, if we protest against them.

You don't call that a scare tactic ? or just plain looney ?

But what you say isn't true ... it's just scary story for children, like Gaddaffi and Saddam. Take a look at this link Thriving wildlife in Chernobyl despite that all people were removed from the area, because it was deadly. The decision of evucating the area, is more a precaution than realistic. And now you have fukushima ... and the world is basically saying it's nothing to worry about and what they'd do at most, is to evacuate the immediate area, for precaution.

So sorry, Gorman91 ... we just moved a hell of a lot closer to using nukes for real. The nuke arsenal is just a really big bomb, but far from being the death of all life. And one of these days, someone is going to call their bluff ... understand what I mean?
edit on 31-8-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


This post here is a good summary of this particular issue.

I'm also wondering if you read page 2 of the National Geographic article:


But while wildlife seems to be proliferating in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, not everyone is convinced that these plants and animals are healthy.


Why would this be?


Moller and Mousseau have shown that certain species in the area have a higher rate of genetic abnormalities than normal.

"We find an elevated frequency of partial albinism in barn swallows, meaning they have tufts of white feathers," Mousseau said.


Albinism, well, that's not so bad is it?


"In Italy around 40 percent of the barn swallows return each year, whereas the annual survival rate is 15 percent or less for Chernobyl," Mousseau said.


So, only about 25 percent or less of Chernobyl barn swallows return each year.


The scientists are also concerned that the mutated birds will pass on their abnormal genes to the global population.

"In the worst case scenario these genetic mutations will spread out, and the species as a whole may experience enhanced levels of mutation," Mousseau said.


So the radiation will be having secondary and tertiary effects within any genome that mutations are introduced into.

Why won't anyone think of the trees?


Mutation isn't the only adverse effect of the radiation. Working in the Red Forest area, James Morris, a USC biologist, has observed some trees with very strange twisted shapes.

The radiation, he says, is confusing the hormone signal that the trees use to determine which direction to grow.

"These trees are having a terrible time knowing which way is up," Morris said.


I've often wondered about the effects on plants as most studies I've read (which is a HUGE number) all are concerned with human or animal contamination. It is perfectly logical to me that if radiation poses a problem to animals, then plants must be affected as well.


But Mousseau is less optimistic. "One of the great ironies of this particular tragedy is that many animals are doing considerably better than when the humans were there," he said.

"But it would be a mistake to conclude they are doing better than in a control area. We just don't know what is normal [for Chernobyl]. There just haven't been enough scientific studies done."


Finally, the entire thrust of the article is summed up here as, "we really don't know" as are many of the conclusions scientists when boiled down to their essence.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


I imagine that at Chernobyl, most of the stuff has seeped down into bedrock by now. You still do have cancer rates, and you still do have dead trees and pockets of radiation where things die.

If someone wants to call their bluff, by all means. They'll be first to scientifically prove the affects.

Also, Chernobyl is entombed. It's not putting out any new radiation any time soon.
edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


I imagine that at Chernobyl, most of the stuff has seeped down into bedrock by now. You still do have cancer rates, and you still do have dead trees and pockets of radiation where things die.

If someone wants to call their bluff, by all means. They'll be first to scientifically prove the affects.

Also, Chernobyl is entombed. It's not putting out any new radiation any time soon.
edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


You might want to check out this thread by Zorgon for information about Chernobyl.


Originally posted by zorgon
Yeah me too... And the second set of videos, those scientists going in with nothing but a cloth mask and plastic sheet with scotch tape...


Chernobyl Were Did the Nuclear Fuel Go?

The 'Elephants foot', a massive nuclear fuel and sand mass










The 'Elephants foot' showing where it melted through the floor


Drilling into the chamber below the reactor and sending in a camera to search for the fuel






Nuclear Lava


Nuclear Lava



Is but one post. Watch the video series and you will not think it's as under control as you seem to think.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 


Never claimed to think it's under control. I just don't think it's either extreme.

As to the magma, I have a very difficult belief that it would still be hot enough to cause that much heat so many decades later. That kind of goes against the rules of the universe.
edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Although the OP is a bit misleading, the fact is this is worse than Chernobyl. We should all pray for Japan.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 

Thank you for your reply with links to source materials. I appreciate that. I also realize that you sir, are very studied in this area of radioactive contaminants and how they spread. I would like to ask you a couple questions about that. I noted your point about contaminants reentering the atmosphere say from burning contaminated refuse. I was wondering if ocean bound contamination could be, a) inside the water molecule and, b) evaporated by the sun from the ocean surface and fall again as rain elsewhere. ( like the Pacific West Coast.) Thank you in advance for your reply.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


I don't know if I would go so far as to claim to be "very studied," but I have read a great deal about this topic (along with a host of others) and I will give what I answers I have. Sure to miss some point or other, but hopefully someone who is more studied than I would correct any errors I make.

A) the only way I know of for radiation to be "inside a water molecule" is for that molecule to be radioactive itself; i.e. dueterium or tritium. Any particulates which have found their way into the ocean will either settle to the bottom, or be taken up into the bodies of various microfauna which are at the base of many food chains, including those utilized by humans.

B) See previous answer. There is a naturally occurring amount of both deuterium and tritium which we all would be normally exposed to on a regular basis, this is a fraction of what goes into the equation of "background radiation."

Answer "B" above is not to say that the leaks recently found in U.S nuclear plants are nothing to worry about.

But.

Where you have evidence of one isotope leaking, I would not be too surprised to learn later that more have leaked as well.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
If the msn were to report on this, people would panic. That is really too bad. More people NEED to know about this.

I get a lot of bloody noses lately, and always blame it on Fukushima...



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 

Wow, my heart goes out to everyone being effected by this disaster. I am shocked by the lack of media attention to this very news worthy and unfortunate event.






top topics



 
87
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join