Fukushima Reactor 4: “Capable Of Extinguishing All Life On Earth”

page: 3
49
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by cheesy
reply to post by Sek82
 


this is insane!! why scientists all around the world not helping japanese goverment? thats very dengerous situation!!

Maybe they know they are beyond help?


2nd line.




posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Hm...sounds like Wormwood. Come to think of it Chernobyl means "Wormwood" in one of the russian dialects. Guess we might have an idea of just what wormwood means: radiation poisoning.
edit on 1-5-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCoffinman

Diplomat Akio Matsumura is warning that the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan may ultimately turn into an event capable of extinguishing all life on Earth.


members.beforeitsnews.com...:_Capable_Of_Extinguishing_All_Life_On_Earth.html

Where is the outrage, the urgency in the world about this??? this is insane!!!
edit on 30-4-2012 by TheCoffinman because: word edit


it's not in the MSM...so we have to assume it's really bad for business.
edit on 1-5-2012 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   


I did see an article the other day that talked about the plutonium in the pools could effectively kill 2 billion people.
reply to post by magma
 

That was the plutonium in one rod, as I recall. There are a whole lotta rods at Fukushima.
It takes only a tiny bit of plutonium to be lethal.

Link to ATS post you may have been referring to...
edit on 1-5-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by amongus
 


LOL. I agree. What does that say about some of these people posting? I'm sure a bunch of these people are stupid. That's potentially a lot of misinformation.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Please don't take offense, OP, but your source is highly questionable. I do surf beforeitsnews.com from time to time, but mostly in a "Men in Black" kinda way. You know, when, in the movie, they look in the National Enquirer because there are hidden truths mixed in with pure fiction? What I always try to do if I find something on Before Its News is try to find corroborating information from other, more reputable sources. If I can only find in on before its News, it's probably crap.

ETA: More reliable source from another poster in this thread: Scary Info about Fourth Reactor. It seems we have a lot to worry about.
edit on 1-5-2012 by nunya13 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Why aren't people thinking about this rationally


If Chernobyl took a generation to wipe out approximately 1 million people, and there is ~85 times more cessium which could circle the globe....uh...unless my math is off
that's not enough for "capable of extinguishing all life on earth"...

FAIL!!




posted on May, 1 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


Thanks for the link, this is news, and fits what many of us suspected long ago.

This says it all.

akiomatsumura.com...


In recent times, more information about the spent fuel situation at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site has become known. It is my understanding that of the 1,532 spent fuel assemblies in reactor No. 304 assemblies are fresh and unirradiated. This then leaves 1,231 irradiated spent fuel rods in pool No. 4, which contain roughly 37 million curies (~1.4E+18 Becquerel) of long-lived radioactivity. The No. 4 pool is about 100 feet above ground, is structurally damaged and is exposed to the open elements. If an earthquake or other event were to cause this pool to drain this could result in a catastrophic radiological fire involving nearly 10 times the amount of Cs-137 released by the Chernobyl accident.
The infrastructure to safely remove this material was destroyed as it was at the other three reactors. Spent reactor fuel cannot be simply lifted into the air by a crane as if it were routine cargo. In order to prevent severe radiation exposures, fires and possible explosions, it must be transferred at all times in water and heavily shielded structures into dry casks.. As this has never been done before, the removal of the spent fuel from the pools at the damaged Fukushima-Dai-Ichi reactors will require a major and time-consuming re-construction effort and will be charting in unknown waters.

Many of our readers might find it difficult to appreciate the actual meaning of the figure, yet we can grasp what 85 times more Cesium-137 than the Chernobyl would mean. It would destroy the world environment and our civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of human survival.


The first quotes are actually comments by Robert Alvarez, formerly of the U.S. Department of Energy. The last paragraph is by Akio Matsumura, who by all accounts is a legitimate ambassador from Japan, and a person of quality who has had a distinguished career.

Sounds like either a massive effort is taken to deal with this problem, or we might actually be facing a world wide extinction. It is very ominous indeed.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Thanks for the info.

I must state however that I believe the '85x Chernobyl' example is inaccurate.

With 1,200+ rods in question, it seems to me that the amount of radiation release from a potential event from this pool would indeed be up to 1,000 times more potent than Chernobyl.

You can correct me, but if memory serves correctly at Chernobyl there was only one meltdown event.
We have 1,000 plus fuel assemblies in question here...



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
Why aren't people thinking about this rationally


If Chernobyl took a generation to wipe out approximately 1 million people, and there is ~85 times more cessium which could circle the globe....uh...unless my math is off
that's not enough for "capable of extinguishing all life on earth"...

FAIL!!



Could you show me the math or documents that prove that 1 Chernobyl rod is equal to 10 to 12 Fukushima rods in potential radioactive release scenarios?

If not, I am sorry to say but rather than 85x we are looking at 1000x.

1,000 x 1million = 1 billion



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Chernobyl was much worse than Fukushima, they may have both been on the same severity scale, but they were totally different.

There is still "hotspots" in my local county in the UK from Chernobyl, and yet we are all still here!

Hell the Winscales fire, just up the road from me probably put out more radiation than Fukushima. (OK, kids in Seascale suffered leukaemia for a couple of decades, but on the grand scale of things.....)


Don't panic......



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Sorry buddy, I'm going off reports already issued.

If you want to do the calculations yourself, go to it, and show us the proof, otherwise refrain from the fear mongering.
edit on 1-5-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another10Pin
Then it will end where it all began?
The Land of the Rising Sun?
And the prevailing winds will take it in which direction?
The ultimate Kamikaze revenge ...


Remember Enola Gay? Cause and effect.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCoffinman
 


What I find interesting is that the same people sounding the alarm now, are the people who stopped any efforts to safely contain the waste. The irony is astounding.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Sorry buddy, I'm going off reports already issued.

If you want to do the calculations yourself, go to it, and show us the proof, otherwise refrain from the fear mongering.
edit on 1-5-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)


It's not fear mongering, although obviously the idea scares you (otherwise you would have never even thought to ridicule my question in such a manner).

I'm glad that you are happy accepting whatever information people feed you but I personally like to question things and find out if I am being misled.

So you openly agree that 1 Chernobyl assembly equals 10 Fukushima assemblies radiation-release wise? So Fukushima rods are 1/10th as radioactive? Are you sure?

I try to not be gullible, I've been misled by the media enough times already.
Let's find the truth rather than accepting what others say for once.

I will keep trying to find that information, but it is rather difficult and may take a few hours or more (if it's even available).

edit on 1-5-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Review this official PDF document from the Institute for Policy Studies in Wash DC, one of the nation's top 5 think tank organizations.

Link to PDF on spent fuel

In this document you will find some very interesting information worth consideration, so I suggest everyone look over the entire document.

Also, after trying to find technical information about the spent fuel rods and comparing them with Chernobyl, all I can really find is the repeated statement that MOX fuel is at Fukushima whereas Chernobyl did not have any.

So it appears that the fuel at Fukushima is even more dangerous than a 1:1 ratio (if we are talking about MOX). I don't know the exact ratios yet but I'll try to find out exactly what they may be.

Also it is claimed that spent fuel is more dangerous than a basic meltdown for various reasons.

In that PDF I linked above it has charts of the different types of isotopes released and in what quantities they are released including their half-life expectancy. There are other important isotopes to look at including Strontium 90 and Plutonium 241, among others.

I am sorry but this 1 Chernobyl meltdown = 10 Fukushima fuel rods ( but instead I am under the impression it's more than 1:1 or it is equivalent radiation release potentials).

Oh I just realized I misread the articles. This '85 times greater claim' is in reference to the entire 10,000 + in storage there at Fukushima.

So 1 Chernobyl = 100 Fukushima assemblies? Don't think so.

It would be more scientifically accurate to say Fukushima holds 10,000 Chernobyl equivalents, but that only 1,000 or so of them are at immediate risk in reactor #4's sfp, where as the 9000 others are at less risk and are supposedly in long-term storage last I heard.

Why do I have a feeling that the 85x claim is totally out of context, misleading, and being used to downplay the amount of material held within the fuel pools?



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by cheesy
 
listen all will be good soon you will see keanu reeves will be down with his boys are sorts us out. you know cos of the contemporary issue of humankind's environmental damage to the planet.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
U.S. deaths from Fukushima -- 14,000 already

Yeah I posted some vids, etc. on this ats thread on the same topic

here: Fukushima on Steroids: "Japan is in the Process of Contaminating the Entire Pacific Ocean"
edit on 1-5-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


I am reading this article right now with my mouth hanging open. We don't test for airborne radiation anymore? And they RAISED the acceptable levels of radiation after Fukushima? WHAT THE HELL!?!? My partner and I are looking at moving to the west coast possibly next year, provided the whole 2012 thing doesn't happen. I can't see that being a good idea if this is all true.
edit on 5/1/12 by Malynn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


It's fear mongering for this simple reason:

You provide no evidence, yet wish to believe the crisis is much worse than what's already stated by many scientific reports.

Sure, it makes me uneasy. Doesn't mean I wouldn't accept it if it was true.

Prove it, or shut it.


Edit to add:

Look over Ignoranceisntbliss's posts. He has shown that even the number I'm using as a reference seems high compared to many other reports issued. So I doubt it's as you say. It's likely the opposite. Why do you seem to keep wanting to make this crisis much worse than what it really is? You've been saying it's an ELE for about a year now, yet provide no real evidence. How can you justify this to yourself
edit on 1-5-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
49
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join