Gov’t Map: Fukushima fallout transported directly to U.S. — Canada, Mexico avoided much of conta

Measurement of Radioactive Fallout from the March 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Incident

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collaborated with the National Atmospheric Deposition Program in an effort to monitor North American precipitation samples for the presence of nuclear fallout in response to the Japan Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station incident that occurred on March 11, 2011.

The study found concentrations (activity) and fallout (deposition) of radioactive iodine and radioactive cesium in significant number of samples. Detectable quantities of Iodine-131, Cesium-137, and Cesium-134 were observed at 21% of the 167 tested locations. Concentrations of I-131 detected in 5 samples ranged from 29.6 to 1090 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). Concentrations of Cs-134 detected in 23 samples ranged from 0.4 to 55 pCi/L. Concentrations of Cs-137 in 33 samples ranged from 0.70 pCi/L to 39 pCi/L.

Detections and measurable fallout from wet deposition was observed primarily at NADP sites located along the West Coast of the US, the central Rocky Mountain region and northern Great Plains, the central and upper Mississippi River Valley and eastern mountainous regions ranging from Virginia northward through Vermont.

nadp.sws.uiuc.edu...




enenews.com...

thanks allot japan... what a gift you give us..

reply to post by dc4lifeskater

You know... It's almost a sick irony here. Japan ran it but General Electric designed and built them so...They kinda sent our own present back at us. However inadvertently.

It's nice that Canada and Mexico missed one wave of this at least.

America, duck and cover! Oh, that won't work this time. Never mind.

Researchers at the conference are convinced that something is preventing the radiation levels from dropping. "There must be a source," says Scott Fowler, an oceanographer at Stony Brook University in New York.

Ocean still suffering from Fukushima fallout

Continuing leaks and contaminated sediment keep radiation levels high

www.nature.com...



upload.wikimedia.org...

Who the heck cares?

The levels are so freaking low that if anything, they'll help us out to further adapt to potential radiation surges in the future.

Originally posted by unityemissions
Who the heck cares?

The levels are so freaking low that if anything, they'll help us out to further adapt to potential radiation surges in the future.

Please tell me you are joking

How does a human adapt to radiation?

It's not the same thing as gaining immunity to spider venom for example...

Click here for more information.

reply to post by unityemissions


Okay, so you are serious.

I will be standing by patiently for you to prove my ignorance.

Thanks.

ETA:

In the very small chance that you are right...it wouldn't be fair to call me "ignorant" as "misinformed" would be more appropriate, but that's only if what you are claiming is true.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by unityemissions

 

In the very small chance that you are right...it wouldn't be fair to call me "ignorant" as "misinformed" would be more appropriate, but that's only if what you are claiming is true.

edit on 1/3/2013 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

Okay, you're "misinformed".

It's pretty well the same as gaining immunity to venom, or vaccinating ourselves with a weak version of a virus.

Our body upregulates and down regulates genes depending on environmental variables.

We have ALWAYS dealt with radiation, and have of course developed mechanisms to deal with spikes, within reason.

reply to post by unityemissions


So...

All you have is one article from Texas Tech Today versus all the other mountains of evidence which factually prove without a doubt that radiation is harmful?

I will rather take my chances with no radiation versus risking my health in the hopes of gaining "adaptation" to radiation.

Do you have a link to this study and is it peer reviewed?

ETA:

I'm out of here in 5 minutes so time to shut down my systems. I will look into the article you presented in more detail later this evening when I get home.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


No.

I have presented evidnece which makes perfect freaking sense.

You realize how fresh this view is? Yet you expect "peer reviewed" blablabla??

Get real.

IDC if I'm not pleasant to speak with.

There's plenty more information to be gathered on the subject.

Do your own work.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by unityemissions

 

So...

All you have is one article from Texas Tech Today versus all the other mountains of evidence which factually prove without a doubt that radiation is harmful?

This is a lie. If radiation were inherently "harmful" we wouldn't exist. In fact it is because of radiation that life exists, and evolution holds true.

I will rather take my chances with no radiation versus risking my health in the hopes of gaining "adaptation" to radiation.

Then you can live in la-la land, because wherever you go, you are surrounded by radiation.

The gift that keeps on giving! But hey that was last year....ignore for there is nothing "effective" they can or have done to stop it.

Has anyone thought about how to dismantle a Nuclear power plant and dispose of the radioactive parts and junk?

What’s more, the process is costly: GlobalData estimates that it will cost at least $81 billion to decommission Europe’s reactors between now and 2030, with the biggest markets in France and Russia. Pearce suggests that some countries, such as Britain, may not currently have enough money budgeted for the task — in part because many of its reactors are custom-built and likely to cost more than expected to tear apart. These sorts of headaches could be one reason why the United States is taking a different approach to its aging plants. The GlobalData report notes that U.S. utilities and regulators have announced plans to extend the lives of 71 nuclear reactors by another 20 years. Between now and 2030, only five U.S. commercial power reactors are expected to be decommissioned.

I would say when one is built it becomes a permanent structure. Permanent=forever. I know dismantle and put a parking lot there; easy to find your glow in your dark car at night!! Ok Ok not funny....Sorry.

radiationnetwork.com... ......This sight seems to indicate all is well with normal back ground radiation. But, I too have read of the spikes in plants, Salmon and rain/ground water traced from Fukushima....I am so sorry for the Japanese people......The rest of the world will too get their fair share no doubt.

reply to post by unityemissions




Chill out bro, no need for all the hostility.

Don't get bent out of shape for questioning the evidence you presented. Do you expect me to automatically accept it as factual just because it is YOU who has presented it without allowing me the time to properly look into it?

As I said in my previous post I will look into it and get back to you.

But come on dude, peer reviewed studies are a good thing as they add validity to the claims, or perhaps the reviews may discredit the claims. It all depends on the study.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


I think peer-reviewed is a double edged knife. It really does depend, in my mind, on how "prestigious" the institution is, and how long it's been running. It's susceptible to the same internal corruption, and confirmation bias as any other human grouping.

Check this wiki on radiation hormesis . There's quite a few studies in the reference section.

December 30, 2012
Fairewinds

Arnie Gundersen and CCTV's Margaret Harrington discuss long term storage of nuclear waste in the US and throughout the world. There simply is no sure solution to keep this material out of the biosphere for hundreds of thousands of years. Gundersen notes that nuclear advocates claim it is possible to store nuclear waste forever, while at the same time claiming that no technology exists to store electricity generated from solar or wind overnight! Gundersen notes that it is much simpler to store electricity overnight than to guarantee safe nuclear storage for longer than the human race has existed.

www.fairewinds.org...


Radiation level has been increasing since 180 days ago in Fukushima city
December 15th, 2012

fukushima-diary.com...

Maybe it's a little bit of cosmic karma considering the radiation the US bestowed on them in the past?

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- An estimated 14,000 excess deaths in the United States are linked to the radioactive fallout from the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan, according to a major new article in the December 2011 edition of the International Journal of Health Services. This is the first peer-reviewed study published in a medical journal documenting the health hazards of Fukushima. PR Newswire (s.tt...)

www.prnewswire.com... l

Instead of continuing with frequent monitoring, the city didn’t do another radiation test until March 25—nine days after the first test. On March 25, testing detected alpha radiation at 0.11 becquerels per litre in the drinking water at the city’s Seymour-reservoir intake. Alpha radiation comes from isotopes like plutonium-238 and is the most dangerous form of radiation when ingested or inhaled. The level at the Seymour intake was lower than the current Canadian and World Health Organization guideline of 0.5 becquerels per litre in drinking water. On the other hand, the WHO guideline used to be 0.1 Bq per litre before it was adjusted higher in the mid-2000s. That nine-day hole between March 16 and 25 is exactly when SFU prof Starosta found massive radiation spikes in rainwater in Burnaby.

houseoffoust.com...

Lucas W Hixson may have uncovered a major abuse of the public trust by the NRC. In late March 2011 the NRC issued a directive that allowed the nuclear industry lobbyist group NEI to supply radiation monitoring data to the NRC who would then forward it to the EPA. March 24th the NRC discussed handing over radiation monitoring to nuclear industry lobbyists, April 14th RadNet was shut down and went back to routine monitoring schedules. This meant no ongoing food,water and air filter testing. Only the radiation level monitors were left operating. The EPA claimed that levels were going down as the reason for shutting down the expanded monitoring, but places like Idaho did not have the decreases seen at other sites.

houseoffoust.com...

Found a few links but I can not vouch for their validity

reply to post by unityemissions


To be fair, the planet has never experienced anything like Fukushima before.
The closest we have is Chernobyl, I dont think anyone can ignore the hideous deformations and mental disabilities childrens children experience in bulgaria and ukraine directly related to Chernobyl even in todays world. And its not because of the radiation still lingering TODAY, its because of the radiation being absorbed into DNA and cells of the people in yester'year!

Do not believe what your being told about Fuku, there's a crap load of Radiation being bled into the oceans and the sky. As if they are going to tell you the 'true' levels!

Now, a little bit of radiation is good, there are people still living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone that themselves say
'' I feel healthier living in the zone, then when im visiting people outside it ''

But you can walk around Chernobyl (100m from the reactor) and the radiation levels are a fraction above background radiation.

You try walking around Fukushima with a smile on your face.

We are in unchartered territory, anything we've been told is 'the norm' about fukushima is a lie.