It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Radiation in Hawaii

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 11:49 AM

Originally posted by lynxpilot
A premise based on depleted uranium rounds causing a radiation issue is a HOAX.

Depleted uranium is used because of its density (more than lead) so it is more penetrating against armor. It has nothing to do with radiation. Depleted uranium is almost pure U-238 (vice other isotopes), has a very long half life, therefore it's nuclear activity is very low, and decays in low energy radiation. It came out of the ground, and using it for bullets just puts it right back into the ground. It is very chemically stable, so it's not like leaching would be a hazard either.

Try eating some powdered U-238 in a pill. You would know how good it is for your system.

Human body reacts badly to all heavy metals, even those that are not radioactive.

The dust containing particles of U-238 is sure to cause cancers.

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 11:53 AM

Depleted uranium military testing ranges (denied) plus Fukushima plus residuals from 60+ years of atomic testing results in radiation levels 9 times expected background. Locals are reporting extreme damage to the coral reefs and severely deformed produce as well as obvious lesions on local fish and marine mammals.

There are two ranges in Hawaii now (once Kahoolawe closed). Neither uses DU shells on them. Kahoolawe did, but the amount put out by DU that travels is so small that it wouldn't have a major affect on anything. The coral around Kahoolawe is a good proof of this. It was vibrant, and beautiful, and after the firing range closed, it grew back fast, huge, and normal. If DU was causing extreme damage to the area, then that would be the first place it showed up, and it doesn't. The biggest problem with the reefs around the island is soil erosion from the island itself. Even on the island itself, the plants started growing back immediately with few if any deformities, or oddities showing up.

But here you go, here's a little evidence that this claim is utter BS.

On 11 March 2011, background in Hawaii (samples were taken around 8 am daily) was 8 MR/H. On 10/26/12, the day this website posts its last reading, guess what background in Hawaii was......8 MR/H. It goes up to as high as 19, and as low as 3. The average doesn't change. There is no increase in levels.

There's another report on Before It's News (I know I know, but there aren't many rad monitors set up that aren't government), that says that background has been about 25 cpm, then starting in April, it went all the way up to 30 cpm.

I can't find any reports of radiation causing mutations to plants and coral to die. There has been a coral die off, but it's from a new strain of cyanobacteria that's hitting. People have jumped to the conclusion that it's radiation related, but there is no proof that it is. There have been no confirmed reports of mutations in Hawaii from Japanese radiation that I can find anywhere but that website.

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 12:05 PM
reply to post by signalfire

If 5-20 CPM is the normal background radiation level, then 64 is only 3 times higher. Like I pointed out in a previous post, there are parts of the world where people are continously exposed to much higher levels, naturally, and there is no problem.

This woman takes one reading on camera and starts fearmongering. Where is her report with all her data? It's BS.

Anything under a 100 CPM is considered normal from what I've been reading.

Why is she standing next to the the shooting range anyway. Take samples downwind to prove that it is spreading radiation over Hawaii.

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 12:30 PM
Anything under 100 is NOT normal. 100 is the true alert number. Here's a link to the rad network, real time. It used to have 100 as the alert number (as seen in the Hawaii and Alaska maps) but has raised it for some reason. Perhaps they were hitting 100 too often.

Normal background is usually around 8 and before WWII, lower. Figuring your math from the highest possible arbitrary 'normal' number is misleading.

Here's 'Depleted Uranium for Dummies':

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 12:36 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 12:40 PM
reply to post by signalfire

working for the U.S. Government as I presume from your avatar


so because of Zaps avatar he must have worked for the U.S Government,

so what dose that mean for me,

that I am a Alien.....


if only
edit on 1-9-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 12:42 PM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Since there are kanji in his avatar he obviously works for the Japanese government.
See how easy that is?

edit on 9/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 12:48 PM
reply to post by signalfire

Normal background is usually around 8 and before WWII, lower. Figuring your math from the highest possible arbitrary 'normal' number is misleading.

Really, I would say figuring from the lowest value is too then.

The map you linked too also shows places that are pushing 60, and those are based on averages. Not one reading in one spot. Her single 64 reading means nothing.

If there is a real problem, then what is preventing her from releasing some real data that can be reviewed?

*Readings not Equalized means the Monitoring Stations are broadcasting the raw radiation count from their Geiger counters, without adjustment for different count rates existing between various Geiger counter designs. For instance, models built around a "Pancake" (see Map Legend) style of Geiger-Mueller tube typically have about a 3 times count rate over Standard tubed models, so their readings in CPM would be expected to average about 3 times higher, anyway.

So in some places it is acually much higher than 64 according to your source.

edit on 1-9-2013 by NeoParadigm because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 12:51 PM
reply to post by signalfire

Those readings are far from "not safe for normal exposure". Do you even know what YOU are talking about?

The NRC specifies that 500 mrem above background for one year is safe. For long term, multi-year exposure it's 100 mrem. That comes out to an average of 11.4 microrem/hr. The average of that chart (which is a snapshot of one hour of the day). Typical background radiation levels for the US are around 34 microrem/hr, so if it's less than 11.4 microrem/hr higher than background levels it's considered safe for multiyear exposure.

Normal background in Hawaii is 5-20 cpm. That means it's around 5-20 microrem/hr roughly (I forget the exact math, and really don't feel like looking it up right now). So unless readings are coming in over 30 microrem/hr, it's considered safe. The highest reading on that chart showed 19. That's still under the average background for Hawaii.

Radiation levels also fluctuate throughout the day. You may see 19 at 8 am, and then it drops to under 10 by noon, and goes back up to 16 by sunset. That's why those readings give you a snapshot, but not the entire picture.

And yes, you're right, in the popularity contest that is truth and fact, I am losing. I need to surrender my AVIATION FSME tag because people don't star the hell out of my posts. Whatever man.
edit on 9/1/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 01:05 PM
Cumulative over decades, eh? The flora & fauna sure don't seem to indicate anything out of the ordinary out there. Neither does my lifelong friend who grew up on the islands, she's the pinnacle of absolute perfection in health. A lot of Hawaiians are extremely fit people. Surely you can find us some Hawaiians sickened with cumulative radiation exposure to back yourself up if you aren't full of it, correct?

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 01:15 PM
reply to post by signalfire

I remember that after the Irak war an shipment of scrap metal of iraqi tanks was refused unloading in the harbour of Rotterdam couse the content of radioactiv material in the scrap coused by deplated uranium...

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 01:19 PM
Well it seems that if you have cancer living in Hawaii is good for you...

People with cancer in Hawaii are more likely to survive the disease than people who live in other states and even some countries, according to an international study.

So OP how does that work with all the radiation your saying they have?

Also how is this possible...

Hawaii has the lowest death rate in the nation for women for all cancers, according to the cancer society, Chadwick said. Hawaii's cancer death rate is 10 percent below the national rate for men and 26 percent below the national rate for women, she said.

edit on 1-9-2013 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 01:20 PM
Read this and get back to me. It will take a while.

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 01:26 PM
reply to post by signalfire

Just looking at the Hawaii ones.

DU at Pohakuloa:

An aerial survey of the impact area at Makua Military Reservation was conducted Aug. 13-14. The Army said the survey was inconclusive because the ground could not be seen because of heavy vegetation.

Sure sounds like it's irradiating and killing the Big Island.

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 01:28 PM

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
Well it seems that if you have cancer living in Hawaii is good for you...

People with cancer in Hawaii are more likely to survive the disease than people who live in other states and even some countries, according to an international study.

So OP how does that work with all the radiation your saying they have?

(you're, not 'your', as in 'you are saying they have') Really, this is third grade stuff.

One of the things that has been associated with increased survival rates of cancer is increased levels of sun exposure and Vitamin D blood levels, so that's possibly the reason. Also increased rates of healthier food intake, fresh fruits and vegetables compared to other countries. There may also be simple skewing of the research papers, which are well known to be less than honest depending on who (the pharmaceutical industry) is doing the reporting. Keep in mind that a sick person would not be likely to stay on a small island chain with limited doctors. They're far more likely to decamp to the mainland, and the statistics would then emanate from there...

Yes, Phage, I saw the Japanese or Chinese characters on that avatar. Still, judging from the fighter plane avatar, looks like war apologist to me... and his English is certainly American born or educated.

No comments on the veteran's website? Certainly a lot of info there...

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 01:29 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

Maybe it's causing wild plant growth. Enormous mutated koa trees.

I don't think traipsing around target ranges is a very good idea though, whether or not DU rounds were used there.

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 01:32 PM
reply to post by signalfire

Oh right, once again, I study the military, and the technologies involved, so I'm a war apologist. I forgot that anything military related is evil, and they're single handedly responsible for all the problems in the world.

If you don't like what the military does for you, then as I've told others, feel free to stop using things that we take for granted that were developed for the military and brought to our homes.

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 01:32 PM
I don't think that I would allow the radiation levels in the water stop me from vacationing in Hawaii if that's what I wanted to do.

I just wouldn't eat any local fish, and probably not go into the water much.

Radiation exposure to the human body is in fact accumulative. The main reason behind that is that all the radioactive materials have "half lives", which is the number of years it takes for it to halve itself. You do not simply pee out radiation. 150 rads accumulated over time is enough to start presenting problems for the exposed person. If you have frequent exposures, it will build up simply because what you gained before has not diminished any.

Radiation, by itself, is not accumulative, it is immediate. The half life for Uranium is 75 years. I believe plutonium is a couple of centuries or more. So, one cannot be around either substance for very long.

What "rads" equates to compared to all the stuff I've heard barking around, I simply don't know. Sounds like language is being used to falsely minimize the danger.

If you like fish and lobster, etc., it would be my advice to wait 5 years after the darn leak has finally been plugged by the Japanese before eating any pacific fish and other products. That would give time for the current generation of sea life to die off. If it's not from the east coast, which has it's problems too, simply pass. Hopefully, in the Pacific, the radiation can sink to and rest in the bottom sludge of the ocean. Not that that makes things any better over all, but the swimmers that live in the first few hundred feet of depth, might no longer become contaminated.

Maine Lobster and other East Coast fish will be "better". So the choice may be between Radiation and Mercury!
edit on 1-9-2013 by akalepos because: syntax

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 01:33 PM
reply to post by Phage

The survey that was mentioned was done by helo just because of the unexploded ordinance. I think they were planning on going in later on foot (being extremely careful about it, and with EOD support).

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 01:34 PM
reply to post by signalfire

Read this and get back to me. It will take a while.

How about you read this and it won't take awhile...

However, the Department has and will continue to independently monitor ambient
radiation levels in areas adjacent to DU use. In our ambient background surveys on the
Big Island of Hawai‘i and Oahu since 2007, all radiation levels have been within normal
background levels. We performed air sampling near Waikoloa Villages from Feb-May
2009 and found normal background levels of natural uranium, and no detectable DU.
Our radiation experts continue to consult with the NRC and the Army related to the
Army’s license for DU.

Are you still sticking to your story?

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in