Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Fukushima radiation headed straight to US, karma for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Little eagle finally made the point..... where the hell is everybody on this??? It is the complete lack of coverage that has rattled more than just his cage. The plant in all of its glory is just a moment from completely out of control. Imagine this scenerio in the US, the outcry would be deafening! protest on every corner with just one out of the vessel core,let alone 3 and the MOX pools....... LBE ( little black eagle) is deafened by the silence, as am I.........




posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


Yeah but then we let all their war criminals go ,and took all the data they amassed doing all this stuff ,and use it ourselves.
The Japanese invented airborne and biological weapon attacks....
I wonder how many millions have died from the USA using Japanese research .



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   


"nuclear pollution becoming more concentrated as it approches U.S. West Coast"


It was the plan all along... HAARP is making it become more concentrated. Maybe.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Mugen
 

1. It is a computer model based on ocean currents of how the contamination will behave. The contamination is not being tracked. It is not known if it is following the computer model.

2. The model does not say that the contamination is becoming more concentrated.

3. oh... never mind. All anyone wants to hear here is that we're all gonna die.
edit on 9/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Phage

The nuclear reactor explosion resulted in a great deal of radioactive matter leaked into the sea neighboring to Fukushima. On March 30, 2011, the Japan Central News Agency reported the monitored radioactive pollutants that were 4000 times higher than the standard level.
That does not mean that radiation levels were 4,000 times above background levels in the waters around Fukushima. If that were the case things would have been spectacularly worse than they were (and are). It means that the concentration of radioactive materials (specifically, iodine) was 4,000 times the level normally found in the waters in the area.

So, if that "impact strength" represents something like what we are talking about (still not sure about that), it would mean that the concentration of Cs-137 would be 4% of what it was near the disaster. What was that concentration? It peaked at about 26 Bq/l. 4% of that is 1.04 Bq/l. That is 14% of the EPA MCL for drinking water.
e360.yale.edu...

I think it's also important to note that the study only considered surface transport, ignoring vertical movement and the dispersion it would entail.

edit on 9/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)




You are looking at concentrations in the water of 26 Bq/l as you say.. This is the 1.5% they are talking about. They start at 1.5% as being the base number. This would increase to 4% which would mean: about 69 Bq/l...

Or to make it simple for you to think about they are saying the base water concentration around fukushima would increase 2.7 times as it reaches California. Take your base number of 26Bq/l X 2.7 = 70.2 Bq/l

I'm not saying I agree with the study but you seem to be misunderstanding it on purpose.
edit on 9/4/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Dustytoad
 


You are looking at concentrations in the water of 26 Bq/l as you say.. This is the 1.5% they are talking about. They start at 1.5% as being the base number. This would increase to 4% which would mean: about 69 Bq/l...
You seem to have changed your position. You said before that the base was "4,000 times background radiation". How does that 1.5% relate to that? But aside from that, I don't see the figure 1.5% used in the report at all.

What I do see is this:

Results show that due to local eddy role, starting from 1% at 1.5-year, of the initial level, the impact strength of Cesium-137 in the South China Sea continuously increases up to 3% by four years.


Translation (because the English syntax is hard to follow): after 1.5 years the contamination level in the South China Sea would be 1% of the initial level (the peak Fukushima contamination level). Because of the circulation pattern, the contamination would collect in the South China Sea such that after four years it would reach 3% of that level.

The same applies to the West Coast. After 4+ years the contamination level is modeled to reach up to 4% of the peak Fukushima levels. The reason being that eddies formed by the trans-Pacific current would tend to keep the contamination from dispersing as might otherwise be expected, enabling it to be more readily carried across the ocean. Pretty much as described in this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
But they aren't whirlpools and they aren't black holes.
edit on 9/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
i doubt it, this wont kill 100,000 people, it'll just increase cancer rates a tiny bit and anyways it can be argued that what was done to those cities was karma for their invasion of china and their attempt to conquer Asia and the pacific, in fact the number killed in those two cities pales in comparison to how many Japan killed during that period, so i'd think using those two bombs didn't kill enough people to earn negative karma on our behalf, i'm sure japan still has negative karma from what they did back then and has been lucky so far but it will catch up to them one day.


The rape of Nanking springs to mind, plus the other Chinese cities during the Chinese/Japanese war, 1937/45.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I think I may be misunderstanding yes..

Thinking your version of "impact strength" is correct.

Impact strength on west coast is 4% of the levels in a 300km radius of water around fukushima.

impact strength is just the number of particles minus the degradation do to half life. The only reason the percentage of original strength would increase is that more particles arrive, while the particles already there lose potency..

So yes 4% of 26Bq/l would be about right if you believe this study... They seem to make quite a few assumptions.

Source
edit on 9/4/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Mugen
 

1. It is a computer model based on ocean currents of how the contamination will behave. The contamination is not being tracked. It is not known if it is following the computer model.

2. The model does not say that the contamination is becoming more concentrated.

3. oh... never mind. All anyone wants to hear here is that we're all gonna die.
edit on 9/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


it's all good Phage, some people handle things differently than others and at this point i'll sit on my head and spin if it would get one more person to ask questions as to why we are all doing nothing on a national level. i know why and you now know why, but at least they (global governments) could quit acting like it doesn't matter and put on that fake can do smile.

i would at least like dinner and a show before i burn off.


also just in from Reuters it seems our friends at Tepco forgot some sieverts.


"There's a strong possibility these tanks also leaked, or had leaked previously," said Hiroaki Koide, Assistant Professor at Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute. "We have to worry about the impact on nearby groundwater...These tanks are not sturdy and have been a problem since they were constructed two years ago." It's also possible the radiation readings are increasing because of more frequent monitoring and inspections by Tepco employees, indicating the hotspots and leaks have been there for some time, Koide said. "The government has finally said they will be involved in this problem but they are still not going to be fully involved in the decommission," he said. "It is too little, too late." URANIUM ROD MELTDOWNS


www.reuters.com...

these hastily made tanks are going to become a real problem, they bolted but failed to weld them and also did zero ground and foundation work before setting them on a concrete pad, brilliant.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:36 AM
link   
here's a man with some ideas but alas as he notes it's pretty much just a band aid but i suppose anything is better then nothing on the idea front.

fukushima-diary.com...

Summary of Fukushima – How to minimize the risk




3. What should they do ? This is my personal view as a former civil engineer. I personally think there is no perfect solution anymore. However, the best thing in the worst situation is to make the plant port a dam itself. (Dam the port) The bottom of the port is already coated by chemical material. They only need to close the port exit so they can contaminate the port as much as they want. All the contaminated water will flow into the so-called port dam. They only need to be watching it. I’m more worried about the land subsidence by trying to reduce the groundwater volume, which may end up collapsing the plant buildings. In that case, we are going to experience the plant “transformation” + major discharge of water. It’s obviously worse than only the major discharge of water.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Dustytoad
 


The only reason the percentage of original strength would increase is that more particles arrive, while the particles already there lose potency..
In the case of the South China Sea that is correct.
In the case of the west coast of North America the situation is different. The model shows that the concentration does not decrease below 4% (as a maximum) as the contamination is carried across the Pacific. It doesn't increase (except in relation to the "wavefront").

The model does not address what occurs once the contamination arrives at the west coast but since the coastal currents in that region tend to pull in a southerly direction rather than forming a large scale eddy, it isn't likely that there would be the same situation such as occurs in the South China Sea.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
 


He better hurry,,
"Powerful storms believed to be tornadoes ripped through Tochigi Prefecture on Wednesday afternoon"

ya that ain't too far, from old Fuk.
edit on 5-9-2013 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join