Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Other Hot Places: Biological Implications"

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
The following video shows a presentation the results of almost a decade of observation, measuring and documenting the effects on the animal and plant life, in and around the radioactive hot spots.

They show declining population, even locally extinct species. Shorter life spans, deformities, tumors etc.




I think it's a must see...




posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


I flagged this but I confess I didn't actually watch the vid. I'm too impatient - much prefer text. But it's an important topic...



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


A summary of the video:

Cherenobyl tests (I believe 867 tests to date he said) compared to the non exclusion zone since the mid '80's:

Bird fertility rates down by 66%

No bumble bees

very few spiders, butterflies, grasshoppers, and dragonflies

very few mammals

very few mice

Shorter lifespans of organisms


Fukushima - very few non-hotspots to compare to (only 2 years of data):

Barn swallows have deformations of beaks and feather coloration, tumors around beaks, head, rear ends. Their brains are smaller than normal, neurological development affected, all meaning ability to survive very long may be at question.

Trees severely deformed.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   

tinker9917
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


A summary of the video:
..

Fukushima - very few non-hotspots to compare to (only 2 years of data):

..

Trees severely deformed.


Trees deformed? 2 years after the accident? Seems to me very fast for older trees, and quite impossible.
True is, I didn't watch the video.

Could you post who produced the video? Because I like to know which persons mental flows would soon start pouring over my screen BEFORE I start the video.



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


I think the deformed trees are observed Chernobyl, not Fukushima.

The Chernobyl event happened around 27 years ago.



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Something else to worry about. Why not apply the same rules to the oil/gas/coal corporations that the nuclear industry has to conform to?

Radioactive shale gas contaminants found at wastewater discharge site



"Radium levels were about 200 times greater in sediment samples collected where the Josephine Brine Treatment Facility discharges its treated wastewater into Blacklick Creek than in sediment samples collected just upstream of the plant," said Avner Vengosh, professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment.

"Years of disposal of oil and gas wastewater with high radioactivity has created potential environmental risks for thousands of years to come."


Read more at: phys.org...



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 04:11 AM
link   
When I did my degree in Environmental Studies over twenty years ago now, I read a paper on Chernobyal that would make anyone's toes curl. it stated that the worldwide cancer rates would go up as a result of the accident. I have no doubt of that. I have lost a parent due to cancer and seen close friends affected by it too. TPTB wont say it to you but I believe that in the 1940's-1960s the nuke tests in the atmosphere certaintly caused a lot of cancer deaths around the world. Then we had Chernobyal and now Fuskishima.

I don't understand why the UN are not involved or at least spearheading an international response to what is happening in Japan. It is clear they are out of their depth. Ironic in many ways as they are technologically advanced!





new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join