It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Phage
reply to post by Carreau
There are other reports of seals with what appears to be radiation burns on their skin and Polar Bears showing signs of large hair loss. Nothing is being done about it.
Assuming you are right that it radiation sickness, what do you think can be done about it?
Carreau
reply to post by Spookybelle
Two great questions, why isn't it being done and is it being done? And if it is being done, what are the results? Here's another great question, why is Fukushima not being talked about in the MSM?
the emission of radioactive particles from Fukushima Dai-ichi continues until today and that the available source term [i.e. total radioactive release] estimates only deal with the emissions during the first weeks of the disaster, it is important to look at which source term estimate to use [...] UNSCEAR [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation] bases its calculations on the source term estimate of the Japanese Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA), an organization that was severely criticized [...] for its collusion with the nuclear industry [...] The renowned Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) found a release of cesium-137 three times higher than the JAEA estimate. [...] By relying on data from neutral international institutions rather than the Japanese nuclear industry, accusations of selective data sampling could be reduced. Also, it is important to include not only iodine-131 and cesium-137 in atmospheric release assessments, such as JAEA, but also radioisotopes such as iodine-133, strontium-89/90 and plutonium-isotopes, as they were also detected in soil, groundwater and sediment samples in Fukushima Prefecture.
An interesting fact for people living on the US west coast is also included in the UNSCEAR report: only about 5% of the directly discharged radiation was deposited within a radius of 80 km from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station. The rest was distributed in the Pacific Ocean.
Phage
reply to post by Carreau
There are other reports of seals with what appears to be radiation burns on their skin and Polar Bears showing signs of large hair loss. Nothing is being done about it.
Assuming you are right that it radiation sickness, what do you think can be done about it?
Has this ever happened to the starfish population prior to the Japanese incident and have whales ever exhibited unorthodox behavior before. If either of those had then it would likely throw out your theory that its caused by what happened in Japan. Best to get all the evidence gathered before you begin assuming.
I'm only responding to the arguments you put forth and trying to determine what overall theory you are getting at is.
Carreau
reply to post by Spookybelle
Two great questions, why isn't it being done and is it being done? And if it is being done, what are the results? Here's another great question, why is Fukushima not being talked about in the MSM?
Origins: This map showing the projected path of fallout across the western United States following a possible meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan began circulating shortly after a massive 8.9 earthquake hit that country in March 2011. The map bore the logo of the Australian Radiation Services (ARS), an organization which has disclaimed any connection with it:
Australian Radiation Services is aware of information about radioactive contamination being spread from the Japanese nuclear reactor incident released under the ARS logo and name. We wish to be clear that this information has not originated from ARS and as such distance ourselves from any such misinformation.
News accounts reporting on Internet-circulated information about the situation regarding nuclear reactors in Japan noted that:
Some postings were criminally absurd and flat-out wrong.
One map that went viral showed color-coded plumes of radiation moving eastward across the Pacific and the prediction that radiation levels measuring 3,000 rads would reach the Aleutian Island chain in three days. Levels of 1,500 rads will hit the northern coast of British Columbia within a week and western North American "from Alaska to the Baja tip in 10 days, with radiation levels of 750 rads," the posting warned.
These numbers, which would kill or sicken quickly, have absolutely no basis in fact at all. And, according to a radiation expert at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, they are more typical of the levels that might occur after a nuclear attack.
As of 17 March 2011, officials were reporting that any radiation which might reach the U.S. would have "extremely minor health consequences":
A United Nations forecast projects the radioactive plume from the Fukushima facility would reach the Aleutian Islands on Thursday [17 March] and hit Southern California late on Friday [18 March].
The projection, calculated on Tuesday [15 March], gives no information about actual radiation levels. Health and nuclear experts emphasize that radiation in the plume will be diluted as it travels and will have extremely minor health consequences in the United States.
Read more at www.snopes.com...
However, that chart did not actually track or measure radioactive discharge emanating from Fukushima in 2013, or any other aspect of the Fukushima disaster. It was a plot created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) immediately after the Tohoku earthquake in March 2011 showing the wave height of the tsunami that followed. It had (and has) nothing to do with the flow or spread of radioactive seepage from Fukushima.
Read more at www.snopes.com...
"Tokyo is 124 miles from the Daiichi Nuclear Power station in Fukushima prefecture, while Los Angeles is 5,541 miles from Tokyo. If "tons" (1) of plutonium had been spewed into the air from the Daiichi power station, as some Japan radiation hysteria promoters (E.g. Steven Jones, globalresearch.com.ca, see Footnote 1 at bottom of page) have wildly claimed, then you would have seen a HUGE and unprecedented up tick in Tokyo readings BEFORE such radiation could ever traverse the entire Pacific Ocean and show up on the west coast of America."
The background radiation readings in Tokyo have only IMPROVED -- as predicted -- since my last Tokyo radiation update on December 3, 2012, and now equal the background radiation levels recorded in Tokyo BEFORE the 3/11 attack on Japan and the nuclear bomb sabotage operations executed at the Daiichi Nuclear Power station on March 11, and 12 of 2011, a story exclusively broken and made public at this web site on March 12, 2011. The unrelenting torrent of outright fabrications, exaggeration, and hyperbole undertaken by Fukushima radiation hysteria promoters at EneNews (enenews.com...), or rense.com, or on every Leftist media outlet across America to pump up the unfounded assertion that Japan and the entire world is now engulfed in the death fog of a Fukushima radiation "catastrophe" that now is claiming to exceed (no less!) the radiation contamination caused by the Chernobyl disaster is an absurdity on steroids.
Maybe it has.
We report unequivocal evidence that Pacific bluefin tuna, Thunnus orientalis, transported Fukushima-derived radionuclides across the entire North Pacific Ocean. We measured γ-emitting radionuclides in California-caught tunas and found 134Cs (4.0 ± 1.4 Bq kg−1) and elevated 137Cs (6.3 ± 1.5 Bq kg−1) in 15 Pacific bluefin tuna sampled in August 2011. We found no 134Cs and background concentrations (∼1 Bq kg−1) of 137Cs in pre-Fukushima bluefin and post-Fukushima yellowfin tunas, ruling out elevated radiocesium uptake before 2011 or in California waters post-Fukushima.