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.

 

Oh no, Fukushima releasing 10 Hiroshimas every hour. Says Patrick Flanagan

page: 3
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   

FlySolo
reply to post by Dustytoad
 


Oh crap you're right. I must have been in denial and my brain subconsciously switched to a lesser evil in order to maintain sanity while I typed that. 10 an hour like the title says.

edit on 7-11-2013 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)


Maybe that guy's upgraded creepy neurophone technology made it for you


I'm lazy to do the math too so I'll wait for someone like Phage to do it instead.

I think we can't compare it to a. bomb because you can't compare total amount of momentary radiation (a.blast) to the slow leak of radioactive particles. All those nuclear tests were not that bad in the end. At least in terms of remaining isotopes. Tons of irradiated dust on the other hand is different story.
edit on 8/11/2013 by PapagiorgioCZ because: grammar




posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   

pasiphae

3. what's with the phage bashing? sheesh. if someone wants to hear phages opinion i don't see why that needs to be ridiculed.



I noticed in a thread about Fukushima, Phage doesn't know much about this as he had to ask a question to one poster himself., one man doesn't have all the answers..

Phage is only expertise is space and physics.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
10 Hiroshimas an hour?? OK, well, if that much radiation is actually being released per hour, I would guess that at least a certain percentage would become airborne, and would at the very least be detectable as registering above background level outside as compared to where I sit inside here in California. Now, I actually own an old CDV-700 Radiological Survey Meter (which looks kind of like one from the old Fallout games), otherwise known as a Geiger counter. It is quite functional, and I have calibrated it against a Cesium-137 source of known emission rate (adjusted for half-life depletion). Measuring inside now, on the 1x setting...I am getting one or two pops per minute, which is roughly background level here. Now going outside with the meter, and turning the detector upwards towards the sky for one minute...3 pops! Now turning it towards the ground for one minute...4 pops!! So, it looks like direct measurements prove that the radiation here in Cal is 50 to 100% greater than normal background levels...or not, depending on whether or not you think that small sample sizes can lead to unrealistically large variances that are, in actuality, statistically insignificant. You choose!

(Believe it or not, I actually did the measurements! I got the Geiger counter partly out of a sense of fun and curiosity being a scientist and all, and with the practical benefit of being able to check my fish, because I do get a lot of pacific coast fish. So far, so good!)



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Varhaard
 


baseline ideal,,,,no pops..
so it means, your NORMAL background,,must be adjusted upwards. too get back too,, base-line no pops.on the meter.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 


I'm actually so close to zero that one or two pops is nearly irrelevant anyway. Normal background is actually listed as 20 'clicks' per minute in the booklet when on the lowest setting (after calibration), which I have never come close to recording here...makes me wonder just how much background radiation was around during the 60's after all the nuclear testing! But besides all of this, I have calibrated the instrument with two different beta emitting sources of known emission rate (the other is the original Uranium check source still on the meter) which covers all three meter settings on my instrument. Were there any real readable beta-emitting radiation present, my meter would pick it up. As it is, 2 pops really is not much different from 20 on the lowest setting, especially on an instrument that is 50 years old. Things would get interesting if I were to get more than five times that though...
edit on 9-11-2013 by Varhaard because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Varhaard
 


unless it hits u in the "privet" area,,, they cover that area for a reason.

but its only 2 pops,,, of what?,,what Element is doing the big hello wave


like a finally tuned crystal,,,slaps head,, lets build an clock an atomic clock, cause, it keeps great ,, ohh its been done,,



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
That "top 10 scientist" looked more like a top 10 stoner! Harping on ad nauseum about iodine, like the viewers are all repeating 7th grade science class, was insulting and ruined the video.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   

webedoomed
You can't directly compare an atomic explosion like Hiroshima, to nuclear radiation leaks at Fukushima. There is no similar nuclear reaction at Fukushima like there is in a nuclear bomb explosion.

One could make a case that the amount of radiation released is comparable, but still Hiroshima is measured in kilotons and not megatons as has been released several hundreds of times in testing across the planet.

The way your average mind interprets this is in terms of death counts. They think of the devastation at Hiroshima, multiply the body count by ten, and get horrified to think this is going on every hour. In this sense, the title is very misleading. It's fear-mongering.
edit on 7-11-2013 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)


A nuclear explosion starts off with a X-ray/UV-ray flash which propagates into heat flash, an atmospheric shock wave, plus the nuclear particles themselves (fast neutrons). Only about 10% of the volatile material actually converts into energy. The famous equation E = mc^2 can be adapted to calculate this:

E = 1/10 m . c^2 where m is mass, and c is the speed of light.

The fallout contamination consists of dust and ash made from the original materials as well as fission byproducts and surrounding materials.

With the nuclear reactor, the water picks up the "hot particles" from the disintegrating fuel rods, absorbs those "fast neutrons". 300 tonnes of water per day being is contaminated in this way continuously as opposed to a single detonation described above.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   

FlySolo

How do you even know phage is just one person anyway?


I nearly choked on my coffee.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I dunno, youre way off.

10 Hiroshimas every hour?

No, its 1 Fukushima / hour
edit on 13/11/9 by metaldemon2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Those #s are ridiculous. How about he provide some concrete science to back up those fictional calculations.

Chernobyl put out approximately 4,000 times the radiation. At 10 times per hour, we are talking 1,680 times per week. So every 3 weeks this is putting out another Chernobyl? I don't think so.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
The Hiroshima bomb weighed 4400kg with 64kg of highly enriched uranium inside, en.wikipedia.org... that then became as irradiated as anything in any nuclear reactor.

So the Maths...
64kg times 24 times 365 = 560,640 kg of uranium Fukushima must be leaking a year!!! My God did the power plant core, even weigh that much?
Then times 10 (since its 10 per hour) = 5,600,640 per year!


Except…
The uranium used in Hiroshima was literally 20 times more concentrated with the radioactive U235 isotope, than the fuel used in Fukushima. Therefore (to get anywhere near a fallout equivalent) we’d needed to times this 5,600,640 by 20 = 110,212,800kg = amount of leaked Fukushima power plant fuel, per year!!!

Perhaps the Japanese are hiding an alien radiation, matter creating machine, there?

Now I’m going to stock up on piles, and where my tin foil hat for protection.

Desertguy

all this is is a commercial to get people to buy the pills.
Yeah; people who should be Cognitive Enhancing pills (judging by the Sherrie number of gullible folk, flagging this threat out of what can only be described as “Stupendous Ignorance”).

Still: We are all prone to accepting whatever information, backing the views we already have. But does indicate about the anti-nuke folks views -lack of critical thinking behind it.
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Do we have any evidence of significant elevations of radioactive dust in filtered air samples in either Japan or the US???--The answer is no. The air samples at EPA.gov show minmal, if any, change since pre-Fukushima.
iaspub.epa.gov...


Do we have any evidence of significant elevation of radioactivity in seawater near Japan at the present moment?? Again, the answer is no. The following data is published by the Japan Nuclear Regulatory Agency. The units are in Bq/liter. To get Bq/m^3, multiply by 1000.
www.iaea.org...
Once they get beyond about 100 km away from FD, the levels of Cs are undetectable.

The average radioactivity of seawater is about 14 Bq/L of which 88% is from naturally occurring potassium-40 (K-40). About 7% is from anthropogenic fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing and nuclear accidents like Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima Daiichi (2011). So there is about 13 Bq/L of natural radioactivity on average in the oceans. In high salinity areas (where elements that scale with salinity like K and U have the highest concentration) activity can be as high as 22 Bq/L (Persian Gulf) and 15 Bq/L (eastern Mediterranean)
edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
It took two and a half years for the tide to turn and people to realize how much they've been fooled by the fear-mongering, snake-oil salesmen, sociopaths. . .

Please realize the tactics used to fool you, and acquire a more critical mind.

It'll help you remain somewhat sane through your journey in the "truth movement".



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by webedoomed
 


Hey, I never claimed the information I brought here to be fact. I clearly stated in the title "Says Patrick Flanagan". It's up to you to do what you will with the information. But I did say if even half of what this guy says is true, then it's time to bug out. Also, I would like to say for the record, anyone who sits on their hands and feels it's their prerogative to be a Fukushima debunker at ATS, CLEARLY is taking this disaster a little too lightly. I would have to question the moral integrity of anyone who tries to downplay this disaster as "fear mongering"



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


The disaster isn't fear mongering.

The way it's presented is.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Liberal1984
The Hiroshima bomb weighed 4400kg with 64kg of highly enriched uranium inside, en.wikipedia.org... that then became as irradiated as anything in any nuclear reactor.

So the Maths...
64kg times 24 times 365 = 560,640 kg of uranium Fukushima must be leaking a year!!! My God did the power plant core, even weigh that much?
Then times 10 (since its 10 per hour) = 5,600,640 per year!


Except…
The uranium used in Hiroshima was literally 20 times more concentrated with the radioactive U235 isotope, than the fuel used in Fukushima. Therefore (to get anywhere near a fallout equivalent) we’d needed to times this 5,600,640 by 20 = 110,212,800kg = amount of leaked Fukushima power plant fuel, per year!!!

Perhaps the Japanese are hiding an alien radiation, matter creating machine, there?

Now I’m going to stock up on piles, and where my tin foil hat for protection.

Desertguy

all this is is a commercial to get people to buy the pills.
Yeah; people who should be Cognitive Enhancing pills (judging by the Sherrie number of gullible folk, flagging this threat out of what can only be described as “Stupendous Ignorance”).

Still: We are all prone to accepting whatever information, backing the views we already have. But does indicate about the anti-nuke folks views -lack of critical thinking behind it.
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: (no reason given)



Stop with the math...just go to the site he recommends and buy the iodine.... buy like 20 years worth and you will be saved.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Tusks
 





Do we have any evidence of significant elevation of radioactivity in seawater near Japan at the present moment?? Again, the answer is no. The following data is published by the Japan Nuclear Regulatory Agency.


Data discovered and reported by TEPCO you mean? And published on the IAEA website. That's awfully trusting of you. I would be curious as to what other independent studies for cesium levels show. However, I can't see how an estimated 20 trillion and 40 trillion becquerels that leaked into the ocean since the disaster, won't show a significant elevation of radioactivity. As for the average radioactivity in sea water, I would have double the check the facts on that as well. Not saying I don't believe you, just my own due diligence.

ETA: Yet, immediately I find this statement which directly contradicts the data you presented which reads...

Specifically, Tepco found at one well that the level of cesium 134, a radioactive element with a half life of around 2 years commonly associated with nuclear accidents, was 9,000 becquerels per liter on July 8–90 times higher than it was just three days earlier.


Source

Nope, no fear mongering here but I will add one link supporting your point.
www.biogeosciences-discuss.net...
edit on 10-11-2013 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


There are 1 trillion liters of seawater in 1 cubic Km. In a 20 km x 20 km x 1km volume of seawater adjacent to FD, there would be 400 trillion liters (400 cubic Km). If we added 40 trillion Bq to that volume of normal sea water, the readings might go from14.0 Bq/liter to 14.1 Bq/liter. Once you expand the volume to four hundred million cubic KM(about 1/2 the volume of the Pacific Ocean), you can see that the effect would be 1/1,000,000th of that for 400 Km^3--which would not be measurably different than normal seawater. The high radiation count water coming out of FD is diluted quickly once we get past a few KM from the plant

edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join