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.

 

TWO - "RADCON_5_ALERT"s - "Nuclear Emergency Tracking Center"

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 


You shouldn't ask any one for links, as you yourself are adding nothing.



obviously related to Fukushima

No link, just you guessing with out knowledge about windborne radiation and how that works in relation to fukushima.



Fukushima radiation is hitting the United States. Not just the ocean, but the air, and in levels that are unhealthy

Again you post nothing of value, but i guess we just have to trust you, i'll suggest you read up on Windborne radiation and how that works ;-)




I don't know anything about measuring radiation

You don't know anything at all about radiation, do you? You are just against what other writes that goes against your believe, or am i wrong?
edit on 19-12-2013 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Mianeye
 


So what do you have to offer and whats your point?

Do you think we have a high risk [especially on the west coast?]

edit to add.....not trying to attack you and I know you are responding to someone else, but....what do you have as far as wind studies, I am curious. There are so many avenues to explore about radiation exposure. What levels constitute harm in humans? Why does one person get sick from it, while another one doesn't? Animals are another category. If there is no safe dose of exposure, than why does the EPA keep changing the acceptable risk level? [One dept. contradicts another, so who do we believe?]

Its depressing to work in the research field and see how gov. regulations and science don't always agree.





edit on 19-12-2013 by palmalBlue2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 



About RadNet Stationary Air Monitors

RadNet stationary (permanent) air monitors sample continuously at a nominal flow rate of 60 cubic meters per hour (Adults typically breathe at a rate of about 20 cubic meters per day.) The monitors collect any particles in the sample on a filter. Radiation detectors continuously measure the beta and gamma radioactivity from particles on the filter. Every hour, the stationary monitor sends an electronic report to EPA's National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory.

www.epa.gov...

While everyday citizens can log their results directly online at places like BlackCat or Radiation Network
www.blackcatsystems.com...

radiationnetwork.com...


The difference in measurement is something like this:
It's like trying to count fish in a muddy lake.

One way would be to put your hand in the water and see how many fish you could touch in a minute. This would be like turning on your own geiger counter and getting a reading in your backyard--like Radiation network or BlackCat does.

Another way would be to seine the lake for an hour, and then see how many fish you could touch in a minute from the seine contents. This is like the EPA monitors do it. This number is obviously going to be far in excess of the other method. High fish numbers for method one would likely not be considered high at all compared to results for method two.


Consider yourself hand-fed with info. what you do with it is up to you.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by palmalBlue2
 


i just thought Fisssion should post some data instead of going for other comments.

There isn't many to be trusted when reading raports or measurements on the internet about the Fukushima event, but one allmost "trustable" is Arnie Gunderson.

And he says that the plume wont hit untill next year, so then it can't be from Fukushima.


Date: Aug 27, 2013

At 17:00 in

Arnie Gundersen, Fairewinds chief engineer: For the people in Japan and people on the West Coast there is a wedge of radioactivity working its way across the Pacific — called a plume — of cesium-137, strontium, and other isotopes. The plume is about a year away from hitting the coast of the Pacific Northwest.


Radioactive plume to hit West Coast next year
edit on 19-12-2013 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 

Current:

Prior

Sentiment: A "Comparative" Observation.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Mianeye
 


I was defending the OP, and suggesting that those who put themselves out there as knowledgeable should actually back up what they're saying, rather than just being pissy.

Did you not understand that? I'm not the one who had a problem with the OP, but I sure as hell am not going to sit back and watch him be picked to pieces by people who pose as experts yet do not back up what they claim. Since we're on the subject, you haven't added anything either.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Tusks
 

See? That's an excellent example of showing what you meant by "shear" nonsense!

BTW, I didn't ask to be hand-fed anything, I simply stated that if you feel like you have expertise on the subject, that the onus is on you to show what you mean. I'm perfectly capable of looking things up and learning from them (such as the Radiation Network site, which is #1 on Google).

Thank you for stating your position clearly.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 

I just wanted to point out, that you had some claims with no backup.

But it's cool, no worrys

edit on 19-12-2013 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Mianeye
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 

I just wanted to point out that you had some claims with no backup.

But it's cool, no worrys


*Sigh* Since when does defending another poster require backup? It's not even my frigging thread! If it were, I would provide as much solid evidence as I could. However, the OP was simply offering an observation, based on a website. That's all. Therefore, anybody who had issues with the website could have shown, as Tusk has done, exactly why they disagree with the information.

As far as me assuming that any spiked radiation readings are courtesy of that disaster in Japan, yes, that is my opinion. If anybody has any information as to how spiked radiation readings could be caused by something other than that glowing green dot on the globe, I welcome it.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Mianeye
reply to post by palmalBlue2
 


i just thought Fisssion should post some data instead of going for other comments.

There isn't many to be trusted when reading raports or measurements on the internet about the Fukushima event, but one allmost "trustable" is Arnie Gunderson.

And he says that the plume wont hit untill next year, so then it can't be from Fukushima.


Date: Aug 27, 2013

At 17:00 in

Arnie Gundersen, Fairewinds chief engineer: For the people in Japan and people on the West Coast there is a wedge of radioactivity working its way across the Pacific — called a plume — of cesium-137, strontium, and other isotopes. The plume is about a year away from hitting the coast of the Pacific Northwest.


Radioactive plume to hit West Coast next year
edit on 19-12-2013 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)


If Arnie is talking a big plume hitting [as well as others saying the same] then I would definately pay attention.
The 'slow leak' type plume thats been hitting the west coast for a while is imo, up for grabs as far as what its gonna do to people in general. Thats a big grey area as far as gov. regs are concerned.
Thanks for the link!



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
That particular site has hard to understand warning numbers; it shows the DIFFERENCE in daily counts; if you go over to the Fukushima area and look at their numbers, the ones coming off right around the damaged reactor are in spectacular-level numbers, but if they aren't changing day to day, the alert status won't appear.

Same for the US - it's based on the aggregate daily changes as a warning, not on the 'normal' amounts.

Look over at the one count in Italy to get a look at what 'normal' should be.:

********************************************************************************
23
Station ID 1:EBED80FA Monfalcone, IT
CPM: current 23 Low 4 High 40
Average 21, Deviation 4.6
Average over last 10 minutes: 21

Click here for data charts
Last updated: 2013-12-19 19:23:28 GMT+0000
******************************************************************************


And here's from right over the Fukushima nuclear plant, the first number is the present count (with anything over 100 being cause for alarm):

*********************************************************************
146000
Station ID 6:1181341550 Fukushima Dai-ichi, Fukushima, JP
nSv/h: current 146000 Low 140000 High 154000
Average 147443, Deviation 2795.1

Click here for data charts
Last updated: 2013-12-18 14:30:00 GMT+0000
**********************************************************************
edit on 4824112pmThursdayf24Thu, 19 Dec 2013 13:24:48 -0600America/Chicago by signalfire because: addendum

edit on 3628112pmThursdayf28Thu, 19 Dec 2013 13:28:36 -0600America/Chicago by signalfire because: addendum



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by signalfire
 


A nano-Sievert is a very, very tiny amount. It takes 1000 nSv to equal 1 microSv.
146,000nSv is 146 microSv. If converted to approximate CPM would be 120x146 which would be about 17,520 CPM.
There are also currently readings at Fuku-diachi of 2900nSv. This would be about 350 CPM.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   

whitewave
Why am I not seeing Japan (Fukushima) on the map being lit up with an alert 5? If anybody should be oozing radiation right now, it should be them. Also, the little running banner at the top doesn't mention anything about Idaho or Nevada or offer any explanation as to why those 2 have high levels. Any ideas about that? TIA


I read an article, please don't ask where I am unable to remember, that might explain some of the reason why. It was talking about how much they dumped into the ocean and how it could swirl around in one spot for awhile and then spread and that some will move quickly on currents. It also talked some about how different levels will either evaporate up with water vapor and large amounts could be picked up in spouts and storms and carried clear around the earth lol.

In other words it could drop anywhere the trade winds blow and at different times. Lol

The Bot



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   

FissionSurplus


I see you're in Tokyo. How's that working out for ya?


Since you'd like to make this personal (not sure why?) It's going rather well thanks.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   

FissionSurplus
I find it really funny how people on ATS will get completely bent out of shape concerning where information is gleaned, yet the bigger picture escapes them completely.



So you are suggesting that the source of information is irrelevant? That's pretty odd.

What never ceases to amuse me is when TEPCO does provide figures they are dismissed here. But 'the nuclear emergency tracking center's' veracity is never questioned.
edit on 20-12-2013 by Alekto because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Duck cover and roll. Or just forget it. Maybe Japan is working on underground giant mutants.
edit on 22-6-2016 by RbotMurgolas because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join