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.

 

Fukushima radiation… what you need to know and why

page: 18
60
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I've already provided scientific papers, written by experts...we already know from other threads that you choose to ignore legit science.




posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


All Reactor was automatically Shut Down:


The earthquake brought Units 1, 2, and 3 to an automatic shutdown because of the high seismic acceleration. The off-site power supply was also lost because of damage to the transmission towers from the earthquake. For this reason, the EDGs for each unit were automatically started up to maintain the function of cooling the reactors and the SFPs. Normal reactor cooldown and decay heat removal functions were under way.

Source

Many People do not know this.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   

donlashway
reply to post by dragonridr
 




“Trust me ive worked with nuclear materials in a lab for medical research if i was screaming about dangers then be worried.”

Is this your claim of authority? Are you a degreed professional? Licensed? Do you feel responsible and liable for what you write here?



“…what's important is the intensity of the exposure.”
I could almost agree if we add the qualifier that we are only considering emitted radiation and the intensity of the energies released. The radioactive nucleotides produced, released and still being produced and released are the main concern of those informed about this disaster.



“The only danger was the initial exposure because those were not beta particles.”
Health professionals working with radiation as a tool might disagree; Alpha and Gamma are fast and powerful going right through the tissue, Beta however, are absorbed by the tissue causing damage.



“However by this point the reactor is shut down no new radiation is being created”
Just don’t know what to say about your belief other than all of us here writing daily have failed to enlighten you, sorry, do you read any of it?



“You know so little about radiation now you've gone to just making silly statements. Its not recommended for anyone to eat a couple of ounces of cesium though you could and live.”
Dangerous statement; anyone eating a gram of Cesium 55 would likely die from the resulting hydrogen explosion. Do I need to explain ?
Please, consider what you write, believe it or not bad information can hurt people.


edit on 21-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)


Wow you are wrong on almost everything lets start with xray and gamma particles cant believe you think beta is more lethal. Most beta particles barely penetrate the skin and then only in close proximity. And of course the intensity of the exposure is the deciding factor in radiation damage to a biological entity. Tissue absorption is involved in the exposure however cesium 137 is easily removed from our system for two reasons. One our body removes them through encapsulation and second the water in our system helps protect us because it cuts down on the exposure. After radioactive cesium is ingested, it is distributed fairly uniformly throughout the body's soft tissues. This helps cut down on the damage keeping the radiation to a lower level then if it was all in one location. The body quickly removes it in about a 1 month to four months depending on activity. In fact its even faster in children and infants. And yes you can ingest cesium 137 and live no one was discussing cesium 55 its an unstable akali in fact you would never get a chance to eat it it would ignite on contact with air. So dont try to undermine something with a statement that makes exactly 0 sense. And as far as the reactor please show us its still active and hasnt been shut down the only danger is if the fuel rods in storage overheat. this would lead to another release of radioactive iodine this is dangerous and of course more cesium 137.

Dont make a statement show me where im wrong how many curies of cesium 137 is lethal? And how much would you have to ingest for it to be fatal i have a chart at work i guess ill have to email it home. By the way i have worked in a medical facility treating cancer patients before another opportunity came along working with the university so if you want to discuss the effects of radiation exposure we can. But lets start has there been any mention of radiation burns or bronchial tubes being damaged do to this incident? How about damage to small intestines anything for that matter the exposure was to small to hurt people. Now this doesnt mean there will not be increased risks for cancer but no more than someone smoking.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by donlashway
 


What does Cs55 have to do with this discussion? Nice straw man.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Human0815
reply to post by dragonridr
 


All Reactor was automatically Shut Down:


The earthquake brought Units 1, 2, and 3 to an automatic shutdown because of the high seismic acceleration. The off-site power supply was also lost because of damage to the transmission towers from the earthquake. For this reason, the EDGs for each unit were automatically started up to maintain the function of cooling the reactors and the SFPs. Normal reactor cooldown and decay heat removal functions were under way.

Source

Many People do not know this.


At this point it is almost a certainty that 1 or more of the reactors suffered a core meltdown.

But again, time will tell.......... time will reveal everything..........



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 


ray, I am trying to clear up a dangerous statement that we can eat any Cesium. It's chemistry not nuclear physics, Cesium in all forms will react violently with water, liberating hydrogen while providing enough thermal energy for ignition.
dragonridr said, "...
“You know so little about radiation now you've gone to just making silly statements. Its not recommended for anyone to eat a couple of ounces of cesium though you could and live.”



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


I will go back through previous post and repost information as a rebuttal, however it will only help if you read it.

In the mean time could you read the following from, The US National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement ?


Permissible Levels of Exposure The US National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement gave expression to the theoretical resolution of this human dilemma by articulating the implicit reasoning behind subsequent radiation protection standards development:[20]
A value judgment which reflects, as it were, a measure of psychological acceptability to an individual of bearing slightly more than a normal share of radiation-induced defective genes.
A value judgment representing society's acceptance of incremental damage to the population gene pool, when weighted by the total of occupationally exposed persons, or rather those of reproductive capacity as involved in Genetically Significant Dose calculation.
A value judgment derived from past experience of the somatic effects of occupational exposure, supplemented by such biomedical and biological experimentation and theory as has relevance. This is now an internationally accepted approach to setting standards for toxic substances when no safe level of the substance exists.
In short, this elaborate philosophy recognises the fact that there is no safe level of exposure to ionising radiation, and the search for quantifying such a safe level is in vain. A permissible level, based on a series of value judgments, must then be set. This is essentially a trade-off of health for some `benefit' -- the worker receives a livelihood, society receives the military `protection' and electrical power is generated. Efforts to implement these permissible standards would then logically include convincing the individual and society that the `permissible' health effects are acceptable. This has come to mean that the most undesirable health effects will be infrequent and in line with health effects caused by other socially acceptable industries. Frequently, however, the worker and/or public is given the impression that these `worst' health effects are the only individual health effects. A second implication of the standards-based-on-value-judgments approach is that unwanted scientific research resulting in public scrutiny of these value judgments must be avoided.

`Basic Radiation Protection Criteria', US National Council on Radiation Protection Report no. 39, pp. 58-60.

In short, this elaborate philosophy recognises the fact that there is no safe level of exposure to ionising radiation, and the search for quantifying such a safe level is in vain.



recognises the fact that there is no safe level of exposure to ionising radiation




R. M. Sievert, the famous radiologist, who had supervised radiation therapy since 1926 at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, pointed out at an international meeting in 1950 that `there is no known tolerance level for radiation'.[14] A tolerance level is a level below which there is no damage (sometimes called a threshold). A safety level is ordinarily a fraction (one-tenth) of the tolerance level.[14] R. M. Sievert, `Tolerance Levels and Swedish Radiation-protection Work', Proceedings of the Health Physics Society, June 1956, p. 181.


Do you understand this ? Do you agree? What is that magical number of sick, dieing and mutated people that society should react to ?

Give me a bit to get you a reply to your post.

edit on 21-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 


What are you talking about?

We know that 3. Reactors had/ have a Melt-Down
and we know that all three Cores are not critical at the moment!



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 


Rick 1,2, and 3 melted down. Human responding to post about shutdown.
They all shut down, but keep making heat for years. The cooling failed after shutdown resulting in the meltdowns.
If you can get to the opening threads there's tons of info real fast.
edit on 21-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by donlashway
 


Radiation will always increase risks we are bombarded by radiation every day of our lives. Theres cosmic infrared and of course beta radiation from the earth itself. The water you drink guess what radioactive try it use a gieger counter. We cant avoid radiation your body will repair damage done at low levels. For example do you know when the apollo astronauts went to the moon they reported seeing flashes. This was gamma rays slamming into the retina causing a flash. The damage will repair itself as long as the exposure is decreased. Are bodies couldnt adapt to prevent radiation from hurting us so it did the next best thing made sure the damage done can be repaired. This is why we can irradiate someone to the point there hair falls out to kill cancer. The object is to kill the cancer cells before doing to much damage to the others. Once the cancer is gone and exposure is stopped the cells repair the damage done by chemo.

In a perfect world there would be no radiation exposure however thats impossible. Your whole argument is based on if radiation hurts you of course it does but in low levels the damage will be repaired. Even exposure to large amounts of cesium 137 as long as you're removed from the exposure area. In this case about 20 miles from the plant the concentrations are too high. Outside of that area your body will handle the radiation. So unless you live in that 20 miles youll be fine as i said earlier long run increased risk of cancer but alot of things we do increases are risk of cancer. Outside of a hundred miles there is no way to even measure the effect because it will fall within statistical margin of error.

Does anyone in any other country need to worry about radiation from the plant of course not. Id be more worried about waering sunscreen youll receive more radiation taking a walk.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 





Wow you are wrong on almost everything lets start with xray and gamma particles cant believe you think beta is more lethal.

Difference here I'm considering the ingested radioactive nucleotide emission and you are speaking of an out side source.
Do you remember any of the radioactive substances you put in people ? What are the particles they released ? No beta emitters, that's because the body absorbs the beta while others just do a little damage on the way out. I assumed from your credentials you understood that.




Tissue absorption is involved in the exposure however cesium 137 is easily removed from our system for two reasons. One our body removes them through encapsulation and second the water in our system helps protect us because it cuts down on the exposure. After radioactive cesium is ingested, it is distributed fairly uniformly throughout the body's soft tissues. This helps cut down on the damage keeping the radiation to a lower level then if it was all in one location. The body quickly removes it in about a 1 month to four months depending on activity. In fact its even faster in children and infants.




One of the key discoveries made by Bandazhevsky was that Cesium-137 bioconcentrates in the endocrine and heart tissues, as well as the pancreas, kidneys and intestines. This goes completely against one of the primary assumptions used by the ICRP to calculate “effective dose” as measured by milliseiverts: that Cesium-137 is uniformly distributed in human tissues. Let me restate that. The current ICRP methodology is to assume that the absorbed dose is uniformly distributed in human tissues. This is, in fact, not the case…
From previous post useful info posted... For review from previous post, if interested in learning more search Dr. Yuri Bandazhevsky.




And yes you can ingest cesium 137 and live no one was discussing cesium 55 its an unstable akali in fact you would never get a chance to eat it it would ignite on contact with air. So dont try to undermine something with a statement that makes exactly 0 sense.
If you would research this on you own this time, you will find that the Cesium 137 will react even more violently...




And as far as the reactor please show us its still active and hasnt been shut down the only danger is if the fuel rods in storage overheat. this would lead to another release of radioactive iodine this is dangerous and of course more cesium 137.
Tepco says it's shut down and the temperature under 100 c would lead you to believe that if we only knew where those cores went to ? Have you seen the pics of the I-beam falling into reactor 3 spent fuel pool? Makes me wonder if anything there could be wrong. I have to trust Tepco when they say there's no MOX fuel in there, how about you ?




Dont make a statement show me where im wrong how many curies of cesium 137 is lethal?

Really need a time qualifier here; dead in seconds, years or just surely dead ?


Effects Of Cesium-137 On Human Health However: ”Research done by Dr. Yuri Bandazhevsky, and his colleagues and students, in Belarus during the period 1991 through 1999, correlated whole body radiation levels of 10 to 30 Becquerels per kilogram of whole body weight with abnormal heart rhythms and levels of 50 Becquerels per kilogram of body weight with irreversible damage to the tissues of the heart and other vital organs.





1 Ci = 3.7×1010 Bq = 37 GBq you can do the math if you like





But lets start has there been any mention of radiation burns or bronchial tubes being damaged do to this incident? How about damage to small intestines anything for that matter the exposure was to small to hurt people. Now this doesnt mean there will not be increased risks for cancer but no more than someone smoking.
Whoa, I got three pages of quotes from you. Should we number them or something to keep track of those we have resolved; not just posted a reply to and moved on ? I don't mean we need to agree but let's get real.
edit on 21-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


There's a major difference between sun/natural radiation and man-made particles coming at us in the water and air. Breathing in the stuff or eating it is deadly and it's been running freely 24/7 since 3/11. Even the Canadian government PR salesman told me just after it happened that there's nothing to worry about, there's more radiation in a banana than Fukushima... And people believe that.... so sad.... and then they took down all the radiation monitors... yeah, it's all safe for sure ;-)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   

dragonridr
reply to post by donlashway
 


Radiation will always increase risks we are bombarded by radiation every day of our lives. Theres cosmic infrared and of course beta radiation from the earth itself. The water you drink guess what radioactive try it use a gieger counter. We cant avoid radiation your body will repair damage done at low levels. For example do you know when the apollo astronauts went to the moon they reported seeing flashes. This was gamma rays slamming into the retina causing a flash. The damage will repair itself as long as the exposure is decreased. Are bodies couldnt adapt to prevent radiation from hurting us so it did the next best thing made sure the damage done can be repaired. This is why we can irradiate someone to the point there hair falls out to kill cancer. The object is to kill the cancer cells before doing to much damage to the others. Once the cancer is gone and exposure is stopped the cells repair the damage done by chemo.

In a perfect world there would be no radiation exposure however thats impossible. Your whole argument is based on if radiation hurts you of course it does but in low levels the damage will be repaired. Even exposure to large amounts of cesium 137 as long as you're removed from the exposure area. In this case about 20 miles from the plant the concentrations are too high. Outside of that area your body will handle the radiation. So unless you live in that 20 miles youll be fine as i said earlier long run increased risk of cancer but alot of things we do increases are risk of cancer. Outside of a hundred miles there is no way to even measure the effect because it will fall within statistical margin of error.

Does anyone in any other country need to worry about radiation from the plant of course not. Id be more worried about waering sunscreen youll receive more radiation taking a walk.


The reason for writing here is to discover and discuses information; for this to work you need to read and reply to what I write not just go on posting whatever you please, would you agree ?



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Again:
I will go back through previous post and repost information as a rebuttal, however it will only help if you read it.

In the mean time could you read the following from, The US National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement ?


Permissible Levels of Exposure The US National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement gave expression to the theoretical resolution of this human dilemma by articulating the implicit reasoning behind subsequent radiation protection standards development:[20]
A value judgment which reflects, as it were, a measure of psychological acceptability to an individual of bearing slightly more than a normal share of radiation-induced defective genes.
A value judgment representing society's acceptance of incremental damage to the population gene pool, when weighted by the total of occupationally exposed persons, or rather those of reproductive capacity as involved in Genetically Significant Dose calculation.
A value judgment derived from past experience of the somatic effects of occupational exposure, supplemented by such biomedical and biological experimentation and theory as has relevance. This is now an internationally accepted approach to setting standards for toxic substances when no safe level of the substance exists.
In short, this elaborate philosophy recognises the fact that there is no safe level of exposure to ionising radiation, and the search for quantifying such a safe level is in vain. A permissible level, based on a series of value judgments, must then be set. This is essentially a trade-off of health for some `benefit' -- the worker receives a livelihood, society receives the military `protection' and electrical power is generated. Efforts to implement these permissible standards would then logically include convincing the individual and society that the `permissible' health effects are acceptable. This has come to mean that the most undesirable health effects will be infrequent and in line with health effects caused by other socially acceptable industries. Frequently, however, the worker and/or public is given the impression that these `worst' health effects are the only individual health effects. A second implication of the standards-based-on-value-judgments approach is that unwanted scientific research resulting in public scrutiny of these value judgments must be avoided.

`Basic Radiation Protection Criteria', US National Council on Radiation Protection Report no. 39, pp. 58-60.

In short, this elaborate philosophy recognises the fact that there is no safe level of exposure to ionising radiation, and the search for quantifying such a safe level is in vain.



recognises the fact that there is no safe level of exposure to ionising radiation




when no safe level of the substance exists.





R. M. Sievert, the famous radiologist, who had supervised radiation therapy since 1926 at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, pointed out at an international meeting in 1950 that `there is no known tolerance level for radiation'.[14] A tolerance level is a level below which there is no damage (sometimes called a threshold). A safety level is ordinarily a fraction (one-tenth) of the tolerance level.[14] R. M. Sievert, `Tolerance Levels and Swedish Radiation-protection Work', Proceedings of the Health Physics Society, June 1956, p. 181.



Do you understand this ? Do you agree? What is that magical number of sick, dieing and mutated people that society should react to ?

edit on 21-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   

wishes
reply to post by dragonridr
 


There's a major difference between sun/natural radiation and man-made particles coming at us in the water and air. Breathing in the stuff or eating it is deadly and it's been running freely 24/7 since 3/11. Even the Canadian government PR salesman told me just after it happened that there's nothing to worry about, there's more radiation in a banana than Fukushima... And people believe that.... so sad.... and then they took down all the radiation monitors... yeah, it's all safe for sure ;-)


I dont know about Canada shutting down there monitoring sounds like a funding problem But you can use the monitoring stations in the US and its live data you can check it as it comes in on radnet.

www.epa.gov...



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by donlashway
 


You need to look for the huge Amounts of Radiation
in the medical Therapy/ Treatment,
this are very high Numbers and no one is surprised
that they are dangerous!

Look for the Oncology for example,
they work with amounts that high that It is not allowed
to even touch the Patients,
Wastewater from big Hospitals is that high polluted that
you find huge Amounts of Isotopes in the Sewage-Plant.

Sievert worked in that Time with even more Aggressive Stuff,
there is no surprise in his Statement,
but now look for the Amounts in the case of F'Shima!


edit on 21-1-2014 by Human0815 because: a plant

edit on 21-1-2014 by Human0815 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Human0815
 


Try as I might, I just can not get people to get it, "no ionizing radiation is safe".

If that is understood than this problem can be understood.

The rest is a game with how fast it kills.

Is the radiation limit really that point which society can no longer function?

Isn't it too late then ?
edit on 21-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by donlashway
 


I can't understand your Posting


Please explain it.

Regards



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   

donlashway
reply to post by Human0815
 


Try as I might I just can not get people to agree, "no ionizing radiation is safe".

If that is understood than this problem can be understood.
Everybody agrees that high levels of ionizing radiation are harmful. The debate is about very low exposure levels which some people feel poses a risk, and others don't, but the data is inconclusive to support either view, so you won't get a scientific resolution to that anytime soon. The numbers are just too small to accurately measure and there are too many confounding factors at such low levels, like differing amounts of background radiation. This shows a graphical comparison of the linear (no-threshold) model with the threshold model where a threshold level of radiation needs to be exceeded for the radiation to become harmful to humans. Neither model has been ruled out by available data (nor has either model been confirmed):

www.hiroshimasyndrome.com...

The third (hormetic) model would apply to ingesting something like iron which is toxic at high levels but actually beneficial at low levels. Not many people think that model applies to radiation but there are actually a few.

In any case, I think for all the people outside of Japan, we are talking about the exposure levels below the threshold in this debate. Even if the threshold view is wrong, the number of premature deaths outside Japan from the linear no-threshold model should be tiny. Most Americans could increase their lifespan a lot more by shedding some fat, compared to the tiny risk from Fukushima radiation:

Radiation and Risk

One way often used is to look at the number of "days lost" out of a population due to early death from separate causes, then dividing those days lost between the population to get an "Average Life expectancy lost" due to those causes. The following is a table of life expectancy lost for several causes:

Health Risk Est. life expectancy lost

Smoking 20 cigs a day-----6 years

Overweight (15%)------2 years

Alcohol (US Ave)-------1 year

All Accidents-----------207 days

All Natural Hazards---------7 days

Occupational dose (300 mrem/yr)-----15 days

Occupational dose (1 rem/yr)-------51 days
That last dose of 1 rem/yr is close to what you'd get at the disaster site now, which is actually about 0.8 rem/yr (meaning reduced life expectancy of 41 days) according to this:

Radiation Level at Fukushima Rises to 8*mSv/yr: Report
So in Japan there is some risk, but outside Japan and its coastal waters, the risk hardly even registers on that list, even if the most pessimistic no threshold risk model is true.
edit on 21-1-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Human0815
 


Not to Human, more a rant to all...

If it is true, "no ionizing radiation is safe".
If we agree, then there can be a logical discussion.
To argue otherwise makes no sense to me.

Knowing that one signal ionizing atom in your body is causing damage and leading to your premature death is a good starting point of understanding to me.

Am I wrong?




`Basic Radiation Protection Criteria', US National Council on Radiation Protection Report no. 39, pp. 58-60. In short, this elaborate philosophy recognises the fact that there is no safe level of exposure to ionising radiation, and the search for quantifying such a safe level is in vain.




R. M. Sievert, the famous radiologist, who had supervised radiation therapy since 1926 at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, pointed out at an international meeting in 1950 that `there is no known tolerance level for radiation'.[14] A tolerance level is a level below which there is no damage (sometimes called a threshold).


In my case that's 1 nuclear explosion at the atomic level from 1 atom of ionizing radiation or 0.0037735 Bq/ lb total body exposure.

Then we understand what we are talking about adding to it.

Cosmic, natural, electronic, medical, Chernobyl, test and weapons, dumping, burning, Fukushima and I'm sure hundreds of other sources.

edit on 21-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join