Fukushima radiation… what you need to know and why

reply to post by RickinVa


So... how much radiation is normally in ocean water?

reply to post by ENrgLee


dude...give it up..

you will never ever convince me or anyone with half a brain that adding more radiation on top of any existing radiation is a good thing.

reply to post by RickinVa


Ah, still not fast enough...

Here are the figures:

(1971 Radioactivity in the Marine Environment, National Academy of Sciences)
(Abstract: www.umich.edu...)

Natural Radioactivity in the Ocean

(Figures for all oceans, seperated by isotope)

Uranium 41,000,000,000,000,000,000 Bequerels
Potassium-40 14,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Bequerels
Tritium 740,000,000,000,000,000 Bequerels
Carbon-14 6,700,000,000,000,000,000 Bequerels
Rubidium-87 1,300,000,000,000,000,000,000 Bequerels

Grand Total: 15,348,440,000,000,000,000,000 Bequerels

(That's 15.3 Zetta Bequerels)


How much did you say was being dumped into the oceans?

you will never ever convince me or anyone with half a brain that adding more radiation on top of any existing radiation is a good thing.

And you will never get away with saying that Fukushima is the end of the world.

ENrgLee
reply to post by RickinVa

 

Ah, still not fast enough...

Here are the figures:

(1971 Radioactivity in the Marine Environment, National Academy of Sciences)
(Abstract: www.umich.edu...)

Natural Radioactivity in the Ocean

(Figures for all oceans, seperated by isotope)

Uranium 41,000,000,000,000,000,000 Bequerels
Potassium-40 14,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Bequerels
Tritium 740,000,000,000,000,000 Bequerels
Carbon-14 6,700,000,000,000,000,000 Bequerels
Rubidium-87 1,300,000,000,000,000,000,000 Bequerels

Grand Total: 15,348,440,000,000,000,000,000 Bequerels

(That's 15.3 Zetta Bequerels)


How much did you say was being dumped into the oceans?

you will never ever convince me or anyone with half a brain that adding more radiation on top of any existing radiation is a good thing.

And you will never get away with saying that Fukushima is the end of the world.

edit on E2Tue, 14 Jan 2014 00:57:36 -0600120America/ChicagoAmerica/Chicago by ENrgLee because: (no reason given)

you guys never get tired of baiting people do you? Show me where I said it was the end of the world...

oh darn you can't.,, so please stop doing it

reply to post by RickinVa


You just don't like talking about facts.

reply to post by ENrgLee


there is only one fact:


Adding more man-made radiation on top of any naturally occurring or previous man induced radiation that currently exists is a bad idea.

if its.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 its bad........ bottom line

reply to post by RickinVa

if its.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 its bad........

ENrgLee
reply to post by RickinVa

 

if its.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 its bad........

we agree to disagree...... its as simple as that.

reply to post by RickinVa

we agree to disagree...... its as simple as that.

It's not a matter of disagreement, it's a question of weight ratios.

You keep posting that fukushima is the end of the world, and I will keep filling your threads with FACTS about radiation, and Education about radionucliotides...

That's a promise.

ENrgLee
reply to post by RickinVa

 

we agree to disagree...... its as simple as that.

It's not a matter of disagreement, it's a question of weight ratios.

You keep posting that fukushima is the end of the world, and I will keep filling your threads with FACTS about radiation, and Education about radionucliotides...

That's a promise.

Ok thats it I am going to the mods on this one........ I never posted that Fukushima is the end of the world. Your blatantly lying and trying to provoke me.

Back to bio accumulation.... it will be interesting to see the results of the Kelp study.... They are getting volunteers to help take samples all up and down the California coast.

reply to post by RickinVa

Ok thats it I am going to the mods on this one

I await with excitement.

I never posted that Fukushima is the end of the world. Your blatantly lying and trying to provoke me.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You don’t have to wait for Godzilla to appear to realize that Fukushima Daiichi is a global disaster of epic proportions…..

ENrgLee
reply to post by RickinVa

 

Ok thats it I am going to the mods on this one

I await with excitement.

I never posted that Fukushima is the end of the world. Your blatantly lying and trying to provoke me.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You don’t have to wait for Godzilla to appear to realize that Fukushima Daiichi is a global disaster of epic proportions…..

edit on E2Tue, 14 Jan 2014 01:26:59 -060010America/ChicagoAmerica/Chicago by ENrgLee because: (no reason given)

it is a global disaster of epic proportions... it's already passed Chernobyl..... tell me exactly how that turns into "the end of the world" because that is not what I said.

The topic of this thread is bio accumulation and the continued leaking at the Fukushima Daiichi plant,,,, not about the end of the world..... there's enough Fukushima doom porn on this site already.

reply to post by RickinVa

it is a global disaster of epic proportions... it already past Chernobyl

Would you like to provide a source or citation to back up your claim?

Or would you prefer to insult me for daring to ask you to verify your assertions again?

The topic of this thread is bio accumulation and the continued leaking at the Fukushima Daiichi plant

And posting facts about how much radiation is already in the oceans is off topic?

not about the end of the world.....

Could have fooled me...

"Epic" has a very specific meaning, as does "Global" and "Disaster"

there's enough Fukushima doom porn on this site already.

Then stop posting it already.

again we agree to disagree


I think that the fact that Fukushima is leaking radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean on a daily basis is a bad thing. There is no denying that's it's leaking, Tepco has admitted that much themselves. You seem to be of the opinion that Fukushima is in coincidental and no one should worry about it.

That's where we agree to disagree.

I think that a 8.9 earthquake, followed by a Tsunami, followed by explosions at a nuclear plant, followed by simultaneous triple core meltdown at a nuclear facility is an Epic Global Disaster......... you do not.

Again, that's where we agree to disagree.

Are you going to try and tell me that radiation from Fukushima will not show up in the food chain?? It already has and that has been well documented. It will bio accumulate and the longer it keeps leaking, the worse its going to be absorbed.

Air dose rates halved 30 months after Fukushima accident

Air dose levels in an 80-kilometer area surrounding the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant have dropped by 47 percent since November 2011.

The latest readings for September were announced on Dec. 25 by the Nuclear Regulation Authority, the government’s nuclear watchdog.

“Two and a half years after the accident, radiation levels have steadily decreased,” an NRA official said.

Asahi Source

reply to post by RickinVa

I think that a 8.9 earthquake, followed by a Tsunami, followed by explosions at a nuclear plant, followed by simultaneous triple core meltdown at a nuclear facility is an Epic Global Disaster......... you do not.

How is it global?

They all happened at the same place.... a City in Japan.