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: 21
60
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   

donlashway
reply to post by Human0815
 


Think it is Tepco who is responsible,
will you see that Tepco is just the
Name of a Company but not the Root of all Evil!

The Humankind decided (without you and me) that it is Okay
to sacrifice Earthlings and Nature for the greater Benefit
of the Hive!

We kill each other in Wars and do not even care when Kids
die in our Neighborhood because of Thirst, we "harvest" Animals
and poison the Water and our Air and for the Society this is Okay!
edit on 23-1-2014 by Human0815 because: spell

Would it be ok to paraphrase your reply ?


Tepco is the one at the helm of the Fukushima nuclear plants, fact.
Tepco is the one being left at the helm of the Fukushima nuclear plants to deal with 'everything', fact.
Tepco is the one whose name appears on reports about radiation levels at the Fukushima nuclear plants, fact.
So who else are we supposed to address about radiation at Fukushima in these forums? GE? Obama? Polar Bears?
These are threads in a Japan forum about the Fukushima crisis - this thread is in particular about radiation and what we should know. So my question to the 'world at large' is why there are no independent readings with independent equipment being allowed near Fukushima and we have ONLY Tepco's 'filtered' readings to go by?
They have no right to be secretive! People cry out "we" let them build these with "public" money - if that's so then the information should be public don't ya think?
I'm not 'grateful' for what little they release! That's absurd - they are giving us only what they want and we don't know what information they are refusing to make public! If they were truly acting "honorably" there would be no need to be secretive about ANYTHING. There would be no need for new secrecy laws in Japan.
We have a right to know the TRUE radiation levels so that we can have REAL discussions about it.

To clarify - "Humankind" IS with you and me included - "Humankind" did NOT decide these wars and sacrificing nature is for the benefit of all - that was done by a very small handful of powerful people well hidden behind the scenes that drive all the governments of the world and the energy industry and the media. "We" the people did not do this! But we are the ones who get to live with the after effects and in the dark both literally and figuratively. Tepco is not the root of all evil, they are the current scapegoat and the only 'face' this disaster presents for us to deal with. They are not transparent. I don't trust their readings because they have an amazingly poor track record (as do other industries), but again this section is about Fukushima/Japan, not other industries or countries.

Show me some properly done independent readings (including spectogram) all around Fukushima that matches Tepco's readings and I'll be more than satisfied that they're accurately conveying the 'real' picture. Before then, I don't trust anything they say or present, their entire protocol is to downplay the dangers and risks and promote a positive outlook that things are going well. It's a huge problem, they're not equipped or trained to deal with it but are left there to do so anyway.... for decades to come... let's hope there is NOT another earthquake to bring the rest of it down in the meantime.

How much radiation is really coming from Fukushima and going into the ocean? The truth is we really don't know!




posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   

raymundoko
reply to post by donlashway
 


You do know that Dam disasters are more common and cost more money right?

The Shimantan/Banqiao Dam cost 9 Billionish and 200,000 people died.

The Morvi Dam cost 2 Billionish and 2,000 people died.

In Comparison for example Chernobyl cost 6 billion and 4,000 people died.

Water and Coal disasters are far more common than Nuclear and have cost quite a bit more money in total.

Fukushima is estimated to cost around 80 billion with no deaths yet, but they estimate about 3200 people world wide will get cancer, 2500 of them in Japan.

So no, we don't agree. There have now been TWO major nuclear disasters. 2. Dos. 1989 and 2011.

There have been DOZENS of dam failures resulting in over a trillion dollars of repair.

There have also been dozens of coal plant disasters, which usually cost between 500 Million and 1 Billion to cleanup.




80 billion is is just to clean up the reactor site the cost to decontaminate the surrounding land is estimated that its going to cost Japan around 200 Billion which will not work. Also Damn disasters don't render 1000's of square miles of land unlivable for centuries. There have been deaths from Fukushima there have not been many but it is just beginning. Also people don't take into account the Still births caused by the accident. There are heart and immune diseases to take into account which no one really seams to do. And Damn disasters don't cause genetic deformations. That estimate is far to low. How was that number obtained? With what data? The ICRP model that only takes external dose into account? Or are they basing it off of Chernobyl which has been covered up by a corrupt govt. and only happened 30 years ago so we still have another 30 years before we can even comprehend how many cancers where caused by that accident. So any estimate given is just some number thats been thrown out there. There are heart and immune diseases to take into account which no one really seams to do.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by BGTM90
 


Nuclear disaters also don't render land unlivable for centuries, and the area around Chernobyl proves that. I'm not sure what you are basing that claim on.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   

raymundoko
reply to post by BGTM90
 


Nuclear disaters also don't render land unlivable for centuries, and the area around Chernobyl proves that. I'm not sure what you are basing that claim on.


Well there is an exclusion zone where people can not live with out experiencing consequences. Of the 1,200 people that stayed behind or returned in Chernobyl there are about 70 left the rest have died and they are all in their 70s-80s and radiation effects don't frequently present in the elderly population because the rate of cell division is extremely slow in them. If you had a baby and lived in that area the life expectancy of that child would be greatly reduced. Are you telling me you would be willing to move and live in Chernobyl or Fukushima and bring your family along with you? If so I would they really need help cleaning up.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 


In your reply it looks like you listed all deaths resulting from the different energy production methods.

So, I started looking for total death resulting from the nuclear industry.

Found these numbers:



My estimates are: Nuclear weapon testing: 1, 138 million
Nuclear weapon production: 3.2 million (84% local or regional)
Nuclear power production: 21 million (76% local or regional)
Medical production and use: 4 million
Accidents: Military - 16 million Civilian - 15 million Total Military: 1,156 million
Total civilian electricity related: 36 million
Total medical: 4 million
GRAND TOTAL: 1,200 million
Of these amounts, about 31.4% are radiation induced cancers; 19.6% are genetic effects and 49% are teratogenetic effects in live born offspring.
I used official risk factors except for not introducing the dose rate effect which the nuclear people do to reduce the number of cancers.
My own research would say that the cancer estimates should be doubled, not divided by two.
In the paper I maintained a neutral position be not doing either.
Best wishes, Rosalie Bertell

These numbers are not in dollars, you can get them converted if you wish, I'm sure there's an app for that.

This is how I think when you tell me the benefits of cheap nuclear power, do you see our difference ?

And before the big debate about sources credentials ect I present this information only in an effort to help you understand how I see it.
edit on 23-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)





1.3 Billion People Killed, Maimed, Sickened By Atmospheric Testing And Nuclear Plants "VICTIMS OF THE NUCLEAR AGE" Up to 1,300 million people have been killed, maimed or diseased by nuclear power since it's inception. The industry's figures massively underestimate the real cost of nuclear power, in an attempt to hide its victims from the world. Here, the author calculates the real number of victims of the nuclear age. by Dr. Rosalie Bertell

edit on 23-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)

more
edit on 23-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)




Another century of nuclear power, and this carnage would continue with more than 10 million victims a year. An industry which has the potential to kill, injure and maim that number of innocent people- and all in the name of 'benefitting' society - is surely wholly unacceptable. Rosalie Bertell, PhD, GNSH, is President of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health and Editor in Chief of International Perspectives in Public Health and Editor in Chief of International Perspectives in Public Health [IICPH]. Dr. Bertell can be reached via e-mail at: drrbertell@home.com

edit on 23-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Human0815
 


But do you have a imagination how the situation would lookalike
when the Accident happened somewhere else and in a Country
with much less intellectual Capacities and Money?

OK, both barrels...

Chernobyl occurred in a country with less intellectual capacity and money than Japan.

Fukushima is far worse than Chernobyl, no sane person would claim otherwise, even Tepco would find it hard to deny this.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by donlashway
 


Are you for real with that link as a source? No papers to back up data, no scientific studies to show data, nothing. That is the worst possible type of source you can use.

Also, that person includes radiation from weapons and handling of weapons technology... That isn't part if the debate.
edit on 23-1-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by BGTM90
 


I've already said Fukushima is hazardous for Japan and I would avoid it. The issue I take is how much it is affecting the rest of the planet right now...it isn't.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 

I wrote:



In your reply it looks like you listed all deaths resulting from the different energy production methods. So, I started looking for total death resulting from the nuclear industry.


And I wrote:



This is how I think when you tell me the benefits of cheap nuclear power, do you see our difference ? And before the big debate about sources credentials ect I present this information only in an effort to help you understand how I see it.


If you wish to understand my viewpoint and aid in your understanding of others ?

If not please, totally disregard my post and the information, I wish I could.

I was not the one saying nuclear energy is the cheapest, and I thought you should consider the people, the lost smiles ?
Not just the profits.
edit on 23-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)

Would you like to defend the industry with a point by point debate and analysis of her paper?
And maybe you would like to consider just the;


Nuclear power production: 21 million (76% local or regional)
or


Total civilian electricity related: 36 million
?
She does break it down, however weapons and power go together ask anyone in the Mideast.
edit on 23-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
people are allowing themselves to get caught by efforts of others to change the subject.

Talking about dams vs nuclear power is pure thread drift.


Again, would anybody like to talk about the new high reading 0f 3,100,000 bq per liter of beta emitters taken at test well 1-16 on 1/20/14?




www.tepco.co.jp...


Anybody?

Doesn't matter what well the sample was taken from so don't go there.....I don't care if it came from the mens toilet in the control room, it's strictly about the new record level that was recorded and the fact that here we are almost 3 years later and they are still finding new record levels? That just doesn't make logical sense and doesn't make a very good case for "containment".


Please try to stick to the topic of Fukushima and radiation from it. Debating the virtues of nuclear power belongs in another forum altogether.
edit on R272014-01-23T14:27:42-06:00k271Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R322014-01-23T14:32:29-06:00k321Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R482014-01-23T15:48:21-06:00k481Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R482014-01-23T15:48:55-06:00k481Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   

raymundoko
reply to post by BGTM90
 


Nuclear disaters also don't render land unlivable for centuries, and the area around Chernobyl proves that. I'm not sure what you are basing that claim on.



I am pretty sure that can be easily debunked as a totally false statement. 300 years is 3 centuries as far as I know,,, that's about how long it takes for strontium 90 to leave the environment. There will be areas around the Fukushima NPP that will not be habitable for centuries unless they can decontaminate the ground to lower readings.
edit on R242014-01-23T15:24:34-06:00k241Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

raymundoko
reply to post by BGTM90
 


The issue I take is how much it is affecting the rest of the planet right now...it isn't.


That wasn't the issue you took in your previous post you said Chernobyl proved that radiological disasters don't render the land unlivable. And you couldn't possibly know that it is not effecting places other than Japan and it is more than likely effecting parts of the globe other than the islands of Japan. Im not naive enough to say it defiantly is but I have suspicions that it did and still maybe effecting it.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 


WOW!!!

I remember seeing that there was a considerable increase in the amount of radiation per liter in November, but that was no where near this latest number.

If these new radiation levels are repeated, how else could anyone interpret it, other than things are rapidly spinning out of control.

The numbers I posted earlier show that the radiation levels in the contaminated water are enough to have a very serious effect on sea life, these latest numbers are catastrophic.

Maybe some are in favor of drinking the Fukushima bay water cool aide, but these latest numbers are looking like it is time to start taking action to protect oneself and one's family.


edit on 23-1-2014 by poet1b because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2014 by poet1b because: silly mistakes



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by BGTM90
 


No, I said they don't render them unlivable for centuries, which is what you claimed. Even in the worst zones of Chernobyl, right now, there is life flourishing. You can look up videos of it if you wish



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 

Caution Graphic Video
Chernybol Video



Is this the same place you are talking about ?

Have you watched this?

These are the people of Chernobyl The children

The FORGOTTEN !!!

Please don't tell me this is the cost of progress or cheap anything until you can watch 2 hours of that...



edit on 23-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   

raymundoko
reply to post by BGTM90
 


Nuclear disaters also don't render land unlivable for centuries, and the area around Chernobyl proves that. I'm not sure what you are basing that claim on.


Chernobyl Exclusion Zone

Established by the USSR military soon after the 1986 disaster, it initially existed as an area of 30-kilometer radius from the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant designated for evacuation and placed under military control.[5][6] Its borders have since been altered to cover a larger area of Ukraine. The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone borders a separately administered area, the Polesie state radiation and ecological reserve, to the north, in Belarus. The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is managed by an agency of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine, while the power plant itself and its sarcophagus (and replacement) are administered separately. The Exclusion Zone covers an area of approximately 2,600 km2[7] in Ukraine immediately surrounding the Chernobyl nuclear power plant where radioactive contamination from fallout is highest and public access and inhabitation are restricted. Other areas of compulsory resettlement and voluntary relocation not part of the restricted exclusion zone exist in the surrounding areas and throughout Ukraine.[8]

en.wikipedia.org...

Area around Chernobyl remains uninhabitable 25 years later

A quarter century later, they still have not returned. The "exclusion zone," a 30-kilometre circle of land, formerly home to 200,000 people, surrounding the reactor town of Pripyat, now in Ukraine near the border of Belarus, remains empty and uninhabitable.Radiation levels around the plant remain so high that authorities do not expect the area to be inhabitable for between 180 and 320 years.

www.theglobeandmail.com...

BBC News Q&A: Chernobyl 20 years on

Most of the radiation is no longer on the surface, but has sunk to a depth of between 5cm and 10cm. The most important thing is not to eat contaminated food - in particular, mushrooms, berries, game animals or fish from contaminated areas.
The explosion at Chernobyl released a large amount of radioactivity from the reactor including Caesium-137 and Strontium-90 which both have physical half-lives of about 30 years, although there are also actinides (such as plutonium) which have half-lives of many thousands of years. The accident at Chernobyl was not a "nuclear explosion" it was actually a steam explosion caused by a rapid and excessive build-up of heat.
Contamination varies considerably throughout the 30 km exclusion zone. Some areas could probably be used now but in others radiation doses may remain above advised limits for some hundreds of years. Any return to the zone will require careful planning and the uses the land is put to will need to be controlled.


Enough about Chernobyl and how radiation is harmless - let's keep on topic with the radiation from Fukushima instead of continually trying to derail the topic.
news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   

RickinVa
people are allowing themselves to get caught by efforts of others to change the subject.

Talking about dams vs nuclear power is pure thread drift.


Again, would anybody like to talk about the new high reading 0f 3,100,000 bq per liter of beta emitters taken at test well 1-16 on 1/20/14?




www.tepco.co.jp...


Anybody?

Doesn't matter what well the sample was taken from so don't go there.....I don't care if it came from the mens toilet in the control room, it's strictly about the new record level that was recorded and the fact that here we are almost 3 years later and they are still finding new record levels? That just doesn't make logical sense and doesn't make a very good case for "containment".


Please try to stick to the topic of Fukushima and radiation from it. Debating the virtues of nuclear power belongs in another forum altogether.


I would be very interested in hearing from someone in these forums who has a good understanding of what this means - seems like a VERY high number for a liter of water... I wonder if someone slipped up and actually posted real numbers...



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by donlashway
 


Do you want to suggest that there was no "genetic Disarrangements"
before the Disaster in Chernobyl?

Pregnancy and Birth are full of Dangers, for both.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Of course the Radioactivity is decreasing after a while but this do no mean
that "Life is flourishing"!

In Chernobyl they had ca. 900 different Species and now only ca. 600,
this still look good compared to other Disaster but do not mean
"all is well".

But the Zones are not lost, in F'Shima we see a very fast decrease of
the Hot Zone and with the right knowledge they even can to restart
their Farming!



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by wishes
 


To RickinVa:::

I'm still holding out people will stay on topic and actually discuss the reading you just posted! I'm most interested in what others (with real knowledge about radiation and not just an agenda) will have to say about it.
edit on 23-1-2014 by wishes because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join