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: 26
60
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


I previously posted two doctors who claim this. Mostly we are limited to what's on the internet as sources, I'm sure there are thousands over eons who have been stopped from going public with "Truth".

Public or private money doesn't make a difference, they are all manipulated in what they are allowed to publish. So some doctor comes up with a paper that casts a bad light on radiation and gets told 'if you publish that you'll have an unfortunate accident" or "your daughter will have an unfortunate accident" - you think they're going to go forward with it? This is their standard operating procedure and happens every day.

Governments are controlled, it doesn't matter whose name is on the 'title', they are directed and dictated to by them. Surely you've heard of who was it, Gore or someone who had major shares in the flu vaccines a few years back - this goes on all day every day but we hear about/discover maybe 1% of it. Those who try and disclose or make a difference are silenced or taken out - are way too many of these stories to keep them straight. I do not know the details of the nuclear industry per se (and could care less), however I know very well the working of TPTB behind it all - I spent forty years researching them and have read probably two thousand books about it from all directions so that I do know and have a very informed opinion. I care about Fukushima because it's unstoppable and not being addressed.

And honestly these round and round discussions are a waste of time - I'm interested in bona fide updates (which are hard to get) and not people's opinions about the 'okayness' of radiation. I think people underestimate the devastation Fukushima is causing to the oceans and air - that the governments REFUSE to test for radiation and keep referring to bananas (as Canada does) should be a clue!

Would be nice if people would simply post the best information they can without having to tell others they're wrong or their source is doom porn, etc. The only way to learn is to pool knowledge without judgment and let people use their own brains to sort it all out. I know everything out there isn't true - but I also know everything out there isn't false! It takes time and discernment and a lot of patience to wade through everything - plus we have the added bonus of new laws in Japan to keep information away. Yeah, nothing suspicious there either.

Common sense alone tells me Fukushima is far worse than Chernobyl and will cause massive deaths - just takes 'time'... and apparently Fukushima has decades of it to keep on spewing poison. I live rural for a reason but I can't dodge Fukushima radiation in the wind and rain here.




posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by wishes
 


I completely agree with you, and people who think that it is under control are fooling themselves,I appreciate all your info and research ,and I read the one doctor article but i must have missed your previous post about the breast milk thing,what are we supposed to do about tho ,should I buy a freaking Geiger counter and go live underground and all the rest of it . I fear for future generations of this earth with all this # going on,I have an eight year old that I don't want growing up in a world of nuclear radition, fear and paranoia of getting sick from radiation poisoning and dying ,I watched a video last night about surfers who are starting to lose there hair ,ill post it when I find it again.And Chernobyl was bad and it is still #ed up after all these years but it's kinda contained in one place and ,people are not allowed in but ,fukashima is not contained and is going all over the place .we need to start working on a way to dispose of nuclear waste instead of using technology to make stupid #.and find an alternate energy source and stop #ing making nuclear power!
edit on 28-1-2014 by nonconformist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 


As they say ask and ye shall receive.

ecolocalizer.com...



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by wishes
 


Posting information for the sake of knowledge is ok. Putting a spin on things for your own means to an end is quite another. You need to look at what's posted critically not just accept it as fact. Apparently you dont like it when people point out you're wrong well your in the wrong place everyone on ATS has opinions.As far as doom porn you are definitely promoting it reread your posts reminds me of chicken little you claim there killing us running around in circles.Well get informed learn about the types of radiation read the study i posted for example.But you dont want to critically look at the information you want to spoon feed your perspective to others. Well thats fine as long as you realize people on here are going to correct you. Ive agreed with some things you said but others your just promoting fear. I chalenge you to show in any way this affects anyone other than Japan.Show us the higher radiation levels in Canada or the US, See you cant i looked the only thing i could find was a couple of youtube vids made by people who dont know how to use a geiger counter.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   

RickinVa
I find that statement to be pure irony,,,,trying to say Fukushima is okay because other countries are doing it is absurd...if you can source some material that proves other countries are dumping/leaking 300 tons of radioactive water into the ocean on a daily basis, I'd like to see it. Whats even scarier should be the fact that there is no way to know when the radioactive water will stop leaking from Fukushima...Mankind has been polluting the oceans for centuries... eventually there will have to be a tipping point that is reached.....who can possibly say the Fukushima won't be a factor in that tipping point?
Fukushima radiation could very well be the "straw that broke the camel's back" additional level of exposure for a handful of people outside of Japan. So yes there's an anthill, but don't make a mountain out of it. For the people living in Japan, in contaminated areas, the risks are much higher, but even there estimates are they will lose on average less than one year of their life. Of course it doesn't work that way, it's more like 9 people will be unaffected and one will get cancer and die 10 years earlier and there's your average of 1 year. But outside Japan the risk from Fukushima drops off a lot.

The fact that other stuff has been dumped in the ocean doesn't make me feel any better, it makes me feel worse. However, it does illustrate that high levels of radioactive waste in the world's ocean doesn't cause global devastation and mayhem, or we would have seen such effects already.

I can't tell you if the amount is more or less than Fukushima daiichi's contribution to ocean radioactivity because I don't find any measurements in the sources...it's been there for decades:

Japan Sea Contamination

The former Soviet Union and Russia had dumped radioactive
waste on many occasions in the Far East water area including the
Sea of Japan since 1950s. Soviet Union/Russia had several dump
sites in the Sea of Japan and the North Pacific Ocean off Kamchatka
peninsula.

It is been known that Soviet Union/Russia had disposed of
highly radioactive waste in the sea of Far East area on at least
six occasions since 1978. In 1978, Soviet Union dumped two nuclear
reactors off North Korea. In 1985, it dumped radioactive waste in
the Pacific Ocean (specific location is unknown). In 1992, it
dumped containers of liquid radioactive waste in the Sea of Japan.
In 1989, it disposed of components of a submarine reactor in the
Pacific Ocean off Kamchatka peninsula. In 1992, it dumped
containers of nuclear waste in the Pacific off Kamchatka. In 1985,
Soviet submarine reactor exploded in the Sea of Japan and it has
continued to emit radiation ever since.3 In addition to those
dumpings, Russia seems to have continued to dispose of low-level
radioactive wastes as late as October 1993 when a Greenpeace vessel
witnessed and reported the Russia's dumping of liquid waste.

In 1975, "Soviet Union had ratified an international treaty
that banned dumping reactor hardware and strictly controlled the
disposal of liquid radioactive waste, requiring that nuclear wastes
disposed of at sea be sunk at least 3,000 m."4 In addition, Soviet
Union/Russia is a signatory of London Dumping Convention in 1983
which "called for an immediate halt to all dumping of nuclear waste
at sea."5 Although Soviet Union/Russia signed these treaties, it
has ignored them. Obviously the above listed events are bold
violations of international agreements.

It is believed that "the former Soviet Union dumped as many as
17,000 containers of solid and liquid nuclear waste into these
waters [Barents Sea and Kara Sea] between 1964-86, almost all of it
at depths of less than 300 m."6 Thus Soviet/Russia's dumpings were
not confined to far east area. The Arctic area is as much
threatened by nuclear wastes as the Sea of Japan...

In October, 1993 the Russian prime minister mentioned a
shortage of nuclear waste processing facilities as the reason for
Russia's disposal of nuclear wastes at sea.8 He also said that he
was expecting assistance from other countries including Japan to
construct appropriate facilities and that if such aid was
insufficient or slow Russia would be forced to resume dumping in
the future.9 Thus, this environmental problem seems to be used as
a card for political bargaining by Russia.

The most immediate concern of disposal of nuclear waste at sea
is the effect of radiation on the edible fish. Fish and sea plants
which inhabit the area might be contaminated by the waste. People
are likely to avoid buying fish caught in the allegedly polluted
area once they know of the disposal of dangerous substances. It
follows that obviously fishing would incur the most serious and
immediate damage from the dumping of nuclear wastes.
So there's mention of the threat to marine life, but no measurements. That's pretty appalling the Soviets/Russia signed a treaty to not dump nuclear waste, then did it anyway, got caught, then said they will keep doing it unless other countries like Japan etc help build waste processing facilities for them.

In all they dumped 14 reactors into the ocean including five that still contain spent fuel, and one exploded already as mentioned above. They think another one might explode.



The catalogue includes “... some 17,000 containers of radioactive waste, 19 ships containing radioactive waste, 14 nuclear reactors, including five that still contain spent nuclear fuel; 735 other pieces of radioactively contaminated heavy machinery, and the K-27 nuclear submarine with its two reactors loaded with nuclear fuel“. This revelation was published in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten on August 28, 2012....

It also needs to be mentioned that USA, UK and France (and probably China too), all permanent members of UNSC along with Russia, have in the past, equally irresponsibly dumped nuclear waste into the oceans at various places.

These Big Five nuclear states, which deem all other countries as incapable of responsible behaviour inasmuch as nuclear matters are concerned, owe it to the international community to come clean on past nuclear waste disposal like the Russians have done.
He provides a source for the catalog of Russian and soviet dumping, but not for the claim that other major nuclear powers dumped nuclear waste into the ocean. However, since they all signed a treaties in 1975 and 1983 to not dump nuclear waste into the ocean, what does that tell you about what they were all doing before 1975/1983?

The other major players haven't come clean like Russia has and admitted exactly how much they dumped in the ocean that I know of, so the Russian inventory could be the tip of the iceberg. I'd like to think the other players honored the 1975/1983 no ocean dumping treaties, but who knows?

So yeah none of this makes Fukushima radiation leaking into the ocean any safer, however it does put it in context. It's not the first source of radioactive contamination in the ocean. So it's bad news that Fukushima is adding more, but on the other hand it's good news that what's been dumped before 1975/1983 hasn't killed us all, at least not yet.
edit on 28-1-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


High radiation readings in the rain about 3 months after Fukushima blew up into the atmosphere. It is not normal for rain to be dangerously radioactive. The prevailing winds come from the Japan region.
Radiation Levels Will Concentrate in Pockets at Certain West Coast Locations
www.youtube.com...

Canada Busted Covering Up Spikes In Fukushima Radiation
Falsely Stated That There Were No Unusual Radiation Levels


Update: The Canadian government also under-reported the amount of radioactive xenon by 6,000%. The governments of Japan, America and Canada have covered up the severity of the Fukushima crisis ever since it started in March 2011. They’ve cut way back on radiation monitoring after the Fukushima meltdown, underplayed the amount of radiation pumped out by Fukushima, and raised acceptable radiation levels … rather than fixing anything.

www.washingtonsblog.com...


Canada: Fish Eaters Threatened by Fukushima Radiation


But the Japanese data show elevated levels of contamination in several seafood species that Japan has exported to Canada in recent years. In November, 18 per cent of cod exceeded a new radiation ceiling for food to be implemented in Japan in April - along with 21 per cent of eel, 22 per cent of sole and 33 per cent of seaweed.

Overall, one in five of the 1,100 catches tested in November exceeded the new ceiling of 100 becquerels per kilogram. (Canada's ceiling for radiation in food is much higher: 1,000 becquerels per kilogram.)

"I would probably be hesitant to eat a lot of those fish," said Nicholas Fisher, a marine sciences professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Fisher is researching how radiation from Fukushima is affecting the Pacific fishery. "There has been virtually zero monitoring and research on this," he said, calling on other governments to do more radiation tests on the ocean's marine life.

"Is it something we need to be terrified of? No. Is it something we need to monitor? Yes, particularly in coastal waters where concentrations are high." Contamination of fish in the Pacific Ocean could have wide-ranging consequences for millions.

readersupportednews.org...

Note: "There has been virtually zero monitoring and research on this"... which makes it extremely difficult to get a real picture. Why aren't the monitoring and testing? Hmm...


Radiation Levels Will Concentrate in Pockets at Certain West Coast Locations
Physicians for Social Responsibility notes:


An interesting fact for people living on the US west coast is also included in the UNSCEAR [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation] report: only about 5% of the directly discharged radiation was deposited within a radius of 80 km from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station. The rest was distributed in the Pacific Ocean. 3-D simulations have been carried out for the Pacific basin, showing that within 5–6 years, the emissions would reach the North American coastline, with uncertain consequences for food safety and health of the local population.

The University of Hawaii’s International Pacific Research Center created a graphic showing the projected dispersion of debris from Japan. Last year, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory and 3 scientists from the GEOMAR Research Center for Marine Geosciences showed that radiation on the West Coast of North America could end up being 10 times higher than in Japan: After 10 years the concentrations become nearly homogeneous over the whole Pacific, with higher values in the east, extending along the North American coast with a maximum (~1 × 10−4) off Baja California. [...]

______beforeitsnews/japan-earthquake/2013/11/fukushima-radiation-levels-will-concentrate-in-pockets-at-specific-us-canada-west-coast-locations-24 44404.html


edit on 28-1-2014 by wishes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Nope. You're wrong and you'll never post backing evidence.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by wishes
 


Before its news??? You just put yourself on my ignore list. It's pathetic when people will look at hoax sites to verify their wrong theories.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   

dragonridr
reply to post by RickinVa
 


As they say ask and ye shall receive.

ecolocalizer.com...



invalid argument.... again... show me where another country is allowing 300 tons of radioactive water a day into a ocean unchecked.... we all know there's been illegal nuclear waste dumping for decades..... but not on a continuous daily basis such as Fukushima. The above linked reference is talking about nuclear waste along with other toxic chemicals and no where does it state it's 300 tons daily 24/7/365.... I am trying to focus on Fukushima and its impacts.

So I guess I am still waiting to receive.


edit on R252014-01-28T16:25:24-06:00k251Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R262014-01-28T16:26:40-06:00k261Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   

raymundoko
reply to post by wishes
 


Before its news??? You just put yourself on my ignore list. It's pathetic when people will look at hoax sites to verify their wrong theories.


If you actually looked at the link it provides a link to Global Research News from where the article came from. Like Enenews, Before It is News primarily posts articles from other publications.

However, it proves my point people primarily who want to go in circles are not interested in really working towards the Truth of the issue. It is easier to mock, laugh at, diss, call names and be an armchair critic than to actually investigate and dig and contribute towards a pool of knowledge.

People have to use their brains to disseminate and discern - it's a dying art unfortunately. It's about the information, not how you come by it.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   

RickinVa
The above linked reference is talking about nuclear waste along with other toxic chemicals and no where does it state it's 300 tons daily 24/7/365.... I am trying to focus on Fukushima and its impacts.
Yes and you can't claim that Fukushima is singlehandedly destroying the ocean with radioactivity when the ocean already has radioactivity from so many other sources.

The soviet reactor that exploded in the in the sea of Japan in 1985 contaminated more than 300 tons daily, and it wasn't just a leak, it's direct exposure of the reactor to unlimited amounts of ocean water, and it continues to contaminate ocean water 24/7/365 to this day.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by wishes
 



If you actually looked at the link it provides a link to Global Research News from where the article came from.
And if you actually read the study on which the article is talking about you might find it doesn't exactly say what they want you to think it does.

iopscience.iop.org...



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by wishes
 


You give me a guy reading rain from his windshield as proof of higher radiation are you serious?? Dont bring up some guys reading on a geiger counter off youtube. wow i dont evenknow what to say to that one so ill stop there.

And the report peaks at twice normal background radiation then dissipates quickly so even your own source you quote you interpreted wrong. See this is because you want ot believe the disaster is going to kill us all. Radiation from the plant is no danger to the US or Canada.
edit on 1/28/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Holy Fukushima – Radiation From Japan Is Already Killing North Americans

If you live on the west coast of Canada or the United States, you’re pretty much already screwed at this point thanks to the Japanese earthquake and tsunami of 2011. Radiation levels are already increasing in the food and water, babies born with thyroid issues linked to radiation are rising quickly and governments in Canada and the United States are raising the “acceptable levels” of certain toxic substances in the food being shipped in from Japan.

jeromiewilliams.com...

Medical Journal Article: 14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Reactor Disaster Fallout

Impact Seen As Roughly Comparable to Radiation-Related Deaths After Chernobyl; Infants Are Hardest Hit, With Continuing Research Showing Even Higher Possible Death Count. WASHINGTON, Dec. 19, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- An estimated 14,000 excess deaths in the United States are linked to the radioactive fallout from the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan, according to a major new article in the December 2011 edition of the International Journal of Health Services. This is the first peer-reviewed study published in a medical journal documenting the health hazards of Fukushima.

Authors Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman note that their estimate of 14,000 excess U.S. deaths in the 14 weeks after the Fukushima meltdowns is comparable to the 16,500 excess deaths in the 17 weeks after the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. The rise in reported deaths after Fukushima was largest among U.S. infants under age one. The 2010-2011 increase for infant deaths in the spring was 1.8 percent, compared to a decrease of 8.37 percent in the preceding 14 weeks.

Just six days after the disastrous meltdowns struck four reactors at Fukushima on March 11, scientists detected the plume of toxic fallout had arrived over American shores. Subsequent measurements by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found levels of radiation in air, water, and milk hundreds of times above normal across the U.S. The highest detected levels of Iodine-131 in precipitation in the U.S. were as follows (normal is about 2 picocuries I-131 per liter of water): Boise, ID (390); Kansas City (200); Salt Lake City (190); Jacksonville, FL (150); Olympia, WA (125); and Boston, MA (92).

www.prnewswire.com...

What are officials hiding about Fukushima?

Canadian government officials didn’t disclose the high radiation readings to the public. Instead, they repeatedly insisted that fallout drifting to Canada was negligible and posed no health concerns. In fact, the data shows rainwater in Calgary last March had an average of 8.18 becquerels per litre of radioactive iodine, easily exceeding the Canadian guideline of six becquerels per litre for drinking water.

www.straight.com...



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   

dragonridr
reply to post by wishes
 


You give me a guy reading rain from his windshield as proof of higher radiation are you serious?? Dont bring up some guys reading on a geiger counter off youtube. wow i dont evenknow what to say to that one so ill stop there.


? I thought that's what geiger counters were for - how else are people supposed to get readings? lol Human does it all the time so do others. It doesn't matter what me or you or anyone believes... the truth will play itself out in time :-)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 


The Japanese aren't dumping 300 tons daily either again you dont understand. They use 300 tons of water for cooling do you really think they replace that daily?

Here read this news report they did some research because of the internet claims.




University of Nevada Radiation Safety Officer Myung Chul Jo has been observing radiation in Reno for more than two decades.

"Radiation is everywhere and we cannot escape it," Jo said.

He said air, ground, water and cosmic radiation exposure is part of life, and he set up a measurement of the local natural radiation for this story.

"That's probably between 15-20 microroentgens per hour," which Jo said is average. "This one we measured from '99 to 2008 just the ambient background level. The average was about 15 microroentgens per hour."

Jo said the average person is exposed to about 300 millirems of radiation each year from nature - well below dangerous levels.

"It would be one hundred thousand millirems," he said. "Below that we don't expect any adverse health effects."


www.mynews4.com...



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   

edit on 1/28/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by wishes
 


Medical Journal Article: 14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Reactor Disaster Fallout


...is bullcrap.


Yet even if there isn’t evidence for a plume, where do all the dead people come from? Here, from the abstract, is the chain of reasoning: “U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35 percent of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46 percent from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34 percent increase in the prior 14 weeks….Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths.” In sum: Sloppy statistics killed 14,000 people.
blogs.scientificamerican.com...


Sounds scary, doesn't it? Then again, only a few hours later, Mangano admitted in an interview with MedPage Today that the results of his research weren't quite as definitive as his press release would have led folks to believe:
neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com...


The Y-axis is the total number of infant deaths each week in the eight cities in question. While it certainly is true that there were fewer deaths in the four weeks leading up to Fukushima (in green) than there have been in the 10 weeks following (in red), the entire year has seen no overall trend. When I plotted a best-fit line to the data (in blue), Excel calculated a very slight decrease in the infant mortality rate. Only by explicitly excluding data from January and February were Sherman and Mangano able to froth up their specious statistical scaremongering

blogs.scientificamerican.com...


The author responds to an article published in the Journal by Joseph J. Mangano and Janette D. Sherman suggesting that a large increase in U.S. deaths within days after Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant accident could be attributed to radiation released from this accident and arriving in the United States. The author writes that the cause of these deaths has not been analyzed and that there is no known mechanism for low-dose radiation to cause acute death in infants or adults. The author also notes that the cities under study with the lowest radiation fallout have the highest increases of death rates in the 14 weeks following Fukushima, while the Californian cities that would have received larger doses saw a decrease in death rate growth. He concludes that innumerable factors other than radiation likely are responsible for the bulk of the measured effect.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

More on Mangano and Sherman:

The journal that published this study, the Open Journal of Pediatrics, apparently is a ‘predatory journal’ that is for-profit and does not have a serious scientific peer-review process. This information might be of interest to some of the readers.

fukushimavoice-eng2.blogspot.com...

edit on 1/28/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 


reply to post by wishes




Before its news??? You just put yourself on my ignore list.Text


Is there really an ignore feature on ATS?



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Arbitrageur

RickinVa
The above linked reference is talking about nuclear waste along with other toxic chemicals and no where does it state it's 300 tons daily 24/7/365.... I am trying to focus on Fukushima and its impacts.
Yes and you can't claim that Fukushima is singlehandedly destroying the ocean with radioactivity when the ocean already has radioactivity from so many other sources.

The soviet reactor that exploded in the in the sea of Japan in 1985 contaminated more than 300 tons daily, and it wasn't just a leak, it's direct exposure of the reactor to unlimited amounts of ocean water, and it continues to contaminate ocean water 24/7/365 to this day.


Please do not misquote me... I never once said Fukushima was destroying the ocean,,, quite the opposite in fact,,,



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join