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: 30
60
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   

dragonridr

RickinVa
reply to post by Human0815
 


I haven't followed the whole reactor 3 / MOX fuel thing.

But I can say this, if plutonium was released, that's a very bad thing!!

Never forget the beagles who died in the name of research.

Out of 144 beagles that were given plutonium nasal sprays in order to see what the effect on humans accidentally inhaling plutonium would be..... 97.9% of the dogs died of either bone cancer, lung cancer and two died of liver cancer. 141 out of 144.

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

Plutonium is deadly, even at very low doses.


edit on R372014-02-15T16:37:53-06:00k372Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R422014-02-15T16:42:03-06:00k422Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)


They should have never used dogs percentage was most dogs die of cancer and it is very dependant on the breed as well. So im not sure if this study really tells us anything other than maybe there was an increase in cancer death but to what extent we can't tell. But i have a feeling they used dogs on purpose to skew the results you have to be careful.


I would like to clarify that 'most dogs' do 'not' die of cancer naturally. There is an increase in the incidence of cancer among dongs and cats (probably from all that "harmless" radiation they keep telling us not to worry about), but that is an exception and not the rule to the overall health and causes of animal death. Ask long time vets what they've noticed over the decades about this. This study clearly tells us the extent of cancer death due to plutonium - 141/144 dogs died of cancer within 5.4 years with tumors starting around 3 years after exposure - that's what, 99% deaths from the plutonium?:


Deaths from radiation pneumonitis occurred from 1.5 to 5.4 years after exposure. Tumors of the lung, skeleton and liver occurred beginning at about 3 years after exposure. Bone tumors found in 93 dogs were the most common cause of death. Lung tumors found in 46 dogs were the second most common cause of death. Liver tumors, which were found in 20 dogs but were the cause of death in only two dogs, occurred later than the tumors in bone and lung. Tumors in these three organs often occurred in the same animal and were competing causes of death. These findings in dogs suggest that similar dose-related biological effects could be expected in humans accidentally exposed to 238PuO2.


The only information missing from the link is the age of the dogs - that information is probably in the full study. Also I don't know that if they had sprayed the dogs with say half the dosage if they would have gotten the same results so we can't tell from this if there's a 'safe' level, which from what I understand about plutonium doesn't exist. I think anyone looking at this study should take it at face value that plutonium is deadly over 99% of the time and we are no different than the beagles! We're at the 3 year mark - let's see what medical information about spikes in cancer gets leaked - because they sure aren't going to 'publish' it!

Is absurd and insane that anyone buys into this 'radiation' is harmless propaganda crap which is what it is - propaganda. Sure, let's invite the world to Japan for the olympics - there's enough radiation for everyone - they don't CARE that people and animals will get sick from this - is not that it's harmless, is that they don't care that its not harmless.... and that's their little secret....




posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   

RickinVa
Cesium levels high in hundreds of Fukushima reservoirs



Very high levels of accumulated radioactive cesium have been detected in the mud of hundreds of reservoirs used to irrigate farmland in Fukushima Prefecture, where agriculture is a key industry. The finding comes as prefectural authorities continue to try to assuage public concerns of contaminated food following the triple meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant three years ago. A joint survey by the prefectural government and a branch office of the farm ministry found that the levels exceed 8,000 becquerels per kilogram of soil in 576 reservoirs. In 14 of those cases, the level tops 100,000 becquerels.



The cat is slowly creeping out of the proverbial bag.........no good news ever comes out of Fukushima.


Yes, lots of radioactive water, who could have predicted that... *sarcasm* I'm sure it's even worse and more widespread than we know because information has to be rooted out, it is never forthcoming. I'd like to see more readings of the rain and what it's bringing down... And the thing is these reports talk about one or two types of radiation, we have to assume where there's detected cesium there's also undetected plutonium, etc. So when people say it's only iodine or its only cesium they may be 'less' deadly (oxymoron) but they're not traveling alone!



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Fukushima Radioactive Aerosol Dispersion


This study released by NOAA reveals that the west coast of America was blasted with much more radiation that was previously told to the public. Unfortunately this study only tracks Cesium 137 and no other radionuclides.

There is a link on the site to download the animation of the study, and its quite amazing to see how much radiation blasted areas thousands of miles away. So much of the dispersal in air theory that pro nukers promoted so heavily back in the early days.

The longer that Fukushima goes on and more and more is revealed about how screwed up the real situation is at the plant... the less you hear from the pro nuke people.


In this dataset, the simulation from NOAA's HYSPLIT model shows a continuous release of tracer particles from 12-31 March at a rate of 100 per hour representing the Cesium-137 emitted from Fukushima Daiichi. Each change in particle color represents a decrease in radioactivity by a factor of 10.


sos.noaa.gov...

NOTE: Clicking on the play movie file on the site resulted in an error for me, probably because its a .mov extension. Downloading the file allowed me to play it with no problems. Everyone should look at this study.
edit on R312014-04-09T15:31:11-05:00k314Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 


This study released by NOAA reveals that the west coast of America was blasted with much more radiation that was previously told to the public. Unfortunately this study only tracks Cesium 137 and no other radionuclides.

That simulation is from 2012.

Where is it indicated that the simulation shows there was more radiation on the west coast than testing showed?


In general, radioactivity reaching the United States showed air concentrations over 1000 times smaller than areas near Japan
sos.noaa.gov...



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I was talking as opposed to no radiation reaching the west coast which had been claimed on ATS numerous times.


Remember... only 2 things come out of Fukushima:

bad news and worse news.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   

RickinVa
I was talking as opposed to no radiation reaching the west coast which had been claimed on ATS numerous times.


I haven't actually seen that claim on ATS myself but I must have misunderstood when you said this:

This study released by NOAA reveals that the west coast of America was blasted with much more radiation that was previously told to the public.

edit on 4/9/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   
because the public was told for the most part that there be would no radiation to non-detectable levels reaching the west coast. I think that article pretty much debunked any that idea.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 


because the public was told for the most part that there be would no radiation to non-detectable levels reaching the west coast. I think that article pretty much debunked any that idea.
I never heard that.

What I heard was that low levels of atmospheric contamination (which is what that simulation is about, atmospheric levels more than 1,000 times less than near Japan) were found within weeks of the disaster and that low levels of ocean borne contamination were expected to arrive this year.
edit on 4/9/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
So then how do you go about eating non radiated food??? IMHO there's really not much that can be done about it half life on atomic contamination is too long what other form of cropping would be best and what meats or fish can be eaten???



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   

The total amount of radioactive cesium-137 released into the atmosphere and seawater from the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant is estimated at between 17,500 and 20,500 terabecquerels, a study by a Japanese research team showed Friday.



Of the amount that fell on land, up to 400 terabecquerels fell on North America, while Europe was hardly affected.



www.japantimes.co.jp... edburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+japantimes+%28The+Japan+Times%3A+All+Stories%29#.U25ad1dLqQ8


Bad news and more bad news



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Even a tiny amount of radioactive food can turn caterpillars into mutated butterflies


www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/caterpillars-eat-even-small-amount-radioactive-plant-material-might-develop-abnormal-butterflies-die-young-1809 51466

Even very very small amounts of cesium created mutations and caused early death in butterflies fed cesium as larva.

Kind of bad news for those who say a little radiation is harmless.

And the saddest part is that the larva came from butterflies far away from Fukushima... they were fed a diet of plants from around Fukushima..... I feel bad for the people who will be forced to move back into these areas.

Link to pdf of actual study:

www.nature.com...
edit on R142014-05-15T23:14:51-05:00k145Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Even very very small amounts of cesium created mutations and caused early death in butterflies fed cesium as larva.

54,000 and 22,000 Bq per kilogram body weight is a very, very small amount?


I feel bad for the people who will be forced to move back into these areas.
How will people be forced to move into contaminated areas? Were people forced to move back into the area around Chernobyl?



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Phage, I love and admire your patience. I can not believe time and time again you are quelling mass hysteria and misinformation. I truly idolize you for this, and alas I do not have the patience for such an endeavor. I find myself more and more frustrated with the sensationalist, and misinformed posters that love to live in threads such as these. Again, thank you once again for all that you do. I truly hope people take you the right way, and think critically about the discussion topics you take part in. I wish more people would truly think before they type, find multiple sources and do as much research as possible on a topic before they look at a piece of data and scream the sky is falling for misunderstanding it's representation.

Thank you Phage, you restore my faith in the Human Race.

Sincerely,

Hijinx.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You are taking one set of numbers and trying to run with it.

from the PDF I linked to:


We found that changes in the overall mortality and abnormality rates in response to amounts of ingested radioactivity were not linear. Rather, the mortality and abnormality rates increased sharply, especially at low doses. Additionally, there seemed to be no threshold level below which no biological response could be detected.


I used the term forced to move back because that is exactly is whats going to happen to some people due to financial issues.... some of them will have to go back whether they want to or not.

There is no fear mongering,,,, the information is there for anyone who wants to read it.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Hijinx


Please try and contribute to the thread... this post does absolutely nothing for the discussion at hand. If you find it impossible to form your own opinion without having your hand held by someone you idolize, then try doing a little research.

Do you have a comment about the butterfly study or are you just here as part of a fan club?



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
For those of you who don't want to read the study, the gist of the study was this:

Pale grass blue butterfly caterpillars were collected from the Okinawa area, deemed to be one of the areas least impacted by Fukushima.

The larvae, or catepillars were fed a specific diet of plants from the areas around the Fukushima NPP that they would normally be expected to eat in the wild. Leaves were weighed, before and after, and replaced daily with fresh leaves.


This is not a laboratory study where each larvae were fed a specific type of radiation, although the study does focus on Cesium 137. The larvae were simply fed leaves from control areas around the Fukushima plant that the insect would normally consume.

The amount of mutations and morbidity is a higher than I would have expected, but its not really that surprising.

How does that transpose to human terms? Beats me.... but the fact that there is a significant increase in mutations and fatalities when fed a diet of plants from the Fukushima region does not bode well for any human inhabitants.

There will be those who will be quick to point out some imaginary number that compared to a larvae a human would have to ingest 187 pounds of Cesium 137 a day to achieve the same radiation saturation level.


Doesn't matter...it's comparing apples to oranges.....

If there is enough radiation in the area to cause mutation and fatalities in the local insect populations.... then there would have to be some effect on any human who ingested internally the same radiation.


The bottom line remains no matter how you want to argue it:

When fed a controlled diet of leaves from around the Fukushima NPP.... there was a very significant increase in mutations and morbidity in the butterflies and larvae.









edit on R192014-05-16T17:19:30-05:00k195Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa


If there is enough radiation in the area to cause mutation and fatalities in the local insect populations.... then there would have to be some effect on any human who ingested internally the same radiation.


The bottom line remains no matter how you want to argue it:

When fed a controlled diet of leaves from around the Fukushima NPP.... there was a very significant increase in mutations and morbidity in the butterflies and larvae.





A few things. The report you mention fails to provide a baseline radiation reading for any of the locations. Every location has some level of natural background radiation (I have read it).

Sample size – looking at the results it's surprising how high the abnormality rate for adult butterflies is. The report states that at Fukushima 20% of the wings from female butterflies have abnormalities. That sounds significant – yet what they neglect to say is that the sample size is only 5 female butterflies. A statistically tiny sample.

I could go on.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Record high radiation in seawater off Fukushima plant



Radiation has spiked to all-time highs at five monitoring points in waters adjacent to the crippled Fukushima No. 1 power station, plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Friday.


www.japantimes.co.jp...


Fukushima.... the gift that keeps on giving....

year after year after year.

No good news comes from Fukushima.
edit on R282014-05-18T14:28:18-05:00k285Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Alekto


I called it a study, never referred to it as a scientific study for personal reasons.


There will be many to quickly point out various issues with the study, I saw a few myself.


Again though, the bottom line remains:

If there is enough radiation on the leaves that were fed to the insects to cause a obvious increase in mutations and morbidity, then that can't bode well for any humans living on the same area...one of the areas tested was Fukushima City.

They only looked at Cesium 137.... not Strontium 90 or the host of other radionuclides generated by the Fukushima accident.

Doesn't matter what type of ionizing radiation it is, if it is enough to cause mutations and morbidity, then it should be of concern.


As far as background radiation levels, I am not sure how they could possibly determine what the levels were before the accident, but I am willing to bet that they were no where near what they are now. If they could magically produce samples of the same exact vegetation from from the same exact locations prior to 3/11/11 for control purposes....well I don't that that is even remotely possible.

Its an interesting study, nothing more, nothing less.

If they did it once, they should be able to replicate the study again with close to the same results.





edit on R422014-05-18T14:42:03-05:00k425Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: RickinVa

Even very very small amounts of cesium created mutations and caused early death in butterflies fed cesium as larva.

54,000 and 22,000 Bq per kilogram body weight is a very, very small amount?


I feel bad for the people who will be forced to move back into these areas.
How will people be forced to move into contaminated areas? Were people forced to move back into the area around Chernobyl?




Shout out to Phage for making the point I was trying to get across.

If the leaves were indeed collected from around the Fukushima area as the study indicates and fed them to larvae results in the amount of radiation that was recorded....

Then all I can say is:

Houston.... we have a problem!!

Sometimes trying to debunk something proves another point... very well said Phage ole boy!!


We could conduct our own study and use Phage as our model. We can assume that since Phage is not in Japan that he has been almost zero radiation contamination from Fukushima.

Now we have decided our test subject (Phage) is an optimal one. We can have Phage tested to see what his normal "background radiation level" is.... once we have that control point established.... it would be time for him to eat his leafy greens every day for a time comparable in human terms to that of the larvae that were used in the study.

After 6 months or whatever extrapolates in account for the size/metabolism/etc difference between Phage and the larvae... we can then retest Phage to see how much it has went up.

easy peasy experiment...Phage doesn't even have to go go Japan.... we can get the greens shipped right to whatever lab Phage would like to use for the study.

Shoot I might even pay to have the plant material shipped myself... in the interest of science ya know.

I am using Phage as an example, can't use myself because you couldn't pay me enough money to eat the same crap that was fed to those catepillars.

Anybody else who thinks Fukushima is a minimal event can also volunteer to be a test subject.

We could all be famous!!!

All joking aside, this study needs to be redone with tighter controls, although I expect that the results would be pretty much the same.

This needs to be looked into further.
edit on R092014-05-18T18:09:14-05:00k095Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join