Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Fukushima radiation… what you need to know and why

page: 31
60
<< 28  29  30   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa
Yes, we know there is contamination around Fukushima. That's not really a secret.

You said it was a very, very small amount of radioactive material. It isn't. For a human that would be 3,780,000 Bq and 1,540,000 Bq. Of course, that human would have to eat 86 or 35 kilos of the most contaminated leaves to reach those levels but that is indeed a high level of contamination. Much, much higher that allowed for food in Japan.

A bit strange though. The caterpillars which were fed the most highly contaminated leaves had both lower mortality and abnormality rates than those of the next two samples.
edit on 5/18/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 18 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


relative to the size of the larvae, someone had estimated that approximately 1/1,000,000,000,000th (trillion) of a gram of Cesium 137 would be fatal to around 60% of the larvae.


The study needs to be redone with tighter controls for accuracy.

I think the researchers were going for simplicity..... if the larvae were only fed leafs from the Fukushima area, then any resulting abnormalities must be directly related to radioactive contamination from Fukushima.

Has anyone collected other insects from the same areas? Ants...bees...etc.... do they exhibit the same amounts of radiation?

Its an interesting study but almost impossible to draw any conclusions from....



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Last thoughts on the Butterfly study before I forget where my brain is heading.....


1. Why butterfly larvae? Although I understand that they have a faster maturity rate and allows for faster results...there doesn't seem to be any way to correlate the results with humans.

2. Were the leaves tested for external radiation levels before being fed to the hapless caterpillars? The study is talking about internal radiation doses but unless the leaves were tested, there is no way of knowing if the caterpillars were also receiving an external dose along with internal. I would suspect that any caterpillars that were crawling on the leaves feeding would be also picking up an external dose from any radiation on the leaves.

The study would have made a lot more sense to use pigs. Start with a group of baby pigs and go from there:

3 control groups:

1 bunch of pigs is fed the same leafs and greens taken from a non-impacted area such as Okinawa or one the the more distant islands that has not been affected by Fukushima to any great degree.

1 bunch of pigs is fed the same leafs and greens collected from the same areas around Fukushima.

1 bunch of pigs is fed the same leafs and greens collected from the same areas around Fukushima, but rinsed off with plain water prior to feeding.

Group A is the control group.

Group B would represent what an animal would intake in its natural environment.

Group C would represent what an animal would intake in its natural environment, except rinsing the leafs and greens should remove a significant amount of surface radiation from the food.

Why group C? Because other than racoons and humans, most animals do not wash their food prior to consumption.

You could go one step further and have a Group D where the food would be thoroughly washed prior to feeding to remove as much external radiation as possible.

Now that's a study I could get behind and would love to see the results of.

edit on R382014-05-18T19:38:32-05:00k385Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Nuclear radiation

Food for thought:

Did you realize that if we take a number....lets use 3,000 for this example, although the real number is actually less.... and lets say 25 pounds per incident.......


3000 nuclear bombs tests with and average of 25 pounds of fissile material (both numbers are probably higher than actuality) we arrive at 37.5 tons of fissile material released in all the nuclear test in the world.


37.5 tons.......... scary huh?


Do you know that as of the end of 2013, the United States has way more than 37.5 tons of fissile material just in spent fuel pools?

If you factor in all the nuclear reactors in the world, there is currently at least 3 times if not more of fissile material just in spent fuel pools than was exploded in every single nuke bomb test??

Not to even mention fuel currently being used and fuel that will soon be used.

Stuff that has to be stored for thousands of years. WIPP didn't even make it to 20 years.

Sleep well people.......it's harmless



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I think that's the crux of anti-nuclear crusaders - it's not just 'one' bomb and 'one' nuclear reactor/meltdown - it's thousands, accumulating, leaking, fissioning in the air, water and earth. There is a saturation point and if we haven't already passed it I believe we're damn close. The number of atomic bombs 'tested' is absurd- you only need 'one' to know what it does -that they have done thousands in the water and underground is insane.

And it doesn't just dissipate, it takes thousands, sometimes millions of years to break down. It is not necessary, it is not clean, it is intentional pollution of the worst kind. People think cancer is normal now because it's so common - it's not normal - it's from all the radiation 'everywhere' thanks to decades of idiocracy. Anyone who defends the nuclear industry is either ignorant or stupid.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: wishes
People think cancer is normal now because it's so common - it's not normal - it's from all the radiation 'everywhere' thanks to decades of idiocracy.



Where to start with this pearl? 'radiation everywhere' is causing cancer. Not poor lifestyle choices. Oh, no. Always someone else to blame.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alekto

originally posted by: wishes
People think cancer is normal now because it's so common - it's not normal - it's from all the radiation 'everywhere' thanks to decades of idiocracy.



Where to start with this pearl? 'radiation everywhere' is causing cancer. Not poor lifestyle choices. Oh, no. Always someone else to blame.


Still waiting for you to substantiate anything you say. Try comparing cancer rates from a hundred years ago to today. Do cigarettes cause cancer? Yes - and they also have radiation in them. Can excessive sugars cause cancer? Yes, but diabetes and obesity are the most likely results. There are millions of people who come down with cancer who never smoked or had poor lifestyle choices. Radiation is not the 'only' cause, but it is the predominant, by far, cause. Thyroid cancers increased exponentially after they started doing all the nuke testing in Nevada. Coincidence? Yes, that's what the nuke industry and shills want us to believe.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: wishes
Breaking Energy story
Wish she had gone longer, more like a single reply then a story.




In 1954, Lewis Strauss, the Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, promised a future of energy that would be “too cheap to meter”. He was talking about nuclear power. Now, 60 years later, nuclear is an increasingly hot and divisive topic in the energy debate. Is nuclear, as Strauss said, too cheap to meter? Or is it, realistically, too costly to matter?

That's it for me the true cost is incalculable, incomprehensible...



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: donlashway
a reply to: wishes
Breaking Energy story
Wish she had gone longer, more like a single reply then a story.




In 1954, Lewis Strauss, the Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, promised a future of energy that would be “too cheap to meter”. He was talking about nuclear power. Now, 60 years later, nuclear is an increasingly hot and divisive topic in the energy debate. Is nuclear, as Strauss said, too cheap to meter? Or is it, realistically, too costly to matter?

That's it for me the true cost is incalculable, incomprehensible...


Indeed. NOTHING good comes from nuclear anything. They have lied since the beginning about it and continue lying today. Anyone who can't see through that is not looking. It is not clean energy and it isn't cheap either. There ARE alternatives they REFUSE to use. Tesla created free energy. Wind, water and sun are free energy. Is insane what they are doing... and criminal... How about all these 'heads' of the nuke industry go live in Fukushima or Chernobyl for a while and eat the food and drink the water or go live in a shelter for a few years with your family separated. We (the peons) have no value to them, each and every one of us are expendable. There are answers and there are solutions and there are ways - all of which are INTENTIONALLY being ignored...

I hope next life I get to pick a better planet - this one is run by the lunatics of the universe.
edit on 21-5-2014 by wishes because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: wishes

Indeed. NOTHING good comes from nuclear anything.


Well. I certainly agree in some respect. In one way or another, nuclear energy powers the web. It powers the switches, the routers, the ISPs, most likely the computer you sit at to write your nonsensical diatribes too.

It's not always a good thing. I guess.
edit on 28-5-2014 by Alekto because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Nuclear is a ridiculous form of energy.

I have no belief that Fukushima by itself is going to have nearly the negative impact people claim it will, I am sure a cancer cure is on the horizon (in my lifetime). In regards to said cancer I am much, much more worried about chemical causation preventing me from seeing that day, my body is exposed to infinitely more and in cases perhaps worse toxins that way.

None the less, we have better technology. The day of Oil and Nuclear are already over it's just guys like the Koch brothers, companies like Haliburton and Tepco don't feel like seeing their dynasties ended

There's a real discussion to be had in regards to the situation, that discussion involves de-monetizing energy



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
More 2011 Japan tsunami debris washing ashore

www.theweathernetwork.com...

Wednesday, May 28, 2014, 11:51 AM - More than three years after a catastrophic earthquake and tsunami killed thousands in Japan, debris from the disaster is still making its way to American shores.

Barnacle-encrusted boats and other items have been showing up on the beach in southwest Washington state.

www.theweathernetwork.com...



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   

http://_national_report_dot_net_/mutated-fukushima-giant-hornet/

how would you like to see one of these coming for you?



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alekto

originally posted by: wishes

Indeed. NOTHING good comes from nuclear anything.


Well. I certainly agree in some respect. In one way or another, nuclear energy powers the web. It powers the switches, the routers, the ISPs, most likely the computer you sit at to write your nonsensical diatribes too.

It's not always a good thing. I guess.


This favorite pat answer of yours has been replied specifically to at least twice already. Alternatives are water, wind, sun and Tesla's free energy. The entire world does not - or need to - run on nuclear power. There is no need for kazillions of volts of electrical lighting on big buildings to glitz large populations like Tokyo, New York and Las Vegas. No one is arguing that nuclear doesn't provide power (duh) for things like computers. And again I repeat because you have forgotten, my power comes from water, not nuclear as do millions of others.

It is unsafe, toxic, expensive and life threatening. Anyone who doesn't see that hasn't looked with their eyes open or are being bought off. It is a scam and a sham of the highest magnitude - is not an opinion, is fact - all anyone has to do is actually read a couple of the thousands of books written about it. There are MAJOR problems all over the planet from nuclear plants and unfortunately Fukushima takes the cake. Fifty years in and they still can't deal with the waste. Nice legacy for the children and grandchildren! (sarcasm)

edit on 28-5-2014 by wishes because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 28  29  30   >>

log in

join