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: 6
60
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   

raymundoko
reply to post by wishes
 


It seems you are the one lacking in understanding of the situation. Everyone needs to step back, review the facts of the situation and stop using their gut as a scientific calibration device.

The biggest thing people aren't realizing here is that the ocean is actually saving the planet as it is literally dilluting the contamination down to almost natural radiation levels....

If it goes on for decades we'll have a problem...but right now, and for the near future...no problem.


It seems you have made a huge presumption and judgment about my understanding. Go after the ball, not the player, remember? The ocean may be helping to absorb the Fukushima poison, I hardly call that saving the planet - it is being sacrificed. It is way too soon to tell how much devastation this is doing AND there is major secrecy around it all, so there is LITTLE information about its reality and totality.

I know enough about man-made radiation to know it is not good. I know enough about the insidious multinational corporations to know they're up to no good. Is great you think it's no big deal. We'll see in ten years what's left to debate about let alone forty or a hundred or whenever they decide to stop it. Do you think with the trillions upon trillions of dollars spent on black budgets and military and science they don't know exactly what they're doing and how this is going to play out? There is "no end" in sight to it! You think cancer rates aren't going to skyrocket (again)?

What a coincidence - atomic testing and higher cancer rates - uranium weapons and more cancer rates. But they want you to believe it's from smoking and 'carcinogens' only - they never talk about radiation in the cancer equation, in fact they use more radiation as their solution to it! It is an insane planet... totally insane....

July 18, 2011 rain readings near Banff Alberta, 1,52+ mcSv/h
www.youtube.com...
I am absolutely convinced the majority, if not all, of the radiation in that rain came from Fukushima, and continues to come down with every rainfall and snowfall.

I'm not up for 'debating' this - is a waste of time and energy. We need real education, real information and real solutions and should be putting our heads together instead of trying to one up anyone who sees the world a little differently.
edit on 15-1-2014 by wishes because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 01:55 AM
link   
I really want to clarify my point on this issue, and I am going to have to repeat some of the things I have already said but I want to consolidate it in one post.

RADIATION DOES NOT DILUTE!!!

Every single radioactive isotope being generated by Fukushima will stay on this planet until it decays. That's pretty much a scientific given unless it is somehow made to be not radioactive. Every single isotope that goes into the ocean still maintains its radioactive properties until it decays, being in the water does not change this fact.

Is Cesium-137 water soluble….. as a matter of fact it is…. sounds good until you research the facts…. when cesium comes into contact with water… it reacts violently and creates the chemical compound, Cesium Hydroxide, which by the way, happens to be highly radioactive.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium_hydroxide


So to use the phrase:

The Pacific ocean will dilute the radiation from Fukushima. That is a false statement because the ocean is not going to dilute the radiation. You can’t dilute radiation.

dilute

[dih-loot, dahy-; adj. also dahy-loot]
verb (used with object), diluted, diluting.
1. to make (a liquid) thinner or weaker by the addition of water or the like.
2. to make fainter, as a color.
3. to reduce the strength, force, or efficiency of by admixture.
verb (used without object), diluted, diluting.
4. to become diluted.

adjective

5.reduced in strength, as a chemical by admixture; weak: a dilute solution.

dictionary.reference.com...


The Pacific Ocean will cause the radiation from Fukushima to dissipate. This is a true statement. Due to the vast amount of ocean water and the relatively small amount of radiation in comparison, the ocean will cause the radiation to dissipate.

dissipate

[dis-uh-peyt]
verb (used with object), dissipated, dissipating.
1. to scatter in various directions; disperse; dispel.
2. to spend or use wastefully or extravagantly; squander; deplete: to dissipate one's talents; to dissipate a fortune on high living.
verb (used without object), dissipated, dissipating.
3. to become scattered or dispersed; be dispelled; disintegrate: The sun shone and the mist dissipated.
4. to indulge in extravagant, intemperate, or dissolute pleasure.

dictionary.reference.com.../


From all the research I have done, I have no problem saying that I believe that if the numbers we are being told are correct, then the radiation levels in the Pacific Ocean should eventually dissipate to non-detectable or low levels the further away you get from Fukushima. How far that is, I am not a scientist and have no idea. But the longer this goes on, the more my opinion will swing the other way.

Now since this is a conspiracy site… we got to have at least 1 in the thread.

The Pacific Ocean will dilute the radiation coming from Fukushima.
The Pacific Ocean will cause the radiation from Fukushima to dissipate.

Those 2 sentences have completely different meanings.

Pro Nuclear people would probably prefer to have the word dilute used as opposed to dissipate. Why?

Dilute makes it sound like it is being made better…. that there is less of a bad thing afterwards than there was before. In the case of radiation, that’s simply not true almost to the point of being deceitful in what you are trying to say. But I strongly believe that most people just use it because that’s the way they are used to hearing it used.

Dissipate doesn’t quite conjure the idea that anything is being made better,,, just that you can’t see it anymore.


Am I being anal? Maybe


If just one person replies that they understand the point I am trying to get across… then all this typing was worth it lol.





But none the less, Fukushima remains a very very bad situation.

Soooo should you be concerned about the radiation leaking from Fukushima?

ABSOLUTELY!!!! Fukushima is an enormous disaster and there are just way too many things that can quickly spiral out of control…… not to mention the fact that it’s going to be leaking radiation a long long time.

edit on 16-1-2014 by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2014 by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2014 by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2014 by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2014 by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2014 by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 02:01 AM
link   
And now I am going to take a self imposed ban from posting on this thread for a couple of days.

Have fun and keep the discussion alive!!!!




posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Thanks for the informative thread



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   
THE LINEAR NO-THRESHOLD RADIATION DOSE HYPOTHESIS


It is a rather appalling document that takes 140 pages to state the simple fact that, since we know virtually nothing about the dangers of low-intensity radiation, we might as well agree that the average population dose from manmade radiation should be no greater than that which the population already receives from natural causes; and that any individual in that population shouldn't be exposed to more than three times that amount, the latter figure being, of course, totally arbitrary. Later in the book, Kistiakowsky, who was a nuclear expert and veteran of the Manhattan Project, wrote: "… a linear relation between dose and effect… I still believe is entirely unnecessary for the definition of the current radiation guidelines, since they are pulled out of thin air without any knowledge on which to base them."

Sixty-three years of research on radiation effects have gone by, and Kistiakowsky's critique still holds. The linear no-threshold (LNT) radiation dose hypothesis, which surreally influences every regulation and public fear about nuclear power, is based on no knowledge whatever.

At stake are the hundreds of billions spent on meaningless levels of "safety" around nuclear power plants and waste storage, the projected costs of next-generation nuclear plant designs to reduce greenhouse gases worldwide, and the extremely harmful episodes of public panic that accompany rare radiation-release events such as Fukushima and Chernobyl. (No birth defects whatever were caused by Chernobyl, but fear of them led to 100,000 panic abortions in the Soviet Union and Europe. What people remember about Fukushima is that nuclear opponents predicted that hundreds or thousands would die or become ill from the radiation. In fact nobody died, nobody became ill, and nobody is expected to.)

The "linear" part of the LNT is true and well documented. Based on long-term studies of survivors of the atomic bombs in Japan and of nuclear industry workers, the incidence of eventual cancer increases with increasing exposure to radiation at levels above 100 millisieverts per year. The effect is linear. Below 100 millisieverts per year, however, no increased cancer incidence has been detected, either because it doesn't exist or because the numbers are so low that any signal gets lost in the epidemiological noise.

We all die. Nearly a half of us die of cancer (38% of females, 45% of males). If the "no-threshold" part of the LNT is taken seriously, and an exposed population experiences as much as a 0.5% increase in cancer risk, it simply cannot be detected. The LNT operates on the unprovable assumption that the cancer deaths exist, even if the increase is too small to detect, and that therefore "no level of radiation is safe" and every extra millisievert is a public health hazard.

Some evidence against the "no-threshold" hypothesis draws on studies of background radiation. In the US we are all exposed to 6.2 millisieverts a year on average, but it varies regionally. New England has lower background radiation, Colorado is much higher, yet cancer rates in New England are higher than in Colorado – an inverse effect. Some places in the world, such as Ramsar in Iran, have a tenfold higher background radiation, but no higher cancer rates have been discovered there. These results suggest that there is indeed a threshold below which radiation is not harmful.

Furthermore, recent research at the cell level shows a number of mechanisms for repair of damaged DNA and for ejection of damaged cells up to significant radiation levels. This is not surprising given that life evolved amid high radiation and other threats to DNA. The DNA repair mechanisms that have existed in yeast for 800m years are also present in humans.

The actual threat of low-dose radiation to humans is so low that the LNT hypothesis can neither be proven true nor proven false, yet it continues to dominate and misguide policies concerning radiation exposure, making them grotesquely conservative and expensive. Once the LNT is explicitly discarded, we can move on to regulations that reflect only discernible, measurable medical effects, and that respond mainly to the much larger considerations of whole-system benefits and harms.

The most crucial decisions about nuclear power are at the category level of world urban prosperity and climate change, not imaginary cancers per millisievert.

The Guardian



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Human0815
THE LINEAR NO-THRESHOLD RADIATION DOSE HYPOTHESIS


It is a rather appalling document that takes 140 pages to state the simple fact that, since we know virtually nothing about the dangers of low-intensity radiation, we might as well agree that the average population dose from manmade radiation should be no greater than that which the population already receives from natural causes; and that any individual in that population shouldn't be exposed to more than three times that amount, the latter figure being, of course, totally arbitrary. Later in the book, Kistiakowsky, who was a nuclear expert and veteran of the Manhattan Project, wrote: "… a linear relation between dose and effect… I still believe is entirely unnecessary for the definition of the current radiation guidelines, since they are pulled out of thin air without any knowledge on which to base them."

Sixty-three years of research on radiation effects have gone by, and Kistiakowsky's critique still holds. The linear no-threshold (LNT) radiation dose hypothesis, which surreally influences every regulation and public fear about nuclear power, is based on no knowledge whatever.

At stake are the hundreds of billions spent on meaningless levels of "safety" around nuclear power plants and waste storage, the projected costs of next-generation nuclear plant designs to reduce greenhouse gases worldwide, and the extremely harmful episodes of public panic that accompany rare radiation-release events such as Fukushima and Chernobyl. (No birth defects whatever were caused by Chernobyl, but fear of them led to 100,000 panic abortions in the Soviet Union and Europe. What people remember about Fukushima is that nuclear opponents predicted that hundreds or thousands would die or become ill from the radiation. In fact nobody died, nobody became ill, and nobody is expected to.)

The "linear" part of the LNT is true and well documented. Based on long-term studies of survivors of the atomic bombs in Japan and of nuclear industry workers, the incidence of eventual cancer increases with increasing exposure to radiation at levels above 100 millisieverts per year. The effect is linear. Below 100 millisieverts per year, however, no increased cancer incidence has been detected, either because it doesn't exist or because the numbers are so low that any signal gets lost in the epidemiological noise.

We all die. Nearly a half of us die of cancer (38% of females, 45% of males). If the "no-threshold" part of the LNT is taken seriously, and an exposed population experiences as much as a 0.5% increase in cancer risk, it simply cannot be detected. The LNT operates on the unprovable assumption that the cancer deaths exist, even if the increase is too small to detect, and that therefore "no level of radiation is safe" and every extra millisievert is a public health hazard.

Some evidence against the "no-threshold" hypothesis draws on studies of background radiation. In the US we are all exposed to 6.2 millisieverts a year on average, but it varies regionally. New England has lower background radiation, Colorado is much higher, yet cancer rates in New England are higher than in Colorado – an inverse effect. Some places in the world, such as Ramsar in Iran, have a tenfold higher background radiation, but no higher cancer rates have been discovered there. These results suggest that there is indeed a threshold below which radiation is not harmful.

Furthermore, recent research at the cell level shows a number of mechanisms for repair of damaged DNA and for ejection of damaged cells up to significant radiation levels. This is not surprising given that life evolved amid high radiation and other threats to DNA. The DNA repair mechanisms that have existed in yeast for 800m years are also present in humans.

The actual threat of low-dose radiation to humans is so low that the LNT hypothesis can neither be proven true nor proven false, yet it continues to dominate and misguide policies concerning radiation exposure, making them grotesquely conservative and expensive. Once the LNT is explicitly discarded, we can move on to regulations that reflect only discernible, measurable medical effects, and that respond mainly to the much larger considerations of whole-system benefits and harms.

The most crucial decisions about nuclear power are at the category level of world urban prosperity and climate change, not imaginary cancers per millisievert.

The Guardian


Been over this already somewhat already... but here you go:


Is any amount of radiation safe for you?


There is no firm basis for setting a "safe" level of exposure above background for stochastic effects. Many sources emit radiation that is well below natural background levels. This makes it extremely difficult to isolate its stochastic effects. In setting limits, EPA makes the conservative (cautious) assumption that any increase in radiation exposure is accompanied by an increased risk of stochastic effects. Some scientists assert that low levels of radiation are beneficial to health (this idea is known as hormesis).


www.epa.gov...




But consider this: Every day, all day long, we're bathed in low levels of radiation - cosmic rays from outer space, radon in our houses, uranium deposits in the soil, radio signals from every AM and FM station in range, airport full-body scanners, dental X-rays, cellphones, even tiny hints lingering from the A-bomb tests of the 1940s and '50s. And remember that radiation is cumulative. Most scientists agree there's no such thing as a harmless dose.


phys.org...



Karl Morgan was an American physicist who was a founder of the field of radiation health physics. After a long career in the Manhattan Project and at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, he became a critic of nuclear power and weapons. Morgan, who died in 1999, began to offer court testimony for people who said they had been harmed by the nuclear power industry. “Nobody is talking about the fact that there is no safe dose of radiation,” Cabasso added, “One of the reasons Morgan said this is because doses are cumulative in the body.”


www.aljazeera.com...


Increasing evidence suggests that there may be a threshold between 100 and 1000 mSv below which no harmful effects of radiation occur. However, this is not yet accepted by national or international radiation protection bodies as sufficiently well-proven to be taken into official standards. However, at low levels of exposure, the body's natural mechanisms do repair radiation and other damage to cells soon after it occurs, and some adaptive response is stimulated which protects cells and tissues, as with exposure to other external agents at low levels.


www.world-nuclear.org...


Hazards from low level radiation are long-term, not acute effects… Every exposure increases risk of cancer. (Military briefings for commanders often contain less propaganda than literature aimed at civilians, as the commanders have to know the basic facts to be able to assess risk to their soldiers.) The briefing states that doses are cumulative, citing the following military studies and reports:
ACE Directive 80-63, ACE Policy for Defensive Measures against Low Level Radiological Hazards during Military Operations,
2 AUG 96
AR 11-9, The Army Radiation Program, 28 MAY 99 FM 4-02.283, Treatment of Nuclear and Radiological Casualties, 20 DEC 01
JP 3-11, Joint Doctrine for Operations in NBC Environments, 11 JUL 00 NATO STANAG 2473, Command Guidance on Low Level Radiation Exposure in Military Operations, 3 MAY 00 USACHPPM TG 244, The NBC Battle Book, AUG 02


www.zerohedge.com...


Although low-level radiation can cause any number of unpredictable DNA changes, damaged DNA often leads to cancer


www.ehow.com...


Many scientists believe there is no safe threshold for radiation. Mainstream scientists blame higher levels of radon for about 20,000 cases of lung cancer in the United States each year. But less is known about the effects of radiation at low levels


www.ksl.com...

This is a hotly debated topic amongst scientist........its been debated for years now and no one agrees.

Pro Nuclear people will instantly hop on a band wagon and state that low level radiation is harmless. The true answer is that nobody really knows for sure. There are basically two groups of thought...... 1. low level radiation is harmless to humans or 2. there is no safe limit to radiation.

I happen to personally believe that no amount of radiation can be proven safe beyond a reasonable or provable doubt. I am not a scientist, nor do I claim to be. When the scientific community can demonstrability prove that low levels of radiation do not cause changes at the cellular level, then I might change my mind.

As it stands right now...... we could debate this until we are blue in the face and it won't change the fact that every single radioactive isotope that is generated by Fukushima will stay on this planet until it naturally decays over time.


To say that low levels of radiation are harmless has not been proven to be a scientific fact.... its a very hotly debated topic among today's scientists and will most likely be so for quite some time.

To try and use the idea "that low level does of radiation are harmless or safe" is a point in a debate is invalid... it simply can't be proven to a point that a majority of scientists agree upon.

So what facts can be proven?

1. The Pacific Ocean will not dilute the radiation from Fukushima.
2. Fukushima will continue to leak radiation into the Pacific Ocean and the air for the foreseeable future.
3. The radiation from Fukushima will dissipate in the Pacific Ocean gradually to non-detectable or low levels.


What facts cannot be proven?

1. Exactly how much and what types of radiation are coming out of Fukushima??
2. When will Fukushima stop leaking radioactivity?
3. What will be the health effects from Fukushima?
4. How far and how much will the bio accumulation from Fukushima be?


So the things that are know to be facts are grossly out weighed by the unproven facts.

Therefore to say that the radiation from Fukushima is at levels low enough to be safe or harmless to humans is simply not true.
There are to many unknowns to arrive at a conclusion.


Soooo should you be concerned about the radiation from Fukushima?
ABSOLUTELY!!!!



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Human0815
 


Do you think enenews.com... has useful information or is it just another doom porn site?

The fact that all big tuna caught in the North Pacific test positve for Cs-137 should be a big enough indicator of the magnitude of this disaster.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   

jrod
reply to post by Human0815
 


Do you think enenews.com... has useful information or is it just another doom porn site?

The fact that all big tuna caught in the North Pacific test positve for Cs-137 should be a big enough indicator of the magnitude of this disaster.


I think enenews does on occasion post some useful information. Unfortunately, they also fall into the category of "ermagerd we're all going to die" Fukushima doom porn. Especially if you read the comments posted to the articles they provide.

Fear mongering doesn't do anybody any good.

I will keep posting facts every time a pro nuclear person comes on here and tries to justify their point about how Fukushima is harmless or a small enough event to not be a concern when there are simply to many unknowns to quantify making such assumptions, the same as I would for anyone to tries to say the Fukushima is the end of the world .
edit on 16-1-2014 by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2014 by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2014 by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 


Awesome. The more informed we are the better we are.

No need for a bunch of chicken littles.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 



It won't let me edit it to correct my spellings/grammar mistakes.... but you can understand the point I am trying to get across.

1. Exactly how much and what types of radiation are coming out of Fukushima??

that should be:

1. Exactly how much radiation is coming out of Fukushima.

The types of radiation coming out of Fukushima are known. There are always certain isotopes that are created by nuclear fission, this is a fact.

edit on 16-1-2014 by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 


Goodness gracious RickinVa take a chill pill. Are you on crusade to put Fukushima in all caps followed by hundreds of exclamation points?

Based upon your description of the scenario I need a little education on contact with radiation. Anybody can answer my questions too.

I presum employess at nuclear plants wear protective gear. If we are not being honestly told (ahem conspiracy) how much radiation is leaking out then there wound be a cover up of all the scientist getting extremely sick because they are in fishing gear and not hazmat suits?

Can boats still operate correctly in radioactive water?

Can extremely high levels of radioactivity disrupt communication devices?

Are the elements from the leakef radiation tasteless and odorless? Can the radiation physically alter fish? With these questions can radiated fish pass QC tests and GRADING by fisherman, fish auctions, exporters, packers, importers, distributors, processers, wholesalers, and retailers?

That's a lot of hands touching highly radioactive fish, not to mention airlines, freight forwarders, truckers, and warehouse staff.

Tell me how it can end up on your plate, because that seems HIGHLY UNLIKELY in your scenario of Fukushima.

Also not one mention of butterflies in this thread...I'll leave you to look that up.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   

RickinVa
And now I am going to take a self imposed ban from posting on this thread for a couple of days.

Have fun and keep the discussion alive!!!!





I tried.... I honestly tried as hard as I could, but I just couldn't do it.

I am passionate about Fukushima, I can't help it..... especially when a a pro nuker or or pro doomer comes on this thread and and makes statements that are either false, or blatantly misleading.

I am somewhere in the middle of both sides....

Ermagerd,,,,we are all going to die from Fukushima!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is not true statement. Fukushima has the POTENTIAL to have very serious impacts on the human species, but there just too many unknowns to make the assumption that we are all going to die from it.

Fukushima radiation levels are too low to cause any harm.

This is not a true statement. There are too many unknowns, and the whole debate about the health effects of low level doses of radiation has not been proven one way or the other.

Neither side can prove their assumptions nor will they be able to convince the other side that their opinion is the correct opinion.

I prefer to stick with provable scientific facts.

Research, Research, Research..... form your own opinion.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
found this which does raise a few alarm bells for America.

link



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by leopardpimps
 


You found a hoax. That Turner Radio Network is launching BS stories lefthand right. Ignore them.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   

The edict issued to all Ministries of the Russian Government ordered that all “past, present and future” information relating to Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster now be rated at the highest classification level “Of Special Importance”, stressing that this condition is “immediately and urgently needed” due to a series of underground nuclear explosions occurring at this crippled atomic plant on 31 December as confirmed by the Ministry of Defense (MoD).

“Of Special Importance” is Russia’s highest classification level and refers to information which, if released, would cause damage to the entire Russian Federation, Whatdoesitmean.com reported.


people need to wake up!

source



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 


what about my other link? the M.O.D ?



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Does anyone get it? The conspiracy is to shy away from the reality of GLOBAL WARMING. That is a major threat!!!



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   

game over man
reply to post by RickinVa
 


Goodness gracious RickinVa take a chill pill. Are you on crusade to put Fukushima in all caps followed by hundreds of exclamation points?

Based upon your description of the scenario I need a little education on contact with radiation. Anybody can answer my questions too.

I presum employess at nuclear plants wear protective gear. If we are not being honestly told (ahem conspiracy) how much radiation is leaking out then there wound be a cover up of all the scientist getting extremely sick because they are in fishing gear and not hazmat suits?

Can boats still operate correctly in radioactive water?

Can extremely high levels of radioactivity disrupt communication devices?

Are the elements from the leakef radiation tasteless and odorless? Can the radiation physically alter fish? With these questions can radiated fish pass QC tests and GRADING by fisherman, fish auctions, exporters, packers, importers, distributors, processers, wholesalers, and retailers?

That's a lot of hands touching highly radioactive fish, not to mention airlines, freight forwarders, truckers, and warehouse staff.

Tell me how it can end up on your plate, because that seems HIGHLY UNLIKELY in your scenario of Fukushima.

Also not one mention of butterflies in this thread...I'll leave you to look that up.



"I presum employess at nuclear plants wear protective gear. If we are not being honestly told (ahem conspiracy) how much radiation is leaking out then there wound be a cover up of all the scientist getting extremely sick because they are in fishing gear and not hazmat suits?"

Answer: It takes a LOT of radiation to physically make someone sick. If the fish in the oceans were so radioactive that you could get physically sick just from touching them or eating them, then the planet would be in a very very bad shape. The problem lies with low level radiation and the accumulative effects of radiation over time. The jury is still out when it comes to exactly how much radiation is bad for you, or if there is a certain point of radiation where the effects are negligible or harmless.

"Can boats still operate correctly in radioactive water?"

Answer: The boats don't care about radiation, but the people on the boats need to be aware of how much radiation is in the water.

"Can extremely high levels of radioactivity disrupt communication devices" (excellent question)

Answer: Yes.... solar flares often cause disruptions in communications or power grids. There is a great video, I will have to find it again, from one of the robots that they managed to get inside one of the reactor buildings.... the massive amounts of gamma radiation bursts coming from inside the building could easily be seen on the video..... but mind you, that would be fatal to humans.

"Are the elements from the leakef radiation tasteless and odorless? Can the radiation physically alter fish? With these questions can radiated fish pass QC tests and GRADING by fisherman, fish auctions, exporters, packers, importers, distributors, processers, wholesalers, and retailers?"

Answer: Radiation is odorless and tasteless....I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to answer about physically altering fish. I don't have enough knowledge about the specific methods used to detect radiaiton in fish to answer your question.

"Tell me how it can end up on your plate, because that seems HIGHLY UNLIKELY in your scenario of Fukushima."

Answer: I very seriously doubt that you are going to get any fish that have dangerously high levels of radiation from Fukushima unless those fish come the the immediate area of ocean outside the Fukushima plant. Bio accumulation is a big concern, but there just isn't enough information currently present to make an informed decision, especially due to the fact that Fukushima keeps leaking more radioactive water every single day....if this continues uncontrolled as it is today, then eventually the radiation will bio accumulate to higher levels, but how much and how far widespread remain to be seen. That is an unknown regardless of what people will try to tell you or imply otherwise.


I have stopped eating Pacific seafood. There are just too many unknowns about Fukushima to make me feel comfortable. But that's my own opinion that I formed after doing a lot of research. I wouldn't tell you not to eat it, that's a personal choice.

You have to remember that there is already man made radiation in the Pacific Ocean from all the nuclear weapons testing and dumping of radioactive materials. Not knowing exactly how much more radiation Fukushima is going to add to that or the effects thereof, I made the personal decision to lower my risk and simply chose not to eat it.






edit on 16-1-2014 by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2014 by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 


Thanks! Fishing has been banned in Fukushima waters other than government testing. I'm glad to hear you think they should up grade their gear based on possible radiation exposure.

What do you think of the picture in this link:

ajw.asahi.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

^My thread I started today, specifically about Russia Today's article.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by leopardpimps
 


The farsnews one? How's that time machine they reported on doing? Another hoax news site.



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join