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: 9
60
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by game over man
 


I have done my own research, and the nonsense put out be the debunkers gets more and more desperate.

We are seeing radiation spikes at the monitoring stations, reports of fish with open sores, and when you crunch the numbers, the amount of Bq coming from Fukushima, carried by the North Pacific Current is enough to create an increased exposure. We will probably see a considerable increase in people with bone marrow cancer and leukemia in the next decade from the Strontium.

My suggestion, don't let your kids eat sushi or anything from the Pacific.




posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Human0815
 





But when you want to talk about Enenews u need to open up a Thread because it is Offtopico here.


In case you forgot you are the one that brought up Enenews, not me - I just asked that you back up blanket 'disinfo' statements with proof.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by game over man
 


I have done my own research, and the nonsense put out be the debunkers gets more and more desperate.

We are seeing radiation spikes at the monitoring stations, reports of fish with open sores, and when you crunch the numbers, the amount of Bq coming from Fukushima, carried by the North Pacific Current is enough to create an increased exposure. We will probably see a considerable increase in people with bone marrow cancer and leukemia in the next decade from the Strontium.

My suggestion, don't let your kids eat sushi or anything from the Pacific.


Yes, I totally agree. The major efforts to cover-up the reality of Fukushima is staggering and in and of itself should be considered suspect as to 'why'. That there are people continually badgering any and all news about its damages and impact is also suspect. This whole attitude of decrying it as being "doom porn" only reaffirms their general inability to debunk Fukushima effects with any credibility and real data.

Is easy for government/nuclear industry to provide false data and defective statements. Is most difficult for people without resources to confirm otherwise. The 'world' is not jumping on this like they did for those stranded whales in the arctic years back. Why? Because it's not a problem? Or because they're told to back off? Considering I believe it really is a HUGE problem (for us, not them) that leaves the world at large offering to help being told to back off. What other explanations could there be?



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Both of you are providing ZERO evidence.

2nd line



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Human0815



WesternKyMan January 17, 2014 at 2:13 am Log in to Reply
www.abovetopsecret.com... I started that thread try and be logical about Fukushima…. There are some pro nukers in that post that just make you reach through the screen and smack em lol

Source

I think you are playing a really unfair Game!



I didn't say anything there that I didn't say here... not one single word.... how is that being unfair?



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by game over man
 



jrod

Here is a link:

nodisinfo.com...



Over a year ago, in May of 2012, the Wall Street Journal reported on a Stanford University study. Daniel Madigan, a marine ecologist who led the study, was quoted as saying, “The tuna packaged it up (the radiation) and brought it across the world’s largest ocean. We were definitely surprised to see it at all and even more surprised to see it in every one we measured.”
Another member of the study group, Marine biologist Nicholas Fisher at Stony Brook University in New York State reported, “We found that absolutely every one of them had comparable concentrations of cesium 134 and cesium 137.”

edit on 17-1-2014 by jrod because: add quote


One study group and multiple tests on many fish. Are you telling me scientists from Stanford University and Stony Brook University have no credibility?

Can you debunk those studies?

I am a recreational, sport, and commercial fisherman.


edit on 17-1-2014 by jrod because: fact check



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by game over man
 


I have done my own research, and the nonsense put out be the debunkers gets more and more desperate.

We are seeing radiation spikes at the monitoring stations, reports of fish with open sores, and when you crunch the numbers, the amount of Bq coming from Fukushima, carried by the North Pacific Current is enough to create an increased exposure. We will probably see a considerable increase in people with bone marrow cancer and leukemia in the next decade from the Strontium.

My suggestion, don't let your kids eat sushi or anything from the Pacific.



"reports of fish with open sores"

The amount of radiation that would take to cause physical open sores is a huge amount of radiation, same thing for polar bears.

If there was that much radiation in the Pacific Ocean, then there would be more obvious effects, the readings would be so high that it would be virtually undeniable or impossible to cover up by any government in the world.

I am retired from the government and I possessed a Top Secret /Secret Compartment-ed Information clearance for over 20 years. I know how people talk....... someone from high up would have squealed like a pig if there was radiation of high enough levels to hurt Americans. There would have been 100 Edward Snowdens by now.

But I also think that any radiation is bad for you, even low levels.

Unless Fukushima is producing and moving radiation in a way that's not been documented before.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 




In the young bluefin tuna that reached California, the researchers found slightly elevated levels of cesium-137 and cesium-134, two primary products of nuclear fission that tend to concentrate in muscle tissue. The amount of cesium 137 was five times as much as the background level, leftover from nuclear-weapons testing decades ago. Prior to the Fukushima accident, cesium-134, which has a half-life of about two years, was undetectable in seawater or marine life.

Overall, the levels were just enough to raise the naturally occurring radioactivity of the fish by about 3%, the scientists said.

Source



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


Look up the actual reports from those institutions!!! Their quotes are ripped apart and out of context!


m.utsandiego.com...



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Human0815
reply to post by jrod
 




In the young bluefin tuna that reached California, the researchers found slightly elevated levels of cesium-137 and cesium-134, two primary products of nuclear fission that tend to concentrate in muscle tissue. The amount of cesium 137 was five times as much as the background level, leftover from nuclear-weapons testing decades ago. Prior to the Fukushima accident, cesium-134, which has a half-life of about two years, was undetectable in seawater or marine life.

Overall, the levels were just enough to raise the naturally occurring radioactivity of the fish by about 3%, the scientists said.

Source



Cesium is not a naturally occuring isotope.... it comes out of reactors and nuclear weapons.... so enough cesium to raise the levels in fish by 3% is actually a huge amount of radiation.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
S&F ..... S&F
This is what I have been saying but in a more detailed way.
It is a slow killer and continues to do so daily.

Eat nothing from the West Coast...Period!!



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 


I'm going to not participate in this thread if the ignorance continues...Open sores??? Has anyone gone fishing before? Hundreds of things can cause sores.

Oh you have a scab on your leg because you fell down? No must be Fukushima radiation.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 





I am retired from the government and I possessed a Top Secret /Secret Compartment-ed Information clearance for over 20 years. I know how people talk....... someone from high up would have squealed like a pig if there was radiation of high enough levels to hurt Americans. There would have been 100 Edward Snowdens by now.

There was a Aircraft Carrier Task force there and only fifty or so Sailors have said anything, nothing from command or the gov.
sailor

There must have been thousands exposed, they were drinking it out of the RO units and living in it.
One guy said he set off the radiation alarm when he tried to go below. That alarm wasn't local it would have alerted the whole ship, do you agree ?
So where's the government whistle blower that will save these thousands and get them the care and medical they will require ? ?
Think you are talking about the mainland US and not just our people, none the less where is the government in protecting these sailors?

edit on 17-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by game over man
 


The studies proved that bluefin do indeed have Cs137 and Cs134. Trace amounts that 'should be well within safe level for humans' but it is still there. These isotopes are NOT found in nature.

It will be decades before we can truly grasp the scale of contamination. To downplay fish caught on the other side of the Pacific have been exposed is foolish imho.

While there are studies that suggest the levels are low enough to not cause any health problems, I will error on the side of caution and no longer eat canned tuna and other fish caught in the Pacific.

Here is a quote from your link game over man:



However, both studies cautioned that radiation levels were not declining, implying a continued flow of contaminated materials into the ocean.


Source: m.utsandiego.com...



edit on 17-1-2014 by jrod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by donlashway
 


That was the USS Reagan. Interesting that now the Reagan will soon be replacing the USS George Washington in Japan and will call Yokosuka her home port.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 


Look for the Study in original and you get the amounts,
i have it somewhere on my other Computer but not here!

There was already Caesium from the Nuclear Tests but already on
a decreasing Level of under 10Bq a Kg.

I doubt that we will find new contaminated Tuna in 2013/2014!



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by game over man
 





I'm going to not participate in this thread if the ignorance continues


It is futile to try and talk sense about radiation effects on these forums. The nonsense being bandied about is so insane that I can't believe anyone with any basic understanding of science can not see that many of these posts are beyond a simple misunderstanding, or lack of education, and that they must be the work of paid mis-informants. The rense site is getting worse and worse, publishing links to (mainly enenews) sites that print absolutely unscientific and unfounded garbage. There should be laws about publishing unfounded fear-mongering, and sites such as those should be fined or shut down.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Not a public health concern

"All living things are radioactive," said Fisher, "primarily attributable to the naturally occurring potassium-40. The potassium-40 radioactivity in the bluefin tuna was over 30 times higher than that from the radioactive cesium. So, the radioactivity from the spill really only adds 3 percent more radioactivity than the background level."

Stanford Source



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


You realize the findings from 2011, 5 months after, and their findings a year later, dropped? Maybe they pulled the 2013 testing? Don't know can't find a source that is not regurgitating old news with headlines full of wild speculation.

I posted another thread today:

Albacore testing in Oregon.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 




Maybe with your help I can get some understanding, would you help ?
from the chart we can see the Codex Standard is 1000 Bq/Kg for Cs 137 in infant foods ?

Let me see if I got it ?
I hold a Geiger counter tube over 1 Kg of the baby food and its clicking 999 times / second that is OK to feed your child ?

This is the action threshold for international trade and they say that's OK ?

Codex Standard 193-1995 page 33

And this line where they say not to consider multiple radionuclides have added effects,


Multiple radionuclides in foods : The guideline levels have been developed with the understanding that there is no need to add contributions from radionuclides in different groups. Each group should be treated independently. However, the ac tivity concentrations of each radionucli de within the same group should be adde d together 3 .
,
do you agree with that ?

This is important, because you might read somewhere below action limits, or no health effects because it's below these numbers. Might see, "na" on a chart if it is a lower number.
Do I understand ?

edit on 17-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join