I read today that Scientist believe the fuel in reactor 3 has melted down into the groundwater..

page: 6
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   
edit on 22-1-2014 by wishes because: post error




posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   

raymundoko
reply to post by NewsWorthy
 


Your doctor is a liar more than likely feeding on your paranoia for money. No radiation from Fukushima has reached the USA, including Alaska and Canada.


Pretty broad stroke you painted with one brush. How would you possibly know whether or not a doctor was a liar? The doctor didn't say "Fukushima" radiation, the doctor said "radiation". I posed the question before that it could be Hanford (which is apparently leaking into the Columbia river which empties into the Pacific and travels down the coast) or Fukushima or both or even another unidentified source. It's a real problem that there's so many sources of radiation to deal with.

As for radiation not reaching North America - where do you think it all went considering the winds blow this way? I will (again) post this video of radioactive rain taken near Banff/Lake Louise (BC/Alberta border region) Canada in July of 2011, about 3 months after the meltdowns and explosion. And no, there is not a 'before' comparison for obvious reasons. That the Canadian government took down/decommissioned the radiation monitoring shortly after Fukushima is very telling and has nothing to do with budgets.
www.youtube.com...

It is HIGHLY suspect that it comes from Fukuhima considering the timing and intensity of the reading. Without actually a spectrometer to identify Fukushima's footprints it cannot be proven, however common sense tells me all I need to know. We're only 5,000 away from Japan, no distance at all for the winds to travel.
edit on 22-1-2014 by wishes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by wishes
 


Rain is ALWAYS radioactive....so is snow, sleet, hail etc.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
We need solar power to replace some or all power plants, in one hour the sun puts out enough energy to power the world for a year.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 


The only radiation found so far has been on the skin of tuna. No Fukushima radiation had been pulled from water samples near any US territories. The cesium on the skin of the tuna was safe levels and cesium 137 has been on the skin of tuna since the 60's.

All that I formation has already been sourced in previous threads.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Luuke123
 


The sun does indeed put out energy, however our capture and storage methods are horrible and economically damaging. Nuclear power is the most cost effective energy we can have at this time in history. If the US invested more in Nuclear, we could actually start to remove environmentally damaging wind and water generated power. Believe it or not, some Nuclear options are the cleanest for the environment and the best for the economy.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   

raymundoko
reply to post by RickinVa
 


The only radiation found so far has been on the skin of tuna. No Fukushima radiation had been pulled from water samples near any US territories. The cesium on the skin of the tuna was safe levels and cesium 137 has been on the skin of tuna since the 60's.

All that I formation has already been sourced in previous threads.



It all depends on how you look at it.... radiation was detected all over the world from the initial accident... so to say that no radiation has reached the USA is technically incorrect.

In your reply, you changed it to in the waters off the USA Coast.

The ongoing kelp study off the coast of California which wont be completed until the end of 2014 should answer this question.

Time is on the side of those who believe that Fukushima is worse than some would like for you to believe.

I am just trying to figure out what exactly you are trying to say, that's all.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   

raymundoko
reply to post by wishes
 


Rain is ALWAYS radioactive....so is snow, sleet, hail etc.



That is true, background radiation is around us 24/7/365.... one more radionuclide of man made radiation added to that is not a good thing. Radiation accumulates over time..... the stuff just doesn't disappear overnight.

Natural radiation has been discussed already. People are concerned with the additional man-made ionizing radiation coming out of Fukushima, resorting to the natural background radiation defense doesn't really change that fact one bit...

Fukushima is very slowly adding to the levels of man made ionizing radiation on this planet every single day. If you would like to disprove that statement, please post some sources that prove Fukushima is not leaking radiation into the environment.

And yes there is natural ionizing radiation, we all know this already.

So then we go to oh the levels are so low as to be safe.

then we go to what are considered safe levels of radiation.


This whole topic of Fukushima radiation is like a dog chasing its tail....... we go around and around, neither side gives a inch on their opinion, eventually we wind right back up at the starting point, only to go round and round some more.

Bottom line is that although I am against nuclear power, it's here to stay for the foreseeable future. You can't simply shut off all the nuclear power plants tomorrow, too many people depend on the electricity generated and there would be riots. You can't replace nuclear power with more coal power, that stuff isn't much better. Solar and wind power are much greener sources of energy, but they need to be quickly developed into being a viable replacement for coal and nuclear...but that's a long ways off at this point.

The longer we depend on nuclear power, the greater the chances that accidents like Chernobyl, Fukushima, TMI, and others will continue. It's only a matter of time before an accident causes severe contamination problems in a major metropolitan area.

Tokyo got very lucky this time, if the wind had been blowing a different direction, it could have been a real nightmare for that city. If that plume that went over the Pacific Ocean had went directly over Tokyo, we would having a completely different discussion right now, but it didn't.

On a scale of 1 to 10 where:

1 = Go to sleep, Fukushima is a minor problem and shouldn't worry you.
5 = Neutral, doesn't believe that Fukushima is totally harmless or that it is the end of the world.
10 = Oh my God, we are all going to die from Fukushima.

As of today, 1/22/2014 put me down as 6, slightly concerned about Fukushima's possible long term effects on the planet.

And now its back to playing some Eve Online... life is tough other places besides Earth LOL.


edit on 22-1-2014 by RickinVa because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-1-2014 by RickinVa because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-1-2014 by RickinVa because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-1-2014 by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   

crazyewok

InverseLookingGlass



The typical uneducated knee jerk reaction. If a Nuclear power plant is in a area safe from Earthquaks and Tsunamis and has full safety systems then I dont see the danger. We should just stop people from building plants in danger zones or with substandard systems.
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Like Chernobyl?




with substandard systems


Again the typical uneducated Knee Jerk Response.

Chernobyl happened as it was built by a failing empire with substanded systems and terrible saftey protacols. It would be impossibe for the same thing to happen at Chernobyl to one of our own western power plants! To get a melt down you would have to be stupid like build a plant in a earthquake zone!


Fact it is if you build a plant tp western standards in SAFE regions theres no problem.
edit on 20-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)


California has TWO plants on/near fault lines...one outside San Diego and one in Diablo Canyon in San Louis Obisbo.....diablo canyon has already run into problems by sucking in too many jellyfish



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   

AnonymousMoose

crazyewok

InverseLookingGlass



The typical uneducated knee jerk reaction. If a Nuclear power plant is in a area safe from Earthquaks and Tsunamis and has full safety systems then I dont see the danger. We should just stop people from building plants in danger zones or with substandard systems.
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Like Chernobyl?




with substandard systems


Again the typical uneducated Knee Jerk Response.

Chernobyl happened as it was built by a failing empire with substanded systems and terrible saftey protacols. It would be impossibe for the same thing to happen at Chernobyl to one of our own western power plants! To get a melt down you would have to be stupid like build a plant in a earthquake zone!


Fact it is if you build a plant tp western standards in SAFE regions theres no problem.
edit on 20-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)


California has TWO plants on/near fault lines...one outside San Diego and one in Diablo Canyon in San Louis Obisbo.....diablo canyon has already run into problems by sucking in too many jellyfish


exactly... how many NPP's are within the striking range of the New Madrid fault? It doesn't shake a lot..it likes to save up its energy for one big massive earthqauke.

Its only a matter of time until one of the accidents impacts a major metropolitan area and millions and millions of people are affected.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Im in Washington state.. And the halford plant up here leaked over a million gallons of the most radioactive waste that exsists in the US. And the plant sits right on the columbia river.. I wish i could have gone out there with a rad counter after Japan and seen how radioactive it was.

Also i think they are trying too route alot of the water here.... To california as tap water, im going too look up on that a bit and see if this water comes from the columbia , wich flows in from the sound.

If so its just another way they are trying too use pop controll...



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I had been looking for this all day..



That is a picture (screenie actually) of the wind map of the Earth, the underlying colors denote temperature, and the direction in which they are headed is easy enough to figure out..

In order for radiation to come into the US West Coast by wind.. it would have to violate every known law of physics and go against the prevailing winds that come off of the west coast..

So there you have it, it is physically impossible for the radiation from Fukishima to travel from Japan on the wind and hit the West coast of the United States..



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


As someone who once studied meteorology, I can assure that the prevailing winds from Japan to West US are indeed westerly winds, that is come from the west and go east so it is entirely possible for the prevailing winds to pick up radiation from Fukushima and deliver it to the West Coast of the North America. Hawaii generally has easterly winds with it being in the tropics, so would not be as affected as the West Coast.

California in the past has detected smog from China reaching it's shores.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   

vkey08
I had been looking for this all day..



That is a picture (screenie actually) of the wind map of the Earth, the underlying colors denote temperature, and the direction in which they are headed is easy enough to figure out..

In order for radiation to come into the US West Coast by wind.. it would have to violate every known law of physics and go against the prevailing winds that come off of the west coast..

So there you have it, it is physically impossible for the radiation from Fukishima to travel from Japan on the wind and hit the West coast of the United States..



trace amounts of iodine 131 from Fukushima were found at numerous locations in the US and around the world after 3-11-11.
edit on 22-1-2014 by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   

crazyewok

InverseLookingGlass



The typical uneducated knee jerk reaction. If a Nuclear power plant is in a area safe from Earthquaks and Tsunamis and has full safety systems then I dont see the danger. We should just stop people from building plants in danger zones or with substandard systems.
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Like Chernobyl?




with substandard systems


Again the typical uneducated Knee Jerk Response.

Chernobyl happened as it was built by a failing empire with substanded systems and terrible saftey protacols. It would be impossibe for the same thing to happen at Chernobyl to one of our own western power plants! To get a melt down you would have to be stupid like build a plant in a earthquake zone!


Fact it is if you build a plant tp western standards in SAFE regions theres no problem.
edit on 20-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)


Typical uneducated response. We have built NRs on earth quake faults. San Onofre and Diablo Canyon to name a few. Also Our western power plants are not as high tech. as you would think most were built 40 years ago and have problems with safety systems all the time. Also you have to take into account things that can happen that the builders didn't take into considerations. North Anna was designed to withstand a 3.6M earthquake which is 10X higher than what the designers thought would ever occur in that area. Then in 2010 there was a 3.6M earthquake right at the design basis and that should never happen. There is a plethora of things that could happen that people just haven't thought of. Then there is human error and malicious intent to take into consideration. We were told that a nuclear meltdown was only likely to happen once ever 1000 years there have been 3 commercial meltdowns and a multitude of military meltdowns in the past 50 years. We are not perfect in anything we do. And to think that it is impossible for our "western power plants" to have a major accident with large scale consequences is naive.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Is Davos 2014 discussing Fukushima, publicly? I guess not...

I think that the total meltdown, through the concrete "grenade" that housed Reactor-2 into the ground and the unknown depths of the Pacific Ocean is real. But that's not a "Global Crisis", according to the "world leaders" at Davos. Even though the discovery of Alien Life was an issue in 2013, Fukushima was conspicuously absent, and still is.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   

raymundoko
reply to post by Luuke123
 


The sun does indeed put out energy, however our capture and storage methods are horrible and economically damaging. Nuclear power is the most cost effective energy we can have at this time in history. If the US invested more in Nuclear, we could actually start to remove environmentally damaging wind and water generated power. Believe it or not, some Nuclear options are the cleanest for the environment and the best for the economy.


Nuclear options are the "cleanest for the environment" and "best" for the economy ?!?!? Oh my... no wonder you don't see any "problems" from them... They are not clean nor are they cheap - as Einstein says "It's a hell of a way to boil water"... Tesla developed a clean, free energy that is illegal for anyone to use. Water, wind, and sun are all free and clean energy readily available but we'll never get them because they're readily available.

And you think there's 'dangerous levels' of radiation in all rain and snow 'anyway'? And that's no big deal? Where do you think all our cancer rates come from? It is showing up in animals regularly as well (I used to work in a vet clinic), why are incidents up for them too?

And because a doctor mentions radiation poisoning they're liars.... Hmm.... most revealing.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 12:33 AM
link   

raymundoko
reply to post by Luuke123
 


The sun does indeed put out energy, however our capture and storage methods are horrible and economically damaging. Nuclear power is the most cost effective energy we can have at this time in history. If the US invested more in Nuclear, we could actually start to remove environmentally damaging wind and water generated power. Believe it or not, some Nuclear options are the cleanest for the environment and the best for the economy.



Do you realize the irony in what you just said???

"If the US invested more in Nuclear, we could actually start to remove environmentally damaging wind and water generated power."

remove environmentally damaging wind and water generated power. environmentally damaging like for instance.. let's say Fukushima?

That's pure irony. I am debating making that my new signature.... That is classic.




edit on R372014-01-23T00:37:55-06:00k371Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)
edit on R412014-01-23T00:41:58-06:00k411Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 


Notice my caveat "some nuclear".

And water dams have done far more damage to the environment than Fukushima.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 12:47 AM
link   

raymundoko
reply to post by RickinVa
 


Notice my caveat "some nuclear".

And water dams have done far more damage to the environment than Fukushima.




In my opinion, there is no basis in that statement. Fukushima is up on the stage she has many more acts before the final curtain call.....no one yet knows the final damage that Fukushima will bring.... If Fukushima were a baseball game, then at this stage... we are just reaching the parking lot before the game.

All I am trying to say is that Fukushima still remains basically an unknown at this point.... for instance there was a new record high reading....... surely you can agree to just that?
edit on R532014-01-23T00:53:57-06:00k531Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join