It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
To date it’s been viewed almost half a million times, and countless articles have been written referencing it as evidence, source, etc.. However the claims made in the video are inaccurate. Not that the beaches aren’t radioactive – they are – however this is a natural phenomenon that has been documented for over 50 years, a fact which is easily googleable to anyone interested. Unfortunately it seems that the creators of that video, and the media publications that have run with the story, haven’t been interested enough to spend a few minutes doing any research.
In the 2008 paper Radioactivity of sand from several renowned public beaches and assessment of the corresponding environmental risks by Radenkovic, et al, published in the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, notable concentrations of Ra226, Th232, K40 were found in LA-area beaches (see table 1). Going back even further 1959, Tracing Coastal Sediment Movement By Naturally Radioactive Minerals is a report by Kamel & Johnson, from Berkeley, which states “This radioactive thorium is added naturally at discrete places along the coast where rivers flowing through thorium rich granite out- crops reach the coast or where the thorium rich granite itself outcrops at the sea coast.”
why waste billion of taxpayers' dollars on THEM,
when it's better spent expanding global military bases and irradiating the mideast with DU dust?!
reply to post by gardener
I see a lot of responses to this post with speculation as to the accuracy of the equipment and sources used. However, none immediately answered the question of what to do about. Even if those measurements are correct, what exactly do you expect the EPA to do about it? They can't stop radiation. What do you expect them to do? Build a giant lead wall for the entire west coast? Personally, if it were me, and I was a concerned as you are. I'd just move. Not like you can escape it entirely, no matter where you go, but it might not be as bad if you weren't on the west coast.
reply to post by gardener
Is that guy's meter properly calibrated? Is he using it properly? I need a lot more hard evidence before I consider this anything more than overreacting.
I really need to get a Geiger counter here in Washington state, and I hope it isn't happening here too.
If it is happening here, and no one knows about it, and the EPA just laughs and hangs up when asked, but the Geiger counter reads "DANGER!!" Then I see some EPA employees being given a very sudden job termination. In situation like this, it would be justified for any citizen to give them their walking papers, personally. Their new job will be to report to a 6 foot hole in the ground at the nearest boot hill.
Or they can keep their jobs, and everyone can just ignore it and happily report to the nearest disintegration station, just like in that old star trek original series episode.edit on 22-1-2014 by alienreality because: added
I live in San Diego and my hair has thinned and is falling out suddenly October last year. Im 23 and baldness nor does hair loss occur until much later in my family.
reply to post by rickymouse
Only in the shed? What's it built from, and what's the local geology like? My top theory for that would be that you're living on granite bedrock and have a radon seep somewhere in the foundation of your shed.
Are high radiation readings being observed on the west coast of the United States? No doubt you’ve seen the video of a man in San Francisco, California using a Geiger Counter showing high radiation readings on the beach. Enter Dan Sythe, the CEO of International Medcom Inc. that develops and produces radiation detection instruments and systems. Dan has a list of impressive credentials on everything Geiger Counter related. At the Geiger Counter Bulletin, he tests the same California sand and compares it to readings from Fukushima. Take Home: The radiation signature in the coastal sands is normal and is not the same as from Fukushima. Favorite Quote: “The radionuclides are in the NORM class of radioactive substances, not from Fukushima. NORM stands for Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material…If the sand were contaminated by radiation from Fukushima it would show Cesium 137 [it does not].” Super Favorite Bonus Quote: “The radiation level [in the sand] is elevated, but roughly equivalent to some granite counter top material from Brazil.”
This isn’t a map of radiation, it’s a map of wave estimated hight after the Tohuku Tsunami. So why is there so much outrage and fear around Fukushima radiation, even when there is evidence to suggest it’s not as bad as we fear? To answer this, I invited psychologists Anselma Hartley and Joachim Krueger to contribute this guest post. Anselma received her Ph.D. from Brown University in 2013 and is currently on the job market. She researches social cognition and the assessment of personality change. You can find her on Twitter: @anselmahartley. Joachim is a professor of psychology at Brown University, a social psychologist, and author of the Psychology Today blog One Among Many.
]Let’s talk Confirmation Bias Why do some people hold fast to apocalyptic ideas, like Fukushima radiation, even when the best available evidence suggests that the world is not about to end? Confirmation bias is the term psychologists use to describe the behavior of testing an idea by searching for evidence that supports it. This tendency to confirm pre-existing beliefs creates and maintains false perceptions of reality because people fail to acknowledge information to the contrary, even when readily available. The strongest type of confirmation bias arises from a motivation or a need to see the world as we want to see it. Here, confirmatory information is purposely sought out and any information challenging our preconceived notions is ignored, discounted, or dismissed. Confirmation bias can play a role in the angry reactions to scientific evidence regarding the scope and effects of the Fukushima accident. Although evidence suggests that radiation emanating from Fukushima will not reach a catastrophic level on an ocean or global scale, many people remain convinced that the risks to human and ocean health are enormous.
Nuclear waste dump From 1946 to 1970, the sea around the Farallones was used as a nuclear dumping site for radioactive waste under the authority of the United States Atomic Energy Commission at a site known as the Farallon Island Nuclear Waste Dump. Most of the dumping took place before 1960, and all dumping of radioactive wastes by the United States was terminated in 1970. By then, 47,500 55 gallon steel drum containers had been dumped in the vicinity, with a total estimated radioactive activity of 14,500 Curies. The materials dumped were mostly laboratory materials containing traces of contamination. Much of the radioactivity had decayed by 1980. The exact location of the containers and the potential hazard the containers pose to the environment are unknown. Waste containers were shipped to Hunters Point Shipyard, then loaded onto barges for transportation to the Farallones. Containers were weighted with concrete. Those that floated were sometimes shot with rifles to sink them.