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.

 

Canada Has Not Measured Radiation Levels Since 2012: BC First Nations call for radiation tests NOW!

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   
What's fascinating about this is the hypocrisy of the science class.

When there is a sunspot that seems large, a storm that seems unusual, a higgs particle that seems to show up, scientist from all over chime in (especially the self-appointed priest class on this site) that "WE NEED MORE DATA!"

After a flu outbreak or a fracking mishap "WE NEED MORE DATA, WE NEED TO STUDY IT MORE."

Yet: There are few, if any, scientists clambering to study any of this monumental fiasco. The GREATEST human created radiation disaster in human history, prime for study, is being dismissed by those are are usually quick to demand more data. I wonder?

In fact, the local high priest of the science class suggests it will all "dilute" and there is nothing to see here. He says this knowing full well radiation is not water soluble, and while it may "diffuse" in some way, he doesn't know this because a radiation fuel dump in the Pacific Ocean has happened before, or he is studying it or even crying for studies, he is saying this because, well. Who knows why he is saying it...

Shocking. Or maybe not. The science class has golden handcuffs, all of them, and they all have jelly for a spine and someone way more powerful then their mothers health/lives, their brothers health/lives and their children's health/lives told them to simply say "dilute" "nothing to see" and to shut the hell up or they might loose their job.

Even if you believe the total BS about there being no issue at all it would seem that a uncontrollable radiation catastrophe, a real life china syndrome, a real life flood of free flowing man-made radiation from a catastrophically destroyed power plant would demand a REAL scientist get out there to see what the hell was going on. Hell my neighbor's kid runs out with his magnifying glass to look at each dead bird! Yet the world's second biggest 70's-80-'s fear coming to life, three mile island gone berserk, Chernobyl being repaired not by the military but by buffoons, merits a "meh" by these folks?

There are points in one's life where you can look at someone and see where their beliefs have collapsed in light on the reality the have created. Those folks look different, they are different, the have reached a point where they either become soulless - in order to save themselves from breakdown, or they breakdown. This disaster is one such event, it has separated the wheat - the souled, from the now soulless.

The world is upside down. I blame facebook.




posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   

teslahowitzer
reply to post by RickinVa
 


Im thinking there is more poop in the pile than they are telling us, you feel FIRMLY confident you are getting the whole truth, good for you....me, I have questions, you cant answer them, but those at tepco could, but will not...



I wouldn't trust Tepco as far as I could throw them.... but we have to go on what little information is available until we know otherwise.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 





In fact, the local high priest of the science class suggests it will all "dilute" and there is nothing to see here. He says this knowing full well radiation is not water soluble, and while it may "diffuse" in some way, he doesn't know this because a radiation fuel dump in the Pacific Ocean has happened before, or he is studying it or even crying for studies, he is saying this because, well. Who knows why he is saying it...


Caesium Compounds are soluble Salts, ergo it "Dilute"!


Caesium-137 (137 55Cs, Cs-137), cesium-137, or radiocaesium, is a radioactive isotope of caesium which is formed as one of the more common fission products by the nuclear fission of uranium-235 and other fissionable isotopes in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. It is among the most problematic of the short-to-medium-lifetime fission products because it easily moves and spreads in nature due to the high water solubility of caesium's most common chemical compounds, which are salts.

Source
edit on 12-2-2014 by Human0815 because: better



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 


I believe that it is an impossible task to separate out the Japanese disaster from the whole picture in Canada. Harper's direct interference into anything related to the environment and climate change was done intentionally to deflect and suppress any little thing that would interfere with his oil development and Pacific pipeline agenda. The first to be fired were therefore the coastal researchers, and the native communities were the unfortunate pawns that lie in the way of the pipeline going through.

Below are two short videos about the muzzling of the scientists in Canada. The first deals with an inquiry into the muzzling of the remaining scientists. In the second one listen to the gall of Harper's wanting veto power over scientific publications on international projects such in the journal Nature if the article was about the environment or climate change. It truly boggles the mind!





Sean Atleo is seen by many in the native community as a Harper mouthpiece. Is it any wonder the natives are afraid and feel unprotected, afraid of the water, afraid to eat their fish? If we don't have access to the facts, then people will react. I wish Idle No More would demand loudly and constantly -- even yell for the right to continuous factual information.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by aboutface
 

Good thing there are things like this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I see David Suzuki's outfit is sponsoring a monitoring station up there (Haida Gwaii). Or is he bad too?
www.davidsuzuki.org...


edit on 2/12/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Human0815
reply to post by crankyoldman
 





In fact, the local high priest of the science class suggests it will all "dilute" and there is nothing to see here. He says this knowing full well radiation is not water soluble, and while it may "diffuse" in some way, he doesn't know this because a radiation fuel dump in the Pacific Ocean has happened before, or he is studying it or even crying for studies, he is saying this because, well. Who knows why he is saying it...


Caesium Compounds are soluble Salts, ergo it "Dilute"!


Caesium-137 (137 55Cs, Cs-137), cesium-137, or radiocaesium, is a radioactive isotope of caesium which is formed as one of the more common fission products by the nuclear fission of uranium-235 and other fissionable isotopes in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. It is among the most problematic of the short-to-medium-lifetime fission products because it easily moves and spreads in nature due to the high water solubility of caesium's most common chemical compounds, which are salts.

Source
edit on 12-2-2014 by Human0815 because: better


Is that all you do all day, "quote" others? Do you have any opinion of your own, or is that not in your job description? The fact that you defend what your country has done is unconscionable and speaks to my point exactly. Your people have perpetuated a horror on the planet that will last forever, in 50 years time they will say, "oh the Japanese with GE's help" created the mess while the entire population stared a hello kitty." The Russians created a mess but they never ran from it, they studied it, and do study it but what the Japanese do is bury their heads and hire trolls to help them save face.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   

crankyoldman

Human0815
reply to post by crankyoldman
 





In fact, the local high priest of the science class suggests it will all "dilute" and there is nothing to see here. He says this knowing full well radiation is not water soluble, and while it may "diffuse" in some way, he doesn't know this because a radiation fuel dump in the Pacific Ocean has happened before, or he is studying it or even crying for studies, he is saying this because, well. Who knows why he is saying it...


Caesium Compounds are soluble Salts, ergo it "Dilute"!


Caesium-137 (137 55Cs, Cs-137), cesium-137, or radiocaesium, is a radioactive isotope of caesium which is formed as one of the more common fission products by the nuclear fission of uranium-235 and other fissionable isotopes in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. It is among the most problematic of the short-to-medium-lifetime fission products because it easily moves and spreads in nature due to the high water solubility of caesium's most common chemical compounds, which are salts.

Source
edit on 12-2-2014 by Human0815 because: better


Is that all you do all day, "quote" others? Do you have any opinion of your own, or is that not in your job description? The fact that you defend what your country has done is unconscionable and speaks to my point exactly. Your people have perpetuated a horror on the planet that will last forever, in 50 years time they will say, "oh the Japanese with GE's help" created the mess while the entire population stared a hello kitty." The Russians created a mess but they never ran from it, they studied it, and do study it but what the Japanese do is bury their heads and hire trolls to help them save face.


Cesium doesn't dilute.... no radionuclide can be diluted with water,,, its simply not possible. The fact that it is water soluble is actually a bad thing....but that cesium istotope is still there chugging out its radiation. We have been over this many many times but he and others will always go back to cesium is water soluble like thats a good thing without bothering to tell you what really happens when cesium mixes with water. Its a lost cause.... best to ignore him and move on.
edit on R022014-02-13T00:02:44-06:00k022Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 


Cesium doesn't dilute.... no radionuclide can be diluted with water

That's nonsense.

Take a concentration of 2Bq/l, add a liter of water and you get 1 Bq/l. Add another liter of water and you get .67 Bq/l.

That is dilution. The more water for a given amount out radioactive particles, the lower the concentration.
www.chemicool.com...


edit on 2/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by RickinVa
 


Cesium doesn't dilute.... no radionuclide can be diluted with water

That's nonsense.

Take a concentration of 2Bq/l, add a liter of water and you get 1 Bq/l. Add another liter of water and you get .67 Bq/l.

That is dilution. The more water for a given amount out radioactive particles, the lower the concentration.
www.chemicool.com...


edit on 2/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



The concentration will be less, that is true. But that radionuclide has lost none of it's strength because you added more water... its still the same isotope it was before and will be till it decays.... you can't dilute an unstable atom with water....no matter how much water you add. You can cause the effects of the radiation to be diluted, but not the radiation itself.

I emailed the Dean of UCSD about dilution vice dissipation and he replied in the following link.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can call it dilute if you like, I will stick with disperse or dissipate or concentration
edit on R142014-02-13T00:14:10-06:00k142Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R182014-02-13T00:18:23-06:00k182Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 

First you said you can't dilute radionuclides. Apparently your definition of dilution varies from the normal terminology.

Now are you saying that a concentration of 0.6 Bq/m3 (the levels found in seawater 500 miles off of Vancouver) is the same as a concentration of 7,400 Bq/m3? (the EPA limit for drinking water)?



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by RickinVa
 

First you said you can't dilute radionuclides. Apparently your definition of dilution varies from the normal terminology.

Now are you saying that a concentration of 0.6 Bq/m3 (the levels found in seawater 500 miles off of Vancouver) is the same as a concentration of 7,400 Bq/m3? (the EPA limit for drinking water)?





Not at all.... I am just saying you can not dilute an unstable atom with water. One cup of cesium is a very bad thing to be near...that same cup poured into the ocean would disperse/dissipate to very low or non detectable levels..... same principle, I just don't personally agree with the use of the word dilute when it comes to radioactivity because radioactivity is nothing more than an unstable atom that desperately wants to become stable, throwing it in water doesn't change the fact that it is still that same unstable atom.

read the reply from the Dean I wrote, which I linked above.



edit on R232014-02-13T00:23:25-06:00k232Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R242014-02-13T00:24:54-06:00k242Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R252014-02-13T00:25:29-06:00k252Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R312014-02-13T00:31:12-06:00k312Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 


Since our retarded government won't test for radiation, why not just do it yourself? You can buy rad detectors and dosimeters online. I was pretty shocked when I did my tests of my local environment in Southern Ontario where I lived (at the time) after heavy rainfalls. I am using a DND standard issue surplus radiation detector which is fully calibrated and I was getting counts that told me not to go anywhere the water run-offs around the house. Actually, I moved out of that house because of the accelerated structural collapse of the foundation, radon gas from the breakdown and white and black mold.

Get detectors, don't trust what the government says, all you have to do is look at their past and present actions to know what the future holds.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   
If we actually knew the extent and severity of the Fukushima contamination they would be evacuating Japan..
fact is it would have sunk the worlds economy.
It is no secret there has been falsification of data from day 1

edit on 13-2-2014 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 

I read it when you posted it.

it is important how many of those exist in a given volume.


Dilution reduces the net radioactivity.
No, you can't dilute a single atom. But one radioactive atom is not dangerous. And the fewer radioactive atoms there are in a given volume, the less the danger.

0.6 Bq/m3 is far less dangerous than 7,400 Bq/m3 which is far less dangerous than 15,000 Bq/m3.


I just don't personally agree with the use of the word dilute when it comes to radioactivity
The word fits the definition. How can you not agree with it unless you are changing definition?


edit on 2/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 


You are wrong, as nearly always!

Another Source

Another Source:


Transcript of Isotopes: Caesium - 137
Caesium - 137 Caesium 137 is a radioactive isotope, which is formed artificially, as one of the more usual fission products by the nuclear fission of Uranium-235 and other fissionable isotopes in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. It is actually one of the most troublesome fission products of its short-to-medium lifespan because it moves fairly easily and spreads in nature due to the high water solubility of caesium's most typical chemical compounds, salts.

2'nd Source

And one more, for the Troll:


The main problem with cesium-137, which is present in the form of salts, is its high water solubility. Cesium-137 ions are readily distributed in the body, and especially in the muscle tissues. The biological half-life is 70 days. This means that half of the cesium-137 has been excreted again after 70 days.

Source

Honey, Plutonium is different and not soluble in Water, for example



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by RickinVa
 

I read it when you posted it.

it is important how many of those exist in a given volume.


Dilution reduces the net radioactivity.
No, you can't dilute a single atom. But one radioactive atom is not dangerous. And the fewer radioactive atoms there are in a [bgiven volume, the less the danger.

0.6 Bq/m3 is far less dangerous than 7,400 Bq/l which is far less dangerous than 15,000 Bq/l. To imply that concentration is irrelevant is disingenuous at the least.


I just don't personally agree with the use of the word dilute when it comes to radioactivity
The word fits the definition. How can you not agree with it unless you are changing definition?

edit on 2/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I just do not agree with it.... same principle and the net effect is the same in the end. Not worth arguing over, it's a personal preference of mine not to use the word dilute when talking about radiation. To say something is diluted, most people assume that is has been made weaker by mixing it with something else. The unstable atoms are no weaker than they ever were, just harder to find because they are less concentrated, that's all.


edit on R402014-02-13T00:40:49-06:00k402Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 




To say something is diluted, most people assume that is has been made weaker by mixing it with something else.

It has been made weaker. Use a radiation counter on a 0.6 Bq/m3 sample. Use it on a 10,000 Bq/m3 sample. What are the results?

Which sample is more radioactive?

edit on 2/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Human0815
reply to post by RickinVa
 


You are wrong, as nearly always!

Another Source

Another Source:


Transcript of Isotopes: Caesium - 137
Caesium - 137 Caesium 137 is a radioactive isotope, which is formed artificially, as one of the more usual fission products by the nuclear fission of Uranium-235 and other fissionable isotopes in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. It is actually one of the most troublesome fission products of its short-to-medium lifespan because it moves fairly easily and spreads in nature due to the high water solubility of caesium's most typical chemical compounds, salts.

2'nd Source

And one more, for the Troll:


The main problem with cesium-137, which is present in the form of salts, is its high water solubility. Cesium-137 ions are readily distributed in the body, and especially in the muscle tissues. The biological half-life is 70 days. This means that half of the cesium-137 has been excreted again after 70 days.

Source

Honey, Plutonium is different and not soluble in Water, for example


WOW... first time I have ever been called a troll by a famous ATS troll.... I feel somehow honored!

I don't know who you are calling Honey, but I hope its not me.

First of all, dilution and water solubility are two totally different things so that whole response was invalid.

Just because cesium is water soluble don't make it go away... the cesium isotope is still there... just like tritiated water.... it still has that tritium isotope, its just bonded with hydrogen... doesn't make the tritium isotope any weaker or less harmful.

Here the dog goes chasing its tail again,,,, around and around and around. been there done that.
edit on R442014-02-13T00:44:32-06:00k442Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R482014-02-13T00:48:13-06:00k482Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R102014-02-13T01:10:52-06:00k102Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R292014-02-13T01:29:13-06:00k292Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by RickinVa
 




To say something is diluted, most people assume that is has been made weaker by mixing it with something else.

It has been made weaker. Use a radiation counter on a 0.6 Bq/m3 sample. Use it on a 10,000 Bq/m3 sample. What are the results?

Which sample is more radioactive?

edit on 2/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


It not worth arguing about...you go right on using the word diluted, I just prefer not too. Like I said before, you can dilute the effects of the radiation, in your example listed above, but you haven't actually diluted the unstable atom itself. It's still the same. Apples and Oranges.

It all comes down to this:

Can you dilute an unstable atom with water? Nope. You can make unstable atoms less concentrated, cause them to dissipate or disperse by adding water. It's really just a personal preference of mine.


edit on R552014-02-13T00:55:19-06:00k552Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R562014-02-13T00:56:06-06:00k562Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:56 AM
link   

RickinVa

teslahowitzer
reply to post by RickinVa
 


Im thinking there is more poop in the pile than they are telling us, you feel FIRMLY confident you are getting the whole truth, good for you....me, I have questions, you cant answer them, but those at tepco could, but will not...



I wouldn't trust Tepco as far as I could throw them.... but we have to go on what little information is available until we know otherwise.


The fact is I don't think we will know the "otherwise" because higher up officials will never want us to know the truth. Maybe one day Jesse Ventura will expose this truth or die trying....







 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join