Current animated Jet Stream..NUCLEAR FALLOUT

Oh my of course its not going to reach the jetstream. Three mile was a 5. France is now calling this a 6, so far, because at this point, all 6 cores have not melted down uncontrollably, but they are going to. They cannot be maintained. The reason is due to a damaged container which means radiation is leaking and its lethal.

The cores have been exposed for many hours on numerous reactors.

Chenobyl was 7, and it traversed the entire planet in the jetstreams.

Experts have been cautioning all along, right back to this being a 4, that it may reach the west coast due to the jet stream.


This could be, underplayed warning was Sunday. A lot has happened since then.

This is greater than Chenobyl. Multiply that by 6 in the end.

Also, Russia has already had increase of radiation on its outer islands and is considering evacuating. This is going to reach east coasts of Russia, China and the west coast of North America, and they will travel much further.

We really hope a lot of it falls out to sea.

Actually hoping for some rain on the ocean, but that is a double whammy.

When I read posts downplaying this into insignificance, I really don't understand how anyone can be sabotaging millions of people. What an agenda.

reply to post by Unity_99

Sabotaging?

How does encouraging despair and panic help anyone?
What do you suggest people do? Flee? Where to?
Start pounding potassium iodide? Why? Do you know what it does? Do you know what it's good for?

"When in worry or in doubt,
Run in circles scream and shout."

Real good advice.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by dangerish

 

Well it depends on the amount of material released. But perhaps you should consider this, the Pacific Proving Grounds. The same winds carrying more of worse stuff.
en.wikipedia.org...

I heard that in nuclear bomb tests the radiation is short lived compared to a melt down etc..
Are you saying different with this comment ??

reply to post by backinblack

Perhaps you could provide a source.
For a change.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

 

Perhaps you could provide a source.
For a change.

What? You can't just answer a simple question?

reply to post by backinblack

What? You just make a statement?

reply to post by Phage


Well I can't be bothered looking for sources to show something so obvious..
If the testing grounds of the Pacific were more "scary" that the Japanese situation then going by all the nuclear tests performed on US soil, wouldn't huge sections of the US be uninhabitable like Chernobyl ??

reply to post by backinblack

Yeah, research is a pain. Isn't it. Much easy to just shoot from the hip.

But maybe, just maybe, high levels of radioactive material did not make it to the mainland.
In spite of being directly injected into the stratosphere. In spite of being 2,000 miles closer than Japan.

reply to post by backinblack


Who ever said that the testings were not dangerous. The doctors in the olden days spoke their minds, and my mother had leukemia as a child right the testings in Nevada. The local doctors told the family that they felt this was the reason.

Add to this, Chenobyl, and now 6 X Chenobyl, all at once. Huge!!!!

The arguments and logic being used is akin to mesmers, slight of hand. Oh, why worry about being shot 7 more times, you should man up and not worry about the bullet holes, since you've already been shot 7 other times and didn't know, of course not all at once.

No logic in that, in fact the argument is lame.

For the past decades, the citizens of this world have been in a under the table, hidden nuclear war. They don't even seem to realize, its been all out nuclear war against them for years. And with the depleted uranium as well. There is no mistake or claim of ignorance possible either. The Manhatten Project cleared up all their questions I'm sure. They just like killing people.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

 

Yeah, research is a pain. Isn't it. Much easy to just shoot from the hip.
But maybe, just maybe, high levels of radioactive material did not make it to the mainland.
In spite of being directly injected into the stratosphere. In spite of being 2,000 miles closer than Japan.

edit on 3/16/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

But that's not what you said..
This is..

Well it depends on the amount of material released. But perhaps you should consider this, the Pacific Proving Grounds. The same winds carrying more of worse stuff.

"worse stuff" is what I was questioning..
Not distance to the mainland or how the jet stream works..

No idea why you can't just answer and rather start a fight..

reply to post by backinblack

I give straight answers when someone contributes to the discussion.

When someone says "I heard... Are you saying..." it sounds more like a baseless argument than a discussion.

Do some research. Then get back to me. You've been around long enough to know how it works.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

 

I give straight answers when someone contributes to the discussion.
When someone says "I heard... Are you saying..." it sounds more like a baseless argument than a discussion.
Do some research. Then get back to me. You've been around long enough to know how it works.

OK, I'll start here and keep looking..

"Each reactor has the radioactivity of 1000 Hiroshima bombs," said Ira Helfand, MD, an expert on radiation exposure in Leeds, Massachusetts, and a board member of the group Physicians for Social Responsibility, referring to the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, during World War II.

www.medscape.com...

But what I "heard" here on ATS was through another link that I can't find yet..
It said nuclear bombs are designed to use up most of the nuclear compounds to create as big a BOOM as possible..
Unlike a reactor....

Originally posted by Phage
The jet stream is at altitudes of about 30,000 feet and higher. At this stage of the crisis there is no reason to expect radioactive material to be reaching that height. It would take a very large explosion cause that to happen. That sort of even has not occurred.

Material from the Japanese reactors will be influenced mostly by lower level winds.

Phage
I do respect your analogies on this forum
and you continue to be an asset but you
and I both know that low level winds
don't always travel horizontal, they
can be vertical. An example would
be the first opening scene of
"Forrest Gump" when the feather
flies upward and over the road and
lands next to Forrest. And if those
low level winds over Japan turn
vertical OR either a volcano erupts,
then those can be considered
catalysts for mixing contaminants
in with the jet stream. But I do certainly
appreciate your reasoning

PS: also you are not taking to
account commercial air traffic
flying in and out of Europe, Koreas
and Japan. Those planes
may provided a piggyback effect
for particulate matter to also
enter the jet stream and even deliver
it to a particular destination
airport. Just having radiation
out there in the atmosphere
provides too many possibilities
to prevent or control them all.
And let's also consider commercial
sea vessels who traverse the
Pacific Ocean.

Just wanted to reup for anyone interested in knowing where the radiation may be traveling
line2

reply to post by boondock-saint

You're right. I should have qualified that statement to read dangerous amounts of radioactive material reaching the jet stream.

Material from low levels can be carried to high levels by various means. Vertical mixing does occur. But note the word mixing. The material gets mixed with the lower atmosphere, reducing its concentration. Some of it may be lifted to higher levels, undergoing more mixing as it does so. It becomes more and more dilute, less and less dangerous.

So now there are diluted amounts of radioactive material 6 miles above the surface. Some of it starts to settle to lower levels. It doesn't just fall (whoomp) out of the sky. Diluted amounts get diluted even more as they drift toward the surface.

Material from Chernobyl was carried around the world. Material from atmospheric testing was carried around the world. Harmful levels were confined to relatively small areas. There is no reason to believe the crisis in Japan (should it escalate) will have a different result.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Phage

I give straight answers when someone contributes to the discussion.

Well I posted a link stating reactor fallout is far worse than anything you'd see in the Pacific proving ground..
Will you still stick to the opinion that Testing grounds are "far worse"?