"The plant still emits 10 million becquerels per hour into the atmosphere, according to Tepco"

Lurker1

. . . a nuclear physicist stated to MSNBC International, on condition of anonymity, that the situation at Fukushima can best be described as an open air nuclear power plant in meltdown mode, with the cooling water being pumped directly into the ocean.

edit on 10/26/2013 by Lurker1 because: (no reason given)

pretty frightening isn't it?? i know the ocean has been used as a dumping ground for a very long time. at some point it will become glaringly obvious that we've made a giant mess that we can't clean up. the ocean is big.... but it isn't infinite.

reply to post by Human0815


As I understand it the capping at chernobyl is going to gradually disintergrate as construction materials tend to do over time from the radioactive interactions. It will eventually be the same old problem again...
The gift that keeps on giving.
Fukushima having a porous land base can't be capped and can't be stopped as is the situation in varying degrees for all the nuke plants as they exceed their life expectancies...

I was told by someone in the know that we were on an unfixable environmental course by 1960...saddly it's only later now

life is just to die

anyone with a little inhaled particle of plutonium in thier lungs or swallowed as food will (eventually) tell you...

PS imho ( not to be judgemental, JUST SAYIN ) accusing someone of being a shill while not refuting them with the facts is no better...

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by pasiphae

 

Some stories...I really wish I didn't see. When I was a kid, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and all....I was taught in basic biology and what would be called environmental science today, there are index species to indicate disaster and/or coming collapse of our ecosystem.

HAHA you kill me Wrabbit. Thank you for the lesson on index species though I had forgotten. Very good point.

reply to post by Danbones


The big difference is that Chernobyl lost their little Containment
while the Stuff in Fukushima is still inside and sheltered!

In the case we had lost the Containments Fukushima would be
really, really bad!

Human0815
reply to post by Danbones

 

The big difference is that Chernobyl lost their little Containment
while the Stuff in Fukushima is still inside and sheltered!

In the case we had lost the Containments Fukushima would be
really, really bad!

. . . a nuclear physicist stated to MSNBC International, on condition of anonymity, that the situation at Fukushima can best be described as an open air nuclear power plant in meltdown mode, with the cooling water being pumped directly into the ocean.

. . . a nuclear physicist stated to MSNBC International, on condition of anonymity, that the situation at Fukushima can best be described as an open air nuclear power plant in meltdown mode, with the cooling water being pumped directly into the ocean.

You see this is exactly your/a Problem which you share with countless
other People in (not only) this Forum,
you give to much on opinions of unnamed People or on Arnie Gundersen,
Helen Caldicott and/ or C. Busby,
all this can't stand a scientific Proof and this is a big Problem since Day 1.!

Fact is a Radioactive Decay, you can't hide it,
fact is also that the Radiation is to low for a loss of Containment,
fact is also that the Cooling in Daiichi itself is working and this would
be impossible in the case of a breached Containment,
fact is that we have no proof for your Hypotheses!

reply to post by Human0815


With respect to the Fukushima contamination of the planet, we should believe an anonymous poster on the Internet over several nuclear experts?

I don't think so.

reply to post by Lurker1


I never ever said, thought or wrote that you should believe me,
i even think it is stupid to believe me but what i hoped for is
that the People become much more critical with the Stuff they read,
they need to start to research this Topic much more in Depth!

Like i wrote it in the beginning: "10.000.000 Bq á Hour is Peanuts"
and "that we need a Dimension" and
"do you know the Emission of a Fiesta Dish Ware"!

Look, this one:

Human0815
reply to post by bintang

 

It is always easy to say "you are a Shill", "He/She is a Shill", "etc., etc."
but for what this Word is a Replacement?

For your own stupidness, tomfoolery, or running out of Arguments?

I really doubt that a Forum like ATS attract real Pro-Nuclear Shills
because the Member are not a Target for the Construction of Opinions,
ATS attract Shills maybe for US and Israel related Topics but not for
this Topic, at least i do not saw any "Pro-Nuclear Shill" but i know that
the Anti-Nuclear People are highly Dogmatic and close to the real Shillery
without even realizing it that they get ab/used!

And by the Way everyone can read my Postings from the first Months
after 3/11 until now and get a Picture about me, we can't say this
about you

Well, this topic may well attract shills--but not likely from the energy company.


Limitation of available energy to common citizens has been part of the agenda of TPTB for decades. A large part of this is limitation of Nuclear energy (and coal, and oil, and wood). Of course they would seem more likely to hire shills than an ordinary energy company would, IMO.

reply to post by mamahuhu


Microwave will not work for this. I consider myself an expert in the field as I have over a decade of hands on experience with it. However you taught me something and I thank you.

web.ornl.gov...

It will work for other isotopes 'in theory'. I do not believe this has ever been applied in a real world environment. This also would not work in the Ocean. I cannot imagine how you would apply this to the current situation. As stated in the article the main problem is to capture and then separate the different isotopes.

A challenging aspect of this waste management strategy is the required waste partitioning. Just as household wastes must be partitioned into categories, such as paper, glass, and aluminum, before they are recycled, radioactive waste must also be sorted before being recycled back into nuclear reactors.

Anyways just more food for thought.

reply to post by Pimpintology


Thank you for your reply and the knowledge that you shared with me. One of these gentlemen who created the machines had over 40 years of microwave experience.

What they are currently being used for is just the tip of an iceberg. If these can vaporize tires, what else can they do. What other uses could there be? If they are able to manipulate at a molecular level is it possible to manipulate at an atomic level or sub-atomic level? What is the limit? I know that the inventors don't believe in limits or they wouldn't have gotten so far.

www.envirowave.com

I hope this brings a little pleasure to your mind as you sit and think of all the possibilities this could bring forth.

reply to post by mamahuhu


Well in the thread I posted today they mention 'machines'. Machines invented to dispose of the waste. I can't help but think they are what you are talking about. If you put one right at the plant then theoretically you might be able to do this but you would need to separate the isotopes. I love it. Glad they are working on the tech. It means one day we might be able to recycle nuclear waste into harmless material. All I am saying is I don't see a way to apply this directly to the atmosphere or the ocean. At the plant yes.

Zaphod58
But if it was in the air, it would have affected Hawaii too. Maybe not as bad, but enough to see an increase in background at least.

Maybe it did. Depends on who was collecting the data and where that data went. Can you imagine the panic if the doom porn we commonly see on ATS went MSM? If nobody's doing anything effective about it ...

The reason I always say "Fuku is the real deal" is because radiation is insidious. For all intents and purposes, it never stops. The effects are cumulative in the ecosystem (of which we're a part). But, because we can't see it ... baaa baaa baaa ... and because the other usual suspects are dismissively attributed blame for 2d and 3d order effects ... well.

I can only tell you what I've observed. What I've observed is a serious issue and (I believe) has affected people who are special to me. It seems some folks would like to suppress discussions of the issues ... make one doubt there may be a problem at all. "Nothing to see here folks ... move along ... move along."

I have looked ... and looked ... and looked ... and I have found no collection point or analyses to support or dismiss the issues I have an interest in. 'Somebody' who is always saying, "Oh ... it's not that bad" is a guy who's talking about 'in the now' ... has no desire to assuage anyone's concerns.

How many times have we all heard how serious radioactivity is? This rates right up there with weaponized biological hazards (i.e. a plague that can wipe out all of humanity). We're not talking about a minor leak here. We're talking core meltdown ... and a triple core meltdown at that. Have the dangers of radiation simply been overstated since before the Manhattan Project was developed? Is it okay that there's a bunch of Japanese Homer Simpsons handling the situation in Fukushima?

I've got a funny feeling this topic is going to keep coming around until the Japanese demonstrate a little competence and clean up their mess. ATS may not see me leading with the next new thread, but the weight of my comments will likely be added and they won't deviate from the line expressed in this one, as long as the shill is allowed to keep posting his. This ain't my house and if the general readership or the staff wants me to stop all one has to do is ask. -Cheers

reply to post by Snarl


The readings are coming from a good friend of mine, with no reason to lie about them, and would be the first to tell me if they were high in the least. I have absolutely no doubt as to their authenticity.

Moderator Note:

The name-calling stops here.

pasiphae
eventually they are going to have to give us the straight scoop on what's going on with the fuel rods. that may be where the radiation that is airborne is coming from. i'm just glad that people are starting to talk about it more instead of sticking their head in the sand about it. the oceans are already becoming more acidic and adding radiation to it is going to kill off everything a little faster. i hate to think what we'll be seeing in 10 years.

The wont start talking until Japan begins glowing in the dark.

I reread this article today doing more research and it appears that they are also releasing 30 million becquerels per day of Cs-137 into the ocean as well as 30 million becquerels per day of Stronium-90. Sr-90 was the bone seeking isotope found in the tuna caught off of California shores that recently raised the alarm. That's 60 million becquerels per day of radiation of just those two isotopes going right into the ocean. Now remember Tepco usually paints a nice picture and we find out later that its much worse then stated.

They even admit to that. Just wanted to point out the 60 million per day number. Also of note is that oceanographers are saying that new radiation is most likely being deposited in the trenches where shrimp and small fish collect for protection. They are low on the food chain. The scientists are pointing out that that's how its entering the food chain and getting into the fish being caught in a 150 mile stretch off the coast of Fukushima.

It was said before that new sediments would cover that radiation and there was nothing to worry about. Guess they were wrong once again.

Radiation levels there should naturally weaken over time, Dr. Thornton said, as sea currents deposit new sediments on top of toxic particles. The fact that radiation levels are still up to hundreds of times as high as they are in other areas of the sea floor raises the possibility that the spots are being blanketed in new contamination from the plant, he said.

Same article. I would also like to point out that these isotopes are heavier then water. Something else I have been looking into. Atomic weight. So they will settle on the seabed therefore making it very difficult to check for the spread of radioactivity. Now off the coast of Fukushima since they know its there of course they know where to look. But in the rest of the pacific I don't think people are sending devices down to the sea floor to check for radioactivity.

It would also be a conflict of interest IMHO for any fishing companies to check their catches for radioactivity as that would make the catch difficult to sell. I read in the past that the way this is done is through spot checking, or sample testing. They don't test everything. Well radiation has hot spots. Anyhow I will look into who's responsibility that is to check for radioactivity in seafood soon and let everyone know my findings.