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.
Fukushima radiation could very well be the "straw that broke the camel's back" additional level of exposure for a handful of people outside of Japan. So yes there's an anthill, but don't make a mountain out of it. For the people living in Japan, in contaminated areas, the risks are much higher, but even there estimates are they will lose on average less than one year of their life. Of course it doesn't work that way, it's more like 9 people will be unaffected and one will get cancer and die 10 years earlier and there's your average of 1 year. But outside Japan the risk from Fukushima drops off a lot.
RickinVa
I find that statement to be pure irony,,,,trying to say Fukushima is okay because other countries are doing it is absurd...if you can source some material that proves other countries are dumping/leaking 300 tons of radioactive water into the ocean on a daily basis, I'd like to see it. Whats even scarier should be the fact that there is no way to know when the radioactive water will stop leaking from Fukushima...Mankind has been polluting the oceans for centuries... eventually there will have to be a tipping point that is reached.....who can possibly say the Fukushima won't be a factor in that tipping point?
So there's mention of the threat to marine life, but no measurements. That's pretty appalling the Soviets/Russia signed a treaty to not dump nuclear waste, then did it anyway, got caught, then said they will keep doing it unless other countries like Japan etc help build waste processing facilities for them.
The former Soviet Union and Russia had dumped radioactive
waste on many occasions in the Far East water area including the
Sea of Japan since 1950s. Soviet Union/Russia had several dump
sites in the Sea of Japan and the North Pacific Ocean off Kamchatka
peninsula.
It is been known that Soviet Union/Russia had disposed of
highly radioactive waste in the sea of Far East area on at least
six occasions since 1978. In 1978, Soviet Union dumped two nuclear
reactors off North Korea. In 1985, it dumped radioactive waste in
the Pacific Ocean (specific location is unknown). In 1992, it
dumped containers of liquid radioactive waste in the Sea of Japan.
In 1989, it disposed of components of a submarine reactor in the
Pacific Ocean off Kamchatka peninsula. In 1992, it dumped
containers of nuclear waste in the Pacific off Kamchatka. In 1985,
Soviet submarine reactor exploded in the Sea of Japan and it has
continued to emit radiation ever since.3 In addition to those
dumpings, Russia seems to have continued to dispose of low-level
radioactive wastes as late as October 1993 when a Greenpeace vessel
witnessed and reported the Russia's dumping of liquid waste.
In 1975, "Soviet Union had ratified an international treaty
that banned dumping reactor hardware and strictly controlled the
disposal of liquid radioactive waste, requiring that nuclear wastes
disposed of at sea be sunk at least 3,000 m."4 In addition, Soviet
Union/Russia is a signatory of London Dumping Convention in 1983
which "called for an immediate halt to all dumping of nuclear waste
at sea."5 Although Soviet Union/Russia signed these treaties, it
has ignored them. Obviously the above listed events are bold
violations of international agreements.
It is believed that "the former Soviet Union dumped as many as
17,000 containers of solid and liquid nuclear waste into these
waters [Barents Sea and Kara Sea] between 1964-86, almost all of it
at depths of less than 300 m."6 Thus Soviet/Russia's dumpings were
not confined to far east area. The Arctic area is as much
threatened by nuclear wastes as the Sea of Japan...
In October, 1993 the Russian prime minister mentioned a
shortage of nuclear waste processing facilities as the reason for
Russia's disposal of nuclear wastes at sea.8 He also said that he
was expecting assistance from other countries including Japan to
construct appropriate facilities and that if such aid was
insufficient or slow Russia would be forced to resume dumping in
the future.9 Thus, this environmental problem seems to be used as
a card for political bargaining by Russia.
The most immediate concern of disposal of nuclear waste at sea
is the effect of radiation on the edible fish. Fish and sea plants
which inhabit the area might be contaminated by the waste. People
are likely to avoid buying fish caught in the allegedly polluted
area once they know of the disposal of dangerous substances. It
follows that obviously fishing would incur the most serious and
immediate damage from the dumping of nuclear wastes.
He provides a source for the catalog of Russian and soviet dumping, but not for the claim that other major nuclear powers dumped nuclear waste into the ocean. However, since they all signed a treaties in 1975 and 1983 to not dump nuclear waste into the ocean, what does that tell you about what they were all doing before 1975/1983?
The catalogue includes “... some 17,000 containers of radioactive waste, 19 ships containing radioactive waste, 14 nuclear reactors, including five that still contain spent nuclear fuel; 735 other pieces of radioactively contaminated heavy machinery, and the K-27 nuclear submarine with its two reactors loaded with nuclear fuel“. This revelation was published in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten on August 28, 2012....
It also needs to be mentioned that USA, UK and France (and probably China too), all permanent members of UNSC along with Russia, have in the past, equally irresponsibly dumped nuclear waste into the oceans at various places.
These Big Five nuclear states, which deem all other countries as incapable of responsible behaviour inasmuch as nuclear matters are concerned, owe it to the international community to come clean on past nuclear waste disposal like the Russians have done.
Update: The Canadian government also under-reported the amount of radioactive xenon by 6,000%. The governments of Japan, America and Canada have covered up the severity of the Fukushima crisis ever since it started in March 2011. They’ve cut way back on radiation monitoring after the Fukushima meltdown, underplayed the amount of radiation pumped out by Fukushima, and raised acceptable radiation levels … rather than fixing anything.
But the Japanese data show elevated levels of contamination in several seafood species that Japan has exported to Canada in recent years. In November, 18 per cent of cod exceeded a new radiation ceiling for food to be implemented in Japan in April - along with 21 per cent of eel, 22 per cent of sole and 33 per cent of seaweed.
Overall, one in five of the 1,100 catches tested in November exceeded the new ceiling of 100 becquerels per kilogram. (Canada's ceiling for radiation in food is much higher: 1,000 becquerels per kilogram.)
"I would probably be hesitant to eat a lot of those fish," said Nicholas Fisher, a marine sciences professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Fisher is researching how radiation from Fukushima is affecting the Pacific fishery. "There has been virtually zero monitoring and research on this," he said, calling on other governments to do more radiation tests on the ocean's marine life.
"Is it something we need to be terrified of? No. Is it something we need to monitor? Yes, particularly in coastal waters where concentrations are high." Contamination of fish in the Pacific Ocean could have wide-ranging consequences for millions.
An interesting fact for people living on the US west coast is also included in the UNSCEAR [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation] report: only about 5% of the directly discharged radiation was deposited within a radius of 80 km from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station. The rest was distributed in the Pacific Ocean. 3-D simulations have been carried out for the Pacific basin, showing that within 5–6 years, the emissions would reach the North American coastline, with uncertain consequences for food safety and health of the local population.
The University of Hawaii’s International Pacific Research Center created a graphic showing the projected dispersion of debris from Japan. Last year, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory and 3 scientists from the GEOMAR Research Center for Marine Geosciences showed that radiation on the West Coast of North America could end up being 10 times higher than in Japan: After 10 years the concentrations become nearly homogeneous over the whole Pacific, with higher values in the east, extending along the North American coast with a maximum (~1 × 10−4) off Baja California. [...]
dragonridr
reply to post by RickinVa
As they say ask and ye shall receive.
ecolocalizer.com...
raymundoko
reply to post by wishes
Before its news??? You just put yourself on my ignore list. It's pathetic when people will look at hoax sites to verify their wrong theories.
Yes and you can't claim that Fukushima is singlehandedly destroying the ocean with radioactivity when the ocean already has radioactivity from so many other sources.
RickinVa
The above linked reference is talking about nuclear waste along with other toxic chemicals and no where does it state it's 300 tons daily 24/7/365.... I am trying to focus on Fukushima and its impacts.
And if you actually read the study on which the article is talking about you might find it doesn't exactly say what they want you to think it does.
If you actually looked at the link it provides a link to Global Research News from where the article came from.
If you live on the west coast of Canada or the United States, you’re pretty much already screwed at this point thanks to the Japanese earthquake and tsunami of 2011. Radiation levels are already increasing in the food and water, babies born with thyroid issues linked to radiation are rising quickly and governments in Canada and the United States are raising the “acceptable levels” of certain toxic substances in the food being shipped in from Japan.
Impact Seen As Roughly Comparable to Radiation-Related Deaths After Chernobyl; Infants Are Hardest Hit, With Continuing Research Showing Even Higher Possible Death Count. WASHINGTON, Dec. 19, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- An estimated 14,000 excess deaths in the United States are linked to the radioactive fallout from the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan, according to a major new article in the December 2011 edition of the International Journal of Health Services. This is the first peer-reviewed study published in a medical journal documenting the health hazards of Fukushima.
Authors Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman note that their estimate of 14,000 excess U.S. deaths in the 14 weeks after the Fukushima meltdowns is comparable to the 16,500 excess deaths in the 17 weeks after the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. The rise in reported deaths after Fukushima was largest among U.S. infants under age one. The 2010-2011 increase for infant deaths in the spring was 1.8 percent, compared to a decrease of 8.37 percent in the preceding 14 weeks.
Just six days after the disastrous meltdowns struck four reactors at Fukushima on March 11, scientists detected the plume of toxic fallout had arrived over American shores. Subsequent measurements by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found levels of radiation in air, water, and milk hundreds of times above normal across the U.S. The highest detected levels of Iodine-131 in precipitation in the U.S. were as follows (normal is about 2 picocuries I-131 per liter of water): Boise, ID (390); Kansas City (200); Salt Lake City (190); Jacksonville, FL (150); Olympia, WA (125); and Boston, MA (92).
Canadian government officials didn’t disclose the high radiation readings to the public. Instead, they repeatedly insisted that fallout drifting to Canada was negligible and posed no health concerns. In fact, the data shows rainwater in Calgary last March had an average of 8.18 becquerels per litre of radioactive iodine, easily exceeding the Canadian guideline of six becquerels per litre for drinking water.
dragonridr
reply to post by wishes
You give me a guy reading rain from his windshield as proof of higher radiation are you serious?? Dont bring up some guys reading on a geiger counter off youtube. wow i dont evenknow what to say to that one so ill stop there.
University of Nevada Radiation Safety Officer Myung Chul Jo has been observing radiation in Reno for more than two decades.
"Radiation is everywhere and we cannot escape it," Jo said.
He said air, ground, water and cosmic radiation exposure is part of life, and he set up a measurement of the local natural radiation for this story.
"That's probably between 15-20 microroentgens per hour," which Jo said is average. "This one we measured from '99 to 2008 just the ambient background level. The average was about 15 microroentgens per hour."
Jo said the average person is exposed to about 300 millirems of radiation each year from nature - well below dangerous levels.
"It would be one hundred thousand millirems," he said. "Below that we don't expect any adverse health effects."
Medical Journal Article: 14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Reactor Disaster Fallout
blogs.scientificamerican.com...
Yet even if there isn’t evidence for a plume, where do all the dead people come from? Here, from the abstract, is the chain of reasoning: “U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35 percent of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46 percent from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34 percent increase in the prior 14 weeks….Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths.” In sum: Sloppy statistics killed 14,000 people.
neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com...
Sounds scary, doesn't it? Then again, only a few hours later, Mangano admitted in an interview with MedPage Today that the results of his research weren't quite as definitive as his press release would have led folks to believe:
The Y-axis is the total number of infant deaths each week in the eight cities in question. While it certainly is true that there were fewer deaths in the four weeks leading up to Fukushima (in green) than there have been in the 10 weeks following (in red), the entire year has seen no overall trend. When I plotted a best-fit line to the data (in blue), Excel calculated a very slight decrease in the infant mortality rate. Only by explicitly excluding data from January and February were Sherman and Mangano able to froth up their specious statistical scaremongering
The author responds to an article published in the Journal by Joseph J. Mangano and Janette D. Sherman suggesting that a large increase in U.S. deaths within days after Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant accident could be attributed to radiation released from this accident and arriving in the United States. The author writes that the cause of these deaths has not been analyzed and that there is no known mechanism for low-dose radiation to cause acute death in infants or adults. The author also notes that the cities under study with the lowest radiation fallout have the highest increases of death rates in the 14 weeks following Fukushima, while the Californian cities that would have received larger doses saw a decrease in death rate growth. He concludes that innumerable factors other than radiation likely are responsible for the bulk of the measured effect.
The journal that published this study, the Open Journal of Pediatrics, apparently is a ‘predatory journal’ that is for-profit and does not have a serious scientific peer-review process. This information might be of interest to some of the readers.
Before its news??? You just put yourself on my ignore list.Text
Arbitrageur
Yes and you can't claim that Fukushima is singlehandedly destroying the ocean with radioactivity when the ocean already has radioactivity from so many other sources.
RickinVa
The above linked reference is talking about nuclear waste along with other toxic chemicals and no where does it state it's 300 tons daily 24/7/365.... I am trying to focus on Fukushima and its impacts.
The soviet reactor that exploded in the in the sea of Japan in 1985 contaminated more than 300 tons daily, and it wasn't just a leak, it's direct exposure of the reactor to unlimited amounts of ocean water, and it continues to contaminate ocean water 24/7/365 to this day.