Japan nuclear agency upgrades Fukushima alert level

[onawah]

Radiation of itself is one thing, but particles that are radioactive and become lodged in the body through the air or food or water are another, as they continue to radiate in close, ongoing proximity to the living tissue.

Putting Fukushima aside for just a moment, what is the explanation for all the horrific (evidence very much suppressed by the MSM) deformities of so many newborns in countries that have been victim to Depleted Uranium?

[ghostrider]

plutonium 239 has a half life of 24,110 years, which is artificially produced in nuclear reactors , then decreased by half , then another 24,110 years by half again, needless to say it will be around for a long time... particles from the reactor are blown in the wind and have shown up all over earth ... there is no cure , just time ... the effects of radiation will show themselves , there is no way of getting rid of ionising radiation ... reactor number 3 is the big problem ...march 17th 2011 particles of radiation began showing in central europe ...

[TargeT]

I'm out having fun tonight, let me clarify agian:


Medium levels of radiation (2,000 Rad, or 30 svierts ( 30,000 mSv) will not harm you unless you are exposed for a long duration, THESE LEVELS APPROACH DANGEROUS,

Cancer treamtment STARTS at 7,000 R or 65 Sv (65,000 mSv)


and just for background, my mom#2 (step mom) died from cancer treatment, it was a long two years and I learned a ton during that time, I had actual motivation to go beyond a casual glance at things AND I STILL say that radiation is not what we have been told.

100mSv is so low I wouldn't even blink at it.

NOW, if the spent fuel rods are handled badly there could be some very bad localized casualty (say with in 100 meters) but I'm sure they wont be handled bad because humans are F'n greedy and those rods are worth a lot of money, plus there would be actual cause for a law suit.


I will go back over the past few posts in this thread and read the 1 link I saw posted, but I've done years of research on this topic (my mom died in 2007) and I'm very confident in my current understanding (but also aware of the weakness that confidence can produce, so I WILL completely read what is offered, there is NO WAY, anyone on this thread has done the same; I have offered far too much information thus far to be comprehended in the short time since I posted it... unless your intelect far exceeds that which I am familiar with)

Live life to it's fullest, be the BEST you can be, BE THOROUGH... Be the best human you can be in this and everything.

[778 neighbour of some guy]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mOVdqh22ohk

[giovonni]

So there you have ...

enough said ...

If You Smile Radiation Won't Kill You ...

Published on Aug 21, 2013

article link: http://www.naturalnews.com/041720_Fu...inwashing.html

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iruuJj1e3Kk

[onawah]

Another question, Target, and I apologize for not having read all the threads on this subject, but do you know what the cause/motivation for the coverup about the radiation you are convinced has been ongoing?

[TargeT]

Posted by onawah (here)
Another question, Target, and I apologize for not having read all the threads on this subject, but do you know what the cause/motivation for the coverup about the radiation you are convinced has been ongoing?

I'm not quite sure I'm comprehending your question.

are you asking what my thoughts on why we have been lied to about radiation's true properties?

I certainly won't say I "know" it; I can guess at a few reasons, but I have very little direct evidence.

Short answer: Nuclear is easy power production, allowing it to expand would lift the energy monopoly enjoyed by the oil industry; Radiation is actually good for you and amazing at preventing cancer and bacterial infection and promoting health (at proper levels of course) which threatens the health care industry & if there is a depopulation plan it counters that as well.

First and most importantly, power from a nuclear reaction is so energy dense it would quickly debase the oil industry from it's high seat.

Currently there are no true nuclear power plants on this planet, not a single one; every single reactor on this planet is a type of reactor called a "breeder" reactor (A breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor capable of generating more fissile material than it consumes) whose main purpose is the creation of "yellow cake" (enriched uranium U-235) which can be processed for use in a breeder reactor or further processed for use in nuclear weapons, you'll never know which is being done unless you are doing random checks on the "power" plant.

Yellowcake is very hard to produce at "weapons grade" and very valuable when it is done.

Anyway that's a subject for another conversation but in short: there are a lot of methods for creating nuclear power, what we are currently doing is not the best way by far; it was chosen because when the technology was created we were in the middle of WW2 and weapons were desired. The OTHER way of producing power that we already know of that is not being used today is called LFTR (Liquid fluoride thorium reactor) it uses Thorium 232 for its fissile material, one of the most common isotopes on the planet. Uranium is rare, Thorium is everywhere.

Radiation also seems to have very good healthy properties (at the proper level, just like water or aspirin or anything; too much will kill you) which threatens the HUGE medical industry.

There have been other effects of this fear campaign, because we allow "no level" of radiation exposure in the US it is economically unfeasible to mine rare earth minerals, the same rare earth minerals that are needed for all modern technology, the same rare earth minerals that China has around 98% of the worlds supply.

Those are the top reasons, but I'm sure there's more that I am unaware of; those are more than enough really.

[Lone Bean]

Here's a trailer to a movie called, "Knocking on the Devil's Door" about nuclear energy. For those who insist on the ludicrous and dangerous belief that there is no danger in nuclear energy then I must concede that you are an extremely confused soul.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=C5Qq-0tZWpo

[Kimberley]

Posted by Lone Bean (here)
For those who insist on the ludicrous and dangerous belief that there is no danger in nuclear energy then I must concede that you are an extremely confused soul.

Lone Bean...have you listened to the three Galen Winsor lectures on the Nuclear Energy Scam thread?

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...-nuclear-scam-

Have you read the other research that is on this thread?

[TargeT]

Posted by Lone Bean (here)
Here's a trailer to a movie called, "Knocking on the Devil's Door" about nuclear energy. For those who insist on the ludicrous and dangerous belief that there is no danger in nuclear energy then I must concede that you are an extremely confused soul.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=C5Qq-0tZWpo

I hope it's been underscored enough that the view point I am talking about is NOT a polarized one.

no one is saying that nuclear energy is not dangerous, no one says electricity is not dangerous, no one says guns are not dangerous.

everything can be dangerous.

what I am saying is that small amounts of radiation (100msv for example) are NOT a danger; in fact there is a lot of very solid evidence that it's good for you.


Do not polarize this issue, like everything seek ballance.

the saying "moderation in everything" applies here, that is all I am trying to get across.

[onawah]

Thanks Target for answering my second question, but you may have missed my first one:

Posted by onawah (here)
Radiation of itself is one thing, but particles that are radioactive and become lodged in the body through the air or food or water are another, as they continue to radiate in close, ongoing proximity to the living tissue.

Putting Fukushima aside for just a moment, what is the explanation for all the horrific (evidence very much suppressed by the MSM) deformities of so many newborns in countries that have been victim to Depleted Uranium?

[TargeT]

Posted by onawah (here)
Thanks Target for answering my second question, but you may have missed my first one:

Posted by onawah (here)
Radiation of itself is one thing, but particles that are radioactive and become lodged in the body through the air or food or water are another, as they continue to radiate in close, ongoing proximity to the living tissue.

not sure what you mean by "particles"; it depends on the type of material and the quantity as well as the level of radiation (and the type of ray, alpha, beta or gamma) it emits and where it's located and how long it stays there.

Luckily the vast majority of radioactive material are heavy elements that our bodies just don't absorb; that's why Galen Winsor used to eat uranium on stage.

Posted by onawah (here)
Putting Fukushima aside for just a moment, what is the explanation for all the horrific (evidence very much suppressed by the MSM) deformities of so many newborns in countries that have been victim to Depleted Uranium?

You are talking about Iraq/Afganistan ? I've been deployed to Iraq and spent a year in the southern part of the country; I don't even think "third world" describes how a lot of the people live there; they don't have easy access to clean drinking water & sanitation is far from the top concern on anyone's mind, the area has been raped by numerous wars.

how do we know what birth deformity was from?

this entire idea seems like a double logical fallacy to me, appeal to emotion and correlation does not imply causation

[onawah]

Which entire idea do you mean?
I take it you are saying the reports from other sources (including other veterans, I believe), about the dangers of depleted uranium are negligible compared to other life threatening issues in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Or that those reports are simply untrue.

What about radioactive particles that are breathed in and lodge in the lungs?

I usually work from intuition on issues like this, when it's a case of which data do we believe.
I'm not pitching one way or the other.
I would love to believe that there are plenty of other explanations for dangers which we've told are due to radioactivity.
I'm not convinced one way or the other as yet, but I'm keeping an open mind.
It just doesn't seem like there is enough reliable documented evidence out there as yet to refute the prevailing belief, but I hope there will be.
Meanwhile, it seems to me that we would do well to research and employ safer alternative technologies for energy sources as soon as we can.
Nuclear facilities are incredibly expensive, and I think what we need is more localized sources which will rid the planet of power lines, growing problems with EMF pollution, and the destruction of lands and environment that they produce.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by TargeT (here)
not ONE PERSON has been hospitalized or even sick from radiation poisoning in the Fukushima incident and yet some people REALLY BELIEVE that the whole planet will die due to this..

now I'll be the first to say that I wouldn't want to sleep next to one of those spent fuel rods.. but they are just that.. SPENT FUEL RODS! they don't do ANYTHING on their own, they can't sustain a nuclear reaction, in fact they can be "poisoned" so they are unable to if needed.. they are not super dangerous on their own.. they are actually quite valuable, France has been offering to buy our nuclear "waste" for years but we wont sell it.

this kind of fear-backed-by-nothing thinking is almost impossible to change.

From http://globalresearch.ca/new-book-co...m-cancer/20908

Chernobyl Death Toll: 985,000, Mostly from Cancer

This past April 26th marked the 24th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. It came as the nuclear industry and pro-nuclear government officials in the United States and other nations were trying to “revive” nuclear power. And it followed the publication of a book, the most comprehensive study ever made, on the impacts of the Chernobyl disaster.

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment was published by the New York Academy of Sciences.

It is authored by three noted scientists:

Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president;

Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and

Dr. Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus.

Its editor is Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity.

The book is solidly based — on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports — some 5,000 in all.

It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.

[TargeT]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Chernobyl Death Toll: 985,000, Mostly from Cancer

I know where that 985,000 figure comes from, and it's not a source that is valid, this has been investigated already

Consider the following:

The unpalatable truth is that the anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all
Like Vidal and many others, Caldicott pointed me to a book which claims that 985,000 people have died as a result of the disaster. Translated from Russian and published by the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, this is the only document that looks scientific and appears to support the wild claims made by greens about Chernobyl.

A devastating review in the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry points out that the book achieves this figure by the remarkable method of assuming that all increased deaths from a wide range of diseases – including many which have no known association with radiation – were caused by the Chernobyl accident. There is no basis for this assumption, not least because screening in many countries improved dramatically after the disaster and, since 1986, there have been massive changes in the former eastern bloc. The study makes no attempt to correlate exposure to radiation with the incidence of disease.

Its publication seems to have arisen from a confusion about whether Annals was a book publisher or a scientific journal. The academy has given me this statement: "In no sense did Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences or the New York Academy of Sciences commission this work; nor by its publication do we intend to independently validate the claims made in the translation or in the original publications cited in the work. The translated volume has not been peer reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences, or by anyone else."

Failing to provide sources, refuting data with anecdote, cherry-picking studies, scorning the scientific consensus, invoking a cover-up to explain it

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...y-misled-world

Posted by onawah (here)
Which entire idea do you mean?
I take it you are saying the reports from other sources (including other veterans, I believe), about the dangers of depleted uranium are negligible compared to other life threatening issues in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Or that those reports are simply untrue.

What about radioactive particles that are breathed in and lodge in the lungs?

When a DU round penetrates armor and vaporizes on contact you can breath in and become poisoned with the DU; it is a highly toxic metal on it's own, so yes in that sense heavy metal poisoning is bad for you.. DU is bad for you, but not because of radiation.

it also leaves "spalding", and dust behind, it's a heavy metal dust that can easily be inhaled.

Posted by onawah (here)
I usually work from intuition on issues like this, when it's a case of which data do we believe.
I'm not pitching one way or the other.
I would love to believe that there are plenty of other explanations for dangers which we've told are due to radioactivity.
I'm not convinced one way or the other as yet, but I'm keeping an open mind.
It just doesn't seem like there is enough reliable documented evidence out there as yet to refute the prevailing belief, but I hope there will be.
Meanwhile, it seems to me that we would do well to research and employ safer alternative technologies for energy sources as soon as we can.
Nuclear facilities are incredibly expensive, and I think what we need is more localized sources which will rid the planet of power lines, growing problems with EMF pollution, and the destruction of lands and environment that they produce.

you see that's the problem here, you are holding a belief backed by nothing, there are very little (almost none) studies about nuclear radiation & it's harmful levels.

the current nuclear facilities are weapons grade material creation centers, nothing more, yes they are expensive, they aren't even designed to produce power (why would you have a cooling tower if you are trying to produce power?? the excess heat shouldn't be excess it should be used for POWER production!)

Your intuition is right here, DU should not be used, it's like using Lead bullets, we stopped that a long time ago, heavy metals are not good for humans at all.


I can see I'm not getting much traction here, that's fine, I absolutely understand how the neurological response functions when a strongly held belief is challenged; there is simply no way anyone but YOU can change your mind.

I am putting up "the other side" of the argument here, one that is woefully unappreciated and under-represented.

if you feel you have actually checked into this and read both sides of the material (I can guarantee you that most have not, they simply feel their belief is right and i'm a raving lunatic for doubting it, yet I see no actual data or proof to back any of it up; aside from some clever misleading items in the case of Chernobyl).

Break your self out of the feed back loop, it's hard, ego and basic neurological / physiological responses are against you in this; but I think that consciousness overcoming the physical/material realm is probably one of the most important steps humanity can take to change our current situation on every level.

[Harley]

So far this thread has focused on debating the effects of radiation on humans. That's cool, as I've always believed it the best way to educate and inform one-self.

Personally however, I have endured quite a bit more than my fair share of NBC "Training" and on the job experiences and I think I'll stick with that.

Although Fukushima has been dumping radiation contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean continuously almost from the get-go (over two years) they only classified it a Level 1 Event (Anomaly), which has made it easy for the governments and corporations to play-down the scale of this on-going disaster simply by not reporting it to the public through the mainstream media.

But things are not going well. They haven't been able to contain existing leaks, new leaks are now occurring, and now Japan has raised the threat level to a Level 3 (Serious Incident). Japan cannot handle it and now they're asking for outside help, which has even caused China to express "shock".

So what are they going to do with it? I don't know. But if you look at that core as a miniature sun (which isn't that far off), even when it runs out of fuel or they somehow figure out a way to 'put it out', it will still be emitting radiation long after you and I are gone. Unless of course they're able to enclose it somehow, which right now doesn't sound too promising.

So back to the Pacific Ocean, which has been being contaminated for over two years and getting worse. Being on the US West Coast, personally I'm not that concerned with being exposed to a slightly higher level of radiation. I don't know, maybe my thinking has something to do with my remaining shelf-life. But I do wonder what effects it may have on my grand-kids and their kids.

What does concern me right now though is what effects this is having on sea life and I think maybe some results of this is already showing. And whether this was an engineered event or a natural event makes little difference as it has already occurred, the loss of sea life would be devastating to the world food supply because once it starts it would have a domino effect on all food.

West Coast of North America to Be Hit Hard by Fukushima Radiation
GlobalResearch
20 August 2013

Radiation Levels Will Concentrate in Pockets In Baja California and Other West Coast Locations

An ocean current called the North Pacific Gyre is bringing Japanese radiation to the West Coast of North America:


Caption: FDA Refuses to Test Fish for Radioactivity ...
Government Pretends Radioactive Fish is Safe.

While many people assume that the ocean will dilute the Fukushima radiation, a previously-secret 1955 U.S. government report concluded that the ocean may not adequately dilute radiation from nuclear accidents, and there could be “pockets” and “streams” of highly-concentrated radiation.

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.

Read more from Here



"We think something happened in the ocean."

Japan nuclear agency upgrades Fukushima alert level

China ‘shocked’ by water leak at Fukushima nuclear plant

[Bill Ryan]

-------

Radiation Sickness from Chernobyl:

[Adi]

Target T, the information you factualize is simply, inaccurate. Small amounts or dosages of Radioactive material, has shown to lead to quiet sever myelopathies e,g bone marrow dysfunction, witch leads on to develop cellular mutations affecting immune cells, e,g leucocytes and as a consequence develops into malignancies such as Leukemia and Lymphomas.

Small amounts of radiation DOES lead to DNA mutations and cellular and molecular dysfunction, this is the basis of Radio-therapuetic treatments for cancer patients, to mutate cancer cells and trigger an apoptosis reaction, cell death.

It is irresponsible to state that radiation has somewhat, natural and beneficial effect to our health, as if mother nature has placed it before us as some type of vitamin.

I do respect your theory and hypothesis, but thats all it is, is a hypothesis, you have only based your facts on observation, as you describe and trough the means of reading. In order for one to verify something as serious as you discuss, there must be various studies and independent verification to back it up.

This all sounds to me like another weak and thought up conspiracy. There is noting at all personal in my statement, it is just my opinions.


Adi

[RMorgan]

Fukushima operator pleads for international help as radiation crisis deepens

http://rt.com/news/fukushima-interna...iaea-leak-866/

Well, now this is really getting out of control. If even the highly proud Japanese are asking for international help, then it´s because the situation is ugly.

They are trying really hard to keep those reactors cool, but this is just a palliative measure. They need to permanently fix this thing, otherwise a large scale accident is inevitable.

If, for some reason, they fail to keep those reactors cool, the nuclear fuel will overheat and contaminate the environment with incredibly dangerous quantities of radioactive isotopes. It would be an unprecedented global scale disaster.

For those who don´t believe the seriousness of the situation, and think that nuclear energy, with all its variables and consequences, is not dangerous, then you should volunteer to help, since you believe you wont be harmed anyway.

[Limor Wolf]

After reading this thread and the interesting discussion in it which represent the two approaches towards radiation and some material backing up both sides of the fence, it is very difficult for the average person to diagnose what amount of radiation causes irreversible damage to the human body and to the environment and in what scale. In this case, it seems that simplicity transcends the complexity, If we know that even a low amount of radiation causes damage and changes the genetic code (DNA) and that previous disasters from around the world show that indeed there's a real reason for concern, then the danger in this current Fukashima situation is very hard to disregard. Man made artificial radiation is dangerous and always a potential for a world disaster, add to that the current attempts to get us in deep trouble from the (soon past) controling factors and see why there IS a real need to carefully monitor the situation, even if manipulation in information is thrown into the fray

It is a matter of simplicity in thinking, look at the pictures that Bill attached above, the facts speak for themselves. If we are concerned about spraying chemtrails on population areas and the impact of GMO food on our DNA, which is everything but natural, then a radiation assessment can not be belittled despite the various different researches and attitudes.