+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 4 5 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 86

Thread: Not looking good at Fukushima

  1. Link to Post #61
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 7,989 times in 2,304 posts

    Default Re: Not looking good at Fukushima

    Quote Posted by Camilo (here)
    Study: Dead sea creatures cover 98 percent of ocean floor off California coast; up from one percent before Fukushima

    http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/s...ore-fukushima/
    Responded to the above Icke copy of the Naturalnews.com article in another thread.

    Quote Posted by panopticon (here)
    The full paper the above is based on 'Deep ocean communities impacted by changing climate over 24 y in the abyssal northeast Pacific Ocean' can be found here:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/110/49/19838.full

    The authors clearly state that the measurements prior to 2011 were not as detailed (or accurate) as the measurements taken from the Summer of 2011 onwards. Prior to 2011 the measurements were taken seasonally as opposed in the reported period used in the above article being on a more frequent basis (in some instances photos were taken hourly).

    Yet another misrepresentation of a paper by people wanting to point at something which just isn't presented.

    So where is Station M?



    What does the sea floor look like there?



    Want more information on Station M and the area of study being undertaken there?
    Try here: Abyssal Time-Series Studies at Station M.
    Look at the following image that as used in the naturalnews article Icke quoted and compare it to the one shown above that really is of the ocean floor in that area (taken by the people who wrote the paper quoted in the article):



    Now, tell me that the original article from Naturalnews.com wasn't biased and trying to mislead.



    -- Pan
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to panopticon For This Post:

    Bob (4th January 2014), halffull (4th January 2014), learninglight (4th January 2014), Sean Cullen (17th January 2014)

  3. Link to Post #62
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 7,989 times in 2,304 posts

    Default Re: Not looking good at Fukushima

    There seems to be some people in the US who are concerned about the effect the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant will have on them.

    A new paper I came across talks about measurements taken during the period from March 14th, 2011 through to December 2012. It also presents results from independent examination, in October 2013, of imported food for Sr, Cs etc as well as some data following the 1986 Chernobyl accident as a comparison.

    The paper is 'Measurements of Fission Products from the Fukushima Daiichi Incident in San Francisco Bay Area Air Filters, Automobile Filters, Rainwater, and Food'.

    The conclusion reads:

    Quote Monitoring of fallout from the Fukushima nuclear accident was performed on a variety of media at the LBNL Low Back-ground Facility starting soon after the tsunami on March 14, 2011 and reported here through the end of 2012 on air filters, automobile air filters, and rainwater. At the local LBNL LBF location, HEPA air filters were used in sampling durations ranging from 24 hours to one month while monitoring radioisotope concentrations. Rainwater was also collected and analyzed through the end of 2012 in Oroville, CA. Additionally, the fission products monitored provided a useful demonstration of the use of automobile filters as a low cost means of monitoring for radioisotopes. More extensive analysis was performed upon rainwater samples from March 2011 that contained the highest measured activities in the Berkeley area in an effort to search for the presence of 90 Sr in the rainwater that arrived in the initial weeks following the incident, in which it was not detected and one sigma limits were placed at < 8.98 mBq L-1.

    A series of food measurements were also performed in October 2013 upon imported food products from the Pacific region, and although background 137 Cs was present from sources prior to Fukushima, it was far below any level of concerns due to radioactivity– both from FDA DIL's and comparison to natural 40 K. Measurements made by the same authors of air filters and food products in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster are also presented here in comparison to the Fukushima fall-out. The main conclusion drawn from these sets of data is that the peak fallout activities from Chernobyl in 1986 upon the San Francisco Bay Area were approximately an order of magnitude more than the levels seen from Fukushima in 2011.

    The fission products measured in this work in the San Francisco Bay Area of California were not found at any time to be of concern to public or environmental health. These conclusions are justified not only through governmental limits of exposure and activities, but also by direct comparison of natural radioactivities also present in all samples measured.
    Source
    Just to repeat:

    'The main conclusion drawn ... is that the peak fallout activities from Chernobyl in 1986 upon the San Francisco Bay Area were approximately an order of magnitude more than the levels seen from Fukushima in 2011'.

    I hope this is of use to someone.

    -- Pan
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

  4. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to panopticon For This Post:

    Bob (4th January 2014), halffull (4th January 2014), Kimberley (4th January 2014), learninglight (4th January 2014), Rocky_Shorz (5th January 2014), Sean Cullen (17th January 2014), ulli (6th January 2014)

  5. Link to Post #63
    Avalon Member Kimberley's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th January 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    2,065
    Thanks
    7,329
    Thanked 12,748 times in 1,912 posts

    Default Re: Not looking good at Fukushima

    Pan thank you! Great find...

    I posted this on another thread a few days ago ...it is over a year old, from Nov 2012. Very interesting!

    The women living in Chernobyl's toxic wasteland

    Full article here:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...wasteland.html

    Quote Decades after Chernobyl's nuclear disaster, despite the severely contaminated ground, government objections and the deaths of many fellow 'self-settlers’, a community of determined babushkas remains.
    Quote One refrain I heard often was, 'Those who left are worse off now. They are all dying of sadness. ’What sounds like faith may actually be fact. According to reports by the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Children’s Fund, many of those who were relocated after the accident now suffer from anxiety, depression and disrupted social networks, the traumas of displaced people everywhere.

    And these conditions seem to have health effects as real as those caused by radiation. The journalist Alexander Anisimov, who spent his career studying the self-settler community, claimed that the women who returned to their ancestral homes in the zone outlived those who left by a decade.

    No health studies have been done, but anecdotal evidence suggests that most of the babushkas die of strokes rather than any obvious radiation-related illnesses, and they have dealt better with the psychological trauma. Toxic levels of strontium and cesium in the soil are real, but so are the tug of the ancestral home and the health benefits of determining one’s own destiny.

    Now why would no health studies be done when they could get so much information? That does not add up...just saying.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kimberley For This Post:

    panopticon (5th January 2014), Rocky_Shorz (5th January 2014), Sean Cullen (17th January 2014)

  7. Link to Post #64
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 7,989 times in 2,304 posts

    Default Re: Not looking good at Fukushima

    Ted talk by Holly Morris on her visit to the Chernobyl exclusion zone and her upcoming documentary on the Babushkas of Chernobyl.


    Getting back to Japan, the following excerpt (from a 2012 article) summarises the prevalence of I-131 activity in the thyroid of examined individuals (46 of the 62 tested reported positive):

    Quote The thyroid equivalent doses assessed in this study were much smaller than the mean thyroid dose in the Chernobyl accident (which was 490 mSv in evacuees). Thyroid equivalent doses assessed assuming an ingestion pathway were similar to those found for inhalation. Even when either of the two intake pathways or their combination was assumed, no dose exceeded 50 mSv.
    Source
    -- Pan
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to panopticon For This Post:

    Kimberley (5th January 2014), Sean Cullen (17th January 2014), Shikasta (5th January 2014)

  9. Link to Post #65
    Avalon Member Kimberley's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th January 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    2,065
    Thanks
    7,329
    Thanked 12,748 times in 1,912 posts

    Default Re: Not looking good at Fukushima

    Quote Posted by panopticon (here)
    Ted talk by Holly Morris on her visit to the Chernobyl exclusion zone and her upcoming documentary on the Babushkas of Chernobyl.


    Getting back to Japan, the following excerpt (from a 2012 article) summarises the prevalence of I-131 activity in the thyroid of examined individuals (46 of the 62 tested reported positive):

    Quote The thyroid equivalent doses assessed in this study were much smaller than the mean thyroid dose in the Chernobyl accident (which was 490 mSv in evacuees). Thyroid equivalent doses assessed assuming an ingestion pathway were similar to those found for inhalation. Even when either of the two intake pathways or their combination was assumed, no dose exceeded 50 mSv.
    Source
    -- Pan
    OMG Pan you did it again! Congratulations...this is amazing!!! Thank you!!!

    It is amazing how we can all work together and gather the information that is true!!!!

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kimberley For This Post:

    kirolak (11th January 2014), Sean Cullen (17th January 2014)

  11. Link to Post #66
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    15th March 2010
    Posts
    10,068
    Thanks
    12,891
    Thanked 32,308 times in 7,756 posts

    Default Re: Not looking good at Fukushima

    Quote Posted by panopticon (here)
    There seems to be some people in the US who are concerned about the effect the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant will have on them.

    A new paper I came across talks about measurements taken during the period from March 14th, 2011 through to December 2012. It also presents results from independent examination, in October 2013, of imported food for Sr, Cs etc as well as some data following the 1986 Chernobyl accident as a comparison.

    The paper is 'Measurements of Fission Products from the Fukushima Daiichi Incident in San Francisco Bay Area Air Filters, Automobile Filters, Rainwater, and Food'.

    The conclusion reads:

    Quote Monitoring of fallout from the Fukushima nuclear accident was performed on a variety of media at the LBNL Low Back-ground Facility starting soon after the tsunami on March 14, 2011 and reported here through the end of 2012 on air filters, automobile air filters, and rainwater. At the local LBNL LBF location, HEPA air filters were used in sampling durations ranging from 24 hours to one month while monitoring radioisotope concentrations. Rainwater was also collected and analyzed through the end of 2012 in Oroville, CA. Additionally, the fission products monitored provided a useful demonstration of the use of automobile filters as a low cost means of monitoring for radioisotopes. More extensive analysis was performed upon rainwater samples from March 2011 that contained the highest measured activities in the Berkeley area in an effort to search for the presence of 90 Sr in the rainwater that arrived in the initial weeks following the incident, in which it was not detected and one sigma limits were placed at < 8.98 mBq L-1.

    A series of food measurements were also performed in October 2013 upon imported food products from the Pacific region, and although background 137 Cs was present from sources prior to Fukushima, it was far below any level of concerns due to radioactivity– both from FDA DIL's and comparison to natural 40 K. Measurements made by the same authors of air filters and food products in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster are also presented here in comparison to the Fukushima fall-out. The main conclusion drawn from these sets of data is that the peak fallout activities from Chernobyl in 1986 upon the San Francisco Bay Area were approximately an order of magnitude more than the levels seen from Fukushima in 2011.

    The fission products measured in this work in the San Francisco Bay Area of California were not found at any time to be of concern to public or environmental health. These conclusions are justified not only through governmental limits of exposure and activities, but also by direct comparison of natural radioactivities also present in all samples measured.
    Source
    Just to repeat:

    'The main conclusion drawn ... is that the peak fallout activities from Chernobyl in 1986 upon the San Francisco Bay Area were approximately an order of magnitude more than the levels seen from Fukushima in 2011'.

    I hope this is of use to someone.

    -- Pan
    we're all being told that the effect on California Ocean life is from Fukushima, but this quietly slipped by most people...

    Quote Wall St. Journal: Plutonium levels 1,000 times normal on seafloor 50 miles from San Francisco — Expert Appalled: Major nuclear dump offshore is a threat to health — Around 50,000 containers of radioactive waste in globally significant ecosystem...


    A 2001 federal study of part of the Farallon dump site [off San Francisco] found indications of leakage from barrels. Estimates of the radioactivity amounts in the containers “could be off as much as a factor of 10 [...] little is known of the fate of radioisotopes added to the sea.” link

  12. Link to Post #67
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 7,989 times in 2,304 posts

    Default Re: Not looking good at Fukushima

    Quote Posted by Rocky_Shorz (here)
    Quote Posted by panopticon (here)
    There seems to be some people in the US who are concerned about the effect the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant will have on them.

    A new paper I came across talks about measurements taken during the period from March 14th, 2011 through to December 2012. It also presents results from independent examination, in October 2013, of imported food for Sr, Cs etc as well as some data following the 1986 Chernobyl accident as a comparison.

    The paper is 'Measurements of Fission Products from the Fukushima Daiichi Incident in San Francisco Bay Area Air Filters, Automobile Filters, Rainwater, and Food'.

    The conclusion reads:

    Quote Monitoring of fallout from the Fukushima nuclear accident was performed on a variety of media at the LBNL Low Back-ground Facility starting soon after the tsunami on March 14, 2011 and reported here through the end of 2012 on air filters, automobile air filters, and rainwater. At the local LBNL LBF location, HEPA air filters were used in sampling durations ranging from 24 hours to one month while monitoring radioisotope concentrations. Rainwater was also collected and analyzed through the end of 2012 in Oroville, CA. Additionally, the fission products monitored provided a useful demonstration of the use of automobile filters as a low cost means of monitoring for radioisotopes. More extensive analysis was performed upon rainwater samples from March 2011 that contained the highest measured activities in the Berkeley area in an effort to search for the presence of 90 Sr in the rainwater that arrived in the initial weeks following the incident, in which it was not detected and one sigma limits were placed at < 8.98 mBq L-1.

    A series of food measurements were also performed in October 2013 upon imported food products from the Pacific region, and although background 137 Cs was present from sources prior to Fukushima, it was far below any level of concerns due to radioactivity– both from FDA DIL's and comparison to natural 40 K. Measurements made by the same authors of air filters and food products in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster are also presented here in comparison to the Fukushima fall-out. The main conclusion drawn from these sets of data is that the peak fallout activities from Chernobyl in 1986 upon the San Francisco Bay Area were approximately an order of magnitude more than the levels seen from Fukushima in 2011.

    The fission products measured in this work in the San Francisco Bay Area of California were not found at any time to be of concern to public or environmental health. These conclusions are justified not only through governmental limits of exposure and activities, but also by direct comparison of natural radioactivities also present in all samples measured.
    Source
    Just to repeat:

    'The main conclusion drawn ... is that the peak fallout activities from Chernobyl in 1986 upon the San Francisco Bay Area were approximately an order of magnitude more than the levels seen from Fukushima in 2011'.

    I hope this is of use to someone.

    -- Pan
    we're all being told that the effect on California Ocean life is from Fukushima, but this quietly slipped by most people...

    Quote Wall St. Journal: Plutonium levels 1,000 times normal on seafloor 50 miles from San Francisco — Expert Appalled: Major nuclear dump offshore is a threat to health — Around 50,000 containers of radioactive waste in globally significant ecosystem...


    A 2001 federal study of part of the Farallon dump site [off San Francisco] found indications of leakage from barrels. Estimates of the radioactivity amounts in the containers “could be off as much as a factor of 10 [...] little is known of the fate of radioisotopes added to the sea.” link
    Yeah I came across that report Rocky.

    Remnant of the old "Solution To Pollution Is Dilution" rhetoric.

    Never ceases to amaze me that people think it's horrific to pump oil & pesticides into the ocean but reckon that radioactive waste is all fine and good.

    -- Pan
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to panopticon For This Post:

    kirolak (11th January 2014), Sean Cullen (17th January 2014)

  14. Link to Post #68
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    15th March 2010
    Posts
    10,068
    Thanks
    12,891
    Thanked 32,308 times in 7,756 posts

    Default Re: Not looking good at Fukushima

    I'm sure it must have been on the California's voters ballet...

    as a peace loving hippy, would you rather store nuclear waste in your back yard where it might affect your crops, or would you prefer we just dump it safely off shore in containers guaranteed not to rust for 25 years?

  15. Link to Post #69
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 7,989 times in 2,304 posts

    Default Re: Not looking good at Fukushima

    Quote Posted by Kimberley (here)
    Quote Posted by panopticon (here)
    Ted talk by Holly Morris on her visit to the Chernobyl exclusion zone and her upcoming documentary on the Babushkas of Chernobyl.


    Getting back to Japan, the following excerpt (from a 2012 article) summarises the prevalence of I-131 activity in the thyroid of examined individuals (46 of the 62 tested reported positive):

    Quote The thyroid equivalent doses assessed in this study were much smaller than the mean thyroid dose in the Chernobyl accident (which was 490 mSv in evacuees). Thyroid equivalent doses assessed assuming an ingestion pathway were similar to those found for inhalation. Even when either of the two intake pathways or their combination was assumed, no dose exceeded 50 mSv.
    Source
    -- Pan
    OMG Pan you did it again! Congratulations...this is amazing!!! Thank you!!!

    It is amazing how we can all work together and gather the information that is true!!!!
    I've been reporting the same stuff for ages and have been largely ignored (except by Target, Cid and a few others).

    -- Pan
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to panopticon For This Post:

    learninglight (11th January 2014), Maria Stade (15th January 2014), Sean Cullen (17th January 2014)

  17. Link to Post #70
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 7,989 times in 2,304 posts

    Default Re: Not looking good at Fukushima

    Quote Posted by Rocky_Shorz (here)
    I'm sure it must have been on the California's voters ballet...

    as a peace loving hippy, would you rather store nuclear waste in your back yard where it might affect your crops, or would you prefer we just dump it safely off shore in containers guaranteed not to rust for 25 years?
    Just got to shake my head on it mate.

    Lack of foresight? Deliberate action? Fiscal avoidance? etc etc etc.

    It's just bloody shocking mate, sometimes I despair.

    Then Australia thrashes the Poms in the Ashes and I know I can carry on.
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to panopticon For This Post:

    halffull (5th January 2014), learninglight (11th January 2014), Rocky_Shorz (5th January 2014), Sean Cullen (17th January 2014)

  19. Link to Post #71
    Avalon Member outerheaven's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th September 2013
    Age
    34
    Posts
    189
    Thanks
    534
    Thanked 740 times in 174 posts

    Default Re: Not looking good at Fukushima

    Thanks for the TED video Pan.

    It's amusing, isn't it -- seeing a scientist's smug befuddlement when our infallible belief system is challenged.

    Certainly I don't mean to criticize Ms. Morris, as she seems to be more open-minded than most. But that video, as incredible and mind-blowing as it might be to someone who believes the official narrative and fear-mongering, is as equally incredible in showing the unwavering faith our society puts in our authorities.

    I imagine a future civilization watching this video and reflecting on our society, wondering what we were like. It's quite amusing. We clearly think ourselves so smart and advanced. TEDTalks, an organization that is considered an unbiased, cool, tech-savvy, on-the-cutting-edge of science, has given forum to this scientist to stand on stage in front of thousands and amaze them by revealing an element of the lie that has been perpetrated on them, ... but under the pretense of the amazing mysteries of science.

    Ms. Morris seems to understand half the equation, that belief creates reality. I wonder if she understands the other half -- that we have been deceived -- but knows saying it could end her career, or very possibly her life.

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to outerheaven For This Post:

    halffull (5th January 2014), learninglight (11th January 2014), panopticon (15th January 2014), Sean Cullen (17th January 2014)

  21. Link to Post #72
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    11th June 2011
    Posts
    2,177
    Thanks
    6,186
    Thanked 13,357 times in 1,921 posts

    Default Re: Not looking good at Fukushima

    Fukushima Meltdowns: A Global Conspiracy of Denial
    By William Boardman

    Global Research, January 05, 2014

    Theme: Environment, Media Disinformation

    fukushima-radiation-wind-trajectories

    Does anyone in authority anywhere tell the truth about Fukushima?

    If there is any government or non-government authority in the world that is addressing the disaster at Fukushima openly, directly, honestly, and effectively, it’s not apparent to the outside observer what entity that might be.

    There is instead an apparent global conspiracy of authorities of all sorts to deny to the public reliably accurate, comprehensible, independently verifiable (where possible), and comprehensive information about not only the condition of the Fukushima power plant itself and its surrounding communities, but about the unceasing, uncontrolled release of radioactive debris into the air and water, creating a constantly increasing risk of growing harm to the global community.

    While the risk may still be miniscule in most places, the range of risk rises to lethal in Fukushima itself. With the radioactive waste of four nuclear reactors (three of them in meltdown) under uncertain control for almost three years now, the risk of lethal exposure is very real for plant workers, and may decrease with distance from the plant, but may be calculable for anyone on the planet. No one seems to know. No one seems to have done the calculation. No one with access to the necessary information (assuming it exists) seems to want to do the calculation.

    There is no moral excuse for this international collusion. The excuses are political or economic or social, but none of them excuses any authority for withholding or lying about information that has potentially universal and destructive impact on everyone alive today and everyone to be born for some unknown generations.

    Japanese authorities may be the worst current offenders against the truth, as well as the health and safety of their people. Now the Japanese government has passed a harsh state secrets law that threatens to reduce or eliminate reliable information about Fukushima. The U.S. government officially applauded this heightened secrecy, while continuing its own tight control on nuclear information. Japanese authorities are already attacking their own people in defense of nuclear power: not only under-measuring and ignoring varieties of radioactive threat, but even withholding the iodine pills in 2011 that might have mitigated the growing epidemic of thyroid issues today. Failing to confront Fukushima honestly, the Japanese are laying the basis for what could amount to a radiological sneak attack on the rest of the world.

    Just because no one seems to know what to do about Fukushima is no excuse to go on lying about and/or denying the dimensions of reality, whatever they might be.

    There are hundreds, probably thousands of people with little or no authority who have long struggled to create a realistic, rational perspective on nuclear threats. The fundamental barrier to knowing the scale of the Fukushima disaster is just that: the scale of the Fukushima disaster.

    Chernobyl 1986 and Fukushima 2011 are not really comparable

    Chernobyl is the closest precedent to Fukushima, and it’s not very close. Chernobyl at the time of the 1986 electric failure and explosion had four operating reactors and two more under construction. The Chernobyl accident involved one reactor meltdown. Other reactors kept operating for some time after the accident. The rector meltdown was eventually entombed, containing the meltdown and reducing the risk. Until Fukushima, Chernobyl was considered the worst nuclear power accident in history, and it is still far from over (albeit largely contained for the time being). The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone of roughly 1,000 square miles remains one of the most radioactive areas in the world and the clean-up is not even expected to be complete before 2065.

    At the time of the March 11, 2011, earthquake and tsunami, the Fukushima plant had six operating reactors. Three of them went into meltdown and a fourth was left with a heavily laden fuel pool teetering a hundred feet above the ground. Two other reactors were undamaged and have been shut down. Radiation levels remain lethal in each of the melted-down reactors, where the meltdowns appear to be held in check by water that is pumped into the reactors to keep them cool. In the process, the water gets irradiated and that which is not collected on site in leaking tanks flows steadily into the Pacific Ocean. Within the first two weeks, Fukushima radiation was comparable to Chernobyl’s and while the levels have gone down, they remain elevated.

    The plant’s corporate owner, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), in turn effectively owned by the Japanese government after a2012 nationalization, began removing more than 1,500 fuel rod assemblies from the teetering fuel pool in November, a delicate process expected to take a year or more. There are additional fuel pools attached to each of the melted down reactors and a much larger general fuel pool, all of which contain nuclear fuel rod assemblies that are secure only as long as TEPCO continues to cool them. The Fukushima Exclusion Zone, a 12-mile radius around the nuclear plant, is about 500 square miles (much of it ocean); little specific information about the exclusion zone is easily available, but media coverage in the form of disaster tourism is plentiful, including a Google Street View interactive display.

    Despite their significant differences as disasters, Chernobyl and Fukushima are both rated at 7 – a “major accident” on the International Nuclear Event Scale designed in 1990 by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). That is the highest rating on the scale, a reflection of the inherent denial that colors most official nuclear thinking. Designed by nuclear “experts” after Chernobyl, the scale can’t imagine a worse accident than Chernobyl which, for all its intensity, was effectively over as an accident in a relatively short period of time. At Fukushima, by contrast, the initial set of events was less acute than Chernobyl, but almost three years later they continue without any resolution likely soon. Additionally Fukushima has three reactor meltdowns and thousands of precarious fuel rod assemblies in uncertain pools, any of which could produce a new crisis that would put Fukushima clearly off the scale.

    And then there’s groundwater. Groundwater was not a problem at Chernobyl. Groundwater is a huge problem at the Fukushima plant that was built at the seashore, on a former riverbed, over an active aquifer. In a short video, nuclear engineer Arnie Gunderson makes clear why groundwater makes Fukushima so hard to clean up, and why radiation levels there will likely remain dangerous for another hundred years.

    Fukushima Unit #3 activity led to some panic-driven reporting in 2013

    The Japanese government and nuclear power industry have a history of not telling the truth about nuclear accidents dating back at least to 1995, as reported by New Scientist and Rachel Maddow, among others. Despite Japan’s history of nuclear dishonesty, Japanese authorities remain in total control of the Fukushima site and most of the information about it, without significant objection from most of the world’s governments, media, and other power brokers, whose reputation for honesty in nuclear matters is almost as bad as Japan’s. In such a context of no context, the public is vulnerable to reports like this from the Turner Radio Network (TRN) on December 28:

    ** NEWS FLASH – URGENT ** STEAM SUDDENLY EMANATING FROM FUKUSHIMA REACTOR # 3 – WEST COAST OF NORTH AMERICA SHOULD BEGIN PREPARATIONS FOR POSSIBLE RADIATION CLOUD WITHIN 3 TO 5 DAYS

    Five days after this story was posted, the “radiation cloud” had not developed despite the story’s assertion that: “Experts say this could be the beginning of a ‘spent fuel pool criticality (meltdown)’ involving up to 89 TONS of nuclear fuel burning up into the atmosphere and heading to North America.” The story named no “experts” and provided links only to TEPCO announcements in Japanese. The bulk of the story reads like an infomercial for “protective” gear of various sorts that TRN makes a point of saying it does NOT sell. Despite such obvious warning signs, others – such as The Ecologist and Gizmodo – reported the threat of “another meltdown” at Fukushima Unit #3 as imminent.

    Clarification and reassurance quickly started chasing the “new meltdown” rumor around the Internet. ENENEWS (Energy News) promptly posted the TEPCO reports in English, demonstrating that there was nothing “sudden” about the steam releases, they’ve been happening more or less daily since 2011, but condensation caused by cold weather makes them visible. At FAIREWINDS (Energy Education), Arnie Gunderson posted on January 1:

    “… the Internet has been flooded with conjecture claiming that Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 is ready to explode…. Our research, and discussions with other scientists, confirms that what we are seeing is a phenomenon that has been occurring at the Daiichi site since the March 2011 accident…. While the plants are shutdown in nuke speak, there is no method of achieving cold shut down in any nuclear reactor. While the reactor can stop generating the actual nuclear chain reaction, the atoms left over from the original nuclear chain reaction continue to give off heat that is called the decay of the radioactive rubble (fission products)…. constantly releasing moisture (steam) and radioactive products into the environment.” [emphasis added]

    In other words, Fukushima Unit #3 continues to leak radioactivity into both air and water, as Units #1 and #2 presumably do as well. But as Gunderson explains, the level of radioactivity has declined sharply without becoming benign:

    “When Unit 3 was operating, it was producing more than 2,000 megawatts of heat from the nuclear fission process (chain reaction in the reactor). Immediately after the earthquake and tsunami, it shut down and the chain reaction stopped, but Unit 3 was still producing about 160 megawatts of decay heat. Now, 30 months later, it is still producing slightly less than 1 megawatt (one million watts) of decay heat…. 1 megawatt of decay heat is a lot of heat even today, and it is creating radioactive steam, but it is not a new phenomenon.”

    Reassurances about Fukushima are as misleading as scare stories


    The reassuring aspects of the condition of Unit #3 ­– radioactive releases are not new, they’re less intense than they once were, the nuclear waste is cooling ­– while true enough, provide only a false sense of comfort. Also true: radiation is released almost continuously, the releases are uncontrolled, no one seems to be measuring the releases, no one seems to be tracking the releases, no one is assessing accumulation of the releases. And while it’s true that the waste is cooling and decaying, it’s also true that a loss of coolant could lead to another uncontrolled chain reaction. (“Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 is not going to explode,” says Gunderson in a headline, but he can’t know that with certainty.)

    For the near future, what all that means, in effect, is that the world has to accept chronic radiation releases from Fukushima as the price for avoiding another catastrophic release. And even then, it’s not a sure thing.

    But there’s another aspect of Fukushima Unit #3 that’s even less reassuring. Unit #3 is the one Fukushima reactor that was running on Mixed oxide fuel, or MOX fuel, in its fuel rods. MOX fuel typically uses Plutonium mixed with one or more forms of Uranium. Using Plutonium in fuel rods adds to their toxicity in the event of a meltdown. In part because Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 240,000 years and can be used to make nuclear weapons of “dirty bombs,” its use in commercial reactors remains both limited and controversial. Because it contains Plutonium, MOX fuel is more toxic than other nuclear fuel and will burn at lower temperatures. As Natural Resources News reported in 2011:

    “The mixed oxide fuel rods used in the compromised number three reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi complex contain enough plutonium to threaten public health with the possibility of inhalation of airborne plutonium particles…. Plutonium is at its most dangerous when it is inhaled and gets into the lungs. The effect on the human body is to vastly increase the chance of developing fatal cancers.”

    Reportedly, TEPCO plans don’t call for the removal of the MOX fuel in Unit #3 for another decade or more. Fuel removal from Units #1, #2, and #3 is complicated by lethal radiation levels at all three reactors, as well as TEPCO’s inability so far to locate the three melted cores with any precision.

    There is ample reason to hope that Fukushima, despite the complex of uncontrollable and deteriorating factors, will not get worse, because even the Japanese don’t want that. But there is little reason to expect anything but worsening conditions, slowly or suddenly, for years and years to come. And there is even less reason to expect anyone in authority anywhere to be more than minimally and belatedly truthful about an industry they continue to protect, no matter how many people it damages or kills.

    The perfect paradigm of that ruthlessly cynical nuclear mentality is the current Japanese practice of recruiting homeless people to work at Fukushima in high level radiation areas where someone with something to lose might not be willing to go for minimum wage.

  22. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Camilo For This Post:

    halffull (5th January 2014), kirolak (11th January 2014), learninglight (11th January 2014), Rocky_Shorz (6th January 2014), Sean Cullen (17th January 2014)

  23. Link to Post #73
    England Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th November 2013
    Age
    67
    Posts
    244
    Thanks
    7,501
    Thanked 2,386 times in 231 posts

    Default Re: Not looking good at Fukushima

    Fukushima: Who Profits from a Cover-up?

    Posted on January 6, 2014 by Henry Shivley


    I was part of that generation that as children participated in the nuclear attack drills, hiding under the desk, all through the cold war. Our population was bombarded with information that articulated beyond a doubt that radiation presents a detrimental threat to the human life organism.

    Once the $5.5 trillion had been milked from the American population to procure a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the planet, the emphasis shifted as the interest of the international nuclear industry commanded they must.

    All of the sudden, radiation wasn’t so bad. In fact, the thought being projected was that if we allowed these very intelligent and competent people in the industry, and in consideration of their impeccable integrity, nuclear power plants could be built and that which was once demonized to create fear for profit within the industrial war complex was now a godsend that would free us from that nasty old polluting coal, which became the new demon.

    The point here is the projected reality in reference to nuclear byproducts has been determined in direct coalition to wealth to be procured.

    When the reactor melted down at Chernobyl, the death and carnage caused by the spread of the radiation was studied and documented by interests within the international political arena as showing the carnage caused harm to the Soviet Union, which was portrayed as the enemy, causing the need for further expenditures of wealth to keep them in check.

    When examining the catastrophe at the Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant at Fukushima, Japan, and as there has been zero true scientific investigation into the spread of the material and its effect on organic life around the planet, all that is left is speculation. But in our speculating we can apply the lessons of the past in evaluating the present.

    Now there are some out there who are saying the consequences of four reactors melting down are a very big problem, while another sect are of the contention that the meltdown is almost a good thing and that if mother’s milk is found to contain small levels of radiation there is really no concern.

    These geniuses put forth the hypothesis that the radiation from Fukushima has not spread and that though the Russians had to cement in their failed reactor to stop the spread of radiation, these four at Fukushima are magically containing themselves. They say gamma rays can only travel in a couple of directions, straight into the earth below them or the earth on the horizon.

    They say they have about 28 people throughout the United States monitoring the radiation. What they do not tell you is that each one of these 28 monitors spread out over 3,900,000 square miles can only detect one single square inch at a time. In short, radiation of a level sufficient to kill can be ten feet away from this single square inch and the meters will read safe levels.

    But wait, they say, if the radiation was coming over in the Jet Stream, it would be evenly dispersed and they would be detecting it in their one inch circumference.

    Let’s go out on a limb here and say those gamma rays that radiate can also radiate up from those four failed reactors. The Jet Stream does not always travel in a straight line directly over Fukushima or anywhere else that sport mountains as a part of its topography. You have gusts this way and that way; hence you have air pockets over the plants in varying degrees at varying times.

    Now these amateur experts also make the claim that radiated particles of dirt can only get into the Jet Stream via an explosion. This is not only bull****, it is deliberate bull****. The wind coming across the land surfaces picks up particles, and as those winds pass over uneven surfaces, creating upward wind currents that can easily take the radiated particles up into the Jet Stream.

    Don’t believe me? Just ask any airplane pilot and as sure as there are upward currents, there are downward currents. And as these particles would be in pockets as previously mentioned because of the topography and because of the fact that the Jet Stream does not move in a straight line, pockets of extremely radiated particles, by the laws of physics, can be blotched across the landscape, and unless you were to walk up on them with your one inch circumference reading meter, you would not pick up the reading.

    Like I said, 28 square inches over the entire United States, that is their scientific study of the situation, which facilitates their absolute, unfounded, arrogant assertions that they are the absolute authority on the matter. And this is not mentioning the thousands of tons of radiated water still being released from the plant into the Pacific Ocean every day, which through the currents, migratory birds and fish has had two years to filter out into the United States and the rest of the world.

    So what is the truth? Is it being covered up that the radiation has spread and poses a threat or is it being covered up that there has been no effect, and if there has been, well it is actually a good thing, because radiation is our friend. The multi-billion dollar grants going to the nuclear industry from the people of the United States for the building of more of these toxic plants has been going forward with little fanfare as reports of more and more leaking plants across the United States surface.

    Looks like a money incentive to me. And is it just a coincidence that all of these ‘move along there is nothing to see here’ amateur expert radiation advocates seem to know someone in the industry that they have known for years that supports their position? There are issues here of liabilities from one people to another for negligent activity that have never been seen before, not to mention the billions in new construction. Do you think that just maybe this multi-billion dollar industry might just go out and hire one, two, maybe 28 guys to put up websites in an effort to put out a false narrative, which is not being challenged as the corporate owned press and the scientific community being finance through corporate grants stands mute?

    Naw, this couldn’t be. The truth is mother’s mild and radiation are what builds our immune systems as babies and makes us strong, intelligent, and responsible Americans….Now where’s my check?

    http://www.fromthetrenchesworldrepor...cover-up/71247

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to halffull For This Post:

    freedom4all (7th January 2014), learninglight (11th January 2014), Rocky_Shorz (6th January 2014), Sean Cullen (17th January 2014)

  25. Link to Post #74
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    23rd December 2013
    Age
    54
    Posts
    90
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 201 times in 71 posts

    Default Re: Not looking good at Fukushima

    Quote With all the misinformation around the internet here are links to articles that we trust. The following provide credible information about what is actually occurring and/or dispel myths about Fukushima radiation that are prevalent on the internet. I will not link to pseudoscience, misinformation, or outright lies in this post or allow them in the comments below. These posts and ideas have received far more attention and links than they deserve already. I provide the author, their credentials, a statement of the misinformation if applicable, the take home message, and my favorite quotes.


    1.My favorite magazine growing up, Popular Mechanics, has a very nice write up about understanding radiation counts from radiation safety expert Andrew Karam. Andrew Karam has over 30 years of experience in health physics (radiation safety), beginning with an eight-year stint as a mechanical operator and radiation safety specialist in the Navy. Since then, Karam has worked for the State of Ohio, Ohio State University, the University of Rochester and as a private consultant. Favorite Quote: “In the areas of Japan I visited, radiation dose rates were elevated to about three to four times typical natural radiation dose rates (which are about .1 mrem per hour), but nowhere near as high as natural radiation levels I’ve measured in parts of Iran.”


    2.Is the west coast being fried by Fukushima radiation? Dr. Andrew Thaler, a marine biologist and chief editor of Southern Fried Science, totally dismantles Michael Snyder’s Activist post 28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima. Take Home: No and the Snyder article distorts the truth and outright lies to advocate for his position. Favorite Quote: “The article is a paranoid, poorly reasoned attempt to link the tragedy of the Fukushima disaster to just about every environmental issue facing the US west coast in the last few months.”


    3.Are high radiation readings being observed on the west coast of the United States? No doubt you’ve seen the video of a man in San Francisco, California using a Geiger Counter showing high radiation readings on the beach. Enter Dan Sythe, the CEO of International Medcom Inc. that develops and produces radiation detection instruments and systems. Dan has a list of impressive credentials on everything Geiger Counter related. At the Geiger Counter Bulletin, he tests the same California sand and compares it to readings from Fukushima. Take Home: The radiation signature in the coastal sands is normal and is not the same as from Fukushima. Favorite Quote: “The radionuclides are in the NORM class of radioactive substances, not from Fukushima. NORM stands for Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material…If the sand were contaminated by radiation from Fukushima it would show Cesium 137 [it does not].” Super Favorite Bonus Quote: “The radiation level [in the sand] is elevated, but roughly equivalent to some granite counter top material from Brazil.”


    4.Related to the above, Wendy Hopkins an Information Officer of the California Department of Public Health, has made a public statement. Favorite Quote: “Recent tests show that elevated levels of radiation at Half Moon Bay are due to naturally occurring materials and not radioactivity associated with the Fukushima incident. There is no public health risk at California beaches due to radioactivity related to events at Fukushima.” By the way, Dean Peterson, Director for Environmental Health Services for San Mateo County, also stated that the radiation is due to naturally occurring minerals typically found in coastal geology.


    5.Dr. Jay T. Cullen, an Associate Professor of marine chemistry at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, researches the fate of metals that can be toxic and/or essential nutrients for organisms in the marine environment. He has an excellent set of articles at the Daily Kos including this primer and this one. Question: Is radiation, in the form of Cesium, reaching the west coast? Favorite Quote/Take Home: “Most recent measurements show that Fukushima derived Cs has reached the west coast as of June 2013 by ocean transport but that concentrations of Cs continue to be well below levels thought to pose environmental or public health threats.” Question: Is cesium being found in fish? Favorite Quote/Take Home: “Like fish sampled thus far in the north Pacific the contribution of Cs to overall exposure of human consumers to radiation by consuming these fish is very small.“


    6.Are babies in the U.S. dying as a direct result of Fukushima radiation? Michael Moyer is a writer and editor at Scientific American and writes about these concerns (Post 1, Post 2). The first post deals with an unpublished study where “researchers” cherry picked data to fit their agenda. This group revised their analyses and now have a “published study” that is so fundamentally flawed it’s not worth mentioning. Take Home: Babies in the U.S. are not dying from Fukushima radiation. Favorite Quotes: “A check [of the data] reveals that the authors’ statistical claims are critically flawed—if not deliberate mistruths…picking only the data that suits your analysis isn’t science—it’s politics.” But my all time favorite quote is this baby that comes across as a stern gentlemanly slap to the face, “No attempt is made at providing systematic error estimates, or error estimates of any kind. No attempt is made to catalog any biases that may have crept into the analysis, though a cursory look finds biases a-plenty (the authors are anti-nuclear activists unaffiliated with any research institution). The analysis assumes that the plume arrived on U.S. shores, spread everywhere, instantly, and started killing people immediately. It assumes that the “excess” deaths after March 20 are a real signal, not just a statistical aberration, and that every one of them is due to Fukushima radiation.”


    7.Skeptoid is an award winning blog and podcast dedicated to everything anti-science. The show is produced and hosted by Brian Dunning, a computer scientist who turned toward public engagement. If you want the unbiased and most critical assessment of any issue tune into them. A writer for Skeptoid, Michael Rothechild, has been providing background on the people making many of the alarmist claims on the impacts of Fukushima. Favorite Quote 1: “The piece was written by Gary Stamper, who runs “Collapse into Consciousness,” a website devoted to surviving the supposed coming collapse of society.” Michael has a series of posts that tackle the pseudoscientific claims being made about radioactive fish, whether we will all face a cesium soaked death, and a whole list of common claims about Fukushima. Make sure you read the last one especially. Favorite Quote 2: “Obviously, the situation at Fukushima is distressing, and not at all something that should be shrugged off. But compounding it with scaremongering about our food supply does nothing productive for anyone. But I urge you to make that decision based on sound scientific research and testable claims, not hysterical screeds backed by supposition and fear.”


    8.The list wouldn’t be complete without including Deep-Sea News posts. Dr. Kim Martini, a physical oceanographer, wrote an excellent post about Fukushima radiation that separates fact from fiction. Question: Is everyone on the west coast swathed in Fukushima radiation? Take Home: No. Favorite Quote: “This is not a map of Fukushima Radiation spreading across the Pacific. This is a map of the estimated maximum wave heights of the Japanese Tohuku Tsunami by modelers at NOAA.”


    9.Dr. Miriam Goldstein, a biological oceanographer now working on policy in D.C., wrote about recent studies of Fukushima radiation in fish. The title states the take home message: radiation levels were detectable but not hazardous. Favorite Quote: “So teeny fish in the waters off Japan just a few months after Fukushima had such low levels of radioactivity that they are considered safe to eat under Japanese law. And of this radioactivity, only 10-30% of the total radioactivity found in marine life was attributable to the Fukushima discharges – the rest was from naturally occurring radionuclides… tuna caught off California contains ten times LESS radiation than even the strictest food limit. What’s the theme? DETECTABLE but not HAZARDOUS”


    10.Dr. Chris Mah is a researcher at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History and one of the world’s leading experts on starfish and echinoderms in general. Chris’s post here at DSN debunks the claim that the starfish dying on the west coast have anything to do with the Fukushima incident. Favorite Quote: “If there were waves of Fukushima radiation pouring onto the coast-and “melting” all the starfish as some folks would suggest, EVERYTHING would be dead. Not just the sea stars. Note also that all the divers involved in these surveys have reported NO ill effects.”


    11.I wrote about whether dead and irradiated animals were littering the Pacific floor. I am a deep-sea biologist and over the last several years my research has focused on the biodiversity of deep-sea communities off the California coast. Like many others, I am also working toward understanding how deep-sea life will respond to increased anthropogenic impacts, particularly climate change. This resulted in a high profile publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. My favorite quote of myself: “Nowhere does the paper or the press release mention radiation or Fukushima. Nilch, negatory, nadda, never. But this is not good enough for staff writer Ethan Hunt and other outlets that continue to recycle this story.”


    12.I finish the list by quoting Michael Rothechild again. “I believe the anxiety about the meltdown and its aftermath comes from a mix of negativity toward nuclear power, hostility toward plant operators TEPCO (which is well-deserved in most cases), a lack of knowledge about basic science, distrust of experts (who are seen as dishonest shills) and the common habit of sharing social content that’s driven by strong negative emotions – often without understanding it, and sometimes without even reading it.”

    I understand why people are scared and concerned. I grew up in the age of imminent nuclear destruction (does anyone else remember doing nuclear attack drills in schools that were very similar to tornado drills?). My generation and the baby boomers before us were steeped in a pot of nuclear fear and skepticism. As Kim stated in her post, “While there are terrible things that happened around the Fukushima Power Plant in Japan; Alaska, Hawaii and the West Coast aren’t in any danger. These posts were meant to scare people (and possibly written by terrified authors). They did just that, but there is a severe lack of facts in these posts.” I caution everyone to thoroughly evaluate all claims and look at the biases and expertise of those making them.
    http://deepseanews.com/2014/01/all-t...shima-impacts/
    Last edited by feltip; 11th January 2014 at 16:31.

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to feltip For This Post:

    heyokah (11th January 2014), panopticon (15th January 2014)

  27. Link to Post #75
    England Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th November 2013
    Age
    67
    Posts
    244
    Thanks
    7,501
    Thanked 2,386 times in 231 posts

    Default Re: Not looking good at Fukushima

    Fukushima Fish 124X above radiation safe level

    Each day, another 300 tons of highly radioactive water is released into the Pacific Ocean at Fukushima, and that means that the total amount of radioactive material that is getting into our food chain is constantly increasing. And since some of these radioactive elements have a half-life of about 30 years, that means that our food chain is going to be contaminated for a very, very long time.

    Strangely, the mainstream media in the United States has been extremely quiet about all of this. The following is an article from a Russian news source about this highly radioactive fish that was just caught off the coast of the Fukushima prefecture…


    Black-Sea-Bream-450x247

    Fish with deadly levels of radioactive cesium have been caught just off the coast of Fukushima prefecture, as scientists continue to assess the damage caused to the marine food chain by the 2011 nuclear disaster.

    One of the samples of the 37 black sea bream specimens caught some 37 kilometers south of the crippled power plant tested at 12,400 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium, making it 124 times deadlier than the threshold considered safe for human consumption, Japan’s Fisheries Research Agency announced.
    That same article also noted that a fish that was caught last year near Fukushima contained a level of cesium that was actually far greater…

    The record cesium reading was recorded last year when a fish caught near the plant carried 740,000 becquerels of cesium per kilogram.
    Would you eat such a fish?

    The truth is that there might be one in your freezer right now.

    According to an absolutely shocking report put out by the National Academy of Sciences, it has been proven that Pacific Bluefin tuna have transported highly radioactive material “across the entire North Pacific Ocean”…

    “We report unequivocal evidence that Pacific Bluefin tuna, Thunnus orientalis, transported Fukushima-derived radionuclides across the entire North Pacific Ocean.”

    http://www.riseearth.com/2014/01/enj...l#.UtlWuCLFLcs

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to halffull For This Post:

    Conchis (17th January 2014), Maria Stade (17th January 2014), Sean Cullen (17th January 2014)

  29. Link to Post #76
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 7,989 times in 2,304 posts

    Default Re: Not looking good at Fukushima

    Glad that the elevated levels of Caesium etc found in fish off Fukushima has been pointed out.

    There's still low-level waste water from the cooling system leaking into the ocean, not to mention we have no idea how water is flowing past the melted fuel in the other reactors...

    Periodically TEPCO release the latest test results from fish caught off-shore.

    We can also go to the TEPCO website to see the official measurements in the bay and further offshore by visiting here:

    http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushi...p/index-e.html

    Now if I'm right the below pdf's should update at least weekly on here.

    Inner port area:



    Outer port area:



    As you can see the web page I gave above has all the measurements reported there and if we want to have a look at the levels from the radiation monitoring posts in the compound, check how much rain has fallen and which direction the wind is blowing we can visit here:

    http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushi...1/index-e.html

    Yeah, we know that TEPCO lie.

    We know that they've deliberately altered figures and not reported accidents in the past.

    We know that there is a constant leak and we know there are melted and damaged fuel assemblies in reactors #1, #2 & #3.

    We know about the contractor/sub-contractor/Yakuza connection and that some of the work done on site is just a bloody joke.

    However, we also know that there are many monitoring sites that haven't been tampered with and that there are concerned citizens in Japan who are measuring levels themselves.

    As there have been no reports of massive differences between them and the official figures, that points to the possibility that the levels reported are fairly reliable...

    Yes, there is an intermittent steam leak that has been going on for months and no-one really knows what is causing it but it's been going on for months and is probably a coolant exhaust pipe or something similar, not the trigger event the OP article was alluding too.

    Oh, btw, the report from the Fisheries Research Agency of black sea bream with a Caesium level of 12,400 Bq/Kg comes from this page:
    http://www.fra.affrc.go.jp/pressrele...110/index.html

    A good report was done by The Asahi Shimbun about this on the 11th:

    ###

    Fish with very high levels of cesium found near Fukushima
    January 11, 2014

    A fish contaminated with extremely high levels of radiation was found in waters near the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, a government-affiliated research institute said.

    The Fisheries Research Agency said Jan. 10 the black sea bream had 12,400 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium, 124 times the safety standards for foodstuffs.

    The fish was caught at the mouth of the Niidagawa river in Iwaki, Fukushima Prefecture, on Nov. 17. The site is 37 kilometers south of the stricken power plant.

    It was one of 37 fish-–all black sea bream--that researchers caught in waters in and off Iwaki in October and November to study the level of radiation to which they were exposed.

    The research institute said it will study the fish further to try and determine when it became contaminated with such high levels of radioactive cesium.

    Two other fish also exceeded the safety standards of 100 becquerels per kilogram, at 426 becquerels and 197 becquerels, respectively.

    The readings of the remaining 34 fish were within the safety limits, according to the Fisheries Research Agency.

    Officials said black sea bream in the region that was covered by the recent study have not been circulated as food in fish markets.

    Black sea bream fishing in coastal waters off Fukushima and Miyagi prefectures is currently restricted.

    They are also on the list of fish that local fishermen are asked to voluntarily refrain from catching in the northern municipalities of Ibaraki Prefecture, which is located just south of Fukushima Prefecture.

    Source

    ###

    I haven't found the full report from the Fisheries Research Agency, mainly because I've been a bit busy of late, it is probably written in Japanese, may not have been released to the public (it may never be) and all I needed to do was verify that there was a an actual report from an actual Fisheries Research Agency that the articles were based on. (Scrap that, report available in Japanese here).

    I hope someone finds this useful.

    -- Pan
    Last edited by panopticon; 18th January 2014 at 18:41. Reason: Added report link :)
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to panopticon For This Post:

    halffull (19th January 2014)

  31. Link to Post #77
    Avalon Member Sidney's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th April 2010
    Location
    down the Rabbit Hole
    Posts
    5,040
    Thanks
    14,239
    Thanked 20,882 times in 4,415 posts

    Default Re: Not looking good at Fukushima

    Quote Posted by panopticon (here)
    Glad that the elevated levels of Caesium etc found in fish off Fukushima has been pointed out.

    There's still low-level waste water from the cooling system leaking into the ocean, not to mention we have no idea how water is flowing past the melted fuel in the other reactors...

    Periodically TEPCO release the latest test results from fish caught off-shore.

    We can also go to the TEPCO website to see the official measurements in the bay and further offshore by visiting here:

    http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushi...p/index-e.html

    Now if I'm right the below pdf's should update at least weekly on here.

    Inner port area:



    Outer port area:



    As you can see the web page I gave above has all the measurements reported there and if we want to have a look at the levels from the radiation monitoring posts in the compound, check how much rain has fallen and which direction the wind is blowing we can visit here:

    http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushi...1/index-e.html

    Yeah, we know that TEPCO lie.

    We know that they've deliberately altered figures and not reported accidents in the past.

    We know that there is a constant leak and we know there are melted and damaged fuel assemblies in reactors #1, #2 & #3.

    We know about the contractor/sub-contractor/Yakuza connection and that some of the work done on site is just a bloody joke.

    However, we also know that there are many monitoring sites that haven't been tampered with and that there are concerned citizens in Japan who are measuring levels themselves.

    As there have been no reports of massive differences between them and the official figures, that points to the possibility that the levels reported are fairly reliable...

    Yes, there is an intermittent steam leak that has been going on for months and no-one really knows what is causing it but it's been going on for months and is probably a coolant exhaust pipe or something similar, not the trigger event the OP article was alluding too.

    Oh, btw, the report from the Fisheries Research Agency of black sea bream with a Caesium level of 12,400 Bq/Kg comes from this page:
    http://www.fra.affrc.go.jp/pressrele...110/index.html

    A good report was done by The Asahi Shimbun about this on the 11th:

    ###

    Fish with very high levels of cesium found near Fukushima
    January 11, 2014

    A fish contaminated with extremely high levels of radiation was found in waters near the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, a government-affiliated research institute said.

    The Fisheries Research Agency said Jan. 10 the black sea bream had 12,400 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium, 124 times the safety standards for foodstuffs.

    The fish was caught at the mouth of the Niidagawa river in Iwaki, Fukushima Prefecture, on Nov. 17. The site is 37 kilometers south of the stricken power plant.

    It was one of 37 fish-–all black sea bream--that researchers caught in waters in and off Iwaki in October and November to study the level of radiation to which they were exposed.

    The research institute said it will study the fish further to try and determine when it became contaminated with such high levels of radioactive cesium.

    Two other fish also exceeded the safety standards of 100 becquerels per kilogram, at 426 becquerels and 197 becquerels, respectively.

    The readings of the remaining 34 fish were within the safety limits, according to the Fisheries Research Agency.

    Officials said black sea bream in the region that was covered by the recent study have not been circulated as food in fish markets.

    Black sea bream fishing in coastal waters off Fukushima and Miyagi prefectures is currently restricted.

    They are also on the list of fish that local fishermen are asked to voluntarily refrain from catching in the northern municipalities of Ibaraki Prefecture, which is located just south of Fukushima Prefecture.

    Source

    ###

    I haven't found the full report from the Fisheries Research Agency, mainly because I've been a bit busy of late, it is probably written in Japanese, may not have been released to the public (it may never be) and all I needed to do was verify that there was a an actual report from an actual Fisheries Research Agency that the articles were based on. (Scrap that, report available in Japanese here).

    I hope someone finds this useful.

    -- Pan
    The million dollar question I have is, can we really trust what we read on the TEPCO site?[COLOR="red"]
    Last edited by Sidney; 19th January 2014 at 01:56.

  32. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sidney For This Post:

    halffull (19th January 2014), panopticon (19th January 2014)

  33. Link to Post #78
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 7,989 times in 2,304 posts

    Default Re: Not looking good at Fukushima

    Quote Posted by Sidney (here)

    The million dollar question I have is, can we really trust what we read on the TEPCO site?

    ¤=[Post Update]=¤

    Can we really trust what is on the TEPCO site? Thats my milliond dollar question.
    G'day Sidney,

    Glad you asked. No, No & No. Never accept what is said without evidence from other sources.

    I'll accept payment in used small denomination unmarked notes (AUD thank you)...

    As I said in my previous post:

    Quote ... there are concerned citizens in Japan who are measuring levels themselves.

    As there have been no reports of massive differences between them and the official figures, that points to the possibility that the levels reported are fairly reliable.
    Have a look at the Safecast website for an indication.

    The Safecast map is available here:

    http://map.safecast.org/

    There are also a number of other maps available and some are linked to from the Safecast website:

    http://blog.safecast.org/maps/

    Democracy Now! had an article on Safecast and interview with Pieter Franken, co-founder, here:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2014/1/1...itoring_to_map

    Hope this helps.

    -- Pan
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

  34. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to panopticon For This Post:

    halffull (19th January 2014), Sidney (19th January 2014)

  35. Link to Post #79
    England Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th November 2013
    Age
    67
    Posts
    244
    Thanks
    7,501
    Thanked 2,386 times in 231 posts

    Default Re: Not looking good at Fukushima

    If you've heard about Fukushima radiation spreading to the Pacific Coast of North America but were "corrected" by sources both official and expert that this was based more on rumor than reality, then consider the information presented at the October 2013 North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES) annual meeting.

    Researchers from Fisheries and Oceans Canada confirmed that the radioactive plume from Fukushima is indeed reaching the shores of Canada and the United States - and was detected at least six months ago - carried both in the ocean surface water and the atmosphere on similar but slightly different courses.

    In a presentation titled "Communicating the forecasts, uncertainty and consequences of ecosystem change," (read here: http://www.pices.int) the Canadian researchers gave evidence that the bulk of radioactivity from Fukushima is shifting almost entirely from the western portion of the North Pacific (Japan) to the eastern portion (North America) over the course of the next five years. As of 2012, it had already reached the central region of the Pacific Ocean, and a previously unpublished map shows that, as of 2013, it had reached the shores of Alaska and British Columbia, with the most intense area of the plume yet to arrive.

    The Fall 2013 discussion centered around competing calculations of the severity of effects from cesium-137, based around two differing models of the radiation's trajectory. The first, published by German researcher Erik Behrens and his colleagues at the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in 2012, drastically understates the potential dangers, predicting only modest levels of 2 becquerels per cubic meter (Bq/m^3) by 2015 for the 49th parallel near British Columbia and Washington state - scarcely above the background levels from the continued fallout of Chernobyl.

    Meanwhile, the second, published by Vincent Rossi and other colleagues from the Climate Change Research Centre in 2013, presents a much more consequential picture. It predicts alarming maximum levels reaching 25 Bq/m^3 at their monitoring station in British Columbia by 2015 and peaks above 30 Bq/m^3. Cesium levels at the 30th parallel - reaching Baja California in Mexico - wouldn't peak until about 2019, though projected maximum levels would reach only about 15-20 Bq/m^3.

    The amount of atmospheric cesium being transported across the ocean via winds remains the unknown yet potentially greater factor. It partially explains the drastic difference in projections, as there are no monitoring stations for airborne radiation in the Pacific and no reliable methods of predicting the scale of its effects. Further, it has only recently been publicly admitted that 300-400 tons of contaminated water have been pouring into the Pacific per day since the meltdown began in March 2011.

    The fact is that the initial findings of radioactivity from Fukushima on the shores of Alaska, British Columbia, California and Mexico - confirmed privately within the scientific community months ago - are just the beginning. They are consistent with previous predictions of cesium-137 hitting the West Coast of the continental United States in late 2013 and early 2014. Scientists have acknowledged that it will continue to spread into the Arctic Ocean, reaching eastern Russia and eventually pouring into the Atlantic Ocean.

    http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/201...pacific-ocean/

  36. The Following User Says Thank You to halffull For This Post:

    panopticon (24th January 2014)

  37. Link to Post #80
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 7,989 times in 2,304 posts

    Default Re: Not looking good at Fukushima

    Presentation referred to in above post:



    Source

    -- Pan
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

  38. The Following User Says Thank You to panopticon For This Post:

    halffull (25th January 2014)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts