Fukushima Emergency: Plant leaks 300 tons of radioactive water daily

[Cidersomerset]

Fukushima Emergency: Plant leaks 300 tons of radioactive water daily

6l3oL9DM2Hc

Published on 7 Aug 2013


The Japanese Prime Minister has ordered the government to step in and help contain
ongoing radiation leaks from the Fukushima power plant. Tepco - the company that
runs the facility that was crippled in the 2011 tsunami and earthquake - has been
unable to prevent contaminated groundwater from breaching a barrier and pouring into
the ocean. Nuclear energy expert Malcolm Grimston joins RT to discuss this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fukushima nuclear waste still leaking into Pacific

SYB1TTV-v3U

Published on 9 Aug 2013


It's been two years since an earthquake and tsunami took down a nuclear power plant
in Fukushima, Japan, but have any new regulations been installed to prevent future
disasters? Paul Gunter, the director of the Reactor Oversight Project at Reactor.org,
weighs in on all things nuclear with RT's Erin Ade

[Shannow]

I found that this move, to station more US troops in Australia was an interesting "Read between the lines" WRT what the US thinks of Fukashima, and it's safety.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-marine-base-for-darwin-20111110-1n9lk.html


''This is all about the rise of China, the modernisation of the People's Liberation Army and, particularly, it's about the increased vulnerability of US forces in Japan and Guam to the new generation of Chinese missiles,'' said Alan Dupont, the Michael Hintze professor of international security at Sydney University.
''The new Chinese missiles could threaten them in a way they've never been able to before, so the US is starting to reposition them to make them less vulnerable. Australia's 'tyranny of distance' is now a distinct strategic advantage.''

[ghostrider]

there is no containment, this is a done deal , for many years we are going to have problems because of our ignorance ... all those mass fish kills washing up burnt and dead ...the whole area is now sitting on a time table that cannot be changed , they will have radiation sickness and more dead sealife ...

[sdv]

Shows how toothless the IAEA is in keeping the world safe. With all the resources and resourceful people in the world you would think that this problem would have been solved within months of the disaster.

Remember Apollo 13? That's what human beings are capable of. Seems to be no political will to deal effectively with Fukushima.

[TargeT]

there is no containment, this is a done deal , for many years we are going to have problems because of our ignorance ... all those mass fish kills washing up burnt and dead ...the whole area is now sitting on a time table that cannot be changed , they will have radiation sickness and more dead sealife ...

got any proof of that?

are you talking about the sardines that died of oxygen deprivation?

have you ever seen actual proof of the levels of radiation that are damaging to humans or fish? what data/logic are you basing these statements on? I've seen evidence that radiation is NOT harmful at the levels we are talking about in Fukushima, I've never seen evidence that it is.
17 page discussion on this topic here:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46819-A-video-they-won-t-want-you-to-see--Galen-Winsor-nuclear-scam-&highlight=nuclear+scam


Did you know that there's a movement of people who wear uranium/thorium/other radioactive pendants for the amazing HEALTH benefits? I've been wearing a pendant that is more radioactive than fukushima for around 5 months
8 page discussion on that here:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53597-Hormesis-Healing-Yourself-with-Low-Dose-Radiation


if you havent looked into this you should; this is probably one of the realest conspiracies/cover ups exposed I've found from this forum.

[Sith73]

Just fear porn

[Kimberley]

there is no containment, this is a done deal , for many years we are going to have problems because of our ignorance ... all those mass fish kills washing up burnt and dead ...the whole area is now sitting on a time table that cannot be changed , they will have radiation sickness and more dead sealife ...

got any proof of that?

are you talking about the sardines that died of oxygen deprivation?

have you ever seen actual proof of the levels of radiation that are damaging to humans or fish? what data/logic are you basing these statements on? I've seen evidence that radiation is NOT harmful at the levels we are talking about in Fukushima, I've never seen evidence that it is.
17 page discussion on this topic here:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46819-A-video-they-won-t-want-you-to-see--Galen-Winsor-nuclear-scam-&highlight=nuclear+scam


Did you know that there's a movement of people who wear uranium/thorium/other radioactive pendants for the amazing HEALTH benefits? I've been wearing a pendant that is more radioactive than fukushima for around 5 months
8 page discussion on that here:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53597-Hormesis-Healing-Yourself-with-Low-Dose-Radiation


if you havent looked into this you should; this is probably one of the realest conspiracies/cover ups exposed I've found from this forum.

Target beat me to the punch on this...several of us have been researching for over a year about the Nuclear Scare Scam....

I too wear a highly radio active stone, sleep with a radio active mud pack and drink distilled water that has been radiated with a radio active water stone. Have been doing that since November when we discovered radiation hormisis.

I sure wish everyone on the planet would spend 1 1/2 hours watching this lecture by the late Galen Winsor that was filmed in 1985.


ejCQrOTE-XA

And here is my interview with Jay Gutierrez who is considered an expert in the field of "Natural Radiation Hormesis"


nxCLpA3JDQQ


And if you would like to follow up on this with a years work of research be sure to go to this thread (as target also posted).

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46819-A-video-they-won-t-want-you-to-see--Galen-Winsor-nuclear-scam-


I no longer am in fear of nuclear power or radiation. Yes a radioactive bomb or a bomb made of anything is a killer, however radiated water and air is not a killer in fact it is actually healthier.

Check this out....


An extraordinary incident occurred 20 years ago in Taiwan.
Recycled steel, accidentally contaminated with cobalt-60 (half-life:
5.3 y), was formed into construction steel for more than 180
buildings, which 10,000 persons occupied for 9 to 20 years. They
unknowingly received radiation doses that averaged 0.4 Sv—a
“collective dose” of 4,000 person-Sv.
Based on the observed seven cancer deaths, the cancer
mortality rate for this population was assessed to be 3.5 per
100,000 person-years. Three children were born with congenital
heart malformations, indicating a prevalence rate of 1.5 cases per
1,000 children under age 19.
The average spontaneous cancer death rate in the general
population of Taiwan over these 20 years is 116 persons per
100,000 person-years. Based upon partial official statistics and
hospital experience, the prevalence rate of congenital
malformation is 23 cases per 1,000 children. Assuming the age and
income distributions of these persons are the same as for the
general population, it appears that significant beneficial health
effects may be associated with this chronic radiation exposure.

The lengthy research paper "Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis
Against Cancer?" is at this link:

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no1/chen.pdf


Much love to us all!!! :grouphug:

[giovonni]

Thanks for posting Cidersomerset ...

Note ~ to all one should not confuse low dosage radiation with widespread hazardous nuclear contamination ... :(

[Kimberley]

Thanks for posting Cidersomerset ...

Note ~ to all one should not confuse low dosage radiation with widespread hazardous nuclear contamination ... :(

Have you listened to the Galen Winsor lecture?

[giovonni]

Yes and note ... i do believe humanity and most other life forms (here on earth) can and probably will transmute these hazardous effects ... But i also believe it won't be in our (yours and mine) life time ... Sorry ~ that's all i got to say Kimberly.

Post note:
Can you 'dig up' and produce (post) anything else from this Galen Winsor ...
Cos i would most definitely read or listen to it ?

[Kimberley]

This is an audio of Galen talking about what happened at Chernobyl

http://www.sheldonemrylibrary.com/Williams1986.htm

scroll down the page 3rd from the bottom till you see

8618a Report On Chernobyl by Galen Winsor (05/11/86)


And this is another one of Galen's lectures...

x42qi7Fz1L0

[ulli]

http://blogs.fin24.com/bertieduplessis/files/2012/10/Hiroshimab1.jpg

I like to bring balance by presenting various sides....this photo is of Hiroshima today

[onawah]

The Japanese are an incredibly resilient people.
I liked what one channeler said, which was that, as a race, the Japanese volunteered to be the mirror for all of Earth's peoples showing why we need to go beyond nuclear power asap.

Can anyone explain what the differences are in the effects on living tissue between being exposed to low dose radiation, and swallowing or breathing in radioactive particles?

Thanks.

[Kimberley]

Can anyone explain what the differences are in the effects on living tissue between being exposed to low dose radiation, and swallowing or breathing in radioactive particles?

Thanks.

If you watch the Galen Winsor lecture he breathes and eats highly radio active air and particles....

[onawah]

If you watch the Galen Winsor lecture he breathes and eats highly radio active air and particles....
I'm happy for him, but I don't know that that means it is safe for everyone to do so, or if that practice has really been proven to be safe on a longterm basis, and I don't know that I want to be a guinea pig in that experiment...

The following quotations will put my concerns into a more clarified context.
The author is anti-nuclear nun, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, a Grey Nun for half a century, an internationally recognized expert in the field of radiation
Her (rather impressive) bio is at:
http://www.ratical.org/rhrIndex/authorB.html#RB


It was new to me that nuclear industries were permitted by law to expose people routinely to ionizing radiation. I started to look back to see where these "permissible levels" began.

They were started in 1950 by the British, U.S., and Canadian physicists who had worked on the Manhattan Project, which produced the first nuclear bombs. After World War II, as early as 1946, they began exploding nuclear bombs in the Pacific. They had a theory that the radioactive fallout would only go halfway around the world--but discovered it went around two and a half times. Every country had its own radiation protection regulations and there was a fear that some of these would be violated. In fact, Britain, Canada, and the U.S. had three different sets of numbers. So between 1946 and 1950 the physicists hammered out a compromise they believed would allow them to do weapons testing. They could then establish themselves as an international recommending body accepted by other countries. They even stated quite clearly that this might not be protective of public health, but that they could find that out later. Meanwhile, they could undertake all the activities needed to build nuclear bombs and test them.

Most nations accepted these regulations and thought all was safe if they followed these numbers. They had no idea, for example, that the permissible level of radiation for members of the general public would be a bone marrow dose of 500 millirem per year--equivalent to the bone marrow dose of 100 chest X rays a year. Nuclear industry workers were allowed ten times as much.

When the medical and biological community began protesting these regulations in the late 1960s, the response was, "Well, we don't really pay attention to these numbers; we really operate ALARA--As Low As Reasonably Achievable, given the economic and social benefits of the activity." The operating mode is called risk-benefit planning. Risks are life and health--dying of cancer, having a deformed child. The benefit side is to make money or gain political power. The bad news is that the people who make these trade-offs for us are the same people who get the benefits. (It was only after decades of pressure that the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) voted unanimously in November 1990 to lower worker-exposure and public-exposure levels--the latter to 100 millirem. Although these are still too high, any progress is heartening.)

When there are such "incidents" as the Chernobyl accident--although radioactive pollution from local industries can be cumulatively greater than from Chernobyl--each is individually judged against these unreal standards. When it comes to an accident, there's no way to achieve a lower level, so special regulations for accidents are set to make them acceptable.

We are now in a no-win situation with radioactive materials, where it has become acceptable to have cancer deaths, deformed children, and miscarriages. The "benefit," oddly enough, is not the medical benefit, nor electricity--it is nuclear bombs. The same set of regulations is used for all three industries--energy, medical, and military--and when it comes to the bottom line, the cost benefit ratio is calculated on the basis of preventing a ten-megaton blast on London, Paris, or New York; the final judgment becomes what is needed for "national security."

Now nuclear power proponents have again mounted a synchronized international campaign to push nuclear reactors as a "solution" to the greenhouse effect. Like previous public relations programs at the time of the OPEC oil crisis and the acid rain discovery, these arguments are highly selective and unconvincing. The grain of truth in the propaganda is that nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide or such gases as methane, nitrous oxide, and the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). However, the reactor is only one small part of the nuclear fuel cycle. It cannot function without the large supporting network of mining, milling, fuel fabrication, enrichment, waste disposal, decommissioning, and the web of transportation linking these steps. Claiming nuclear production of energy is "clean" is like dieting but stuffing yourself with food between meals.

What are the alternatives for industrialized countries? A case study of the Federal Republic of Germany using 120 different energy efficiency improvements demonstrated that the nation could maintain its standard of living with a 70 percent reduction in end-use of energy. A 1983 study at M.I.T. Energy Laboratory in the U.S. concluded that improving energy usage by one percent a year caused no social strain and could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 50 percent by 2050.

Promoting nuclear technology raises false expectations, usurps money better spent in energy efficiency, and substitutes emissions of radionuclides for emissions of carbon dioxide. The intelligent customer will not substitute one pollution for another, but will rather eliminate both by more efficient energy use.

This is imperative, because we now find ourselves in a strange situation, where the military strategy to save industrialized countries is not only destroying the environment and the gene pool of those countries, but also destroying the biosphere, as radioactive material is circulated in the air, water, and food--whether or not we have a nuclear accident or war.

Mild mutations constitute a subtle undermining of the gene pool. It is not talked about or measured, but it is occurring. What you do is create a next generation that is physically less able to cope with hazardous material than their parents were. If you do two things at once--mildly damage the next generation (genetic damage) and increase the hazards in the environment--after two or three generations you are finished. People will be physically less able to cope, and they will have more to cope with. We are also talking about physical damage to the brain, inability to think as clearly and as well as previous generations. With aboveground weapons testing there was a decrease in general intelligence quotient as measured by standardized tests. Irradiation is the most efficient of the mutagens (99 percent of which are negative for humans), and most threatening in terms of species survival.

There is another property of radiation. When chromosomes are damaged and then damaged a second time before they have had a chance to repair, you have some bizarre problems. These are considered peculiar to radiation (most non-radioactive chemicals don't create these double breaks within a four- to six-hour period); a child developed from damaged chromosomes may have a broad spectrum of defects.

I would encourage chemists who have never worked with radiation to begin thinking about radioactive chemicals; these form a spectrum from low to high human toxicity. On the other hand, radiobiologists often know nothing about dioxins or other toxic chemicals; there needs to be dialogue between these fields because all human life is threatened. The hazards are all serious, but I would put nuclear pollution at the top of the list.

Our present path is headed toward species death--whether fast, with nuclear war or technological disaster, or slow, by poison. I see people reacting as they react to death, generally by denial or anger and frustration or by a certain barter where they try to come to terms with it, but not fully. I don't think that, as a species, we're depraved or locked in to committing mass suicide. I think we're stupid enough to do it and capable of doing it, but there is nothing necessitating our doing it.

The unmasking of the human species' terminal illness must involve dealing with violence: personal, family, city, national, and global. Some violence has been renounced, for example, a father's right to kill his child: but other forms of violence still are seen as "socially useful," for example, torture, imprisonment, killing children by sending them to war, and of course epidemic violence against women.

If, as a society, we are able to break out of this phase, it will be due to the careful building of a consensus in various social and political groups, which make an impact on the national power structures from within and from without. As they become more international in their thinking and acting, these groups are developing the infrastructure for the global village. Women, who have not become so unnaturally separated from their instincts, need to assume social roles for idea input, facilitating consensus decision-making, and seeing to the equitable implementation of plans and sustainability of the society's work.

In a special way, women attend to the birthing and dying within society, and we have now turned this concern toward the process of species death--or the birthing of a new way of conducting human affairs that might avert such a death. The inclusion of women and a feminist perspective in the idea, decision-making, and implementation sectors of society is vital for species survival.

This implies for males a general reduction of power over other human beings and a playing down of masculine values, including conflict and violence within nations, workplaces, and families. Although men have always said they go to war for the sake of the women and children, it is apparent that men are willing to hurt or kill women and children in order to go to war, thinking they are serving their nation. There are beautiful aspects of nationalism that we can keep, like customs, language, lifestyle, food. But there is no reason why we need to raise standing armies and kill people who don't agree with us.

We have much of the infrastructure in place; we have global communication, we have transportation, we know the way to cure most diseases, we have one and a half times as much food as we need for the global population. What we are talking about giving up is the right of a nation to force its own people to kill others, whether internally or externally. That is a very simple thing. Yet if we could do that we could begin to organize on the basis of a global village that would not only respect diversity, but be glad of it, because survival comes from an ability to cope with many changing situations, an ability to share when one part of the world has abundance and another part has need.

Our monoculture is another form of suicide; diversity gives us survival.
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/NID.html


Both alpha and beta particles penetrate cell membranes more easily than they penetrate skin. Hence ingesting, inhaling or absorbing radioactive chemicals capable of emitting alpha or beta particles and thereby placing them inside delicate body parts such as the lungs, heart, brain or kidneys, always poses serious threats to human health.[3] Plutonium is an alpha emitter, and no quantity inhaled has been found to be too small to induce
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/NRBE/NRBE3.html


The complexity of setting health standards for exposure to the mixture of radioactive chemicals and ionising particles released in fissioning should be apparent. As a first move towards a reasonable subdivision of the hazard itself, separate standard setting was done for external radiation exposure, i.e. when the radioactive source was outside the body, and internal radiation exposure, i.e. when the radioactive source was inside the body.
Both these categories can then be subdivided into exposures to particular parts of the body or particular internal organs. The biological effect of an X-ray of the pelvic area differs from the biological effect of a dental X-ray, even if the radiation dose to the skin is the same. Plutonium lodged in the lungs has a different biological consequence from plutonium lodged in the reproductive organs. One can also consider exposures to X-rays, gamma rays, alpha or beta particles and neutrons separately, taking each as internal or external to the body.
There are further differences in health effects based on differences between people receiving the radiation. Special consideration needs to be given to those who, because of heredity or previous experience, are more susceptible to further damage than the norm or average. Special consideration should be given to an embryo or foetus, a young child, the elderly or those chronically ill.
The severity of health effects caused by internal exposures will depend on the biological characteristic of the radioactive chemical and the length of time it may be expected to reside in the body. Radioactive cesium, for example, lodges in muscles and is probably completely eliminated from the body in two years. Radioactive strontium lodges in bone and remains there for a lifetime, constantly irradiating the surrounding cells. The usual time required by the body to rid itself of half the radioactive chemical is called the `biological half-life' of that chemical.
Some radiation health effects are observable in the persons exposed; some effects are only seen in their children or grandchildren because the damage was to sperm or ovum.
X-rays, gamma rays and neutrons are able to inflict harm on humans even when the radioactive chemical emitting them is outside the body. Beta particles outside the body can cause serious burns and other skin anomalies, including skin cancer. Ionising radiations emitted from within the body by radioactive chemicals taken in by inhalation, ingestion or absorption are even more damaging because they are so close to delicate cell structures. The body is not able to distinguish between radioactive and nonradioactive chemicals and will as readily incorporate the one as the other into tissue, bone, muscle or organs, identifying them as ordinary nutrients. The radioactive chemicals remain in the body until biologically eliminated in urine or faeces, or until they decay into other chemical forms (which may or may not be radioactive).
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/NRBE/NRBE4.html

Since I've watched all the videos of Simon Parkes and read the thread devoted to him, I have been wondering if Fukushima might be the disaster he talked about which resulted in the sterilization of most of the human race (though that leads to the subject of timelines, of course).
I am balancing that with the information from Bashar and other sources about choosing the timeline we as individuals wish to live in, and creating the conditions in one's own life that will result in the preferred timeline.
It may be possible for some individuals to positively think their way into a state of health that is invulnerable to the dangers of radioactivity, but I don't think that means that radioactivity is therefore harmless or could actually be medicinal to everyone and everything.

[Kimberley]

onawah Did you listen to the Galen Winsor lecture??? :hug:

[Carmody]

One million Dollars:

Build a large, or multiple would be best..brown's gas generators.

Capable of generating about 40,000 or more liters of brown's gas, per hour.

As the radioactive water comes out of the plant, take that radioactive water and mix it with ultra fine aluminum dust/powder.

Take that agitated radioactive water with the aluminum dust floating in it..and run a brown's gas flame through it. Do this in bubbler or agitation tanks.

After a very short time the radiation is fully converted via reaction between the brown's gas, aluminum, and radioactive particles.

This is not a trick, it works. Brown's gas breaks down radioactive materials when mixed in equal parts with aluminum, and hit with a brown's gas flame. The two cancel each other out.

This is not a pipe dream, or a joke. This test of neutralizing radioactive waste, was done OFFICIALLY by the Government of Canada's official government nuclear research group. By government researchers.

We don't have any sort of a nuclear waste issue of any kind.

We have a TECHNOLOGY BLOCK by the governments of the world and the black ops groups of the world, as this trick is fully blown transmutation of materials and atomic structures, and completely upsets the scientific applecart.

The earth is being killed, the world's population is being killed, and the oceans are being killed, all due to black ops and governments/elites.... blocking technology.

Please note this and investigate. It is not a joke.

I am only one person, I can only do so much.

[ghostrider]

there is no containment, this is a done deal , for many years we are going to have problems because of our ignorance ... all those mass fish kills washing up burnt and dead ...the whole area is now sitting on a time table that cannot be changed , they will have radiation sickness and more dead sealife ...

got any proof of that?

are you talking about the sardines that died of oxygen deprivation?

have you ever seen actual proof of the levels of radiation that are damaging to humans or fish? what data/logic are you basing these statements on? I've seen evidence that radiation is NOT harmful at the levels we are talking about in Fukushima, I've never seen evidence that it is.
17 page discussion on this topic here:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46819-A-video-they-won-t-want-you-to-see--Galen-Winsor-nuclear-scam-&highlight=nuclear+scam


Did you know that there's a movement of people who wear uranium/thorium/other radioactive pendants for the amazing HEALTH benefits? I've been wearing a pendant that is more radioactive than fukushima for around 5 months
8 page discussion on that here:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53597-Hormesis-Healing-Yourself-with-Low-Dose-Radiation


if you havent looked into this you should; this is probably one of the realest conspiracies/cover ups exposed I've found from this forum.
you can't take back radiation sickness, the half life of some elements is 50 yrs . 50yrs later something contaminated is still at half strength, hence the water that flows everywhere from japan ... time is the only cure , by then , lots of things are posion, look at what chemo does to people in small doses ...

[onawah]

No, I have not watched the video of Galen Winsor.
I read some of the thread on his work and found it unconvincing, and with so much "selling" of the theory going on, it feels suspicious to me.
If there is a succinct, scientific summary of this theory, I would be willing to read it.

Carmody, I believe that radioactive material that is trapped in a reactor could be treated in the way you describe, but is there any remedy for it that you are aware of once it has been released into the ocean and the air?

[TargeT]

Thanks for posting Cidersomerset ...

Note ~ to all one should not confuse low dosage radiation with widespread hazardous nuclear contamination ... :(

your words with out definition are meaningless in this conversation, the numbers involved at fukushima are below what some people are using to heal themselves; there for the statement of "widespread hazardous nuclear contamination" very closely fits the concept of "fear porn"

lets break down that statement:

first word: Widespread, well this is sort of a matter of perception, I've seen pictures and graphs that indicate that the west coast was suppose to be "radioactively contaminated" (and what does that really even mean?)

Second word: Hazardous, since no one has been injured from radiation there, how can this word even be used?

third "nuclear" that's about the most useful word in this sentence, it actually is marginally applicable here.

fourth: contaminated, this word is applicable, but not with "hazardous" connected to it, it's more equatable to driving your car contaminates the air around your house when you start it up.


Unless you are willing to commit hard data points your sentence is now regulated to a Logical Fallacy, appeal to emotion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion) (in this case fear).

[giovonni]

For TargeT

Yes ~ you and i have totally different perceptions and perspectives about all this and i can live with that ... :)

Post note: Kimberley thank you for forwarding the information, your efforts are appreciated.

Blessings Gio

[TargeT]

For TargeT

Yes ~ you and i have totally different perceptions and perspectives about all this and i can live with that ... :)

Post note: Kimberley thank you for forwarding the information, your efforts are appreciated.

Blessings Gio


well i absolutely agree & hope you know that I respect you and your different perspective; I just think you could present it in a different, more logical way.

Numbers, studies, you have some interesting stuff in your behemoth Fukushima cover up thread & can present a good representation of your perspective if you want to.... a well fleshed out example or statement is what I'm trying to nudge out of you ;) I'd love to hear it since from my perspective it's very one-sided.



you can't take back radiation sickness, the half life of some elements is 50 yrs . 50yrs later something contaminated is still at half strength, hence the water that flows everywhere from japan ... time is the only cure , by then , lots of things are posion, look at what chemo does to people in small doses ...

What level of exposure gives radiation sickness?

Chemo... ok, chemo is MILLIONS to BILLIONS of times higher exposure than anything found at fukushima... please review the numbers, that is a terrible example...

You are comparing a squirt gun to a 18" naval cannon.


Chemo is 7,000 to 10,000 R (Roentgen) exposure.

the levels in fukishima are measured in the mSv (Micro sieverts)

1msv = .00001 R (Roentgen)

so, the lower medical doses of 7,000R per min can get you pretty sick, but a lot of people don't even die from that. What do you think happens when you are exposed to .00005 or .0005 (roughly the range of exposure in fukishima AT WORST) Roentgen?

[giovonni]

For TargeT ...

i have never said (or proclaimed) i was an expert in this field ... And may i also add ... i do not consider you as one neither... But note as always i will continue posting (what i feel) is relevant news and material on this subject matter as it becomes available on the thread below...

A Coverup -California Northwest USA BC Canada under radiation threat as high as Japan
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?17800-A-Coverup-California-Northwest-USA-BC-Canada-under-radiation-threat-as-high-as-Japan

[TargeT]

For TargeT ...

i have never said (or proclaimed) i was an expert in this field ... And may i also add ... i do not consider you as one neither... But note as always i will continue posting (what i feel) is relevant news and material on this subject matter as it becomes available on the thread below...

A Coverup -California Northwest USA BC Canada under radiation threat as high as Japan
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?17800-A-Coverup-California-Northwest-USA-BC-Canada-under-radiation-threat-as-high-as-Japan

oh, no one would ever label me as an expert in very much in life, but then I don't feel I need an official label or piece of paper to attempt to understand something; I do think that is another thinking trap that has kept many in the dark for a long time.

I think everyone should be able to use logic and grammar to convey an idea to another person; though there are significant emotional barriers to overcome on strongly held beliefs; so maybe this is a simplistic/hopeful viewpoint.

Thanks for putting up the link, I shouldn't have referenced it with out providing it :)

[panopticon]

Interview by Mark Willacy with a worker @ Fukushima Plant on the ongoing situation, possibility of further incidents and the lack of communication from TEPCO with workers on problems at the plant:

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/am/201308/20130812-rnam4-fukushima-workers.mp3

Transcript available here (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-12/nuclear-watchdog-describes-fukushima-contaminated/4879802).

More information available here (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-12/fukushima-plant-workers-raise-safety-concerns/4879960).

Cesium-137, for example, has been shown to have mutagenic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutagen) properties which by itself may not be harmful (ie the mutations may not cause problems for the organism effected) however there is no way of knowing whether the mutations will be beneficial or not. Using examples from Møller & Mousseau's studies into barn swallows in the Chernobyl exclusionary zone it can be seen that while the extension of a tail or the developing of a tuft of feathers on the throat of a bird from a mutation could make it more desirable to potential mates of its species there is the equal likelihood that the mutation could lead to cataracts, beak abnormalities or tumours (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0066939).

Tuft of feathers on throat:

http://cricket.biol.sc.edu/chernobyl/Chernobyl_Research_Initiative/Chernobyl_Abnormalities_files/Media/swallow-throat-tuft%20copy/swallow-throat-tuft%20copy.jpg

Tumour around eye:

http://cricket.biol.sc.edu/chernobyl/Chernobyl_Research_Initiative/Chernobyl_Abnormalities_files/Media/droppedImage/droppedImage.jpg

Cataracts:
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0066939.g002&representation=PNG_I

I am aware that some criticise the work of Møller & Mousseau however having read many of these critiques I am inclined to agree with their work.

In no way am I saying that Hormesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis) is not beneficial in some instances rather that the potential accumulation around the Fukushima plant of the radioactive isotopes of cesium & strontium could lead to mutations that are not beneficial in the slightest. To say 'All radiation is good for you' is as bad as saying 'All radiation is bad for you'. The mutagenic properties of cesium and strontium could lead to an increase in tumours and other physical mutations that, in my personal view, are a potential problem that could be done without.

BTW mSv is millisievert not microsievert (μSv) and from this the roentgen conversion to mSv given earlier in the thread may be incorrect.
1 Roentgen = 10 mGy = 10 mSv or 1 mSv = 0.1 Roentgen (Source (http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Radiation_definitions.html)).
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

Before anyone asks, yes I'm aware of the Galen Winsor presentations.

Sources for images:
http://cricket.biol.sc.edu/chernobyl/Chernobyl_Research_Initiative/Chernobyl_Abnormalities.html
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0066939

[Carmody]

No, I have not watched the video of Galen Winsor.
I read some of the thread on his work and found it unconvincing, and with so much "selling" of the theory going on, it feels suspicious to me.
If there is a succinct, scientific summary of this theory, I would be willing to read it.

Carmody, I believe that radioactive material that is trapped in a reactor could be treated in the way you describe, but is there any remedy for it that you are aware of once it has been released into the ocean and the air?

Oddly enough, probably via the seeding of clouds with aluminum nanodust.

Which is, oddly enough..apparently... a main ingredient in chemtrails.

wide temperature range, an alchemical interaction, low level ph differentials on the particle to particle level. Ie, some form of oxidation on a widespread blanket level. Charles made one comment on the chemtrail planes: 'they're not ours'. I just happened to remember that particular comment, having witnessed a 'dumbell sprayer UFO' in the midst of chemtrail spraying that I was documenting.

:ohwell:

[TargeT]

BTW mSv is millisievert not microsievert (μSv) and from this the roentgen conversion to mSv given earlier in the thread may be incorrect.
1 Roentgen = 10 mGy = 10 mSv or 1 mSv = 0.1 Roentgen (Source (http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Radiation_definitions.html)).


Yep, I got my verbiage wrong, but as you'll see it's no where near as high as you posted, I'm not sure where your math comes from. conversion is straightforward, as 1 Sv = 100 rem by definition.. and further 1Sv = 1000.000 mSv (mili)= 1000000 µSv(Micro)


The roentgen equivalent in man (or mammal) (abbreviated rem) which is an older, CGS, unit of equivalent dose, effective dose, and committed dose. rem is a complex weighted average of absorbed dose, which is a clear physical quantity measured in rads. There is no universally applicable conversion constant from rad to rem.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roentgen_equivalent_man

This page has a helpful calculator for converting measurements:
http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/sievert.php

I think this whole topic is purposefully confusing so the fear can be spread very easily.



So either way, when measured in mSv the levels are tiny. 7,000 R is 65 Sviert (or 65,000 mSv) which can get you sick when exposed directly IN YOUR BLOOD (not exterior to your body, chemio is an internal exposure) 65,000 mSv exposure on your skin would make me nervous, but no where near panic or worried that I would die.

as for animal mutations... there is not much actual science there; you'd need large controll groups & strict documentation etc.. those really tell us nothing and are in them selves a Logical Fallacy!

Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation)

I've had cats with 6 toes, it's a common mutation that has nothign to do with radiation, radiation causing mutation in biological entities is not a common thing; not at all.

[panopticon]

G'day TargeT,




BTW mSv is millisievert not microsievert (μSv) and from this the roentgen conversion to mSv given earlier in the thread may be incorrect.
1 Roentgen = 10 mGy = 10 mSv or 1 mSv = 0.1 Roentgen (Source (http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Radiation_definitions.html)).


Yep, I got my verbiage wrong, but as you'll see it's no where near as high as you posted, I'm not sure where your math comes from. conversion is straightforward, as 1 Sv = 100 rem by definition.. and further 1Sv = 1000.000 mSv (mili)= 1000000 µSv(Micro)


I gave a reference for my conversion process in the above post.

Here is what the page says:


In the SI system, a millisievert (mSv) is defined as "the average accumulated background radiation dose to an individual for 1 year, exclusive of radon, in the United States." 1 mSv is the dose produced by exposure to 1 milligray (mG) of radiation. In the historical system of dosimetry, exposure to 1 roentgen (R) of X-rays results in absorption of 1 rad [radiation-absorbed dose], which had the effect of 1 rem [roentgen-equivalent (in) man].

So I went to the conversion calculator you suggested and did the conversion from R to Sv.
It gave 1 R = 0.0093296637 Sv.
I then used the same calculator to convert 0.0093296637 Sv to mSv.
The amount is 9.329664 mSv.
Not far off the rough approximation I gave of 1 R = 10 mSv.

In my post I then used the 1 R = 10 mSv as a ratio to say that 1 mSv = 0.1 R

This is in line with the conversion calculator that you supplied:
http://www.endmemo.com/convert/radiation%20exposure.php

Which equated 1 mSv to 0.107185 R.

The rest of your stated figures are correct and I have no idea why you felt the need to highlight them.

As I had said the earlier post you made had a simple error in converting R to mSv, which seemed to come from your mistaking μSv for mSv, and I see no error in my rough workings.



The roentgen equivalent in man (or mammal) (abbreviated rem) which is an older, CGS, unit of equivalent dose, effective dose, and committed dose. rem is a complex weighted average of absorbed dose, which is a clear physical quantity measured in rads. There is no universally applicable conversion constant from rad to rem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roentgen_equivalent_man

This page has a helpful calculator for converting measurements:
http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/sievert.php

I think this whole topic is purposefully confusing so the fear can be spread very easily.


Thank you for the information. I was aware of the difficulties associated with the conversion however, as I said above, you had made a claim that '1msv = 0.00001 R (Roentgen)' and I just wanted to point out it was in error as it didn't make any sense.

I think the measuring of radiation is confusing because of the number of ways that a situation can be measured and that there are a number of measuring systems in use. The topic itself is complex and with complexity comes detailed explanation to remove error, which in turn leads to complexity and errors.
Such is the joy...



So either way, when measured in mSv the levels are tiny. 7,000 R is 65 Sviert (or 65,000 mSv) which can get you sick when exposed directly IN YOUR BLOOD (not exterior to your body, chemio is an internal exposure) 65,000 mSv exposure on your skin would make me nervous, but no where near panic or worried that I would die.

as for animal mutations... there is not much actual science there; you'd need large controll groups & strict documentation etc.. those really tell us nothing and are in them selves a Logical Fallacy!

I've had cats with 6 toes, it's a common mutation that has nothign to do with radiation, radiation causing mutation in biological entities is not a common thing; not at all.

Agree with you about mutations being common. They are the basis of evolutionary theory. There is definitely a need for further investigation and sampling of the surrounding flora and fauna in the Chernobyl exclusionary zone. Luckily Møller & Mousseau have made it the main area of their research and the increased duration of the studies and increased study size will hopefully lead to a better understanding of the mutagenic properties of the various radioactive elements associated with the Chernobyl exclusionary zone.

BTW here's a map of Europe showing recorded % abnormalities in Barn Swallow in the different regions. No-one is saying that abnormalities don't occur in nature. Some are quite normal and associated with an organisms ability to survive (as in the cat with 6 toes example you gave). However the rate of abnormalities recorded in the CEZ is quite a bit higher by sample size than in other areas.

http://cricket.biol.sc.edu/chernobyl/Chernobyl_Research_Initiative/Chernobyl_Abnormalities_files/Media/Slide2/Slide2.jpg

I have also supplied a number of links to studies into cataract development in both the Chernobyl liquidators and Japanese atomic bomb survivors. There are a large range and number of studies being undertaken into the effects of radiation exposure at varying levels and it is quite an interesting field to look into. At no stage have I said that radiation is bad, rather that we are unable to predict, with any accuracy, what effects differing levels and duration of radiation exposure have on living organisms. At present the figures for the Nuclear industry (as I remember them anyway) are 20 mSv exposure (that is a per year figure) with a maximum of 100 mSv in any five years. As shown in a study of nuclear workers in 15 countries (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/oerp/pdfs/IARCSummaryFinal2.pdf) it was found that there was a 2% increased risk to employees, who had been exposed at 19 mSv, of them dying from cancer.
The end the study states that:


the estimates of risk found in this study suggest that 1 to 2 per cent of deaths from cancer (including leukaemia) among the workers studied may have been caused by radiation exposure.
Source (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/oerp/pdfs/IARCSummaryFinal2.pdf)

You are completely correct when you say that in some instances exterior exposure is non-lethal (alpha rays can be stopped by a sheet of paper). However it is the difficulties that develop when certain radioactive isotopes are ingested that cause the problems. This is the main problem associated with the Fukushima facility and the release of caesium-137 into the environment. Caesium collects in fatty tissue and can replace certain elements. This leads to low level internal radiation exposure and possible mutation to DNA. That is the danger associated with the Fukushima plants release of caesium into the ocean. The caesium enters the food chain. Personally I don't view it as a huge danger, not as much as the danger of TEPCO not informing anyone about what is happening in the plant (even its own front line employees as in my previous post).

I have no interest in getting into an in depth discussion regarding this, which is why I have not participated in the Galen Winsor thread, but feel it important to put forward my perspective on this when threads reporting the Fukushima accident and TEPCO's ineptitude are repeatedly derailed.
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

Lens Opacities in Children of Belarus Affected by the Chernobyl Accident (http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr21/kr21pdf/Arinchin.pdf)
Cancer risk following low doses of ionising radiation—a 15-country study (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/oerp/pdfs/IARCSummaryFinal2.pdf)
Cataracts among Chernobyl Clean-up Workers: Implications Regarding Permissible Eye Exposures (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4127457)
Postoperative Cataract Cases among Atomic Bomb Survivors: Radiation Dose Response and Threshold (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4540745)

[panopticon]

Here's a page from the Environmental Health & Safety 'Radiation Safety Manual' from MSU on the difference between internal and external exposure to various radiation types (alpha, beta, gamma) and associated risks. I hope it is of use to someone:
http://www.orcbs.msu.edu/radiation/programs_guidelines/radmanual/16rm_exposure.htm
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

BTW anyone who is interested in Hormesis might find the journal from the International Dose-Response Society of interest:
http://www.dose-response.com/

It contains a load of papers on the possible beneficial effects of low dose radiation in the treatment of a range of conditions.

[onawah]

I think Panopticon summed it up very well: "In no way am I saying that Hormesis is not beneficial in some instances rather that the potential accumulation around the Fukushima plant of the radioactive isotopes of cesium & strontium could lead to mutations that are not beneficial in the slightest. To say 'All radiation is good for you' is as bad as saying 'All radiation is bad for you'. The mutagenic properties of cesium and strontium could lead to an increase in tumours and other physical mutations that, in my personal view, are a potential problem that could be done without."

[TargeT]

I think Panopticon summed it up very well: "In no way am I saying that Hormesis is not beneficial in some instances rather that the potential accumulation around the Fukushima plant of the radioactive isotopes of cesium & strontium could lead to mutations that are not beneficial in the slightest. To say 'All radiation is good for you' is as bad as saying 'All radiation is bad for you'. The mutagen properties of cesium and strontium could lead to an increase in tumours and other physical mutations that, in my personal view, are a potential problem that could be done without."

I like those statements and think they may be valid, however, even though Cesium produces gamma rays and is soluble like a salt, I will have to further research how quickly it deludes (one would think EXTREMELY quickly as a salt) in water and how strongly radioactive cesium 137 is (especially in gamma rays, which are the more worrisome penetrating rays.) since this situation is directly effected by ocean pollution it is hard to compare it to any other situation... however I think we will find (in the long term) that as humans it has no effect (other than the typical anomalous percentage) that humans experience with any substance.

my usually slow job is unusually busy currently (something that will spawn many whistle-blower-like threads from me in the near future if I can gather source material from my current course of instruction).