Japan nuclear agency upgrades Fukushima alert level [Archive]

Cidersomerset

21st August 2013, 11:51

BBC News - Fukushima nuclear plant: Radioactive water leak found

DC8kgxBFE4g

Published on 20 Aug 2013

Radioactive water has leaked from a storage tank into the ground at Japan's
Fukushima plant, its operator says.Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) said the
leak of at least 300 tonnes of the highly radioactive water was discovered on
Monday.The plant, crippled by the earthquake and tsunami in 2011, has seen a
series of water leaks and power failures.

The tsunami knocked out cooling systems to the reactors, three of which melted
down.

Rupert Wingfield-Hayes reports.

===================================================

http://static.bbci.co.uk/frameworks/barlesque/2.48.3/desktop/3.5/img/blq-blocks_grey_alpha.png

21 August 2013 Last updated at 09:03

Japan nuclear agency upgrades Fukushima alert level

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/uploadedImages/wnn/Images/Fukushima_Daichi.jpg

Rupert Wingfield-Hayes reports that the change in severity level is regarded as "significant"

Vid on link......http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23776345

Japan's nuclear agency has upgraded the severity level of a radioactive water leak at
the Fukushima plant from one to three on an international scale. Highly radioactive
water was found to be leaking from a storage tank into the ground at the plant on
Monday. It was first classified as a level one incident on the International Nuclear and
Radiological Event Scale (Ines). But Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority proposes
elevating it to level three on the seven-point scale. Japanese reports say it is a
provisional move that had to be confirmed with the IAEA, the UN's nuclear agency.
This week is the first time that Japan has declared an event on the Ines scale since the
2011 earthquake and tsunami. The move was announced in a document on the
agency's website and was subsequently approved at a weekly meeting of the regulatory
body.Shares of plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) fell as much as
13% to 537 yen as investors worried about the impact of the development.

'Five-year dose'

This hand out picture taken by Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) on 19 August 2013
shows contaminated water which leaked from a water tank at Fukushima nuclear power
plant Workers discovered the water was leaking from a tank on Monday

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69400000/jpg/_69400423_019015547.jpg

The March 2011 tsunami knocked out cooling systems to the reactors at the plant, three
of which melted down. Water is now being pumped in to cool the reactors but this
means that a large amount of contaminated water has to be stored on site. this one is
being seen as the most serious to date, because of the volume - 300 tonnes of
radioactive water, according to Tepco - and high levels of radioactivity in the water.

A puddle of the contaminated water was emitting 100 millisieverts an hour of radiation,
Kyodo news agency said earlier this week.

Masayuki Ono, general manager of Tepco, told Reuters news agency: "One hundred
millisieverts per hour is equivalent to the limit for accumulated exposure over five years
for nuclear workers; so it can be said that we found a radiation level strong enough to
give someone a five-year dose of radiation within one hour."

Teams of workers at the plant have surrounded the leaking tank with sandbags and
have been attempting to suck up large puddles of radioactive water.

But, reports the BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Tokyo, it is a difficult and dangerous
job. The water is so radioactive that teams must be constantly rotated and it is clear
that most of the toxic water has already disappeared into the ground.

Under the Ines, events have seven categories starting with Level 0 ("without safety
significance") and Levels 1-3 denoting "incidents" while Levels 4-7 denote "accidents".

The triple meltdown at Fukushima two years ago was classed as a level 7 incident.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69387000/jpg/_69387315_fukushima_leak624.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23776345

=======================================================

New radioactive leak found at Fukushima plant

UFqD16zGdHI

Published on 20 Aug 2013

It's been over two years since a catastrophic Tsunami pounded the Fukushima Nuclear
Power plant spreading radioactive material in the area. The Japanese government did its
best to contain the seepage, but new reports indicate that storage tanks at the plant are
now leaking. RT's Meghan Lopez has more on the alarming update.

Sidney

21st August 2013, 13:20

778 neighbour of some guy

21st August 2013, 13:38

RMorgan

21st August 2013, 13:43

Interesting that they show green healthy looking weeds growing right there in the ground that is saturated with radiated water. Would you not think they would be dead already? Something tells me there is much more to see than that little area of puddle.

Most plant species are not affected by radiation, since their organisms are quite less complex compared to ours.

In fact, some plants even show positive growth response in radioactive regions, such as Chernobyl.

However, even if they appear to be healthy, they should be properly measured for excessive radioactive contamination before being directed for human consumption.

Anyway, this whole situation is quite dangerous; They should try to fix it asap before it gets worse. The problem is that those reactors are so hot, that even robots can´t fix them without melting within just a few minutes.

Weirdest thing ever, a stupid white overall and a piece of plastic called facemask can shield you from ridiculous amounts of lethal toxic radiation apparently, even when on site, and every prepper in the US is wearing lead underpants and drowning his thyroid in iodine and lugols, this is still all very confusing to me, and I still can only guess what is really going on ...

It´s all about exposure time, my friend.

One could approach such site naked for only a couple of minutes and, theoretically, go on with his life without major consequences.

It all depends on the exposure time/radiation level ratio.

Raf.

Sidney

21st August 2013, 13:51

I do wonder the possibilities, of whether or not it CAN be fixed at this point. This seems to have been ongoing since day one, from the original malfunction, and they are now announcing a new leak. When really was it new? Last week, last month? 18 months ago? We really will never know. MSM is always full of tiny truths buried in piles of lies.

778 neighbour of some guy

21st August 2013, 13:52

Wind

21st August 2013, 13:53

What can we do about it? Pray?

TargeT

21st August 2013, 13:59

Interesting that they show green healthy looking weeds growing right there in the ground that is saturated with radiated water. Would you not think they would be dead already? Something tells me there is much more to see than that little area of puddle.

are the levels still .00065 R? (or in other words around 1 millionth the dose a cancer patient recieves).

I didn't see mention of the levels of radiation in this article, isn't that like. THE MOST important piece of information in a situation like this?

I feel like a bit of a broken record, but radiation fear has been "debunked" ... haha

has anyone ever seen actual proof of the levels of radiation that are damaging to humans or fish? 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

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 the area out side the fukushima compound for around 5 months
8 page discussion on that here:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53597-Hormesis-Healing-Yourself-with-Low-Dose-Radiation

edit: fixed links

778 neighbour of some guy

21st August 2013, 14:03

RMorgan

21st August 2013, 14:10

I didn't see mention of the levels of radiation in this article, isn't that like. THE MOST important piece of information in a situation like this?

Hey my friend,

According to the article, a puddle of the contaminated water was emitting 100 millisieverts an hour of radiation, which, according to the general manager of Tepco, is equivalent to the limit for accumulated exposure over five years
for nuclear workers.

Raf.

Sidney

21st August 2013, 14:17

Interesting that they show green healthy looking weeds growing right there in the ground that is saturated with radiated water. Would you not think they would be dead already? Something tells me there is much more to see than that little area of puddle.

are the levels still .00065 R? (or in other words around 1 millionth the dose a cancer patient recieves).

I didn't see mention of the levels of radiation in this article, isn't that like. THE MOST important piece of information in a situation like this?

I feel like a bit of a broken record, but radiation fear has been "debunked" ... haha

has anyone ever seen actual proof of the levels of radiation that are damaging to humans or fish? 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 the area out side the fukushima compound for around 5 months
8 page discussion on that here:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53597-Hormesis-Healing-Yourself-with-Low-Dose-Radiation

I feel I am not really even qualified to comment, because I am not educated well enough on the subject. But are all the massive fish die offs, and pacific dead zones just a bunch of hype too?

TatgeT, what is your opinion of why they are heightening the radiation scare? What is their ultimate motive, if it is really not dangerous? Just trying to connect more dots.

Cognitive Dissident

21st August 2013, 14:27

There have been a number of threads about Fukushima on Project Avalon - the point is that this an on-going disaster which the MSM has been ignoring for the last two years, all the while sites like www.enenews.com and ex-skf.blogspot.com have been chronicling how bad it is.

Funny that, if you look at the Wikipedia entry you would have no idea; their idea of a reliable source is TEPCO...

http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/ is also a good source of analysis.

The corium from the three reactors is somewhere in the ground below the buildings (but nobody knows where - TEPCO have admitted they do not know) - cooling with seawater is ongoing but creating huge amounts of contaminated water, which is going into the Pacific. In addition, the corium is going critical from time to time which releases radioactive material into the air (this gets no media coverage, but is as big a problem as the water). THIS WILL PROBABLY CONTINUE FOR MANY YEARS SINCE THE CORIUM CANNOT BE REACHED NEVER MIND REMOVED.

Sorry for the all caps but that is the take-away message which is very bad news. The current tank leak is unimportant by comparison, even though in absolute terms it is a very serious accident.

The other very serious problem is reactor 4 fuel pool, which is seriously damaged and full of damaged fuel rods (since reactor 4 was shut down in March 2011 and all the rods removed to the pool). They are going to have to remove these rods manually, since any big quake could collapse the fuel pool leading to an uncontrolled and open-air nuclear reaction. Yet removing the rods manually will be like a game of Jenga. This is due to start October/November this year. It is hard to overstate how dangerous this will be. I think there are over 1,000 fuel rods in the pool. Cannot see this ending well.

Finally all of the water used for cooling is being stored in tanks on site, one of these is now leaking. These tanks were constructed cheap and fast. They will not last long, but the water will be radioactive for 100's of years. What do you think will happen? Probably, it will end up in the Pacific.

This is all very, very bad...

However, no discussion of Fukushima could be completed without mentioning that cancer is fully curable, not least by using hemp oil (Rick Simpson). So we cannot ONLY look at Fukushima (or we would get very, very depressed)...

TargeT

21st August 2013, 14:28

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 the area out side the fukushima compound for around 5 months
8 page discussion on that here:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53597-Hormesis-Healing-Yourself-with-Low-Dose-Radiation

O yeah that's right, how is that working out for you btw, any benefits?

:(404 link:(

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53597-Hormesis-Healing-Yourself-with-Low-Dose-Radiation

Some people use it for pain and infections, I'm using it as a preventative measure, so no "immediate" benefits; though I'm 33, semi active and conscious of what I eat & also very very resistant to substances so I'm not the best cause study.

the thread has some interesting results of the use of radioactive mudpacks and drinking water (which I am looking into as well).

it also has details on studies that show people exposed to the levels of radiation at fukushima live longer and more cancer free than those not exposed.

I didn't see mention of the levels of radiation in this article, isn't that like. THE MOST important piece of information in a situation like this?

Hey my friend,

According to the article, a puddle of the contaminated water was emitting 100 millisieverts an hour of radiation, which, according to the general manager of Tepco, is equivalent to the limit for accumulated exposure over five years
for nuclear workers.

Raf.

the question I pose is: who set the levels of exposure, and why are they SO LOW?

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.

I feel I am not really even qualified to comment, because I am not educated well enough on the subject. But are all the massive fish die offs, and pacific dead zones just a bunch of hype too?
.

The fish die offs were due to lack of o2, which is concerning, absolutely! but had nothing to do with radiation.

they were a perfect example of Logical Fallacy ( Correlation does not equal causation)

TatgeT, what is your opinion of why they are heightening the radiation scare? What is their ultimate motive, if it is really not dangerous? Just trying to connect more dots.

Well, first I'd say Energy:
LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) is called by scientists "burning rocks"
uK367T7h6ZY
we would have so much abundance of energy it would be ridiculous and the oil based economy would collapse.

Second (and minor compared to the first) health, what if cancer rates FELL dramatically, all that money lost?
What if infection rates fell dramatically?

It fits very well with the controlstructure's typical M.O.

Over all I'd say this topic (the false nuclear scare/scam) is the MOST IMPORTANT topic with the exception of archons and most relivant to every day life that I have found in my time on this forum.

Nothing else comes close (as far as every day impact is concerned) and yet it's hardly talked about :doh:

Ernie Nemeth

21st August 2013, 14:59

I'm not sure if radioactivity is as dangerous as we have been lead to believe. Ever since I watched that video where the guy eats plutonium and uranium I have wondered about the radiation effect. So, from the top of my head:

What is radio-activity? It is the tiny clicks a geigercounter measures. Those little clicks are supposedly gamma ray particles emitted by certain unstable elements like uranium, plutonium, radium, cobalt, etc. Over time, these elements decay into other, lighter elements. It is said that all elements except I believe it is iron (or is it lead, can't remember, one of those two anyway) are unstable - lighter elements combine and heavier elements split into two until all elements eventually become iron (or lead). And that's it. That's the whole effect in a nut shell.

The idea that a substance can be contaminated by radioactivity has no theoretical explanation. What would do the contaminating? Now, if radioactive particles or elements are diluted in water for example, then the water is very much contaminated. But if water is only in close proximity to some radioactive material it theoretically should be fine once removed from the vicinity of the radioactive source.

Somehow, somewhere, we were mislead to believe that exposure to radioactivity makes you radioactive - it does not!

I've been racking my head over this one ever since that video. I cannot find any theoretical evidence or any physical phenomena to explain the radioactive contamination, without physical mixing, of a non-radioactive material. It just does not make scientific sense.

Another way of saying this is you will not glow green if exposed to radioactivity. Maybe that's how the astronauts made it to the moon without sufficient shielding, there is no effect like the one they propose. And remember, those spacecraft that did go to space are on display to the public. That would now be possible if they had truly been contaminated by radioactive material from outer space.

TargeT

21st August 2013, 15:09

Maybe that's how the astronauts made it to the moon without sufficient shielding, there is no effect like the one they propose. And remember, those spacecraft that did go to space are on display to the public. That would now be possible if they had truly been contaminated by radioactive material from outer space.

funny that you mention that, before I learned what I now understand about radiation I was SURE the moon landing was a hoax, after all the radiation in space would have cooked the astronauts,,,, RIGHT? then I saw the same video you spoke of and did some research into where the NRC (http://www.nrc.gov/) got it's numbers from and it's guide line that "no exposure is acceptable" and found it came from no where that I or anyone I know would base a decision off of.

this truely is a fascinating topic that is hurting the globe right now, if LFTR reactors (see above short video) were exploited we could have energy that is so in-expensive and safe that we would laugh at what our current selves are doing.

Thorium is the most prevalant isotope on the planet, and right now the US (due to the NCR) has to store it in special places due to its level of radioactivity... this stuff is everywhere, in every square inch of dirt in the US... and yet the extra costs of dealing with it have COMPLETELY DECIMATED the Rare Earth element mining operations in the US to the point that we don't even have any now....

This has put CHINA in a very very special economic position (which makes me wonder if this was part of the idea behind the nuclear scare... long term economic planning that was preparing to leverage the HUGE BOOM of the largest population in the world creating an aflluent middle class).

Lone Bean

21st August 2013, 15:10

Debate all you want about the levels of radioactivity and the differing types. Eat Uranium, wear highly radio-active jewelry......whatever. The end result will still be the same. Chances of the Japanese extracting over 1,300 spent fuel rods from a severely damaged fuel pool......all by hand and wearing visually restricting safety gear, is extremely slim......practically non-existent. We are doomed to all die in about 4 months time from severe radiation poisoning. The bright spot in all of this is this - We have been given a wonderful opportunity to evolve suddenly, en masse, to the next level if we do it right. It will take a lot of people raising their consciousness as high as they can, but it could definitely work. That kind of empowerment will negate the radioactivity......or so I've been told by those who seem to know what they're talking about. Here's an article that more clearly describes in good detail, what we get to look forward to concerning the removal of the spent fuel rods.

http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q32013/japanese-gamble-armageddon-in-last-ditch-fukushima-effort/

Personally, I'd much rather evolve than perish due to our global leader's insanity.

Ernie Nemeth

21st August 2013, 15:21

Maybe that radioactivity exposure will mutate our DNA and help with this evolution you speak of. Maybe that's how we all evolve to a higher level en mass.

TargeT

21st August 2013, 15:33

Cidersomerset

21st August 2013, 15:40

Fukushima :Tepco admit contaminated water has leaked into the Pacific

GtnvhNMFAi4

Published on 20 Aug 2013

The operator of Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear
plant says around 300 tonnes of highly...

Cidersomerset

21st August 2013, 15:56

Maybe that radioactivity exposure will mutate our DNA and help with this evolution you speak of. Maybe that's how we all evolve to a higher level en mass.

Its a bit complicated Ernie but basically in the ion material the atmosphere is changing now into a more CO2 based mix.
We are supposed to be mutating with it ? Who knows ? but it seems odd TPTB are not doing more to protect forests etc.
Unless they know there is not much they can do and this is a evolutionary event. Its all to do with our changing cells.....

RMorgan

21st August 2013, 16:01

We are doomed to all die in about 4 months time from severe radiation poisoning..

see this is exactly what we are dealing with here; it's baffling, not ONE PERSON has been hospitalized or even sick from radiation poisoning in the Fukushima incident and yet some people REALLY BELIEVE that the whole planet will die due to this..

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

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

Hey brother,

The thing is that, depending on the level and period of exposure, it can take a long time for radiation related illness to manifest, mostly in form of cancers like leukemia.

Also, ionizing radiation directly damages DNA, which most of the times leads to defective offspring, like happened in the Chernobyl region, where hundreds of children were born with several kinds of devastating deformities after the disaster.

Regarding spent fuel rods, you´re totally wrong. They are are actually highly radioactive, very unstable and extremely dangerous.

The spent rods give off considerable amounts of decay heat and thus must be submerged in constantly circulating water. Expose them to air for a day or two, and they begin to combust, giving off large amounts of radioactive cesium-137, a very toxic, long-lasting, aggressively penetrating radioactive element with a half-life of thirty years. When cesium-137 enters the environment, it essentially acts like potassium and is taken up by plants and animals that use potassium. (For the record, that includes you; So good luck sleeping next to one of those.)

This is not fear backed up by nothing, as far as I can understand.

Raf.

DNA

21st August 2013, 16:11

I feel like a bit of a broken record, but radiation fear has been "debunked" ... haha

has anyone ever seen actual proof of the levels of radiation that are damaging to humans or fish? 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

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 the area out side the fukushima compound for around 5 months
8 page discussion on that here:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53597-Hormesis-Healing-Yourself-with-Low-Dose-Radiation

edit: fixed links

I know what you are talking about

Radiation for health and happiness :
Jacob Schor
May 20, 2007

Homemade radioactive tonic water: (http://www.denvernaturopathic.com/revigator.htm)
In the early 1900s, the Revigator Company of San Francisco made and sold thousands of ceramic water dispensers lined with radioactive material. (http://www.denvernaturopathic.com/revigator.htm)

http://www.denvernaturopathic.com/images/clip_image002_001.jpg

I don't know what to think of the whole thing, but I know what you are talking about.

TargeT

21st August 2013, 16:17

Weirdest thing ever, a stupid white overall and a piece of plastic called facemask can shield you from ridiculous amounts of lethal toxic radiation apparently, even when on site, and every prepper in the US is wearing lead underpants and drowning his thyroid in iodine and lugols, this is still all very confusing to me, and I still can only guess what is really going on ...

It´s all about exposure time, my friend.

One could approach such site naked for only a couple of minutes and, theoretically, go on with his life without major consequences.

It all depends on the exposure time/radiation level ratio.

Raf.

well, yes and mostly no...

it's mostly about the type of particle emmited, alpha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particle) particles can be blocked by a piece of paper & most Beta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle) particles can be stopped by a few millimeters of aluminium , Shielding from gamma rays requires large amounts of mass, in contrast to alpha particles which can be blocked by paper or skin, and beta particles which can be shielded by foil. Gamma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray) rays are better absorbed by materials with high atomic numbers and high density, although neither effect is important compared to the total mass per area in the path of the gamma ray.

Alpha and Beta particles are not that big of a deal, Gamma is the one you need to worry about.

time of exposure is important, think of an icecream cone under a small stream of warm water,, the longer it's there the more effect it will have.

Maybe that radioactivity exposure will mutate our DNA and help with this evolution you speak of. Maybe that's how we all evolve to a higher level en mass.

Its a bit complicated Ernie but basically in the ion material the atmosphere is changing now into a more CO2 based mix.
We are supposed to be mutating with it ? Who knows ? but it seems odd TPTB are not doing more to protect forests etc.
Unless they know there is not much they can do and this is a evolutionary event. Its all to do with our changing cells.....

Radiation can change DNA, but so can thoughts /emotion....
(http://noeticdigest.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/the-language-of-dna-can-dna-be-reprogrammed-by-words-and-frequencies/)
Who ever said that DNA had to remain static, why are we afraid of change (the ONLY constant in the universe is: change)

Recap:

it's proven that low levels of radiation are healthy for you (like the levels at Fukushima), but like EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD (reality) too much is bad for you...

Sidney

21st August 2013, 16:25

So, whats the plan? They are going to radiate us via the cell towers, knowing we already have built in receptors (chemtrails/morgellon bot). Radiate us all, then say Fukushima did it? There must be an end plan, with relation to this. And what is causing all of the mass bird/fish/animal deaths around the planet???

http://www.end-times-prophecy.org/animal-deaths-birds-fish-end-times.html these are 2013 only. they list articles from other years as well, with adjoining links to legit. news sources.

SKIBADABOMSKI

21st August 2013, 16:25

I have taken over 14 flights in the past month alone and I live 200 plus kilometers away from this plant so I guess I should be glowing like the Ready Brek Kid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4raE9Bs2R4

But seriously...

Trying to think of something important and positive to say but in all honesty I don't give a rats furry ball sack about this anymore...

I'm just glad to live in a pretty much crime free, clean, wealthy, country filled with fearless, clever, healthy looking people.

Love Japanese food and love Japan.

TargeT

21st August 2013, 16:31

Hey brother,

The thing is that, depending on the level and period of exposure, it can take a long time for radiation related illness to manifest, mostly in form of cancers like leukemia.

Please show me a study that shows this is the case; I've found nothing that proves this is the case. radiation illness manifests very quickly, ask any cancer patient on chemo.

Also, ionizing radiation directly damages DNA, which most of the times leads to defective offspring, like happened in the Chernobyl region, where hundreds of children were born with several kinds of devastating deformities after the disaster.

"damage" "change" ok.. both those words fit...

Show me one study of the "Chernobyl children" that proves they turned out that way because of radiation (remember, Correlation does NOT equal causation) I've looked into this as well.

Regarding spent fuel rods, you´re totally wrong. They are are actually highly radioactive, very unstable and extremely dangerous.

The spent rods give off considerable amounts of decay heat and thus must be submerged in constantly circulating water. Expose them to air for a day or two, and they begin to combust, giving off large amounts of radioactive cesium-137, a very toxic, long-lasting, aggressively penetrating radioactive element with a half-life of thirty years. When cesium-137 enters the environment, it essentially acts like potassium and is taken up by plants and animals that use potassium. (For the record, that includes you; So good luck sleeping next to one of those.)

This is not fear backed up by nothing, as far as I can understand.

Raf.

When a nuclear reactor has been shut down and the nuclear fission chain reaction has ceased (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle), a significant amount of heat will still be produced in the fuel due to the beta decay of fission products. For this reason, at the moment of reactor shutdown, decay heat will be about 7% of the previous core power if the reactor has had a long and steady power history. About 1 hour after shutdown, the decay heat will be about 1.5% of the previous core power. After a day, the decay heat falls to 0.4%, and after a week it will be 0.2%. The decay heat production rate will continue to slowly decrease over time.

Spent fuel that has been removed from a reactor is ordinarily stored in a water-filled spent fuel pool for a year or more (in some sites 10 to 20 years) in order to cool it and provide shielding from its radioactivity; the rods at Fukushima have been sitting for over 3 years; simple containment with graphite and/or heavy water is all that is needed it's not like these things will get exposed to the air and explode into flames.

this is not janga, this is not impossible, it's done all the time.

I don't know what to think of the whole thing, but I know what you are talking about.

theres kind of two discussions here:

1) low level radiation is good for you (100 msv leaking water....)

2) high level radiation is bad for you (spent fuel rods)

I don't mean to say in any way that concentrated nuclear materials are safe and you should go near them, but we are rather good at dealing with that stuff & it's not going to kill the world ;)

Ernie Nemeth

21st August 2013, 16:33

DNA

21st August 2013, 16:35

theres kind of two discussions here:

1) low level radiation is good for you (100 msv leaking water....)

2) high level radiation is bad for you (spent fuel rods)

I don't mean to say in any way that concentrated nuclear materials are safe and you should go near them, but we are rather good at dealing with that stuff & it's not going to kill the world ;)

Targe my brother,
I don't give a rats ass what people say about you, you are my kind of man. :)
I have been worrying my ass off about this, and I'm going to believe you just because the alternative is going to make me lose my hair quicker than any amount of radiation.

If it's one thing this whole alternative news community can do, it's worry the efn sh!t out of you.

So I appreciate a calm the ef down kind of approach.
Thank You

Thank you very much

Lone Bean

21st August 2013, 16:55

Delight

21st August 2013, 17:16

Yes, the cells. Interesting you should mention that at this time. I'm reading that book offered by Dan33 a few days ago titled, The Mind of the Cell. It is a wonderful, albeit a bit of a mishmash, story of "The Mother", a student of Sri Aurobindo. She says it is the cells that are evolving, and the human form, the form of all species change as a result (generalized interpretation, subjectified).

She says, she has since died, that the cells are about to become conscious like we are conscious, only not like we are conscious at all but a new consciousness without the blinders and fetters imposed by the ego, which is only a conclomeration of ancient habits that once served a purpose but no longer aid our progression forward. These habits must be unlearned, cancelled - and only the cells are in a position to achieve that goal (again, my interpretation only).

I liked Dan33's contribution also....The major take I receive from every place is that it is up to us to establish the system of coherence of beliefs consciously. Otherwise, we just will have what is predominant in the "surroundings" of the programmed life. So, there are many ways to take back authority. There is no secure place to do that though...

http://aurobindo.ru/workings/satprem/mind_of_cells_e.htm

I was sad to read that according to the author of "The Mind of the Cells", Mother Mirra had become like a prisoner at the end in the ashram of "her" people (she died at 95 years and was afraid her body would be buried before its transcendence).

The devotees were said to be upset that she had taken off in a direction away from their preferred script. I wondered about that paradox...there she was seemingly an Avatar but a prisoner ...surrounded by people who were threatened because she might undermine whatever authority they had gained and property they managed.

Last year I learned about Dr. Ingrid Naiman...I really like this website http://kitchendoctor.com/ (http://kitchendoctor.com/)

Dr. Naiman is eclectic and has many very valuable articles...she seems just the kind of person who embraces that we could be evolving at the cellular level and we are the ones to overcome the belief barriers and cooperate. I definitely think the reality we experience is a YES/AND that is shifty.

Here is a bit from Dr. Naiman I appreciate

from here: http://www.ingridnaiman.com/subscription_lists/radiation/next-heaven.html

what is emerging from Japan is a movement to return to ancient values and harmony with Nature so as to live in this higher dimension of consciousness (and purity) and also rise above the level where radiation is toxic. For my part, I have insisted from the beginning that the problem is not that radiation is "bad" but that what causes the radiation is instability of the metals. They are unstable because they have unpartnered electrons and this is corrected through partnering with what is needed for stability. We are aware that plants can provide this balance but whether the psyche can emulate the plant behavior in a manner that achieves the same stable relationship is not known. Theoretically, this will work for some and fail for others simply because of what we believe to be true. Fear, of course, is a severely undermining force so to deal with my own demons, I have to disconnect from "there" and reconnect with "here". For instance, I spent time on Saturday inviting the wild animals who live here to become more friendly. It was a fabulous experience because almost the moment I had this thought, a squirrel came to have her portrait taken. She was so obliging that I rewarded her with some peanuts that she calmly ate while I shot more pictures, no grabbing things and running. A little while later, a rabbit came to introduce her baby bunny. I felt very fortunate indeed and decided to test my luck. There have been way too many ants and I decided to tell them they really needed to live outdoors and they immediately left, proving one does not need insecticides if one can deal with apparently conflicting needs in a civil manner. By evening, I was supercharged. It seemed like the perfect time to try a new flower essence to see just how far beyond the veil I could go. I think the point is that we have to "do" this, meaning we have to formulate the intent and set aside the time and then follow through on the energies initiated by the mind.

TargeT

21st August 2013, 17:22

. Helen Caldicott http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBt5mMAfB5c

I can post tons of proof beyond any doubt but honestly, I have much better things to do. If you don't believe, or you don't want to believe, then that is your choice. If you want to believe that these levels of radioactivity are harmless then fine. I have no need to argue, nor do I choose too. I hope you are right, but I seriously doubt it.

well I've only been exposed to around 2-3 times the levels of radiation that are found around the Fukushima area for 6 months or so now, if I die I'll make sure my wife knows to post a very detailed retraction and warning to everyone here and everyone that's been around me lately!

The video you posted is from Helen Caldicott (of course I've researched her in the past, she is one of the main anti-nuclear lobbiests) I had to find out if what she was saying was true or not, as should anyone who listens to anyone about anything ;)

The unpalatable truth is that the anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all
I've discovered that when the facts don't suit them, the movement resorts to the follies of cover-up they usually denounce

Over the last fortnight I've made a deeply troubling discovery. The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health. The claims we have made are ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged, and wildly wrong. We have done other people, and ourselves, a terrible disservice.

I began to see the extent of the problem after a debate last week with Helen Caldicott. Dr Caldicott is the world's foremost anti-nuclear campaigner. She has received 21 honorary degrees and scores of awards, and was nominated for a Nobel peace prize. Like other greens, I was in awe of her. In the debate she made some striking statements about the dangers of radiation. So I did what anyone faced with questionable scientific claims should do: I asked for the sources. Caldicott's response has profoundly shaken me.
First she sent me nine documents: newspaper articles, press releases and an advertisement. None were scientific publications; none contained sources for the claims she had made. But one of the press releases referred to a report by the US National Academy of Sciences, which she urged me to read. I have now done so – all 423 pages. It supports none of the statements I questioned; in fact it strongly contradicts her claims about the health effects of radiation.

I pressed her further and she gave me a series of answers that made my heart sink – in most cases they referred to publications which had little or no scientific standing, which did not support her claims or which contradicted them. (I have posted our correspondence, and my sources, on my website.) I have just read her book Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer. The scarcity of references to scientific papers and the abundance of unsourced claims it contains amaze me.

For the last 25 years anti-nuclear campaigners have been racking up the figures for deaths and diseases caused by the Chernobyl disaster, and parading deformed babies like a medieval circus. They now claim 985,000 people have been killed by Chernobyl, and that it will continue to slaughter people for generations to come. These claims are false.

Read the rest here, I don't need to clutter this thread up:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

if you truely wish to be rational about this and check facts, please do so, otherwise you are just emotionally responding (and probably being manipulated to do so).

I will gladly look into anything offered, and I've done so enough that I not only changed my mind about radiation and nuclear material, but I now WEAR IT AROUND MY NECK 24/7...

4evrneo

21st August 2013, 18:23

avid

21st August 2013, 18:47

TargeT

21st August 2013, 19:12

Good grief! Loads of cancerous tumours, thyroid dysfunctions - been on the web since 6 months after Fukushima. Many operatives have died whilst trying to make it safe. TargeT - that blanket statement of yours is ludicrous - I am therefore concerned about MSM coverage of an erstwhile lethal situation. Please folks - look up the toxins for yourselves. Living on the west coast of North America is NOT pleasant - cancer deaths are increasing rapidly. There are many studies related to the toxic spread of radioactive waste from this vile incident. This is real - this is threatening YOU and your families - don't ignore this!!!!

Keep safe, Avid

please provide links to your claims, there were cancerous tumors, thyroid dysfunctions and all that fun stuff long before fukushima, correlation does not equal causation.

I've lived in the west coast of North America my whole life, I've been in the waters, I lived in a coastal town in Alaska for the last 13 years, fished it's oceans (ate lots of halibut) and walked it's shores.

have you?

I've only been out of that environment for 7 months now; when was the last time you were there?

FEAR AND STRESS ARE HARMFUL, they change your DNA. (http://noeticdigest.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/the-language-of-dna-can-dna-be-reprogrammed-by-words-and-frequencies/).. what's the REAL threat here? posts like yours literally harm people, I hope you have done your due diligence, I hope you have truly researched these topics enough to be responsible for what you are doing by pushing this fear line...

are you ready to accept the consequences of damaging people over something you do not fully understand?

Make a statement: Back it up with proof, if I don't do it call me out and I will.

Be responsible for your actions.

bogeyman

21st August 2013, 20:12

Many more people will suffer as a result of this event it will take time, radiation will effect the food supply, water supply and even nature itself. I cannot understand why Japan uses Nuclear power after the use of the Atomic Bomb and those that are still effected by it.

avid

21st August 2013, 20:12

TargeT: - amongst many many papers evidenced: If thou does't protest too much I doubt your veracity! ;-) Really - there is too much 'out there' to dispute that there is pollution on a greater scale than we would care to imagine - too horrific to get in MSM - and struggling in the alternative media due to vast disinfo campaigns.
http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf

Lone Bean

21st August 2013, 20:18

Target - I have only skimmed your posts. Honestly, it does not matter to me if you believe the extreme amounts of radiation coming from Japan will harm you or not. Maybe you'll be one of the lucky ones and will somehow manage to survive while all the rest of us die. But this stuff is real, it's serious and I'm making plans to have all my unfinished business done a.s.a.p. and be ready to go home.

Of all the happenings going on in the world right now, of all the abuses and crimes and wars and bloodshed, starvation and death......the events at Fukushima are by far, the most important.

Good luck to you and I mean that.

Kimberley

21st August 2013, 20:24

778 neighbour of some guy

21st August 2013, 22:25

I only have a minute here but want to back up Target and say that I am right there with him on this topic!!! We have been compiling information for over a year that supports that we have been lied to about nuclear energy being deadly and dangerous...

I'll try to get back to this, however in the mean time, as Target already posted, unless you have gone through everything in the MOST IMPORTANT THREAD ON THIS FORUM (IMHO) Your comments do not come from a place of knowledge on this topic...

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

Good thread, go see Galen Windsor speak, very informative, sot hot not a single mod thanked for it, go figure, they removed it because it wasn't posted on much some time ago ( few months), this was odd since there are threads on this forum that haven't been posted on for YEARS and they are still here, i am glad its a sticky and it should remain so, i am not posting on it anymore because sometimes it goes over my head but the thread offers a perspective that must be seen, heard and discussed.

I am with Target and Kimberley here, we haven't even begun to approach the bottom of this stinky pit and things could be very different than they explained to us or better yet, fed us, scared the living sh!t out of three generations with their cold war tactics and fear mongering. Better to get to the bottom of this if that cant be done, well a safer form of energy must be introduced like thorium, since we all know free energy, is not going to happen for a long long time.

I wish Radiant health to all of you.

Ernie Nemeth

21st August 2013, 22:55

I also don't know enough to take a stand against the radiation scare.

But I ask again, What radiation? You mean gamma ray, alpha rays, beta rays? Then ya, these are particles of energy and if your body is bombarded by enough of them in a given amount of time, they can hurt you. But so can holding your hand above an open flame. When I take my hand out of the flame the exposure ends. It does not cause my hand to continue heating or burning on its own or otherwise contaminate my hand. What is so special about so called radioactive material that makes it behave in this supposed manner?

Radiation as we have been trained to think of it is capable of contaminating material in close proximity to a radioactive source. There is no mechanism I know of to account for this claim.

onawah

21st August 2013, 23:07

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

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

ghostrider

22nd August 2013, 00:00

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

TargeT

22nd August 2013, 00:29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

778 neighbour of some guy

22nd August 2013, 01:23

mOVdqh22ohk

giovonni

22nd August 2013, 06:34

So there you have ... :)

enough said ...

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

Published on Aug 21, 2013

article link: http://www.naturalnews.com/041720_Fukushima_radiation_Japanese_government_pro paganda_brainwashing.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iruuJj1e3Kk

onawah

22nd August 2013, 06:39

TargeT

22nd August 2013, 14:04

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lone Bean

22nd August 2013, 14:31

Kimberley

22nd August 2013, 14:48

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

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

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

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

TargeT

22nd August 2013, 15:18

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

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

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

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

everything can be dangerous.

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

Do not polarize this issue, like everything seek ballance.

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

onawah

22nd August 2013, 21:28

TargeT

23rd August 2013, 02:06

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

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

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

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

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

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

how do we know what birth deformity was from?

this entire idea seems like a double logical fallacy to me, appeal to emotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion) and correlation does not imply causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation)

onawah

23rd August 2013, 03:08

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

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

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

Bill Ryan

23rd August 2013, 03:30

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

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

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

From http://globalresearch.ca/new-book-concludes-chernobyl-death-toll-985-000-mostly-from-cancer/20908

Chernobyl Death Toll: 985,000, Mostly from Cancer

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

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

It is authored by three noted scientists:

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

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

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

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

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

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

TargeT

23rd August 2013, 04:30

Chernobyl Death Toll: 985,000, Mostly from Cancer

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

Consider the following:

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

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

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

Failing to provide sources, refuting data with anecdote, cherry-picking studies, scorning the scientific consensus, invoking a cover-up to explain it
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can see I'm not getting much traction here, that's fine, I absolutely understand how the neurological response functions when a strongly held belief is challenged (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbh5l0b2-0o); there is simply no way anyone but YOU can change your mind.

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

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

Break your self out of the feed back loop, it's hard, ego and basic neurological / physiological responses (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbh5l0b2-0o) are against you in this; but I think that consciousness overcoming the physical/material realm is probably one of the most important steps humanity can take to change our current situation on every level.

Harley

23rd August 2013, 07:45

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

West Coast of North America to Be Hit Hard by Fukushima Radiation
GlobalResearch (http://www.globalresearch.ca/west-coast-of-north-america-to-be-hit-hard-by-fukushima-radiation/5346470)
20 August 2013

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

An ocean current called the North Pacific Gyre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pacific_Gyre) is bringing Japanese radiation to the West Coast of North America:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/North_Pacific_Subtropical_Convergence_Zone.jpg
Caption: FDA Refuses to Test Fish for Radioactivity ...
Government Pretends Radioactive Fish is Safe.

While many people assume that the ocean will dilute the Fukushima radiation, a previously-secret 1955 U.S. government report concluded that the ocean may not adequately dilute radiation from nuclear accidents, and there could be “pockets” and “streams” of highly-concentrated radiation. (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/06/why-the-ocean-may-not-adequately-dilute-the-radiation-from-fukushima.html)

The University of Hawaii’s International Pacific Research Center (http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/) created a graphic showing the projected dispersion of debris from Japan:

http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/users/nikolai/2011/Pacific_Islands/Simulation_of_Debris_from_March_11_2011_Japan_tsunami.gif

Last year, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory and 3 scientists from the GEOMAR Research Center for Marine Geosciences showed that radiation on the West Coast of North America could end up being 10 times higher than in Japan: (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/07/radiation-in-west-coast-of-north-america-could-be-10-times-higher-than-japan.html)

After 10 years the concentrations become nearly homogeneous over the whole Pacific, with higher values in the east, extending along the North American coast with a maximum (~1 × 10−4) off Baja California.
Read more from Here (http://www.globalresearch.ca/west-coast-of-north-america-to-be-hit-hard-by-fukushima-radiation/5346470)

"We think something happened in the ocean." (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62520-We-think-something-happened-in-the-ocean.)

Japan nuclear agency upgrades Fukushima alert level (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23776345)

China ‘shocked’ by water leak at Fukushima nuclear plant (http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1298508/china-shocked-water-leak-fukushima-nuclear-plant)

Bill Ryan

23rd August 2013, 10:44

-------

Radiation Sickness from Chernobyl:

http://projectavalon.net/Radiation_sickness_from_Chernobyl.jpg

Adi

23rd August 2013, 11:43

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

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

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

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

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

Adi

RMorgan

23rd August 2013, 11:48

Fukushima operator pleads for international help as radiation crisis deepens

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

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

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

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

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

Limor Wolf

23rd August 2013, 12:15

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

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

SEAM

23rd August 2013, 13:12

I heard Thom Hartman's show, a couple days ago, and it seems he and his guest have nailed it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCf4MkD4qm4

Cidersomerset

23rd August 2013, 13:42

fukushima out of control august 2013

Pz1j4IHcsP4

Of course Hollywoood has all ready
covered this. 'The China syndrome'.
I don't think I saw the movie......

THE CHINA SYNDROME — ReThink Review

fmdSBQGqfJw

Cidersomerset

23rd August 2013, 13:55

Fukushima NHK Documentary: "Two Years Later"

The Human stories..... & Environmental cost...

kKCZ9N5qaOg

Published on 20 Apr 2013

2 years after the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, more than
150,000 people in Fukushima Prefecture are still forced to leave their homes and
try to rebuild their lives amid the threat of radiation exposure. We'll look into the
unprecedented challenges they are facing.
Air date 4/19/13

I apologize for the mediocre quality of the video. It is a broadcasting issue, perhaps
solar activity and it does happen occasionally. There is a very limited time period to
capture these documentaries, only a few times during a 48 hour period and then
NHK pulls them down from their site.

Bill Ryan

23rd August 2013, 13:57

I heard Thom Hartmann's show, a couple days ago, and it seems he and his guest have nailed it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCf4MkD4qm4

The YouTube text:

They are turning ground into quicksand at Fukushima plant — Engineers warn reactor units may topple.

Thom Hartmann, Host: So what's the fate and future Fukushima first of all?

Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear: [...] In the context of what's going on now with the groundwater flooding of the site — because one of their mitigation measures which is pretty not very well thought out, was building a seawall by freezing the ground — and guess what? The groundwater is piling up behind the seawall. [...] by backing up the water under the entire site, they are turning the ground into quicksand. And that's causing less stability — more instability. There are structural engineers and nuclear engineers warning that may be the final straw that's needed to topple not only Unit 4, but perhaps some of those other destroyed units with their high-level radioactive waste stored in pools fifty feet up in the air.[...] If that [Unit 4] pool goes down — enough of that fuel is still in there — it'll be on fire [...]

Hartmann: And the prevailing winds and the prevailing ocean currents take water from the coast of Japan where?

Kamps: To North America. Within days of the Fukushima Daiichi catastrophe beginning, we were getting fallout coming down in rain in the United States — not in insignificant quantities. And also, of course, the seafood. Not only does the ocean's currents bring the radioactivity this way, but also the sea life itself. The blue fin tuna migrated from Japan to North America and carried the radioactive cesium in its flesh over here.

Title: Interview with Kevin Kamps
Source: Thom Hartmann Program
Date: August 12th, 2013
Fukushima: Is the "China Syndrome" Happening?
http://youtu.be/MOhb4gVM6rY

Japan Official: Fukushima reactor buildings could "topple" — Tepco's work to change flow of groundwater can form pools below surface that soften the earth
Title: Japan Nuclear Plant's Battle to Contain Radioactive Water
Source: Wall St Journal
Authors: MARI IWATA and PHRED DVORAK
Date: August 6, 2013

[...] as [Tepco] prepares this week to start work on a new set of measures that would ring off and cap the area where the most highly contaminated water has been found, some experts and regulators are saying that the battle to completely contain radioactivity to the site of one of the world's worst nuclear accidents may be a losing one. [...]

It's preparing to extend the underground hardened-earth barrier in a ring around the most heavily contaminated section of coastline, in hopes of heading groundwater off before it can flood in. Tepco is also proposing to cap that ringed section with gravel and asphalt, so nothing gets out. The operator is hoping to get an initial ring of hardened ground done by October. [...]

But there's a risk to changing the flow of groundwater in the ways that Tepco is considering, said Tatsuya Shinkawa, nuclear accident response director of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, at a news conference last month. The water could pool dangerously underground, softening the earth and potentially toppling the reactor buildings, he said. [...]

BBC: Water crisis at Fukushima has only just begun — "Plant sits smack in the middle of an underground aquifer" — It's rapidly being overwhelmed deep beneath ground
Title: Fukushima radioactive water leak an 'emergency'
Source: BBC News
Date: August 6, 2013

Transcript Excerpts

Rupert Wingfield-Hayes, BBC News, Tokyo: [...] Engineers are now facing a new emergency. The Fukushima plant sits smack in the middle of an underground aquifer. Deep beneath the ground, the site is rapidly being overwhelmed by water. [...]

It's now so high, the water will soon reach the surface. Then it will start flowing over-ground into the sea. [...]

Even if the government does step in, it's not clear what it could do. The only other solution is to pump out the contaminated groundwater and put it in storage tanks. [...] Most of them are already filled up.

At least 400 tons of new water pours into the site every day. It's going to continue for years and years.

Fukushima's water crisis has only just begun.
http://tinyurl.com/p2x6oey
Part 2
caller: NRC says Don't Worry about Fukushima
http://youtu.be/QiWhpXNZ_Yg

A great article here (not discussed in this upload, but it makes for a good read)
The Secret GOOD NEWS from Fukushima
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/... (http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-08-12/secret-good-news-fukushima)
http://tinyurl.com/k8run6m

Cidersomerset

23rd August 2013, 15:27

Helen Caldicott - The Truth About Fukushima

Interesting intro when she talks about our
macho leaders letting their reptilian brains
take over ...before going onto Fukushima.

Very Strong forthright presentation........
Her premise all Physicians should lead the
way to close all nuclear plants worldwide...

BCvCMc-XTSI

Published on 7 Feb 2013

www.project.nsearch.com
www.nsearch.com

Helen Caldicott breaks down the lies of the nuclear industry and specifically
the horror of the Fukushima nuclear meltdowns that have been completely
covered up by the governments and press around the world. Helen is an
expert on nuclear radiation and her analysis needs to be shared with all so
we can put an end to nuclear power before it ends the human race! You
won't believe what has been covered up about Fukushima!

toad

23rd August 2013, 15:35

I figure this quote is pertinent to this thread and subject, a friend of mine who is working in the field responded when asked about Fukushima and then to compare the disaster to Chernobyl.

I’m currently studying in the field, I know people that used to work at fukushima, and several of my colleagues were part of the US Navy Nuke response effort when the **** was hitting the fan…

When a nuclear reactor “explodes” it really is not considered a nuclear explosion. The nuclear reaction is supplying heat to a pressure vessel, in the case of Chernobyl the pressure vessel is what exploded. The fuel is actually all relatively in the same place in a massive blob referred to as the elephant’s foot, the industry calls melted fuel “corium” mostly because it becomes rather difficult to really identify chemical makeup of the core after meltdown. Fission creates a large neutron flux and anything that comes into contact with the core can become activated and form its own decay chain of radionuclides.

Chernobyl was fundamentally different than Fukushima in that no reactor vessels ever exploded. Nuclear fuel is incased in a metal called zirconium, the zirconium acts to keep the harmful fission products of the uranium fission process contained and out of the atmosphere and reactor water. The fuel rod assemblies in the reactors at fukushima got hot enough for the zirconium to begin braking down. The zirconium itself started reacting with superheated water producing hydrogen as a byproduct. When the crew was forced to depressurize the reactor vessels the hydrogen collected in the buildings causing explosions of the reactor service floors (the portion of the building above the reactor). However the reactors themselves remained intact. I believe one reactor was breached later on due to superheated corium that made its way through the bottom of the reactor however it wasn’t in an explosive matter.

Fuel:
Spent nuclear fuel still undergoes fission and needs to be cooled, the fuel is still fairly “hot” after it comes out of a reactor and typically has an active cool down period of 5-10yrs in a spent fuel pool. After this period the fuels activity has decreased enough to be stored in dry casks and the heat will naturally self-regulate. The primary concern for Fukushima is reactor 4, this reactor was refueling during the time of the quake and all of the spent fuel for this reactor was placed in the holding pond of the service floor. It is a lot more fuel than the other pools and it is still very fresh and a primary concern. Among the 50yr Fukushima cleanup plan, handling this spent fuel is the top priority however it’s much easier said than done.

Last thing: Cerenkov radiation.
Cerenkov radiation, while rather spectacular to the eye (I have seen it in person) is not really much of a concern. Cerenkov radiation is caused by high energy beta particles. The primary concern for melted fuel is the fission products that escape if the zirconium barrier is breached. Strontiun-90, Tritium, Cesium-137, Iodine-131, and the list goes on.. Even if the fuel is intact, the gamma radiation produced by the extremely high levels of cesium will reach out further than the Cerenkov. Unfortunately many of these products are aerosolized by the super-heated fuel and form a giant cloud of mixed radionuclides in the area creating an external radiation hazard and an inhalation hazard. Many of these radionuclides are gamma emitters so you can see how the radiation field can be far reaching and unpredictable. I have only ever been taught one rule about melted fuel (corium): if you see it, run.

Severity is hard to quantify, the numbers are really all over the place. It’s impossible to know exactly how much radiation is released in these events but the numbers tend to go something like this. Fukushima was 5-10 times less severe than Chernobyl, and Chernobyl was 50-100 times less severe than the nuclear weapons testing era. There are so many complexities involved with measuring radiation releases that the numbers can be skewed all over the place. Regardless, the biggest anthropogenic releases were definitely during the nuclear testing era.

A worst case scenario at reactor 4 fuel pond could potentially be a bigger problem than what fukushima started with. The fuel is still in the early stages of cool down and capable of melting if not activly cooled. The fuel pond is located on the reactor service floor several stories above ground level. If the fuel melted it could potentially compromise the pools integrity making it impossible to fill with water. Another earthquake or catastrophic event could also initiate this scenario. I don’t really see how they could possibly control the situation if the pool was to become significantly damaged, this would basically be a zero containment scenario. Very different than having control of the release (albeit limited control) like in fukushimas original situation. The fuel would likely make way down into the reactor building and eventually settle like it did in Chernobyl, fire would likely ensue minus the explosions because we aren’t dealing with a pressure vessel in this situation. However at least two of the neighboring reactors need active cooling to remain in cold shut down status, if these systems were affected by a catastrophe in reactor 4 who really knows how bad the situation could get… That particular pool receives the most attention and hopefully they can sit on it for 5 yrs or so until it cools down a bit. I don’t personally see them being able to remove the fuel before then.

http://files.shroomery.org/files/13-12/390258779-reactor2u.jpg

With that said, the fukushima catastrophe means something different for Japan than it does for the rest of the world.. When you look at the numbers and don’t really understand them it is easy to get alarmed, the media tends to report radiation contamination numbers in a way that does not always paint an accurate picture of the risks. When a release happens the radiation is highly concentrated at the point of origin but in reality it dilutes to concentrations that aren’t readily traceable thereafter.

An average Americans lifetime radiation dose looks something like this

http://files.shroomery.org/files/13-12/390258773-Clip_15.jpg

You encounter radiation every day, you inhale radon, you ingest foods with natural radioactivity, you receive radiation dose from standard medical procedures, smoking, and even if you somehow avoid all of that you can’t escape the cosmic radiation zipping through your body every day and even right now as you read this post. Anthropogenic (manmade) radiation releases like nuclear accidents and atomic weapons testing only account for about 0.167% of your lifetime radiation dose. You live on a very radioactive planet powered by a very radioactive Sun.

The people most affected by nuclear disasters are the first responders and people in the immediate area of the disaster. Radiation emanation follows the inverse square law, basically this means that if you double your distance from the radiation source you decrease your exposure by 4 times. And If you quadruple your distance from the source the exposure decreases by 16 times and so on…

The ICRP model for stochastic risk assessment states that a dose of 1 Sv (Sievert) = 5% chance of developing a cancer.
Looking at some random numbers to grasp dose:

Highest exposure to an individual at fukushima was approximately 650 mSv
0.650 Sv * 5% = 3.25% chance of developing a cancer from the exposure.

Average fukushima emergency worker dose was approximately 100 mSv
0.100 Sv * 5% = 0.5% chance of developing cancer from the exposure

Highest exposure at Chernobyl was approximately 16 Sv (16,000 mSv)
16 Sv * 5% = 80% chance of cancer. Many of the individuals with doses this high suffered from radiation sickness and died in the years following the event.

Average CT Scan of the abdomen is approx. 8 mSv
0.008 Sv * 5% = 0.04% chance of developing a cancer from the exposure.

Annual dose from background radiation is approximately 3.5 mSv
0.0035 Sv * 5% = 0.0175% chance annually.

The recent fish caught at fukushima that was over 7000 times the safe food limit had about 740,000 Bq/kg of Cesium contamination, which equates to approximately 100 mSv/kg for cesium gamma.
0.100 Sv * 5% = 0.5% of cancer per kilogram of fish

A few fish caught off the coast of California were said to have 5 times the normal amount of radiation activity from cesium contamination. This was about 5 Bq/kg which equates to approximately 0.000676 mSv
6.75X10^-7 Sv * 5% = 0.0000034% chance of cancer… These numbers are so low they are meaningless, and frankly way beyond the intended use of the ICRP model to begin with. Yet it still gets reported… This type of miscommunication happens all the time, just because radiation is detectable does not mean it’s dangerous.

The calculations above follow the simplest form of the linear no threshold model and are based on numbers I could conveniently find or remember. All I am really trying to do is paint a picture of general observations as a function of dose. Primarily you can see that the worst of the Chernobyl exposures were much more severe than the worst of the fukushima exposures.

Let’s take the most exposed fukushima worker with a 3.25% risk and compare it to normal background radiation risk of 0.0175%. The difference appears monumental, but does it tell us anything tangible? The media headline would read something like “fukushima workers now 185 times more likely to develop cancer”. Say that the fukushima worker shows up to a clinic with cancer in 20yrs, was it caused by the radiation exposure? Maybe he was a smoker (~30% chance of causing cancer). Maybe he ate copious amounts of red meat every day, or had a woodworking hobby and worked with solvents.. These might be crappy examples but the overall point is that it is very difficult to say whether or not a cancer was induced by a small to moderate radiation exposure because there are far more potent carcinogens that people readily expose themselves to.

I’m not trying to downplay the fukushima tragedy, it was a very unfortunate event that displaced hundreds of thousands of people. But on the global scale, even if there were a second incident, life would continue normally for the vast majority of the world population. Fukushima will mostly remain a localized problem despite what you may read in the paper..

Kimberley

23rd August 2013, 15:44

Target THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for all the time and information you have posted!!!!!

As I have stated several time now in regard to this topic my "beliefs" about nuclear energy reactors flipped 180 degrees after I listened to the 3 Galen Winsor lectures (posted below) and then ( for over a year) we compiled a lot of supporting evidence in favor of Galen's claims on the Galen Winsor thread.

Yes nuclear bombs kill and disfigure.

Since we have been lied to about so very many things in the name of greed and control ... and we know that instilling fear is the best method of control...

and we know that the cost/money behind the production of all types of energy is one of the top forms of keeping humans enslaved...

Galen Winsor claims that nuclear energy is actually a very inexpensive (and mostly safe) form of energy... so it makes perfect sense that lying to the masses that it is dangerous and something to fear and needs to have high costs behind it to keep it regulated were added into the mix.

And the fear part helps keep us in control...

All I am asking one and all and especially Bill Ryan is to please take the time to listen to the three Galen Winsor lectures and then report what you think after listening to him!!! Please!!! Thank you!!!

It is easy to post one thing after the other that supports the danger and harm that is claimed to have been caused by nuclear reactor accidents because that is what they want us to think...

Below are the three lectures ...I suggest listening/viewing them in the order listed. The first 2 listed are a must IMO and the third is highly recommended.

The second is an audio file that is Galen's description of what happened at Chernobyl...it does take a few minutes to load so please be patient and wait for it to load...

**************************************

ejCQrOTE-XA

*****************************

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)

*****************************

x42qi7Fz1L0

****************************

Thank you ALL!!! Much love, peace, and fun!!! :grouphug:

Kimberley

23rd August 2013, 15:52

Toad thank you for your post! Could you please give us more information about your friend that wrote what you posted? Name, experience, web site and such...thanks! :hug:

toad

23rd August 2013, 16:26

He is a colleague of mine I know from a different community, getting his major in Nuclear and Radiological sciences. He is a very smart man on the subject and has educated me quite a bit on the complexities regarding radiation and the ways the stats can be manipulated on both sides. Its easy to stoke tons of fear when you have all kinds of figures and numbers to play with.

Limor Wolf

23rd August 2013, 16:26

Dear Kimberly and TargetT,

Originally Posted by Kimberly: "Since we have been lied to about so very many things in the name of greed and control ... and we know that instilling fear is the best method of control...

And the fear part helps keep us in control..."

Fear has nothing to do with some of the facts

What are your thoughts about this?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-09/former-fukushima-nuclear-plant-head-masao-yoshida-dies-of-cancer.html

Radioactivity IS damaging. It seems like a constant battle to try and stop the leakage of radioactivity to the ocean in Fukashima. All that's left is to wonder out loud - Is there any major assistance that Japan and specifically Tepco recieve from the rest of the world? is the world at all understands that we are all under the same threat in this big bathtub called planet earth?

Apparently there are some good news if we are looking for them, From what I was able to understand in some of the links, the weather and nature itself can protect against leakage of radioactive material if it is hosted in barrels and second, in a slightely more expensive investment the government (I say government and not governments because there is one government that decides in this world) is not willing to invest in dry cask storage protection since it's not in their interest to do so.

Threfore, it is easy to conclude that the problem is not in Nuclear plants, but in the same old same old 'lovely' hidden government and it's own separate plans.

To focus it - The problem is the PLANS and not so much the PLANTS

And airing it out is not about fear mongering but a lot more about Education

Blessings,

Limor

Kimberley

23rd August 2013, 17:11

onawah

23rd August 2013, 17:17

I am hopeful that Kimberly and Target will keep on posting any new findings they might come across along the same lines, and I think it's important not to discourage them from doing so.
We have been lied to about so many things, and if we've been lied to about the extent of the dangers of radioactivity, then it's important to know that.
Obviously, there ARE dangers--I don't think anyone has denied that.
But with Fukushima looming over the heads of everyone on the planet, and the accompanying fear, despair and hopelessness generated by the prospect of it all washing into the sea, it would be helpful if we can all get a clearer idea of what the prospects of survival really are.
My particular way of dealing with all the negative thoughts that come up for me around these issues has been what most would call airy-fairy, based on channeled information that says ETs are helping to ameliorate the worst effects of radioactivity, and that as Earth moves into higher frequencies, those effects on living things are neutralized.
But there's no way of knowing if that is really the case, or, if it is, to what extent it is true and just how long it will be before all life on Earth is safe from those effects.
So whatever our chances for surviving this apparent fatal disaster might be, I would like to know about it.
It might be a good idea to keep the threads about Fukushima and about Galen Winsor's work separate until there is something more definitive to offer skeptics about his theory.
But I would think that if his work is verifiable, there will be other whistleblowers coming forth with more information.
I think if that if this is the case, Avalon will be open to hearing it.
Probably the biggest reservations anyone here has about the theory is that there has been so little in the way of corroboration.
Personally, I don't really want to spend hours listening to one man's theory if there is nothing else to back it up, but if that's all there is, then I might go ahead and do it.
I can't think of an issue that is more important to the planet at the moment, so it would probably be a justifiable expenditure of time.

Ernie Nemeth

23rd August 2013, 17:39

Radiation is of course not healthy in large doses. What I have seen on this thread is that besides Target T, everyone is apealling to the drama, the emotional aspect of it and decidedly leaving the so-called science out of it. Pictures of deformities does not constitute proof. And the question I ask is not addressed because no one knows.

We have been duped in this regard, like so many other areas of interest to our controllers. We know radiation in large doses is harmful, yes. But we have been told that anything in close proximity to a radioactive source will itself become radioactive. So I ask again. What scientific method can explain this bizzare characteristic of radioactive decay? How does something become contaminated by radioactivity without leaving behind fissile material?

SKIBADABOMSKI

23rd August 2013, 17:44

Not everything that goes up must come down.

Please excuse my strange way of writing.

Nuclear power plants were set up for a false purpose.. genius idea and very effective.

They needed something that would stay up and stay put. In the hemisphere and below it.. not sure.

They worked for a long time trying to make this thing work as in a way of switching it on and off. Negative and positive.

Once that was done (with huge help from chem trails to fill the gaps that the nuclear power plants couldn't reach) then it was set and we now have a global kind of computer in the sky that will forever multiply itself. Name of this I don't know. They struggled with this for longer than anticipated.

This has already been achieved or they are still struggling with it. Either way it will happen. Many tests and experiments have already taken place. Lots of disasters happened regarding the experiments but they pushed forward regardless. Birds falling from the sky and fish deaths ect ect..

Then they'll offer everyone free cool stuff regarding internet usage and then whallop!! they have us all by the short curly smelly ones.
This is already happening.

Is Fukushima harmful to us all? Yes, but not in the way we normally think.

Limor Wolf

23rd August 2013, 18:04

Dear Kimberly and TargetT,

What are your thoughts about this?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-09/former-fukushima-nuclear-plant-head-masao-yoshida-dies-of-cancer.html

Blessings,

Limor

According to the article...

The illness was unrelated to the radiation exposure after the nuclear accident, according to Tepco, as Tokyo Electric is known.

Thanks, Kimberly. Tepco is not a reliable source , I think we may both agree on that. and they would certainly not admit that there is any relation between cancer and radioactivity. No such integrity exists in any cooperative on earth today.

Originally posted by Onawah: " I am hopeful that Kimberly and Target will keep on posting any new findings they might come across along the same lines, and I think it's important not to discourage them from doing so. "

You are right. I appologise if my own words may sound discouraging. This is not to contradict or to advocate Galen Winsor's research and knowledge. A complete conjugation in favor of either one approach is not healthy since it's difficult to know.. Fear of possible consequences is also something which is understood..

you yourself said:

"My particular way of dealing with all the negative thoughts that come up for me around these issues has been what most would call airy-fairy, based on channeled information that says ETs are helping to ameliorate the worst effects of radioactivity, and that as Earth moves into higher frequencies, those effects on living things are neutralized.
But there's no way of knowing if that is really the case, or, if it is, to what extent it is true "

I really appreciate you for saying that. And our concerns sometimes pushes us to look for comfort and not so much for real solution. In this case, real solution, the way I see it, is to kick those people/ whatever they are asses, know their game, and expose them to all.

As SKIBADABOMSKI says- " they pushed forward regardless.."

Again, it's about the PLANS, not so much the PLANTS

SKIBADABOMSKI

23rd August 2013, 20:46

Theres a lot more happening than just Fukushima. See what we nearly missed..

15,000 Russians in Baltimore by October 1st.

82% of our combat forces and their supply elements out of CONUS by October 1st.

FEMA purchase orders for over $14.2 million for MREs and heater meals to be delivered to Region III by October 1st.

FEMA purchase orders for 22 million pouches of emergency water to be delivered to region III by October 1st.

FEMA purchase orders for $13.6 million for MREs and heater meals to be delivered to Austin by October 1st.

Nine-week training course for UN Peacekeepers in CONUS to learn Urban Warfare, English, and US weapons systems beginning 4th week of July for 386,000 troops to be completed by October 1st.

$11 million in antibiotics to be delivered to FEMA region III by October 1st ordered by CDC.

World Health Organization held second emergency meeting in its history to discuss MERs coronavirus. Determined a vaccine MUST be in place by October 1st.

2800 MRAPs must be delivered to DHS by October 1st.

No leave will be allowed for US military from September 28th thru November 5th.

NORCOMM yearly training for civil unrest suspended until September 27th. To be performed in northeast coastal areas.

Date for release of QE3 report moved to October 16th.

All DHS agents MUST qualify with sidearm, shotgun and AR 15 by September 28th. No mention of yearly less lethal qualification.

Sporadic testing of GPS and Communications satellites is coordinated for the first time with a testing date of September 29th.

POTUS mandates to FEMA and DHS concerning support for metropolitan communities dealing with the extreme climate change MUST be complete by October 1st. These mandates were issued during the last three weeks.

Over 300 school systems in the US have determined they need three-day kits for each school AND three-day kits for each student to take with them. All deliveries are scheduled for the month of September.

All National Guard units will complete riot control and disaster assistance training during this years annual two week training. All units MUST have their training complete by September 30th.

Daily testing of the Emergency Broadcast System to begin on September 25th and run thru October 2nd.

Eastern-based Coast Guard units to perform massive group training, usually performed in the Gulf, in the Virginia and Delaware areas. This is a 10-day training mission to begin September 26th.

A sidenote to ponder: For the first time in the history of the United Nations, the Secretary General addresses the Assembly, a speech that was broadcast live to over 60 nations, to inform the assembly that while we are dealing with what appears to be two global crises -- extreme climate change and financial downturns -- the governments of the world are working together to resolve the issues before they reach catastrophic proportions. In other words, he addresses the Assembly and the world just to say everything is going to be okay

toad

23rd August 2013, 20:57

Dont confuse preparations with something malicious. When something or someone isnt prepared we blame them, when they prepare for things we're suspicious of them. :(

ljwheat

23rd August 2013, 23:31

I would like to weigh in here, for just one moment I too was a child of the cold war, and new and believe what the official story from TV Radio, about radiation and held the fear of it for over 60 years hiding under desks when you see a flash and on and on. Even made up my own fear scenario, and yes backed the (official story) untill I listend to a whistle blower by the name of Galen Winsor.

Bill and Karrie have made there living on interviewing the alterative to the (official story) from UFO , 911 , ET , FEMA , endless testimony of what lies have been pushed upon the world population.. There were no plains at 911, aluminum light weight nose is hollow with a radar in it, going up against hardened steel and concrete. One example of the Official Story against known facts.. This is no different If I can counter fit 911, and you believe in it as gospel truth, known facts that you will believe are the lies they are telling everyone. O but they dont lie? they cant its national news. they cant lie.

If any of you do not believe the Official Story on 911, this radiation is a peace of cake because the home work, research and interview to get to the bottom of this official story has been done for you. On the threads listed on this thread.

If you believe in Japans official story then you need to believe the story about 911 being all about plains and terrorist.

Galen Winsor is first person hands on whistle blower and worked and developed radiation control, containment, and safety long before the nuclear commission was put in place buy money greedy corporations letting a fuel source of free energy to all the world got out to the public, world wide. "how do we stop this from getting out" answer (nrc)

Galen Winsor is the smoking gun, thats if you set aside your official story of fear of radiation. Now I too hang a radioactive rock around you neck like I have for the last six months, I too was on your side, fighting for every ounce of belief in nuclear power is bad, till I realized why didn’t some one not explain to the people in two city’s in Japan after being bombed, that those two city’s would be dead for the next 500 years. No dead zone there?, after the NRC corporation came into being they stopped Galen Winsor from showing how safe it is.

So now every time anything happens it’s a dead zone no one can go any where near this topic or zone or official story. And everyone must listen to there lie’s ?

If you can believe a man like Galen Winsor who’s telling it like it is before the NRC was invented to keep people away from free energy. Then we must not believe any whistle blower ever again. And makes this forum mute IMHO.

NRC , MSM, CNN, Corp. news you believe? Avalon Forum, is the cutting edge in digging up the truth in all thing on this planet Matrix controlled existence.

Allot of people have looked into this subject in-depth just like 60 minutes would on your TV you should not be watching. 99 percent of everything on this planet has been a lie to keep Banks, corporations, and those that are in control of what go’s into your heads. And this by fare is the one lie’s that would collapse there hole house of cards, and I can see by this thread they have done a very good job in keeping statues quo well and very health. Just think what you wont know tomorrow.

We’ve done the work, please read, its there. We know your fears. We’ve been there let us show you they still lie. Anyone can print money -- you think story’s cant be printed for your enjoyment or torment.

Galen Winsor before the NRC official story. Regulatory why ? Money and power of course thats there bottom line. And we all fell for it.. Shhhh Musset rock the corporate dollar. If nothing else follow the money trail. If that’s to hard to do then just listen to the Galen interview.

First person hands on knowledge before the NRC… before the NRC did you get that ---- before the lie's were invented.

If you have a marble counter top. your contaminated. Ha Ha --- no its healthy -- that is if you did the home work like we did. its free check it out. or its eye's wide shut, at least on this topic just MHOP.

TargeT

24th August 2013, 00:00

Ive shown how sources like Helen C. Have either purposefully lied about the topics they speak on or are easily mislead into believing such preposterous notions that are then defended as fact with out even the most basic fact/source checks.

The anti-nuclear lobby literally has nothing to back it; yet after pointing this out I see the same material again; due diligence is not being done.

im moving this weekend, so I cant participate much more.

jwheat brings up some very good points; please set aside emotion and consider this topic as if you have never heard of it before, I think you will see we have been (again) lied to, and this topic is one of the very worst due to its drastic life changing implications.

Cognitive Dissident

24th August 2013, 02:43

TargeT, I agree with you that Helen Caldicott makes claims which are exaggerated and/or substantiated. She is not the best anti-nuclear advocate. I have more confidence in Arnie Gunderson, who tends to be very meticulous (www.fairewinds.com) and Majia at http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/ as well as www.enenews.com and ex-skf.blogspot.com for news and analysis.

So I have to respectfully disagree with you and say that the anti-nuclear lobby, while weak and vastly under-resourced compared with the nuclear-military-industrial complex, does have quite a few facts on its side.

However, I do agree that there are many “anti-nuclear” statements made, including on this forum, which are incorrect and therefore should be corrected.

I'm more interested in facts than “balance”; based on my understanding the facts are that Fukushima is a huge and on-going catastophe, and also that the nuclear industry has every motivation to hide this fact (backed up of course by the MSM – this is why there have been so few stories relating to Fukushima from mid-2011 to recently – not sure if this is a conspiracy or just a stuck-in-paradigm thing – anyway).

Maybe a good way of illustrating this is to analyse the previous comments from your friend and point out a few salient facts which they did not mention.

Your friend said:

“Chernobyl was fundamentally different than Fukushima in that no reactor vessels ever exploded. Nuclear fuel is incased in a metal called zirconium, the zirconium acts to keep the harmful fission products of the uranium fission process contained and out of the atmosphere and reactor water. The fuel rod assemblies in the reactors at fukushima got hot enough for the zirconium to begin braking down. The zirconium itself started reacting with superheated water producing hydrogen as a byproduct. When the crew was forced to depressurize the reactor vessels the hydrogen collected in the buildings causing explosions of the reactor service floors (the portion of the building above the reactor). However the reactors themselves remained intact. I believe one reactor was breached later on due to superheated corium that made its way through the bottom of the reactor however it wasn’t in an explosive matter.”

This is not correct. Reactor 3 did actually explode, and Reactor 3 is the one containing the plutonium-mixture fuel, i.e. the most toxic fuel. Arnie Gunderson did a good analysis of how the Reactor 3 explosion was larger than the earlier Reactor 1 explosion.

See also: http://enenews.com/asahi-explosion-at-fukushima-reactor-3-had-seriously-damaged-reactor-2-worst-possible-case-predicted-soon-after-many-workers-abandoned-facility

http://enenews.com/nuke-industry-report-explosions-fukushima-units-1-3-4-caused-additional-inventory-nuclear-rods-be-lost-spent-fuel-pools

http://enenews.com/highly-radioactive-pieces-spent-fuel-pools-blown-mile-away

On the spent fuel rods – your friend's statement is correct but not the whole story: “It is a lot more fuel than the other pools and it is still very fresh and a primary concern. Among the 50yr Fukushima cleanup plan, handling this spent fuel is the top priority however it’s much easier said than done.” This is quite a huge understatement. SPF 4 is in an unstable state, and also high off the ground – it is unlikely to be able to survive another big earthquake, hence even TEPCO admits the urgency to get those fuel rods out of there. This is not a 50 year plan issue, it is an emergency. I think the scheduled removal is starting in October-November this year, but we will see.

The problem is, with all the damage and the junk that has fallen into the pool, each rod is going to have to be removed manually and if it touches any other rod, could cause an explosion, and will also require cooling, and will also be highly radioactive, so nobody can get near this while it is happening. And what happens if there is a slip? There are over 1,000 fuel rods in SPF 4. And let's remember that SPF 4 has NO containment at all, only water provides the shielding.

Also, your friend says the following, which is so wrong it is not even funny: “Fukushima was 5-10 times less severe than Chernobyl, and Chernobyl was 50-100 times less severe than the nuclear weapons testing era.”

Was. WAS?!? Fukushima is ON-GOING. Apart from SPF 4, apart from the even larger common SPF, there are 3 huge lumps of corium somewhere underneath the reactor containment vessels which are only being kept cool by huge flows of water, which is leading to large amounts of contaminated water being stored on-site (and currently leaking, as per the recent stories in the MSM) as well as going into the Pacific Ocean.

Your friend says “at least two of the neighboring reactors need active cooling to remain in cold shut down status” which is utter non-sense. “cold shut down status” is TEPCO propaganda smoke and mirrors. Anyone who uses that phrase seriously – and claims to have any knowledge of this issue – without critizing it has zero credibility. ZERO. There is nothing close to cold shut down at Fukushima, although TEPCO claimed some sort of equivalent status in 2011 or 2012, I think, which led the MSM to conclude that everything is fine.

Reactors 1 to 3 all experienced a full meltdown and a melt-through of the primary containment. Probably some rods remain in the reactors, but most of it is melted into corium and has melted through the steel underside of the reactors, into and probably through the concrete underneath. Each lump of corium is what, 50 to 100 tons of extremely radioactive metal/concrete/etc.

They do not know where the corium is. They have no way of recovering the corium. They can only try and keep it cool and hope nothing else bad happens. Probably, there are on-going criticalities in the corium and/or the reactor vessels which are leading to discharges into the air – all the recent smoke/steam – see majiasblog.blogspot.com for more detailed analysis. The air discharges may even be worse than the water discharges, I suspect this may be the case especially because there is virtually no MSM coverage of the air discharges.

How long will the corium remain radioactive? 10's, perhaps 100's of years. I don't know – but a very long time. How much radioactive waste water will be created during that period? A vast amount. It is hard to even do the calculation. Has anyone from TEPCO or the MSM even sketched it out? No, of course not.

So the fact that your friend uses the past tense for Fukushima, indicates a complete lack of understanding of the situation. Sorry to be so blunt, but that is the truth.

No discussion of this issue would be complete without a discussion of the difference between internal and external radiation, which you have mentioned in your previous posts but not addressed fully. External radiation is when you are exposed to an X-ray, take a plane, etc. You have some exposure, then walk away. Internal radiation is when you inhale or ingest the stuff. Far, far, worse.

Yes, humans do not absorb plutonium naturally. But what if a tiny speck gets stuck in the lungs? It is highly, highly radioactive.

And what about ceasium and strontium? Ceasium acts like potassium, and so passes through the body, but stronium acts like calcium, and goes to the bones. Stays there forever. Very, very bad news.

This stuff is in the Pacific, and it is going to accumulate in the fish, and especially in the fish that eat the fish. Nobody should eat, e.g. tuna that has come from the Pacific.

The consequences of Fukushima are only beginning to become apparent.. It is a disaster of the highest order, on-going, quite likely to get worse. International intervention is the most logical solution, but of course this will not happen while the Japanese are unable to admit just how badly messed up the situation is. If you think MSM propaganda is bad, just try Japanese propaganda! Look at ex-skf.blogspot.com for a Japanese perspective on all this.

Don't get me wrong – Japan is a great place, Japanese people are great. But the government, and the nuclear industry there – totally dysfunctional and hostile to the truth. Like governments all around the world. Only this time, Fukushima is not only a Japanese problem.

Finally, totally agree with you that we need a balanced perspective on this issue. So let's start with the facts. We need rational discussion. There is not enough of this about, particularly not from the MSM, but also from some of the anti-nuclear side.

Finally finally, no discussion of Fukushima can be complete without mentioning that cancer is fully curable, not least by using hemp oil (Google Rick Simpson). So we cannot ONLY look at Fukushima (or we would get very, very depressed)...

TargeT

24th August 2013, 03:39

See also: http://enenews.com/asahi-explosion-at-fukushima-reactor-3-had-seriously-damaged-reactor-2-worst-possible-case-predicted-soon-after-many-workers-abandoned-facility

http://enenews.com/nuke-industry-report-explosions-fukushima-units-1-3-4-caused-additional-inventory-nuclear-rods-be-lost-spent-fuel-pools

http://enenews.com/highly-radioactive-pieces-spent-fuel-pools-blown-mile-away

these all reference "confidential US documents" and provide no numbers; hard to take that info very seriously. those sources seem lacking (and I'd guess since it's from 2011 some of the links are dead?)

On the spent fuel rods – your friend's statement is correct but not the whole story: “It is a lot more fuel than the other pools and it is still very fresh and a primary concern. Among the 50yr Fukushima cleanup plan, handling this spent fuel is the top priority however it’s much easier said than done.” This is quite a huge understatement. SPF 4 is in an unstable state, and also high off the ground – it is unlikely to be able to survive another big earthquake, hence even TEPCO admits the urgency to get those fuel rods out of there. This is not a 50 year plan issue, it is an emergency. I think the scheduled removal is starting in October-November this year, but we will see.

It's not a good situation & needs to be fixed but it is not an emergency.. ultra large earthquakes are not that common really; but yes it needs to be fixed ASAP, 50 years is not realistic imo.

The problem is, with all the damage and the junk that has fallen into the pool, each rod is going to have to be removed manually and if it touches any other rod, could cause an explosion, and will also require cooling, and will also be highly radioactive, so nobody can get near this while it is happening. And what happens if there is a slip? There are over 1,000 fuel rods in SPF 4. And let's remember that SPF 4 has NO containment at all, only water provides the shielding.

why would spent fuel rods contacting other spent fuel rods explode? this isn't nitroglycerin we are talking about.. and with spent fuel rods, water is the only "containment" needed, since the material is "spent" and very low in fissile material.

Reactors 1 to 3 all experienced a full meltdown and a melt-through of the primary containment. Probably some rods remain in the reactors, but most of it is melted into corium and has melted through the steel underside of the reactors, into and probably through the concrete underneath. Each lump of corium is what, 50 to 100 tons of extremely radioactive metal/concrete/etc.

where do you get these numbers from? do you know WHY nuclear is so attractive? the energy density is immense.. fuel assemblies are generally around 3.5 m long, 96 mm wide, weigh 103 kg NOT TONS, not even close!

Yes, humans do not absorb plutonium naturally. But what if a tiny speck gets stuck in the lungs? It is highly, highly radioactive.

why is plutonium in the air exactly? if that were to happen & it was in concentrated levels (such as used in a reactor) yes that would be very dangerous. that is not the case however.

Finally finally, no discussion of Fukushima can be complete without mentioning that cancer is fully curable, not least by using hemp oil (Google Rick Simpson). So we cannot ONLY look at Fukushima (or we would get very, very depressed)...

it's also fully preventable by being exposed to levels of radiation currently found at fukushima by everyone who checks (or, for example, the piece of uranium ore that has been around my neck 24/7 for 5-6 months now)

yes, you are absolutely correct, cancer is not the boogy man we are told it is.

you have some interesting angles here but they aren't backed by numbers that seem realistic your sources seem to be lacking, if you have any thing with some real numbers or that reference something I can see not a "confidential us document" (confidential FYI is a classification level that would never be available to the public... EVER) if there is a whistle blower leaking classified information please let me know so I can review what they have, until then this is more of the same baseless information that is backed by nothing real.

that's my exhausted-after-moving-all-day take; I could be wrong and if so please empirically show me (And the viewing audience!) where.

Kimberley

24th August 2013, 03:58

Bravo LJWheat and TargetT!!!!! :hail:

I am still waiting for those that throw anti nuke stones (as i also did BIG TIME up until a bit over a year ago) to please please please listen to Galen's inside whistle blower information from 1985 & 1986!!!!!

I am also requesting that those interested in this topic ask Bill Ryan to revisit this topic and listen to the Galen lectures and give his views after having listened!!!...to the best of my knowledge he has not listened and to the best of my knowledge most of the poo pooers have not listened either...

Unless you have listened to Galen and looked at the other substantiating evidence that we have gathered for over a year now your opinion is only based on the information you have been fed via main stream media and the manipulated education system and government and such... and if your information has come from main steam media and since main stream media has had such a BIG hype on it you can be rest assured it has been part of the propaganda machine to feed fear and greed and control!!!

Much love!!!

SKIBADABOMSKI

24th August 2013, 06:08

Deletes post.

Will post something here later.

Cognitive Dissident

24th August 2013, 11:01

Hi TargeT, appreciate your response even though you are moving! Let's continue in a leisurely manner, OK?

One of the problems in having this discussion is access to information and facts. Most of the raw data comes from TEPCO. However, TEPCO is an unreliable witness (putting it mildly). For example, they knew about leaking water for years, but did not mention it. They promoted the fiction of "cold shutdown state", which gives the impression that it is similar to a normal cold shutdown state, but is completely different, because there has been a full melt-through.

So it's difficult to give good sources for every claim. A lot of the claims have to be backed up by reasoned argument based on available evidence. Gunderson does a lot of good and careful work using that method. I'm not saying that to try and avoid backing up my claims, just to say, this is a very tricky issue.

Let me try and respond to your comments as best I can. There were also some of my comments which you didn't have time to respond to.

The reactor 3 explosion was captured on film, but there is a difference of opinion as to whether it was a hydrogen explosion outside the reactor or an explosion from within the reactor. To be honest this is hard to prove conclusively. However, I was impressed by Gunderson's argument that the explosion was a lot bigger than the reactor 1 explosion. I can try and dig up his video on this, it will be at fairewinds.com somewhere, from 2012 I think/

We agree that removing the fuel rods from SPF 4 is urgent. I always thought that the phrase "spent fuel rod" was somewhat weasel; there is still plenty of fissile and radioactive material there, just not enough for the purposes of the reactor. I appreciate the rods are not nitroglyerine, but if one drops and ends up right next to another one, is there not a danger of criticality?

The size of the corium can only be guessed at. However, according to Wikipedia (likely to be conservative and rely on TEPCO data), there is a lot of material in each reactor:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_%28Unit_1_Reactor%29:

F. Tanabe has estimated that the core contained the following materials:[36]

Uranium dioxide 78.3 tons
Zirconium 32.7 tons
Steel 12.5 tons
Boron carbide 590 kilogram
Inconel 1 ton

[36] F. Tanabe, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 2011, vol 48, issue 8, pages 1135 to 1139

Total over 100 tons, plus mix some concrete in there too, even if the whole thing didn't melt, you are talking a pretty huge lump. I can't find the details for reactors 2 and 3 but they are going to be in the same ballpark.

Plutonium - was released from reactor 3. We know that reactor 3 contained plutonium and experienced a full melt-through and a large explosion. It is only logical to expect that plutonium would be released into the environment. TEPCO have admitted plutonium release after denying it for a long time:

http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/04/tepco-admitted-pu-238239240-sr-90-in-sea-soil-are-from-fukushima-accident/

Finally, a general question for you TargeT - where do you think the coriums are, and what is your prognosis for the situation generally?

ljwheat

24th August 2013, 13:13

IMHO ----- I just don’t get these people, is it too simple.. ?

Before the NRC there was a man exposing his boss who began the NRC.. everything from that point on is and will remain all fabrication (lie's)

Before ( cold war / NRC ) Galen was the Lewis and Clark explorer, in this field of free energy, when the controllers heard the word free. up popped the NRC, and every steam accident that happened, "look Look , see i told you it was dangerous from the NRC"

A hundred years a go they had problems with steam boats blowing up on the nations rivers -- steam is very dangerous. and that is what give’s you power in a reactor STEAM regardless of the heat source its steam buildup that has caused these catastrophic disasters.

This Is why I know none of your nay slayer’s have not listened to Galen Winsor lecture, this and more information is so simple to understand, the man lay’s it all out for you.

All the technical jargon the NRC has played out for us has filled our heads with so much cotton , its no wonder why we can not hear the small voice of reason that controls the part in our heads call critical thinking.

And as Avalonions we are known for listening, with mouth shut / listening to that small voice, and moving down the rabbit hole faster and farther than most on this planet of matrix lie’s built to keep us under control and paying taxes to the king’s of this world.

Knock , Knock, Mc Fly wake up what they put in our heads is wrong. When did we give our right to think with out stats and number and proof -- who’s proof the NRC , MSN, NBC, BBC, RT news feeding us NRC numbers / oat meal ,, boy do we love oat meal , really taste good going down , but latter we have a tummy ache?

How many time’s are we going to run looking for that left handed hammer the NRC keeps asking us to go get, while they laugh there ass’s off. Hook line and sinker………..

Hiroshima & Nagasaki were hit with the real Mc Coy nuclear radiation, blast and all. Not a dead zone for 5 thousand years. BUT ------
Chernobyl & Fukushima Steam accidents --- Dead Zone’s for life to keep people out from seeing what’s really going on.

And as fare as cancer--- any doctor will tell you the sample they send out to test … is to find out what type of fungus it is.. The word CANCER is the label they have given that cover thousands of fungus that can go hay wire in our body’s. there is no cure for a label. But there are thousands of cure for fungus. And radiation at low levels no fungus will survive… shhhh you might kill an industry or drugs and doctor’s and research should this become common knowledge you die of a fungus not a label. The controllers us with fear as an attachment shhhhh. Cancer is a label not a substance. Fungus on the other had is tangible something real you can deal with and fight or cure.

Its all about twisting the word we us, against us, for money or power. Critical thinking, will set us free. Not cooked up numbers and label’s meant to deceive all that listen to them. Get back to questioning everything, and quit thinking this is your world. Its not: its always been theirs, you were born here , you didn’t invent it. And we have a bad habit of believing what we are told instead of checking it out first hand.. Just like Galen Winsor did before the NRC stepped in with there cover up lie’s to keep free energy locked away, and with our natural fears that only needed a nudge with a mushroom cloud to do it.

As Shelly would say on “Big Bang theory “ Bazzinga we have been had since day one / our birth..

Galen Winsor the other story. before the NRC and my opinions.

Kimberley

24th August 2013, 19:07

I sure would like Bill Ryan to give us his take on the Galen lectures...

sdv

24th August 2013, 19:17

Yep, those who think that radiation is not harmful to human beings in above normal doses should personally volunteer to go and clean up the mess!

People are flawed and cannot be trusted, so anything that is potentially dangerous will become so.

Anyone here read detailed accounts about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It is the Japanese who are most threatened by the mess at Fukishima. There is the expertise to clean this mess up, but because of the character of the Japanese, the usual destructive corporate interests of profit that poisons everything, the denialism and refusal to accept the paying off of karmic debt by Americans, and the fact that most people in the world don't really care if they are not directly affected (so, denial in America is actually understandable because the risk for Americans is minimal), it has not been done and Japan is yet again vulnerable to the destruction of excessive radiation. But this time, no one can say they did not know.

Yes, there is a problem and it the mess has not been sorted out even though we have had more than enough time to do so and have the expertise to do so.

PS I was living in southern England when Chernobyl blew and I am still alive and cancer free. Many people close to Chernobyl when it blew were not so lucky.

ljwheat

24th August 2013, 19:47

I sure would like Bill Ryan to give us his take on the Galen lectures...

Especially Bill, a seasoned whistle blower interviewer, would see threw any discrepancies, on either side pro or con. The hall mark in in-depth critical thinking. I for one would gladly clean up Fukushima, and when nothing happened to me , like nothing happened to Galen Winsor all the years he worked with this stuff, till the NRC showed up and said he couldn’t do that anymore. His response is the same as mine now Why?

toad

24th August 2013, 20:23

Who is saying radiation is healthy at above normal doses.

Cognitive Dissident

25th August 2013, 02:23

To be honest, I think Galen Winsor should have his own thread, separate from the Fukushima thread (obviously they are related, but quite different in terms of the content of the discussion).

I have just searched - Kimberley started it today.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62648-Dear-Bill-Ryan-Would-you-PLEASE-watch-the-Galen-Winsor-Nuclear-Scar-Scam-lectures--

The NRC is no doubt a corrupt and repressive organisation. But that doesn't prove anything about the health (ill) effects of radiation.

According to the internets. Galen Winsor died of leukemia.

However, that is ad hominem reasoning so not strictly applicable. I will have to watch his vidoes and post my thoughts on the other thread.

I await TargeT's subsequent thoughts on Fukushima after he has had a rest from moving house.

Here is the latest on where the corium might be and the consequences:

http://enenews.com/experts-portion-of-fukushimas-molten-fuel-is-believed-to-have-moved-into-earth-groundwater-contacting-melted-cores-may-have-caused-recent-spike-in-radiation-levels

http://enenews.com/new-york-times-ultimate-worst-case-scenario-underway-at-fukushima-experts-suspect-extreme-contamination-flowing-from-below-melted-reactors-and-into-pacific-would-surpass-even-the-worst-radia

:focus:

onawah

26th August 2013, 21:39

I like Dr. Sircus's newsletters, and his latest one is concerned mostly with Fukushima, at:
http://drsircus.com/medicine/does-the-future-have-a-future#utm_source=Dr+Sircus+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ff051f429d-Article_079&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ea98c09673-ff051f429d-10646942
I am going to email him and send him links to the Galen Winsor vids to see if he thinks there is any possibility there is a conspiracy within a conspiracy inherent in the radioactivity issue, though I think only nuclear scientists and perhaps some whistleblowers may know for sure, at this point, at least, other than the controllers, of course....
Here's the article:

Does the Future Have a Future?
Posted by STAFF - Matheus on August 26, 2013 Last week over a thousand men women and children were attacked and many killed with chemical weapons in Syria and last year over 850,000 people in America were arrested for marijuana-related crimes ending a quality of life that is hard to recover when labeled a criminal and thrown behind bars.

Why did 850,000 people in America alone get arrested? Because society and modern civilization has created professions filled with human beasts. Most of us know and understand how beastly pharmaceutical interests are and how modern medicine has become the practice of health terrorism. Pharmaceutical interests and other groups work to keep marijuana illegal so Americans don’t have the option of cheap medical alternatives to their products.

Howard Wooldridge, a retired police officer who now lobbies the government to relax marijuana prohibition laws, told Republic Report that next to police unions, the “second biggest opponent on Capitol Hill is big Pharma” because marijuana can replace “everything from Advil to Vicodin and other expensive pills.”

He also said that police departments across the country have become dependent on federal drug war grants to finance their budget. Private prison corporations make millions by incarcerating people who have been imprisoned for drug crimes, including marijuana. Fearing competition for the dollars Americans spend on leisure, alcohol and tobacco interests have lobbied to keep marijuana out of reach. Prison guard unions have a vested interest in keeping people behind bars just like for-profit prison companies. In 2008, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association spent a whopping $1 million to defeat a measure that would have “reduced sentences and parole times for nonviolent drug offenders while emphasizing drug treatment over prison.”

What is so beastly about these people and organizations efforts to keep medical marijuana away from the people? We do not have to look further than the use of medical marijuana for the treatment of radiation sickness. Now why would anyone worry about radiation today with governments on their eternal perch telling us how safe nuclear radiation is?

It’s Safe I Tell You

The New York Times printed an article recently titled, ‘Experts Foresee No Detectable Health Impact from Fukushima Radiation.’ The UN is concluding that, “It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers.”

The operator of Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear plant said on August 23, 2013 that new spots of high radiation levels had been found near storage tanks holding highly contaminated water, raising fear of fresh leaks as the disaster goes from bad to worse. The announcement comes after Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) said already last week that contaminated water with dangerously high levels of radiation was leaking from a storage tank.

Japan’s nuclear crisis is escalating. That’s really bad news for the human race unless you are one of the many people who believe that nuclear radiation is not a problem. Doctors who use it for diagnosis and treatment believe nuclear radiation is safe enough to use in medicine. Science knows that increasing levels of radiation exposure leads to increases in cancer rates but medical scientists insist on using something that causes cancer (radiation) to treat it.

Everyone needs to read what National Geographic is saying about the rising tensions in Japan as radioactive water leaking into the Pacific Ocean gets dangerously worse. The Japanese government now says it is clear that 300 tons (71,895 gallons/272,152 liters) are pouring into the sea each day, enough to fill an Olympic-size swimming pool every eight days.

A mathematical model developed by Changsheng Chen of the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth and Robert Beardsley of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute found that radioactive particles disperse through the ocean differently at different depths. The scientists estimated that in some cases, contaminated seawater could reach the western coast of the United States in as little as five years. Buesseler thinks the process occurs a bit more rapidly, and estimates it might take three years for contamination to reach the U.S. coastline.

But don’t worry. It’s not likely to have any real measurable effect on anyone or anything. That is what Forbes Magazine would have its readers believe. Reuters is reporting something different though. “The latest leak is so contaminated that a person standing half a meter (1 ft. 8 inches) away would, within an hour, receive a radiation dose five times the average annual global limit for nuclear workers. After 10 hours, a worker in that proximity to the leak would develop radiation sickness with symptoms including nausea and a drop in white blood cells.

"That is a huge amount of radiation. The situation is getting worse," said Michiaki Furukawa, who is professor emeritus at Nagoya University and a nuclear chemist. Yuhei Sato, the governor of the Fukushima prefecture in Japan, has described the leak a national emergency.

In April, 2013 The Washington Blog reported that:

A quick calculation shows that it is about ten thousand times less than the amounts released by Chernobyl during the actual fire at the Russian nuclear plant. But the Chernobyl fire only lasted 10 days …and the Fukushima release has been ongoing for more than 2 years so far.

Indeed, Fukushima has already spewed much more radioactive cesium and iodine than Chernobyl. The amount of radioactive cesium released by Fukushima was some 20-30 times higher than initially admitted.

Fukushima also pumped out huge amounts of radioactive iodine 129 – which has a half-life of 15.7million years. Fukushima has also dumped up to 900 trillion becquerels of radioactive strontium-90– which is a powerful internal emitter which mimics calcium and collects in our bones – into the ocean. And the amount of radioactive fuel at Fukushima dwarfs Chernobyl … and so could keep leaking for decades, centuries or millenia.

There is life on earth but the question is for how much longer? Life is going to get harsher on the planet’s surface so no wonder that governments and many rich people have built underground complexes. This question is not just a racial and planetary question. It’s also an individual one that we have to face. Sooner or later our lives end (though our spirits can go on). The timing of our physical demise is not entirely under our control but we can affect life extension in the face of hurricanes of toxicity.

Radiation at Extremely Low Levels

book%2010

It is the inability to see the effects of chronic,
low level toxicities on human health that has been,
and remains, our greatest failing as intelligent beings.
Dr. Boyd Haley

The world has never awakened to Dr. Haley’s warning of many years ago. His warning to the world’s scientists and doctors has mostly gone unnoticed meaning we are left with a government, medical officials and doctors who have no idea of the real dangers people and children are facing as an entire nuclear plant with six reactors is abandoned and goes dangerously out of control.

In July of 2005 the National Academy of Sciences came to the conclusion that the preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer or other health problems and there is no threshold below which exposure can be viewed as harmless.[1] Forbes Magazine’s essay on Fukushima is journalistic trash but what can we expect from beasts in the face of a human nightmare that is promising our children a chilling future.

Now for the Really Bad Radiation News

In the future we are not going to be dealing with radiation at extremely low levels. This past week we learned that deep beneath Fukushima’s crippled nuclear power station a massive underground reservoir of contaminated water that began spilling from the plant’s reactors after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, has been creeping slowly toward the Pacific sea.

Now, 2½ years later, experts fear it is about to reach the ocean and greatly worsen what is fast becoming a new crisis at Fukushima: the inability to contain vast quantities of radioactive water.

The looming crisis is potentially far greater than the discovery earlier this week of a leak from a tank that stores contaminated water used to cool the reactor cores. Experts believe the underground seepage from the reactor and turbine building area is much bigger and possibly more radioactive, confronting the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co., with an invisible, chronic problem and few viable solutions.

Two Years Ago

“Radiation is continuing to leak out of the reactors, the situation is not stable at all, radiation continues to leak,” said Dr. Michio Kaku, professor of theoretical physics at the City University of New York and top graduate of Harvard. “We are looking at a ticking time bomb. It appears stable but the slightest disturbance, a secondary earthquake, a pipe break, evacuation of the crew at Fukishima could set off a full scale meltdown at three nuclear power stations—far beyond what we saw at Chernobyl.”

Kaku said this two years ago. The press has been quiet about Fukushima these past two years but things are worsening to the point where events are breaking into the mainstream press. “The Tepco utility people are outclassed and overwhelmed and should be removed from their positions. They are ‘making it up as they go along’,” Dr. Kaku has said since the beginning, of the efforts of engineers to get this disaster under some control. He also said, “We would see increases in leukemias and thyroid cancers from the massive amounts of radioactive iodine being released.”

Recent reports (Aug. 2013) are already showing a disturbing increase in thyroid cancers in the children in the area surrounding Fukushima. The latest figures released by regional authorities brings the total number of children who have been diagnosed with or suspected of having cancer to 44, up from 28 as of June, The Asahi Shimbun national daily reports.

Conclusion

It really is not a fun time to be alive on planet earth especially if you are forward looking because one has children. One still can have fun and we need to relax otherwise the stress will do us in but we have to protect our children. Parents know this is not easy but certain issues are going critical. This week I will publish ‘Nuclear Pollution Hits the Young the Hardest’ for parents who are brave enough to act.
[1] The linear no threshold model or LNTM is a model of damage done by radiation. This model assumes that the response to radiation exposure is linear and that this linear relationship continues to very small doses, that is to say that there is no threshold of exposure below which the response ceases to be linear. When it comes to radiation if a particular dose of radiation is found to produce one extra case of a type of cancer in every thousand people exposed, the LNTM predicts that one thousandth of this dose will produce one extra case in every million people so exposed, and that one millionth of this dose will produce one extra case in every billion people.

Dr. Mark Sircus, Ac., OMD, DM (P)

Director International Medical Veritas Association

Doctor of Oriental and Pastoral Medicine

Bill Ryan

26th August 2013, 21:49

I sure would like Bill Ryan to give us his take on the Galen lectures...

For those who may not have seen, I replied yesterday, here:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62648-Dear-Bill-Ryan-Would-you-PLEASE-watch-the-Galen-Winsor-Nuclear-Scare-Scam-lectures--&p=719815&viewfull=1#post719815

Hi, Kimberley and all -- it's a difficult issue. I've watched half of his presentation, but not yet all of it.

I can see he comes across as earnest and sincere, and I'm also well aware that it's almost impossible to square what he says with my understanding of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of straight-on, unbiased scientific studies that conclude exactly the opposite. A very large number of laboratory animals have died proving that radiation is very harmful for animal bodies. It's easy to find images if you can stomach looking at them.

I have no way of testing this myself. I am far from convinced. I'm not sure I'd like to eat a Cesium sandwich or go swimming in the Fukushima reactor pool. :)

It may not be wise or smart to base the claims of just one man, who was not in a laboratory to prove his claims beyond any doubt, but only speaking to an audience at a podium, and who is not with us any more to ask about Fukushima or anything else, in order for us to sleep easy about the problem and tell ourselves that there's no issue of any kind.

That would seem to be to be folly of the highest order: basing our entire emotional and logical response on the basis of what we WANT to hear and be reassured of. That's my concern. Tens (of not hundreds) of thousands of people who lived near Chernobyl died of something. That data, and the images of the victims, are not faked or falsified. Even allowing for a distortion factor of ten (which is a lot!) -- there is a problem there.

A well-attested and witnessed public case is that of the Russian Nuclear submarine the K-19, which experienced a critical reactor accident in 1961.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-19

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/K-19.jpg

There was an excellent movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0267626/) about it, with Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson. The film is harrowing: it accurately depicts the very heroic Russian submariners going into the failed reactor one by one to try to save the situation. They all died within days. Here are the details:

http://projectavalon.net/K-19_deaths.gif

RMorgan

26th August 2013, 21:53

Hey folks,

Check out this video, from InfoWars. I´m not sure if it´s already posted here; If it is, sorry.

The Coming Fukushima Global Disaster with Dr. Christopher Busby

“New Leaks” have been discovered, 240 megatons of potentially explosive radioactive material on site, mutations of local plants and wild life, etc."

qm10VdKKWDY

Raf.

RMorgan

26th August 2013, 22:00

ADD:

For those who still believe radiation is not dangerous, check out this Brazilian case, usually called "The Goiânia Radiation Incident".

Please, read the links. This is very important.

Summary:

In September of 1987, scavengers dismantled a metal canister from a radiotherapy machine at an abandoned Cancer Clinic in Goiania, Brazil. Five days later a junkyard worker pried open the lead canister to reveal a pretty blue, glowing dust: radioactive cesium-137. In the following days, scores of Goianian citizens were exposed to the radioactive substance. In a nuclear disaster second only to Chernobyl, the city of Goiania had one of the largest radioactive leaks on its hands and for a few days, they knew nothing about it.

Full article/Case Study: Accidental Leakage of Cesium-137 in Goiania Brazil in 1987. (http://lawnorder.blogspot.com.br/2003/03/case-study-accidental-leakage-of.html)

Additional links regarding the incident:

The Goiânia Radiation Incident (http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/gri.htm) <<< very complete and detailed report.

Cesium-137: A Deadly Hazard (http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/wessells1/)

This is an ongoing situation. Many people from the region still suffer from radioactive contamination related illness.

So, if you don´t believe nuclear energy and radioactive materials can be deadly dangerous, please, feel free to rub radioactive Cesium-137 powder in your skin just to see what happens...

Raf.

Christine

26th August 2013, 22:24

I follow Mark and receive his newsletter too. I did email him back when the Galen Winsor video was first posted. He was kind enough to respond and basically said that he didn't find much there to change his mind about the dangers we are currently facing because of Fukushima and the related radiation exposure. I would gladly post the email except that I am on a borrowed laptop with an old operating system that doesn't work with Hotmail's new look Outlook, so I can't search my emails.

I like Dr. Sircus's newsletters, and his latest one is concerned mostly with Fukushima, at:
http://drsircus.com/medicine/does-the-future-have-a-future#utm_source=Dr+Sircus+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ff051f429d-Article_079&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ea98c09673-ff051f429d-10646942
I am going to email him and send him links to the Galen Winsor vids to see if he thinks there is any possibility there is a conspiracy within a conspiracy inherent in the radioactivity issue, though I think only nuclear scientists and perhaps some whistleblowers may know for sure, at this point, at least, other than the controllers, of course....

Bill Ryan

26th August 2013, 22:36

-------

I also posted on Kimberley's other thread:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62648-Dear-Bill-Ryan-Would-you-PLEASE-watch-the-Galen-Winsor-Nuclear-Scare-Scam-lectures--&p=720150&viewfull=1#post720150

My honest opinion of Galen Winsor:

There seem to be three possibilities (in no special order here) -->

He's a freak of nature (not an insult: there may be something remarkable about his body that most other bodies don't share)
He's lying or deluded (or has been paid to lie)
There's something about radiation that we don't yet understand.

There may well be anecdotal evidence that Galen Winsor was able to survive (and even enjoy!) high doses of radiation, but we can't take this unique case to mean that everyone else is quite wrong and that there's a vast conspiracy to convince us that radiation is dangerous while in fact it's perfectly safe.

It'd be extremely dangerous folly to look the other way, with our telescopes to our blind eyes, convincing ourselves -- because many people really want to believe it! -- that there's no problem. I suggest that we just can't afford to take that risk.

What that means in practical terms is different for each person. Personally, I'm happy not to be living on the North American Pacific coast, I take iodine supplements routinely, and I'm curtailing my intake of tuna (which accumulates radiation as it's so high on the food chain). Otherwise, I'm relaxed. But if Fukushima #4 containment building collapses, as appears quite possible, we may well have a huge, huge problem that could seriously affect a very wide area indeed.

onawah

26th August 2013, 23:52

This video just came from the Forbidden Knowledge newsletter:

US Death Rates Increase from Fukushima Fallout
(from Coast to Coast show, published on youtube Jun 27, 2013

Dr. John Apsley reports on the increased
deaths in North America that he believes
are associated with the Fukushima
catastrophe and radiation leaks.

There was a spike in infant mortality rates
within the first 10 weeks of the catastrophe
in cities across the US, and the radiation
contamination likely came through rainfall,
he said, adding that infants were particularly
susceptible because of their reduced thyroid
function.

He attributes 14,000 deaths in the US so
far to the fallout from Fukushima.

Video (about 29 mins):

96o17gF3abM

http://www.ForbiddenKnowledgeTV.com/page/24143.html

Atlas

27th August 2013, 02:17

...we can't take this unique case to mean that everyone else is quite wrong and that there's a vast conspiracy to convince us that radiation is dangerous...
HOW DANGEROUS IS RADIATION?

Radiation consists of several types of subatomic particles, principally those called gamma rays, neutrons, electrons, and alpha particles, that shoot through space at very high speeds, something like 100,000 miles per second. They can easily penetrate deep inside the human body, damaging some of the biological cells of which the body is composed.

But before we shed too many tears for the poor fellow who was struck by one of these particles of radiation, it should be pointed out that every person in the world is struck by about 15,000 of these particles of radiation every second of his or her life […] These particles, totalling 500 billion per year, or 40 trillion in a lifetime, are from natural sources. In addition, our technology has introduced new sources of radiation like medical X-rays — a typical X-ray bombards us with over a trillion particles of radiation.

In order to discuss radiation exposure quantitatively, we must introduce the unit in which it is measured, called the millirem, abbreviated mrem. One millirem of exposure corresponds to being struck by approximately 7 billion particles of radiation

We frequently hear stories about incidents in which the public is exposed to radiation; radioactive material falling off a truck; contaminated water leaking out of a tank or seeping out of a waste burial ground; a radioactive source used for materials inspection being temporarily misplaced; malfunctions in nuclear plants leading to releases of radioactivity; and so on.

The thing I always look for in these stories is the radiation exposure in millirems, but it is hardly ever given. Eventually it appears in a technical journal, or I trace it down by calls to health officials. On a very few occasions it has been as high as 5-10 mrem, but in the great majority of cases it has been less than 1 mrem. In the Three Mile Island accident, average exposures in the surrounding area were 1.2 mrem — this drew the one-word banner headline "RADIATION" in a Boston newspaper.

In the supposed leaks of radioactivity from a low-level waste burial ground near Moorhead, Kentucky, there were no exposures as high as 0.1 mrem; yet this was the subject of a three-part series in a Philadelphia newspaper bearing headlines "It's Spilling All Over the U.S.," "Nuclear Grave is Haunting KY," and "There's No Place to Hide." In the highly publicized leak from a nuclear power plant near Rochester, New York, in 1982, no member of the public was exposed to as much as 0.3 mrem. Yet this was the top news story on TV network evening news for two days.

We are constantly bombarded from above by cosmic rays showering down on us from outer space, hitting us with 30 mrem per year; from below by radioactive materials like uranium, potassium, and thorium in the ground — 20 mrem/year; from all sides by radiation from the walls of our buildings (brick, stone, and plaster are derived from the ground) — l0 mrem/year; and from within, due to the radioactivity in our bodies (mostly potassium) — 25 mrem/year. All of these combined give us a total average dose of about 85 mrem per year from natural sources, or 1 mrem every 4 days. Thus, radiation exposures in the above mentioned highly publicized incidents are no more than what the average person receives every few days from these natural sources.

Diagnostic X-rays are our second largest source of whole body exposure. A dental X-ray gives us about 1 mrem, and a chest X-ray gives us about 6 mrem, but nearly all other X-rays give far higher exposures9: pelvis, 90 mrem; abdomen, 150 mrem; spine, 400 mrem; barium enema, 800 mrem. Often a series of X-rays is taken, giving total exposures of several thousand millirems. The average American gets about 80 mrem per year from this source, 80 times the exposure in the highly publicized radiation incidents.

There are several trivial sources of whole body radiation that give us about 1 mrem: an average year of TV viewing, from the X-rays emitted by television picture tubes; a year of wearing a luminous dial watch, since the luminosity comes from radioactive materials; and a coast-to-coast airline flight, because the high altitude increases exposure to cosmic rays. Each of these activities involves about the same radiation exposure as the highly publicized incidents.

All of the above-listed sources bombard all organs of our body, but the most important source of our exposure to radiation is radon gas in our homes […] About 5% of us, 12 million Americans, get more than 1,000 mrem per year, and perhaps 2 million Americans get over 2,000 mrem per year from radon. In a few houses, exposures have been found to be as high as 500,000 mrem per year.

How dangerous is 1 mrem of radiation? [...] in most situations, for each millirem of radiation we receive, our risk of dying from cancer is increased by about 1 chance in 4 million. This is the result arrived at independently by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation and the United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation. The International Commission on Radiological Protection has always accepted estimates by these prestigious groups, as has the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, the British National Radiological Protection Board, and similar groups charged with radiation protection in all technologically advanced nations.

This risk corresponds to a reduction in our life expectancy by 2 minutes. A similar reduction in our life expectancy is caused by

crossing streets 5 times (based on the average probability of being killed while crossing a street)
taking a few puffs on a cigarette (each cigarette smoked reduces life expectancy by l0 minutes)
an overweight person eating 20 extra calories (e.g., a quarter of a slice of bread and butter)
driving an extra 5 miles in an automobile

There has been intermittent publicity over the years about the fact that nuclear power plants, as a result of minor malfunctions or even in routine operation, occasionally release small amounts of radioactivity into the environment. As a result, people living very close to a plant receive about 1 mrem per year of extra radiation exposure. From the above example we see that, if moving away increases their commuting automobile travel by more than 5 miles per year (25 yards per day), or requires that they cross a street more than one extra time every 8 weeks, it is safer to live next to the nuclear plant, at least from the standpoint of routine radiation exposure.

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

We now turn to the question of why the public became so irrationally fearful of radiation. Probably the most important reason is the gross overcoverage of radiation stories by television, magazines, and newspapers. Constantly hearing stories about radiation as a hazard gave people the subconscious impression that it was something to worry about.

We often heard about "deadly radiation" or "lethal radioactivity," referring to a hazard that hadn't claimed a single victim for over a decade, and had caused less than five deaths in American history. But we never heard about "lethal electricity," although 1,200 Americans were dying each year from electrocution; or about "lethal natural gas," which was killing 500 annually with asphyxiation accidents.

A more important problem with TV stories about radiation was that they never quantified the risk. I can understand their not giving doses in millirem — that may have been too technical for their audience — but they could have easily compared exposures with natural radiation or medical X-rays. In the 1982 accident at the Rochester power plant, which was the top story on the network evening news for two days, wouldn't it have been useful to tell the public that no one received as much exposure from that accident as he or she was receiving every day from natural sources?

It was my impression that TV people considered the official committees of scientific experts to be tools of the nuclear industry rather than objective experts. […] To believe that nearly all of these scientists were somehow involved in a sinister plot to deceive the public indeed challenges the imagination.

For those who can't understand why television excessively covered and distorted information about the hazards of radiation, I believe it was because their primary concern is entertainment rather than education. One point in the ratings for the network evening news is worth $11 million per year in advertising revenue. In that atmosphere, what would happen to a TV producer who decided to concentrate on properly educating the public rather than entertaining it?

As an illustration of the low priority the networks place on their educational function, I doubt if there are more than one or two Ph.D. level scientists in the full-time employ of any television network, in spite of the fact that they are the primary source of science education for the public. Even a strictly liberal arts college with no interest in training scientists typically has one Ph.D.-level scientist for every 200 students, whereas the networks have practically none for their 200 million students.

If TV producers took their role of educating the public seriously, they would have considered it their function to transmit scientific information from the scientific community to the public. But this they didn't do. They wanted to decide what to transmit, which means that they made judgments on scientific issues. When I brought this to their attention, they always said that the scientific community was split on the issue of dangers from radiation. […] Their position was that, since the scientific community was split, they had no way to find out what the scientific consensus was.

My strong impression was that they weren't really interested in what scientists had concluded. They were only after a story that would arouse viewer interest. Clearly, a scare story about the dangers of radiation serves this purpose best.

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

Because of the factors we have been discussing and perhaps some others, the public has become irrational over fear of radiation. Its understanding of radiation dangers has virtually lost all contact with the actual dangers as understood by scientists.

Perhaps the best example of this was the howl of public protest when plans were announced more than a year after the accident at Three Mile Island to release the radioactive gas that had been sealed inside the containment structure of the damaged reactor. This was important so that some of the safety systems could be serviced, and it was obviously necessary before recovery work could begin.

Releasing this gas would expose no one to as much as 1 mrem, and the exposure to most of the protesters would be a hundred times less. Simply traveling to a protest meeting exposed the attenders to far more danger than release of the gas; moreover, an appreciable number fled the area, traveling a hundred miles or more, at the time of the release.

Recall that 1 mrem of radiation has the same risk as driving 5 miles or crossing a street five times on foot. Needless to say, the statements of fear by the protesters were transmitted to the national TV audience with no accompanying evidence that their fears were irrational.

One disheartening aspect of that episode was the effort by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to handle it. An early survey of the local citizenry revealed that there was substantial fear of the release of the gas. The NRC therefore undertook a large program of public education, explaining how trivial the health risks were. When this public education campaign was completed, another poll of the local citizenry was taken. It showed that the public's fear was greater than it was before the campaign. The public's reaction on matters of radiation defied all rational explanation.

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

When a particle of radiation penetrates a cell, the damage it does may cause the cell to die. If enough cells in a body organ die, the organ may cease to function, and this can lead to a person's death by what is termed radiation sickness. A dose of 500,000 mrem received over a short time period gives about a 50% risk of death, and with 1,000,000 mrem this risk is 100% unless there is heroic medical intervention, as by bone marrow transplants. After such an intense exposure, loss of hair, swelling, and vomiting are typical symptoms. If death does not occur within 30 days, the victim normally recovers fully.

(source: phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter5 (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter5.html))

ThePythonicCow

27th August 2013, 02:43

Atlas

27th August 2013, 04:18

Any idea what millirems we're risking from Fukushima?
I have no idea about the situation in Fukushima.

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

I entirely agree that the fear mongering over radiation is excessive, as you so well document. But I also agree with others that radiation can be sickening or deadly. "The dose makes the poison." (Paracelsus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus), 1500's).

A dose of 500,000 mrem received over a short time period gives about a 50% risk of death, and with 1,000,000 mrem this risk is 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My wildly uninformed guess would be however that (1) many workers around Fukushima have received serious doses, (2) much sea life in the flows coming from there are starting to receive serious doses, and (3) if they lose control of Fukushima and she goes critical, then much of Japan, the northern Pacific and western parts of the Americas will be unsafe.

I agree with TargeT, Kimberley and others saying that radiation issues are part of an energy related agenda of some kind.

TargeT

27th August 2013, 14:07

The thing I always look for in these stories is the radiation exposure in millirems
Any idea what millirems we're risking from Fukushima?

I entirely agree that the fear mongering over radiation is excessive, as you so well document. But I also agree with others that radiation can be sickening or deadly. "The dose makes the poison." (Paracelsus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus), 1500's).

My wildly uninformed guess would be however that (1) many workers around Fukushima have received serious doses, (2) much sea life in the flows coming from there are starting to receive serious doses, and (3) if they lose control of Fukushima and she goes critical, then much of Japan, the northern Pacific and western parts of the Americas will be unsafe.

This is all that is being discussed in my mind... we need to define WHAT level of radiation is bad, and what is "safe" (or as many examples have shown... "good")

people are slipping into the very human mode of dichotomy here, as if someone who doesn't agree with you is instantly the complete polar opposite and is speaking in extremes.

what is trying to be brought to light by a few others and myself is that low levels of radiation, just like aspirin or water or arsenic or anything in the world really, are good for you.

and we are trying to show that we have some understanding of what those levels are.

I thought it was a quite simple concept, but clearly it's not & other than sounding like a broken record I'm not sure how to bring this information to the public realm.

as for the conversion to mRems I've posted many conversion charts and readings from ***. (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62507-Japan-nuclear-agency-upgrades-Fukushima-alert-level&p=717750&viewfull=1#post717750)

Here's some helpful info on REM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roentgen_equivalent_man

Looks like fukushima has around 10,000 mrem exposure (or 490,000 rem lower than some people are exposed to just by living in their house).

Atlas

27th August 2013, 15:08

As per my calculations, if the exposure in Fukushima is 10,000 mrem, then this is equivalent to:

1% of the lethal dose
66 abdomen X-rays
117 times the average yearly radiation from natural sources
risk of dying from cancer is increased by about 1 chance in 400
a reduction in life expectancy by nearly 14 days

Atlas

27th August 2013, 15:33

http://local.ans.org/virginia/3dSTW/2011/Fukushima.Radiation.Effects.pdf

Notice:

Collective dose estimates are about 800-1800 person-Sv to most affected population, and perhaps several times that to greater surrounding population
Chernobyl ~255,000 person-Sv

Deaths due to earthquake/tsunami: ~25,000
Deaths or serious injuries due to direct radiation exposures: 0

Cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures: can’t be ruled out – conservative risk estimates ~100s cases, against an expected ~10 million cases
At this level, projected increase in cancer mortality would be ~0.001% above the natural rate

Atlas

27th August 2013, 16:06

Radioactive levels are very low in these tuna
Q2EEgqVZVnc

panopticon

28th August 2013, 08:32

This is all that is being discussed in my mind... we need to define WHAT level of radiation is bad, and what is "safe" (or as many examples have shown... "good")

people are slipping into the very human mode of dichotomy here, as if someone who doesn't agree with you is instantly the complete polar opposite and is speaking in extremes.

what is trying to be brought to light by a few others and myself is that low levels of radiation, just like aspirin or water or arsenic or anything in the world really, are good for you.

and we are trying to show that we have some understanding of what those levels are.

I largely agree with this.
There is much to much uninformed commentary coming from the media and being hyped by vested interests.

While I don't agree with the hypothesis presented by some that "all radiation is good for you" I have read too many reports on the possible benefits of low dose hormesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis) to say "all radiation is bad for you". Indeed there is some evidence that low dose, low duration beta radiation may be beneficial when applied externally in some cases.

I am not saying that a low dose continual or high duration is beneficial for someone (I reported the ~20mSv per annum long term finding of workers in the nuclear industry previously as a threshold for increased incidents of various cancers, cataracts and leukaemia in another thread) or that any form of internal ingestion by someone is "good" for them. Indeed most ingested material has been shown to move through the body (70% from memory) quite quickly with most of the remaining material leaving the body within a week. While certain isotopes may concentrate in bone marrow, organs, fatty tissue, etc. their levels are dependant on the type and quantity of material ingested.

I don't think that this is as simple as coming up with a figure value so as 'to define WHAT level of radiation is bad, and what is "safe"'. This is largely dependent on individual circumstance, age, state of health, radiation source, radiation type etc. For example the number of Thyroid cancers increased in persons up to the age of 30 in the Chernobyl fallout range (I need to find the source but am too busy at the moment to dig it out), but had little effect on those over this age. From memory this was dependent on the youth of a person being more susceptible to the mutagenic properties of the I-131 ingested.

The Fukushima accident is not as bad as the Chernobyl accident.

The Fukushima accident is largely isolated to the region surrounding the facility.

However, it is important to remember that TEPCO never tells the truth and we have no idea as to the real quantity of radioactive material (water) leaked, it's contents, whether it has leaked into the ocean or was largely absorbed into the soil, or the uptake potential of the contaminants within the wider food chain (caesium -> plankton (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/05/23/national/cesium-levels-in-water-plankton-baffle-scientists/) -> fish -> humans or seals).

The Fukushima accident has the potential to be much worse if suitable containment operations are not implemented soon.

Yes, we must stop the fear mongery by careful evaluation and analysis of information that is available to us. TEPCO down plays or just plain lies (they have a long history of this) so we have no idea what is actually going on. Here is the link for the TEPCO media handouts on the Fukushima Plant:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/handouts/index-e.html

I watched a UN report the other day in which the speaker detailed how TEPCO had changed the radiation detectors they used in effected zones around Fukushima because the IAEA sanctioned detectors where reporting higher detection rates than they wanted...

Maybe we should be discussing the ineptitude(?) of TEPCO and the potential danger that Fukushima presents if there is a further "incident" at the site?
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

TargeT

28th August 2013, 14:25

I don't think that this is as simple as coming up with a figure value so as 'to define WHAT level of radiation is bad, and what is "safe"'.

Your right, absolute statements should not be used (ie all radiation at low level is safe for everyone) but we can empirically say that there clearly is a "safe" level of radiation, as we are exposed to radiation our entire life without stop & only through accidental increases in exposure (or rather, unplanned increased exposure) have we seen that radiation is very good for people; further testing is definitely needed.

But from what I have seen, (accidental exposure vrs studies that radiation is bad for you) there is a heavily lopsided amount of evidence that radiation is good for you at low levels, and nothing really that says otherwise.

The Fukushima accident has the potential to be much worse if suitable containment operations are not implemented soon.

most certainly true, HOWEVER, it would still be a localized event; not "global death" that some are saying it could be.

I watched a UN report the other day in which the speaker detailed how TEPCO had changed the radiation detectors they used in effected zones around Fukushima because the IAEA sanctioned detectors where reporting higher detection rates than they wanted...

Maybe we should be discussing the ineptitude(?) of TEPCO and the potential danger that Fukushima presents if there is a further "incident" at the site?
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

if nothing else this situation is a good example of how a greed based system is NOT conducive to this type of work; however neither is governmental (non-greed based); I think the conversation should be much broader, and should include the following questions:

Why are we not responsible for our own power production?

If (and it seems it is) radiation is good for you, why are we told that NO level of exposure is acceptable (even though we are exposed just by living)?

Why are all nuclear reactors based on the refinement and concentration of nuclear material, concentration that creates the only sources of dangerous radiation (what i mean is: refined uranium is used in breeder reactors for the fissile material, yet I am wearing uranium ore and it's not only safe, but healthy for me)?

Why are LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors) not used? (they use naturally occurring thorium, it does not need to be purified and is very difficult to use in weapons creation; we had one running for over 5 years in the 1940's & it could use our current "nuclear waste" as fuel, reducing it to harmless levels)

And the ultimate question, that this entire topic centers around (in my mind):

Why is conceivably limitless, distributed (non-centrally controlled) energy being kept from the world?

778 neighbour of some guy

28th August 2013, 14:37

Why is conceivably limitless, distributed (non-centrally controlled) energy being kept from the world?

Because we STILL have oil and big money is made from it, fuel, plastic and its more exotic equivalents, drugs, paint and all the disgusting crap they sell to keep your life clean with ( check under kitchen sink for details).

Check out Maia's, prototype anti gravity flying car video thread, when real that is somewhat of a nice synchronicity, with huge implications.

Cidersomerset

1st September 2013, 14:52

http://static.bbci.co.uk/frameworks/barlesque/2.48.3/desktop/3.5/img/blq-blocks_grey_alpha.png

1 September 2013 Last updated at 10:09

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69587000/jpg/_69587112_8d52c8e0-7455-4bc0-9101-2ed5c1eea991.jpg

Fukushima radiation levels '18 times higher' than thoughtJapanese
Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Toshimitsu Motegi (2nd R-red helmet)
inspecting contamination water tanks Japanese Economy Minister
Toshimitsu Motegi inspected the site on Monday

Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
At the source of Fukushima's water Watch
Fukushima 'much worse' than reported
Q&A: Fukushima leak problems

Radiation levels around Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant are 18 times higher than
previously thought, Japanese authorities have warned.Last week the plant's
operator reported radioactive water had leaked from a storage tank into the ground.
It now says readings taken near the leaking tank on Saturday showed radiation was
high enough to prove lethal within four hours of exposure.

The plant was crippled by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) had originally said the radiation emitted
by the leaking water was around 100 millisieverts an hour. However, the company
said the equipment used to make that recording could only read measurements of
up to 100 millisieverts.The new recording, using a more sensitive device, showed a
level of 1,800 millisieverts an hour.

The new reading will have direct implications for radiation doses received by
workers who spent several days trying to stop the leak last week, the BBC's Rupert
Wingfield-Hayes reports from Tokyo.

In addition, Tepco says it has discovered a leak on another pipe emitting radiation
levels of 230 millisieverts an hour.

The plant has seen a series of water leaks and power failures.

The 2011 tsunami knocked out cooling systems to the reactors, three of which
melted down. The damage from the tsunami has necessitated the constant
pumping of water to cool the reactors.This is believed to be the fourth major leak
from storage tanks at Fukushima since 2011 and the worst so far in terms of
volume.

After the latest leak, Japan's nuclear-energy watchdog raised the incident level
from one to three on the international scale measuring the severity of atomic
accidents, which has a maximum of seven.

Experts have said the scale of water leakage may be worse than officials have
admitted.

Graphic showing the location of the pools of radioactive water found at the
Fukushima nuclear plant

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69387000/jpg/_69387315_fukushima_leak624.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23918882

gittarpikk

1st September 2013, 15:47

Well a real clue to what the real danger level could be is possibly in my own experience as a radiation worker back in the early 90's for Duke power on the East coast

We were insulation workers /tradesmen and were hired during outages (plant repair /reload period of inactivity)

For about 2 weeks we played cards outside the gate while our security backgrounds were being checked and occsionally we had a class on plant ops , security and radiation .

In those classes....before we were actually allowed to be brought into the plant to work...we were told things about radiation including that yes in high levels it can damage your genes...but with protection (suits, cloths, masks, gloves and doscemetry --portable detection modules taped to your suit) and its proper wearing and tapiing all seames etc...that we would not pick up any radiation. We were 'allowed ' a certain amount of 'exposure' and tested by wand and/or beta machines at the end of each exposure to limit the actual exposure...and any physical contact with things like radioactive dust or water,

So if you got 'leaked on; by something like a tank valve and you had not properly donned your cotton suites, rubber gloves /boots etc...you could very well 'Crap Up'...which was the term used when you screwed up and took on radiation

this always resulted in meeting the RP (Radiation Protection) clean up team who were not very 'comfortable while they scrubbed your skin raw...and removed the offending rad dust from you before you were let outside the plant again

Sometimes duct tape, when rubbed down over an area that had contamination and pulled from the skin roughly would get it off...but sometimes it took many showers/cleaning to get you clean

I never 'Crapped up' once in my tenure of several outages..

but while there I understood and was told things the public is not aware of,,,

The whole RP thing is a huge overkill in the states.. to allow mega bucks to be charged to the public to keep things 'clean' and uncontaminated.

This includes huge storage facilities for even very slightly contaminated paper suits, gloves etc...as well as any tool /part that has been used and has a very slight trace of activity.

Radiation protection is a bureaucracy and mega godzillions are paid to create the circumstances to keep the 'public' clear of any 'contamination'...and that in reality it is much safer than the public is told/allowed to believe. I witnessed this by how little protection the 'RP' people wore when they did their checking inside the plant and protected areas (areas that had some radiation detected). Those areas has labels on the amount and location of hot spots for ll to see.

We , basically , were hired for our 'allowable' radiation exposure we could take as a human and were only allowed a certain amount per year... so we 'rented' our 'intake' to the company as a radiation skilled tradesman.

We also were made aware that in places like Japan, or other countries that they were seen many, many times with no protection at all...with no obvious effects of having been involved in radiation work.

However, our media, to create propaganda here in the states to keep the people scared, would search out any birth defects, etc and blow it up to huge proportions to make their points and keep that 'overkill' funding coming.

So it was told to us that we would never be exposed to any levels that could possibly hurt us in due to the overkill....and that the protection that other countries used was more appropriate for the actual exposure....but then again , they saved mega bucks uselessly spent on trivial protection....typical of third world countries.

So now we have had catastrophes at Fukushima.. and we see some things that our MSM have captured on video ...but its obvious they are not allowed inside the plant. My guess is they are walking around in it with little protection and their detectors are all set at only dangerous levels rather than the trivial amounts that our stateside detectors are set at.....but if the MSM gets info of the actual levels that are there...it seems WAAAAY to high...when in reality is safe...or maybe even just borderline on being dangerous...and if something gets dangerous...they do actually list an ' event' in their logs as required by the regulatory agencies.

Hope this helps to maybe understand what is actually dangerous....and what is media/bureaucracy fear mongering/bilking the population.

gittarpikk

1st September 2013, 16:10

panopticon

2nd September 2013, 10:28

Radiation levels around Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant are 18 times higher than previously thought, Japanese authorities have warned.

It now says readings taken near the leaking tank on Saturday showed radiation was high enough to prove lethal within four hours of exposure.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) had originally said the radiation emitted by the leaking water was around 100 millisieverts an hour. However, the company said the equipment used to make that recording could only read measurements of up to 100 millisieverts. The new recording, using a more sensitive device, showed a level of 1,800 millisieverts an hour.

The new reading will have direct implications for radiation doses received by workers who spent several days trying to stop the leak last week...

In addition, Tepco says it has discovered a leak on another pipe emitting radiation levels of 230 millisieverts an hour.

Experts have said the scale of water leakage may be worse than officials have
admitted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23918882

Now TEPCO are reporting the main leak as being 1800 mSv per hour.
Just in case anyone missed it.

-- Pan

Atlas

2nd September 2013, 15:50

August 4, 2013: Japan's first astronaut Toyohiro Akiyama:
"My biggest theme at the moment is to stop the restart of nuclear reactors in Japan."
"I stayed in the city of Koriyama, 60 km away from the Fukushima plant, until March 16 because I didn’t know what would happen to the Hamaoka nuclear power plant (in Shizuoka Prefecture, some 200 km southwest of Tokyo). If something had happened at Hamaoka (due to seismic activity), it would have caused a massive northbound exodus of people from Tokyo, which would have blocked the traffic. After I saw the Hamaoka operations were suspended, I moved to Gunma Prefecture, 200 km away from the (Fukushima) nuclear plant."

http://www.sds.com/mug/akiyama_space_minolta.jpg

"I had read books on how the Japanese government has dealt with nuclear accidents in the past. When there’s an emergency, what the authorities try to do is to maintain “law and order.” What is order? It’s protecting the system presiding at the time. At the core of the government at the time of 3/11 were two lawyers — Chief Cabinet Secretary Edano and Vice-Chief Cabinet Secretary Sengoku — and a prime minister with an engineering background (Naoto Kan). What do lawyers do? They explore possibilities within the world of order. What does maintaining order mean to them? To maintain the order of the existing “nuclear village.”

My life goal is living long. Why? Because the longer you live, the more you will find that what you believed at one time proves to be completely false or that you’ll find you have been deceived. I used to follow U.S.-Japan relations and world affairs closely, particularly from 1984 to ’88 when I was stationed in Washington. The U.S. has a law that mandates its government to declassify foreign relations-related documents 30 years after they are created, which means that documents pertaining to the era I used to cover will start to be disclosed from 2014."

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/japan1stastronaut/japan1stastronautreagan.jpg

"After Gorbachev swept to power in 1985, he unilaterally carried out a series of disarmament efforts on the part of the Soviet Union, which culminated in the Malta Summit. I don’t have the time or resources to go to the U.S. National Archives in Washington, but there must be lots of academics waiting for the release of those documents. They are so important that they are sure to prompt researchers to write papers on them. I’ve always wanted to read and study such papers, and that’s why I decided later to retreat to the mountains of Fukushima Prefecture.

After I went into the mountains, I kept in contact with my sources, and I’ve heard intriguing things about U.S.-Soviet relations. There were two things the U.S. showed the greatest interest in when it held a series of disarmament talks with the then-USSR. One was the management of decommissioned nuclear weapons, including their dismantling. The other was the management of means by which such weapons are transported. What was really at stake, though, was (the fate of) the Soviet space-industry engineers. If the missile industry finished, America would be peaceful — but where would the jobless Soviet engineers go?"

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/japan1stastronaut/japan1stastronaut.jpg

"The scenes I saw from 400 km above the Earth. The diameter of the Earth is 13,000 km, so you can’t see the Earth in its entirety if you are only 400 km away. But what still struck me as impressive was the shining blue Earth, which looked like one form of life floating in the universe. At the same time, I was reminded of the thinness of the blue layer, which is the atmosphere. So it made me visually aware that the atmosphere is so thin, and such a thin atmosphere protects every living thing — forests, trees, fish, birds, insects, human beings and everything.

Also, I could see at a glance different time zones before my eyes — the zone where it was still in the afternoon, to the zone where dusk was approaching, to places where it was getting dark and ones in pitch darkness. It was like listening to an orchestra of colors, so to speak. As I watched the Earth from 400 km away, I looked back on the history of mankind and thought about the repetition of activities that helped us grow, to now number 7 billion people."

http://openers.jp/culture/tips_event/BMW_05_ToyohiroAkiyama_MakiOhashi_archive/akiyama_top327.jpg

"What is the most basic human activity? Eating. I wondered how seriously I had thought about the act of eating, or growing things that we eat. How do farmers think about the food they grow? And what role has rice farming played in the history of Japan? I felt I couldn’t die without having some basic knowledge about these things. I guess I felt like one of the encyclopédistes.

Actually, it’s not possible to grow everything you eat. The other thing is, I have long known how society is polluted with synthetic, chemical substances. After witnessing the beauty of the Earth I made many TV programs on environmental issues, and have come to realize that our environment is protected by what cannot be exchanged for money and what is of no use to human beings."

22616

"The old people are just thinking about stocks; most of them are brainwashed by the “order” side. And there are many people with no compass. In that sense, I feel there’s a place for education, and I find it rewarding to teach students, because most of them these days don’t read newspapers or watch TV, which are tools to brainwash people. Most of them check news on the Internet or they don’t at all.

That’s where my hopes are — teaching those who are free of the influence of the mass media; from zero. It might sound like I’m spitting in my own face — as I made a living in the media for 30 years — but I’m reflecting deeply on some of the horrible acts we have committed in the media — things which led people to lose their power to think for themselves and let others do their thinking.

You can’t be creative by letting others think for you. I think the act of farming — the experience of “listening” to the wind and the light through all of your senses, as well as smelling and feeling the earth — offers the opportunity for students, in the four months they spend in the fields, to get their brains rewired. It might not work for everyone, but it offers that chance."

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJg_fzxfAZmRICI-X8YijaEbNLoQUlGCrMNMpYtLkvwzt7hIB1bA (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2013/08/03/people/cautionary-tales-from-one-not-afraid-to-risk-all/#.UiSuAH_4ZYI)

Former astronaut Toyohiro Akiyama teaches
agriculture at Kyoto University of Art and Design.

panopticon

2nd September 2013, 21:16

For those who are interested in Buares quotes a full transcript of the interview they are taken from is available here:
Cautionary tales from one not afraid to risk all (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2013/08/03/people/cautionary-tales-from-one-not-afraid-to-risk-all/)
-- Pan

Atlas

2nd September 2013, 21:39

panopticon

2nd September 2013, 21:56

Thank you panopticon, you can also click the last image of my post.

I noticed that, which was why I didn't ask for the source of the quotes.
-- Pan

TargeT

3rd September 2013, 02:06

Wow, actual hands on first person testimony on a hotly debated topic and not a single 'thanks' or comment at all...?

Well a real clue to what the real danger level could be is possibly in my own experience as a radiation worker back in the early 90's for Duke power on the East coast

We were insulation workers /tradesmen and were hired during outages (plant repair /reload period of inactivity)

For about 2 weeks we played cards outside the gate while our security backgrounds were being checked and occsionally we had a class on plant ops , security and radiation .

In those classes....before we were actually allowed to be brought into the plant to work...we were told things about radiation including that yes in high levels it can damage your genes...but with protection (suits, cloths, masks, gloves and doscemetry --portable detection modules taped to your suit) and its proper wearing and tapiing all seames etc...that we would not pick up any radiation. We were 'allowed ' a certain amount of 'exposure' and tested by wand and/or beta machines at the end of each exposure to limit the actual exposure...and any physical contact with things like radioactive dust or water,

So if you got 'leaked on; by something like a tank valve and you had not properly donned your cotton suites, rubber gloves /boots etc...you could very well 'Crap Up'...which was the term used when you screwed up and took on radiation

this always resulted in meeting the RP (Radiation Protection) clean up team who were not very 'comfortable while they scrubbed your skin raw...and removed the offending rad dust from you before you were let outside the plant again

Sometimes duct tape, when rubbed down over an area that had contamination and pulled from the skin roughly would get it off...but sometimes it took many showers/cleaning to get you clean

I never 'Crapped up' once in my tenure of several outages..

but while there I understood and was told things the public is not aware of,,,

The whole RP thing is a huge overkill in the states.. to allow mega bucks to be charged to the public to keep things 'clean' and uncontaminated.

This includes huge storage facilities for even very slightly contaminated paper suits, gloves etc...as well as any tool /part that has been used and has a very slight trace of activity.

Radiation protection is a bureaucracy and mega godzillions are paid to create the circumstances to keep the 'public' clear of any 'contamination'...and that in reality it is much safer than the public is told/allowed to believe. I witnessed this by how little protection the 'RP' people wore when they did their checking inside the plant and protected areas (areas that had some radiation detected). Those areas has labels on the amount and location of hot spots for ll to see.

We , basically , were hired for our 'allowable' radiation exposure we could take as a human and were only allowed a certain amount per year... so we 'rented' our 'intake' to the company as a radiation skilled tradesman.

We also were made aware that in places like Japan, or other countries that they were seen many, many times with no protection at all...with no obvious effects of having been involved in radiation work.

However, our media, to create propaganda here in the states to keep the people scared, would search out any birth defects, etc and blow it up to huge proportions to make their points and keep that 'overkill' funding coming.

So it was told to us that we would never be exposed to any levels that could possibly hurt us in due to the overkill....and that the protection that other countries used was more appropriate for the actual exposure....but then again , they saved mega bucks uselessly spent on trivial protection....typical of third world countries.

So now we have had catastrophes at Fukushima.. and we see some things that our MSM have captured on video ...but its obvious they are not allowed inside the plant. My guess is they are walking around in it with little protection and their detectors are all set at only dangerous levels rather than the trivial amounts that our stateside detectors are set at.....but if the MSM gets info of the actual levels that are there...it seems WAAAAY to high...when in reality is safe...or maybe even just borderline on being dangerous...and if something gets dangerous...they do actually list an ' event' in their logs as required by the regulatory agencies.

Hope this helps to maybe understand what is actually dangerous....and what is media/bureaucracy fear mongering/bilking the population.

A bit more about the bureaucracy was brought out by Paul Harvey about the asbestos industry back in the early 90's.

He exposed publicly the fact how the findings were skewed to exaggerate the danger of the asbestos dust... The old insulators worked in it all day, every day for years in dust you could cut with a knife and 'sometimes' developed a lung disease ...but that coal workers as well as any kind of dusty environment worker could develop these same diseases ..and simple common sense of a dust mask was all one really needed to prevent over exposure ..

I distinctly remember an instance where I went through an orientation from the Union Carbide (I think it was) plant about all the usual dust/danger training's and then put in a room with 30 insulators ...to be there for weeks . what was weird was it was so dusty that you could not breathe...and with no ventilation. I asked for a dusk mask ....(simple ) to wear and they would not issue it...and the explanation was they were OSHA illegal and all I could wear would be a full blown rubber face mask/filter system (called sucking rubber) and they did not have enough time allowed to train me for weeks and to issue my own mask..

Remember I was a radiation worker ,,,and had just finished a job in a nearby city in a nuclear plant with dust masks and training many degrees/levels above what is needed in just a dusty environment .. I did not need any sort of training as I was well over-trained . ...but I was becoming a hassle for the management by requesting a simple (illegal) dust mask and was told to just go home unless I wanted to work with no protection... well I left.

This is how business is 'handled' in the real world...zero common sense and 100% what the bureaucracies/corporations want so they can make tons of money off the public as a whole.... This is only a couple examples of what this whole corporate structure represents and I am sure there are thousands more very similar examples people can give of similar things in the health service, big pharma, DOT, Dept of defense, judicial, political...and the list goes on and on... sorry for the rant... but felt it needed to be stated

Thanks a lot gittarpikk; for anyone that cares to find out the truth your contribution here is well noted.

panopticon

3rd September 2013, 06:24

A bit more about the bureaucracy was brought out by Paul Harvey about the asbestos industry back in the early 90's.

He exposed publicly the fact how the findings were skewed to exaggerate the danger of the asbestos dust... The old insulators worked in it all day, every day for years in dust you could cut with a knife and 'sometimes' developed a lung disease ...but that coal workers as well as any kind of dusty environment worker could develop these same diseases ..and simple common sense of a dust mask was all one really needed to prevent over exposure ..

I distinctly remember an instance where I went through an orientation from the Union Carbide (I think it was) plant about all the usual dust/danger training's and then put in a room with 30 insulators ...to be there for weeks . what was weird was it was so dusty that you could not breathe...and with no ventilation. I asked for a dusk mask ....(simple ) to wear and they would not issue it...and the explanation was they were OSHA illegal and all I could wear would be a full blown rubber face mask/filter system (called sucking rubber) and they did not have enough time allowed to train me for weeks and to issue my own mask..

Remember I was a radiation worker ,,,and had just finished a job in a nearby city in a nuclear plant with dust masks and training many degrees/levels above what is needed in just a dusty environment .. I did not need any sort of training as I was well over-trained . ...but I was becoming a hassle for the management by requesting a simple (illegal) dust mask and was told to just go home unless I wanted to work with no protection... well I left.

This is how business is 'handled' in the real world...zero common sense and 100% what the bureaucracies/corporations want so they can make tons of money off the public as a whole.... This is only a couple examples of what this whole corporate structure represents and I am sure there are thousands more very similar examples people can give of similar things in the health service, big pharma, DOT, Dept of defense, judicial, political...and the list goes on and on... sorry for the rant... but felt it needed to be stated

G'day Gittarpikk,

As Target points out your posts on this topic are welcome.
I wasn't sure whether there had been a discussion already regards your posts due to the recent "troubles" and having been very busy this last week.

I have never heard of a Paul Harvey and can only think that (following a quick search) you are referring to a US media personality.

I am not an expert on the situation in the US in relation to asbestos however in Australia it is a major problem.

Just a quick note for those who aren't aware. I'm originally from Western Australia and have a family connection with the ex-Wittenoom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittenoom,_Western_Australia) mine. Mesothelioma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesothelioma) is a horrible ways to die and I still have family and friends who undergo periodic checks due to extensive exposure on site.

I have no love for bureaucracy or private companies due in no small part to the treatment dished out by CSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSR_Limited#Wittenoom_controversy) to employees.

At Wittenoom even though the company knew the dangers of asbestos they still sold tailings to the residents who used them in their children's "sand pits".

http://images.watoday.com.au/2012/09/04/3608061/wittenoom-kids-729-620x349.jpg

Both of these children died from Mesothelioma in their 30's.

It is in relation to this that I point out the decision of what "mask" would be suitable protective gear is very complicated. Remember that 3M manufactured a mask that was found to not offer sufficient protection from small asbestos particulate matter (Model 8710 (http://www.mesothelioma.com/asbestos-exposure/companies/minnesota-mining-manufacturing-3m.htm)). The more strict the guidelines the less likelihood of exposure.

It is good that the incidents of Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalworker's_pneumoconiosis) (Black Lung) in the US coal mining industry has steadily dropped since 1968 (due in no small part to increased air filtration and improved mining practice) however incidents of Asbestosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosis) over the same period has increased to a level higher than CWP in 2001 (due in part to the long incubation time associated with asbestos exposure). While it is still a low statistical figure I don't personally view that this is the right way to look at these horrific ways to die.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=22632&d=1378186086

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=22631&d=1378186058

This data was accessed from the 'The Work-related Lung Disease Surveillance Report, 2002 (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2003-111/pdfs/2003-111.pdf)'.

BTW as far as I'm concerned you did the right thing to leave site and not work in a potentially hazardous environment. If management doesn't supply the appropriate gear, it's time for workers to exercise their right and withdraw their labour.

Well done!

I'm also right with you on Tepco and the Japanese nuclear agency not providing information on what is going on @ Fukushima. Imagine taking an instrument onsite and it peaks so they say that is the measurement! Come on. Now they say it's 18 times higher than the originally reported amount. Typical of Tepco though. "Private company cuts corners and lies to save money". Business as usual.

Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

Sources:
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/deadly-asbestos-mine-takes-toll-for-wittenoom-kids-20120904-25bkg.html
http://www.mesothelioma.com/asbestos-exposure/companies/minnesota-mining-manufacturing-3m.htm
http://www.asbestos.com/blog/2011/09/30/respiratory-protection-is-mandatory-when-working-with-asbestos/
http://solutions.3mindia.co.in/wps/portal/3M/en_IN/PPE_SafetySolutions_APAC/Safety/Products/PoW-Product-Catalog/?PC_7_U00M8B1A00H970I56CN7OT26E7000000_nid=GPH89VHBS2gsF3RH7CD92NglNPD7NT7GPLbl
http://www.australianasbestosnetwork.org.au/Project+News/874.aspx
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2003-111/pdfs/2003-111.pdf

panopticon

3rd September 2013, 07:07

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23940214):

##################

Japan pledges $470m for Fukushima leaks

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69609000/jpg/_69609474_7cf7f745-fcd6-4b97-96ca-c87cc4caaf8e.jpg

Japan is to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to stop leaks of radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear plant.

Government spokesman Yoshihide Suga said an estimated 47bn yen ($473m, £304m) would be allocated to the project.

The leaks were getting worse and the government "felt it was essential to become involved to the greatest extent possible", Mr Suga said.

The plant was crippled by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

The disaster knocked out cooling systems to the reactors, three of which melted down.

Water is now being pumped in to cool the reactors, but storing the resultant large quantities of radioactive water has proved a challenge for plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco).

'Closely watching'
Under the government plan, a wall of frozen earth will be created around the reactors using pipes filled with coolant to prevent groundwater coming into contact with contaminated water being used to cool fuel rods.

Water treatment systems will also be upgraded to tackle the build-up of contaminated water, officials said.

The damage to the plant has necessitated the constant pumping of water to cool the reactors - a process which creates an extra 400 tonnes of contaminated water every day.

That water is being stored in temporary tanks at the site. Last month Tepco said that 300 tonnes of highly radioactive water had leaked from one of the tanks, in the most serious incident to date.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69414000/jpg/_69414872_fukushima_timeline_624.jpg
Satellite images show how the number of water storage tanks has increased in the past two years. The tanks store contaminated water that has been used to cool the reactors.

But in recent months there have also been leaks from pipes and there are concerns that water is seeping from damaged reactor buildings into the ground.

Last month, Japan's nuclear regulator classified the severity level of radioactive water leak issues at Fukushima as a three on the seven-point International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (Ines).

The triple meltdown at Fukushima two years ago was classed as a level 7 incident, one of only two nuclear events ever rated that highly - along with the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the former Soviet Union.

"The world is closely watching whether we can dismantle the (Fukushima) plant, including the issue of contaminated water," said Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

"The government is determined to work hard to resolve the issue."

The funding pledge comes days before a decision is due on the host nation for the 2020 summer Olympic Games, for which Tokyo is a candidate.

Meanwhile, one of Japan's only two nuclear reactors still online was shut down on Tuesday for mandatory inspections.

The shutdown of Kansai Electric's Oi Unit 3 reactor will leave the plant's Unit 4 reactor the only one still functioning in Japan. Unit 4 must also be taken offline later this month for routine assessment.

Restarting Japan's other nuclear reactors remains a highly controversial issue, but the government is working to get this done to fill an energy gap.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69415000/gif/_69415268_fukushima_groundwater_v2.gif
Water from the storage tanks has seeped into the groundwater and then into the sea. Efforts to use a chemical barrier to prevent sea contamination have not worked.

##################

Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23940214

panopticon

3rd September 2013, 07:44

So, if I understand what is being proposed by the Japanese Nuclear Regulation Authority, they plan on:

Building a big frozen earth wall that will be used to stop the contaminated water from coming into contact with ground water.
Decontaminating the 300,000 tonnes of contaminated water stored on site so it can be pumped into the ocean.
The only contaminant they are saying will be left in the water is Tritium.
The water pumped into the ocean will be diluted by the ocean water to below harmful levels.
All to detract the worlds media attention ahead of the 2020 Olympic decision.

Yeah, nothing could go wrong with this carefully formulated plan.
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

Sources:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-02/radioactive-water-from-the-fukushima-nuclear-plant-to-be-dumped/4930084
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/japan-fukushima-idUKL4N0GY33X20130903
http://www.smh.com.au/world/high-radiation-spreads-at-ruined-fukushima-plant-japan-vows-aid-20130903-2t1jf.html
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/09/03/10/30/japan-shuts-down-one-nuclear-reactor
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23940214

Cidersomerset

3rd September 2013, 16:24

Fukushima leaks: Japan pledges $470m for 'ice wall'

N2Uydo2MA8k

Published on 3 Sep 2013

Joanna Gosling explains where the leaks are coming from
Japan is to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into building
a frozen wall around the Fukushima nuclear plant to stop leaks
of radioactive water.

Government spokesman Yoshihide Suga said an estimated
47bn yen ($473m, £304m) would be allocated.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69623000/gif/_69623952_fukushima_ice_wall_624.gif

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23940214

TargeT

3rd September 2013, 16:54

I wonder who's company will be heading up the "ice wall" project... I bet a good old game of "follow the money" would be VERY telling at this point....

Look at the expansion of water tank storage... someone is making out like a BANDIT here....

Kimberley

3rd September 2013, 17:23

I have not been to this thread for a few days thank you gittarpikk and all for your posts.

Delight

3rd September 2013, 20:37

I just came across this and have no idea if its been posted...if yes, mods can delete. It put things in better perspective for me about the conventional ideas of dosage meaning

http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/radiation.png

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

panopticon

4th September 2013, 03:06

Another good resource, though a bit complicated (it is a complicated subject), for understanding the differences in measuring between absorbed, equivalent and effective dose:

PTaSfpBJgCE

Fjy_hVpWgWs

Which are originally from here:
www.ionactive.co.uk/multi-media_video.html?m=14

-- Pan

panopticon

4th September 2013, 04:57

Back in June of this year Akio Matsumura was writing about the contaminated water stored onsite @ the Fukushima Plant.

He mentioned the 'June 18 New York Times article by Hiroko Tabuchi' titled 'High Levels of Radioactive Strontium Found in Groundwater Near Fukushima Plant (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/world/asia/high-level-of-radioactive-strontium-found-in-groundwater-near-fukishima-plant.html?_r=0)' and went on to reference an explanation of the effects that Strontium and Tritium have when internalised.

I found this description useful so thought I'd share excerpts from it.

##########

Explaining Radiation

Like all material things, radioactive substances are made up of atoms. However, the atoms of a radioactive material are unstable, unlike most of the atoms in most of the materials around us in everyday life, which are stable.

Unstable atoms are particularly dangerous.

Stable atoms don’t change. They stay the same forever. But a radioactive atom will suddenly and violently disintegrate, giving off a burst of subatomic shrapnel called “atomic radiation”.

The unit of radioactivity is “one becquerel”, which indicates that one radioactive atom is disintegrating every second. One thousand becquerels means a thousand disintegrations are taking place every second, or over 3 and a half million disintegrations every hour.

Living cells are injured or killed by the passage of the subatomic projectiles given off by disintegrating atoms, which may be one of three types, called alpha, beta and gamma emissions.

Gamma emissions are like x-rays, but more powerful. They can penetrate right through the human body. Beta emissions are quite different; they are not rays, but electrically charged particles, and they can only travel a few millimetres in soft tissue. Alpha emissions are also made up of electrically charged particles, but those particles are much more massive and even less penetrating than beta emissions.
Each alpha particle is roughly 7000 times heavier than a beta particle. Alpha particles can be stopped by a single sheet of paper or by the dead layer of skin on the outside of your hand.

The Dangers of Radioactivity

Outside the body, the main danger is from the penetrating gamma radiation. External gamma rays can cause “whole body irradiation”, although some parts of the body may get the bulk of the dose — the hands, the feet, the gonads.

But once radioactive materials get inside the body, because a person has unknowingly breathed contaminated air, or drank contaminated water, or ate contaminated food, then those radioactive atoms are disintegrating right inside the body. Such inhaled or ingested radioactive materials are called “internal emitters”, because the gamma rays and beta particles and alpha particles are now being given off internally, directly damaging internal cells. Occasionally, such damaged cells can turn into cancerous growths many years later. If reproductive cells are damaged, the harmful effects can be experienced by children or grandchildren.

Decades of careful research has revealed that internal alpha emissions are about 20 times more biologically damaging than internal beta or gamma emissions, per unit of energy. In other words, a given internal alpha emission experienced by a given population will cause 20 times more cases of cancer or genetic defects than a comparable internal beta or gamma emission experienced by a similar population. (This factor is called the “relative biological effectiveness” or RBE.)

Research has also shown that in many cases internal beta emissions are more damaging than gamma emissions of similar energy. In such cases the RBE could be 2 or 3 or more, meaning that beta particles can be 2 or 3 times as biologically damaging as gamma rays.

What Do Tritium and Strontium-90 Do?

Tritium (the name given to radioactive hydrogen) and strontium-90 ... are beta-emitting radioactive materials. They give off almost no gamma rays, so they are primarily an internal hazard. Since water is essential for all living things, water contaminated with tritium and strontium-90 will be eagerly absorbed into any living organism that drinks that water.

Strontium-90 is chemically similar to calcium, very important for the formation of bones and teeth, and a key nutrient in milk. So when strontium-90 is ingested, the body eagerly stores it up in the bones, the teeth — and in mother’s milk, where it is readily passed on to the nursing infant. Since strontium-90 has a half-life of about 30 years (that’s the time required for just half of the radioactive atoms to disintegrate) it is easy to see that the beta emissions will continue for decades to irradiate the bones and the bone marrow of the contaminated individual, whether adult or infant. This unremitting radioactive exposure will increase the risk of bone cancer and leukemia (cancer of the blood).

... when a radioactive atom of strontium-90 disintegrates, it changes into an atom of yttrium-90 — another beta-emitting radioactive material. Yttrium-90 is not chemically similar to calcium, and so the body moves it around to other organs inside the anatomy...

Tritium is chemically identical to ordinary hydrogen, except that it is radioactive. Since hydrogen is one of the basic building blocks of all organic molecules, including DNA molecules, some of the radioactive tritium that is ingested by a person will become “organically bound” as part of larger organic molecules. The long-term medical effects of chronic tritium exposure are still not well understood and remain the source of considerable scientific controversy.
...
And it should be borne in mind that there are many dozens of other radioactive materials in the contaminated water at Fukushima, mostly beta-emitters and alpha-emitters, that are not even being mentioned by TEPCO or by the Japanese government.
Source (http://akiomatsumura.com/2013/06/nyt-high-levels-of-strontium-found-in-groundwater-near-fukushima-plant.html)

##########

Remember that Tritium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium) can not be removed from the contaminated water.

This is not meant as a "be afraid, be very afraid" post.
It is simply to inform those interested in the way that differing elements behave.

The human body will remove many of these contaminants as part of the normal "in and out" process. As I said before most material ingested goes straight through. The danger at low dose is in that small % that remains behind in the blood, bones and organs. Inhaled particulate matter also can be absorbed or expelled by the body quite readily at low concentrations. It is the cases where this doesn't happen that presents the need for regulation.

The dilution of the contaminated water in the ocean, while not ideal, will bring it below "hazardous" levels as dictated by those who think they know what is best for us..

It will also put a small amount of Tritium (with an ~12 year half-life) into the food chain, however Tritium has a biological half-life of between 9 and 13 days (dependent on it being eaten/drank and the individual) so presents minimal statistical danger. The best way to move Tritium from the body (according to the research I've done) is to drink non-contaminated water.

-- Pan

Sources:

NYT: High Levels of Strontium Found in Groundwater Near Fukushima Plant (http://akiomatsumura.com/2013/06/nyt-high-levels-of-strontium-found-in-groundwater-near-fukushima-plant.html)
High Levels of Radioactive Strontium Found in Groundwater Near Fukushima Plant (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/world/asia/high-level-of-radioactive-strontium-found-in-groundwater-near-fukishima-plant.html)
Tritium page - wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium)
Preliminary report on human excretion of tritium (1950) (http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/159360-i87Nws/webviewable/159360.pdf)

panopticon

4th September 2013, 05:24

Handout from Tepco, 2nd September, showing where radiation levels were detected and images of flanges believed to be responsible:

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/handouts/2013/images/handouts_130902_04-e.pdf

Source (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/handouts/2013/images/handouts_130902_04-e.pdf)

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/handouts/2013/images/handouts_130902_05-e.pdf

Source (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/handouts/2013/images/handouts_130902_05-e.pdf)

-- Pan

panopticon

4th September 2013, 07:35

Using the above posts as reference in reading the following statements from Tepco shows how differing radiation sources and types can cause confusion and why more detailed explanations are needed.

####################

Explanation regarding the high radiation levels (maximum 1,800 mSv/h) found at tanks in Fukushima Daiichi NPS on August 31, 2013
September 01, 2013

We deeply apologize for the great anxiety and inconvenience caused by the recent contaminated water issues at the Fukushima Daiichi NPS, which affect residents near the power station and the broader society.

With regard to the high radiation levels (maximum 1,800 mSv/h) found at tanks in Fukushima Daiichi NPS on August 31, some articles reported that "by simple calculation, if a person were exposed to this amount of radiation for four hours continuously, it would lead to death," or "it would take only one minute to reach the annual radiation exposure limit for workers," etc. We would like to explain more about the figure of 1,800 mSv/h.

We used measuring equipment that measures both beta radiation and gamma radiation. The 1,800 mSv/h figure represents the total amount of beta radiation and gamma radiation. Most of the 1,800 mSv/h was beta radiation; gamma radiation measured 1 mSv/h.

Since the control level of the equivalent dose for skin is 500 mSv/year, such radiation level (1800mSv/h) should be carefully controlled. However, since beta radiation travels only a short distance, radiation levels can be reduced considerably by maintaining a distance. Moreover, since beta radiation is weak and can be blocked by a thin sheet of metal, such as aluminum, we believe that we can control radiation exposure by the using proper equipment and clothing.

Additionally, although 1,800 mSv/h was detected at 5cm above the floor, the radiation level at 50cm above the floor was 15 mSv/h. Thus, the figure of 1,800 mSv/h does not represent the radiation level of the whole area.

Some articles reported that "if a person were exposed to this amount of radiation for four hours continuously, it would lead to death," by comparing with the radiation level that would result in death (7,000 mSv), or "it would take only one minute to reach the annual radiation exposure limit for workers," by comparing with the annual radiation exposure limit for workers (50 mSv). However, we believe that simply comparing the 1,800 mSv/h figure with these standard levels is inappropriate, since the standard levels represent the cumulative effective dose (not equivalent dose) upon the whole body.

We will investigate the cause of this issue, taking any appropriate countermeasures immediately, and continue to make every effort to secure the safety of workers.
Source (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/announcements/2013/1230191_5502.html)

###

Water Leak at a Tank in the H4 area in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (Follow-up Information 28)
September 04, 2013

This is follow-up information on the "water leak at a tank in the H4 area in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station" found on August 19.

During a patrol yesterday (on September 3), we detected high does equivalent rates at the 2 locations in the H3 area which we previously announced as having showed high dose equivalent rates (β and γ rays (70μm dose equivalent rate*1)). We conducted dose measurement at these locations using a high-range measuring device also.
*1: 70μm dose equivalent rate = dose equivalent rate to the skin, etc.

In addition, on Tank No.7 in Group A in the H6 area around which a high dose equivalent rate (β and γ rays (70μm dose equivalent rate*1)) was detected on September 2, we conducted dose measurement using a high-range measuring device also. The dose rate detected at the 50-cm distance today was 5.5mSv/h and did not exceed 10mSv/h.

· Tank No.4 (north side) in Group B in the H3 area: 40mSv/h (at the 50-cm distance)*2, 2,200mSv/h (at the 5-cm distance)*2
· Tank No.4 (south side) in Group B in the H3 area: 10mSv/h (at the 50-cm distance)*2, 400mSv/h (at the 5-cm distance)*2
· Tank No.7 in Group A in the H6 area: 5.5mSv/h (at the 50-cm distance)*2, 300mSv/h (at the 5-cm distance)*2
*2: Values of 70μm dose equivalent rates (β ray).
(Values of 1cm dose equivalent rates (γ ray) were less than 1mSv/h.)

Further, we have confirmed that the water levels of the tanks in the group including Tank No.7 in Group A in the H6 area have been unchanged.
Source (www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/2013/1230277_5130.html)

####################

So, if these reports are to be believed, the potential danger to employees on site was much less than was being widely bandied around by the media.

In addition the impression that had been given (or maybe it says more about my interpretation of the impression than what was actually said) was that there was a major water leak on site. Whether there was or not is hard to tell (Tepco have a long history of covering up accidents) however it is plain from what little we know of the situation that the employees are under-paid and under-trained with sub-standard equipment. The ones who identified the radiation leak may have received a high dose of beta radiation (not the more dangerous gamma radiation) but if their protective gear was of a high enough standard there should be no harmful side-effects.
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

Cidersomerset

4th September 2013, 15:25

Update on yesterdays article...........

http://static.bbci.co.uk/frameworks/barlesque/2.48.3/desktop/3.5/img/blq-blocks_grey_alpha.png

4 September 2013 Last updated at 09:55

Radiation levels hit new high near Fukushima water tanks

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69636000/jpg/_69636434_69621992.jpg

Aerial view shows Tokyo Electric Power Co.

(Tepco's) tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and its
contaminated water storage tanks (bottom) in Fukushima, in this file photo taken
by Kyodo 20 August 2013 Tepco faces a major challenge to safely store
contaminated water at Fukushima

Radiation levels around tanks storing contaminated water at Japan's crippled
Fukushima nuclear plant have risen by a fifth to a new high, officials say.
Ground readings near one set of tanks stood at 2,200 millisieverts (mSv) on
Tuesday, the plant operator and Japan's nuclear authority said.

Saturday's reading was 1,800 mSv.

Last month, plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) said it had found
highly contaminated water leaking from a storage tank.Other leaks have also been
reported, prompting the government on Tuesday to pledge 47bn yen ($473m, £304
m) in funding to tackle the problem.

The spike in radiation levels found on Tuesday was in the same area where the
1,800 mSv level was detected on Saturday, a spokeswoman from Tepco told
Bloomberg.

Joanna Gosling explains where the leaks are coming from

N2Uydo2MA8k

The readings are thought to be high enough to provide a lethal radiation dose to
someone standing near contaminated areas without protective gear within hours.

But Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) also said the areas were easily
contained.

'Drastic measures'

The earthquake and tsunami in March 2011 knocked out cooling systems to
reactors at the Fukushima plant, three of which melted down.

Water is now being pumped in to cool the reactors, but storing the resultant large
quantities of radioactive water has proved a challenge for Tepco.

The process creates an extra 400 tonnes of contaminated water every day, which
must be stored in temporary tanks. But leaks of contaminated water, both from the
tanks, pipes and through damaged structures, have been a persistent problem.
Groundwater from the hills surrounding the plant also flows down and into the
radio active areas. Under the government plan announced on Tuesday, a wall of
frozen earth will be created around the reactors using pipes filled with coolant. This
aims to prevent groundwater coming into contact with contaminated water being
used to cool fuel rods.

Water treatment systems would also be upgraded to tackle the build-up of
contaminated water, officials said.

On Wednesday, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told journalists in Tokyo that
the government was willing "to take drastic measures of a maximum scale" to
resolve the issue ahead of the 2020 summer Olympic Games.

"We are aware of concerns over the issue of contaminated water leakages at
Fukushima, the government will take charge and will definitely resolve this
problem," he said.

Tokyo is a candidate as a host nation for the Olympics, and the decision is expected
in days.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69623000/gif/_69623952_fukushima_ice_wall_624.gif

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23945612

TargeT

4th September 2013, 17:54

all of these dose charts you guys are posting are pretty cute, the text next to them is based on nothing, no studies, nothing at all except the nuclear regulatory committees suggestions of what level of exposure does what.

1,800-2,200 mSv is NOT leathal after an hour not even close... notice how they put in "is thought" as a way to couch their statement; very clever use of language to suggest an idea but not to stand behind it.

I'm seeing more fear porn here & it's sad.

2,200 mSv is getting much closer to levels that we should be concerned about; but NOT a "the world is going to die" situation.

onawah

4th September 2013, 18:19

I still have no idea what levels are safe or whose statistics to trust--that will take more time and study, but I can say that I am experiencing much less anxiety about Fukushima (and particularly the welfare of my loved ones who live on the West Coast) since I've accepted the possibility that things are not as bad as they've been portrayed.
It's been difficult to make the leap of faith because I've been an environmentalist all my adult life, and Helen Calidicott was a heroine of mine for a long time.
This is one instance in which keeping an open mind has paid off in lessening worry, and I'm grateful for that.

panopticon

5th September 2013, 11:39

Here's a few excerpts from a longer article by Tim Hume (CNN) on the present situation @Fukushima.

###########################

Why are these holding tanks leaking?

The leaks that have occurred so far have been in a type of storage tank using plastic seals. About 350 of the 1,000 tanks in place are constructed in the same way. These are the ones that were constructed hastily in the aftermath of the disaster as a makeshift measure -- but, two and a half years on, are beginning to fail.

Michael Friedlander, a nuclear engineer and former U.S. power plant operator, told CNN the eventual failure of the tanks years after they were deployed on a supposedly temporary, emergency basis is illustrative of TEPCO's ad hoc, unsustainable response to the disaster.

"Given the cards they were dealt, building a tank farm to hold the water in in the heat of the emergency, there was really there only one option, so I don't fault them for that," he said.

But beyond the emergency response, TEPCO had demonstrated no long-term vision for dealing with the problem, he said.

"You can't be getting rid of 400 tons of water a day with no end in sight," he added. "Their strategy was never sustainable. You've got all this radioactive material sitting there next to the plant with effectively no long term strategy for dealing with it."

What threat does the current leak pose?

"In the grand scheme of things, is it a potential threat to Tokyo or the countryside outside the plant proper? Truthfully, no," said Friedlander.

"In the event one of the tanks ruptures due to another seismic event would it make a huge mess? Absolutely."

It also represents a threat to the workers at the plant if they come into contact with radiation at that level. Some experts have suggested that contaminated water may need to dumped into the ocean at some stage.

What are the options to halt this leakage?

TEPCO has proposed setting up a subterranean barrier around the plant by freezing the ground around it, preventing groundwater from leaking into the damaged plant and carrying radioactive particles with it as it seeps out.

The plan to freeze the ground presents significant technical challenges. It could involve plunging thousands of tubes carrying a powerful coolant liquid deep into the ground surrounding the stricken reactor buildings. The technology has been used before in the construction of tunnels, but never on the massive scale that the Fukushima plant would require.

Will it work?

According to Friedlander, this technology has only really been employed as a temporary solution, during construction projects for example -- but to attempt to use the freezing option as a long-term option would make little sense.

He said the only viable option is to clean the water to a standard where it can be released. "I get it's going to take 40 years to decontaminate those buildings," he said.

"But there has to be a way to figure out where groundwater intrusion is coming from and stop it. There has to be a way of doing that from outside the buildings -- you can't be getting rid of 400 tons of water a day with no end in sight.

"This is nothing more sophisticated than when your basement at home leaks. There's well established technology for dealing with groundwater intrusion in facilities.

"But freezing the ground for 40 years doesn't sound like a sustainable solution."

Source (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/04/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-crisis-explainer/)

###########################

The full article goes into more detail and, in my opinion, is quite well balanced.
-- Pan

SKIBADABOMSKI

7th September 2013, 03:29

My mother in law was going through a relationship break up. Really feeling down she set off on a journey to clear her head. My misses called her up asking how she was and she's told us she was in Sendai in the worst hit tsunami struck areas. She spent 3 days there wandering around the provinces and going very close to the (NO GO ZONES) she say she feels uplifted and free from all the pain she had.

She's the type that likes to climb mountains. Yup at 67 years of age she scrambles up those peaks with ease. If some of you may remember when March 11 kicked off and me and my friends were getting all wrapped up in the fear mongering that she was the only one that didn't want to be running away from Tokyo.

She was laughing when we bundled her in a van as we set off to more southernly areas for 2 weeks. Everyday she kept asking "can we go back today?"

Yes this may seem crazy to you. But for people here it's the norm. Many elderly folk go touring the Sendai areas along with thousands of people just going to help clean up.

May seem off topic but there is lot in what I'm saying.

Brilliant.

onawah

7th September 2013, 07:01

This was on the Natural Solutions website. I don't know if it's in the MSM as yet.
http://drrimatruthreports.com/ambassador-murata-on-fukushima-and-the-olympics/

Email from Ambassador Murata

Dear Mr. Fucetola,

I wish to thank you for your significant message. I read with great interest the memorandum from Dr. Rima. I admired the powerful dissemination capacity of your campaign – hoping for our cooperation.

I have drafted the attached urgent appeal to UNSG Ban Ki-moon and have sent it out. Please feel free to make use of it.

I an m very much encouraged by the appropriate efforts your Foundation is making to cope with the worst global crisis.

Yours truly,

Mitsuhei Murata

Urgent Appeal to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

I am extremely worried about the lack of the sense of crisis in Japan and abroad,as regards the worsening situation at the Fukushima Daiichi.

The international community is required to prevent the Fukushima accident from developing into the ultimate catastrophe of the world, a possibility the collapse of the Unit 4 by a mega earthquake could turn into a reality. It could happen at any moment!

Faced with this unprecedented crisis, the mobilization of human wisdom is required on the widest possible scale. The full assumption of responsibilities by the Japanese Government is urgently needed.

The present abnormal lack of the sense of crisis is due to the fact that inconvenient truth is not disclosed.

The international community has the duty, for example, to grasp correctly the precise volume of the continuous release of radiation from Fukushima.

In this connection, the official numbers published by Tepco, 10 million BQ/H, unchanged for the last year and half, could hardly be trusted. They remain unchanged even after the revelation by Tepco that, since the accident in 2011, 400 tons of contaminated water daily leaked into the sea. Now the Government admits that 300 tons daily flow into the sea. The situation is worsening. And no solution in sight!

The so called international strategy to consider that Fukushima accident did not happen, as some papers writes, is doomed to failure. This strategy is evidenced by the continued promotion of nuclear reactors worldwide, and their restarting and exporting by Japan.

Even if it succeeds to hide the head, it cannot hide the tail that is the contamination of the ocean on a planetary scale.

Conscientious citizens are now calling for the withdrawal of the invitation for Olympic games by Japan.

Allow me to count on your understanding and support.

Yours truly,
Mitsuhei Murata
Former Japanese Ambassador to Switzerland

Atlas

7th September 2013, 07:37

From nuclearfreeplanet.org/prof-mitsuhei-murata (http://www.nuclearfreeplanet.org/prof-mitsuhei-murata-a-plea-for-a-total-ban-on-the-use-of-nuclear-energy.html)

A Plea for a Total Ban on the Use of Nuclear Energy
By Mitsuhei Murata, Former Japanese Ambassador to Switzerland

NicSZgWJZlI
Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is for me a great honor and a real pleasure to participate in this memorable event.

In 1956 the cold war was at its height, nuclear war was menacing mankind and my prize essay alleged that the world was "on the verge of total destruction."Today the consequences of Fukushima threaten the world. Unit 4 contains 10 times more cesium 137 than Chernobyl. A strong earthquake could mean collapse.

The Japanese people realize from experience that nuclear energy generates unacceptable calamities. The collapse of unit 4 could be one. Japan must assume the historic role of promoting denuclearization, both civilian and military. Ignoring the conditions of the Fukushima nuclear reactors continue to be promoted at home and abroad. Fukushima must not be forgotten. In the name of the victims and 170,000 refugees, I call for a total ban of nuclear energy. The world must realize that any radioactive contamination creates immense and permanent harm for mankind and the earth.

1. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima are no less dreadful thanatomic bombs. Nuclear reactors are potential “super bombs." No single weapon can compete with the potential damage that can be caused by Fukushima unit 4 or reprocessing plants.
2. The Fukushima accident could have been more catastrophic for Japan and the world. The still present danger of a collapse of unit 4 after an intensity 7earthquake must be broadcast the world over.
3.Sound judgment would not have permitted construction of 54 nuclearreactors in a Japan menaced by frequent earthquakes and tsunamis.Only the lack of ethics and responsibility made it possible. Money and thecorruption of power plant management sow the seeds of catastrophe. This is not limited to Japan.
4.The same technology that produces nuclear energy produces nuclear weapons. The proliferation of nuclear power plants leads to the proliferationof nuclear weapons, as we are seeing today in North Korea and Iran. There is no way to ensure the safety of future generations except to eliminate the use of nuclear fission technology across the planet.
5. The lack of ethics and responsibility is highlighted by the absence of a solution for nuclear waste that threatens future generations. The Japanese “nuclear village" or nuclear dictatorship envisions the restarting and export of nuclear reactors, thus regaining the offensive for the Japanese nuclear industry. This is immoral. It shows no sense of international or inter-generational responsibility. Alas, I fear it will last.
6. Japan should warn the world of the consequences of not heading towardsdenuclearization. Eight years ago, I predicted that Japanese electriccompanies would decide Japan's fate. Two years ago at the World Congress of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War ( IPPNW) in Basel, I pleaded for mobilizing human wisdom to avert the ultimate catastrophe a nuclear calamity could produce. Sadly, these warnings did not deter my fears.

7. Considering the worldwide consequences of a nuclear accident, countries not possessing nuclear reactors should urge denuclearization, be it military or civilian. Countries already opting for nuclear energy should do so as well.

8. Originally, Japan had a maternal culture characterized by harmony and solidarity. After the Meiji Restoration was introduced to Japan, a paternal culture characterized by competition and confrontation in military form. History shows that paternal cultures end in catastrophe. Fukushima is the result of the supremacy of economy, another form of paternal culture introduced after WW2. The Maternal culture of harmony is the remedy forthe paternal culture of power.

9. Nuclear accidents cause limitless consequences unacceptable to human society. Fukushima is a reminder that the possibility of such a disaster should be completely zero. The great principle of a world without nuclear weapons and reactors should not be forgotten. The transition to maternalcivilization is a prerequisite for this vision.

10. Today mankind faces a crisis of civilization. The true cause is lack of ethics. Fundamental ethics would prohibit the abuse and exhaustion of natural resources leaving, permanently poisonous waste and enormous debt in its wake. Global ethics requires maternal culture, respecting the environment and interests of future generations. 3 transitions are necessary: Turn selfishness to solidarity, greed to contentment and materialism to spiritualism. Natural and renewable energies could amply supply the needs of such a civilization with a transitional period supplemented by fossil fuels. We must prepare to make the short term sacrifices in our lifestyles for the long term safety of mankind and the earth without nuclear energy.

11. The proposal to hold a UN Ethics Summit now draws more global attention. The trinity of global ethics, maternal civilization and true denuclearization should become a reality. President Obama's vision of the 'World without Nuclear Weapons’ needs to become the 'World without Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Reactors." The UN Ethics Summit is the first concrete step. I ardently hope that President Obama takes the initiative to realize this Summit and create an International Day of Global Ethics to serve as a yearly reminder. Initially, controversy over content should be carefully avoided.

Conclusion:

In concluding, let me say the following.

The critical situation at Fukushima requires the mobilization of human wisdom on the widest possible scale. The pressing need for setting up a neutral assessment team as well as an international technical cooperation team is evident.

The fuel rods in the decaying cooling pool of unit 4 must be moved to another place as soon as possible. It is a global security issue requiring maximum efforts which regrettably are not being made.

More and more Japanese are awakening to the real dangers of nuclear accidents and nuclear reactors. Japan is thus heading steadily towards establishing zero dependency on nuclear energy.

"The will of heaven and earth" is my translation of "Providence as philosophy,"protecting mankind and the earth. It will help achieve true denuclearization, civil and military, in due course. The rage of those who lost all will continue to enliven anti-nuclear movements in Japan and eventually abroad.

Japan must now contribute to the realization of true denuclearization. Then the victims of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Fukushima will not have suffered in vain.

Atlas

7th September 2013, 08:06

From TEPCO : Radiation dose measured in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station

2013/09/06

MP-1 : 2.8 μSv/ｈ
MP-2 : 4.9 μSv/ｈ
MP-3 : 5.7 μSv/ｈ
MP-4 : 5.0 μSv/ｈ
MP-5 : 5.3 μSv/ｈ
MP-6 : 2.8 μSv/ｈ
MP-7 : 3.2 μSv/ｈ
MP-8 : 3.2 μSv/ｈ

Comparison - external dose rates:

5 μSv/ｈ: The dose rate in an aeroplane flying at an altitude of 12 kilometres
5 μSv/ｈ: The highest dose rate measured in Finland during the Chernobyl accident

http://www.gavinshoebridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Health-Risks-of-Radiation-1.1.jpg

TEPCO measurements indicate that we are closer to an "Elevated risk: relocate ASAP" zone rather than an "Elevated risk: take safety precautions" zone.

To reach the "sickness risk" zone, we need 4 times the actual levels.

TargeT

7th September 2013, 10:43

http://www.gavinshoebridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Health-Risks-of-Radiation-1.1.jpg

Where does the text come from on that chart? who made up those statements? Was it anyone that had ever actually seen radiation exposure?

Here's a chart that is much more believable, it was created by a man who worked in the nuclear industry Long before, and after there was a nuclear regulatory scare team.

Dosages that can burn if exposed long enough.

850 R/milli-second ............................ Fatally burned one man: 3 survived same dose.
60,000 R/hr @ 1 minute .....................Kills rats: approx same as UV light from electric arc welder.
7000 R ...............................................Individual medical dose for cancer therapy.

"Will not burn skin"
200 R/hour ........................................ Near Chernobyl #4 reactor 1 week after accident (1986)
(one hundredth medical dose for cancer therapy).
60 R/hour ...........................................Human cells OK - self-repair during exposure.
1 R/min @ 1 meter ...................... One Curie (one gram radium) (won’t burn skin).
1 R ...................................................... 1 seiverts = 100 Roentgen (typo on attached chart)

"Regulatory Nonsense: Meaningless in terms of harmful impact on people"
1 Seivert .............................................One hundred Roentgen.
Milli-R ................................................. one thousandth Roentgen.
150 milli-R/year ................................. Average natural background exposure from natural sources.
Micro-R .............................................. One millionth Roentgen.
60 micro-R/hr .................................... N.E.C. prescribed off-site limit (outside the fence).
25 micro-R/hour ............................... Off-site dose at Three Mile Island #2 one week after “incident.”
20 micro-R/hour ................................ Average natural background radiation.
1 Microseivert ................................... 10 Roentgen.
Nano-Curie ........................................ One billionth Curie.
1 Becquerel ........................................ .000037 Curie.
5.25 nano-Curies/literIodine-131 ....... Rainwater tested in Portland, OR after Chernobyl.
4.9 nano-Curies/liter Potassium-40 ... Common salad oil in super market.
Pico-Curie ........................................... One trillionth Curie.
5 pico-Curies/liter .............................. Government radium limit for drinking water.
4 pico-Curies/min/ltr of air ..................EPA’s limit for radon in homes
22718

Notice the EXTREME difference in these charts?

10 Sv will not kill you, not even close! (as the chart you posted states).

when you are working with such incredably wrong data, how can anyone be expected to be taken seriously...

Atlas

7th September 2013, 12:51

Where does the text come from on that chart?

I'm checking this right now.

10 Sv will not kill you, not even close! (as the chart you posted states).

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9CSv/h#Dose_examples_2):

4.5 to 6 Sv: fatal acute doses during Goiânia accident
5.1 Sv: fatal acute dose to Harry Daghlian in 1945 criticality accident

From World Health Organisation (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs371/en/):

Beyond certain thresholds, radiation can impair the functioning of tissues and/or organs and can produce acute effects such as skin redness, hair loss, radiation burns, or acute radiation syndrome. These effects are more severe at higher doses and higher dose rates. For instance, the dose threshold for acute radiation syndrome is about 1 Sv (1000 mSv).

Epidemiological studies on populations exposed to radiation (for example atomic bomb survivors or radiotherapy patients) showed a significant increase of cancer risk at doses above 100 mSv.

TargeT

7th September 2013, 13:29

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9CSv/h#Dose_examples_2):

4.5 to 6 Sv: fatal acute doses during Goiânia accident

5.1 Sv: fatal acute dose to Harry Daghlian in 1945 criticality accident

Daghlian and the Demon core (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core), this is not a very good example, you don't have a core of plutonium go critical at 6 Sv... maybe 60R (and that's 60R/second, not per hour on a reactor core in critical reaction (critical just means sustained, it's a good term in the nuclear industry))

this case was either reported wrong or not measured at all when the incident happend; people re-created his experiment and were exposed to doses around 50-70R/second (very significant doses, definately in the fatal ranges)

and the brazil thing ( Goiânia ) had extremely concentrated material, something like 50 BILLION bq, or what... 1,850,000R ? most people were getting exposures of 400-600 REM over LONG durations and injesting it as well (the "glowy blue powder") that **** was super hot! so radioactive it glowed on it's own; people were rubbing it on their skin so they could glow (and then, later died).

I don't know why wikipidia says 4-6Sv, that's WAY WAY off what those poor people got, i guess it just shows that wikipedia can still have it's flaws.

From World Health Organisation (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs371/en/):

Beyond certain thresholds, radiation can impair the functioning of tissues and/or organs and can produce acute effects such as skin redness, hair loss, radiation burns, or acute radiation syndrome. These effects are more severe at higher doses and higher dose rates. For instance, the dose threshold for acute radiation syndrome is about 1 Sv (1000 mSv).

Epidemiological studies on populations exposed to radiation (for example atomic bomb survivors or radiotherapy patients) showed a significant increase of cancer risk at doses above 100 mSv.

I just don't see the WHO as a good source on this, these are the same people who were pushing the swine flu scare / vaccine... I'd have to see those studies they did of atomic bomb survivors and how they "guessed" at exposure doses; I highly doubt there were any actual radiological meters at the sites of those bombs.

Atlas

7th September 2013, 13:37

From theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/15/radiation-exposure-levels-guide (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/15/radiation-exposure-levels-guide#)
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/photobylines/2011/3/15/1300200013379/Radiation-exposure-levels-001.jpg

TargeT

7th September 2013, 13:46

well at least that one says 10sv is fatal with in weeks of exposure.. yeah i could see if you were getting exposed to 10sv/s or 10sv/min for WEEKS you would accumulate fatal levels of radiation. 10sv exposure needs a time hack on it, and to be really accurate it needs to be converted to REM.

these numbers are confusing and hard to wrap your mind around, there's like 4 different types of measurements that are interchanged when they shouldn't be as they all mean different things; I could get 10,000 msv exposure for WEEKS on my fingers or hand and be fine, if I got that exposure in my chest cavity I would not be fine; there's a lot more to exposure and it's health risks than just a number like Sv.

Atlas

7th September 2013, 13:49

-
These numbers are confusing, I agree.

From what I understand, there's a huge difference between mSv and mSv/h.

http://weblog.naruhodo.com/images/uploads/fuku%20copy.jpg

I could get 10,000 msv exposure for WEEKS on my fingers or hand and be fine

I can't tell you what 10,000 mSv would do to you but 10,000 mSv/h would kill you in one day.

The data I presented seems to be correct.

Atlas

7th September 2013, 14:11

TargeT

7th September 2013, 15:02

From United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/faq.html#Effects%20of%20radiation%20exposure)

* Up to 10 mSv : No direct evidence of human health effects

* 10 - 1 000 mSv : No early effects; increased incidence of certain cancers in exposed populations at higher doses

* 1 000 - 10 000 mSv : Radiation sickness (risk of death); increased incidence of certain cancers in exposed populations

* Above 10 000 mSv : Fatal always

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

If there's a huge difference with your data then your numbers must be inaccurate.

Since I'm working from the perspective that the numbers have purposefully been changed to suppress nuclear energy use & cause fear of it; I think YOUR numbers (in reality these numbers are neither of ours, and we probably have very little direct experience with them (though I am wearing a uranium pendant right now)) are suspect.

especially since their findings are not sourced... show me a source that proves Above 10 000 mSv : Fatal always because I haven't found anywhere that says 10 Sviert is fatal, that isn't some guess or vaguely anecdotal etc..

Atlas

7th September 2013, 15:24

You're saying that those numbers are suspect but these ARE the numbers, they were scientifically proven by the world experts, they can demonstrate it to you, they have all the numbers and you don't.

The fact that you are wearing an uranium pendant doesn't mean anything. How do you know it's actually uranium, do you have the lab documents proving that?

Now, what I find doubtful is that I was unable to find information about radiation exposure risks on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)'s website.

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1245052106693

Still, according to TEPCO's data, the actual radiation level in Fukushima is 4 times under the "sickness risk" level.

TargeT

7th September 2013, 15:31

You're saying that those numbers are suspect, maybe, but these ARE the numbers, they were scientifically proven by the world experts, they can demonstrate it to you, they have all the numbers and we don't.

The fact that you are wearing an uranium pendant doesn't mean anything. How do you know it's actually uranium, do you have the lab documents proving that?

Now, what I find doubtful is that I was unable to find information about radiation exposure risks on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)..

I have a gieger counter and have read thorium elements from smoke detectors and my pendant (the smoke detectors are a known quantity) if it's not uranium it's very radioactive and glows under black lights just like uranium ore is known to do.

the numbers from the chart I posted are from two men that worked for years as nuclear engineers; the numbers you posted I have never seen validated or backed up by anything.. so we have nothing in one hand and first hand testimony in the other, I'm leaning to first hand testimony.

panopticon

7th September 2013, 15:34

1 Roentgen is not equal to 100 Sieverts.
1 Roentgen is equal to ~0.0093296637 Sieverts (Sv).
1 Roentgen is equal to ~9.329664 milli-sieverts (mSv).

1 Sievert is equal to ~107 Roentgen
-- Pan

Source:
One provided by Target (http://www.endmemo.com/convert/radiation%20exposure.php)

Atlas

7th September 2013, 16:15

onawah

7th September 2013, 16:32

onawah

7th September 2013, 16:39

Unless, as Target maintains, there has been a conspiracy all along by TPTW to hide the truth, for reasons which he has already explained.
If there is one thing we have explored at great length on this forum, it is the number, depth and scope of conspiracies that have been committed in this world by the puppetmasters, and this could be another huge one.
After all, who is it who controls the scientists and the MSM?
And who wants to keep the public in fear and ignorance of even the most basic realities of our existence?
If they can profit from it, there appears to be no limit to the lies they have told.

the numbers from the chart I posted are from two men that worked for years as nuclear engineers; the numbers you posted I have never seen validated or backed up by anything.. so we have nothing in one hand and first hand testimony in the other, I'm leaning to first hand testimony.

Are you sure you know what you're doing ? If Galen Winsor & Ben Williams numbers are incorrect as panopticon just pointed out, you might be poisoning yourself with radioactive material...

The numbers I provided are backed up by the world scientists and they usually avoid making mistakes.

TargeT

7th September 2013, 17:27

Thus far, it would not seem that nuclear energy has proven to be a cheap source of energy; the facilities that have been built, like Fukushima, were very costly to construct, and even so, they are not viable structures.
The cost of repairing the damage is exorbitant, and the extent of the dangers involved are still undetermined, but for the people who have died horrible deaths as a result of overexposure, explosions, etc. the cost was way too high.

I completely agree, and in fact I think that the real reason for plants such as Fukushima are not built primarily for power production, but rather as nuclear material refineries. Those plants are Breeder reactors, there is a much much safer and much more efficient method of nuclear power that was built and ran for 5 years in the 1940's, but it doesn't produce weapons grade nuclear material.
Could this be another aspect of the "conspiracy"? I think so...

This better type of plant is called LFTR
uK367T7h6ZY

it has built in safety mechanism (it cannot run “out of control” like breeder reactors) and less waste than any type of power being produced currently; a person could hold their entire life's worth of energy (in thorium) in the palm of their hand, it is the most prevalent isotope on this planet, scientists call it "burning rocks"

I am convinced that there are already much safer and cheaper ways of producing all the energy we can possibly need locally, without the necessity of power lines, pipe lines, and all that mess.
And when TPTW finally remove their heads from their butts, or the ETs force Disclosure, or whatever it is that will put us over that line, then that's what we will have.
I don't think that day is so far off that it makes sense to invest more money into building more nuclear facilities, or trying to repair the existing ones, especially those built on fault lines, on the ocean shores, etc.
They were just a bad idea to begin with, and a very risky experiment.
No more is it a good idea to invest more in projects like the Keystone pipeline or in fracking.
They are all dead ends, as far as I can see, and we can debate endlessly about when FE will becomes available, but in the meantime, wind and solar and other alternatives are better investments, even if they too will be replaced before long.
Coal, oil and nuclear energy all generate heat and toxins and are potentially explosive, and we sure don't need any of that anymore.

this would be a very true thought proccess if you do not know about LFTR.

The numbers I provided are backed up by the world scientists and they usually avoid making mistakes.

but how are they backed up? what studies, what sources? I don't find any when I go to look, I just see what they "tell" us; that's not science, that's a dictatorship.

onawah

7th September 2013, 17:57

How do you think LFTR compares to cold fusion?
Though the latter was falsely debunked when the first claims were made, the debunking was later proven to be false, and cold fusion appears also to actually be relatively cheap and safe compared to what we are using now.
My objection to all big power plants remains, however, which is that only localized power sources eliminate the need for huge power lines and all the EMFs and other problems that they entail.
Being sensitive to EMFs, I recognize most acutely the health risks that those power lines and power stations impose.

Atlas

7th September 2013, 18:35

but how are they backed up? what studies, what sources? I don't find any when I go to look, I just see what they "tell" us; that's not science, that's a dictatorship.

Here are our co-conspirators: Radiation Standards Organizations

International Commission on Radiological Protection. The Second International Congress of Radiology established the ICRP in 1928. Although initially concerned with the safety of medical radiology, it now covers safety for all sources of radiation. Its mission is “to deal with the basic principles of radiation protection and to leave to various national protection committees the responsibility of introducing the detailed technical regulations, recommendations or codes of practice best suited to the needs of their individual countries.” The ICRP is the principal source of recommendations on safe radiation levels. Members come from many countries and include scientists, physicians and engineers.
www.icrp.org

International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA. Organized in 1956 to promote the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the IAEA is a specialized agency of the United Nations. The IAEA publishes both standards and recommendations in addition to books on nuclear science and technology written by consultants or groups of experts invited from member states.
www.iaea.org

International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Created in 1925, the ICRU develops international recommendations regarding quantities and units of radiation and radioactivity, procedures for their measurement and application in clinical radiology and radiobiology, and physical data needed to ensure uniformity in reporting on their applications.
www.icru.org

International Radiation Protection Association IRPA provides the means for specialists in the radiation sciences to share radiation-related information and scientific discovery. Every country can participate in this endeavor that has as its objective the protection of humans and their environment.
www.irpa.net

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. The NCRP began its work in 1929 as the Advisory Committee on X-Ray and Radium Protection. Congress chartered the organization in 1964 as the NCRP to address the scientific and technical aspects of radiation protection. The nonprofit corporation is not a federal agency, although its recommendations are part of the basis of federal, state and local regulations dealing with radiation hazards. The organization draws its members from public and private universities, medical centers, national and private laboratories, the government, and industry solely on the basis of their scientific expertise.
www.ncrponline.org

Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA is responsible for recommending federal guidance on radiation protection for use by federal agencies in their regulatory processes and for establishing standards to protect the general environment from radioactive material under a variety of authorities, including the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Superfund and Atomic Energy Act.
www.epa.gov

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The independent NRC is the federal agency responsible for regulating commercial nuclear technologies. The NRC prescribes and enforces separate limits on the amount of radiation that workers and members of the public can receive from all pathways, such as air and water. These regulations apply to operators of nuclear power plants, as well as industrial and medical facilities licensed to use man-made radioactive materials. The NRC bases its regulations on recommendations made by the NCRP and the ICRP and on the EPA’s federal guidance and standards.
www.nrc.gov

National Academy of Sciences. NAS has published seven reports on the biological effects of ionizing radiation (BEIR) since 1956. The BEIR reports focus on the probability of health effects associated with a given dose of radiation and provide a quantitative basis for limiting the radiation exposure of the entire population. The most recent reports to examine the health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation are the BEIR V and BEIR VII reports. The BEIR VI report, issued in 1990, reviewed the health effects of exposure to radon.
www.nationalacademies.org

United Kingdom Health Protection Agency (HPA) The Health Protection Agency's Radiation Protection Division (formerly the National Radiation Protection Board) conducts research on radiation protection and risk, provides training courses, acts as consultant and advisor in the United Kingdom, and offers laboratory and technical services.
www.hpa.org.uk

Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors CRCPD is a nongovernmental organization composed of all state radiation control program directors (not just Agreement States as just discussed in the OAS section).
www.crcpd.org

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR produces reports on the sources of radiation exposure around the world and estimates of radiation risk. Its most recent, "Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation," was published in 2010.
www.unscear.org

panopticon

7th September 2013, 18:59

'Health Impacts from Acute Radiation Exposure (http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/pnnl-14424.pdf)', 2003, D Strom:

Health impacts of relatively uniform irradiation of the whole body include three acute radiation syndromes, namely, the hematopoietic (bone marrow), gastrointestinal (GI), and cerebrovascular (CV) syndromes, with thresholds of about 2, 10, and 50 grays (Gy; 200, 1,000, and 5,000 rads). The dose that is expected to produce 50% mortality from the bone marrow syndrome in a population within 60 days, the LD 50-60 , is over 4 Gy (400 rads) if minimal medical treatment is provided, and over 6 Gy (600 rads) if supportive medical treatment is provided. While the LD 50 values for the GI and CV syndromes are higher, those doses invariably cause bone marrow fatality. Other syndromes that may cause fatality result from non-uniform irradiation. These are the cutaneous syndrome, in which the skin is heavily irradiated by beta irradiation, and the pulmonary syndrome, in which inhalation of beta-emitting or alpha-emitting radioactive material cause damage to the skin or lungs. Other deterministic effects include developmental abnormalities in the embryo, the fetus, or in growing children, such as mental retardation and thyroid disease. Loss of pregnancy, permanent or temporary sterility or impaired fertility, and cataracts (opacification of the crystalline lens of the eye) are also known effects. As doses to skin increase, erythema (skin reddening), desquamation (blistering), ulceration, and necrosis (tissue death) can also occur. Untreated ulceration or necrosis can also lead to death.

10 Gy = 10 Sv = 10,000 mSv = ~1000 rad (~1070 R).

There's also the 1997: 'An Evaluation of Radiation Exposure Guidance for Military Operations: Interim Report (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5853)'.

It's not as easy to read as Strom's but has some interesting information and statistical data in it.

Then there's the Radiation Exposure & Contamination (http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/injuries_poisoning/radiation_exposure_and_contamination/radiation_exposure_and_contamination.html) page at The Merck Manual site.

It has excellent information on the effect high dose short duration irradiation has on the human body (Hint: above 8 Gy [800 rad] don't start writing a novel).

Finally there's the Military Medical Operations Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute's 'Medical Management of Radiological Casualties (http://ehs.columbia.edu/2edmmrchandbook.pdf)' 2nd Edition.

I'm not sure what is wanted here. There are a large number of papers on the effects that various radioactive isotopes have when ingested, inhaled etc.

If the point is that it's all a conspiracy and there is nothing that can be presented as evidence because it is all part of the conspiracy then there's no point in me discussing anything beyond the immediate dangers to employees of hot particle inhalation/ingestion and the ineptitude of Tepco...

'Spose that will have to do then...

-- Pan

Atlas

7th September 2013, 19:46

According to The Merck Manual site provided by panopticon:

6-8 Gy : Acute mortality with medical care = 50–100% | Death = 2–4 wk
8-30 Gy : Acute mortality with medical care = 100% | Death = 2 days–2 wk
> 30 Gy : Acute mortality with medical care = 100% | Death = 1–2 days

100 rad = 1 Gy.

(Adapted from Military Medical Operations Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute: Medical Management of Radiological Casualties, ed 2. April 2003. Available at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute web site.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
now if 1 Gy = 115 R, then 920 R is the lethal dose.

Galen Winsor & Ben Williams say 7000 R is the individual medical dose for cancer therapy.

That is an extreme difference, that is 7-8 times the lethal dose described by the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute.

Can someone explain this?

panopticon

7th September 2013, 19:52

TargeT

7th September 2013, 20:04

How do you think LFTR compares to cold fusion?

Cold fusion (if say, the Ecat does what it is suppose to do.. it seems that it does but it still needs to prove itself) is a very good heat (energy) production method, but currently it doesn't produce the "very high" heat numbers that make nuclear attractive (since we can harness the heat at higher temps easier with more exotic materials to spin turbines, which is basically all that modern power plants do, create heat that heats a material that spins a turbine).

BUT since cold fusion is so new (or as it is being called now, LENR) I think it has great potential at completely over taking nuclear.

LFTR is just easy & we've already shown it works, it's ridiculously safe compared to breeder reactors and thorium is all over the planet so sources of fuel are nothing to worry about...

between the two I'd rather have an Ecat in my basement than a LFTR, as the ECAT runs off trace amounts of fuel (if it functions as reported, I only mention the Ecat because it seems to be the most data rich offering from modern cold fusion (LENR)).

Though the latter was falsely debunked when the first claims were made, the debunking was later proven to be false, and cold fusion appears also to actually be relatively cheap and safe compared to what we are using now.
My objection to all big power plants remains, however, which is that only localized power sources eliminate the need for huge power lines and all the EMFs and other problems that they entail.
Being sensitive to EMFs, I recognize most acutely the health risks that those power lines and power stations impose.

I agree, localized power production would vastly reduce the voltage requirements (no more high tension high voltage lines blasting EMF's all over the country) & be better for many other reasons ( no more "grid wide" power outages etc..)

but how are they backed up? what studies, what sources? I don't find any when I go to look, I just see what they "tell" us; that's not science, that's a dictatorship.

Here are our co-conspirators: Radiation Standards Organizations

yes, where are the studies that they base their reccomendations on, that's what I'm asking

'Health Impacts from Acute Radiation Exposure (http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/pnnl-14424.pdf)', 2003, D Strom

From the report you quoted:

This document is a review of the state of the art for estimating early and late health impacts from high dose, acute radiation exposure.

Does this sound like it meets the qualifications that are satisfactory to you?

the state of the art for ESTIMATING????? that's guessing, that's postulating...

again I ask, what ACTUAL STUDIES have been done to support the numbers quoted, not guesses, not estimations.

Atlas

7th September 2013, 20:19

What about:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=1

panopticon

7th September 2013, 20:21

'Health Impacts from Acute Radiation Exposure (http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/pnnl-14424.pdf)', 2003, D Strom

From the report you quoted:

This document is a review of the state of the art for estimating early and late health impacts from high dose, acute radiation exposure.

Does this sound like it meets the qualifications that are satisfactory to you?

the state of the art for ESTIMATING????? that's guessing, that's postulating...

again I ask, what ACTUAL STUDIES have been done to support the numbers quoted, not guesses, not estimations.

No worries bloke.
Most certainly does sound like a precise description to me.

What Strom is saying there is "these are the outer boundaries that you will expect within a healthy population group, given exposure to "x" amount of radiation".

How do I know this? Strom goes on in the sentence after your quote to say:

There are many technical factors that must be considered to understand the complex nature of exposure to ionizing radiation.

So, in answer to you question, when Strom says "estimate" the reference is to the range of expected outcomes and not a guess as you have stated.

-- Pan

Atlas

7th September 2013, 20:38

The effects of radiation on cancer are uncertain but the studies do exist:
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1300_web.pdf

TargeT

7th September 2013, 20:47

What about:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=1

I read through the first 50 pages, that's another report based on guesses, there's no study, no tests, no emperical data related to humans or human exposure.

again I ask, what ACTUAL STUDIES have been done to support the numbers quoted, not guesses, not estimations.

No worries bloke.
Most certainly does sound like a precise description to me.

What Strom is saying there is "these are the outer boundaries that you will expect within a healthy population group, given exposure to "x" amount of radiation".

How do I know this? Strom goes on in the sentence after your quote to say:

There are many technical factors that must be considered to understand the complex nature of exposure to ionizing radiation.

So, in answer to you question, when Strom says "estimate" the reference is to the range of expected outcomes and not a guess as you have stated.

-- Pan

what strom is saying, is that this is how they estimate what will happen based on the data set they believe to be true for exposure, boil it down and you come to this:

there were no tests done to come up with the numbers, there are guesses based on accidents with little to no actual measurement, zero controls, basically the worst science possible; a kin to the global warming claims of the early 2000's.

you will find no control groups, no double blind studies, nothing empirical at all.

I'm not looking for much really, I'm asking for the same thing you are asked for in class when working a math problem... don't just give me an answer, show me how you FOUND the answer!

the effects of radiation on cancer victims are known, but those are levels that at a minimum are 700 rad and are delivered into the body via injection normally,, NOT typical exposure and not relevant to accidental exposure or fukushima at all (as the levels were much lower)

Atlas

7th September 2013, 20:49

http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/Biological_mechanisms_WP_12-57831.pdf

TargeT

7th September 2013, 20:50

the last couple aren't showing up for me Buares; must be blocked at work.. I'll have to review them later.

I've waded through quite a few studies you guys have posted and found them completely lacking... can you please stop posting studies for me to read and read them your self, if you find it to be valid then post the data from it and I'll see what your talking about, at this point I have work and a family to go home to and can't keep reading material for you.

so far there's nothing there (as I've found before in my own searches).

Atlas

7th September 2013, 20:53

I read through the first 50 pages, that's another report based on guesses, there's no study, no tests, no emperical data related to humans or human exposure.

The first 50 pages are : 1 Background Information 19-42

Try the rest of the book:

2 Molecular and Cellular Responses to Ionizing Radiation
43-64
3 Radiation-Induced Cancer: Mechanisms, Quantitative Experimental Studies and the Role of Genetic Factors
65-90
4 Heritable Genetic Effects of Radiation in Human Populations
91-131
5 Background for Epidemiologic Methods
132-140
6 Atomic Bomb Survivor Studies
141-154
7 Medical Radiation Studies
155-188
8 Occupational Radiation Studies
189-206
9 Environmental Radiation Studies
207-238
10 Integration of Biology and Epidemiology
239-258
11 Risk Assessment Models and Methods
259-266
12 Estimating Cancer Risk
267-312
13 Summary and Research Needs
313-324
Appendix A: Basic Biological and Genetic Concepts
325-328
Appendix B: Commetary on "Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease: Dose-Response Studies with Physicians per 100,000 Populations"
329-329
Appendix C: Issues Raised by the Institute for Energy and Environment Research (IEER)
330-331
Appendix D: Hormesis
332-335
Appendix E: Fifteen-Country Workers Study
336-336

TargeT

7th September 2013, 20:57

What about:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=1

I read through the first 50 pages, that's another report based on guesses, there's no study, no tests, no emperical data related to humans or human exposure.

The first 50 pages are : 1 Background Information 19-42

Try the rest of the book:

this is what you find in the rest of the book:

Many studies of mortality—and, in some instances, cancer incidence—among nuclear industry workers have been carried out over the past 20 years. Published studies have covered workers in Canada, Finland, France, India, Japan, Russia, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Most have been cohort studies.

this is NOT a source document this is a report that quotes other documents, this is not a report on direct observations but a report on reports.

see what I'm saying?

Atlas

7th September 2013, 21:00

so far there's nothing there (as I've found before in my own searches).

You must be kidding. You asked for the data, here is the data.

Anyway, where are your studies now ? because I'm still not convinced I'll ever use any kind of artificial radiation, my opinion is that natural radiation is enough, I need no supplement, and unless you can 'scientifically' prove the benefits of wearing uranium, I'll be satisfied with my usual X-rays at the medical center.

Atlas

7th September 2013, 21:11

this is NOT a source document this is a report that quotes other documents, this is not a report on direct observations but a report on reports.

see what I'm saying?

There are 35 pages of references you can find for yourself, here is the first one :

References

Abramson, D.H., M.R. Melson, L.J. Dunkel, and C.M. Frank. 2001. Third (fourth and fifth) tumours in survivors of retinoblastoma. Ophthalmology 108:1868-1876.
Acquavella, J.F., L.D. Wiggs, R.J. Waxweiler, D.G. Macdonell, G.L. Tietjen, and G.S. Wilkinson. 1985. Mortality among workers at the Pantex weapons facility. Health Phys 48:735-746.
Adams, N., and W.A. Langmead. 1962. An Investigation into the Accuracy Attained in Routine Film-Badge Dosimetry at UKAEA Establishments. Authority Health and Safety Branch Report. Harwell, UK: United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.
Aghamohammadi, S.Z., and J.R. Savage. 1991. A BrdU pulse double-labelling method for studying adaptive response. Mutat Res 251:133-141.
Aghamohammadi, S.Z., T. Morris, D.L. Stevens, and J. Thacker. 1992. Rapid screening for deletion mutations in the hprt gene using the polymerase chain reaction: x-ray and alpha-particle mutant spectra. Mutat Res 269:1-7.
Alam, N.A., S. Bevan, M. Churchman, E. Barclay, K. Barker, E.E. Jaeger, H.M. Nelson, E. Healy, A.C. Pembroke, P.S. Friedmann, K. Dalziel, E. Calonje, J. Anderson, P.J. August, M.G. Davies, R. Felix, C.S. Munro, M. Murdoch, J. Rendall, S. Kennedy, I.M. Leigh, D.P. Kelsell, I.P. Tomlinson, and R.S. Houlston. 2001. Localization of a gene (MCUL1) for multiple cutaneous leiomyomata and uterine fibroids to chromosome 1q42.3-q43. Am J Hum Genet 68:1264-1269.
Allan, J.M., C.P. Wild, S. Rollinson, E.V. Willett, A.V. Moorman, G.J. Dovey, P.L. Roddam, E. Roman, R.A. Cartwright, and G.J. Morgan. 2001. Polymorphism in glutathione S-transferase P1 is associated with susceptibility to chemotherapy-induced leukemia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:11592-11597.
Alper, T., C. Mothersill, and C.B. Seymour. 1988. Lethal mutations attributable to misrepair of Q-lesions. Int J Radiat Biol 54:525-530.
Amundson, S.A., and D.J. Chen. 1996. Inverse dose-rate effect for mutation induction by gamma-rays in human lymphoblasts. Int J Radiat Biol 69:555-563.
Amundson, S.A., and H.L. Liber. 1991. A comparison of induced mutations at homologous alleles of the tk locus in human cells. Mutat Res 247: 19-27.
Amundson, S.A., M. Bittner, Y. Chen, J. Trent, P. Meltzer, and A.J. Fornace Jr. 1999a. Fluorescent cDNA microarray hybridization reveals complexity and heterogeneity of cellular genotoxic stress responses. Oncogene 18:3666-3672.
Amundson, S.A., K.T. Do, and A.J. Fornace Jr. 1999b. Induction of stress genes by low doses of gamma rays. Radiat Res 152:225-231.
Anderson, R.M., S.J. Marsden, E.G. Wright, M.A. Kadhim, D.T. Goodhead, and C.S. Griffin. 2000. Complex chromosome aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytes as a potential biomarker of exposure to high-LET alpha-particles. Int J Radiat Biol 76:31-42.
Anderson, R.N., and P.B. DeTurk. 2002. United States Life Tables, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 50, Number 6, 1-12. Available online at www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_06.pdf.
Andersson, M., G. Engholm, K. Ennow, K.A. Jessen, and H.H. Storm. 1991. Cancer risk among staff at two radiotherapy departments in Denmark. Brit J Radiol 64:455-460.
Angel, J.M., N. Popova, N. Lanko, V.S. Turusov, and J. DiGiovanni. 2000. A locus that influences susceptibility to 1,2-dimethylhydrazine-induced colon tumors maps to the distal end of mouse chromosome 3. Mol Carcinogen 27:47-54.
Antoniou, A.C., P.D. Pharoah, G. McMullan, N.E. Day, M.R. Stratton, J. Peto, B.J. Ponder, and D.F. Easton. 2002. A comprehensive model for familial breast cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2 and other genes. Brit J Cancer 86:76-83.
Appleby, J.M., J.B. Barber, E. Levine, J.M. Varley, A.M. Taylor, T. Stankovic, J. Heighway, C. Warren, and D. Scott. 1997. Absence of mutations in the ATM gene in breast cancer patients with severe responses to radiotherapy. Brit J Cancer 76:1546-1549.
Arai, T., T. Nakano, K. Fukuhisa, T. Kasamatsu, R. Tsunematsu, K. Masubuchi, K. Yamauchi, T. Hamada, T. Fukuda, H. Noguchi, and M. Murata. 1991. Second cancer after radiation therapy for cancer of the uterine cervix. Cancer 67:394-405.
Armitage, P. 1985. Biometry and medical statistics. Biometrics 41:823-833.
Armitage, P., and R. Doll. 1954. The age distribution of cancer and a multistage theory of carcinogenesis. Brit J Cancer 8:1-12.
Armitage, P., and R. Doll. 1957. A two-stage theory of carcinogenesis in relation to the age distribution of human cancer. Brit J Cancer 11: 161-169.
Armitage, P., and R. Doll. 1961. Stochastic models for carcinogenesis. Pp. 18-38 in Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Vol. 4. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Armour, J.A., M.H. Brinkworth, and A. Kamischke. 1999. Direct analysis by small-pool PCR of MS205 minisatellite mutation rates in sperm after mutagenic therapies. Mutat Res 445:73-80.
Aromaa, A., T.U. Kosunen, P. Knekt, J. Maatela, L. Teppo, O.P. Heinonen, M. Harkonen, and M.K. Hakama. 1996. Circulating anti-Helicobacter pylori immunoglobulin A anitbodies and low serum pepsinogen I level are associated with increased risk of gastric cancer. Am J Epidemiol 144:142-149.
Arseneau, J. C., R. W. Sponzo, D. L. Levin, L. E. Schnipper, H. Bonner, R. C. Young, G. P. Canellos, R. E. Johnson, and V. T. DeVita. 1972. Nonlymphomatous malignant tumors complicating Hodgkin’s disease. Possible association with intensive therapy. N Engl J Med 287: 1119-22.

TargeT

8th September 2013, 00:24

Yes; examine those references and you will see exactly what I am talking about.

There are many case studies of large population groups exposed to higher than back ground levels & their significant, direct health benefits; the direct source documents are listed in several threads on this forum about hormesis and the nuclear scare scam.

I'm mostly concerned about the fear attached to low level radiation levels & how literally "the end of the world" is being talked about. High levels most certainly are bad for you.

Atlas

8th September 2013, 07:27

There are many case studies of large population groups exposed to higher than back ground levels & their significant, direct health benefits; the direct source documents are listed in several threads on this forum about hormesis and the nuclear scare scam.

I didn't find such 'direct source documents' on the two threads you mention except for the Ben & Galen erroneous chart. I still believe that any radiation level above natural level is not good for me.

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

Consensus reports by the United States National Research Council and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) argue that there is no evidence for hormesis in humans and in the case of the National Research Council, that hormesis is outright rejected as a possibility. Therefore, the Linear no-threshold model (LNT) continues to be the model generally used by regulatory agencies for human radiation exposure. (wikipedia.org/Radiation_hormesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis))

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

Above doses of 50–100 mSv (protracted exposure) or 10–50 mSv (acute exposure), direct epidemiological evidence from human populations demonstrates that exposure to ionizing radiation increases the risk of some cancers. [...] it is unlikely that we will be able to directly and precisely quantify cancer risks in human populations at doses much below 10 mSv. Our inability to quantify such risks does not, however, imply that the corresponding societal risks are necessarily negligible; a very small risk, if applied to a large number of individuals, can result in a significant public health problem. (Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC283495/))

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

In the section of this report on observed dose-response relationships at low doses, bystander effects and hyper radiation sensitivity for low-dose deleterious effects in mammalian cells have been observed for doses in the 10–100 mGy range. [...] End points for these deleterious effects include mutations, chromosomal aberrations, oncogenic transformation, genomic instability, and cell lethality. These deleterious effects have been observed for cells irradiated in vivo as well as in vitro.

[...] the committee has found no consistent evidence in the epidemiologic literature that low doses of ionizing radiation lower the risk of disease or death. [...] The committee concludes that the assumption that any stimulatory hormetic effects from low doses of ionizing radiation will have a significant health benefit to humans that exceeds potential detrimental effects from the radiation exposure is unwarranted at this time. (Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2 (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11340))

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

- IAEA Admits: There Is No Such Thing As ‘Safe’ Levels Of Radiation (http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/07/28/2011/06/02/iaea-admits-there-is-no-such-thing-as-safe-levels-of-radiation/)

- Dr. Steven Wing And Chief Nuclear Engineer Arnie Gundersen DiscussGlobal Radiation Exposure and Consequences: There Is No Safe Dose of Radiation (http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/07/28/2011/04/22/dr-steven-wing-and-chief-nuclear-engineer-arnie-gundersen-discuss-global-radiation-exposure-and-consequences-there-is-no-safe-dose-of-radiation/)

- UC Santa Cruz Nuclear Expert Daniel Hirsch: ‘Every Amount of Radiation Exposure Increases Your Risk of Cancer.’ ‘There Is No Safe Level of Radiation (http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/07/28/2011/04/21/uc-santa-cruz-nuclear-expert-daniel-hirsch-every-amount-of-radiation-exposure-increases-your-risk-of-cancer-there-is-no-safe-level-of-radiation/).’

- Dr. Helen Caldicott: How Nuclear Apologists Mislead The World Over Radiation (http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/07/28/2011/04/13/dr-helen-caldicott-how-nuclear-apologists-mislead-the-world-over-radiation/)

- Dr. Brian Moench: There Is No ‘Safe’ Exposure To Radiation (http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/07/28/2011/04/11/dr-brian-moench-there-is-no-safe-exposure-to-radiation/)

- Dr. Peter Karamoskos: Don’t Be Fooled By A Never-Ending Cabal Of Paid Industry Scientific ”Consultants’ – Radiation Is Bad And Causes Cancer (http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/07/28/2011/04/10/dr-peter-karamoskos-dont-be-fooled-by-a-never-ending-cabal-of-paid-industry-scientific-consultants-radiation-is-bad-and-causes-cancer/)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

panopticon

8th September 2013, 07:53

I've waded through quite a few studies you guys have posted and found them completely lacking... can you please stop posting studies for me to read and read them your self, if you find it to be valid then post the data from it and I'll see what your talking about, at this point I have work and a family to go home to and can't keep reading material for you.

so far there's nothing there (as I've found before in my own searches).

Sorry bloke I thought you were after papers to further your understanding of radiation dose toxicity. I'm really busy at the moment (just into Spring here) and only stopped by to contribute a few sources I am familiar with.

If you just want examples then maybe some of the back ground research into Total Body Irradiation and its use in treatment of persons with leukaemia might be helpful to you. The patient is given a total dose over a number of sessions (known as "fractions"). So if the patient is being given Total Body Irradiation of 12 Gy this might be applied over 8 sessions @ 1.5 Gy (dose rate of 5 cGy/min for 30 minutes). The result is the temporary suppression of the patients immune system to limit problems of rejection from the bone marrow donor's graft. The patient requires extensive assistance through this procedure (shielding of some organs like the lungs, antibiotics) until the donor graft takes over and replaces the immune system.

Of course this is the same process that occurs in persons who are exposed to an acute radiation source. It's just that when acute radiation exposure does not occur in a controlled medical setting, or applied in separate doses, the effects/symptoms are intensified. The symptoms noted in Merck earlier (leukopenia, nausea, diarrhea etc) match with observations made in patients undergoing TBI.

You also said:

there were no tests done to come up with the numbers, there are guesses based on accidents with little to no actual measurement, zero controls, basically the worst science possible; a kin to the global warming claims of the early 2000's.

I think a review of the literature surrounding Total Body Irradiation, as I've suggested, will provide these for you. A search at the Journal of the American Society of Hematology (http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/) will probably provide some interesting papers, clinical trials etc.

If this doesn't help, or isn't what you're looking for, I'll try again later.

-- Pan

Cidersomerset

8th September 2013, 08:05

Olympics 2020: Tokyo wins race to host Games

rAxXNwTDBz8

Published on 4 Sep 2013

Japanese Prime minister Shinzo Abe says contaminated water
from the Fukushima nuclear plant will no longer be a problem
by 2020, in time for a possible Tokyo 2020 Olympics.

The success of the Tokyo bid followed a personal address from the Japanese
prime minister during the presentation stage, in which he allayed fears over the
crippled Fukushima nuclear plant 150 miles (240km) from the city by saying:
"It has never done, and will never do, any damage to Tokyo."

The plant had been leaking radiation after an earthquake and tsunami hit the
north east of the country in 2011.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69713000/jpg/_69713341_179968268.jpg

Tokyo residents greeted the announcement with jubilant
scenes at Komazawa Olympic Park

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/24002795

Cidersomerset

8th September 2013, 08:37

Thanks Panopticon , baures & Targe T for your debate ...Steve

I live aprox 5 miles from a Nuclear power site built in the
1960's Hinkley A & B one is decomisioned and the other
is coming to its end.

A brand new reactor is about to be built, despite protests
the economic argument has far outweighed the potential
dangers for the the majority of people. They know it a
potential time bomb, but the mindset of most is not to
think about it and it will generate the local economy.
I did do a thread about this, but I think its to far gone
to stop. Even though in the long term this is expensive
for the consumer, of course the corporate share holders
will probably do well.

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

James has gone off the media radar since 11th June
his last cashflow show. He did say he may have to
go low profile after announcing cold fusion was here.

James Martinez Cold Fusion update // The Believers Tlr // James speaking in Holland

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?59477-James-Martinez-Cold-Fusion-update-The-Believers-Tlr-James-speaking-in-Holland

Wow! There is a wealth of information here.
I hope it goes viral.
Thanks to Cidersomerset.

Thanks Onawah I'm having a cold fusion day...LOL.. I did not intend to !
The above vids are very good even if some of them are a few years old.

We have a nuclear power station aprox 5 miles from here Hinckly point,
and they are about to build a new reactor, which is very annoying.
Corporate Business/Banking are to deeply commited to nuclear
to let this research be taken seriously.

This explains another reason why the government are still in favour
of nuclear....JOBS...........So ignorant and short sighted imo, if we
can concentrate on free energy jobs would not be so important
and a first step towards a more enlightened society...

JYVzmxE7b_k

Published on 19 Mar 2013

A new generation of nuclear power plants is signalled as the Government grants
permission for Hinkley Point C Nr Bridgwater, Somerset.

The building of a new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset has moved a step
closer after Energy Secretary Ed Davey granted the scheme planning permission.

The proposed development of Hinkley Point C by French energy company EDF is a
boost for the nuclear industry following a series of setbacks in plans to construct a
new fleet of reactors in the UK, which ministers say are needed to cut carbon and
keep the lights on.

The deal is expected to be rubber-stamped within weeks when EDF and the
Government secure agreement on decommissioning the price the company will be
paid for the electricity it generates.

Mr Davey told Sky News there would be no public subsidy and the cost would
be "affordable for consumers and businesses" but he refused to go into further
detail as the commercially-sensitive negotiations continued.

Once up and running it is anticipated that the plant's two reactors will generate
enough electricity to provide 7% of the country's needs, or power five million
homes.The minister told the Commons that affordable new nuclear would play
a "crucial role" in ensuring secure, diverse supplies of energy in the UK and
decarbonising the electricity sector and the economy.

He also confirmed that EDF had now secured the majority of consents it needed to
build and operate the plant and that he expected to announce shortly a deal on the
so-called 'strike' price.Under electricity market reforms, low-carbon power such as
nuclear reactors and offshore wind farms will have long-term contracts with a
guaranteed price for their electricity, to give investors certainty to invest in projects
with high capital costs.

It has been reported that the costs of the new power station would run to around
£14bn and the development would create up to 25,000 jobs during construction
and 900 permanent positions once in operation.

But environmental groups reacted angrily to the news and raised questions about
dealing with the waste.

Greenpeace executive director John Sauven claimed Hinkley Point C failed the test
on economic, consumer, environmental and arguably even legal grounds.

He said: "It will lock a generation of consumers into higher energy bills, via a strike
price that's expected to be double the current price of electricity, and it will distort
energy policy by displacing newer, cleaner, cheaper technologies.

"Giving it the green light when there is no credible plan for dealing with the waste
could also be in breach of the law," he warned.

Friends of the Earth's policy and campaigns director Craig Bennett added: "The
Alice-in-Wonderland economics of the nuclear industry killed off previous plans for
a new reactor at Hinkley -- decades later, little has changed.

"The only way this plant will be built is if the Government hands over a blank
cheque from UK taxpayers to French developers, EDF.

"The most cost-effective way to cut carbon and keep the lights on is a combination
of energy efficiency and investing in renewables, the cost of which are falling year
on year.

"For decades nuclear industry has over-promised and under-delivered -- we can't
afford to keep throwing money at it."

The good news is Ion says their is nothing they can do it will be
made available. I hope this is true !!

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

Hinkley Point | BBC Points West | 19MAR2013

Lw3b_my7zfE

Published on 20 Mar 2013

The first of a planned new generation of nuclear power plants in the UK has been
given approval. Energy Secretary Ed Davey told MPs in the Commons that he was
granting planning consent for French energy giant EDF to construct Hinkley Point C
in Somerset.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?59477-James-Martinez-Cold-Fusion-update-The-Believers-Tlr-James-speaking-in-Holland

Cidersomerset

8th September 2013, 08:46

A couple of posts from previous threads just for ref ......

FUKUSHIMA - Gen. Bert Stubblebine's Personal Estimate of the Situation - IMPORTANT

On the news earlier there was an Item about the new power station at Hinkly point
about five miles from where I'm typing...Its been proposed for years but final planning
permission has not gone thru although thats a formality, they are squabbling about financial
details with EDF the French company who are going to build it. Work has already started
on clearing the site apparrently.....

Nothing at all is being said about the nuclear fallout coming out of Fuchishima and it is
if we are in a parrallel universe !!

http://www.energyroyd.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/stop-hinckley-e1331227250472.jpg

http://www.energyroyd.org.uk/archives/1573

BBC News

9 May 2012 Last updated at 12:28
Share this page

Views sought on Hinkley Point C nuclear power station
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories

Hinkley protesters are sentenced
Council's pledge for Hinkley bill
Notice served to Hinkley campers

People living near the site of the proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in Somerset are being asked for their views on the plans.

The first of four Planning Inspectorate public meetings is taking place in the village of Cannington.

EDF Energy submitted plans for the plant to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) last October.

Further meetings are due to take place in Otterhampton, Bridgwater and Stogursey later this month.

It is the first opportunity for the Planning Inspectorate to hear the views in person of local people.

The planning application is being reviewed by the IPC which deals with large scale projects.

It will recommend whether permission should be granted but the final decision rests with the government.

If built, the new power station could open in 2020.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-18003042

http://www.eadt.co.uk/polopoly_fs/011_hinckley_point_c_power_1_1202846!image/1009634953.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_490/1009634953.jpg

Artist impression of new site....

Some do know about Fuchishima , but not the Corporates !!

rDF1iO69E7M

zYoPaqgSBPg

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?44568-FUKUSHIMA-Gen.-Bert-Stubblebine-s-Personal-Estimate-of-the-Situation-IMPORTANT/page5

¤=[Post Update]=¤

FUKUSHIMA - Gen. Bert Stubblebine's Personal Estimate of the Situation - IMPORTANT

Chris Busby and others at Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station 10 March 2012
He explains here that he measured the levels of radiation in the soil and they
are to high !! over permitted levels...

2GEDWPMiLek

Professor Christopher Busby -The Criminal Irresponsibility and Coverup of Fukushima

dXfupSB2lGY

Uploaded by darrenritt27 on 27 Dec 2011

A newly released report on the Fukushima nuclear crisis says it was down to the plant's
operators being ill-prepared and not responding properly to the earthquake and tsunami
disaster. A major government inquiry said some engineers abandoned the plant as the trouble
started and other staff delayed reporting significant radiation leaks. Professor Christopher Busby,
scientific secretary to the European Committee on Radiation Risks, says health damage after
contamination will be more serious than Japan announced.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Chris Busby on Sky: Fallujah, Fukushima and Radiation

Dr Chris Busby interviewed 20th December 2011 by Theo Chalmers on Sky TV's "One Step Beyond" about Fallujah,
Fukushima and the cover-ups over the health effects of exposure to radioactivity

vwYDPUszF4s

There is no doubt that radiation poisoning has been realeased into our enviroment since WW11...

Any skeptic should be given a tent and sent to Fuchishima for a camping holiday !!!

The question is it pure greed and incompetence or part of a wider agenda which is what
I alluded to on page one...Steve..

===========================================================

Sorry All if I got a bit carried away with my last few posts, I tend to do that when I get my
teeth into something ..LOL,..But its woke me up a bit how close I am to 'Mordor' as Prof
Busby said in the above clip outside Hinkly !!!!!

And I'm born and bred here , another reason why I've got 'glowing cheeks'..not just
the cider !!!!....LOL

Cidersomerset

8th September 2013, 10:22

Last year I went to London with a few workmates for a trade unions
march which was a good day out.

This year we have just finished ind action at our local sorting
office where I work. We have had 9 days action and were due
to be out for six days starting tomorrow Mon 9th Sept. But after
intense negotiations last Tues the strike has been called off
and an attempt to reconcile differences will be tried again
this week between Workers & management.

http://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/resources/images/2517470.jpg?type=articleLandscape

http://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/10550151.UPDATE__Postal_strikes_to_go_ahead_in_Bridgwater/

..........................................................................................

A Lovely day out in London at the TUC March...Sat 20th Oct 2012..

These six protestors were on our coach , they are protesting the building of Hinkly 'C'
nuclear powerstation , being built outside our town !! Bless um !

http://static2.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/a_scale_large/1500-6/photos/1350759582-protest-against-austerity-and-for-climate-justice--london_1535956.jpg

http://www.demotix.com/news/1535997/protest-against-austerity-and-climate-justice-london/all-media

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/editpost.php?p=571811&do=editpost

Cidersomerset

8th September 2013, 11:15

Boycott The Radioactive 2020 Olympics Of Death

Sunday, 08 September 2013 10:31

Posted by David Icke

http://www.davidicke.com/images/stories/September20135/japan-olympics-fear.gif

'It does not take 20/20 vision to realize that the corrupt Japanese government has
bribed the International Olympic Committee to make the suicidal decision to send
young athletes into the radioactive fallout from Fukushima. The decision in Buenos
Aires to award Tokyo as host city of the 2020 Games did not arise from lack of
choices between Istanbul and Madrid, but knowing decision that is
incomprehensible except for the factor of bribery. To risk the lives of young people
and their supporters is more than an ethical lapse, it is a crime of manslaughter to
the cruelest degree.

The bidding for the Games were rigged from the start by a quintet of disreputable
character and dubious association, including former capital governor Shintaro
Ishihara, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Education Minister Hakubun Shimomura and
Japan Olympic Chairman Tsunekazu Takeda, scion and successor to a heinous war
criminal. Their industrial partner, is Fujio Cho, honorary chairman of Toyota Motor
Company and chief of the Japan Sports Association

During their promotion campaign for the Games of Death, these five Japanese
officials spun outright lies claiming that there are zero leaks of radioactive water
from the Fukushima nuclear plant.'

Read more: Boycott The Radioactive 2020 Olympics Of Death

http://rense.com/general96/boycott.html

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/90296-boycott-the-radioactive-2020-olympics-of-death

TargeT

8th September 2013, 16:51

Anyway, where are your studies now ? .

as I said, there are three other threads that cover this in detail

I didn't find such 'direct source documents' on the two threads you mention except for the Ben & Galen erroneous chart. I still believe that any radiation level above natural level is not good for me.

the chart isn't erroneous, it had two things transposed, that's it, a minor typo at best.

here's an example of what I would look for showing that radiatin is dangerous for you at low levels:

This example of exposure was one of the biggest examples ever recorded of what happens when these small dose exposures happen:

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

There's a 10,000 person case study, that is QUITE conclusive with dramatic results.

if you really want to understand you will have to take an objective look at this thread: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46819-A-video-they-won-t-want-you-to-see--Galen-Winsor-nuclear-scare-scam-&highlight=nuclear+scam+cobalt

it contains a lot of information that will show you what I am trying to underscore, and that is:

Low levels of nuclear radiation are not dangerous, in fact they seem to be very very good for you.

Atlas

9th September 2013, 00:09

TargeT

9th September 2013, 02:22

Low levels of nuclear radiation are not dangerous, in fact they seem to be very very good for you.

This will not convince me. People will never buy your uranium, you're just trying to sell your uranium crap on this forum. I repeat uranium is very very bad for you.

I sell dogs, not uranium... haha I purchased my uranium from a very nice lady that hand made the piece for me & hopefully will be making two more for my mom and wife.

you are responding emotionally and irrationally.. if you want to ignore the data that's fine with me; I hope you don't get cancer and live to regret this stance you are taking.

did you know uranium is naturally occurring? I'm wearing unrefined uranium ore, same as you find laying on the ground in mountainous areas.

I don't want to convince you, I'm simply providing what I have found to be very important information that directly contradicts what you believe (based on nothing you can show me) and what has been told to us by what I postulate is a deliberate cover up of an important resource for health and energy; I'm pretty good at researching things & I have spent many hours on this topic, giving me the confidence to take the (very unpopular) stance that I am.

I fully expect opposition like that which you are exhibiting, I do not expect to convince those with strongly held beliefs for I know the neurological effects that have to be over come for this to happen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbh5l0b2-0o) (and I know very few people capable of it), but you see; this is a public forum and more than just you and I are reading this; that is my audience.

Thank you for the opportunity for me to refine my argument and to Pan for catching the transposition of words in the Galen Windsor chart.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
~Mahatma Gandhi

panopticon

9th September 2013, 03:09

Last year I went to London with a few workmates for a trade unions march which was a good day out.

This year we have just finished ind action at our local sorting office where I work. We have had 9 days action and was due to be out for six days starting tomorrow Mon 9th Sept. But after intense negotiations last Tues the strike has been called off and an attempt to reconcile differences will be tried again this week between Workers & management.

Good on ya Steve.
Hope the negotiations are fruitful!

Just as a question...
We (Australia) now have a Conservative (Liberal) Government.

There is much debate about whether the UK's "Big Society" is going to be adopted down here. While at first look the devolution of power into the hands of local groups is admirable I have read (and met) a few people who claim that it actually increases power and control within the Government through a combination of techniques (eg limited targeted/ funding, coercive power, minimising activism through bringing everyone under the same tent).

Have you had any experience in this in relation to the Nuclear facility and Union movement in the area?
Kind Regards & Deepest of Respect, :yo:
Panopticon

Atlas

9th September 2013, 04:05

I'm simply providing what I have found to be very important information that directly contradicts what you believe (based on nothing you can show me) and what has been told to us by what I postulate is a deliberate cover up of an important resource for health and energy

This is what I can show you:

Consensus reports by the United States National Research Council and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) argue that there is no evidence for hormesis in humans and in the case of the National Research Council, that hormesis is outright rejected as a possibility. Therefore, the Linear no-threshold model (LNT) continues to be the model generally used by regulatory agencies for human radiation exposure. (wikipedia.org/Radiation_hormesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis))

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

Above doses of 50–100 mSv (protracted exposure) or 10–50 mSv (acute exposure), direct epidemiological evidence from human populations demonstrates that exposure to ionizing radiation increases the risk of some cancers. [...] it is unlikely that we will be able to directly and precisely quantify cancer risks in human populations at doses much below 10 mSv. Our inability to quantify such risks does not, however, imply that the corresponding societal risks are necessarily negligible; a very small risk, if applied to a large number of individuals, can result in a significant public health problem. (Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC283495/))

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

In the section of this report on observed dose-response relationships at low doses, bystander effects and hyper radiation sensitivity for low-dose deleterious effects in mammalian cells have been observed for doses in the 10–100 mGy range. [...] End points for these deleterious effects include mutations, chromosomal aberrations, oncogenic transformation, genomic instability, and cell lethality. These deleterious effects have been observed for cells irradiated in vivo as well as in vitro.

[...] the committee has found no consistent evidence in the epidemiologic literature that low doses of ionizing radiation lower the risk of disease or death. [...] The committee concludes that the assumption that any stimulatory hormetic effects from low doses of ionizing radiation will have a significant health benefit to humans that exceeds potential detrimental effects from the radiation exposure is unwarranted at this time. (Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2 (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11340))

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

Now what can you show me...? nothing.

onawah

9th September 2013, 08:23

Atlas

9th September 2013, 10:27

I purchased my uranium from a very nice lady that hand made the piece for me & hopefully will be making two more for my mom and wife.

Why don't you purchase some for your children too ?

did you know uranium is naturally occurring? I'm wearing unrefined uranium ore, same as you find laying on the ground in mountainous areas.

I'm not saying it's dangerous, I'm saying there are no proven benefits.

what has been told to us by what I postulate is a deliberate cover up of an important resource for health and energy

I'm sure I have plenty to learn from you, my beliefs are not as strongly held as you think, but let us continue this discussion on the appropriate threads so that those concerned with Fukushima can express themselves here.

:focus:

TargeT

9th September 2013, 16:38

I have researched this subject very little so far, but I do at least understand what Target is saying, and Buares, you don't seem to understand.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, Target, but I think what you are saying is that studies have been referenced which profess to prove highly dangerous properties of even low doses of radiation, but the ACTUAL DATA of those studies, if it really exists, has NOT been provided to the public.
I am thinking, as a comparison, of the current situation with fluoridated water, which I HAVE researched quite a lot, and what I have found, as many others have, is that many organizations have come out in favor of fluoride, but when you look into WHY they are in favor, it's simply because OTHER organizations came out in favor fluoride years ago, when very little research had actually been done, and very little research has been done up to this day.
And what has been done has been proven to be very questionable, other than the research showing that fluoridating water is a very, very dangerous practice. .
So it's been a question of the blind leading the blind all along, people accepting without questions the lies that were fed to them, simply because they didn't believe that such huge lies would be told on such a huge scale, or because they were being paid or bribed or pressured to do so.
911 is another example.
The truth is right in front of your face if you are willing to look at the FACTS and stop assuming.
Because we all know what asses assuming can make out of us...
I seem to have been one of the rare people that Target does "not expect to convince those with strongly held beliefs for I know the neurological effects that have to be over come for this to happen (and I know very few people capable of it), but you see; this is a public forum and more than just you and I are reading this; that is my audience."
I'm opening my mind to the possibilities, if only because I have been reading the information on Avalon long enough to know by now that there are conspiracies within conspiracies within conspiracies, up to the very highest levels of government, science, industry, you name it.
It's not comfortable knowing this, but if the Truth can set us free, then I think it's worth the price.
I thank Target for keeping his cool and having the integrity and commitment to continue posting his views and research results here, despite the resistance to it that I and other Avalonians have put up so far.
I no longer have the dire sense of urgency I used to have about radioactivity, and I am really grateful for that.
Thanks again to Target, Kimberly, Dawn and others who have persisted in making this kind of information available.

That is a very good comparison onawah, I think I will steal it for future use :)

I think the phenomenon we are seeing here is a strong weakness in the human mind, we are conditioned from BIRTH to accept authority (the Nuclear Regulatory Comities are an example of "authority") as the ultimate information gate keepers, they know all and are infallible... This type of authority indoctrination is reflected in the parent-child, child-teacher, child-police (and adult-police) and many many other relationships that deeply ingrain this response of blind trust, blind faith in authority that what they tell us is beyond question & should be accepted just because of the source (which is a logical fallacy: Appeal to Authority)

This is very very difficult to over come, I think if one looks at the past threads on this radiation topic you can see this logical fallacy pop up again and again and there is almost no way around it; even trying to counter with what I perceive to be very very strong facts (a 20 year exposure of around 10,000 people) only triggers further appeal to authority arguments and I think engages the ego in the response ( you can see some of that here in this thread).

I'm not quite sure which is the bigger revelation here, that we have been so strongly (and are completely unaware of) indoctrinated to this Authority-is-always-right concept, or that Nuclear radiation is not the terrifying thing we have been told, that it apparently is very good for us (which has interesting implications I could expand on further at another time).

I purchased my uranium from a very nice lady that hand made the piece for me & hopefully will be making two more for my mom and wife.

Why don't you purchase some for your children too ?

My 6 year old can’t even keep track of her glasses… children, like young plants, are very robust and while I do my best to see they are healthy it’s not as urgent of an issue as it is for those of us who’s bodies are in decline (30+) I have presented this information in a very neutral way to my 16 year old daughter and she has expressed the desire for a pendant, I will get her one after the more vulnerable in my family have one for themselves.

did you know uranium is naturally occurring? I'm wearing unrefined uranium ore, same as you find laying on the ground in mountainous areas.

I'm not saying it's dangerous, I'm saying there are no proven benefits.

A post in this thread here shows very conclusive benefits, very dramatic results (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62507-Japan-nuclear-agency-upgrades-Fukushima-alert-level&p=726732&viewfull=1#post726732)

what has been told to us by what I postulate is a deliberate cover up of an important resource for health and energy

I'm sure I have plenty to learn from you, my beliefs are not as strongly held as you think, but let us continue this discussion on the appropriate threads so that those concerned with Fukushima can express themselves here.

:focus:

My discussion in this thread is barely related to the topic, you are correct, however since the title of this thread and the content of the first post espouse fear from the low levels of radiation that are present I think it is a valid contribution.

Another thinig to consider: There are several studies showing that people of a certain political slant will only read material that agree's with that slant, and that the gap between the two parties (in the US) is only widening; this is a basic flaw in how the human mind works & so sometimes slightly off topic information needs to be brought up where it is not wanted just to expose information to those who would not normally seek it.

at least that's my own rationalization, it could be very wrong; but it is supported by my observation and several case studies I have read.

Fukushima needs to be cleaned up, I definately don't want to come across as denying that; however, so far no one out side of the small area around fukushima need be concerned about the plant (now, another large earthquake could quickly change the situation, but it still would not be a "death of the planet" ).

One other thing to note: according to Epigenetics, our thoughts shape our gene expressions, and living in fear, panic or terror are litterally physically bad for you; these stresses cause very negative effects. You could say I'm trying to save people's health with my line of thought and research. (again, this is probably just more rationalization for my actions... but it rings true to me at least..)

panopticon

10th September 2013, 04:00

the numbers from the chart I posted are from two men that worked for years as nuclear engineers; the numbers you posted I have never seen validated or backed up by anything.. so we have nothing in one hand and first hand testimony in the other, I'm leaning to first hand testimony.

Are you sure you know what you're doing ? If Galen Winsor & Ben Williams numbers are incorrect as panopticon just pointed out, you might be poisoning yourself with radioactive material...

The numbers I provided are backed up by the world scientists and they usually avoid making mistakes.

I never realised the source of the information.
It was probably a typo. Doesn't bother me either way.

As for Target poisoning himself...

I don't think Uranium ore presents much of a risk, as long as he's not sitting there sucking on it or with open wounds underneath it. Uranium ore is an alpha emitter (that's if it's predominantly U-238) and wont penetrate below the skin layer.

Glad the TBI information was helpful.

Anyway, lunch is over so back to the fields...
-- Pan

Atlas

10th September 2013, 08:40

1,800 mSv/h (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/01/fukushima-radiation-levels-higher-japan) : Radiation sickness (http://www.unscear.org/) (risk of death)

TEPCO: "although 1,800 mSv/h was detected at 5cm above the floor, the radiation level at 50cm above the floor was 15 mSv/h. Thus, the figure of 1,800 mSv/h does not represent the radiation level of the whole area.

Some articles reported that "if a person were exposed to this amount of radiation for four hours continuously, it would lead to death," by comparing with the radiation level that would result in death (7,000 mSv), or "it would take only one minute to reach the annual radiation exposure limit for workers," by comparing with the annual radiation exposure limit for workers (50 mSv).

However, we believe that simply comparing the 1,800 mSv/h figure with these standard levels is inappropriate, since the standard levels represent the cumulative effective dose (not equivalent dose) upon the whole body."

TEPCO (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu13_e/images/130830e0201.pdf) data below:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu13_e/images/130830e0201.pdf

EDIT: already posted by Cidersomerset here
(http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62507-Japan-nuclear-agency-upgrades-Fukushima-alert-level&p=724699&viewfull=1#post724699)

panopticon

10th September 2013, 10:16

From RT.com (http://rt.com/news/radiation-tepco-fukushima-leak-637/):

#######

http://rt.com/files/news/20/61/d0/00/radiation-tepco-fukushima-leak.si.jpg

TEPCO detects high levels of groundwater radiation at Fukushima plant
Published time September 10, 2013

A new hotspot of radiation has been detected in groundwater from an observation well next to one of the leaking tanks at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant, the operator of the facility announced.

Some 3,200 becquerels per liter of radioactive substances were recorded in a well next to a faulty water storage tank, Kyodo News Agency reported, citing Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO)’s Sunday readings.

The probe revealed that strontium and other malicious beta rays were discovered in the groundwater 20 meters north of the tank, which is located in the H4 area. According to TEPCO, this indicates that radioactive water from leaking tanks mixed with groundwater in the area. Last week, the company announced the discovery of 650 becquerels per liter of radioactive waste in another well, located about 20 meters south of the storage tank.

On Monday, the Japanese government urged the operator to propose a plan of action by next month designed to remove contaminated water to safer tanks. The plan is to replace 300 of approximately 1,000 tanks present on the site which store 400 tons of contaminated water daily.

According to Japanese industry minister Toshimitsu Motegi, the leaks have affected an area of 0.3 square kilometers within the bay around the plant, Jiji Press reported. The minister added that removing polluted water is the most urgent task for Japan.

The UN’s nuclear watchdog also voiced concerns on Monday about the situation at the Fukushima-1 plant. Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, said the leakage is "a matter of high priority that needs to be addressed urgently,” promising to send an international mission to help the situation.

The Japanese government announced last week a plan to create a wall of ice under the plant to stop drainage of contaminated water by the end of March 2015. Meanwhile, TEPCO wants to pump the water out of the wells before it reaches the Pacific Ocean.

But the measures taken by the government have not been received well by the public.

A survey conducted by Asahi Shimbun newspaper revealed on Monday that 72 percent of those surveyed considered the government's response to be “late" and the situation on the ground to be "very serious." Eighty-nine percent said that the government - not TEPCO - should take charge of the situation.

Source (http://rt.com/news/radiation-tepco-fukushima-leak-637/)

#######

Tack onto this that I've also been reading reports that Tepco will probably run out of tanks to store the contaminated water in by mid-November (unless they build more of the temporary ones they are using atm) and I'm left wandering how much worse this is going to get...

-- Pan

panopticon

10th September 2013, 23:22

From The Japan Times (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/10/national/water-highly-irradiated-near-leaky-tank/):

##########

Water highly irradiated near leaky tank
September 10, 2013

Tokyo Electric Power Co. said groundwater at an observation well near the site of a leaky storage tank at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant has shown high levels of radiation.

Tests found 3,200 becquerels per liter of beta ray-emitting materials, including strontium. As a result, it “now seems more likely” that radioactive water from leaking tanks at the crippled facility became mixed with groundwater in the area, Tepco said Monday.

The level of contamination far exceeds the government limit of just 10 becquerels of strontium per liter in drinking water and 100 becquerels per kilogram for food. If ingested, experts say, strontium accumulates in bones and can cause cancer.

Many of the tanks were used to cool molten fuel in the No. 1 plant’s three reactors that experienced core meltdowns from the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

Last week, the government unveiled a ¥47 billion plan to stem the leaks by creating a wall of ice under the plant. Tepco also plans to use wells to pump out groundwater before it seeps into the Pacific Ocean.

The latest findings could affect that plan, as the nearest pumping well is only 130 meters from the monitoring site where the highly irradiated water sample was taken.

Source (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/10/national/water-highly-irradiated-near-leaky-tank/)
##########

panopticon

11th September 2013, 08:06

Data from Tepco releases on above reports:

####################

Fukushima Daiichi NPS Prompt Report (Sep 09,2013)
Water Leak at a Tank in the H4 area in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (Follow-up Information 35)

This is follow-up information on the "water leak at a tank in the H4 area in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station" found on August 19.

On September 8, we performed the analyses of γ nuclide and all β for the first time in an observation hole (E-1: in north of a dike of the tank No.5 in I Group in the H4 area with water leakage) around H4 tank area. The results are as follows.

<Observation hole: E-1>
- Sampled on September 8
Cesium-134: 2.5Bq/L
Cesium-137: 5.1bq/L
All β: 3200Bq/L

We performed the analysis of tritium (sampled on September 7) and the analyses of γ nuclide and all β (sampled on September 8) in water in an observation hole (E-2: in south of a dike of the tank No.5 in I Group in the H4 area with water leakage) around H4 tank area. The results are as follows.

<Observation hole: E-2>
- Sampled on September 7
Tritium: 300Bq/L

- Sampled on September 8
Cesium-134: 0.64Bq/L
Cesium-137: 0.74Bq/L
All β: 67Bq/L

The result of tritium in water sampled on September 7 this time was 300Bq/L, and has increased compared to the previous result sampled before at the same point (190Bq/L sampled on September 6).

The result of all β in water sampled on September 8 this time was 67Bq/L, and has increased compared to the previous result sampled before at the same point (35Bq/L sampled on September 7).

We are determined to continue analyses and to monitor the situation.

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

(Reference)
<Observation hole: E-2>
- Sampled on September 4
All β: 650Bq/L
Tritium: Below the detection limit value (detection limit value: 120Bq/L)

- Sampled on September 5
All β: 330Bq/L
Tritium: Below the detection limit value (detection limit value: 120Bq/L)

- Sampled on September 6
All β: 180Bq/L
Tritium: 190Bq/L

- Sampled on September 7
All β: 35Bq/L

Source (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/2013/1230429_5130.html)

####################

Fukushima Daiichi NPS Prompt Report (Sep 10,2013)
Water Leak at a Tank in the H4 area in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (Follow-up Information 36)

This is follow-up information on the "water leak at a tank in the H4 area in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station" found on August 19.

On September 8, we performed the analyses of γ nuclide and all β for the first time in an observation hole (E-1: in north of a dike of the tank No.5 in I Group in the H4 area with water leakage) around H4 tank area. The results are as follows.

<Observation hole: E-1>
- Sampled on September 8
Tritium: 4200 Bq/L
Cesium-134: 2.5Bq/L (previously announced on September 9)
Cesium-137: 5.1bq/L (previously announced on September 9)
All β: 3200Bq/L (previously announced on September 9)

The result of tritium in groundwater (E-1) in H4 area (sampled on September 8 for the first time) was 4200Bq/L, and was higher than the radioactive concentration measured at the observation hole E-2, likewise the result of all β measured on the same day (on September 8).

We performed the analysis of tritium (sampled on September 8) in water in an observation hole (E-2: in south of a dike of the tank No.5 in I Group in the H4 area with water leakage) around H4 tank area. The results are as follows.

<Observation hole: E-2>
- Sampled on September 8
Tritium: 290 Bq/L
Cesium-134: 0.64Bq/L (previously announced on September 9)
Cesium-137: 0.74Bq/L (previously announced on September 9)
All β: 67Bq/L (previously announced on September 9)

- Sampled on September 7
Tritium: 300Bq/L (previously announced on September 9)

The result of tritium obtained on September 8 in an observation hole E-2 was 290Bq/L, and this is approximately the same as the result of tritium (300 Bq/L) at the same point sampled on September 7.

We are determined to continue analyses and to monitor the situation.

Source (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/2013/1230430_5130.html)

####################

Just for later possible reference.
-- Pan

Cidersomerset

11th September 2013, 15:03

Quote Posted by Cidersomerset (here)
Last year I went to London with a few workmates for a trade unions march which was a good day out.

This year we have just finished ind action at our local sorting office where I work. We have had 9 days action and was due to be out for six days starting tomorrow Mon 9th Sept. But after intense negotiations last Tues the strike has been called off and an attempt to reconcile differences will be tried again this week between Workers & management.
Good on ya Steve.
Hope the negotiations are fruitful!

Just as a question...
We (Australia) now have a Conservative (Liberal) Government.

There is much debate about whether the UK's "Big Society" is going to be adopted down here. While at first look the devolution of power into the hands of local groups is admirable I have read (and met) a few people who claim that it actually increases power and control within the Government through a combination of techniques (eg limited targeted/ funding, coercive power, minimising activism through bringing everyone under the same tent).

Have you had any experience in this in relation to the Nuclear facility and Union movement in the area?
Kind Regards & Deepest of Respect,
Panopticon

Sorry Panopticon ..........just saw the question...The 'Big society' is just another gimmick as can be seen on the news daily with the 'Banksters' , healthcare
the gap between rich and poor is getting wider, we have the 'bedroom tax' on council houses just yesterday on the local news it said the council are looking
to start court action & evictions because of benefits being cut to the low paid and those out of work, who are falling in arrears.

Everything is targeted we have it in work , a lot of full time jobs have been lost to part time. Zero contract hour workers which is a hot topic
at the moment with estimate figures of 5 million. There maybe a place at the niche end for students and very small buisnesses, but companies
like amazon have been taking advantage of it, as well as not paying appropriate tax's. You could start anywhere, in principle smaller government
is fine, but we have a long way to go yet.

The trouble is most politicians speak 'double talk' especially when in power, you rarely get a straight answer they usually fudge it.
The TUC conference started yesterday and Labour Leader Ed Milliband was trying to woo them. I am not a militant unionist
and thought the balance of the sixties and seventies had got out of hand , but Trades unions are essential to the working man/woman
and hard fought rights would soon disappear if the movement were to decline much more. Like everything there has to be a balance
and activism has definitely got its place. Words like , modernisation, efficiency, productivity, quotas ,targets etc are all part of
of the world we seek to change on forums like this in our idealism. But we all have to live and earn a 'crust' in this reality
So don't let the B------'s grind us down ...LOL

I'm not sure if I answered your question ...Steve

Labour was created by the unions, but since Tony Blair
and co, created 'New Labour' there is definitely a identity
crises that has lingered for 20 years.

-UU74lyGkP4

Published on 10 Sep 2013

Delegates to the TUC conference in Bournmouth met Ed Miliband's low-key speech
with what you might call polite indifference.

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

I just saw this on David Ickes site.....The American
dream is becoming a nightmare to many. This is
the same in many countries , Equality = privilege,
or sucking up to the privileged elites.

Record gap between US one percenters and the rest

Wednesday 11th September 2013 at 05:58 By David Icke

http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/20130911/sheidayi20130911013912180.jpg

‘A new study has shown that the income gap between the richest 1 percent in the
United States and the rest of the American people reached its widest point in 2012
since 1928.

An analysis of the Internal Revenue Service’s data by economists at the University
of California, Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics, and Oxford University has
shown that the richest 1 percent in the US collected 19.3 percent of household
income in 2012, their biggest share since 1928.

The wealthiest 10 percent also collected 48.2 percent of the total earnings in 2012.’

Read more: Record gap between US one percenters and the rest

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/11/323197/2012-best-year-for-us-1-since-1928/

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/

panopticon

12th September 2013, 02:24

Just as a question...
We (Australia) now have a Conservative (Liberal) Government.

There is much debate about whether the UK's "Big Society" is going to be adopted down here. While at first look the devolution of power into the hands of local groups is admirable I have read (and met) a few people who claim that it actually increases power and control within the Government through a combination of techniques (eg limited targeted/ funding, coercive power, minimising activism through bringing everyone under the same tent).

Have you had any experience in this in relation to the Nuclear facility and Union movement in the area?
Kind Regards & Deepest of Respect,
Panopticon

Sorry Panopticon ..........just saw the question...The 'Big society' is just another gimmick as can be seen on the news daily with the 'Banksters' , healthcare the gap between rich and poor is getting wider, we have the 'bedroom tax' on council houses just yesterday on the local news it said the council are looking to start court action & evictions because of benefits being cut to the low paid and those out of work, who are falling in arrears.

Everything is targeted we have it in work , a lot of full time jobs have been lost to part time. Zero contract hour workers which is a hot topic at the moment with estimate figures of 5 million. There maybe a place at the niche end for students and very small buisnesses, but companies like amazon have been taking advantage of it, as well as not paying appropriate tax's. You could start anywhere, in principle smaller government is fine, but we have a long way to go yet.

The trouble is most politicians speak 'double talk' especially when in power, you rarely get a straight answer they usually fudge it.

The TUC conference started yesterday and Labour Leader Ed Milliband was trying to woo them. I am not a militant unionist and thought the balance of the sixties and seventies had got out of hand , but Trades unions are essential to the working man/woman and hard fought rights would soon disappear if the movement were to decline much more. Like everything there has to be a balance and activism has definitely got its place. Words like , modernisation, efficiency, productivity, quotas ,targets etc are all part of the world we seek to change on forums like this in our idealism. But we all have so live and earn a 'crust' in this reality
So don't let the B------'s grind us down ...LOL

I'm not sure if I answered your question ...Steve

Labour was created by the unions, but since Tony Blair and co, created 'New Labour' there is definitely a identity crises that has lingered for 20 years.

Thanks for the response Steve.

From our discussions (previous to this thread) we seem to have a shared interest in worker rights and the rise of social movements to present alternative positions on issues within society.

It was within this context that I was enquiring about the rise of the 'Big Society' in the UK. It has a relevance to this thread insofar as it directly affects the way in which control and power can be exerted by those in positions of power on these grass root organisations/movements.

For example, by isolating a group of activists and allocating a rudimentary element of power to them (by including them in the societal discussion) it is possible for the Government to then say "we had discussions with this group and they agree that this plan is the best for the region". This may or may not be a misrepresentation of what has occurred as the grass root group may agree that certain actions are of more importance that other actions within the region. By including them in the discussion it is possible to illicit a positive response to one area of policy in preference to another and from this gain their approval for only one part of what is needed. For example it can be easily argued that health care for homeless people is less important than providing safe lodgings for them, as many of the health issues are associated with living rough. The Governments actual goal was removing homeless people from the streets so they can say they've reduced homelessness. The community group may have been concerned with providing health care to homeless people. As a result the government can turn around and say that not only have they reduced homelessness but also improved health care to the homeless (due to the fact that there are less people living rough to require health services). The actual provisioning of health services for the target group may not have altered just the statistical classification under which they appear. So the government can say they have reduced the number of homeless persons requiring health care by, for example, 27%. This is true because that 27% are now requiring health care services under another classification.

Alternatively they can allocate a small amount of funds to a community based organisation to tackle a specific problem. It is often much less than is required to actually do anything about the problem but in allocating funding it first keeps the grass root organisation busy trying to do something (anything) to sort out the situation (whether it is to do with local health facilities. environmental issues that are region specific, homelessness, etc), then it also stops the people who are actively campaigning for improvements by tying them to an unworkable system.

People who are actively working for change try to do what they can with what is provided and then become part of the system. As a result they may compromise in certain areas to be able to fund other areas that are in greater need (homeless shelters versus health care for homeless persons) and are stopped from actually fulfilling the goals that they set out to achieve because they are trying to do the most important thing first on insufficient funding. They are "bought into the tent" as it were and given insufficient funding to carry out a single project let alone a broader program.

Finally the Government can step in and say "well it looks like you can't sort this out after all so we'll take over and fix it for you". Very paternalistic and reinforces the control and power of the State.

That is what I've been hearing has been going on in the UK and I dread a similar approach being used in Australia. BTW this is not the same as funding a community based movement to carry out a program. It is providing insufficient resources to undertake the program that is one part of the problem.

Oh, and one inspirational story that has come out of our election is the campaign instigated by a grass root organisation in the electorate of Indi (Voice for Indi (http://www.voiceforindi.com/)) and its grass root campaign to gain representation by Cathy McGowan (http://www.cathymcgowan.com.au/) in the previous safe conservative seat. Very interesting story and an approach I have advocated in the past.

Cheers,
Pan

TargeT

12th September 2013, 02:41

The wealthiest 10 percent also collected 48.2 percent of the total earnings in 2012.’

Keep shopping in the mall and driving those gas based cars folks, don't produce your own power or even thinkabout it... it's working out really great (for some people)

I'm about to spend 37,000 on solar (via loan... so I'm basically helping fund banks) isn't it funny how even the methods to escape "TPTB" help "TPTB" ?

The lack of a real Fukushima clean up effort is the same thing here... it's not being done because A) it's probably known that it's not that big of a deal by the corporation at the head of it and B) it saves money to "store water" and create an "ice wall" when compared to actual clean up costs....

Big corporations win again either way....:tsk:

panopticon

12th September 2013, 02:55

From Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/11/us-japan-fukushima-tritium-idUSBRE98A0HX20130911):

##################

Tritium levels spike at stricken Fukushima nuclear plant
September 11, 2013

The operator of the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant said levels of tritium - considered one of the least harmful radioactive elements - spiked more than 15 times in groundwater near a leaked tank at the facility over three days this week.

Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) said tritium levels in water taken from a well close to a number of storage tanks holding irradiated water rose to 64,000 becquerels per liter on Tuesday from 4,200 becquerels/liter at the same location on Sunday.

Tepco said last month that 300 metric tons of highly radioactive water leaked from one of the hastily built steel tanks at the plant, which was crippled by a massive earthquake and tsunami in March 2011.

A Tepco representative told reporters on Wednesday the company was investigating the high tritium reading and could not rule out the possibility that last month's leak had contaminated the groundwater.

The elevated readings of radioactive elements at the plant come just days after Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told the International Olympic Committee that the situation at the Fukushima facility, 230 km (140 miles) from Tokyo, was "under control", with contamination limited to the area immediately surrounding the plant. Tokyo was chosen over the weekend to host the 2020 Olympic Games.

Tritium, which has a half-life of around 12 years, is less harmful to humans than cesium and strontium. A becquerel is a measure of the release of radioactive energy.

The spike in radioactive elements in groundwater near the tanks threatens to scuttle Tepco's plans to build a bypass to route groundwater away from the plant and release it into the Pacific Ocean. The tank that leaked is in an area around 130 meters above the proposed bypass.

Tepco Vice President Zengo Aizawa stressed the importance of the bypass on Wednesday, saying the company will continue to try and win support from local fishermen - who oppose the release of contaminated water into the sea- for the bypass.

Source (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/11/us-japan-fukushima-tritium-idUSBRE98A0HX20130911)

##################

Here's the referenced Tepco report (page 2 shows the 64000 Bq/L H-3 figure for 10th September) :

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/smp/2013/images/south_discharge_130911-3-e.pdf

Source (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/smp/2013/images/south_discharge_130911-3-e.pdf)

-- Pan

panopticon

12th September 2013, 05:34

Interesting article I came across on fish caught off the US coast:

##############

Woods Hole Scientist: Fukushima Leak Not Affecting U.S. Seafood
SEPTEMBER 12, 2013

Despite the recent admission from the Japanese government that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has been leaking radioactive water (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/world/asia/japan-nuclear-plant-admits-leaks.html) since it was badly damaged in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, U.S. seafood has not been affected, according to Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

Buesseler has published an FAQ section (http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83397&tid=3622&cid=94989) on the organization’s website to address the issue and writes that fish contaminated with cesium exceeding Japanese limits are not being sold internally or exported.

He also explains that “because of the dilution that occurs even a short distance from Fukushima, we do not have a concern about the levels of cesium and other radionuclides in fish off the West Coast of the U.S.”

As for fish such as the Pacific bluefin tuna that can swim long distances, Buesseler says they will begin to flush out the cesium “soon after they enter waters less-affected by Fukushima. By the time tuna are caught in the eastern Pacific, cesium levels in their flesh are 10-20 times lower than when they were off Fukushima.”

By June, FDA investigators had tested (http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm247403.htm#sofar) 1,313 samples of food imported from Japan — 199 which were seafood or seafood products — and found that only one sample of ginger powder contained cesium, but at levels lower than could pose a health concern.

When Michael Conathan, director of ocean policy at the Center for American Progress, contacted the FDA (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2013/09/11/73914/fukushima-fallout-not-affecting-u-s-caught-fish/) about domestically caught seafood, a spokesperson told him that “the FDA is not aware of any evidence suggesting that the domestic seafood catch contains harmful levels of radiation.”

Source (http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/09/fukushima-leak-is-not-affecting-u-s-seafood/#.UjFQ1dLwp60)

Sidney

12th September 2013, 17:28

panopticon

13th September 2013, 02:12

Report from Reuters on the ground water observation hole (known as E-1), near one of the leaking tanks, having Tritium levels reached a new high of 97,000 Bq/L (can't find a source document yet from Tepco but if someone does please post it [posted as addendum below]):

####################

Tritium levels reach new high at wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant
September 12, 2013

The operator of the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant said on Friday it found elevated readings of tritium in groundwater near tanks that are holding hundreds of metric tons of contaminated water at the site.

Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) said tritium levels in water taken from a well close to a number of storage tanks holding irradiated water rose to 97,000 becquerels per liter on Wednesday from 64,000 becquerels/liter measured at the same location a day earlier.

All beta readings of groundwater at the same location, however, declined slightly to 1,500 becquerels per liter on Thursday from an earlier measurement of 2,000 becquerels/liter, Tepco said.

Elevated radiation readings at the Fukushima plant come as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his government try to reassure the international community that the facility, 230 km (140 miles) from Tokyo, is "under control".

Tepco said last month that 300 metric tons of highly radioactive water leaked from one of the hastily built steel tanks at the plant, which was crippled by a massive earthquake and tsunami in March 2011.

That leak followed an earlier statement by the company that hundreds of metric tons of contaminated water was flowing out from the plant into the ocean every day.

More than two and a half years since the 2011 disaster, Tepco is struggling to pump out, treat and store massive amounts of contaminated water that continues to increase at a rate of 400 metric tons a day.

Tritium, which has a half-life of around 12 years, is less harmful to humans than cesium and strontium. A becquerel is a measure of the release of radioactive energy.

Nuclear plants in Japan are allowed to release water with up to 60,000 becquerels/liter of tritium.

The latest spike in radioactive elements in groundwater near the tanks threatens to scuttle Tepco's plans to build a bypass to route groundwater away from the plant and release it into the Pacific Ocean. The tank that leaked is in an area around 130 meters above ground from the bypass.

Source (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/12/us-japan-fukushima-radiation-idUSBRE98B0SH20130912)

##############

Addendum... Information from Tepco news release containing Tritium increase:

Water Leak at a Tank in the H4 area in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (Follow-up Information 38)

This is follow-up information on the "water leak at a tank in the H4 area in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station" found on August 19.

We performed the analyses of water sampled yesterday (on September 11) in observation holes (E-1: in north of the tank No.5 in Group I in the H4 area (outside of a dike) where water leakage was found; E-2 in south of the tank No.5 in Group I in the H4 area (outside of a dike) where water leakage was found) around H4 tank area.

The result of E-1 was higher than the result obtained on September 10 (64000Bq/L).

Based on the probability of influence on these results by leakage in H4 area tanks, we continue to analyze the observation holes nearby and investigate the area of leakage.

<Observation hole: E-1>
- Sampled on September 11
Tritium: 97000Bq/L
All β: 1500 Bq/L

<Observation hole: E-2>
- Sampled on September 11
Tritium: 300Bq/L
All β: Below the detection limit value (detection limit value: 20Bq/L)

Source (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/2013/1230534_5130.html)

panopticon

13th September 2013, 02:42

In case you haven't heard, there is a "future" Typhoon headed for Japan. Isn't that convenient?????
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/typhoon-japan-tokyo-weather/17685515

The typhoon season in Pacific is from May to October with most activity in August and September.

Here's a quick reference of storms this season so far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Pacific_typhoon_season

The main point of my adding the article was to re-enforce what I was saying a few pages ago about the biological half-life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_half-life) of radioactive isotopes within organisms. Not to forget that there is also a cumulative effect via the food chain (caesium -> plankton -> fish -> humans/seals) that needs to be taken into account when eating anything that may be contaminated (fish, mushrooms, milk, cheese, etc). The article is about Ken Buesseler's impression as an expert in the field of the dangers associated with radioactive isotopes entering the food chain and travelling across the Pacific. The FDA reference was of little importance. For more information on Buesseler's study into the movement of radioactive isotopes through the Pacific as a result of the Fukushima reactors accident see:

http://www.whoi.edu/main/news-releases/2012?tid=3622&cid=133509

There's also this video from a conference presentation he made:

http://vimeo.com/66442400
http://vimeo.com/66442400

-- Pan

TargeT

13th September 2013, 03:26

but what levels of contamination are they suggesting "may eventually, possibly" arise?

Bob

13th September 2013, 03:40

From nuclearfreeplanet.org/prof-mitsuhei-murata (http://www.nuclearfreeplanet.org/prof-mitsuhei-murata-a-plea-for-a-total-ban-on-the-use-of-nuclear-energy.html)

The critical situation at Fukushima requires the mobilization of human wisdom on the widest possible scale. The pressing need for setting up a neutral assessment team as well as an international technical cooperation team is evident.

The fuel rods in the decaying cooling pool of unit 4 must be moved to another place as soon as possible. It is a global security issue requiring maximum efforts which regrettably are not being made.

HOW practically can the damage be picked up and transferred?

I understand the freeze it gig, to stop water migration, but the fuel rods, the contaminated soil, concrete, every bit of mud.

One of our nuclear safety engineers on the Forum would be able to explain that action a whole lot.

If I recall Chernobyl, the whole thing was encased in concrete, with many dying in the process.

Atlas

13th September 2013, 06:10

HOW practically can the damage be picked up and transferred?

That's an issue, it seems like the only way to deal with nuclear waste is to bury it underground, or in concrete as in the case of Chernobyl...

panopticon

13th September 2013, 11:55

but what levels of contamination are they suggesting "may eventually, possibly" arise?

That's a really interesting question TargeT.

From what I've read if there are no problems with the upcoming spent fuel removal process (from the reactor #4 spent fuel pool) then there is very little risk of any problems arising from the leaks on-site. While there is a daily flow of contaminated water into the ocean off the Fukushima Port area it mostly gets diluted to below dangerous levels in the ocean. There are recorded levels on the sea bed where it has settled however this only poses a threat to the immediate area in relation to seafood contamination (hence the no-fishing zones within the more concentrated areas at and adjacent to the site).

However the removal of the spent fuel assemblies (last I heard this was scheduled for November) is reported as being a risky job with just over 1300 stored in the pool. Each assembly is 4.5 metres long and weigh about 300 kilograms. Below is a picture of the structure that was finished 29th May to make it possible:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=22825&d=1379070716
Source (http://photo.tepco.co.jp/en/date/2013/201305-e/130529-04e.html)

If there is an accident with one of these assemblies then it will increase both the contamination on-site and the difficulties involved in the clean-up process. In addition to this 'Arnie Gundersen, a veteran U.S. nuclear engineer and director of Fairewinds Energy Education, who used to build fuel assemblies' said:

"There is a risk of an inadvertent criticality if the bundles are distorted and get too close to each other," Gundersen said.
...
"The problem with a fuel pool criticality is that you can't stop it. There are no control rods to control it," Gundersen said. "The spent fuel pool cooling system is designed only to remove decay heat, not heat from an ongoing nuclear reaction."
The rods are also vulnerable to fire should they be exposed to air, Gundersen said.
Source (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/us-japan-fukushima-insight-idUSBRE97D00M20130814)

Also if the pool itself suffers a structural failure it could release the water in the pool that is heavily contaminated with caesium and release the equivalent amount of caesium as would be released by '14000 Hiroshima atomic bombs' (source (www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/us-japan-fukushima-insight-idUSBRE97D00M20130814)) on-site. This is not saying a nuclear explosion, just the release of the equivalent caesium as would be released in that number and size of detonation. The fire would happen after the water no longer covers the assemblies.

If we can trust Tepco and the Japanese Government nuclear agency to do that job then all should be good.

Even if something happened with the rods and spent fuel pool there is little likelihood of it causing any problems in the US unless there was a catastrophic failure on-site similar to the one Gundersen mentions.

This is a localised disaster and in all likelihood, as best as I understand the situation, the only people who will be affected in the future by the contamination either live within the area or work at the facility.

The reactors are being cooled and everything seems to be ok at the facility (whether that is the case of course is debatable given Tepco's track record) however if water stops being pumped or any number of other situations occur (earth quake, tsunami, etc) or if the worst case scenario Gundersen mentions occurs then buggered if I know what could happen.

That's just my thoughts on it though, anyone got a realistic assessment of the situation?

-- Pan

BTW here's the latest progress report from Tepco on the decommissioning process (in particular page 14 mentions required increase of tank capacity to 440,000 m3 by October and the further increase to 800,000 m3 required by 2016):

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/handouts/2013/images/handouts_130913_01-e.pdf
Source (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/handouts/2013/images/handouts_130913_01-e.pdf)

panopticon

14th September 2013, 12:42

The Japanese nuclear authority is planning to increase off-shore monitoring sites from 200 to 600,000 as a means of getting an idea as to the extent of contamination spread and concentration (AFP report via yahoo news (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/18928896/japan-to-boost-surveys-off-fukushima-report/)):

################

Japan to boost surveys off Fukushima: report

TOKYO — Japan's nuclear authority plans to conduct radiation contamination surveys at 600,000 points on the seabed off the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, up from 200 places so far, a report said Saturday.

The Nuclear Regulation Authority is to survey the spots in a 1,000 square-kilometre (about 385 square-mile) area stretching 50 kilometres north-south and 20 kilometres east-west off Fukushima, the Yomiuri newspaper said.

The survey is to measure caesium levels to assess the long-term effect on marine resources of radiation that has been leaking from the stricken plant since it was struck by a tsunami in 2011, the daily said.

No immediate comment was available from the authority on Saturday.
Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) has been struggling to contain contaminated water at the plant.

It has poured thousands of tonnes of water on the plant's reactors to tame meltdowns sparked by the quake-tsunami disaster.

The utility says the reactors are now stable but need to be kept cool to prevent them running out of control again.

Much of the now-contaminated water is being stored in temporary tanks at the plant, and TEPCO has so far revealed no clear plan for it.

The problem has been worsened by leaks in some of the tanks that are believed to have seeped into groundwater, which runs out to sea.

The continuing nuclear catastrophe at Fukushima has come under the international spotlight in recent weeks as Tokyo fought off challenges from Madrid and Istanbul for the right to host the 2020 Games.

South Korea has banned imports of fisheries products from Fukushima and seven other Japanese prefectures over fears of contamination.

Source (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/18928896/japan-to-boost-surveys-off-fukushima-report/)

Sidney

14th September 2013, 14:45

Cidersomerset

15th September 2013, 07:43

The REAL Fukushima Danger: Failure of Fuel Pools Could Trigger Worldwide Nuclear Radiation

new Sunday 15th September 2013 at 08:26 By David Icke

http://www.davidicke.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/fukushima-w-620x349.jpg

‘The fact that the Fukushima reactors have been leaking huge amounts of
radioactive water ever since the 2011 earthquake is certainly newsworthy.
As are the facts that:

Tepco doesn’t know how to stop the leaks.

Scientists have no idea where the cores of the nuclear reactors are.

Radiation could hit Korea, China and the West Coast of North America
fairly hard.

But the real problem is that the idiots who caused this mess are probably
about to cause a much bigger problem.’

Read more: The REAL Fukushima Danger: Failure of Fuel Pools Could
Trigger Worldwide Nuclear Radiation

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-fukushima-danger-failure-of-fuel-pools-could-trigger-worldwide-radiation/5349850

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/

silverfish

18th September 2013, 12:12

http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/
September 17, 2013 – JAPAN - The operator of the leaking Fukushima nuclear plant said Tuesday that it dumped more than 1,000 tons of polluted water into the sea after a typhoon raked the facility. Typhoon Man-yi smashed into Japan on Monday, bringing with it heavy rain that caused flooding in some parts of the country, including the ancient city of Kyoto. The rain also lashed near the broken plant run by Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO), swamping enclosure walls around clusters of water tanks containing toxic water that was used to cool broken reactors. Some of the tanks were earlier found to be leaking contaminated water. “Workers measured the radioactive levels of the water collected in the enclosure walls, pumping it back into tanks when the levels were high,” said a TEPCO official. “Once finding it was mostly rain water they released it from the enclosure, because there is a limit on how much water we can store.” The utility said about 1,130 tons of water with low levels of radiation — below the 30 becquerels of strontium per liter safety limit imposed by Japanese authorities — were released into the ground. But the company also said at one site where water was found contaminated beyond the safety limit workers could not start the water pump quick enough in the torrential rain, and toxic water had leaked from the enclosure for several minutes. Strontium is a potentially cancer-causing substance that accumulates in bones if consumed. Thousands of tons of water that was poured on the reactors to tame meltdowns is being stored in temporary tanks at the plant, and TEPCO has so far revealed no clear plan for it. The problem has been worsened by leaks in some of those tanks that are believed to have seeped into groundwater and run out to sea. Separately, around 300 tons of mildly contaminated groundwater is entering the ocean every day having passed under the reactors, TEPCO says. -SBS

TargeT

18th September 2013, 12:57

http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/
toxic water had leaked from the enclosure for several minutes. Strontium is a potentially cancer-causing substance that accumulates in bones if consumed.

Ahh, Journalism butchers grammar again... the use of words like "TOXIC" in this case are purely there for emotional appeal (since there is no data backing up toxicity at the levels discussed here), reading this kind of crap makes me embarrassed for the original author.

just a refresher:

tox•ic

/ˈtäksik/

Adjective
Poisonous.

Noun
Poisonous substances.

Synonyms
adjective.
poisonous - venomous - toxicant - virulent - noxious

noun.
poison - venom - bane - toxicant

FYI: perversion of language is one of the main tools used to control a population. (IE : War is peace etc... double talk..)

silverfish

18th September 2013, 14:07

TargeT

18th September 2013, 14:20

I put this link up primarily because of my concerns for the ability of the buildings and info structure to cope with bad weather which aint going away rather than a run for the hills message .
TargeT can you suggest a good source of info regarding Fukushima as all sights have there on agenda and as an "unexpert" my head spins with all the sh1t put out but I still have concerns as to whats happening there and what we are not being told .
silver

not really, I don't know of any non-biased coverage.. TEPCO tries to downplay everything and other sites try to up-play everything... either way you aren't getting much "truth".

I'm an "unexpert" also, I've just spent too much time studying different radiation levels & how the dangers were arrived at when they directly contradict what we can see in the "real world" & the data that shows how beneficial radiation is at low levels.

the Fukushima facility is in bad shape, but it will take another major earthquake or Tsunami or class 3+ hurricane to make it into a disaster; and even then it will be a localized disaster, not a global one; there simply isn't enough nuclear material at the site ( or even on the planet) to poison the whole planet like some are postulating.

The site needs to be cleaned up, it's going to take time (and money, something TEPCO is probably sweating over) but really there isn't much of a story there, not a REAL story anyway.

Ironically it is probably more healthy to be living around the fukushima plant (as it is right now) than anywhere else in japan due to the increased low level radiation exposure; something some people go out of their way to be exposed to (with amazing health results).

(just to clarify, my post above was directed at the writer of the article you posted, not you at all :cool:)

silverfish

18th September 2013, 14:34

TargeT

18th September 2013, 14:45

(just to clarify, my post above was directed at the writer of the article you posted, not you at all )
thanks for that :p
saw this http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46819-A-video-they-won-t-want-you-to-see--Galen-Winsor-nuclear-scare-scam- thread which refers to the health benefits you refer to so will work my way through that

cheers
silver

This is a better thread for the health benefits discussion:

Hormesis Healing Yourself with Low Dose Radiation (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53597-Hormesis-Healing-Yourself-with-Low-Dose-Radiation)

panopticon

19th September 2013, 03:57

The Fukushima Daiichi NPS site appears to have weathered typhoon Man-yi with only low-contaminate ground water on-site being washed out to sea.

We've got Tepco admitting their ineptitude insofar as they can't even measure/report data accurately (source (japandailypress.com/tepco-says-information-given-regarding-contaminated-fukushima-water-have-been-incorrect-since-2011-1736026/)), not that that was a huge surprise. There is even a report of a 2011 memo from Tepco saying they wouldn't build a subterranean wall (as suggested by US experts in June 2011 to divert underground water away from the reactor buildings) because it would cost to much... (source (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/18/us-japan-fukushima-water-idUSBRE98H14A20130918))

Yeah, everything is just fine @ the Fukushima plant as this video Tepco put out in September clearly shows (we can trust them right?):

sYKKnJmkm7o
-- Pan

Shannow

19th September 2013, 08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnz-GN7XQ4c

araucaria

19th September 2013, 09:18

I posted the following on the Here & Now thread yesterday, which goes to that Japan is not too happy with radioactive leakage... leaking to the press.

The French satirical weekly Le Canard Enchaîné has received a written complaint from the Japanese government over the cartoon below of two underweight sumo wrestlers, one with three arms, the other with three legs, preparing for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. I suspect the paper is right in thinking that this example of black humour caused less concern than the article on Fukushima that it was meant to illustrate.
Caption: Thanks to Fukushima sumo wrestling has been made an Olympic sport.

22900

TargeT

19th September 2013, 13:37

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnz-GN7XQ4c

great hormesis video!

panopticon

19th September 2013, 23:58

No damage reported by Tepco from the 5.4 magnitude earth quake that occurred at 2.25am (local time Japan).

M 5.4 - EASTERN HONSHU, JAPAN - 2013-09-19 17:25:11 UTC

Magnitude Mw 5.4
Region EASTERN HONSHU, JAPAN
Date time 2013-09-19 17:25:11.0 UTC
Location 37.17 N ; 140.64 E
Depth 40 km
Distances 184 km NE of Tokyo, Japan / pop: 8,336,599 / local time: 02:25:11.0 2013-09-20
66 km S of Fukushima-shi, Japan / pop: 294,237 / local time: 02:25:11.0 2013-09-20
17 km E of Ishikawa, Japan / pop: 18,817 / local time: 02:25:11.0 2013-09-20
Source (http://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/earthquake.php?id=334971)

Time lapse of plant (reactor buildings 3 & 4) from the time of the quake (If you fast forward to 1 minute in the quake "bump" is quite obvious ~1:15):

jfjTNW85qf0

The most recent video (6 am - 7 am local time) showing everything appears normal:

ElafjrXu6LI

Here's the live feed from JNN of the site (it's a bit cloudy which is nothing new for this video link):

l_tVGLo-nNM

We'll have to wait and see whether there has been any minor structural damage to buildings or other infrastructure.

-- Pan

Addendum:

For reports from Tepco on this:
www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/index_ho-e.html

All reports are saying 'no abnormality was found' (9 am Japanese local time) @ either the Daiichi or Daini NPS, but it is Tepco and given their record a building would probably need to collapse before they reported that an abnormality was found...

panopticon

20th September 2013, 01:31

I was reading through an overview report presented to the IAEA by the Japanese Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) this month and I came across some interesting figures.

The levels (Bq/L) are very low (as would be expected) however I noticed on page 8 that there is an interesting (for me at least) correlation in concentration of caesium (134 & 137) in the middle water columns (200 metre below surface) @ ~300 km off-shore in the Southern and more distant measuring stations.

The levels are so low that it's almost statistically of no importance. Just wonder if it has anything to do with off-shore water currents in the region being concentrated around the middle water column (ie it moves slower than the surface water or that nearer to the ocean floor) or if there's anything someone else can suggest might have caused this? It isn't uniform though (if you look the M-11 sample doesn't follow this trend while the M-15 sort of does) so I wonder if it is just the natural human pre-disposition to see trends in data...

Here's the report (it's on page 8 that I'm curious about):

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2013/seamonitoring190713.pdf

Source (http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2013/seamonitoring190713.pdf)
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

panopticon

20th September 2013, 08:13

Just to prove how inept Tepco are they can't even spell the Japanese Prime Ministers name correctly...

############

TEPCO 'sorry' for Japan PM name error

TEPCO officials have apologised to Shinzo Abe for spelling the Japanese PM's name incorrectly on a protective suit that he wore for a Fukushima tour.

Red-faced officials have issued an embarrassed apology to Japan's prime minister for spelling his name wrong during a high-profile tour of the battered Fukushima nuclear plant.

Shinzo Abe was given a specially-printed suit to protect him from radiation during the tour on Thursday, on which he was accompanied by a large press pack.

But plant operator TEPCO, which has been lambasted internationally for what critics say is its hapless handling of the catastrophe at Fukushima, used the wrong Chinese character for part of the PM's name.

"It was a typing error," said a TEPCO spokesman.

"We are very sorry for the mistake. We sincerely apologise to the prime minister for printing an inaccurate name."

TEPCO has repeatedly come under fire for its approach to managing the aftermath of the disaster at Fukushima.

Source (www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/09/20/tepco-sorry-japan-pm-name-error)

############

This story even got mentioned by Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/20/fukushima-operator-sorry-for-japan-pm-name-gaffe/).

Yeah, I trust this bunch to sort out the contamination on-site, remove the fuel assemblies from the spent fuel pools and report anything that happens to go wrong...

-- Pan

panopticon

24th September 2013, 06:51

Following Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's declaration that the problem of leaking tanks at Fukushima Daiichi has been sorted (source (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-19/business/42194068_1_radioactive-water-fukushima-nuclear-plant-contaminated-water)) it has been interesting to review the provided data to do with Tritium contamination levels in observation hole E-1.

14 Sep : 170,000 Bq/L (source (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/smp/2013/images/south_discharge_130916-1-e.pdf))
16 Sep : 95,000 Bq/L (source (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/smp/2013/images/south_discharge_130918-2-e.pdf))
19 Sep : 70,000 Bq/L (source (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/smp/2013/images/south_discharge_13092101-e.pdf))
20 Sep : 110,000 Bq/L (source (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/smp/2013/images/south_discharge_13092103-e.pdf))

I wonder if the observed decrease was the result of typhoon Man-yi and the resulting water inflow diluting the concentration briefly? That would explain the return to 110,000 Bq/L on the 20th (later results haven't been posted yet).

While these levels (of concentration of tritium contamination in ground water) are definitely not going to cause any problems when they eventually reach the Ocean, and are only from the single sampling hole, they do indicate that the contamination "up-stream" from the sample hole is still present and filtering through the subsoil. This doesn't mean there is still a leak (though there may be) only that the initial contamination may not have finished moving through the system. I also wonder why sample holes E-3, E-4 & E-5 are not returning higher readings? If the tritium is filtering through the subsoil I would have thought they would have developed higher sample rates as well.

Again Tritium is not a problem in the environment at these levels. It is only a potential problem if consumed in copious amounts (well above what is being sampled on site) and only has a biological half-life of about 10 days (which can be reduced drastically by consumption of uncontaminated water).

What is interesting about these reports for me is how they have been reported in the media (also the misrepresentation in the reported 1800 mSv reading on-site which turned out to be @ 1 cm from a leaking flange) and the apparent lack of movement of the tritium through the subsoil.
-- Pan

TargeT

24th September 2013, 13:08

I wonder if the observed decrease was the result of typhoon Man-yi and the resulting water inflow diluting the concentration briefly? That would explain the return to 110,000 Bq/L on the 20th (later results haven't been posted yet).

I bet that had a lot to do with the levels going lower, though TEPCO won't admit that small bit of "luck".

While these levels (of concentration of tritium contamination in ground water) are definitely not going to cause any problems when they eventually reach the Ocean, and are only from the single sampling hole, they do indicate that the contamination "up-stream" from the sample hole is still present and filtering through the subsoil. This doesn't mean there is still a leak (though there may be) only that the initial contamination may not have finished moving through the system. I also wonder why sample holes E-3, E-4 & E-5 are not returning higher readings? If the tritium is filtering through the subsoil I would have thought they would have developed higher sample rates as well.

Again Tritium is not a problem in the environment at these levels. It is only a potential problem if consumed in copious amounts (well above what is being sampled on site) and only has a biological half-life of about 10 days (which can be reduced drastically by consumption of uncontaminated water).

What is interesting about these reports for me is how they have been reported in the media (also the misrepresentation in the reported 1800 mSv reading on-site which turned out to be @ 1 cm from a leaking flange) and the apparent lack of movement of the tritium through the subsoil.
-- Pan

sensationalism sells! there's not much story with out fear modivation behind it.. right now (with out the hype) it's just a boring clean up story and a company that is moving slow to resolve it because their "band-aid" solutions seem acceptable.

panopticon

25th September 2013, 01:19

Latest levels of tritium @ E-1 indicate that the levels are returning to the higher results of September 14th as indicated in my previous post:

Sep 21 : 130,000 Bq/L (source (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/smp/2013/images/south_discharge_130923-2-e.pdf))
Sep 22 : 150,000 Bq/L (source (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/smp/2013/images/south_discharge_130924-2-e.pdf))

Let us see what fluctuations occur over the coming weeks.

I wonder if the observed decrease was the result of typhoon Man-yi and the resulting water inflow diluting the concentration briefly? That would explain the return to 110,000 Bq/L on the 20th (later results haven't been posted yet).

I bet that had a lot to do with the levels going lower, though TEPCO won't admit that small bit of "luck".

At the moment I wouldn't like to guess as to what the reason for the decrease is though my hypothesis on the dilution of concentration of contaminant levels so far seems valid.

While these levels (of concentration of tritium contamination in ground water) are definitely not going to cause any problems when they eventually reach the Ocean, and are only from the single sampling hole, they do indicate that the contamination "up-stream" from the sample hole is still present and filtering through the subsoil. This doesn't mean there is still a leak (though there may be) only that the initial contamination may not have finished moving through the system. I also wonder why sample holes E-3, E-4 & E-5 are not returning higher readings? If the tritium is filtering through the subsoil I would have thought they would have developed higher sample rates as well.

Again Tritium is not a problem in the environment at these levels. It is only a potential problem if consumed in copious amounts (well above what is being sampled on site) and only has a biological half-life of about 10 days (which can be reduced drastically by consumption of uncontaminated water).

What is interesting about these reports for me is how they have been reported in the media (also the misrepresentation in the reported 1800 mSv reading on-site which turned out to be @ 1 cm from a leaking flange) and the apparent lack of movement of the tritium through the subsoil.
-- Pan

sensationalism sells! there's not much story with out fear modivation behind it.. right now (with out the hype) it's just a boring clean up story and a company that is moving slow to resolve it because their "band-aid" solutions seem acceptable.

I agree that the more sensational the news the higher the circulation of the paper.
Murdoch,for example, didn't make his fortune through media (in particular news papers) that was well balanced and non-biased. The more sensational the headline the higher the sale figures.

Says a lot about the great mass who buys this tosh doesn't it.

What are your thoughts on the variable sea column caesium contaminant levels I posted above (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62507-Japan-nuclear-agency-upgrades-Fukushima-alert-level&p=732684&viewfull=1#post732684)?

TargeT

25th September 2013, 15:59

What are your thoughts on the variable sea column caesium contaminant levels I posted above (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62507-Japan-nuclear-agency-upgrades-Fukushima-alert-level&p=732684&viewfull=1#post732684)?

Since cesium is a salt, perhaps when diluted in the salt water of that region that 200-300m depth range is about where it buoyantly levels out? I do see a bit of what you are talking about, pattern wise, but the levels are so low, maybe they fall within error threshold?

how do the sensors sample, when were they calibrated last.. a few other variables I'm sure I haven't thought of have to be taken into consideration there as well.

I would think it less related to currents, though I'm sure that is at play in the situation as well.

panopticon

30th September 2013, 01:23

In a continuation of TEPCO's ineptitude it appears that the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) stopped working (after only having been back online for a day) due to a rubber mat (used to stop ladders slipping) having been left in the systems tank (source (www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/29/national/rubber-mat-in-tank-may-have-shut-down-alps/)).

http://jto.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/p1-tepco-z-20130930-e1380466251654-200x200.jpg

Also there are reports of continued low level leaks from pipes and tank joints on site (source (http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0000687190)). Updates from TEPCO available here (www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/index_ho-e.html).

The November removal of fuel assembly rods is still going ahead, last I heard anyway, so wonder whether these sorts of errors will occur in that operation as well.
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

TargeT

30th September 2013, 13:37

panopticon

1st October 2013, 04:18

You would think these guys have had enough bad press lately to assign a QA guy to follow up on projects, or a PM or something!

these kinds of gaffs would be unacceptable from a company PR stand point, I wonder if TEPCO's company background / ownership has been explored. .

G'day TargeT,

My knowledge of Japanese corporate structures, financial ownership and cross-overs is very limited.

There are too many things to evaluate within the culture and history of the region to be across it all without a knowledge of the language etc.

I do know that one reason for the Japanese elite having adopted nuclear power so readily stems from their wish to limit their reliance on external electrical power supply sources (ie oil, natural gas, coal). There are a number of reasons for this that I am aware of but the two most important are the embargo placed on Japan prior to WW2 (which is argued as a reason for their pre-emptive strikes and occupations) and the Middle-East oil crisis of the 1970's.

Tim Shorrock has some interesting articles on his site about TEPCO and their shady history (http://timshorrock.com/?p=1113) (in particular his article on the so-called "nuclear gypsies (http://timshorrock.com/?p=1254)" illustrates why I am concerned about worker safety on-site).

It appears that TEPCO executives are "lifers" from this summary (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyOfficers?symbol=9501.T&WTmodLOC=C4-Officers-5) available from Reuters. This is distinctly different from the so-called "revolving door syndrome" in many Western countries.

The World Socialist Web Site also has a few interesting articles on TEPCO's history (for example here (http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/03/tepc-m17.html) and here (http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/03/pers-m14.html)) and PBS has an article that might be of interest to some here (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/03/get-to-know-tepco-japans-biggest-power-company.html).

As pointed out in the NAIIC report (http://cryptome.org/2012/07/daiichi-naiic.pdf) there is a fundamental conflict of interest in having the government body that is responsible for promoting the nuclear industry also act as the watchdog for that industry. This leads to collusion between the government and private corporation to, at the very least, reduce transparency if not deliberately cover up accidents that may reflect badly on both the monitoring body and the industry itself.

The basis of all this comes back to the Money, Control and Power nexus which permeates all elements of the social and corporate world. The interplay of interested parties and the economic interweaving of these groups is extremely complex and hidden behind back room deals, proxy companies and complex financial transactions. To "follow the money" in this instance would take years and I haven't come across any reliable information sources that have done this. GE, Hitachi and Toshiba are the major players in TEPCO's nuclear plant construction. Might be a task for someone who is in a better position than myself to track back from the construction approval phase (possibly to the companies inception) to find the underlying reasons (for example it's all rooted in the Mutual Co-operation Treaty (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_and_Security_between_the_United_States_and_Japan) with the US) and forward from it to follow who the interested parties are (remembering of course that they will in all likelihood be well hidden).

Hope this was helpful.
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

panopticon

4th October 2013, 12:14

Now, it doesn't take an engineering degree to figure out that if a bucket is on an angle the amount of water it can handle before it overflows is less.

TEPCO managed to overflow a storage tank on the 2nd of October with water pumped from a "dike" around the storage tanks (for low level contamination water). The overflow "dripped" (430 litres (http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2013/10/03/fukushima-watch-stemming-one-leak-causes-another/) evidently is a drip) outside the "dike" area (ie on the ground). The reason it overflowed was that they didn't take into consideration that when a tank is on a slope it has less capacity. This was all designed to limit the overflow of the "dike" during the heavy rains they anticipated from a typhoon (source (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/handouts/2013/images/handouts_131003_01-e.pdf)).

I don't have my water tanks at an angle (the ground was made level first) but evidently TEPCO was in such a hurry to build the buggers they didn't have time to level off... At least that's what their handout seems to show, though they probably mean (even if the images don't show it) that the joined tanks are level but on a slope. This means they have less overall capacity before they overflow due to water levelling out between them. Oh, and they were only taking measurements from the highest point on the highest tank on the slope! They should have known this was a bloody stupid idea!!!

High precision work that.

Take a little guess how the employee who found the leak fix it? He used a "sheet" evidently (though what that means I'm buggered if I know -- I envisage someone hanging out their laundry hehehe).

Can't wait 'til November when they start shifting those fuel assemblies...
-- Pan

Cognitive Dissident

9th October 2013, 15:34

In a continuation of TEPCO's ineptitude it appears that the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) stopped working (after only having been back online for a day) due to a rubber mat (used to stop ladders slipping) having been left in the systems tank

You would think these guys have had enough bad press lately to assign a QA guy to follow up on projects, or a PM or something!

these kinds of gaffs would be unacceptable from a company PR stand point, I wonder if TEPCO's company background / ownership has been explored. .

One of the on-going problems with Fukushima is that TEPCO still remains a trading company with shares listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, even though the value of those shares has dropped considerably since March 2011. So, TEPCO continues to try and save money, treat the symptoms not the problem, and above all not admit how bad things really are (e.g. tell everyone where the corium is, show some radar returns of the ground under the reactors, etc.) since that would lead to a fairly quick bankruptcy.

Fukushima should be hived off into a separate company which is given near-unlimited resources to solve the problem, like in Chernobyl, but that is unlikely to happen, since one thing that the big Japanese corporates hate to do, is admit that they have a problem which they cannot solve. Especially now they have been awarded the 2020 Olympics - although that does give a small glimmer of hope that they may try and "bite the bullet" now.

All while the situation deteriorates on a daily basis. See enenews.com for on-going updates, although it is fairly depressing, especially if you don't know that Rick Simpson Hemp Oil can actually cure cancer (OT I know, but relevant).

panopticon

10th October 2013, 10:27

In the latest fiasco a TEPCO sub-contractor managed to undo the wrong pipe (9th of October @9:35 am) while doing work on site.

This released about 7m3 of contaminated water into the temporary warehouse covering an area of 60m × 12m to a level of a couple of centimetres. The "dike" that was around the area contained the water and it is going to be drained off (source (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/2013/1231292_5130.html)).

Analysis results of the radioactive materials obtained in the leaked water are as follows.
- Cs-134: 3.9 x 102 Bq/L
- Cs-137: 1.3 x 103 Bq/L
- Co-60: 1.1 x 103 Bq/L
- Mn-54: 3.1 x 102 Bq/L
- Sb-125: 9.4 x 103 Bq/L
- All γ: 1.3 x 104 Bq/L
- All β: 3.4 x 107 Bq/L
- All radiation: 3.4 x 107 Bq/L
(Source (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/2013/1231301_5130.html))

Six of the eleven employees involved in the incident went found to have been contaminated and underwent decontamination. None of these employees were found to have radioactive material on their faces so 'we ruled out the possibility of their internal intake of radioactive material' (source (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/2013/1231300_5130.html)).

For more news on this from TEPCO here's their Prompt Report page:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/index_ho-e.html

Still waiting for news on whether TEPCO will be going ahead with commencing the extraction of the fuel assemblies from the #4 SFP in November.
-- Pan

panopticon

15th October 2013, 11:25

I came across an interesting article @ The Asahi Shimbun (ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201310140095).

It talks about employee moral and lack of experience being possible contributing reasons for the ongoing TEPCO containment fiasco. There is also a feeling amongst the employees that they are disposable because when they reach their maximum yearly exposure level they appear to be made redundant.

A lack of experience amongst employees is mentioned by one employee:

"The workers brought in by the construction companies after the accident do not have much work experience or knowledge," the male worker said. "They cannot even skillfully remove their protective clothing."

The article goes on to mention that contributing to the lack of onsite training is the high subcontractor numbers:

One reason for the low worker morale is because a large percentage are employed by subcontractors. Only 10 percent of those working at the plant site are employees of Tokyo Electric Power Co., the plant operator.
...
Inexperienced workers are recruited from around Japan, many by the subcontractors. The multi-layered structure of the companies involved in the work at the Fukushima plant means there is ambiguity about who is actually the employer, and that has left open the possibility of illegal hiring practices.

Just a little food for thought as we approach the November spent fuel rod assemblies removal process.
-- Pan

Cognitive Dissident

15th October 2013, 14:25

Pan, this article may explain the "low morale" problem amongst the Fukushima workers:

http://enenews.com/asahi-fukushima-workers-wearing-radioactive-underwear-health-concerns-blamed-for-recent-failures-tv-chaos-at-plant-is-it-too-late-for-world-to-help-with-crisis

They are badly paid, employed by sub-sub-contractors so that TEPCO can pretend not to know how they are treated, untrained, constantly exposed to radiation and also motivated to not know how much exposure they have had, since too much and they had their annual dose means their job is over.

I'm afraid that the situation on the ground is becoming unmanageable. If there are no competent workers on the site, then pretty soon leaks will increase and it will become more difficult to even walk around there, making work even harder. God help us when they start to remove the SPF 4 rods.

TEPCO should have been taken off the job years ago. The situation is deteriorating with them in charge. Unfortunately, the situation will have to get worse before the Japanese government is "forced to act". They cannot do the right thing unless waiting and doing nothing is no longer an option, and even then, they will probably only do some marginally-less-bad thing, because doing the "right thing" would involve admitting that they should have done the "right thing" several years ago! I wrote another thread on this subject, can link it if you are interested.

panopticon

16th October 2013, 01:29

Link away Cognitive Dissident.

I feel that there are many contributing reasons for the difficulties that are being faced at Fukushima. Low worker morale is just one area that has recently been reported. I mentioned that the workers there are under trained previously and in some cases underpaid (remember it was reported a while ago that the Yakusa were involved in providing employees for a cut of their wages [source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/japan-earthquake-and-tsunami-in/9084151/How-the-Yakuza-went-nuclear.html)] much in the same way as the Sicilian Mafia is in charge of providing employees for some rubbish removal contracts [source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/1504713/Three-assassinated-in-Mafia-war-over-rubbish-collection.html)]) so it is not really surprising that there are accidents.

Both the work and corporate culture seem at odds with there being a low accident rate onsite. Also the high sub-contractor employee rate (in the previous article it mentioned around 90%) does not lend itself to worker employment security. I reckon this all contributes, with a range of other things, to the high accident rate.

So we've got Typhoon Wipha (www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-16/once-in-a-decade-typhoon-heads-for-japan/5025218) which is impacting the area at the moment:

F0Q_ah7ZJMk
We've got a workforce that consists of under paid, under trained workers (who it is reported have low morale).

We've got a corporation that is trying to save money (if not make some) while managing a nuclear accident.

I could go on but it's not surprising that I view with trepidation the up-coming commencement of the spent fuel removal process from reactor #4's spent fuel pool. When the test assembly was removed, earlier this year, it consisted of unused (ie new) rods that had a lower risk of having deteriorated. There have been reports that the used rods are fine and there has been no damage to them.

I hope this is true.

It will be a case of either nothing happens or something happens. The process will take about a year to complete so in 12 months we'll know either way.
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

Rocky_Shorz

17th October 2013, 02:08

#4 Reactor with millions of Gallons of Radiated water pool along with fuel rods which are stored in the upper four floor of the reactor...

is tipping over...

they are attempting to shore it up but sounds like weeks until the worst nuclear release in history...

they are asking for international help, but headlines news aren't breathing a word about it...

too busy waiting for an imaginary money to imaginary collapse

this is serious enough it explains why some are heading for underground shelters...

they shut down the reactor and removed the rods and water pool to make repairs storing everything upstairs... Then the Tsunami hit and they haven't been able to do anything with all of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZxNmKxGfb4&feature=player_detailpage

Professor: Fukushima disaster is the worst case of nuclear contamination in history — It’s a crisis for all humanity — Building up to something much worse...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnD2gcRvG-c

The apparent precarious bulging and leaning of this reactor building further emphasizes the urgent need to remove the thousands of nuclear fuel rods from the fuel pool sitting 100 feet above the ground floor of that building, before there is a collapse and world disaster...

http://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/fukushima-leaning-reactor-4.jpg

Nuclear Experts: Fukushima Unit 4 has shown signs of collapsing — Underneath buildings it’s becoming saturated — “Known fractures in soil” — Large structure already went down at plant after ground was super-saturated and had mudslide in March 2011

Yale Professor: Fukushima Unit 4 pool in perilous condition — “All of humanity will be threatened for thousands of years” if not able to be kept cool — Danger of collapse during storm or while attempting removal of fuel rods

[...] Much more serious is the danger that the spent fuel rod pool at the top of the nuclear plant number four will collapse in a storm or an earthquake, or in a failed attempt to carefully remove each of the 1,535 rods and safely transport them to the common storage pool 50 meters away. Conditions in the unit 4 pool, 100 feet from the ground, are perilous, and if any two of the rods touch it could cause a nuclear reaction that would be uncontrollable. The radiation emitted from all these rods, if they are not continually cool and kept separate, would require the evacuation of surrounding areas including Tokyo. Because of the radiation at the site the 6,375 rods in the common storage pool could not be continuously cooled; they would fission and all of humanity will be threatened, for thousands of years. [...]

link (http://enenews.com/yale-professor-fukushima-unit-4-pool-in-perilous-condition-all-of-humanity-will-be-threatened-for-thousands-of-years-if-not-able-to-be-kept-cool-danger-of-it-collapsing-in-storm-or-during-a)

panopticon

17th October 2013, 06:07

Here's a short video that explains the present situation quite well (includes video footage of debris in Reactor #4 SFP):
a7N6Fmh_kRs
The video is part of an article from Voice of America which can be found here:
http://www.voanews.com/content/amid-criticism-tepco-prepares-for-critical-phase-of-fukushima-clean-up/1769997.html

If we can believe that the reactor #4 building has been reinforced then we only have to be concerned about the removal->transport->storage process. If we don't believe the reinforcing has been sufficient or it has been misreported then we have a whole mess more to be concerned about.

TEPCO has a proven track record (that goes back decades) of lying, misrepresentation and deception so I've got little hope that this is any different.

Oh and don't forget that Corium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corium_(nuclear_reactor)) was formed in reactors #1 & #3 (possibly #2 as well) during the original accident so the core material (ie rods) there can not be removed.

-- Pan

panopticon

18th October 2013, 07:44

Came across an interesting art on Bloomberg's (www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-18/three-mile-island-veteran-optimistic-on-fukushima-fuel-removal.html) that talks about the rod removal process:

The fuel rods would be removed by a crane operator on a platform above the pool, guiding the crane by sight, though binoculars may be used to check identification numbers printed on the rods, Barrett said.

Each rod is 4.5 meters (15 feet) long and weighs 300 kilograms (661 pounds). Once pulled from the pool they are placed in a portable air-cooled cask that takes 22 rods. It’s then transported to a cooling pool elsewhere in the plant where the fuel can be stored more securely, Yoshida said.
...
Removing the fuel from the wrecked building will significantly reduce the risk of serious accidents at the site, Gregory Jaczko, a former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said last month in a phone interview.

"Getting that fuel out of that pool is extremely important because the integrity of the building is obviously damaged," he said. "It’s not a trivial task."

An important part of the article that just jumped out at me when I read it was this:

It hasn’t been decided where the fuel will eventually be taken for storage, Yoshida said. She said she couldn’t provide additional details about when the removal would begin, citing treaties aimed at reducing the risk of terrorist attacks.
Guess what I'm thinking...
-- Pan

Cidersomerset

18th October 2013, 19:01

Fukushima Fear: Radiation rises, 'nobody really knows how to dodge disaster'

XlYgIMBy208

Published on 18 Oct 2013

There's a worrying spike in radiation at the Fukushima nuclear plant.
Readings from a water storage tank have rocketed six-and-a-half-thousand
times higher in two days. A powerful typhoon swept through Japan earlier
this week, causing toxic waters to be released into a drainage ditch leading
to the Pacific Ocean. It's compounded what's been a worsening situation at
the plant in recent months, as Irina Galushko explains. READ MORE:

TargeT

18th October 2013, 19:12

Cidersomerset

18th October 2013, 19:39

TELEGRAPH............

Japanese company launches anti-radiation swimwear and underwear as Fukushima
nuclear crisis continues.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02706/swimming_2706224b.jpg

Japanese company launches anti-radiation swimwear and underwear as Fukushima
nuclear crisis continues. The wetsuit-style garment, which contains micron-sized
bubbles, blocks almost 100 per cent of beta rays, according to its makers
Yamamoto Corporation, a swimwear company based in Osaka Photo: Yamamoto
Corporation

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02706/radiation-swim_2706225c.jpg

By Danielle Demetriou, Tokyo

10:45AM BST 18 Oct 2013

The new swimwear has been crafted from a unique biorubber material that claims
to protect the wearer from radiation exposure in contaminated waters. The wetsuit-
style garment, which contains micron-sized bubbles, blocks almost 100 per cent of
beta rays, according to its makers Yamamoto Corporation, a swimwear company
based in Osaka. A further line of anti-radiation underwear made from a lead-based
fabric to prevent the contamination of gamma rays is also in development and due
to go on sale in the near future. The underwear, which weighs close to 7.5lb, is
designed to protect in particular the spine and lower abdomen of the wearer from
the damaging effects of gamma ray exposure.

The products are clearly targeting high-risk workers in and around the still-
damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant, which suffered triple meltdowns and
hydrogen explosions following a major earthquake and tsunami in 2011.

However, the clothing, which is designed as an additional form of protection
alongside conventional anti-radiation gear worn by workers at the plant, is not
cheap: the swimwear will sell for Y105,000 (£663) and the underwear for Y80,850 (
£511).

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02636/Fukushima-tepco-ra_2636139c.jpg

Tepco's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant's unit 3 reactor

The timing of the product launch is apt, with Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco),
operators of the Fukushima nuclear plant, long battling to contain a string of
radioactive water leaks at the plant.

The safety of the workers is also increasingly under the spotlight after Japan’s
nuclear regulators ordered Tepco to draft in additional workers and take further
steps to tackle the problems at the plant.

Last week, further criticism was directed at the plant after an accident occurred
during which six workers at the plant were exposed to highly radioactive water.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/10387921/Japan-launches-anti-radiation-underwear-after-Fukushima-crisis.html

Cognitive Dissident

19th October 2013, 03:49

6.5 thousand times higher than what?

Toxic water released,, how is it toxic, what is the dosage?

lots of "appeal to emotion" lots of Pathos based arguments... is this "reporting" ? where are the facts, numbers, data? Why do we just get opinions and emotionally charged statements?

TargeT, these numbers come directly from TEPCO measurements. The precise quote is:

"Tepco said 400,000 becquerels per liter of beta ray-emitting substances such as strontium were detected in water sampled Thursday from the well located some 15 meters from a storage tank that leaked about 300 tons of highly radioactive water in August.

The level of becquerels, a record high for water in that well, was up 6,500-fold from the 61 becquerels found Wednesday."

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/10/18/national/water-radiation-soars-at-fukushima-no-1/#.UmH-uRB41A1

It's also important to be aware that we cannot trust Tepco's measurements, and that Tepco often simply does not measure what is going on. For example:

http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/10/tepco-discharged-2400-m3-of-rainwater-due-to-the-typhoon/

http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/10/tepco-not-to-disclose-radiation-level-of-seawater-near-drain-outlet-after-the-typhoon-couldnt-collect-sample/

I recently started a whole thread on the current situation, which didn't get much traction for whatever reason.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?64376-Cracks-in-the-Matrix-Fukushima-and-the-2020-Olympics

I'll copy some of the links about the tyroid problems caused by Fukushima into this thread. Unfortunately, the situation is clearly getting worse, criticalities are occurring from the coriums and the amount of radioactive water is increasing for "unexplained" reasons. Also, there is media black-out on the radioactive releases directly into the air, mainly from the ruins of Reactor 3. And the situation for the workers is becoming more difficult.

http://enenews.com/asahi-fukushima-workers-wearing-radioactive-underwear-health-concerns-blamed-for-recent-failures-tv-chaos-at-plant-is-it-too-late-for-world-to-help-with-crisis

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Here is more information on the thyroid problems and the contamination of Tokyo, taken from my other thread:

Let's look at one of the main issues, thyroid problems, including cancer, for children near Fukushima. The mainstream argument against this is that because thyroid problem did not show up near Chernobyl for four to five years (even though that may not actually be true), therefore they cannot show up so soon at Fukushima. This assumes, of course, that Chernobyl is worse than Fukushima, which is begging the initial question and anyway as a matter of fact may be incorrect (and over time, almost certainly will be).

Ian Thomas Ash has made an award-winning documentary about the thyroid issue: A2-B-C

http://www.a2documentary.com/

“Eighteen months after the nuclear meltdown, children in Fukushima are suffering from severe nose bleeds and are developing skin rashes and thyroid cysts and nodules. Citing a lack of transparency in the official medical testing of their children and the ineffectiveness of the decontamination of their homes and schools, the children’s mothers take radiation monitoring into their own hands”

Here are some more links on this:

http://enenews.com/nhk-experts-suspi...astrophe-video

http://enenews.com/fukushima-doctor-...w-months-audio

http://enenews.com/fukushima-cover-u...-shows-it-appe

http://enenews.com/science-journal-f...a-rare-disease

http://enenews.com/fukushima-mothers...l-at-once-reco

Another important issue is the contamination of Tokyo itself.

Abe flat out lied to the IOC at the time of the award of the 2020 Olympics to Tokyo when he said that all the contamination that had leaked into the sea was contained in the small port area next to the site. See, for example:

enenews.com/japan-pm-fukushima-contamination-has-never-done-any-damage-to-tokyo-radioactive-water-at-plant-was-blocked-study-tokyo-was-contaminated-experts-radioactive-water-is-constantly-flowing-ou

Arnie Gunderson did some random testing of soil in 2012 and found the samples were so radioactive that they would be categorised as low level nuclear waste in the US. In other words, Tokyo has widespread contamination and should probably be evacuated:

http://enenews.com/gundersen-tokyo-s...dioactive-dump

TargeT

19th October 2013, 04:04

panopticon

19th October 2013, 04:54

Cognitive Dissident

19th October 2013, 04:59

TargeT

19th October 2013, 05:17

A simple explanation of what Bq/L means can be found here:
tsukubascience.com/en/understanding-radiation-becquerels-and-sieverts/

400,000 Bq/L is well above drinking water standards world wide for even Tritium.

There again I don't think anyone plans on having a drink from the test well.

I think the thing to take away is that the tank is either still leaking or the recent rain water from Typhoon Wipha has had an effect on the movement of water in the subsoil (ie underground water) pushing the higher concentration levels "down stream".
-- Pan

yes, but those "drinking water standards" are based on the zero exposure theory; something which isn't even possible in nature since we know we have background radiation everywhere on this planet and can never achieve zero exposure; not to mention it completely disregards the many studies showing that increased radiation, slightly above background levels is HIGHLY beneficial to humans.

OK. But what do you think about all the thyroid cases in Japan?

so far? completely unsubstantiated and opportunistic (greed) based for a lot of them, for some (perhaps even most?) they are reflective of epigenetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics) which honestly are the fault of people who portray and further the fear based schema of this entire topic.. though that is a topic for another thread entirely (and one that highly deserves attention)

panopticon

19th October 2013, 05:59

The Asahi Shimbun reported on March 9, 2013:

More than 40 percent of children from Fukushima Prefecture tested for thyroid abnormalities, such as small cysts or lumps, but that rate is not troubling because it roughly matches data elsewhere in Japan, the Environment Ministry said March 8.

"The results in Fukushima Prefecture were approximately the same as in the other prefectures," said Yasuo Kiryu, a senior ministry official in charge of radiological health control.
Source (http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201303090076)

The Telegraph reported on July 19, 2012:

"Yes, 35.8 percent of children in the study have lumps or cysts, but this is not the same as cancer," said Naomi Takagi, an associate professor at Fukushima University Medical School Hospital, which administered the tests.

"We do not know that cause of this, but it is hard to believe that is due to the effects of radiation," she said. "This is an early test and we will only see the effects of radiation exposure after four or five years."
Source (www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/9410702/Nearly-36pc-of-Fukushima-children-diagnosed-with-thyroid-growths.html)
Hope this was helpful.
-- Pan

Cognitive Dissident

19th October 2013, 09:14

OK. But what do you think about all the thyroid cases in Japan?

so far? completely unsubstantiated and opportunistic (greed) based for a lot of them, for some (perhaps even most?) they are reflective of epigenetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics) which honestly are the fault of people who portray and further the fear based schema of this entire topic.. though that is a topic for another thread entirely (and one that highly deserves attention)

OK, I'm not really sure what that means - I'm trying to be specific about what is actually going on. First off, do you agree with the reports of higher than normal thyroid problems, or do you think that there is no real data to support it? (Bearing in mind the numerous reports of the Japanese authorities trying to suppress reports of thyroid problems amongst children). For example:

http://enenews.com/science-journal-fukushima-forever-nuclear-denial-high-number-of-thyroid-cancers-in-japan-already-for-a-rare-disease

"Title: Fukushima Forever
Source: Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (via Huffington Post)
Author: Charles Perrow, Emeritus Professor of Sociology, Yale University
Date: Sept 20, 2013

Fukushima Forever

Recent disclosures of tons of radioactive water from the damaged Fukushima reactors spilling into the ocean are just the latest evidence of the continuing incompetence of the Japanese utility, TEPCO. The announcement that the Japanese government will step in is also not reassuring since it was the Japanese government that failed to regulate the utility for decades. [...]

The denial that Fukushima has any significant health impacts echoes the denials of the atomic bomb effects in 1945; the secrecy surrounding Windscale and Chelyabinsk; the studies suggesting that the fallout from Three Mile Island was, in fact, serious; and the multiple denials regarding Chernobyl (that it happened, that it was serious, and that it is still serious).

As of June, 2013, according to a report in The Japan Times, 12 of 175,499 children tested had tested positive for possible thyroid cancer, and 15 more were deemed at high risk of developing the disease. For a disease that is rare, this is high number. Meanwhile, the U.S. government is still trying to get us to ignore the bad seed. June 2012, the U.S. Department of Energy granted $1.7 million to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to address the “difficulties in gaining the broad social acceptance” of nuclear power."

panopticon

19th October 2013, 13:02

OK, I'm not really sure what that means - I'm trying to be specific about what is actually going on. First off, do you agree with the reports of higher than normal thyroid problems, or do you think that there is no real data to support it? (Bearing in mind the numerous reports of the Japanese authorities trying to suppress reports of thyroid problems amongst children). For example:

http://enenews.com/science-journal-fukushima-forever-nuclear-denial-high-number-of-thyroid-cancers-in-japan-already-for-a-rare-disease

"Title: Fukushima Forever
Source: Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (via Huffington Post)
Author: Charles Perrow, Emeritus Professor of Sociology, Yale University
Date: Sept 20, 2013

Fukushima Forever

Recent disclosures of tons of radioactive water from the damaged Fukushima reactors spilling into the ocean are just the latest evidence of the continuing incompetence of the Japanese utility, TEPCO. The announcement that the Japanese government will step in is also not reassuring since it was the Japanese government that failed to regulate the utility for decades. [...]

The denial that Fukushima has any significant health impacts echoes the denials of the atomic bomb effects in 1945; the secrecy surrounding Windscale and Chelyabinsk; the studies suggesting that the fallout from Three Mile Island was, in fact, serious; and the multiple denials regarding Chernobyl (that it happened, that it was serious, and that it is still serious).

As of June, 2013, according to a report in The Japan Times, 12 of 175,499 children tested had tested positive for possible thyroid cancer, and 15 more were deemed at high risk of developing the disease. For a disease that is rare, this is high number. Meanwhile, the U.S. government is still trying to get us to ignore the bad seed. June 2012, the U.S. Department of Energy granted $1.7 million to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to address the “difficulties in gaining the broad social acceptance” of nuclear power."

G'day Cog,

I went and had a look at the enenews article and then read Perrow's article in the Huffington post it was from ('Fukushima Forever (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-perrow/fukushima-forever_b_3941589.html)') and then Perrow's paper in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists titled 'Nuclear denial: From Hiroshima to Fukushima' (available here (http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/24415/Bulletin_of_the_Atomic_Scientists-2013-Perrow-56-67.pdf)).

He talked a lot about background radiation rates and what needs to be remembered is that background radiation rates vary from place to place and over time. The rate of exposure he is referring to is actually quite low and not likely to cause a serious risk to the population. While the caesium levels in the body are of concern, caesium has a biological half-life of around 70 days (meaning half of the amount ingested will be excreted within 70 days) and the quantities that I've read about are very small. This is not to minimise the potential risk that it poses, just that it is possible that Perrow is using it as a literary tool to encourage further investigation (which I view is admirable). I haven't read any reports of between '1,000 to 3,000 cancer deaths' from Fukushima and am interested as to where this figure came from. It isn't repeated in his journal article so I have no source for it to check.

He is obviously a proponent of the Linear no-Threshold Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model) and I tend to disagree with that from the various readings I've made over the years on low level radiation hormesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis) (in particular Sanders has a good introductory book on this here (http://bookos.org/book/1045518/6c9984)). However, ignoring this small disagreement on his position, there is still much I agree with him on.

I definitely agree with him that there has been a deliberate smudging of data to do with Chernobyl and the other incidents he cites. The vested interest groups always try to make information say what they want it to say and that leaves us going back to the original studies/literature and trying to evaluate what is accurate and what isn't. The information gets twisted left and right until it is almost unrecognisable. That is why I view the studies in Chernobyl barn swallows abnormalities are so valuable as they go against the accepted mainstream rhetoric.

The only thing I have difficulty with (in both Perrow's article and paper) is the link he draws between minor growth deformations/cysts in the thyroid being caused by the accident at Fukushima. Yes there is an increased risk of developing thyroid cancer if a person has nodules but this doesn't automatically connect nodule development to the Fukushima accident. That is the purpose and benefit of these longitudinal studies: To prove causation not just correlation.

These initial studies were undertaken as a way of getting a baseline so as to not have the same problems that occurred following Chernobyl that Perrow mentions. If anything the Japanese scientists and medical personnel should be commended in taking this ground breaking step! Never before has a baseline been completed so close to exposure for a large group. In a few years when we start to see the effect of ingested nuclides (eg Iodine-131) this information will allow us to be able to know what correlation there is (or isn't for that matter) between the Fukushima accident and increased thyroid mutations/cancers.

I also agree that a comparable study should be undertaken as a comparison group (I would suggest from the Southern Hemisphere) so as to give a healthy population baseline to compare against. This would help answer a large number of questions (in particular the prevalence of the detected abnormalities in the thyroids of children) that the Japanese studies may have difficulty in doing (because of the pre-existence in the environment of contaminants -- namely Iodine-131 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine-131) caused by the accident).

Well, that's my thoughts anyway and it's a bit late so I'll "see" you all tomorrow.
-- Pan

Rocky_Shorz

21st October 2013, 15:04

(Updated) Risky repair of Fukushima could spill 15,000x radiation of Hiroshima, create 85 Chernobyls

Does the planned November 2013 removal of the spent fuel rods stored at Fukushima’s heavily damaged Reactor 4 need a global intervention, or should TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Co., a for-profit company) be allowed to go it alone?

So far, the Japanese government is allowing TEPCO to handle it. Why should you care? Read on.

As you should know by now, the nuclear power plant at Fukushima underwent a great deal of damage in 2011 due to an earthquake and a tsunami. Wikipedia (my emphasis; some reparagraphing):

The plant comprised six separate boiling water reactors originally designed byGeneral Electric (GE) and maintained by the Tokyo Electric Power Company(TEPCO). At the time of the earthquake, reactor 4 had been de-fueled and reactors 5 and 6 were in cold shutdown for planned maintenance.

Immediately after the earthquake, the remaining reactors 1–3 shut down the sustained fission reactions automatically, inserting control rods in what is termed the SCRAM, following this, emergency generators came online to power electronics and coolant systems. The tsunami arrived some 50 minutes after the initial earthquake.

The 13m tsunami overwhelmed the plant’s seawall, which was only 10m high, quickly flooding the low-lying rooms in which the emergency generators were housed (The tsunami was photographed). The flooded diesel generators failed, cutting power to the critical pumps that must continuously circulate coolant water through a Generation II reactor for several days to keep it from melting down after shut down.

After the secondary emergency pumps (run by back-up batteries) ran out, one day after the tsunami, the pumps stopped and the reactors began to overheat due to the normal high radioactive decay heat produced in the first few days after nuclear reactor shutdown (smaller amounts of this heat normally continue to be released for years, but are not enough to cause fuel melting).

We want to focus on reactor unit 4. Here’s a schematic of what one of these reactor units looks like (skillfully designed by GE, who wants you to know they “bring good things to life”):

http://americablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/fukushima_582px-BWR_Mark_I_Containment_sketch_with_downcomers.png

What you care about is ” SFP,” where the fuel rods are stored. Here’s the legend provide with this sketch:

Rough sketch of a typical Boiling water reactor (BWR) Mark I Concrete Containment with Steel Torus including downcomers, as used in the BWR/1, BWR/2, BWR/3 and some BWR/4 model reactors.

DW = Drywell
WW = Wetwell
SFP = Spent Fuel Pool
RPV = Reactor Pressure Vessel
SCSW = Secondary Concrete Shield Wall

Notice where the fuel rods are stored — high off the ground and in water, in the area marked SFP.

Here’s what Fukushima unit 4 looks like today:

http://americablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/fukushima_4-401x500.jpg

Notice that it has no roof. More than 1300 spent fuel rods (plus about 200 “fully loaded” unspent rods — remember that “reactor 4 had been de-fueled” prior to the accident) are stored in a water-containing chamber high off the ground in a crumbling room and building without a roof.
How will “they” get the damaged fuel rods out of that crumbling room?

This is the problem today. There are about 1300 fuel rods stored in that room, packed together vertically in racks. Think of a pack of cigarettes standing upright with the top of the pack removed. Normally, the movement of fuel rods is done by a computer-driven machine that reaches into the room from above and removes or replaces a fuel rod by drawing it upward or lowering it downward.

The machine knows to the millimeter where each fuel rod is located. Also, the rods are undamaged — perfectly straight.

The problem is that this pack of cigarettes is crumpled, and the process must done manually. Therefore, the likelihood that some of the fuel rods will break is high. If that happens and fuel rods are exposed to the air — BOOM. What does “boom” look like?

Fukushima’s owner, Tokyo Electric (Tepco), says that within as few as 60 days it may begin trying to remove more than 1300 spent fuel rods from a badly damaged pool perched 100 feet in the air. The pool rests on a badly damaged building that is tilting, sinking and could easily come down in the next earthquake, if not on its own.

Some 400 tons of fuel in that pool could spew out more than 15,000 times as much radiation as was released at Hiroshima.

Meanwhile, at the rest of the site:

More than 6,000 fuel assemblies now sit in a common pool just 50 meters from Unit Four. Some contain plutonium. The pool has no containment over it. It’s vulnerable to loss of coolant, the collapse of a nearby building, another earthquake, another tsunami and more.

Overall, more than 11,000 fuel assemblies are scattered around the Fukushima site. According to long-time expert and former Department of Energy official Robert Alvarez, there is more than 85 times as much lethal cesium on site as was released at Chernobyl.

If the whole site blows, “boom” could mean the release of 85 times as much radioactive cesium into the air as was released at Chernobyl. Into the air. Into a stiff cross-Pacific breeze.

There are a number of people warning of this danger; none are getting much play. For example, this from the Japan Times (quoted here):

In November, Tepco plans to begin the delicate operation of removing spent fuel from Reactor No. 4 [with] radiation equivalent to 14,000 times the amount released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. …. It remains vulnerable to any further shocks, and is also at risk from ground liquefaction. Removing its spent fuel, which contains deadly plutonium, is an urgent task….

The consequences could be far more severe than any nuclear accident the world has ever seen. If a fuel rod is dropped, breaks or becomes entangled while being removed, possible worst case scenarios include a big explosion, a meltdown in the pool, or a large fire. Any of these situations could lead to massive releases of deadly radionuclides into the atmosphere, putting much of Japan — including Tokyo and Yokohama — and even neighboring countries at serious risk.

A lot depends on what blows up, if anything. If only Unit 4 blows up, Japan is at risk, including Tokyo, and the nuclear dust will pass across the Pacific to the U.S. People on the West Coast will be warned to keep their windows closed for a while.

If the whole facility blows up, one scientist is talking about moving her family to the southern hemisphere. From the article quoted above:

Chernobyl’s first 1986 fallout reached California within ten days. Fukushima’s in 2011 arrived in less than a week. A new fuel fire at Unit 4 would pour out a continuous stream of lethal radioactive poisons for centuries.

We’re in very apocalyptic territory, with a wide and unknown range of outcomes. Take that for what it’s worth — little could go wrong, or much.
Should TEPCO be allowed to attempt this on its own?
Should Japan be allowed to attempt this on its own?

This is the heart of today’s problem. In reality, the events that are about to unfold at Fukushima in the next 60 days will affect much of the world. They could in fact change life in the northern hemisphere, if the worst of the worst occurs.

The Japanese government has ceded control of the next phrase — removing more than 1300 fuel rods from Reactor 4 — to TEPCO. (Seems that Japan has a “corporate capture of government” problem similar to our own.) Reuters (quoted here):

Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) is already in a losing battle to stop radioactive water overflowing from another part of the facility, and experts question whether it will be able to pull off the removal of all the assemblies successfully.

“They are going to have difficulty in removing a significant number of the rods,” said Arnie Gundersen, a veteran U.S. nuclear engineer and director of Fairewinds Energy Education, who used to build fuel assemblies.

The operation, beginning this November at the plant’s Reactor No. 4, is fraught with danger, including the possibility of a large release of radiation if a fuel assembly breaks, gets stuck or gets too close to an adjacent bundle, said Gundersen and other nuclear experts. … The utility says it recognizes the operation will be difficult but believes it can carry it out safely.

Nonetheless, Tepco inspires little confidence. Sharply criticized for failing to protect the Fukushima plant against natural disasters, its handling of the crisis since then has also been lambasted.

Who has sovereignty here? Who has control? Better, who should have sovereignty and control?

TEPCO has sovereignty, ceded by the government of Japan. But should Japan itself be allowed sovereignty, or should “the world” take over the problem in its own interest?

Theoretically, it’s an interesting question, since we don’t generally talk about removing sovereignty from other first-world nations — only little guys in places like the Middle East or Latin America who bother us. Yet some writers are in fact worried that the consequences for Japan include bankrupting the economy and … loss of sovereignty. Japan Focus:

This is literally a matter of national security – another mistake by TEPCO could have incredibly costly, even fatal, consequences for Japan.

And according to former U.N. adviser Akio Matsumura (quoted here):

The meltdown and unprecedented release of radiation that would ensue is the worst case scenario that then-Prime Minister Kan and other former officials have discussed in the past months. He [Kan] warned during his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos that such an accident would force the evacuation of the 35 million people in Tokyo, close half of Japan and compromise the nation’s sovereignty.

Such a humanitarian and environmental catastrophe is unimaginable. Hiroshi Tasaka, a nuclear engineer and special adviser to Prime Minister Kan immediately following the crisis, said the crisis “just opened Pandora’s Box.”

That’s then-Prime Minister Kan quoted in the bolded comment. As I said, it’s an interesting theoretical problem. Too bad it’s not just theoretical. This will all happen in November.
Bottom line — Should TEPCO be allowed to manage the removal of the fuel rods in November?

It comes down to this — TEPCO has shown itself to be both incompetent and deceitful. The government of Japan has shown itself willing to allow TEPCO to control the “cleanup” and “decommissioning” of the Fukushima facility.

Who should have control at Fukushima? TEPCO (after all, they “own it”)? The government of Japan (after all, it’s “their” country)? Or others in the world, acting in their own real interest? Harvey Wasserman, writing in Common Dreams (my emphasis and paragraphing):

We are now within two months of what may be humankind’s most dangerous moment since the Cuban Missile Crisis. There is no excuse for not acting. All the resources our species can muster must be focused on the fuel pool at Fukushima Unit 4. … Neither Tokyo Electric nor the government of Japan can go this alone. There is no excuse for deploying anything less than a coordinated team of the planet’s best scientists and engineers. …

We have two months or less to act. For now, we are petitioning the United Nations and President Obama to mobilize the global scientific and engineering community to take charge at Fukushima and the job of moving these fuel rods to safety.

If you have a better idea, please follow it. But do something and do it now. The clock is ticking.

I swear, the world is closer and closer to reading like a series of thrillers, isn’t it? I’m not sure what to make of all this; it seems so … thriller-y.

http://americablog.com/2013/09/risky-repair-fukushima-spill-15000x-radiation-hiroshima-85x-chernobyl.html

panopticon

22nd October 2013, 02:15

Good article Rocky.

I've been posting about this for months and simply just don't understand why there isn't more discussion about it at Avalon.

Maybe some sort of "Fukushima fatigue"...

Only a few weeks to go now and they start the process (though they wont say when because of 'treaties aimed at reducing the risk of terrorist attacks' [source (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-18/three-mile-island-veteran-optimistic-on-fukushima-fuel-removal.html)]).

Realistically it's all to late now.

All we can do is watch the live feed (www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/f1-np/camera/index-e.html) (if they keep it going) and hope for the best.
-- Pan

Cognitive Dissident

22nd October 2013, 05:03

panopticon

22nd October 2013, 06:48

I think part of the problem is that what is happening at Fukushima is not at all obvious. There is not much change on a day to day basis. Radioactivity is invisible. To realise the magnitude of what is going on there requires persistent thought. But not much pay off apart from a slight feeling of doom!

Perhaps we are better off because we know to have some iodine in store. But that doesn't make me feel any better. I wrote another thread about the big picture, 2020 Olympics and Fukushima.

I agree Cog.

It's almost like watching something in slow motion for hours. Not easy to keep attention on what is going on.

I spend an hour every morning going through the data from TEPCO (www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/handouts/index-e.html) on the Fukushima Daiichi plant and any reports (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/index_ho-e.html) that have come out on what is going on (while keeping in mind their history of lies and deceit). Periodically I check the time lapse recordings (www.youtube.com/user/fuku1live) of the live feed (1 hour = 3 minutes) to see if there is anything noticeable.

For example the recent media hype over the increase in beta particle detection in Observation Hole E-1.

I believe that this was the result of Typhoon Wipha (and possibly the recently reported overflow due to TEPCO underestimating the amount of rain -- idgits).

Why do I believe this?

I've been following the Tritium concentration in that hole for a while on this thread and there appears to be a change in Tritum levels following a rain event. This makes sense to me.

The media made much about the rise in Beta concentration to 400,000 Bq/L from the previous days 61 Bq/L.

There wasn't any mention of the subsequent drop in this amount over the following days:

All Beta (Bq/L)
October 16: 61
October 17: 400,000
October 18: 300,000
October 19: 330,000
October 20: 290,000

I haven't seen a report of what beta particles were in the water (though TEPCO reported (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/2013/1231539_5130.html) that there was no Caesium 134 or Caesium 137) so have no idea as to what sort of danger there actually is in this release though it is nil unless you come in direct contact with it (ie an under trained, under paid employee).

In addition no Tritium data was presented in the media:

Tritium (Bq/L)
October 16: 230,000
October 17: 790,000
October 18: 620,000
October 19: 550,000
October 20: 500,000

Over the coming days/weeks it will be clearer if Typhoon Wipha was the cause of this. But, looking at the spike on the 17th (the day after Typhoon Wipha passed over Fukushima) it is easy to say there is a correlation that it was caused by the rain event. Maybe there is something else (eg the overflowing tank reported today or maybe there's another tank leaking) but given the drop following on from the storm I'd say, if it continues to drop away, that it is more than likely the result, either directly or indirectly, of the storm.

The problem is that while there is the potential for a huge "accident" it isn't a forgone conclusion and many people are too busy to pay much attention to it. Nothing might happen and then they can say that they were right and the people in authority knew what they were doing.

If something horrendous does happen then there will be all sorts of recriminations, name calling and pointing of fingers with gnashing of teeth and people asking "why didn't we know?" The answer is "You weren't paying attention".

My attitude is that if nothing happens it will be in spite of the people in authority not because of them.
-- Pan