Fukushima disaster: Tokyo hides truth... [Archive] - The Project Avalon Community Forum

View Full Version : Fukushima disaster: Tokyo hides truth...

Camilo

23rd April 2014, 22:08

Atlas

23rd April 2014, 22:19

Research has not shown the children to be in clear danger from exposure to low-dose radiation, but mistrust of the authorities remains high. (source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/07/fukushima-radiation_n_5103582.html))

http://i1.huffpost.com/gen/1722283/thumbs/n-FUKUSHIMA-CHILDREN-large.jpg

See also:

Are Babies Dying in the Pacific Northwest Due to Fukushima? (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/) A Look at the Numbers
By Michael Moyer | June 21, 2011

Tesla_WTC_Solution

23rd April 2014, 23:53

ghostrider

24th April 2014, 00:28

....as children die, become ill from radiation - ex-mayor

The tragedy of the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster took place almost three years ago. Since then, radiation has forced thousands out of their homes and led to the deaths of many. It took great effort to prevent the ultimate meltdown of the plant – but are the after effects completely gone? Tokyo says yes; it also claims the government is doing everything it can for those who suffered in the disaster. However, disturbing facts sometimes rise to the surface. To shed a bit of light on the mystery of the Fukushima aftermath, Sophie Shevardnadze talks to the former mayor of one of the disaster-struck cities. Katsutaka Idogawa is on SophieCo today.

http://rt.com/shows/sophieco/fukushima-disaster-radiation-children-740/

Tokyo lies , the disaster is worse than you know , sea life , the ground , the kids , the air , not to mention DEEP quakes , ehumm the cores melting through the mantle ... there is no way to remove ionizing radiation... not even ET knows how to do it , they say , it cannot be done ... 50 soldiers from the USS Ronald Reagan that now have cancer ... hmmm ... one week after the disaster , radiation was already detected in Europe ... If fukushima is soo good , let the Japanese leadership hold a new brief and then have a dinner right there at ground zero ... then take a dip in the ocean right there also , then go try and spead lies about how it's safe now while your hair falls out ...

ghostrider

24th April 2014, 00:32

Hmm weird :(

I was at my grandma's house in 2011, around May or June,
and I remember leaving a message at the Ron Paul campaign re: getting the kids out of Japan.
I said that if there was a time to do it, it was NOW. But they didn't do anything.

No Kinderlift for GE victims apparently. :(

would love to know where Gates is too.
I thought we needed intelligent immigration.......

Hey , where all the Hollywood types that always scream help the kids , save the kids , donate to the kids ... they are too busy making their next million , sorry everyone , fukushima is my hot button issue ... average people have taken low budget gear and tested the water and air at fukushima and surrounding areas and its' off the charts and the media covers it up ...the leaders let those people get exposed telling them the damage wasn't so bad , if they would tell the truth , 500 miles of the coast would be evacuated already ...

ghostrider

24th April 2014, 00:37

Hey , anyone remember the summer of 2011 ??? I did air conditioning work in MARCH , usually it's not until the end of May , for 25 yrs I have never done summer AC work in March ... we had days it was 125- 130 degrees outside , and 100 at night ... fukushima radiation rounding the entire earth ... I have pictures from my digital equiptment the temp of the blacktop was 175 degrees ... it melted mailboxs , people fried eggs on the hood of their cars ...

Lone Bean

24th April 2014, 02:55

Fukushima is a world killer. There were several total meltdowns and spent fuel pool disasters. It is an ongoing nightmare of the absolute worst kind and should be at the very top of everyone's list of world problems. It is unfixable at this point, and if the human race does not evolve spiritually by a tremendous leap forward, right NOW, we will all be dead in a few short years or sooner. 2030 is what many scientists are now saying will be the year there are no more humans on this planet. No other animals either. I believe them.

Azt

24th April 2014, 03:12

Fukushima is a big business now for many people , Take the Mafia for example, they are the one sending the contractors workers (getting the homeless in Tokyo, Osaka (big cities) and forcing these people to work in the site as a clean up contractor, when those people die (and it has been a lot of them dead already) they just replace it as they are basically family free people from the streets) , mafia is making tons of money ... And TEPCO avoids problems (if it is their own employees) Again, money/profits/companies is being preferable than kids or human beings in general ... Unfortunately, it is the picture of our world today (money, lies ....) it is a corrupted world until we find a way to move away beyond money, media, governments ...

ghostrider

24th April 2014, 04:22

THEY WILL ONLY STOP WHEN WE STOP THEM ... we must demand the end of ALL nuclear energy NOW ...folks it could be the end of our lineage , we are doomed by our leaders own madness , tampering with the building blocks of creation , we have ears to hear but do not hear , eyes to see but do not see ... puffed up in our vanity , we will reap what has been sown ...

pyrangello

24th April 2014, 17:40

I think japan just passed a law where anyone talking about this or the conditions there can be thrown in jail, on top of all of that reactor one core is burned thru the bottom concrete casing and is heading towards the center of the earth, who knows where its at now, #2 and #3 reactors are still being cooled by water and now there running out of places to put the water so there talking about dumping it in the ocean in the next 2 months , there is currently now 600,000 gallons a day of radiated water from the ground flowing into the ocean . 20 % of the worlds energy comes from nuclear and why ? Why not hydrogen from the water, we have the technology, who's fooling who. Spoke to a 93 year old excavator of mine the other day, he said back in the 1960's an oil company did a survey of an area here in Michigan and found a pocket of natural gas here that he said would supply the state FOREVER.They have never tapped into that pocket.

I never use to be against big corporations/ money but between this tragic event that has also a garbage land field the size of Texas that will hit California in July and companies like Monsanto with their hidden agendas or the destroying of the amazon rainforest to the slaughter of the elephants for their tusks , I can truly say I am totally disgusted with these individuals responsible for these actions as they are parasites of greed and sociopaths that have sold their soul to the devil himself. God help them these souls as they have a one way ticket to an eternity of a pitchfork and fire right up their you know what.

Here's an article on the ocean between the u.s. and japan, truly sad. http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1848433/the-ocean-is-broken/?cs=12

Rozzy

7th February 2015, 14:18

panopticon

7th February 2015, 18:05

Fukushima released 13,000,000,000 times more neutrons than initially estimated — “Obvious implication for human health” — Gov’t: “Neutron radiation is the most severe and dangerous radiation” known to mankind; Can travel great distances

http://enenews.com/fukushima-released-13000000000-times-neutrons-initially-estimated

Once again Enenews manages to take the obvious and make a headline.

For example the first cited paper (http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/GJ/pdf/4604/46040335.pdf) (Danielache et al) was not 'made available Oct 16, 2014'... It was first available on 2012. I don't know where the late 2014 date came from...

The second paper cited (http://www.pnas.org/content/108/35/14422.full) (Priyadarshi et al.) is from 2011 (within 3 months of the Fukushima meltdown) and as such was a preliminary estimate only. FFS it was an estimate calculated 'using measurements of radioactive 35S contained in sulfate aerosols and SO2 gas at a coastal site in La Jolla, California' (Priyadarshi et al. Abstract)! It is even stated by Danielache et al in 2012 that:

The large difference with our estimation comes from the intrinsic limit of the box model study by Priyadarshi et al. (2011), which takes into account deposition and decay during the trans-Atlantic transport but is limited to estimate the actual amount of 35S atoms present at inside the reactor. By considering different scenarios our model directly estimates the amount of material released from the reactor core. The estimated initial 35S material and number of neutron represent a lower limit of the amount of radiation emitted from the nuclear reactors at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. These values can be used as a proxy to the total amount of radiation emitted since the melt down.
Source (http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/GJ/pdf/4604/46040335.pdf)

The levels recorded in California were so low that they barely registered in 2011:

Although the spike that we measured was very high compared to background levels of radioactive sulfur, the absolute amount of radiation that reached California was small. The levels we recorded aren’t a concern for human health. In fact, it took sensitive instruments, measuring radioactive decay for hours after lengthy collection of the particles, to precisely measure the amount of radiation.
Source (http://earthsky.org/earth/first-quantitative-measure-of-radiation-leaked-from-fyukushima-reactor)

There most certainly were/are coverups in Japan to do with the Fukushima meltdown and later recovery work (notably the use of unskilled homeless persons as contractors with Yakuza owned & run organisations that have gained contracts through "interesting" means). There was also a widely published incident where a measurement device on the ocean side of the reactors was not measuring accurately.

Enenews has repeatedly taken data & twisted it to make it seem more sensational.

From the Enenews article referenced (published January 13th 2015!) here's an example of what they do.

First, the article represents the Danielache et al 2012 article as only just having been written (hence the October 2014 reference & January 2015 publication date). This is just a plain misrepresentation to make the information to do with the more accurate calculation seems relevant. The paper is almost 3 years old and it's the difference in figures that the Enenews author wants to emphasize.

Notice the rather selective excerpt taken from the Priyadarshi et al. 2011 paper (remember this was written only a couple of months after the Fukushima accident & the bold/underlining of text was by Enenews):

Despite the obvious implication for human health… there are no quantitative estimates of the neutron flux leakage…

The parts left out by Enenews from Priyadarshi et al.'s abstract paints a calmer picture:

Despite the obvious implication for human health and the surrounding ecology, there are no quantitative estimates of the neutron flux leakage during the weeks following the earthquake.
Well, no, there hadn't been because given the circumstances there's was no way to measure it at the time! That's why Priyadarshi et al. measured SO2 from the Scripps site! It was only later that some form of calculation could be done. Prior to that there was no bloody way of knowing how much damage had been done, what had melted where and where leaks were occurring (remember the radiative ocean water storage tanks built on slopes, without foundations, overflowing and leaking because of, well, I can only think stupidity is the best word to use?). Back in 2011 there was no way to calculate how much radiation had been emitted beyond a guestimate (which is what Priyadarshi & co provided and can be seen from their conclusion which said 'estimate [of] the total neutron leakage').

Why would Enenews publish this rather mundane and boring information years later and make it look like its important other than to sensationalise?

Enenews does a disservice for those interested and following the published material on Fukushima Daiichi as there are some real problems on site. What about the fuel assemblies that melted and formed what is known as "corium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corium_%28nuclear_reactor%29)" in reactors #1 & #2? I've not heard of a way that mess can be removed and it will just continue to produce low levels of radiated water flowing into the ocean for a long time.

By sensationalising the obvious, Enenews makes the more important information seem tedious and boring. For example, fish contamination levels having lowered over the intervening period or the biological half life of certain isotopes in some fish, who inhabit different depths in the water column, illustrating that there are still low level leaks from Fukushima Daiichi into the ocean.

No, far more exciting to make up stories about "radioactive dead zones in the ocean off the US" then actually inform their readership.

Oh, and it's bloody deliberate. There is no way that some of the stuff they've misrepresented over the years could be "honest errors".

-- Pan

Rozzy

7th February 2015, 20:53

The important thing is that people do not just forget Fukushima and move on to the next foot ball game, how much are you hearing in the news these days about Fukushima? Anyone that thinks this is just a little blip is in serious denial of the ongoing monumental global effect.

http://www.fairewinds.org/category/media/videos-mp3s/#sthash.n5NIg0Nw.dpbs

TargeT

8th February 2015, 12:19

average people have taken low budget gear and tested the water and air at fukushima and surrounding areas and its' off the charts and the media covers it up ...the leaders let those people get exposed telling them the damage wasn't so bad , if they would tell the truth , 500 miles of the coast would be evacuated already ...

can you please expand on "off the charts" because last time I checked the radiation levels were below the levels put off by my uranium pendant (that I have had around my neck 24/7 for around 2 years now)

THEY WILL ONLY STOP WHEN WE STOP THEM ... we must demand the end of ALL nuclear energy NOW ...folks it could be the end of our lineage , we are doomed by our leaders own madness , tampering with the building blocks of creation , we have ears to hear but do not hear , eyes to see but do not see ... puffed up in our vanity , we will reap what has been sown ...

This seems very 'chicken little'ish, I think Nuclear power is the ONLY power that is viable in the short term to better energy leverage options (next in line is LENR of course).

East Sun

8th February 2015, 17:05

I know it's been said but it is still a significant realization that Fukashima happened on 3-11-11. To me, it's almost obvious that there is a lot more to this than meets the eye. It would be folly to not heed the warnings of plans to bring chaos of the worst kinds, by the known B*******. Chaos of the unbearable to be blasted onto the populations of Earth until we 'beg' for a solution which will of course be, One World Control by 'them.' Never let it happen!!!!

There seems to be a lot more than meets the eye, like forces of un--Earthly proportions . Where do we fit into the equation? It seems we don't, so we need to fit ourselves in and pay more attention to their plans while we can.

Their plans are in the open, so we have no excuse.
All I can do is make people aware as much as possible.

SKIBADABOMSKI

8th February 2015, 19:24

I have a leg growing out of my back and 2 ears on my arms. All of Tokyo kids are dead and dying and Japan is ready to sink or it should have. Millions have evacuated to SK to escape the radiation and all the oceans fish are radiated and .... YAWN..

That is a tiny crunched together version of what was drilled into your heads by fear of radiation. Still the masses get double tricked and do the work for them. They are geniuses when it comes to playing with your mind.

You spread more damage from fear from Fukushima than Fukushima itself. New fear energy.. it's genius. Protective clothing and huge gates with symbols of poison on containers. Brilliant.

TargeT

8th February 2015, 20:00

You spread more damage from fear from Fukushima than Fukushima itself. New fear energy.. it's genius. Protective clothing and huge gates with symbols of poison on containers. Brilliant.

and it's scary how easily (and unknowingly) recruited generally rational people are into this fear porn campaign.

If I ever find out about something that is "scary" (IE: radiation) I like to research the C R A P out of it; fear is usually just your brains short cut for making up for ignorance... when in doubt kick in the fight/flight/freeze reptilian brain and let the default programming take over! (but wait, this is very well known and used against us all the time,,,, maybe we should not capitulate?)

This is a very powerful piece of information, it is applicable everywhere in this reality we exist in:

toxicity of a substance is determined by exposure and dose nothing else.

What does that MEAN? it means that even the best thing for you is bad for you when taken in excess, and it means the WORST thing for you is good for you when taken in the right doses.

in other words (and more simply put)

Everything In Moderation. (and that includes radiation also... you NEED some to be healthy).

Here is a very different perspective on radiation and it's effects (at the levels in and around Fukushima, remember: dose is what is important):
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46819-A-video-they-won-t-want-you-to-see--Galen-Winsor-nuclear-scare-scam-&highlight=nuclear+scam

I still think this is THE SINGLE BIGGEST and MOST oppressive "conspiracy" that can not only be proven but easily explained (once you get passed the years of indoctrinated (and mostly baseless) radiation fear)

East Sun

9th February 2015, 02:54

What do you think all those sea life creatures died of?

If you think all that radiation is ok go and live in Japan and work at a nuclear plant.

TargeT

9th February 2015, 13:47

What do you think all those sea life creatures died of?

Lack of Oxygen, its a pretty typical occurrence that has been discussed at length in the thread I posted above (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46819-A-video-they-won-t-want-you-to-see--Galen-Winsor-nuclear-scare-scam-&highlight=video+won%27t+%28Galen+Winsor%3A+nuclear+scare+scam%29+fish)

And a few other places on this forum.. for example:

I do understand your point TargeT, but it is clear to me that it is no coincidence of the enormous ocean dead zone,sea life die offs happening SINCE the FUKU disaster.
Im sorry, but maybe some radiation is harmless, and some is. The planet is in trouble, and it is my opinion that fukushima is a killer.
I respectfully agree to disagree with you.

Let me correct you on one thing, then let me know what you think.

Ocean die offs have been happening for millions of years (as far as we can tell), they are a natural phenomenon of an ecosystem we are CLUELESS about.

Death due to natural causes is far more common than human negligence or intentional polluting. Oxygen depletion and natural life cycles occur much more often than other causes such as a release of toxins into the water.
http://aquaviews.net/ocean-news/3-massive-fish-dieoffs/

Is the sea floor littered with dead animals due to radiation? No.
http://deepseanews.com/2014/01/is-the-sea-floor-littered-with-dead-animals-due-to-radiation-no/

cientists have been working for months to find out what’s causing the massive die-off and now Harvell and others have evidence that an infectious disease caused by a bacteria or virus may be at the root of the problem.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/scientists-zero-whats-causing-starfish-die-offs/

etc etc etc....

Information processing/parsing and critical thinking are key here

If you think all that radiation is ok go and live in Japan and work at a nuclear plant.

Did you know that Nuclear plants are required to have LESS radiation than is naturally present almost everywhere on the planet?

Here's my take on this topic:

We are currently in a "is the world flat" debate, until you KNOW it's not flat, it sure as hell seems plausible that it's flat; hell you can see that it's flat with your own eyes! (sorta).

But once you notice a few un-ignorable details you realize it just appears to be flat ( or that it "appears" that all radiation is bad for you, no matter the level) because you have never really considered evidence to the contrary since you already KNOW it's flat (or that all radiation is bad for you).

once the topic is given just a tiny bit of objective thought, it quickly becomes apparent what is actually happening.

panopticon

10th February 2015, 16:20

What do you think all those sea life creatures died of?

If you think all that radiation is ok go and live in Japan and work at a nuclear plant.

G'day East Sun

In relation to sea life die-off.

I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you're referring to the widely published story that the Pacific Ocean was a dead zone because of the radioactive plume arriving from the Fukushima accident.

I've written about the research that was based on a few times so I'll just quote parts of my previous posts as I'm a bit short of time at the moment:

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

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

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

So where is Station M?

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=24358&d=1388810273

What does the sea floor look like there?

http://www.mbari.org/pelagic-benthic/images/Seafloor%20Bottom%20at%20Station%20M.jpg

Want more information on Station M and the area of study being undertaken there?
Try here: Abyssal Time-Series Studies at Station M (http://www.mbari.org/pelagic-benthic/deepsea.htm).

Came across this the other day from the scientists whose research was manipulated to say that a large amount of sea life was dead in the Station M area and thought it worth while referencing. This false reporting has been mentioned before in this and other threads and the original research papers referenced and quoted from to disprove the veracity/accuracy of the "news article" supposedly based on the research.

This short video shows that there is not some sort of radioactive dead zone, caused by leaks from the Fukushima Daiichi NPS, near the Station M site, which is located here:

http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2013/feast&famine/station-m-map-400.jpg

###

Time-lapse video showing a pulse of algae at Station M

The video below shows a time-lapse view of a small patch of muddy seafloor at Station M. This video consists of still images taken once an hour for several months during Fall 2012, documenting one of the biggest naturally occurring "food drops" at Station M since measurements began in 1989.

The video starts with sea cucumbers, urchins, and other animals crawling around the gray deep-sea mud. Over a period of weeks, the mud becomes covered with a brownish-green coating of dead algae that sank down from the sunlit surface waters. By half way through the video, this dead algae covers so much of the sea floor that the bottom looks dark. After the fall of algae, pinkish-orange sea cucumbers and other small animals move around the seafloor eating this algae. Any "leftover" algae is buried in the sediments and can be eaten years to decades later.

bxL3Q3kVMt4

###

For more information see:

MBARI debunks misleading stories related to the MBARI News Release (http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2013/feast&famine/feast&famine-clarification.html)
Feast and famine on the abyssal plain (http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2013/feast&famine/feast&famine-release.html)

So that's the low down on the radioactive dead zones in the Pacific.

As for misleading data...

The following article I came across a few days ago shows how ordinary people in Japan are measuring radiation levels and collating their data to compare with the official reports:

###

Skeptical Fukushima residents monitoring radiation levels in their communities (http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201502080025)
February 08, 2015

https://d13uygpm1enfng.cloudfront.net/article-imgs/en/2015/02/08/AJ201502080025/AJ201502080026M.jpg

On a recent day in late January, a minicar departed from the Iitate village office in Fukushima Prefecture with stickers attached that said, "We are driving slowly because we are measuring radiation levels."

The vehicle, operated by Fukushima Saisei no Kai (Resurrection of Fukushima), a local residents' nonprofit organization, is equipped with GPS and radiation measurement equipment, allowing it to record locations and airborne radiation levels.

"Although the level has decreased considerably from immediately after the Fukushima nuclear accident, it is still high," said Mitsukazu Sugiura, 65, the driver of the vehicle, on Jan. 28.

Distrust of the central government, a need to know to make future plans and a desire to maintain ties with neighbors have led to groups of residents around Fukushima Prefecture taking the initiative to monitor radiation levels on their own.

All of Iitate village, which is divided into 20 districts, has been designated as an evacuation zone.

While the village government measures radiation levels at two locations in each district, it has also commissioned Fukushima Saisei no Kai to conduct more detailed measurements.

The organization's vehicle is driven by village residents who commute from where they have evacuated to, such as Minami-Soma or Fukushima cities.

Twice a month in each district, group members conduct measurements along almost all areas along roads where residents lived.

Average radiation levels for each 100-meter-square area have been posted on the group's website.

The near-term goal of the Iitate village government is to encourage residents to return with the planned lifting in March 2016 of the evacuation order. However, residents cannot erase concerns about radiation effects on their health as well as questions about the possibility of resuming agriculture.

Local farmer Muneo Kanno, 64, established Fukushima Saisei no Kai three months after the March 2011 accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant along with scientists and friends. Kanno felt that scientific data would be needed to decide whether to return to Iitate and resume farming.

"In order to tie it with the resurrection of the community, it will be important to have local residents directly involved," he said.

Residents of the Okubo-Yosouchi district in central Iitate began measuring radiation levels near their homes and in the farm fields from 2013. The catalyst was the monthly meetings that were held for the 14 households in the hamlet that had gone their separate ways after the evacuation order was issued.

At those meetings, residents were curious about the radiation levels. However, some said the central government could not be trusted, so they decided they had to check for themselves what the radiation levels were.

Immediately after the nuclear accident, the residents were slow to evacuate because they were not informed by the central government about the estimated spread of radioactive materials.

Masuo Nagasho, 67, a former village government employee, suggested residents conduct their own measurements.

"The attraction of the village was the people," he said. "What I most regretted was the destruction of ties between people and the life of the community that had led before to working together for festivals and rice planting."

In 2014, the monitoring effort spread to the entire district, which has about 70 households. The measurement has provided the perfect opportunity for residents to maintain their neighborly ties by having lunch together. The meals are provided by a local women's group.

TARGETING WATERS OFF NUCLEAR PLANT

Another citizens' group, Umilabo, has been monitoring radiation levels off the coast of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant since November 2013.

One member, Riken Komatsu, 35, works at a fishcake manufacturing plant in Iwaki. He was born and grew up in the area, but when customers asked about the safety of the fish being used, he could only pass along data collected by Tokyo Electric Power Co., the Fukushima No. 1 plant operator, and the Fukushima prefectural government.

"I wanted to go out into the ocean and pass along data I was certain about," Komatsu said.

He and other fishing enthusiasts began the project to collect soil from the seabed and fish, which were taken to the local aquarium for measurement of the amount of radioactive materials they contained.

In November 2014, 10 flatfish were caught about 1.5 kilometers off the coast from the nuclear power plant. Radioactive materials tend to accumulate in flatfish because it lives near the seabed. Although radioactive cesium was detected in five of the 10 flatfish, the concentration was less than half of the standard in the Food Sanitation Law of 100 becquerels or less per kilogram.

There has been no detection of radioactive materials for almost all of the fish born after the nuclear accident.

In the Oguni neighborhood of Date city's Ryozenmachi district, a resident's group began taking airborne radiation level measurements from six months after the nuclear accident. Data for each 100-meter-square area were listed on a map, and the information has been updated annually since.

"The radiation has no color or smell, but the map has enabled us to see it," said Soyo Sato, 66, who heads the group.

The neighborhood has a mix of households that were designated for evacuation because of high radiation levels as well as those that were not so designated. Residents who were exempt from the designation used the data on the map to argue that there was very little difference in radiation levels with areas designated for evacuation.

That led to a settlement with TEPCO for compensation levels that were close to those offered to residents living in the designated areas.

Hideki Ishii, a project associate professor of landscape architecture at Fukushima University, has provided support for self-monitoring efforts.

"When residents see the actual data for their community that they collected, they will think more seriously about whether people can live there and if the compensation levels offered are appropriate," Ishii said. "It also fosters the ability to not only think about the current situation, but also the future."

(This article was written by Yukiko Seino and Yu Kotsubo.)

Source (http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201502080025)

###

I hope this was useful to someone.

-- Pan

Rozzy

2nd April 2015, 05:15

It is a pretty hard sell to try and down play the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the worst nuclear incident in history, ENE is read every day even by Arnie Gunderson who expands and goes into more detail on the information there.
On caravan to Midnight episode 257 (March 27 2015) there is a great interview with Arnie Gunderson on the Fukishima situation.

thepainterdoug

2nd April 2015, 17:26

this is ,or at least should be the greatest most urgent and dire event / topic for discussion for all on planet earth.
the only reasons I can see that it is not are ; 1 radiation is truly not as harmful as we were told years ago, or 2, that this is so bad and such a disaster etc, that there is nothing that can be done and so telling the truth about it would cause only harm for the business money paradigm etc. the relatively smaller 3 mile island incident was publicized every night on the 6 pm news as the gravest of disasters with instructions to stay in doors, wash veggies etc. today fukushima is barely mentioned.

we were also told that radiation from the van allen belt is so deadly it cant be navigated, yet we went to the moon and all turned out just fine. so which is it, deadly or not?

i have a good quality radiation detector and I brought it on a flight from east coast of USA to Mexico across the gulf. the meter read 40 background radiation before i took off and close to 900 when at 3500 feet. good god that seems high. how do pilots and flight attendants live with that exposure every day? unless of course, its harmless??

Selkie

2nd April 2015, 22:28

...unless of course, its harmless??

If it wasn't harmless, would anyone be living in Hiroshima or Nagasaki today? The Japanese have real, live experience with living in supposedly nuclear-polluted areas**. Maybe that's why their reaction to Fukushima is so much less hysterical than Americans'.

**Not to mention Utah and Nevada, which were used to test bombs for years. For years and years, the PTB made and tested "dirty" bombs (bombs with supposedly very deadly fission products) in Utah and Nevada. The dirtier the better, in their eyes...with many, many of those tests above-ground. And yet, Utah and Nevada are not nuclear waste-lands.

Long story short, the oil barons are terrified of nuclear power, and will do everything in their power (no pun intended) to discredit it.

Rozzy

3rd April 2015, 03:26

Yes the Japenese people have suffered and are suffering the effects of nuclear radiation, immediately after the nuclear tests in The States lung cancer and children's cancer went way up. John Wayne and others from a contaminated movie site did not fare to well. Hughes who had bankrolled the movie had checked with the authorities as to whether it was safe or not was told it was AOK. There is no safe way of doing nuclear anything, to this day there is no safe way of dealing with spent fuel, they just keep storing it up. That is like a time bomb that gets bigger by the day. There are sites in both India and China that are highly radioactive to this day from a prior nuclear age. The Sinai peninsula is another place that shows the aftermath of a nuclear event from days gone by.
Town sites outside the nuclear test sites in America saw their natural radiation levels go from around twenty counts per minute to one hundred thousand and what did they blame for the cancer rate increase, blame smoking.

Rozzy

3rd April 2015, 03:44

panopticon

3rd April 2015, 06:07

i have a good quality radiation detector and I brought it on a flight from east coast of USA to Mexico across the gulf. the meter read 40 background radiation before i took off and close to 900 when at 3500 feet. good god that seems high. how do pilots and flight attendants live with that exposure every day? unless of course, its harmless??

Seems like standard measurements (I'm assuming the measurements are CPM and 3,500 feet should read 35,000 ft).

Here's an article I found about someone taking measurements in flight:
https://allegedlyapparent.wordpress.com/2015/03/06/geiger-counter-data-from-airplane-flights-denver-atlanta-amsterdam/

Also here's a good site that explains the danger to flight/cabin crew on commercial flights (hint: it's very low):
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html

The danger associated with radiation is dependent on type of radiation (alpha/beta/gamma), level of radiation & length of exposure to it.

It isn't simply "radiation is bad" or "radiation is good".

It depends on dose as to whether it is harmful and at very low levels it's possible that some may even be beneficial (low dose radiation hormesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis)).

-- Pan

Selkie

3rd April 2015, 11:00

...There are sites in both India and China that are highly radioactive to this day from a prior nuclear age. The Sinai peninsula is another place that shows the aftermath of a nuclear event from days gone by.

I didn't say that certain sites are not radioactive. I said that the radioactivity does not appear to be harmful, since people are living and thriving in places that were bombed and that SHOULD be uninhabitable, if the conventional "wisdom" about nuclear radiation is correct.

...Town sites outside the nuclear test sites in America saw their natural radiation levels go from around twenty counts per minute to one hundred thousand and what did they blame for the cancer rate increase, blame smoking.

I take you to mean their background radiation levels, which would not increase because of a bomb.

But to address what I think you are trying to say, the cancers could have been caused by nano-sized silica and other particulates from the fallout. All bombs produce nanoparticles, and I would bet the farm that it is these that are responsible for the increased cancer rates in the fallout zones after the tests, and not radiation at all, because nanoparticles are known to be very dangerous to health.

Nanoparticles can enter cells and slice the DNA to ribbons, which could cause cancer. Not only that, but bomb-produced nanoparticles would be coated with foreign genes from the DNA of plants and animals that were blown to bits by the bombs. When breathed in, etc., this would introduce foreign genes into a person's cells, which could cause all kinds of havoc at the molecular and cellular level, and cause cancer.**

As an aside, it is my belief that the horrible birth defects seen in Iraq have very little to do with DU and everything to do with nanoparticles of silica coated with a witch's brew of genes of every description getting into the reproductive systems of the women and men there.

**Smoking, too, introduces nanoparticles into the lungs.

Rozzy

3rd April 2015, 13:29

panopticon

3rd April 2015, 14:04

Just to clarify what I said above.

When I said:

It depends on dose as to whether it is harmful and at very low levels it's possible that some may even be beneficial
What I was talking about was low level above background.

There have been a number of really interesting studies done on what effect a lack of low level radiation has and it can be summed up:

Our findings corroborate the hypothesis that environmental radiation contributes to the development of defence mechanisms in today living organisms/systems.

E Fratini, C Carbone, D Capece, G Esposito, G Simone, MA Tabocchini, M Tomasi, M Belli, and L Satta. 2015. 'Low-radiation environment affects the development of protection mechanisms in V79 cells (http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maurizio_Tomasi2/publication/273381036_Low- radiation_environment_affects_the_development_of_protection_mechanisms_in_V79_cells/links/54ff7ce50cf2741b69f86336.pdf)', Radiation and environmental biophysics, January: 1-12
These studies indicate, as we would all understand, that life on Earth has developed being exposed to background levels. Without that background level it appears vital systems/protection mechanisms don't function properly.

Just thought I'd clear that up as it indicates that the LNT model may be inadequate for its purpose:

The risk estimation for radiation-induced cancer at low doses is based on the linear no-threshold (LNT) model... According to this model, cancer risk is directly proportional to the radiation dose, no matter how small. Nevertheless, phenomena like adaptive response, genomic instability, and bystander effects, have been observed at low doses that challenged this assumption. All these phenomena imply a deviation from the linear no-threshold (LNT) model of cancer risk. However, it is still an open question if the final effect at organism level of doses below 100mGy is detrimental or beneficial.

D Capece, E Fratini. 2012. 'The use of pKZ1 mouse chromosomal inversion assay to study biological effects of environmental background radiation (http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/paperbot/The%20use%20of%20pKZ1%20mouse%20chromosomal%20inversion%20assay%20to%20study%20biological%20effects% 20of%20environmental%20background%20radiation.pdf)', The European Physical Journal Plus, 127(4): 1-5.
Of course the precautionary principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle) applies in bucket loads in this instance and while there is evidence that a lack of any radiation (ie background) is bad for development there is very little evidence indicating that low levels above background is beneficial other than anecdotal and occasional papers. The papers and studies being done into this, that I've read anyway, do not all show a positive trend nor do they indicate what radiation type, level or duration might be beneficial in what circumstances.

Accordingly, the precautionary principle means that the LNT model is here for at least a while yet.

-- Pan

panopticon

3rd April 2015, 14:55

Increased radiation levels equal health risk, there are a lot of things that are not good for a persons health but nuclear is a technology that goes beyond exceptable risk. Many nuke plants are forty years old and at the end of their life, the owners are looking for twenty year extensions. these old plants are not designed well in the first place never mind extending their use. The processing plants for spent uranium that were promised never materialized and will not because there is no process to do it to this day. The nuclear accidents we have already realized and witnessed should be enough already. The military nuclear programs are proliferating and will with out any doubt be our number one threat to survival. Because you can do something does not mean you should.

G'day Rozzy,

I agree with your sentiment.

I'm not in favour of nuclear power plants. I see little need for them given recent advances in renewables.

Yes, most of the older plants appear to be maintenance nightmares. There's a thread here where I showed how TEPCO was using an orange traffic cone in what appeared to be a waste water diversion. From memory I think it was held on by gaffe tap...

The other things that have been done on site @Fukushima I've written about extensively here and truly am amazed that the rod removal from coolent pool #4 reactor didn't end in a tragedy. It is more good luck I think than anything else. Don't get me started on the waste water tanks there. Absolutely shocking!

The reason I keep rabbiting on about radiation levels and observations is that there is a lot of disinformation being spread by vested interests.

Fukushima was a terrible accident that will have long lasting ramifications for the people of Japan. Yes, the people of Japan who live/lived near the accident site or the fishers who work/worked the waters off the coast have been/will be effected by this for years to come. As will the other parts of the natural environment (near the accident site) to varying levels.

What has happened though is groups who make (or are trying to make) money from advertising or selling certain items have tried to make this seem a lot bigger than it is.

The levels of Cs-127 that are being recorded in the waters off the US West coast are not much changed (if they are at all) and most sites are still not getting any usable Cs-124 readings.

When I point out the errors in posts made by some members here (often quoted from elsewhere) it seems people want to believe that Fukushima is worse than it is.

I don't understand that. It's well beyond my comprehension.

2 reactor cores melted at Fukushima. That's already pretty bloody bad. But for people to be saying that it's doing all sorts of things just to spread fear and/or make money from scared people...

Nah, I just don't get that. I don't think I ever will, at least I hope I won't...

From your posts you seem genuinely concerned (not a "chicken little") which is why I've been responding to this thread.

Yes, there are genuine reasons we should all be anti-nuclear weapons. I personally feel the same about nuclear power though others disagree and that's fine.

I hope this was useful.

-- Pan

Rozzy

6th April 2015, 04:49

panopticon

6th April 2015, 08:11

I wish I had more time to be current on a host of subjects of interest but duty calls on staying afloat $$$$, (like most folks right now). There seems to be a push on for even more nuclear development though there seems to be precious little advancement in some of the most pressing issues with its use. Since nuclear is now old tech and seeing the other technological advances developing at such accelerated rates I am sure we could leave nuclear to the record books of the past where it belongs. The issue of introducing new technology is always based on how to make the most $$ and make it flow to the usual suspects. Military use and the secreting of the same trumps the good of the planet, mankind and life itself. Nuclear is like trying to drive a Model T Ford on one of todays freeways.

G'day Rozzy,

I know what you mean.

There are so many things that I research/watch that sometimes I just can't keep track of anything else (for example the recent Germanwings crash was one of those things getting limited attention because of my interest in Ocalan's recent statement to the PKK and how that is playing with Turkey etc).

Also it's too easy at Avalon to end up in a long circular discussion about something almost trivial, which then takes hours to explain and ends in stonewall and argument based on little to no evidence other than personal opinion...

I try to avoid those. :bolt:

I've been reviewing the data from a number of sources about the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident since it occurred and watched some fairly weird statements (fear mongering in many cases) coming out about it from some vested interests.

The data I've seen indicates that there was a number of explosions associated with the melt-downs. The main explosion appears to have been the result of a build-up of pressure in damaged pipes between reactor #3 & #4 buildings exhaust stack. This is contrary to what was reported at the time, a hydrogen explosion in #4. The vented gas from this explosion is what produced the various isotopes that were detected in the surrounding area as well as in very low (almost below detectable) levels on the US West Coast.

Following the eventual containment of the immediate danger a large volume of radioactive water (that had been used to cool the reactors) had been released into the ocean off-shore from the site. The levels of contamination varied with depth (for example some sea floor fish & crustacean near the accident had moderately high levels in some instances while some fish living higher in the ocean had lower levels) and currents moving it around. There were a number of models formulated to predict the "concentration" of the radioactive "plume" and its movement in the Pacific.

The level of Caesium-134 indicates whether anything detected is from Fukushima (not earlier nuclear bomb testing). So far (last I saw anyway) the tests indicated that radiation from Fukushima had just started reaching the US West Coast but was only just above normal ocean background levels. The testings from WHOI can be seen here (http://www.ourradioactiveocean.org/results.html).

Pre-Fukushima Caesium-137 levels (background from nuclear bomb testing, waste nuclear fuel dumping & natural sources):

http://www.ourradioactiveocean.org/images/OceanRadiationMap3.jpg

The "plume" has not caused a "radioactive dead zone", this was a misrepresentation of research undertaken into something completely different...

There have been some disturbing radiation levels detected in some fish caught off Fukushima though these levels have decreased to almost background.

The ongoing problems with storage/processing of radioactive water at Fukushima is something that really does deserve attention as is the problems associated with rainwater run-off (particularly from area H1 and the associated drainage ditch).

Then there's what I see as the next main problem, since the spent fuel assemblies have finally been removed from reactor #4's pool, which is what the hell is going to be done with the melted cores! This is finally starting to get a bit of attention and really is a huge deal. The only real option I see is to cover it and try to stop ground water getting in and moving through to the ocean...

All of these are local problems that will impact on people living near the site. All of them are problems that need world wide attention.

Anyway, I agree with everything you've said about nuclear energy.

There are lots of cleaner ways to produce electricity that have zero long term risk to the environment.

As has been said by someone a lot brighter than I am:

Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil water.

-- Pan

ZooLife

8th April 2015, 19:59

panopticon

10th April 2015, 14:01

Hitting ever so close to home.....

Scientists Detect Fukushima Radiation on North American Shores – Humans Exposed through Seafood Consumption? (http://www.globalresearch.ca/scientists-detect-fukushima-radiation-on-north-american-shores-humans-exposed-through-seafood-consumption/5441374)

To answer the question: Humans exposed through seafood consumption?

No. The levels (at the moment as well as predicted) are too low to be harmful.

The sources of the information referenced by Enenews.

http://ourradioactiveocean.org/
http://www.whoi.edu/maps/kbuessler/fukushimaMap.do

Plus the awesome blog by Dr Jay Cullen:
http://www.dailykos.com/blog/MarineChemist

Dr Cullen also assists with the Integrated Fukushima Ocean Radionuclide Monitoring (InFORM) Network:
http://fukushimainform.ca/

Cullen states:

These levels of Cs-137 and Cs-134, are well below internationally established levels that might represent a danger to human or environmental health.
Source (http://fukushimainform.ca/2015/04/06/fukushima-contamination-detected-at-shoreline-in-british-columbia/)

Of course Dr Ken Buesseler (from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute [WHOI]) is the primary source for almost all the data being used (he also organises the Citizen sampling/crowd funding for Our Radioactive Oceans).

Here's the WHOI news release being referenced by Enenews.

-- Pan

###

Trace Amounts of Fukushima Radioactivity Detected Along Shoreline of British Columbia (http://www.whoi.edu/news-release/fukushima-ucluelet)
6th April 2015

Scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) have for the first time detected the presence of small amounts of radioactivity from the 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident in a seawater sample from the shoreline of North America. The sample, which was collected on February 19 in Ucluelet, British Columbia, with the assistance of the Ucluelet Aquarium, contained trace amounts of cesium (Cs) -134 and -137, well below internationally established levels of concern to humans and marine life.

The WHOI scientists, with the help of citizen volunteers, have collected samples at more than 60 sites along the U.S. and Canadian West Coast and Hawaii over the past 15 months for traces of radioactive isotopes from Fukushima. Last November, the team reported their first sample containing detectable radioactivity from Fukushima 100 miles (150 km) off shore of Northern California. However, no radiation had yet been found along any of the beaches or shorelines where the public has been sampling since 2013.

“Radioactivity can be dangerous, and we should be carefully monitoring the oceans after what is certainly the largest accidental release of radioactive contaminants to the oceans in history,” said Ken Buesseler, a marine chemist at WHOI who has been measuring levels of radioactivity in seawater samples from across the Pacific since 2011. “However, the levels we detected in Ucluelet are extremely low.”

Scientists at WHOI are analyzing samples for two forms of radioactive cesium that can only come from human sources. Cesium-137, the “legacy” cesium that remains after atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, is found in all the world's oceans because of its relatively long, 30-year half-life. This means it takes 30 years for one-half of the cesium-137 in a sample to decay. The Fukushima reactors added unprecedented amounts of cesium-137 into the ocean, as well as equal amounts of cesium-134. Because cesium-134 has a two-year half-life, any cesium-134 detected in the ocean today can only have been added recently—and the only recent source of cesium-134 has been Fukushima.

The Ucluelet sample contained 1.4 Becquerels per cubic meter (Bq/m3) (the number of decay events per second per 260 gallons of water) of cesium-134, a telltale sign of having come from Fukushima, and 5.8 Bq/m3 of cesium-137. These levels are comparable to those measured 100 miles off the coast of Northern California last summer. If someone were to swim for 6 hours a day every day of the year in water that contained levels of cesium twice as high as the Ucluelet sample, the radiation dose they would receive would still be more than one thousand times less than that of a single dental x-ray.

Monitoring Effort

Buesseler has had to rely on a crowd-funding and citizen-science initiative known as "Our Radioactive Ocean" to collect samples because no U.S. federal agency is responsible for monitoring radiation in coastal waters. The results are publicly available on the website OurRadioactiveOcean.org.

“We expect more of the sites will show detectable levels of cesium-134 in coming months, but ocean currents and exchange between offshore and coastal waters is quite complex,” said Buesseler, “Predicting the spread of radiation becomes more complex the closer it gets to the coast and we need the public’s help to continue this sampling network.”

Recent partnerships between Buesseler's group and a Canadian-funded program called InFORM, led by Jay Cullen at the University of Victoria, Canada, has added more than a dozen monitoring stations along the coast of British Columbia. In addition, upcoming cruises with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, will add more than 10 new sampling sites offshore. Also in 2015, a National Science Foundation-sponsored project led by WHOI physical oceanographer Alison Macdonald includes funding to analyze more than 250 seawater samples collected on a research ship travelling this May between Hawaii and the Aleutian Islands, Alaska.

Source (http://www.whoi.edu/news-release/fukushima-ucluelet)