Hidden gov’t forecast shows Fukushima contamination spread throughout Northern Pacific Ocean in 5 years (VIDEO)

Published: November 29th, 2013 at 1:56 pm ET


China-Korea Cooperation on the Development of Ocean Monitoring and Prediction System of Radionuclides, 2013: In this study we are concerned with long-term oceanic-scale dispersion of Cs 137 released from the Fukushima Daiichi NPP. […] the simulation is carried out up to 2041.

(This animation was left on the server and found by randomly typing in guesses for the URL address. Note that the ocean releases used for this model appear to end soon after 3/11. This means the daily release of 400 tons of radioactive water that’s likely been ongoing since the disaster began is not being accounted for.)

The model that is available for public viewing on the joint Chinese/Korean website was recently published here: [intlink id=”govt-model-shows-west-coast-of-n-america-to-get-highest-level-of-fukushima-contamination-until-2030s-video” type=”post”]{{empty}}[/intlink]

Published: November 29th, 2013 at 1:56 pm ET


Related Posts

  1. Gov’t model shows Fukushima radioactive gas near Tokyo skyrocketed to 10,000,000,000 times normal levels soon after 3/11 – “Very high concentrations” recorded at all monitoring posts in northern hemisphere (VIDEO) March 18, 2015
  2. Nuclear Expert: Biggest concern at Fukushima is the huge source of radioactivity from molten fuel and spent fuel pools winding up in ocean — “The health of the entire Northern Pacific is at stake” (AUDIO) September 7, 2013
  3. Fukushima Daiichi Worker: Contamination is still spreading around from plant — Significantly high levels may be spread during decommissioning work January 23, 2013
  4. “Fukushima, the world’s permanent headache” — Gundersen: It will be bleeding into Pacific for next 100 years — ABC: “Greatest nuclear contamination of the ocean in history… it can’t be quantified… it’s a global issue” (AUDIO) June 10, 2014
  5. Reporter in Japan: There is concern over Fukushima contamination polluting entire world, at least the Pacific Ocean (VIDEO) September 1, 2013

46 comments to Hidden gov’t forecast shows Fukushima contamination spread throughout Northern Pacific Ocean in 5 years (VIDEO)


    This video posted here makes be very MAD!


  • papacares papacares

    will anything be left after the next 5 years? from


    Published Nov 28, 2013
    Scientists and conservation groups are worried the crash in West Coast sardines that has triggered deep cutbacks in commercial fishing is also starving brown pelicans that feed off California, Oregon and Washington.

    Federal budget cuts have left scientists unable to do the research to figure out exactly what is going on. But the bits and pieces emerging don't look good.

    • Gradius

      I think we have no more than 20 years. 5 years is like tomorrow, so I don't think so. 20 years is more plausible, symptons takes 3~6 years to develop. Millions are living-dead in Japan, the trigger will be around 2016~2017. They will have a HUGE problem with so many bodies. ALL full of diseases and even NEW diseases.

      • We Not They Finally

        Five years actually isn't "tomorrow." The cancer rates will be going up far before there. It will just get worse.

      • retali8 retali8

        They usually just burn the bodies in japan anyway, dont believe in grave sites, so that's easily fixed. Well..

        • StPaulScout StPaulScout

          That will ensure an endless supply of radiation wafting thru their cities since it will go up with the smoke. Most of it anyhow, some may stray trapped in the ash. Clever people the Japanese.

      • JackDean

        Hatchlings have a high mortality rate when exposed to small concentrations of radioactive isotopes. This is because the loss of a few cells during early development, can mean the loss of, and critical damage, to entire organs.

        Without small fish, large fish have nothing to eat.
        Large fish can't go twenty years w/o eating.

    • We Not They Finally

      I don't actually "get it." We're sitting here at home seeing exactly what's going on, yet the scientists are all "baffled" due to budget cuts? Was it their brains or their eyes or their common sense that got cut from the budget?

      • HoTaters HoTaters

        No, IMO it's the "scientific process" at work. Studies take a very long time to do. Peer review tends to stifle ideas and concepts which don't go along with the status quo. Researchers are beholden to those providing the funding for their projects. Bottom line is it takes years to get scientific studies done, and a long time to get the results of the studies out into the public domain.

        • HoTaters HoTaters

          By the time the researchers' lights finally go on and they Bingo! realize the problem is likely related to radiation, it will be too late.

          Plus you have MSM and many prominent institutions of learning (like MIT) repeating there is negligible risk from exposure to "low level" radiation.

          The institutional model of radiation exposure, and the prevailing belief it's likely not (or not immediately) harmful has hamstrung researchers. Many are likely just brainwashed like the rest of us were. They just can't think outside the box, unless a new, giant and different box appears right in front of them, where it cannot escape their notice.

          • HoTaters HoTaters

            Too bad the "linear no dose threshold model" of radiation exposure hasn't gotten more exposure.

            Personally, I suspect corporate and government funding of research has steered it away from looking into things which really need to be examined.

            The current power system surrounding nuclear energy and nuclear weaponry, the power structure and funding of the petrochemical industry, hinders research. Those with vested interests in those systems don't want serious examination of their practices, nor the effects of their industries upon the public, or the biosphere.

  • jec jec

    I hope someone has thought that its not JUST CESIUM in this terrible mess of radiation…!!!!

  • 富岡_Blue_Heron 富岡_Blue_Heron

    Hope China has the sense to shut down their nukes or at the very least shut down ot *relocate* any seaside plants. I've been thinking about someone's post that opined the only reason for "nuclear power" is military, and of or-well's poem: "…Even if we went back to fighting with sticks[….]No one can predict[…]the synergistic effects…

    Why risk it folks? Aren't nerf balls and foamy swords preferable? When I was a kid we made chicken wire and stone forts and used old doors as shields and threw rocks at each other. It was a lot of fun as I recall and we were probably lucky no one was injured as I recall (We bundled up like crazy – helmets and masks as well). And not as safe as paint-ball! What is wrong with people that they need to kick it up a notch, generate real and lasting offensive machinery and ammunition, real, virtual and spiritual?

  • dka

    Poor research forgets that more and more contamination is entering the Pacific from fujkujshima, the problem did not stop after the explosions on 3-17, it started from there.

  • timemachine2020 timemachine2020

    Multiply by 1000 and you might be closer to reality. There ain't no fixin this one.


  • Gradius

    Fukushima = 100,000 times worse than Chernobyl.

  • Bowtieman Bowtieman

    Evil has no boundaries …Where is safe going to be?

  • Fred

    The model is crap. The ocean has rivers of moving water from Japan up across the Aleutians and down the West Coast returning N of the Equator in a circulation. The radiation in the water will follow that path, not just flow uniformly across all those currents and eddy currents. Water doesn't flow across the oceans AT ALL like this kiddie movie shows. Even the airflow, the Jet Stream, would never be like that….The planet would have to be permanently dead still, not rotating, not circling the sun to produce that model nonsense…..

  • weeman

    As you know all these models are only from inisual accident and data was supplied by Tepco.
    My question is what do you think the percentage of total release to date does that account for.
    60 percent from first weeks and forty percent since? This is the million dollar question, not a clue?

  • nuknomore nuknomore

    Why do the leaders of the world allow one company to do this? This impacts the United States .. The whole west coast of America.. Will be effected. And yet "nothing".. ??
    Crickets chirping.. "nothing"…? 🙁
    Boggles the mind…

    • We Not They Finally

      I think that maybe the operative word is "cabal," not one company. It's an international consortium of very bad high-powered people. GE alone seems to have tentacles here, there, everywhere. And the World Health Organization is beholden to the IAEA, which there to PROMOTE nuclear energy, not regulate it.

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    Governments got us into this mess in the first place. They blew it.

  • Socrates

    If I were part of an international cabal that owned uranium mines, reprocessed plutonium, manufactured armaments, manufactured nuclear reactors, I would want to cover up the damages done to people and their environment by controlling the press, which I would also own or control, and I would control the scientific research through punishing scientists who were publishing honest research by withholding research grants. Then I would ram through laws punishing reporters who did not toe the official line. I would also discipline physicians who made diagnoses of cancer or who expressed opinions as to what probably caused the cancer, disease, developmental defect or mutation.

    I would be sure to begin censorship of anti nuclear websites and punish bloggers under state secrets laws.

    There are many trillions at stake. Oh, they have already thought of these measures? My bad.

    • nedlifromvermont

      You must be reading from the management playbook at national champion company, General Electric Company …

      intelligent machines my ass!

      six sigma yourself, Jeffy Immelt!

  • Max1 Max1

    I have been asking the same question:

    Sure, dilution…
    … Up to what SATURATION point?

    The solution is NEVER over saturation of the pollution in the Pacific…

  • 5 'more' years?

    It's already here and is continuing to bio-accumulate.

    NBC Nightly News tonight.
    Ocean Mystery: Disease Killing Starfish

    The scientists says that he had probably 100 emails asking about Fukushima, "…because of radiation, we haven't ruled that out yet, but we are clearly not ruling that in…".

    I'm not sure what that statement means exactly.

    How long does it take to test for radiation?

    I amazed that the words radiation and Fukushima were uttered at all on the national news. 😉

    • Additional note:

      In the NBC video the expert says the fish tanks inside the Monterrey Aquarium uses water from the ocean and his starfish have gotten sick too.

      What about sea water desalination for drinking water?
      It's not designed to remove radiation.

      Ships at sea use this process.
      Military and commercial cruise lines.

      • JackDean

        Radiation comes from chemicals.

        The desalination removes the salts, which produce the radiation.
        The only isotope they can't remove is tritium in heavy water, but the concentrations of that will be too small to worry about.

  • wetpwcas1 wetpwcas1

    Today should be called Black & Yellow Friday!

  • HoTaters HoTaters

    Fox News downplays the risk to North America:


    Is it safe? Radioactive Japanese wave nears US

    By Maxim Lott
    Published November 29, 2013

    The last four short paragraphs:

    "In the end, some experts say, Japanese near the Fukushima reactor have reason to worry — a World Health Organization report found that the likelihood of a Japanese infant living near Fukushima getting thyroid cancer over her lifetime is expected to increase from the standard 0.75 percent to 1.25 percent — but Americans do not.

    'There should be no concern among Americans, of any age or location,' Gilbert Ross, executive director of the American Council on Science and Health, told FoxNews.com.

    'If you want to list health concerns that Americans should worry about, start with the real killers — drunk driving and smoking,' Ross said.

    'If you went down a list of things people really should worry about, you would never even get to a concern about radiation leakage from Fukushima.' "

    • HoTaters HoTaters

      From the Sourcewatch.org review on American Council on Science and Health website:


      "To its credit, it has taken a strong public position against the dangers of tobacco, one of the leading preventable causes of death in today's society. However, it takes a generally apologetic stance regarding virtually every other health and environmental hazard produced by modern industry, accepting corporate funding from Coca-Cola, Kellogg, General Mills, Pepsico, and the American Beverage Association, among others."


      Check out their publications page:


      Just love the title of this one:

      Enjoy your holiday dinner — chemicals and all!
      Posted on November 21, 2013

      "Moreover, all chemicals, whether natural or synthetic, are potential toxicants at high doses but are perfectly safe when consumed in low doses. Take common table salt, for example: This everyday chemical, when consumed in excess, can cause elevations in blood pressure in sensitive individuals; a couple of tablespoonsful can kill a small child. Selenium, a mineral essential in the human diet, can cause nausea and nerve changes when chronically consumed in excess. The familiar stimulant caffeine is also a toxicant if consumed in high doses (say, 50 to 100 cups of coffee per day)….

      When it comes to toxicants in the diet—natural or synthetic—the dose makes the poison."

  • Urban27

    Cant help thinking that US once put two bombs on Japan…

  • cooterboy

    When will the sleeping giant wake up?
    When will the sleeping giant take notice of it's citizens concerns?
    When will the sleeping giant take a stand?

    Never will the sleeping giant awaken.
    Never will the greatest ocean be plentiful.
    Never will the children see an old age.

    Ignoring the laws of nature have come full circle. The Mayan's were right about a new beginning. How painful these coming years will be for all of gods creations.


  • nuclear_genie nuclear_genie

    How much radioactivity is in the plume? Most radioactivity in seawater is from Potassium 40, about 11 Bq/L or 11,000 Bq/m3. There is also 1,100 Bq/m3 of Rubidium 87 and 6 Bq/m3 of Tritium, which is caused by cosmic rays interaction with oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere


    So how much radioactivity is in the plume? From this study:


    "Based on our source function of 22 Bq/m3, which sits at the upper range of the published estimates, waters with Cs-137 concentrations >10 Bq/m3 are projected to reach the northwestern American coast and the Hawaiian archipelago by early 2014. Driven by quasi-zonal oceanic jets, shelf waters north of 45°N experience Cs-137 levels of 10–30 Bq/m3 between 2014 and 2020, while the Californian coast is projected to see lower concentrations (10–20 Bq/m3) slightly later (2016–2025)."

    It is easy to see that the radioactivity of seawater attributable to the plume will be minor, about 0.001-0.003 Bq/l. For comparison, the EPA allows about 0.2 Bq/l of Radon in drinking water, or about 100 times as much.

    A study of the release of Strontium 90 and Strontium 89.


    Hope this helps.