Highly radioactive dust in Fukushima town — “Off the scale… radiation level beyond its capacity” (VIDEO)

Published: June 2nd, 2013 at 2:31 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
490 comments


Title: 2013.4.6 Namie street dust 86.09μSv/h at 1cm above ground
Source: Birdhairjp
Date Published: June 2, 2013

A very small portion of the sample have been sent to a certain laboratory for analysis. [...]

On 6 Apr 2013, I measured radiation in front of a temple of Onoda area, Namie town of Fukushima prefecture Japan.

I monitored 7.97 micro Sievert per hour in air at chest hight standing on the grass.

I measured 86.09 micro Sievert per hour 1cm from road side dust. [...]

The monitoring place is 10km (corrected from 17 km) from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear power plant. [...]

Watch the video here

Published: June 2nd, 2013 at 2:31 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
490 comments

Related Posts

  1. Report: Over 200,000 Bq/kg of radioactive cesium in dust from outside Fukushima Prefecture January 6, 2013
  2. Radioactive dust reported in Tokyo after recent fog — Over 4,000 Bq/kg of cesium — “Contamination never disappear, be careful” March 21, 2013
  3. Mayor: “Particles were falling on us from the sky… radioactive dust” after Fukushima Unit 1 exploded — I’m not sure if this is related but I have a cyst in my thyroid (VIDEO) January 4, 2013
  4. Watch: Local Fukushima official films radioactive whirlwind — “All black dust has been also blown away” (VIDEO) April 26, 2012
  5. Japan Times: Radiation level in Fukushima town 400 times higher than in Tokyo — 10 kilometers from Daiichi May 18, 2013

490 comments to Highly radioactive dust in Fukushima town — “Off the scale… radiation level beyond its capacity” (VIDEO)

  • pollytickle1 pollytickle1

    Looks like he found the corium.


    Report comment

    • CIA Lost A Plutonium Spying Device In Nanda Devi; Contaminating The Ganges River; via @AGreenRoad
      http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/06/cia-lost-plutonium-spying-device-in.html


      Report comment

      • Depleted Uranium Effects In The Human Body; via @AGreenRoad
        http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/depleted-uranium-effects-in-human-body.html

        Could be uranium, could be plutonium, could be one hundred other things… all of them deadly dangerous.

        This is another mystery that the pro nuclear apologists and scientists do NOT want you to know anything about.


        Report comment

      • KitemanSA

        Don't freak out TOO much. Can't make a bomb with Pu238. And it will be gone in 900 years. Not welcome news, but not a disaster either.


        Report comment

        • Plutonium is an interesting substance.. One hot nano particle of it will kill you if it is inside of you…

          How many people can 4 pounds of plutonium kill if it is ground up into fine particles and distributed downstream, and/or blown about by the wind?

          A couple billion, maybe just a few million?

          Plutonium is what is made into MOX fuel, which is what blew up at Fukushima, putting about 400 pounds of plutonium nano dust up into the upper atmosphere..

          We will see how harmless this substance is, in the next few years.

          Dog studies show a close to 100% mortality from even nano sized doses inhaled…

          Maybe it is time to freak out just a wee bit.


          Report comment

          • PhilipUpNorth PhilipUpNorth

            "Maybe it is time to freak out just a wee bit." AGreenRoad said.

            :)
            Love it, AGR!
            Keep it cming..


            Report comment

          • KitemanSA

            Too many things to reply to so I'll stick with the MOX fuel. The MOX was in the SNF pool. None of it "blew up".

            The pool went partially dry, the bundles heated up, the zircalloy cladding burned in the remaining water which evolved Hydrogen gas. It is the Hydrogen that blew up.

            Do you have ANY credible sources that indicate ANY Plutonium got out? Link please?

            Anyway, the whole "burning zircalloy" bit is why I VASTLY prefer Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers. They can burn up the Plutonium produced by water cooled reactors and rid the world of it for ever.


            Report comment

            • Lion76 Lion76

              Another thorium shill.

              When are you people going to get that "Big Energy" is not the future anymore? the people want wind/solar and they're going to get it. Your days of "rationing" as a middle man are over. No one trusts you anymore, you aren't going to get "business as usual" you "blew it" literally.

              http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium

              http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/documents/THE%20MYTHS%20ABOUT%20THORIUM%20AS%20A%20NUCLEAR%20ENERGY%20SOLUTION.pdf

              http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/nuclear/is-the-superfuel-thorium-riskier-than-we-thought-14821644

              http://enformable.com/2013/04/plutonium-found-outside-of-containment-in-marine-soil-at-fukushima-daiichi/

              http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/05/plutonium-239240-detected-from-2-discharge-channels-and-3km-offshore-of-fukushima-nuclear-plant/
              According to Tepco, Plutonium-239/240 were detected at 3 locations around Fukushima nuclear plant. The sampling dates are early April of 2013.
              they admitted the connection with Fukushima nuclear accident about the Plutonium-239/240 detection from around south discharge channel.

              Given that the density level of Pu-239+Pu-240 detected at 1F, Around South Discharge Channel on
              April 9, 2013 is higher than the past density measurements conducted along the seacoasts of 1F
              and 2F, it can be stated that the presence of these particles is due to the accident.


              Report comment

              • KitemanSA

                I think you will find that most people who support LFTRs are more into the small madular kind that support distributed sources, not "BIG" anything.


                Report comment

                • Lion76 Lion76

                  As people have been discussing the issues surrounding the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster, the future of nuclear power comes up. Frequently someone will show up to the discussion to proclaim thorium will be the savior of the nuclear industry and all of the world’s power needs.

                  The misinformation on thorium is highly promoted by the nuclear industry and various companies that want investment dollars for thorium reactors and fuel. This fairy tale being told about thorium is far from accurate and realistic. The problem becomes worse as uninformed people hear a brief propaganda piece on thorium and pass on that information without any research of their own.

                  One myth is that thorium is safe. Thorium-232 has a half life of 14 billion years (billions, not millions). Thorium-232 is also highly radiotoxic, with the same amount of radioactivity of uranium and thorium, thorium produces a far higher dose in the body. If someone inhaled an amount of thorium the bone surface dose is 200 times higher than if they inhaled the same amount of uranium. Thorium also requires longer spent fuel storage than uranium. With the daughter products of thorium like technetium‐99 with a half life of over 200,000 years, thorium is not safe nor a solution to spent fuel storage issues. http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=3101

                  Who's going to "mine" the fuel for thorium? Big somebody.


                  Report comment

                  • Lion76 Lion76

                    http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/environment/dont-believe-thorium-nuclear-reactor-hype/

                    According to their enthusiastic proponents, these reactors will be “smaller, safer, cheaper, cleaner”, will take over the energy market in great numbers, and

                    …will reinvent the global energy landscape and sketch an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years.

                    Yet the present situation of thorium nuclear reactors is a confusing one. While on the one hand, thorium as a nuclear fuel, and thorium reactors are being hyped with enthusiasm in both mainstream media and the blogosphere, the nuclear lobby is ambivalent about this.

                    The explanation becomes clearer, when you consider that the nuclear industry has sunk $billions into new (uranium or plutonium fuelled) large nuclear technologies, as well as into lobbying governments and media. Would big corporations like Hitachi, EDF Westinghouse, Toshiba, Areva, Rosatom be willing, or indeed able, to withdraw from the giant international operations that they already have underway? Would they, could they, tolerate a mass uptake of the new thorium nuclear reactors — which is what would be needed, to make the thorium market economical?

                    Yet, the nuclear lobby, in Australia and overseas, doesn’t just tolerate the thorium hype, they participate in it — although with not as much enthusiasm as the diehard thorium fans.


                    Report comment

                    • Lion76 Lion76

                      Thorium reactors, like all things nuclear, have challenging regulatory and funding requirements.

                      Which brings us to the economics of thorium reactors.

                      They are promoted as small reactors. The makers have to have contracts for thousands before they can afford to start! Significant and expensive testing, analysis and licensing work is required first, requiring extensive business and government support.

                      The fuel cycle is more costly and the needed protections for workers, plant safety and the public are considerably more than for existing fuels. Compared to uranium, the thorium fuel cycle is likely to be even more costly. In a once-through mode, it will need both uranium enrichment (or plutonium separation) and thorium target rod production. In a breeder configuration, it will need reprocessing, which is costly.

                      As Dr Peter Karamoskos says:

                      Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding. http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/environment/dont-believe-thorium-nuclear-reactor-hype/

                      $$$ not viable, sorry!


                      Report comment

                  • KitemanSA

                    The "nuclear industry" is not in favor of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers LFTRs). Some seem to think they would render all existing plants obsolete. The industry says almost nothing about Thorium and even less about LFTRs. Please quit with that silly boogey-man stuff.

                    The only place I can find that "greater dose in the body" statement is in blogs about the subject or in self referenced "white papers". If you have a scientific source for that statement, please provide it. Until then, the fact that thorium compounds are typically WAY less soluble in water than Uranium leads me to suspect its one of those "IF you could get the same amount in the body it would be worse (but you can't so it isn't)" kind of statements. So, link please.

                    Thorium is a naturally occurring radioactive material. The government has dumped 3600ish tonnes of it in the Nevada desert. No big deal. Technetium-99 is injected with regularity into people for medical imaging purposes. It is considered safe precisely because it HAS such a long half-life.Generally speaking, the LONGER the half-life, the LESS dangerous a material is. Just saying.

                    Actually, the fuel for LFTRs is the radioactive waste left over when mining materials for wind-mills. Without LFT Recyclers, wind mills would release ~8 times as much radioactive waste as WITH LFTRs.


                    Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Lyin 76,
                      Neat trick, replying to yourself until there are no more reply tiers so no-one can rebut your silliness.

                      Dr. PK studiously avoids talking about Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors and condemns the use of Thorium in solid fueled, water cooled reactors. Well, guess what. So do I. It is kind of like condemning diesel fuel cuz it doesn't work well in a gasoline engine. Of course it works FABULOUSLY in a Liquid Fluoride Reactor.

                      So, without exception, Thorium fueled reactors have not proven commercially viable cuz they keep using the wrong reactor. So what?


                      Report comment

                    • Lion76 Lion76

                      It's called "word limits" ya dope.

                      I don't care about your "rebuttals" or other nonsense. Your "opinion" has little bearing on my own. You are no "expert" to me, you are just another little card carrying shill out doing what shills do.

                      Keep living in your "dream world" but everyone can see with their own eyes what "the future" is, and it AIN'T THORIUM.


                      Report comment

                    • 16Penny 16Penny

                      No need for the name calling KitemanSA.

                      "Lyin 76"

                      Please be respectful while attempting to convince people that this dangerous technology is beneficial to society.


                      Report comment

                    • 16Penny 16Penny

                      Damn, you too Lion76. Please keep it above the belt. You prove nothing with that stuff. Don't let them drag you down too.


                      Report comment

                    • Lion76 Lion76

                      Don't "damn me" please, thank you. You are offending me with that, whether you meant to or not.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      kiteman, you have a link about wind generators producing Liquid Fluoride Thorium as a waste product?


                      Report comment

                    • 16Penny 16Penny

                      Lion76, no offense intended. If said verbally there would be a pause where the comma is placed. So more like Doh! you did it too, not meant the way you took it. I'll try to work around using that word in the future.


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      CodeShutdown:
                      Wind turbines are produced using iron-neodymium-boron magnets, almost exclusively. The rare earth element neodymium comes in phosphate complex ores that to all intents always contain Thorium, often in comparable amounts. Currently, there is no significant use for Thorium so it is a waste product. Thorium is the fuel for Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers. QED.
                      Link left as a task for the student.


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Lion76,
                      So you say that nothing can penetrate your impervium skull. Good to know. I won't waste my time on you from now on. But of course there might be some intelligent people out there who might actually learn from the rebuttals, so if you keep shoveling dung, I'll keep rebutting it.
                      Ta!


                      Report comment

                    • Lion76 Lion76

                      you haven't rebutted a damn thing


                      Report comment

                    • Lion76 Lion76

                      again, that's not "radioactive" just because it's "rare earth element" so is your cell phone and laptop batteries. Big deal, mr. straw man argument.

                      Although neodymium is classed as a "rare earth", it is a fairly common element, no rarer than cobalt, nickel, and copper ore, and is widely distributed in the Earth's crust.[2] Most of the world's neodymium is mined in China.

                      These magnets are widely used in such products as microphones, professional loudspeakers, in-ear headphones, and computer hard disks, where low magnet mass or volume, or strong magnetic fields are required. Larger neodymium magnets are used in high power versus weight electric motors (for example in hybrid cars) and generators (for example aircraft and wind turbine electric generators).[4]

                      So, again, you said "wind turbines produce radioactive wastes" and you are a "liar" and propagandist, again.

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

                      grade 1 level

                      http://phys.org/news/2012-09-uk-cautious-thorium-nuclear-fuel.html

                      http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/952238/dont_believe_the_spin_on_thorium_being_a_greener_nuclear_option.html

                      how you like dem apples?


                      Report comment

                    • Lion76 Lion76

                      In order to build wind turbines, materials must be mined, manufactured, processed and transported as with all conventional power plants. The energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power turbine is equal to the new energy produced by the wind turbine within a few months.

                      Wind power consumes no fuel and no water[8] for continuing operation, and has no emissions directly related to electricity production. Wind turbines produce no carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, mercury, radioactive waste, particulates, or any other type of air pollution, unlike fossil fuel sources and nuclear power plant fuel production. Wind power plants consume resources during their manufacturing and construction, as does every other type of powerplant. [...]

                      Rare-earth mining pollution
                      The production of permanent magnets used in some wind turbines makes use of neodymium.[13][14] Research is underway on turbine and generator designs which reduce the need for neodymium, or eliminate the use of rare-earth metals altogether.[18] Additionally, the large wind turbine manufacturer Enercon GmbH chose very early not to use permanent magnets for its direct drive turbines, in order to avoid responsibility in the bad environmental imprint of rare earth mining.[19] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power


                      Report comment

                    • Lion76 Lion76

                      Looks like your favorite argument will be "moot" soon enough and is already being addressed by the "environmentalist community concerned."


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      kiteman, thanks for the neodymium – thorium connection. I would like to back up to the big picture; plutonium and other radioactive elements are considered some of the most poisonous substances. the technology to implement them is extremely high tech and prone to mechanical and human error, including corruption and human foibles. We have permanently uninhabitable tracts of land. We have ongoing disasters like Chernobyl which continue to strain the resources of the international community. Is it true Gorbachev or like stated Chernobyl is what broke Russia? Its been really quite a long time and there is still no storage solution. These MAJOR issues and many more like them seem to be ignored in favor of arguments over technical details. Hanford, Los Alamos, Fukushima and many others illustrate the irremediable tragedy of the nuclear path. I make the point that its the pro nuke style of THINKING and logic that got us here. Do you disagree with Michio Kaku and others that SFP4 ALONE could ruin half the planet?


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      CodeShutdown:
                      Too bad there is so much useless tripe printed between our discussions. Lyin76, sorry, Lion76 (but it is just REAL hard not to think of it the other way) does get diarrhea of the digits on occasion (always?)
                      Yes, Plutonium IS toxic, quite toxic, but nowhere near as toxic as is commonly promoted by Gorites and other anti-nukes. It must indeed be handled with great care.
                      That is one reason I am so interested in Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers (a LFT Reactor that is started with Plutonium – my definition). The "reprocessing" needed to get the Plutonium in a useful form for a LFTR is de-minimus. Basically, it is fluoridation and fractional distillation; both chemical processes with which we have OODLES of experience. And once there, it NEVER has to be touched again!

                      Please name for me ANY permanently uninhabitable tract of land. Please. You can't cuz none exist. The closest we come to is the area right around the Chernobyl plant where the explosion spread pieces of the core around. At this point, the only issue is whether the value of the land is worth the clean up.

                      The "exclusion zones" in Fukushima Prefecture are mostly habitable now, though the FUD spread by anti-nukes will probably keep folks out for way longer than the radiation requires.

                      Hanford is basically a military site, and stupid things were done in the heat of war. None-the-less, there are much easier ways to clean up the stuff than the career building DoE managers will…


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Re "permanently uninhabitable tracts of land":
                      Actually, I just remembered that Soviet military site that had a worse accident than Chernobyl by some measures. There you MIGHT have something, but I can't find reliable data.

                      Los Alamos is as inhabitable as it ever was. After all, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both inhabited with no observable ill effect.

                      The effects of nuclear contamination are grossly exaggerated.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Kiteman, this thread has become too large for me to manage. I gave the apology you asked for, presented an overarching philosophy of why we should heed the negatives as warned by the fathers of nuclear, and mentioned a fundamental chasm in our opinions; basically that no matter how bad things become, or how much data, it is unlikely you would change your pronuke status. Somehow you can ignore the tragedy of Belarus, the corruption and faults of man as he handles the worlds most toxic things in pursuit of short term profit. Data and logic is there, but you apply, as we all do, a selective sieve. Beyond this, my offering is of little to no value, so Im going into self censor, if I can contain myself


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      CodeShutdown wrote:
                      "I would like to back up to the big picture; plutonium and other radioactive elements are considered some of the most poisonous substances. "

                      Well, I finally got a chance to go and read those links you (or was it Anne) provided re plutonium release at Fukushima.
                      What I read suggested strongly that the release was due to the flooding of the corium in the units that melted down, not from the MOX fuel. I could be wrong about that. If I am right, the release stopped when they plugged the path from the units to the oceans.

                      None-the-less, the fuel pools are under control currently and work is continuing, as quickly as the terrorized will let TEPCO work, to make that control permanent.

                      Personally, I would vastly prefer they not build a sarcophagus like Chernobyl did. I suspect there are much better ways to remove and manage the material than that. And I can't help thinking that a sarc is not a long enough term solution for the issue. The transuranics need to be removed and destroyed, not buried for the next million years or so.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      KitemanSA So Tepco has it under control, the concerned impede their progress and from earlier conversation, it wasnt so bad (0 death) and finally, dont contain fukushima with a sarcophagus because, presumably, they can scoop up the waste and use it in thorium reactors and other profitible verntures. Thats how I read your post


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      KitemanSA, how much radiation was released by Fukushima? Is it under control? Whats the consequence? Could it happen again?

                      The European Commission on Radiation Risk model says sixty million human deaths from cancer due to exposure to radioactivity released from nuclear weapons production and testing. OK, its one perspective indicating radioactivity is not benign.

                      Now I have it that fukushima release reached 112 Hiroshima bombs PER HOUR, (10,000 TBq/Hr) and continues to this day at some variable but reduced level. Add that animals and plants have measured up to 14000 and even 690000 Bq/Kg. Given that a lifetime dose of 100 mSv posed by assimilation of radiation is detrimental,(Japan official finding) there is no way to sanely deny that those animals plants and by extension people who are highly contaminated will suffer and many die.

                      I find it a ridiculous insult that you suggest people who are concerned about this are stupid fear mongering terrorists who impede Tepco et al. You will never convince rational people that high tech, high level toxins in the control of fallible man and machine is the answer, what joy prompts you to continue trying?


                      Report comment

                • We Not They Finally

                  Kiteman, go live downwind from a LFTR. For that matter, go live downwind from Fukushima. Go look into the eyes of the parents as their children are poisoned. Go, go! If that is the world you want, go live there!


                  Report comment

              • KitemanSA

                Re:The Guardian Article, Rebutted here.
                http://energyfromthorium.com/rees-article-rebuttal/
                Also, the Guardian rebutted itself with this:
                http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/04/thorium-nuclear-power

                Re: the "Beyond Nuclear piece which is a rip off of PSR/IEER's "Thorium Fuel: No Panacea for Nuclear Power"
                Rebutted here: http://energyfromthorium.com/ieer-rebuttal/
                and here: http://energyfromthorium.com/2010/05/13/cannaras-rebuke-of-psrieer/

                The PM article doesn't actually say anything, so I'll ignore it.

                Thanks for the links re Plutonium. I'll check them out.


                Report comment

                • Lion76 Lion76

                  Wind/Solar win.

                  You can keep your "thorium" for space travel, etc.

                  for everyday electricity… your days are over. Get a clue already. The renewable electric revolution has just begun.


                  Report comment

                  • KitemanSA

                    Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors will be the future unless fusion beats it out. Or else there will be no future. I think that is what some "environmentalists" want, a world without people.

                    Support for nuclear in general is going UP world wide and support for LFTRs is going up even faster. Them's the facts. Live with it!


                    Report comment

                    • Lion76 Lion76

                      No it won't. That's not "facts" that is "speculation"

                      Have a good day, shill. Enjoy your little "jobby job" there buddy, while you can ;)


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      kiteman…support for nuclear is going up and is the future….Thats funny..silly, but funny. But also tragic, because besides Germany, Belarus and Fukushima victims, you might be right about the support part; such is the insanity. What percent of electricity is provided by nuclear? How many permanently uninhabitable tracts of land before you reckon the support for nuclear will wane?


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Poison is the FUTURE! Elite thinkers realize it, based on 20 year profit models. Cesium flourine, uranium hexafouride, berylium fouride…I believe that these thorium reactor wastes can have ADDED economic re-use value by adding them to the water supply to strengthen teeth against cavities. A similar added value effect is seen with plutonium and cesium wastes from Fukushima which are added to the worlds water supply and which notables like "pronuke" assure us INCREASE health through hormesis effect. Nuclear provides a safe energy source and increased health through toxin dispersion for generations to come!


                      Report comment

                    • Lion76 Lion76

                      http://phys.org/news/2012-06-renewable-energy-surged-worldwide-year.html

                      some actual "facts" I see no mention of Thorium there.. BUT I DO SEE RENEWABLES! ;)

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy#Growth_of_renewables

                      http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/nuclear-power-germany-renewable-energy

                      http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2012/0320/Top-5-nations-that-use-renewable-energy/Brazil-5-percent-of-world-total

                      all of this, with wind/solar technologies still in their infancy. Imagine after a couple more "Moore's Law" cycles and the further proliferation of LED technologies, etc. Also, 3d solar technologies once sorted through are going to be even more cause for celebration of "smarter thinking"

                      Let's not forget the underutilized "solar tracking" technologies, too. These alone can increase energy production dramatically by using current panel technology (and can still be used when the panels themselves improve in efficiency with even MORE gains)

                      I know what my next house is going to look like.. Totally "self sustainable" and well yes, I'm just one person. But the idea is gaining momentum because smart is sexy.

                      "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
                      -Leonardo da Vinci


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      CodeShutdown,
                      Currently, nuclear provides about as much energy around the world as all bio-fuels combined. But bio-fuels kill more people each and every year than nuclear has during its entire existence, even assuming the worst case death toll from every accident and with the bomb toll thrown in. Nuclear is gaining popularity because many places don't listen to the GreenPeace nuts and so recognize that nuclear power is a lot cleaner than any comparably priced energy source. They also realize that phrases like "permanently uninhabitable tracts of land" are more terrorist hype than information and wisely reject it.


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      CodeShutdown:
                      Those items you mention are poisons, but so are thousands of other chemicals we use daily, including many you use in your home I'd guess. The only real question is what forces are trying to push them out into the environment. With Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactors the answer is essentially none. They can't melt down, they don't have high pressure water in the core, the salts are among the most stable chemicals known to man.
                      Nothing is absolutely safe. But LFTRs approach it pretty closely.


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      For the reader that might be mislead by Lion76's links, please be aware of two things. "Renewables" include hydro which is always the go-to energy source if it is available. It is reliable. So including the major dam projects in Brazil and China and such places is quite disingenuous.
                      But much of that the "world", where most of the growth of "renewables" (the UNreliable ones) are growing, are doing so ONLY because of government mandates. These mandates make the electricity system so unstable that the countries ALSO have to put in an equal Megawatt-age of gas fired turbines. This may explain why Gazprom, the giant Russian gas exporting company donated a huge amount of money to (GreenPeace? The Green Party?) about a decade ago. They have sure made out like… bandits… since they donated that money.


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Lion76,
                      I applaud you for you plan to build a totally off grid house.
                      Oh, wait a second, you said "Totally "self sustainable"" which to most "greens I talk to means they plan to steal the expensive back-up and storage system from the rest of the grid users. If you are "Grid-Tied" you are NOT "self sustainable".


                      Report comment

                    • Lion76 Lion76

                      who said "grid tied" ??

                      oh wait, that was YOU "assuming" again so you could continue this tired, lame argument.

                      I thought you "weren't wasting your time on me" ? didn't you just say that, not even 20 minutes ago?

                      Guess you were just lying again, playing your little games.


                      Report comment

                    • 16Penny 16Penny

                      Stop living in yesterday. Realistic energy storage has proven to be much more achievable than realistic nuclear waste storage.

                      Energy Storage:

                      http://www.areva.com/EN/operations-408/hydrogen-and-fuel-cells.html

                      http://www.earthtechling.com/2013/04/storing-renewable-energy-pumped-storage-compressed-air-molten-salt-hydrogen-more/

                      The one thing I notice is that none of these energy storage solutions cause any increase risk to future generations. None of these solutions cause irreversible environmental pollution. None of these solutions are nuclear.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      kiteman how do you manage to ignore the thousands who actually put up their own solar and live off the grid? I know 2 families totally off grid for years and two more generating most required energy. You never convince in light of common sense and existing example, whats the point of the effort? Do you never ask yourself; Why do a labor so, when I have convinced no one?


                      Report comment

    • We Not They Finally

      pollytickle1: If ONLY this were the corium! The corium actually has to be much worse. (I'm sure you already know that.) The corium, at best, is blobs of immeasurably "hot" particles that no one can get near, probably ever. But whatever is buried, the ground saturation apparently continues. Like at Chernobyl, they probably have un-located corium too. But the vegetation keeps getting MORE radioactive, not less so.

      We like to think that there is some eventual reckoning — I mean MORALLY. But we don't really know. If it turns out that we were just a tiny green speck in a larger, more humane universe, that might be a welcome discovery by this point. We just don't really know.


      Report comment

    • KitemanSA

      Funny. SILLY, but funny.


      Report comment

      • Lion76 Lion76

        There is really nothing "funny" about it. Not even sarcastically.

        You seem to act like you are so educated above everyone else on the issues, yet, you offer nothing "educated" in your statements. Just wild conjecture or childish troll games, the "usual" from your crowd. You argue like a child yet you try to sound as if you are from some high place in the technical field. Well, where's all your "proof" then? Let's see some "real world" examples then, mr. professional. Where's this proof of your revolutionary visions?


        Report comment

  • nohobear nohobear

    Ahhh, the highly radioactive "mystery black substance" returns!

    I have to take a break from Fukushima rage and burnout. But allow me gentle ene-newsers once last rant.

    WTF!!!!! ARE YOU TELLING ME AFTER 2 FU$%&#ING YEARS OF REPORTING "MYSTERY BLACK SUBSTANCE" NOT ONE GOD DAMN LAB IN JAPAN OR ANYWHERE CAN ANALYZE IT????? IS IT RADIOACTIVE ASH FROM INCINERATION? IS IT CYANOBACTERIA? IS IT RADIOACTIVE PLUTONIUM BUCKYBALLS?

    Must go now, and work on my bucket list, play with my dog, and plant some flowers in the garden. Peace to all ene-newsers. Continue to fight the good fight to enlighten and educate.


    Report comment

    • +1

      Exactly what I was thinking.

      Peace.


      Report comment

    • Jay

      'nohobear' = + 2 , really , just throw the 'thing' into the spectrum analyser and in minutes we'll all know .

      It looks like no major Lab company wants to be the one to deliver very bad news … the other side of the 'Pride' coin is 'Stupidity' .


      Report comment

      • What, black dust.. that is Satanic and we will not be party to analyzing any substance that is EVIL… no can do, sorry, nope, not in this lab…

        We may have to go to H(## if we dare to try and analyze this stuff.

        Probably just harmless dust off of Satans back anyways… who cares?


        Report comment

      • irhologram

        OF COURSE, IMO, the black dust/mold has been tested. But, of course, you will not know the results. Every time anyone here, yet again, makes the assumption these people/entities/or who/whatever is in charge is merely STUPID…I will speak up and remind you that you are making an assumption…for which you have no proof. Why does it matter, whether "they" are dumb or whether this is planned? I think a lot of people here would be a whole lot more ready to truly do something about this if they knew events were either planned or being used as a very useful accident in the ANNOUNCED agenda of population reduction to 500 million. I do NOT suppose these ruler-class people, who openly said this to you in videos that you can Google right now and carved it in stone on the Georigia Guidstones, were just idly speaking through their hats or just having a crazy, hairbrained day and put their foot in their mouths in front of a camera.


        Report comment

    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

      There is an interesting correlation with the mysterious black and yellow dust and Wilhelm Reichs Oranur experiment. While Reich made several strange conclusions and errors, many of his ideas have had a remarkable reformulation and vindication primarily by the Correas at Aetherometry which should not be missed.

      Reich was experimenting with a miniscule amount of radium and observed both black and brown as well as yellow and white powdery materials building up on rocks and trees extending great distances from his lab. He named them Melanor, brownite and orene. He made a chemical analysis. Melanor was black, nauseating corrosive substance which attacked crystalline rock, and "excited" the atmosphere. It was flourescent. The pH of Melanor was measured as being between pH 3 and pH 5. When heated to 1200 degrees Celsius, Melanor gave off hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide, losing 40% of its weight in the process and turning bright red; the ash had a pH of 3.6-3.8. Melanor was soluble in strong mineral acids, partly soluble in water, and "completely insoluble" in bases. it was determined to be a strong reducing agent.

      I guess the point is that developing a full understanding of an unknown material is not always so easy; its full atomic and molecular composition, how it was formed, how stable, effects, etc
      In Reichs case, the formation of this substance great distances from a contained small amount of radium adds extra mystery.


      Report comment

    • vital1 vital1

      I was sent this resin encapsulated sample of black fungus like material. It has reportedly come from somewhere in the Minamisoma area Japan. A contact in Japan sent a friend this sample. This is my test chart of it. For those of you who have not looked at a chart like this before. The position of the peaks in a the chart indicate what isotopes are present. This fungus started growing on the concrete, and rock surfaces in Japan after the Fukushima Nuclear disaster. It appears to be bio-accumulating Cesium.

      Scintillators are less sensitive as you go to higher energy keV. The Theremino MCA software allows you to increase the magnification of the higher energy peaks. The peaks in this Theremino MCA V4.5 software chart have been energy compensated, to bring out the smaller details at higher energies. The sample very small, grams or less.

      http://sccc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Minamisoma-Cesium-290313-TV45-23c-25040-MB.jpg

      A professional lab reported test results 117 Bg Cs-137 and 58 Bq Cs-134. This black fungus material sample from Japan, contaminated with Cesium Cs-137 & Cs-134, is encapsulated in resin for safety reasons. So we don’t know how much it weighs. We are trying to find out. It may not have been weighed when it was collected. Visually, looking at the encased sample, it would be a few grams if that.


      Report comment

      • vital1 vital1

        Here is a pen tip placed next to the sample, to give you and idea how small the sample is. The black center is the sample. Also, the sample does not fill up the small sample container, that is in the center of the resin encasement. The sample container is only around two thirds full.

        http://sccc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Japanese-black-fungus-material-sample-with-pen-tip.jpg

        Update on the possible weight of the Black Fungus sample from Japan. This comment was posted on a forum discussing this test.

        “I’m an expert on weighing objects (sell scales, use different ones daily, some precise to .01g). Fungus in that form does not appear to hold too much water weight and would likely weigh less than a gram given the scale. If it jis thin and flakey type fungus, it may be under .25-.5g. Is it thick like a mushroom cap or more like lichen? I’ve only observed extremely thin fungi growing on concrete, and I would err on the very low side. My best guess is .3g.”

        My reply

        That means the black fungus sample from Japan is very, very, hot.

        Test results 117 Bg Cs-137 and 58 Bq Cs-134

        117 + 58 = 175 Bq x (1000 grams/0.3 grams) = 583,333 Bq/Kg of Cesium

        Even if it was 10 times greater in weight 3 grams, it would still be 58,333 Bq/Kg of Cesium.


        Report comment

    • Trawling4Trolls

      I'll add to the mystery, nohobear.

      Remember we were told Berkeley Nucleonics was DONATING detectors sophisticated enough to identify isotopes, able to remove energy stacking effects from different isotopes, etc. Yet none of these detectors seem to have the 'ambulatory' qualities necessary to put them in physical proximity to these mystery black substances in the field.

      We could even give a name to this enigma, calling it the Non-ambulatory Stack Detector's Quantum Presence. Hey?


      Report comment

    • charlie3

      +3
      Not one scientist on earth has been able or willing to determine what this stuff is that we have had described to us as "mysterious" for 2+ years?


      Report comment

      • We Not They Finally

        charlie3: But it has also been described as "fungus." And mushrooms also are fungus, and now considered especially dangerous to eat because fungus attracts and holds radioactivity. Someone of the skill set of let's say Arnie Gundersen should be given a complete read-out of ALL radionuclides in this stuff — it's not JUST cesium for sure, how horrifying high as that reading is.

        I remember several months into the disaster, Gundersen was told that cobalt-60 was found. And that specific radionuclide may not mean anything to you or me. But to him, he deduced that it meant that one type of process had happened rather than another. (I think it was a detonation rather than a deflagration or something like that.)

        I'm sure that once this so-called "mystery" is atomically analyzed, the news will be even worse than the above. But surely we have the right to KNOW.


        Report comment

    • PhilipUpNorth PhilipUpNorth

      Thinking about our pets this morning, Nohobear. Your dog probably likes to roll in the dirt, and probably cleans himself by licking. Outdoor animals probably will not do very well in a radioactive environment, as their insides get eaten up by hot particles they inhale and ingest. Enjoy doing your bucket list.


      Report comment

      • nohobear nohobear

        I've thought much about my pets, especially since one of my dogs had a brush with thyroid tumor a year and a half ago (I'm on the West Coast). He's doing well so far after surgery, and I maintain him on a regimen of Essiac to keep his immune system boosted. So far so good.

        For the same reason, I would caution against any commercial seafood for pets. You just know that there's a buck to be made, and seafood deemed unfit for humans (Corexit, radioactive, will find it's way into the pet food supply chain).


        Report comment

      • Wreedles Wreedles

        Yes, pets are going to show and/or are showing accelerated health effects/genetic damage.

        Bad enough we did this to ourselves. But we had to go and mess up our best friends too. :(


        Report comment

    • KitemanSA

      Why is it unbelievable? Heavy dust settles into low spots. Cesium is pretty heavy. One should expect to find low spots that are hotter that the rest of the area.

      Suggestion: Look for them and clean them up. Is that so hard?

      Did the author do anything about it or did he just walk away to post this bitch report? Finding and removing those deposits is probably the simplest effective thing to do. Use your counter to do so good dude!


      Report comment

      • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

        kitmeman 47 quadrillion becquerels of cesium-137 released into the Pacific ocean. Germany found up to 100 Bq/m^2 in the Baltic sea, East greenland currents etc. Fish concentrate radioactive cesium 5 to 100 fold compared to surrounding water. These things have been found to exceed government limits and are not easily vacuumed up; tap water, raw milk, vegetables, mushrooms, fruit, nut, seaweeds, marine invertebrates, coastal fish, freshwater fish, beef, wild animal meat, brown rice, wheat, tea leaves…wild deer, boars, bears, rabbits and birds exceeded the PRV for radiocesiums in Ibaraki, Tochigi, Iwate, Yamagata or Fukushima prefectures. What is sane about your efforts to promote nuclear as safe, and fukushima as causing zero death?


        Report comment

  • Jebus

    Thanks Admin,
    The truth always has a way…
    It's a contamination that's uncontained and will never follow lines on a map.
    How far out of that epicenter are the people being lied to?
    How many sacrifices does it take to be detrimental, to the greater good?
    It's not just about Humans…


    Report comment

  • We Not They Finally

    SO he measured 8 microsieverts/hr. in the air and 86/hr. on the ground? And ONE microsievert a YEAR (up until before Fukushima) was supposed to be "safe"? Well, they upped that to 20 microsieverts a year, even for children. But EIGHTY-SIX EVERY FREAKING ….HOUR!!??? That equals 100 times the (already-wrongly-elevated) "safe" dose for a whole YEAR, but every DAY.

    Nohobear, we understand your so-called last rant. I wish we could all do one together, but EFFECTIVELY. And we don't even LIVE there. (Well, our levels here aren't that bad YET, anyway…) But even though we always knew there were problems in the world, we never thought it would come to THIS. God help us all. All we can do is to re-commit ourselves to be the best humans we can in an increasingly inhumane world.


    Report comment

    • KitemanSA

      WNTF: Your memory is faulty, the statement is that 1 milliSieverts/year is safe, not 1 microSievert. But even that does not mean that MORE than 1 milliSievert/year is NOT safe. The AVERAGE world background radiation is 2.5 milliSieverts/year. Finland averages about 8 mSv/y. Denver Colorado (indeed most of the Rocky Mountains in the USA) is about 12 mSv/y. But that isn't it. The RESORT town of Guarapari Brazil gets up to about 175 mSv/y while Ramsar Iran peaks out at about 250 mSv/y. None of those locations show excess cncer of birth defect. (Ramsar MAY have an excess of birth defects but the statistics don't allow such a conclusion).
      8microSieverts/hr is actually not especially dangerous, being less that the allowable safe occupational dose. But it would be wise to properly vacuum it up and dispose of it. Then you would actually be helping the situation rather than just causing Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Remember that Churchill said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". UNSCEAR has just recently released a draft report about the situation in Fukushima that echos that sentiment.


      Report comment

      • NoNukes NoNukes

        Churchill wouldn't want to inhale any plutonium MOX fuel, lucky guy didn't have to worry about it, and the good people of Guarapari Brazil don't have much MOX fuel on their beaches, either, as far as I know, so they don't have anything to do with Fukushima.

        Hypothetically, I wonder how much it costs, how much, if you were the nuclear industry, you'd have to pay a person to confuse the unsuspecting public, to have them help you to get more plutonium into more babies' lungs, to have more children born without bones, to encourage more young thyroids to go under the scalpel, to help the leukemias destroy the 4 year olds. Some days, I wonder what the answer to this question may be…does anybody know?


        Report comment

        • KitemanSA

          I don't particularly want MOX fuel either, that is whyI want to burn the Plutonium in a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recycler. Gone for good, and electricity to boot! Neat things, LFTRs.


          Report comment

          • Trawling4Trolls

            Tell us, Kiteman, do you feel .. betrayed .. by the DOE? That they stifled your type's efforts at 'innovation' and affirmed 'regulation'? That their compassion for you in deciding against the shielding requirements for your flouride U233 was more altruistic than your offer to "burn the Plutonium"?


            Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            Thorium, Not The Nuclear Savior Claimed
            September 14th, 2011
            http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=3101

            Natural Decay Series: Uranium, Radium, and Thoriam
            http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/natural-decay-series.pdf

            Thorium reactors – the latest dishonest spin from the nuclear propagandists
            http://nuclear-news.net/2012/09/20/thorium-reactors-the-latest-dishonest-spin-from-the-nuclear-propagandists/

            THORIUM BLENDED AND REGULAR MOX BURN-UP STUDIES FOR FAST REACTOR FUEL CYCLE SAFEGUARDS
            http://nsspi.tamu.edu/media/46412/p15_pub2.pdf

            Thorium
            “Exposure to an aerosol of thorium can lead to increased risk of cancers of the lung, pancreas, and blood, as lungs and other internal organs can be penetrated by alpha radiation. Exposure to thorium internally leads to increased risk of liver diseases….”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium


            Report comment

            • KitemanSA

              anne:
              Funny you should lead with that one since it is so full of factual errors that no-one has bothered to rebut it.

              Yup, thorium is part of a natural decay chain. The only thing that can be done to effect that is to burn it so that it becomes short lived fission products. If you are concernd about torium in the environment, burn it.

              The "Latest dishonest spin" document is so full of dishonesty folks should be ashamed to reference. Its even worse than the first.

              Re: areasols of Thorium… that is the nice thing about LFTRs, there is no force available to drive the formation of said areosols. Not an issue. This is about as much to worry about as saying that since carbon reacted with nitrogen is cyanide, we should not cook on gas or wood stoves because the carbon in the fuel might combine with the atmospheric nitrogen and poison you! Not gonna happen, either case.


              Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            TEN MYTHS ABOUT THORIUM AS A NUCLEAR ENERGY SOLUTION
            “Thorium may be abundant and possess certain technical advantages, but it does not mean that it is economical. Compared to uranium, thorium fuel cycle is likely to be even more costly. In a once‐through mode, it will need both uranium enrichment (or plutonium separation) and thorium target rod production. In a breeder configuration, it will need reprocessing, which is costly. In addition, inhalation of thorium‐232 produces a higher dose than the same amount of uranium‐238 (either by radioactivity or by weight). Reprocessed thorium creates even more risks due to the highly radioactive U‐232 created in the reactor. This makes worker protection more difficult and expensive for a given level of annual dose. Finally, the use of thorium also creates waste at the front end of the fuel cycle. The radioactivity associated with these is expected to be considerably less than that associated with a comparable amount of uranium milling. However, mine wastes will pose long‐term hazards, as in the case of uranium mining. There are also often hazardous non‐radioactive metals in both thorium and uranium mill tailings….

            “8. Attempts to develop “thorium reactors” have failed for decades. No commercial thorium reactor exists anywhere in the world. India has been attempting, without success, to develop a thorium breeder fuel cycle for decades.


            Report comment

            • VanneV anne

              Other countries including the US and Russia have researched the development of thorium fuel for more than half a century without overcoming technical complications.

              “9. Fabricating ‘thorium fuel’ is dangerous to health. The process involves the production of U-232 which is extremely radioactive and very dangerous in small quantities. The inhalation of a
              unit of radioactivity of thorium-232 or thorium-228 produces a far higher dose than the inhalation of uranium containing the same amount of radioactivity. A single particle in the lung would exceed legal radiation standards for the general public.
              “10. Fabricating “thorium fuel” is expensive. The thorium fuel cycle would be more expensive than the uranium fuel cycle. Using a traditional light-water (once-through) reactor, thorium fuel would need both uranium enrichment (or plutonium separation) and thorium target rod production. Using a breeder reactor makes costly reprocessing necessary….”

              http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/documents/THE%20MYTHS%20ABOUT%20THORIUM%20AS%20A%20NUCLEAR%20ENERGY%20SOLUTION.pdf


              Report comment

              • KitemanSA

                Number 9 is one of the best things about Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers. The U232 makes it dangerous to remove the fuel from the reactor which is great since you should never have to.
                Number 10 is just plain stupid. Fabricating thorium fuel for LFTRs is simplicity itself. Make thorium-tetrafluoride. End of process. Yet again they try to dismiss diesel for not working well in a gasoline engine. Just proves they are either truly stupid or have an ulterior motive.

                PLEASE read up on LFTRs, REAL info. The Wiki article is pretty good, though every once in a while trolls try to fill it with cr@p. Check out "thorium" on YouTube. There are a number of good videos there.


                Report comment

                • combomelt combomelt

                  Kiteman – keep ignoring point number 8. Never a link or answer frpm you, you just keep posting OFF TOPIC drivel here.


                  Report comment

                  • KitemanSA

                    Umm, seems you didn't read one post further down where I DID respond to number 8. If fact I responded to the entire post, not just #8. Maybe you should learn how this forum software works so that you can identify what is a response to what.

                    But just in case you aren't able to ferret out the answer, #8 is an idiotic response to a recommendation to use Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors since ALL past commercial attempts to use thorium have been in solid fuel reactors. Thorium works well in a LIQUID FUEL reactor, not so much in a solid fuel. Diesel works well in a compression ignition engine, not so much in a spark ignition engine. Condemning thorium because it doesn't work real well in the wrong engine is just plain stupid. As stupid as condemning diesel for not working in a gasoline engine. Got it?


                    Report comment

                    • combomelt combomelt

                      No. I don't "got it". No reactor exists. Disposal, treatment of waste, vitrification whatever you want to call it when an attempt is made to render lethal byproducts from npps inert. I guess that is my question….
                      What process will rid the world of Hanford,fuku, chernobyl contamination?


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Such a reactor was built and ran well. It is in fact a proven design.

                      The transuranics in Spent Nuclear Fuel make good start-up fuel for Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers. The rest of the SNF can be easily partitioned and, after the economically useful parts are removed, can be casked for medium term storage.

                      Much of the SNF has economical uses; it isn't waste, it is resource.


                      Report comment

                    • VanneV anne

                      KitemanSA, If this was such a wonderful reactor, why can't you say the name of it, the location, and a link?

                      You seem to think that statements will believed when there is no precise information given.

                      It takes plutonium or enriched uranium to run a thorium reactor.

                      There are many transuranics. What are the specific details? Without specifics, this is just another fairy tale.


                      Report comment

                    • VanneV anne

                      KitemanSA, Are you talking about using spent nuclear fuel in silverware and cooking utensils, or maybe agriculture fertilizers, or maybe roads, or golf clubs? Or maybe it is weapons of mass destruction and armaments that are killing our soldiers and their children, and those living in the countries against whom these armaments have been used.

                      What are these economic resources for using spent nuclear fuel? Just saying something is so, doesn't make it so? Why are you so unable to give details?


                      Report comment

                    • combomelt combomelt

                      So whats holding up this incredible, proven, earth cleanemup technology then?


                      Report comment

                    • VanneV anne

                      “…One unexpected finding was shallow, inter-granular cracking in all metal surfaces exposed to the fuel salt. The cause of the embrittlement was tellurium – a fission product generated in the fuel. This was first noted in the specimens that were removed from the core at intervals during the reactor operation. Post-operation examination of pieces of a control-rod thimble, heat-exchanger tubes, and pump bowl parts revealed the ubiquity of the cracking and emphasized its importance to the MSR concept. The crack growth was rapid enough to become a problem over the planned thirty-year life of a follow-on thorium breeder reactor. This cracking could be reduced by adding small amounts of niobium to the Hastelloy-N.[18]…”
                      “But beginning in the mid-1980s, there was concern that radioactivity was migrating through the system. Sampling in 1994 revealed concentrations of uranium that created a potential for a nuclear criticality accident, as well as a potentially dangerous build-up of fluorine gas — the environment above the solidified salt was approximately one atmosphere of fluorine. The ensuing decontamination and decommissioning project was called "the most technically challenging" activity assigned to Bechtel Jacobs under its environmental management contract with the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Operations organization. In 2003, the MSRE cleanup project was estimated at about $130 million, with decommissioning expected to be completed in 2009.[20] Removal of uranium…


                      Report comment

                    • VanneV anne

                      The ORNL Molten Salt Reactor Experiment Fluoride Conspiracy
                      By: Jim Phelps
                      Copyright 2004, 2005
                      ________________________________________
                      This is a write up of a covered up nuclear reactor accident that I witnessed while working for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the mid-1980's. The nuclear criticality accident involved an old reactor called The "Molten Salt Reactor Experiment," AKA "MSRE" or ORNL Bldg. 7303. This reactor used UF-4 type fuel and used none of the metal oxide and zirconium fuel element cladding as in the classical design case for reactors. The fuel in this reactor was a molten liquid that circulated into and out of the reactor core. The reactor fuel salt was the heat transfer medium. The fission fuel in use when the reactor was closed was U-233 from the thorium breeder cycle. U-233 is very similar to Pu-239 in radioactivity, health danger, and weapons uses.
                      When the reactor was closed, it was kept moth balled for some twenty plus years because the Lab's management thought this technology would come into vogue someday. This never happened and the poorly stored high activity fuel mixed with fluorine would become a serious problem. The fissile uranium fuel in the storage tanks was stored with a K-eff near 0.9 and there was a large headspace in the tanks that made an unsafe geometry that would support a slow cooker type criticality in UF-6. …”
                      http://www.doewatch.com/msre/


                      Report comment

                    • VanneV anne

                      Here's another molten salt thorium reactor that failed:

                      MSR Thorium Reactor Fort St. Vrain Power Station Experiment Failed
                      http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/12/thorium-reactor-fort-st-vrain-power.html


                      Report comment

                    • VanneV anne

                      Thanks, Jebus.
                      The worst nuclear accident in the US involved another sodium reactor experiment. This was purportedly 240 times worse than TMI.
                      “…
                      Location Santa Susana Field Laboratory, California…”

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

                      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2721949/posts

                      Where have we seen the failure of this utility company recently: San Onofre.

                      “…A local utility company, Southern California Edison, installed and operated a 6.5 MW electric-power generating system. Controlled nuclear fission began on April 25, 1957….”
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_Reactor_Experiment


                      Report comment

                    • VanneV anne

                      Here's another failure of a sodium cooled reactor; it only worked for one hour:

                      “Monju is a sodium cooled, MOX-fueled, loop-type reactor with three primary coolant loops, producing 280 MWe from 714 MWt. It has a breeding ratio of approximately 1.2.[1]
                      “An accident in December 1995, in which a sodium leak caused a major fire, forced a shutdown. A subsequent scandal involving a cover-up of the scope of the accident delayed its restart until May 6, 2010, with renewed criticality reached on May 8, 2010.[2] In August 2010 another accident, involving dropped machinery, shut down the reactor again. As of June 2011, the reactor has only generated electricity for one hour since its first testing two decades prior.[3]…”
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monju_Nuclear_Power_Plant


                      Report comment

                    • VanneV anne

                      We know what happened to Fukushima Daiichi when it was cooled with sea water. I'll never forget the face of one scientist in the US on TV when he said that they were cooling the reactors with sea water. He was really upset. {He knew it was an ELE, is how I interpret his expression.]


                      Report comment

                    • Jebus

                      YW, it's very curious to me that kiteman keeps coming back, to not produce a viable argument, on this thread. It's absolutely comical for any intelligent person to read and experience his reasoning.
                      Is his logic, the logic of nuclear power?
                      It's like SNL's cheeseburger, pepsi, pepsi skit!


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      On 11 Jun:
                      Anne: "KitemanSA, Are you talking about using spent nuclear fuel in silverware and cooking utensils, or maybe agriculture fertilizers, or maybe roads, or golf clubs?"
                      KSA: I have not seen anyone recommend such things except for the potential to use SrTiO3, a very stable mineral, as aggregate in roads subject to freezing. The Sr could be Sr90 which could release enough heat to keep the road de-iced. I'm not in favor of it since it puts the stuff too out in the open. Now, using that material for remote power stations seems like a pretty good idea. The Xenon is useful for space exploration. The uranium should go back into the fuel cycle where it belongs. The cesium makes a good gamma source for preservation of food. Much of the rest of it is stable in about a year so if the elements are worth extracting, they can go into the general stockpile.

                      Anne: "Or maybe it is weapons of mass destruction and armaments that are killing our soldiers and their children, and those living in the countries against whom these armaments have been used."
                      KSA: Shame on you Anne, stooping to terrorist tactics.. The transuranics, as I have stated REPEATEDLY, makes fine fuel for Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers. It gets destroyed and we get cheap, clean electricity.

                      Anne: "What are these economic resources for using spent nuclear fuel? Just saying something is so, doesn't make it so? Why are you so unable to give details?"
                      KSA: Just did. Should have been…


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      On 11 Jun, Anne wrote:
                      "Here's another molten salt thorium reactor that failed:

                      MSR Thorium Reactor Fort St. Vrain Power Station Experiment Failed
                      http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/12/thorium-reactor-fort-st-vrain-power.html "

                      Anne, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop lying. The Fort St. Vrain was NOT a Molten Salt Reactor. Shame on you for these lies.


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      On 11 Jun, Jebus wrote:
                      "Sodium Reactor Experiment

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_Reactor_Experiment "

                      Jebus, what is your point? Are you so needful of trying to prove me wrong that you are willing to bring up totally unrelated issues in hopes that you can fool the less educated on this subject? In most situations, folks consider that tactic to be the telling of a lie.

                      Go ahead, folks, read his link. Then read this one.

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

                      They are TOTALLY different machines. Like calling a Volvo a Pinto. Absurd.


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      on 11 Jun, Anne wrote:
                      "Here's another failure of a sodium cooled reactor; it only worked for one hour:"

                      I don't particularly like Liquid Metal (aka Sodium) Fast Reactors either. They are twitchy, i.e., hard to control, and their coolant is a hideously chemically reactive material.

                      That is why I never promote them, but promote Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers instead. LFTRs are thermal spectrum, not fast. The coolant is not UNstable like molten sodium, but is among the MOST stable materials known to man, both chemically AND radiologically. They are inherently stable AND walk-away safe. You can cut them off from external power and walk away from them and all they do is shut themselves down. They really are the cat's meow!

                      Check out LFTR in wikipedia. It is usually a good article when it hasn't been carpet bomb edited by kooks.


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Anne wrote:
                      "We know what happened to Fukushima Daiichi when it was cooled with sea water. I'll never forget the face of one scientist in the US on TV when he said that they were cooling the reactors with sea water. He was really upset. {He knew it was an ELE, is how I interpret his expression.]"

                      If he Knew it was an ELE, he is a Knut. We have been surviving quite well with the much higher levels of radioactivity released by the atom-bomb testing.

                      "He knew it was an ELE". Absurd. Such language has one purpose only, to terrorize. You do no-one any good by resulting to such tactics.


                      Report comment

            • KitemanSA

              This appears to be a direct quote out of BN's rip-off of IEER's wack piece called "Thorium Fuel, No Panacea for Nuclear Power. It is well rebutted
              here: http://energyfromthorium.com/ieer-rebuttal/ and
              here: http://energyfromthorium.com/2010/05/13/cannaras-rebuke-of-psrieer/ .
              The quack author starts out implying that he will be dismissing Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors then makes the idiot quote you copied that applies only to solid fuel reactors. I might as honestly state that diesel is not a good fuel because it doesn't work well, if at all, in a gasoline engine. Well DUHH!! To use diesel well, use a diesel engine. To use Thorium well, use a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recycler.


              Report comment

              • We Not They Finally

                Why don't you mix yourself a liquid fluoride thorium cocktail? We can watch you wash it down with some soda and ice. Yum-yum. REALLY. But if you DON'T want personal exposure to it, then don't go wishing it onto others.

                But if that doesn't work for you, then since your name is "Kiteman," you know what you can try next….


                Report comment

                • KitemanSA

                  Why don't you drink Solar Thermal coolant fluid, either the oil or the salt ones? YUM. Really, if you don't want exposure to it, don't wish it on others.

                  There is no indication that the fuel salt of a LFTR would ever be released. It is incredibly stable and there is no driving force to disperse it, unlike the toxic spill from that Florida solar thermal plant a while back that closed the plant for 4 months. Nothing toxic? Ha!


                  Report comment

                  • combomelt combomelt

                    KSA-Keep ignoring point number 8 from above.


                    Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Just because you were too dense to find the response, doesn't mean I didn't provide one. And just to make is simple enough for even you, I have responded to it specifically under you first stupid post.


                      Report comment

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    kiteman, there is no nut that nature hasnt cracked, and you have storage, transport and human corruption. Just the thought of having "unbreakable non dispersable" flasks of deadly poison strewn about your house….thats the thing about the un anticipated; we cant anticipate it. You dont point even non loaded guns at your head, dont do it with the world. Maybe Thorium reactors will be better, but why not put the energy into NON TOXIC energies? Why not solve THOSE problems? Smart enough to make thorium reactors, not smart enough to make non polluting solar wind and wave? You know, some animals and some people actually DO live off the grid and are doing fine, except the small brained birds found next to nuke reactors. (couldnt contain myself and my drivel!)


                    Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Because there ARE NO NON-TOXIC ENERGIES. The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is just the LEAST toxic of them all! I realize the greens are usually blind to the failings of their own favored energy, but speaking in all reality, nuclear (e.g., LWRs) ALREADY has the lowest death/kWh, and LFTRs promise to be WELL better than them. Renewables have the HIGHEST toxicity rate of all kWh(e) of any class of energy, fossil energy included!

                      LFTRs truly are the leanest, cleanest, greenest proven reliable energy source BAR NONE!


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      kiteman, you insist that solar and wind are more toxic than Flouride Thorium reactors, with the argument that they will never leak or malfunction. Nuclear proponents assured us the same for other nuclear power plants, and now we see that Fukushima has released some 50,000 times as much radiation as the Hiroshima bomb. Meanwhile, there are windmills in England and Holland still functioning after 200 years without any pollution or incurring "impossible costs" Is it any surprise people dont believe your assertions?


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Again you fib, or was that someone else that lied last time?
                      I said "renewables". Renewables include, by green's insistence, bio-fuels. Bio-fuels include charcoal, dung, and firewood. CD&F kills about 2 million people per year according to the World Health Organization.

                      But installation of rooftop solar kills about 2 people/TWh while nuclear, including all deaths from C&F, kills about 0.03 people/TWh.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      kitemanSA, in fact I NEVER lied, which is an intentional deception. I may have unintentionally misinterpreted your meaning, with a paraphrase. Somehow I ascribed this quote to you;

                      "The unreliable renewables (wind, solar) could only support a civilization at EXTREME cost. The cost would be disastrous for the environment as it is already proving to be."

                      Since you often use the word renewables claiming them to be more deadly than nuclear its not far off to assume you think wind and solar are in that category.

                      You will have an impossible task convincing rational people that extreme poisons in the hands of man are the safe solution to our energy desires. What joy do you derive from the effort?


                      Report comment

                    • VanneV anne

                      KitemanSA, the statistics you give are absolutely untrue:

                      "But installation of rooftop solar kills about 2 people/TWh while nuclear, including all deaths from C&F, kills about 0.03 people/TWh."


                      Report comment

                    • We Not They Finally

                      CodeShutdown, this guy is not worth your valuable time. OF COURSE he knows that wind and sunshine are free, instead of the billions of dollars dumped into death traps. So "what joy does he derive" from this needling? Well, try starting with the "s" word that is the opposite of "happy." And yes, it's an "ism." Not too complicated to figure out. Take care.


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      CodeShutdown wrote:
                      "kitemanSA, in fact I NEVER lied, which is an intentional deception. I may have unintentionally misinterpreted your meaning, with a paraphrase. Somehow I ascribed this quote to you;

                      "The unreliable renewables (wind, solar) could only support a civilization at EXTREME cost. The cost would be disastrous for the environment as it is already proving to be." …"

                      This is what is known as switching your horse in mid-stream. We were talking about renewables causing more deaths in a year than nuclear in its entire history, bombs included, and when called, you bring up this.

                      Well, I did write that, but that relates to the EXTREMELY large amount of land those unreliables take from the environment, and the generally bad interaction with the environment they have.

                      The amount of adverse effect will go up as the percentage of unreliable energy goes up. And unfortunately, it will not be linear. Right now, the only significant adverse effects are due directly to the installations themselves. This is because that currently, the grid can handle the unstable power they generate with its current control capability… almost. But it is becoming less and less so, so that before too long, added system effects will pile onto the environmental damage.


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Anne wrote:
                      "KitemanSA, the statistics you give are absolutely untrue:

                      "But installation of rooftop solar kills about 2 people/TWh while nuclear, including all deaths from C&F, kills about 0.03 people/TWh." …"

                      No, they are not.


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      WNTF blathered:
                      "CodeShutdown, this guy is not worth your valuable time. OF COURSE he knows that wind and sunshine are free, instead of the billions of dollars dumped into death traps. So "what joy does he derive" from this needling? Well, try starting with the "s" word that is the opposite of "happy." And yes, it's an "ism." Not too complicated to figure out. Take care."

                      Wind and sun are free. The means to collect them are FAR from free! duh!! Or are you telling me you know of a source of free windmills and solar panels and wiring and labor and huge tracts of land… No? Didn't think so. So making that statement is typical of the half truths that are the anti-nuke stock in trade. You may not lie directly, but the effect of your half truths are the same as a lie. Please don't lie anymore.

                      The cost to run a civilization with the wind and sun would be STAGGERING. If the environmental impact of C&F are a breath of air, the impact from trying to run a civilization with unreliables is a class 5 typhoon. (There is actually ONE exception to this statement, Satellite Solar Power Stations. They have the ability to provide energy reliably like a nuclear plant, but they are a few years away from reality!)


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      kiteman often accuses people of lying. Two of the biggest lies are that nuclear is safe, and the people that oppose nuclear are terrorist lairs. Nuke safety was proven unequivocally by Chernobyl and Fukushima to be an unabashed absurd lie of incomprehensibility. Kiteman says the cost to run civilization on wind and sun would be STAGGERING, yet studies show the opposite. In fact kiteman could himself build his own wind generator and install PV which would provide all his energy wants. His eyes are closed to this reality and words wont open them


                      Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                kiteman says solar and wind will create environmental damage and take up EXTEMELY large land areas. But a paper says only one percent of land, much on top of roofs, would provide 100% energy demand with zero environmental impact.

                Kiteman, you cant convince the rational that toxic nuclear is better than healthy solar, which has provided life since the beginning. You only display your odd and dangerous unfounded logic…where is the pleasure of it? You may FEEL you trump all arguments but your are VIEWED the opposite.

                The SPV atlas considers electricity demands in seven diverse regions and calculates the area (land or roof) that would be needed for PV…. In each of these cases, less than one per cent of the region’s total land cover would be required to host solar PV panels in order to meet one hundred per cent of the region’s projected electricity needs in 2050, …
                ….. On a macro level, no country or region must choose between solar PV and space for humans and nature.

                http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/solar_atlas__low_res__final_8_jan_2013__1_.pdf


                Report comment

          • combomelt combomelt

            "really neat things they are LFTRs", when the only place you can find one of them that works is in a comic book! lol@KSA gimme a break already!


            Report comment

      • Jebus

        KitemanSA, you left out a bit of facts.
        Natural backround radiation is not the same as manmade radionuclides.
        Natural radiation does not bioaccumulate by ingestion.
        Manmade radionuclides do bioaccumulate by ingestion.
        You can not just vacuum and dispose of ingested internal radionuclides.
        It is not the same, no matter how much you want it to be…


        Report comment

        • KitemanSA

          Rebus,
          Radiation is radiation. Talking about them as if they are different is absurd.
          If the issue is the isotopes, talk about the isotopes, not the radiation.
          By the way, ALL bioactive isotopes bioaccumulate whether they are man made or natural. Potassium-40 is naturally radioactive and bioaccumulates. If you must freak out about radio-isotopes, don't eat bananas or Brazil Nuts.
          Contrary to your "vacuum" statement, you CAN treat and remove the most common bio-active isotopes. Iodine, very easy. Cesium, quite easy. Strontium… not so much. Which makes it nice that Strontium doesn't escape the core as easily as Iodine or cesium.


          Report comment

            • Lion76 Lion76

              http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-electromagnetic-radiation-and-vs-nuclear-radiation/

              Electromagnetic radiation and nuclear radiation are two concepts discussed under physics. These concepts are widely used in fields such as optics, radio technology, communication, energy production, and various other fields. It is vital to have a proper understanding in electromagnetic radiation and nuclear radiation in order to excel in such fields. In this article, we are going to discuss what electromagnetic radiation and nuclear radiation are, their definitions, their applications, similarities between electromagnetic radiation and nuclear radiation, and finally the difference between electromagnetic radiation and nuclear radiation.

              http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/ionize_nonionize.html


              Report comment

            • KitemanSA

              In case anyone is silly enough to fall for Lion76's trickery, the issue was "man-made" radiation vs. "natural" radiation. Man-made alphas are the same as natural alphas, etc. I would have expected any honest and somewhat educated person to know that, but in case there are some newbies here, ignore the trickster and understand that there is no difference between man-made radiations and natural radiations.


              Report comment

              • We Not They Finally

                Kiteman, even ASIDE from your possible indifference to human life, calling all radiation "the same" is apparently NOT true at all. Certainly not for uranium, and whose half-life is bllions of years.

                So you just don't know better? No. What is most disturbing is that you probably DO.


                Report comment

                • KitemanSA

                  WNTF:
                  But uranium is NATURAL. If Natural is ok and "man made is bad, aren't you calling yourself a liar?

                  You may be too ignorant to understand my reverence for life, but that reverence is EXACTLY why I support nuclear energy in general and Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers (LFTRs) in specific.

                  Re: "knowing better", what is TRULY disturbing is that you may refuse to.


                  Report comment

              • Sickputer

                You are dead wrong KSA…

                SP: As a social sciences historian I denounce the tired old nuclear cabal lies utilizing natural bananas and natural radiation as equivalent to cesium and strontium, ad nauseam.

                I remind everyone of the words of Benito Juarez who denounced the condescending air of Maximilan of Hapsburg in the 1860s struggle against the French trying to enslave the country of Mexico:

                "It is given to men, sometimes, to attack the rights of others, to seize their goods, to threaten the life of those who defend their nationality, and to make that the highest virtues seem crimes, and to give their own vices the luster of true virtue. But there is a thing that cannot be reached either by falsification nor perfidy, and that is the tremendous verdict of history. She will judge us."

                SP: Nuclear apologists try to make us seem like ignorant little children with their reassuring words that cesium and other radioactive isotopes are just as harmless as bananas.

                To be continued…


                Report comment

                • Sickputer

                  Tell you what…I will modify the old Bernard Wacko Cohen plutonium/salt challenge to Ralph Nader. I promise to eat 454 grams of bananas for every 1 gram of strontium you eat in return. Or make it 1 gram of cesium since that is your "Banana Equivalent". Don't feel up to the challenge?

                  Well you shouldn't because cesium is NOT a nutrient! It is toxic and deadly and we have known that truth since 1941. It and strontium 90 blows up your DNA in ways scientists actually don't quite understand, but they do know how dangerous they are from testing those elements and the other 1940 plus toxic radio isotopes produced in nuclear reactors are toxic.

                  100 percent of cesium-137 in food is radioactive. It is not a nutrient and it is not a substitute for potassium. It accumulates in your body and lasts a very, very long time. And that's no bananas.


                  Report comment

                • KitemanSA

                  Oh lord, a raving anti-nuke "social scientist".

                  Yes, large doses of cesium are toxic. It doesn't matter if they are RADIO isotopes or stable isotopes. Enough cesium will kill you. So will about the same amount of potassium or sodium. They all have about the same LD50s, no matter what compound they are in. Almost.

                  The issues (plural) here, for any HONEST scientist are 1) what the effect of the RADIATION from current levels of cesium 134 and 137 around Fukushima and 2) what the transmutation effects from typical ingestion expected from an environment with those levels of contamination.

                  The RADIATION, except for SOME of the current red-zone, is lower than places that are very nice places to live. Thus, the RADIATION is not much of an issue.

                  The potential ingestion/transmutation effects are yet to be determined. Till they are, I would recommend that anyone living there take prussian blue tablets commensurate with the concentration of Cs-134 & -137 in their food.. Prussian blue binds with the cesium and it gets excreted from the body. It blocks absorption so there are little to no adverse effects.

                  Terrorists feed terror. Scientists seek solutions.

                  You don't seem to be acting like a scientist.


                  Report comment

              • VanneV anne

                Kiteman, Plutonium doesn't even exist in nature. It is completely man-made. The most dangerous substance to inhale has no counterpart in nature.

                You just say whatever you want with no scientific knowledge whatever. How much biology did you study and where? How much medicine and where?


                Report comment

                • KitemanSA

                  Actually, it does, but in very limited locations and concentrations. Check out "Natural Reactors" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_reactors

                  It is true that almost all is man made. What of it?

                  Are you talking about its chemical toxicity or its radio toxicity? I am trying to figure out your point, assuming you have one?

                  I have studied this subject off and on for about 40 years, more recently since I am now retired and can spend more time on it. Does that help?


                  Report comment

              • VanneV anne

                Your ignorance and disinformation makes you responsible for the following:

                HORRIFIC CHERNOBYL MUTANTS ** WARNING ** SHOCKING **
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr6XGrxGtJM

                Chernobyl – Surviving Disaster
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk3-XUe0oEU

                THE REAL EFFECTS OF CHERNOBYL and NOW FUKUSHIMA
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooCpbVHtuYg


                Report comment

                • VanneV anne

                  This is directed to KitemanSA.


                  Report comment

                • KitemanSA

                  Have you studied the subject deeply? Are you aware that the Soviet Union and its subsequent free states used and continue to use teratogenic substances like thalidomide with what the US would consider "abandon"? Are you aware that Anti-nuke terrorists tried to falsely blame bomb fallout for the Thalidomide babies here in the States in the mid to late fifties?
                  Lastly, are you aware that the occurrence rate of such deformities hasn't changed since before Chernobyl? More are currently being dumped in such hospitals, but that is just because it is a cheap way to "take care of" them.

                  Sorry, you trip into terrorism failed to work.


                  Report comment

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE:

                    an area exceeding 30,000 km(2) in Chernobyl's surroundings constitutes an ecological trap that causes dramatic excess mortality.
                    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22514722

                    Chernobyl accident [resulted in] a radiation related increase of thyroid cancer incidence in children and adolescents

                    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18923372

                    Our analysis of Belarus thyroid cancer patients less than 21 yr old showed that the post-Chernobyl increase in thyroid carcinomas

                    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9360507

                    The dramatic increase in childhood thyroid carcinoma observed in Belarus and Ukraine as early as 4 years after the Chernobyl nuclear accident, is well recognized as being a consequence of exposure to radioactive iodine fallout.

                    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11289741

                    The case-control comparisons indicate a strong relationship between thyroid cancer and estimated radiation dose from the Chernobyl accident

                    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9728663

                    .. mental disorders in prenatally irradiated children and obviously reflect developmental abnormalities of brain structure and function…

                    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=post+chernobyl+retadation

                    (code shutdown, still uncontained. It was impossible to anticipate this unfortunate occurance)


                    Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Yup, I-131 is bad stuff and if the SovGov had acted appropriately, there probably would have been NO thyroid cancers. Those cancers are the EASIEST to prevent and it is incredibly cheap. It is too bad the SovGov didn't really care.

                      The more I read, the more I think the JapGov was even more stupid in that respect.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      kiteman, just below you refer to a study as ludicrous tripe concocted by blockheads (paraphrase). As an answer to my several referenced studies, you say if they had bothered to prevent it, there would be NO thyroid cancer. But doesnt this miss the salient point? Toxins WERE RELEASED, cancer, deformation and retardation DID OCCUR. The region IS A DEATHTRAP for animals. Even if they could have prevented thyroid cancer, the horrific release of poison and its effect on life remains. The mystery is that you can argue it isnt so or that its insignificant.


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      No one but an idiot would deny that toxins were released.
                      In what can only be described as stupidity piled on arrogance piled on bad information to the worst imaginable degree, a potentially significant amount of a toxin with a readily available counter-agent was released.

                      I cannot find definitive statements as to whether that counter-agent was administered. If so, and done properly, there should be no issue. If not, there may be a number of readily treatable cancers.

                      The best data to date presents a difference of opinion between a few hundred and zero deaths from that toxicity.

                      And no, I am not without sympathy for the unfortunate people who MAY die, but I also feel for the many MORE people who will die without the clean energy that well functioning NPPs provide.


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Just as an interesting tidbit, one of the referenced documents contained the following statement.

                      "One important biological mechanism in the genesis of mental disorders in prenatally irradiated children is the radiation-induced malfunction of the thyroid-pituitary system with the effect threshold of 0.30 Sv of thyroid exposure dose."

                      Notice that this paper acknowledges an effect threshold. 300mSv is a pretty substantial dose. And is seems fairly consistent with the other data for radiation effect thresholds.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      KitemanSA, if you mean giving potassium iodide is the readily available counter measure to a nuclear meltdown, or something close to this, then you appear narrow in vision. Radioactive toxin quickly becomes spread through the environment, affecting all cells of all plant and animal to some degree. Reducing its biological uptake to a specific organ by "filling its place" with the correct nutrient does not mitigate the disaster that is unleashed as a ubiquitous deleterious element. How can we not assume you are locked into denial when you quote a difference between a few hundred deaths and zero? I gave you a number of revealing studies above that you could only have ignored to adhere to your wildly unrealistic assessment.


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      CS wrote:
                      "kiteman, just below you refer to a study as ludicrous tripe concocted by blockheads (paraphrase). As an answer to my several referenced studies, you say if they had bothered to prevent it, there would be NO thyroid cancer. But doesnt this miss the salient point? Toxins WERE RELEASED, "
                      Yes, CS, toxins were released. Yes, some people did get thyroid cancer and a few did in fact die from it. That is indeed sad. The result of playing around with a lousy reactor design resulted in some deaths. Currently, the total stands at ABOUT 50. The total MAY go up as high as the low thousands in time.

                      But the ludicrous tripe was the "study" that says that 950,000 people hve already died. The author, "Yablokhead", basically went to the medical records from BEFORE Chernobyl (e.g., the records kept by the Soviet Union) and compared them to the records AFTER Chernobyl that the Ukraine etc. kept and wherever he saw a change in death rate, he attributed it to Chernobyl. But anyone who knows anything about the Soviet medical establishment knows that it was EXTREMELY common for them to record the "Cause of Death" as "Heart Failure". The Ukrainians actually put down the medical cause of death. All Yablockhead found was a change in record keeping. Another case of "half the truth". If he had looked at the rate of death by Heart failure, Chernobyl would have SAVED 950,000 people!


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      CS wrote:
                      "kiteman, just below you refer to a study as ludicrous tripe concocted by blockheads (paraphrase). As an answer to my several referenced studies, you say if they had bothered to prevent it, there would be NO thyroid cancer. But doesnt this miss the salient point? Toxins WERE RELEASED, cancer, deformation and retardation DID OCCUR. The region IS A DEATHTRAP for animals. Even if they could have prevented thyroid cancer, the horrific release of poison and its effect on life remains. The mystery is that you can argue it isnt so or that its insignificant. "
                      The area is a wildlife refuge. Animals are THRIVING there.

                      The toxin that caused the thyroid problems is GONE, completely, 100%, unless Chernobyl is still undergoing some criticality.

                      I certainly do not argue that there were not toxins released. I do argue that the significance is MUCH lower than your run of the mill anti-nuke would have the population believe. I also argue that making such over-the-top statements about dire consequences has only one purpose, to terrorize the populace for political purposes. I recognize that as terrorism.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      kiteman implies that with correct data tracking Chernobyl saved SAVED 950,000 people. …I think he meant this. Kiteman attempts to convince people that Chernobyl and Fukushima were not seriously harmful, but his words instead provoke disbelief and wonder. How is it possible anyone can seriously have his views? Kiteman, there are places in the "United Kingdom" where you cant raise sheep TO THIS DAY due to Chernobyl. How can any sane person conclude the sheep and people living there are unharmed? There is more than one study showing the wide spread death, retardation and deformity resulting from Fukushima. Your insistence that this is all bunk only ruins your credibility. Who will even bother reading your posts after a while? If your motive is to convince people of nuclear safety, renewable's harm, you have failed and will continue to fail. perhaps reconsider your strategy


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      kiteman says Chernobyl is a wildlife refuge where animals are thriving. Why not take up your argument with the authors of this study?

                      an area exceeding 30,000 km(2) in Chernobyl's surroundings constitutes an ecological trap that causes dramatic excess mortality.
                      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22514722

                      Kiteman, you fail to convince anyone, Im pretty sure of it. Do you suspect the same? Thus your efforts are a waste of your remaining time to enjoy life. Why not apply your engineering knowledge to solar and wind, get off the grid, and assist in the effort to rid the world of nuclear and coal?


                      Report comment

                  • VanneV anne

                    Health consequences of Chernobyl: the New York Academy of Sciences publishes an antidote to the nuclear establishment's pseudo-science.
                    Int J Health Serv. 2010;40(4):679-98.

                    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058538
                    Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment
                    ANNAls of the New york AcAdemy of scieNces
                    Alexey V.
                    YABLOKOV
                    Vassily B.
                    NESTERENKO
                    Alexey V.
                    NESTERENKO
                    coNsultiNG editor
                    Janette d. sherman-Nevinger
                    VOLUME 1181

                    http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf


                    Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Oh my God, that tripe?
                      Please read it. Figure out his methodology. It was LUDICROUS!
                      The SovGov and its medical establishment listed the cause of death for just about everyone as "heart failure", no matter what caused the heart to fail.
                      The freed states are now actually putting down cause of death. The only thing Yablockhead found was a massive change of recording method, but nothing real about cause of death.

                      Talk to the NYAS about this. Their response is, "We just printed it. We didn't validate it." That piece of nonsense may have been the single most idiotic thing the NYAS ever did.


                      Report comment

      • dosdos dosdos

        KitemanSA, so you're saying that all these locations with markedly high radiation has cesium, plutonium, uranium, and strontium as the source of the radiation? Or are you saying that all nuclear isotopes are the same in term of adverse health effects?

        Bananas, bananas, bananas…….

        Are you aware that Denver has the highest concentration per capita of practicing respiratory therapists in the US for the last forty five years?


        Report comment

        • KitemanSA

          Nope, just uranium and other actinides and their decay chain products like radium and radon.
          Cesium is quite easily treatable. Strontium, not so much. See response above.
          Re plutonium and Fukushima, data?
          Re the therapists, much of that is due to the interesting tidbit that doctors in other cities
          send their respiratory patients TOO the Denver area when feasible. It generally has a much better air quality. Oh, and they've been doing it for about 100 years, not just forty.


          Report comment

      • VanneV anne

        Colorado has the highest rate for multiple sclerosis in the US. Also, very high rates for skin cancer.


        Report comment

        • VanneV anne

          Brain radiation and possible presentation of multiple sclerosis
          http://journals.mui.ac.ir/jrms/article/view/9043
          “…Peroxisomal proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) are ligand-activated transcription factors that belong to the steroid/thyroid hormone nuclear receptor superfamily. Although traditionally known to play a role in metabolism, increasing evidence suggests a role for PPARs in regulating the response to inflammation and oxidative injury. PPAR agonists have been shown to cross the blood-brain barrier and confer neuroprotection in animal models of CNS disorders such as stroke, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease. However, the role of PPARs in radiation-induced brain injury is unclear. In this manuscript, we review the current knowledge and the emerging insights about the role of PPARs in modulating radiation-induced brain injury….”
          http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ppar/2010/234975/abs/


          Report comment

          • KitemanSA

            My god woman! Please be sensible.
            The journal article you linked talked about a POSSIBLE link to a situation where radiation was applied in INTENTIONALLY lethal doses to kill a brain tumor. Those doses are MASSIVE, and accute. That has nothing to do with the levels we talk about.
            But indeed it dos demonstrate that the human body has marvelous reparitive capability in that though the rest of the brain in question got ALMOST as much radiation per sitting as the tumor, it basically got well and only MAYBE might have gotten MS from it. Ask her if she prefered the tumor or the MS.

            The fact that the brain can recover from that kind of irradiation, enough to kill the cancer, is testiment to the bodies ability to ignore small doses.


            Report comment

            • We Not They Finally

              Kiteman, WHO DO YOU WORK FOR? And would be please go SWALLOW all the stuff that you say is so safe. It's called putting your mouth where your mouth is.

              In fact, if cesium is so harmless and easily dispelled, why not go take a fishing trip off the coast of Fukushima, Japan? Tell us how you fare. Yum-yum.

              Again, WHO DO YOU WORK FOR???


              Report comment

              • KitemanSA

                I'm retired. I used to work as an engineer for the Naval Sea Systems Command. I was not a nuke with the Navy, but that is only because I decided to go another way after having been hired by them.

                I am well educated about the industry but have never ACTUALLY worked in it. NR was a pain in my butt more often than not. They were, and still are, incredibly anal about safety. Of course, a thousand or so reactor years without an accident is a pretty good record, so I have to give them their props where due!


                Report comment

                • Sickputer

                  KSA typed these boastful words of praise about the "excellent" safety record of the US nuclear navy vessels:

                  "Of course, a thousand or so reactor years without an accident is a pretty good record, so I have to give them their props where due!"

                  SP: Considering that the Thresher and Scorpion nuclear subs sit on the bottom of the Atlantic ocean (along with 6 Soviet and Russian nuke subs) I find those an "accident" regardless of the cause of the fateful ocean floor breakups. The net result is nuclear fuel was lost in the ocean. Oh yes, we know how pro-nukes dismiss any radiation accidents in the ocean as a minor scratch on the health of humans ("The ocean is vast and will dilute the radiation").

                  Seems I remember some other Americans proclaiming the passenger pigeon flocks were vast and they would never be at risk. Billions killed.. Not a sole survivor.


                  Report comment

        • VanneV anne

          Colorado Voices: Multiple sclerosis, the uninvited guest
          “…Chances are, if you live in Colorado, you know someone who has MS. If not, consider yourself lucky — for now. Colorado has in extraordinarily high rate of MS and no one knows why. There are 9,500 Coloradans with the auto-immune disorder.…”
          http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_18479818

          It’s fairly obvious that elevated levels of radiation will cause MS.


          Report comment

          • We Not They Finally

            anne, as I'm sure you realize that people do NOT realize, elevated radiation levels cause an incredibly wide range of diseases, not just cancer at all. Apparently that has something to do with the TYPE of radionuclide the person is exposed to — like strontium for bone cancer, cesium for heart attacks, radioactive iodine for thyroid disorders. (And God knows what caused 60% of the Fukushima kids to go DIABETIC in a little over a year.) I bet if someone did a complete work-up of hazards in Colorado, this could be figured out. But meanwhile, almost no one is even testing the most common foods! The nuclear industry honestly spends more money getting universities to lie for them, than to do any needed testing at all. So sad. Didn't even know that about Colorado. Thanks for contributing so much info to the rest of us.


            Report comment

            • PhilipUpNorth PhilipUpNorth

              The following universities are members of NEI, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the backbone of nuclear industry apologist industry in the US. The nuclear science departments at these universities are funded by the nuclear industry, who pay for all the wonderful equipment, to be used only for the benefit of the nuclear industry. The equipment at these universities could be used to study fallout from Fukushima, bio-accumulation of radioactive isotopes up the food chain, and could locate and warn the public of contamination in our foods. Yet nothing of the sort is happening. Public health and safety be damned. Bought and paid for by the nuclear industry.

              University of Alabama
              University of Alberta
              University of Antofagasta, Chile
              University of Arizona
              University of Bologna
              University of California
              University of Cincinnati
              University of Colorado
              University of Denver
              University of Detroit
              University of Florida
              University of Idaho
              University of Illinois
              University of Maryland
              University of Massachusetts
              University of Michigan
              University of Missouri
              University of Nevada, Las Vegas
              University of New Mexico
              University of North Texas
              University of Notre Dame
              University of Pittsburgh
              University of Rhode Island
              University of South Carolina
              The University of Tennessee
              University of Texas at Austin
              University of Texas of the Permian Basin
              The University of the District of Columbia
              The University of Tokyo
              University of Virginia
              University of…


              Report comment

          • moonshellblue moonshellblue

            Yes radiation does cause MS which is verified by the incidence in Chernobyl. I was dx'd many years ago and have always wondered if TMI was not the cause but thus far I have only had two major attacks and other than fatigue and pain have been very lucky. I will never forget the day I was diagnosed as it was my 30th birthday the doc who ordered my MRI waived my fee, some birthday gift. lol


            Report comment

          • KitemanSA

            Is the incidence of MS almost as high in Finland as in Denver? Is it 10 times as high in Guarapai Brazil? How but 20 times as high in Ramsar Iran? I doubt it.
            The statement "and nobody knows why" suggests it is NOT radiation because that is the first thing typically checked for. Sorry, your data are interesting but totally unconvincing.


            Report comment

        • VanneV anne

          “…Melanoma—responsible for 75% of all skin cancer deaths—is the 5 most commonly diagnosed cancer in Colorado….”

          “Pitkin County has the highest rate of new melanoma diagnoses in the state and ranks among the highest 1% of counties nationwide….”
          http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/doc/co_facts_web.pdf

          Pitkin County, CO Uranium Mines

          http://www.us-mining.com/colorado/pitkin-county/uranium-mines


          Report comment

        • KitemanSA

          Re the skin cancer, that sunlight kills about 9000 people in the US each year. Stay out of the sun?
          Re MS, interesting. I will invetigate.


          Report comment

          • Lion76 Lion76

            The sun has a valid excuse for being upon the Earth.

            Your nuclear pollution, does not.

            Try again, disinformation maker. We've heard the whole "stay out of the sun then?" argument 4,000,000 times already on here. Come up with something new already.


            Report comment

            • KitemanSA

              Why not?

              The following is 100% true, but I predict that you will emotionally be unable to accept that truth.

              Even if you include the worst case death estimates from EVERY nuclear incident, INCLUDING the two bombs, and have them all happen each and every year, "nuclear pollution" still would kill fewer people each year than renewable energy. Perhaps we should eliminate THOSE deaths first?


              Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                kiteman, a professor has said Fukushima released 3000 billion lethal doses of radiation. Your position is that solar and wind has generated more than 3000 billion lethal doses of something?


                Report comment

                • KitemanSA

                  Your professor appears to be a nut. It happens. There is no need for YOU to be embarrassed about it. And by the way, 300 Billion doses does not mean the 300 billion will die, even if there were 300 billion people on the planet.
                  But I sure would like to see his calculation of that number. Should be a hoot!

                  The absolute worst case death toll published by a nut-case "researcher" on Chernobyl was ~950,000 deaths. The worst case estimate I've seen for Fukushima is about 1000, but lets go to absurds and say 100,000. The bombs killed ~700,000, including the blast effects which shouldn't really be counted but I will. All the other incidents come out to WELL less than 1000.
                  So, well less than 1,751,000 in ~70 years. Bio-fuels kill about 1,800,000 people EVERY YEAR. Lets take care of that first.


                  Report comment

                  • 16Penny 16Penny

                    KitemanSA,

                    " Bio-fuels kill about 1,800,000 people EVERY YEAR"

                    "I sure would like to see his calculation of that number. Should be a hoot!"

                    What a joke, where is your references and their calculations for that outrageous number?

                    If you are attempting to include deaths from weird respiratory diseases please show how whatever study your using separates the respiratory damage caused from radiation and the respiratory damage caused by petroleum fuels from the respiratory damages caused by Bio fuels. And which bio fuels are you including?

                    I want you to really break that down for me. Do you have the ages of all the people killed by bio-fuel?

                    And could you please provide references for this lump you deposited on ENE's site:

                    "The absolute worst case death toll published by a nut-case "researcher" on Chernobyl was ~950,000 deaths. The worst case estimate I've seen for Fukushima is about 1000, but lets go to absurds and say 100,000. The bombs killed ~700,000, including the blast effects which shouldn't really be counted but I will. All the other incidents come out to WELL less than 1000."

                    Sources please. Back it up or you have no credibility in such a wild claim.


                    Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      16Penny
                      It is a WHO report on the effects of using solid bio-fuels like wood and dung and charcoal to cook their food. The deaths are about evenly distributed between the mothers doing the cooking and the toddlers the mothers must watch while cooking.

                      Look it up. That way you may read more about it and believe THEIR data, not mine.

                      What numbers in my calculation are you questioning?
                      The 950k for Chernobyl comes from Helen Caldicott's references. It is rediculously high. Even the GreenPeace number was less than 1/15th that value. It is even more rediculous than GreenPeace for heaven's sake!
                      The ~700k for the bombs came from Wikipedia. Argue with them.
                      The ~1000 for Fukushima was the worst case end of the WHO report.
                      UNSCEAR says ZERO. I multiplied it by 100, just to be ridiculously high.
                      Wikipedia lists all other known accidents. The total is quite small. I use 1000. Argue with them.

                      WHO's bio-fuel data. anti-nukes Chernobyl data. High end of bomb estimates. Wikipedia. Got it?


                      Report comment

                  • VanneV anne

                    Fukushima Equals 3,000 Billion Lethal Doses
                    “Dr Paolo Scampa, a widely know EU Physicist, single handedly popularized the easily understood Lethal Doses concept. “Lethal Doses” is a world wide, well understood idea that strips Physics bare and offers a brilliant, understandable explanation for all the physics gobbledygook Intelligence agencies and their respective governments use to disguise the brutal truths of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster.
                    “Three thousand billion (3,000,000,000,000) Lethal Doses of Radiation means there are 429 Lethal Doses chasing each and every one of us on the planet, to put it in a nutshell. This is up from about 70 Billion Lethal Doses March 23, 2011. It is getting worse everyday without any intervention by the US and the other nuclear powers….”
                    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/28/fukushima-how-many-chernobyls-is-it/


                    Report comment

                  • VanneV anne

                    Kiteman, Interesting that you can't quote figures correctly. Somehow, 3,000 billion lethal doses became in you post 300 billion.


                    Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Sorry, 10 times absurd is still absurd. Useless to talk about it.


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Are you aware that there are about 100 TRILLION lethal doses of H2O in Lake Michigan ALONE? Oh my god, lets prevent the rain!


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      kiteman, the difference in H2O and plutonium is that one supports life in all normal biological doses, and the other destroys it. Since the dose rate consequences of radioactivity have been reasonably worked out, why dont YOU come up with an estimate of how many lethal doses, that while not affectingly humans DIRECTLY, will inevitably affect life, somewhere, sometime, somehow. You realize that to argue with Kaku and others, you go against some of the highest rank in science? Are you REALLY so much smarter and well informed that you can call them absurd? doesnt sound right does it?


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      So what, there are still 100 Trillion lethal doses. It makes no more difference than that there are some absurd theoretical number of lethal doses in a core or pool. What matters is whether they are managed properly. So lets all distract TEPCO from managing things properly. That will surely make us safer!


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      kiteman, you insist we are impeding TEPCO. Its hard to believe that a little dialogue here and there is distracting them. An international effort is required, using the best engineering resources available to stem the tide of death coming from the plant which lies in blown up, untouchable ruins. We arent stopping the effort in any way.

                      But you also argue that 100 trillion lethal doses of water has the same relevance as 100 trillion lethal doses of radioactive fallout. The same dangerous and unconsidered thinking could be applied this way; 10,000 savages with poison darts is the same danger as the water in the lake they camp around. Is it not ludicrous? There were more lethal doses of water in Europe than lethal doses of yersinia pestis that caused the black plague, so why worry? Highly diluted bacterial toxin never killed a single person.


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      The Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt that is the book selling, speaking engagement hiring stock in trade of the professional anti-nukes you all support does indeed impede TEPCO.

                      Rather than spending their time and energies handling the potential BIG problem, they fritter away their efforts with 400 tonnes of contaminated water per day because they can't get rid of the water BEFORE it becomes significantly contaminated.

                      Were I in charge, I think I might say something like "this water is well under the limit for safe use. We are going to dump this almost indetectably radioactive ground water. For every 1 Bq we dump into the ocean, we will extract 10 Bq from it. Thank you for all the fish."


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      CodeShutdown wrote:
                      "But you also argue that 100 trillion lethal doses of water has the same relevance as 100 trillion lethal doses of radioactive fallout. "
                      KSA: That is because in neither case is there a realistic mechanism for dividing and applying and ideal lethal dose. They are both in a place where nothing is trying to distribute the dose. Existance of a dose does not imply delivery of the dose.
                      CS: "The same dangerous and unconsidered thinking could be applied this way; 10,000 savages with poison darts is the same danger as the water in the lake they camp around. Is it not ludicrous?
                      KSA: Yes, your comparison is ludicrous. By "savages" I assume you mean people who want to do you harm. There is NO intent in the plutonium to find you and do you harm. The Pu and the H2O are alike in that manner. The Pu and the savage are NOT.

                      CS:There were more lethal doses of water in Europe than lethal doses of yersinia pestis that caused the black plague, so why worry? Highly diluted bacterial toxin never killed a single person."
                      KSA: Your meaning here is unclear. Ir seems you are trying to draw an analogy between the Pu and the Black Plague. What are the analogs to the rats, the fleas, and the viruses? Not seeing your point here.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      KSA, the fear of mass quantities of uncontainable toxin, the uncertainty that things are not even worse than mans little studies indicate, the doubt that man and his machine are infallible, these are the selling points of anti nukers. I dont follow book or speaker circuit types. If Tepco is thus impeded by rational concerns, its indeed a ship of fools.

                      Where is G.E.? the U.S. France and England? Japanese leaders who considered evacuation were ousted, Abe takes their place. Where are the tests for radioactivity of mass animal deaths? Nuclear; a fools paradise


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Kiteman, the banter would be endless. What is it but a waste of time for both? Water vapor in the air is ubiquitous, yet does not kill. Released Cesium strontium and plutonium also spread everywhere, the difference is that they harm. Your only defense to this argument is that if plutonium is SUFFICIENTLY DILUTED, there is no statistically evident harm. That is the plague analogue; a small unseen bit of bacteria could kill, just like radiation. Not so with water. Remember YOU compared water and radiation, in my mind at least, a ludicrous argument that goes nowhere. It would profit us more to play a game of chess than to argue about the safety of high tech super poisons. For some reason your eyes are closed to the obvious and words will never open them


                      Report comment

                  • VanneV anne

                    Fukushima Daiichi Equals 50 Plus Chernobyls
                    “As Dr. Michio Kaku, a world renowned CUNY theoretical physicist pointed out on CNN March 18, 2011, Chernobyl involved one reactor and only 57.6 Tons of the reactor core went into the atmosphere. In dramatic contrast, the Fukushima Daiichi disaster immediately involved six reactors and a whopping IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency, a UN Agency) documented 2,800 Tons of highly radioactive old reactor cores.
                    “Simple division tells us there are at least 48.6 Chernobyls in the burning old reactor cores pumping fiery isotopes into the Earth’s atmosphere. It is no stretch to say Fukushima Daiichi’s six reactors and the dry holding pools for old reactor cores are equal to more than 50 Chernobyl disasters.
                    “Further clarification is needed, of course, and it is being worked out now by independent physicists. Note that the lethality of radioactive reactor cores goes up the first 250,000 years they are out of the reactor – not down….”
                    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/28/fukushima-how-many-chernobyls-is-it/


                    Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      So lets all pester TEPCO with needless minutia and prevent them from handling the biggest problem. Real wise… NOT!


                      Report comment

                    • combomelt combomelt

                      Undeniable anne. Thank you.

                      "Pestering INEPTCO" lofl KSA!
                      Go here and take a breather, and relax by the pool
                      http://www.fukushima-viewhotel.jp/english/


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      But Tepco didnt avoid this 50 chernobyl event, does not seem to manage leaking water, is suspect in many ways, and probably has no time to read ENEnews. Are we really keeping them from their job? No, but the point has been missed; Chernobyl leaves uninhabitable land and deformed animals, whether you believe the "terrorist" government organization that impose the zone and pub med papers or not. And we can see Fukushima is now much worse, even if you deem Kaku and Scampa nut cases, and thus by logical extension, great damage of unknown final consequence is inevitable….including uninhabitable land. Start from an exposed core…how far are you going to put the yellow ribbon of habitability? Nature; interconnected


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      But even one of the reactors at Fukushima is said to have been a criticality explosion, not just hydrogen, according to "nut case" Gunderson. But the point is missed; Unanticipated destruction and release of large quantities of radiation occurred. This happened dramatically with explosions which left the plant in shambles. You would have said such an event was impossible and absurd fear mongering, much as you are defending nuclear to this day. It has been said that SPF4 could ruin the north hemisphere if it falls. You are alone even in your own circle if you think that is absurd.


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Calling it a 50 Chernobyl event is simply anti-nuke propaganda. The amount of material that got into the environment was significant, but not anywhere NEAR 50 times what Chernobyl spread.


                      Report comment

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    kiteman. You have written a number of posts in regard to our conversation. It will take me some time to dig out the references. Would you come back looking for this thread in a few days? You can call me liar, immature, uneducated, fear mongering etc. Even though my references to your points were unfairly abridged, I thought they held the essence of your meaning, and indeed you elaborated on it, so I couldnt have been too far off. Blogs are filled with misunderstanding due to literary style. But thanks to Anne, I see she is taking up on some of the sources. In the mean time, I will look also. Im NOT studied up on it, and dont claim so. We all must choose what to believe. People who thought nuclear plants would never explode were wrong, for example. Years ago I made the lucky choice to believe disaster and fallibility are inescapable, and thus was more correct in my naive thinking that experts.


                    Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      A Light Water Reactor cannot undergo a nuclear explosion. What happened in Fukushima was a hydrogen gas explosion. What MIGHT happen is akin to an explosion in that it is a rapid release of energy. But it will not be anything like a REAL nuclear explosion.

                      None-the-less, I would REALLY like to have TEPCO working HARD to handle the corium properly rather that to waste a bunch of time trying to find room for water they should be filtering and dumping!


                      Report comment

                    • VanneV anne

                      The MOX fuel can have a nuclear explosion whether it started first in the Spent Fuel Pool or the reactor. If you watch and listen to the video there were 3 explosions. Likely that the first explosion damaged the containment and there were 2 other consequent explosions. There is no reason that a light water reactor can't have a nuclear explosion when it is loaded with MOX fuel and the cooling system is destroyed by an earthquake.

                      Your remarks are always without scientific backup. You need to supply links for your remarks.


                      Report comment

                    • VanneV anne

                      My remarks were directed to KitemanSA.


                      Report comment

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    kiteman, well of course the educated can be nuts as you point out. I agree. Since you disagree with Dr Paolo Scampa, Michio Kaku, Dr Busby, Dr Caldicott, Pavel et al in "Environmental Science & Technology", Casacuberta et al, (Liquid discharges of 90Sr to the ocean were estimated, resulting in an inventory of 53±1 TBq of 90Sr in the inshore study area in June 2011 and total releases of 90Sr ranging from 90 to 900 TBq,) and as Jebus notes, you are also at odds with Einstein and Oppenheimer as regards nuclear safety, then I must somehow choose who has the greater depth of understanding, you or them. You can understand, without taking offense, how I could view your position skeptically. Do you think its correct that I should say the above referenced professionals are nuts and you are not? Kiteman, please would YOU calculate, roughly, the number of lethal doses from Fukushima, {disregarding for the moment WHICH life form it will affect}

                    you could see Dr Paolo's bio here
                    http://www.unibo.it/SitoWebDocente/default.htm?UPN=paolo.scampa%40unibo.it&TabControl1=TabCV


                    Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      See my comment above. 100TRILLION lethal doses of water in Lake Michigan. Just as "real" a statement as the "lethal doses" you presented, and just as useless to discuss.

                      From everything I have seen, I concur with the UNSCEAR report that predicts no ascribable deaths from Fukushima. If I could distill the ocean and concentrate the Sr90 and divide it out ideally to maximize the total deaths… I wouldn't. Also, I couldn't and neither can anyone else, so truly the calculation has ONE purpose… to frighten for political purposes, i.e., to terrorize.


                      Report comment

                    • combomelt combomelt

                      Plenty of places to stay kitesa….because its safe right???

                      http://www.fukushima-viewhotel.jp/english/

                      http://www.hotelclub.com/Onahama-Ocean-Hotel-Golf-Club-Fukushima/

                      Cmon. Man up. Ill even book the room for ya!
                      All have ocean views!


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Combomelt;
                      As I offered in other posts, if you all pay the fare, the nightly, the per diem, and the cargo, I'll go there to help clean up.

                      First thing, buy a couple thousand wading pools. If you don't know why, then go away, you don't know enough to be in this conversation.


                      Report comment

              • m a x l i

                This is how you detect the psychopaths. Watch them when they open their mouths and start using words like 'emotional' or 'morals'. They are using these words because they heard or read them somewhere and think it's good tactics to use them in order to convince their objects of manipulation. But what they have to say about emotions or morals is always a bit odd or silly because they do not really know what they are talking about. From their perspective, our emotions or morals are some kind of hindering defect of our brain.


                Report comment

                • Lion76 Lion76

                  If someone is here to represent themselves as some sort of "professionals" in the field, they have a responsibility to be "professional" and come with some professional data…

                  I am just a common man, an artist, a "non professional" and I also know as an artist how to channel my emotions to be creative, productive, etc. Nearly all artists do so, we are eccentric and have to harness our energies in such ways.

                  Attacks of the ego variety are so easy to spot and also to provoke. I can and do fight such attacks with more than one tactic, but when all my attempts at "reason" are ignored and the target audience chooses to be difficult for the sake of being difficult, my "emotions" then channel into another tactic of fighting fire with fire. But their fire does not burn my ego so much as it does theirs, because my ego does not run my world as it does the world of a professional who is getting owned by the simple facts/truth/data.

                  These "pro troll" types talk a lot of fancy and provide no feasts of any relevant information.

                  "They" try to "win arguments" with debate tactics, but any 3rd party readers are likely smart enough to spot sh1t from shinola. So, that's why links of relevant data and info will always trump the tactics of trolls who use fallacy over and over to try and "win arguments" like a Chess game. This ain't a game, this is people who want truth and information. Check mate, fools.


                  Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                kiteman falls off his own cliff, suggesting that solar and wind are more harmful than plutonium, cesium and thorium. No sane person from 9 to 90 yrs old would buy that. Yet he makes an extra leap; that wind will produce more radioactive pollution than nuclear reactors. Are his typing fingers activated by his brain? There is never an answer to those tough questions like Belarus and Fukushima thyroid cysts, uninhabitable country. Instead, kiteman and pronuke say they are treated poorly and will refuse to post. Its true, they are treated with almost childish disdain. Poor guys. But I hear if you sprinkle cesium in your drink, it lifts mood and extends life span. Look what it did for Homer Simpson; from tired nuke rookie to singing dancing international TV star. Financial viability of nuclear? look no further than Burns


                Report comment

                • KitemanSA

                  CodeShutdown, don't lie. I never said that solar and wind… I said that RENEWABLES kill more people than nuclear, by a LONG shot. I explained how above.
                  Apology please.


                  Report comment

                  • 16Penny 16Penny

                    I only find 5 instances of the word renewables on this post, where exactly did you claim renewables kill more people than nuclear?


                    Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      To 16Penny:
                      I wrote"
                      "The following is 100% true, but I predict that you will emotionally be unable to accept that truth.

                      Even if you include the worst case death estimates from EVERY nuclear incident, INCLUDING the two bombs, and have them all happen each and every year, "nuclear pollution" still would kill fewer people each year than renewable energy. Perhaps we should eliminate THOSE deaths first?" Ok?


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      kiteman, didnt you say that before? unreliable renewables kill more than nuclear? I guess science utterly and miserably failed then, except for the few wind generators still grinding wheat, and my friends who live off the grid in comfortable solar homes. Verdict; science and industry failed. Even though theres a good part of a horsepower per meter free for the taking, only uneducated trees can use it. It poisons humans who would venture


                      Report comment

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    kiteman, you ask for an apology that I misquoted you. Its true, Im sorry. I took these statements of yours

                    "Actually, the fuel for LFTRs is the radioactive waste left over when mining materials for wind-mills. Without LFT Recyclers, wind mills would release ~8 times as much radioactive waste as WITH LFTRs

                    bio-fuels kill more people each and every year than nuclear has during its entire existence"

                    To imply that nuclear was safer than wind and solar, which are the main sustainable energy sources I personally think of. Clearly, you had said BIOFUELS (and only later renewables) But a point of greater import remains; you maintain a GENERAL position that Fukushima was not bad, that uninhabitable land due to nuke accident is a terrorist meme, and that nuclear is the safe technology for the future. Even if Tokyo needed to evacuate, as they were considering and as some say should still be, you would not change your view. Thus I believe we have reached an impasse in the value of dialogue. I agree with anne; your ideology supports suffering, death, deformity and fascism. I do appreciate you think otherwise


                    Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Thank you for your civil discussion, but obviously I think that though YOUR goals may be akin to mine (a clean, green world) I know enough to realize your path is counter productive.

                      The unreliable renewables (wind, solar) could only support a civilization at EXTREME cost. The cost would be disastrous for the environment as it is already proving to be.

                      Nuclear as it stands now, with all its gaping faults, is still better than renewables, and Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors eliminated those gaping faults.

                      LFTRs are truly THE path to a leaner, cleaner, greener future, until fusion comes along if it ever does.

                      Again, thanks for all the fish ;)


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Yet there are others that maintain the cost for using the sun and wind are less than nuclear. Who should I believe? I think there is a town in Germany that has excess energy from solar and thus is in a negative cost bracket. Putting a window to the south that shines on thermal mass costs no more than not doing it and needing a furnace. Old cowboys pumped water with windmills, and way before them, grain was ground. Now with your superior intelligence you cant make it work? I have a friend completely off the grid. Its true. He pays nothing to utility companies and gets nothing from nuclear. He just did it, and is not even an engineer like you are. Whats wrong with this picture?


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Here is one study.
                      http://theenergycollective.com/alextrembath/224666/cost-german-solar-four-times-finnish-nuclear
                      There are numerous others.
                      The thing to remember is that peak capacity is an outright lie, and capacity FACTOR is an incideous lie. To compare sources properly you need to look at their capacity CREDIT. For the unreliables, CapCred is very small, in the 1% range.
                      FYI, CapFactor is an incideous lie because it assumes there is enough storage to average out the flow, but the storage doesn't exist. If it did, the price would be ENORMOUS!!


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Just for clarification, solar thermal for home heating is a no-brainer, the storage for it is cheap. For home WATER heating, it is often better but sometimes a wash with gas or hydro-electric. This topic however was comparing electric to electric. The unreliables just don't cut it.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Olkiluoto initially expected to cost $4.2 billion and take four years to complete, Unit 3 is now estimated to cost at least $11.1 billion and will not enter into service before 2016.

                      Thats the plant they say trumps solar. I didnt see the costs of decommissioning and storage. What will they do with nuclear waste? What will it cost? What if theres an accident, miscalculation or mechanical or human error? What if something unanticipated happens and 10s of thousands of bombs worth of radiation is released? Whats the cost?


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      They crunch the numbers with the verdict; will stupid solar and wind proponents STOP insisting that their unreliable, peak performance only technology will actually work? Meanwhile my friends live comfortably using it, what to say of all the plants and animals of earths history.


                      Report comment

                • KitemanSA

                  CodeShutdown:
                  Having lied about what I said in your first sentence (my prior post), you do it again in your third. Shame on you again. The statement I made that you miss-state was that the making of wind turbines release a greater amount of radioactive material [about 8 times as much] (and here I mean "per kilowatt-hour of energy produced") than a LFTR would. The LFTR material would be more active for a lot shorter time, but the total radio-energy released would be greater by the wind mill manufacture waste.
                  If you don't understand something, don't mock it, ask for clarification. Otherwise you appear to be an immature wise-a$$.

                  What questions about those things? Did you ask any? What would you like to know?
                  Thyroid Cysts: Are you aware that the incidence of thyroid cysts is LOWER in Fukushima Prefecture than the other 5 prefectures tested? Seems Daiichi REDUCED the number of cysts. But your sources won't tell you about that.


                  Report comment

                  • Anthony Anthony

                    For you to present two ABSOLUTELY FREELY AVAILABLE RESOURCES as solar and wind and already profess extreme costs, like its killing your mind to think logically about it, speaks volumes about you both as a person and a business man.


                    Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      The resource is "free", the means to gather and use it for everyday electricity is VERY expensive.

                      And by your logic, the uranium is just sitting in the ground, free for the gathering. But the means to gather it and use it for everyday electricity is FAR cheaper than for the other "freely available" resources you mentioned.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      growing a fruit tree or putting south facing windows that warm thermal mass are the same cost as growing oleander and installing north windows. People can live comfortably this way without added expense, thus solar and wind are "free" Energy storage is an extra cost, but if brilliant engineers can solve nuclear storage, they should be able to solve solar and wind storage


                      Report comment

                  • VanneV anne

                    Link, please. Making statements that can't be backed up won't win any arguments ever.


                    Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      I've seen it in a number of places but this is the first. The item read:
                      "Japan’s Environment Ministry reports that the child thyroid anomalies in Fukushima Prefecture are common to the whole country. The study, conducted over the past five months, covered 4,365 children in Aomori, Yamanashi and Nagasaki Prefectures – all outside the limits of detectible Fukushima Contamination. The statistics show that when compared to the three control prefectures, the child thyroid lumps and other anomalies are “almost equal to or slightly lower in Fukushima.” Some 350,000 Fukushima children have been tested and 41% were found to have the anomalies. Aomori has a rate of 57%, 69% in Yamanashi and 43% in Nagasaki. Shunichi Yamashita, vice president of Fukushima Medical University, said the latest survey demonstrated that "small cysts and lumps naturally exist in children when they are examined with the same precision level as in Fukushima." (Mainichi Shimbun)"
                      http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-50.html
                      Posted Apr 4.


                      Report comment

                    • KitemanSA

                      Oops, it was the prior batch on 1 Apr.


                      Report comment

                • KitemanSA

                  I've already commented on the "uninhabitable country"; but I will repeat it here. The terrorist phrase is usually "permanently uninhabitable country". At least you didn't wave that tattered banner. The land in Fukushima outside the red zone is less radioactive than the tourist beaches at Guarapari Brazil. Most of the red zone is less than Ramsar, Iran. Why are the Japanese kept out of the zones? FEAR, promoted by folks like you. Let them go home.

                  And then it is snide put-downs. The immaturity explodes onto the stage.

                  By the way, Homer Simpson is a cartoon. You really shouldn't use him as a model of anything. Just thought you'd like to know.


                  Report comment

                • HoTaters

                  Yeah, well, look at Burns. Just look at him. Jaded old green, warty, greedy fool that he was. I never really understood why he was depicted in the manner in which he was, until others began to educate me, here.


                  Report comment

      • We Not They Finally

        KitemanSA: The quote about fear was from FDR, not Churchill. (I guess we all have some faulty memory….) The report from UNSCEAR was hit-the-roof fraud — I haven't a clue why you think it is credible. But even IF the millisieverts and microsieverts got transposed, this is WAY more than enough to KILL — lots and lots and lots of people. And by the way, if you think the reading of "250" in Iran is "safe," just look at their plummeting fertility statistics. Or one step further: If you think that Japan is safe, try living there. But you won't do that, will you? Your brainwork is hardly as "faulty" as that.


        Report comment

        • KitemanSA

          Interesting, seems they both stole it from HD Thoreau. But thanks for the correction.
          The UNSCEAR report is by a team of experts similar in constitution to (but actually more scentific than) the IPCC. The data support their conclusions. I think it credible because they actually reference SCIENTIFIC (refereed) papers from across a broad swath of the community. Anti-nukes tend the reference newspaper articles, blogs, and their own self published papers.

          The population decline in IRAN is across the whole nation and has nothing to do with radiation. It is shameful for you to suggest it is.

          Neither milli nor micro are enough to kill. That is an absurd statement. You need to get to the multiple deci- level to be in a worrysome condition, and that is only from the possibility of cancer late in life.

          Other than the fact that Japan is VERY expensive and I don't speak the language, and too many of the people have been terrorized into doing stupid things, I would have no issues with living full time in any location near Fukushima that wasn't "red-zone". And I would have no problem entering the red zone with proper detectors. I suspect I could make my area clean enough to get removed from the "red zone" in a few weeks, well before any potentially dangerous accumulation.


          Report comment

          • Lion76 Lion76

            "The population decline in IRAN is across the whole nation and has nothing to do with radiation. "

            and how do YOU KNOW what it has or hasn't to do with? Have you done any scientific studies on it? Perhaps you have a link to this "data" you are citing?

            Mr. "all radiation is the same" suggesting that others are "absurd" is laughable at best. Keep cherry picking your arguments to ignore what you get called out on and keep pressing forward with your tired nonsense of disinfo.


            Report comment

            • KitemanSA

              No, but I have read about their problem and it relates to the women who are sick of being treated like s#!t and are finding ways to prevent conception and birth. I.e., it is a social/religious issue, not a radiation issue. PLEASE get real!


              Report comment

          • HoTaters

            "The data support their conclusions."

            Could that be because the data was made to support the conclusions?

            Show me proof the UNSCEAR data was produced, and conclusions drawn through following the scientific method.

            Prove to me they used the scientific method, explain the methodology, and maybe, (just maybe but likely not) I'll believe you.

            GIGO principle = "Garbage in, garbage out." GIGO at work.

            Caveat emptor, let the buyer beware.


            Report comment

          • We Not They Finally

            Kiteman: Yeah, right, you can just clean up your own little space, a little PineSol can do the trick. By the way, we thought that you would be off flying a kite by now. Tokyo Bay probably has a great breeze to get you started — enjoy!


            Report comment

      • We Not They Finally

        PS. Isn't there a slight confusion here between how much exposure a YEAR (= 8) and how much an HOUR (= 8 X 24 X 7 X 52 = a YEAR)? Look I'm not a scientist, but I'm a real person. I don't see how this kind of manipulation is even real. Real people do real math.


        Report comment

        • KitemanSA

          Eight microSieverts/hr is ~70 mSv/y, which is about 2/5 Guarapari levels and about 1/4 Ramsar.

          It is also less that the 100mSv/y occupational limit, which is what I said in the first place..


          Report comment

          • Lion76 Lion76

            Yeah, and how much "dose rate" does it take when ingested/inhaled "internally" mr. occupational safety limit guy?


            Report comment

            • KitemanSA

              When WHAT is inhaled. We are talking about radiation. You can't inhale radiation. You can inhale radio-isotopes. If you inhale a bunch of certain RIs, the Sievert level goes way up. Suggestion, don't stir up radioactive dust. Duhh. Find it, clean it up.


              Report comment

              • Lion76 Lion76

                "duhh" indeed.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination
                Airborne contamination [edit]
                The air can be contaminated with radioactive isotopes in particulate form, which poses a particular inhalation hazard. Respirators with suitable air filters can mitigate these dangers. Airborne contamination is measured by specialist radiometric instruments that continuously sample the air, and filter and accumulate the airborne radioactive particles so that they can be measured by an ionising radiation detector.

                Internal human contamination [edit]
                Radioactive contamination can enter the body through ingestion, inhalation, absorption, or injection. For this reason, it is important to use personal protective equipment when working with radioactive materials. Radioactive contamination may also be ingested as the result of eating contaminated plants and animals or drinking contaminated water or milk from exposed animals. Following a major contamination incident, all potential pathways of internal exposure should be considered.

                Radon releases alpha particles as it continues to break down. In your lungs, alpha particles slam into tissue and cause damage. Breathing in too many alpha particles can cause serious health consequences, including cancer.

                http://www.radon.com/radon/radioactivity.html
                http://phys.org/news/2011-08-quantitative-leaked-fukushima-reactor.html


                Report comment

                • KitemanSA

                  Nice way to obfuscate the issue. The article talks about radiation levels, remote from (in the air) and near a radio-source. Thus of course the "in the air" becomes airborne in your mind and thus an inhalation issue.

                  The standard way to measure ground sources is to hold the dose meter 1 meter in the air. But that doesn't give as terrifying a number as taking a reading right next to the source itself, so the dishonest (i.e., the fear mongers) usually do it the wrong way and publish that number.

                  You don't NEED to fall for it.


                  Report comment

              • Lion76 Lion76

                Xenon-133 and caesium-137 releases into the atmosphere from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant: determination of the source term, atmospheric dispersion, and deposition

                1NILU – Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Kjeller, Norway
                2Institute of Meteorology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria
                3Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics, Vienna, Austria
                4Institute of Energy Technologies (INTE), Technical University of Catalonia (UPC), Barcelona, Spain
                5Department of Physics and Nucelar Engineering (FEN),Technical University of Catalonia (UPC), Barcelona, Spain
                6Universities Space Research Association, Goddard Earth Sciences and Technology and Research, Columbia, MD 21044, USA

                Abstract. On 11 March 2011, an earthquake occurred about 130 km off the Pacific coast of Japan's main island Honshu, followed by a large tsunami. The resulting loss of electric power at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant (FD-NPP) developed into a disaster causing massive release of radioactivity into the atmosphere. In this study, we determine the emissions of two isotopes, the noble gas xenon-133 (133Xe) and the aerosol-bound caesium-137 (137Cs), which have very different release characteristics as well as behavior in the atmosphere.

                http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/28319/2011/acpd-11-28319-2011.html


                Report comment

              • mairs mairs

                "Suggestion, don't stir up radioactive dust. Duhh. Find it, clean it up."

                This is the stuff that ruins the cred of the nuclear advocates.


                Report comment

          • HoTaters

            You obviously are not aware mainstream science (like National Science Foundation in the U.S.) generally follows and accepts the Linear No-Dose Threshold model of radiation exposure.

            Do you also compare radiation exposure under 100 milisieverts per year to, say, so many trans-oceanic airline flights, or, say, eating so many ten thousands of bananas per year?

            How many bananas eaten makes a dose equivalent to an exposure threshold of 100 milisieverts per year?


            Report comment

            • HoTaters

              You obviously are not aware mainstream science (like National Science Foundation in the U.S.) generally follows and accepts the Linear No-Dose Threshold model of radiation exposure.

              Or maybe you just like being a contrarian.


              Report comment

              • HoTaters

                Surely the people who produced the UNSCEAR report don't want us eating and excreting all those 10,000's of bananas.

                I'm sorry if this sounds offensive, but I had to make some sort of analogy showing the absurdity of the position it's safe to be exposed to up to 100 milisieverts per year.


                Report comment

            • KitemanSA

              A long vacation to the resort town of Guarapari Brazil (~175mSv/y) would do it. A shorter vacation to Ramsar Iran (~250mv/y) would too.


              Report comment

            • KitemanSA

              Re LNT;
              Many agencies use it cuz it is VERY easy and always WAY conservative. If you can meet a WAY conservative requirement, its the easy requirement to make.

              That does NOT mean it is true. It is a MODEL of a biological process; a model that relies on ONE factor and none of the others.

              It is true that DAMAGE is linearly correlated with dose, but HARM is factor of many other things like DNA repair capability, senescence, apoptosis, etc. Our cells repair damage day in and day out. Indeed, to a point, radiation turns up the repair mechanism so not only is radiation damage repaired but so is chemical damage. To that point, radiation LOWERS your chance of getting cancer. It is called "hormesis". Check it out at:
              http://www.belleonline.com/newsletters.htm


              Report comment

              • Anthony Anthony

                You talk and talk and talk in endless circles leaving me to wonder what is your actual point? Behind your head and confident talking points, we still see Fuku endlessly spewing into land, sea and air 24-7-365, we see Chernobyl disintegrating its own concrete containment biosphere, we learn Hanford not only has toxified its area and beyond but it also has the components, loose but in place for potential criticality. I haven't even factored in the reported 14 Japanese rogue nuke plants who were damaged in varying degrees via 311. I am justifiably concerned about any ONE of these situations. None of these you have the technical capacity, intellectual knowledge or human compassion to deliver a solution to quell even one of those mentioned above.

                Why are you saying all that you are saying?


                Report comment

      • mairs mairs

        Aren't inhaled or eaten particles of radiation different than radiation from the sun due to the thin atmosphere at high elevations?


        Report comment

        • Lion76 Lion76

          Good question

          the Sun does not only produce IR, visible light, and UV. Fusion in the core actually gives off high energy gamma rays. However, as the gamma ray photons make their arduous journey to the surface of the Sun, they are continuously absorbed by the solar plasma and re-emitted to lower frequencies. By the time they get to the surface, their frequencies are mostly only within the IR/visible light/UV spectrum.
          During solar flares, the Sun also emits X-rays.

          Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/60065/radiation-from-the-sun/#ixzz2VDXsMC2S

          also interesting:

          If the radioactive source, a 'radionuclide', gets inside the body the 'danger' order is alpha > beta > gamma. The bigger the mass or charge of the particle, the bigger its ionising impact on atoms or molecule.

          However, if the radioactive source is outside the body, the order danger is reversed to gamma > beta > alpha because the danger order follows the pattern of penetrating power. The smaller the mass and charge the more penetrating the radiation (reverse the order of above). Gamma and beta are the most penetrating and will reach vital organs in the body and be absorbed. Most gamma passes through soft tissue but some is inevitably absorbed by cells. Alpha radiation would not penetrate clothing and is highly unlikely to reach living cells. http://www.docbrown.info/page03/3_54radio04.htm


          Report comment

        • KitemanSA

          Inhaled radio-isotopes can be quite dangerous. The particles can irradiate a small area with intense doses. BUT, well functioning cilia move the particles around and reduce the dosage to any part of the lung. They also push them out after a bit. Healty lungs are less effected than unhealthy. This is one reason not to smoke. Smoking kills/paralizes the cilia so the particles stay where they reach and continue to irradiate the same small patch of tissue, increasing the dosage and the chance of cancer.
          Eaten particles typically pass thru you. If the isotope is soluble (digestable) it is a different issue. Digestable isotopes will enter the blood stream and get absorbed by certain tissues or not, depending on the isotope. Eventually it will be excreted out. The time that takes is called the biological half-life.
          The more important issue with injested isotopes is the ones that have become part of the food chain. Iodine, Cesium, and Strontium are the biggies there, though strontium doesn't typically escape from meltdowns like Iodine and Cesium does. Both Iodine and Cesium boil at temperatures lower that a typical meltdown. Strontium, not so much (thank God).
          Iodine is very easy to protect against. Take Iodine pills.
          Cesium is quite easy to ammeliorate. Take prussian blue pills. And feed prussian blue to farm animals to prevent the Cesium from being absorbed. Don't eat mushrooms cuz fungi tend to accumulate cesium in their structure.


          Report comment

          • HoTaters

            Please provide some citations of studies on the cilia removing or moving radioactive particles in the airways thing. Sure never heard or read that before.

            And please also provide some evidence the body is able to remove radioactive isotopes from the body, or they just are shed naturally.

            Most of us here are only aware of the possibility very specific chelation protocols will remove radioactive isotopes from the body, or things like Prussian Blue. And nebulizing a specific form of glutathione may or may not remove radioactive isotopes from the lungs.

            Your arguments run counter to the findings of almost every scientific, medical, or integrative medicine study we've cited here.


            Report comment

        • KitemanSA

          One additional point. Except for the inhaled particles, radiation may not be the issue. Take cesium for example. The body dose that produces a 100Bq/kg activity level is not dangerous from a <u>radiation</u> standpoint. BUT, when cesium decays it becomes barium. There may be an unknown effect when cesium turns into barium in a biochemical in a living cell. This should be investigated.


          Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            You don't seem to know what you are talking about. And you don't seem to know any expert articles to quote. There are different particles, alpha, gamma, and beta. They all work differently. What are your medical qualifications?


            Report comment

          • irhologram

            Golly gosh. So according to Kiteman, we're OK, unless we eat meat or fish or breathe air circulated by the jet stream. Well, OK, then. Change the eating habits of the entire Northern hemisphere and tell them only to breathe from oxygen tanks. We're golden. Plus we could get Big Agra to put Prussian Blue in the feedlots even though "there's no immediate danger," and also, get folks to take Iodine Pills, even though "there's no immediate danger." Sarc. Want to know a neat trick to make a druggist's eyes roll to the back of his head for a laugh? Ask if he can get iodine pills for you. Mine said "whazzat?!" Yes, I know to get them online, and I'm sure everyone else in the U.S. got theirs, too, even though "there's no immediate danger." Sarc.


            Report comment

            • KitemanSA

              Here in the states the levels are quite low and your diatribe is specious. The only need for PB might be when the levels make the BODY concentration > 5Bq/kg. This is "Beyond Nuclear's number which I think they got from Caldicott. The current "safe" level in Japan is 100Bq/kg. In the US, it is 1200Bg/kg. My suggestion is that if you think you are getting more than the 5Bq/kg level that you consider taking PB. Think of it as a prophylaxis until better info is available.

              Anyone know the levels in the States?

              I don't, I'm not really concerned. But you should, shouldn't you?


              Report comment

          • haizedustrium-1234 haizedustrium-1234

            try electron microscopy with gamma spectrometry then beta spectrometry then
            alpha spectrometry on every particle in 1 kg and the particles would have changed before you
            are done with the first 1000000000 particles, in fact your equipment would have changed some of them, test the same 1 kg 2 weeks later and you will get something else when it comes to radioactivity
            as soon as one element becomes a multi emitter in the presence of another multi emitter the expected readings are compromised 1940 factorial yields 7 e 5537 so if the test equipment hasn't changed values, then the environment would have and you could only hope it hasn't changed you. perfect decay chains are available everywhere, yet the test results hop skip and jump in leaps and bounds – ok one chain intercepts the other or aliens again
            to cut it short – nuclear kills


            Report comment

            • KitemanSA

              It take huge amounts for radiation to kill. Something on the order of 5+ Sieverts. Evidence suggests that anything below about 100 mSv acute or 200mSv/y continuous is not harmful, indeed may be beneficial.

              The biologic effects of ingesting or inhaling ISOTOPES is less well defined, I suspect in must part because the effects of transmutation have not been well studied. As long as anti-nukes needlessly harp on radiation, it distracts from the other, potentially more serious, issues.


              Report comment

            • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

              takes huge amounts of radiation to kill. An incredibly large 80 micrograms of plutonium, 18x more deadly than anthrax. But thats only if you inhale. For non breathing humans, the chance they will die from radioactive fallout is close to zero


              Report comment

  • CB CB

    GRRRRR, can't say what I want to.


    Report comment

  • vital1 vital1

    This could also be a different material to what I tested in the black fungus like material sample, in my post above.

    http://enenews.com/highly-radioactive-dust-in-fukushima-town-off-the-scale-radiation-level-beyond-its-capacity-almost-looks-like-the-black-substance-video/comment-page-1#comment-356372

    Also, in my test report I point out that one of the Cesium peaks is slightly out, and that this could possibly indicate the presences of other contaminates. In a discussion on Bobby1's blog it was suggested this could be caused by the presence of Cobalt Co-58 at 811 kev.

    http://optimalprediction.com/wp/radioactive-black-fungus-in-japan-blowing-to-the-us/
    ———————————————————–

    Get the message out there on how serious the Fukushima nuclear disaster is
    quickly, and efficiently. You don’t need to explain anything just distribute the lifesaver.pdf or create your own, hand it out, mailbox it, or email it.

    http://technologypals.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/lifesaver.pdf


    Report comment

  • Trawling4Trolls

    I presented you with the Paul Blustein buffoon a day or two ago. Today I present to you the Tim Worstall-golem, a particularly hapless misogynist, a sample ..

    "Whatever the effects have been we cannot find any and whatever the effects will be they’ll be too small for us ever to be able to find them."

    He then later, perhaps it's his shriveled humanity that causes it, feigns to chide .. others rather than himself,

    "Well done those who decided to shout out those known untruths. Very well done indeed."

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/the-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-will-kill-no-one-as-i-told-you/

    Worstall, the Golem, we humans on this site have heard your 'cry for help'. We invite you to take up residence here where we will 'educate' you.

    lol


    Report comment

  • NoNukes NoNukes

    NoNukes
    April 2, 2012 at 10:17 pm
    nuckelchen
    March 17, 2012 at 2:35 am · Reply
    tja,
    thats one of the moxoriums down there…

    please think about when you talk about MOX–
    -how will MOX be builded?
    okay, from gas…
    like everything in the stupid physics you can do it backwards…
    okay…
    means mox into gas?
    wthell?
    hm,
    just think about it…
    example:
    there was a new delivery to japan with some tons of helifluxinuckybridium-whatevergas – moment – okay – not in gas, they send it in powder:
    http://www.IMG-Teufel.de/img_339310baa1jpg.jpg.html

    isn't powder not the new instant gas?
    nucleation?
    the prozess from gas into solid matter?
    jet-trail to condensation nuclei

    nucleation is…
    …like if you would swell and instead of stink would be a fine cloud of dust fall to ground…
    NoNukes
    April 2, 2012 at 9:58 pm
    Forget Nuclear
    February 27, 2012 at 11:52 pm · Reply
    Have you seen the black cloud parked over Fukushima?

    http://youtu.be/WwudPBUFYqw

    I have never seen anything in my life like that before…

    Weird…

    nuckelchen
    February 28, 2012 at 3:38 am · Reply
    asking me really?
    (because "a parking cloud went black @ tepco fukushima" is a nuckelchenblogde trademark…)

    @ ruth:
    black nano powder could be backed here on that day
    http://youtu.be/DzYbFAgxpYY
    http://youtu.be/ilK2Qr3oS-Y


    Report comment

  • NoNukes NoNukes

    NoNukes
    April 2, 2012 at 8:30 pm
    Misitu,

    The webcam has shown puffs and plumes of black dust coming straight out of the Reactors, I have watched it since December.

    1. Corium produces dust
    2. The dust found emits Alpha radiation
    3. The webcams have shown black dust emerging from the reactors

    Wotcha
    March 19, 2012 at 10:32 am · Reply
    More 'black smoke' vids from 454541919, just what I saw yesterday. My thanks go to him/her for great captures.
    1)
    2012-03-18 22:30~00:29(19)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mbpb4V7P_Js&feature=plcp&context=C4b890dcVDvjVQa1PpcFOfwuoLvty8wTS4Lp_J_2feTPssVT2Iw7c%3D
    and
    2)
    2012-03-19 02:27~04:08
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuC3mWquzlc&feature=channel

    Here are just a few videos by the amazing Nuckelchen, I still haven't found the early ones that I remember:

    March 7 Black Clouds:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FedUe-3oag

    More:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYUEAy6regM&feature=youtu.be

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=304Ul_45RI4

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

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


    Report comment

    • pinksailmatt pinksailmatt

      Interesting light…very bright & flickering like that…not many electrical types do that.
      My guess? Every night they crane over to the pool and lift out some tubes…they ignite for a bit and are then gone.
      Nothing to see here…just a "work light".


      Report comment

      • HoTaters

        Nuckie has documented some really amazing things. Like the black clouds, phreatic like explosions from the underground corium(s), heavy gamma, frightening displays of colored lights coming out of several reactors at night, and so much more.

        And always the most amazing and appropriate music to accompany each and every ugly spectacle of nuclear hell unfolding ….


        Report comment

  • NoNukes NoNukes

    I think the dust is corium dust:

    "spontaneous dust generation" from corium:

    "Corium (and also highly irradiated uranium fuel) has an interesting property: spontaneous dust generation, or spontaneous self-sputtering of the surface. The alpha decay of isotopes inside the glassy structure causes Coulomb explosions, degrading the material and releasing submicron particles from its surface.[42]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corium_(nuclear_reactor)

    Bobby1 is much smarter than me:

    "Fungi from Japan transported into USA, in spring 2011.

    Posted on December 19, 2012

    In an article that appeared yesterday, “Researchers document astounding number of microbial and fungal species transported with high-altitude dust plumes”, scientists from the University of Washington, headed by David Smith, tested material gathered in 2011, shortly after the Fukushima catastrophe, from a mountaintop in Oregon. A huge amount of fungi and bacteria were found. The results were published in Applied and Environmental Microbiology, and is available here…"
    http://optimalprediction.com/wp/fungi-from-japan-transported-into-usa-in-spring-2011/


    Report comment

  • NoNukes NoNukes

    Radiation-eating fungi. They kill trees and they kill people.

    In 2002, a robot was sent inside the sarcophagus of the destroyed Chernobyl nuclear power plant, and took samples of mold and fungi which were growing on the walls. Five years later, researchers from the Albert Einstein School of Medicine demonstrated that certain fungi “have the capacity to use radioactivity as an energy source for making food and spurring their growth…

    RADIOTROPHIC FUNGI

    These fungus species are known as radiotrophic fungi. They use the pigment melanin to convert gamma and beta radiation into chemical energy for growth.

    ALL MELANIZED FUNGI ARE POTENTIAL RADIOTROPHIC FUNGI

    In the original paper, the researchers Dadachova et al showed that ionizing radiation changes the electronic properties of melanin, and enhances the growth of melanized fungi. So any fungus species that contain melanin have their growth spurred in the presence of ionizing radiation…

    http://optimalprediction.com/wp/radiation-eating-fungi-they-kill-trees-and-they-kill-people/


    Report comment

  • Idiocracy

    So, are we dying yet or are we up for another 5-10 years of "impending doom" due to:
    1. fukushima meltdown
    2. sinkholes in Louisiana
    3. fires next to nuclear dumping site
    4. san onofre nuclear power plant
    5. SFP 4 of fukushima daiichi collapse(or has it burnt already but it did no damage)?
    6. ???

    Aren't you guys sick and tired of following this one trick (4 tricks tbh) pony show? When are you going to realize that this accident is fake (never happened as described) and you've been lied to for the past 2 years (i ask this since i noticed a lot of the guys that were posting as early as March of 2011).

    Queue "nuclear shill" and "Arnie Gundersson said that…"

    Cheers!


    Report comment

    • Jebus

      Your screen name fits to a T…


      Report comment

    • irhologram

      Idocracy. So what are you saying? That the webcams at Fukishima are broadcasting fake multicolored-mist plumes with sparks and arcs, that the sinkhole is just 5 or 10 garden hoses left on causing earthquakes, and the ditch dumping of radioactive waste in St. Louis and at Hanford are just made up?


      Report comment

      • Idiocracy

        I am saying that we have here a severe case of CGI, Holograms, looped footage – media fakery. I don't care about the Louisiana sinkhole since if we're in the presence of an ELE (as is the meme on Enenews) that is of marginal importance.


        Report comment

        • irhologram

          The sinkhole would be of marginal importance if methane weren't bubbling up through the paved streets elsewhere in LA, if butane weren't stored in the cavern next door, if H2S weren't detected, if there weren't a crisscross, hodgepodge of oil and gas pipelines that…if the "sinkhole" explodes from the huge, unknown source pocket of methane below it…would be seen reflected off the moon. That hasn't happened, and until it does, you're good, right? Well, not so much. Methane gas, et al cannot be stopped escaping and is filling the air we breathe as it heads up the Mississippi Valley and over to the East Coast via jet stream. The oxygen mix in air content cannot sustain human life, if below 16% Some reports in some areas report oxygen now at 18%. Within my lifetime the percentage used to be 22%, and now, at best, it is 20%. What happens to the available oxygen when this daily increasing pressurized methane release replaces it in the mix…because atmospheric pressure will maintain the same volume. A lot of new information on developments of interest were posted while you were gone. But you're right about one thing. Ene-ers continue to sit at computers and wring their hands. If all we do is complain, you're right. It would be more useful to get a life and enjoy what's left. Which is what many here have suggested. IT'S THAT that's fu'tard behavior, and I apologize for my compatriot's having called you that. It is not acceptable to only complain.


          Report comment

        • Lion76 Lion76

          "I am saying that we have here a severe case of CGI, Holograms, looped footage – media fakery"

          Again, this idiot believes in "delusions"


          Report comment

      • HoTaters

        Oh yes, and pray tell us, how were those special effects showing the detonation of Reactor #3 at Fuku-Dai faked?

        Was the earthquake and tsunami fake, too?


        Report comment

    • Fukushima Meltdown(S) = 3

      Currently, there are an unusual and overwhelming number of people who are indeed sick and tired. (IMO, personal observation, my local area, central California) Seems like many more over the last year and increasing.

      There will be many needless deaths, many unborn (they should be counted too), and a lot of unnecessary suffering. (Based on what I know of Chernobyl.)

      The true 'idiocracy' of it all is when DNA, ecosystems, and other innocent life forms are damaged or become extinct because of the desire to make profit making electricity at the INSANE RISK of every living thing on the planet without consent.

      I agree we get lied to… a lot. ;)


      Report comment

      • Idiocracy

        Think about it, you see people sick and tired in California, and you assume is due to the radiation coming over the Pacific via the Jet Stream. Now think about it: if people are sick in California (1000's of miles over the Pacific), why don't we see people dying in Fukushima City, Tokyo/Yokohama or in the northern island of Hokkaido? Think Chernobyl vs Fukushima – 1 meltdown vs 4 (and 1 SFP burnt) yet nobody is dying (that is true for the Fukushima 50 also).

        Think for yourself, don't take something you've read somewhere and believe it without applying critical thinking to test its veracity.

        Cheers!


        Report comment

        • Lion76 Lion76

          It's called "the jet stream moves from west to east" you idiot.

          Is THAT what you call "critical thinking" ????

          You're dealing in "fallacy logic" buddy, sorry.

          http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2011/03/18/fukushima-projections-for-a-radioactive-plume/

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
          Propositional fallacies [edit]
          A propositional fallacy is an error in logic that concerns compound propositions. For a compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its constituent parts must satisfy the relevant logical connectives which occur in it (most commonly: <and>, <or>, <not>, <only if>, <if and only if>). The following fallacies involve inferences whose correctness is not guaranteed by the behavior of those logical connectives, and hence, which are not logically guaranteed to yield true conclusions.

          Types of Propositional fallacies:
          Affirming a disjunct – concluded that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A; therefore not B.[8]

          Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.[8]

          Denying the antecedent – the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B.


          Report comment

          • Idiocracy

            You're talking about fallacies and you say that the Jet Stream is moving East to West as some kind of argument?! And after going all the way towards the West does it reaches East again by any chance (and that does not take into account the local wind patters)?. Is this all you could think of, there are no people dying yet because the Jet Stream is taking all the radiation to US?!


            Report comment

            • Lion76 Lion76

              I said it moves "west to east" get your head out of your a55 and get your lies straight before you come at me with that nonsense.

              Do you even understand what CANCER is? Go watch some more hollywood movies. You should have stayed in school and learned something, instead of going all "half cocked" with your nonsense. You don't know a damn thing about "Critical Thinking" but don't fret because that is what my major is all about.

              Have a nice day

              Yep —> Idiocracy

              June 3, 2013 at 10:44 am · Reply
              You're talking about fallacies and you say that the Jet Stream is moving East to West <— DURRRRRRRRRR

              Read this and shut your mouth http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf


              Report comment

            • mairs mairs

              You're not even that smart, but darn you think you are clever.


              Report comment

            • HoTaters

              Who says no one is dying yet? Or has died yet?

              You're just really chugging away at trying to slip in those phoney little bits as if they're real factoids.

              Are you for real? Who hired you?


              Report comment

        • "why don't we see people dying in Fukushima City, Tokyo/Yokohama or in the northern island of Hokkaido?"

          That's a good question?

          I think there are several answers, but let me start with a couple of questions.

          Q: How long was it until we were informed of the Liquidators at Chernobyl.
          A: A long time.
          (I think it was more than 5 years, early 90's)

          Q: How accurate was the data collected, when done, regarding ALL of the affects of Chernobyl's fallout.
          A: It's obvious now that it was misrepresented.

          Q: When someone with a weak immune system dies prematurely or a young person has a heart attack could it be related to Fallout?
          A: Could be. Sometimes for sure, yes. Overall, hard to prove case by case.
          (assume it does would be the safe bet)

          FACT: FALLOUT, increased levels of radiation from Fukushima, have been detected in the United States and Northern Hemisphere. And now, after 2 years it's also showing up in the Southern Hemisphere.
          (see user vital1 radiation postings)

          The initial FALLOUT(S) have circled the globe over 20 times and continue to accumulate non-stop while spreading into both the atmosphere and sea.

          :( 815 days since 3/11/2011
          http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=march+11+2011


          Report comment

    • Lion76 Lion76

      So, your version of "critical thinking" is to say the whole thing is "fake" ?????????

      This is why people should be laying off all the "conspiracies"

      Alex Jones types are filling these undereducated cretins with a bunch of nonsense "question everything" they don't even know their a55 from a hole in the ground.

      http://faculty.ccri.edu/paleclerc/logic/fallacies_wi.shtml


      Report comment

      • irhologram

        Alex Jones does not question that catastrophe events are real, and further, he points a finger directly at them. Why would you say something perjorative about someone who doesn't factor into this discussion? IMO, (I don't want to reflect on you or single you out, but) I think this is a sort of stealth thought pattern that seeps in from media propaganda, part of a knee jerk programming to label ideas into "camps," one of them being conspiracy theorists. But idiocracy probably believes you're a conspiracy theorist. The result of doubting the thinker rather than the thought is a very old method of discounting anything mass psychology says you believe. The damage you do when repeating these blanket statements, because we respect you, seeps into our psyches, as well, if you tell us Alex Jones was responsible, however indirectly for cretin thought regarding nuclear power fatalities. Just about nothing could be further from the truth.


        Report comment

        • Lion76 Lion76

          Alex Jones is a joke, sorry.

          FALSE FLAG!!! FALSE FLAG!! give me a break.


          Report comment

          • Lion76 Lion76

            I don't listen to "media propaganda" either… I don't watch "Alex Jones" and I don't have any tv programming in my house. I listen to recorded music, degenerate comedians, and people like Terence Mckenna (R.I.P.) when i need to feel positive about things.

            Again, you claim blanket statement thinking but we live in a complex world, I only have so many characters to make my points. I speak "big picture" if you can't distinquish that, I don't have time to dumb down my thoughts every time I make a statement so that they pass your "smell test"

            What would you want to me call the "hoaxers/deniers/false flaggers" ??? Alex Jones types, conspiracy theorists? Because that's what they are, like it or not. Sorry that your "guru" is another media propagandist just like CNN and FOXNEWS only on the other end of the spectrum.


            Report comment

            • irhologram

              My guru? Puleeze! My guru would be Nassim Haramein. But Alex Jones had nothing to do with this discussion…and amounts to a red herring IMO to give an opening to your thoughts about false flags. I don't agree with you, but respect your right to think as you do without "getting my back up." Careful…you're going to throw yours out of joint! Lol


              Report comment

  • CB CB

    Hello Idiocracy..my name is CB.
    Your government will say don't go there.
    Do you already know the answers to your questions?
    It's a slow tsnuami of radioactive death. Death will be faster than evolution.


    Report comment

  • Idiocracy

    I think that part of the answer is known to me, as implied by the question.I log into Enenews, once in a while, to see if the narrative has changed. In this instance I have noticed that the slow simmer is still on and that the "news" are recycled on and on ad nauseum.

    Not to be a jerk but I'll pay more attention as soon as people start dropping dead in the streets of Fukushima city or the surrounding villages (one of the fukushima 50 dropping dead due to a radiation related illness would also be a good start (awareness wise).

    Until that time i'd like to eat a lot of dairy products and fresh vegetables (unlike the whole of 2012 when i was scared for my life due to the fukushima daiichi "disaster").

    BTW, in order that my post won't leave any mark I'll leave a link for those that have their doubts regarding the veracity of this event and they have no direction where and for what to look:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B36_qqrJpaw

    Live your life as you wish, not the way you're told!

    Cheers!


    Report comment

    • CB CB

      Idiocracy, enjoy yourself. I understand that you may be a fuktard.


      Report comment

      • Idiocracy

        Hehehehe, now I can clearly see why my argument is flawed via your perfect ad hominem rebuttal :) )))

        " All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." – Michael Jordan


        Report comment

        • CB CB

          I'm sure my rebuttal is not welcome here.


          Report comment

          • Idiocracy

            Instead of killing the messenger you could take a look (with an open mind) to the linked movie and some questions might pop into you head. I assume nobody is paying you to post on this site and thus you should have no bias towards the factual truth.

            If my assumption is false (that you are looking for the truth) you can disregard everything and carry on believing Enenews and the impending doom.

            Cheers,
            A fucktard


            Report comment

            • Lion76 Lion76

              "open mind" ????????

              this is the new "b.s." of the pro-nukers.. the "alex jones" approach. "hey, I'm just asking questions"

              Read a science textbook, you dope.


              Report comment

              • Idiocracy

                I am not pro nuke, how have you deduced that? Or are you a disciple of GW Bush "you're either with us or against us" type of guy?

                You clearly opened a science textbook as you took the bait hook, line and sinker and you're probably circling just offshore of Fukushima daiichi.

                Cheers!


                Report comment

                • Lion76 Lion76

                  "ignorance" is "pro nuke"

                  got it?

                  When you don't know… STFU!


                  Report comment

                • mairs mairs

                  Lion is right. Ignorance is pro-nuke. One of the lines by the nuclear industry people early on was that you will get more radiation exposure from a smoke detector than from Fukushima. They used that ignorant comparison not because they don't know why you don't get radiation exposure from a smoke detector, but because they were banking on people not knowing, or not bothering to find out if they were telling the truth or not. So they created willfully ignorant memes.


                  Report comment

                  • irhologram

                    Why are we again refusing to use the opportunity to educate returning or new ene-readers, even when they ask stupid questions, showing their ignorance? Calling them names is against administrator rules. We could, in fact, just from data submitted this week, give him an intelligent overview of massive upswings in percentages of those who are ill in several catagories of disease, although not dead, yet. If we don't use these interchanges for education of the many lurking, who also have his level of ignorance…in other words, lack of knowledge, we end up being a closed group, with no other purpose than to preach to the choir to hear our own voices. IMHO. And maybe a private research group is what seems the best application here, but I fail to see how that would do as much good as actually raising the level of awareness at large.


                    Report comment

                    • Lion76 Lion76

                      If someone can ask a question on a website that has been answered many times over, they can do the same on google and get their own answer first. Then, come with an original thought or new angle. What good does repeating "sunlight/banana" discussion really do for anyone? Education starts with the self. If people have all these smartphones why aren't they smarter? not asking questions in the right places– don't ask your friends on facebook, find out yourself.

                      I'm not here to repeat myself every day, that's for sure. Maybe it's time I left this to people who want to repeat the obvious over and over to these shills who keep draining the energies of everyone else ensuring that we stay on level one understanding of things rather than finally getting to a place of higher realizations. Not me, my life is about progress. If you want to be the enenews nanny go right ahead.

                      Everyone so "awake" well get up out of bed and make the day something better than the days when you weren't awake. "awareness without action is useless" yes, Dr. Phil said that. He's a boob but he's right on that statement (he probably stole it from someone else, but oh well).


                      Report comment

                    • mairs mairs

                      I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult people who don't know the answers to simple questions that I myself didn't know before Fukushima happened. My point is that nuclear industry people who have demonstrated their vast knowledge of nuclear energy and who work in the field, will make statements that are for the consumption of people who are just browsing the subject, are concerned about what's going on, but don't know fact from fiction. It's a deliberate preying on their lack of information.


                      Report comment

            • VanneV anne

              Why does this "movie" need the voice-over and music to "sway" the listener? Propaganda. And there are so many photographs of this event, and photoshopping one video does not cancel out an event.

              Easy to see why deceivers of reality are placed by Dante in the lowest ring of hell.


              Report comment

        • lol – Micheal Jordan maybe repeated that statement.

          Here's who I think said it.
          German Philosopher:
          http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer

          "Knowledge that a thing is false is a truth."
          – Shaquille O'Neil (not really) :)


          Report comment

    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

      Idiocracy, your position is that Fukushima is a staged event, created holographically, to influence the masses in some way. In the vast arena of astounding events, its not inconceivable that you are right. That every scientific study has been a ruse and if you perhaps even travelled to New York, the World Trade center would still be standing, In Japan the Fukushima power plant would still be working, undamaged, and Arnie Gunderson or Dr Busby videos will show shape shifters betraying their fabrication. Have you established if you yourself are a holographic projection, just like the Matrix movie? Apply youtube level compression to a video of yourself and analyze it. I think you will be surprised how deep in the matrix you really are.


      Report comment

      • irhologram

        Code Shut Down. Fascinating. Please tel us what DOES happen if we were to compress…well, here's your quote. "Have you established if you yourself are a holographic projection, just like the Matrix movie? Apply youtube level compression to a video of yourself and analyze it. I think you will be surprised how deep in the matrix you really are." Please. Tell me what you mean.


        Report comment

        • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

          irhologram, I meant that idiocracy was fooled by video compression into believing Fukushima is a hoax, based on his video analysis of the pointing finger man. If he took his own video, he would come to realize he is in fact also a hologram, based on his analysis skills. btw, What is the ir in irhologram? Yes, the distinction between "reality" and "projection" is blurred depending on ones viewpoint. Its an existential thing, or in some cases just a shill thing


          Report comment

          • Lion76 Lion76

            He watches too much Alex Jones nonsense, or listens to too many "skeptics" of our current day who also operate under so many "assumptive house-of-cards conclusions".

            I mean… a "hoax" lol. Anyone who believes they can watch tv or internet videos (or less, like a jpg with some words on it) and solve grand mysteries, claim hoaxes, false flags, etc. is borderline "mentally ill" in my amateur, humble opinion.

            But, we got esteemed scientists claiming that everything is "an illusion" which is not the same as a delusion, but still throws this confusion on "everything" so people just run with it and now deny science, data, "common sense" and everything else needed to operate rationally in the "real world"

            Makes me sick, and it's why I am largely withdrawing from people in general. They want to live in delusional bubbles, denying reality… well I don't, and I won't. I grew up before the internet, I was on the internet pre-photoshop craze. I have been arguing with deniers since 9/11. I'm tired of these little childlike arguments, with no intelligent substance, just an egotistical pissing contest. Everyone is a scientist, except when you want to talk science, then they say science is political. It's FALLACYFALLACYFALLACY and no amount of reasoning with unreasonable people is going to change it. I mean, a CGI hoax? REALLY? Crackheads.


            Report comment

          • irhologram

            Code shutdown, BTW, I love your avatar and its explanation. As to mine, IMAHologram and IMHologram were taken…so in a private satire on myself, I chose, IRHologram, reminiscent of the joke, "Last week, I couldn't even spell hologram. now, I ARE one." Thank you for the explanation of the "pointing man" compression.


            Report comment

          • KitemanSA

            Personally I think he is an anti-nuke who wants to tar the pro-nukes with his idiocy. Agent provocateur so to speak. :D


            Report comment

      • Idiocracy

        It is my understanding indeed that the event is not real and instead was created via CGI, Green screens, holograms and other types of video manipulation + the follow up scientific studies (even on this site the majority claim that the truth is not known regarding the severity of this event – although you guys claim it to be much greater than it really is. I claim the contrary, that despite everything being said – on main stream media of all places, this is a ruse, as you put it). On the other hand i cannot verify independently that i am real or not (despite Descartes' claim) since i am not capable of objective knowledge. Regarding the twin towers, i can verify that the towers are no longer there so i do not know why do you mix the two in the same phrase. Likewise regarding the shapeshifters…you try to ridicule me but i am sure this is just a normalcy bias from your side. If you think my claims are ludicrous than i am just a raving lunatic and you keep worrying about this very very very slow and thus far victimless disaster (an ELE even). On the other hand, if my claim is true after all (and in 5-10 years when the area around Fukushima and the neighboring Prefectures are still habitable you will realize you have lost all this time worrying about NOTHING. It is your decision either way…

        P.S.: i have decided to reply to you only and not to the others since the rest have me figured out(i am crazy/stupid/payed shill) and there is no point insisting.

        Have a very nice…


        Report comment

        • Lion76 Lion76

          Don't "worry" about what others are "worrying" about… take your "understanding" and go live your own life.

          You still have not answered "why" would this be some CGI created hoax? what is the end game? Go ahead, critical thinker. Come up with some grand scheme to explain this "conspiracy" of yours? I'm sure it makes way more sense and covers all the bases rather than "the truth" because you obviously think everyone in Japan who is doing testing on youtube is also part of the conspiracy (or.. maybe they don't exist at all?) DUN DUN DUUUUUNNNN


          Report comment

        • Jebus

          Telling one's earlier to think for themselves, then telling each what to think…

          The overbearing hubris of the followers and the ruse of nuclear power.

          How pathetic…

          Goes to show you how much they worship nuclear power.


          Report comment

        • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

          Idiocracy. Sincere and independent truth seeking has great merit. I am sorry for my ridicule and bias, Im stuck at around the 10 yr old level. Its difficult, considering what *appears* to be the magnitude of this event. It just comes as a surprise, in light of all the photos of bombed out reactors, and whatever studies that do come in, that you would say fukushima is a hoax. I suppose then you dont apply the same to Chernobyl and the other disasters? But do you say that all studies and estimates of release, animal deformations and thyroid problems by various organizations are hoaxes? If anything, Tepco would have reason to low ball radioactive release, and indeed it seems they have. You base your hoax theory on your own analysis of the youtube videos and nothing more? Thanks


          Report comment

  • Why not talk of the upside of this increased radiation? Yes, some will get incredibly sick from the contamination and some will ultimately die. That is called unnatural selection. As our planet progresses towards its ultimate demise some 5 billion years from now, the background radiation will rise accordingly. Our Sun is the real danger here, with all of its filthy radiation. God, in his infinite wisdom has delivered us some "black material" so humanity can get a jump on the increased radiation.
    Only those special people that are intended to get to the end of this journey called Life on Earth, will get there. It is all so perfect.


    Report comment

  • Idiocracy

    By the way, since I feel all generous today I will link another video that will make a lot of heads shake:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejCQrOTE-XA

    Cheers!


    Report comment

  • CB CB

    Don't worry about me. Enjoy you dairy.


    Report comment

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    Fukushima Daiichi nightmare continues, as proven by the air counter going off the scale.


    Report comment

  • PhilipUpNorth PhilipUpNorth

    Play nicely together, boys and girls.
    Have a good day, all.
    :)


    Report comment

  • CB CB

    Idiocracy – ENENEWS is all that. End of post.


    Report comment

  • The trolls are back. Or did they ever leave? Well good luck at this site. Still the conversation does get bent by them and I don't like it. Back to the story. Its nice to see independant testing going on. Makes the government line of everything is safe hard to believe.
    Should be mainstream reporters running around with geiger counters but maybe I'm thinking of the past when reporters actually challenged the party line rather then today where it seems the reporters job is to reinforce it.


    Report comment

    • Lion76 Lion76

      "Corporate Media" is no longer the 4th branch

      http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/who-owns-the-media-the-6-monolithic-corporations-that-control-almost-everything-we-watch-hear-and-read

      Thank God for the internet, which got way bigger way faster than the corps could deal with.

      Everyone wants to scream "liberal media" but it's corporate and has been obviously corporate for a long time, especially if you paid any attention to this country since 9/11.

      It's all about "business as usual" just like George Bush said, "keep shopping"


      Report comment

      • Jay

        The standard is that no big business got there without a Bank loan , the exception are only the drug laundry money .

        … and the Purpose of the Banksters printing money is to convert them in Tangeble , real goods hence it is to be expected that banksters own ( part or all ) of all major businesses , media included , and that would explain why we don't hear about an official analysis of this radioactive black dust .

        I believe that the money is not in the electrical generation but in the decades of Clean up following the closure of a reactor , or accident :

        http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2013/05/nuclear-plant-closed-by-for-profit-company-for-first-time/

        " …. New York Times : The Kewaunee power plant in Wisconsin has been closed by Dominion, the private power company based in Richmond, Virginia, that purchased the plant in 2005.
        That makes it the first nuclear power plant that will have its decommissioning handled by a for-profit company instead of a local, regulated utility.

        The company has not announced whether it plans to dismantle the plant or wait for the radioactivity to subside and then refit it with modern systems. Either process will take decades and is expected to cost nearly $1 billion.

        However, the cost of decommissioning is constantly in flux, and predicting costs more than five or six years ahead is difficult. Dominion says it has set aside enough money to cover the process, but it also expects to receive additional funds from…


        Report comment

    • Trawling4Trolls

      You need not worry yourself about the trolls, Mark.

      They are handled, past tense.

      And no, they do not leave.


      Report comment

    • lostworld lostworld

      These are disinfo shillls not trolls.
      When KitemanSA, Idiocracy and the like show up
      I take that as a sign that the commentors are united
      and pose a threat to thier employers agenda.
      They fear you uniting and actually waking up more and more
      of the sleeping sheep and making them wolves.


      Report comment

      • Its Curtains

        There is a very simple way to get rid of trolls and the like…just ignore them. I know it's easier said than done but it does work if everyone stops replying to them(and it has to be everyone, every time). In the process of doing so you can expect them to be more belligerent and caustic but eventually they give up. Arguing with them is futile because either 1. Their intention is to make you angry or 2. Their mind is made up and no amount of reasoning or facts will shift them from their stance.
        Take care and good luck.


        Report comment

        • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

          itscurtains, if we run off the likes of proNuke, Kiteman and idiocracy, then we would not have the beautifully worded responses from Anne below, and Jebus and the others. I hope they read, and I wonder how they cant feel the truth of it, somewhere in their matrix of ideas. My lament is that these efforts to present studies, facts and truthful analysis are largely wasted. The format of the website does not present easily referenced essential data. Each topic is dead along with its efforts in a few days. Pronukers with an apparent defect of logic or overview are not influenced one bit by deformed babies and accumulating tons of leaking poison anyway


          Report comment

          • 16Penny 16Penny

            I have noticed this aspect of the exchanges. The ENE members put up some really great information in highly concentrated doses. I wonder if this could be used to prepare for one of the virtual flash mobs that was mentioned before. Hell for all we know these "pro-nukers" could even be fabricated personalities used by anti-nukers just to "stir the tanks" so to say. Food for thought.


            Report comment

      • KitemanSA

        Bad guess. Not employed, retired. Allows me to become educated on important issues. Real data. Scientific papers. Not self referential blog cr@p. Just like to pass on my knowledge.

        The only thing needed for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. Well, I have seen the evil results of terrorist mythology harming innocent people by the thousands and do what I can to stop it. Educating proto-terrorists like are being developed here that they need not fall for the terrorist line is one thing I can do.

        Don't like being referred to as terrorists? Learn about the REAL levels of danger from Fukushima (almost negligible) and stop spreading scary BS.

        The scariest thing about Fukushima is that the fear mongers are getting folks so spun up about little that TEPCO is spending way too much time and effort catering to the fears and thus are NOT doing what they should to eliminate potential future problems.

        My God, folks. Get off their backs and let them work!

        Better yet, help! If you live in Japan near Fukushima, why aren't you out helping clean up? If there is an oil spill, folks get out there and help clean up. And crude oil is NASTY stuff. Where is that environmental spirit here? Too busy spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt!


        Report comment

        • Jebus

          I like you present here, KitemanSA,
          You show all the curious intelligent people, who stop by, the true face of nuclear power.

          In all it's glorious condescending, ignorant, vain, and soul less truth.

          Everythings rosey over near the reactors huh?

          But, there's too much water under the bridge son, the truth is out.

          All it takes is to look at the bulk of the data, all aspects.
          All aspects include, economic, health, waste, weapons, proliferation, cancer, large areas contaminated, internal emitters, and just a 15% of supply return on 70 years of investment.

          Face it KitemanSA, your industry is on the way out.

          Thanks for your help…


          Report comment

          • KitemanSA

            Yup, the truth is out. A truly humungous accident at Fukushima resulted because the Japanese refused to make simple refits to their reactors. They had the LEAST safe western style reactor without any of the lesson derived back-fit safety measures. As a result, what anywhere else in the world would have been a contained incident. All that, and still the internationally recognized experts on the effects of radiation are arguing over whether there will be ~150 deaths, or ZERO deaths.

            And on the anti-nuke, fear-mongering side, there have already been over 1000 deaths.

            Nuclear at its worst is still not as bad as anti-nuclear at its desired outcome. Says a lot to most of the world.

            Yes, the truth is out and the world, except where the Big-Fossil companies have paid the greens enough to terrorize the populous, has wisely chosen to go nuclear. To bad they aren't going Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. All the benefits of nuclear with little of the issues.


            Report comment

            • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

              KSA, the nuclear industry did not anticipate the Fukushima disaster, but the anti nuke sector did. The same is true for Chernobyl. The same is true for Liquid Flouride Thorium reactors. So far you missed at least two of three.

              If we have to choose random numbers, zero deaths sound good, lets go with it. Epidemiology says 18000 deaths in the U.S. as of last year…but lets stick with zero until it can be conclusively determined that untold quantities of deadly poison have any effect whatsoever on animal and plant life. Do we know FOR SURE that those deformed butterflies died prematurely? I dont thiiiinnnnkkk we do


              Report comment

        • VanneV anne

          Are to Fukushima Daiichi? If it is so wonderful there, please go there and take pictures and read the radiation counts. 177000 CPM too low for you? Have you see the journalists go there and in a couple of hours everything has turned pink from radiation. Did you watch this phenomenon on ustream?

          How will you answer your grandchildren in 10 years, if you are fortunate enough to be still alive? How will you explain to them why your country just kept adding more and more nuclear waste? Who will pay for this extreme saddling of debt to take care of all the nuclear waste for a million years?

          Do you know how expensive nuclear energy is? Do you know how much fossil fuels are used in the mining, transporting, running of the nuclear power plant, and in the decommissioning? Do you understand that no insurance company will touch a nuclear power plant? Do you realize that no nuclear power plant can exist without huge subsidies? In other words, a vote for a nuclear power plant is a vote for fascism? How can you align yourself with fascism?


          Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            TYPO: Kiteman, are you going to Fukushima Daiichi?


            Report comment

          • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

            anne, a beautiful post. Too bad your fervent ray of sincerity isnt enough to illuminate the ones brokering power, or make the retarded victims of nuclear whole and healthy. The simple sincerity of truth highlights the tragedy of delusion and suffering


            Report comment

          • KitemanSA

            Anne's statements are italisized.
            <i>Are to Fukushima Daiichi? If it is so wonderful there, please go there and take pictures and read the radiation counts. 177000 CPM too low for you? Have you see the journalists go there and in a couple of hours everything has turned pink from radiation. Did you watch this phenomenon on ustream?</i>
            If you can get your compatriots to come up with the expenses, I am more than willing to go to Fukushima Prefecture and help clean up. You will have to cover all my expenses. After all, I am comfortably retired. As for Fukushima Daiichi, I suspect two things, I'd just get in the way, and they would drive me nuts since they bend over backwards to kiss the a$$ of every anti-nuke that stirs up trouble. Personally, I think they should stick to the standards and quit inviting nonsense from the terrorized.

            <i>How will you answer your grandchildren in 10 years, if you are fortunate enough to be still alive? How will you explain to them why your country just kept adding more and more nuclear waste? Who will pay for this extreme saddling of debt to take care of all the nuclear waste for a million years?</i>
            My response it that the "adding more and more nuclear waste" is the result of idiotic anti-nukes plying their lies. We SHOULD be burning the dangerous long lived wastes in Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers and using the rest of it for other useful purposes.


            Report comment

        • Jebus

          Hey! Who you callin' a terrierist?


          Report comment

        • VanneV anne

          Every nuclear power plant is a dirty bomb? Kiteman, haven't you seen the studies that show little chldren have much more leukemia ig they live close to nuclear power plants? Those who support nuclear power plants are responsible for the deaths of these little children. Haven't you seen the studies of clusters of breast cancer around nuclear power plants? Those who support nuclear power are responsible for those cases of breast cancer. There is no way to atone for all the deaths due to nuclear power plants unless you stop supporting them. The people actually responsible for the deaths due to nuclear power are the terrorists.


          Report comment

          • jec jec

            @anne, Right on! The children you mention are the bill payers for sure. And now the children with thyroid cancer are starting to show up in Japan..27 is a HUGE number when its 1 in 1 Million average. 27 in Fukushima….is a real increase in percentage.


            Report comment

          • KitemanSA

            I have seen ONE report that says that, and maybe a dozen that says they don't.

            By the way, have you read that German report? I kind of doubt it since if you had you would probably seen that statement by the authors that it was NOT due to radiation since the radioactivity is WAY too low to cause the effect.

            Just as an aside, a German e-friend of mine pointed out that German nuclear plants are almost always in the same complex as German coal fired plants. Now THERE is a good place to look for the cause, but nuke ain't it!


            Report comment

        • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

          kiteman, for each study showing nuclear is safe and even healthy, theres as many or more showing the opposite. Thus, one should apply discrimination, as you have done, in deciding which have merit. What study weighs toward truth, what study does not? I propose that if a deadly toxin, whatever it is, has been released in quantities capable of killing every person on earth 400 times over, that it is MORE LOGICAL to assume that studies showing harm are more cogent than ones showing no or positive effect. Is that not self evident truth? If the calc showing 400 LD/human is off by %1000 it is immaterial since even one lethal dose per human is still enough poison to be lethal to that much life. Do you agree?

          I ask you; were you surprised when three nuclear reactors exploded and released mega quantities of deadly radiation? You HAD to be, because if pro nukers were NOT surprised, it means they expected it and did nothing; a crime. The government and Tepco say as much; "no one could have anticipated this, but weve learned lessons for the future" Well, in all honesty, it didnt surprise me AT ALL. Breakdowns, disaster and human foible are all EXPECTED. As superior as you believe your understanding, who was more correct, after all? Many nuke reactors lay in steaming bombed out ruin, the toxins forever leaking. Your camp said that would never happen. You were wrong, isnt that so?


          Report comment

          • KitemanSA

            CSD:
            You know, If I had anywhere NEAR the confidence in the "unsafe" studies as I do in the "safe", I probably would. But instead we get ridiculous statements about extreme toxicity that just isn't true. In several of my posts above, I pointed out that there were more lethal doses of water in Lake Michigan alone than radioactive doses in Fukushima, even by the ridiculous numbers promulgated by Gorites. But NEITHER is scary to me.

            One reason I am less convinced by the "unsafe" studies is that many of them reference documents I know from personal reading and study to be bunk. And the rest reference other studies by the same bunk producing authors.

            You guys remind me of a panic stricken passenger trying to wrest the steering wheel away from the professional bus driver. Yes the Fukushima "road" may be a bit twisty and potentially dangerous, but it is less so than every other "road" to enough energy for our civilization. And your continuous grabbing at the wheel doesn't help.


            Report comment

            • norbu norbu

              KitemanSA, you said "You guys remind me of a panic stricken passenger trying to wrest the steering wheel away from the professional bus driver."
              I say.. "You remind me of the drunken bus driver who thinks nothing is wrong."
              N


              Report comment

            • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

              OK kitemanSA, you win. Nuclear fallout is no more dangerous than water, (given its dispersion I guess), and we should stop our panic stricken interference with TEPCO. Wind and solar is more deadly than nuclear and your estimate of which studies to believe and which to ignore is the right one. Fukushima is a non issue since it didnt kill a single person.

              But a question still remains; why do you waste time trying to talk sense into these morons who think massive amounts of radiation, 50,000 or more Hiroshima bombs worth, will have an effect on the environment? If theyre so ignorant and panic stricken to believe such nonsense, then you know you will never change their minds, right? Is it just a sport of yours then? Where is the value of talking to these folks with their go green, radiation kills, terrorism tactics?


              Report comment

              • We Not They Finally

                CS, It IS "sport" with this guy. He likes to needle people. It's a destructive pattern, aside from any specific ideas. Don't let it get to you. He's not worth it.


                Report comment

                • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                  Wenottheyfinally, if there were only one or two kiteman types, it would be an anomaly, they could revel in their smug self satisfaction. But what if the majority of the people, or 99% of the corpgove had his rational capability? Guys like "whole earth" Stewart Brand, "greenpeace" Patrick Moore are OUT THERE, PUSHING the message, and everybody is nodding along.

                  FIFTY THOUSAND HIROSHIMA BOMBS. Isnt that supposed to mean something to someone who can form sentences? Fifty thousand rattlesnakes in your house? Fifty thousand scorpions in your attic? Fifty thousand maggots heading for your nose? F-i-f-t-y t-h-o-u-s-a-n-d atomic bombs? Its a human tragedy; brains that can think, yet without intelligent discrimination….pushing toward mutual destruction. So sci fi, so horror flick


                  Report comment

        • VanneV anne

          Fukushima safety fears
          Aug 18, 2011
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ml5gKbStfY
          Fukushima worker on camera: “The holes and cracks in the ground are terrifying” (VIDEO)
          http://enenews.com/fukushima-worker-camera-holes-cracks-ground-terrifying-video


          Report comment

          • KitemanSA

            Any hole or crack in the ground can be terrifying. Ask the same leading questions of workers cleaning up in the oil refineries along the same coast and see what they say.

            The most disturbing thing I heard was that workers are ditching their dosimeters. Thus, if they get HUGE doses and eventually get cancer, anti-nukes will undoubtably say, see, they got less than the legal limit, and see?

            It would be MUCH wiser, IMHO, to make an iron clad contract that with full knowledge and consent the workers can continue to work past the set "safe" level if they keep complete records of their dosage, 24/7.


            Report comment

        • combomelt combomelt

          They've got it all!!…..

          http://www.tripadvisor.com/Tourism-g1022396-Minamisoma_Fukushima_Prefecture_Tohoku-Vacations.html

          flight, hotels cars, meals…whew what a party over there.

          but, only trouble is KSA, I just can't find an available room, and nobody answers any phones! Must be pretty busy there, tourist season and all, just like vegas. Oh well, i'll try again later.


          Report comment

  • snowwy snowwy

    The substance measured 1.5 MBq per kg (mega-becqurels). The following were found in the sample:
    Cesium 134
    Cesium 137
    Cobalt 60
    Radium 226
    Yttrium
    Rare earths
    Thorium
    Lead

    http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=10316

    this is what this web site claims, I have to way to verify it


    Report comment

  • Jebus

    Ya know, none of us here are dummies, we've been exposed to a lot.
    Especially any here that are in the "upper years". Ya, the boomers…
    Each has a collected knowledge that no other generation had.
    In spite of all the static thats electronically dispensed today.
    I think that for each one of you, that know the truth, the picture is pretty clear.

    But just think of the clarity that these very intelligent individuals had without the studies, the mass media, TV,
    internet, and just the basic bullshit of todays average daily life compared to 1945.
    As smart as they were, they knew not what they would ultimately create with what they had found.
    As far as I can tell, most would soon come to realize the power and destruction that they had created.
    To give a few examples of clues to their obvious epiphany's, I'll start with a quantum physics guy.
    This quote from Werner really sums up the error of digressing from natures way…

    Werner Heisenberg

    "There is a fundamental error in separating the parts from the whole, the mistake of atomizing what should not be atomized.
    Unity and complementarity constitute reality."

    This next smart guy knew that man couldn't handle the responsibility.

    Albert Einstein

    “The release of atomic power has changed everything except our way of thinking …
    the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind.
    If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker. (1945)”



    Report comment

    • Jebus

      And Mr.Oppenheimer, was the very first antinuclear activist, right after he was the very first nuclear whistleblower.

      J. Robert Oppenheimer

      He knew what they had done.
      "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ixb7MdeR8yU
      Tell me that's a hologram of a man crying…

      The next guy with credentials is the godfather of the nuclear navy, ain't that right Rod?
      Well, even he eventually figured it out, that what he had helped unleash upon this singular big blue marble, was not good…

      Hyman G. Rickover

      "I do not believe that nuclear power is worth it if it creates radiation, every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has a certain half-life, in some cases for billions of years. I think the human race is going to wreck itself, and it is important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it." (Economics of Defense Policy: Hearing before the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., Pt. 1 (1982))



      Report comment

  • Jebus

    Edward Teller

    IMHO there was nothing good about this human.
    He lost empathy somewhere along the line.
    He just wanted to give us the bomb, before he got beat at his game.
    This is where nuclear sprang eternal, not that some other entity, state, country, crackpot, wouldn't have anyways…
    Here's an eye opening interview with him at the age of 93.
    http://www.esquire.com/features/what-ive-learned/ESQ0102-JAN_TELLER
    He's the guy that helped take away Mr.Oppenheimer's credentials…

    There's many more very smart early physicists, that eventually did realize the mistake of nuclear power.
    We have seen the results more than any one of these godfathers of radionuclides.
    We're not viewing a hologram. Fukushima is a real wound to this one, already faltering, planetary ecosystem.
    What we all are hearing through the chaotic chatter, is a message from life.
    I believe we are seeking a solution to the truth that calls upon each of us.
    Everyone here was asked recently, by a blind man, why we are here, following this event, for two plus years.
    I'd say that, given the accrued outcome upon our planet, and the performance of the industry's response, we have to, for life.
    Once you see the truth, you can't deny it. It's nature's way of fighting for life…
    Peace…


    Report comment

  • Jebus

    I just don't understand the math result, when media "experts" state that Fukushima < Chernobyl.

    I try that with reactors and I always get 3 > 1
    I try it with time and I get 27 months and counting > 6 months to cover.
    I try it with cold shutdown and I get 0 < 1.
    I try it with time of thyroid appearance and I get 24 months < 60 months.
    When I add it all up I get Fukushima > Chernobyl.

    The truth says a lot…


    Report comment

    • KitemanSA

      Jebus said:
      "I just don't understand the math result, when media "experts" state that Fukushima < Chernobyl."

      "I try that with reactors and I always get 3 > 1" – - – But each Fukushima unit released mayby 1/100 of their core into the uncontrolled environment while Chernobyl released about half its core. 3/100 << 1/2
      "I try it with time and I get 27 months and counting > 6 months to cover." – - – But Chernobyl only covered about 1/2 its core, while the 3@F is controlling the release from the 297/300ths remaining. Are you going to continuously joggle their elbow to make it more difficult to finally control it?
      "I try it with cold shutdown and I get 0 < 1." – - – At this point, 3 controlled to 1/2 coldshut-down. Your pick, but I pick 3@F.
      "I try it with time of thyroid appearance and I get 24 months < 60 months." – - – Thyroid appearance that all the medical experts say is too early for Fukushima to have been the cause, so it is likely that it is caused by looking for it as hard as they have and that has found normally existing conditions. So far, Chernobyl, 60 months, 3@F, not yet, if ever. Remember that 41% with thyroid cysts and other "abnormalities"? Remember when it turned out the the 41% was the LOWEST rate in the 5 prefectures studied?
      "When I add it all up I get Fukushima > Chernobyl." – - – I think your math is rusty. Chernobyl >> 3@F.

      "The truth says a lot…" – - – Sure does


      Report comment

  • haizedustrium-1234 haizedustrium-1234

    How many remember The White House spokesperson Jay Carney who told reporters on Wednesday 16 March 2011 that an 80 kilometer radius evacuation was called for.
    Those who thought of it as evacuation gate, given the Chernobyl deaths comparison, was greatly mistaken.


    Report comment

    • KitemanSA

      If by shill, you mean advocate, then you bet I am! They are the leanest, cleanest, greenest proven source of reliable energy bar none. I am PROUDLY in favor of the energy source that can clean up current nuclear waste, provide energy for a million generations or more, and do so more safely than any other class of energy around.

      You BET I'm supportive. If you looked at it with open eyes and a mind receptive to the truth, you would be too!


      Report comment

      • combomelt combomelt

        Thorium nonsense again. Puhleez already ksa with the unrelenting armchair junk science you incessantly spout. get with the program, we dont need half-baked new nuclear experiments creating more lethal nuke waste that NO ONE knows how to safely rid the planet of. Where ya gonna dig for thorium and will the new waste be stored with the old? That pesky decay chain again guldangit!


        Report comment

  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

    kiteman says "The unreliable renewables (wind, solar) could only support a civilization at EXTREME cost. The cost would be disastrous for the environment as it is already proving to be."

    here are two windmills that are a few hundred years old, still in operation. The extreme cost and unreliable stamp that kiteman and others put on wind is not evident. We are smart enough to design nuclear reactors but not superior windmills? In fact I have a book with designs of a windmill that you can make yourself from readily available materials that supplies most of a households needs.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma8pCwPS-Uk

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_xdmzvCSw8


    Report comment

    • KitemanSA

      If you want a simple measure of the true system cost of an electrical energy source there are two data you need to know. First is the nameplate cost per peak power. Second is the capacity credit. Not the capacity FACTOR, the CapFac is an insidious lie. The capacity CREDIT is the factor you need to know. Currently, the CapCred for wind and solar are both in the 1% range. So if the cost / kW is quoted as $1000/kW, the true cost to run a civilization will be about $100,000/kW. That is VERY expensive.

      It is amazing how few people actually know about CapCred and its significance. Even otherwise honest researchers way too often use CapFactor.


      Report comment

      • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

        kiteman
        The capacity credit is the peak demand less the peak residual demand, expressed as a percentage of the variable renewables installed. What this means in practical terms is that the people making the calculation think the world will come to a hideous unthinkable end if the greatest one percent of energy demand is not met and accounted for at all time. This is typical of the tunnel vision coupled with analytical tools that produce nonsense results. Fact is, you can build your own wind generator with wood blades, wind your own inductors and power your own life for very little investment or danger. You talk fear mongering and eco terrorism? These people, assuming that you cant live without your computer or washing machine for even one minute will commonly warn you this will happen with "unreliable" wind and solar. "You know if the sky greys over for three days, all your trees and plants will die, along with your dog and favorite football team, and forget about texting your friends cause there wont be internet either" The smart analysis takes into account not just peak and risidual demand but importance of energy need. You know if you went camping without your iphone you would just die


        Report comment

        • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

          kiteman, scams in Japan and the U.S. meant fake rolling blackouts, justifying higher rates or nuclear. One interesting result is that civilization as we know it didnt die and certainly wouldnt have been an issue if we had distributed "green" energy. This proved the fallacy of capacity credit and demand analysis, and the miserable lying scheming corrupt corporate mentality. If you are "one of them" feel the contempt. If not, wake up and smell the genetically deformed roses


          Report comment

  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

    While kiteman and others maintain that the unreliable renewables of wind and solar are not practical and in fact disastrous, more than 100 rural communities in Germany are becoming 100% renewable,

    an installed watt of PV cost less than one-half ($2.80) as much in Germany in the third quarter of 2011 as it did in the US ($5.20).

    Sonnenschiff solar city in Freiburg, Germany Produces 4X the Energy it Consumes

    These green and peaceful communities stand in stark contrast to the 10s of thousands displaced by nuclear, and the untold numbers of animal life that will be affected by nuclear poison.


    Report comment

    • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK

      advise CodeShutdown against wasting any further words on KitemanSA bogus claims. Anyone who thinks renewables are unreliable or as hazardous as nuclear power technologies is either mentally deficient or simply out here to create enmity. Even oil producing countries are building windfarms and PV arrays to augment (if not outright supplement) their energy needs…


      Report comment

      • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

        Aftershock, time is short and I wasted it. Forums are of limited value but suck you in


        Report comment

        • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK

          that they will CodeShutdown. There's a thin line between affirmation of ones awareness and 'weight lifting'. We all get trapped into the game of proving ourselves to those about us. The entire nuclear power industry's thrown its hands up, in total surrender to Fukushima. If the likes of KitemanSA haven't seen the writing on the wall by now, they're either illiterate or in an abject state of denial. Regardless of the cause of such analytical 'constipation', I don't have the time for playing footsies. And I consider you (and others out here) far too valuable to be wasting precious electrons on dead souls…


          Report comment

        • KitemanSA

          It is only a waste if you refuse to learn.


          Report comment

          • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

            kiteman, the real world has a bunch of people with few resources. They cut down the trees for fire and have 5x as many offspring as so called developed countries. In shear numbers, this is arguably the worlds big problem. A solar water purifier, solar cooker and solar battery charger for the village computer is the needed breakthrough. Passive solar dwellings would provide excellent shelter.

            They would stare at you with big brown eyes as you told them about capacity credit, and how dangerous and impossible their solar was, and when you finished, they would serve you some nice lentils, show you their computer and invite you for a dance. Somehow youre living in a thorium flouride dream. Since the dawn of history, solar sustained life on the planet. Your infinitesimally recent nuclear fixation is not a dream come true, its a nightmare.


            Report comment

    • KitemanSA

      Please provide data on even ONE community that is 100% "unreliable" energy source. Please note that hydro doesn't count. Hydro is reliable. Also, geothermal doesn't count either. It is reliable too.

      At $2.80 per peak watt, the capacity credit means that you would have to install about $280 worth to provide the same reliable capacity as (worst case) $10/W of nuclear power. That means that solar is about 28 times as costly as nuclear.

      If you add storage, the CapCredit goes up but the base price / W goes up too. So far there doesn't seem to be any storage capability to allow the unreliables to run a civilization.


      Report comment

      • KitemanSA

        Please note that producing "more than you consume" and forcing OTHERS to buy it from you so that you can take some from them later is NOT being self sufficient. They do not provide 100% of their own power unless they store it for future use. I guarantee you they do NOT do that.

        Now I can hear the little birdies chirping in the background "but the Norwegians back their unreliables up with hydro"… Cheep, cheep, cheep.

        All that does is turn a reliable (hydro) into an unreliable. You need special two reservoir pumped hydro to be actual storage, and the largest PHS facilities in the world are too small for unreliables back-up. They barely have enough to provide peaking power for an hour or so.


        Report comment

      • Most communities around the world get their primary and secondary energy via the 'unreliable' sun, and have since the beginning of time…

        Without the sun, no amount of nuclear power would help you survive.

        The sun is converted into secondary energy such as plant growth, wind, water power. The sun can be used to split water into hydrogen, a carbon free fuel with no side effects, other than producing water when it is burned.

        Hydrogen can be stored and burned later. There is an almost infinite source of water, hydrogen and sunlight… compared to what we need.

        Thus your premise that the sun is 'unreliable', therefor plants do not grow, and hydrogen does not exist is specious at best.


        Report comment

  • Let us all pray together and worship at the alter of the HOLY THORIUM. It's name shall not be used in vain, or shall it be cast into the outer darkness, because it is HOLY and PURE, right up there with GOD.

    Anyone daring to call ThORIUM unholy, unruly, or dangerous shall be cast out of the church of Thorium, and be forever shunned and be labeled a HERETIC.

    All those cast out of the church of THORIUM shall forever be cast into a lake of fire, brimstone and eternal torture by a guy named Sa-Tan; a guy who got a little sunburned, so he is mad at everyone who does not agree with him.


    Report comment

  • ask questions

    KitemanSA, when I read this Mark Twain quote I thought of how much it applies to you:

    “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”


    Report comment

  • Sickputer

    Kiteman writes: "The area is a wildlife refuge. Animals are THRIVING there."

    SP: Not quite…some species have survived and moved into the hot zones (partially because of the lack of hunting pressure from a reduced human population).

    And when is the last time you saw a researcher communicate with a wolf or a wild boar? How do we know whether the animals are in pain from non-visible tumors and die in secret. Their bodies eaten by other animals.

    I had three small dogs die since March 11, 2011. Cancerous tumors and/or heart seizures was the vet's diagnosis. Two dogs were brothers and less then three years old when they died. Do you think maybe something toxic killed them? Maybe. But who can prove deaths from an invisible poison?

    So is the area around Chernobyl really teeming with thriving animals?

    Ask Wikipedia: "Near the facility, a dense cloud of radioactive dust killed off a large area of pine trees; the rusty-orange color of the dead trees led to the nickname "The Red Forest" (Рудий ліс). The Red Forest was among the world's most radioactive places. To reduce the hazard, the Red Forest was bulldozed and the highly-irradiated wood was buried—though the soil continues to exude significant radiation.

    Cases of mutant deformity in animals of the zone include partial albinism and other external malformations in swallows[29][30][31] and insect mutations.

    To be continued:


    Report comment

    • Sickputer

      Part 2:

      "A study of several hundred birds belonging to 48 different species also demonstrated that birds inhabiting highly radioactively contaminated areas had smaller brains compared to birds from clean areas.[33] There have been claims of other animal mutations from individual eyewitness reports, although none have been verified.

      A reduction in the density and the abundance of animals in highly radioactively contaminated areas has been demonstrated for several taxa, including birds,[34][35] insects and spiders,[36] and mammals. [37] In birds, which are an efficient bioindicator, species diversity decreases 50 percent in radioactively contaminated areas compared to clean areas, while abundance decreases by two thirds.

      There have been reports that wildlife has since flourished due to significant reduction of human impact.[38] For this reason, the Zone is considered by some as a classic example of an involuntary park. Some claim that the populations of traditional Polesian animals (like wolves, badger, wild boar, roe deer, white-tailed eagle, black stork, Western marsh harrier, short-eared owl, red deer, moose, great egret, whooper swan, least weasel, common kestrel and beaver) have multiplied enormously and begun expanding outside the zone. These claims, however, are not substantiated by any systematic census of any animal taxon."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone#Flora_and_fauna

      SP: Hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement.


      Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.