VIDEO: US states hit with “extremely large peaks” of Fukushima radioactive material – “Significant amount” of plutonium released for months – Radioactivity from plant “measured globally” and blanketed entire Northern Hemisphere

Published: February 1st, 2017 at 3:40 pm ET
By

316 comments


Scientific Reports, 2016 (emphasis added):

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has been the second most serious crisis of a nuclear power plant in the human history[*]. The release period lasted over two months emitting a significant amount of radioiodine, radioxenon and radiocaesium as well as other isotopes such as plutonium. Besides the local to regional scale impacts of soil and water pollution, isotopes released into the atmosphere could be measured globally. Total atmospheric release was estimated to be 14000–15300 PBq of radioxenon and 340–800 PBq of other isotopes. The radioactive plume in the atmosphere moved towards the Pacific, reached North America in five days and Europe in eight days… Fukushima-derived radioiodine and radiocaesium could be identified in the entire Northern Hemisphere… The zonal jet stream transported the plume across North America within one day in a narrow band over the Northern USA. This line as well as further Fukushima-derived plumes arriving at the West Coast were the initial state of the regional dispersion dominated by low and middle tropospheric winds. Early detections were reported between 17 and 19 March from three stations in Central and Southern USA: Ashland, KS, Chapel Hill, NC and Melbourne, FL. Kansas and North Carolina were reached by a fast moving cold front at the detection time, however, Florida was dominated by a subtropical high pressure system until 21 March. The plume arrived to Orlando, FL, located in a distance of 100 km from Melbourne, FL, only on 25 March with a much lower peak concentration. Other North American stations reported arrival times between 20 and 25 March except those located at the zonal jet stream path. During this period, the homogenization was driven by fast moving low pressure systems with strong horizontal and vertical turbulence as well as precipitation. These effects resulted in fast transport and dilution of the pollutants with arrival times ranging only 5 days but peak concentrations between 0.44 and 31.08 mBq m−3 for particulate 131I… The large regional variability of peak concentrations within the USA was captured, and model results remained in the same order of magnitude with measurements with the exception of two extremely large peaks in Utah and Indiana.

* Note: Many experts consider Fukushima as the “most serious crisis of a nuclear power plant in the human history”, for example:

Watch the modeled 131I activity concentrations in the surface layer (0–100 m)

Published: February 1st, 2017 at 3:40 pm ET
By

316 comments

Related Posts

  1. UCLA Researchers: Fukushima “not only affecting that local area, but also worldwide” — Gov’t Expert: “Immediately the Iodine-131 plume moved eastward reaching US West Coast [then] covering entire northern hemisphere… Significant concern on the safety of the population and environment worldwide” (VIDEO) March 6, 2015
  2. NHK: Tepco fails to reveal what caused so much radioactive material to be released — Amount of radioactivity released still unknown — Still no investigation into what caused meltdowns (VIDEO) June 20, 2012
  3. U.S. gov’t model of Fukushima cesium-137 particles covering Northern Hemisphere (VIDEO) March 14, 2013
  4. Gundersen: Pyrophoric fire if fuel rods in Unit 4 pool are not cooled — Potential contamination of entire northern hemisphere (VIDEO) May 21, 2012
  5. Officials: Radioactive material released into air from Fukushima plant, areas far away being contaminated — Gov’t tracking plumes using emergency prediction system — “Large amount” of radioactive substances will soon be released (PHOTOS & VIDEO) July 14, 2014

316 comments to VIDEO: US states hit with “extremely large peaks” of Fukushima radioactive material – “Significant amount” of plutonium released for months – Radioactivity from plant “measured globally” and blanketed entire Northern Hemisphere

  • As soon as a source puts Fukushima in second place behind Chernobyl, I assume whatever information follows is going to be highly watered down.


    Report comment

    • GOM GOM

      Well.. At a loss for words really. I don't advocate on any level that Chernobyl is the #1 nuclear accident. Although it wasn't said, it was suggested. CHERNOBYL AS #1

      ADMIN – YOU GOT SOME EXPLAINING TO DO

      2 MONTHS RELEASE..AM I READING THIS RIGHT?

      Is this a spoof? Sometimes I miss the boat.. please explain, like right now.


      Report comment

      • GOM GOM

        ADMIN!! WHAT THE HELL IS THIS??????

        "The Authors Are PhD-qualified in a relevant topic..and a pic of a 10 yr old with a fcking microscope?

        This was EDITED through and written by a "SERVICE"

        http://authorservices.springernature.com/scientific-editing/

        http://www.palgrave.com/gb/

        A PUBLISHING COMPANY?

        HAVE THE DECENCY TO EXPLAIN BEFORE I BAN MYSELF FROM THIS SITE


        Report comment

        • SadieDog

          GOM, I'm not sure I understand.


          Report comment

          • GOM GOM

            Sadie

            “Unprecedented”: Fukushima reactor “far worse than previously thought” — “Melted fuel has come in contact with underground water” — Molten core appears spread over “extensive area” — Japan “will have a much more difficult time decommissioning” —
            BY ENENEWS, ON FEBRUARY 1ST, 2017

            Published: February 1st, 2017 at 3:40 pm ET
            By ENENews
            Scientific Reports, 2016 (emphasis added):

            "The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has been the second most serious crisis of a nuclear power plant in the human history." ..Geezus Cripes

            Scientific Reports is a service, PHD written BS. Check my links..


            Report comment

            • SadieDog

              But these people wrote the study, right?
              Department of Meteorology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
              Róbert Mészáros & Ádám Leelőssy
              Institute of Radiochemistry and Radioecology, University of Pannonia, Veszprém, Hungary
              Tibor Kovács
              Department of Physics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary
              István Lagzi
              Contributions
              R.M., T.K. and I.L. designed the research. A.L. performed numerical simulations and data analysis. R.M., A.L., T.K. and I.L. interpreted the data and wrote the manuscript.

              Competing interests
              The authors declare no competing financial interests.

              Corresponding author
              Correspondence to Róbert Mészáros.


              Report comment

            • HoTaters HoTaters

              This is a news aggregation site.

              Admin does not vouch for the credibility of the publications re-printed here.

              Some of the information is bogus, but consider the source.

              We know we have to think for ourselves here, glean the truth, leave the rest, and move on.

              We have made plenty of jokes here about befuddled and baffled scientists and other so-called experts over the past 5+ years here.

              If the information is really specious, or an issue is not obvious, Ad,in will sometimes point it out.

              Saying Chernobyl was a more serious accident than Fukushima is old news here. Sadly, we've been reading that dis-information here for years.

              A sad, old tired meme the nuclear cartel & co. loves to keep repeating it.

              They can't have the world know how truly devastating Fukushima really is, now can they?


              Report comment

              • HoTaters HoTaters

                Admin will sometimes point out discrepancies….


                Report comment

                • ENENews

                  Hi everyone,

                  For clarity, I added some links to posts that state releases from Fukushima exceed Chernobyl.

                  The above study claims Fukushima was #2, which gives insight into the perspective of the authors.

                  The point of post was to highlight “extremely large peaks” over multiple states in the US.

                  Over 100 more posts comparing Fukushima and Chernobyl can be found here http://enenews.com/category/location/japan/fukushima-reactors/chernobyl-comparisons


                  Report comment

                  • Jebus Jebus

                    Awesome, very useful because there is so much.

                    Thank You…


                    Report comment

                  • DUDe DUDe

                    Hi Admin , dont sweat it , i'm sure the majority understand that linking an article or someones opinion for some parts of it containing things of interest and some less is not the same as writing it yourself..and most articles about nuclear wrong's are still compromises..

                    But i do have a non related question to you if i may..now that you are here and i'm not sure reported post's ever reach your attention..
                    Is it possible/within your powers to ban Byrian420 please..
                    We are sooo tired of being trolled by that controlled mass hysteria socalled Mandela Effect cult follower.. pretty Please :(


                    Report comment

                  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                    Admin, there is no need to explain yourself as the work you do is excellent.

                    There is no way Fukushima is not the largest Nuclear Industrial Accident to ever happen on this Earth.

                    3 core meltdowns VS 1 core meltdown.. states exactly the same.

                    To think this recent one called Fukushima.. will burn forever. :(

                    This is what out of control manmade fissioning stars burning on the surface of this small planet do.


                    Report comment

                  • Gabe Gabe

                    admin……..put your clarifiers and such with an article when you post it. Remember, there are always NEW readers here


                    Report comment

                  • GOM GOM

                    Admin

                    Thanks for responding. I had no doubt due to the many 'report clicks'. I await a new thread.


                    Report comment

                  • Yes, there is still good information here. I only meant that you have to understand it within the context that it comes from "official people" who believe/reinforce that Fukushima is the #2 nuclear disaster in human history, which definitely downplays the true situation imo. This is a (false) sentiment being widely disseminated these days in order to placate the public.

                    For me, it's always a case of, "Well, at least they are admitting ___________."

                    In this case, at least they are admitting that the fallout blanketed North America in the days following Fuku and created spikes in radioactivity. Many members of the public are not even aware of that or would argue those points.

                    This is well understood and known by most of the people who research Fukushima, and in fact, the initial fallout was just the tip of the iceberg.

                    But we do always have to be reinforcing the foundational points for the majority of people that remains hoodwinked and misinformed.


                    Report comment

                    • I think one area where things really break down is "official sources" painting the fallout as something that happened in a finite window of time that is now contained, when the radioactive releases are actually ongoing for almost 6 years now. (Especially the releases into the Pacific, whereas Chernobyl did not occur on the ocean.)

                      I very recently had this debate with an individual on another site. He was arguing that Chernobyl was a worse disaster and that the Fukushima fallout had pretty well stopped being an issue after the first months.

                      So this is a common misperception, and it is being reinforced by all mainstream media and establishment science.


                      Report comment

                    • Thank-you for all your hard work, Admin, because it was your links that I used to debunk his arguments.

                      I have also bookmarked the ones you posted on this article and will use them in future.

                      What you do here and what the commenters do is very important. Can't express it enough. Thank-you, thank-you, thank-you.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      WillowsWeb, glad you were able to argue convincingly. But what do you base your argument on? The time windows and the specific radioisotopes and the unknown and yet to happen catastrophes seem like the way to argue that the original catastrophe was only the tip of the ice burg. By MEASUREMENT, and make no mistake, that is what the public and scientist will go by…the radiation levels in the ocean on land have been decreasing. Only by calculating the ADDITIVE dose from ongoing releases can you make a rebuttal.

                      Radiation readings have gone down since the catastrophe
                      https://www.amfir.com/AmFirstInst/NonToolbarTopics/Black_Ops/Japan_Quake-Nuclear_Catastrophe_2011/Radiation_Forecasts/2011/03-20_03-26/Art/2011-03-15_to_2011-04-18_Radiation_Levels_for_Fukushima_area_01.jpeg
                      https://www.amfir.com/AmFirstInst/NonToolbarTopics/Black_Ops/Japan_Quake-Nuclear_Catastrophe_2011/Radiation_Forecasts/2011/03-20_03-26/Radiation_index.html

                      Sometimes there are spikes, like this one in 2012
                      http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-radiation-level-spiked-in-hokkaido-still-its-on-going/5308303

                      Sometimes readings are lower than assumed. But do radiation readings really reflect fallout danger?
                      65000 citizen scientists find Fukushima radiation only 1/4 the official estimates
                      http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/fukushima-residents-exposed-far-less-radiation-thought


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      by additive I mean the accumulated dose. Even there you have difficulty because everyone and every animal has a lifetime of accumulated radiation dose from background radiation which the scientists will argue is much higher than Fuku fallout. Its a bit of a complicated issue and getting into the numbers is not so enjoyable or rapid.

                      One COULD win an argument by grabbing the lapels and spouting some concept…like there were x number of atomic bombs worth of radioactive fuel and its all on the loose!! Off the top of my head, maybe 10,000 released so far and 30,000 to 60,000 hiroshima bombs yet to be. But we have seen this is not effective when arguing science minded people like Buesseler or much of the public who will read something on dose effects and measured levels


                      Report comment

                    • Well, for one thing, it's not so much background radiation as it is the radioactive particles that can be ingested and breathed in. Background readings can be relatively low with the threat from hot particles remaining.

                      The radioactivity level of Plutonium is also relatively low, as I understand it, but it is still one of the most poisonous substances on Earth and ingesting one microscopic hot particle could mean lights out. Even the United Nations admitted Fuku released mucho Plutonium.

                      I used many of the links posted here to show that Fukushima had more nuclear fuel and released more radioactipoison.

                      But a big part of the argument is that we can't fully trust official sources on any of the releases and that there is NO ongoing testing of food, milk, water, etc. going on.

                      We also can't trust "official statistics" on deaths or illnesses caused by fallout because they are generally being covered up or attributed to other sources, just as the mass die-offs in the Pacific are being blamed on "climate change."

                      And yes, it's the fact that Chernobyl wasn't releasing directly into an ocean the way Fukushima is. It's the fact that a worldwide media blackout has handicapped us. It's the fact that there is no global effort to solve this.

                      And it's the fact that these releases are ongoing for almost 6 years with no end in sight and that, regardless of how small the individual threats may seem to foolish scientists, they will accumulate in the atmosphere…


                      Report comment

                    • But really, there is no "winning" this debate.

                      We just don't have accurate numbers (or fully trustworthy sources) as far as the total releases, as well as what is being released and what is coming down on us on a daily basis.

                      I just try to present what I see as the closest version of the truth (ie. reality) that I can compile – and if there are obvious incorrect assertions being made or holes in the person's understanding, I try to provide the right information.


                      Report comment

                    • (Sorry, the end of that first comment should say that the radioactivity will accumulate in the environment and in the food chain.)


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Willow, I agree with your two or three posts above. All of the points except the numbers will never be 'high' or levels of concern based on standard mainstream radiation science. Its not just a question of not have accurate numbers. Even with accurate numbers or taking your own readings you wont see 'alarming levels of sieverts' The proof or answer is not in the quantity but in the toxicity. even bioaccumulation and accumulated dose over time dont fully explain and would not convince a scientist who studies this stuff, unless they are in the enlightened camp, like Busby's group


                      Report comment

                    • "All of the points except the numbers will never be 'high' or levels of concern based on standard mainstream radiation science."

                      I don't know what this means. I'm making the same point – that hot particles and bio-accumulation are primary issues, and high levels of background radiation may not be present even with a huge threat (like what's going on with the massive die-offs in the Pacific right now).


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Willow, excuse me for being blunt but I think you arent quite getting it. The background WILL BE HIGH by comparison. We are talking about the natural radiation in your cells…not man made…and the radon and some cosmic radiation and terrestrial radiation. The so called background radiation from nuke fallout is MUCH LESS. Bio accumulation would barely bring nuke fallout up to natural background levels. You have for example, five times as much radiation from potassium as there is naturally in the ocean. Maybe 70,000 bq per cubic meter. In most of the ocean, the fallout is between one bq and ten and probably it wont exceed thirty bq per cubic meter. So just compare the numbers 70,000 vs 10. Now bioaccumulation…I have posted some numbers and dont remember exactly, but you might see a factor of say 50. That means fallout in fish could reach 500 bq/m3. Even much higher levels…the highest possible levels of bioaccumulation would only bring fallout radiation levels up to background…in very rough ballpark terms. So you wont find the answer in QUANTITY. Its the toxicity that you should focus on, if you would like to make an impact on your friends and colleagues


                      Report comment

                    • And please don't excuse me for being blunt, but you are a condescending and presumptive jackass.

                      You are projecting pretty hard onto me so you can work your own song and dance re: the dangers of radioactivity.

                      Latch onto someone else.

                      I'm well aware of the situation.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      glad to hear it Willow.


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar

                      Radioactive Potassium K40 Of Oceans Increased from 10,360 Bq/m3 In 1971 To 12,230 Bq/m3 In 2013, Why Are Experts Promoting Quack Nuclear Industry Hormesis Theory?
                      September 21, 2015
                      https://agrdailynews.com/2015/09/21/radioactive-potassium-k40-of-oceans-increased-from-10360-bqm3-in-1971-to-12230-bqm3-in-2013-why-are-experts-promoting-quack-nuclear-industry-hormesis-theory/


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar

                      I don't understand what these 2 sentence is asserting at 7:42:

                      "You have for example, five times as much radiation from potassium as there is naturally in the ocean. Maybe 70,000 bq per cubic meter."

                      Is this bafflegab?


                      Report comment

                    • What's the difference between potassium and man made poisons? Everything…

                      What's the difference between truth and slanted opinion? Everything!

                      What's the difference between a natural banana and a (metallic/ceramic poison producing) nuclear power plant?

                      EVERYTHING!!!

                      What's the difference between fact and fiction?

                      Well there ya go…


                      Report comment

                    • Opps sorry I forgot to include a link to evidence of such true, large living, real truth…

                      https://youtu.be/vjrOdcUQ3DY


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar

                      To talk about the amount of potassium and the amount of radioactive potassium in the ocean are two different figures because almost all of potassium is non-radioactive. There are not 70,000Bq/m^3 of radioactivity in the ocean due to potassium, but rather 12,000 Bq/m^3. Bq is a measure of radioactivity.

                      Although we can talk about some difference between Cs-137 and K-40, it is just that Cs is 10,000,000 times more radioactive than K-40. Cs-137 can't be compared to K-40 because it behaves much differently in the body than K-40. Eiichiro Ochiai spends 12 pages explaining the differences of the two isotopes and how they behave in the body. For example, K-40 is evenly distributed into every cell of the body and the cells have mechanisms to deal with that tiny amount of weak radioactivity.

                      However, for just one reason, Cs-137 concentrates and is very sluggish and stagnates in the body. Cs-137 is a much larger molecule and the kidneys and liver are not 100% efficient in eliminating Cs-137 as they are with K-40.

                      Eiichiro Ochiai, Hiroshima to Fukushima: Biohazards of Radiation, 2014, pp. 80-84, 137, 158-163.


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar

                      "Potassium-40 (40K) is a radioactive isotope of potassium which has a very long half-life of 1.251×109 years. It makes up 0.012% (120 ppm) of the total amount of potassium found in nature.
                      Potassium-40 is a rare example of an isotope that undergoes all three types of beta decay. About 89.28% of the time, it decays to calcium-40 (40Ca) with emission of a beta particle (β−, an electron) with a maximum energy of 1.33 MeV and an antineutrino. About 10.72% of the time it decays to argon-40 (40Ar) by electron capture, with the emission of a 1.460 MeV gamma ray[1] and a neutrino. The radioactive decay of this particular isotope explains the large abundance of argon (nearly 1%) in the earth's atmosphere. Very rarely (0.001% of the time) it will decay to 40Ar by emitting a positron (β+) and a neutrino.[2]"
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-40

                      “Sometimes these man-made radionuclides are compared to naturally occurring radionuclides, such as Potassium-40, which is always found in bananas and other fruits. However this is a false comparison since naturally occurring radioactive elements are very weakly radioactive. In the lab chart the radioactivity is described as the “specific activity”. Note that Potassium-40 has a specific activity of 71 ten millionths of a Curie per gram. Compare that to the 88 Curies per gram for Cesium-137. This is like comparing a stick of dynamite to an atomic bomb.


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar

                      “Highly-radioactive fission products such as Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 emit 10 to 20 million times more radiation per unit volume than does Potassium-40. So which one of these would you rather have in your bananas? …”
                      https://ratical.org/radiation/Fukushima/images/StarrFS05.jpg


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Anne, this is fake info. You were proven wrong several times before, why do you think it will be any different now?;

                      "Radioactive Potassium K40 Of Oceans Increased from 10,360 Bq/m3 In 1971 To 12,230 Bq/m3 In 2013,"

                      You, a PhD, should be more than able to realize that the ratio of K-40 to its two sister isotopes is a constant…known to five decimal places… and the amount of potassium in the ocean has not increased from 1971.

                      I cant figure out why Dr Anne and Dr Goodheart persist in this false and misleading information. Does anyone have a theory?


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar

                      The information isn't fake at all.

                      There is the specific activity of K-40 manmade and K-40 which is part of natural potassium. Man made K-40 is produced atomic testing and nuclear waste and nuclear accidents.

                      If you will look at all the sources in Dr. Goodheart's article, you will be arguing with the experts.

                      I now find out you didn't know scientific notation. So all the times I was quoting from specific activities using E-8, E2, you didn't even know what that meant.

                      Man made K-40 is over 8,000 times more radioactive than natural K-40 as part of a gram of natural Potassium.

                      Statements are not proof. Where are your links and your non-existent proof?


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Anne, the amount of intrinsic radioactivity in living things is not bafflegab. How many times have we been over it? How many times are required?

                      Again; the amount of potassium in the body is not contested, its held in strict proportion to water as an electrolyte and other functions. Next, the radioactivity of potassium is not contested. Everyone agrees and its proven beyond doubt that K-40 is 0.0117%. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

                      From there its easy and accurate to derive the radioactivity of the body…about 70 bq/kg. Nobody but the two doctors around here dispute that. Anyway that is the same as 70,000 bq/m^3. Why you ask? because human density is similar to water and there are 1000 kg in a cubic meter of water.

                      But this is all simple grade school stuff WAAAY below your level of scholastic achievement. Therefor we logically conclude you are just playing the fool in some bizarre game. The thing I cant figure out is WHY…why do you do it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar

                      Can you go to this website and cite the specific activities of plutonium (all isotopes) and both kinds of K-40. The K-40 is out of alphabetical order and is listed above plutonium isotopes.

                      You will find that every time I cite this I have to type the figures and the website doesn't allow copy and paste.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Anne, you are going off the deep end in fake info now. It was YOU who couldnt recognize the scientific notation…an obvious thing because I was quoting YOUR number.

                      Dr Goodheart doesnt have an 'expert' telling us that man made K-40 is 8000 times more radioactive than natural…because there are no such experts.

                      Sorry to say it but you and the other doctor are below high school level in comprehension and fact. I like the INTENT of AGreenRoad, but he simply goes off and makes non sequitur extrapolations that are so obvious…and doesnt correct them. Why does he do it? As for you, I cant think of any excuse at all since you are a PhD and an EDUCATOR!! It amounts to a criminal offense for you to be teaching our children. Maybe, like Dr G, your intention is good…


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar

                      It the amount of radiation caused by potassium in the OCEAN and I quoted your sentence.

                      Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar
                      February 2, 2017 at 10:26 pm

                      I don't understand what these 2 sentence is asserting at 7:42:

                      "You have for example, five times as much radiation from potassium as there is naturally in the ocean. Maybe 70,000 bq per cubic meter."

                      Is this bafflegab?

                      Report comment

                      Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar
                      February 2, 2017 at 10:28 pm

                      Here is the link for 7:42:

                      http://enenews.com/video-us-states-hit-with-extremely-large-peaks-of-fukushima-radioactive-material-significant-amount-of-plutonium-released-for-months-radioactivity-from-plant-measured-gl/comment-page-1#comment-819443


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar

                      And the amount of radiation in the body is contested. The radiation from K-40 is gamma radiation which goes right through the skin and living tissue and Eiichiro Ochiai says maybe it leaks out.

                      Also, the important figure on p. 64 of ECRR 2010 should internal radiation from potassium in the body at only slightly 1/3 that of the figures you give 0.165 mSv/year as opposed to the 0.43 (/kg)/year.

                      "Some portion of the radiation may leak out of the body, and, hence, the dose may actually be somewhat lower."

                      Eiichiro Ochciai, Hiroshima to Fukushima : Biohazards of Radiation,pp. 93,95.


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar

                      The figure for potassium radiation in the body of 0.165 mSv/yr from p. 64 of ECRR 2010, is the TOTAL internal dose, not the dose per kg.


                      Report comment

                • GOM GOM

                  HoT
                  He didn't respond. Look, I took death threats for a site of his back in early 2010 standing up to my beliefs. He owes me.. lol


                  Report comment

                  • Gabe Gabe

                    might I suggest a "chill pill" pal????
                    Good grief already……..sit down and settle down before you stroke out.


                    Report comment

                  • or-well or-well

                    GOM routinely becomes hysterical, taking exaggeration past hyperbole to professional-level mountain building out of molehills.
                    Also known for illogical extrapolations, erroneous statements and trollish behaviour.


                    Report comment

                    • or-well or-well

                      Yes, GOM, really.
                      Despite sabotaging your own credibility with BS, you routinely launch attack campaigns against respected posters, rant and spout diversionary, distracting and wrong nonsense and general fill threads with trolling insults.
                      You've done it for years.
                      You're quite a pathetic little shithead.


                      Report comment

                    • Byrian420 Byrian420

                      Or-well STFU

                      GOM is not a troll, just like I'm not.

                      You are a douchebag or-well!


                      Report comment

                    • DUDe DUDe

                      "..GOM is not a troll, just like I'm not.."

                      GOM is only periodically trolling..you are a cronic piece of malevolent nonsense spouter..and a blameshifter..

                      Counted many rats belly buttons lately ?

                      Why dont you give us your definition of a troll..then we can slowly break it down for ya..again..i'm sure it will be hilarious comparing to the official definition i have here at hand.


                      Report comment

                    • Byrian420 Byrian420

                      One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

                      By this definition you're the TROLL DUDe


                      Report comment

                    • Byrian420 Byrian420

                      In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.

                      I do none of these things, you people attack me so you are the TROLL


                      Report comment

                    • DUDe DUDe

                      "..I do none of these things.."

                      O Really..?

                      Your object of obsession has been proven by many here to be a cult for the weakest amongst the cattle..again and again..

                      And people have clearly en mass and repeatedly expressed that they dont want to be distracted with it..you insist to pop up anywhere with your cult-meme again and again despite the wishes of the majority..more then a year in a row..

                      Let me put the sequence of wordings correct for the weak denialist in this specifick case..

                      In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting upsetting people, by posting off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.

                      "..you people attack me.."

                      "..And now the important thread is derailed by a bunch of comments not related to the story. Again. Sigh.."

                      Having fun yet ASSHOLE ?


                      Report comment

                    • Byrian420 Byrian420

                      I'm on the Non-Nucler forum.

                      Please stop attacking me, I'll post what I want, when I want.

                      Thanks asshole!


                      Report comment

                    • DUDe DUDe

                      What , no proving i'm wrong ?? Case closed then , you agree you are doing the purest of trolling..

                      "..Please stop attacking me, I'll TROLL what I want, when I want.."

                      fixed !

                      And Nope Can Do You Selfish Prick !

                      I'm sure there is more like you out there..go fishing for an audience there..


                      Report comment

                    • Byrian420 Byrian420

                      I only post MANDELA EFFECTS videos and links to the non-nuclear forum.

                      Yes, I posted here only to reply to you.

                      Again please stop attacking me, I'll post when I want and where I want.

                      Thanks again, asshole


                      Report comment

                    • DUDe DUDe

                      Why are you still trolling here ?


                      Report comment

                    • Byrian420 Byrian420

                      Why are you still trolling here?


                      Report comment

                    • Sorry 420 boy…

                      …you wouldn't know your butt fron 3rd base if it jumped up and bit ya…

                      "I'm on the Non-Nucler forum.

                      Please stop attacking me, I'll post what I want, when I want"

                      Your'e actually in the "extremely-large-peaks-of-fukushima-radioactive-material"

                      Go away!!!

                      PS: Somebody get this guy (Byrian420) some help…


                      Report comment

                  • HoTaters HoTaters

                    GOM, I didn't report your comments. Can't get involved in this matter.


                    Report comment

                  • "I took death threats for a site of his back in early 2010 standing up to my beliefs"

                    Total lies only make total lies and produce nothing but lies…

                    Forget helping children to live healthy or anything, just study your ego…

                    Pitiful (non working) tripe for sure…

                    https://youtu.be/ktJ2Gn9XhzM


                    Report comment

              • Really???

                "We know we have to think for ourselves here, glean the truth, leave the rest, and move on."

                Nope we are here to help those that do not know and in doing so we help ourselves!!!!

                Maybe someone can get this (nuclear power debacle) stopped…

                ..or maybe just concerned with themselves…

                Speaks volumes…

                …and so does this.

                https://youtu.be/6oByYCBary0?t=1m42s


                Report comment

      • Byrian420 Byrian420

        FUKUSHIMA IS CLEARY #1 NUCLEAR CRISES EVER AND CHERNOBYL IS #2

        I agree with GOM WTF


        Report comment

      • Sol Man

        The authors must be on the payroll.


        Report comment

    • USA Radioactive Iodine 131, 129 Found In 13 Cities, Levels Up To 80 Times Allowed Levels, US Milk Radiation Contaminated – FAQ's, Facts, Potassium Iodide KI Tablets Information, Medical Use
      http://www.agreenroadjournal.com/2012/06/iodine-and-radioactive-iodine-facts.html


      Report comment

    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar

      “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.

      “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

    • StPaulScout StPaulScout

      You got that right. Chernobyl reactor contained about 80 metric tons of which a quarter was dispersed across eastern Europe. Fukushima released SEVERAL HUNDRED METRIC TONS directly into the air, ground and Pacific Ocean. ANYONE that claims Chernobyl is worse is either lying or stupid…..


      Report comment

    • irhologram

      GOM Adm. Already addressed your concerns. It was explained to you that limks were lrobided, had you had the interest to open them, beneath the story…that clearly place Fukushima in #st place. The Adm. position here is not one of "editor," but posting the multiple links below the story stretched as far toward editorializing as possible.

      Then, after relaying that the links were there for your perspective…an ADDITIONAL post was added with 100+ comparisons between Fukushima and Chernobyl.

      Your proper reponse would be: "Thank you, Adm. for clearing that up."

      But it seems you are asking: "Adm., I'm out on a limb here now. Call the fire department!" GOM! Just climb down!
      Your passion had a good result. We will now pay more attention to links beneath stories because we now know they're there FOR A CALCULATED reason. Good job!

      Now get down from your tree.

      (We ALSO know now that the Adm. is reading us, is listening, and cares what we think!)


      Report comment

  • theworldisalie theworldisalie

    Second worst plant accident my arse. What a bunch of horseshit.


    Report comment

  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

    unfortunately the emissions and comparison of Fukushima to Chernaobyl is not an easily answered question. Check the range of estimates at SimplyInfo
    http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=11668

    There is the stuff that was aerosolized, the stuff that gets washed out, and the stuff still at the site, the corium. The only thing really known is the amount of fuel there before the meltdowns. One could use that as the emitted level since the corium hasnt been contained. Its rather complicated with the different fission products and the lack of solid comprehensive measurements


    Report comment

    • theworldisalie theworldisalie

      More fuel, more reactors, more plutonium, much longer duration, no containment. Plutonium and hot particles being found everywhere. Things dying everywhere in the pacific ocean after it happened until now and beyond.

      The instruments got obliterated, computer models show a plume covering the entire world only based on venting from 1 reactor. Leaked emails stating SFP4 100% in atmosphere.

      Tepco and government caught lying repeatedly about it and readmitting over and over again that it was worse than stated prior, then coming out and asking for forgiveness for covering it up, they admitted that "damage" meant melt down.

      Tepco stating it had 600 tons missing of fuel and material, later revised as 880.

      I agree, nobody knows for sure. What I can say for certain however is that Chernobyl is a fart compared to Fukushima.

      Never mind we don't even know anything about Daini. We know they had lots of "damage" as well. We know the rad levels skyrocketed by Daini, they had Station black out.

      Arnie Gunderson Went to Fukushima prefecture and Said It's Chernobyl on Steroids.

      It's not hysteria People, it's fucking logic.


      Report comment

      • theworldisalie theworldisalie

        I'm not yelling at anyway, I'm just frustrated with this ongoing circus trying to downplay something that is quite clearly the worst on going nuclear disaster in history.


        Report comment

        • GOM GOM

          twial

          Be yourself. Post what makes you feel good. The hell with the common-cored and sheeple.


          Report comment

          • Oom Werner P. Oom Werner P.

            GOM:
            1) Inventory to release ratio
            2) Unreleased inventory
            3) Release to effect ratio
            4) Sea water effect
            5) Information blackout effect
            6) Ecological domino effect
            7) WHO database
             Which measuring stick do you have the biggest problem with, given the fortitudo that you are non-common-cored and non-sheeple?
            Once complete, I could kindly assist you being an informed departee on your way.


            Report comment

            • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

              Oom Werner! Good summary. I thought you were gone for good. Thanks for commenting


              Report comment

              • Oom Werner P. Oom Werner P.

                cheers thanx, I was shocked to see how admin was attacked today. Numerous doctors and professors have been quoted before as an unbiased review. We don't have the time to do so, we can only appreciate it.

                I diamond has to be cut to taste, not thrown away.


                Report comment

            • GOM GOM

              Oom..

              I woke up this morning in America, not North Korea. I will say what I please. My beef is with the site, not obscure wanna-be-noticed entities that have taken a semester or two in Pysch, Drama, and entry level Nuclear whatever.

              I'm sure Code's reply to you was thrilling. You havn't been around here much to butt in.. go away


              Report comment

              • Oom Werner P. Oom Werner P.

                Come now, come out with the figures, your figures, hide it no longer shall you? I am lost without it? Torture me no more with can't-have-it-syndrome! Desperatio crusians!


                Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                wow, probably the one person here with enough scientific background to really grasp whats going on in depth and GOM tells him to go away! How poorly rolls the wagon of ENEnews


                Report comment

                • AirSepTech AirSepTech

                  GOM has a cup of Jim Jones koolaid and a two-headed coin to toss for the contest.
                  It's all good.


                  Report comment

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    its not ALL good because the smart ones leave and the bafflegab fools persist until the cows come home. The residue is foul


                    Report comment

                    • Byrian420 Byrian420

                      In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      B420, I thought you were just on the off topic forum. Maybe you were but CERN changed history and now you spout your gibberish everywhere


                      Report comment

                    • Byrian420 Byrian420

                      CODE

                      I only post MANDELA EFFECT videos and links to the non-nuclear forum.

                      Yes I posted here only to respond to you.

                      I'll post want I want, when I want.

                      Thanks asshole


                      Report comment

                • HA!

                  You don't need "scientific background" to really grasp what's going on at Fukushima.

                  But there's that arrogant, masculine-dominated North American scientific mind at work again…

                  The same type of scientific minds that are now putting Fukushima in a neat little spot behind Chernobyl.


                  Report comment

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    not JUST a scientific background but intelligent. For those that arent so smart, as well as lacking scientific understanding, grasping Fukushima is going to be difficult and debating it impossible


                    Report comment

                    • Debate is highly over-rated.

                      And I disagree. It's quite simple to grasp the magnitude of Fukushima once it is explained clearly and in layperson's terms. You don't need scientific jargon or a science background.

                      Logic and intuition are very powerful things.

                      And most people intuitively know how dangerous nuclear energy is.


                      Report comment

                    • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                      Very easy to understand..best to keep the herds distracted and dumbed down at all costs as they line up at hospice centers.

                      No news in this case is very purposeful..government ruse.

                      Fukushima? What is Fukushima 6 years in..pathetic at best. :(


                      Report comment

                    • DUDe DUDe

                      Or one could show a video where you can see the particles bombarbing the sensor in a rage and explaining what it does to the atoms and thus cells in the body..TATAL..


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      If one wishes to tell people, make them aware, change the public opinion, enlighten them, then you need to be able to debate or argue the radiation at least to some degree. Heres why; the average citizen will look up Fukushima radiation on the internet and encounter Woods Hole, or NOAA and they will read that Fukushima fallout is far less, about one thousandths the level of background radiation in the ocean. This is not inaccurate. So unless you are able to argue the point of toxicity and how science has failed here, then your efforts are wasted.


                      Report comment

                    • You still don't need a science background for that. (Though I would call it "providing the right information" rather than debate or argument.)

                      There are very basic ways to nullify what shills (or just the misinformed) are telling us – that testing random ocean water samples isn't the best way to test for radioactivity, that it bio-accumulates in sea life and plants so THEY should be tested rather than sea water, that hot particles don't have to have a high background level of radiation to be dangerous, that plants and sea life have tested positive for the Fukushima signature since the beginning and continue to test positive for it, etc.).

                      I think one of the reasons we're in this mess is that we live in a highly-controlled society where people are taught that they can't think for themselves and need "experts" like nuclear shills to tell them what to think.


                      Report comment

                    • The Admin here, the commenters here, and Dana Durnford have helped me immeasurably in my own research and activism because they speak in layperson's terms. They translate things from scientific jargon to real life communication.

                      That's pretty much how it should be, imo.


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar

                      Here is a baby tooth project in the US, but I don't think it is measuring fallout from Fukushima.

                      http://radiation.org/


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar

                      June 6, 2011
                      325June 6, 2011
                      325,000 Radioactive Fallout Baby Teeth in Saint Louis = Increase in Cancer Deaths
                      https://pissinontheroses.blogspot.com/2011/06/325000-radioactive-fallout-baby-teeth.html?m=0

                      ,000 Radioactive Fallout Baby Teeth in Saint Louis = Increase in Cancer Deaths
                      https://pissinontheroses.blogspot.com/2011/06/325000-radioactive-fallout-baby-teeth.html?m=0


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Willow…what if the church and all the professors and everybody said the earth is 8 miles in diameter? When Busby says the nuclear church and professors are wrong by three orders of magnitude, that is how far off they are. So if you went to a person and said the earth is 8000 miles in diameter, they would look it up and find it is only 8 miles in diameter and they wouldnt believe you…it would be preposterous.

                      The reason Im saying that is because you seem to think the answer is in the quantity…finding the true amount, whether its bioaccumulated or tested correctly or whatever. But the answer is really in the TOXICITY of nuclear fallout, especially of ingested fallout. So even with bioaccumulation and long exposure and accurate truthful measurement, the whales will never have the amount of radiation from nuclear fallout then they have from natural radiation. So the answer isnt intuitive. The intuitive thinking is that there must be some huge hidden amount of radiation. Thats not the case…its the unacknowledged toxicity


                      Report comment

                    • I never said or thought those things and I'd prefer if you didn't extrapolate on my thought processes.

                      I'm a person who believes there is no safe level of radioactivity that can be taken into a person's body. Period.

                      I think it's a problem that we are finding any amount of fallout in our food, water, milk, air, etc. at any level, and I have always felt that way.

                      I don't need to "debate" or "argue" with any "scientists" to know the truth. Yes, it is intuitive.


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar

                      There's sea spray also. We even get sea spray in Boulder, COLO.

                      https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1523/ML15239A858.pdf


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      OK, debate and argue were the wrong words. I meant being able to talk cogently about the issue


                      Report comment

                    • DUDe DUDe

                      Show the video that is torn apart from the rads..explain the lies , i leave it to the expert's to enlighten experts..

                      But i had 1 or 2 years in to fukushima a sharp moment of friction with a female doctor..i had an abscess developing in my throat..during the conversation i asked if there was specifick food to influence with whatever i cant remember she was saying..maybe slime development in lungs or something like you can have with milk..
                      Like a good pharmaceutical robot she immediately barked "there is no such thing"..
                      I was insulted , really cooking inside..she saw it and payed some attention to her manners..but the tension lingered a bit on..
                      She said i needed xray..i asked is no other way..she asked if i skeered..
                      I told her bout how radiation damage cumulate during lifetime and generations ..bout fuku and the lies conspiracy and they couldent do a darn thing because it was too grave an accident and how they caused it all and the 300 ton gushing and the xray on top of it all for life and nobody knew or understood and education&news was all to support the industry..etc etc..basically a comprehension of all that i learned here from fellow posters and articles and links..

                      She listen deadsilent..i guess she could tell i wassent lying..

                      A few weeks later i hear on a local newsbroadcast the clinic upgraded its xray-machine to the latest top of the cream..
                      The least damaging for the patients..

                      But dont ask me to explain what a sievert is lol :mrgreen:


                      Report comment

      • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

        theworldisalie. I guess the question some readers might wonder is HOW MUCH worse? How does Fukushima compare, really. How does it compare to the bomb tests, how does it compare to background radiation. If you can give some ballpark estimates, then you have something. Otherwise, the average person wont know how to put any of it into perspective and they will end up believing Woods Hole.

        A good, rough estimate on radiation release is 10,000 Hiroshima bombs. Its reasonable that MOST of the release occured at the time of the disaster, but that there may be a long term additional amount that is severe and adds up to eclipse or excede the original release. Further catastrophic events may well occur. The common pool is a near certain disaster waiting the next natural or human trigger. A reasonable estimate is that there is less radioactive fallout from Fukushima than the bomb test era.

        The ECRR calculates 60 million deaths from the bomb tests. We have an estimate of around a million deaths and five million people with tragic health consequence from Chernobyl. So its probably not too far off to conclude the effect will be somewhere within those numbers. But the possibility exists that an ecological domino effect will occur and the entire thing will be far worse than anyone can imagine. Its not exactly correct to pin ALL of the ecological disasters on Fukushima. And indeed thats the problem. Fukushima could be the bale of straw that breaks the camels bac


        Report comment

      • unincredulous unincredulous

        No doubt Fukushima is nuclear's darkest hour. day. week. month. year. soon to be decade. Like Dana Durnford repeatedly predicts, they will have hell to pay when everyone awakens to the deception

        We did not ever hear anyone saying stupid crap like "nuclear power's finest hour" about Chernobyl. The did not even say it was good at all. This is the era of the biggest lie. Lying power's finest hour


        Report comment

    • Silverlok Silverlok

      " The only thing really known is the amount of fuel there before the meltdowns "

      no

      and

      no

      ….about dispersion ( remember the industry 'buy-line' is: dilution is the solution ), the entire 'nuclear'/M.I.C. industrial base used/use models/calculations that where entirely based purely on therms per gram ( isolated physics frame work)
      WITHOUT ANY SURFACE INTERACTIONS
      from melt masses being considered. soo no , multi-departmental light was shined on any of this until fuku popped, and even then it took 'citizen scientists' to force Areva into a position where it was willing to "grant" a million bucks to study the surface boiling 'issue'.

      the surface boiling reality is that any over heat exceeding about four hundred degree's F in an aquas environment releases uranium and plutonium directly into the environment as nanoparticle bucky-balls.

      all the other 'direct'(immediate, or overpowering) effects are being measured by what metric?…with the initial amount of material in an undisturbed state as the starting point….


      Report comment

      • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

        Silverlok, I dont understand the disagreement. Do we know how much radioactive fallout was released? No, you can see there is a large variation in estimates. You say no to this statement, meaning you think we DO know the amount of fallout. Dispersion…what did I say about dilution and dispersion that you say No to? The amount of fuel before the disaster was known, other than perhaps clandestine operations. The fission yield has been worked out and so the science world would have a pretty good idea of what the total emissions would be if ALL fuel fissioned. We dont know the fate of the spent fuel. It is said about 14,000 Hiroshima bombs of fallout existed in unit 4 SFP. It appears at least some of that was liberated. Fukushima has a lot more fuel than Chernobyl. On the quantity of fuel alone, and the fact it is all not stored away somewhere, the reactor fuel likely in the ground, then Fukushima is unarguably worse than Chernobyl. In fact that was my point. The exact levels and distributions of fallout AT THIS STAGE are not known. As to the FORM of the fallout, yes, there are bucky balls, there are a large amount of nano sphere alloys…all of this affects the TOXICITY. But science is already underestimating ingested toxicity by 300 to a thousand times. That is like a scientist saying the earth is only 25 miles in diameter, so preposterously wrong that all discussion is useless


        Report comment

        • GOM GOM

          Code

          You are no match for Silverlok, sit down.. before you embarrass yourself with you're same lament, day, after day, after day..


          Report comment

        • Silverlok Silverlok

          "…The fission yield has been worked out and so the (sic)
          "science world would have a pretty good idea"(sic)…
          of what the total emissions would be if(sic):
          ALL fuel fissioned…"

          "fission yield worked out". haha…therms per gram , single frame of reference, chemistry and electromagnetics( and gravity and solar radiation and the Tesla-shuman resonance) have a say about any , and all dispersion interactions, meaning any single frame of reference is obfuscational ( or simply myopic ) about the problem inherent in "localized" (hand picked) frame of reference;

          For reference, does complete 'fission out' of "all" materials represent a good modeling of what happened? let's say if so , without surface action ( and time of contact)calcs,) does one have any basis for environmental (REAL FUCKING WORLD) interaction even in that limited environment?

          More importantly, to gauge the releases beyond just single frame of reference therms/fission event; look to the first rule of energy transfer(outside of real detonation), they are dictated by:surface area to time of contact, i.e. how long where any of the melt masses exposed to surface area ( and how much surface area ) contact with water (regardless of fission events), since , you know, the melt masses have spent most of their time in this state, rather than ; fissioning out


          Report comment

          • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

            Silverlok….here is Stohls paper. Its interesting because he says the unit4 spent fuel pool released copious quantities of C-137
            http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/2313/2012/acp-12-2313-2012.pdf

            Here is Busby's estimate
            http://www.llrc.org/fukushima/subtopic/fukuchernobylcomparison2012.pdf
            'Fukushima releases exceeded those from Chernobyl by a factor of 9 for the noble gas Xe-133 and were approximately the same for Cs-137.
            Because the Fukushima reactors had a rated generating capacity of 3 times that of Chernobyl, the reactor inventory of fission products will be approximately three times that of Chernobyl.'

            The paper seems to have been taken down, maybe try the way-back machine.

            In this study, the emissions of the three fission products Cs-137, I-131 and Xe-133 are investigated. Regarding Xe-133, the total release is estimated to be of the order of 6 × 1018 Bq emitted during the explosions of units 1, 2 and 3. The total source term estimated gives a fraction of core inventory of about 8 × 1018 Bq at the time of reactors shutdown. This result suggests that at least 80 % of the core inventory has been released into the atmosphere and indicates a broad meltdown of reactor cores. Total atmospheric releases of Cs-137 and I-131 aerosols are estimated to be 1016 and 1017 Bq, respectively. By neglecting gas/particulate conversion phenomena, the total release of I-131 (gas + aerosol) could be estimated to be 4 × 1017 Bq.

            http://link.springer.com/article/10


            Report comment

              • Oom Werner P. Oom Werner P.

                Code, the second link from Busby does not liberate from internet to browser, try http://www.bsrrw.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/fukushima-chernobyl-comparison-report-11.03.2011.pdf instead


                Report comment

                • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                  Oom, thank you.

                  while we are on it, I like this paper because they converge on a radiation release figure using three different methods. They even include an estimate from the unit4 sfp; 9E16 of I131 and 3E16 Bq of Cs137.
                  They make note of the ECRR, and though they use different calculation methods are more or less in agreement. The radiation release is equal to nearly 10,000 Hiroshima bombs which gives the people something to think about. They conclude; "it can be concluded that Fukushima probably is the biggest
                  natural AND industrial nuclear (man-made) event which mankind ever experienced in its history."

                  http://www.npsag.org/upload/reports/00-004/00-004%20Castle%20Meeting%202011%2009%20-%20Paper.pdf


                  Report comment

                  • Oom Werner P. Oom Werner P.

                    There are four major variables controlling the calculations:

                    1) Initial release without ongoing release inclusion/exclusion
                    2) Land vs Sea release 20-80
                    3) Gas vs Particle release 70-30
                    4) Complete inventory release (which on my opinion is ubsurd) some say 80%
                    5) Some estimates 9000 times above others

                    Where do we begin?


                    Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      1) calculate fission products from known fuel inventory and burn up time
                      2) use a variety of field test results…the aerial one and Stohl are good
                      3) reliable test of say xenon allows calculation of other radionuclides by isotope ratios
                      4) land to sea ratio…poison the sea or land, it all ends in catastrophe,
                      5) if there are not accurate dose coefficients, then release estimates cant predict health effects


                      Report comment

                    • Oom Werner P. Oom Werner P.

                      There is a huge problem with land to sea ratio.
                      The 60 GBq daily release in the water should not be added as a release, since it was already calculated as an inventory release, site release and inventory release should be differentiated.
                      That also applies to tank, bag, stench, purification and other storage on site- which is calculated way differently at Chernobyl. Stohl stated 10% once I think- not sure what they meant – clarity reserved to readers’s interpretation.


                      Report comment

                    • Oom Werner P. Oom Werner P.

                      Reason for mentioning this: some are running at risk that 137Cs and 133Xe can be algorithmically calculated as being higher than the actual inventory, when the inventory is currently 500-600Sv strong in one reactor only. When you add 134Cs, you have inflated the inventory even further – 1:1 ratio for 134Cs:137Cs. Using the same algorithmic error for other isotopes inflate the inventory even more. There will be no fixed land to sea ratio any time soon.
                      http://energy.utexas.edu/files/2014/06/Eslinger-2014-JER-Fukushima-Source.pdf


                      Report comment

                    • Oom Werner P. Oom Werner P.

                      A 425 PBq puff is needed with a 20:80 soil/water ratio to equal the 6t puff of Chernobyl to equal soil contamination. Every litre of contaminated water flowing in the ocean deminishes that possibility.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Oom, yes, if they calculate release of C-137 based on xenon measurement, then add the C-137 washed out later, they have counted it twice. The words "source term" is a little unfortunate because it sounds like an estimate of maximum existing potential releases. So 100% release of source term could mean only 3% of the fuel because "source term" is itself a release estimate. While they do get heavily into the modelling of the accident sequence, (hopefully avoiding counting release estimates twice) the source term estimate is admitted to have an error factor one to three or more orders of magnitude. Then there is the large uncertainty of the spent fuel. Its perhaps amazing that any confluence of estimate and measurement occurs.

                      http://www.nucleartourist.com/events/NUREG-1465.pdf
                      https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/6822946/


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Oom, but the water/land ratio is primarily the result of wind and deposition rate from the initial release, not ongoing washout? One could say, lucky for Tokyo, unlucky for whales, but ecological impact is circular.

                      "A 425 PBq puff is needed with a 20:80 soil/water ratio to equal the 6t puff of Chernobyl to equal soil contamination. Every litre of contaminated water flowing in the ocean deminishes that possibility."


                      Report comment

                    • Oom Werner P. Oom Werner P.

                      When source term becomes a single selective isotope proportion instead of composite inventory/release ratio, that will stand for a problem of its own. We need a 60t Fuku source term to yield equal soil distribution over an equal time frame, adjusted with a logarithmic soil/water time coeffiicient and subtracted by the onsite bag repository.
                      We need to take the circular effect out of release calculations.
                      Where do we begin?


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      yes, funny because the millions of bags sit there until they fall apart; skip the subtraction. What is the half life of plastic bags?

                      The contamination is apparently not the issue, as proven by hundreds of students making the field measurements. Result; SAFE! Even as deformed bugs squash under foot. Dose effect needs more correction than release estimate. Where do we begin?


                      Report comment

                    • Oom Werner P. Oom Werner P.

                      In the event that we take 30t out, we increase the 10% to a 40-60%, which many did before. That leaves us with 30t. The remainder is not sourced at all. We do not have a 425 PBq release.
                      We have been misled.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Oom, the DOE aerial survey measurement results in nearly 300 PBq.

                      But I return to dose effects. Effects are what matters. The ICRP estimates 3000 cancer deaths, the ECRR less than half a million. Both strike me as poor estimates of effects. Half the observed butterflies and birds had deformations. That means in my mind 100% of all living things were impacted negatively. You extend to the ocean, and consider all known and unknown secondary effects, from starvation to loss of cloud seeding aerosols and the tsunami of ecosystem effect is incalculable. We can only wait and see, never being sure how much the mass retardation and animal die off is caused by Fukushima. My opinion on release estimate AND measurement is that it does not reflect biological effect, and therefor is of little or even negative value. Many people here think if they could only find the 'missing' becquerels that are being hidden from them by the science guys they could finally prove Fukushima is the cause. They are very much misguided by that way of thinking…the becquerel way


                      Report comment

                    • Oom Werner P. Oom Werner P.

                      Doing an all release estimation from http://www.oecd-nea.org/rp/chernobyl/c02.html having a 10 EBq (exa) with a 20:80 soil/water distribution for Fuku, would need a 50 EBq (exa) puff including noble gasses to equal ground contamination, and a very large inventory release is needed. We should also break away from the 134Cs:137Cs 1:1 assumption and various other assumptions.


                      Report comment

          • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

            ongoing release;

            Sept. 27, 2013: the Japan Meteorological Agency scientist, Michio Aoyama, told the audience at the IAEA 2013 Scientific Forum that 60 GBq of Cesium-137 & Strontium-90 directly go out to the ocean outside of the Fukushima Daiichi port daily [900 billion of Cs-137 per month and 900 billion of Sr-90 per month]
            ===========
            National Geographic, August 13, 2013: Jota Kanda, an oceanographer at Toyko University of Marine Science and Technology, calculated that the plant is leaking 0.3 terabecquerels [300 billion becquerels] of cesium-137 per month
            ========
            New Scientist, August 23, 2013: Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts says the Kanda estimate [of leakage into the sea from Fukushima Daiichi] is probably the best he is aware of
            =======
            http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=11467
            Fukushima Daiichi Leaked 43.8 Terabecquerels To The Sea In Last 2 Years

            Based on the calculations of Michio Aoyama (Meteorological Research Institute, Japan) 60 GBq of cesium 137 and strontium 90 have leaked out of Fukushima Daiichi to the Pacific ocean on a daily basis since the initial disaster.


            Report comment

          • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

            fuku release estimate from ENEnews poster
            Tim42
            March 14, 2016 at 6:48 pm ·

            I did an analysis of the electrical output generated by the Fukishima units(1,2,3) prior to the meltdowns.

            From that data, yielded a range of 83(3yr) to 144(6yr) Megatons worth of fission byproducts in those three cores.

            The range is because of unknowns, no data on the fuel rod enrichment composistion (%U-235), timing between refueling cycles and percentage of fuel rods exchanged during each cycle.

            What we do know, those three reactors were likely at their dirtiest point, about to be shutdown and refueled, (prior to summer time max demand).

            Note: 83MT is equivilent to 8,300 (10KT Hiroshimas), and 144MT is equilivent to 14,400 (Hiroshimas).

            Also note: Since the fission activity is still detected(I-131) those numbers are continuing to increase(0.2 to 1% per year since 2011).


            Report comment

          • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

            Silverlok, here is that paper from Busby. An interesting read, comparing Fuku to Chernobyl with a list of isotopes

            On the basis of the most recent measurements and calculations, Fukushima releases
            exceeded those from Chernobyl by a factor of 9 for the noble gas Xe-133 and were
            approximately the same for Cs-137. Because the Fukushima reactors had a rated
            generating capacity of 3 times that of Chernobyl, the reactor inventory of fission
            products will be approximately three times that of Chernobyl. Since the measured Xe-
            7
            133 levels showed the entire inventory of this gas was released, it can be assumed that
            all of the inventory of the other fission product gases and volatile elements will also
            have been released. It follows that rated as an overall contamination process,
            Fukushima was about twice as serious as Chernobyl

            http://www.bsrrw.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/fukushima-chernobyl-comparison-report-11.03.2011.pdf


            Report comment

  • Fukushima Radioactive Fallout Detected In Alaska, Tibet, EU, Lithuania And Norway – Toxicity Of Plutonium Proved Via Scientific Animal Studies, Toxic, Deadly Radiation From Fukushima Went All Around The World
    http://www.agreenroadjournal.com/2013/10/fukushima-plutonium-detected-in.html


    Report comment

  • AirSepTech AirSepTech

    While I do not agree that Fuku ranks #2, I also am not offended by the article, or its repost by Admin. It is verbatim, that is how it should be. This certainly is not the only report to make that claim.

    It only covers airborne, with that in mind, the authors are in eastern Europe. Much closer to Chernobyl. How many people were exposed at a closer proximity, and downwind. I am no expert.

    There is also much debate on immediate fatalities, workers(liquidators), and the entire 'fake news' that goes with both incidents. Consider known fatalities Chernobyl vs Fukushima and the perspective of the authors living in Easter Europe. I am not sure how to think of it, the ocean, 25 years difference in time, technology changes, etc. I see Fuku as #1, but then I do not live in Pripyat or Kiev. There are no winners.

    I appreciate the info, it will take a little time to digest.


    Report comment

    • GOM GOM

      AST

      You appreciate the downgrade of Fukushima.. And an article edited by pro-nuke idiots?

      QUESTION

      Who gave permission to 'publishers clearing house' to downgrade something that the USNRC sees as the worst accident in history?

      Now let's see the answer without attack.

      Go..


      Report comment

      • DUDe DUDe

        "..You appreciate the downgrade of Fukushima.."

        Normal people have a way of dealing/filtering with mixed info without going instantly psychotic and deduct crazy conspiracy accusations and lashing out like an army "aggression behaviour experiment" escaped the lab..and even if you would make a grain of sense , that you dont , it still less bad then a single agent stubbornly pushing brainwashing cults on a forum of truthseekers..day in day out..dont you think ? If you do ?


        Report comment

        • AirSepTech AirSepTech

          You would think if one was 'outraged' with mis-info they would find an outlet to make improvement. Crazed ranting simply destroys ones credibility, even on a small site, maybe even more so.

          2/1/2016 – 1/31/2017 · 1,415,024 pageviews (117,919/day)

          'No deaths followed short term radiation exposure, though there were a number of deaths in the evacuation of the nearby population,[206] while 15,884 died (as of 10 February 2014[207]) due to the earthquake and tsunami.'

          'Estimated effective doses from the accident outside Japan are considered to be below (or far below) the dose levels regarded as very small by the international radiological protection community.[213][178'

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Aftermath

          Wiki is one player.
          There is plenty to debunk out there. The audience is huge.


          Report comment

  • Dazy Dazy

    It's a news aggregate site and all the articles are open for discussion. If all views aren't presented then it can be argued that the site is biased. How can the info be rebutted if it's not presented?


    Report comment

    • razzz razzz

      Dazy and a few others have a clue. This site is like the Drudge Report where he rarely if ever writes his own news articles. Most all the headline news postings come from other sources.

      In this Scientific Reports posting here, I give the researchers credit for rediscovering dispersal patterns as it explains the drift of the plume(s).

      Information lacks for fallout hitting the ground but the study admits that. Probably lacking data sources from monitors that were supposedly not functioning for whatever reason at the time.

      Most of all esp. in the footnotes, there is no references to 'source term' data which means Daiichi being ground zero with the melts belching radioactive fallout leading to the plumes in the air. Data from Daiichi is relied on for the Japanese government to produce, the same government that refused to publicly admit to the meltdown for three months or more.

      The dispersal charts are hard to argue with but how much fallout is actually contained in the airborne plumes, maybe only the US Navy knows for sure. Doubt TEPCO instruments could register such high radioactivity x3. Airborne fallout could end up in the Pacific.

      Not to the mention the ongoing radioactive melt releases into the Pacific, referred to as local releases. Just because the melts are underwater, doesn't mean they aren't still releasing their deadly poisons.

      Can anybody find the definitive numbers on what fallout was released from Chernobyl?…I didn't think so.


      Report comment

      • razzz razzz

        This linked NEA report is pretty good as years later they try to put the Chernobyl humpty dumpty back together again to see which pieces are missing but they still are guessing.

        'Chernobyl: Assessment of Radiological and Health Impact
        2002 Update of Chernobyl: Ten Years On '

        "… The initial large release was principally due to the mechanical fragmentation of the fuel during the explosion. It contained mainly the more volatile radionuclides such as noble gases, iodines and some caesium. The second large release between day 7 and day 10 was associated with the high temperatures reached in the core melt. The sharp drop in releases after ten days may have been due to a rapid cooling of the fuel as the core debris melted through the lower shield and interacted with other material in the reactor. Although further releases probably occurred after 6 May, these are not thought to have been large…"
        http://www.oecd-nea.org/rp/chernobyl/c02.html


        Report comment

        • GOM GOM

          razz

          Chernobyl was owned by Poland, bet you didn't know that. It remained under communist rule until today. I am far from stupid as touted by some.

          You're last sentence is tragic. It was 1986, this is the USSR, what don't you get?

          Throwing Chernobyl under the bus. Take some time to really study burning graphite in a nuclear accident scenario. If that fire continued, it would dwarf Japan.

          There are lots of stats on Chernobyl. New studies. Go look.


          Report comment

          • razzz razzz

            You never know who might have relatives in Poland.

            Parts of Poland took a good hit from Chernobyl radiation along with other countries because Russia cloud seeded when they saw the fallout cloud headed towards their motherland and forced rain outs for others to burden.

            I have read reports on Chernobyl and none of them align. With the core burning for ten days, I can see where Chernobyl radioactive releases could initially been worse than Daiichi but in the long run Daiichi is much worse. Both Russia and Japan covered up their nuclear mistakes.

            Poland was proactive in radiation response and issued iodine to its children and warned their population. Chernobyl also ended Poland's nuclear reactor aspirations.

            As a christian nation, it has managed to survive communism and is stable with many corporations locating there to tap an educated workforce.

            I am not sure which century you are living in.
            https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pl.html


            Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    Wednesday, March 16, 2011

    UN: Radiation to Hit U.S. By Friday

    The New York Times notes:

    A United Nations forecast of the possible movement of the radioactive plume coming from crippled Japanese reactors shows it churning across the Pacific and touching the Aleutian Islands on Thursday before hitting Southern California late Friday.

    http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/03/un-radiation-to-hit-us-by-friday.html


    Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    How Weather Could Link Japan Radiation to U.S. – March 21, 2011

    Exactly where a hypothetical "radiation cloud", from either Fukushima Daiichi or Onagawa, would go should depend upon the weather pattern at the time of, and following, the release.

    http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/japan-nuclear-incident-and-the/46984


    Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    Fukushima Nuclear Plant Released Far More Radiation Than Government Said – October 25, 2011

    Global radioactivity data challenge Japanese estimates for emissions and point to the role of spent fuel pools

    The study also suggests that, contrary to government claims, pools used to store spent nuclear fuel played a significant part in the release of the long-lived environmental contaminant caesium-137, which could have been prevented by prompt action. The analysis has been posted online for open peer review by the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fukushima-nuclear-planet-released-more-radiation-government-said/


    Report comment

  • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar

    Swiss to vote on government’s anti-nuclear energy strategy
    1 February 2017
    http://www.thelocal.ch/20170201/swiss-to-vote-on-governments-anti-nuclear-energy-strategy


    Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    Pentagon preparing for a nuclear worst-case scenario at Fukushima – March 16, 2011

    Some nuclear experts are now saying the Fukushima crisis could rival the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the former Soviet Union.

    Nuclear scientists use the term “core-on-the-floor” to describe radioactive fuel burning through protective containment layers, hitting water and bursting into the atmosphere in a huge steam explosion, spreading clouds of radioactive gas and dust.

    It’s never happened before, but experts fear it may soon become reality in one or more reactors at the Fukushima nuclear complex, which was gravely damaged in last Friday’s 9.0-magnitude earthquake and ensuing tsunami.

    “We are right now closer to core-on-the-floor than at any time in the history of nuclear reactors,” said Kenneth Bergeron, a former Sandia National Laboratory researcher who spent his career simulating such meltdowns, including in reactors of the type at the Fukushima plant.

    http://www.stripes.com/news/http-www-stripes-com-news-pentagon-preparing-for-a-nuclear-worst-case-scenario-at-fukushima-1-1379-1.137969


    Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    On so many levels we were given atoms for some parts are missing… :|


    Report comment

  • lam335 lam335

    re: "… two extremely large peaks in Utah and Indiana."

    Does anyone know of any sources that provide more specific data/info regarding what Indiana got hit with?

    (I was living in northern Indiana at the time and obliged to be outside that week. I now have hypothyroid.)


    Report comment

  • I agree that we should NOT regard the article as a deliberate insult or even as aimed at trivializing Fukushima fallout.

    The "officially accepted estimates" do assert that Fukushima produced less cesium, iodine, and plutonium contamination, although admitting that Fukushima produced more xenon contamination than Chernobyl.

    I'm not saying I believe that Fukushima was less (I don't), because I've looked at how the source estimates were generated and there are all sorts of problems, especially the failure to consider the massive rain-outs over the Pacific and also the fact that Fukushima contamination has NEVER ceased.

    But the point is that part of the reason that the industry can get away with their endless contamination is because of the extreme challenges in evaluating contamination, especially when its ongoing and efforts are being made to hide it.

    Scientists who publish on Fukushima fallout have to be careful to contextualize their findings within establishment conventions, even when their findings subtly call those conventions into question, or they will NEVER be published in "recognized" journals.

    So, GOM I understand your pain but think perhaps in this particular case Codeshutdown and others have a good point.


    Report comment

    • DUDe DUDe

      "..and efforts are being made to hide it.."

      Hi majia..i agree with your whole post but..you are too kind..there is from day one way way more effort and resources and remarkable aka never thought possible global cooperation , put/criminally wasted in hiding the truth about the Fukushima ongoing disaster and the criminally sad state of the nuclear industry as a whole..then in tackling the onslaught on the planet and all its life-expressions..or in preventing a new disaster to occur..

      After all , it is an offspring of the warprofiteering industry..and these guy's and their stockholders that rule the world and most of its social dynamics are not exactly famous for perpetual altruisme or transparancy , or needing a shrink whenever there occurs some unjustifiable collateral damage on their monopoly board lol..


      Report comment

      • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

        DUDe, the criminal tragedy is not the radiation release estimates, its that science completely dismisses the admitted huge release…everyone says the largest radioactive oceanic pollution in history….and they say it cant possibly do any harm. Instead they all theorize climate change. Its grotesque. But we know part of the reason behind their thinking; they all believe the ICRP model and that background radiation is 1000x higher rad dose. This seems to be the crux, but nobody can comprehend it for some reason


        Report comment

        • DUDe DUDe

          "..But we know part of the reason behind their thinking; they all believe the ICRP model and that background radiation is 1000x higher rad dose. This seems to be the crux, but nobody can comprehend it for some reason.."

          Correct Code..but dwelling in error thinking is only a crime if you know better..that we can not proof 100%..yet

          "..Its grotesque.."

          Absofrigginglutely !!

          As grotesque as the state of sickness a human mind can and does reach when subjected to too much power..


          Report comment

          • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

            proof of the failure of radiation science comes from notable people like

            Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake
            professor in experimental physics at the University of Bremen, physicist at the Institute of Nuclear Medicine of the Hannover Medical School doing research in radiation dosimetry and also field work and epidemiology of cancer clusters

            the late Alexey V. Yablokov, Ph.D.
            Professor at Russian Academy of Sciences and the publication Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment which draws on over 1,000 published titles and over 5,000 internet and printed publications, primarily in Slavic languages

            Dr. Yury Bandazhevsky (all real Dr's!)
            former director of the Medical Institute in Gomel (Belarus) who was imprisoned for His scientific research into the Chernobyl catastrophe and his open criticism of the official response to the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster


            Report comment

            • DUDe DUDe

              I meant we can not proof that those hanging on to the false dogma do so deliberately..no biggie in importance..
              Wilfully criminal or by mistake..bottomline is the Earth and thus we too is being executed and that is the ultimate crime..apart from destroying the whole Universe..


              Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                DUDe, my guess is that 99% of scientists believe in the mainstream radiation science. You saw Busby vs Valentin. Buesseler looks sincere. He may know he is hiding something by not digging into the silt or whatever but probably he believes Fukushima radiation is too small to have an impact


                Report comment

  • laconic93 laconic93

    Well now we know why Obama took his whole family to Brazil and Chile don't we Watson?
    Asked by a reporter whether it was "awkward" for Obama, who will be accompanied by his family, to be traveling to a part of the world so far … http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/19/world/la-fg-obama-latin-20110319

    And this article would explain the high cancer rates in Florida.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/04/cancer-clusters-in-florida-the-silence-of-the-state/


    Report comment

  • unincredulous unincredulous

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD_9YJVintE

    Someone needs to get this kid working on Fukushima fix


    Report comment

  • earthsmith earthsmith

    Radioactive genetically modified grains….Murka lives off grains…those kids got cereal? You do the math.


    Report comment

  • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog

    http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20170202/p2g/00m/0dm/087000c

    Radiation level at Fukushima reactor highest since 2011 disaster; grating hole found

    February 2, 2017 (Mainichi Japan)

    . .

    TOKYO (Kyodo) — The radiation level inside the containment vessel of the No. 2 reactor at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex stood at 530 sieverts per hour at a maximum, the highest since the 2011 disaster, the plant operator said Thursday.


    According to TEPCO, the extremely high radiation level was found near the entrance area in the space just below the pressure vessel. The previously highest radiation level monitored in the interior of the reactor was 73 sieverts per hour.

    …A further analysis of the images found a 2-meter hole in an area beyond the missing section on the structure.

    If the deposits are confirmed as fuel debris, it would be the first time the utility has found any at the three units that suffered meltdowns.

    Following one of the world's worst nuclear disasters since the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe, the No. 1 to 3 reactors suffered fuel meltdowns.

    MORE


    Report comment

  • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/02/02/national/crime-legal/ex-worker-fukushima-disaster-sues-tepco-kyushu-electric-leukemia/

    Ex-worker during Fukushima disaster sues Tepco, Kyushu Electric over leukemia

    Kyodo
    A former nuclear worker who developed leukemia after combating the 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis demanded ¥59 million (around $524,000) in damages from two utilities Thursday at his first trial hearing at the Tokyo District Court.

    “I worked there because of my ardent desire to help bring the disaster under control but I was treated as if I was a mere expendable laborer,” the plaintiff said.

    “I want Tokyo Electric to thoroughly face up to its responsibility,” he said.

    The defendants, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc., which runs Fukushima No. 1, and Kyushu Electric Power Co., whose Genkai nuclear plant also employed the plaintiff, asked the court to reject the claim, questioning the connection between his radiation exposure and leukemia.

    The man was engaged in welding operations at the Fukushima Nos. 1 and 2 plants and the Genkai complex in Saga Prefecture from October 2011 to December 2013. His exposure in operations subcontracted by the utilities consisted of at least 19.8 millisieverts, according to his written complaint.



    Report comment

  • Sol Man

    We've got many words explaining the charts and graphs that show that we all got many tons of the most vile substances ever on earth dumped in our collective laps. Much thanks to all of the erudite posters to prove the point.

    So, macabre world lives (for a while) as the people sleep.

    Go hug your children!


    Report comment

  • Based on my recent online arguments, any information about Fukushima fallout coming down on North America in an ongoing way in rain and snow would be useful. I'm certain this is the case, but does anyone have concrete links?


    Report comment

  • Sol Man

    Higher exposure numbers is less time.


    Report comment

  • Yeesh!
    Do the arguments ever end?
    Admin; I am glad you're back and posting. I hope whatever it is you were going through has been resolved and all is well. And, I'm not going to complain to you as we are all adults and should learn to monitor our own selves.
    To those posting; really? Still?


    Report comment

  • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog

    "The release period lasted over two months emitting a significant amount of radioiodine, radioxenon and radiocaesium as well as other isotopes such as plutonium."

    http://www.helencaldicott.com/the-impact-of-the-nuclear-crisis-on-global-health/
    …Plutonium, one of the most deadly radioactive substances, is an alpha emitter. It is highly toxic, and one millionth of a gram will induce cancer if inhaled into the lung. As an iron analogue, it combines with transferrin. It causes liver cancer, bone cancer, leukemia, or multiple myeloma. It concentrates in the testicles and ovaries where it can induce testicular or ovarian cancer, or genetic diseases in future generations. It also crosses the placenta where it is teratogenic, like thalidomide. There are medical homes near Chernobyl full of grossly deformed children, the deformities of which have never before been seen in the history of medicine.
    The half-life of plutonium is 24,400 years, and thus it is radioactive for 250,000 years. It will induce cancers, congenital deformities, and genetic diseases for virtually the rest of time.

    Plutonium is also fuel for atomic bombs. Five kilos is fuel for a weapon which would vaporize a city. Each reactor makes 250 kg of plutonium a year. It is postulated that less than one kilo of plutonium, if adequately distributed, could induce lung cancer in every person on earth.


    Report comment

  • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog

    "340–800 PBq"

    Code, what is this in volume?


    Report comment

    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

      Hillbilly, well it depends on the isotope. One gram of caesium-137 has an activity of 3.215 terabecquerel. I have to run right now, but its not too hard to do the math. A tera is twelve zeros and a peta is fifteen zeros so it looks like in the neighborhood of a hundred kilograms. A cubic meter of water weighs a thousand kilograms, about like a small car, so much less than a car. I might be off so check it. But it shows how toxic the stuff is.


      Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    Abstract

    We have evaluated the contribution of sources of (137)Cs to the inventory of radiocesium in waters (surface area: 6160 km(2), water volume: 753 km(3)) off Fukushima Prefecture and neighboring prefectures from May 2011 to February 2015. A time-series of the inventory of (137)Cs in the offshore waters revealed a clearly decreasing trend from May 2011 (283.4 TBq) to February 2015 (1.89 TBq). The (137)Cs inventory about four years after the accident was approximately twice the background inventory of 1.1 TBq. The magnitudes of the (137)Cs influxes from sources into offshore waters for periods of 182-183 days were estimated from the first period (1 October 2011 to 31 March 2012: 15.3 TBq) to the last period (1 October 2014 to 31 March 2015: 0.41 TBq). We assumed that three sources contributed (137)Cs: continuous direct discharge from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station (FNPS) even after the massive discharge in late March 2011, desorption/dissolution from sediments, and fluvial input. Quantification of these sources indicated that the direct discharge from the FNPS is the principal source of (137)Cs to maintain the relatively high inventory in the offshore area.

    http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/27282171


    Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    Abstract
    The years following the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant (FDNPP) accident, the distribution of (90)Sr in seawater in the coast off Japan has received limited attention. However, (90)Sr is a major contaminant in waters accumulated within the nuclear facility and in the storage tanks. Seawater samples collected off the FDNPP in September 2013 showed radioactive levels significantly higher than pre-Fukushima levels within 6 km off the FDNPP. These samples, with up to 8.9 ± 0.4 Bq·m(-3) for (90)Sr, 124 ± 3 Bq·m(-3) for (137)Cs, and 54 ± 1 Bq·m(-3) for (134)Cs, appear to be influenced by ongoing releases from the FDNPP, with a characteristic (137)Cs/(90)Sr activity ratio of 3.5 ± 0.2. Beach surface water and groundwater collected in Sendai Bay had (137)Cs concentrations of up to 43 ± 1 Bq·m(-3), while (90)Sr was close to pre-Fukushima levels (1-2 Bq·m(-3)). These samples appear to be influenced by freshwater inputs carrying a (137)Cs/(90)Sr activity ratio closer to that of the FDNPP fallout deposited on land in the spring of 2011. Ongoing inputs of (90)Sr from FDNPP releases would be on the order of 2.3-8.5 GBq·d(-1) in September 2013, likely exceeding river inputs by 2-3 orders of magnitude. These results strongly suggest that a continuous surveillance of artificial radionuclides in the Pacific Ocean is still required.

    http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/26629784


    Report comment

  • Hey admin,

    What say we edit some of these confused and uneducated folks out…

    …even if I'm one of em.

    https://youtu.be/dhdw4Nz281s


    Report comment

  • Chronic1 Chronic1

    I just found d a hot spot on an air filter less than a month old. It measured 1.75 microseiverts per hour. I'm in Metro Denver. I measured it with a Radex double Geiger. I'm well aware of the limitations measuring radiation with a personal Geiger tube. Quite frankly I was shocked to find this hot particle in a new air filter. I measured surface radiation on the filter before I installed it and it had no hot spots. For what it's worth, if these readings are in my home air filter, they are in everyone's. This does not bode well for the life forms on our planet. I predict the Orcas will be extinct in less than two years and people fleeing the West Coast in five years max.


    Report comment

  • Chronic1 Chronic1

    Strangely enough I wasn't able to detect any gamma or alpha raiation on my truck air filter that's a year old.


    Report comment

  • Chronic1 Chronic1

    Typo….Gamma or beta radiation. The Radex Geiger I have doesn't detect alpha radiation.


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.