AR15.Com Archives
 Fukushima Radiation
fundummy  [Member]
1/2/2012 4:47:34 PM EST
You may want to hold off on storing canned salmon...

http://enenews.com/reuters-dead-diseased-seals-alaska-tested-fukushima-radiation-suffering-bleeding-lesions-hair-loss-photo

Reuters: Radiation tests underway on dead and diseased seals in Alaska — Suffering bleeding lesions, hair loss
Diseased seals in Alaska tested for radiation, Reuters, Dec. 27, 2011:


Scientists in Alaska are investigating whether local seals are being sickened by radiation from Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear plant. [...]

Biologists at first thought the seals were suffering from a virus, but they have so far been unable to identify one, and tests are now underway to find out if radiation is a factor. [...]

Specifics

Scores [multiples of twenty] of ring seals have washed up
On Alaska’s Arctic coastline
Since July

Symptoms

Bleeding lesions on the hind flippers
Irritated skin around the nose and eyes
Patchy hair loss on the animals’ fur coats

John Kelley, Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Marine Science at the University of Alaska Fairbanks

“We recently received samples of seal tissue from diseased animals captured near St Lawrence Island with a request to examine the material for radioactivity”
“There is concern expressed by some members of the local communities that there may be some relationship to the Fukushima nuclear reactor’s damage”
“[Test results would not be available for] several weeks”

See also:

Alaska registers highest radiation in US after Fukushima
Report: NRC analysis indicated "elevated child thyroid" in Alaska, Pacific island... With only 1 of 3 reactor cores releasing radiation (PHOTO)
Paid Advertisement
--
Lowlands  [Team Member]
1/2/2012 5:17:07 PM EST
I'll stick with PCB filled great lakes salmon
fundummy  [Member]
1/2/2012 6:31:00 PM EST


So much for the Alaskan King Crab ... Salmon... and West coast seafood.
biglou250  [Member]
1/2/2012 6:35:45 PM EST
Why would it only affect seals and not other animals? If radiation were that bad, you'd have to assume it would be more wide spread than a dozen or so seals. Seems like an overblown reaction to assume its radiation, IMO.
teveler  [Member]
1/2/2012 6:47:50 PM EST
Originally Posted By biglou250:
Why would it only affect seals and not other animals? If radiation were that bad, you'd have to assume it would be more wide spread than a dozen or so seals. Seems like an overblown reaction to assume its radiation, IMO.



You are probably right, but small doses of certain things build up in larger organisms. Mercury for example.

i.e. plankton to small fish or small crab to bigger fish and then maybe a bigger fish... then a seal...

I guess the point is (and I am assuming, cause I am no scientist) is stuff like radiation, mercury, and DDT builds up in the system of each individual predator till it can become toxic to the higher organism.
fundummy  [Member]
1/2/2012 7:21:08 PM EST
It only takes a radioactive particle to become lodged in your system... ( brain, lungs, lymph nodes ).
At that point it just sits there, ionizing surrounding cells, eventually altering cellular DNA - and - there you may begin a new growth of something that may resemble a " tumor ".

Radiation is everywhere, most of it is washed away in rain. Higher concentrations stick to grass ( that's why it shows up in milk ), especially tobacco leaves ( due to the natural sticky film ).

You should ask yourself:
1. Would the gooberment tell me if the food was unsafe? ...
2. Did they tell me to eat the Corexit contaminated seafood from the Gulf of Mexico?
3. Why has the EPA kept raising the accepted radiation levels in food lately ( milk and Western fruit )?
4. Why did they stop testing trans Pacific aircraft for radiation, after they had high level results?
5. Would this collapse the Alaskan seafood industry?

The inability to recognize and respond to danger in our changing world may be your single most weakness.
There is a difference of paranoia, and being wise enough to just pass on that favorite plate of King crab.
fundummy  [Member]
1/6/2012 9:16:37 PM EST


OK folks, now it's verified, they'll tell you anything.... This is 100% bullshit:
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, HEALTH & CONSUMERS DIRECTORATE-GENERAL, January 3, 2012: " Monitor tuna and billfish for Fukushima radiation in Pacific — Yet claims eating highly contaminated fish like smoking a cigarette… Zero risk to humans "
Migratory pelagic fish species of relevance are the

tuna (albacore, bluefin, bigeye and skipjack)
billfishes (swordfish and marlin)

eta hotlink Energy News

If you are interested - there are 3 videos on this page: Fukushima Facts
1. How RADS get in food and make us sick.
2. High radiation clues / mitigation / diets / pets.
3.Radiation clues in plants and nature.

M-Forgery  [Team Member]
1/6/2012 9:49:56 PM EST
There will be impact to the global ecosystem for centuries to come from this earthquake.
L_JE  [Team Member]
1/7/2012 5:55:04 AM EST
Radiation from the Daiichi plants seems an unlikely cause given the distance for dilution and shielding effects of water.

It will take decades to complete site reclamation at Daiichi, but those efforts are already underway, and even slightly ahead of schedule. In comparison, virtually nothing has been done at Chernobyl. This is because Chernobyl was at least an order of magnitude worse than the accident at the Daiichi site.
OverScoped  [Team Member]
1/7/2012 7:46:03 AM EST
ohh to heck with it, we are all gonna die someday.
AR45fan  [Member]
1/7/2012 8:04:48 AM EST
Meh. In the end we'll just have radiation-resistant seals. This is a win.
pighelmet  [Member]
1/7/2012 8:11:09 AM EST
Where are the "Occupy" Fukushima hippies?
Skibane  [Team Member]
1/7/2012 5:26:32 PM EST
Originally Posted By fundummy:
...


Now why can't I get my tomatoes to do that?
jcoffman55  [Team Member]
1/7/2012 6:32:57 PM EST
My guess is it's like mercury, the higher up on the food chain you go, the more concentration you get. Thus the predators suffer most of the effects. Might be why at this point only the seals are affected.
fundummy  [Member]
1/26/2012 8:32:58 PM EST
Those of you that are saving / collecting rainwater for backup, should probably dump it - and reload with tap water edit page 4 FILTER IT.
Also - you may consider not leaving animal ( pets / chickens / livestock ) water out to be contaminated with the " hot " particles we have in the form of fallout in rain.

It's carried over in the jet stream, and is pretty well covering the lower 48, especially when it is collected in falling moisture.

If you have any doubts, hit a google search for " radioactive rain "....

I'm not a " goofball " and I'm " IN " before our local SUCK UP hit's the report button and claims it's not survival related.







EXPY37  [Team Member]
1/26/2012 9:53:42 PM EST
Sounds like envirowacko BS to me.

Radiation is one of the easiest 'toxins' to detect and measure.

jkm  [Member]
1/27/2012 3:41:44 AM EST
I'm no expert, but I've had some industrial training...the radiation is either there or not. Whether the animals got irradiated by a source and have cell damage is another story.

PugglePod9000  [Member]
1/27/2012 6:35:49 AM EST
Originally Posted By EXPY37:
Sounds like envirowacko BS to me.

Radiation is one of the easiest 'toxins' to detect and measure.



Oh?

How do you do it?

If it's easy everyone could bennefit from your knowledge...
PugglePod9000  [Member]
1/27/2012 6:43:53 AM EST
Originally Posted By fundummy:
It only takes a radioactive particle to become lodged in your system... ( brain, lungs, lymph nodes ).
At that point it just sits there, ionizing surrounding cells, eventually altering cellular DNA - and - there you may begin a new growth of something that may resemble a " tumor ".

...The inability to recognize and respond to danger in our changing world may be your single most weakness.
There is a difference of paranoia, and being wise enough to just pass on that favorite plate of King crab.


You are on target with this.

There is a big difference between sitting next to a source and ingesting it.
Normally it isn't a reasonably possible problem,
but normally you don't have four reactors upwind melting down either.

Old people don't have to be much concerned, they'll be dead in ten or so years anyway.

Time. Distance. Shielding.

surveyor3  [Team Member]
1/27/2012 9:01:24 AM EST
Damn shame. That one made me nervous too. I figure the Japanese were probably FAR more prepared for that type of event than we are, and it was still a catastrophe.
Country_Boy  [Member]
1/27/2012 9:42:38 AM EST
Originally Posted By PugglePod9000:
Originally Posted By EXPY37:
Sounds like envirowacko BS to me.

Radiation is one of the easiest 'toxins' to detect and measure.



Oh?

How do you do it?

If it's easy everyone could bennefit from your knowledge...


You use a radiation detector :-). It really is easy, most chemicals need fairly exotic tests, often with long times. Radiation above background is fairly easy to detect in the lab, and you can block out background radiation. In the field, some of the more sensitive meters are a bit fragile. Plus with better equipment you can identify the source of gamma radiation by the energy of the photons.

The website being quoted is at best poorly written, and looks more like pseudoscience fantasy. For example they quote an EU report that says we need to test to ensure consumer confidance, and that there is no risk. Then they add their own headline that saying the fish are heavially contaminated.

TaylorWSO  [Life Member]
1/27/2012 9:56:03 AM EST
we have nuked the hell out of the pacific with 100s of weapons, yet we get one little leak and now we are all going to die.

Dont buy it.
jkm  [Member]
1/27/2012 11:24:24 AM EST
Originally Posted By PugglePod9000:
Originally Posted By EXPY37:
Sounds like envirowacko BS to me.

Radiation is one of the easiest 'toxins' to detect and measure.



Oh?

How do you do it?

If it's easy everyone could bennefit from your knowledge...


If there's a radioactive source present a surplus field survey meter will detect it. I drive around with an alarming dosimeter that will detect chemo patients at a good distance.

Cellular damage is not "radiation". I can't speak to the science, but there are observable changes to your cells that can be used to estimate your dose. If you are eposed to gamma (for instance) you will not emit anything unless there's a particulate remaining.

There are low level sources that are relatively harmless to be around, but ingesting them is game over.
EXPY37  [Team Member]
1/27/2012 11:35:45 AM EST
Originally Posted By PugglePod9000:
Originally Posted By EXPY37:
Sounds like envirowacko BS to me.

Radiation is one of the easiest 'toxins' to detect and measure.



Oh?

How do you do it?

If it's easy everyone could bennefit from your knowledge...



It's not my knowledge, it should be everyones'.

Except for most of the folks in the US being dumbed down so far....



EXPY37  [Team Member]
1/27/2012 11:54:35 AM EST
Originally Posted By jkm:
Originally Posted By PugglePod9000:
Originally Posted By EXPY37:
Sounds like envirowacko BS to me.

Radiation is one of the easiest 'toxins' to detect and measure.



Oh?

How do you do it?

If it's easy everyone could bennefit from your knowledge...


If there's a radioactive source present a surplus field survey meter will detect it. I drive around with an alarming dosimeter that will detect chemo patients at a good distance.

Cellular damage is not "radiation". I can't speak to the science, but there are observable changes to your cells that can be used to estimate your dose. If you are eposed to gamma (for instance) you will not emit anything unless there's a particulate remaining.

There are low level sources that are relatively harmless to be around, but ingesting them is game over.



Well, alpha sources like Polonium like the Russians used to kill that guy in England who was writing or something abt them.

What a horrible way to kill someone...

Wonder how many folks the Russians used as guinea pigs to prove and understand the technique. There are some evil people in this world. The story would make a real-life horror movie make the fictional ones look like tea parties.



But the stupid ones far outnumber them.





coldair  [Team Member]
1/27/2012 12:02:31 PM EST
I will just leave this link here http://radiationnetwork.com/
EXPY37  [Team Member]
1/27/2012 12:09:10 PM EST
Originally Posted By coldair:
I will just leave this link here http://radiationnetwork.com/



When I was a kid, I had an electrostatic dust precipitator in my room for a year or so that was supposed to reduce allergies.

I scraped some of the accumulated blackish dust off the wires and measured the radiation with a geiger counter.

It was really hot, hotter than any sources we had at school.

We breath this crap all the time!

worker  [Team Member]
1/27/2012 12:42:27 PM EST
Isn't there a benifit to glowing in the dark? Seems like I read that somewhere at sometime ...........
fundummy  [Member]
1/29/2012 6:10:54 PM EST
Besides fuel location ( at the bottom of the containment vessel ) and cooling problems in #2, frozen pipes present cooling problems in units #4 and #6.... this is a TOTAL mess.

Highly mobile Nano particles ( Fullerenes ) forming in seawater.

DAVIS, Calif., Jan. 26 (UPI) –– Seawater used to cool nuclear fuel at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant after the 2011 tsunami could have corroded the fuel and spread radiation, scientists say.

Although probably the best action to take at the time, U.S. researchers said, they've discovered a new way in which seawater can corrode nuclear fuel, forming uranium compounds capable of traveling long distances either in solution or as very small particles.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/01/26/Fukushima-radiation-could-be-ocean-risk/UPI-58191327617662/#ixzz1kuXEEt00

Potrblog explains nano-particle Fullerenes / Endofullerenes on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=454uu96gFzU&feature=uploademail

eta - I say again, you should dump collected rainwater and reload with tap water. edit page 4 make sure you filter it.
EXPY37  [Team Member]
1/29/2012 6:38:10 PM EST
Not to worry much, considering the almost unimaginable mass of the oceans vs the radioactive mass that's escaped, it's pretty much a non-issue.

YMMV.

SirSqueeboo  [Life Member]
1/29/2012 7:19:38 PM EST
I would think with the large volume of the oceans and seas that the radiation would be so diluted as to be completely harmless.

Sounds like the "acid rain is going to kill us all" scares from twenty years ago.

ETA: Just realized EXPY said the same thing.
fundummy  [Member]
1/29/2012 7:34:17 PM EST
Originally Posted By EXPY37:
Not to worry much, considering the almost unimaginable mass of the oceans vs the radioactive mass that's escaped, it's pretty much a non-issue.

YMMV.


Originally Posted By SirSqueeboo:
I would think with the large volume of the oceans and seas that the radiation would be so diluted as to be completely harmless.

Sounds like the "acid rain is going to kill us all" scares from twenty years ago.

ETA: Just realized EXPY said the same thing.


I wish you two were right.

Check this vid in St. Louis, MO. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57Plpo0DwPY
After a rain, he wiped an area of his car with a paper towel and the Geiger counter goes " nuts ".
This is what is in our rainwater. There are a lot more of these reports on youtube. One over Taos, NM in DRY AIR showing 3x background radiation.

It's carried over in the jet stream.... it's here... it has been, since April of last year.

Another hot particle rain in Michigan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3OrQn4gxNEc

eta: If you don't do anything else on this post please check the two vids.
I wouldn't let the kids play in the rain either...
Country_Boy  [Member]
1/29/2012 7:50:37 PM EST
Taos, NM is at 7000 ft. One would expect them to have higher background radiation. Plus are they sitting on local radioactive deposits? In parts of ND, oil workers get does of radiation that would cause all kinds of investigations at nuclear power plants. It called NORM, naturally occouring radioactive material.

Do the math, uranium is mined, extracted, enriched (a fancy word for concentrated), and then used to build thousands of nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs, most of the former refuel all of the time. I think every 18 months is common . So taking 2 reactors worth of fuel, and part of it burns off or is washed out to seen, and is enough to contaminate the entire northern hemispere? With something that came from the same land masses?

Short lived daughter products like iodine and Xenon are dangerious at great distances, but the reason they are dangerous is they have short half lives. Those isotopes are at least a thousand time more scarce than they were after the disaster.

A nuclear bomb is another matter as wel, it produces at lot of short lived products produced by the fission of a small percentage of the core.
fundummy  [Member]
1/29/2012 8:05:34 PM EST

Country Boy thanks for your input, but I don't understand your point.
The normal background radiation for Taos is around 50 CPM due to the MSL altitude.

What do you think about the hot rain in STL vid? ... it's hot as hell.

Also, speed read this if you have time, he's getting 1238 cpm at 30,000 feet on a flight to / from CA - MI.
I'd copy the pertinent text, but I'm unable on his site.
http://www.enviroreporter.com/2012/01/seasons-readings/

With the evidence being reported, there is no doubt we have a lot of fallout.
migradog  [Team Member]
1/29/2012 8:27:26 PM EST
The You Tube videos are proof you can't believe everything you believe on the internet.
There's no proof they're real and if it truly was highly radioaction rain, it would have made the mainstream media.
The earlier link to radiation moniters shows nothing around St Louis.

http://radiationnetwork.com/
You'll always get higher radiation when flying due to less atmospheric protection.
1238 CPS is less than a person will emit 2 weeks after a thyroid scan with Med-Tech 99

http://news.discovery.com/human/travel-body-scanners-radiation.html

Now, what's the radiation vector for the possibly irradiated seals?
It's been 3 weeks since the post about the seals,
What did the teats reveal?

What isotopes are in the jet stream and how did they get that high?
Where has anybody discovered radioactive particles iidentified as originating from Fukashima in rainwater?
fundummy  [Member]
1/29/2012 8:52:04 PM EST
Originally Posted By migradog:
The You Tube videos are proof you can't believe everything you believe on the internet.
There's no proof they're real any if it truly was highly radioaction rain, it would have made the mainstream media.
Here's a link to a site that minitors radiation throughout the US.
It shows nothing around St Louis.

http://radiationnetwork.com/
You'll always get higher radiation when flying due to less atmospheric protection.
1238 CPS is less than a person will emit 2 weeks after a thyroid scan with Med-Tch 99

http://news.discovery.com/human/travel-body-scanners-radiation.html



First off... the mainstream media is NOT going to disseminate this.
It would impact commercial air transportation, commercial farm products ( especially on the West coast ) and crash the Pacific seafood industry.
As far as I know, they checked 5 aircraft after Fukushima that tested positive high radiation, and stopped checking aircraft.
The FDA will not test the seafood, and has been RAISING the safe limits lately............. Geeez I wonder WHY ??.

From the link you posted " "You'd get as much radiation in a whole-body scanner as you'd get in two minutes at 30,000 feet.".
What about the passengers BREATHING / inhaling radioactive particles in cabin air, and are at the same exposure rate for 3 HOURS on a flight from California to Michigan?

And yes, I do believe the guy that did the radiation test in St. Louis is spot on.

The samples I've taken in the Houston area come up about 3 X background... background being 30 cpm after a rain 100 to 115cpm peak.

EXPY37  [Team Member]
1/29/2012 11:11:30 PM EST
Originally Posted By fundummy:
Originally Posted By migradog:
The You Tube videos are proof you can't believe everything you believe on the internet.
There's no proof they're real any if it truly was highly radioaction rain, it would have made the mainstream media.
Here's a link to a site that minitors radiation throughout the US.
It shows nothing around St Louis.

http://radiationnetwork.com/
You'll always get higher radiation when flying due to less atmospheric protection.
1238 CPS is less than a person will emit 2 weeks after a thyroid scan with Med-Tch 99

http://news.discovery.com/human/travel-body-scanners-radiation.html



First off... the mainstream media is NOT going to disseminate this.
It would impact commercial air transportation, commercial farm products ( especially on the West coast ) and crash the Pacific seafood industry.
As far as I know, they checked 5 aircraft after Fukushima that tested positive high radiation, and stopped checking aircraft.
The FDA will not test the seafood, and has been RAISING the safe limits lately............. Geeez I wonder WHY ??.

From the link you posted " "You'd get as much radiation in a whole-body scanner as you'd get in two minutes at 30,000 feet.".
What about the passengers BREATHING / inhaling radioactive particles in cabin air, and are at the same exposure rate for 3 HOURS on a flight from California to Michigan?

And yes, I do believe the guy that did the radiation test in St. Louis is spot on.

The samples I've taken in the Houston area come up about 3 X background... background being 30 cpm after a rain 100 to 115cpm peak.




Why wouldn't you expect at least 3x? I expect rain concentrates dust particles.

fundummy  [Member]
2/7/2012 2:29:22 PM EST
Just In: Highest level of radioactive cesium in San Francisco-area milk since August 2011 — Now at 150% of EPA’s maximum contaminant limit (CHART)

http://enenews.com/highest-level-radioactive-cesium-san-francisco-area-milk-august-2011-150-epas-maximum-contaminant-limit-chart

It's in the jet stream, when it rains, it falls into the grass - cows eat it, and now it's in your milk / cheese.
uncool  [Member]
2/7/2012 2:42:53 PM EST
Originally Posted By biglou250:
Why would it only affect seals and not other animals? If radiation were that bad, you'd have to assume it would be more wide spread than a dozen or so seals. Seems like an overblown reaction to assume its radiation, IMO.


My guess is they are the very next stage in the food chain.............seals eat alot of salmon..........and they are relativly small so im guessing it would build up in them quicker........just me thinking out loud so take it for what its worth
uncool  [Member]
2/7/2012 2:46:53 PM EST
Originally Posted By surveyor3:
Damn shame. That one made me nervous too. I figure the Japanese were probably FAR more prepared for that type of event than we are, and it was still a catastrophe.


Me too.......have one being built 12 miles away from me
teamr2  [Team Member]
2/7/2012 3:37:14 PM EST
Originally Posted By uncool:
Originally Posted By biglou250:
Why would it only affect seals and not other animals? If radiation were that bad, you'd have to assume it would be more wide spread than a dozen or so seals. Seems like an overblown reaction to assume its radiation, IMO.


My guess is they are the very next stage in the food chain.............seals eat alot of salmon..........and they are relativly small so im guessing it would build up in them quicker........just me thinking out loud so take it for what its worth


So do Halibut. Always worse for the apex predator.

migradog  [Team Member]
2/7/2012 5:28:42 PM EST
Originally Posted By fundummy:
Just In: Highest level of radioactive cesium in San Francisco-area milk since August 2011 — Now at 150% of EPA’s maximum contaminant limit (CHART)

http://enenews.com/highest-level-radioactive-cesium-san-francisco-area-milk-august-2011-150-epas-maximum-contaminant-limit-chart

It's in the jet stream, when it rains, it falls into the grass - cows eat it, and now it's in your milk / cheese.


The radiation was being found in the grass/milk of the sample daries in the Bay Area prior to the Fukashima meltdown.

The following are results for milk samples obtained from a Bay Area organic dairy where the farmers are encouraged to feed their cows local grass.
We have detected I-131, Cs-134, and Cs-137 and are tracking their levels

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling/MilkSampling

It was also being found in Strawberries, Mushrooms and Topsoil in the Bay Area Prior to the Fukashima meltdown.
http://enenews.com/strawberries-mushrooms-with-cesium-137-found-in-northern-california-5-out-of-6-items-in-food-chain-sampling-test-have-radioactive-particles











Country_Boy  [Member]
2/7/2012 5:49:51 PM EST
Originally Posted By fundummy:
Just In: Highest level of radioactive cesium in San Francisco-area milk since August 2011 — Now at 150% of EPA’s maximum contaminant limit (CHART)

http://enenews.com/highest-level-radioactive-cesium-san-francisco-area-milk-august-2011-150-epas-maximum-contaminant-limit-chart

It's in the jet stream, when it rains, it falls into the grass - cows eat it, and now it's in your milk / cheese.


These guys are idiots. EPA doesn't set MCLs for milk, they do water. E as in Enviromental. The FDA does Milk, F as in food. These levels are way (hundreds of times, IIRC) below the levels for milk, and way below what people in their late 40s and older grew up with.

Also if you real their chart, the most recent test with a higher dose was 9/29/2011. You only have to look back 4 tests to see this.

BTW, the engineering notation at the bottom of the boxes was confusing me as it is inversely proportional to activity . Thats the number of liters of milk you need to drink to get the same dose as flying roundtrip from DC to NY.
fundummy  [Member]
2/7/2012 6:25:08 PM EST
Originally Posted By Country_Boy:

BTW, the engineering notation at the bottom of the boxes was confusing me as it is inversely proportional to activity . Thats the number of liters of milk you need to drink to get the same dose as flying roundtrip from DC to NY.


I dunno Country Boy ... I'm new to this.

The reason I started this thread was because the MSM / FDA / EPA are not keeping us informed. FDA checked 184 fish and stopped. EPA / FAA checked 5 aircraft and stopped.
And we do have continuous feed of fallout particles as Japan is still incinerating radioactive materials... even dirt !

I hope you aren't insinuating that ingesting food with radioactive particles is comparable to short term external exposure.
I doubt you are, but it sounds like it.

eta: Ingesting / inhaling hot particles / dust is a whole different scenario.
People, especially with young children should pay close attention to what is going down...
Things are continually getting worse. Reactor 2, which was initially claimed to be without fuel - is now heating up...( although they are trying to pump water in ) The last I heard it was over 95C ( 205F ).
Reactor 4 is leaning, about to fall over. They are worried about the spent fuel pool overheating as the building may collapse.
migradog  [Team Member]
2/7/2012 8:33:34 PM EST
More monitoring that show little or no increased radiation.

http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html

It's specific to:

•Air Filter and Air Cartridge
•Precipitation
•Milk
•Drinking Water

Nothing from the http://radiationnetwork.com/ shows any measurable increase in US background radiation.

Cesium isotopes have been found in milk products for decades.
I-131 has a half-life of 8 days, so it's not coming from Japan.
Still looking for proof.........

What became of the seal study?


Originally Posted By fundummy:[/span]
It only takes a radioactive particle to become lodged in your system... ( brain, lungs, lymph nodes ).
At that point it just sits there, ionizing surrounding cells, eventually altering cellular DNA - and - there you may begin a new growth of something that may resemble a " tumor ".
]


So anybody who has ever been injected with.
MedTech 99
Thallium-201
Iodine-123
or any medical isotope Is facing altered cellular DNA?

2 pages and still no proof the the event at Fukashima has contributed to radioactive rain, etc.
Country_Boy  [Member]
2/7/2012 8:58:23 PM EST
Originally Posted By fundummy:
I hope you aren't insinuating that ingesting food with radioactive particles is comparable to short term external exposure.
I doubt you are, but it sounds like it.


Both limits are set assuming ingestion. Most of the times you find radionuclidides in water, it is a long term problem and residents of the that area may get 70 years of exposure. Most of the time you get radionuclides in milk, it's a sign of fallout from a nuclear explosion (in the past atmospheric testing) and it limited to a few days to years. The EPA limits are set #1 with that in mind, and #2, with he assumption that the limits drive engineering controls. For example there is an MCL on copper. Last I heard, there is no toxicological basis for this, however copper likely indicates overly soft water that could leach things like lead into the water. So they put an MCL on copper anyway. With milk, you figure out when there is a health risk (or chance of one) as discard the milk if it goes over.

Another analogy I alluded to earlier is that flight crews (cosmic radiation) and oil workers (NORM) can be exposed to radiation levels that would set off all kinds of alarms in the power industry. The reason isn't that flight attendants are expendable, it's that engineering controls are available to the power industry, so they have a health max, but Day to day limits are ALARA (As low as reasonably Achievable). Since you can't (in general) fly faster, or lead line a plane, flight crews are left with their natural exposure. And all of this is less then you get by living in certain high altitude cities.

I'm note sure I understand the issue with the media not reporting that levels are well below limits. There are some valid criticisms of the FDA numbers, but realise the highest number reported are way below their standards.


fundummy  [Member]
2/9/2012 8:52:12 AM EST
Saw this today, full article here ––> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/08/350-times-maximum-annual-radiation-dose-permissible/

~ snip ~

“An absorbed dose of 40 microSievert/hour at one Meter or about 39 inches above the ground, means a radioactive deposit creating an average of 12,330,000.00 Cesium 137 nuclear explosions per second (Becquerels) for every 39 inches square over much of the Northern Hemisphere.

Further, the radiation is spreading rapidly through the air. The Earth’s surface is covered with many deadly radioactive isotopes from the six crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Reactors.”
" A single particle of this fuel immobilized in the body corresponds to 350 times the Maximum Annual Radiation Dose Permissible. "

~ snip ~

This does not include what they are still lofting into the atmosphere by incinerating more contaminated materials.

ColtRifle  [Member]
2/9/2012 11:05:23 AM EST
Originally Posted By fundummy:
Saw this today, full article here ––> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/08/350-times-maximum-annual-radiation-dose-permissible/

~ snip ~

“An absorbed dose of 40 microSievert/hour at one Meter or about 39 inches above the ground, means a radioactive deposit creating an average of 12,330,000.00 Cesium 137 nuclear explosions per second (Becquerels) for every 39 inches square over much of the Northern Hemisphere.

Further, the radiation is spreading rapidly through the air. The Earth’s surface is covered with many deadly radioactive isotopes from the six crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Reactors.”
" A single particle of this fuel immobilized in the body corresponds to 350 times the Maximum Annual Radiation Dose Permissible. "

~ snip ~

This does not include what they are still lofting into the atmosphere by incinerating more contaminated materials.





So you're saying that if you stop breathing and eating, you'll be safe.
Mach  [Team Member]
2/9/2012 11:26:47 AM EST
Originally Posted By M-Forgery:
There will be impact to the global ecosystem for centuries to come from this earthquake.


Really?

How about the hundreds of above ground nuclear tests in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s.

One nuke plant is going o trump all that?
fundummy  [Member]
2/9/2012 11:32:21 AM EST
Originally Posted By Mach:
Originally Posted By M-Forgery:
There will be impact to the global ecosystem for centuries to come from this earthquake.


Really?

How about the hundreds of above ground nuclear tests in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s.

One nuke plant is going o trump all that?


Reports show 1760 metric TONS of fuel at Fuku - eta that's 3880135.8 pounds of hot shit.

jkm  [Member]
2/9/2012 12:24:00 PM EST
1 μSv = 0.1 mrem I believe.

If a dose rate of 2 mR is the safe dose rate for the public, I can't see how the quoted 40 micro is an issue.

I'm reading 2 to 4 uR/hour...normal atmospheric right now with new eqiuipment.
Paid Advertisement
--