Fortunately, we'll get advanced notice from the guinea pigs. Those poor suckers north of Seattle won't know what hit them.
You forgot the link. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...t-west-coast-for-fukushima-radiation/6213849/ By the time it gets here, the material will be so diluted as to be almost negligible, the models predict. Radiation also decays. Cesium 134, for example, has a half-life of two years, meaning it will have half its original intensity after that period. In Oregon, state park rangers take quarterly samples of surf water and sand at three locations along the coast. The water is analyzed for Cesium 137 and iodine 131. Both of those already exist in the ocean at low levels from nuclear testing decades ago. The monitoring began in April 2012, when tsunami debris began arriving along the Oregon coast. So far, all of the tests have shown less than "minimum detectable activity," or the least amount that can be measured.
I gave that same link. It says (as you quoted) that testing has shown low levels because (as I quoted) it's not expected to hit till the summer.
Yep, your article even had the part about "By the time it gets here, the material will be so diluted as to be almost negligible, the models predict. Radiation also decays. Cesium 134, for example, has a half-life of two years, meaning it will have half its original intensity after that period."
You keep quoting "the models predict." The point of the article is that only testing will find the truth. Since government refuses to do it (to not alarm the public if results are bad?), private citizens will. Models say it will hit north of Seattle (how strong will it be there?), run down the coast, and be weak when it gets to Oregon.
Read this, Cruella. http://news.msn.com/world/the-children-of-japans-fukushima-battle-an-invisible-enemy Awful. You are a bad man.
You guys should see the documentry on Netflex, Pandora's Promise. It was an eye opener for me on the issue of nuclear power.
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mate...poses-little-threat-california-scientists-say Ocean samples at several locations in California from La Jolla to Point Reyes have not detected elevated levels of cesium-137 and cesium-134, the primary radioactive substances emanating from the leak, said Ken Buesseler, a marine chemist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. The radioactive material is expected to arrive in small quantities on the coast this spring. But two models for predicting ocean circulation, said John Smith of the Bedford Institute for Oceanography in Nova Scotia, estimate that cesium-137 amounts will top out at roughly 25 becquerels per cubic meter. That's at least 300 times less than would justify worries about contamination here. "It's clearly not a health threat," said Smith, noting that his primary interest is tracing the course of the radioactive material to learn more about water circulation and mixing in the northern Pacific Ocean. (Clearly not a health threat) Not everyone has absorbed that message, however. In December, for instance, someone posted a YouTube video of a man registering radioactivity with a Geiger counter at a beach near Half Moon Bay. The title of the clip suggests a link to Fukushima. Though such a link has been debunked, the clip has nonetheless attracted more than 760,000 views. LOL
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/inversesquare.htm If you stand on the sun, you're toast in the blink of an eye. If you stand 90M miles from the sun, you get a nice sun tan in the summer time. Fukushima is 4600 miles from Seattle. The intensity of the radiation they'd feel there is 1/4600 or .000217391 (two 10,000ths). You get more radiation from sleeping next to another person. Or eating a banana. So the next scare tactic is to bring the radiation here. Though not a single actual expert in the field says there will be any negligible amount that gets here.
Turns out TEPCO and the Japanese government aren't the only ones committing criminal fraud by manufacturing lies to deceive the public. Our government has been doing it since Day 1. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/fu...oncerns-hailed-safety-record-fukushima-n48561 In the tense days after a powerful earthquake and tsunami crippled the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan on March 11, 2011, staff at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission made a concerted effort to play down the risk of earthquakes and tsunamis to America’s aging nuclear plants, according to thousands of internal emails reviewed by NBC News. The emails, obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, show that the campaign to reassure the public about America’s nuclear industry came as the agency’s own experts were questioning U.S. safety standards and scrambling to determine whether new rules were needed to ensure that the meltdown occurring at the Japanese plant could not occur here. At the end of that long first weekend of the crisis three years ago, Scott Burnell, a manager in the agency’s media and public relations wing, thanked his colleagues for sticking to the talking points that his team had been distributing to senior officials and the public. "While we know more than these say," Burnell wrote, "we're sticking to this story for now." There are numerous examples in the emails of apparent misdirection or concealment in the initial weeks after the Japanese plant was devastated by a 9.0 earthquake and 50-foot tsunami that knocked out power and cooling systems at the six-reactor plant, eventually causing releases of radioactive material: Trying to distance the U.S. agency from the Japanese crisis, an NRC manager told staff to hide from reporters the presence of Japanese engineers in the NRC's operations center in Maryland. If asked whether the Diablo Canyon Power Plant on the California coast could withstand the same size tsunami that had hit Japan, spokespeople were told not to reveal that NRC scientists were still studying that question. As for whether Diablo could survive an earthquake of the same magnitude, "We're not so sure about, but again we are not talking about that," said one email. When skeptical news articles appeared, the NRC dissuaded news organizations from using the NRC's own data on earthquake risks at U.S. nuclear plants, including the Indian Point Energy Center near New York City. And when asked to help reporters explain what would happen during the worst-case scenario -- a nuclear meltdown -- the agency declined to address the questions. As the third anniversary of Fukushima on Tuesday approaches, the emails pull back the curtain on the agency’s efforts to protect the industry it is supposed to regulate.... 'We all need to say a prayer' From the earliest hours of the crisis, the emails among NRC staff show deep concern about the developing crisis in Japan, particularly among the technical experts. The first word that the powerful earthquake and tsunami waves had devastated the Fukushima plant came early morning (Eastern time) on March 11, 2011. Throughout the day, staff at NRC headquarters in Rockland, Md., struggled to learn what was going on in Japan. The chief of the NRC Component Integrity Branch, senior engineer David Rudland, was asked by a colleague if he had any new information. [The emails excerpted in this article are shown in full in a PDF file.] From: Rudland, David Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 10:54 AM No, at this point all we know is that they are struggling to shut down the plant. We all need to say a prayer.… By that afternoon, the news was worse. An officer in NRC research passed on to his colleagues a status update from the Japanese electrical company. From: Nosek, Andrew Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 4:46 PM There was a triple SBO. SBO is nuclear jargon for a station blackout. The earthquake had cut electrical power to the plant, and the tsunami had damaged the backup diesel generators. NRC operations officer Daniel Mills had an emotional reaction: From: Mills, Daniel (NRC operations officer) Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 4:49 PM BBC is reporting radiation levels at reactor are 1000x normal. I feel like crying. The NRC staff recognized immediately the public-relations nightmare that Fukushima presented for nuclear power in the United States. More than 30 of America's 100 nuclear power reactors have the same brand of General Electric reactors or containment system used in Fukushima. American nuclear reactors are well into middle age. The median age of an operating reactor in the U.S. is 34 years, placing start-up in midst of the Carter administration. The oldest -- the Ginna plant near Rochester, N.Y. -- was licensed in 1969, the year Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Only four of the 100 reactors have begun generating power since 1990. The newest, at Watts Bar in Tennessee, was licensed in 1996, when many of this year's high school seniors were born.
I am certain that if an asteroid hit one of our nuclear reactors, bad things would result. Oh yeah, the asteroid would obliterate any life that might be in jeopardy. Just as it was the earthquake and tsunami that killed lots of people and wrecked lots of property.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/7...g-viral-on-the-internet-are-they-real-or-fake Fukushima Radiation Scare Stories Are Going Viral On the Internet. Are They Real Or Fake? The news: A few suspect news stories have been making the rounds on the internet in recent days, suggesting that radiation from the Fukushima power plant disaster has hit the West Coast of the United States and is causing major harm to the Pacific Ocean off California. Most pernicious is the report from NaturalNews.com that a scientific study found a significant drop off in sea life in the Pacific Ocean near the U.S. coast. So should you trust these scare stories? Absolutely not. The fine folks at Deep Sea News — which features writers with academic degrees, actual professional credentials, and expert knowledge — are doing their best to debunk the rumors spreading about Fukushima radiation and its impact on the U.S. Take the dangers of radiation hitting California. Will it kill you? Are we all going to die? DSN has your answer: "No it will not be dangerous … It's not even dangerous to swim off the coast of Fukushima." If you went swimming in the waters right next to the actual power plant, you would only experience "0.03% of the daily radiation an average Japanese resident receives." ... But back to that story about sea life dying in droves off the California coast: what's going on? The Natural News article cites an actual study with scientific evidence published in a real academic journal. There has to be some truth to the fact that "the number of dead sea creatures blanketing the floor of the Pacific is higher than it has ever been in the 24 years that monitoring has taken place, a phenomenon that the data suggests is a direct consequence of nuclear fallout from Fukushima." If true, that's pretty freaking scary. That means radiation from Fukushima is killing off mass amounts of sea creatures right off the U.S. coast. The only problem is that the study the article cites contains no actual mention of Fukushima. In fact, the study offers a perfectly logical explanation for the mass die-offs: a natural cycle of increasing and decreasing levels of algae and other sea life depending on climate and the seasons. The study's findings even cite trends that began five years before the Fukushima disaster occurred. Indeed, the study's authors have gone out of their way to be very clear: "There is no indication that any of the events in this study were associated with the Fukushima nuclear accident."
Fantastic find, Maris. Everyone should click that and try to read it. NBC makes it hard by painting the top half of the screen blue. That article is Pulitzer Prize stuff. That decides the whole thread. Thread won. Edit: I finally got rid of the blue half. If you get it, get out and then back into the site.
You and MARIS want to do the kool aid thing to avoid the long and agonizing part? Don't. Be. A. Fool.
You didn't read it. I don't blame you. That is your best response to the widespread U.S. Government coverup revealed in that article.
