http://abcnews.go.com/International...ng-radioactive-plume/story?id=13129409&page=2 Navy is pulling back after sailors are found with radiation. I just have a feeling that the media is avoiding the issue. Probably because the Gov doesn't want the entire west coast freaking out.
...but I thought our resident Nuclear Expert Navy-boy said this "crisis" was no big deal, nothing to worry about here
I thought he was saying that Portland and the rest of the west coast will remain unaffected, which I have seen other media saying. I think its obvious that if you're chillin' by a nuclear plant in melt down, its not a healthy spot to be in. Speaking of him, does anyone know if he made it out of Japan?
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/15/japan.us.navy.radiation/index.html?hpt=C2 Second carrier detects radiation, gets the fuck out of dodge.
LINK to TEPCO's radiation readings. 1st column - date(m/d) 2nd column - time (h/m) 3rd column - reading location (I'm assuming various locations near the reactor. I have no idea what "MP-" means.) 4th column - radiation level (uSV/h A CT scan is about 6,900 uSv) 5th column - neutron rays (? I don't know how to translate this) 6th column - wind direction (南 = south 東 = east 西 = west 北 = north) 7th column - wind speed
neutron rays wouldn't make sense, because it is a particle. Could it be number of neutrons per a unit of time? or perhaps alpha or beta particles?
Notice how the nuclear companies, their lobbyists, the congressmen in their pocket, the media, and the governments always state it this way (to make it sound innocuous and safe): The Navy's Monday statement, however, provided some perspective, noting that the maximum potential radiation dose received by ship personnel when it passed through the area was "less than the radiation exposure received from about one month of exposure to natural background radiation from sources such as rocks, soil, and the sun." An honest person not trying to distort the facts or dismiss them as unimportant would state: the maximum potential radiation dose received by ship personnel when it passed through the area was "up to 30 times the radiation exposure received in one day of exposure to natural background radiation from sources such as rocks, soil, and the sun."
How long was the ship there? If a half-day, radiation there is 60 times normal. Could have been as long as 2 days. Then the lucky inhabitants are only getting 15 times the normal radiation. It says "passed through." For the sake of Japanese living there I hope the ship passed through very slowly. Sounds like an hour. 720 times normal.
FUCK! They just gave up trying to cool down the reactors. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_japan_earthquake
Different day, but maybe this 800 number is related to my calculation of the 720 number. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...kout/japans-nuclear-crisis-where-things-stand
They certainly are. http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_649553.html OSAKA - THE operator of Japan's disaster-hit Fukushima nuclear plant has detected radioactive iodine 1,250 times the legal limit in Pacific Ocean waters nearby, the nuclear safety agency said on Saturday.
The slow deaths occur over the next 20 years, as thousands of cancers erupt in Japan. I read that 5% of our food is imported from there, so the government had better cancel the Bush FDA cutbacks and hire back the inspectors, or we'll get some of that too.
The W.H.O. is nothing but a lying mouthpiece sworn to do the bidding of the nuclear industry. Do not trust them to protect you or your loved ones: http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/28/who-nuclear-power-chernobyl Fifty years ago, on 28 May 1959, the World Health Organisation's assembly voted into force an obscure but important agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency – the United Nations "Atoms for Peace" organisation, founded just two years before in 1957. The effect of this agreement has been to give the IAEA an effective veto on any actions by the WHO that relate in any way to nuclear power – and so prevent the WHO from playing its proper role in investigating and warning of the dangers of nuclear radiation on human health. The WHO's objective is to promote "the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health", while the IAEA's mission is to "accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world". Although best known for its work to restrict nuclear proliferation, the IAEA's main role has been to promote the interests of the nuclear power industry worldwide, and it has used the agreement to suppress the growing body of scientific information on the real health risks of nuclear radiation. Under the agreement, whenever either organisation wants to do anything in which the other may have an interest, it "shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement". The two agencies must "keep each other fully informed concerning all projected activities and all programs of work which may be of interest to both parties". And in the realm of statistics – a key area in the epidemiology of nuclear risk – the two undertake "to consult with each other on the most efficient use of information, resources, and technical personnel in the field of statistics and in regard to all statistical projects dealing with matters of common interest". The language appears to be evenhanded, but the effect has been one-sided. For example, investigations into the health impacts of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine on 26 April 1986 have been effectively taken over by IAEA and dissenting information has been suppressed. The health effects of the accident were the subject of two major conferences, in Geneva in 1995, and in Kiev in 2001. But the full proceedings of those conferences remain unpublished – despite claims to the contrary by a senior WHO spokesman reported in Le Monde Diplomatique. Meanwhile, the 2005 report of the IAEA-dominated Chernobyl Forum, which estimates a total death toll from the accident of only several thousand, is widely regarded as a whitewash as it ignores a host of peer-reviewed epidemiological studies indicating far higher mortality and widespread genomic damage. Many of these studies were presented at the Geneva and Kiev conferences but they, and the ensuing learned discussions, have yet to see the light of day thanks to the non-publication of the proceedings. The British radiation biologist Keith Baverstock is another casualty of the agreement, and of the mindset it has created in the WHO. He served as a radiation scientist and regional adviser at the WHO's European Office from 1991 to 2003, when he was sacked after expressing concern to his senior managers that new epidemiological evidence from nuclear test veterans and from soldiers exposed to depleted uranium indicated that current risk models for nuclear radiation were understating the real hazards. ...But the scientific case against the agreement is building up, most recently when the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) called for its abandonment at its conference earlier this month in Lesvos, Greece. At the conference, research was presented indicating that as many as a million children across Europe and Asia may have died in the womb as a result of radiation from Chernobyl, as well as hundreds of thousands of others exposed to radiation fallout, backing up earlier findings published by the ECRR in Chernobyl 20 Years On: Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident. Delegates heard that the standard risk models for radiation risk published by the International Committee on Radiological Protection (ICRP), and accepted by WHO, underestimate the health impacts of low levels of internal radiation by between 100 and 1,000 times – consistent with the ECRR's own 2003 model of radiological risk (The Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses and Low Dose Rates for Radiation Protection Purposes: Regulators' Edition). According to Chris Busby, the ECRR's scientific secretary and visiting professor at the University of Ulster's school of biomedical sciences: "The subordination of the WHO to IAEA is a key part of the systematic falsification of nuclear risk which has been under way ever since Hiroshima, the agreement creates an unacceptable conflict of interest in which the UN organisation concerned with promoting our health has been made subservient to those whose main interest is the expansion of nuclear power. Dissolving the WHO-IAEA agreement is a necessary first step to restoring the WHO's independence to research the true health impacts of ionising radiation and publish its findings."
It's been 30 years since 3MI...how many thousands of cancers erupted from that? B/c you know, that was a worse "radiological disaster" or whatever the current term du jour is...
Good point. I trust the "Global Force For Good" and their comrades to protect my loved ones. And when dealing with nuclear power or missiles, go with those who've operated for over 50 years accident-free. You're welcome.
