The conundrum of Fukushima and our food supply.
165 2017-02-25 by TwoDimesMove
Well, here is a recent report from Japan.
They state that they have no idea where the 3 reactor cores are and they cannot check this due to the high radiation. They planned on checking the containment vessel of reactor one last week but the discovery of the giant hole in the grating below the pressure vessel has made them abandon/change plans. They are currently reading + or - 537 sieverts per hour with a 30% margin of error.
Let me ask you, how long can a molten reactor core sit on the containment vessel before it melts through?
The only way to stop this would be to use the ground water to cool the core, and again they have stated that the ground water has been leaking into the ocean at a rate of 300 tons per day since March 2011. This means hundreds of radionuclides have been leaking into the sea. We have no clue how some of these isotopes behave in the environment and they only usually test for a hand full of them, namely; iodine, cesium and strontium. Yet, there are 118 elements and each of these stable elements can have multiple radioactive ones. For example, radioactive hydrogen is called tritium.
My point is, our food chain will definitely be contaminated. If Bio accumulation is true this is devastating, eating an ionizing radioactive isotope is potentially deadly, especially plutonium.
What bothers me the most is after Chernobyl they did not allow the sales and consumption of many livestocks that were raised in nearby areas due to contamination and they have been rigorously testing their food since then.
What has been done about this disaster which is at least 3 times as polluting? I will tell you, they stopped publishing the tests or they stopped testing food/seafood all together....
I appreciate any discussion, as this is a topic that I care about and have done quite a bit of research to better understand. Mainly, due to the media not doing their jobs in this matter. If you would like to check some of this research, I documented it here in 2011. Much of which has been removed from the web, I wish I have known this years ago and taken some screen shots.
142 comments
n/a Easier_Still 2017-02-25
Thank you for posting, this is a hugely important topic and the mostly sound-of-crickets from world media is appalling.
n/a Scroon 2017-02-25
I mentioned this in another comment, but if a news event doesn't play into some pre-planned agenda, it's suppressed. Since there's nothing anybody can really do about this, and it would only panic the population - in an unpredictable manner - they're not gonna say nothin.
n/a Setagaya-Observer 2017-02-25
Your Statement is inaccurate, the World Media is reporting daily about Fukushima Daiichi, every Day i get more than 50 Articles from the leading Newspapers!
This is much more than about the true Problems of our World (Hunger, War, Displacement, Repression, etc.)
n/a Entropick 2017-02-25
No question horrifically worse than we have been told.
n/a ragepotatoftw 2017-02-25
take a glass of water and drop i piece of meat in cover it and wait a few weeks. thats wats happening to our oceans
n/a nor2030 2017-02-25
Radionuclides are heavier elements and should sink faster than some other particles.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
I think in general this is true but then again you can dissolve all sorts of heavy materials in water. Some of these particles are super small. So I am not sure, but they have definitely made it to the west coast even though they are technically heavier.
n/a Fauglheim 2017-02-25
It doesn't really work that way on the microscopic scale. The random jostling and thermal motion of the atoms and molecules in the ocean exerts far more energy on a given particle than the force of gravity.
So over a massive timescale, there will be some settling of the heavier elements, but for our timescale, you can assume the elements will eventually be evenly distributed throughout the entire ocean.
n/a CptFizz 2017-02-25
The food chain is already contaminated. For example rice from the Fukushima area has too high radiation levels to be sold. The government is buying this rice for the rice reserve. Then they mix it with clean rice to bring the radiation level down. The reserve rice will be released to the market a few years later as the need arises (shortage of rice, request from food companies) and as part of the regular inventory control. The consumers won't be able to tell it is rice from Fukushima, or the products (rice crackers, miso, shochu, etc.) is made with rice from Fukushima.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
I did not know this, do you happen to have a source for this info?
n/a CptFizz 2017-02-25
https://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2013/06/radioactive-japan-eat-and-support.html
https://dunrenard.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/fukushima-rice-mixed-with-other-rices/
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
ugg, thanks for that I think.
n/a ClimateMaster 2017-02-25
That is slightly horrifying.
n/a 9volts 2017-02-25
gonna need a source for this one bud.
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
"too radioactive to be sold" is a little hard to pinpoint how bad it is. Apparently Chernobyl is "too radioactive to live in" despite the fact that you could live next to the reactor building for your entire life and barely increase your risk of cancer.
n/a CptFizz 2017-02-25
In Japan the upper limit for radioactive Cesium-137 in food items is 100 becquerels per kilogram. In comparison the US EPA limits of Cesium-137 is 7.41 Bq/kg. Really makes you think, huh?
n/a KlehmM 2017-02-25
I don't really know how radioactive contamination works. Is all of that radiation staying in the ocean? Is it contaminating the air?
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
There is a lot of info for you here. I cannot claim to have any real concrete answers, more questions than anything.
This technology hasn't been around very long and the only data we have is from nuclear bombs and the heavily covered up nuclear accidents. There doesn't seem to be much funding for groups looking at long term effects of this type of pollution.
They have however made many areas uninhabitable due to nuclear bomb tests and accidents. Such as, Bikini Island. Source1 Source2
n/a godlameroso 2017-02-25
Are you serious? You get a tenth of that dosage every time you board a plane. A doctor irradiates you with 600rem with a cobalt 60 isotope to treat your cancer.
https://youtu.be/8VvGw1tkT1Q?t=32m48s
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
Huge difference between radiation from the sun and ionizing radiation from nuclear waste.
Huge difference between receiving radiation on your skin and ingesting it.
n/a klmd 2017-02-25
It gets into the air. I have an inspectors grade radiation meter and have seen days of 110 clicks per minute a few times but 50-60 clicks was the most common. Lately 40-50 clicks is what I'm getting in my central Nebraska back yard, both air and ground.
The radiation in the ocean rises with evaporated water and comes down as rain. Slowly, we are getting fried. Take kelp pills for iodine. That's your best thing to do.
n/a MajorMayday 2017-02-25
Do you even know what you are measuring?
n/a klmd 2017-02-25
Yes, this is the meter I have.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/BISS/RadiationAlertMix/B00EZBOVKA.spec_sheet.pdf
n/a MajorMayday 2017-02-25
What is a "click"?
n/a klmd 2017-02-25
Clicks and counts are the same. The click is the sound the meter makes when it detects radiation.
The mwn who developed the atomic bomb went nuts when they learned that the world had become contaminated to 20 CPM by atomic bomb testing. They went public in the late 1950's saying if we ever get to over 50 CPM and stay there it will end life on Earth. They knew their stuff and refused to back down. That's why the test ban treaty was signed in the early 1960's. I saw the program where they laid out the problem of too much radiation, I don't think there is any footage saved from that program.
A constant exposure of 50 CPM will cause most people to become sterile before they can reproduce. That's why it is a problem. Continued exposure at that rate will bring on many health problems and the average life expectancy will drop to less than 60 years.
n/a MajorMayday 2017-02-25
Yes but what are you detecting.
A banana will produce a ton of clicks per second, do you know what the clicks are representing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_XVRA5nD6M
n/a klmd 2017-02-25
The meter detects alpha, beta, gamma, and x-rays.
Not that banana bullshit again. Damn! What a lame sack of crap!
n/a trynafinishbowl 2017-02-25
I'd like to see a video of you checking a banana to prove it's bullshit. Because it's not.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyKkhI_GKkg
n/a klmd 2017-02-25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Voice
n/a Theappunderground 2017-02-25
So youre describing a safe level of background radiation?
http://radiationnetwork.com/
n/a klmd 2017-02-25
There is no such thing as safe radiation.
n/a trynafinishbowl 2017-02-25
Do you not know what background radiation is?
n/a klmd 2017-02-25
It was zero before the first atomic bomb.
n/a trynafinishbowl 2017-02-25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
That's not an accurate statement. Read that page.
n/a Theappunderground 2017-02-25
Care to back this up with any facts, or are you just shooting from the hip?
n/a JustAnotherKaren 2017-02-25
Think about one of those 3rd grade science experiments, where you drop a tiny bit of dye into a large tank of water, and you watch a physical reaction take place, the dye makes a really cool colorful swirl as it spreads, and eventually the entire tank of water shares parts per million of the dye. It's easier to think in smaller numbers because our brains really don't process 000,000,000 well. Big is just big. Yet we do have a finite water system. Eventually anything we as occupants of the great planet Earth put into the ecosystem spreads around to every corner of the space provided, just like the dye did in 3rd grade. If you have a tiny droplet, it's really difficult to see the dye once it spreads out to the space provided, but if you added a bucket of dye, then you could see the parts per million effect on the tank. This nuclear disaster adds giant amounts of radiation to the ecosystem every moment of every day for so long into our future, they cannot even measure it, and if it were red dye and it was back to the tank of water, it would look like cherry kool-aid now. And if they cannot figure out a miraculous answer to the problem, the dye will continue to be added to the water, and eventually it will look so dark, it looks like blood.
n/a gymkhana86 2017-02-25
Except that's not how radiation or contamination work at all. The water actually shields the radiation quite effectively, and the contamination would be so diluted that it wouldn't even harm you.
n/a sheasie 2017-02-25
says... you ? do you have anything to back-up your anonymous opinion ?
n/a gymkhana86 2017-02-25
I've worked in the nuclear field for over a decade.
Nuclear energy is one of the safest, most reliable forms of energy available today. All with a zero-emission carbon blueprint.
Of course you will say I have a vested interest in saying all of this, which would be wrong, because I now work for a steam and natural gas cogeneration plant. So, me saying all of this would be hardly self-serving.
n/a ThaDtothaOtothaN 2017-02-25
So go live in Fukushima and eat the wildlife and grow food and swim in the water next to then if its so safe.
n/a gymkhana86 2017-02-25
As expected, a typical response... /sigh
n/a ThaDtothaOtothaN 2017-02-25
Well will you if its so safe? Typical response... /sigh
n/a gymkhana86 2017-02-25
I would.
The point I am making, and that you are missing is that this isn't nearly as bad as people are making it out to be. It's being sensationalized.
People get exposed to radiation every single day. You don't even realize it. But when someone puts a witch-hat on the nuclear industry, everybody freaks out.
n/a ThaDtothaOtothaN 2017-02-25
Then go. How many more places in the world do we need to destroy for energy. Coal, Oil, Fracking, Nuclear it all destroys the environment and causes damage that will last long after you and I are gone.
n/a gymkhana86 2017-02-25
Well why don't we just shut it all down then, and live in darkness? Since we are making ridiculous arguments now.
What do you suggest that we use as a power source?
n/a MajorMayday 2017-02-25
How do you propose you get your electricity then?
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
I would think that a nuclear employee would know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation by now. Also the difference between being exposed to radiation and ingesting it...
n/a gymkhana86 2017-02-25
Good point. You are correct, the difference between being exposed to radiation and ingesting a radionuclide is huge.
Not sure where you are going with the ionizing vs non-ionizing comment though?
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
You know, I think the ionizing comment vs non is something I just spewed out due to some of the sensational media I consume. Upon research, thanks to you level-headed question. It makes no sense. Non-ionzing is energy that cannot damage an atom's atomic structure , like radio waves and a majority of energy we receive from the sun. Ionizing is high energy waves that can dislodge electrons and protons from atoms. But my statement makes no sense. So I fuckin take that back, sorry about that.
n/a JustAnotherKaren 2017-02-25
Except that's not how contamination works at all, in a situation where the source of contamination being poured into the ecosystem has no shut off valve. The water DOES shield the radiation when it's at that tiny droplet in a tank of water ratio, however, when it's a giant bucket, or a deluge, that goes on for hundreds of thousands of years with no containment, the water has less ability to dilute, and less ability to shield the ecosystem from irreversible damage. I believe that the reason we're learning about this on a global media 'we might as well tell them' level is that the rods have melted past any control plan they've attempted, past the concrete options, past the ice options, past the clever scientists trying like hell to figure this out options, and nothing can be done, and there is no way to hide it from the world.
n/a gymkhana86 2017-02-25
The contamination is finite. It's limited. It can only leak for so long before all of fuel is gone.
The "rods" you are talking about aren't fuel. They control the nuclear reaction by absorbing neutrons.
No one is trying to hide it from the world. It's kind of hard to hide a melted down nuclear reactor. Three even. I just wanted people to understand how their lack of understanding makes it look a lot worse than it is.
Where I have the biggest problem though, is when people start posting to message boards about all the "research" they have done (not talking about OP) and it is terrible, wrong, severely lacking in any type of reality, etc.
Listen to the people who actually went to school for the subject. You don't let someone who learned brain surgery online operate on you, right? Why would you let them fill your head with other non-sense?
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
Just how many tons of fuel where in the three reactors that have melted? How many tons of plutonium?
n/a gymkhana86 2017-02-25
I couldn't tell you exactly how much fuel is loaded into any given reactor on the planet, so I'm going to have to look that up.
Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-fuel-fukushima/
As for how long until the radiation is gone, well, that will be several hundreds of thousands of years.
Source: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/appendices/fukushima-radiation-exposure.aspx
As to your question about Cesium, it would depend on the isotope of Cesium you are referring to. Isotopes of Cesium have varying half lives, ranging anywhere from a few years, to over 30 years.
Again, I am not saying that these conditions are favorable. I'm just arguing that the media has taken the story and sensationalized it to sell more.
Compare how many people die each year from all the different forms of energy production, and you will see that in fact, nuclear power is one of the safest and most reliable forms of energy production on the planet.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
I agree with you this has either been disregarded or total sensationalized. There seems very little middle ground. There also seems to be a lack of testing coming from the US, in fact from what I can tell a total reduction in testing compared to pre-2011.
10 atoms of Cesium-137 lets say. 50% of that will become barium-137 in 30 years. 50% of the remaining will take another 30 years to become barium-137 and so on for what some say is about 10x the half life. So in 300 years most of the Cesium will degrade to barium-137m.
The barium is short lived but very radioactive, it actually has a half-life of 150 seconds and thus is a very high gamma emitter. So in 1500 seconds the barium-137m has degrades into barium 137. Which I believe is still radioactive.
I guess my point here is that these isotopes don't just disappear they slowly break down and right now our only tests are for a few select types of these isotopes.
n/a MajorMayday 2017-02-25
More useless scaremongering rhetoric with little actual scientific backing
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
More useless comments by yourself and the other guy on this thread. Typical use of ad hominem attacks instead of any sort of rational argument.
We are all trying to find truth here and if you wish to be a valuable contributor then do so in a constructive way.
n/a MajorMayday 2017-02-25
There is no truthfinding in what that guy said. It's rhetoric used to drum up fear. There is nothing scientific about any of that. It doesn't tell you anything about the amount of radiation that is being diluted by seawater. It doesn't do anything. People like you who act like that comment was valuable when I'm looking for actual scientific analysis is fucking absurd
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
His comments do have merit as they have found a sizable increase in radiation levels on the west coast, we do, in fact have a finite water system. His analogy is not far off base.
I would challenge you to look at your own response in the same light you did his.
I have sited many scientific articles in this thread if you are interested they are there for your consumption.
n/a MajorMayday 2017-02-25
He didn't say that, he made an analogy without providing any context on the real numbers.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
If you want numbers go get them, plenty of sources out there. There has been a detectable increase in radiation from fukushima.
I suggest you look up the definition of a logical fallacy because your statements are just as false as what you are claiming due to your use of ad hominem.
n/a MajorMayday 2017-02-25
So him posting vague fear mongering posts is okay but me questioning them and asking for some kind of support to the bullshit rhetoric he's spewing makes me the bad guy?
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
Like I said, his analogy is fine. It is an analogy, which answered the other posters question, perhaps the last statement about the blood coloration may be over the top. But noone really knows at this moment how to stop this thing from continuing for generations. So perhaps he is exactly right.
You stating that his statement is false due to the fact that it is fear mongering is also false. Due to it being a logical fallacy.
n/a MajorMayday 2017-02-25
I didn't say it was false, I called it bullshit rhetoric that is meaningless without numbers. The analogy is fine but we aren't even close to that point where "the water turns blood red" is what is happening to our oceans with radiation. Its fucking absurd and the fact you are defending it is also absurd
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyKkhI_GKkg
n/a Tamerlane-1 2017-02-25
It isn't doing jack shit. There is too much water for it to matter, it just gets distributed around the oceans of the world.
n/a Redchevron 2017-02-25
Fear mongering to sequester useful technologies.
Personally I've never seen credible evidence for radio activity from decaying materials producing more than a heat signature.
EMF on the other hand is very disruptive to cellular lifeforms and that shit is fucking everywhere.
n/a 91jetsfan 2017-02-25
Have any emf links?
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
Here is your pier reviewed reports on the deadly effects of radiation. UNSCEAR.
If that isn't enough here is another.
Enjoy
n/a godlameroso 2017-02-25
If the reactor core has melted and is really putting out that much heat, it will melt into the ground and encase itself in glass
n/a mindhawk 2017-02-25
Anyone want to go through a west coast fish market with a geiger counter for us?
Make a video, preferably 2 people with geiger counters to verify each others results?
if you show radiation you will get 10 million views and some bucks
n/a asailorssway 2017-02-25
and get suicided.
n/a burn_reddit_burn 2017-02-25
Don't even have to do it at a fish market.
1- Film purchasing fish at market 2- Continue a steady stream of unedited film of bringing fish to building/van/private room 3- film all you want of Geiger counter 4- repeat
n/a MajorMayday 2017-02-25
You almost certainly ly would not find any alarming levels of radiation. And you most certainly would find radiation. In fact your own body is damaging yourself with radiation right now
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
It has already been done by scientists, and the radioactivity as a result of Fukishima found in the fish is significantly lower than the natural amounts, and poses no health risks to anyone.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
False, your statement is utterly false. For one, there is a difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
Still low. There was at least one paper done on this that found no significant impacts. People need to shut the fuck up about this and stop fear mongering. There are so many lies going around about this. I especially love this map: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/fukushima_radiation_nuclear_fallout_map.jpg
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
Here is your pier reviewed reports on the deadly effects of radiation. UNSCEAR, which stands for United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.
If that isn't enough here is another, this one from the British Medical Journal.
Both are studies outlining the devastating effects of low dose radiation exposure.
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
I will say the same thing here that I said on the other comment. I am not arguing that radiation is not deadly. Of course it is. All I am saying is that the death tolls and damage caused by Fukishima is severely exaggerated, and has basically completely devolved to fear mongering.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
Pretty good report, short. Not much mongering. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyKkhI_GKkg)
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
After looking through his videos, I am going to say that this video is almost certainly bullshit.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
Ok cool, make a generalization of other videos and don't actually watch that 13 min one that is very well done and cites all of his sources. I suppose "almost certainly" is a scientific term.
Whatever man, enjoy your tuna salad and alaskan crab legs. I am in a pretty bad mood today otherwise I may try and talk more sense into you. But fuck it, its your life.
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
Also want to add that the whole begging of his video was him advertising a scam. I would suggest not watching this guy. Either way...
The cesium levels referenced in the video are astonishingly low. As this article points out, about 500 times lower than the legal limit (not enough to do really anything).
Also the claim that the radiation present would "kill a person in seconds" is almost certainly bullshit. An exposure of a few seconds might result in someone dying, but it could take weeks or months for them to actually die.
Stop watching this guy's videos dude. He has a few climate change videos that are extremely cringe worthy. The dude has a pretty blatant agenda.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
I am glad you have a healthy level of skepticism and this is likely why none of us really ever agree on anything. I want to admit that I really have no clue wtf is going on here and I posted this thread to try and find more truth.
You are incorrect in your statement 537 sieverts per hour will not kill a person instantly. That is like stepping into a microwave. Anything over 4 sieverts has the ability to kill someone from a single dose. Please look this up and don't trust me.
My entire point here is that this tripple meltdown is a huge disaster and an ongoing one. It is leaking massive ammounts into the pacific and will continue to do so for decades. We know very little about nuclear waste and its effects on life. I have posted a few sources for the mutagenic effects of low dose radiation to living beings and it is quite alarming. If you would like I can give you direct links.
This stuff bio accumulates through the food chain, so detecting a 2 bq/m2 rise in cesium-138 on the west coast in the water means that there is likely a larger amount in the seafood. The fact that the US stopped testing or publishing the tests of the food in April of 2011 is also something to be concerned about.
I am not claiming to have all the answers and I don't really trust any sources of media these days, fucking shame really that we cannot find creditable information.
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
"537 sieverts per hour will not kill a person instantly. " Once again, no it will not. Radiation does not kill instantly. A dose of that over a couple of seconds would kill you, but it would take quite a while for you to painfully die.
"We know very little about nuclear waste and its effects on life." We know plenty.
"so detecting a 2 bq/m2 rise in cesium-138 on the west coast" The number mentioned comes from 2500 miles offshore. At the actual west coast is is likely even lower.
"I am not claiming to have all the answers and I don't really trust any sources of media these days, fucking shame really that we cannot find creditable information." I have, one at least one occasion, linked you a scientific study on it's effect on seafood, and it the amounts found were not higher than is natural. Your seafood is fine.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
So I guess you are not really trying to find truth but sticking to your beliefs. Let me show you just how wrong you are.
8 sieverts will kill you right away source. So 537 kills every living thing in its path.
http://www.ourradioactiveocean.org/ Are you refering to this data as being 2500 miles from the coast? The 2016 results??
The seafood is far from fine. First of all they are only testing for cesium-134. But that isotope doesn't just dissapear once it decays, it is simply a smaller isotope. Barium-135 and that shit will remain radioactive for 2.3 million years. This stuff is toxic and emits ionizing radiation inside your body to all tissue surround these elements when you consume food. This stuff bioaccumulates in living organisms and as this reactor will continue leaking for decades, our food supply is in serious trouble.
They are only testing for two isotopes and "they" being barely funded organizations as our government has stopped its testing.
Here is your pier reviewed reports on the deadly effects of radiation. UNSCEAR, which stands for United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.
If that isn't enough here is another, this one from the British Medical Journal.
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
You clearly do not understand what I am saying about this radiation. A dose of a few seconds will kill you, but you don't die immediately. It takes longer to actually die. Louis Alexander Slotin during the whole "demon core" incident was exposed to WAY higher than 8 sieverts, and it took him 9 days to die.
Also, that study I mentioned accounted for more than just cesium. Here is another article that talks about this, that still has doses very low: http://annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-marine-010816-060733#_i18
This one "Low levels of 108mAg, 110mAg, 134Cs and 137Cs were detected, which indicates that the influence of the FDNPP accident on marine ecosystem is lasting but decreasing." So the levels were low then, and are still decreasing.
Holy shit for the love of god, I understand that radiation can be deadly, but that doesn't help your point for shit.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
OK so Louis Alexander was exposed to 21 sieverts, we are talking about 537, more than 21 to the 2nd power my man. Not even in the same ballpark.
So I cannot access the data to see if this is correct on the study of squids. This test was done in 2014 and the explosions occurred in 2011, so they do not have a true baseline for their so called pre fuku levels. Either way is it sad that we have to pay to read the scientific reports. This group is also funded by the IAEA, so I take their "science" as such.
But I can tell you that the radiation levels at Fuku are increasing and they just found out the the entire core of reactor 2 is gone an 2 meter hole under the pressure vessel was found.
I am telling you right now that if a child eats 1 bq of cesium according to the two reports I sent you. They will have irreparable damage to their DNA and their likelyhood of having a normal child will decrease.
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
Well, I do recall you saying that "8 sieverts will kill you right away", so... I mean, the dude literally held an actively fissioning nuclear bomb core in his bare hand.
"But I can tell you that the radiation levels at Fuku are increasing" One of the things you linked earlier said that the only reason why the levels were increasing was because they were getting their equipment closer and closer to it. It wouldn't make any sense for the radiation to be increasing anyway. Radioactivity goes down with time, not up.
"I am telling you right now that if a child eats 1 bq of cesium according to the two reports I sent you. They will have irreparable damage to their DNA and their likelyhood of having a normal child will decrease." Well, no shit. Luckily, you probably wouldn't be exposed to that much if you consumed all the fish for sale in the entire state of California.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
This has and continues to be downplayed by the nuclear industry which is one in the same as the military/governments.
Well sir the limits in japan for "safe levels are 100 bq/ kilo." So yes a child can easily eat a .1 kilo of seafood.
n/a mindhawk 2017-02-25
link or it didn't happen
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/26/10670.short
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
These are low doses and you would need to do testing like this to find out what the real radioactivity is.
n/a mindhawk 2017-02-25
so this link is great, it proves that contaminated rice is being sold all over japan without labeling and it is dangerously radioactive containing elements that if they get into your body will stay there, making you radioactive.
what would make you think they aren't doing this with fish?
why in the world would you not just assume that the huge amounts of radiation going into the ocean are being sold to basically anyone who doesn't ask where their fish comes from? (which is american restaurants in the midwest, among many other places)
n/a Setagaya-Observer 2017-02-25
"Strange" that our Food here is much less contaminated than Food from Fukushima Prefecture!
The People of this Reddit need much more "Psycho-Hygiene" and should not believe in everything without doing objective Research!
Radiation in fish off Fukushima tests below detectable level
[All bags of rice harvested in Fukushima in 2014 met the national standards for radiation]- (http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/the_earthquake_and_the_nuclear_accident/4290.html#sthash.UV7y3Ezm.dpuf)
NO, RADIATION LEVELS AT FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI ARE NOT RISING
Fukushima released much less Contamination than Chernobyl and much less hazardous Stuff.
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
I wish people would stop fear mongering Fukishima.
n/a sheasie 2017-02-25
i know right?? it's only the biggest nuclear meltdown in human history. sheeesh - why do ppl make it out to be such a big deal!!?
/s
n/a Tamerlane-1 2017-02-25
Chernobyl was bigger and it can't contaminate the Pacific Ocean to levels which will affect humans. Anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry and radiation will see this.
n/a sheasie 2017-02-25
Chernobyl has been contained.
Fukushima is still in meltdown mode.
W/ ZERO plans to contain, the amount of radiation released from Fukushima will match that of Chernobyl w/in ~20 years.
hahahaha.. says you ;)
n/a Tamerlane-1 2017-02-25
So I was right, and you are making shit up to show how I was wrong. His makes it obvious that Chernobyl was bigger than Fukushima, and the Chernobyl reactors were not all shut down until 2000, 14 years after it had its meltdown, and it was not safely contained until 2016, 32 years after the meltdown.
Oh, and even if all of the fissile material in the reactors which melted down in Fukushima got in the ocean, that would 5.7 grams per cubic mile of water.
n/a HelperBot_ 2017-02-25
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Fukushima_and_Chernobyl_nuclear_accidents
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 36723
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
No, it was not the biggest nuclear meltdown in history. Chernobyl released about 7x as much radioactive material, and Fukishima is already in the livable state that Chernobyl is in, which had it's meltdown more than 20 years earlier.
Also, the death toll from Fukishima at this point is 6 at MOST. Those 6 deaths (all workers) cannot even be directly tied to the meltdown at this point. No one has died from radiation poisoning either.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) concluded that the most at risk group (infants), would experience (at most) a 1% increased cancer risk in their lifetimes. That certainly will kill at least a few of them, but in 100 years from now when everyone involved in the incident is dead, the death toll will still not come anywhere close to the estimate 4000 that will eventually die from Chernobyl.
In addition, scans of the 160,000 people around the Chernobyl zone who were evacuated, only 30 people reached the max lifetime radiation exposure by a radiation worker (they were all workers). To give you an idea, there are plenty of Chernobyl workers alive to this die who exceeded that mount several times over.
This is a line from an actual scientific paper: "Publication of this information resulted in a worldwide response that caused public anxiety and concern, although PBFT captured off California in August 2011 contained activity concentrations below those from naturally occurring radionuclides. To link the radioactivity to possible health impairments, we calculated doses, attributable to the Fukushima-derived and the naturally occurring radionuclides, to both the marine biota and human fish consumers. We showed that doses in all cases were dominated by the naturally occurring alpha-emitter."
n/a andrewds23 2017-02-25
But left wing cucks want nuclear power
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
Nuclear power is by far the safest energy source. Even safer than solar and wind. More people die falling off a roofs installing solar panels than have ever died because of nuclear power. On the other hand, air pollution, primarily as a result of coal, oil, and gas usage, kills around 7 million people EVERY YEAR. I don't hear conservatives talking about that. More people die per hour from air pollution than have ever died from nuclear power.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
Man where do you people come from? Tell this to the miners who mine for uranium, tell this to the people of Chernobyl. Tell this to the thousands of people who get cancer from "unknown" sources each year due to continued leaks from nuclear plants in the form of tritium and other contaminates.
If free forms of energy would not have been suppressed via purchasing of patents and other nefarious tactics, we would not be having this discussion. If solar power was as heavily subsidized and supported as say nuclear or coal this discussion would also be over.
I do not see how solar energy is as dangerous as nuclear. Pretty sure it is one of the safest for of energy on the planet right now.
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
Incredible. It is almost like people get cancer from things that are not nuclear power. Want to know what energy source puts the most radioactive material into the air? Coal. The answer is coal.
Also, nuclear is not heavily subsidized.
As I already said, more people have died falling off of roofs installing solar panels than have ever died from nuclear energy. Same thing with wind.
I will tell that to the people mining Uranium, and I will tell that to the people of Chernobyl. Nice appeal to emotions. The official estimate for the total death toll from Chernobyl after all of those exposed are dead is around 4000. That is about how many people die from air pollution in 5 hours. (The high estimateThe numbers for Fukishima are far lower. Likely under 1000.
Feel free to read this on the subject: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx
If you want to give me one actual scientific paper that puts a death toll extremely high that is not obviously ridiculous, please, send it.too me.
Another article: http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
Here is your pier reviewed reports on the deadly effects of radiation. UNSCEAR, which stands for United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.
If that isn't enough here is another, this one from the British Medical Journal.
Both are studies outlining the devastating effects of low dose radiation exposure.
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
Are you fucking stupid? Of course radiation kills you. I am not arguing against that. What matters is dosage, and all I am arguing is that the dosage put out by Fukishima is not nearly as bad as your are making it out to be. Your articles literally give 0 support to your claim whatsoever.
"the estimates of only 56 deaths from Chernobyl are alarmingly low." That is the direct deaths. They also mention the 4000 number in that article. The 56 immediate death toll is actually accurate.
"I would refer to the first report from UNSCEAR which states more like 4,000" That number is literally mention in the very link you just dismissed, and I mentioned it in my comment.
A huge part of the reason for increases in cancer risk is increased pollution, increases in unhealthy eating habits, and the number 1 reason: People are now living long enough to get it.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
Woa, woa, chill man. No need for personal attacks. I am attempting to have a rational discussion about this topic.
Dosage matter when it is external radiation, internal dosage is an entirely different thing. The two papers I sited are discussing the low dose aspects to ingesting these substances. That is what this entire post is about.
You seem like a person who is into science. I am saying that this hypothesis that nuclear power safe is false. I have offered all these sources to back up my claim. So if all the evidence does not support the hypothesis what are we to do, eat the fish from the pacific and trust the nuclear industry?
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
Of course it is safe (at least relatively speaking). Going by the very numbers that you offered, it is still the safest source of energy by a long shot.
Dosage always matters. You are recieving radiation from all around your right now, from the food you eat, to the ground you stand on, to the very star that gives the planet life.
Fear mongering by people like you and others is preventing nuclear energy from becoming the ideal energy source that it could be. Modern nuclear reactors are capable of running extremely cleanly, and have essentially 0 chance to meltdown. The molten salt reactor, for example, is a nuclear reactor design developed in the 60s that is essentially impossible to melt down, even if it is completely un-monitored and all safety systems are shut down.
That is to not even mention nuclear fusion, and developing source of energy that is essentially perfect. Nuclear fusion runs on barely radioactive and abundant fuel, cannot melt down, generates massive amounts of power, and has no waste.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
Nuclear vs. Solar? I don't see how they are even in the same ballpark by your standards.
Ambient radiation is not ionizing, my cells will not lose protons or neutrons from this type of radiation. You know the difference between alpha, beta and gamma radiation right?
They had their chance to make thorium reactors, they didn't. The reactors we have now came out of necessity, the goal being to produce weapons grade fissile material.
I like fusion, I am interested in thorium but what we have now is far less than safe.
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
Nuclear is not a fossil fuel lmao. Also, solar is barely profitable without subsidies as well.
"They had their chance to make thorium reactors" What?
"what we have now is far less than safe." For the 50 billionth time, what we have right now is very safe.
" Chernobyl uninhabitable" Nope. It is completely habitable. There are people living there right now, and as I already said, you could live your entire life literally a few hundred feet from the reactor and it would minimally increase your chance to get cancer. Exact same thing with Fukishima.
" Bikini island uninhabitable" Yeah, probably because they dropped 23 nukes on it without following standard procedure for reducing long term radioactive fallout. I don't know what that has to do with nuclear reactors.
" the mainstream hypothesis that nuclear power is safe." Ok you have got to be fucking kidding me on this. The mainstream idea is that nuclear energy is some kind of scary phantom that kills millions of people. The average person probably thinks that nuclear energy is the most dangerous energy source, and that incidents like Chernobyl have killed hundreds of thousands. You see fear mongering articles about nuclear energy all the time.
Also want to point out "my cells will not lose protons or neutrons from this type of radiation.". Yes, they will.
n/a trynafinishbowl 2017-02-25
Alright, enough you two. He's clearly too stupid to understand the science behind what you are saying, and even if he could, it's against his religion to understand what you are saying.
And you have wandered off topic, badly, and lost your cool making your argument less believable to these fucking cooks. You should have stuck to one thing-like concentrations, or atomic testing relative to Fukashima. You're all over the road man! Being right means nothing to these people. Stick to their first bullshit claim, then bounce. Every post from this guy will have 100 bullshit rabbit holes.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
I disagree with all your statements,
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
From stanford fossil fissile fuel
There are a few people who have stayed, I would say that their kids have a high chance of genetic defects and their kids kids will also.
I don't know how to respond to your fourth statement. The mainstream media and government protray nuclear in a similar light to what you are saying.
You are correct, upon checking on this, background and solar radiation do emit beta and gamma waves which in fact will damage your cells protons and neutrons. Try eating a piece of radioactive material, which emits this shit inside you.
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
Well, it isn't a fossil fuel in the traditional sense. A fossil fuel is something that was formed through natural organic or geological processes. The Uranium on earth was formed 5 billion years ago when a massive star exploded.
" I would say that their kids have a high chance of genetic defects and their kids kids will also." What you say is not science. As I have already mentioned, the long term effects of living the a place like Chernobyl are relatively small. In fact, the radiation is basically an afterthought. The real dangers come from looters, wild animals, a lack of infrastructure, and the Ukrainian government trying to kick you out.
" Try eating a piece of radioactive material, which emits this shit inside you." This is actually interesting, because most radioactive material will kill you if you eat it not because of it's radioactivity, but because it is poisonous. If you ate something like yellow cake for example, the radiation would do relatively little while it passes through you, but it is toxic enough that that would kill you.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
In response to your first rebuttal, I cannot remember where and I will look for the source but a real life scientist did tests on either moths or butterflies due to the ease of studying the long term effects of low dose radiation over generations and it is quite startling. I believe it was a video.
There are a lot of chemo treatments that use radioactive isotopes that do not always kill you. We are talking low dose exposure, which was part of the above mentioned experiment. Not enough to kill you but enough to cause damage.
n/a andrewds23 2017-02-25
Wow you actually stated that coal gives off more radioactive material than nuclear. Troll confirmed.
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
Except it does. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
n/a andrewds23 2017-02-25
Yeah nah, there's no ring of truth to that.
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
So you just dismiss it because you don't agree with it? Fuck off.
n/a andrewds23 2017-02-25
I work in the coal industry in Australia. I spoke to a shot firer friend of mine he he laughed at this notion. He blows this shit up, it's not radioactive...
I take science with a grain of salt, so much of what they say is not truth, from climate change to even the shape of the plane(t) that we live on.
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
aaaand, a flat earth retard. Once again, some idiots word is not comparable to actual science.
n/a Trot_ter 2017-02-25
I remember a video of their parliament brawling over a law they passed where people were not allowed to speak out against the gov't or something to that effect about the disaster I believe 3ish years ago. I've also heard from experts that they still don't have and idea of how to fix the problem today or the technology to do so. I also heard a guy on the radio say that one of the cores had melted through the concrete or whatever that was under it and melting through the earth, so far that they don't know where it went or how far down in the earth it melted down to. Crazy stuff.
n/a Trot_ter 2017-02-25
Fukushima Fascism is what they are calling the law
http://www.ecowatch.com/japans-new-fukushima-fascism-1881837659.html
n/a JustAnotherKaren 2017-02-25
It definitely seems to help support the Georgia Guidestones. With this Extinction Level Event underway, we really might become an Earth population 500,000.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
Now, almost 6 years later you may be right. Had they have told the truth when this happened, I would like to believe that us humans do pretty well when we are forced to.
But you may be right.
n/a bobinjapan 2017-02-25
There is a coverup within Fukushima itself, my wife's sister lives and works in Fukushima as a nurse. There has been an increase in unexplained nosebleeds, headaches and colds in the clinics and hospitals, especially with children. The doctors and staff have been told to conceal the data and results.
n/a mesqueunclubsandwich 2017-02-25
Nosebleeds, headaches and colds? Sounds okay compared to what I expected
n/a MajorMayday 2017-02-25
Ya this completely unprovable anecdote sure is believable
n/a bobinjapan 2017-02-25
oh, another anti-Trump shill. hello shill!
n/a MajorMayday 2017-02-25
Good job of deflecting away from my valid point :) prove I'm a shill !
n/a bobinjapan 2017-02-25
I checked your post history. It's there in black and white.
n/a MajorMayday 2017-02-25
I didn't realize that posting truths about Trump and his supporters makes me a shill? Also that's a mighty fine way for you to keep dodging the fact your anecdote is coming.pletely unprovable
n/a bobinjapan 2017-02-25
it's provable but you need to do some research. If you think your favourite news channel CNN is going to mention it then think again.
n/a MajorMayday 2017-02-25
It's easy to make bullshit claims like that one to try and dismiss valid arguments :) I don't even watch CNN, but keep operating like a typical (foreign? Nobody in America spells favorite with a u) trump supporter.
n/a imcraiggy 2017-02-25
Everything is fine guys dont panic
The world is silent because they know the consequences. For starters, I am trying to limit my seafood intake.
n/a MajorMayday 2017-02-25
What a useless sentence only made to scaremonger
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
You may use logical fallacies to try and discredit my statement. You may have better luck proving your point with facts.
My statement is true, every stable atom on the planet has a radioactive counter part. These elements can be made unstable by placing in contact with a radioactive substance that is losing neutrons. Discovered by Irene Curie in 1934. Source
n/a MajorMayday 2017-02-25
But it adds nothing besides try and scare because "118 elements" is a large number. It doesn't really mean anything in terms of danger or scope of a problem that is happening.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
Yes, this is a fkin large problem and should not be lightly cast aside. You used are attempting to disregard my statements by using adhominem attacks. Your second statement is somewhat confusing as this is exactly the problem we are dealing with. Once a core melts down it has potential to release many more isotopes than just my super scary number of 118.
The point is, when you release elements like plutonium into the environment is can literally make other stable elements radioactive. I do not see your point.
n/a trynafinishbowl 2017-02-25
Let's pretend there is a tank in the ocean. It makes a giant triangle from fukashima to the entire west coast 1700km roughly. 10000 km to Japan. Average depth of Pacific ocean 4km. Calculate the volume as a rectangular tank, then divide by 2. 34 000 000 km3 of water. Seeing as people aren't dropping dead in Japan, I'd say it's probably safe to eat the fish. Because whatever is being dumped has to be mixed into an area of water that would cover the continental US in water 3 miles deep. Concentration, man.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
Nice, how much total radiation would be required to raise the radiation level by 2 bq/m3? Source for the radiation spike number as of 2016.
So 1 km3 is = 1,000,000,000,000 or 1 trillion m3 which equals 2 trillion bequerals to raise one km3 of seawater by 2 bq/m3.
If I am still on target here, in order to see this kind of spike on the west coast, using your 34,000,000 km3 as an example you would need to produce, 34,000,000 x 2,000,000,000,000 bq of radiation. That number is orders of magnitude lower than what they have said has come out of Fuku.
n/a trynafinishbowl 2017-02-25
From your source:
"Our highest detection level to date came from a sample collected about 1,600 miles west of San Francisco that contained 11 Becquerels per cubic meter of cesium-137 and cesium-134. This means that in one cubic meter of seawater (about 264 gallons), 11 radioactive decay events per second can be attributed to cesium atoms of both isotopes. That is 50 percent higher than we’ve seen before, but even these levels are still more than 500 times lower than safety limits established by the US government for drinking water and well below limits of concern for direct exposure while swimming, boating, or other recreational activities."
I agree with you-this is a disaster. But-and it's a big but-it's not a disaster that is dangerous to people in the US. I haven't checked your math because I have shit to do right now-but I will. That said, a banana is 15 bq-which is about 1% of the daily background dose. This just isn't much radiation.
Not great. Especially if you live in Japan. Time to panic? No, it really isn't.
n/a TwoDimesMove 2017-02-25
I am not sure what to think about our food supply, hence this post. I am also unsure of the possible threats to anyones health but I do think that the entire world should get behind some sort of effort to stop this thing from polluting more. At the moment they are talking about decades before they can do much of anything to slow the release.
I used the average detected amount of cesium-137 from their 2016 data. Before the disaster there wasn't much cesium-137 to speak of, this molecule will degrade into barium-137 in about 30 years. It would be nice if they had a table with the results.
n/a trynafinishbowl 2017-02-25
Normally everything I check on here is fully, 100% bullshit. This might not be. Apparently Cesium bioaccumulates. I didn't know that, and that completely changes this discussion. I will look into this further and likely PM you, and I will be editing my posts. You might actually be right about this. Not like full panic right, but probably in the stick to lower trophic levels right range. You can swim in it....but tuna, swordfish, tilefish and sharks are probably off the menu for a while.
n/a godlameroso 2017-02-25
Are you serious? You get a tenth of that dosage every time you board a plane. A doctor irradiates you with 600rem with a cobalt 60 isotope to treat your cancer.
https://youtu.be/8VvGw1tkT1Q?t=32m48s
n/a Fizrock 2017-02-25
Incredible. It is almost like people get cancer from things that are not nuclear power. Want to know what energy source puts the most radioactive material into the air? Coal. The answer is coal.
Also, nuclear is not heavily subsidized.
As I already said, more people have died falling off of roofs installing solar panels than have ever died from nuclear energy. Same thing with wind.
I will tell that to the people mining Uranium, and I will tell that to the people of Chernobyl. Nice appeal to emotions. The official estimate for the total death toll from Chernobyl after all of those exposed are dead is around 4000. That is about how many people die from air pollution in 5 hours. (The high estimateThe numbers for Fukishima are far lower. Likely under 1000.
Feel free to read this on the subject: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx
If you want to give me one actual scientific paper that puts a death toll extremely high that is not obviously ridiculous, please, send it.too me.
Another article: http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html