Start stocking Up on water and Canned food guys...

I'm thinking its about time I bought a Geiger counter, just to make sure this stock on tuna tins I have are actually okay to eat, which means googling 'safe' dosages, if Google has them!

originally posted by: woogleuk

The ocean is rather large, by the time any of the nasties have gotten a few miles from Fukushima they are diluted to a point where it shouldn't really be much of a concern.

There is no diluting atoms, nuclides of atoms and isotopes. They are the smallest particles , getting no smaller or breaking down further. It doesn't mater how much water a single atom of Plutonium is in, if you get that atom into your flesh, it irradiates nearby cells until one of them mutates, maybe giving rise to cancer.

To the thread…

The whole site was cracked like an eggshell by the earthquake before the tsunami and meltdowns. Every time it rains water flows down hill towards the ocean, flowing into the cracks, into and around the melted cores and overflowing back out to the ocean, contaminating the ground around there all over again, slowing down work, requiring the surface to be scraped and material stored in bags for posterity.

The mountain is growing…

Heres a capture I made just after the event , showing a fracture from the quake, located between the reactor buildings and the sea.

a reply to: intrptr

Thank you for that. I think I am getting the understanding, that we just don't know.

originally posted by: zinuru

The current spread of violence in the world by means of money-hungry wars, consistently being engineered for vague purposes, has kept my mind busy (not to mention the legalization of gay marriage AND recently Trumps antics) for the most part.

The world as we know will end because of legal gay marriage.. Right. You may explain about that? Is it a christian thing?

I agree with fukushima and so on. water and food already stored.

radioactive pollition? contaminated sea water? mass extinction in the sea?

japans recent answer: building a new nuclear power plant woohoo!
you aint seen nothing yet

It's not doomsday.

Not much longer than a century ago the life expectancy was around 28 on avg, with 7 Billion people Billions will live in a manner their immune systems hold of cancer well beyond that in a modern world, the truth is from micro beads to BPA our oceans have a lot of crap some of it worse than a statistical guarantee you live your life with a few atoms of Plutonium...

The fact is this generation is the first to have a lower life expectancy than it's parents in the States, the threat is real but it wont even reduce our LE by 15 years, we'll be fine well beyond breeding age mostly despite it... which is a bigger problem if you think about it.

a reply to: zinuru

About the title. I have given this long thoughts before. Stocking up. I am grandmother so take the subject seriously. From my point of view, if you cant find resources as you need them, you are stalling the inevitable. We spend a lot of time camping in the Idaho wilderness (when not on fire). I would rather teach my kids where to find water and food away from their comfort zone. Water does not always mean a pond and food does not always mean a meal.

Edit: But, if the resources get poisoned in the woods as well as the sea, why linger?

originally posted by: zinuru
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Why is fukishima a taboo topic?

It's not taboo-the jury is still out and there is a good deal of alarmism involved.

People need to remember that there were scores of nuclear weapons tests since 1945-The tests at area 51, the tests at bikini atoll and Australia, the atmospheric tests in the sixties, the french tests in the mid nineties....not to mention Chernobyl.

And now Fukishima is an issue? after the dozens of nukes detonated in the last century, power plants has people worried? We should've been worried for the last 70 years.

Be sure and add alcohol to your prep supplies:
ATS Alcohol/Prepping Thread

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: zinuru

From my point of view, if you cant find resources as you need them, you are stalling the inevitable.

I really like this quote!

It's one reason I located here, all resources are abundant year round. You will have to do some work to gather the resources, but that's just the way it works.

a reply to: Philippines

It is so funny. When I am in the wilderness camping, we run into all kinds of problems. But when we find a solution with just the resources around us, I love that. I don't handle town problems as well. Glad you are in a beautiful place.

There are 70 million cubic miles of water in the Pacific, which equates to 187,189,915,062,857,142,857 gallons,

Sorry just want to make that clear.

Here's a trillion.

1,000,000,000,000
And the pacific:
187,189,915,062,857,142,857.

Next to each other.
1,000,000,000,000
187,189,915,062,857,152,857

So basically there are about 2 billion gallons of water for each 1 gallon of infected water.

Just saying.

And that's strictly the pacfic. Do the math if you want to say it's spreading to other oceans.

Just wondering: Years ago I participated in the design of a facility which would be occupied by experiments to "defuse" radioactive materials; it was called "The Transuranic Contaminated Waste Treatment Facility" built at one of our (USA) largest nuclear labs.

I haven't heard or read anything for quite a while about ongoing efforts to render nuclear waste harmless. The solution extant at the current time seems to be to place it in containers and bury it in salt mines in an attempt to keep it at bay, away from water, for eons (hopefully). Over the years, I've wondered of a solution might be to somehow discharge the waste into the magma. Surely if that were possible, it would be disposed of out of hand, or at least become irreparably diluted.

Does anyone know what progress has been made, if any?

a reply to: zinuruwell of course it will remember all those shoes showinh up on canadas west foast with rotten feet bones in them they thought at first it was a serial killer and they were right kinda of they turned out to be victims of the boxing day tsunami

they floated all the way from indian ocean to noerhern pacific

a reply to: intrptr

I think you may have misunderstood my meaning of dilute, as pointed out below, dispersal would probably have been a better choice of words.

If a gallon of water contains a million atoms, then those will spread to two gallons 500,000 each gallon, 4 gallons 250,000 and so on......

There is already low levels of Cesium in the oceans from other stuff like atomic bomb testing.

I stand by my original statement, people are overreacting.

a reply to: woogleuk

LOL a pet peeve of mine as well.

There is no way to dilute radioactivity.

The vast amount of water in the ocean will dilute radionuclides is technically a false statement.

The vast amount of water in the ocean will cause radionuclides to disperse to undetectable levels is a much better statement.

You can not dilute an atom and the only thing radioactivity is, is an unstable atom that wants to be stable, which it eventually does through the decay process.

It is not a point worth discussing at any length though.

a reply to: RickinVa

Disperse would probably have been a better word than dilute, yes, but I know what I meant

a reply to: RickinVa

The vast amount of water in the ocean will dilute radionuclides is technically a false statement.

If you start with a concentration of 1 Bq/liter of water in one liter of water in a bucket and add a liter of water you have diluted the concentration of radionuclides to 0.5 Bq/liter. Have the radionuclides dispersed? No. They are still there in the container but in reduced concentration.

Dilution means reducing the concentration. The ocean, containing much water, is very good at lowering the concentration of radionuclides. Diluting them. It also disperses them which would be a bad thing if it did not also dilute them.

www.chemicool.com...

a reply to: Phage

Like I said, it is not a point worth discussing.

Some call it a tomato, some call it a tomatoe...... same thing either way.

You just said the same the thing I said, but chose different words.

Take in point a single radionucide..... if it is in one liter or two liters.... it doesn't change... it is still the same radionuclide, it is just harder to detect in two liters as opposed to one liter.

Not worth arguing over, even you as a brainiac such as yourself should recognize this.

It is pointless.

cheers

a reply to: RickinVa

Technical terms mean something.
Dilution means reducing the concentration of something. The concentration of radionuclides is reduced in the ocean. It is diluted.

Not worth arguing over, even you as a brainiac such as yourself should recognize this.

You started it.