Prestigious doctor: US nuclear 'Baby valley of death,' Millions to die

This doctor is no where near "prestigious"
I thought devices can measure radiation so if it was really high here in California we would know?
Is that wrong?

Originally posted by SophyC76
This doctor is no where near "prestigious"
I thought devices can measure radiation so if it was really high here in California we would know?
Is that wrong?

I do know that radiation detectors mounted around the nuclear power plants at Three Mile Island and Limerick in Pennsylvania went off due to radiation from Fukushima. Those detectors are there to alert officials to leaks from the power plants. So if the ambient radiation increases enough due to Fukushima to set them off, how do we reliably know if there is a leak at one of the power plants?

Depends on who's hand those devices are found in... Some with devices don't want their profit to suffer because of this.

Bottom line:

When those who are supposed to inform us of anything happening in the world that is important get real quiet about something THIS important, we have to assume that there is a whole sh!tstorm upon us, because 'officials' chose to keep the real info to themselves.

We can only speculate that it is worse than we thought, otherwise, why wouldn't they continue reporting on it? The press love tragedy...

If only a fraction of this math is accurate, many many people will die.

It's a lawyer's game now.

Move the scales up and force plaintiffs to prove it was Fukushima radiation that made a California mom have a flipper baby.

Originally posted by SophyC76
This doctor is no where near "prestigious"
I thought devices can measure radiation so if it was really high here in California we would know?
Is that wrong?

Greetings:

While we appreciate your point of view, your first sentence leaves something to be desired, IMHO.

Perhaps you missed his work in the Gulf of Mexico BP "oil spill" disaster?

However, it is interesting that you bring up three salient points in your second sentence. Let's take a closer look.

We might postulate that the common thinking is that the EPA/USGOV has us covered (pun intended) so as not to worry.

Check this out:

Thank you for your participation and comments.

As you may readily discern, we are carefully setting the stage for our call to action.

We look forward to a lively discourse.

2 May 2011
Fukushima forecast shows Cesium-137 and Iodine-131
Over Northwestern US on May 5 (VIDEOS)

These forecasts are (were) an interesting source of information that the USGOV/EPA does not provide in any way, shape or form to we, the people, of America.

Go figure. The EPA shuts down radiation monitoring in the U.S., and now, NILU is off the air.

Here is one of the last forecasts of Xenon-133 from 16 April 2011.

Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU)
Fukushima Potential Releases, Xe-133 Total Column for April 15-April 19, 2011,
Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU), April 15, 2011.

This what one gets now when looking for the forecasts.

Our apologies...
The item you requested does not exist on this server or cannot be served.
Please double check the web address or use the search function on this page to find what you are looking for.
If you know you have the correct web address but are encountering an error, please contact the Site Administration.
Thank you.
404 Not Found

What is really going on that TPTB do not want us to be aware of what is being monitored? Why is no one else sounding the alarm? Does anyone else really care? Is anyone reading this? Why do we feel so alone in this quest for the truth? It does not matter.

Our side will continue to shine a light on the darkness with the hope that others will join in the quest in time to make a difference. The quality of life and the future of humanity may very well be in question at this point in time.

What we may or may not do will be the difference.

It is now time to take a stand and make a choice.

As we are all here "to catch fish," it is now time to decide if you are a Fisher Person - or a Master Baiter.

Only time will tell.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

2 May 2011
Highly Radioactive Sewage Found 30+ Miles From Fukushima Plant

Cesium levels up to 334,000 becquerels per kilogram
Local officials in Koriyama City, [color=limegreen]50 kilometres west of the plant, said they found sewage sludge containing 26,400 becquerels of radioactive caesium per kilogram, Jiji Press reported, from reduced sewage, had 334,000 becquerels per kilogram, Jiji said.

The caesium could have been released by explosions and fires at the nuclear plant after the quake and tsunami, and been washed into the sewage system by rain, the officials were quoted as saying. [...]
more

Interesting.

Remember the torrential rains that inundated the West Coast a few days after 3/11?
(If the discerning student is interested, we can search the archives and probably find the readings of iodine, xenon and cesium for those dates and locations. Westcoast are you there? Ellensburg'65 calling fellow Bulldogs...)

One might wonder what the readings might be in the sewers of San Luis Obispo, San Francisco, Portland, Vancouver and Fairbanks, Alaska.

How silly to even comprehend such a thing. After all, the EPA has informed us that there is nothing to worry about and all is well... move along... this is not the radiation you seek.

While the MSM is making good their campaign to make the sheeple comfortable with the idea that the situation in Japan is "stable," we are faced with not only the Fukushima disaster, but yet another crisis in the making in Japan.

2 May 2011
URGENT: Radiation leaks from fuel rods suspected at Japan’s Tsuruga nuclear plant

Radioactive Xenon up 75,000%
Leaks of radioactive materials from fuel rods have been suspected at a nuclear power plant in Tsuruga, the Fukui prefectural government said Monday, citing a rise in density of the toxic substances in coolant water. [...]

According to Japan Atomic, 4.2 becquerels of iodine-133 and 3,900 becquerels of xenon gas were detected per cubic centimeter Monday, up from 2.1 and 5.2 becquerels, respectively, during previous measurements conducted last Tuesday.
more

"Per cubic centimeter.." "Per cubic kilogram..."

It would seem that the persons responsible for writing these press releases or news stories are purposely attempting to befuddle the average reader.

Let's look at the above statement and the story preceding it.

2.1 to 4. 2 becquerels of Iodine-133 is easily understood as doubling - 200% of the previous reading.

5.2 to 3,900 becquerels of Xenon gas is 75,000%. Is that a lot? Compared to what?

What is the relationship of becquerels per cubic centimeter to becquerels per kilogram?

How many becquerels fit in a breadbox?

Why would there be two - so different - methods of sharing this information?

Do many people really understand what is being presented here?

Does anyone really care?


Back in the USA...

We offer the following statement from the EPA without comment:


3 May 2011
May 3 Statement by EPA

After a thorough data review showing declining radiation levels related to the Japanese nuclear incident, EPA has returned to the [color=limegreen]...routine RadNet sampling and analysis process for precipitation, drinking water and milk

As always, EPA's RadNet system of more than 100 stationary monitors will continue to provide EPA scientists near-real-time data on the slightest fluctuations in background radiation levels.

Due to the consistently decreasing radiation levels, EPA is evaluating the need to continue operating the additional air monitors deployed in response to the Japan nuclear incident. EPA will continue to analyze air filters and cartridges from all air monitors as they arrive at the laboratory and will post the data as available.

In accordance with [color=limegreen]normal RadNet protocol, EPA will be analyzing milk and drinking water samples on a quarterly basis and precipitation samples as part of a monthly composite. The next round of milk and drinking water sampling will take place in approximately three months.

It is important to note that all of the radiation levels detected by RadNet monitors and sampling have been very low, are [color=limegreen]well below any level of public health concern, and continue to decrease over time.

EPA continues to work with federal partners to monitor the situation in Japan and stands prepared to accelerate radiation sampling and analysis if the need arises. Data will continue to be available on EPA's public website.
RadNet Sampling Data

[color=limegreen]...routine RadNet sampling and analysis process for precipitation, drinking water and milk

(Insert appropriate expletive here!) We are, again, at a loss for words...

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Coincidentally, yes, Virginia, there are nuclear facilities in America that may be in some sort of danger too, although there has been little coverage of these events in the light of the importance of the "Weinergate" scandal. (This false flag was almost as stupid as the Charlie Sheen train wreck that gobbled up so much of the allotted time/space for "news.")

It's the economy, stupid. (Oops! Another thread, another time.)

3 May 2011
Radioactive release from nuke plant less than 150 miles from New Orleans

Nuclear Event – North-America
RSOE Emergency and Disaster Information Service, May 3, 2011:
Summary:
• Event type:    Nuclear Event
• Date / time [UTC]:    03/05/2011 [May 3] – 02:56:08
• Area:    Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Plant
• County / State:    State of Mississippi
• City:    Port Gibson

Event Description:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is investigating after a radioactive element is found in the Mississippi river. Authorities say it started at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant in Port Gibson. They say they went to check for standing water in an abandoned unit, and found a build up of water. They decided to pump it out, and after taking a sample, they discovered the chemical “tritium” had been released into the river. Officials say the River has diluted the radioactive material, and is not causing harm to the people. Right now the incident is under investigation. There’s no word on how much Tritum was pumped into the water.

6 May 2011
Nuclear Expert: EPA Abandoning Radiation Monitoring To Ensure There Are No Measurements Above Levels Of Concern

The Bay Citizen quotes Daniel Hirsch, a nuclear policy lecturer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, as saying the EPA is [color-orange]purposely abandoning radiation monitoring to ensure that radiation measurements can be taken that will above levels of concern.

Hirsch is also quoted as saying “I really am horrified” about the “staggering” EPA announcement that the EPA will return to testing radiation levels in rainwater, drinking water and milk every three months.

That means the next radiation monitoring results aren’t planned to be released until August.

Would a class-action lawsuit and/or a court order force the EPA to release these results now?

Can't one of these hackers lurking on ATS hack the EPA and/or EDi to provide we, the people, the information that we, the people, theoretically own? (Anon - do something about this travesty - after all, we are all in this together... radiation is non-selective and unforgiving.)

Why are more caring citizens/activists not stepping forth and lending support?

Where are the attorneys on ATS when they are needed?

Please step forward and give us some advice, please. Something must be done to retain our rights to this potentially life-saving information.

The future could very well rest on this actionable point...?

The abandonment of radiation testing by the feds also comes on the heels of an announcement from a top environmental scientists that food across the entire United States will be affected by the Fukushima nuclear radioactive fallout and an analysis from Japan’s top nuclear expert that [color=limegreen]reactors 1, 2 and 3 have all suffered a complete nuclear meltdown.

The EPA’s announcement was made even in the face of the fact that the levels of radiation being released from the Fukushima nuclear power plant have just hit an all-time high and radiation levels detected in independent milk samples in the US continue to rise.

The EPA ignored these reports from only two days before their astounding "denial of service" to the American taxpayer. Why do we, the people, continue to pay that company, EDi, when they are not monitoring radiation levels in all states in the United States?

There has to be an angle to swing the balance of power in our favor - or we run the chance of contamination on an unimaginable scale.

Where are the debunkers/shills/dis-info agents on this issue? Someone step up to the plate and prove our theory wrong. Please prove us wrong.

What happens if an EMP fries all electrical devices? Does that mean that all 104 active reactors in the U.S. suffer a meltdown at the same time when there is no power to run the cooling process? Is that the true Achilles heel?

When one takes the unsolvable nuclear waste issue and couples it with this EMP-Armageddon scenario, it becomes clear that nuclear power needs to be replaced ASAP with clean, renewable energy.

Something is very wrong here.


From our friend Alexander Higgins:
9 May 2011
Mislabeled XENON Forecast Map Shows Massive Nuclear Radiation
Fallout Cloud Over US

While playing around with the URL’s for Japan nuclear iodine forecasts I discovered a nuclear radiation forecast that was accidentally placed on the ZAMG website. The scientists inadvertently uploaded a radiation forecast showing a massive cloud of Fukushima Xenon radiation spreading over Japan and the United States instead of the iodine forecast for May 9, 2011.
more

One might ask why this type of information is being withheld from we, the people?

Onward through the fog...


11 May 2011
This is the last iodine-131 public forecast by NILU. Why?


9 May 2011
This is the last Cesium-137 public forecast by NILU. Why?


Perhaps because of pesky little stories like this:

11 May 2011
Japan: Compared To Radiation Dumped Into Pacific Ocean Today’s Release Of Half Billion Becquerels Is Nothing

Japan downplays release of 500 million becquerels of nuclear radiation by saying it is nothing compared to the amount radioactive material that has already been dumped into the Pacific Ocean by TEPCO from the Fukushima nuclear plant.

Today TEPCO was forced to release 500 million becquerels of nuclear radiation from the Fukushima nuclear reactor into the environment at the Fukushima nuclear reactor to lower the radiation levels inside the plant. In recent days, levels of radiation have been measured high as [color=limegreen]700 millisieverts per hour (which would be deadly to workers in just a few hours) over the course of the last few days.

Japan downplayed the massive release nuclear radiation into the environment by saying the levels are only a small fraction of the amount TEPCO has already to dumped into the Pacific Ocean. Almost undoubtedly American corporate news will try to spin the release of radiation from by running another headline saying the levels in reactor 1 have dropped once again. That is, of course, if once the radioactive dust settles the levels inside reactor 1 do actually drop.

Are these fine folk at TEPCO ever going to be brought up on charges for this deadly discharge?

METI’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency disclosed on May 8 that opening the double door between the reactor building and the turbine building of the Reactor 1 at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant will release the total of 500 million becquerels of radioactive materials into the environment.

The amount of radioactive materials this time would be 1/300th of the amount released into the ocean when 10,000 tons of water with comparatively low-level contamination was intentionally released; [color=limegreen]there is no effect on the environment, according to NISA.

Does that imply that (300 x 500,000,000 = ) 150,000,000,000 (150 TRILLION) becquerels of nuclear radiation was released into the environment?

Does the average person really understand the difference between million, billion, trillion?
(Jump in here, CLP or Phage, if you wish, and help us understand this situation, please.)

And there is no effect on the environment, according to NISA???

Is this the referenced 10,000 tons "of low-level radioactive water?"

Tokyo Electric disposing of low radioactive water in Pacific
TOKYO, April 5, Kyodo

Tokyo Electric Power Co. on Monday took the unprecedented measure of dumping 10,000 tons of low-level radioactive water in the Pacific Ocean from a facility at its crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power complex to make room for the storage of more highly contaminated water, which is hampering restoration work at the plant.

With the total amount of water to reach 11,500 tons, including contaminated groundwater from near the No. 5 and No. 6 reactors, the government said the disposal was unavoidable in order to secure safety. The level of radioactive substances in the water is up to 500 times the legal limit permitted for release in the environment.
(...)
As for the impact of the disposal of the 11,500 tons of water, TEPCO said an adult's annual dose would be around 0.6 millisieverts if the person ate seaweed and fish caught nearby every day for a year, which is still about a quarter of the annual dose a person is usually exposed to from natural sources.
more

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

TEPCO estimates the added radiation because of the operation will be 0.44 microsieverts maximum within Fukushima I Nuke Plant. NISA, using SPEEDI, estimates 0.77 microsieverts of added radiation if the wind is from the east at 1 meter/second. Both numbers are lower than 1/1000th of 1 millisievert (1,000 microsieverts) which is the annual allowable radiation limit for the general public.

According to NISA, 500 million becquerels is the total of radioactive iodine-131, cesium-134 and cesium 137. The number was calculated by multiplying the amount of radioactive materials inside the reactor building that TEPCO measured on May 7 by 25,000 cubic meters (volume of the building). NISA assumed the radioactive materials to be released from the height of 29 meters (upper part of the reactor building) for 8 hours.
more

12 May 2011
NILU ends public forecasts as map shows large radiation clouds now over US, Canada (VIDEOS)

Thank you for your interest in the FLEXPART products for Fukushima. The Forecast system is no longer running.

“These products are highly uncertain based on limited information for the source terms. Please use with caution and understand that the values are likely to change once we obtain more information on the overall nature of the accident.” -NILU.
more

Well, isn't this a fine kettle of fish?

Wonder who leaned on NILU?

12 May 2011
TEPCO: Bigger Breach in No. 1 Reactor Core Than Expected

Serious setback” to stabilize Fukushima
One of the reactors at Japan’s crippled nuclear power plant has been damaged more severely than originally thought, officials said Thursday — a serious setback for efforts to stabilize the radiation-leaking complex. [...]

The findings also indicate a greater-than-expected leak in that vessel. Radioactive water pouring from troubled reactors has pooled around the complex, hindering work to bring the plant under control. [...]

The low level of water indicates that the core of Unit 1 had a bigger breach than expected, said TEPCO spokesman Junichi Matsumoto. [...]
more

13 May 2011
Fukushima Radiation Plume


The Norwegian Institute for Air Research is NO LONGER posting the plume maps below with the surface concentration of the different radioactive materials (Iodine 131, Caesium 137 & Xenon 133) from the nuclear disaster in Japan as it dispersed across the Pacific Ocean.

Why? Is it because of radioactive forecasts such as this?

This is one of the last screencaps of the FLEXPART Fukushima Potential Releases: Xenon-133, 16 April 2011.




Although the Iodine 131 & the Caelsium 137 plume has been dispersing throughout the Pacific, traces of I-131 have been found already in milk in Washington State on 3/25/11.
I-131 has an eight days half-life so it decays pretty quickly although the longer this situation lasts, the more the accumulative effects.

Surprise, suprise:

Fukushima Radiation Plume Forecast
last modified 2011-05-13 11:26
Thank you for your interest in the FLEXPART products for Fukushima.

The Forecast system is no longer running.

We have discontinued our Flexpart forecast of the atmospheric dispersal of radionucleides from Fukushima. This due to the fact that we do not have access to reliable release rates reflecting the current situation at the plant to be used as input to our simulations.

It is likely that the release of radioactive material is significantly reduced compared to the initial period, and ...that [color=limegreen]levels no longer pose a health risk at distance from the plant.

We thank you for your interest in our FLEXPART products.

"... levels no longer pose a health risk at distance from the plant."

All is well... move along... go back to your homes ... there is nothing to see here...
...this is not the radiation you seek...

And there is a lot more to come.

To be continued...

Thank you for your time and consideration.

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw

reply to post by thorfourwinds


Those are some nice simulations. Too bad the real data wasn't represented in your post.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Unfortunately there is no way to stop the release of particles with known solutions, and even more unfortunately there is nothing an individual can do in a normal life to prepare or protect themselves. I suppose some people might like to go hibernate in a cave for a couple of hundred years, but short of that we are really pretty helpless.

Supposedly it cannot be entombed like chernobyl.

I have said in other threads, I believe every university physics and engineering student should be tapped for innovative solutions and "out-of-box" thinking, but at this moment there is no solution and there is nothing you can do to protect yourself.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Aeons

1+1 = 2 remains the same regardless of whose mouth it comes out of.

 

Would you like to cite a legitimate source for the good Doctor's claims than. Because he was say 1 + 1 = 5. If you can present it from a legitimate source than we can discuss it.

It is a logical fallacy to throw out all information based on your evaluation of the presenter.

When dealing with the internet, and this board in particular it is not. If every YouTube video that was posted on this site, as well as every Sorcha Faal article, Natural News article all received the same amount of attention... there would be no time to read or look at anything else.

Hence what the hoax bin is for.

edit on 20-6-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)

I have been reading your bullsh#t and you have not 1 time provided a "creditable source" that hot particles does NOT cause cancer. Till then please move along or stay on topic

reply to post by AnotherYOU


"Those who survive won't reproduce either..".

Agenda anyone?

Is Google making fun of the radiated kids growing a third eye and bunnies not growing any ears ?

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Aeons

 

no long range plans? like, fix them and plug the leak into the bedrock? also, this is yet another ignorant but necessary question: how does slow radiation leak in this case, differ from naturally occuring radioactive rocks in the earth's crust, as far as how it will or will not impact air and water?

I'm sure that there have been natural deposits of radioactive material that became critical and burned enmass. Several billions of years ago.

Finding a source of four to six closely set natural deposits of enriched fission sources in nature isnt impossible. It isn't LIKELY though.

An apple seed has arsenic in it. You can eat apple seeds all you want. Just like there are deposits of uranium under your feet encased in the shale formations. Quantity, proximity, concentration, dosage and quality matter.

I'm not sure how they could plug a melting core melting through bedrock. My suggestion is that they drill under it with doctored well rigs, and isolate it from below. I have yet to see any rigs show up on the site. And why should they. No one seems to care, and everyone seems to be happy that the ocean water is "cooling" the mass enough to obfuscate radiation contamination readings. No consistent readings, no problem.

Its Schrodinger's Cat - the political version.

So far, most of their attempts at fixes are politically minded half-assed crap.

reply to post by adeclerk


It is more than apparent who you are, and what your motivation is.

To say that there is no real data in that post is about as transparent as you can be.

No amount of money is worth selling your soul, friend.

reply to post by randyvs


You bring up a different perspective, but I would think, to put down
Fukushima as an NWO act would be stretching it too far

Originally posted by jimnuggits
It is more than apparent who you are, and what your motivation is.

Who am I? Why don't you share these details on the board?

Originally posted by jimnuggits
To say that there is no real data in that post is about as transparent as you can be.

Where is it? Link, source, etc. Please.

Originally posted by jimnuggits
No amount of money is worth selling your soul, friend.

Hell, I wish there was money in debunking. It's a thankless job, unfortunately. If I lead just one person away from ignorance, I'll be happy.

"Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts."

- William Cohen, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, April 1997.

-----
(snip)
-----

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by thorfourwinds

 

Those are some nice simulations. Too bad the real data wasn't represented in your post.

Greetings:

Thank you very much for your astute comments and observations. Too bad you cannot back up your assertions with "real data." As you so aptly put it, "Link, source, please?"

Here is more information for you to take a swing at. We welcome all participation.

We flash back to 28 April (seems like an eternity ago) to remind us that in three days from this date, the EPA will discontinue monitoring for radiation on a daily basis in favor of every three months.

Fukushima Japan Nuclear Radiation Levels Spike Highest Yet — 1,120,000 Microsieverts per Hour

Radiation levels detected at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan rise to the highest levels yet hitting 1.2 sieverts per hour as TEPCO announced that it may not be able to follow through with the 9 month plan to stop the radiation leaking from the Fukushima nuclear reactor in Japan.

A nuclear engineering professor from Kyoto adds that depending on the source of the high levels the plan to entomb the reactor to permanently end the radiation leak may not work at all. That statement echoes similar sentiments from nuclear expert Arnie Gunderson.

For conversion purposes, 1.12 seiverts per hour = 1,120 millsieverts pert hour = 1,120,000 microsieverts per hour.
More simply 1 sievert = 1000 millisievert = 1,000,000 microsieverts

16 May 2011
Reactor No. 1 Core Had Total Meltdown and Uranium Fuel May Be Outside Containment Building

Nuclear reaction could have restarted

As Nature News’ Geoff Brumfiel reports, workers went into the unit recently “to recalibrate some of the sensors on the reactor.” Much to their surprise and dismay, they found that the core experienced a total meltdown.

The zirconium alloy tubes that hold the uranium fuel pellets during normal operation all warped and the uranium is now lying at the bottom of the pressure vessel, or possibly even outside of it in the basement below or outside the concrete containment building.

With all the fuel piled up at the bottom, there is some danger that the nuclear reaction could have restarted. As of now, engineers on the scene aren’t sure what happened.

[...] Reactor restart? [...]

Some have theorized that with all the fuel at the bottom of the vessel, unit 1 may have actually restarted its nuclear reactions. If that had happened, the fuel would be pumping out some portion of its normal 1380 megawatts of thermal power—probably enough to melt through the thick steal reactor pressure vessel. It would have dropped onto a concrete slab below (the basemat), where it would have hopefully been spread out, effectively diffusing the chain reaction. [...]

[A] note from the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF) quotes Banri Kaieda, the nation’s Economy, Trade and Industry Minister, as saying that it is “a fact” that there were holes created by the meltdown. That would likely mean at least some of the uranium fuel is now lying on the basemat below, or perhaps even outside the concrete containment.
[...]
more

16 May 2011
Melted Fuel in Reactor No. 3 Appears to Have Burned Through Pressure Vessel–
Loaded With Rods Containing Plutonium

And like the No. 1 reactor, the melted fuel appears to have created holes in the pressure vessel of the No. 3 reactor, according to the data of Tokyo Electric Power Co. released May 16. [...]

At the No. 3 reactor, the melted fuel may have burned through the pressure vessel to the containment vessel, the data showed. [...]

According to the data, the pressure in the pressure vessel of the No. 2 reactor dropped at 6:43 p.m. on March 15. A similar drop in pressure also took place at the No. 3 reactor at 11:50 p.m. on March 16.

Those declines were apparently the result of holes made in the pressure vessels. [...] it appears that melted nuclear fuel formed new holes in the pressure vessels. [...]

Radioactive materials, such as technetium, produced when nuclear fuel rods are damaged, have been detected in water in the No. 3 reactor building. That discovery has raised speculation that the melted nuclear fuel has breached the pressure vessel and landed in the containment vessel.
more

17 May 2011
Huge Problems: All Parts of Fuel Rods Appear to Have Melted at all 3 Reactors Admits TEPCO

Data shows meltdowns occurred at the No. 2 and No. 3 reactors of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, creating huge problems for the plant operator that had presented a more optimistic scenario. [...]

Goshi Hosono, special adviser to Prime Minister Naoto Kan, acknowledged the likelihood of meltdowns at the No. 2 and No. 3 reactors.

“We have to assume that meltdowns have taken place,” Hosono said at a news conference May 16. [...]

“When highly contaminated water was found at the No. 2 reactor building in late March, we recognized that a meltdown had taken place. So I informed the government,” [Haruki Madarame, chairman of the Nuclear Safety Commission] said. [...]

TEPCO had said it believed that only a portion of the nuclear fuel rods had melted. Now, it appears that all parts of the fuel rods have melted. [...]
more

17 May 2011
Molten Fuel Made It Outside of Containment Vessel at Reactor No. 1

Pressure Vessel is “completely broken” says Kyoto U. nuclear professor
[...]

Research Reactor Institute, Kyoto University Professor Akira Hiroshi Koide is “If 冷Yasenaku loss of power in the reactor can lead to early meltdown should have been able to assume.’s TEPCO it has limited fuel damage The description will be completely mistaken.. too late publication of the data well, “he said.

TEPCO In this analysis, “damaging the pressure vessel is not large,” but explained, Assistant Professor Koide the “pressure vessel is completely broken, a hole in the bottom of the vessel containing the molten fuel, reactor are causing a large amount of contaminated water leaking in the basement of the building “to estimate. [...]

EX-SKF Translation

[...] According to TEPCO, the data analysis shows that damage to the RPV is not extensive. However, (Hiroaki Koide of Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute) thinks “The RPV has been completely damaged, the melted core bore a hole at the bottom of the Containment Vessel, causing the large amount of contaminated water to leak into the ground beneath the reactor building.” [...]

The following is from a statement by TEPCO and reported by CNTV.

17 May 2011
Reactor No.1′s Fuel Rods “Completely Melted” Admits TEPCO

BEIJING, May 17 (Xinhuanet) -- The operator of the Fukushima Nuclear plant, TEPCO, says it's trying to determine whether the facility was actually damaged by the earthquake on March 11th, rather than the resulting tsunami.

TEPCO also says fuel rods in the facility's number one reactor have completely melted down.

A spokesman for TEPCO has outlined a new analysis of the crisis.

A review of data suggests the number 1 reactor's fuel rods were fully exposed within five hours of the quake, causing them to heat rapidly.

By the next morning - just 16 hours later - the rods had largely melted down. If the new data analysis is correct, it means the facility was mainly damaged by the quake itself - NOT the resulting tsunami, as previously thought.

The No. 2 and No. 3 reactors are thought to have gone through a similar process, but with only 30 percent damage to their fuel rods.
TEPCO has now decided to send a new team inside the plant to check the accuracy of the findings.

In response, Prime Minister Naoto Kan told Japan's parliament that the company will release an updated timetable for resolving the crisis on Tuesday.

But Kan said stabilization of the reactors would still be limited to within six to nine months.

The new findings come as Japan on Friday ordered residents outside the established thirty-kilometer exclusion zone to leave their homes. Around 8-thousand people are to be relocated by the end of the month.
(Source: CNTV.cn)
more

And we close with a breaking story from our friend Alexander Higgins:

Confirmed: EPA Rigged RADNET Japan Nuclear Radiation Monitoring Equipment To Report Lower Levels Of Fukushima Fallout

The EPA re-calibrated (rigged) Japan nuclear radiation monitoring equipment causing them to report lower levels of radioactive fallout after the Fukushima nuclear meltdown than what was detected before the disaster.

I recently programmed an application to pull all of the EPA radiation monitoring graphs for all major US cities and complied them into an easy to use web interface. Of course we took the data being reported with a grain of salt under the suspicion that the Feds were fiddling with the results.

Now, an investigative report looking into why the much of the EPA radiation monitoring equipment was offline when the Fukushima nuclear meltdown occurred reveals that EPA has in fact rigged radiation monitoring equipment to report lower values of radiation.

This could indeed be the smoking gun that the EPA did not want to come to public scrutiny.

Read on.

RadNet – the EPA’s front-line, radiological detection network is severely flawed and suffers from maintenance and reliability issues.

The lack of consistent data and the number of units offline (a techie term for broken) at the time they were most needed shows that the EPA was not prepared for this emergency.

Besides that fact the broken system left us all unprotected; the confusion, apprehension and fear witnessed as people try to wade through the incomplete and inaccurate data online is evidenced by an exchange on the UC Berkely website over this RadNet graph:




The graph shows that this monitoring station was one of the units actually running on  3/11.

The readings were significantly higher prior to 3/11 and drop to a much lower level afterwards.

This is an indication that the units were running in an uncalibrated condition and were adjusted only after the events at Fukushima.

Which, of course, brings up the question:

Who is responsible for assuring that the system is up and running?

The EPA contracted this responsibility to a private company, Environmental Dimensions, Inc.

Environmental Dimensions, Inc (EDI) has provided maintenance for EPA’s RadNet monitoring systems under a sole-source contract which can be viewed at the end of this article. The base amount of the contract is $238,000.00. This does not include materials and travel, which is billed back to the government as needed.

The contract was awarded to what is stated as a “Woman-owned 8(a) Small Disadvantaged Business“.  The disadvantaged woman in this case is EDI company president Patricia S. Bradshaw, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense appointed by George Bush.

This from the EDI website:

Environmental Dimensions, inc. (EDi), provides quality environmental technical support services to: the Department of Energy (DOE) and its National Laboratories; US Army Corps of Engineers; Bureau of Indian Affairs; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and other government and commercial entities across the nation.

EDi is a woman-owned, small disadvantaged business with over 20 years of experience and a proven track record for delivering superior project management and other related technical support services.

Our success is based on our goal to not just meet our client’s expectations, but to exceed them! This is solidified by having a complete understanding of our client’s needs and having the ability to respond to those needs in a timely manner.

We credit our ability to do so through our management’s commitment to recruit and maintain highly qualified staff. EDi is a small business with prime contracting and subcontracting experience. EDi’s professional project managers possess many years of experience delivering superior project management for multi-faceted projects.

Over our many years of doing business, we have amassed a strong reputation for on-time delivery in the following areas of expertise:

• Program Development
• Project Management
• Waste Management
• Radiological Support Services
• Site/Facility Characterization
• Decontamination & Decommissioning
• Beryllium Support Services
• Maintenance and Operations
• Instrument Rental, Calibration, and Repair
• Other Technical Support Services

Could it possibly be that the corporate management at EDI formed the company not out of an altruistic sense of patriotic duty but to cash in on inside information and connections?

Who would think that the ONLY company entrusted to monitor radiation in the United States would also have the time and manpower to be involved in so many other operations.

Continuing along this line of thinking, here is some more information on their website today.

This project overview states that there are 80 monitors nationwide, not the 140 that EDi portends to have but refuses to release a concise list of. One might wonder if the "government-furnished equipment" is referencing the actual monitors themselves.

RadNet Overview

RadNet is a national network of monitoring stations that regularly collect air, precipitation, drinking water, and milk samples for analysis of radioactivity. The network has been operating continuously since 1973 and has been used to track environmental releases of radioactivity from nuclear weapons tests and nuclear accidents and to document the status and trends of environmental radioactivity. Data collected by RadNet and more detailed information on the RadNet system can be found at www.epa.gov...  Another source of RadNet data, including a searchable database, is www.epa.gov...

Air Monitoring
The RadNet CDX Web site focuses on air monitoring.  Air monitoring stations are sited throughout the United States, designed to detect and record various types of airborne radiation. RadNet has been upgraded to provide near real-time monitoring, and EPA continues to expand the network each year. 
The RadNet air network uses two different types of monitors: fixed (stationary) and deployable (mobile).

1. Fixed Air Monitors: Permanently mounted and continuously operating, each fixed monitor contains a high-volume air sampler, gamma and beta radiation detectors, and a computer that controls the monitor and sends data to a central database at least once an hour. The individual detectors within each monitor can discriminate between different types of radiation, including those that are naturally occurring. See the left side of Figure 1.

2. Deployable Air Monitors: Deployable monitors are portable and can be used for exercises and for rapid deployment in response to real events.  The monitors have high- and low-volume air samplers, a gamma radiation level monitor, a data logger, and telecommunication systems that send data to the central database.  Although deployable monitors do not discriminate the energy of gamma radiation, they do provide gamma exposure rates. See the right side of Figure 1.





Figure 1: Fixed (top) and Deployable (bottom) Monitors

Understanding the Data from the Fixed Monitors
Purpose of RadNet. RadNet is designed to provide information to decision makers and other professionals during radiological emergencies. During normal times, RadNet establishes and verifies background levels of radiation and documents any changes that might occur.

What Radiation Is Detected
RadNet fixed air monitors record gamma radiation from both natural and man-made gamma-emitting sources on the ground and in the air. Many forms of natural radiation – such as cosmic radiation and radon gas – fluctuate throughout the day in response to changing weather conditions. These daily and hourly fluctuations in radiation levels are normal.

Specific Radionuclide Detection
Although there are many radionuclides, each radionuclide emits unique radiations (energy), which can be used like a fingerprint to identify it. By studying the radiation energy spectrum, experts can discern which radionuclides are present around a monitor.

To make the identification process more efficient, RadNet organizes the gamma energy spectrum into ten contiguous ranges, termed Regions of Interest (ROIs). The fixed monitors report total gamma detections (counts) within each ROI. By tracking the long-term changes of values within each ROI at each monitor, one can roughly determine the increase or decrease of radionuclides at a specific location. These fluctuations may be routine, or they may indicate an abnormality. To precisely identify radionuclides, scientists at NAREL download the entire spectrum and analyze it using additional software. This feature is not available on the CDX Web site.

Data for Most Users. For most users of the RadNet CDX Web site, comparing radiation values from one ROI of one monitor over time will provide the most useful information. Such data will track the long-term fluctuations within a specific energy range at a single location. Comparing values between different locations will not provide useful information – because each reading depends heavily on the natural radioactivity present in each location.

Similarly, comparing the count totals within one ROI to the count totals in another ROI at the same location will not provide useful information; each ROI associates with a specific gamma energy range, and little can be understood by comparing the aggregate total of one range to that of another.

Understanding the Data from the Deployable Monitors
As stated above, radiation levels routinely fluctuate from hour-to-hour and day-to-day. The deployable monitor provides the overall gamma radiation level near the monitor. These levels are expected to vary as they do for the fixed monitors. Typical fluctuations can cause the overall gamma radiation level near a deployable monitor to change by a factor of two or even more.

Let's take a look at who is associated with this enterprise. It might be interesting to back-track these individuals... just saying.

John Rodell - Chief Operating Officer
Chris Edgmon - Project Manager
Tim Lee - Project Manager
Ross Dimmick - Project Manager
and, of course, Patricia S. Bradshaw, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

Did Mrs. Bradshaw’s former DOD employment open the door?

Did the fact that she heads a woman-owned business give her company a competitive edge?

Is it possible that is a deliberate attempt to keep the truth from we, the people?

EDI’s revenues have doubled in each of the past three years and they currently have 90 employees spread across offices in Albuquerque, Denver and Oak Ridge.
more

And there are only 140 (?) monitors for all 50 states and possessions?

Now that they are checking the monitors every three months, what are these employees doing to earn their keep?

Does this situation pass the smell test?

This same company also performs radioactive waste remediation and decontamination services for a number of government-funded projects.

Do they follow the same cost-cutting, profit-maximizing philosophy as it appears that their maintenance and calibration division practices?

Updating Japan’s Nuclear Disaster

Japan’s March 11 earthquake/tsunami-caused nuclear disaster affects millions of people regionally and throughout the Northern Hemisphere. But you’d never know it from most major media reports, downplaying an unfolding catastrophe.

However, there nevertheless exists the radiation wafting across the world on a daily basis. The situation has not improved any from day one. We should all endeavor to be aware of the dangers of even "small" amounts of radiation.

"Other toxins aside, no amount of radiation is safe." In her book Nuclear Madness, Helen Caldicott explained:
“Lower doses of radiation can cause abnormalities of the immune system and can also cause leukemia five to ten years after exposure; (other) cancer(s), twelve to sixty years later; and genetic diseases and congenital anomalies in future generations.”

“Radioactive iodine releases from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi reactors may exceed those of Three Mile Island by over 100,000 times….While Chernobyl had one source of radioactivity, its reactor, there are seven leaking radiation sources at the Japanese site. Together, the three damaged reactors and four spent fuel pools at Fukushima Daiicho contain (much) more long-lived radioactivity, notably cesium-137, than the Chernobyl reactor.”

Moreover, all radiation, especially large amounts, is harmful, cumulative, permanent and unforgiving.

“The radioactive (iodine-131) fallout is now as much as 73 percent of the daily radiation emitted from Chernobyl following its meltdown disaster.” For cesium-137, it’s 60%.

“I hate to say it, but I am pessimistic….We have to think of all six (reactors) going down, and the possibility of that happening is not low.”
more

To be continued...

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw

Originally posted by SmokeAndMirror
"Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts."

- William Cohen, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, April 1997.

-----
All you need to know about the NWO here:
www.nwosurvivalguide.com...
-----

The only thing more laughable than that website are the banner ads for the quackery they are endorsing. Not to mention that they donated $5 to themselves.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by randyvs

 

You bring up a different perspective, but I would think, to put down
Fukushima as an NWO act would be stretching it too far

So would I.

However, I have to say that if I were just wanting to set up a problem, looking for a spot like Fukishima and then finding some seriously lacking professionals there along with a corporate culture that avoided safety precautions as a norm....and then encouraging them to do even more insane things like attempting a hot swap while also housing a secret program they don't want anyone to know about....well you can pretty much bank on something absolutely horrendously moronic to happen at some point.

This disaster was utterly preventable. This disaster was not an accident. An accident is something unforeseen. This isn't unforeseen - something bad happening in one of the Japanese plants on the coast line was inevitable. Not an accident, but a forgone conclusion.

reply to post by Aeons


Ya I know. It's easier to believe all these highly intelligent people, who are masters of forethought and planning ?
Beyond most peoples understanding, suddenly thru a big ol' brain fart making mistakes a 12 yr old wouldn't make. Makes perfect sense.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Aeons

 

Ya I know. It's easier to believe all these highly intelligent people, who are masters of forethought and planning ?
Beyond most peoples understanding, suddenly thru a big ol' brain fart making mistakes a 12 yr old wouldn't make. Makes perfect sense.

In this case I'm pretty sure that the professionals just really thought that their plan was full proof. They were just that good.

Arrogance knows no common sense.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Mdv2

 

Explanation: S&F!

Seriously, is it so hard to do the math?

Nope! Here ... BEHOLD the (potential) HORROR! [note: link Title has been edited by OL for clarity ok!]
Reactor No. 3, very similar to Chernobyl — Likely at least several hundred pounds of plutonium eje[cted] (by v1rtu0s0 posted on 4-6-2011 @ 12:28 PM) [ATS]

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster: Explosion Reactor No.3 [wiki]

Unlike the other five reactor units, reactor 3 runs on mixed uranium and plutonium oxide, or MOX fuel, making it potentially more dangerous in an incident owing to the neutronic effects of plutonium on the reactor, the long persistence of plutonium toxicity, and the plutonium carcinogenic effects in the event of release to the environment. Units 3 and 4 have a shared control room.

On the morning of 15 March, Secretary Edano announced that according to TEPCO, at one location near reactor Units 3 and 4, radiation at an equivalent dose rate of 400 mSv/h was detected. This might have been due to debris from the explosion in Unit 4.

At 12:33 JST on 13 March, the chief spokesman of the Japanese government, Yukio Edano said hydrogen gas was building up inside the outer building of Unit 3 just as had occurred in Unit 1, threatening the same kind of explosion. At 11:15 JST on 14 March, the envisaged explosion of the building surrounding Reactor 3 of Fukushima 1 occurred, owing to the ignition of built up hydrogen gas. The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency of Japan (NISA) reported, as with Unit 1, the top section of the reactor building was blown apart, but the inner containment vessel was not breached. The explosion was larger than that in Unit 1 and felt 40 kilometers away.

TEPCO claimed that there was a small but non-zero probability that the exposed fuel assemblies could reach criticality. The BBC commented that criticality would never mean a nuclear explosion, but could cause a sustained release of radioactive materials. Criticality is usually considered highly unlikely, owing to the low enrichment level used in light water reactors.

American nuclear engineer Arnold Gundersen, noting the much greater power and vertical debris ejection compared to the Unit 1 hydrogen blast, has theorized that the Unit 3 explosion involved a prompt criticality in the spent fuel pool material, triggered by the mechanical disruption of an initial, smaller hydrogen gas explosion in the building. Low-dose radiation researcher and anti-nuclear activist Christopher Busby speculated on Russia Today that the explosion that destroyed the Reactor 3 building was a "nuclear explosion" of some kind in the spent fuel pool.

On 11 May, TEPCO released underwater robotic video from the spent fuel pool. The video appears to show large amounts of debris contaminating the pool. Based on water samples, unnamed experts and TEPCO opined that the fuel rods were left "largely undamaged".

Link to Video [telegraph.co.uk] (note: no sound)

I can't find any links to any water samples. Please help!

But moving on with the MATHS...

1 MOLE[cule] of Plutonium = 244grams

1 MOLE of any pure elemental substance [i.e plutonium in this case] is equal to Avogadro's No# ...

= 6.0221415 × 10^23 atoms

Several hundred pounds is a b it to ambiguous and I'd like to underestimate that a bit and so I choose to use 220lbs = 100kg as the figure of POTENTIALLY ejected nuclear material!

Now 100kg / 244grams = Number of MOLE's of plutonium in 100kg = 410 [rnded up]

410 x 6.0221415 × 10^23 atoms = 246907801500000000000000000 atoms of plutonium total.

Now divide that by the Human population of the planet currently.... 7 Billion people [rnd up]

= 35272543071428571 [rnded down] atoms of plutonium per person!

Thats 35 and 1 quarter QUADRILLION plutonium atoms for every single one of us currently alive!!!

Oh and BTW ... 100kg of plutonium is enuff stuff to make about 5 or 6 nuclear weapons!

Personal Disclosure: I am not saying that the above is the case! And I fudged the maths by simplifying and using only plutonium when the reactor contained MOX fuel which is a combination of uranium and plutonium.

Its a back of the envelope equation! Its in the ball park though!

Greetings:

Noticed that you like numbers and we really like the straight-forward way you are presenting your information.

For your consideration:

For the first two days after the accident, the wind blew east from Fukushima towards monitoring stations on the US west coast; on the third day it blew south-west over the Japanese monitoring station at Takasaki, then swung east again. Each day, readings for iodine-131 at Sacramento in California, or at Takasaki, both suggested the same amount of iodine was coming out of Fukushima, says Wotawa: 1.2 to 1.3 × 10 to the 17th becquerels per day.
(...)
In the 10 days it burned, Chernobyl put out 1.76 × 10 to the 18th becquerels of iodine-131, which amounts to only 50 per cent more per day than has been calculated for Fukushima Daiichi. It is not yet clear how long emissions from the Japanese plant will continue.

11 March to 20 June = 70 days.

50% more per day means that Chernobyl put out twice as much Iodine-131 per day than has been calculated for Fukushima Daiichi - but only for 10 days.

Let's take the lower estimate of 1.2 x 10 to the 17th becquerels per day x 70 days:

If our figures are correct, that means that Fukushima Daiichi has already spewed forth
350% as much Iodine-131 as Chernobyl.

And it is still spewing continuously - [color=limegreen]24 hours a day - with no end in sight - contaminating all the foodstuffs in the fields in North America.

Similarly, says Wotawa, caesium-137 emissions are on the same order of magnitude as at Chernobyl. The Sacramento readings suggest it has emitted 5 × 10 to the 15th becquerels of caesium-137 per day; Chernobyl put out 8.5 × 10 to the 16th in total – around 70 per cent more per day.
New Scientist

5 × 10 to the 15th becquerels of caesium-137 per day x 70 days:

If our figures are correct, we conclude that Fukushima Daiichi has already spewed forth about 500% as much Cesium-137 as Chernobyl.

And it is still spewing continuously - [color=limegreen]24 hours a day - with no end in sight - contaminating all the foodstuffs in the fields in North America.

This cannot bode well for the inhabitants of Planet Earth.

To be continued...

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw

P.S. Please join us on any of these threads for more information that seems to be suppressed by the MSM:

America's Being Nuked - Can we Together Stop the Madness?

and this is a good read:

Will America's Nuclear Power Plants Fail in an 8.0 Earthquake?

As is this one:

Is This the Beginning of the End of Nuclear Power in the U.S.?

One cannot do what is necessary to survive hell if a person doesn’t know they are living in one.
Dr Mark Sircus