Scientists Confirm Fukushima Radiation in California Kelp

reply to post by Alekto


Sorry, that's news to me. Yes they are removing the spent fuel rods very slowly. However one screw up and the SHTF. It will take 40 years to clean this mess up so it's only just began.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nope. Do I believe your thread or this one?

reply to post by Phage


Yeah, I already read that thread by Mamatus, and these dartboard studies never take into consideration that contaminated water continues to be dumped into the Pacific Ocean on a daily basis.

I understand how vast the pacific is, and I don't like fear mongering either, but sooner or later, dilluted turns into polluted my friend. ~$heopleNation

reply to post by SheopleNation

Yeah, I already read that thread by Mamatus, and these dartboard studies never take into consideration that contaminated water continues to be dumped into the Pacific Ocean on a daily basis.

Are you sure? "Never" is a strong word. Here is a study which specifically addresses the ongoing leakage.

The agreement for water is achieved when an additional continuous flux of 3.6 TBq y−1 is used for underground leakage of contaminated water from the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP, during the three years following the accident.

www.sciencedirect.com...

In other words, the model used is accurate based on that assumption of leakage. A lower rate of leakage doesn't match observations, nor does a higher.

reply to post by Phage


Maybe never is, But again, nothing about what is being released into the pacific, just more of the same dart board studies that only focus on theories about leakage. You can't polish a turd buddy. ~$heopleNation

reply to post by SheopleNation

But again, nothing about what is being released into the pacific, just more of the same dart board studies that only focus on theories about leakage.

What do you mean "what is being released?" as opposed to leakage?

The study I cited shows that the observed rate of decline of contamination in the waters near Fukushima corresponds to a modeled ongoing influx (whether you want to call it a release or a leak) of contamination. It isn't a dart board study. It's the creation of a model which matches observations.

Of course, maybe they're just talking out their asses like I am. Right? Maybe they just made it all up.

reply to post by Phage


Emptying, released, or leaking whatever. We are talking about 400 tons a day here Phage. That is all I am saying. We can at least agree that nothing good is going to come from this. ~$heopleNation

400 Tons a day

reply to post by SheopleNation

Yes. The amount of water really isn't important though, it's the amount of radioactive material in the water that counts. The model I'm talking about shows that it's about 3.6 TBq each year.

That is all I am saying.

No. That is not all you were saying. You were saying that I was talking out my ass. You were saying that the ongoing contamination is never considered. You were saying a lot of stuff that was flat out wrong. Do we have to reconsider who actually was talking out their ass?

Phage
Yes. The amount of water really isn't important though, it's the amount of radioactive material in the water that counts. The model I'm talking about shows that it's about 3.6 TBq each year.

Observations based on reckless assumptions.

No. That is not all you were saying. You were saying that I was talking out my ass. You were saying that the ongoing contamination is never considered. You were saying a lot of stuff that was flat out wrong. Do we have to reconsider who actually was talking out their ass?

My my there Mr. Phage, there is no reason to come unhinged now. If the speaking out of your rear comment irked you, then I apologize for that.

Grouchy much?

And it's not considered, cause it's an ongoing situation guy! Those studies are about as relevant as the color of my poop yesterday!

Good day Sir! ~$heopleNation

reply to post by SheopleNation

Observations based on reckless assumptions.

No. Observations are not assumptions they are measurements. Like measurements of contamination found in sea life. Like measurements talked about in the article you linked.

[...] some critics contend that the plant has emitted far more radioactive materials than it is saying, based in part on levels of contaminants discovered in the harbor [...]

enenews.com... s

And it's not considered, cause it's an ongoing situation guy! Those studies are about as relevant as the color of my poop yesterday!

You're not listening to or understanding a single thing I've said.

Phage
No. Observations are not assumptions they are measurements. Like measurements of contamination found in sea life. Like measurements talked about in the article you linked.

These are your words, not mine.

Phage
In other words, the model used is accurate based on that assumption of leakage. A lower rate of leakage doesn't match observations, nor does a higher.

Sounds to me like you're not listening to yourself pal. ~$heopleNation

reply to post by SheopleNation

Sounds to me like you're not listening to yourself pal.

Sounds to me like you don't understand that the model fits the observations. Sounds to me like you don't understand that indicates that the model is accurate.

reply to post by Phage


I understand exactly what you said, and what you presented.

So, The findings were in close agreement with prior measurements by JAPANESE agencies? Well my how convenient!

Did it ever occur to you that past observations by the Japanese may have been tweaked or doctored in order to protect their economy and exports?

Nah, Goverments would never do such a thing.

And there yuh have it my friend, the difference between a guy like you who believes almost everything that you're spoon fed, from a guy like me who likes to keep an open mind when humanity and other life on this planet is concerned. ~$heopleNation

reply to post by SheopleNation

Did it ever occur to you that past observations by the Japanese may have been tweaked or doctored in order to protect their economy and exports?

Did it occur to you that observations which result in removing sea food from the marketplace because of unsafe levels of contamination don't do much to protect the economy and exports?

Anyone watch Thunderfoot? anyhow here is a few videos I have watched to do with the radiation...taught me a few things.
Oh he debunks the kelp thing in the last video.




Next one taught me more about the fuel used.



I think Phage and he are the one and same :O hehehe



This one is he debunking the kelp claims.



Based on the evidence he shows me tells me while bad it isn't as bad as some people want you to think.

reply to post by flammadraco


All kinds of radioactive isotopes are present in kelp and other sea life. Radioactive barrels were extensively dumped off the San Francisco Bay area and off the New Jersey coast in the late 1940's. The sailors would shoot holes in the barrels that refused to sink. Every isotope has a finger print and if tested properly will show exactly where the radioactive material has come from. A large amount of sea creatures have died along the coast and many whales and other sea life has changed there migratory patterns in recent months. Is it from radioactive waste or is it from the current polar shift that is occurring? That's the million dollar question. If the government would do there job we would have that answer. Or maybe we do but they aren't saying. I try to stick with fish from fresh water farms in which I consume for myself. The radioactive plum is mainly pushing north from Japan settling north of the san Francisco Bay area north into Alaska. Until real comprehensive testing occurs and is made public then no factual conclusion can be made from where the radiation is coming from.

Phage
Did it occur to you that observations which result in removing sea food from the marketplace because of unsafe levels of contamination don't do much to protect the economy and exports?

LMAO!!! Yeah right buddy! Too bad that is not what is happening. Way too much money in Sushi, soy and rice products ect. Smoke up though Johnny, believe what you will. Now, of course I cannot prove that is not happening, just as you cannot prove that it is. Search away though, I could be wrong. Honestly, I hope that I am. ~$heopleNation

Just an observation but here go's.

No one thought about the consequence's of building nuclear plants on faults next to the ocean then once the disaster took place no one knows how to fix this horrible disaster and now that Fukishima is polluting the Pacific ocean no one knows what the results will be to the rest of world.

I read as many of these Fukishima threads as I can stand looking for some info to research that might have some truth and reference to what is truly going on and they all seem to just go the way of this one where no one agrees on much of anything.

Is it me or is this catastrophic event being swept under the preverbal carpet ? That's almost as insane as the event its self.

Battleline

Is it me or is this catastrophic event being swept under the preverbal carpet ? That's almost as insane as the event its self.

What do you want to see?

In my Opinion:
When you think that this is under a "preverbal Carpet" you should look for it,
i am able to locate every single Day new Information about the Circumstances
in and around the Plant.

When you want to see "this Carpet" look for the US American Wars
or the religious introduced Wars between Muslims and Christians in Africa,
look for the Hunger in the World, etc., etc.!

Fact:
Fukushima is the most investigated and most observed industrial Accident!

We can't always believe what we hear from everyone, as the "experts" frequently disagree on most subjects. MSM will spin the version of the story their employers want you to believe, and through repetition it become stored in the subconscious (or collective subconscious) of our society... Unless we are awake and question what we are being told. The best thing to do is to actually test every hypothesis and theory by personal experience if we can, or else we are stuck with using preponderance of the evidence to base our decisions about anything, in this case radioactivity in kelp, drinking water, sea food or any other food source. I say test it for yourself, and KNOW for yourself, share your results locally, with pictures of the readings on your geiger counter or dossimeter. How to test radiation