PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues China Finds 100,000 SQ Miles of Radiation In Pacific Ocean 300 Times Higher Than Norm


teedubya
08-20-2011, 12:30 AM
http://theintelhub.com/2011/08/18/china-finds-100000-sq-miles-of-radiation-in-pacific-ocean-up-300-times-higher-than-normal/

OMG it's the Intel HUB, who the **** is that? Kooks.

http://cdn1.alexanderhiggins.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/How-TEPCOs-3-million-gallons-of-radioactive-water-will-spread-trhough-the-Pacific-Ocean.png

How 3 million gallons of radioactive water dumped into the sea will spread through the Pacific Ocean

Sources:
Nuclear contamination threatens seawaters - Chinese Government’s Official Web Portal (http://english.gov.cn/2011-08/16/content_1926446.htm)– Tuesday, August 16, 2011
China: Radioactive contamination spreads far beyond Japan’s claims in Pacific waters – The Asahi Shimbun (http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201108166394)– Tuesday, August 16, 2011
China says Japanese N-plant leak contaminated its sea waters – The Economic Times (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-08-16/news/29892208_1_water-samples-n-plant-low-level-radioactive-water) – Tuesday, August 16, 2011

ClevelandBronco
08-20-2011, 12:34 AM
If they found it and it doesn't have a tag, I say let them keep it. Seems fair.

BigMeatballDave
08-20-2011, 12:35 AM
Is it just me, or does that radiation shape resemble a female reproductive system?

Frazod
08-20-2011, 12:57 AM
It's just a matter of time....
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2700/4474430318_ceda888a82_o.jpg

ClevelandBronco
08-20-2011, 01:07 AM
.

orange
08-20-2011, 03:33 AM
OMG it's the Intel HUB, who the **** is that? Kooks.

Be sure to Safeguard Your Drinking Water From Fluoride - and it's never too early to start up your very own Straw Bale Survival Garden.

Donger
08-20-2011, 08:57 AM
LMAO

Still got your hopes up, eh teedubya?

Dave Lane
08-20-2011, 09:13 AM
Never surrender!

Donger
08-20-2011, 09:16 AM
Never surrender!

The 250,000 dead starts with one!!!!13E43Q2R

KILLER_CLOWN
08-20-2011, 11:57 AM
Be sure to Safeguard Your Drinking Water From Fluoride - and it's never too early to start up your very own Straw Bale Survival Garden.

How do you safeguard it? The city puts the toxic waste in their for your benefit dude. It's really yummy too!

alnorth
08-20-2011, 12:31 PM
This is kind of like those scare warnings saying that doing or eating X will make you 10 times more likely to develop some deadly form of cancer.

What they don't tell you is your odds worsen something like from 1 in 10 million to 1 in 1 million.

Halfcan
08-20-2011, 12:47 PM
wow we are really screwing this planet up-

in 100 years there will be No fish No trees No animals and the rest of the world will be void of vegetation.

BucEyedPea
08-20-2011, 12:49 PM
LMAO

Still got your hopes up, eh teedubya?

Anyone not thinking there isn't high levels of radiation in the ocean ( or air for that matter near Tokyo) from this accident is delusional, imo. I would think this is a to be expected result. You sound connected to the nuclear power industry which makes you a vested interest.

alnorth
08-20-2011, 01:08 PM
Anyone not thinking there isn't high levels of radiation in the ocean ( or air for that matter near Tokyo) from this accident is delusional, imo. I would think this is a to be expected result. You sound connected to the nuclear power industry which makes you a vested interest.

"high" is a relative term without context. The only context that matters is sick people and body count. For every person you show me who died of radiation exposure, I can show you dozens of dead coal miners. We don't seem to care that much about dead coal miners, but if a handful of people get sick in a nuclear disaster we flip the hell out.

Again, I'm not impressed when someone tells me that eating some kind of newly-found-to-be-bad food makes me twice as likely to have a heart attack, if the odds of a heart attack for me are extremely low to begin with.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-20-2011, 01:12 PM
"high" is a relative term without context. The only context that matters is sick people and body count. For every person you show me who died of radiation exposure, I can show you dozens of dead coal miners. We don't seem to care that much about dead coal miners, but if a handful of people get sick in a nuclear disaster we flip the hell out.

Again, I'm not impressed when someone tells me that eating some kind of newly-found-to-be-bad food makes me twice as likely to have a heart attack, if the odds of a heart attack for me are extremely low to begin with.

You must love to eat Sheet sandwiches too. Go out and eat some plutonium, i'm sure you're immune.

BucEyedPea
08-20-2011, 01:15 PM
"high" is a relative term without context. The only context that matters is sick people and body count. For every person you show me who died of radiation exposure, I can show you dozens of dead coal miners. We don't seem to care that much about dead coal miners, but if a handful of people get sick in a nuclear disaster we flip the hell out.

Again, I'm not impressed when someone tells me that eating some kind of newly-found-to-be-bad food makes me twice as likely to have a heart attack, if the odds of a heart attack for me are extremely low to begin with.

Are people drinking the sea water to get sick, in order for us to know?

I have read radiation was sky high in Tokyo and outside but I don't remember the numbers. Many pregnant women left the area to be safe. I would think some of the damage could take awhile to show anyhow.

Donger
08-20-2011, 01:56 PM
Anyone not thinking there isn't high levels of radiation in the ocean ( or air for that matter near Tokyo) from this accident is delusional, imo. I would think this is a to be expected result. You sound connected to the nuclear power industry which makes you a vested interest.

Well, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The amount of radioactive water that was deliberately released into the Pacific was relatively tiny.

Donger
08-20-2011, 01:56 PM
Are people drinking the sea water to get sick, in order for us to know?

I have read radiation was sky high in Tokyo and outside but I don't remember the numbers. Many pregnant women left the area to be safe. I would think some of the damage could take awhile to show anyhow.

"Sky high" but you don't remember the exact numbers?

LMAO

KILLER_CLOWN
08-20-2011, 02:04 PM
"Sky high" but you don't remember the exact numbers?

LMAO

Mr. Donger, if you could please give us the real numbers so weez can stopz all the conspiracy theorists dead in their tracks.

Donger
08-20-2011, 02:10 PM
Mr. Donger, if you could please give us the real numbers so weez can stopz all the conspiracy theorists dead in their tracks.

It won't matter, but 6400 kBq/m2 was the highest level of caesium-137.

orange
08-21-2011, 12:59 AM
http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/mediarelations/OceanRadiationMap2_en_135993.jpg

The background level of radiation in oceans and seas varies around the globe. Measured in atomic disintegrations per second (Becquerels) of cesium-137 in a cubic meter of water, this variation becomes readily apparent. The primary source of cesium-137 has been nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific Ocean, but some regions have experienced additional inputs. The Irish Sea in 1990 showed elevated levels compared to large ocean basins as a result of radioactive releases from the Sellafield reprocessing facility at Seacastle, U.K. Levels in the Baltic and Black Seas are elevated due to fallout from the 1986 explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor. By comparison, EPA drinking water standard for cesium-137 is 3,700 Bq/m3. (Courtesy Coastal Ocean Institute, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

Last updated: June 27, 2011


Now by my math, 300 x 3 Bq/m3 = 900 Bq/m3. Compared to 3700 Bq/m3 which is considered safe to drink. Knock yourselves out.

p.s. I'm personally sure the resemblance of the abbreviation for radiation to the abbreviation for barbecue is a coincidence, but some of our CPers may want to look into a possible deeper significance.

CoMoChief
08-21-2011, 08:46 AM
"high" is a relative term without context. The only context that matters is sick people and body count. For every person you show me who died of radiation exposure, I can show you dozens of dead coal miners. We don't seem to care that much about dead coal miners, but if a handful of people get sick in a nuclear disaster we flip the hell out.

Again, I'm not impressed when someone tells me that eating some kind of newly-found-to-be-bad food makes me twice as likely to have a heart attack, if the odds of a heart attack for me are extremely low to begin with.

Thousands of civilians don't die because of coal mining.

This is why the general public flips the fuck out.

Donger
08-21-2011, 09:26 AM
Thousands of civilians don't die because of coal mining.

This is why the general public flips the **** out.

Thousands of civilians don't die in nuclear accidents, either.

banyon
08-21-2011, 09:48 AM
Thousands of civilians don't die in nuclear accidents, either.

They don't?

http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary

Depending on the risk factor used (ie the risk of fatal cancer per person sievert), the TORCH Report estimates that the worldwide collective dose of 600,000 person sieverts will result in 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths.

Dave Lane
08-21-2011, 09:55 AM
Thousands of civilians don't die because of coal mining.

This is why the general public flips the **** out.

The general public are idiots that don't understand physics, science or nuclear reactions in general.

Donger
08-21-2011, 09:59 AM
They don't?

http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary

No, they don't.

banyon
08-21-2011, 10:00 AM
No, they don't.

So they faked the cancer death figures?

Donger
08-21-2011, 10:04 AM
So they faked the cancer death figures?

Sort of. Those are future estimates.

From your source:

The immediate health impact of the Chernobyl accident was acute radiation sickness in 237 emergency workers, of whom 28 died in 1986 and a further 19 died between 1987 and 2004. More premature deaths may occur amongst this group.

headsnap
08-21-2011, 10:07 AM
Sort of. Those are future estimates.



EVERYONE from a 1000+ mile radius from Chernobyl(maybe much much more) will eventually die... ISN'T THAT ENOUGH PROOF FOR YOU?!?!?!

banyon
08-21-2011, 10:11 AM
Sort of. Those are future estimates.

From your source:

The immediate health impact of the Chernobyl accident was acute radiation sickness in 237 emergency workers, of whom 28 died in 1986 and a further 19 died between 1987 and 2004. More premature deaths may occur amongst this group.

So they will?

Donger
08-21-2011, 10:14 AM
So they will?

No, they might. Then again, they might just get cancer and die because of other reasons.

banyon
08-21-2011, 10:18 AM
No, they might. Then again, they might just get cancer and die because of other reasons.

So, it's entirely possible that thousands will die from a nuclear accident, then?

Donger
08-21-2011, 10:22 AM
So, it's entirely possible that thousands will die from a nuclear accident, then?

No, I think it is highly unlikely.

If memory serves, something like 20,000 people died from radiation-related illness after Hiroshima. So, I think these estimates are grossly exaggerated.

Dave Lane
08-21-2011, 10:23 AM
EVERYONE from a 1000+ mile radius from Chernobyl(maybe much much more) will eventually die... ISN'T THAT ENOUGH PROOF FOR YOU?!?!?!

OMG you are on to someth8ing!!!!111!!1!111111

Donger
08-21-2011, 10:37 AM
Okay, I had to look it up:

Hiroshima Deaths Due to Radiation Exposure

848 excess solid cancer deaths.
94 excess non-solid cancer deaths.

The other succumbed through other non-cancer/radiation injuries, such as burns.

banyon
08-21-2011, 10:53 AM
Okay, I had to look it up:

Hiroshima Deaths Due to Radiation Exposure

848 excess solid cancer deaths.
94 excess non-solid cancer deaths.

The other succumbed through other non-cancer/radiation injuries, such as burns.

What about the concussive blast wave fatalities?

Donger
08-21-2011, 10:56 AM
What about the concussive blast wave fatalities?

Heat and blast accounted for the vast majority of deaths at Hiroshima.

You are aware that Hiroshima wasn't a "nuclear accident," right? It was very much intentional.

Dave Lane
08-21-2011, 10:57 AM
What about the concussive blast wave fatalities?

I don't think the issue is how many died, I think its how many died of the effects of radiation.

banyon
08-21-2011, 10:58 AM
Heat and blast accounted for the vast majority of deaths at Hiroshima.

You are aware that Hiroshima wasn't a "nuclear accident," right? It was very much intentional.

No, I know your point, I was just curious about the number.

Donger
08-21-2011, 11:07 AM
No, I know your point, I was just curious about the number.

Okay.

banyon
08-21-2011, 11:13 AM
I think nuclear energy should be aggressively promoted, along with natural gas in this country as a set of bridge fuels until we can get renewable energy to shoulder most of the load.

Nuclear is by and large safe, but it can't be a permanent solution because there is no viable proposal out there for what to do with the waste. Until there is, the long term strategy needs to be something different.

That said, nuclear is not as safe of course as the industry marketers and lobbyists make it out to be and as I'm sure Northern Japanese will correct you about.

Donger
08-21-2011, 11:42 AM
I think nuclear energy should be aggressively promoted, along with natural gas in this country as a set of bridge fuels until we can get renewable energy to shoulder most of the load.

Nuclear is by and large safe, but it can't be a permanent solution because there is no viable proposal out there for what to do with the waste. Until there is, the long term strategy needs to be something different.

That said, nuclear is not as safe of course as the industry marketers and lobbyists make it out to be and as I'm sure Northern Japanese will correct you about.

Reprocessing the spent fuel reduces the volume significantly. We don't do that, however, at least not at a macro level.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-21-2011, 01:18 PM
"The Whole World Will Be Exposed From The Radiation From Fukushima"

Physicist Michio Kaku appeared on 60 Minutes (the Australian edition), and said:

* The whole world will be exposed from the radiation from Fukushima.

* [The Japanese people] are guinea pigs, absolute human guinea pigs.

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rr2PmjdpLqM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In fact, radiation experts say that huge quantities of radiation are currently being released by Fukushima.

In addition to direct releases, the Japanese are burning radioactive material, putting much more radioactivity into the air.

Japanese doctors are warning about the dangers of radiation for the Japanese people ... especially kids.

Nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen says that radioactive rain-outs were documented recently in British Columbia and Oklahoma with geiger counters.

And former Nasa photo analyst Michael Rivero - who has been measuring radiation levels in Oahu, Hawaii, every day since the Japanese earthquake - reports the highest radiation readings yet are occurring right now.

Postscript: No, the levels of radiation we're being exposed to are not safe. And see this.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/08/radiation-expert-enormous-quantities-of.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/08/nuclear-expert-because-japanese-are.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/08/201181665921711896.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/08/nuclear-expert-because-japanese-are.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/oahurad.php

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/cumulative-low-level-doses-of-radiation.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/how-to-help-protect-yourself-from-low.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/08/whole-world-will-be-exposed-from.html

Donger
08-21-2011, 01:29 PM
"The Whole World Will Be Exposed From The Radiation From Fukushima"

Physicist Michio Kaku appeared on 60 Minutes (the Australian edition), and said:

* The whole world will be exposed from the radiation from Fukushima.

* [The Japanese people] are guinea pigs, absolute human guinea pigs.

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rr2PmjdpLqM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In fact, radiation experts say that huge quantities of radiation are currently being released by Fukushima.

In addition to direct releases, the Japanese are burning radioactive material, putting much more radioactivity into the air.

Japanese doctors are warning about the dangers of radiation for the Japanese people ... especially kids.

Nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen says that radioactive rain-outs were documented recently in British Columbia and Oklahoma with geiger counters.

And former Nasa photo analyst Michael Rivero - who has been measuring radiation levels in Oahu, Hawaii, every day since the Japanese earthquake - reports the highest radiation readings yet are occurring right now.

Postscript: No, the levels of radiation we're being exposed to are not safe. And see this.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/08/radiation-expert-enormous-quantities-of.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/08/nuclear-expert-because-japanese-are.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/08/201181665921711896.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/08/nuclear-expert-because-japanese-are.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/oahurad.php

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/cumulative-low-level-doses-of-radiation.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/how-to-help-protect-yourself-from-low.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/08/whole-world-will-be-exposed-from.html

LMAO

Pants
08-21-2011, 01:32 PM
http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/mediarelations/OceanRadiationMap2_en_135993.jpg

The background level of radiation in oceans and seas varies around the globe. Measured in atomic disintegrations per second (Becquerels) of cesium-137 in a cubic meter of water, this variation becomes readily apparent. The primary source of cesium-137 has been nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific Ocean, but some regions have experienced additional inputs. The Irish Sea in 1990 showed elevated levels compared to large ocean basins as a result of radioactive releases from the Sellafield reprocessing facility at Seacastle, U.K. Levels in the Baltic and Black Seas are elevated due to fallout from the 1986 explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor. By comparison, EPA drinking water standard for cesium-137 is 3,700 Bq/m3. (Courtesy Coastal Ocean Institute, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

Last updated: June 27, 2011


Now by my math, 300 x 3 Bq/m3 = 900 Bq/m3. Compared to 3700 Bq/m3 which is considered safe to drink. Knock yourselves out.

p.s. I'm personally sure the resemblance of the abbreviation for radiation to the abbreviation for barbecue is a coincidence, but some of our CPers may want to look into a possible deeper significance.

powned