Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fukushima Reactors Update


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Ludwik

Ludwik

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 111 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 12:03 AM

Fukushima reactors update


The accident phase was enden in Fukushima, as described at:

http://tinyurl.com/8yshwhy

But the process of “decommisioning reactors” is expected to take 40 years.

Ludwik Kowalski
.

#2 Under the Rose

Under the Rose

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 182 posts

Posted 28 May 2012 - 12:41 PM

Very little being said in the mainstream media about how life in Japan has been affected since the event of just over a year ago. Meanwhile, there are local effects of the radiation as this picture and article demonstrate.

Posted Image

In this May 21, 2012 photo, Motoharu Tanji of Japan Agricultural Cooperative Association New Fukushima gestures towards bags of rice piled up at a storage facility in Fukushima, northeastern Japan. They are among tens of thousands of bags of rice from last year's harvest that exceeded government safety standards because of radiation released when the March 2011 tsunami set off the world's second-worst nuclear accident and were too radiated to be sold. The government bought those crops, which now sit in giant mounds inside the storage facility. (AP Photo/Yuri Kageyama)

http://www.ajc.com/b...ay-1447906.html

#3 Racoon

Racoon

    Politically Incorrect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3809 posts

Posted 10 August 2013 - 02:28 AM

Posted Image

#4 C1ay

C1ay

    ¿42?

  • Administrators
  • 6488 posts

Posted 10 August 2013 - 10:08 AM

This chart may be useful:

Posted Image

Credit: xkcd.com

#5 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 01:16 AM

Racoon - your image lacks a scale, which I think is rather important. Also, where did it come from? Google Image search and a search of "radioactive seawater impact map (update march 2012) us department of state geographer" did not easily lead me to the original source.

Edited by JMJones0424, 11 August 2013 - 01:16 AM.


#6 C1ay

C1ay

    ¿42?

  • Administrators
  • 6488 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 09:47 AM

Racoon - your image lacks a scale, which I think is rather important. Also, where did it come from? Google Image search and a search of "radioactive seawater impact map (update march 2012) us department of state geographer" did not easily lead me to the original source.

It looks to me like The Liberty Beacon reran the graphic in this article that originated here.

#7 Racoon

Racoon

    Politically Incorrect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3809 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 08:35 PM

Racoon - your image lacks a scale, which I think is rather important. Also, where did it come from? Google Image search and a search of "radioactive seawater impact map (update march 2012) us department of state geographer" did not easily lead me to the original source.



The Scale is pretty obvious. Its called the Pacific Ocean.

And yes, while we are distracted with BS news like Trayvon Martin trial, and Lindsey Lohan's Rehab updates, the Mainstream Media is not reporting anything much about this anymore. The threat is still very serious, and its not going away anytime soon...

The only good news is this happened in Japan, where they have the latest technology and a united culture.
My friend who is studying Japanese was telling me that old senior citizens are quite willing to volunteer to 'go in' and do the 'dirty work' as much as they can to help, realizing they are sacrificing themselves so younger people don't have to expose themselves to harmful radiaiton.

Latest I found was this:

http://enenews.com/r...an-shores-video

Radiation Expert: Enormous amount of contamination flowing from Fukushima will probably imperil entire Pacific Ocean — Threatens other countries, food chain — Absolutely can reach U.S. and Canadian shores (VIDEO)


Youtube Video from Aug. 11 2013


#8 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 14 August 2013 - 09:18 AM

The Scale is pretty obvious. Its called the Pacific Ocean.


If you thought I couldn't recognize the Pacific Ocean, then I am hurt. What I asked for was the scale. Specifically, what is being measured, in what units, and what scale. What is the difference between yellow, red, and no color. Without this, the image is meaningless. Furthermore, since the image appears to be from an official US government source, it would be helpful to actually use that office as the source, rather than some no name new source. I haven't been able to locate any reputable sources for the image, do you have any more information about it or did you just like the colors?

#9 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 14 August 2013 - 09:39 AM

Racoon - your image lacks a scale, which I think is rather important. Also, where did it come from? Google Image search and a search of "radioactive seawater impact map (update march 2012) us department of state geographer" did not easily lead me to the original source.

The Scale is pretty obvious. Its called the Pacific Ocean.

What JM is asking for – and I would have, had I gotten around to posting before him – is not a distance scale, but a radiation scale – what do the different colors represent, in units such as grays (a unit for transferred energy) or sieverts (a unit for the biological effect of ionizing radiation - note that the excellent Radiation Dose Chart by Randall Munroe of XKCD.com that C1ay linked to here gives many examples of radiation doses is sieverts). As with any color-coded chart lacking a scale (or legend relating its colors to a quantity of some standard unit, it’s practically impossible to understand the image linked to in this post, making such images useless at best, deceptive and alarmist at worst.

An image without reference to its original source, especially one, especially one captioned with names that invoke a sense of trustworthiness and authority, such as “US Department of State”, “NOAA”, and “U.S. Navy”, as this one, which, as best I’ve been able to tell, was created for this Examiner.com article, is not only not very useful - It should raise BS alarms in our critical thinking faculties.

The image appears to have been taken from an animation appearing in this self-published short online paper by ASR, a global coastal and marine consulting firm. The purpose of ASR’s page appears to be to demonstrate their ability to model the dispersal of particles suspended in seawater. Their animation is much better, IMHO, than the still image posted in the Examiner page by its anonymous author. They don’t assert that such particles pose a significant risk to health, and in fact admit that they don’t have enough data to quantify the actual concentration or potential radiation dose for them. So there is no absolute scale for this graphic – it is a generic, relative illustration of the spreading of particles in seawater originating from the coast of Fukushima.

It’s wise in “yellow flag” situations like this to consider the sources. Examiner.com is pro-am (“professional amateur”) blog that doesn’t review or guarantee the accuracy of its contributors’ postings, but rather pays these authors based on page traffic, session length, and other web metrics (see this Wikipedia article for more). The page that posted this image ends with the following "suggested by the author article names:

8 main radiation sickness signs (Slideshow); Fukushima man-made catastrophe hitting West Coast is no hoax; Fukushima now radiating everyone: 'Unspeakable' reality; Radiating Americans: Fukushima rain, Clinton's secret food pact; Am women pay high price for Fukushima cover-up: 35% more dead babies

IMO, this is unscientific, alarmist pseudo-journalism. One of these articles, the “35% more dead babies” one, I'm familiar with, and know to be deceptive. It asserts that an increase in US infant mortality rates is due to radiation from the 11 March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, rather than more accepted explanations involving cultural, economic, and health care delivery factors, and obtains it alarming high numbers (35% increase). It appears to obtain this number by cherry picking a small amount of data from a collection of 8 US cities where the number of infant deaths in 4 weeks ending March 19, 2011 was 37, vs. 125 deaths for the 10 weeks ending May 28, 2011.

This is simply bad science, motivated, I think, by US politics. :thumbs_do

The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami was a huge disaster (about 13,000 killed in one day, 16,000 to 18,000 eventually), and the impact on ocean and costal environments from it is not to be discounted. I don’t believe there is a media coverup of this, however, because I don’t believe any credible scientists can speculate with much confidence about this impact. I suspect the impact from invader species crossing the Pacific on debris may be the worst of it, radiation due to particles in seawater, among the least.
  • C1ay and JMJones0424 like this

#10 Racoon

Racoon

    Politically Incorrect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3809 posts

Posted 14 August 2013 - 07:22 PM

If you thought I couldn't recognize the Pacific Ocean, then I am hurt. What I asked for was the scale. Specifically, what is being measured, in what units, and what scale. What is the difference between yellow, red, and no color. Without this, the image is meaningless. Furthermore, since the image appears to be from an official US government source, it would be helpful to actually use that office as the source, rather than some no name new source. I haven't been able to locate any reputable sources for the image, do you have any more information about it or did you just like the colors?



Well buddy, we really don't know what the full Scale really is yet... :o
Try Google Search , Image, and you'll find it with a few other attractive color pictures.

No one can really Color Code it, because you have the vast ocean currents, but lets just assume its WORSE than what you're being told, because it IS.

The radioactivity goes into the plankton, which goes into the fish, which goes into the humans.

It'll be a huge Boon for Cancer Treatment Companies to be sure. And we as Humans look stupid for endangering wonderful Planet Life that evolved here simply for the commercial purposes of Comfort through cheap electricity.

I've heard it's already a complete Meltdown, and it'll be 10 years before they can even get close enough to even start to unravel the mess..
Its already being reported as 3 times worse than Chernobyl, and that radioactive Strontium is off the charts..

If this isn't reason enough to abandon Nuclear Power, than I don't know what is. :unsure:

#11 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 14 August 2013 - 10:42 PM

Well buddy, we really don't know what the full Scale really is yet... :o
Try Google Search , Image, and you'll find it with a few other attractive color pictures.


For now, I'm not interested in what the "full scale" really is. I am interested in the scale of the image you deemed important enough to post without comment. Were I a better man, more diplomatic and eloquent, I'd have written a response similar to the one that CraigD did a few posts ago. As it happens, I'm not. And as you have chosen to respond to me rather than him, I'll continue in my own way.

Until now I've given you the benefit of the doubt. However, I don't think you have a damn clue what that image means. If you did, you wouldn't have treated me with contempt in response to my legitimate request for clarification. If google search, image or otherwise, was so useful in answering my questions, then you'd have offered an answer. I think you posted that image without giving any critical thought whatsoever to its meaning, and you accepted it as fact uncritically simply because it supported your view.

Whether or not I agree with your conclusion, I abhor your methods. You have been deceitful, and continue to be so. You are spreading FUD and as such I find your actions contemptible. You can easily prove me wrong by providing supporting evidence for the veracity of the image you previously posted. What is being measured? What are the units? What is the scale (or legend) in the image you posted? If you cannot answer these simple questions, then you must conclude, as I have, that your image, and any conclusion based upon it, is useless.

EDIT: This is the image I am questioning, http://www.thelibert...diation_map.jpg

Edited by JMJones0424, 14 August 2013 - 11:16 PM.


#12 Racoon

Racoon

    Politically Incorrect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3809 posts

Posted 14 August 2013 - 11:57 PM

Sorry JMJones, you lost me in your absolutism... :huh:

(I just invented a new word! Chomsky vs Vig-whatever) Absolutism <_<

Edited by Racoon, 15 August 2013 - 12:06 AM.


#13 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 15 August 2013 - 12:04 AM

I'm sorry, I thought my questions were clear. In case they weren't, I'll ask another way. What do you suppose your image shows, and what are the measurements that support that conclusion?

#14 Racoon

Racoon

    Politically Incorrect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3809 posts

Posted 15 August 2013 - 12:21 AM

I'm sorry, I thought my questions were clear. In case they weren't, I'll ask another way. What do you suppose your image shows, and what are the measurements that support that conclusion?


The Image shows that the entire Pacific Ocean is in Peril.
Who gives a goddamed rats-*** what I think about some Map!??
The entire Pacific Ocean is in Jeopardy.

Can you believe this guy? :rolleyes:

#15 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 15 August 2013 - 12:24 AM

You have notably avoided my question. I agree that you think the image shows the Pacific is in jeopardy. My question, simply, is what facts do you have to support that assertion? What measurements does the image represent? How is this so hard for you to comprehend?

#16 C1ay

C1ay

    ¿42?

  • Administrators
  • 6488 posts

Posted 15 August 2013 - 07:17 AM

The Image shows that the entire Pacific Ocean is in Peril.

How?

#17 Racoon

Racoon

    Politically Incorrect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3809 posts

Posted 20 August 2013 - 01:37 AM

How?



OK, the Pacific Ocean is Not in Peril... :help:

Nevermind Folks... These are Not the Droids You are looking for.


Jesus H ****ing Christ.