West Coast of North America to Be Hit Hard by Fukushima Radiation

Radiation Levels Will Concentrate in Pockets In Baja California and Other West Coast Locations

An ocean current called the North Pacific Gyre is bringing Japanese radiation to the West Coast of North America:

North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone FDA Refuses to Test Fish for Radioactivity ... Government Pretends Radioactive Fish Is Safe

The leg of the Gyre closest to Japan – the Kuroshio current – begins right next to Fukushima:

Kuroshio Current - Colour show water speed.  Blue slowest; red fastest

While many people assume that the ocean will dilute the Fukushima radiation, a previously-secret 1955 U.S. government report concluded that the ocean may not adequately dilute radiation from nuclear accidents, and there could be “pockets” and “streams” of highly-concentrated radiation.

The University of Hawaii’s International Pacific Research Center created a graphic showing the projected dispersion of debris from Japan:

http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/users/nikolai/2011/Pacific_Islands/Simulation_of_Debris_from_March_11_2011_Japan_tsunami.gif

Last year, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory and 3 scientists from the GEOMAR Research Center for Marine Geosciences showed that radiation on the West Coast of North America could end up being 10 times higher than in Japan:

After 10 years the concentrations become nearly homogeneous over the whole Pacific, with higher values in the east, extending along the North American coast with a maximum (~1 × 10−4) off Baja California. 

***

With caution given to the various idealizations (unknown actual oceanic state during release, unknown release area, no biological effects included, see section 3.4), the following conclusions may be drawn. (i) Dilution due to swift horizontal and vertical dispersion in the vicinity of the energetic Kuroshio regime leads to a rapid decrease of radioactivity levels during the first 2 years, with a decline of near-surface peak concentrations to values around 10 Bq m−3 (based on a total input of 10 PBq). The strong lateral dispersion, related to the vigorous eddy fields in the mid-latitude western Pacific, appears significantly under-estimated in the non-eddying (0.5°) model version. (ii) The subsequent pace of dilution is strongly reduced, owing to the eastward advection of the main tracer cloud towards the much less energetic areas of the central and eastern North Pacific. (iii) The magnitude of additional peak radioactivity should drop to values comparable to the pre-Fukushima levels after 6–9 years (i.e. total peak concentrations would then have declined below twice pre-Fukushima levels). (iv) By then the tracer cloud will span almost the entire North Pacific, with peak concentrations off the North American coast an order-of-magnitude higher than in the western Pacific.

***

(“Order-of-magnitude” is a scientific term which means 10 times higher.  The “Western Pacific” means Japan’s East Coast.)

In May, a team of scientists from Spain, Australia and France concluded that the radioactive cesium would look more like this:
And a team of top Chinese scientists has just published a study in the Science China Earth Sciences journal showing that the radioactive plume crosses the ocean in a nearly straight line toward North America, and that it appears to stay together with little dispersion:

On March 30, 2011, the Japan Central News Agency reported the monitored radioactive pollutions that were 4000 times higher than the standard level. Whether or not these nuclear pollutants will be transported to the Pacific-neighboring countries through oceanic circulations becomes a world-wide concern.

***

The time scale of the nuclear pollutants reaching the west coast of America is 3.2 years if it is estimated using the surface drifting buoys and 3.9 years if it is estimated using the nuclear pollutant particulate tracers.

***

The half life of cesium-137 is so long that it produces more damage to human. Figure 4 gives the examples of the distribution of the impact strength of Cesium-137 at year 1.5 (panel (a)), year 3.5 (panel (b)), and year 4 (panel (c)).

***

It is worth noting that due to the current near the shore cannot be well reconstructed by the global ocean reanalysis, some nuclear pollutant particulate tracers may come to rest in near shore area, which may result in additional uncertainty in the estimation of the impact strength.

***

Since the major transport mechanism of nuclear pollutants for the west coast of America is the Kuroshio-extension currents, after four years, the impact strength of Cesium-137 in the west coast area of America is as high as 4%.

Note: Even low levels of radiation can harm health.

This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Energy / Environment, Politics / World News, Science / Technology. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Ric

    It would be nice to see some kind of prediction or conclusion as to the actual damage these high levels of radiation will do to ocean life and humans.

    • Pat Franczyk

      It kills them with cancer, either thyroid, lung, lymphoma, leukemia or whatever. Dead is dead. Deformities are also fun gifts from the demon gods of nuclear radiation gone amok.

      • David McFarland

        Learn what you’re talking about before making assumptions. Take it from someone trained in nuclear power: This is nothing to worry about. None of what you’ve stated makes any sense at all. You don’t even know what the effects of Cesium-137 are, all you’ve done is buy into stereotypical sensationalism. You probably didn’t even know it was Cs-137 that was of concern. You’ve confused it with radioactive Iodine, which just displays your ignorance for the world to see – except the rest of the world is too ignorant to know the difference as well.

        So, really, learn. For Christ’s sake, you’ve got Google at your fingertips. My bet is that you instead use it for Angry Birds, then browse the web to talk about things, like nuclear power, that you know nothing about.

        You want deformities and radiation? Talk about Coal Power. You’ll see more negative effects from it per Megawatt-Hour than you ever will from Nuclear Power. More people die directly and indirectly from Coal, Solar, or Wind power than ever will from Nuclear Power. Nuclear Power is just so much more “mystical” and “high-tech,” so you fear it.
        You, like so many people, fear that which you know nothing about. Unlike your ancestors, you have no excuse for lack of knowledge other than laziness. You have Google at your fingertips. Use it.

        • http://www.aloryandaneaglet.tumblr.com/ aloryandaneaglet

          why are you saying cesium-137 is the one that is of concern then saying it’s being confused with radioactive iodine? do you know what the effects of cesium-137 are? it goes directly to the bone and muscle tissue and is one of the most dangerous isotopes being released (among many others). the bananas comparison is being made because cesium MIMICS potassium. it isn’t the SAME AS potassium…. it just gets used by the body in the way that potassium would be used which is why it concentrates in the muscles and bones. it causes cancer. period.

          • David McFarland

            The sun causes cancer, too. Far more than what any Americans will see from Fukushima, too.
            Cesium actually more affects the muscles than the bones, and only stays for 70-days (known as a Biological Halftife).
            The Bananas comparison is being made because as much as people are freaking out over all of the contamination from Fukushima, it’s all because of lack of knowledge about it – there are worse things to worry about for Americans than Fukushima.

          • http://www.aloryandaneaglet.tumblr.com/ aloryandaneaglet

            yes, the sun causes cancer and we all have to take precautions to avoid that. sunscreen, hats, long sleeves…. and most of us worry about getting it even with taking precautions. humans didn’t create the sun (which does provide clean energy via solar panels). it’s a far reaching comparison.

            are there worse things for americans to worry about? maybe. you can’t prove to me that it’s not worth worrying about at all.

            cesium 137 spreads throughout the body but CONCENTRATES in the muscle and bones so those types of cancers are more likely to show up. also, regarding the biological half life….. 70 days is long enough to do significant damage. it depends on the amount you are exposed to…. a little bit and it will take longer for the cancer to show up. a lot and you could be dead pretty quick. the 70 days part is only a small portion of the equation. it doesn’t mean that after 70 days everything is fine because it has left your body.

          • David McFarland

            You receive approximately 1mrem from the sun every day. Do you have a basement, or live in a valley? Areas to avoid, as radon will hit you there. That’s your entire life. Have you ever flown in a plane? Then you’ve received more radiation than most Japanese who haven’t flown in their lives.

            I’m not saying that Cesium 137 isn’t harmful in proper doses. I’m saying that Potassium from Bananas is far more of a concern – for Americans. And apparently for the Japanese, too, as they’ve found that the Tuna who spawn near Fukushima contain less contamination than a Banana.
            You speak of radiation and contamination like we know so very little about it and like it can completely and totally surprise us.
            Yes, you can get cancer from a small amount of relatively weak radiation. You could, at the same time, get 100rem of neutrons and be cancer-free and live to be a hundred.
            We’re dealing with probabilities, here. The probability that you’ll die from habitually eating Fukushima-spawning-fish is less than if you habitually ate bananas. It’s a valid comparison. It increases death-probabilities by 2 in 10,000,000.
            Now consider how well the ocean dilutes. “Look at ocean currents” is an invalid argument; atomic particles don’t follow current-lines all that well at all.
            “Look at the Japanese debris!” Also invalid; macroscopic particles (dust, wood, houses) and microscopic particles (cesium 137 and other fission products of concern) do not act the same.

          • http://www.aloryandaneaglet.tumblr.com/ aloryandaneaglet

            “You speak of radiation and contamination like we know so very little
            about it and like it can completely and totally surprise us.” – that might be your interpretation but no.

    • jadan

      We’re in the land of Neverbefore, Ric. There’s no prediction possible, just educated guessing at best. Nothing like this has ever happened before. Chernobyl, you say? That’s not over. Best guesses regarding deaths, in retrospect, 1 million+. The death and disease toll is ongoing. Fukushima is much worse. In the first year we know that 40% of children in the area had thyroid issues. That was before the official coverup was in place. We don’t know what damage these ongoing radiological emissions will do. Because we can’t make accurate predictions, we can’t make an appropriate response. Therefore, the world does nothing.

      • SuSu2

        You are correct, Chernobyl isn’t over. I have a friend living in TX who is a “Chernobyl baby”. She was just diagnosed and is being treated for thyroid cancer. They directly relate it to her exposure as a child, now some 27 years later. History will teach us nothing :(

    • Heretic2011

      Total.

    • RandomRambler
  • jo6pac

    I guess the goal is if global warming doesn’t kill us on the left coast then the hot water will. I need to get over to Monterey Bay one more time to stick my feet in the water.
    I did buy about 325lbs of salmon last yr at the end of the Fort Bragg season and when it runs out oh well. Please remember Tuna swim right through this water in Japan and pretty much stay in the plume on the way back to the left coast.
    Killing the little blue sphere hurling through space one cut at a time.

    • Tonto

      Doesn’t the Pacific Ocean seem small today given these charts…

      “Killing the little blue sphere hurling through space one cut at a time.”

      These cuts are being made by immoral scientific plunderous adventure. There’s no one else to blame except those scientists who delivered this (and every other) technology to our race of beings so totally ill-equipped by our human nature to handle these technologies. We are not gods.

      Bring the man who is responsible enough to possess a nuclear bomb before me. Let me interrogate him. I do not believe there is truly such a man anywhere on the planet.

      The problem that exists today is not Fukushima.

      The problem today is, the world is saddled with another feeble Enlightenment notion concerning the equality of every man. That’s a laughable farce. The prospect of universal suffrage seems enchanting, but it leaves every man unable to act to stop the miasma that allows this scientific devilishness to continue even as we watch our planet being destroyed by these same scientific devils.

      These scientists, and their political and financial enablers are criminals. They should be hunted down like rabid dogs and stoned to death for the threat to humanity they really are.

      And you, Jo6pac, you apparently are resigned to wait out your 325 pounds of salmon, before the crisis escalates personally for you -like so may other people dumbed down by a society that lives in a dream world of a supposed “civilization”.

      In light of recent events, and having read enough of Ted Kaczynski’s Manifesto (years ago) to understand his paranoia was founded in our infinitely complex reality, a reality he understood much better than most the people on the planet… He weighed the possibility of saving the planet by peaceful means, and he ruled that potential out.

      In other words, what Tec Kaczynski surmised is that it’s either war against these evil scientific devils, or it’s the end of the world. And in light of our recent history, we ALL have to wonder who is more the nutcase, someone like the Ted Kaczynski who fought a war against science, or people like John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have used this science to kill many millions of people worldwide, and to poison billions more, just to continue holding onto power a little while longer.

      I want Ted Kaczynski released from prison so he can go on the lecture tour and tell the world what he knows. Ted Kaczynski predicted exactly what is going on today, long before any of us was aware of just how severe the problem really is.

      • Hooklocal

        Beautiful!!! It is a sad reality that we are all faced with today that complete psychopaths control “our” planet. they never asked permission to destroy our home. One by one, they are systematically destroying our oceans, food, air…and home. Are you ready???

        • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mount-Shasta-Energy-Services/305074483863?ref=ts&fref=ts shastatodd

          yet, how many of us are willing to reduce our energy consumption by even 10% (let alone the 90% necessary) to mitigate the need for nuclear power?

          • chubbawang

            The fact that you want average citizens to bare the burden of counteracting a problem perpetrated primarily by large industry and government organizations is just silly. Fight the real enemy instead of guilting normal minimal contributors who use comparatively minuscule amounts of energy for base needs.

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mount-Shasta-Energy-Services/305074483863?ref=ts&fref=ts shastatodd

            oh, so the drug dealers (energy providers) are responsible for our addictions (energy consumption). sorry, im about walking the talk and being the change i wish to see in the world. blaming ‘them’ never changed anything,

          • Terri

            You can make small changes and that is great but this is BIG and is about big companies making big profits it our expense. It will take big action to shift away from nuclear energy. Even as these problems arise, they are still tying to open more reactors even in Japan as the others are getting worse.

          • David McFarland

            That’s because overall, nuclear reactors are the safest per kw/hr. They cause the fewest deaths of any source of power, including wind and solar. They still contaminate the earth less than Coal power, which spews uranium out their stacks. The only thing Nuclear Power emits is water vapor, until you get to a nuclear disaster like this one.
            Even then, people are freaking about the RADIATION and then forgetting that it’s actually not all that much unless you’re actually AT the Fukushima plants themselves.

            It’d be like freaking out about FLOODING when all you’ve got is a nice, light mist for your rain.

            And they’re trying to open more reactors in Japan because not doing so is KILLING PEOPLE.
            Yes, all of the anti-nuclear activists are KILLING PEOPLE.

            Japanese summers are brutal. Between mold spores (it’s humid here) and the hot-summers themselves (this past summer we had multiple days with a heat index of 120F), Air Conditioning and dehumidifiers are quite literally life-savers. What they realized during the summer of 2011 is that they NEEDED the nuclear power plants to support the electrical grid, or they wouldn’t have enough power to KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE.

            Way to go, Anti-nuclear activists. You’re all killing people by freaking out. (Also, the extreme attention focused on Fukushima and not the rest of Japan during the Earthquake also resulted in numerous deaths due to negligence.)
            Would you rather have people contaminated by as much contamination as you might get with a banana, or would you rather people DIE?

            New nuclear power plants, though? Great! New ones are considerably safer, too. To the point that you might even say “can’t melt-down.” If they look more into Thorium reactors, those CAN’T melt-down.

            Note how TMI, the Fukushima plants, and Chernobyl were all built in the ’50s. That’s like trying to compare a room-sized computer of the ’50s to a giant modern gaming server with how much the technology has grown.

          • Deva O’Donnell

            “That’s because overall, nuclear reactors are the safest per kw/hr. ”

            Absolute rubbish. They may not pollute as much continually, but a single disaster such as this is worse than all of the oil spills and air pollution combined. Wind and sun on the other hand…

          • David McFarland

            Actually, your statement is absolute rubbish.

            You want to look at the effects?
            How many animals died in the effects of Fukushima? None. They died of starvation from people freaking out and leaving and not feeding them. Plants killed? If they drowned while dumping water.
            People? ZERO.
            Environmental effects? A grand whopping NOTHING from the radiation. If you eat an 100kg of Tuna that spawned near Fukushima, you will have a similar amount of contamination and cell damage as FIVE BANANAS.
            Yes, Bananas will hurt irradiate you more than a Fukushima Tuna Steak.

            Funny what you can learn when you educate yourself.

            Now, let’s look at the effects of everything else in your rubbish claim.

            An Wind and Solar Power still kill more per kw/hr than Nuclear.
            Wind is hardly cost effective in most areas and many places are simply abandoning wind-farms after destroying the environment (Nuclear Power Plants, being protected sites, are actually notorious for helping the environment by allowing endangered water-based and swamp-based species using their cooling-pools as environments, as the cooling-pools are separated by several systems from contamination and so can in no way harm the animals. For instance, the remaining ~100 American Crocodiles, apart from those in zoos, all live in cooling-water channels of Florida Nuclear Power Plants.)

            You said oil spills, which makes this even more funny to me.
            Oil spills directly kill THOUSANDS of animals and completely and totally disrupt environments.

            What did Fukushima do? Freaked people out. That was actually the greatest toll on anything – the fear of danger was actually far greater than the danger itself – people and animals died through people’s lack of education at an infinitely (when you compare anything to 0, the rate is always infinity) higher rate than the reactor plants themselves.
            Anti-Nuclear Activists, therefore, killed more people than the Power Plants at Fukushima did.

            Lets go back to Tuna again. Guess which source of electricity is harming you more via that Tuna, a once-in-thirty-years nuclear meltdown, or continuous operation of Coal Power? If you guessed Coal Power, you win! Mercury present in the Tuna presents more a health risk than the Cs-137 from Fukushima.

            Source: I’m a nuclear operator. Living in Japan. Who was present, with radiac, in the Tokyo Bay area at the time.

            P.S. Thank you for the humor. That was funny to laugh at.

          • Jakobi

            So what’s up with the variety of dead animals that are washing ashore on the West Coast of the US?

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305560/Radiation-Japans-nuclear-disaster-blame-hundreds-malnourished-seals-washed-California.html

            I’m all about critical thinking, and I’d love to believe you, but it sounds like you are biased due to the fact that you work with reactors; it’s your job. Of course you wouldn’t talk them down.

            And you’re comparing apples and oranges, or I mean, bananas and radioactive nucleotides. Do you think getting a particle of plutonium lodged in your system is in any way comparable to what’s in a banana? I’m not trying to be argumentative, but you made some bold claims. I would honestly love for you to be right!

            Also, there is a plethora of ‘free’ energy devices which would power our world no problem; some have been suppressed for a hundred years- Tesla was defunded and his life was made a ruin, apparently by Edison

          • David McFarland

            A single particle of plutonium? Wow. That was actually an incredibly chosen one, considering the odds of so very little plutonium actually doing anything to you are slim due to it’s half-life. Odds are that it’ll decay long after you’re dead.
            And when it does decay, you’re only getting very tiny amount of radiation.

            In this regard, yes, I’d say the K-40 in a banana – or yourself, as you sit right now, is more harmful.

            I know it seems odd to think about it, but the weight of subatomic particles does matter. A valid comparison is to think of contamination as dust – because that’s often how it does present itself, is dust.
            Now, you’ve got your really light elements. Carbon and the like. They can travel globally. Cesium, considerably heavier, can typically travel around a country, given favorable wind conditions.
            Now, your heavy elements like plutonium and uranium – they’re lucky to make it out of the Reactor Compartment. In Chernobyl, they had a great deal of help. The Reactor Vessels’ Closure Head it self blew sky-high, along with a great deal of fuel.
            Now, with Fukushima, what we saw was vents being opened and smaller hydrogen explosions – basically, neutrons were breaking apart water (Radiolytic Decomposition), and without a sufficient gamma flux (which would be present during reactor operation) or chemicals added, the hydrogen did not have enough energy to recombine with the oxygen. When the two were released into the atmosphere in the manner in which they were, they created smaller “explosions.” This did not release a great deal of heavier elements. Those that would have been released would likely have remained within the Exclusion Zone.
            Here’s where the kicker is: Coal Plants. Chinese, in particular. They don’t have good filters, and so they’re spewing out tons of carbon. Their heavier elements, like uranium, get thrown into the air on a regular basis. Some even hitch rides with lighter elements to go further.

            “Malnurished Seals?” Really? The fish in Fukushima are fine – thriving, actually, due to lack of fishermen since no one will buy their product – the Tuna, a predatory fish (i.e. they will concentrate the contamination in their bodies from smaller fish and will exhibit higher levels than their prey, same reason why you shouldn’t eat swordfish or shark, because of mercury concentration), are showing considerably low contamination levels. 15 becquerels worth per 100kg of tuna-steak. That’s the same, in 100kg, as a singular banana. Do the math for accounting for biological half-life (different than actual half-life) and energy levels, that amounts to 20kg of tuna (still, 20 tuna steaks) to equal a singular banana.
            The mercury from Chinese coal plants is a bigger issue.

            You’re relying on Marine Mammal Experts and Reporters to talk about Nuclear Power and the effects of radiation on the body.
            You might as well walk into a kindergarten class and ask.

            What’s causing it? No clue, but if the effect were to happen, it wouldn’t happen now. Not years later. That makes no sense. A great deal of the elements are gone and better dispersed, so it happens when there is less? That makes no sense.

            Tesla’s free energy devices still required a power source. Just no power lines.

          • Christine

            David thank you for your post it is the most intelligent and logical breakdown I can find and support. My concern is the stress that our media and catastrophe centered posting is creating. We just returned from a family vacation in Hawaii and swam with beautiful fish and turtles hugged my parents danced at luau and ate fish exercised and slept well every day. If people would get out of their computer chairs and actually learned about the environment and enjoyed it their cancer rates would plummet! :) ps I do love banana’s though darn!

          • David McFarland

            Heh, thanks.
            My entire point with the bananas is that we all know they are fine, but people are freaking out about equivalent levels of contamination because they simply don’t know better.

            Here’s a fun little infographic I’ve been sharing.
            xkcd.com/radiation

          • Peter Antonocci

            checked the link…thanks for that knowledge! still…300 tons of radioactive (yes, HOW radioactive?) water a day ? cannot be not bad!

          • David McFarland

            Hint, all water is radioactive. Almost everything is. 300 tons of radioactive water are cycling through the core, not being leaked.

            And yes, it can very easily be not bad. Water is a wonderful shield, and dilutes contamination very easily. Water also does not stay radioactive for long. It’s the contamination in it that does – and to my knowledge, much of what’s left is tritium, not cesium.

          • Al Boek

            OMG! DAVE said…
            “All water is radioactive.” Dave, the fish in that water and the birds are now dying in that water. That’s the little problem you want to ignore. Sir, thanks for your comments and experience but you are jaded beyond repair.

          • Al Boek

            How radioactive. You feel the effects just working around the tanks in full gear in one work shift.

          • Al Boek

            So you take one trip to Hawaii and now your called an environmentist? Good.
            Glad you could make it over there when you did. Write me back next year and share you vacation plans for Hawaii. Aloha

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mount-Shasta-Energy-Services/305074483863?ref=ts&fref=ts shastatodd

            “Also, there is a plethora of ‘free’ energy devices which would power our world no problem;”

            lol

          • Jakobi

            So what’s up with the variety of dead animals that are washing ashore on the West Coast of the US?

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305560/Radiation-Japans-nuclear-disaster-blame-hundreds-malnourished-seals-washed-California.html

            I’m all about critical thinking, and I’d love to believe you, but it sounds like you are biased due to the fact that you work with reactors; it’s your job. Of course you wouldn’t talk them down.

            And you’re comparing apples and oranges, or I mean, bananas and radioactive nucleotides. Do you think getting a particle of plutonium lodged in your system is in any way comparable to what’s in a banana? I’m not trying to be argumentative, but you made some bold claims. I would honestly love for you to be right!

            Also, there is a plethora of ‘free’ energy devices which would power our world no problem; some have been suppressed for a hundred years- Tesla was defunded and his life was made a ruin, apparently by Edison

          • Jakobi

            And are you telling me this is not a danger? All the experts seem to think so:

            “In November, Tepco plans to begin the delicate operation of removing spent fuel from Reactor No. 4 [with] radiation equivalent to 14,000 times the amount released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb”

            How is this ^^^ nothing to worry about? I’d like to see your sugar coating:)
            If even two fuel rods touch each other, apparently that could set off the whole thing, spewing more radiation than we’ve seen at once, ever.

          • David McFarland

            Not saying I trust TEPCO to do anything intelligently, because my department’s been critiquing them since this all started, but it’s rather simple and it boils down to three things.
            1) Radiation is short ranged in the atmosphere.
            2) It very much depends on what kind of radiation.
            3) Remove one at a time. (I also don’t buy the “two fuel rods touch each other” bit for a second… just… nuclear physics just really doesn’t work that way, but there are other reasons to only move one at a time. I’d really like to see your sources on that.)
            4) Borate the ever living hell out of that water. Boron absorbs neutrons and prevents the reaction from occuring.
            “Radiation is short ranged? No it’s not!” Yes it is. If you don’t know the difference between Contamination and Radiation, learn it quickly, it’s the most important bit of information you can have in this conversation. Consider learning the difference between contamination and radiation like grade school. You aren’t going to learn anything of value in a conversation like this without that baseline knowledge. Within the Earth’s atmosphere, radiation is short ranged. Alphas and betas are rapidly de-ionzed. Neutrons lose energy, and gammas… well gammas aren’t as short-ranged but don’t interact as heavily anyway, and even then over the course of a few miles they dissipate as well.

            Nuclear Physics. Fun stuff.

            “14,000 times the amount released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb.” Wow, really? That’s impressive, considering that it’s again, physically impossible. Slow your roll and think about this for a second:
            1) A nuclear bomb only works because all of it’s fissions happen at once. There is little to no shielding, and little to no poison (“poison” being a term we nuclear-peeps use to say something can absorb enough neutrons to slow down a nuclear reaction). It does everything at once.
            2) Those fuel rods are not doing that. At all. Their reactions are incredibly slow. That’s pretty much physically impossible.
            3) Removing them from the water will actually slow their reactions down further. Water actually assists them to happen – it also just so happens that water is a wonderful shield and that’s why they get put in there, with enough poison around them to keep them under control.

            Seriously, stop listening to sensationalist, undereducated media.

          • David McFarland

            Not saying I trust TEPCO to do anything intelligently, because my department’s been critiquing them since this all started, but it’s rather simple and it boils down to three things.
            1) Radiation is short ranged in the atmosphere.
            2) It very much depends on what kind of radiation.
            3) Remove one at a time. (I also don’t buy the “two fuel rods touch each other” bit for a second… just… nuclear physics just really doesn’t work that way, but there are other reasons to only move one at a time. I’d really like to see your sources on that.)
            4) Borate the ever living hell out of that water. Boron absorbs neutrons and prevents the reaction from occuring.
            “Radiation is short ranged? No it’s not!” Yes it is. If you don’t know the difference between Contamination and Radiation, learn it quickly, it’s the most important bit of information you can have in this conversation. Consider learning the difference between contamination and radiation like grade school. You aren’t going to learn anything of value in a conversation like this without that baseline knowledge. Within the Earth’s atmosphere, radiation is short ranged. Alphas and betas are rapidly de-ionzed. Neutrons lose energy, and gammas… well gammas aren’t as short-ranged but don’t interact as heavily anyway, and even then over the course of a few miles they dissipate as well.

            Nuclear Physics. Fun stuff.

            “14,000 times the amount released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb.” Wow, really? That’s impressive, considering that it’s again, physically impossible. Slow your roll and think about this for a second:
            1) A nuclear bomb only works because all of it’s fissions happen at once. There is little to no shielding, and little to no poison (“poison” being a term we nuclear-peeps use to say something can absorb enough neutrons to slow down a nuclear reaction). It does everything at once.
            2) Those fuel rods are not doing that. At all. Their reactions are incredibly slow. That’s pretty much physically impossible.
            3) Removing them from the water will actually slow their reactions down further. Water actually assists them to happen – it also just so happens that water is a wonderful shield and that’s why they get put in there, with enough poison around them to keep them under control.

            Seriously, stop listening to sensationalist, undereducated media.

          • Fullblad

            Sounds much like the Pentagon’s new manual stating nuclear weapons of no more than six times the power of the Hiroshima bomb are now considered safe to use around civilian populations not immediately in the blast zone. Someone has fed you a line in the schooling you undertook, or have you not considered that this could be a possibility? Yes we live in a universe that has all kinds of radioactive particles hurtling around with nothing we can do about it except go around wearing lead underwear, (depleated uranium I believe) but we don’t have to like it if it causes one of our children to have Downs Syndrone or causes cancer in someone we love who is predisposed for such an event. So why go out of our way to possible make things worse when we should be moving at this stage of developement to ultimately safer methods?

          • Fullblad

            Personnally I like the idea of thermal heat to create steam to drive turbines. It does away with messy meltdowns and all the ill health effects of radiation on living animals….even depleted uranium munitions are showing surprising side effects scientist were not expecting. Your arguments though well thought out don’t stand up to the destruction caused, and you and I both know it. How long is it before the good people of Chernobyl get to go home? All this is totally unnecessary with other less lethal and environmentally safer forms of electrical power production methods. You are blowing smoke my friend….or are you volunteering to work on site a reactor four?

          • David McFarland

            If you’re worrying about the radiation levels involved in Fukushima and you live outside of Sendai, then you’ve got a lot more to worry about. Like bananas, flying in planes, et cetera. Those who stayed in Tokyo, following Fukushima, received a dose of 40microSieverts, or 4mrem, over the course of the several weeks until rains washed everything of consideration away.
            Those who fled to America by way of plane received 7mrem (70microSieverts) more than what they would have by simply being that much closer to the sun.

            The “destruction caused?” More destruction was done by worrying about Fukushima than Fukushima did itself. The “destruction,” caused by Fukushima was a lack of power and harming infrastructure and a forced evacuation of the area. Worrying about nuclear power, Japan then shut down their remaining nuclear plants, only to realize they didn’t have enough energy to power A/C to keep people from dying from Heat Exhaustion and mold spores. Which people did. That worry has an infinitely higher death toll than Fukushima, since when you compare anything to 0, the math gets rather staggering. Fukushima irradiated two men enough to give them a considerable risk of cancer. Eating the fish from Fukushima will still net you less radiation than a banana.

            “Even small levels of radiation can be harmful to health.” Like I said, if that’s what you’re worrying about, you should be lobbying again Coal far more than Nuclear power, as well as planes, banana plantations, concrete buildings, any towns located in valleys or high up on mountains, and any form of medical X-Ray or CAT Scan, et cetera.

            I did, in fact, volunteer to help out at Fukushima, or at least in disaster areas which caused far more damage than the plant. I pretty much raised my hand and said “Anything.” However, my work on my own reactor was considered to be “too essential,” to allow me to leave.

            “Safer forms of electrical production methods.” Fun fact: Nuclear Power STILL has the fewest number of deaths per kw/h. Are there going to be cancers caused by Fukushima? Yes. There will be. We don’t know how many. It’s still safer than Coal.

            As for Chernobyl? While I wouldn’t go near the plant, I’d still take my chances at Pripyat than I would trying to breath in China right now. Heck, their pollution reaches us in Japan and gives US breathing problems if the wind is right.

            And I actually can’t show my wife what I do at work – not for radiation concerns, though. It’s the fact that our stuff is all labeled “Confidential.” The only issues involving radiation with her are related to others not wanting to do the paperwork involved with issuing her Dosimetry necessary to go into the plant to prove she isn’t getting anything. Essentially: She doesn’t have a need to go see it, so she can’t. Otherwise I’d be more than happy to let my wife go down and see what I do at work. For the most part, we actually get less radiation than those working on our flight-deck because we’re behind so many layers of steel and below the waterline, so we get shielding from both the sun and our reactor.

            As several studies show, not all radiation is GOING TO BE harmful.
            The best way to say it is, “You don’t know which packet of radiation is going to give you that cancer.” That’s why it’s so hard to determine. You could be a uranium miner and you might not get cancer from the radon or uranium, it could just be from the sun as you drive home from work.
            Heck, they injected a guy with a considerable amount of plutonium (after misdiagnosing an ulcer as terminal cancer) just to see what would happen. He died decades later of heart disease.

            You need not lecture a Radiation Worker on the effects of radiation. It’s a bit silly.

          • Fullblad

            David, Further down your posts, and after reading them, you will see my reply giving you the benefit of the doubt. I still like the idea of geo thermal over nuclear. My initial reaction is from a documentary on Fukushima where workers and the reporter were only allowed into the contaminated area for certain time lengths to keep exposure within limits. On further research your analysis of the current situation falls within the consensus. The real danger, and science says there is real danger of 85 times the cesium released as was at Chernobyl, is with the removal of the fuel rods. These events are the reason the public rightly distrusts nuclear energy power production, which is heavily subsidized by that public. Your industry has screwed up royally in constructing such plants to begin with and to turn around and say we have got it right now is too rich. It is my belief that other less potentially lethal sources of energy production should now be the future focus. Nuclear has had it’s kick at the can and has failed to provide incident free power which is the bottom line that must be, and was assured.

          • David McFarland

            “Limits” are rather deceptive. To the public this often means “beyond this point, bad things will happen.” In the nuclear industry, when it comes to radiation limits, it means, “If things get hundreds or thousands of times worse, something bad might happen.” The nuclear industry is the pinnacle of caution – at least in America. We regularly give off the “OMG WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE,” vibe for matters as simple as not properly documenting something having entered a radiation area, being enclosed the entire time, and leaving it without a chance of actually being contaminated, and a number of things that, were you exposed to the entire scenario and context, would consider ridiculous.

            “My” industry (The American NRC is far more credible (and overzealous with controls) than what the Japanese had prior to Fukushima, so I find it hard to group me with TEPCO) screwed up decades ago, and are presently involved in fixing themselves.

            “Has failed to provide incident free power,” That describes every power source. Ever. It’s just that Nuclear Power is perhaps the most new source and the one people know the least about. Were everyone as knowledgeable as the people I work with, most would be like, “Meh, we should definitely clean that up,” but beyond that freak out very little.
            Fukushima still does less to the environment, radiation alone, than Coal does on an annual basis – 10000 times. But you don’t see people freaking out about coal like you do Fukushima. I’d call what Coal does “an incident.”
            Were coal plants put under the same restrictions about irradiating the environment as nuclear power, most would shut down globally. Coal plants just have their seats as lobbyists firmly cemented in politics.

            “85 times the cesium released at Chernobyl.” I’d like to see that source. Yes, there will be dangers.
            But much of the sources I’ve seen regarding the dangers around it just don’t add up. The math doesn’t work out, and the physics – the very physics I’ve spent years learning – don’t exactly support all of the claims I’ve heard. Now, if a Nuclear Engineer comes along and tells me I’m wrong and why, sure, I’ll buy it, but run-of-the-mill know-nothing news agencies? Oh hell no.

            I’ll be the first to admit we need to upgrade or shut down the old plants, and kick companies who don’t regulate properly. To take the load, though, we still need those new plants up and running.

          • Fullblad

            David, You must be a busy guy fielding all these questions. I appreciate very much your taking the time and sharing your knowledge.

            “Limits” I believe are designed with a lifetime of exposure from all sources in mind and so should be conservative.

            The nuclear industry is international in scope, as are the results in a catastrophe. It behoves the industry to police all plants worldwide.

            Let’s drop the coal comparison; we all know coal is a very bad idea.

            Nuclear incidents of escaping radiation, the worst being Chernobyl, and the current Fukushima event are not just an “oops” with any number of excuses like poor design or old facility. They are a bad idea come to life.

            The up to 85 times the cesium release figure comes from the U.N. body that oversees nuclear use.

            Agreed old plants or unsafe locallities, or any number of other potential problems that could lead to failure require affected plants to be de commissioned asap.

            What are your thoughts on geo thermal? Basically using the earth’s natural nuclear heat energy to generate electricity?

          • David McFarland

            The industry does it’s best to assist others (i.e. the USS Ronald Reagan spent a great deal of time off of Fukushima, and the USS George Washington did what they could), but there is only so much that can be policed, and too much policing can also be a hindrance. You can’t exactly get your hands in everyone’s pockets. While it does indeed behoove the industry to ensure nothing like this happens, accidents do happen, and quite admittedly, baring a 9.1 Earthquake/Tsunami combo, the Fukushima Daichi plants were very safe. They had redundant systems. The operators were professional, knowledgable, and willing to do whatever it took.
            The problem was that they got a handed the absolute worst-case scenario.
            The reactor design was not as sound as it could have been – but it was fairly sound. It took two absolutely catastrophic disasters that the Biblical Wrath of God would have been proud of to point out ONE single design flaw – their exhaust/intakes for their diesels were too low. The plant itself, by and large, actually stood up to the disaster, which is remarkable. Structurally speaking it was fine.
            That being said, I still vouch that any non-mobile reactor needs powerless decay heat systems. I said it before Fukushima, and I’ll continue saying it after. Some reactors, and many new ones, are actually designed with this in mind or as a core part of their function.

            Geothermal? I formed and opinion on it years ago while in training. I used to be all for it as well, but then realized it wasn’t a viable widespread power source. I just can’t remember why I came to that conclusion
            If I had my say in restructuring the entire US Electric Grid (and a few more years for some technologies to come to fruition), every small town (and hospital) would have their own small thorium reactor, every city and large manufacturing area would have their own larger reactor of various types, and every home would have solar panels or a wind-generator; most large business buildings would be coated in solar panels.

          • Fullblad

            David, Sorry, excuses don’t cut it. Who would have thought the gun was loaded,sorry, or who would have thought a major earthquake in a geo active area would result in a major tsunami, sorry. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
            However, your thoughts on a re design of power generation are interesting. I’ll have to have a look at the science around thorium as a fuel. Thanks again for your posts and good luck for everyone’s sake.

          • Al Boek

            David said, “The reactor design was not as sound as it could have been – but it was fairly sound.”
            ______________________
            Like saying my sister got almost pregnant.

          • Al Boek

          • Al Boek
          • Al Boek

            People on this thread…Please watch this. Check out what he has to say about Seattle. Blessings

          • Al Boek

          • Al Boek

            Fullblad, honest to God, I’ve known that fact for over 3 decades. My thermal hot water heating systems have been operational now over thirty years, not one death, not one meltdown, not one ounce of radiation and not one spill. That is the REAL truth._greenearl

          • Fullblad

            Al, I am by no means an engineer, but it seems a no brainer to use the natural heat of the earth’s core (produced by radioactive elements) to produce electricity, or as you have done, heat your home. Does your system also supply hot water?

            The General Electric designed plant at Fukushima main design feature is for the easier production of weapons grade fissionable material and is considered a “light weight” reactor within the industry. What was once thought was going to be the energy answer has turned into a radioactive curse and not just for Japan. The Japanese have been sold a multiple of sleeping atomic weapons waiting to escape. It’s too bad the Japanese didn’t pursue geo thermal science for development. Instead they took the quick fix of buying American nuclear technologies ill suited to their geo active islands, probably as some form of reciprocity for receiving development loans.

            The earth has all the nuclear power it needs naturally within it’s core and as transformed radiating from the sun, all we have to do is acqiure the science on how best to use these abundant resources. The money grubbing of the nuclear industry has gotten in the way and put life at peril to those ends it seems.

          • Al Boek

            Yes, my systems all produce hot water. Really, when you think about it…if I supply you with 120 gal or 240 gals of 170 degree hot water, (almost steam) we actually have to put mixing values on the system to mix cold water back in, you can’t really use water that hot safely. We put pressure release values on the system so they don’t pressure up and blow up at your house. We put temp gauges on so you can see what the system is doing. We put gate values on the system so we can bi-pass the house in case of a leak in the system. We address the winter conditions and add proper freeze protection. Normally we tie the mounting hardwared into the truse system of the house to insure the collectors don’t blow off and kill someone. What you end up with is one or two tanks (I like to call them batteries) because really what you end up with is stored energy in insulated tanks to reduce overnight heat losses. What I realize now after this disaster is I have more safety features built into my system than DAVE and his buddies built into theirs._greenearl

          • David McFarland

            First off, never said I liked BWRs that the Fukushima plants used, and you have no idea what safety systems are built into the reactor plants I favor. Many of the ones I’d advocate over even the ones I operate don’t even need emergency diesel generators.

          • Al Boek

            Dave: I’m sorry for your position defending something it sounds like you’ve
            made a career of. No one could even begin to consider a disaster like this.
            But, building this plant right on the ocean on an Island known for it’s history of earthquakes and tusinamis was asking for trouble. I’ve heard, if they could
            stop it all today, we’re looking at a 40 year to 100 year cleanup. Man, it hardly
            seems worth it all. Sadly, it’s far from over.

          • David McFarland

            I’ve far from made a career of it, I’m using it as a stepping zone and plan on leaving the nuclear industry.

            I will fully agree that old plants need to be decommissioned, but we need new ones to replace them. Nuclear power is still extremely viable and the newer plants are leaps and bounds different from the ones we keep hearing about – TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, build decades upon decades ago.

            That Fukushima lasted as well as it did against a combination of an earthquake far stronger than it was intended to, and an tsunami to boot, is a testament the the technology we had then, and it’d be foolish to believe our modern technology isn’t better.

          • wade

            You had me until you said that wind and solar are killers. Unless your talking about bees landing on hot glass, or birds flying into turbines?

          • David McFarland

            By comparison to nuclear, they’re killers. They’re more dangerous to operate on; they have more deaths per kw/h. But no one cares about those maintaining them, now, do they? No one cares when a maintenance man falls from a wind turbine – or when dozens do over the course of a year, but when one man dies ever decade or so from a nuclear power plant, people flip.

          • http://bahaseedofdavid.blog.com/ Faye Brown

            David McFarland … From what I’ve read , reactors were built with a facility life expectancy of only 50 years .. And with no real plan of maintenance … either some one expected the world to have ended by now .. or planned failing reactors as part of a genocide project

          • David McFarland

            I hardly see reactors as being a part of a “genocide project.” It’d be remarkably stupid, seeing as Fukushima has only guaranteed two men their deaths.

            I do agree old reactors should be shut down,but they should be replaced with new ones.
            It does us no good if we go from gas-powered cars and paper towels to electric cars and electric-hand dryers if those things are powered by fossil fuels.

            They do, however, have an extensive maintenance plan. Preventative Maintenance is a part of a nuclear operator’s daily life. It’s always going on.
            Civilian reactors are also refueled and inspected heavily rather frequently.

          • Al Boek

            DAVE MCFARLAND SAID>>>>>>
            “I hardly see reactors as being a part of a “genocide project.” It’d be remarkably stupid, seeing as Fukushima has only guaranteed two men their deaths.”

            ______________________

            OH MY GOD! David, where are you getting YOUR news, there have been studies performed that cite dealths of Americans alone at 1.3 million over the next ten years or so. Turn off friggen Fox News buddy, wake up and smell the cover-up._greenearl

          • Al Boek

            This Nuke power industry pays folks like this fool above to put out positive misinformation about the industry, much more so now that this disaster has happened. Don’t be fooled. You are screwed and it’s misinformed sob like this guy that helped make it happen._greenearl No one ever was killed in my 30 years of solar experience.

          • David McFarland

            Woah, woah, woah, you mean I could get PAID for telling the truth about nuclear power? Where do I sign up?

            I find it hard for me to be misinformed about Fukushima, considering what the government is saying about it is based on the surveys my coworkers and I did for the Navy and my Internal Dose Investigations.

            I never said Solar wasn’t lower-risk than most. I was saying that more fatalities occur in the solar and wind industry than the nuclear industry.
            Most, admittedly, are those which could happen anywhere. In my five years, in over a hundred reactor plants, the only death we’ve had was an electrician doing maintenance on an electrical-power distribution component.

          • Al Boek

            Right, for two years now, I haven’t heard a word about safe reactor plants from my own brother who’s had a career in the field. With me being in the solar business you can imagine the arguments we USED to have.

            Now, Dave, with your vast experience in the field why aren’t you over there helping to contain all those active fuel rods? With nearly 200,000 displaced
            and homeless people why are they hiring homeless and still short of workers?
            These homeless folks who have all lost their livings as well, no will pay with their lifes.

            Now, we know that 400 tons (at least) of radioactive sea water is being pumped and stored daily, what’s your plan for the acres of tanks now sitting all around this plant where there have been 8 earthquakes in just the past couple of weeks?

            Curious. See the commerical with everyone slapping their foreheads? I’ll take that as your answer, if you’d like._greenearl

          • David McFarland

            I’ve had numerous things I would have done differently from TEPCO, but they’ve kind of not done anything my boat would have proposed from then on out.

            I actually volunteered to go help out. However, most of us were considered too valuable to our own plants, and so we only sent six guys, who ended up helping out on the USS Reagan for a time to help out with their own surveys. I’ve also been looking for opportunities to go help out up there with the people, but those when I hear about are often using conflicting with work.

            I agree many of the old plants need to be replaced, many have glaring flaws; for instance, a mere installation of additional ducting for the diesels up to the roof to keep their internals from being flooded with water would have solved this entire issue, and most of the world wouldn’t even know that “Fukushima” was a place. However, as I’ve said before:
            1) Comparing old plants, built and designed in the ’50s and ’60s and using them as an example for nuclear power and it’s flaws is like using a computer built in the ’50s and saying that because it can’t do much computing, neither can a modern computer.
            2) We need to build new plants, remarkably safer ones(especially if we get into Thorium which CAN’T melt down), to replace the old one for a number of reasons.

          • Al Boek

            Thanks again for your comments.

          • DragomirSA .

            David, I appreciate your comments. However, I have a few concerns that maybe you could address?

            I really don’t get how you can compare the risk of Fukushima emissions to naturally occurring radiation, let alone bananas. Is it really pertinent? Is the radiation emitted from Fukushima comparable in terms of effect on humans? Bananas are easily digested and obviously not harmful. Is a particle emitted from Fukushima going to behave the same way inside our body?

            I fear that speaking in terms of “dose” here may be fallacious as well. A banana may have “more radiation” than a radioactive particle emitted from Fukushima, but the particle may still pose a far greater risk to humans. They may share the same system of measurement when it comes to measuring radioactivity, but that doesn’t make them the same thing.

            Are you familiar with a Dr. John Goffman? According to his work, specifically to do with Chernobyl but nonetheless applicable, it only takes one radioactive particle to be lodged inside our body to begin causing serious harm.

            Feel free to elaborate or correct me.

          • David McFarland

            Bananas remain an apt comparison, and it’s because they’re considered to be so safe that I used them; while it is true that the body cycles out potassium better than it does cesium, the body still requires a constant supply of potassium nonetheless. Other than that, cesium and potassium do have similar energy levels and decay products. Potassium does have a much longer half-life than cesium, but it is still a constant source you need whereas cesium is not a need, nor is it constant.

            Potassium, however, concentrates it’s dose on one spot of the body – the thyroid (technically, two spots, since extra potassium stays in the kidneys for a while), while cesium doesn’t play favorites and gets spread throughout pretty much the whole body – mostly in the muscles, which means much of your body that gets radiation from cesium isn’t actually a part of your body that is of great concern (like your legs and arms) – or at least nearly as much concern as, say, your internal organs.

            To say “one radioactive particle,” will do harm is… I’d call it a lie with how vague that is. In truth, any one radioactive decay product – gamma, neutron, alpha, or beta, could be the one to give you cancer. Odds are slim, and if we were truly worried about what Fukushima’s giving off, we’d also be worried about just about everything, since there are so many larger sources – like the sun or even the earth itself – that give off so much more.
            That being said, yes, one radioactive particle CAN cause harm. It can also not cause harm. You can put things into statistics, though, to determine how many people will get cancer from that over a certain population. For instance, if everyone in Japan were to eat the Fukushima-Spawned Tuna for nearly every meal, they’d see about 1:100,000 (or was it 10,000,000? Can’t remember) get cancer from it. Sure, it sounds bad, until you give it context – at that point, mercury (from Chinese Coal) is more of an issue in the fish.
            Here’s a relatively good example: Say 15 people die a year from Escalator Accidents. Someone will obvious get into an uproar over how escalators are killing people – until you inform them that many times more people die falling down the stairs.
            Getting a considerable amount of radiation won’t always kill you, either. Take Albert Stevens – during WWII, he was diagnosed with terminal cancer. The Manhattan Project guys were trying to determine effects of radiation (which little was known about at the time) so they (very immorally so) injected him with a considerable amount of Plutonium without his knowledge. It turned out he didn’t have cancer, just a stomach ulcer. He lived for an additional 40 years afterwards, eventually dying of Heart Disease (which has, admittedly, been shown to be caused by radiation exposure, though, as far as I know it isn’t known if there was a direct link.)

            Dose measurements are always rather definitive. Much more so than using the deceptive measurement of “becquerel,” (which might as well be measuring individual grains of sand on a beach or number of bacteria on an object), as Dose values like mrem, rem, and sieverts measure damage done to the human body. Location matters as well. If you get 100rem to your hand and absolutely nothing else, you probably won’t have an visible effects and probably won’t get cancer either. Have that on your torso and you’ll probably wind up with radiation sickness and a marked risk of cancer.

            But you can never really know what’s going to give you the cancer. You can do the statistics (which doesn’t exactly help the Anti-Nuclear side, since people in Tokyo only got 4 days worth of Solar/Radon radiation during the height of the plumes, including internal dose)

            A lot of the hate going around about Fukushima is bad science. I saw an article claiming that the Japanese government was trying to cover up the entire thing and make it illegal to report on Fukushima’s problem – backtracking and researching everything, I found that the actual bill was only for State Secrets, and was only applicable to the Japanese Self Defense Force – which is apt, considering they’re preparing a build-up since their WWII “Downsizing” mandate is nearing an end, and they’d like to keep their military secrets to be secret, as well as all of the tech they’ll be getting from America and the UK – hence why the US is also applauding them for the bill (i.e. we’re selling them the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, which is so new we aren’t even using it yet.)

            That being said, no, the West Coast is not “being fried” or being “hit hard,” right now. I had the pleasure of talking with 12 guys who are essentially as close as you’re going to get when it comes to “radiation professionals,” yesterday, guys who regularly do surveys in San Diego, Seattle, and Yokosuka Japan – yeah, we’re getting nothing. Likewise, I was able to survey my own thyroid yet again (I live in Japan, making such a survey relevant to this conversation), and nothing. Granted, iodine would not be a factor right now unless Fukushima’s core was still undergoing fission and releasing products (when it was, iodine wasn’t an issue either), and it isn’t. I’ve been keeping tabs on our airborne-radiation detectors over these past three years – nothing.

          • DragomirSA .

            I want to believe you.

            However your response has left more confused than anything. Bananas are not an apt comparison. Is it not true that nobody can approach at least one of the reactors, not even robots, due to the exceedingly high radiation? I believe it’s the one which has been observed to be releasing steam recently…

            No amount of bananas can do that. You make it sound like potassium is more harmful than cesium. And you don’t mention anything about strontium.

            In one of your other posts you talk about Plutonium and its very long half life. However, at least one type of Plu isotope has a relatively short half life, 20-30 years or something like that. The exact type escapes me, sorry.

            What are your thoughts on the Japanese Government and EPA increasing the levels “deemed safe” after the tsunami?

            In regards to Iodine, what do you make of this: http://www.euractiv.com/health/radiation-risks-fukushima-longer-news-503947

          • David McFarland

            Yes, while bananas aren’t going to simulate the Exclusion Area, they are apt for outside of it and around Japan, or eating Tuna and the like.
            Radiation itself is wonderfully short-lived and rather short-ranged. This means that we can control the Exclusion Area and operate within it with a relative degree of safety.

            I don’t believe I heard anything about the EPA raising the “deemed safe” levels – they remain the same to my knowledge. At least I know for certain they do for me. I actually get adjusted levels. That being said, once you fully understand just how ridiculously restrictive the levels can be, and how far removed they are from actual known danger levels – just so they can say for certain that you’re not getting dangerous levels of radiation – they’ve got quite a bit of wiggle-room. On the order of several orders of magnitude.

          • Al Boek

            Your industry has a big PR fund and has had it for years. Yes, right now,
            I’m sure from reading your comments here (blind faith) that they have an even better paying career for you. Ask around.

          • David McFarland

            That was sarcasm. I know the nuclear industry has had to deal with PR for some time now, mostly due to idiots who hear “radiation” and instantly flip out.

            So, you hear “PR fund” for that an organization that deals with a science that few know anything about, and automatically assume it deals in misinformation?

            I also know I wouldn’t be well suited for the job because I often call the idiots who know nothing about nuclear power just that – “idiots.”

          • Al Boek
          • Al Boek

            Watch the videos below. You’ll find the “banana spin” in one of the articles. What the hell does this mess have to do with bananas anyway?

          • EDDIE CHEANG

            Please look at the freak fruits and plants and deformed creatures caused by the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster. No animal died? I believe even human beings working or staying near these plants died from the radiation emitted, but were not reported and covered up by the Japanese authorities.

          • David McFarland

            And I believe in invisible flying unicorns, but like your beliefs, there is no reason or science to support it.

            What the science support, however, is that only two workers received enough to give them a reasonable risk of dying from cancer later on.

          • ram

            personally sir I find your comment rubbish to think that this will not affect us in a major way.This not a flash in the pan type problem!It is ongoing 24/7/365 at a 300 ton per day event!Your going to tell me there is nothing to worry about?You my friend have got to be crazy!I will say that things right now may not be as bad as they could be,but you cannot say that this event is not be harmful to our world is just plain nuts.The radiation is just going to build up and sooner than later take us out .It’s going on 3 years and if given the choice I’d eat the bananas!What are they doing to stop the flow of heavy water?I’ll tell you nothing! Gee Mr. Wizard how long can that go on?Why don’t you pull your head out of your ass and go take a swim in the all that heavy water?I love guys like you ,ignore everything till it’s to late, while sitting on a perch spewing shit out of your mouth

          • David McFarland

            Getting angry and poor use of the English Language will get you nowhere and will bring no credence to your argument.

            There’s e-coli on your burger when you eat it. All of your meat has something on it that, if you knew about it and the quantity of it, you’d likely be disgusted. Yet you still eat it. Every day. But you really aren’t worried about it – no one really is, so long as you did prepare it properly. Why? It’s under control, and it’s really not that much. It’s a lot of things that are extremely tiny.

            300 tons per day of “radioactive water.” Okay, but what does that really mean? Okay, 300 tons of water – it would take more than a week of that to fill up an Olympic swimming pool. It’s also not just straight up going out into the ocean – those contamination levels are pre-filtered. Dirt and sand are pretty good about filtration.
            Even so, what does that really mean. “It’s radioactive.” Sure, the ocean is always radioactive. Natural uranium leakage from the sea-floor is always happening.
            In fact, when you actually apply those contamination levels, it’s really doing so little when you factor in dilution that it makes it seem silly.

            You want to know why I don’t go swimming in it? Japan doesn’t have any good beaches around here. There’s Zushi beach, and plenty of my friends go to there, but the water’s always cold as heck. The sushi is still delicious.

            Radiation doesn’t “build up.” It’s extremely short lived for the exact reason why it can hurt you. Gammas and neutrons very frequently go through just about anything (except for water and lead and the like), and so it’s somewhat difficult to shield from them. At the same time, they don’t actually interact with you a whole lot. Your body is, yes, made of water, but not enough to absorb even 10% (unless you’re rather heavy-set).
            Alphas and Betas on the other hand, will interact with everything. Their range is extremely short. Clothing and dead-skin layers are enough to stop them from hurting you.

            Contamination, however, does build up – but it also decays away. Most of the “worst” of the contamination will be gone in less than two months.
            The best way to think of contamination is like dust. It can wash away rather easily.

            To stop the flow of water? An “Ice Shield.” It sounds crazy, but I’ve seen some of the design plans. Pretty creative. Apart from that, continuing to try to patch it up.

          • ram

            With you around it’s a wonder we have any problems left to be solved!If we had only known,we could have just come to you for all the answers.How great it must be.The only person in the world that is all knowing?All the money that has been wasted trying to find answers to problems that have troubled mankind since the beginning of time!!What a shame.From now on we’ll just come straight to you for the answers O gifted one.I feel so much better knowing your on the case! NOT!!!
            .

          • David McFarland

            The sarcasm was unwarranted, and adding “NOT!!!” to the end of that was unnecessary, and doing so made you look like you’re about five years old.

            And that comment you replied to didn’t really solve any problems apart from the generic “don’t freak out” problem. It was more education. So, apart from your blatant straw-man argument with no goal or direction than a feeble attempt at “You’re dumb, but I don’t know why you’re dumb, so I’m just going to use sarcasm to make myself feel smart by trying to make you look stupid without actually saying anything at all.” Your argument didn’t even attack anything that existed in the comment you were replying to.
            And I was more or less trying to be helpful and educational, seeing as most of the public knows little to nothing about radiation, contamination, the difference between the two, or anything about Fukushima at all apart from what the media tells them – which usually amounts to fearmonger, and essentially still no knowledge is gained.

            For those situations when I provide solutions, it’s usually the collective wisdom of several nuclear operators across multiple specialties. That being said, yeah, we did come up with some ways that TEPCO could have done it better.

          • ram

            there you go, got me again and to think I would try to pull one over on the gifted one!O gifted one please forgive me!To entertain the thought, that I a five year old could ever get something past the all knowing 6 year old such as yourself.After thinking about it ,if you actually think these posts are really going to solve anything! Gives way to the thought—– you just might be a 3 year old?Really!You honestly think your dribble has had any impact on solving the fukushima problem?Everyone has 20/20 hind sight,then you go on to say-You provide solutions through collective wisdom?The last time I checked the site is still spewing 300 hundred tonnes of heavy water a day!Makes me wonder just how many people honestly notice the knowledge you have collected to this point?Get a life,It seems your collected solutions are not getting the job done!So please don’t reply your solutions have given me a headache!

          • David McFarland

            I have a life. It’s Nuclear power, in essence. Comes as a part of being in the Navy; your profession is your life.
            Sort of helps that nuclear power is my profession, and I’ve been at it for five years, that I’ve stood Reactor Operator on three reactors, that I took the samples in Japan, et cetera. What’s your knowledge basis worthy enough of questioning mine?
            300 tons of water is enough to fill an Olympic Swimming Pool – after 8 days. It’s not just “spewing it.” It’s going through earth – which actually makes a wonderful filtration systems.

            300 tons of contaminated water? What does that really mean? When you say NOTHING of levels – and yes, levels are so very important, what does that mean? It means you know nothing.
            If you took a tiny speck of dirt and put it in 300 tons of water, would you call that water dirty? If you put in several tons of dirt in it, then certainly, it is dirty.
            In the same manner, just because water is “radioactive,” the amount is very much important. Ocean water regularly leeches uranium out of the earth; it’s quite “contaminated” if you don’t bring into concern levels.
            In the same manner, it’s very important to discuss the levels of contamination within the water. We don’t truly know the levels. We know what’s going into the ground, but not what’s coming out. When you start using units like becquerels, you have to be careful. Using becquerels is like measuring the size of an animal by counting cells.
            If you hear “curies” or “becquerels,” that’s contamination. If you hear “rem,” “mrem,” or “sieverts,” that’s radiation. Contamination is the concern here, really.

            And yet still, you have nothing but denouncements. You have no argument but “You’re dumb.” I feel like I’m talking to a five year old. No argument. No real backing. Just pure, unadulterated insult dressed up to disguise the idiocy.

            Our collective solutions aren’t getting the job done because they aren’t being voiced to TEPCO, or not voiced in time. We’ve got our own jobs to do, some of them taking most of our days, quite literally 20 hours a day at time, with little media access.

          • David McFarland

            http://xkcd.com/radiation/
            Fun infographic for all of you Nuclear-Haters.

          • Al Boek

            Forgot a couple sitting on the beach in SF 114, sking in Tahoe 88

          • Al Boek

            o
            HD

          • DragomirSA .

            The question you keep dodging is whether or not those comparisons are pertinent. It’s not just the amount of radiation that is of concern, it’s the source. See my other post for clarification.

          • dbeierl

            Dragomir, I don’t think he’s dodging, he gave a fancy answer and assumed that you knew the basic answer that lay beneath it. The basic answer is that your body is equally affected by the radiation coming from a banana as it is by the same amount of radiation from something else. And you would have to eat a hundred bananas just to get as much radiation as you get, on average, simply by being alive on this earth for one day. If you live in Denver, Colorado you get about twice that much every day because of the higher altitude, or two hundred bananas. If you fly across the US on a passenger airplane you receive about four average days worth, or four hundred bananas.

          • azafvet

            And just how many 50’s type reactors are still active today? By the way, can I store my spent fuel near your house?

          • David McFarland

            Too many. I’m actually against having so many old reactors around, at least without proper updated systems. The new ones are amazing, and Thorium will be even better.

            And fuel isn’t stored near houses, so I fail to see how that’s a relevant question.
            However, if you properly store it in a fuel pool and it’s checked for corrosion on a regular basis, I’d probably swim in that water, so long as I wasn’t at risk of being shot by an armed guard. I wouldn’t drink it, but that’s because the water is likely heavily distilled and will give you diarrhea. For most fuel-pools, the radiation levels in the depth of water an average human can dive, unassisted, are actually lower than background radiation because the water provides enough shielding from the sun and the fuel assemblies below. Water is actually a wonderful radiation shield. (Which is why we laughed during Fukushima when we all realized we’d received so little contamination from the Cs-137 that our bodies were actually shielding the radiacs from average background radiation levels, instead of going off like crazy like any anti-nuclear freak would have you believe.)
            Just thought you should know that little fun fact.

          • Al Boek

            The answer is approx 30 have similar design flaws. here in the US

          • Peter Antonocci

            a/c was invented in 1902, at that point there were 42 million people in japan. seems like they were doing fine. how many people are STILL dying from Chernobyl and / or suffering from cancer? how much radiation has been released from nuclear plants around the world that no one will ever be told about? it is a great idea, but the consequences, however remote one would LIKE to believe, are far too great. fukushima is STILL emitting 300 tons of radioactive water PER DAY. you must be on the east coast, and not care too much about our side of the countries ocean and the food that comes from it.

          • David McFarland

            You also forget that life expectancy was considerably shorter and Japan’s population density was also much more spread out. Not until after WWII did Japan have cities like it does today – and cities are notorious for having higher temperatures than their surrounding countryside. Japan’s also experiencing record heat-waves in these past few yeas.

            You got a source on that water-leakage rate? I’ve got one that cites that it’s only Tritium that’s left in that water, now that they’ve got a
            That, and I’ll give you a hint: “Emitting” and “Leaking” are quite different. That, and I wouldn’t ever call it “emitting.” That just sounds weird. Producing, perhaps.

            Chernobyl was quite different. When you pop the closure head and fuel spills out, that’s one thing. When your only explosions are due to the radiolytic decomposition of hydrogen, and your plant WASN’T designed as stupidly as possible (it was still designed rather stupidly, just not as bad as Chernobyl), that’s another entirely.
            I’ve read the report on what happened at Chernobyl. The official report. And I would shoot those operators myself if given the chance. They were operating outside of their limits, knowing certain things were broken, and still went ahead with a procedure they knew they shouldn’t.
            They’re actually the reason why nuclear power these days is as safe as it is. They gave us all the “pucker factor.” Nuclear power is a “no-error” society. Equivalent mistakes to McDonalds getting your order wrong can get Nuclear Operator’s disqualified or fired.
            The design for the Fukushima plants was bad – but they got hit by two disasters simultaneously. That wasn’t their fault. They actually did very little wrong.

            I’m on the Tokyo Bay.
            And I’d eat the Tuna that comes from Fukushima. Why? Because I actually understand the levels involved, and I know that the K-40 from the average banana is more harmful than what little Cs-137 the wildlife has absorbed.
            Because I’m actually educated on nuclear power and radiation.

            The worst consequences involved in nuclear power are people freaking out far too much and doing terrible things.
            Like abandoning people and animals.
            And summarily killing thousands of people by diverting government resources to something they don’t need to, rather than helping Tsunami and Earthquake survivors.
            Anti-Nuclear Activists killed more through negligence by worrying about Fukushima than Fukushima did. By an infinite rate, because Fukushima’s death rate is still zero, though two workers did actually reach radiation levels considered high enough to give an increased risk of cancer.

            How much radiation is being emitted from nuclear power plants that no one well ever be told about?
            xkcd.com/radiation
            Three time less than your average coal plant.
            Less, in a year, than a single banana.

            Less than twice as much as sleeping next to someone for a year.
            Nuclear power plants have so little external radiation from themselves that temperature changes of the earth outside can cause radiation spikes considerably higher than what you see from the power plant itself. Whenever we detect high radiation, the first thing done is go outside and see if we’ve got a temperature inversion trapping radon that the earth emits. It always is.

          • Fullblad

            Okay I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for now. In the meantime I think I’ll get a second opinion from some nuclear scientists to see what their take is on Fukashima. My gut feeling is you are wrong, but gut feelings aren’t neccessarily correct.

          • David McFarland

            “Nuclear Scientist?” What exactly are you looking for here? “Nuclear Scientist,” means little. What degrees are you looking for? Nuclear Engineering? Nuclear Physics? I myself have been in contact with several people with Ph.Ds on the matter. One gave me this interesting quote in regards to Fukushima:
            “Radiation is so easily measured in quantities millions or billions
            of times below any risk level, it just provides an easy story to invoke
            fear.

            If we could measure e-coli bacteria as easily and
            in as small a quantity as we can radiation, nobody would ever eat a leaf
            of lettuce or a hamburger.”- John Engdahl, PhD, Nuclear Engineering.

            Simply put, the media and Coal Power have blown this far out of proportion. The media found a finger to point and Coal found a way to bring down their biggest competitor via the media. Both are playing off the fact that the general public is extremely uneducated on nuclear power, and using measurements like “becquerels” and the weight of water (which is deceptive; i.e. the water coming out of Fukushima and being filtered by the ground before going into the ocean is not enough to fill even just an olympic swimming pool over the course of 8 days. Note they use measurements in “Tons” instead of Gallons, as water is heavy, so using measurements in tons is far more impressive and scary. They use becquerels instead of curies. Becquerels are useful for nothing but very-small measurements, like what we are dealing with, or to scare people. Cures would be much more useful.)

            I myself am a Reactor Operator with a specialization in Nuclear Safety, and I am a qualified Radiation Worker. I took radiation surveys in the Tokyo Bay Area.

            If you get anything from them against me, I can already tell you what it is: That I’m too “carefree,” about such things, that yes, any measure of radiation can be harmful. I agree with this. My point is that the West Coast has bigger fish to fry when it comes to radiation.

            Here’s a little infographic put together by an Ex-NASA Engineer and a Senior Reactor Operator at Reed Research Reactor. My surveys I took are quite in-line with theirs.
            http://www.xkcd.com/radiation/

          • Not Sure

            David, after reading all the posts and your smooth and somewhat deceptive responses I have come to the conclusion that you are just another psychopath. Really, I’m sure you are somewhat knowledgeable on nuclear energy but you have a tendency to “tell” us that we don’t know anything about Fukushima or radiation contamination and that you are our intellectual benefactor on this issue. And in reality, you really don’t know much about the details of what is going on at Fukushima Diaichi and you seem to imply that those people such as Arnie Gundersen, et al. who ARE experts in their fields are either not telling us the truth or are liars about the dangers of what is going on there. The simple fact is that all the risk assessment of nuclear energy is based on a false premise. Risk assessment typically looks only at short time lines of possible outcomes and nuclear energy has a far broader timeline in the 1000’s of years. Multi-generational effects of radiation and contamination cannot be measured in “point-in-time” risk assessments. Biological damage and mutational effects of radiation through ingesting or respiration can lead to serious DNA alteration for many generations, even in “small” but continuing doses. These effects are relatively unseen for some time unlike acid rain from coal or and oil spill which would be more immediate.

            By the way, I would love for you to go swimming in a spent fuel pool. Take a video of it, please. I would use it as an informational piece on how far delusion can take someone that has psychopathic tendency to keep themselves in a position of power over others. It would be a hoot.

          • David McFarland

            Biological damage and mutational effects of radiation can be very serious. Fact of the matter is that you’re more likely to get irradiated by so many other sources that Nuclear power shouldn’t really even register on your list of worries unless you’re within line-of-sight of a nuclear plant, pretty much, and even then it’s for in-case-of-meltdown. Coal power irradiates you more on a regular basis, and those who fled Japan by air got more radiation from the sun than if they’d stayed.

            I’d take a swim in a fuel pool if I had the chance. As I said, so long as the casings aren’t broken or corroded open, there’s no contamination in the water so the only radiation being emitted from the fuel itself – water, being so very dense as it is, does an absolutely wonderful job of being a radiation shield. Fuel pools are quite deep, meaning, for several feet under the water you actually get more shielding because you’re shielded from the sun as well as the fuel. Simple mathematics and dose calculations (every 2 feet of water will lower your dose from a radiation source by at least a factor of 10, pending type of radiation).

            It’s not hard to know enough to say Fukushima isn’t a problem. Fact of the matter is that it’s all about levels of radiation – the levels at the Exclusion Zone – sure, those can get a bit nasty – but the rest is comparable or lower than what you get on a daily basis. Any heavy elements found in the ocean from Fukushima are heavily outweighed by uranium naturally found in ocean water – which covers everything of a lasting effect, as in, 1000s of years. It’s not even a drop in the bucket in that regard.
            As for cesium, again, not that much. As stated, that which will reach California – you’d have to drink your year’s supply of water as unfiltered Pacific Ocean water just to equal the dose of a singular banana.

            Risk assessment of nuclear energy is, in fact, based on false
            premise – that anything and everything bad that is physically possible
            WILL happen; Murphy’s Law is considered conservative in measure. (Arnie Gunderson is a prime example of the stereotypical Nuclear Inspector – ready for an ant to find a way to cause a meltdown and readily believing there would be a way for it to occur, and ready to ridicule human beings for not being absolutely perfect on their own when there are measures already take to compensate for human imperfection – for safety reasons, it’s not a terrible trait to have, but it often creates restrictions more harmful than what they restrict) This is especially true in more modern plants – and by more modern, I mean “designed since the ’80s.” I totally agree that some of the older plants are more risky. It’s pretty obvious that some have design flaws. Me and my coworkers constantly talk about how Fukushima could have been averted, and it roughly comes down to rerouting intake-ducting for their Diesels being enough to have averted the disaster entirely.
            I’d find it hard to believe that Fukushima could provide 15,000 times the contamination of Chernobyl. Delivery method being problem-number one, and cause being the second. Sure, if every single fuel rod spontaneously melted down and then someone detonated a thousand pounds of C4 underneath them, sure, but most nuclear inspectors fail to apply one factor when they’re making such calculations: reality. Those that do are usually taken out of context.
            Most of the Nuclear Experts who were saying “well this could happen!” were failing to apply reality. When talking about how much Tokyo could have been contaminated, they assumed that for two straight weeks that the winds would be blowing towards Tokyo, steadily, constantly, and at above-average speeds and that the worst was happening from the site. My ship – my office – was regularly in contact with the people making this assessment. In spite of this ridiculous notion, it still was not enough to warrant an evacuation.

            Come to as many conclusions as you like on your own. Facts support mine.

            Also, learn the meaning of psychopath. It doesn’t mean what you think it means.

          • Al Boek

            Ask them in Toyko. They are leaving in groves.

          • stuckhere

            I can design a better means of electricity that wouldn’t create accidents like nuclear power can and now does, activists are not spinning on whom too blame so they can profit regardless of the Earth will be livable in nuclear catastrophic wakes, the problem is the same people that keeped Tesla’s free enegy theories silenced,,,,,,,this world is held back from progressing by the greed of the few as If their money gives them the right too end everyones life as if their God himself

          • David McFarland

            Tesla’s theories still required a source of power. His whole thing was just distribution, if I remember correctly. Though, I agree, he was smart.

            However, don’t let yourself get wrapped up in the sensationalism.
            Note how all of the plants you actually hear about melting down were built in the ’50s and ’60s, not modern ones.
            If a computer made in the ’50s, those giant room-sized computers that could barely do math, broke down after running for twenty years, would you automatically assume that your home-computer that you’re typing on now would be susceptible?

            Thorium reactors are one of the new things people are trying to get onboard with. They can’t melt down. Can’t. If you actually understand the nuclear physics behind it, you’ll understand why. (They require a neutron source other than themselves. Remove that, which would be simple, and the reaction will instantly stop.)
            Modern Uranium reactors, however, have considerably better protection than the Fukushima plants. We’ve learned so much since those were design. The differences are drastic.

          • wade

            your arguments seem vaguely familiar : http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/

            I like Mike Barnards rebuttal :; Could the author be more alarmist and inaccurate about the content of his article? Or perhaps it was Forbes who put this absurd headline on it?

            Wind farms don’t kill people. A very small percentage of workers involved in construction and maintenance die in workplace safety accidents.

            The Caithness site is an anti-wind energy site that collects anything, literally anything that can be attached to wind energy. If you read through their collection and assess, as I have, what you find is that it contains people who committed suicide by hanging themselves from very old trellis-style wind turbine masts and a lot of accidents on very small, non-utility scale wind turbines, that is to say farm supplemental generation equipment.

            Comparing apples to apples, unlike Mr. Conca’s article, we find plenty of construction phase fatalities for nuclear power, and maintenance accidents leading to serious injuries and death. I happen to agree that no one has been killed by nuclear power plant operating exactly as intended, but that’s true of wind energy as well.

            His absurd concerns about ice and blade throw are just that, absurd. The biggest impact of wind turbines is noise annoyance. Quantifiable levels of noise are within World Health Organization guidelines at about 350-400 meters or 1200+ feet, but most jurisdictions err on the side of caution. Ontario, for example, mandates 550 meters or 1600 feet or so.

            No ice or blade fragment thrown from a wind turbine has ever hit a human, a human habitation or come close to the reasonable setbacks for noise annoyance. It’s just ludicrous to suggest a mile setback, that is to say 1600 meters or four times the distance required for reasonable noise annoyance concerns, for completely improbable additional concerns.

            There are about 240,000 wind turbines operating world wide today. No one outside of a small number of technicians and maintenance workers performing onsite maintenance has ever been injured by one. Suggesting setbacks reeks of ulterior motives.

            Many more homes have been hit by meteors than by ice or turbine bits. That’s how astronomically unreasonable Mr. Conca is being.

            http://barnardonwind.com/2013/03/07/how-close-is-too-close-meteors-vs-wind-farms/

            I happen to like nuclear energy, but it’s dwindling world wide while wind energy is expanding very rapidly for good reasons. Nuclear isn’t a viable technology despite its statistically good safety record and low CO2 emissions. There’s no social license, it’s terrorist gold, financing is extraordinarily difficult, skilled and educated labour for nuclear is an enormous problem and that’s just a few of the problems. Wind energy is being built much, much faster than nuclear and that will continue to occur. http://barnardonwind.com/2013/06/16/why-wind-energy-is-the-pragmatic-choice-and-nuclear-isnt/

          • Bubba

            Quit fooling yourself. You’re obviously uneducated in the subject. There are alternative, cheep, clean energy sources which have been suppressed so that these rich bastards and powerful gov’t officials can help each other rob us blind. To the point…..

          • David McFarland

            Oh, I’m sure I’m fooling myself. A qualified reactor operator obviously knows NOTHING about nuclear power. Right.

          • Al Boek

            Well Dave, like my own brother in the nuke power biz, your opionion just turned into worthless bull shit.

          • David McFarland

            How so?

          • Deva O’Donnell

            There’s plenty of blame to go around. Each of us bears some for taking part. Corporations have mastered the arts of psychological manipulation and drawn us all into their game whether we like it or not.

          • Al Boek

            EXACTLY Thirty years ago I told my solar customers we’d one day be trading American blood for oil. Dave and his buddies have been telling the same customers how Cheap, Safe and Efficent their source of power was. The
            scriptures say, “You’ll know them by their works.” How’s that little Nuke thing working for you?

          • John

            You’re an idiot.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004264362336 Kyle Hill

            Roses are red. Violets are blue. Obama is an idiot and so are you!

          • Al Boek

            Yes, vote John up. Not my job to judge. His comments, you may think are off topic…sadly all 8 of you and him are about to see just how ON-Topic he is.

          • robnitro

            Exactly! Corporations are actually psychopaths if you put their qualities in the DSM, lol.

            The reason why they couldn’t stop the reactors is because they cheaped out on materials. The cylinders that go around the rods to stop the reaction. The NRC tests showed that some Titanium alloy worked well to stop any problems if needed. However, they were able to use a cheaper type of metal in these reactors. This metal ends up reacting exothermically, heating up more and more, and they couldn’t stop it. The only solution was sea water, which they hesitated to do at first because it renders the fuel useless.

            NRC and other countries’ regulatory agencies turn a blind eye.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004264362336 Kyle Hill

            It’s sick but it’s part of the Great Tribulation about to come. The only things missing are the total destruction of Damascus which there cannot be any life left for a very long time. (Radiation?)
            It is believed to be modern day Syrian and also the Jews need to be building a holy temple in Jerusalem to enforce the old laws of animal sacrifices which will house the *image* of the beast. A hologram from the now failing Blue Beam project?

            A couple times recently the Jews have got into the discussion stage of rebuilding the temple with the Palestinians but so far no news beyond talk.

            Obama came real close to being a *world savior* as predicted in the bible but many of his own Muslims are recently hating him or at least losing significant confidence but they don’t express it openly unless you look into the correct sources.

            One Christian Author who’s name I forgot mentioned that since the 1900s every couple generations or so Satan tries to make an AntiChrist as a test run to see how people will respond and since the 1900s he has been doing it at a more frequent rate for global power. Almost as if he (Satan) is panicking doing everything as fast as possible but cutting his leg off in the process.

          • Dennis

            wtf.

          • Peter

            I agree completely! soo many people in this world today cannot see the forest for the trees. There are very few things of prophecy left to happen according to the BIBLE. Why is it that soo many people say they do not believe in GOD or CHRIST our savior, yet ask anyone if they believe in Hell or the devil; and most will say yes! Wise up people!! THE BIBLE IS NOT A FAIRY TALE OR HISTORY BOOK! IT IS IF NOTHING ELSE…A PLAY BOOK, WITH BLOW BY BLOW TELLINGS OF EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED AND EXACTLY WHAT IS AND WILL BE HAPPENING.

          • Laura Bean Wilson

            Bear the burden. Bare means to be without covering.

          • ASP

            Amen chubbawang

          • Heretic2011

            Just go back to burning coal for now. A little soot seems like nothing compared to how dirty a nuke can be.

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mount-Shasta-Energy-Services/305074483863?ref=ts&fref=ts shastatodd

            the bottom line is we live on a finite planet with finite resources. 7.1 billion people (huge overshoot) vying for a depleting resource pool will not end well… despite the fed printing 85.5 billion a month to ‘sustain the unsustainable’.

            the only solution is far fewer people all consuming much less. wise people are doing what they can to mitigate what is unfolding. securing essentials like water, food and shelter.

          • Disgusted2themax

            Filled with guilt? You are free to reduce the population by one, yourself.

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mount-Shasta-Energy-Services/305074483863?ref=ts&fref=ts shastatodd

            that is such a sill straw man comment. surely you can think bigger than that.

            another option is to live as sustainably as possible… consuming as few resources as are necessary. our home has been zero energy since 2004… and we grow most of our own food. what are you doing to be the change you wish to see in the world?

          • Theresa Markham

            My garden is growing a little larger each month. I didn’t have an outside space before, but now I do, and have started a little rack farm on our balcony. I have a lot of plans for the coming years. I hope to get us off the grid completely within 5 years.

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mount-Shasta-Energy-Services/305074483863?ref=ts&fref=ts shastatodd

            while romantic, going ‘off the grid’ might not be your best choice. if you have the grid, intertieing with a battery back up unit will give you the best of both worlds… going 100% off grid means you will be running a dirty, polluting, expensive fossil fuel generator for hours when it is cloudy.

          • Geronimo

            Q: How cloudy must it be for solar to fail?

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mount-Shasta-Energy-Services/305074483863?ref=ts&fref=ts shastatodd

            solar does not fail with clouds, but the output can drop to very little. we average 5 hours a day here. there are maps which can detail your average insolation.

            clouds or not though, conservation works regardless.

          • azafvet

            Ash the Germans. They have a lot of solar installed even though they do not get much sun.

          • Al Boek

            Almost to the point of rain or snow. Overcast still produces power, less, but it works.

          • Al Boek

            We may all be off it sooner than we think.

          • Al Boek

            Your user name actually should be Disgusting2themax

          • Serene

            We all agree here; why are you so nasty to your sisters and brothers who share your goals???

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004264362336 Kyle Hill

            Look at his username. Disgusted 2 the max so he doesn’t care who he picks on.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004264362336 Kyle Hill

            And more money to feed the poor since there will be one less mouth to feed from taxpayers since the user above is likely a welfare person who refuses to work.

          • Al Boek

            I voted you up…your right of course…until one of their containment ponds breaks it’s leve during a flood or bad storm. Than everything down stream for 150 miles dies. Why is it you folks buy into the lie that we cannot have safe, effective power without killing things. The cost? Let’s talk about THIS DISASTER cost then look at how cheap solar and wind would have actually been in the first place?

          • jordan k

            I’ll live in a tent in the woods and hunt for my food if everyone would stop fucking up the planet! it’s all we have?? I don’t understand people

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mount-Shasta-Energy-Services/305074483863?ref=ts&fref=ts shastatodd

            yes… and we keep breeding… adding over 200K more resource consumers per day. this will not end well.

            thanks for doing your part. i dont live as spartan as you, but have been zero energy since 2004 and grow the majority of my food in my garden. have been veggie/vegan for over 35 years now. i also stopped traveling by air 3 years ago. walk the talk folks, walk the talk!

          • Bonniezmom

            Take a look at changing to Pear Energy. https://www.pear-energy.com/

          • Bonniezmom

            Take a look at changing to Pear Energy. https://www.pear-energy.com/

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mount-Shasta-Energy-Services/305074483863?ref=ts&fref=ts shastatodd

            i didnt see anything on their web page about conservation and efficiency being job one… so called renewables take lots of fossil fuels to manufacture, install and maintain… so we surely dont want them powering waste…

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            Some professor produced electricity from a Bryophyllum Pinnatum leaf (air plant, leaf of life, etc, popular in Hawaii and almost a weed in Florida). So what? Have you any idea of the massive volumes used of oil, coal, and gas energy and their cost per unit of energy used? Even solar is still trivial by comparison, though becoming significant. But without massive subsidies it, and wind are still uncompetitive at scale. How long will we make the infant industry argument for subsidy until we decide there’s no “there” there? As an economist I am sympathetic to the non-market national security argument for subsidy, but let’s see the assumptions and some real numbers.

            (Note–this writer was responsible for funding one of the earliest documentaries promoting solar energy, “Harnessing the Sun”–check IMDB–but its promise of development as an at-scale electricity source outside niche uses has never materialized, despite heroic support from USDOE budgets.)

          • David McFarland

            Nuclear power is actually the safest, even when considering radiation. You get more radiation than you ever will from Coal. Get angry at coal plants, not nuclear. Heck, look at the stats. Chinese coal plants even get their own statistics trackers because they skew the already terrible Coal stats even further over the edge.

            This contamination is nothing to worry about. You eat more radioactive particles in a banana than we’ll ever actually see out of this.

          • Lotus Blu

            Tell that to the 14,000 people that have died in the US alone from the Fukushima disaster in the last two years.. now with the huge one today and the one days ago more radiation than originally leaked has been released.. Chernobyl was a 7, they say this should be a 9 or 10… but the chart doesn’t go that high. This is the worst disaster since WWII. Nothing to worry about.. wtf are you smoking?

          • David McFarland

            Considering I took Radiation Surveys in Japan during Fukushima, have lived in Japan since, and regularly work on nuclear reactors, and tested for having so little contamination left in my system that I’d be in more danger if I ate bananas on a regular basis, wore a wrist-watch constantly, or lived in a house with smoke detectors (or simply had a job outdoors), from the related radiation from such incidents, and I was directly responsible for surveying hundreds of other individuals in Japan who were also part of the clean-up effort…
            … I’m going to call your “14,000 people who died in the US from Fukushima,” a load of crap.
            Then consider the fact that the people who’ve stayed in Japan have received less radiation from the whole ordeal than those who fled Japan by airplane due to their having less shielding from magnetosphere and atmosphere from the sun’s own radiation.

            Learn about something before you talk about it, please.
            Looking at the actual figures (.002 curies/liter in the most contaminated water leaking directly out of the pools right now), you could drink the water that’s going into the ocean right now. Unless you drank it as regular drinking water, there would be no noticeable effects. (Cs-137 has a biological stay-time of 70 days – not exactly short, but not long enough to kill you unless you did so consistently) Now consider the fact that the water is being filtered by the ground first, then diluted in the ocean. None of these pictures in the article actually prove anything; they’re all suggestive and none are of what’s actually happening to the contaminated water.

          • Lotus Blu

            I am only going by the reports that coming out now about the 14,000 people. I have no idea of course if they are lying or you either. But if you google it I am sure you will find it, and if not let me know and I will post it here for you. But meanwhile take a look at this and please give me your opinion. My father is an Electrical engineer that focused on Nuclear Power plants and I have my degree in biology so I am not totally stupid.. lol

            http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=150718

          • David McFarland

            It’s also quite easy to google that and to find out that such study has been debunked and is just Anti-Nuclear Propaganda, possibly by Coal supporters or Greenpeace (which I always found ironic, as being Anti-Nuclear is by proxy pushing Coal Power, and Nuclear is pretty much as clean as it gets with the exception of recent advances in Solar power). I find it very hard to believe millions of people, hundreds of whom I’ve surveyed personally (and myself), are perfectly fine and have had no effects when they were exposed to considerably more contamination, to include much heavier isotopes, to include having been directly in the plume from Fukushima, whereas Americans have not (See: Snopes).

          • Tellus thetruth

            Your an idiot! Bananas, drinking water, Cs-137 and radiation surveys. Any scientist who uses bananas to relate radiation released from a nuclear meltdown has gone bananas. To even come close to the amount of radiation being released into the ocean would be like eating 100,000 bananas every hour.

            The drinking water from the leak was 1,800 millisievert per hour. Estimated to kill any person in just standing two feet from it in 4 hours. The contaminated water going into the ocean is a amazing mixture of radionuclides, including;
            Strontium,
            Tritium,
            Plutonium,
            Uranium, and the only ONE that you talked about Cesium.

            As for your radiation survey work. You might want to check in on the people you surveyed. Most people in Fukushima will start to see the effects of radiation sickness soon enough. Due to a loss of white blood cells in the body, many people exposed will have seriously weakened immune systems. Which leads to other severe health complications down the road.

            Nuclear releases into the environment have happened approximately every 5 years since the 1950’s. This one being the worst for the oceans. 80% of the problem ended up in the Pacific ocean.
            It will cost Russia $1.01 Billions to redo the tombing of Chernobyl. $785 million of that is coming from U.S.
            Now how much will it cost Japan to do the same? If they ever get there acts together. You still think nuclear is worth it?

          • http://www.aloryandaneaglet.tumblr.com/ aloryandaneaglet

            the bananas thing IS bananas! you’re right. even tepco is admitting that there are spots so hot that going near them will kill you. i have noticed that many people who “work in the nuclear industry” have been commenting on just about every article regarding this mess and some of them have been pretty over the top with aggressiveness.

          • David McFarland

            Strontium, Plutonium, and Uranium are heavy and don’t spread easily by any means.
            Tritium is short-lived. I talked about Cesium because Cesium is the radionuclide of concern. It can spread.
            That’s why I talked about it.
            Bananas, yeah, so ridiculous. The amount of contamination from a banana is so ridiculously small, it’s not anything to worry about. It’s not like we have units based off of them (The BED is quite literally the Banana Equivelant Dose.)
            But that’s so small, why, it would be RIDICULOUS if we had smaller units of measurement… Like the becquerel. Which is one of the more popular units.

            I’m not saying that the water immediately around Fukushima is so little of concern that you should be more worried about bananas, I’m saying the waters hitting California are as such. Though the Tuna from Fukushima have less contamination than a banana… Soooo….

            I should check on the people I surveyed again? Oh, easy. I’m fine. How about some other people? Yep, yep, and yep. Quite easy, considering I’m still in Japan and working with the same people. No health issues. Quite fine. I’m due for my regular Radiation Health Physical next week (required for nuclear workers), I’ll let you know if the medical experts on Radiation Health find anything funky.
            That, and the levels of radiation we received were less than those who fled Japan by air. Turns out we have the ability to detect such levels, and we know what levels you have to get to actually have the blood defects you’re talking about (approximately 100 REM), whereas received a grand total of about 7millirem. Which is about as much as you get from the sun in a week. Yeah, it wasn’t much at all.
            Turns out a Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carrier, like the one I work on, is more than adequately equipped to detect radiation, survey contamination, and track it in the long-run.

            As well, being educated on nuclear power, yeah, I do think nuclear power is worth it. I’m not saying TEPCO isn’t being a bit stupid (at work we regularly think of ways they could be doing it better).
            Modern nuclear reactors, as opposed to those designed in the ’50s and ’60s, are quite safe.

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            The same sort of nonsense about the effects of Chernobyl “soon showing up” was endemic afterwards. Instead of the forecast increases of tens of thousands of deaths, some by scientists who should have known better, there were a few hundred, mostly in the immediate area. Although each death is one too many, widespread panic based on such pseudo-science as computer models is mendacious.

            (The writer has been an expert computer modeler since his early training at MIT in the early 1950’s. “Give me a free hand with the assumptions and I’ll produce any result you like.”)

          • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

            “A few hundred” only covers those firemen and operators who were obviously killed in the disaster. Statistical studies show closer to one million casualties, according to the New York Academy of Science.

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            Here’s IAEA:”A reasonable central estimate is about 4,000 fatal radiation induced cancers during the lifetime of the 600,000 most highly exposed individuals and perhaps another 5,000 in more peripheral populations. The number is small (representing a few percent) relative to the normal spontaneous risk of cancer, but the numbers are large in absolute terms. While any such estimates have some “uncertainty”, the current findings are compatible with the risk estimates derived from Japan and clearly rule out the claims of “hundreds of thousands deaths” made by some anti-nuclear groups.”

          • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

            Keep in mind that “IAEA” stands for “International Atomic Energy Agency.”

            Sorta like asking Monsanto for statistics about glyphosate toxicity.

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            That’s defamatory of IAEA.

          • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

            Don’t be silly. Defamation is defined as a false statement. What I wrote was a simile.

            From their website: “The IAEA is the world’s center of cooperation in the nuclear field.”

            Should one trust statistics gathered by an agency who promotes cooperation in the field? Where’s the “checks and balances” in that?

            The IAEA is not a nuclear watchdog; it’s a nuclear promoter. It’s nice that they provide numbers, but those numbers should be taken as numbers that “cooperate” with the nuclear industry, rather than numbers from independent sources.

            David’s semantic slipperiness is becoming tiring. Words mean what David wants them to mean. Lack of response should not be taken as acquiescence.

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            You slimed IAEA by comparing them to a chemical company with a bad record. That is defamatory. IAEA spends vast treasure on safety research and design. Inherently safe reactors, and has high participation by distinguished academics with a reputation for integrity. The citation I posted was from a US professor, not an IAEA staffer. Next you’ll be claiming that every UN technical paper is bogus because you don’t like their politics. I was a consultant to the UN Statistical Office for several years, and they were of the highest integrity.

          • Laura Bean Wilson

            Brains and integrity sometimes compute into no common sense. World wide.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004264362336 Kyle Hill

            I am surprised Obama is not using this opportunity to use his executive orders to seize communications and have inspectors go door to door for visual inspections for radiation poisoning.

            A TSA agency for radiation poisoning that has powers over you’re rights to inspect you’re homes and will break you’re door down if you don’t let them in.
            Then there will be lots of YouTube videos of the radiation poisoning agencies abusing their powers.

            Of course this will be a secret trick to know who owns guns if they Department of Health spot any it will be reported.

          • neo-archaic

            He is a disinformation agent, utilized in an attempt to cease the flow of thoughts and the corresponding realizations which result.

          • the_deacon

            Stick that banana up your tailpipe homie, that argument HOLDS NO WATER

          • David McFarland

            “That argument holds no water.” Funny, arguing that an argument holds no water. One side has facts, proof, and education on their side. The other has the statement “THIS ARGUMENT IS BANANAS/HOLDS NO WATER.”

          • the_deacon

            So you want me to do all your research for you too, no problem: http://www.globalresearch.ca/fake-science-alert-fukushima-radiation-cant-be-compared-to-bananas-or-x-rays/5329369 Or how bout this from Dr. Giles Roditi from BBC News Magazine: “The “banana equivalent dose” is frowned upon by radiation protection
            specialists like me. While it’s true that bananas contain potassium and,
            by extension, radioactive potassium-40, humans don’t simply absorb all
            of the radiation that the potassium-40 emits. The body keeps a more or
            less constant inventory of all the potassium it needs. When you ingest
            potassium, some of it is retained and the extra potassium is excreted.
            As a result, some of the “banana equivalent dose” is not retained in the
            body but passes right through. Because this amount also differs from
            person to person, it’s not a good method of comparison.”

          • David McFarland

            My point is that bananas will still do more to Americans than Fukushima. It is on such a level that the BED is, while frowned upon, actually considerable.

          • Susan Johnson

            How can it be the safest considering what we are discussing here? The waste is the problem and there is no way to get rid of that safely – we are looking at an example of why that is so. This plant was built to withstand a large earthquake, but the magnitude of this one was off the scale and there is nothing to say it won’t happen again.

          • David McFarland

            “Slow and steady wins the race.” Or in this case, kills the most people. Sure, you get a nuclear disaster every few decades, but they rarely kill all that many people and, if you actually know what your talking about when it comes to contamination and biology (as opposed to just listen to foolish conspiracy theorists) most people affected by the contamination never see the effects of it.
            Nuclear does it all at once, and even then affects a relatively small area. The calculated amount of contamination Americans will see in our waters will be approximately that of a banana per cubic meter of water. And considering that’s 264 gallons of unfiltered sea-water, I think we’ve got bigger issues if you’re actually drinking over a years-worth of water from the OCEAN.
            Tuna spawned near Fukushima are also showing less contamination than your average banana. Considering they are predatory fish, that also means that their food-source fish have considerably less contamination, as they’d be concentrating it from them.

            Coal, natural gas, solar, and wind, on the other hand, do it spread out over time. Unless you’ve been near a nuclear-accident, you won’t receive radiation from a nuclear power plant. Most nuclear workers receive less radiation than, say, construction workers who work outdoors, simply because they are inside and shielded from their own plant. However, you WILL receive pollutants from fossil-fuel plants hundreds of miles away. Japan has considerably higher health-risks from Chinese Coal plants than Fukushima. Because those pollutants also have C-14, you also get more radiation from Coal than you do Nuclear.
            Nuclear power is also safe for the workers; it’s kill-rate is so low (less than 50 people in it’s history, compared to the thousands per year from Coal) that becomes a major factor; Wind power becomes terribly expensive to maintain and requires regular maintenance and actually dangerous for it’s workers (not to mention it requires acres upon acres of open land), as does solar. Hydro electric destroys the environment, save for new unobtrusive designs that aren’t exactly high-powered.

          • Geronimo

            A high level of misinformation vs. an equally high level of myopia. What’s worse? I’d be hard-pressed to say. But, considering that all seem quite willing to ignore the role that social engineering will have to play in any “solution”, this is a discussion that will ultimately lead nowhere.

          • neo-archaic

            You have touched upon the only real solution, as unthinkable as it may be to most.

          • neo-archaic

            Eventually the sheer numbers of people and the waste and pollution they create from all sources will end up in disintegration of civilization and total chaos.

            Regardless of how intelligent and advanced hose who worship the god of science believe humanity to be.

          • Thorfinnss

            Why did GE buy the patents for Thorium reactors and shelve them? Could it be because Uranium breeder reactors are needed to make weapons grade plutonium? Thank the Chinese for starting to build these Thorium reactors finally. And they are incapable of melting down.

          • David McFarland

            You mean the very reactors the US hasn’t built in over 3 decades and isn’t allowed to build in an agreement with the USSR since the Cold War? (Since the USSR doesn’t exist, Russia doesn’t officially have to follow that agreement.)

            I wouldn’t doubt the GE has their hands in Uranium mining.

            They build a product that works. It contaminates less than, say, Coal Plants. Nuclear Power, even with GE’s money-grubbing involved, they still have the lowest kw/hr-death ratio.

            GE’s been known to do it. They, and some other contractors, have been cheating the US Military for years (they had to get rid of the US’s major nuclear proponent Admiral Rickover, to do it, falsely claiming he was in bed with GE to fire him. That and he was old as dirt.)

            Thorum reactors are awesome, yes. Which is why the US DoE is looking into them.

          • cozmik

            You work for the Military, then you are already brainwashed and have a bad case of just following orders.

          • David McFarland

            You watched a bit too much “Full Metal Jacket,” didn’t you, and then just decided all military members were robots, without actually knowing anything about it, eh?

            Yeah, the military isn’t like the movies, and the nuclear field of the Navy is so far removed from the military that even though we’ve got a huge military base here of over 27,000 people, most Japanese think us Nukes are Australian or British students because we don’t “seem like Americans or military,”

            If you’re not satisfied with that, our department tried to get our last CO fired. Wrote pretty much every Congressman and Senator about him. Didn’t work (we did keep him from getting Admiral and a good job within the Navy), but he got fired for pretty much the same reasons later on.
            I know guys that got applauded for punching officers and they didn’t follow the order of said officers, and I’ve told officers, “No, sir/ma’am, that’s stupid, I’m not doing that,” (much more politely, of course). The military actually relies on that factor – officers, especially in highly-technical fields rely on the knowledge of their enlisted. While the officer may have a degree, they don’t know as much about the operational aspect of equipment, and they rely on the enlisted to back them up and tell them when they’re wrong.

            Yeah, use your head and stop making such ridiculous assumptions. It’d make you look less like an idiot.

          • mad-dog

            David McFarland…, there are different types of radioactive particles, some lodge in our bodies and continue to cause damage to our cells and dna until we die, while others may occasionally hit us from space or something. Do you prefer to have radiation beaming you from the inside out, continuously?

          • David McFarland

            You don’t think I know that? First off, you obviously don’t.

            Radioactive particles don’t “lodge in our bodies” at all, and they don’t last long. Once they hurt you the very first time, they aren’t hurting you anymore (except for neutrons, but again, very, very short lived). It’s like a bullet.

            You’re talking about contamination – NOT radiation – which the fact that you don’t know the difference is enough to discredit your argument.

            The different types of radioactive particles are gammas (photons), neutrons, Betas (electrons and positrons), and Alphas (ionized helium atoms). Alphas can be stopped by clothing, and betas by your dead-skin layer, but both can hurt you if they get inside of you, especially Alphas.
            Gammas will go through nearly anything, including you – most of the gammas that you’re “irradiated with” won’t even interact with you. They’ll just go through you. Neutrons CAN go through you, and many will, but if they are lower-energy they can do a bit more damage – imagine it like a bullet, again. A high-energy bullet will rip through and keep on going. A low-energy one will be stopped by the higher-density parts of you and bounce around because it doesn’t have enough energy to escape.

            As for the different types of contamination? Oh, oh yes. There are MANY. These are isotopes of different elements.

            They don’t stay there permanently. They have a “biological half-life,” i.e. how long they stay in your body. They don’t “lodge” in your body, and they certainly don’t stay there permenantly.
            The radionuclide of concern – which is no longer seeping into the ocean, as the only radioactive isotope presently in the tanks at Fukushima is Tritium, which is naturally occuring I might add – is Cesium. Cesium has a Biological Half Life of 70 days.
            For comparison, we’ll again use bananas. I so love to do that, because people often freak out about “OMG IS RADIATION.” “Well, how much?” “DOESN’T MATTER! IT’S RADIATION!” “Well, yes it does matter.” “NO IT DOESN’T. RADIATION IZ BAD.”
            The K-40 in Bananas has a biological half-life of 16 days, and 15 becquerels worth of it at that on average. That means that every second, that banana is bombarding you with 15 gammas. But, considering no one cares about bananas, we can use that as a standard “We don’t care about this extremely low level,” right?

            The equivalent amount of contamination in Tuna is 15 becquerels per 100kg – that’s Tuna that spawn and hunt near Fukushima. That means they’re eating fish that would have already been contaminated as well, and they’re concentrating that in their bodies.
            So, let’s do the math.

            The same amount of contamination is in ONE banana or ONE HUNDRED Tuna steaks, if you’re going with 100g (3.5 ounces) as your standard tuna steak.
            But wait! I just said that Cs-137 stays in your body 4.25 times longer than K-40!
            Okay, so that means 100 Tuna-Steaks compares to 5 bananas. (Really, ~4.65, if you do the proper math for the conversion of the energy levels of emitted gammas.)
            Now, consider this: Those Tuna are also being contaminated with Mercury by Chinese Coal Plants.

            The levels of contamination in those tuna are so low that the Mercury in them is the reason why you shouldn’t eat too much, not the cesium.

            Or, considering the water, per cubic meter (or 264 gallons, the amount of water you SHOULD drink every year is 180,) reaching the West Coast over the next several years will have between 10 and 40 becquerels worth of contamination. Ergo, if Americans were to drink all of their water from stuff that would have been contaminated by Fukushima, over the course of a year it would only be as harmful to your body as eating a couple of bananas.

            Again, when you freak out about contamination, consider HOW MUCH you’re freaking out about.

          • Lynda Naatz Richter

            I have solar panels, do you? If Denmark can provide 65% of their power this way, certainly we can as well.

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mount-Shasta-Energy-Services/305074483863?ref=ts&fref=ts shastatodd

            yes, lynda… i do have solar pv… solar hot water too. my oldest solar electric panel was made in 1990… so 23 years old now and it still makes rated power!

            so called renewables take lots of fossil fuels to manufacture, install and maintain… so we surely dont want them powering waste… i know conservation is not as sexy as solar… but on a finite planet, with finite resources… it IS job #1.

            i have been zero energy since 2004… using only 14 kWh/day, including winter heating (the national average is 35 and that does not include heating loads).

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004264362336 Kyle Hill

            It can only be as a backup but never as a primary power source. Climate is not solar panel friendly and solar panels will ice over especially if the current sun trend puts us in a mini ice age at best or in the worst case scenario a full blown one.

            A mini one though is much more likely but even a mini one has significant changes in Europe which will come to a shock to most people when you can regularly skate across the Thames in the middle of winter.

          • Al Boek

            Actually, it’s just the opposite. Solar can become your MAIN energy source when sized properly and your utility company becomes your “back-up” as you stay hooked to the grid. Most states we’re lobbied years ago to force you to stay HOOKED UP to their grids.

          • neo-archaic

            Most people are struggling to meet their basic daily needs and are not in a position to invest in that.

          • Lynda Naatz Richter

            We make < 40k a year. We buy them as we can. If it is important, you mAke. It work. If not, you make excuses.

          • neo-archaic

            For the people living in apartments, it’s a little out of their control.

          • Al Boek

            If you keep sending your monthly utility bill to them and not re-assign some of it toward solar, you’ll never be able to afford solar. They want it that way. We have programs that allow folks to put solar on with NO money out of their pockets and then the savings on utility pays the monthly fee for the solar. Look around.

          • Al Boek

            EXactly…thanks for that input Lynda. It can be done. Imagine with Germany’s climate they are still the number one solar power country in the world.

          • BigRed

            I am.. have. done.

          • Theresa Markham

            me. we’ve reduced our energy consumption by over 50% over two years despite my husband’s reliance on a wheelchair. what have you done?

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mount-Shasta-Energy-Services/305074483863?ref=ts&fref=ts shastatodd

            we have been zero energy with a smallish (4.5 kW) grid tied solar pv system since 2004. this includes our winter heating loads. the total, average daily consumption is 14 kWh… the national average is 35 kWh/day, which does not include heating… so we are living pretty lightly. in addition, we grow most all of our food, and the fertility for the soil too via 6000 sq ft of white clover. this year i am adding 1500 sq to the garden, doubling it… so we will have 3000 sq ft total… plus the orchard too. it is amazing what can be done on a 1.5 acre piece of land if it is done right.

          • robnitro

            Ok, that’s nice, BUT due to this system of capitalism, most of us have to live in cities where there is no such land to do this. It’s easy for you to say how you can do this, but ask the millions who live in cities to do this. In my apartment building, the roof can probably power only 1 floor.

            Oh and BTW, solar and wind cannot displace standard generation. The grid is tied together, HAS TO RUN 60 hz. Any drop in generation, like solar or wind, has to be backed up by “spinning reserve”. Those plants that can be used as quick spinning reserve are actually much more inefficient than the big ones that supply base load.
            I have friends who are load dispatchers who explained the dilemma… it also applies to co-gen plants. Most factories that want to feed into the grid need to guarantee a certain amount of power and give notice when they are coming offline.

            You wanna see what happens when you take a grid, and pull a bunch of supply offline? That’s what caused the east coast blackout, it ended up doing a trip chain reaction and taking out a whole area.

            There are NO BATTERIES in the grid, electricity as we have it, is a fickle b&^%h.

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mount-Shasta-Energy-Services/305074483863?ref=ts&fref=ts shastatodd

            yes, it is doubtful that the cities will fair too well as the degrowth continues to unfold. its very hard to be sustainable in an apartment building. lol

          • neo-archaic

            That is the reality of the situation.

          • Al Boek

            Expensive, maybe, but compared to this mess, maybe not. But not impossible. I’d rather be faced with that challenge than how to contain Fukushima in it’s current situation.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004264362336 Kyle Hill

            We need a push for a totally upgraded grid with backups in case it fails but the Government wants to instead increase welfare spending and go to wars in other countries.

          • azafvet

            Bite me knucklehead. Why not ask the Multibillionaires who make their money using our resources but don’t want to pay their share of the cost, to kick in the bucks to upgrade the nations infrastructure. That’s not just the power grid to where it should have been maintained and updated all the years Reagonomics was shift the wealth towards the top and ignoring everyone and everything else.

          • neo-archaic

            overpopulation system paradigm= collapse~chaos… martian intervention?

          • mad-dog

            Uhmm,,,, you’re using a computer on the net right now to post these comments, and you can’t take a few seconds to google, batteries backup for the power grid? They are developing such large scale technology as we speak. Also, haven’t you heard that the tidal forces of the ocean are present day and night so there is your alternate source “spinning reserve”. Many computer data centers like the one that hosts this website you are on, use battery backup systems called a “UPS” short for Uninterruptible Power Supply, to provide that 60hz power you are referring to. Its really just a matter of, do those in power care to make these technologies available to our country or not…

          • Al Boek

            THE SMART GRID is a LIE. They know it. Like our buddy Dave they fool their own. The most cost-effective place to generate any power except NUKE and maybe gas-fired turbines and Large Hydro power dam systems, is at your home, the point of use. Say what you want, that fact will not ever change._greenearl
            Please before you go there. I’m not here to sell solar, I’m here, like I’ve always been, as the “canary in the mind” to help counter LIES and EVIL. Check me out at http://www.facebook.com/easysimplesolar been that way for over 30 years.
            That’s not going to change either._greenearl

          • kungfud

            i have a small balcony in a rented apartment growing strawberries, basil, mint and kale, probably toxic due to the amount of car exhaust they grow in from the street below. but what can you do. we can’t all live on farmland. and what if you are in CA? growing your own in radiated soil with fallout rain?

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mount-Shasta-Energy-Services/305074483863?ref=ts&fref=ts shastatodd

            the left coast has seasonal precipitation. mount shasta hasnt had any rain for about 5 months now… and from what i research… fukushima’s radiation is mostly in the cooling water flowing into the ocean… not much is airborne.

          • Geronimo

            That is what the article, that precipitated this whole thread, was about – waterborne radiation, not airborne!

          • neo-archaic

            Indeed, let’s confine our thinking to what each article refers to.

          • neo-archaic

            yet

          • Alexis

            And where do you think the rain water comes from? Evaporation off the ocean.. Read a book!

          • David McFarland

            You’re suggesting elements that can’t evaporate are evaporating?

          • David McFarland

            260 gallons of Fukushima Contaminated Ocean Water = 1 Banana’s worth of contamination. (1 BED.) Yes, bananas have contamination. K-40. They always have, they always will. If you want to freak out about something, by comparison, your Produce Section at your local supermarket seems far more villainous that Nuclear Power. I mean, they’ll sell you BUNCHES of bananas! It’d take a YEAR of drinking STRAIGHT SEA-WATER to get that much contamination! (Yearly suggested water-intake is 180 gallons)

          • InfoPackage

            i love how stupid you sound trying to downplay the multiple different radioactive materials flooding the pacific and the west coast of north america. large pools of dead fish, animals with lesions and hair loss, and you downplay the “reported” amount of radiation leaked when it was proven to be false numbers in a blackout attempt to halt mass panic?

            hawaii now has milk with radiation in it. fukashima is STILL pouring hundreds of thousands of gallons of contaminated water into the ground and ocean. stop downplaying an event that at the beginning, exceeded the chernobyl incident.

            Half life of Ceasium-137 (one of the elements released into the sea by Fukukshime) is 30 years.

            a huge radioactive debris field is following the north pacific gyre, containing isotopes and radioactive material the human body cant maintain via “homostatic regulation” – another little detail you forgot to mention as you compared the radioactivity currently happening, to your bananas. You apparently havent heard of children suffering from thyroid issues, babies born with thyroid issues back in 2011?

            Lets get back to that milk in hawaii and the rest of the united states. in 2012, the milk samples tested at 2000 percent higher than EPA maximum. As for the milk itself, that shows us the contamination levels are far more serious because its has affected our whole food chain. those levels in the milk were filtered through a cow, some grass, the dirt and the rain(steps of the water cycle). so if it was affecting children back in 2011, is killing fish and animals in the US in 2012 and 2013, fukashima is still dumping radioactive seawater into the ground and ocean(surprise surprise!), has been ever increasing in our food chain(If you eat foods from areas with high radiation levels, you
            are eating radiation and feeding it to your children. Slowly the
            radiation levels within your body will build up. this is permanent.)

            Lets just stop right here and end the downplaying of radioactive isotope the human body cannot filter!

          • David McFarland

            Great, another “OMG MORE RADIATION = DEATH. I HAVE NO SOURCES. BUT DEATH.”

            I love how stupid you sound without any sources or, more importantly, values.

            Yes, there is contaminated water spilling into the oceans.
            Fun fact, much of what’s left and still spilling into the oceans only has Tritium left in it.

            Also, fun fact, IT ISN’T THAT MUCH.
            Yes, radiation levels have increased. The only value you did give – Source that crap, because frankly enough – we’re fine over here in Japan. We didn’t experience any of that crap, so I’m calling BS on your “2000%.”

            But how much did they increase? Not that much.
            I’ve used this comparison before, and it’s valid, so I’ll use it again:
            There is water in the atmosphere. Say you go meet aliens on planet Whatever, and tell them that there is liquid water in Earth’s Atmosphere, and that you can drown in liquid water – you can easily hype it up to being that Earth’s Atmosphere is incredibly dangerous, and without knowing any better, they might believe you.
            However, this notion seems incredibly silly to you, does it not? Why? Because you’re educated on the matter. You know the amount of water in the air is far too low to ever hurt you, and that even if it were rather saturated with it – say, an extremely humid day followed by rain – you could still survive outside quite easily. Why? Because it would take many, many times that amount.

            Compare 1mrem to 1 drop of water (I’ve done the math before in such discussions, it actually works out quite beautifully in some regards). Is that going to kill you? No! You need [i]thousands[/i] of times that to have any HARM, let alone death.

            You receive ~1mrem a day based on where you live.

            You receive ~7mrem per Transpacific Flight, courtesy of the Sun.

            The radiation levels in much of Japan were so low after Fukushima that the 7mrem received was enough to amount to being more radiation received than if they’d simply STAYED IN JAPAN, in that one flight alone.

            So, to someone like me who has had years of training on nuclear power, contamination, radiation, and who took surveys in Japan during and after Fukushima, you sound completely and utterly ridiculous. As ridiculous as the notion of drowning in air.

            Fact of the matter is, it’s not that much. We in Japan are more in danger from Chinese Coal Plants than Fukushima.

            Also, fun fact: I’m a nuclear operator, know what I’m talking about, took surveys in the Tokyo Bay Area during Fukushima, and was used as a “baseline,” sample-individual because it was proven (via standing in a giant immobile, extremely sensitive radiac) that my body absorbed so little contamination that it was still acting as a radiation-shield.

            Also, Cs-137 has a 70-day biological half-life.
            Aka, it’s gone out of your body after 70 days.

          • David McFarland
          • Deva O’Donnell

            And who’s paying you to go on the forums and downplay this?

          • David McFarland

            What makes you think I’m being paid? Simply because it disagrees with your views? Really? Because you don’t like it, I must be part of some big grand conspiracy? Is that your go-to mental defense mechanism to keep you from having to accept a change and admit you were wrong? Someone comes along with an argument you can’t refute, scientific backing, and personal experience, and all of a sudden they MUST be lying?

            Typical.
            Really, I see this a lot.

            You get people who don’t value education nearly as much, and you find that they have a harder time accepting that they are wrong.

            No one is paying me.

            Consider this:

            I’m a Reactor Operator. As such, the last several years of my life have revolved around education. I’ve been immersed in a culture that revolves around knowledge, research, fact-checking, and pride in all of the former. Most of us score in the “genius” level of the IQ range.

            And then I encounter people like you, who base their information off fear and assumptions. It irks me so bad, it actually makes me angry. It really does. It frustrates me to no end.

            As such, I reply. Most nuclear operators don’t. Most of us are quite admittedly rather “elitist.” You have to be in the job to keep your sanity, to a point. To most nuclear operators, people like you simply aren’t worth your time. You’re “those people who can’t be bothered to use Google intelligently,” the “people afraid of what they don’t know,” and “the intentionally uneducated,” and, “the dumbs,” and probably the biggest telling reason, “the people who kept asking them to do homework for them in high-school” Why would they want to spend any more time educating you, let alone dealing with you?
            My brand of elitism just plays out in just trying to see the world more educated.

          • Deva O’Donnell

            No, I think you’re being paid because you’re full of BS talking points.

          • David McFarland

            Like what?
            This is a scientific discussion forum. If you want to make statements like that, you better have backing.

            As it so happens, I’m a Reactor Operator who took surveys in Tokyo during Fukushima. I know radiation. I know nuclear power. I’ve been studying it for the past five years, the first two years equating to a full college education at most Ivy League school. You have no reason to doubt that.
            I sound ridiculous, talking about Bananas as comparisons because the entire matter is ridiculous, and bananas, in this case, are really a valid comparison, and because it brings something to the table that you can understand as opposed to Sieverts, becquerels, REM, gammas, neutrons, biological half-lifes, and the like. That’s the level of radiation we’re talking about. Bananas.

          • Deva O’Donnell

            Oh really? So you’re a Reactor Operator, eh? So you admit you gain financially from nuclear power, and stand to lose financially if we shift to actually clean power. Therefore, your statements and opinions on the matter are biased. Now you’re out here downplaying the effects of the biggest nuclear disaster in history, before the full effects have even played out. Go tell your bosses that their days are numbered.

          • David McFarland

            Wrong again. I’m military. My pay is based on rank, not success of an industry. If we shift to non-nuclear power (Nuclear power is clean, FYI.) I lose nothing. I actually get paid more. I’m not even looking to Nuclear Power as a job post-military.

            (I am in no way a spokesman for the US Military.)
            I get paid very little compared to Civilian Reactor Operators.
            If we get rid of all of the Naval Reactors, I get to be out of an incredibly stressful scenario that nearly cost me my insanity, out of the military, and into an incredibly paying job of my choosing (our experience is generally looked at as being better than any college degree), go back to college, et cetera. If we lose nuclear reactors, I actually gain. I get an easier life and a whole lot more money.
            It’s the world that loses out.
            Also, Chernobyl was bigger. By a lot.
            You really need to start learning something.

            Really, you’re just shouting “I DONT WANNA BE WRONG,” right now. Thanks. It’s actually funny.

            And before you say “brainwashed,” consider the fact that all of that information on brainwashing involved in the military is based on Hollywood scenes about Boot Camp.
            That, and I’m in a field where questioning your superiors is actually valued. Hell, we get medals for what other branches would consider insubordination. It’s really nothing like the rest of the military.

          • Deva O’Donnell

            Nuclear power is clean? Tell it to the people of Fukushima. I’m sure they’re just loving how clean it is right now. Tell it to Chernobyl. It’s not clean. That’s a baloney, marketing lie.

          • David McFarland

            Two major incidents in 30 years.
            Yeah. That’s TERRIBLE. One of them killed NO ONE.

            And if I come across anyone from Fukushima who speaks English and wants to speak on the matter, I’ll gladly speak with them on the matter.
            Considering that I’ve lived in Japan since before 3/11/11, that’s actually not an off-the-wall possibility.

            Fact of the matter is that much of the horrors caused by Fukushima was because of PEOPLE LIKE YOU.
            People freaking out, having no idea what they’re talking about.
            People are often afraid of what they don’t know. In this case, radiation. You’re afraid of it because you don’t understand it. Someone tells you it’s bad, so you believe them.
            Everyone got displaced. The Japanese government and humanitarian organizations focused on the Radiation Victims, who would have survived perfectly well (having received less than the amount clearly defined as resulting in an increase in chance of cancer), and trying to evacuate them (when evacuated by air they actually received far more harmful radiation than if they’d stayed).
            As a result, government funding and manpower was NOT spent on as many Tsunami Victims. PEOPLE DIED.
            So, way, to go, Anti-Nuclear Freaks. We could have had people simply irradiated about as much as if they’d taken a short-airline trip across the United States. Far less than man medical exams. Instead, PEOPLE DIED.
            Oh, but it gets WORSE.
            Japan summarily decided nuclear power was the devil and that all the nuclear power plants had to be shut-down and decommissioned. Lucky for them, decommissioning takes years.
            Shortly after, the Japanese summer came. Japanese summers are notorious for sucking. Humid. Hot.
            Their electrical grid couldn’t support it. People didn’t have AC. Things got hot. Mold grew out of control. People got heat stress and mold-infections.

            PEOPLE DIED.

            The Japanese government realized they were being dumb and started some of the reactors back up for the summer.
            So, thanks, Anti-Nuclear Activist murderers. You’re more harmful than reactor’s you’ve so intentionally not educated yourself on.
            If you haven’t gotten the picture:
            Death Count from Fukushima Reactors: 0
            Death Count from freaking out about Fukushima Reactors: Thousands.

            Seriously, educate yourself.

            I love how you completely dropped the notion that I was being paid off. I really do. It means you learned something.

          • Speaking Truth

            One of the main problems I have with nuclear energy is not the technology itself, but the people in charge of the technology. The governments and greedy energy companies, do you actually think we can trust them to do right by us? Cutting corners, dirty fuel, 50 year old nuclear plants on fault lines RIGHT NEXT TO THE OCEAN. Things like common sense are overturned by things like greed and power. Look at the nations that heavily use nuclear power,the US, Russia, Japan, Iran, S.Korea, China, India, South Africa, Pakistan, Mexico, and tell me you trust them to safeguard the people, let alone the planet. Japan is a prime example, probably the most seismic region in the world with ancient reactors and no way to flip the off switch. Oh the were designed to be shut down, but cutting those corners makes that precarious at best. Do you think they are being even slightly honest when it comes to how much contaminated water was released into the ocean or the air? Or the severity of the problem? What are they going to do with the billions of gallons of contaminated water in those tanks? They are relying on a technology that doesn’t exist yet, that should’ve been in development at the same time the early reactors went online. Again, greed, why worry about a problem before it happens? I’ll bet money that as soon as the world stops watching they’ll dump that water right back into the ocean. Adding a couple more bananas by your correlation.

          • Deva O’Donnell

            Also, what’s so stressful about operating a reactor if it’s so safe and clean? What I’m shouting isn’t “I DON’T WANT TO BE WRONG”, What I’m shouting is “I DON’T WANT MY WORLD IRRADIATED”. Stop downplaying it, this is a major disaster and will have environmental and health ramifications for many people for a very long time to come. What you are engaged in is simply psychotic.

          • David McFarland

            The fact that you suggest that ‘safe and clean = not stressful’ shows your lack of knowledge about the matter in one of the most blatant ways possible. Moreso than if you confused radiation and contamination.

            By the way, if you don’t know the difference between radiation and contamination stop right now because you’re not educated enough to be talking about the matter.

            What’s stressful is that it’s the military, you don’t see your loved ones for months on end, have limited communication, sleep deprivation, and terrible food. All the while your brain is trying to do the higher-level thinking associated with nuclear power without the same amount of brain-chemicals that most regular people get.
            And you don’t get any thanks for it.

            And too bad. Your whole world is irradiated. By the sun and the Earth itself. You irradiate yourself more than a nuclear power plant ever will.

            I hope you’re not married. Sleeping next to someone gives you almost as much radiation as living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant for a year – and a single banana gives you more.
            And coal plants are far, far worse.
            And don’t get me started on airplanes. The people fleeing Japan got more radiation than those who stayed due to being that much higher in the atmosphere and less shielded from the sun. Heck, being at 30,000 feet gives you a higher dose than walking into the Fukushima Exclusion Area. (except for certain isolated areas.)

          • Deva O’Donnell

            So let me get this straight – prior to this event, a nuclear meltdown was considered one of the worst things that could happen short of all out nuclear war. Now that it’s happened, oh it’s no big deal. Just a little radiation. Soak it up and enjoy, nothing to see here.

            Stop downplaying this. It’s not just some cute little passing fluke. It’s a serious problem that will have serious ramifications and health effects for a long time to come and these reactors are all over the place. It’s not clean. It’s not safe. It’s moronic.

          • David McFarland

            Considered by who? People’s whose knowledge of reactors was from watching the movie China Syndrome where they called a reactor-scram a BAD thing?

            It is “just a little radiation” compared to what you get from everything else! Seriously!
            http://www.xkcd.com/radiation.
            He makes a note at the bottom that it’s not entirely accurate, but that he had advisement from a Senior Reactor Operator. As a fellow reactor operator, I can back up much of what he’s thrown out there on that infographic.
            Heck, I could have produced that same thing myself. I would have done it in mrem, but I guess more people use Sieverts.

            And what’s your knowledge of the health effects? Science says otherwise. It’s clean. It’s safe. Educated people are well aware of this.
            Stop being afraid of things you know nothing about.

            Or at least try to learn something about what you start talking about. You look silly right now. Very, very silly.

          • Leonard Bodner

            David, i think this is and will be far worse than Chernobyl.Chernobyl happened in one big event,Fukushima is on going and will be for years to come as they really have no idea of how too really contain it. They also don’t seem to want outside help.You should google david suzuki on fukushima don’t know if you know him but you can search that,he’s very well respected.Listen to what he say’s near the end of the video,very shocking and something to really think about.

          • Deva O’Donnell

            Oh really? So you’re a Reactor Operator, eh? So you admit you gain financially from nuclear power, and stand to lose financially if we shift to actually clean power. Therefore, your statements and opinions on the matter are biased. Now you’re out here downplaying the effects of the biggest nuclear disaster in history, before the full effects have even played out. Go tell your bosses that their days are numbered.

          • William A Finch

            Atomic Energy fan boy?

          • David McFarland

            You could say that. Considering many top environmentalists and the vast majority of reputable scientists are as well, I’d say I’m in good company.

          • William A Finch

            Yep. Fanboy. How hard is it to remove those stains round your collar? Just curious.

          • David McFarland

            Easier than removing the idea from your head that silly little insults, without purpose, cause, reason, correlation, or backing, are absolutely and utterly pointless.

            You’d also be more accurate in saying “Qualified Reactor Operator, currently living in Japan” but, sure, I’ll take “fanboy,” if that makes you feel like you’ve got something to insult me with, because you’re failing right now.

          • neo-archaic

            That is a dose of reality.

            The disintegration has reached critical mass.

          • mad-dog

            hello? the answer is called electric cars and solar/wind power… ta daaaa!

          • neo-archaic

            Switched from lighters to rubbing sticks together to light joints.

          • Nan Jørgensen

            Me, I am willing and I have!

          • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

            I have cut my fossil sunlight energy consumption by 90% over the past ten years. It really isn’t that hard. It’s a choice. You put it well, “how many are willing.” Most are unwilling to minimize their impact on future generations — it’s me, now.

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mount-Shasta-Energy-Services/305074483863?ref=ts&fref=ts shastatodd

            awesome! you rock!

          • neo-archaic

            Critical mass has been reached, your efforts will be in vain.

          • http://www.carolynemas.com CarolyneMas

            I am. I live off the grid entirely, and use very little power at that from my solar panels. I also drive a car that runs of used vegetable oil. I have my computer, iPhone and iPad. I don’t have TV, and I don’t need it. I use a propane fridge and stove, and have a wood stove for heat. I have learned to live nature which is free, more than buying useless things that plug into the wall.

          • neo-archaic

            What’s a TV?

          • http://www.carolynemas.com CarolyneMas

            I am. I live off the grid entirely, and use very little power at that from my solar panels. I also drive a car that runs of used vegetable oil. I have my computer, iPhone and iPad. I don’t have TV, and I don’t need it. I use a propane fridge and stove, and have a wood stove for heat. I have learned to live nature which is free, more than buying useless things that plug into the wall.

          • mad-dog

            I can do it. We can do it. 10% is nothing!

          • ASP

            This is not about energy consumption of the individual. This is about money and power for the elite.

          • IThinkForMyself

            when will the Tesla, free energy be available? You think it is my fault? It is the NWO that will not let our planet thrive because they want us all dead so they can have it for themselves

          • Al Boek

            Shastatodd: I live in Redding, you live around here?

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mount-Shasta-Energy-Services/305074483863?ref=ts&fref=ts shastatodd

            mount shasta… been here for around 33 years now!

          • Cecilia Roders

            Ever thought of using wind and solar power? Now maybe we will be smart enough to do it, if enough of us survive. That’s the answer, not nuclear power, and not even cutting consumption (although cutting it might help a little).

          • Will Wallace.

            There is no need for nuclear power. The Sun shines every day. See what Germany is doing. There is a problem with solar power though and that is that it will cause the power mad control freaks to lose their grip on humanity. We never had a right to split the atom any more than
            we have a right to put animal genes in food crops. I am extremely upset with the folks that are doing these things—ie profiting from war , Geo engineering etc, however ,I also recognize that they are choosing to demonstrate the horrible Traits we all have, over the good and caring traits most of us have. I wonder if we would be any better if we had the power they do. I like to think so but I am not so sure. I find that for all the great and amazing thing humans are capable of that we are also quite dim witted.

        • Geronimo

          If I read you correctly, you are saying that this dilemma has been brought upon us by the arrogance of scientists, engineers and politicians. You say that they are destroying our planet, without permission. Correct?
          1. Whose permission did we ask, to consider this planet “ours”?
          2. What about the other inhabitants? Are their homes being destroyed with permission?
          3. I doubt seriously that there are enough scientists, engineers and politicians on the planet, to generate that amount of trash. They must have help and relatively little REAL opposition. (Posting and blogging doesn’t count)

          Perhaps you and Mr. Tonto would do well to reassess your own roles in this little opera. The boogie man is probably closer to home, than you think.

          • neo-archaic

            Get out the bug spray

      • cmmj

        Agree. Then we really can have a ‘TED’ talk that is truly meaningful and informative (unlike the overly elitist, self-important, and look-at-me-I’m-so-clever hopium talks which currently are promoted there).

      • amc

        Well said. so what do you suggest??

      • Deva O’Donnell

        It’s not the fault of scientists. Scientists don’t create technology. They discover the workings of nature. Governments and businesses hire engineers to apply those discoveries to making money and defeating opponents. If you want to blame someone for this, blame the capitalists and the governments who allow them to build such things, often against the best advice of the scientists, and science is really our only hope of recovering from our current mess.

      • Al Boek

        Actually, that cut you mention is turning into 1/3 to 1/2 of the entire pie.

      • Sugarsail1

        I suggest you go back to living naked in caves since you think all of this technology is soooo detrimental.

    • Undecider

      Global warming is a non-issue. Don’t waste your time on it.

      • Steve Harris

        idiot

        • http://bahaseedofdavid.blog.com/ Faye Brown

          Undecider … With all these volcanoes waking up .. global warming AKA global cooling effectgs , shound be worth considering … because volcanic eruptions are said to have the capability of enhancing global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere … also global cooling because volcanic activity spreads aerosols throughout the stratosphere causing unseasonably cool weather, brilliant sunsets, and prolonged twilights .. so I guess it’s safe to say with the increase of all this volcanic activity .. there will be an added effect on global warming AND global cooling depending on what area is being effected and by what degree of CO2 and aerosols debris are being released by the volcanoes ..

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            Nonsense. global warming. When that didn’t work out it became global cooling. When that didn’t work out, it became climate change. First
            it was man-made, When that didn’t work out it became third person invisible climate change. Lots of scientists who know little about the actual subject are spouting a political position, closely followed by ignorant policy makers with an axe to grind. It’s the neo-Malthusian, small is beautiful confidence men all over again. It wasn’t that long ago that we had the same crowd spouting ” limits to growth” nonsense–that we were running out of everything. They were massively wrong because they knew nothing about economic adjustment. Only by a miracle was massively wrong, economically devastating government policy averted at the last minute by an election. On climate my money is on the MIT experts.

            I could write a book, from direct experience, on some of the mendacity of the “Friends of the Earth” type environmental crowd, on both the local and national level.

            David Sternlight, PhD, who has watched this nonsense closely from inside academe, government,industry, and advisory boards, for most of my 80 years.

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            And another thing. A lot of the climate change hysteria and all the limits to growth hysteria was based on computer models. Early in my modeling career at MIT, 60 years ago, I learned this fundamental aphorism: “Give me a free hand with the assumptions, and I’ll produce any result you like.”

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mount-Shasta-Energy-Services/305074483863?ref=ts&fref=ts shastatodd

            i remember when it was claimed that cigarettes didnt cause cancer too

          • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

            And yet, the very Limits To Growth model I believe you are referring to (WORLD3) has recently proven to be right on track! Sounds like whatever assumptions they had were sound.

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            False. The work was done by Dennis and Donella Meadows of Dartmouth, whom I knew well, and their initial forecasts were wildly off the mark. A colleague bet at the time that in 20 years all the resources they claimed we were “running out” of would be even more abundant. He won the bet. Their fundamental error was to fail to understand economic adjustment. I went head-to-head with them often at the Aspen Institute Energy Group.

            I was also a member of the US Club of Rome in order to check their work. It was quite wrong.

            Finally, I studied System Dynamics at MIT under Ed Roberts. I am expert in the System Dynamics models used. Changing them when they go badly wrong doesn’t count.

            All this is easily checkable since the Meadows published their model forecasts in their book, “Limits to Growth”.

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            To be specific, the world is far more complex than simple first-order differential equations, queueing distributions, and simple functions, though they can certainly give one a simple-minded feel for dynamics. Forecasting is a much harder problem, as econometricians well know.

          • neo-archaic

            Indeed, and the sequencial harmonization paradigm as it applies to the progression theorem of physics and expunged through the filter of non-aligned differential equations of infinite dynamic expansion, give the thinking participant a complex feel as noted in the logs of those contributors.

            Furthermore, the queueing process as related to distributions, has been disproven as a scientific explanation of functions, be them simple or not inasmuch as it applies to egomatricians and megalomaniacal personalities.

            Having said that, and presented it in irrefutable manner and supported by the evidence provided by yourself in this cyber psychological toll booth there are certain inevitable conclusions which are inexorably moving toward the surface like the great Pacific Tech-Cronic plate.

            Regardless of the resources, education, intellectual capacity, connections, recognition, power, influence, wealth or any measurable worth or lack thereof of any given individual, it is inevitable that he/she shall come to a conclusion upon this planet and be swept under the rug of history as his whole species shall also inevitable do. His own brilliance notwithstanding.

          • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

            Hmmm… “False.” I provided a link that seems to contradict your one-word summary. What part of the Smithsonian analysis do you disagree with?

            Or are you just waving your arms by claiming their “initial forecasts” were “wildly off the mark?” Or does dropping names (you only got 2/3rds of the authors) mean more than Smithsonian.com?

            You state that “all this is easily checkable,” which is precisely what my link shows. The Smithsonian specifically states that the “Business As Usual” model of the 1972 data from Limits To Groth are right on track with data collected since. So I’m puzzled why you refute the entire thing without citing anything wrong with the article I provided, except that you don’t seem to be personally acquainted with the author.

            David, you seem to be so brilliant and sure of yourself that you don’t even need to look at references provided, so I’ll reply no further.

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            The article does not say what you claim. The contemporaneous claims were about running out of specific resources. Instead, the price mechanism, aka business as usual, stimulated exploration, substitution, and innovation. Reminds me of forecasts of the demise of the phone system because it would take every woman in America to be operators. Instead, economic signals created automation. No government intervention required. As to the Meadows, they were at Dartmouth, not MIT, during the “Limits” brouhaha, and I spent lots of time with them at various energy policy study groups.

            Another example. The Meadows style thinking caused AT&T to stockpile copper because we’d be “running out” Big mistake, because it failed to anticipate technological advances, etc.

            One of the big advantages of the MIT WAES study was that it included a team of smart engineers doing technological forecasting on the supply side. The Meadows were neither economists nor technological forecasters. Instead they used naive difference equation approximations to naive first order differential equations to build the model used in the book that caused all the fuss and almost resulted in a government policy disaster, averted only by a Presidential election.

            I am afraid your cognitive dissonance prevents you from reporting accurately.

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            “When will the oil be found? When it’s needed.”
            Thornton Bradshaw, CEO of ARCO, then RCA, ex-Harvard Business School professor, and one of my mentors.
            http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/07/obituaries/thornton-f-bradshaw-dies-at-71-led-rca-until-purchase-by-ge.html

          • neo-archaic

            and you, one of his minions

          • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

            Sternlight: “The article does not say what you claim…”

            First sentence of the article in question: “Recent research supports the conclusions of a controversial environmental study released 40 years ago…”

            One of us apparently can’t read.

            I’m outa here. As Mark Twain said, “Never argue with an idiot. A bystander can’t tell the difference.”

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            Those who stop at the first sentence to validate their preconceptions, without reading the entire article, get what they deserve.

          • neo-archaic

            Here’s a forecast:

            Humanoid population levels are now resulting in and shall increasingly result in rat overpopulation experiment scenarios.

            Human maturity is falling ever farther behind his ability to develop new technologies. Eventually the human will be caught in a web of his own making.

          • neo-archaic

            In the case of this contributor to the collective conscience, the “hysteria” is a simple observation of the struggle of crops to survive, which had flourished only 20-30 years earlier.

            Soil ph & nutrients level not having been lost in the consideration process.

          • neo-archaic

            Try growing some crops in the erratic weather we are experiencing now.

            That is the true test of the reality we face, regardless of the intentions of the tree hugging community or your educational level or number of round trips around the sun you have completed.

        • neo-archaic

          Best one word post ever, based upon the completeness and descriptive nature it contains as pertaining to the subject matter.

      • Brutus

        Why is the world so insane? Dearest skeptic here’s a line of inquiry on behalf of Socrates, Newton and John Bonham:
        Global warming is a deceptive title, her true name is ‘Atmospheric manipulation’ questions revolving around her delicate bosom are, ‘Does human industry have the capacity to affect the atmosphere on a global scale?’ ‘How much of industrial carbon does it take to reach a critical limit?’ ‘What are the consequences of passing this limit?’ Those who wish to reject such lines of inquiry need to vacate the planet and move to the moon, there is a problem because there is and excess of gases produced in a multitude of fashions all over the world. I know your precious G.I Joe set seems valuable but if you would just for a moment adjust your standards and check into the truth of physical reality you might find other more meaningful treats waiting for you in this shitstorm of an existence, this human ‘life’. Good luck cowboy!

        • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

          All important questions. We have no definitive answers, though there are plenty of speculative computer models. It is nuts to develop massively dislocating economic policies on such speculation, the details of which get patched almost daily as pieces of the hypothesis are refuted by data, or data mendacity is exposed.

          The notion that human activity can produce massive-consequence global climate change reminds me of the story of the flea floating on his back on a leaf, shouting “Raise the drawbridge; I’ve got an erection.” The Greeks called it Hubris; the Jews, Chutzpah.

      • neo-archaic

        It will be a non-issue to you, until is affects the food chain which you depend upon for survival.

        It’s not so much warming as erratic weather which has almost ceased occurring in patterns. Winter, summer fall … all in one week?

        Try getting out and growing some crops of your own for a dose of reality.

    • David McFarland

      Hot… water? From what? Fukushima? Go on. Tell me how this works.
      Because it doesn’t. You’d have to have considerable amounts of heavy fissile material traveling that far… and it won’t, because it is, in fact, heavy.
      Those Tuna, by the way, spawning near Fukushima have less contamination in them than bananas.

      • neo-archaic

        Enjoy your tuna fish, care for some dolphin as well?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004264362336 Kyle Hill

      So where is the ocean boat tax similar to the carbon tax to be able to drive boats on the Great Pacific without harming the environment?

      Gotta get rid of those gas guzzler cruise ships! :) Another (failed) cash for clunkers programs aimed at ships this time?

    • DanielKnight4Christ

      “I guess the goal is if global warming doesn’t kill us” so 46 insanos voted up your insane comment that global warming has a goal to kill “us”. Wow, that’s lots of crazies. I’m guessing you don’t believe in evolution too, not that I do. Atheists often overlook their own babble.

    • Al Boek

      Good idea. I just bought my last batch of Alaska Cod for dinner. it’s really sad.

  • Laura

    Radiation kills. Period.

    And who is to blame for this? ALL of us. We signed onto nuclear power, keeping our heads in the sand about what effect it would have on our land. What do you think happens to the stored nuclear waste? They bury it but it will take thousands of years for it to dissipate. If we keep this up, we will kill our selves simply on the nuclear waste that we are burying in the earth and leaking into the water.

    • Steve Harris

      Pretty sure no one in these parts signed on to putting a nuclear reactor at sea level on a coast with a history of earthquakes and tsunamis.

      • Stacie

        you cant seal it & its gonna leak at for 9 months (they have admitted) before they can really TRY to stop the flow of radioactive materials – even if it is covered it will end up in the soil & back into the sea

    • greenhamsters

      Yes! Radiation kills! We really need to look more closely at our food chain. We often don’t realize the dangers which lurk behind so-called “safe” foods. Did you know all the bananas from the Philippines which are consumed in the United States are contaminated with radiation? It’s a radioactive isotope of potassium. Yet, the government doesn’t warn us. The media doesn’t talk about it. We ignorantly consume these bananas thinking they’re healthy for us! If bananas, a “safe” food is contaminated, then how much more should we be concerned about foods which the government admits contain radiation?! Stop the lies! Spread the truth! Boycott bananas!

    • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

      There have been “inherently safe” reactor designs for years but irrational panic has prevented their licensing. Earlier reactors did have design flaws; so did autos until the law required crash-test safer design.

      The problem isn’t atomic power; it is early design omissions. Older reactors should be decommissioned and inherently safe designs built. The first part is already happening.

      (This writer is a former editor of Annual Reviews of Energy, which has published many peer reviewed papers on the matter from leading scientists world-wide.)

      • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

        So-called “inherently safe reactor designs” still have problem at the nose and tail of the fuel cycle — digging it up and processing it creates hazards, as does disposing of it. It’s been said that uranium is safest while it is in an operating reactor!

        And before you can say “fast breeders’ waste product is fuel,” I’m sure you’re aware that processing spent fuel creates its own set of radioactive wastes.

        • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

          Quite right. I’m less concerned with digging hazards. I speculate that more people have been killed in coal mines than uranium mines, yet am prepared to be corrected. As to disposal, that is a serious issue that has received a lot of arrention. I am not up on that literature, though I hope to be, having today gained access to the entire back catalogue of Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment et seq.

          • neo-archaic

            There is no feasible disposal paradigm, hence the whole scenario is a losing prospect for the planet and all kingdoms of living creatures.

            The planet and life are not here as laboratory rats for the gods of the scientific community to tinker with and confuse with circular speech patterns in an effort to actually feel like the creator they have no relief in yet cannot prove does not exist.

            Their own concept of the focus of science to prove rather than disprove notwithstanding.

        • neo-archaic

          Phenomenal cyber-liver shot.

          Let’s see how he recovers from that one…

      • neo-archaic

        CORRECTION:

        Population should be managed to fall within limits where natural energy sources would be sufficient. Regardless of the inevitable butt-hurtedness of a particular arm of the scientific and energy money grubbing community.

  • Nazism

    More young Japanese diagnosed with cancer after nuclear disaster
    TOKYO, AUG 21: The Hindu
    Six more young people from Fukushima prefecture in Japan have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer since Japan’s worst nuclear accident in 2011, news reports said on Wednesday.
    There are now a total of 18 cancer cases among people who were 18 or younger at the time of the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, the Kyodo News Agency reported, citing local Government officials.
    Twenty-five others were also suspected of suffering from some form of cancer, up from 15 in a June report, Kyodo said.
    http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/international/more-young-japanese-diagnosed-with-cancer-after-nuclear-disaster/article5044352.ece

    • neo-archaic

      Hold the Fu*k up, wait just a doggone minute!!!!

      According to the know-it-all on this thread there is nothing to worry about.

  • Pippiagain

    After Kukushima,we went to Costco and bought cases of salmon, crab, tuna and oysters. Once those are gone, we will never eat fish again. :(

    • Heretic2011

      Still sitting on a case of salmon bought just before the…..accident?

      • Pippiagain

        Canned, of course!! :-)

        • Heretic2011

          No, no, just sitting around the living room.

          • Pippiagain

            lol

      • bob

        open it up and hit it with a Geiger cam.

    • Stacie

      Yep. I did the same thing.. Will eventually eat it but I only do it once in a while :( Sucks! NO more king crab legs, shrimp etc..

    • neo-archaic

      What about the water cycle? The rain that falls on the crops we eat and smoke will eventually poison them as well.

      • Pippiagain

        This is true…when it first happened, we had no idea of the scope to which it would grow. It is now looking very grim…Never thought I would be happy to be old, but I am. I cry for my children and grandchildren having to deal with what is coming, if Jesus tarries.

  • daprof

    I am sure Monsanto GMO’s can save the planet, they can create foods that counteract the radiation although the GMO food will eventually kill millions but will be a slower kill process.

    • http://bahaseedofdavid.blog.com/ Faye Brown

      Yep Daprof .. no doubt nature has past the threshold of man’s efforts of recovery … and that it now stands at survival of the physically and or Spiritually prepared and fittest .. yet my hope hold to that Spiritual delivery by works of the Positive Light …

      • neo-archaic

        The dark forces are trudging inexorably towards total domination.

    • The magical Brox

      Actually the most natural way of removing radiation is through pectin. Some of the highest pectin content is in seaweed. If you dont remember one of the first things the article said was in 1955 they made a top secret document saying the oceans recycle program isnt good enough for the amount of radiation we put in the ocean. So pretty much….were fucked….

      • neo-archaic

        The counsel of equal access medication and the high counsel of buzz management have forwarded a plan to wrap the irradiated great pacific garbage patch with sea weed, dry it and sell it to california dispensaries as a concentrate.

    • Stacie

      LOL – that’s funny.. GMO’s — that will be the death of our food industry and us LOL.. but radiation will linger for a longer time than GMO’s will.

  • Curlgurl

    Goodbye it’s been a good life! :(

    • http://bahaseedofdavid.blog.com/ Faye Brown

      As my dear old dad would say … “that’s all she row”

      • Disgusted2themax

        the phrase is “that is all she wrote”

        • http://bahaseedofdavid.blog.com/ Faye Brown

          Oh Disgusted2thmax, since my dear old dad was a self made carpenter and not much of a reader or writer, as I’m over 60 years old … he would be more familiar with paddle boats sinking .. “that’s all she row” would have been ‘his’ reference of
          meaning to “things have gone as far as it can go, and that it’s all down
          hill from here” … nevertheless … for another “all she wrote” would mean
          the same thing … I guess it more than one way to skin a “rat” … : ) ..

          • Robyn Ann

            i think more accurately is your dear old dad heard it wrong the first time he heard it, but used it the way he heard it, although it does aptly fit i suppose. i’m as old as you, sweety and it’s always been “all she wrote”…you sure dear old dad didnt have an accent?

          • http://bahaseedofdavid.blog.com/ Faye Brown

            Point taken Robyn Ann … and since I really do enjoy educational
            conversations … I went to find just where the “all she wrote “
            originated form … though there are several suggestions .. it seems no
            one really knows where that catchy phrase originated from … yet since I
            do know where I first heard “all she row” … I’ll accept old dad as the
            originator of his own, though it was used quite often on that side of
            the track I came from … now rather one phrase branched off from the
            other or vise verse .. I won’t discredit either … both means the same on
            either side of the tracks …: )

          • neo-archaic

            The practice phrase/old saying Nazism by these poorly potty trained inspectors is unsavory to say the least.

            What a way to convince oneself that one has made a meaningful difference in the world…

      • bob

        i believe the phrase was “that’s all she wrote” unless that’s what your dear old dad truly said and not you mishearing him the entire time.

        • http://bahaseedofdavid.blog.com/ Faye Brown

          Well Bob … since my dad was a self made carpenter and not much of a reader
          or writer, as I’m over 60 years old … and he would be more familiar with
          paddle boats sinking .. “all she row” would have been his reference of
          meaning to “things have gone as far as it can go, and that it’s down
          hill from here” … nevertheless … for another “all she wrote” would mean
          the same thing … I guess it more than one way to skin a “rat” … : ) ..

          • Guy Fawkes

            I think the joke is, before he could finish the word wrote, she had wrote all she could wri…

  • http://bahaseedofdavid.blog.com/ Faye Brown

    I wonder how much is too much for the ocean to safely dilute …and how much is too much before waters kill off all sea creatures …

  • Peter Holiday

    “And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; and the third part of those creatures died …” Rev8:8

    • RandomRambler

      That sounds a little bit like an asteroid or some cosmic rock :)

    • Stacie

      quoting scripture doesn’t make it true. I am looking at facts and the facts are not assumptions or gospel truths. If it is what you say it is; I suggest you pray and prep and hide in a corner till rapture comes.. oh and hold your breathe

      • neo-archaic

        Any open minded, thinking individual would have no choice but to agree.

        However, that does not mean that humans shall suffer a self-induced cataclysmic event or series of events brought on by the inventions of his neogod science itself, which he does not have the ability to control.

        For as far beyond he believes himself to be from his knuckle-dragging forebears, he is in reality only a half step beyond them.

        Picture, the food supply running out and the ensuing chaos. The second rise of the barbarian order is inevitable.

    • David McFarland

      This hardly matches the scripture… mostly since the contamination levels are far from Apocalyptic. Your household ceramic-wear is far more apocalyptic on a radiation-level, and your smoke-detector bears far more a resemblance to the Dragon than the Fukushima radiation ever will.

      • neo-archaic

        Regardless of the details, it is only a matter of time before the graph lines of rising scientific/technologogogamagoical advancement and declining cognitive processes and spiritual awareness in humanoids results in massive reduction in his numbers and the disintegration of the architecture/infrastructure veil which leads to his subscription to the delusion that he is more than a step past those creatures from divergent kingdoms which operate on an instinctual level.

  • emotrader

    FUCK YOU JAPAN!!

    • Clamdigger

      No need. Me thinks they already are. Likely us too.

      • neo-archaic

        are the clams bearded or shaven?

    • Onehundredmillion Strong

      That’s you mama and your wife’s job.

    • RandomRambler

      TEPCO you wanted to say.

    • Stacie

      We visited the Oregon beach a few months after the spill in Japan and they had a dock wash up from Japan there and people wanted to go see it.. I simply went on the beach and wrote out large in the sand. “Thank YOU Japan for Killing Our Beaches” .. people just looked at me like I was crazy; but it’s true. I guess most people don’t want to see the wall before them; they just want to run into it.. LOL! Thanks Japan for fucking the world up.. BTW: why would I want to get up and close to items washed up from Japan, They are covered in radiation.. I am sure in a few years those people are gonna get sick or find they have tumors..

      • neo-archaic

        It is not the entire populace which is at fault.

        For a reality check, consider how much influence you as an individual has over the nuke/puke power industry in this country.

  • AugustineThomas

    How do we all die from this secular apocalypse when we’re already scheduled to die horrible deaths from the global cooling, I mean global warming, I mean climate change apocalypse??

    • winstongrant

      Thoroughly.

    • http://bahaseedofdavid.blog.com/ Faye Brown

      With failing reactors all over the U.S. and other countries which will inevitably follow similar fate as Fukushima … and with more and more volcanoes becoming more and more active, spewing more and more CO2 contributing in some areas to global warming … and spewing aerosols throughout the stratosphere causing some areas to experience more and more unseasonably cool weather also known as global cooling … as both extreme climate changes adds their own phenomena’s reports of floods, droughts, tornadoes, never seen before raging of fires … not forgetting world wide relentless earthquakes and increasing gulps of sinkholes … I would have to agree that it seems we are all scheduled to suffer deaths of these body costumes … Yet I’m holding firm to that Love of Someone bigger than you and I … that someone who sent forth the first coded sparks of ‘DNA Light signature’ giving life to the first generations of fowl, mammal, beast and man … the way it stands .. Holding firm to the CREATOR’s Love definitely couldn’t hurt ..

      • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

        The incidence of volcanos and earthquakes is dramatically less than earlier times–Krakatoa, Pompeii, etc. Yet they have not led to any long-term melting of the ice caps, etc. Also, the way you argue about global warming and cooling, regionally, looks more like an attempt to have your cake and eat it too, than a knowledge of long-term global circulation patterns.

        Sternlight’s first law of observation: Just because it rained today doesn’t mean that long-term rainfall patterns are increasing in frequency or intensity.

        Sternlight’s second law of observation: Never trust Chicken Little.

        • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

          Volcanic eruptions are generally correlated with cooling, not warming, as the expelled sulphites and fine particulates form a solar screen.

          Please apply your fifth law to yourself!

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            The reply was to one who cited a false perception of significant current increase in volcanic activity as explanatory.

          • neo-archaic

            The co2+thc levels as recorded in ash samples within the confines of the auditorium and rising above the Raggamuffin festival in Long Beach is consistent both internally and externally with the related gaseous exchange rate as revealed in the laboratories of the Hendrixian Foundation for musical expression through consciousness expansion group. It was found that regardless of sound wave identifiers as related to artistic genre, the results were indeed parallel.

            Brain activity as coerced by ash thc content contributed to arena climate warming on an overwhelming scale. Furthermore, it was deemed by edict handed down by the high counsel to be within the confines of tautology as recognized by the Tautologic counsel of ash respiration practicers.

          • neo-archaic

            The Roll their ownioligarchy and their minions, except for the occasional sacrificial lamb offered up for a peasant feast and associated revelry, are generally above the laws laid down for the rest of the humanoid population to adhere to.

            In accordance with that paradigm, self-application of laws enacted for the masses is not applicable as a course of action for the above referenced individual.

        • neo-archaic

          Regardless of any humanoid discussion on the subject, Mother Nature shall proceed in an inexorable manner on her course, whether or not prompting by humanoids contributes to those developments.

    • neo-archaic

      There is an equal opportunity for demise scenario committee being set up at this time. The Czar will be a clone of equal parts of the dna from the most outspoken members of the divergent paths to extinction communities represented in the humanoid end game scenario.

      The cockroach community has declined an invitation to participate in the conference.

  • The Keystone Garter

    I suggest a ground penetrating radar survey of the land inland of Fukushima Plants and laterally uphill. The goal being to determine where groundwater is flowing and at what depth it generally flows. Also to determine the near-site soil geology.
    With this information, a dyke could be enacted to divert groundwater around the area of the Reactors, and the radioactive water tanks. If there are large subsurface preferential channels, boreholes could be drilled and the rainwater subsurface piping could be directly pumped around the Reactor site to sea.
    Cameras of overland flow could monitor surface flows and surface concrete canals build; IDK how much surface flow the area has. Water tracers could be released at higher gorund elevations and then measured at shore. I doubt the utility of radio-tracers. I view storing all this water as a distraction from higher priority goals; if you wait too many decades to get at the melted fuel blobs, another earthquake will hit.

    • The Keystone Garter

      I have Graduate degree knowledge of aquifers and ground hydrology. find a nearby impermeable clay layer under sand and upstream of the Fukushima Daichii Compex. Excavate the sand/silt. Replace the sand/silt with a filter medium that will capture some radiation if radioactive were to pass through it. Sink boreholes somewhere between the Buildings and the ocean (want to percolate freshwater not seawater). Put in pipes or hoses and pump the water upstream onto the filter medium. The idea is to capture so of the radiation as a solid and replace the medium continually. The solid now-contaminated medium will be easier to store and easier to locate away from a tsunami area, ideally away from a valuable aquifer.
      This will only work if either much radioactivity is captured, or if the water that flows through the filter (the size of a stadium or olympic pool), is returned to the aquifer that flows at a slow 4m/month rate. If the water is still highly radioactive and flows at a rate higher than 4m/month, you might as well not try this. There is a need for a cost-estimate of how much various levels of radiation released to the ocean are “worth”. It should be possible to return the partially treated water to 4m/month. Ideally you’d keep treating the water nearest to the ocean. If you go too close to the ocean you’ll know as you withdrawn water will be salty. At 4m/month flow to the ocean, I suggest a line of bore-holes parallel with the coast, being drilled in a direction progressively moving towards the complex. After withdrawl, for each well I suggest placing very heavy objects on it in an attempt to compact the soil in reduce the underlying hydraulic conductivity.

      • The Keystone Garter

        My Google satellite map reveals 3 miles west of the complex is a diamond-shaped pond, 100m west of hwy 35. The gradient around the immediately vicinity of the pond is about 12:1 and it quickly gets much shallower within 0.5km downstream. This pond could be pumped out to sea. Water from storage tanks or the soil water near the shore, the stuff moving at 4m/month to the shore, could be pumped back to the excavated pond. The pond could covered with a tarp to minimize evaporation. The slightly refilled pond should seep into the groundwater. This will be radioactive but hopefully will be less than 100m/month speed of seepage towards the ocean. This may contaminate hwys. This could be tested first with tracers in the pond. Acoustic subsurface sensors placed on the ground could determine areas of high velocity subsurface piping, areas to avoid.
        If a one shot water transfer is desired, an infiltration basin could be created:
        the pumped out pond could be filled with sand or gravel, then radioactive water could be poured on the thick layer of sand or gravel. Then a layer of clay (to prevent evaporation or to prevent precipitation mediated flooding) could be applied to the surface to seal the water in, allowing the water to percolate, hopefully slower than at 100m/month, downstream.

        • neo-archaic

          They already sell “one~shots” of radiation at the FukUSshima bar and grill.

          The supply/demand ratio is inexorably moving in +/- pattern yet paradoxically, price continues to rise.

      • neo-archaic

        Your model works. there has been a similar one designed and tested in capturing thc for the process of re-initiation into the breakdown to cellular osmosis paradigm with the predictable results.

        Therefore, it has been deemed likely that the same should hold true for the aforementioned radiation redistribution model.

    • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

      You can’t “enact a dyke” though you can enact laws permitting them to marry. As to building a dike, I’m not a civil engineer, so cannot comment. :-)

      • neo-archaic

        A correlative study based upon infants/children up for adoption choosing sets of parents ( M/M F/F M/F )would be interesting indeed.

        The laws of humanoids shall never usurp the laws of nature.

  • Lucifer Yahweh Orloff

    Los Angeles is on the same latitude as Hiroshima. San Diego shares a latitude with Nagasaki. This must be karma. I live in Whittier, which is East East LA. Long-term exposure to borderline dangerous levels of radiation cannot be good. I would love to get out of here and go to Uruguay or someplace in South America, facing the Atlantic.

    • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

      Extending the latitude line crosses much that had nothing to do with Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Oh well, another alarmist observation shut down. As to “facing the Atlantic”, have you checked a map of the US and Canada lately?

      • Lucifer Yahweh Orloff

        Yes, but you are ignoring that there is a line straight from Japan to California. You probably don’t live in California, so you wouldn’t be paying attention.

        • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

          I do live in Cal, follow this closely, at a PhD level. Latitude lines circle the globe and go “straight” (actually great circle) to lots of places. The earth is not flat (news flash).

          • Lucifer Yahweh Orloff

            I guess you haven’t heard the news that 6 times the normal radiation levels were detected in San Diego, causing hypothyroidism in infants. Why is there is a plume of radioactive ocean water bombarding the coast of California? Oh, I forgot. Japan is right across the ocean from California. They even share the same latitude! Go figure. Hiroshima and Nagasaki just happen to share the same latitude with Los Angeles and San Diego, respectively, which is right where the wave of radiation appears to be headed. How utterly coincidental!

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            It’s dosage, not level, that counts. The level from a one-time high altitude coast-to-coast flight, or even quite a few, is well above normal but doesn’t last long enough for the dosage to count. And the event you describe isn’t of a sufficient intensity over enough time to have produced the effects you describe. This isn’t a Chernobyl in the West Coast.

            For details check the dosage calculators available on the web, for example
            http://www.n3tlab.com/code/rad/index.php

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            Ken Rockwell’s readings come from La Jolla, on the San Diego coast.

          • neo-archaic

            The levels recorded by your i phone reflect the radiation absorption rate of the GPGP.

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            And another thing. Right after Chernobyl there were many panicky articles, and even professional papers predicting hundreds of thousands of increased cancer deaths worldwide due to the accident. Now, many years later, we have numbers and its a few hundred, mostly in the immediate area. It’s those sophomoric computer modelers that got it wrong. As I’ve said elsewhere, the first principle of computer modeling is: Give me a free hand with the assumptions and I’ll produce any result you like.

          • Stacie

            But you didn’t look at the big picture. Cancer rates have soared in the last 20 years.. I don’t think that was by accident.

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            False correlation. Cancer rates started a sharp rise in 1975, well before Chernobyl, peaked in the1990s, and has sharply declined since, back to 1975 levels. You’d be better off trying to explain things from the ozone hole, the banning of CFCs, and the gradual self-repair since, if you want to reach for an explanation.

          • Stacie

            What about 3 mile island? It was in 79. The only reason I think the decline of cancer was because of the improvements of science and technology in figuring out ways to kill cancer and cure people of it.. So all though your logic works I still have to go the way towards cancer being caused by radiation from several leaks we have had within the last 45-50 years.

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            TMI was insubstantial compred to Chernobyl. If it were the initial cause, we would expect a substantial rate increase, compared to TMI, after Chernobyl with its much higher leakage. The data, considering the lag time in developing cancer, instead shows a sharp decline post-Chernobyl. As to waste storage, that stuff is buried deep and monitored closely for leakage. Finally, there have been inherently safe reactor designs for almost 30 years, similar to the Canadian CANDU reactor but even better. It is only because of atomic power alarmists that no new licenses have been issued in the US for many years.
            As to waste, it is short-term storage that is the problem, for example at the Fukushima site, due to bad design which the Japanese rationalize as unanticipated events. Lots of such planners and designers should be in jail right now.

          • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

            University of Pittsburg Profession of Epidemiology Ernest Sternglass found 400 “excess infant deaths” following Three Mile Island.

            The New York Academy of Science found nearly one million casualties as the result of Chernobyl.

            Yes, both these sources have detractors in the nuclear industry and their patsy pseudo-regulators. This as a case of “don’t follow the money.” The nuclear government-industrial complex can out-spend independent researches a thousand to one.

            Give two guys a soap box, but only one of them has a bull-horn, and which one’s story will prevail?

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            It would be useful for you to distinguish actual data from forecasts from computer modelers, often wrong but never in doubt.

          • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

            The Sternlight study used actual infant mortality statistics, not forecasts, although he did rely on a linear projection of what infant death rates should have been, resulting in the area under the curve being 400 excess infant deaths. Lacking a control group, that’s the best you can do — nobody is going to let you do a double-blind study on infants and I-131!

            The NYAS is a meta-analysis of data from first translations of non-English sources, but I don’t think Dr. Sherman used any “forecasts” from “computer models.”

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            Thanks for the credit, even though inadvertent, for Sternglass’ infant mortality work. Ex Post, Ergo Propter Hoc may be good Latin but is poor science.

            As to NYAS, the question then becomes whether any of the “sources”used computer models.

          • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

            Isn’t it a bit disingenuous to suggest that statistical data is useless without finding radioactive particles upon autopsy? I suppose you also disbelieve the “LNT” model that is used to predict casualty from tiny amounts of ingested radioactive contamination?

            I could provide you a link to the National Cancer Institute model that uses LNT to predict your increased risk of thyroid cancer, based upon where you lived and what sort of milk you drank during atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, but you didn’t follow the other link I posted, so why should I bother?

            If you don’t accept the LNT statistical method, you are at odds with the National Cancer Institute. If you do, then the Sternglass study stands, and you must face the fact that about 400 more infants died after TMI than would otherwise have died.

            Nuclear apologists set up an impossible standard. “Show me the hard proof!” just doesn’t work for many, many classes of problems. Sometimes, you have to accept that, statistically, when you fall off a roof, you have a certain probability of dying from sudden impact with the ground. And when you put small amounts of I-131 in the air, you have a certain, well-understood probability of killing infants.

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            Again you exaggerate. Calm down. I did not say statistical data was useless; simply that I would be more persuaded by physical evidence. Surely I do not have to start teaching philosophy of science to those claiming to be knowledgeable.

          • neo-archaic

            The greased pig approach only works for so long.

          • neo-archaic

            The farther down the page one reads, the more this individuals’ agenda reveals itself.

          • neo-archaic

            Beautiful cyber liver~shot, now let’s watch the recovery, a linguistic version of the famous boxing tactic called “rope-a -dope”.

          • neo-archaic

            In the place of more power, the necessity is a smaller population.

          • neo-archaic

            In any case, radiation is not healthy for an individual until zombie/living dead status has been achieved.

          • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

            http://www.chernobyl-international.com/about-chernobyl/facts-and-figures
            http://janettesherman.com/2011/04/14/chernobyl-a-million-casualties-2/

            I suspect you’l simply poo-poo such things, preferring studies that support vested nuclear interests.

          • neo-archaic

            Interestingly enough, there was no response….

          • neo-archaic

            Especially considering the ease in which perceptions can be manipulated en masse to match the predetermined point where fiction morphs into pseudo-reality.

          • Stacie

            The EPA is a joke and are not trustworthy or reliable on their data. Talk about propaganda – they take the cake in false information or mis-leading information.

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            Real-time output from monitoring devices is not political. The EPA is no joke–they have plugged the ozone hole, cleaned up rivers, and ameliorated toxic waste sites through regulation. Of course they are not perfect.
            In any case if you read my earlier post you would see pointers confirming EPA data from non-EPA sources. You will also have your question about “which” map answered. I cited sources of the real-time non-EPA maps, as well as my own measurements.

            “A man convinced, against his will,
            Is of the same opinion still.”

          • neo-archaic

            What is their official position in regards to a particular atmospheric alteration project in the north and named after the preeminent musical instrument utilized by angels?

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            For another reliable source, check out the citizen “Safecast” project. Their current real-time maps confirm what I have been seeing on maps elsewhere for both Japan and the US. They have an iPhone/iPad app, web site, and many news stories detailing the project, which includes citizens with mobile monitors driving around.

            You might be being confused by the Yahoo radiation map, which shows blue dots all over Japan. They are the location of sensors, not their readings. For the readings you have to click on each dot.

          • neo-archaic

            The sensors dedicated to measuring levels of sportstardism are going off the charts in strict correlation to the disintegration of cognitive capacities of conceptualization on a mass level.

          • neo-archaic

            Misinformation/disinformation/distraction/reaction~mass manipulation tmz sensation trivia overload priority card sharps dealing from the bottom of the deck, truth, the victim never goes face up while big holes are dug in the ground still wont be enough to undo the done, the survivors so appropriately living in them, the physical underworld finally having matched the spiritual realm they inhabit, for what they call life after the end is not, in reality the opposite is true, for there is no end and therefore, nothing to fear…

          • Lucifer Yahweh Orloff

            You’re right about one thing at least: This isn’t a Chernobyl. This is 100 times worse. They’re constantly dumping radioactive water into the ocean. The Japanese appear to be suicidal, and they’re trying to take everyone to Hell with them.

          • neo-archaic

            Having become immune to the ingestion of mercury they realized that the same was true of radiation and decided to re-open WW2 with a planet wide kamikaze attack.

          • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

            It’s contamination, not dosage, that counts.

            I suspect Lucifer is conflating oceanic contamination with I-131 atmospheric contamination that occurred shortly after the disaster, but the point remains that ingesting radioactive contamination is much worse than being exposed to radiation.

            Indeed, BC reported higher infant mortality in the twelve weeks (ten half-lives of I-131) following Fukushima. Other areas reported this as well, but it appears to be spotty, forming clusters.

            The some thing happened after Three Mile Island, and the peer-reviewed Sternglass study said that there were about 400 “excess” infant deaths.

            If you are very young or very old, small amounts of radioactive contamination appear to have undue effect. The rest of us probably don’t have to worry, unless we’re planning to have children or planning to grow old.

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            Not really. Consider a contaminated particle that floats briefly by a ship, then sinks. The effect on the health of the crew is a product of intensity and time, i.e. dosage. That’s why we measure radiation effects on humans in terms of milliSieverts over time , not just milliSieverts. Otherwise there would be no “safe” number of X-rays, high level airplane flights, etc.

            That’s not to imply that continuous sources of high level radiation aren’t an issue, but recall this thread started about computer models of floating debris on ocean currents.

            Note also that the film, “Tapped” shows that there are areas of debris contamination at two locations in the Atlantic and Pacific far from human habitation where debris becomes trapped.. Finally, if the model presented were correct, then Hawaiian beaches would already be massively contaminated by high levels of radiation. They aren’t. Check real-time Hawaiian radiation monitors on the Web.

          • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

            Sorry, I should have said “contamination of human tissue.”

            Getting a tiny speck of plutonium lodged in your lung is much more dangerous than a kilogram of plutonium separated from you by a sheet of paper, since it’s an alpha emitter.

            Radioisotopes with valences the same as common biological elements are particularly bad. Strontium takes the place of calcium; caesium mimics potassium.

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            With your correction.we have no disagreement. Contaminated human tissue without removal intervention, can produce lethal dosages. It is still human dosage, not emitter level, just as in the sheet of paper example.

          • neo-archaic

            Hence the new line of strontium/cesium tablets to replace the played out vitamins from the dark ages before the era of neo-enlightenment.

          • neo-archaic

            A interesting correlation between the ingestion of radiation and thc can be drawn at this juncture.

          • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

            “Follow this closely, at a PhD level:” only one latitude line (the equator) is a Great Circle. Longitude lines are all Great Circles.

            It was probably an honest mistake, but when lecturing others on their errors, you expose yourself to greater scrutiny.

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            Touché. Smaller circles, but circles all the same, which was the point. Responding to the claim that Fukushima was on a ” line” to the West Coast. There are an infinite number of points on the Fukushima latitude.

          • neo-archaic

            LOL

            this individual would enjoy being a spectator in a confrontation between yourself and a history revisionist who demonizes all who came before him/herself as knuckle dragging neanderthals, especially concerning the use of nuclear attacks on Japan in WW2, which, as you know were measured against the estimated cost of 1,000,000 casualties.

  • Jacque Parke

    So basically, don’t eat fish and don’t go in the water. Won’t that bring down the price of housing on the beach!

    • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

      Only in Fukushima. The maps do not show significant radiation reaching the West Coastal rim, much less persisting. Hawaii may be another matter. But don’t eat any PacificOcean seafood.

      • Stacie

        what map are you looking at? The ones I have seen and have been posted shows quite a different picture.

        • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

          Answered elsewhere in this thread.

      • LordoftheKaty .

        Are you a fucking idiot? Only Fukushima? The maps do not show radiation hitting the west coast? WOW. I have never heard such blatant idiocy. The West Coast is fucked.

        • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

          Check the sources I have cited for yourself. You do have access to the web even if you don’t have an iPhone for the apps I mentioned. You would also be better served if you, too, pointed to data on the net in support of your contrary view, rather than calling names.

          Failure to provide a pointer to such actual data (computer models don’t count and remember, the topic is current, not original radiation levels), will mark you as a troll worth ignoring.

          • neo-archaic

            It is a fascinating phenomena when individuals mark themselves like this in their attempt to advance in an upward direction on the cyber~totem pole of intellectual capacity and informational awareness.

            Many individuals younger than yourself, seem to be smitten by a subscription to a delusional concept that theirs is the first wave of people to arrive inherently endowed with more wisdom and intelligence than their predecessors.

          • neo-archaic

            It is a fascinating phenomena when individuals mark themselves like this in their attempt to advance in an upward direction on the cyber~totem pole of intellectual capacity and informational awareness.

            Many individuals younger than yourself, seem to be smitten by a subscription to a delusional concept that theirs is the first wave of people to arrive inherently endowed with more wisdom and intelligence than their predecessors.

        • David McFarland

          The maps do not show any radiation hitting anything. (Ignorance of the difference between Contamination and Radiation are telling that you don’t truly know what you’re talking about). The maps are of debris and patterns of current. If you go back to Chemistry class, you’d find that individual particles, like the Cs-137 in question, spread far better than debris and dilute quite sufficiently. Not as sufficiently as a gas, but still.

          • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

            I guess that’s why the National Cancer Institute will (if you are of a certain age) take your location and the sort of milk you drank and tell you your increased risk of thyroid cancer from atmospheric weapons testing? One would think that if David were right, the risk would be evenly distributed.

            Keep in mind that Dalton’s Law only applies to an ideal fluid. There seem to be a number of things (like convection currents, mountain ranges, thermoclines) that cause radioactive contamination to resist ideal dissipation.

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            NCI is concerned about fallout and ingested particles that remain in the system, are concentrated in some foods, etc. and produce dosages that challenge health. It isn’t the level or the astronauts would all be dead of cancer. It’s the cumulative dosage. Check the literature on health effects.

          • David McFarland

            When all of the fission products and fissile material from Fukushima jump several thousand feet in the air and all simultaneous fission with an additional C4 charge to boot, let me know. Until then, let me (in Japan) worry about the heavier particulate contamination (that had already exited my body within the first month after Fukushima to the point that anything left was undetectable), while you (unless you’re in Japan) worry about… whatever magical radiation particulate you actually think might actually exist in such quantities to worry about. If you’re actually this worried, go buy a Gieger counter.

      • Lucifer Yahweh Orloff

        The map shows very significant amounts of radiation seeping into the Pacific, and hitting the west coast of the Americas.

  • Friend of the Universe

    So this is what happens when 2 or 3 plants melt down? What happens when all 435 nuclear plants do the same as they no doubt will when the next major mega solar flare from the sun knocks out power all over the planet for a couple of years? Cancer from long term exposure will be the least of our worries. Why do we the people (or should I say sheeple) allow this madness to continue. We don’t need nuclear plants. There are safer alternatives.available.

    • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

      Are you confusing long-term power outages (hasn’t happened) with brief, short-term HF communications outages (happens often)? Solar flares big enough to take out power for a long time would probably also create enough radiation dose so that power would be the least of our problems.

      • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

        The collapse of the electrical grid could happen for a variety of reasons. A terrorist act, for example, or a meteor strike, or a major super-storm.

        Please understand that nuclear plants are absolutely dependent on a functional electrical grid. The failure due to tsunami was considered “non credible” by the Fukushima designers. What other “non credible” events might be out there?

        • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

          “Absolutely dependent” is a bit prolix, n’est ce pas? There have been many grid failures affecting nuclear plants; they switched to back-up generators or shut down safely, as designed. It takes something much more complex than a grid failure to produce a TMI, Chernobyl, or Fukushima.

          • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

            It was precisely a failure of electrical power that caused Fukushima. These reactors require continuous electrical power, whether by the grid, or by backup generators with a finite fuel source.

            Of course, a double-fault in electrical power (grid down, backup generator failure) is considered non-credible to those who license these plants.

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            Thanks for acknowledging that the statement that nuclear plants are absolutely dependent on the grid, was an inaccurate exaggeration. Yes, backup power, inherently safe designs, etc.

            I have found that those who use universal terms, (all, everyone, absolutely) are often seized of more heat than light.

          • neo-archaic

            That’s comforting to know.

      • neo-archaic

        Interesting answer, where do you get the information?

  • Melia Sese

    I’m unsure whether to believe the conclusions made here … but I am reminded of the words to that old song “Supernature” (written by Marc Cerrone, 1979):

    “Once upon a time, science opened up the door.
    We would feed the hungry fields till they couldn’t eat no more
    But the potions that we made touched the creatures down below
    And they grow up in a way that we’d never seen before …

    They were angry with the man, because he changed their way of life
    And they take their sweet revenge as they trample through the night
    For a hundred miles or more you could hear the people cry
    But there is nothing you can do – even God is on their side …

    Maybe nature has a plan to control the ways of man
    He must start from scratch again, many battles he must win
    Till he earns his place on earth like the other creatures do
    Will there be a happy end? Now that all depends on you … ”

    Needless to say I do hope this was not some type of prophesy – the man was a decent drummer and his stuff was great to dance to back in the day, but I would chalk it up to the general European view (Cerrone is French) that we are destroying our environment.

    • neo-archaic

      Mother Nature will eventually show man how insignificant he is. All of our scientists will be nothing more than humpty dumpty’s men.

  • Kevin Logan

    There is a Harley Davidson that washed up on our shore here in BC and has been sitting in an American Museum, some sort of tribute to the awesomeness of Harley’s and of course their respect for the Japan tragedy. But the point is, while Harley’s are known to be pretty quick, I suspect the radionuclides both airborn and in the currents managed to travel just as fast. The Harley errrr, horse has left the barn….

  • Ben Alonzo

    And don’t forget it is still leaking, and will be leaking for a while.

  • X

    WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?!

  • d

    Everyone bickering… it’s sad really. But we’ve always been petty. The alpha of the omega…

  • DayStar

    Corporealism-the new ism.

  • David McFarland

    The levels of radiation are little to worry about. You should worry more about bananas. Or standing outside. This is little more than mindless scaremongering.

    • se123

      is this your expert opinion? Considering they are now saying the level of radiactive leakage into the ocean is actually at level 3 rather then the level 1 the’ve lead the public to believe.

      • David McFarland

        I’d hardly call myself an “expert,” but I’ve had a fair amount of training related to radiation and contamination, moreso than many of the “experts” various news channels have called in to talk about the issues.

      • David McFarland

        I’d certainly love to see these sources.

        I’d also love some verification that it’s not just reporters and arbitrary levels.

        Or worse. Logarithmic scales. Those are misleading.

    • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

      You’re right, of course. Any single isolated incident has tiny consequences.

      But Chernobyl here, Fukushima there, and pretty soon, you’re making quite an impact.

      When Fukushima fist went off, the British Columbia Provincial Coroner was stunned to find that sudden infant death had nearly doubled. The Coroner did not put one and one together, instead suggesting that “poor parenting skills” were responsible. Yea, right.

      The problem is that the effect is so detached from the cause that it becomes impossible to do the Cartesian thing and deconstruct it into cause-and-effect. Soft tissue cancer from radioisotopes of Caesium can take decades to develop. Who will point the finger at Fukushima then? You might as well blame Chernobyl, or glyphosate, or whatever else happens between now and then.

      David, if you don’t understand the difference between “nuclear radiation” and “radioactive contamination,” you should go buy some property near Fukushima. I hear it’s really cheap these days.

      That river in Egypt is big, and there’s room for many paddlers.

      • David McFarland

        I’m quite well aware of the difference between radiation and contamination. (The Japanese actually did a wonderful and humorous job explaining it soon after Fukushima. I didn’t understand any of it, not speaking Japanese at the time, but the “poop” and “fart” analogy seemed accurate enough.)
        Jan, the point is that Americans and even most Japanese won’t be seeing enough concentrations of cesium to ever worry about.

        You’re trying to relate sudden infant death in BC to Fukushima?
        That’s about as humorous as saying that the oceans are boiling around Japan (mind you, that’s physically impossible for Fukushima to be causing). Except people believe it, too, I’m sure.

        • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

          A number of researchers, back to Goffman & Tamplin, have correlated small increases in I-313 exposure with increased infant mortality. This is not new science. The only thing humorous is your conflating sound science, decades old, with fairy tales of boiling oceans.

          There exists a strong correlation between BC infant deaths and the Fukushima disaster. I am not “trying to relate” that. It exists. Look it up. I won’t do your homework for you.

          But of course, “correlation is not causation,” the greek chorus loudly sings as the water rises and the infants die… that’s why we have the “precautionary principle.”

          • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

            Trivializing the ex post, ergo propter hoc fallacy is unworthy of you. As to the precautionary principle, it’s a matter of probability-weighted Bayesian cost benefit analysis, or we’d all be hiding under our beds, Pascal’s wager does not apply here, since his alternatives were spiritual, not economic.

          • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

            My, you do know a lot of big words.

            I would have preferred that you google “BC infant death fukushima” and argue the facts, rather than attacking the messenger.

          • neo-archaic

            Intimidated?

            Run to your God Google for protection.

          • David McFarland

            You don’t have to do my homework for me. I did it already. Four years ago when I was studying to be a reactor operator. Most of those studies, like many involving “NUCLEAR IZH BAD” (Like the fools who claimed the contamination from Fukushima killed 14,000 Americans.) were poorly conducted and presented no conclusive evidence.
            Some of the research is sound enough for consideration. If you were to claim the infants/unborn children from Sendai were dying off at a higher-than usual rate, I’d be inclined to believe it. However, to assume that the calculated 10-40 becquerels of contamination per cubic meter of seawater reaching the American/Canadian coast is going to be killing babies is outright ridiculous. That airborne contamination has contributed is likewise ridiculous. Like I’ve said before, flying in an airplane exposes you to more harmful radiation than most Japanese got from Fukushima, let alone anyone in North America.

          • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

            Recent research shows that an elevated level of I-131 over the west coast of North America following the Fukushima disaster is correlated with infant hypothyroidism.

            Yea, yea, “correlation is not causation” and all that. This study makes no cause-effect claim. It does raise some important questions, though — questions the Davids would rather sweep under the rug, it seems.

            THERE IS NO PROOF, DAMMIT! UNTIL I FIND A DEAD BABY WITH I-131 IN IT, MY MIND IS CLOSED! But very few sudden infant deaths are autopsied, and of those that are, none are checked for radioisotopes unless the coroner has reason to implicate radioactive contamination.

            I guess that’s why the BC Provincial Coroner blamed a sudden onslaught of “poor parenting skills” when BC infant mortality shot up following the Fukushima disaster.

          • David McFarland

            You’re going to cite trends and call it science? A million things happen everyday that could be causing that. You have no true control group. You have no controlled experiment. You have unrelated trends. You have
            You hear one you’re interested in and know little about (and are therefore afraid of) and all of a sudden you want to blame it. It could be any number of things, but you hear one thing you don’t understand so OBVIOUSLY that’s the problem.
            It’s sensationalism. It’s foolish. It’s about the dumbest claim of applying the scientific method to a problem I’ve ever heard of. You want to believe it, fine, believe it. I can’t stop you. I can tell you that it’s unlikely. What makes their professional opinion any better than my own? Because it gives you something to blame, that’s why. It lets you answer questions about something you’re afraid of and know nothing about, and it lets you blame people. I can sit hear and tell you all day that most people in Japan absorbed almost no I-131 all day, that I myself and a great many others I work with were tested for it and all other isotopes released (in one of the most sensitive radiac-booths known to man), and that I’m far more likely to absorb I-131 than a baby due to the nature of my work and lifestyle, and all you’re ever going to believe is that Fukushima is killing babies, because it’s what you want to believe. I could tell you I tested hundreds of other people who I work with – one of the tests we did being directly placing a football sized Radiac directly to the thyroid… and waiting… and waiting. NOTHING. NADA. I sat there, day in and day out, and me and my coworkers all reported the same thing, even on people doing the clean-up. Nothing. Sure, we weren’t directly involved in Sendai itself, but we were hundreds upon hundreds of miles closer than the West Coast is.
            So keep on telling me that babies in North America are receiving considerable (I said considerable, not detectable, as I’d believe detectable. But you can detect quite a bit)
            Yes, it does raise questions, and this is probably the first actual reasonable claim I’ve heard of “FUKUSHIMA IS CAUSING THIS MEDICAL ISSUE” that I’ve ever seen – mostly because Iodine-131 does actually affect the thyroid. I still find it unbelievable that I-131 can give you anything but thyroid cancer. Even hyperthyroidism would be far more believable than hypothyroidism. Hypothyroidism is actually believable, though – though many, many, many things attributed to nuclear power are not. Like 14,000 deaths in America. Nevermind the fact that they were all on the East Coast and were merely a random increased death rate, and the West Coast actually experienced a lower death rate.
            But infant death?

            You also won’t find a dead baby with I-131 in it at this point – because it’s all gone. The half-life is only 8 days. By 40-50 days, all the I-131 decayed away – which makes it extremely unlikely to be affecting anything across the Pacific, and considering many people even in the Tokyo Bay area were not receiving enough I-131 to even warrant taking Iodine-131 (even many radiation-surveyors in direct contact with contamination on a prolonged basis did not need it.
            If all Nuclear Power is causing is cases of hyperthyroidism, great. That’s still not killing people. That’s only when something goes direly wrong. TEPCO’s being stupid, yes, but they’re also operating 50+ year old nuclear power plants. It takes a moron, these days, operating a nuclear power plant to maybe give you minor medical issues.
            The smartest people operating new coal plants can still KILL YOU. No one complains about coal power, though. Nope, Nuclear, that’s the dangerous one. The one even most nuclear workers receive little radiation from – who are actually protected from harmful radiation from the sun and so actually receive less radiation than most people. That’s the dangerous one. The one that’s not actually likely to kill you. Coal power, though, with thousands of scientifically an intelligently blamed deaths per year. As opposed to the one with only double-digit deaths.
            OMG BABIES ARE DYING. If that’s your battlecry against nuclear power, good job on ignoring Coal. It’s killing everyone. It’s destroying the environment. Nuclear Power is the only one actually able to actively reverse the effects of Humanity on the environment (through use of CO2 “scrubbers” in cooling towers.)
            Also, there are plans to dispose of the waste that would be quite effective – but lack of knowledge on the part of the majority of people would kill those plans. Like dropping the waste in tungsten ball to the bottom of the ocean where it would begin to heat up. Sounds terrible unless you’re actually educated in nuclear power, those of whom are like OMG THATS AMAZING WHY DIDNT WE THINK OF THAT. By the time any harmful levels of radiation are being released, it’s already melting it’s way into the earth’s crust.

          • http://www.EcoReality.org/ Jan Steinman

            “You have no controlled experiment… You also won’t find a dead baby with I-131 in it at this point – because it’s all gone.”

            How convenient. You demand a controlled experiment using scientific method, then admit that the evidence would be gone by the time the tests were run.

            This is precisely the case for the precautionary principle.

            FACT: significant amounts of airborne I-131 reached the American West Coast within days of the the Fukushima disaster.

            FACT: infant death rates increased in the same period, in a statistically significant way.

            FACT: there is no way to prove these two things have a cause-and-effect relationship. For all we know, the dying babies were causing the excess I-131. You decide.

          • David McFarland

            FACT: There were 14,000 more deaths in America during that time period, too. You want to blame that on Fukushima, too? Infant deaths going up can be caused by any number of things, and you’ve failed to realize that or even bother looking for alternatives simply because you want to blame something you understand and that you think you can control and have someone pay up for, rather than a possibility that might be completely and entirely uncontrollable. It makes you feel comfortable to know you can control something and have someone to blame rather than the possibility that you might have to accept that LIFE SUCKS and things out there happen that are terrible that we can’t control.

  • Sarah

    Are you all really naive enough to think the radiation is just going to contain itself in the Pacific ocean? Every body of water in the world is connected. Whether it’s through a direct connection or through rainfall. The radiation will eventually mix with all of the other water on the planet. We can only hope that by then, it will be so diluted that it won’t cause a huge problem. It is, however, still leaking. More radiation means more problem. We need to figure out how to stop it, like yesterday. The radiation from Chernobyl gave everyone on the planet 4 years more exposure than they would have had otherwise, and only 3% of the radioactive material leaked from that accident. Chernobyl will be contaminated for thousands of years and now the entire planet is possibly facing the same fate. Great job, human race. The cons of nuclear power far outweigh the pros, in my opinion. Sure, it’s efficient and clean when everything goes according to plan. When it’s good, it’s great, but when it’s bad, it’s really bad.

    • Stacie

      I agree 100%. None of us are safe from radiation at this point :(

    • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

      Water flows into, not out of the oceans, or all the rivers would be salty. As to rainfall effects, so far US measurements do not confirm your assertion. The same arguments were made after Chernobyl and proved inaccurate, If they were correct there would have been easily detected radiation from air currents carrying Pripyat River evaporation, at substantial distances from Pripyat.

      • Elliebean4

        David, when I first started reading these comments, I thought what you said had some merit…after the 40th one though, I’m wondering why you have so much time on your hands to troll this site.

        • David Sternlight

          What you think of me is none of my business.
          David Sternlight

  • clemww

    For David Sternlight, who seems to know so much. This is the blog on Fukushima at present. “In
    the meantime, the utility announced that water flowing from trenches
    connected to reactors #2 and #3 has flowed into the Pacific, and at this
    point, an estimated 30 trillion Becquerels of highly radioactive water
    (10 trillion Becquerels of strontium-90 and 20 trillion Becquerels of
    cesium-137) has now entered the ocean since May 2011TEPCO said on August 2 that 40 trillion Becquerels of radioactive tritium has probably flowed into the sea.

    • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

      It’s about radiation affecting the West Coast. No one disputes the local Japanese effects. Note also that the maps are likely computer models, not actual measurements, that hte radiation remains well offshore, and that the alarmists have not been borne out by hundreds of onshore US measurements. If you prefer to argue rather than consulting the real-time measurements from hundreds of non- governmental sites, I cannot help you.

  • rye

    http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/news/marine_and_tsunami_debris/debris_news.php The Fukushima incident is certainly a huge problem, but you are taking the IRPC model out of context and in a way damaging your own credibility. With that said, it still does not negate the gravity and impact of this disaster… Just wanted to point that out so people aren’t being mislead.

  • CAE56

    Lead a simpler life and consume less energy.

  • 1998kid_-

    So, does this mean my kids will never be able to enjoy the Californian Coasts with the fear of becoming infected with radiation?

  • Lisa LeBlanc

    I heard a pearl of wisdom from a wise old guy once and it’s colored my view of humanity and how we pillage every damn thing (for the saddest and lamest of reasons.)
    Old guy said, “If we want to save this planet, we can do it only to save ourselves. This Earth has seen many millions of species, epochs and eras come and go, and still, She turns. She turned for 4 Billion years before we arrived, and will turn 4 billion more after we’re gone. She cares for our presence as little as the tree cares for the caterpillar that crawls upon it, and will feel as little when we’re gone as the tree when the butterfly flies away.”
    No one who devises a new and better blade bothers to take that innovation to all it’s possible conclusions or consequences. They stop at discovery and application, then go on their merry way. Even cleaner energies have their down and dark sides – the rare minerals mined for solar panels, the spent mines never cleaned or reclaimed, or the wildlife and habitat taken for wind farms.
    I do my little deeds wherever I can – nag my family and friends to do the same – and hope those deeds help in some fashion, but I can’t sit back and bemoan the thought that I’m gonna die because asshats that feel they CAN never stop to ponder if they SHOULD; they are rampant, and they are everywhere.
    Mourn humanity, and all the truly wonderful humans we still have left.
    Don’t mourn for Mother Earth; she’s a good and practiced housekeeper, and when she’s had enough, we’re all f*cked – asshats included.
    And there, art thou happy!

    • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

      i would put it even more strongly. Many species exist for mutual benefit. In contrast, man exists for dominion (some would say exploitation). Check out Genesis 1:26. For the purposes of this discussion it doesn’t matter whether the text is of divine origin, or man’s self-description–the result is the same.

      When it’s over, it’s over. Just not right now. I am more worried about extinction level events than minor temperature differentials or having to avoid Pacific fish. The history of man is one of population migration, only recently to have been interfered with by bounded nation-states.

      Since there’s little we can do about extinction level events, relax and enjoy the ride. If it pleases you, recycle, plant trees, be nice to fellow humans, perhaps even do random deeds of goodness and kindness.

      • Lisa LeBlanc

        I’ve read many of your comments here, Mr. Sternlight, and it’s apparent you’re an erudite and learned individual. I thank you for replying to me as an equal and fellow human (rather than impune me for the happy-skippy drivel). A random act of kindness, indeed.

      • neo-archaic

        Very well stated sir. The myth of any group of humans striving for …”equality” is totally ridiculous.

  • Maranatha

    The world is so insane because we try to play God! We play god by making and cherishing our own sick twisted things in the name of progress. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBDG3-bXcxQ
    Do you have an arm like my arm?
    Can you shout in thunder the way I can?
    Go ahead, show your stuff.
    Let’s see what you’re made of, what you can do.

    I’ll gladly step aside and hand things over to you—
    you can surely save yourself with no help from me! “Look at the land beast, Behemoth. I created him as well as you.
    Grazing on grass, docile as a cow—
    Just look at the strength of his back,
    the powerful muscles of his belly.
    His tail sways like a cedar in the wind;
    his huge legs are like beech trees.
    His skeleton is made of steel,
    every bone in his body hard as steel.
    Most magnificent of all my creatures,
    but I still lead him around like a lamb!

    And when the river rages he doesn’t budge,
    stolid and unperturbed even when the Jordan goes wild.
    But you’d never want him for a pet—
    you’d never be able to housebreak him!” (Job 40:8-14). “Or can you pull in the sea beast, Leviathan, with a fly rod
    and stuff him in your creel?
    Can you lasso him with a rope,
    or snag him with an anchor?
    Will he apply for a job with you
    to run errands and serve you the rest of your life?
    Will you play with him as if he were a pet goldfish?
    Will you make him the mascot of the neighborhood children? …What hope would you have with such a creature?
    Why, one look at him would do you in!
    If you can’t hold your own against his glowering visage,
    how, then, do you expect to stand up to me?
    Who could confront me and get by with it?

    I’m in charge of all this—I run this universe! (Job 41: The wrath of
    the One that created you and me so wondrously is upon us. Nature has
    become berserk spewing flames, opening up to swallow us whole sending
    torrents of rain to cleanse the earth from the filth and sickness that
    we have become. How can we stop this madness?

    • http://bahaseedofdavid.blog.com/ Faye Brown

      Beautifully said … we are being visited by the God of creation

  • Dance Jacobs

    @sternlight:disqus … Not a single person is impressed by your PhD you pretentious waste…

    • http://www.sternlight.com David Sternlight

      What you think of me is none of my business. That you claim to speak for every single person marks you as a troll.

  • Poopy_McPoop

    Fart monster.

  • bob cratchette

    oh well gotta go sometime, are you ready for soilent green

  • Necromonger

    Calm down people…it’s all part of population control. How are you going to keep feeding 7 billion people on the planet? We need to manage people like our food, sometimes you need to kill a few million mindless mouth breathers, to control the population. :) lol

  • hervdog

    sounds like were in for a real shocker.i loved surfing and fishing off the west coast!i dont know what i’ll do now.the ocean provides so much to so many in so many ways.wonder what it’ll do to the real estate market?could only imagine what it’ll do to the plant and animal life of the sea-total f’n tragedy!!!

  • Scottar

    Cesium 137 is a big deal, it has a half life of 30 yers and takes over a century to decay to a safe level. Cesium is readily absorbed by organisms but is eventually secreted.

    But The biological half-life of caesium is rather short at about 70 days.[16] A 1972 experiment showed that when dogs are subjected to a whole body burden of 3800 μCi/kg (140 MBq/kg, or approximately 44 μg/kg) of Cesium-137 (and 950 to 1400 rads), they die within thirty-three days, while animals with half of that burden all survived for a year.

    Accidental ingestion of caesium-137 can be treated with Prussian blue, which binds to it chemically and reduces the biological half-life to 30 days.

    Boron is a nuclear moderator and was used to suppress the Chernobyl reaction, so why can’t it be used at the Fukushima plants?

    • Synthia Fagen

      Yes but Prussian blue is not available except through a physician. That seems like something that would only be used if someone was blasted with radiation, no?

  • Huero222

    Thanks a lot Japan. Idiots putting a nuclear reactor next to the ocean. What the hell were they thinking!

    • stevenj

      Ever heard of Diablo Canyon? In California? Right on an earthquake fault and right on the Pacific. There are appx 6 others on the Pacific coast in the US.

  • paul

    Never mind the ecosystem damage. Bio-accumulation in the already degraded ecosystem services we need to survive. Nice tuna reference, I’ll give Mahi Mahi a shout out.

  • THEFORREAL

    Which brings another question to mind.Certainly NASA and others could map the radiation that is at ground level over the entire Earth including all continents and the oceans,and make a map of that and post it on the web. Why haven’t they made a map showing radiation levels over the whole Earth?

    • Mike

      NASA is a government agency. Why would they want that information to get out lol.

  • Susan

    I notice some people mentioning they use solar power here. What would be a good solar generator? About how much would you look to spend for a good one?

  • Mumbotombo

    One wonders how Japan still exists at all, after atomic bombs and nuclear meltdowns. Of course, aMErican’s somehow manage to digest these catastrophes in Japan into absolute fear-paralysis for their ‘homeland’. Our thoughts and concerns must first and foremost remain with Japan throughout these troubled years.

  • DGSE

    Nice to see the nuclear industry trolls have paid their ususal visit to sites like this, to placate and obfuscate. The usual “banana” radiation is always laughable, and just shows their contempt for us Humans. No matter what the paid shills have to say about the insane nuclear industry (they ALWAYS insult mankind with its charge of ignorance), it is one of the worst for mankind’s HEALTH/Life. Radiation KILLS, PERIOD. And the nuclear industry are the largest provayers of this DEATH. The ONLY ‘people’ who seem to in favour of this insanity, for the most part, are in the nuclear industry and the military. They certainly are in the minority, thus the aggresive ‘trolling’ at places like this and others, ENE news for one. One can only pray the writing is one the wall for this insanity.
    For those on the west coast of North America, take care, there is alot one can do to mitigate the effects of radioactive polution, listening to the US and Canadian Govts and the Nuke Industry is not one of them.
    Cheers

  • ou812

    would not buy hawaiian property anymore.. they are telling you lies..fish will wash up dead by the millions in Hawaii one day.. then you will remember this post. Japanese Radiation will devastate the Hawaiian islands. You have been warned.

  • Kristy Simon

    Whoa…..it spread to the Aleutian islands? Man, that was so close the the kuskowim and yukon!!! And i live at the mouth of the state of Alaska!!!!

  • terralover

    “Yellow Dirt” .
    Gag orders.
    “The solution to pollution is dilution” right? BS – that is awful and the consequence WILL be felt. Guaranteed.

  • Sharron Williamson

    Now, knowing that the ocean is basically dying, go ahead build more nuclear power plans all over the world…it won’t matter anyway…in 20 years the human population will be at an all time low just from the fallout of this incident. Rainfall and Snowfall will carry the nuclear material across the whole united states. We all know Oceans create clouds and that is how the nuclear matter will spread. We will begin seeing a higher reading of radiation in patterns at airports first. Tracking it on our clothes we will infect others who aren’t exposed. Eventually, because of the tsunami we will see the tanks that once held most of the highly contaminated waste was lost to the sea. We are already seeing sea life that shows mutation, and radiation poison. We know Japanese Farmers are talking about food they grow they won’t eat their self, but must sell. It’s a mess the world won’t recover from. But go ahead; Did you not say you had the power to “play god”. Now within 100 years from the making of the atomic bomb isn’t it ironic we find ourselves facing a worldwide meltdown with the oceanic creatures dying in droves, children going hungry, homeless vets, and a big fat man looking down on us saying “you pay your share of the carbon footprint” insane..or realist?

  • http://bahaseedofdavid.blog.com/ Faye Brown

    From what I’ve read , reactors were built with a facility life expectancy of only 50 years .. and with no real plan for maintenance upkeep … either some one expected the world to have ended by now .. or planned this as part of a genocide project .. either way .. radiation is just the beginning, it’s setting premature for doom otherwise known as establishing the walls of hell … and I’m holding to that plan of salvation and deliverance .. the end to the way things were are staring us in the face in more ways than one..
    18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it

  • Giovanni LiCalsi

    The sad truth of it all is that Japan can obtain 100% of its electricity from hydro, geothermal, ocean current, wind and solar.
    Nuclear power plants have always been uneconomical to build and maintain. This is why no financial lender will fund a project without a government guarantee.
    How much contamination can the world oceans bear? We already have so many drugs, caffeine and plastic trash in fish and sea birds from all of the sewer plants that it is a miracle that any ocean wildlife can reproduce.

  • Al Boek

    Seattle was hit hard. No one was warned to stay inside and it didn’t matter if you were Republican or Democrate, Rich or Poor, living in a mansion or under a bridge you all fried together. It’s a crime and someone should be doing time. Your worse case? Cancer for all, children, women then men, in that order. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3QZ6MGPBog Can’t find an updated version of this…one that shows the leak constant and/or growing and accumulating daily._greenearl

    • Al Boek

      Notice these models only show the initial releases of radiation debri. They do not show the continued flow of daily leakage into the water, or air for that matter, we know now are
      happening daily since the original disaster. (The Japanise utility call it an incident).
      In the link of the other video I placed here, we’re told, no fish or bird will be found alive
      for 3,000 miles within the next two years. Tokyo is screwed as most of the island and
      they are using homeless to aid in the cleanup. They’re lives are measured in months.
      Agree with the video’s author, the workers should all be utility company executives who
      have already been paid very well in advance. Guys like DavidMcFarland below._greenearl

      • Al Boek

        This animation was produced by a company associated with the University of Hawaii, don’t expect an update. Tourism being the main industry on the islands, little more is being said. Check for yourselves main paper STAR ADVERTISER. Almost complete media blackout. Commonsense dictates here, if we’re getting 114 rads on the beaches of San Francisco already than their readings must be much higher by now. Funny to see our president body surfing there over the holidays. Wonder how long it took him to find a place safe enough to do that. Don’t expect to see him doing this time next year.

  • Al Boek

    Please watch and share Seattle, I’m sorry, but no one cared enough about you and your children to tell you the truth, the entire truth, and nothing but the truth. Their money and power plants were more important than you public health. Shame on them and shame on us for trusting them._greenearl

  • justdooit

    All of you best get off the garbage of making statements that don’t make a bit of difference. Comments here or any other place won’t alleviate the fact that we are in trouble. Best for all to find out how to protect ones thyroid as it will absorb radiation…Iodine is the key…I can’t begin to tell anyone here what to take or what dosage. Keep reading daily at enenews.com…and consider finding a Naturopath who can give info on Iodine…

  • Al Boek

    Just how bad is the Fukushima disaster? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3KNq-PtJZ4

    • Joffan

      It’s a good question, but a nonsense answer. Asking people who know what they’re talking about gets a different result.

      1 Bq of K-40 is just as radioactive as 1 Bq of Cs-137 – the mass doesn’t matter. Talking about grams is totally irrelevant, because radioactive contamination and radioactive background are always measured by the amount of radioactivity, not the mass.

  • Martin

    I agree with Dave I’m no environmentalists but I did do my resection and the numbers doesn’t add up basically if it did have an effect it wouldn’t effect you in this lifetime unless you flew in an airplane going some where

  • Drazius

    It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!

  • Michaelprotects

    I live blocks from the ocean in BC and have seen a dead seal floating in the water, pieces of starfish floating, and all kinds of debris among the rocks. There is a major cover up by government as usual and I’m sick and tired of being lied to continually by media.

  • Lance Freedlund

    The main reason this is being suppressed is completely obvious to anyone with a brain – property values. I’m not a economist, but I’m guessing that a sudden plunge in the value of west coast properties could affect our economy quite a bit.

  • Andrew

    I don’t belive anything david McFarland says. Sincerely Andrew.

  • just yacking

    Technological fanaticism will ultimately be conquered by the earth’s own ability to correct for imbalances. The earth ultimately will prevail, as it always has. About every 350,000 years on this planet, a major global polar shift has taken place, and a resetting of the geological clock has occurred. The last major polar shift happened over 350,000 years ago. Additionally, geological and astrophysical anomalies have arisen more often, bringing immediate environmental change and offering a cleansing of the planets ecosystems. It is quite absurd for the human mind to even discuss preservation and sustenance, at the present state of conditions that the planet has arrived.
    An analogy that comes to mind is the preservation of a celebrated birthday cake. The melted ice cream, the final crumbs of cake, remnants of frosting, a few drips of melted ice cream and a few burned out candles are pieced together with a photograph and explanation of what they are. “Birthday Cake” the sign reads, next to the collection of celebrated left-overs. The party is over, but the concept of “cake” lives on in the desperate minds of the party-goers. In a vain attempt to preserve the cake, in a sense having it and eating it as well, the cake is re-constructed with what remains, and if it is the last cake on earth, it is all that will be known of what a cake once was. This becomes the new norm. Future generations can look at the parts of the whole and gaze in awe at what a beautiful thing a “cake” is, but it can no longer be eaten, or enjoyed, or smelled. The cake is gone. Our cake is gone. The party is over. One day, when we wake up some time in the future, we will understand that the cake was gone long before the capitalist movement gripped our egos and took us on a long ride downward. Most of humanity enjoyed the frosting, few have really even seen the cake. Many can still catch glimpses of it today, if they are present and aware.
    Technology will not pull us back from the vortex, but may give us a clear view of how far down we have come, if we recognize the signals. Most of the time, the signals are overlooked for political reasons, or disregarded due to oversight. The fact of the matter is, we need to humble up to the fact that the planet currently providing for us cannot be limited by us. We as a species are limiting ourselves, not our planet. The planet will survive long beyond our species, that is a proven fact, based on the fossil record. It is also an intuitive deduction, based on simple observations and reason. Research money is wasted on the search for complex explanations, yet no long term, global policy regimes are composed to satisfy common sense environmental stewardship.

    • Joffan

      So, basically, you’re saying that the cake is a lie?

  • Joffan

    West Coast of North America expected to finally detect extremely low levels of Fukushima Radiation

    That’s the reality. “Hit hard”? – bombastic nonsense.

    And then we come to lying with pictures. Right, let’s put in some tsunami debris graphics. It’s trivial to establish that debris behaves and transports in a totally different way than dissolved substances, but let’s put them in anyway. And we’ll have some pictures from an obviously wrong model that is at complete variance with the reality established through direct measurement. However, just to retain a fig-leaf of credibility, tucked in the middle are a few pictures of a realistic model, but enough scary misleading words around them to distract from the non-threatening picture they present. For example – let’s look at the projection for 2015 and observe that the level of contamination near North America is now higher than that near Japan; then the contamination is an order of magnitude higher than the Japanese coast ON THAT DATE. However we’ll let careless readers fail to realize that it is WAY LOWER than the ORIGINAL contamination on the Japanese coast. And so on.

  • Adri

    These projections assume that Fukishima has stopped releasing radioactivity — millions of gallons of highly radioactive water is being released daily and has been for years — and it will not stop any time in the foreseeable future. It is not only killing sea animals, it is causing them to suffer radiation burns and tumors.

  • marsha

    I am a certified and a registered financial service lender i give out loan of all kinds in a very fast and easy way, Home financial service , Student financial service , Business financial service , Investor financial service etc.i offer financial service to every individuals, firms, and company that are in need of financial assistance i in a low interest rate of 3%. Dear readers you should note that this offer is for serious minded individual, firms and companies.Do not let this opportunity pass you by.get your finances to solve your financial problems.email
    honestloan10@gmail.com

  • marsha

    I’m Marsha Goodman, and I’m a Mortgage Loan Officer committed to
    helping all of my clients fully explore their home loan options and
    feel confident about their choices. In my 35 years of experience
    working with third party affordable housing assistance programs,
    conventional conforming and “jumbo loans”, government loans, home
    equity lines of credit and investment property loans and more, I’ve
    been able to share my knowledge of the mortgage industry and
    especially the Peartrees City market. My website offers resources and
    calculators for your convenience, and I’m available to assist you at
    any point along the way toward meeting your
    home loan goals.Email Us:fasterloanservice@gmail.com

  • marsha

    Brothers/Sister’s. Are you looking for loan to finance your large or small business,we’ll help you get the large amount of loan you desire for your business,we offer first class business and commercial loan to enable small scale business attain success in obtaining start up or refinance their business Bad credit rating accepted and poor business performance are accepted.apply today via email):fasterloanservice@gmail.com

  • Weirdbutrue

    That same convergence zone has warmed up a lot by several degrees since then. On SST charts it wiill show up as a bunch of yellow/red and some deep purple showing VERY warm anomalies.

    I got banned from a forum trying to explain this as nobody seemed to understand so I hope I have better luck here!

  • Weirdbutrue

    All of this however is a byproduct of our sub conscience which is turned into negative energy but enough people are learning about the LOA and are *retuning* their body which is likely why the radiation hasn’t been worse yet.

    We actually could’ve had thousands of deaths by now but our vibrations have slowed it just like the BP oil spill where it was suppose to kill everything in sight that even TOUCHED the Gulf of Mexico but mysteriously the oil all vanished baffling scientists but if you understand the LOA then it won’t seem so *baffling* as scientists put it.

 

 

Twitter