Three Raging Meltdowns

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
mainebob's picture
mainebob
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 13 2009
Posts: 97
Three Raging Meltdowns

Fukushima meltdown update: Cesium in the soil, ocean waters contaminated and fuel core meltdown now under way

Thursday, March 31, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)
excerpt:
...
• The battle to save Fukushima is now over, as Japanese officials admit the nuclear power complex must now be abandoned and entombed (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...). The Dailymail published, "officials said it would mean switching off all power and abandoning attempts to keep the nuclear fuel rods cool." The problem with that, of course, is that there are already "three raging meltdowns" under way as Dr. Kaku explains (below). If you abandon efforts to cool the fuel rods, then an accelerated meltdown is "inevitable," says Dr. Kaku.

• Japanese nuclear experts now admit it will require 20 years to decommission the Fukushima nuclear reactors. (http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/20...)

• Cesium-137 has now been found 25 miles from Fukushima at such dangerously high concentrations that they far exceed the threshold of land abandonment used by the Soviet Union following the Chernobyl catastrophe (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/w...). This is raising questions of whether the evacuation zone around Fukushima should now be expanded.

• It has now been revealed that Japan's nuclear disaster preparedness plans were written by complete morons. The entire Fukushima power plant complex, for example, called for only one emergency stretcher to be on-site, and only 50 protective suits (even though hundreds of people worked there). Do you see shades of the TITANIC at play here? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...)

• In a shocking video interview, physicist Dr. Michio Kaku explained, "If it goes to a full-scale evacuation of all personnel, it means that firefighters are no longer putting water onto the cores. That's the only thing preventing a full-scale meltdown at three reactor sites. Once they evacuate, then we past the point of no return. Meltdowns are inevitable at three reactor sites, leading to a tragedy far beyond that of Chernobyl, creating permanent dead zones in Japan." Watch that video at: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=604AB...

• Meanwhile, the Fukushima denialists are in full swing, complaining that anyone talking about Fukushima's meltdown is "fearmongering." One especially idiotic journalist in the UK constructed a completely fabricated article today, claiming that "nobody has suffered or will suffer any radiological health consequences [from Fukushima]." How's that for a total denial of reality? This writer goes on to say, "The nuclear power plants in the stricken region have suffered less damage and caused less trouble to local residents than anything else that was there." (I'm not linking to this source because they don't deserve the attention, but trust me, this is from a major newspaper in the UK.) It just goes to show you that these spin doctors will stop at nothing to try to convince people that nuclear power is the safest thing in the world. There's little question that most of these denialists are on the payroll of the nuclear industry (or just hate the human race for their own twisted or demonic reasons).

mainebob's picture
mainebob
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 13 2009
Posts: 97
more quote from article...

Here's a continuation of the article: "

• As reported by the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/w...), "The level of radioactive iodine 131 in the waters off the Daiichi plant continued to increase on Thursday, rising to 4,385 times the statutory limit... The increases raise the possibility that contaminants from the plant are continuously leaking into the sea."

• Fears about radioactive seafood are growing as Japan's ocean waters are increasingly contaminated with very high levels of radiation, now even exceeding the 3,300 times recently reported (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Taint...).

But remember, everyone: There's nothing to worry about according to your government! Don't be concerned about radiation. It's invisible, so it must be safe!

At least, that's the message we're hearing from many "official" sources. The FDA, laughably, thinks that drinking radioactive milk in the U.S. is just fine for you, but drinking RAW milk is extremely dangerous!

That's how twisted things have become in our world today: The stuff that's actually good for you is outlawed, criticized or suppressed. But the things that are really dangerous for your health -- ionizing radiation, vaccines, GMOs, chemotherapy and pesticides -- are all promoted as the solutions for our world.

It's insane, of course. Beyond insane. And it's all being done in the name of "science," which has proven itself to be the cause of needless suffering, death and destruction across our world. Beware of anything being done today under the claim of being "scientific." That's now a red flag keyword for something that will probably either harm your health or contribute to the destruction of the planet.

 

 

jumblies's picture
jumblies
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 13 2010
Posts: 244
Quick question on the

Quick question on the radioactive milk (and other foodstuffs): if one consumed the milk/whatever then does that internalise the radioactive particles? ie. the radiation the particles emit may be low but if they're internalised then they're going to keep giving low doses for potentially a long enough time to do real damage. And if it's in the milk/food then it's all around (the cow had to consume and digest it). So aside from any internalised radiation source (from milk or breathing the same air the cows do), is there also now the threat from low, but constant, background radiation?

 

Full Moon's picture
Full Moon
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 14 2008
Posts: 1258
 from our Missionary

 from our Missionary friends there:

Thursday Morning March 31

Asahi Newspaper 13 edition

11,362 Confirmed Deaths
18,299 Missing/condition unknown
29,661 Totals

"Presumably our trip to Fukushima was a safe one.  God blessed us with a south wind, meaning things from the nuclear plant were blowing north.

Several concerns concerning the plant:  The police have found several dead people with the 20k zone.  The problem is they are so radioactive they have yet to determine how to take care of the remains.  Cremating is out of the question.

Secondly, it is reported that the radiation levels are too high for the police top search the 10k limit area.  If it is too dangerous for the police, who presumably have the proper protective clothing, what about the firemen and others working at the plant?

This came to light in the news media after the IAEA announced that the radiation levels in places 40k to the north west of the plant are double what the recommended levels to start evacuations are.  The government is being criticized for not taking action.  The government contends that the levels they have set are safe"

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Internal contamination
jumblies wrote:

Quick question on the radioactive milk (and other foodstuffs): if one consumed the milk/whatever then does that internalise the radioactive particles? ie. the radiation the particles emit may be low but if they're internalised then they're going to keep giving low doses for potentially a long enough time to do real damage. And if it's in the milk/food then it's all around (the cow had to consume and digest it). So aside from any internalised radiation source (from milk or breathing the same air the cows do), is there also now the threat from low, but constant, background radiation?

jumblies -

Short answer - consuming contaminated foodstuffs MAY result in internally deposited radionuclides.

Regarding radionuclides subject to preferential deposition (I-131, Sr-90), 70%-80% of whatever is ingested will be passed from the body via normal bodily functions.  The rest will be deposited and could potentially cause a lot of trouble since the surrounding tissue is being constantly bombarded by ionzing radiation from a particle that is 'stuck'.  There is no such thing as 'low' when the radionuclide is inside the body.

Comparatively speaking, the threat from slightly increased background levels and whole body exposure is not even on scale.

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Reporting accuracy?
Full Moon wrote:

Several concerns concerning the plant:  The police have found several dead people with the 20k zone.  The problem is they are so radioactive they have yet to determine how to take care of the remains.  Cremating is out of the question.

Secondly, it is reported that the radiation levels are too high for the police top search the 10k limit area.  If it is too dangerous for the police, who presumably have the proper protective clothing, what about the firemen and others working at the plant?

FM -

Since emergency crews are working at the plants - which is by far and away where the highest radiation levels are, I would question the accuracy of the reports of radiation levels where the police are searching as well as the reports of finding 'radioactive' remains.  If radiation levels were high enough to activate human tissue there would be a lot more than "several dead people".

jumblies's picture
jumblies
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 13 2010
Posts: 244
DIAP - appreciate the reply.

DIAP - appreciate the reply. I get that ingesting radionuclides is much more hazardous than being near an external source of equal, and to an extent higher, radioactivity.

What got me worried more is that Tepco and the Japanese Govt seem to have been less than forthcoming with the truth. If this were a local issue I'd perhaps be more understanding, but this is a global issue. And the Japanese wanted to save face? How can lying to your own nation, let alone the world, about a catastrophe that was obviously going to have global impact ever be considered saving face?

Consider this map showing how the jet stream can carry particles from Japan to the West coast of the US, across the US and into Europe etc. Now if there's radiation leaking into the sea, the sea evaporates into the air which then gets taken into the weather system and the jet stream and dispersed over the globe, this then becomes a global issue. The leak, both to the surrounding land area and the sea, has been more extensive than initially reported as evidenced by both their later admission and the detection of the radiation in the US and Ireland. And the notion that it's low and therefore safe is, in my opinion, nonsense. It wasn't there before but now it's detectable thousands of miles away in the bloody food chain! What, tis a flesh wound?

“Eating fish is not something to worry about,” said Gale, a visiting hematology professor at Imperial College London who was in Japan this week to speak to doctors responding to radiation threats. “No one could afford to consume enough sushi to get radiation damage.”

Really? So the fish at source are fine but the milk from livestock many thousands of miles away glow? Balls! And what about successive generations of seafood? And cows? And us?

Of the land of Japan, aside from the monumental task of rebuilding after the tsunami, how do they cope with irradiated land? How mucn of it is really safe from radiation? If the WSJ is to be believed, the radiation levels in Tokyo are falling, the fact is it's there. And for those who believe the official party line, good luck to you.

Still, let's not get emotional, eh?  At leas the US aren't arming Al Queda (again).

 

guardia's picture
guardia
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 26 2009
Posts: 592
Re: Internal contamination
Dogs_In_A_Pile wrote:

jumblies -

Short answer - consuming contaminated foodstuffs MAY result in internally deposited radionuclides.

Regarding radionuclides subject to preferential deposition (I-131, Sr-90), 70%-80% of whatever is ingested will be passed from the body via normal bodily functions.  The rest will be deposited and could potentially cause a lot of trouble since the surrounding tissue is being constantly bombarded by ionzing radiation from a particle that is 'stuck'.  There is no such thing as 'low' when the radionuclide is inside the body.

Comparatively speaking, the threat from slightly increased background levels and whole body exposure is not even on scale.

And now for the million dollar question: Would you stick around in Tokyo at all if you were there now? weeks? months? years? I would value your input, thanks

Samuel

ewilkerson's picture
ewilkerson
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 18 2010
Posts: 390
Mainebob thanks for all the

Mainebob thanks for all the great information.  It really does look dire for everyone economically around the world, too.

nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1207
stay or go?
guardia wrote:

And now for the million dollar question: Would you stick around in Tokyo at all if you were there now? weeks? months? years? I would value your input, thanks

Samuel

I'll qualify this by stating I'm not a nuclear engineer or expert.   I'll just say that if I were there right now, I would be making plans to move in the next couple weeks just to be on the safe side.  Or if that was not possible (if I couldn't afford to be out of work for example), I might at least send my family to live further away while trying to find a different job elsewhere.  Even if I couldn't do it right away, I would have the eventual goal of leaving and do whatever I can to help make it happen.  I say that not because I'm certain that Tokyo will be significantly affected by contamination, but rather because it's an uncomfortable possibility given the uncertainty of the state of the reactors and the relative lack of control TEPCO has of the situation.  That and the likely impacts of moving away and Tokyo comes through relatively unscathed (I'm out of a job for awhile and lose some money) pale in comparison to the impact of not moving and Tokyo receiving a lot of contaminants from a meltdown-related steam explosion (receiving an unknown level of contamination or trying to get out at the same time as millions of others). 

You have to judge for yourself though.  When you mentally play out the decision of staying, what does your gut say?  Do you feel tense and edgy with a knot in your stomach, or does the thought of it make you feel comfortable and at ease?  Do the same for the decision of leaving (wherever those options may be)... do you feel edgy with an uncomfortable feeling in your gut, or does it make you feel good and at ease?  You will ultimately know better than any of us what the better decision for you will be.

- Nickbert

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Flexible response posture....
guardia wrote:

And now for the million dollar question: Would you stick around in Tokyo at all if you were there now? weeks? months? years? I would value your input, thanks

Samuel

Samuel -

Sorry for the delay in responding.  Given the levels we have seen so far, and as long as the situation at Fukushima Daiich didn't degrade further, I would stay in Tokyo as long as my supplies lasted allowing for the occasional quick trip to replenish and restock.  I would be ready to leave at a moment's notice and I would have several options - west and south - dependent on the weather.  If I were a doctor, fireman, police officer, EMT/EMS, JSDF, etc. I would not even consider leaving - but I would probably have my family leave if there wasn't a really good reason for them to be there.  Everything would be driven by what the weather is doing and I would make sure that I was as current as possible with the 5 day forecast.

guardia's picture
guardia
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 26 2009
Posts: 592
Re: stay or go? Flexible response posture....

nickbert, Dogs, thank you so much for your thoughts!

What you describe Dogs sounds pretty close to what I am doing right now.. I live in Yokohama, south west from Tokyo, so leaving quickly to beat the traffic from Tokyo leaves me some chance of successfully evacuating in case of an emergency from here. Otherwise, I'm counting a bit on some food and water I have in sufficient quantity for a week or two yes.. In any case, no family yet and am not a doctor or anyone with important abilities in case of an emergency.

nickbert, I do feel somewhat OK right now here, and do have something I consider important to finish in the next few months. So, while the situation allows it, I will try to finish it, otherwise it could harm my chances at finding future employment. "So, why did you panic and leave from Tokyo? The news from Fukushima was pure sunshine all along!" kind of question in interviews may not go too well.. With a person of average brain power, it's hard to get the point across.

Besides, I started seeing advertisements placed in trains by the government promoting solar power:

Google translation: Solar system and the purchase of surplus power

(Or maybe they are simply trying to fill in the empty ad slots :) This is exactly the kind of industry I would like to work in, so ...

Samuel

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments