Japan Nuclear Radiation Likely To Reach California

By majestic on March 15, 2011 in News 80

Radiation warning symbol The likes of Matt Drudge and Alex Jones have been banging the drum to create fear among U.S. citizens that radiation from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster will reach North America. Now Neil Katz poses the same question for a mainstream outlet, CBS News. The conclusion he posts is:

“As for America, experts say for now we are in the clear. ‘It is true that radiation emanating from Japan is moving across the Pacific and it’s feasible that one could detect those radiation levels in California,’ says [Dr. Cham] Dallas. ‘But it’s certain that it wouldn’t be dangerous.’”

Do any disinformation readers have expertise in radiation safety issues? Can we be so certain that there is no danger as Dr. Dallas suggests? Please post your thoughts in the comments.

Here’s some more of Katz’s story:

As conditions worsen at four nuclear reactors in Japan, many here and abroad are worried about the health risks of radiation.

What are they?

There are two main fears: first the release of radioactive iodine which can cause thyroid cancer. Some has already been released into the atmosphere, but Japanese health officials hope to stay ahead of it.

The government plans to distribute potassium iodide pills that can keep radioactive iodine from being taken up by the thyroid gland and causing cancer.

“Those are all preventable cancers” if the protective pills are taken right after exposure, said University of New Mexico radiologist Dr. Fred Mettler.

The government has also asked about 180,000 people to leave a 19-mile area around the leaking plants at Fukushima on Japan’s east coast. Those who remain have been asked to wear face masks and stay indoors.

But wind and rain could complicate matters.

Officials in Ibaraki, a neighboring prefecture just south of the Fukushima plant which was severely damaged during the 9.0 earthquake which rocked Japan on March 11, said up to 100 times the normal levels of radiation were detected Tuesday. While those figures are worrying if there is prolonged exposure, they are far from fatal.

Tokyo reported slightly elevated radiation levels, but officials said the increase was too small to threaten the 39 million people in and around the capital, about 170 miles away.

So far, the broad radiation danger has been very small, according to Dr. Cham Dallas, University of Georgia professor of public health who studied the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown in Ukraine…

Earthquakes, Energy, Environment, Health, Japan, Natural Disasters, Nuclear Power, Radiation, Weather

Court Allows Colorado Man To Sue Secret Service, Depose Cheney

Model Wins America’s First Laughter Championship At ‘Laugh Riot’

MrPINKi

I had the fortunate opportunity to speak with a friend of mine that works at the nuclear plant here next to San Clemente CA and even with reporters all over their nuclear plant the media is just doing the best at fear mongering it can. They are well prepared for disaster to hit their plant. Not saying nothing can happen but it is built to take up to a 7.5 quake which is the highest quake San Andreas can dish out. As for Japans nuclear issue hitting us, that as well is being built up more than it should be. At this moment they are able to pump water into the plant via the sea,( Which will fastley corrode the inner shells of the structure) but none the less cooling it down. Not to mention it looks as though a few of the rods are already destroyed.
- HaHaHa!
  
  Infamous last words… Pinko!
- reubenavery
  
  hurr durr I had the fortunate opportunity to speak with a friend of mine that works at the nuclear plant here next to San Clemente CA and he said we are completely and utterly fucked if an earthquake of that magnitude happens here, and the San Andreas fault is well capable of dishing it out.
  - MrPINKi
    
    Durptey durr, looks like were fucked then huh? Start popping your iodine and practice kissing your ass goodbye. Don’t know about your buddy, but my buddy is better than yours and knows more too, so there. Anything can happen, but our guys have things pretty well under control over there and we haven’t had an earthquake yet. The San And fault can only dish out up to an 8 at the highest. That may do some damage but with current events they are preparing even more know. So hope for the best and stop being a fear mongorer.
    - http://twitter.com/scribblegurl scribblegurl
      
      Gosh, facts are a pita. You AND your buddy need to do some reading. Even his employer says that plant was built to withstand a 7.0. And the San Andreas can dish out an 8.0, not a 7.5.
      - MrPINKi
        
        Your just spliting hairs now.
      - http://twitter.com/scribblegurl scribblegurl
        
        Splitting hairs??? A 7.5 earthquake is 5 times stronger than a 7.0. An 8.0 is 5 times stronger than a 7.5. Which makes it 10 times stronger than a 7.0. That’s not a small difference.
      - http://twitter.com/scribblegurl scribblegurl
        
        I’m not saying panic now, btw. I’m just saying complacency is misplaced.
      - MrPINKi
        
        If we should worry about any plant, I think the one off of the Hudson should get anyones panties in a bunch.
      - NLG
        
        I just want to point out that the San Andreas fault is a “strike-slip” fault where two plates grind in opposite directions. The fault responsible for the earthquake in Japan is a “thrust” fault where the edge of a tectonic plate is being pushed beneath another (subduction) – this type of earthquake can be very powerful as we saw in Japan. For more information about plate tectonics and more, see http://www.iris.edu/hq/programs/education_and_outreach/animations#A
      - MrPINKi
        
        I didnt say anything about a 7.0. I said the plant is made to withstand a 7.5. Now if the San And fault throws out a 8.0 we may be in trouble. Either way, with current events at hand extra prevention is being made at the plant in San O. I dont have the opportunity to walk around in their to make sure everyone is doing their job right but my hope is that they are doing their due dilegence. After speaking with my friend that works there that seems to be the case. With all the crap happening world wide right now, everyones future is looking pretty bleak anyway, but Im hoping for the best and preparing for the worst.
      - http://twitter.com/scribblegurl scribblegurl
        
        The company which operates the plant, Southern California Edison, says the plant can withstand a 7.0. NOT the 7.5 your buddy *mistakenly* believes to be the case. I’m glad to hear they’re taking extra precautions. I hope your buddy is right, and they’re making a serious stab at safety and not falsifying safety checks, as they have been caught doing in the past. Like you, I’m just hoping for the best.
- http://twitter.com/scribblegurl scribblegurl
  
  Actually, the Southern section of the San Andreas is capable of serving up an 8.1. In addition, SoCalEd itself says the San Onofre power station is built to withstand a 7.0, NOT a 7.5. That’s a 5-fold difference in strength. Fukushima was built to withstand 7.9. Earthquake science changes fairly frequently; when San Onofre was built, scientists predicted the strongest quake possible to hit it was a 6.9 – that was 42 years ago. I’m not a big fan of putting my faith in 42-year-old science, frankly, especially when that science is paid for by a corporation which also happens to have misread the blueprints to the point where it installed the reactor vessel backwards, but I digress. When Diablo Canyon was built, the nearby Hosgri Fault had not even been discovered yet. That fault is a reverse thrust fault located offshore, 2.5 miles from Diablo Canyon, and is capable of delivering a 7.5. A mere 3 years ago, in 2008, an even closer fault, the Shoreline Fault, was discovered. It lies less than a mile from Diablo Canyon and is *thought* to be capable of delivering a 6.5, but no one’s certain of that yet. New faults are discovered all the time, primarily when they create earthquakes. So you’ll pardon me when I don’t share your enthusiasm for a nuclear power plant effectively sitting right in my back yard…or two of them, as the case may be, since I live within 50 miles of Diablo Canyon and about 60 from San Onofre.
  - MrPINKi
    
    The numbers are always thrown back and fourth. I myself am taking what an HMFIC who works there is telling me vs someone who doesn’t.
    - http://twitter.com/scribblegurl scribblegurl
      
      Yes, because why take the word of the company that owns and operates the plant when you can listen to your buddy who only works there. I’m guessing he’s not a structural engineer, either. And why on earth listen to actual science when you can just pull a random number out of your (or your buddy’s) bum. I don’t have to work in a nuclear power plant to discuss this any more than I have to stand on the frigging moon to be able to tell you it isn’t made out of green cheese. That’s why we have SCIENCE and FACTS.
- Not Naive
  
  Are you sure that’s the highest quake the San Andreas can dish? Are you a geologist? The San Andres is a pretty significant fault, not just a fault, but two plates grinding in opposite directions against each other.
  
  I’m guessing it could push 8, probably higher. Why do I think this? Because I’m not a naive idiot who believes what sounds nice. I just hope i’m not in the area when the girl blows (sometime between and 9385AD)
  - MrPINKi
    
    Look it up Not Niave, im not a geologist either, but that what is being said. Can they be wrong? Sure.
- Rhinofight
  
  What is this nonsense being propagated about the limitations of the San Andreas fault? It can only produce a 7.5? No more? I’d love to hear the “science” behind that. Rather than “beating the fear drum”, it sounds like the beating of the “keep the public calm” drum. Interesting the LA times reported this supposed limitation, but just last october they reported this: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/10/local/la-me-san-andreas-20101010
  - MrPINKi
    
    Spliting hairs again, yes a 7.5 and an 8.1 is a big difference in strength but either one will be enough to do some major damage. Keeping calm is a lot more fun than fear. Im sure across the globe right now “They” are doing their due diligence in uping the saftey of these plants. If one should fear any plant it should be the one off the Hudson. That one will blow before any other until protocals and procedures are upgraded. Hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Unlike Bud Bundy Im not going to start kissing my ass good bye just yet.
MrPINKi

I had the fortunate opportunity to speak with a friend of mine that works at the nuclear plant here next to San Clemente CA and even with reporters all over their nuclear plant the media is just doing the best at fear mongering it can. They are well prepared for disaster to hit their plant. Not saying nothing can happen but it is built to take up to a 7.5 quake which is the highest quake San Andreas can dish out. As for Japans nuclear issue hitting us, that as well is being built up more than it should be. At this moment they are able to pump water into the plant via the sea,( Which will fastley corrode the inner shells of the structure) but none the less cooling it down. Not to mention it looks as though a few of the rods are already destroyed.
HaHaHa!

Infamous last words… Pinko!
Anonymous

hurr durr I had the fortunate opportunity to speak with a friend of mine that works at the nuclear plant here next to San Clemente CA and he said we are completely and utterly fucked if an earthquake of that magnitude happens here, and the San Andreas fault is well capable of dishing it out.
http://www.jayurbzz.com jayurbzz

potassium iodide: kelp and bananas, people
- Doc Holiday
  
  You plan to check the potassium iodide, kelp and bananas before you eat them or just trust they aren’t radioactive too?
http://www.jayurbzz.com jayurbzz

potassium iodide: kelp and bananas, people
MrPINKi

Durptey durr, looks like were fucked then huh? Start popping your iodine and practice kissing your ass goodbye. Don’t know about your buddy, but my buddy is better than yours and knows more too, so there. Anything can happen, but our guys have things pretty well under control over there and we haven’t had an earthquake yet. The San And fault can only dish out up to an 8 at the highest. That may do some damage but with current events they are preparing even more know. So hope for the best and stop being a fear mongorer.
chinagreenelvis

Hurr durr, I just negated the statement of another person by saying only “hurr durr.”

Fuck off.
Mr?

Good for you Greenteaelvis, I emplore you to fuck off as well.
OneEdge

Once you learn about nuclear material and radiation, you can put all this into the proper perspective. There’s cause to be concerned for the health and well-being of the people and ecosystem around the plant, but there’s no way that this incident will have any impact on mainland US.
OneEdge

Once you learn about nuclear material and radiation, you can put all this into the proper perspective. There’s cause to be concerned for the health and well-being of the people and ecosystem around the plant, but there’s no way that this incident will have any impact on mainland US.
http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

Unlike Chernobyl, which is one of the only comparable incidents that can be examined, there hasn’t been a massive blast affecting a major continental waterway…and thus…even if contaminated water is vented into the ocean and travels, the degree of dispersal and ‘watering down’ before any landfall will be so much radically higher than Chernobyl, which made an enormous and sudden impact with large scale release of radiation into nearby rivers and high into the atmosphere. It still remains to be seen if the Japanese can prevent a major explosion/meltdown that might have a greater atmospheric impact…but as of right now…anyone banging the fear drum with threats of significant exposure from whats been vented so far…is just flat out exaggerating to make the ratings pop.
- dumbsaint
  
  Japan have been placing it at 4 on the ‘Nuclear Event Scale’ which is lower than Three Mile Island(5). Chernobyl is 7. Fortunately it cant get anywhere near as bad as Chernobyl as they managed to shut all the reactors down after the quake. Chernobyl was a functioning reactor that exploded, at Fukishima the issue is a matter of containment by preventing the fuelrods from reaching criticality (again).
  
  That said just recently the French nuclear guys declared Fukishima to be at 6 and has basically started to evacuate it’s nationals. With vague statements from TEPCO like ”The possibility of recriticality is not zero,” it’s hard not to think things are possibly worse than we know. But it’s not going to be on the level of Chernobyl thankfully.
http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

Unlike Chernobyl, which is one of the only comparable incidents that can be examined, there hasn’t been a massive blast affecting a major continental waterway…and thus…even if contaminated water is vented into the ocean and travels, the degree of dispersal and ‘watering down’ before any landfall will be so much radically higher than Chernobyl, which made an enormous and sudden impact with large scale release of radiation into nearby rivers and high into the atmosphere. It still remains to be seen if the Japanese can prevent a major explosion/meltdown that might have a greater atmospheric impact…but as of right now…anyone banging the fear drum with threats of significant exposure from whats been vented so far…is just flat out exaggerating to make the ratings pop.
http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

Unlike Chernobyl, which is one of the only comparable incidents that can be examined, there hasn’t been a massive blast affecting a major continental waterway…and thus…even if contaminated water is vented into the ocean and travels, the degree of dispersal and ‘watering down’ before any landfall will be so much radically higher than Chernobyl, which made an enormous and sudden impact with large scale release of radiation into nearby rivers and high into the atmosphere. It still remains to be seen if the Japanese can prevent a major explosion/meltdown that might have a greater atmospheric impact…but as of right now…anyone banging the fear drum with threats of significant exposure from whats been vented so far…is just flat out exaggerating to make the ratings pop.
http://twitter.com/scribblegurl scribblegurl

Actually, the Southern section of the San Andreas is capable of serving up an 8.1. In addition, SoCalEd itself says the San Onofre power station is built to withstand a 7.0, NOT a 7.5. That’s a 50-fold difference in size. Fukushima was built to withstand 7.9. Earthquake science changes fairly frequently; when San Onofre was built, scientists predicted the strongest quake possible to hit it was a 6.9 – that was 42 years ago. I’m not a big fan of putting my faith in 42-year-old science, frankly, especially when that science is paid for by a corporation which also happens to have misread the blueprints to the point where it installed the reactor vessel backwards, but I digress. When Diablo Canyon was built, the nearby Hosgri Fault had not even been discovered yet. That fault is a reverse thrust fault located offshore, 2.5 miles from Diablo Canyon, and is capable of delivering a 7.5. A mere 3 years ago, in 2008, an even closer fault, the Shoreline Fault, was discovered. It lies less than a mile from Diablo Canyon and is *thought* to be capable of delivering a 6.5, but no one’s certain of that yet. New faults are discovered all the time, primarily when they create earthquakes. So you’ll pardon me when I don’t share your enthusiasm for a nuclear power plant effectively sitting right in my back yard…or two of them, as the case may be, since I live within 50 miles of Diablo Canyon and about 60 from San Onofre.
http://twitter.com/scribblegurl scribblegurl

Actually, the Southern section of the San Andreas is capable of serving up an 8.1. In addition, SoCalEd itself says the San Onofre power station is built to withstand a 7.0, NOT a 7.5. That’s a 50-fold difference in size. Fukushima was built to withstand 7.9. Earthquake science changes fairly frequently; when San Onofre was built, scientists predicted the strongest quake possible to hit it was a 6.9 – that was 42 years ago. I’m not a big fan of putting my faith in 42-year-old science, frankly, especially when that science is paid for by a corporation which also happens to have misread the blueprints to the point where it installed the reactor vessel backwards, but I digress. When Diablo Canyon was built, the nearby Hosgri Fault had not even been discovered yet. That fault is a reverse thrust fault located offshore, 2.5 miles from Diablo Canyon, and is capable of delivering a 7.5. A mere 3 years ago, in 2008, an even closer fault, the Shoreline Fault, was discovered. It lies less than a mile from Diablo Canyon and is *thought* to be capable of delivering a 6.5, but no one’s certain of that yet. New faults are discovered all the time, primarily when they create earthquakes. So you’ll pardon me when I don’t share your enthusiasm for a nuclear power plant effectively sitting right in my back yard…or two of them, as the case may be, since I live within 50 miles of Diablo Canyon and about 60 from San Onofre.
http://twitter.com/scribblegurl scribblegurl

Gosh, facts are a pita. You AND your buddy need to do some reading. Even his employer says that plant was built to withstand a 7.0. And the San Andreas can dish out an 8.0, not a 7.5.
WhiteRose

If Alex Jones is now selling gas masks or any other product that would profit that probably gives you an answer. Getting supplies to Japan should be the first priority. That being said, those in Cali might want to make sure they have emergency supplies and learn from this disaster. Mother nature is unpredictable, never say never!
MrPINKi

Your just spliting hairs now.
WhiteRose

If Alex Jones is now selling gas masks or any other product that would profit that probably gives you an answer. Getting supplies to Japan should be the first priority. That being said, those in Cali might want to make sure they have emergency supplies and learn from this disaster. Mother nature is unpredictable, never say never!
http://twitter.com/scribblegurl scribblegurl

Splitting hairs??? A 7.5 earthquake is 5 times stronger than a 7.0. An 8.0 is 5 times stronger than a 7.5. Which makes it 10 times stronger than a 7.0. That’s not a small difference.
Not Naive

Are you sure that’s the highest quake the San Andreas can dish? Are you a geologist? The San Andres is a pretty significant fault, not just a fault, but two plates grinding in opposite directions against each other.

I’m guessing it could push 8, probably higher. Why do I think this? Because I’m not a naive idiot who believes what sounds nice. I just hope i’m not in the area when the girl blows (sometime between and 9385AD)
Not Naive

Are you sure that’s the highest quake the San Andreas can dish? Are you a geologist? The San Andres is a pretty significant fault, not just a fault, but two plates grinding in opposite directions against each other.

I’m guessing it could push 8, probably higher. Why do I think this? Because I’m not a naive idiot who believes what sounds nice. I just hope i’m not in the area when the girl blows (sometime between and 9385AD)
http://twitter.com/scribblegurl scribblegurl

I’m not saying panic now, btw. I’m just saying complacency is misplaced.
MrPINKi

I didnt say anything about a 7.0. I said the plant is made to withstand a 7.5. Now if the San And fault throws out a 8.0 we may be in trouble. Either way, with current events at hand extra prevention is being made at the plant in San O. I dont have the opportunity to walk around in their to make sure everyone is doing their job right but my hope is that they are doing their due dilegence. After speaking with my friend that works there that seems to be the case. With all the crap happening world wide right now, everyones future is looking pretty bleak anyway, but Im hoping for the best and preparing for the worst.
MrPINKi

I didnt say anything about a 7.0. I said the plant is made to withstand a 7.5. Now if the San And fault throws out a 8.0 we may be in trouble. Either way, with current events at hand extra prevention is being made at the plant in San O. I dont have the opportunity to walk around in their to make sure everyone is doing their job right but my hope is that they are doing their due dilegence. After speaking with my friend that works there that seems to be the case. With all the crap happening world wide right now, everyones future is looking pretty bleak anyway, but Im hoping for the best and preparing for the worst.
Andy

The explosions were hydrogen bursts, which is what happens when water comes into contact with a heat source (think hot coals in a sauna). There is no risk of a nuclear explosion. Worse case scenario is meltdown and any contamination will be contained very locally. The rising and falling of radiation levels are short lived radio isotopes within the plant disintegrating. These pose no threat of external contamination.
Andy

The explosions were hydrogen bursts, which is what happens when water comes into contact with a heat source (think hot coals in a sauna). There is no risk of a nuclear explosion. Worse case scenario is meltdown and any contamination will be contained very locally. The rising and falling of radiation levels are short lived radio isotopes within the plant disintegrating. These pose no threat of external contamination.
- Bud Bundy
  
  Shh, we need to scare these people. Why? Its funny!
  
  ITS GOING TO EXPLODE WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE OH GOD HAVE MERCY I RENOUNCE ATHEISM OH GOD NOOOO THE SPACE LIZARDS ARE EATING MY BRAIN MOMMA HELP ME THEY KNOW MAGICK
  - Bud Bundy
    
    I renounce former comment. Hail Cyborg Reagan, hail Cyborg Reagan. I now initiate worker program 216.
MrPINKi

Look it up Not Niave, im not a geologist either, but that what is being said. Can they be wrong? Sure.
MrPINKi

The numbers are always thrown back and fourth. I myself am taking what an HMFIC who works there is telling me vs someone who doesn’t.
http://twitter.com/scribblegurl scribblegurl

Yes, because why take the word of the company that owns and operates the plant when you can listen to your buddy who only works there. I’m guessing he’s not a structural engineer, either. And why on earth listen to actual science when you can just pull a random number out of your (or your buddy’s) bum. I don’t have to work in a nuclear power plant to discuss this any more than I have to stand on the frigging moon to be able to tell you it isn’t made out of green cheese. That’s why we have SCIENCE and FACTS.
http://twitter.com/scribblegurl scribblegurl

Yes, because why take the word of the company that owns and operates the plant when you can listen to your buddy who only works there. I’m guessing he’s not a structural engineer, either. And why on earth listen to actual science when you can just pull a random number out of your (or your buddy’s) bum. I don’t have to work in a nuclear power plant to discuss this any more than I have to stand on the frigging moon to be able to tell you it isn’t made out of green cheese. That’s why we have SCIENCE and FACTS.
http://twitter.com/scribblegurl scribblegurl

Yes, because why take the word of the company that owns and operates the plant when you can listen to your buddy who only works there. I’m guessing he’s not a structural engineer, either. And why on earth listen to actual science when you can just pull a random number out of your (or your buddy’s) bum. I don’t have to work in a nuclear power plant to discuss this any more than I have to stand on the frigging moon to be able to tell you it isn’t made out of green cheese. That’s why we have SCIENCE and FACTS.
mrtastycakes

I studied nuclear engineering and my final research project was in radiation dosimetry. I’m no doctor, but I can say it certainly won’t be an issue in the US. They Japanese may or may not have something to worry about. I can’t tell–their gov’t understandably not talking much and journalists are terrible at communicating scientific issues (as are scientists). Residents of Kiev–including one of my classmates–survived Chernobyl, and it was ~30 miles away. Radiation was detected as far as Canada. We’re fine.

I will also say this, though: the blind faith that “nothing can go wrong” that EVERY nuclear engineer is indoctrinated with is wrong and prevents improvements. It’s safe and clean, but as long as you believe it’s perfectly safe and perfectly clean, it never will be. That mindset is responsible for a large number of nuclear accidents and incidents.

. . .and always remember hormesis.
mrtastycakes

I studied nuclear engineering and my final research project was in radiation dosimetry. I’m no doctor, but I can say it certainly won’t be an issue in the US. They Japanese may or may not have something to worry about. I can’t tell–their gov’t understandably not talking much and journalists are terrible at communicating scientific issues (as are scientists). Residents of Kiev–including one of my classmates–survived Chernobyl, and it was ~30 miles away. Radiation was detected as far as Canada. We’re fine.

I will also say this, though: the blind faith that “nothing can go wrong” that EVERY nuclear engineer is indoctrinated with is wrong and prevents improvements. It’s safe and clean, but as long as you believe it’s perfectly safe and perfectly clean, it never will be. That mindset is responsible for a large number of nuclear accidents and incidents.

. . .and always remember hormesis.
http://twitter.com/scribblegurl scribblegurl

The company which operates the plant, Southern California Edison, says the plant can withstand a 7.0. NOT the 7.5 your buddy *mistakenly* believes to be the case. I’m glad to hear they’re taking extra precautions. I hope your buddy is right, and they’re making a serious stab at safety and not falsifying safety checks, as they have been caught doing in the past. Like you, I’m just hoping for the best.
Thethrillofthegrass

EASY FOR HIM TO SAY NO DANGER (AT THIS MOMENT), BUT, IF THE REACTORS MELT DOWN, YOU DON’T NEED A PROFESSOR TO TELL WHICH WAY THE WINDS BLOW: THE JET STREAM WILL DELIVER WHATEVER GETS ALOFT IN JAPAN TO THE ENTIRE WEST COAST IN 5-7 DAYS. FACT: THE #3 REACTOR IS FUELED WITH MOX, WHICH CONTAINS PLUTONIUM WHICH IS (TAKE YOUR PICK) FROM 2,000 TO 2 MILLION TIMES MORE LETHAL THAN URANIUM! ALSO THERE ARE 1,000+ “SPENT FUEL RODS” LAYING AROUND THAT COULD MELT AND CREATE A RADIOACTIVE CLOUD.
GOV’T DROPPED A HINT THAT “”neutron radiation has been detected at reactor 3…”
(mentioned in passing; no follow-up questions?)
[PRESS CONFERENCE LAST NIGHT]
Thethrillofthegrass

EASY FOR HIM TO SAY NO DANGER (AT THIS MOMENT), BUT, IF THE REACTORS MELT DOWN, YOU DON’T NEED A PROFESSOR TO TELL WHICH WAY THE WINDS BLOW: THE JET STREAM WILL DELIVER WHATEVER GETS ALOFT IN JAPAN TO THE ENTIRE WEST COAST IN 5-7 DAYS. FACT: THE #3 REACTOR IS FUELED WITH MOX, WHICH CONTAINS PLUTONIUM WHICH IS (TAKE YOUR PICK) FROM 2,000 TO 2 MILLION TIMES MORE LETHAL THAN URANIUM! ALSO THERE ARE 1,000+ “SPENT FUEL RODS” LAYING AROUND THAT COULD MELT AND CREATE A RADIOACTIVE CLOUD.
GOV’T DROPPED A HINT THAT “”neutron radiation has been detected at reactor 3…”
(mentioned in passing; no follow-up questions?)
[PRESS CONFERENCE LAST NIGHT]
Doc Holiday

You plan to check the potassium iodide, kelp and bananas before you eat them or just trust they aren’t radioactive too?
Anonymous

Japan have been placing it at 4 on the ‘Nuclear Event Scale’ which is lower than Three Mile Island(5). Chernobyl is 7. Fortunately it cant get anywhere near as bad as Chernobyl as they managed to shut all the reactors down after the quake. Chernobyl was a functioning reactor that exploded, at Fukishima the issue is a matter of containment by preventing the fuelrods from reaching criticality (again).

That said just recently the French nuclear guys declared Fukishima to be at 6 and has basically started to evacuate it’s nationals. With vague statements from TEPCO like ”The possibility of recriticality is not zero,” it’s hard not to think things are possibly worse than we know. But it’s not going to be on the level of Chernobyl thankfully.
Bud Bundy

I live close enough the the Hanford Nuclear Reservation that this is unlikely to have any effect on me. I’m probably already becoming a Ghoul, to use the Fallout parlance. Upside is, nothing. Downside is… I get to live forever.
Bud Bundy

I live close enough the the Hanford Nuclear Reservation that this is unlikely to have any effect on me. I’m probably already becoming a Ghoul, to use the Fallout parlance. Upside is, nothing. Downside is… I get to live forever.
Bud Bundy

Shh, we need to scare these people. Why? Its funny!

ITS GOING TO EXPLODE WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE OH GOD HAVE MERCY I RENOUNCE ATHEISM OH GOD NOOOO THE SPACE LIZARDS ARE EATING MY BRAIN MOMMA HELP ME THEY KNOW MAGICK
Bud Bundy

I renounce former comment. Hail Cyborg Reagan, hail Cyborg Reagan. I now initiate worker program 216.
Paul Panza (who are you)

There is no known safe level of radiation. Low level radiation is dangerous if it stays long, length of time is a factor of exposure. Low level radiation tends to be more dangerous than high as there tends to be more of it. The standards used to judge the level of danger that is used by our NRC is off by a multiplier of 100 to 1000 times depending on the isotope and degree and length of exposure. President Reagan ended the public hearings that would have re-rated the standards used by the NRC, thus retarding the ability to judge the situation properly. The other problems that are being ignored is where the water goes that is being dumped onto the melting rods. Also with holes in the structures it is doubtful that there is containment. These nuclear parks were a bad idea to begin with as a good percentage of them are built on flood plains and fault lines. A cover up is in progress that is based on poor standards and lack of expertise, after all how many actual meltdowns have we experienced. The insurance companies and energy corporations will be protected before the general populace, which is standard operating procedure in corporate run governments.
- mrtastycakes
  
  I know this is crazy, but there are actually no reliable studies on the effects of low-level radiation. For almost every one that says it has negative effects, there is one that says it has positive(!) effects. There’s supposed to be a lab out at WIPP that will eliminate the ridiculous number of confounding variables and provide a firm answer. I haven’t heard about it in awhile. The main problem with long-term low-level radiation exposure is that you can’t do anything about it. It comes overwhelmingly from naturally occurring radon. Tip: don’t live in a brick house.
Paul Panza (who are you)

There is no known safe level of radiation. Low level radiation is dangerous if it stays long, length of time is a factor of exposure. Low level radiation tends to be more dangerous than high as there tends to be more of it. The standards used to judge the level of danger that is used by our NRC is off by a multiplier of 100 to 1000 times depending on the isotope and degree and length of exposure. President Reagan ended the public hearings that would have re-rated the standards used by the NRC, thus retarding the ability to judge the situation properly. The other problems that are being ignored is where the water goes that is being dumped onto the melting rods. Also with holes in the structures it is doubtful that there is containment. These nuclear parks were a bad idea to begin with as a good percentage of them are built on flood plains and fault lines. A cover up is in progress that is based on poor standards and lack of expertise, after all how many actual meltdowns have we experienced. The insurance companies and energy corporations will be protected before the general populace, which is standard operating procedure in corporate run governments.
Rhinofight

What is this nonsense being propagated about the limitations of the San Andreas fault? It can only produce a 7.5? No more? I’d love to hear the “science” behind that. Rather than “beating the fear drum”, it sounds like the beating of the “keep the public calm” drum. Interesting the LA times reported this supposed limitation, but just last october they reported this: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/10/local/la-me-san-andreas-20101010
MrPINKi

If we should worry about any plant, I think the one off of the Hudson should get anyones panties in a bunch.
MrPINKi

Spliting hairs again, yes a 7.5 and an 8.1 is a big difference in strength but either one will be enough to do some major damage. Keeping calm is a lot more fun than fear. Im sure across the globe right now “They” are doing their due diligence in uping the saftey of these plants. If one should fear any plant it should be the one off the Hudson. That one will blow before any other until protocals and procedures are upgraded. Hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Unlike Bud Bundy Im not going to start kissing my ass good bye just yet.
mrtastycakes

I know this is crazy, but there are actually no reliable studies on the effects of low-level radiation. For almost every one that says it has negative effects, there is one that says it has positive(!) effects. There’s supposed to be a lab out at WIPP that will eliminate the ridiculous number of confounding variables and provide a firm answer. I haven’t heard about it in awhile. The main problem with long-term low-level radiation exposure is that you can’t do anything about it. It comes overwhelmingly from naturally occurring radon. Tip: don’t live in a brick house.
RadiationCANreach

The north pacific Drift is leading the radiation directly to the US west coast. It is the exact same wind the Japanese used to float Balloon bombs to the US mainland during ww2. please stop misinforming people that it is to far away because it is not. People on the US west coast should be seriously alarmed.

At least take precautions..
RadiationCANreach

The north pacific Drift is leading the radiation directly to the US west coast. It is the exact same wind the Japanese used to float Balloon bombs to the US mainland during ww2. please stop misinforming people that it is to far away because it is not. People on the US west coast should be seriously alarmed.

At least take precautions..
- Sanity please
  
  Thank you , you are spot on. Everyone on this site should learn about the balloon bombs. Seriously, why would anyone believe the nuclear power industry to report on nuclear danger. They have a 50 year history of lying to the public. Every time there is is leak, they deny it, and years later admit yes it happened, but boy, that could never happen again. Please, do we not ever learn?
Sanity please

Thank you , you are spot on. Everyone on this site should learn about the balloon bombs. Seriously, why would anyone believe the nuclear power industry to report on nuclear danger. They have a 50 year history of lying to the public. Every time there is is leak, they deny it, and years later admit yes it happened, but boy, that could never happen again. Please, do we not ever learn?
NLG

I just want to point out that the San Andreas fault is a “strike-slip” fault where two plates grind in opposite directions. The fault responsible for the earthquake in Japan is a “thrust” fault where the edge of a tectonic plate is being pushed beneath another (subduction) – this type of earthquake can be very powerful as we saw in Japan. For more information about plate tectonics and more, see http://www.iris.edu/hq/programs/education_and_outreach/animations#A
Anonymous

*
cjmurray

24 March 2011

On the subject of low level radiation hazards………

“John William Gofman (September 21, 1918 – August 15, 2007) ………Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at University of California at Berkeley. ……..early work was on the Manhattan Project…..shares patents on the fissionability of uranium-233 as well as on early processes for separating plutonium from fission products…..later worked in medicine and led the team that discovered and characterized lipoproteins in the causation of heart disease. In 1963, he established the Biomedical Research Division for the Livermore National Laboratory, where he was on the cutting edge of research into the connection between chromosomal abnormalities and cancer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gofman

“We were assigned to evaluate the hazards of atomic radiation by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in 1963. It was our job to assess the cost in human disease and death for all sorts of proposed and on-going nuclear energy programs, including nuclear electricity.

In October, 1969, we were prepared to present our results on the expected cancer and leukemia deaths for human exposure to various amounts of radiation………. The most useful basis appeared to us to express this risk for that amount of radiation, namely, 0.17 rads (or 170 millirads), which is the currently legal average dose that peaceful atomic energy programs are permitted to deliver to the U.S. Population.

This dosage, 0.17 rads per year for average exposure, is a “guideline” of allowable dosage set by the Federal Radiation Council, an organization established in 1959 by President Eisenhower. This guideline in no way suggests that everyone should or does receive 0.17 rads per year. Rather, it states that no individual shall receive more than 0.5 rads per year nor shall the average dose exceed 0.17 rads. ……………

……..Our calculations of cancer hazard were presented to an eminent scientific society, the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers in San Francisco on October 29, 1969. The prediction follows:

‘If the average exposure of the U.S. Population were to reach the allowable 0.17 rads per year average, there would, in time, be an excess of 32,000 cases of fatal cancer plus leukemia per year, and this would occur year after year.’”

Many of the people, in nuclear electricity work, simply expressed their disbelief that a Federal Agency would ever set a guideline that could be associated with such an enormous hazard. They all had been under the illusion that the hazard at the Guideline radiation level must be zero, or at least so very low as to be negligible. One after another, officials of the nuclear electricity industry expressed their opinion that surely something must be wrong with our estimates, although none of them could muster an iota of evidence as to what it could be…………..

………The only possible way to set a truly safe standard — a definite number of rads or millirads assigned to a particular tissue or organ — would be to know beyond any reasonable doubt that within that amount no biological effect will occur. We can state unequivocally, and without fear of contradiction, that no one has ever produced evidence that any specific amount of radiation will be without harm. Indeed, quite the opposite appears to be the case.

All the evidence, both from experimental animals and from humans, leads us to expect that even the smallest quantities of ionizing radiation produce harm, both to this generation of humans and future generations. Furthermore, it appears that progressively greater harm accrues in direct proportion to the amount of radiation received by the various body tissues and organs.

It came as a great shock to us, in the course of our study of radiation hazards to man, that nuclear electricity generation has been developed under the false illusion that there exists some safe amount of radiation. This unsupportable concept is surely one of the gravest condemnations of nuclear electricity generation. Obviously any engineering development proceeding under an illusion of a wide margin of safety is fraught with serious danger.

What is more, the false illusion of a safe amount of radiation has pervaded all the highest circles concerned with the development and promotion of nuclear electric power. The Congress, the nuclear manufacturing industry, and the electric utility industry have all been led to believe that some safe amount of radiation does indeed exist. They were hoping to develop this industry with exposures below this limit — a limit we now know is anything but safe. ”

John Gofman died in 2007. I’m too tired to do all this again. “Poisoned Power” was published in 1971, is still as relevant as ever, and the updated 1979 version is available in full online at http://ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PP/ . Spread it around.
HumanFromEarth

*
cjmurray

24 March 2011

On the subject of low level radiation hazards………

“John William Gofman (September 21, 1918 – August 15, 2007) ………Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at University of California at Berkeley. ……..early work was on the Manhattan Project…..shares patents on the fissionability of uranium-233 as well as on early processes for separating plutonium from fission products…..later worked in medicine and led the team that discovered and characterized lipoproteins in the causation of heart disease. In 1963, he established the Biomedical Research Division for the Livermore National Laboratory, where he was on the cutting edge of research into the connection between chromosomal abnormalities and cancer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gofman

“We were assigned to evaluate the hazards of atomic radiation by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in 1963. It was our job to assess the cost in human disease and death for all sorts of proposed and on-going nuclear energy programs, including nuclear electricity.

In October, 1969, we were prepared to present our results on the expected cancer and leukemia deaths for human exposure to various amounts of radiation………. The most useful basis appeared to us to express this risk for that amount of radiation, namely, 0.17 rads (or 170 millirads), which is the currently legal average dose that peaceful atomic energy programs are permitted to deliver to the U.S. Population.

This dosage, 0.17 rads per year for average exposure, is a “guideline” of allowable dosage set by the Federal Radiation Council, an organization established in 1959 by President Eisenhower. This guideline in no way suggests that everyone should or does receive 0.17 rads per year. Rather, it states that no individual shall receive more than 0.5 rads per year nor shall the average dose exceed 0.17 rads. ……………

……..Our calculations of cancer hazard were presented to an eminent scientific society, the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers in San Francisco on October 29, 1969. The prediction follows:

‘If the average exposure of the U.S. Population were to reach the allowable 0.17 rads per year average, there would, in time, be an excess of 32,000 cases of fatal cancer plus leukemia per year, and this would occur year after year.’”

Many of the people, in nuclear electricity work, simply expressed their disbelief that a Federal Agency would ever set a guideline that could be associated with such an enormous hazard. They all had been under the illusion that the hazard at the Guideline radiation level must be zero, or at least so very low as to be negligible. One after another, officials of the nuclear electricity industry expressed their opinion that surely something must be wrong with our estimates, although none of them could muster an iota of evidence as to what it could be…………..

………The only possible way to set a truly safe standard — a definite number of rads or millirads assigned to a particular tissue or organ — would be to know beyond any reasonable doubt that within that amount no biological effect will occur. We can state unequivocally, and without fear of contradiction, that no one has ever produced evidence that any specific amount of radiation will be without harm. Indeed, quite the opposite appears to be the case.

All the evidence, both from experimental animals and from humans, leads us to expect that even the smallest quantities of ionizing radiation produce harm, both to this generation of humans and future generations. Furthermore, it appears that progressively greater harm accrues in direct proportion to the amount of radiation received by the various body tissues and organs.

It came as a great shock to us, in the course of our study of radiation hazards to man, that nuclear electricity generation has been developed under the false illusion that there exists some safe amount of radiation. This unsupportable concept is surely one of the gravest condemnations of nuclear electricity generation. Obviously any engineering development proceeding under an illusion of a wide margin of safety is fraught with serious danger.

What is more, the false illusion of a safe amount of radiation has pervaded all the highest circles concerned with the development and promotion of nuclear electric power. The Congress, the nuclear manufacturing industry, and the electric utility industry have all been led to believe that some safe amount of radiation does indeed exist. They were hoping to develop this industry with exposures below this limit — a limit we now know is anything but safe. ”

John Gofman died in 2007. I’m too tired to do all this again. “Poisoned Power” was published in 1971, is still as relevant as ever, and the updated 1979 version is available in full online at http://ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PP/ . Spread it around.