# West coast radiation?



## Sybil6 (Jan 28, 2013)

I found a link that says that the west coast is completely "destroyed" from the nuclear plant explosions a while back in japan. My brother worked the clean up, so I never worried. But now I'm seeing this about the water being radioactive and remaining so for "16 million years" and I want to know if this is bull crap or something serious?

http://m.naturalnews.com/news/04120...oisoning_contaminated_food.html#ixzz2Z9XEqBnN


----------



## Coastal (Jun 27, 2013)

Yup we all died out here. land is cheap, my teeth just fell out, its a disaster. I can't believe CNN hasn't reported the devastation. I'm the last one alive. signing out.


----------



## Sybil6 (Jan 28, 2013)

Haha. Cute. Well I know that it isn't that bad, but still. I wasn't sure if this was bogus or not. The levels wouldn't kill people instantly or anything but i wasn't sure what it would do or if it was even present?


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

So this is at the bottom of the article:



> About the author:
> Carolanne enthusiastically believes if we want to see change in the world, we need to be the change. As a nutritionist, natural foods chef and wellness coach, Carolanne has encouraged others to embrace a healthy lifestyle of organic living, gratefulness and joyful orientation for over 13 years.


Nowhere in her self description does she list any scientific credentials, and her article caters to her career path of natural foods chef.

I'm going to wait for someone with a lot more alphabet soup of advanced physics and science degrees to tell me that its that bad before I believe her assessment, but that's just me...


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Its bogus..

Basically modern instrumentation can detect such low concentrations that are both effectless and meaningless.
You can make a scary looking plot with any transportation modeling software such as HPAC or ALOHA and just set it so it shows concentrations that affect nothing in shiny scary colors


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

BlueZ said:


> Its bogus..
> 
> Basically modern instrumentation can detect such low concentrations that are both effectless and meaningless.
> You can make a scary looking plot with any transportation modeling software such as HPAC or ALOHA and just set it so it shows concentrations that affect nothing in shiny scary colors


Agreed, and not only that... but it's far from the first reactor that had issues in the sea. Although this one did get much more press coverage, but between us and the Russians there are 8 nuclear subs that sank, and one of them full of ICBM's (although none were in the pacific, but I'm not sure that would really matter, if anything the atlantic subs might be worse since the north atlantic current would be exposed and spread the contamination further/faster?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submarines


----------



## Sybil6 (Jan 28, 2013)

Thanks guys. I figured it was bogus but I wanted to double check because I did know how bad the "leak" was since my brother was sent in to help. I just wanted to clear that up. And I didn't see her bio at the bottom but I'm on mobile so maybe that's why, or maybe I just missed it. Thanks.


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

I'm in the camp of it is much worse than the MSM and our governments are telling us. It is also not as bad as some of the tin foil hats report. I will add though that it is still going to be an ecological disaster the likes the world has not seen AND it is going to be ongoing for generations. It is a real word experiment that no one really has any idea what the consequences will be. 

If your brother is/was over in Japan helping, why can he not tell you what is going on?


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

Woody said:


> I'm in the camp of it is much worse than the MSM and our governments are telling us. It is also not as bad as some of the tin foil hats report. I will add though that it is still going to be an ecological disaster the likes the world has not seen AND it is going to be ongoing for generations. It is a real word experiment that no one really has any idea what the consequences will be.


The same things were said about the Deepwater Horizon spill.


----------



## Magus (Dec 1, 2008)

You're all going to die of Liberal flu and herpes.
Your states are corrupt and bankrupt, and if there was a
disaster, you'd all be zombies before you'd hear about it.
Sorry man, haul @ss south east. good jobs here.the unions 
cleaned out yankeddom for us, best two states are Texas and
Georgia.


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

labotomi said:


> The same things were said about the Deepwater Horizon spill.


True...but... it's not 1=1 on comparison

it's far easier to "scoop up" tar/oil that is floating in a spill, and also contain it. *resources being available of course.

Not to mention that dead zones of oxygen depletion in the gulf, and tar/oil/gas leaks are natural occurring events so that has to water down the events in the gulf a little bit, but should not deflect how big a spill it was. And now that we're on this topic, we should also consider how much risk we added by legislatively forcing the drilling to occur in deep water instead of shallow where dynamics and distance could work in the rescuer advantage.

anti radiating a moving blob of debris, or even just a moving a section of water, I have no idea how many square miles... that should not be technologically impossible, however it may be beyond our grasp right now.

We have a lot more boots on the ground experience with oil spills, they are by far more common considering how much we consume, and how much we waste/spill so obviously we have better tools and technology to deal with these, but given time, and hopefully far fewer instances of radiological catastrophes we can even solve for this problem!

If we get to advance that far before our global economy melts lol


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

Dakine said:


> True...but... it's not 1=1 on comparison


I don't disagree... It's very different.

My point was that many were saying it (Deepwater Horizon) was going to truly be a global disaster lasting generations. A few years later it's hardly worth mentioning. Chernobyl was equally terrifying and it's effects ended up being far less than predicted. Fukushima will be ongoing for a long time but overall it's effect will be much less than many believe.


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

Hmm.. so since someone said x was really bad, and it turns out x wasnt so bad, that means when someone says y is really bad, it must not be? Does that seem like sound reasoning to anyone here?

And by the way, alot of the information about the deep water horizon has been covered up, a lot people, including jurors in the civil case, have been bout off. Vice has a good documentary or two on that on youtube.,,


----------



## Caribou (Aug 18, 2012)

How bad it is I have no idea but that picture of the radiation has no correlation to any normal ocean currents. If the radiation is true then it would be traveling irrespective of the water it is in. As far as PhotoShop goes, nice job.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

FatTire said:


> Hmm.. so since someone said x was really bad, and it turns out x wasnt so bad, that means when someone says y is really bad, it must not be? Does that seem like sound reasoning to anyone here?


I've yet to see you add anything to this subject that isn't opinion based. No science, no rationale... Only innuendo and supposition about how we're being misled.

I could be wrong but you strike me as a perpetual pessimist who's happiest when complaining about how bad things are.



FatTire said:


> And by the way, alot of the information about the deep water horizon has been covered up, a lot people, including jurors in the civil case, have been bout off. Vice has a good documentary or two on that on youtube.,,


People like to bash Wikipedia as a source of info because it can be edited by just about anyone who wants to take the time, yet YouTube is filled with videos of random people claiming to have "the real story". Apparently there's zero professional journalists with integrity and YouTube is the last bastion of knowledge and truth. It's just a coincidence that they get paid based on how many people view the small glimpses into their enlightened minds.


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

FatTire said:


> Hmm.. so since someone said x was really bad, and it turns out x wasnt so bad, that means when someone says y is really bad, it must not be? Does that seem like sound reasoning to anyone here?
> 
> And by the way, alot of the information about the deep water horizon has been covered up, a lot people, including jurors in the civil case, have been bout off. Vice has a good documentary or two on that on youtube.,,


"A culture of complacency"

Since we're talking about very serious disasters, I think this fits. The time I first heard this used was the space shuttle exploding, very smart people lulled themselves into believing the lower launch temperatures were safe simply because we hadn't blown one up yet despite the forensic evidence of the previous launches which showed that the gasket stopping the catastrophic exchanges of super heated gases was barely hanging on...

but we hadn't lost one yet...

In this particular case, I agree with labotomi that this will not be the catastrophic event that the original article we're discussing portends, other nuclear events have been far worse, and from what I have read and understand this specific event actually helps us because not only do we have miles as distance we have seawater as insulation and isolation. It will diffuse and dilute the radiation so much that it will be less than the background radiation already present.

All that being said, I also agree with you, just because "we haven't lost one yet", doesn't mean we're not playing fast and loose with the odds, and eventually that goes badly, and when playing for these stakes, that means VERY badly 

Do NOT taunt Happy Fun Ball... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Fun_Ball


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

im not a scientist. im not a journalist. however, i do have a working brain, and an opinion. if i see something that makes no sense, i question it. you are of course free to assert that i offer only inuendo, while at the same time implying im a negative person, i do enjoy the irony..

i think its clear that we are not being given all the information by the main stream media. i know that corporate interests control most of what information we do get. if youtube is offenssive to you, thats fine, but perhaps we could refrain from thinly veiled personal insults and just agree to disagree. time will tell, regardless.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

FatTire said:


> ... but perhaps we could refrain from thinly veiled personal insults and just agree to disagree. time will tell, regardless.


I know several people who always see the negative in everything. They're still some of my best friends. The comment wasn't meant to be an insult, just an observation, but I can see how it could seem that way.

Time will tell? That Major Ed Dames guy said the solar flares would kill us in 2014 so we'll probably never know the answer.


----------



## Coastal (Jun 27, 2013)

All jokes aside, my family and I are pounding Iodine like it's going out of style! lol


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

Coastal said:


> All jokes aside, my family and I are pounding Iodine like it's going out of style! lol


I hope you mean eating iodine rich foods and not taking the iodine supplement pills that are for use in an emergency.

Just curious... why is iodine a concern of yours?


----------



## Coastal (Jun 27, 2013)

labotomi said:


> I hope you mean eating iodine rich foods and not taking the iodine supplement pills that are for use in an emergency.
> 
> Just curious... why is iodine a concern of yours?


Iodine derived from atlantic kelp in a drop form in morning shakes. Iodine has a plethora of benefits, more so than just blocking potential radioactive iodine if there is any of that floating around.

A lot of people fear hyperthyroidism, from what I can tell from researching, doesn't really happen that often. People used to take a lot more iodine than we take today. :flower:


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

Ahhh. Perpetual pessimists and the 'experts'. Shall we go back to the Mongoose? The 'best available science' at the time said this would be a good thing. Yeah, not so much. Ok, how about Plastic Bird Island off Hawaii? TBTB created an artificial island and populated it with plastic plovers to entice real birds to come and nest. How did that work out? Look at how the 'best available science' said was safe to dispose of asbestos, carcinogens, and all the other toxic by-products we have created. At the time it was 'sure, pack them in 55 gallon barrels and bury them'. How is that working for us now and the Superfund Sites that there is no money to clean up? It is easy to look back and say 'well, we really didn't know better' or 'that was the best available science at the time'... 

Back in the 1970's I was protesting Nuclear power. Not because it was a bad idea, but because they were proposing to create a toxic product and had no way of dealing with it! "Well, we'll put it underground in Yucca Mountain in containers to last 100 years, by then we will have a solution to it". But, the stuff is toxic for thousands of years? "Well, we can put it in stainless steel barrels and dump into the DEEP OCEAN where it will be gone forever". Yeah, great, but that is not a real solution, it is a way to postpone the inevitable. Modern 'science' and technology think the world at large is a great huge thing.. Let me put it this way. You live on an acre of land, it is YOUR home. You change your oil, you dump the oil on your land, to get rid of it. Now, an acre is about 43,560 Sq Ft, your home only takes up 1,200 of that, that leaves a LOT OF SPACE. What could it hurt!!! The oil only soaks into about 4 Sq Ft of land (That you can see). What can it hurt!!! You are uphill of it, great! But, what of your NEIGHBORS downhill of where you dumped it? What of your neighbors UPHILL who dumped their used motor oil onto THEIR land and your well is DOWNHILL of it? It dilutes to millionths of particles per liter, why worry! Closer yet to home, you have a 1,000 gallon cistern you use for your drinking water, I urinate ONE CUP of urine into it. I don't know the dilution rates but that is mighty dilute, would you drink it?

Current events? Dumping 'Corexit' in the gulf to 'dissipate' the spilled oil. Seems it just sank it to the bottom, it would have been much easier and efficient to clean it up on the surface. Could there be a reason most countries in the world have BANNED it and go for collecting the FLOATING oil AND OFFERED TO HELP COLLECT IT, instead of 'making it disappear and introducing 'magic' bacteria that would eat it and turn it into a 'harmless organic product? "Best available science" is not always the best solution, using common sense is. Granted, it IS the best 'available science' solution at the time, but come on now, haven't we been through this enough times now? As far as Japan and the environmental disaster there, 'It is HUGE ocean and will be dissipated' is not the solution, it is a denial.


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

> As far as Japan and the environmental disaster there, 'It is HUGE ocean and will be dissipated' is not the solution, it is a denial


I never said it was a solution, I said it as a risk assessment from that specific catastrophic event.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Woody said:


> ? As far as Japan and the environmental disaster there, 'It is HUGE ocean and will be dissipated' is not the solution, it is a denial.


I will come out and say it.. Anyone who understand the material will be able to tell you its a perfect solution. There is so much radioactive potassium int he oceans naturally anyway it really doesn't make any difference.

As for the rest of the post I am simply unwilling to spend the hour it takes to make a coherent and accurate response and that experience has taught me will be ignored or willfully misunderstood anyway.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

Woody said:


> Ahhh. Perpetual pessimists and the 'experts'.


There are thousands of examples where the experts were right for every one you point out where they were wrong.

Experts have provided us with sooo many things that have improved, lengthened and saved lives. I'm positive you enjoy the fruits of those you mock.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

Coastal said:


> A lot of people fear hyperthyroidism, from what I can tell from researching, doesn't really happen that often. People used to take a lot more iodine than we take today. :flower:


I was just concerned that you were taking the iodine pills. They will do more harm than good for those who take them unnecessarily.

I was also wondering if there was a source saying iodine levels were rising in the US.


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

labotomi said:


> There are thousands of examples where the experts were right for every one you point out where they were wrong.
> 
> Experts have provided us with sooo many things that have improved, lengthened and saved lives. I'm positive you enjoy the fruits of those you mock.


I will give you that happily! But, whom are we to believe and under what circumstances? We never know until way after the fact. Is Fukushima one of those 'They were right and we were wrong' or is it a 'they were wrong and we were right' situations? We may not know for a generation. What is the gulf of Mexico really like? Will it be YOUR grandchildren to find out the 'best available science' wasn't really the best? Are you willing to bet their lives on that?

I actually have enjoyed a few things the 'experts' said we were wrong, then changed their minds.

I actually tried alternative butter which the 'native American gal' on the package said was better for me, it tasted like crap. I stuck to creamery butter. Then butter is better for you because of who knows what... Eggs were BAD! OMG horrible things to consume,... well... maybe not actually so bad after all... Back in the 70's we were headed for the next ice age!!! Then it was Global warming... now it is climate change...

Yes, these are only the ones that got media attention, NOT all the theories that were floating around that came true. THOSE, we never heard about. Sure, I'm sure a lot of things 'science' did for us have helped us, as a species.

The newest round of 'experts' are touting we need to 'engineer the global climate' by geo-engineering. Should we put our faith and the future of our planet in these folks hands? I'm only around for a few more years, maybe you and your children will need to be for a few more.

Should we TRUST that Genetically Modified crops, which are resistant to chemicals, are going to help us AS A SPECIES? Maybe yes, maybe no. It will be a generation or more to find out. I, and many of us, have tried to do our part. It is up to YOU, to make these decisions for YOUR CHILDREN and the generations that come after you.

Sound dramatic and fatalistic? Not at all. Look back at what YOU blame OUR generation for and try to do better.

Have I benefited from medical breakthroughs for whatever conditions? No. I steer clear of 'eastern' practices'. Have I benefited from financial breakthroughs for what ever conditions? No. I do not have any 'money' to invest or otherwise benefit from it. Have I benefited from infrastructure breakthroughs for whatever conditions? YES!!! I have roads to drive around on! Did I benefit from being able to buy a pair of socks for $0.50 from overseas instead of $2.00 from the guy down the road,... maybe. Have I benefited from being able to buy a $100 Flat screen instead of a $200 MIA Zenith?

Alright, enough from me. I would like to apologize. I just finished my second cup of passiflora incarnata, flower tea and need to sign off. This was a strong year for flowers! After all the rain we had this spring, they seemed to get an extra boost from somewhere. I will try to responsibly respond tomorrow.

:beercheer: That is supposed to be tea not beer.....


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

Of course the experts are most often right. Science is mostly beneficial. However a lot of things get driven by politics and the profit motive. So if the scientists six figure salary is dependant on ciggarettes being harmless, he has a lot of incentive to find it that way. Simmilarly, when tepco has billions of dollars worth of liability on the line, thats a lot of incentive to down play things. And for those who have been following the story, thats just what tepco, and the japanese government, has done.


----------



## Magus (Dec 1, 2008)

Just how many Rads per hour and from what source is out there anyway?
They say we get "hot spots" up to 60 rads when it rains here now.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Magus said:


> Just how many Rads per hour and from what source is out there anyway?
> They say we get "hot spots" up to 60 rads when it rains here now.


Luckily there is no place on the planet in any country that is accessible to the public where you get 60 rads/hr. 

These rates are only found near used up burn elements or industrial sources for checking welds or irradiating food (those 3 however are all quite a bit stronger) and similar.


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

BlueZ said:


> Luckily there is no place on the planet in any country that is accessible to the public where you get 60 rads/hr.


That TPTB would tell you about anyway.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

The Fukushima tsunami happened on March 11, 2011. It's been almost 3 years. The disaster at the nuclear reactor site continues to this day. We've had highly radioactive water entering the Pacific Ocean. There's been a lot of misinformation in the alternative media. Things like 98% of the ocean bottom is covered with dead sea creatures when there isn't enough life in the whole ocean to cover the whole bottom. It's ridiculous. To me, the most important thing about Fukushima is where the ocean currents are taking the radioactive water. The radioactive water is obviously heavier than regular water. What if it's sinking to the bottom and falling into the Marianas Trench? There's at least the possibility that what's happening at Fukushima won't affect the whole Pacific Ocean.


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

BillS said:


> The Fukushima tsunami happened on March 11, 2011. It's been almost 3 years. The disaster at the nuclear reactor site continues to this day. We've had highly radioactive water entering the Pacific Ocean.
> 
> Agreed. But why do we not hear about this from the talking heads? Isn't this as important as whats-her-name getting arrested for shoplifting?
> 
> ...


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

> The radioactive water is obviously heavier than regular water. What if it's sinking to the bottom and falling into the Marianas Trench? There's at least the possibility that what's happening at Fukushima won't affect the whole Pacific Ocean.


Not necessarily... don't confuse water with radioactive particles within vs. "heavy water"


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

Linc, you are not with the program! There is regular water then there is heavy water. Heavy water is obviously HEAVIER than regular water so.... it sinks! Regular water is heavier than... like... lite water, like at the stores. Lite coke, regular coke.... Don't you watch TV and know these things?

I know I know.. Another one of those nights for me, sorry.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

Woody said:


> Agreed. But why do we not hear about this from the talking heads? Isn't this as important as whats-her-name getting arrested for shoplifting?


The purpose of the media isn't to report important news; it's to entertain the listeners/viewers



Woody said:


> Are you taking into account the microscopic creatures that start the food chain? Have you ever taken a drop of water from a puddle, a lake or an ocean and [email protected]@ked it under a microscope? There is a LOT of life there.


There is a lot of life if you're looking at numbers... comparatively there's a lot of water in that drop. There is not enough life in a drop of water to cover the area upon which that drop sits both dead and alive. The point made by BillS is that the ocean floor isn't 98% covered with sea creatures killed by radiation from Fukishima. Not even in the immediate area around Fukishima.



Woody said:


> This is great news! It sinks out of sight, in the deepest depths of the ocean, never to be seen again. Oh, wait. Isn't Global warming supposed to be warming the deep ocean, and that is why it is not showing up at the surface? Wouldn't that start the whole warm air rises thing going and stir them up? I for one, am glad that our beloved U. S. Government and it's agencies that we trust to keep us safe, say we are safe. USA, USA, USA!!!!!!


I bet you argue that global warming isn't real when it's convenient. Regardless, any particles that sink aren't going to be caught up in convection currents if they're resting on the bottom.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

Woody said:


> Linc, you are not with the program! There is regular water then there is heavy water. Heavy water is obviously HEAVIER than regular water so.... it sinks! Regular water is heavier than... like... lite water, like at the stores. Lite coke, regular coke.... Don't you watch TV and know these things?
> 
> I know I know.. Another one of those nights for me, sorry.


Jokes aside...
"heavy water" H2O2 is more dense than regular water H2O but not by a great deal. Maybe 10% more dense.

The vast majority of any particles from fukishima will be much more dense than water (either type)


----------

