# Has anyone been following what is happening with the Pacific Ocean and Fukushima?



## sarge1967 (Dec 2, 2013)

I have been reading a bunch of reports that the damaged reactor at Fukushima is poisoning the Pacific Ocean. Some are saying that the radiation has reached the west coast. 
This seems to be a BIG DEAL! Yet our main stream media has barely said a peep on it. 
I know only a little about radiation. Basically what I was taught in NBC training in the Corps. This one scares me a bit. It would seem that the damage being done could have long lasting consequences to our planet. 
Am I worried over nothing or are my concerns justified here?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Yup, been following it. There is cause for concern.
Stay healthy and keep your immune system strong.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

My money is on the coverup.

It will be kept under wraps until it becomes a full fledged nightmare, . . . then somehow it will become Bush's fault, . . . Reagan's fault, . . . what the heck, . . . maybe even Nixon.

The Japanese first didn't want to open that can of worms, . . . and the more I hear on the underground, . . . the more certain I am that I am glad I don't live on the left coast.

They did the same thing back in the late 40's and 50's with the desert out west where they tested the A bombs and H bombs. Thousands of folks went in there after it was declared "safe" and as a result, died of low dose radiation poisoning. 

There was an article some time back that linked some of the western's filmed nearby, . . . and actors & crew dying of cancer in much higher % than the regular population.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

it made the news again last night, it's slowly poisoning the ocean, but the toxicity is under the "legal limit" but fail to tell us the legal limit was raised since the disaster... 

it's a problem that needs to be fixed NOW, but they say 40 years till it's good again


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

You say legal limit, do you mean safe limit? Cause that's what I've heard they raised.
Cancer ratites are sure to rise, but if your trying to depopulate the world I am sure a rise in the cancer rates is a good thing.


----------



## MrsInor (Apr 15, 2013)

I'm going to really, really pissed if the turtles are affected.


----------



## Montana Rancher (Mar 4, 2013)

I have a decent Geiger counter and I am not getting above normal reading here in Montana, I did however just purchase this:

NukAlert? Radiation Detector, Meter, Monitor and Alarm

My wife and I have a 20th anniversary trip to Oahu in Feburary and I will be taking this along, I'll keep you updated...

Btw I don't swim even in non-radiated waters so I am thinking I will just fast the entire time and come home skinny

haha


----------



## MrsInor (Apr 15, 2013)

Montana Rancher - congratulations on the anniversary.


----------



## PrepperLite (May 8, 2013)

Have seen that yes. Sucks to be on the West Coast.


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

I'll be looking forward to hearing what you find out.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

Arizona Infidel said:


> You say legal limit, do you mean safe limit? Cause that's what I've heard they raised.
> Cancer ratites are sure to rise, but if your trying to depopulate the world I am sure a rise in the cancer rates is a good thing.


they referred to.it as a legal limit, probably a way to shift the focus on the Google users...


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

I believe Bush approved new radiation guidelines before he left office. They dramatically raised the amount of radiation that was deemed "safe" in drinking water. It was a big deal at the time. Now we have Obama doing the same type of thing. When does it end?


----------



## ajk1941 (Feb 17, 2013)

I read yesterday that spot radiation readings on San Francisco beach reached 1500 time normal level. But we're told "not to worry" by the fed's. 
My potassium Iodine should be arriving this week...


----------



## slewfoot (Nov 6, 2013)

Mish said:


> When does it end?


When a good portion of the population is dead or dying.


----------



## Titan6 (May 19, 2013)

Certain News sites been reporting about this for like 4 weeks now didn't want to get some of the peeps in a uproar again so didn't post it....But yes pacific got some problems and its about the time it was predicted to be showing up on our shores this was predicted a few months ago...


----------



## slewfoot (Nov 6, 2013)

Not a real surprise. The north pacific current, sometimes called the north pacific drift flows towards our west coast, just a matter of time.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

None of the levels are even dangerous at this point. At the rate this radioactivity is diffused by the ocean it will not likely become dangerous.


----------



## vandelescrow (Nov 17, 2012)

Sea food will be a problem. Mercury has been a problem for years. Been told not to eat sea food more then once a week, and now this. My girlfriend loves sea food. I mentioned to her you should check where it comes from, Atlantic or Pacific. Blank stare. I explained to her why and get the "what ever" response.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Don't react to the fear mongers - check out the reality for yourself. Give the UW a call and find out what they have to say about it.
Look at alternative news and when you hear something look into it to find out if there is a reason to stay away from it or not. 
Nobody on the coast is glowing yet and no cases of poisoning anywhere along the coast or in Hawaii. So far this is a "non-event" that sells air time and newspapers.


----------



## miho (Jun 10, 2012)

I read somewhere not sure where but it said goverment admited theyre stocking up on iodine because of fukushima.


----------



## Old Seer (Dec 2, 2013)

sarge1967 said:


> I have been reading a bunch of reports that the damaged reactor at Fukushima is poisoning the Pacific Ocean. Some are saying that the radiation has reached the west coast.
> This seems to be a BIG DEAL! Yet our main stream media has barely said a peep on it.
> I know only a little about radiation. Basically what I was taught in NBC training in the Corps. This one scares me a bit. It would seem that the damage being done could have long lasting consequences to our planet.
> Am I worried over nothing or are my concerns justified here?


The world has itself in a trap situation. There's no way we can keep living as is--the plan we are in won't sustain what we are doing and how we live material life. Being a physicist I can say that radiation isn't good for anything and is counter to life of all kinds. The problem we have now is---we can,t stop what we're doing because of the systems we have in place. To change is to loose jobs and revenue---so, we have to keep doing what we're doing. The amount of electricity needed in the future can never be met.The demand is already to high to sustain the systems we depend on. It's only a matter of time before the masses realize it. The authorities have to keep up a constant "good outlook (face)" but already know the jig is up. There is no solution to the problems and they know it. We are in a system that has to keep going until it destroys itself--because it's irreversible. Ok so what does this have to do with radiation--very simple--the only out to produce more power is to build nuclear generating plants. But what happens when there,s 10,000 plants world over--simple, one will breakdown every year.

It's simple mathematics. The proff is a;ready seen in wind power. I travel extensively and can say from observation that for (my estimate) wind farm there's 2 units burned out. So the, what's the difference if there is 10,000 nuclear plants--the same result. The more house that are built the more house burn down--at a particular point the statistics level out and stay the same--no matter how safe a house can be built X% will burn down--and at a rate that becomes constant. The less houses there are the less will burn down. The safer they are made the less will burn down also--BUT--keep building more houses and the rate levels and remains no matter how many are made safer, which is directly proportional to the new amounts built. It cannot be any different with anything else. And so too with nuclear plants. At some point we can no longer burn coal--as the demand for power will be to great. At some point we can no longer burn gasoline even if petroleum were unlimited because then use will go beyond what life can withstand. Universal construction is eggzackly that--it's how the universe works. The profiteers are in control here--and profiteering isn't mathematically sound--it doesn't add up, and attempts continuously to buck against universal construction. So--now it's no longer a matter of mere profiteering it's become a matter of reliance also.

Mere reliance alone on the systems we've created will destroy also. Now we can't use nuclear either---because one, just one, highly radioactive water molecule can cause cancer, and now the west coats of the US has trillions off shore. Radiation cannot be filtered out of water--it's not dust or attached to dust in this case--and dust can be filtered out--not water. You can't filter water out of water. There's nothing that can be done other then reverse the systems in place. BUT--that takes destroying the systems that "are" in place. How many will be willing to go back to 1870 and a simpler material style. The reason I bring this up is--- there's no place to go, and we'd better start understanding that now, and that's what the nuclear accident in Japan now shows us. There simply cannot be a nuclear plant accident every year up-coming in the future.

There's to many people for what this planet can sustain at the material wants and needs as is. We can't go ahead or back. Being that we couldn't keep dammg rivers is a lesson that ought to have been learned---anything an everything has a limit---that's universal construction, which means. that's the way the universe works. Planet earth is no different. Mother nature deals very harshly with rebellious children.


----------



## MrsInor (Apr 15, 2013)

Old Seer - interesting view. Now how can I put this. It was darn hard to read, so please consider the use of paragraphs.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

MrsInor said:


> Old Seer - interesting view. Now how can I put this. *It was darn hard to read, so please consider the use of paragraphs*.


Agreed. I gave up about 1/4 way into it.


----------



## Montana Rancher (Mar 4, 2013)

Cover Up: "The Levels of Radiation In the Place Are Through the F*cking Roof"


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Iodine tabs aren't going to do anyone any good unless they are exposed to iodine isotopes. There has been no mention of iodine isotopes in the radioactive particles from Fukushima. There is no big likelihood that we will be exposed to iodine isotopes. If anything it is a "feel good" move so that people think the government can help. The other part of that equation is that radioactive iodine isotopes are only absorbed by the body if there is a lack of iodine in you system. For most of America that is highly unlikely. If you are afraid that you lack iodine then eat iodized salt. It is just as effective as the tablets.

As far as "universal construction" goes sure there is a limit to the power that we are using but we aren't using the power that we have available. The sun sends to earth enough energy in one day to run all the earths power systems for a year. That means that we can have 365 times the power usage that we have now with just the effective harvesting of solar power. It is possible to make fail safe nuclear reactors - reactors that can't overheat and pollute even if they lose all of their cooling. It is possible to recycle the waste products from reactors to make more fuel and eliminate long term storage of nuclear waste. We have developed enzymes and bacteria that eat nuclear waste - it is in use to clean up grounds that have been contaminated. It is possible to harness wind, waves and tides to power the electrical world. All this is possible now but it is not being utilized. We don't suffer from a power shortage we are suffering from a shortage of drive.

The world could do with a few billion less people and survive more easily but who will volunteer to leave?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

From what I have recently learned, the iodine isotopes are a threat for about 90 days. That is to say, the tablets are no good for us in the U.S., regarding the Japanese situations.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

inceptor said:


> Agreed. I gave up about 1/4 way into it.


it's the effect of not using copy and paste...


----------



## Old Seer (Dec 2, 2013)

PaulS said:


> Iodine tabs aren't going to do anyone any good unless they are exposed to iodine isotopes. There has been no mention of iodine isotopes in the radioactive particles from Fukushima. There is no big likelihood that we will be exposed to iodine isotopes. If anything it is a "feel good" move so that people think the government can help. The other part of that equation is that radioactive iodine isotopes are only absorbed by the body if there is a lack of iodine in you system. For most of America that is highly unlikely. If you are afraid that you lack iodine then eat iodized salt. It is just as effective as the tablets.
> 
> As far as "universal construction" goes sure there is a limit to the power that we are using but we aren't using the power that we have available. The sun sends to earth enough energy in one day to run all the earths power systems for a year. That means that we can have 365 times the power usage that we have now with just the effective harvesting of solar power. It is possible to make fail safe nuclear reactors - reactors that can't overheat and pollute even if they lose all of their cooling. It is possible to recycle the waste products from reactors to make more fuel and eliminate long term storage of nuclear waste. We have developed enzymes and bacteria that eat nuclear waste - it is in use to clean up grounds that have been contaminated. It is possible to harness wind, waves and tides to power the electrical world. All this is possible now but it is not being utilized. We don't suffer from a power shortage we are suffering from a shortage of drive.
> 
> The world could do with a few billion less people and survive more easily but who will volunteer to leave?


Yes, we can get by for a while longer--but at some time we won't. We're destroying the planet as it is. At some point it won't make any difference what we do. We cannot cover the earth with power producing inventions. Here's the problem. We have already built so many roads in the US that we can't pay enough taxes to upkeep what we've installed. The amount of upkeep and expense is beyond what we can pay for. If any get the opportunity to travel Interstate 10 through Palm Springs Ca you'll see what I mean. The entire valley for miles is over-run with wind turbines. The whole place looks like it's moving to Mexico. There's no way that can be done every where and to the degree that it will produce enough electricity for all, even solar added is no solution, as we keep demanding beyond what,s being produced. What I'm saying is--we're going beyond what can be sustained.There's no such thing as sustainable energy with another 7 billion people on the planet. If we get to that population number there's no way we can live here. Technology cannot keep up with demand--and --where is all the money going to come from to pay for it all. And--how much will it cost each individual to pay for what it will cost the individual if one isn't payed enough to begin with. More pay raises prices, right, so where's the solution.

The planet cannot be covered by technology to solve a problem that technology created. How much technology is needed to offset the effects of technology. Technology is what has gotten us into this situation, so how can it get us out. Technology does not offset a finite planet. The planet (for instance) is not going to create more iron to use to create more technology to offset technology. There's only so much iron (as anything else) and there isn't anymore that's useable. The earth's core is 100% iron, but that's not useable. What about all the other elements that are needed to create our technology. The point is--we stop now before it gets so bad that we all loose, or we keep going and we all loose anyway. Somewhere, some point, some time, we have to stop. If the situation is weighed carefully one can see---we'd better start backing up,and if we don't back up, going forward is going nowhere. The lesson mother nature is giving is--just because we can invent things doesn't mean we should. What's being proposed by the system operators is--invent our way out of the effects of what we invented. That's absolute fallacy, it can't be done.


----------



## jesstheshow (Nov 18, 2013)

Yep. Yep. Yep.


----------



## Old Seer (Dec 2, 2013)

Arizona Infidel said:


> You say legal limit, do you mean safe limit? Cause that's what I've heard they raised.
> Cancer ratites are sure to rise, but if your trying to depopulate the world I am sure a rise in the cancer rates is a good thing.


\
It doesn't take much radiation to kill a lot of people. Case in point---if any get the chance to watch PBS, "the poisoners handbook" , you'll find that the ladies that put the radium on the WW1 clock faces all died from radiation poisoning. But in their day they worked with it every day. If one is exposed to radiation in even small amounts it will be fatal over time. There's no getting around it. The only thing really it's good for is to destroy cancer cells, nothing else. And cancer cells are still a life form, so the really only thing it can do is--destroy life.


----------



## kevincali (Nov 15, 2012)

Been following it real close. 

I'm far inland (~100 miles) from the ocean, but I'm sure it's made it's way this far. 

Fukushima has affected the whole planet. Not just the Pacific Ocean. Nobody is safe now


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Believe what you want about the "danger" of Fukushima leakage but take note that the levels of radiation in fish caught while swimming and eating in those "poisonous" water register just slightly higher levels of radiation than the x-ray technicians get in they daily work. The levels are not now nor are they likely to get to levels harmful to us. Why you want to buy into these scare tactics rather than actually do some research to find the truth boggles my mind. (that means I can't understand why thinking adults accept rhetoric (untrue assumptions that are used to frighten uneducated children) rather than spending fifteen minutes to get the facts.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

Hawaii Scientists Seek To Calm U.S. Fears About Fukushima Radiation

I know with the distrust of media, government, corporations it's easy to assume this is a real crisis, but it's not.


----------



## Old Seer (Dec 2, 2013)

PaulS said:


> Believe what you want about the "danger" of Fukushima leakage but take note that the levels of radiation in fish caught while swimming and eating in those "poisonous" water register just slightly higher levels of radiation than the x-ray technicians get in they daily work. The levels are not now nor are they likely to get to levels harmful to us. Why you want to buy into these scare tactics rather than actually do some research to find the truth boggles my mind. (that means I can't understand why thinking adults accept rhetoric (untrue assumptions that are used to frighten uneducated children) rather than spending fifteen minutes to get the facts.


Xrays and atomic radiation are two different things. Xrays go away when the exposure is done---A skin pore can hold 100s of thousands of water molecules. After the water evaporates the radio activity remains.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Old seer,
Water doesn't become radioactive. Some of the elements in the water like salts, metals, minerals and such do. It would be very easy to get clean drinking water out of the contaminated water by distilling it. The residue that is left would be radioactive and it would be more concentrated that when it was in the water. Water can only hold so much in solution and the rest precipitates out and sinks to the bottom. The beaches will automatically evaporate the water off and leave the residue in the sand. Natural rainfall will naturally clean the sand of the contaminates and take them into the ocean where they will precipitate out. The half life of most of these contaminates is less than 20 years so in a couple of generations it will be non-radioactive salts. The worst case that I can think of is that we will kill off some of the sand fleas because their lives are so short and metabolisms are so fast. The radio-isotopes absorbed by the fish have a half life of 20 days. Their bodies flush it out just like ours do to the background radiation every day.

X-rays are part of the spectrum of radioactive emissions that are "dangerous" to us in extreme doses. Alpha particles don't penetrate the skin, Beta particles don't penetrate the fatty layer between the skin and muscles, x-rays penetrate further and at high energy levels can make you sick and damage DNA, Gamma particles (plutonium is a good source of these) penetrate the body easily and cause severe DNA damage. We are not being exposed to anything more than alpha particles. They wash off the skin easily. Even if you ingest or aspirate alpha particles the body just flushes them away with no harm to your tissues or DNA.


----------



## Old Seer (Dec 2, 2013)

PaulS said:


> Old seer,
> Water doesn't become radioactive. Some of the elements in the water like salts, metals, minerals and such do. It would be very easy to get clean drinking water out of the contaminated water by distilling it. The residue that is left would be radioactive and it would be more concentrated that when it was in the water. Water can only hold so much in solution and the rest precipitates out and sinks to the bottom. The beaches will automatically evaporate the water off and leave the residue in the sand. Natural rainfall will naturally clean the sand of the contaminates and take them into the ocean where they will precipitate out. The half life of most of these contaminates is less than 20 years so in a couple of generations it will be non-radioactive salts. The worst case that I can think of is that we will kill off some of the sand fleas because their lives are so short and metabolisms are so fast. The radio-isotopes absorbed by the fish have a half life of 20 days. Their bodies flush it out just like ours do to the background radiation every day.
> 
> X-rays are part of the spectrum of radioactive emissions that are "dangerous" to us in extreme doses. Alpha particles don't penetrate the skin, Beta particles don't penetrate the fatty layer between the skin and muscles, x-rays penetrate further and at high energy levels can make you sick and damage DNA, Gamma particles (plutonium is a good source of these) penetrate the body easily and cause severe DNA damage. We are not being exposed to anything more than alpha particles. They wash off the skin easily. Even if you ingest or aspirate alpha particles the body just flushes them away with no harm to your tissues or DNA.


Agree.my point is though--IE salt in the water will become radio active--understood. But it can't be filtered out as if it were dust as it is dissolved in the water. For me to say that water cannot be made radioactive may be incorrect. Being a physicist I'm familiar with using exactitudes with those that aren't--so it's shorter to say that "water can't be filtered from water" as a normal process the salt being dissolved in the water will still remain with the water. If radioactive salt is deposited in a pore (for instance) the water evaporates and the salt remains. Even thought the salt (impurities) in the water may be small it's the time it's there that makes the difference. A small radiation over time is just as effective of a high radiation over a shorter time. Having an xray is a "click" and it's over and nothing remains. I merely made the assumption that there would be impurities of some type in the water. Again agree that particles can be washed off the skin is easily enough done---but now it's been found that small particles can get caught in the pores and hair roots, But of course there again--damage depends upon more them one factor. Then there's the sore on the arm (lets say) that traps a particle of dust and remains long enough to be healed over time and is trapped. As with the woman that painted the clock faces---the radium wasn't that powerful but it was time that did the damage. My main point is--how many power plant failures can there be before to many areas are uninhabitable. As much as I can see of it--the idea of nuclear power plans is absurd when looked at from an insight of time. The idea that the horse can be kept in the harness has proven not to be so.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

The women that painted those clock faces used their tongues to wet the brush. The Radium was ingested into the digestive tract and deposited in their organs. The Radium is highly active and did cause problems because it was stored in their organs over a long period. This is a very different situation as the isotopes are not long-lived or nearly as active as Radium. We are not ingesting it and even if we did our bodies would speed up the breakdown into non-reactive particles. The non radioactive particles would then be flushed out of our system. 

How many reactors can melt down before too many areas are uninhabitable? The area for miles around Chernobyl has been declared a no-man's zone but there are animals, birds, insects and plants that are doing just fine now. The only "long term" effected area is the area within about 200 yards of the reactor buildings. And that is because there was no clean up of the area. The herds of reindeer that live in the affected areas did not die out and the herders that live off their milk and meat are doing fine. The people in The Scandinavian countries are fine after the "heavy fallout" and predictions of mass radiation sickness. 

People are afraid of radio active materials even though they live with them in their homes and garages. Every smoke detector uses a radioactive pellet. There is radioactivity in the air around us and flying on a plane gives you more radioactivity than an x-ray. Our bodies repair most of the little damage that radiation causes. Our DNA is self repairing under most conditions and it takes a massive amount of radiation - whether it is in small doses over years or a massive dose of gamma particles all at once to permanently damage our bodies.

You need to consider the activity, half-life and amount over time before you can say that we are all going to die from radiation poisoning. It's mostly fear tactics to build reliance on the "help" (which isn't) from the government.


----------



## Titan6 (May 19, 2013)

Has any of the Fukushima Stuff and west coast stuff even been showing up on MSNBC or fox or CNN?? Just curious since they so reliable according to some...


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

Why take the chance?
Avoid west coast seafood and veggies.
There are options
The "experts' can spout opinions, but that is all they are---


----------



## kevincali (Nov 15, 2012)

tango said:


> Why take the chance?
> Avoid west coast seafood and veggies.
> There are options
> The "experts' can spout opinions, but that is all they are---


I'd rather take the precautions and not have needed to, than to think everything is safe, and its not.

As far as west coast veggies. I grow most of my own fruits and veggies. That's gonna be a tough one  lol


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

That's my point, opinions are that there's nothing to worry about
I don't believe any of that babble--


----------



## Old Seer (Dec 2, 2013)

PaulS said:


> The women that painted those clock faces used their tongues to wet the brush. The Radium was ingested into the digestive tract and deposited in their organs. The Radium is highly active and did cause problems because it was stored in their organs over a long period. This is a very different situation as the isotopes are not long-lived or nearly as active as Radium. We are not ingesting it and even if we did our bodies would speed up the breakdown into non-reactive particles. The non radioactive particles would then be flushed out of our system.
> 
> How many reactors can melt down before too many areas are uninhabitable? The area for miles around Chernobyl has been declared a no-man's zone but there are animals, birds, insects and plants that are doing just fine now. The only "long term" effected area is the area within about 200 yards of the reactor buildings. And that is because there was no clean up of the area. The herds of reindeer that live in the affected areas did not die out and the herders that live off their milk and meat are doing fine. The people in The Scandinavian countries are fine after the "heavy fallout" and predictions of mass radiation sickness.
> 
> ...


I do understand. I'm online with Marines from ww2 and the Korean war. They are just fine, and some were in Japan after ww2 and in or near the fall out and blast zones. But what's strange is the Army guys that walked through the blast zones in US tests in the US, many of them died from cancer years later. The bombs in Japan were aerial bursts which doesn't produce much fall out being the radiation went up and away and dissipated, and very little soil was carried up with the rising cloud. Now-I'm not saying we're all going to die from radiation. I'm saying to many failures leads to more radiation results. The more people that are born the more demand, the more plants that get built, the more failures there will be.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Old Seer said:


> I do understand. I'm online with Marines from ww2 and the Korean war. They are just fine, and some were in Japan after ww2 and in or near the fall out and blast zones. But what's strange is the Army guys that walked through the blast zones in US tests in the US, many of them died from cancer years later. The bombs in Japan were aerial bursts which doesn't produce much fall out being the radiation went up and away and dissipated, and very little soil was carried up with the rising cloud. Now-I'm not saying we're all going to die from radiation. I'm saying to many failures leads to more radiation results. The more people that are born the more demand, the more plants that get built, the more failures there will be.


Actually the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were detonated too close to the ground and produced a lot of fallout - especially the "black rain" that fell within hours after the bombs hit. They detonated at roughly 1900 feet which is a very low altitude for a nuclear bomb to be effective over the largest radius. They were also very inefficient bombs with less than 2% of the material fissioning. That left just over 98% of the material to cover the blast radius or over 137 pounds of U-235 spread over the area. That accounted for nearly half the deaths at both targets in the years following the blast.

Having said that, the products that are in the sea water are not U-235 and are no where near as long lived or active as is U-235. As a matter of fact the raw ore that is in the ground is more active than those particles that are in the waters and they have relatively short half lives and even shorter half lives in a living body. There is no evidence that there is any threat to any portion of the USA western coast or to the fishing industry off our coast. Just a lot of hype generated to sell time and paper in my humble opinion.


----------



## Old Seer (Dec 2, 2013)

PaulS said:


> Actually the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were detonated too close to the ground and produced a lot of fallout - especially the "black rain" that fell within hours after the bombs hit. They detonated at roughly 1900 feet which is a very low altitude for a nuclear bomb to be effective over the largest radius. They were also very inefficient bombs with less than 2% of the material fissioning. That left just over 98% of the material to cover the blast radius or over 137 pounds of U-235 spread over the area. That accounted for nearly half the deaths at both targets in the years following the blast.
> 
> Having said that, the products that are in the sea water are not U-235 and are no where near as long lived or active as is U-235. As a matter of fact the raw ore that is in the ground is more active than those particles that are in the waters and they have relatively short half lives and even shorter half lives in a living body. There is no evidence that there is any threat to any portion of the USA western coast or to the fishing industry off our coast. Just a lot of hype generated to sell time and paper in my humble opinion.


How's one to know. I've gone over several different opinions of the bombs and each has a different take. It's the same with archeology--there's to many different insights to make a conclusion. Every new pile of rocks that's found causes someone to claim a new civilization. One thing for sure--radiation doesn't do a good job of supporting life.


----------



## Titan6 (May 19, 2013)

We will wait and see...


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I would agree as long as we don't talk about extremeophiles which live in places that "are not capable" of supporting life. I do understand the concerns that people have - especially when the "deadly" nature of the event is extolled in the many different forms of media. I can't (and don't) blame people for being afraid. All I'm saying is to look at the facts from as many good sources as you can. You can then better determine a proper response for yourself. Good sources often have ".edu" at the end of their address and rarely have wild headlines as the address. No one sources is always accurate so look around. 

BTW:
That beach where the Geiger counter sounded an alarm was free of anything other than background radiation two days after it was put on the internet. (according to UCLA)


----------



## Newgvt (Dec 11, 2014)

Guys I started another thread titled Fukushima, sorry I did a search and did not see this! I demand that everyone take 30 minutes and do some research on this! Folks what they are telling us, we'll NOT telling us is the Pacific Ocean if not dead already will be very soon, within the year!! I hope that wakes some of you up to go and read, this is major major planet changing! Cesium 137 and 134 the two most dangerous isotopes has a half life of over 80 years!! This is not going to heal itself anytime soon, and too make it worse is its still happening. The major nuclear community is keeping it all hush hush so their is not a rush too shut down nuclear power. I would rather be without electricity than to be full of cancer and glowing. Folks I beg you all do some research on this, share what you find jot only with us but with everyone you talk too. Most people I have mentioned this too are like-Fukushima what's that?? Sorry, I am not a scientist I am just a majorly concerned veteran!! Sorry about the rant, please read my post also!! Sarge, sorry, I am glad you are awake on this, Semper Fi Mac.!!


----------



## Newgvt (Dec 11, 2014)

Paul you said it, research on your own and at least you can form an opinion. I see your from so. Wash. Would you kindly do a search there for thyroid cancer, my research shows basically an outbreak of it!! I also so a Japanese news channel where one of the TV host ate fresh fish just to shoe the people it was all good! He died of a very fast onslaught of leukemia! Please research your state and let us know, I think it would be easier for you since your local!! Thanks for your help!!


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

PaulS said:


> None of the levels are even dangerous at this point. At the rate this radioactivity is diffused by the ocean it will not likely become dangerous.


That is the opposite. Entire species are becoming extinct, many species and the oceans are dying. 
When I read "oh it's nothing we're good" posts it makes me feel better about the horrors such an ugly and worthless species is now sharing with everybody else.
We don't need any bomb or war. Soon, they're just gonna flat out start melting.
So go ahead. Tell em what you want. No lying around or getting out of this one. Idolatry and abomination coming to call ~ seems like man won't last long enough to share in half what he's dished out, but there is hell after...
Fukushima was too late when it happened and thousands upon thousands have been saying it for years - now it's something?
Hanford isn't the only place putting out anencephalitic babies. Jaurez/mexico now too. 
What's wrong is coast people are toxic waste and now they'll want to spread them all around for insane reasons even tho you don't spread toxic waste. States need to be regulating their borders but serves them right if they don't.
Now "smiling people" they won't have any problems (said the **** whose people can't make right babies anymore...)

This is fresh 1/30/2015





Time to raise the safe limit again.....


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

oddapple - name two species that have become extinct.

Cesium doesn't directly affect the thyroid, liver or kidneys. The liver and kidneys do pass it out of the body but the biggest risk is that it will displace potasium in the body if there is a scarcity in the diet. 
If you have a lack of potasium in your diet the cesium can take hold in the bones with the highest circulation but with an adequate diet it is just flushed out of your system before it can do widespread damage.

cesium 137 has a half life of 30 - not 80 years and it metabolizes in the body in three days to non-reactive cesium 133 - a stable element found in spring water.

In massive doses - compared to what is being found - cesium 137 (the most dangerous form of radioactive cesium) can cause lukemia in a matter of a few years of continued exposure - but under no case will it cause lukemia in less than 3 years.

I suggest you quit just accepting as fact what you see on the internet without verifying it. The web is full of fanatics that will stop at nothing to scare people to further their agenda.

The oceans are not going to die. Salt water is an excelent barrier tp the radiation and since cesium is heavier than water it will sink to the bottom. Six feet of water will protect you from the radiation so at several miles to the bottom of the ocean it is unlikely to affect much life. The fish that swim through the contaminated water close to the source do become affected by the cesium. Strangely though they are not dying. When caught (like tuna) they demonstrate higher than normal levels of radiation but it is concentrated in the bones and skelital structures - not in the meat.

We are all exposed to small levels of cesium that is left over from our nuclear testing days - some places have higher levels than others but nowhere in the US are levels high enough to be a danger to a visitor.
Don't eat the dirt or breathe the dust in areas where exposure is highest and don't eat the bones of fish that migrate through the Sea of Japan or the western Pacific and you will be fine - unless you die from a heart attack believing all this crap on the net.

Radio-activity scares people but you are exposed to more radiation on a plane trip to Europe that you will be by spending the day aty a beach in California.


----------

