Translate

Sunday, May 3, 2015

FUKUSHIMA RADIATION DILUTED BY PACIFIC ? FACTS vs FEEL GOOD.

TIME AND TIME AGAIN WE HEAR THE REASSURING PURR THAT "THE OCEAN WILL DILUTE THE FUKUSHIMA RADIATION TO HARMLESS LEVELS, ALL IS WELL. EAT MORE PACIFIC FISH."  

IN 1955, IN ANSWER TO CONCERNS BY GREAT BRITAIN ABOUT RADIOACTIVITY LEVELS IN TUNA, OUR GOVERNMENT SENT THE FOLLOWING MEMO TO ASSUAGE THEIR CONCERN:  

"1955 memo from the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission regarding concerns of the British government over contaminated tuna,
“...dissipation of radioactive fall-out in ocean waters is not a gradual spreading out of the activity from the region with the highest concentration to uncontaminated regions, but that in all probability the process results in scattered pockets and streams of higher radioactive materials in the Pacific. We can speculate that tuna which now show radioactivity from ingested materials [NOTE: Remember,this is in 1955, not today] have been living, in or have passed through, such pockets; or have been feeding on plant and animal life which has been exposed in those areas.”

THE TEA ROOM CANNOT POINT TO WHICH OF THE 92 DECLASSIFIED, RELEASED IN THE 1950-1955 TIME FRAME OF MOSTLY HEAVILY REDACTED DOCUMENTS LISTED <HERE> THAT THIS IS TAKEN FROM, BUT I AM READING ALL, AS TIME PERMITS.

AS YOU CAN SEE, OUR ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION SKIRTS THE ISSUE BY SUGGESTING THERE MAY BE "POCKETS" OF HEAVY RADIATION, BUT FOR SURE THE OCEAN IS NOT ENTIRELY RADIOACTIVE, HEAVENS NO!  

THINK WITH ME JUST A MOMENT...IF THIS WAS WRITTEN IN 1955, HOW LONG HAD IT BEEN SINCE THE U.S. DROPPED BOMBS IN THAT OCEAN?

A YEAR, TWO, FIVE?
IF BRITAIN WAS CONCERNED AFTER THAT REAL HUMDINGER BLAST, "CASTLE BRAVO", THAT CAME IN 1954, AND WAS THE LAST ATOMIC "TEST" IN THE PACIFIC UNTIL MAY, 1962 AT CHRISTMAS ISLAND, THEN IT WAS ABOUT A YEAR.

OR DID THE QUERY COME AFTER "OPERATION CROSSROADS" SERIES OF SHOTS IN JULY, 1946, FOLLOWING ON THE HEELS OF THE TWO BOMBS DROPPED ON JAPAN?

IT REALLY DOESN'T MAKE A DAMN BECAUSE DILUTION OF RADIATION BY THE OCEAN IS A SLICK TRICK BEING PLAYED ON THE POPULACE AND HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE HUGE AMOUNTS, ACTUAL AMOUNTS, OF RADIATION IN THAT WATER! 

WATER DOES SHIELD US FROM RADIATION, BUT TRY POURING WATER ON A SPENT FUEL ROD AND LET ME KNOW IF THE ROD MELTS. 
LET ME KNOW HOW MUCH RADIATION REMAINS AFTER YOU POUR WATER ON IT FOR A YEAR.

IN FACT, AS FAR AS PLUTONIUM IS CONCERNED, WE MIGHT NOT LIKE THAT ELEMENT BEING DILUTED! 

IN THE BOOK "Nuclear Engineering : Theory and Technology of Commercial Nuclear Power" , PAGES 112-113, WE READ THIS:

"Initial DILUTION of Plutonium results in INCREASED critical mass and critical size....CAUSED BY HYDROGEN ABSORPTION.  
[NOTE: Hydrogen, the "H" in H2O] 

CONVENTIONAL SAFETY WISDOM SUGGESTS THAT DILUTION CAN REDUCE OVERALL HAZARD. 

HOWEVER ...DILUTION MAY ACTUALLY INCREASE MULTIPLICATION WITHIN CERTAIN CONCENTRATION RANGES.  

Dilution of a fixed mass to a concentration between high and intermediate points would leave the system subcritical.

HOWEVER, FURTHER DILUTION WOULD LEAD TO SUPERCRITICALITY PERSISTING UNTIL THE LOWER-BOUND CRITICAL CONCENTRATION IS REACHED."

THIS BUSINESS OF THE GOOD OLD OCEAN IS GOING TO SAVE US BY 'DILUTION' IS A PLOY, A SHAM, A SHELL GAME.  

THERE'S ACTUAL AMOUNTS OF RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES/RADIONUCLIDES AND THEN THERE'S THE HANDY-DANDY "DILUTED" AMOUNTS. 

LET'S LOOK AT DILUTION ANOTHER WAY, A SORT OF 'SALT-IN-WATER, EVAPORATE THE WATER' SCENARIO: 

"Another problem with the NRC’s dilute and deceive strategy is that in times of dry weather or drought the becquerels per liter in the water INCREASES, as the State of Mississippi noted to its dismay at the Salmon underground nuclear test site.

Higher concentration of radionuclides in water, due to drought, in the area of the Idaho National Lab test site, could help account for the thousands of dead snow geese, which reportedly dropped from the sky within the last week."  

EVAPORATE THE "DILUTE", WHAT'S LEFT?
THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF RADIATION THAT WAS 'HIDING' IN THE DILUTE!

TO CONTINUOUSLY USE THE "IT'S DILUTED, DON'T WORRY" SCAM KEEPS THE PUBLIC FROM ASKING, OR DEMANDING TO KNOW, EXACTLY HOW MUCH RADIOACTIVE CRAP IS OUT THERE, IS IN THE WATER AND THE AIR ABOVE THE WATER.

WHILE I HAVE REMARKS BY "EXPERTS" WAITING TO BE TYPED IN HERE, I WANT TO OFFER YOU THE BEST EXPLANATION I HAVE ENCOUNTERED OF HOW LUDICROUS THIS DILUTION THING IS FROM A WEBSITE TO WHICH I MAY BUILD A SHRINE , "MINING AWARENESS PLUS" , AND ITS INCREDIBLE REPORTER, MICHAEL COLLINS. 

MICHAEL USES THE D.O.E AND N.R.C.'s OWN DATA TO SHOW JUST HOW DUMB THIS DILUTION LIE IS. PLEASE VISIT THAT SITE FOR THE MANY, MANY LOOKS AT DATA PULLED RIGHT OFF THE N.R.C/DOE WEBSITES. CONTRADICTING THEMSELVES TIME AND TIME AGAIN: **

"At the beginning of the nuclear age, focus was on how dangerous radiation was. Many animal and even human experiments have been done. 
The human experiments were both official experiments and unofficial making the population at large act as guinea pigs. 
They have known from the beginning the dangers. 

Somewhere along the way they seem to have switched from doing experiments to see how dangerous it was to doing endless experiments in an attempt at proving that it is safe. 
Despite their efforts to prove the contrary, they have only succeeded in proving that ionizing radiation is even more dangerous than their early results showed. 

As the National Academy of Science has stated endlessly in their BEIR reports, there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. 
Increased dose is increased risk. 
This is even more true for high-LET internal alpha radiation and high LET neutrons.

The NRC sets air and water emission limits of radionuclides at micro-curies per milliter, which is utterly deceitful. 
This is an old trick reportedly used by workers in the petrochemical industry in “cancer alley”, USA – to emit pollution and let it go downstream, down the Mississippi River; wait a few minutes and then measure. 

The several nuclear power facilities, which we have examined, actually give the real emissions and then appear forced to report it as a dilution at the behest of the NRC! 

The radionuclides are STILL GOING SOMEPLACE! 
Dilution is not a solution for the longer lived radionuclides, nor for simultaneous and ongoing emissions.  

Even if heavier elements, like PLUTONIUM, may drop down to the bottom of the [PACIFIC, ATLANTIC OR] Gulf of Mexico, sediments have been shown to be stirred and moved by Gulf hurricanes. 
[OR PACIFIC OR ATLANTIC HURRICANES AND TYPHOONS]

There are also living beings down there, which the Environmental Protection Agency should be concerned with, by definition. 
In fact, researchers have found that much of the oil from the BP oil spill has just dropped to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.  

Storms will move radionuclides (and oil) which have dropped into large bodies of water BACK ONTO LAND.
 People will see the oil. 
People cannot see the radionuclides...

Plutonium 241 has a half life of 14 years, which is used to trick people since it becomes the MORE DANGEROUS 241 Americium with a half life of around 432 years.

Strontium 90 has a half life of 28.8 years so it , too, will be around for about 460 years, [whether it's shooting out of Fukushima Dai'ichi, or] downstream into the Gulf of Mexico at Apalachicola Bay.

Nuclear Facilities also are allowed to emit so many radionuclides that it takes 50 pages to list them, including plutonium 239, all allowable for release into the air, and the cooling water. 
[Oh, but that water is fine, just fine. Filtered, all cleaned up nice. Drink up!]

But, like the water, to talk about concentrations in the air – as opposed to amounts – is really meaningless for anything but the shortest-lived radionuclides. 

And, the shortest-lived radionuclides CAN EASILY be kept in holding tanks until they are no longer radioactive.  
[NOTE: IT'S CHEAPER TO SEND IT INTO THE OCEANS, RIVERS, SOIL THAN TO BUILD THE REQUIRED HOLDING TANKS!]

Do you think that 740 radioactive emissions in water is clean water? 


[BELOW IS] A PARTIAL NRC list of radioactive elements that should be monitored in air and water. 
However, each has so many isotopes that the NRC list of “standards” stretches 50 pages. 
[PLEASE <CLICK HERE> SHOULD THIS IMAGE NOT EXPAND WHEN YOU CLICK ON THE IMAGE.]

Other than giving a list of isotopes, it [THE LIST] is totally worthless as emissions are given as DILUTIONS of microcuries per milliliter, which gives NO indication of what is actually released into the air or water. 

The NRC wants to manipulate the mrem (mSv) NOW to say that it [ALLOWABLE LEVELS] should be well over 2,000 becquerels for tritium. 

How that can be when it is now believed that tritium is more dangerous than previously thought, and may require a weighting factor, cannot be fathomed."

REMEMBER:

"Any short-lived radionuclides should be contained until they are no longer radioactive, and long-lived radionuclides should never be emitted at all.  

How many cancers will there be in a lifetime from the 1 mSv per year proposed by the US NRC? 
According to National Academy of Sciences BEIR report, it would be 1 (or more) per 100 people.
 The ICRP has it at about 0.55 which would round up to one.
 However, this is assuming that the 1 mSv per year is new, whereas the radionuclides will be building up in the environment and even in the body. 

If half of the 1mSv emitted were short lived, the next year there would still be 1 mSv emitted plus 0.5 mSv (half) already emitted. 

Some of the radionuclides (cesium and strontium) have half-lives of about 30 years; other radionuclides like plutonium-americium in the 100s or 1000s of years: “The half-life of plutonium-239 is 24,065 years. 

This half-life is short enough that 1 microgram of material will undergo more than 2000 decay events per second, but it is long enough to allow that microgram to decay at an approximately constant rate for thousands of years

If plutonium had uranium’s half-life of 4 billion years, there would be so few decays over the span of a human’s lifetime that the radiological toxicity of plutonium would be much less severe. 
 However, that is not the case… 

Uranium is also much more soluble than plutonium and leaves the body rapidly.” 

SOURCE FOR THE ABOVE HIGHLIGHTED EYE-OPENERS? 
"THE BEAST" ITSELF...LOS ALAMOS!
SEE: Los Alamos Science Number 26 2000, p. 78 ,Los Alamos Nuclear Lab 

WHETHER DECAYING OR "DILUTED", EVERY BIT OF RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES IN ANY OCEAN, OR ANYWHERE, IS STILL RADIOACTIVE. 

WHETHER IT SINKS TO THE BOTTOM OF A DEEP PACIFIC TRENCH OR GETS PICKED UP BY WINDS AND TOSSED ASHORE, IT'S THE AMOUNT WE NEED TO KNOW!

HOW MUCH, EXACTLY, IS GOING INTO THE PACIFIC EACH DAY FROM FUKUSHIMA?  

WHY ARE THEY RELEASING IT INSTEAD OF STORING IT?

IF THERE'S NO WAY TO "SAFELY STORE" ALL THAT CRAP, WHY DON'T THEY ADMIT NUCLEAR ENERGY IS TOO DAMNED DIRTY, TOO HOT TO HANDLE AND STOP USING IT?  

HERE'S ANOTHER HANDY CHART THAT IS SUPPOSED TO SHOW US HOW THAT NASTY OLD CESIUM 137 IS GOING AWAY (BECAUSE THE NICE OCEAN IS MAKING IT GO BYE-BYE). 
LOOK CLOSELY, IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY SHOW THAT AT ALL.
WHAT WE'RE TOLD WE HAVE HERE ARE 10 SAMPLING SITES, SAMPLED OVER A 7-DAY PERIOD IN MARCH, 2011.

BLUE=MARCH 23
RED=MARCH 24
GREEN=MARCH 25
TEAL (OR POWDER BLUE?)=MARCH 26
ORANGE=MARCH 27
PURPLE=MARCH 28
GRAY=MARCH 30

I GUESS, FOR WHATEVER REASON, ALL SITES SKIPPED MARCH 29.

FIRST THING TO TAKE NOTE OF IS THAT NO SITE SHOWS DATA FOR ALL 7 DAYS. 

AT SITE 1, CONCENTRATION HOLDS STEADY FOR 4 DAYS! 

AT ALL SITES THAT TOOK MEASUREMENTS THE FIRST 2 DAYS, THE CONCENTRATIONS REMAINED NEARLY THE SAME OR HIGHER ON THE SECOND DAY. 

LOOK AT SITE 6! 
IT'S THE ONLY SITE MEASURED ON DAYS 1 AND 2 AND ALSO ON THE LAST DAY, MARCH 30.
SEE THAT ON THE LAST DAY, CONCENTRATIONS WERE HIGHER THAN ON 2 PREVIOUS DAYS, AND MORE THAN HALF AS GREAT AS READINGS OF DAY 1.

LOOKS LIKE THE POOR OLD PACIFIC WAS STRUGGLING TO PERFORM ITS 'DILUTION' FUNCTION.

AND AFTER THIS, WHAT DOES SAMPLING SHOW?  
OH, DIDN'T YOU KNOW, OUR GOVERNMENT STOPPED FUNDING THAT. 
THEY EVEN SHUT DOWN ABOUT HALF OF THE LAND MONITORING SITES.
"WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING MONITORING, WE'VE GOT THE OCEAN TO DILUTE STUFF! " 

YALE.EDU DISAGREES. 
Radioactivity in the Ocean:
Diluted, But Far from Harmless 

07 APRIL 2011


"The world has never quite seen an event like the one unfolding now off the coast of eastern Japan, in which thousands of tons of radioactively contaminated water from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant are pouring directly into the ocean. 

And though the vastness of the ocean has the capacity to dilute nuclear contamination, signs of spreading radioactive material are being found off Japan, including the discovery of elevated concentrations of radioactive cesium and iodine in small fish several dozen miles south of Fukushima, and high levels of radioactivity in seawater 25 miles offshore. 


Although the ocean’s capacity to dilute radiation is huge, signs are that nuclear isotopes are already moving up the local food chain.


“Given that the Fukushima nuclear power plant is on the ocean, and with leaks and runoff directly to the ocean, the impacts on the ocean will exceed those of Chernobyl, which was hundreds of miles from any sea,” said Ken Buesseler, senior scientist in marine chemistry at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. “My biggest concern is the lack of information. 

We still don’t know the whole range of radioactive compounds that have been released into the ocean, nor do we know their distribution. We have a few data points from the Japanese — all close to the coast — but to understand the full impact, including for fisheries, we need broader surveys and scientific study of the area.”

Buessler and other experts say this much is clear: Both short-lived radioactive elements, such as iodine-131, and longer-lived elements — such as cesium-137, with a half-life of 30 years — can be absorbed by phytoplankton, zooplankton, kelp, and other marine life and then be transmitted up the food chain, to fish, marine mammals, and humans. Other radioactive elements — including plutonium, which has been detected outside the Fukushima plant — also pose a threat to marine life. A key question is how concentrated will the radioactive contamination be. Japanese officials hope that a temporary fishing ban off the northeastern Japanese coast will be enough to avert any danger to human health until the flow of radioactive water into the sea can be stopped. 

But that spigot is still running. 

The key question is how concentrated will the radioactive contamination be.

Studies from previous releases of nuclear material in the Irish, Kara and Barents Seas, as well as in the Pacific Ocean, show that such radioactive material does travel with ocean currents, is deposited in marine sediment, and does climb the marine food web. 

In the Irish Sea — where the British Nuclear Fuels plant at Sellafield in the northwestern United Kingdom released radioactive material over many decades, beginning in the 1950s — studies have found radioactive cesium and plutonium concentrating significantly in seals and porpoises that ate contaminated fish. 

Other studies have shown that radioactive material from Sellafield and from the nuclear reprocessing plant at Cap de la Hague in France have been transported to the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. A study published in 2003 found that a substantial part of the world’s radioactive contamination is in the marine environment.  

How the radioactive materials released from the Fukushima plants will behave in the ocean will depend on their chemical properties and reactivity, explained Ted Poston, a ecotoxicologist with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, a U.S. government facility in Richland, Washington. 
If the radionuclides are in soluble form, they will behave differently than if they are absorbed into particles, said Poston. Soluble iodine, for example, will disperse rather rapidly. But if a radionuclide reacts with other molecules or gets deposited on existing particulates — bits of minerals, for example — they can be suspended in the water or, if larger, may drop to the sea floor.

“If particulates in the water column are very small they will move with the current,” he explained. “If bigger or denser, they can settle in sediment.”

If iodine-131, for example, is taken up by seaweed or plankton, it can be transferred to fish, which are in turn eaten by larger fish, as has been seen in the Irish Sea. Fish can also take in radionuclides in the water through their gills, and radionuclides can be ingested by mollusks. 

But Edward Lazo, deputy division head for radiation protection at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, said, “This is not a fully developed science and there are lots of uncertainties.”
[TRANSLATION of "not a fully developed science..."We have no freaking idea whatsoever!"]


Radioactive iodine is taken up by the thyroid in humans and marine mammals — or in the case of fish, thyroid tissue — and is also readily absorbed by seaweed and kelp. Cesium acts like potassium and is taken up by muscle. Cesium would tend to stay in solution and can eventually end up in marine sediment where, because of its long half life, it will persist for years. Because marine organisms use potassium they can also take up cesium. “Cesium behaves like potassium, so would end up in all marine life,” said Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Maryland. “It certainly will have an effect.” 

Tom Hei, professor of environmental sciences and vice-chairman of radiation oncology at Columbia University, explained that the mechanisms that determine how an animal takes in radiation are the same for fish as they are for humans. Once in the body — whether inhaled or absorbed through gills or other organs — radiation can make its way into the bloodstream, lungs, and bony structures, potentially causing death, cancer, or genetic damage. Larger animals tend to more sensitive to radiation than smaller ones. Yet small fish, mollusks and crustaceans, as well as plankton and phytoplankton, can absorb radiation, said Poston. How the radiation accumulates depends on the degree of exposure — dose and duration — and the half-life of the element, said Hei. 

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says it is not conducting any monitoring of the marine environment for radiation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is monitoring airborne radiation, but its spokespeople were unable to say whether the EPA was monitoring the marine environment as well.

Experts such as Buesseler of Woods Hole, as well as activists like Ber├ínek, said an international effort should quickly be launched to sample and measure radionuclides in the ocean, seafloor, and marine life, with close attention paid to which direction ocean currents can be expected to transport water potentially contaminated by Fukushima. 


[WHY IS IT THAT WHEN ANYONE DISAGREES WITH THE MAINSTREAM "EXPERTS", THEY BECOME AN "ACTIVIST", BUT WHEN THEY AGREE, BINGO! NEW "EXPERT"?]

POSTED ON 07 APR 2011 IN ENERGY ENERGY OCEANS POLICY & POLITICS POLICY & POLITICS POLLUTION & HEALTH ASIA NORTH AMERICA 

OVERALL CONCENTRATION...HOW MUCH RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL IS OUT THERE, THAT'S THE MAIN THING WE NEED TO KNOW.

IF THE ENTIRE PACIFIC DRIES UP TOMORROW, HOW MUCH RADIATION WILL BE LEFT IN THE DRY HOLE WHERE THE SEA USED TO BE?  

WHEN THE WAVES BREAK AGAINST THE BRONZE BODY OF A PACIFIC SURFER, HOW MUCH RADIATION IS THAT SURFER SUBJECTED TO?  
I HAVE A NEPHEW AND NIECE WHO GO INTO THAT OCEAN.
I WANT TO KNOW, DAMN IT!

WHEN THE PACIFIC STORMS BLOW IN TO OREGON, HOW MUCH RADIATION FALLS IN RAIN ON  GARDENS AND PLAYGROUNDS AND FARMS AND CATTLE?
I HAVE BELOVED FRIENDS THERE AND I WANT TO KNOW, RIGHT NOW! 

EVEN WITH "DILUTION" OUT IN THE WIDE PACIFIC, HOW MANY MARINE CREATURES ARE GETTING TOO MUCH RADIATION?
I CARE ABOUT THAT, A LOT! 

HOW MANY PEOPLE, TRUSTING THEIR GOVERNMENT ARE BEING CONTAMINATED BY EATING "SEAFOODS" OUT OF THAT OCEAN?
I HAVE AN 'ADOPTED' DAUGHTER IN THE PHILIPPINES WHOSE FAMILY RELIES ON PACIFIC FISH, SHELLFISH TO LIVE, TO SURVIVE.
WILL THEY? 

The Bioaccumulation of Contamination in Plankton, US Armed Forces, 1955

"The problem of radioactive particles falling into the ocean raises the question of their availability to this portion of the biosphere. Plankton normally found in sea water are consumed in large quantities by fish.

These plankton concentrate mineral elements from the water, and it has been found that radioactivity may be concentrated (Page 60) in this manner by as much as a thousand fold. Thus, for example, one gram of plankton could contain a thousand times as much radioactivity as a gram of water adjacent to it. 

The radioactivity from these plankton which form a portion of fish diet tends to concentrate in the liver of the fish, and, if sufficiently high levels of contamination are encountered, could have a marked effect upon the ecology of an ocean area.  "

"THE RADIATION DOSES ARE LOW, MEET YEARLY ALLOWABLE DOSE LEVELS".
THAT'S ANOTHER TRICK BEING PLAYED ON US! 

In the ICRP, and even the NRC law, “Effective Dose” is about risk to various parts of the body, caused by ionizing radiation. 
“Protection dose” is a misnomer. 
It is NOT an annual dose limit, as some appear to think. 

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW THOSE IN THE "NUCLEAR INDUSTRY" HANG THEMSELVES WHILE TRYING TO SELL US ON THE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY:
 One particular example in nature provides strong reassurance concerning final disposal of high-level wastes underground. 
Two billion years ago at Oklo in Gabon, West Africa, chain reactions started spontaneously in concentrated deposits of uranium ore. 
These natural nuclear reactors continued operating for hundreds of thousands of years forming plutonium and all the highly radioactive waste products created today from exactly the same processes in a nuclear power reactor. 
Despite the existence at that time of large quantities of water in the area, these materials stayed where they were formed and eventually decayed into non-radioactive elements. 
The evidence remains there."

NO, NO, THE "EVIDENCE" SHOWS THAT 'LARGE QUANTITIES OF WATER' DIDN'T "DILUTE" AWAY THE NASTY OLD RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL.
THEY DID INDEED "STAY WHERE THEY WERE FORMED"...

AND SO WILL WHATEVER FUKUSHIMA DUMPS INTO OUR PACIFIC OCEAN...UNTIL IT FINALLY DECAYS...PERHAPS THE LAST OF IT iN JUST A FEW SHORT BILLION YEARS.

"IT'S NO HIGHER THAN BACKGROUND RADIATION" IS ANOTHER PHRASE USED TO KEEP FROM HAVING TO GIVE US THE ACTUAL NUMBERS ON NUCLEAR CONTAMINATION! 

WHAT IS "BACKGROUND RADIATION"? 
Background radiation includes historic nuclear emissions,from nuclear "testing", leaks from various sources all over the world, intentional dumping of contaminated nuclear waste, the nuclear reactors of atomic submarines sunk at sea, gas emissions from nuclear power plants, etc – meaning the more the nuclear industry pollutes, the higher the world average background goes, and thus the more they CAN pollute, while saying that the emission is almost nothing compared to background radiation! 

WHAT WAS THE "BACKGROUND RADIATION" BEFORE HIROSHIMA?
WAS IT COMPARABLE AT ALL TO WHAT IT IS NOW? 
WE DON'T KNOW, NO ONE WAS MEASURING! 

"OH, THE MORTALITY RATE FROM THAT AMOUNT OF RADIATION IS MINIMAL, IGNORE IT!"

WHAT ABOUT THE MORBIDITY RATE?
THE EPA AND OTHER U.S. AGENCIES CONNECTED WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO INCLUDE THOSE FIGURES IN THEIR 2014 REPORT ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF RADIATION.
MORBIDITY RATES WOULD SHOW HOW MANY GET CANCER FROM RADIATION BUT MANAGE TO LIVE!
MORBIDITY WOULD MEAN ALL WITH NON-FATAL DISEASES CAUSED BY RADIATION!
CAN'T HAVE THOSE NUMBERS GOING VIRAL! 

REMEMBER HOW THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA STOPPED ITS RECORD-KEEPING OF NEW TUMORS IN PATIENTS AFTER THREE MILE ISLAND?

REMEMBER HOW MANY YEARS HANFORD WASTE FACILITY IN WASHINGTON DENIED THE HORRIBLE EFFECTS ON THOSE DOWNWIND OF THEIR "GREEN RUN" RELEASES?
STERILIZATION OF FETUSES IN UTERO, BIRTH DEFECTS, NEURAL TUBE DISORDERS, CHRONIC DERMATITIS DISEASES...IT'S A VERY LONG LIST OF WHAT RADIATION CAN AND HAS DONE TO HUMANS.

MORBIDITY DOESN'T TRUMP MORTALITY BUT WE SHOULD KNOW! 

WE NEED TO KNOW FOR OUR OWN PROTECTION!

Different types of radiation require different forms of protection: 

Alpha radiation cannot penetrate the skin and can be blocked out by a sheet of paper, but CAN BE INHALED and is dangerous in the lung. 

"The alpha particle emitter will not penetrate the outer layer of our skin, but is dangerous if inhaled or swallowed. The delicate internal workings of the living cell forming the lining of the lungs or internal organs, most certainly will be changed (mutated) or killed outright by the energetic alpha particle. The number of lung cancer cases among uranium miners from inhaled and ingested alpha sources is much higher than those of the public at large. Radon, the gas produced by the decay of radium-226, also emits alpha particles, which poses a hazard to lungs and airways when inhaled. Homes built in areas with high ground radioactivity should be tested for radon buildup in enclosed basement spaces."  

Beta radiation can penetrate into the body surface but can be blocked out by a sheet of aluminium foil. 

"Although the beta particle is around 8000 times smaller than the alpha particle, it is capable of penetrating much deeper into living matter. Each encounter with a living cell, and there may be many before the beta energy is dissipated, is likely to damage some of the chemical links between the living molecules of the cell or cause some permanent genetic change in the cell nucleus. 
If the damage occurs within the generative cells of the ovaries or testes, the damage may be passed to new generations. The normal background radiation level must contribute to the mutation of the gene pool. Most mutations are undesirable with a very few leading to "improvements". 
Any increase in the background level of radiation should be considered harmful..
Any increase in the background level of radiation should be considered harmful..
Any increase in the background level of radiation should be considered harmful..
GOT IT?
ANY is harmful.

Gamma radiation can go deeply into the body and requires several centimetres of lead or concrete, or a metre or so of water, to block it.

"The very high energy "X-ray" called the gamma ray.is an energetic photon or light wave in the same electromagnetic family as light and x-rays, but is much more energetic and harmful. 
It is capable of damaging living cells as it slows down by transferring its energy to surrounding cell components." 

“Hazardous radioactive elements being released in the sea and air around Fukushima accumulate at each step of various food chains (for example, into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow’s meat and milk, then humans). Entering the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, continuously irradiating small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years often induce cancer”.

WHAT IS THE MOST DANGEROUS TYPE OF RADIATION?
GAMMA RADIATION. 

DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT THE VAST AMOUNTS OF WATER USED AT NUCLEAR ENERGY SITES ARE FOR TWO THINGS ONLY?
1~ COOLING THE HELL-HOT FUEL RODS 
AND
2~ PUTTING A FEW FEET OF PROTECTION BETWEEN THE RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL AND HUMANS

THEY DON'T USE WATER TO "DILUTE" ANYTHING.

AND WHAT HAPPENS TO EVERY MOLECULE OF WATER THAT COMES IN CONTACT WITH ALL THAT RADIATION?

IT GETS CALLED "NUCLEAR WASTE".
IT CAN KILL YOU.

FINAL QUESTION, ANSWER HONESTLY.
IF I TOOK JUST ONE TEASPOON OF COOLING WATER FROM A NUCLEAR REACTOR AND ADDED IT TO A GALLON OF ICED TEA, HOW MANY OF YOU WOULD WANT A CUP OF TEA?

DILUTION...
IS ANY OCEAN BIG ENOUGH TO DILUTE ALL THAT IS BEING DUMPED INTO THEM?

I DON'T SEE HOW!

WHEN WE AREN'T INFORMED, WE CAN'T CHOOSE HOW TO RESPOND TO CRISIS.
KOREA INFORMS BETTER THAN OUR GOVERNMENT DOES!

Korea Times, April 7, 2011:
"The Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS) said radioactive iodine and cesium were found in rainwater collected in the early morning at a checkpoint on the island. The concentration level of iodine-131 was 2.02 becquerels per liter (Bq/l), that of cesium-137, 0.538 Bq/l, and that of cesium-134, 0.333 Bq/l. …
Following the news that minuscule radioactive substances were detected on Jeju, people in all parts of the country carried umbrellas to work or school even though the rainfall was light.
Parents had their children not only use umbrellas but also wear raincoats, rubber boots and even masks. Some of them gave their children a ride to school, with streets near schools congested.
In Gyeonggi Province, about 130 pre-elementary and middle schools were closed after the regional educational office allowed school heads to close them if they deemed it necessary. 
More than 40 others shortened school hours. …" 
AND IN CALIFORNIA, WHERE RAINWATER WAS FOUND TO BE 10 TIMES MORE RADIOACTIVE THAN IN KOREA...NO SCHOOLS WERE CLOSED, RESIDENTS WERE NOT EVEN AWARE OF THE FACT FOR DAYS.
SOME ARE STILL UNAWARE.
WE SHOULD BE MADE AWARE, NOT KEPT IN THE DARK.  
BOTH THE JAPANESE AND AMERICAN GOVERNMENTS SHOULD SIMPLY TEST THE WATERS, REPORT THE FINDINGS HONESTLY, GIVE US ALL A CHANCE TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS ABOUT WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO PROTECT OURSELVES AND THOSE WE LOVE.

INSTEAD OF "DILUTION", THEY SHOULD BE OFFERING A SOLUTION! 



---
AS A SORT OF 'POSTSCRIPT':
I AM SICK OF THE WAY EACH NEWS MEDIA, EACH AGENCY, EACH "EXPERT" USES A DIFFERENT TYPE MEASUREMENT TO TALK OR WRITE ABOUT RADIATION.
SOMETIMES, USING ONE TYPE SOUNDS SOOOOOO MUCH BETTER THAN USING ANOTHER, AND SO WHATEVER SOUNDS BEST SEEMS TO BE THE CHOICE. 

SO HERE ARE ALL THE WAYS THE TALKING HEADS AND PRINT JOURNALISTS CAN TELL YOU HOW BLOODY SAFE WE ARE...
CONVERSION CHARTS EXIST, BUT NOT FOR ALL.
A CALCULATOR HELPS.

UNITS OF RADIATION MEASUREMENT

Roentgen (R) The roentgen is a unit used to measure a quantity called exposure. The roentgen measures the energy produced by gamma radiation in a cubic centimeter of air. This can only be used to describe an amount of gamma and X-rays, and only in air. One roentgen is equal to depositing in dry air enough energy to cause 2.58E-4 coulombs per kg. It is a measure of the ionizations of the molecules in a mass of air. The main advantage of this unit is that it is easy to measure directly, but it is limited because it is only for deposition in air, and only for gamma and x rays.

Rad (Radiation Absorbed Dose) Different materials that receive the same exposure may not absorb the same amount of energy. The rad is a unit used to measure a quantity called absorbed dose. This translates to the amount of energy actually absorbed in some material, and is used for any type of radiation and any material. One rad is defined as the absorption of 100 ergs per gram of material. One roentgen of gamma radiation exposure results in about one rad of absorbed dose. The unit rad can be used for any type of radiation, but it does not describe the biological effects of the different radiations.

Rem (Roentgen Equivalent Man) The rem is a unit used to derive a quantity called equivalent dose. This relates the absorbed dose in human tissue to the effective biological damage of the radiation. Not all radiation has the same biological effect, even for the same amount of absorbed dose. Equivalent dose is often expressed in terms of thousandths of a rem, or mrem. To determine equivalent dose (rem), you multiply absorbed dose (rad) by a quality factor (Q) that is unique to the type of incident radiation. For gamma rays and beta particles, 1 rad of exposure results in 1 rem of dose.

Curie (Ci) - 1Ci = 37 billion cps The curie is a unit used to measure a radioactivity. One curie is the number of particles per second from 1 gram of Radium = 3.7 x 10 E10 counts/second = 37 billion cps. = 37 billion Becquerel. Often radioactivity is expressed in smaller units like: thousandths (mCi), one millionths (uCi) or even billionths (nCi) of a curie. The relationship between becquerels and curies is: 3.7 x 1010 Bq in one curie.
microcurie = 1 uCi = 37,000 Bq = 37,000 cps.
microcurie = 2.22 x 10E6 disintegrations / minute = 2,220,000 cpm.
nanocurie = 1 billionth of a curie = 2,220 disintegrations / minute.
picocurie = 2.2 disintegrations / min.

Common Units - SI - International Standard
Note: These are the common units used throughout the world in health physics.

Gray (Gy) Gray (Gy) = 1 Joule/kg. The gray is a unit used to measure a quantity called absorbed dose. This relates to the amount of energy actually absorbed in some material, and is used for any type of radiation and any material. One gray is equal to one joule of energy deposited in one kg of a material. The unit gray can be used for any type of radiation, but it does not describe the biological effects of the different radiations. Absorbed dose is often expressed in terms of hundredths of a gray, or centi-grays. One gray is equivalent to 100 rads.

Sievert (Sv) 1Sv = 1Gray x QF, where QF is a "quality factor" based on the type of particle. The sievert is a unit used to derive a quantity called equivalent dose. This relates the absorbed dose in human tissue to the effective biological damage of the radiation. Not all radiation has the same biological effect, even for the same amount of absorbed dose. Equivalent dose is often expressed in terms of millionths of a sievert, or micro-sievert. To determine equivalent dose (Sv), you multiply absorbed dose (Gy) by a quality factor (Q) that is unique to the type of incident radiation. One sievert is equivalent to 100 rem. For electrons, positrons, and xrays = 1 QF = 3 to 10 for neutrons, protons dependent upon the energy transferred by these heavier particles. QF = 20 for alpha particles and fission fragments.

Becquerel (Bq) - 1Bq = 1 count per second = 1 event per second. The Becquerel is a unit used to measure a radioactivity. One Becquerel is that quantity of a radioactive material that will have 1 transformations in one second. Often radioactivity is expressed in larger units like: thousands (kBq), one millions (MBq) or even billions (GBq) of a becquerels. As a result of having one Becquerel being equal to one transformation per second, there are 3.7 x 1010 Bq in one curie.

Converting older units:
rad = 1 centigray = 10 milligrays ( 1 rad = 1cGy = 10 mGy )
rem = 1 centisievert = 10 millisieverts ( 1 rem = 1cSv = 10 mSv )
mrad = 10 uGy
Nominal background radiation absorbed dose of 100 mrad/year = 1 mGy/yr.
Nominal background radiation dose biological equivalent of 100mrem/year = 1mSv/yr.
Occupational whole body limit is 5 rem/yr = 50 mSv/yr. ( Recently proposed that levels be reduced to 2 rem/yr.)
2.5 mrem/hr or 25 uSv/hr is maximum average working level in industry.
Exposure rate from Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) ; an empirically derived conversion factor for Ra-226 decay series: 1.82 microR/ hour = 1 picoCurie/gram.


**No copyright is claimed in [content copied] and to the extent that material may appear to be infringed, I assert that such alleged infringement is permissible under fair use principles in U.S. copyright laws. Material quoted is used only to inform and educate. The material used has been properly cited.
This website is always happy to remove any quoted content if contacted by original authors and asked to remove it.

2 comments:

  1. Well constructed rant, now what?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have an idea, "Stock"?
      All I can do is pester the living hell out of my "selected officials", 'get the word' out, all that old 'hippie' stuff like I used to do back in the 1960s.
      Now, if I was reeaaally 'mobile', I'd go bang on a few doors, talk to some of those do-nothing politicos face-to-face.
      I'd be walking beaches in the West with a handy-dandy monitoring device and posting those readings, because we need to know.
      Again, stuff that may not be on everyone's agenda, may not seem like much,but until I can find a cure for this kryptonite crap that vexes me, I'm stuck here, pounding this keyboard and speed-dialing.
      And, ummm, The Tea Room hasn't posted a RANT yet...but came close a couple times.
      This? Naaaah...

      Delete