We're f-cked

[DJ Logic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ITrXVJMKeQ

 

[user43770]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ITrXVJMKeQ

You shouldn't believe everything you hear. I don't know anything about this lady, but I do know that some people will use scare tactics in order to bring attention to their cause.

 

[Rogue]

She is a pediatrician. She is not a health physicist, the field of medicine pertaining to radiation physics and radiation biology. Just because she is a medical doctor with some general knowledge of radiation does not qualify her to assess the environmental impact—save that issue for whole communities of scientists to figure out, not one dissenting voice. How does being a medical doctor qualify her to assert the Fukushima disaster is orders of magnitude worse than Chernobyl? It doesn't.

 

[Alle_Gory]

How does being a medical doctor qualify her to assert the Fukushima disaster is orders of magnitude worse than Chernobyl? It doesn't.

Wait a minute. You're trying to tell me that a Doctor in Nuclear Engineering, Nuclear Medicine or Nuclear Physics might know more than this pediatrician lady who deals with children's sore tum tums and boo boos all day?

I don't believe you. Preposterous.

 

[DJ Logic]

Thanks for the sarcasm guys. Laughter does help take the sting off. FWIW, I do try to take anyone's words with a grain of salt, yet somehow I'm still very much freaked out about this situation. Why?

Because this is not about Fukushima anymore. We are all involved now.

Exhibit A: CRIIRAD announces that consuming milk, leafy vegetables and tap water are considered "risky" and pregnant/nursing women and children should avoid them. This is in Europe!

Exhibit B: California has recorded levels of radioactive Iodine 181 times over the limit. States on the east coast report levels 30 times over the limit. Radiation has also been found in milk all over the country.

Exhibit C: In Korea, schools have all been closed, even though they are experiencing less fallout then the US

At least Europe and some asian countries are trying to be square with the people. Not like the US, who tells us everything is fine - water and milk are apparently "safe" to drink when laced with radiation a hundred times over the legal limit. Canada's solution is to turn off radiation sensors around the country. America's "fix" is to simply raise the legal limits of radiation.

To make matters worse, all this fuss is over radioactive iodine, cesium etc - all particles with relatively short half-lives. We are not being told just how much plutonium/uranium is being released, these will take centuries and in some cases millions of years to fully dissipate!

Make no mistake, these ARE being released, thanks to the incredibly stupid engineers who designed these reactors to store 20 years worth of spent fuel rods in cooling pools ABOVE the reactor, along with corrupt officials who illegally stored highly toxic MOX fuel. When #3 exploded it sent a whole lot of this fuel, easily the deadliest substance on earth, flying into the sky and nobody knows where they are.

Compounding the issue is that we are dealing with a leak that will last 6-9 months if we are lucky. The truth of the matter is we will be dealing with this disaster for decades to come. Chernobyl continues to leak radiation; they are STILL trying to cap the sucker and that sh-t happened 25 years ago to only one reactor. We are dealing with 3 or 4 meltdowns in Japan right now.

Please, PLEASE stop listening to American news sources. They clearly do not have your best interests in mind. This is MUCH worse than people are being told; barring some incredible, miraculous events this will affect every living organism on this planet.

• Investigate facts for yourself
• Avoid milk and other animal products as they have higher concentrations
• Drink water from underground springs. Avoid taps which deliver water from open air reservoirs. Invest in a reverse-osmosis filter for your home, not just for your drinking but showering too
• Eat a decent amount of healthy iodine (soy, miso, sea salts, etc)
• Eat dark mushrooms as they are proven to absorb radiation.
• Eat bentonite clay, or ingestible zeolite to prevent absorption of radiation. If you have a garden, zeolite is great for detoxing your plants.

Wishing you good health and awareness,

Logic

 

[search1ng]

There are a lot of valid points to what DJ Logic said...

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

We are dealing with diabolical levels of energy......We are contaminating the cradle of civilization......

While she may have some valid points, she's been a vehement anti nuke for several years, so she's jumping all over Fukushima to promote her cause, and making it sound as bad as possible.

Her talk was long on alarmist scare tactics, and a little short on some hard science. Also when they panned out around the nine minute mark, there were only about four dudes watching her "press conference."

Just another borderline nutter promoting her own brand.

Nevertheless, don't eat or drink radioactive sh*t...Not good for you.

Be Prepared!

 

[Rogue]

Yawn.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency,

On 20 April, deposition of I-131 was detected in 8 prefectures, ranging from 2.4 to 80 Bq/m2. Deposition of Cs-137 was detected in seven prefectures, the values reported ranging from 2.6 to 87 Bq/m2.

Gamma dose rates are measured daily in all 47 prefectures. For Fukushima on 20 April a gamma dose rate of 1.9 µSv/h was reported, and for Ibaraki prefecture a gamma dose rate of 0.12 µSv/h was reported. In all other prefectures, reported gamma dose rates were below 0.1 µSv/h.

Dose rates are also reported specifically for the eastern part of Fukushima prefecture, for distances beyond 30 km from Fukushima Daiichi. On 19 April the values in this area ranged from 0.1 to 22 µSv/h.

In cooperation with local universities, the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) has set up an additional monitoring programme. For 20 April, measurements of gamma dose rates were reported for 54 cities in 40 prefectures. In Fukushima City a value of 0.42 µSv/h was reported. For nine cities, gamma dose rates between 0.13 and 0.17 µSv/h were reported. For all other cities reported gamma dose rates were below 0.1 µSv/h.

I-131 or Cs-137 is detectable in drinking water, but at levels below 1 Bq/L and in only a few prefectures. As of 20 April, one restriction on drinking water for infants relating to I-131 (100 Bq/L) remains in place for a small scale water supply in a village of the Fukushima prefecture.

Food monitoring data reported by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare on 20 April covered a total of 103 samples. These samples were taken on 3, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 20 April from nine prefectures (Chiba, Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Kanagawa, Niigata, Tochigi, Tokyo and Yamagata).

Analytical results for 99 samples of various vegetables, shiitake mushrooms, fruit (strawberries), fish, seafood and unprocessed raw milk indicated that I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137 were either not detected or had levels below the regulation values set by the Japanese authorities. Four samples of leafy vegetables (Japanese parsley, komatsuna, shinobuhuyuna and spinach) taken on 18 April from Fukushima prefecture had levels above the regulation values set by the Japanese authorities for radioactive caesium.

On 20 April, restrictions were placed on the distribution and consumption of the young of a specific sea fish (sand lance) from the coastal region of Fukushima prefecture. As has been reported previously, sand lance is the only seafood that has been found with I-131, Cs-134 or Cs-137 levels above the regulation values set by the Japanese authorities.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/fukushimafull.html

So, while four samples of vegetables were toxic, the vast majority were safe. Fish appears to be safe except for the sand lance.

Canada's solution is to turn off radiation sensors around the country.

...because nothing of importance was found. "Please note that as of March 25, 2011, the frequency of data collection by NRCan using the mobile surveys has been decreased due to the low levels of radiation being detected." And now you get a 404 error message for the page, because it was discontinued.

America's "fix" is to simply raise the legal limits of radiation.

FAIL.

The proposed changes were discovered in April 2010, and the actual proposal was probably much earlier. The earthquake happened in March 2011. where is the confirmation the proposed changes in radiation limits were actually approved? There is a gigantic gulf of difference between internal discussion of proposals and actual implementation. Most ideas get shot down.

Please, PLEASE stop listening to American news sources.

Oh contraire. You really should be more careful about where you get your information.

 

[DJ Logic]

@Rogue,

I notice you didn't touch the rainwater. Would love to hear some of your scientific "debunking" on that topic. 18,000% over the limit warrants at least a warning doesn't it? Would you walk in such rain, even with an umbrella?

Also, I'm not sure what you mean about my sources. It's not like I'm posting stuff from infowars here. If you do not consider the USNRC or EPA to be official then I'd be curious to hear why. I know a few health journal/blogs are in there and that may seem to invite some "spin", but you can easily corroborate these stories from AP, Al Jazeera, BBC, the list goes on. I just got back from Europe myself and you would not believe the difference in what is reported (or not reported in the US' case).

I really can't figure out why it's so hard to believe that we might not be getting information which can keep us healthy. If history serves as a consistent lesson (Chernobyl, 9/11 air pollution, etc), these types of disasters are often swept under rugs and dismissed as "safe", only to result in a lot of people getting terminally ill and dying. The oil industry has been doing it for decades, but at least the environment can feasibly recover from a spill within a lifetime. Can't say the same for nuclear. We just can't afford to be as brash with this type of fuel source.

Now, this may come as a surprise but I am actually pro-nuclear.

We should be building more plants as its the greenest viable tech we have right now (solar and wind cant fill that gap yet). Thing is we need to build them with Murphy's law in mind. We shouldn't be setting their foundations on fault lines and certainly shouldn't brace them for a 6.0 in a region infamous for 7.0+. Also whoever's idea it was to store hundreds of spent rods above the reactor was a moron. No wonder that engineer quit his job in protest of the shoddy work done at Fukushima in the 70's http://abcn.ws/f4Vt2b

At the end of the day this is just BP Gulf Spill Part 2. Greedy, wealthy corporations cutting corners on safety to save a buck - at the expense of our lives, ecosystems and livelihoods. You'd think someone would be penalized, thrown in jail or even lynched for such heinous crimes, but no - they just get to enjoy record profits: http://bit.ly/frS2x3

 

[Rogue]

I notice you didn't touch the rainwater.

I was at work. Time was limited.

Would love to hear some of your scientific "debunking" on that topic. 18,000% over the limit warrants at least a warning doesn't it?

I've visited the website of the Department of Nuclear Engineering at the University of California, Berkley. They have been monitoring radiation in the Berkeley area and posting their results. Of most recent:

4/26: Rain water results have been updated to include 3 more recent rain samples. All fission product isotopes are approaching our minimum detectable amount. The apparent increase in reported I-132 for the last two samples is due to interference with a background peak at the same energy. I-132 emits gamma rays at several discrete energies and after cross referencing them the actual I-132 level is below our minimum detectable amount. If the increase were real we would also expect to see a corresponding increase in Te-132 which we have not observed.

Here is a link to the EPA with rainfall measurements for the entire country (and for each type of radiation):
http://opendata.socrata.com/Government/Precipitation-RadNet-Laboratory-Analysis/e2xy-undq

Elevated levels of radioactive material in rainwater have been expected as a result of the nuclear incident after the events in Japan since radiation is known to travel in the atmosphere – precipitation data collected by EPA in the states of California, Idaho and Minnesota have seen elevated levels of radiation in recent precipitation events.

In all cases these are levels above the normal background levels historically reported in these areas. While short-term elevations such as these do not raise public health concerns – and the levels seen in rainwater are expected to be relatively short in duration – the U.S. EPA has taken steps to increase the level of monitoring of precipitation, drinking water, and other potential exposure routes to continue to verify that. (source)

 

[Poonani Maker]

Hot dawgg, I knew I was bein smart when I moved to the center of the country 5000 ft above sea level.

 

[DJ Logic]

OK guys I did a little more digging and you can disregard my previous warning of radiation being 180 times over the limit. Apparently some dodgy math was used to reach that figure and I can't cosign it in good conscience.

Something else I am investigating (you are welcome to dig too Rogue) RadNet and EPA have been tracking the more dangerous materials (Plutonium, Strontium, etc) since day 1

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/20...ntium-bombarding-west-coast-march-18th-19279/

 

[Rogue]

Something else I am investigating (you are welcome to dig too Rogue) RadNet and EPA have been tracking the more dangerous materials (Plutonium, Strontium, etc) since day 1

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/20...ntium-bombarding-west-coast-march-18th-19279/

In direct response to the blog you cited,

The EPA did NOT detect Strontium or Plutonium

That website [by Alexander Higgins] is very misleading in reporting these EPA data. I did the same queries ("air-filter" results, by the way) and came across the same exact numbers for Sr-89, Sr-90, Pu-238, and Pu-239, and I found one huge missing piece necessary to understand the numbers.

There are two columns needed to understand the measured activity: not just the Result Amount, but also the Combined Standard Uncertainty. The CSU must be included when interpreting results. In order for a result to be considered a detection to 95% certainty or greater, the Result Amount must be at least twice the Combined Standard Uncertainty.

Not a single result for Sr-89, Sr-90, Pu-238, or Pu-239 is above twice the CSU. The closest result I found was for Pu-239 measured in San Francisco on 3/24. The result is (6.5±5.8) * 10^(-6) pCi/m^3, but this is not statistically significant.

If there are any results above twice the CSU for these measurements, then that would be something to report.

Another weird thing about those results is that many are negative, which is physically impossible. This means that they are nondetections, and the fluctuations around zero are due to statistics.

Be careful when interpreting data straight from a database without any explanation!

Mark [BRAWM Team Member]

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3439#comment-4463

 

[Drdeee]

Outside bohemian groove people gather and form cults. They get into UFOs, tree hugging, etc. That's how the focus is shifted from what's going on inside. Then if you have something to say or question, they let you speak and show that crap in background.

Never heard of that lady. Which is a good indication this is a diversionary cult.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Outside bohemian groove people gather and form cults. They get into UFOs, tree hugging, etc. That's how the focus is shifted from what's going on inside. Then if you have something to say or question, they let you speak and show that crap in background.

Never heard of that lady. Which is a good indication this is a diversionary cult.

That's not how cults form. People don't just gather and form a cult. They are indoctrinated (brainwashed) into joining that cult. In almost all cases it's started by a few key people with the help of a leader who's usually charismatic but doesn't have to be. What he does have is a vision or a promise which people will believe for various reasons.

If you studies the psychology of cults you would know this, but like usual DrDeee you're running your mouth without any proof or knowledge of the subject you're pushing.

Shut your lying mouth.

 

[Drdeee]

That's not how cults form. People don't just gather and form a cult. They are indoctrinated (brainwashed) into joining that cult. In almost all cases it's started by a few key people with the help of a leader who's usually charismatic but doesn't have to be. What he does have is a vision or a promise which people will believe for various reasons.

If you studies the psychology of cults you would know this, but like usual DrDeee you're running your mouth without any proof or knowledge of the subject you're pushing.

Shut your lying mouth.

Here see for your self dumb ass


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVtEvplXMLs

 

[Rogue]

Once, back in my freshman year of college, I accidentally unwittingly joined a bonafide cult. It was cleverly disguised as a church (google "International Church of Christ"). There were red flags of a cult, mostly the heavy-handed psychological tactics, and a charismatic leader from afar. It was a big deal if you had other plans for an evening or just didn't feel like hanging out one night, and what I was lead to believe was simply hanging out invariably turned into intense sessions where I was the focus. I quit after two months because I just couldn't "get with the program." Afterwards, I realized I was gullible and this began my interest in critical thinking, skepticism, and atheism.

There is no reason why cults have anything to do with this discussion. Nada. No enchilada. Metaphors are rhetoric.