RADIATION - What's Best

zztop7

Member Sponsor
Dec 12, 2012
750
0
0
Edmonds, WA
#1

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
5,140
6
38
Boston, MA
#2
Wow
 

RayDunzl

New Member
Jun 26, 2014
290
0
0
Tampa
#3
Wrong.

Tsunami Wave Height, not radiation.

You guys have me believing you guys will believe anything around here.

honshu2011-globalmaxplot_ok.jpg
 
Feb 8, 2011
18,730
0
36
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
#4
Ray, did you read this article: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...-entire-pacific-ocean-and-its-going-get-worse

I live straight across Japan where that leak is happening. My west coast has numerous debris washing ashore from that tsunami.
I eat fish; salmon, tuna, ... from the Pacific Ocean. I swim, snorkel in the Pacific Ocean. I fish in the Pacific Ocean.
There are millions and millions of people living around the Pacific Ocean, and eating fish from it. Kids love fish. There are killer whales in my backyard, tons of bald eagles fishing in the Pacific.
 

RayDunzl

New Member
Jun 26, 2014
290
0
0
Tampa
#5
"Did you read..."

No.

Did you read http://phys.org/news/2016-06-fukushima-oceans-years.html.

Interesting point in the article:

"Uptake by marine life. In 2011, around half the fish samples in coastal waters off Fukushima had radiocesium levels above the Japanese 100Bq/kg limit, but by 2015 this had dropped to less than 1% above the limit. High levels are still found in fish around the FDNPP port. High levels of 131I were measured in fish in April 2011, but as this has a short radioactive half-life, it is now below detection levels. Generally, with the exception of species close to the FDNPP, there seem to be little long-term measurable effects on marine life.

For reference: The average radioactivity of bananas is 130 Bq/kg
 
Feb 8, 2011
18,730
0
36
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
#6
That's just over three months ago: June 30, 2016

Everyday scientists learn more...

"Despite this, we are still concerned that there is little support to continue assessments as time goes by, in particular from the US federal agencies which have not supported any ocean studies. This is not good, as public concern is ongoing, and we can learn a lot even when levels go down in the environment, and are no longer of immediate health concern".
Prof. Bernd Grambow, Director of SUBATECH laboratory, Nantes, France and leader of the research group on interfacial reaction field chemistry of the ASRC/JAEA, Tokai, Japan, commented: "This report is an excellent summary of the impact and the fate of the release of radioactive substances to the ocean. While the distribution and impact of radioactive material becomes clearer with time, a lot of work still needs to be done. Discharge flux rates of Cs-137 to the ocean continue to be in the range of some TBq/yr. Forest and soil bound Cs-137 is only slowly being washed away, with waste piles accumulating in many places.
The evolution of transfer mechanisms and the flux of radioactive material through soils, plants and food chain from land to ocean are still insufficiently understood and still deserve close attention of the international scientific community."

Explore further: http://phys.org/news/2016-06-radioactive-cesium-fallout-tokyo-fukushima.html
 
Last edited:
Feb 8, 2011
18,730
0
36
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
#7
https://dougmichaeltruth.wordpress....ion-level-event-that-no-one-is-talking-about/

http://www.planetextinction.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/21/mass-extinction-science-warning

http://bigthink.com/dangerous-ideas/5-stephen-hawkings-warning-abandon-earth-or-face-extinction

"According to the Federation of American Scientists there are still about 22,600 stockpiled nuclear weapons scattered around the planet, 7,770 of which are still operational. In light of the inability of nuclear states to commit to a global nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the threat of a nuclear holocaust has not subsided.

In fact, "the frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future," says Hawking, "We shall need great care and judgment to negotiate them all successfully."

______

♦♦ http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150323-how-long-will-life-on-earth-last
http://www.naturalnews.com/050127_human_extinction_Professor_Frank_Fenner_population_control.html
______

Status of World Nuclear Forces

More than two decades after the Cold War ended, the world's combined inventory of nuclear warheads remains at a very high level: more than 16,000. Of these, nearly 4,200 warheads are considered operational, of which about 1,800 US and Russian warheads are on high alert, ready for use on short notice.

Despite significant reductions in US, Russian, French and British nuclear forces compared with Cold War levels, all the nuclear weapon states continue to modernize their remaining nuclear forces and appear committed to retaining nuclear weapons for the indefinite future.

The exact number of nuclear weapons in each country's possession is a closely held national secret. Despite this limitation, however, publicly available information and occasional leaks make it possible to make best estimates about the size and composition of the national nuclear weapon stockpiles:

Status of World Nuclear Forces 2014*

Country Operational
Strategic Operational
Nonstrategic Reserve/
Nondeployed Military
Stockpile Total Inventory
Russia 1,600a 0b 2,700c 4,300 8,000d
United States 1,920e 184f
2,661g 4,765h 7,315i
France 290 n.a. ?j 300 300
China 0j ?k 250
250
250k
United Kingdom 160l n.a. 65 225 225l
Israel 0 n.a. 80 80 80m
Pakistan 0 n.a. 100-120 100-120 100-120n
India 0 n.a. 90-110 90-110 90-110o
North Korea 0 n.a. <10 <10 <10p
Total:q

~4,000 ~180 ~6,000 ~10,100 ~16,400
* All numbers are approximate estimates and further described in the Nuclear Notebook in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and the nuclear appendix in the SIPRI Yearbook. See also status and 10-year projection of U.S. and Russian forces. Additional reports are published on the FAS Strategic Security Blog. Unlike those publications, this table is updated continuously as new information becomes available. Current update: April 30, 2014.

a This number is higher than the aggregate data under the New START treaty because this table also counts bomber weapons at bomber bases as deployed. Detailed overview of Russian forces is here.
b All are declared to be in central storage. Several thousand retired non-strategic warheads are awaiting dismantlement.
c Includes all non-strategic warheads, strategic warheads assigned to delivery systems in overhaul, and most bomber weapons.
d In addition to the 4,300 in the military stockpile, 3,700 retired warheads are estimated to be awaiting dismantlement. Details are scarce, but we estimate that Russia is dismantling approximately 1,000 retired warheads per year.
e This number is higher than the aggregate data released under the New START data because this table also counts bomber weapons on bomber bases as deployed. See overview of U.S. forces here.
f Nearly 200 (probably 184) B61 bombs are deployed in Europe at six bases in five countries (Belgiium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey). For details, see here and here.
g Non-deployed reserve includes an estimated 2,360 strategic and 300 non-strategic warheads in central storage.
h The U.S. government declared in April 2014 that its stockpile included 4,804 warheads as of September 2013. Since then, a small number of warheads are thought to have been retired.
i In addition to the roughly 4,765 warheads in the military stockpile, approximately 2,500 retired warheads are awaiting dismantlement. In addition, close to 20,000 plutonium cores (pits) and some 5,000 Canned Assemblies (secondaries) from dismantled warheads are in storage at the Pantex Plant in Texas and Y-12 plant in Tennessee. For detailed overview of U.S. forces, see here.
j France has stated that it has no reserve, but it probably has a small inventory of spare warheads. For an update of the French nuclear posture, see this article.
k China is thought to have "several hundred warheads," far less than the 1,600-3,000 that have been suggested by some. None of the warheads are thought to be fully deployed but kept in storage under central control. The exstence of a Chinese non-strategic nuclear arsenal is uncertain. The Chinese arsenal is increasing with production of new warheads for DF-31/31A and JL-2 missiles. Detailed overview of Chinese forces is here.
l Of these "operationally available" warheads, “up to 48 warheads” are on patrol at any given time. The number of "operational missiles" on each sub will be reduced to "no more than eight" with 40 warheads in the next few years. By the mid-2020s, the stockpile will be reduced to "not more than 180." Detailed overview of British forces is here.
m Although Israel has produced enough plutonium for 100-200 warheads, the number of delivery platforms and estimates made by the U.S. intelligence community suggest that the stockpile might include approximately 80 warheads. Detailed overview of Israeli forces is here.
n None of Pakistan's warheads are thought to be deployed but kept in central storage, most in the southern parts of the country. More warheads are in production. Detailed overview here.
o Indian nuclear warheads are not deployed but in central storage. More warheads are in production. Detailed overview of Indian forces is here.
p Despite two North Korean nuclear tests, there is no publicly available evidence that North Korea has operationalized its nuclear weapons capability. A 2013 world survey by the U.S. Air Force National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) does not credit any of North Korea's ballistic missiles with nuclear capability.
q Numbers may not add up due to rounding and uncertainty about the operational status of the four lesser nuclear weapons states and the uncertainty about the size of the total inventories of three of the five initial nuclear powers.
 
Last edited:
#8
Latest news; not too good ... the robots are melting...they're going to need building better robots with stronger metal that doesn't melt. That's just to view the situation; it won't change the fact of a not so rosy future in dealing with the reduction of the contamination. Are they going to enclave the full premises under twelve feet thick walls and ceiling of hardcore concrete. What about underground.

https://gizmodo.com/the-fukushima-cleanup-is-progressing-but-at-a-painstak-1820587597/amp

 
#9
It's a total cluster F***k IMO.

Evidently, the worst contamination we have seen is from migrating Tuna. They are seeing contamination up and down the west coast, but low levels. Myself, I bought a radiation meter from Ukraine and I use it to sniff the food that I buy.

What dose a human can take and for how long depends on the human. Just because there are government standards doesn't make it safe. During WWII, the US had rear Admiral Rickover, who made sure that there were safe levels on the first nuclear submarines and later in power plants. The Russians on the other hand poisoned their submariners and had to let them "recover" off the submarine for months after each duty.

When Trump starts WWIII, there will be a lot of demand for radiation meters, lots of contamination. Better buy one now.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
 

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 26, 2015
2,553
0
36
Eastern WA
#10
I'm not sure I can follow into all of this because I don't like it, and don't have the ability to stop it. IMO any nuclear plant needs a fail safe system where they can literally smother any potential melt down. The again, I'm not big on nuclear power any way...
 
#11
I'm not sure I can follow into all of this because I don't like it, and don't have the ability to stop it. IMO any nuclear plant needs a fail safe system where they can literally smother any potential melt down. The again, I'm not big on nuclear power any way...
Actually the designs of nuclear power plants have been made very safe, but they have not built one for many years due to the political climate. Safety is not the only concern. Waste is also a huge concern. Most of the nuclear waste from power plants I believe is still stored on the power plant sites.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
 

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 26, 2015
2,553
0
36
Eastern WA
#12
Another reason I don't like them... I think we should shoot the waste into the sun. BUT we shouldn't be wasting something as finite as water.
 
#13
Another reason I don't like them... I think we should shoot the waste into the sun. BUT we shouldn't be wasting something as finite as water.
That would make nuclear power so expensive that even gerbils in roller-cages will be more economic...

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
 
#14
I am very very concerned with nuclear accidents...extremely. ...Japan (right here - Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster),
Russia (Chernobyl disaster), USA ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_the_United_States ) ... etc.

Anything with high level of active radiation, any accident, any atomic detonation, any nuclear race, anything to do with the destruction of our planet and the annihilation of the human race, anything hazardous, anything dangerous, anything chemical and oil spills, anything toxic to the air and the humans breathing that air I am extremely concerned.

I like people to be safe and healthy first. It is more valuable to have a sane and healthy planet for the people than the other way around.
Money is a good goal to have in life; plenty of it can buy more freedom and early retirement vacations...travelling the world in luxury yachts, cruise ships, jet planes, room & service, filet mignon 5 stars hotels, Bugattis, Lamborghinis, Ferraris, ... but interacting with the most beautiful people in the world won't get rid of the cancer killing millions.

It's better to sail safe in the biggest sail ship than sail with abandon and without doing anything about awareness.
Yes I know, we born, we live our life and we die. But what about the rest?
Should we be covered @ work if we are injured, and should we work first in preventing injuries?
That's the question; the risks we take are proportional to the potential financial gains.
Safety is not first in the real world; money is. Then, look @ the astronomical costs of trying to fix the accidents and repair the injuries of millions of people dead already and the ones condemned to die next...radio active people.

Albert Einstein said that man is using less than 1% of his brain (maybe 10% @ best), where is the rest? ...The 90 to 99% unused.
 

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 26, 2015
2,553
0
36
Eastern WA
#15
That would make nuclear power so expensive that even gerbils in roller-cages will be more economic...

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
Meh, it would give Elon Musk something to do... Frankly when it comes to world health I don't give a **** about expense vs. humans & animals being able to live a decent life. Surely there have to be other solutions. I don't like feeling like we live in a candle that we're burning on both ends.
 
#16
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/19/science/japan-fukushima-nuclear-meltdown-fuel.html






"The next step will be initiating the removal of the melted uranium fuel from one of the reactors, which is expected to get underway in 2021. That said, authorities have not yet selected which reactor will be addressed first. It’s expected to take between 30 and 40 years to finish cleaning up the plant, and the project will cost tens of billions of dollars."