Published: January 23rd, 2017 at 6:42 am ET
|
Royal Society of Chemistry, National Institute for Physics & Nuclear Engineering, Romania, 2015 (emphasis added): AMS analyses of I-129 from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in the Pacific Ocean waters of the Coast La Jolla, San Diego, USA — This paper presents the results of an experimental study we performed by using the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) method with iodine 129 (Halflife = 15.7 Million years], to determine the increase of the radionuclide content in the USA West Pacific Coast waters, two years after the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident… The results of the experiments showed a significant increase of the radionuclide concentration during the late spring of 2013. Compared to the isotopic ratio 129I/127I, measured at a 40 km distance, offshore of Fukushima and immediately after the accident, our results show an increase on the USA West Coast that was more than a 2.5 factor higher. Also, compared with the pre-Fukushima background values [in San Diego], our results show an isotopic ratio of about two orders of magnitude higher…
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant… released an enormous amount of liquid waste of 129I and other fission isotopes directly into the Pacific Ocean that were subsequently dispersed eastwards. This paper reports on the determination of the nuclear plume impact on the West Coast of the USA that happened during April–July 2013… The determined maximum 129I concentration increase was in an amount of more than 2 times greater than the concentration of the isotope measured offshore of Fukushima at a 40 km distance immediately after the accident…
129I concentrations were measured… from the ocean water of the West Coast of the USA [at] La Jolla, San Diego… This work reports two sudden increases of the 129I/127I isotopic concentration in the ocean water, which were observed at the end of spring 2013…
Our exploratory measurements on the USA West Coast started on samples collected at the beginning of 2013. The lowest 129I concentrations that we measured had values between [6-20 million] atoms per L. Such values correspond to the equilibrium concentration of iodine… offshore of La Jolla, San Diego…
Our results… measured offshore of Cove La Jolla, San Diego, USA, during the spring of 2013, are presented in Fig. 5. Two high and distinct spike maxima are visible. They reveal the maximum concentration values of [1.2 billion] atoms per L measured on May 24, 2013 and [1.7 billion] atoms per L measured on June 18, 2013, with 24 days in between. Both peaks occurred in the measurement spectrum after a slow increase in concentration that started about 15-20 days before the main increase…
Samples collected [by Fukushima Daiichi, Jun 2011] at a distance of about 40 km away from the coast [had] a maximum concentration value of [620 million] atoms per L for 129I in the surface water of the ocean. Taking into account this value as a reference value, the maximum 129-iodine concentration reaching the USA West Coast was 2.5 times stronger than in the contaminated ocean water offshore of Fukushima after the accident. If we compare it to the equilibrium value of 129I concentration in the ocean water [near San Diego], then during the impact its concentration was about 100 times higher…
AMS measurements of 129I were performed on ocean water… offshore of Cove La Jolla, San Diego, USA, and definitely have shown an increase of the radioactivity more than two orders of magnitude over the natural level of the Pacific Ocean before the accident…
Read study for free here ($50 at Royal Society of Chemistry)
Published: January 23rd, 2017 at 6:42 am ET
|
Related Posts
- Official Report: West Coast hit with 220,000,000 atoms per liter of Iodine-129 in rain after Fukushima — 15 Million year half-life — Detected in aquifer that supplies drinking water to large number of people — “Transported rapidly” to Canada and US — Elevated levels continued for many months February 17, 2016
- VIDEO: Significant amounts of Fukushima radiation detected on west coast — Nuclear Expert: Levels are 30 times worse than predicted… “and it’s just the beginning of the onslaught”; Scientists have no clue about what’s coming, their real goal was downplaying damage to Pacific May 9, 2015
- Senior Scientist: Fukushima radiation already on West Coast of N. America — We don’t know how much is coming or how fast it’s moving, situation ‘evolving’ — Levels will continue to rise for years — Unprecedented event for Pacific, largest ever radioactive release into ocean (VIDEO) January 15, 2014
- Fukushima Plume Arrives at West Coast — Expert: “If this was of greater health concern, we’d be very worried”; One model predicts levels over 1,000% higher than another, “this is not really acceptable” (GRAPHIC) February 25, 2014
- BREAKING: Fukushima nuclear waste detected along Southern California coast — Highest levels seen anywhere in North America since testing program began — 8.4 Bq/m3 of radioactive cesium measured near beach between Los Angeles and San Diego (VIDEO & MAP) August 25, 2015
100 times higher…
Report comment
The "100 times higher" quote from the journal article uses an 'equilibrium value'
Here are some other excerpts:
1) "Measurements of 129I were performed on ocean water… offshore of Cove La Jolla… and DEFINITELY HAVE SHOWN AN INCREASE OF THE RADIOACTIVITY MORE THAN TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE over the natural level of the Pacific Ocean before the accident"
2) "Compared with the pre-Fukushima background values [in San Diego], our results show an isotopic ratio of about two orders of magnitude higher"
Study Data:
Lower level before arrival: 6 million atoms of 129I per L
Peak level during arrival: 1.7 billion atoms of 129I per L
Peak level is over 280 times higher
Report comment
Thank you
The thousands of hours of efforts invested in this site are a blessing in my opinion.
Also I appreciate how this site has enabled so very many intelligent concerned people to share their knowledge over the years.
I have an account on youtube an google+ if you ever feel like chating.
Report comment
"Orders of magnitude higher."
Great, frying on the West Coast of the USA. And can't leave.
But there's probably nowhere to run, nowhere to hide from this.
Really not a happy prospect to consider this, esp. since the West Coast of N. America is now getting hammered with a lot more Strontium 90 and whatever else is in the waters offshore, N. Pacific Ocean.
"Welcome to the new age … I'm radioactive."
Report comment
http://www.huntfortruth.org/science/alternative-sources-of-lead-in-the-environment/leaded-gasoline/ It should be advised to limit dust baths to avoid toxic exposure to pollution.
Report comment
If you live in a wet climate, avoid the rain. If you live in a dry climate avoid the dust.
If you are hungry avoid the food.
Ban the damned leaf blowers forever. Who wants to stand around breathing the myriad chemicals that those things put into the air.
Be aware of the logical conclusion to all of this valuable information.
Report comment
Ima fit this right in here where it fits in…
Nine salmon and crab fisheries in Alaska, California and Washington suffered “sudden and unexpected large decreases in fish stock biomass or loss of access due to unusual ocean and climate conditions,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.
The fisheries include Gulf of Alaska pink salmon, California Dungeness and rock crab, and several tribal salmon fisheries in Washington.
http://courthousenews.com/disaster-declared-for-west-coast-fisheries/
Ahem, Ocean salmon troll fishery (2016)…
Report comment
"If we compare it to the equilibrium value of 129I concentration in the ocean water [near San Diego], then during the impact its concentration was about 100 times higher…" from the headlines
Report comment
This is why we continue to take iodine supplements daily. Nascent Iodine is a good one. Can't recommend a source at this time, but someone else probably can. We use Lugol's solution, but Nascent Iodine is probably better. Lugol's contains Potassium Iodide (part of the solution) which isn't the best option, we've read.
"Now they tell us" about the Iodine 129. But we've known about it here for a long time, right?
Steady drib, drab, drip of information. We need to be proactive in protecting ourselves, our loved ones, our health.
We're stuck with this mess for a virtual eternity.
Report comment
Why are all the releases here about levels years ago? That much red tape to release a study? More odd is that I can't even find relative locals who monitor (and post it).
Report comment
It is strange that Romania did the study. Is the US govt 'protecting us' by not releasing radiation data?
Report comment
Ya, things officially suck when you have to go to Russian Times, Romania, Al Jazeera to get real news.
Report comment
It has been that way for a long time.
Report comment
Ya Hotaters, quite a few years, pushing a decade of fake government, fake media.
Report comment
It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Report comment
Actually, it goes beyond just money, some types of dogma grab a huge hold of human psyche.
Report comment
Indeed stock..the human psyche received the biggest computer on this planet..except for the planet itself lol..
But unfortunately , that computer will run on any program that can be installed..even one to commit omnicide..and the topdog's computers on this planet running the show , writing the programs for the cattle computers..are infested with that..
Report comment
When the data suggests everyone is slowly dying then yes, it takes a lot of red tape. Can't have the world wake up to reality too quickly.
Report comment
Studies typically take several years to complete. Then the authors must go through the process of edits, technical edits, and publishing.
The normal timeframe for many publications to appear is two to five years. The timefram is dependent upon the complexity of the study, amount of data, amount of text, and several other factors.
There are also publishing deadlines to be met. The timeframe is related to the type of publication where the study is published. Publishing can take time, as well.
I'm not familiar with the peer review process, but this might be a factor as well.
Report comment
Studies typically take several years to complete. Then the authors must go through the process of edits, technical edits, and publishing.
The normal timeframe for many publications to appear is two to five years. The timefram is dependent upon the complexity of the study, amount of data, amount of text, and several other factors.
There are also publishing deadlines to be met. The timeframe is related to the type of publication where the study is published. Publishing can take time, as well.
I'm not familiar with the peer review process, but this might be a factor as well.
What I'm trying to say is there are several reasons studies take awhile to get out into the public domain.
Report comment
Note the publication date is 2015. Seeing the study in early 2017 really isn't bad, considering the date of publication.
Things tend to move slowly in government and in the academic sectors.
Studies typically take several years to complete. Then the authors must go through the process of edits, technical edits, and publishing.
The normal timeframe for many publications to appear is two to five years. The timefram is dependent upon the complexity of the study, amount of data, amount of text, and several other factors.
There are also publishing deadlines to be met. The timeframe is related to the type of publication where the study is published. Publishing can take time, as well.
I'm not familiar with the peer review process, but this might be a factor as well.
What I'm trying to say is there are several reasons studies take awhile to get out into the public domain.
Report comment
Sorry for the multiple posts. Kept getting the "database error" message & didn't know the first post had gone through. Apologies.
Report comment
Fukushima Day 2145.
They have to say something sometime, even if it's dumbed down lies. For any also interested to Get the Rad Word Out:
Fukushima Business Cards 4 U! And everyone else, too!!
http://tinyurl.com/fukushimabusinesscard4u
These nifty 2-sided cards are easy to print and pass out.
Or leave randomly, where ever you please. Distribute liberally.
P.S. Welcome back Admin!!!
Report comment
August 2012 "31 times as much Iodine-129 than I-131 from Fukushima.
The EPA document “Health Risks from Low-Level Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides” (available here) indicates the mortality risk for I-129 is about 3 times that of I-131. This is mainly from thyroid cancer."
http://optimalprediction.com/wp/31-times-as-much-iodine-129-than-i-131-from-fukushima/
Report comment
Comments in 'optimalprediction' link has informative info, also he has charts there.
Report comment
OK, so a leading question here is, if there is so much more Iodine 129 on the West Coast of N. America, what is it doing to risk of Thyroid Cancer?
What do our Thyroid Cancer stats show? We know there has been a huge increase in Thyroid Cancers in Japan, especially in areas close to
FDNPP #1.
What is the known increase near FDNPP #1? A six-fold, or 600% + increase?
How long is the latency period for exposure to I129? Is it the same, or longer than exposure to I131? Has anyone looked at this? Is it even possible to determine which of these isotopes has caused a cancer?
All worthwhile questions to consider, IMHO. Wondering what Chris Busby may have to say about this.
Report comment
I would also like to state that since there is such an increase in I-129 it's reasonable to assume there a lot more of everything else as well….
Report comment
Absolutely, you are spot on, theworldisalie. Yes, there is surely a LOT of other drek out there, along with the toxic radioactive Iodine.
Those of us who were alive during the atmospheric weapons testing era are getting a double-whammy now, here on the West Coast.
I suppose it's bad everywhere. There is no getting away from this mess.
Report comment
HoTaters, I guess I will take the que; its the toxicity, not the amount of radiation. The amount of radiation from the nuclear test era is considered less than one percent of background radiation, and only peaked at some 5%. Current estimates are that Fukushima is less than the bomb test era. SimplyInfo compares to Chernobyl here
http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=11668
Report comment
Just meant for some of us, there has been a lot of cumulative exposure.
Report comment
HoTaters, the cumulative exposure is there, I agree completely. But it is also there for the natural internal radiation and the radon and cosmic rays. The cumulative radiation exposure to natural sources is much higher than from fallout for anybody but those closest to nuclear disasters. So the question becomes one of toxicity, not radiation exposure…as measured in radiation decay events. Its a crucial point and must be understood if one is going to debate effectively
Report comment
It's hard to say what has transpired since atmospheric weapons testing ended. Toxicity, yes.
And every individual's circumstance and response is different. And exposure.
Exposure is, in some sense, like genetic roulette. And only predictable across a broad sample population size.
The idea of "one percent above background levels is not meaningful."
What comprises background levels? Like comparing gerbils and gorillas.
Report comment
The quotes were supposed to be around "background levels."
Report comment
well…HoTaters, if one listens to mainstream science…and everyone does, then background radiation and cesium from Fukushima are on about an equal footing, toxicity wise, while background is 1000x more, by measured radioactive decays. If you look at bioaccumulation, there are some very high numbers…up to 10,000x and higher. But for most organisms, and even the tested plankton, the bioaccumulation is only in the tens of times. So bioacummulation alone does not explain why fukushima fallout could be destroying the ocean life. Even the ECRR coefficients raise the toxicity to a level approximately equal to background. Yet life flourished with background radiation and the ocean was not full of starving, dying and deformed animals. Scientists therefor conclude that theorized climate change must be the reason, and they discount approximately 10,000 hiroshima bombs of fallout from Fukushima. That is why we look at the toxicity of background radiation. It appears to be far less toxic than assumed by the ICRP which deduces toxicity from bomb victims… Some forms of radiation may be not harmful, in the over all balance of biology. Its an important point
Report comment
theworldisalie,…the paper states that over all, radiation is about 10 bq/m^3 in the ocean from fallout. Concluding that the radiation is 1000 bq/m3 based on the Iodine spike is probably an error.
The atoms per liter has to be converted to becquerels and then some toxicity assigned to it in order to be meaningful.
Report comment
What I'm stating is that it isn't just Iodine, it's all the others as well, which isn't ever going to be anything else than bad. Right?
Elevated levels of the one, you can assume the others are there which equals toxic shit for everyone.
Report comment
I agree completely theworldisalie. All the bad stuff is there in the fukushima fallout. Individually bad, collectively bad, and bad in unknown ways along the biological cycle. the question might be the numbers. if you were to talk radiation numbers with a Buesseler type, then the argument doesnt hold up unless you can quantify the toxicity.
My conversion attempt was .0024 bq per cubic meter of the iodine. Lets say I messed up and its 10x that, 0.024 bq/m3. Now you add in all the other stuff, hundreds of isotopes, mainly the consideration is C-137 and strontium…they know that from Chernobyl research…but not to discount I-131 and 129 and plutonium…but it all adds up to maybe 10 to 15 bq/m3. If memory serves, chernrobyl fallout was 60 bq/m3 in the black sea. And now if you want to see what that means, the typical, ubiquitous thing is to compare to what is already there, since life began. And its 12,000 bq/m3. So about one thousand times more natural radiation than fukushima radiation. You can start to debate the bioaccumulation and whatever, but in fact it is very hard to debate this toxicity thing on either subconscious level…i.e. radiation=danger, or the actual toxicity numbers given. Fallout would have to be thousands of times worse than background…for an EQUAL amount of radiation. And so it is. You are up against the science community. All the studies are not in, all the science has not been completed, all the mechanisms are not known.
Report comment
And likely the Fukushima fallout is orders of magnitude worse since it comes from spent fuel, not a bomb/weapon. So many more nasties in there….
Report comment
Pardon me, some of the fuel was not spent, or was partially spent.
Report comment
HoTaters, good points all. Nevertheless, when looking at numbers, comparing becquerels to becquerels…then one has to defend in a debate. Fortunately we have the ECRR. How much worse are these nasties? roughly 1000x worse than mainstream science says. Enough to bring it up to background level of which there is 1000 times more. That is why we look at the toxicity of background radiation. Its probably much less toxic than assumed, on the whole, and an important part of the equation and debate
Report comment
Please forgive my ignorant question. If the different types of radiation sources can be determined, why can't the background radiation be graphed by man-made vs natural. Is this obfuscation or can it not be separated?
Report comment
Hi Dazy. Mainstream science has determined the radiation from background and fallout. The measurements are probably not in dispute. The toxicity for a given amount of radiation is in question. For example, the percentage of radioactive isotope K-40 in potassium is fixed and known and the amount of potassium is fixed and known in the body. This is the highest internal source of radiation and makes us about five times as radioactive as the ocean, from the same source, potassium. So if there is about 10 bq per cubic meter in the ocean from Fukushima fallout, there is 12,000 bq/m3 from potassium and the body has roughly 75,000 bq/m3 from potassium. No obfuscation. The scientists and also pro and anti nukers in general have a tendency to equate a certain amount of radioactivity to a certain danger level. This assumption does not hold for low level radiation. Its the unquestioned adherence of the science community to their derived toxicity levels that allows the nuclear industry to exist. The scientists believe what they are taught
Report comment
So it is then a case of biased unquestioning science which is challenging to argue against, much like any other zealotry.
Toxicity is the argument? When nearly every polluting agency is self regulating and we have to suffer their supportive data? You do make things difficult to rebut (which I appreciate). I'll keep working on it.
Report comment
It would be easy to use statistics to prove, well, any point but it's such a wonky math I really don't like to use it.
Report comment
Dazy, I think epidemiology is the best thing because biology, the ecosystem and radiation effects are too complicated to study in isolation.
What is the standard by which science puts radiation into perspective and uses to explain its toxic hazard? Background radiation. Isnt it fair that they should test the toxicity of background before making the comparison to fallout? In fact they have been studying it. Radon, cosmic radiation, and terrestrial gamma. Results are almost entirely ambiguous, and one study shows no effect when k-40 radiation is increased 100x, and little effect when increased 1000x. Note that would be a level a million times more radioactive than fallout in the ocean. Other studies show reduced health when background dose is eliminated as much as possible. So science says its all too ambiguous and they stick with extrapolated toxicity from Hiroshima bomb survivors. This puts cesium and potassium on a nearly equal footing. The reality is they may be infinitely different in biological effect at all relevant doses
Report comment
Code, on page 1 of Google search for Concentration Factor of Strontium is this
https://healfukushima.org/2016/02/16/a-scientific-basis-for-destruction-of-ocean-food-chain-via-radiation/
Report comment
excellent stock
Report comment
Code: "…they may be infinitely different in biological effect at all relevant doses"
Indeed. And on all relevant systems. Scrambled DNA, anyone?
Report comment
Normally it takes 5 years for solid cancers to begin appearing after exposure to radio-iodine but high radioactive fallout exposure to locals and any one caught in the plumes increases the risks. Spikes in thyroids problems and bones cancers already have taken place faster than expected. Studies should begin being reported soon after the five year Daiichi anniversary due to the publishing lag times.
Report comment
Did Obewan post a link to the cancer statistics? Thought so, but am not sure who it was. Someone (several people) posted very good info. on cancer statistics here in the past 2 years.
Report comment
Ya Hotaters, because of the long half life of I129 (stick around basically forever in the thyroid, delivering continuous "insults") it doesn't kill quickly. A quick kill is the "benefit" of the I131 as the thyroid is destroyed and medical intervention occurs.
In the I129 scenario…the damage, the "insult to biology" is ongoing, forever, basically.
"they" hate I129 as much as Strontium 90, and so cover it up, down play it. Not just shame on them….Nuremberg Trials for them. 99% of people are forced to trust them, the Sheeple do not have economic time available to understand, and some don't have the ability to understand….so they must trust, those that lie.
Report comment
Keep your levels of "good iodine" up. I use a pill format if not eating kelp in food.
For the healthy people that add little salt to their diet, and consume a large amount of vegetables, you may very well BE IODINE DEFICIENT. Half of the US states have low levels of iodine in the soil, so the big veggie eaters don't get enough iodine.
Also, check your salt, my salt had no iodine added.
stock out
Report comment
You can purchase sea salt with iodine.
Report comment
I read that the iodine in salt evaporates mostly out in not a long time. I told a Dr that when he questioned why I was taking iodine. Detected a faint surprise in his face.
Report comment
Plowboy, of course, I respect doctors and entering that time of life where I probably need them more than once every 3 years. But they are a product of the system. As smart as they are, they are also brainwashed.
Report comment
http://enenews.com/florida-highest-iodine-131-reading-ctbto-monitoring-station-world-march-22-23-charts
http://enenews.com/epa-florida-rain-has-third-most-cs-134-and-fifth-most-i-131-of-any-samples-taken-in-us
Report comment
Time lapse 3-12-11 to 3-29-ll or thereabouts http://db.eurad.uni-koeln.de/prognose/data/alert/ra_animation.gif
Report comment
Found on http://enenews.com/florida-highest-iodine-131-reading-ctbto-monitoring-station-world-march-22-23-charts
Report comment
So all of our assumptions about the behavior of the plume(s) are blown to Hell by the data from transport to the Southern Hemisphere, Austrialia? Looks like it.
Report comment
What assumptions are your referring to, HoTaters? The separation of the air patterns of northern and southern hemispheres?
Report comment
Are they, who are 'they' saying Iodine 129 is "rare"? IF so, that is a misleading outright LIE that condones the now MEGA BURNING of nuclear waste from Fukushima, China's new burning /reprocessing nuke shit, Hanfords ongoing recent catastrophes..
Iodine 127 is naturally occurring. The only naturally occurring isotope of iodine is stable iodine-127.
Stable, nonradioactive iodine, the most abundant iodide isotope found in nature; dietary deficiency causes simple goiter; used to block thyroid uptake of radioactive iodine released from nuclear accidents.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/iodine+127
Data from 2013? How about since 1945..
Report comment
Well… Ken Buesseler did say the majority went into the Pacific..why settle for anything less??
After all, there have been weak predictions…
Gov’t Expert: West Coast will soon be hit by 800 Trillion Bq of Fukushima Cesium-137 — Nearly equal to amount of fallout deposited on Japan — Levels in Pacific “higher than expected” — “Main body of surface plume has reached off coast of US” — Never slowed down while crossing ocean, contrary to prediction
http://enenews.com/govt-expert-west-coast-will-be-hit-800-trillion-bq-fukushima-cesium-137-equal-amount-fallout-deposited-japan-levels-pacific-higher-expected-main-body-surface-plume-reached-coast-never-slow
Report comment
The problem is that cores are still fissioning below the surface of the earth and and mixing in with ocean water because the geology below the reactors is not bedrock but porous limestone.
And the fission products are probably nothing ever seen on earth or in a cyclotron. Reminds me of the 'Sorcerer's Apprentice.' Only it will keep getting worse for the next 250,000 years.
Report comment
pretty much yeah, a real witches brew that keeps on giving….:-(
Report comment
It is all so radioactive that they cannot even test for all the new radioisotopes.
Hell in a handbasket.
Report comment
Fukushima Disaster Update, April 2015
“Yoichi Shimatsu, Dana Durnford & Jeff Rense, April 13th, 2015.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlcyYGReNbE
Report comment
Top US Nuclear Physicist: “Iodine-131 will be lethal after ingestion of 30 billionths of a gram” — Main worry is not a Chernobyl-type accident, rather it’s a melt-through of containment vessel — “Not possible to disprove China Syndrome”
By ENENews, on April 13th, 2015
http://enenews.com/top-nuclear-physicist-iodine-131-will-be-lethal-after-ingestion-30-billionths-gram-main-worry-chernobyl-type-accident-melt-containment-vessel-possible-disprove-china-syndrome
Report comment
time to let your PhD education shine anne…put your math and nuclear education to work; How much ocean water equals a lethal dose of I-129?
Report comment
You can't dilute radionuclides with water.
Report comment
129I decays with a half-life of 15.7 million years, with low-energy beta and gamma emissions, to xenon-129 (129Xe).[8]
Wikipedia
Report comment
In the book Hiroshima to Fukushima, the author states that all high energy radiation is inimical to life.
Before the atomic era, life was just barely able to exist with background radiation. One 1912 study show 15% occurrence of leukemia from background radiation.
Life has no way to handle all the high energy radiation or even a very small part. No mechanisms exist to handle high energy radiation.
Report comment
TYPO; not 1912, but 2012
Report comment
Anne, if you are DR Anne with education in nuclear, then you should have calculated the volume of water containing a lethal dose as given in your link. Why didnt you do it? See further down the thread for my attempt. I dont have education in nuclear, so the onus should be more on you
Further, I call this misleading bunk, "Before the atomic era, life was just barely able to exist with background radiation. One 2012 study show 15% occurrence of leukemia from background radiation." Radiation was much higher in primordial times, and there cant be a 15% occurrence of leukemia from background. If you use the title of Doctor, then you should live up to it.
Report comment
“While our ancestors have been around for about six million years, the modern form of humans only evolved about 200,000 years ago. Civilization as we know it is only about 6,000 years old, and industrialization started in the earnest only in the 1800s.Jan 19, 2015”
http://www.universetoday.com/38125/how-long-have-humans-been-on-earth/
primordial times are billions of years ago, and human were not able to live then. Also potsssium is very, very low energy radiation, and some people consider it to act on people very nearly like a stable isotope.
And calculating the amount of water won't help you if you eat sea food with lethal radioactive isotopes.
Report comment
thanks for the bafflegab doctor, but Ive had quite enough already, thanks
Report comment
Ya Code, I was thinking same thing about Anne, the vacuous stuff she is saying, right under the Doctor.
A doctor of ANY field should be able to think enough and know when they know enough and when they don't
Shame shame
Report comment
As usual, just an empty attack without any links or any subject matter.
The vast majority of all the scientists in the world agree on climate warming, but you are a denier.
Most people know that nuclear weapons are extremely lethal, and yet you favor nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon production.
Do you really want Scott Walker, governor of the state of Wisconsin for president? Well, the vast majority of Americans do not agree with your.
Some people root for all the wealthy people. My concern for the poor is the opposite of your politics.
Report comment
why do you do it Anne? "you favor nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon production." Why, why why why why??
Report comment
She does it because she's a profoundly stupid zealot living in a cartoonishly simplistic fantasy world, a hate-filled and hateful abuser giving free reign to her neuroses and delusions in the only arena she can get away with slander, vile insinuation and outright un-substantiable accusation to the point of criminality.
That one should be in the dock answering to charges.
Report comment
lease do not slander me. I do not have hatred for anyone. I just feel sorry for all the children of the world and everyone else.
stock once said that he wasn't against nuclear weapons. Why is Code answering for him? Has stock changed his mind? Why can't he just say he is no longer for nuclear weapons? What is so difficult about that?
Slandering me when I've done nothing wrong. It is you who uses the h. word all the time, not me.
I love you or-well. Please let stock explain himself. Attacking me does nothing positive for this website. Making false accusations when all I've talked about is someone's political position or position on nuclear weapons is not a criminal offense.
I've not said horrible things about anyone. Many people in the country including the most in the government are in favor of nuclear weapons. So just what was wrong with saying that. And you still haven't corrected me. Is stock for nuclear weapons or not?
Report comment
TYPO: Please…
I was replyomg to horrible attack
http://enenews.com/experts-us-hit-with-sudden-spikes-of-rare-radioactive-material-from-fukushima-has-15-7-million-year-half-life-orders-of-magnitude-rise-in-levels-on-west-coast-much-higher-amounts-than-de/comment-page-1#comment-817027
ATTACK #10,232
Report comment
You're a liar in denial, always gaslighting and deflecting. Your perfidy is in black on white on years of pages here.
Your own words condemn you.
Report comment
ATTACK #10,233.
You are talking about yourself, not me.
Report comment
Ah, so I see PT, you have been recruited an provide the dossier on "stock"
I see clearly now.
BTW troll bot….CO2 "tax" hurts the poor the most.
Those buying into the fight carbon lie, and also hurting the poor the most. reality!
Report comment
Methane is many times worse than CO2 for global warming. And nuclear energy is the worst for global warming.
Report comment
If we no longer have clean air to breathe with enough oxygen, there will be no life left on the planet.
Report comment
Dr Anne, Huffpost is calling you. Why not go there? You will have many followers.
Please go Anne
Report comment
Aha, Code; sure, cannot dilute iodine with water, BUT, can one dilute it with salt?
I would say so.
Anybody; prove me wrong. I'll be busy, yet will check in as I can.
Report comment
Can't answer the question. The CDC has a statement here that makes sense "Table salt and foods rich in iodine do not contain enough iodine to block radioactive iodine from getting into your thyroid gland. Do not use table salt or food as a substitute for KI." Well, maybe it doesn't make sense altogether. https://emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/ki.asp
Report comment
Plowboy….I believe that is in an emergency situation…then you need KI pills.
Why did the Japanese fair so well after the nuke bombs…..because of kelp. they eat a lot of kelp.
Report comment
Doctor! compose yourself. Your rantings of "radioactive ispotopes never seen before" are drivel. They go against a policy of an effective and powerful anti-nuclear source.
You state so often that you are anti-nuclear, that I question that premise. Stand down geriatric bot. Be gone. stock carries the bully pulpit like the Donald, stand down.
Report comment
I did quote a link and a source, Yoichi Shimatsu in April, 2015.
And no one can reach the coria to document what is happening. It is interacting with ocean water which is not only salt but extremely polluted, and all with the metal from the reactor containment.
Report comment
Yo Anne bot, you are confusing your "attackers" I said nothing about you not having a link, yet that is your "counter non argument'
With $1M I could easily put a gamma scint right on the corium. They don't want to. Basic.
Shame on you bot "Grandma"
Stand down
Your actions are against the cause.
Report comment
You did attack me. And I'm telling you that I got information from Yoichi Shimatsu.
stock
January 23, 2017 at 10:55 pm • Reply
Doctor! compose yourself. Your rantings of "radioactive ispotopes never seen before" are drivel. They go against a policy of an effective and powerful anti-nuclear source.
http://enenews.com/experts-us-hit-with-sudden-spikes-of-rare-radioactive-material-from-fukushima-has-15-7-million-year-half-life-orders-of-magnitude-rise-in-levels-on-west-coast-much-higher-amounts-than-de/comment-page-1#comment-817091
Report comment
Here is my statement. And I followed it with my source.
Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar
January 23, 2017 at 2:50 pm · Reply
It is all so radioactive that they cannot even test for all the new radioisotopes.
Hell in a handbasket.
Repo
Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar
January 23, 2017 at 2:56 pm · Reply
Fukushima Disaster Update, April 2015
“Yoichi Shimatsu, Dana Durnford & Jeff Rense, April 13th, 2015.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlcyYGReNbE
Report comment
And here are the links:
http://enenews.com/experts-us-hit-with-sudden-spikes-of-rare-radioactive-material-from-fukushima-has-15-7-million-year-half-life-orders-of-magnitude-rise-in-levels-on-west-coast-much-higher-amounts-than-de/comment-page-1#comment-816972
http://enenews.com/experts-us-hit-with-sudden-spikes-of-rare-radioactive-material-from-fukushima-has-15-7-million-year-half-life-orders-of-magnitude-rise-in-levels-on-west-coast-much-higher-amounts-than-de/comment-page-1#comment-816974
Report comment
Anne
Shame on your lies shame shame.
Jesus detests lies….and I call you out on that, I don't thin you are genuine. Especially because of the lies
Report comment
Poor girl you either need new armor or some new meds or a new babysitter…
Why is everyone always attacking you?
I'll leave that to the babysitter you call your Dr. to decide.
You are definitely offtopic and off your rocker as far as I can tell…
Find a appropriate forum for your political he said she said crap…
Let me help you ole wallpapering dissension and complaining Dr…
https://www.debatewars.net
Dr. of whining that can't seem to even find a appropriate place to post it out of the thousands of sites that you (may could) actually educate someone…
Enough is enough.
Report comment
I told you, it is just one person who posts with many identities or it is him and his friend.
The attacks are a distraction because over the last 6 years, I have posted many articles on radiation and the nuclear industry.
And it was me that said that you can't get near the corium to know the present witches' brew.
There is no reason to keep attacking unless you are pro Nuke. If I remember correctly you do like nuclear weapons.
Report comment
Here is my website, and I have a ton of work and research to finish it.
http://www.envinfo.org
Report comment
Anne, go away, go to Huffpost.
Go now. stock out.
Report comment
So are you telling me that someone is impersonating you on ENE?
People are moving across the country to live near you and spy on you?
Is this what you are saying?
Report comment
Dr Anne is confused…
…as usual.
A deterrent is not a like…
I like shooting and am a expert certified. I blow up milk jugs and shoot paper targets and skeet plates with joy and impunity!
I DON'T shoot living things.
But, woh be unto the dumbass that invades my home with bad intent.
There ya go, so if I can do this (and am well known for it).
https://youtu.be/0FbUMqoyjDw
…how many idiots do you think will challenge me?
This is what we (sane folks) call a deterrent.
How much is enough, how many do you need? How many people are being effected by the simple production of Nukes?
NO MORE NUKES!!!! NO MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS EVER!
STOP ALL NUCLEAR POWER AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS PRODUCTION NOW!!!
I just can't make it any clearer!
It seems many are intent in finding fault in someone else and in so doing reveal their own morbid desire for the world to be a bad place. VERY sad and we've all witnessed your personal disregard for the world today and our officials in it without any respect for real efforts or real future possibilities.
According to you (Anne) we should impeach our newly elected president asap, a very sad outlook and ignorance of the facts while clinging to soap opera myth… Oh yea and we'll even send a robot carrying a SCL down to the blobs at Fukushima too huh. That's insane fairy tales.
A business man as president may be exactly what we need today but you won't even wait to see the evidence.
VERY sad…
Report comment
Shame on Anne, shame shame.
There are no "new isotopes" from Fukushima. Lack of knowledge, and lack of wanted to provide "real news'
Anne wants to degrade this site….she has
shame shame
Report comment
You have no proof. No one can even get to the corium. And Fukushima has no precedent.
Also Yoichi Shimatus has been to Fukushima a number of times And he interviews many people.
If you disagree with him., please write to rense and leave me alone.
Report comment
I have proof you can't get anything near any of the reactors, much less the blobs…
You like apples?
Robot 'DIES' 3 Hours After Entering Japan's Radioactive Reactor:
https://youtu.be/rAuAm1L-Bo0
…how do ya like those apples.
Report comment
Yep and gonna quote 3 (count em 3) people that don't and won't tell the truth and then think anyone can get ANYTHING even close to those cauldrons of hell we call Fukushima blobs…
The hundredth monkey washing a sweet potato in gasoline (misinformation) instead of water (real information) and then eating it up…
Report comment
A plutonium ..ETC.
Gov’t Report: Plutonium at 1,000,000 Bq/m3 was detected in ocean off Fukushima — “Contaminated waters will be transported rapidly to east” across Pacific — This is “the most important direct liquid release of artificial radioactivity into sea ever known” — Scientists: “Remember, its not just cesium that’s released”
March 27 2015
http://enenews.com/govt-report-1000000-bqm3-plutonium-detected-ocean-fukushima-contaminated-waters-transported-rapidly-east-across-pacific-fukushima-crisis-important-direct-liquid-release-artificial-radioactivity
Report comment
ADD.. plutonium.
And now for a soothing break for normalcy bias, as the masses are told.. the contamination is not harmful to biological entities.
Report comment
129I….oh there be other rare ones with that junk too. Naaaaaa..
Report comment
the scientists use this information about the numbers of atoms of I-129 in a liter of ocean water to scoff at what they think is the ignorance and foolish fear of the public. Again, and every time, they compare this radioactivity to background level and say it is safe. Only by scientifically proving that their coefficients of toxicity are in error will such information form an anti nuclear argument. Otherwise, predictions of doom only fuel their ridicule. The main scientific community has been operating on the outdated ICRP LNT model which has been proven and also admitted to be in error.
Report comment
here I try to put the atoms per liter into perspective. Warning; I might have made an error, so check it yourselves!
I come up with an equivalent of .0024 bq per cubic meter of ocean water, equal to the amount of radiation from K-40 in one gram of soil.
If 3x 10-8 grams is lethal then I get 82 cubic meters is lethal dose. This strikes me as incorrect, but if so, imagine how many lethal doses in the ocean.
The problem is the ICRP LNT dose model.
ICRP does not consider the effect of low level radiation on non fatal cancer, infant mortality or morbidity, heart disease or general reduction in health, and underestimates toxicity by a gross amount.
The European Committee on Radiation Risk puts I-131 about 5x worse than the ICRP model but nuke fallout generally 600 to 1000x worse. The ECRR considers the ICRP to over estimate background radiation toxicity.
ECRR calculates about 50 times more cancer deaths than the ICRP model and infinitely higher infant mortality which is given as about 1/30 the cancer death rate
the difference is shown in deaths from the nuclear test program. ICRP predicts a loss of 1,170,000 lives and ECRR estimates 61,600,000 lives
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1523/ML15239A858.pd
Report comment
should have said If 3x 10-8 grams of I-129 is lethal then I calculate that in 82 cubic meters of ocean. No guarantee my conversion is accurate!
Busby says something interesting about radioactive iodine; "the metabolic and cell repair status controls exercised by the
thyroid gland are the reason why Iodine has been incorporated into living systems and is employed as a kind of radiation-repair control mechanism" (Busby and Schnug 2008). One could say that is a kind of hormesis function, even though elsewhere, perhaps generally speaking other than iodine, "The Committee provisionally concludes that hormesis may exist, but if
it does exist its long-term effects are likely to be harmful"
Report comment
Code, not sure if you ever got the radiation messes with the gut flora, and thus the immune system, thus letting every disease take a better shot at you.
lol somewhere on my site, got the real science on this.
Report comment
stock, I read your page on gut microbes, thanks. Keep the people on track…there is an entire world, including all the scientists, pro and anti nuckers which need to be educated if anything but economics or cataclysm is going to shut down nuclear. Thats a big job to educate the worlds scientists!
Report comment
Shit Code bro….I took 14 relatives to Vegas for fun, it was like herding cats, but I pulled it off. LOL
Report comment
Similar happens with the gut flora when taking antibiotics, as most probably know.
Report comment
Plowboy, ya I just got that into my head this year. Most don't know or even think about it.
Report comment
I think it was a Dr Mercola article someone linked to that said poor gut flora may be a factor in Parkinson's disease. If nuclear radiation hurts the flora then it may be responsible for taking down three of my family members.
Once again, fuck nuclear.
I always take a bunch of probiotics after getting drunk. I figure alcohol can kill off your flora too. Especially at the concentrations I experience when I do decide to drink more than an occasional beer. At those times, my gut flora write the EPA.
Report comment
I think Dr Anne posted the link
Report comment
Ya Uni, if you choose to drink you also need to choose Kimchee
Report comment
The population near Fukushima was subject to massive amounts of different types of radioactive Iodine isotopes, not just Iodine-131, plus huge amounts of radioactive Cesium which can also cause Thyroid cancer. The reports below clearly reveal just how large the Iodine-131 fallout was, just after Fukushima.
26.06.2013 – After two years the April 2011 radioactive Iodine I-131 deposition for part of eastern Japan has been released. The maps show contamination by radioactive iodine in the 400 square kilometer area around Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, and are based on the analysis of aerial surveys done by the US Department of Energy on April 2 and 3 in 2011.
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/jaea-and-us-dept-of-energy-maps-of.html
Report comment
Now look at this 2011 radioactive Iodine-129 detection report at Fukushima Medical University.
Reported on the 14th June 2013:
“1.19 million becquerels/kg of radioactive iodine detected on leafy vegetables near Fukushima Medical University in March 2011. Being aware of this high radioactive iodine detection, Fukushima Medical University distributed potassium iodide pills to the doctors and nurses. The report points out that potassium iodine pills were not distributed to local men, women, and children. This university is located just south of Fukushima City.”
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/fukushima-medical-university.html
Report comment
Most people are not aware there are lots of different types of radioactive Iodine fallout isotopes besides I-131, because the main stream media only focuses on I-131.
The two years the April 2011 radioactive Iodine I-131 deposition report I posted above only focused on the huge releases of I-131, and did not include other radioactive Iodine isotope types that were released from the Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe site, at the time!
I would also like to point out that five years on, radioactive Iodine-131 is still being detected in local sewage sludge, which suggests there are still ongoing criticalities happening at the site.
It would be logical to suggest that locations that had fallout detections of Iodine I-131 from Fukushima, eg. Japan, Southern California (In kelp), San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Europe etc., should include all the versions of radioactive Iodine fallout, to get the true total of radioactive Iodine fallout exposure.
Report comment
Most people are not aware there are 36 different types of radioactive iodine and most of these are produced as a byproduct of a fission reaction, from either nuclear weapons testing, nuclear power plants or a nuclear accident.
Report comment
Interesting for comparison…
Isotopic ratio of radioactive iodine (129I/131I) released from Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident
https://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/GJ/pdf/4604/46040327.pdf
Report comment
the average isotopic ratio was estimated to be 129I/131I = 31.6
as of March 15, 2011. So the next thing is to find the estimate of I131 release…and multiply by 31. I think I-131 was roughly 10x the cesium release. Japan is the new Belarus. So is the pacific ocean. Sadly the stupified scientists can only contemplate climate change theory
Report comment
Why doesn't Kenny have this up on his wood hole page?
Input of I-129 into the western Pacific Ocean resulting from the Fukushima nuclear event.
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/591692.pdf
W/my old op sys, I had to dload it to read it…
Report comment
How do you calculate a continous dose?
The atmospheric transport of iodine-129 from Fukushima to British Columbia, Canada and its deposition and transport into groundwater
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015WR017325/full
If I seperate the backround I-129 of atmospheric testing, from Fukushima's I-129, on paper, does that make Fukushima's I-129, less of an accumulating dose?
One can divide to conquer, but the result is always the sum of the parts.
Report comment
Jebus: "How do you calculate a continuous dose?'
DOH! Don't think I've seen one of those calculations!
Too cheap to meter?
Report comment
Speciation of 127I and 129I in atmospheric aerosols at Risø, Denmark:
insight into sources of iodine isotopes and their species transformations
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/1971/2016/acp-16-1971-2016.pdf
Report comment
Curious…
Iodine-129 as an Oceanic Tracer
Issue Date: 2016
Embargo until 20-Sep-2017
Release after 20-Sep-2017
A seawater ¹²⁹I monitoring program was instituted with seawater samples from Scripps Pier, La Jolla, California, USA a few months after the Great East Japan Earthquake, which involved the accidental release of substantial amounts of ¹²⁹I from the Fukushima Daichi nuclear power plant. These data were used to construct a 4-year record of surface water ¹²⁹I with monthly resolution. ¹²⁹I in Hanford site vicinity is also surveyed to understand the background value of the California Current System. It is clear that the California Current System is influenced by the Hanford site which can explain the higher ¹²⁹I/¹²⁷I background values observed along the west coast of the U.S. compared to other surface sites in the Pacific Ocean. Our result shows that the highly contaminated seawater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident has not yet seen at the Scripps Pier, La Jolla, California, USA four years of ocean transport.
http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/621856
2016
Trying to say it's from Hanford?
Report comment
"California Current System is influenced by the Hanford site which can explain the higher ¹²⁹I/¹²⁷I background values observed along the west coast of the U.S."
DOH! Hanford just took a blow for Japan. Fukushima must be pretty bad…
Report comment
Face it. Fukushima contaminated the planet with a multitude of deadly toxic at the atomic level cancer causing manmade nuclear waste, again…
The Human Consequences of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant Accidents
http://apjjf.org/-Eiichiro-Ochiai/4382
As if that is what was life…
Report comment
What is iodine-129 and where does it come from?
Iodine-129 is the longest lived isotope of iodine with a half-life of 15.7 million years. It is radioactive and occurs everywhere throughout the environment. It is produced in three ways. The first two are natural and the third is by the nuclear industry.
The natural production of 129I occurs in the atmosphere and in soil/rocks. The atmospheric production happens when a cosmic ray proton hits a xenon-129 nucleus and removes a neutron, replacing it and creating an iodine-129 nucleus. The production in soil and rocks happens when a uranium-238 nucleus spontaneously fissions and one of the halves it releases has a mass of 129 ala, iodine-129.
The anthropogenic production occurs because when uranium fissions in a nuclear reactor sometimes one of the parts is 129I. This anthropogenic production is by far the largest source in the environment as substantial amounts have been released by nuclear fuel reprocessing. This 129I that has been released can trace a host of environmental processes and inform us about what happens to 129I or the much more dangerous, 131I. The current levels of 129I are much too low to pose a health threat to humans or the environment, but do allow 129I to be used as an environmental tracer.
http://blogs.agu.org/waterunderground/2016/03/01/tracking-the-fallout-and-fate-of-fukushima-iodine-129-in-rain-and-groundwater/
Report comment
Jebus, the natural part is so small, so so small…..it's manmade radionuclides that are killing us all
Report comment
The dilution becoming the pollution is where it starts.
It's no solution to the sum of the parts.
One part is the chemical smell.
The other is the nuclear hell.
This does not bode man well…
Report comment
And finally after all the division, the results are added up…
5 Years Living With Fukushima
Summary of the health effects of the nuclear catastrophe
"The debate on the health effects of the Fukushima nuclear disaster is about far more than the principle of independent research and taking a stand against the influence of powerful lobby groups."
"It is about the universal right of every human being to health and life in a healthy environment"
http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/fukushima-report.pdf
Report comment
part of the problem is the liberal thinking, that we are owed something
""It is about the universal right of every human being to health and life in a healthy environment""
We are not owed that, but we need to demand it. And therein lies part of the problem. DEMAND IT.
Report comment
Sorry stock, every other creature on the planet would care to differ.
So do I.
A better question would be, do humans have a right to fuck it up for all life?
Report comment
Jebus, love your stuff…keep it coming, keep me honest too.
But you are not "owed" a clean environment….in fact the 3lb monkey brain seems to demand you live in less.
We have the ability to ef it up for all life.
GET EFFECTIVE and stop this shite! Nuclear sucks!
Report comment
With natural evolution tossing us the luck(?) of the abstract, we owe it to the rest of life…
Report comment
Too cheap to meter.
Report comment
"..But you are not "owed" a clean environment.."
Ouch..? Are you serious stock ? I do not own my right to live by being born ? By being delivered by live itself ? A clean environment is actually just another phrase for life..And who owns the right to decide in my place..and for what reason ? A powerabuser ?
If it is because three pound brain monkey decided somewhere it get a kick out of decadency and silly bragging exposure of obscene wealth and status and power..and declared it a "need"..but he had to rape and pillage everything Earth had to offer to fullfill that need..including my right to live and the clean environment that gave me my live and had everything in it to nourish me and the eventual generations behind me..as long as i maintain the natural order aka clean environment aka the mandatory bio-conditions , as Earth-life has been optimising it for more complex future life , as rights..
When hiding behind the artificially blown up out of proportions "right of the strongest" taken out of the evolutionary context and murder it all for the own shortlived glory of self ..that's the entity on this planet the least deserving to be alive..
Owing..yes there are some people that owe me their lives for destroying mine and that of the generations behind me..and those people have a fulltime job thinking up new laws against speech that may expose them..
I'm not interested in their lives..but how long can this freakshow be allowed to continue..
Report comment
I'm interested in getting my planet back as a lifegiver..
Report comment
WE , as her murderer's..OWE it to the Earth , to restore and defend her Right's..to be able to continue her job , her task..to live and nurture..and evolve unabated..
Report comment
Lol stock , i started to ask a question and got "rant away" , it was not ment as an insult or something..just in case..
Report comment
Carl Sagan – You Are Here (Pale Blue Dot) [Sagan Time] – YouTube
Video for pale blue dot▶ 5:35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PN5JJDh78I
Report comment
One of the greatest minds ever lived..his series
"The Cosmos" are awesome..much "soul"
Report comment
Once you figure it out, the only way to live, is to scream it out, at the top of your lungs…
Report comment
Depends who is hearing.
I got Trumps fax number….he reads that shite on the plane
Report comment
Shooooooooot!!!!!!!!!!! Those spikes aint nothin. When I was in my mother's womb in 1952, I was getting hit by the fallout from 34 american, 3 russian and 1 brittish nuclear test. Don't you remember, you was probably there too. After all that, we're all good. Fuku's just three awol cores and a few fuel rods. Hell, I eat radiation and shit pesto.
Report comment
Nothin like starting each generation out right huh?
Yeah!
Atoms for Peace.
Nuclear Evoluion.
An audio loop of crickets…
Report comment
Buck up, it's just a t missing, you can throw with the other arm…
Report comment
Let me get this straight,
"Only by scientifically proving that their coefficients of toxicity are in error will such information form an anti-nuclear argument."
"The main scientific community has been operating on the outdated ICPR LNT model which has been proven and also admitted to be in error."
So we have no argument against an argument that has been proven and also admitted to be in error.
Or is it that if we don't prove their coefficients of toxicity are in error then we should take the next flight to tokyo and swim in fuku bay?
Also, because they always blame climate change, instead of radiation, for all the unusual mortality in the pacific, does that mean that what is referred to as "'climate change' is a hoax" as our strawberry blond president put it?
Did Albert Einstein say that boiling water with nuclear fisson was crazy only because there are more efficient ways to do it? What did he know that we don't?
Are the products of nuclear fission having as little effect on the biosphere as all he other man made poisons?
Is this an anti nuclear or anti anti nuclear or anti climate change or anti Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar site?
Report comment
Or is this an anti liberal thinking site? Are we demanding more than we're owed or are we owed more than we're demanding?
Report comment
Depends on how you want your children to turn out.
Regular, or that more modern look?
Report comment
Glove manufacturer's lives have been made much more interesting. It used to be so easy for them to figure out where to put fingers on gloves. Thanks nuclear, for being you.
Report comment
Are we anti nuclear because the profits in other energy industries we're invested in would be greater if we shut down all the NPP's?
Report comment
No Curly No. Excellent statement
Report comment
I,m sorry?
Report comment
Uranium, thorium, coal, oil, and the rest are all fossil fuels.
They all gotta go away and the replacement is being placed today.
And yes, it would be smart to be invested in solar, wind, and storage.
Yesterday…
Report comment
In the news…
https://electrek.co/2016/12/11/tesla-elon-musk-meet-donald-trump-tech/
https://electrek.co/2016/12/06/tesla-solarcity-hiring-production-worker-solar-gigafactory/
https://electrek.co/guides/tesla/
https://electrek.co/2016/12/08/tesla-gigafactory-workers-2017-production-ramp-up/
Report comment
Next evolutionary jump — Homo Fubar
Report comment
LOL ! So true..
Report comment
Only planet in the universe with an actinide bar. That should boost the economy
Report comment
Iodine 129 what a concept. Bet Dana Durnford will be shocked…
Report comment
I'm outta here, enough good news for one day.
Report comment