Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #1
    K's Avatar
    K
     

    Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    IT IS TIME TO ASK FOR MONITORING OF RADIATION
    I have posted some links that are very informative and will give you an idea
    of how important it is to get informed, Stay Grounded and Centered and Make Choices for
    Everyone from a place of Love and Wisdom.

    Now is not the time to binge and go UNCONSCIOUS.....it may all be a dream on one level and
    the relative reality is the radiation is here and we live on the front line and we have some great
    choices to protect our bodies and to support CHANGE....Radical Change......(inside and out).

    I have attached some info I found very helpful...daily routines for protection etc so you do not
    leave here feeling overwhelmed and hopeless.

    I feel we are past the 12th hour...and are in the FIRST HOUR of the New Beginnings.......It is:
    Time to Embrace and Embody the magnificent Radiant, Loving, Wise Being that you are!
    Time to Show up..... be with our emotions and then plant our feet firmly in the ground of BEING
    Time to be Unwavering in our conviction to the Truth of who WE really ARE
    ...............With Awareness and Breath as your Guides LETS move forward and Create Change for ALL of US.

    Please do your homework, this is only meant to be a guide for the beginning of something AWE inspiring.
    Be gentle with yourself and allow the emotions to be fully felt and then allow them to vanish into the space of Awareness from hence they came.
    YOU are the ONE you have been waiting for....now is the time to let your wings unfurl and FLY with the Passion and Courage of The Divine.

    I am sure Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, John Lennon all have a front row seats

    LETS DO IT!!!!
    Attached Files
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. TopTop #2
    Sasha Monique's Avatar
    Sasha Monique
    Supporting Member

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    Yes!

    Fukushima Response has started monitoring food and water because our government is not yet doing this. Many of us are calling Jerry Brown and the White House comment line daily to urge for testing and to ask that the US intervenes in Japan to stop the 400 tons daily flow of radioactive water into the Pacific, as well as international supervision of the rod removal.

    I am one of the initiators of the Fukushima Response Wellness Circle to share strategies and resoureces to stay healthy on the spiritual, emotional and physical levels as this continues to unfold. We are putting on an event to educate the larger community as to what we can do as citizens.

    We need more responders. Please join us!

    Warmly,

    Sasha

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by kiah: View Post
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  3. Gratitude expressed by 7 members:

  4. TopTop #3
    Dogenzip's Avatar
    Dogenzip
     

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    Thank-you for posting this. Monitoring of our food, water and rainfall are long overdue.
    EPA has raised the 'safe' standards for radioactivity in food.
    Please do not hesitate to contact me for assistance with this important endeavor.
    Paul-André
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  5. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  6. TopTop #4

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    Please do give me a call. I have 10 lbs of salmon and a couple lbs of seaweed I am wanting to test. I have googled like mad and dont find any companies that do that. Dont know where else to turn?
    Kate 824-9543


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by artur: View Post
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  7. Gratitude expressed by:

  8. TopTop #5
    K's Avatar
    K
     

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    Hello
    Thanks so much for replying. I am new to the area and also a Canadian so not familar with the US policies etc...so I would Lovvvve some help in getting info to others and myself on how we can create some
    impact with this all. Please contact me at [email protected]. I will be starting a silent retreat Jan 1 for one month but will be checking emails occassionally and will go to rallys/meetings etc even tho I will be silent.
    Thanks so much.
    K




    Quote Posted in reply to the post by artur: View Post
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  9. TopTop #6
    K's Avatar
    K
     

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    Hi Sasha, Lets connect and make the info you have available, really available to everyone so we can create some change.
    Please email me asap as I will be doing silent retreat Jan 1 to Jan 31. Thanks soooo much.
    K

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Sasha Benedetti: View Post
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  10. Gratitude expressed by:

  11. TopTop #7
    Jude Iam's Avatar
    Jude Iam
     

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    great. please keep me/us all in the loop for both the information dispersal and event planning and day-of.

    everyone who's awake to this reality realizes the vital importance and urgency -
    and will support as if our lives and the future depend on it…

    blessings, jude

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by kiah: View Post
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  12. TopTop #8
    Fillie's Avatar
    Fillie
     

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    MB these guys know:
    https://radiationnetwork.com/

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by afinenettle: View Post
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  13. TopTop #9

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    Posting a bunch of numbers or links to references really only works when preaching to the choir, so I'll skip the effort - but let me suggest something well worth your while, if you're putting any energy into monitoring radiation:
    look up how much comes from exposure to the sun, and to radon in most of the U.S., and include that in your considerations about how to respond to environmental radiation threats. Don't just react to something because it's new, shiny and exotic - if you're concerned about your exposure to radiation, it makes sense to consider all sources.


    And go to the trouble to do a little basic addition to see what level's you're talking about. You might even do a little research into the fate of long-term survivors of the attacks in Japan.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  14. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  15. TopTop #10
    jbox's Avatar
    jbox
     

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by afinenettle: View Post
    I can't help you with the seaweed but I'll be happy to take the 10 lbs of salmon and test it and let you know if I suffer any ill effects. I assume its local wild salmon?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  16. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  17. TopTop #11
    amidhelle
     

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    HI Sasha,

    I am interested in joining the Fukushima Response Wellness Circle! I am currently reading a book, Fukukshima Meltdown and Modern Radiation: Protecting Ourselves and Our Future Generations by John Apsley, MD, ND, DC. I would like to discuss some of his ways to protect ourselves (ie pectin, eating vegetarian, etc.). I also am interested in be part of a group that supports eachother spiritually and positively during this sad, unreal crisis! Please contact me at [email protected]

    Namaste,

    AmiDhelle

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Sasha Benedetti: View Post
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  18. TopTop #12

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    Thank you so much Paul for testing my seafood so carefully. My seaweed and the coho salmon from the gulf of Alaska tested low and safe for radiation....this time. Coho salmon has the shallowest migration out to sea of any species I know of n- but still travels many hundreds of miles out.
    Kate Sullivan

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by K: View Post
    Last edited by Barry; 02-03-2014 at 02:16 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  19. TopTop #13
    BManna
     

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    Who is Paul & what kind of testing was found to verify radiation contamination? (I'm not seeing any related parts of this thread.) Is there some testing service available, or general results which would be helpful for the public?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by afinenettle: View Post
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  20. Gratitude expressed by:

  21. TopTop #14
    Dogenzip's Avatar
    Dogenzip
     

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    Yes, It is necessary to demand State and federal governments monitor air, water and food weekly and post the results.
    Write, fax, phone elected reps. Explore the possibility of cooperatively funding our own food testing lab in Sebastopol. Speak to Dan Sythe at MedCom about this. The time ripe.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by K: View Post
    Last edited by Barry; 02-04-2014 at 12:26 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  22. TopTop #15
    Scott McKeown's Avatar
    Scott McKeown
    Supporting member

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by K: View Post
    Quote Posted in reply to the post by artur: View Post
    Actually, it is fairly well known that the Environmental Protection Agency monitors radiation at hundreds of sites throughout the country in every state, including 13 sites in California. They operate 24 hours a day and are updated with graphs several times a day. You can read the results online here:


    https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/#california

    Additionally, the EPA monitors samples of rain, drinking water, and milk for radiation on a routine schedule and posts those results online as well.

    However, I imagine none of this will satisfy the conspiracy theorists who will claim there is a massive conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and government employees who are purposefully hiding the truth, for some apparent reason.

    I can just imagine the job interview where a young scientist to be hired by the EPA is informed that in order to get the job he must be willing to falsify data and threaten the lives and health of tens of millions of Americans, something much more critical than NSA spying. Yet it's amazing how thousands of these people have been hired without one Snowden yet stepping forward.

    Scott
    Last edited by Barry; 02-05-2014 at 02:04 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  23. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  24. TopTop #16
    Dixon's Avatar
    Dixon
     

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    Name:  2014-01-15_11-22-00.png
Views: 1432
Size:  18.8 KB
    Darknet memorandum 2/4/14 -- Sonoma County Division-- Level 51 Clearance Only

    Excellent disinformation effort, Agent McKeown! The recent program of Ravitchment seems to have had a salutary effect on your level of professionalism. You will receive an extra ration of Soylent Green this evening. Since the CVS pick-up window is not yet operational, you may pick it up at the GMO and Toxics Dissemination Department in the back of Whole Foods.

    Cthulhu fhtagn.

    Terminate this message immediately.

    Operation Shadow Central Darknet Out


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown: View Post
    Last edited by Barry; 02-05-2014 at 02:05 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  25. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  26. TopTop #17
    arthunter's Avatar
    arthunter
     

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    I'm greatly relieved to hear that everything is under control and that there's absolutely no danger of radiation from Fukashima becoming a problem ... phew ... well done Scott ! ...

    Now could someone please write to the insurance companies about this? ... because they're busy adding radiation exclusion clauses to their policies.....

    https://www.turnerradionetwork.com/news/251-mjt
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  27. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  28. TopTop #18
    Jude Iam's Avatar
    Jude Iam
     

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    scott, presumably you care not whether what you eat is GMO or not, because you trust the FDA and find no reason to be suspicious of industry ties. right?

    you so very confidently cite the EPA as monitering radioactivity, and as the ultimate arbiter of public health issues and that lays it all to rest - just relax and let the government let us know if and when to worry...

    actually, Ken Buesseler, head scientist at Woods Hole, MA, one of the world's top ocean science facilities, said that no one is monitoring the radioactivity in the Pacific Ocean.

    perhaps you'd address this list, or say, at least the first dozen items; maybe our fine reptilian overlord with his admirable command of irony can take on the second dozen...if it merits your attention enough to research - perhaps it warrants only your quick and satirical reply...

    a challenge: discredit the material presented, or acknowledge your lack of standing to tackle it, let alone dismiss.
    looking forward to reading your response to the information we all have to work with, jude

    https://ecowatch.com/2014/02/02/50-reasons-fear-fukushima/

    50 Reasons To Fear the Worst from Fukushima Harvey Wasserman | [This is the first in a two part series]
    Fukushima’s missing melted cores and radioactive gushers continue to fester in secret.

    Japan’s harsh dictatorial censorship has been matched by a
    global corporate media blackout aimed—successfully—at keeping Fukushima out of the public eye. But that doesn’t keep the actual radiation out of our ecosystem, our markets … or our bodies. Speculation on the ultimate impact ranges from the utterly harmless to the intensely apocalyptic . But the basic reality is simple: for seven decades, government Bomb factories and privately-owned reactors have spewed massive quantities of unmonitored radiation into the biosphere.
    The impacts of these emissions on human and ecological health are unknown primarily because the nuclear industry has resolutely refused to study them.

    Indeed, the official presumption has always been that showing proof of damage from nuclear Bomb tests and commercial reactors falls to the victims, not the perpetrators.

    And that in any case, the industry will be held virtually harmless.

    This “see no evil, pay no damages” mindset dates from the Bombing of Hiroshima to Fukushima to the disaster coming next … which could be happening as you read this.

    Here are 50 preliminary reasons why this radioactive legacy demands we prepare for the worst for our oceans, our planet, our economy … ourselves.

    1.
    At Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945), the U.S. military initially denied that there was any radioactive fallout, or that it could do any damage. Despite an absence of meaningful data, the victims (including a group of U.S. prisoners of war) and their supporters were officially “discredited” and scorned.

    2. Likewise, when Nobel-winners Linus Pauling and Andre Sakharov correctly warned of a massive global death toll from atmospheric Bomb testing, they were dismissed with official contempt … until they won in the court of public opinion.

    3. During and after the Bomb Tests (1946-63), downwinders in the South Pacific and American west, along with thousands of U.S. “atomic vets,” were told their radiation-induced health problems were imaginary … until they proved utterly irrefutable.

    Continues at https://ecowatch.com/2014/02/02/50-r...ear-fukushima/

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown: View Post
    Last edited by Barry; 02-05-2014 at 02:43 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  29. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  30. TopTop #19
    Scott McKeown's Avatar
    Scott McKeown
    Supporting member

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    This is too classic. Yet another example of how a discussion of an issue is too often made personal on this bulletin board.

    Here's how it goes:

    Person A (along with others) puts up a post on wacco complaining that the government isn't doing any monitoring of radiation and demands it be done. Here is an example:

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by artur: View Post
    Person B then points out that, in fact, the government is indeed monitoring radiation through hundreds of monitoring sites all over the country and posts the results daily.

    Person C then pointedly and personally calls out Person B for posting the facts about the government monitoring of radiation. Apparently the criticism is because the government cannot be trusted.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam: View Post
    So it's damned if the government is not monitoring, damned if the government is monitoring. And while at it, take it out of the realm of a discussion of ideas and facts and make it personal.

    I think we can do better, folks.

    Scott
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  31. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  32. TopTop #20
    Scott McKeown's Avatar
    Scott McKeown
    Supporting member

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    Here we have a different example of how a discussion is taken out of the realm of issues and ideas and taken into the realm of the personal on this bulletin board.

    Here is how this example goes:

    Person A responds to a previous posting about a specific issue, in this case about whether the government is monitoring radiation. Person A comments about government monitoring stations and current monitoring capacity.

    Persons B and C then take the discussion out of the realm of ideas and personally call out Person A about issues that were not addressed or mentioned by Person A.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by arthunter: View Post
    Here Person B calls out and attacks Person A about the issue of potential danger -- becoming a problem -- even though Person A did not mention anything about potential danger, only about current government radiation monitoring capacity.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam: View Post
    Here Person C calls out and attacks Person A not with a challenge of the content of Person A's posting -- about government radiation monitoring stations -- but rather with a long screed about Fukushima in general.

    Can we please not call people out personally and attack them for things they did not write about in their posts? And can we please keep the discussion in the realm of ideas and not make it personal?

    Scott
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  33. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  34. TopTop #21
    arthunter's Avatar
    arthunter
     

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    And here's how Person A discredits and casts doubt on anyone who does not share Person A's opinion about the subject ... if we're now talking about personalizing the issue instead of responding to Person B's and Person C's factual information about the subject, then I think that we can begin here ....

    How about responding to the facts that Person B and Person C posted? ... are you now saying that you didn't imply that there's nothing to worry about by labeling all who worry about this as "conspiracy theorists" and citing government measurements? ... aren't you confident that the government will keep taking measurements and alert us if we need to evacuate?

    Quote However, I imagine none of this will satisfy the conspiracy theorists who will claim there is a massive conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and government employees who are purposefully hiding the truth, for some apparent reason.

    I can just imagine the job interview where a young scientist to be hired by the EPA is informed that in order to get the job he must be willing to falsify data and threaten the lives and health of tens of millions of Americans, something much more critical than NSA spying. Yet it's amazing how thousands of these people have been hired without one Snowden yet stepping forward.
    Last edited by Barry; 02-05-2014 at 02:48 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  35. Gratitude expressed by:

  36. TopTop #22
    Dogenzip's Avatar
    Dogenzip
     

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    Hello Scott,
    I wish I had your confidence in the EPA and government testing of radiation levels in the environment and in our food.

    Unfortunately the EPA has arbitrarily raised the so called 'safe' levels of radioactivity. Please refer to the Peer site and to Forbes Magazine site whose links are below: These are not radical or conspiracy-minded organizations.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcm...on-guidelines/

    https://www.peer.org/news/news-relea...anup-rollback/

    It is what we do not know which is most troubling. We don't know the cumulative impacts of ongoing radioactive water being pumped into the ocean by Fukushima on a daily basis, since no US agency is testing the ocean waters. Nor do we know whether the various modeling of ocean current transport will significantly dilute the radioactive isotopes heading our way. Climate modeling of the transport of ocean based radioactivity to the atmosphere remains rudimentary.

    Past reassurances by government agencies of the safety of the nuclear industry have proven to be false.

    I wish I will be proven wrong, and that your optimistic view prevails.

    Cordially,
    Paul-André
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  37. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  38. TopTop #23
    Scott McKeown's Avatar
    Scott McKeown
    Supporting member

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by artur: View Post
    (sigh)

    Here we are with yet another perfect example of what I just wrote about earlier. I'm being called out and drawn into a discussion made personal about a position I never took.

    Since I'm being drawn in...

    What are my optimistic views? Seriously, where did I say I was optimistic in this thread? About what?

    To refresh your memory, you made multiple posts complaining there was no government radiation monitoring and demanded that it be done.
    Quote Posted in reply to the post by artur: View Post
    Quote Posted in reply to the post by artur: View Post

    I pointed out there is massive government radiation monitoring of air, water, and food happening all the time at over a hundred sites all over the country, and all the data is available to anyone online here.

    Then you shift the focus onto me personally and shift the issue to instead being about that you don't trust all that government radiation monitoring of air, water and food that is going on. Which leads one to ask, which is it? Why demand that monitoring happen if you don't believe it when it happens?

    Regarding EPA safety standards (which is an entirely different subject from the subject of this thread) you are welcome to determine your own standards of safety. Radiation levels are posted publicly and updated multiple times a day from over a hundred sites that you can access at https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/. Anyone can do the research and come to their own conclusion about what they consider to be safe levels of radiation and look at the data online and see if that level is being surpassed. The data is not being hidden.

    What I DO have confidence in is that the radiation monitoring stations are not rigged and that the radiation level data being put out online is relatively accurate overall. If the data were rigged that would require the collusion of many hundreds, perhaps over a thousand scientists and government employees who are involved in a conspiracy to intentionally falsify the data. Is someone really going to argue here that all these hundreds of monitoring sites are indeed rigged and giving out false data?

    In the meantime, please hold me accountable to the positions I actually take, and not just make stuff up.

    Scott
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  39. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  40. TopTop #24
    K's Avatar
    K
     

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    Hello Friends,
    I would suggest you all use this precious energy (of bantering) for buying our own meter....$700 and post any great sources and do your homework and stop the waging of fingers. Not very becoming.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  41. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  42. TopTop #25
    andrew espinoza
     

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    Hey Scoot an FYI. Do your homework before you post your facts....your wrong about EPA Radnet. Yes your links are correct and yes the EPA is supposed to do all that you say....but NONE of the monitoring stations in Ca are working at the moment, I checked, you should try it. They have been offline for a while on fact as of Jan. 19 2014, 81 stations are offline/down and only 41 are active. Also a number of them through out the nation have been offline at various times for exntended periods of time for the past 3 yrs. All this verifiable through the website station history...
    You also said this statement
    "However, I imagine none of this will satisfy the conspiracy theorists who will claim there is a massive conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and government employees who are purposefully hiding the truth, for some apparent reason."
    People care about life on this planet. People care about the future of their lives and of the planet.. period. and thus they or I feel that pollution and garbage are kinda of out of control and do conrtibute to a loss of life/environment. Fukushima added another type of pollution to the planet, in a form that is life threatening for all species. Its natural for us to want clarification from authorities, especially when the EPA sites are down...You labeled people here inappropriately.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  43. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  44. TopTop #26
    Valley Oak's Avatar
    Valley Oak
     

    Searching for signs of Fukushima radiation on North Coast


    The following article was published by the Press Democrat on February 5, 2014


    Searching for signs of Fukushima radiation on North Coast

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  45. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  46. TopTop #27
    Scott McKeown's Avatar
    Scott McKeown
    Supporting member

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by andrew espinoza: View Post
    Below are the links to active and working RadNet radiation monitoring stations in these California cities where you can get real-time data. Check out the links for yourself. Also please read the article posted by Edward Mendoza above that describes other efforts by government scientists who are monitoring for radiation along the North Coast.

    San Jose -- https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-da...anjose-bg.html

    San Francisco -- https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-da...ncisco-bg.html

    San Diego -- https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-da...ndiego-bg.html

    San Bernardino -- https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-da...ardino-bg.html

    Sacramento -- https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-da...amento-bg.html

    Los Angeles -- https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/radnet-losangeles-bg.html

    Fresno -- https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-da...fresno-bg.html

    Eureka -- https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-da...eureka-bg.html

    Anaheim -- https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-da...naheim-bg.html

    Look, again, I did not comment about the potential danger of radiation from Fukushima, or for that matter about pollution in general or species being threatened or people caring for the future and the planet, etc. I just commented on the fact that there is considerable monitoring for radiation going on by government scientists. This is just a fact. I did not make any conclusions about the monitoring other than it is going on.

    We can criticize ideas but please let's not attack each other personally here.

    Scott
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  47. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  48. TopTop #28
    arthunter's Avatar
    arthunter
     

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    I think that your comment about "conspiracy theorists" felt like a personal attack to a lot of concerned people. As Jude pointed out, there is a long history of cover ups about similar dangers in the past. Cover ups needn't be malicious ... they can just be a ploy to stop widespread panic and destruction of certain industries ... for example, I am also very concerned about our hard working fishermen in the face of all of this ...

    Based on Jude's facts I think that we are correct to monitor the situation carefully in whatever way that we can. Also, the reality of the insurance companies already guarding against radiation insurance claims is not exactly comforting...

    Labels of any kind just get in the way of this discussion and can seem insulting. Let's just stop all of that and focus on the task at hand, ok?

    I am grateful for the information presented here, including yours, because I realize that my concerns are mirrored by others in the community who are watching the situation carefully. May we continue to share information and resources without name calling of any kind ....


    Quote We can criticize ideas but please let's not attack each other personally here.
    Scott[/QUOTE]
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  49. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  50. TopTop #29
    Scott McKeown's Avatar
    Scott McKeown
    Supporting member

    Re: Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

    New word definition:

    wac-co-ize
    /wak/o/īz/
    tr. v wac-co-izid, wac-co-iz-ing, wac-co-izes,
    Wac--co-ized
    1. To be personally called out by name and humorlessly attacked online after posting a humorous critique or fact that goes counter to the prevailing and accepted alternative tribal-cultural worldview. Contents of waccoize attacks often seem emotionally based and usually include attacks for positions not taken or mentioned in the original posting that generated the waccoize attack. Waccoizing usually occurs in progressive-left communities and is very often associated with fear-based issues and/or issues commonly known as a "conspiracy theories".
    "Jason completely agrees with the need to be vigilant with monitoring for Fukushima radiation, but he was totally waccoized by six people when he posted that scientific paper."
    Last edited by Barry; 02-07-2014 at 12:27 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  51. Gratitude expressed by 7 members:

  52. TopTop #30
    Dixon's Avatar
    Dixon
     

    Re: Searching for signs of Fukushima radiation on North Coast

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza: View Post
    From the article: "Fukushima’s crippled reactors are still leaking tainted water, at a rate of 300 tons — nearly 72,000 gallons — a day, according to a National Geographic report last year.
    The Pacific Ocean, with 187 quintillion gallons (187 with 18 zeroes) of water, dilutes Fukushima’s discharge..."

    Just for fun, I did some very loose calculations of how polluted the Pacific would be if we assume 72,000 gallons/day for 3 years (the Fukushima disaster took place a little less than 3 years ago) and also assume equal distribution of the pollution throughout the Pacific's 187 quintillion gallons of water. (Both are presumably false assumptions but may be a starting point.)

    72,000 gal/day = 26,280,000 gal/year = 78,840,000 gal/3 years. Dividing that by the number of gallons of water in the Pacific (187 quintillion plus or minus a teaspoon), we get .000000000000421604278, which, if I calculated correctly, equals a little over .4 part per trillion. As this is infinitesimal, nearly as dilute as some homeopathic remedies, the probability that it could hurt anyone would seem to be similar to the probability that homeopathic remedies could have any effect other than to trigger placebo effects, i.e., approximately zero.

    Mitigating considerations:
    1) I didn't take into account other sources of radiation in the Pacific.
    2) The real average daily discharge is likely to be somewhat, and maybe a lot, more or less than the current 72,000 gal/day figure.
    3) We don't know how long the discharge will continue, nor at what rate. I personally have no idea whether even the total amount of radioactivity that could possibly be discharged from Fukushima is enough to present a substantial risk to us.
    4) Of course the pollution won't be evenly distributed. Local concentrations here and there may well be lethal to humans, though even this danger decreases rapidly the further the stuff gets from Japan.
    5) I'm not an engineer type, so my calculations could be waaaaay off. (It's fun anyway. I'm easily entertained. I'm a cheap date, ladies!)

    So, I don't know if anyone outside of some of our Japanese sisters and brothers will die from this. I did the calculations for fun--and to clarify that, because most folks including me are quite innumerate, numbers which strike us as huge may not be quite so big in the overall scheme of things. The concept "a drop in the bucket" applies even when the drop is huge (to us), if the bucket is almost incomprehensibly huger.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  53. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-01-2011, 09:05 AM
  2. Radiation from your doctor!
    By Sara S in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-28-2011, 11:45 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-19-2011, 05:02 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-16-2011, 06:04 PM

Tags (user supplied keywords) for this Thread

Bookmarks