Radiation Monitoring for Fukashima in Sonoma

[Scott McKeown]

I think that your comment about "conspiracy theorists" felt like a personal attack to a lot of concerned people.

Okay, fair enough. My intention was to be somewhat humorous. Putting it into context, here is from my original posting on this thread with the part about "conspiracy theorists":

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 didn't realize how hugely insulting it apparently is to the people who do claim that there is such a conspiracy to refer to them as "conspiracy theorists".

So, I apologize to all the people on this forum who claim there is a massive conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and government employees who are purposefully hiding the truth about Fukushima radiation levels on the West Coast. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings so much by referring to you as a "conspiracy theorist".

Scott

[arthunter]

Thank you Scott ....

You know when you're talking about government agencies, the suppression of information really isn't that difficult ... you just label that information "classified" meaning that anyone who discloses it will go to jail for treason ... I find it strange that any of the monitoring stations should be inactive at this particular time in history, don't you?

I just posted in the "Conspiracy Quiz" thread ... it's a video of an ex-Air Force member who was threatened for trying to alert co-workers about shipments of dangerous chemicals that have been linked to ChemTrails ... btw, this was her job .... watch the video ... it might be enlightening ....

And thank you for starting that thread ... these are issues that need discussing ...

Okay, fair enough. My intention was to be somewhat humorous. ...

[andrew espinoza]

Fair enough Scott, we are both wrong because you said this earlier
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:
Yet there are only 81 sites active in the USA. Not hundreds
and even though they test milk and water...they do not test our food supply for fuku or any radiation..
And you aslo said,
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.
Hey Scott thats the EPA link they dont test our food supply let alone the Pacific Ocean...get your info staright Scott
and im not a conspiracy person...I dont care if naked men want to run around bohemian redwoods playing grab ass and network about business...and i dont care whom is calling the shots in washington that has ties to some cult or whatever blundergroup...

Below are the links to active and working RadNet radiation monitoring stations in these California cities where you can get real-time data. ...

[andrew espinoza]

1) The north pacific ocean is where the discharge of fuku rad. is going into, so cut your numbers in half becasue they give you the total gallons of the whole P.Ocean. And that may not be correct either because the P.Ocean is not perfectly cut in half nor is the earth a perfect sphere, let alone the underwater topography. you get my point its not exact science they are giving us

2) TEPCO has acknowledged that its at 400 tons now, they admitted this recently or last fall. Also TEPCO wants to dump, thats right dump more radioactive water into the Ocean because they are running out of room to put storage tanks full of radioactive cooling water.

3) I dont think its less due to this admittal and the fact they really don't even know where the coriums are located, the mass of nuclear melted rods and material (source of radiation) that may have escaped the containment vessel. Meaning it burned a hole through the floor and may be in contact with groundwater which adds to the 400tons being leaked/discharged. Or maybe it didn't no one knows and thats f'd up.

4) Thats Ok they dont know when its going to stop discharging either, they say 3 yrs or 40 yrs but they don't know because they have no clue where or at least they aren't telling anyone...so yes there is distrust hence the demands on testing in the north pacific.

5) all the reactor buildings are in super bad shape from all the damage sustained from earthquake, tidal wave and meltdown/explosions... structural integrity is in a super bad state. and reactor 3 (or 4) still has the fuel rods they are trying to remove, if they screw one removal up then it will set off the rest of them we will all get nuked by radiation plumes and japan will be out of the picture..its really that bad over there...this is all info from the TEPCO and other non-conspiracy sites.

...
Just for fun, I did some very loose calculations of how polluted the Pacific would be if ...

[Jude Iam]

FOR THE RECORD: scott, i did not attack you. i challenged your stance (yes, could have been more kind/ diplomatic) but certainly not ad hominum attack. for easy reference, read my post below.

ON THE OTHER HAND, calling someone a 'conspiracy theorist' or their ideas 'conspiracy theories' ISdismissive and disrespectful - and denigrates the possibility of true dialogue.
ever onwards, in our mutual growth towards truth and love, jude

________________________________________________
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 thatno 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
______________________________________________

.
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."


.

[arthunter]

Yes, there's also a risk from airborne contaminants ....

This is one of the best articles that I've read ... it's very complete and includes opinions from most credible sources of information .... it also includes a thorough discussion about minimizing the risks ...

https://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013...est-coast.html

[Scott McKeown]

Hey Scott thats the EPA link they dont test our food supply let alone the Pacific Ocean...get your info staright Scott

The EPA does test radiation levels in milk which is a good indicator of accumulated radiation in the food supply, just as testing kelp is a good indicator of radiation levels in the ocean, as reported in the PD article yesterday.

There are other government agencies doing radiation testing for the food supply as well, including the FDA. One can easily argue there should be way more testing than is currently being done, but nevertheless there is some testing being done: https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publi.../ucm247403.htm

Additionally, various state governments are doing there own testing, such as the Radiologic Health Branch of the California Department of Public Health: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Pages/RHB-RadReport.aspx

Also the State of Oregon (among other states) has their own testing program: https://public.health.oregon.gov/Hea...ges/index.aspx

The PD article reports about some of the testing of local Pacific Ocean water being done by various government agencies and universities.

We can quibble over whether there are only 81 active EPA RadNet radiation monitoring stations or over 100 as the EPA claims, but that's missing the larger point which is that there is considerable monitoring and testing of radiation being done. It dispels the claim, as stated multiple times earlier in this threat, that there is no government testing or monitoring of radiation being done whatsoever. Such disinformation is not helpful and contributes to an unnecessary state of fear. There are a lot of good people at the EPA and other agencies doing good work.

Of course, it's always important to stay vigilant and not just accept all official stories on face value. But it is also a disservice to make false claims that create a false fear narrative. At the moment, most scientists do not expect there to be harmful levels of radiation from Fukushima on the West Coast (significant above current background levels and other existing sources). But it remains a possibility. While it would certainly be nice to have more monitoring, at least we can know there is a fair amount of monitoring already being done.

Scott

[andrew espinoza]

Hello Scott,
No quiblle just pointing out your misinformation, I know it wasn't your intention. And to be honest you need to inform yourself a little better on this particular subject...if you are going to moderate this discussion. Becasue all you have done is cut and paste from the PD article...You have not even looked at any of these links just like you didn't look at the EPA .
and
-the CDPH testing is reactive for discharge from exisitng reactor sites/spent fuel storage locations in CA, the test they conduct at those locations are for discharge from those sites and not from fuku...so in other words they are reactive and not proactive. they are not testing for the same radioisotopes that are from fuku..there are signature rad. isotopes.
-and yes the FDA knows all about radiation in fact they use it on our food supply, remember they irradiate our food.
But im done with this and wish you the best

[Scott McKeown]

all you have done is cut and paste from the PD article...You have not even looked at any of these links just like you didn't look at the EPA .

Please show what I cut and pasted from the PD article. Not sure how one can claim I didn't even look at the links I provided.

There is a lot to explore through the California Public Health Radiologic Health Branch site link I provided. Here is something on the very first page:

Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 114755, RHB conducts routine monitoring of radioactive materials in the environment, including radioactive materials in media such as air, milk, food, and water in locations and certain frequencies. Below are the results of that monitoring for the years 2011 through 2013.

RHB has responded to numerous requests surrounding the safety of California residents from past and current incidents at the Fukushima nuclear power plants in Japan. Information from Federal agencies, State programs, as well as RHB’s own sampling results, conclude there are no health and safety concerns to California residents.

RHB also recently responded to reports of elevated radioactivity readings on California’s beaches in the vicinity of Half Moon Bay. Preliminary data indicates the elevated radioactivity is due to naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM), not Fukushima related activities. The NORM on the beaches is not causing an impact to public health. A final investigation report will be posted on its website within the next few weeks.

[arthunter]

A new report from San Diego ...

https://www.storyleak.com/scientists...fornia-kelp-2/

[Dixon]

Andrew, feel free to re-calculate with your corrected figures. In any case, it's all just ballpark estimates at this point, due to so many uncertain variables, as I mentioned. My point was and is that we should be aware that the emotional wallop of large numbers can trigger in us exaggerated estimates of danger. Humans are notably bad at quantifying risk, sometimes way overestimating it and other times way underestimating. Just think of all the people who are terrified of being killed by "terrorists" but not of cigarettes.

Having said that, I do share your distrust of the corporate/government/media interests that spin this stuff, due mainly to their huge conflicts of interest. I assume that the real danger is probably somewhere between what they're saying and what some of the "sky is falling" types are saying. That's usually the case.

1) The north pacific ocean is where the discharge of fuku rad. is going into, so cut your numbers in half because ...

[andrew espinoza]

Hi, No thanx on the re-calc. Its not that important....I do agree with you though, we humans tend to scare easy, due to lack of understanding, and vive versa we tend not to react appropriately due to lack of understanding...a cunundrum indeed,so yes its important to stay grounded and demand for appropriate testing and devulgence of info from the involved parties... so for instance

It took TEPCO 2 MONTHS TO TELL THE WORLD IT HAD 3 MELTDOWNS
AND 2 YEARS TO ADMITT DAILY DISCHARGES OF GUESSTIMATION OF 300TONS(NOW 400)
AND 3 YEARS HAVE GONE BY WITH NO CHANGE....
YES THATS SLIGHTLY ALARMING...

so on the discharge of rad. from fuku...no studies have prooven that it will "dilute" as we would like it to, that would be better...yet, (read the whole article, it sheds some light on the issue...We dont know the full effects of what this will do...
"Studies from previous releases of nuclear material in the Irish, Kara and Barents Seas, as well as in the Pacific Ocean, show that such radioactive material does travel with ocean currents, is deposited in marine sediment, and does climb the marine food web."
https://e360.yale.edu/feature/radioactivity_in_the_ocean_diluted_but_far_from_harmless/2391/

One scenerio from this paper that I assume may happen, it may/will dilute in the current its trapped with, so then its dispersed, in higher concentrations as compared to outside that current...thats why there may be hotspots so to speak...but yes we dont know enough yet... this is why testing will alevaite fears or tell us not eat certain foods, out of the pacific..

and this says it all by A. Einstein
"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.”

Andrew, feel free to re-calculate with your corrected figures. In any case, ...

[arthunter]

Dixon, ... with all due respect ... this is an important conversation and it would be nice if we could consider all points of view without any derogatory innuendo ... "sky is falling" types? ... is that someone who does a lot of research and feels that the issue is important to discuss? ... what ever it references, it's a personal opinion ( yours ) which stands in the way of good, open discussion ... I could describe those who aren't worried about this as "head in the sand" types, but I don't .... that would just be non-productive ...

[QUOTE=Dixon;176306...
Having said that, I do share your distrust of the corporate/government/media interests that spin this stuff, due mainly to their huge conflicts of interest. I assume that the real danger is probably somewhere between what they're saying and what some of the "sky is falling" types are saying. That's usually the case.[/QUOTE]

[Dixon]

Arthunter, thanks for letting me know that you've interpreted my "sky is falling" remark as a derogatory innuendo. I certainly don't want to hurt your feelings, so let me clarify: In almost everything, there will be moderate positions, as well as extreme positions at both ends. This holds true for, e.g., heights, weights, IQ, etc. as well as people's positions on social issues (slavery, liberal/conservative, militarism, etc.) In a debate about something like Fukushima, there will be extremists on the "wildly exaggerated danger" end and those on the "deep denial of danger" end. Colloquially, these could fairly be called the "sky is falling" folks and the "head in the sand" folks. We could reasonably disagree about where to draw the lines that divide those realms, but the existence of extreme positions is plain fact in nearly every area of human discourse.

If you took my wording personally because you assume 1) that I meant to include you in the "sky is falling" camp and 2) that you don't think that's a fair assessment of your position, well, let me say this: Some things you've said in the past do lead me to feel that there might be an element of paranoia in your perceptions, but I'm not sure that's true and, even if it is, it may not be affecting your thinking about this particular (Fukushima) issue. As a committed rationalist, I can't lean too hard in either direction in a dispute unless I've researched at least two sides fairly thoroughly, and since I haven't found time to do that, I'm pretty much agnostic about Fukushima as well as other issues you've discussed. So, while any argument like this will inevitably have both "sky is falling" and "head in the sand" extremists, I cannot take a position as to whether your position is entirely reasonable (it may be) or a bit off-base. I hope that helps to soothe your feelings and that you don't feel slapped around, nor dislike me.

Dixon, ... with all due respect ... this is an important conversation and it would be nice if we could consider all points of view without any derogatory innuendo ... "sky is falling" types? ... is that someone who does a lot of research and feels that the issue is important to discuss? ... what ever it references, it's a personal opinion ( yours ) which stands in the way of good, open discussion ... I could describe those who aren't worried about this as "head in the sand" types, but I don't .... that would just be non-productive ...

[arthunter]

Actually Dixon, I wasn't personally offended because I have no conclusions about Fukushima ... no one does ... we're all just exploring information at this point ...

What I object to is wording which might stifle contribution because I want to hear every point of view ...

If you start labeling people who are contributing research and opinions as "conspiracy theorists" and "sky is falling types", even if you truly feel that way, then you are discrediting someone's point of view, and as several people have pointed out, usually these people have done the most research on the subject, and often this research is completely ignored by the person doing the discrediting ... this seems to be pattern in fact ... factual information is completely ignored as the person is discredited ....

In fact, your past diagnosis of my information as leaning towards "paranoia" had little affect on me because at the same time you were admitting to having limited time to do the research required to fully understand all of the possibilities ... Other members of the community did do the research, or had personal experiences which added to my information, and contacted me privately to express this, and of course, these opinions meant more to me ...

Yes, I agree with you, people will be all over the place with regards to any given issue, but unless we know for sure what's really going on, someone who you would label "a sky is falling type" might be correct ... perhaps the sky is falling and perhaps you just can't see it because you're not doing the same amount of research and you personally lean towards being a "head in the sand type" ....

The difference here is that no one is saying, "Dixon, your head is in the sand" ... that would be judgemental and derogatory ... would it not? ... and, seriously, I will not play those games with anyone on this forum ... everyone has a right to their opinion without be labeled and discredited in any way ....

Arthunter, thanks for letting me know that you've interpreted my "sky is falling" remark eas a derogatory innuendo.

[Dixon]

What I object to is wording which might stifle contribution because I want to hear every point of view ...

Well, it sounds like you don't want to hear my point of view if it includes the fact that there will unavoidably be "sky is falling" folks in a discussion like this one.

If you start labeling people who are contributing research and opinions as "conspiracy theorists"...

Please note that I have never used the term "conspiracy theorists" as a pejorative, if at all. In fact, I have ruffled some feathers in the skeptical community and risked the disapprobation of my skeptical friends by insisting that we cannot refute a position simply by labeling it a conspiracy theory, even if it is one, as some conspiracy theories turn out to be true. How about giving me a little credit, arthunter?

...and "sky is falling types"...

Note that I didn't specify any particular person or group of people, nor even any particular position, as a "sky is falling" type. I simply alluded to the fact that such extremes will exist in these discussions. I stand by that.

...even if you truly feel that way, then you are discrediting someone's point of view...

Taking any position on anything implicitly discredits the point of view of those who disagree with us. Your expression of your opinion on this topic or on any topic does that. I would hope you have the same tolerance for others' disagreement with you as you'd like them to have for yours.

...and as several people have pointed out, usually these people have done the most research on the subject...

Yes, but how often have they researched two or more sides, rather than just pursuing evidence that agrees with their positions?

...and often this research is completely ignored by the person doing the discrediting ... this seems to be pattern in fact ... factual information is completely ignored as the person is discredited ....

Yeah, that happens all the time, from both sides of the issue, and it sure sucks! I hope you don't think I'm doing that, 'cause I'm not. (If you disagree, please show an example of my discrediting something without having looked at the research.) I'm wondering if you've been looking at the research which is skeptical of your positions before discrediting it, arthunter.

...unless we know for sure what's really going on, someone who you would label "a sky is falling type" might be correct ... perhaps the sky is falling and perhaps you just can't see it because you're not doing the same amount of research...

That's always a possibility, which is why I've refrained from taking a position on the issue. Though, having said that, the more extreme a person's position is in either direction, the less likely it is to be true.

...and you personally lean towards being a "head in the sand type"....

Ha! To the arch-conservative, nearly everyone is too liberal, and to the arch-liberal, nearly everyone is too conservative. Likewise, to those nearer the "head in the sand" end of the spectrum, nearly everyone is a "sky is falling" type, while to those nearer the "sky is falling" end of the spectrum, nearly everyone is a "head in the sand" type. Isn't that your experience? I consider myself a more balanced type; I'm not far enough in either direction to please either camp much, plus my uncertainty bothers those who think they're certain.

The difference here is that no one is saying, "Dixon, your head is in the sand" ... that would be judgemental and derogatory ... would it not?

There's a difference between insult and constructive criticism, though closed-minded folks will tend to experience constructive criticism as insult. IF the person saying that my head is in the sand is open to my evidence that it's not, then their statement is not judgmental in any bad sense, nor is it derogatory; it's an attempt at constructive criticism, even if they happen to be wrong. So, I'm not offended by such an attribution as long as the person is willing to discuss it openly. The "derogatory" attribution may be true! If it is, they've done me a favor by saying it.

... and, seriously, I will not play those games with anyone on this forum ...

Constructive criticism is not a game. It's an important part of the dialogical truth-seeking process.

...everyone has a right to their opinion without be labeled and discredited in any way ....

There's nothing at all wrong with labels as long as they're accurate, not phrased in needlessly hurtful ways, and open to discussion. As far as discrediting goes, any time you assert your position as true, you're implicitly discrediting all contradictory positions. So let's not cultivate a false righteousness based on the illusion that we don't discredit others' views like those mean people do.

[arthunter]

You've made some really good points, Dixon ... thank you for taking the time to explain yourself ...

By including "conspiracy theorists" in the discussion I wasn't suggesting that you said it ... it's just a term that has been used frequently on this forum and so I included it ...

My point here is simple ... yes, we will disagree, and there will be a spectrum of opinion from one extreme to the other ... agreed ... but, in my opinion, all of the positions on that spectrum are valid until proven otherwise and therefore none of those positions deserve a derogatory label ... "sky is falling type" is a term which sounds like a bunch of crazies running around terrified over nothing .... but there certainly have been instances in our history where our worst fears have been realized, and sometimes the eventual revelations have been much worse then we could have imagined ...

Conversely, there have certainly been fears that were completely unfounded and never materialized so that end of the spectrum is also valid ...

I'm simply suggesting that we drop language that could be insulting so that the full spectrum of opinion is encouraged .... we can disagree with each other without discrediting each other ... your conclusions can be wrong, but that doesn't mean that you're necessarily deficient in the common sense department ....

Well, it sounds like you don't want to hear my point of view if it includes...

[Shandi]

I appreciate that so many people have researched this subject. I have not, and will not.

We all know that governments, not just ours, don't always tell the "factual" truth. So, we have good reason not to trust them. I think the only way around this is not to look to them for protection, on any level, unless it benefits them, for some reason.

Opinions are just that, perspectives based on limited knowledge, experience and pre-disposition to the subject at hand.

There are many movements where citizens can make a difference in turning things around, or changing policies, and have. The housing meeting I attended on Feb. 3rd was one of those situations. I didn't have any factual knowledge of the homeless situation in Sonoma County, other than helping a homeless family last year, and taking in a homeless man for the past 10 months. I experienced homelessness, but was never on the street.

The reason I attended was to gather knowledge, and to see what efforts were being made about this real time tragedy in communities. People are dying from being homeless. Children are going unsheltered because they're afraid to be in shelters with homeless adults. This is something we can take action on, if we really care about people. There are many things we can do, depending on our interests. They may involve helping people, animals, plants and any living thing. We get to chose. Hopefully we each choose something that resonates in our hearts, and is a way to make the desired changes.

This meeting was the 2nd. The first was in July 2013. The next one will be in April. The purpose of these meetings is to get community input, for "CHANGING POLICY". This is an area where we can make a difference. One of the suggestions was to organize a "TASK FORCE", which is an excellent way to change policy. I've asked that the results/notes of the meeting be posted here, so that those who are interested may be informed.

I don't know what I can do about the Fukushima radiation contamination. I don't have $700 to do my own testing, and in reality am not that keen on trusting any organization, no matter how well intentioned they may be. How many people in our community trust WHOLE FOODS, then find out things like they buy from suppliers who grow in sewage sludge? Still trust them?

I've said it before, and it's nothing new. The greatest thing we have to fear is FEAR itself. That alone can do so much damage, even if we're not really exposed to the thing we fear. FEAR is not the answer.

Thanks to all of you who have done extensive research (on both sides) to share with us.

[Valley Oak]

How about if we listen to the experts. Dr. Michio Kaku, physicist, is interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now regarding Fukushima:

https://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/...govt_claims_of

[Dixon]

Dr. Michio Kaku, physicist, is interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now regarding Fukushima

Kaku, of course, makes some good points, such as about Tepco and the Japanese government downplaying the danger (which comes as no surprise). But this video is nearly 3 years old; it's from just shortly after the incident. One wonders if Kaku would express the same level of concern now. Also, he only makes one comment relevant to the danger Fukushima radiation may pose to us in the USA, when he says that the toxicity of the sea water decreases rapidly the further it gets from Japan.

[Valley Oak]

Yes, it is dated but still has some important relevance.

The best thing would be for someone to do the research on highly qualified, scientific input from people like Kaku and publish it on this thread. I'm also pretty sure that Kaku himself has opined on Fukushima fairly recently and this would be a great addition to this topic of Fukushima and radiation poisoning, etc.

But this video is nearly 3 years old; ...

[arthunter]

Here's a recent interview with Kaku ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ColhrJF4mHs [Dec 7, 2013]

and here are some older interviews with him ...

https://www.google.com/search?client...utf-8&oe=utf-8

The best thing would be for someone to do the research on highly qualified, scientific input from people like Kaku and publish it on this thread.

[Dixon]

Here's a recent interview with Kaku ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ColhrJF4mHs [Dec 7, 2013]

This one was posted to YouTube in 2013, but it's the same old interview from 2011 that Edward linked to above!

[andrew espinoza]

Out of curiousity, what kind of information/research are you looking for about this?
Unfortunately this type of event has never happened in our history, The nuclear industry was never ready for this, period. There is no technology to clean up or remove nuclear radiation or there is no way to clean it up from the environment (in theory but not practice), The industry does not know how to store it properly, or obviously how to contain it in an emergency situation...

The bottom line with all this mess, is money, not energy and not peace. Its a huge industry and it goes against ther intial claims that it will be cheap..it costs more to produce nuclear enegy than coal or nat gas let alone against real renewables...

But the info your looking for may already be out there.
Studies?... what they know is what was learned from studies after bomb detonations from the 50's/60's, Cherynoble and other previous nuclear reactor mistakes...

Yes, it is dated but still has some important relevance.

The best thing would be for someone to do the research on highly qualified, scientific input from people like Kaku and publish it on this thread. I'm also pretty sure that Kaku himself has opined on Fukushima fairly recently and this would be a great addition to this topic of Fukushima and radiation poisoning, etc.

[Valley Oak]

Can you please dig up this information somewhere or are there references that we can follow to do the research ourselves?

Thanks.

Out of curiousity, what kind of information/research are you looking for about this?
Unfortunately this type of event has never happened in our history, The nuclear industry was never ready for this, period. There is no technology to clean up or remove nuclear radiation or there is no way to clean it up from the environment (in theory but not practice), The industry does not know how to store it properly, or obviously how to contain it in an emergency situation...

The bottom line with all this mess, is money, not energy and not peace. Its a huge industry and it goes against ther intial claims that it will be cheap..it costs more to produce nuclear enegy than coal or nat gas let alone against real renewables...

But the info your looking for may already be out there.
Studies?... what they know is what was learned from studies after bomb detonations from the 50's/60's, Cherynoble and other previous nuclear reactor mistakes...

[andrew espinoza]

@ EdwardMendoza....Hello, Im not sure if this will help....but here are two links to opposite sides of the nuclear issue
against
https://americamagazine.org/node/148783
and for
https://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf...update2009.pdf

Im still not clear on your exact question though...

Can you please dig up this information somewhere or are there references that we can follow to do the research ourselves?

Thanks.

[steph]

Recent article on the topic...
Fukushima radiation could reach Pacific coast by April

David Perlman

Updated 12:09 pm, Tuesday, February 25, 2014


https://www.sfgate.com/science/artic...by-5264277.php

[andrew espinoza]

its getting closer...it will peak? and hopefully level off?...who knows!

https://za.news.yahoo.com/fukushima-...141659725.html

and

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26329323

Fukushima radiation could reach Pacific coast by April
https://www.sfgate.com/science/artic...by-5264277.php

[andrew espinoza]

And do what you know about this!...a little closer to home than what fuku. has brought us

https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&ct=clnk&gl=us

https://www.abqjournal.com/358467/ab...near-wipp.html

[Tofu Larry]

Citizen Science: Monitoring Fukushima Radiation
This Saturday, May 31, 7:00 pm
SRJC Petaluma Campus, Carole Ellis Aud., 680 Sonoma Mt. Pky.

A discussion by:
Ken Buesseler, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and
Dan Sythe, CEO of International Medcom
Moderated by John Bertucci, Fukushima Response

The on-going release of radiation from Fukushima continues to threaten our oceans, natural environment & society.

Two leading experts in radiation monitoring will discuss natural & man-made radionuclides, how to measure their levels where we live, and crowd sourced websites collecting citizen scientist data, such as OurRadioactiveOcean.org & SafeCast.org

Presented by FukushimaResponse.org