The Nuclear Fallout of Fukushima

I hate how you only have 30 minutes to edit these things..

Yes dear pro-nuke poster, those cattle are dying of starvation, because it is illegal for their owners to come back and feed them. Now, why is it illegal? Because the nuclear experts know what will happen to them if they return. It's hard to walk a tightrope between "no you cannot return by law" and "it's OK to eat the food grown by Fukushima". How many people are seriously able to bridge that dichotomy?

Anyway, imagine 100 years from now with all the brittle old reactors we already have [over 400 worldwide] with their spent-fuel pools to which no world expert has a clue what to do with, add 400 more to that list and fast forward 100 years. 100 years isnt' that long. One of my grandparents was born in the late 1800s and I'm just starting middle age. What will we be leaving our grandkids? What will they look like? Here's a hint. And by the way, these are authentic pictures that nuke-shills are trying to say the UN debunked. They did no such thing. What the UN did do was make the people at the Children's Chernobyl Project take down their old website and remove all pictures of disfigured children and hide a link on a back page to a watered-down video of eye-easy children and even a commentary from some stooge Russian "MD" saying there have been no [that's "zero"] rises in levels of cancers and disfigured births in the Baltic around Chernobyl since 1986.

That's, as in "none".

No, they're not lying to you..lol..

Here may very well be portraits of your own grandchildren. The boy with the hideous leg deformity was on the Children's Chernobyl Project website until just a week or two ago. As was the girl with the missing eye and head tumors, albeit she was a bit older in the photos they just removed for the UN. The UN doesn't want the uncomfortable truth getting in the way of business.



And just like that "poof" the boy and girl are gone. Nothing to see here folks. No rise in cancers around the Baltic! That is zero, none, nada. There is not one single community around Chernobyl experiencing skyrocketing birth defects and childhood disease/retardation linked to high levels of radiation. If the levels are higher, it's from...um...lead!...or um...chlorine! Or ...um... smog!

Beware folks. Only the devil himself would disfigure kids like this and then hide it and lie about it to make money.

Oh, and just a reminder to folks: nuclear reactors merely heat water to steam using radiation. Then the steam runs turbines. We have several alternatives to run turbines from solar or geothermal sources that can replace the KW generated by nuclear. Demand from your politicians that we do so, with haste..

 

Funny. You didn't happen to mention that when you saved the photos to your photobucket, and then uploaded them as a result of "tiny particles falling out of the sky".

Remember saying that?

We know what to do with them. We just aren't allowed to dispose of them properly because of the enviornmental whackos.

Chernobyl was a terribly different situation. USSR didn't even evacuate people, they tried to hide it.

Not to mention, the Chernobyl reactor was significantly different than the modern day reactors.

I bet you don't want to talk about this either.

http://tour2chernobyl.com/

How is that possible! 25 years after a MELT DOWN, full scale, red hot molten melt down... and tour buses full of asian tourists camera in hand drive right by the reactor!


As expected, you ignored the fact that your photo of the dog was debunked and it was turned out that the dogs were later rescued.

 

There needs to be a lesson on radiation and how it affects fetuses, children, young children and adults respectively. Don't know why but I get a feeling like nuke-shills posting here will try to spin "there's no tumors on those cows" into "radiation won't hurt people"..lol..silly silly nuke shills.

The reason children are showing up deformed in huge numbers [yes, they are] around Chernobyl is largely from birth defects. Why is radiation hard on developing fetuses?

Read here as to why that is. Even lower [but still too high] levels of radiation around Chernobyl may be pitching in. You know how you've been hearing all about how "no need to worry, it's no more than one x-ray spread out over a year." Things are a little different for developing embryos. If I was a pregnant woman, I wouldn't be within 500 miles of Fukushima, and even then I'd be upwind:

From cancer.org:

As the human embryo develops, specialized cells "bud" off from the blastocyst formed early on. These cells have a genetic software program to produce things like legs, arms, eyes, brains, genitals, digestive system and so on. During these phases of branching out and formation, the "software" is highly vulnerable to disturbance. It is why such precautions have always been taken with pregnant women...even in situations as "low dosed" as a common x-ray. Women are ALWAYS [not ever once without exception] asked "are you, or is there even a small chance that you are pregnant?" before being led into an x-ray room. This isn't by mistake. Doctors and scientists know what happens to rapidly dividing cells when exposed even to seemingly low levels of radiation.

Think of adding radiation to a developing human embryo like digging your fingernail across your favorite music CD. Won't sound the same, will it? You'll hear blips of music that sound normal followed by large skipping sections and other deformities in the tune.

That's what radiation does to a developing human fetus. It causes an interruption in the smooth flow of development. And then you get what you see in the pictures above. All prime examples of human embryonic interruption by ionic radiation exposure.

 

Ok, so we were just discussing the engineering imperfections of any nuclear plant, even the very best, even those "super foolproof" ones slated to be built soon at a neighborhood near you.

And in realted news...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA7TKSHJ_wM"]YouTube - Tuscaloosa Alabama Tornado April 27, 2011[/ame]

Yesterday the East Coast and South were smacked with a series of tornados from a supercell. The tornado that ripped through Tuscaloosa like a paper shredder was "unforeseen".

See, it's these little acts of nature that are "unforeseen" that can never be engineered for; right Japan? [well to be fair, they knew a tsunami was coming there..after all, they invented the word for it].

Back to the tornados yesterday. I'm pretty sure, well almost sure..maybe 65% sure that a nuclear power plant in the path of a tornado would have its containment vessel intact. But I'm pretty sure that's all that would be. Any emergency system cannot withstand what went through Tuscaloosa yesterday. Heck a racoon messing with a wire set off an emergency at one nuclear plant in the US.

Now, do the math again: If no human engineering is 100% safe, and all nuclear plants must be 100% safe, how many nuclear power plants are, in fact, actually able to call themselves "safe"?

[Hint: Answer is < 1 ]

 

No. What needs to be a lesson is that radiation level has not been proven to have any affect in the subject area. Unless of course you can provide something that says otherwise.

What you are doing here is a logical fallacy. You are taking one situation, fukushima, and opposing that situation by using and presenting facts from a completely different situation chernobyl.

Prove it.

Your attempts at name calling those who oppose your non-sense point of views, and laughing at them makes your opinions no more valid.

Source your BS or ****. Show me that those cows have tumors caused by radiation.

Ill await a source to the report.

This situation isn't Chernobyl.

What exactly are these limits on radiation that you speak of? At what point is the radiation level harmful to embryos but not humans? Can you prove that the level of radiation around fukushima has reached these levels? Can you prove that people are being exposed to this level of radiation?

Fantastic.

Correlation =/= causation.

Prove that pregnant women around fukushima were subjected to radiation?

 

Let me share the effects of GEOTHERMAL ON BABIES and the HORRORS that go with it.









The above pictures I provided are just as truthful as Silhouette's. The difference is that the U.N. did not debunk my photos like they debunked hers as a lie by an organization looking to raise money for their personal enrichment.

Notice the photos are pre-1970 technology... even by Russian standards. The Chernobyl disaster took place in 1986. Those photos are pre-1970 and just a lie campaign by a dirty group of people looking to part suckers from their money. Those photos she shares are a despicable exploitation.

 

So those tornados sure would be a challenge for a nuclear engineer to plan for wouldn't they?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA7TKSHJ_wM&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Tuscaloosa Alabama Tornado April 27, 2011[/ame]

How many tornados struck the East and South yesterday?

Wow, I'm sure glad we didn't have them hit any nuclear plants. There was even one spotted on the way to New York! Say, don't they have a nuclear plant on Indian Point? Runs in my mind they do..

Whew! That was a close one. The one in Tuscaloosa had vortex winds in excess of 200mph and was throwing out debris 10 miles in advance of the twister. Imagine if this was radioactive debris from a spent fuel storage area?

If nuclear plants must be 100% safe not to decimate whole regions of the globe, and men are never 100% able to plan ahead, how many nuclear plants are "safe"?

[Hint, the number is the same as the dog's name in movie "Nightmare Before Christmas"]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbGtP_KQPpg"]YouTube - TNEWS: Tornado rips through Tuscaloosa- April 27, 2011[/ame]

 

Don't worry. I'm sure a nuclear plant safety backup system could handle this:



I mean, we can engineer for that right? Oh, wait...they're still trying to figure out how to engineer buildings to withstand tornados and haven't quite got it. The path of yesterday's tornado through the center of Tuscaloosa left nothing standing in its path. Nothing.

 

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?18118

 

European Parliament issues warnings on HAARP

March 22, 2011

“HAARP is a project of which the public is almost completely unaware, and this needs to be remedied.”

Toronto, Canada – [ZNN] The daily lives of people seem blissfully unaffected by events about which they know little or nothing. Daily news reports unfold with no mention as to why and how the powerful operate behind the scenes. We pay our mortgages, book our vacations and school our children, as a corporate and government elite engage in projects beyond our wildest imaginations.

Conditioned to accept that ‘all is well’ or, that we are powerless to affect change in a world dis-integrating before our eyes – we conduct our lives until one day it affects us directly – unfortunately by then it’s far too late.

Ask the people of northern Japan how they feel about the last three sentences and the answers they now seek in the aftermath of unimaginable loss and yet another future generation desecrated and ravaged by nuclear radiation.

A European Parliament document may provide a few answers for the inquiring mind. This parliamentary document is not some conspiratorial rant but an official governmental perspective describing authentic concern that a terribly grave technology, which the document calls a weapon, has been unleashed over many years without any public knowledge.
The technology is called HAARP and the European Parliament has put NATO, the US Air Force and Navy on notice, demanding an explanation about their involvement.

One of the most (*)(*)(*)(*)ing statements in the document reveals an American refusal to account for itself regarding HAARP research:

“[The European Parliament]… regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration to send anyone in person to give evidence to the public hearing or any subsequent meeting held by its competent committee into the environmental and public risks connected with the high Frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP) programme currently being funded in Alaska.”

http://letsrollforums.com/european-parliament-issues-warnings-t24872.html

 

The thing is that with disrupting weather patterns it still isn't as devastating over the long-term to the overall environment. An environment can recover from any terrible weather feature. However an environment, for all intents and human puposes cannot recover from a nuclear accident.

Here's what I read about the HAARP thing, provided it actually exists:

Typical of the minds with low hairlines and eyes set too close together, sloping foreheads etc.: act first on new technology and think about the consequences later or never at all. Destroying vast essential features of the earth that can destroy life as we know it is the ultimate selfish act, the ultimate test of insanity.

The question is how long do we let the insane create our policies?

 

We are being assured that everything can be accounted for in a system that allows for 0% failure. And yet as we watch those tornados chowdering towns like industrial chippers we know no man can engineer a nuclear plant to withstand that. A nuclear plant is a very dicey and precariously balanced system. The more complex ["safe"] they engineer it, the more that can go wrong. People who own cars and work on them know this infallible principle well.. So if a tornado tore through one of those systems, we know a heating accident would follow immediately in the very best of reactors. And one nuclear incident is more than we can withstand. Obviously.

Again, say goodbye to Tokyo. It will never be the same, if inhabitable at all..

FROM ONE NUCLEAR MISHAP.

 

So the deadliest tornado touchdown in US History left nothing standing in its path. Like I said before, the worst part of a nuclear plant being in any of the many tornados on the 27th and 28th April 2011 would be spent fuel being lifted up and spewed over 10 miles in advance as the storm passed through. Basically that would be a nightmare beyond even sci-fi proportions.

And it's as possible as any tornado could be. Here's a sky shot of what would be left standing in the path of a tornado like this:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFYZuQHrHi4"]YouTube - Tornado Worst WRECKAGE Ever of Tuscaloosa Tornado Alabama[/ame]

What are the odds that a tornado, becoming ever more prevalent as the years go by, might strike a nuclear plant and cripple its cooling system and lift its spent fuel to be spewed over the country like an atom bomb? Probably pretty low. But not impossible. And again, there's that zero tolerance for mishap thing to wrestle with.

 

Here's a map of the dealy tornados this week:



Here's a map of the nuke plants in the US:



It's like rolling the dice..

Now then, we're darned lucky the tornado didn't hit the nuclear fuel storage ponds aren't we? What do you suppose would've happened if Tuscaloosa had a nuclear plant right in the path of the tornado there? I can guarantee you that you don't want to know. And yet you must know. You must know and think ahead and you must write your representatives accordingly. Your very life might depend on it.

 

I suggest you read this and stop scaremongering.

 

Can a nuclear plant stand a direct hit from a tornado? That's the site from straightdope.com. Who hosts that? PSYOPS, a subsidiary of the Monopoly guy?...

Well there's one sure-fire way to find out how a nuclear plant, its spent fuel tanks, its backup generators [you know, that have to function for tens of thousands of years for plutonium, decades for caesium and days for iodine containment, all can withstand a tornado attack like last week: Just wait for a Tuscaloosa one to hit a nuclear plant and see what happens.

Me, I'd rather err on the side of not having spent fuel picked up, spewed into the atmostphere 10 miles in advance as the front moves along for hundreds of miles before it dies out, and/or a nuclear meltdown from unforeseen issues with backup cooling systems crippling it. That's just me though. Others might be perfectly fine with it. This time, we got lucky and backup generators were not directly maimed or rendered disabled by the tornado nearby. Next time might not be so lucky. But heck, everyone seems to be into gambling these days so?...

 

Well at least now they're admitting that there but for the grace of God went Browns Ferry nuclear plant. The determining difference as stated above between Browns Ferry and Fukushima was that the tornado missed the nuclear plant. This time. Looking at the maps in the last post though you can pretty much overlay the path of a couple of those tornados that day right by a couple nuclear plants.

Whew!

 

Yeah, I don't get it. I support the left on most environmental issues, but they seem to fear nuclear power about as much as they fear guns.

 

Guns, as far as I know, don't wipe out entire regions for habitation for decades or even millenia. I support gun ownership.

I do not support rendering Tokyo uninhabitable from one power plant mishap.

See the difference?

 

Again, why aren't Canada and France uninhabitable?

 

I'm sure that, in general, nuclear power is pretty safe. But when it fks up, it REALLY fks up. But there's no stopping it. There will always be an incentive for those in the nuclear power industry to defend their business, and they will ALWAYS downgrade the bad, and sell the good. It's where their stock money is.

 

Yes, there is stopping it. It can be made illegal like polluting, murder and genocide. All of which nuclear plants are guilty of with just one critical heating episode.

Your logic is "well, murder will always happen so let's make it legal". What a load of crap.

For the same reason you could say surrounding areas of Fukushima "are" [in the past] habitable....back in February 2011.

Get it?

 

I'm with you, but who gets to make that decision. It's not us. We can wish all we want to.

 

You people fear a technology rather than taking an objective look at what causes disaster.

Fukushima never would've ended up the way it did if the power plants were using today's technology.

Also, putting nuclear power plants on fault lines is a mistake. Unfortunately, we even have a few plants that fit that description. However, when using the best technology and common sense, nuclear power is perfectly safe.

A lot of people thought internal combustion engines were unsafe compared to horses. Eventually, they woke up and adapted. The same will eventually come true over here, but as with most things, many Americans are stubborn.

 

Either we are a democracy that makes our own laws or we aren't. We decide if we want nuclear or not. Industry hasn't yet completed its coup.