Blog Archive

Tuesday, 8 July 2014

2014 - Fukushima Ocean Radiation Compared To Chernobyl and 2,400 Open Air Nuclear Bomb Tests

July 8, 2014 at 

1:29pm Submitted D'un Renard


Fact; 150,000sq. kilometers of the Pacific ocean have been contaminated with Fukushima radioactive material both by airborne plume after 3/11 and by sea via radioactive water emissions. Some parts of the Pacific are more radiation contaminated than others. Fukushima is still 'leaking’ radioactive materials into the air and ocean today. This mega nuclear disaster is not over. It is just beginning, because TEPCO admits that3 reactors with melted coriums are leaking highly radioactive water into the ocean, starting from 3/11 and continuing to present-day.

TEPCO has admitted that at least 3 reactors are 'leaking’ highly radioactive water directly from the coriums into the basements, which then leaks into the Pacific. Some people believe that 3 or more one hundred ton melted down reactor fuel corium actually exited the buildings completely, which would mean groundwater passing by these coriums, and much more radiation leaking into the ocean than just from 3 coriums inside the buildings somewhere.

TEPCO admits it has no idea where these corium are. They seem to have ZERO interest in finding them

TEPCO has made no attempts to find out where these multiple melted down and possibly melted out coriums.

After Chernobyl, the Soviets assigned a whole team of nuclear scientists to the task of finding and researching the Chernobyl corium, which they did. These scientists paid a high price. Many died due to the very high radiation levels they had to endure to reach this goal, but they did it, because they thought they might be saving the world by preventing the corium from reaching groundwater and exploding again.

By comparison, after three years, Japanese nuclear scientists are going nowhere near those reactors, and are taking no chances at all. No one is assigning anyone to do anything. The Japanese government is putting no pressure on TEPCO. The military is not involved at all. No other country seems to care either. Japanese courts have refused to even evacuate children from highly radiation contaminated areas, despite a lawsuit filed by 10,000 Japanese citizens.

The TEPCO monitoring wells show a huge increase in all man made radioactive elements going directly into the ocean, at never seen before astronomical radiation levels. The fact that fish cesium levels outside of Fukushima are not going down confirms that massive amounts of radiation are pouring into the pacific from 3/11, until today. No one knows how much radiation is pouring into the Pacific, but what is guaranteed is that whatever is going into the ocean will continue to do so for thousands of years, unless the coriums are found and the leaks into the ocean are stopped. The reason why this should be done is that there is a good chance that if allowed to continue that it will result in the mass die off of all life in the Pacific ocean in the long term.

Bottom line, a HUGE amount of radiation went into the Pacific, which came from multiple Fukushima reactor meltdowns and spent fuel pool fires both from the air emissions during the initial stages, and from radioactive water runoff. This mega nuclear disaster has contaminated Pacific ocean water from the surface to a depth of 400 foot, as well as the bottom of the ocean to that depth. The only question is; how high did the radiation levels go per cubic meter, and where is that radiation going up the food chain, to humans?

Effect on Small Sea Organisms In Top 400Feet

The surface of the ocean is where 99.99% of all sea creatures spend their time and get their food. The micro surface layer of the ocean is where the radioactive contamination is the worst. Sea vegetables and creatures concentrate this radiation because they think these man made radioactive elements are nutritious ‘food', as man made radioactive elements mimic minerals normally found upwelling from the deep ocean. So what do these sea creatures do with this man made radiation?

Plutonium And Cesium Bio-Concentrates 26,000 Times In Ocean Algae, Up To 5,570,000 Bq/Kg in Land Algae; via@AGreenRoad

Radioactive Seaweed Found With 40,000,000 Bq per Kilogram - Seaweed Put Into Many Food Products; via@AGreenRoad

The amount of radiation released from Fukushima is unprecedented in human history. The negative effects that this mega nuclear disaster has had on the ocean and the rest of the planet will not be fully known for many years. But there are some clues as to what is going on, and it is entirely expected. Sea organisms are taking up this radiation and concentrating it, just like they would normal minerals.

14February 2013. - Vertical transport of particulate-associated plutonium and americium in the upper water column of the Northeast Pacific - similar measurements beneath the surface layer showed an overall enrichment of Am over Pu on fine suspended particles with depth. Freshly produced zooplankton faecal pellets and large, fast sinking particles collected in PITS contained relatively high concentrations of Pu and Am. Both transuranic concentrations in trapped particles and transuranic flux tended to increase with depth down to 750 m, suggesting that their scavenging is in the upper water column.

2011- A study showed that 98 percent of the ocean bottom 150 miles offshore in the Pacific was covered with formerly living sea creatures. The normal amount is 1 percent.

2012- Marine Blizzards of Death Feed Deep Sea Life
In May 2012,tremendous numbers of slaps reproduced on the surface. Slaps are soft-bodied animals that drift along ocean currents. Slaps feed on phytoplankton, so blooms in marine algae fuel salp population booms. After death, the 2012 salp explosion sank quickly and blanketed the seafloor. So many of these tiny creatures fell that they clogged the devices used by the oceanographers to measure marine snow.

What could have caused this? El Niño’s were not happening in 2011, and were also not there in 2012. However, The slaps feed on phytoplankton, which feed on minerals, such as heavy metals. Although no one mentioned radioactive elements, it is fact that a huge amount of radiation was released by Fukushima and all of these heavy metals ended up in the top layer of the ocean, where plankton eat them, because they mimic natural minerals.

Radiation levels jumped to 1,200 Bq/m at the ocean bottom, as these radiation contaminated salps died and fell to the bottom. This is Nature cleaning the ocean of radiation, through a filtering process by way of living organisms. The only problem is that these slaps are also food for small fish, which then get eaten by bigger fish.

No study has looked at the effect of Fukushima on the sea food chain and how radiation travels up the food chain to concentrate at the top. Radiation was found in tuna off the California coast in 2011, but no more tests were done after that. Wouldn't it be interesting to find out if radiation levels are climbing, levelling off or dropping in tuna, 3 or more years after the 3/11 mega nuclear disaster? And what are the radiation levels in people, especially children, who are eating these tuna? Wouldn't that be of interest? Or do people not count at all? After all, who cares about children? No one, right? (sarcasm)
Effect On Ocean Bottom

The bottom of the shallow ocean near shorelines, especially in the bays and estuaries is where a large part of sea life in the ocean lives, breeds and seeks protection from predators. Almost all filter feeders live close to shore, and they’re VERY efficient at filtering out (and concentrating) very diluted amounts of minerals, including heavy metal minerals that also happen to be radioactive, such as what comes from Fukushima.

Feb.2013 - Cesium-134 deposits were found in marine snow gathered 2000kilometers away from the plant at depths of 5000 meters measuring1,200 Bq/kg. K. Buesseler and Michio Aoyama - ‘Fukushima Derived Radionuclides in the Ocean.

Let's assume this is 'average' level of radiation found across much or most of the Pacific ocean, and not just a hot spot. What impact will this have on the ocean dwelling species and plants?

One indication of just how bad things are getting in the Pacific is a study showed that 98 percent of the ocean bottom 150miles offshore in the Pacific was covered with formerly living sea creatures. The normal amount was 1 percent.

Peak Pacific Ocean Radiation Levels After Fukushima = 180 Million Bequerels per Cubic Meter
Fukushima Wildlife Dose Reconstruction Signals Ecological Consequences (pdf): Seawater concentrations of131I reached 180,000 Bq/L [180 million Bq/m³] on March 30, with an associated 47 000 Bq/L [47 million Bq/m³] of 137Cs (measured 330 offshore) […] At such high dose rates, marked reproductive effects, and even mortality for the most radiosensitive taxa are predicted for all marine wildlife groups whose life history characteristics confine them to the near-field, contaminant release area. […] All estimations were performed under the assumption of no additional marine releases after the end of March. Actual releases of unknown quantity appear to have continued past this date, thus our dose estimates may be low. Our estimates of dose rates are also under-predictions because they are based on measured data for only a few radioisotopes among the suite of possible Radionuclides that composed the actual aquatic source terms (e.g., 58Co, 95Zr, 99 Mo, 99mTc, 105Ru, 106Ru, 129mTe, 129Te, 132Te, 134Cs, 136Cs, 132I, 140Ba,140La).

A Second Study Found 'Only' 50 Million Bq/cubic meter

MIT Center for International Studies — Ken Buesseler, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Oct 24, 2013 (at 31:30 in): This is a timeline from early on to about 1 year later. This is what we published using TEPCO’s data to point out, a couple of features here, you see it going up — this is 50 million Bq/m³. I studied Chernobyl, we’d never seen things above 1,000 Bq/m³ in the ocean. This is why we called it an unprecedented accident. When the health physics people started looking at this they said yeah this of concern. When you’re up here, you might have mortality effects directly on organisms living in the ocean."

The MIT Center reported that radiation levels only went up to 50,000,000MILLION Bq per cubic meter of ocean water. The highest ever recorded ocean water radiation level in history was only 1,000 Bq. per cubic meter, after 2,400 open air nuclear bomb tests and the Chernobyl nuclear power plant meltdown.

Why would one research study find only 1/3 of the radiation that another did? Curious, isn't it? Now compare this study with the IAEA study, which found much lower radiation levels than this, below.

Pre Fukushima Pacific Ocean Radiation Levels

Streamed live on Jun 5, 2014 - Join the Vancouver Aquarium for a presentation by Woods Hole oceanographer, Dr. Ken Buesseler, on the radioactive releases from Fukushima.

In his presentation in 2014, Ken also talks about how the world's oceans had a radiation level pre Fukushima of roughly 1 - 2 Bq/m³, with the exception of the Baltic Sea 40 Bq/m³, Mediterranean 1.7 Bq/m³,    North Sea 3 Bq/m³, Irish Sea 61 Bq/m³, Black Sea 16 Bq/m³, Pacific ocean1.8 Bq/m³, the S. Pacific .7 Bq/m³, S. Atlantic .7 Bq/m³, N.Atlantic 1 Bq/m³, Indian ocean 1.2 Bq/m³, Antarctic ocean .3 Bq/m³,Arctic ocean 3.2 Bq/m³.

These are the world's ocean's levels of radiation after 2,400 open air nuclear bomb tests, which is the equivalent of a nuclear war. For more information about this, click on;

2400 Global Nuclear Atmospheric Bomb Tests 1945-1998; via@AGreenRoad

These were the radiation amounts in sea water BEFORE Fukushima and includes Chernobyl, TMI, 30 nuclear plant meltdowns, plus 2,400 open air nuclear bomb tests. Remember that before the atomic age, the ocean radiation levels were ZERO.

List Of All 30+ Global Nuclear Reactor Melt Downs; via@AGreenRoad
Of course, the pro nuclear apologists will NEVER disclose or talk about all of these nuclear reactor meltdowns, nor will they readily admit to what the radiation levels in the oceans were BEFORE the atomic age, because then their reality will be out in the open for all to see.

Comparing FukushimaChernobyl, TMI and 2,400 Nuclear Bomb Tests

Fukushima caused ocean radiation to go up to180,000,000 Bq/m³] as measured on March 30, 330 miles offshore of Japan (see study link above). Woods Hole only talks about a maximum of 50 to 100 million, depending on which speech you hear.

A reasonable and common sense conclusion just from this measurement alone, would be that Fukushima was 180,000 WORSE than Chernobyl. Why? Because the amount of radiation measured in the ocean at the peak was between 180,000 times more than the amount measured after Chernobyl, based on the graph below. But that conclusion is still not taking into account that Fukushima released between 600 to 6000 pounds of plutonium, while Chernobyl released hardly any. So the actual number is more than likely much worse than this, and only time will tell how much worse, as the death toll starts adding up, when the incubation period for the various cancers starts running out.

According to ENENews; "Recently, large quantities of radioactive materials were released to the atmosphere and coastal waters following a nuclear accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant (NPP),which increased 137Cs concentrations in coastal seawater off Fukushima. [...]

Let's take a deeper look at the chart above, because it speaks volumes. At the highest peak of 2,400 nuclear bombs going off, the oceans never got above 100 Bq/m³ at thee peak. Chernobyl caused a peak of 1,000 Bq/m³, but Fukushima caused a peak of 180 million Bq/m³ on March 30, 2011. The peak has reduced since then, but that is not the point being made here.

Event Peak Radiation Reading In Bq/m³

2,400 Nuclear weapons testing peak- 100 Bq/m³
Chernobyl caused a peak reading of - 1,000Bq/m³
Fukushima caused a peak reading of - 180,000,000 Bq/m³

Chernobyl was around ten times worse than 2,400 nuclear bombs going off.
Fukushima was around 180,000 times worse than 2,400nuclear bombs going off.

It is really worse than that though. Consider this; the radiation levels in the world's oceans were ZERO before the atomic age started, so Fukushima is really 180 MILLION times worse than the normal background radiation levels present in the ocean, before the atomic age started, which was ZERO...

We’re still not even considering the toxicity of plutonium, which was released in large quantities by Fukushima. The pro nuclear experts never mention this, and avoid all testing or talking about plutonium being found and measured all around the world as well.

Of course the nuclear industry does not like it when their planetary life killing activities are pointed out in this way, so they sponsor people from various pro nuclear apologist organizations that know how-to paint a very rosy picture and confirm that the Fukushima disaster will have zero effect on plants, animals, sea life, humans and the planet, no matter what amount of radiation was released. They use fancy words, and throw PhD's around to bully people into thinking they know more than the average person with common sense.

The basic message is; if you listen to anyone else, you are stupid, because they are just fear mongers. They then design more 'studies’ and give more talks to confirm that there is zero detectable harmful radiation out there, so you don't have to worry or be afraid of radiation, ok?

Don't you love how good they are, when they paint this mega disaster with rosy pink colored glasses on? They call online articles like this one 'alarmist' or fear mongering, to try and keep people from reading it, and that works on many people actually. Many people want to stay stuck in denial or normalcy bias.

Titanic and Costa Concordia - Example of Normalcy Bias In Fukushima Mega Disaster; via @AGreenRoad

The Five Stages Of Grief In Response To Trauma, Abuse, Disasters Such as Fukushima, or Loss; via @AGreenRoad

Cognitive Dissonance And The Nuclear Industry; How Reality Refused To Intrude;via@AGreenRoad
Wouldn’t you agree that so far at least, this article is just pointing out the common sense truth of the matter? Let's explore what the IAEA has to say about Fukushima ocean radiation, shall we?

IAEA Found Radiation 'Only' 3,500 Times Higher Than Nuclear Bomb Fallout Overall

By comparison with MIT results, the IAEA scientists say that "[...] the measured 137Cs concentrations in surface waters ranged from 1.8mBq L−1 to 3,500mBq/L−1, up to 3500 times higher than the global fallout background, although the cruise track did not go closer than 30 km from the coast. […] The elevated 137Cslevels covered an area of around 150,000 km2 (south of 38°N and west of 147° E). [...] Scientists "measured 137Cs concentrations in surface waters - ranged from 1.8mBq L−1 to 3500mBq L−1, up to3500 times higher than the global (nuclear bomb) fallout background."

If we stop with just the data provided above and look at it closely, we can see that Fukushima caused normal ocean radiation readings of .7Bq/m³ (nuclear industry provided number) of Cesium in Pacific ocean water to rise to 150,000,000 Bq/m³. There was actually ZERO Cesium in ocean water before nuclear testing and nuclear accidents, so that is what they should be using as 'normal background' levels of radiation in the oceans.

When the IAEA says that Pacific ocean radiation levels went up 'only' 3,500 times 'normal background', or that they could only find 3,500 Bq/cubic litre, it does not make any sense. Remember that there was no man made cesium, tritium, strontium, plutonium, or other toxic, heavy metal poison background radiation before the atomic age. So arbitrarily picking a point down the road and saying this was the beginning point is very deceptive to begin with.

If you go from zero to 150,000,000 Bq/m³, that is HUGE, way more than 3,500 x normal, more like 150 million percent increase from the natural background radiation, which is actually ZERO for things like cesium, uranium, tritium and plutonium, correct? This is another example of how the nuclear industry downplays everything, admitting only 1%, and denying 99%. Are you starting to see how it all works yet? If not, just keep on reading and learning, you will 'get it' soon enough.

Pro Nuclear Apologists Like To Claim That All Radiation Is Natural, Like Potassium

The pronuclear apologists also like to make the claim that the 'natural background' level of radiation in the North Pacific before March 11Fukushima nuclear disaster was around 10 to 15 Bq/m³, primarily due to potassium-40, a naturally occurring isotope, with much smaller contributions provided by fallout from Cold War-era atmospheric nuclear weapons testing. This is a false equivalency argument and should be ignored as the deceptive and misleading logic that it is. Why?

Consider how man made radioactive Cesium, Strontium, Plutonium and Iodine is bio-accumulative plus bio concentrating up the chain of life, as illustrated in the study already shown above, just looking at the smallest sea organisms. All of these highly toxic, radioactive manmade elements are destroying life in the ocean. Potassium in water or bananas does not cause this life destroying reaction.

Meanwhile, radioactive potassium in bananas and in ocean water is not doing anything, because both humans and ocean life keeps this element in homeostasis, and it is not a poison, like the man made artificial elements are. All life on the planet is used to potassium, and has evolved with it for millions of years, but no life is used to or has seen artificial man made radioactive elements like tritium, strontium, plutonium and more.

If one goes no further than the study released above, and one does nothing but compare potassium to cesium, it looks like these scientists are saying that the radiation levels in the ocean went DOWN since Fukushima, by HUGE orders of magnitude. Maybe everyone should thank TEPCO for polluting the ocean with man made radioactive elements, because it will make all life, including humans get healthier, via the hormesis theory. If the pro nuclear apologists are right, then there is nothing to worry about, right? WRONG!

Rachel Maddow - Hormesis Promoting Republican Art Robinson Wants To Sprinkle Radioactive Waste From Airplanes Over Cities? via@AGreenRoad

AGRP estimates that Fukushima was a HUGE mega nuclear accident that was orders of magnitude larger than Chernobyl in both scale, scope and time, without adding the additional toxicity of plutonium. Here is one independent nuclear expert, who says Fukushima was 10 times bigger than Chernobyl. This is a huge difference from the IAEA, which claims Fukushima is only 10% of Chernobyl.

Liquid Radiation Releases From Rivers And Fukushima Site Into Ocean Continue, Getting Worse

"The liquid releases — I really haven’t had time to even talk about them — but they’ll continue for years and years into the future. ....We already know that the liquid releases are ten times Chernobyl. (Notice he    does not even mention AIR releases, which are also orders of magnitude larger than Chernobyl?)

Graphic shows 'direct discharge' going from Fukushima Daiichi reactors into Pacific -- Underground flow of contaminated water also indicated(VIDEO)

The rivers are pouring these radiation contaminated materials into the ocean as well, plus TEPCO admitted to a massive Niagara falls 'leak' of 400 tons a day of highly radioactive water, since 3/11. As we know by now, TEPCO seems to understate things by a factor of 10 or more, so the real number is probably much higher.

So how could radiation levels be going down in the Pacific, instead of up? It does not make any logical sense. Dilution does work to some extent in a body of water that large, but pouring in highly toxic, radioactive elements both in air, groundwater, rivers, and dumping without stopping from 3/11 to present day, is another thing entirely.

Certainly the pro nuclear apologists claiming (no harm, everyone is safe, nothing was affected, no one died, no animals were affected) in the study above are faulty, for many reasons. Let us dive further into the murky, deceptive world of pro nuclear apologist radiation testing and reporting, shall we?

IAEA Reports On Total Radiation Ocean Fallout From Beginning Of Atomic Age

The IAEA reports that; "results confirm that the dominant source of anthropogenic Radionuclides in the marine environment is global fallout. The total 137Cs input from global fallout was estimated to be 311 PBq for the Pacific Ocean, 201 PBq for the Atlantic Ocean, 84 PBq for the Indian Ocean and 7.4 PBq for the Arctic Ocean. For comparison, about 40 PBq of 137Cs was released to the marine environment from Sellafield and Cap De La Hague reprocessing plants.

The Chernobyl accident contributed about16 PBq of 137Cs to the sea, mainly the Baltic and Black Seas, where the present average concentrations of 137Cs in surface water were estimated to be about 60 and 25 Bq/m3, respectively, while the worldwide average concentration due to global fallout is about 2Bq/m3."

Converting Bq/m3 to pCi/Liter

200 Bq/m3 = 5.4 pCi/liter. There are 1,000liters in 1 cubic m3 of ocean water. Any radiation exposure is cumulative, so the fact that the IAEA admits that these nuclear reprocessing plants and accidents did increase the normal background radiation, says something. It used to be that no plutonium, cesium or tritium was found in ocean water. Now huge quantities of cesium, uranium, tritium and other toxic contaminants are being found. And if’ natural' uranium was there, it was in parts per trillion, which is almost impossible to measure, because it is such a small amount.

The pro nuclear apologists make a number of very devious, calculating and deceptive claims around the radiation found in ocean water. Let's see how many deceptive things we can find, shall we? This is not complete list, by any means...

1. They say that because these amounts are so low per cubic meter, that no one has to worry their pretty little heads about it. But they make no mention of how this radiation was not there at all before the atomic age. They completely dismiss the possibility that it may have some negative effect.

2.Nor do they mention that this same man made radiation is 100,000times more toxic at even low diluted levels when compared to potassium for example.

Radioactive Potassium In Bananas Compared To Cesium, Plutonium, Uranium And Iodine via@AGreenRoad

3.They don't mention that all of these toxic things concentrate up the food chain, all the way back up to humans. They will never talk about or admit how low dose radiation harms children, specifically.

Fukushima Low Dose Radiation Causing Unusual Changes in Children; via@AGreenRoad

Via Ontological January 3, 2014 "These "findings" of "only" 20 scintillation/sec equate to 1200 cpm beta total per minute dose from the entire mass (cubic meter) of seawater! This will add up quickly in the food chain...

Again these results do not include disintegrations from 1400 or so other daughter isotopes in the fallout. So if the cesium is average as to the contents, then let's say PU/U/Strontium, and Cesium would raise those scintillations to 4800 disintegrations per minute from the total cubic meter, or 4800/1000(litres in the cubic meter of seawater; or4.8 bq/ litre on just those 4 Elements. When this "tiny” amount is bio-accumulated for long, (3 years+ soon)things get ugly fast. Cloaked in a smoke and mirror show, the Elephant in the room seems to be way smaller than it really is by eliminating the rest of the pixels in the picture. Figure out how much water a clam can filter when a clam can filter water, and the reds add up fast the further along the food chain it goes."

4. They don't add together ALL of the hundreds of man made elements together and give a total of all of them, in that same cubic meter. They just pull one of1,00 rabbits out of the hat, count that one rabbit, and then claim there are no more rabbits in the hat.

Pandora's Box Opened;1,946 Lethal Radioactive Man Made Elements Created By Nuclear Industry Coming Out; via@AGreenRoad

To be fair and give a total amount of radiation per cubic meter, wouldn’t you agree that they have to add all of these isolated radioactive elements numbers together, not report them in isolation? After all, if you eat a piece of pie and are counting calories, you do not count just the pie dough and leave out the icing, fruit and sugar, plus the whipped topping and chocolate syrup, do you? Well, that is what 'peer reviewed' scientists do all of the time. They measure one of hundreds of radioactive elements and leave out all the rest, so they may only be measuring .005% of the total amount of radiation in a cubic meter of water. This is not fair and it is not scientific.

5. The loudest nuclear apologists speaking the most on mass media, always seem to quote the lowest numbers and then only by focusing on one of hundreds of man made radioactive elements. Why don't their numbers match or compare with the MIT and French studies? Both of these studies show much larger numbers than what the IAEA reports. The IAEA says peak readings never went higher then coupled thousand times pre Fukushima levels. But the MIT study found that;

"Seawater concentrations of 131I reached 180,000Bq/L [180 million Bq/m³] on March 30, with an associated 47,000 Bq/L[47 million Bq/m³] of 137Cs (measured 330 m offshore) […]"

6.They compare potassium in bananas and seawater to man made radioactive elements, which are pure poisonous heavy metals.

How Poisonous And Radioactive Man Made Elements Mimic Natural Minerals Found In Nature; via@AGreenRoad

If they can deceive the public in this many ways, how many other ways are they deceiving everyone, and about what? Let's dive deeper into the radioactive rabbit hole, shall we?

This is an example of how garbage science studies get published and peer reviewed. These studies than confuse the public and have the effect minimize the nuclear disaster. Expert nuclear speakers go around and say how all radiation is safe, so people can go home and not worry, and just leave the nuclear industry alone.

If one adds together all1,200 radioactive elements coming out of Fukushima, and measures them all separately in the ocean, and then adds them together in a per cubic meter measurement, ALL of these studies above, look like peanuts compared to what is actually happening.

IAEA And Pronuclear Experts Claim Fukushima Is Only 10% of Chernobyl

The IAEA and pretty much all pro nuclear apologists make the claim that Fukushima released only 10% of the radiation compared to Chernobyl, so using the above figures translates into Fukushima releasing only1.6 PBq of 137C's.

Anyone with common sense will know that 1.6PBq coming out of Fukushima is a laughably ridiculous fairy tale, because Fukushima had 3 nuclear reactors melt down 100%, and at least two, possibly three reactors melted through with corium exiting the reactors and going down into the ground.

In addition, at least 3 spent fuel pools burned, releasing some, most or ALL of their ‘hot' load into the atmosphere. At least two of them also melted out at least one pool, such as the equipment pool for example. But when your pay check depends on not telling the truth, the nuclear industry is very good at hiding 99%, and admitting only 1% of the truth.

AGreenRoad - TEPCO/Fukushima Lies Exposed Around Building #4,SFP, Core. Equipment Pool, Melt Out; via @AGreenRoad

Then building #3 had a MOX fuel explosion, which released a MASSIVE amount of radiation, much more than Chernobyl, all by itself.

What Really Happened At Fukushima Reactor And Spent Fuel Pool #3? via@GreenRoad
The reality and FACTS created by figures showing peak radiation hint at how much was actually released by Fukushima, compared to Chernobyl.

Event Radiation In Bq/m³

2,400 Nuclear weapons testing peak reading - 100 Bq/m³
Chernobyl caused a peak reading of - 1,000 Bq/m³
Fukushima caused a peak reading of -180,000,000 Bq/m³

Chernobyl was around ten times worse than2,400 nuclear bombs going off.
Fukushima was around 180,000 times worse than 2,400 nuclear bombs going off.

The activities used in the table below are from 1971 Radioactivity in the Marine Environment, National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Members of the nuclear education group at the National Academy of Sciences are made up of people like the following pro nuclear apologists;

SusanM. Stevens-Adams, Sandia National Laboratories
Mark Sutton, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Keith S. Bradley, Argonne National Laboratory
Annie B. Kersting, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Ronald L. Boring, Idaho National Laboratory
Aaron J.Simon, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

One of the goals of the National Academy of Science with the National Academies Initiative is to educate the K -12 kids on the benefits of nuclear reactors, and teach all kids all about how safe radiation is, because it is all natural, just like potassium and that no one has ever died or been injured by nuclear radiation... The only problem is that what they teach is not true; it is pro nuclear propaganda, developed by the 'experts' who want to promote the nuclear industry, just like the IAEA.

Natural Radioactivity by the Ocean
Activity used
in calculation
Activity in Ocean
All Oceans
(33 mBq/L)
6 x 108 Ci
(22 EBq)
3 x 108 Ci
1.1 x 109 Ci
(41 EBq)
Potassium 40
300 pCi/L
2 x 1011 Ci
(7400 EBq)
9 x 1010 Ci
(3300 EBq)
3.8x 1011 Ci
(14000 EBq)
0.016 pCi/L
(0.6 mBq/L)
1x 107 Ci
(370 PBq)
5 x 106 Ci
(190 PBq)
2 x 107 Ci
Carbon 14
0.135 pCi/L
(5 mBq/L)
8 x 107 Ci
4 x 107 Ci
(1.5 EBq)
1.8 x 108 Ci
(6.7 EBq)
28 pCi/L
(1.1 Bq/L

There is a problem with this educational 'natural' background radiation report is that it was created by people working in pro nuclear industry labs and colleges, but then using the National Academy Of Science to promote their business and push more radiation on a trusting public. Most if not all of these radioactive items in the list above are present in ocean water now due to the bombs set off and nuclear accidents created by the atomic scientists. They are not there due to millions of years of Nature. Radioactive things have mostly all decayed away after millions of years of time.

Definitely, Tritium, Carbon 14,Rubidium and Uranium are not natural, and were not in the oceans to any measurable extent before the atomic age. These things are released in massive quantities by all nuclear reactors operating normally, as well as by nuclear accidents and spills.

Individual Radioactive Elements/Isotopes, USA Radiation Exposure Prevention and Reversal, Music

30Ways The Nuclear Industry Deceives Everyone; via@AGreenRoad

Cesium is not even listed as being on the Pacific ocean by the IAEA, because the amount was too low to register, according to them. These 1971figures were calculated after years of nuclear bomb testing and fallout into the oceans of the world. How much of this stuff was there BEFORE all of this nuclear testing and accidents? ZERO.

IAEA Is Nothing More Than Corrupt Marketing Arm Of Nuclear Industry

First, we have to remember that most of the nuclear scientists working on measuring ocean radiation levels are relying on figures and testing methods as provided by the IAEA, which is a marketing arm of the nuclear industry. There are only a few PhD nuclear chemists in the US, and only a few PhD nuclear scientists, so it is not hard to corrupt or control them all via funding and/or job pressures, even if they don't work for the IAEA directly. If they told the truth, the whole nuclear industry would collapse overnight, so they pretty much have to deny about 99% of what REALLY happens.

The IAEA has a built in bias against reporting any 'harmful’ information about any nuclear accident, or about the harmful effects of low dose radiation in general. We will see later on in this article how this same positive 'result' is generated in the study above...

IAEA, WHO, NRC And Others; A Web Of Deception? via@AGreenRoad

This same basic fact of "radiation is good for you" by labelling just about everything found as 'natural background radiation' applies to the entire nuclear and medical industry, plus government agencies such as the NRC as well. These industries and regulators are little more more than puppets of the nuclear industry due to revolving doors in and out of the nuclear industry from and to these government agencies and medical institutions.

Via the following links; an ex-World Health Organization employee gives an insider's view of the W.H.O, IAEA, Security Council…and nuclear-radiation policy, conflict-of-interest, and Chernobyl +Fukushima.

Some notes from the interview;

* The WHO works with the IAEA in cover-ups of nuclear disasters

* No independent reports about nuclear disasters can legally be released by the WHO; they’re controlled by the IAEA, which is a marketing arm of the nuclear industry.

* 2 conferences were held on Chernobyl; one in 1995in Geneva, one in 2001 in Kiev – the final reports were never published. Why not? What are they so afraid of?

* People have no national or international authority or group of scientists who are reporting the truth, The only source of reliable information is from independent scientists.

* ICRP members are all from the military or nuclear physicists on 'payroll' or under control of nuclear industry.

* Ionizing radiation always causes mutations at the cellular level, according to WHO Director General, Dr. Chan, in 2011.

* Dr. Chan said ALL radiation causes damage; that there is a difference between internal and external radiation; and she didn't believe herself that only 50 people had died from Chernobyl.

* The WHO health report on Fukushima;

(a) WHO ignored thyroid abnormalities in Japanese children (the 44-99% of Japanese children with nodules and cysts)

(b) In charge of sampling food products for levels of Radionuclides; only17 eggs were sampled.

(c) they totally and completely ignored bio-accumulation in fish.

(d) they ignored all problems at the Fukushima site.

(e) all 30 authors of WHO report worked for the nuclear establishment; most for the IAEA and many formational regulator and nuclear authorities, such as UNSCEAR and the IRCP which are also 'captured' by the nuclear industry.

For those who want to pursue the corruption and double dealing of the WHOUN organization, here is another link to pursue;

Bottom-line, the pro nuclear apologists at WHO, IAEA, TEPCO, UNSCEAR, Japanese nuclear regulators and the Japanese government all work together to hold the radioactive glowing 'line'. They CLAIM that allow level radiation is good for you, unless it kills you in ten minutes and only then is it bad for you, but not for long, because then you will be dead, so you really have NOTHING to worry your head about. Thus, 99.999999% of all radiation is safe in their eyes.

These pro nuclear experts and apologists all claim that no one died from Fukushima, it is only 10% of Chernobyl, no plutonium came out, nothing melted out, no plutonium MOX fuel explosion happened, and no spent fuel pool fires happened. If you believe all of this, it may be a good idea to go work for the nuclear industry, because this is the cult that believes all of this, despite clear evidence to the contrary about all of it.

Atomic Energy Commission Abolished Due To Same Corruption And Cover Ups Happening Today

The Atomic Energy Commission was shut down and abolished for the very same corruption, cover ups and secrecy that is happening today. But the corruption of the nuclear industry, the medical industry, WHO, and government regulators like the NRC remains even to this day, and things may have even have gotten much worse, because now there are TRILLIONS of Dollars on the table in this industry. We all know that absolute power corrupts absolutely, correct? Wouldn’t Trillions of Dollars be one of the definitions of absolute power?

Why else would the EPA and NRC not report and warn people about invisible radiation levels after they rose to unsafe levels in US air, foods and drinks after Fukushima? If you don’t believe this can happen in the 'greatest' country on Earth, you had better research this subject a little bit further.

According to the Ventura County Reporter; "NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, suspended testing the Pacific for Fukushima radiation last summer after concluding that there wasn’t any radiation to be detected.... the California Department of Public Health halted monitoring of Fukushima fallout when its Radiologic Health Branch issued its last report on Oct. 10, 2011. The EPA also stopped all testing, shortly after 3/11. Why would they stop testing, when at the exact same time, radiation levels were RISING to alarming and dangerously high levels?

University Test Shows Alarming Radiation Rise In Milk After Fukushima

That report shows an alarming rise in cesium-137 in Cal Poly San Luis Obispo dairy farm milk beginning June 14, 2011, when it tested 2.95 picocuries per liter (pCi/l) and steadily rising in four subsequent tests until it was 5.91 pCi/l. The hot milk was at twice the allowable amount of this radionuclide in drinking water, according to the EPA’s 3.0pCi/llimit....

Low-level radiation in food and water effects

Why Are There No Tests Of Children's Internal Radiation Load In US?

Why are all of the regulators or medical authorities not testing for internal total body radiation in children in the US, who are the most vulnerable to a build up of radiation from low level food and liquid sources?

Radiation bio accumulates and then concentrates up the food chain. We know that from the linked stories above, which provide proof of this. Larger and larger amounts of more deadly radiation is still being released by Fukushima. For more information on low level radiation in food and drinks, click on the following link...

Low-Level Nuclear Radiation In Food And Water

Why The Cover Up Of MOX Fuel Explosion at Building #3?

Why is everyone covering up the fact that reactor or spent fuel pool #3 blew up in a criticality explosion, spreading it's load of 'hot' fuel for1- 3 kilometers in all directions, including the ocean bottom? Would you like some proof?

Fukushima 5 Minute Summary Of Events 2011to 2012; via@AGreenRoad

Total Fukushima Radiation Released Into Ocean, Air, Groundwater, Storage Tanks; via @AGreenRoad

Radioactive ‘Death' River; 430,000 Bq per Kg From Fukushima Cesium in River Bottom Sediment, via@AGreenRoad

Comparing Contaminated Zones Around Chernobyl And Fukushima Ocean Radiation Released; via @AGreenRoad

What really happened at Fukushima? via@AGreenRoad

How Dangerous Is 400-600 Pounds Of Plutonium Nano Particle Dust Liberated By Fukushima? via@AGreenRoad

What is the effect of these radioactive rods being blown out into the ocean? What is the effect of constant, never ending leaks of highly radioactive water from the basements and coriums into the ocean?

This article proved that peak radiation in the ocean measured 180 MILLION Bq per cubic meter. According to TEPCO, the levels of radiation going into the ocean have been 'reduced to' 1,000Bq per cubic meter. How can this be possible, when radiation levels in the monitoring wells right next to the ocean are going up stratospherically?

The highest peak levels reached in any ocean were 100 Bq per cubic meter after the Chernobyl accident. Of course, TEPCO seems to minimize and cover up high radiation readings, so if these figures are minimized, leaving the public to wonder what the real radiation figures are.

High Radiation Levels Found On Ocean Bottom And In Fish

" … Around 95 terabecquerels of radioactive caesium has found its way to the sandy ocean floor near the plant. How it got there, Kanda says, no one is sure …Whether originating from plankton or sediment, the contamination is finding its way into the food chain. Bottom-dwelling fish in the Fukushima area show radioactivity levels above the limit of 100becquerels per kilogram set by the Japanese government. Greenlings, for example, have been found to have levels as high as 25,000becquerels per kilogram.…Second, the plant itself is leaking around0.3 terabecquerels (1012 Becquerel’s) per month, he estimates."

Source: Ocean still suffering from Fukushima fallout. Continuing leaks and contaminated sediment keep radiation levels high. Geoff Brumfiel 14 November2012

US Government Agencies Stop Testing For Radiation After 3/11

Meanwhile, here in the supposedly free and democratic USA, the EPA stopped testing for radiation in US food and drink as well, at about the same time as the US Health Dept. above. Are you starting to see a pattern here yet? Fill in the rest of the dots by reading some of the other articles linked to in this one. See if you start to form a conclusion after you watch a few of the videos and read a few articles, while keeping an open mind.

The lies and deception in the nuclear industry generally and around the IAEA and other organizations specifically are detailed below.

The Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science; via@AGreenRoad

Ann Harris; Exposes TVA, NRC, And NEI Corruption And Cover-ups; via AGreenRoad

GregPalast; The Lies and Fraud Behind Nuclear Plant Emergency Diesel Generators; via@AGreenRoad

Gorbachev; Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Was Real Cause Of The Collapse of Soviet Union; via@AGreenRoad

30Ways The Nuclear Industry Deceives Everyone; via@AGreenRoad

Human Radiation Experiments Performed Without Consent Or Knowledge; via@AGreenRoad

Truth Telling And Nuclear Radiation Experts/Specialists; via@AGreenRoad

The Nuclear Industry And Cognitive Dissonance; via@AGreenRoad
Now that we have established that the basic 'facts' released by IAEA,TEPCO, EPA, WHO, NRC and other pro nuclear apologists about Fukushima are for the most part false, minimized and are based on misleading assumptions, theories or false data, we can get to what really happened at Fukushima by reading a few of the following articles.

Nuclear Accidents, Recycling Nuclear Weapons/Fuel

Post a Comment