Submitted by Ana (not verified) on Tue, 2011-05-03 10:56.
Michio Ishikawa of the Japan Nuclear Technology Institute on the situation at Fukushima I Nuke Plant, as he appeared on Asahi TV on April 29.
Mr. Ishikawa continues to believe in the safety of nuclear power generation. He didn't mince his word and said what they are doing at Fukushima I Nuke Plant is not working. That surprised some, including the host of the show, as Ishikawa is known as a strong proponent for the nuclear power generation and the nuclear industry.
About the condition of the reactor cores:
"I believe the fuel rods are completely melted. They may already have escaped the pressure vessel. Yes, they say 55% or 30%, but I believe they are all melted down. When the fuel rods melt, they melt from the middle part on down.
"I think the temperature inside the melted core is 2000 degrees to 2000 and several hundred degrees Celsius. A crust has formed on the surface where the water hits. Decay heat is 2000 to 3000 kilowatts, and through the cracks on the crust the radioactive materials (mostly noble gas and iodine) are escaping into the air.
"Volatile gas has almost all escaped from the reactor by now.
"The water [inside the pressure vessel] is highly contaminated with uranium, plutonium, cesium, cobalt, in the concentration we've never seen before.
"My old colleague contacted me and shared his calculation with me. At the decay heat of 2000 kilowatt... There's a substance called cobalt 60. Highly radioactive, needs 1 to 1.5 meter thick shields. It kills people at 1000 curies. He calculated that there are 10 million curies of cobalt-60 in the reactor core. If 10% of cobalt-60 in the core dissolve into water, it's 1 million curies." [10 million curies equals 370,000 terabecquerels, and 1 million curies equals 37,000 terabecquerels. I used this conversion table. Tell me I'm wrong! Cobalt-60 alone would make a Level 7 disaster...]
"They (TEPCO) want to circulate this highly contaminated water to cool the reactor core. Even if they are able to set up the circulation system, it will be a very difficult task to shield the radiation. It will be a very difficult work to build the system, but it has to be done.
"It is imperative to know the current condition of the reactor cores. It is my assumption [that the cores have melted], but wait one day, and we have water more contaminated with radioactive materials. This is a war, and we need to build a "bridgehead" at the reactor itself instead of fooling around with the turbine buildings or transporting contaminated water."
Here's the video of the show, for those of you who can understand Japanese ...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO0flpwmjJI&feature=player_embedded
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-02 12:42.
let's look at it how it is (lets forget for one moment how the Japanese are still trying to convince the public that any of these 4 reactors are still funcitiong. All 4 reactors are damaged, robots need to go inside, no progress noone knows how to fix it
These 4 reactors are done.
The Japanese let these 4 reactors burn until it ceases on its own, which could be years or decades or never? remember it is a chain reaction and noone can get close to even look at it closely.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-02 13:48.
Wrong again.
At this moment they are installing venting systems to bring down the radiation levels in reactor 1, I believe. This would allow them to enter the building and perform work to repair the cooling systems further.
Why is it all of the doomsayers have such a love for ignoring the facts just to whip up more anxiety?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-02 14:36.
I am really curious if this plan to send in humans will be possible even in suits and breathing apparatus .hope it's possible Is it possible to do this
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-05-04 10:29.
Then that would be the black smoke in the explosion of reactor 3 when it blew it's fuel rods 2 miles away from the site and nuetron beams were witnessed.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-05-04 15:18.
"United States government engineers sent to help with the crisis in Japan are warning that the troubled nuclear plant there is facing a wide array of fresh threats that could persist indefinitely, and that in some cases are expected to increase as a result of the very measures being taken to keep the plant stable, according to a confidential assessment prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "
"The document also suggests that fragments or particles of nuclear fuel from spent fuel pools above the reactors were blown “up to one mile from the units,” and that pieces of highly radioactive material fell between two units and had to be “bulldozed over,” presumably to protect workers at the site. The ejection of nuclear material, which may have occurred during one of the earlier hydrogen explosions, may indicate more extensive damage to the extremely radioactive pools than previously disclosed. "
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-05-04 16:46.
Pieces of fuel means specs of dust. A large explosion would pulverize anything that would be able to be found aile away. Any visible fragments would have not left the site. That summary is very misleading.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-05-04 17:07.
Seems to me that pulverized dust would be more of as threat to the rest of the world than intact fuel rods. I can't imagine a scenario where an intact fuel rod would somehow make it's way into the jet stream then rain down on the USA and the rest of the world, but the pulverized, ultra fine dust...
How does that taste on your salad?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-05-04 19:26.
How do you know what's in my head? Are you psychic? Could I get tomorrows lotto numbers? I never said plutonium was detected in the US.
Wow this is getting pretty confusing because the thing you say is only in my head... I'm pretty sure that it's only in your head (the fact that it's only in my head). I've gotta stop thinking about this paradox or I fear there may be a tear in the space time continuum.
Why try to turn this to a discussion about plutonium in the US? Trying to start an argument you can win? Probably better that this failed "no reports of fuel rods being ejected.. oh wait no reports of intact fuel rods being ejected oh wait prove to my plutonium has been detected in the US even though we all know plutonium hasn't been expansively tested here"
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-02 13:12.
How far does this smoke travel? Will we be getting some of this in our air in the US?
BRAWM?
Do I send my kids out to play in the next few days??? UGH.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-05-04 10:37.
Worried mom, I also, am a worried mom and I kept my child in mostly between March 20th and 30th, but my child became worried and anxious, so I finally relented. Not to be Debbie Downer, but Arnie Gunderson at Fairewinds says that Plutonium and Uranium were turned into vapor when reactor 3 blew up(around March 17th???) and that stuff hit us over a month ago. Uranium dust has been detected on the west coast already.
I live on the west coast and if I win the lottery, I'm moving to the southern hemisphere, becasue this crap will be coming at us for months. But for now, I am going to try to relax, appreciate my time with my loved ones and be thankful for what I've got.
Please let me ease your worries by saying that Fukushima plutonium and uranium have definitely not been detected in the US. I have not found any evidence, from our lab or any other, that Mr. Gunderson's claims are true. The uranium that was found here was solely from natural sources, the same that have been here for thousands of years.
Submitted by freaked out auntie (not verified) on Thu, 2011-05-05 12:33.
Thanks, Tim, for responding to this!
I just saw the video of Mr. Gunderson making these claims and was terrified. I have a 3-year old niece who plays outside all the time...
Anyway, I came straight here to see if there was anything about "vaporized plutonium" (because none of this is ever in the news) blowing across the Pacific, and am so relieved to see your post.
You guys are the best, this site had been keeping me sane the last 6 weeks!
I am not alleging that those are false positives -- I am saying that they are very likely NOT true positives, which is what others have claimed. The data were misinterpreted because the error bars were neglected. The whole point of error bars is to quantify the likelihood of false positives and false negatives, and understanding them is crucial to interpreting data.
All of these measurements (EPA, BRAWM, etc.) are fundamentally statistical in nature. There is always an uncertainty in a measurement when you are counting things -- gamma rays, alphas, etc. All results must be reported with their corresponding error bars; a measurement doesn't mean anything without error bars. The error bars give a confidence interval that the true value lies within a certain range -- plus or minus the error bars is 68%, and plus or minus twice the error bars is 95%.
For example, if I report a measurement of 7±2, the true number is very likely not 0 -- we can say that there is a 95% chance that the true number lies between 3 and 11.
However, if I report a measurement of 1±2, then the true number has a 95% chance of being between -3 and 5. This means that 0 cannot be excluded. In this case one usually reports a non-detection and a detection limit called the minimum detectable activity (MDA), which is defined to be twice the error bars. Our MDA for this example is 2*2 = 4. That is how big the measurement would need to be in order to exclude 0 at 95% confidence.
In the case of the EPA data for plutonium and strontium, the confidence intervals of the measured values do not exclude 0 at 95% confidence. This means the data are very likely to be non-detections.
The measurements still give valuable information though -- they tell us that the true levels are below the MDA to 95% certainty. Or, another way of saying this is that the likelihood of a false negative is 5% (i.e., the probability that the true value is actually above the MDA).
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-05-05 01:42.
So, one must play with statistics to determine truth. The raw data might mean zero...or it might not mean zero. That's it distilled down.
The potential for a grave public health menace is reduced to Las Vegas Casino thinking.
I'm sorry, but I don't have the faith that *all* these detections are simply false positives, "probably" zeroes.
"This means the data are very likely to be non-detections." That's a position change from your previous certitude of "EPA RadNet did NOT detect Plutonium."
Submitted by Percy (not verified) on Thu, 2011-05-05 19:22.
Actually, yes, statistics must be used to evaluate findings like this because the data in question do not support the hypothesis that plutonium has been detected. (Which is of course why the EPA hasn't claimed that they have detected it.) A scientist is always open to being found in error and changing his or her mind, but you must provide corroborating evidence from another independent entity if you want to support your hypothesis. If the results are not reproducible, they are meaningless. What the BRAWM team is saying is that one cannot use these particular EPA data to support a hypothesis that plutonium has been detected because the results are statistically insignificant. This is simply the very basics of the scientific method.
Let me be more explicit: The RadNet data were not false positives. They were negative results. Mark's point is that for them even to be positive results, they have to be above the minimum detectable activity.
Consider the case if we were looking for plutonium a hundred years ago, before there were any man-made isotopes produced. The numbers would in fact look exactly the same, because the background (which is what produces the statistical fluctuations) would still be there. There would still be some numbers greater than zero. Would I worry that there was plutonium then? No, because those numbers are consistent with a result zero. That's what we mean when we say that RadNet did not detect plutonium.
Can you please post a link to the EPA RADNET statement that shows conclusively that plutonium was detected? A blog of someone that may have mis-interpreted positive, yet statistically insignificant, numbers from RADNET is usually not a trusted source.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-05-04 11:18.
Thanks for your post. Our family went south from the 18th to the 30th. I pulled my kids out of school. Now that we are back, I also encourage them to play indoors, and we try to stay out of the sun because right now it is so intense ( I got sunburned from being outside for 15 minutes walking at 5pm., and other family and friends are getting bad sunburns they don't usually get). I don't let them play in dirt or bring it in the house. We have air purifiers going in our house all day (we live on a ranch). I spend my days calling food Companies, watching my geiger counter, and doing laundry and cleaning the house like crazy to hopefully keep it free of contaminated particles. It is no way to live and if this is not a wake up call to the dangers and effects of nuclear disasters I don't know what is. I feel for all moms who are aware of this. The southern hemisphere is looking good to me also : /
Good luck to you and your family through this.
looks like plutonium oxide to me. That explains why the recent I131 is low. BRWAN does not measure for uranium and plutoium. Use common sense here, the plutonium and uranium is part of the fuel rods as explained by Arnie multiple times.
Temperatures are high, cores are damaged in 3 reactors, so I firmly believe this is a mixture of plutonium and uranium oxide.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-02 13:57.
Arnie has been off the mark at least three times on my count. I applaud his effort, but he's not onsite and analyzing data that may not be accurate.
Black smoke could literally be just about anything, from electrical insulation to a motor on fire, to burning concrete. Just because it is black smoke is not enough proof to conclude it's a radioactive substance.
Also, the Uranium and Plutonium detected to date is in such low quantities that it puts into doubt if there was any significant release. I'm not saying there wasn't, but we have yet to find evidence that there was anything more than a small release. Time will tell.
Ishikawa of Japan Nuclear Tech Inst says 4 reactors fully melted
Michio Ishikawa of the Japan Nuclear Technology Institute on the situation at Fukushima I Nuke Plant, as he appeared on Asahi TV on April 29.
Mr. Ishikawa continues to believe in the safety of nuclear power generation. He didn't mince his word and said what they are doing at Fukushima I Nuke Plant is not working. That surprised some, including the host of the show, as Ishikawa is known as a strong proponent for the nuclear power generation and the nuclear industry.
About the condition of the reactor cores:
"I believe the fuel rods are completely melted. They may already have escaped the pressure vessel. Yes, they say 55% or 30%, but I believe they are all melted down. When the fuel rods melt, they melt from the middle part on down.
"I think the temperature inside the melted core is 2000 degrees to 2000 and several hundred degrees Celsius. A crust has formed on the surface where the water hits. Decay heat is 2000 to 3000 kilowatts, and through the cracks on the crust the radioactive materials (mostly noble gas and iodine) are escaping into the air.
"Volatile gas has almost all escaped from the reactor by now.
"The water [inside the pressure vessel] is highly contaminated with uranium, plutonium, cesium, cobalt, in the concentration we've never seen before.
"My old colleague contacted me and shared his calculation with me. At the decay heat of 2000 kilowatt... There's a substance called cobalt 60. Highly radioactive, needs 1 to 1.5 meter thick shields. It kills people at 1000 curies. He calculated that there are 10 million curies of cobalt-60 in the reactor core. If 10% of cobalt-60 in the core dissolve into water, it's 1 million curies." [10 million curies equals 370,000 terabecquerels, and 1 million curies equals 37,000 terabecquerels. I used this conversion table. Tell me I'm wrong! Cobalt-60 alone would make a Level 7 disaster...]
"They (TEPCO) want to circulate this highly contaminated water to cool the reactor core. Even if they are able to set up the circulation system, it will be a very difficult task to shield the radiation. It will be a very difficult work to build the system, but it has to be done.
"It is imperative to know the current condition of the reactor cores. It is my assumption [that the cores have melted], but wait one day, and we have water more contaminated with radioactive materials. This is a war, and we need to build a "bridgehead" at the reactor itself instead of fooling around with the turbine buildings or transporting contaminated water."
Here's the video of the show, for those of you who can understand Japanese ...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO0flpwmjJI&feature=player_embedded
let's look at it how it is
let's look at it how it is (lets forget for one moment how the Japanese are still trying to convince the public that any of these 4 reactors are still funcitiong. All 4 reactors are damaged, robots need to go inside, no progress noone knows how to fix it
These 4 reactors are done.
The Japanese let these 4 reactors burn until it ceases on its own, which could be years or decades or never? remember it is a chain reaction and noone can get close to even look at it closely.
>the Japanese are still
>the Japanese are still trying to convince the public that any of these 4 reactors are still funcitiong.
Where on earth did you read any statement by "the japanese" saying that the 4 reactors are still functioning?
Wrong again. At this moment
Wrong again.
At this moment they are installing venting systems to bring down the radiation levels in reactor 1, I believe. This would allow them to enter the building and perform work to repair the cooling systems further.
Why is it all of the doomsayers have such a love for ignoring the facts just to whip up more anxiety?
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/asiapacific/news/article_1636484....
What is going to happen to
What is going to happen to the air displaced by the venting systems? It's going to get into the atmosphere! What's so great about this?
It gets filtered to remove
It gets filtered to remove radiation. Removing the radiation from the air will let people be able to work in the reactor building.
Humans to hook up air purification in #1
I am really curious if this plan to send in humans will be possible even in suits and breathing apparatus .hope it's possible Is it possible to do this
It's not a contest
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20110502_1013.php
Article from may2 goes Ito great detail of current situation .
White smoke is still coming
White smoke is still coming out of units 2 and 3.
I'll ask again.
Anyone know what's in that white smoke?
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html
The white "smoke" is just
The white "smoke" is just steam. It is not Pu oxide or U02. Pu oxide is not white and uranium oxide is black.
Click your heels together
Click your heels together and just say, "White steam is just steam. White steam is just steam. White steam is just steam."
Even though the white steam is coming from completely damaged, fuel rod exposed nuclear power plant reactors,
Repeat again, "White steam is just steam, just steam, just steam."
Then that would be the black
Then that would be the black smoke in the explosion of reactor 3 when it blew it's fuel rods 2 miles away from the site and nuetron beams were witnessed.
Please cite a reference to
Please cite a reference to the fuel rods being found two miles away other than Fairewinds - which can't be corroborated.
"United States government
"United States government engineers sent to help with the crisis in Japan are warning that the troubled nuclear plant there is facing a wide array of fresh threats that could persist indefinitely, and that in some cases are expected to increase as a result of the very measures being taken to keep the plant stable, according to a confidential assessment prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "
"The document also suggests that fragments or particles of nuclear fuel from spent fuel pools above the reactors were blown “up to one mile from the units,” and that pieces of highly radioactive material fell between two units and had to be “bulldozed over,” presumably to protect workers at the site. The ejection of nuclear material, which may have occurred during one of the earlier hydrogen explosions, may indicate more extensive damage to the extremely radioactive pools than previously disclosed. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/asia/06nuclear.html
Pieces of fuel means specs
Pieces of fuel means specs of dust. A large explosion would pulverize anything that would be able to be found aile away. Any visible fragments would have not left the site. That summary is very misleading.
what do you think was
what do you think was causing nuetron beams 2 miles away--fragments--not dust.
Hahahahahahahahaha.
Hahahahahahahahaha.
Seems to me that pulverized
Seems to me that pulverized dust would be more of as threat to the rest of the world than intact fuel rods. I can't imagine a scenario where an intact fuel rod would somehow make it's way into the jet stream then rain down on the USA and the rest of the world, but the pulverized, ultra fine dust...
How does that taste on your salad?
Where's the Plutonium in the
Where's the Plutonium in the US? Oh, that's right, it's in your head.
Proof or GTFO. And don't go dragging up the sorry EPA results that already proved it isn't here.
shill
shill
Why I've never heard that
Why I've never heard that insult before. Muwahahahaha.
Nuke Industry Shills are out and about...
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AifmjEDwh_fedDc4ZzVGUXY5ZFNjTFR...
It doesn't take a shill to
It doesn't take a shill to see the data you have has already been debunked as useless.
Sorry Johnny, better luck next time.
How do you know what's in my
How do you know what's in my head? Are you psychic? Could I get tomorrows lotto numbers? I never said plutonium was detected in the US.
Wow this is getting pretty confusing because the thing you say is only in my head... I'm pretty sure that it's only in your head (the fact that it's only in my head). I've gotta stop thinking about this paradox or I fear there may be a tear in the space time continuum.
Why try to turn this to a discussion about plutonium in the US? Trying to start an argument you can win? Probably better that this failed "no reports of fuel rods being ejected.. oh wait no reports of intact fuel rods being ejected oh wait prove to my plutonium has been detected in the US even though we all know plutonium hasn't been expansively tested here"
See the OP of this subthread
See the OP of this subthread for why it us about Plutonium and fuel rods.
And yes, I have the lotto numbers. Not going to share.
and it was likely a nuclear
and it was likely a nuclear explosion (not a hydrogen explosion) that sent that material a mile away
Just curious because I have
Just curious because I have been wondering about this myself, where did you find information regarding color of smoke?
We know the color of uranium
We know the color of uranium dioxide (the material used in the fuel) because we have used it in our laboratory before.
Tim [BRAWM Team Member]
How far does this smoke
How far does this smoke travel? Will we be getting some of this in our air in the US?
BRAWM?
Do I send my kids out to play in the next few days??? UGH.
worried mom
Worried mom, I also, am a
Worried mom, I also, am a worried mom and I kept my child in mostly between March 20th and 30th, but my child became worried and anxious, so I finally relented. Not to be Debbie Downer, but Arnie Gunderson at Fairewinds says that Plutonium and Uranium were turned into vapor when reactor 3 blew up(around March 17th???) and that stuff hit us over a month ago. Uranium dust has been detected on the west coast already.
I live on the west coast and if I win the lottery, I'm moving to the southern hemisphere, becasue this crap will be coming at us for months. But for now, I am going to try to relax, appreciate my time with my loved ones and be thankful for what I've got.
Worried moms, Please let me
Worried moms,
Please let me ease your worries by saying that Fukushima plutonium and uranium have definitely not been detected in the US. I have not found any evidence, from our lab or any other, that Mr. Gunderson's claims are true. The uranium that was found here was solely from natural sources, the same that have been here for thousands of years.
Tim [BRAWM Team Member]
thank you!
Thanks, Tim, for responding to this!
I just saw the video of Mr. Gunderson making these claims and was terrified. I have a 3-year old niece who plays outside all the time...
Anyway, I came straight here to see if there was anything about "vaporized plutonium" (because none of this is ever in the news) blowing across the Pacific, and am so relieved to see your post.
You guys are the best, this site had been keeping me sane the last 6 weeks!
Please keep it up!
best regards,
ck
Lies
RADNet revealed PLUTONIUM detected on the West Coast. Positive in San Francisco.
Referencing RADNet raw data:
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/04/21/radioactive-fukushima-pluton...
EPA RadNet did NOT detect Plutonium
Please see our debunking of that blog post:
"The EPA did NOT detect Strontium or Plutonium"
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
This calls into question ALL of the data
If several sites are showing - as you allege - a false positive, it would be logical to assume that the reverse can also be true: false negatives.
No, data is fine; understanding the data requires error bars
I am not alleging that those are false positives -- I am saying that they are very likely NOT true positives, which is what others have claimed. The data were misinterpreted because the error bars were neglected. The whole point of error bars is to quantify the likelihood of false positives and false negatives, and understanding them is crucial to interpreting data.
All of these measurements (EPA, BRAWM, etc.) are fundamentally statistical in nature. There is always an uncertainty in a measurement when you are counting things -- gamma rays, alphas, etc. All results must be reported with their corresponding error bars; a measurement doesn't mean anything without error bars. The error bars give a confidence interval that the true value lies within a certain range -- plus or minus the error bars is 68%, and plus or minus twice the error bars is 95%.
For example, if I report a measurement of 7±2, the true number is very likely not 0 -- we can say that there is a 95% chance that the true number lies between 3 and 11.
However, if I report a measurement of 1±2, then the true number has a 95% chance of being between -3 and 5. This means that 0 cannot be excluded. In this case one usually reports a non-detection and a detection limit called the minimum detectable activity (MDA), which is defined to be twice the error bars. Our MDA for this example is 2*2 = 4. That is how big the measurement would need to be in order to exclude 0 at 95% confidence.
In the case of the EPA data for plutonium and strontium, the confidence intervals of the measured values do not exclude 0 at 95% confidence. This means the data are very likely to be non-detections.
The measurements still give valuable information though -- they tell us that the true levels are below the MDA to 95% certainty. Or, another way of saying this is that the likelihood of a false negative is 5% (i.e., the probability that the true value is actually above the MDA).
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Might be zero, might be not
So, one must play with statistics to determine truth. The raw data might mean zero...or it might not mean zero. That's it distilled down.
The potential for a grave public health menace is reduced to Las Vegas Casino thinking.
I'm sorry, but I don't have the faith that *all* these detections are simply false positives, "probably" zeroes.
"This means the data are very likely to be non-detections." That's a position change from your previous certitude of "EPA RadNet did NOT detect Plutonium."
statistics
Actually, yes, statistics must be used to evaluate findings like this because the data in question do not support the hypothesis that plutonium has been detected. (Which is of course why the EPA hasn't claimed that they have detected it.) A scientist is always open to being found in error and changing his or her mind, but you must provide corroborating evidence from another independent entity if you want to support your hypothesis. If the results are not reproducible, they are meaningless. What the BRAWM team is saying is that one cannot use these particular EPA data to support a hypothesis that plutonium has been detected because the results are statistically insignificant. This is simply the very basics of the scientific method.
Let me be more explicit:
Let me be more explicit: The RadNet data were not false positives. They were negative results. Mark's point is that for them even to be positive results, they have to be above the minimum detectable activity.
Consider the case if we were looking for plutonium a hundred years ago, before there were any man-made isotopes produced. The numbers would in fact look exactly the same, because the background (which is what produces the statistical fluctuations) would still be there. There would still be some numbers greater than zero. Would I worry that there was plutonium then? No, because those numbers are consistent with a result zero. That's what we mean when we say that RadNet did not detect plutonium.
Tim [BRAWM Team Member]
http://www.xkcd.com/882/
http://www.xkcd.com/882/
Give it up. You've got
Give it up. You've got nothing.
Can you please post a link
Can you please post a link to the EPA RADNET statement that shows conclusively that plutonium was detected? A blog of someone that may have mis-interpreted positive, yet statistically insignificant, numbers from RADNET is usually not a trusted source.
Figures don't lie but liars can figure
So unless the nuke industry stooges at EPA proclaim "truth," we are to disbelieve?
That's hilarious. Because,
That's hilarious. Because, without those Nuclear Industry stooges, you don't have any data for your conspiracy.
Please, please show us your independent data that proves you've found Plutonium here.
Thanks for your post. Our
Thanks for your post. Our family went south from the 18th to the 30th. I pulled my kids out of school. Now that we are back, I also encourage them to play indoors, and we try to stay out of the sun because right now it is so intense ( I got sunburned from being outside for 15 minutes walking at 5pm., and other family and friends are getting bad sunburns they don't usually get). I don't let them play in dirt or bring it in the house. We have air purifiers going in our house all day (we live on a ranch). I spend my days calling food Companies, watching my geiger counter, and doing laundry and cleaning the house like crazy to hopefully keep it free of contaminated particles. It is no way to live and if this is not a wake up call to the dangers and effects of nuclear disasters I don't know what is. I feel for all moms who are aware of this. The southern hemisphere is looking good to me also : /
Good luck to you and your family through this.
.....let us delude
.....let us delude ourselves, it feels so good
http://www.flickr.com/photos/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vizpix/5555742141/
looks like plutonium oxide to me. That explains why the recent I131 is low. BRWAN does not measure for uranium and plutoium. Use common sense here, the plutonium and uranium is part of the fuel rods as explained by Arnie multiple times.
Temperatures are high, cores are damaged in 3 reactors, so I firmly believe this is a mixture of plutonium and uranium oxide.
Arnie has been off the mark
Arnie has been off the mark at least three times on my count. I applaud his effort, but he's not onsite and analyzing data that may not be accurate.
Black smoke could literally be just about anything, from electrical insulation to a motor on fire, to burning concrete. Just because it is black smoke is not enough proof to conclude it's a radioactive substance.
Also, the Uranium and Plutonium detected to date is in such low quantities that it puts into doubt if there was any significant release. I'm not saying there wasn't, but we have yet to find evidence that there was anything more than a small release. Time will tell.
How much does GE pay you?
How much does GE pay you to shill and spread lies?
gREenTARD
gREenTARD