EPA to raise limits for radiation exposure while Canada turns off fallout detectors
- Thread starter Drdeee
- Start date
The Pacific Ocean holds the equivalent of 300 trillion (with a "t") Olympic-sized swimming pools. The amount of radioactive water which was dumped was equivalent to five. Since it takes six years for fuel rods to cool down, even if that amount of water was dumped every day—and is it every day?—for six years, the total would amount to the equivalent of 10,950 swimming pools, which is still the proverbial drop of a bucket compared to 300 trillion.The mass radioactive contamination of our planet is now under way thanks to the astonishing actions taking place at the Fukushima nuclear facility in Japan. As of last night, TEPCO announced it is releasing 10,000 tons of radioactive water directly into the Pacific Ocean. That 2.4 million gallons of planetary poison being dumped directly into the ocean.
This water is being released because they have run out of places to keep it on land. It's too deadly to transport anywhere else, and all the storage pools around Fukushima are already overflowing. So they're dumping it into the ocean, then calling it "safe" because they claim the ocean will "disperse" all the radiation and make it harmless.
But because there's more radioactive water being produced every day at Fukushima, this process of releasing radioactive water into the ocean could theoretically continue for years, easily making Fukushima the worst nuclear disaster in the history of our world.
Secondly, if you notice, the proposed changes in radiation limits are not in response to the Fukushima incident, which contradicts the assertion "Fukushima, you see, is doing to the Pacific Ocean what BP and the Deepwater Horizon did to the Gulf of Mexico last summer. Except that in the case of Fukushima, that radiation doesn't just disappear with the help of millions of gallons of toxic chemicals. Nope, that radiation sticks around for decades. So what to do? If you're the United States Environment Protection Agency, there's only one option: Declare radiation to be safe!" The proposed changes were discovered in 2010, and the actual proposal was probably much earlier. We're in 2011, so there's no way on earth the proposal was in response to the nuclear incident. Furthermore, where is the independent confirmation the proposed changes in radiation limits were actually approved? There is a gigantic gulf of difference between internal discussion of proposals and actual implementation. Most ideas get shot down.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/03/15/11/radiation-ct-scan-stronger-japan-nuke-leakCiting information disclosed by Japanese authorities, Science and Technology Secretary Mario Montejo explained the minimal leak from the damaged plant in the northeastern part of Japan is approximately 1,000 microsieverts, 6 times lower than what a human absorbs from a CT scan, which is at 6,000 microsieverts.
The fact is, radiation is far more 'scary' that it is harmful. It scares us all to death, but in reality, it is nowhere near as harmful as we think it is. People sign up willingly for CT scans, which are far more dangerous than than japans plants. I read that a CT scan gives as much radiation as being a half a mile from a nuclear bomb blast, yet noone is freaking out about this, even though there are reports http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/03/health/main531563.shtml that a large percentage of CT scans are unnecessary, and just a means for the hospital to tack on another thousand or so dollars to the bill. The last time I went to the ER they tried to give me one. I refused.
Anyway, the point is, we are TOOworried about radiation from the power plants which has PLENTY of room to disperse, but not at all concerned with greater radiation threats in our hospitals. Its not as bad as we think, and its ALWAYS blown WAY out of proportion.Chernobyl isnt even a fraction as bad as its made out to be.
Drdeee
Banned
It's like Romans (or was it Greeks) so what if led pipes make us crazy.
Toxic sh**t in pacific is going to affect a few things. Plankton for example and those cute penguins that are going to drown if there is no tax on carbon. Why in Russia there is a ban on pacific and northern fish due to fukashima disaster? I guess the obvious answer for the sheep is baaaa I don't know we've been told radioactive fish is tasty.
Toxic sh**t in pacific is going to affect a few things. Plankton for example and those cute penguins that are going to drown if there is no tax on carbon. Why in Russia there is a ban on pacific and northern fish due to fukashima disaster? I guess the obvious answer for the sheep is baaaa I don't know we've been told radioactive fish is tasty.