Posted on 04/12/2011 7:00:30 AM PDT by Scythian
(NaturalNews) The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to release new data showing that various milk and water supply samples from across the US are testing increasingly high for radioactive elements such as Iodine-131, Cesium-134, and Cesium-137, all of which are being emitted from the ongoing Fukushima Daiichia nuclear fallout. As of April 10, 2011, 23 US water supplies have tested positive for radioactive Iodine-131 (http://opendata.socrata.com/w/4ig7-...), and worst of all, milk samples from at least three US locations have tested positive for Iodine-131 at levels exceeding EPA maximum containment levels (MCL) (http://opendata.socrata.com/w/pkfj-...).
As far as the water supplies are concerned, it is important to note that the EPA is only testing for radioactive Iodine-131. There are no readings or data available for cesium, uranium, or plutonium -- all of which are being continuously emitted from Fukushima, as far as we know -- even though these elements are all much more deadly than Iodine-131. Even so, the following water supplies have thus far tested positive for Iodine-131, with the dates they were collected in parenthesis to the right:
Los Angeles, Calif. - 0.39 pCi/l (4/4/11)
Philadelphia (Baxter), Penn. - 0.46 pCi/l (4/4/11)
Philadelphia (Belmont), Penn. - 1.3 pCi/l (4/4/11)
Philadelphia (Queen), Penn. - 2.2 pCi/l (4/4/11)
Muscle Shoals, Al. - 0.16 pCi/l (3/31/11)
Niagara Falls, NY - 0.14 pCi/l (3/31/11)
Denver, Colo. - 0.17 pCi/l (3/31/11)
Detroit, Mich. - 0.28 pCi/l (3/31/11)
East Liverpool, Oh. - 0.42 pCi/l (3/30/11)
Trenton, NJ - 0.38 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Painesville, Oh. - 0.43 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Columbia, Penn. - 0.20 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Oak Ridge (4442), Tenn. - 0.28 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Oak Ridge (772), Tenn. - 0.20 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Oak Ridge (360), Tenn. - 0.18 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Helena, Mont. - 0.18 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Waretown, NJ - 0.38 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Cincinnati, Oh. - 0.13 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Pittsburgh, Penn. - 0.36 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Oak Ridge (371), Tenn. - 0.63 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Chattanooga, Tenn. - 1.6 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Boise, Id. - 0.2 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Richland, Wash. - 0.23 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Again, these figures do not include the other radioactive elements being spread by Fukushima, so there is no telling what the actual cumulative radiation levels really were in these samples. The figures were also taken two weeks ago, and were only just recently reported. If current samples were taken at even more cities, and if the tests conducted included the many other radioactive elements besides Iodine-131, actual contamination levels would likely be frighteningly higher.
But in typical government fashion, the EPA still insists that everything is just fine, even though an increasing amount of US water supplies are turning up positive for even just the radioactive elements for which the agency is testing -- and these levels seem to be increasing as a direct result of the situation at the Fukushima plant, which continues to worsen with no end in sight (http://www.naturalnews.com/032035_F...).
Water may be the least of our problems, however. New EPA data just released on Sunday shows that at least three different milk samples -- all from different parts of the US -- have tested positive for radioactive Iodine-131 at levels that exceed the EPA maximum thresholds for safety, which is currently set at 3.0 pico Curies per Liter (pCi/l).
In Phoenix, Ariz., a milk sample taken on March 28, 2011, tested at 3.2 pCi/l. In Little Rock, Ark., a milk sample taken on March 30, 2011, tested at 8.9 pCi/l, which is almost three times the EPA limit. And in Hilo, Hawaii, a milk sample collected on April 4, 2011, tested at 18 pCi/l, a level six times the EPA maximum safety threshold. The same Hawaii sample also tested at 19 pCi/l for Cesium-137, which has a half life of 30 years (http://www.naturalnews.com/031992_r...), and a shocking 24 pCi/l for Cesium-134, which has a half life of just over two years (http://opendata.socrata.com/w/pkfj-...).
Why is this milk contamination significant? Milk, of course, typically represents the overall condition of the food chain because cows consume grass and are exposed to the same elements as food crops and water supplies. In other words, when cows' milk starts testing positive for high levels of radioactive elements, this is indicative of radioactive contamination of the entire food supply.
And even with the milk samples, the EPA insanely says not to worry as its 3.0 pCi/l threshold is allegedly only for long-term exposure. But the sad fact of the matter is that the Fukushima situation is already a long-term situation. Not only does it appear that the Fukushima reactor cores are continuing to melt, since conditions at the plant have not gotten any better since the earthquake and tsunami, but many of the radioactive elements that have already been released in previous weeks have long half lives, and have spread halfway around the world.
The other problem with the EPA's empty reassurances that radiation levels are too low to have a negative impact on humans is the fact that the agency does not even have an accurate grasp on the actual aggregate exposure to radiation from all sources (water, food, air, rain, etc.). When you combine perpetual exposure from multiple sources with just the figures that have already been released, there is a very real threat of serious harm as a result of exposure.
The EPA and other government agencies are constantly comparing Fukushima radiation to background and airplane radiation in an attempt to minimize the severity of exposure, even though these are two completely different kinds of radiation exposure.
It certainly is a possibility - just about anything is with the thug squatting in the WH. There’s no end to speculation about this incident even to putting into the equation the fact that the Chinese government has admitted to having HAARP technology and using it. A small demonstration was apparently done of their capability at a ceremony at their new Olympic facility. I didn’t see it myself - just read about it.
The testing records are freely available, and unless you are hinting at some other worldwide nuclear radiation event in the last two months, the immediate spike in radiation levels has only one logical source.
““Many experts, ...exposure at any level is unsafe, and they are correct.””
But there are rad sources that are natural. What we are not being told is these standards and where they rank compared to natural radiation sources. If the standards are at or below natural values they are B.S. in my book.
With these measurements there is a noise floor. The floor varies based on many factors. But standards that are below or near the floor can be rather meaningless and this is my suspicion with the fear mongers. To serve themselves and their agencies they have migrated the standards ever close to the noise floor and end up toggling with the floor values in many instances.
Not science any more, its bout the money and politics.
Voila!!! Crisis created!!
Where is the diesel generator located for Reactor 2???
Give me the exact location.
Btw, did you miss the post I made from the physics forum about protocol in this situation??? Or do you just think he doesn’t know what he is talking about and is lying about his experience?
Btw, there is an article about the debacle over opening the vents.
Perhaps you missed it.
If you really want me to comment on multiple articles, you will have to understand that I can’t possibly be certain that I have actually read every posted or linked article you have put in one of your posts or comments. If you gave some sort of reference to the details of these articles, I might remember whether I read them. If you actually provided a link, I could simply refer to them and provide a response.
But I am at a loss as to how to respond to a comment such as “there is an article about the debacle over opening the vents”. Am I expected to type “debacle vents” in Google, and read every article, hoping to find out what you are refering to?
Or am I supposed to do a word search on freerepublic for “RummyChick physics forum protocol” and hope that I stumble across the post you made from the physics forum about protocol?
And when you say “do you just think he doesn’t know what he is talking about and is lying about his experience”, am I supposed to search on “he” and hope that I can figure out who this “he” is, since my post didn’t mention a person, and I traced back this particular thread of comments and can’t find any reference to a name of a person.
I don’t mind looking at more information, and having my horizons broadened, but please at least give me a little clue as to what I’m looking for.
I also can’t find a schematic of the facility (I understand that there are some security issues for nuclear power plants so they don’t like detailed location information posted on the net), so I don’t know how I could possibly give you the exact location of “the diesel generator”.
Maybe it’s a trick question? I’ve read a couple of articles that say each reactor had multiple diesel generators for various tasks; there was an initial report that the diesel generators were all near the water, but later that was amended to say that the fuel tanks were near the water.
In another thread there was discussion that the generators were in basements that got flooded, but I don’t know if there was any confirmation.
Still, like all your other comments, without context I have no real clue why you are asking the question, or how I am supposed to go find what it is you must be alluding to.
BTW, it looks like my speculation in another forum that the big radiation release could have been from the #4 pool may be wrong: “Authorities said much of the high-level radiation leaked from reactor 2 on March 15 and 16, early in the accident. Abnormalities in the reactor’s suppression pool caused the radiation release, the Japan Nuclear Safety Commission said. Radiation continues to leak from the suppression pool, the commission said, but the volume has dropped considerably.”
Reactor 2 is the one that didn’t have its building blow up, because it didn’t have high reactor pressure that had to be vented, and it has been assumed that it had a breach in the suppression pool. This is further indication of such a breach.
Here is what an EXPERT..yes EXPERT..who helped design the reactor at Fukushima had to say about this whole incident.
Could it have been avoided...Seems likely
http://www.examiner.com/wilderness-photography-in-eugene/fukushima-the-path-not-taken-1
http://www.examiner.com/wilderness-photography-in-eugene/fukushima-one-path-to-success
http://www.examiner.com/wilderness-photography-in-eugene/fukushima-engineer-oregon
Even After Level 7 Rating, Fukushima Is Not Another Chernobyl
--Japan Probe
There are several here at FR who really, really need to read that article from The Register.
face it, we are simply passengers on a train and we're not the conductor....thankfully, we know who is...:)
I have posted this before. I am not going to go track down this information again.
Here is the info on the vent debacle.
Now you know it.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110411004567.htm
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110412006319.htm
Here is the bottom line.
The Chairman and CEO of TEPCO knew there was a devasting earthquake and warning of a tsunami..OR THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN.
It was all over the news with helicopter shots.
They knew or should have known there would be issues getting generators to that site.
All they had to do was what the engineer of the power part of this design at GE suggested.
AIRLIFT the generators.
That was a call to be made by the Japanese Government and TEPCO. A plant supervisor would not be authorized to make that call.
IIRC, there is a system put in place by their laws where Kan was suppose to take control
Not sure exactly when it was suppose to go into effect.
So why didn’t they airlift those generators???
COST???????????????
There have been stories that TEPCO didn’t start with the sea water right away because they were worried about damaging the plant. It didn’t start until the Chairman got back to Japan.
Then why not airlift the generators???
This has been one big disaster of bad move after bad move after bad move...that is in line with the history of TEPCO.
It is quite possible that it won’t be another Chernobyl
I think it will.
The mismanagement of this disaster is astounding.
Now you have TEPCO admitting that it is possible the radiation will exceed Chernobyl.
If they are willing to admit that..you know there is a problem.
OK, I read both of those reports. I wouldn’t categorize either of them as a “vent debacle”. IN fact, I don’t see there, nor have I seen information elsewhere, that indicates that waiting to vent #1 caused any trouble.
The delay in venting didn’t cause the hydrogen explosion — it was the venting that did that, along with inadequate ventilation because of lack of power. That was one of the dangers of venting.
The danger of NOT venting would have been a reactor explostion, and we didn’t have one of those. #2 may have cracked open, but that may have been due to aftershock, and it never got to the overpressure that #1 did.
Further, I don’t see the discussion of how it took so long to do things as a sign of gross incompetence. I’ve been through enough fire drills to see this kind of thing. You hope people can be heroic in those situations, and sometimes they are, but often they are just human. People act with limited knowledge — later you look back and see that pieces of information were available, but not all together. It’s much easier after looking at all the pieces to understand.
How would they know for sure they needed to fly in a diesel generator, when all their generators were working? How could they know for sure that their auxillary power trucks couldn’t make it to the site? That the wires were not long enough?
They should have known ALL of that. They COULD have known all of that. But it doesn’t take gross negligence to “NOT” know that. It’s just how things happen during emergencies.
And how do we know they had an emergency generator that could be flown in? How do we know they could have hooked it up in time to get the pumps going again? It would be nice if they had asked for that right away, and it would have stopped the problems. But I don’t see that as gross negligence.
Again, watch the Apollo 13 movie; you see the institutional difficulties, and that was a resounding success story for how to manage a crisis. We have a lot more examples that are not. They actually hesitated to take one step they thought might help, because it would mean they couldn’t land on the moon. Looking back, that was an absurd worry, but at that moment, they hadn’t institutionalized the realization that the mission was dead.
Likewise, you’d like them to have known that the reactors were doomed, and inject water earlier. But remember, the reactors were NOT doomed. They survived the earthquake. They even survived the tsunami, they simply needed enough power to run their backup systems. They thought their plan was going to succeed — they had the power trucks coming, and that was the plan. the Batteries were keeping the situation under control, they would have a replacement for the batteries before the batteries ran dead, and then they could get their generators running again and everything would be fine.
You are asking them to go from THAT thought, to “let’s destroy 15 billion dollars worth of power plant” in a matter of hours. And yes, that is what they had to do, but is it really unconscionable that they couldn’t make that kind of decision in that circumstance? SOME people were making that decision, but because of the devastation, those leaders couldn’t get into a position to communicate that effectively.
As the one article noted — you can’t order the destruction of 15 billion of assets owned by stockholders by an unsecure cell phone with no verification.
I guess a lot of our disagreement is a matter of interpretation of the severity of the incompetence. I see multiple mistakes made, but understand those mistakes, and see how normal humans, trying their best, could make those mistakes, while you at least to me suggest that only corrupt people who don’t care about anything but their own money could have made these mistakes.
It is a lot easier to assume that bad things happen because people are bad. Then you don’t have to deal with the possibility that bad things can happen even when everybody is really trying to do the right thing.
First, I don’t think anybody thinks it couldn’t have been avoided, if they had kept power to the station. I think it could have been avoided if the backup power trucks had made it on time and been hooked up.
But ‘subject matter expert” doesn’t mean “expert” on the situation at hand. I would be very surprised to find that the engineers on-site didn’t know the basics of hooking up power to their pumps, or that they would have needed a retired engineer to tell them that they could break a hole in a wall without breaching the containment.
It seems likely there is a good reason they went through all the trouble of running new power lines from offsite, rather than airlifting a generator. It isn’t likely because they were stubborn either. Nor is there any real reason to believe that, having power back, they would have the pumps running if it was as easy as this expert claims. More likely there are things preventing his solution from working, things he has no knowledge of because he is not at the site.
It is fun to imagine that everybody is incompetent, except those who are far removed from the situation. Once in a while it is true, and that is a sad thing when it happens.
I am a trouble-shooter by trade, and I know that I can often step into a situation and recommend a solution nobody has thought of. When I do so, I often go through a list of 5-6 things they already DID try before I get to something they didn’t think about. And even that’s because I have certain expertise that isn’t widely shared. If the team was made up of people with my subject matter knowledge, it is unlikely I would be that helpful, except sometimes a fresh pair of eyes not tainted by the current thought process can help.
We are WAY past the time when the people at the station would be ignoring rational ideas for fixing their problem. But every person watching this has said “Gee, if they could just hook up power to the pumps and get them running again!!!”. That’s not really a “wild, out-of-the box” kind of input that you’d expect them to be surprised at.
But it seems like you really think that the entire nation of Japan, the entire working body at Tepco, has sat around for over a month, and none of them ever thought “Hey, what if we just hook power right up to our pumps?” Well, I don’t.
I really am not sure how you can claim this vent debacle..and it was one...had no bearing.
But whatever...
There was a known venting issue with that design. Did they do the retrofit. Wouldn’t surprise if they really didn’t do it.
http://www.tipnews.info/breaking_news/NDcwNjY=/2011/03/18/us_japan_quake_company_aig
I believe this guy
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3225300&postcount=2535
It really shouldn’t have been that hard for the CEO and the Chairman to understand that the earthquake and tsunami had devastated the landscape and DUH...the generators might have a problem getting there.
But go ahead and give them a pass
I don’t. Too much scandal at the hands of Katsumata. I personally believe there is a good possibility that his resignation was a token resignation because of the huge scandal and that the CEO went missing in action so Katsumata could take control over the disaster.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.