|
Post by Jay Cullen on Mar 27, 2014 9:29:56 GMT -5
Hi Andrew and Pasha,
It looks like someone decided our evidence based discussion didn't belong on this forum. Thanks for engaging in discussion. I couldn't find our thread this morning.
I'll look forward to hearing from you.
|
|
|
Post by diverdude on Mar 27, 2014 10:31:18 GMT -5
Same here Jay, I want this Den to be a place of open discussion.
We don't have alot of credible evidence, unfortunately we do have to rely on TEPCO's data for current releases. There seems to be a huge discrepancy in measured values that we have to overcome. You are absolutely right in your assertions providing that your data is accurate. However, given the extremely high levels that TEPCO themselves are reporting for groundwater, which we can safely assume is migrating if not flowing into the Pacific, then we have a problem. Given that this event is far from over, can we agree that we face serious consequences in the long-term if not now. I hate to keep bringing-up enenews, I agree that the majority of the articles there are news reports, but many scientific reviews and opinions can be found there, from several countries as well. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole, is that the expression? I must be off now, I hope to see this thread when I return. If not, we'll devise a way to enable dialogue. Andrew
|
|
|
Post by Jay Cullen on Mar 27, 2014 10:56:14 GMT -5
Hi Andrew, Great. It would be useful to know who removed it and why. We do not have to rely on TEPCO to understand current releases. Whatever is released from the site, regardless of what TEPCO says and does not say about it, ends up in the North Pacific. We can measure it and it tells us how much is being added and how fast. I was at the recent Ocean Sciences Meeting held in February where an international team of scientists provided an update on what is going on in the North Pacific. The following presentation was given by Matt Charette of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution: www.sgmeet.com/osm2014/viewabstract.asp?AbstractID=16094Matt uses short half-life radium isotopes that are produced naturally on land that are present in groundwater to monitor how much groundwater infiltrates the coastal ocean. Basically by measuring radium in coastal waters you can calculate how much groundwater is being added and how much mixing of groundwater with seawater occurs. If you know the concentration of Fukushima radionuclides in the groundwater, which you measure in wells etc., you can measure the rate at which groundwater adds Fukushima radioactivity to the ocean. It is this presentation where measurements over the last 3 years have established that direct input of Fukushima radionculides to the ocean have dropped by 10,000-100,000 times since the first couple of weeks after the disaster. It was the international oceanographic communities measurements and the atmospheric measurements made by others globally that called TEPCO's bluff about whether or not radioactivity had been released in the first place. Regards
|
|
|
Post by Jay Cullen on Mar 27, 2014 11:03:20 GMT -5
Hi Andrew,
I will wait for a response from anyone that can establish, using evidence published in a peer-reviewed source, that 30 times more 90-Sr than 137-Cs was released from Fukushima. Evidence from global monitoring of air, ocean and soil simply do not support the statement.
Regards
|
|
|
Post by Jay Cullen on Mar 27, 2014 11:21:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jay Cullen on Mar 27, 2014 15:47:38 GMT -5
The lab is quite productive thanks to the great team of researchers working with me. You can read about them on my website. I'm working on a proposal for a radionuclide monitoring network to measure Fukushima sourced isotopes in seafood and seawater here in BC. Without measurements we are in the dark with respect to health risks posed by their presence in the environment. Good information and good data are important. Another insult attacking my work ethic rather than evidence based discussion. You appear to be unable to support your argument at all.
Regards
|
|
|
Post by Jay Cullen on Mar 27, 2014 15:53:14 GMT -5
This is useful information if you don't like to read:
Regards
|
|
|
Post by diverdude on Mar 27, 2014 20:34:06 GMT -5
I have given each article a fair read, as I do with every bit of information that I find. In both the Povinec and Casacuberta studies they clearly state that their findings are based on 'reported release values' of Cs137. Back to TEPCO it seems. We all know that they were seriously under-reporting in the early days and this would greatly influence the 'estimates' that these studies published. The Wood's Hole study was a very brief abstract and I suspect they were operating under the same assumptions.I would love to get a better look at this study. Where were they sampling, over what period, what is the hydrography of these areas and during the sampling time-frame. I need more info as I am neither constrained nor compartmentalized in my thinking. The phrase 'normal fission reaction' and the implied isotope releases in my understanding do not apply to this event. More on that later. The Steinhauser study is quite interesting, although their mandate was to find support for the Japanese Government's assertions regarding Strontium90 levels in food/water/air/soil, they found quite high levels of Cesium at most of their sampling sites, some of which were at some distance from the Daiichi site. Many thousands of bequerels per kilogram of soil and/or plant matter. I would like to apply their conclusions elsewhere if I may.
Given that TEPCO released the strontium90 contamination level for an admitted 100 ton accidental spill (published Feb 20,14) as being 230 million bequerels/litre, and that the Steinhauser study suggests cesium137 levels to be ten times higher, can we not agree that this represents a great risk to the environment? Since this 'accident' occured during the pumping to storage of I'll assume 'contemperary' ground water does this not imply a continuing release of isotopes as I have postulated earlier, that we have an on-going fission event. Perhaps someone else can do the math, it would require a little digging but the equation is quite simple if we can assume this contamination level of 230Mbq/l Sr90 is consistant throughout the stored water.(we too have to make assumptions) So, how many tons are in storage X 230million X 1000(for a cubic meter measure) X 10(to arrive at an estimate of the actual cesium levels. And more being emitted everyday, being stored at rates that have everything to do with pumping and storage capacities and not relative to actual releases.
I'm pointing to the tank farm because no one can deny it's existance. It is without question a Sword of Damaclese being held over the ocean. Corrosion, poor design, and the ever-present threat of another major siesmic event will see this waste into the Pacific. I'm also grasping for a point that we can all agree on, then we can work backwards to our differences.
Regards.
|
|
|
Post by Jay Cullen on Mar 27, 2014 22:24:57 GMT -5
Hi Andrew, The whole point of this discussion is to address statements that are derived from misinformation and here specifically that 30 times more 90-Sr was released from Fukushima relative to 137-Cs. There is no doubt that there are areas of Japan that received significant amounts of radioactive isotope deposition that could represent a radiological health risk. Feel free to disseminate the studies results as widely as you would like. It is no secret. It has been published and made freely available. You are incorrect in your assessment of the studies with respect to reliance on TEPCO numbers. The studies report the values based on measurements made in the coastal and offshore seawater. They mention reported releases from TEPCO but their measurements are independent of what TEPCO says. It is measurements in the environment which will determine what was released not what TEPCO says. The Charette study looked at release rates from April 2011 to the present. The approach used is described here www.biogeosciences.net/10/2159/2013/bg-10-2159-2013.html That study was published last year. I expect the results I mentioned above to be published shortly. This approach gives the best estimates of release rates to the ocean. The presence of 90-Sr and 137-Cs in groundwater today is not indicative of ongoing fission at Fukushima. They have roughly 30 year half-lives. We can still measure 137-Cs in coastal seawater here in BC that is present from atmospheric weapons test. 134-Cs to 137-Cs ratios in groundwater are consistent with fission that stopped in March 2011. Let's do your calculation. Let's say that there is 1 million Bq/L 90-Sr in every liter in tank storage. I can't find any report of hundreds of millions of Bq/L The storage volume at Fukushima is about 485,000 m^3 or 485,000,000 L. If all the water was released unaltered to the ocean that would represent a release of 0.5 PBq (petaBq = 10^15). Total release of 90-Sr thus far is about 1 PBq. That would be a significant increase in the 90-Sr released. The concentration that would result in seawater if the tanks were released all at once would be about half of the concentration in the plume generated in the weeks following the disaster in March 2011. Using your 10-fold higher estimate for 137-Cs (which I think is low) you get 5 PBq. That is a few percent of the 137-Cs released immediately after the disaster. Clearly the less radioactive releases the better. The tank farms security is very important. It is a serious situation at the reactor sites. Regards
|
|
|
Post by diverdude on Mar 27, 2014 23:39:14 GMT -5
To reply to the effect that the studies were not based on TEPCO's initial release data I have to point to the caveats mentioned in the reports. The studies used these values. Yes they sampled and measured independantly, however it seems that they used tepco's data in their analysis. IF a certain measure was released, and we can find this amount here, we feel that distribution is such. The following link will bring you to a reference to the TEPCO accidental spill that states the high level I refered to. I avoided using enenews, not sure why though. fukushimaemergencywhatcanwedo.blogspot.nl/2014/02/100-tons-of-toxic-water-leaked-at.htmlIt seems to me that 230 million bq/lSr90 is a very high level of contamination for water flushing over and around a supposedly cold pile. Like I previously said, we have no idea what is actually occuring underground. Neutron activation may be complicating the issue, new isotopes that we have as yet to discover, unknowns. The attitude that we understand all things is what brings us here today.
|
|
|
Post by Ysalys (Kate) on Mar 28, 2014 23:03:40 GMT -5
....The presence of 90-Sr and 137-Cs in groundwater today is not indicative of ongoing fission at Fukushima. They have roughly 30 year half-lives. We can still measure 137-Cs in coastal seawater here in BC that is present from atmospheric weapons test. 134-Cs to 137-Cs ratios in groundwater are consistent with fission that stopped in March 2011. Let's do your calculation. Let's say that there is 1 million Bq/L 90-Sr in every liter in tank storage. I can't find any report of hundreds of millions of Bq/L The storage volume at Fukushima is about 485,000 m^3 or 485,000,000 L. If all the water was released unaltered to the ocean that would represent a release of 0.5 PBq (petaBq = 10^15). Total release of 90-Sr thus far is about 1 PBq. That would be a significant increase in the 90-Sr released. The concentration that would result in seawater if the tanks were released all at once would be about half of the concentration in the plume generated in the weeks following the disaster in March 2011. Using your 10-fold higher estimate for 137-Cs (which I think is low) you get 5 PBq. That is a few percent of the 137-Cs released immediately after the disaster.... All of your mathematical equations, at this point of the ongoing Fukushima release, are a complete waste of public moneys, and especially, our time. I am not a scientist, but I am a person of high intellect, and very well educated; as though any of that really matters... although I was given the gift of simple logic and common sense that many within the genius category seem to be missing. No personal connotations are intended, but if the shoe fits...
You are basing your studies on fraudulent information supplied by TEPCO, and other scientists, as well as deceitful nuclear PR persons; all controlled by the IAEA. Also, you are treating this study as though the large releases from Fukushima only occurred for a certain amount of time; as though they have this release under control now... Also fraudulent information. You have mentioned the process of "dilution," which again, is not an accurate understanding of man-made radioactive isotopes that are constantly being released, as they do not dilute. They accumulate, the same as lead or mercury accumulates within the body, but unlike lead or mercury, they undergo fission, causing them to alter and become different isotopes; some that have longer lives, and become more deadly.
I am sorry, but while listening to and watching your video lecture, I half expected to hear you begin comparing this man-made background radiation to a banana. Forgive me for this expectation, but many of the studies you have referred to, and based your own on, were produced by Ken Beusseler who DOES fraudulently claim that this man-made radiation is of no more danger to us than the natural radiation in a banana.
I understand that the IAEA has been feeding nuclear scientists incorrect information about Fukushima since the beginning of this ongoing event, and although they have listened to the more accurate estimates of the Japanese that are NOT associated with TEPCO, they have a choke-hold of silence on ALL information being released to the public; this includes all earnest scientists associated with Universities as well as private study. I am sorry to pop your bubble, but this is a sad and sorry display of ultimate power and control in the name of their own heinous need to further their ulterior motive to continue their deadly nuclear program.
While you have had your nose buried in scientific problems and sums based on incorrect estimates provided on the Fukushima release, are you aware that the Cancer Treatment Centers of America has now changed the cancer statistics of 4.61 to 1,000 becoming ill with cancer, to 1 in 2 men, and 1 in 3 women? Are you even aware that the W.H.O. has recently made a public announcement that we will from now on, see a "tidal wave" of cancer? I appreciate their subtle choice of words in their description of the numbers to a "tsunami..."
Do these figures not alarm you in any way, to the fact that you may have been fed deliberate, inaccurate figures to base your studies on, or are you just another naive protégé of Ken Beussler?
While I understand your tenacity in your field of research, and obvious need to mathematically equate sums which no longer have relevance to the urgency of the situation of this ongoing event, I ask you if it matters, really, how many bullets it takes to kill a person. Let me make the answer to this simple question very clear. One bullet into a person's head will kill the same as 100 bullets. It's the firing mechanism that needs to be dealt with now; not the amount of ammunition.
Your scientific jabber[to a group of layman] of mathematical equations is no longer an issue in this argument of the threat to our existence, and the urgency of the problem. The issue is that the release of radiation from the ONGOING spewing from Fukushima into our oceans and atmosphere are rapidly depleting our earth of life that is mandatory to the supply of oxygen that makes this planet hospitable to us; never mind the cancers resulting from these elements. Your studies from inaccurate figures are a waste of our resources and precious time. The focus now needs to be shifted from any scientific mathematical arguments, to the removal from power of those who would see the human race annihilated, so the choke-hold can be removed, and a proper scientific think-tank can be formed to figure out the solution to this ongoing release that is now, rapidly killing our planet.
I would ask you now, is it your preference to stay with your useless studies of figures, in the light of the real dangers of this issue, or would you not prefer to be a part of the scientific think-tank that we so desperately need, to rectify this event that threatens our existence on this beautiful planet we call home?
Please know that I am in no way belittling you as a scientist; we need you, and others in your field of expertise, as well as all the other fields; whether they be art, philosophy, medicine, law, etc., to make the human race whole... That is, if we survive this planetary event. If not, then none of this matters.
Let me now close my narrative with this logical, and self-searching compound question, followed with the final analysis of your choices in answering this question: Q. Why do you think you were personally given the gift of the scientific mind that you very obviously do have; was it to be a part of saving the human race, or was it to be fooled into being a part of the annihilation of the human race?
If the honest answer you feel within yourself is the want and need to save, then I commend you, and hope you will become a part of doing just that.
If your inner answer is the latter, then I pity you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2014 12:48:49 GMT -5
Hi Ysalys, If you think the entire scientific community is conspiring with IAEA and TEPCO to supply the public with false information there is no point in this discussion. You are simply incorrect in this belief. Without the work of the international scientific community measuring radionuclides in air, soil, water and organisms TEPCO might still be claiming there was no release at all. Simply stated, radiation risks can be measured and quantitative judgement can be applied to compare that risk with other risks that we face everyday. That is why the scientific community makes and reports these measurements. The discussion here is peppered with many opinions that are at odds with fundamental chemistry and physics. It is my hope to change that. I have never stated that releases from the Fukushima have stopped. They continue everyday. We (the scientific community) know this from measurements of the radioactivity in the coastal ocean near to Japan. We also know from these measurements that compared with the release rates immediately following the disaster the rates now are 10,000 to 100,000 times lower now. To borrow an analogy if you equate the initial releases to a dye (radioactivity) being added to a stream (the Pacific Ocean currents) every day for a few weeks following the meltdowns a 200 liter (50 gallon) drum of dye was being dumped into the stream. After that release rates dropped quickly and have stabilized at about 10,000 to 100,000 times less. That means that everyday now 2 milliliters of dye is being added. The concentration of radioactivity in the water determines the impact on marine biota and the concentration to which they and we are exposed. There is a massive body of evidence that relates dose exposure to concentration. The concentrations in coastal waters in the Pacific near Fukushima are many, many times lower now than they were in Spring 2011. This is why the maximum concentrations in the plume that is along our coast here in BC will arrive in the next two years and then diminish. Wherever possible I link to open-access, peer-reviewed studies that are not behind paywalls. I dislike the scientific publishing monopoly as much as you. There are no peer-reviewed studies that can support 30 times more 90-Sr being released than 137-Cs. An offhanded remark reported by a news site can not compete with thousands of independent measurements in soil, air and water. Starlight, for it is worth I have worked on every ocean of the world with the exception of the Southern Ocean. Most oceanographers spend a significant amount of time at sea. That is one of the reasons I wanted to be an oceanographer in the first place. I've hand steered a 61ft sailboat across most of the Indian Ocean. If you are interested in such things our goal was to determine the impact of commercial shipping traffic (pollution from bunker fuel burning and bilge) on surface algae and bacteria. There is a pretty cool little movie of it here:
|
|
|
Post by Ysalys (Kate) on Mar 29, 2014 14:38:07 GMT -5
Jay, I have not stated that I believe that the entire scientific community is conspiring with the IAEA and TEPCO. The argument is that the IAEA does have a choke-hold on MANY, and that the people of the world are being lied to. This is what has created this group, as well as other groups that are angry and confused.
When we see ANY studies being created from Ken Beusseler's works, or others like him, we go into the fear mode, because he and others along with him DO belittle the effects of this man-made radiation that IS killing the life on earth that we depend on to give us our life.
You need to understand that the majority of us worldwide are laymen; not scientists, and as much as you may attempt to explain and simplify your scientific formulas and terminology to us, we just do not have the scientific mind that you are blessed with.
We have a very difficult time with believing anything to do with scientific reports because of the blatant shut down by our governments, to continue their readings since the days following the Fukushima ongoing event. You need to understand that this quite literally paralyzes the masses with fear, and proves to us that the numbers are no longer of any use to us; in the final outcome of this, if it is not resolved at the source.
It was my wish that you would help us to trust you here... ...But the idea of such miniscule amounts that you say are being released, when TEPCO has actually reported that hundreds of tons of radioactive water is being released into the Pacific Ocean daily, and that their estimates are grossly lower than the spikes we have been seeing of late, creates distrust. Especially when we are seeing the cancer ratios jump to numbers of 1 in 2 men, and 1 in 3 women will get cancer.
I am glad to read you accept that there exists a scientific publishing monopoly, and again, I do hope that you will abandon your formulas on paper, and look beyond today's mathematics to realize that the numbers are being tampered with by those that ARE a part of that monopoly, to cover-up the Fukushima event that threatens our future right to live on this planet.
We ALL need to know that there IS a scientific group that will alter their focus from arguing about the numbers that are being used in the Mainstream media that discredits the honest facts of the danger we are in IF this release is not rectified.
The mathematics of your dilution theory is no longer valid if you look at the dwindling life within the Pacific Ocean, as well as the cancers that are taking the lives of our loved ones in HUGE numbers now.
Again, because of the lies we have been fed over the past 3 years; while we continue to see the effects rise through illnesses and deaths surrounding us, none of these numbers matter to us, OR the situation anymore. What DOES matter, is that a scientific think-tank is URGENTLY needed to be formed, to be able to figure out how to arrest this ongoing release. Using the time that is rapidly running out, to try to figure out the numbers, and the effects that these numbers have on us, is NOT the solution. More and more are dying while the SOLUTION is being ignored. We do not need band-aids or reports to cover or explain the festering wound that is growing exponentially. We NEED to address the ROOT of the problem, and THAT IS, stopping the ongoing release.
Again, and I just cannot stress this enough, we need to address the SOURCE, which is no longer the numbers of radionuclides being released. It is forming a think-tank that will NOT be blocked by the IAEA and their pet Ken Beusselers and Tim Worstalls...
We understand that something like this has never occurred in humankind's history, so there are no studies to refer to, to solve this. We also know that what is needed to solve this has not even been invented yet, but it COULD, if our worldwide scientific community would join together to solve this issue. It is the hopes of all of us here, that you and other scientists will open yourselves to the creation of this so urgently needed think-tank of gifted scientists.
Please abandon the numbers game, and address the source, by bringing together all the brilliant scientific minds of the world to figure this out. Stand up Jay, and do whatever it takes to put this together. Earth's life depends on our scientists.
Kate
Update: Since giving you our eyes and ears here, and the hope that you just may be able to help, I see you in another thread, continuing to belittle the evidence we have before us... Perhaps my communication was in vain... You are rapidly burning your bridges here, if you continue to spout the typical, ongoing rhetoric of the IAEA's pets.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2014 16:00:48 GMT -5
To reply to the effect that the studies were not based on TEPCO's initial release data I have to point to the caveats mentioned in the reports. The studies used these values. Yes they sampled and measured independantly, however it seems that they used tepco's data in their analysis. IF a certain measure was released, and we can find this amount here, we feel that distribution is such. The following link will bring you to a reference to the TEPCO accidental spill that states the high level I refered to. I avoided using enenews, not sure why though. fukushimaemergencywhatcanwedo.blogspot.nl/2014/02/100-tons-of-toxic-water-leaked-at.htmlIt seems to me that 230 million bq/lSr90 is a very high level of contamination for water flushing over and around a supposedly cold pile. Like I previously said, we have no idea what is actually occuring underground. Neutron activation may be complicating the issue, new isotopes that we have as yet to discover, unknowns. The attitude that we understand all things is what brings us here today. Cullen says " Fisson ended after March 2011" I find this negligent! This is an ongoing event 3 core meltdowns going on continuously! diverdude you are doing a great job!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2014 17:03:10 GMT -5
Hi laurieman,
Thanks for your comment. There is no evidence of ongoing fission at the Fukushima site. Melted cores do not continue to fission as the process requires precise geometry for criticality. We can't measure short-lived isotopes that result from fission any longer which would be possible if fission was ongoing.
Regards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2014 17:22:33 GMT -5
Hi Ysalys, Scientists approach problems by asking questions and then collecting data to see whether or not their ideas are incorrect. I will use numbers and figures from time to time and do my best to not appear to be talking gibberish. I recently wrote to short blogs about the history of radioactivity in the North Pacific (from weapons testing) and the most recent measurements tracking the plume of radioactivity from Fukushima across the Pacific. I think they are useful to read if you are interested. www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/15/1269942/-History-of-Bomb-Strontium-and-Cesium-Isotopes-in-Pacific-Compared-to-Fukushima-Sourceswww.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/08/1283088/-Models-Wrong-About-Fukushima-Plume-in-Pacific#Recent measurements by Kumamoto and colleagues published in an open-access, peer reviewed journal demonstrate that maximum 137-Cs concentrations in the open ocean east of Japan are now about 18 Bq/m3 in the heart of the radioactive plume. The plume contains all the isotopes released from the site in the ratio they were released relative to 137-Cs. These concentrations can be compared with the concentrations present in the North Pacific at the peak of weapons testing in 50's of roughly 80-100 Bq/m3. The figures are shown in the links above. What that means is that if you lived and worked on the west coast of North America in the 50's and 60's the Pacific Ocean was significantly more radioactive than it is likely to be from Fukushima. Our measurements off the BC coast currently show about 1 Bq/m3 137-Cs from Fukushima. It will increase over the next ~2 years as the heart of the plume arrives but the fact that it is 18 Bq/m3 in the western Pacific means that more mixing and dilution will occur during transport to our coast and the max here will likely be <18.
|
|
|
Post by diverdude on Mar 29, 2014 18:23:56 GMT -5
To go back to my simplistic analogy of us being hit by a truck named Fukushima, Jay you then equated Chernobyl as being the Titanic running us over. This is such absurdity. Honestly if you are of such a mindset then your moment of epiphany will be devastating. I have a good many friends from all walks of life. The most intelligent of the crowd are more often than not the most closed-minded. I have tried on many occasions to point out the funny lines in the sky, for example, and to try and get them interested in some of the realities of our controlled world. They cannot 'go there' not because they are incapable of understanding the science, or because it goes against their beliefs, but because if such things were real and happening--They Would Know. To accept a new reality is for them an affront to their intelligence. Ego will not allow them to investigate. A person in a postion of authority would understandably have an even greater challenge in accepting such change. Assuming that one has spent much of his or her career maintaining a phylosophy and defending/promoting an industry as being safe and reliable when clearly it is not, must be a troubled soul. I have great respect for any individual that can stand-up and state proudly "I was wrong" no matter what the context or topic. I call it evolution. Those three simple words will never be spoken by some, out of fear of ridicule or loss of respect from his/her peers (or students or children). I have been wrong about things in my past, I'm not embarrased when it's pointed out to me that I used to be otherwise. I own my past and it brought me here. We were all wrong to ever have allowed nuclear power to exist. Period. The position that it is our saviour and that it will safely light the future is no longer acceptable. Period.
That's my armchair psycological pontificating for the day, I'm at a loss for words. Love.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2014 18:33:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by diverdude on Mar 29, 2014 19:05:16 GMT -5
Hello Jay,
I have to refer you to the FOIA docs regarding the atmospheric loss of inventories at Fukushima including MOX. These inventories were far greater in size than in the Ukraine, and those documents reveal a very different scenario than what was publicly released, pun intended. We have pictures of the 'elephant's foot' at Chernobyl. No such photos will ever be possible at Daiichi. Regards back
|
|
|
Post by Ysalys (Kate) on Mar 29, 2014 19:09:05 GMT -5
I am truly sorry Jay, but although you did actually manage to get in here, and be welcomed for a little while, your time is now done. If what you are doing here, is "what scientists do" then this is a sorry world we live in. In the minds of the gifted in this world, there are some, like you, who are so narrow minded that if their brains were to be put on the edge of a razor blade, they would look like ball bearings in the middle of an eight lane highway.
Your sad and sorry rhetoric is not even deserving of being moved to the containment board for trolls and shills, although I may edit this and put it into containment as a reminder of the scientists that lie, and are cohorts to the murders at the top. You are now banned, and your membership is about to be deleted; to become a bad memory among the Fukushima Hounds. You will soon be forgotten as insignificant trash, as your whole thread will be deleted in time, after it sits in the Containment unit for a while.
As I said to you in closing, in my first communication to you, "I pity you." You truly are a pitiful excuse for a human being, and a waste of our tax money.
|
|