Please share far and wide!

Friday, May 8, 2015

How Come They Can't Find the Fukushima "Signature" Even Though Cesium levels have Increased 400% in Ocean? Fukushima Murdey Mystery

stock here, some new revelations below, from just this week.   not so much data revelations, as how to think about it revelations.    Part of it is "how do they lie and mislead".

For a quick primer on how to use the CS137 to CS134 ratio to "prove" a detection is from Fukushima, see this post.   It is actually easy to understand, but you need to turn your brain on for 2 minutes...do so now ON!

http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2014/01/cd134-cs137-ratio-and-food-chain-in.html


 CodeShutdown Codeshutdown

The point is that the mainstream, which includes all of our science institutes, our government and the U.N. certainly the nuclear regulatory people…heck, why not include the president, and even some ENEnews posters are saying that the levels are very low and Fukushima will decommission itself.

I have a problem with this. I think the problem is huge. The tests show "radiation levels thousands of times lower than that which would be any health concern"

Its up to people…(you?) to solve this. You post links but yet we dont have the definitive answer and frankly, metal beard -Alex was right, we are losing the battle, and its only the usual ugly market forces which are shutting down SOME nuclear enterprises.

Maybe I will call it the "Fukushima murder mystery"

People are going to believe Woods Hole, not ENE posters. These are some things from Woods Hole;
"no radiation had yet been found along any of the beaches or shorelines where the public has been sampling since 2013"

Check the latest test results from the Buesselers public funded effort. I didnt check ALL of them but so far found only ONE that showed C-134 at a detectable level. Since they use the 137-134 ratio to determine the source, this means Woods Hole cant detect any radiation from Fukushima in these crowd funded efforts!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stock here

Exactly I noticed that same point just this week...maybe great minds think alike, or the 100 monkey discovery rule.

Since CS-134 is down to 25% compared to 4 years ago, 2 half lives have passed and if their detection limit is 2Bq/M3 then it would have had to have been 8 Bq/M3 at the beginning.  

But CS134 is minor in relation to CS137 in the source term percentages.
Refer here 192 Kg CS134 compared to 2987 Kg CS137
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/05/even-anti-nukes-are-way-underestimating.html

If all of the CS137 were released into the Pacific ocean it would only jack it up by 15 B1/M3

So Kenny is saying it's 4 or 5 now, used to be 1, and he thinks it might peak in the next year or 2 at 18 and be "fine" after that.

Kenny boy is talking out of his arse, with comments that makes little sense.

But the other reality I came up with today...the levels being measured in the ocean are after filtering....indeed, the plankton and fishes are filtering the radionuclides from the water on a continuous basis....so the measurements now are already "filtered" maybe we will peak in ocean measurements soon....because the plant and animal life will have captured the radiation.

hmmmmm, is that a good thing?   Why are they measuring only the water, with lip service measurements to fish and plants?    Ya, they know exactly how they are lying, and they shall receive a special place in hell.  But that does us no good now.

stock out

6 comments:

  1. They're not measuring the biomagnification, and they're playing see-no-evil with the plutonium.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ya, let the animals suck it up, then it is really hard to measure until they are dead. Then they are too dangerous to measure.

      Delete
  2. Nah. You just can't keep up with the legitimate scientific community. I love to read the pathetic attempt at being a nuclear scientist here. All of it is crapola.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's all you got to offer? Seems pretty disingenuous

      Delete
  3. Nah. You just can't keep up with the legitimate scientific community. I love to read the pathetic attempt at being a nuclear scientist here. All of it is crapola.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see, troll using the Conca technique of repeating things, in the hopes that it gives them more credibility. Contribute or you shall be banned.

      Delete

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments