Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 2662

I'm still not ruling out the 'dirty bomb' experiment theory.
by MaryW 11/15/2011 3:19:17 AM

@MaryW Do you mean a nuclear weapon test? Whereabouts?
by Pedro Jesus 11/15/2011 3:23:20 AM

IAEA said there was only iodine traces found and a bomb or a nuclear power accident would show others. Take that for what it is worth. It isn't like the iAEA is being forthcoming about this whole mess.
by lillymunster 11/15/2011 3:26:06 AM

@Pedro Jesus, what is the surmounting evidence against LNT? Almost every domain like in-home radon and nuclear workers anti-LNT crusaders have attempted to seize have only grown ever-more firmly in the LNT grasp in the last few years (see for example www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov , oem.bmj.com , www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov , these are not just some studies but largest-to-date for their domains).
But give us your best example of surmounting evidence.
by Ian 11/15/2011 3:28:00 AM

I wondered about Iran leaking something. If that had been the case there would have been other locations showing signs and Ukraine would not have been the first to light up.

I wouldn't 100% rule out Chernobyl possibly belching out something if it is possible for it to still create enough reaction to spew I-131. It is about the right location for the two next nearest readings on the 16th and 17th taking the wind swirl into account.
by lillymunster 11/15/2011 3:29:13 AM

@lillymunster A nuclear bomb detonation would have been traced around the world. We would know about it. Highly unlikely nut not impossible.
by Pedro Jesus 11/15/2011 3:34:21 AM

@Pedro Jesus whatever this is seems to be traveling lower to the ground rather than upper atmosphere guessing due to the really slow speed of movement.

IAEA initially said it was probably a medical reactor but the only 2 in the EU don't match the pattern.
Someone said fuel rods with leakers could cause the iodine leak?
by lillymunster 11/15/2011 3:44:40 AM

@Ian Wikipedia provides a few links for you to start with, if you're interested. There are also several articles published at New Scientist magazine, based on peer reviewed research papers on that subject that you could search through but this requires an up-to-date subscription (mine has expired). I'm sorry I can't be of much help, but if you're interested there is a lot of information out here in the web about it. Please, ignore, for this purpose, the radiation hormesis theory. I have found very little scientific support for this peculiar theory (which Edano detests) so far. en.wikipedia.org
by Pedro Jesus 11/15/2011 3:47:33 AM

@lillymunster I have no clue.
by Pedro Jesus 11/15/2011 3:49:00 AM

@Pedro Jesus I'm back and see you post to me. the dirty bomb theory came to me due to the recent news on Iran and nuke weapons and etc. But now also in today's last description report for Czech Republic, the EPA states "both iodine -129 and iodine-131 are (1) produced by the fission of uranium during operation of nuclear reactors and (2) plutonium (or uranium) in the detonation of nuclear weapons.
by MaryW 11/15/2011 3:53:00 AM

@Pedro Jesus If we could get a few more pieces I think we could crack this. With what we have there are just too many missing pieces.
by lillymunster 11/15/2011 3:53:02 AM

Ohio gozaimasu tomodachi
by bo 11/15/2011 3:54:17 AM

@Ian Another hint I can give you is that a reasonable bulk of recent research on the subject has shown that the LNT model breaks down below a certain, erm..., threshold. So if you have access to scientific papers on the subject make sure you read through right until the end of every single one of them. Also, Edano might be of help because I remember he once published some links to scientific papers where what I just wrote can be observed. Unfortunately, I didn't save those links. They're linked up somewhere in this Scribble website.
by Pedro Jesus 11/15/2011 3:54:31 AM

Over the last few days the Alert Maps description reportso on the Nuclear Event in Czech have progressed from medical hospitals, to radiopharmaceutical makers, to nuclear submarines, to anywhere spent fuel rods are handles and fission process of nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons.
by MaryW 11/15/2011 3:59:58 AM

@bo Hi Bo.

@lillymunster The problem is there are certain pieces of information that cannot be ventilated to the media nor to the public due to national security issues. So we might never find out.

@MaryW Well, but if Iran would have tested a nuclear weapon, Israel would have already retaliated. This situation between Israel and Iran is not new. I remember a similar situation back in the early or mid eighties that culminated in an Israeli air strike that stalled Iran's nuclear research for a couple of decades. Historic recurrence, they call it?
by Pedro Jesus 11/15/2011 4:03:05 AM

@lillymunster Its a little like the game Clue :) Eliminate your suspects
by MaryW 11/15/2011 4:03:28 AM

I would rule out Iran and Pakistan. I think this originated somewhere from Turkey on north.
by lillymunster 11/15/2011 4:05:10 AM

@lillymunster I'm thinking Russia. (the Iran news was a trigger in thinking nuclear weapon, I'm wasn't thinking Iran is involved with this)
by MaryW 11/15/2011 4:10:09 AM

@MaryW LOL. Well, we can eliminate the "dirty bomb" scenario. It is next to impossible to test a nuclear weapon anywhere in the world without the IAEA tracing it to the source immediately.
by Pedro Jesus 11/15/2011 4:10:33 AM

@Pedro Jesus I'm not going to rule it out the 'dirty bomb experiment.:) and I also am not ruling out the Fukashima theory. But this last theory would be the first one out of the Clue game.
by MaryW 11/15/2011 4:17:00 AM

But as you said, we may never find out due to security
by MaryW 11/15/2011 4:17:51 AM

I need in this. eurdep.jrc.ec.europa.eu
by lillymunster 11/15/2011 4:20:04 AM

@MaryW Well, we may find out in 10 or 15 years from now after someone files a FOIA request for the declassification of information regarding this incident.
by Pedro Jesus 11/15/2011 4:20:23 AM

@MaryW have you looked at the detection map?
by lillymunster 11/15/2011 4:20:44 AM

@lillymunster No, link please. @Pedro Like our Vietnam vets fighting the system now for their exposure to chemical weapons.
by MaryW 11/15/2011 4:22:27 AM

@MaryW Good example.
by Pedro Jesus 11/15/2011 4:27:04 AM

I added the map and explanation of where things are as of today with the EU mess to the group website. Lead story on www.simplyinfo.org or go www.simplyinfo.org You can click on the map in the story to get a huge version
by lillymunster 11/15/2011 4:28:40 AM

@lillymunster I keep checking the alert map for another nuclear event icon to pop up somewhere. Is that the one you posted with the dates of spikes?
by MaryW 11/15/2011 4:30:12 AM

@MaryW the one with the dates on it is the one I put together based on what we could find.
by lillymunster 11/15/2011 4:35:16 AM

@lillymunster We could call that map, the hypothesis map :)
by MaryW 11/15/2011 4:37:22 AM

@lillymunster @All Look at this www.ubalert.com I can not find a date, other than the Update: 13 days ago
by MaryW 11/15/2011 4:50:02 AM

Of radioactive cesium released by Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident, found that may have spread to Hokkaido and Shikoku.

　Nagoya University and other international research team were actually measured by the country each month from March 20 "Cesium 137" based on the data, we performed simulations in combination with the status of weather and rain. As a result, wide spread, such as cesium-137, Hokkaido and Shikoku regions in China, it was found that the soil may be deposited. The concentration of cesium-137 is at once a high of 250 becquerels per kilogram in the eastern part of Hokkaido, it seems one of about 25 becquerels per kilogram in the mountains of Shikoku China. www.news24.jp
by lillymunster 11/15/2011 4:50:38 AM

Hmm. Can raw unenriched uranium ore create anything other than uranium? I assumed it would need to undergo fission in order to get iodine, cesium etc.
by lillymunster 11/15/2011 4:51:58 AM

What does 'uranium was not enriched' mean?
by MaryW 11/15/2011 4:53:47 AM

@MaryW raw ore not processed into a different percentage mix that is needed for fuel etc. en.wikipedia.org
by lillymunster 11/15/2011 4:55:52 AM

Anybody hear of the two semi-trailers worth of 72 tons of TNT that went off at a toll plaza in China? Supposedly it's an industrial accident, but it dwarfs the truck bombs used at WTC, OK city and Beirut (1, 2.5 and 6 tons). People are worried about hiding nukes in shipping containers, but they can also be filled with conventional explosives. No coverage at all in US press, only in Asia and Australia.
hu1st.blogspot.com!/2011/11/guizhou-china-hit-by-72-tons-of.html
by artnuke 11/15/2011 4:58:02 AM

@artnuke Wow, I'll check out those links-thanks. I don't know if it was my computer, but I couldn't get out of that link. Had to close the window. :)
by MaryW 11/15/2011 5:08:22 AM

Must go sleep. Thanks all. :-)
by lillymunster 11/15/2011 5:16:26 AM

Me too. Can't find info on the China TNT crash for the month of November
by MaryW 11/15/2011 5:18:10 AM

@MaryW good night and thanks!
by bo 11/15/2011 5:29:34 AM

@Pedro Jesus, so when you say there's "surmounting evidence" agains the LNT model, there's nothing specific you have in mind. And if queried for it you just point to the internet and say start reading. Lol!
by Ian 11/15/2011 5:49:47 AM

@Ian I don't understand your comment. What else are you requesting from me?
by Pedro Jesus 11/15/2011 5:55:56 AM

@Ian Well, I've got to go. Let me know another time. Good night all.
by Pedro Jesus 11/15/2011 6:18:20 AM

@Pedro Jesus, you said there exists "surmounting evidence" against the linear-no-threshold (LNT) model of radiation risk. So I asked you for the best example of such evidence (just give me one example). But a run-around was all I got, not a single iota of claim-supporting evidence.
by Ian 11/15/2011 6:35:42 AM

@Ian Recent analysis (from the 90's onwards) of the data available, from the few significant nuclear events that have occurred in the world, of the effects of ionizing radiation exposure shows that the LNT model doesn't satisfy in explaining the data regarding exposure to less than about 100mSV. The model breaks down under that threshold. There is no arguing with that. The controversy around this subject is not about if the model is accurate in all the exposure range - it is a fact that it isn't. The controversy is that some countries, namely France (through Les Académie des Sciences and Les Académie Nationale de Médecine) chose not to rely on the LNT model for exposure regulations purposes (laws that determine maximum limits of exposure).

The only thing that I argue about is the assumption that some people support that any given exposure to ionizing radiation is damaging to human health. Data analysis shows otherwise, specifically, that under a certain threshold it is not possible to verify that the LNT model holds. However, no one argues that the LNT model is reasonably accurate above that threshold. I also don't argue that the LNT model is the most effective one since it is the most conservative.

Another obvious contradictory evidence against the assumption that "any given exposure to any level of ionizing radiation is hazardous to human health" is the disseminated use (with a considerable degree of success in some types of cancer) of radiotherapy in the treatment of some tumours. I hope my position is clearer now.
by Pedro Jesus 11/15/2011 6:59:44 AM