Click to Translate to English Click to Translate to French  Click to Translate to Spanish  Click to Translate to German  Click to Translate to Italian  Click to Translate to Japanese  Click to Translate to Chinese Simplified  Click to Translate to Korean  Click to Translate to Arabic  Click to Translate to Russian  Click to Translate to Portuguese


Forum Home Forum Home > General Discussion > General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Fukushima Failed Reactors (Update)
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Welcome to the Avian Flu Talk Forums -- Now tracking the new Ebola virus -- Feel free to select a topic below and join the discussion

Fukushima Failed Reactors (Update)

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Message
Turboguy View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: October 27 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5294
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Turboguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 01 2012 at 4:38am
Originally posted by Joe Neubarth Joe Neubarth wrote:

If a woman gets a breast X-ray to check for Breast Cancer she risks getting cancer from the X-ray.  Her chance is approximately one out of 8000, but she is still taking that chance. It will take years for it to develop and grow, but it will still kill her if they do not catch it in time, so she continues to get X-rays as her doctor suggests.  As she gets older and has more and more breast X-rays she has greatly increased her chances of getting cancer from that diagnostic process.
 
So people living significantly longer has nothing to do with higher incidences of cancer?
Originally posted by Joe Neubarth Joe Neubarth wrote:

Thus where you live on the Earth (high or low Background radiation levels) does not matter that much as long as the Background Radiation does not include Alpha, Beta and Neutron emitters that can become particulate and be aspirated in or ingested as food. An Alpha outside the body can hardly make it through your dead skin out the outside of your body, but inside it has living tissue all around the spot where it originates.
 
Haha make up your mind. First you say that bullets are bullets and no matter what it's going to hurt you, then in the same post say the exact opposite.
 
Originally posted by Joe Neubarth Joe Neubarth wrote:

Uranium Miners in the US West and in other countries died of lung cancer and abdominal cancer in horrible numbers.  Why?  They were ingesting Uranium dust and Radon gas and the Alpha and Beta and Neutron radiation caused DNA damage that gave them cancer.  People get intestinal cancer from the radioactive food they eat all of the time. Bananas are included in that food.  The idiot on the board says that the dose is of Potassium 40. The dose is of Beta Radiation which is ionizing and can cause cancer.
 
ROFL! So your absolutely garbage diet has nothing to do with intestinal cancer? Diverticulitis?
Originally posted by Joe Neubarth Joe Neubarth wrote:


If you eat three or four times as many bananas as a normal person, I am certain that would increase your chance of getting intestinal cancer by a very slight degree. I eat lots of bananas as I have explained before on this forum because I am not afraid of any new cancers that might spring up now since I am in my mid sixties and it would take many years for a cancer just getting started now to ever get big enough to kill me.  What I need to worry about is what I ate twenty and thirty years ago.
 
HAHAHAHAHA OMG! This is fast becoming epic. So it's been said that cancer invades your body something like twenty times a day, I don't know the exact number, and your body fights it off. Every single one of those is from radiological stuff you ate? You think even ten percent of those is from radiologicals? Get real. LOLLOLLOL
Chances are it's from your horrible diet. Try eating something with fiber.
 
Originally posted by Joe Neubarth Joe Neubarth wrote:

The drooling low IQ idiotic buffoon will never understand that.
 
Keep crying, it's too funny.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views. - William F. Buckley
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 01 2012 at 5:54pm
Guys please - keep it civil?
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: March 09 2012
Location: Mira Mesa, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 09 2012 at 10:26am
http://www.enviroreporter.com/2012/03/highest-radiation-in-l-a-air-yet/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XXe8K1fRqI&feature=colike

Alpha and Beta radiation which comes from particulate.  This is the stuff  that causes cancer.
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: March 09 2012
Location: Mira Mesa, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 09 2012 at 11:00am
Originally posted by Turboguy Turboguy wrote:

Originally posted by Joe Neubarth Joe Neubarth wrote:

If a woman gets a breast X-ray to check for Breast Cancer she risks getting cancer from the X-ray.  Her chance is approximately one out of 8000, but she is still taking that chance. It will take years for it to develop and grow, but it will still kill her if they do not catch it in time, so she continues to get X-rays as her doctor suggests.  As she gets older and has more and more breast X-rays she has greatly increased her chances of getting cancer from that diagnostic process.
 
So people living significantly longer has nothing to do with higher incidences of cancer?

That was a rather ignorant statement, as the original poster had just stated that as fact. As he previously stated, modern medicine has made great strides, but is losing the war against Cancer. Approximately 600,000 people die each year from Cancer in the US. In 1930 it was about one third that. The number of young people dying of cancer is going up with the older generations. In  areas where there is high radioactive particulate, still births soar. The fact that people are living longer is well known as one of many reasons for cancer rates.  


Originally posted by Joe Neubarth Joe Neubarth wrote:

Thus where you live on the Earth (high or low Background radiation levels) does not matter that much as long as the Background Radiation does not include Alpha, Beta and Neutron emitters that can become particulate and be aspirated in or ingested as food. An Alpha outside the body can hardly make it through your dead skin of the outside of your body, but inside it has living tissue all around the spot where it originates.
 
Haha make up your mind. First you say that bullets are bullets and no matter what it's going to hurt you, then in the same post say the exact opposite.

That was a rather ignorant statement, again! There was no negation in the OP statement above. Anybody who has ever studied the fundamentals of radiation knows that Alpha particles and Neutron Particles carry fifty times more wallop than do Gamma or X or Cosmic Rays. Your response shows obvious gross ignorance of the types of radiation and the damage they can do inside the human body. They can all do damage. Some are just more dangerous from a cancer causing standpoint. You need to study an 8th grade science text to learn the basics.

 
Originally posted by Joe Neubarth Joe Neubarth wrote:

Uranium Miners in the US West and in other countries died of lung cancer and abdominal cancer in horrible numbers.  Why?  They were ingesting Uranium dust and Radon gas and the Alpha and Beta and Neutron radiation caused DNA damage that gave them cancer.  People get intestinal cancer from the radioactive food they eat all of the time. Bananas are included in that food.  The idiot on the board says that the dose is of Potassium 40. The dose is of Beta Radiation which is ionizing and can cause cancer.
 
ROFL! So your absolutely garbage diet has nothing to do with intestinal cancer? Diverticulitis?

That was a rather ignorant statement again. There is no direct linkage to eating garbage and getting cancer. All cancers are caused by changes to the DNA inside human cells. Greasy hamburgers and rotting lettuce do not cause cancer as they do not get inside the cells and from there inside the cell nucleus..  Radiation can do that and several virus strains can also enter the cells. There is no known food that has ever entered the inside of  a human cell and altered the DNA. 
Originally posted by Joe Neubarth Joe Neubarth wrote:


If you eat three or four times as many bananas as a normal person, I am certain that would increase your chance of getting intestinal cancer by a very slight degree. I eat lots of bananas as I have explained before on this forum because I am not afraid of any new cancers that might spring up now since I am in my mid sixties and it would take many years for a cancer just getting started now to ever get big enough to kill me.  What I need to worry about is what I ate twenty and thirty years ago.
 
HAHAHAHAHA OMG! This is fast becoming epic. So it's been said that cancer invades your body something like twenty times a day, I don't know the exact number, and your body fights it off. Every single one of those is from radiological stuff you ate? You think even ten percent of those is from radiologicals? Get real. LOLLOLLOL

That was a rather ignorant statement. Am I to assume that the laughing heads are supposed to indicate that you were trying to be funny?  Your stats are totally bogus/imaginary and show no understanding of what causes cancer. a human body is struck by thousands and thousands of radioactive rays in any given day. It is those rays that cause cancer. And as stated, some viruses can get inside a human cell and cause mutations.  Nobody said that cancer was solely from "radiological stuff" they ate. It  is true that most cancer is caused by radiation strikes to the nucleus. If food plays any role, it might hamper the body's ability to repair the DNA damage from raditation strikes.  If you really think that potatoes can cause cancer, please explain how the potato (or the carrot or the meat or...) gets into the cell to cause a mutation.  Scientific studies have never seen anything like  that happen, even with food additives.
 
Back to Top
Elver View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 14 2008
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Points: 6878
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Elver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 10 2012 at 12:07am
Joe,
 
We have a friend who had a normal colonoscopy 5 years ago.  He had one this year & had a very large amount of colon cancer.  He died because of it.  As you get older it is more critical to get checked more often.  What you ate 20 years ago may not be as relevant as what you ate  2 years ago.  You are fooling yourself into thinking that a new cancer at your age won't kill you. 
 
The rule of thumb for colonoscopy's is every 5 to 7 years depending on your age.  His colonoscopy was repeated exactly 5 years later, but it was too late.  His recent colonoscopy's were at ages 68 & 73.
Elver
Back to Top
Turboguy View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: October 27 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5294
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Turboguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 10 2012 at 2:14am
Why aren't you posting with your other account? I personally unbanned you.
 
Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

 That was a rather ignorant statement, as the original poster had just stated that as fact. As he previously stated, modern medicine has made great strides, but is losing the war against Cancer. Approximately 600,000 people die each year from Cancer in the US. In 1930 it was about one third that. The number of young people dying of cancer is going up with the older generations. In  areas where there is high radioactive particulate, still births soar. The fact that people are living longer is well known as one of many reasons for cancer rates.
 
And you accuse me of being ignorant? Jesus Christ Joe... I'll use your math here.
U.S. Population 1930: 122,775,046
U.S. Population 2012: 311,591,917
Three times the population should neatly threefold increase the incidence of cancer, no? Simple. math. Seems to me that the per 100,000 hasn't gone up one iota.
 
Highest rates have been noted in 'high-income countries' and put this down to a variety of reasons. This is likely to be partly because high-income countries are better at diagnosing and recording new cases of cancer. But a large part of the reason is also that high-income countries tend to have higher levels of obesity and alcohol consumption, and lower levels of physical activity.

Cancer is more common in older people, and countries with an ageing population thus tend to have higher rates.

Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

That was a rather ignorant statement, again! There was no negation in the OP statement above. Anybody who has ever studied the fundamentals of radiation knows that Alpha particles and Neutron Particles carry fifty times more wallop than do Gamma or X or Cosmic Rays. Your response shows obvious gross ignorance of the types of radiation and the damage they can do inside the human body. They can all do damage. Some are just more dangerous from a cancer causing standpoint. You need to study an 8th grade science text to learn the basics.
 
And you should avoid trying to create your own little niche of science. All of this I understand very well as I, UNLIKE YOU, deal with radiologicals on a daily basis. Need I point that out again? You keep repeating that any amount of radiation as being the worst thing ever for you when some radiation isn't going to hurt you in the least. You claim to have actually worked with nuclear power in your past (Which IMHO I highly doubt), so you of all people would know that. Hence why I say you've got an agenda.
 
Are you a medical professional? Nope. You're someone with an agenda. While I can't find fault with your post above, your insinuation that getting a breast cancer xray is more damaging than CHECKING for the cancer in the first place is not only about the stupidest statement I've read in my entire life, it shows an astounding lack of understanding that more people, by a factor of MILLIONS are saved by getting XRay'd than not.

Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

That was a rather ignorant statement again. There is no direct linkage to eating garbage and getting cancer. All cancers are caused by changes to the DNA inside human cells. Greasy hamburgers and rotting lettuce do not cause cancer as they do not get inside the cells and from there inside the cell nucleus..  Radiation can do that and several virus strains can also enter the cells. There is no known food that has ever entered the inside of  a human cell and altered the DNA.
 
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!! Spoken like a real life obese person! You are aren't you? Your ignorance knows no bounds! 
 
Cancer causing ingestibles.
 
 
 
 
Asbestos AKA Mesothelioma
 
See how I did that right there? I specifically sourced material. Try it. That way you know I'm not just pulling information out of my ass like you do. In fact I consulted a good friend of mine who is the director of surgical pathology and we had a round laugh at your insinuations of cancer causes.
 
If you had managed to get off your butt and run a mile a day, and not eaten all the High Fructose Corn Syrup, Twinkies, Sacchrin etc you wouldn't be dealing with diverticulitis, Piles, Hemmorrhoids, tumors etc Ad Nauseum. (Intestinal tract problems) Me, I run three a day and then weight train and eat right (plenty of fiber, fruits,In fact I just finished off a banana {ZOMG!!! RADIATION!!!!} and an apple, stay away from the greasy stuff and processed garbage) Keeps me healthy and fit. The best part is that it keeps me popular with the ladies! Giggity Giggity. It's never too late, there's still hope for you to do it too. Make the change today. As much as I like stirring your oatmeal, I don't want anything bad to happen to you and at any age or level a good workout isn't going to hurt.
 
Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:


That was a rather ignorant statement. Am I to assume that the laughing heads are supposed to indicate that you were trying to be funny?  Your stats are totally bogus/imaginary and show no understanding of what causes cancer. a human body is struck by thousands and thousands of radioactive rays in any given day. It is those rays that cause cancer. And as stated, some viruses can get inside a human cell and cause mutations.  Nobody said that cancer was solely from "radiological stuff" they ate. It  is true that most cancer is caused by radiation strikes to the nucleus. If food plays any role, it might hamper the body's ability to repair the DNA damage from raditation strikes.  If you really think that potatoes can cause cancer, please explain how the potato (or the carrot or the meat or...) gets into the cell to cause a mutation.  Scientific studies have never seen anything like  that happen, even with food additives.
 
Refer to links above? And I was laughting at you. That's what those smilies mean. I understand how that might be difficult for one as obviously intelligent and educated as you to grasp.
 
Particularly funny quote from above:
 
Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

a human body is struck by thousands and thousands of radioactive rays in any given day. It is those rays that cause cancer. And as stated, some viruses can get inside a human cell and cause mutations.  Nobody said that cancer was solely from "radiological stuff" they ate. It  is true that most cancer is caused by radiation strikes to the nucleus.
 
Wow! Three different ways in a single paragraph. So is it most or all or none of the above? How about option E: 42.
 
AKA The Meaning of Life, The Universe, and Everything.
 
But you're right, we're struck by millions of energetic particles all the time, and everyone else has from the dawn of time, and that's not going to stop anytime soon. But to diagnose nuclear power, which accounts for maybe, MAYBE 2% of your yearly radiological intake for society's cancer ills is illogical beyond belief. Again, you've gotten irradiated and ingested easily a billion times more radiologicals, or been exposed to more from your house and the food you eat than from Fukushima Pripyat and all the nuclear weapons testing COMBINED!
 
So lighten up Francis.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views. - William F. Buckley
Back to Top
Penham View Drop Down
Chief Moderator
Chief Moderator
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February 09 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4398
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Penham Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 10 2012 at 12:08pm
Joe/Joe Nuebarth we are allowed to use ONE user name. Your old user name is active and I checked it and there doesn't seem to be a problem with it. Are you having problems with it? Any reasons for creating a new user name?
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: March 09 2012
Location: Mira Mesa, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 10 2012 at 12:16pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC6jIvfy70Q&feature=player_embedded#!

Busby on heart damage caused by radioactive particulate.
Back to Top
Mahshadin View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3872
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mahshadin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 19 2012 at 9:42am
Distribution of Radioactive Particles from Fukushima (Pacific Ocean)
 
 
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."   G Orwell
Back to Top
Mahshadin View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3872
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mahshadin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 27 2012 at 12:00am
TEPCO says Fukushima No. 2 reactor water level only 60 cms from bottom

TOKYO -

Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) on Monday said the water level of the No. 2 reactor container at its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is only 60 centimeters from the bottom, indicating a large quantity of water injected to cool the melted fuel is leaking from the vessel.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/tepco-says-fukushima-no-2-reactor-water-level-only-60-cms

_________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Tokyo Update, radiation levels around 200 miles (Tokyo) away from Fukushima
 
short vid
 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Is Japan (third largest world economy) Crippled
_________________________________________________________________
 

Japan closes another reactor, only one left

 
 
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."   G Orwell
Back to Top
mrmouse View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member


Joined: April 24 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2025
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mrmouse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 29 2012 at 9:28am
This can't be good!

Lethal radiation detected inside Fukushima reactor
www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/20120328_14.html


NHK: Suppression chamber “may have been destroyed” at Reactor No. 2 (VIDEO)
enenews.com/just-in-suppression-chamber-may-have-been-destroyed-at-reactor-no-2-nhk-video
Back to Top
Turboguy View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: October 27 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5294
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Turboguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 30 2012 at 1:50am
 
The decline in deaths from all cancers combined continued in the USA from 2004-2008, but a major government report highlights a worrisome rise in cases linked to obesity and inactivity.
 
All radiation my ass.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views. - William F. Buckley
Back to Top
Mahshadin View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3872
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mahshadin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2012 at 10:41pm
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."   G Orwell
Back to Top
Mahshadin View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3872
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mahshadin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 01 2012 at 6:11pm
Radiation Inside Fukushima Reactor So High That New Machines Must Be Designed To Monitor It

One of Japan's crippled nuclear reactors still has fatally high radiation levels and hardly any water to cool it, according to an internal examination Tuesday that renews doubts about the plant's stability.

A tool equipped with a tiny video camera, a thermometer, a dosimeter and a water gauge was used to assess damage inside the No. 2 reactor's containment chamber for the second time since the tsunami swept into the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant a year ago. The probe done in January failed to find the water surface and provided only images showing steam, unidentified parts and rusty metal surfaces scarred by exposure to radiation, heat and humidity.

The data collected from the probes showed the damage from the disaster was so severe, the plant operator will have to develop special equipment and technology to tolerate the harsh environment and decommission the plant, a process expected to last decades.

Tuesday's examination with an industrial endoscope detected radiation levels up to 10 times the fatal dose inside the chamber. Plant officials previously said more than half of melted fuel has breached the core and dropped to the floor of the primary containment vessel, some of it splashing against the wall or the floor.

Particles from melted fuel have probably sent radiation levels up to dangerously high 70 sieverts per hour inside the container, said Junichi Matsumoto, spokesman for Tokyo Electric Power Co.

"It's extremely high," he said, adding that an endoscope would last only 14 hours in that condition. "We have to develop equipment that can tolerate high radiation" when locating and removing melted fuel during the decommissioning.

The probe also found the containment vessel - a beaker-shaped container enclosing the core - had cooling water up to only 60 centimeters (2 feet) from the bottom, far below the 10 meters (yards) estimated when the government declared the plant stable in December.

Finding the water level was important to help locate damaged areas where radioactive water is escaping.

He said that the actual water level inside the chamber was way off the estimate, which had used data that turned out to be unreliable. But the results don�t affect the plant's "cold shutdown status" because the water temperature was about 50 degrees Celsius (122 Fahrenheit), indicating the melted fuel is cooled.

Three Dai-ichi reactors had meltdowns, but the No. 2 reactor is the only one that has been examined because radiation levels inside the reactor building are relatively low and its container is designed with a convenient slot to send in the endoscope.

The exact conditions of the other two reactors, where hydrogen explosions damaged their buildings, are still unknown. Simulations have indicated that more fuel inside No. 1 has breached the core than the other two, but radiation at No. 3 remains the highest.

The high radiation levels inside the No. 2 reactor's chamber mean it's inaccessible to the workers, but parts of the reactor building are accessible for a few minutes at a time - with the workers wearing full protection.

 
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."   G Orwell
Back to Top
Suzi15 View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: December 03 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 100
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Suzi15 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 21 2012 at 5:17pm
Back to Top
Mahshadin View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3872
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mahshadin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 22 2012 at 10:51pm
Hey suzi15
Not sure how to take that, is that dated material or current??
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."   G Orwell
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Quick Reply
Name:

Message:
   Enable BBcodes
Security Code:
Code Image - Please contact webmaster if you have problems seeing this image code  Refresh Refresh Image
Please enter the Security Code exactly as shown in image format.
Cookies must be enabled on your web browser.

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down