Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fukushima radiation taints US milk supplies at levels 300% higher than EPA maximums
Natural News ^

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.

No safe level of radiation from nuclear fallout

Background and airplane radiation is an external emitter of radiation, while Fukushima-induced radiation in food and water is an internal emitter. The former, which is considered "normal" radiation, hits your body from the outside, while the latter goes directly inside your body and into your digestive tract. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the immense difference between the two, and the much more severe consequences associated with literally ingesting radiation verses having it hit your skin.

In reality, there really is no safe level of radiation. No matter how many times the EPA and others repeat the lie that radiation levels are too low to have any significant impact, the statement itself is patently false. Many experts, including Jeff Patterson, DO, former President of Physicians for Social Responsibility, have stated that radiation exposure at any level is unsafe, and they are correct.

"There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources. Period," said Patterson. "Exposure to radionuclides, such as Iodine-131 and Cesium-137, increases the incidence of cancer. For this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize the radionuclide content in food and water."

And now that radioactive levels in some areas have actually exceeded EPA maximums, Patterson's statement is even more chilling. So while the mainstream media continues its near-total blackout on Fukushima, the situation is actually becoming more severe than it has ever been. Time will tell how severe the long-term effects of this disaster will be, but one thing is for sure -- Fukushima radiation cannot and should not be taken lightly..

Sources for this story include:

http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fukushima; milk; radiation; usfukushimaradiation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-112 next last

1 posted on 04/12/2011 7:00:33 AM PDT by Scythian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Scythian

I’ll betcha the EPA has changed the acceptable levels since the earthquake in March. Just sayin’


2 posted on 04/12/2011 7:01:50 AM PDT by George from New England (Escaped CT in 2006, now living north of Tampa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scythian

I’ll betcha the EPA has changed the acceptable levels since the earthquake in March. Just sayin’ — can we trust them one iota?


3 posted on 04/12/2011 7:02:25 AM PDT by George from New England (Escaped CT in 2006, now living north of Tampa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scythian

OK. On the upside, we will be all glowing in the dark. There are far less chances that we will be run over at night by passing vehicles. LOL.


4 posted on 04/12/2011 7:05:08 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster (The way to crush the bourgeois is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scythian

Bush’s fault.


5 posted on 04/12/2011 7:07:33 AM PDT by RC one ("merchants have no country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scythian

“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.”

Notice what this does not state. It does not state that the Fukushima Daiichia accident is the source of the elevated radiation levels. It simply assumes a cause and effect. That is not science it is fear mongering.

Without knowing other possible sources or former readings or the criteria for measuring one can not just say “we’re all gonna die because of nuclear power.”


6 posted on 04/12/2011 7:08:36 AM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scythian

My basic question is, what can we do? Probably little to nothing. If there is nothing we can do and milk is contaminated. That would mean, so is everything else.


7 posted on 04/12/2011 7:12:59 AM PDT by MsLady (Be the kind of woman that when you get up in the morning, the devil says, "Oh crap, she's UP !!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George from New England

“Many experts, including Jeff Patterson, DO, former President of Physicians for Social Responsibility, have stated that radiation exposure at any level is unsafe, and they are correct.”

We are in agreement that the radiation poses more of a risk than what we are being told, but the “Physicians for Social Responsibility” sounds like a liberal group.

I don’t know who to trust.


8 posted on 04/12/2011 7:13:16 AM PDT by PastorBooks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Scythian

I don’t believe anything the EPA says; they destroyed their own credibility years ago.


9 posted on 04/12/2011 7:13:51 AM PDT by American Quilter (DEFUND OBAMACARE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MsLady

Happened on Obama’s watch.

Obama’s fault.


10 posted on 04/12/2011 7:14:23 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (The MSM is the greatest threat to America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: George from New England
I’ll betcha the EPA has changed the acceptable levels since the earthquake in March. Just sayin’ — can we trust them one iota?

Funny that you should say that. I posted a thread about this on April 6:

America and EU Agree: Raise Radiation Levels For Food

11 posted on 04/12/2011 7:15:30 AM PDT by RobertClark (On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Scythian

Since we cannot trust our government nor the EPA, we will either continue to drink milk & eat food & die soon if they are telling the truth, or we will stop eating & drinking & die anyway! Doesn’t really look like we have much of a choice here.


12 posted on 04/12/2011 7:16:45 AM PDT by blondee123 (TRUMP=WINNING OBAMA=YOU'RE FIRED!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scythian

Radiation at ANY level is unsafe? Ridiculous. And this so-called “Doctor” heads a commie lib organization to boot.
If any level is unsafe, then people should NEVER expose themselves to sunlight, clothed or unclothed. This article is filled with alarmist crap. Background radiation exists all over this world, and in all of our soils.

TIN FOIL HAT ALERT!

That being said, the escalation to level 7 indicates the severity of the damage. The reluctance of TEPCO to state this is a function of asian face saving. It is not good, and elements of the food chain that needs to be closely monitored IS over in the oceans off Japan.

Remember Freepers the EPA wants us all to be fearful, so that we may be controlled. I would not trust what they say when relayed by paranoid schiz’s who spend their days smoking dope and hanging out at the co-op. IF we see measurable amounts of cesium, plutonium in the US-— THEN we’ve got something to worry about.
This was a massive all-natural Earthquake and tsunami.


13 posted on 04/12/2011 7:17:46 AM PDT by John S Mosby (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

From ZAMG - Austrian Weather Service

as it relates to radiation hitting the US

http://www.zamg.ac.at/docs/aktuell/Japan2011-03-22_1500_E.pdf


14 posted on 04/12/2011 7:18:18 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Scythian

And what, I wonder, were all these levels a month after Chernobyl?


15 posted on 04/12/2011 7:18:46 AM PDT by grobdriver (Proud Member, Party Of No! No Socialism - No Fascism - Nobama - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

A synopsis:
…” In the phase of March 12 to 13, the Fukushima emissions were mostly transported to the Pacific, eventually hitting the CTBTO station in Sacramento/California. In the phase March 14 to 15, on the other hand, most of the emissions were transported inland, hitting the CTBTO station in Takasaki, Japan. Based on simulated dilution factors and measurements, we were able to have a first rough source estimate.

Regarding Iodine-131, the picture is relatively homogeneous. A source term of 1017 Bq per day would explain the measurements in Takasaki as well as Sacramento. The total 4-day emission of 4 1017 Bq is on the order of 20% of the total emissions of Iodine-131 that occurred during the Chernobyl accident. Regarding Cesium-137, the situation is a bit different. In the cloud eventually propagating to the United States, the ratio of Iodine-131 to Cesium-137 was about 30. This is similar to the Chernobyl accident. In Takasaki, however, this ratio was four. This would indicate a much larger Cesium-137 release in the second two-day period after the accident. Taking this together, the source terms would be about 3 1015 Bq during the first two days, and 3 1016 during the second two-day period. In sum, this could amount to about 50% of the Chernobyl source term of Cesium-137.”


16 posted on 04/12/2011 7:19:13 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Scythian

What can one do to protect kids, or what is the best way to minimize their exposure? I have kids both born and unborn and I am concerned about them, as the little ones are more susceptible to injury from radiation.


17 posted on 04/12/2011 7:19:29 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

>> Notice what this does not state. It does not state that the Fukushima Daiichia accident is the source of the elevated radiation levels. It simply assumes a cause and effect. <<

Worse than assumes it, it deviously infers it.

And you’re absolutely right. The highest radioactivity is in Philadelphia, which gets its rain slightly from land transpiration, partly from Canadian sources (”Noreaster”), partly from the Atlantic Ocean (”Noreaster”), and largely from the Gulf of Mex (”Souwester”). There ain’t much Pacific moisture making it over the Sierra Nevadas, across the Great Basin and across the Rocky Mountains.


18 posted on 04/12/2011 7:22:35 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

>> Notice what this does not state. It does not state that the Fukushima Daiichia accident is the source of the elevated radiation levels. It simply assumes a cause and effect. <<

Worse than assumes it, it deviously infers it.

And you’re absolutely right. The highest radioactivity is in Philadelphia, which gets its rain slightly from land transpiration, partly from Canadian sources (”Noreaster”), partly from the Atlantic Ocean (”Noreaster”), and largely from the Gulf of Mex (”Souwester”). There ain’t much Pacific moisture making it over the Sierra Nevadas, across the Great Basin and across the Rocky Mountains.


19 posted on 04/12/2011 7:22:46 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

>> Notice what this does not state. It does not state that the Fukushima Daiichia accident is the source of the elevated radiation levels. It simply assumes a cause and effect. <<

Worse than assumes it, it deviously infers it.

And you’re absolutely right. The highest radioactivity is in Philadelphia, which gets its rain slightly from land transpiration, partly from Canadian sources (”Noreaster”), partly from the Atlantic Ocean (”Noreaster”), and largely from the Gulf of Mex (”Souwester”). There ain’t much Pacific moisture making it over the Sierra Nevadas, across the Great Basin and across the Rocky Mountains.


20 posted on 04/12/2011 7:22:46 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Scythian

So is this something to be alarmed about?


21 posted on 04/12/2011 7:23:50 AM PDT by VanDeKoik (1 million in stimulus dollars paid for this tagline!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PastorBooks

Physicians for Social Responsibility are hardly experts in this matter. They are a die-hard liberal activist group.

Best group to go to used to be the Health Physics Society, but I’m not sure of their reliability lately (have been out of the field for some time).


22 posted on 04/12/2011 7:24:53 AM PDT by catman67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PastorBooks
Many experts, including Jeff Patterson, DO, former President of Physicians for Social Responsibility, have stated that radiation exposure at any level is unsafe, and they are correct.

No, "they are NOT correct". We need some radiation. Our main source of radiation is the sun, and we need the radiation from it to stay warm and grow crops. When exposed directly to sunlight our bodies create Vitamin D and some other needed chemical compounds.

X-Rays are used to precisely locate and plan the treatment of dental cavities, to identify trauma, cancers, and other medical problems. We minimize the dosage, but without the x-rays death rates would be higher. So too with other medical imaging using *radiation*, including injested isotopes.

Harsh radiation is used to treat cancers.

- - - - -

This article is 99% fear mongering.

23 posted on 04/12/2011 7:25:19 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,752704,00.html

TEPCO has a history of safety issues.

“The tone of Katsumata’s speech was clear: The numerous past incidents were in no way isolated mistakes made by individual employees. Instead, they were the result of a corporate culture at Tepco that had allowed hair-raising breaches in safety to occur.”

The guy heading up the current disaster, Katsumata, had to resign but now is back because the CEO went MIA.

Just a few weeks before this disaster TEPCO had missing 33 safety reports. There was an issue about a diesel generator.

It is corrupt organization and those plants were not safe.

How many times do CEO’s have to resign before they straighten it out.

Now, the world is going to pay for their corrupt climate.


24 posted on 04/12/2011 7:27:23 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Scythian; Larry Lucido; kidd; Toddsterpatriot

Most of the readings shown in that list are on the order of 10% of EPA allowable maximums. The article fails to note this, and also fails to note what background levels are normal (if any). To their credit, they do list the information, but the presentation is pure alarmist. It’s a serious situation, and real quantitative monitoring and rational assessment is needed. Unfortunately, much of what gets posted here lacks the latter.


25 posted on 04/12/2011 7:28:55 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: catman67
One of the problems here is that under Obama especially, and generally under the green-Marxism now instilled in many higher education and governmental organizations since the first "Earth Day", there no longer exists any reason for faith and trust in their analysis, warnings and reports.

We are flying blind. THAT IS NOT GOOD.

26 posted on 04/12/2011 7:29:48 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
That is Japan. I suspect the CEO killed himself.

The issue is that Japanese culture is very against publicly admitting anything. So much so, they will intentionally hide things in order to save face.

27 posted on 04/12/2011 7:32:18 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

There is corruption in EVERYTHING humans do. It becomes a question of level and seriousness. Tepco operates actual working power plants, they simply can not do that at all without a level of seriousness and responsibility I suspect you are unfamiliar with in your daily life and experiences.


28 posted on 04/12/2011 7:32:35 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

It’s not to their credit that they listed one reading from each of a few sites. As you also said, they left off anything that makes those readings understandable.

It’s like saying a baseball score is 7-3 without noting which teams are playing or who is winning. It is almost pure fear-mongering.


29 posted on 04/12/2011 7:35:20 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PastorBooks

It’s a Ralph Nader group.


30 posted on 04/12/2011 7:35:47 AM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver
And what, I wonder, were all these levels a month after Chernobyl?

1,500,000 pCi/L in the worst case. I should say that was just downwind from the reactor and the readings we are seeing here are across the ocean. And from what I read just yesterday, the total emissions of I-131 are now about 1/5 or 1/4 of Chernobyl (close enough to be equivalent).

31 posted on 04/12/2011 7:35:47 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: catman67

looking up my old data for releases into the air and water, the maximum concentration allowable by the NRC for release to an unrestricted area of soluable I-131 in water was 0.0000003 microciries/ml (300 pCi/l).


32 posted on 04/12/2011 7:35:52 AM PDT by catman67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

btw, one more thing to consider

http://classic.cnbc.com/id/42550204

Yes, I am a cynic. I have no doubt in my mind that the slow release of information is IN PART to give time to people to get out of positions to save their butts.

More bad news coming from Japan. They just can’t tell you, yet.

People need to deal with their carry trade postions:

“Heightened risk aversion prompted investors to unwind some carry trade positions using the Japanese yen as a low interest rate currency to buy higher yielding assets. “Our positioning data shows some carry trades are pretty extended,” said Chris Walker, currency strategist at UBS. The yen firmed to a 1-1/2 week high versus the dollar but gains are likely to be curbed by the Bank of Japan’s perceived determination to keep monetary policy loose to aid economic recovery. Still, the steadier yen offered the dollar some respite, allowing the greenback to stay above Friday’s 16-month lows against a basket of major currencies.”

btw, the world’s largest Bond fund sold off US treasuries after the earthquake. Have they bought back in, yet?


33 posted on 04/12/2011 7:39:38 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Scythian
Not good. I LOVE milk....Oh well, i guess there IS an upside. Photobucket
34 posted on 04/12/2011 7:40:11 AM PDT by Ronald_Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Yes, and it was worth repeating 3 times


35 posted on 04/12/2011 7:40:22 AM PDT by faucetman (Just the facts ma'am, just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

NO,he didn’t kill himself.

Neither did any of the CEOS that had to resign.


36 posted on 04/12/2011 7:40:35 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bvw
That's why I always go back to the old data, when regulatory levels were more risk-based. We are just as safe using older regulatory levels.

The newer ones are politically driven or generated to justify regulatory programs (if you are already safe, there is no more work to do).

37 posted on 04/12/2011 7:40:51 AM PDT by catman67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: lastchance
That is not science it is fear mongering.

Yep. And its not journalism, its more Mike Adams nonsense.

38 posted on 04/12/2011 7:43:01 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bvw

What???????????

Are you saying all of these scandals over safety are acceptable???

Not just once..not just twice...not just three times...

Btw, here is an interesting article

http://www.nodeju.com/tepco-violates-workers-rights/8338/


39 posted on 04/12/2011 7:44:30 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Usually such a drawing of conclusions based on the misreading of facts is seen in the RF.


40 posted on 04/12/2011 7:45:07 AM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PastorBooks

It is.


41 posted on 04/12/2011 7:46:01 AM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Scythian

Of course they use the term 300% instead of 3 times so that you might read it as 300 TIMES by accident.

This info is total BS fear mongering.


42 posted on 04/12/2011 7:47:02 AM PDT by faucetman (Just the facts ma'am, just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: catman67; bvw

Someone noted to me in one of these threads that in his experience, setting of PELs seems driven by the available measurement technologies moreso than actual documented human/animal effects.


43 posted on 04/12/2011 7:48:42 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Scythian

Aren’t these figures worthless without actual readings from the same areas from before the quake? Just because it’s in excess of EPA standards after a nuclear disaster doesn’t mean there was compliance before....


44 posted on 04/12/2011 7:49:17 AM PDT by Eepsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

I’m saying Tepco, like any actual day-to-day power engineering operation has a way high ethical standard, beyond that you may be familiar with in daily life. It is impossible to run a power plant without such ethics.


45 posted on 04/12/2011 7:49:27 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

The political power of compulsatory regulation is so GREEDY that yes, its only limits are the ability to observe and measure.


46 posted on 04/12/2011 7:52:07 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Eepsy

Common sense, yes!


47 posted on 04/12/2011 7:53:03 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: bvw

“high ethical standard, beyond that you may be familiar with in daily life. It is impossible to run a power plant without such ethics”

WHAT????

UNBELIEVABLE.

So it appears that you think US plants can be run the same way as TEPCO plants . The outrageous conduct of that company should NEVER be allowed in the US.

It is beyond Scary that you think their behavior is acceptable after multiple CEOS have had to quit over safety scandals.

It doesn’t take long to figure out just how high the ethical standards are for TEPCO.

Those living around US Nuke plants had better hope the companies running them have better ethical standards than those at TEPCO.


48 posted on 04/12/2011 7:54:09 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
There really isn't anything you can do but the risk is very low or non-existent anyway. My family has been involved in the nuclear industry since the mid-40s in Los Alamos and at Hanford (where I live now). This is pretty minimal on the threat scale unless you live within a few tens of miles of the plant. Be careful not to cause more damage through stressing out — especially to the unborn — than the slight radioactivity ever would have.
49 posted on 04/12/2011 7:57:34 AM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture (Could be worst in 40 years))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
Obama’s fault.

Oh, that's just silly. We all know that Global Warming caused the earthquake, and we also know that Bush caused Global Warming. Ever wondered why his initials are "GW"?

So it's...

Bush's fault!

50 posted on 04/12/2011 7:57:51 AM PDT by Fresh Wind (Over 2 years into the regime, and we don't even know the pres..ent's real name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-112 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson