Has Fukushima's radioactive wave already hit California?

Messages about other areas of TRIUS expertise (Energy, Radiation Safety, Risk,..) and Technology, in general...
Post Reply
User avatar
HowardE
Frequent User
Frequent User
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:07 pm

Has Fukushima's radioactive wave already hit California?

Post by HowardE » Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:13 pm

Take a look here. Though some deny that it is from Fukushima, others claim it is, and it makes sense that it is.

http://www.infowars.com/has-fukushimas- ... alifornia/
Anger is a good motivator!

User avatar
Helen22
Senior User
Senior User
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:59 pm

Re: Has Fukushima's radioactive wave already hit California?

Post by Helen22 » Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:20 pm

Nice try, but although the levels may be higher than normal, it's not from Fukushima. They are still doing tests trying to determine what might be the cause of the higher levels.

http://rt.com/usa/fukushima-geiger-cali ... ation-238/
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" - A. Einstein

User avatar
GradPhys
Frequent User
Frequent User
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 3:07 pm

Re: Has Fukushima's radioactive wave already hit California?

Post by GradPhys » Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:19 pm

HowardE wrote:Take a look here. Though some deny that it is from Fukushima, others claim it is, and it makes sense that it is.
The CEO of the company that builds the geiger counter that was used in the video by "expert-Dave", actually was concerned enough to have his company take beach sand samples and have them analyzed. The results of the analysis are presented here:

http://geigercounter.com/california-bea ... fukushima/

Furthermore, there have been other studies over that past 50 years, or so, documenting the variability of radiation levels around public beaches, in particular in California. Had "expert-Dave" spent a few minutes researching the subject instead of concluding the high levels were from Fukushima, without any way to determine that, we'd all been better off.

Take a look at these two studies, for example.
Attachments
Tracing Coastal Sediment movement-2268-9990-1-PB.pdf
(109.86 KiB) Downloaded 168 times
Radioactivity of sand from several renowned public beaches - 0352-51390904461R.pdf
(177.54 KiB) Downloaded 157 times

User avatar
KeltPhys
Casual User
Casual User
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:11 pm

Re: Has Fukushima's radioactive wave already hit California?

Post by KeltPhys » Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:32 pm

Unfortunately, it's like anything else nowadays. Anyone who has a spare couple of hundred dollars to buy a geiger counter becomes a radiation expert, anyone who can google or has access to webmd becomes a doctor, etc. As we used to hear growing up, "a little bit of knowledge/information can be dangerous". I am not doubting that the geiger counter readings were elevated, but determining "why" should be left to those who understand these things. When you have a severe toothache, you go to the dentist, you don't ask your electrician to diagnose the problem and tell you what to do about it.

User avatar
HowardE
Frequent User
Frequent User
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:07 pm

Re: Has Fukushima's radioactive wave already hit California?

Post by HowardE » Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:35 pm

I kind-of knew that most posters here would discount the report. Remember, that doesn't make the problem go away!
Anger is a good motivator!

User avatar
Helen22
Senior User
Senior User
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:59 pm

Re: Has Fukushima's radioactive wave already hit California?

Post by Helen22 » Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:19 pm

HowardE wrote:I kind-of knew that most posters here would discount the report. Remember, that doesn't make the problem go away!
Howard, people are just pointing out the fallacy in the various things you are posting.

Keltphys, I *do* like your dentist parallel :-)
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" - A. Einstein

User avatar
HowardE
Frequent User
Frequent User
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:07 pm

Re: Has Fukushima's radioactive wave already hit California?

Post by HowardE » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:39 pm

Helen22 wrote:Howard, people are just pointing out the fallacy in the various things you are posting.
Seriously? So, if *you* don't agree with something it's fallacy?

How about this article from the respected Natural News source?

http://www.naturalnews.com/043409_Fukus ... tion.html#

And, what do you think of this one of radioactive snow in Missouri? All fallacies?

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/20 ... souri.html
Anger is a good motivator!

User avatar
HowardE
Frequent User
Frequent User
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:07 pm

Re: Has Fukushima's radioactive wave already hit California?

Post by HowardE » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:47 pm

Helen22 wrote:Howard, people are just pointing out the fallacy in the various things you are posting.
Just in case my previous post did not provide enough proof for you, here are a couple of additional sources, on the global damage (Well, US west coast) done by Fukushima.

http://www.naturalnews.com/043271_starf ... ation.html

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Sudd ... story.html
Anger is a good motivator!

User avatar
GradPhys
Frequent User
Frequent User
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 3:07 pm

Re: Has Fukushima's radioactive wave already hit California?

Post by GradPhys » Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:42 pm

Howard, based on the sources you are using, I can understand your confusion and misunderstanding. Take a look at these and you might get a better idea as to what is going on.

http://deepseanews.com/2014/01/is-the-s ... iation-no/

http://politix.topix.com/homepage/9716- ... california

User avatar
HowardE
Frequent User
Frequent User
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:07 pm

Re: Has Fukushima's radioactive wave already hit California?

Post by HowardE » Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:34 pm

So, Gradphys, why are your sources better than my sources? I don't get it?

To me it's fairly simple. There are some scientists that think "A" is true. There is another group of scientists that think "A" is false. I agree with the "first" group while you agree with the "second" group. Until once of us is convinced that the other is right, we will be arguing. One way to convince me is to show me that your sources of information are more credible than mine, instead of just saying "it is so".

More specifically, on the subject at hand, given TEPCO's history and behavior and our own government's affinity to "not telling the truth" about things, I still tend to err on the conservative side believe the group of scientists telling us things are bad, instead of sticking my head in the sand and pretend everything is OK.

Is that so hard for you to understand?
Anger is a good motivator!

Post Reply