Hi Paul…. According to the EPA’s Radnet data, we’ve had beta spikes between 450 and 600 cpm beta here in Phoenix (under the jet stream) over the last couple of weeks. The largest spike was on October 28. October 25 was the earthquake and smoke was spotted on the TBS webcam but it seemed to be coming from the area of units 5 and 6. Private monitoring and EPA data across the country are detecting rising radiation levels.
I wish I understand what was happening and whether my family is in imminent risk.
Dear Name Deleted,
One of my big limitations in my understanding of the events is this: I was inculated in the view that global fallout required the vast updraft provided by large bombs. If one looks at for example the Nevada tests, the cloud tracks on maps stop at the coast. One can see the fallacy of that. And that is low altitude tracking.
The mechanism of uplift must exist for small bombs which results in international transport. For example the old British airline, BOAC had to issue dosimeters to its aircraft cleaners – those who cleaned the fuselage of its 707 fleet – the hulls were hot after international flight. (memos were passed internally within Australia about this as civil aviation pondered this in relation to Qantas).
So I realize that international high altitude transport and deposition of fallout occurs, despite the overt statements by nuclear experts at the time of the bomb tests to the effect that small tactical fission bombs did not result in international travel and deposition.
Australian fallout reached at least Fiji.
I now know these facts. I have bulk problems still with the inculcation instilled in me that only H bombs reached high altitudes resulting in global fallout.
Chernobyl’s heat is certainly to explain the international reach of that fallout. They have made scenario consistent with the inculcation. There was, explain the industry, intense heat at Chernobyl.
In contrast, from late 2011 authorities claimed “cold shut down” at Fukushima. And in terms of the conventional inculcation, that has a subtext which implies little heat and feeble thermal updraft.
This sits in contrast to reports and papers which document international transport of Fukushima fallout.
Within the narrative provided by industry and media there is in my opinion an inducement to disbelieve the import of the international fallout from Fuk. From the earliest days of the disaster it was said the stuff couldnt go far because there was insufficient updraft, not enough heat, to get the stuff high enough for global transport.
The implication of it is that the international is not sufficient to be significant, it was not like a H bomb, there will not be a “Lucky Dragon Number 5” result. Its nothing to worry about.
Of course this narrative also relies on the assumption that the bomb fallout was harmless, which it definately was not . They are using the bomb experience as a comparison and including in that the assumption that the bombs were worse, that there no bomb fallout victims – which of course there were.
The whole deception is very subtle and very technical – too technical for me to explain or even appreciate fully.
The role of the bombs was precisely, I strongly believe, to provide a contrast to reactor pollution for exactly the reasons why the bomb fallout is routinely mentioned. To compare the reactor fallout with, and to imply that fallout has been a constant for human life and all life for a number of decades, with, they claim, no adverse effects. This is not true.
This is one reason why I believe that attacking bomb as an actual harm is an important thing for me to continue to do. The accretion of fallout is additive, it is not a subtraction. Contrasting Fuk fallout with bomb fallout involves a subtraction.
The dose difficulty. While officially the global fallout inflicted no casualties, and as each nation’s afflicted citizens fight for justice regarding local bomb fallout and direct exposures from bombs, each the Marshall Islanders, the Japanese survivors, the nuclear veterans, Australian Aboriginal peoples, the Inuit peoples, and so on, (as they are still doing, the British veterans still being in court, the Australians being finally forced into a final action with the Human Right Commission at the moment, having exhausted, after many decades of court conflicts) no person has ever succeeded in showing that harm in an individual case resulted from global fallout. There is a big difference in fighting in regard to local fallout as opposed to global fallout. The global fallout was seen legally and medically as being “innocent”. It is, as we have already discussed, the Elephant in the room in regard to Fukushima. And the precedent of the bomb fallout is most important in this . Authorities have decades of experience in inculcating the world in the false belief that global fallout was harmless.
One reason for this is the self serving quanta proclaimed as being the upper limit for safety in regard to global fallout. It has been the position since August 1953 that 25,000 megatons of bomb yield would produce strontium 90 fallout which would place life on earth at risk.
It is ludicrous to claim this figure for it ignores the local fallout – which would surely wipe out the populations – local to the points of original release (one member of the Sunshine did point this out but it was glossed over in 1953 by the AEC – Arnold Kramish was the person who expressed concern for the adjacent populations at these committee meetings re Project Sunshine. Sunshine was only concerned with strontium fallout).
How many reactor hours, how many Fukushima venting hours is equivalent to 25,000 megatons? I have no idea. Even though that number is phony, it is the only one that I exist as far as I know.
I have republished the reports and scientific papers which show Fukushima fallout transporting and deposition globally and internationally. It combines with previous falllout deposited in each nation historically.
The world is becoming more polluted with radionuclides as a result of nuclear activity.
How many years worth of normal operation is Fuk’s international worth? 10, 20, 100 years? I have no idea. From industry’s point of view, they might say, oh well, Fuk will never operate again, so the world misses out on the emissions from x years of normal future operation. And they will say, compared to (subtracted from) the bomb fallout Fukushima’s international fallout is no health threat. And they say this because noone has won a case brought due to global fallout (as opposed to local fallout) and very very few have won in court against even local fallout.
As someone with feeble training in these things, I am aware of the vast difference seen technically between local and global fallout. It is a military point of view which comes from military schema. Soldiers might fight on a nuclear battlefield, to return to distant nations after. Nations which suffered “only” global fallout. Perfectly safe global fallout? No, but no civilian in a land distant from the battle field (nuclear test site) has been labelled “nuclear veteran”. Even the term “Downwinder” is reserved for those adjacent to, but still some close in distance from the test sites.
These concepts afflict the fallout, local and global, in relation to Fukushima.
Every time I think about, every time I try to imagine me living in the USA, I experience what I think might be cognitive dissonance. Local fallout . Global fallout. Two distinct and different chapters in any book on fallout.
I can see clearly I think the trouble I have. I much more certain and confident when commenting on local fallout than I am commenting on global fallout.
Hence I focus on the local. It is the best documented. Though I know for a fact that global fallout produced radioactive caribou meet in Alaska and Canada.
This subject involved crucial disagreements and assumptions which are difficult.
Of course, I know the global fallout is of concern. History is however no quide as what the effects might be. For example, in the case of Nevada, how does one separate the local fallout from the global? Local sources remain important, global fallout is an additional dose contribution. The routine emissions from South American reactors reach Perth according to ARPANSA modelling.
All local effects from fallout have, historically, been ascribed to local emissions which create fallout only. And those effects have been hotly disputed by every nation since the first bombs and reactors. The effects of Australia’s first uranium mines are largely hidden, with few references to them.
I hasten to add that Dr Carl Jonstone and I think, Dr lyon (who deliberately understated thyroid disease rates in Nevada/Utah (Carole Gallagher) estimated the global death toll from global fallout (one or other or both of those people) and that Linus Pauling estimated global genetic effects and cancer cases arising from global fallout. These numbers of cases were and are hotly contested by nuclear authorities.
Carole Gallagher has seen other sources, and is trying to find the specific references.
The nuclear authorities have long held the view that a failure by plaintiffs against them in court is proof of safety. It is not.
Nuclear authorities here and everywhere continue to hide evidence which is contrary to their position.