http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/wo...er=rss&emc=rss

They have a power plant that they[ore concerned is going to leak off
highly contaminated water into the sea... Not good for fisherman and
the fish that people thrive on.

On Mar 28, 7:19*am, Tim wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/wo...ml?partner=rss....

They have a power plant that they are concerned is going to leak off
highly contaminated water into the sea... Not good for fisherman and
the fish that people thrive on.

Low-level radiation found in Massachusetts rainwater

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72R01I20110328

Tim wrote:
On Mar 28, 7:19 am, wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/wo...ml?partner=rss...

They have a power plant that they are concerned is going to leak off
highly contaminated water into the sea... Not good for fisherman and
the fish that people thrive on.

Low-level radiation found in Massachusetts rainwater

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72R01I20110328

It's Godzilla in a totally different form...

On 28/03/2011 6:40 AM, Tim wrote:
On Mar 28, 7:19 am, wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/wo...ml?partner=rss...

They have a power plant that they are concerned is going to leak off
highly contaminated water into the sea... Not good for fisherman and
the fish that people thrive on.

Low-level radiation found in Massachusetts rainwater

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72R01I20110328

Been found in Iceland too.

Tim wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/wo...er=rss&emc=rss

They have a power plant that they[ore concerned is going to leak off
highly contaminated water into the sea... Not good for fisherman and
the fish that people thrive on.


Or anyone or anything else. As close as those reactors are to bodies of
water, it would be surprising if radioactive run-off hasn't already
leaked to everywhere it shouldn't.

Radioactive water run-off, airborne radiation and the inability to
evacuate large areas - we should be talking about these matters. We're
about 20 miles or so from a nuclear power plant. If there were a problem
there, the roads leading away from it are not capable of handling large
numbers of vehicles, not in any direction. I suspect the same is true
for many of the nuclear power plants in the United States.
The roads around here aren't even capable of handling rush hour traffic.

On 28/03/2011 6:44 AM, Harryk wrote:
Tim wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/wo...er=rss&emc=rss


They have a power plant that they[ore concerned is going to leak off
highly contaminated water into the sea... Not good for fisherman and
the fish that people thrive on.


Or anyone or anything else. As close as those reactors are to bodies of
water, it would be surprising if radioactive run-off hasn't already
leaked to everywhere it shouldn't.

It has. Radioactive seawater has been identified.

Radioactive water run-off, airborne radiation and the inability to
evacuate large areas - we should be talking about these matters. We're
about 20 miles or so from a nuclear power plant. If there were a problem
there, the roads leading away from it are not capable of handling large
numbers of vehicles, not in any direction. I suspect the same is true
for many of the nuclear power plants in the United States.
The roads around here aren't even capable of handling rush hour traffic.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/can...?docId=6388143

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/jap...ter-2011-03-27

http://theweek.com/article/index/213...ctive-seawater

I am sure Obama has known this for a week or more. Helicopters have
been turned back because of radiation.

Given plutonium has been found outside of the reactor, the only
explanation is the cores have breached. Iodine is one thing, cesium is
a coating but plutonium means contents.

And I wish they would separate exposure to contamination when discussing
health effects.

Radiation damage is defined as time+intensity+(short)distance.

If you get even one molecule of this crap in you
time+intensity+(short)distance becomes very high in favor of problems.

On 28/03/2011 6:19 AM, Tim wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/wo...er=rss&emc=rss

They have a power plant that they[ore concerned is going to leak off
highly contaminated water into the sea... Not good for fisherman and
the fish that people thrive on.

That is old news. What is new news is that plutonium, not just uranium,
cesium and iodine, but plutonium particulate are now outside the reactor.

China is turning back people and ships, because they far exceed their
standards -- which are pretty liberal. Yep, people!! At least 2
Japanese tourists than lived 140km away from the plant.

Add in that for at least a week now Japanese have been criminally
flushing this waste into the Pacific ocean. At 140kms out in the ocean
has been measured at 1250 normal radiation. For water, that is
criminally high as water tends to make it look better than it really is.

This means a few things. A major meltdown(s) have occurred, probably
the MOX fuel too. It also means containment has been breached all over.
And that Japan is actively flushing the waste into the ocean.

They need to work on containment, not reclaim. And Obama would rather
fight a war with a little country in a political/gang feud than to deal
with what is the worst nuclear power generation disaster in mankind's
history.

Because right now Japan is willfully poluting the Pacific ocean with
radioactivity, and the Pacific ocean is a major world food source.
Tuna, shrimp, salmon, scallops, oysters, squid -- you name it.

A huge crime.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:19:49 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/wo...er=rss&emc=rss

They have a power plant that they[ore concerned is going to leak off
highly contaminated water into the sea... Not good for fisherman and
the fish that people thrive on.

Heard today a good way to check for high radiation levels in your home:


Buy a box of this stuff. Put it on the counter in your home. If, after a few
minutes, you have a bowl that looks like the one in the picture, you're screwed.

http://tinyurl.com/692tzo4