Radiation levels spike at locations in Tokyo

Philstar

TOKYO (Xinhua) -- Radiation levels at areas in Tokyo and Chiba prefectures were found Thursday to far exceed current levels in Fukushima prefecture, home to the crisis-hit No. 1 nuclear power plant located 200 km north of Tokyo.

 

An area along a sidewalk in Tokyo's Setagaya Ward, frequently used by elementary school children, was found to have airborne radiation measuring 3.35 microsieverts per hour and a children's amusement park tested positive with 5.82 microsieverts in the Funabashi district of neighboring Chiba prefecture, local authorities said Thursday.

 

By way of comparison, the latest readings taken from inside the evacuation zone in Fukushima prefecture, the central to the world' s worst nuclear accident in 25-years, measured 2.17 microsieverts per hour, according to local prefectural officials.

 

An investigation is currently underway to determine whether the troubled nuclear plant in Fukushima is responsible for the high doses of radiation detected in and around Japan's capital city and Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura said Thursday that nuclear agencies and government authorities will increase monitoring activities around the country.

 

The two hotspots have been cordoned off and authorities have attempted to reduce the concentration of radiation by using water and "other" methods, local media said, but the levels have remained worryingly high despite the counter-measures, sparking widespread panic around Japan's primary metropolis.

 

Environmental Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico: The Escalation of BP's Liability

Global Research
Dahr Jamail

As oil, sickness and contamination persist, Gulf residents and lawyers file thousands of lawsuits against the oil giant.

"If you got caught humping another woman - [if] you're both naked and caught in the act - you'd want BP to explain to your wife how it didn't happen."

This colorful analogy was proposed by Dean Blanchard, a seafood distributor on Grand Isle, Louisiana, to explain oil giant BP's continuing machinations to evade liability in the aftermath of the April 2010 disaster.

During a recent discussion in his office, Blanchard told Al Jazeera that the fishing waters off Louisiana are only producing one per cent of the shrimp they formerly produced. "Half of the local fishermen have shut down," he stated. "They are dying. And [as] for the fishing, every day they are hauling dead porpoises in front of my place. I have a claim filed with BP, but none of us in the seafood business are being paid."

Speculating that he may soon have to close down his company, Blanchard spoke for hundreds of thousands of Gulf Coast residents who remain angry and frustrated when he added: "I worked 30 years to establish my business, and now BP has destroyed my life."

Fallout and responsibility

In a key investigative report released on September 14, the US government heaped most of the blame for the oil disaster on BP, which now faces a raft of criminal and civil litigation and billions of dollars in potential damages.

The report concluded that BP violated federal regulations, ignored safety concerns and crucial warnings, and made careless decisions during the cementing of the well nearly two kilometres underwater.

"That report summarised what we already knew, and it will help establish the punitive damage case against the defendant [BP]," New Orleans-based attorney Stuart Smith, representing more than 1,000 cases against BP, told Al Jazeera.

Smith has been litigating against oil companies for 25 years, and in 2001 was lead counsel in a case that resulted in a $1bn verdict against ExxonMobil.

"The fastest way to lose a toxic tort case is to rely on the government or the defendant to collect the evidence," explained Smith, whose firm has spent more than $2m for its client's cases by collecting samples and data and having them analysed by experts.

As litigation against BP continues to mount, several studies have confirmed Smith and Blanchard's concerns about the deep impact of BP's oil disaster.

One recent study carried out by experts at Auburn University concluded that mats of oil that remain submerged on the seabed could pose a long-term risk to coastal ecosystems. Large quantities of tar balls and oil mats have washed ashore, or have been uncovered by recent storms, at Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, Alabama, as well as at several beaches in Louisiana and in Pensacola, Florida. A recent Al Jazeera over-flight of the area near BP's capped Macondo well, the origin of the April 2010 disaster, revealed a long swathe of oil and sheen.

Dr Wilma Subra, a chemist and MacArthur Fellow, has - since autumn of 2010 - been conducting tests on seafood and sediment samples along the Gulf for chemicals present in BP's crude oil and toxic dispersants.

"Tests have shown significant levels of oil pollution in oysters and crabs along the Louisiana coastline," Subra told Al Jazeera. "We have also found high levels of hydrocarbons in the soil and vegetation."

Fukushima Accident Severity Level Raised to 7: Lack of US Radiation Monitoring Data

IntelHub

Nuclear Engineer, Arnie Gundersen, discusses why TEPCO’s announcement of an increased accident severity level should not be a surprise. He also discusses similarities among the Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima nuclear accidents and how Governments are once again limiting public access to accurate radiation dose information.

Lastly, Gundersen responds to the overwhelming number of email inquires regarding the Fukushima accident.

http://fairewinds.com/updates

50% of BP Oil Still in Gulf

A brown pelican coated in heavy oil
wallows in the Louisiana surf,
June 2010. Photograph: Win Mcnamee

Guardian

Officially, marine life is returning to normal in the Gulf of Mexico, but dead animals are still washing up on beaches – and one scientist believes the damage runs much deeper.

There are few people who can claim direct knowledge of the ocean floor, at least before the invention of the spill-cam, last year's strangely compulsive live feed of the oil billowing out of BP's blown-out well in the Gulf of Mexico. But for Samantha Joye it was familiar terrain. The intersection of oil, gas and marine life in the Mississippi Canyon has preoccupied the University of Georgia scientist for years. So one year after an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig, about 40 miles off the coast of Louisiana, killed 11 men and disgorged more than 4m barrels of crude, Joye could be forgiven for denying the official version of the BP oil disaster that life is returning to normal in the Gulf.

The view from her submarine is different, and her attachment is almost personal. On her descent to a location 10 miles from BP's well in December, Joye landed on an ocean floor coated with dark brown muck about 4cm deep. Thick ropes of slime draped across coral like cobwebs in a haunted house. The few creatures that remained alive, such as the crabs, were too listless to flee. "Most of the time when you go at them with a submarine, they just run," she says. "They weren't running, they were just sitting there, dazed and stupefied. They certainly weren't behaving as normal." Her conclusion? "I think it is not beyond the imagination that 50% of the oil is still floating around out there."

At a time when the White House, Congress, government officials and oil companies are trying to put the oil disaster behind them, that is not the message from the deep that people are waiting to hear. Joye's data – and an outspoken manner for a scientist – have pitted her against the Obama adminstration's scientists as well as other independent scientists who have come to different conclusions about the state of the Gulf. She is consumed by the idea that she – and other colleagues – are not really being heard."It's insanely frustrating," Joye says.

She never expected to be a science dissident, she says, or gain such a large public profile. She sees herself as a science nerd and a brainiac who never knew how to play, even as a child. To round off the picture of a ferocious intellect, Joye says she had a photographic memory when she was younger. Her perfect recall has faded, now that she is in her 40s, but that intensity of focus is still there.

In the past year, Joye – as well as other independent scientists – has repeatedly challenged the official version of the oil disaster put forward by the White House and other administration officials. Last May, her research team was the first to detect the presence of a vast plume of oil droplets swirling at high speed through the deep waters of the Gulf. The discovery – initially disputed by government scientists – suggested that far more oil and gas had entered the sea than they had originally estimated.

In December, Joye's team knocked down another White House claim – that the vast majority of the oil was gone – when she discovered a thick coating of oil, dead starfish and other organisms on the bottom of the ocean, over an area of 2,900 square miles.

It remains to be seen whether Joye can prove the deniers wrong. She has a new scientific paper coming out, and a return research voyage to the Gulf this week, with several more follow-up voyages scheduled this summer to areas within range of the BP well. Can she convince her fellow scientists that the majority of BP's oil is still stuck on the bottom of the ocean? How long will it remain there, and what effect will it have in the future?

It's undeniable that time has moved on since the initial disaster. After 87 days, BP engineers managed to cap the well last July. Last year's images of pelicans entombed in thick layers of crude now belong to history.

So too, very nearly, do the various investigations into the disaster. Most are complete, with blame spread between BP and other companies. Transocean owned the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Halliburton was responsible for the cementing job on the well, which has been much criticised by investigators. However, BP executives could still face criminal charges.

The oil business in general is looking up. The Obama administration last month started issuing new permits for deepwater wells in the Gulf – the first since the BP blowout. Meanwhile, Congress has yet to act on any of the issues arising from the oil spill – from raising the liability on oil companies to strengthening environmental regulations. Senators even blocked a bill that would have given the 11 workers killed in the blowout the right to sue for damages comparable to those on land.

BP, which seemed in danger of collapse a year ago, is on the financial rebound. Ken Feinberg, the independent administrator of BP's $20bn compensation fund, says he is close to finishing compensating individuals and businesses who were hurt by the disaster – without even coming close to exhausting the $20bn. He paid out only $3.6bn last year.

The cleanup operations are also winding down, at a cost to BP of about $13bn (it has also pledged $500m to scientific research in the Gulf). The company took out an ad campaign this week to express regrets for the spill, showing a picture of shimmering Gulf waters. It could still be liable for up to $18bn in penalties and fines, however, under a US law that imposes a levy of $4,300 for each barrel of oil. But Feinberg was so upbeat he told reporters the Gulf could see a complete recovery by 2012.

Government scientists have not gone so far. A spokesman for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) said there was "no basis to conclude that the Gulf recovery will be complete by 2012", and warned that some of the consequences of the spill may not be known for decades. The spokesman went on to note that about 60 miles of the coastline remain oiled. Tar mats continue to wash up on beaches in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and the Florida Panhandle. And although Gulf waters have reopened to fishing, many oyster beds were wiped out when state authorities flushed fresh water into the Gulf in the hopes of rolling back the oil. At a public meeting last month in Biloxi, Mississippi, fishermen said they were hauling up nets full of oil with their shrimp.

So how could the disaster possibly be over, asks Joye. "You talk to people who live around the Gulf of Mexico, who live on the coast, who have family members who work on oil rigs. It's not OK down there. The system is not fine. Things are not normal. There are a lot of very strange things going on – the turtles washing up on beaches, dolphins washing up on beaches, the crabs. It is just bizarre. How can that just be random consequence?"

More than 150 dolphins, half of them infants, have washed up since the start of 2011. At least eight were smeared with crude oil that has been traced to BP's well, NOAA said, and 87 sea turtles – all endangered – have been found dead since mid-March.

"To me it makes no sense to think that it is random consequence, but it is kind of maddening because there has been a lot of energy and effort put towards beating the drum of everything is wonderful, everything is going to be fine by 2012," says Joye.

Other studies have disputed Joye's findings. Terry Hazen, a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, failed to detect any traces of underwater oil in the six weeks after the well was capped. But he did find evidence of naturally occurring bacteria that ate the oil. John Kessler, a scientist at Texas A&M, found that the huge quantities of methane gas, which were released along with the oil, had also rapidly degraded.

But Joye was unfazed. In her lab, technicians have been running experiments for months to learn more about how the oil could be broken down once it sank into the ocean floor. "The micro-organisms are not happy. They are not metabolising this stuff," she says. "They should be having a picnic and feasting, and they are not. Why is that? I have no idea, but we are trying a lot of different combinations to try to find out what is regulating their activity."

When the first reports came in of a blowout on the Deepwater Horizon last year, Joye was laid up at home with a bad back. But part of her team was only a few miles away from the well – the only research vessel in the area – and posted pictures on the web of the flames shooting into the sky. In those early days, Joye says she had just one thought – to more research vessels getting out there to see what was happening to the oil.

Those first weeks of the oil disaster were a time of immense frustration for scientists. BP and government officials were extremely reluctant to produce any estimate of the magnitude of the spill. An investigation commission appointed by Obama would later deliver harsh criticism to officials for gross underestimates of the spill.

Independent scientists were clamouring for access to data. Joye, by a stroke of good luck, already had a research trip scheduled; the scientists simply re-purposed the cruise to check for traces of oil from BP's well. They found the cloud of droplets suspended in the water and immediately posted an update to the research mission's website, complete with measurements. The response came as a shock.

Tony Hayward, then chief executive of BP, simply denied there could be any oil at depth. "The oil is on the surface," he told reporters during a quick trip to the cleanup command centre in Louisiana. "There aren't any plumes."

The government reaction was arguably even more discouraging. Jane Lubchenco, the head of NOAA and herself an ocean scientist, said publicly it wasn't at all clear there was any oil in the depths. "We need to make sure that we are not jumping to conclusions," she told PBS television.

Off-camera, Joye and other scientists were bombarded with phone calls from furious officials, from NOAA and other government agencies. "I felt like I was in third grade and my teacher came up to me with a ruler and smacked my hand and said: 'You've just spoken out of turn.' They were very upset," Joye says.

Other scientists have suggested that the clash between Joye and government scientists was due to the enormity of the Gulf disaster. Scientists have no prior experience of a release of oil of this size, and over such a long period of time. There are huge areas of uncertainty, they say. It is conceivable that both parties could be proved right. But Joye will take some convincing. "I am somebody who if I believe in something, I give it 180%," she says. "I believe in the Gulf of Mexico and I love the ecosystem, that is why I have not stopped doing what I have been doing, and saying what I have been saying. When I see evidence that convinces me otherwise I will change my opinion."
But, she adds: "I have not seen anything that changes my opinion to this point."

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

Ethan A. Huff

(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...

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032048_radiation_milk.html#ixzz1JPnR9CCr

Japan quake's economic impact worse than first feared

Reuters

* Nuclear crisis also threatens power supply

* Supply chain disruptions could be prolonged

* BOJ members uncertain when rebuilding will help growth

* Japan to explain quake and nuclear response at G20 meeting 

(Adds economist's quote, details)
By Rie Ishiguro and Shinji Kitamura 

TOKYO, April 12 (Reuters) - The economic damage from Japan's massive earthquake and tsunami last month is likely to be worse than first thought as power shortages curtail factory output and disrupt supply chains, the country's economics minister warned on Tuesday.

The more sober assessment came as Japan raised the severity of its nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant to a level 7 from 5, putting it on par with the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986.
The Bank of Japan governor said the economy was in a "severe state", while central bankers were uncertain when efforts to rebuild the tsunami-ravaged northeast would boost growth, according to minutes from a meeting held three days after a record earthquake struck Japan on March 11.

The government and main opposition party have agreed to a spending package to get some reconstruction work started, but setting a large additional budget will be difficult due to Japan's heavy debt burden.

"After a natural disaster, people tend to refrain from spending and you get a sense that factory output will shrink," Economics Minister Kaoru Yosano told reporters after a cabinet meeting.
"In some areas, the impact could be very big."



Japan is facing its worst crisis since World War Two after a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and a tsunami towering more than 10 metres battered its northeast coast, leaving nearly 28,000 dead or missing and rocking the world's third-largest economy.

The government estimates the material damage alone could top $300 billion, making it by far the world's costliest natural disaster.

Finance Minister Yoshihiko Noda said on Tuesday that he would explain the Japanese government's efforts on post-quake reconstruction and the nuclear crisis at a Group of 20 meeting in Washington on April 15. [ID:nL3E7FC020]

Measuring the impact on consumer sentiment, factory production and the supply chain is proving more difficult, but as the crisis drags on at the nuclear power plant, the damage to the economy looks to be more severe.

TEPCO won't take Chernobyl approach to resolving nuclear power plant crisis

TEPCO Insists on Removing Fuel before Sealing the Site

Mainichi

It may take 10 years to start removing damaged nuclear fuel from the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant, but the plant's operator is adamant not to bury the damaged reactors while fuel remains in them, a company official has told the Mainichi.

"We will not bury the site while radioactive materials remain. We will definitely remove the fuel," Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) adviser Toshiaki Enomoto told the Mainichi in an interview, stressing that the company would not bury the reactors in concrete in a "stone tomb" approach like the one adopted at Chernobyl.

TEPCO chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata has announced plans to decommission the plant's No. 1 through 4 reactors. Normally it takes 20 to 30 years to decommission a reactor, but the process at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant is expected to take even longer as workers must start by developing specialized equipment to remove damaged fuel.

Enomoto said that for the time being the ongoing process of injecting water into the No. 1, 2 and 3 reactors at the plant was essential.

"There is no other option but to inject water. We want the fuel to stop melting," he said.
The plant's residual heat removal system could take a month to get up and running again, Enomoto said. An additional cooling system will also be constructed but it is expected to take several months before the reactors can be brought to a cold stop.

A facility to purify contaminated water responsible for radioactive leaks to a level where it can be released will be constructed from this month. At the same time measures will proceed to have radioactive material contained within the reactor buildings within a few months, Enomoto said. At this stage, evacuation orders applying to local bodies around the plant are expected to be reviewed.
Enomoto said nuclear fuel at the plant could not be removed using conventional methods for two reasons: The reactor buildings are damaged, and measures are needed to prevent the spread of radiation; and 25 to 70 percent damage has occurred to the fuel rods in the No. 1, 2 and 3 reactors. New methods to remove the fuel must be developed, and it will take 10 years before workers can start removing fuel, he said.

Commenting on TEPCO's response to the disaster, Enomoto said, "Problems that we had not predicted happened one after another. Even inspecting the site has been difficult, and this accumulation of events has been responsible for the work not going as we have hoped."

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that it took five years for workers to be able to open a pressurized container following the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station accident in March 1979, when about 45 percent of the nuclear reactor fuel melted. It was another six years before the removal of nuclear fuel was completed. Dismantling work has still not yet begun.

Enomoto graduated from the University of Tokyo's Faculty of Engineering and entered TEPCO in 1965. He worked at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant four times, including when the No. 1 reactor was started up on a trial basis in 1970. He resigned as executive vice president and head of the company's nuclear power headquarters in 2002 over the cover-up of nuclear reactor trouble.

Newspaper Issues Alert: Stay Indoors To Avoid Japan Nuclear Radiation

Alexander Higgins Blog

A local California newspaper has broken stride with the corporate media and had the sense to issue a radiation alert warning people to stay indoors while a concentrated plume of Japan nuclear radiation blows over the US west coast.

Finally a corporate newspaper that has the courage to stray from the official government mantra that radiation is “safe”.

The editor of the local Healdsburg, California newspaper has issued an alert on the Heraldsburg Patch to readers.





Now was that so hard? Did the masses panic? Did the economy collapse? Did the warning prevent people prevent the unnecessary exposure of the public to Japan nuclear radiation?
Of course, the alternative media has been way ahead of the curve on this.


I know many will say, “What newspaper issues radiation alerts based on YouTube videos?”
To answer that question media outlets have vouched for the credibility of the radiation forecast videos as they are in fact coming from highly respected institutions from other nations around the world.
For example, here is a write-up on the forecasts from The Intel Hub.






The Intel Hub
April 5th, 2011

Multiple mainstream media outlets have picked up the Norwegian Air Institutes simulation showing radiation on the west coast. This is a major development that shows that The Intel Hub(among many other wonderful alternative news outlets) was days ahead of the curve in reporting a simulation by credible scientists.

While the scientist who was quoted downplayed the possibility of radiation hitting Washington, the article does admit that the group of scientists who put together the simulation ARE credible.
“The animation was put together by scientists at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research. It’s a credible group that studies atmospheric patterns. Mynorthwest.com had University of Washington atmospheric science professor Dr. Dan Jaffe take a look at it. He’s considered one of the best at understanding trans-Pacific air patterns,” reported King 5.

The article that appeared on MyNorthWest.com labeled those who do not believe the governments radiation readings as conspiracy theorists.

“Conspiracy theorists believe the public isn’t being told the truth about the actual radiation risk and computer models like this prove that. They see those down-playing the risk as part of some giant government cover up.”

Hopefully, the example set by this newspaper will be followed by others because the truth be told there is no such thing as “safe” levels of radiation.
Learn The Truth About Radiation

• Is Background Radiation Safe? Find out how many people in the US will get cancer and die from it.
• Experts warn that any detectable level of radiation is “too much”.
• Radiation Study – Over 220,000 Cases Of Cancer Expected From Fukushima Nuclear Fallout
• “Safe” Radiation Is A Lethal TMI Lie – People Died At Three Mile Island
• Government Radiation Expert Deconstructs Myth Of “Safe” Radiation Levels

Already forecasted to be hitting Alaska NOW.. and west coast tomorrow (April 9/10, 2011)..

Full mid levels of Cesium , Xenon, and Iodine.. particulate matter, in the cloud vapor from surface level to 5000m (15,000 feet) ..

These levels are now a full level higher than all the previous forecasts.

It is up to you to decide how you want to approach this data.

Personally, I believe it to be IN THE PRECIPITATION for sure.. which means you do not want to get the rain or snow on you, and do not want to injest the fluid.. (i.e. drink the water) until levels deminish.

here are all the links: make sure to refresh each one so you get the most current data:

the revealed US site:

http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~tcanty/hysplit/

the known European sites forecasting basically the same data:

http://www.woweather.com/weather/news/fukushima?LANG=us&VAR=niluhemis131&…

http://www.woweather.com/weather/news/fukushima?LANG=us&VAR=niluhemis133&…

http://www.woweather.com/weather/news/fukushima?LANG=us&VAR=niluhemis137&…

http://www.woweather.com/weather/news/fukushima?LANG=us&VAR=eurad5000&…

Here is a list of the radioactive particles in the air.
Taken from the 3-16-11 on ZAMG site.

XE-133
CS-134
BA-136M
CS-136
CS 137
I-131
I-132
I-133
TE-132

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&…

Higher plumes, reaching 5000 meters (15,000 feet) are forecast to reach Portugal, Spain, and central europe.

All animations are from professional forecasting services. Links are below.

http://www.woweather.com/

http://www.woweather.com/weather/news/fukushima?LANG=us&VAR=hysplitheight

The radiation flow, forecast and shown by these several models… tells the tale of the isotopes coming our way… .. it will be up to you to decide if you should go outside during the time these clouds are over the USA, Canada, and Mexico…

Finland radiation:

http://www.stuk.fi/fi_FI/

radiation forecasting links:

http://www.woweather.com/weather/news/fukushima?LANG=us&VAR=webcam&SA…

http://eurdeppub.jrc.it/eurdeppub/home.aspx#

spain radiation link:

http://www.csn.es/index.php?option=com_maps&view=mappoints&Itemid=32

http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/

http://www.rivm.nl/milieuportaal/dossier/meetnetten/radioactiviteit/resultaten/

http://www.radiationnetwork.com/

http://www.blackcatsystems.com/RadMap/map.html

http://www.epa.gov (click on radiation update)

http://www.irsn.fr/EN/Pages/home.aspx

http://www.nucleartourist.com/

http://www.stuk.fi/index_en.html

http://www.mext.go.jp/english/radioactivity_level/detail/1303962.htm

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/index.html

http://www.rivm.nl/milieuportaal/dossier/meetnetten/radioactiviteit/resultaten/

http://www.yle.fi/tekstitv/html/P867_02.html

http://www.mapion.co.jp/topics/genpatu/

http://strahlenbelastung.wo-wann-wer.de/

dutch radiation monitoring:

http://www.rivm.nl/milieuportaal/dossier/meetnetten/radioactiviteit/resultaten/

swiss radiation monitoring:

https://www.naz.ch/en/aktuell/zeitverlaeufe.html

Finland radiation monitoring:

http://www.yle.fi/tekstitv/html/P160_01.html

www.yle.fi/tekstitv/html/P867_02.html

French radiation monitoring: (thanks to youtube user: RehKurts ! )

http://sws.irsn.fr/sws/mesure/index

http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Documents/france.htm

jet stream forecasting:

http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.color.0.html

http://nowcoast.noaa.gov/

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/tropicalwx/satpix/nwpac_ir4_loop.php

http://www.stormsurfing.com/cgi/display_alt.cgi?a=glob_250

http://www.woweather.com/weather/news/fukushima?LANG=us&VAR=niluhemis131&…

Now was that so hard? Did the masses panic? Did the economy collapse? Did the warning prevent people prevent the unnecessary exposure of the public to Japan nuclear radiation?

Of course, the alternative media has been way ahead of the curve on this.

I know many will say, “What newspaper issues radiation alerts based on YouTube videos?”

To answer that question media outlets have vouched for the credibility of the radiation forecast videos as they are in fact coming from highly respected institutions from other nations around the world.

For example, here is a write-up on the forecasts from The Intel Hub.

Radiation Detected In Drinking Water In 13 More US Cities, Cesium-137 In Vermont Milk

Jeff McMahon

• Unusual Reading At Chatanooga Nuclear Plant

• Milk Contamination At EPA Maximum

• Highest Levels Yet In Boise Rainwater

Radiation from Japan has been detected in drinking water in 13 more American cities, and cesium-137 has been found in American milk—in Montpelier, Vermont—for the first time since the Japan nuclear disaster began, according to data released by the Environmental Protection Agency late Friday.

Milk samples from Phoenix and Los Angeles contained iodine-131 at levels roughly equal to the maximum contaminant level permitted by EPA, the data shows. The Phoenix sample contained 3.2 picoCuries per liter of iodine-131. The Los Angeles sample contained 2.9. The EPA maximum contaminant level is 3.0, but this is a conservative standard designed to minimize exposure over a lifetime, so EPA does not consider these levels to pose a health threat.

The cesium-137 found in milk in Vermont is the first cesium detected in milk since the Fukushima-Daichi nuclear accident occurred last month. The sample contained 1.9 picoCuries per liter of cesium-137, which falls under the same 3.0 standard.

Radioactive isotopes accumulate in milk after they spread through the atmosphere, fall to earth in rain or dust, and settle on vegetation, where they are ingested by grazing cattle. Iodine-131 is known to accumulate in the thyroid gland, where it can cause cancer and other thyroid diseases. Cesium-137 accumulates in the body’s soft tissues, where it increases risk of cancer, according to EPA.

Airborne contamination continues to cross the western states, the new data shows, and Boise has seen the highest concentrations of radioactive isotopes in rain so far.

A rainwater sample collected in Boise on March 27 contained 390 picocures per liter of iodine-131, plus 41 of cesium-134 and 36 of cesium-137. EPA released this result for the first time yesterday. Typically several days pass between sample collection and data release because of the time required to collect, transport and analyze the samples.

In most of the data released Friday the levels of contaminants detected are far below the standards observed by EPA and other U.S. agencies.

But the EPA drinking-water data includes one outlier—an unusually, but not dangerously, high reading in a drinking water sample from Chatanooga, Tennessee.

The sample was collected at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Sequoyah nuclear plant. A Tennessee official told the Chatanooga Times last week that radiation from Japan had been detected at Sequoyah but is “1,000 to 10,000 times below any levels of concern.” The 1.6 picocures per liter reported by the EPA on Friday is slightly more than half the maximum contaminant level permitted in drinking water, but more uniquely, it is many times higher than all the other drinking water samples collected in the U.S.

The EPA released this new data through a new interactive open-data system it quietly launched on the EPA website Wednesday. The new interface is to be regularly updated, replacing EPA’s periodic news releases and pdf data charts. Here are more details of the data released Friday:

Drinking Water

Radioactive Iodine-131 was found in drinking water samples from 13 cities. Those cities are listed below, with the amount of Iodine-131 in picocuries per liter. The EPA’s maximum contaminant level for Iodine-131 in drinking water is 3 picocuries per liter.

• Oak Ridge, TN collected 3/28: 0.63
• Oak Ridge, TN collected at three sites 3/29: 0.28, 0.20, 0.18
• Chatanooga, TN collected 3/28: 1.6
• Helena, MT collected 3/28: 0.18
• Columbia, PA collected 3/29: 0.20
• Cincinatti, OH collected 3/28: 0.13
• Pittsburgh, PA collected 3/28: 0.36
• East Liverpool, OH collected 3/30: 0.42
• Painesville, OH collected 3/29: 0.43
• Denver, CO  collected 3/30: 0.17
• Detroit, MI collected 3/31: 0.28
• Trenton, NJ collected 3/31: 0.38
• Waretown, NJ collected 3/31: 0.38
• Muscle Shoals, AL collected 3/31: 0.16

Precipitation

In the data released Friday, iodine-131 was found in rainwater samples from the following locations:

• Salt Lake City, UT collected 3/17: 8.1
• Boston, MA collected 3/22: 92
• Montgomery, Alabama collected 3/30: 3.7
• Boise, ID collected 3/27: 390

As reported above, the Boise sample also contained 42 pC/m3 of Cesium-134, and 36 of Cesium-137.

Air

In the most recent data, iodine-131 was found in air filters in the following locations. In the case of air samples, the radiation is measured in picoCuries per cubic meter.

• Montgomery, AL collected 3/31: 0.055
• Nome AK collected 3/30: 0.17
• Nome AK collected 3/29: 0.36
• Nome AK collected 3/27: 0.36
• Nome AK collected 3/26: 0.46
• Nome AK collected 3/25: 0.26
• Juneau AKcollected 3/26: 0.43
• Juneau AK collected 3/27: 0.38
• Juneau AK collected 3/30: 0.28
• Dutch Harbor AK collected 3/30: 0.14
• Dutch Harbor AK collected 3/29: 0.11
• Dutch Harbor AK colleccted 3/26: 0.21
• Boise, ID collected 3/27: 0.22
• Boise, ID collected 3/29: 0.27
• Boise, ID collected 3/28: 0.32
• Las Vegas NV collected 3/28: 0.30
• Las Vegas, NV collected 3/30:: 0.088
• Las Vegas, NV collected 3/29: 0.044

No other types of isotopes were found in the most recent data from air samples, even though EPA is also on the lookout for barium-140, cobalt-60, cesium-134, cesium-136, cesium-137, iodine-132, iodine-133, tellurium-129, and tellurium-132.

In older samples, isotopes of cesium and tellurium were found in Boise; Las Vegas; Nome and Dutch Harbor; Honolulu, Kauai and Oahu, Hawaii; Anaheim, Riverside, San Francisco, and San Bernardino, California; Jacksonville and Orlando, Florida; Salt Lake City, Utah; Guam, and Saipan on the Marina Islands.

Some of these locations had not been previously reported in EPA news releases.
The EPA has said it will continue to monitor radiation levels in air, precipitation, drinking water, and milk even if the budget impasse shuts down the government next week.

Closing Ranks: The NRC, the Nuclear Industry, and TEPCO are Limiting the Flow of Information

Scores of schools in South Korea closed over fears of radioactive rain

DailyMail

Scores of schools in South Korea were closed today as teachers and parents panicked over fears that falling rain could be carrying radiation from Japan's crippled nuclear plant.

As rain swept across the Korean capital, Seoul, and the surrounding Gyeonggi province, classes were cancelled or cut back and children were hurried to their homes.

Seoul is around 750 miles from the damaged nuclear plant at Fukushima and since the March 11 earthquake and tsunami radiation has been leaking into the atmosphere and the sea, contaminating vegetables, meat and fish nearby.

Concerns grew when the capital's weather agency said that radioactive material from the Fukushima plant might be carried to South Korea by south-easterly winds.

When the rain began to fall, the provincial education office in Gyeonggi province ordered the closure of schools as part of 'pre-emptive measures for the safety of students'.

A spokesman said schools had been ordered to cancel or shorten classes because of 'growing anxiety among students and parents over conflicting claims on the safety of radiation exposure'.

Schools particularly affected by the closures were in rural areas where students have to walk long distances to their classes, exposing them to prolonged periods in the rain.

Schools which have remained open have been told to suspend all outdoor activities.

At first, education officials refused to take any action, but as reports continued to flow about the leakage of radiation into the sea at Fukushima the pressure on the authorities mounted.

One parent wrote: 'Please order class cancellation. I'm worried to death about my kid and can't sleep.'

Finally authorities gave in, ordering scores of schools to be closed and telling others to postpone baseball, outdoor basketball, football and other sports.

Government officials have tried to calm the population by insisting that the amount of radioactive material in rainfall is too small to pose any health threat.

Education offices have been urged to do all they can to 'stop making parents nervous'.

Radiation detected in US rainwater

PressTV

Traces of radioactive iodine linked to quake-hit Japan's nuclear power plant have been found in rainwater samples taken last week in Massachusetts, US.

The low level of radioiodine-131detected in Massachusetts rainwater samples is comparable to the amounts found in California, Washington and Pennsylvania.

However, public health officials say the pollution poses no threat to drinking supplies, Reuters reported on Monday.

"The drinking water supply in Massachusetts is unaffected by this short-term, slight elevation in radiation," said Massachusetts Public Health Commissioner John Auerbach.

"We will carefully monitor the drinking water as we exercise an abundance of caution," he added.

Health officials also say they have found no detectable radiation in air samples examined in Massachusetts.

On March 11, an 8.9-magnitude earthquake, off the northeast coast of Japan's main island, unleashed a 23-foot (7-meter) tsunami and was followed by more than 50 aftershocks for hours.

The quake set off the nuclear problems by knocking out power to cooling systems at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. The incident caused nuclear meltdown and radiation leaks at the facility.

On Saturday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officials announced that leaks have been detected at units 1, 2 and 3 of the reactor and there no timeline in sight to stop the leakage.

Japan's nuclear safety agency said on Sunday that radioactive iodine in the waters off the quake-hit site rose to 1,850 times the usual level.

Japan has ordered a halt in shipment of a range of farm products, as radiation was detected in vegetables from Fukushima Prefecture.

Japan has announced that nearly 28,000 people have died or are feared dead as a result of the disastrous quake and tsunami.

The quake is now considered Japan's deadliest natural disaster since the 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake, which claimed the lives of more than 142,000 people.