EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- 'We Are Movement, Not a Moment': North Carolina Peaceful Uprising Continues
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- 'Masters of Austerity' Targeted as Blockupy Activists Shut Down European Central Bank
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- Is Enbridge Building a Secret Keystone Pipeline?
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- Victory: Connecticut Becomes First State to Require GMO Labeling
Popular content
Today's Top News
Plutonium 'Detected Outside Fukushima Plant'
A limited amount of plutonium has been detected in soil outside Japan's troubled Fukushima nuclear power plant which was crippled by the March 11 quake-tsunami disaster, the government said Friday.
Photo taken by the Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) shows an aerial view of the third reactor building of the No.1 Fukushima nuclear power plant at Okuma in April 1. Plutonium has been detected in soil outside Japan's troubled Fukushima nuclear power plant. It was the first time plutonium had been found in government tests outside the plant, presumably due to the nuclear accident, the worst since 1986 Chernobyl, the education and science ministry said in a statement.
Plutonium was detected in soil at six places in a survey which was conducted in June in an area within 80 kilometers (50 miles) from the Fukushima Daiichi plant, the ministry said.
Nuclear reactors at the plant suffered meltdowns after cooling systems there were knocked out by the double disasters. Plutonium has been already detected in the plant's compound, some 220 kilometers from Tokyo.
The highest density of plutonium-239 and 240 -- 4.0 becquerels per square meter -- was registered in a town some 30 kilometers from the plant, the ministry said.
In a village 45 kilometers away, the reading was 0.82 becquerels per square meter.
Plutonium has previously been detected in Japan following atmospheric nuclear tests, the ministry said.
The average density of plutonium, which was detected in soil samples between 1999 and 2008 in Japan, was 0.498 becquerels, the ministry said. The highest reading before the Fukushima accident was 8.0 becquerels.
"The plutonium density, which was detected this time, was within the range of past readings. So the dose of radiation is deemed very small," the ministry said.
Plutonium is formed from uranium in nuclear reactors and generally stays in the body for decades, exposing organs and tissues to radiation and increasing the risk of cancer, experts say.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
101 Comments so far
Show AllRFinston,
then why do the values exceed the safe limit set by the EPA? Is the EPA missing something? or does the EPA know that your conflation of internal and exteral dose exposure is utter BS?
there is a big differnce between just sitting by a campfire and swallowing the glowing coals, dude.
The milk in California does not exceed the safe limit set by the EPA.
The UC Berkeley reported amount of Cs-137 in the September milk samples was 0.1 Bq per liter (equivalent to 3 pCi per liter). It was the anti-nuclear ENENews that claimed the amount exceeded that of the EPA' safe limit which they listed as 3 pCi per liter in the reference that you cited.
The only problem with that claim is that ENENews was quoting the limit for I-131 in drinking water, not Cs-137 in milk! In fact the EPA has established a derived investigational level (DIL) for Cs-137 in milk of 33,000 pci per liter, some 4 orders of magnitude higher than claimed by ENENews. So I would suggest that GottaGetOffTheGrid check into the reliability of ENENews as a source for his opinions. The most recent milk samples in California will produce a dose equivalent of 0.05 mSv only if one drinks 7,000 gallons. That 0.05 mSv dose is the same as one would receive in roundtrip cross country flight due to cosmic radiation at higher altitudes.
The EPA is not "missing something", Gotta, rather the ENENews mistakenly used the wrong limit in order to unnecessarily alarm the public.
("The milk in California does not exceed the safe limit set by the EPA")
The EPA or no one else has any business setting (safe limits) because there are no "safe" limitrs... There are low and high limits, none are safe.
And your arguments are the limits have not risen since Fukushima and that is BS. Readings of atmosheric cesium has risen dramatically around the globe since the Fukushima accident.
You don't read too carefully, Wayne. I said the levels of Plutonium on the ground have not risen far from Fukushima since the accident, based upon what I read in this article.
BULL ~~Finston~~ many, many times you have written on other threads that cesium levels have not risen here, and with comments it is no higher than the atomic tests of the 1960s, etc, etc, ... It is not plutonium I was referring to and you know it... We were discudding cesium in milk.
Your comments about the plutonium level at Fukushima are wrong also, as are those in this Agence France Presse article you quote.
Bew, the next comment posted by~~Abe~~ was directed to you Finston. .
Wrong again Wayne. I have stated that there is more cesium in the soil in California from historic weaons testing than from Fukushima and my source is the data published by the University Of California Nuclear Engineering group that has been doing environmental sampling since the accident. I did not say it was 'no higher', rather than it has added slightly to what was there before the accident. I don't "know it" unless you specify which radionuclide and in what substance you are accusing me of lying about, my friend.
Finston wrote... ("I have stated that there is more cesium in the soil in California from historic weaons testing than from Fukushima.").... Yep, that's what you wrote ~Finston~, and more than once too and you are wrong and you know you are wrong, It's intentional deceit you post here.
If there is more cesium still in the soil from the atomi bomb testing than that from Fukushima, why is there more there now than since Chernobyl and that was the highest reading of cesium measured since the 1970s. Until this year cesium 137 was almost undetectable in most areas of the world... Not anymore.
There is where you are caught with your tounge under your feet ~Finston~... When you first began your bladderbutt raving about the amount of cesium from the atmospheric atomic and hydrogen bomb tests in the 60s in your futile attempts to downplay the danger of the Fukushima accident.
Wayne, Check it out yourself at www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBairsampling. Their conclusion is that the amount of Cesium in the dirt layer('old soil') resulting from historical fallout far exceeds that on the very surface of the dirt from Fukushima. Thus the food crop contamination will be minimally modified by the accident. Surface contamination is usually washed off of fresh produce before consumption as well. Cows grazing on fresh pasture this summer did show an increase in the cesium content of their milk but subsequent to the cooling off of the Fukushima reactors that will no longer be the case and the dominant contributor in foods will again be fallout in the tissues of plants taken up through the roots and predominantly from weapons testing. I resent your claiming 'intentional deceit' on my part, but such accusations seem to be a characteristic of you and your colleagues who wish to build a case for shutting down all nuclear reactors immediately.
You are lying about what the article from that link says ~Finston~, I read it all...See my post below here, end of comments.
In addition; any cesium 137 in the soil in California or anyplace else from atmospheric testing of atomic bombs and from HIroshima and Nagasadi would have already redced by almost 75%,,, as the half life is 30 years and most tests were conducted more than 57 years ago.
So I suggest the report you cite is seriously flawed or outdated,,, as far more cesiun 137 has been emitted from Fkushima than from all of the atomic bombs ever exploded combined and it is new cesium being emitted daily from Fukushima.
See further addition at end of coments, # 77 and #78, with a current cesium link for you eyes RF and another that proves that you are a sneaky liar, lying about such a serious deadly issue for humanity... Shame on you ~Finston~. Webwalk was 100% correct about your lying.
My goodness, Wayne, I am now a "sneaky liar, lying about such a serious deadly issue for humanity". May I ask for your calculation which compares the Cs-137 from "all the atomic bombs ever exploded combined" with that from Fukushima. I believe you misunderstood another posting where the comparison was between the Hiroshima bomb plus the Nagasaki bomb vs. Fukushima. Of course those two bombs were a total of less than 75 kilotons TNT equivalent while in fact all the nuclear weapons exploded in the atmosphere total hundreds of megatons, more than three orders of magnitude more fission products than the H and N comparison. Check your facts again, please.
I apologize for using the word "sneaky" .. Hozs about a stupid liar instead? See my reply to you at the end of the comments.
There is no amount of nuclear material that is good and safe for humans. All of it changes life forms on a cellular level.
Fuck off
That is correct ~~Abe~~
Around the world, the burden of cancer doubled between 1975 and 2000, and it is predicted to double again by 2020 and triple by 2030... That means by 2020 one million deaths from cancer every year in the US and two million every year by 2030 and many, many more millions being treated for cancer every year.
Lots of children have cancer and die of cancer now, it isn't an old guy and old gal disease anymore... Something ~~Finston~~ would not comprehend.
And we should keep in mind,,, this report was written prior to Fukushima.
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20081209/global-cancer-deaths-double-2030
Arnie Gundersen from Fairwwinds Associates documented that they found fuel pellets blown 2 miles away from the reactor 4 nuclear waste pool. This was days after the event. The fuel fragments, of course, contained their own share of plutonium.
But what fraction are they of the #4 fuel pool, assuming those pellets came from the pool, and not from units 1, 2 or 3 which suffered fuel melt, and in the case of 3 a hydrogen explosion? The fuel pellets don't have labels stating in which reactor/pool they were located. So again I say there is no evidence that hundreds of tons of fuel in the pool of reactor 4 was blown into atmosphere as contended by Gailenwainwright in his earlier comment. In fact the hard evidence is to the contrary.
~~Finston~~, are you aware of what you just wrote?__ Obviously you are not aware... You first wrote... ("But what fraction are they of the #4 fuel pool, assuming those pellets came from the pool,")... To answer that question of yours is: No one knows for certain, or could determne that with absolute certainty, but it is quite reasonable to assume, as you used the (assume) word, that they certainly did come from the #4 fuel rod pool,,, beause an explosion beneath it blew the radioative rods all over the area, up to a mile or more distant.
Then in your next breath you state,,,, ("there is no evidence that hundreds of tons of fuel in the pool of reactor 4 was blown into atmosphere as contended by Gailenwainwright")... There is (no evidence) of that? __ Are you sane? __ The evidence is (self evident) .
Furthermore Finston, where the plutonium came from is not an important issue.. The issue is, it is out there, loose in our atmosphere.... You blather on, post unnecessary arguments to disrupt the thread and do not care what you say.
Your only purpose is to down play the deadly hazards of a nuclear accident RFinston... That is self evident also. .
What fraction are you of a complete dissembling ass? You are never gonna stop your shuck-and-jive routine of seeking to stretch out pointless points until they snap attention away from the basic truths you never acknowledge, but no one here is buying your snake-oil.
What "hard evidence" is there that you have regarding precise trajectories or ranges of radioactive materials spewed from spent fuel at Fukushima (assuming those memes came from your brain, since they don't have labels stating which nuke boiler room developed today's talking points)? Oh, there is no such "hard evidence." Precisely as has been done at CD by the parade of nuke apologists and dissemblers who have swarmed here to work diligently to distract from the plain truths about the utter murderousness of the nuclear industry, you claim any degree you can of "plausible deniability" as "hard evidence" until actual evidence (often already existing and repeatedly cited) finally is publicly acknowledged by officials at TEPCO or the Japanese government, at which point you do not acknowledge that but simply drop your fake bluster on that specific point and move on to your next point of "plausible" dissembling.
Look at the written record in CD archives: there is no melt down, no "hard evidence" of that, there has been no release of plutonium, no "hard evidence" of that, etc etc etc, constantly back-pedaling as the unfolding disaster unfolds precisely as you and yours deny could possibly be happening, until it is so overwhelmingly undeniable that you ignore that and move on to your next point of "plausible deniability" but you are 100% implausible you dissembling shill.
To the point where you RFinston are reduced to the "plausible deniability" provided by the fact that cancers take years to develop so you have plenty of time to attempt to draw people into arguments over technical details of each new piece of hard evidence as the disaster continues to spread.
And when Tokyo is finally evacuated, you and yours will utterly shamelessly continue your despicable game of "engaging" in "debate" about nukes while stretching the limits of human decency along with your ever-diminishing plausibility, until you vanish with the rest of us as civilization collapses, as the Earth's destabilized life systems shudder under the assault of the insane hubris of industry-worshiping morons such as yourself.
You are as predictable and as putrid as Rush Limbaugh or Barack Obama.
Oh, my. Look at that webwalk. He's so, emotional! Let's do have a "rational debate" about this highly interesting topic, let's narrow this "debate" down to finer and finer and finally meaningless "points" regarding abstruse numerical derivations of radioactive molecular trajectories in time and in space and in living beings!
Fink off, RatFinkston.
OMG ~~Web~~ That was so damn good and even funny in some sentences, that I will print it and have it framed, hang it next to my computer, so that I can read it every day from not thru perpetutity. Which at my age come to think of it, won't be very long.... Thank you so very much ~Web~...That has to be one of the finest "telemoffs" of the century.
Thanks Wayne,
Wish i could wish him away along with his industry, wish i could laugh more than i do, at least we can take some humor where we find it.
I'm contemplating the likelihood of my job going away in the coming economic collapse, and I'm looking into work at home jobs. Do you get paid by the post? Is it weekly or daily? Deposit by paypal?
It is possible he does it for no pay ~nohobear~ but I understand that pro nukers and GW denier shills are paid by the number of times someoone replies to them,, so if he's on salary he's doing very well.
He might just be insane? __ Or maybe he/she is just having sick fun? __ Whatever.
here's a map of the ever-growing permanent evac areas near Fukushima:
http://www.nnistar.com/gmap/fukushima.html
dark blue on the scale (0.5 microSv/hr) is eqivellant to the permanent evac zone around Chernobyl (350 milliSv per lifetime) -- assuming an average 78year livespan, which I admit may be somewhat optimistic all things considered.
zoom out and there are 2 areas somewhat divorced from the main site. one to the north and one to the south. the southern zone is inside greater Tokyo city, a city of 30 or so million.
GottaGetOffTheGrid I was watching Russian TV and an expert was saying that the exclusion zone following Chernobyl model would cross Honshu to the sea of Japan and include half of Tokyo. As #1 has gone China syndrome it is eating it's way to water table. That aquifer, that of course would be poisoned, is the water supply for Tokyo displacing all of its 35 million people.
The core of #1 has left the building. Japanese workers were shocked to see the earth crack under the plant. Sooner or later it will hit water. It will produce radioactive steam or a build up of hydrogen.
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/05/simulation-shows-high-levels-of.html simulated map from Norway in May before it was shut down giving an idea of the probable path of radiation. Of course it is changing daily with differing amounts of radiation.
In May the US shut down its monitoring equipment as did Canada. As one speck of radioactive material of any sort lodged in flesh or bone will kill its host animal or human some 30-40 years later and that death is ugly,painful, and drawn out. Anyone who equivocates on this article and suggests support for nuclear energy using whatever faulty logic does so for profit or ego and is a sick puppy.
I suppose this is the new world order where governments hide the truth of air borne poisons from the people that constitute its corpus and greedy egotistic supporters of that sickness argue for continuation of the poisoning of thousands of humans past, present and future then go home and beat their wives and children. But what can we expect from what we allow for a government headed by O who today without Habeas Corpus, warrant, arrest, due process killed an American citizen negating the US constitution his own legal basis for existence. It is just so sad that we support and hero-ize 500,000 deluded members of the military that fight for the preservation of a government that cares only for 1% of its people.
That is what I feared when this accident first began ~~Abe~~.
We don't know exactly what may or will occur when that molten lava hits water, but a massive explosion is very possible, sending radioactive poisons high into the armosphere... Those poisons will include plutonium and enriched uranium, equivelant to at least 600, __ 20 megaton hydrogen bombs exploding all at the same time.
Then add in what may happen to the other tons of "hot rods" in the storage pools if #1 core exploses... That might cause some Harry Karry at TEPCO
There is enough plutonium and enriched uranium at the Fukushima plant to build at least 8,000__ 20 megaton hydrogen bombs... Let us all keep our toes crossed... We'll see.
Btw, those are my conservative math figures, so if any have any doubt, check it out.. Start with how many tons of enriched uraniu and plutonium are at the Fukushima plant.
.......................He's so full of it! R.idiculous Finston .....Dangerous windbag!
shoud be WTF Finston. hehehe..............
Plutonium 'Detected Outside Fukushima Plant'
Really? Who could have predicted that?
As for RFinston, he or she is obviously a nuclear industry or government, possibly military plant.
Sir Obtuse ~~Finaston~~ is still here,,, posting on page one, arguing cesium does not stay in a human body once it has been injested.
Here in part is a beaut he just posted... ("Every atom of every chemical element in the body turns over and a fraction is excreted daily. Otherwise we would never stop adding weight to our bodies.")... Amazing, what will he will say next.
Scientists, doctors, pathologists, palientologists, who have examined the bones of people who were buried thosands of years ago, have found poisons in trace amounts in their bones and sometimes rather large killing amounts of lead, mercury, ect, in the bones, which (never) left their bodies.
Injested cesium lodged in any body organ will stay in a human body for a (lifetime) and finally will have decayed to zip long after the person has died... Most people don't live 150 to 250+ years.
WayneWR wrote:
'Here in part is a beaut he just posted... ("Every atom of every chemical element in the body turns over and a fraction is excreted daily. Otherwise we would never stop adding weight to our bodies.")... Amazing, what will he will say next.'
Of course, RFinston is correct; that's the way the body works.
'Scientists, doctors, pathologists, palientologists, who have examined the bones of people who were buried thosands of years ago, have found poisons in trace amounts in their bones and sometimes rather large killing amounts of lead, mercury, ect, in the bones, which (never) left their bodies.'
When a person dies, assimilation and excretion stop. That's the principle of carbon dating.
'Injested cesium lodged in any body organ will stay in a human body for a (lifetime) and finally will have decayed to zip long after the person has died... Most people don't live 150 to 250+ years.'
A bullet may lodge in the body, but not what we breath and ingest. Every substance has a biological half-life. That's the time required for the amount in the body to decrease by 50%; tables are readily available. Here are some numbers:
Substance..................Biological half life in days
---------------...................------------------------------------
Cesium......................70
Cobalt........................10
Iron............................600
Strontium...................18,000
Arsenic......................20
Lead..........................>7,300
Plutonium..................183,000 (skeleton)
Plutonium..................73,000 (liver)
Polonium...................55
Gold..........................280
Calcium.....................18,000
Hydrogen...................11
Carbon.......................40
Potassium..................30
John
Those figures you posted about half life in the body are unproven theories ~~Johnny~~... Medical (science) says and proves they are incorrect theories.
That is similar to your comment you previously posted on another thread here at CD, writing, ("when we (inhale air), ONLY oxygen enters our lungs, all other elements are rejected by the body and will not enter our lungs and then our blood stream)..
Well that incredible nonsense of course is not true... If we (inhale) fumes of lead, paint fumes, etc, they do enter the blood stream by being absorbed from our lungs into our blood stream.... So does cesium 137. and once lodged in a body organ, cesium 137 does not magically (alter) it's 30 year half life to a few days... It stays there in the body organ, bone marrow, liver, brain, etc, and radiates body cells for the person's lifetime.
FOR ~~R FINSTON's EYES.
"In all levels of the atmosphere there are high levels of radiation being fond in Alaska, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, and California. The levels are also concerning to me in the rest of North America."
http://climate-change.unexplainedinfo.com/2011/04/16/cesium-131-is-speading-across-the-united-states-and-canada-in-high-levels/
~~RF~~... I do believe I have well shown that the Berkeley data is Pro- nuker garbage...Some is so far wrong, it's off of the planet... Have you read the article in the link I posted about cesium 137 levels in the United States now?
Throw ya later RF... Try ~~Webwalk~~ for civil discussions... He explained to you in detail how you is.. I was honest with you too, is anyone else here agreeing with you?... We is what we is RF.
"Have you read the article in the link I posted about cesium 137 levels in the United States now? "
Wayne, I tried to read it but the url you posted is not accurate as the site responded that it couldn't locate what I was seeking. I guess it is another example of your care for details. Try to list it again please. I notice that the date is 4/16/2011 so whatever it is it is probably rather stale.
That is the same type of B/S response obtuse, lying GW deners often write.. My link opend all right for me ~Finston~. It was cut and pasted from the top... No "detals" required... Stale? __ Yeah, it's lot's worse now.
Just Google (cesium 137 levels in the US), lot's of current articles for you and you won't have to worry about others "details".. Some articles are written by Pro nukers that downplay the issue of course... Like your funy link's article.
Any smart alec comments on the lying comment from the article you posted? I saved that one in my computer files for your next appearance here on another new thread... So if they erase it, I have it.
Here ~~Finston~~~,,, I just opened my link for you and here is part is what it says.
("In all levels of the atmosphere there are high levels of radiation being found in Alaska, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, and California. The high levels are also concentrating in the rest of North America... Radiation Levels in the drinking water exeed saftey standards by (181 times) in Berkley California")
See the Berkley, California Finston, 181 times above the safety standards? I Posted that "outdated" one just for you sonny... You were saying about Berkley?
You shoud get rid of that screwed up computer you are using Finston,.,Try taking it to Fukushima, Japan for a trade in, and stop there and smell the roses.
Wayne,
Try pasting the URL that is in your comment. Notice that the date is 4/16/2011. Then notice what follows: 'cesium-131'! That should be iodine-131 I suspect because cesium-131 is not a fission product. Please tell me the correct URL so that I can read what you have said it says. If in fact that citation is about iodine-131 then that has nothing to do about anything in this thread. I can only guess until I see it, but your contention that "It's lot's worse now" is WRONG because the chain reaction stopped seven months ago in to any meaningful extent and I-131 has a half-life of 8 days. There is no I-131 in Berkeley drinking water, much less in Japan's drinking water.
So threaten on my friend but until you can enter an accurate URL in this site I can only guess.
So others can try the URL you posted on Oct.2 at 2:13 am, here it is cut and pasted:
"http://climate-change.unexplainedinfo.com/2011/04/16/cesium-131-is-speading-across-the-united-states-and-canada-in-high-levels/"
Please let me know if you get something as I will go buy a new computer.
RFinston wrote:
'So others can try the URL you posted on Oct.2 at 2:13 am, here it is cut and pasted: "http://climate-change.unexplainedinfo.com/2011/04/16/cesium-131-is-speading-across-the-united-states-and-canada-in-high-levels/" Please let me know if you get something as I will go buy a new computer.'
Hi! The URL works for me; it's a video of a computer model of the fallout cloud from Fukushima. Cesium-137 (not -131) is indeed mentioned. But of course, no actual measurements of radioactivity are given.
John
Thanks for corroborating the URL, John. I now see their typo that prevented me from entering it correctly by my keyboard: "speading" is shown in the URL and I had incorrectly entered "spreading" which is the word I had translated it to mentally. More important though now that I have read the URL: I notice one glaring error in the report which Wayne has highlighted, that the level was stated to be 181 times higher than the standard in drinking water whereas the actual text of the URL says that the concentration excess was found in RAIN water. It goes on to point out the the levels in milk and drinking water were below the standard. So once again by failing to read the details of the text Wayne has mislead the readers at this site by exaggerating the situation in Berkeley last April..
http://climate-change.unexplainedinfo.com/2011/04/16/cesium-131-is-speading-across-the-united-states-and-canada-in-high-levels/
That is the link I posted,,, It has opened just fine on my computer and our son's computer in New Jersey and our daughter's computer in Florida and my neighbor's computer in Arizona ... LOL Finston,,, take off for Fukushima, and take your nuker sidekick ~~Johnny~~ with you.
Yep,,, there is a (typo) in that link's (headline),,,,, NOT in the (article)... The article doesn't say there is iodine 131 in the drinking water,,,, It's cesium 137 in th edrinking water and higher than the EPa's safe limit.... And, that was last April..Imagine what it is now. .
Wayne wrote:
"Yep,,, there is a (typo) in that link's (headline),,,,, NOT in the (article)... The article doesn't say there is iodine 131 in the drinking water,,,, It's cesium 137 in th edrinking water and higher than the EPa's safe limit.... And, that was last April..Imagine what it is now. ."
No Wayne, if you will read the entire article that the site referenced and which has the erroneous headline you will learn that the level in the drinking water at that time was LOWER than the EPA safe limit. It is no doubt still lower than the safe limit as we get our water from a very large reservoir (Hetch Hetchy) and there has been steadily declining fallout from Fukushima since April. No need to imagine. It was safe then and it is safe now. Your scare tactic of referencing to the erroneous headline is irresponsible, my friend. And please, let us not again go around on the argument about what is "safe". Been there, done that.
Buttt wait, uh-uh ~Finston~ How do you know what the article says, you couldn't open the link I posted.
If you change the url's letters you won't get the article I posted. This is a cut and paste sentence from the article from the link I posted, (which does open)!
("Radiation Levels in the drinking water exeed saftey standards by (181 times) in Berkley California").
Here is a very current link for you ~Finston~. The cesium 137 in milk in the Bay Area is higher than the EPAs "safe" limit.. Of course you will have to borrow a computer to open the link. You and the other pro nuker ~Johnny~ can get to Fukushima in a hot air ballon, just breath into the ballon's lower opening, you both have enough hot air to circle the globe twice.
http://enenews.com/radioactive-cesium-doubles-bay-area-milk-last-month-above-epas-maximum-contaminant-level
Yes, Wayne, and we have been around on this one from the ENENews in this very string of emails. I pointed out that the safe level ENE referenced was not specified so I checked the EPA website and in fact the ENE reference is for iodine-131 in water, not to cesium-137 in milk which is orders of magnitude higher. Milk is not and was not above the safe level for Cesium-137 or anything else. ENENews is an unreliable antinuclear website, my friend. So consider checking into the details of your favorite websites.
And by the way as I said last, I did reach your other URL after correcting to the mis-spelled word and it is exactly as I said. The headline is erroneous, the article text is correct, and yet you continue to assert that the error in the headline is the fact. You are either not reading all of the information at the URL you cited, and which I too have now read, or you are continuing to dissemble.
~~Hey Finston~~how do you walk with both of your feet in your mouth?
You wrote,,,("Milk is not and was not above the safe level for Cesium-137 or anything else. ENENews is an unreliable antinuclear website').
This is a screm, my side hurst from laughing...The informtion from for that link's article I posted, that milk in the Bay Area had cesium 137 in it that is a higher level than the EPAs "safe" limit, which YOU Finston says is "unreliable", took their information for the article from a (current) Berkley study.. You rely on Berkley studies Finston.... LMA Offff.
Now in addition ~Finston~ show me where I wrote the link I posted was correct and the information in the link I posted was incorrect.... I said the link has a (typo), but the information in the artilce is correct and even with the typo, the link opens just fine..
Sorry, Wayne, the game is over. You had declared "Last Word" and then posted this intemperate request of me. I won't take your bait.
Yeah Finston,,, well I wrote (last word) before I saw your incredible ignorant comments about the link I posted,, you saying that it was not a credibel website, so had to reply to that incredible error you made... It was and is too funny to pass up.
You finally have said something that is correct Finston..., "The game is over"... Your game is over Finston... You have jammed both of your feet in your mouth...
I see you posted some remarks on the Brits protests article, you took your puppet with you too... Throw ya later
~~Finston~~ wrote, ("And please, let us not again go around on the argument about what is "safe". Been there, done that.").
It is the EPA who says what is "safe" Finston .. So if levels (exceed) their "safe" limit,,,, it's not "safe".
Sounds like you live in the Bay Area Finston. Better not drink the water or any milk.
Hey,,, with you ~Finston~ and your sock puppet ~Johnny~ and me, we have filled page two here... Gonna go for three? __ I have to run to town now... Throw ya later RF. ..
I think there are very few readers of these exchanges at this point. So let's call it quits on this one. I'll no doubt see you again when the next Fukushima article is posted at CD. Oh wait, there is now an article about a protest of a reactor being in England. But so far nothing about radioactivity that is conrtoversial. Be well...
Last word,,,WORD!