Sign in to follow this  

Radiation it is not simple some information for survival

Recommended Posts

Radiation it is not simple some information for survival.

The elemental / periodic table is not as simple as most people think there is nore that your not intended to know unless your in the field. the chart below is only partial of the isotopes that were expelled by Fukashima Diaichi  Spell checking does not include either of these words but it does recognize transgender if misspelled (funny) 

The attacks on the First amendment against detractors of nuclear energy or plants started right after the Fukashima disaster Trolls bots and algorithms have attempted to weed out  any online discussion attempting to wipe individuals and sites on a number of topics especially in Canada that at one time people thought of as a free nation, well it's not social media accounts and  video have been erased if they still are online they have been severely demonetized. Money is like a weapon it can defend as well as do harm and these corporate entities are chocking the life out of free speech alternative news and opinions. this is not what America or Canada was founded for. Most left Europe because of repressive regimes no due process and debtors prisons they chased us here and tried to reinstall their form of rule over us and we did our best to kill them off and they finally had to sue for peace. it is happening again only this is corporate the U.S. no longer exists it is a corporation it respects only corporate and international law the individual is never sure how it's courts will decide even though we have a bill of rights and a constitution.. If your out of turn anyone of a hundred agencies can fall on you like a ton of bricks. it is attrition they take your freedom then lock away your money and expect you to fight in a court with your hands tied behind your back some cases cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Only a few are touted as David vs. Goliath to give people the sense that there is some amount of fair play.

These untruths are propagated by the main stream media I cannot recall ANY truth from the media they contort a story to manipulate the feelings toward the side they want to win demonizing, defaming, and collusion with other outlets to raise someone up like Jusse Smollett or try to crush a legally voted president.

This is another reason not to trust the press your not being told that there are numerous isotopes within a single element with differing atomic weights and attributes, so when science examines a sample and gives a value then releases it to the public it is only partially true. They may not have tested for numerous other elements or their isotopes just saying there was no cesium does not mean there were not other more dangerous elements that were tested or found. it is a simple case of moving the goal post, playing on your ignorance and using it against the public.

I cannot tell you why anyone would defend misinformation or disinformation or out right deception on certain life threatening topics but they do. Trolls have attacked me on other platforms and they have been from mildly insulting to outlandish misrepresentation of the truth to undermine the facts in any post I made.

Truth is most of the industry has a vested interest in keeping nuclear plants online. Some of the solutions are to irradiate radioactive materials reintroduced into a reactor with other elements. We have been told there are stabile storage facilities and yet most all spent fuel is kept on site and no matter if you move it all it does is pollute another site more so than previous. imagine a huge stinking turd in your home it can't be taken outside your neighbors will notice and sue you. Nothing you do makes it any better not washing coating wrapping it in plastic or sealing it in a drum the smell will not go away. so at first you move it but the stench absorbs into the walls and furniture so you move it again and still the same so you decide to make one room a storage area, but you know that that horrible smell will eventually seep into adjoining rooms. 

Here is your problem your forced to move further away and the longer the turd stays in one place that area will never be deodorized and in time the adjoining rooms will become unlivable. that is where we are painting ourselves into a corner and TEPCO is praying that there is not another earthquake or flood or Tsunami  between Chernobyl and Fukashima all the scientists have don it to advise the governments to raise radiation levels in food water and air to new acceptable limits and claim that it is now natural background naturally occurring background radiation.

Trying to get information is like looking for bigfoot you hear there is something but when you look it's gone. Journals and statistics are written in gibberish referring to back data and indexing other publications and statistical data  listing regions counties and weather patterns, when in previous to Fukashima reports were simple information charts and graphs. I can't tell from fisheries reports exactly the difference between current and previous Fukashima catch number are and if breeding fisheries have been impacted ? I wanted to know the overall numbers and variance for brown trout, Salmon, Pike walleye and other species in the rivers and streams along the west coast including neighboring states. For every video some comments seem to be in denial or trolls some comment like they live in the region  and their witness statements are all over the place, so what is the truth ?  @$)&Q country has been caught in untruths there are a few scientists that have told everyone to GET OUT some say it is manageable others are posting unnerving statistics on cases of associated illnesses to man made radiological material and percentage numbers that make Nagasaki and Hiroshima look minor in comparison. 

Anything with a half life longer than all the know history we can find of the human race should be important maybe should have a real reporter investigating diffing and having a byline devoted to new and emerging facts  but all I seem to find is confusion and no go to MSM information that does not contradict itself all through the article. I read a report that American Navy and Marine personnel had their watches stop within the hour they were off the coast of the incident I can't seem to corroborate the story .  Has fishing in that area continued are they testing the fish water and crew clothing and quarters for latent or cumulative measurements of ALL the radiological elements that could cause health problems, I think not as they are selling hay and food raised right next to large bags of contaminated material -- so our government is not saying and as far as I can find all the islands between Fukashima and our west coast are not reporting real time data nor have any scientists been stationed along the way. We  have protectorate nations with Naval and Airbases Merchant American sailors ply those waters anchor in or near that region so where is the data ?  I did hear another story about plane passengers being exposed to higher radiation during that initial period especially pilots that fly the pacific routs even now ? a lot of questions and no answers -- I'm hungry I was thinking tuna maybe a greasy burger might be better for my health ?

Z(p) N(n)  
isotopic mass (u)[15]
half-life decay
mode(s)[16][n 1]
spin and
excitation energy
229Am[17] 95 134 229.04525(9) 1.8(1.5) s α 225Np  
230Am[18] 95 135 230.04609(14)# 32(+22-9) s β+ (64.7%) 230Pu  
β+, SF (35.3%) (various)
232Am 95 137 232.04659(32)# 79(2) s β+ (98%) 232Pu  
α (2%) 228Np
β+, SF (.069%) (various)
233Am 95 138 233.04635(11)# 3.2(8) min β+ 233Pu  
α 229Np
234Am 95 139 234.04781(22)# 2.32(8) min β+ (99.95%) 234Pu  
α (.04%) 230Np
β+, SF (.0066%) (various)
235Am 95 140 235.04795(13)# 9.9(5) min β+ 235Pu 5/2−#
α (rare) 231Np
236Am 95 141 236.04958(11)# 3.6(1) min β+ 236Pu  
α 232Np
237Am 95 142 237.05000(6)# 73.0(10) min β+ (99.97%) 237Pu 5/2(−)
α (.025%) 233Np
238Am 95 143 238.05198(5) 98(2) min β+ 238Pu 1+
α (10−4%) 234Np
238mAm 2500(200)# keV 35(10) µs      
239Am 95 144 239.0530245(26) 11.9(1) h EC (99.99%) 239Pu (5/2)−
α (.01%) 235Np
239mAm 2500(200) keV 163(12) ns     (7/2+)
240Am 95 145 240.055300(15) 50.8(3) h β+ 240Pu (3−)
α (1.9×10−4%) 236Np
241Am[n 2] 95 146 241.0568291(20) 432.2(7) y α 237Np 5/2−
CD (7.4×10−10%) 207Tl, 34Si
SF (4.3×10−10%) (various)
241mAm 2200(100) keV 1.2(3) µs      
242Am 95 147 242.0595492(20) 16.02(2) h β (82.7%) 242Cm 1−
EC (17.3%) 242Pu
242m1Am 48.60(5) keV 141(2) y IT (99.54%) 242Am 5−
α (.46%) 238Np
SF (1.5×10−8%) (various)
242m2Am 2200(80) keV 14.0(10) ms     (2+,3−)
243Am[n 2] 95 148 243.0613811(25) 7,370(40) y α 239Np 5/2−
SF (3.7×10−9%) (various)
244Am 95 149 244.0642848(22) 10.1(1) h β 244Cm (6−)#
244mAm 86.1(10) keV 26(1) min β (99.96%) 244Cm 1+
EC (.0361%) 244Pu
245Am 95 150 245.066452(4) 2.05(1) h β 245Cm (5/2)+
246Am 95 151 246.069775(20) 39(3) min β 246Cm (7−)
246m1Am 30(10) keV 25.0(2) min β (99.99%) 246Cm 2(−)
IT (.01%) 246Am
246m2Am ~2000 keV 73(10) µs      
247Am 95 152 247.07209(11)# 23.0(13) min β 247Cm (5/2)#


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant to post a more comprehensive chart this I think is only for Americium.

But then that is my point, science can tell us there is not a reading for cesium or iodine but if it the Geiger is crackling like an old AM radio for other elements thy can say with a straight face and without lying, there is no sign of and element not in the sample. That's not science it is bullshize.

How would yo like your doctor to tell you no you don't have Leukemia and find out later you have brain cancer ?

WE are looking at a perfect storm, 5G is so powerful that many are warning the public to not hold  our phone close to our face or head and pregnant women to be very cautious  but microwaves are everywhere so what about your children in a area like a school with WIFI in all the labs and classes,

I have seen charts that show Fukashima particles in Alaska Canada and pockets i the lower 48 as far as I can tell it is not dense. It would be very unlucky for your child to pick up a shell and later find it has a hot isotope on or in it. Science is not explaining that less than the point of a pin is BAD. 

there is a marked difference in measurement between becquerel (symbol: Bq) curie (symbol Ci)  the roentgen or röntgen  (symbol R) is a legacy unit of measurement,  rutherford (symbol Rd)  and  the latest is the sievert (symbol: Sv) and in this microsieverts milisieverts and older scientific units  ERG, RAD and GRAY SOooooo WTFudge.

Trying to get an answer on just how much ionizing radiation is dangerous in any of these measurements is a fools errand, as it all depends on your age weight and distance duration of exposure and it is cumulative. Gama rays are just bad. So those radiations badges are just a stuffed animal toys to make you feel secure. If your 5 foot tall 100 pounds your not as safe as or mare safe I can't get an answer to that question either, than a 6 foo 6 inch 300 pound body builder. more body area more absorption ??? 

If the following chart is not clear let me just say, if your a janitor your allowed dosage is higher than if your a scientist, because you as a janitor are expendable, there are plenty of janitors but not that many nuclear scientists IMHO.  This chart is just miliSieverts apparently by what I can decern 2 Sieverts is BAD run like hell.

AS anyone can see there are NO absolute numbers given to the lay person to pin down when your in danger,  depending on if they are alpha particles a paper suite blocks them like superman deflects bullets.  X rays, gamma rays, alpha particles, and beta particles are ionizing radiation, a laser is considered nonionizing but let me hit you with a 3 watt and see how fast you move !



Level (mSv) Duration Hourly equivalent (μSv/hour) Description
0.001 Hourly 1 Cosmic ray dose rate on commercial flights varies from 1 to 10 μSv/hour, depending on altitude, position and solar sunspot phase.[1]
0.01 Daily 0.4 Natural background radiation, including radon[2]
0.06 Acute - Chest X-ray (AP+Lat)[3]
0.07 Acute - Transatlantic airplane flight.[2]
0.09 Acute - Dental X-ray (Panoramic)[3]
0.1 Annual 0.011 Average USA dose from consumer products[4]
0.15 Annual 0.017 USA EPA cleanup standard[citation needed]
0.25 Annual 0.028 USA NRC cleanup standard for individual sites/sources[citation needed]
0.27 Annual 0.031 Yearly dose from natural cosmic radiation at sea level (0.5 in Denver due to altitude)[4]
0.28 Annual 0.032 USA yearly dose from natural terrestrial radiation (0.16-0.63 depending on soil composition)[4]
0.46 Acute - Estimated largest off-site dose possible from March 28, 1979 Three Mile Island accident[citation needed]
0.48 Day 20 USA NRC public area exposure limit[citation needed]
0.66 Annual 0.075 Average USA dose from human-made sources[2]
0.7 Acute - Mammogram[3]
1 Annual 0.11 Limit of dose from man-made sources to a member of the public who is not a radiation worker in the USA and Canada[2][5]
1.1 Annual 0.13 1980 average USA radiation worker occupational dose[2]
1.2 Acute - Abdominal X-ray[3]
2 Annual 0.23 USA average medical and natural background [3]
Human internal radiation due to radon, varies with radon levels[4]
2 Acute - Head CT[3]
3 Annual 0.34 USA average dose from all natural sources[2]
3.66 Annual 0.42 USA average from all sources, including medical diagnostic radiation doses[citation needed]
4 Duration of the pregnancy 0.6 Canada CNSC maximum occupational dose to a pregnant woman who is a designated Nuclear Energy Worker.[5]
5 Annual 0.57 USA NRC occupational limit for minors (10% of adult limit)
USA NRC limit for visitors[6]
5 Pregnancy 0.77 USA NRC occupational limit for pregnant women[citation needed]
6.4 Annual 0.73 High Background Radiation Area (HBRA) of Yangjiang, China[7]
7.6 Annual 0.87 Fountainhead Rock Place, Santa Fe, NM natural[citation needed]
8 Acute - Chest CT[3]
10 Acute - Lower dose level for public calculated from the 1 to 5 rem range for which USA EPA guidelines mandate emergency action when resulting from a nuclear accident[2]
Abdominal CT[3]
14 Acute - 18F FDG PET scan,[8] Whole Body
50 Annual 5.7 USA NRC/ Canada CNSC occupational limit for designated Nuclear Energy Workers[5](10 CFR 20)
100 5 years 2.3 Canada CNSC occupational limit over a 5-year dosimetry period for designated Nuclear Energy Workers[5]
100 Acute - USA EPA acute dose level estimated to increase cancer risk 0.8%[2]
120 30 years 0.46 Exposure, long duration, Ural mountains, lower limit, lower cancer mortality rate[9]
150 Annual 17 USA NRC occupational eye lens exposure limit[citation needed][clarification needed]
170 Acute   Average dose for 187 000 Chernobyl recovery operation workers in 1986[10][11]
175 Annual 20 Guarapari, Brazil natural radiation sources[citation needed]
250 2 hours 125 000 (125 mSv/hour) Whole body dose exclusion zone criteria for US nuclear reactor siting[12] (converted from 25 rem)
250 Acute - USA EPA voluntary maximum dose for emergency non-life-saving work[2]
260 Annual 30 Calculated from 260 mGy per year peak natural background dose in Ramsar[13]
400-900 Annual 46-103 Unshielded in interplanetary space.[14]
500 Annual 57 USA NRC occupational whole skin, limb skin, or single organ exposure limit
500 Acute - Canada CNSC occupational limit for designated Nuclear Energy Workers carrying out urgent and necessary work during an emergency.[5]
Low-level radiation sickness due to short-term exposure[15]
750 Acute - USA EPA voluntary maximum dose for emergency life-saving work[2]
1000 Hourly 1 000 000 (1000 mSv/hour) level reported during Fukushima I nuclear accidents, in immediate vicinity of reactor[16]
3000 Acute - Thyroid dose (due to iodine absorption) exclusion zone criteria for US nuclear reactor siting[12] (converted from 300 rem)
4800 Acute - LD50 (actually LD50/60) in humans from radiation poisoning with medical treatment estimated from 480 to 540 rem.[17]
5000 Acute - Calculated from the estimated 510 rem dose fatally received by Harry Daghlian on 1945 August 21 at Los Alamos and lower estimate for fatality of Russian specialist on 1968 April 5 at Chelyabinsk-70.[18]
5000     5 000 - 10 000 mSv. Most commercial electronics can survive this radiation level.[19]
16 000 Acute   Highest estimated dose to Chernobyl emergency worker disgnosed with accute radiation syndrome[11]
20 000 Acute 2 114 536 Interplanetary exposure to solar particle event (SPE) of October 1989.[20][21]
21 000 Acute - Calculated from the estimated 2100 rem dose fatally received by Louis Slotin on 1946 May 21 at Los Alamos and lower estimate for fatality of Russian specialist on 1968 April 5 Chelyabinsk-70.[18]
48 500 Acute - Roughly calculated from the estimated 4500 + 350 rad dose for fatality of Russian experimenter on 1997 June 17 at Sarov.[18]
60 000 Acute - Roughly calculated from the estimated 6000 rem doses for several Russian fatalities from 1958 onwards, such as on 1971 May 26 at the Kurchatov Institute. Lower estimate for a Los Alamos fatality in 1958 December 30.[18]
100 000 Acute - Roughly calculated from the estimated 10000 rad dose for fatality at the United Nuclear Fuels Recovery Plant on 1964 July 24.[18]
10 000 000 000     The most radiation-hardened electronics can survive this radiation level.[22]
70 000 000 000 Hourly 70 000 000 000 000 Estimated dose rate for the inner wall in ITER (2 kGy/s with an approximate weighting factor of 10)[23]

Comparison of Radiation Doses - includes the amount detected on the trip from Earth to Mars by the RAD on the MSL (2011 - 2013)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this