Fukushima: What we are not being told
Guest@ | PATH: /articles/fukushima-what-we-ar...

Fukushima: What we are not being told

Source: ...

450So recently the BBC released an article that (to be candid) got on my last nerve. Dumbing down the Fukushima nuclear power plant leak into the North Pacific Ocean and the level of radioactive pollution that has now hit the west coast of North America and Canada. In the article they go on to talk about Becquerel and the levels they are currently at, and what they could potential increase to over the course of the coming years. Stating that these levels are still within manageable and non-harmful levels to us. To quote the article, they state "But scientists stress that even the peak measurements will be well within the limits set by safety authorities". To see the full article, please follow the link to read for yourselves (

I have decided to set the record straight on this, because (let's face it) the BBC and everyone else are clearly not.
So in order to do this we are going to have to break this down into categories. Now let's get started

Point 1: Radioactive pollution is not good for you, period.
Anyone that says otherwise is either lying, or a moron (why else do you think the X-ray machine in hospitals have lead shielding?).

Point 2: What is a Becquerel, and what does it mean to me?
A Becquerel (or Bq) is a measurement used to rate radioactive decay. The original measurement which was later replace by the Bq was a Curie. The Curie was superseded as its measurement for radioactive decay because it was basically long winded, as you had picocuries (a millionth of a millionth of a Curie) being 0.037 per second disintegration, and a Bq is equal to 27 picocuries, which approximately equates one . A Bq therefore is one radioactive decay per second. So basically it means one Bq is equal to one atom becoming unstable and breaking down per second.

Point 3: Radioactive particles/emissions:
Radioactive particles come in four different types (Alpha, Beta, Gamma and X-ray) that pulse from their source in random waves, sometimes beta gamma, sometimes alpha beta, etc.
Alpha particles are relatively large (the size of a helium atom less their two electrons) and do not travel very far before they collided with so many things that they slow down, then becoming a helium atom, grabbing two electrons and floating away (It is said that a single alpha decay has enough energy to visibly reposition a grain of sand on a beach). Alpha particles travel at about 98% of the speed of light, which is considered slow when compared to beta and gamma rays, and alpha particles are not much of an external radiation hazard, because they can be blocked by a sheet of newspaper, or a dead layer of your skin (softer areas of tissue like the eyes can be damaged by external alpha radiation). However, alpha particles released inside your body can do considerable amounts of damage to molecules that they collide with, and they have a double positive charge, which is also very damaging as they pass by many thousands of molecules before they slow down and capture two electrons.
Beta particles (also known as beta rays) are negatively charged particles which are ejected from the nucleus of an atom at 99.7% the speed of light, or even faster.  Beta particles are tiny. They are only as big as electrons, which is what they are once they slow down.  Beta particles do most of their damage as their negative charge passes by other charged things  (protons and electrons).451
Gamma rays are very penetrating, but have no mass and charge.  They are pure energy, traveling at the speed of light.
X-rays are less penetrating than gamma rays, having less energy, but are still damaging or "ionizing".
This being said, these radioactive particles will be in nearly all food fished from the North Pacific, as well as irradiating their habitats, and food sources. On top of that, fish do not stay in one location, they migrate. So these fish will travel to other seas, become food for other aquatic life, and in turn will spread further radiation. Now this is not rocket science here people, what do we eat that lives in the sea? That's right, fish (or should I now say radioactive fish, because that's what we are going to have. Please note that all sarcasm is directed to the morons at the BBC, not you the reader).

Point 4: Water evaporation:
That's right people, because now things get really grim. You see that nice water next to the North Pacific that is not affected by radioactive particles yet? Well say goodbye to it, because when the water in the North pacific evaporates and becomes clouds in the sky, those clouds will then travel on the wind, condensate, and rain back down, and where do you think that will be? Yes, you guessed it, the other oceans and the land we live on. Guess what now? You will be drinking that water, and eating irradiated crops that have come into contact with that rain. Great huh?

Point 5: Time scale of Bq increase:
So we have scientists saying that the current Bq levels off the west coast of America and Canada are at 6, and it will increase to 27 Bq over the course of the next year. That is 21 Bq increase in a year (and that is an estimate, not an exact science, it could possibly be higher, or lower). Now, the truth is, how can they truly know that, unless they have the source material to judge it against? 453For instance, a sample of plutonium-239 gives off one curie of radiation per hour, so that basically works out to around 37,000,000,000 Bq per hour, which would be equal to roughly 10,277,777.7778 Bq per second (now that is a lot), and it will still give off (or just shy by like 0.0000000...1%) the following day. Now apparently the sum of released plutonium-239 from Fukushima was 76 trillion Becquerel (or so they say), and remember here, this has a decay rate of practically nothing. That can only lead to the increase of Bq levels in the North Pacific every year there in for practically the rest of our existence.

Point 6: There are still more factors to weigh in, like RAD scale, Sieverts & Roentgens:
These are all further scales to judge and assess decay rate, dose absorption and exposure (of which are all quite long winded to go into, so I won't bore you with the details, but for those of you willing to self-educate yourselves further, I recommend looking into the works of my source material, the work of Ace Hoffman).

So, all this being said, are you still confident in what the media tells you? Do you still feel safe that this nuclear contamination of our Earth is "nothing to be feared"? I for one am beginning to think that fish may be off the menu.

Point 7: Cue Godzilla

Other recent posts in /articles...


More Mongoose

Example of a Credit Crunch Conspiracy

Welcome the Mongoose

Article from "The Mongoose" The Mongoose is native to North London’s hilly regions where it can be found patrolling and protecting a small family of mongooses (not mongeeses). Of mixed background it is part of the Mongralis Mongoosis line of the species, identifiable by it’s large proboscis, flaring nostrils, flat feet and inordinate hairiness. Why a Mongoose I hear you say? It just came to me one day when I saw Internet pictures of a mongoose trapped by four lions. The mongoose did not just give up against overwhelming odds; it rolled and nipped and scratched and actually stood up to the bullies. Then, as they trundled of bemused, the mongoose gave them a “go on, piss off” stare. That is the attitude I have tried to emulate.


Bill hicks wrote this article in november 1993 for scallyway magazine, its called UNRESOLVABLE PROBLEMS-RESOLVED