The operator of this site has some good information on it, but gets it completely wrong on Fukushima.
"The Fukushima radiation psyops is designed, by Zionist Illuminated planners
Beginning on March 12, 2011, I have steadfastly reported in numerous articles indexed below that the calculated promotion of Japan radiation hysteria, especially by Leftist media and opponents of nuclear energy, was contrived, woefully dishonest, and all out of proportion to the actual degree and amount of ionizing radiation being released from the Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. Furthermore, at no time since March 11, 2011, has the background radiation levels in Tokyo, or northern Japan (or even Fukushima prefecture) risen to a level (excluding the immediate vicinity of the Daiichi plant itself) that presented any real (short or long term) health dangers to the people of Japan or North America.
Sheesh, I didn't even realize that I was being controlled by Zionist Illuminated Planners...
This letter to the editor /operator of a site that offers a lot of good information, and some very bad information on radiation, I sent the following email.
If you wish to email him, please use email below, and keep it clean
Sir, your last name, Adachi, means “standing on leg”
I propose that in regards to radiation, that you are standing on the wrong leg, and I ask you to reconsider.
I am an expert in Materials, radiation, and have worked in the energy field since 1988, before that I worked on internal combustion engine design and production.
I was taken in by idea of “nuclear science” thinking from my highest education at University of Michigan with an MSME. I never questioned the idea that nuclear plants and waste storage would be run with anything but the greatest engineering, risk control, and care. Once I dove in and looked at what they were doing, I was surprised enough to keep digging. Needless to say my opinion changed.
Even routine releases of radiation from nuclear plants, in normal operation, do indeed cause noticeable health problems, infant deaths, leukemia, other cancers, and generally weaken the individual.
Chris Busby, an expert in the field, just today published information related to studies that prove damage from nuclear plants.
We carried out some fancy statistical regressions of distance from the contaminated Steart Flats (the historic repository of the releases from Hinkley Point) and infant and perinatal mortality over the period. It is well accepted that infant mortality is caused by deprivation so we included the ward index of deprivation in the regression.
Astonishingly the results showed that it was not deprivation that killed infants in Somerset. It was Hinkley Point. Deprivation was not statistically significant, not in Somerset. When we slowly statistically crept up on the cause of the infant deaths it turned out to partly relate to an accidental release of radioactivity in 1996 for which the plant was fined £20,000 by the regulators.
Please read the whole article
He also discusses why the NRC, just this week, cancelled an ongoing study to review cancer statistics near US nuclear plants. The NRC is captured and does not regulate, but promotes.
We know from the EPA data released in 2011 of the density of Uranium in air measured at points all over the Pacific. By taking density and multiplying by volume, we can take a good stab at the DETECTED amount of Uranium, and thus also know all the usual suspects that accompany uranium in fissioned fuel, such as Plutonium, Cesium, Strontium, Iodine, Xenon and more. This is just what was detected, so the total release was of course more.
It’s a guesstimate, because you have to assume a volume, but 195 tons is a good guestimate. That’s a lot, a large percentage of the pools and cores.
Hydrogen explosions could not launch this much material, the explosive force had to have come from within the vessels and/or pools.
Also we have scientific proof that the spent fuel at Reactor 4 went up in a massive explosion, fire, or some of both.
Also statistically significant (aka high power) scientific studies that show even small amounts of radiation, 4mSV cumulative have provable effects on cancers. There are more of these studies out there, including ones listed in Busby’s article.
I would appreciate your response