Please share far and wide!

Friday, March 16, 2018

Alaska Radiation Survey from 2016 Results Have Never Been Reported and No Mention Now

stock here.   I have been bird dogging this for years.   Amazed that in 2011 summer, they did sampling and found that the radiation levels from Fukushima, in Alaska, had gone up as much as the 3 nuclear bomb tests they did on this island. 

Triple nuked by Fukushima.

Then then "plan" was to wait 5 years until 2016 to test the sea plants and animals again.

They made a plan for the plan, and apparently carried out that plan, but now they have failed to report the results.

The results are as I expected, the bio-multiplication, the concentration factor, was so high that they simply had to cover up the results.  

------------------------------------
You can see them rehashing the 2011 data in this 2015 conference






Shameful, and criminal in nature.

https://www.lm.doe.gov/Amchitka/S12630_SAP.pdf

You can see "some" of their testing on this general aggregator site....

 https://www.lm.doe.gov/Amchitka/Documents.aspx

-------------------------------------- So why the lack of reporting of the 2016 monitoring event?   Here is my article on the 2011 monitoring event.

The bottom line....Fukushima had the same impact from 2000 miles away, that a large nuclear bomb would have going off at ground zero.    Read it, hard to believe, but true.   They did in fact have three large nuclear bombs go off here, so the comparison is easy, and unusual in the ability to make the comparison.    Sheesh, bombs just have like 16 pounds of uranium and plutonium.    Fukushima had over 200,000 lbs.   

http://www.nukepro.net/2014/01/further-analysis-on-2011-alaska.html

----------------------------------------------------------
I did find the chief researcher who has since moved, but he put me in touch with the new team leader who explained that a series of problems with the measurement methods and data has pushed back release until late 2018 (for a 2016 survey).



No comments:

Post a Comment

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments