hagopian wrote:I sure wish I had........
hagopian wrote:I am woe to post stuff like this - but we have NOT been getting the TRUTH about how desperate the situation is = and BC is right in the crosshairs.
]
5. How does Fukushima compare with the Chernobyl meltdown?
The Fukushima plant's meltdown in 2011 is considered the worst nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl meltdown in Ukraine in 1986. Although both were given an INES rating of 7, far more radiation was released at Chernobyl — about 10 times as much as at Fukushima, NPR reported. And the health consequences a Fukushima to date have been much less severe.
The Chernobyl meltdown involved the explosion of an entire reactor that sent out a plume of radiation over a wide area. Many people nearby drank contaminated milk and later developed thyroid cancer.
By contrast, Fukushima's radioactive cores remained mostly protected, and much of the radioactive material has been carried out to sea, far from human populations. People in risky areas were evacuated, and contaminated food was kept out of stores. While the long-term health risks are unknown, the World Health Organization said there is very little public health risk outside of the 18-mile evacuation zone.
hagopian wrote:28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima -
Is this all guff>? I wonder what is true.....NOTICE though - MSM reports nothing on Fukushima......why?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/28-signs-that-the-west-coast-is-being-absolutely-fried-with-nuclear-radiation-from-fukushima/5355280
This is JUST one Nuke site. I agree with other posts that there are other problem Nuke plants and storage facilities.....but this really is a must read and then make up your own mind.
Return to Non Radio Related Topics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 71 guests