Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)

28. Screw that link

Reply to RobertEarl (Reply #20)

Sun Jun 14, 2015, 03:55 AM

Jun 2015

rad ocean is so out dated they even go so far as to lie about not finding Cs134, which was found. Sorry about that, I had thought theyd' be honest....

so here's the good stuff.....

http://www.vancouversun.comnews/Toxic+waters+Nuclear+radiation+found+pose+health+concerns/9606269/story.html

From:
http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=14652

F#5049
Coordinates: 41.46, -126.18
Sample Date: Aug 07, 2014 12:00
Depth: 20
Thanks to: Captain Curtis Collins, RV Point Sur, Moss Landing Marine Lab.

Cs137*: 6.4 ± 0.2Bq/m3
Cs134*: 1.7 ± 0.1Bq/m3

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

You can ignore it all you want [View all] RobertEarl Jun 2015 OP

How stupid is that? 99th_Monkey Jun 2015 #1

Who is paying the scientists? LiberalEsto Jun 2015 #2

They are only scientists... Fairgo Jun 2015 #16

Japan has a lot of power in this world. MoonRiver Jun 2015 #3

Who is they? Make7 Jun 2015 #4

That's my question too. nt 99th_Monkey Jun 2015 #33

'They' is RobertEarl Jun 2015 #38

Links to info? PowerToThePeople Jun 2015 #5

Inb4 Arnie Gunderson, Helen Caldicott and ENEnews... SidDithers Jun 2015 #6

but seriously, G_j Jun 2015 #7

Source RobertEarl Jun 2015 #20

Screw that link RobertEarl Jun 2015 #28

Isn't the EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level for Cs137 in drinking water 7400 Bq/m3? ( n/t ) Make7 Jun 2015 #34

Would you drink that? RobertEarl Jun 2015 #35

Bullshit. eom MohRokTah Jun 2015 #8

Lol! zappaman Jun 2015 #9

rad levels of 6 what sharp_stick Jun 2015 #10

This message was self-deleted by its author FBaggins Jun 2015 #11

Which is it? Dishonesty... ignorance... or just really bad at math? FBaggins Jun 2015 #12

(cover ears) La-la-la... nt raccoon Jun 2015 #13

"Those levels are now above 6 and due to increase." NuclearDem Jun 2015 #14

OK. Thanks. I'll do that. MineralMan Jun 2015 #15

Correction RobertEarl Jun 2015 #19

I would be very interested in hearing more about this Chemisse Jun 2015 #17

Data RobertEarl Jun 2015 #18

According to your source, the levels are not rising and may be dropping csziggy Jun 2015 #21

Yeah, they are afraid of posting new data RobertEarl Jun 2015 #22

so you can't actually link to anything showing what you're claiming then? tammywammy Jun 2015 #23

Best I could find right now RobertEarl Jun 2015 #27

Keep searching. zappaman Jun 2015 #30

How can you expect him to link to his imagination? FBaggins Jun 2015 #31

So your source does not post the data to support their claims? csziggy Jun 2015 #24

I took a screen shot from there RobertEarl Jun 2015 #25

The data hasn't been "scrubbed" FBaggins Jun 2015 #32

Yep RobertEarl Jun 2015 #36

There are more oxygen depleted dead zones, resulting in applegrove Jun 2015 #26

Everyone has ignored cwydro Jun 2015 #29

What sea life is washed up on shores that befuddle scientists? Velella velella, like have happened uppityperson Jun 2015 #37