I simply pointed out your errors. You have a habit of never facing up to such errors. You just bounce on to the next one as if it never happened... only to have it resurface months later as if you forgot.
So let's take it one misstatement at a time:
But the increases from right after the explosions and melt downs are articulated very well in the report.
Yep. You just don't understand them.
do state that it could be from runoff. Or groundwater.
Just as in the video you refused to watch.
Now how the heck can cesium get in the groundwater?
Um... maybe the same way that water gets into groundwater? You know... it rains, then the ground gets wet?
Were the cores contained - meaning kept separate from the atmosphere - there would have been very little cesium found, like before the explosions that destroyed the containment.
More nonsense. 1 - That isn't what containment means... 2 - an undamaged containment would still have released cesium (hint.... they put vents on reactors for a reason)... and 3 - the explosions that destroyed the outer buildings were not in the containment.
As has been explained to you multiple times - the overheated fuel rods produced hydrogen in reaction with the cooling water - the hydrogen gas was released (along with lots of noble gases, radioiodine, and radiocesium) when pressure was vented from the containment - most of this went into the atmosphere, but lots of it concentrated within the upper shell of the reactor buildings (where the fuel pools are). When the concentration was high enough, a spark/flame ignited the mixture and "boom".
Since there is no iodine being found, it may prove to be that the cesium is a groundwater source, since it can take months for groundwater to move.
The fact that iodine isn't being found just tells you that there isn't any fission going on. Even if the fission were underground, the iodine would be impossible to miss/hide.
If from air deposition and runoff, that means the cores made a very big deposit on land
Which is what everyone has known to be true since the beginning. Welcome to the party!
But the report states that 80% of the air plumes went to the Pacific.
Yep. And 20% of that number is still a "very big deposit on land".
So either there was an even greater air pollution than we are told, or the groundwater is carrying the cesium from the cores underground.
Neither conclusion is logical (or even rational). 20% of the estimated release to the land is more than enough to produce the ongoing runoff identified. What you're missing is an understanding of scale. If you look at the video above starting around the ten minute mark, you can see the cesium levels over the first year in Bq per ton of sea water. About a year out, the figures were a little below 1,000... but just after the incident it was closer to 100,000,000.
Less than 1Bq/L near the shore is absolutely explainable by existing cesium contamination being washed into the sea.
= new reply since forum marked as read
