Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 110

@Jojo, how do you explain a radiation station in an area that had all the buildings wiped out?
by Nancy 3/27/2011 9:21:41 PM

Watch "A BWR nuclear reactor explained"
...or else we'll have a massive compromise of the containment system!
www.youtube.com
by openmind 3/27/2011 9:22:17 PM

@Jojo :same happened after chernobyl in Germany. every single station censored.
by Matsuoko 3/27/2011 9:22:29 PM

@Jojo It certainly seems suspicious, but with tsunami and radiation one easily construct a non-conspiratorial explanation.
by Bobby1 3/27/2011 9:22:31 PM

Also remember that entire perfectures are without power
by WolfDK 3/27/2011 9:23:19 PM

@Jojo @Jojo: do you have a link to the stats you quoted on the monitoring stations in those prefectures?
by Tenzing 3/27/2011 9:23:22 PM

Many wind anemometers still functional www.jma.go.jp
by Bobby1 3/27/2011 9:23:47 PM

@Nancy Again, what are the odds that 100% of the sensors in Fukushima, all in different towns spread around the prefecture, all are down...yet in Ibaraki, the prefecture right next to Fukushima, 100% of the sensors are up? Believe what you want I guess.
by Jojo 3/27/2011 9:23:53 PM

There is a poll on VoaNews: Are you satisfied with the information the Japanese government is providing about the nuclear crisis? Only 20% have answered "yes"
by Dom 3/27/2011 9:24:21 PM

Might be worth a sticky, since people keep asking: Tokyo time is UTC (same thing as Greenwich) +9 hours. East coast USA is UTC -4 when on daylight time (now). London is UTC +1 on summer time.
by Alaskan 3/27/2011 9:24:34 PM

@WolfDK Miyagi Prefecture has power, and these stations are littered throughout each prefecture. What are the odds that 39/39 stations are operational in Ibaraki, yet 0/23 stations are NOT operation in Fukushima, right next to Ibaraki?
by Jojo 3/27/2011 9:25:31 PM

You all post too much, i had to go back 29 pages to find the Video :-O
by VeenOui 3/27/2011 9:25:40 PM

I have a question about the amount of radiation a worker can receive, and how they manage and measure it for an individual. Some stories (of past disasters?) described workers only working for 15 minutes, then having to be replaced due to high radiation by other workers to continue the same job. Will these first workers then rotate back to work again in the radioactive environment later? Isn't the dose cumulative? Once a worker gets up to 250 units are they then not supposed to never be exposed to radiation in their lives again? Or is it not for a year, and then they start over? Thank you for your explanations and for this blog.
by ariadne 3/27/2011 9:26:16 PM

You guys are doing a great job continuing the coverage of the crisis in Japan. Keep it up!
by MDM 3/27/2011 9:26:22 PM

@Alaskan Here's a good sticky for it. Also has wind and weather. www.timeanddate.com
by radioguy 3/27/2011 9:26:42 PM

@VeenOui That video shows quite a bit of damage to the buildings closest to the water.
by James Ward 3/27/2011 9:27:59 PM

@veenOui what is the english translation of your username?
by FradyKat 3/27/2011 9:29:03 PM

@James Ward : lots of broken pipes to be seen even before the explosions.
by Matsuoko 3/27/2011 9:29:30 PM

@ariadne Yes doses are cumulative so once you hit the exposure limit your done working.
by George Gibb 3/27/2011 9:29:50 PM

In my opinion the only way to get those figures for fukushima etc is for respective governments to be pressured to release the information to their citizens. Two things are for sure 1, the figures exist 2, they are known by stakeholders it needs enough citizens in respective countries to make enough noise
by elainekirk 3/27/2011 9:30:06 PM

@George so for the 250 limit that is for life?
by ariadne 3/27/2011 9:31:14 PM

@elainekirk2001 I sent you an new email with a different log on so you can pin thanks for everything btw
by George Gibb 3/27/2011 9:31:42 PM

@George, unless of course the authorities raise the limit ;-> Many scientists believe there is no "safe" lower limit on exposures, and that there is a lot of genetic variability in tolerance. Old people like me can tolerate a higher dose because our cells are splitting as often and because we will likely die of something else before developing cancer.
by Alaskan 3/27/2011 9:31:56 PM

english.kyodonews.jp reports 100,000 not 10 million times higher which is a bit better.
by gumba 3/27/2011 9:32:06 PM

@ariadne Yes and its been bumped from 100 mS
by George Gibb 3/27/2011 9:32:12 PM

@ariadne : i remember Dean talked about his personal life dosse. yes it is for life.
by Matsuoko 3/27/2011 9:32:32 PM

everyone who knows me - wonders why i spend so much time browsing here - i hope to god for once in my life i never say i told u so
by fiona 3/27/2011 9:32:40 PM

here are some date about radiation in this area fleep.com
by me 3/27/2011 9:32:58 PM

@Alaskan Agreed and the exposure limits are conservative to start with.
by George Gibb 3/27/2011 9:33:46 PM

radiation effects are stochastic. that means not linear. that means by chance.
by Matsuoko 3/27/2011 9:35:05 PM

@ariadne, workers are only permitted to accumulate the life-time dose once. The company will have to hire countless temps for most of the work.
by Peter Melzer 3/27/2011 9:35:17 PM

@fiona Glad your here - we should all pay attention to events like this
by George Gibb 3/27/2011 9:36:22 PM

@Tenzing forsure they all are contributing factors
by George Gibb 3/27/2011 9:37:54 PM

A small fact regarding news coverage NBC is 49% owned by GE makers of the reactors
by elainekirk 3/27/2011 9:38:49 PM

@Matsuoko We have been deceived into believing that all radiation is bad because of policy reliance on the “linear no-threshold” theory, or LNT, which states that if large amounts of something cause death or sickness, fractional amounts of the same thing cause proportional amounts of death or sickness. If the LNT were applied to falling as it is to radiation, we might note that 100 percent of those falling onto concrete from 100 feet are killed, but only 50 percent of those falling from 50 feet die. With these data we would linearly extrapolate to say that 10 percent falling from 10 feet and one percent of those falling from one foot would die. Armed with this “linear no-threshold falling theory,” we could confidently assert that jumping rope should be banned on all school playgrounds since statistically anyone making 100 one-foot jumps would die. bravenewclimate.com
by NHK Listener 3/27/2011 9:38:53 PM

@ariadne It is cumulative so when a worker reaches the limit (now set at 250mSv) he is not allowed to work in radioactive environments for the rest of the year. Note that the limit set by the Japanese Gov is still half of the International limit.
by Pedro Jesus 3/27/2011 9:38:55 PM