Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 647

@NHK Listener I thought I saw a Japanese official say that.
by Jim Carver 4/12/2011 12:50:49 AM

@Jim Carver if you look at data on number 3 you will see it went to 105sv at one point
by NHK Listener 4/12/2011 12:50:53 AM

Thing is, they seem to report specific time, not peak since last report
by Markfm 4/12/2011 12:51:10 AM

@NHK Listener Do you know the specs of the measuring equipment (just wondering, not trying to be snarky)?
by borrrden 4/12/2011 12:51:17 AM

At least I have not seen any note that it is maximum
by Markfm 4/12/2011 12:52:02 AM

@Markfm I have a hard time believing the instruments (CAMS) go to only 100rads
by NHK Listener 4/12/2011 12:54:07 AM

@sgt fuzzyboots Yes, in the News Conference they mentioned raising the level to 7 from 5.
by ColorMeRed 4/12/2011 12:54:10 AM

@wrshpr having knowledge of smoke dispersion in the atmosphere when I heard the initial reports of trace amounts in Europe it set off an alarm in my mind that more fallout is occurring in North America than we are being told.
by George Gibb 4/12/2011 12:54:55 AM

@NHK Listener That would be 10,000 rads (100 sv), not 100. Careful of the data type trap.
by borrrden 4/12/2011 12:55:02 AM

@borrrden Yup my bad 1 sievert = 100 rads
by NHK Listener 4/12/2011 12:56:19 AM

They do admit that the measurements (when cornered) are not very reliable. Two officials contradicted each other. One said it was software, the other said it was hardware from the earthquake.
by Jim Carver 4/12/2011 12:56:36 AM

NHK, I don't disagree. I am just saying there is zero indication that they are reporting maxima - I expect it is point-in-time.
by Markfm 4/12/2011 12:56:53 AM

@Jim Carver @Markfm It is a moot point anything over 100sv doesn't get you any more dead.
by gabe 4/12/2011 12:58:58 AM

Snapshot data like they give out is crud. You know the plant readings are instrumented, recordable, not someone reading an analog gauge.
by Markfm 4/12/2011 1:00:24 AM

Regarding the rise to a 7, I have thought for a while that the GOJ has been using the specifics of Chernobyl as parameters that they want to stay inside of. The early limitations to the evacuation zone and the insistence on staying at 5 show this. From a PR point of view, they wanted this to seem "smaller" than Chernobyl.
by bo 4/12/2011 1:01:39 AM

Readings may correlate to releases to the outside world.
by Markfm 4/12/2011 1:01:40 AM

@Markfm I asked on another forum so maybe I can find out..
by NHK Listener 4/12/2011 1:01:46 AM

@bo I don't think they had much of a choice in the matter.
by George Gibb 4/12/2011 1:04:40 AM

@George Gibb I noticed a change to EPA's monitoring data. The monitor stations that track "waves" had a drastically different format and completely different data before and after the earthquake than I saw posted tonight. I don't know enough about the data to interpret properly but could probably find cached pages of the old vs. the new. seems suspicious.
by Nancy 4/12/2011 1:05:18 AM

GoJ forced shutdown of a nuclear plant on March 24th. Over worries about the ability to handle earthquakes www.telegraph.co.uk
by Nancy 4/12/2011 1:07:12 AM

@Nancy I agree and also the site us gov site was down for a couple days right after #3 blew then they had that disclaimer about the information posted is geared for scientist and requires interpretation????
by George Gibb 4/12/2011 1:08:42 AM

@George Gibb, I agree that they had no choice to raise it, but I think they tried to use the record of Chernobyl as limit to what they were willing to do publicly, and in doing so put many more people at risk in the 20-40km area
by bo 4/12/2011 1:09:00 AM

I ran my own crude mathematical model to try to estimate the total release of Chernobyl released. Wikipedia mentions calculated contamination areas. From that I arrived at about 11 PBq total of cesium-137, and from that I extracted a number of 7.23 EBq (next order above peta) of iodine-131 (for starters). If you want I will post the method I used to arrive at this number so you can analyze my solution, but I will refrain unless asked because it will be slightly long..... I also took the noted peak release of Fukushima from the Japan Times article (10,000 TBq per hour) and just for fun decided to calculate how much it would be if that number were consistent for 31 straight days. I arrived at 7.44 EBq. From this data, my conclusion would be that Fukushima still has a long way to go before reaching the total releases of Chernobyl (but the data could be inaccurate of course, and even more likely I could be inaccurate :p)
by borrrden 4/12/2011 1:10:12 AM

@bo yes and no - when you look at the fallout from Chernobyl its hard to predict where fallout will accumulate.
by George Gibb 4/12/2011 1:11:09 AM

@bo I think they did the best they could by getting people out of the immediate area. They had so much to deal with.
by George Gibb 4/12/2011 1:13:50 AM

@George Gibb Hmm. along with the US and EU suddenly deciding to change their maximum safe levels. I hate to be all conspiracy theory but this is odd.
by Nancy 4/12/2011 1:14:10 AM

I asked this on the other page anyone familiar with monju nuclear accident?
by Nancy 4/12/2011 1:14:38 AM

@Nancy well we have been looking at the evidence and our track record is pretty good.
by George Gibb 4/12/2011 1:15:03 AM

@borrrden In order to believe that Fukushima has a long way to go to match Chernobyl, you'd have to trust the numbers TEPCO has reported to the Japanese media about the amount of radiation released from Fukushima. Sorry, but I just can't bring myself to do that.
by James Ward 4/12/2011 1:15:18 AM

@Nancy Well, the thing about the U.S. EPA safety level that is being used is that it was not a level designed to be used during an accident. Also, it is over 30 years old ;).
by borrrden 4/12/2011 1:16:03 AM

@Nancy I'm not familiar with that accident.
by George Gibb 4/12/2011 1:16:26 AM

@George Gibb, true re the fallout, but I am talking only in terms of PR admissions. Not that they used it as a model for safety and threat, but as a model of how to position the event for public understanding, ie, less bad than Chernobyl
by bo 4/12/2011 1:17:17 AM

@George Gibb en.wikipedia.org
by James Ward edited by George Gibb 4/12/2011 1:17:54 AM

Quote from another forum "A recirc pump seal failure could act like a break in the RPV. Technically, the RPV boundary can be extended to all piping attached. If there are any pipe breaks, fission products can be released from "the RPV" into the primary containment. A busted seal = a RPV system break." PCV=Drywell
by NHK Listener 4/12/2011 1:19:13 AM

@bo The PR has been poor at best - they do not have control of information and its been a month. The one positive aspect from what I've seen was the orderly evacuation to the 20 km radius. They moved a lot of people in a hurry.
by George Gibb 4/12/2011 1:23:59 AM

@George Gibb They are starting to move more as well, did you see that report?
by borrrden 4/12/2011 1:25:09 AM

@borrrden no - but again I think they really don't have a choice - should they have moved them earlier - hard to say.
by George Gibb 4/12/2011 1:26:21 AM