ScribbleLive

New cryptome images. No plant images but a photo essay of one of the evacuated towns just outside the plant. cryptome.org

@All I found article that talks about Tepco admitting fuel melt in unit 1 yesterday. NHK never posted it...not surprisingly. mdn.mainichi.jp

Agency admits 'melting' of N-fuel. www.yomiuri.co.jp

Are those big doors on the turbine-ward side?

One thing I've wondered about is the estimate of melted fuel size of " several mm to 1 cm." Found a paper on modeling corium spray/droplets during severe accidents. Maybe "melted fuel" is another term for corium droplets. See below for link -- the text (versus the formulas) may be interesting. SCALING STUDY OF SPREADING OF MOLTEN CORIUM IN MARK.I BOILING WATER REACTORS - text starts on Page 9. www.osti.gov

A THOUGHT: since the EPA has been very slow in their release of sample measurements, given that iodine-131 has a half-life of approx. 8 days, should we be doing backwards calculations to get a more accurate measurement of original potential exposure?

If you believe in the linear model of radioactivity (as I do) there is an increased risk from even low levels. But it is a low level of risk.

Tokyo Electric says radioactive water may possibly be still leaking out through unidentified routes. The firm is trying to determine the routes and to continue monitoring data and grasping the impact of the radioactive water on marine life and the sea.
www3.nhk.or.jp

So 300 years before Chernobyl is safe for people to live there. Who know about Fukushima? It is still releasing radioactive particles today.

Minus the 20 years that have passed. :-)

@all I found these articles on the children of Chernobyl incredibly interesting. Unfortunately a legacy that continues... www.chernobyl-international.org

@Sin we have the old limits in the FAQ if we need them to compare. Odd the paper would delete a newer story like that

Radiation at any level is a silent genetic game-changer.

Found this www.nirs.org which talks about the Dept.Homeland Security radiation limits overriding EPA limits "Historically, EPA has employed cleanup standards that keep resulting risks of
cancer incidence within a range of one in a million (1 x 10-6) to one in ten thousand (1 x
10-4). In non-cleanup settings, it has generally not permitted doses greater than 15
millirem/year.1 It has consistently opposed proposed radiation limits that exceed these
risk and dose ranges. The “benchmark” cleanup recommendations contemplated in the
Department of Homeland Security dirty bomb cleanup guidance, from 100 mrem/year to
10,000 mrem/year, significantly exceed doses and risks EPA considers protective of
public health. "

Good link Sin, I am trying to tell you that you are wrong. But I doubt that I can.

@Ralph Unger Well prove it to me then. I want to be wrong.

Fukushima, you see, is doing to the Pacific Ocean what BP and the Deepwater Horizon did to the Gulf of Mexico last summer. Except that in the case of Fukushima, that radiation doesn't just disappear with the help of millions of gallons of toxic chemicals. Nope, that radiation sticks around for decades.

So what to do? If you're the United States Environment Protection Agency, there's only one option: Declare radiation to be safe!

Yes indeed, friends, we have reached a moment of comedic insanity at the EPA, where those in charge of protecting the environment are hastily rewriting the definition of "radioactive contamination" in order to make sure that whatever fallout reaches the United States falls under the new limits of "safe" radiation.

The EPA maintains a set of so-called "Protective Action Guides" (PAGs). These PAGs are being quickly revised to radically increase the allowable levels of iodine-131 (a radioactive isotope) to anywhere from 3,000 to 100,000 times the currently allowable levels.

The group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is all over this issue, having obtained internal emails from a FOIA requests that reveal some truly shocking revelations of the level of back-stabbing betrayal happening inside the EPA. For example, under the newly-revised PAGs, drinking just one glass of water considered "safe" by the EPA could subject you to the lifetime limit of radiation. (http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.ph...)

"In addition," PEER goes on to say, "it would allow long-term cleanup limits thousands of times more lax than anything EPA has ever before accepted. These new limits would cause a cancer in as much as every fourth person exposed."

These new PAGs would also vastly increase the allowable levels of radiation in soil and food, too. That way, when the radioactive fallout from Fukushima's massive release of raw radioactive water begins to rain down upon the West Coast, the EPA can officially announce that all the radiation is "below accepted limits." That's very comforting to many people, you see.

And why is it below the limits? Because the EPA just raised the limits by as much as 100,000 times!

Quack science is alive and well as the government
Truly, this is science at its most delightful. When the facts don't fit your fairy tale, simply rewrite the fairy tale to discard the facts! That's science for you today, folks: There's nothing that can't be denied, censored, oppressed or ignored if you just fudge the numbers with enough determination and arrogance.

The U.S. government does the exact same thing with vitamin D, of course. By lowering the definition of vitamin D deficiency to mean only those with a blood level below 30, the government magically and instantly transforms a wildly deficient American population into a "sufficiently nourished" population! It's magic, friends. Magic with numbers.

But even the EPA's sleight-of-hand magic isn't fooling very many people this time around. Even the most TV-obsessed, CNN-watching news zombie has by now figured out that too much radiation is bad for you. After all, the media has been screaming at people about the dangers of sunlight radiation for years, insisting that the mere act of sunlight touching your skin could kill you from skin cancer.

Learn more: www.naturalnews.com
Thanks Nancy

@Nancy You have the link to the EPA's previous limits?

EPA revised the levels of:
Sr-90 by +1,000%
I-131 by +3,000% to +100,000%
Ni-63 by +25,000%