Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 916

It's a good sponge and a great fire retardant, but it doesn't stick together in a flood! LOL
by marie rich 5/1/2011 12:33:27 AM

Nite elaine!
by Nancy 5/1/2011 12:35:51 AM

I sent www.mext.go.jp to some professors and they questioned my data, they told me that with the levels they saw in the report, there is no way that the uSv levels could be so high or so low.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 12:37:32 AM

Given the levels of I-131 and I-137.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 12:38:48 AM

@Ralph Unger Ha, they're not the only ones wondering about data...
by marie rich 5/1/2011 12:38:51 AM

Cs-137 I meant...
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 12:39:12 AM

Can you explain the differences?
by marie rich 5/1/2011 12:39:14 AM

I have no clue, I did send the data to Fairwinds a few days ago, I hope they can figure it out. I got a reply from a guy from University of Ulster. I cannot post it I think without his permission.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 12:43:10 AM

@Ralph Unger as in they combinations and fluctuations don't come out logically?
by Nancy 5/1/2011 12:43:14 AM

From tyhe guy who I will not link , "A brief examination will show radioactivity concentration in the dust at Bq/m3 which bears no relation to the overall area contamination. The dose rates are the true indicator of the contamination.,Example: We see 45km NWest of the site 4Bq/m3 in dust from Iodine and 1.2 from Cs137. Yet the external dose rate is 5.5uSv/h. !!!

For Cs137 the infinite flat plane equations ( HRP 1971, EPA FGR12 Part 2) gives 300kBq/m2 per 1.0 uSv/h dose rate. For I-131 it is almost twice this. Therefore the surface contamination at this point is 1.65MBq/m2, yet the dust shows 4.0Bq/m3. If this is dust from a 1mm scrape and there was nothing contaminated under it it would be about 0.004Bq/m2 rather than the actual value of 1,650,000Bq/m2
Ridiculous and certainly a lie "
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 12:45:03 AM

@Ralph Unger You need to keep talking to that guy. This kind of thing needs to get pointed out.
by Nancy 5/1/2011 12:46:36 AM

Gunderson is on that story, so it will be public soon.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 12:46:49 AM

Unless I am wrong and he is wrong, mistakes are made and review is needed.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 12:47:44 AM

@Marie High Jim as well, It depends on the locations, the numbers do not match up.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 12:52:39 AM

@Ralph Unger @marie rich Helen Calidcott says Canada
makes two things: wheat and Uranium, life and death.
by Jim Carver 5/1/2011 12:53:24 AM

caldicott
by Jim Carver 5/1/2011 12:54:15 AM

Ya got a certain amount of radioactive stuff, it emits a certain amount of radioactivity,But the numbers do not match up, this is normal, but not in the range of the data I have seen.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 12:55:28 AM

Do you think you could get the guy on-site to give us a tutorial? He can remain anonymous.
by marie rich 5/1/2011 12:56:38 AM

@marie rich Sounds like an idea use of Jim's new chat tool. Our newspaper uses the same program to run on air interviews with people.
by Nancy 5/1/2011 12:57:47 AM

Speaking of Caldicott:
Unsafe at Any Dose
By HELEN CALDICOTT
For many years now, physicists employed by the nuclear industry have been outperforming doctors, at least in politics and the news media. Since the Manhattan Project in the 1940s, physicists have had easy access to Congress. They had harnessed the energy inside the center of the sun, and later physicists, whether lobbying for nuclear weapons or nuclear energy, had the same power. They walk into Congress and Congress virtually prostrates itself. Their technological advancements are there for all to see; the harm will become apparent only decades later.

Doctors, by contrast, have fewer dates with Congress, and much less access on nuclear issues. We don’t typically go around discussing the latent period of carcinogenesis and the amazing advances made in understanding radiobiology. But as a result, we do an inadequate job of explaining the long-term dangers of radiation to policymakers and the public.
www.nytimes.com
by Rob in SF 5/1/2011 12:58:18 AM

I focus on Cs-137 though which is not very active over a short time, it is a long term hazard. I-131 is a very short lived thing, but it can cause as much damage as Cs-137, it just takes 8 days to do the damage that Cs 137 takes 130 years to do.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 12:58:53 AM

@Ralph Unger I read it would be about 600 for Chernobyl and fukushima probably worse according to Caldicott.
by Jim Carver 5/1/2011 1:03:12 AM

Do you play roulette? Cs137 is the low bet and I-131 is the sure bet, either way you are playing.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 1:04:49 AM

@Jim Carver "I've been out looking for people to come on."

I keep working on 公安調査庁, by saying, "Hi, 公安調査庁"... But I think they're already here.
by Rob in SF 5/1/2011 1:08:34 AM

BTW, I've got an email out to a person who is very expert in SPF's. Hope that I'll get some answers on the pic of unit 4.
by marie rich 5/1/2011 1:09:50 AM

@Ralph Unger True, that's a good way to put it. The individual gets a better shake than they used to though. @Rob does that say TapeCo?
by Jim Carver 5/1/2011 1:09:59 AM

@Ralph Unger I tried that mext link and it says it's in english, but that ain't my english. Is there a link to the specific data (in english) that you are questioning?
by RBeaner 5/1/2011 1:10:50 AM

公安調査庁 = www.moj.go.jp/KOUAN/
by Rob in SF 5/1/2011 1:12:44 AM

www.mext.go.jp I*s taht not in English? Pls reply.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 1:13:20 AM

@Ralph Unger says it requires japonese fonts and looks like sanscrit:) Maybe I'm being blocked because of my close relationship with The Nancy:)
by RBeaner 5/1/2011 1:16:01 AM

Mext link comes up english for me
by marie rich 5/1/2011 1:17:31 AM

I got translation blurb about it. The document is in in English the headers are in Japanese.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 1:17:34 AM

@Rob in SF I was think ing the same ..and the secret service rolled into one.
by Jim Carver 5/1/2011 1:17:55 AM

Try Ignore and read it...
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 1:18:28 AM

www.gifs-paradise.com
公安調査庁
by Rob in SF via Gifs-paradise 5/1/2011 1:18:46 AM

@Ralph Unger @Ralph Unger Oh That worked, i loaded some japonese adobe hack! TY. On quick look, might those radioactivity levels be in cm^3 (cubic centimeters) and not Cubic Meters. factor difference of 1 million
by RBeaner 5/1/2011 1:20:59 AM

LOL RB ya got it in 1!.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 1:21:38 AM

@Ralph Unger There was data issue before wher mm of water column were being reported as a radiation level instead of water level in #4 reactor
by RBeaner 5/1/2011 1:23:13 AM

If it is not in English, much of the data is wrong though. That is why I use this link, www.nisa.meti.go.jp
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 1:24:15 AM

@ all Iwas reading some of the pdf's posted a few pages back and was wondering- Is it normal for the fuel to be leaking in the SFP? And shouldnt the ones leaking be removed
/
by ch 5/1/2011 1:24:51 AM

Look at www.fairewinds.com for that data it is wrong though, but it does raise questions.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 1:25:33 AM

It is the pool that is leaking not the fuel rods though a leaking pool can cause the fuel to leak radioactivity as it is exposed and maybe explode.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 1:28:38 AM

back from dinner
by dean 5/1/2011 1:32:48 AM

There are only two numbers that matter to me. www.tepco.co.jp atmc.jp
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 1:33:51 AM

One way that authorities rationalize living with high-risk technologies is by fostering faith in automatic safety systems and redundant backup systems that are in place to prevent catastrophes. In the unlikely event of a failure in a primary system, these backups and fail-safe components are supposed to take over and save the day. Or so the story goes.

However, as the unfolding situation in Japan has once again shown, our trust in safety and backup systems is naïve, at best. These recent nuclear accidents – the most publicized being the explosions and radiation leaks at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant – show that systems don’t always operate as intended, and that safety systems sometimes have the ironic effect of enabling or worsening dangerous situations. Since people are regularly coerced into betting their lives on the fact that technological systems will function as designed, it is important to investigate instances when these safeguards have failed.
www.themarknews.com
by Rob in SF 5/1/2011 1:34:12 AM