Japan Earthquake | Page 932
fissing and hissing and being just plain ugly, Edanoby marie rich 5/2/2011 12:21:36 AM
OK thanks , I need no translations , but many people here do.by Ralph Unger 5/2/2011 12:22:07 AM- I am happy to pursue this when needed, it might take me a day or two to get a version reposted thoughby bo 5/2/2011 12:22:39 AM
- Thank you for the help.by Ralph Unger 5/2/2011 12:23:12 AM
@bo I have started watching the japanese feeds so it will be great knowing I can get a real translation tyby elainekirk 5/2/2011 12:23:59 AM- I keep meaning to go over data and correlate it with EQ's in a meaningful way,but...been focusing on #1, trying to 'get' what's happening withit. Other project is finding obscure rad. monitoring sites and related packet info. Just emailed a ton to Jim Carver- he's gonna hate me. ;-)by marie rich 5/2/2011 12:24:11 AM
@bo san, i have a question always on my mind concerning hieroshima. do you have a higher background radiation due to the bomb or hot spots or anything left there ?by Edano 5/2/2011 12:24:13 AM- Ed atmc.jpby Ralph Unger 5/2/2011 12:25:07 AM
- @Edano we are told that we don't. The US occupation forces removed a lot of top soil and put new soil down. Also, five weeks after the bombing Hiroshima was hit by the its largest typhoon of the century which undoubtedly flushed a lot out into the Seto Sea. But I do have some friends up at the RERF (Radiation Effects Research Foundation, former ABCC) and I will ask them and give you a more informative answer laterby bo 5/2/2011 12:26:18 AM
- @Edano I also do have a very sensitive radiation monitor, so if you can let me know what is normal background, I may be able to produce the reading when I calibrate the background hereby bo 5/2/2011 12:27:41 AM
- @bo That is wonderful. I/we fear rad monitoring sites might end up shut down if things get too ugly. It would be good if we can tap into that if the need arises.by marie rich 5/2/2011 12:29:14 AM
So they are sending workers in, have no clue about the rad rate behind the containment door. Do they have any accurate water level readings for containment. This sounds incredibly dangerous.by Nancy 5/2/2011 12:29:32 AM- For Tokyo readings www.denphone.comby Ralph Unger 5/2/2011 12:29:53 AM
- @Edano well I am about 500 miles from the plants, but can produce readings whenever needed, including readings specific to individual radionuclidesby bo 5/2/2011 12:30:06 AM
- @Nancy They do not know the water levels for sure. The workers are supposed to install those as wellby marie rich 5/2/2011 12:30:26 AM
For those interested, the Forum from Debra is restored :-)
www.tsunamioftears.comby Veen Oui 5/2/2011 12:31:08 AM- Off to take some readings outside of the house, be back soonby bo 5/2/2011 12:32:11 AM
- @bo : so, hieroshima has about 0,050 μSv/h background radiation. not much. fukushima is now 1,7 μSv/h.by Edano 5/2/2011 12:32:33 AM
@marie rich For a quick check, I still have the google spreadsheet linked to the USGS database. It still goes back to the April 2: spreadsheets.google.comby radioguy 5/2/2011 12:33:11 AM- @radioguy oooh, life just got easier. TY, radioguy!by marie rich 5/2/2011 12:34:04 AM
- Is that the right link. if not, here's the sdhared link: spreadsheets.google.comby radioguy 5/2/2011 12:34:47 AM
- @radioguy I just emailed both links to myself, thanksby marie rich 5/2/2011 12:35:42 AM
- @marie rich Work from the older end forward. The older stuff can be looked up still, but the running importable database ends 30 days back.by radioguy 5/2/2011 12:36:00 AM
- What caused the Nevada quakes I wonder? "Hundreds of small earthquakes hit California-Nevada border, including magnitude 4.6" latimesblogs.latimes.comby Ralph Unger 5/2/2011 12:36:14 AM
- @Edano reading gamma just now I got as high as .7 μSv/h at some drain pipes, and readings from .1 to .3 in general, not reading for alphaby bo 5/2/2011 12:36:25 AM
- @radioguy roger, okby marie rich 5/2/2011 12:36:33 AM
- @Ralph Unger Running question. There have been an inordinate number of them.by radioguy 5/2/2011 12:37:19 AM
- oops, I mean uSv/hby bo 5/2/2011 12:37:40 AM
- @bo : not 0.07 ?by Edano 5/2/2011 12:39:13 AM
- @Edano nope, .7by bo 5/2/2011 12:40:18 AM
- seems 10 times too high.... not dangerous though ;)by Edano 5/2/2011 12:41:30 AM
- another day in Japanby bo 5/2/2011 12:41:48 AM
- and you are 500 miles sout h? @boby elainekirk 5/2/2011 12:42:18 AM
- @elainekirk a little more, south and westby bo 5/2/2011 12:43:32 AM
- and the winds almost never blow this way from Fukushima unless there is a stormby bo 5/2/2011 12:45:36 AM
@Edano Not dangerous , but over 200 times normal background for Japan.by Jim Carver 5/2/2011 12:46:09 AM- Is that not 6 Msv per year? That is above what pregnant women should be exposed to.by Ralph Unger 5/2/2011 12:49:11 AM
- "Worker found overexposed to radiation" search.japantimes.co.jpby Ralph Unger 5/2/2011 12:50:40 AM
- Tap tap, is this thing on? Hello?by Ralph Unger 5/2/2011 12:56:09 AM
- When reading for Pu239 I am getting trace readings as well. The highest were read of of plants and registered 1.10 Bq/cmby bo 5/2/2011 12:57:53 AM
- Plants? Most of that should be from the old atomic events. They would not be on plants though.by Ralph Unger 5/2/2011 1:00:14 AM
- @bo @Jim Carver HELLOby fitter 5/2/2011 1:01:01 AM
- Readings off of rain spouts were more like .4, but it definitely went up when I read plants, hi @fitterby bo 5/2/2011 1:01:34 AM
- @Jim Carver were havr you been hidingby fitter 5/2/2011 1:01:36 AM
- @fitter Hi, waiting for dinner!by Jim Carver 5/2/2011 1:02:11 AM
Japan Earthquake | Page 932
- Who's Blogging
-
hudebnik
alblee
UKVal
Jonathan Keebler
Oliver (ScribbleLive)
kaykodh
Markfm
Angie
Mid Valley
Matt (ScribbleLive)
George Gibb- elainekirk
PKelley
lillymunster
dean
bo
Edano
Deb- Pedro Jesus
IanGoddard