Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 1434

So is it for sure that since the drywell in Unit 1 has up to 300 Sv/hr (deadly dose+100 Sv/hr) that the containment vessel is breached there?
by carabnr 5/29/2011 10:04:04 PM

@carabnr : the rpv ? yes, for sure, and corium in the drywell containment.
by Edano 5/29/2011 10:05:54 PM

I meant deadly dose in 1 hour, and more. SH*** corium in there is very bad, then it can eventually melt further through the thick concrete right.
by carabnr 5/29/2011 10:07:39 PM

@UKVal Maybe I could put out your letter too? Could you send it to me? Is that ok?
by Mona 5/29/2011 10:07:53 PM

@all I have exciting news. I got and interview lined up with Steve Wing on friday. He is and epidemiologist who studied the health effects of the TMI aftermath. Arnie Gunderson already interviewed him on fairwinds. I'm wondering if some of you would be interested in coming up with some interview questions.
by carabnr 5/29/2011 10:11:26 PM

@carabnr : i discussed it with dean, the concrete is not a real hurdle for the corium. it can melt through it in a few hours. see the wikipedia article on "Corium". there is a specific output of radioisotopes, and we saw them in measurings. so, for sure the corium is within the concrete, and probably even out of it again.
by Edano edited by Edano 5/29/2011 10:11:40 PM

@carabnr : i would like to know what they want to do if the corium is out of the reactors and what is beneath the reactors.
by Edano edited by Edano 5/29/2011 10:13:39 PM

@carabnr That is great! Can you give a bit more info on what aspects he studied? That might help come up with questions.
by Nancy 5/29/2011 10:13:48 PM

@Edano Yikes... Then boom when it hits water? @ DK Wolf 200 Sv I though, but I guess it all can cause death.
by carabnr 5/29/2011 10:15:20 PM

@carabnr : we do not know what structures are down there. i guess the real problem is groundwater poisoning with uran and plutonium.
by Edano 5/29/2011 10:16:40 PM

this mess can affect the japanese for generations. a good question for Steve Wing. furthermore, the impacts of the ocean radiation would be interesting.
by Edano 5/29/2011 10:18:00 PM

@ Nancy, He studied the increased cancer. His research was on the increased incidence of cancer in the area around TMI. The people in the area used his research to try to get remuneration for their losses. In his interview with Gunderson, he said that the amount of radioactivity released globally will cause cancer and genetic mutations. Radiation dispersed over a larger area will give the same number of problems in a larger population, but it will be harder to protect your self from.
by carabnr 5/29/2011 10:22:06 PM

@carabnr I would like to know the impact levels on the people in the region, the people in other parts of the island and people in other countries in the disbursement path and how they will differ. I am also really curious what his take on seafood in the pacific such as big food fish and if we should be doing some official testing.
by Nancy 5/29/2011 10:25:29 PM

Can we put the interview on the web page when done as a q & a article?
by Nancy 5/29/2011 10:26:01 PM

@Mona are you the same Mona who emailed me? If so I can email you the letter. Several of us are also putting it on Facebook
by UKVal 5/29/2011 10:26:15 PM

the calculation is 100000 additional cancer deaths by fukushima. this is a darned lot.
by Edano 5/29/2011 10:26:19 PM

@Edano where did the number come from, I have not seen a source yet, would love to have one to back it up.
by Nancy 5/29/2011 10:27:02 PM

@carabnr Congratulations! Have you read the paper Mona posted beow. It rasies lots of qu's about the speed & spread of the evacuation, the accuracy & frequency of the rad readings ...etc
by UKVal 5/29/2011 10:29:03 PM

@Edano isn't that the calculation done by the Chernobly Forum? hang on I'll see if I can find it
by UKVal 5/29/2011 10:31:02 PM

@Nancy @UKVal webcache.googleusercontent.com alexander higgins says 200000 additional cancers.
by Edano 5/29/2011 10:32:36 PM

@ Nancy, need a little break good ideas to all. If someone could pull all the ideas together it would be grgeat. I
by carabnr 5/29/2011 10:32:50 PM

I am just leaving right now, actually going to attempt to venture out of the house.
by Nancy 5/29/2011 10:34:30 PM

www.godlikeproductions.com they all quote alex higgins.
by Edano 5/29/2011 10:36:33 PM

"The ECRR risk model has been applied to the 3 million people living in the 100km radius of the Fukushima catastrophe. Assuming these people remain living there for one year the number of excess cancers predicted by the method is approximately 200,000 in the next 50 years with 100,000 being diagnosed in the next 10 years. If they are evacuated immediately, the number will fall by a significant amount. For those 7 million living between 100km and 200km from the site, the predicted number of cancers is slightly greater with 220,000 extra cancers in the next 50 years and about 100,000 being expressed in the next ten years. These predictions are based on the ECRR risk model and also the findings of cancer risk on Sweden after the Chernobyl accident."
from last link
by Edano 5/29/2011 10:37:25 PM

@Edano I was about tp ost the same -that's Busby's paper -
by UKVal 5/29/2011 10:38:05 PM

ECRR (European Committee on Radiation Risk) forecasts for cancer in Japan after Fukushima: www.llrc.org
by es 5/29/2011 10:38:55 PM

@UKVal Yes that's me. Great, I can put it on fb too. @carabnr that's great! I would like him to answer q about radiation danger for the Japanese and evacuation. Also about the potential if he knows.
by Mona 5/29/2011 10:39:04 PM

trouble is a lot of people think littel of Busby -see wikipedia
by UKVal 5/29/2011 10:39:21 PM

@carabnr see this before you quote him en.wikipedia.org
by UKVal 5/29/2011 10:40:45 PM

@UKVal : i think this is realistic, of course this opinion will be attacked. until today the chernobyl reality is covered up.
by Edano 5/29/2011 10:41:45 PM

@Edano I don't disagree -of course that paper was produced before the eacuation zones were ordered. However I think it important for carabner that that the crux of the argument is not undermined by people wishing to discredit Busby
by UKVal 5/29/2011 10:44:45 PM

The ICRP thought it was perfectly fine to expose children to 20 mSv. In fact, they thought 100 mSv was fine. Their report was the basis for the Japanese government's decision to implement the original limit.
by Bobby1 5/29/2011 10:44:56 PM

@Bobby1 soory - I mentioned the ICRP -red herring...
by UKVal 5/29/2011 10:45:58 PM

apologies for typing again -back to using IE due to PC issues
by UKVal 5/29/2011 10:46:30 PM

I would like to propose some one look into this and see if there is a good angle to use, or if any reference to busby should be made at all.
by carabnr 5/29/2011 10:47:55 PM