ScribbleLive

@Ian people in chiba said from the start that they had been polluted by radiation but they were told it wasnt possible

the high radiation meti have said is concentrated rainfall and not the old army base which is a giant step forward in truthfulness www.47news.jp

@Edano I have got info from rockhopper that links all these companies together but it is the translated expanation I am trying to make sense of it

:~?

@Edano there is the link they found with ryan translate.google.co.uk

@Edano does this help translate.google.co.uk

@Edano oh I am totally fuddled now

greetings to all

@ elaine.. nothing like getting on all those boards and radiation committee's and have a product to sell

@ elaine.. where did lilly post those potos she made up from the video on entry to unit #1?

@elaine.. I am emailing that professor who presented at the rise and shine breakfast. He gave a summary of post fukushima and was heading to japan the next morning. I am going to try to establish a good connection with him and hopefully get him to engage some of the big questions remaining from the core standpoint or any other nuclear related issue. I have told him about our simplyinfo and want to know his thoughts..

@dean houseoffoust.com

@Peter morning peter

Thank you for emailing, I trust your trip went well and hopefully informative. I have been busy supporting the web site and doing research into various post nuclear accident areas. One such area is the behavior of the Coriums following melt down with respect to continued earthquakes which, when they occur, have each changed the radiation levels with in the plant suggesting a relocation or breakup of the mass. Other recent activities have been to look in detail and the entry into the #1 plant to identify components, gauge indication, damage mapped to critical components or systems, failure of structural components etc. Our group has also been tracking the events at the US facilities such as North Anna, Palisades and other reactors who have recently experienced damage from flooding and earthquakes. Some of the people in the group live close to these facilities and are able to gain information from which we all review. I look forward to staying connected and would be very interested to get an update of your perspective on Fukushima after having visited recently.

@Peter From what I understand, the commissioner is an appointed position much the same as a cabinet member like the Department of Energy. It's the second leg of the split up of the old Atomic Energy Commision (AEC) which was split into the Department of Energy and the NRC.

@elaine, I want to try to get the nuclear engineering department to take on some projects that we come up with, those that we've been wondering about and hope to get some ideas together to present, I think it would be a good exercise for the students to examine severe accidents. Like letting the severe accident codes run longer and try to account for EQ affects on a corium mass. Peter, Edano, you, lilly and others have great ideas for things we'd like to know

The United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was an agency of the United States government established after World War II by Congress to foster and control the peace time development of atomic science and technology. President Harry S. Truman signed the McMahon/Atomic Energy Act on August 1, 1946, transferring the control of atomic energy from military to civilian hands, effective from January 1, 1947.

An increasing number of critics during the 1960s charged that the AEC's regulations were insufficiently rigorous in several important areas, including radiation protection standards, nuclear reactor safety, plant siting, and environmental protection. By 1974, the AEC's regulatory programs had come under such strong attack that Congress decided to abolish the agency. The agency was abolished by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, which assigned its functions to two new agencies: the Energy Research and Development Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Atomic_Energy_Commission

@ elaine, yes I would like to see if you and lilly would take on capturing some questions as a collective for us to prioritize and then put forward for them to look at

@ Peter, indeed "political" and as such, feel the pressures of the president and congress for direction and regulation. I think it's somewhat lop sided and lets the commissioner wear multiple hats,, one for promoting nuclear when the administration wants to, the other for being in charge of reviewing all the many many volumes of documentation for new reactors then stamping their approval to operate and, finally the other for regulating and enforcing/enacting fines