Meltdown in Japan's Reactors (2 Viewers)

[renesauz]

3MI caused very little in the way of deaths, and virtually zero environmental problems.

 

[renesauz]

I haven't followed up on this but I was deeply concerned reading about Japanese folks migrating to a nearby town only 8km from the site. It is my hope that everyone has at least moved to the 20km distance by now but I do not know if they have.

That concerned me a little a few days ago...not now.

 

[Biabreakable]

I haven't followed up on this but I was deeply concerned reading about Japanese folks migrating to a nearby town only 8km from the site. It is my hope that everyone has at least moved to the 20km distance by now but I do not know if they have.

That concerned me a little a few days ago...not now.

Yes this was a couple days ago I am referring to. I hope everyone has moved to a safer distance by now but I don't know if they have.

 

[Topes]

2. The number of people killed/injured by this nuclear disaster will be extremely small compared to the numbers lost in the Earthquake/tsunami.

The number of people killed in the Bronx bus crash last week was extremely small compared to the numbers lost on 9/11.

 

[Topes]

Looks like we turned a potential Chernobyl into a mere Three Mile Island.

Bah, I'll just pay for the blasted liposuction!

 

[Biabreakable]

I agree that the situation is being sensationalized by our media but your overcompensating for that amounts to the same level of misinformation on the other end of the spectrum. Safe distances may be greater than is actually needed but better safe than sorry when it comes to this. That is why the Navy has moved to a distance that you seem to think is unwarranted. But your not there and your not seeing what they are seeing. Rescue efforts may be delayed somewhat because of this but the precautions are warranted nonetheless.The relative loss of life in comparison to the tsunami is not really relevant when the goal is to prevent further loss of life and long term effects of exposure to radiation.

Renesauz and a couple of other knowledgeable posters have lent infinitely more to my understanding of this crisis than all of the fear mongering and MM hysteria combined. And it has been far more useful and helpful for appraising my family's personal safety. Therefore, I have GREATLY appreciated their contributions here, which have not been "the same level of misinformation", as news outlets that strive to find cataclysm even when experts tell them point blank the human and environmental cost of this disaster are not going to be as monumental as they seemingly want to hear.If you have some factual point you wish to dispute, then by all means dispute it; but please don't come in here and insinuate that the most knowledgable FBGs on the situation are not trustworthy and are hacks who are pushing some nuclear conspiratorial cover-up and accuse them of being the equivalent of the talking heads who have repeatedly demonstrated their ignorance of the situation and drummed up irrational fears. When you call them out and characterize them as such it actually only destroys YOUR credibility and the willingness of others to carefully weigh your opinions - not theirs...

Hey I don't really care what people think of my opinions on this I am far from an expert on nuclear power. And no I don't think that what he or beuno have said on it is as bad as the press. I was just trying to make a point. I get tired of reading post after post minimizing the possible dangers of the situation which are very real and serious. I hold scientists to a higher standard than people in the media. So when they make baseless assumptions it bothers me a lot more.

 

[bueno]

I agree that the situation is being sensationalized by our media but your overcompensating for that amounts to the same level of misinformation on the other end of the spectrum. Safe distances may be greater than is actually needed but better safe than sorry when it comes to this. That is why the Navy has moved to a distance that you seem to think is unwarranted. But your not there and your not seeing what they are seeing. Rescue efforts may be delayed somewhat because of this but the precautions are warranted nonetheless.The relative loss of life in comparison to the tsunami is not really relevant when the goal is to prevent further loss of life and long term effects of exposure to radiation.

Renesauz and a couple of other knowledgeable posters have lent infinitely more to my understanding of this crisis than all of the fear mongering and MM hysteria combined. And it has been far more useful and helpful for appraising my family's personal safety. Therefore, I have GREATLY appreciated their contributions here, which have not been "the same level of misinformation", as news outlets that strive to find cataclysm even when experts tell them point blank the human and environmental cost of this disaster are not going to be as monumental as they seemingly want to hear.If you have some factual point you wish to dispute, then by all means dispute it; but please don't come in here and insinuate that the most knowledgable FBGs on the situation are not trustworthy and are hacks who are pushing some nuclear conspiratorial cover-up and accuse them of being the equivalent of the talking heads who have repeatedly demonstrated their ignorance of the situation and drummed up irrational fears. When you call them out and characterize them as such it actually only destroys YOUR credibility and the willingness of others to carefully weigh your opinions - not theirs...

Hey I don't really care what people think of my opinions on this I am far from an expert on nuclear power. And no I don't think that what he or beuno have said on it is as bad as the press. I was just trying to make a point. I get tired of reading post after post minimizing the possible dangers of the situation which are very real and serious. I hold scientists to a higher standard than people in the media. So when they make baseless assumptions it bothers me a lot more.

I just watched a segment on FOX where they said that radiation has reached California, but it is a billion times lower than what we should be concerned about. The audio was accompanied by video of people in hazmat suits, implying it is a big deal.So if I say it is nothing, I am making baseless assumptions? Right.

 

[Topes]

 

[Sinn Fein]

I just watched a segment on FOX where they said that radiation has reached California, but it is a billion times lower than what we should be concerned about. The audio was accompanied by video of people in hazmat suits, implying it is a big deal.So if I say it is nothing, I am making baseless assumptions? Right.

Well, to be fair, if it was a billion times higher, I would be worried.Is it ok to be outside when the radiation levels are the equivalent of a chest x-ray? (Not suggesting the radiation levels are that high, just asking the question).

 

[Biabreakable]

Ok serious question as I am trying to figure out what is the actual radiation exposure to people in Japan.I am seeing readings of 250 miliserverts/hour are being detected above the site.I came across this article that talks about the levels decreasing over distance:

Moving away from the immediate vicinity of the plant, radiation levels drop very rapidly. James Thrall, radiologist-in-chief at Massachusetts General Hospital, says that radiation levels are inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source: The level at two miles from the source are one-quarter what they are at one mile, and "at 10 miles away, it's almost an infinitesimal fraction," he says. Individual exposure also varies widely depending on whether a person is outside or indoors, or shielded with protective clothing. Japanese authorities have evacuated the population living within a 20-kilometer radius of the plant, and have warned those living within 30 kilometers to stay indoors. Some experts say that people living beyond this range have no cause for concern at this time. "This has nothing to do with the general population," McBride says.

http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/35128/page2/So my question, is there a reliable formula to find out the radiation levels based on distance from a radiation source?

 

[Incogneto]

You know its bad when Bill O'Rielly is the voice of reason.

 

[Fennis]

Did O'Reilly make Ann Coulter the pinhead of the month?

 

[Biabreakable]

I agree that the situation is being sensationalized by our media but your overcompensating for that amounts to the same level of misinformation on the other end of the spectrum. Safe distances may be greater than is actually needed but better safe than sorry when it comes to this. That is why the Navy has moved to a distance that you seem to think is unwarranted. But your not there and your not seeing what they are seeing. Rescue efforts may be delayed somewhat because of this but the precautions are warranted nonetheless.The relative loss of life in comparison to the tsunami is not really relevant when the goal is to prevent further loss of life and long term effects of exposure to radiation.

Renesauz and a couple of other knowledgeable posters have lent infinitely more to my understanding of this crisis than all of the fear mongering and MM hysteria combined. And it has been far more useful and helpful for appraising my family's personal safety. Therefore, I have GREATLY appreciated their contributions here, which have not been "the same level of misinformation", as news outlets that strive to find cataclysm even when experts tell them point blank the human and environmental cost of this disaster are not going to be as monumental as they seemingly want to hear.If you have some factual point you wish to dispute, then by all means dispute it; but please don't come in here and insinuate that the most knowledgable FBGs on the situation are not trustworthy and are hacks who are pushing some nuclear conspiratorial cover-up and accuse them of being the equivalent of the talking heads who have repeatedly demonstrated their ignorance of the situation and drummed up irrational fears. When you call them out and characterize them as such it actually only destroys YOUR credibility and the willingness of others to carefully weigh your opinions - not theirs...

Hey I don't really care what people think of my opinions on this I am far from an expert on nuclear power. And no I don't think that what he or beuno have said on it is as bad as the press. I was just trying to make a point. I get tired of reading post after post minimizing the possible dangers of the situation which are very real and serious. I hold scientists to a higher standard than people in the media. So when they make baseless assumptions it bothers me a lot more.

I just watched a segment on FOX where they said that radiation has reached California, but it is a billion times lower than what we should be concerned about. The audio was accompanied by video of people in hazmat suits, implying it is a big deal.So if I say it is nothing, I am making baseless assumptions? Right.

Not taking something from Fox news seriously seems like common sense to me.

 

[geoff8695]

Renesauz and a couple of other knowledgeable posters have lent infinitely more to my understanding of this crisis than all of the fear mongering and MM hysteria combined. And it has been far more useful and helpful for appraising my family's personal safety. Therefore, I have GREATLY appreciated their contributions here, which have not been "the same level of misinformation", as news outlets that strive to find cataclysm even when experts tell them point blank the human and environmental cost of this disaster are not going to be as monumental as they seemingly want to hear.

If you have some factual point you wish to dispute, then by all means dispute it; but please don't come in here and insinuate that the most knowledgable FBGs on the situation are not trustworthy and are hacks who are pushing some nuclear conspiratorial cover-up and accuse them of being the equivalent of the talking heads who have repeatedly demonstrated their ignorance of the situation and drummed up irrational fears. When you call them out and characterize them as such it actually only destroys YOUR credibility and the willingness of others to carefully weigh your opinions - not theirs...

Hey I don't really care what people think of my opinions on this I am far from an expert on nuclear power. And no I don't think that what he or beuno have said on it is as bad as the press. I was just trying to make a point. I get tired of reading post after post minimizing the possible dangers of the situation which are very real and serious. I hold scientists to a higher standard than people in the media. So when they make baseless assumptions it bothers me a lot more.

Oh I see... You're not an expert so you can say whatever the hell you want, including painting others as not being honest or credible because they don't agree with your self admittedly ignorant premise when it comes to nuclear power and this situation. And you were just trying to "make a point", becuase this thread is over populated by posts that don't hype the "possible dangers" enough to suit you and your uneducated position. Riiiiight...

Your denial of this being a serious situation doesn't make sense. If it was so easy to fix then why has everyone been struggling to fix it for over a week now and counting?

ETA- Your denials are biased and that outweighs your knowledge of the situation so much that I cannot believe anything you say. The nuclear industry is full of people like you who will seek to minimize these crisis situations and their real long term impacts. That is a disservice to humanity.

If you want to discuss the politics of this that is fine but I am of the opinion that such discussions should wait until the crisis is averted. We are not at that point yet.

No shortage of "baseless assumptions" here...Let's 'be real'. It seems to me that you are the one taking an idealogical/political position and that you clearly have an anti-nuclear power axe to grind. If you want to discuss/debate facts surrounding the crisis, I welcome such contributions. If you just want to do the very things your accusing others of doing here, then be prepared to be called out on it. This is too big of a crisis with too much at stake to be trivialized into just another ignorant political/ideological crapfest that is par for the course all too often in the FFA.

Please leave behind your whole 'nuclear power and/or those who manage it are the devil incarnate' rhetoric and hyperbole such as, condemning the entire nuclear industry as being "full of people" who are being less than knowledgeable and truthful about the very serious and real dangers that apparently no one else is talking about. Otherwise go start another thread where you can get your rocks off. Let's agree to let this thread be a place for sharing knowledge and updates and avoid telling people that are actually contributing and doing the heavy lifting in here that they are not credible and untrustworthy, just because they're not telling you what you want to hear.

 

[eoMMan]

http://goozex.com/community/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Discussions.Components.Files/30/4721.Misc_2D00_OhSnap.jpg

 

[Biabreakable]

Renesauz and a couple of other knowledgeable posters have lent infinitely more to my understanding of this crisis than all of the fear mongering and MM hysteria combined. And it has been far more useful and helpful for appraising my family's personal safety. Therefore, I have GREATLY appreciated their contributions here, which have not been "the same level of misinformation", as news outlets that strive to find cataclysm even when experts tell them point blank the human and environmental cost of this disaster are not going to be as monumental as they seemingly want to hear.

If you have some factual point you wish to dispute, then by all means dispute it; but please don't come in here and insinuate that the most knowledgable FBGs on the situation are not trustworthy and are hacks who are pushing some nuclear conspiratorial cover-up and accuse them of being the equivalent of the talking heads who have repeatedly demonstrated their ignorance of the situation and drummed up irrational fears. When you call them out and characterize them as such it actually only destroys YOUR credibility and the willingness of others to carefully weigh your opinions - not theirs...

Hey I don't really care what people think of my opinions on this I am far from an expert on nuclear power. And no I don't think that what he or beuno have said on it is as bad as the press. I was just trying to make a point. I get tired of reading post after post minimizing the possible dangers of the situation which are very real and serious. I hold scientists to a higher standard than people in the media. So when they make baseless assumptions it bothers me a lot more.

Oh I see... You're not an expert so you can say whatever the hell you want, including painting others as not being honest or credible because they don't agree with your self admittedly ignorant premise when it comes to nuclear power and this situation. And you were just trying to "make a point", becuase this thread is over populated by posts that don't hype the "possible dangers" enough to suit you and your uneducated position. Riiiiight...

Your denial of this being a serious situation doesn't make sense. If it was so easy to fix then why has everyone been struggling to fix it for over a week now and counting?

ETA- Your denials are biased and that outweighs your knowledge of the situation so much that I cannot believe anything you say. The nuclear industry is full of people like you who will seek to minimize these crisis situations and their real long term impacts. That is a disservice to humanity.

If you want to discuss the politics of this that is fine but I am of the opinion that such discussions should wait until the crisis is averted. We are not at that point yet.

No shortage of "baseless assumptions" here...Let's 'be real'. It seems to me that you are the one taking an idealogical/political position and that you clearly have an anti-nuclear power axe to grind. If you want to discuss/debate facts surrounding the crisis, I welcome such contributions. If you just want to do the very things your accusing others of doing here, then be prepared to be called out on it. This is too big of a crisis with too much at stake to be trivialized into just another ignorant political/ideological crapfest that is par for the course all too often in the FFA.

Please leave behind your whole 'nuclear power and/or those who manage it are the devil incarnate' rhetoric and hyperbole such as, condemning the entire nuclear industry as being "full of people" who are being less than knowledgeable and truthful about the very serious and real dangers that apparently no one else is talking about. Otherwise go start another thread where you can get your rocks off. Let's agree to let this thread be a place for sharing knowledge and updates and avoid telling people that are actually contributing and doing the heavy lifting in here that they are not credible and untrustworthy, just because they're not telling you what you want to hear.

Its not just them. You got people calling miliserverts microserverts until Japanese scientists confirm they did indeed mean miliserverts.I have friends in Japan. I am deeply worried about the long term consequences of this. They deserve to be told the truth even if that is inconvenient or doesn't forward their world view.

 

[bueno]

I just watched a segment on FOX where they said that radiation has reached California, but it is a billion times lower than what we should be concerned about. The audio was accompanied by video of people in hazmat suits, implying it is a big deal.So if I say it is nothing, I am making baseless assumptions? Right.

Well, to be fair, if it was a billion times higher, I would be worried.Is it ok to be outside when the radiation levels are the equivalent of a chest x-ray? (Not suggesting the radiation levels are that high, just asking the question).

The answer is that it won't harm do to get a dose many times less than an x-ray over the period of a day. If that were the radiation levels, I wouldn't worry about being outside. The radiation levels hitting California right now are many times less than I get flying to Mexico City from Spokane, a trip I make about 6 times a year, and no, I don't worry about it.Is it okay for the government to advise you to stay inside when it is that high?

 

[bueno]

Ok serious question as I am trying to figure out what is the actual radiation exposure to people in Japan.

I am seeing readings of 250 miliserverts/hour are being detected above the site.

I came across this article that talks about the levels decreasing over distance:

Moving away from the immediate vicinity of the plant, radiation levels drop very rapidly. James Thrall, radiologist-in-chief at Massachusetts General Hospital, says that radiation levels are inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source: The level at two miles from the source are one-quarter what they are at one mile, and "at 10 miles away, it's almost an infinitesimal fraction," he says. Individual exposure also varies widely depending on whether a person is outside or indoors, or shielded with protective clothing. Japanese authorities have evacuated the population living within a 20-kilometer radius of the plant, and have warned those living within 30 kilometers to stay indoors. Some experts say that people living beyond this range have no cause for concern at this time. "This has nothing to do with the general population," McBride says.

http://www.technolog...ne/35128/page2/So my question, is there a reliable formula to find out the radiation levels based on distance from a radiation source?

decreases in [proportion to the square of the distance.

 

[geoff8695]

Its not just them. You got people calling miliserverts microserverts until Japanese scientists confirm they did indeed mean miliserverts.I have friends in Japan. I am deeply worried about the long term consequences of this. They deserve to be told the truth even if that is inconvenient or doesn't forward their world view.

I am very concerned and daily praying for the people in Japan, and I hope that your friends are safe and well and that Japan will be able to somehow rebound from the devastation that has crippled their country in the last week. I also agree wholeheartedly in the need for truth to be dispensed and not lies or deceptions, whether I like the truth or not once I hear it. It's perfectly reasonable and legitimate to be critical and to ask who/what is responsible for the seemingly inconsistent facts coming from the electrical company in Tokyo and/or the Japanese government. The Japanese themselves are reported to be doing so.However, it's not right to demonize a group of people or an entire industry as some kind of global conspiracy just because of the lack of accurate information coming out of Japan. I too am very disappointed in the conflicting and slower than molasses flow of information, and that's why I am leaning heavily upon sources outside of Japan to help bridge and fill in the gaps; since I don't fully trust the sources coming out of Japan. It definitely feels like there is at least an over cautious filtering (best case)of info. or perhaps even outright deception (worst case) from official sources in Japan. And it's indeed frustrating!Some of the more knowledgable posters in this thread have helped alleviate that frustration and read between the lines for us. I can't thank them enough for doing so. Otherwise maybe I'ld be reduced to fearing the worst, hoarding supplies and stocking up on iodide and making little tin foil hats for me and my kids.

 

[bueno]

I agree that the situation is being sensationalized by our media but your overcompensating for that amounts to the same level of misinformation on the other end of the spectrum. Safe distances may be greater than is actually needed but better safe than sorry when it comes to this. That is why the Navy has moved to a distance that you seem to think is unwarranted. But your not there and your not seeing what they are seeing. Rescue efforts may be delayed somewhat because of this but the precautions are warranted nonetheless.The relative loss of life in comparison to the tsunami is not really relevant when the goal is to prevent further loss of life and long term effects of exposure to radiation.

Renesauz and a couple of other knowledgeable posters have lent infinitely more to my understanding of this crisis than all of the fear mongering and MM hysteria combined. And it has been far more useful and helpful for appraising my family's personal safety. Therefore, I have GREATLY appreciated their contributions here, which have not been "the same level of misinformation", as news outlets that strive to find cataclysm even when experts tell them point blank the human and environmental cost of this disaster are not going to be as monumental as they seemingly want to hear.If you have some factual point you wish to dispute, then by all means dispute it; but please don't come in here and insinuate that the most knowledgable FBGs on the situation are not trustworthy and are hacks who are pushing some nuclear conspiratorial cover-up and accuse them of being the equivalent of the talking heads who have repeatedly demonstrated their ignorance of the situation and drummed up irrational fears. When you call them out and characterize them as such it actually only destroys YOUR credibility and the willingness of others to carefully weigh your opinions - not theirs...

Hey I don't really care what people think of my opinions on this I am far from an expert on nuclear power. And no I don't think that what he or beuno have said on it is as bad as the press. I was just trying to make a point. I get tired of reading post after post minimizing the possible dangers of the situation which are very real and serious. I hold scientists to a higher standard than people in the media. So when they make baseless assumptions it bothers me a lot more.

I just watched a segment on FOX where they said that radiation has reached California, but it is a billion times lower than what we should be concerned about. The audio was accompanied by video of people in hazmat suits, implying it is a big deal.So if I say it is nothing, I am making baseless assumptions? Right.

Not taking something from Fox news seriously seems like common sense to me.

Well they also had this guy that does one of those "strange physics" shows on - you know how could we violate Einstein's equations, etc. He mis-spoke every time he opened his mouth. It was painful to watch.

 

[FBG26]

this isn't worthy of "panic"

Lots of Toy Story happening in this thread...Woody: Shut up! Just shut up, you idiot!Buzz: Sheriff, this is no time to panic!Woody: This is the perfect time to panic! I'm lost, Andy is gone, they're gonna move to their new house in 2 days, and it's all your fault!Buzz: My fault?!

 

[Fennis]

I just watched a segment on FOX where they said that radiation has reached California, but it is a billion times lower than what we should be concerned about. The audio was accompanied by video of people in hazmat suits, implying it is a big deal.

So if I say it is nothing, I am making baseless assumptions? Right.

Well, to be fair, if it was a billion times higher, I would be worried.

Is it ok to be outside when the radiation levels are the equivalent of a chest x-ray? (Not suggesting the radiation levels are that high, just asking the question).

The answer is that it won't harm do to get a dose many times less than an x-ray over the period of a day. If that were the radiation levels, I wouldn't worry about being outside. The radiation levels hitting California right now are many times less than I get flying to Mexico City from Spokane, a trip I make about 6 times a year, and no, I don't worry about it.Is it okay for the government to advise you to stay inside when it is that high?

Comparions of radition from the nuclear accident to:Bananas: X

Airplanes (update):VIII

Smoking: XI

 

[bueno]

I just watched a segment on FOX where they said that radiation has reached California, but it is a billion times lower than what we should be concerned about. The audio was accompanied by video of people in hazmat suits, implying it is a big deal.

So if I say it is nothing, I am making baseless assumptions? Right.

Well, to be fair, if it was a billion times higher, I would be worried.

Is it ok to be outside when the radiation levels are the equivalent of a chest x-ray? (Not suggesting the radiation levels are that high, just asking the question).

The answer is that it won't harm do to get a dose many times less than an x-ray over the period of a day. If that were the radiation levels, I wouldn't worry about being outside. The radiation levels hitting California right now are many times less than I get flying to Mexico City from Spokane, a trip I make about 6 times a year, and no, I don't worry about it.Is it okay for the government to advise you to stay inside when it is that high?

Comparions of radition from the nuclear accident to:Bananas: X

Airplanes (update):VIII

Smoking: XI

Well let's give you something else to tally: you'll get a thousand times more radiation if you live in Denver. How's that?

 

[Biabreakable]

Ok serious question as I am trying to figure out what is the actual radiation exposure to people in Japan.

I am seeing readings of 250 miliserverts/hour are being detected above the site.

I came across this article that talks about the levels decreasing over distance:

Moving away from the immediate vicinity of the plant, radiation levels drop very rapidly. James Thrall, radiologist-in-chief at Massachusetts General Hospital, says that radiation levels are inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source: The level at two miles from the source are one-quarter what they are at one mile, and "at 10 miles away, it's almost an infinitesimal fraction," he says. Individual exposure also varies widely depending on whether a person is outside or indoors, or shielded with protective clothing. Japanese authorities have evacuated the population living within a 20-kilometer radius of the plant, and have warned those living within 30 kilometers to stay indoors. Some experts say that people living beyond this range have no cause for concern at this time. "This has nothing to do with the general population," McBride says.

http://www.technolog...ne/35128/page2/So my question, is there a reliable formula to find out the radiation levels based on distance from a radiation source?

decreases in [proportion to the square of the distance.

Thanks.2nd question (and sorry if this is obvious but): Are miliserverts/hour exposed cumulative? So if your exposed to say 38msr/hour for 20 hours does that mean you have been exposed to 760msr during that time frame?

 

[Chaos Commish]

millisievert, you keep spelling it wrong.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Being outside in Tokyo like smoking one cigarette per hour.

 

[Biabreakable]

Its not just them. You got people calling miliserverts microserverts until Japanese scientists confirm they did indeed mean miliserverts.I have friends in Japan. I am deeply worried about the long term consequences of this. They deserve to be told the truth even if that is inconvenient or doesn't forward their world view.

I am very concerned and daily praying for the people in Japan, and I hope that your friends are safe and well and that Japan will be able to somehow rebound from the devastation that has crippled their country in the last week. I also agree wholeheartedly in the need for truth to be dispensed and not lies or deceptions, whether I like the truth or not once I hear it. It's perfectly reasonable and legitimate to be critical and to ask who/what is responsible for the seemingly inconsistent facts coming from the electrical company in Tokyo and/or the Japanese government. The Japanese themselves are reported to be doing so.However, it's not right to demonize a group of people or an entire industry as some kind of global conspiracy just because of the lack of accurate information coming out of Japan. I too am very disappointed in the conflicting and slower than molasses flow of information, and that's why I am leaning heavily upon sources outside of Japan to help bridge and fill in the gaps; since I don't fully trust the sources coming out of Japan. It definitely feels like there is at least an over cautious filtering (best case)of info. or perhaps even outright deception (worst case) from official sources in Japan. And it's indeed frustrating!Some of the more knowledgable posters in this thread have helped alleviate that frustration and read between the lines for us. I can't thank them enough for doing so. Otherwise maybe I'ld be reduced to fearing the worst, hoarding supplies and stocking up on iodide and making little tin foil hats for me and my kids.

tbh I completely misunderstood what R said when I quoted him and so I apologize for that. He cleared up what he meant in a following post.

 

[Biabreakable]

Being outside in Tokyo like smoking one cigarette per hour.

This is an example of what is pissing me off.

 

[Fennis]

Being outside in Tokyo like smoking one cigarette per hour.

thats supposed to make people feel better?Comparions of radition from the nuclear accident to:

Bananas: X

Airplanes: VIII

Smoking(updated): XII

 

[bueno]

Ok serious question as I am trying to figure out what is the actual radiation exposure to people in Japan.

I am seeing readings of 250 miliserverts/hour are being detected above the site.

I came across this article that talks about the levels decreasing over distance:

Moving away from the immediate vicinity of the plant, radiation levels drop very rapidly. James Thrall, radiologist-in-chief at Massachusetts General Hospital, says that radiation levels are inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source: The level at two miles from the source are one-quarter what they are at one mile, and "at 10 miles away, it's almost an infinitesimal fraction," he says. Individual exposure also varies widely depending on whether a person is outside or indoors, or shielded with protective clothing. Japanese authorities have evacuated the population living within a 20-kilometer radius of the plant, and have warned those living within 30 kilometers to stay indoors. Some experts say that people living beyond this range have no cause for concern at this time. "This has nothing to do with the general population," McBride says.

http://www.technolog...ne/35128/page2/So my question, is there a reliable formula to find out the radiation levels based on distance from a radiation source?

decreases in [proportion to the square of the distance.

Thanks.2nd question (and sorry if this is obvious but): Are miliserverts/hour exposed cumulative? So if your exposed to say 38msr/hour for 20 hours does that mean you have been exposed to 760msr during that time frame?

They are cumulative in the sense that yes you can add it up that way. But the effects are not necessarily cumulative. Using your example, cumulative low doses over time do not increase your risk substantially. However, 38msv/hr for 20 hours is not as bad as 760msv/hr for one hour and then 0 msv for 19 hours. You might find this wiki link helpful.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Being outside in Tokyo like smoking one cigarette per hour.

This is an example of what is pissing me off.

My dad used to say you can judge the size of a man's character by the size of the things that piss him off. Take it easy, B.

thats supposed to make people feel better?

Absolutely. If you're paying attention some seem to think if they're fortunate enough to survive the skin melting zombie radiation cloud drifting in through any leaks they failed to seal in their homes that they're still destined to give birth to one eyed mutant babies.

 

[Biabreakable]

Ok serious question as I am trying to figure out what is the actual radiation exposure to people in Japan.

I am seeing readings of 250 miliserverts/hour are being detected above the site.

I came across this article that talks about the levels decreasing over distance:

Moving away from the immediate vicinity of the plant, radiation levels drop very rapidly. James Thrall, radiologist-in-chief at Massachusetts General Hospital, says that radiation levels are inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source: The level at two miles from the source are one-quarter what they are at one mile, and "at 10 miles away, it's almost an infinitesimal fraction," he says. Individual exposure also varies widely depending on whether a person is outside or indoors, or shielded with protective clothing. Japanese authorities have evacuated the population living within a 20-kilometer radius of the plant, and have warned those living within 30 kilometers to stay indoors. Some experts say that people living beyond this range have no cause for concern at this time. "This has nothing to do with the general population," McBride says.

http://www.technolog...ne/35128/page2/So my question, is there a reliable formula to find out the radiation levels based on distance from a radiation source?

decreases in [proportion to the square of the distance.

Thanks.2nd question (and sorry if this is obvious but): Are miliserverts/hour exposed cumulative? So if your exposed to say 38msr/hour for 20 hours does that mean you have been exposed to 760msr during that time frame?

They are cumulative in the sense that yes you can add it up that way. But the effects are not necessarily cumulative. Using your example, cumulative low doses over time do not increase your risk substantially. However, 38msv/hr for 20 hours is not as bad as 760msv/hr for one hour and then 0 msv for 19 hours. You might find this wiki link helpful.

Thanks. I found this which is giving readings and trying to make sense of it. http://eq.wide.ad.jp/index_en.html

 

[Otis]

Dow is up and the news has shifted focus to Libya. Are we out of the woods here then?

 

[Otis]

Dow is up and the news has shifted focus to Libya. Are we out of the woods here then?

Heard on CNN that up to 200 barrels of radioactive material may have been swept into the ocean, so that's nice.

Not good for the people of the city of Atlantis I suppose.

 

[bueno]

Dow is up and the news has shifted focus to Libya. Are we out of the woods here then?

I think the emotional crash is likely over. In fact, I am considering buying Cameco Monday.As to Libya, this is the problem with managing by consensus rather than leading by example. If the desired result is to help the Libyans overthrow a dictator, the tides have turned. It is likely over. Even if OQ compiles with a cease-fire, the rebels are too weak to overthrow him now. So are we in the position of having to support a small enclave of freedom fighters indefinitely?

 

[bueno]

Dow is up and the news has shifted focus to Libya. Are we out of the woods here then?

I think the emotional crash is likely over. In fact, I am considering buying Cameco Monday.As to Libya, this is the problem with managing by consensus rather than leading by example. If the desired result is to help the Libyans overthrow a dictator, the tides have turned. It is likely over. Even if OQ compiles with a cease-fire, the rebels are too weak to overthrow him now. So are we in the position of having to support a small enclave of freedom fighters indefinitely?

Executing Leadership isn't Obama's strong-point. If you're going to be a bear, be a grizzly. We should have bombed the #### out of Libya two weeks ago. This is shameful bureaucratic bs.

I would change only one word in your response. (as above)

 

[Eric Stratton]

Dow is up and the news has shifted focus to Libya. Are we out of the woods here then?

Heard on CNN that up to 200 barrels of radioactive material may have been swept into the ocean, so that's nice.

Not good for the people of the city of Atlantis I suppose.

Just make sure you check the label on your sushi from now on.

How do you get internet service in your bunker? How are those iodine pills working so far?

 

[Osaurus]

Dow is up and the news has shifted focus to Libya. Are we out of the woods here then?

Heard on CNN that up to 200 barrels of radioactive material may have been swept into the ocean, so that's nice.

Not good for the people of the city of Atlantis I suppose.

Just make sure you check the label on your sushi from now on.

How do you get internet service in your bunker? How are those iodine pills working so far?

Thyroid of steel

 

[BassNBrew]

Hope Dodds checks in soon. Concerned that the radiation arriving on the west coast got him.

 

[David Dodds]

I don't remember anyone saying they expected the plumes to have an impact 6,000 miles away over the ocean. If someone did, it wasn't me.

The firefighters trying to add water with the firehouses reminds me of the plate spinning guy at the circus.

Rain is happening at Fukushima right about now and is expected to come on Saturday as well. Hopefully that will add the necessary water to stabilize this.

 

[BassNBrew]

I don't remember anyone saying they expected the plumes to have an impact 6,000 miles away over the ocean. If someone did, it wasn't me.The firefighters trying to add water with the firehouses reminds me of the plate spinning guy at the circus. Rain is happening at Fukushima right about now and is expected to come on Saturday as well. Hopefully that will add the necessary water to stabilize this.

Snow would be better since it's colder.

 

[Fennis]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-sci-japan-quake-nuclear-20110319,0,4568019,full.story

Options are few to prevent Japan nuclear catastrophe

As a crack is discovered in a Fukushima spent fuel pool, officials confront two crucial tasks: preventing a runaway chain reaction into the nuclear fuel and maintaining a massive flow of seawater through the damaged pools and reactor vessels.

 

[renesauz]

Ok serious question as I am trying to figure out what is the actual radiation exposure to people in Japan.I am seeing readings of 250 miliserverts/hour are being detected above the site.I came across this article that talks about the levels decreasing over distance:

Moving away from the immediate vicinity of the plant, radiation levels drop very rapidly. James Thrall, radiologist-in-chief at Massachusetts General Hospital, says that radiation levels are inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source: The level at two miles from the source are one-quarter what they are at one mile, and "at 10 miles away, it's almost an infinitesimal fraction," he says. Individual exposure also varies widely depending on whether a person is outside or indoors, or shielded with protective clothing. Japanese authorities have evacuated the population living within a 20-kilometer radius of the plant, and have warned those living within 30 kilometers to stay indoors. Some experts say that people living beyond this range have no cause for concern at this time. "This has nothing to do with the general population," McBride says.

http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/35128/page2/So my question, is there a reliable formula to find out the radiation levels based on distance from a radiation source?

Yes...it really is the inverse square, although you can adjust that slightly up or down if the source is known to be putting out a particularly strong, or particularly weak gamma. (Detectors typically count the number of gamma rays passing, but do a poor job of measuring an individual gammas strength.)Radiation from a solid, unmoving source is not, nor has it ever been a concern to the public. 1/10th of a mile is enough to dissipate even a very strong source to non-dangerous levels. (Remember...RADIATION is literaly just energy...like visible light) The real danger is airborne contamination. Particulate matter (dust) in the air which can settle on food or be breathed in. Once inside the body, these tiny particles can continuously emit betas to neigboring live cells. Some specific particulates (radioiodine) can even concentrate in specific spots in the body (thyroid for iodine) causing even more damage to that area. Until a meltdown, the amount of longlived particulate released would be fairly minimal. When knowldegeable people talk about dangerous radiation being released, they aren't talking about radiation levels per se, but about AIRBORNE CONTAMINATION. Some dangerous contamination levels (like soot settled on surfaces)would be found close to the plant, but the further from the plant you get, the less likely you would be to find dangerously high concentrations.Now...the reactor vessels in these plants remained intact, and while the reactor cores have damage (partial meltdown), the overwhelming majority of the fuel has remained inside the reactor vessels. We know this based on the actual radiation and contamination levels found in the areas immediate outside the plants. The most dangerous and deadly airborne contamination would not come from spilled coolant, but from dissolved fuel plates atomized and released as part of a steam plume. This simply isn't happening.

 

[renesauz]

Its not just them. You got people calling miliserverts microserverts until Japanese scientists confirm they did indeed mean miliserverts.I have friends in Japan. I am deeply worried about the long term consequences of this. They deserve to be told the truth even if that is inconvenient or doesn't forward their world view.

You are correct, but you're also not listening.Fact A: RADIATION is not the (direct) concern to the public, AIRBORNE CONTAMINATION is.FACT B: Wind patterns have taken what contamination has been released primarily out to sea.Fact C: Most of the contamination released has been of the short lived variety. Fact D: A real danger did in fact exist. It simply was nowhere remotely near as big as the media wanted you to believe, and it really has decreased significantly every day.

 

[Eric Stratton]

I don't remember anyone saying they expected the plumes to have an impact 6,000 miles away over the ocean. If someone did, it wasn't me.

Paging Mr. Ham....paging Mr. Ham

 

[renesauz]

Dow is up and the news has shifted focus to Libya. Are we out of the woods here then?

Heard on CNN that up to 200 barrels of radioactive material may have been swept into the ocean, so that's nice.

Is that all? Radioactive material has a pretty strict definition. I generated tons of it in the Navy, but the overwhelming majority of it I would have felt safe carying around in my pockets for days or even indefinately.Not trying to minimize this, because a barrel washing up in a wierd place and then opened/played with by some kids could be horribly bad for those kids, but the vast majority of that stuff likely poses little risk. All these barrels should be pretty clearly labeled with the universal sign for radiation, so one would assume and hope that most people finding them would call authorities and public danger would be fairly minimal.

 

[renesauz]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-sci-japan-quake-nuclear-20110319,0,4568019,full.story

Options are few to prevent Japan nuclear catastrophe

As a crack is discovered in a Fukushima spent fuel pool, officials confront two crucial tasks: preventing a runaway chain reaction into the nuclear fuel and maintaining a massive flow of seawater through the damaged pools and reactor vessels.

The bolded part makes no sense. There is no "runaway chain reaction" possible.I really don't understand why they keep bringing up spent fuel pools. The one with a crack poses some problems, but the others are already full. The critical task right now is simply to keep the reactor vessels filled with relatively cool water, preferably cooling them in a closed loop which does not require any environmental venting. If they can keep the loop closed, partial meltdown doesn't even mean much (to the public).

Spent fuel pools probably keep popping up because they were a primary source of local radiation levels for a bit, and the media has fixated on them for some stupid reason.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Didn't we dump some 50,000 of these barrels off of San Francisco by the 70s?

 

[renesauz]

They are cumulative in the sense that yes you can add it up that way. But the effects are not necessarily cumulative. Using your example, cumulative low doses over time do not increase your risk substantially. However, 38msv/hr for 20 hours is not as bad as 760msv/hr for one hour and then 0 msv for 19 hours.

You might find this wiki link helpful.

Thanks. I found this which is giving readings and trying to make sense of it. http://eq.wide.ad.jp/index_en.html

To expand on that a little, there's a bunch of beaches in Brazil where the natural background radiation levels are high enough to qualify as an official radiation area if they were found in a nuclear plant. People on airplanes are regularly exposed to radiation levels high enough to qualify.

 

[SoBeDad]

They are cumulative in the sense that yes you can add it up that way. But the effects are not necessarily cumulative. Using your example, cumulative low doses over time do not increase your risk substantially. However, 38msv/hr for 20 hours is not as bad as 760msv/hr for one hour and then 0 msv for 19 hours.

You might find this wiki link helpful.

Thanks. I found this which is giving readings and trying to make sense of it. http://eq.wide.ad.jp/index_en.html

To expand on that a little, there's a bunch of beaches in Brazil where the natural background radiation levels are high enough to qualify as an official radiation area if they were found in a nuclear plant. People on airplanes are regularly exposed to radiation levels high enough to qualify.

A lot of Americans are getting up to 31 msv via medical imaging scans, particularly CT and nuclear medicine scans. A recent study estimated that the 70 million CT scans done in 2007 will result in 29,000 cancers.Use of CT scans, in some medical scenarios, has not undergone rigorous outcome studies that weigh the benefits versus these risks. BTW, these estimates of the number of cancers caused by CT scans are based, in part, on data from Hiroshima victims.