Meltdown Likely Under Way At Japan Nuclear Reactor

[Throatwobbler]

Just one aside.

TEPCO management consists of politicians in the upper management, none of them has any expertise in nuclear science.

But they will have experts in nuclear Physics working with them.

[Throatwobbler]

Ok an open question to all you scaremonger out there. What is your background in Nuclear Physics and radiation?

What's your background in nuclear physics and radiation? Works both ways.

Well my degree is in Physics so I do have a bit of background knowledge, though my speciality wasn't nuclear Physics. At the moment it's hard to tell what to believe. There are so many various figures being put out there by lots of different groups with different agendas. What I object to are all these people posting who until a mongth ago had probably never heard of Bequrels and sieverts posting all these we're doomed reports without having a clue what what they are talking about. As far as I can see we need more Information. The information I have seen so far of food contaminationetc is of such a little amount to be of no consequence. Of course I am ready to change my position when more data becomes available, but only then.

[Throatwobbler]

Ok an open question to all you scaremonger out there. What is your background in Nuclear Physics and radiation?

I haven't got a degree in psychiatry, but I tell you emperor Nero was a madman. Don't ask me whether he suffered from ADD, DDH, schizophrenia or whatever.

As for the so called scaremongers, most of them probably don't know the difference between alpha, beta and gamma radiation. But they for sure have heard that it's dangerous. How dangerous is difficult to tell, and that's where the fear comes in. Tell me, what's the lethal dose of I-131. How many micro Sievert will my body incorporate in an hour when the activity concentration in the air is one Becquerel per cubic meter? At what level will my risk to acquire thyroid cancer go up by 1%? How much Cl-38 or Cs-137 is there in 50 000 tons of 'radioactive' water (geez, I know, that's a more difficult question than the previous ones)?

The answers those and similar questions are difficult to find out, and if the sages just keep on saying "You're save. Trust me, I know!", the ignorant will continue to speculate. Does Tepco have a clear picture of the nuclear inventory of the Daiichi plant? Does NISA know about how many TBq of the various radio-nuclides were released to the atmosphere, the ground water, and the sea, respectively?

I know that where I live I'm save from "Genpatsu-Kun's farting", as the very questionable educational cartoon puts it.. The remnants of "Little Chernobyl's diarrhea" is still stronger round here. Thailand is save as well. There's not so much north-south-mixing in the atmosphere. But if I'd live in a prefecture where the SPEEDI dose rate meter network online site reports 'Under Survey' for six weeks running, I'd feel uncomfortable (Yeah, I know, the dose rate varies widely within those two prefectures).

More informed reporting would definitely be good. But the don't worry side doesn't offer more profound information than the we're doomed side.

This is my point. Those qustions that you ask are ones that need answering, but I don't see that being done by the people on here who are posting every scare story they find on the internet and quoting all these figures that they don't have a clue what they mean.

The don't worry side has posted a few things which have been shouted down by the doom mongers because it doesn't fit in with their "we're screwed" narrative. Sheeple I think we've been called.

I do know that I won't be eating any food from Japan though. It's not radiation in the air that is the problem but radiation in food which could be the big danger. This will probably be from one of the Caesium isotopes, I forget which one at the moment, because it has a half life of 30 years so it'll be sticking around for a while.

[Throatwobbler]

So in reply to my question I got one sensible post, one wrong story about Einstein and one question back to myself. I think that says all I need to know about the posters knowledge on here.

[Chopperboy]

Just one aside.

TEPCO management consists of politicians in the upper management, none of them has any expertise in nuclear science.

Well my degree is in Physics so I do have a bit of background knowledge, though my speciality wasn't nuclear Physics.

But they will have experts in nuclear Physics working with them.

"Make no mistake, physicists are stupid. They make themselves stupid by a kind of religious belief in mathematical modelling. The old Bertie Russell logical positivist trap. And whilst this may be appropriate for examining the stresses in metals, or looking at the Universe (note that they seem to have lost 90% of the matter in the Universe, so-called “dark matter”) it is not appropriate for, and is even scarily incorrect when, examining stresses in humans or other lifeforms. Mary Midgley, the philosopher has written about Science as Religion. Health physicists are the priests."

Prof Christopher Busby

http://www.businessinsider.com/deconstructing-nuclear-experts-2011-3#ixzz1I6NOzSQt

You will see that most of the posts here include quotes from specialists in their respective fields!

Edited April 23, 2011 by Chopperboy

[Throatwobbler]

Just one aside.

TEPCO management consists of politicians in the upper management, none of them has any expertise in nuclear science.

Well my degree is in Physics so I do have a bit of background knowledge, though my speciality wasn't nuclear Physics.

But they will have experts in nuclear Physics working with them.

"Make no mistake, physicists are stupid. They make themselves stupid by a kind of religious belief in mathematical modelling. The old Bertie Russell logical positivist trap. And whilst this may be appropriate for examining the stresses in metals, or looking at the Universe (note that they seem to have lost 90% of the matter in the Universe, so-called “dark matter”) it is not appropriate for, and is even scarily incorrect when, examining stresses in humans or other lifeforms. Mary Midgley, the philosopher has written about Science as Religion. Health physicists are the priests."

Prof Christopher Busby

http://www.businessi...3#ixzz1I6NOzSQt

You will see that most of the posts here include quotes from specialists in their respective fields!

And people who post things about which they have no idea are geniuses then. I can see that I am not up to the intellect on this thread. I apologise for wasting your time.

[Throatwobbler]

Pfor Chris Busby. Might be worth a read before believing everything he says.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Busby

[elcent]

So in reply to my question I got one sensible post, one wrong story about Einstein and one question back to myself. I think that says all I need to know about the posters knowledge on here.

He started with a kind of freelance job in an Observatory which put him in financial troubles. Then Einstein started as an assistant teacher at Technikum Winterthur and then at the Boarding school in Schaffhausen (from May 1901 until January 1902 for both jobs )before he got a job at the Swiss Patent Office in June 1902 as a third class technical expert. He was promoted 1906 to a second class technical expert.

In German there's not much of difference between an accountant and clerk, they do pretty much the same jobs. And he worked there for 7 years and not 2 (1902 - 1909).

One week before he died he signed his last manifest to stop nuclear arms worldwide. -

Today he would surely write a manifest to stop nuclear powerplants worldwide, --- my remark --- sensible enough?

Edited April 23, 2011 by elcent

[unblocktheplanet]

These hi-res photos of the Fukushima complex by an unmanned drone were released on Cryptome.org. The author claims they are incontrovertible evidence of the No. 3 reactor core exploded. We'd need someone more expert than I to assess this.

http://lucaswhitefie...ploded-unit-3-0

Also this post from the 2012 Forum:

Taken together, the active reactors and old cores are equivalent to 2000 atomic bombs of 500 kilotons each. Fukushima is then, capable of dispersing in the biosphere, five times more of the long lived breathable radioactive poisons, cesium 137, Strontium 90, plutonium 239, etc., than all the combined nuclear detonations to date. It is as if Fukushima were equal to a 1000 megaton Atomic Bomb.

www.veteranstoday.com/2011/04/22/fukush ... mic-bombs/

The Hiroshima bomb, in comparison, was 20 kilotons. The largest nuclear bomb deployed, the Russian Tsar Bomba was 100 megatons. Are these comparisons valid?

Incidentally, folks, we don't need to get into any mudslinging here. Some of us may be long opposed to nuclear power, I certainly am, and that colours my opinions. But none of us can afford to act like nothing's wrong! It would be mightily naive to think that govt and industry are not controlling the information we're getting. We don't need this info after the fact, as in Chernobyl; our futures depend upon it even if we are powerless to control radiation's effects.

[elcent]

TEPCO: Highly radioactive concrete fragment found

The operator of the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant says that concrete debris emitting a high level of radiation has been found near the Number 3 reactorTokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, says its workers detected radioactivity of 900 millisieverts per hour being emitted from a 30-by-30 centimeter concrete fragment, 5 centimeters thick, on WednesdayThe workers were using heavy equipment to remove rubble near the electrical switchyardTEPCO says the workers were exposed to 3.17 millisieverts of radiation during the clean-up and the concrete block has been stored safely in a container with other debrisThe utility believes the contaminated fragment could be part of debris scattered across the compound as a result of a hydrogen explosion at the Number 3 reactor.

Sunday, April 24, 2011 00:23 +0900 (JST) http://www3.nhk.or.j...lish/24_01.html

Edited April 24, 2011 by elcent

[pedro01]

Can someone clear something up.

My understanding is that it's the way these elements 'throw off' atoms that makes them so dangerous.

My understanding is also that those elements with a shorter half-life 'throw off' more of their atoms in a shorter time and longer half-life.

We've seen radioactive Iodine has a very short half-life and so is considered less dangerous. Does this mean that short-term exposure to radioactive Iodine is less dangerous or just that release into the environment is less dangerouse because the element will be benign sooner.

Then I hear that Plutonium is the most dangerous BUT has a longer half life.

So - if I was exposed to Plutonium in the short term would it be more dangerous than being exposed to a similar amount of newly created radioactive Iodine in the short term?

I get the feeling that Plutonium is the most dangerous but it has a very long half life. I don't really understand why it's so bad when no-one seems so worried about the shorter half life elements released.

[Throatwobbler]

Can someone clear something up.

My understanding is that it's the way these elements 'throw off' atoms that makes them so dangerous.

My understanding is also that those elements with a shorter half-life 'throw off' more of their atoms in a shorter time and longer half-life.

We've seen radioactive Iodine has a very short half-life and so is considered less dangerous. Does this mean that short-term exposure to radioactive Iodine is less dangerous or just that release into the environment is less dangerouse because the element will be benign sooner.

Then I hear that Plutonium is the most dangerous BUT has a longer half life.

So - if I was exposed to Plutonium in the short term would it be more dangerous than being exposed to a similar amount of newly created radioactive Iodine in the short term?

I get the feeling that Plutonium is the most dangerous but it has a very long half life. I don't really understand why it's so bad when no-one seems so worried about the shorter half life elements released.

Ok I'll try and explain a few things here. Not just to you but to others reading and posting on this thread.

Basically what happens is radioactive isotopes are unstable and they want to get more stable. In Nuclear fission,which is what we are talking about at Fukishima, they will split into smaller atoms plus energy plus an extra discharge. This extra discahrge takes the form of radiation.

Now there are three types of radiation. Alpha, Beta and Gamma. Alpha radiation is a Helium Nuclei, basically 2 protons and 2 neutrons. Beta is an electon and Gamma is an electromagnetic wave. Like an X-ray but with a shorter wavelength.

I will continue this below.

[Throatwobbler]

Ok so where were we. An alpha particle will be stopped by a few centimetres of air. This is due to their large size. They will interact with atoms in the air and lose their energy. Beta particles will travel further and it will take a couple of metres of air before they interact with atoms in the air and lose their energy. Gamma as it is not actually a particle but basically a photon with a lot more energy will go a long way before it interacts with anything. You need several centimetres of lead to stop Gamma rays. This means that it can pass through the human body with generally no ill effect.

On dangers to the human body Alpha is by far and away the most dangerous but I will come to that later.

Radiation on the ground holds very little danger to us due to the facts I've just mentioned above. Where it does hold a danger is when it enters the food chain and, again bare with me I will come to that soon.

Ok now to half-lifes. A half life of a radioactive isotope is the amount of time it will take to lose half it's radiation. Say for example an isotope has a half life of 2 days. If you have 100 grams of it after 2 days 50 grams will be left. After 4 days 25 grams will be left. After 6 days 12.5 grams will be left and so on. However many radioactive isotopes decay into something else which is radioactive, so tit doesn't mean that after 2 days half the material is not radioacitve. Lokk up radioactive decay chains.

The biggest worry with raiation is when it enters the food chain. If you eat radioactive material this changes the whole game. Now I said earlier that Alpha is the most dangerous to people but can be stopped by a few centimetre of air. if you eat it what is stopping it is your body. Alpha radiationis, relatively speaking, a huge particle and it will smash your body cells to pieces. This is what causes cancer from radiation. beta is the same but to a slightly lesser effect. Gamma is not to bad which is why hospitals are prepared to give you x-rays.

If you do ingest it into you body this is again where half lifes come into play. Iodine 131 is a major worry. It is easily absorbed into the thyroid gland, especially in children. Now your body can adapt but as Iodine is losing half it's radiation in just 8 days it gives your body no chance to recover. This is why there was a high incidence of thyroid cancer after Chernobyl. The good news is make sue you have a lot of Iodine in your diet. Take Iodine tablets etc. If you have enough Iodine in your systen your body won't absorb any more.

Caesium 137 is the other major worry. This has a half life of 30 years. If your body absorbs it it decays slower so it gives you a fighting chance but will also be there for the reat of your life swinging the pendulum back to the Caesium. For me this is the big worry. Most of it will be washed away but we have to be careful about what enters the food chain. For this reason I will not be eating anything from japan for quite a long time.

As for plutonium this is the big question. It has a very long half life so it shouldn't effect us too muc but as for future generations...no one is really sure.

I hope this answers some questions that have been posted.

[Throatwobbler]

Can someone clear something up.

My understanding is that it's the way these elements 'throw off' atoms that makes them so dangerous.

My understanding is also that those elements with a shorter half-life 'throw off' more of their atoms in a shorter time and longer half-life.

We've seen radioactive Iodine has a very short half-life and so is considered less dangerous. Does this mean that short-term exposure to radioactive Iodine is less dangerous or just that release into the environment is less dangerouse because the element will be benign sooner.

Then I hear that Plutonium is the most dangerous BUT has a longer half life.

So - if I was exposed to Plutonium in the short term would it be more dangerous than being exposed to a similar amount of newly created radioactive Iodine in the short term?

I get the feeling that Plutonium is the most dangerous but it has a very long half life. I don't really understand why it's so bad when no-one seems so worried about the shorter half life elements released.

Just to clarify one of you questions. Iodine is considered less dangerous than plutonium because by the time it will have got to you it will have lost most of it's strength. If you were to eat the same amount of new iodine and plutonium then iodine would be more dangerous.

[Throatwobbler]

So in reply to my question I got one sensible post, one wrong story about Einstein and one question back to myself. I think that says all I need to know about the posters knowledge on here.

He started with a kind of freelance job in an Observatory which put him in financial troubles. Then Einstein started as an assistant teacher at Technikum Winterthur and then at the Boarding school in Schaffhausen (from May 1901 until January 1902 for both jobs )before he got a job at the Swiss Patent Office in June 1902 as a third class technical expert. He was promoted 1906 to a second class technical expert.

In German there's not much of difference between an accountant and clerk, they do pretty much the same jobs. And he worked there for 7 years and not 2 (1902 - 1909).

One week before he died he signed his last manifest to stop nuclear arms worldwide. -

Today he would surely write a manifest to stop nuclear powerplants worldwide, --- my remark --- sensible enough?

No your remark is not sensible enough because it implies that he knew nothing about Physics, ignoring the fact that he has studied at university and his patent office job was a means to an end, I've been there.

Going back to one of your earlier posts about having thousand of fireworks exploding on your face please read my above posts and try and learn something about radiation.:jap:

[Throatwobbler]

Don’t Panic - The simple guide to the health consequences of drinking contaminated water or milk in the USA and Europe - Prof Chris Busby - European Committee on Radiation Risk

Data from Fukushima releases are now appearing on the internet. How can non-scientists assess the risk associated with the various levels of contamination being reported? I will address this question here.

Contamination reports from various bodies focus on several radionuclides and until now, results

have become available for contamination of milk, drinking water, rainwater and some farm produce.

There are also measurements of concentrations in air. The current radiation risk model, that of the

ICRP, gives dose conversion coefficients, numbers that can be used to convert internal ingestion or

inhalation of any specific radionuclide into a whole body or “effective” dose. These numbers are

wildly wrong for certain radionuclides but roughly correct for others. The degree to which they are

wrong depends on number of things, basically how the DNA is affected, and so the ECRR has developed and published weighting factors which modify (multiply) the ICRP coefficients. These are based on theoretical considerations of molecular interactions and physical decay sequences and qualities but also based on epidemiology of internal exposures.

Pico Curies and Becquerels

For some reason, the USA agencies still employ the picoCurie (pCi) as a measure of activity. 1 pCi

is 0.037Bq. We will work in Bq.

Dose, dose rate and contamination

Dose, or absorbed equivalent dose is given in Sieverts. It is this quantity that is used

to predict radiation risk. It is a lump of radiation that has been delivered to your body. Although

for some radionuclide internal exposures, absorbed dose is a meaningless concept, because it is an

average to all tissue rather than the energy delivered to the DNA, we can use weighting factors to

convert the absorbed dose into the energy delivered to the DNA. This is what the ECRR has done. A

microSievert (Sv) is one millionth of a Sievert.

Dose rate, or microSieverts per hour (Sv/h or Svh-1) enables you to obtain the dose. If you are

exposed for a day at 2Sv/h your dose is 24 x 2 = 48Sv.

Ingestion

The latest ECRR coefficients for the main exposure radionuclides reported and for Uranium are

tabulated in ECRR2010 which the committee has put on the website www.euradcom.org as a free

download. The ICRP cancer risk coefficient is about

0.05 per Sievert and that of the ECRR is 0.1 per Sievert.

Table 1 The ECRR adult ingestion dose coefficients for Caesium-137, Iodine -131 and uranium-238

particulates are given below.

Radionuclide ICRP dose coefficient Sv/Bq ECRR dose coefficient Sv/Bq

Cs-137 1.3 E-8 6.5 E-8

I-131 2.2 E-8 1.1 E-7

Uranium particulate 4.5 E-8 2.5E-6

We can now assess the risk from internal exposures in the USA and Europe.

Example 1

The measured activity of I-131 in drinking water is 500mBq/l. The effective dose is

5.5 x 10-8 or 0.055 microSieverts. The cancer risk to an adult who drinks 1 litre is then 0.5 x 1.1

x 10-7 x 0.1 = 5.5 x 10-9. That is 5.5 cancers in 1 billion people in 50 years who have all

consumed 1 litre. Drinking 1 litre for a month would obviously increase this risk by 30-fold.

Example 2

The measured activity of I-131 in milk in California is 120Bq/l. The cancer risk to a person who

drinks 1 litre is 120 x 1.1 x 10-7 x 0.1 = 1.32 x 10-6. We would expect 1.32 extra cancers in 1

million individuals in 50 years.

These calculations show that there is a very low level of risk from adult exposures to the quantities of these radionuclides being reported in Europe and the USA.

Children, infants and the foetus.

There is plenty of evidence that risks to the foetus, infants and children are greater. But this is not due to Iodine or Caesium exposures. The dose coefficient is perhaps as much as 5 times greater for children. Infant leukemia increased after Chernobyl at levels where the ICRP foetal doses from Caesium-137 were about 50microSieverts and the ECRR coefficients for Cs-137 would not have predicted these increases (Busby 2009). At levels of 100Bq/l of Caesium-137 1 litre would commit a ICRP dose of 100 x 1.3 x 10-8 = 1.3 microSieverts and drinking 30 litres would provide a dose of 39 microSieverts ICRP. Therefore the effects on infant leukemia are believed to be due to other radionuclides and particulates present with the Caesium-137. Such particulates were measured after Chernobyl in many countries. Similar increases in child leukaemia and cancer are found near nuclear sites at ICRP doses of perhaps 50 microSieverts. Again, this is probably due to inhalation of particles released by these plants by the mothers and fathers.

Inhalation

The inhalation doses are likely to be significant for particulates, especially uranium particulates. Where there are levels of I-131 or Cs-137 in the air, there may also be particulates. These are sub micron diameter particles of reactor fuel or recombined condensed reactor fuel and will contain Uranium nuclides and plutonium also. They can travel vast distances and were found in filters in the UK after the 2003 Gulf war.

It was probably the exposure to these particulates that was the driver of the Chernobyl effects even though the exposures were modelled as Cs-137. The modelling using Cs-137 occurs because, like I-131, it is an easy radionuclide to measure using dispersive gamma spectrometry. For this reason, and various theoretical ones, uranium particulates have an ECRR 2010 inhalation dose coefficient of 8.4 x 10-3 for adults and 1.2 x 10-2 for children aged 1-14. However, no measurements of uranium or plutonium have been reported. It is recommended that the levels of atmospheric particulates from Fukushima be assessed as a matter of extreme urgency as this could be a global issue.

Other significant radionuclides

Other significant radionuclides for which no measurements have been made, and which will have been

emitted from Fukushima are given in Table 2 with their ECRR dose coefficients.

Table 2 Unreported radionuclides with significant potential for health effects

Radionuclide ECRR dose coefficient

(adult)

H-3 Tritium (HTO) 2.0 E-10 Tritiated water

H-3 Tritium (CHT) 1.0 E-9 Organically bound

Pu-239 particle 7.5 E-5

Am-241 2.0 E-7

Measurements of Tritium in drinking water and in the atmosphere near Fukushima are likely to be significant health issues but have not been reported.

For further information please consult ECRR2010.

April 14th 2011

Busby, C.C. Very Low Dose Fetal Exposure to Chernobyl Contamination Resulted in

Increases in Infant Leukemia in Europe and Raises Questions about Current Radiation

Risk Models. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009, 6, 3105-3114.

[Puschl]

Throatwobbler, thank you for explaining some issues in relatively simple words.

Also, the article you pasted here is quite interesting.

How can non-scientists assess the risk associated with the various levels of contamination being reported?

The article is available in better formatting here:

http://www.euradcom....alc15042011.pdf

It's not really telling things in layman's terms. The article roughly says:

The probability that you will incur fatal cancer within 50 years after ingesting a given amount of radioactive isotope Y is

a cancer risk coefficient (probability of incurring cancer per radiation dose committed)

times

a dose coefficient (radiation dose committed per activity ingested)

times

the activity of the material ingested.

Cancer risk coefficients can be found here:

http://www.ieer.org/...4/hlthrisk.html

Different sources give slightly different coefficients. There seems to be consensus that the risk factor is smaller for low doses I.e. if you receive 10 Sieverts, your risk per Sievert is higher compared to receiving only 0.1 Sieverts, But at the low range, a linear relation seems to be assumed.

Dose coefficients seem to be a point where Busby clashes with some of his colleagues. The problem is that the Sievert is not so well defined as the Gray (Gy). My own interpretation (from memory from various sources, without reference or warranty): 1 Gray = 1 Joule / kilogram is the absorbed energy per unit mass. The Sievert is formally equivalent to the Gray, but the Sievert is a measure of the damage incurred by the radiation dose. For external gamma radiation, 1Gy = 1Sv is the definition of the Sievert (or so I tend to believe). Because alpha rays are much more destructive to cell tissue than gamma rays per energy unit, 1Gy incurred by alpha radiation is approximately 20 Sv. Because the Gray takes the whole body mass into account, radiation that is harmful to a particular part of the body (iodine concentrating in the thyroid gland, strontium concentrating in the bones and affecting bone marrow, cesium mainly found in muscles) does more damage locally than the Gray value accounts for (very coarse analogy: a Joule delivered with a boxing glove hurts less than a Joule delivered with a pointy dagger).

Dose coefficients by Busby's group can be found on page 253 of

http://www.euradcom....11/ecrr2010.pdf

Lastly, the activity of the radionuclide ingested tells you, how many atoms per second out of the total number of atoms you ingest are disintegrating per second. For I-131 with a half-life of about 8 days, 1Bq (one atom disintegrating per second) corresponds to about one million atoms in total. For Cs-137 with a halflife of about 30 years, the same activity corresponds to about 1.3 billion atoms total. For techies:

Number of total atoms = Activity (Bq) * Halflife (sec) / log(2)

1/log(2) is about 1.44

The example 1 combines the numbers into the statement:

if you are thirty (and thirsty) now, and you drink one liter of water containing a total of 500mBq / liter of iodine-131 (that is, you ingest 500 mBq = 0.5 Bq of I-131), you'll have a 5.5 in a billion chance of incurring fatal cancer before you're eighty.

because Probability(Cancer) = 0.1 (risk per Sievert) * 1.1E-7(Sievert per Bequerel) * 0.5 (Bequerel) = 5.5 E-9

Note: a risk of 1 corresponds to 100%.

Edit: clarified activity to atoms relationship

Edited April 24, 2011 by Puschl

[midas]

And now maybe we will never know.............

" Now the Japanese government has moved to crack down on independent reportage and criticism of the government’s policies in the wake of the disaster by deciding what citizens may or may not talk about in public. A new project team has been created by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication, the National Police Agency, and METI to combat “rumors” deemed harmful to Japanese security in the wake of the Fukushima disaster.

The government charges that the damage caused by earthquakes and by the nuclear accident are being magnified by irresponsible rumors, and the government must take action for the sake of the public good. The project team has begun to send “letters of request” to such organizations as telephone companies, internet providers, cable television stations, and others, demanding that they “take adequate measures based on the guidelines in response to illegal information. ”The measures include erasing any information from internet sites that the authorities deem harmful to public order and morality."

full article here :-

http://japanfocus.org/-Makiko-Segawa/3516

[midas]

When i heard about this censorship by the Japanese Government

i remembered this and.......... how apt it is

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem."

Ronald Regan January 20, 1981

[Chopperboy]

"The flow of information is going to get much worse on Monday. That's when the Japanese government takes control of the public information releases and puts the muzzle on TEPCO. Foreign journalists and bloggers have so far been banned from the government press conferences. At the TEPCO affairs the foreign reporters are the only ones asking the tough questions. If they continue to keep the foreign press out of the loop at official government press points then the information flow will be reduced to a trickle."

Edited April 25, 2011 by Chopperboy

[Chopperboy]

Hot debris hampers reactor repairs

Radiation map shows hazards lurking around every corner

Kyodo

A contamination map revealing radiation levels at about 150 places in the Fukushima No. 1 power plant was released Saturday by troubled Tokyo Electric Power Co.

The beleaguered utility, known as Tepco, updates the data periodically to help its workers navigate radiation hazards at the crippled nuclear plant in Fukushima Prefecture.

The updated maps and data on areas near the four crisis-hit reactors are also sent to the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry and the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency and posted at its crisis center in the prefecture.

One finding acquired from the map's data as of Wednesday night is that a piece of concrete debris near the No. 3 reactor was emitting a nearly lethal 900 millisieverts per hour of radiation.

Many of the locations, including a pipe being used to remove highly radioactive water from a reactor and rubble scattered by several hydrogen explosions on the premises, gave off radiation readings of about 100 millisieverts per hour.

Another piece of debris next to the No. 3 reactor is giving off 300 millisieverts per hour, while the surface of a pipe sending highly toxic water to a nuclear waste disposal facility is radiating 75 to 86 millisieverts an hour, the map showed Another pipe near the facility was giving off radiation readings as high as 160 millisieverts, it said

The legal limit on the amount of radiation a worker can be exposed to has been raised to 250 millisieverts for the crisis. It takes less than 17 minutes to hit that limit when working in an environment being exposed to 900 millisieverts per hour.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/rss/nn20110425a1.html

[Chopperboy]

Analysis of drone photos thermal imaging and building drawings

Raises questions about a large missing piece of debris that blew a hole through No 4 (possibly from the number 3 explosion) and location of spent fuel rods scattered around.

http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/possibles.html

Reactor 3 explosion and debris photos

http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/3blast/boom.html

http://fukushimafaq.wikispaces.com/3D+and+Autocad+Rendering+%26+Analysis?responseToken=0048b38c96585dbab970d7880e4797cd3

Edited April 25, 2011 by Chopperboy

[Chopperboy]

Fukushima No. 1 plant designed on 'trial-and-error' basis

While changes improved safety at the Fukushima No. 2 nuclear power plant, overconfidence, complacency and high costs stymied such action at the now-crippled Fukushima No. 1 plant, according to people familiar with the situation.

A midlevel TEPCO official also said money was a big reason why repairs and changes to the No. 1 plant were not made.

"The blueprints for the reactor cores at the No. 1 plant were bought 'as is' by Toshiba Corp. from General Electric Co., so the priority at that time was on constructing the reactors according to those blueprints," the official said.

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201104060126.html

Edited April 25, 2011 by metisdead
Edited for fair use.

[midas]

alarm bells for the dairy industry in some places

" I wrote to radiation expert Dr. Chris Busby to ask him if he thought people living outside of Japan should take any actions to try to reduce their radiation exposure:

Professor Busby replied:

I attach my "don't panic" paper. However, since then I have re-thought this advice as the thing is still fissioning and releasing 10 to the fourteen becquerels a day. This will mean that Sr-90 [strontium 90] and Uranium and particulates will be building up in the USA and Europe. I will assess this later but for now I think it prudent to stop drinking milk. I also attach the particulates note."

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/

Edited April 25, 2011 by midas

[metisdead]

Some posts have been removed due to possible violation of copyright and non compliance of fair use. It is generally accepted, but not written into law, that quoting the first two or three sentences of an article and giving a link to the source is considered “fair use” and not a violation of copyright.

[elcent]

And now maybe we will never know.............

" Now the Japanese government has moved to crack down on independent reportage and criticism of the government's policies in the wake of the disaster by deciding what citizens may or may not talk about in public. A new project team has been created by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication, the National Police Agency, and METI to combat "rumors" deemed harmful to Japanese security in the wake of the Fukushima disaster.

The government charges that the damage caused by earthquakes and by the nuclear accident are being magnified by irresponsible rumors, and the government must take action for the sake of the public good. The project team has begun to send "letters of request" to such organizations as telephone companies, internet providers, cable television stations, and others, demanding that they "take adequate measures based on the guidelines in response to illegal information. "The measures include erasing any information from internet sites that the authorities deem harmful to public order and morality."

full article here :-

http://japanfocus.or...iko-Segawa/3516

A new project team has been created to furtehr distort information so that they can do and mislead the public and international community even more. That's already a level ten out of seven for them now.

irresponsible rumours - if the govt would keep up with full and detailed information then there would be no space for rumours.

what is illegal information?

At the other hand it has also something very good. From now on the govt can be held fully responsible and with all consequences for serious issues and that may arise out of their witholding tactics. After all TEP)CO consists of govt managers and not professionals. People are not so stupid to fall into rumours, but the govt is.

[katana]

...Radiation on the ground holds very little danger to us due to the facts I've just mentioned above. Where it does hold a danger is when it enters the food chain and, again bare with me I will come to that soon...

The biggest worry with raiation is when it enters the food chain. If you eat radioactive material this changes the whole game. Now I said earlier that Alpha is the most dangerous to people but can be stopped by a few centimetre of air. if you eat it what is stopping it is your body. Alpha radiationis, relatively speaking, a huge particle and it will smash your body cells to pieces. This is what causes cancer from radiation. beta is the same but to a slightly lesser effect. Gamma is not to bad which is why hospitals are prepared to give you x-rays....

People from the nuclear industry try to downplay fears of the released radiation from nuclear plants by deliberately confusing natural background radiation from rocks etc with radioactive particles ingested into the body, saying we are all exposed to a background radiation anyway, and it's relatively harmless.

But as you point out there's a big difference between background radiation and when you ingest radioactive particles into your body that come into intimate contact with human cells.

[endure]

Remind me - how many people have died as a direct result of radiation released from Fukushima? How many people have died as a result of the earthquake and tsunami that caused the Fukushima disaster?

[midas]

Remind me - how many people have died as a direct result of radiation released from Fukushima? How many people have died as a result of the earthquake and tsunami that caused the Fukushima disaster?

but perhaps you should also include " how many people are in the early stages of dying ( and maybe dont even know it yet ?) as a direct result of radiation released from Fukushima?

[electau]

Ask yourself this question,

How many persons have died since 1955 as a result of radiation fron a commercial nuclear reactor?

How many persons have died as a result of UV radiation from the normal rays of the sun in everyday exposure?

Both cause cancer. Cancer within the normal population are normally between 22 and 25%.