Fukushima radiation

[levittownnick]

Here is a big surprise. (not)
They now say that the radiation released was 2.5 times greater than estimated.

 

[dingbat]

Re: Fukushima radiation

The amount of release means nothing. It makes for good headline with no factual data.

It's what was released and how it as released that matters. Radiation decay ranges from milliseconds to millions of years. It’s affect range from sunburn to almost instant death.

 

[PiratePast40]

Re: Fukushima radiation

For the OP:
And the point is???

I'm not criticizing you personally but I am pointing out that statements without references only help to fuel fear and mistrust. Radiation itself is not necessarily harmful. It's the type and magnitude that is important in order to determine if there is, or will be, any possible damage.

It would be expected that revised estimates would be issued after analysis. Not that there weren't underestimates but it's really important that we determine what the effects will be and not the actual number of curies released.

There is continuing evaluation and monitoring being performed by several international agencies. Even the debris fields from the tsunami are being monitired for activated and contaminated material. Not to say that there is zero risk but we really need to know the magnitude before there can be any evaluation of risk.

 

[rbh]

Re: Fukushima radiation

^^^^^
I think his first line describes it best, kinda like not quite as advertised.
The coast of BC and Alaska are starting to get the first parts of the debres field washing in, it will be interesting to see were the mass ends up, I mean "HEY" one guy already found a harley!!!

 

[Bob_VT]

Re: Fukushima radiation

Well, we have ZERO control over what has happened. The radiation is not going to be as high as the Sunspot Radiation which we are encountering.

Just a headline to fuel panic.

 

[Grandad]

Re: Fukushima radiation

I think the OP's point is that it's no surprise that the original estimate of damage always seems to be less than actual. How much oil was/is spilled in the Gulf? How much sunburn? The original estimate by the perpetrator always denies reality, regardless of the danger. - Grandad

 

[levittownnick]

Re: Fukushima radiation

I think the OP's point is that it's no surprise that the original estimate of damage always seems to be less than actual. How much oil was/is spilled in the Gulf? How much sunburn? The original estimate by the perpetrator always denies reality, regardless of the danger. - Grandad

Hitting the nail right on the head. You can garner all the data you want, it still will not be as significant as not being told the truth up front. Thanks.

 

[Bigprairie1]

Re: Fukushima radiation

Here is a big surprise. (not)
They now say that the radiation released was 2.5 times greater than estimated.

...who is 'they'?

 

[PiratePast40]

Re: Fukushima radiation

...who is 'they'?

If you google "Fukushima" you'll see that there were several articles from different news outlets. Looks like the biggerst contributor was I-131 with a t 1/2 of just about 8 days.

It's extreemly difficult to to determine the exact amount of activity released in the accident scenario. Many of the detectors were damaged and accurate core inventories won't be completed for many more years. I'm not defending TEPCO in any way, just saying that the estimates are just that - estimates. The topic and estimates are discussed and presented at many of the Health Physics conferences both here in the US and in the international forums. This will be a topic discussed and written about ad nauseum for several decades. There will be multiple, redundant, and conflicting studies and monitoring scenarios by groups all over the world.

The point is that what we're really concerned with is biological damage, i.e., what can hurt you. Anything else is just academic or a way to sell more news stories.

 

[bruceb58]

Re: Fukushima radiation

However I do agree that when it comes to nuclear power governments and the site owners are loath to tell the truth when things go wrong.

And you know this how?

 

[levittownnick]

Re: Fukushima radiation

...who is 'they'?

Try reading the news, and I'm not talking about the daily rags. If that isn't enough, go out and bask in the radiation, as someone said it is just like getting some sun.

 

[rbh]

Re: Fukushima radiation

Try reading the news, and I'm not talking about the daily rags. If that isn't enough, go out and bask in the radiation, as someone said it is just like getting some sun.

LOL

How close to the sun am I going to be basking?
SPF 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 :facepalm:

 

[FastFission]

Re: Fukushima radiation

If you really want information on the whole mess, I'd recommend the info pages on the International Atomic Energy Agency (iaea.org). It's a bit on the technical side, but it's about a spin free as anything you'll find. I've found that anything on the major news sites is typically a feed from someone with a pretty strong agenda, one way or another.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[dingbat]

Re: Fukushima radiation

As an Ex-RSO (Radiation Safety Officer) there is a lot of misunderstanding about radiation mentioned in this thread which I will not get into. All I'll say is that unless you?re a physicist or trained radiation worker, 99% of this stuff will not mean squat to you and only confuse you more.

FWIW: We are required to wear personal radiation monitoring devices at work. One of the highest readings we ever got was from a dosimeter accidently left on a vacuum tube TV a couple of days. Wonder why they told us as kids to stay back from the TV

You might be surprised how much radiation you?re exposed to at any given time.
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/calculate.html

 

[PiratePast40]

Re: Fukushima radiation

Try reading the news, and I'm not talking about the daily rags. If that isn't enough, go out and bask in the radiation, as someone said it is just like getting some sun.

The problem here is that people don't understand the numbers and react as if there is an immediate danger. YOU should go back and read the recent articles. There is nothing there to indicate any danger from elevated radiation levels. I have no reason to disbelieve the amount of activity reported by Reuters or the NYT. Let's face it, people are calling you on the carpet and asking for your references. You wouldn't come up with them so we have to assume that it was the recent articles about initial activity levels being underestimated. The terms and quantities are important to understand the risk. You don't add anything positive by just running and screaming about radiation.

Here's the news article that I found: http://http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/world/asia/radioactive-release-at-fukushima-plant-was-underestimated.html

I don't think that anyone doubts that the initial estimates were low and I discussed that in an earlier posts. TEPCO is being harshly criticized and IMO, that's justified. I sit in on meetings with Health Physics professionals from around the country and can guarantee you that are addressing the issues and are involved in increased monitoring here.

If you're really concerned, educate yourself so you can learn what the numbers mean.

The earthquake and tsunami were tragic events. The psychological and financial pain will be felt by the country and the people for decades to come. I don't think we add anything positive by additional (non-constructive) criticism.

 

[Bigprairie1]

Re: Fukushima radiation

Try reading the news, and I'm not talking about the daily rags.

....oh......is that what I have to do?.....thanks for the 'heads up' on that.

Good to know you are all over this with the all facts, and so quickly.

BP

 

[mscher]

Re: Fukushima radiation

Here is a big surprise. (not)
They now say that the radiation released was 2.5 times greater than estimated.

Would you have volunteered, to stand there next to a blown reactor, holding the geiger counter, so ensure the reading were accurate?

Fukushima was a catashrophe, of the proverbial "biblical proportions". There are certainly still many unknowns, to come out of it.

Does not matter anyway.

I'm having a great weekend regardless, of the radiation. Hope you all do too.

 

[levittownnick]

Re: Fukushima radiation

Would you have volunteered, to stand there next to a blown reactor, holding the geiger counter, so ensure the reading were accurate?

Fukushima was a catashrophe, of the proverbial "biblical proportions". There are certainly still many unknowns, to come out of it.

Does not matter anyway.

I'm having a great weekend regardless, of the radiation. Hope you all do too.

Does the device "robot" come to mind? P.S. Don't eat the Blufin Tuna.

 

[Philster]

Re: Fukushima radiation

Here is a big surprise. (not)
They now say that the radiation released was 2.5 times greater than estimated.

With time comes more data and more accurate data. Guess they should have nailed the estimate on day one. Don't know how one measures that as it's happening. The plant doesn't have a leak-o-meter and the radiation doesn't line up in little particles and pass through a gate on the way out.

Tends to be a bit messy and confusion abounds with 'estimates'. WHAT?! An ESTIMATE. How DARE they!

:facepalm:

Bath tubs: Making radiation look safe since forever.

 

[bruceb58]

Re: Fukushima radiation

P.S. Don't eat the Blufin Tuna.

The levels of radiation for Cesium they found are WAY LOWER than the safety levels deemed safe to eat. In fact, the level for Cesium they measured was lower than naturally occuring radioactive potassium so I think you are over reacting a little bit.