Japan hit by powerful earthquake

[Kryssan]

Need I go back and explain the INES ratings again? The highest number assumes the entire INES rating, but there are three criteria to the INES rating, one of which is still being analyzed and the other is a low number (3). Only 1 of the 3 classifications of ratings is being shown at a 7 (criterion 2), and they're still toying with those numbers.

These new numbers include an estimate of all the material released since the incident began, most of which has been going into the ocean and a good portion of it is all short lived activity.

We're not going to know final/fixed INES classification probably for another month or so, when they've had time to analyze the extent of the physical damage. Granted, it'll still be a 7, because once again the highest of any criterion is the total INES rating, regardless of the other fields.

They're not ever going to start at INES 7. I really hate the 'Japan is downplaying this' thing. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. They haven't downplayed anything, they've laid out all the information and some of us have tried to actually relay it. Personally I think they've been incredibly open about it, dishing out all this raw data (have you even looked at the hour-by-hour NISA radiation monitoring post graphs?) If you're basing the 'downplaying' on what you heard on Fox news or the like, then yeah, you probably do think so.



A lot of Iodine and Cesium has been released. We know this, we've known this. Disposition reports have been released and I've posted several of them here. It's not 'a lot' per unit time but this has been going on for a month now, which adds up to 'a lot' total released. However, 'a lot' does not mean 'makes area unlivable' or 'significantly impacts local cancer rates' or 'the workers at the site will all die in weeks' or like-wise.

(JAIF has some good reports (if slightly dubbed down for understanding) that show some analytical comparisons to concentrations of land/sea; NISA has really good reports (if more complicated/harder to read) for land/sea/air if you're interesting and want to know what the estimated impact will be from that which has been released already.)

It should still be stressed that most of the 'a lot' is short lived. Besides Cesium, the areas outside of the site haven't seen detectable concentrations of 'long-lived' (Cesium lasts for a while, but compared to other things *cough*Chernobyl-4 radionuclide release*cough* it's nowhere near as bad) particulate, and even still the amount of general area radiation increase is rather minimal.

You can compare that Chernobyl and Fukushima released similar amounts (at least within same orders) of Iodine and Cesium, but Chernobyl released a lot of other stuff that is the principle cause for why the area is as it is today. Iodine and Cesium are not what made Chernobyl 'bad'.

There is also the issue of the median of release - Chernobyl put it all up into the atmosphere. Fukushima is putting most of it into the sea, where it is very quickly diluted. And before you even start with that discussion, adding a bit more radioisotope to the ocean is not going to have a drastic impact except locally at the plant. Not that we should put it into the ocean, but if I were personally given a choice of where it went, I would be for choosing the medium that makes for very good shielding material and has a massive dilution volume.

Also, this is all contamination we're talking about, not radiation. Iodine and Cesium isotopes do not have the same energetic decay as other radionuclides, and thus do not deal the same amounts of equivalent biological damage. Hence why radiation levels remain low away from the site (though elevated above typical background amounts).

The impact to foodstuffs, water, et cetera has been discussed over and over and over again. The area around Fukushima is not going to become like Chernobyl unless something majorly catastrophic happens down the line. It will be a bitch to cleanup if they go for the typical 'less than' amounts, but that doesn't mean the area is a 'wasteland'.

There are minor amounts of other radionuclides released noted, also for the most part short lived and confined within the site. Fractional increases in plutonium concentrations confirmed locally at the site.

So overall they're having issues but coming through them slowly and surely.



Comparing this to Chernobyl is like comparing an Austin Martin to a Pontiac Fiero. They're both called sports cars. People will of course continue to compare this to Chernobyl, especially now, because they're being handed the association on golden platters.

[Cantih]

Maybe it would help if the scale was adjusted?
Call Chernobyl a 9 or something, and reserve it for real spectacular fuckups.

[Kryssan]

Maybe it would help if the scale was adjusted?
Call Chernobyl a 9 or something, and reserve it for real spectacular fuckups.

It'd help if they'd just explain/teach nuclear material in enough depth that people could acknowledge it rather than seeing it as magic green goo.

There are some valid comparisons that can be made between Fukushima and Chernobyl, such as total release concentrations of Iodine and Cesium (hence the change in INES rating). But you're never going to make something that can accurately describe a situation to someone when they don't understand what the situation is and everyone is telling them information is just as misplaced. When people compare something to Chernobyl, they're not talking about contamination level or radionulcide content - they're talking about how fucked up the area is and how long it'll remain that way.

[Tagus]

ITT: 7 =/= 7

I kid, I kid.

[chiyio]

Kryssan, thanks for always explaining things for us, even though you have to deal with some ignorant fear mongering fuck tards.

[fussel]

Not that we should put it into the ocean, but if I were personally given a choice of where it went, I would be for choosing the medium that makes for very good shielding material and has a massive dilution volume.

If the whole plant would have slid into the ocean during the earthquake, there wouldn't probably have been a pellet meltdown in the first place... Just
http://www.rob-clarkson.com/duff-brewery/blinky/01.gif

[Omniyoji]

...
Comparing this to Chernobyl is like comparing an Austin Martin to a Pontiac Fiero. They're both called sports cars. People will of course continue to compare this to Chernobyl, especially now, because they're being handed the association on golden platters.

lolFiero, unless we're talking about the hot vapor version

[Yeyoking]

lol

What's so funny or you just being ignorant?

[fussel]

Got this link from irc:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp9iJ3pPuL8

[Salodin]

Interesting watch. What I want to know is where are all the workers that are supposed to be at the plants lol. Aren't they all pretty close to each other? I'd assume they would have been talked to or at the very least seen other people aside from those two trucks miles away from the plant.

[Olo401]

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/1...govt_claims_of

[Silenka]

I find it weird that Michio Kaku of all people has been blowing the situation as far out of proportion as possible from the start along with the rest of the news media. Is it a clever ploy to drum up awareness and help for Japan, or does he honestly think that Japan is going to explode in a fit of nuclear destruction?

[Salodin]

I took it as more of things are not spiraling out of control, but there is still reason to be very concerned. I think he just feels things are being played down too much, as opposed to everyone's opinion that things aren't that bad over there atm. I do like his statement that the military should take over; I don't see why the local power company is still trying to handle this when there is more personnel and expertise around the world waiting and willing to take over. Regardless of sensationalism, that is still the biggest "wtf" to me. Even if other nations don't directly assist in bringing things under control, you'd think the Japanese government would say "Sup, heres our army, use them to help with this shit".

[Tagus]

In (the "educate yourself to this reality") reality, the reason why so many different opinions are getting tossed around regarding the current severity and long-term effect of what happened is that it is not fully under control yet. Even at this stage it's still all speculation. Finding common ground is tough sometimes, but I'd go so far as to say that we all agree that dangerous situations which are not under control are increasingly dangerous the longer they are not under control?

Good starting point is good.

Now... I don't know much about the experience levels of the people contributing to this discussion, but I have cleaned a great many radioactive spills in my lifetime unfortunately, and though the quantities of the RAM I've dealt with have paled in comparison to something of this magnitude, it's been some of the same isotopes, and there is something that you all should know... it's just a freaking nightmare. NOT, mind you, because radiation is scary, but because THE SHIT DOESN'T COME OFF AND YOU CAN'T SEE IT. Caps added for emphasis on the suckage of it not coming off.

SIDE NOTE: I've been trying to think of a good RL analogy, because RL analogies are apparently always necessary in internet thoughts, and this is about the best I can come up with. Imagine trying to dry yourself off from a shower if water was sticky (water IS sticky, btw, and if you didn't ever educate yourself to THAT reality then it's time you thought about it), invisible, and didn't evaporate... then you'd have an idea of what it's like trying to actually clean radioactivity. The shit just spreads. Specifically on the shoes of immigrants who don't check their shoes before leaving restricted areas, and every Japanese person is an immigrant. But that's another story for another time.

I'd like to add that I do believe Kryssan is a smart guy who has explained the situation well. I don't agree on his confidence that the situation is stable enough to judge it's severity, and I don't feel it will be stable enough for a FUCKING LONG ASS TIME (caps added for emphasis on how long it will be), but he has explained the nuts and bolts of the situation well and I've honestly learned alot from reading his posts. I guess if I had a question, it would be this... at what point, either quantitatively or qualitatively, would you guys say that the Austin Martin and the Pontiac Fiero BECOME directly comparable? Or even... what has to happen specifically for this situation to become worse than the Chernobyl incident?

We all know the 7 rating is crap. They might as well call it an amber alert for all of the significance the number 7 has to a random joe-blow fox news watcher. But maybe, just maybe, if I knew where you all felt the line in the sand was drawn, I'd have a better understanding of where y'all were coming from. Obviously media coverage is criticized no matter what... either they're hiding something or they're sensationalizing something. Either way, I've been wondering how the above question might be answered. I'll go away for a few more weeks now and watch as events continue to unfold.

TL;DR version:

[Darlantan]

it would be this... at what point, either quantitatively or qualitatively, would you guys say that the Austin Martin and the Pontiac Fiero BECOME directly comparable? Or even... what has to happen specifically for this situation to become worse than the Chernobyl incident?

... These new numbers include an estimate of all the material released since the incident began, most of which has been going into the ocean and a good portion of it is all short lived activity....

...A lot of Iodine and Cesium has been released. We know this, we've known this. Disposition reports have been released and I've posted several of them here. It's not 'a lot' per unit time but this has been going on for a month now, which adds up to 'a lot' total released. However, 'a lot' does not mean 'makes area unlivable' or 'significantly impacts local cancer rates' or 'the workers at the site will all die in weeks' or like-wise...

...It should still be stressed that most of the 'a lot' is short lived. Besides Cesium, the areas outside of the site haven't seen detectable concentrations of 'long-lived' (Cesium lasts for a while, but compared to other things *cough*Chernobyl-4 radionuclide release*cough* it's nowhere near as bad) particulate, and even still the amount of general area radiation increase is rather minimal.

You can compare that Chernobyl and Fukushima released similar amounts (at least within same orders) of Iodine and Cesium, but Chernobyl released a lot of other stuff that is the principle cause for why the area is as it is today. Iodine and Cesium are not what made Chernobyl 'bad'.

There is also the issue of the median of release - Chernobyl put it all up into the atmosphere. Fukushima is putting most of it into the sea, where it is very quickly diluted. And before you even start with that discussion, adding a bit more radioisotope to the ocean is not going to have a drastic impact except locally at the plant. Not that we should put it into the ocean, but if I were personally given a choice of where it went, I would be for choosing the medium that makes for very good shielding material and has a massive dilution volume.

Also, this is all contamination we're talking about, not radiation. Iodine and Cesium isotopes do not have the same energetic decay as other radionuclides, and thus do not deal the same amounts of equivalent biological damage. Hence why radiation levels remain low away from the site (though elevated above typical background amounts).

The impact to foodstuffs, water, et cetera has been discussed over and over and over again. The area around Fukushima is not going to become like Chernobyl unless something majorly catastrophic happens down the line. It will be a bitch to cleanup if they go for the typical 'less than' amounts, but that doesn't mean the area is a 'wasteland'...

So when the released stuff is not just as much as in Chernobyl's case, but as nasty.

[Kryssan]

I took it as more of things are not spiraling out of control, but there is still reason to be very concerned. I think he just feels things are being played down too much, as opposed to everyone's opinion that things aren't that bad over there atm. I do like his statement that the military should take over; I don't see why the local power company is still trying to handle this when there is more personnel and expertise around the world waiting and willing to take over. Regardless of sensationalism, that is still the biggest "wtf" to me. Even if other nations don't directly assist in bringing things under control, you'd think the Japanese government would say "Sup, heres our army, use them to help with this shit".

This is TEPCO's nuclear power plant. TEPCO devised their own emergency response strategies, their own response teams, their own regulatory actions and approved them with their countries regulators. It is their job to handle this problem, not pass it off to someone else.

In the nuclear community, the 'man-in-charge' of the casualty is the first one there. Now, the first guy there is probably not going to be the guy you actually want in charge the rest of the time, because he's not going to have oversight of the entire problem, but he will at least be able to get things rolling.

However, once the guy you do want there comes in, you don't replace him with an outside authority after the fact unless he is completely screwing things up. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the most important one is this - nobody knows that plant better than the people that work at it. No matter how much experience you have, or how many other plants you've operated on, only the operators of that plant know that plant the best.

This is why reactor operators qualify only on their own platform. I've been qualified on four platforms now - each time I switch platforms, I start over from scratch. An operator from one plant cannot go to another plant and conduct the same job without starting over from 'level 0'.

It is totally within expected bounds for the local authority to conduct the casualty actions from the nuclear community's point of view. Outside authorities provide assistance with equipment, supplies, and manpower. They do not take over the scene of the casualty unless the local authority proves inept in combating it.

Despite what people say about the company, TEPCO has done an outstanding job of keeping people alive and attempting to contain the contamination released. So far I only know of three deaths - the guy in the crane tower, and the two workers who were found dead from injuries sustained in one of the operations buildings (they had been missing for days). So far as I know, no one has died or been seriously injured from exposure to radiation or contamination and IAEA relayed from NISA that:

"NISA reported on 12 April that the three workers who had previously been exposed to high dose rates while working in the turbine building of Unit 3 have undergone further medical checks. No negative outcomes were identified. In the case of the two workers who received doses of a few Sievert to their legs as a result of walking in contaminated water, medical tests showed no evidence of either skin burns or erythema."

TEPCO has responded quickly to concerns of radioactive release, and with teams from MEXT and IAEA has set up monitoring posts and sample locations all around the site. They are not hiding any of this information - as samples return and are analyzed the results are posted for the public to see, and even translated (sometimes not the best translations but I digress) into English. Other nations via the IAEA have included their own teams to assist the Japanese.

This is honestly a case of human lack of empathy and understanding. It is best represented by comedian Louis C.K. - "I hate my phone! Why does it take so long, it's taking so long, I've been waiting a whole 10 seconds why is it so slow?!"

In (the "educate yourself to this reality") reality, the reason why so many different opinions are getting tossed around regarding the current severity and long-term effect of what happened is that it is not fully under control yet. Even at this stage it's still all speculation. Finding common ground is tough sometimes, but I'd go so far as to say that we all agree that dangerous situations which are not under control are increasingly dangerous the longer they are not under control?

Good starting point is good.

Now... I don't know much about the experience levels of the people contributing to this discussion, but I have cleaned a great many radioactive spills in my lifetime unfortunately, and though the quantities of the RAM I've dealt with have paled in comparison to something of this magnitude, it's been some of the same isotopes, and there is something that you all should know... it's just a freaking nightmare. NOT, mind you, because radiation is scary, but because THE SHIT DOESN'T COME OFF AND YOU CAN'T SEE IT. Caps added for emphasis on the suckage of it not coming off.

SIDE NOTE: I've been trying to think of a good RL analogy, because RL analogies are apparently always necessary in internet thoughts, and this is about the best I can come up with. Imagine trying to dry yourself off from a shower if water was sticky (water IS sticky, btw, and if you didn't ever educate yourself to THAT reality then it's time you thought about it), invisible, and didn't evaporate... then you'd have an idea of what it's like trying to actually clean radioactivity. The shit just spreads. Specifically on the shoes of immigrants who don't check their shoes before leaving restricted areas, and every Japanese person is an immigrant. But that's another story for another time.

I'd like to add that I do believe Kryssan is a smart guy who has explained the situation well. I don't agree on his confidence that the situation is stable enough to judge it's severity, and I don't feel it will be stable enough for a FUCKING LONG ASS TIME (caps added for emphasis on how long it will be), but he has explained the nuts and bolts of the situation well and I've honestly learned alot from reading his posts. I guess if I had a question, it would be this... at what point, either quantitatively or qualitatively, would you guys say that the Austin Martin and the Pontiac Fiero BECOME directly comparable? Or even... what has to happen specifically for this situation to become worse than the Chernobyl incident?

We all know the 7 rating is crap. They might as well call it an amber alert for all of the significance the number 7 has to a random joe-blow fox news watcher. But maybe, just maybe, if I knew where you all felt the line in the sand was drawn, I'd have a better understanding of where y'all were coming from. Obviously media coverage is criticized no matter what... either they're hiding something or they're sensationalizing something. Either way, I've been wondering how the above question might be answered. I'll go away for a few more weeks now and watch as events continue to unfold.

For others, as we're talking about short lived activity here, the 'scariness' of the release isn't as great as with other radioactive isotopes. The major concern with long term contaminants is that you ingest or breath them in where they deal wonderful whole body doses inside of you where you have no barriers to protect your organs (such as skin). The more energetic the isotope's decay the more damage it deals.

Taking in any isotope is a danger, including short lived (because all of them do damage obviously and just because it decays quickly doesn't mean it won't give you a good dose), this is why nuclear personnel have such ridiculously low limits. Even today, with all the data we have from radiation exposure and fallout from atomic testing and the atomic bombs on Japan and events such as Chernobyl we just can't nail down the exact effects of radiation. There are even some studies that show a higher background radiation level leads to longer life of the creatures living within that area.

That being said, we do know that taking in x in period of time y will result in the following effects z. Chronic exposures are where things become dicey, so we just say 'well if we prevent it from happening we'll never have to know'. So that's what we do. It's not exactly ethical to test animals (including humans) to the effects of long term radiation exposure and high-dose contamination ingestion, and nearly all of our data in that regard comes from the bombs - and the isotopes released during that event are not the same. We got some good data from Chernobyl, and some minor scatter plots regarding all the other nuclear handling incidents, but overall we don't have a clear picture of what happens.

It will be some time before we know what the real effects of this disaster will be, but for the time being with the released contaminants by far being Iodine and Cesium, with some Strontium (minor amounts, normal atmospheric fallout had levels in the 1~10 range worldwide and Japan's highest levels right now are in the 60's - would be interesting to know how different Japan's soil concentrations normally are from the rest of the world considering their past any geologists here that can field that?) and Plutonium (retardedly small amounts only around the site itself) as well. Other radionuclides have been observed at the site, but most of them are below limits or in some cases barely above detectable threshholds.

Given that I and Cs seem to be what we're most definitely working with, we can make comparisons to release with that of Chernobyl, but the aftereffects will be significantly less noticeable. The INES rating scale as I stated before has three criteria, with two of them so far being reported - Radiological Barriers and Controls at Facilities (Criterion 2) and Defense in Depth (Criterion 3). The most important rating to the public is the one that has not been determined yet - People and the Environment (Criterion 1). The rating of 7 has been released for Criterion 2, and the highest I've seen for Criterion 3 was a 3.

Previously, the INES ratings from the plant were all treated separately for each unit but now they're lumping everything together into one INES rating for the entire site. This makes sense given the casualty, as while Criterion 2 is a 5 for Units 1-4 and a 3 for Units 5, 6, the public is not going to evaluate the spread based on individual units, they'll talk about the site as a whole.

The longer the event continues without a sound containment established, the more contaminants that will be exposed to the environment and the greater the chance that more damage could be done (either by another quake/tsunami, by hydrogen explosion, by chemical damage (ie salt encrusting limiting heat transfer, why they swapped over from seawater to freshwater again), et cetera). That said, they are working to that goal as quickly and as safely as they can.

So when the released stuff is not just as much as in Chernobyl's case, but as nasty.

^That's a pretty simplistic way of summing everything up.

[Kaylia]

Death (and future health issue): Considerably less than chernobyl
Contamination: Hard to say from the data, but definitively nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl. It's hard to evaluate the impact thought...there will be some, but probably not as bas as some people seem to think
Radiation: Quite a lot, but it only matter for people close it. Once they get everything under control, there wont be an left


So idk...Death toll alone make it hard to compare the events to Tchernobyl. The cost..maybe, but that's not what people are worried about.

[Tagus]

This is TEPCO's nuclear power plant. TEPCO devised their own emergency response strategies, their own response teams, their own regulatory actions and approved them with their countries regulators. It is their job to handle this problem, not pass it off to someone else.

In the nuclear community, the 'man-in-charge' of the casualty is the first one there. Now, the first guy there is probably not going to be the guy you actually want in charge the rest of the time, because he's not going to have oversight of the entire problem, but he will at least be able to get things rolling.

However, once the guy you do want there comes in, you don't replace him with an outside authority after the fact unless he is completely screwing things up. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the most important one is this - nobody knows that plant better than the people that work at it. No matter how much experience you have, or how many other plants you've operated on, only the operators of that plant know that plant the best.

This is why reactor operators qualify only on their own platform. I've been qualified on four platforms now - each time I switch platforms, I start over from scratch. An operator from one plant cannot go to another plant and conduct the same job without starting over from 'level 0'.

It is totally within expected bounds for the local authority to conduct the casualty actions from the nuclear community's point of view. Outside authorities provide assistance with equipment, supplies, and manpower. They do not take over the scene of the casualty unless the local authority proves inept in combating it.

Despite what people say about the company, TEPCO has done an outstanding job of keeping people alive and attempting to contain the contamination released. So far I only know of three deaths - the guy in the crane tower, and the two workers who were found dead from injuries sustained in one of the operations buildings (they had been missing for days). So far as I know, no one has died or been seriously injured from exposure to radiation or contamination and IAEA relayed from NISA that:

"NISA reported on 12 April that the three workers who had previously been exposed to high dose rates while working in the turbine building of Unit 3 have undergone further medical checks. No negative outcomes were identified. In the case of the two workers who received doses of a few Sievert to their legs as a result of walking in contaminated water, medical tests showed no evidence of either skin burns or erythema."

TEPCO has responded quickly to concerns of radioactive release, and with teams from MEXT and IAEA has set up monitoring posts and sample locations all around the site. They are not hiding any of this information - as samples return and are analyzed the results are posted for the public to see, and even translated (sometimes not the best translations but I digress) into English. Other nations via the IAEA have included their own teams to assist the Japanese.

This is honestly a case of human lack of empathy and understanding. It is best represented by comedian Louis C.K. - "I hate my phone! Why does it take so long, it's taking so long, I've been waiting a whole 10 seconds why is it so slow?!"





For others, as we're talking about short lived activity here, the 'scariness' of the release isn't as great as with other radioactive isotopes. The major concern with long term contaminants is that you ingest or breath them in where they deal wonderful whole body doses inside of you where you have no barriers to protect your organs (such as skin). The more energetic the isotope's decay the more damage it deals.

Taking in any isotope is a danger, including short lived (because all of them do damage obviously and just because it decays quickly doesn't mean it won't give you a good dose), this is why nuclear personnel have such ridiculously low limits. Even today, with all the data we have from radiation exposure and fallout from atomic testing and the atomic bombs on Japan and events such as Chernobyl we just can't nail down the exact effects of radiation. There are even some studies that show a higher background radiation level leads to longer life of the creatures living within that area.

That being said, we do know that taking in x in period of time y will result in the following effects z. Chronic exposures are where things become dicey, so we just say 'well if we prevent it from happening we'll never have to know'. So that's what we do. It's not exactly ethical to test animals (including humans) to the effects of long term radiation exposure and high-dose contamination ingestion, and nearly all of our data in that regard comes from the bombs - and the isotopes released during that event are not the same. We got some good data from Chernobyl, and some minor scatter plots regarding all the other nuclear handling incidents, but overall we don't have a clear picture of what happens.

It will be some time before we know what the real effects of this disaster will be, but for the time being with the released contaminants by far being Iodine and Cesium, with some Strontium (minor amounts, normal atmospheric fallout had levels in the 1~10 range worldwide and Japan's highest levels right now are in the 60's - would be interesting to know how different Japan's soil concentrations normally are from the rest of the world considering their past any geologists here that can field that?) and Plutonium (retardedly small amounts only around the site itself) as well. Other radionuclides have been observed at the site, but most of them are below limits or in some cases barely above detectable threshholds.

Given that I and Cs seem to be what we're most definitely working with, we can make comparisons to release with that of Chernobyl, but the aftereffects will be significantly less noticeable. The INES rating scale as I stated before has three criteria, with two of them so far being reported - Radiological Barriers and Controls at Facilities (Criterion 2) and Defense in Depth (Criterion 3). The most important rating to the public is the one that has not been determined yet - People and the Environment (Criterion 1). The rating of 7 has been released for Criterion 2, and the highest I've seen for Criterion 3 was a 3.

Previously, the INES ratings from the plant were all treated separately for each unit but now they're lumping everything together into one INES rating for the entire site. This makes sense given the casualty, as while Criterion 2 is a 5 for Units 1-4 and a 3 for Units 5, 6, the public is not going to evaluate the spread based on individual units, they'll talk about the site as a whole.

The longer the event continues without a sound containment established, the more contaminants that will be exposed to the environment and the greater the chance that more damage could be done (either by another quake/tsunami, by hydrogen explosion, by chemical damage (ie salt encrusting limiting heat transfer, why they swapped over from seawater to freshwater again), et cetera). That said, they are working to that goal as quickly and as safely as they can.





^That's a pretty simplistic way of summing everything up.

This response to my post is a good representation of both the value and disservice I believe you are providing.

In your first paragraph, you describe the dangers associated with inhalation and ingestion of radioactive material, but make no mention of the fact that I-131 is quite possibly the MOST dangerous isotope you could inhale or ingest because of it's affinity for the Thyroid, and the higher chance it has of causing cancer at low levels vs. high levels, because at low levels it will cause Thyroid cancer but at high levels it will obliterate the thyroid entirely which is ironically safer to the body. I'm also just going to go ahead and assume that although you mention the skin as a barrier, you are aware that the skin does nothing to block radiation from hitting your organs from an external source, which is the reason why the limits for finger badges and body badges are entirely different... because if you didn't know that it would be pretty impossible to comprehend tbh.

In your second paragraph, you go into detail as to why the effect of radiation is impossible to truly measure. However, it's not because of a lack of testing... it's because it effects each person differently up to a point. It's similar to smoking... one person can smoke for 40 years and die of something unrelated, another can die of lung cancer after working in a smoky restaurant in their youth. Each person is built differently and has a different limit as to what they can handle, and there's really no telling how an individual will respond in low doses. In some cases, low doses can actually strengthen their immune system like you said, in much the same way that a vaccine will encourage the body to build a resistance to a specific type of infection.

Your third paragraph assumes that they can even tell what type of radiation they are being exposed to on site. A meter doesn't tell you this, only a multi-channel analyzer can tell you what's hitting you, what you're stepping in, breathing in, etc... do they even have these functioning on site? If so, do you honestly think the workers are lingering within exposure range to measure them accurately, risking their lives essentially to provide data that could change overnight? And how would they even do so? If they have air monitoring systems, are they even functioning? How are the filters being accurately measured to detect I-131 quantities in a room or area that doesn't even have positive pressure? And even if they somehow do have MCA's running on site, and they are taking the time necessary to get accurate readings (although the negative pressure would probably make this totally impossible to measure the air but w/e), how in the absolute fuck are they going to measure that in an environment with the background reading of a nuclear disaster? Hell, how are they even going to calibrate their MCA's to begin with?

I guess these are just my thoughts as I get ready for work. Your posts read like a P.R. statement to me sometimes, assuming that things are under control and being tested accurately in a situation that has got to be chaotic and stressful as hell. I know when I'm testing to see if my hood is hot or w/e, if I move a meter a quarter of an inch in one direction or another from a hot spot, the meter can go from pegging to nothing depending on how big the spot is and what kind of shielding is going on. Do you honestly believe that they have measured these things with any degree of accuracy since the beginning in a situation like this? In a way, it would almost be negligent if they DID spend their time measuring these things accurately versus spending their time on containment efforts.

I guess that's all I got for now. These are some examples of how my mind runs when I read the stuff you write. It all sounds great and clean in theory, but in reality it's messy as hell. WHICH you have alluded to. Not saying you haven't, but it's just reading so "1+1=2" to me every time. Anywho... gotta run to work. Peace out nigga.

[Kryssan]

This response to my post is a good representation of both the value and disservice I believe you are providing.

In your first paragraph, you describe the dangers associated with inhalation and ingestion of radioactive material, but make no mention of the fact that I-131 is quite possibly the MOST dangerous isotope you could inhale or ingest because of it's affinity for the Thyroid, and the higher chance it has of causing cancer at low levels vs. high levels, because at low levels it will cause Thyroid cancer but at high levels it will obliterate the thyroid entirely which is ironically safer to the body.

Iodine is but an initial concern in the big scheme of things.

You get a lot of it initially due to the generation process in fission (Tellurium > Iodine > Xenon), but the short half lives make sure it won't have a long term presence. The problem is the initial barrage and dump. However, KI tablets taken appropriately negate that as previously discussed, and even if you were unfortunate enough otherwise (which we've yet to see any development on despite the host of medical reports regarding personnel examined in the evacuation zones) your thyroid can be removed. Other isotopes that seek out things like your bone marrow and calcium are much more problematic when taken from the overarcing perspective.

KI tablets have been issued/available for a while now, and other than the workers at the site the principle threat of Iodine is taking care of itself. Contamination levels in the air/water/food/minerals are now all below legal limits, with some restrictions still in place for infants - however once again, the levels are below the limits.

So no, I wouldn't feel the need to harp on it.

I'm also just going to go ahead and assume that although you mention the skin as a barrier, you are aware that the skin does nothing to block radiation from hitting your organs from an external source, which is the reason why the limits for finger badges and body badges are entirely different... because if you didn't know that it would be pretty impossible to comprehend tbh.

Uh, what? Skin is a barrier against alpha and beta, which is what I was speaking of. Iodine is not a principle gamma emitter, though it does emit them (relatively low energy and below the gamma ray window). It is primarily a beta emitter. Betas do not go through the skin, thus unless you ingest it, it is not a threat. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here honestly. What radiation from an external source? Only gamma and neutron radiation pose a threat to internal organs from an external source. If you were trying to make some other point please rephrase because I don't get what you were aiming for.

We're not talking about radiation, we're talking about contamination and internal dose.

Outside of your body radioactive Iodine particulate do not pose a major threat. Your clothing and skin will absorb nearly all the damage. It's only when it is ingested that it becomes an issue, hence making this about contamination, not radiation (again, because this is getting confused far too often). 30% of the material inhaled/ingested will be deposited into the thyroid by the body, where it spends 11~80 days depending on age giving a continuous dose. Gamma radiation can be detected by a radiac if Iodine is deposited in the thyroid, but because skin blocks betas you won't be able to 'read' them.

In your second paragraph, you go into detail as to why the effect of radiation is impossible to truly measure. However, it's not because of a lack of testing... it's because it effects each person differently up to a point. It's similar to smoking... one person can smoke for 40 years and die of something unrelated, another can die of lung cancer after working in a smoky restaurant in their youth. Each person is built differently and has a different limit as to what they can handle, and there's really no telling how an individual will respond in low doses. In some cases, low doses can actually strengthen their immune system like you said, in much the same way that a vaccine will encourage the body to build a resistance to a specific type of infection.

What you're describing is the stochastic effects of radiation, which is also something I've covered previously in this thread. And in other threads. It is a 'lack of testing' by definition because our sample pools haven't been large enough to develop 'typical' accepted values to determine for specific groups what will happen.

We do have ratios for pCi ingested to lifetime mortality and cancer contraction percentage, but they are cumulative values taken from all sample groups and vary by means of ingestion (breath in, injected in, absorbed in, eaten, et cetera). This is what makes it difficult to analyze what the long term effects of internal exposure in a person would be. We could get much more accurate ratios if we had larger sample pools of irradiated people to work with.

Obviously, it's something the RHOs will just have to live without.

Your third paragraph assumes that they can even tell what type of radiation they are being exposed to on site. A meter doesn't tell you this, only a multi-channel analyzer can tell you what's hitting you, what you're stepping in, breathing in, etc... do they even have these functioning on site?

Um, multifunction radiacs are a standard now. What 'meter' are you referring to? Personal dosimetry meters? Accident dosimeters?

You can definitely tell what you're being exposed to at any given time with an MFR, bounded by it's own accuracy law of course. Not from dosimetry, but do you really think they're walking around without radiacs right now? Maybe the subcontractors, but those three guys were being retarded and didn't believe that their alarming EPDs meant they were in trouble.

Cause like the beeping alarm isn't a bad thing. TEPCO issued a press release concerning just that, about ensuring future incidents of that order did not occur because people were being stupid. Granted, it is difficult to stop stupid but so far no one has been seriously injured by it.

And if by chance they didn't have MFRs on site, or functioning ones, do you really think that the IAEA didn't provide them by now? At the very least their own teams would have them.

Oh, if you had bothered to read the MEXT and NISA monitoring reports you'd already know that they've been differentiating the types of radiation emissions though. Pretty positive evidence to them having and using MFRs, no? But why read those? I mean, that requires effort to click on the links and stuff.

If so, do you honestly think the workers are lingering within exposure range to measure them accurately, risking their lives essentially to provide data that could change overnight? And how would they even do so? If they have air monitoring systems, are they even functioning? How are the filters being accurately measured to detect I-131 quantities in a room or area that doesn't even have positive pressure?

Um, yeah, air monitoring stations are also a standard. And while the site has been without its instrumentation for a while, they do actually make portable ones. Which once again if you'd been reading the airborne contamination reports you'd know they were indeed using them and were indeed aware of what they're walking into and through. Now, they obviously don't know that down to each small subsection of air, but they definitely know what is in the room or a space or a building.

Outside monitoring is more difficult, but also not impossible. Hell, they're a mountainous country surrounded by low areas - how many times do you think they have to analyze for temperature inversions during spring and fall? Betcha it's quite a few. And they have these remote monitoring stations set up so that they don't have to expose themselves, which are also reported on by MEXT and IAEA.

As for determining which isotopes they are, they have Fukushima Daini relatively close by with all of their equipment in operation (except the reactors, obviously which have been shut down since the 3/11 quake). Of course you should know that if they wanted a quick and dirty approximation they could just count half lives of their filtered samples.

Given current airborne concentrations of Iodine, they've been taking the appropriate precautions of using filtered breathing as well, so even if they did happen upon a chance encounter of an area where they weren't sure of (which they would take samples prior to entering anyway due to the other issue regarding the highly active water in the Turbine building but I digress) they'd still not be in danger.

I guess these are just my thoughts as I get ready for work. Your posts read like a P.R. statement to me sometimes, assuming that things are under control and being tested accurately in a situation that has got to be chaotic and stressful as hell. I know when I'm testing to see if my hood is hot or w/e, if I move a meter a quarter of an inch in one direction or another from a hot spot, the meter can go from pegging to nothing depending on how big the spot is and what kind of shielding is going on. Do you honestly believe that they have measured these things with any degree of accuracy since the beginning in a situation like this?

I guess that's all I got for now. These are some examples of how my mind runs when I read the stuff you write. It all sounds great and clean in theory, but in reality it's messy as hell. WHICH you have alluded to. Not saying you haven't, but it's just reading so "1+1=2" to me every time. Anywho... gotta run to work. Peace out nigga.

Since the beginning? No. Since about March 20th? Yes. About every three days they release new survey information to the public, some of which details hour by hour changes of areas. They've bloody released the equivalent of survey maps for public perusal showing general background radiation levels, water/air/ground mixture contamination levels, et cetera. They're giving us a plethora of information to work with. Granted, I suppose they could release pictures or scans of the actual survey reports, but I cannot read Japanese so it wouldn't prove to helpful for me.

Stressful? Yes, the situation would be stressful. Chaotic? Perhaps during the hydrogen explosions, and the aftershocks/followon quakes, but for the majority of the time? No, not really. Event timelines show they're pretty methodical about how they're doing things, demonstrated especially well with the amount of testing and such they did prior to and when reconnecting offsite power.

Also, what kind of meters are you referring to, and which radiacs do you have experience with? It seems to me you're working with knowledge of limited equipment, at least by the way you're referencing things.

I'm sorry to sound condescending, but you're essentially harping on things that if you were looking for you'd know they were, in fact, already doing them. As someone with a claim to knowledge in the subject you could at least look into that before blindly assuming.

I am obviously not at the site and I don't know what each person or group is actually doing, so perhaps my own claims are nothing but blind assumptions. Given the opportunity I'd love to be given a first hand reference of what is going on, but alas I do not have such a thing. Based on what I'm reading from all the different data reports though, I can say with at least the certainty of the integrity of the regulatory agencies that the things you're bringing up have already been covered and handled by the various organizations involved.

[Tagus]

Ugh... was referring to gamma radiation in my skin comment cause I thought that was the only type we were talking about here. This kinda sucks... on my phone at work, work for 4 more hours and then back to work at 2 am. Don't really have time to respond decently right now. Will try later. I guess at the very least I should say i understand where you're coming from, and hope you're right.

P.s.- how do you not know what a meter is? Google "radioactivity meters" for more info. We use several of the ludlums you'll find here:

http://www.ludlums.com/index.php?opt...Aads&Itemid=80

...among others, if it matters to your argument, although it probably wouldn't help you much because ludlum has been providing japan's first responders with instuments, so I am actually quite familiar with the exact instruments they are using, as it is my job to calibrate them daily. Funny enough that i wouldn't have even known that Ludlum meters are the EXACT meters being used in Japan had you not called my equipment experience limited and asked what we use. I think the differences among our experiences, opinions, and termonology may make this conversation entirely pointless. Not to mention that as a nuclear operator by profession, your entire livelihood is dependant on the continued use of nuclear power... the biggest fear of which involves safety and the fear of the unknown. You have a vested interest in the stance you're taking, which implies bias.

*Sorry for the multiple edits but it's tough to work and post at the same time.