Japan hit by powerful earthquake

[Vandole]

>2012
>GREENTEXT

[Seanr]

I heard it and laughed for some reason

[Cail]

Tokyo sees high quake probability, scientists warn

[Kryssan]

Brief talk from me about NNSW which is sort of a crosspost to this one.

For those unaware, the first video / pictures from inside the Fukushima Dai-ichi reactor units have been obtained. From Unit 2, IIRC. They're rather grainy and aren't really useful for analysis purposes though. Radiation degrades the signal too much when they approach the torus. I don't have the pictures or a link to them on me, but I'm sure we'll be seeing more about it as time advances.

[Kryssan]

SOARCA has been released. Crossposted from the LRC thread, you can read about it by clicking here. Relevant to the nuclear discussion regarding this thread.

I have yet to find a downloadable copy online; but it should be made available soon.

[Kryssan]

Some news for those still interested:

Returns to Fukushima Areas

Restrictions in sizeable parts of Fukushima's evacuation area have been relaxed, enabling some residents to visit at will and work towards a permanent return. Two towns have opened, and a third will follow in two weeks' time.

At midnight on 1 April the restrictions on several areas within 20 kilometres of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant were revised. A significant part of these had shown dose rates caused by ambient radioactivity to be below 20 millisieverts per year - the government's benchmark for the return.


Evacuated residents of Kawauchi village and Tamura City previously needed a police permit to visit the homes they were forced to abandon last year during the Fukushima nuclear accident. Now, they may return to homes and businesses without the use of protective equipment. This means that major repairs can be made to homes damaged by the earthquake of 11 March 2011, and businesses that do not draw custom from local people may now go back to work. Farming is allowed again in line with general restrictions on the wider area. In parallel, authorities will be working to restore infrastructure needed for normal life to resume. The only restriction is that people are not yet allowed to stay overnight.


The Japanese government has identified three classes of area: One is that described above, with ambient radiation levels below 20 millisieverts per year in which residents can now move freely but not stay overnight; Another has dose rates between 20 and 50 millisieverts per year which are marked as 'restricted', where residents can briefly enter to conduct specific jobs without being monitored or using protective equipment.



http://world-nuclear-news.org/upload...il_369x460.jpg
Green: An area to which people may return but not stay overnight
Orange: A 'restricted' area; dose rate of over 20 millisieverts per year
Purple: A 'difficult' area; dose rate of 20-50 millisieverts per year

Parts of Kawauchi and Tamura are in the eastern portion of the evacuation zone, while Minamisoma is in the north and will see its restrictions relaxed later this month



People entering the 'restricted' areas were advised to avoid doing so unnecessarily, to refrain from working outdoors, to use cars rather than to walk for more than a short period and to wash upon re-entering a building. Residents were told not to drink water from rivers, but that water from the tap would present no problem.



The third category of area is known as 'difficult' to return to because of an ambient dose rate of over 50 millisieverts per year, which is not expected to go below 20 millisieverts per year before March 2016 - five years after the accident. Entering these areas is possible for purposes in the public interest, although people doing so should use monitors and protective gear.


Japan's Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (METI) said that local governments have been strongly demanding early returns to begin the restoration of the infrastructure that will support the return to normality.


Parts of a third city, Minamisoma, will be granted the same status changes on 16 April with much of this change relating to the 'planned evacuation area' to the north east of Fukushima Daiichi.


The Japanese central government aims to decontaminate all areas so that the additional radiation dose for residents from the accident will not exceed 20 millisievert per year. For areas frequented by children the aim is for this to be less than 1 millisievert per year.

Since I personally don't think in terms of mSv/unit time, I'll do this in mrem/unit time with comparisons (these have probably been mentioned previously in this particular thread, but I doubt anyone's still reading all the pages contained herein).

The average person gets anywhere from 300-500 mrem/yr from background sources (mainly Radon and CR). 1 REM = 10 mSv. Thus, areas with >20 mSv/yr doses are looking at >2 REM/yr doses, or around 4-5 times as much as one would normally get from background. It should also be noted that in general terms, 2-5 REM/cal yr is the US national dose rate limit for radiation workers (local limits always set much lower).

It is much more difficult to obtain data regarding chronic doses and associating it with health issues, so generally people always follow the rule of 'keep it as low as possible'. 2-5 Rem if taken in one shot (ie an acute dose) is well below the average threshold of radiation sickness however (generally considered to be 70-100 Rem). Nothing in the article about hotspots though.

Without data regarding hotspots - thus preventing me from speaking on that element - the major threat to people is more than likely going to be internal exposure caused by breathing in / ingesting radioactive contaminants, hence the precautions mentioned for entering 'difficult' zones. Restricted zones still require monitoring...

[Cail]

elevated levels of cesium found in migratory fish

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Across the vast Pacific, the mighty bluefin tuna carried radioactive contamination that leaked from Japan's crippled nuclear plant to the shores of the United States 6,000 miles away — the first time a huge migrating fish has been shown to carry radioactivity such a distance.

"We were frankly kind of startled," said Nicholas Fisher, one of the researchers reporting the findings online Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The levels of radioactive cesium were 10 times higher than the amount measured in tuna off the California coast in previous years. But even so, that's still far below safe-to-eat limits set by the U.S. and Japanese governments.

Previously, smaller fish and plankton were found with elevated levels of radiation in Japanese waters after a magnitude-9 earthquake in March 2011 triggered a tsunami that badly damaged the Fukushima Dai-ichi reactors.

But scientists did not expect the nuclear fallout to linger in huge fish that sail the world because such fish can metabolize and shed radioactive substances.

One of the largest and speediest fish, Pacific bluefin tuna can grow to 10 feet and weigh more than 1,000 pounds. They spawn off the Japan coast and swim east at breakneck speed to school in waters off California and the tip of Baja California, Mexico.

Five months after the Fukushima disaster, Fisher of Stony Brook University in New York and a team decided to test Pacific bluefin that were caught off the coast of San Diego. To their surprise, tissue samples from all 15 tuna captured contained levels of two radioactive substances — ceisum-134 and cesium-137 — that were higher than in previous catches.

To rule out the possibility that the radiation was carried by ocean currents or deposited in the sea through the atmosphere, the team also analyzed yellowfin tuna, found in the eastern Pacific, and bluefin that migrated to Southern California before the nuclear crisis. They found no trace of cesium-134 and only background levels of cesium-137 left over from nuclear weapons testing in the 1960s.

The results "are unequivocal. Fukushima was the source," said Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who had no role in the research.

Bluefin tuna absorbed radioactive cesium from swimming in contaminated waters and feeding on contaminated prey such as krill and squid, the scientists said. As the predators made the journey east, they shed some of the radiation through metabolism and as they grew larger. Even so, they weren't able to completely flush out all the contamination from their system.

"That's a big ocean. To swim across it and still retain these radionuclides is pretty amazing," Fisher said.

Pacific bluefin tuna are prized in Japan where a thin slice of the tender red meat prepared as sushi can fetch $24 per piece at top Tokyo restaurants. Japanese consume 80 percent of the world's Pacific and Atlantic bluefin tuna.

The real test of how radioactivity affects tuna populations comes this summer when researchers planned to repeat the study with a larger number of samples. Bluefin tuna that journeyed last year were exposed to radiation for about a month. The upcoming travelers have been swimming in radioactive waters for a longer period. How this will affect concentrations of contamination remains to be seen.

Now that scientists know that bluefin tuna can transport radiation, they also want to track the movements of other migratory species including sea turtles, sharks and seabirds.

[Salodin]

So what happens if they do have higher levels of radiation in them? Higher (but still very small) chance of tumors? And if a fish has tumors in it, is it still safe to eat?

Or the possibility for re re offspring? Missing eyes or blind, etc?

[Kerberoz]

By the time you consume enough bluefin tuna to get sick from the mildly-radioactive caesium, you'll be far too demented from mercury poisoning to care.

[Kaslo]

By the time you consume enough bluefin tuna to get sick from the mildly-radioactive caesium, you'll be far too demented from mercury poisoning to care.

However, it will take less intake to affect the fetus of a pregnant woman, which is where most of the radiation problems really develop.

[Kryssan]

So what happens if they do have higher levels of radiation in them? Higher (but still very small) chance of tumors? And if a fish has tumors in it, is it still safe to eat?

Or the possibility for re re offspring? Missing eyes or blind, etc?

However, it will take less intake to affect the fetus of a pregnant woman, which is where most of the radiation problems really develop.

Um, no. Just no. Zero evidence of radiation-induced genetic effects have ever been observed in humans (and high dose rate levels were required in animals), even from the children of survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The likelihood of radiation-induced cancer occurring over a radiation-induced genetic effect is 5x greater. So 5x over never observed. Right. Moving on. (Edit, before someone tries to run with it, the 5x bit of cancer / genetic effects is what has been observed in people exposed, not their offspring. Again, never for the offspring has it been observed in humans.)

Also, radiation limits for pregnant workers in fields of ionizing radiation over the time period of baby development are at a level that is 5x above what the NRC mandates that any non-ionizing radiation worker (male / female / pregnant / child / adult / etc) shall receive for each calendar year, and the limit is for what you get over / in excess of background levels. Besides the jokes about nuclear workers always having female children, nobody's noticed anything. Officially or unofficially.

The whole thing with ALARA and minimize all radiation exposure has been from the mindset of we simply don't know what happens because it has never been observed, even in results such as the atomic bombs. And there aren't many volunteers lining up to help us find out. Thus, if you aren't exposed, you don't have to worry about it. So if you're worried about it, don't expose yourself to it.

However, more recent studies conducted over the past two decades have shown that low-dose radiation exposure over chronic periods is of no concern. MIT's study release is the most recent one I am familiar with, which was conducted on mice. Berkeley National Laboratory has also met with similar results when conducted on immortalized laboratory human cells. IIRC they're currently moving forward with conducting the study on donated healthy human cells.

Also. "Transport radiation." Its contamination, contamination, contamination. One does not transport radiation. One can transport a radionuclide, or many, but not radiation. Gah. Just gah.

[Boyiee]

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped clicking on this thread months ago. Gah.

[archibaldcrane]

Um, no. Just no. Zero evidence of radiation-induced genetic effects have ever been observed in humans

I thought there were significant birth defects from radiation after Chernobyl.

Hmmm

ok maybe not "significant" but "elevated"?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...62N4L820100324

But then with regards to Hiroshima, you see no relationship between radiation exposure and birth defects:

http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html

[Kryssan]

I thought there were significant birth defects from radiation after Chernobyl.

Hmmm

ok maybe not "significant" but "elevated"?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...62N4L820100324

I've seen plenty of news issue releases with regards to Chernobyl effects, but there are just as many that countermand it and go over much larger periods of time. Here's an excerpt from one of those that countermand. Edit: first one I found, but you get the idea. I wonder if I can find the IAEA one. This one is a smaller sample than the one you quoted from the Reuters article, not sure about the geography relationships. Time period is different as well, obviously. /edit Official stance remains no relationship exists.


Edit 2: Found the 2008 copy, not the 2005 one. I think they were describing this anyway. UNSCEAR 2008 Release

Edit 3: Found the IAEA release. Chernobyl's Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts

[Tagus]

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped clicking on this thread months ago. Gah.

lol

Just saw that one. If it's any consolation, he may be smart, and he may do his research, but his incredible bias towards radioactivity being safe under virtually every conceivable circumstance must lead to some serious stress levels.... because it's just not. If this incident has shown us anything, it's that the far-reaching impact of even the smallest occurrence is impossible to predict. And as an added bonus, just hearing the title of the movie "Chernobyl Diaries" in commercials has to make his stomach clench in ulcer inducing, futile anger.

Going to check that one out, Kryssan? I heard it's a realistic and compelling documentary on what would undoubtedly happen to a group of big-breasted and well-endowed co-ed's who happened upon the radioactive wasteland of Chernobyl.

[Psion]

lol

Just saw that one. If it's any consolation, he may be smart, and he may do his research, but his incredible bias towards radioactivity being safe under virtually every conceivable circumstance must lead to some serious stress levels.... because it's just not. If this incident has shown us anything, it's that the far-reaching impact of even the smallest occurrence is impossible to predict. And as an added bonus, just hearing the title of the movie "Chernobyl Diaries" in commercials has to make his stomach clench in ulcer inducing, futile anger.

Going to check that one out, Kryssan? I heard it's a realistic and compelling documentary on what would undoubtedly happen to a group of big-breasted and well-endowed co-ed's who happened upon the radioactive wasteland of Chernobyl.

Overexaggeration much? I think kryssan well knows the dangers of radiation, quite a bit more than you do, tagus. I'll take his word over yours on advice regarding radiation anyday.

It's all this mocking of scientists and thinking you somehow know more than they do in their field of research that's contributing to a lot of issues in the world today. if you don't trust their advice and think you know better than them, then why the fuck are we paying for schools that teach science classes?

And if i had people constantly doubting my word and spreading misinformation even though it's something i've devoted my life to studying and perfecting, yeah, i'd be pretty stressed out too.

At least kryssan is contributing useful information to the thread. I've yet to see one of your posts that has anything worth reading.

[Tagus]

Overexaggeration much? I think kryssan well knows the dangers of radiation, quite a bit more than you do, tagus. I'll take his word over yours on advice regarding radiation anyday.

It's all this mocking of scientists and thinking you somehow know more than they do in their field of research that's contributing to a lot of issues in the world today. if you don't trust their advice and think you know better than them, then why the fuck are we paying for schools that teach science classes?

And if i had people constantly doubting my word and spreading misinformation even though it's something i've devoted my life to studying and perfecting, yeah, i'd be pretty stressed out too.

At least kryssan is contributing useful information to the thread. I've yet to see one of your posts that has anything worth reading.

Well, I guess that's where we disagree. I'm sorry that you don't find my comments to be of value, but he has been shading this entire set of circumstances to suggest that there is no problem with nuclear power, BECAUSE HE IS A FUCKING NUCLEAR POWER OPERATOR. If nuclear power is deemed unsafe and our country started shutting down reactors like they did in Japan, Germany, etc., he would be out of a job. It's like a medical company selling the newest cure for [insert disease here], or the car salesman not tellling you the A/C doesn't work on the used car you're looking at in his lot because he wants you to buy it. It's actually quite annoying that you keep trying to blame the messenger on that one, so perhaps I'll take a few minutes to go into greater detail on why I think you're a fucking retard.

Where to start... I guess a good place would be by attempting, once again, to reiterate the bone I threw you earlier in this thread in the attempt get your pathetic excuse for a thought process off my dick. I've admitted several times that his information is useful, because I don't really give a shit about winning internet points here with douchebags like yourself who's opinions are obviously flawed... and tbh it actually is somewhat useful to me. I've learned some stuff, for sure. Stuff that has actually come in useful in my career, which is more than probably anybody could honestly claim about this thread, so in some ways, I've benefited from his posts more than any other person up in this bitch. But in all honesty, it is offensive on several levels to me that he consistently and obviously attempts to make this incident sound like it's small potatoes. His posts remind me of the messages I get from upper management when they're encouraging me that I shouldn't worry about something that I have EVERY reason to worry about.

And that is why I hate it. Simply put. The end. Everything that he posts reads like a goddamn contrived piece of bullshit designed to make everybody feel like everything is just fine, because if nuclear power gets a bad rap, the dude will be looking for a new job. His entire education and career is built upon an industry that is feared because it is not understood. I can accept that. I can accept that anybody in his position would probably feel inclined to do the same. Except... I also work with radioactive material, as I've said before. And I've witnessed people try to do this type of shit in their daily work flow, and it effects me negatively.

For example, let me dumb this shit down for you because as I said earlier, you are obviously fucking retarded. I work with I-131. We have an air monitoring system. There are ALARA limits on what levels of I-131 can be released into our workplace air. These limits are based on a annual level... meaning if there's a spike, it would not necessarily be over a limit because the annual levels are the only thing anybody cares about.

Now, say we've got a dumb fucking asshole doing air monitoring, and he puts the filters in the reader backwards and the numbers come back 1/10 what they're actually supposed to. My manager needs those limits to be below the annual limit, so maybe he knows that this dude is a dumb fucking asshole, and he ignores the obvious mistake because we make a shit ton of money off I-131, and to go over the limit would shut us down for 3 months. Now, say somebody like me calls him on it. What does he do?

He writes me an email that reads like one of Kryssan's posts. To the fucking letter.

Now I'm sorry, once again, that you don't understand why I feel the way I feel about people coloring the facts to represent a false reality of safety. I get it. It doesn't necessarily effect you, that people do this sort of shit. He throws those numbers at you, and you're just like every other dumb fucking retard out there who looks at them and goes, "Ahhh, numbers! He must be telling me the truth because there's numbers, there, and there, and I can see them, and there's no chance that they're wrong. I'm quite sure the readings were perfectly accurate during a meltdown. Why wouldn't they be?" It's all good dude. Just like the fucking air monitoring is all good. Just keep holding your breath, avoid the sushi/tuna/insert next item here, and ignore me.

[Kerberoz]

Care to refute any of his points with facts instead of opinions and gut-feeling conspiracy-shill gambits?

[archibaldcrane]

Seriously, if you want to say that radiation causes birth defects, come with the studies. I thought it was settled science that all sorts of fucked-up babies were born after Hiroshima and Chernobyl...and then I did a little googling and didn't find much to support my presupposition. Being as how I hate being wrong about shit, I'd love evidence to the contrary.

Prove me circa 2 weeks ago right, I beg of you.

[Boyiee]

I love this thread.