Japan hit by powerful earthquake

[Tagus]

I'm glad you care =( I feel like I would have never heard of them masking or misleading the data otherwise.

Thanks for saying that. It means alot to me to know that I served a purpose here! I hesitate to even speak frankly at this point because this dude will jump on anything I say to try to save some f'ing face, but ultimately I think an underlying problem here is that nobody within the nuclear community wants to admit that they can't handle the responsibility, because their entire ability to exist rests on providing the perception that they can handle it. It's that particular bias that is just inherently going to exist because of the industry's survival instinct, and they're going to do whatever and say whatever it takes to protect themselves. It's something I've observed, not just from things here in this thread, but from my work in nuclear medicine and from reading other sources of information.

It's like, the operators want to blame the contractors for doing stupid shit, but the operators have no experience cleaning up the mess when shit hits the fan... their attitude is, well we've got contractors for that grunt shit work. And then the contractor companies fuck up, and they look at them like they're idiots... and all the while the energy companies themselves, like TEPCO, are cutting corners to cut costs. I mean... let's face it. It would have been expensive as fuck to earthquake-proof that plant, and that's the reason why they didn't do it. The operators handled the situation badly, which honestly is expected, given their training. Kryssan admitted freely that he has never even cleaned up an I-131 spill, which is pretty crazy. I mean... seriously, they should send these guys to a hospital nuclear medicine department and have them clean the I-131 hoods, at least once. Not that it would prepare them for a meltdown necessarily, but it's nuts that your first responders have no hands-on training.

And then, after all that, the govt. steps in and tries to start calling the shots, which just muddies the waters, and the people in the various energy and contracting companies start to think about public perception, because that's all the government cares about, so they start to fudge numbers....

and yet the nuclear community wonders why the public doesn't trust them. It seriously does not take a rocket scientist (or a nuclear scientist, for that matter), to see that shit was going to hit the fan in a major way here, and it will again... and the repercussions are just enormous. It's just cause and effect.

[Kryssan]

If you want me to read something specific, provide a link and I'll read it? It's not difficult.

Um, really? Cause last time we talked about data was during the lovely radiac discussion, where you stated quite clearly

You're right... I haven't analyzed the reports. I don't have fucking time in my life to analyze reports based on flawed data and info, info that you seem unwilling to admit a potential shortcoming with even though it doesn't even cover the beginning of the incident, just to remove a point of attack from some douchebag on the internet. I've told you what I think, and we disagree.

Where I had stated previously:

Since the beginning? No. Since about March 20th? Yes.

Which shows that I agree with the point that outside of estimates, nobody knows what was going on from March 11th-13th (whenever the actual loss of station batteries was, I forget) until later in the month when response teams actually started arriving and other facility's equipment was diverted to the scene.

But, what the hell, I'll bite.

Let us examine the (rather short) article (what source is that anyway, half of what they have is either opinionated posting or guesswork) you linked to earlier regarding data release.

http://enenews.com/wp-content/upload....-23-14.07.jpg
http://enenews.com/wp-content/upload....-23-14.07.jpg

So, viewing the document TEPCO states that the independent reviewer gave lower numbers for Iodine than they did but higher numbers for Cesium. These number variations were purportedly significant, and is one of the basis for your claims, no? These items are directly related, since Te - I - Xe - Cs and onwards down is the decay chain. Let us directly examine the statement made in this particular "independent review" by the JAEA (Japan Atomic Energy Agency - so yeah, quotation marks previously placed since the validity of the source really depends on who you are willing to trust, right?) report as cited above in this table (I hate these sources, having to pay to view them):

Regional-scale atmospheric dispersion simulations were carried out to verify the source term of 131I and 137Cs estimated in our previous studies, and to analyze the atmospheric dispersion and surface deposition during the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. The accuracy of the source term was evaluated by comparing the simulation results with measurements of daily and monthly surface depositions (fallout) over land in eastern Japan from March 12 to April 30, 2011. The source term was refined using observed air concentrations of radionuclides for periods when there were significant discrepancies between the calculated and measured daily surface deposition, and when environmental monitoring data, which had not been used in our previous studies, were now available. The daily surface deposition using the refined source term was predicted mostly to within a factor of 10, and without any apparent bias. Considering the errors in the model prediction, the estimated source term is reasonably accurate during the period when the plume flowed over land in Japan. The analysis of regional-scale atmospheric dispersion and deposition suggests that the present distribution of a large amount of 137Cs deposition in eastern Japan was produced primarily by four events that occurred on March 12, 15-16, 20, and 21-23. The ratio of wet deposition to the total varied widely depending on the influence by the particular event.

Spoiler: show

The statistical comparisons of daily surface deposition between measurements and calculations using the initial and refined source terms are summarized in Table 3. For 131I, FA5 and FA10 for the calculations using the refined source term were slightly better than those using the initial source term. Moreover, all statistical values
were considerably improved for 137Cs. In comparison to the calculation using the initial source term, FA10 increased from 54.5% to 62.6% and the correlation coefficient from 0.54 to 0.74.

By comparing the BlandeAltman plots between Fig. 4a and b, the MD for 137Cs using the refined source term was closer to zero (identical) than that using the initial source term. The values of SD for both 131I and 137Cs using the refined source term were smaller than those using the initial source term. Because the bands between MD  2SD and MD þ 2SD in Fig. 4 mean the ranges over which approximately 95% of the differences exist if they are Normally distributed (Gaussian), the above statistics results indicate that there are more calculated values closer to the measurements in the calculation using the refined source term than in the calculation using the initial source term. This also shows that predictive accuracy of the daily surface deposition was enhanced by the source term refinement.

Negative values of MD in Fig. 4b do not indicate that the calculated daily surface depositions were underestimated all over the range of the measured daily surface deposition. It is shown that no apparent biases of under- or overestimation are seen in the scatter diagrams, except for calculated results with small amounts (less than 10 Bq m2) of surface deposition (Fig. 3b). The underestimation of these small values is considered to be caused mainly by errors in the meteorological and atmospheric dispersion calculations. Atmospheric dispersion simulations have uncertainties of at least a factor of 5 according to prior studies (e.g., Terada et al., 2004). Considering these errors, it can be concluded that the refined source term is reasonable for the period when the radionuclides were dispersed and deposited over land in Japan from March 18 to May 1.

Figure 8a and b shows a comparison of calculations using the refined source term and measurements (MEXT, 2011c) of the cumulative surface 137Cs deposition from 5 JST on March 12 to 0 JST on April 1 and from 5 JST on March 12 to 0 JST on May 1. The measurements in Fig. 8b are the summation of monthly surface depositions during March and April in 2011. The calculations agreed well with the measurements at the sampling points in Fig. 8a and b. The result that the distributions of surface deposition of 137Cs with values greater than 1000 Bq m2 were almost the same in both Fig. 8a and b suggests that the regional-scale surface deposition occurred mainly during March 2011.

The calculated cumulative surface 137Cs deposition from 5 JST on March 12 to 0 JST on May 1 (Fig. 8b) was compared with that from the airborne monitoring (MEXT, 2011d; not shown in figures).

It shows that the present regional-scale distribution of 137Cs deposition is characterized by the following areas having amounts of 137Cs deposition exceeding 10,000 Bq m2:

- Fukushima Prefecture,
- the northeastern coastal area of Miyagi Prefecture,
- the area from the south of Iwate Prefecture to the northwest of Miyagi Prefecture,
- north of Tochigi and Gunma Prefectures,
- north of Ibaraki Prefecture, and
- the area from the south of Ibaraki Prefecture to the northwest of Chiba Prefecture.

The trends of this distribution of surface deposition, observed by airborne monitoring, were roughly reproduced, although some discrepancies were seen between calculations and measurements, e.g., it was underestimated in Tochigi and Gunma Prefectures, and overestimated in the area from the north of the central part of Fukushima Prefecture, via Miyagi Prefecture, to the south of Iwate Prefecture, in particular. These discrepancies are thought to be caused mainly by errors in the meteorological and atmospheric dispersion calculations when the plume encountered precipitation in areas distant from FNPP1 on March 15 (see Appendix A). Considering that the source term on March 15 was verified by the local-scale analysis around FNPP1 (Katata et al., 2012b), these discrepancies are not significant for the verification of the source term. Thus, the source term for the period before March 17, which was not verified by comparison with daily surface deposition, was also validated.

At the end of the simulation period (0 JST on May 1), 37% of the 137Cs discharged into the atmosphere from FNPP1 during the simulation period had been deposited over land in the simulation domain, 21% over ocean in the simulation domain, and the remaining of 42% flowed out of the simulation domain or was still present in the air in the simulation domain. Consequently, less than half of the total amount of released radionuclides were dispersed and deposited over land in eastern Japan in the results of the calculation. Most of the source term during the period when the plume flowed and deposited over the ocean was not estimated from the dust sampling data, but interpolated from before and after the estimated values, or completely assumed to be the same as in the other period. This can possibly be improved by using global-scale monitoring data (e.g., Masson et al., 2011; Biegalski et al., 2012a,b) in future work.

4. Conclusions

The regional-scale atmospheric dispersion and surface deposition of 131I and 137Cs released from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant from 5 JST on March 12 to 0 JST on May 1, 2011 were simulated over eastern Japan using the computer-based nuclear emergency response system, WSPEEDI-II.

In this simulation, the source term, which was estimated in our previous studies primarily using observed air concentrations of radionuclides and air dose rates over land around FNPP1, was verified and refined on the basis of its agreement of calculated daily surface deposition with measurements. Using the refined source term, the calculation reproduced daily and monthly surface deposition distributions over land in eastern Japan, without apparent biases towards under- or overestimation. Therefore, it is concluded that the source term over the period when the plume flowed over land in Japan is reasonable, although the source term during the period when the plume flowed and deposited over the ocean could not be verified in this study.

The analysis of the regional-scale atmospheric dispersion suggested that the present surface deposition distribution of 137Cs over eastern Japan, observed by airborne monitoring, was produced mainly by the following events: dry deposition in the northeastern coastal area of Miyagi Prefecture on March 12; wet and dry depositions in Fukushima Prefecture and in the northern part of the Kanto region on March 15 and 16; wet deposition in Iwate and Miyagi Prefectures on March 20; and wet deposition in the Kanto region from March 21 to 23. The ratio of dry deposition to the total was high in places farther away, such as the northeastern coastal area of Miyagi Prefecture and the north of Ibaraki Prefecture, as well as in the areas near FNPP1, although the ratio of wet deposition to the total was high in most areas far from FNPP1.

Spoiler: show

Appendix A.
Daily transport and surface deposition of 137Cs

The atmospheric dispersion and deposition of radionuclides released from FNPP1 were generally reproduced by the simulation with the refined source term (Movie A1). Regional-scale atmospheric dispersion and surface deposition of 137Cs during March 2011 were explained as follows. Detailed analysis of local-scale atmospheric dispersion from March 12 to 17 is described in Katata et al. (2012a,b). Supplementary video related to this article can be found at doi: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2012.05.023.

March 12-14

The radioactive plume discharged from FNPP1 first flowed toward the Pacific Ocean over the early morning to the afternoon on March 12. The high-concentration plume around the hydrogen explosion, which occurred at Unit 1 at 15:30 JST on March 12, flowed in the north-northwest direction from FNPP1 and caused a large amount of dry deposition. An increase in air dose rate was observed at the monitoring post of Minami-soma (shown in Fig. 6a) 4.5 h after the explosion (Fukushima Prefecture, 2011). The plume then flowed in the northenortheast direction and produced a large amount of dry deposition in the northeastern coastal area of Miyagi Prefecture (Figs. 6a and 7a). Air dose rates observed at the nuclear power plant in Onagawa (shown in Fig. 6a) were elevated at 0 JST on March 13 when the plume passed through (Tohoku Electric Power, 2011). Afterwards, the plume was transported mainly towards the ocean by the southwesterly wind until the night of March 14.

March 15

The high-concentration plume started to flow in the south-southwest direction from FNPP1 from late at night on March 14 and caused a large amount of dry deposition along the southeastern coastal area of Fukushima Prefecture and the northeastern area of Ibaraki Prefecture on the morning of March 15 (Figs. 6b and 7b). The plume successively dispersed and caused dry deposition in Tokyo, Saitama, and Kanagawa Prefectures, although the quantity was smaller than in the above regions. From the afternoon of March 15, precipitation was observed broadly across eastern Japan (Fig. 7c), due to a low pressure system passing through Honshu. The calculated plume encountered the rain band over the areas of Niigata, Gunma, Tochigi, and Fukushima Prefectures, and this caused a large amount of wet deposition in the afternoon (Figs. 6c and 7c). Then, the plume changed its direction clockwise to the northwest of FNPP1, and passed through Miyagi, Yamagata, and Iwate Prefectures during the evening and into the night. In Fukushima Prefecture, the high-concentration plume, due to the major release from FNPP1 in the afternoon, caused significant dry and wet deposition in the area northwest of FNPP1 (Katata et al., 2012a,b).

Although a large amount of surface deposition of 137Cs was observed by airborne monitoring in the north of Tochigi and Gunma Prefectures (MEXT, 2011d), in the calculation, it was mainly seen in the south of Niigata Prefecture and the west of Fukushima Prefecture (Fig. 8b). Because no comparable amount of surface deposition was calculated on other days in the north of Tochigi and Gunma Prefectures, the deposition on March 15 has the largest contribution to the total deposition for the area. From the observed precipitation and air dose rate (MEXT, 2011a; Tochigi Prefecture, 2011), the discrepancy is due to the high-concentration plume passing through Tochigi and Gunma Prefectures before the occurrence of precipitation in the area. In Tochigi Prefecture, additional surface deposition of 137Cs contained in fog or cloud observed at
Okunikko (shown in Fig. 7c) may also contribute to the observed surface deposition.

In the calculation, a significant amount of wet deposition also appeared in the area from the north of the central part of Fukushima Prefecture, via Miyagi Prefecture, to the south of Iwate Prefecture, which was not the case from ground-level and airborne monitoring (MEXT, 2011a,d; Miyagi Prefecture, 2011). Considering that, in the calculation, the principal part of the plume was transported above the clouds (not shown in figures), a possible cause of the discrepancy between calculation and observation is the overestimation of wet deposition in the upper air in the model.

March 16-19

The plume was calculated to have flowed mostly toward the ocean, due to the wind fluctuating from westerly to northwesterly from March 16 to 19. In the observations, however, air dose rate monitoring in the southeast of Fukushima Prefecture and in the east of Ibaraki Prefecture (Fukushima Prefecture, 2011; Ibaraki Prefecture, 2011; KEK, 2011; MEXT, 2011a) during the morning of March 16 suggests that the plume flowed over Ibaraki Prefecture and produced a lot of dry and wet deposition on that morning. The model could not reproduce the above surface deposition because of errors in the calculated wind direction.

March 20

The plume, which flowed to the east of FNPP1, started to turn clockwise before dawn on March 20. The plume passed over the Kanto region in the morning, and then changed its direction to the northwest of FNPP1 in the afternoon. The plume flowed to the west of Miyagi Prefecture, to the east of Yamagata Prefecture, and to the south of Iwate Prefecture. A large amount of wet deposition was produced in the area, due to precipitation in the evening (Figs. 6d and 7d). The plume started to flow to the south of FNPP1 again late at night.

March 21

The plume flowed into Ibaraki Prefecture via the ocean on the morning of March 21, then dispersed over the Kanto region and caused a large amount of wet deposition in Ibaraki, Chiba, Saitama, Tokyo, and Kanagawa Prefectures due to precipitation from the morning (Figs. 6e and 7e). Surface depositions were overestimated at the sampling sites of Kofu and Omaezaki (Nos. 17 and 18, Fig. 1) because of the overestimation of daily precipitation.

March 22

The plume released from FNPP1 on March 22 dispersed mainly in Fukushima and Tochigi Prefectures, and caused wet deposition in the east of Fukushima Prefecture due to precipitation from the night (Figs. 6f and 7f). Meanwhile, the radionuclides released on March 21 remained stagnant in the Kanto region and were deposited by precipitation on March 22.

March 23-24

From the early morning on March 23, the plume was transported along the seaside of Ibaraki and Chiba Prefectures, due to the wind fluctuating from northerly to northwesterly. It flowed into the southeastern part of the Kanto region from the afternoon and produced wet deposition from the evening until late at night (Figs. 6g and 7g). The plume was mostly transported toward the ocean from the morning of March 24 to the morning of March 25.

March 25-29

From the afternoon to the night of March 25, the plume was transported by the southeasterly wind in the northwest direction from FNPP1, and caused wet deposition mainly in Fukushima Prefecture and in the south of Yamagata and Miyagi Prefectures (Figs. 6h and 7h). Then, the plume changed its direction anticlockwise from northwest to southeast on the morning of March 26. The plume continuously flowed toward the ocean from the morning of March 26 to March 29.

March 30-31

The plume turned clockwise from the east to the southwest of FNPP1 and flowed into the Kanto region on the morning of March 30, and caused wet deposition mainly in Tochigi and Ibaraki Prefectures during the afternoon (Figs. 6i and 7i). The plume from FNPP1 then flowed in the northwest direction from FNPP1 from the afternoon until the night. On March 31, the plume mainly flowed toward the ocean.

Due to length. This post will be long enough by the time I finish it. If you would like to review the entire article, PM me. You might find some typos and format glitches here in the quotes, I had to clean out formatting to put it here.

So yeah, disagreement much on what estimates really mean between your news articles and the actual reports? This is part II of the report, part I occurred earlier and was mentioned by me earlier in the data you refused to review. I can kinda sorta understand going with the articles though and not with the reports, given that you have to pay to access the journals, even online (which you'll probably just say shows that I still have a vested interest, but oh well - just trying to prove a point really), but that doesn't really clear the result of my bias of preventing the spread of unverified information, now does it?

Of course, this entire study is a model, an estimate of what happened, since there were no instrumentation sets available until later, as I stated above, but that particular other data is verified and available from multiple sources posted earlier in the thread (some of which is TEPCO, MEXT, NISA, etc, there are a few IAEA and NRC items as well as a few college ones). Guess it really just depends on how really horribad you want to believe they are and juxtapose upon them based on the news articles you read without researching. I just want to make sure that shit really is the way they claim it to be before I jump on it, I'm not trying to hide information or documentation and honestly - as I've said before and still believe - for the most part, neither are they.

You can and probably will deride this however, and there is some truth to it - based on events that we do know are accurate, several entities have not performed up to the level they should have, resulting in the lack of trust situation that is so flagrant in Japan right now with regards to the nuclear community.

Random note from the time of the accident when our ships were there. (link1) (link 2) These articles, for whatever they are worth, state they received a months worth of what one would normally experience from background, or somewhere in the range of 25-50 mrem on a flight crew specifically. As for how long the ship was there in the plume... that would be ship's movement information, so we won't know, making any would be estimates on our individual parts meaningless. The ships were moved away, contributing again to our lack of specific knowledge with regards to the aforementioned time period in question in the above discussion.

So what you're essentially saying is, this was a stupid, unnecessary risk to take? That people in the nuclear community had a serious lapse of judgement and put value on presenting data that was pleasing to the public as opposed to correct?

Yes, and I don't recall arguing against that. Just that I wanted to know, for it to be verified, before I'd believe it. Because it is flagrant, and most of us would like to believe it wouldn't happen. Ever. In any situation.

Wow. It's amazing that nobody suggested that could happen. Oh wait... that's why we're still arguing. Because you told me I was stupid for doing that.

No, I called you stupid for doing that because you were blatantly spreading around whatever you could get your hands on that supported they were evil and the nuclear community as a whole is horrible and trying to cover everything up, which is a quite clear and evident bias on your part, then pass it off as saying "Well man, I'm just trying to expose the truth".

On top of that, you clearly stated you had no desire to review any of the data, and now you're doing exactly what you accused me of, saving face. "Well, I'll check it out if you show it to me." Because I should be the one to do your research for you to prove that what you're posting is or isn't as unbiased and factual as it can be?

No, suggesting items is far from what you're doing. And that's what I have a problem with. Also, the first thing one does in these situations is apparently now required to go "I'll bet those guys are lying to us, all of them, even the ones not involved so they keep their jobs?" Really?

Keep trying to sugar coat everything and bring it back to how I refused a year ago to read some stupid report though... we've got some serious competition for "worst thread ever".

Nice derail. Too bad it works against you, since your attempt at saying 'they be fudging that data man' is directly correlated to the exact report the article is trying to say that they used to lie to us, when the second release of the article clearly shows that to not be the case. But obviously, they're just out to cover their ass and sugar coat it. Obviously.

I'm glad you care =( I feel like I would have never heard of them masking or misleading the data otherwise.

Right, see above.

I hesitate to even speak frankly at this point because this dude will jump on anything I say to try to save some f'ing face, but ultimately I think an underlying problem here is that nobody within the nuclear community wants to admit that they can't handle the responsibility, because their entire ability to exist rests on providing the perception that they can handle it. It's that particular bias that is just inherently going to exist because of the industry's survival instinct, and they're going to do whatever and say whatever it takes to protect themselves. It's something I've observed, not just from things here in this thread, but from my work in nuclear medicine and from reading other sources of information.

Yeah, all about that safe face.

And we can't handle the responsibility? Let us examine something -

Kryssan admitted freely that he has never even cleaned up an I-131 spill, which is pretty crazy. I mean... seriously, they should send these guys to a hospital nuclear medicine department and have them clean the I-131 hoods, at least once. Not that it would prepare them for a meltdown necessarily, but it's nuts that your first responders have no hands-on training.

No hands on training for what? Iodine specifically? Why exactly do you believe that the handling of decontamination efforts with other irradiated materials does not prepare them for handling of Iodine? If we examine them as biological hazards, lifetime cancer mortality risk (using numbers from ANL) between Iodine and Cobalt are relatively the same. At least you can shield against Iodine - Cobalt's HEG are in the GRW so you're taking the zoomies no matter what unless you have a significant amount of shielding. How about comparing Iodine to something common - Radium and it's short lived radionuclides. Radium 226 and 228 blow away Iodine and Cobalt both in terms of LCMR, but at least it isn't as big of an external risk. Get it inside though...

It goes on and on. Iodine is but a piece of the puzzle, and the training is on everything.

And then the contractor companies fuck up, and they look at them like they're idiots... and all the while the energy companies themselves, like TEPCO, are cutting corners to cut costs. I mean... let's face it. It would have been expensive as fuck to earthquake-proof that plant, and that's the reason why they didn't do it.

Yeah, except the earthquake didn't hurt the plant from what we know (as of now, the only systems at the NPS believed to have possibly been affected by the 'quake directly was the CCSW and RHRS). There is nothing but speculation on that, and plenty of sources disagree completely - including the other independent ones (since I assume once again you refer to the NAIIC). Of course, we haven't actually seen inside so maybe we're missing something, but unlike after the tsunami's impact we do know what happened data wise after the 'quake.

No, what the plant needed was better tsunami protection. While Units 2, 3, and 5 were all shown to have exceeded DBC for ground motion (there is some debate for Unit 1, it was the older unit and rated lesser than the other units (its rating was far less than what was 'experienced' in the region) but seismometer readings in the reactor building do not show it exceeding criterion), as far as we know they did not incur damage from it. Maybe they'll find something later that disproves that, guess we'll see.

What needed better earthquake protection were the off-site electrical lines that provided the plant's main auxiliary power (aside from the EDGs) and the monitoring stations. I believe in one of those reports I read that something like 24 of the 26 local government radiation / evacuation monitoring stations failed, forcing them to rely on motorcar for the initial read sets which led to further hampering of data collection, since the damage from the 'quake made it difficult for the cars to get around to take data.

The operators handled the situation badly, which honestly is expected, given their training.

How exactly did they handle it badly? The mistakes made by the operators during the accident have already been outlined previously as made available from the slew of investigations, and they did a good job in the situation. What are you using to say that the operators handled it badly?

It's like, the operators want to blame the contractors for doing stupid shit, but the operators have no experience cleaning up the mess when shit hits the fan... their attitude is, well we've got contractors for that grunt shit work. And then the contractor companies fuck up, and they look at them like they're idiots...

Yeah, you're just wrong about the 'cleaning up the mess'. Give me something to work with here other than your bias on the situation to show for that comment. I've spoken on the contractors a few times now, so I won't bother wasting text on more repetition. It needs to be fixed, no argument with that. However, I can definitely say our attitude is not 'we've got contractors for that'. The attitude is more often 'don't let the contractors touch our stuff'.

I have nothing really to say about the government itself, the machinations of politics and such is beyond really what I care to focus on. Thus, I still can't really comment one way or another about that, except to say that the accident awareness and emergency response features the government had either didn't work or were used ineffectively.

[Tagus]

Just give me a link...

At any rate, as far as me blatantly spreading around anything I could get my hands on, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Up until recently there wasn't a whole lot of evidence to support what I was saying. It was a little tough to read your data, make a point, and then back it up with anything statistically relevant, because there was a lot of effort being made to suppress the flow of relevant info and your data was the only info available... which was the reason that people were agreeing with you at that time. As I said during an earlier rant which I received a 3 day ban for, people saw numbers and assumed they were correct because of the intelligence and order that you used in presenting them.

Problem was... they weren't correct, and any idiot (/wave) with an ounce of experience in dealing with a radioactive clean-up process could see that... and anyone with an ounce of experience in dealing with the nuclear community could see that it was PR. I didn't really have a quantifiable leg to stand on with my arguments, because it was simply my belief... and instead of giving that possibility room to exist in this thread and just moving on, you attacked me... which pissed me off a great deal obviously because it was just flagrantly ignorant to me (and representative of a common error the nuclear community makes), or I wouldn't be responding to you still. In fact, you had an easy out! All you had to say was, "you know, you're probably right. That situation has gotta be chaotic and these numbers might get adjusted." It would have covered you entirely in the event of anything coming out. But instead, you told me I was stupid and wrong. The irony is that if you had been politely dismissive of me, as opposed to belligerently opposed, I probably would have gone away and the fact that I was right would have gotten lost in the shuffle, because I wouldn't have pursued it. Maybe you'll learn something from that in your future human interactions, and someone will benefit from it.

I mean... can we just agree to disagree and move on? God knows I have enough ammo now to argue for decades with you about this and never lose... and everything coming out now merely backs up all of the original points I was trying to make, and will continue to do so.

And in case you think I'm bluffing... I just read that the sixth report of the Fukushima Prefecture Health Management Survey, which was released in April, revealed after the survey examined 38,114 local children that 36 percent of Fukushima children have abnormal thyroid growths. 36 fucking percent. In continuing to read about this, and with regret that I haven't just given up on this fucking thread... it sounds like the biggest problem they've found is that originally it was difficult to discriminate between nodules, lumps, and radioactive material still present on the children's clothing when they come into the hospital for scans, when they're reading the scans because all three are lighting up in the pet scan machines... so they are now scanning the children naked. Just writing that, I am literally about to start crying. This situation is so seriously fucked up it's borderline incomprehensible... and you're talking about fucking Cobalt. In comparison, in a 2001 study done in Nagasaki, 0.8% of children had abnormal growth. Meaning? You guessed it. Wasn't it TEPCO that said at the beginning that there was 0% chance of children being effected internally by the event?

I think it's seriously time for you to consider, do you really want to go to the mat with somebody about how this was handled, and the end result?

It took me about 30 seconds on google to find that report... and that right there, is the nasty shit I've been going on & on about, I-131, effecting children who have ingested and inhaled it. I-131, causing thyroid cancer in small doses, ablating thyroids entirely in large doses. I-131, effecting children more seriously than adults. It's not any of those other isotopes you're trying to compare it to, and it's not just a goddamn "piece of the puzzle"..... it's a fucking threat. I may not know as much about a nuclear reactor as you, but when you start talking about health effects, you're getting into my area of expertise. To start with, why are these children not receiving biopsies? We can start to go there, if you want. I'm starting to hope that we don't. Please don't say anything stupid, anymore. This is fucking bad news.

You wanna know why I don't want to do this anymore? I was going to go watch monkeys race around on fucking dogs at a county fair today, and now I'm about to fucking cry, because seriously in the next 5 years those children are going to start dying if they don't start getting treated for that shit, and people don't see it. This should be all over the news by now. They never should have started seeing this stuff so soon, unless those kids just got fucking blasted. God knows, how are they even going to treat that many? That's probably the reason why they aren't doing biopsies, tbh. Who's going to process all of those samples? You're a fucking asshole for continuing this conversation with me. Fuck you Kryssan. Seriously, fuck you to hell. I'm going to go hug my kid now, and thank fucking god that we're not japanese, and watch some fucking monkeys race some fucking dogs. I'd suggest you do the same, dickhead.

[Ishido]

*affected, affecting

[Kryssan]

Just give me a link...

I unfortunately cannot, but I can PM them to you. I posted a bit of the report above though.

At any rate, as far as me blatantly spreading around anything I could get my hands on, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Up until recently there wasn't a whole lot of evidence to support what I was saying. It was a little tough to read your data, make a point, and then back it up with anything statistically relevant, because there was a lot of effort being made to suppress the flow of relevant info and your data was the only info available... which was the reason that people were agreeing with you at that time. As I said during an earlier rant which I received a 3 day ban for, people saw numbers and assumed they were correct because of the intelligence and order that you used in presenting them. Problem was... they weren't correct, and any idiot (/wave) with an ounce of experience in dealing with a radioactive clean-up process could see that... and anyone with an ounce of experience in dealing with the nuclear community could see that it was PR. I didn't really have a quantifiable leg to stand on with my arguments, because it was simply my belief... and instead of giving that possibility room to exist in this thread and just moving on, you attacked me... which pissed me off a great deal obviously because it was just flagrantly ignorant to me (and representative of a common error the nuclear community makes), or I wouldn't be responding to you still. In fact, you had an easy out! All you had to say was, "you know, you're probably right. That situation has gotta be chaotic and these numbers might get adjusted." It would have covered you entirely in the event of anything coming out. But instead, you told me I was stupid and wrong. The irony is that if you had been politely dismissive of me, as opposed to belligerently opposed, I probably would have gone away and the fact that I was right would have gotten lost in the shuffle, because I wouldn't have pursued it. Maybe you'll learn something from that in your future human interactions, and someone will benefit from it.

The data I posted wasn't wrong. The one contingent I will grant you is that TEPCO was wrong in their initial estimate of Iodine and Cesium contamination over the period of March to April that was leaked into the ocean - that number was initially estimated in May (of 2011) as being 5000 TBq which was shown by the JAEA (in September of the same year) to be closer to 15000 TBq. The later estimates made by TEPCO have agreed with or superseded the later analysis conducted independently by MEXT, JAEA, IAEA, and others.

You have yet to disprove anything I've pointed out, with any documentation. Mainly because I haven't even tried to point out health effects except for radiation exposure doses - data that you call into question and I don't really know what else to say on that. Release of contaminants information you have yet to refute with anything other than "It must be wrong". It isn't, though the estimates have changed - within margins of error based on their models. So the thought process that they must be lying or hiding everything isn't there to be supported.

Now, whether or not they're hiding some things, I couldn't prove one way or the other. It is difficult to do so without anything proofwise to use. I chose initially to side with them not doing so, but we do have proof now that they have had knowledge of a bit that wasn't disseminated properly or at all during the initial timeperiod in which it occurred. This is why I have only attempted to defend the data on release and spread since, because that is backed up by various organizations.

And in case you think I'm bluffing... I just read that the sixth report of the Fukushima Prefecture Health Management Survey, which was released in April, revealed after the survey examined 38,114 local children that 36 percent of Fukushima children have abnormal thyroid growths. 36 fucking percent. In continuing to read about this, and with regret that I haven't just given up on this fucking thread... it sounds like the biggest problem they've found is that originally it was difficult to discriminate between nodules, lumps, and radioactive material still present on the children's clothing when they come into the hospital for scans, when they're reading the scans because all three are lighting up in the pet scan machines... so they are now scanning the children naked.

Yes, actually, I have been keeping up with those as well. It wasn't until the 5th report though that we got really substantive information from it. The seventh report is now translated and contains even more breakdown and dissemination. Here's a blog post translation of it (link). While you're there, you can read on the other posts about the personal experiences of medical professionals - like this most recent one, which is a followup (link). I have no base to comment on those. Of course, I never have bothered to try defending the government or the medical fields (outside of exposure rates received) as I have no ground to stand on there.

Just writing that, I am literally about to start crying. This situation is so seriously fucked up it's borderline incomprehensible... and you're talking about fucking Cobalt. In comparison, in a 2001 study done in Nagasaki, 0.8% of children had abnormal growth. Meaning? You guessed it. Wasn't it TEPCO that said at the beginning that there was 0% chance of children being effected internally by the event?

TEPCO has said a great deal. To which they have also taken plenty of heat for. Fortunately, that was not one of the things they said to my knowledge - that was FUMS, specifically Shunichi Yamashita. Google that name if you want more info. What TEPCO did say, with regards to human health, occurred in the initial parts of the accident. At the time they occurred, TEPCO claimed that radioactive contaminant release did not exceed levels hazardous to human health (14 Mar '11). On the 15th, they reversed that stating that levels were too high for personnel. TEPCO's PR department was pretty much in full DC mode from 15 March to around what, mid-April when other organizations got heavy into it?

I think it's seriously time for you to consider, do you really want to go to the mat with somebody about how this was handled, and the end result?

Handled by who? Or overall? Don't recall denying there has been some poor control, but I will continue to steadfastly defend the operators at the plant until such time as it can be shown that they were negligent and did not go full measure. Did they make mistakes? Yes. Did it exacerbate the casualty? Arguably, yes. How much, we'll obviously not know beyond what-ifs. See below though.

It took me about 30 seconds on google to find that report... and that right there, is the nasty shit I've been going on & on about, I-131, effecting children who have ingested and inhaled it. I-131, causing thyroid cancer in small doses, ablating thyroids entirely in large doses. I-131, effecting children more seriously than adults. It's not any of those other isotopes you're trying to compare it to, and it's not just a goddamn "piece of the puzzle"..... it's a fucking threat. I may not know as much about a nuclear reactor as you, but when you start talking about health effects, you're getting into my area of expertise. To start with, why are these children not receiving biopsies? We can start to go there, if you want. I'm starting to hope that we don't. Please don't say anything stupid, anymore. This is fucking bad news.

Do you remember when you said -

This is not necessarily true when you're dealing with I-131. 500 mHr is probably like a 5 curie vial or some shit, and I have no freaking idea tbh why they would even have that there, or how they would even get that amount. If that stuff were to go volatile and get airborne it can cause thyroid ablation, in fact it's used medically to do so (though that's from ingestion vs. inhalation)... and it's a beta emitter, which means you're double fucked. Short half life though, and even at that amount it would decay pretty quick so it wouldn't be a big deal. I don't know much about Cesium other than that we've been using an incredibly small source at work for meter calibrations for 10 years, and it's lost maybe 5% of it's activity. Man that's just some crazy shit!

Coincidentally, if it's I-131 it's actually safer in larger doses, because it destroys the thyroid instead of merely causing cancer in it. They'd actually be lucky if it was that vs. some of the other shit out there, because it would be gone pretty quick.

You yourself were on the same wagon for Iodine, but you've changed your tune incredibly since then. I have never said that Iodine isn't going to mess you up if you ingest/inhale it, but there are far worse things being released from that reactor to ingest/inhale. Hell, there were neutron emitters such as Ba, La, etc in the trenches outside. Lets take a guess at which you'd rather do, inhale some I-131 or a radionuclide neutron emitter. Did you even have to think about that? If you still say Iodine is worse, or that you'd rather take the neutron emitter over Iodine to save your thyroid, I'm sorry, but you're bloody crazy or have insane tunnel vision to what you know.

You want to know why we're even talking about Iodine and not everything else? Because Iodine and Cesium (the chain from Iodine, thus really not talking about separate releases but the same release as it decays) were what got out. The operators prevented the other, really nasty stuff from getting out (of course, maybe we'll find out later they didn't, that would honestly be a blow against what I've been debating on). Does it still suck that Iodine got out, in the quantity that it did? Yes, we would all prefer for the number to be zero. ALARA, etc.

A lot of Iodine has now been cumulatively released (though in the 'early days' the numbers singly were low enough for me to prompt me saying the items they did) and which by extension then must include Cesium and that will cause problems. Iodine is the "right now". You throw so much to the wall for Iodine that I feel you have tunnel vision for everything else - the stuff that will be there long after Iodine is forgotten. In five or ten years, it'll be Cesium (assuming they don't find other things significantly released) which has an LCMR similar to Iodine.

I mean... can we just agree to disagree and move on? God knows I have enough ammo now to argue for decades with you about this and never lose... and everything coming out now merely backs up all of the original points I was trying to make, and will continue to do so.

...

You wanna know why I don't want to do this anymore? I was going to go watch monkeys race around on fucking dogs at a county fair today, and now I'm about to fucking cry, because seriously in the next 5 years those children are going to start dying if they don't start getting treated for that shit, and people don't see it. This should be all over the news by now. They never should have started seeing this stuff so soon, unless those kids just got fucking blasted. God knows, how are they even going to treat that many? That's probably the reason why they aren't doing biopsies, tbh. Who's going to process all of those samples? You're a fucking asshole for continuing this conversation with me. Fuck you Kryssan. Seriously, fuck you to hell. I'm going to go hug my kid now, and thank fucking god that we're not japanese, and watch some fucking monkeys race some fucking dogs. I'd suggest you do the same, dickhead.

Why wouldn't they see it this soon? Most of what they're seeing - if one is to believe the data - is small. That 36% gets drastically reduced for the 'just got fucking blasted' mentality.

If it is any consolation to you arguing with this 'dickhead' I don't really have the time for anything continuing beyond this anyway. I've been too busy adjusting to a new career to really spend too much time reviewing the data. That last post of mine was a several hour event and I don't have that kind of time for researching what can only be a pet hobby now, since it is no longer related to my current career at all.

[Tagus]

I don't understand why you can't give me a link. Do you just not have one? Or is it that you know whatever you show me is going to be so full of holes that it will hurt your arguments?

As far as I-131 goes, you're not understanding what I was saying at all... I'm guessing it must be deliberate at this point, but what you seem to have missed is that I was talking about external exposure in that quote, because it was said at that point that internal exposure wasn't going to happen. By TEPCO, from what I remember. I guess I could try and find it, if it's important to anybody, but I seem to remember that? At any rate, I suppose that if you saying that because I am now freaked out by children having internal exposure, vs. back then when it was considered to not be a possibility, that I am changing my tune... well. Yeah. You're being a dickhead. I guess I mis-estimated the extremity of the fucked-upedness of the I-131 exposure to children, because I didn't immediately assume that a bunch of them will probably get cancer and die. I'm kind of done with the whole pretty-cute-polite argument game. You're being a fucking dick, plain and simple.

[Tagus]

*affected, affecting

Also, I'd like to add that if you're more irritated by the fact that I used the wrong word, than you are about the fact that 36% of the children tested in Fukushima have abnormal thyroid growth and are not receiving a biopsy to determine if it's cancerous and/or to determine what stage of potentially deadly cancer they already have less than two years after the meltdown, you're allowing yourself to be effected by the wrong things in the wrong ways.

[Ishido]

Also, I'd like to add that if you're more irritated by the fact that I used the wrong word, than you are about the fact that 36% of the children tested in Fukushima have abnormal thyroid growth and are not receiving a biopsy to determine if it's cancerous and/or to determine what stage of potentially deadly cancer they already have less than two years after the meltdown, you're allowing yourself to be effected by the wrong things in the wrong ways.

Not at all the case, but thanks for being overly concerned and jumping to conclusions about my own priorities. Just pointing out a grammatical mistake.

[Tagus]

Well, if you're taking the time to proofread it, you might as well contribute a thought? This isn't a publishing company, it's an internet forum filled with like-minded and intelligent individuals, intent on open and honest discussion.

C'mon in.... the water's fine.

[The Stig]

Sorry to bump, thought it would be relevant/on topic, 4 minutes ago:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20638696

Japan earthquake tsunami warning issued

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...66ddd94f78.jpg
A tsunami warning has been issued after a 7.3 magnitude earthquake struck off Japan's eastern coast.
The epicentre of the quake was about 245km (150 miles) south-east of Kamiashi at a depth of about 36km, the US Geological Survey said.
The quake was felt in the capital Tokyo, media report.
The tsunami warning was issued for the coast of Miyagi Prefecture, which was hit by a devastating earthquake and tsunami in March 2011.
The US-based Pacific Tsunami Warning Center said there was no threat to the wider Pacific Ocean but that a tsunami could be generated that was destructive for local coastlines.
Warnings of the tsunami height varied between 50cm and 2m.
Evacuations have been ordered from some of the affected areas.
A presenter on state broadcaster NHK told viewers: "Remember last year's quake and tsunami. Call on your neighbours and flee to higher ground now!"
Buildings were reported to have swayed violently in Tokyo.
The 9.0 magnitude quake that struck on 11 March 2011 left more than 15,000 people dead and more than 3,200 missing.
That quake triggered a meltdown of fuel rods at the Fukushima nuclear plant, causing radiation leaks and mass evacuations.
The plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power, told Agence France-Presse there were no reports of problems there this time.

[MoogleAura]

Yeah it was pretty scary. Biggest I've experienced since I arrived in August. My town is on the coast of Ibaraki so we've got tsunami warnings right now but it's just a precaution. Worst casualty in my apartment was a bottle of febreeze that fell. xD Friends of mine in Northen Ibaraki and up in Fukushima said their driers and washing machines almost came out of the wall.

[BWYuko]

Reverse faulting, 22.5 mi depth, east of 2011 rupture zone. The tectonic plumbing in and around Japan is so fucked. Is this technically part of the aftershock sequence of two years ago?

[Maaglin]

lol? i sat through this whole thing while watching my netflix....this was like the least scaiest 10 millionth "earthquake" I've sat through over the last 5+ years.

biggest concern i had was if it was strong enough to move my mouse so it'd fuck up my netfilx full screen view.

[Cail]

There was another incident at Fukushima Nuclear Plant at 207am EST.

Steve Herman @W7VOA
TEPCO: Cooling system not working at No. 3 spent fuel pool at #Fukushima-1 #nuclear power plant.

Steve Herman @W7VOA
Kyodo: Radioactive water may have leaked from #Fukushima (nuclear power plant) water tank: gov't agency.

Steve Herman @W7VOA
TEPCO: Radiation level ~6,000 Bq/m2 in water detected around reservoir tank at #Fukushima-1 NPP. #Japan #nuclear agency concurs.

[6souls]

KILLED BY CANCER
but is unlikely to be linked to the Fukushima incident says Kryssan
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/ass...-story-top.jpg

Masao Yoshida, the man in charge of Japan's stricken nuclear plant in the wake of the catastrophic March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, has died of cancer in a Tokyo hospital aged 58.

Yoshida led the "Fukushima 50," the group of men who risked their lives to contain the fallout from the world's worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl.

He was diagnosed with esophageal cancer, which affects the throat, in late 2011 months after the tsunami struck, Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), the operator of the nuclear facility, said.

The company added it was unlikely his cancer was a result of radiation exposure. They said that the condition usually takes five to 10 years to develop if radiation is to blame.

"Mr. Yoshida united staff and courageously handled the accident," said Naomi Hirose, TEPCO's chief executive.

Yoshida was at the Fukushima nuclear complex when the tsunami engulfed the cooling system and saw three reactors go into meltdown. In an interview in November 2011, he said he thought several times that he would die.

Defying orders from his bosses, Yoshida made the decision to pump seawater into the No. 1 reactor in a move that may have averted a catastrophic nuclear explosion.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said on Tuesday that Yoshida "made a great effort in the middle of the accident. I wish his soul will rest in peace."

The authorities' handling of the nuclear disaster was widely criticized, with an independent investigation calling it a "man-made disaster" that unfolded as a result of collusion between TEPCO, regulators and the government.

The Fukushima plant remains hazardous more than two years after the earthquake and tsunami.

On Tuesday, TEPCO reported an increase in radiation levels at the plant after a ground water sample collected from an observation well located close to the ocean was found to be contaminated with a radioactive material.

TEPCO said it had started using cement to seal the ground facing the ocean to prevent the contaminated water from reaching the sea.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/10/wo...ath/index.html

[Viena]

Defying orders from his bosses, Yoshida made the decision to pump seawater into the No. 1 reactor in a move that may have averted a catastrophic nuclear explosion.

Whoever who wrote this is an idiot.

[Acevalefor]

Whoever who wrote this is an idiot.

Not an idiot, just a "journalist" in America whom has learned that using words like may have, perhaps, possibly, etc. will get more people to read his article and discuss it. All without having to worry about the truth of his words because they have been qualified with "maybe".

Welcome to journalistic entertainment. Where story integrity comes second to keeping the reader reading.

[Salodin]

Well he's not technically wrong, he said explosion not detonation. But when people think of anything nuclear, anything that goes kaboom immediately makes them think detonation.

[Kryssan]

I need to visit more often. Or stop using my profile to find threads, I guess, because I keep missing stuff.

KILLED BY CANCER

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/10/wo...ath/index.html

Next time, add some color to the text. In case we have a hard time distinguishing it.

In all seriousness though, while the operators made a few oversights and mistakes, they took the path that led to the least damage. I'm glad they elevate the man up for his actions, but as to your and their subtly hinted point; esophageal cancer -is- very unlikely to have been caused by exposure to a nuclear power station in any condition. This disease is particularly slow and painful, and is linked to a number of items - but to my knowledge not radiation exposure. It does not get diagnosed early on as often due to the way in which it tends to manifest. It is much more common in the Asian / Pacific sphere, and thankfully remains low here in the US.

As for Dai-ichi cancers / affects; when you see people start being diagnosed and / or dying of increased leukemia or thyroid cancers, you'll have a much easier case to make. Analysis from the atomic bomb survivors and Chernobyl Unit 4 shows us that we're looking at a 30-40 year span of data that will need to be collected and properly attributed.

For more immediately available data with regards to Dai-ichi you can search for the WHO's report or wait until October of this year for the finalized UNSCEAR report. If you're really impatient, you can read the draft of the UNSCEAR report here ( link ). The WHO's report was met with skepticism, but the numbers reported in it are on par with what you would expect based on the Chernobyl numbers and the estimates for Fukushima's release.

Fukushima ( link ):
Specifically, and for those too lazy to search, the WHO reported the following for those in the Fukushima area: all solid cancers - around 4% in females exposed as infants; breast cancer - around 6% in females exposed as infants; leukemia - around 7% in males exposed as infants; thyroid cancer - up to 70% in females exposed as infants (the normally expected risk of thyroid cancer in females over lifetime is 0.75% and the additional lifetime risk assessed for females exposed as infants in the most affected location is 0.50%).

Chernobyl 4 Data for Review - 1 ( link )
Chernobyl 4 Data for Review - 2 ( link )


As for the nuclear explosion thing, others have already commented on it. Nuclear reactors are not capable of having a nuclear explosion. They can have steam explosions ( SL-1, Chernobyl-4 ), hydrogen explosions ( Chernobyl-4, Dai-ichi 1-3 ), etc. But not nuclear explosions - actually, the wiki article for SL-1 provides a short blurb on this, though more detailed information is also available through a short search.

[Salodin]

Did I understand right? The risk for thyroid cancer might go up by as much as 70% for the infants in fukushima?