Slashdot Mirror
Fukushima Radioactive Fallout Nears Chernobyl Levels
0WaitState writes "The cumulative releases from Fukushima of iodine-131 and cesium-137 have reached 73% and 60% respectively of the amounts released from the 1986 Chernobyl accident. These numbers were reached independently from a monitoring station in Sacramento, CA, and Takasaki, Japan. The iodine and cesium releases are due to the cooking off of the more volatile elements in damaged fuel rods."
More sensationalist bullshit. Get this off slashdot, please.
I don't doubt the claim, I do doubt the presentation. Have some respect.
glad to see that slashdot is 100% on board with the media's general nuclear hysteria
[I don't think I need to explain why "nearing chernobyl levels" is a ridiculous description...]
OMG, we're all gonna die! Again!
From TFA:
That's a really important difference. It means the total release of radioactive material is far smaller. And the iodine, at least, is a lot less scary than the sort of stuff you get from fuel particles -- it has a half-life of only 8 days, so there's no real long-term environmental threat from that. (The cesium is rather worse -- half life of ~30 years.)
This space unintentionally left unblank.
Like all other moments in life, there is a Simpsons quote that sums it up:
"turning a possible Chernobyl into a mere Three Mile Island"
Monstar L
So does this mean the reactor has officially "melted down"?
FTA: "Chernobyl a huge fire released large amounts of many radioactive materials, including fuel particles, in smoke. At Fukushima Daiichi, only the volatile elements, such as iodine and caesium, are bubbling off the damaged fuel." So, it's not on fire but... well what does this mean?
How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
Full translated interview:
17/03/2011 Rafael Poch, Berlin Correspondent
Andreyev: "In the nuclear industry there are no independent bodies" "The most dangerous reactor in Fukushima is 3, because it uses a fuel of uranium and plutonium," said Yuli
He spent five years at Chernobyl. Spetsatom was deputy director of the anti-Soviet body nuclear accidents and knows very well how the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) works.
Yuri Andreyev (1938) is one of the most knowledgeable in this area. To Fukushima includes four scenarios of varying severity, from mild to very severe.
"In Fukushima, the most dangerous reactor is three, because it uses MOX fuel more plutonium uranium that France is being used experimentally in two Japanese plants," says this expert.
In 1991 everything fell apart in Moscow. The salary of deputy minister of atomic energy, the position he was offered Andreyev, not enough for anything. The Academy of Sciences of Austria was invited to lecture and eventually settled in Vienna as adviser to the minister of environment, universities and the IAEA itself.
Chernoby is still surrounded by lies, says. The accident was not the responsibility of plant operators, as stated, but a clear design flaw in the RBMK reactors result of cost savings. Proper design of those Soviet reactors required a large amount of zirconium, a rare metal, and a maze of pipes, special techniques for welding of zirconium, stainless steel and huge amounts of concrete. It was a fortune, so they decided to save money, said Andreyev.
One of the resources of savings was to feed the reactor with relatively low enriched uranium, since uranium enrichment is a complicated and expensive. This increased the risks and was contrary to the rules of safety, but supervision in the USSR nuclear part of the Ministry of Atomic Energy. Something similar is happening today with the IAEA, as the UN agency "depends on the nuclear industry," said Andreyev, under which lies and secrets of Chernobyl are now fully present in Fukushima.
Security, money, irresponsibility
"Those who design nuclear power plants are pending on two things: safety and cost. The problem is that security costs money. If you spend too much on nuclear power plant it is not competitive. The accident at Three Mile Island is the perfect example. After the accident was to improve security in a convincing way to avoid repetition of the accident both plants more expensive, they lost all meaning. For thirty years in America was not built a single reactor. Chernobyl was all very complicated but also had to do with economics. Academician Rumyantsev showed that we had to close all RBMK reactors. Simply ignored. There are always people interested in hiding something ... "
What are they hiding?
They lend themselves to compromise on security in exchange for selfish considerations. In the USSR for the cost of uranium enrichment in Japan simply for money. The location of central Japan, near the sea is the cheapest. Emergency generators are not buried and, of course, were flooded instantly .... Behind all this there is corruption. I have no proof, but will not take long to appear. How can I design a nuclear power plant in an area of ââhigh seismic risk, near the ocean, with emergency generators at the surface?. Wave arrived and everything was out of service. There is no error, this is a crime.
What problems do you see wi
For those who don't know, the University of Washington has one of the best nuclear physics programs in the US.
Turns out they do detect trace amounts of iodine-131 in the air, but nowhere near Chernobyl levels.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4853v1
And the "something" that just doesn't work is Slashdot fact-checking.
Reporting live from Tokyo (well, just on the outskirts, but def. part of the greater Tokyo area):
People here have bought up massive amounts of bottled water, though apparently the level of radioactive iodine has fallen below the maximum legal limit for infants (which is one third for that of adults). Milk is also in short supply. Two days ago, two supermarkets near me had no milk, or plain bottled water. (Haven't looked since then.)
On the subject of meltdowns, there is no "official" meaning to the term. But, I would say that at least a couple of the reactors have "melted down" (I haven't really been paying attention to the news, so I don't know if any of the others have or not). Anyway, fun facts, the "precautionary" safe limit of 80 KM set by the US government (and then the Australian government), for folks, was apparently worth setting. At least one village outside the 30 KM radius has had really high levels of radioactive iodine get into the water.
Me, I'm staying in Tokyo until things get really bad. But, I imagine, at least a couple of million of the other residents would also want to leave at that time too. So...
Appended to the end of comments you post. The maximum is 120 characters.
Excellent article on Chernobyl Exclusion Zone: http://outsideonline.com/adventure/travel-pf-201103-chernobyl-wildlife-refuge-sidwcmdev_154483.html
Apparently the Chernobyl area is now full of very happy wlld animals, now the humans have left, and the animals have so many birth defects, you could almost say evolution has been sped up.
""In other words, new animals could actually be in the making here. The area has become a laboratory of microevolution—"very rapid evolution," says Igor—but no one knows what will emerge or when.""
I hope fukusima not like Chernobyl, and the Japanese government could resolve the issue. and all the people of the world can calm down.
There are immediately several posts expressing scepticism about this story. You people need to set that instinct aside for a moment. I am not an anti-nuke hysteric. Allow me the benefit of the doubt.
Recent reports from Japan are trending towards large amounts of contamination. Levels of Caesium and Iodine in the sea are very high. Soil samples are turning up large amounts of contamination. Tokyo tap water (200 km away) is contaminated. Vegetables in Hong Kong are accumulating Caesium that exceed limits. I have been monitoring Kyodo and NHK news and the degree of contamination being reported is disturbing.
Today's events include severe radiation burns on two workers, acknowledgement of containment failure in No.3 (MOX reactor,) an increase of the evacuation radius from 20 to 30 km and an order to greatly increase radiation monitoring at the site. Unexplained bursts of various gases have been forcing worker evacuations throughout the week. Fukushima didn't end when the news cycle cut over to Libya.
Fukushima has been releasing vapour directly into the atmosphere from reactor pressure vessels in which fuel damage has occurred. There is no precedent for that procedure in the history of nuclear technology, there has been no opportunity to directly measure the contamination of these releases, so there is no credible information on the actual amount of contamination being released from these vessels. There is no credible information on the amount of spent fuel that was lofted by the spent fuel pool fires. There is no accounting of the amount of contamination flowing off the site due to the use of water cannons.
DO NOT discount reports of contamination. DO NOT dismiss out of hand comparisons of Fukushima with Chernobyl.
I can't find a way to sugar coat that. Sorry.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
And the "something" that just doesn't work is Slashdot fact-checking.
False. That's like claiming the wings on your car don't work when your car doesn't actually have wings.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Could someone care explaining what becquerels per day exactly means? 1Bq = 1 nucleus decay / second. So what the hell is "1.2 to 1.3 × ... becquerels per day"?
"We have a Pope" - sorry, couldn't resist.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
From what I've seen, Chernobyl was in an area with a lower population density. I mean sure, the Soviets had a different type of reactor, worse response, etc. But Japan's situation could still be pretty bad in the long run, if things don't go as planned.
Sure, the media is being panic-y. And sure, more people died in the tsunami than would die in the worst case of a reactor meltdown. But sometimes there ARE reasons to be scared that are perfectly valid, and those shouldn't be discounted just because the press does well when they incite panic.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Insightful analysis:
http://www.youtube.com/user/fairewindsenergy
Please don't spread crap and tell me I'm going to die because I'm deliberately refusing to "follow orders".
Additionally, don't spam it anonymously (so we can at least block you out if we so wish), and at least have the decency to do less advertising of your church in your post than linking to a "relevant" article - I mean, come on - keyword spamming?
The really *annoying* part of evangelism such as this is that if you'd just posted the link without all the crap attached to it (from the keyword spamming and double-links, to failing to link to your article directly), people would probably be more inclined to read it. For people who are trying to convince others to make huge changes to their life, evangelists are inherently terrible at actually convincing people and have zero knowledge of effective PR.
There is a really great article connecting this to Bible prophecy
Yes, and my cat told me he read from the poo in it's litterbox that the world is going to end soon, too.
I'm still amazed of the state of mind of those people.
They let the reactor melt down, releasing plutonium and uranium into the atmosphere then send thousands of workers right into the heart of it to put a big concrete casket over it. without protective gear.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
This article is full of errors major errors, including the title/conclusion.
They're typically off by about a factor 10; they seem to have ignored the exponent when calculating the percentages they use to conclude Fukushima is nearing Tsjernobyl levels. Where they state that Tsjernobyl put out 70% more caesium-137 than Fukushima, it's actually 1700%. Where they state that Tsjernobyl put out 50% more Iodine-131 it's actually 1400%. These numbers are based on the readings provided by the article.
Apart from that the comparison simply makes no sense for a 1000 other reasons. Remote detectors for airborne radioactive particles cannot reliably provide an indication of what the reactor put out, especially given the fact that Tsjernobyl was a fire releasing all kinds of aerosols while Fukushima releases mostly gasses that probably get carried much futher by the wind and do not pollute the grounds in the perimeter of the reactor as much as Tsjernobyl.
Furthermore, Tsjernobyl started out with explosion that probably released a huge quantity of especially iodine in one big blast, not leaving quite that much for the "aftermath" (which this article makes a comparison with). Also, what they fail to mention is the deadly mix of compounds other than iodine and caesium released by Tsjernobyl.
This is nothing like Tsjernobyl and it will not become anything like it either. Stop the FUD please.
0x or or snor perron?!
the BP oil spill.
One of the biggest issues in the whole nuclear accident meme thing is that well somehow nuclear accidents are only ever compared to other nuclear accidents. But on a wider scale how dangerous is this compared to similar events hitting conventional energy sources? like oil well or refinery fires.
they might as well start burying it in lead, steel & concrete, even if they use some of the flattened cars from the tsunami debris,
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Appeal to Authority fallacy much? Michio Kaku is an *American* Theoretical physicist whose work has little if anything to do with nuclear engineering. He is Japanese only by ethnicity (his parents both being immigrants), not that it's actually relevant to his views or their accuracy anyway. He's freely admitted in the past that he's biased against Nuclear power, due apparently to some radio programs he heard as a student, and is prominent in the anti-nuclear movement. He's also made similar alarmist remarks about nuclear power before, most notably in regards to the Cassini probe and its fuel. The guy is a great ambassador to the masses for science generally, but in this case he's just flat wrong.
Waiting a couple days to acknowledge that there was high radiation (I believe they claimed it was a 'normal' fire at first) and evacuate people was pretty pathetic.
Mind you, once they decided to act they went balls to the wall, in typical Soviet fashion... but skipped on workplace safety a wee bit, to say the least. Shitty deal for some of the liquidators, but good for everyone else I suppose.
I try my best to be as level and objective as possible, but even I bought into the headline with the word "Chernobyl" in it with knee-jerk reactionary speed.
It's good that many here are quick with the repeating of the important details and objective data put into proper perspective. Thanks to all who made their comments.
It's hard to believe there are still "anti-nuke" people out there pushing their agenda. Yes, "nuclear anything is dangerous." But you know what? Spewing the exhaust of burned coal and oil into the planet's atmosphere is even worse. The only thing I find horrifying about this situation is that Japan was not prepared for this sort of problem. Their power grid doesn't really exist for reasons more than 100 years old and their location choices for power plants are probably the worst choices imaginable. Nuclear power requires a lot of planning and effort to keep it stable, clean and safe, but it's demonstrably possible. Given the current options, nuclear is still the best choice for power.
... then send thousands of workers right into the heart of it to put a big concrete casket over it. without protective gear.
What was a viable alternative?:
The did what was necessary and useful at that point (*after* the reactor went fireworks). Protective gear for gamma rays did not exist and does not exist today.
Title says it all.
Just curious...
Does this mean someone will make STALKER: Shadow of Fukushima?
Sig? Heil
No, but we do know that life expectancy is up and there are a lot more people about. Hence, even a *rise* in cancer-related deaths wouldn't be at all shocking (in fact, I'd expect it).
We also don't know how many people died of sun-related cancer caused by ozone-depletion until we stopped using CFC's. Or, indeed, how many people die each year from petrol fumes. Or how many die from respiratory diseases caused by household sprays.
The facts that there have been 2000 nuclear explosions, many of them deliberately designed to extinguish life even if only then used under controlled situations, and yet still life expectancy is on the up, population is up, cancer incidences still stay steady (which is therefore an IMPROVEMENT) and cancer survival is the highest it's ever been in human history - all this almost certainly means that it's not doing much at all, beyond what the planet throws at us anyway.
The wildlife around Chernobyl is actually thriving since humans left the area, for instance.
I'm infinitely more worried about someone spraying their house with air freshener every two seconds and trying to get my child to wipe her hands with anti-bacterial soap / wipes after every spill than I am about her being exposed to any radiation from even the nuclear power plants in my country. Hell, they're building one just down the coast from me - gotta be better than the smoke and crap AND RADIATION in the output from the nearby coal power plants.
Please don't ever say you want to be a space tourist - even the radiation from a single transatlantic flight is probably hundreds of times more dangerous to you (unless you actually live in a very small area near the plant) than this incident, a space tourist would probably be subjected to hundreds times more than that.
It gets me that on the one hand we can't have nuclear hundreds of miles away powering our cities, and on the other everyone wants to talk about flying through space in a tin can to live on another planet swathed in radiation.
"the agency doesn't believe the reactor is cracked or broken. But it says it is highly possible that radioactive materials are leaking from somewhere in the reactor." Original: http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/25_29.html Its not broken, but materials are leaking... WTF!!! Lies, Lies & more Lies.
If I were still between jobs like I was for much of last year, sure.
I've always wanted to see Japan, and if I could do something helpful while there that would be great.
I'd be up for doing more than just getting close to Fukushima Daiichi. During cleanup, you need people who have no or low existing exposure so they can go into hot areas for a time. You rotate them in and then send them home when they get to a certain fraction of the maximum allowed dose.
The parent post is full of hyperbole, but truly the levels we've seen thus far aren't that bad outside of the plant. It's always possible something else could go wrong and they would get worse.
Only a few months ago the Pro Nuclear lobby in Australia were starting a new media campaign.
One comment that was turning up again and again was about how Nuclear Power was so safe. After all no one died at three mile island, and the death toll on the site of Chernobyl, was relatively small, and , well nuclear Power must be safe or the Japanese would not have built so many plants in a zone that is known to be prone to earthquakes.........
Of course the raised rates of cancer amongst people who live (or have lived) near to Chernobyl, and three mile island is just a pure coincidence
da da da dum indeed.
Nuclear accidents can look very scary. A lot of people, (public and journalists among them) don't know how to interpret what the scientists and engineers are telling them anyway. The media like a nice scary story, its their job to write catchy headlines and get people to read stuff so it makes life easier for them when they can twist/misinterpret what they're being fed by the scientists and engineers into something that looks like a disaster scenario, especially with the backdrop of two real disasters. So they show some horrific images of a natural disaster and point out how appalling numbers of people have been killed and others who have had their lives ruined so that the readers/viewers are already shocked and then as if thats not enough they throw in the word 'nuclear' and what do you get? A whole load of fear and lots of attention to the media. Meanwhile the Japanese authorities are busy dealing with a disaster of epic proportions and aren't in a position to do a proper PR job. As for New Scientist, its not a scientific journal, its more like a newspaper where the main reason to exist is to make money. They're just as guilty of making something look more scary than it actually is as any other newspaper, but because of the niche that they inhabit they have to disguise it a little more than the tabloids. Don't get me wrong I also enjoy reading New Scientist, its often a very entertaining read but please, don't expect impartial, scientific coverage because you're not going to find it there. They need to earn a living after all.
In the end I doubt that the Japanese will give up on Nuclear power. They have to purchase ALL of the fossil fuel they would need to replace it and the country is very dependent on electric power for most of their transportation (Japan's rail system is almost totally electric and used by a much greater percent of the population than in the US). They will do what they SHOULD have done, replace power plants that are not hardened against seismic events with newer ones. The power plants were actually NOT damaged by the earthquake or the tsunami, but by lack of conventional power afterward. The irony is that if the plants were NOT shut down to prevent damage from the earthquake they might have been OK.
Chernobyl put out 8.5 10^16 Bqin total. The emissions lasted several days.
Save the bandwidth. Don't use sigs!
Death toll from Earthquake and tsunami 10,000+
Death toll from the reactor accident so far 0.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So, the daily average of releases of iodine-131 and cesium-137 are, according to certain measurements, comparable to Chernobyl. They base this on a 10 day total from Chernobyl. Basic Questions:
1. What 10 days did they pull the average from for Chernobyl and what day or days are they pulling from for Fukushima?
2. What are the totals over the entirety of each disaster (or at least the current estimated total at Fukushima vs Chernobyl)?
3. What other radioactive materials were released in Chernobyl and how do they compare to Fukushima?
4. How did the evacuation and response measures compare?
5. How do the long term containment and clean up processes compare?
6. How do the human exposure variables compare?
In the end though, even evaluating these two data points, they fail to indicate the overall meaning and affect of these values (ie: How does this apply to human health?).
how about a comparison of how much radiation a coal power plant is emitting compared to a nuclear power plant.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 - Shadow of Fukushima
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Wanna bet the author of this story is a "green scientist" ?
With electrophysiology as a specialty I presume.
Search Results:
Sort by: relevance|date Refine by: Subject Area
Health (437)
Life (126)
Environment (93)
Science in Society (82)
Opinion (25)
Tech (12)
Physics & Math (8)
Short Sharp Science Blog (7)
Refined by:
Author(s): "Debora MacKenzie"
As for the article... Whenever someone says something like "per day" and doesn't say how many days would that be - take that with a LARGE grain of salt. Iodized, if you like.
In this case... 1.2 to 1.3 × 10^17 becquerels of iodine-131 per day in Fukushima seem like a lot, particularly compared to Chernobyl's "1.76 × 10^18 becquerels of iodine-131" FOR WHOLE 10 DAYS IT BURNED.
Holy SHIT! Fukushima has been "on" since March 11th! That would mean that it is somewhere around 1.68 - 1.82 × 10^18 becquerels of iodine-131 by now!
THAT IS MORE THAN CHERNOBYL! QUICK! EVERYONE! PAAAANIIIC!!!
Except... From the site of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization mentioned in the article as the source of data:
“The estimated source terms for iodine-131 are very constant, namely 1.3 x 10^17 becquerels per day for the first two days (US station) and 1.2 x 10^17 becquerels per day for the third day (Japan),” the institute said in a German-language statement posted on Wednesday on its website.
“For cesium-137 measurements, (the US station) measured 5 x 10^15 becquerels, close, while Japan had much more cesium in its air. On this day, we estimate a source term of about 4 x 10^16.”
Note that the level measured IN JAPAN on the third day is lower than the level measured IN THE USA on the second day.
As in - readings are getting MUCH LOWER. And, it is the statistic for ONLY TWO DAYS at the beginning of the Fukushima incident. And we all know what they say about extrapolations.
Particularly the ones done from only two points.
Also, the Deutsche Welle article describes the whole "how many Chernobyls is that" thing a bit more conservatively as "at 20 percent of Chernobyl for iodine, and 20-60 percent of Chernobyl for cesium".
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Me!
OK. Coal power plants do not emit fission products. The nuclear power plant in Japan does. Coal ash has a uranium fraction similar to clay soil (which is where the ash comes from). So, it is no more radioactive that most of the rest of the world. The fission products emitted by the nuclear power plant in Japan are very very radioactive and very dangerous because we are not adapted to them as we are to natural uranium in soil. And, unlike the uranium in coal ash, they are airborne and spreading around the world.
Anyone who doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're" (it's easy; hint: if you mean "you are", it's "you're"), really shouldn't be commenting on anyone's level of intellect.
Personally, I give people a little more leeway to people on a site with no edit button.
IIRC, the Soviets responded something like "I dunno, must be your fault, you capitalist pigs" even after the Swedish government complained loudly about the fallout cloud they detected (first).
I remember in the Netherlands (a country which exports milk and cheese) the cows had to be taken inside so they wouldn't absorb Iodine-131 which had rained on the grass and would be accumulated in the cows' milk and afterwards the cheese. That's called a timely government response. I don't think that that quick response also happened in the Ukraine and Belarus SSR although I could be wrong.
Contrast this with the Japanese response: We saw a Japanese spokesperson warn publicly on TV about the levels of radioactive Iodine in spinach in Fukushima and Ibaraki prefecture (see also BBC).
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
One done in USA and the other a day later in Japan AT THE BEGINNING OF THE INCIDENT - and then extrapolated that over 14 days until they had amounts close or over those in Chernobyl.
http://newsroom.ctbto.org/
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14938445,00.html
"The estimated source terms for iodine-131 are very constant, namely 1.3 x 10^17 becquerels per day for the first two days (US station) and 1.2 x 10^17 becquerels per day for the third day (Japan)," the institute said in a German-language statement posted on Wednesday on its website.
"For cesium-137 measurements, (the US station) measured 5 x 10^15 becquerels, close, while Japan had much more cesium in its air. On this day, we estimate a source term of about 4 x 10^16."
If they keep counting long enough they'll top Hiroshima as well. Then again, so will my room on the other side of the planet.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Idiot.
This looks worse.
Chernobyl only blew 3.5 tons of fuel, this is worse and 50x more.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Didn't you notice that I took the time to translate the article more or less two hours before you did? What's the point of doing it twice?
It wasnt most, if its 50 % , then it is not MOST.
Only 3.5 ton of the fuel blew into the air.
Now fukedupshima had 50x more fuel blown up.
Now is it your best wishes that its not so bad, or if its real bad, are you going to cry that you have been lied to?
Well at least al the whales will be irradiated with plutonium so that now the japs wont ever kill the whales in the ocean. Big angry radioactive whales with a grudge.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
The radioactive iodine is almost certain to cause cancers and mortality in Japanese children in coming years.
From the IAEA staff report "Thyroid Cancer Effects in Children" :
The main consequence of the Chernobyl accident is thyroid cancer in children, some of whom were not yet born at the time of the accident. Following the vapour explosion and fire at the Chernobyl reactor, radioactive iodine was released and spread in the surrounding area. Despite measures taken, children in southern Belarus and northern Ukraine, were exposed to radiation in the weeks following the accident , particularly by consuming milk from pastured cows and leafy vegetables that had been contaminated with radioactive iodine.
Radioactive Iodine has a half-life of 8 days, so it is the immediate exposure that is the problem here. Unfortunately, the Japanese government took 3 days after the Iodine exposure was publicly announced (and, presumably, more days after they knew about it), to ban the eating of contaminated spinach (a "leafy vegetable") and dairy milk. Worse, when the iodine contamination was first made public, Mr. Yukio Edano, Japan's chief Cabinet secretary, urge calm, saying that the contaminated food posed "no immediate threat." What weasel words - these cancers will take months to years to develop, so there is indeed no "immediate" threat. He should have urged people not to drink milk or vegetables from the affected area, instead.
Here is some more information about the risk from Iodine-131 at Fukushima. This is a problem particularly for children as their bodies take up the Iodine - similar doses don't cause problems for mature adults.
The scary contamination in Tokyo is between 0.3% and 1.5% of the radioactive exposure you get from smoking one cigarette. Scary, isn't it?
You didn't say why cigarettes are radioactive. As I recall, in WWII the government took the tobacco industry's usual fertilizer (urea) to make explosives. The tobacco industry switched to Rock Phosphate, which they liked better anyways because it could be mined with a caterpillar instead of collected with farm hands.
If you're going to smoke, it's always better to use organic tobacco than tobacco that was fertilized with Rock Phosphate:
My pet theory is that there was actually a combination of factors which led to the mid-20th century spike in lung cancer levels. The other factor, besides the irradiation of smokers' lungs, was the mass dietary switch from stable saturated fats (butter, lard) to unstable polyunsaturated fats (margarine). The lungs have a lot of fatty acids... Send me an email for a free report. :)
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
The first 2 sentences of your reply needn't even be there, they simply cloud the issue. As for the uranium fraction being similar to clay soil, one typically doesn't breathe in dirt to a significant degree though not breathing in fine ash in the air near a coal plant is much less likely. And how the fuck is coal ash not airborne and spreading around the world?
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
The containment might crack, because the pressure inside is high and the hydrogen explosions might have damaged the structure. Also there are no special containment structures below the core a.k.a. core catcher, just the containment itself.
The only safe thing about the plants is that this is happening elsewhere, in Japan.
I would point you to a source, like the current TEPCO press release, but it fails to tell of the "smaller" explosions, which obviously did happen considering the damage to the outer structures of 1,3 and 4.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
No matter who's doing it, mixing units is bad practice. Putting X furlongs/fortnight next to Y furlongs/week is just asking for an incorrect interpretation.
A Becquerel is one decay per second. This means for something with a long half-life like Cs-137, 30 years = about 10^9 seconds, you need a lot to get even one Becquerel. Roughly you would need about 2x10^9 atoms to get 1 decay per second (so that half of it would be gone in the half-life, this is only approximate). This would mean there was a total of 2x10^9 x 3x10^16 = 6x10^25 atoms or 100 mol. That 137 in Cs-137 is 137 grams per mol, so that this would be about 13 kg.
There is an easy explanation for this. They are using 2 sensor readings, one northwest of tokyo (upwind from the plant) and one across the pacific from the plant and then using a model to estimate the source. (both readings from last week) This is just the slap-dab wrong data to try to measure this from. Their model is just wrong! They get giant numbers for the source because their model says that the propagation to these spots is very weak. We duh, then don't try to measure it there!
I go to /. to get away from this crap
Fly ash is controlled and partly used in construction and partly dumped. The uranium is not airborne.
There is a significant difference between radioactive fission products and naturally occurring radioisotopes. Their bioavailability is different and their behavior in the body can be very different. For example, iodine concentrates in the thyroid.
The guy in the forum said that among the nuclear plants in the world only one newer nuclear plant in China has a core catcher, and maybe about 4 plants more in the world.
Many plants have been built before Chernobyl, and the Fukushima plants are amond the oldest in Japan.
It also appears it would be hard to build one now, since the plant is built on granite, supposedly.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB