"Chernobyl was a much worse disaster than Fukushima,"
You are missing your authoritative source stating such (and the Fukushima event is still ongoing . ..).
"estimate current death-toll at below 200"
It must be nice to feel so confident about speculated results of an event that is so notorious for lacking good, reliable data. You must be a TRUE BELIEVER. The LNT model seems far more realistic, and it looks like Fukushima may serve as the "great experiment" to provide the additional supportive data it needs. However, I believe that no models are "conclusive" at this point. It takes a true shill to claim differently. (FYI, the estimate for deaths from tobacco and asbestos was once "0" until proven otherwise . ..).
"nuclear is safer (as in causes less deaths) than oil, coal, gas, hydro by large margin"
Nice, more fact transcending ranting. Sources, please. Hearing the same talking points spewed over and over is not convincing.
"Add rest of the globe, add lung cancer caused by coal power plants and we quickly approach few hundred thousand yearly."
Nice . . . Yes, be sure to include the "hundreds of thousands" of indirect deaths for coal power and conveniently exclude any indirect deaths that will be caused by Fukushima. Now THAT is some impartial thinking you got going there . . . Again, please provide post-Fukushima source backing your claims . . .
And we all know that our only choices are coal and nuclear . . .
"but nobody has died from Fukushima"
By that same definition, people smoking tobacco and breathing in asbestos right now have not died, so those substances are perfectly safe, right? That argument has worked for those respective industries for a while. What are you going to do when people smarten up to the delayed incubation trick? Just move to the next talking point, I suppose . . .
The crux of the nuclear industry is that old plants are already paid for and depreciated. They are far more profitable than new plants. Also, safety measures cost money, so a profit maximizing business will try to minimize safety measures where possible (including building safer new plants). When things do go wrong, things are so bad that the government has to bail out the owners (just like the banks), so they face limited downside risk with the old plants.
I am afraid you give way too much credit to the anti-nuke movement, and way too little credit to corporate greed.
I recently heard that the reason solar is becoming so popular is that water costs in certain areas are starting to increase significantly. That means the cost of any power generation that requires water for cooling (like nuclear generation) are seeing their costs uncontrollably increase.
Add to that the fact that more and more people are starting to work from home and small/distributed power generation (like solar plants) starts to become more and more cost effective.
And the population density around Fukushima is far greater than that around Chernobyl . . .
How about this. If even the creator of the model "cautions that the resulting model is far from perfect," perhaps we, as a community, should heed the warning that there is still quite a lot of uncertainty on how much fallout there may actually be and this uncertainty might last for quite a while.
I think you and the parent have excellent arguments supporting criminal negligence and find it frustrating that those with the authority to actually do something about it (especially in Japan) do not appear to be doing anything.
Great, does that mean your views towards people in Tokyo measuring radiation have changed?
"I only just found out about the 57 microSv/h hotspot. That is indeed very interesting, but it is extremely unlikely to have anything to do with Fukushima, and sounds more like buried illegal radioactive waste, or maybe another forgotten stash of radioactive material that got buried by chance."
Perhaps your views have changed with recent developments regarding hotspots like the above?
"First off - the cleanliness of nuclear. .."
This is really absurd. We are talking about Tokyo and the fallout from Fukushima. It is like being on a plane that has lost all engines and electrical power and you start telling everyone it is okay because OVERALL, flying is safer than driving . . .
"Simplifications are useful . .."
Maybe, but they are not useful when dealing with biology. The centuries of "simplified" medicine can attest to that. And statistics is just a tool for understanding large data sets and will not magically create insights where the underlying data is lacking (though, it is often used like magic . ..). I think your example of Colorado could be a poster child example of the perils of oversimplification and misuse of statistics.
"There is nothing wrong with the parent . .."
Again, you are applying general stats to a specific situation with specific risks. I do not care how safe flying is if my plane is going down with its wings on fire. Those stats no longer apply. Here is the reality: 57 microSv/Hr in Kashiwa. Are you saying that is not a risk worth measuring? Yes or no?
"Finally, to reply partly . .."
I disagree 100% with the your statement regarding the adverse impacts of personal investment. In fact, I would argue that you cannot even begin to assess risk appropriately unless you are personally invested. Look at all those bastards on Wall Street who gambled away the life savings of countless retirees. You think they would have taken those risks if it was THEIR life savings? I do not think proper risk management is about avoiding bias but about aligning one's biases so that you have as much to lose as those with the most exposure to the risk at hand. I have a significant investmant in the future of Japan. You apparently have some kind of background related to the nuclear industry. Whose biases and exposures are more aligned with those at greatest risk from Fukushima radioactive fallout? And, again, where in Colorado do they have 57 microSv/hr?
Finally, have you never heard of REITs? You can invest in Japan real estate now. ORIX is down about 1/3 of where it was before the earthquake. I look forward to hearing how much you end up investing.
Anyone who ridicules the public in Tokyo for measuring radiation with the level and number of hotspots being found is not only my enemy but an enemy of the Japanese people.
You stopped listening as soon as your views were challenged.
Oh, look, someone else in Kashiwa is "wasting their time" with measurements. If only your message had gotten to them in time . . . damn my presumptuous and rude posts . . .
No, you have made it quite clear that you do not want to talk to me (except for . . . uh, continuing to post on this thread . ..). However, though you sabotaged the discussion on public monitoring, i find your psychological profile to be quite an intriguing specimen. I am wondering how someone who has spent their life "picking up their toys and going home" whenever faced with a bit of adversity would develop any level of depth in their understanding of issues like public monitoring. I sincerely regret not getting the chance to explore things in more detail, but I assume you have simply adopted the political talking points with little original thought or contribution. I think I can summarize these points below.
The Matryoshka doll of the pro nuke shill political talking points:
1) Downplay the risks of a meltdown.
2) When a meltdown happens, downplay the risk of fallout (usually by telling the public there is no need for extensive measurements).
3) When fallout occurs, downplay the biological risk (usually by focusing exclusively on external exposure).
4) When biological impact occurs downplay the connection of the impact with the meltdown.
5) When losing an argument, claim the other party is being too presumptuous and rude to continue (you taught me this one).
This problem space includes biology and chemistry, not just physics. Chemistry is magnitudes more complicated than physics and biology is magnitudes more complicated than chemistry. Perhaps the "black box" method and over simplification approach works well enough for the physics portion of the
problem, but it is pretty ridiculous to do the same with the biology portion. The body is not just a sack of water but a very complicated system that cannot be modeled by simple Newtonian equations. That is why we have known more about how celestial bodies function than our own bodies for centuries. Would you use Newton's physician (hell, would you limit yourself to medicine from even 15 years ago!?). However, it is an interesting theme of the meltdownplayers trying to summarize everything into a simple physics equation.
Again, you are hitting the political talking points (coal vs nuclear) and probabilities of meltdowns. This is offtopic. What is the probability of a Fukushima meltdown at this point? 100%. Are we discussing which is cleaner, coal or nuclear? No. We are discussing whether it is worth it for individuals to measure radiation around Tokyo.
Again, your Colorado example is totally meaningless because you are using physics inputs with biological outputs. If life were that simple, there would never be any meltdowns, and we would not be having this discussion. Furthermore, where in Colorado are kids playing on a hot spot radiating at 57 microSV per hour?
Yes, I did confuse you with another poster. Probably because the line of reasoning and talking points were very similar (with the exception of calling me too presumptuous and rude to continue on with, of course). Hitting the talking points even when they do not relate to the discussion is what I consider "shill speak." Here I am, trying to discuss one thing: is it worth measuring fallout in Tokyo. What do I get thrown into the mix? Pro-nuke talking points of "its the cleanest", "it is better than coal", "meldowns rarely happen" etc . . . You see, the shill does not seek the truth but seeks to protect their political position supporting nuclear power. They don't care whether measuring fallout in Tokyo is really worth it our not. All they care is that trying to measure fallout in Tokyo does not support their political position. They are concerned with making their stance impenetrable, and unconcerned about the collateral damage their strategies might have.
Lack of proof, in itself, is not proof. This is an unprecedented event. The great experiment is in progress, and we will see the results slowly come out over the decades and generations. However, was the 57 microSV/hr hot spot not enough to convince you people should be measuring more? If not, at what level would you be convinced?
"I'm just advocating for the idea that we should base our advice and opinions on data, and data shows that low levels of radiation are essentially harmless."
Fine, me too. How do you know the level of radiation are low unless you measure? Is 57 microSV/hr low? Why are you against obtaining more data?
Oh, that is very simple and does not require time to respond to like your other post.
I was pro-nuke until I had to evacuate my family from the Fukushima disaster (I still have a half a million USD investment in the form of real estate in Japan that I can no longer sell and left behind a very successful career ). My punishment for myself for being a lazy believer of people like you is roaming the pro-nuke forums like this and debating the issues I should have done earlier (of course, I am on the other side at this point).
I know quite a few people who did not leave because they did not believe that there were meltdowns. After the three months for the truth to come out, they did not leave because they did not believe the fallout could reach them. As the hot spots are being found, they are reading posts like yours and deciding it is safe not to check their areas. Your posts cost you very little if you are wrong. To those at risk who are convinced by them, it costs a lot if you are wrong.
Personally, I think your view is a luxury, like it was for me. One day your luck may change like mine did, and you will no longer be able to afford it. Not because the technology is flawed but because the people using the technology are flawed. You are a disaster away from changing your mind, but I am not waiting for future disasters. So I have the impossible task of trying to change the minds of people who have the luxury to think of the issue as an academic exercise. Who do not just think nuclear power is the best, but who are against people in fallout zones even trying to measure radiation fallout. Sometimes I feel it would be easier to build a time machine and warn myself of the impending disaster.
"On nuclear being a safer energy source"
This is completely off topic. This Slashdot article and thread is about whether or not measuring for hotspots in Tokyo is a waste of time, not whether nuclear is the safest source of energy. As I suspected earlier, you are conflating issues here. Furthermore, operational statistical safety means little to those living down wind from a meltdown, as Dai ichi is no longer operational.
"On Tokyo radiation being a non-issue"
Nice explanation of EXTERNAL radiation exposure risk. However, the greatest risk from fallout is from INTERNAL exposure. This explains some why the risks are so different. For instance, a plutonium particle that would be lethal if lodged into a lung would barely show up on the limited number of measuring stations (which primary pick-up gamma radiation). And that is just one isotope out of potentially dozens of fallout isotopes (many of which also have alpha or beta decay modes which are disproportionately more dangerous internally than externally and harder to measure) which each have a unique biological risk. Consequently, the risk from fallout is dramatically greater than you describe. The key to reducing this risk is more measuring at ground level where hotspots consisting of alpha and beta emitters are more likely to be found and addressed to minimize additional internal exposure.
"Conclusion"
Your conclusion is based on a very simplified exposure model where only external radiation exposure seems to be taken into account. How much Colorado soil is being volatilized and at what concentrations of uranium? What are the biological half lives of the different Uranium isotopes? What organs are susceptible to Uranium bioconcentration and what is their susceptibility to radiation damage (e.g. mitotic frequency). Alright, now what is the actual dispersion of radioactive contamination in Tokyo for each isotope? Now iterate the above questions for each isotope. This is chess not checkers . . .
My conclusion is that I find your basis for concluding it is not worth it for someone living Tokyo to measure for hotspots to be extremely weak. It almost seems you are using an old model that ignores any progress in biological knowledge since the discovery of DNA. Additionally, I believe this is because you are taking a protective position of nuclear technology one would usually only see by a nuclear lobby with a matryoshka doll like political strategy of layers resembling:
1) Downplay the risks of a meltdown.
2) When a meltdown happens, downplay the risk of fallout (usually by telling the public there is no need for extensive measurements).
3) When fallout occurs, downplay the biological risk (usually by focusing exclusively on external exposure).
4) When biological impact occurs downplay the connection of the impact with the meltdown.
5) When losing an argument, claim the other party is being too presumptuous and rude to continue (you taught me this one).
From the article:
"'The possibility is high that cesium carried in rain water condensed and accumulated in the soil,' said Takao Nakaya, heads of the science and education ministry's radiation regulation office."
This is significant radioactive contamination for children to ever come into contact with. Kashiwa is very, very close to Tokyo. Do you still disagree that hot spots like this should be searched out? If so, why. Please provide your sources.
Another presumptuous statement from you . . . However, unlike you, I will not make a statement that presumptuously assumes you act this way outside of your pro-nuke shill mode, since I do not know you outside of that context
Besides, I am still convinced that this is just your coping mechanism for people calling you out. You have conveniently shifted the conversation from public monitoring of radiation to etiquette. Alright, what kind of etiquette is it to tell someone that this is "not something which is worth worrying about" when they have found a hot spot as close as Kashiwa with 57 microSV/Hr and the government now highly suspects it is fallout from Fukushima. Oh, and THAT spot would not have even been found if it were not for a regular citizen checking (You know . . . the type of person you think are wasting their money and time . . . ).
To be honest, I am not posting to win any politeness contests, and especially in the eyes of someone responsible for posts that I find immoral and inappropriate. I might hurt the egos of some thin skinned readers when I post, but at least I am not contributing to the downplay of a public health hazard. You get to live with that one.
Right you are, I was trying to be sarcastic. Not only do kids eat mud, but plants grow in mud. People eat plants.
Pretty obvious stuff until you stir up a hornets nest trying to post it on Slashdot with all the pro-nuke freaks so insecure that they don't even what people measuring for radiation . . .
"measuring radiation is often pointless"
Point: Maybe the original poster (located relatively close to Fukushima) wants to assess the situation so they can sleep at night. Do they use science to measure (geek thing to do) or listen to some dogmatic git on Slashdot (called the "ChrimsonAvenger") tell them they are stupid and wasting their time?
"If, as an example, one of the hotspots they've reported in the Tokyo area were in my back yard, I'd probably plant a monstera on it, to remind myself not to mow the spot."
Ok, Einstein, how would you know where to mow if no one measured? And then you went to Slashdot to ask how you could get your area measured and a bunch of presumptuous shits like yourself post a bunch of nonsensical drivel (such that they are conflicting themselves IN A SINGLE FUCKING POST).
"laugh at the fool panicking over nothing"
I basically cannot take my family back to my house (that I own) NORTH of Tokyo (The prefecture directly South of Fukushima), because of the UNDISPUTED radiation levels (yes, confirmed by the government's own measurements of the ares) are too high for a 3 year old. On behalf of all Fukushima victims (including myself) having to deal with insensitive sadists like yourself: Fuck you.
Slashdot Mirror
"Chernobyl was a much worse disaster than Fukushima," .).
.).
You are missing your authoritative source stating such (and the Fukushima event is still ongoing . .
"estimate current death-toll at below 200"
It must be nice to feel so confident about speculated results of an event that is so notorious for lacking good, reliable data. You must be a TRUE BELIEVER. The LNT model seems far more realistic, and it looks like Fukushima may serve as the "great experiment" to provide the additional supportive data it needs. However, I believe that no models are "conclusive" at this point. It takes a true shill to claim differently. (FYI, the estimate for deaths from tobacco and asbestos was once "0" until proven otherwise . .
"nuclear is safer (as in causes less deaths) than oil, coal, gas, hydro by large margin"
Nice, more fact transcending ranting. Sources, please. Hearing the same talking points spewed over and over is not convincing.
"Add rest of the globe, add lung cancer caused by coal power plants and we quickly approach few hundred thousand yearly."
Nice . . . Yes, be sure to include the "hundreds of thousands" of indirect deaths for coal power and conveniently exclude any indirect deaths that will be caused by Fukushima. Now THAT is some impartial thinking you got going there . . . Again, please provide post-Fukushima source backing your claims . . .
And we all know that our only choices are coal and nuclear . . .
"but nobody has died from Fukushima"
By that same definition, people smoking tobacco and breathing in asbestos right now have not died, so those substances are perfectly safe, right? That argument has worked for those respective industries for a while. What are you going to do when people smarten up to the delayed incubation trick? Just move to the next talking point, I suppose . . .
"From JUST West Virginia"
Because we all know that every state has identical levels of coal mining . . . But, really, mining? Because we all know that there are absolutely no risks to uranium mining. Oh, and there are absolutely no additional risks to residents close to uranium mines that residents close to coal mines don't have to worry about . . .
"The nuclear energy is safer by few orders of magnitude than coal."
Please cite (post Fukushima) source.
The crux of the nuclear industry is that old plants are already paid for and depreciated. They are far more profitable than new plants. Also, safety measures cost money, so a profit maximizing business will try to minimize safety measures where possible (including building safer new plants). When things do go wrong, things are so bad that the government has to bail out the owners (just like the banks), so they face limited downside risk with the old plants.
I am afraid you give way too much credit to the anti-nuke movement, and way too little credit to corporate greed.
Why make a mess at home, when you can just pay someone else to deal with the mess?
That's funny, because the DOE says that, "In some cases, water levels were so low that power production at some power plants had to be stopped or reduced." Oh, and there is another article on the subject here. I could probably find more info for you, but I promised myself to only spend a couple of minutes googling the topic.
Perhaps you missed the part where I said "certain areas?" Do you suppose this is some conspiracy to thwart your world views with facts?
I recently heard that the reason solar is becoming so popular is that water costs in certain areas are starting to increase significantly. That means the cost of any power generation that requires water for cooling (like nuclear generation) are seeing their costs uncontrollably increase.
Add to that the fact that more and more people are starting to work from home and small/distributed power generation (like solar plants) starts to become more and more cost effective.
And the population density around Fukushima is far greater than that around Chernobyl . . .
How about this. If even the creator of the model "cautions that the resulting model is far from perfect," perhaps we, as a community, should heed the warning that there is still quite a lot of uncertainty on how much fallout there may actually be and this uncertainty might last for quite a while.
With so much uncertainty, does it really make sense to downplay? For instance, when someone relatively near to the event asks how to measure for contamination, does the community really have enough strong data to ridicule that individual? Even as the experts say that "ongoing ground surveys are the only way to truly establish the public-health risk?"
What do you lose if your downplaying is wrong compared to those actually within close proximity of the event?
The Tokai Mura Nuclear Plant was Japan's first nuclear plant.
I think you and the parent have excellent arguments supporting criminal negligence and find it frustrating that those with the authority to actually do something about it (especially in Japan) do not appear to be doing anything.
Great, does that mean your views towards people in Tokyo measuring radiation have changed?
"I only just found out about the 57 microSv/h hotspot. That is indeed very interesting, but it is extremely unlikely to have anything to do with Fukushima, and sounds more like buried illegal radioactive waste, or maybe another forgotten stash of radioactive material that got buried by chance."
Perhaps your views have changed with recent developments regarding hotspots like the above?
"First off - the cleanliness of nuclear. . ."
." .). I think your example of Colorado could be a poster child example of the perils of oversimplification and misuse of statistics.
."
."
This is really absurd. We are talking about Tokyo and the fallout from Fukushima. It is like being on a plane that has lost all engines and electrical power and you start telling everyone it is okay because OVERALL, flying is safer than driving . . .
"Simplifications are useful . .
Maybe, but they are not useful when dealing with biology. The centuries of "simplified" medicine can attest to that. And statistics is just a tool for understanding large data sets and will not magically create insights where the underlying data is lacking (though, it is often used like magic . .
"There is nothing wrong with the parent . .
Again, you are applying general stats to a specific situation with specific risks. I do not care how safe flying is if my plane is going down with its wings on fire. Those stats no longer apply. Here is the reality: 57 microSv/Hr in Kashiwa. Are you saying that is not a risk worth measuring? Yes or no?
"Finally, to reply partly . .
I disagree 100% with the your statement regarding the adverse impacts of personal investment. In fact, I would argue that you cannot even begin to assess risk appropriately unless you are personally invested. Look at all those bastards on Wall Street who gambled away the life savings of countless retirees. You think they would have taken those risks if it was THEIR life savings? I do not think proper risk management is about avoiding bias but about aligning one's biases so that you have as much to lose as those with the most exposure to the risk at hand. I have a significant investmant in the future of Japan. You apparently have some kind of background related to the nuclear industry. Whose biases and exposures are more aligned with those at greatest risk from Fukushima radioactive fallout? And, again, where in Colorado do they have 57 microSv/hr?
Finally, have you never heard of REITs? You can invest in Japan real estate now. ORIX is down about 1/3 of where it was before the earthquake. I look forward to hearing how much you end up investing.
Anyone who ridicules the public in Tokyo for measuring radiation with the level and number of hotspots being found is not only my enemy but an enemy of the Japanese people.
You stopped listening as soon as your views were challenged.
Oh, look, someone else in Kashiwa is "wasting their time" with measurements. If only your message had gotten to them in time . . . damn my presumptuous and rude posts . . .
No, you have made it quite clear that you do not want to talk to me (except for . . . uh, continuing to post on this thread . . .). However, though you sabotaged the discussion on public monitoring, i find your psychological profile to be quite an intriguing specimen. I am wondering how someone who has spent their life "picking up their toys and going home" whenever faced with a bit of adversity would develop any level of depth in their understanding of issues like public monitoring. I sincerely regret not getting the chance to explore things in more detail, but I assume you have simply adopted the political talking points with little original thought or contribution. I think I can summarize these points below.
The Matryoshka doll of the pro nuke shill political talking points:
1) Downplay the risks of a meltdown.
2) When a meltdown happens, downplay the risk of fallout (usually by telling the public there is no need for extensive measurements).
3) When fallout occurs, downplay the biological risk (usually by focusing exclusively on external exposure).
4) When biological impact occurs downplay the connection of the impact with the meltdown.
5) When losing an argument, claim the other party is being too presumptuous and rude to continue (you taught me this one).
Did I miss anything?
This problem space includes biology and chemistry, not just physics. Chemistry is magnitudes more complicated than physics and biology is magnitudes more complicated than chemistry. Perhaps the "black box" method and over simplification approach works well enough for the physics portion of the problem, but it is pretty ridiculous to do the same with the biology portion. The body is not just a sack of water but a very complicated system that cannot be modeled by simple Newtonian equations. That is why we have known more about how celestial bodies function than our own bodies for centuries. Would you use Newton's physician (hell, would you limit yourself to medicine from even 15 years ago!?). However, it is an interesting theme of the meltdownplayers trying to summarize everything into a simple physics equation.
Again, you are hitting the political talking points (coal vs nuclear) and probabilities of meltdowns. This is offtopic. What is the probability of a Fukushima meltdown at this point? 100%. Are we discussing which is cleaner, coal or nuclear? No. We are discussing whether it is worth it for individuals to measure radiation around Tokyo.
Again, your Colorado example is totally meaningless because you are using physics inputs with biological outputs. If life were that simple, there would never be any meltdowns, and we would not be having this discussion. Furthermore, where in Colorado are kids playing on a hot spot radiating at 57 microSV per hour?
Yes, I did confuse you with another poster. Probably because the line of reasoning and talking points were very similar (with the exception of calling me too presumptuous and rude to continue on with, of course). Hitting the talking points even when they do not relate to the discussion is what I consider "shill speak." Here I am, trying to discuss one thing: is it worth measuring fallout in Tokyo. What do I get thrown into the mix? Pro-nuke talking points of "its the cleanest", "it is better than coal", "meldowns rarely happen" etc . . . You see, the shill does not seek the truth but seeks to protect their political position supporting nuclear power. They don't care whether measuring fallout in Tokyo is really worth it our not. All they care is that trying to measure fallout in Tokyo does not support their political position. They are concerned with making their stance impenetrable, and unconcerned about the collateral damage their strategies might have.
Lack of proof, in itself, is not proof. This is an unprecedented event. The great experiment is in progress, and we will see the results slowly come out over the decades and generations. However, was the 57 microSV/hr hot spot not enough to convince you people should be measuring more? If not, at what level would you be convinced?
"I'm just advocating for the idea that we should base our advice and opinions on data, and data shows that low levels of radiation are essentially harmless." Fine, me too. How do you know the level of radiation are low unless you measure? Is 57 microSV/hr low? Why are you against obtaining more data?
Oh, that is very simple and does not require time to respond to like your other post.
I was pro-nuke until I had to evacuate my family from the Fukushima disaster (I still have a half a million USD investment in the form of real estate in Japan that I can no longer sell and left behind a very successful career ). My punishment for myself for being a lazy believer of people like you is roaming the pro-nuke forums like this and debating the issues I should have done earlier (of course, I am on the other side at this point).
I know quite a few people who did not leave because they did not believe that there were meltdowns. After the three months for the truth to come out, they did not leave because they did not believe the fallout could reach them. As the hot spots are being found, they are reading posts like yours and deciding it is safe not to check their areas. Your posts cost you very little if you are wrong. To those at risk who are convinced by them, it costs a lot if you are wrong.
Personally, I think your view is a luxury, like it was for me. One day your luck may change like mine did, and you will no longer be able to afford it. Not because the technology is flawed but because the people using the technology are flawed. You are a disaster away from changing your mind, but I am not waiting for future disasters. So I have the impossible task of trying to change the minds of people who have the luxury to think of the issue as an academic exercise. Who do not just think nuclear power is the best, but who are against people in fallout zones even trying to measure radiation fallout. Sometimes I feel it would be easier to build a time machine and warn myself of the impending disaster.
"On nuclear being a safer energy source"
This is completely off topic. This Slashdot article and thread is about whether or not measuring for hotspots in Tokyo is a waste of time, not whether nuclear is the safest source of energy. As I suspected earlier, you are conflating issues here. Furthermore, operational statistical safety means little to those living down wind from a meltdown, as Dai ichi is no longer operational.
"On Tokyo radiation being a non-issue"
Nice explanation of EXTERNAL radiation exposure risk. However, the greatest risk from fallout is from INTERNAL exposure. This explains some why the risks are so different. For instance, a plutonium particle that would be lethal if lodged into a lung would barely show up on the limited number of measuring stations (which primary pick-up gamma radiation). And that is just one isotope out of potentially dozens of fallout isotopes (many of which also have alpha or beta decay modes which are disproportionately more dangerous internally than externally and harder to measure) which each have a unique biological risk. Consequently, the risk from fallout is dramatically greater than you describe. The key to reducing this risk is more measuring at ground level where hotspots consisting of alpha and beta emitters are more likely to be found and addressed to minimize additional internal exposure.
"Conclusion"
Your conclusion is based on a very simplified exposure model where only external radiation exposure seems to be taken into account. How much Colorado soil is being volatilized and at what concentrations of uranium? What are the biological half lives of the different Uranium isotopes? What organs are susceptible to Uranium bioconcentration and what is their susceptibility to radiation damage (e.g. mitotic frequency). Alright, now what is the actual dispersion of radioactive contamination in Tokyo for each isotope? Now iterate the above questions for each isotope. This is chess not checkers . . .
My conclusion is that I find your basis for concluding it is not worth it for someone living Tokyo to measure for hotspots to be extremely weak. It almost seems you are using an old model that ignores any progress in biological knowledge since the discovery of DNA. Additionally, I believe this is because you are taking a protective position of nuclear technology one would usually only see by a nuclear lobby with a matryoshka doll like political strategy of layers resembling:
1) Downplay the risks of a meltdown.
2) When a meltdown happens, downplay the risk of fallout (usually by telling the public there is no need for extensive measurements).
3) When fallout occurs, downplay the biological risk (usually by focusing exclusively on external exposure).
4) When biological impact occurs downplay the connection of the impact with the meltdown.
5) When losing an argument, claim the other party is being too presumptuous and rude to continue (you taught me this one).
Please let me know if I missed anything.
Just in case this is a language barrier issue, please find an English version of the article I posted earlier.
From the article: "'The possibility is high that cesium carried in rain water condensed and accumulated in the soil,' said Takao Nakaya, heads of the science and education ministry's radiation regulation office."
This is significant radioactive contamination for children to ever come into contact with. Kashiwa is very, very close to Tokyo. Do you still disagree that hot spots like this should be searched out? If so, why. Please provide your sources.
Another presumptuous statement from you . . . However, unlike you, I will not make a statement that presumptuously assumes you act this way outside of your pro-nuke shill mode, since I do not know you outside of that context
Besides, I am still convinced that this is just your coping mechanism for people calling you out. You have conveniently shifted the conversation from public monitoring of radiation to etiquette. Alright, what kind of etiquette is it to tell someone that this is "not something which is worth worrying about" when they have found a hot spot as close as Kashiwa with 57 microSV/Hr and the government now highly suspects it is fallout from Fukushima. Oh, and THAT spot would not have even been found if it were not for a regular citizen checking (You know . . . the type of person you think are wasting their money and time . . . ).
To be honest, I am not posting to win any politeness contests, and especially in the eyes of someone responsible for posts that I find immoral and inappropriate. I might hurt the egos of some thin skinned readers when I post, but at least I am not contributing to the downplay of a public health hazard. You get to live with that one.
I think I matched your presumptuous tone and called it how it was. If the truth hurt, I am truly sorry.
Ok, please provide the data showing "anything [you]'ve said is 100% provable."
Right you are, I was trying to be sarcastic. Not only do kids eat mud, but plants grow in mud. People eat plants.
Pretty obvious stuff until you stir up a hornets nest trying to post it on Slashdot with all the pro-nuke freaks so insecure that they don't even what people measuring for radiation . . .
Thank you. Your post is a needle in a haystack of hostile responses.
"measuring radiation is often pointless"
Point: Maybe the original poster (located relatively close to Fukushima) wants to assess the situation so they can sleep at night. Do they use science to measure (geek thing to do) or listen to some dogmatic git on Slashdot (called the "ChrimsonAvenger") tell them they are stupid and wasting their time?
"If, as an example, one of the hotspots they've reported in the Tokyo area were in my back yard, I'd probably plant a monstera on it, to remind myself not to mow the spot."
Ok, Einstein, how would you know where to mow if no one measured? And then you went to Slashdot to ask how you could get your area measured and a bunch of presumptuous shits like yourself post a bunch of nonsensical drivel (such that they are conflicting themselves IN A SINGLE FUCKING POST).
"laugh at the fool panicking over nothing"
I basically cannot take my family back to my house (that I own) NORTH of Tokyo (The prefecture directly South of Fukushima), because of the UNDISPUTED radiation levels (yes, confirmed by the government's own measurements of the ares) are too high for a 3 year old. On behalf of all Fukushima victims (including myself) having to deal with insensitive sadists like yourself: Fuck you.