Gamma Radiation In Fukushima-Downwind Ibaraki Disclosed, 30 Times Above Normal (blog)

[jpak]

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/gamma-radiation-fukushima-downwind-ibaraki-disclosed-30-times-above-normal

For all who have been looking for realtime radiation data from Japan, you are in luck. Or maybe not, as the data unfortunately indicates nothing good. The System for Prediction of Environment Emergency Dose Information (SPEEDI) releases gamma radiation data online. The site is jittery and apparently not suited for major traffic which is why we represent several screen captures of the data. While it is not surprising that according to the website both Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures are entirely "Under Survey" as it makes sense that the government does not want to generate panic, SPEEDI has disclosed some tell-tale data about cities in Ibaraki prefecture, which is just a hundred or so miles north of Tokyo, and is just south of the ill-fated Fukushima prefecture. And the data is stunning: based on a N, NE and NNE wind direction (where it originates), meaning all coming from Fukushima, with a normal reading in the 80 nGy/h range, the city of Kounosu Naka is at 3,024, Kadobe Naka is at 2,416, Isobe Hitachioota is at 1,213 and many others are in the mid to upper triple digit range! Again, this is based on wind coming out of Fukushima and ultimately headed toward the capital. Indicatively, normal terrestrial plus cosmic gamma radiation is about 80 nGy/h.

<more>

also - screen captures of data

[ensho]

1. kick

nt

[somone]

2. Gamma rays are the worst

BTW gamma rays are used in nuclear medicine to treat cancers

[jpak]

3. And that's the external gamma dose - who knows what radioactive aerosols have been ingested

by folks in the plume

[FBaggins]

4. Gamma can be some nasty stuff... OTOH...

... isn't "normal" about 2 mSv per year?

IOW, it's amazing how very sensitive our equipment is if it can pick up that little.

What isn't surprising is that some (as with your source), would hype that as "OMG! Run for the hills!"

The data isn't "stunning". What's stunning is that they're trying to frighten people with it.

many others are in the mid to upper triple digit range!

Love the exclamation point... but it's in the "triple digit range" of nanograys. Why not just measure in picograys and say it's over 300,000!!!!!

A Gray is a very serious dose of radiation.

This represents .000003 of that amount.

So... you know... if you stay exposed to this continually for 40 years or so... you're in BIG trouble.

[Lord Magus]

5. It's a pity we can't reccomend replies.

If we could, I'd rec yours.

[kristopher]

6. I'll tell you what

I'll get my family in Ibaraki to pump some air into a container and send it to you so that you can breath it for about 2 hours. What do you say, are you game?

I didn't think so.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. I would if those numbers are accurate.

Fair warning though, you might piss off the post office.

[FBaggins]

8. No need for the "so"

You really "think" that would be dangerous?

What part of the equation breaks down for you? Is the math too hard, the physics, or just can't get past your predisposition that anything nuclear is scary?

If you're prescribed 500 mg of some psychiatric drug and I slip an extra .0002 mg in there... Do you think you'll overdose?

[kristopher]

9. Right, I forgot you have to psychic ability to know what particulates have been released

...with the "venting" the steam cooling the crumbling rods and the fires and explosions.

With your talents you should be far too wealthy to be earning your keep on the internet.

[FBaggins]

10. Don't need to.

They've reported the activity levels. They aren't dangerous.

That could change, but it wouldn't change the fact that the content of the article does not justify the fear they're attempting to gin up.

[kristopher]

11. I see, you aren't psychic, you are just a voluntary spokesman for the nuclear industry.

[FBaggins]

12. I didn't write the OP

I'm just telling you what it means. Gamma radiation at 30 times the normal level isn't dangerous.

If that's too much for you, that's your problem.

[kristopher]

13. You are trying to downplay the risks that are preesent- those risks are real.

Give me your address and I'll have them send you some milk this spring.

[FBaggins]

14. Nope. Just helping to quench dishonesty by those who would exagerate it.

More importantly... helping people understand what the reported numbers mean.

The language in the OP tries to make it sound like the reported levels are really high. They aren't.

Why on earth wouldn't you want to know that?

Yeah... the RISKS are real. Things COULD get worse. But so far the reporting of what they ARE is not a huge issue.

[kristopher]

15. Pretending the particulates don't exist for "downwind Ibaraki" isn't dishonest?

[FBaggins]

16. Where did I pretend that?

Once again... I took precisely what was reported in the OP and translated that for those who don't understand what the reported dose means.

"Particulates" was your strawman.