Reporter holding a digital readout geiger counter in Sendai.

[NNadir]

The photograph can be seen here:

//s:/nm/20110321/india_nm/india557342_1

The caption, typically, doesn't explain the units, 0.35 microseiverts per hour. That is almost certainly because neither the photographer taking the "worst nuclear event ever" "scoop" has never taken a science class in his or life.


There are 8766 hours in a sideral year. Thus one year of standing in front of the tsunami wreckage photo with a, um, nuclear caption would expose a person to 3068 microsieverts per year.

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3068 microsieverts, for the benefit of someone who qualifies for joining Greenpeace as a result having never completed a high school science class, is 0.003 Sieverts. It is also, um, 3 mSv.

This is 1/3 the amount of radiation one accumulates over a year if one works as an airline pilot on the Tokyo to New York route.

For those who don't own science books, one can google one's way to the wikipedia reference, from where the Tokyo to New York reference comes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert

Um, um, um, um...

This proves that aircraft are unsafe and it is time to phase out air planes in favor of wind powered kites.

[bbinacan]

1. Thanks for the info. n/t

[flamingdem]

2. You say 1/3 average annual dosage but that's per hour - per day?

That is always left out of the equation.

So that is 1/3 of an annual every day or every hour or divided as if?

[AtheistCrusader]

6. Per year. He did the math for you.

[NNadir]

7. Which is not to say that, um, "doing math" is a good idea...

...especially when it conflicts with what you want to hear.

Our anti-nukes - who couldn't care less about any object in the photograph that might prove that cars are unsafe in a tsunami - have never been particularly good with numbers.

Right now they've got a smoke thread going, claiming that the smoke must be plutonium, even though people actually standing next to the reactor looking at the smoke and holding, um, geiger counters have detected no giant change in the radiation levels right there.

It has to be plutonium.

Why?

Because they want it to be plutonium. If the nuclear event doesn't produce at least 20,000 or more deaths and match the non-nuclear events, they're going to um, be very, very, very, very, very, very disappointed.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. That doesn't make any sense at all.

ALL the reactor fuel rods contain varying levels of plutonium. Most are within spitting distance of each other if they have been used for any significant period of time. This is normal.

This is why these plants are integral to atomic weapons production. Duh.

[kristopher]

9. You have built another straw man...

"claiming that the smoke <em>must</em> be plutonium"

No one claimed that. In fact the only definitive claim as to the source of the smoke was the demonstrably false one that it was wiring burning after they connected power to #3.

Since #3 has not had the power connected...

Well, you do the math.


PS. I've shared with my family in Ibaraki how you have been such a compassionate and understanding observer of the situation and they were so impressed they would like to send you some of the milk and produce from their farm - free of charge!. PM me your address and I'll pass it on to them.

[Fledermaus]

3. 36 miles up wind!

36 miles up wind and every thing is groovy.

[NNadir]

4. OH MY GAWWWWWWWDDDDDDDDDDD!

You, um, mean that everybody is Japan isn't going to die from the grand nuclear event.

What's the concentration of benzene on the grounds of the leaking refineries in Japan?

No idea?

Why am I not surprised?

Well, I'll answer that question myself, because in the bizarre view of anti-nukes, millions of deaths from dangerous fossil fuels are not as important as one death from nuclear energy.

The reason seems to be that nuclear is spelled with an n, and oil - including the oil products used to power motorized bicycles, is spelled with an o, or spilled with leaking o rings.

I'm sure though, that nobody in Japan has suffered any risks from burning refineries, because, um, everybody knows that arbitrarily declaring the nuclear events in Japan to be the worse disaster ever is a very, very, very, very, very good approach to making the next tsunami a meter higher.

Actually, the radiation levels in scientific units have been published on the reactor grounds as well. You'd have to know where to look.

Our anti-nuke friends have yet to come out with a percentage statement about what fraction of the 20,000 odd people now believed to be dead in Japan are attributable to nuclear energy about which they've been carrying on mindlessly in order to distract people from the real disaster.

Of course, waiting for an anti-nuke to do a calculation is sort of like waiting for Pat Robertson to give a lecture on the evolutionary genetics of <em>drosophilia</em>.

Have a nice evening.

[jpak]

17. What a stupid post

The disaster is still unfolding and no comprehensive/accurate measurements of the inventory of radionuclides released from that plant - or how they have been dispersed - has been conducted.

One thing is certain though...

The New Jersey Molten Salt Breeder Reactor is a FRAUD.

yup!

:rofl:

[NNadir]

5. Oh, and by the way, where did you get the idea that it's, um, 36 miles upwind?

There's um, no information attached to the photograph.

Let me guess.

You just made it up?

Why would this not be a surprise?

[bbinacan]

10. I love your work!

When you get people to justify their views beyond the knee-jerk reaction, they fade away.:toast: :yourock:

[kristopher]

12. Would you be willing to snort 4 sand-grain sized pieces of plutonium fallout?

Or how about 10 clay-sized grains so they could even more easily become lodged in your diverticuli?

I'm sure the total radiation dosage would be something you'd find perfectly acceptable. It would be great way to prove to those of us engaging in "knee-jerk reactions" that you are really sincere and brave (if even a bit 'teched' as granny used to say).

[bbinacan]

18. Are these the amounts being inhaled

in Japan?

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

15. do you work at a nuclear plant?

would that be a surprise?

[Javaman]

20. he just likes to pretend he does. nt

[barbtries]

11. ok.

oops read it again.

[reggie the dog]

13. bbc and french news have reported that too

that the level of radiation is higher in a plane crossing the pacific than it is near the accident site but the difference being that one does not continually cross the pacific in a plane.

[Javaman]

14. So when are you going to be flying 24/7?

Because, according to you, that's basically what these people experiencing this fallout are exactly experiencing.

Don't worry, there are flights leaving hourly. Get your ticket now!

More goofiness from the E/E forum's own goofy.

[jpak]

16. unreccing for the stupid

yup

[Terry in Austin]

19. No, phasing out the aircraft is a good idea, too

Of course, the "phasing out" will be done for us -- there just won't be enough fossil fuel around to waste on it.

Aviation is cool, but it's basically a high-tech stunt. Air travel, on the other hand, is absurd. It will probably be one of the more amusing relics of our industrial adventure.