IF reactors in Japan blow, nuclear fallout could reach west coast of USA in 6-10 days - map

[Tx4obama]

The map was found in a link in a post posted on crooksandliars.com

http://crooksandliars.com/bluegal-aka-fran/mikes-blog-round-8
http://shortwoman.com/?p=1613

Here's a link to the CDC which has a chart regarding RADS:
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/arsphysicianfactsheet.asp

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. That map has been proven to be bogus, has been posted a hundred times here

in the last few days.

Sorry.

[Tx4obama]

7. Hmm. I just saw it the first time today. Do you have a correct map?

Why is it bogus?
It looks about right to me.

[FBaggins]

22. It's bogus because it's impossible.

Two major errors:

1) You can't guess what the exposure levels will be without knowing what kind of event you're talking about. The range of potential radiation levels in a full meltdown still varies a great deal.

2) The numbers are not just made up... they're ridiculously high. 750 Rad basically kills everyone. It's just a little below the 100% death line even if you get to a hospital and receive treatment. So they're predicting tens of millions of deaths (hundreds of millions over time). Even the fearmongers who make up wildly bloated statistics for Chernobyl talk about 100,000 to 900,000 deaths (ridiculously high, but just assume that it's right). This reactor is much smaller than Chernobyl and had been shut down for days. It can't come CLOSE to that level even if it completely fails... yet this map predicts fallout many hundreds of times worse?

[Tx4obama]

25. That is NOT what the CDC says

The CDC does NOT say that expose to UNDER 1000 RADS kills everyone.
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/arsphysicianfactsheet.asp

[FBaggins]

36. Read what I said again.

I said it's just below the level that kills everyone.

It's at the level that kills everyone that doesn't make it to the hospital, and between 50-100% of the people who DO make it to a hospital for immediate treatment (obviously the higher in that range you go, the closer to 100% death you get).

Which is why I said "tens of millions"

Of course... the radiation doesn't die out in ten days. The rest of the country gets a lower exposure as well... at levels where 35%-50% die no matter what.

[meow mix]

13. but the wind does bring it here

nothing bogus about that

[FBaggins]

23. True... but "it" is blown out of proportion hundreds of times over. n/t

[Rex]

2. I've seen several DUrs say this map is inaccurate.

Let us hope beyond hope that scenario doesn't happen and the Japanese can get control over the situation.

[FirstLight]

3. any idea what those rads mean?

I'm gonna look up the effects...

[FirstLight]

6. well this was posted on a site with the same map

0-50 rads - No obvious short-term effects

80-120 rads - You have a 10% chance of vomiting and experiencing nausea for a few days

130 -170 rads - You have a 25% chance of vomiting and contracting other symptoms

180-220 rads - You have a 50% chance of vomiting and having other severe physical effects

270-330 rads - 20% chance of death in 6 weeks, or you will recover in a few months.

400-500 rads - 50% chance of death

550-750 rads - Nausia within a few hours ; no survivors

> 1000 rads - immediate incapacitation and death within a week or less.

(http://haerinwashere.tumblr.com/post/3810952232/0-50-rads-no-obvious-short-term-effects-80-120)

:scared: this isn't accurate, right?


or this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning
Here's the CDC link for radiation poisoning http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/arsphysicianfactsheet.asp

[Tx4obama]

8. See below

I found the map via links below
http://crooksandliars.com/bluegal-aka-fran/mikes-blog-round-8
http://shortwoman.com/?p=1613

[Tx4obama]

15. Well...

If the CDC info is correct http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/arsphysicianfactsheet.asp
Then the map would seem to fall in line with what would seem logical.

Looks like the map is correct and the extra text 'that' person that posted was incorrect at the 'haerinwashere' website.

[Tx4obama]

20. Here's a link to a chart at the CDC

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/arsphysicianfactsheet.asp

[BadgerKid]

4. IIRC, this particular graphic has been debunked. n/t

[MadHound]

5. If that's the case, pray for rain,

Storms will wash a good portion of the material out of the air, depositing it in the ocean.

[mahina]

9. Regardless if that map is right or wrong, we've been zapped a ton of times already

Bikini, testing in the Marshall islands, testing in Tahiti...you folks on the continent who live near Nevada same thing.

Heart is breaking for Japan. What happens to us with fallout is minors. Not saying it can't harm, I don't know, but there's shit I can do about it anyway. I can make a donation to the Japanese Red Cross. I can have a garage sale, a sale at work, and look for other ways to give.

Just my 200$

[11 Bravo]

10. So in 10 days there won't be a living soul west of Kansas? I call bullshit.

[Tx4obama]

12. Who said that? n/t

[FBaggins]

24. The graphic did.

That's what "750 Rad" means.

Ok... that's not really true. It takes a week or so to die at that level (and it ain't a pleasant death). So it's 17 days (maybe even 20!) until they're all dead.

[Tx4obama]

26. Wrong!

The CDC does NOT say that under 1000 RAD kills everyone.

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/arsphysicianfactsheet.asp

[Luminous Animal]

35. The CDC jumps from 250-500 rads to 1000 rads.

There is a lot of gaps in that chart.

From your link:


† The LD50/60 <250-500 rads> is the dose necessary to kill 50% of the exposed population in 60 days.

‡ The LD100 <1000 rads> is the dose necessary to kill 100% of the exposed population

[FBaggins]

37. You're not seriously debating this are you?

Whether it's every single human on the West Coast or "merely" tens of millions of them... you're still hundreds of times worse than this could possible get in a worst case situation. Does it REALLY matter whether they're off by 500-1 or 700-1? The map is pure BS either way.

[mahina]

11. Yeah, I'm going to make that an OP

thanks

[Drale]

14. If this map was true

then everytime there was a nucluer test hundreds of thousands if not millions of people would die.

[hedgehog]

16. Hoping that the map is wrong, but I would imagine a nuclear plant has a

lot more radioactive material at hand than a single nuclear bomb would.

[Drale]

27. I don't know but

the Russians have detonated some truly massive bombs.

[FBaggins]

45. Sure... but most of it stays right there.

A small portion of the material in a nuclear bomb is converted to energy, but the rest of it is blasted in all directions. The material is far more enriched than reactor fuel and the explosion creates an interesting mix of daughter elements.

A reactor core that melts down (even if it somehow breaches containment), still has most of the material sitting in the bottom of the reactor.

Chernobyl was a spectacular exception for a number of reasons.

[jannyk]

17. So where does one find the 'Correct and Accurate' Map? nt

[Luminous Animal]

18. Here is the link to the Australian Radiation Services.

No such map exists on their site.

http://www.australian-radiation-services.com.au/index.php

[Tx4obama]

21. What does Australia have anything to do with it? n/t

[subterranean]

31. The logo of Australian Radiation Services is in the bottom left corner of the map.

A detail no doubt included to lend it credibility.
However, ARS is a private organization and does not have any mention of the map on its website.
Also, I haven't seen this map on any other credible website.
The jet stream direction is accurate, but everything else about the map is bogus.

[Luminous Animal]

34. It's their logo on the map.

[SnakeEyes]

19. Not only is this map bogus

The chances of the plant actually blowing and destroying the containment system is not very high. Even if a meltdown occurs there is a still a containment system in place. Lot of hysteria out there and terribly uninformed reporting about today's nuclear plants. Comparisons to Chernobyl are irresponsible. Comparisons to TMI, in an OMG disaster way, are also irresponsible. Studies show TMI had virtually no health effects long term.

[Desertrose]

30. I call BS to that.....I lived there w/in 30 miles of TMI...

Lots of cancers and very strange mutant leaves on all my oak trees the following springs.

Still a high rate of cancers in that area.

[Cetacea]

33. The Village Voice did a ten year follow-up

I remember a photo of a huge oak tree leaf. It was over a foot long if remember correctly...

[Desertrose]

39. Had one that was 16"!

Most were about 12-14". Very strange year!

[SnakeEyes]

42. you're anecdotes intrique me

Do you have a newsletter?

Or perhaps a scientific study that points to your claims?

[Peace Patriot]

40. Understating the potential nuclear disaster in Japan is what is irresponsible.

Multiple cooling system failures at multiple plants (backup batteries as well as main water pumps power failed), one containment structure blown up, two probable meltdowns (they can't tell for sure because they can't get inside, but have presumed them to be meltdowns), at least 6 plants in trouble, radiation leak at one plant, evacuation of about 200,000 people, and last-resort measures being taken at at least two plants (pumping in of sea water). Radiation 700 x normal 60 miles from its source (Fukushima 1 reactor). Further, we have no reason to trust "authorities" in this situation and much reason to distrust them, and to suspect that current conditions and potential peril are worse than they are portraying them.

We should be concerned about impacts on human life and sea life around the Pacific from what has happened so far (for instance, what is being done with the volumes of sea water that are being dumped on these reactors?), and all countries downstream and downwind of Japan should have declared a state of emergency until it has been established and VERIFIED that these nuclear plants are contained.

Japan is known for being the best country in the world as to earthquake and tsunami preparedness and also safety features in their nuke plants--so that is the "good news." The bad news is that it looks like at least six cooling systems failed, in already disastrous conditions as to infrastructure (making nuke plant response even more difficult). They may have already made a mistake (trying to blow off steam may have caused the explosion of the secondary containment structure in F-1--but I'm not sure if that was an automatic system). In any case, the stress on officials and workers trying to deal with this must be off the charts. Very, very difficult situation. This was the worst earthquake in Japan's recorded history with huge following damage from the tsunami (tsunami hit the nuke plants as well). Criminy, this earthquake moved the island of Japan 8 feet! One aftershock was a 6.7! An aftershock! (And we don't know that the tremors are over.)

So, whatever one thinks of the OP map (and, frankly, whenever someone tells me that something has been "debunked," I always give it a second look), this is not a time to be debunking the danger of this situation in Japan. It is very dangerous.

You wrote: "The chances of the plant actually blowing and destroying the containment system is not very high."

It's not just one plant--it's at least six. And the containment structure over one already blew up (but apparently not the inner steel containment over the core). Nuclear material was released at this one (F-1). That has been admitted. You speak of "chances." Well, the "chances" have already been breached, with a 9.0 earthquake and following tsunami. The question is, can they keep this meltdown stopped (by pouring sea water on it)? They may have a second meltdown (it has been presumed). Can they keep that one cooled with sea water, too? And they are having cooling system failures at other plants. The "chances" of me dying in a car crash are remote, statistically. Should I not bother with my seatbelt then? We're talking a BIG BOOM-BOOM here, if "the chances" go bad. This is not something to demean, downplay or ridicule.

You wrote: "Even if a meltdown occurs there is a still a containment system in place."

Outer containment failed at one. Some radiation released (and apparently traveled at least 60 miles). Infrastructure conditions are very difficult, not only generally, but also at the plants--gauges not working, backup battery systems not working, plant too "hot" to get into, etc. There WERE containment systems in place--not "are"--were. Critical parts of them are down. That is the problem. And it is, of course, the problem generally with nuclear energy. Events like this earthquake--rare though they may be--if they impact such facilities, don't just result in loss of the facilities but could result in turning Japan and portions of the Pacific into a wasteland. The "chances" may be slight (although from the reports so far, these are not slight), but the catastrophe, if it occurs, is armageddon-like. There is no recovery. You cannot rebuild an irradiated wasteland.

The earth and its oceans only have so much ability to absorb our shit. We really need to recognize this. If the worst happens in Japan, we could be looking at the end of the earth. Carl Sagan, in his book "The Cold and the Dark," established that only a limited exchange of nuclear weapons would kill all life on earth in a matter of months. The worst case scenario probably won't happen in Japan, but if it does--and it can-- that is a possibility--out of control meltdown in multiple reactors, though it wouldn't create dust clouds, could well create winds and wet clouds of nuclear radiation circling the earth, with devastating impacts, if not total collapse of earth's ecosystem--will you still have this smug attitude about "hysteria"?

It is NOT "hysteria" to be concerned about this. It really and truly is not. There are many possible scenarios, from continual low level leakage up to world catastrophe, that are possibilities in this particular situation, and that should be included in all considerations of the use of nuclear energy (as well as in the possession and proliferation of nuclear weapons). The "worst case scenarios" are simply too heavy to brush aside as to their "chances" of happening and even "minor" failures in nuclear power systems and "limited" use of nuclear weapons have long term consequences for the people and ecosystems that are affected and possibly far beyond that.

As to coal vs. nuclear power--if you want to talk about "chances": At least with coal, we have a chance to clean up our act. With a multiple nuclear power meltdown, or a nuclear war, we don't. Big difference. I don't favor coal. I think we should put all the resources we are now wasting on war (including the "war on drugs")--trillions of dollars, all told--into fast conversion to all the alternatives. But coal/climate change is the argument now being used by the nuclear industry to sell its product. Even coal--bad as it is--is better than nuke plants, because the "worst case" scenarios with nuke plants are so very, very bad and so very, very permanent.

[Peace Patriot]

41. Latest from Union of Concerned Scientists on the second reactor meltdown...

I grabbed this from Junkdrawer's OP (url below)


----

March 13, 2011, 3:30 p.m.--The nuclear crisis in Japan took a turn for the worse as serious problems developed at a second reactor at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear facility. Earlier concerns were focused on reactor Unit 1, but now the situation at Unit 3 is becoming serious.

Officials from Tokyo Electric reported that after multiple cooling system failures, the water level in the Unit 3 reactor vessel dropped 3 meters (nearly 10 feet), uncovering approximately 90 percent of each of the fuel rods in the core.

Authorities were able to inject cooling water with a fire pump after reducing the containment pressure by a controlled venting of radioactive gas. As with Unit 1, they began pumping seawater into Unit 3. Seawater is highly corrosive and probably precludes any future use of the reactor, even if a crisis is averted.

However, Tokyo Electric recently reported that the water level in the Unit 3 reactor still remains more than 2 meters (6 feet) below the top of the fuel and company officials believe that water may be leaking from the reactor vessel. When the fuel is uncovered by water, it overheats and suffers damage. It is likely that the fuel has experienced significant damage at this point, and Japanese authorities have said they are proceeding on this assumption.

One particular concern with Unit 3 is the presence of mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel in the core. MOX is a mixture of plutonium and uranium oxides. In September 2010, plant operators loaded 32 fuel assemblies containing MOX fuel into this reactor.

That amounts to approximately 6 percent of the core. MOX fuel generally worsens the consequences of severe accidents in which a large amount of radioactive gas and aerosol is released compared with non-MOX uranium fuel because MOX fuel contains greater amounts of plutonium and other actinides, which are highly toxic

(my emphasis)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x635409

--------------------

I made the point above about multiple cooling system failures and multiple meltdowns. I want to make the point here about escalating complications. Here we have one them--that the fuel in Unit 3 is more dangerous than the fuel in Unit 1. This may influence or limit what the operators can do, or are willing to do, to prevent explosions of the containment structures or to stop catastrophic meltdown. What if they miscalculate? They are already having trouble measuring water levels in Unit 1 (the water level gauge wasn't working). What if they misjudge water levels in either of these critical situations? What if sea water pumping fails in either one? (The main freshwater pumping system did fail, in both.) What if a third nuclear plant goes critical (and there are others currently with cooling system problems) while the above is happening? What if human beings begin to fail--out of exhaustion, fear, trauma, stress?

You cannot blithely dismiss this situation in Japan as "under control" and "nothing to worry about." It is only very barely under control--with last resort measures already being used in two cases. One or two more serious complications--a big aftershock, another containment explosion, a third plant failure, somebody makes a critical mistake out of exhaustion, etc.--many possibilities--and the whole thing could go kablooey.

Hysteria isn't good. That doesn't help. Neither does misinformation. But anybody saying "don't" worry" about the immediate situation is wrong, and irresponsible, and anyone who doesn't seriously question the use of nuclear energy, given what is happening in Japan and what could happen, is not thinking. They are the most prepared for earthquakes and tsumanis of any country, and their nuke plant safety systems have failed in disastrous ways and may totally fail.

[Peace Patriot]

44. "Japan Agency Says 70 Percent Chance New Major Quake in Next Three Days"

"Japan Agency Says 70 Percent Chance New Major Quake in Next Three Days
Source: CNN

6:45 a.m. ET, 7:45 p.m. Tokyo - There is a 70% likelihood that Japan will experience an earthquake of 7.0 or above in the next three days, the country’s meteorological agency said.

Takashi Yokota, director the Earthquake Prediction Information Division of the agency said he based his prediction on increased tectonic activity.

Hissyspit post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4768612

-----------------------

What was I saying about escalating complications? TWO of Japan's nuke plants are in presumed meltdown, with last resort measures (sea water and boron pumping) being used. Four more are having cooling system problems. All this resulted from the first earthquake and tsunami. Lots of infrastructure is down, making repairs/containment difficult at the nuke sites. Add in another earthquake or some other complication--and they are having many already (stuck valves, failed gauges, failed backup power, etc.), and this could become an "off the charts" catastrophe.

[coyote]

28. This map is a confirmed 4chan hoax. N/T

[End Of The Road]

29. Totally BOGUS.

Do a search of DU for the numerous posts of this. Plenty of knowledgeable people have posted WHY it is false.

Do your homework.

[pokerfan]

32. The nuclear fallout map hoax

http://www.theweatherspace.com/news/TWS-3_12_2011_fakeimage.html

[Tx4obama]

38. Thank you for the link. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

43. apparently another posting of bogus "information" from the careful people here at DU..

[Veronica.Franco]

46. ZAMG - Aktuelle Informationen

http://www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/index.php?seite=1&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-15GMT08:26

[jtuck004]

47. Is this someone's projection of what they think is going to happen?

I don't understand German, (except for what little bit I have the time to look up on Google) but the date range on the graphic goes through 3-18-2011.

It looks like someone's projection of what might happen, based on some unknown data.