Radiation plume could reach Tokyo: U.S. scientists (Union of Concerned Scientists)....

[Junkdrawer]

WASHINGTON, March 15 (Reuters) - The radiation plume from a nuclear power plant damaged by Japan's devastating earthquake and subsequent tsunami could reach Tokyo, a U.S. scientists' organization said on Tuesday.

The Union of Concerned Scientists also said a "jerry-rigged" cooling system at the Japanese plant would be hard to maintain if all workers there were evacuated.

Nuclear power and safety experts at the group said they were "very concerned" that ongoing activities at the plant would become more challenging for on-site workers. A larger radiation plume could travel hundreds of miles (km), the scientists said in a telephone briefing.

A crack in the containment vessel could allow radiation to exit the reactor in case of a core meltdown, the scientists said. They said the Japanese government should extend the evacuation zone around the troubled Fukushima Daiichi power station.

Japan faced a potential catastrophe on Tuesday after a stricken nuclear power plant exploded and sent low levels of radiation floating towards Tokyo, prompting some people to flee the capital and others to stock up on essential supplies.


http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1525192520110315

This isn't some wild-eyed, under-informed anti-nuke group. If the Union of Concerned Scientists are saying that you may need to evacuate Tokyo, things are bad. Real bad.

[BeFree]

1. Eh?

No... I'm sure technology will save us.
I heard that somewhere.......
The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind?

GE.... they bring good things to life.
What's left, anyway.

[Lastactiongyro]

5. "GE, We Bring Good Things To Life...Deadly Mutants, Crazed Radioactive Zombies.."

[Junkdrawer]

2. When do you begin to evacuate Tokyo?

If there was a 50/50 chance a Super Typhoon was heading toward Tokyo, would an evacuation be ordered?

[adigal]

3. It doesn't say Tokyo will be evacuate

It says people are leaving Tokyo. Big difference. And a radiation cloud might reach Tokyo, but it might not still have deadly levels of radiation. So much is unknown, but we cannot be fearmongers.

[cbdo2007]

4. We can't be fear mongers - but if I lived in Tokyo, my family and I would have driven

south for a few days until we at least know what's going to happen at the nuclear plant.

[Sirveri]

6. The plants appear to be to the south of Tokyo.

So I would drive west, then circle back down south as far as possible.

[adigal]

7. Good point n/t

[Lucinda]

11. I think Fukushima is north of Tokyo

and east

[Raschel]

17. You're right.

[Sirveri]

22. Either way, don't be downwind is the rule of thumb here.

[rdking647]

8. the UCS is an anti nuke group

the radiation that has been released will be benign by the time it reaches tokyo.. Not that the fear mongers will mention that. nor will they mention that radiation levels are already dropping.

[Raschel]

9. Tokyo is only 150 miles from Fukushima. The disaster is rated a near seven. How do you figure it

will be harmless to Tokyo?

[rdking647]

10. what is the level of radiation measured in tokyo?

[Raschel]

16. I couldn't tell you, but it's worse than yesterday and they keep increasing the radius.

The US has withdrawn several ships and people have been told to stay inside.

In addition, the spent fuel rod pool is most likely boiling and may evaporate.

[Hannah Bell]

20. the latest reading i've seen = .809 microsieverts/hr.

HONG KONG (MarketWatch) -- Radiation levels in Tokyo surged to 23 times normal on Tuesday, according to reports that cited readings released by the Tokyo metropolitan government. Radiation levels of .809 micro severts were recorded in central Tokyo at 10.00 a.m. local time (9.00 p.m. U.S. Eastern time), reports said. Southerly winds are believed to be pushing a radioactive plume from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, which lies about 150 miles north of Tokyo.

www.marketwatch.com/.../tokyo-radiation-levels-23-times-normal-officials- 2011-03-15-04540

that is indeed 23 times normal average background radiation level, but what does it mean....in terms of risk?

here's a reference:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x648973

Millisievert (mSv): 1 mSv = .001 Sv
Microsievert (μSv): 1 μSv = .000001 Sv

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


Levels of risk in Millisieverts (1 milli = 1000 micro)

mSv/time = effect/level

0.48/day = USA NRC public area exposure limit

1.1/year = 1980 average USA radiation worker occupational dose
2/Acute (one-time exposure) = Head CT scan
3.66/year = USA average from all sources, including medical diagnostic radiation doses
5/Pregnancy = USA NRC occupational limit for pregnant women (uncited)
8/Acute = Chest CT


I'm not trying to minimize the severity of this incident; just to give some context.

[Hannah Bell]

12. no, it has not "been rated" a "near-7". a french nuclear official has voiced his opinion

that it should be rated level 6.

he voiced the same opinion even before the latest events.

ines rating system

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/INES-2009_web.pdf

[Raschel]

18. I could swear I've been hearing that on TV, but if I'm mistaken, I apologize. I don't want to

spread misinformation.

[Hannah Bell]

19. you have been hearing it, because media is not always being careful with their

reporting.

not calling you out, just saying.

Fukushima I nuclear accidents, Japan, 2011; ongoing. Thousands of residents were evacuated after earthquake and tsunami caused loss of coolant. Hydrogen explosions later destroyed reactor buildings, and two reactors entered a state of partial meltdown after fuel rods were exposed to air. INES rating rating for this disaster was initially declared as Level 4, but after subsequent explosions, Andre-Claude Lacoste, president of France's nuclear safety authority, suggested that it is in fact Level 6. There has been no official rating from either Japanese officials or the IAEA.<13>.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale#cite_note-12

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. It already has raeched Tokyo

but that is ok...

[DearAbby]

14. Radiation accumulated over time

is safe? This wont be just a blast of radiation then it dissipates, people will be subjected to radiation for some length of time. That is why they rotate workers at the nuclear plants to avoid accumulation of radiation.

What part of this is difficult, radiation is dangerous to all forms of life.

[DeSwiss]

15. What a load! n/t

[Junkdrawer]

21. I guess if you breath neutrons with every breath, you may see the UCS as anti-nuke....

I've known lots of pro-nukers who blame the UCS for making Nuclear Power uneconomical with all their demands of containment domes and redundant cooling systems. You know, the things nuclear plants just don't need.