Regarding west coast radiation danger

[whatchamacallit]

There's been a lot of slamming and shaming of DUers who are concerned about "the plume". Events like these really seem to bring out the armchair experts. Here's my take as a california resident: 1st, we're pretty much in uncharted territory. Even with the differences, I guess Chernobyl would be the closest guide. IMO the history of that event does not support a cavalier attitude about the dangers of distant fallout. That said, it does make sense that the materials in the plume would dissipate over the ocean. My personal approach to what we're being told is to "trust but verify" (to quote a senile assclown).

Try this, before you go off on DUers for their hysteria and paranoia, ask yourself these questions: Has the Japanese Government been totally frank and forthcoming about the real and potential danger to its citizens? Have the evacuation distances and recommended precautions been completely adequate? Is our government any more trustworthy?

Edit for typo

[ananda]

1. I always think it's better to err on the side of caution...

... when it comes to radiation.

[leftstreet]

2. unRec "There's been a lot of slamming and shaming of DUers"

No, there hasn't.

There have been a handful of DUers distracting the majority of DUers who are trying to post factual information.

ffs

[whatchamacallit]

4. Which are the "distractors"?

The ones voicing their concerns, or the ones making light of those concerns? :shrug:

[DCKit]

7. That's totally subjective, depending upon which side you favor.

And where you receive your daily dose of propaganda.

[MineralMan]

3. In reality, a lot of inaccurate information and alarm raising

has been posted on DU since this incident began. Facts are useful. Speculations rarely are.

[whatchamacallit]

6. So you got all the "facts"?

:eyes:

[MineralMan]

9. No. As far as I know, nobody has all the facts.

There are some hard facts, but there is also a lot of information that remains unknown. Radiation releases, however, are not in question, and they are being measured.

I don't post things that aren't verified as factual. Nor do I take speculation based on non-factual information seriously.

[thereismore]

5. We know that radiation will be diluted by the time it gets here. But we do not know

how much was released in the first place. That's the big unknown. And as long as we don't know that, caution is in place.

[dixiegrrrrl]

8. Chernobyl= ONE nuke plant. Fufushima= SIX plants.

And Japan news was saying 2 days ago they have moved, on the nuke disaster scale of 1 to 7, beyond
Chernobyl, which was "rated" a 6.
Looks like no one even thought about an....8.

[jeff47]

17. So would I be slaming and shaming to point out all the errors in this post?

I wouldn't want to offend anyone's sensibilities to point out that there's only 3 problem reactors, not 6.

I also fear someone may find it inappropriate if I point out that the massive graphite fire during Chernobyl threw tons of radioactive soot and ash thousands of feet into the air, whereas the reactors in Japan are not currently being consumed by a massive fire. Nor that the volume released so far from the Japanese plant is much smaller than Chernobyl.

Not to mention Chernobyl was "rated" as a 7, not a 6. The IAEA currently rates the Japanese situation at a 4, with the French and Finish arguing that it should be a 6. Of course, by not providing any context or criteria for the different numbers, that is absolutely meaningless to almost everyone here. I propose that this disaster be rated as e.

Chernobyl didn't cause any measurable disease 5,000 miles away, the approximate distance between the Japanese plant and the west coast of the US. So clearly it would be forbidden shaming to point out that this precedent indicates there's reason for concern, but not panic nor to immediately distrust public assurances of safety.

[dixiegrrrrl]

20. I do not take what you said as "slaming" or shaming.

Seattle Times, March 15, 2011
"The IAEA rated the seriousness of the nuclear emergency at the Fukushima Daiichi reactors as 6 on a scale of 7."

Your disagreement needs to be directed at the Seattle Times,it appears.

The point of my earlier comment was that there are 6 reactors at Fukushima, not just the one as at Chernobyl,
same Seattle times article:
"Three reactor units suffered explosions. Some radiation was released, and officials believe a partial meltdown has occurred in at least two units."

You are correct, and I was not stating otherwise, that SO FAR the volume released at Fukushima is smaller than
Chernobyl. Altho as of this morning, the radiation zone has been extended.

As for" public assurances of safety" even the USA is on record as doubting the claims of TEPCO, the same
TEPCO which got caught falsifying data previously:

"THE Japanese owner of the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant falsified safety data and "dishonestly" tried to cover up problems there.

Tokyo Electric Power Co injected air into the containment vessel of Fukushima reactor No 1 to artificially “lower the leak rate”. When caught, the company expressed its “sincere apologies for conducting dishonest practices”.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x679746

[gateley]

10. I think when it comes to radiation, we still don't really understand fully the

implications, nor do I buy the "safe levels" argument. They may well be safe, we're exposed to it daily from a myriad of sources, but even so, we don't want any MORE.

I didn't know, until reading a post from a DUer that there's a max amount we can safely tolerate. This DUer spoke of someone who was receiving radiation for their illness, and when s/he reached that level, treatment had to cease. I get the impression it's not something that we can 'flush from our system" over time, that once it's there, it's there. Like a bank account you don't touch. Since we receive it from our TVs, phones, computers, microwaves, and loads of other stuff, all that is sitting there in that bank account accepting more deposits as they arrive. I would NOT want to add the "safe amount" coming from Japan to my account.

[whatchamacallit]

12. Well put

I agree.

[jeff47]

18. Your post indicates we need to do much better teaching science in schools.

There's just so many things in it showing we don't do a good enough job educating our people.

[BobbyBoring]

11. The only fact I have is this

Sahara Dust blows from Africa westward and in the USVI, it's very visible at times. Stuff can travel a long way over water. My WAG would be the plume would dissipate to a harmless level by the time it hit us, but WHFK?

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. The radiation risk at the moment is MIMINAL

as in REAL minimal... don't hurt to be prepared...

As in I will get less from this than when my foot got x-rayed which is orders of magnitude less than an X-ray of your chest.

[whatchamacallit]

14. You're very likely right

but it's weird when it's something you can't measure with your senses... It comes down to trust and how confident you are in your sources of information.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Why I have said in the past

watch what they do not what they say

:-)

But at least this time it will be that low

Now if they break out the yellow duckies... then I go from concerned in a scale of 1-10 at 10, to freaked, from 1-10 to 10...

[hunter]

16. Depends entirely upon the weather how much radiation we get.

I guess if we're lucky it ends up in deep sea sediments never to be seen again.

Not to be flippant, if this contamination kills the market for tuna and other endangered fish, without killing the fish, that's a bright side to a grim situation. If I was a tuna I'd rather be slightly radioactive and unpalatable to humans then dead, iced, and thrown around a fish market.

[felix_numinous]

19. I actually have a geiger counter

-in my go bag. Go ahead and laugh, but if you are that concerned--learn how to collect and interpret your own information, and when it would be appropriate to take pills.

Here is one good site. I found another site that actually sold out of their geiger counters after the Japan disaster. So it may be more ethical to allow the geiger counters to go to where they are most needed.

http://geiger.sourceforge.net/