THey just said DO NOT DRINK the H20 in Tokyo. What will 9 million kids drink?!!!

[Snoutport]

THey are saying only dangerous to children and infants but... what happens when the entire population is told to stop drinking. Is there an infrastructure in place for these people?

Um...Nuclear Power totally needs to go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyHpCqaLI2g&feature=player_embedded

[Amerigo Vespucci]

1. They'll have to get bottled water from relief efforts...

...and I'm not trying to over-simplify it, that's just the reality. If the water supply isn't potable, you have to bring in bottled water...and I'm not up to speed on the situation enough to know how quickly the infrastructure can support that.

[gateley]

5. I'm guessing it's the same source of water for other functions, like showering

(the skin is the largest organ on our body and we've learned we DO absorb topically applied substances), laundry, dishwashing, pet food water, etc., etc.
:scared:

I'm hoping at the very least aid will come to help them get and distribute bottled water. It's like a war zone. :cry:

[Snoutport]

6. Here comes the mass exodus from Tokyo

One of our friends was in Tokyo trying to decide if she should stay or go...And I just kept saying, "get the hell out of there!" Thank goodness she listened and took one of the state dept. airlifts out. There will have to be a mass exodus of Tokyo once the water systems have failed. 12 million bottles of water for drinking...but bathing, washing, cleaning... how do schools stay open when nobody can bathe?

And at the plants the fires, broken equipment, air ventings, emergencies continue on as atomic seawater flushes out to see and heads down the coastline... so, really, it is only going to get worse.

[MineralMan]

51. Very unlikely that Tokyo will be evacuated to any sizable degree.

In the first place, it's impossible. In the second, contamination will reach most parts of Japan eventually. Where are the residents of Tokyo to go? How will they get there?

Will it get worse? Perhaps. We don't know. How much worse? We don't know. But, Japan cannot be evacuated. There is no place to go. In fact, within a surprisingly short time some contamination from the Fukushima incident will be everywhere on the planet to some degree.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gateley]

2. I've never bought the "safe levels" crap - fuck that. Any is too much and it

is cumulative, once you take a swig, it's there forever. Then another swig, then another, then you brush your teeth, then you take a shower.

Nuclear Power needs to go. I don't care that they cite the statistics saying "only x number of accidents in x number of years" -- One or two of those accidents has widespread ramifications, and we've had enough to last forever.

[BrookBrew]

112. Nope just 8 days. Iodine is

commonly used in greater quantity in nuclear medicine. Half life varies not all things radioactive are HEU.

[Mojeoux]

171. Can Radiation Be Boiled out of the water, just avoid the steam?????

Tokyo has millions of people!!!!!

[n2doc]

3. Sake

[marions ghost]

10. You forgot the dose of

:sarcasm: to go with the beer bottle.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

4. Sapporo?

It would be a great excuse for showing up to work drunk.

Seriously, though, they'll have to shell out for bottled water. I'd be happy to turn on my tap, fill up a bunch of empty bottles, and ship them over to them. And all I'd ask in exchange is the plans for how to build the flying car (because you KNOW they have them). :-)

[marions ghost]

8. Dire situation.

:thumbsdown:

Nothing to joke about.

[MineralMan]

23. Actually, it's not so much of a joke. Any fluids that were packaged

before the incident are good. Drinking beer also gives you water. Japan has all sorts of bottled beverages, and I'm sure they'll be pressed into use as hydration. Beer and wine, especially, have been used as a beverage where supplies of public water is contaminated. Sake, too, is mostly water. Then there are all the juice and other drinks the Japanese are so fond of. They are workable substitutes until supplies of safe water are available.

[damntexdem]

32. Until supplies of safe water are available -- in 24000 years.

Bye, bye, Tokyo.

[MineralMan]

54. I think you'll find that Tokyo will be much the same as it was,

and in a very short time. You may not want to visit, but the people who live there now will still be living there. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for example, have grown dramatically from what they were in 1945. Humans adapt to all sorts of things. For most of human history, water wasn't safe to drink in any city, and was the cause of much disease. Radioactive isotopes are slow to kill, if they do, and Tokyo will continue almost exactly as it is.

That does not mean that nuclear power is safe. It is not, never has been, and cannot be made to be safe.

[marions ghost]

52. What about alcoholics?

Children, people on medications, hospital. We are talking about the largest metro area in the world.
This is a great hardship on a country still trying to get supplies to Earthquake victims.

Sorry to be so serious. Pointing out crassness in the face of a disaster that people think doesn't touch them is a failing of mine. Sincere apologies to beer drinkers everywhere. :eyes:

[MineralMan]

55. Again, enormous shipments of bottled water are and will be delivered

to Tokyo. In addition, the Japanese people drink all sorts of bottled beverages, and will continue to do so. Some, however, will drink Tokyo city water, and most will suffer no ill effects at all. Disasters are terrible things. We needn't make them worse by being inordinately concerned about every problem they create. Solutions will be found and life will go on in Tokyo, much as it has for decades. You may not wish to go there, but people who live there will not wish to go elsewhere in massive numbers. Watch.

[marions ghost]

66. I am watching.

The people of Tokyo are guinea pigs in the largest nuclear experiment ever conducted on humans.

The Fukushima meltdown is not a natural disaster. It was preventable, with human error and malfeasance all the way--even the location of the reactors was stupid.

Closer to a criminal enterprise.

[MineralMan]

70. Yes, it was preventable, but it was not prevented.

I've been fighting nuclear power generation since 1959. How 'bout you?

Now, we have what we have. We've been spreading radioactive isotopes over the planet since 1945, and in huge quantities. We have 6+ billion guinea pigs all across the globe. It's all been a horrible mistake, and we started it right here in the USA. A horrible mistake, and yet, there it is. We can try to get it stopped, but that hasn't worked very well. At 65 years of age, I've just about done all I can do. I'll turn the battle over and work on something more doable in the time I have left. You're welcome to my spot.

[marions ghost]

93. I'm sure I couldn't

take your spot. I'm not credible doing battle with the PTB in the ways one gets through to them--like with money and lawyers. That's out--all I can do is be yet another voice, yet another witness to the horror show, yet another non-participant in the criminal act of leaving this nuclear legacy for future generations. You've earned your place in the pantheon of humans who have opposed from the very beginning. Be proud of that. Time will bear out the truth. Humans who go full steam ahead in the wrong direction always learn the hard way.

[louslobbs]

166. I totally agree with you about there being nothing to joke about . I think most

people who joke about a situation like this, can't deal with their real feelings about the lives lost and the devastation that will continue long into the future. I even catch myself doing it sometimes when something affects me on a level my brain wants relief from. The people over at other web sites however, are pure evil with their commentary and racial slurs. There is nothing funny about any of the horror Japan is still faced with. Thanks for your comment.
Lou

[MineralMan]

7. Kirin?

It's a big problem if you can't drink the tap water. I imagine shipments of bottled water will be needed quickly.

[Snoutport]

13. 12 million bottles today. 12 million bottles tomorrow, 12 million more Friday & what about the

surrounding area? And the pets. And the farm animals. And the tropical fish. Do they all get bottled water?

[Motown_Johnny]

17. tropical fish may need to make due with that they have for a while

but the animals that are in the food chain for humans could be a concern

[MineralMan]

21. Yes. It's a disaster situation. Remember Haiti?

Disasters cause all sorts of problems. They need bottled water if they can't use the tap water. It's very bad, indeed. That's why they call it a disaster. Donations to an organization involved with aid for this disaster seems appropriate.

Of one thing I'm certain, though: Simply waving hands around about this isn't going to do much good. The Japanese are in the midst of a disaster, and require actual physical assistance. We don't have a way, yet, to turn back the clock and undo what has been done. It's a very bad situation.

As for the pets, farm animals and the tropical fish...well, that will be up to their owners. Not all water in Japan is contaminated. Unless the tropical fish need a change of water, they'll be just fine, so you can relax on that count. The pets in Tokyo? I have no idea. I'm sure that when the humans have bottled water, they'll share it with their pets. My concern is with humans first, not pets and other animals.

[Snoutport]

29. I'm just pointing out how every level of life is going to be touched

and in between my hand flutterings, we made a donation to mercy corp's "From Oregon With Love" website. (From Oregon With Love was a popular Japanese TV show many years ago...and it has helped form a bond between our state and Japan.)

But my comments about fish and pets, animals was just to point out how many living creatures are going to perish because of this. I figured seeing a bigger picture of what this all really means is not a bad idea at all. It is serious stuff but I do think about what happens to the animals in a mass exodus. Every pet owner does.

[MineralMan]

31. Actually, it's not really a matter of perishing. At the current contamination

levels, there would be a very tiny increase in some cancers, but the vast majority of people would not "perish." As for pets and fish, their lives are short enough that exposure to this water, at least at its current levels would probably cause little or no harm to them.

The situation is not good. No question about that. If I were there, I'd be out of there as quickly as I could. If I couldn't leave, I'd try to find any fluids packaged before the incident. Failing that, I'd use the water that's available. I will perish at some point, in any case, and that point is not yet known to me, so if it's a matter of not perishing from dehydration, I'll drink the water, and perish years later.

It's very important to look at events like this with clear eyes. The situation is what it is. That will not change for the better. So, it's time to figure out what to do about the existing situation, rather than wish it hadn't happened. For the moment, water is the immediate need. So, water will be obtained. Living things must have it. Will the city of Tokyo be evacuated? I doubt it very much. That would cause far more "perishments" than drinking this water.

It's still early days in this disaster situation, and we're not there. We're not in charge. We don't even know what actual risks this contaminated water presents. Others do, thank goodness, and will be working very hard to find ways to deal with it.

[walldude]

56. Really? Aren't you the guy who yesterday said that there is no

food shortage in Japan and shame on the reporter for interviewing a gasoline thief and using him to spread lies?

Yeah your "concern" for the humans is noted.

[MineralMan]

64. The very same. I did not say there was no food shortage.

I'm sure there is in some areas. What I said was that a poor journalist did not check to see if what this man described was an isolated incident or if it represented the situation for most people. The only people that journalist spoke to were those in this particular place, yet he wrote as though this was the general state of things in Japan. As a professional journalist, myself, I'd be ashamed to present such a narrow viewpoint as something general. My editors would have fired me.

Do you know the general state of food distribution to all the regions affected? I do not. I would have investigated before writing, and presented a balanced story.

My criticism was of the journalism. Perhaps you did not read carefully.

[GReedDiamond]

123. And my criticism of your remarks yesterday...

...was that you called a Japanese man, a victim of one of the greatest catastrophes of all time, a "thief." The poor guy was siphoning gas from wrecked vehicles, and you called him a thief.

You came to that conclusion from what you gleaned from the article. The article you called "poor journalism."

So, if the journalistic standards were so inadequate and poor, how were you, nonetheless, able to determine that this man was/is a "thief"? What evidence presented in the "poor journalism" of that article was good enough for you to trash this guy, who was simply trying to survive?

I like how you get to have it both ways -- it's poor journalism, but apparently good enough to take the info presented and use it to attack a victim trying to get by in a desperate situation.

You owe that man an apology -- yeah, I know he knows nothing of these message boards, but it would be nice of you to acknowledge the fact that you accused someone of criminality, without taking into consideration his dire situation, and, that you based your accusation against the man on the "poor journalism" of the article you criticized so harshly.

[damntexdem]

35. But don't open your eyes when showering with Kirin.

It stings.

[snooper2]

9. couple tug boats - 1 large iceberg?

[shraby]

11. The iceberg would be exposed to the toxic air.

[marions ghost]

14. Jokes like yours

make us Murkins look stoopid and crass... unless you indicate :sarcasm:

[MineralMan]

24. What would Neil drink? I think we know.

[snooper2]

25. never use the sarcasm thing

better to keep people guessing :P


besides that-
Anybody who gets worked up over what some random person posts on a random message board out of the billions of web sites out there has issues anyway ;-)

[AsahinaKimi]

12. There should be water down south that is safe.

Places like Miyazaki for example. If not, Taiwan is not that far away to get bottled water, nor is South Korea.

[marions ghost]

18. The population of Tokyo Metro area

is 35-39 million. The World's Most Populous Metropolitan Area.

You cannot support this population on bottled water for very long.

[Snoutport]

19. HOLY *#^#

that many?!

[Snoutport]

22. i changed the headline...thank you wise one.

39 million people. They will have to be moved--it is going to completely alter Japan for decades! centuries!!

[Rage for Order]

26. Well, i suppose they could always move back into China for a while

How do you think that would go over?

[shockra]

86. South Korea is facing its own water crisis.

After burying millions of pigs and other animals alive, blood started showing up in the tap water in rural areas.

Remedial action needed for animal burial sites

Korea faces one of the worst environmental disasters following the burial of more than three million pigs and cows infected with foot-and-mouth (FMD) disease. Remedial action is urgent. No action will be deadly and costly.

Environment Minister Lee Maan-ee made the grotesque warning Monday. An initial survey of the 90 selected burial sites showed that 68 percent of them may collapse. It means that nearly 70 percent of the 4,000 sites will either cave in or contaminate water sources.

The minister warns the economic, social, cultural and environmental damage of the haphazard burials is beyond anybody’s imagination. Koreans might face unprecedented water contamination.

more...

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/include/print.asp?newsIdx=80940

[AsahinaKimi]

138. wow

I guess they should have burned them.

[dixiegrrrrl]

15. How will 12 million people use the bathroom?

Think about it..the water that fills up the toilet bowl comes from a source exposed to the same radiation.
So essentially NO water use is safe, internally or externally.

All the rain water will wash the radiation thru the storm drains, where do those lead?
Do they flow out to sea, or into a "treatment facility"..doesn't matter, really.
Water of any kind carries the radiation everywhere.
Even if there is no major explosion at the plant, how long can a steady emitting of radiation continue before whole areas become uninhabitable?
Japan's pop. is estimated at last count to be 127 million, I think I read.

[Statistical]

41. The half life of I-131 is 8 days. 50% remains in 8 days, 25% in 16 days. 12% in 24 days/

The issue is you don't want infants to drink the I-131 before it decays.

[marions ghost]

44. That's assuming

the source has stopped emitting.

[Statistical]

46. Agreed and it likely hasn't yet.

But people in the thread are already calling Tokyo a ghost town, indicating that it will never be habitable, and the govt should evac EVERYONE immediately.

1) The detected level is 211Bq. Above the 100Bq limit for infants but far below the 300 Bq limit for adults & children over age of 1.

2) I-131 is the one isotope you can be protected from by using KI pills.

3) The short half life means that any danger is temporary.

[marions ghost]

49. OK but

1) The plants have not stopped emitting radiation.

2) The 100-300 bq limits--is that per day? Is this limit an international standard?

3) People drink water daily--so average consumption X no. of days the radiation is measured, which could vary. The dose is cumulative, right?

4) Does everyone in Tokyo have KI pills (which make some people very sick)?

[Statistical]

75. Bq isn't a dose or radiation. It is an amount of radioactive material.

1) The plants have not stopped emitting radiation.
True but the plants aren't producing any more I-131 because there is no induced fission going on in any of the reactors.

2) The 100-300 bq limits--is that per day? Is this limit an international standard?
Bq is a measure of radioactive material. You shouldn't exceed it. Bq isn't a measure of energy thus it isn't a dose. Radiation is energy (just like heat or electricity are forms of energy). That energy is measured in Sv (and mSv and uSv) and the lifetime dose is cumulative. Bq is a measure of material the more material you consume the more dose it can give you over time.

3) People drink water daily--so average consumption X no. of days the radiation is measured, which could vary. The dose is cumulative, right?
You shouldn't exceed the limit not even once.

4) Does everyone in Tokyo have KI pills (which make some people very sick)?
I don't know but it can be used to minimize the effect of I-131. Remember the levels detected are below maximum safe levels.

[hlthe2b]

58. Exactly.... It will be some time before the "clock" starts on

the final decay clock since radiation is continuing to be emitted.

[Statistical]

77. However all I-131 is decaying regardless of it has been emitted or not.

[hlthe2b]

81. Yes.. Of course, but if you are looking for a zero/low risk endpoint

The clock begins when the emissions end.

[Statistical]

83. Well not exactly. The clock stopped when fission stopped.

Now for some isotopes the half life is so long that a significant release means exposure for long time but for I-131 the clock started when fission halted.

The amount of I-131 in the reactor is decaying thus even the amount of potential future releases is also decaying. Eventually you will reach a point where even if there is the potential for a large release there simply won't be any detectable amounts of I-131 left in the reactor TO release.

Say the reactor had 1 million Bq of I-131. Regardless of it if releases that or how much of that is released the total amount (both inside and outside the reactor) will decay at the same rate so....

Day reactor stopped: 1 mil Bq I-131
Day 8: 500K Bq I-131
Day 16: 250K Bq I-131
Day 32 (day 1 month): 125K Bq I-131
Month 2: 15K Bq I-131
Month 3: 2K Bq I-131
Month 4: 244 Bq I-131
Month 5: 30 Bq I-131
Month 6: Undetectable <1Bq

[hlthe2b]

85. Ignoring other slow decaying forms of radiation....

If it were that simple, I-131 would cease to be an issue in another couple of weeks or so. That is not consistent with what has been reported. Are you certain that the decay curves are identical within the reactor as opposed to outside within the environment?

[Statistical]

88. I-131 is produced from neutron capture and that requires a large number of neutrons (like fission).

I-131 is only produced when Te-130 absorbs a neutron, becoming Te-131. Te-131 is is unstable so it decays almost instantly to I-131. To create I-131 requires a lot of neutrons because neutron capture of Te-130 is relatively rare.

No large source of neutrons = no ability to produce I-131.

This is why I-131 isn't found in nature despite the fact that Tellurium is.

This is why I-131 isn't found in found in spent fuel. By the time spent fuel has been out of a reactor for a couple months all the I-131 has decayed off (well technically not all but all but the tiniest amount).

This is also why there is no longer any I-131 from nuclear bomb tests nor is there any I-131 contamination around Chernobyl. There are plenty of other isotopes around Chernobyl but no I-131.

[hlthe2b]

91. I am not arguing that it would not cease to be produced once fission stops..

My question was whether rate of decay is identical within the reactor as outside in the environment.

[Statistical]

92. It is the same. The rate of decay is unavoidable and can't be altered. n/t

[Aerows]

100. Weren't there Neutron rays recorded up to 13 times at the plant?

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/80539.html

That can't be good.

[Obamanaut]

16. Milk-in-a-box, bottled water from outside sources, water trucked in using

large tanker trucks.

The Berlin airlift provided pretty much everything for about a year, by air, for nearly 3 million people. Surely a similar system can be brought into play, especially considering no one has the ground corridors blocked.

[Snoutport]

36. yeah, but this is an island!

that makes it tougher!

[Obamanaut]

74. A fairly large island, with roads. Or, just have the people throw their

hands up in despair, sit in a corner, soil themselves, give up and die.

There are a whole lot of gloom mongers running about.

I think the Japanese people can come through this just fine. They might need some assistance for a short time, but ultimately they will prevail.

They will not allow their hands to go up in despair, they will not sit in a corner, and they will not give up and die.

[Lucinda]

20. Also effects anyone with a suppressed immune system but

I doubt its truly "safe" for anyone.

[Jamastiene]

27. Milk?

No, they said a while back, not to drink that too.
:(

[brooklynite]

28. unrec'd

they didn't JUST say it (this announcement has been out for hours), and your title omits the party of the story where this warnng is for infants. Yes, it may get worse, but until it does, scary headlines aren't helpful.

[Snoutport]

30. the video on my link says it all

the news caster says "people are being told not to drink" or something like that. on the second reading of the story they add the part about infants. they said both.

[Snoutport]

33. In respect of better journalism, I looked at cencus material...20% of the population is kids

so i still was able to edit my headline and changed the number to be more accurate.

thanks for keeping me factual. :0)

[Statistical]

43. If there are 9mil kids and they are equally distributed by age, then maybe 0.5 million are infants.

[Yo_Mama]

34. They are saying it is only a possible threat to infants

The contamination levels they have detected are not threatening to children and adults. The levels found at their highest were below the legal limit, and they were found only in one treatment plant out of five.

If an infant drank some of it, it wouldn't be dangerous to the baby. Over the longer term, it might, especially if combined with other low-level exposures.

I think the situation is serious, but I also think you are overstating the situation. Currently, to make sure of access, the Tokyo government is handing out bottled water to families with infants.

[1776Forever]

37. This is VERY important! Found this: According to this reverse osmosis can remove nuclear radion:

Advanced Modern Water Purification Methods

http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/water-education/quality-water-purification.htm

Water filtration by definition simply means to strain out the impurities from a water source. The larger the impurity particulate the easier it is to filter. The opposite is true also, the smaller the impurity particulate, the harder it is to remove. Thus, the size of the filter pore and the durability of the filtering element are important to the filter's longevity and ability to perform. Most filtering elements are made of ceramic, glass fiber, hard-block carbon, or materials that resemble compressed surgical paper.

Some of the better purification methods include the activated carbon and reverse osmosis. The best contribution that carbon makes to filtration is its ability to reduce chemical quantities, poor taste, odors and many pollutants. Because carbon is only mildly effective in filtering out particulates and microorganisms, it is mostly used as a second or third stage filter in home and portable water use. It is seldom used as a stand-alone filtering, and often times, used in conjunction with reverse osmosis. Reverse osmosis, which uses a semipermable membrane filter to separate the water from contaminants.

Reverse osmosis is highly effective in removing several impurities from water such as total dissolved solids, turbidity, asbestos, lead and other toxic heavy metals, radium, and many dissolved organic. The process will also remove chlorine, and also can remove nuclear radiation such as radioactive plutonium or strontium in the drinking water. Therefore, reverse osmosis combined with activated carbon seems to be the most advanced water purification method developed so far.

.....

Would like to know more!

[Statistical]

45. Poorly worded (the article not you).

Reverse osmosis can filter radioactive material just as it can any other material.

[1776Forever]

68. So that means they could filter the public water there in order to get rid of the radiation correct?

I wonder how long that would take to do anywhere near enough water to sustain all those people? I am just trying to understand this. Thanks!

[Statistical]

79. You can filter water to get rid of radioactive MATERIAL.

Sorry for beating a dead horse but this distinction is important.

Radiation = energy. You can't filter it any more than you can filter electricity or heat. All you can do is reduce exposure. Material blocks exposure just like insulation blocks thermal energy (heat).

Radioactive Material = matter. Matter that emits radiation. You can remove some radioactive material (depends on how small it is) by filtering but that material is still radioactive.

Reverse osmosis can filter matter (any matter radioactive or not) from water. How effective it is depends on how small the matter is. Some radioactive material may be small enough to not be filtered.

[yellowcanine]

38. There are 39 million people in Tokyo? Only if you include the whole metro area.

Is the alarmism really helpful? I understand that you are opposed to nuclear power but exaggerated and frantic OPs with all caps and multiple punctuation marks is not going to help win people to your point of view.

[JVS]

40. Is there any reason not to count the whole metro area? Is the advice not to drink the water for...

only some parts?

[Statistical]

42. The advice is for infants to not drink tap water.

I-131 has a short half life. We aren't talking about a 20 decade Tokyo ghost town because there is no potable water anywhere.

The first goal is to secure the plants. Once that happens I-131 decays very rapidly.

50% will remain in 8 days.
25% will remain in 16 days.
<12% will remain in 1 month.
<2% will remain in 2 months.
<0.04% will remain in 4 months.

I-131 safe limit is 100 Bq per kg for infants, 2000 Bq per kg for adults. The detected level is 211 Bq.

[marions ghost]

47. In your estimation

how many days will it be before the plant is "secure" -- no emissions.

Multiply that by average water intake per day.

Then calculate the half life etc.

Oh but wait--the amounts of radiation may not stay constant depending on rainfall & such.

So I guess they need to do a daily radiation count for the water to Tokyo.

[Statistical]

48. I-131 isn't present in spent fuel (because of its short half life)

so any I-131 regardless of where it is located is decaying at the same rate.

I-131 doesn't last very long and no more I-131 is being created so the total amount (in water, in air, in ocean, in the soil, still in the core) is continually falling (half gone every 8 days).

"So I guess they need to do a daily radiation count for the water to Tokyo."
Well they will and it would be prudent.

[marions ghost]

50. So this radiation

has come from damage to the reactor core(s) and not the spent fuel?

So how do we know "no more is being created"?

[yellowcanine]

57. If no more is being released the levels of I-131 will drop quickly. That is how we will know.

Also if people take KI tablets their thyroid glands will not absorb the I-131, providing another level of protection even if they do ingest some I-131 in the water.

[marions ghost]

61. So the levels in Tokyo

will tell us what the radiation release is at the plant? :freak: Am I the only one who thinks this is not good enough?

KI tablets are not for everybody & make a lot of people sick. A last resort IMO.

[yellowcanine]

65. That is one measure. Not the only one. You asked "how will WE know. I told you one way.

Let's not get hysterical. Radiation is a fact of life and it is not the only risk out there - not even the most serious risk. Having an accident trying to get out of town to get away from radiation is actually a greater risk to life and limb.

[marions ghost]

67. Puh--leeze

don't give me those tired comparisons to "other risks."

Oh yeah, what's a little radiation exposure...uh huh.

[yellowcanine]

76. "Oh yeah, what's a little radiation exposure...uh huh." Here is the answer. Read it and calm down.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html

[marions ghost]

80. You'll have lots more data

for your arguments after the experiments currently going on in Japan...if it's ever released.

[Statistical]

71. It can come from damaged reactor core.

More likely when venting steam from the reactors the partially melted fuel allowed I-131 to be released.

"So how do we know "no more is being created"?"
I-131 doesn't exist in nature, it also is not the decay product of any other isotope. It can only occur as a result of fission. Fission has been halted at the reactors thus the total amount of I-131 is finite.

Now the reactor could release MORE (i.e. I-131 moves from inside the reactor to the atmosphere) but the total amount of I-131 at this point is finite and decreasing due to decay. Absent sustained criticality in the damaged reactor no more I-131 will be produced. If you do have criticality in the reactor well there will be a lot more problems than just some I-131.

[marions ghost]

78. Thanks for that info, so

how long did the steam venting go on? And so you say that that is now over? And what about these latest smoke emissions?

So IF there is NO peak and drop in I-131 in Tokyo--meaning there is MORE Iodine 131 coming down the pike--then we can assume that there is "sustained criticality" in the core(s)?

With status of the cores listed as "unknown" in 1, 3, 4 -- how can we assume they are not melting down any more?

Thanks for the info, statistical. Helpful, but obviously creating more questions--I'm just throwing them out there.

[Statistical]

82. There is still steam venting going on. Likely will be for some time.

There is still still I-131 in the reactors however the reactors aren't creating anymore I-131.

Very simplistic example.

Day 0
Reactor has 1,000,000 Bq of I-131. Fission stops. No more I-131 will be produced the amount is finite.
Day 0 summary: 1,000,000 Bq of I-131 inside reactor. 0 Bq of I-131 outside reactor. Total I-131 present 1,000,000 Bq.

Day 8
Some of the I-131 has espaced the reactor. Lets say 100,000 Bq of I-131. Some remains in the reactor 900,000 Bq. However 8 days has past so half of it has decayed.
Day 8 summary: 450,000 Bq inside reactor. 50,000 Bq outside the reactor. Total 500,000 Bq.


Day 16
More I-131 escapes the reactor another 200,000 Bq (250,000 total). However once again half of it (both inside and outside the reactor has decayed).
Day 16 summary: 125,000 Bq inside reactor, 125,000 Bq outside the reactor. Total 250,000 Bq.

Day 24
No more I-131 has escaped. Half of remaining I-131 decays.
Day 24 summary: 62,500 Bq inside reactor, 62,500 BQ outside the reactor. Total 125,000 Bq.

Day 32.
Small amount of I-131 has escaped (12,500). Once again half of I-131 decays.
Day 32 summary: 25,000 Bq inside the reactor, 37,500 BQ outside the reactor. Total 62,500 Bq.

Day 40.
No more I-131 has escaped. Once gain half of I-131 decays.
Day 40 summary: 12,500 BQ inside the reactor, 18,250 outside the reactor. Total 31,250 Bq.

....

Day 180
15 more half lives occur, 99.996948% of remaining I-131 decays.
Day 180 summary: undetectable amounts of I-131 inside and outside the reactor.

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

How much the amount of I-131 is detected in Tokyo will depend on how much is released from the reactor but regardless the total amount will continue to decay. Hopefully the amount released in the future will be less than the amount that decays each day so the concentrations will only go down.

[marions ghost]

94. What do they

NORMALLY do with all the Bq's of I-131?

I mean if (as in your example) there are 1M Bq's I-131 generated by the reactor during a given time of operation, is this usually vented as steam? Seems that would get into the water supply to Tokyo just as well.

[Statistical]

106. Normally reactor doesn't vent steam.

The cooling loop is closed.



Notice steam flows out of reactor through turbine, it is then cooled in condenser where it changes back into water. The "cool" water is pumped back into reactor and the process starts over again.

Heat is removed via the heat exchanger in the condenser and transfered to the outer cooling loop.
The inner cooling loops just loops around forever. This keeps any fission products like I-131 inside the core and inner loop.

Of course this isn't "normal" operation. They are injecting seawater directly into the core. It boils (removing heat) and the steam builds up. Periodically they have to vent the steam. Essentially an open loop. The steam should pass through scrubbers but who knows if they are working anymore. Even if they are it isn't perfect. The only good news is that via nuclear decay the thermal output of reactors goes DOWN over time. Which means it should take less and less water to cool it. That would mean less and less venting.

[marions ghost]

120. excellent graphic

thank you. Really shows how it works very well.

Under normal conditions that must be some funky water circulating around in there...I bet they clean it out right into the ocean tho...

Under these emergency conditions --how is the seawater getting into the core vessel? I thought the fire hoses were just going into the spent fuel ponds.

[Statistical]

151. They aren't very specific other than pumps.

However I get the impression it is something like this....



Diesel Powered High Capacity pump. It can be truck of helicopter transported. Connect one line to seawater supply, the other line to some piping that leads into the core.

[JVS]

39. They need to start evacuating.

[yellowcanine]

60. Actually that would endanger more people than having most people stay put.

Evacuation of millions of people carries a lot of risk - way more risk than exposure to low levels of radioactive iodine. What little risk there is drops to almost zero if everyone takes potassium iodine tablets. The science of this is known. Giving way to hysteria will endanger more people.

[marions ghost]

63. The plant is still emitting radiation--

we do know that don't we?

So a reasonable conclusion is that the levels will go up. Right?

At what point should people evacuate? Should we tell them to stay longer than WE would? At what point would YOU evacuate?

Lots of big moral-ethical questions here.

[yellowcanine]

72. My home isn't there so I could not answer such a question. If my home were there it would depend on

whether I had someplace safe to go to and whether I could get there safely. If my home were elsewhere and I had no compelling reason to stay in Tokyo yes I would probably leave. Otherwise I would stay put until the safer thing to do would be to leave. For most of the people there now the risks of leaving would be greater than the risk of staying. So they should stay, which is what I would do given the same balance of risks. I don't see what morality has to do with it. People make risk assessments all the time based on their circumstances. What one person would do is not necessarily the right thing to tell another person to do. In fact in general the ethical thing to do is to give people as much information as possible on the various risks and allow them to make their own judgment.

Actually it is not clear at all that the levels of radiation will go up. In fact the levels of radioactive iodine will very likely go down quickly over the next several weeks.

[marions ghost]

84. Good grief

People are not given nearly enough information to make informed decisions about whether to stay or to go in the face of massive radiation exposure. It wasn't ever supposed to come to this kind of disaster--remember? Nuclear power is "safe." Remember those good ol' days?

People have to depend on officials telling them when it is best for them to get out. The American military--case in point--the dependents of military in Japan were advised to get out. They trusted that judgment and many have left. But they DIDN'T have to figure it out for themselves, run to computers and research it, call somebody in the industry to get an inside line. They trusted that it was necessary because officials said so.

You'd better look up the definition of "ethics" --if you think throwing confusing information at people in the midst of a disaster they were assured would never happen, and then expecting them to make an "informed" decision about it on their own, is the ETHICAL way...

Would you like to be sitting in Tokyo with your children trying to imagine if the rad levels will go up or down? Talk about stress. The people in Tokyo know the nukes are not yet under control. They do know that much. They also know they are guinea pigs.

[Snoutport]

157. YES! I agree with you

but...I would have packed up the car and skeedaddled already. My family's health is most important. I find it interesting I've seen zero media coverage of people leaving the area...because you know people must be leaving. My friend was evacuated by the state dept. If they are flying college students back to the states for free it makes me think it is very serious.

[Snoutport]

98. i saw an article with american nuclear scholars saying the same thing

they are wasting the opportunity to get people to safety.

[JVS]

99. Yeah. I don't mean to be a panic monger, but if part of the population cannot drink the water...

and the events at the plant are still ongoing, then it's time to consider taking actions before it's too late. Unless absolutely certain that Tokyo can handle the logistics of bringing in clean drinking water for the children who cannot risk exposure to the contaminated water, I'd say get them out of here.

[Snoutport]

105. they just found radiation in trace amounts here in Portland and all our water comes from open rese

resevoirs. yikes!

[suffragette]

53. One thing I'm not seeing addressed is the combined effect of exposure from multiple sources

And for this, I'm not just speaking about Tokyo, but for all areas impacted in Japan by this.

For every new radiation hazard I see, each article gives the specific impact of the one isolated item, for example the water.

However, many people there are facing multiple exposures: water, food, air, dust, rain, etc.

I have yet to see articles about the combined impact of exposure from the multiple sources.

[marions ghost]

59. yep

minimization/parsing of factoids going on...

I wish there were reports actually from Tokyo. Are no American journalists there???

[suffragette]

69. Agree with your point about minimizing and parsing

It's clear that many people there are being subjected to multiple exposure by multiple sources.

I wish there were reports on this as well, but I have yet to see any.

And the reports I am seeing only note the impact/effect of each new incident, not taking into account the combined effect of combined incidents and/or exposure to the differents elements together.

[JVS]

87. Yep. All these "safe doses" are going to add up.

[suffragette]

96. That's what I would think

[BrookBrew]

119. Yes, to levels far far lower than those that cause problems. Remember these?

this is a nuclear weapon being detonated in the US. I would wager the outcome in Japan would be a teeny tiny shadow of what happens when you detonate a thermonuclear weapon in the open air.

Just a guess. (edit) this is a quarter megaton single stage shot.

[Aerows]

90. I've been wondering about that, too

There are multiple sources of exposure - how does all of that combined impact health

[suffragette]

97. Exactly

[BrookBrew]

113. A dose is a dose. If you get 12mrem (TID is TID) Ever hear of a Grey (gy)

that is how people are dosed with radiation. the si is used in exposure.

Radiation was not invented last week. There is almost 100 years of data on human exposure to various emitters of ionizing radiation.

If people are overly concerned the Journal Oncology has reams of studies.

Edit: not directed at you, just lots of data on this topic out there.

[Aerows]

114. So you are saying it does add up

It makes sense to me that it would. The point that concerns me is that we have all of these different factors that are at "acceptable" levels, but added together, it seems like it might overall exceed the "acceptable" level of doses.

[BrookBrew]

117. Here is a picture of an above ground nuclear weapon detonating in the US

there were 50 or so of these. The wind blew, and the entire country did not turn green, grow four eyes, the entire population did not die off in the 50's.

The cumulative dose is the dose. (TID)

[Aerows]

132. 15,000 people got cancer

that can be linked back to these weapon tests. That is far from negligible. You are free to play Russian roulette with your own life, but not with mine.

People have every right to be concerned about nuclear power plants and their safety. This is far from over for Japan.

[BrookBrew]

135. Right, whatever happens will be a teeny fraction of what happened in NV

thats a fact. Including a complete explosive breach of the core(s). 2/3rds of that 15,000 died in a few hours from a tsunami.

Be concerned, but be aware that this is not a new science. The what ifs are covered in NEJM in 1974 as a study of the dozens of tests in the US.

Those released millions of times more radiation than the Japan Incident. Over a long enough timeline you will die. And it will not be from radiation.

[Aerows]

136. You can't say that authoritatively...

...because you don't know how bad it is, yet. THEY don't even know if there is a core breach. We are also talking about a nation with high population density, including the world's largest metropolitan area not that far away. 39 million people is not a number to sneeze at.

It's irrelevant how old the science is, because at this point, we also know several things - like the fact that radiation can cause cancer. 15,000 people died with a direct link to those weapons tests, and you have posted that picture like it's "ho-hum, they did this and it wasn't too bad".

And yes, over a long enough timeline everyone dies, but who wants to have that timeline accelerated simply because they were fed misinformation to the benefit of some corporate entity that was concerned about the bottom line?

Are you volunteering?

[BrookBrew]

139. Yes whatever happens will be less than detonating dozens of nuclear weapons

400 miles from LA. And yes if I have to have a thyroid function test I will happily injest iodine 131.. Heart disease kills people in my family.

I am talking about the contents of the core exploding into the air, like in my picture. That is 50 pounds if HEU and tons of fallout..

Just on that one frame.

I just cant do the end is nigh thing. Given there is real data on nuclear exposure going back 60 years.

To pretend this is some mystery would be very silly of me.

[suffragette]

126. But many people have likely been exposed to multiple doses

and in some areas, at sustained levels off and on over time.

For many of them it's not "a dose."


It is a combo of:
Ingesting water
Ingesting milk
Ingesting food
Breathing air
Breathing dust
Bathing/cleaning in water
Touching/ digging through/working in soil
Getting wet from rain




And there are multiple elements being discussed with different levels of contamination and different lengths of time they apparently last:
Vapor, particles, etc

Yet each of these exposures is discussed as isolated which seems to me to minimize full impact.

For example:
x exposure = an x-ray
y exposure = a CT scan

If would seem to me that if someone is exposed to x, y and z that would multiply/magnify the impact, particularly since it's been occurring in rapid succession over a sustained period of time.

And yes, the "overly concerned" part you added sounds condescending and I don't appreciate that tone.

[BrookBrew]

129. This is not new science. The TID is the tid, it is not interest

it does not compound. Remember this is 400 miles from LA. This is a 250KT nuclear weapon detonated in open air. (fission happened here...)

Lots of people behaving as if there is not 60 years of solid US science on dosing radiation. People are dosed here every day. There is no mystery to it.

Whatever happens it will be a tiny fraction of the outcome of this times at least 20..

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2ocv-MtVOk8/TTJvp8_tlWI/AAAAAAAAAnU/pYe8R8E3B4A/s1600/atomic+cannon.png

[suffragette]

137. You're throwing around a lot of acronyms and trying hard to shift the subject

I wonder why?


From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Ionizing_Dose

Absorbed dose (also known as total ionizing dose, TID) is a measure of the energy deposited in a medium by ionizing radiation. It is equal to the energy deposited per unit mass of medium, which may be measured as joules per kilogram and represented by the equivalent SI unit, gray (Gy), or the U.S. customary unit, rad.

Note that the absorbed dose is not a good indicator of the likely biological effect. 1 Gy of alpha radiation would be much more biologically damaging than 1 Gy of photon radiation for example. Appropriate weighting factors can be applied reflecting the different relative biological effects to find the equivalent dose.

The risk of stochastic effects due to radiation exposure can be quantified using the effective dose, which is a weighted average of the equivalent dose to each organ depending upon its radiosensitivity.

When ionising radiation is used to treat cancer, the doctor will usually prescribe the radiotherapy treatment in Gy. When risk from ionising radiation is being discussed, a related SI unit for equivalent dose, the sievert, would be used.




Apparently, "a dose" is not the same as a different dose or another dose.

L.A.? I never brought it up. I specifically posted about the impact on Japanese citizens in whose difrection the wind is blowing and from whose taps the water (ground water, reservoir) is flowing. And most of the population I'm discussing is much closer than 400 miles away with the wind blowing toward them at times, from the north or south as the case may be. If you're going to attempt an equivalency, you might at least try one that's not so obviously false.

Add your comment about people being dosed here everyday to that. No one here is being "dosed" in the manner the citizens of Japan are.

[BrookBrew]

140. Again. here is a picture of a nuclear bomb blowing up 400 miles from la.

whatever happens in Japan will be less significant than this (one of dozens). No people were dosed with doses far greater. People are dosed with iodine in the US every day, in hospitals.

(search sodium iodine capsule)

Pretty sure all these people did not die from cancer, some probably.. But there is real data on that if you want to look.

[suffragette]

141. I guess Dylan was wrong and some people do need a weatherman

to know the way the wind blows.

It blew east to Utah, not west to California.

http://healutah.org/news/downwinders/02070702

LEGACY OF RADIATION ILLNESS STIR OBJECTION TO NEVADA BOMB TEST
Feb 07, 2007
Sonya Geis, Washington Post
St. George, Utah -- When the baby boomers of St. George were children, radioactive ash from nuclear test explosions in Nevada regularly drifted toward the red bluffs of their town and fell like snow. They played in it and wrote their names in it on car windows.

The federal government reassured the townspeople they were in no danger as it detonated 952 bombs in Nevada over four decades. But thousands of people who lived downwind of the test site got radiation-related cancer, and the town of 50,000 has its own cancer-treatment center today.

So when word got out recently that the government wants to test a huge conventional bomb in Nevada, sending a mushroom cloud thousands of feet in the air, people in St. George felt an unwelcome blast from the past.

At a series of emotional meetings last month in Las Vegas, St. George, Salt Lake City and the Idaho capital of Boise, people who live downwind of the Nevada Test Site expressed fear that if the government goes ahead with its code-named Divine Strake test, radioactive dust from previous tests will blow their way.




And, yes, I have noticed you continue to bring up false equivalencies and keep trying to send me off on research missions if I "want to look" in an attempt to divert the topic raised.

Noticed you have dropped the TID bits and increased the historic pics.

Sorry, not dropping the topic which is danger to Japanese citizens by multiple exposure to various sources of radiation over a sustained period.

[BrookBrew]

152. Yes, that is REAL DATA. The kind that could be applied in japan

while the number of nuclear tests was not 952 (closer to 30 - 50) it was a significant and MASSIVE source of radiation.

I did not drop TID and right now someone is being dosed in greys (gy) units, in a hospital.

Pictures are very easy to understand.

I dont know why the multiple dose thing is complex to you. It is a cumulative dose calculation based over a given time.

You could use data from the bomb tests to see that in real science. That is the motive, understand and not stir fear?

There is a shitton of data on pubmed (not pro nuclear) covering dosing calculations. The DOE also has data from nuclear testing.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15452045

[suffragette]

155. Again, you are shifting discussion away from my point and trying to make this personal

while being condescending.

And again, I question why you are doing that.


I wrote:

One thing I'm not seeing addressed is the combined effect of exposure from multiple sources

And for this, I'm not just speaking about Tokyo, but for all areas impacted in Japan by this.

For every new radiation hazard I see, each article gives the specific impact of the one isolated item, for example the water.

However, many people there are facing multiple exposures: water, food, air, dust, rain, etc.

I have yet to see articles about the combined impact of exposure from the multiple sources.



My point was not about the multiple exposure being complex to me or me somehow needing pictures of a nuclear bomb exploding to "understand."

My point, which I made clearly, is that this is not being addressed by media. Instead they are treating each exposure as an entirely separate and discrete event.

[BrookBrew]

160. Dosage chart.. From an alternative energy source. Not personal, at ALL

just fact. This event is tiny compared to atmospheric testing.

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

[suffragette]

165. Again, my point, which I made clearly, is that this is not being addressed by media.

Instead they are treating each exposure as an entirely separate and discrete event.
As you noted in a different post, these add up.

The chart you linked, interesting as it may be, does not address my point.
I did find more info on it here, where the author expands on his note in the chart that he's sure he made mistakes in the chart. Apparently this has not kept it from popping up in pro-nuke editorials in some papers. The comment section is interesting.
http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/

[Aerows]

142. I've noted...

...the subject shifting, also. No one is being "dosed" in the manner the citizens of Japan are - you are absolutely right. Japan has a very high population density, which is a concern.

[suffragette]

143. Exactly - shifting and diversionary

Agree with your last sentence. Add that much of that population is in areas being directly impacted.

[BrookBrew]

153. So no one in history (in japan say 1946 or South West US)

has ever been dosed in this manner? this event is new to science?

hiroshima had a high population density, as did LA in the 50's. pop density is irrelevant however.

Human absorption of ionizing radiation is the topic.

[gateley]

145. What do you mean it does not compound? If that means it does not "add up"

then why do people receiving radiation have a LIMIT they can have in a lifetime?

[suffragette]

149. Great point, gateley

[BrookBrew]

154. its linear. If you get 12mrem on a flight to London and 12 on the way home

you have 24mrem towards the total. It is not compounded monthly if you fly once a month. If you then get a chest xray it is added to the total.

It adds up.

[gateley]

158. Exactly. So a little here, a little there, a smidgen in our fish (safe levels!) a trace

in the air we breathe in, and breathe out, and breath in, watching TV, talking on the phone, posting on DU -- we're constantly adding it up. It can't be good, it can't NOT affect you.

[BrookBrew]

159. Neat graphic...

[gateley]

162. Thanks -- I'll have to print it out - it's WAY to teeny to read on my laptop screen.

I'll be back to argue some more, later. :7

[BrookBrew]

164. No worries, Here is the source. It was either huge or thumbnailish..

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

[Aerows]

131. You touched on all of the things that worry me, too.

People also got cancer from those nuclear tests. People died from cancer that lived near TMI. I don't think you are "overly concerned" and neither am I. This flippant attitude like radiation is nothing to be concerned about whatsoever smacks of playing apologist and damage control for the nuclear industry.

[BrookBrew]

133. No one died from tmi then or in 25 years after. The nuclear tests created millions (billions?)

of times more radioactive fallout than the japan incident.

Here it the TMI data from an independent source. University of Pit.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-11/uopm-nsr103102.php

[suffragette]

134. That's exactly how it's scanning to me

[Heidi]

62. Milk?

They can import it from the US.

[Auntie Bush]

95. Coke and Pepsi would just love to supply drinks also Poland Springs

I'll bet a lot of American companies will be right there helping out in this emergency.

[fascisthunter]

89. it's ok... radiation is good for us

cumulatively I'm sure it's a really really bad thing.... and it sort of like playing Russian Roulette... everybody's body reacts differently to radiation.

[Shandris]

101. Possible update, I heard on the radio an hour ago that the warning was for...

...anyone, not just children, and that there is now a run on bottled water throughout the city.

[lostnfound]

110. I don't see that reported anywhere yet.

Maybe it was a misinterpretation by the radio. The warning "went to all people" that they should not give tap water to children.

[Snoutport]

124. the news caster in the clip i linked said

two things. first she said "people should not" then referred to it later by saying infants. Not they there was s change but it could have confused people.

[Aerows]

102. Neutron beams detected 13 times at Fukushima

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/80539.html

If fission is what produces I-131, and they are still seeing neutron beams, then wouldn't it follow that more I-131 is being formed?

And I'd still like to know the cumulative effect of all of these various sources. All of them might be "below dangerous levels" but what happens when all of these different sources combine?

[marions ghost]

103. OK....

so where are our DU technical experts on this?

The only thing I take from the article is that detecting these beams indicates some fission is occurring somewhere or other.

Articles says the phenom is associated with a "criticality accident" in 1999 north of Tokyo (Ibaraki)

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

I would not take this as good news, but see what others say.

[Aerows]

104. It doesn't sound good to me

"The only thing I take from the article is that detecting these beams indicates some fission is occurring somewhere or other"

That's what I took away from it, too.

[grahamhgreen]

107. K&R. No Nukes are Good Nukes.

[Kermitt Gribble]

108. ...

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-mp81OYX-NvY/TXp3LN5go3I/AAAAAAAADis/o1OVE_O2J0Q/s400/Brawndo+energy+drink+Idiocracy.jpeg

[lostnfound]

109. Not that many kids -- more like 1.4 Million kids in TOkyo

12% of the population of 12 million people are juveniles.

And I'm sure that the pro-nuke people have got it all planned out. The industry has done careful preparation to make sure that the equivalent of clean tap water is delivered to every home every day (in the midst of a transportation cutback). They are NOT going to externalize their costs on anyone else, no sirree.

[Snoutport]

125. The 12% figure, if you are using TOkyo census date, is for up to age 15

And i'm using the whole tokyo area's populatiion.

[lostnfound]

150. Okay..that's slot of kids. And I'm with you, btw

I think it's absurd that playing Russian roulette with the public on such a large scale is defended as acceptable risk by so many. The probabilities may seem small to statistics types, but ultimately it is only a matter of when and where that catastrophe will strike, not if. Whether it's my kids or someone else's, it's certain that there will be the misery and terror of being told the air you breathe and water you drink are dangerous, and don't go outside, and many of you will get cancer, and some of your brethren must go on a suicide mission to stop a runaway reactor, and we don't know what to do with the spent fuel, and you taxpayers can pick up the bill when things go wrong.

[tnlefty]

111. Um, I wouldn't give to a toddler, nor a preschooler,

nor would I drink it myself. Getting the hell out of the way would have been on my mind a week ago...

[marions ghost]

116. no not toddlers either

If no infants then how about fetuses? Have pregnant women been advised?

I'm with you--I don't consume what is not good for children and pregnant women.

[BrookBrew]

118. How old are you? If you are over 60 you probably did already...

NEVADA 400 miles from LA

[marions ghost]

121. Not over 60

getting there tho. I do remember the movie The Day After.

But what's your point? I'm talking about pregnant women in Tokyo.

Just because we may have it in our bodies doesn't mean we can tolerate MORE of it. Too much of a bad thing.

Look at the epidemic of cancers now...makes ya wonder.

[BrookBrew]

122. This is not a movie. The transformers is not a tutorial on

robotics. There is real data from the real impacts of doing this. Iodine damages the thyroid of children more than adults. However iodine is used to kill the thyroid in nuclear medicine in some procedures.

Again this is real, and whatever happens with be a tiny little fraction of the exposure from this. Note, the south west united states is not all dead.

[TheCanadianLiberal]

115. I find it amusing...

You'll justify getting rid of nuclear power with any single reason you can. You're not a nuclear engenier, your only a bystander.

The plant in Japan was never designed to hold up to what it did, we're lucky it held up as well as it did. Well built reactors are safe.

[Aerows]

128. I find nothing about this situation amusing

And I doubt any sane person does. If you would have asked me a month ago if I thought nuclear power was safe, I would have said yes. This situation in Japan has caused me to rethink that position.

Our corporations cut corners like corporations everywhere, and evade regulations when they can. Managers have been known to turn a blind eye to problems if it results in a bigger bonus.

While we are lucky that the plant held up as well as it did, there were problems before this. They knew the diesel backup generators might not work. They covered up a flaw in reactor #4. It was built on a fault line.

I'm not confident that many of our own nuclear power plants don't have the same exact problems for the same exact reasons - poor planning, fudged safety inspections and flaws that have been hidden.

They aren't out of the woods yet in Japan, and we don't know how bad it is going to get yet. I'm not eager to also become a test subject for what happens when a nuclear plant fails in my neighborhood.

[Prometheus Bound]

163. If you're here to promote nuclear power, you're doing a piss-poor job.

[Art_from_Ark]

127. I'm going to Tokyo tomorrow

and I will be at a company that has a lot of experience in measuring radiation levels in water. If I can get an accurate picture about the quality of Tokyo water, it will be from this company.

[suffragette]

144. Be sure to post what you find out

and have a safe trip.

:hi:

[Art_from_Ark]

167. I am in Tokyo now

Although I was somewhat apprehensive about taking a bus trip to Tokyo since I would be traveling on elevated expressways (some of which date from 1964), I eventually did board a bus for Tokyo. The trip itself was completely uneventful-- just like a normal day, except that there seemed to be less traffic on the expressway. Upon exiting the expressway, I looked out the window of the bus, and the scenes of Tokyo were just like any other day-- Asakusa, Ueno, Kanda, Tokyo Station-- people were going about their business as if there had never been a disaster. Many people were wearing surgical masks, but whether the masks were to protect against radiation, or just to protect against the pollen in the March air, I can't say.

Upon arriving at Tokyo Station, the only thing out of the ordinary that I noticed was that the station was much darker than normal. Indoor lighting has been greatly reduced in an effort to conserve electricity. Most offices and shops in the Tokyo area (that is, the Tepco service area) are reducing lighting, in large part, I think, to stave off the rolling blackouts that Tepco has proposed (and which are being implemented in limited areas, much to the consternation of affected residents).

Upon arriving at my destination, I discussed the water situation in Tokyo with some geoscientists. The spike in radiation levels (which was deemed to exceed standards for infants but not for most adults) is apparently the result of rain that was blown in from the reactor area. The rain has stopped, the winds have shifted, and radiation levels in the Tokyo water are apparently returning to lower levels. While I saw bottled water on the shelves of a convenience store this morning, a local resident has told me that it will in all likelihood be sold out before the day is through.

[Prometheus Bound]

168. Thanks Art. I really appreciate reading your observations here.

[Art_from_Ark]

170. A few more observations

The geoscientists had taken radiation readings in Tokyo. Levels were at about 0.16 microsieverts per hour, slightly higher than normal background radiation. Inside the office, one of the geologists was holding a geiger counter that was sounding off, and he announced "2 microsieverts!". At first, I thought he was taking measurements of the office environment. But he was actually measuring the radiation level of a rock sample from Southeast Asia. When he pulled the geiger counter away from the rock sample, it became quiet and showed no measurable levels of radiation in the office.

On the trip back, I took a look around Yurakucho, which is the gateway to the Ginza, a kind of combination Times Square/Fifth Avenue. It was much darker than usual.

At the bus station, there were long lines for some of the buses bound for destinations in Ibaraki-- especially Mito, which was a major train hub 70 or 80 miles north of Tokyo, but which still has no train service at this time. The radiation level at my location in Tokyo was 0.16 microsieverts per hour. In my city 40 miles to the north, it is currently averaging 0.22. I looked at the people standing in line for the Mito bus, and wondered what radiation levels they were going back to. And then I looked at the people in the Hitachi-bound bus, and thought of the State Department's evacuation advisory for Americans living within a 50-mile radius around Fukushima Dai-ichi, which seems to include a part of the city of Hitachi.

On the expressway, it was like a normal Friday night-- traffic jams until the Sumida River, after which the traffic thins out.

[librechik]

130. milk! no, wait...

this is bad

[Mimosa]

146. IS THERE A CHANCE *WE* WILL HEED THIS FOREWARNING? N/T

[defendandprotect]

148. Germany Set to Abandon Nuclear Poer For Good -- !!!

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/03/23-7


Watched Obama coming off AF One today with one of his daughters --

there is no way he can go forward with this nuke stuff if he truly cares

about them --

unless he letting the nuke industry fool him or he's a true fool?

[Snoutport]

156. Thank you!

I started this post hoping to start a discussion about the US and if we were ready to ship water to, say, new york or LA. I can't believe how many people chewed me out for being alarmist.

Hello? Radiation is showing up in Oregon, California, who knows how much of Japan. If, only after this many days the water is polluted in Tokyo, what will it be like in another week or two of radioactive venting, smoke, etc?!

Anyway, thanks for making my point. :0)

[defendandprotect]

147. Not milk either -- presume they're going to have to bring in bottled water?

Germany Set to Abandon Nuclear Power For Good -- !!

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/03/23-7

[Rex]

161. You don't want to panic 30 million people.

Bottled water from other countries? Really, there is a solution and I think the Japanese will find it quickly. We need to move past harmful forms of energy and harness the easy ones...albiet less profit involved.

[krabigirl]

169. Mead? That's what kids and pretty much everyone drank back in the days before sanitation.