Radioactive cesium from Fukushima on tour of Pacific Ocean
Radioactive cesium from the crippled Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant is circulating with the currents in the Pacific Ocean and will wash up on Japan's shores again in between 20 and 30 years.
Lethal levels of radiation detected at Fukushima TEPCO
A TEPCO worker checks radiation levels around piping at the Fukushima nuclear power plant Photo: AFP/GETTY

By Julian Ryall in Tokyo

7:00AM BST 15 Sep 2011

Scientists from the government's Meteorological Research Institute and the Central Research Institute of the Electric Power Industry announced their findings at a meeting of the Geochemical Society of Japan this week, adding that some of the cesium will also flow into the Indian Ocean and, eventually, reach the Atlantic.

The scientists estimated that some 3,500 terabecquerels of cesium-137 was released into the sea directly from the plant between March 11, when the earthquake and tsunami struck, and the end of May. Another 10,000 terabecquerels of cesium fell into the ocean after escaping from the reactors in the form of steam.

One terabecquerel is a trillion becquerels, the standard measure of radiation, and the Japanese government has set the permissible level of iodine-131 for vegetables and fish at 2,000 becquerels per kilogram (2.2lbs).

Cesium is considered a more serious threat, however, because of its relatively long half-life. Cesium has a half-life of around 30 years, can accumulate in muscles and is a known cause of cancer.

The researchers believe that the cesium has initially dispersed into the Pacific from the coast of Fukushima Prefecture but will be taken to the southwest by the prevailing currents at a depth of around 1,300 feet. Just short of the International Date Line, the shifting currents will take the cesium close to the Philippines before it again turns north on the Japan Current.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...f-Pacific-Ocean.html

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 09-16-2011).]

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: So if we detonated a nuclear bomb (Hiroshima class) nearly every day off the coast of japan for 5 and a half months (roughly 165 times), where the heat and the blast were not a factor, just the fall out. Would anybody be questioning this is significant?

Please stand by.

There have been over 2000 nuclear weapons tested thus far. Almost all were larger than the 15 kT bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Many of the bombs were 100 times the size of the blast of the Hiroshima bomb. Some were over 1000 times the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

So thousands of bombs were exploded that were hundreds of times the 15 kT size. Now this doesn't speak directly to the radiation that was released but it can be used as a relative size.

One of the reasons we stopped nuclear bomb testing is to limit the amount of radioactive pollution we were putting in the water and air.

This one explosion was over 3300 times the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.


And how much was it that is being released at Fukushima? 165 times Hiroshima?

I am not looking to dismiss the Fukushima release as insignificant. I am also not pro nuclear weapons or pro nuclear weapons testing. But it does help to keep this release in perspective.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: There have been over 2000 nuclear weapons tested thus far. Almost all were larger than the 15 kT bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Many of the bombs were 100 times the size of the blast of the Hiroshima bomb. Some were over 1000 times the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. So thousands of bombs were exploded that were hundreds of times the 15 kT size. Now this doesn't speak directly to the radiation that was released but it can be used as a relative size. One of the reasons we stopped nuclear bomb testing is to limit the amount of radioactive pollution we were putting in the water and air. This one explosion was over 3300 times the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. And how much was it that is being released at Fukushima? 165 times Hiroshima? I am not looking to dismiss the Fukushima release as insignificant. I am also not pro nuclear weapons or pro nuclear weapons testing. But it does help to keep this release in perspective.

You are of course correct, there have been much larger bombs. Hence I said Hiroshima class. However, none of these larger bombs were detonated where the fall out would be on top of a city, at least that I am aware of. A bomb 100 times more cesium would still not equal the Fukushima release. However one 1000 times would surpass it.

I like how you change the the facts again.

Your story at the top of the page talks about the fallout into the ocean, and releases directly into the ocean. Now you have changed it to "where the fall out would be on top of a city."

The facts of the story never get in your way, do they?

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 09-16-2011).]

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: I like how you change the the facts again. Your story at the top of the page talks about the fallout into the ocean, and releases directly into the ocean. Now you have changed it to "where the fall out would be on top of a city." The facts of the story never get in your way, do they?

So your back to lies again? Never said all the fall out was on a city. I said the larger nukes were not detonated on cities, Remember Fukushima plant isn't in the middle of the ocean with no cities for hundreds or thousands of miles. However most of the fukushima fallout was initially in a habited area, because only 3,500 terra bq was dumped in the ocean, 10,000 terra bq came from steam that eventually condensed and joined the ocean. The remaining cesium is either in the air or on land.
So Phonedawgz would you be happy with 168 nukes detonated outside your town, if most of the fallout blew off somewhere else?

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 09-16-2011).]

You can't take the estimated numbers and subtract them and then conclude the result is either in the air or ended up on land.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 09-16-2011).]

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: You can't take the estimated numbers and subtract them and then conclude the result is either in the air or ended up on land.

Really? If it didn't go to the ocean, pray tell where did it go? Cesium doesn't degrade to non detectable levels that quickly.

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Really? If it didn't go to the ocean, pray tell where did it go? Cesium doesn't degrade to non detectable levels that quickly.

I'll give you a hint. The key word in the sentence is "conclude".

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: I'll give you a hint. The key word in the sentence is "conclude".

Oh I am sure TEPCO has safely disposed of the remaining cesium. lol
Despite of it showing up in food, and playgrounds, and drinking water. Being detected in the air, and sewage, and landfills. BTW, thats where the clean up went, to landfills, well what wasn't too radioactive to move did.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 09-16-2011).]

Start with significant digits. Its a high school science subject. See if you can figure how it applies.

That is the easy part of why your math doesn't work.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Start with significant digits. Its a high school science subject. See if you can figure how it applies. That is the easy part of why your math doesn't work.

Of various radioactive materials, the amount of cesium 137 was 15,000 terabecquerels in the Fukushima accident
The scientists estimated that some 3,500 terabecquerels of cesium-137 was released into the sea directly from the plant between March 11, when the earthquake and tsunami struck, and the end of May. Another 10,000 terabecquerels of cesium fell into the ocean after escaping from the reactors in the form of steam.

1 TBq = 1 tera becquerel = 1,000,000,000,000 Bq = 1 x 10 to the 12th power
"One of the properties of quantities with exponents is that numbers with exponents can be added and subtracted only when they have the same base and exponent. Since all numbers in scientific notation have the same base (10), we need only worry about the exponents. To be added or subtracted, two numbers in scientific notation must be manipulated so that their bases have the same exponent--this will ensure that corresponding digits in their coefficients have the same place value. "
http://www.sparknotes.com/m...tation/section1.html

Incorrect, they are all to the same power. Its not like 3,500x10 to the 6th - 1500x10 to the 8th.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 09-16-2011).]

significant digits not scientific notation

http://www.mentorials.com/h...nificant-figures.htm

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 09-16-2011).]

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: significant digits not scientific notation http://www.mentorials.com/h...nificant-figures.htm

There is nothing wrong with the math, your just playing the card that it could have been 10,000.2 terra bq that got rounded to 10,000 and 3499.987 terra bq that got rounded to 3500. That is the definition of being anal.
Everyone knows that when dealing with approximates in an equation, the answer will be an approximate.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 09-16-2011).]

So you actually think their estimations are + or - by 0.5 Dennis_6???

Seriously?

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: So you actually think their estimations are + or - by 0.5 Dennis_6??? Seriously?

Is that so hard to believe? Any researcher worth their damn is not going to record 9,600 Terra Bq as 10,000 Terra Bq. They might record 9,990 Terra Bq as 10,000 Terra Bq. I guess they never taught you to subtract rounded numbers.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 09-16-2011).]

The numbers are NOT rounded numbers that were read off of some meter.

They are wild ass guess estimates. There were no meters to measure the releases of radiation.

They are plus or minus 50% of the least significant digit AT BEST.

For you to use these guesses and subtract off other estimates (guesses) and extrapolate a number that has significant digits that are smaller than the significant digits in the original estimates is pure folly.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 09-16-2011).]

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: The numbers are NOT rounded numbers that were read off of some meter. They are wild ass guess estimates. There were no meters to measure the releases of radiation. They are plus or minus 50% of the least significant digit AT BEST. For you to use these guesses and subtract off other estimates (guesses) and extrapolate a number that has significant digits that are smaller than the significant digits in the original estimates is pure folly.

Seeing as TEPCO has been downplaying, much like you have. They are probably fairly generously low numbers.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 09-16-2011).]

You really have no idea what I am talking about do you?

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: You really have no idea what I am talking about do you?

All you've done is to attempt to minimize, downplay, and otherwise ignore the severity of the Fukushimi disaster. Why are you still here? Do you somehow think that you'll be able to suddenly cause all the folks who've realized what a disaster uranium fission is both economically and politically to change their views and agree with you?

What's your goal? Do you even have one besides being an apologist for the nuclear power industry?

You are right. I am the guy who won't let you the lackie spew your liberal agenda on this forum unchallanged.

Keep to the facts and I keep quiet.

Conger up the facts like YOU or your lackie does and I will properly dispute them.

Attack me (like now) because I have shown that the liberal 'evidence' is not substantiated and I will defend myself. Yes your lackie has no idea what he is talking about. You do. But you IGNORE what he says as long as it supports your wacko agenda.

I instead speak the truth. And when the truth doesn't match YOUR wacko liberal agenda what do you do? Yep that's right, then it's attack time.

Do you want to defend your lackie's wacko numbers? No I don't suppose so. So instead attack me.

So give it a shot. Come on big boy, show this forum that HIS extrapolation of estimates are nothing but ridiculous numbers. Show that somehow he has produced numbers that deserve even a little respect. You at least know what the term "significant digits" is.

Any side stepping on my challenge will show exactly where your priorities are in this discussion.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 09-17-2011).]

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: You are right. I am the guy who won't let you the lackie spew your liberal agenda on this forum unchallanged. Keep to the facts and I keep quiet. Conger up the facts like YOU or your lackie does and I will properly dispute them. Attack me (like now) because I have shown that the liberal 'evidence' is not substantiated and I will defend myself. Yes your lackie has no idea what he is talking about. You do. But you IGNORE what he says as long as it supports your wacko agenda. I instead speak the truth. And when the truth doesn't match YOUR wacko liberal agenda what do you do? Yep that's right, then it's attack time. Do you want to defend your lackie's wacko numbers? No I don't suppose so. So instead attack me. So give it a shot. Come on big boy, show this forum that HIS extrapolation of estimates are nothing but ridiculous numbers. Show that somehow he has produced numbers that deserve even a little respect. You at least know what the term "significant digits" is. Any side stepping on my challenge will show exactly where your priorities are in this discussion.

You're trying to make this into a me vs Dennis_6 issue, and it's not. What I've consistently posted about is the high cost of this kind of nuclear power, both in actual cash terms and in societal costs. The disaster in Fukushima only reinforces that, just as Chernobyl did.

You've consistently used semantics and very minor technicalities to try and show that what I and others post is somehow not credible.Well, Japan's media has repeatedly reported that somewhere between seventy thousand and one hundred thousand people are nuclear refugees right now. Is that true or false? You'll find some other trivial error that I post and prove that, then make the insinuation that because I was in error on that minor point that all my my posts about the tragedy of the refugee's horrible situation is an overblown exaggeration or even outright false, without actually coming out and claiming that I'm wrong on that. Of course you wouldn't say that the refugee situation was a false claim on my part, you'd look even more the fool if you tried that. Hence, your semantic world-twisting and false association tricks.

No, this isn't about me vs Dennis, much as you'd like to twist it that way. This thread is about Japan's nuke problems (^^^^it even says so in the title), not about you. You've made some outrageous claims such as nuclear power being the "cheapest way to make electricity", but in fact those claims have been proven false over and over again. Yet you keep repeating them as though saying the same lies over and over again will somehow make them true. Actually, that is an effective technique, the worst example of which was the demonization of the Jews by Hitler's propaganda machine last century.

If you want to have a pro-nuke masturbation fest, why don't you start a thread titled "Nuclear power is the best thing to ever happen to the human species" or some such title. Then you and your cronies can circle-jerk all you want in that thread. Meanwhile, in this thread we discuss what kind of disaster this one single nuclear power plant has wreaked upon a whole country, the almost incomprehensible costs in both actual cash and in human tragedy this one single nuclear plant has and will continue to incur for the foreseeable future.

And to the other part of the title, conflicting reports? Well, as we've see thoughout this thread, yourself included, every time there's conflicting early reports where some are less bad than others, it has consistently come out that the worst-case early scenarios, the ones you pooh-poohed as whacko, turned out to not only be true, but often times the truth was actually worse than the worst-case depicted in the early reporting.

Meanwhile, as I type this at 10:30am this wonderfully rainy Saturday morning, in Japan it is half past midnight and seventy to one hundred thousand men, women, and children are sleeping in strange quarters, mass refugee centers, maybe some luckily at a relative's on the couch or floor. They've been doing this for over half a year, and according to all the published reports from various Japanese reporting bureaus there's no real idea if these victims, and yes they are victims, will ever be able to return home. Many are elderly and likely they'll die in a refugee center rather than in their ancestral homes. The people who worked the land all their lives (and likely on the same land as their ancestors) will likely never be allowed back.

And, as to your "liberal" comments, completely irrelevant. As a conservative extremist you have a pathological need to try and inject politics and partisan division into everything you write. The reactors that have ruined so much of Japan aren't liberal or conservative, and honestly I don't think the hundred thousand refugees in Japan could give a thit about your political affiliation.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: So give it a shot. Come on big boy, show this forum that HIS extrapolation of estimates are nothing but ridiculous numbers. Show that somehow he has produced numbers that deserve even a little respect. You at least know what the term "significant digits" is.

Everyone knows what term significant digits is. I just could not figure how you were trying to apply it, because I figured even you weren't that ridiculous. I guess I was wrong. Just because you believe its a mortal sin, doesn't make it wrong. The only thing ridiculous is your drivel on how Fukushima is basically a non-event, and anyone who disagrees is a liberal moron.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 09-17-2011).]

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Everyone knows what term significant digits is.....

You have clearly shown you don't. You still haven't figured why your above math is laughable.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 09-17-2011).]

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: You have clearly shown you don't. You still haven't figured why your above math is laughable.

Because your obsessing on what decimal point they rounded at, which could vary the outcome, though not enough to matter. I already proved you can subtract and add scientific notation that way. Since you can't let those figures stand, you have to find some minor to nitpick about and then make it major. If this was a discussion about government spending and I subtracted 150 billion from 400 billion would you being arguing significant digits? Nope.
You are only doing it now, because my numbers hurt your cause, and your cause is fukushima is a non event.

Oh and I see your wild guesstimate on actual radiation release and raise you chernobyl was the same and the disasters could be much closer than Tepco is letting on.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 09-17-2011).]

Video at link
---------------------------------
Asia-pacific
Experts say Fukushima 'worse' than Chernobyl
Experts estimate the radiation leaked from Fukushima nuclear plant will exceed that of Chernobyl.
Last Modified: 18 Sep 2011 07:41
At least one billion becquerels of radiation continue to leak from Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant each day even though it is now more than five months after the March earthquake and tsunami that damaged the facility.

Experts say that the total radiation leaked will eventually exceed the amounts released from the Chernobyl disaster that the Ukraine in April 1986. This amount would make Fukushima the worst nuclear disaster in history.

Al Jazeera correspondent Steve Chao reports from Tokyo.
http://english.aljazeera.ne...191845015428149.html

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 09-18-2011).]

I've always said just stop government subsidys and remove the cap that they had to pay for insurance. Let them buy insurance to cover things like chernobyl and japan. Let them add the cost of waste disposal which they still don't have a solution to. Then stand back and let private industry jump in. That would be the end of nuclear electricity. It will price itself right out of the market. Anybody remember the begining? "It will be so cheap that you won't need a meter"? I wish that it were all so because like they say, no co2 emissions, but I don't believe anything the nuclear promotors say. I've heard too many blatant lies and they just keep coming.

quote Originally posted by dratts: I've always said just stop government subsidys and remove the cap that they had to pay for insurance. Let them buy insurance to cover things like chernobyl and japan. Let them add the cost of waste disposal which they still don't have a solution to. Then stand back and let private industry jump in. That would be the end of nuclear electricity. It will price itself right out of the market. Anybody remember the begining? "It will be so cheap that you won't need a meter"? I wish that it were all so because like they say, no co2 emissions, but I don't believe anything the nuclear promotors say. I've heard too many blatant lies and they just keep coming.

But, then we won't be able to make all of those nifty war-heads. We'd be forced to import our weapons grade materials from China. <sarcasm

Actually that does justify them if you think that we don't have enough of them. There was a time when we thought that we really needed them to counter the threat from the USSR. Now though we have to deal with all the nukes out there and the danger of a terrorist getting ahold of one. Pakistans, North Koreahs, and soon Irans nukes are the immediate scary ones. North Koreah and Iran because of their anti-American stance and Pakistan because of it political instability.

Carter signed a law requiring the nuclear power plants to keep their spent fuel onsite. Since he was president that is where it all still is. Nope we don't make weapons from it.

We have been buying Russian weapons material and converting it into fuel however.

60,000 Alarmist whakos
----------------------------------------------
Japanese urge "farewell" to nuclear power six months after quake
Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:16am GMT



TOKYO, Sept 19 (Reuters) - Sixty thousand protesters gathered in central Tokyo on Monday demanding an end to Japan's reliance on nuclear power, six month's after the world's worst nuclear accident in 25 years.

Japan has banned people from within 20 km (12 miles) of the Fukushima Daiichi plant in northeast Japan, which had its reactor cooling systems knocked out by an earthquake and tsunami on March 11, triggering meltdowns.

Some 80,000 people have been evacuated from the area around the plant, which is still leaking radiation, in the world's worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl in 1986 which prompted the government to rethink its energy policy.

The protest leaders, including 1994 Nobel-prize winner Kenzaburo Oe and musician Ryuichi Sakamoto, called the rally "Goodbye to Nuclear Power Plants".

"Now is the only moment to really change nuclear policy and this is the best time to act," said Satoe Sakai, 39, who travelled from the central city of Osaka to join the rally.

"If we don't stop it now, we probably never will."

Former Prime Minister Naoto Kan told Japan's Kyodo News that he had learned that around 30 million people in Tokyo and surrounding prefectures might have had to have been evacuated in a worst-case scenario.

"It was a crucial moment when I wasn't sure whether Japan could continue to function as a state," Kyodo quoted him as saying at the weekend.

Kan had said earlier that Japan had no choice but to reduce its reliance on nuclear power over time. But he stopped short of calling for a complete phasing out of nuclear power, which before the crisis accounted for about 30 percent of Japan's electricity supply.

Many of the protesters in Tokyo on Monday were from Fukushima.

"We, the people of Fukushima, do not see nuclear radiation of course and we can't smell it," said resident Yoshiharu Saito. "But we have no doubt it is spreading." (Reporting by Olivier Fabre and Mio Coxon; Writing by Mariko Katsumura and Nick Macfie)
http://af.reuters.com/artic...dAFL3E7KJ1A020110919