Japan Earthquake: Political Aspects

[zapperzero]

Trying to keep my uninformed rants off the main thread:

As of now, it seems like there's a temp spike on the bottom of #3. This spells corium to me, so new massive releases are a distinct possibility again. This time, the predominant winds are shifting inland.

I guess the political lesson to be learned is don't eff around with already-blasted nuclear reactors. Go all in fast and hard, involve the army, accept any outside help you can get (especially from neighbors), use the wave of popular anger and fear to get volunteers and secure political support NOW for what are sure to be illegal measures and rather un-popular ones in the medium term. The Obama administration had no trouble securing a ban on new drilling in the Gulf during the Macondo crisis.

Some contamination on-site and in the environs is to be expected, some people may get hurt in the haste. Don't sweat it. Heroes are good for the national psyche. It beats having to wait around for the next criticality/explosion/tsunami/quake/typhoon while apologizing profusely and trying to pre-emptively shift blame like some god-damn weasel.

Yeah, I'm angry. Does it show?

 

[robinson]

A lot of people are angry. And frightened. It's a normal response to such a situation.

 

[Danuta]

I guess the political lesson to be learned is don't eff around with already-blasted nuclear reactors.

Political lesson learned by others maybe but not TEPCO. Forget them effing around with already blasted nuke reactors, they are still at the effing around with the data stage, which should eventually tell them the nuke reactors are blasted.

Their new tactic is to overwhelm the public with data as opposed to previous underwhelming.

Tepco drowns media in data tsunami
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110510f2.html"

"The result is a marathon of highly technical information delivered in dull and excruciating detail that regularly drags on for four hours or more, to the dismay of the patiently long-suffering reporters.

To some, this dragged-out daily rundown has become another symbol of Japan's cultural passion for process — the very opposite of the decisive, topdown leadership that some experts say is desperately needed during the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl.

"What is missing is one strong balanced leadership to align everything toward one goal," said Shuri Fukunaga, managing director of Burson-Marsteller in Tokyo, who consults companies and governments about crisis communications.

Fukunaga says Japan is skilled at teamwork, which is good under normal times. But it's a dismal failure at having a clear leader take control — a vital necessity during a crisis.

"The leaders tend to be more of a figurehead when what you need is someone to roll up your sleeves and jump in," she said."

 

[jlduh]

If there should be an ultimate reason for not having privately owned companies running plants like the nuclear ones with so heavy consequences to social life and communities around in case of accidents, i think it could be this one:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/10_20.html

TEPCO seeks govt help to pay compensation

The president of Tokyo Electric Power Company has asked the government for financial help in paying compensation over the accident at its nuclear plant in Fukushima.TEPCO President Masataka Shimizu handed a letter of request to Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano and Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Banri Kaieda on Tuesday.According to the letter, in the current business year TEPCO expects to spend an extra 1 trillion yen or about 12.5 billion dollars for thermal power generation and 9.3 billion dollars to redeem its bonds and repay debts.

The utility says it is afraid that the expenses will make it hard to offer just and speedy compensation while maintaining stable power supplies.

In the list of what they will do to raise "maximum" funding, I see "reduce the salaries and the bonuses -which bonuses by the way? Will they still have bonuses?) BUT i DIDN'T see something like:

"refund the necessary dividends accumulated in the past by shareholders"

(for an other example of huge social impact of a crisis, this remark could apply to all private banks in the financial crisis, with in both cases the TOO BIG TO FAIL THREAT TO PUSH TO ACCEPT THE "DEAL")

Instead of this, sates/citizens will probably pay collectively for it.

For any "normal citizen", this is not acceptable to privatize the gains for years and share the losses with the community. Especially when a company has a so long list of frauds and lies to the community behind her...

Ok, you drove drunk several times in the past, this time you have a huge accident and kill and injure many people and destroy their house, you have to pay fines and penalties for it and... you go to see the government to ask to help you to pay part of the stuff -but promise you will do your "maximum" to pay part of it!

Does it sound right and logical to you, as a "normal citizen"?

I know that it has been said several times here: "don't condemn them as long as you didn't run into their shoes".

But hey, if I was a japanese citizen, couln't I say ALSO that they stealing MY SHOES in fact?

 

[Susudake]

Jiduh, first of all thanks for your contributions here--and no need to apologize for mistakes in English, yours is just fine :-).

In the article quoted above this statement also stood out:

Goshi Hosono, an adviser to the prime minister, initiated the joint news conferences at Tepco, hoping to send a unified message to the public and the international community.

"We have not been mistaken in our response to the crisis," he told reporters. "But our public relations effort has been lacking."

[end quote]

Is it just me or is this guy (and the many others I suspect he speaks for) completely divorced from reality?

Amazing.

 

[Susudake]

I just looked through the powerpoint presentation at:

http://blog.energy.gov/content/situation-japan/

One slide compares radiation doses from flying, chest x-rays etc.

The implication is that external and internal exposure is the same. There is little distinction made generally in information released to the public.

Such obfuscation does not lend credibility to these authorities to those of us aware of this critical difference.

 

[jlduh]

You are completely right and i already mentionned it several times, the way radiations are very often presented leads to misunderstanding...

Saying that an alpha emitter can have its emission blocked by a simple sheet of paper is misleading because this only implies external indirect contamination. But this alpha emitter can also enter the body (inhalation, ingestion...) and very often it is not mentionned that then this alpha emitter is the most dangerous one of all for the cells, even if it can act only at a limited distance blocked by a sheet of paper which won't be of any help when in close contact with living cells.

Contamination can be external or internal (from the body standpoint) and direct or indirect. Not only radiations matters, but dust and particulates are also very important of course!

 

[Danuta]

Can this get even more irresponsible and fool hardy?

Children Don Masks, Hats in Fukushima as Radiation Looms

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-11/fukushima-students-wear-masks-as-radiation-looms.html"

Students at the Shoyo Junior High School in Fukushima are wearing masks, caps and long-sleeved jerseys to attend classes as their exposure to radiation is on pace to equal annual limits for nuclear industry workers.

“Students are told not to go out to the school yard and we keep windows shut,” said Yukihide Sato, the vice principal at Shoyo Junior High in Date city, about 60 kilometers (37 miles) northwest from the crippled Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear station. “Things are getting worse, but I don’t know what to do.”

 

[Drakkith]

I just looked through the powerpoint presentation at:

http://blog.energy.gov/content/situation-japan/

One slide compares radiation doses from flying, chest x-rays etc.

The implication is that external and internal exposure is the same. There is little distinction made generally in information released to the public.

Such obfuscation does not lend credibility to these authorities to those of us aware of this critical difference.

What are you talking about? They already take into account the effect of the radiation differing on the human body. Thats what the unit REM is for.

The roentgen equivalent in man (or mammal[1]) or rem (symbol rem) is a unit of radiation dose equivalent. It is the product of the absorbed dose in rads and a weighting factor, WR, which accounts for the effectiveness of the radiation to cause biological damage.

This takes into account external radiation from high energy photons, AND internal radiation received from alpha/beta emitters absorbed into the body. Alpha and beta radiation received externally doesn't increase REM dosage, because it isn't absorbed by the body.

 

[Susudake]

What are you talking about? They already take into account the effect of the radiation differing on the human body. Thats what the unit REM is for.



This takes into account external radiation from high energy photons, AND internal radiation received from alpha/beta emitters absorbed into the body. Alpha and beta radiation received externally doesn't increase REM dosage, because it isn't absorbed by the body.

I don't know how to make it any clearer--jiduh appears to understand what I meant (even if we're both completely wrong), so I'm a little disinclined to try again but will (I'm not impugning your intelligence)...

What I see in the reports released from gov't and nuclear power orgs like AREVA are statements comparing the amount of radiation present in irradiated areas to the amount of EXTERNAL radiation we receive from other sources--x-rays, cosmic rays, Billy Ray Cyrus rays, etc.

But as jiduh pointed out, x REMS of alpha radiation received externally (or more likely--dare I say probably?--not received at all because blocked by clothing etc) has little/no relation to the same amount of alpha radiation ingested. That's pretty basic info, isn't it? Even non-specialists like us can get our mushy minds around that. One particle on your clothing emitting alpha rays--not so bad. One particle stuck for months, years, or a lifetime in your lungs, intestines, bones--different story all-together.

It seems--SEEMS--to me that this distinction is not being made clear. Can you show me reports from the official realm, or even articles in the media (MS or otherwise) that emphasize, or even report/comment on, this crucial difference?

 

[Dmytry]

I don't know how to make it any clearer--jiduh appears to understand what I meant (even if we're both completely wrong), so I'm a little disinclined to try again but will (I'm not impugning your intelligence)...

What I see in the reports released from gov't and nuclear power orgs like AREVA are statements comparing the amount of radiation present in irradiated areas to the amount of EXTERNAL radiation we receive from other sources--x-rays, cosmic rays, Billy Ray Cyrus rays, etc.

But as jiduh pointed out, x REMS of alpha radiation received externally (or more likely--dare I say probably?--not received at all because blocked by clothing etc) has little/no relation to the same amount of alpha radiation ingested. That's pretty basic info, isn't it? Even non-specialists like us can get our mushy minds around that. One particle on your clothing emitting alpha rays--not so bad. One particle stuck for months, years, or a lifetime in your lungs, intestines, bones--different story all-together.

It seems--SEEMS--to me that this distinction is not being made clear. Can you show me reports from the official realm, or even articles in the media (MS or otherwise) that emphasize, or even report/comment on, this crucial difference?

Well hopefully there's no alpha active dust except in immediate vicinity of the plant. I don't think we had a lot of fuel dust problem after Chernobyl.

Otherwise - yes this comparison of external doses and ignoring internal (and a new limit for schoolchildren, at 20mSv/year, over which someone quitted), that is worrysome. The land is contaminated with cs-137 (beta and gamma-active )and it is just too difficult to evaluate how much of it gets ingested - it is fairly clear that they assume 0 , just comparing averaged gamma doses. The internal doses depend greatly on how well the food is to be tested and how much stuff could be raising into the air when it gets hot and some dirt dries out, etc etc. It can spike when there's a wildfire, for example. It is not something you can just calculate.
Then the beta active dirt on the skin, that is also not good. Then, the Sr-90 that accumulates in bones, and firstly you get the effect that it doesn't leave the body at all plus secondarily you get the effect that it irradiates bone marrow, which is more sensitive.
Read the definition of sievert:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert
The entire use of Sieverts there to describe radiation is a sort of pseudoscience. When they measure gamma only they should provide result in Gray and say it is gamma only that they measured, but not internal exposure. Radiation detectors do not measure in Sieverts. Dummies with radiation detectors inside measure Sieverts after a calculation and that's for external only.

This sort of lie really works unless you've been living in EU and you're aware of all the food testing measures, radioactive wild boars, etc etc. and you know that it is a lot more complex issue than japanese make it out to be.
That is not to say internal exposure will necessarily be significant. The level of internal exposure would depend greatly to the food standards they will set, and to the quality of and compliance with testing requirements. It is simply not possible to tell, to even guess at - it may be lot less than external exposure, or it may be a lot more.

 

[jlduh]

Let me ask you a simple question Drakkith:

could you explain me how any measurement in Sv (or mSv) can take into account the effects of ingested and inhaled particles as this parameter is highly dependent, as i mentionned several times before, of what a person does, touches, eats, drinks? (Ultimately it is also very dependent of local windy conditions and relocation of deposited dust for example)

 

[jlduh]

An interesting summary of the crisis and its implications from the global nuclear safety system an regulation standpoint. Independance and conflicts of interests.

Note at the very beginning this exchange between a woman living close to the plant ant Tepco Top management:

Woman: You always told us it was safe. Why?
Tepco Top management: I am very sorry.

For me it's the symbol of this disaster.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/movie/feature201105112006.html

More on the various cover ups from Tepco and Nisa in the past (which is part of Ministery of Economy, Trade and Industry).

http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/pdffiles/nit97.pdf

The whistleblower story about which governor is talking in this interview is also adressed in this article, i extract it:

Whistle-blower Made A Press Conference:
Mr. Kei Sugaoka, a former GE engineer,
who disclosed lax management of nuclear
inspection by TEPCO and GE, revealed his
name and appeared to the public in Fukushima
Prefecture for the first time. In replying to
the question, why he decided to whistle-blow
long concealed secrets in nuclear industry, he
explained "it's all about GE's insincere management
attitude." He added, however, that he never
expected that his appealing could result in the
resignation of the former president of TEPCO as
well as the shut down of all the nuclear plants in
TEPCO's power supply region. Mr. Kei Sugaoka is a third generation Japanese-
American who had been working as
an engineer at GE until 1998 when he was fired
without being given sufficient reason. He was
involved in the construction of Fukushima I-1
where he witnessed flaws that were kept secret
by the company.

 

[Susudake]

This sort of lie really works unless you've been living in EU and you're aware of all the food testing measures, radioactive wild boars, etc etc. and you know that it is a lot more complex issue than japanese make it out to be.
That is not to say internal exposure will necessarily be significant. The level of internal exposure would depend greatly to the food standards they will set, and to the quality of and compliance with testing requirements. It is simply not possible to tell, to even guess at - it may be lot less than external exposure, or it may be a lot more.

Yes this is in part what I was getting at--ingestion through inhalation or through ingesting contaminated food.

And it's not just how serious the health risk is--for me. For me it's a moral issue too--obfuscating the difference while children are being affected. It's no different than killing children with, I don't know, depleted uranium? In other words the military/industrial/nuclear/academic/political complex is synergistically poisoning us in 1000s of ways from the inside and outside while they mis- and disinform us. To quote Edano today: "very deplorable."

I'll note I very much appreciate your input here and if you're the same dmytry at arstechnica, there as well; I objected to being grouped with you by nuceng earlier merely because I object to that kind of "paint them all with the same brush" mentality regardless of who's doing it. Anyway, you have much much more expertise on this matter than I do so I suspect you'd object much more to being lumped with me :-).

 

[NUCENG]

Let me ask you a simple question Drakkith:

could you explain me how any measurement in Sv (or mSv) can take into account the effects of ingested and inhaled particles as this parameter is highly dependent, as i mentionned several times before, of what a person does, touches, eats, drinks? (Ultimately it is also very dependent of local windy conditions and relocation of deposited dust for example)

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/federal/techdocs.html

Estimates require both the dose and the contributing isotopes for internal doses. See FGR 11 and FGR12 for explanations how this is calculated. For internal sources a whole body scan can make accurate measurements of body burden. Personnal dosimetry usually monitors external or whole body dose. Offsite doses are estimated based on monitoring results. It is not perfect but can be useful in making decisions about evacuation zones, and identifying people who may need medical followup.

 

[Danuta]

http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/pdffiles/nit97.pdf

The whistleblower story about which governor is talking in this interview is also adressed in this article, i extract it:

"Whistle-blower Made A Press Conference:
Mr. Kei Sugaoka, a former GE engineer,
who disclosed lax management of nuclear
inspection by TEPCO and GE, revealed his
name and appeared to the public in Fukushima
Prefecture for the first time. In replying to
the question, why he decided to whistle-blow
long concealed secrets in nuclear industry, he
explained "it's all about GE's insincere management
attitude." He added, however, that he never
expected that his appealing could result in the
resignation of the former president of TEPCO as
well as the shut down of all the nuclear plants in
TEPCO's power supply region. Mr. Kei Sugaoka is a third generation Japanese-
American who had been working as
an engineer at GE until 1998 when he was fired
without being given sufficient reason. He was
involved in the construction of Fukushima I-1
where he witnessed flaws that were kept secret
by the company."

Interesting YouTube vid of Kei Sugaoka blowing the whistle. The report is in Japanese but Kei Sugaoka speaks in English. Press CC tab at right hand bottom of vid for English subtitle.

Kei Sugaoka the GE/Tepco Whistleblower 東電のトラブル隠し

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBjiLaVOsI4"

 

[Drakkith]

I don't know how to make it any clearer--jiduh appears to understand what I meant (even if we're both completely wrong), so I'm a little disinclined to try again but will (I'm not impugning your intelligence)...

What I see in the reports released from gov't and nuclear power orgs like AREVA are statements comparing the amount of radiation present in irradiated areas to the amount of EXTERNAL radiation we receive from other sources--x-rays, cosmic rays, Billy Ray Cyrus rays, etc.

But as jiduh pointed out, x REMS of alpha radiation received externally (or more likely--dare I say probably?--not received at all because blocked by clothing etc) has little/no relation to the same amount of alpha radiation ingested. That's pretty basic info, isn't it? Even non-specialists like us can get our mushy minds around that. One particle on your clothing emitting alpha rays--not so bad. One particle stuck for months, years, or a lifetime in your lungs, intestines, bones--different story all-together.

It seems--SEEMS--to me that this distinction is not being made clear. Can you show me reports from the official realm, or even articles in the media (MS or otherwise) that emphasize, or even report/comment on, this crucial difference?

As Nuceng pointed out, there are several methods of determining the internal dose. Official reports and articles from the media aren't going to go in depth and make these distinctions because they are irrelevant and 99.9% of people wouldn't have a clue what they were talking about.

 

[Drakkith]

Then the beta active dirt on the skin, that is also not good. Then, the Sr-90 that accumulates in bones, and firstly you get the effect that it doesn't leave the body at all plus secondarily you get the effect that it irradiates bone marrow, which is more sensitive.
Read the definition of sievert:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert
The entire use of Sieverts there to describe radiation is a sort of pseudoscience. When they measure gamma only they should provide result in Gray and say it is gamma only that they measured, but not internal exposure. Radiation detectors do not measure in Sieverts. Dummies with radiation detectors inside measure Sieverts after a calculation and that's for external only.

This sort of lie really works unless you've been living in EU and you're aware of all the food testing measures, radioactive wild boars, etc etc. and you know that it is a lot more complex issue than japanese make it out to be.
That is not to say internal exposure will necessarily be significant. The level of internal exposure would depend greatly to the food standards they will set, and to the quality of and compliance with testing requirements. It is simply not possible to tell, to even guess at - it may be lot less than external exposure, or it may be a lot more.

Wow, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. Sievert isn't a measurement of the amount of radiation received. It is a measure of the biological harm inflicted by an amount of radiation. This depends greatly on the type of radiation received and takes into account the locations most affected by it. They talk about Sieverts because X amount of ionizing gamma radiation is less harmful than an equivalent amount of beta radiation on the body. So saying you received X amount of radiation wouldn't be an accurate means of determining potential bodily harm unless you used something like Sieverts.

Also, it is entirely possible to accurately track radiation in food and water and calculate the rate of internal absorption people will be exposed to. It is being done right now as we speak. Whether you believe it or not is your problem, and as we already know, you don't believe much of anything unless it agrees with your own views.

 

[pdObq]

In other words the military/industrial/nuclear/academic/political complex is synergistically poisoning us in 1000s of ways from the inside and outside while they mis- and disinform us.

I objected to being grouped with you by nuceng earlier merely because I object to that kind of "paint them all with the same brush" mentality regardless of who's doing it.

You are contradicting yourself big time.

 

[Dmytry]

Wow, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. Sievert isn't a measurement of the amount of radiation received.

Wasn't it what I implied when i said that radiation detectors do not measure in Sieverts?

It is a measure of the biological harm inflicted by an amount of radiation. This depends greatly on the type of radiation received and takes into account the locations most affected by it. They talk about Sieverts because X amount of ionizing gamma radiation is less harmful than an equivalent amount of beta radiation on the body.

Actually, beta and gamma have same weighting factor. Bone marrow and skin, however, do not.

So saying you received X amount of radiation wouldn't be an accurate means of determining potential bodily harm unless you used something like Sieverts.

it wouldn't be an accurate means of measuring potential body harm unless you actually calculated the conversion.
What they do, they report grays of external gamma exposure as sieverts of total exposure. It'll take actual measurements on the people's bodies to know their internal exposures, it depends greatly to diet and a zillion yet undetermined factors.
They, however, take the readings from a Geiger counter 'calibrated' in Sieverts (which is nonsense), and declare zone safe/unsafe based on that.
They are reporting it as Sieverts because it makes you (and people like you) think that they done the conversion.
And you are the one who has absolutely no idea.

 

[Dmytry]

It is not perfect

How much not perfect? Can you guess order of magnitude error % ?
It's a wonderful phrase, 'it is not perfect', applies equally to very accurate and very inaccurate estimates alike.

 

[Drakkith]

Wasn't it what I implied when i said that radiation detectors do not measure in Sieverts?

Yep, which makes it all the more ridiculous that you then claim that we shouldn't use sieverts.

Actually, beta and gamma have same weighting factor. Bone marrow and skin, however, do not.

Correct, I meant to put Alpha's there, not betas.

it wouldn't be an accurate means of measuring potential body harm unless you actually calculated the conversion.
What they do, they report grays of external gamma exposure as sieverts of total exposure. It'll take actual measurements on the people's bodies to know their internal exposures, it depends greatly to diet and a zillion yet undetermined factors.
They, however, take the readings from a Geiger counter 'calibrated' in Sieverts (which is nonsense), and declare zone safe/unsafe based on that alone.

Why is calibrating a geiger counter to sieverts nonsense? Whether they did it in grays or sieverts it would end up being used for the same thing. It makes perfect sense to me how they can use it to declare a zone safe or unsafe since it is directly measuring the radiation in the area.

 

[Susudake]

You are contradicting yourself big time.

It may seem contradictory, but it's not.

You're saying then that there is no such thing as this complex I refer to? So going back to Eisenhower's use of the term (minus the academic/political connections, granted), it's all a chimera?

How about debating the point, that'll be much more convincing.

 

[Drakkith]

How much not perfect? Can you guess order of magnitude error % ?
It's a wonderful phrase, 'it is not perfect', applies equally to very accurate and very inaccurate estimates alike.

Nothing is perfect. If you don't like it, too bad. The doses are estimated as best as possible using the available data. Whether you believe it is close enough to correct or not is irrelevant, as it is one of the few ways of getting the dose people have been exposed to.

 

[jlduh]

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/federal/techdocs.html

Estimates require both the dose and the contributing isotopes for internal doses. See FGR 11 and FGR12 for explanations how this is calculated. For internal sources a whole body scan can make accurate measurements of body burden. Personnal dosimetry usually monitors external or whole body dose. Offsite doses are estimated based on monitoring results. It is not perfect but can be useful in making decisions about evacuation zones, and identifying people who may need medical followup.

thanks, so can you just answer this question (if possible by a no or yes answer as a minimum, but you can then elaborate of course):

do the measurements in mSv/h used by Japanese government, which are then compared to certain "limits" (like the 20 mSv /year for children now) to inform people (through the press for example) about "risks" and take decisions (eg evacuating, or removing soil, or whatever), do these specific measurements, the way they are done, with the equipment they use, take ALSO into account internal exposures through inhalation and ingestion of the various isotopes (mainly I-131 and CS-137 of course, but also Strontium as it appeared recently this one is also a concern?

 

[Drakkith]

It may seem contradictory, but it's not.

You're saying then that there is no such thing as this complex I refer to? So going back to Eisenhower's use of the term (minus the academic/political connections, granted), it's all a chimera?

How about debating the point, that'll be much more convincing.

I'll say it. There isn't some big complex that you refer to. It is a way for people who don't understand how things work to blame everyone else. Your statements were 100% contradictory, and the fact that you don't even realize it only makes it worse.

 

[Dmytry]

Yep, which makes it all the more ridiculous that you then claim that we shouldn't use sieverts.

I'm saying that you shouldn't use numbers that are not in sieverts and call them sieverts. When you get 0.1 mSv in some medical procedure, rather complicated calculations have been done (it matters what tissues have been exposed).
When a geiger counter reads "0.01mSv/h" somewhere, it is extremely misleading. edit: Misleading both ways btw. Counter overcounts betas massively, so you can get a big scare when you find some mildly beta-radioactive crud, that'll make the counter click at insane rate, while the actual dose is much smaller than what it shows.

Why is calibrating a geiger counter to sieverts nonsense?

Because it (surprise surprise) doesn't even give you Grays accurate let alone Sieverts with the tissue type etc etc factors and internal exposure. and it does NOT convert betas correctly btw.

Whether they did it in grays or sieverts it would end up being used for the same thing. It makes perfect sense to me how they can use it to declare a zone safe or unsafe since it is directly measuring the radiation in the area.

sigh.
See, suppose we have two units. Centimetre, and biological centimetre equivalent, and there is a standard for the biological centimetre equivalent so that it depends to whenever you took your shoes off when you came home, to how often you take shower, and to what you eat. Then you see rulers, that by their very nature can only measure in centimetres, but they are labelled in biological centimetre equivalents.
Or better yet a fruit counter that counts apples, oranges, bananas, grapes, berries, watermelons, etc (it has some probabilities of missing grapes and berries depending to their size). You have it 'calibrated' in calories, and that is very misleading.

 

[NUCENG]

thanks, so can you just answer this question (if possible by a no or yes answer as a minimum, but you can then elaborate of course):

do the measurements in mSv/h used by Japanese government, which are then compared to certain "limits" (like the 20 mSv /year for children now) to inform people (through the press for example) about "risks" and take decisions (eg evacuating, or removing soil, or whatever), do these specific measurements, the way they are done, with the equipment they use, take ALSO into account internal exposures through inhalation and ingestion of the various isotopes (mainly I-131 and CS-137 of course, but also Strontium as it appeared recently this one is also a concern?

Yes, IF they are doing it correctly. Dmytry is discussing Grays and Sieverts and he is right that there is a distinction. A Gray is 1 J/kg of any substance. Sv are 1 J/kg equivalent dose. The links to FGR11 and FGR 12 explain whow a concentration of radiation in a cloud can be converted from Bq/kg, or Bq/cm^3 into an equivalent whole body dose in Sv accounting for inhalation, ingestion or simple external dose from the cloud, liquid, or contamination levels on surfaces. Limits for radiation workers, and the general puplic are expressed in Sieverts. In the United States we had limits on doses to the whole body, skin of the whole body extremities and there are also some guidelines for dose to thyroid and organs like bones and so on. The new standard now in use is TEDE (Total Effective Dose Equivalent). TEDE is the sum of Deep Dose Equivalent (Penetrating dose to the whole body) and CEDE (Committed Effective Dose Equivalent which is a combination of the internal effects of radiation to the organs.

 

[Susudake]

I'll say it. There isn't some big complex that you refer to.

So since you've stated that there isn't, in contradiction to many others (try the google, it's pretty cool), it's a fact. Right.

It is a way for people who don't understand how things work to blame everyone else. Your statements were 100% contradictory, and the fact that you don't even realize it only makes it worse.

I could say the exact same thing back at you. I'll add that based on what we've both written, I've demonstrated the capacity to consider that any thing I say may is subject to clarification by others, while you've made equally or more sweeping statements without even supporting your contentions, it's all opinion. So we've made the same errors but only one of us is--upon being made aware of them--willing to admit that even to himself.

I refuse to get dragged further into such a "debate." I guess you'll have to ignore what I write or continue to be annoyed.

And as to some of these exchanges being less than civil, I'd say that the magnitude of the situation should excuse some passionate exchanges as long as both parties are acting in good faith. FWIW I think you are, I just think you a) have blinders on and b) are rhetorically out of your depth.

I hesitate a bit to go here but I will: having interacted with a lot of artists as well as a lot of scientists/engineers over the years, I've noticed something: the former tend to readily admit the limits of their knowledge and the efficacy of their non-scientific way of looking at things, and thus defer to scientists when the issues at hand are scientific, whereas scientists, especially engineers, tend to presume that they have superior intellects providing them unparalleled insight into all fields of knowledge and endeavor including those messy, non-scientific ones like politics, economics, social questions, etc.

Moreover, they tend to exacerbate the consequences of the limitations of their way(s) of understanding the world around them by demonstrating a moderate to severe lack of tact in debating others; the above is a perfect example.

 

[Drakkith]

See, suppose we have two units. Centimetre, and biological centimetre equivalent, and there is a standard for the biological centimetre equivalent so that it depends to whenever you took your shoes off when you came home, to how often you take shower, and to what you eat. Then you see rulers, that by their very nature can only measure in centimetres, but they are labelled in biological centimetre equivalents.
Or better yet a fruit counter that counts apples, oranges, bananas, grapes, berries, watermelons, etc (it has some probabilities of missing grapes and berries depending to their size). You have it 'calibrated' in calories, and that is very misleading.

Bad comparison. The detector can easily be set ahead of time to predetermined parameters to make it into sieverts. And even IF the settings are a little off, you can easily determine the real sieverts if you need to by taking the values you got off the detector and plugging in additonal data.

I'm saying that you shouldn't use numbers that are not in sieverts and call them sieverts. When you get 0.1 mSv in some medical procedure, rather complicated calculations have been done (it matters what tissues have been exposed).

Yes, and that value will have different weight in the formula depending on the parts of the body that have been imaged. However, in the field you are looking at a total body exposure. Will it be as exact as a medical scan? Probably not. But the radiation isn't hitting one body part like a medical scan is, it is hitting all of you.

Because it (surprise surprise) doesn't even give you Grays accurate let alone Sieverts with the tissue type etc etc factors and internal exposure. and it does NOT convert betas correctly btw.

You can easily find the grays by reversing the formula you used to put the geiger counter in sieverts. And why doesn't it convert beta's correctly?

So since you've stated that there isn't, in contradiction to many others (try the google, it's pretty cool), it's a fact. Right.

Not in the way you are referring to it there isn't.

FWIW I think you are, I just think you a) have blinders on and b) are rhetorically out of your depth.

So? I don't care what you think about me.

I hesitate a bit to go here but I will: having interacted with a lot of artists as well as a lot of scientists/engineers over the years, I've noticed something: the former tend to readily admit the limits of their knowledge and the efficacy of their non-scientific way of looking at things, and thus defer to scientists when the issues at hand are scientific, whereas scientists, especially engineers, tend to presume that they have superior intellects providing them unparalleled insight into all fields of knowledge and endeavor including those messy, non-scientific ones like politics, economics, social questions, etc.

I've interacted with plentry of people as well. Most of them that DON'T have at least some small amount of scientific mindset don't have a clue how the world actually works. They tend to spew things such as "The government/big business/whatever they don't trust, is out to get them and everyone else and is evil or incompetent and can't ever be trusted at all".

Moreover, they tend to exacerbate the consequences of the limitations of their way(s) of understanding the world around them by demonstrating a moderate to severe lack of tact in debating others; the above is a perfect example.

Probably because of the difficulty in keeping tact for years of people who don't understand a word of what comes out of their mouths.

I could say the exact same thing back at you. I'll add that based on what we've both written, I've demonstrated the capacity to consider that any thing I say may is subject to clarification by others, while you've made equally or more sweeping statements without even supporting your contentions, it's all opinion. So we've made the same errors but only one of us is--upon being made aware of them--willing to admit that even to himself.

Nonsense, if I make a statement that is 100% about something that is immune to opinion, such as facts, numbers, ETC, and I'm incorrect, then I will immediately admit my mistake when I am made aware of it. The problem here is that 99% of this thread ISN'T about those kinds of things. It's about opinions. Even the title of the thread screams opinion.

 

[jlduh]

Back to a fact (i will express no opinion )

35 Japanese reactors are soon to be out of line

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_29.html

All told, 35, or about two-thirds, of Japan's commercial reactors will have been shut down by the end of May.

During the next few months, 5 more reactors will have to be shut down ahead of regular inspections.

If the utilities decide to keep these 40 reactors offline for the time being, Japan will have about 75 percent of its reactors shutdown this summer.

 

[jlduh]

and an other fact (but it's more for getting lighter here, even if the reality behind it is not fun for people concerned): the procedure for citizens to get compensation from Tepco seems as clear as their strategy for restoring the mess:

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/hosyou/images/flow-e.pdf

I wish good luck to these unfortunate people...

 

[Dmytry]

Yes, IF they are doing it correctly. Dmytry is discussing Grays and Sieverts and he is right that there is a distinction. A Gray is 1 J/kg of any substance. Sv are 1 J/kg equivalent dose. The links to FGR11 and FGR 12 explain whow a concentration of radiation in a cloud can be converted from Bq/kg, or Bq/cm^3 into an equivalent whole body dose in Sv accounting for inhalation, ingestion or simple external dose from the cloud, liquid, or contamination levels on surfaces. Limits for radiation workers, and the general puplic are expressed in Sieverts. In the United States we had limits on doses to the whole body, skin of the whole body extremities and there are also some guidelines for dose to thyroid and organs like bones and so on. The new standard now in use is TEDE (Total Effective Dose Equivalent). TEDE is the sum of Deep Dose Equivalent (Penetrating dose to the whole body) and CEDE (Committed Effective Dose Equivalent which is a combination of the internal effects of radiation to the organs.

But how accurate are those estimates? We all know them are imperfect; nothing is perfect; and so on and so forth. In science, each number has error range.
When you say it is imperfect, please tell how much do you think it is imperfect. The "imperfect measurement" is a tautology.

In my opinion it's at best 'within same order of magnitude' sort of estimate. The dose near a rain drain can be order of magnitude higher than average [not as dramatically as in the video where Geiger counter is counting betas, but still quite dramatically thanks to inverse square law], the long term inhalation (of the deposited material that re-enters air) is very dependent to the weather, etc. The doses that kids can get, well, god knows, kids play in dirt, some types of dirt chemically absorb Cs-137, some do not. The distribution of radioactivity is a fractal with high 'roughness', there's huge variability down to 1m distances.
Then the food testing, beyond limit food will slip through occasionally [you can't test everything, just randomly chosen samples], how often? How do you know in advance how often? And what is the distribution of the doses? Then, there's the issue of wood ashes... do they use wood for heating at all or not? In the tsunami aftermath? Then there's the issue of the wreckage cleanup work that has to be done. And so on and so forth, and that's the things that i'd guess can change dose by more than factor of 2, and there's probably a lot of other important things I missed. The contamination level of radioactive boars in EU varies immensely - a few boars are heavily contaminated, most are harmless [strongly non-gaussian distribution btw], not a good situation for random sampling based testing.

It is not enough to calculate 'to the best of your knowledge' in science. You need also to provide the error range, and ideally distribution of the errors. In engineering too - I believe you do have ranges for uncertain numbers?

re: Sievert vs Gray, it just irritates me immensely to see a Geiger counter that advertises it's giving out Sv. The bloody thing doesn't even do Grays on gamma very well, the thing overcounts betas - yet it proudly says microSieverts/hour.

 

[Drakkith]

Back to a fact (i will express no opinion )

35 Japanese reactors are soon to be out of line

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_29.html

Interesting. Hopefully they will fix any issues before they come back online. (If they are going to that is.)

 

[jlduh]

More contamination on the grass in towns outside of the evacuation zone, and far outside!

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_01.html

3,480 becquerels of radioactive cesium were detected in one kilogram of pasture grass collected on May 5th in Nikko City, Tochigi Prefecture. The figure exceeds the state limit of 300 becquerels. Also, at two different locations in Nasushiobara City, 3,600 becquerels and 860 becquerels of radioactive cesium respectively were detected in one kilogram of pasture grass collected on May 3rd.

Tochigi Prefecture requested farmers in the area where the radioactive substance was detected not to feed pasture grass to livestock.

NOTE THAT NIKKO CITY IS AT AROUND 170 kms FROM THE PLANT (SOUTH WEST) which is quite far... the other one is at around 100 kms same direction.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...8424,140.542603&spn=2.548084,6.696167&t=h&z=8

It seems that the winds are spreading the bad stuff in several directions, the North west has been severely touched, the South West could start to get the same scenario.

Over a long period of time (who knows when this crisis will be contained), we can fear that long life Cs-137 (ans maybe Strontium?) will accumulate here and there, like thin layers of small snow falls which would never melt and add weeks after weeks...

The only difference being this is invisible and dangerous snow...