http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Fukushima_and_Chernobyl_nuclear_accidents Maximum level of radiation detected Fukoshima: 72,900 mSv/h (Inside Reactor 2) Chernobyl: 300,000 mSv/h shortly after explosion in vicinity of the reactor core Radiation released Fukoshima: As of 2014, a peer reviewed estimate of the total was 340 to 800 PBq, with 80% falling into the pacific ocean. Chernobyl: 5,200 PBq Area affected Fukoshima: Radiation levels exceeding annual limits seen over 60 kilometres (37 mi) to northwest and 40 kilometres (25 mi) to south-southwest, according to officials. Chernobyl: An area up to 500 kilometres (310 mi) away contaminated, according to the United Nations Direct fatalities from the accident Fukoshima: 2 crew members (gone to inspect the buildings immediately after the earthquake and before the tsunami) due to drowning Chernobyl 31 (64 confirmed deaths from radiation as of 2008, according to the UN) Note that it is 22 years after Chernobyl. Prepare for a long and agonizing thread full of paranoia
Sorry Denny, there have been no accurate radiation levels released to the public in reference to Fukushima. All lies, baseless guesses and deliberate misdirection. 3 years now, and we continue to catch Tepco lying, lying, lying... Fukushima farce reveals nuclear industry's fatal flaw Keeping the lid on costs when the task is to keep the lid on a slow motion atomic explosion is an impossible challenge Once upon a time, when the nuclear industry was shiny and new, it simply burned uranium. Now, old and tarnished, it burns money. From the promise of nuclear electricity being too cheap to meter, we now have costs that are too great to count. At the site of the Fukushima meltdown in Japan, the government is being forced to spend over £200m on a fanciful-sounding underground ice wall in the latest desperate attempt to halt the radiation-contaminated water that is leaking into the sea. When mere stopgaps cost this much, it is clear any real solution will cost the earth. Japanese taxpayers have already had to bail out the operator Tepco to the tune of £6.5bn. The final clean up will cost tens of billions and take 40 years. Yet supporters maintain that nuclear power offers affordable low-carbon electricity and is a vital tool in the fight to curb climate change. The UK government, already spending most of its energy budget on nuclear clean up, has crashed through deadline after deadline in a fruitless search to find anybody willing to build new nuclear power stations at reasonable cost. The only serious players left in the game are those backed by the French, Chinese and Russian states, whose interest in power is as much political as electrical. Commercial companies have fled the scene. The fundamental reason why the price of nuclear power climbs each day as surely as the rising sun is a straightforward one. Keeping a lid on costs is impossible if the task in hand is keeping the lid on an exploding atomic bomb. For that is what a nuclear reactor is, a slow motion detonation. That intrinsic danger means that as each new risk to reactors is discovered, more and more expensive measures need to be put in place as mitigation. When accidents happen, as they will over a half century or more of operation, the intrinsic risk of radioactive materials means more money is piled on the bonfire to ensure the risk to the public is limited. The answer from the nuclear industry to all these criticisms is always the same: it will be different next time. But the rolling farce in Fukushima proves yet again the opposite. The only reliability the industry can offer is consistently breaking promises and busting budgets. Today, it was revealed that radiation levels by the tanks of contaminated cooling water at Fukushima are 2,200 millisieverts an hour - a level that could kill an unprotected person in hours – and 22 times higher than previously thought. Why were previous measurements so useless? Because, Tepco belatedly admitted, they were taken using equipment that could not record radiation levels above 100 millisieverts an hour. When you remember that this crass disregard for safety is occurring in one the most technologically advanced democracies in the world, the prospect of reactors proliferating around the world is alarming. But perhaps this time it really can be different. Just two of Japan's 50 working nuclear reactors are currently in operation and both are expected to be offline for maintenance by 15 September. That will leaving Japan without nuclear energy for only the second time in almost half a century. The UK government may at some point have to admit defeat in its attempts to start a nuclear renaissance. As the false nuclear dawn fades, a new brighter horizon may be revealed, where the intrinsically safe and therefore ultimately cheaper technologies of energy efficiency and renewable energy can used to build a power system fit for the 21st century, not one harking back to the 20th. http://www.theguardian.com/environm.../sep/04/fukushima-farce-nuclear-industry-flaw http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_...on-mishandle-disaster-nuclear-regulator-3740/
Wiki's number is highest recorded (relying on proven liar TEPCO) and has been completely discredited. My article's number is hourly release, so multiply it by 24 (hrs) and then multiply it again by about 1, 000 (days). And add it to the new total each hour for the rest of our lives...
If you want to fix WikiPedia, go for it. Be sure to edit the 72,900 mSv/h value and put in the 2,200 one you think is worse or more accurate or whatever.
Maybe you should stick to naming emoticons after me. With your inability to grasp math and English, funny animations are more your speed.
2200 is less than 79,000. The units are the same - PER HOUR. You're ranting on and on as if 2200 were the bigger number. :MARIS61:
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83397&tid=3622&cid=94989 Is radiation exposure still a concern? I stood on a ship two miles from the Fukushima reactors in June 2011 and as recently as May 2013, and it was safe to be there (I carry radiation detectors with me) and collect samples of all kinds (water, sediment, biota). Although radioactive isotopes in the samples and on the ship were measurable back in our lab, it was low enough to be safe to handle samples without any precautions. In fact, our biggest problem is filtering out natural radionuclides in our samples so we can measure the trace levels of cesium and other radionuclides that we know came from Fukushima. Will radiation be of concern along U.S. and Canadian coasts? Levels of any Fukushima contaminants in the ocean will be many thousands of times lower after they mix across the Pacific and arrive on the West Coast of North America some time in late 2013 or 2014. This is not to say that we should not be concerned about additional sources of radioactivity in the ocean above the natural sources, but at the levels expected even short distances from Japan, the Pacific will be safe for boating, swimming, etc.
The brave man stood on a ship which passed at its closest 2 miles for a few minutes. The brave man lived to brag about it. Hallelujah. Did he drink from the water supply passing under Ground Zero? Is he willing to be one of the hundreds of thousands of security guards who will prevent people from getting any closer than 2 miles over the next 10,000 years?
No need for a tanning salon when you can spend a day on the beach...this famous one... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053137/
Brave man? The guy is perhaps the leading expert on the spread of radiation from both Chernobyl and Fukushima. Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. But yeah, take Maris' word instead. Or maybe there's a movie you can point to as if it were a documentary. Chernobyl Diaries, perhaps? EDIT: My bad, you already did point to a work of fiction. Nice!
Now you're attacking the American motion picture industry? The industry which is our last hope to solve the Reagan-induced problem in our nation's balance of trade deficit? Here's an American-made movie which I, and all American people I knew back when respect and honesty reigned unmolested, enjoyed on the magnificent big screen, regardless of your squalid protests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_of_the_Triffids_(film)
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/12/24/fukushima-cesium-60694/ Summary: As usual, the internet buzzes with fear-mongering about the radiation released from the Fukushima reactors. Here’s a note from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute that puts this in context. ... “Dilution due to ocean mixing should be enough to cause a decrease in concentration down to background levels within a short period of time,” Buesseler told his audience at the Fukushima and the Ocean conference in November 2012. “Yet all the data we have show that measurements around the site remain elevated to this day at up to 1,000 becquerels per cubic meter.” “A thousand becquerels is not a big number for cesium. Just for comparison, that’s lower than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s limit for drinking water. At that level, Buesseler stressed, the cesium in Japanese coastal waters is safe for marine life and for human exposure. “It’s not direct exposure we have to worry about, but possible incorporation into the food chain,” he said. That, and the ongoing high levels of radioactive cesium. “The fact that they have leveled off and remained higher than they were before the accident tells us there is a small but continuous source from the reactor site.” http://www.livescience.com/38844-fukushima-radioactive-water-leaks.html "For fish that are harvested 100 miles [160 kilometers] out to sea, I doubt it’d be a problem," said Nicholas Fisher, a marine biologist at Stony Brook University in Stony Brook, N.Y. "But in the region, yes, it's possible there could be sufficient contamination of local seafood so it'd be unwise to eat that seafood." The overall contamination of ocean life by the Fukushima meltdown still remains very low compared with the effects of naturally occurring radioactivity and leftover contamination from U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons testing in the 1960s. Fisher said he’d be "shocked" if the ongoing leaks of contaminated water had a significant impact on the ocean ecosystems.
Of course it is dangerous to be right at the spot where the radiation is. I'm not at all claiming that there is that sort of safety. The good news is that the people who are near the radiation are trained to deal with it; the rest have long been evacuated. The National Academy of Sciences published this in their June 2013 newsletter: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/26/10670.full.pdf html This study shows that the committed effective dose received by humans based on a year’s average consumption of contaminated PBFT from the Fukushima accident is comparable to, or less than, the dose we routinely obtain from naturally occurring radio- nuclides in many food items, medical treatments, air travel, or other background sources (28). Although uncertainties remain regarding the effects of low levels of ionizing radiation on humans (30), it is clear that doses and resulting cancer risks associated with con- sumption of PBFT in eastern and western Pacific waters are low and below levels that should cause concern to even the most exposed segments of human populations. Fears regarding envi- ronmental radioactivity, often a legacy of Cold War activities and distrust of governmental and scientific authorities, have resulted in perception of risks by the public that are not commensurate with actual risks.
