8.9 Magnitude Earthquake Hits Japan + Tsunami and Alerts

Quoting myself from another forum:

Just donated.

I shed some man tears from the news footage and pictures, some of it was pretty hard to look at.

Exposed to what? What exactly is exposed?

If you read the sentence, you'd see that I said the fuel rods are exposed.
Anyway, a lot happened while I was asleep, including a second explosion. I'm going to go read some news and come back after I've digested it.

Edit:
More Bad news:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/radioac...ower-plant

Pentagon officials reported Sunday that helicopters flying 60 miles from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant picked up small amounts of radioactive particulates

The two radioactive isotopes can mean only one thing: One or more of the reactor cores is badly damaged and at least partially melted down.

The build-up of hydrogen caused reactor no. 3 to explode at around 02:00 GMT but the government's top spokesman, Yukio Edano, said its core was still intact. He said there was a "low possibility" of a rise in radiation levels near the damaged plant.

I just have to say, I think the Japanese government wants to cover some of this up for one reason or another.I could be crazy, but it might be possible that Japan has had a history of cover ups.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/...ion=justin

"They had to shut down 17 plants in 2003 because they'd been falsifying the records about what had been happening at them," he said.

"Now the accidents weren't of a major nature. They weren't anything like what's going on in Fukushima.

"But they were serious in the sense that lives were threatened, systems broke down, there were failures to report and there were cover-ups. People pretended things hadn't happened."

"Well it depends how you define major. It's the first partial meltdown. That's fair enough. But there have been serious accidents where people have been killed and injured," he said.

"Maybe one of the most spectacular was the collapse of the cooling system of Japan's first commercial fast breeder reactor which is on the coast, on the opposite coast to the Pacific coast over on the Japan Sea side.

"A place called Monju, which in 1995 sprang a leak in its liquid sodium cooling system which made the whole thing absolutely red hot and had to be shut down immediately and stayed shut down until the beginning of last year - 15 years."

"It should have been shut down years ago because it's 40 years old this month."

I'm starting to think that this will be like Katrina - many of the issues could have been prevented if the government wasnt so incompetent.

If you read the sentence, you'd see that I said the fuel rods are exposed.

And if you have read mine, you would understand that there are various environments for the fuel rods to be exposed to, some dangerous, some not. Even the fuel rods themselves are not dangerous when exposed to direct contact, because once it becomes dangerous (having the uranium core exposed), it's not about the fuel rods anymore.

The quotes from your posts reeks propaganda as well.
>> "People have been injured and died."
Who have? The operators at the plant? An innocent citizen who happened to be sitting on top of the plant's chimney? Any lucky citizen in a nearby city?
Just saying "people have died" seems to be enough to wage fear in anyone's mind.

And if you have read mine, you would understand that there are various environments for the fuel rods to be exposed to, some dangerous, some not.

With radiation being detected 60 miles away, and two explosions being reported, I'd think this is rather dangerous.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/na...uke14.html

Edit: and fuel rods have/are at risk of melting.

I found information from one of the people that assisted in building the power plants:

Japanese engineer Masashi Goto, who helped design the containment vessel for Fukushima's reactor core, says the design was not enough to withstand earthquakes or tsunamis and the plant's builders, Toshiba, knew this. More on Mr Goto's remarks to follow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698

With radiation being detected 60 miles away, and two explosions being reported, I'd think this is rather dangerous.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/na...uke14.html

> Small amount
How much? You can get radiation from mineral water too, just saying.

Out of 16 paragraphs in that article, only ONE pertained to the particular topic of RADIATION DETECTED, the rest was just gibberish about their own guesses PLUS hypothetical case scenarios. No useful information was given, no particular amount of radiation, only "small", no information on the elements found, their half-lives, the particles they're going to break into, etc.. Stuff that, you know, an average readers wouldn't know off the top of their heads BUT reporters should have access to.

The article simply screamed: "HEY GUYZ GUESS WHAT, WE FOUND RADIATION AROUND THE PLANT SO IT MUST BE REALLY BAD CAUSE YOU SEE, RADIATION IS BAD. NOW WE'RE GOING TO TELL YOU EXACTLY HOW BAD. SCARED? OH WAIT WE HAVEN'T CONCLUDED YET SO STAY TUNED."

I found information from one of the people that assisted in building the power plants:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698

Of course it is not, we already know that. The plant was built with an earthquake of 8.1 magnitude in mind, not 8.9.

> Small amount
How much? You can get radiation from mineral water too, just saying.

Out of 16 paragraphs in that article, only ONE pertained to the particular topic of RADIATION DETECTED, the rest was just gibberish about their own guesses PLUS hypothetical case scenarios. No useful information was given, no particular amount of radiation, only "small", no information on the elements found, their half-lives, the particles they're going to break into, etc.. Stuff that, you know, an average readers wouldn't know off the top of their heads BUT reporters should have access to.

The article simply screamed: "HEY GUYZ GUESS WHAT, WE FOUND RADIATION AROUND THE PLANT SO IT MUST BE REALLY BAD CAUSE YOU SEE, RADIATION IS BAD. NOW WE'RE GOING TO TELL YOU EXACTLY HOW BAD. SCARED? OH WAIT WE HAVEN'T CONCLUDED YET SO STAY TUNED."

When they say "we've detected radiation" It means that radiation above the levels of normal background radiation is detected and/or abnormal radioactive isotopes are detected.
and most news articles always go over a variety of information. Its not an uncommon practice that you a reticuling.

Edit: Reread the article. They said small amounts of radioactive particles where found 60 miles away. Of course, the exact interpretation of small can vary and it doesnt say much about the exact level of radiation and nothing is said about conditions closer to the plants..

When they say "we've detected radiation" It means that radiation above the levels of normal background radiation is detected and/or abnormal radioactive isotopes are detected.

I can't seem to stress this enough but BY HOW MUCH? If they have the means to KNOW that it is above normal levels, they surely have an idea how much above it is, no? Why didn't they disclose that information? Is it, by default, assumed that it is "dangerously" above?

So I tell you I'm going to teach you to cook chicken noodles during our 20 minute class, then spend 3 mins on the actual chicken noodles and the rest on whatever the pineapple I please, that is normal?
It IS acceptable for the reporter to include his own interpretations of the facts, his opinions, his assumptions, but only after adequate information has been reported. Remember the alien toxic-eating lifeform? I guess it's a norm nowadays to dedicate only 1/16th the length of an article for factual information.

I hardly find that "variety", though it IS indeed varied.

I can't seem to stress this enough but BY HOW MUCH? If they have the means to KNOW that it is above normal levels, they surely have an idea how much above it is, no? Why didn't they disclose that information? Is it, by default, assumed that it is "dangerously" above?

How much isnt stated. However, I have to ask one thing. However, it is definite that the fact that these isotopes being released into the air is not a good thing at all, and it only takes a small amount of radiation to create an issue (and as I've said, this makes me wonder how bad this could be closer to the power plants)/

Also keep in mind that these isotopes are not suppose to be released into the air, and this disaster is not over with yet. The power plants are all still at risk of more expolsions and meltdowns.

It IS acceptable for the reporter to include his own interpretations of the facts, his opinions, his assumptions, but only after adequate information has been reported. Remember the alien toxic-eating lifeform? I guess it's a norm nowadays to dedicate only 1/16th the length of an article for factual information.

You are misrepresenting the article. The first paragraph states that radioactive isotops have been detected 60 miles away. Then it goes on about other related information to Japan's current nuclear crisis. In fact, I'll just post the whole article here to show that you are misrepresenting it.

Pentagon officials reported Sunday that helicopters flying 60 miles from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant picked up small amounts of radioactive particulates — still being analyzed, but presumed to include cesium-137 and iodine-121 — suggesting widening environmental contamination.

The detection of the highly radioactive elements heralds the beginning of an ecological and human tragedy. The two radioactive isotopes can mean only one thing: One or more of the reactor cores is badly damaged and at least partially melted down.

Japanese reactor operators now have little choice but to periodically release radioactive steam until the radioactive elements in the fuel of the stricken reactors stop generating intense heat, a process that can continue for a year or more even after fission has stopped.

In the best case, operators will pump enough seawater and other coolants to squelch overheating. Such a success would prevent further releases of radiation beyond the unknown amount spewed into the air by controlled venting and the explosion of a reactor containment building.

In such a scenario, the only casualties would probably be the handful of plant workers reported Sunday to be suffering from acute radiation sickness.

If the last-ditch efforts to cool the reactors fail, the heavy cylindrical cores — each containing tons of radioactive fuel — could flare to hotter than 4,000 degrees and melt through the layers of steel and cement engineered to contain them.

Such a meltdown may be under way, said Arnie Gundersen, chief engineer at the consulting firm Fairewinds Associates. Gundersen helps oversee the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, whose reactors are the same vintage and design as those of the stricken Japanese reactor.

If a full meltdown occurs, a huge molten lump of radioactive material would burn through all containment, destroy the building and fall to the ground, exposed. A toxic stew of exotic radioactive particles would then spread on the wind and rain.

On Sunday, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the prevailing winds at Daiichi are blowing to the northeast, out to sea, and should continue to do so for the next three days.

Such emissions would not endanger the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced Sunday. Given the thousands of miles between the countries, the danger could simply dissipate over the Pacific.

It's impossible to know how a plume of radioactivity traveling over the ocean might affect sea life, said Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which strongly opposes nuclear power. Lyman said that simulations he has run on possible nuclear disasters in the U.S. estimate "tens of thousands of cancer deaths" from a total meltdown.

A 2005 census counted 103 million people on Honshu, including the population of Tokyo, which lies 150 miles to the southwest of Fukushima Daiichi.



Lyman's simulations, which rely on NRC computer code, show unfavorable winds could spread radioactivity far beyond the 12.5-mile evacuation zone, much like Chernobyl in 1986.

In that disaster, a reactor exploded and a fire raged for 10 days, sending radioactive particles hundreds of miles. There is some scientific consensus that at least 6,000 to 7,000 excess cases of thyroid cancer have occurred in the 25 years since.

The increased thyroid cancer was the result of the kind of broad food-chain contamination that can arise from a nuclear incident. Cows ate grass exposed to iodine-131 and then produced radioactively hazardous milk that was unknowingly fed to children, who are most at risk.

Now what in this article us untruthful or completely irrelevant to the issues in japan?

However, it is definite that the fact that these isotopes being released into the air is not a good thing at all, and it only takes a small amount of radiation to create an issue (and as I've said, this makes me wonder how bad this could be closer to the power plants)/

See this? This is exactly what they want people to think. Radioactive materials break down into smaller particles (yes, different elements from the mendeleev tables) after a certain amount of time called half-life, which is various from element to element. Some have half-lives of thousands of years while others disappear into THIN AIR before you can complete a sneeze.

I, too, would like to know the real risk I am subject to. But no, I can't have that because reporters pineappleing want me to think I am about to die and should keep tuning in their channel for more information, which they keep hanging away from my mouth like the pineappleing Bigfoot in MapleStory.

Pentagon officials reported Sunday that helicopters flying 60 miles from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant picked up small amounts of radioactive particulates — still being analyzed, but presumed to include cesium-137 and iodine-121 — suggesting widening environmental contamination.

The detection of the highly radioactive elements heralds the beginning of an ecological and human tragedy. The two radioactive isotopes can mean only one thing: One or more of the reactor cores is badly damaged and at least partially melted down.

Japanese reactor operators now have little choice but to periodically release radioactive steam until the radioactive elements in the fuel of the stricken reactors stop generating intense heat, a process that can continue for a year or more even after fission has stopped.

In the best case, operators will pump enough seawater and other coolants to squelch overheating. Such a success would prevent further releases of radiation beyond the unknown amount spewed into the air by controlled venting and the explosion of a reactor containment building.

In such a scenario, the only casualties would probably be the handful of plant workers reported Sunday to be suffering from acute radiation sickness.

If the last-ditch efforts to cool the reactors fail, the heavy cylindrical cores — each containing tons of radioactive fuel — could flare to hotter than 4,000 degrees and melt through the layers of steel and cement engineered to contain them.

Such a meltdown may be under way, said Arnie Gundersen, chief engineer at the consulting firm Fairewinds Associates. Gundersen helps oversee the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, whose reactors are the same vintage and design as those of the stricken Japanese reactor.

If a full meltdown occurs, a huge molten lump of radioactive material would burn through all containment, destroy the building and fall to the ground, exposed. A toxic stew of exotic radioactive particles would then spread on the wind and rain.

On Sunday, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the prevailing winds at Daiichi are blowing to the northeast, out to sea, and should continue to do so for the next three days.

Such emissions would not endanger the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced Sunday. Given the thousands of miles between the countries, the danger could simply dissipate over the Pacific.

It's impossible to know how a plume of radioactivity traveling over the ocean might affect sea life, said Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which strongly opposes nuclear power. Lyman said that simulations he has run on possible nuclear disasters in the U.S. estimate "tens of thousands of cancer deaths" from a total meltdown.

A 2005 census counted 103 million people on Honshu, including the population of Tokyo, which lies 150 miles to the southwest of Fukushima Daiichi.



Lyman's simulations, which rely on NRC computer code, show unfavorable winds could spread radioactivity far beyond the 12.5-mile evacuation zone, much like Chernobyl in 1986.

In that disaster, a reactor exploded and a fire raged for 10 days, sending radioactive particles hundreds of miles. There is some scientific consensus that at least 6,000 to 7,000 excess cases of thyroid cancer have occurred in the 25 years since.

The increased thyroid cancer was the result of the kind of broad food-chain contamination that can arise from a nuclear incident. Cows ate grass exposed to iodine-131 and then produced radioactively hazardous milk that was unknowingly fed to children, who are most at risk.

Responded in bold and blue. It got boring after a while.

See this? This is exactly what they want people to think. Radioactive materials break down into smaller particles (yes, different elements from the mendeleev tables) after a certain amount of time called half-life, which is various from element to element. Some have half-lives of thousands of years while others disappear into THIN AIR before you can complete a sneeze.

I, too, would like to know the real risk I am subject to. But no, I can't have that because reporters pineappleing want me to think I am about to die and should keep tuning in their channel for more information, which they keep hanging away from my mouth like the pineappleing Bigfoot in MapleStory.

It is not just a matter of half-lives. Its also a matter of the concentration of the radioactive material and it's toxicity. With all factors included, instant levels of radiation could be fatal, and even 22 years later radiation could remain excessive.
For example, after 22 years Chernobyl had a background radiation 200 times above the normal levels.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/3...4592.shtml

Just to add, from what I've heard, most international agencies or organizations that specialize in nuclear energy and plantations, have mostly said that the levels and near the nuclear reactors are 100-700 times greater than normal, but those numbers aren't incredibly hazardous. Right now the situation is bad, but not to the point where people will die from radiation sickness. Can it get worse? Sure, but right now, in all the chaos, I would say that we can't really trust any source regarding the levels of radiation near Fukushima Daichi.

It is not just a matter of half-lives. Its also a matter of the concentration of the radioactive material and it's toxicity.

Isn't that what I've been trying to tell you? Why exactly was such information kept away from the readers? Could I be too far from right in assuming that they aren't positive towards the goal of the article?

Just to add, from what I've heard, most international agencies or organizations that specialize in nuclear energy and plantations, have mostly said that the levels and near the nuclear reactors are 100-700 times greater than normal, but those numbers aren't incredibly hazardous. Right now the situation is bad, but not to the point where people will die from radiation sickness. Can it get worse? Sure, but right now, in all the chaos, I would say that we can't really trust any source regarding the levels of radiation near Fukushima Daichi.

Although, many people are suffering from radiation sickness. I posted earlier that at least 3 people where hospitalized for radiation sickness. I'll see if I can find a more recent article with more recent numbers.

@above: Its a little hard to tell, possibly because the Japanese government is (and as reported has had a history of) covering up information on these plants. At least one was, interestingly enough, too old to be safely operating anyway.

And my main concern here is a second Chernobyl. Overall, nuclear power has a very clean history, with only one major blemish from human error. My greatest fear is that this event will be a combination of katrina and chernobyl (incompetence an neglegence combined with a natural disaster).

@above: Its a little hard to tell, possibly because the Japanese government is (and as reported has had a history of) covering up information on these plants. At least one was, interestingly enough, too old to be safely operating anyway.

What part of scientific information has to do with governmental information control?

"The Japanese are being sneaky about its cover-ups, so we aren't really sure how much radiation we detected, nor do we know how harmful cesium-137 and iodine-121 are, and how. But it's better to be safe than sorry so you should think they are!"

Sorry, I can't care less about a government's cover-ups at this time, because why now of all the time? That's what they do for a living, they hide pomegranate. I care about what they DID detect, how much of it, how exactly harmful it REALISTICALLY is. But again, I can't ask for too much.

What part of scientific information has to do with governmental information control?

"The Japanese are being sneaky about its cover-ups, so we aren't really sure how much radiation we detected, nor do we know how harmful cesium-137 and iodine-121 are, and how. But it's better to be safe than sorry so you should think they are!"

Sorry, I can't care less about a government's cover-ups at this time, because why now of all the time? That's what they do for a living, they hide pomegranate.

I'm sick of these logical fallacies around here. You just created a strawman and ignored the fact that I posted an article that makes the claim that the Japanese government has been covering up problems with their plants for decades.

They cant argue with scientific facts. However, other specific information to this disaster can be covered up or at least dilluted.

I'm sick of these logical fallacies around here. You just created a strawman and ignored the fact that I posted an article that makes the claim that the Japanese government has been covering up problems with their plants for decades.

They cant argue with scientific facts. However, other specific information to this disaster can be covered up or at least dilluted.

You can hate the government all you want, I'm not backing it up. What I want is just my information, and NONE of the fear-mongering. I'm not thinking it is okay because the government said so. I think it is okay because journal agencies are still trying to benefit off it as much as they can.

Besides, what strawman? You seem to like strawmen a lot. I blatantly admitted my agreement on your accusation a government's way of working, despite my lack of knowledge on how they actually work.

You can hate the government all you want, I'm not backing it up. What I want is just my information, and NONE of the fear-mongering.

And I've been doing my damnedest to find all the information I can, but overall it is rather difficult.

and its hard to completely remove "fear-mongering" as the media inject fear into everything (its what they live off of... that and destroying celebrity lives), whether it is something we should be afraid of or not. Its what they do, and what I filter out as I skim for the facts.

and its hard to completely remove "fear-mongering" as the media inject fear into everything (its what they live off of... that and destroying celebrity lives), whether it is something we should be afraid of or not. Its what they do, and what I filter out as I skim for the facts.

Oh really now.

http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20110312D12JFF03.htm

Looks like we have our Meltdown.

Edit: I should add that either way there is a severe danger, especially with the cooling systems failing and the fuel rods of many reactors being exposed.

Which, if you remember, is the exact thing that got me going.

And my main concern here is a second Chernobyl. Overall, nuclear power has a very clean history, with only one major blemish from human error. My greatest fear is that this event will be a combination of katrina and chernobyl (incompetence an neglegence combined with a natural disaster).

It really is amazing how little the two have in common...

I'll state first off that there is zero chance of anything remotely as bad as Chernobyl happening. It is physically not possible for this reactor.

Second, there's no sign of incompetence or negligence here. They've been extremely proactive in trying every possible measure to keep the reactor safe.

I'm not sure what you mean about "too old to be safely operating". Reactor 1 was indeed originally scheduled to be taken offline this month - but an inspection earlier this year ratified that it could operate safely for another decade. Sounds safe to me.




Also, are you prepared to share the blame when your FUD causes more deaths than the radioactivity itself? One old man has already died of fright, which is one death more than has been caused by the accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi.

Second, there's no sign of incompetence or negligence here. They've been extremely proactive in trying every possible measure to keep the reactor safe. One statement about one reactor wont always apply to a different reactor.


I'm not sure what you mean about "too old to be safely operating". Reactor 1 was indeed originally scheduled to be taken offline this month - but an inspection earlier this year ratified that it could operate safely for another decade. Sounds safe to me.

Also, are you prepared to share the blame when your FUD causes more deaths than the radioactivity itself? One old man has already died of fright, which is one death more than has been caused by the accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi.

Does everyone realize that there are 3 plants at risk, all with multiple reactors? All with, now, varying risks and conditions? Everyone is acting like this is only one reactor or one plant.

Second, This is incompetence:

"They had to shut down 17 plants in 2003 because they'd been falsifying the records about what had been happening at them," he said."
How is this not wrong? How is this properly maintaining the plants?

"But they were serious in the sense that lives were threatened, systems broke down, there were failures to report and there were cover-ups. People pretended things hadn't happened."
And this event was of a serious nature.

"Maybe one of the most spectacular was the collapse of the cooling system of Japan's first commercial fast breeder reactor which is on the coast, on the opposite coast to the Pacific coast over on the Japan Sea side.
Yet another disaster in Japan.


"A place called Monju, which in 1995 sprang a leak in its liquid sodium cooling system which made the whole thing absolutely red hot and had to be shut down immediately and stayed shut down until the beginning of last year - 15 years."
How this competent?

"It should have been shut down years ago because it's 40 years old this month."
And once again, this plant is too old.
And just because random inspector number 60 says "its safe" doesnt mean it's safe. For example, the EPA in America claimed the air in NY after 9/11 was safe to breathe. Guess what. They lied, and people are still suffering and dying from the toxic dust today.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/...ion=justin

Once again, all you do is ignore the facts with no less than pathetic excusses.
Also, if you knew anything about nuclear radiation, you'd know that in most cases it takes time for radiation poisoning to kill and it's effects last decades. It will take time for us to start seeing the death toll from radiation.
Regarding the man that died of fright, link?