Japanese Nuclear Emergency: Radiation Monitoring

[Ben J. Gromicko]

Japanese Nuclear Emergency: Radiation Monitoring

http://epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-data-map.html

Not much activity in Colorado. How about where you are?

[Michael Larson]

Does anyone see a change?

[Ben J. Gromicko]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Does anyone see a change?

http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/ra...data.html#milk
something's going on with Hawaii milk.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by bgromicko

http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/ra...data.html#milk
something's going on with Hawaii milk.

Ben, I'm pretty sure you know better than to spread fear without facts.

The toxicity is in the dose.

The milk sampling results are far below the Food and Drug Administration's Derived Intervention Level for iodine-131 in milk. These types of findings are to be expected in the coming days and are far below levels of public health concern, including for infants and children. Iodine-131 has a very short half-life of approximately eight days, and the level detected in milk and milk products is therefore expected to drop relatively quickly.

[Ben J. Gromicko]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Ben, I'm pretty sure you know better than to spread fear without facts. The toxicity is in the dose.

The fact is: The only thing I fear is that "Gold Rush: Alaska, Season 2" might be delayed because of this event.

Emissions of radioactive iodine-131 and cesium-137 are being measured internationally.

Japan has released about 500,000 terabecquerels of radiation from iodine-131 into the atmosphere since the crisis began.

That exceeds the Level 7 threshold of the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale of several tens of thousands of terabecquerels of iodine-131.

How's that song go? ... What comes up, must come down.

[Michael Larson]

Fukushima is no Chernobyl, IAEA says as level raised

Date: Tuesday Apr. 12, 2011 9:08 AM PT

Though Japan has raised the severity level of the Fukushima nuclear accident to that of the Chernobyl disaster, nuclear experts say the two incidents are vastly different.

On Tuesday, Japanese officials declared the crisis at the Fukushima plant a "major accident," and changed its severity rating from 5 to 7 -- the highest level on an international scale overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

But a senior official with the IAEA said the rating change does not mean the Japan situation is comparable to Chernobyl.

"This is a totally different accident," the IAEA's Denis Flory told a news conference

To put that into perspective, the Chernobyl incident released 5.2 million terabecquerels into the air -- about 10 times that of the Fukushima plant, the Japanese government said.

[Tim Spargo]

How does this or it's affects likely change in 30, 60 days or a year? What is there to compare to?

[Ben J. Gromicko]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Fukushima is no Chernobyl, IAEA says as level raised

So, Japan is raised to 7, but the government says "It's a different kind of 7."
Oh, dear.
Whenever I hear governments 'downplaying' events, it makes me pause.

When Chernobyl blew up, officials downplayed the catastrophe, and misinformation continued. For years, major environmental organizations have accused officials of 'whitewashing' Chernobyl's impact.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by bgromicko

So, Japan is raised to 7, but the government says "It's a different kind of 7."
Oh, dear.
Whenever I hear governments 'downplaying' events, it makes me pause.

When Chernobyl blew up, officials downplayed the catastrophe, and misinformation continued. For years, major environmental organizations have accused officials of 'whitewashing' Chernobyl's impact.

Yes it is serious just as the 7 suggests but it the difference between loosing 1 limb or 4.

Wake me up when radiation is found that somewhere other than Japan that has harmed anyone.

Maybe you have no idea how much radiation of put in the air and sea before the test ban treaties..

Read some history fella.

The following graph shows how Sr-90 concentrations in milk measured by RadNet's predecessor ERAMS's data also correspond to blast yields. The the highest Sr-90 concentrations in pasteurized milk, seen in 1963, follow the intensive nuclear weapons testing of 1961-1962. After the majority of above-ground nuclear tests ceased in 1963, the Sr-90 level in pasteurized milk dropped sharply. Because other countries continued a small number of above-ground tests, the Sr-90 level reached a plateau rather than disappearing. Since the last above ground nuclear test in 1980, the Sr-90 in milk has steadily decreased as the radionuclide has decayed away.



http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/rert/nuclearblast.html

[Ben J. Gromicko]

Originally Posted by mlarson

...
Wake me up when radiation is found that somewhere other than Japan that has harmed anyone.
....

Read some history fella.

Ah, yes... The cry of the '30s Isolationists.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by bgromicko

Ah, yes... The cry of the '30s Isolationists.

What are you talking about?

I am simply comparing the amount of radiation release during Nuke weapons development.

The Japan radiation release is a pittance in comparison.

How many died from all that Nuke testing above, below and at sea? Hmmm?

And I am no isolationist or anti nuke greenie..

Perhaps you are thinking of our friend from FL.

[Gary Farnsworth]

I have yet to see the big deal in this. Radon and radiation is actually good for you:

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2143

[Michael Larson]

MORE FEAR MONGERING FEW FACTS

This is meant to scare people who are not informed enough to know what it means.

Please don't be duped.

If you don't understand why this is a non issue please do some research on unsafe dose levels and the half life of fission products.

Or you could just stop drinking milk