Talk:Radiation effects from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster/Archive 1

Archive 1

Intro + Timeline

Thanks for splitting. Intro is too long and mostly a useful timeline. But then Intro will be quite short. Sexandlove (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

you're welcome and right. It's mostly a timeline and needs a good abstract-like first paragraph... I think also separate sections on water quality and food quality would be good... L.tak (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Distribution outside Japan - Distribution by Sea

This section raises many questions. Understandably it has few answers; it appropriately discusses there may be years til we understand sea-borne impact on other shores. Nevertheless, to keep it in perspective, there must be some quantitative analysis about how much radiation escaped as input to the sea. Also, of the sea-borne radiation: in which direction is it likely to travel? And as it travels: how much is likley to be harmlessly released in an environment where humans are not affected (the pacific is large and largely unpopulated, and many half lives are not that great)?; and how much is likley to be harmfully released in an environment where non-humans are affected? Raising of more questions in this situation is appropriate: the whole world is watching and can very easily become anxious about their food supply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.154.93 (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Radiation to seawater is of great importance for this incident; distractive analysis focuses on the airborne radiation ... as long as the emination of radiation from the reactors is predominantly seaborne, this view should focus on that seaborne channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.154.93 (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My observations and issues about the article

Ugh. I think this article needs a lot more work. I find it misleading to provide things like a table that claims to show the published radiation locations and values, because that's soooo no a complete view. There are lots of continuous streams of radiation readings with titanic amounts of data, but there are a finite number of organizations and coherent detector networks that would be more effective for Wikipedia to identify and relay to the public. One thing the article does well is to give referenced information about interpretations of the data being taken and proliferated, but it doesn't do a good job at all of organizing what data is out there about the incident. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Pff, agreed and you show exactly my hesitation to do much incremental changes, as I think a step-change is needed. I think the way to organize it is through making sections for the different compartments/locations (air on site, air outside, drinking water and seawater) and describe what is needed. Furhtermore, I'd like a section interpreting what was measured (e.g. are there isotopes or isotope ratios indicative of venting, recent criticality or emissions resulting from breach of containment)... L.tak (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed quite a lot to have sections on the different compartments etc, but still much info is not in. The most urgently missing is a comprehensive section on the exposure within 30 km-range (only briefly addressed now), a section on air exposure outside that range (probably rel. short as levels were rel. low). Furthermore, something should be done on the table with reported doses. With so many reported doses now, I think it should be either scrapped, limited in scope (... during the first days) or strongly expanded... But I am going to sleep now! L.tak (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Radiation chart is misleading.

The chart shows that Ramsar has a radiation level of 260 mSV. That's the absolute maximum. A more reasonable number to report would be the average dosage in the town of 10.2 mSv/year which makes a lot more sense, considering that everyone in that town is not falling over dead with cancer. Like wise in Kerala, India that average is only 2.6 mSv/year. Reporting only the extreme numbers gives the impression that such levels are safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaptorHunter (talk • contribs) 20:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're talking about now. That might be a fair revision to make, but I don't agree with your point about conveying what is safe versus not safe. It's not for us to say what is safe. I don't think that 10.2 mSv/year is safe, so what? Doesn't mean we shouldn't put it. To the extent that the 260 is not supported by the facts, the a note on the graph recognizing the context or a revision of the number would be appropriate. I believe the appropriate source page for the image is here, and that's where I'd recommend bringing it up, but altering the image in the ways I talked about here would also be appropriate. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It is the disadvantage of "just picking an image off meta...". I agree that the charg might be produced with a bit of a POV (I note the continuous lines of Tokyo ignore two "brief peaks", which could have good reasons, or it could be data tampering....). I also note it has the values of Los Angeles, Denmark, Iceland etc so it is showing quite a spread. It is also in agreement with IAEA which deems levels in Tokyo highly elevated, but not unsafe. In conclusion, I would welcome an updated pick (but until then, prefer to keep this one...)! L.tak (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The dose rate in Tokyo looks different from different sources, yes. See [1] for readings from the detector net in Kanagawa Prefecture, from this site [2]. However, I see reason to believe that the image contains faithful readings. They were taken in Tokyo itself, which might have to count for a few hours to get a reading because the equipment isn't as good as the source I'm referencing. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the radiation chart very much - a beautiful way to present information - but the radiation by distance data for Fukushima is seriously misleading (and underestimated) on at least two major points.

1) The main gate is about 1 km from the reactors, not about 400 metres as indicated on the plot.

2) More importantly the 400 mSv/hr was the maximum measured at ground level in the vicinity of the reactors buildings. It should not be compared with the Chernobyl core. Measurements of contaminated water in trenches more than 100 metres from the reactors have exceeded 1000 mSv/hr, and measurements from within the dry wells have exceeded 100 Sv/hr. The table shows about 50 Sv/hr for "pressure vessels". I assume these are dry-well measurements. The dry-wells are outside the reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) themselves. The RPVs are the real cores and TEPCO has not released radiation measurements from the RPVs even if they have them.

The overall effect is to make Fukushima look a poor second to Chernobyl when the they are quite comparable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galerita (talk • contribs) 04:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

enormous dosages?

"On March 25th, TEPCO denied earlier reports that the radiation level at Fukushima's unit 1 was 200,000 mSv/h, stating that it did not exceed 60,000 mSv/h." These levels seem that high that we need some verification. Our source is this, but I think a second source is inorder... L.tak (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a ridiculously high number. Maybe they meant microsieverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaptorHunter (talk • contribs) 01:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

TEPCO has stated that its 27 March 1000 mSv/hr measurement in the basement of the unit 2 reactor building was inaccurate. I've updated the article. Source (widely reported): http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/27/japan-nuclear-error-radiation-reading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.191.165 (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Open radiation data

There is a project, Japan Radiation Open Data, that collects dose rate measurements from MEXT. Some graphs based on that data would make a good addition to this article. -- Kolbasz (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There is actually a LOT I would like to see done with the data that's out there. Right now I know of a number of bloggers and people who have been working at this problem, Where are the Clouds is a good blog, and then there are things like geigercrowd and so so many more. Today I found a http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/safety/accidents/Fukushima-nuclear-disaster/Radiation-field-team/ Greenpeace contribution]. So hey, another to compare to. There is so much work that can be done! Do you want to start a Wikiproject with me? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. While I have the know-how, I don't have the time. -- Kolbasz (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Radioactivity isn't a substance

The title of one section is Deposition of radioactivity, implying that radioactivity is a substance that can be moved around. Radioactivity is what occurs in radioactive materials when they decay. 72.48.75.131 (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

While "deposition of radioactive materials" would perhaps be a bit more correct, "deposition of radioactivity" is in fact established jargon (just like "release of radioactivity"). Examples from the IAEA: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=site%3Aiaea.org+"deposition+of+radioactivity"&btnG=Google+Search . And what's being measured is in fact the radioactivity in Bq/[m², m³, l, kg]. -- Kolbasz (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This is true. It can be said that the concern is about an area becoming radioactive, but the informed editors here (at least) know that in a nuclear accident we are worried about atmospheric dispersion of radioactive particles. Or not. We may soon be worried about the carrying away of radioactive particles by seawater and sustained leaks into the ocean, although it doesn't yet compare to the harm done by air. I think deposition of radioactivity is on the borderline of technical correctness. The area does increase in radioactivity, and radioactive particles are being deposited, it's just using half of one and half of the other that is dubious. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact radioactive fallout is a substance. Usually the one you worry about is the fallout of Cesium-137, because of it's 30 year half life mean that areas contaminated with it will be uninhabitable for a century or more. It would be nice if we had a map of the cesium-137 fallout over japan in units of Bq/m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaptorHunter (talk • contribs) 02:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We very much have readings of concentrations of Cs-137, both at the plant and in areas throughout the prefecture. But it gets complicated. You can relatively easily ascertain a Bq/m^3 value, as this is just an air measurement and correctly designed equipment can easily monitor this. Values of Bq/m^2 are notably more difficult and may be done with simulations/calculations or soil samples, or direct readings. Once we stop depositing more of it from the plant, then survey measurements will make more sense and we will almost certainly have that information. Again, let me know if anyone is interested in starting a Wikiproject with me. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Chart of Radiation leaked so far.

Someone should add make this in svg form and upload it. [3]--RaptorHunter (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The chart titled "The total amount of emissions into the atmosphere (estimated from monitoring data) 137, cesium 131 and iodine" (Google translation) shows that the amount of I-131 is almost 2 x 10¹⁷ Bq = 200 PBg. This alone would be around 10% of the 1760 PBq of I-131 estimated to be released at Chernobyl. Considering that this figure does not include the emissions into water, I think it is safe to say that the emissions are comparable – i.e. in the same order of magnitude – as the Chernobyl accident. More important is of course the fact that this comparison has been done in the reliable sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Some more from Google translate: Iodine-131: 1.5 × 10¹⁷Bq, cesium-137: 1.2 × 10¹⁶Bq. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Total amount of iodine-131 in reactor

Based on this calculation the number of fissions in a nuclear reactor operating at 1000 MW (3000 MW thermal) is 10²⁰ per second. With the fission product yield of 2.878% the amount of iodine-131 in the operating 1000 MW reactor should be 2.88 10¹⁸ Bq = 2880 PBq. If Chernobyl released 1760 PBq of iodine-131 over a ten day period, that would be nearly all the iodine in the reactor. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds about right. The forms of iodine you find in a reactor are quite volatile (AGR fuel elements should be directly comparable in this aspect to RBMK elements). -- Kolbasz (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Gamma radiation section

The "gamma radiation" section has several problems. First off, that it's a child section of "Exposure elsewhere in Japan", while actually describing conditions at the plant. Second, most of it is in fact not about gamma radiation at all. Third, the entire portion about criticality:

A criticality accident such as the Tokaimura nuclear accident produces Gamma radiation. At Fukushima I, Gamma radiation was reported on 21 March at 2-160 μSv/h, much higher than the background of 0.1 μSv/h. The highest values were measured closer to the plant (16–58 km).

Based on incomplete information about the 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents, Dr. Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress speculates that transient criticalities may have occurred there. By March 23, 2011, neutron beams had already been observed 13 times at crippled Fukushima nuke plant. While a criticality accident was not believed to account for these beams, the beams could indicate nuclear fission is occurring.

Noting that limited, uncontrolled chain reactions might occur at Fukushima I, a spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) “emphasized that the nuclear reactors won’t explode.” Additionally, on April 15, TEPCO reported that Nuclear fuel has melted and fallen to the lower containment sections of three of the Fukushima I reactors, including reactor three. The melted material was not expected to breach one of the lower containers, causing a massive radiation release. Instead, the melted fuel was thought to have dispersed uniformly across the lower portions of the containers of reactors No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3, making the resumption of the fission process, known as a "recriticality" most unlikely.

It insinuates that the gamma radiation is an indicator of ongoing fission - which is just scaremongering. While criticality implies gamma, the reverse is not true. The entire site is heavily contaminated with gamma emitters. -- Kolbasz (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I did the best I could with the limited editing time I had. What remains of that section is basically the reports of neutron radiation at the site (which should belong in this article) and some speculation and counter-speculation on criticality, which might be better off being moved to the main Fukushima I Accident page. -- Kolbasz (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Total release update

I edited the total release section to add a section on water release, and to indicate that most numbers are showing the total air release. I tried to standardized the units a TBq, but in some places left as PBq due to the size. I also added info about today's update on the current status, and updated the old Austrian weather report info.

The new "water" section could create a conflict with the "Discharge to seawater and contaminated sealife" section of "Radiation at the plant site". But I think it is ok, as long as we put total releases in the seawater section of total releases, and incremental releases (and water measurements) into the "Radiation at the plant site." 66.65.191.165 (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Restricted area : section for details (geographic lose, economic lose, timeline)

Hello, According to Geography_of_Japan#Statistics, Japan is 377,923km² big. About 73% are unsuitable mountains, leaving 27% (102.060km²) human-friendly areas such plains, plain forets, arable lands (11%), and urban areas on which 120 millions people rely. Now, there is a restricted area. If we stop consider just 400km², it's 0.5% of human friendly areas. For how long this area will stay restricted, and contaminated ? For Tchernobyl, a large area is still restricted, but NEARBY hospitals announce about 95% of 'unheathy' babies at birth, for how long ? if radiations stay for 1000 years... that's damn scary. In short, can we have a section about this restricted area compare to the Japan's human-friendly lands for comparison. Yug (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC) <going to my course ! ;) >

Fallout/dose estimate maps

The joint DOE/MEXT survey results are available at http://blog.energy.gov/content/situation-japan Being released by a US gov't agency, they should be public domain (and thus usable here), right? Kolbasz (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think so. I will add a reference to that report.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We can always link it, no matter what. The question is if we can take the maps and inline them in the article. Kolbasz (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You are right, that is the question. The maps change over time. Which one would you copy? It might be too much information, the link may be sufficient. But I don't have strong views either way.--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The dose rate map on page 4, and either the total caesium deposition map on page 5 or the Cs-137 map on page 7 of the latest PDF would both make great additions (even if they appear quite similar - which is natural since they are in fact linked to each other). The first one shows the radiation levels (in proper SI units, which are used throughout the article), the second shows the extent of long-lived contamination, and both put the exclusion zone(s) into scale. Kolbasz (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

NHK

Be wary of using NHK World references - the URLs are recycled, so the links don't stay alive for very long. I went through all the NHK references in the article and tagged the broken ones with {{Dead link}} (and removed redundant NHK references altogether). The remaining ones should either be replaced with other references, or mirrored somewhere before they disappear. Kolbasz (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

On the site of JAIF, [4] all scripts of NHK can be found in the earthquake reports, some 140 and more already available. when the date is known, than the original text can be found there with ease. 1947enkidu (talk) 07:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

U.S. infant mortality and undue weight

I am concerned about the following content in the article:

In June there were reports that there had been a 35 per cent spike in infant mortality in eight northwestern cities in the U.S. - Berkeley, Boise, Portland, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Cruz and Seattle - in the 10 weeks immediately following the start of the Fukushima disaster

The source is an al Jezeera article. While that is a secondary, reliable source for the content, it seems to be the only one. I did a Google News search and found no other news sources. I also searched all English language web sites from Japan (.jp) and found no mention of this. If there is so little coverage of this in reliable sources, having this content in Wikipedia may be giving undue weight to the idea. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's also reported here: [5]. As you say, Al Jazeera is a reliable and third-party source. There are all sorts of reasons why this story may not (yet) have been reported in many other mainstream media sources. However in the absence of any other reliable sources actually contradicting the reports I strongly feel that the reference should stay. The mention in this article is in any case small. I would not support treatment of the report being expanded any futher in this article unless there is further reporting. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Why you think the report in CounterPunch is relevant here? That newsletter/website has not done too well on the RS Noticeboard (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_10#CounterPunch). -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What Al Jazeera is reporting is simply this:

In the US, physician Janette Sherman MD and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano published an essay shedding light on a 35 per cent spike in infant mortality in northwest cities that occurred after the Fukushima meltdown, and may well be the result of fallout from the stricken nuclear plant. The eight cities included in the report are San Jose, Berkeley, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Cruz, Portland, Seattle, and Boise, and the time frame of the report included the ten weeks immediately following the disaster.

In other words, they're simply citing the CounterPunch article. Which, as JTSchreiber pointed out, is not a reliable source (which is putting it mildly). Sadly, you probably won't see a proper debunking of her report - unless it's published somewhere reputable (which given the nature of the science in it is unlikely), you won't find many scientists who'd bother refuting it. As for the rest of that article... well... it's Gundersen. Take anything he says with a grain of salt. Actually, take a dump truck full of it. Kolbasz (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a debunking of Sherman and Mangano's analysis: [6]. It's a Scientific American blog entry whose header ("Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American") says that it's under the editors' control. This blog entry was also the focus of a piece by a staff writer for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: [7]. I think that this should be sufficient to justify the removal of the infant mortality analysis from the article. That analysis is outside mainstream science and is getting undo weight by being mentioned in the article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Any Updates on Distribution by Sea?

Are there any updates on distribution of radiation by sea yet?  From my rough safe calculations, ocean currents move approximately at a maximum 1 MPH.  But, that's kind of an exaggeration as deep sea currents can move much much slower then this.  Nor have I factored dispersion degradation area of the ocean along with secondary currents.  (I'm sure the sea food biz doesn't want to hear about this.) roger (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

How about farming in and around Fukushima

Cesium is found up to more than 80 kilometers away from the damaged plant, and farmers can not feed their livestock with their own hay... Mushrooms have been found also contaminated. Could a contaminated cow be decontaminated when the beast get a week or so healthy food ? This will be the end of farming there. All the Japanese government said, is that the risks are low, but in Japan it has been become quite a scandal that contaminated food has passed into the markets 1947enkidu (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if a cow gets contaminated with cesium which is given to the cow in a one off dose then the cow will lose radioactivity. The biological half life of Cs in most mammals is about one month. If the cow eats a diet which has a constant level of cesium in it then the cow will come into equilibrium and have a constant cesium level after about a year. If either cow is fed on a diet which includes some prussian blue then the cesium level in the cow will be lower. The prussian blue will promote the removal of Cs from the cow. See http://markforeman.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/a-tale-of-two-cows/ for an explanation and some graphs.

Other measures can be taken to prevent the cows eating grass with cesium in it, these include the deep ploughing of pastures to lower the cesium level in the top layer of the soil where the grass grows.Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well it might be possible to decontaminate a cow to a certain degree, in a year or so with a half time of a month depending of the initial contamination, and the limits set by the government

What was the scientific basis to set these limits in the first place ? ... I could not find any answer on this...

Yet the Japanese government commented rapidly, that eating a little bit of cesium would do no harm, and that people should not worry about this.

But would anyone like the idea to eat or consume this meat of that particular cow, knowing it had been using prussian blue for a diet ? Of course that consumer will probably get not any information at all. Putting all cesium a meter under the soil-surface, might prevent contamination of grass at this moment, but this does not eliminate that cesium. It will surface sometime, when nobody is thinking of it.

In the mean time the Japanese authorities are wondering what to do with compost and humus produced in and (far) around Fukushima... Because this might be the next thing that spreads the cesium-contamination. That cesium will not go away for a long time.

In the mean time the plant is still leaking radioactivity. 1947enkidu (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

1947enkidu commented on the idea of burial of the cesium thinking that it is way of sweeping the cesium under the rug, it is not. Cesium only has a 30 year half life. Also it is not mobile in clay containing soils. So if it is deeply ploughed into the ground then by the time it reaches the surface again it will have decayed away.Dr Mark Foreman —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC).

"Only" 30 years half life, that means that there will be a significant amount of cesium for a very long time compared with human-lifespan....

In the mean time Japan is experiencing quite another problem, when lots of water-treatment facilities are producing (1.500 tons already!) cesium-containing sludge, and contaminated far above levels that would allow it to bury.

In the mean time each day the plant is leaking at least 1.000.000.000 becquerel, that is continuing to pollute the atmosphere. And this is only a rough guess of TEPCO, because the first attempts were recently put into place to measure the contamination inside reactor 1 and 2. In reactor 3 no possibility, because the conditions are far worse there.

Just the news of today 29 July 2011: on the Jaif-wehsite: http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1311913644P.pdf and: http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1311917037P.pdf (there are more sources possible)

• TEPCO to extract air from troubled reactors
• Water treatment system running below capacity
• 1,500 tons of radioactive sludge cannot be buried
• IAEA to help Japan assess nuclear plant safety
• Kansai Electric retracts FY11 earnings forecasts
• 12 prefectures step up voluntary checks on beef
• Edano orders ban on shipping Miyagi beef cattle
• Nagasaki mayor: shift from nuclear power needed
• Govt to pay for beef tests by prefectures
• Govt may extend cattle ban

The troubles are not over yet, the contamination still goes on. And the Japanese government is all the way trying to downplay on the risks and just try to ease public concern...

But another problem: I do not see many people adding to this wiki. It is here like journalists in the newspapers: when news is not "new" anymore, and much of the same it is not interesting anymore.... All that contamination, every day more of the same...

Adding comments is nice, but adding information to the wiki, would be a lot better. I guess Dr Mark Foreman is a lot better informed, than this humble person... I'm just half an amateur in this field.

Please may I ask more people to add to the wiki's concerning the Fukushima disaster ? 1947enkidu (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read Environmental radioactivity which deals with radioactivity in the big wild world. I might add some more content to this page to explain what happens when a farmer has to work on land which is contaminated.

By the way a 30 year half life in radioactive waste disposal is a short time as a steel drum should last at least 100 years and maybe as long as 1000 years. After 300 years the amount will be about 1000 times lowerDr Mark Foreman (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Even the Japanese people do not like the idea to consume beef that is obtained from cattle that might have eaten cesium. And the levels that their government has chosen to be "healthy" or "allowed for consumption" on what scientific basis are they based ??? After the discovery of a single contaminated cow, all the cows in the whole neighbourhood will not find any buyer. The secrecy the Japanese Government is exploiting at the moment will eventually cause the Japanese public disgust against itself.

By the way, cesium is carcinogenic, and for carcinogenic substances is there a dose-effect-relation only on population-level, this relation is not present for individuals, anyone who has taken a tiny amount of cesium. Any dose can cause cancer within that person.

Nobody wants to eat cesium 1947enkidu (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Re "Any dose can cause cancer within that person", that point is actually debated. Current models are based on linear dose-response rates. but some believe that very low levels of exposure to radioactivity have no effect because the body repairs the slight damage. If the linear model applies, then the correct statement is "For carcinogetnic substances there is a dose-effect relation at the population level. At the individual level, there is an increase in the probability of contracting cancer. That is, anyone who has taken even a tiny does of cesium has an increased risk of developing cancer (but the increase in risk is small if the dose is small)." If the linear model does not apply, then the correct statement is "For radioactive substances there is a dose-effect relation at the population level. At the individual level, if the exposure is very small, then there are no measurable long-term health effects." At present, there aren't sufficient data to validate whether the linear model is correct, or whether the "no effect is exposure is very small" model is correct. So it is prudent to use the linear model, which is what health authorities do.--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It might be a debate on wikipedia...

But elsewhere... this very information I got sitting in the banks following the courses toxicology studying medicine. Cancer is just a yes or no, if you are "unlucky", than that little damage might be just unrepairable, and in due time the cancer will emerge

Any tiny bit of any carcinogenic substance can do that trick.

Of course the risks for any individual increases when the intake is more, but this does not mean that nobody will get cancer.

With toxic substances the dose-effect-relation is different, for medicine it is:

* small amounts : NO EFFECT AT ALL

* therapeutic amounts : positive effects

* large amount: TOXIC and permanent damage may occur

That is quite different regarding to carcinogenic substances.

Within a population also with tiny exposures there will be always people developing a kind of cancer. Nobody can tell the cause, and in this way the experiment is quite difficult, and certainly not ethical. Just try to proof the cause in this particular patient was cesium-whatever !

Accepting a tiny bit of artificial cesium in our food, because we cannot prevent it anyway, is just another way of accepting some cancer in a population, as long not to many people get sick from it, the population can survive.

Quite cynical isn't it ?

Nobody wants to eat meat with a tiny bit of radioactive-cesium, or meat from a cow that was fed for a time with Prussian-blue and when our governments cannot protect us anymore for it, because they accept just a little bit, because it is out of control... we need to rethink the world we live in. 1947enkidu (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition to this, I would like to remark, that that there is one very important "repair-mechanism", that protects us against cancerous cells: apoptosis. Here there is in fact no repair at all.

But, one of the functions of this very important mechanism for our body, is to take away all dangerous cells for the body, by sending them a signal for cell-death. This should happen before these cells do not respond anymore to the apoptosis-signal.

DNA can be repaired to some extend, but these repairs cannot be faultless all the time. When a cell acquire the possibility to ignore the apoptosis-signal, than this cell will acquire "eternal life", one of the characteristics of a cancer-cell.

The proof of this you could find at the wiki about the cells of Helen Lane HeLa-cells 1947enkidu (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with what you say, but I wish to provide two further clarifications. First, there are no data that can prove or disprove the hypothesis that very small doses of radiation do not permanently damage cells and therefore do not increase the risk of cancer. Second, it is debated whether very small doses of chemical carcinogens (which don't affect the body quite the same way as radiation) always increase the risk of cancer or whether there might be a threshold below which there is no increase in risk. Cancer is "yes" or "no" when it develops, but exposure to a carcinogen only creates a risk of development of cancer. For example, we are all at risk of contracting skin cancer from sunlight. The more you expose your skin to the sun, the greater the risk. But some people won't get skin cancer even with high doses of sunlight.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

All these mechanisms are poorly understood. Even in a world with no or almost carcinogens there was cancer, although it might not have be recognized at all times. Because in the past (up to mid-20th century) live-span was not that long. It will be hard to proof, that small amounts of cesium will cause cancer, because there always be other factors present. So when someone claims the data are not present: the experiment is quite unethical, and the industry is not interested in any experiment in this matter, because of the costs and the outcome is quite unwelcome.

But declaring a certain exposure "safe", there's no scientific basis for that either.

Some people are better in repairing than others, we are all different in this. It still is a chance-process, a lottery, some win the jack-pot and get cancer, others might be unlucky and live on.

It is pure chance what structure will be damaged in a cell when a cesium-atom falls apart.

Why do not you ask, why you do no get the jack-pot in Euro-millions, when you buy a ticket ? It is just the law-of-big-numbers 1947enkidu (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There's never been a time when the world wasn't chock-full of carcinogens.

If a certain exposure is in the range that causes no statistically measurable effects elsewhere in the world, then it's as safe as it gets.

—WWoods (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There have been carcinogens all the time, but presently there are a lot more of them, and most of them are man-made.

Cesium-something is man-made too, & we never asked for it, besides this, a statistical survey to the effect of exposure to small amounts of it, is never done...

But just look to to another carcinogen, and see what small amounts can do: see what tabacco-smoke can do: here we see quite a number of cancers with non-smoking people that inhale the smoke of others, even while they only get small amounts of the carcinogen into there lungs... 1947enkidu (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Enkidu, when you refer to tabacco smoke, you are not comparing the comparable. There are numerou studies documenting increased risk of cancer even with very small exposures to tabacco smoke, including in non-smokers (what they call passive exposure). That is not comparable because there are no studies documenting effects of very small doses of radiation. And, again, the effects of chemicals (such as smoke) may well be very different from the effects of radiation, because they do not affect cells in the same way.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I know better than you may think, did years long research to the health effects on tabacco-smoke. I know it is different, but the mechanisms that case cancer are poorly understood. How do the some 1000 substances in smoke do it, and how cesium does the trick... ? The only thing is, that the tiny amounts of smoke can cause substantial cancers. We can recognize them, because their special character: lung-cancer. From cesium, it will be hard to proof that it cesium, because it can do a whole range, so it might be very easy to ignore it. The rise of thyroid-cancer with young children in Ukraine is something the Japanese should expect in the coming decade after Fukushima. Also here very small amounts, from an isotope, with a short half-time... that should be away within a few months, still the cancers are there 1947enkidu (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Tepco is still releasing measurements

I don't understand why the table for radiation around the plant hasn't been updated since March.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/f1/images/11080312_table_summary-j.pdf

On August 3rd 11:00, TEPCO radiation monitors reported 351 Sv/h in the drywell of unit 1, 14.5 Sv/h in the drywell on unit 2, and 2.81 Sv/h in unit 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.162.76.24 (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Latest figures for Cesium

"Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said the plant had released 15,000 terabecquerels of cancer-causing Cesium," source:

• "Why the Fukushima disaster is worse than Chernobyl". The Independent. 29 August 2011.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

why-the-fukushima-disaster-is-worse-than-chernobyl .... Isn't this not the same thing, that Arnie Gundersen already mentioned just a few weeks after the accident? But that man might just be an pure insult to science, and all his comments should be removed (?) See the three threads about Gunderson at the disaster-site Talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Three meltdowns at the same time, a few fuel-pools open to the atmosphere, and still there is cesium escaping every day, every day. By the way, the Japanese Government approved the burning of cesium-contaminated rice and other materials. And in this way the cesium, that has been accumulated, is volatilized again, in this way the cesium will certainly spread about a still larger area. Where o where is another source, that can confirm this ? 1947enkidu (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Amazing that there isn't even a Japanese mirror site on this subject!

Just an observation: I am shocked that there is not a Japanese language Wikipedia mirror page that discusses the radiation effects from the ongoing nuclear disaster. I mean, come on! The worst nuclear disaster in the history of nuclear power, and not a single person (Japanese or otherwise) has translated this information into Japanese?? I live in Chiba, and this only confirms my fears that the people here are either content to let the government lull them into a false sense of security/censor what they hear and read, or are quite willing to bury their own heads in the (still radioactive) sand. And this in a country that is supposedly so sensitive towards nuclear related issues due to their unfortunate past experiences with the destructive power of atomic energy! Sorry, but while the radiation spreads (six months later) and rice and produce from the affected regions continues to often be the only choice available in Tokyo markets, I just am astounded and disheartened at the overall lack of both relevant information and outrage!

By the way, one source I recommend (which translates relevant information in the Japanese press into English (while also giving the Japanese sources) is at the following blog: http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/ Perhaps some of the information provided there is useful for the ongoing maintenance of this article? It's interesting to me, at least, (and yet at the same time often extremely disheartening!) Thanks 122.26.60.62 (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The people living in Fukushima-town have done another survey on radiation in their own town, a lot more precise than the survey done under the jurisdiction of the Japanese government. I'm sure these maps can be found on the internet, but reading Japanese... There must be a lot, the trouble is to find it, or find some help of people who read and speak Japanese that are interested in the subject. 1947enkidu (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

children

Whenever someone takes in radioactive J, this will go to the thyroid gland. Measuring the radioactivity of this months after the intake, will never reveal a high dosis, because all will be gone due to the short halftime of this isotope. The exposure can only be measured correctly just after the moment of exposure. Radioactive J was emitted in large amounts southwards, so extensive that it could be measured at 400 locations 6 months afterwards some 20 decay-periods leter... 2^-20, This gives some idea how great the exposure must have been. 1947enkidu (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide references for the above statement?--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

see: for the survey Iodine-southwards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Iodine-131 and the reference there

radioactive Iodine half-time = 8.0197 days. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine-131

150-160 days is around 20 decay-times, so there will be 2^-20 of the initial amount of Iodine-131 left,

Is this enough for you ? all the best wishes 1947enkidu (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

New source on neptuniun

Here is a new source on releases published on October 15th, 2011

• Leaked TEPCO report: 120 billion Becquerels of plutonium, 7.6 trillion Becquerels of neptunium released in first 100 hours — Media concealed risk to public

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, very helpful. These are massive amounts, a little difficult to calculate how much kilo's of that stuff has gone into the wild...

By the way... this info was part of a website, and the article mentions a name: Mochizuki of the Fukushima Diary website, do you know the url of this website, it could help visiting that site too. 1947enkidu (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Baby milk section

I saw that a new section was added regarding contamination of baby milk. The material comes from an acceptable source, so I do not challenge its accuracy. But I wonder whether it is relevant. Is the amount of radioactive material sufficient to cause any observable harm? If not, why is this topic relevant? That is, if the effects cannot be observed, why should we talk about this in this article?--Gautier lebon (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, whenever nuclear power would like to survive this disaster, than public support would be pretty essential. - even in Japan -

The health of newborn, that is the concern of every parent. The same applies during pregnancy. Extra radiation - artificial from human sources - will not be easily accepted, because this radiation could potentially do more harm in a developing youngster. This food firm calculated, that the radiation would be diluted even more when the powder was to go with some water into a baby-bottle, and after this according to the (arbitrary) governmental safety limits it should be harmless.

But... it quickly changed its attitude, when it discovered that the publicity around this topic could easily raise a buyer-strike for all their products.

We have kids, because as a person we cannot live for ever. Only our genes could have (some) eternal life, but only when our children, and their children... could live long enough to produce their offspring. That artificial radiation does not help with that.

second: it proves that the cesium-pollution is spreading all over Japan, but this was already obvious.

I've seen a lot more about this subject, but wanted to keep this small, but the impact of this topic in Japanese media has been huge. 1947enkidu (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Enkidu, I think that we have had a similar discussion before. Radioactivity is everywhere and much of it occurs naturally. Very low levels of radioactivity may or may not favor increases in cancer incidence, nobody knows and probably nobody will even know because the effects (if any) are to small to measure reliably. For sure very low levels of radioactivity are much less cancer-inducing that other things that people accept willingly, or even expose themselves to just for fun, for example sun bathing. I have never been able to understand why people are so concerned about very low levels of radioactivity when they are in fact much less dangerous than any number of other things that happen to us. So yes, people in Japan were concerned about the baby milk and no doubt did indeed refuse to believe what the government said, even though what the government said represents scientific consensus. From the encyclopedic point of view, it seems to me that, if this item is included, then we should also include the government's explanation and, if available, some scientific comments on the issue. (By the way, I do have children, and the threat that worries me for them and their genes is global warming. And stopping nuclear power plants can only make global warming worse. So I think that the fact that Fukushima resulted in increased public resistance to nuclear power is likely to prove, in the long term, far worse for humanity that the radiation emissions from Fukushima.)--Gautier lebon (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Gautier, the fact that there are places on earth where people might endure a much higher level of natural background radiation, maybe because the uranium of radium concentrations in the soil, does not provide a reason to induced this kind of levels everywhere on earth. The governmental view is already included, with the citation of the safety-limits. Whether the public awareness is rational or not, it is there, we know it is there, this in knowledge, encyclopedia gather (and share) knowledge, and this is the very reason that I did include it.

In this very encyclopedia is a long encyclopedic article about [[witchcraft], should that go too ?

The cited newspaper there is a long editorial article, about the absence of profits with the plutonium-economy. England has let the idea, that producing MOX could raise money, and has decided to store this metal somewhere at a safe place. Where ? the English government does not know. see: Plutonium brings no real chance of prosperity

I want a safe world too, and nuclear power has done a lot, but their promise of safety has proven to be a big lie. The promise of cheap power is also a big lie, who is going to pay the big bill to store it "safe" all the nuclear waste for 1.000.000 years, our children will need to pay for that. After all this years of nuclear power and nuclear warfare there has been a lot of secrecy, a lot of lies, and no solution has been found to eliminate the waste. 1947enkidu (talk) 08:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

OK re what should stay in Wikepedia. And I agree with what you say about nuclear power, except that I evaluate the risks and effects of global warming as being far worse than the risks and effects of nuclear power (including the fact that it costs more than they say, and that there is no "bury and forget" way to dispose of nuclear waste). So I think that continuing with nuclear is better (in the less worse sense) than stopping it.--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no private insurance-company on this earth that is willing to insure the damages caused by accidents of the nuclear industry. In fact our governments are subsidizing this way of making power. When the energy companies would need to insure themselves (on a private basis) for this kind of mishaps, than it would not be economical at all to generate nuclear power.

So we all tax-payers are to bleed for it. Your home will be worthless, whenever it might meet a cesium-cloud. It happened in Europe, it happened in Japan, it could happen everywhere.

The Japanese government is soon to experience the huge costs of it, and that TEPCO-firm is with all the future damage-payments more or less bankrupt.

That nuclear waste will need to be secured for a lot longer time, than humanity does exist. How long is there any recorded history ? Even in our day-times it is already too difficult to prevent the spread of nuclear warfare and knowledge, first North Korea, than Iran, some time ago I saw some news about the wish of the Saoedi-Arabia... About the bomb of Pakistan and India... nobody speaks anymore. And you do not need to create a bomb, to use it for some extremism purposes...

greetings 1947enkidu (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

All that is true, but, in my opinion, it is also true that (1) fossil fuels are a cause of global warming (2) global warming poses a clear and imminent threat to humanity (3) renewable energy is much more expensive than energy from fossil fuels and significantly more expensive than energy from nuclear power (even including all the hidden costs that you mention above) (4) nuclear power does not cause global warming (5) in market-based democratice economies, there is no way to move from the use of fossil fuels to renewable energy sources within a reasonable timeframe, so (6) nuclear power is the only practical way of mitigating global warming. Further, I believe that the risks and consequences of global warming are far worse than the risks and consequences of nuclear power. So all the costs and risks of nuclear power are worth bearing.--Gautier lebon (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

About the costs of renewable energy,

when all the money spent on nuclear power was put into that renewable energy, than the progress in this field would have been there already at this very moment, now a Japanese government panel has calculated already, that with the rising costs of nuclear power and fossil fuels this will happen also, but with no help, it might take a decade or more. But a lot faster than we can dispose of all nuclear waste.

It is all about choices.

Than, the mining of uranium cost also fossil fuel, it damages whole landscapes, enriching uranium cost also a lot of fossil energy, than the treatment of nuclear waste takes a lot of energy too. This is not always taken into account. And how much energy, will it take to store that waste, in that far far future ?

Even the mining will produce nuclear waste, because after the uranium is extracted from the soil, all kind of isotopes will stay in the debris, and will go on producing radioactive radon, that otherwise never would have reached the atmosphere. This happened with the mines in France, where the mining waste was forgotten, after these mines were closed, but the mining waste was not properly disposed off or buried deep away, because this does cost money, and the former owners of the mine were only interested in a fast profit.

When there is a possibility to built a tidal-generator (proven technology) at the moment some people just ignore this, and just want to go on with a big nuclear power station. But... it might be impossible to find private investors for it, at this moment in Europe.

1947enkidu (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

On top of this, you might look at this last newspaper-article in The Mainichi Daily News of 16 December 2011 [ http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111216p2a00m0na002000c.html] Absolutely no progress being made' at Fukushima nuke plant, undercover reporter says

greetings 1947enkidu (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Radiation background typical value

There seems to be a disagreement on the typical radiation background value. I don't think it's worth starting an editing war on this topic, so I just wanted to state why I changed this value:

• I fully agree that, as stated in [8], typical natural exposure amounts to 2.4mSv/y.
• This figure incorporates 4 components: terrestrial background, cosmic background, ingested activity (14C and 40K mainly), inhaled activity (mainly radon)
• If one considers a measure by some ambient activity detector, one gets only the background radiation, i.e. terrestrial+cosmic background, typically 100nSv/hr or less (see for example the Japanese SPEEDI network), wich gives less than 1mSv/yr
• As the sentence refers to background radiation, 1mSv/yr is the correct value.
• I have no problem using the 2.4mSv/yr value, but then one should refer to it as natural exposure and not as radiation background.

ConradMayhew (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I have two issues with this.

The first is about nomenclature. If you use the phrase "background radiation" or "radiation background" or just plain "background", the common understanding is that all exposure routes are included (i.e. everything that contributes to dose is counted). By common understanding I don't just mean public perception, but what it means in a publication unless explicitly stated otherwise. If in fact only ambient gamma is considered, then that should be explicitly stated - as it is the exception.

The second is that that particular paragraph is about equivalent dose comparisons. I'll quote it in its entirety here:

Normal background radiation varies from place to place but delivers a dose equivalent in the vicinity of 1 mSv/year, or about 0.1 µSv/h. For comparison, one chest x-ray is about 0.2 mSv and an abdominal CT scan is supposed to be less than 10 mSv (but it has been reported that some abdominal CT scans can deliver as much as 90 mSv). People can mitigate their exposure to radiation through a variety of protection techniques.

In this context, the total natural equivalent dose is what's relevant, as it's being used as a yardstick together with other common sources of exposure. Kolbasz (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

My view of the literature terminology may be biased, as I have recently been reading a lot of papers on high background radiation areas + parts of the UNSCEAR 2000 report and of the BEIR VII reports. As all these papers deal specifically with natural radiation, their terminology may be more specialized. You may probably right about less targeted sources.

In the current context, I generally feel radiation background is the relevant quantity, but that's just a personal opinion, and nothing more.

In any case, I'll give a try at switching back to 2.4mSv while refering to it "natural exposure", as this term should agree with both your sources and mine. Let me know if the result is OK for you. ConradMayhew (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember the usage in UNSCEAR 2000 offhand, but UNSCEAR in general tends to use "background" in the "common understanding" way described above. And yeah, the changes look fine to me. :)
Kolbasz (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool, problem solved! ConradMayhew (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

undercover-story

You all might look at this last newspaper-article in The Mainichi Daily News of 16 December 2011 [ http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111216p2a00m0na002000c.html] Absolutely no progress being made' at Fukushima nuke plant, undercover reporter says Greetings 1947enkidu (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It has already been established that Mainichi Daily News is not a reliable source, see Talk:Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#The_Mainichi_Daily_News, so I don't understand why you continue to refer to it.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

In a country where most of the news-media rather docile follow the official statements of the government, is the inside look and the point of few of this Mainichi newspaper one of the few critical sources present. Because of the language differences between Japanese and English, statements can be wrongly interpreted quite easily what was the meaning in Japanese, who of us can read that?

Putting all unwanted information completely aside is just too far. Lots of information that the nuclear industry would like to conceal, was only to be found their website. Who should we folloe, TEPCO, NISA, the Japanese government ? The questionable reputation of TEPCO on security-matters is without any doubt, when TEPCO had taken earlier warnings (about possible tsunamis) serious, this disaster possibly could have been avoided. Negative info about the way workers are treated, we will never find on TEPCO's website... NISA ? this was not the independent body needed for effective control, and the Japanese Government has done its best to talk all risks of nuclear energy down, misinforming the Diet and more.

The troubles are far from over, TEPCO cannot prevent the influx of 300 cubic meters groundwater each day, the containments are still leaking, they do not know where the molten fuel is situated, all the fuel in the nr. 4 spent-fuel-pool could go wild, when the cooling there would interrupt, it was not possible to remove any fuel-rods from any spent-fuel-pool... 1947enkidu (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

All or some of the above may or may not be true, but that does not change the fact that we cannot use unreliable sources to add information to Wikipedia.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We need to control everything, governmental sources, newspaper sources... all.

As I recall, Fairewinds were not acceptable because the man behind this website had ring some bells on nuclear energy-matters, and had changed his fews. He made some predictions, those were not aceptable for many of the pro-nuclear lobby. A lot of it has proofed to be just the case. TEPCO, JAIF, NISA are all only interested in "positive news", the bad news those we get only through a bunch of filters, and months later. Like the radioactive iondine spread over Namie, Fukushima, where SPEEDY predicted the real exposure instantly... This was TEPCO in close cooperation with the Japanese government... Are those reliable in all aspects ?

A lot of information like the French report on the radioactive releases into the ocean, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE EVEN SEEN IT, whenever the Mainichi daily news had not reported it. Only because you do not accept the fact that there will be radioactive cesium be present for a long time to come ? You did not explain why you think it will vanish. Ecology might be different in sea compared with the land, but for a long time to come the rivers in the prefecture Fukushima will bring cesium to the coastal waters, there is a lot of cesium spread over the mountains, and with every rain there cesium will be transported down the mountains. It is not a one-time-only-contamination, far from that.

So ALL SOURCES need to be proofed, each time, one sentence only does not mean that you can discard all. From TEPCO it is known, that nobody working there is allowed to speak with the press. Only one time I've seen a report on Dutch television about the working conditions at the Daichi plant. But even here nobody dared to show its face in the camera.

The undercover story does not differ from the Dutch report at all, and sounds in fact very reliable. 1947enkidu (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Enkidu, please review Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. And please note that the article as it stands now reflects what the French scientists said, not my own theories. I have no problem in your using Mainich News, or any other source, to identify topics that might be of interest. But you should then find a reliable source that covers the topic; that is, I do not think that we can include information from Mainich News unless it is confirmed by an reliable source. You imply that some information is not being adequately reported. That may or may not be the case, but Wikepedia editors cannot perform original research, so there is no way that we include in Wikipedia information that is not published in reliable sources. Wikipedia is a compendium of published information, not a platform for investigative journalism.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Gautier, it takes a lot of time to follow all the news already, condensing it, and find the place for it on wikipedia. following the news around fukushima has widened my mind in this field, when Tsernobyl happaned it was a lot more near, but I did not had the time and means. Lots of the news is unwanted, from a pro-nuclear point of view, and some wikipedia-variants have a bunch of pronuclear "users". They control all the edits, and because there's not much positive news is available, they rather minimize all edits. Is that the reliability wikipedia stands for ? of course when a newspaper in Japan is critical on nuke-power, than it is very unreliable by definition. But our governments ? What woudl be their reliability ? Whenever needed the first thing they say: "there was no problem for public health"... Let us see what SPEEDY told us about that. I read something from a long time ago, In Tokyo they found something that covered a lawn near a school, it happened to gather a lot of cesium, the Japanese plan is to burn it... (which will release some cesium into the air, and concentrate the rest into the ashes) these ashes are to be dumped into TOKYO-bay... Handy and cheap for the Japanese government, but it all will end into the ocean, to spoil all our environment. What's reliable here? 1947enkidu (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Enkidu, I think that it would be better to avoid ad-hominem attacks and to assume that all Wikipedia editors work in good faith to improve the article. As I've said before, I think that the Mainichi News is not reliable because it clearly misquoted what the French scientists said. I did not draw general conclusions about the reliability of other sources: each should be evaluated on its own merits. There are lots of unreliable statements available on the web and we have to make sure that they don't wind up in Wikipedia. There are plenty of other forums for posting wild claims and theories, but our main taks as Wikipedia editors is to make sure that only reliable information is published in Wikipedia. This of course means that some things don't get published in Wikipedia, but that is the nature of Wikipedia.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see any personal attack in all I've written, never did mean to do that either... but putting all from the Mainichi Daily News aside, because there has been found a little sentence wrong, where it tries to quote an french written report, is just another thing. I do not have the opportunity to go in more dept to this. Nor the time and opportunity to edit All the best 1947enkidu (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edits by 84.173.188.74

There have been edits by 84.173.188.74 that I have reverted because I thought that they were either incomprehensible, or not supported by references. That user has reinstated the edits, and I reverted them again. The user has once again reinstated the edits. I don't want to violate the three-reversion rule, so I wonder whether any other editors agree that these edits are inappropriate and should be reverted.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem there, I had noticed what what going. The revert is done for the casualty section, where the added content is both completely out of place and hardly understandable. For the edit on regulatory levels, I've removed the added comment (little additional value), but I kept the change from yearly exposure limit to one time exposure limit: AFAIK, this one edit actually is correct. ConradMayhew (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Our friend reintroduced his changes, so I had to do a second round of reverts. If this goes on, it looks like the best solution may be to semi-protect the page temporarily. ConradMayhew (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This is Kay Uwe Böhm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (obvious even before this), who was indefinitely blocked for similar edits. Revert on sight. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the intel, will make our lives much easier! ConradMayhew (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Just had to revert the bloke's edit again, and considering the time, I guess we'll need to do it again once or twice today. This introduces a lot of noise in the page history, and makes it difficult for true contributors to spot any relevant changes. Any objections to asking for page semi-protection? ConradMayhew (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do semi-protect the page. As you say, we are wasting our time reverting these disruptive edits.--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, the request has been submitted on the requests for page protection page. Wait and see, ConradMayhew (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

About radiation limits

To restore some balance, maybe we shoudl include that:

Experts such as Professor Wade Allison of Oxford University argue that Japan’s advisory dose limit can safely be raised from 1 to 100 millisieverts per year, based on current health statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.139.227 (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, since the citation is to an article published by the nuclear industry. On the other hand, I think that it is appropriate to include material from the citation in the article about the Fukushim accident, and I have added it, see Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Energy_policy_implications.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

another sock-puppet

Can this page not be protected against these sock-puppets ? Now it again some other IP-address, the tables are quite the same 1947enkidu (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It is easy to ask for protection, just go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection. I asked for the last protection, maybe it would be better if somebody else did this new one?--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

dear Gautier, it worked, I hope it this protection will stay for some time 1947enkidu (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

California had depositions of Cesium 137 at 240 BQ/ M^2

It is misleading to call this a trace amount.

NO signing, NO reference at all... what can we do with it ? why do'nt you "01001" give us any source, where we can read this with our own eyes ? 1947enkidu (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

http://allegedlyapparent.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/radiation-fallout-maps-for-the-united-states/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 01001 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you make some remarks about the facts you would like to correct ? We all have our interest... 1947enkidu (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

240Bq/m^2 is in the 0.01 nanogram per meter scale, more than ten times less than uranium content of low uranium soil. Hardly anything but a trace amount. Basroil (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Link no. 264 on the new limits on radiation levels in food

The link to Mainichi Shinbun is dead, and no amount of searching on their page seems to bring it back. I have found an alternate source, but as the article is protected I request that someone else switch the links. If said someone agrees that the substitution is reasonable, of course.

So this (dead): http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111223p2g00m0dm020000c.html

Becomes this: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T111224002468.htm

--130.225.244.181 (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed that for you. Flaviusvulso (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, good sir. --130.225.244.181 (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

All links of The Mainichi Shimbun will expire at some time, they are moved behind a pay-wall. That's some way newspapers try to earn some money. The only way is to copy the article into a mirror-site, That does not make this newspaper less important, because this newspaper brings a lot of extra items and information about the whereabots of the nuclear crisis in Japan... the links can be controlled when they are used the first time, 1947enkidu (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

error in text

in section Radiation and Nuclide Detection in Japan, subsection Computer simulations of Cesium contamination the following sentence appears According to the research-group, these levels decontamination were not high enough to require decontamination. pretty obviously this is a typo. would fix, but cant. cheers --Mycosys (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. It's fixed. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing of the page

Dear All,

I noticed that the page is not editable now. (I understand it might be because of someone trying to revert some editing back several times. I wanted to include a reference to a recent paper:

Møller, A. P., Hagiwara, A., Matsui, S., Kasahara, S., Kawatsu, K., Nishiumi, I., Suzuki, H., et al. (2012). Abundance of birds in Fukushima as judged from Chernobyl. Environmental Pollution, 164(C), 36–39. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2012.01.008

It constitutes the first scientific study of the effect of radioactive contamination from Fukushima on wildlife. PS: wildlife, not wild-life, as currently reported.

Kind regards,

ABonisoli (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

We've had some persistent vandalism, and semi-protection was the only way around. It's due to expire today, so you should soon be able to edit the article on your own. ConradMayhew (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Fukushima Debris Field Reported to have reached Sitka, Alaska

NBC Evening TV News just reported at approximately Tue May 1 03:03 2012 UTC, the debris field has reached the Sitka, Alaska coastline and will likely occur in surges/waves. They also briefly showed a new digitized model representing the debris field float path by some agency. roger (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The local paper here reported it is a "Canadian island". Sitka is likely very close, if not the exact location; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration seems to be monitoring ocean debris: http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/18430199/article-Tsunami-swept-Harley-in-container-found-in-Canada?instance=home_news_window_left_bullets; I did my own math as I fish from the coast here in Alaska and calculated, using average fast ocean currents, water from Fukushima could reach here within three to six months. So debris showing up now doesn't surprise me at all. roger (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The following webpage contains links (H264/MP4 video or Power Point slides) to the new Fukushima tsunami debris model, created by IPRC, JAMSTEC and University of Hawaii:

http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/news/marine_and_tsunami_debris/debris_news.php

http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/news/marine_and_tsunami_debris/2012/12_3_anniversary/Tsunami%20Debris%201%20year%20later.mp4

http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/news/marine_and_tsunami_debris/2012/12_3_anniversary/12_3_Anniversaty_Update_Mar-5-2012-16-9.pptx

(Shrugs. I'm not too sure how accurate it is since verified Fukushima incident debris has already been showing up in Canada and Sitka, Alaska. The model appears to simulate up until March 2012.)

Hippels quote should be replicated in full

In the introduction Hippels 'very preliminary order-of-magnitude guesstimate' (his words not mine) has been quoted without what seems to me to be his qualifying statement 'it is important to note that, if not dealt with properly, the psychological consequences associated with accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima could damage many more lives than the cancer consequences'. Also I believe if you read Hippels paper the inaccuracy of his guestimate has not been suitably reflected in the wikipedia quote. The original (for those unable to access the article) says:

A corresponding estimate of the cancer consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi accident has not yet been conducted, but it is possible to make a very preliminary order-of-magnitude guesstimate. Out of the two million people who live within a 50-mile (80- kilometer) radius of the Fukushima plant, about one million live in areas contaminated with cesium-137 to levels greater than 1 curie per square kilometer. 2 Scaling to the six million people in areas contaminated to similar levels by the Chernobyl accident, one might expect around 1,000 extra cancer deaths related to the Fukushima Daiichi accident, that is, a 0.1 percent incidence rate. This is much less than the direct toll about 20,000 from the earthquake and tsunami that caused the accident (McCurry, 2011). More accurate estimates will be possible if national collective-dose estimates are pulled together, as they were after the Chernobyl accident. For now, in order to frame the discussion, it is useful to consider the problems of long-term land contamination, evacuation decisions, and thyroid cancers. Finally, it is important to note that, if not dealt with properly, the psychological consequences associated with accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima could damage many more lives than the cancer consequences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwitt.the.twitt (talk • contribs) 18:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)