2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami - News and Analysis

[Amber G.]

From NY Times:
Humans 'Wired' for Terror Over Remote Radiation Threats

(To be honest, NY Times too, IMO was guilty of putting some irresponsible words in few of earlier stories)

[GuruPrabhu]

From NY Times:
Humans 'Wired' for Terror Over Remote Radiation Threats

(To be honest, NY Times too, IMO was guilty of putting some irresponsible words in few of earlier stories)

yup, one is reminded of the cat that ate a thousand mice and then proceeded to Haj.

[vina]

High Risk Zone Delhi Not Ready for Japan like Earthquake

Well, more 'brilliant' articles on the likes of 1.25 cups = 1 bucket kind of "science" or a 500ft Tsunami being generated by a glacier the size of the Antartic continent falling off the coasts of Iran/Africa/Indonesia.

Did the dorks who published this report actually actually find out the difference in intensity between an 8 and an 8.9 richter scale "Japan Type" quake, given that it is a logarithmic scale ?

Since we are in the era of one -liners, let me have this crushed,pulped and canned , so that it can be opened with a fizz and consumed in a big gulp and mouth some inanity like BRRRRRR or whatever that is the punchline in the current Coca Cola ads in India.

Conclusion: 1.1 and 1.9 are similar because they both start with the digit 1

[vina]

Finally an article of serious quality and sanity in the NY Times around the design issues at Fukushima. A good read about the "standard" estimation methodologies, how the deterministic vs probabilistic risk methods (used in Phynance a lot these days), how the Japanese are really not the cutting edge (the Fukushima stuff itself is 40 years old and their risk assessment models is based on mining past recorded history and suffers from serious sample look back bias, has little predictive capability etc). Worth a full read, atleast for those who would like these complex things explained in simple lay man easy to understand language ,something which high quality journalism should do de-jure, but we have the DDM and IDM (international dork media), spouting garbage de facto.

Nuclear Rules in Japan Relied on Old Science

“We can only work on precedent, and there was no precedent,” said Tsuneo Futami, a former Tokyo Electric nuclear engineer who was the director of Fukushima Daiichi in the late 1990s. “When I headed the plant, the thought of a tsunami never crossed my mind.”

Japan is known for its technical expertise. For decades, though, Japanese officialdom and even parts of its engineering establishment clung to older scientific precepts for protecting nuclear plants, relying heavily on records of earthquakes and tsunamis, and failing to make use of advances in seismology and risk assessment since the 1970s

When Japanese engineers began designing their first nuclear power plants more than four decades ago, they turned to the past for clues on how to protect their investment in the energy of the future. Official archives, some centuries old, contained information on how tsunamis had flooded coastal villages, allowing engineers to surmise their height.

Those methods, however, did not take into account serious uncertainties like faults that had not been discovered or earthquakes that were gigantic but rare, said Mr. Hardy, who visited Kashiwazaki after the 2007 quake as part of a study sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute.

“The Japanese fell behind,” Mr. Hardy said. “Once they made the proclamation that this was the maximum earthquake, they had a hard time re-evaluating that as new data came in.”

The Japanese approach, referred to in the field as “deterministic” — as opposed to “probabilistic,” or taking unknowns into account — somehow stuck, said Noboru Nakao, a consultant who was a nuclear engineer at Hitachi for 40 years and was president of Japan’s training center for operators of boiling-water reactors.

Hmm. Here we have folks saying that LalChix and Stock Markets have no relevance! Please read this article in full, it is worth the effort.

[chaanakya]

Guru Prabhu is right, of course, about the energy in water. And this kinetic theory of heat is high school physics . Boiling water (100C) does NOT have twice the energy (of equal mass of) of 50C water. (Ratio would be something like ((273+100)/(273+50)).

Of course he is right, but not when unequal mass and unequal temperature difference ( for water) and even different fluid ( such as oil and water having diff sp. heat). Alss I think rate of heat transfer does depend on temp diff. May be Its all humbug but you wouldn't splash cup of boiling water on yourself but easily use warm water from the bucket for bath. That's the point and not the pedantry he indulges in .


As he is fond of wiki , here is the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity

And off course He is better off teaching singing to bulls.

added later

( Q = mcT)

I think that should address your concerns Amber.I didn't mean to attribute it to you so colored it red just to highlight it. thanks anyway for telling me that it was inappropriate. The formula by itself is correct. except for the correction pointed out by guru , /thanks/ that it is change so should be delta Q and delta T . I am talking abt amt of energy reqd and change in temp for certain mass of water.

[abhishek_sharma]

Japan Soil Measurements Surprisingly High

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... ingly.html

Concerns about radiation in Japan have now spread to the soil surrounding the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor. One level that was reported this week was high enough to suggest people in that area should be evacuated, an expert says. But he cautions that it's hard to draw conclusions about these spot measurements without more data.

Today, Japanese officials told the population living up to 30 kilometers from the plant that they should consider leaving the area, expanding the previous 20-kilometer radius evacuation zone. But according to news reports, the advice stems from difficulties in supplying the region with food and water, not radiation levels.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday the Japanese science ministry began to report measurements of cesium-137 in upland soil around the plant. The levels are highest from two points northeast of the plant, ranging from 8690 becquerels/kilogram to a high of 163,000 Bq/kg measured on 20 March from a point in Iitate about 40 kilometers northwest of the Fukushima plant.

The soil measurements are more significant for evacuation purposes than radioactivity in the air, says nuclear engineer Shih-Yew Chen of Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, because cesium dust stays underfoot while air is transient. Levels of cesium-137 are also more important than soil readings of iodine-131, which is short-lived and more of a concern in milk and vegetables. "It's the cesium that would prompt an evacuation," says Chen.

Based on a rough estimate, a person standing on soil with 163,000 Bq/kg of cesium-137 would receive about 150 millisieverts per year of radiation, says Chen. This is well above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standard of 50 millisieverts per year for an evacuation. (Per day, it's 0.41 millisieverts, which is equivalent to four chest x-rays.) But Chen adds, "one point [of data] doesn't mean that much."

The hot spot is similar to levels found in some areas affected by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident in the former Soviet Union. Assuming the radiation is no more than 2 centimeters deep, Chen calculates that 163,000 Bq/kg is roughly equivalent to 8 million Bq/m2. The highest cesium-137 levels in some villages near Chernobyl were 5 million Bq/m2.

[chaanakya]

Amber , Another analogy I would be able to think of is sitting before a fire place on a cold & wet day and jumping right into it. That should convey the point author was trying to make.

[chaanakya]

Above all read the post I posted. The dose 1000 mSv is not taken out of a holy book (so no need of these religious arguments).. it just means.. if one receives doses less than that, one is not likely to show any symptoms..etc.. (Just read the previous post again)

And PLEASE post , so every one can get educated, what IS the your formula for radiation dose vs risk. Put it in quantitative term. While doing that, please also tell us, how many people according to you , in Chernobyl.n died due to radiation when all the effects are taken into account? 57? 100,000?, 850,000? Please give us a number.

Well , Govt of Japan don't agree with your limit.

anyone exposed to radiation exceeding 250 millisieverts requires immediate treatment, the sources said.

The government sets the upper limit of radiation for workers at nuclear power plants at 50 millisieverts per year and 100 millisieverts over five years. In an emergency, the limit can be raised to 100 millisieverts. For the current crisis it was upped to 250.

For ordinary people its 1 mSv/annum.

And it doesn't matter what "MY" formula is . The point is that limits are under constant revision and there are concerns about safe limit and about attribution of radiation induced causes as cause of death when the "so called" cause and effects are removed from each other in space and time. It would be open to question from either side.

Statistically significant divergences , shown by several studies ,could be easily questioned by questioning the methodology or assumptions as Guru does. After all , it was also pointed out that LSS study ( basis of IRCP) began in 1952 leaving out data worth of 7 years.
But studies ( esp those from affected areas russia and japan and dismissed by Western countries and dismissed by Nuk-Ind complex and scientists drawing dal and roti from that ) does exist and "cited" in the paper indicating higher morbidity and mortality attributed to radiation induced causes.


One also learns that some 8 or 9 clusters of isolated communities does exist within exclusion zone of chenobyl and are surviving. Results would be known after some time , may be 100 or 150 years ( as shiv point out).

[abhishek_sharma]

What's the Current Radiation Threat to Japan's Food and Water?

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... hreat.html

Health concerns have been rising in Japan after the government found unacceptable radiation levels in milk and vegetables from several regions and in drinking water in Tokyo. The radiation comes from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. But how worrisome are the radiation levels? And when will the food and water supply be safe again?

According to reports today, two tap water samples tested in Tokyo contained 190 and 210 becquerels/kilogram (Bq/kg) of iodine-131. That level is roughly twice the limit of 100 Bq/kg for infants that's considered safe by Japan's health officials.

In response, Japanese authorities advised parents not to give babies tap water or use it in formula. Children are of special concern because any ingested iodine-131 will be absorbed by their developing thyroid gland and can lead to thyroid cancer. (The safe level is three times higher for adults.)

Still, the risk to babies is low, says epidemiologist Richard Wakeford of the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom. According to his calculations, an infant drinking tap water for a year that contained twice the safe level for iodine-131 would receive a dose of about 0.8 millisieverts. By comparison, the dose from natural background sources is 2.5 millisieverts a year, he says.

Nuclear engineer Shih-Yew Chen of the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois says he's "not at all surprised" that iodine-131 is showing up in Tokyo's water because if the wind blows southward from the plant, it could carry radiation that far. Without knowing the source of Tokyo's drinking water, however, he says it's hard to say exactly how the iodine entered the water supply. But most likely it came from airborne dust or fell in rain or snow that fed lakes, streams, and reservoirs.

The good news is that iodine-131 has a half-life of only 8 days, so any radiation from the Fukushima plant will be gone from the water within a couple of months once the leaks are stopped.

Japan has also reportedly banned sales of raw milk and certain vegetables from Fukushima prefecture and some other prefectures after unsafe levels of iodine-131 and cesium-137 were detected in samples. (The United States has banned imports of dairy products and produce from several regions.) Milk likely became contaminated when cows fed in pastures dusted with fallout. Spinach, which had some of the highest detected radiation levels, has large leaves that collect more radioactive dust than nonleafy vegetables.

As with tap water, safety levels are set based on the ingestion of large amounts of the food over a long time. "Unless you consumed it continuously at a high level," the exposure level would be minimal, Chen says.

The threat from iodine-131 in food will also fade quickly once the releases stop. But cesium-137 is a different story. Once the cesium enters the soil, its half-life of 30 years becomes a "long-lasting problem for sure," Chen says, and it will show up in vegetables, meat, and milk.

How much of a problem depends on the soil type, says retired Colorado State University radioecologist F. Ward Whicker. Clay binds the metal and keeps plants from taking it up. But if the soil is sandy and low in clay, cesium "can be recycled from soil to plant to soil for a long, long time," Wicker says. Authorities dealt with the problem after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster by turning over a deep layer of soil to bury the radioactive dust.

[chaanakya]

Finally an article of serious quality and sanity in the NY Times around the design issues at Fukushima. A good read about the "standard" estimation methodologies, how the deterministic vs probabilistic risk methods (used in Phynance a lot these days), how the Japanese are really not the cutting edge (the Fukushima stuff itself is 40 years old and their risk assessment models is based on mining past recorded history and suffers from serious sample look back bias, has little predictive capability etc). Worth a full read, atleast for those who would like these complex things explained in simple lay man easy to understand language ,something which high quality journalism should do de-jure, but we have the DDM and IDM (international dork media), spouting garbage de facto.

Nuclear Rules in Japan Relied on Old Science

“We can only work on precedent, and there was no precedent,” said Tsuneo Futami, a former Tokyo Electric nuclear engineer who was the director of Fukushima Daiichi in the late 1990s. “When I headed the plant, the thought of a tsunami never crossed my mind.”

Japan is known for its technical expertise. For decades, though, Japanese officialdom and even parts of its engineering establishment clung to older scientific precepts for protecting nuclear plants, relying heavily on records of earthquakes and tsunamis, and failing to make use of advances in seismology and risk assessment since the 1970s

When Japanese engineers began designing their first nuclear power plants more than four decades ago, they turned to the past for clues on how to protect their investment in the energy of the future. Official archives, some centuries old, contained information on how tsunamis had flooded coastal villages, allowing engineers to surmise their height.

Those methods, however, did not take into account serious uncertainties like faults that had not been discovered or earthquakes that were gigantic but rare, said Mr. Hardy, who visited Kashiwazaki after the 2007 quake as part of a study sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute.

“The Japanese fell behind,” Mr. Hardy said. “Once they made the proclamation that this was the maximum earthquake, they had a hard time re-evaluating that as new data came in.”

The Japanese approach, referred to in the field as “deterministic” — as opposed to “probabilistic,” or taking unknowns into account — somehow stuck, said Noboru Nakao, a consultant who was a nuclear engineer at Hitachi for 40 years and was president of Japan’s training center for operators of boiling-water reactors.

Hmm. Here we have folks saying that LalChix and Stock Markets have no relevance! Please read this article in full, it is worth the effort.

"No precedence" when there was tsunami with 38 mts height in 1896 and Japan has given the word, it looks pretty suspicious claim coming from a japanese , former employee and "engineer " of TEPCO.

It is also surprising that when plant was being built in 1970 the reference point was Chile quake and resulting tsunami of 10.5 foot (sic) height. ( that is about 3 mts +) in 1960 What happened to 100 years data as reference point for engineering designs?? We are gullible only and have chutzpah to question chatur ramlingams of the world.

The disaster would be studied for necessary design changes besides other lessons being learnt.
More skeletons would tumble out later.

[svinayak]

A handout made available by the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency on 25 March shows employees of Tokyo Electric Power Co. work to restore power to the central control rooms at Unit 1 and Unit 2 at Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant on 23 March. (EPA) Share

[chaanakya]

Some good and some bad news

16:00 JST March 27: Japanese authorities evacuated workers on Sunday from a reactor building they were working in after high doses of radiation were detected at a crippled nuclear power plant, the plant's operator said.
Tokyo Electric Power Co said radiation 10 million times the usual level was detected in water that had accumulated at the No. 2 reactor's turbine housing unit.

A Tokyo Electric official said workers left the No. 2 reactor's turbine housing unit to prevent exposure to radiation.

They had been struggling to pump radioactive water out of the nuclear power station, battered by a huge earthquake and a tsunami just over two weeks ago, after it was found in buildings housing three of the six reactors.
On Thursday, three workers were taken to hospital from reactor No. 3 after stepping in water with radiation levels 10,000 times higher than usually found in a reactor. But it was not immediately clear if the numbers were comparable with Sunday's reading at reactor No. 2.
However, it was yet another indication that the crisis at the plant was far from over, a point the world's chief nuclear inspector underlined at the weekend.

Yukiya Amano, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), cautioned that Japan's nuclear emergency could go on for weeks, if not months more.

"This is a very serious accident by all standards," he told the New York Times. "And it is not yet over."

Radiation levels in the sea off the Fukushima Daiichi plant rose on Sunday to 1,850 times normal just over two weeks after the disaster struck, from 1,250 on Saturday, Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said.

"Ocean currents will disperse radiation particles and so it will be very diluted by the time it gets consumed by fish and seaweed," said Hidehiko Nishiyama, a senior agency official.

OVERSHADOWED

The crisis at the plant, 240 km (150 miles) north of Tokyo, has overshadowed a relief and recovery effort from the magnitude 9.0 quake and the huge tsunami it triggered on March 11 that left more than 27,100 people dead or missing in northeast Japan.

Amano, a former Japanese diplomat who made a trip to Japan after the quake, said authorities were still unsure about whether the plant's reactor cores and spent fuel were covered with the water needed to cool them.

He told the newspaper he saw a few "positive signs" with the restoration of some electric power to the plant.

But he said: "More efforts should be done to put an end to the accident," while adding he was not criticizing Japan's response.

The IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, said it had sent two additional teams to Japan over the past two days, one to help in monitoring radiation and one to assess food contamination.

The Japanese government estimated last week the material damage from the March 11 catastrophe could top $300 billion, making it the world's costliest natural disaster.



U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said it was time to reassess the international atomic safety regime.

Japan's nuclear crisis also looks set to claim its first, and unlikely, political casualty. In far away Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel's party faces a defeat in a key state on Sunday, largely because of her policy U-turns on nuclear power.

NOT WORSENING

A Tokyo Electric official told a news conference on Saturday experts were still trying to figure out where to put the contaminated water they're trying to pump out of the reactors.

Two of the plant's reactors are now seen as safe but the other four are volatile, occasionally emitting steam and smoke.

The government has said the situation is nowhere near to being resolved, although it was not deteriorating.

"We are preventing the situation from worsening -- we've restored power and pumped in fresh water -- and making basic steps toward improvement but there is still no room for complacency," Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told a news conference on Saturday.
<snip>
no significant quantities of radiological material had been deposited in the area around the plant since March 19, according to tests on Friday.

In Tokyo, a metropolis of 13 million, a Reuters reading on Sunday morning showed ambient radiation of 0.22 microsieverts per hour, about six times normal for the city. That was well within the global average of naturally occurring background radiation of 0.17-0.39 microsieverts per hour, a range given by the World Nuclear Association.

[chaanakya]

"No precedence" when there was tsunami with 38 mts height in 1896 and Japan has given the word, it looks pretty suspicious claim coming from a japanese , former employee and "engineer " of TEPCO.

It is also surprising that when plant was being built in 1970 the reference point was Chile quake and resulting tsunami of 10.5 foot (sic) height. ( that is about 3 mts +) in 1960 What happened to 100 years data as reference point for engineering designs?? We are gullible only and have chutzpah to question chatur ramlingams of the world.

Here is the major quakes in the are 1896, 1933 and 2011

[chaanakya]

See radiation map here. Updated till 25.3.2011

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/maximum-rad ... evels.html

Notice Fukushima is not plotted as it is under "survey"

[chaanakya]

A Sane advice

Similar approach was noticed and later adopted by some NGOs to relieve victims of tsunami 2004 victims and children orphaned were taught creative and play, dancing singing which help them recover the trauma of total loss.

I say to these people, "Let's try staying away from television and the Internet for a while and spending some time listening to the music you like, reading the comics you like, making cakes, or doing whatever you did in your free time before all of this."

One person argued against my recommendation: "But doctor, even if I temporarily spent some time relaxing like that, it doesn't change the fact that the earthquake happened. My mother's hometown was badly damaged. No matter how much I escape into fun things, when I am pulled back into reality nothing will have changed. Wouldn't I become even more depressed?"

Indeed, that is one view. However, I still think that escaping into recreation is good. With a disaster this large, obviously people within the disaster area have been hit hardest by far, but even those outside those areas have been emotionally hurt. It may take a long time to make a true recovery, and it is necessary to take small rests. Be it 30 minutes or an hour, get away from the reality in front of you and immerse yourself in the world of a video game or a TV series. Take your time drinking a cup of tea and say out loud, "Ahh, this is good." Even if it's only for that time, you can put a stop to feelings of uneasiness and hopelessness.

Resting oneself this way, even if it's an escape into a fantasy or virtual world, will give one strength to recover.

[Akshut]

Reconstruction efforts:

11/03/2011 & 6 days later:

[SureshP]

The 10 million times above safety limit figure has been withdrawn and blamed on inaccurate readings. The readings are being taken with inadequate equipment as the real time sensors are still not working due to damage during tsunami and power outage.

The news should come through on AFP within a few hours.

[vina]

We are gullible only and have chutzpah to question chatur ramlingams of the world.

.

Okay Mr Super Cool, Smart and Intelligent Ranchod Das Syamaldas Chanchad, why didn't I see you jump and buy that "India Tsumani Cover Option" that I offered to write and pocket a cool Rs 100 and in fact, you should buy a couple of million of those and you will be very rich indeed! Why dont you put your money where your mouth is ?

The disaster would be studied for necessary design changes besides other lessons being learnt.More skeletons would tumble out later.

First let us hear you answer this high school level stuff, since you seemed to be so cool in that movie with that spoon connected to the mains trick giving a shock to the gonads of the bad guy when he p*ssed on that spoon.

How much current would have got transmitted to the bully's willy , as shown in that movie , given that you Mr Rahco Chanchad connected that to a 220v, 5 amps power supply.

[shiv]

Reconstruction efforts:

11/03/2011 & 6 days later:
http://gfx2.aftonbladet-cdn.se/image/12 ... a9/bro.jpg

Frankly I don't believe this. This looks to me like Chinese style propagandu. with before and after reversed. To my eye the vegetation has changed too much for 6 days.

[GuruPrabhu]

Left side vegetation looks the same. On the right side, they have cleared a lot of vegetation to make that embankment.

If it was reversed, the earthquake would have to tear out that embankment and magically grow all that stuff in 6 days. /smile/

[shiv]

Left side vegetation looks the same.

/smile/

[GuruPrabhu]

Sir-ji, Can you circle the differences or is this a Sunday Newspaper "Find the differences" game? The two trees on the top right in the top picture are out of the frame in the bottom picture. What else is different?

Also, could you politely point out how the earthquake would accelerate vegetation growth on the right side?

[Amber G.]

Chaankya, I have reported one of your posts (where you misquoted me: "kinetic theory of heat is high school physics .." ) to the moderators, and you may like to edit it to correct the silly addition you added and colored. (Q=mcT). Quite improper, if not dishonest.

( IMO, The formula Guru Prabhu had in mind (per 'kinetic theory of heat') has something to do with Boltzmann constant, not the silly addition you added )

As to rest of your "discussion" it may be helpful if one does not confuse Heat capacity with Internal Energy when looking up wiki.

I will make one comment though, for general readers:
The proper analogy, IMO is:

"Boiling water (100C), if one falls in it, say , causes 100% death. One should not derive from this that if 100 people fall in 20C water, 5 of them will be scalded and die.

(Same kind of perspective will be helpful with respect to fire place analogy you gave.. Think of a fire place far away)

[GuruPrabhu]

you may like to edit it to correct the silly addition you added and colored. (Q=mcT). Quite improper, if not dishonest.

And incorrect as well. Q is not an absolute state variable. Hence, it should be Delta-Q=mcDelta-T. Add to that, irrelevant, as you point out below.

As to rest of your "discussion" it may be helpful if one does not confuse Heat capacity with Internal Energy when looking up wiki.

I saw that but I had given up cause I am busy with bovian musicology.

[shiv]

Sir-ji, Can you circle the differences or is this a Sunday Newspaper "Find the differences" game? The two trees on the top right in the top picture are out of the frame in the bottom picture. What else is different?

Also, could you politely point out how the earthquake would accelerate vegetation growth on the right side?

Are you now saying that there is a difference? Sir, If you can't spot the differences my spotting them will not help you. You have already judged that both are the same. And it is your prerogative to be supremely confident about that. You and i have already expressed our views on this and those views do not coincide. I am happy with that difference of opinion and will not do anything to change my view or yours. You stick to your view (if that is what you wish) and I shall stick to mine.

I merely posted the enlarged views so that others can judge for themselves whether the vegetation on the left is the same or not in both photographs. Every person is capable of reaching his own judgement on the matter without any further assistance, prompting or needless argument.

This will be my last post on this subject.

/smile/

[JwalaMukhi]

Physics is not as confusing, especially for all the young jingoes and even for laypeople. There are many solid sources available. Here is a link that one can use for reference.


http://www.laradioactivite.com/en/site/ ... onship.htm
http://www.laradioactivite.com/en/site/ ... sDoses.htm
http://www.physics.org/toplistdetail.asp?id=19

[shiv]

is this a Sunday Newspaper

Sir you will have to judge for yourself whether this is a peer reviewed journal called "Nature", or an internet forum or a Sunday newspaper. I apologise for the personal reference, but I have reason to suspect that you are both highly educated and highly intelligent and I would accept your judgement on that without demur.

[Amber G.]

Well , Govt of Japan don't agree with your limit.

Of course, I did put FWIW, other sources will differ etc. Please do read what I said. I put quite a bit of effort to make the contents clear and still stand by it.

For ordinary people its 1 mSv/annum.

Whatever you say sir! What is being measured, just in background radiation is about 3.7 mSv/year

Average American's dose calculated in normal times is about 6 mSv /year

A single mammogram is about 3 mSv.

Apart from some high energy labs, and research reactors, I have not been too many times inside a NPP.. but I probably have accumulated about 400 mSv.

And it doesn't matter what "MY" formula is

Really ??? ..but... when all is said and done, can you PLEASE give your number (I asked before about Chernobyl deaths .. 57?, 100000? 850000? I have responded to your questions please do the same. It will be helpful.

[GuruPrabhu]

This will be my last post on this subject.

/smile/

I took your word for it, but then there is this:

is this a Sunday Newspaper

I apologise for the personal reference, but I have reason to suspect that you are both highly educated and highly intelligent and I would accept your judgement on that without demur.

My judgment is that it is appropriate for Journal of Downhill Skiing. Others may come to a different conclusion. I have simply outlined the errors and lack of explanation for magical grass on the right side of the highway.

[GuruPrabhu]

Thanks Jwalamukhi for that very easy to read graph. Here is Wiki on dosage from various sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

The worldwide average background dose for a human being is about 2.4 millisievert (mSv) per year.[3] This exposure is mostly from cosmic radiation and natural radionuclides in the environment (including those within the body). This is far greater than human-caused background radiation exposure, which in the year 2000 amounted to an average of about 5 μSv per year from historical nuclear weapons testing, nuclear power accidents and nuclear industry operation combined,[4] and is greater than the average exposure from medical tests, which ranges from 0.04 to 1 mSv per year. Older coal-fired power plants without effective fly ash capture are one of the largest sources of human-caused background radiation exposure.

[Amber G.]

Physics is not as confusing, especially for all the young jingoes and even for laypeople. There are many solid sources available. Here is a link that one can use for reference.

Thanks. Yes there are solid sources and that's a good chart. I don't want to sound immodest but one of the other good source available is my post here in brf.

Check out how consistent what I have said more than once and summarized it, is, with this chart. The 1000mSV limit I gave , above which we understand much more, for less dose(s) we have some empirical data (statistical correlations etc). Below 100mSv this chart does not even show points.. again consistent with what I have been posting all along.

Few things the jingo's might like to notice in that chart:

- Check out 1 mSv is on chart which Chaanakya has quoted more than once.

- Check out % (for example 500mSv range with about 1-2% chance of cancer being developed in later years)..Compare that with other causes of cancer (in 20% range ... So we are taking of the risk 20% vs 21%) (The figures I am quoting here are just top of my head ... ball park type figures)..but please also keep in mind, the rates often described "high" "very high", "100x normal" are still hazar times smaller when you look at in numbers.

I sincerely hope that people do their own looking up, look at the graph (excellent graph, IMO) posted above and don't be swayed by clueless arrogance from neem-hakeem media. Brf should not, in my opinion, enable that kind of hysteria also.

Hope that helps.

[Amber G.]

Let me ask a question here, and let people think about it..(Answer is simple but still most people are confused by it)

I drive, and do many other things which are risky .. why should I be bothered by low radiation? (why does govt put all those limits and why we should take it seriously). I am not worried about driving a few extra miles, which may increase my chances of dying not more than say a 50mSV So why does government, scientists and others take low doses so seriously.

Why the same scientists who tried to regulate x-rays doses, airport scanners etc.. are the same one who are asking people not to panic?

[chaanakya]

you may like to edit it to correct the silly addition you added and colored. (Q=mcT). Quite improper, if not dishonest.

And incorrect as well. Q is not an absolute state variable. Hence, it should be Delta-Q=mcDelta-T. Add to that, irrelevant, as you point out below.

As to rest of your "discussion" it may be helpful if one does not confuse Heat capacity with Internal Energy when looking up wiki.

I saw that but I had given up cause I am busy with bovian musicology.

Yes that is correct. I meant change only. But thanks for pointing out anyway.
And no I am not confused with internal energy and heat capacity.

[chaanakya]

Chaankya, I have reported one of your posts (where you misquoted me: "kinetic theory of heat is high school physics .." ) to the moderators, and you may like to edit it to correct the silly addition you added and colored. (Q=mcT). Quite improper, if not dishonest.

Edited, thanks for telling. It might be silly, but then not my intention to attribute that to you ,hence the color.

[chaanakya]

Let me ask a question here, and let people think about it..(Answer is simple but still most people are confused by it)

I drive, and do many other things which are risky .. why should I be bothered by low radiation? (why does govt put all those limits and why we should take it seriously). I am not worried about driving a few extra miles, which may increase my chances of dying not more than say a 50mSV So why does government, scientists and others take low doses so seriously.

Why the same scientists who tried to regulate x-rays doses, airport scanners etc.. are the same one who are asking people not to panic?

Its your prerogative not to be bothered, just as its other's prerogative to be or not to be bothered. That's the basic point.

[SureshP]

Perhaps this might help ??

What's behind our conflicted feelings on nukes?
March 24, 2011 By SETH BORENSTEIN , AP Science Writer

Even before the Japanese nuclear crisis, Americans were bombarded with contradictory images and messages that frighten even when they try to reassure. It started with the awesome and deadly mushroom cloud rising from the atomic bomb, which led to fallout shelters and school duck-and-cover drills.

On screen, Bert, the ever-alert turtle of the government civil-defense cartoons, told us all we needed to do was shield our eyes when the bomb exploded and duck under our desks. Jane Fonda in "The China Syndrome" told us to be worried about nuclear power accidents, and just days later, Three Mile Island seemed to prove her right. Now bumbling nuclear plant worker Homer Simpson, Blinky, the radiation-mutated, three-eyed fish, and evil nuclear power plant owner Montgomery Burns make us giggle and wince.

The experts tell us to be logical and not to worry, that nuclear power is safer than most technologies we readily accept. Producing and burning coal, oil and gas kill far more people through accidents and pollution each year.

But our perception of nuclear issues isn't about logic. It's about dread, magnified by arrogance in the nuclear industry, experts in risk and nuclear energy say.

"Whereas science is about analysis, risk resides in most of us as a gut feeling," said University of Oregon psychology professor and risk expert Paul Slovic. "Radiation really creates very strong feelings of fear - not really fear, I would say more anxiety and unease."

Some experts contend that when a disaster has potentially profound repercussions, we should pay attention to emotions as much as logic.

Nuclear energy hits all our hot buttons when we judge how risky something is: It's invisible. It's out of our control. It's manmade, high-tech and hard to understand. It's imposed on us, instead of something we choose. It's associated with major catastrophes, not small problems. And if something goes wrong, it can cause cancer - an illness we fear far more than a bigger killer like heart disease.

Thirty years ago, before the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, Slovic took four groups of people and asked them to rate 30 risks. Two groups - the League of Women Voters and college students - put nuclear power as the biggest risk, ahead of things that are deadlier, such as cars, handguns and cigarettes. Business club members ranked nuclear power as the eighth risk out of 30. Risk experts put it at 20.

The only fear that Slovic has seen as comparable in his studies to nuclear power is terrorism.

A Pew Research Center poll after the Japanese nuclear crisis found support for increased nuclear power melting down. Last October the American public was evenly split over an expansion of nuclear power; now it's 39 percent in favor and 52 percent opposed.

"Nuclear radiation carries a very powerful stigma. It has automatic negative associations: cancer, bombs, catastrophes," said David Ropeik who teaches risk communications at Harvard University. You can't separate personal feelings from the discussion of actual risks, said Ropeik, author of the book "How Risky Is it, Really?"

But Ropeik, who has consulted for the nuclear industry, said those fears aren't nearly as justified as other public health concerns. He worries that the public will turn to other choices, such as fossil fuels, which are linked to more death and climate change than the nuclear industry is. He cites one government study that says 24,000 Americans die each year from air pollution and another that says fossil fuel power plants are responsible for about one-seventh of that.

At the same time, health researchers have not tied any U.S. deaths to 1979's Three Mile Island accident. United Nations agencies put the death toll from Chernobyl at 4,000 to 9,000, with anti-nuclear groups contending the number is much higher.

Since 2000, more than 1,300 American workers have died in coal, oil and natural gas industry accidents, according to federal records. Radiological accidents have killed no one at U.S. nuclear plants during that time, and nuclear power has one of the lowest industrial accident rates in the country, said Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Steve Kerekes.

Alan Kolaczkowski, a retired nuclear engineer, consulted with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on specific probabilities of accidents at nuclear plants. He estimates the risk of a disaster at a given plant at 1 in 100,000 - about the same as your chance of being killed by lightning over your lifetime. For comparison, an American's odds of dying in a car crash are 1 in 88; being shot to death, 1 in 306; and dying from bee stings, 1 in 71,623, according to the National Safety Council. The council couldn't come up with the odds of dying from radiation because it lists zero people dying in the United States from radiation in 2007, the most recent year for which these cause-of-death figures are available.

Ropeik calls this mismatch between statistics and feelings "a classic example of how public policy gets made - not about the numbers alone, but how we feel about them, and it ends up doing us more harm."

Kolaczkowski faulted his own industry.

"Those in the industry believe it is so complex it cannot be explained to the general public, so as a result, the industry has a trust-me attitude and that only goes so far," he said. "We're all afraid of the unknown, the ghosts under the bed."

David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that presses for safer nuclear plants, is a former plant engineer. He likens the public's fears to unjustified worries about shark attacks: The risks and deaths are small, but the attention and fears are big.

"It may be an irrational fear, but I don't think it's one that can be educated away," Lochbaum said.

However, calling these fears irrational isn't justified, said Georgetown University law professor and former Environmental Protection Agency associate administrator Lisa Heinzerling. She said people's concerns have been unjustly trivialized.

People have been trained to think about and prepare for low-probability, catastrophic events like the earthquake and tsunami that caused the Japanese nuclear disaster, Heinzerling said. She pointed to homeowner's insurance. Most people won't have a fire that destroys their home, but "we worry about really big things even if they are improbable because we will be wiped out."

Americans also have long had an ambivalence toward new technology, going back to worries about the introduction of electric lights in homes 130 years ago, said University of Detroit Mercy history professor John Staudenmaier,

"Americans overreact with adulation and awe, then overreact with fear and anxiety," said Staudenmaier, editor emeritus of the academic journal Technology and Culture.

Trying to explain the fears, nuclear industry spokesman Kerekes said, "There's a perception gap that exists." But he adds: "Other industries haven't had to do deal with an animated cartoon series that lasted, what, 25 years?"

That would be "The Simpsons." Producer Al Jean said the show, which has been on the air since 1989, reflects America's real feelings.

"There is something that taps into people's view of big business, and in particular, nuclear power, which is giving profit-minded people complete control over life and death. It is a scary thought, and I think that is a topic for satire," Jean said.

Jean recognizes that nuclear plant workers aren't really like Homer Simpson and radiation doesn't "put a cute third eye on a fish." But he thinks his show is accurate with its portrayal of the greedy, conniving nuclear power plant owner Montgomery Burns: "Mr. Burns may be representative of some people in the nuclear industry - not just nuclear, but all industries - who seem like they're more interested in getting the money rather than doing what's safe. I think that's what resonates in the public."

Yet, Jean takes pride in noting that the Springfield nuclear power plant has never blown up.

The lack of transparency in the nuclear industry- including Tokyo Electric Power Co. - has caused some of the problems, said Baruch Fischhoff, a professor of decision sciences at Carnegie Mellon University. It is a charge Kerekes disputes.

"The nuclear industry has behaved in a way that is untrustworthy, both in the sense of not telling people the truth and not having the competence to manage their own affairs," Fischhoff said. He added that industry is too quick to brush off people's fears: "Telling the public that they are idiots is certainly not a way of making friends."

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-con ... nukes.html

[Amber G.]

/sigh/ It seems that one poster has missed the point of my post by a light year and at the same time entropy of this dhaga has increased by leaps and bounds.

The question was not to comment on, who ought to be "bothered", it was rather, if you were a Neta to protect your community, what principle will guide you to do the best for your janata.

It was, to repeat it, why the same scientists who recommend the 20K evacuation (and monitor radiation doses, iodine etc) also tells us why media hysteria is bad.

A poster may miss the whole point but I was asking, why, looking at the same data, the same scientists, support a) close monitoring of radiation, and avoiding it (even low dose) and b) support the data of low risk due to low radiation.

The answer to this is not trivial.

[Amber G.]

Chaankya, I have reported one of your posts (where you misquoted me: "kinetic theory of heat is high school physics .." ) to the moderators, and you may like to edit it to correct the silly addition you added and colored. (Q=mcT). Quite improper, if not dishonest.

Edited, thanks for telling. It might be silly, but then not my intention to attribute that to you ,hence the color.

/disgust/ First you pick a random (if it was picked with some thought, its even worse) equation, put in in color, add it in my quote, and later when pointed out that it was improper thing to do, you don't even admit that you made a mistake and expect others to see your intention by the color of your post.

It was more than silly, and honestly I do not care what your intention was as, at least, I can not even make head and tail out of that silliness. And, I still have not seen even an iota of apology from you.

Writing, well kind of things you write, may be your business, but please do not misquote me.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Moderators - This is not good for anyone.

[Amber G.]

Meanwhile:
SureshP -

One clip I see, (Sorry if already posted) has to be seen to be believed. Unfortunately items like this are not in minority.
10,000,000 times normal radiation spike at Fukushima 'mistake'

It's a 5 minute video.. don't let the headline fool you.. Survivors of nagasaki, and "expert" fill up those minutes.

Story you said is here too: (Sorry if already posted)
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Co ... 03111.html

Media coverage of the pools has been complicated by a mistake in Tepco's reporting which put the level of radioactivity in the water at 'ten million times' the normal level for reactor coolant. The company has retracted this, explaining that the level it reported for iodine-134 was actually for another radionuclide with a longer half-life and therefore a lower activity rate.

[Gerard]

This dhaga renders one speechless. Who knew that BRF had so many members enamored of Greenpeace? Who knew I could recruit people on BRF willing to gherao a nuke plant?