2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami - News and Analysis

[Amber G.]

Silly tricks . baits and obfuscation like DHMO don't cut ice anymore. People see through it.

[When asked to confirm, if the above was refereed to my query on what his views on LNT and 1mSV limit was, the following was posted]

Dil pe mat lo Dear. DHMO was a silly trick indeed. Least expected from informative person like you on brf. You really thought someone would fall for it?

And also please do not ass-ume . I don't do that.

Folks - (This reply is not to Chaankaya only)
First it is Chaanakya's choice of words, to use "ass-ume" spelling and assuming that "Dear" should not "Dil pe mat lo Dear" ..

But nothing "silly" in DHMO hoax. In fact it is quite serious. I feel sorry for him if Chaankaya fell of it, and finds it a "trick" but one should note that many "important" (but ignorant that it is just water) people fell for it.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen ... lving_DHMO

Of course, DHMO case is not unique. Every couple of year, people sign up for, things like "repeal the (dangerous) ohms law" or "Joining the Brownian Movement"

This is not much different than, people getting hoaxed by statements like .. people getting harmed by "dangerous", "x times legal limit" radiation, which when looked at the numbers, are less than even the background radiation.

Sad part is, we still have, in BRF one or two people still repeating this absurd ignorance...

On the bright side, most see through it.

Serious part is, responsible people, should not ignore and keep quite, they should challenge and expose such statements from people like Bidwai, Helen Caldicott and people who lionize them, and spread ignorance.

This is where patriotism comes in.

[chaanakya]

Folks - (This reply is not to Chaankaya only)
First it is Chaanakya's choice of words, to use "ass-ume" spelling and assuming that "Dear" should not "Dil pe mat lo Dear" ..

{ yeah "assume" means that. It has three things ass U and me. I don't want that as I don't assume. As a teaching professional you should not do that either. Its not my choice of words but your's only.}

But nothing "silly" in DHMO hoax. In fact it is quite serious. I feel sorry for him if Chaankaya fell of it, and finds it a "trick" but one should note that many "important" (but ignorant that it is just water) people fell for it.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen ... lving_DHMO
{certainly I am not in distinguished company. Please don't regret that I didn't fall for it but your reference seems to imply that it was a IED laid for one or two members only How silly.}

Of course, DHMO case is not unique. Every couple of year, people sign up for, things like "repeal the (dangerous) ohms law" or "Joining the Brownian Movement"

This is not much different than, people getting hoaxed by statements like .. people getting harmed by "dangerous", "x times legal limit" radiation, which when looked at the numbers, are less than even the background radiation.

Sad part is, we still have, in BRF one or two people still repeating this absurd ignorance...

On the bright side, most see through it.

Serious part is, responsible people, should not ignore and keep quite, they should challenge and expose such statements from people like Bidwai, Helen Caldicott and people who lionize them, and spread ignorance.

This is where patriotism comes in.

Just because DHMO fell through doesn't make other things hoax as well.


And again you assume that at brf member lionize bidwai or caldicott. In fact these were posted by you perhaps or other like minded members. i don't fault them. We should read all that is possible , need not subscribe to it or other views of theirs

You judge yourself what is absurd and what is ignorance as if you have done original study on radiation effects. After all everyone is quoting some study or news only. i will not reply further as it would encourage trollish behaviour by others.

[chaanakya]

Radioactive water found in No.3 reactor pit

Tokyo Electric Power Company says water containing radioactive material has been found flowing into a pit outside of the No.3 reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

The flow was confirmed on Wednesday afternoon at a pit linked to a utility tunnel near the reactor's water intake.

Workers could not confirm whether the water was leaking out into the sea, but they reported seeing froth near the water intake.
TEPCO says the concentration of radioactive Cesium in water sampled from the pit was 620,000 times higher than the safety limit set by the government. The utility also says it detected 1.5 milli-sieverts per hour of radiation on the surface of water in the pit, which indicates contaminated water may be leaking into the sea.

TEPCO is investigating the make-up of the water and considering burying the pit to stop possible leakage.

On April 2nd, the utility confirmed that highly radioactive wastewater was leaking into the sea from a crack in a pit outside the No.2 reactor.

That leak was stopped 4 days later, after workers sealed the crack with a special chemical known as liquid glass. But in the meantime, nearby seawater was polluted by radiation.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011 19:02 +0900 (JST)

[chaanakya]

Gov't: Burying contaminated soil into ground works
Another high tech new clear solution Bury 'em all.

The Japanese government plans to inform schools in Fukushima Prefecture that burying radiation-contaminated topsoil into the ground is an effective way to reduce its radiation level.

The education and science ministry concluded this after conducting an experiment at a school in Fukushima City on Sunday. The ministry says that burying contaminated soil 50 centimeters underground reduced the overall radiation level by 90 percent.

After the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, schools in the prefecture have been restricting outdoor activities. Radiation levels in soil at all the schools, except for one, remain within the official limit for children playing outdoors.

[Sanku]

Oh boy this is a cracker, no wonder Nato Kan is moving like he is, probably lots of such news to come our way. I think Japan will rapidly go to zero NPPs if such news keep coming in.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/201 ... 8000c.html

Radiation in soil near troubled Japan nuclear plant exceeds Chernobyl evacuation level

The levels of radiation accumulated in soil near the crippled nuclear power plant in northeastern Japan far exceeded the level of radiation the then-Soviet Union had used as a criterion for urging people to evacuate at the time of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, threatening to plague local residents for a lengthy period.

All this despite flushing most of the radioactivity into the sea.

[Bade]

^^^ Yes that is the correct high tech and economical solution. If you plan a base on the moon tomorrow, the first and likely the very last of the habitation quarters will still be underground the lunar soil for protection from cosmic radiation.

[Amber G.]

Again record has to be corrected, and this needs a response.

Just because DHMO fell through doesn't make other things hoax as well.

True, indeed, but still one should examine with a grain of salt, any other thesis given by the author of Jinn thermodynamics.

And again you assume that at brf member lionize bidwai or caldicott. In fact these were posted by you perhaps or other like minded members. i don't fault them. We should read all that is possible , need not subscribe to it or other views of theirs

No assumption here. It is a matter of record. Caldocott's was introduced by, YES by
Chaankaya ... here: LINK as support to "hundreds of thousands of deaths in Chernobyl.

Of course, you did lionized and called the author of one study as "no less of a physicist" than me. ( See link: link (Forgetting for a moment, that I believe, you have no clue as to what kind of physicst I am as you routinely called me " resident physicist and banana expert" see link Link) .. I am sure, you remember the author, and the paper, as I gave benefit of doubt to you and thought that you are really serious about finding things out. (This is the paper which had 985,000 deaths..resulted into Q=mct.. ityadi ityadi).. and all you did was through more insults...

Of course, Caldocott's name was invoked by JwalaMukhi again (And that too after the article was already discussed and JwalaMukhi must have known the back ground of this author which called us (Indians) "idiots on pill"
at:http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... s#p1079718

Gentle readers, please do go through a few messages after that -- and see for yourself..

I can give many such example, See people using Markey's absurd data, again to through mud at people who took time to post here.

You judge yourself what is absurd and what is ignorance as if you have done original study on radiation effects.

Yes, I do judge, some times, what is absurd, and encourage every one to call out the absurdities.

What one sees, if one looks carefully, that when I do that, I try to make it clear "why it is absurd". I stand by, for example, health effects of 1 mSV dose, given by you (repeatedly) as absurd. And I believe I have explained my reasons quite clearly. Unlike ideologues, scientist, generally have basis and look at the message, not the messenger.


Just for perspective, this is also, a part of my day time job where I "judge" students paper or peer reviewed journals. You see, not only one has a right to one's opinion, it is also one's duty to give that opinion and call out ignorant statements specially if the ignorance is going to harm the nation.

As to "as if I have done original study", as I said before, I believe you have no clue as to what original study I have done (or have not done). Besides, in these cases, one does not NEED to do any original study, most of what I said, can be confirmed by anyone who has access to a physics lab and minimum understanding and willingness to check the numbers.

One does not need to have done an original study to get an idea of radiation doses, by being familiar with, say its value in back-ground radiation or in a CT scan. This is why, I have tried to put the numbers in perspective, and encouraged others to look at reputable sources.

After all everyone is quoting some study or news only. .

So can you quote, even one study, which shows harmful health effects of dose of 1mSV? I would certainly like to see it.

[Sanku]

Excellent article on the bright future - nuclear for Japan.

http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/0 ... apan-have/

With Nuclear Expansion Off the Table, What Do Japan's Energy Options Look Like?

Technologically speaking, Japan's solar sector got off to a fast and early start in the 1980s, but it has since been overtaken by Europe. Japan currently has the third largest solar PV capacity installed, generating slightly more electricity than geothermal, but only rates fifth in terms of installation per capita. In 2008, according to Reuters, Japan produced 1.92 million kilowatts of solar power, of which 80% came from people's homes.

Though Japan's environment minister said on Tuesday that the Pacific coast of northeast Japan was suited for wind installation, and could eventually generate the more power than is currently being produced by the nation's nuclear plants, severe weather, grid constraints and economic stagnation have been holding this renewable back.

Japan has the third largest geothermal energy potential in the world after the U.S. and Indonesia. But in terms of harnessing that heat and turning it into power, Japan only ranks 8th, after countries with drastically smaller populations, like Iceland and New Zealand.

Yes there are issues, but where are there no issues? This is a very good way forward.

[amit]

Excellent article on the bright future - nuclear for Japan.

http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/0 ... apan-have/

With Nuclear Expansion Off the Table, What Do Japan's Energy Options Look Like?

Selective reading is a habit and a bad one at that. But it's a nice tactic on a thread where most people don't have the time to actually click on the link and read through and depend on the poster to highlight the important portions.

This is also from the article.

Last year, Kan's government announced plans to build 14 new reactors that would expand that production to meet 50% of the nation's electricity needs. Japan is world's third largest consumer of electricity, and, as the largest importer of liquified natural gas and coal and third largest consumer of oil, has long relied on non-domestic fossil fuels for the majority of its electricity production. In an island nation without its own natural resources or space, nuclear seemed like the right way forward in order for Japan to distance itself from the volatility of the oil markets and to meet its pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% of 1990 levels by 2020.

The government has not yet backed down from that target, but it is certainly one of the things that will now be up for debate in forging a brand new energy policy. Kan, in sentiments later echoed by Environment Minister Ryu Matsumoto, said that new direction would focus on other renewables like wind, solar, hydro and geothermal, and conservation.

Being up for debate is not the same as announcing a stop or step back from nuclear. Note there's no mention of not building those 14 new plants or closing down the existing 54 plants (save of course Fukushima). Or even news that such a move would be considered.

Japan is going to invest more on renewables, that's really good news. But it's the third largest electricity consumer in the world and needs a lot of energy.

The day when the actually announce the cutting back or scraping of nuclear power plants will be the day to sit up and take notice, IMO.

[chaanakya]

Again record has to be corrected, and this needs a response.

Just because DHMO fell through doesn't make other things hoax as well.

True, indeed, but still one should examine with a grain of salt, any other thesis given by the author of Jinn thermodynamics.

And again you assume that at brf member lionize bidwai or caldicott. In fact these were posted by you perhaps or other like minded members. i don't fault them. We should read all that is possible , need not subscribe to it or other views of theirs

No assumption here. It is a matter of record. Caldocott's was introduced by, YES by
Chaankaya ... here: LINK as support to "hundreds of thousands of deaths in Chernobyl.

Of course, you did lionized and called the author of one study as "no less of a physicist" than me. ( See link: link (Forgetting for a moment, that I believe, you have no clue as to what kind of physicst I am as you routinely called me " resident physicist and banana expert" see link Link) .. I am sure, you remember the author, and the paper, as I gave benefit of doubt to you and thought that you are really serious about finding things out. (This is the paper which had 985,000 deaths..resulted into Q=mct.. ityadi ityadi).. and all you did was through more insults...

Of course, Caldocott's name was invoked by JwalaMukhi again (And that too after the article was already discussed and JwalaMukhi must have known the back ground of this author which called us (Indians) "idiots on pill"
at:http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... s#p1079718

Gentle readers, please do go through a few messages after that -- and see for yourself..

I can give many such example, See people using Markey's absurd data, again to through mud at people who took time to post here.

You judge yourself what is absurd and what is ignorance as if you have done original study on radiation effects.

Yes, I do judge, some times, what is absurd, and encourage every one to call out the absurdities.

What one sees, if one looks carefully, that when I do that, I try to make it clear "why it is absurd". I stand by, for example, health effects of 1 mSV dose, given by you (repeatedly) as absurd. And I believe I have explained my reasons quite clearly. Unlike ideologues, scientist, generally have basis and look at the message, not the messenger.


Just for perspective, this is also, a part of my day time job where I "judge" students paper or peer reviewed journals. You see, not only one has a right to one's opinion, it is also one's duty to give that opinion and call out ignorant statements specially if the ignorance is going to harm the nation.

As to "as if I have done original study", as I said before, I believe you have no clue as to what original study I have done (or have not done). Besides, in these cases, one does not NEED to do any original study, most of what I said, can be confirmed by anyone who has access to a physics lab and minimum understanding and willingness to check the numbers.

One does not need to have done an original study to get an idea of radiation doses, by being familiar with, say its value in back-ground radiation or in a CT scan. This is why, I have tried to put the numbers in perspective, and encouraged others to look at reputable sources.

After all everyone is quoting some study or news only. .

So can you quote, even one study, which shows harmful health effects of dose of 1mSV? I would certainly like to see it.

Yeah, first of all the post was about Yablokov

And wiki was quoted where I remarked that neutrality is doubted though some valid points are made.That wiki article mentions caldicot, doesn't mean I introduced . Any way sophistry is only amazing.

If you doubt the person whose study was quoted do contact, his details are there.I don't think they have any less valuable work then you.

Tondel, M., Lindgren, P., Hjalmarsson, P., Hardell, L. and Persson, B. (2006), Increased incidence of malignancies in Sweden after the Chernobyl accident—a promoting effect?. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 49: 159–168. doi: 10.1002/ajim.20271

resident physicist and banana expert.

Of course I have no clue as to your profession but I do gather from "your" writings. But I may be wrong.

Of course unless you show that you have done original study , all that remains is to quote one or the other study.

As for study I would ask you to look through Busby as you have said , repeatedly that you don't have time to go through the papers, In such a situation your assertion means zilch to me.

This is what you had written so how you will be taken seriously if keep advising others to read reports that you link to.

. I have no interest, let alone time, or expertise, to review it in details but let me point out three things which jumped out for me. (I could have probably chosen many others). I hope you and others do read it carefully.

and again

n any case, as I said, I do not have interest or even time to go through that article line by line

And when busby article was linked in my post this was your response

^^ Okay I know which paper, Thanks chaanakya. From what I can see,it is very expertly written and excellent article. It is worth to read it in full.

yet instead of reading it in full and posting your comments you advised me to read etc.

Chaankya - Since you suggested me to read your posted article, can I urge you to do the same for the same article you posted.

No wonder, your DHMO trickery started right after that.
So spare me your judgement.

[Sanku]

The day when the actually announce the cutting back or scraping of nuclear power plants will be the day to sit up and take notice, IMO.

Errr that has already happened. At least three plants are shut down "temporarily" with no notion to the temporality. You are really behind the curve.

And the article I posted and quoted was to highlight the renewable, of course salient and meaningful pieces were highlighted. No need to highlight every trivial word. Whats so strange about very obvious thing.

That was a appetizer so that interested people can read fully. It has excellent graphics on growth of renewable.

And the world is already taking notice, I already know that you wont since the real world factors does not fit in the scheme of random noise generation that you have been carrying out.

I can only point to the writing on the wall, I am not constrained whether people read or do not read it.

========================================

Meanwhile in real world news (as opposed to picking disjoint phrases from articles to make aam == imli)

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/new-t ... nt/789525/

New threats emerge at Japan nuclear plant

The water level inside had fallen below the bottom of the four-metre (12 foot) long fuel rods, suggesting they had been exposed to the air, increasing the risk of a dangerous full meltdown.

However, the vessel's relatively low outside temperature of 100-120 degrees Celsius (212-248 degrees Fahrenheit) indicated that the rods had dropped to the bottom of the vessel and were under water, TEPCO said.

So the water level is really low but the rods have already collected at the very bottom and are hence just about covered. Wonder how long this dangerous balance can last? All it needs is another few hours of loss of the already minimal water cover for another heat spike/fire/explosion.

It is a very unstable situation.

[amit]

Errr that has already happened. At least three plants are shut down "temporarily" with no notion to the temporality. You are really behind the curve.

Oh really?

So temporary is permanent? Can you back that up with a link? Mind you don't post a link which says "temporary" shut down for maintenance or safety checks etc but one which says these plants are never going to be reopened again.

For some the curve is a part of a full circle. And Indians are credited with discovering the meaning of this shape in maths.

[amit]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/jap ... d=13544978

Prime Minister Naoto Kan said during a news conference today that he requested the suspension of reactors at the Hamaoka nuclear plant over safety concerns, citing a study that said there was an 87 percent chance of a magnitude 8.0 earthquake striking central Japan within the next 30 years.

Hamaoka powers regions that include Aichi, home to Toyota Motor Corp headquarters.

Hamaoka is the only plant so far where the government has asked that operations be halted until the utility can implement safety measures. Chubu Electric has already drawn up plans to build a 40 to 50 foot seawall along a mile long stretch off the Pacific coast. But completion of that wall is expected to take about three years.

The inspection of Hamaoka and all of Japan's 54 nuclear plants was prompted by the disaster at the troubled Fukushima Daichi nuclear plant following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

The Japanese are doing what any democratic country with concern for its people would do. Taking a step back and re looking at safety measures and enhancing them as in the case of Hamaoka.

To infer from that they are shutting down all the nuclear plants permanently takes a particular kind of leap in faith.

[Sanku]

Errr that has already happened. At least three plants are shut down "temporarily" with no notion to the temporality. You are really behind the curve.

Oh really?

So temporary is permanent? Can you back that up with a link? Mind you don't post a link which says "temporary" shut down for maintenance or safety checks etc but one which says these plants are never going to be reopened again.

Why be so restless, even that will happen. And with Japanese Govt walking away from new plants a whole host of plants set for retirement will also go away. You can find that statistic if you are really interested.

For some the curve is a part of a full circle. And Indians are credited with discovering the meaning of this shape in maths.

Any residual value in such posts is destroyed by such silly childish sniping, instead of learning from facts even if they go against established mindset.

[amit]

Why be so restless, even that will happen. And with Japanese Govt walking away from new plants a whole host of plants set for retirement will also go away. You can find that statistic if you are really interested.

Sigh! I guess you don't read what you post.

Here's what that link said:

Last year, Kan's government announced plans to build 14 new reactors that would expand that production to meet 50% of the nation's electricity needs. Japan is world's third largest consumer of electricity, and, as the largest importer of liquified natural gas and coal and third largest consumer of oil, has long relied on non-domestic fossil fuels for the majority of its electricity production. In an island nation without its own natural resources or space, nuclear seemed like the right way forward in order for Japan to distance itself from the volatility of the oil markets and to meet its pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% of 1990 levels by 2020.

The government has not yet backed down from that target, but it is certainly one of the things that will now be up for debate in forging a brand new energy policy. Kan, in sentiments later echoed by Environment Minister Ryu Matsumoto, said that new direction would focus on other renewables like wind, solar, hydro and geothermal, and conservation.

Now slowly read the link I posted. And then add the two together and see what sum you get.

Any residual value in such posts is destroyed by such silly childish sniping, instead of learning from facts even if they go against established mindset.

Oh I see and I suppose saying someone is behind the curve or accusing him of spreading falsehoods etc are not childish or - using another of your favourite keywords - malevolent and are just gentle pats on the back and something that adults do?

[Sanku]

Sigh! I guess you don't read what you post.

I have posted many other links no need to be hung up on a single data point. Collect all data points available. This link was useful because its description of future energy moves.

There are many other links detailing the Japanese withdrawl. Some have been posted many others are there for seeking on the web.

If you can educate yourself. Good, otherwise kindly stop being a nuisance and haranguing about one line in one post. Last post on this entirely unsubstantial discussion.

To sum it up for you -- I posted a article about the strong +ve potential for renewable now that Japanese govt has abandoned nuclear energy plans in future. That is all. Thank you.

[chaanakya]

Nuclear fuel at Fukushima No. 1 reactor melted after full exposure
Thursday 12th May, 02:38 PM JST

TOKYO —
Water inside the troubled No. 1 reactor of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was at an unexpectedly low level, not enough to cover the nuclear fuel, hinting that a large part of the fuel melted after being fully exposed, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Thursday based on data obtained by adjusted gauges.

But the plant operator said the water at the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel holding the fuel is keeping the melted fuel cool, assuring that the company is succeeding in preventing the reactor’s fuel from overheating by injecting water from outside.

Based on the latest data after workers adjusted gauges for measuring the water level at the reactor, water could not be confirmed inside the pressure vessel at a point 5 meters below where the top of the 4-meter-long fuel rods normally are, according to TEPCO.

The water level is far lower than earlier thought. Measurements taken before the gauge adjustment indicated that about 1.5 to 1.7 meters of the fuel rods were exposed and not submerged in water.

Still, the surface temperature of the pressure vessel was relatively low, measuring between 100 C and 120 C.

The utility had earlier estimated that 55% of the reactor core at the No. 1 unit has been damaged. It is unknown how much fuel melted and dropped to the bottom, but the fuel is unlikely to be at its original position.

TEPCO has been trying to check the levels of water inside the No. 1 reactor’s pressure vessel and the outer primary container so that it can move ahead with a plan to flood the container with water up to the level above the fuel and create a system to stably keep the fuel cool.

But the latest finding on the situation inside the unit—one of the six at the plant crippled by the March 11 massive quake and tsunami—suggests that a significant amount of the water injected into the reactor core to keep the fuel cool as an emergency measure was leaking out to the primary container.

A TEPCO official said the company will review its plan to flood the primary container up to the level above the fuel.

Hidehiko Nishiyama, a spokesman for the government’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, said even if the container is not flooded with water, creating a system that would enable coolant to circulate around the reactor is possible by using the water that now exists inside the vessel and primary container.

[chaanakya]

New radioactive leak raises questions

Highly radioactive water was found leaking into the sea from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant on Wednesday. It's now been revealed that contaminated water levels in the No. 3 reactor's turbine building were already alarmingly high by Sunday.

Tokyo Electric Power Company plugged the leak with concrete after it found highly radioactive water flowing into the sea through a pit.

Radioactive cesium 620,000 times higher than the government-set safety limit was detected from the leaked water.

The contaminated water was streaming from the outlet of a pipe for electric cables.

The leak is thought to have stemmed from pooled water in the turbine building of the No. 3 reactor.

TEPCO says it found that waste water levels in the facility had risen to a point where leakage was feared on Sunday.

The company says it doesn't know when the leak began, but that it will investigate if the monitoring of water levels was appropriate. The problem raises the question of whether the utility wasn't able to prevent the latest leak.

The utility is planning to soon begin transferring radioactive water accumulated in the turbine building to a provisional storage facility. It is now checking for other possible leaks.

Highly radioactive water poured into the sea from a crack in a pit outside the No.2 reactor in early April.
On Thursday, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said the renewed leaking of radioactive materials into the sea was extremely regrettable.

He says the government apologizes to the local residents, the fishing industry and neighboring countries.

Edano also said he had instructed TEPCO to investigate how the leak occurred, and that the company must take measures to prevent another episode.
Thursday, May 12, 2011 13:09 +0900 (JST)

[Sanku]

No no there can be no meltdown you must be lying. Physics demands that meltdown has not happened. And to prove it I have eaten a banana.

[chaanakya]

Water likely leaking from No.1 reactor

Tokyo Electric Power Company says water may be leaking from breaches in the No.1 reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, causing a sharp drop in the water level inside the reactor.

Tokyo Electric sent workers inside the building to adjust the water gauge of the reactor.

The utility had suspected the gauge wasn't working properly because the water level hasn't been rising despite pumping in 150 tons of water daily to cool the reactor.

On Thursday morning, it was found that the water level was more than one meter below the bottom of the fuel rods, suggesting a large volume of water is leaking into the containment vessel.

The utility company also believes that the water is leaking from the containment vessel into the reactor building. This is because the estimated volume of water inside the containment vessel appears to be less than what leaked into it from the reactor.

Tokyo Electric says temperatures at the bottom of the reactor are between 100 and 120 degrees Celsius, suggesting that the fuel has fallen and is being cooled in the water below.


The utility says it does not believe the fuel has completely melted and spilled through the bottom of the reactor. It adds that instead, the fuel appears to be being cooled inside the reactor.

Tokyo Electric says the company will now have to review its ongoing procedure of filling the containment vessel with water to cool the reactor.
It says it will reveal a new plan on Tuesday next week when it is set to announce a revised schedule for containing the emergency.

Work to cool the reactors had made the most progress in the No.1 reactor, with the volume of injected water being increased. The cooling of the reactors is the most important step in the containment process.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told reporters that the reactor appears to be stable because it's been steadily cooled for a long period. But he said the condition of the reactor must be reassessed as some figures from the gauge are contradictory.

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said that if the latest data is accurate, it seems parts of the fuel have melted and accumulated at the bottom of the reactor. But it added that it believes the fuel rods are being cooled.
Thursday, May 12, 2011 15:08 +0900 (JST)

[chaanakya]

35 Japanese reactors are soon to be out of line

Japan is shutting down so many nuclear reactors because of the earthquake and other reasons that only about a third of its 54 reactors will be operating by late May.

The earthquake and tsunami on March 11th has led to the suspension of operations at 14 reactors, including those at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi plant. 19 other reactors are currently offline. They are currently undergoing regular inspections or plan to be inspected soon.

Later this week Chubu Electric Power Company will shut down 2 of its reactors at the Hamaoka plant. The move follows a government request to do so, due to concerns about the plant's earthquake readiness.

All told, 35, or about two-thirds, of Japan's commercial reactors will have been shut down by the end of May.

During the next few months, 5 more reactors will have to be shut down ahead of regular inspections.

If the utilities decide to keep these 40 reactors offline for the time being, Japan will have about 75 percent of its reactors shutdown this summer.
Thursday, May 12, 2011 18:28 +0900 (JST)

[chaanakya]

Edano apologizes over new radioactive water leak into sea
Thursday 12th May, 01:55 PM JST

TOKYO —

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said Thursday that a new leak of radioactive water into the sea from the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was ‘‘very deplorable’’ and offered his apologies to neighboring countries and others who may be affected.

‘‘I apologize for again causing worries and troubles to local residents, those in the fishing industry and neighboring nations,’’ the top government spokesman told a news conference, a day after plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co announced the leak and said it was able to stop the flow.

The utility said highly contaminated radioactive water had leaked into the sea from a pit close to a seawater intake for the No. 3 reactor, after a similar case was detected last month near the No. 2 reactor of the Fukushima plant, which has been crippled by the devastating March 11 earthquake and tsunami

[chaanakya]

Nuclear fuel at Fukushima No. 1 unit melted after full exposure
TOKYO, May 12, Kyodo

Tokyo Electric Power Co., the operator of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, revealed Thursday that holes had been created by melted nuclear fuel at the bottom of the No. 1 reactor's pressure vessel.

The company said it has found multiple holes adding up to several centimeters in welded piping. Earlier in the day, it said the amount of water inside the troubled reactor was unexpectedly low -- not enough to cover the nuclear fuel -- hinting that a large part of the fuel melted after being fully exposed.

The finding is raising concerns that the company will face difficulty achieving its plan to bring the damaged reactors to a stable condition known as a ''cold shutdown'' in about six to nine months, observers said.

[chaanakya]

Local concerns could delay nuclear operations throughout Japan

Municipalities hosting nuclear power plants are now so nervous about potential accidents that 42 of Japan's 54 commercial reactors could be offline during the peak electricity demand period this summer.

That situation could lead to power outages spreading throughout Japan.

Electric power companies are not legally bound to gain the approval of local communities before resuming reactor operations. However, the companies have signed safety agreements with prefectural and municipal governments that make it difficult to resume operations without their consent.

Considering the protracted problems at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, local governments are now opposing such plans.

..............


...............

Fukui Prefecture has 13 commercial nuclear plants, the most in the nation. Operations at six have been been suspended for inspections and three others will halt operations for inspections in July.

Eight reactors in Fukui Prefecture have been operating for more than 30 years. The prefectural government has asked the central government for measures to deal with such old reactors.

Regular inspections are required at nuclear reactors about once a year. Operations of 14 reactors have been halted for such inspections. Seven were scheduled to restart by late April, but electric power companies have yet to pull the switch.

Six other reactors are scheduled to undergo regular inspections by this summer. And 15 reactors are not operating because they were damaged by the March 11 Great East Japan Earthquake.

If the 42 reactors are shut down in the summer, it would deprive Japan of about 20 percent of total electricity now generated.

One reason for the delay in resuming operations is that the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) has asked for emergency safety measures in light of the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 plant.

[chaanakya]

Radiation-contaminated area spans 800 square km, new map shows
2011/05/12

The total area contaminated with radiation from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant is estimated at about 800 square kilometers, or about 40 percent the size of Tokyo, according to a radiation map created by the science ministry and U.S. Department of Energy.


The report uses the same level of contamination (555,000 becquerels or higher of cesium-137) that was used to issue compulsory evacuation orders in the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986.

To determine whether the current evacuation zone is appropriate or when residents can return home, the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan plans to set up focal sites to heighten its monitoring of the possible further spread of radioactive contamination.

The report's radiation levels were determined in April by measuring, from about 150-700 meters above ground, levels of accumulated radiation on the ground. The areas measured were divided into 1- to 2-square-kilometer zones.

According to the map, about 800 square kilometers are contaminated with accumulated cesium-137 of 600,000 becquerels or higher per square meter. The substance has a half-life of about 30 years

[chaanakya]

Kan slams nuclear energy, goes green

Prime Minister Naoto Kan said his administration intends to dump plans to get half of the nation's future energy needs from nuclear power and instead place greater reliance on renewable energy sources.

"I believe there's a need to start from a clean slate in discussing the basic energy plan," Kan said at a news conference May 10.

The prime minister was referring to a plan approved last year to construct at least 14 additional nuclear reactors by 2030--a move that would ensure that about 70 percent of all power generation would be free of carbon dioxide emissions.

While nuclear energy was expected to account for more than 50 percent of the power generated, the remaining 20 percent would come from renewable energy sources.

Kan said further discussions would now be needed on the basic plan, indicating the possibility that approval would not be granted for the construction of new nuclear reactors.

Kan said: "While nuclear energy and fossil fuels have been the two main pillars of electric power, we will include renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind and biomass, as a major energy component. We will also create an energy conservation society."

The prime minister added that further measures would be implemented to improve the safety of nuclear power.

However, central government officials have yet to specify what forum would be used to discuss revision of the energy basic plan as well as any timetable for discussions.

Kan also said he would for go his pay as prime minister from June until the situation at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant is resolved. He currently receives about 1.72 million yen ($21,000) a month, with 930,000 yen being the amount he is paid for serving as prime minister.

Kan also abruptly turned his back on the nuclear power industry, saying, "I would like to express my apologies because in addition to Tokyo Electric Power Co., the plant operator, the central government also bears a major responsibility for having promoted nuclear energy as a national policy."

He also indicated an independent committee would be established to look into nuclear accidents.

He said three principles would be emphasized in the creation of the new committee: independence from traditional nuclear energy administration; openness to the public and international community; and comprehensiveness in its coverrage of the technology, structure and organization.

The committee's main task would be uncovering the cause of nuclear accidents.

When asked about compensation for the nuclear accident in Fukushima, Kan said: "We are now proceeding with establishing a compensation plan. While primary responsibility lies with TEPCO, the central government will also assume responsibility to ensure appropriate compensation is provided."

Regarding measures announced by TEPCO to reduce expenditures, Kan said: "We believe that is part of the efforts that will have to be made. We will have to think about whether the measures are sufficient in the course of future discussions."

[chaanakya]

Edano:livestock in no-entry zone to be culled

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano says the government has ordered livestock to be culled in the 20 kilometer no-entry zone around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, with the consent of the cattle owners.

Edano told reporters on Thursday that the existence of the no-entry zone has made it impossible to keep feeding the livestock.

He said the government has reached the decision, as it must be too difficult for farmers to let their cherished livestock die of starvation.

Edano said livestock euthanized under the government instruction would be subject to compensation.
Thursday, May 12, 2011 18:59 +0900 (JST)

[chaanakya]

Well previous post, but seems it needed to be reposted in full with link to busby's article intact. In the hope that it is read and understood before drawing conclusions. Of course some members would be myopic while advising others to read.Well they said they had no time to read or understand. The argument questions LNT, ALARA and LSS studies while agreeing to ICRP model in respect of external radiation but questioning the leaving out internal emitters ( due to inhalation of radionuclides such as cesium, plutonium etc. )



Sorry for repeating but then needs to be read again.


Here is a good explanation of radiation, units employed to measure it, its impact and the controversies surrounding it.
http://www.llrc.org/agency/subtopic/kin ... nbusby.pdf
Though of posting few snippets but decided against it. 116 pages needs to be read in full to understand the jargons being posted here and limits being used with mathematical precision in relation to human health.

Here is the abstract of the sweedish study of 2006. It is paid copyrighted one so not posting in full. Only citasation abstract.

Keywords:
caesium-137;ionising radiataion;nuclear power;low dose;epidemiology;environment;background radiation;cancer;GIS;cohort
Abstract
Background
After the Chernobyl accident in 1986, as much as 5% of the released caesium-137 was deposited in Sweden due to a heavy rainfall 2 days after the event. A study of increased incidence of malignancies was initiated after the accident.

Methods
The cohort included 1,137,106 inhabitants who were 0–60 years old in 1986 and lived in 8 counties of Sweden with the highest fallout of caesium-137. With the dwelling coordinate, GIS-technique and a digital map on caesium-137, each individual was matched for the exposure. Adjustments were made for several potential confounding factors. During the follow-up 33,851 malignancies was recorded 1988–1999.

Results
Exposure categories were: 0–8 (reference), 9–23, 24–43, 44–66, 67–84, and ≥85 nGy/hr. The corresponding adjusted Mantel-Haenszel incidence rate ratios for total malignancies during follow-up amounted to 1.000, 0.997, 1.072, 1.114, 1.068, 1.125, respectively. The excess relative risk per 100 nGy/hr with the same adjustments and time period was 0.042 95% confidence limit 0.001;0.084. An excess for thyroid cancer or leukemia could not be ruled out.

Conclusion
Increased incidence of total malignancies possibly related to the fallout from the Chernobyl accident is seen.

This is what is contested hotly by many.

One point I would like to make here is that deaths related to nuclear accident ( attributed to it) are unlike train accident deaths. Some may die of accidents due to blast at plant or may not. Few might die of exposure beyond limits, while many would die later of various reasons .Scientific studies exists to show that those deaths are so removed that causative link with radiation is difficult to establish based on certain radiation risk models. On the contrary seperate body of Scientific studies exist which tend to link them{this is why I am asking amit also to give causative link before claiming deaths due to coal based on some study. you can't apply dual standards in your arguments. it would fall flat}

I was surprised to find that regulatory authorities revised minimum safe radiation limits ( many concepts are explained in detail in the link) based on emerging evidences which could not be refuted by established conventional wisdom.

the exposure levels permitted by policymakers have continuously been readjusted throughout the last 80 years as every new discovery both in science and in epidemiology has shown that radiation exposure is more dangerous than previously thought. This process of discovery continues today although the dose limits are stuck at their 1990 levels. This is because the current official radiation risk models have not incorporated the most recent discoveries since to do so would force a complete reappraisal of the current use of nuclear power and the historic harm done by releases of radioactivity in the past Contemporary radiation risk models are so inaccurate for internal exposures that even some official risk agencies (IRSN) have pointed this out: yet they continue to be employed by governments and used by polluters to justify their past and present behaviour. There is now sufficient scientific proof of this in peer reviewed publish literature.

The weight of scientific belief about the dangers from internal radiation began to change in the mid 1990s with interest on the increasing evidence from nuclear site clusters and Chernobyl effects which clearly showed that the contemporary risk models were somehow false by a very large amount. Between about 1996 and 2000, evidence began to emerge from the laboratory for genomic and bystander effects Since the then current ICRP model was based on genetic damage and a linear relation it was implicit by 2000 that this basis was completely incorrect. This, and various other epidemiological evidence (which had now to be re-assessed) led to the Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters and the ‘Radiation Science Wars’ of the early 2000s. The critical impact of the 2003 report of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, and the clear demonstrations in epidemiological evidence from the Chernobyl; affected territories (infant leukem minisatellite mutations, cancer in Sweden, Belarus and Ukraine) that the ECRR predictions were close to what was seen was a turning point in a paradigm shift that continues today.

It is so clear to a rational audience that I have persuaded all of the courts or juries that I have given presentations to. It is only the biased scientists of the nuclear military project and the economic and military vested interests that continue to
support the conventional model. Part of the problem is that the area of radiation risk in not one area but many. Each expert or employee sees only part of the picture. The physicist sees the world as energy transfer and mathematics.

The epidemiologist sees the effects but doesn’t understand the physics and assumes absorbed dose is a real parameter, a given. This was the problem with the late Sir Richard Doll, who I spoke with about this. Doll based everything on absorbed dose and died believing that the Sellafield leukaemia cluster was not of radiological origin. The biochemist also assumes absorbed dose is meaningful but here we are approaching reality if we are prepared to think through the ionisations and their position on the target DNA.

I met very few experts in this field who see the whole picture; yet it is the whole picture that is necessary if one wishes to understand the issue. Each expert is an expert in one filed, and can pass the buck: the epidemiologist says that the cancers are there but they cant be due to radiation because the physicists say the dose is too low. The late Martin Gardner, the Sellafield epidemiologist, tried to get round the dose problem by assuming it was dose to the fathers sperm that was the trouble: he never questioned the paradigm, he never questioned is dose was a real thing. The physicists in their turn use dose: they invented it. They say that the Hiroshima studies show the cancers are only there when the dose is high, but they don’t see the chemistry, they don’t know the stuff gets inside you and binds to the DNA they aren’t interested in such messy stuff, you cant use mathematics there. No one asks the chemists because why would they? The chemists do chemistry? What do they know about dose? But if dose isn’t appropriate or real (and it isn’t) the whole house of cards collapses

The LSS were not begun until 1952. This was another flaw, since seven years of epidemiological data would be missing from the study and in addition, those selected into the study would have been healthy survivors: many of the victims of radiation would have died in the five years before the study began (Stewart and Kneale, 2000). It is clear from reports of Japanese scientists that there were many deaths and leukemias occurring in the irradiated cities in the interim period and studies of the increases in cancers in the cities using external control data give higher cancer yields than the LSS yields which effectively employed internal controls (Kusano 1953, Busby 1995, Busby 2006, Sawada 2009). Long before then America's Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) urgently needed to regulate the growing nuclear industry. The AEC pressed the National Council for Radiation Protection (NCRP) to develop safety standards. An especial concern was the quantity of novel elements which, being alpha emitters, would present internal radiation hazards. Separate sub-committees addressed internal and external radiation. The external sub-committee completed its work quite quickly but the other was slowed down by the many complexities of internal contamination. The problem is that while physicists can tell you the ergs from any radioactive decay, they don't have much clue about where internal radioactivity goes inside the body, how long it stays there or what biological damage it's doing. Impatient with the delays, NCRP's Executive closed down the internal committee in 1951, and stretched the report of the external committee to cover internal radiation.

The problem in the court of scientific opinion (and indeed in a court of law) with cancer causation is that there is generally a time lag between cause and effect, and since there are many mutagenic causes, it is difficult to make a connection which is unassailable in logic. In the case of the Sellafield childrens’ leukemia (and other similar clusters) despite the fact that they lived near the most radioactively polluted site in Europe, and that radiation is the only known cause of childhood leukemia, it was argued that the ICRP Hiroshima model did not predict the risk and so it must have been something else.

Adding further

5.4 Effects on future generations
....
to give advice on the disposal of radioactive waste...focused on the long term. The consideration was of the 100,000 year time scale. The members of CoRWM very rightly wanted to ensure that future generation would not be affected by what we do now. I did some calculations and reported that the main problem was the Uranium and Thorium series nuclides and plutonium. These are very harmful as they bind to DNA and in the case of U-238 carry the extra photoelectron
hazard, so the U-238 doses have to be multiplied by 1000 to get the biologically effective dose at the DNA. The pit will still be there in the year 100,000. So will a very large amount of the radioactivity. If they remain in the bags and don’t pass i
the water table to be ingested, the uranium and thorium series nuclides will be there in secular equilibrium with the parent nuclides in the year 100,000, or even in the year 1,000,000. If they do pass into the water, they will poison those who drink it. The plutonium also will be there and so will several other transuranics. The result of the collection of this stuff into the pit is that it will inevitably contaminate humans and also will deliver external doses to humans and animals and plants. It is plain silly to suggest otherwise through mathematical sleight of hand, smoke and mirrors. The result will be given by a collective dose calculation taken forward through thousands of generations and leading to genetic diseases and cancer in our descendants.

[Amber G.]

Just because, the above (http://www.llrc.org/agency/subtopic/kin ... nbusby.pdf posted second time, errors inside (gross errors, just see the notes and few posts coming) still remain errors.

There is a saying, but it is self-evident..
If you repeat 2+2 = 959599595 , even a million times, it is still false.
And if you start (or put them in middle) with such an erroneous step , final results need not be credible.

I am amazed, that some one will take this seriously (specially considering the scientific background of most of the people here who can easily judge the validity by looking at the contents..)

Okay. Sorry for all the editorial comments, Let me just point out one or two items, which I noticed.

Take 4.1 line 1
It gives the definition of Roentgen as:

Exposure: The quantity of radiation which causes a defined number of ions in dry air

First, it is not an unit of Radiation in general (as other units given in the table, like Rad, Gray etc), just ionizing-radiation (Eg x-rays, or gamma-rays ...NOT, for example, from neutrons.)
I can see, people defending this sloppiness, but any introductory text book (even my message here in brf (see here) or even wiki is not that sloppy.

(For those who want to get technical details, "R" which measures charge (and not energy) is not really a good measure for radiation absorbed - In fact, "R" has become obsolete among the current generation of scientists)

But next part, takes the cake, it says "# of ionizing pairs" .. Arre baba, R is defined as radiation required to liberate "electric charge"/(unit volume) . and not # or ion-pairs. Even wiki gets it right. (I just checked) (BTW the electric charge in the above definition is 1 esu which approximately may give about 2.1 x 10^9 pairs in ordinary air) (Which is why no one measures other than gamma/X-ray rays radiation in R)

(Sure, normally there are certain number of ion pairs per unit charge.. but if I have to specify price of U, I will say Rs x/Kg ... not Rs x/(per cake) )

Of course, as pointed out before,

Table 4.2 still shows, value in mSV (1000 - Based on erythemal (skin reddening) X-ray dos ).. Sv unit wasn't even there (it was introduce much later - decades later) Paper does not give, any link, or even say how Roentgen's was converted in Sv or even the basis where one gets that number.

And BTW, Roentgen unit was not there either in 1927! (It got adopted in 1928)

Neither, it gives a link, or basis, where it gets, (For "Statutory annual radiation dose limits to members of the public over the radiation") 1 mSv with " huge evidence of harm from internal exposures at lower doses ) { Where this "huge" evidence comes, or what exactly is this limit, author does not say )

Folks, Just wanted you to know. You can make up your own mind about credibility of this report, which gets.. even the basics wrong.

[Amber G.]

Folks - I posted some further comments on the above paper, and some technical details which, IMO are worth reading..

Unfortunately the post went in a bit bucket.

I may repost the whole thing again..

Summary for the above paper - It only gets worse.. (I will post again why)

Meanwhile, from what I can see, and told by a reviewer, looks like Dr. Busby only have self published articles..can some one give a link to any article by him in a peer reviewed journal.

According to google, he is also very busy right now commenting about Fukushima - Can some one look at his comments in current news and comment.

[Amber G.]

Retyping.. Wrt to comment on the paper by Busby, PhD (http://www.llrc.org/agency/subtopic/kin ... nbusby.pdf

Folks, here are just two examples from around pp 16.

Disclaimer: I have seen the intro of Dr Busby in his paper, this, by no means to diss him, or Institutions which he is associated with. This is just to show gross errors and sloppiness in the previous mentioned paper.

I encourage people to read the following (along with any standard sources) post, along with the paper to get the context. I know Chaanakya respects this author, that is fine. The views are mine and mine alone. If more insults like “banana experts" come my way, so be it, but I do hope that if people like to comment or ask questions, these questions should be technical and based on contents of my post rather than personal attacks.

I do believe, that this will also give some insight to most of the readers to gain more understanding on some of the technical issues involved and background, so if interested read more, and take it FWIW.

Example 1:
Here are more details on Rontgen unit from the paper: (I was wondering how he got it so wrong in Table 4.1)

The energy transfer unit developed by the physicists was the Roentgen (R)
adopted by the International Congress on Radiology in 1928. The unit was defined as
the amount of radiation needed to produce a given number of ions in dry air in an
ionization chamber, …

First, it is NOT energy, but rather charge/unit volume .. BIG difference.. that’s why one measures only gamma (or xrays) exposure in Roentgen and not, say neutron radiation. For Beta rays, electron charge is fixed but energy vary! This is why, later, Rad and Gray (which measures, energy absorbed) were used. With Biological effect , Rem (and Sv) were introduced.

Also the definition of R was 1 esu/unit_volume (Not # of Ion pairs)

Another sloppiness , Author ignores the difference between "exposure" and "energy absorbed" and equates ( .. without even bothering to explain anything!) ..1 R = 1 Rad !!. Cause of 1 R is ROUGHLY equal to (for calculation purposes) energy absorbed of 1 Rad, only for gamma rays, in dry air. Even there, depending on the text book one uses, the factor is something like 0.877 and not 1. .. (And I am not even mentioning that, while for R, one goes by per unit volume - while for Rad it is energy/Kg --- remember, some human beings are not made of air -- different materials with same volume may have different mass ityadi ityadi.. )

Example 2: (Has been quoted by Chaanakyaji before, so may look familier)

For example, one cup of
boiling water at 100 degrees centigrade contains the same energy, the same number of
Joules, as a bucket of water at the temperature of twenty degrees. An energy transfer
to a person of one waterthrow unit could encompass either a cupful of boiling water in..

Never mind, use of “cup” and “bucket” (why not x liter).. but it shows complete ignorance of concept of energy in water.

No, it is not out of context, it only gets worse….Example was not even necessary.

I looked at a few pages more, in virtually every page one finds gross errors.

Can some one confirm, if this was published in a peer reviewed journal? Which one?

[Amber G.]

<see original message, if context is needed>

Yeah, first of all the post was about Yablokov ...

Brief reply ..

.

That wiki article mentions caldicot, doesn't mean I introduced . Any way sophistry is only amazing...

Huh? Boss, that is what I meant by introducing..as in having his name appeared for the first time. What is this accusation of "sophistry"? Keep in mind that, it was your assertion that I (or "like minded people") brought this name, so I was just commenting on that. If you are interested as how this person was lionized, and physicists were dissed just look at the posts which followed, as I said those should be followed.

If you doubt the person.... I don't think they have any less valuable work then you....Of course I have no clue as to your profession...I may be wrong. ..

Whatever boss, what I think of you, or you think of me can be discussed in pvt email but its OT here.. can we at least have an agreement that we don't beat this dead horse? If you want to comment, comment and then let it go.. If I reply ok..someone has to stop.

Of course unless you show that you have done original study ...

Boss, again if you think my comments are useless..just say so, and move on... for no one, posting on this thread, is their day-job.

This is what you had written so how you will be taken seriously if keep advising others to read reports that you link to.

People who want to take me seriously will take me seriously. If you don't want why worry about me?

As for study I would ask you to look through Busby as you have said , repeatedly that you don't have time to go through the papers, In such a situation your assertion means zilch to me.

That's true, that I repeatedly said that I did not have interest or time to read that Bushby paper. But trust me, I have not read Jinn Thermodynamics (or all of Einstein papers, for that matter) - As said before, one does not have expertise, or interest or time to read everything even if you want me to read it.

However, you may be happy to know, that I did read that Busby paper . I have given the comments so I hope you would like it.

Meanwhile, I am still waiting for a few simple questions I asked before. If you choose, answer them.

Finally.. I am amused that you are calling DHMO a "trickery" ..., no doubt to defame, nice people, or lay out IED, as you said. I did notice that the story has appeared more than once (about 3 times .. by different authors...different threads... some threads started on April 1 BTW, some before, some later..).. Of course, the site has been around before Fukushima.

Over and out for this.

So spare me your judgement.

okay spared! (Actually this is something you can do yourself)

[brihaspati]

Talking about "plutonium binding to DNA" will no doubt raise some laughter. Here is a possible more "technical" exposition, but standard disclaimers apply :
(1) it has been published in a non-Indian "base' journal, and therefore anti-India and anti-nuclear bias cannot be entirely ruled out
(2) even if it has been published in a peer reviewed journal, it need not be free of perfidy
(3) I know nothing about the ideological proclivities of the authors, hence whatever they say might still be needing qualification and interpretation according to their attitudes towards NP:

There could be nuclear medicine experts on the forum, who will then surely have access to the full paper, and analyze the papers conclusions.

Transgenerational genomic instability in children of irradiated parents as a result of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident

Anna Aghajanyana,∗, Igor Suskovb

a Cytogenetics Laboratory, FSI Russian Scientific Center of Roentgenology and Radiology, Profsoyuznaya 86, GSP-7, Moscow, 117997 Russia b Laboratory of Ecological Genetics, N.I. Vavilov Institute of General Genetics Russian Academy of Sciences, Gybkin st. 3, Moscow 119991, Russia

Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis; Mutation Research 671 (2009) 52–57

The monitoring carried out after the accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (ChNPP) showed increased frequencies of chromosome aberrations in somatic cells of permanent residents of territories with radionuclide contaminations, “liquidators” of the accident and their children [1–9]. This is accompanied by increased morbidity, frequent cases of congenital malformations in newborns and oncopathologies [10,11].

Investigations carried out in the last decades have led to the discovery of the phenomenon of radiation-induced genomic insta- bility, first experimentally and later confirmed in people living on radionuclide-contaminated territories [12–23]. Genomic instabil- ity is destabilization of the genome, both spontaneous and induced by external factors. It can manifest itself as chromosome aber- rations and gene mutations. Genomic instability occurs in the progeny of mitotically dividing cells and results in the disturbances of the functions of cells, tissues, organs and systems of the human organism. The basis of this phenomenon can be potential DNA changes realized/expressed in subsequent cell divisions [24].
Radiation-induced genomic instability can be transmitted trans- generationally from one or both irradiated parents and is expressed in somatic cells of their children [25–31]. The phenomenon of trans- generational genomic instability was also revealed experimentally in the different animal model [32–36]. It is known that the mutagenic effect of low doses of ionizing radiation differs from the effects of medium and high doses [37–40]. Exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation is more frequent than exposure to high and medium doses, and its consequences are less studied. Hence it is particularly important to study the genomic instability and its transgenerational effects in children of irradiated parents after low-dose radiation exposure.

Earlier, we have demonstrated the phenomenon of transgenerational radiation-induced genomic instability in children born to irradiated fathers (“liquidators”) and non-irradiated mothers [30]. In addition studies were done in children born and living on terri- tories contaminated with radionuclides whose parents were both irradiated as a result of the Chernobyl accident in different periods of their ontogenetic development [30].

To further elucidate the phenomenon of transgenerational genomic instability in somatic cells of those children, experiments were undertaken to model induced genomic instability by using the in vitro low-dose [gamma]-irradiation of peripheral blood samples from both children and their parents.
[...]
It is known that the action of low-dose ionizing radiation is characterized by the absence of a dose threshold, by biological amplification of induced genomic changes, by a non- linear dose–effect relationship, and by an increased sensitivity to endo/exogenous factors [37–40]. Therefore, the results of experimental investigation of genomic instability and its trans-generational phenomenon after exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation are somewhat different as compared to the results for medium- and high-dose exposure.

In children born to irradiated fathers and in children living on territories contaminated with radionuclides whose parents were both irradiated the AGFs were similar, but significantly higher than in the control (Table 1). Therefore, radiation-induced genomic instability was observed not only in the organism of children from radiocontaminated territories but also in the organism of non-irradiated children born to irradiated parents. The following consideration should be taken into account in order to understand the causes of this phenomenon.

In the children from contaminated areas the intrauterine and postnatal development proceeded under conditions of chronic low- dose ionizing radiation. They were exposed to radiation even at the prezygote stage of development as their fathers and moth- ers were irradiated in the pubertal period during the accident at the ChNPP and before conception of the children they lived on the contaminated territories under conditions of chronic exposure to long-lived isotopes 137 Cs, 90 Sr and others. In this period of onto-genetic development the formation of the reproductive systems occurs in the organism. The children of irradiated fathers (liquidators) were exposed at the stage of paternal gametes. Although the fact of transgenerational genomic instability in the offspring of irradiated fathers has been documented, the mechanism of this phenomenon is poorly understood.

The phenomenon of transgenerational genomic instability is confirmed by a statistically significant increase in the somatic cells AGF observed after fractional and single irradiation of lymphocytes at low doses in the children of irradiated parents as compared to the children of non-irradiated parents (control). An increased radiosensitivity of aberrant cells is observed after 60 Co [gamma]-irradiation of lymphocytes in vitro at a medium dose of 1.5Gy in children of patients subjected to roentgenochemotherapy, in children of liquidators and in children evacuated from radioactively contam- inated regions as compared to children of non-irradiated parents [28].


[...]
Modeling of genomic instability after irradiation in vitro at low doses showed:
(1) that children of irradiated parents had significantly higher AGF than children of non-irradiated parents, which confirms the transgenarational genomic instability in their organism;
(2) that single-break aberrations of the chromosomal type pre- dominated in mitosis 2 as compared to mitosis 1 (elimination of double-break aberrations), pointing to the reality of genomic instability in succeeding cell generations;
(3) that prolonged exposure of the human organism to low-dose radiation affects radiosensitivity of cell genomes.
Taken together, this may be a prerequisite for increased morbidity in children and for transgenerational transmission of genomic instability to succeeding generations. Further investigations are required to elucidate the molecular mechanism of transgenera- tional genomic instability.

[Amber G.]

Amit, Chaanakya et al

Here is an excerpt from ( what seems to be) : Dr Busby's site. It has his VITA, I tried to look at his publications.. Chaanakya - can you tell from that, in which peer reviewed paper, the paper you are vouching for its credibility is published? Thanks in advance..

From:http://www.chrisbusbyexposed.org/index.html

. This website has been created in order to counteract the web attacks on Chris Busby's credibility which have been increasing recently in proportion to his success in creating serious questions about the health effects of ionizing radiation and about the health effects of exposure to Uranium Weapons. The attacks are from many named individuals (example Roger Helbig) and from those who write under an anonymous pseudonym (example Richard D) and when stopped under one pseudonym, just change their identity and continue. This website will take each of these people and each of the attacks, and respond.
For a long time, we ignored these attacks, but this was an error. It has now become necessary to deal with these people because the attackers have now stepped up their level of energy. Phone conversions and private research reports are being accessed, and attacked as soon as they are written. This is now affecting funding applications for research grants, the ability to publish in peer-review journals, and legal court cases. Chris Busby's CV is available on this site
Over the next few weeks, Chris Busby will address these issues and his attackers one by one.

Chaankaya, if you Dr Busby's email address, you may invite him to BRF. In any case I do not see him addressing any issues, at least not yet.

[GuruPrabhu]

This Busby is a nutjob -- no point wasting bandwidth on him.

Does he not realize that we live in the midst of radiation naturally? Does he not fathom what 4 kBq of patassium means?

Folks, Picture this -- every second, 4,000 gamma-rays of MeV energy are created in your body. EVERY FRIGGING SECOND.

And yet, we are not all dead. Just think about it. That's all I ask.

[Amber G.]

Chaanakyaji, Amit et al -
I admit, I was lazy to look at Dr Busby's papers.. Let me just quote from his:

So what about Wade Allison? Wade is a medical physics person and a professor at Oxford. I have chosen to pitch into him since he epitomises and crystallises for us the arguments of the stupid physicist. In this he has done us a favour, since he is really easy to shoot down. All the arguments are in one place. Stupid physicists? Make no mistake, physicists are stupid. They make themselves stupid by a kind of religious belief in mathematical modelling. The old Bertie Russell logical positivist trap. And whilst this may be appropriate for examining the stresses in metals, or looking at the Universe (note that they seem to have lost 90% of the matter in the Universe, so-called “dark matter”) it is not appropriate for, and is even scarily incorrect when, examining stresses in humans or other lifeforms.

From: His article here, do read it in full ...: http://www.counterpunch.org/busby03282011.html

And should I really give it more credence than Jinn Thermodynamics author?

Gentle Readers, in case you don't know ... this "stupid" and "ignorant" person is Wade Allison, a prof (emeritus) at Oxford.

Needless to say, Busby, (why I am not surprised) claimed support from New York Academy of Sciences publication ( NYAS, took pains to make it clear that it was a lie) . that "more than a million people have died between 1986 and 2004 as a direct result of Chernobyl ( claimed denied from NYAS) ...

A simple literature search shows..reviews of his articles..Let me just put a link or two

Finally March 14 interview with BBC, Dr Busby claimed (For Fukushima)
(See:http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhlgks ... japan_news

there could be "nuclear explosion" rather than (as reported) a hydrogen explosion,

And later confirmed that it was a nuclear explosion
Among many other things such as "this is a radiological catastrophe already".. and
not to mention, 400,000 cancer deaths (due to Fukushima).. which may eventually become more than 1,400,000 (from his estimate of Chernobyl)

Jai ho, indeed. Thanks, Chaanakya ji, this time I was not lazy, and did read up what you asked.

[GuruPrabhu]

This guy is an idiot. His info is *always* wrong.

Stupid physicists? Make no mistake, physicists are stupid. They make themselves stupid by a kind of religious belief in mathematical modelling. The old Bertie Russell logical positivist trap. And whilst this may be appropriate for examining the stresses in metals, or looking at the Universe (note that they seem to have lost 90% of the matter in the Universe, so-called “dark matter”)

Noone has "lost" matter. What an idiotic thing to say. Moreover, dark matter is about 26% of the universe -- not 90% as this bozo claims.

[Amber G.]

This Busby is a nutjob -- no point wasting bandwidth on him.

Does he not realize that we live in the midst of radiation naturally? Does he not fathom what 4 kBq of patassium means?

Folks, Picture this -- every second, 4,000 gamma-rays of MeV energy are created in your body. EVERY FRIGGING SECOND.

And yet, we are not all dead. Just think about it. That's all I ask.

Now you tell me

This guy is still talking about "NUCLEAR EXPLOSION" (not a hydrogen).. with 400,000 deaths due to radiation...

[Amber G.]

Any one who wants to hear all about "nuclear explosions", 1,400,000 deaths, and all such information which
"pro-nuclear-lobby" kept hidden, ... may like to watch this 6-7 minutes video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-3Kf4JakWI

By none other than Dr Busby, Chaanakya's hero, (whose papers he has posted multiple times and recommended everyone to read it etc..)

Warning: Keep coffee away from key board, this can give any Zaid Hamid Video, a run for its money, in sheer idiocy.. (Sorry no other word can describe this adjective)

I think, now we know the source of all the gyaan from some of the posters here.

Jai Ho!

[chaanakya]

Here is the situation depicted graphically in one of the reactor no 1 of unit 1. Give pretty good idea of what could have happened. Sankuji is on the dot.
Nuclear fuel rods may have mostly melted

Fuel rods in the No. 1 reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant may have mostly melted and dropped to the bottom of the pressure vessel as the water level in the vessel has been found to be significantly lower than thought, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Thursday.

The fuel rods in the reactor are believed to be completely exposed, according to TEPCO, the operator of the plant.