2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami - News and Analysis

[chaanakya]

^^ yes, that's correct. and the rest of it.

[UBanerjee]

^ Boss, looks like the point is being missed. One can bring out all the personality issues of a physician out. But still the larger point remains.
Most people, who are exposed to radiation however minute it may be, would go to a physician for consultation, rather than to any soothe saying physicist.

You best not eat a banana then.

[Sanku]

Is this due to Earthquake as well,? Cant say right now.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national ... 7000c.html

Radiation leaks from fuel rods suspected at Tsuruga plant

The operator, Japan Atomic Power Co., will manually shut down the No. 2 reactor of the plant on the Sea of Japan coast and examine the primary cooling system for it. The local government denied that the levels of radioactive substances could threaten the nearby environment.

[chaanakya]

Iitatemura farmers to cull milk cows
The Yomiuri Shimbun

IITATEMURA, Fukushima--All 11 dairy farms in Iitatemura have decided to cull their adult cows after abandoning hope of moving them elsewhere, it has been learned.

Iitatemura is more than 30 kilometers from the troubled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

The government has said residents must leave by the end of May to guard against exposure to dangerous levels of radiation.

The 11 dairy farms make up the Iitate chapter of Fukushima Prefecture's Dairy Farming Cooperatives.

They intend to stop their business, at least temporarily, and so decided Saturday to abandon plans to continue taking care of their milk cows and move them when they leave Iitatemura.

The farmers have suffered financial difficulties due to restrictions placed on shipments of raw milk produced in the village, they said.

The farmers said they will soon cull their adult dairy cows and sell the calves.

As of December, there were 244 milk cows in Iitatemura, of which 190 were adults and 54 were calves, according to the village government.

[chaanakya]

TEPCO checks radiation levels in seabed near plant

Radiation levels 100 to 1,000 times above normal have been detected in the seabed near the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

The plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company, conducted its first contamination analysis of the seabed near the plant using samples from 2 points 20 to 30 meters deep on Friday.

Samples collected about 15 kilometers north of the plant contained 1,400 becquerels of cesium-137 per kilogram and 1,300 becquerels of cesium-134.

Samples taken around 20 kilometers south of the plant contained 1,200 becquerels each of cesium-137 and cesium-134 per kilogram.

The samples from the 2 points were also found to be contaminated with iodine-131.

TEPCO says it's difficult to evaluate the readings as there are no official limits for these substances, but it will continue monitoring the radiation levels and their impact on seafood.

Another survey carried out by the science ministry on the same day detected no radioactive substances in samples from the seabed roughly 50 kilometers south of the plant.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011 02:13 +0900 (JST)

No Legal limit so no pollution and no liability.

[chaanakya]

Utilities got 68 ex-bureaucrats via 'amakudari'
The cosy relationship
Kyodo

The past 50 years have seen 68 former elite bureaucrats parachuting into top positions at the nation's 12 electricity suppliers after retiring from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, including five who landed at Tokyo Electric Power Co.

At present, 13 retired career-track METI bureaucrats hold senior positions at electric power companies under the practice of "amakudari" (descent from heaven).

METI, which oversees 10 electric utilities and two electricity wholesalers, investigated the matter after the crisis at Tepco's Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant fueled criticism of the practice.

Radia's Pointman was Telecom Regulator Mr Baijal.

[GuruPrabhu]

The best thing to happen to Fukushima is the OBL episode. Now that media is busy elsewhere, sanity will prevail.

[Sanku]

You mean the best thing for TEPCO? If the attention shifts, they can go back to their usual ways?

[GuruPrabhu]

You mean the best thing for TEPCO? If the attention shifts, they can go back to their usual ways?

of course not. Sanku-ji will keep TEPCO honest.

[Sanku]

You mean the best thing for TEPCO? If the attention shifts, they can go back to their usual ways?

of course not. Sanku-ji will keep TEPCO honest.

you flatter me Saar

[chaanakya]

TEPCO neglected radiation checks in building where two women absorbed high doses

Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) failed to check the levels of radiation inside a key operation center at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant before two female workers were exposed to high levels of radiation there.

The two workers have recently been exposed to radiation higher than the legal limit for female workers -- lower than that for men -- of 5 millisieverts over a three-month period. For about two weeks after the March 11 earthquake, the utility did not check the radiation levels inside a special quake-resistant building where the two workers were exposed. About 200 workers use the building on the premises of the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant each day as a base to deal with the ongoing crisis.

The building was opened for use in July 2010 as an emergency response base. Located about 200 meters northwest of the No. 1 nuclear reactor, it was built to withstand earthquakes measuring the strongest quakes on the Japanese seven-point scale. However, its structure allows small amounts of radiation to leak through vents. When designing the power plant, the utility had not envisaged the hydrogen explosion that actually damaged the doors of the building and permitted radioactive substances to flow in inside.

TEPCO said the delay in preparing a "buffer area" where workers were supposed to take off their protective gear was a factor behind its failure to prevent radioactive substances from coming into the building. One of the women in her 50s suffered internal radiation exposure of 13.6 millisieverts (and external exposure of 3.95 millisieverts), while another woman in her 40s had internal exposure of 6.71 millisieverts (and external exposure of 0.78 millisieverts) -- numbers which suggest most of their exposure came from what they inhaled in the building.

TEPCO said it had been aware that the levels of radiation inside the building were high. But it then said, "We initially thought that way because the levels of radiation outside the building were high." TEPCO started checking the levels of radiation in the building on March 24 -- a day after it stopped female workers from working there.

Since then, TEPCO has taken steps such as setting up small rooms equipped with air cleaners at entrances and putting lead sheets over the windows to shut out radiation. TEPCO has also been checking male workers on their internal radiation exposure. Male workers are allowed to be exposed to up to 250 millisieverts of radiation per year.

"We should've had workers wear masks earlier. I believe the fact that radioactive substances entered the building after the hydrogen explosion will be an important lesson for us. We want to assess the way TEPCO handled the situation as quickly as possible," said Hidehiko Nishiyama, a spokesman for the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.

TEPCO and their supporters , Sankuji what will you do to keep them honest?

[chaanakya]

TEPCO developing device to decontaminate seawater

Tokyo Electric Power Company is developing a device to remove radioactive substances from seawater. It hopes to install it in the Pacific Ocean near the troubled Fukushima nuclear plant at the end of May.

TEPCO says it will fill a metal container with zeolite, a mineral that absorbs radioactive materials. The company will use a pump to continuously inject seawater into the container.

Radiation levels have remained high in the waters around the Fukushima plant even after TEPCO managed to plug a leak of contaminated water 4 weeks ago. On Monday, 5,800 times the national limit of radioactive iodine was detected in samples collected near a water intake for the Number 2 reactor.

TEPCO says it can't deny the possibility that contaminated water is still leaking and it will continue to closely monitor the situation.

The utility has already set up silt fence barriers and thrown sandbags containing zeolite into the sea.
It hopes to set up the new device inside a silt fence to decontaminate the seawater.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011 02:13 +0900 (JST)

Let us remember that Ramana garu talked about Zeolite on this forum first in connection with Fukushima Disaster , even before TEPCO started using it.

[chaanakya]

U.S. doctors hit Tokyo radiation limit for kids
Kyodo

Physicians for Social Responsibility, a U.S. nonprofit organization of medical experts, has condemned as "unconscionable" the Japanese government's safety standards on radiation levels at elementary and junior high schools in nuclear disaster-stricken Fukushima Prefecture.

The PSR statement directly challenges Tokyo's stance that it is safe for schoolchildren to use school playgrounds in the prefecture as long as the dose they are exposed to does not exceed 20 millisieverts over a year.

The PSR view is also in line with that voiced by Toshiso Kosako, who said Friday he would step down as an adviser to Prime Minister Naoto Kan on the Fukushima nuclear crisis in protest. The University of Tokyo professor urged the government to toughen guidelines on upper limits on radiation levels the education ministry recently announced for elementary school playgrounds in Fukushima.

[Amber G.]

The following needs to be documented and put as a record in this thread as I believe it is very important to fight ignorance and call out irresponsible silly statements. These statements, if go unchallenged, can do real damage to a nation. (Recent violence spread because of irresponsible and ignorant falsehood spread by so called “green leaders” opposing whatever they oppose ought to be taken seriously by all right thinking people)

As everyone knows here, whether one likes it or not, BRF is quite visible and members here are responsible for their statements and their reputation. It is quite helpful to see the impact it is having and responsible citizens who all calling out to put a stop to this silliness.

I am quoting two statements from a respectful blog by very respectful scholars. Please read them. These authors are no strangers to Indian perspective and are in fact experts .

More than anything else, the following quotes articulates, very well in my opinion, strategy used by one postor here.


From: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID ... lse&page=3

A relatively simple test this notion would be to ask XXX to commit to a statement which clearly says that a nuclear reactor cannot explode the same way a nuclear bomb does.

XXX will find half a dozen websites that claim that a reactor is indeed a bomb, highlight in bold all kinds of statements and declare tha all doubters are anti-India ...

Or :

About XXX, I don't think he really has a position on anything, because he is supremely ignorant. His sole mandate is to put out the EB viewpoint and annoy and bait EB-opponents with complete impunity: thanks to the shield erected around him by YYY( a moderator) . His angst against ****, ******, the **** *****, et al is probably because they constantly remind him of his ignorance. Beyond .net programming that is...

These are just two out of a few dozens comments from just one blog. Other technical blogs have also noticed this. I think it is very important for moderators and serious members here to be well informed about the impact BRF is having.
Edited later: (Removed names)

[Amber G.]

There is 3 mSV background radiation, where I live (it is much higher in Kerala, or Idaho or Iran)..don't you think if 1 mSV was causing cancer in everyone we would have noticed it?

Hope this helps.

Certainly not. It is incomplete. Unless one also has the dimension of time added to that number. For example a table in this report has more usefulness than just stating incomplete units.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12722435

As someone already pointed out, it was a typo. I should have said (as I have done about a dozen times in this thread alone without the typo) " background radiation is 3 mSv/year"

I do think, JwalaMukhi, that you need not have depended on that typo alone (for the "message not be helpful"), and as you already did, by looking up at other reference,..I hope that is now clear.

when one talks of 3mSV/year , then one is getting somewhere to doing actual science to account for health effects.

I am not sure, you are "getting somewhere" if you think that 3mSV/year is actual science to account for health effects. You see, that for health effect "per year" is really silly as it is the dose which matters.. (at least according to LNT, of other theories as the first order of accuracy).

Of course, other matters (such as which part of the body, age of the person, general health, luck etc) are more important..but saying "3 mSV /year" (in stead of 3 mSV) for health effects, shows utter ignorance about science rather than getting "somewhere" .


IOW, cancer probability does not depend (according to LNT) whether one gets that 3 mSV dose in a year or a day or an hour. It is the total dose which matters.

Next question is can the time and intensity be linearly scaled for health effects, that is unclear. i.e., if x(intensity) and if y(duration), could they interchange to yield same are similar health effects. That is unclear.

This part will not remain unclear if you go back and see my or others posts (and /or any good reference given in them or by doing your own search. One hint, if you want to do search on earlier posts, search for "fourth root of time" for more details.

Short answer to your query is, as first approximation (or LNT theory) you just integrate intensity and duration to get total dose. There are more complicated formulas (people have won noble prize to study dna repairs) I have made some comments about them in previous posts.

Hope this helps (now )

[Amber G.]

Japanese situation is marked by scores of experts who resigned, turned whistle blowers and were fired etc......

Scores means more than 20, is this number a fact (can you give a link) or just made up like scores or other numbers made up in your previous posts.. (eg 17 in serious conditions in hospital..etc)

[Amber G.]

I think in I have posted fairly good technical information in clear terms about radiation. I, however, am still seeing (to be fair, from only one or two people eg Chaanakyaji) comments about 1mSV "limits".. let me post for record, another good PP from UCSB.

I suppose 1 mSv per year ( over and above the natural radiation dose being absorbed ) is what is fixed by US for general public not concerned with Radiation related work or not taking otherwise medical doses for increasing their lifespan or for diagnostics use. So why don't you write to them to raise this limit for ordinary healthy general public who may not have much requirement for exposing themselves to Radiation without his consent or information.

Probably in all their wisdom they themselves are not quite sure of long term effect of low doses radiation and hence kept the limit to 1mSV as safe annual radiation absorbed limit.

I am speechless. After 50 pages of this, and dozens of posts one is still harping on 1 mSV/yr dose without slightest understanding of what it means. (Hint: read the document by Bade in full to understand what the documents say.. or what that limit implies....)

Folks, first, as we have done many times before, have some idea and perspective, what is 1 mSV dose? .
... Background radiation about 3 mSV/yr... (some parts of Kerala 30 mSV/year --- there are places where it is of the order of 200 mSV/yr etc...)
... Single CAT scan may be 8mSV...

For crying out loud, see below, to calculate your dose, and see if it "permissible or not" or less than 1mSV/year..

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/calculate.html


Sure, one can have a "Limit" of less than 0.1 mSV (or even less) for x-ray machine to be certified. NRC will also regulate NPP plants, or Coal plants (one can not give more than x mSV/yr).. public buildings (radon level), Yucca Mtns.. etc.. it IS NOT THE SAME THING AS allowable yearly dose for general public.

Bottom line: There is NOT a single study (after literally millions of people studied, hundreds of studies over last 50-60 years) where there has been shown any detectable effect on low doses (say less than 100 mSV).

This is not a CT spun by pro-nuke lobby.. straight and simple scientific data.

[Amber G.]

Nuclear Plant Siting and Earthquake Risk

The green dots represent all commercial nuclear plants in the world that are currently operating, under construction, or officially on order. There are 222. The only plant omitted is Russia’s portable floating power station Akademik Lomonosov (due for deployment in Kamchatka), for which the siting issue is not particularly pertinent.

The red dots represent all earthquakes of magnitude at least 7.0 that occurred from 1973 through 2010. There were 520 such earthquakes. These data points were provided by USGS, which has collected standardized worldwide earthquake data since 1973.

[Amber G.]

X-post - For some nuclear power remains an option...
Chinese nuclear construction continues apace

The reactor building dome of unit 2 at the Yangjiang nuclear power plant in China was recently installed, 16 days ahead of schedule. Meanwhile, the second ring of the containment vessel of unit 2 at the Haiyang plant has also been lifted into place.

On the morning of 29 April, the dome - with a diameter of 37 metres, a height of 11 metres and weighing 156 tonnes - was carefully lifted by crane and placed on top of the containment vessel walls of Yangjiang unit 2. The entire operation took about 80 minutes.
<snip>

[Amber G.]

From WNN site:
Radiation control

Exhaust fans are being installed in unit 1 with the aim of reducing radioactivity in the air to 5% of current levels. Robotic inspections have shown general dose rates in unit 1 of between 10 and 49 millisieverts per hour but with one zone noted to be as high as 1100 millisieverts per hour.

A second female worker has been assessed as receiving over the regulation 5 millisieverts per three-month period. Effective exposure calculations show this worker received 7.49 millisieverts.

[Amber G.]

Improvements for Fukushima physical protection

Reinforcement is planned for sea defence at Fukushima Daiichi, as well as for the fuel pond in unit 4.


Robots have crept into the damaged Fukushima reactor buildings. Here one takes a look at the containment pressure gauge of unit 1 Steel columns and a concrete wall are to be installed in a room beneath the fuel pond of unit 4 to help support the weight of water in the damaged building. A space behind these will be filled with grout to form a solid mass in support of the pond.
.
<snip>
.

[Amber G.]

From IAEA site:

Core damage estimates (late April, in () older, March estimate)
Unit 1: 55% core damage ( Older estimate: 70%);
Unit 2: 35% core damage (Older estimate: 30%);
Unit 3: 30% core damage (Older estimate: 25%).
(This reflects a revised assessment rather than any recent changes in conditions in the reactor cores)

Radiation Monitoring

The daily monitoring of deposition of caesium and iodine radionuclides for the 47 prefectures continues. Deposition of Cs-137 and Cs-134 was detected in six prefectures on 2 May. The values reported ranged from 2.6 Bq/m2 to 19 Bq/m2. Compared with recent data, deposition of these radionuclides has been detected in fewer prefectures and in lower amounts than for previous days.

Gamma dose rates are measured daily in all 47 prefectures. A general decreasing trend has been observed in all locations since around 20 March. Gamma dose rates reported on 2 May remain at 1.7 µSv/h for Fukushima prefecture and 0.11 µSv/h for Ibaraki prefecture. The other 45 prefectures had gamma dose rates of below 0.1 µSv/h, falling within the range of local natural background radiation levels.

Gamma dose rates reported specifically for the eastern part of Fukushima prefecture, for distances of more than 30 km from the Fukushima Daiichi plant, ranged from 0.1 µSv/h to 19.7 µSv/h, as reported on 2 May.

Since 1 April there has been one remaining restriction on the consumption of drinking water relating to I-131 (with a limit of 100 Bq/L), which is applicable only for one village in the Fukushima prefecture and only for infants. According to the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), I-131 was detected in one prefecture on 29 April, with a reported value of 0.22 Bq/L; in two prefectures on 30 April, with reported levels of 0.04 Bq/L and 0.10 Bq/L respectively; and in one prefecture on 1 May, with a reported level of 0.38 Bq/L. Cs-137 was reported on 30 April in only one prefecture, with a measured level of 0.05 Bq/L. All these levels are below the limits set by the Japanese authorities for the restriction of water consumption due to the presence of radionuclides. The other samples did not show levels of radionuclides above the detection limit for I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137.

Food Restrictions

On 1 May restrictions were lifted on the distribution of raw unprocessed milk in Fukushima prefecture from the city of Minamisouma (limited to Kashima-ku and excluding Karasuzaki, Ouchi, Kawago and Shionosaki areas) and Kawamata town (excluding Yamakiya area).

[Amber G.]

Since, this "1mSv /year fixed by US" has life of its own and has been mentioned many times, hope the following will be helpful.

In USA:

All of the sources of radiation, other than natural, are regulated by laws passed by Congress. ( Federal, state and local authorities too) The regulations that control the use of radioactivity in our country are based on recommendations of science organizations like the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations (UN), and the Health Physics Society (HPS). Governing bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review these recommendations and propose the regulations that industry and government must follow. These are then passed by Congress, if found to be acceptable, and published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs).

Here is one nice source :
Radiation Related Rules, Regulations and Laws
For Federal and state regulation..etc.
This is US Gov's Fed page: http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/feds.htm

For reference, , here is one nice source:http://www.elsevierdirect.com/product.j ... 0122351549

BTW, Average dose for US citizen, in 2006 year was 6.2 mSv/year (It increased from about 3 mSv in 1980's mainly due to increase in medical uses)
Link: http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/popdose.htm

[chaanakya]

^^ Thanks for telling the law making process in your country.

All of the sources of radiation, other than natural, are regulated by laws passed by Congress. ( Federal, state and local authorities too) The regulations that control the use of radioactivity in our country are based on recommendations of science organizations like the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations (UN), and the Health Physics Society (HPS). Governing bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review these recommendations and propose the regulations that industry and government must follow. These are then passed by Congress, if found to be acceptable, and published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs).

But do you mean to say that Congress has not passed these laws as quoted by Bade in his post http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1082151
Let me quote again

2) The dose in any unrestricted area from external sources, exclusive of the dose contributions from patients administered radioactive material and released in accordance with § 35.75, does not exceed 0.002 rem (0.02 millisievert) in any one hour.

(1) The total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from the licensed operation does not exceed 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year, exclusive of the dose contributions from background radiation, from any administration the individual has received, from exposure to individuals administered radioactive material and released under § 35.75, from voluntary participation in medical research programs, and from the licensee's disposal of radioactive material into sanitary sewerage in accordance with § 20.2003, and

Also let me quote rest of it as it is a must read ityadi for better understanding

§ 20.1301 Dose limits for individual members of the public.

(a) Each licensee shall conduct operations so that -
(1) The total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from the licensed operation does not exceed 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year, exclusive of the dose contributions from background radiation, from any administration the individual has received, from exposure to individuals administered radioactive material and released under § 35.75, from voluntary participation in medical research programs, and from the licensee's disposal of radioactive material into sanitary sewerage in accordance with § 20.2003, and
(2) The dose in any unrestricted area from external sources, exclusive of the dose contributions from patients administered radioactive material and released in accordance with § 35.75, does not exceed 0.002 rem (0.02 millisievert) in any one hour.
(b) If the licensee permits members of the public to have access to controlled areas, the limits for members of the public continue to apply to those individuals.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a licensee may permit visitors to an individual who cannot be released, under § 35.75, to receive a radiation dose greater than 0.1 rem (1 mSv) if-
(1) The radiation dose received does not exceed 0.5 rem (5 mSv); and
(2) The authorized user, as defined in 10 CFR Part 35, has determined before the visit that it is appropriate.
(d) A licensee or license applicant may apply for prior NRC authorization to operate up to an annual dose limit for an individual member of the public of 0.5 rem (5 mSv). The licensee or license applicant shall include the following information in this application:
(1) Demonstration of the need for and the expected duration of operations in excess of the limit in paragraph (a) of this section;
(2) The licensee's program to assess and control dose within the 0.5 rem (5 mSv) annual limit; and
(3) The procedures to be followed to maintain the dose as low as is reasonably achievable.
(e) In addition to the requirements of this part, a licensee subject to the provisions of EPA's generally applicable environmental radiation standards in 40 CFR part 190 shall comply with those standards.
(f) The Commission may impose additional restrictions on radiation levels in unrestricted areas and on the total quantity of radionuclides that a licensee may release in effluents in order to restrict the collective dose.
[56 FR 23398, May 21, 1991, as amended at 60 FR 48625, Sept. 20, 1995; 62 FR 4133, Jan. 29, 1997; 67 FR 20370, Apr. 24, 2002; 67 FR 62872, Oct. 9, 2002]
Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, April 15, 2011

Does your country follow these or something else. Also read earlier post where US doctors (don't know their affiliations) criticised Japanese govt for revised radiation standards for school children.

Of course it is also mentioned in this thread in some post that when standards for paediatrics use was relaxed strontium started showing up in the formulations meant for children. But that is perhaps OT here.

[Bade]

The NRC numbers can be confusing and not look self-consistent. Will need more analysis.

At 0.02 mSv/hr , it means 365 days * 24 hrs * 0.02 = 175.2 mSv for a year, way above the 1 mSv/yr, which itself is a factor 3 below the average background values the general public is exposed to.

So I suppose the 1mSv/yr limit is to be imposed on a single normal licensed operator. It is assumed hence that there could be more than one licensed operator, each held to this limit.

Added later,
OK, AmberG already alluded to that in the previous page which I missed.

Sure, one can have a "Limit" of less than 0.1 mSV (or even less) for x-ray machine to be certified. NRC will also regulate NPP plants, or Coal plants (one can not give more than x mSV/yr).. public buildings (radon level), Yucca Mtns.. etc.. it IS NOT THE SAME THING AS allowable yearly dose for general public.

[arnab]

Unrelated but of interest

http://www.news.com.au/world/nuclear-le ... 6050898019

Nuclear leak in Russian icebreaker

RUSSIA launched an urgent rescue mission overnight after one of its atomic-powered icebreakers developed a nuclear leak in the frozen seas of the Arctic and was forced to abandon its mission.

The Rosatomflot nuclear fleet said in a statement that an "insignificant increase in activity" had been detected on board its 21,000-tonne Taimyr icebreaker.

[ramana]

Can we have a truce? By now we all know everyones position hence dont attack each other. And same token dont report each other too!

Thanks,
ramana

[Amber G.]

Hamaoka asked to shut down
(CEPC is considering to shut down its Hamaoka nuclear power plant on predictions of a major earthquake)

[Amber G.]

Filters for Fukushima Daiichi 1

Equipment is in place to filter air in Fukushima Daiichi 1 that should make conditions inside more workable within a few days.

Fukushima Daiichi 1 yesterday In some ways unit 1 has been the worst hit by the accident sequence started by the tsunami of 11 March. It is thought to have suffered damage to about 55% of the fuel in its core, compared to 35% at unit 2 and 30% at unit 3. It was the first to require venting to control containment vessel pressure and the first to see a hydrogen explosion. It was also the first to be cooled by an emergency method using seawater injection.

This basic method continues at units 1 to 3, although fresh water has been used for some time to avoid damaging pumping systems. Tepco had hoped to bring normal systems back into operation within days of reconnecting external power - they had been working normally in the period between the earthquake and tsunami - but has not been able to achieve this so far.

Twelve workers re-entered the reactor building of unit 1 yesterday for about 90 minutes and in that time installed four ducts to carry air through an exit to a filtration system, and four more to take it back to another area. With this cycling and filtering of the air, conditions should be more workable within about three days and within about a week Tepco engineers want to begin work on a longer-term circuit for the passage of injected cooling water.

The maximum radiation level in the building was about 93 millisieverts per hour, which would have used a large part of the emergency budget of 250 millisieverts overall dose to each worker. Earlier robotic surveys had revealed general radiation dose rates of 10-49 millisieverts per hour across the building, although one area was as high as 1100 millisieverts per hour.

[Amber G.]

^^ Thanks for telling the law making process in your country.
...<snip> ..

But do you mean to say that Congress has not passed these laws ...
<snip>

Does your country follow these or something else. Also read earlier post where US doctors (don't know their affiliations) criticised Japanese govt for revised radiation standards for school children.

Of course it is also mentioned in this thread in some post that when standards for paediatrics use was relaxed strontium started showing up in the formulations meant for children. But that is perhaps OT here.

Bade has already clarified this. Few comments:

1. You are welcome, but I wasn't talking about, "law making process in my country". If you follow the link, you should be able to find the actual laws. Also, one can easily do google and find out the laws in any country.

2. There is no such law as 1mSV by congress, not as far as I know, at least NOT the way you are suggesting it.. (as in total absorbed per year dose for public).. but you can search the laws for yourself. .. (There are radiation limiting laws when, say, one mails a radioactive isotope, or set up an x-ray machine..but that is different than total absorbed dose..). Besides it should be really very easy to provide actual link and wording for such a law, in stead of, accusing me and making dozens of posts. /sigh/

3. It is really odd that you are still making vague references to "US doctors (don't know their affiliations)" criticizing this and that and "paediatrics use was relaxed strontium" ityadi.... you are right, that is OT, at least, when your focus is on "1 mSV law"

What to me, seems odd that, despite all these posts and links, you are still asking questions like "Does your country follow these or something else.." and have implied more than once that behind all of my posts, there is a "spin".. a spin I am using to radiation-poison nice people in BRF.. (You did say something to the effect making BRF "dine with 1000 mSV dose)

While I am here, let me also put for the record, I find no basis for your repeated assertion that the limit changed from 1000 mSV (in 1927 ?) to 1 mSV. As posted before, this is laughable as "Sv" (as in Sievert ) unit was adopted in 1977!

Now, some may say, well it may be different unit but was equal to 1000 mSV..Not really.
Older units were Curie (which measured activity), or Roentgen (which measured ionization charge /unit mass). None of these measured absorbed energy , let alone
biological effects.. Understanding of biological effect (and even the energy absorbed concept) came later.

Any report of law for "limit of 1000 mSV in 1927 which is now 1 mSV" should be taken with a grain of salt.

Added Later:

BTW not all laws limit the radioactivity in one direction . All wines sold in US by law have to be radioactive (above a certain limit !). Chaanakyaji, I am curious, if you can figure it out why?

[Amber G.]

Let me also put for the record (Sorry if already posted)

Position Paper statement from , Health Physics Society, certainly not a pro-nuke/anti-India lobby.

This is about validity of LNT, a hypothesis repeated ad absurdum by Bidwai and certain posters in BRF ...

Link: http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/hprisk.htm

ealth Physics Health Health Physics Society Position Statement
March, 1996

Kenneth L. Mossman, Marvin Goldman, Frank Masse, William A. Mills, Keith J. Schiager, Richard L. Vetter

In accordance with current knowledge of radiation health risks, the Health Physics Society recommends against quantitative estimation of health risk below an individual dose of 5 rem(1){50 mSV} in one year, or a lifetime dose of 10 rem {100 mSV} in addition to background radiation. Risk estimation in this dose range should be strictly qualitative accentuating a range of hypothetical health outcomes with an emphasis on the likely possibility of zero adverse health effects. The current philosophy of radiation protection is based on the assumption that any radiation dose, no matter how small, may result in human health effects, such as cancer and hereditary genetic damage. There is substantial and convincing scientific evidence for health risks at high dose. Below 10 rem {100 mSv} (which includes occupational and environmental exposures) risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are non-existent.

Current radiation protection standards and practices are based on the premise that any radiation dose, no matter how small, can result in detrimental health effects, such as cancer and genetic damage. Further, it is assumed that these effects are produced in direct proportion to the dose received, i. e., doubling the radiation dose results in a doubling of the effect. These two assumptions lead to a dose-response relationship, often referred to as the linear no-threshold model, for estimating health effects at doses of interest. There is, however, substantial scientific evidence that this model is an oversimplification of the dose-response relationship and results in an overestimation of health risks in the low dose range. Biological mechanisms including cellular repair of radiation injury, which are not accounted for by the linear, no-threshold model, reduce the likelihood of cancers and genetic effects.


Radiogenic Health Effects Have Not Been Observed Below 10 Rem {100 mSV}
<snip>

Edited later: I had the above quote before (March 22).
Here is the url of the position paper: (June 2001):
http://www.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps41.pdf

[Sanku]

Hamaoka asked to shut down
(CEPC is considering to shut down its Hamaoka nuclear power plant on predictions of a major earthquake)

Excellent news, if this actually happens. Pity it takes a Fukushima to do what needs to be done anyway.

[Sanku]

Pay back time from unsustainable development

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-0 ... rries.html

Japanese Stocks Fall for Second Day on Nuclear-Shutdown Worries

May 9 (Bloomberg) -- Japanese stocks fell for a second day on concern that a government request to shut a nuclear reactor located close to an earthquake fault-line may hurt the economy.

Decades of hard work go "poof" over a wrong decision. Imagine the pain. Suddenly all the work that was done for 30 years seems to have no foundations whatsoever. Poor Japanese. Paying for the choices their fathers made.

[arnab]

May 9 (Bloomberg) -- Japanese stocks fell for a second day on concern that a government request to shut a nuclear reactor located close to an earthquake fault-line may hurt the economy.

Decades of hard work go "poof" over a wrong decision. Imagine the pain. Suddenly all the work that was done for 30 years seems to have no foundations whatsoever. Poor Japanese. Paying for the choices their fathers made.

Saar so are you arguing that the 'decision' to shut down the reactor is a wrong one? because that is what is 'hurting' the economy. Also do you equate economic development to the stock market movements by any chance? because by that correlation India would be the most developed economy by miles

[Sanku]

Saar so are you arguing that the 'decision' to shut down the reactor is a wrong one? because that is what is 'hurting' the economy.

Wondering on the logic of working very hard to build a castle on quicksand.

[arnab]

Wondering on the logic of working very hard to build a castle on quicksand.

yes - ideally the japanese should have migrated out of japan. No more earthquakes. Now that was a foolish choice of their forefathers.

[Sanku]

Wondering on the logic of working very hard to build a castle on quicksand.

yes - ideally the japanese should have migrated out of japan. No more earthquakes. Now that was a foolish choice of their forefathers.

If one has stomach ulcers; one does not drink copious amount of alcohol to lessen the pain. Savvy?

[arnab]

If one has stomach ulcers; one does not drink copious amount of alcohol to lessen the pain. Savvy?

But the 'stomach ulcers' of the variety which killed 24,000 japanese citizens was the problem that they lived in an earthquake prone region. So by your logic their forefathers should have moved out of japan but they foolishly chose to stay on - now imagine the pain of that foolishness. (The score for nuke radiation deaths is still zero)

[Sanku]

So by your logic

Sir, I have told you, I will speak what I have to speak based on my logic. Kindly do not attempt to second guess me.

Please talk about YOUR logic, if you have any to share.

And no aam does not mean imli in certain conditions when right PoV is used.

If you can not understand the obviously written statement, fine. But do not put words in my mouth.

Thank thee....

[arnab]

Sir, I have told you, I will speak what I have to speak based on my logic. Kindly do not attempt to second guess me.

Please talk about YOUR logic, if you have any to share.

And no aam does not mean imli in certain conditions when right PoV is used.

If you can not understand the obviously written statement, fine. But do not put words in my mouth.

Thank thee....

saar - I think it will then help us if you stick to facts instead of taking recourse to unreliable metaphors But..well facts are inconvenient.