Reply #37: the article alerts us of possible grave consequences of the disaster

[reorg]

Whereas you appear to feel the need to talk down any such attempt at making the general public aware of the dangers. I have yet been unable to grasp your motivation for this.

What is your expertise in judging the estimates of the neutral Austrian Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics (associated with the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Research)?

I wonder what you have to say to that statement, of another EXPERT (admittedly not accredited by the nuclear industry):

As of March 22, the IAEA reported:

The IAEA took measurements at additional locations between 35 to 68 km from the Fukushima plant. The dose-rate results ranged from 0.8 to 9.1 microsieverts per hour. The beta-gamma contamination measurements ranged from 0.08 to 0.9 MBq per square metre. More precise interpretation of the results will be possible based on measurements to be made of the composition of the radioactive material that has been released.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/fukushima22031...

According to Dr. Sebastian Pflugbeil, president of the (German) Society for Radiation Protection (http://www.gfstrahlenschutz.de/en/index.html ), the Russian authorities designated local contaminations of more than 555,000 Bequerel per square meter as "hot spots". This is the same order of magnitude as the measurements found between 16 and 58 km northwest of the Fukushima nuclear plant. The extension of that area is comparable in size to the exclusion zone west of Chernobyl.

Zur Bewertung liegt ein Blick zurück auf die Situation nach Tschernobyl nahe. Hot spots wurden von den russischen Behörden damals als lokal begrenzte Kontaminationen von mehr als 555.000 Becquerel pro Quadratmeter definiert. Das ist die Größenordnung, die in Japan zwischen 16 und 58 km von der IAEA gemessen wurde. Die Ausdehnung dieser Zone in Japan ist vergleichbar mit der Sperrzone westlich von Tschernobyl.

http://www.gfstrahlenschutz.de/pm110323.htm