TEPCO Press Release (Mar 31,2011)—The results of nuclide analyses of radioactive materials in…air…

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11033101-e.html

Press Release (Mar 31,2011)
The results of nuclide analyses of radioactive materials in the air at the site of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (10th release)

On March 22nd 2011, as part of monitoring activity of the surrounding 
environment, we conducted nuclide analysis of radioactive materials 
contained in the air which were collected at the site of Fukushima Daiichi 
Nuclear Power Station, which was damaged by Tohoku-Chihou-Taiheiyo-Oki 
Earthquake. As a result, radioactive materials were detected and 
therefore, we summarized the results and reported them to Nuclear and 
Industry Safety Agency as well as to the government of Fukushima 
Prefecture. (previously announced)

On March 30th, 2011, we conducted nuclide analysis of radioactive 
materials contained in the air which were collected on the same date at 
the site of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. As a result, 
radioactive materials were detected as shown in the attachment. Therefore, 
we summarized the results and reported them to Nuclear and Industry Safety 
Agency as well as to the government of Fukushima Prefecture today.

We are planning to conduct these surveys continuously.
attachment1:The result of the nuclide analysis of radioactive materials in
            the air at the site of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station
                                                              (PDF 35.7KB)
attachment2:The result of the nuclide analysis of radioactive materials in
            the air at the site of Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station
                                                              (PDF 36.9KB)
attachment3:Nuclide analysis of radioactive materials in the air Fukushima
            Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (Western Gate)(PDF 31.1KB)
attachment4:Nuclide analysis of radioactive materials in the air Fukushima
            Daini Nuclear Power Station(PDF 36.3KB)

[stockholmer]

1. the Bq/cm3 rates are very very high,& are steadily increasing(the tests dont measure for plutonium)

As early as 10 days ago, they were already measuring iodine and cesium soil and air Bq/cm3 concentration levels up to 75 kms away that were double Chernobyl at similar time/distance vectors.

[FBaggins]

2. Can you back ANY of that up?

The rates reported here are not, in fact, "very very high", nor do the concentrations compare at all to the levels at Chernobyl.

[stockholmer]

3. here is some info on that

http://www.countercurrents.org/busby270311.htm

"The International Atomic Energy Agency website states: High levels of beta-gamma contamination have been measured between 16-58 km from the plant. Available results show contamination ranging from 0.2-0.9 MBq per square metre.



In the above map, the “hot spots” are defined as greater than 0.55MBq/sq:m. This the IAEA are saying that up to 60km from Fukuhima the activity is more than twice the level defined as a hotspot in the maps shown. These maps are from the European Commission (the lower) and the Soviet authorities (upper).

This means the following:.

1. The explosions vapourised some or all of the spent fuel tanks on reactors number 1-3.

2. The accident is as serious as Chernobyl, which is what I stated on Friday last and in various TV and radio interviews

3. There is every likelihood that the pressure vessel of at least one reactor is open

4. There is serious contamination of the sea which will extend the radioactivity to coastal dwellers for hundreds of kilometres through inhalation of sea-to-land transfer of radionuclides and seafood

5. The health effects will be serious and we must consider that contamination will probably be global, though the levels may not be apparent for a while

6. Public within 150km should leave the area immediately............................."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from 11 days ago:

ECRR Risk Model and Radiation from Fukushima

http://thealphanews.com/news-articles/earth-disaster-geo/japan-disaster/223-dr-chris-busby-on-fukushima-radiation-risk


“Fukushima radioactive fallout nears Chernobyl levels” (a week ago data)
http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/?p=1519
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Run-Rated Fukushima Radiation Release On Par With, And In Some Cases Greater Than, Chernobyl

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/run-rated-fukushina-radiation-release-par-and-some-cases-greater-chernobyl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MognnB0g56Y
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE LOW LEVEL RADIATION CAMPAIGN

We research the health effects of ionising radiation
We demand a re-evaluation of the risks of radioactive pollution

http://www.llrc.org/

European Committee on Radiation Risk
Comité Européen sur le Risque de l’Irradiation

http://www.euradcom.org/

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. So, I take it that would be a yes?

;-)

[FBaggins]

5. Actually no... the source is awful.

And it doesn't compare a "hot spot" from two weeks after Chernobyl to currently detected amounts (as claimed), nor does it compare the Bq/Cm3 levels reported in your link to some standard of "high" (or "very very high"), also as claimed.

It also compares overall detected exposure levels (which include large amounts of a shorter half-life isotope) to just the CS left after Chernobyl. AND compares the highest individual samples (when most were FAR lower) to the norm in the Chernobyl example.

[stockholmer]

6. the sources you claim are 'awful' are the IAEA & 1 of the world's foremost nuclear radiation experts

also, you claim that "the highest individual samples (when most were FAR lower) to the norm in the Chernobyl example"

you back that up, and also, if that IS across-the-board true, this disaster truly bodes ill, as those so-called 'FAR lower' levels from Chernobyl

have killed nearly 1 million so far from radiation (short mid, long term) http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/04/26

[FBaggins]

7. No... those really aren't the sources.

the IAEA

Tthe IAEA directly refutes what he says. So it's hard to use claim that they're a "source" for what you said.

1 of the world's foremost nuclear radiation experts

Oh come on. Are you serious?

I get a kick out of it when people create their own "experts", not because they actually ARE experts, but because it's the closest person that they can find who actually supports their position.

The guy can't even get his stuff published in peer-reviewed journals. He's had to self publish... while the critics of those works were published in peer reviewed journals. He is at least a scientist, but is nothing close to "one of the world's foremost nuclear radiation experts". His beliefs are... how shall we put it?... well outside the mainstream. He is (for instance) one of the guys who thinks that depleted uranium is a significant radiological hazard.

you back that up

See today's report from the IAEA.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=284951&mesg_id=284951

that IS across-the-board true, this disaster truly bodes ill, as those so-called 'FAR lower' levels from Chernobyl

It isn't Chernobyl that has the far lower levels... it's Japan where most of the reported levels are far below the number Busby cited. Just as important, the Chernobyl numbers that he's comparing it to are not from a couple weeks after the accident... but far more modern.

And I feel no need to deal with the BS that Chernobyl really killed a million people. It was the worst nuclear accident in history (and probably always will be), but it killed in the thousands... not hundreds of thousands.