Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(26,681 posts)
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 12:27 PM Aug 2012

Post-Fukushima radioactivity low, gamma ray radiation more of a concern


VIENNA - Japanese officials reporting on the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster say that gamma rays from the rubble left by the accident are now a greater concern than radioactive cesium still being emitted from the crippled nuclear plant.

A report to an International Atomic Energy Agency meeting presented Monday says that cesium being released from the plant is at approximately 0.01 becquerels per hour, well below the health-hazard level. Shinichi Kuroki, who presented the report, says the greater challenge is to reduce relatively high gamma ray radiation from the plant debris.

A powerful earthquake and tsunami hit the Fukushima plant 17 months ago, overwhelming its safety systems and spreading radioactivity over a large area.

IAEA chief Yukiya Amano urged delegates to maintain their "sense of urgency" on post-Fukushima nuclear safety.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Japan+PostFukushima+radioactivity+gamma+radiation+more+concern/7149542/story.html
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Post-Fukushima radioactivity low, gamma ray radiation more of a concern (Original Post) FBaggins Aug 2012 OP
Hot Particles & Measurement of Radioactivity (Arnie Gundersen & Marco Kaltofen) Junkdrawer Aug 2012 #1
.01 Bq/hr FBaggins Aug 2012 #2
9/11 Rudy, is that you? Junkdrawer Aug 2012 #3
"No one can discredit you more than you do yourself" FBaggins Aug 2012 #4
1,000,000 Bq/kg of cesium detected at Fukushima school Junkdrawer Aug 2012 #5
Were you going to get around to either... FBaggins Aug 2012 #6
Let's see: Junkdrawer Aug 2012 #7
A simple "no" would have sufficed. FBaggins Aug 2012 #8

FBaggins

(26,681 posts)
2. .01 Bq/hr
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 01:22 PM
Aug 2012

Pretty silly to talk about "hot particles" at that rate.

Though the linked video is certainly worth a laugh. Much like the 9/11 nutcase who "proved" that fire can't reduce the strength of steel by filming some chicken wire in a kerosene fire and declaring that it was a valid experimental proof.

Junkdrawer

(27,993 posts)
3. 9/11 Rudy, is that you?
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 01:33 PM
Aug 2012

"Ignore Gundersen, he's a 9/11 Truther, I tell ya"

No one can discredit you more than you do yourself.

FBaggins

(26,681 posts)
4. "No one can discredit you more than you do yourself"
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 01:43 PM
Aug 2012

Says the guy who immediately thought of "hot particles" when talking about a level that low?

How ironic.

Tell me... how many Bq would you guess you expose yourself to - counting only the internal radiation of your own body ?

"Ignore Gundersen, he's a 9/11 Truther, I tell ya"

I didn't say that. I have no idea what his opinion is on that nonsense. He has entirely his own nonsense to sell you... and you're buying it hook, line, and sinker (and then trying to sell it to others). IOW, the video you posted is laughable. Trying to pitch automobile air filters as viable proxies for inhalation exposure in humans - is nonsense.

FBaggins

(26,681 posts)
6. Were you going to get around to either...
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 02:12 PM
Aug 2012

answering the straight question (you can't of course... because if you could you couldn't make your earlier post)... or

discuss why you think a 15-month old youtube video is a relevant reply to current releases?

1,000,000 Bq/kg of cesium detected at Fukushima school

Or while we're at it... why you think this is a relevant reply. How many kg's of the lichen did they find at that level? Or don't you think it matters? Feel free to compare the resulting answer to the one you have yet to give above.

Junkdrawer

(27,993 posts)
7. Let's see:
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 02:31 PM
Aug 2012

Last edited Thu Aug 30, 2012, 01:25 PM - Edit history (1)

1.) The .01 Bq/hr is the number from your article, not mine

2.) Walking around with a Geiger counter is misleading because it only measures gamma rays and ignores internal contamination

3.) This will be my last post because you are so disingenuous that I may as well be arguing with a shill who is paid by the post.

FBaggins

(26,681 posts)
8. A simple "no" would have sufficed.
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 02:51 PM
Aug 2012

Believe me... I knew that you wouldn't answer and I knew why.

1.) The .01 Bq/hr is the number from your article, not mine

So? Can you or can you not compare it to the internal radiation from natural sources within your own body?

2.) Walking around with a Geiger counter is misleading because it only measures gamma rays and ignores internal contamination

That's just wrong on so many levels.
. They aren't just "walking around with a geiger counter"
. Geiger counters do not, in fact, measure only gamma radiation.
. They have very accurate measurements of internal exposure with equipment that is designed for that purpose.

3.) This will be my last post because you are so disingenuous that I may as well be arguing with a shill who is paid by the post.

It's actually your last post (we should be so lucky) because "No one can discredit you more than you do yourself"... and you realize that opening your e-mouth on the subject is counter-productive. You had nothing relevant to the OP and attempted to distract/disrupt. You failed. Please don't leave thinking that anyone was fooled by your bluster that I'm the one being "disingenuous".

Your next move is to increase the bluster and, with a huffy attitude, inform me that I'm now on ignore.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Post-Fukushima radioactiv...