Jump to content

Huge Earthquake in Japan


Recommended Posts

Hi there. I am fine. Thank you so much for thinking of me and Japan.

What a horrible horrible earthquake...

There is no acquaintance in the stricken area. However, I worry very much.

Any TV station does the news of the earthquake in TV all day long.

It is so painful... I just pray for them.

 

Thank you again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi there. I am fine. Thank you so much for thinking of me and Japan.

What a horrible horrible earthquake...

There is no acquaintance in the stricken area. However, I worry very much.

Any TV station does the news of the earthquake in TV all day long.

It is so painful... I just pray for them.

 

Thank you again.

 

Good to hear from you! Glad you and your family are ok. My thoughts are with Japan! Stay strong!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is absolutely stunning. It's a plotting of all the 5.0+ earthquakes that happened immediately before and now after the 9.0 quake. Literally hundreds of them!

 

http://www.latimes.c...29519.htmlstory (click play near the bottom right corner of the map)

 

What a terrifying time it must be in Japan.

 

That was unbelievable. Thanks for sharing, it really provides perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chart depicting relative relative radiation exposure risks...

 

Screen_shot_2011-03-14_at_10.09.47_PM.png

 

MORE PHOTOS...

 

My link

I don't understand the math on the chart. 1 seviert should be 1000 millisevierts, not 100 as implied (i.e., 500, not 50 mSv = 0.5 Sv). Also, all reports I've seen are in the microseviert range, which is a thousandth of a milliseviert.

 

By Kyung Bok Cho

March 16 (Bloomberg) -- Radiation levels near the Japanese

town of Namie, 21 kilomoters from Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s

Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant, rose to as high as 6,600 times

normal levels, Kyodo News reported.

Radiation levels climbed to as high as 330 microsieverts

per hour at one point between yesterday and today, Kyodo said,

citing Japan’s science ministry, without being more specific on

when the measurement was taken.

 

Don't have a link, but it's from an acquaintance's Bloomberg feed. Fukushima peaked (also no link) at 400,000 microsevierts per hour, which would be equivalent to 0.4 Sv, or just below the level at which you would be expected to experience radiation sickness. For comparison, Chernobyl peaked at 300,000,000 microsevierts per hour (300 Sv), which would kill you instantly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jules

How to protect yourself from radiation exposure. In less than four days the beginning of the radioactive fallout from Japan will reach the West Coast.

No it won't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it won't.

 

Are you related to Ann Coulter or do you post comments like this because you have nothing better to do?

 

 

 

The first particles arriving today are those that escaped at the beginning of the event last Thursday. Since that time up to six reactors have either exploded or are burning and their spent fuel rods have become exposed. Nothing has been done to stop the meltdown process. More concentrated levels of radiation are being released every second. Some of those plumes are filled with MOX plutonium which is two million times more deadly than enriched uranium.

 

According to the Nuclear Information Resource Center (NIRS), this plutonium-uranium fuel mixture is far more dangerous than typical enriched uranium -- a single milligram (mg) of MOX is as deadly as 2,000,000 mg of normal enriched uranium.

 

Article on MOX plutonium...

 

My link

 

 

First particles from Fukushima reactor reach U.S. soil

My link

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer

Are you related to Ann Coulter or do you post comments like this because you have nothing better to do?

 

Are you posting on a message board to knock someone for posting on a message board?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my moderator voice:

 

If you disagree with something that has been posted, please try to post a reasonable explanation of why you disagree. Otherwise, you kind of just sound like a contrarian, rather than someone who is legitimately trying to contribute.

 

If you feel that someone's response to your post is less than reasonable, please ask that person to explain his/her point further, rather than trying to insult that person.

 

If you don't respect the sources that are being quoted, please try to include some citations of your own, from sources that you feel are legitmate and responsible, and which might advance the conversation in some way.

 

 

Have I covered everything? Let's just try to keep the tone respectful and reasonable. Thank you.

 

~smarmy condescending moderator gogo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those in the government (EPA), telling us there is nothing to worry about, are the same ones who told us there is no problem in the Gulf after months of massive oil spillage or that the conditions at Ground Zero were safe to work in. Some of you are pretty naive to think they are being truthful about this disaster.

 

I would post the EPA stats but their West Coast monitors are down. Click on

Map of Radiation Air Monitoring Stations on the right hand side of their radiation page. Until this changes, I guess all we have are "amateurs" and concerned citizens to provide us with information.

 

This is what you get at the EPA...

My link

 

EPA site...

My link

 

 

Follow the plumes...

My link

 

Gamma radiation levels 10 times higher on West Coast than East Coast (Map)...

My link

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jules

In my moderator voice:

 

If you disagree with something that has been posted, please try to post a reasonable explanation of why you disagree. Otherwise, you kind of just sound like a contrarian, rather than someone who is legitimately trying to contribute.

 

If you feel that someone's response to your post is less than reasonable, please ask that person to explain his/her point further, rather than trying to insult that person.

 

If you don't respect the sources that are being quoted, please try to include some citations of your own, from sources that you feel are legitmate and responsible, and which might advance the conversation in some way.

 

 

Have I covered everything? Let's just try to keep the tone respectful and reasonable. Thank you.

 

~smarmy condescending moderator gogo

What's wrong with being a contrarian? Can't I just disagree because I disagree?

 

(Especially when someone is trying to fear-monger.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not fear mongering. I live on the East Coast. I have relatives and friends who live on the West Coast and in Hawaii, however. If things get out of hand, and no one here can say they will not, what is wrong with posting articles, maps, and monitoring sites so people can see for themselves what is happening? I hope you are right that no radiation will reach those areas. I for one, will not rely on the word of the government. I would hope some who read this thread can either take the appropriate precautions or feel better about their situation if the threat turns out to be less severe. If the information about the spent MOX plutonium fuel rods is accurate, then there is much we are not being told in the mainstream media. I would gladly accept any proof you provide that dispels the fears people have about this crisis. If providing information is considered fear mongering, then we are all in trouble if one expects to gleam any truth out of all this. The Japanese are changing their story every day. Each time they announce updates, things are worse than they were previously. So excuse me for having my doubts. If the Ann Coulter reference offended you, I apologize. I thought it was funny. As for you being a contrarian, isn't that your job here? :thumbup

 

EPA track record not good....

 

World Trade Center Rescue Workers Believed EPA, Ended Up Sick

 

In a series of public statements issued after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assured the people of New York that the air around ground zero was safe to breathe. Unfortunately, the agency lacked authoritative information on which to base these claims, and internal agency data conflicting with this reassuring public posture were ignored. The EPA's press releases and public statements after 9/11 were vetted by then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, suggesting that the White House placed politics over science when communicating about ground zero's air quality. Tragically, the impact of this public deception continues to be felt by thousands of rescue workers now plagued by chronic and crippling lung ailments.

 

My link

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not fear mongering. I live on the East Coast. I have relatives and friends who live on the West Coast and in Hawaii, however. If things get out of hand, and no one here can say they will not, what is wrong with posting articles, maps, and monitoring sites so people can see for themselves what is happening? I hope you are right that no radiation will reach those areas.

It seems likely that some radiation will reach the West Coast of the U.S., but what does that mean? It's five thousand miles from Tokyo to the West Coast.

 

The UN estimates there are perhaps 4,000 cases of cancer attributable to the effects of Chernobyl, the radiation release of which was nearly a thousand times greater than the peak (to this point) of the Fukushima crisis. There are also possible links to slight, brief increases in birth defects in Germany and Turkey, both of which are significantly closer to the Ukraine than any part of the United States is to Japan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll find out. Massive storm headed toward West Coast coming in from the West...

 

My link

 

Japan worse than Chernobyl?

 

How Much Fuel Is at Risk at Fukushima?

The maximum hazard from a crippled nuclear power plant depends on how much radioactive fuel is on site, both in the reactors and in the storage pools. And the Daiichi complex in Fukushima, Japan, damaged by the 11 March earthquake and tsunami contains more fuel than was at risk at Three Mile Island.

 

The Daiichi complex had a total of 1760 metric tons of fresh and used nuclear fuel on site last year, according to a presentation by its owners, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco). The most damaged Daiichi reactor, number 3, contains about 90 tons of fuel, and the storage pool above reactor 4, which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Gregory Jaczko reported yesterday had lost its cooling water, contains 135 tons of spent fuel. The amount of fuel lost in the core melt at Three Mile Island in 1979 was about 30 tons; the Chernobyl reactors had about 180 tons when the accident occurred in 1986.

 

My link

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another opinion. You want to hope he's right. Judge for yourself...

 

Why what's happened in Japan should be an ENDORSEMENT of nuclear power

 

How bad could it get? Well, Britain’s excellent Chief Scientist, Sir John Beddington, couldn’t have explained it more clearly. This is what he said in a transcribed conversation with the British Embassy in Tokyo.

 

I’ll quote him in full because it summarises perfectly what is really going on in Japan:

 

'If the Japanese fail to keep the reactors cool and fail to keep the pressure in the containment vessels at an appropriate level, you can get the dramatic word 'meltdown'. But what does that actually mean? What a meltdown involves is [that] the basic reactor core melts, and as it melts, nuclear material will fall through to the floor of the container. There it will react with concrete and other materials. That is likely… remember this is the reasonable worst case, we don’t think anything worse is going to happen.

 

'In this reasonable worst case you get an explosion. You get some radioactive material going up to about 500 metres up into the air. Now, that’s really serious, but it’s serious again for the local area. It’s not serious for elsewhere … if you then couple that with the worst possible weather situation i.e. prevailing weather taking radioactive material in the direction of Greater Tokyo and you had maybe rainfall which would bring the radioactive material down - do we have a problem?

 

'The answer is unequivocally no. Absolutely no issue. The problems are within 30 km of the reactor. And to give you a flavour for that, when Chernobyl had a massive fire at the graphite core, material was going up not just 500 metres but to 30,000 feet. It was lasting not for the odd hour or so but lasted months, and that was putting nuclear radioactive material up into the upper atmosphere for a very long period of time. But even in the case of Chernobyl, the exclusion zone that they had was about 30 kilometres.

 

'And in that exclusion zone, outside that, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate people had problems from the radiation. The problems with Chernobyl were people were continuing to drink the water, continuing to eat vegetables and so on and that was where the problems came from. That’s not going to be the case here. So what I would really re-emphasise is that this is very problematic for the area and the immediate vicinity and one has to have concerns for the people working there. Beyond that 20 or 30 kilometres, it’s really not an issue for health.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1367289/Japan-earthquake-tsunami-Are-right-worry-nuclear-angle.html#ixzz1H3jHW3bk

 

 

My link

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...