Why is NO radiation level information available for Fukushima reactor?

[joeydb]

What do you guys think?

Check this out:

http://www.infowars.com/governments-...ear-nightmare/

The zones near the reactor have been "under survey" for days, leaving the value posted for that region as "0".

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by joeydb

What do you guys think?

Isn't that discussed in this article?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapc...ex.html?hpt=T1

[joeydb]

If someone DOES have a website showing numerical values for the radiation, feel free to post the link in this thread.

There has also been confusion, possibly deliberate, between values in microsieverts and millisieverts (1000 microsieverts).

When values were reported days ago, they were compared to "a chest x-ray". Well, if it takes one second of an open shutter to get an x-ray, a rate of radiation of that level in the environment would be 3600 times that per hour!

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by joeydb

If someone DOES have a website showing numerical values for the radiation, feel free to post the link in this thread.

There has also been confusion, possibly deliberate, between values in microsieverts and millisieverts (1000 microsieverts).

When values were reported days ago, they were compared to "a chest x-ray". Well, if it takes one second of an open shutter to get an x-ray, a rate of radiation of that level in the environment would be 3600 times that per hour!

http://www.radiationnetwork.com/

[joeydb]

http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_...C000+in+Japan+

"Radioactive emissions at the plant reached record levels overnight. Measurements of 1,000 millisievert were taken and Wednesday morning, 600 to 800 millisieverts were measured, Edano said.

Being exposed to 1,000 millisieverts can cause radiation poisoning. That dose is 250 times what people usually receive in a year, but people can experience health problems at a dose of 400 millisieverts."

Me: 1000 mSv = 1 Sv (1 Sievert). This is clearly a point where the cancer risks go up and radiation sickness occurs. And that is assuming that it's one dose, and not a rate of radiation which would be far worse.

Analogy: your bathtub may hold 30 gallons of water. If you have 30 gallons of water per minute leaking in your house, the damage is immense and, if you experience it long enough, you'll lose the house.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert

"Symptoms of acute radiation (within one day):[15]

0 – 0.25 Sv (0 - 250 mSv): None
0.25 – 1 Sv (250 - 1000 mSv): Some people feel nausea and loss of appetite; bone marrow, lymph nodes, spleen damaged.
1 – 3 Sv (1000 - 3000 mSv): Mild to severe nausea, loss of appetite, infection; more severe bone marrow, lymph node, spleen damage; recovery probable, not assured.
3 – 6 Sv (3000 - 6000 mSv): Severe nausea, loss of appetite; hemorrhaging, infection, diarrhea, skin peels, sterility; death if untreated.
6 – 10 Sv (6000 - 10000 mSv): Above symptoms plus central nervous system impairment; death expected.
Above 10 Sv (10000 mSv): Incapacitation and death."

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning

[hi_im_god]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...alifornia.html

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

There has also been confusion, possibly deliberate, between values in microsieverts and millisieverts (1000 microsieverts).

Just do the math and move the decimal point It's not deliberate, they are just trying not to use alot of zeros following a decimal point

When values were reported days ago, they were compared to "a chest x-ray". Well, if it takes one second of an open shutter to get an x-ray, a rate of radiation of that level in the environment would be 3600 times that per hour!

Naw, just throw that above thought out - trust me, it's not an accurate comparison (chest x-rays are usually taken at 1/120 of a second, but the radiation is not the same, you can't use that in a formula for exposure)

The chest x-ray comparison is a good one, you can trust that.

One chest x-ray is 0.1 mSv (millisevert) of biologic exposure
One year of hanging around on earth is 3 mSv of biologic exposure

The CDC has lots of charts explaining the difference between the radiology terms used for radiation emitted from something, versus biologic exposure risk, versus energy absorbed by tissue during exposure.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

If someone DOES have a website showing numerical values for the radiation, feel free to post the link in this thread.

PS, look in the article Bob posted, it gives the radiation levels that were being emitted per hour.

Radiation levels at the plant remained high Thursday evening, but had dropped sharply from the morning. At 4 p.m. (3 a.m. ET), the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency reported exposures of 1.6 millisieverts per hour, down from the nearly 3.8 millisieverts per hour TEPCO reported at 9:30 a.m. A typical resident of a developed country receives about 3 millisieverts per year.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...alifornia.html

That is totally cool.