IMHO worst reporting known to man.
Seems to pretty much support my contention of “irresponsible commentary”, IMNSHO......
The commentator - from an anti-nuke organizaton, BTW - implied the “explosions” were nuclear in nature, which they most definitely were not. “Radiation” was blanket characterized as ‘bad’. But being outside on a sunny day exposes you to a lot of ‘radiation’ as well.....
I also found his comments on the discovered “high dose rates” to be most interesting. The only sure way to measure an individual’s total exposure I know of is a Whole Body Count. You “count in” to establish a base line, then “count out” to determine the actual dose you received. IME< dosimetery is a good tool to measure probabilities, but not the “determining factor” as there are a great many variables in the pot.
I’d agree his contentions regarding the “leaning” of a reactor unit is cogent. According to info I have, the entire northern island moved some 17 feet ! Other reports indicate some sections sank several meters ! That may be the cause of the observed “lean”..... >PS
Seems to pretty much support my contention of “irresponsible commentary”, IMNSHO......
The commentator - from an anti-nuke organizaton, BTW - implied the “explosions” were nuclear in nature, which they most definitely were not. “Radiation” was blanket characterized as ‘bad’. But being outside on a sunny day exposes you to a lot of ‘radiation’ as well.....
I also found his comments on the discovered “high dose rates” to be most interesting. The only sure way to measure an individual’s total exposure I know of is a Whole Body Count. You “count in” to establish a base line, then “count out” to determine the actual dose you received. IME< dosimetery is a good tool to measure probabilities, but not the “determining factor” as there are a great many variables in the pot.
I’d agree his contentions regarding the “leaning” of a reactor unit are cogent. According to info I have, the entire northern island moved some 17 feet ! Other reports indicate some sections sank several meters ! That may be the cause of the observed “lean”.....IAC, according to reports that building has a lot of weight from spent fuel “up high”. Its mass would be benificial during the event, but not now if its foundation - and the bedrock its sitting upon - has taken a “tilt”.
IMNSHO its imperative we recognize we’re in “uncharted territory” with the Fukashima event. Multiple reactors have withstood seismic events far in excess of design specs yet maintained integrity. Recovery/cleanup is going to be a major task. But rather than accept the luddites’ contention of this as a “negative”, I suhmit its a “positive”. Had we done the same post TMI, we’d be able to replace these dinosaurs with “Gen4” cache plants even smaller, safer and more efficient. >PS
At any rate, new video shows that the spent fuel pool for #3 is a absolute mess.
I’ll tell you what is really embarrasing. You search for “reactor 4 leaning”, which seems it should get a news hit since the story here is that “Japan has CONFIRMED” the leaning. Certainly if Japan has issued an official confirmation of a leaning building, it would be NEWS somewhere, like Reuters, or AP, or something.
And maybe it is. But the google hits are all blogs. And most of them are far-left blogs like Democratic Underground, and anti-nuclear blogs, and the Huffington Post.
But then there’s one lone beacon in the sea of left-wing conspiracy land — and it’s Free Republic, because of this post. When you are in the company of Democratic Underground, that’s just a sad day.
Let us know when it’s upside down.