Elevated Radiation Claimed At Tokyo 2020 Olympic Venues 164
An anonymous reader writes "A citizens' group in Tokyo claims to have found elevated levels of radioactivity at 39 sporting venues earmarked for the 2020 Olympic Games. Expert and organizers are cautious about the findings but see no problem, as the levels do not pose an immediate threat to human health. From the article: '"It is difficult to have this debate unless we know for sure whether this radiation is from Fukushima or whether it is naturally occurring background radiation," said Pieter Franken, founder of the Japan office of the environmental monitoring organization Safecast."
I look forward (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
And all the winning athletes will look very radiant.
Re: (Score:1)
I just hope the judges will do their best to remain neutron.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I look forward (Score:5, Funny)
2020 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And sadly, for them, they will be exposed to much higher levels of radiation in the aircraft flying to japan - lets hope they all take ships!
Oh, and for a bonus they can avoid eating bananas, why havnt those radioactive horrors be banned yet? think of the children!
So what you are REALLY saying is (Score:2)
That these people will ON TOP of normal exposure to radiation suffer additional exposure?
Gosh, it is a good thing radiation isn't cumulative... oh wait.
Re:2020 (Score:4, Insightful)
Sigh, more misdirection and sleight of hand from the nuclear power lobby.
The risk to health in Japan is from ingestion ... . Conflating these real risks with bananas and flights is unethical and misleading.
What do you normally do with your bananas? I certainly ingest mine.
And I don't think athletes will be ingesting much water from the storage tanks, broken or not.
Re: (Score:2)
The human body maintains a fairly constant level of potassium, so no matter how many bananas you eat your potassium level won't be elevated for more than a few hours until you crap it all out.
The material released from Fukushima has got into the water, and into the food people eat and the dirt children play in. It gets inside the body and stays there for decades.
It's shocking how ignorant people are about how these things work, and yet still post with imagined authority on Slashdot and get modded up by othe
Re: (Score:2)
The material released from Fukushima has got into the water, and into the food people eat and the dirt children play in. It gets inside the body and stays there for decades.
That's why there's an exclusion zone.
It's shocking how ignorant people are about how these things work, and yet still post with imagined authority on Slashdot and get modded up by others who know equally as little.
True, IANANS, but I also like to think I've got a less than sensationalist perspective on the whole affair.
To put the whole incident into perspective, you have to look at the tsunami decimating the entire coastal region, wiping out entire towns and villages, killing thousands and thousands of people. I can't image the salt water influx has done much good for the regional farm land and water tables.
I suspect Fukushima is more a financial burden than a public health burden
Re: (Score:2)
And it was a crappy sequel too.
Re:2020 (Score:4, Informative)
The pools didn't break during a 9.0 magnitude earthquake. The fifth most fierce ever on earth. Why should they break during a lesser earthquake?
Because magnitude doesn't correspond all that well to forces felt at the surface.
The Christchurch, New Zealand earthquake of September 2010 was a 7.1, and the peak acceleration was 1.26g. The Feb 2011 at the same location much less energetic at "just" a 6.3, yet its peak acceleration was 2.2g (among the highest recorded in an urban area) due to most of that energy being released over just 12 seconds.
The 9.0 Fukushima earthquake OTOH was spread out over 6 minutes, so its peak acceleration was 2.99g despite it being thousands of times more energetic than Christchurch's Feb quake.
Re: (Score:2)
I only ever felt one quake but I was standing on the same spot the whole time. I was not accelerated anyplace, not in the usual sense of the term. I know on Slashdot when you show someone that they are ignorant about something, they'd rather assume you're stupid, but I think that's pretty shitty. Instead I will assume I am ignorant and have no idea what you mean and will ask, what does "acceleration" mean in the context of an earthquake?
Back-and-forth. In any oscillation, the thing being oscillated is accelerated in one direction, and then acceleration is reversed and the subject is accelerated back in the other direction. It is a linear acceleration, but it is brief and changes direction often. The acceleration in any given direction for a simple oscillation lasts for half as long as the oscillation period (and naturally the acceleration in the opposite direction also lasts half as long).
Re: (Score:3)
A sinusoidal vibration is not linear.
It can be. Linear means the acceleration is in the direction of travel, i.e. the acceleration occurs in one dimension. In a straight-line "back-and-forth" system, acceleration and speed can both be considered as dimensionless (beyond having a sign, which admittedly could be considered as bending the rules of "dimensionless" slightly). Certainly they act in a single dimension.
(This is in contrast to angular acceleration, where the acceleration is perpendicular to the direction of travel.)
Since linear doesn't
Fukushima or naturally occurring (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot has been posting sketchy articles lately, they're becoming the CNN of the internet. Worthless babble, and it gets worse when you read the linked stories. The one thing posted on the slashdot report is the fact they said "It is difficult to have this debate unless we know for sure whether this radiation is from Fukushima or whether it is naturally occurring background radiation" and then then a commenter
"
Using my Safecast Onyx (hi Safecast folks!) I measure ~0.32 uSv/h in Dublin, next to a granite w
Re: (Score:2)
First you say:
What they should care about is if the radiation is at a dangerous level.
Then you say
Anything that is on the same magnitude as background radiation is pretty much safe.
So you've fallen into the same trap that you seem to deplore. Radiation near the background level puts things
in perspective without having to quote specific numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, scientists in Japan are extremely concerned that Japanese users of Twitter are frequently reporting spontaneous nosebleeds.
http://www.infowars.com/thousands-of-japanese-report-nosebleeds-in-health-scare/ [infowars.com]
Though mysteriously, there is no report of bleeding gums or falling out hair.
Smartphones (Score:2)
Apparently, scientists in Japan are extremely concerned that Japanese users of Twitter are frequently reporting spontaneous nosebleeds.
Is it only Twitter causing nosebleeds or are other social media site users presenting similarly?
Re:Fukushima or naturally occurring (Score:4, Insightful)
I always find this sentiment a little odd. People care too much about if the radiation is measurably above background radiation or what the source of the radiation is.
There's nothing we can do about background radiation. It's coming from the radiation in the rocks and such. The only way to get away from that is move, and even then, you'll end up to other radiation.
There is no such thing as "safe" radiation, so eliminating all man-made causes is a good thing, even if the levels are lower than background in some areas.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
There is no such thing as "safe" radiation, so eliminating all man-made causes is a good thing, even if the levels are lower than background in some areas.
Source (with proof!) ?
Re:Fukushima or naturally occurring (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no such thing as "safe" radiation
Horse shit. If that were true all life on Earth would have been wiped out long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps not safe, but there is no such thing as a harmless amount of radiation. Life has built up a tolerance to a certain amount but even that is only over relatively short periods of time. "Safe" was probably not the right term as it is safe at levels we can heal faster than the damage it is doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps not safe, but there is no such thing as a harmless amount of radiation. Life has built up a tolerance to a certain amount
You instantly contradict yourself in your first sentence. Congrats!
If we tolerate it, it is by definition harmless. If low level radiation over time was harmful then residents of Denver would be dropping like flies. (Higher background radiation there from the high altitude.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, building a tolerance is not the same thing as being harmless.
I tolerate crappy posters on Slashdot, yet they are not harmless.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stranger.
Re: (Score:2)
Only in comic books.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, in real life [forbes.com] too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, it does not kill us all. You'll have to provide some proof for that extraordinary claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Telomeres.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, telomeres are there to guard against copying errors on the ends of chromosomes. They do nothing, repeat nothing, to repair internal DNA alterations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Driving a car is also dangerous, yet humanity seems to prosper, in part thanks to these very cars.
Re:Fukushima or naturally occurring (Score:5, Informative)
There is no such thing as "safe" radiation, so eliminating all man-made causes is a good thing, even if the levels are lower than background in some areas.
Citation please? I give you mine:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/ [nih.gov]
In many places where the background radiation is higher but still at "safe" levels it doesn't seem to be killing people faster. In fact in some places they seem to live longer! Yes it could be due to other factors (diet, lifestyle), but it just shows that at those levels the radiation no longer significantly reduces your lifespan.
Not factual (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as "safe" radiation
Even if we grant the very dubious claim that any level of radiation causes net harm to the human body, "safe" doesn't mean the complete elimination of a harmful thing, but rather the reduction or mitigation of the risk to a level which is acceptable.
so eliminating all man-made causes is a good thing
Because man-made radiation never comes with a benefit that needs to be considered. You can also eliminate a number of "background" natural radiation by living in a submarine. Maybe to be "safe", you should go the Captain Nemo route.
For some reason, I thought
Re: (Score:2)
"safe" doesn't mean the complete elimination of a harmful thing, but rather the reduction or mitigation of the risk to a level which is acceptable.
So Fukushima is "safe" as everyone in the vicinity has "accepted" the risk of being there?
The car analogy is "can you ever be 'safe' on the road?" You can be safer than some arbitrary probability, but you'll never be as safe as you are in your house. So it's *never* 'safe', but also can be low enough risk to call 'safe' (in which case, 'safe' becomes a subjective word with little useful meaning).
For some reason, I thought you understood both risk management and the perils of measuring stuff at or below the threshold of detection.
Because I do. Risk management is about identifying and quantifying risk. "good enough" is very very poor risk
Re: (Score:2)
The car analogy is "can you ever be 'safe' on the road?" You can be safer than some arbitrary probability, but you'll never be as safe as you are in your house. So it's *never* 'safe', but also can be low enough risk to call 'safe' (in which case, 'safe' becomes a subjective word with little useful meaning).
So you don't understand the meaning of "safe". "Safe" doesn't mean that there is no risk, but rather that you understand the level of risk and accept it. Further, that you've taken sensible measures to reduce risks that you don't need to have. Dangerous activities can be safe because the participants understand the unusually high level of risk, accept it, and have taken sensible measures to reduce the risks of the activity.
Because I do. Risk management is about identifying and quantifying risk.
You didn't in your first post when you claimed "There is no such thing as "safe" radi
Re: (Score:2)
Since not everyone knows about bananas and radiation we should put a nice little radiation warning symbol sticker on every banana so that everybody can recognize the risk and make a sensible decision about whether they want to eat it.
Also all methods of access to Denver (roads leading in, airport etc) should have large warning nuclear warning signs so that everybody can make a sensible decision about whether they want to visit or not.
It might be dangerous so I for one just will avoid visiting Denver or eati
Re: (Score:2)
The key difference between say flying or eating a banana and the material released from Fukushima is that it does not accumulate in your body. When flying the radiation mostly bounces off your skin, or hits your organs once and then is dissipated or passes on through. Similarly when you eat a banana your body maintains a fairly constant level of potassium, so you are not increasing your long term exposure.
Fukushima released a lot of stuff, most notably caesium. It accumulates on the ground, in the water, in
Natural or accident-related? (Score:1)
Why do we care whether its from background or not? The only thing that matters is whether it will cause significant harm to anyone. If you can't tell the difference, it's probably entirely irrelevant in terms of health effects.
Brett
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not if your history shows low exposure in general. Maybe if you exceeded safe levels/limits years ago (that would be me). Now, if you can be more specific, and avoid general 'anyone', you might get an answer you can use. In the mean time, and just to be safe, all low-information questioners are advised to get back on the other side of the Police tape and we'll let you know if anything changes.
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess you avoid Colorado?
Lots of things to avoid (Score:2)
And planes. And travelling significantly north or south toward the poles. And granite (mountains, countertops, building facades).
New proposal. (Score:2, Insightful)
All stories about radiation not intended for a specialist audience should measure radiation levels in 'bananas/year.'
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah as BPY or as a relative value to exposure in Denver per Year.
Re:New proposal. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The highest reading mentioned in the article, 0.484uS/hr, is approximately 1.07 Denver, or 0.96 Boulder. Exact values are hard to find, but it seems Denver is around 4mSv/year, and Boulder is ~4.5mSv/year, which is about .45 and .5 uSv/hr.
Ah, but the important question is: What type of radiation is it? Are we talking about Scary Radiation, or natural, USDA Certified Organic radiation (which has no chemicals!)? Since the .484uSv/hr is in Japan, which is the same country Fukushima is in, then it is 100% Scary Radiation. The radiation in Denver and Boulder is natural, certified organic radiation, so it has 0 uS/hr of Scary Radiation by comparison. Also keep in mind that most of the athletes probably have cell phones, which also emit signifi
Re: (Score:2)
The current legal limit in Japan is 1mSv of ionizing radiation. This is not the same as background radiation and affects the body in a different way (because it tends to accumulate inside you). It appears to already be affecting children living near Fukushima.
It seems that the Japanese government has a better understanding of radiation than you do, which considering how much they cocked-up management at Fukushima Daiichi is saying something.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly the physical distribution of the radiation sources are important, but I didn't think that was worth mentioning in a simple summary comparison. Sieverts already attempt to correct for biological effects, but yes, if the radiation source is something that can internally bioaccumulate, it will have more complex and serious effects. That is beyond a simple single-measurement
So we can't have a debate than (Score:5, Insightful)
It is difficult to have this debate unless we know for sure whether this radiation is from Fukushima or whether it is naturally occurring background radiation
For anyone considering going then you can't know, and at this point it matters little what anyone says. There have been so many denials, and incorrect information put out by TEPCO and the government there how could anyone trust anything they say now?
Here's the letter and data (Score:5, Informative)
http://olympicsokuteikai.web.fc2.com/encontents.html [fc2.com]
Perhaps the most crucial part of the letter is this:
"Just before the Fukushima power plant accident, the mean value of the atmospheric radiation in Tokyo was estimated as 0.04 Sv/h, and radioactive Cesium was almost non-existent. Therefore, atmospheric radiation value above this level can be regarded as the effect of the nuclear accident."
Is that a valid assumption?
Re: (Score:1)
Not really. You'd need at least a measurement at each site before and after, as background levels will vary from place to place. And even so, they also vary with time.
And if your readings are so low that you have to subtract out the natural background to see them, they are pretty much harmless anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
A great deal of the food you would consume in Japan is also imported from less irradiated spots on earth. But the fish...
OMG! The possibility! (Score:5, Insightful)
Once again, possibility is not the same as probability.
Yes, it's possible that the elevated radiation levels will cause problems. Now, what's the risk, and what's the tradeoff between mitigating *that* risk versus mitigating some *other* risk?
Security is a tradeoff, always. The value of something is not the face value, but the face value times the probability of occurrence.
So if the probability of damage (say, the number of people getting cancer from going to the event) times the value of damage (taken informally as $1 million per human life lost, but depends on estimates and philosophy) is higher than other foreseeable risks, then we should address the problem.
Risks shouldn't be ignored, just compared to other risks. If the utility losses for other risks are higher, then we should spend our finite resources on the other risks first.
How much risk utility is embodied in this problem compared to, say dying from accidentally swallowing (and choking on) a bee?
...but journalism must sell news. I suppose someone swallowing something wouldn't be very interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, possibility is not the same as probability.
Dude, they found Cesium-137 where none was previously known to exist.
AFAIK it doesn't naturally occur and we only get it as a byproduct of nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons
Risks shouldn't be ignored, just compared to other risks. If the utility losses for other risks are higher, then we should spend our finite resources on the other risks first.
How much risk utility is embodied in this problem compared to, say dying from accidentally swallowing (and choking on) a bee?
One of my friends got stung, by a bee, on his tongue.
He was lucky enough to get medical attention before the swelling choked him to death.
Even luckier, he got that medical attention before the doctors would have had to cut a hole in throat.
It's almost like you've never heard the expression "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cu
Re: (Score:2)
How much risk utility is embodied in this problem compared to, say dying from accidentally swallowing (and choking on) a bee?
The key difference is that swallowing a bee is an unfortunate accident that probably couldn't be foreseen, where as getting cancer from the entirely preventable Fukushima disaster, a facility which was designed to generate profit for a private company on the understanding that they would run it safely, is clearly a case of negligence.
In any case, even if you only value a human life at $1m you can't really expect the people affected or their families to accept that monetary assessment, can you? They are clea
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, while it's entirely possible the designers and operators are guilty of some form of negligence, it is not clear that it is so. You might, for example, argue that
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
'"It is difficult to have this debate unless we know for sure whether this radiation is from Fukushima or whether it is naturally occurring background radiation,"
So as long as it's natural it doesn't matter how strong it is but if it's from the plant then any amount is too much? I wasn't aware that natural radiation was safer than man-made radiation, when did that memo come out?
Re: (Score:3)
I specialize in holistic radiation treatment. Good naturally occurring radiation is much better for you than anything man made.
Documentary available (Score:2)
Saw a documentary once [imdb.com] about this irradiated Japanese Olympic sight. Don't worry about extra drug testing, but DO bring along your targetting device for your space laser.
Re: (Score:2)
The SOL laser will be ready by then, but Gamera is still not ready.
Luckily we got a Cobalt 60 half life (Score:3)
Faster, Higher, Stronger (Score:3)
Well, that's the Olympic motto, "Faster, Higher, Stronger" so I'm sure a bit of a radiation boost can help.
Re: (Score:2)
And again, the gold medal goes to the 300 foot tall lizard
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Every now and then... (Score:5, Funny)
Blue Oyster Cult should be hired to perform in the opening ceremony.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is sort of very fitting
"History shows again and again how nature points up the folly of man"
Re: (Score:2)
MIchael Bay is prepping the movie now (Score:2)
I bet the movie how ever crap it is, will be a hit.
Re: (Score:2)
Because American culture has so much to do with this. Take your smugness and fuck right off.
There is some American culture for you.
Re: (Score:2)
What? RSVP is an abbreviation of the French for "Respond, if you please" (répondez s'il vous plaît). It is not the response itself.
Re: (Score:1)
Some numbers for reference. (Score:5, Interesting)
Using my Safecast Onyx (hi Safecast folks!) I measure ~0.32 uSv/h in Dublin, next to a granite wall (granite is everywhere around here, and naturally radioactive). The article speaks of of 0.484 uSv/h, not much higher than that. On an airplane at cruising altitude I get about 2.0uSv/h. At home I might see 0.08uSv/h, and in the middle of the street somewhere around 0.15uSv/h. *
I just visited japan and took the Safecast everywhere I went. At no point did it go significantly above what were normal background radiation readings in Dublin (not even when I was passing by Fukushima station, though admittedly that was on a high-speed train).
Radiation is everywhere. Unless you can identify the source as the Fukushima disaster, it might be perfectly normal. Even if the source is Fukushima, at low levels, at some point you have to stop worrying about it and realize that plenty of other places on Earth have higher naturally occurring background radiation.
* Rough numbers pulled from memory in CPM and converted to uSv/h using the conversion factor in the firmware source code, since my Onyx battery is dead at the moment. Take with a grain of salt.
Re:Some numbers for reference. (Score:5, Informative)
randall munroe actually put up a fairly insightful chart of radiation levels: http://xkcd.com/radiation/ [xkcd.com]
Re:Some numbers for reference. (Score:4, Informative)
Somewhat amusingly, he typoed the one relevant box in there - "Extra dose to Tokyo in weeks following Fukushima accident" should probably be 40uSv (not 40mSv) if he means per person (and even then it sounds a bit high), or be in the orange chart if he means the total dose delivered to all of Tokyo.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting error indeed.
Seeing the notification email in slashdot, I recognized who I had replied to. Team Twizzer seems inactive and there have been little updates to your blog. What kind of cool stuff are you up to? (Beside walking around the world and taking raidoactivity measurements.)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a rather strange number to pick, I don't know why he bothered pointing it out when it's basically meaningless. What matters is who much radioactive material was absorbed into the bodies of people in Tokyo at the time (myself included), and how much the total dose over the remainder of our lives will be.
Of course, no-one really knows what this number will be, but some children living near Fukushima have already developed malignant growths believed by doctors to be related to emissions from the plant,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
By the way, the radiation goes up during the day, the sun itself is radioactive.
It all needs to be taken in context rather than just setting off alarms every time you detect radiation of any kind.
Heck, YOU are radioactive. Get a geiger counter and press it too your chest, you will see an increase in the readings.
Marcansoft, that's pretty cool that you have readings from all over. Even cooler that you aren't one of the pa
Re: (Score:3)
If you had gone walkabout in Fukushima city (as I did a couple of years ago) with your Safecast you'd have seen readings of about 0.7 uSv/h at a height of 1 metre above ground, the standard distance for measuring background radiation in Japan nowadays (assuming your meter was calibrated correctly). Before the 2011 accident and release of radioisotopes from Fukushima Daiichi the figure reported for Fukushima city was about 0.04 uSv/h. The current reported value for Shinjuku in the centre of Tokyo is 0.06 uSv
Re:Some numbers for reference. (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting. I didn't stop at Fukushima station, but I went past it on the Shinkansen with my Onyx in the outer pocket of my backpack (obviously it won't be picking up any alpha radiation there, but still useful data). Looking closely at the logs it is possible that one spike correlates with roughly the time I'd have been in that area, though I really would have to check the times closely. The Onyx was set to log every 10 minutes so it's also possible that it just missed the interesting times. The peak readings were about 0.2uSv/h, and that wasn't near Fukushima. Tokyo averaged somewhere around 0.11 uSv/h, while Hakodate (where I stayed a couple of days) was around 0.07uSv/h.
Interestingly, my return flight hit 3.0uSv/h, higher than the first flight (I just dumped the last chunk of the log which I hadn't done yet).
These readings seem to be using the default calibration of the Onyx. I haven't delved into the details yet (the firmware is still WIP as far as I can tell), but AIUI they are supposed to come calibrated, so either the default calibration is spot on, or the firmware isn't using the calibration data, or my firmware upgrade wiped the calibration data, or the calibration data was never there. Either way, I assume the default conversion factor is good enough for rough measurements of background radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, my return flight hit 3.0uSv/h, higher than the first flight (I just dumped the last chunk of the log which I hadn't done yet).
Maybe it's time to start warning people about the massive radiation hazards flying has, it's really terrible compared to the already disastrous quantities we get from this Fukushima thing.
Oh wait a moment, we'd probably be aiding Them Terrorists if we'd start doing that. And that'd of course be far worse than being fried by radiation.
All sarcasm aside, that higher reading on your return flight may have plenty of explanations. Space weather, time of day (more solar radiation), maybe different route of the pl
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, my return flight hit 3.0uSv/h, higher than the first flight (I just dumped the last chunk of the log which I hadn't done yet).
Okay, but just to be clear, you can't compare the exposure on a 12 hour flight to solar/space radiation to living near Fukushima long term with radioactive material getting inside you, right? So why did you bother to mention this again?
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, but just to be clear, you can't compare the exposure on a 12 hour flight to solar/space radiation to living near Fukushima long term with radioactive material getting inside you, right?
Sure, you can. Keep in mind that there are a bunch of people who fly regularly who get a larger lifetime dose of internal ionizing particles from increased exposure due to flying than they would from ingesting or breathing small amounts of dirt from Fukushima.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people who regularly fly "over the pole" (e.g. flight crew who fly UK to Japan on a daily basis) are already approaching the level of radiation dose which would classify them as "radiation workers."
I don't work with artificial radiation sources myself, but the
Re:Some numbers for reference. (Score:5, Funny)
I just visited japan and took the Safecast everywhere I went. At no point did it go significantly above what were normal background radiation readings in Dublin...
Obviously there has been some sort of nuclear catastrophe in Dublin that your government is covering up.
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously you were concerned enough to measure if there was any imminent danger, however, it is much harder to detect something you ingest.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't concerned. I'm just a curious geek who happens to own a logging Geiger counter.
That is true. Ingesting radionuclides is definitely a much bigger problem than external exposure.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the Japanese government will not allow a free exchange of data and information. Tepco's incompetance in this matter is supreme, especially in the matter of not securing the plants backup power supply to mitigate basis design issues in the 'S' Class facilities of the plant. This nonfeasence was entirley avoidable and contemptable.
Actual real hard data, and the science in place to mea
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
It's also possible to measure the impact of a Japanese earthquake in Paris.
It doesn't mean that Parisians should be afraid, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I see the anti-nuclear camp blending fire detectors and dusting them all over the place to ensure Fukushima is "taken as seriously as it deserves!"
Re: (Score:2)