Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Fukushima Risk Analysis's
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  6 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
sonicviz  
View profile  
 More options Apr 7 2011, 2:29 am
From: sonicviz <sonic...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 23:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, Apr 7 2011 2:29 am
Subject: Fukushima Risk Analysis's
For those interested in trying to ascertain what the true situation is
you  might want to watch the Fairewinds recent video updates.
Granted he is no doubt pushing his own consulting/analyst barrow, but
he does seem to have a background in remote forensics in this area.

Latest: Closing Ranks: The NRC, the Nuclear Industry, and TEPCo. Are
Limiting the Flow of Information http://goo.gl/ZMSel
The Areva report referenced in the video is
http://www.fairewinds.com/content/3-2011-areva-fukushima-report
and the NRC one is http://www.scribd.com/doc/52467769/NRC-Rst-Assessment-26march11

Areva, btw, were probably the reason the French vacated Tokyo in such
a very loud and very fast manner the very vocal

Don't shoot the messenger if you don't agree with it. I'm not sure I
agree with it all as well, but he does seem to know a little more
about things than CNN/JT reporters.

Any links to similar sources from energy consultants/scientists,
whatever their risk conclusion, would be welcome.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
sonicviz  
View profile  
 More options Apr 7 2011, 7:16 am
From: sonicviz <sonic...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 04:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, Apr 7 2011 7:16 am
Subject: Re: Fukushima Risk Analysis's
My brother, the real research scientist in the family, just sent me
these two from latest issue of Nature

World View: A long shadow over Fukushima
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110405/full/472007a.html

Researchers divided on how best to probe any possible link to cancer.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110406/full/472015a.html

There's a couple of other fushi related topics in the same issue.

Not of risk to anyone in Tokyo but if you know people within  say 80Km
it might be worth a heads up to them.

On Apr 7, 3:29 pm, sonicviz <sonic...@gmail.com> wrote:


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Chris Harrington  
View profile  
 More options Apr 7 2011, 8:50 am
From: Chris Harrington <chris.harrington...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 21:50:48 +0900
Local: Thurs, Apr 7 2011 8:50 am
Subject: Re: [THS:9672] Re: Fukushima Risk Analysis's
Great Links. Really, really concerned about Iitatemura. It turns out
the gov. sent in some um, "scientists" to say that rad levels were
safe several days ago after most had gotten out, and so guess what,
2/3 of the community came back. Thankfully they came to the decision
today to send the women and children out of the town temporarily.

At the same time, over in Minami-soma, apparently the government asked
small business to start up again *within the 20-30km stay indoors
zone*. So the town asked the government to *cancel the stay indoors
order*. Now today the government admitted it is considering changing
the order from stay indoors to evacuate for that zone due to
accumulated dosage fears.

Those are just two examples of what happens when they try to butter up
the real facts on the ground to avoid panic.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
sonicviz  
View profile  
 More options Apr 7 2011, 9:12 am
From: sonicviz <sonic...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 06:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, Apr 7 2011 9:12 am
Subject: Re: Fukushima Risk Analysis's
NHK had an interview on about an hour ago with a japanese professer
from Tokyo Christian University (I think that was it, not one of the
biggies).
He speciailises in disaster psych management, one of the key areas Jim
Smith was talking about in his Nature article.

Essentially he was saying exactly what you were saying Chris.
Big gap between what they jgov was saying and what people were
doing,leading to people returning, then getting opposite advice,
leading to a really bad feedback loop.

If I recall correctly Eda Bauer aka Edano-san implied tonight they are
thinking of increasing the evac zone to keep within a 5 msv /yr
cumulative dose limit.

On Apr 7, 9:50 pm, Chris Harrington <chris.harrington...@gmail.com>
wrote:


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
sonicviz  
View profile  
 More options Apr 7 2011, 10:51 am
From: sonicviz <sonic...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 07:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, Apr 7 2011 10:51 am
Subject: Re: Fukushima Risk Analysis's
and , er, don't forget the quake/tsunami risk...

On Apr 7, 10:12 pm, sonicviz <sonic...@gmail.com> wrote:


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
sonicviz  
View profile  
 More options Apr 12 2011, 9:21 pm
From: sonicviz <sonic...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Apr 12 2011 9:21 pm
Subject: Re: Fukushima Risk Analysis's
The current meme being pushed is FuShi is 10% of Chernobyl.

However, that seems to have been decided more as a nice round number
that's easy for the dumb public to grok.

"Although Mr. Shiroya did not provide a comparison to Chernobyl, that
works out to 34 percent of the official Soviet estimate of emissions
and 17 percent of the unofficial higher estimate.
Mr. Shiroya also said there was a threefold margin for error involved.
The outside estimates of total releases would range from as low as 6
percent to as high as 51 percent of the unofficial totals from
Chernobyl. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/13/world/asia/13japan.html?_r=2&pagewa...

On Apr 7, 9:50 pm, Chris Harrington <chris.harrington...@gmail.com>
wrote:


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »