3 ms·
It was widely mis-reported at the time. However, they had never reported a radiation reading from this location before. The title of the article is "Fukushima n
by new299 10y ago
It was widely mis-reported at the time. However, they had never reported a radiation reading from this location before. The title of the article is "Fukushima nuclear reactor radiation at highest level since 2011 meltdown". That is not true. It's just have they have a new reading that's higher than previously recorded because it's further inside the reactor.
A better description of the readings can be found here:
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2017/02/07/radiation-levels-not-soaring-at-fukushima-daiichi/#sthash.nVZO6zsC.dpbs http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2017/02/07/radiation-levels-not-so...
- onli 10y agoIt doesn't really matter, does it? Whether it is a raise or not, it is radiation that exists. Even if attacking the reading itself: The numbers might be wrong, the radiation is undisputed high.
- new299 10y agoI mean yes it matters to me and to my friends who live in Japan. Suggesting that levels are increasing implies that new material might be leaving the reactor or that the reactor is becoming less stable. That further implies that you need to re-evaluate the radiation levels in your region and if it's safe to stay there.