60 ms·

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html It would appear that this article is exhagger

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html It would appear that this article is exhaggerating more than a little. The coverage of Fukushima by the mainstream press has only gone to show just how far they are willing to stretch the truth for a headline. Had this article been written on the basis of actual data from IAEA readings, it probably would have been more moderate.

paganel 16y ago
IAEA is the nuclear industry's main lobby agency. Is like asking OPEC what do they they think about the Gulf oil spill. So no, coming with data provided by them is no better than what you see in the newspapers.
- cas 16y ago
  So we trust no-one? There is a healthy level of scepticism but I think you are taking it a bit far. The data is what has been actually recorded by Tepco and others and is certainly reported in good detail without being fudged or sensationalised like the mainstream media is doing.
  - phlux 16y ago
    It would seem that to trust no-one but be cautious of all reports is the correct stance. We know there IS radiation and we know that pretty much ANY radiation coming from any plant that has the words "disaster" "chernobyl" "meltdown" "breach" or any other range of descriptors is certainly BAD. So, take-aways == radiation escapes, radiation bad, don't know truth == stay very far away.
jaspa 16y ago
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/04/20114219250664111.html http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/04/201142... As well.
- agentultra 16y ago
  It cites a lot of numbers, but doesn't seem to give reference to actual reports. Nor does the article consider that Cherynobl is still not fully understood. The UN report on the effects of Chernobyl put the total casualties to ~4000. This article claims a New York University study reports almost a million. That's a big gap. The IAEA report may be giving out false data. Yet it's hard to find any other organization that is publishing their data to corroborate or falsify the IAEA findings. The mainstream media isn't helping to clear up the issue either. My point is that they're just making it worse. Some are heinously using it to further some political bias or agenda. All I'm saying is that reporting levels as 7.5 million times some un-stated limit isn't very good journalism.
uvdiv 16y ago
The measurements in the article are probably these: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11040506-e.html http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11040506-e.... Up to 200,000 - 300,000 Bq/cm^3 (200 - 300 MBq/L) of I-131, measured at the outflow screen right next to reactor unit #2. (This inside the protective "harbor" of seawalls; there's maps in the TEPCO link). The statutory limit is given there as 0.04 Bq/cm^3. For comparison, at the ~30 km seawater sampling perimeter, the I-131 measurements don't appear to have exceeded 0.08 Bq/cm^3 (80 Bq/L): http://www.mext.go.jp/english/radioactivity_level/detail/1304192.htm http://www.mext.go.jp/english/radioactivity_level/detail/130... This explains part of the confusion: they're sampling at the plant, and they're sampling tens of miles out, where the levels are diluted by 6 - 7 orders of magnitude. So wildly different numbers are being reported, but they are in fact consistent.

paganel 16y ago

IAEA is the nuclear industry's main lobby agency. Is like asking OPEC what do they they think about the Gulf oil spill. So no, coming with data provided by them is no better than what you see in the newspapers.

cas 16y ago
So we trust no-one? There is a healthy level of scepticism but I think you are taking it a bit far. The data is what has been actually recorded by Tepco and others and is certainly reported in good detail without being fudged or sensationalised like the mainstream media is doing.
- phlux 16y ago
  It would seem that to trust no-one but be cautious of all reports is the correct stance. We know there IS radiation and we know that pretty much ANY radiation coming from any plant that has the words "disaster" "chernobyl" "meltdown" "breach" or any other range of descriptors is certainly BAD. So, take-aways == radiation escapes, radiation bad, don't know truth == stay very far away.

jaspa 16y ago

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/04/20114219250664111.html http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/04/201142... As well.

agentultra 16y ago
It cites a lot of numbers, but doesn't seem to give reference to actual reports. Nor does the article consider that Cherynobl is still not fully understood. The UN report on the effects of Chernobyl put the total casualties to ~4000. This article claims a New York University study reports almost a million. That's a big gap. The IAEA report may be giving out false data. Yet it's hard to find any other organization that is publishing their data to corroborate or falsify the IAEA findings. The mainstream media isn't helping to clear up the issue either. My point is that they're just making it worse. Some are heinously using it to further some political bias or agenda. All I'm saying is that reporting levels as 7.5 million times some un-stated limit isn't very good journalism.

uvdiv 16y ago

The measurements in the article are probably these: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11040506-e.html http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11040506-e.... Up to 200,000 - 300,000 Bq/cm^3 (200 - 300 MBq/L) of I-131, measured at the outflow screen right next to reactor unit #2. (This inside the protective "harbor" of seawalls; there's maps in the TEPCO link). The statutory limit is given there as 0.04 Bq/cm^3. For comparison, at the ~30 km seawater sampling perimeter, the I-131 measurements don't appear to have exceeded 0.08 Bq/cm^3 (80 Bq/L): http://www.mext.go.jp/english/radioactivity_level/detail/1304192.htm http://www.mext.go.jp/english/radioactivity_level/detail/130... This explains part of the confusion: they're sampling at the plant, and they're sampling tens of miles out, where the levels are diluted by 6 - 7 orders of magnitude. So wildly different numbers are being reported, but they are in fact consistent.