4 ms·

http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=1000+bodies+recover+radioactive&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&

by phlux 16y ago

http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=1000+bodies+recover+radioactive&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&#3... Also, we are seeing reports, such as this thread of extremely high radiation - we already know that Japan was slow to report actual numbers and each report that comes out is something along the lines of "XXX times [whatever] levels" Look again at the last slide where is specifically says "into fresh air" I am not saying the pools are like backyard swimming pools with open exposure to the sky - but I would believe that if pretty every other report is claiming that radiation is very high there is clear evidence to show that being the case. EDIT: Try clicking the link and reading it, there are multiple articles that clearly state "Up to 1,000 bodies of victims of Japan's quake and tsunami remain uncollected in the exclusion zone around a stricken nuclear plant because of radiation fears." EDIT 2: please make an attempt to google fantastic claims if you don't believe them, and others should make it a point to link to sources when posting something that seems fantastical/really alarming.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- phlux 16y ago
  Thanks for the guidance, however when one is commenting on the content of my post such in such a way to make it seem as though I am spreading FUD when they have failed to do even the most cursory check on the claim themselves, it is quite ok to point that out. If we are going to try an impose some sort of posting etiquette here on HN such as reminding me to discuss content rather than commentors then I suggest we remind people to make attempts to look into things themselves before hitting the down arrow and asking for sources of information that should be readily available to anyone staying abreast of the details surrounding the topic at hand via a simple google search.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - phlux 16y ago
      Point taken - Ill redact such a statement made in a moment of heightened emotionality :)
MichaelGG 16y ago
"Too radioactive to be recoverable" and "because of radiation fears" seem rather different. Just like you might not recover a body from a minefield, but it doesn't mean the body is explosive.
- phlux 16y ago
  Correct - and I am not making claims either way, though I guess I could be more clear -- the fact is that the radiation is too high to recover - either the bodies themselves are too dangerous, or the surrounding environment is too dangerous. Either way -- recovery of more than 1000 bodies is hampered by radiation.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    If I understand what you're saying, I think your analysis is alarmist. The fact is that there is an evacuation area around the Fukushima plant established out of an abundance of caution. The highest readings that have been taken within that region --- not including the plant itself, which is a different story --- are still below a level that would pose a plausible threat to human health; they're in the single-digit mSv/hr range. It's also important to understand that the evacuation area is designed to address multiple vectors for radiological health threats. Not all radionuclides disperse the same way, and the ones with the strongest impact on the environment settle out of the atmosphere as sediment. Presumably, you don't want kids stuffing their mouths with I-131 that settled in their sandbox. To avoid scenarios like this, you evacuate. But most laypeople (of which I am definitely one) start with a conception that is much more primitive than reality. They imagine gamma radiation zinging through the air and making people's hair stand up and giving the carp in the lake third eyes. Not so. The most radiologically active stuff dispersed over a distance around the plant is probably no longer airborne; it settles out of the air quickly (and, not for nothing, but also has a short half-life). It is also a problem that these bodies have been in some (tragic) cases sitting out in the air --- not because of radiation, but because of the scale of the disaster across Japan --- and thus the same rationale that motivates the evacuation (to avoid pointless exposure to Cs-137 and I-131 sediment) also suggests maybe it's not a good idea to distribute the personal effects of contaminated disaster victims. But that doesn't mean the corpses are glowing. It may, for instance, mean that the jackets of 1 out of every 400 people have to be bagged differently. It is simply not the case that the region within 30km of the Daiichi plant is a nuclear hellscape.

by phlux 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

phlux 16y ago
Thanks for the guidance, however when one is commenting on the content of my post such in such a way to make it seem as though I am spreading FUD when they have failed to do even the most cursory check on the claim themselves, it is quite ok to point that out. If we are going to try an impose some sort of posting etiquette here on HN such as reminding me to discuss content rather than commentors then I suggest we remind people to make attempts to look into things themselves before hitting the down arrow and asking for sources of information that should be readily available to anyone staying abreast of the details surrounding the topic at hand via a simple google search.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - phlux 16y ago
    Point taken - Ill redact such a statement made in a moment of heightened emotionality :)

MichaelGG 16y ago

"Too radioactive to be recoverable" and "because of radiation fears" seem rather different. Just like you might not recover a body from a minefield, but it doesn't mean the body is explosive.

phlux 16y ago
Correct - and I am not making claims either way, though I guess I could be more clear -- the fact is that the radiation is too high to recover - either the bodies themselves are too dangerous, or the surrounding environment is too dangerous. Either way -- recovery of more than 1000 bodies is hampered by radiation.
- tptacek 16y ago
  If I understand what you're saying, I think your analysis is alarmist. The fact is that there is an evacuation area around the Fukushima plant established out of an abundance of caution. The highest readings that have been taken within that region --- not including the plant itself, which is a different story --- are still below a level that would pose a plausible threat to human health; they're in the single-digit mSv/hr range. It's also important to understand that the evacuation area is designed to address multiple vectors for radiological health threats. Not all radionuclides disperse the same way, and the ones with the strongest impact on the environment settle out of the atmosphere as sediment. Presumably, you don't want kids stuffing their mouths with I-131 that settled in their sandbox. To avoid scenarios like this, you evacuate. But most laypeople (of which I am definitely one) start with a conception that is much more primitive than reality. They imagine gamma radiation zinging through the air and making people's hair stand up and giving the carp in the lake third eyes. Not so. The most radiologically active stuff dispersed over a distance around the plant is probably no longer airborne; it settles out of the air quickly (and, not for nothing, but also has a short half-life). It is also a problem that these bodies have been in some (tragic) cases sitting out in the air --- not because of radiation, but because of the scale of the disaster across Japan --- and thus the same rationale that motivates the evacuation (to avoid pointless exposure to Cs-137 and I-131 sediment) also suggests maybe it's not a good idea to distribute the personal effects of contaminated disaster victims. But that doesn't mean the corpses are glowing. It may, for instance, mean that the jackets of 1 out of every 400 people have to be bagged differently. It is simply not the case that the region within 30km of the Daiichi plant is a nuclear hellscape.