Japan Earthquake | Page 10

  • @dean welcome! just in time for me to head to bed. lol. anyway, good night everyone. Keep up the good work.
    by amianda 3/26/2011 6:22:56 AM

  • @Dean Welcome Dean glad you made it
    by George Gibb 3/26/2011 6:23:01 AM

  • @Dean Hi Dean, what kept you/ :)
    by Jim Carver 3/26/2011 6:23:26 AM

  • hey george,, jim and amianda
    by Dean 3/26/2011 6:23:38 AM

  • Does this blog have the acknowledgement of Reuters, or is it just a user-driven continuation?
    by borrrden 3/26/2011 6:24:19 AM

  • user driven free for all
    by George Gibb 3/26/2011 6:24:39 AM

  • I have been following since the beginning. Don't comment much, but please get me signed in=a big thank you for this user-friendly site! (on Rueters I was Mary in USA)
    by MaryW 3/26/2011 6:25:22 AM

  • 9.2 earthquake here in 1964. Very glad to be living at 1500' (alhough only three miles from ocean) and to have no nuclear power plants within 1800 miles. But as a marine scientist I am very concerned about the impacts of all the contaminated water being discharged to the sea at Fukushima.
    by Alaskan 3/26/2011 6:25:36 AM

  • I woke for some water.. back to bed for me... I will return in a few hours..
    by Dean 3/26/2011 6:25:42 AM

  • @Tippytoe And they have cut funding for LORAN. So if GPS fails we will have?
    by Ralph Unger 3/26/2011 6:25:46 AM

  • @Sin, agreed greed is a huge issue. The other very dangerous problem is ignorance. Things you are aware of you can plan for. Things you ignore or don't know can happen are extremely dangerous. We need to account for all possibility - known and unknown.
    by tippytoe 3/26/2011 6:26:39 AM

  • Alaskan...your expertise will be needed in the days ahead as we assess the damage being done to our oceans
    by Sinthia Domina 3/26/2011 6:26:59 AM

  • @Everyone- Please look at bottom of this for the dose/symptoms in millisieverts in.reuters.com then look here for it in sieverts en.wikipedia.org It seems to me that the Japanese are using millisieverts in a different way than may be thought. What do you think?
    by Meretisa 3/26/2011 6:27:03 AM

  • @George Gibb NISA Publishes a bunch of reports daily www.nisa.meti.go.jp
    by NHK Listener 3/26/2011 6:27:06 AM

  • @Ralph, I have a sextant and I know how to use it.
    by Alaskan 3/26/2011 6:27:10 AM

  • @all I am so happy to hear that old familiar click. Thank you George and I would be glad to chip in for upkeep costs as needed.
    by gabe 3/26/2011 6:27:44 AM

  • thanks for getting this blog up. i've been following for several days now. Invaluable source of information.
    by Karen Hale 3/26/2011 6:27:53 AM

  • @Alaskan Sweet! I don't think they even teach that anymore.
    by Ralph Unger 3/26/2011 6:28:20 AM

  • @NHK Listener thanks btw glad you found us
    by George Gibb 3/26/2011 6:28:50 AM

  • Its not cost effective to plan for everything...there is a process the use called risk management part of which is risk assessment and there are mathematical formulas based on cost.
    by Sinthia Domina 3/26/2011 6:29:13 AM

  • Only 10:30 PM here but I'm going to bed -- thanks again to George for setting us up!
    by Alaskan 3/26/2011 6:29:54 AM

  • @Alaskan yw
    by George Gibb 3/26/2011 6:30:17 AM

  • @Alaskan Take Care!
    by Jim Carver 3/26/2011 6:32:37 AM

  • Some of the methods and documents that are used to calculate risks are here www.nist.gov
    by Sinthia Domina 3/26/2011 6:33:50 AM

  • could someone look at my last post and comment. It seems to me that the symptoms for millisieverts overlaps those of sieverts, but at an odd level- the numbers just don't add up. My understnading is that millisieverts means 1,000 to equal 1 Sv... which means the info in the reuters article is off... could Japan be giving us wrong/different info? Could it be like their earthquake scale beign different from others?? Thoughts??
    by Meretisa 3/26/2011 6:35:24 AM

  • @Sin and others. I understand you can't plan for everything. I do have a math and science background, which is why I worry, especially when it comes to risk management. Risk management is one of the huge reasons we are not getting info we should about this incident. In studying TMI and Chernobyl you find incidents were gov't knew things were very precarious, but wouldn't evacuate because it will cause panic, people will die because they can't handle the situation gracefully. So what happens, someone runs the numbers and they see, well, if we evacuate Tokyo we have nowhere for people to go, and x number people will die. But if we keep quiet, well, yeah sure tons of people will die in the next decade or two, but we have plausible denilability.
    by tippytoe 3/26/2011 6:35:57 AM

  • I totally agree tippytoe. But if TEPCO had this situation figured into their risk assessments and how much this is gonna cost them, maybe they would not have built it...I don't know. M background is in computer security.
    by Sinthia Domina 3/26/2011 6:39:39 AM

  • meretisa I don't know. It seems to be a ver complicated stem that requires a lot of factors such as does rate, body type, time of exposure and so on. It is possible that the figures are wrong, most of it seems like guess work to me, but I am not an expert.
    by Sinthia Domina 3/26/2011 6:42:38 AM

  • Excellent. I don't want to offend anyone or derail the conversation. But since we are confronted with an information void at present, I just wanted to get those options out there.
    by tippytoe 3/26/2011 6:43:44 AM

  • @Meretisa I don't think they are off, but the problem is that in some media reports they use microsieverts, and in some they use millisieverts. My understanding is that at 100 mSv is when they can definitively link exposure to cancer, where every 100 mSv is about a 1% increase in getting cancer from the exposure (at some point in your life). For children there is a higher chance of getting cancer at 100 mSv.
    by Jojo 3/26/2011 6:44:10 AM

  • Sinthia- I am not an expert either, but they are very odd in their differences. I'm just very worried suddenly that the numbers we're getting and interpreting one way are actually much worse than we assume. Perhaps I'm just tired. You DO see the discrepancy though, right?
    by Meretisa 3/26/2011 6:44:20 AM

  • by Jojo 3/26/2011 6:44:28 AM

  • Here is an article I saw about exposure of 100 MSv, and the resulting cancer rates for infants:
    by Jojo 3/26/2011 6:44:40 AM

  • hey, I am not well versed in many areas, just a desire to learn and exchange information
    by Sinthia Domina 3/26/2011 6:45:00 AM

  • Jojo- I hear you on the 100msv, but the Reuters and Wiki sites are typically reliable in this area. It would be unlike Reuters to mix up micro and milli.
    by Meretisa 3/26/2011 6:45:32 AM

  • Sinthia- sorry, just asking.
    by Meretisa 3/26/2011 6:45:42 AM

  • by ids 3/26/2011 6:46:16 AM

  • Rule of thumb is that exposure to 1 Sv (1000 mSv) will mean your chance of getting cancer is 1%, chance of dying from cancer is .05%. It's linear so exposure to 2 Sv would be 2% chance, etc. This is the lifetime % chance, not immediate effect. Once you start having larger doses your effects would be immediate though (radiation sickness, burns, etc.)
    by Jojo 3/26/2011 6:46:51 AM

  • Reuters live blog went on hiatus again at 5:00 GMT with no link to any alternative sites, (you would have to search back). Many people in Europe probably won't know.
    by Jim Carver 3/26/2011 6:47:58 AM

  • IDS- thank you. I've seen it before. It doesn't show symptoms. I'm just saying that the symptoms listed on the Reuters as being for millisieverts don't jive with those listed on wikipedia.
    by Meretisa 3/26/2011 6:48:15 AM

  • Jim- I saw that. I wonder why they came back on? And why off again? Very odd indeed.
    by Meretisa 3/26/2011 6:48:39 AM

  • @Meretisa I couldn't link to Wikipedia but the Reuters story appears correct. But that Reuters story is talking about short-term acute effects of radiation, which are different from long-term effects (everyone in the surrounding area for decades to come).
    by Jojo 3/26/2011 6:49:27 AM

  • The unit gray measures absorbed radiation which is absorbed into any material. The unit sievert specifically measures absorbed radiation which is absorbed by a person. The equivalent dose to a person is found by multiplying the absorbed dose, in gray, by a weighting factor (W). The weighting factor (sometimes referred to as a quality factor) is determined by a combination of: the radiation type, the tissue absorbing the radiation, and other pertinent factors. Then you have to factor in the tpe of radiation and how old the person is, what part of the body was affected and so on...It just seems like we really don't know anything with just being given amounts using this system unless we are there.
    by Sinthia Domina 3/26/2011 6:51:07 AM

  • Jojo- here is another try at link to wiki: en.wikipedia.org the chart is in Sieverts, but corresponds closely with the millisieverts listed on Reuters article. I know is referrign to short term- so was this link- was talking hours to months and giving symptoms that mirrored the ones on Reutes.
    by Meretisa 3/26/2011 6:51:42 AM

  • Rems are used in the US
    by Sinthia Domina 3/26/2011 6:51:43 AM

Japan Earthquake | Page 10

Who's Blogging
  • hudebnikhudebnik
  • albleealblee
  • UKValUKVal
  • Jonathan KeeblerJonathan Keebler
  • Oliver (ScribbleLive)Oliver (ScribbleLive)
  • kaykodhkaykodh
  • MarkfmMarkfm
  • AngieAngie
  • Mid ValleyMid Valley
  • Matt (ScribbleLive)Matt (ScribbleLive)
  • George GibbGeorge Gibb
  • elainekirkelainekirk
  • PKelleyPKelley
  • lillymunsterlillymunster
  • deandean
  • bobo
  • EdanoEdano
  • DebDeb
  • Pedro Jesus
  • IanGoddardIanGoddard