Radioactve Iodine linked to Japan found in Glasgow

[Lollybrolly]

Sky news reporting now!

"they can never go back"

Do you have a source for this? The last I read was that people within the 20km evacuation zone have been advised not to return for the "time being" (Japanese News, yesterday)

Badgers you say 'it isn't yet a nuclear disaster' I thought you believed it was impossible the situation could escalate much more as not possible to do so?

"Badgers you say 'it isn't yet a nuclear disaster' I thought you believed it was impossible the situation could escalate much more as not possible to do so?"

I think that we need to wait until the whole thing finishes.

Right now the doom laden stories being spun by chunks of the media simply aren't holding up.

Do I have a source?

you put your money where your mouth is and come and live next to Fukushima after living in a school gymnasium for months/years. You let your kids swim in the radioactive sea which used to be a paradise.

This has been a shocker of a disaster. You're abusing language by saying it isn't.

Badger, what doom laden stories? TEPCO and the Japanese government are being highly secretive . They've downplayed everything.

It's very difficult to get information. they tell people things much later than they should because they "don't want to worry us"

Chernobyl fantasies?

Fukushima is a level 6. Chernobyl was a level 7.

Using the word "fantasy" when people talk about Chernobyl is another abuse of languag

It's undoubtedly serious.

The Herald Tribune has reported that caesium (sp?) was found in the waters around the plant and there has been concern about it entering the food chain - it has a half life of 30 years.

The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in USA has released statistics showing the extent of the release of radioactivity, about 160,000 times greater than Three Mile Island and to date, about 10% of Chernobyl (and the situation will get much worse apparently). There is an issue re: plutonium and reactor number 3 too.

Let's just hope it can be contained very locally indeed and the situation isn't as grave as I fear it might be. Also lets hope that all the people affected can be re-habilitated sooner rather than later.

"Do I have a source?"

Yes, that's a fair question. You claim that the residents will never be allowed back, where did you hear that?

"Badger, what doom laden stories?"

Iodine in Glasgow being one of them.

"Fukushima is a level 6. Chernobyl was a level 7."

To the best of my knowledge the IAEA hasn't officially rated Fukishima yet. And the differences between a 5, a 6 and a 7 are pretty huge.

Three Mile island was a 5 yet it caused no injuries and no deaths and people still live around the plant which continues to operate. Chernobyl was a 7 yet was far more devastating.

"Using the word 'fantasy' when people talk about Chernobyl is another abuse of language"

People comparing the two and saying that another Chernobyl has happened or could happen are fantasising.

New Scientist has reported that measurements taken by the Japanese science ministry and MEXT in areas of northern Japan "far from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant" showed the radioactive caesium fallout levels rival those from the Chernobyl disaster.

An analysis of MEXT's data by New Scientist shows just how elevated the levels are. After the 1986 Chernobyl accident, the most highly contaminated areas were defined as those with over 1490 kilobecquerels (kBq) of caesium per square metre. Produce from soil with 550 kBq/m2 was destroyed.

People living within 30 kilometres of the plant have evacuated or been advised to stay indoors. Since 18 March, MEXT has repeatedly found caesium levels above 550 kBq/m2 in an area some 45 kilometres wide lying 30 to 50 kilometres north-west of the plant. The highest was 6400 kBq/m2, about 35 kilometres away, while caesium reached 1816 kBq/m2 in Nihonmatsu City and 1752 kBq/m2 in the town of Kawamata, where iodine-131 levels of up to 12,560 kBq/m2 have also been measured. "Some of the numbers are really high," says Gerhard Proehl, head of assessment and management of environmental releases of radiation at the International Atomic Energy Agency.

New Scientist

So that would be both New Scientist and the International Atomic Energy Agency comparing Fukushima with Chernobyl.

"New Scientist has reported that measurements taken by the Japanese science ministry and MEXT in areas of northern Japan 'far from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant' showed the radioactive caesium fallout levels rival those from the Chernobyl disaster."

Now that is far more interesting and potentially far more worrying.

Water that wouldn't pose a risk unless drunk for a whole year (and even then less of a risk than moving from London to Cornwall) and particles found in Glasgow are not an issue. But I admit that this could very well be...

link to New Scientist article
somewhat concerning for them.

and latest IAEA report

Well for once I'm not pleased that Badgerspaws is in agreement.

I honestly think the UK media ought to be covering Fukushima a lot more. It's a very rapidly changing story, with massively important consequences for the whole world. The future of Japan's economy is just one angle.

The IAEA are saying that "The average total deposition determined at these locations snip for cesium-137 from 0.02-3.7 Megabecquerel per square metre" and clarifies that those high readings come from "a relatively small area in the Northwest from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant".

So that's a high of 3700 kilobecquerel per square metre, which is lower than New Scientists figure of 6400 kilobecquerel per square metre. But that's still higher than new Scientist's claim for what was at Chernobyl.

The risks for Caesium are questionable.

New Scientist says "Whether people's health is at risk is not clear, however. Epidemiologists still argue over how many cancers were caused by caesium released by Chernobyl"

A more sceptical voice expands upon that debate somewhat here "There wouldn't be a lot of point in doing so in the case of radio-caesium, as nobody has ever been able to show that this isotope has any health consequences at all: huge amounts were emitted from Chernobyl, but no discernible illnesses have resulted." Note that that's compared to radioactive iodine, which is harmful, and certainly causes a lot of health problems in Chernobyl.

Certainly very large quantities of Caesium are dangerous, e.g. 6000000 kilobecquerel killed a young girl following a theft of Caesium, but 3700 is many times less than that, and as said the long term exposure risks are very questionable.

So there's a lot of questions over this, but as opposed to the Iodine this might be a real problem.

How can exposure to radioactive substances ever not be harmful?

AFAIK it is generally recognised that ingesting caesium isn't great for the health. Otherwise those Welsh, Scottish and Cumbrian farmers could've gone on selling their lambs to us all.

"How can exposure to radioactive substances ever not be harmful?"

You're exposed to radioactive substances all the time. How harmful they are depends on the type of radiation they emit, how strong that radiation is, how you come into contact with the substance and how the body reacts to the substance.

Given that scientists are still arguing over the effects of things like Hiroshima yet alone Chernobyl goes some way to show the complexity and uncertainty of this.

Unbelievable that we've moved on from denying that Fukushima is emitting caesium to saying caesium's not that bad for you anyway.

Has anyone here ever said that Caesium wasn't being emitted? And when it was confirmed that it was wasn't my reaction that is now more serious than just iodine? And there is debate about how harmful caesium is, that's not to say that it's wonderful stuff and we shouldn't worry but that compared to iodine, plutonium or uranium it's long term effects are far from certain.

Yes, fair enough, you did say caesium being emitted was more serious than just iodine.

I'm just a bit fed up that all the scientists on programmes like Material World (Radio 4) have been ignoring questions about caesium and just talking about iodine (and saying that's not so bad for you, really).

BadgerPaws, you're argument has boiled down to the iodine in Glasgow

A poor argument if ever I heard one.

I am talking about the millions of people living close to Fukushima, who right now are unable to live in their homes and continue their lives because of the radiation, whose children are cooped up in gymnasiums with nowhere to go because there are too many people to find alternative accomodation for.

And according to you this is not a disaster. Well, of course it's not for you

Jeez, it's worse than talking with a white man who refuses to believe that racism and sexism exists

Sakura - half of DP's family are farmers in rural Wales so we do actually have some knowledge of the less salubrious side of the government subsidies after Chernobyl. They are not all "salt-of-the-earth" characters - some of them are just interested in making money however they can (don't even think about the treatment of livestock issue & what goes into our foodchain from farming if you are worried about radiation, which at least isn't deliberately introduced unlike the pesticides, growth hormones, antibiotics, etc, etc ...far more concerning to me, so I am a vegan).

Interestesting some others of DP's family work at the Transfwynnyd nuclear power plant - a place that provided hundreds of jobs to a rural area where there was hardly any work & in a bad way socio-economically, thereby improving prospects (two sides to a coin).

You do not have to carry a geiger counter when you go through the exclusion zone around Chernobyl - public trains run through the area & the windows aren't locked down. If you get out in the exclusion zone you have to be monitored in & out but the contamination is now reduced to levels that do not require personal monitors to be worn (unless your personal dose needs to be recorded because you are a considered to be a radiation worker). The majority of the evacuees were from Pripyat - the town that was established to support the plant, a bit of a chicken & egg situation.

Plenty of people are content to live near reactors, as are those who live near refineries, biological reseach centres, waste incinerators, airports, busy roads, etc I would assume there is official advice not to swim in the vicinity of the Fukushima plan, the exact area would depend on the local current systems.

Rural-urban population mixing is thought to contribute to the leukaemia clusters near Sellafield (by over 50% according to a single randomly picked study here). Similar clusters have also been found around places like military bases, factories & locales experiencing population growth like Ontario - it is not exclusive to areas where there are nuclear facilities.

Reducing power consumption is just not realistic given today's lifestyles & supporting the size of the population & the necessary industries. Unless we all become Amish (& even they have started allowing the use of washing machines, telephones, etc)