[LINK] Radiation

Andy Farkas chuzzwassa at gmail.com
Wed Mar 16 23:11:02 AEDT 2011

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Sylvano <sylvano at gnomon.com.au> wrote:
> On 16/03/2011, at 9:03 PM, Robin Whittle <rw at firstpr.com.au> wrote:
>> Can anyone point to other sites where this crisis is being discussed
>> with any degree of insight, or with reliable technical information.
> http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/16/fukushima-16-march-summary/

This is one of the better sites.

Robin Whittle, you should read it:

"First, the situation is clearly (but slowly) stabilising."

What I have noticed with the doom and gloom sayers is that they take little
bits of the reports made and use them for dramatic purpose. For example,
"the temperature of the spent fuel pool DOUBLED." What they don't say is
that the normal temp is 40C. You could almost put your hand in it. But, yes,
80C is pretty hot, so a greater rate of evaporation occurs. They fail to
mention the pool is covered by at least 16 feet of water.

See http://resources.nei.org/documents/japan/Used_Fuel_Pools_Key_Facts.pdf

I have been reading the news sensationalisms and then looking for the facts.
Every time, the facts play out to be normal situations that can be controlled,
and pose no great threat.

Even the radiation "scare" is overrated. They announce some large number that
means little to almost everybody (do you know what a microSievert is?) and they
even got that wrong - the numbers were in milliSieverts, 1000 times *less*.
This was a spot reading, one taken at one particular site at one
particular time.
And if you were to be exposed to the largest number quoted, you'd have
to be there
for 18 days before it had any affect on you.

Robin asks: "Do you have no understanding of, or belief in, the real
risk of meltdown
and massive radiation release?"

Yes, Robin, I understand that the risk is possible, but only if they stand
around going "gee, look at all the pretty bubbles...." and do nothing.


More information about the Link mailing list