

Japan plume to hit US Friday, NYT introduces "Arbitrary Units" of Radiation - bluehat
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/16/science/plume-graphic.html

======
ck2
For those mocking radiation fears, note the reactor design is from the late
70's. Three of the lead engineers on the Mark I team RESIGNED because of how
GE was ignoring their concerns.

In the Mark I design, fuel rods are stored outside the reactor in the same
housing, above the reactor, open, while they cool. When they lost the roof,
they were exposed. Their coolant has started to boil off, exposing those rods.

There was so much radiation, the government would not allow the helicopter
pilots to get near enough to dump water on them from the air yesterday.

Also, maybe you should wonder why there is such a high rate of cancer, I mean
extremely high, in modern society today?

[http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerBasics/lifetime-
probabili...](http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerBasics/lifetime-probability-
of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer)

Men have a 1 in 2 chance of getting cancer and then 1 in 4 of dying from it.

Women 1 in 3 getting, 1 in 5 dying.

Doesn't that seem insanely high to you? Ever wonder why?

Maybe all that subtle toxic pollution in the air and water is really starting
to add up?

~~~
gaius
_note the reactor design is from the late 70's_

It's truly ironic - the reason there are so many of these old reactors around,
many exceeding their original design lives, is because the anti-nuclear
movement won't let any new reactors be built...

~~~
ck2
Note that there aren't laws against old nuclear power plants upgrading their
reactors. But they haven't bothered.

I have a great idea, seriously:

Those countries who believe in the new reactors (smaller and sealed) should
install one next to the home of the president/prime-minister,
Congress/Parliment in each country.

Put their money where their mouth is.

I know coal and coalash is far far worse. But I also believe the lack of
liability in nuclear power-plant design is a problem.

~~~
gaius
You can't "upgrade" say a PWR to an IFR. It really is about completely
decommissioning the old and building the new.

------
gaius
I can't help but feel that the media is exercising a pre-existing anti-nuclear
agenda. For example
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/world/asia/13japan.html?pa...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/world/asia/13japan.html?pagewanted=2)
\- trains swept away - people actually dead or unaccounted for - yet where are
the calls for trains in the US (or UK for that matter) to undergo additional
safety checks?

Not that the nuclear situation isn't serious, but stuff like this is pure
hysteria.

~~~
tzs
"Health and nuclear experts emphasize that any plume will be diluted as it
travels and, at worst, would have _extremely minor health consequences_ in the
United States". (emphasis in original)

Yes, we must stop this sort of hysterical reporting.

~~~
gaius
Ahem: <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/health/16iodide.html>

~~~
ugh
I’m not really sure what’s supposed to be hysterical about this article. They
are just reporting about a surge in demand for iodine which is perfectly good
article material.

They also, for example, say this in the article: “For Americans trying to buy
the pills, some experts say there is no need for them — and certainly no
reason to use them now — because Americans are not being exposed to dangerous
levels of radiation from the Japanese plants, nor are they likely to be.”

------
gbhn
The original title: "Forecast for Plume's Path Is a Function of Wind and
Weather" is much more accurate. The story explicitly says that this is a model
for a continuous source (which the current accident is far from being). It
doesn't mean to predict radiation levels, but simply to provide information
about where and how radiation releases will spread given the wind and weather
pattern, and what relative intensities would look like.

This information is very useful if you have a monitoring station and want to
estimate an overall picture of the disaster given the readings on your
equipment. Enough such readings would give a valuable triangulation to the
news coming straight from Fukushima.

~~~
joe_the_user
Sure, the article _says_ there's no risk but a _lot_ of people will take one
look at the picture and panic.

------
Natsu
In other arbitrary news, the information content of this article is
approximately 6.02 * 10^-23.

------
furbearntrout
It seems that the peak on the map is always one(arbitrary unit). The use of a
logarithmic scale from one thousandth to one thousand; yet only using half of
the scale seems disingenuous at best.

------
staunch
They're going to freak people out with that kind of nonsense.

------
jonah
Here [1] is an alternate dispersion forcast based on NOAA's HYSPLIT trajectory
model [2].

 _Even the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, which had a far more serious release of
radioactivity, was unable to spread significant contamination more than about
1000 miles._

[1]
[http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?en...](http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1763)

[2] <http://ready.arl.noaa.gov/>

~~~
jonah
And here's a more recent update [1].

[1]
[http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?en...](http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1765)

------
beej71
I don't see any skulls and crossbones on the animated map, so I can only
assume that means I'm safe here in the US.

Actually I did guess it was going to be considerably more dilute when it got
here than this map shows. (I was under by a couple orders of magnitude.)

I don't have anything against nuclear power. I just have something against
failures like this.

------
Wientje
Not only are the units arbitrary, the forecast never goes above "1".

------
joe_the_user
I'd count myself as anti-nuclear and I think lean I towards the high-side of
possible effects.

But it very disturbing seeing something capable of inflaming those with
_really_ irrational fears of this stuff.

This is bad. No, don't show pictures like this now (unless there's something
solid behind it and there won't be).

------
logjam
What exactly is the intent of changing the title of the article?

The article linked with the graphic indicates over and over again that health
risks are nil.

Frankly, the only hysteria that seems apparent around HN is this spate of post
after post of breathless defensiveness over an accident involving nuclear
power.

~~~
bluehat
I was irritated at how poorly the facade of playing telephone with scientific
data was being maintained. This is pretty blunt about being at best
unprofessional and information-less and at worst an agenda of hysteria from a
source I normally consider to be better quality news than most.

