rowmag said:That wasn't the NHK translator. That was the METI interpreter, who did not seem to be a native English speaker. If I were to criticize that, I would say:
1) Always use a native speaker of the target language for translation, if you care about the nuances.
2) Why did the Times not have anyone on payroll who is competent at Japanese, so that they could attend regular press conferences? Why are they sending a reporter who apparently cannot handle Japanese to cover events in Japan? It is only 6-7 weeks into an ongoing story, after all... The Times is not some tiny backwater operation -- presumably they should have some sort of professional standards, and a budget to back them up.
If you can't have been bothered to learn the language in which events are transpiring, or hire someone who does know it, then expect to receive incomplete, late, and possibly heavily filtered information.
PietKuip said:Unreasonable demands. It is probably more important that these events get covered by a journalist specializing in science & technology or environmental issues than by a scholar specializing in east-asian history and literature.
The interpreter said (in a video that is not online anymore):
"... individuals who would enter these areas because if they come out of these regions the radiation contamination of these individuals may affect other people outside of this area. Therefor such a decision had been made."
If that was false there is a problem with the competence of the interpreters that METI employs.
Dmytry said:Well if the news didn't even teach their own translator that it doesn't spread like infectious disease, how are they to teach the public?
If there is some linguistic issue - e.g. if they are using the word commonly used for infectious diseases to describe radiation sickness or cancer - then translator would have a lot of advantage over people who don't speak English.
Also, I do not think it is at all unreasonable demand for a developed country's media to be able to find someone who understands radiation, and to have that person show how it works with the counter. Get his hand slightly contaminated, wash it, etc. A propaganda trick it may be but it is better than nothing. Reuse the 'dirt' intuition.
Really, anyone with physics degree should know it. Is Japanese scientific education system much behind? I know Japanese did quite a bit of theoretical physics, e.g. i know of Yukawa.
I don't particularly like Michio Kaku but he isn't stupid either and he's quite common on TV in US.
jlduh said:Well, i can confirm that here in France, the medias have completely left this subject out. They just mentioned the 25 Anniversary of the Thernobyl accident and of course the various events and protests in relation with this. But Fukushima has disappeared from their scope. I guess they would probably show some images if some new explosions were happening. As i said in other places, radioactivity is invisible and complex, so this is not good for medias audiences...
More surprising the french IRSN has completely stopped (since almost one month) to report what is going on at Fukushima, except in a weekly basis but more for the french citizens leaving in Japan. So basically difficult, outside of this forum (and because we all now have recorded the links to where to go to compile infos) to follow what is going on there...
Maybe this explains it.
Danuta said:Sorry for the between posts interruption of thought here but I'm sure my GE tidbit will get nuked on the other thread so I'll deposit it somewhere more sheltered, if nobody minds.
It's interesting observing the effect(no media coverage) but one really has to look at the cause. Or one of the causes.
Media assets owned by GE(General Electric). (they own a lot more stuff unrelated to media too)
Not to worry, the royal wedding will get coverage.
jlduh said:
When he was asked if he thinks of the nuclear crisis a man-made disaster or a natural disaster, he said personally he thinks it is a man-made disaster.
[...] some say the nuclear accident in Fukushima was beyond any expectations but personally he thinks adequate precautions should have been in place
So, what happened to this? How serious is this violation? Is it something everyone violates all the time, or is it rare?Guest Member said:Speaking of the NRC and political BS-
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was sent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for information from the Associated Press (AP) on March 16.
The AP is a not-for-profit cooperative, which means it is owned by its 1,500 U.S. daily newspaper members. AP serves 1,700 newspapers and 5,000 radio and television outlets in the United States as well as newspaper, radio and television subscribers internationally.
The AP sent 3 requests:
1. access to and copies of all communications between the NRC, the Department of Energy, GE Energy and Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy pertaining to the Japanese nuclear incidents caused by the March II earthquake and tsunami.
2. access to and copies of all
internal communications within the NRC (including its chairman, four commissioners and their staff
members) pertaining to the Japanese nuclear incidents caused by the March II earthquake and tsunami.
3. access to and copies of all communications between the NRC and government counterparts in Japan pertaining to the Japanese nuclear incidents caused by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.
The statute requires that NRC respond within 20 business days to the request. In unusaul circumstances, the NRC could extend that time by an additional 10 business days to give themselves time to collect the information requested.
Yesterday was business day 30, which should have meant that even with the 10 day extension, NRC should have provided all the information ro AP. But they didn't.
All of those newspapers, radio stations, and tv stations that depend on AP for their news are not able to provide accurate information until the NRC releases the info. Right now, NRC is in violation of the statute for not complying with the 30 day maximum law.
The secretary-general of the joint task force and prime the minister's advisor, Goshi Hosono, apologized for the delay in releasing the data.
Hosono said the task force withheld the information because some data were based on overly rigorous assumptions and feared it may trigger panic.
Some of the shareholders of a Japanese electric power company say they want the utility to close its nuclear power plants.
On Monday, a group of 232 individual stockholders of Tohoku Electric Power Company submitted the documents needed for their proposal to scrap its nuclear power plants.
jlduh said:about the Hamaoka restart and reassessment of risks related to earthquake:
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/28_39.html
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/28_39.html
Kan announced the decision on Friday, citing the need to better secure the plant against earthquakes and tsunami in the wake of the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
The prime minister says he has asked the plant operator, Chubu Electric Power Company, to halt reactors No.4 and No.5, and not to restart reactor No.3, which is now offline for regular inspections.
holy ****.jlduh said:I post this recent video which debunks MSNBC propaganda proposed at the date of 25th anniversary of Chernobyl accident. MSNBC is owned by GE who also built some of the reactors at Fukushima.
If you didn't know that people returning living in the controlled zone around Chernobyl are in fact living LONGER than the ones staying outside, then it's probably because you didn't hear MSNBC propaganda...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7BlJIMxwKg&feature=related
For a long time nuclear activities, even the "civil" ones, were managed in military styles. Now, in addition, private companies make marketing out of them.
In the first case, the lies were called "top secret defense". Now they are called "communication and propaganda for the masses"...
zapperzero said:I guess the political lesson to be learned is don't eff around with already-blasted nuclear reactors.
TEPCO seeks govt help to pay compensation
The president of Tokyo Electric Power Company has asked the government for financial help in paying compensation over the accident at its nuclear plant in Fukushima.TEPCO President Masataka Shimizu handed a letter of request to Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano and Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Banri Kaieda on Tuesday.According to the letter, in the current business year TEPCO expects to spend an extra 1 trillion yen or about 12.5 billion dollars for thermal power generation and 9.3 billion dollars to redeem its bonds and repay debts.
The utility says it is afraid that the expenses will make it hard to offer just and speedy compensation while maintaining stable power supplies.
Goshi Hosono, an adviser to the prime minister, initiated the joint news conferences at Tepco, hoping to send a unified message to the public and the international community.
"We have not been mistaken in our response to the crisis," he told reporters. "But our public relations effort has been lacking."
[end quote]
Is it just me or is this guy (and the many others I suspect he speaks for) completely divorced from reality?
Amazing.
Susudake said:I just looked through the powerpoint presentation at:
http://blog.energy.gov/content/situation-japan/
One slide compares radiation doses from flying, chest x-rays etc.
The implication is that external and internal exposure is the same. There is little distinction made generally in information released to the public.
Such obfuscation does not lend credibility to these authorities to those of us aware of this critical difference.
The roentgen equivalent in man (or mammal[1]) or rem (symbol rem) is a unit of radiation dose equivalent. It is the product of the absorbed dose in rads and a weighting factor, WR, which accounts for the effectiveness of the radiation to cause biological damage.
Drakkith said:What are you talking about? They already take into account the effect of the radiation differing on the human body. Thats what the unit REM is for.
This takes into account external radiation from high energy photons, AND internal radiation received from alpha/beta emitters absorbed into the body. Alpha and beta radiation received externally doesn't increase REM dosage, because it isn't absorbed by the body.
Well hopefully there's no alpha active dust except in immediate vicinity of the plant. I don't think we had a lot of fuel dust problem after Chernobyl.Susudake said:I don't know how to make it any clearer--jiduh appears to understand what I meant (even if we're both completely wrong), so I'm a little disinclined to try again but will (I'm not impugning your intelligence)...
What I see in the reports released from gov't and nuclear power orgs like AREVA are statements comparing the amount of radiation present in irradiated areas to the amount of EXTERNAL radiation we receive from other sources--x-rays, cosmic rays, Billy Ray Cyrus rays, etc.
But as jiduh pointed out, x REMS of alpha radiation received externally (or more likely--dare I say probably?--not received at all because blocked by clothing etc) has little/no relation to the same amount of alpha radiation ingested. That's pretty basic info, isn't it? Even non-specialists like us can get our mushy minds around that. One particle on your clothing emitting alpha rays--not so bad. One particle stuck for months, years, or a lifetime in your lungs, intestines, bones--different story all-together.
It seems--SEEMS--to me that this distinction is not being made clear. Can you show me reports from the official realm, or even articles in the media (MS or otherwise) that emphasize, or even report/comment on, this crucial difference?
Whistle-blower Made A Press Conference:
Mr. Kei Sugaoka, a former GE engineer,
who disclosed lax management of nuclear
inspection by TEPCO and GE, revealed his
name and appeared to the public in Fukushima
Prefecture for the first time. In replying to
the question, why he decided to whistle-blow
long concealed secrets in nuclear industry, he
explained "it's all about GE's insincere management
attitude." He added, however, that he never
expected that his appealing could result in the
resignation of the former president of TEPCO as
well as the shut down of all the nuclear plants in
TEPCO's power supply region. Mr. Kei Sugaoka is a third generation Japanese-
American who had been working as
an engineer at GE until 1998 when he was fired
without being given sufficient reason. He was
involved in the construction of Fukushima I-1
where he witnessed flaws that were kept secret
by the company.
Dmytry said:This sort of lie really works unless you've been living in EU and you're aware of all the food testing measures, radioactive wild boars, etc etc. and you know that it is a lot more complex issue than japanese make it out to be.
That is not to say internal exposure will necessarily be significant. The level of internal exposure would depend greatly to the food standards they will set, and to the quality of and compliance with testing requirements. It is simply not possible to tell, to even guess at - it may be lot less than external exposure, or it may be a lot more.
jlduh said:Let me ask you a simple question Drakkith:
could you explain me how any measurement in Sv (or mSv) can take into account the effects of ingested and inhaled particles as this parameter is highly dependent, as i mentionned several times before, of what a person does, touches, eats, drinks? (Ultimately it is also very dependent of local windy conditions and relocation of deposited dust for example)
jlduh said:http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/pdffiles/nit97.pdf
The whistleblower story about which governor is talking in this interview is also adressed in this article, i extract it:
"Whistle-blower Made A Press Conference:
Mr. Kei Sugaoka, a former GE engineer,
who disclosed lax management of nuclear
inspection by TEPCO and GE, revealed his
name and appeared to the public in Fukushima
Prefecture for the first time. In replying to
the question, why he decided to whistle-blow
long concealed secrets in nuclear industry, he
explained "it's all about GE's insincere management
attitude." He added, however, that he never
expected that his appealing could result in the
resignation of the former president of TEPCO as
well as the shut down of all the nuclear plants in
TEPCO's power supply region. Mr. Kei Sugaoka is a third generation Japanese-
American who had been working as
an engineer at GE until 1998 when he was fired
without being given sufficient reason. He was
involved in the construction of Fukushima I-1
where he witnessed flaws that were kept secret
by the company."
Susudake said:I don't know how to make it any clearer--jiduh appears to understand what I meant (even if we're both completely wrong), so I'm a little disinclined to try again but will (I'm not impugning your intelligence)...
What I see in the reports released from gov't and nuclear power orgs like AREVA are statements comparing the amount of radiation present in irradiated areas to the amount of EXTERNAL radiation we receive from other sources--x-rays, cosmic rays, Billy Ray Cyrus rays, etc.
But as jiduh pointed out, x REMS of alpha radiation received externally (or more likely--dare I say probably?--not received at all because blocked by clothing etc) has little/no relation to the same amount of alpha radiation ingested. That's pretty basic info, isn't it? Even non-specialists like us can get our mushy minds around that. One particle on your clothing emitting alpha rays--not so bad. One particle stuck for months, years, or a lifetime in your lungs, intestines, bones--different story all-together.
It seems--SEEMS--to me that this distinction is not being made clear. Can you show me reports from the official realm, or even articles in the media (MS or otherwise) that emphasize, or even report/comment on, this crucial difference?
Dmytry said:Then the beta active dirt on the skin, that is also not good. Then, the Sr-90 that accumulates in bones, and firstly you get the effect that it doesn't leave the body at all plus secondarily you get the effect that it irradiates bone marrow, which is more sensitive.
Read the definition of sievert:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert
The entire use of Sieverts there to describe radiation is a sort of pseudoscience. When they measure gamma only they should provide result in Gray and say it is gamma only that they measured, but not internal exposure. Radiation detectors do not measure in Sieverts. Dummies with radiation detectors inside measure Sieverts after a calculation and that's for external only.
This sort of lie really works unless you've been living in EU and you're aware of all the food testing measures, radioactive wild boars, etc etc. and you know that it is a lot more complex issue than japanese make it out to be.
That is not to say internal exposure will necessarily be significant. The level of internal exposure would depend greatly to the food standards they will set, and to the quality of and compliance with testing requirements. It is simply not possible to tell, to even guess at - it may be lot less than external exposure, or it may be a lot more.
Susudake said:In other words the military/industrial/nuclear/academic/political complex is synergistically poisoning us in 1000s of ways from the inside and outside while they mis- and disinform us.
Susudake said:I objected to being grouped with you by nuceng earlier merely because I object to that kind of "paint them all with the same brush" mentality regardless of who's doing it.
Wasn't it what I implied when i said that radiation detectors do not measure in Sieverts?Drakkith said:Wow, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. Sievert isn't a measurement of the amount of radiation received.
Actually, beta and gamma have same weighting factor. Bone marrow and skin, however, do not.It is a measure of the biological harm inflicted by an amount of radiation. This depends greatly on the type of radiation received and takes into account the locations most affected by it. They talk about Sieverts because X amount of ionizing gamma radiation is less harmful than an equivalent amount of beta radiation on the body.
it wouldn't be an accurate means of measuring potential body harm unless you actually calculated the conversion.So saying you received X amount of radiation wouldn't be an accurate means of determining potential bodily harm unless you used something like Sieverts.
How much not perfect? Can you guess order of magnitude error % ?NUCENG said:It is not perfect
Wasn't it what I implied when i said that radiation detectors do not measure in Sieverts?
Actually, beta and gamma have same weighting factor. Bone marrow and skin, however, do not.
it wouldn't be an accurate means of measuring potential body harm unless you actually calculated the conversion.
What they do, they report grays of external gamma exposure as sieverts of total exposure. It'll take actual measurements on the people's bodies to know their internal exposures, it depends greatly to diet and a zillion yet undetermined factors.
They, however, take the readings from a Geiger counter 'calibrated' in Sieverts (which is nonsense), and declare zone safe/unsafe based on that alone.
pdObq said:You are contradicting yourself big time.
Dmytry said:How much not perfect? Can you guess order of magnitude error % ?
It's a wonderful phrase, 'it is not perfect', applies equally to very accurate and very inaccurate estimates alike.
NUCENG said:http://www.epa.gov/radiation/federal/techdocs.html
Estimates require both the dose and the contributing isotopes for internal doses. See FGR 11 and FGR12 for explanations how this is calculated. For internal sources a whole body scan can make accurate measurements of body burden. Personnal dosimetry usually monitors external or whole body dose. Offsite doses are estimated based on monitoring results. It is not perfect but can be useful in making decisions about evacuation zones, and identifying people who may need medical followup.
Susudake said:It may seem contradictory, but it's not.
You're saying then that there is no such thing as this complex I refer to? So going back to Eisenhower's use of the term (minus the academic/political connections, granted), it's all a chimera?
How about debating the point, that'll be much more convincing.
I'm saying that you shouldn't use numbers that are not in sieverts and call them sieverts. When you get 0.1 mSv in some medical procedure, rather complicated calculations have been done (it matters what tissues have been exposed).Drakkith said:Yep, which makes it all the more ridiculous that you then claim that we shouldn't use sieverts.
Because it (surprise surprise) doesn't even give you Grays accurate let alone Sieverts with the tissue type etc etc factors and internal exposure. and it does NOT convert betas correctly btw.Why is calibrating a geiger counter to sieverts nonsense?
sigh.Whether they did it in grays or sieverts it would end up being used for the same thing. It makes perfect sense to me how they can use it to declare a zone safe or unsafe since it is directly measuring the radiation in the area.
jlduh said:thanks, so can you just answer this question (if possible by a no or yes answer as a minimum, but you can then elaborate of course):
do the measurements in mSv/h used by Japanese government, which are then compared to certain "limits" (like the 20 mSv /year for children now) to inform people (through the press for example) about "risks" and take decisions (eg evacuating, or removing soil, or whatever), do these specific measurements, the way they are done, with the equipment they use, take ALSO into account internal exposures through inhalation and ingestion of the various isotopes (mainly I-131 and CS-137 of course, but also Strontium as it appeared recently this one is also a concern?
Drakkith said:I'll say it. There isn't some big complex that you refer to.
Drakkith said:It is a way for people who don't understand how things work to blame everyone else. Your statements were 100% contradictory, and the fact that you don't even realize it only makes it worse.
See, suppose we have two units. Centimetre, and biological centimetre equivalent, and there is a standard for the biological centimetre equivalent so that it depends to whenever you took your shoes off when you came home, to how often you take shower, and to what you eat. Then you see rulers, that by their very nature can only measure in centimetres, but they are labelled in biological centimetre equivalents.
Or better yet a fruit counter that counts apples, oranges, bananas, grapes, berries, watermelons, etc (it has some probabilities of missing grapes and berries depending to their size). You have it 'calibrated' in calories, and that is very misleading.
I'm saying that you shouldn't use numbers that are not in sieverts and call them sieverts. When you get 0.1 mSv in some medical procedure, rather complicated calculations have been done (it matters what tissues have been exposed).
Because it (surprise surprise) doesn't even give you Grays accurate let alone Sieverts with the tissue type etc etc factors and internal exposure. and it does NOT convert betas correctly btw.
So since you've stated that there isn't, in contradiction to many others (try the google, it's pretty cool), it's a fact. Right.
FWIW I think you are, I just think you a) have blinders on and b) are rhetorically out of your depth.
I hesitate a bit to go here but I will: having interacted with a lot of artists as well as a lot of scientists/engineers over the years, I've noticed something: the former tend to readily admit the limits of their knowledge and the efficacy of their non-scientific way of looking at things, and thus defer to scientists when the issues at hand are scientific, whereas scientists, especially engineers, tend to presume that they have superior intellects providing them unparalleled insight into all fields of knowledge and endeavor including those messy, non-scientific ones like politics, economics, social questions, etc.
Moreover, they tend to exacerbate the consequences of the limitations of their way(s) of understanding the world around them by demonstrating a moderate to severe lack of tact in debating others; the above is a perfect example.
I could say the exact same thing back at you. I'll add that based on what we've both written, I've demonstrated the capacity to consider that any thing I say may is subject to clarification by others, while you've made equally or more sweeping statements without even supporting your contentions, it's all opinion. So we've made the same errors but only one of us is--upon being made aware of them--willing to admit that even to himself.
