Austrian authorities release detailed data on Japan radiation (Same magnitude as Chernobyl)

[Junkdrawer]

Austrian scientists have released what appears to be the first clear, independent data concerning radiation levels in the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima radiation leak.

By releasing data from two monitoring stations of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) from Japan and California, researchers from the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics in Vienna have calculated backwards to estimate the true levels of radiation from Fukushima.
...

"The nuclear catastrophe at Chernobyl had a source term of iodine-131 at 1.76 x 10^18 becquerels of cesium-137 at 8.5 x 10^16 bequerels," the statement added. "The estimated for Fukushima source terms are thus at 20 percent of Chernobyl for iodine, and 20-60 percent of Chernobyl for cesium."


'Likely in the same order of magnitude' as Chernobyl

Iodine-131 is of particular concern to people living in the vicinity of the Fukushima reactor, as it can cause thyroid cancer, and cesium-137, with its long half-life of 30 years, can stay in soil and agricultural products for an extended period of time.

However, Gerhard Wotawa, the lead Austrian researcher, noted that because of the high volume of particles released only during the first four days of the leak, he speculated that further data would reveal an even higher total amount.

...

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14938445,00.html

:wow:

I heard this first on DemocracyNow this morning:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x566473

[Junkdrawer]

1. Kick

:kick:

[Hannah Bell]

2. Unrec for your misleading personal editorializing in the headline.

Neither the headline nor the article say that.

"ONE SCIENTIST says that radioactive cesium and iodine WILL LIKELY be similar to that of the Chernobyl accident"

HOWEVER OTHER SCIENTISTS are not ready to put the Fukushima fallout into Chernobyl territory just yet.

"My speculation is that it's going to be significantly less than Chernobyl fallout, but we're not going to know that until we get more data," said Jim Smith, an environmental physicist at the University of Portsmouth in the United Kingdom, in an interview with Deutsche Welle. "We're not seeing data from the immediate 20 kilometer radius of the plant."


Not to mention that the article is about 3 days worth of measurements, 2 in the US & one in japan. which are then illegitimately extrapolated.

[Junkdrawer]

3. The truth will out. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

4. Of course it will. And in this case, the truth is you added misleading

personal editorializing & misrepresented the content of the article in your header.

Didn't take too long for that truth to out; all you have to do is read the article.

Sufficient to the day, etc.

[Junkdrawer]

5. "further data would reveal an even higher total amount."

...

However, Gerhard Wotawa, the lead Austrian researcher, noted that because of the high volume of particles released only during the first four days of the leak, he speculated that further data would reveal an even higher total amount.

...

I know it's shocking for you to think that TEPCO isn't the sole source of truth in this disaster, but there are other experts in the world.

[Hannah Bell]

7. "he speculated" - your op represents his *speculation* as *fact*. this is my complaint.

instead of acknowledging that you have in fact misrepresented the content of the article, you attack me as a tepco apologist.

if the fact was on your side, it would speak for itself. why do you feel the need to misrepresent the content of the article & attack me for pointing that out?

[Junkdrawer]

8. "first clear, independent data concerning radiation levels".....

but it seems you want to dismiss it as *speculation*.

What ever.

[Hannah Bell]

10. for 2 days in the us & 1 in japan. & not the first independent data either,

as iaea published numbers & independent monitoring has gone on since the beginnning.

but whatever, i will note that you don't retract the misleading header, or even acknowledge it. which speaks for itself.

your position appears to be, "since we already know the truth, it doesn't matter if we misrepresent published reports."

interesting methodology.

[Rex]

11. So if he changed it to (probably the same magnitude as Chernobyl)

Would that make you feel like it was more accurate?

[Hannah Bell]

12. obviously. i wonder that you even have to ask.

but even better would be to quote or paraphrase what the article says:

"ONE SCIENTIST says that radioactive cesium and iodine WILL LIKELY BE SIMILAR to that of the Chernobyl accident."

The measurements & extrapolations are not presently on the scale of chernobyl, even for the 3 days measured.

"The estimated for Fukushima source terms are thus at 20 percent of Chernobyl for iodine, and 20-60 percent of Chernobyl for cesium."



I don't understand why you think this is debatable. I don't understand why people have such a problem with a wish for accurate reporting.

[jpak]

14. When all is done - this DISASTER will exceed Chernobyl in many respects

including the inventory of radionuclides released.

The impact on local agriculture and fisheries will linger for decades

yup

[Hannah Bell]

15. i have no problem with you reporting your opinion.

i have a problem with people reporting other people's opinions as fact.

[closeupready]

6. This will be buried underneath stories about Jennifer Lopez' heavy make-up and

zoo animals.

[damntexdem]

9. Hey, don't forget Liz Taylor's death.

Any underplaying of this essential public health information isn't complete without a Liz retrospective.

;-)

[closeupready]

13. Got that right.

:rofl:

[Junkdrawer]

16. General pattern, isn't it? Spin and lies initially and then, when the awful truth.....

starts to be revealed, the story is buried.

[Hannah Bell]

18. says the person who spun the OP.

[Junkdrawer]

19. You're accusing me of spin....

That's rich

[fascisthunter]

17. Here's another Kick!

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Amusing Thread

Chicken little and chicken littler in a fight over who is more hyperbolic.
GAC

[Hannah Bell]

21. Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics = the weather bureau.