Japan plume to hit US Friday, NYT introduces "Arbitrary Units" of Radiation | Hacker News Reader

Japan plume to hit US Friday, NYT introduces "Arbitrary Units" of Radiation

nytimes.com

17 pointsbluehat24 comments

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...

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?

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...

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.

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

I'm not one to minimize nuclear fears, but we're also living a lot longer. On an infinite time scale we all die, and when infectious disease goes down somebody's got to pick up the slack. In this day and age that might be cancer.

It strikes me as you're forgetting that percentages must total to 100.

When you reduce the other causes of death, as we have very successfully done with almost every single one of the causes of death in e.g., 1900 (see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/lead1900_98.pdf), then it follows from the fact that 100% of people die, that the few we haven't done as well against must be higher.

What happens if we manage to half the deaths from heart disease, for example? Well, the % of deaths from cancer will increase substantially.

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... - 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.

"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.

Ahem: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/health/16iodide.html

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.”

Maybe you're unfamiliar with how sensationalism in reporting generally works, but the fact that the page contains that text is really immaterial. Sticking a disclaimer at the end of an otherwise alarming article is somewhat like Glenn Beck's "I'm just asking questions here" — it doesn't actually change overall effect of the piece that much. Since I believe this very paper has reported on the hysteria already surrounding the situation, it would be appropriate to lead with the fact that it's unlikely to have any adverse effects.

Since everyone could use some good news: reports immediately after the earthquake were that 5 trains were lost. It turned out that contact with them had been lost, but the trains were themselves fine. One returned to station under its own power because the conductor judged his position to be untenable. The other four stayed put while waiting for instructions. Both of these are straight out of the manual.

All were evacuated by Saturday, and it appears that all passengers and crew were uninjured. Reports trickled in over Saturday about this -- the last train was reported as secured on Sunday.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/news/20110313-OYT1T00013.h... (Japanese)

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.

Sure, the article says there's no risk but a lot of people will take one look at the picture and panic.

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

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.

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

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...

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

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

[1] http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?en...

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com