What's new

Welcome to Japan Reference (JREF) - the community for all Things Japanese.

Join Today! It is fast, simple, and FREE!

Honshu Radiation Map in English

TGI-ECT

後輩
Joined
6 Jan 2007
Messages
306
Reaction score
84
I apologize for not being clear about what links I am allowed to place here to another site that posts news stories.

Probably an admin or moderator should place the link here, if that is allowed. And/or they care to do so.

I am referring to a recent article posted on the Asahi page about a radiation map in English.

It seems this map is covering a much broader area than just Fukushima Prefecture.

But I am not sure I am understanding something about the Asahi article:

This map they are writing about is not the only radiation map in English, correct?
 

musicisgood

Sempai
Donor
Joined
4 Sep 2015
Messages
1,257
Reaction score
313
Where's the map?
Just tonight on NHK, there were school children wearing a monitor for radiation on their school yard.
My felling is , that if they have to do that, will the truth be told , or will they just up the "safe limit" like they do for fish with mercury in them.
 

thomas

Unswerving cyclist
Admin
Joined
14 Mar 2002
Messages
10,714
Reaction score
2,057
I apologize for not being clear about what links I am allowed to place here to another site that posts news stories.

Any link that substantiates your topic. If you can still find the article in question, please post it to your thread. :)
 

TGI-ECT

後輩
Joined
6 Jan 2007
Messages
306
Reaction score
84
Thank you. This is it:


But I am still wondering about the availability to access/view other material in English? I remember the first few years there was a whole ton of interest from folks all over the planet. And my colleague and I managed some remarkable archiving for about 2 to 3 years, but then -- well, in the last few years that radar screen runs but has been pushed over to a corner.

Certainly this latest work by a fine group of folks can't be an exclusive sort of results, can it?

I mean, if it is, it does not look good for the central Japanese government folks. I'd say the prefectural government folks have more important matters to deal with, so it would have to be the central government that should be producing said map.

Anyway, whatever you folks might know that I don't would be appreciated.

And, again, thank you thomas.
 

Majestic

先輩
Joined
12 Oct 2013
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
1,157
Try the link here

If you don't fancy that one, try the one here

It's not in English, but the measurements don't need to be in English...
 

TGI-ECT

後輩
Joined
6 Jan 2007
Messages
306
Reaction score
84
Now that's outstanding; including your second link. Thank you.

Well, I'll be straight with you, I haven't yet looked at what you've offered but on this topic all sources of information are useful and I suspect you don't deal with junk in this sort of field, so I'm sure the "outstanding" designation is deserved. And it is MEXT, which I am very glad to see for a few reasons. Government folks can get it right sometimes. In fact, more than fifty percent of the time, although many don't want to admit that.

Yep, I sure appreciate the contribution, Majestic.
 

Mark of Zorro

先輩
Joined
4 Oct 2012
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
315
The map is about to need a change. Japan: Safe to dump water from Fukushima nuclear disaster - UPI News

These idiots need to be beaten out of office...and I mean LITERALLY. Its not a question of radiation levels. Its a question of where those levels are, inside your body or outside, and if they stick around. And both questions are often answered by the particle/ isotope type. Say you have a particle of strontium 90 in your food that is putting out equal radiation to the potassium 40 in a banana you ate. The difference? You will excrete the potassium 40 but the strontium 90 is going to find a spot in your bones to sit permanently and give you leukemia. Strontium 90 is NOT found in nature naturally. Life has not evolved to deal with it. And yes, that water they are storing (and should just keep storing at TEPCO's expense) contains strontium 90 among several other unnatural isotopes, such as cobalt 60.

These people making these decisions are either idiots or 100 percent pure evil. And so are the people doing the reporting who fail to remind the public of the isotopes found in that water.
 

musicisgood

Sempai
Donor
Joined
4 Sep 2015
Messages
1,257
Reaction score
313
The map is about to need a change. Japan: Safe to dump water from Fukushima nuclear disaster - UPI News

These idiots need to be beaten out of office...and I mean LITERALLY. Its not a question of radiation levels. Its a question of where those levels are, inside your body or outside, and if they stick around. And both questions are often answered by the particle/ isotope type. Say you have a particle of strontium 90 in your food that is putting out equal radiation to the potassium 40 in a banana you ate. The difference? You will excrete the potassium 40 but the strontium 90 is going to find a spot in your bones to sit permanently and give you leukemia. Strontium 90 is NOT found in nature naturally. Life has not evolved to deal with it. And yes, that water they are storing (and should just keep storing at TEPCO's expense) contains strontium 90 among several other unnatural isotopes, such as cobalt 60.

These people making these decisions are either idiots or 100 percent pure evil. And so are the people doing the reporting who fail to remind the public of the isotopes found in that water.
Maybe they want to take down the human race.
 

TGI-ECT

後輩
Joined
6 Jan 2007
Messages
306
Reaction score
84
The map is about to need a change. Japan: Safe to dump water from Fukushima nuclear disaster - UPI News

* * * truncated before and after the text below * * *

Strontium 90 is NOT found in nature naturally.

Well, I guess I deserve this, but I'm too old for this.

Was just recovering from discovering that I had misjudged the site admin folks that run the BBC news pages and came here to cool off and BAM! I see I am even more ignorant than I thought, which is tough to accomplish because I be one dumb human type.

Anyway, I did not know that about that bit of sand in the human oyster shell and that ain't gonna cause no pearl to be created, is it?

So what very quickly entered my feeble brain is I could swear I read some article by one of them smart news journalists and approved by a smarter editor that TEPCO stated that dumping that 'dirty' water into the ocean was a safe operation.

So if Mark of Zorro's statement is correct then TEPCO is trying to pull a fast one, correct? (Please excuse that being an 'if' clause.)

I think I am going to have to educate myself on just what that strontium 90 is.

Well, after we get some answers as to how they messed up my last chemotherapy session.

Anyway, I think I owe a 'Thank You' to Mark of Zorro ― きありがとうございます.
 

musicisgood

Sempai
Donor
Joined
4 Sep 2015
Messages
1,257
Reaction score
313
i can say this
we are domed (sp) when it comes to eating fish on the pacific side of the ocean
have you notice the salt is pretty much tasteless these days
 

TGI-ECT

後輩
Joined
6 Jan 2007
Messages
306
Reaction score
84
My goodness, that is one tough topic to find a proper piece of literature on that can be trusted and after about an hour or so of work I finally found this excellent work done by some folks at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and I'll bet that information they provide can be relied upon as not being full of nonsense.

 

Mark of Zorro

先輩
Joined
4 Oct 2012
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
315
So if Mark of Zorro's statement is correct then TEPCO is trying to pull a fast one, correct? (Please excuse that being an 'if' clause.)

Very little would give me more pleasure than to be proven wrong on this stuff. You have committed no foul so no excuse is necessary. By all means challenge my info and check it. But I tend not to muck about with this stuff. I double check my info often, and even triple check if any doubt remains. I am one of the statistically few who will actually go to second, third and even fourth pages of search results. But oh God, do I so want to be wrong.
 

Lothor

Proofreader extraordinaire
Moderator
Donor
Joined
26 Sep 2015
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
624
I think I am going to have to educate myself on just what that strontium 90 is.
Very quick lesson on strontium 90. It's a radioactive isotope of strontium, which is the element below calcium in the periodic table. This means that it behaves similarly to calcium, though is more reactive if my memory of high school chemistry is correct. The body is designed to absorb calcium as it is a component of bone, so the body also does the same for strontium, making it an isotope of particular concern in nuclear accidents.
 
Top Bottom