Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Abaco

Japanese Radiation Fun

5 posts in this topic

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03...tml?ref=science

I was looking at this automation this morning when it dawned on me. What if Fukashima keeps spewing for another week, month, year? At first glance at this graphic I don't see a big deal for my friends and I here on the west coast. But, I'm assuming this is a short-term problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry. I meant "animation". Not "automation". TGIF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am quite skeptical, given not only the source, but the complexity of wind patterns across over 5,000 miles of ocean and the actual measurements here in Oregon, on the coast, and in California, which are completely baseline normal. It is models like these that give us "incontrovertible" evidence of anthropogenic global warming. At least Disney's animations of pies flying into animated faces were more creative and less pretentious.

It is certainly possible that the Daiichi plant will suffer further serious degradation, lose containment, and spew radioactive clouds around the world, but current indications are that that is unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A forecast by the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization shows how weather patterns this week might disperse radiation from a continuous source in Fukushima, Japan. The forecast does not show actual levels of radiation, but it does allow the organization to estimate when different monitoring stations, marked with small dots, might be able to detect extremely low levels of radiation. 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.
#1, a forecast by the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization should not stand alone and uncontested in a lead article in a responsible newspaper -- Oh... I'm sorry, it's the New York Times, the comment doesn't apply, #2, "Health and nuclear experts emphasize that any plume... would have extremely minor health consequences in the United States." [emphasis theirs]. Interesting... so why in the hell did they bother to headline the graphic!? If it's essentially irrelevant to any health concerns? Maybe to disperse fear and anti-nuclear sentiment from "a continuous source" in New York City?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newspaper articles are written to sell advertising. You have to wade through using your wonderful brain. Good job. Unfortunately, the truth is very hard to come by on many things written. I have a good friend with direct access to data from air samplers here on the west coast. I'll have to drop him a line soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0