I haven’t addressed anything you posted? Sheesh, I thought I was overdoing it. (I was going to use red ink, but when I did that to one of OW’s posts on the water meters thread, the thread disappeared for a week).
@pishwish, You are arguing (wrongly) that the correct number is 80 days because that’s what you read on Wikipedia? ffs. Either way it makes no difference except to illustrate the approach that you have taken towards blindly arguing a point of view that you don’t understand.
This is how 10bq/kg of radiocesium ingested bioaccumulates in the human body. Note that the Japanese food safety limits are 100Bq/kg.
Note that 1400Bq in a 70kg adult would result in a concentration of 20Bq/kg, and in a 15kg child a concentration of 100Bq/kg. The impact of radiocesium on the heart has been found to be extremely negative at concentrations in excess of 5 Bq/Kg body mass.
How many were caused by exposure to radiation? Are we supposed to infer that the deaths allegedly “linked to the nuclear accident” according to the first sentence are “nuclear-related” under the definition in the second? If not, it’s clearly intentionally misleading.
Google translation is far from perfect. The 1232 seems to be the number who have claimed compensation money due to a death related to the accident but with no clear causation. I’d take this mostly as a way for the government to be nice to the bereaved in the area.
Here is the document that describes the exactly what happens during different types of accident in this type of Boiled Water Reactor. This document is called CR-6042, Perspectives on Nuclear Safety, and the table of contents has entire sections that deal with the scenario that has occurred at Fukushima Reactor 1. Unfortunately these chapters are not included in that document, but from doing a bit of trawling they are contained in a document called CR-6051 Perspectives on Nuclear Safety. If anyone else can find that document that would be great, but from comments on the web it appears to state that the corium would burn through the concrete basemat at a rate of 50mm per hour.
One interesting point in that CR-6042 document is that it contains a reference to a submission made by General Electric to the US Government that put the likelihood of a ‘melt down’ at the Nuclear Reactor at 0.0000001% per reactor year. That would suggest that if they built 100 reactors that there would have been 1 meltdown in a million years. Complete bullshit.
And the paper was not withdrawn. It’s interesting that you dismiss the published study as ‘crap’ without knowing who wrote the letter of criticism that the journal rejected. Who wrote the rejected letter? It appears that you are throwing shit and hoping it sticks.
It’s a question worth asking. One online criticism of Mangano I came across says: “To make the Mangano paper even more devious, among his references he cites three other papers which were written by…Mangano! How painfully arrogant!”. Painfully arrogant? This critic can’t have ever read many academic papers. It’s completely standard and uncontroversial for authors to cite their own earlier work … as long as there is support from other sources too, of course. That said, you don’t have to search very far for criticism of Mangano and Sherman that seems less hysterical and more well founded.
And a quick perusal of the birth defect paper mentioned upthread shows this:
“We note that rates of the five birth defects are lower in the West Coast/Pacific states than that in the U.S. as a whole. Identifying reasons that may account for this pattern—such as racial and ethnic distribution, poverty, access to health care, and medical risk factors—should be made. However, it is unlikely that changes in these potential causes over a short time (2010 vs. 2011)
would account for such large and consistent differences in temporal changes between areas with different levels
In other words, they can’t be arsed checking for other possible explanations, because they know that radiation is the cause. Perhaps they’ll investigate how the nuclear accident correlates with reduced birth defects in the rest of the U.S.
Eh for starters, your body may be able to ‘ingest’ Radon but its is a major cause of lung cancer in ireland. My uncle (non smoker) died of it. The standard set in ireland is 200 Bq/m3. hse.ie/eng/services/Publicat … reland.pdf