irrelevant : 不適切な，見当違いの，的はずれの
Abenomics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abenomics
Abenomics refers to the economic policies advocated by Shinzō Abe since the December 2012 general election, which elected Abe to his second term as prime minister of Japan. Abenomics is based upon "three arrows" of fiscal stimulus, monetary easing and structural reforms.[1] The Economist characterized the program as a "mix of reflation, government spending and a growth strategy designed to jolt the economy out of suspended animation that has gripped it for more than two decades."[2]
The term "Abenomics" is a portmanteau of Abe and economics, and follows previous political neologisms for economic policies linked to specific leaders, such as Reaganomics, Clintonomics and Rogernomics.
=====================================================
安倍政権の正体 - 妖怪は女性にしか倒せない - 浜矩子氏
2014/11/15 に公開
アベノミクスはアホノミクス―人間を軽んじ、原発や武器を輸出し、平和を破壊する行為
【講師】同志社大学大学院ビジネス研究科教授・エコノミストの浜矩子（はまのりこ）氏
【主催】第４８ 回はたらく女性の全道集会
【講師】同志社大学大学院ビジネス研究科教授・エコノミストの浜矩子（はまのりこ）氏
【主催】第４８ 回はたらく女性の全道集会
http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=abenomics
Definition of Abenomics
Abenomics is the name given to a suite of measures introduced by Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe after his December 2012 re-election to the post he last held in 2007. His aim was to revive the sluggish economy with "three arrows": a massive fiscal stimulus, more aggressive monetary easing from the Bank of Japan, and structural reforms to boost Japan's competitiveness.
By the end of February the measures had resulted in a dramatic weakening of the yen and a 22 per cent rise in the Topix stock market index since his election win. Japan's central bank had also yielded to pressure from Mr Abe's administration to set an inflation target of 2 per cent.
In March 2013, an FT writer commented that Abenomics could be catching on with some employers who had awarded wage rises and bonuses. One of the key tenets of prime minister Abe's reforms is the need for wage growth.
In June 2013, the so-called "third arrow" fired by Shinzo Abe aimed at bringing structural reforms to the economy, left investors disappointed. One FT columnist wrote that the heart had been ripped out of the Abenomics trade as Japanese stocks fell back into a bear market. But it was also reported that Abenomics had helped Japanese regain their appetite for luxury spending.
In October 2013, in an interview with the Financial Times, Shinzo Abe defended his "buy my Abenomics" speech which he made to the New York Stock Exchange in September 2013. He declared he was on track and ready to pursue his "third arrow" – a growth strategy to complement the first two arrows of monetary expansion and fiscal flexibility – in more depth.
http://bcove.me/mdxnaxbcBy the end of February the measures had resulted in a dramatic weakening of the yen and a 22 per cent rise in the Topix stock market index since his election win. Japan's central bank had also yielded to pressure from Mr Abe's administration to set an inflation target of 2 per cent.
Abenomics in the news
An FT columnist commented that the boost contributed by a cheaper yen might be artificial. Overseas investors might also demand to be compensated for the risk on the currency side. There are concerns that the spending policies could be ill-conceived like previous infrastructural projects undertaken during past governments with stimulative policies. Inflation could also have the added unwanted effect of reducing consumption.In March 2013, an FT writer commented that Abenomics could be catching on with some employers who had awarded wage rises and bonuses. One of the key tenets of prime minister Abe's reforms is the need for wage growth.
In June 2013, the so-called "third arrow" fired by Shinzo Abe aimed at bringing structural reforms to the economy, left investors disappointed. One FT columnist wrote that the heart had been ripped out of the Abenomics trade as Japanese stocks fell back into a bear market. But it was also reported that Abenomics had helped Japanese regain their appetite for luxury spending.
In October 2013, in an interview with the Financial Times, Shinzo Abe defended his "buy my Abenomics" speech which he made to the New York Stock Exchange in September 2013. He declared he was on track and ready to pursue his "third arrow" – a growth strategy to complement the first two arrows of monetary expansion and fiscal flexibility – in more depth.
=====================================================
The Three Arrows of Abenomics: Will it work?
2013/10/25 に公開
Abstract
Shinzo Abe became the 90th prime minister of Japan in December 2012
The core elements of his economic strategy - known as Abenomics - are an aggressive monetary policy, a proactive fiscal policy and an economic growth strategy
Japan has had a zero interest rate policy for over a decade, asleep much longer than US or EU post GFC. The Nikkei 225 had a post war peak in 1989 & today trades at 14, 484 index points, 1/3 of it's 1989 highs.
The Japanese yen has devalued by over 25% since Abe's election (vs USD)
We have invited subject matter experts to tell us what exactly is going on & if Japan will wake up or continue to deflate for the forseeable future.
Background
In the later half of the 1990s, Japan entered a state of mild deflation. However, far from being short-lived, it has developed into a chronic problem that continues to plague the Japanese economy today. As a result of deflation, Japan entered an era of economic stagnation that everyone has come to associate it with. A quick overview of the specific factors derailing Japan's growth reveals the complexity of the issue at hand. They include factors such as weak inflation expectations, a negative output gap, structural issues such an ageing and shrinking population and increasing competitiveness of her Asian neighbours.
Abenomics is a set of economic policies proposed by the newly elected president, Shinzo Abe to jump start the economy and steer it out of deflation. Its main thrusts are known as the 3 arrows of Abenomics, namely a massive fiscal stimulus, a more aggressive monetary expansion and a list of structural reforms to boost Japan's competitiveness. A prominent feature is the scale of the policies, such as the proposed doubling of the monetary base in 2 years which leads people to wonder whether this time would really be different compared to past attempts. At the moment, developments are mostly positive. Most noticeably, the Japanese Yen has declined against major currencies and the Japanese stock market is one of the best performing markets this year.
However, there is also extreme volatility as seen by the sharp adjustments in mid-June, proving that Abenomics is far from a finished article and that investors are continuing to scrutinize every new develop to shape or reshape their expectations. Now, following the successful implementation of the first 2 arrows, people are anticipating whether the 3rd arrow would be close to its target too. Japan needs to push through structural reforms as the first 2 arrows cannot be a sustainable measure to growth. In addition, there is also the additional spectre of how other countries will react to Japan. Although the IMF has been largely supportive of Japan's new policies, on the other hand, export-oriented countries that compete with Japan have also voiced their discomfort about the decreasing value of the Yen.
Join us and our panellists to explore the dynamics of Abenomics in greater detail and to walk away from the debate with a greater knowledge about the complexities of the issues at hand.
Panelists
Lucinda Downing, Multiasset Investment Manager at Aon Hewitt
Claire Meier, Senior Analyst, International Fixed Income at Northern Trust
Claire Jones, Economics Reporter, Financial Times (Moderator)
Shinzo Abe became the 90th prime minister of Japan in December 2012
The core elements of his economic strategy - known as Abenomics - are an aggressive monetary policy, a proactive fiscal policy and an economic growth strategy
Japan has had a zero interest rate policy for over a decade, asleep much longer than US or EU post GFC. The Nikkei 225 had a post war peak in 1989 & today trades at 14, 484 index points, 1/3 of it's 1989 highs.
The Japanese yen has devalued by over 25% since Abe's election (vs USD)
We have invited subject matter experts to tell us what exactly is going on & if Japan will wake up or continue to deflate for the forseeable future.
Background
In the later half of the 1990s, Japan entered a state of mild deflation. However, far from being short-lived, it has developed into a chronic problem that continues to plague the Japanese economy today. As a result of deflation, Japan entered an era of economic stagnation that everyone has come to associate it with. A quick overview of the specific factors derailing Japan's growth reveals the complexity of the issue at hand. They include factors such as weak inflation expectations, a negative output gap, structural issues such an ageing and shrinking population and increasing competitiveness of her Asian neighbours.
Abenomics is a set of economic policies proposed by the newly elected president, Shinzo Abe to jump start the economy and steer it out of deflation. Its main thrusts are known as the 3 arrows of Abenomics, namely a massive fiscal stimulus, a more aggressive monetary expansion and a list of structural reforms to boost Japan's competitiveness. A prominent feature is the scale of the policies, such as the proposed doubling of the monetary base in 2 years which leads people to wonder whether this time would really be different compared to past attempts. At the moment, developments are mostly positive. Most noticeably, the Japanese Yen has declined against major currencies and the Japanese stock market is one of the best performing markets this year.
However, there is also extreme volatility as seen by the sharp adjustments in mid-June, proving that Abenomics is far from a finished article and that investors are continuing to scrutinize every new develop to shape or reshape their expectations. Now, following the successful implementation of the first 2 arrows, people are anticipating whether the 3rd arrow would be close to its target too. Japan needs to push through structural reforms as the first 2 arrows cannot be a sustainable measure to growth. In addition, there is also the additional spectre of how other countries will react to Japan. Although the IMF has been largely supportive of Japan's new policies, on the other hand, export-oriented countries that compete with Japan have also voiced their discomfort about the decreasing value of the Yen.
Join us and our panellists to explore the dynamics of Abenomics in greater detail and to walk away from the debate with a greater knowledge about the complexities of the issues at hand.
Panelists
Lucinda Downing, Multiasset Investment Manager at Aon Hewitt
Claire Meier, Senior Analyst, International Fixed Income at Northern Trust
Claire Jones, Economics Reporter, Financial Times (Moderator)
=====================================================
=====================================================
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-severity-of-the-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-disaster-comparing-chernobyl-and-fukushima/24949
The Severity of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster: Comparing Chernobyl and Fukushima
Global Research, March 11, 2013
Asia Pacific Journal and Global Research 24 May 2011
Originally published on May 24, 2011
On April 12, 2011 the Japanese government officially announced that the severity of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster had reached level 7, the highest on the International Nuclear Event Scale. Before Fukushima, the only level 7 case was the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, whose 25th anniversary was marked on April 26. Two and a half months after the 3.11 catastrophe, the first to affect multiple reactors, TEPCO and the Japanese government continue to struggle to bring the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi under control. TEPCO estimates that the problems could be solved in six to nine months now appearing extraordinarily optimistic and plans have been announced to close nuclear power plants deemed of particularly high risk such as the Hamaoka facility.
Fukushima explosion
Following the upgrade to level 7, Japan’s Prime Minister’s Office released a statement comparing Fukushima and Chernobyl. (Source)
The Japanese government argues that apart from children who contracted thyroid cancer from drinking contaminated milk, there have been no health effects among ordinary citizens as a result of Chernobyl radiation. Is this really the case? Given the Japanese government’s precautions against thyroid cancer in children, is there reason to believe that the Fukushima accident will take no lives except those exposed to the highest dangers in the plant clean-up? (Source)
On April 15, Kyodo, Japan’s major news service, ran an English language piece by Russian scientist Alexey V. Yablokov (source). Yablokov’s stern warnings about the threat of even low levels of radiation had been ignored by the major media but was reported in Japanese in the Nishi Nippon Shimbun. (Source)
The English only Kyodo piece, however, ties Yablokov’s extensive Chernobyl research with the unfolding Fukushima crisis. Under the headline “How to minimize consequences of the Fukushima catastrophe,” Yablokov observed that
The analysis of the health impact of radioactive land contamination by the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, made by Professor Chris Busby (the European Committee of Radiation Risk) based on official Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology data, has shown that over the next 50 years it would be possible to have around 400,000 additional cancer patients within a 200-kilometer radius of the plant.
This number can be lower and can be even higher, depending on strategies to minimize the consequences. Underestimation is more dangerous for the people and for the country than overestimation.
Based on the Chernobyl experience, he made the following recommendations:
1. Enlarge the exclusion zone [from 20 kilometers] to at least about a 50-km radius of the plant;
2. Distribute detailed instructions on effective ways to protect the health of individuals while avoiding the additional contamination of food. Organize regular measurements of all people by individual dose counters (for overall radionuclides) at least once a week. Distribute radioprotectors and decontaminants (substances which provide the body protection against harmful effects of radiation) of radionuclides. . .
3. Develop recommendations for safe agriculture on the contaminated territories: reprocessing of milk, decontamination of meat, turning agriculture into production of technical cultures (e.g. biofuels etc.). Such ”radionuclide-resistant” agriculture will be costly (it may be up to 30-40 percent compared with conventional agriculture) and needs to be subsidized;
4. It is necessary to urgently improve existing medical centers — and possibly create new ones — to deal with the immediate and long-term consequences of the irradiated peoples (including medical-genetic consultations on the basis of chromosome analysis etc.);
5. The most effective way to help organize post-Fukushima life in the contaminated territories (from Chernobyl lessons) is to create a special powerful interagency state body (ministry or committee) to handle the problems of contaminated territories during the first most complicated years.
Yablokov is one of the primary architects of the 2006 Greenpeace report “The Chernobyl Catastrophe: Consequences on Human Health” and an extensive 2010 follow-up study Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment published by the New York Academy of Sciences, which makes the startling claim that 985,000 deaths can be attributed to the 1986 disaster.
This claim is startling because it differs so dramatically from a 600 page 2005 study by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the WHO, and the UN Development Programme, which claimed that fewer than 50 deaths can be attributed directly to Chernobyl and fewer than 4000 likely from Chernobyl-related cancers in the future. Indeed, the two works continue to frame much of the public controversy, with little progress toward resolution. Attempts to assess the consequences of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster remain the subject of fierce debate over widely different estimates in both the scientific and policy communities. In the months since the Fukushima disaster, scores of reports have uncritically passed on the results of the IAEA/WHO or the Yablokov study published by the New York Academy of Sciences without seriously engaging the conflicting conclusions or moving the debate forward. Here we present the major findings of major studies across the divide that may help to clarify the likely outcomes of the Fukushima disaster. (1, 2)
Yablokov and colleagues assessed thousands of studies of the localities and people affected by the Chernobyl disaster in Russian and other Eastern European languages. They argue that these studies have been ignored by the Anglophone scientific community.
Critics, such as the British science journalist George Monbiot, have criticized Yablokov and his colleagues for attributing any increase in cancer occurrence in regions affected by Chernobyl to the radiation released in the disaster. Emphasizing the multiplicity of factors that may affect cancer rates, Monbiot states, for example, that none of the hardest hit areas subjected to Chernobyl radiation,show as dramatic a cancer increase in the 1986-2000 period as does Japan. The impact of Chernobyl radiation in Japan was negligible, yet the cancer rate there has nearly doubled since the disaster. In the wake of the Fukushima disaster, at a time when many have moved to reject the nuclear power option, Monbiot announced that he had abandoned his former criticism to embrace nuclear power as a responsible component of a green energy policy.
Japanese government statistics in fact show large increases in screening rates for cancer during this period and this is one possible explanation for the increase in the number of cases reported. (1, 2, 3, 4)
Monty Charles of the School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, reviewed Yablokov’s work in the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry (Volume 141, Issue 1, 2010, pp. 101-104) and found the statistical conclusions far from clear and even contradictory:
Numerous facts and figures are given with a range of references but with little explanation and little critical evaluation. Apparently related tables, figures and statements, which refer to particular publications often disagree with one another. The section on oncological diseases (cancer) was of most interest to me. A section abstract indicated that on the basis of doses from 131I and137Cs; a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and less contaminated territories; and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, the predicted radiation-related cancer deaths in Europe would be 212 000–245 000 and 19 000 in the remainder of the world. I could not however find any specific discussion within the section to support these numbers. The section ends with an endorsement of the work of Malko who has estimated 10 000–40 000 additional deaths from thyroid cancer, 40 000–120 000 deaths from the other malignant tumours and 5000–14 000 deaths from leukaemia—a total of 55 000–174 000 deaths from 1986 to 2056 in the whole of Europe, including Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. These numbers confusingly, do not agree with a table (6.21) from the same author. The final section on overall mortality contains a table (7.11), which includes an estimate of 212 000 additional deaths in highly contaminated regions of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. This figure is for the period of 1990–2004, and is based on an assumption that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories being due to the Chernobyl accident. One is left unsure about the meaning of many of these numbers and which is preferred.
If his work has been subject to trenchant critiques, Yablokov has offered a few of his own concerning the WHO/IAEA study discussed above. Yablokov’s work forms a major part of a document, “Health Effects of Chernobyl: 25 Years after the Reactor Catastrophe”, released by the German Affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War on the occasion of an international conference on Chernobyl held in Berlin between April 8 – 10, 2011. (Source)
The report contains a devastating critique of the low WHO and IAEA Chernobyl death toll estimates:
Note on the unreliability of official data published by WHO and IAEA
At the “Chernobyl Forum of the United Nations” organised in September 2005 by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organisation, the presentation of the results of work on the effects of Chernobyl showed serious inconsistencies. For example: the press release of the WHO and IAEA stated that in the future, at most, 4000 surplus fatalities due to cancer and leukaemia amongst the most severely affected groups of people might be expected. In the WHO report on which this was based however, the actual number of deaths is given as 8,930. These deaths were not mentioned in any newspaper articles. When one examines the source quoted in the WHO report, one arrives at a number betwen 10,000 and 25,000 additional fatalities due to cancer and leukaemia.
Given this it can be rationally concluded that the official statements of the IAEA and the WHO have manipulated their own data. Their representation of the effects of Chernobyl has little to do with reality.
The report continues:
S. Pflugbeil pointed out already in 2005 that there were discrepancies between press releases, the WHO report and the source quoted in it (Cardis et al.). Up until now neither the Chernobyl Forum, IAEA nor the WHO have deemed it necessary to let the public know that, on the basis of their own analysis, a two to five-fold higher number of deaths due to cancer and leukaemia are to be expected as the figures they have published.
Even in 2011 – some 5 years on – no official UN organisation has as yet corrected these figures. The latest UNSCEAR publication on the health effects of Chernobyl does not take into account any of the numerous results of research into the effects of Chernobyl from the three countries affected. Only one figure – that of 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer among children and juveniles, and leukaemia and cataracts in liquidators – was included in their recent information to the media. Thus, in 2011 the UNSCEAR committee declared: On the basis of studies carried out during the last 20 years, as well as of previous UNSCEAR reports, UNSCEAR has come to the conclusion that the large majority of the population has no reason to fear that serious health risks will arise from the Chernobyl accident. The only exception applies to those exposed to radioiodine during childhood or youth and to liquidators who were exposed to a high dose of radiation and therefore had to reckon with a higher radiation induced risk.
Even if Yablokov’s estimates for Chernobyl deaths are high, the WHO and IAEA numbers are almost certainly too low.
One area of continuing debate is the fate of the “liquidators” at Chernobyl. A major difference between Fukushima and Chernobyl is government handling of the aftermath. While the Japanese government can be criticized for the speed of evacuation and the limited evacuation radius, the seriousness of the issues was immediately recognized and efforts made to send people away from the stricken plant. In the case of Chernobyl, even as the state suppressed information about the catastrophe, between 600,000 and 1,000,000 people termed “liquidators” were sent to the most heavily irradiated zone to work to contain the effects of the meltdown, many with limited protection and unaware of the risks.
Some research, such as the article “Thyroid Cancer among ‘Liquidators’ of the Chernobyl Accident” published in the British Journal of Radiology (70, 1997, pp. 937-941), suggests relatively limited health effects (fewer than 50 cases of thyroid cancer in a group of over 150,000 liquidators followed in the study). (Source)
The article “Chernobyl Liquidators – The People and the Doses”, published by the International Radiation Protection Association, likewise concludes that across the majority of the liquidator group, “The health consequences from these radiation doses are too small to be identifiable in any epidemiological study, which does not target specific sub-groups with potentially higher exposure.” (Source)
Support groups for liquidators, however, claim that 25,000 have died and over 70,000 are disabled. (Source)
The issue cannot be limited to fatalities. The German Affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War “Health Effects of Chernobyl” report presents extensive evidence of widespread crippling disability among liquidators. As in the case of the Chernobyl death toll, the plight of liquidators is a hotly contested topic with radically different figures emerging from different quarters.
Some commentators have presented data that suggests a way out of the deadlock over the health and death consequences of Chernobyl. Peter Karamoskos, a Nuclear Radiologist and public representative on the Radiation Health Committee of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency argues in “Do we know the Chernobyl death toll?” that despite uncertainties about the numbers, “The weight of scientific opinion holds that there is no threshold below which ionising radiation poses no risk and that the risk is proportional to the dose: the “linear no-threshold” (LNT) model.”
Drawing on the 2006 report of the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation (BEIR) of the US National Academy of Sciences. Karamoskos points out: “The … view that low-level radiation is harmless, is restricted to a small number of scientists whose voice is greatly amplified by the nuclear industry (in much the same way as corporate greenhouse polluters amplify the voices of climate science sceptics).”
He continues:
There is general agreement that about 50 people died in the immediate aftermath of the Chernobyl accident. Beyond that, studies generally don’t indicate a significant increase in cancer incidence in populations exposed to Chernobyl fallout. Nor would anyone expect them to because of the data gaps and methodological problems mentioned above, and because the main part of the problem concerns the exposure of millions of people to very low doses of radiation from Chernobyl fallout.
For a few marginal scientists and nuclear industry spruikers, that’s the end of the matter – the statistical evidence is lacking and thus the death toll from Chernobyl was just 50. Full stop. But for those of us who prefer mainstream science, we can still arrive at a scientifically defensible estimate of the Chernobyl death toll by using estimates of the total radiation exposure, and multiplying by a standard risk estimate.
The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates a total collective dose of 600,000 Sieverts over 50 years from Chernobyl fallout. A standard risk estimate from the International Commission on Radiological Protection is 0.05 fatal cancers per Sievert. Multiply those figures and we get an estimated 30,000 fatal cancers.
A number of studies apply that basic method – based on collective radiation doses and risk estimates – and come up with estimates of the death toll varying from 9000 (in the most contaminated parts of the former Soviet Union) to 93,000 deaths (across Europe).
Those are the credible estimates of the likely eventual death toll from Chernobyl. Claims that the death toll was just 50 should be rejected as dishonest spin from the nuclear industry and some of its most strident and scientifically-illiterate supporters.
Karamaskos then turns to Fukushima, observing that
Nuclear industry spruikers will insist that no-one is at risk from low-level radiation exposure from Fukushima. The rest of us will need to wait some months or years before we have a plausible estimate of total human radiation exposure upon which to base an estimate of the death toll. To date, radiation releases from Fukushima are estimated by the Japanese government to be 10 per cent of the total Chernobyl release.
Needless to say, the view that low-level radiation is harmless is completely at odds with the current situation in Japan – the 20 km evacuation zone around the Fukushima nuclear plant, restrictions on food and water consumption in Japan and restrictions on the importation of food from Japan. (Source)
A joint survey conducted by the Japanese and U.S. governments has produced a detailed map of ground surface radioactive contamination within an 80-kilometer radius of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
Yablokov’s Chernobyl research and the dire prediction of as many as 400,000 radiation-related cancers in the Fukushima region if wider evacuation is not considered, deserves consideration, scrutiny, and debate as the Japanese government deals with radiation releases from Fukushima Daiichi. The same is true of alternative methodologies, particularly as the “linear no-threshold model” described by Peter Karamoskos. Despite recent efforts to evacuate people from high radiation areas outside of the 20 km evacuation zone, however, Japanese newspapers reported on April 20 that at the same time, the Japanese government had increased the permissible hourly radiation dose at schools in Fukushima Prefecture to 3.8 microsieverts. The Mainichi describes this as “a level that would see students absorb the internationally recognized maximum of 20 millisieverts per year.” See “Save the Children: Radiation Exposure of Fukushima Students,” link.
What are the risks of such doses? Thomas L. Slovis of the Society for Pediatric Radiology writes in Pediatr Radiol (2002:32:225-227)
… the risk of cancer from radiation is 5% per sievert… That’s an average number; but an average is almost meaningless. If you are a mature, late middle-aged individual, it is maybe 1% per sievert. But if you are a child, it is maybe 15% per sievert, with a clear gender difference too at these early ages. So children are very, very sensitive compared to adults.” For an adult the acceptable risk for any activity for emergency workers is 50 mSv. For a child the equivalent risk is (50 mSv /250 mSv)*66 mSv=13 mSv. The standard suggested by Japan for children is twice this value. The change in standard to 20 mSv corresponds to a change to 0.3% risk in cancer later on in life.
Uncertainty about the long-term health effects of even low levels of radiation was further highlighted by David J. Brenner in the April 5 issue of Nature. (Source)
In recent weeks, the issue of radiation and the 300,000 children of Fukushima has moved to the center of debate in assessing Japanese government handling of the Fukushima meltdown, even as the seriousness of radiation issues has grown with the belated disclosure by TEPCO of the multiple disasters experienced at the outset, and still far from under control, in Fukushima Daiichi.
On April 28, Kosako Toshiso, a radiation specialist at Tokyo University, resigned his position as Special Advisor to the Cabinet. Kosako had earlier gained notoriety for his role in helping to deny the extension of benefits to some radiation victims of the atomic bombs in a 2003 court case. After Fukushima, however, Kosako made an impassioned and courageous stand against what he saw as a government taking the potential health effects of long-term radiation exposure too lightly. In a press conference, Kosako castigated the Kan cabinet for its decision to increase permissible radiation exposure for Fukushima children:
At times of emergency, we cannot do without exceptions to standard rules and we are indeed capable of setting them up, but in any case, international common sense ought to be respected. It is wrong to forcibly push through conclusions that happen to be convenient only for the administrative authorities but which are utterly unacceptable by international standards. Such conclusions are bound to draw criticism from the international community.
This time, upon discussing the acceptable level of radiation exposure for playgrounds in primary schools in Fukushima, they have calculated, guided and determined a level of “3.8μSv per hour” on the basis of “20mSv per year”. It is completely wrong to use such a standard for schools that are going to run a normal school curriculum, in which case a standard similar to usual radiation protection measurement (1mSv per year, or even in exceptional cases, 5mSv) ought to be applied, and not the one used in cases of exceptional or urgent circumstances (for two to three days, or at the most, one to two weeks). It is not impossible to use a standard, perhaps for a few months, of 10mSv per year at the maximum, if the public is rightly notified of the necessity of taking caution, and also if special measures are to be taken. But normally it is better to avoid such a thing. We have to note that it is very rare even among occupationally exposed persons (84,000 in total) to be exposed to radiation of 20mSv per year. I cannot possibly accept such a level to be applied to babies, infants and primary school students, not only from my scholarly viewpoint but also from my humanistic beliefs.
You rarely come across a level of 10mSv per year on the covering soil if you measure the leftover soil at a disposal site in any uranium mine (it would be about a few mSv per year at the most), so one needs to have utmost caution when using such a level. Therefore, I strongly protest the decision to use the standard of 20mSv per year for school playgrounds, and ask for revision.
(Translation by Tanaka Izumi) Complete translation available here.
On April 29, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War appealed to the Japanese government to recognize the risk that students of Fukushima would be exposed to, citing widely accepted scientific principles for radiation effects:
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report estimates that each 1 mSv of radiation is associated with an increased risk of solid cancer (cancers other than leukemia) of about 1 in 10,000; an increased risk of leukemia of about 1 in 100,000; and a 1 in 17,500 increased risk of dying from cancer. But a critical factor is that not everyone faces the same level of risk. For infants (under 1 year of age) the radiation-related cancer risk is 3 to 4 times higher than for adults; and female infants are twice as susceptible as male infants.
Text available online.
On May 12, the Japan Medical Association, in the wake of the Kosako resignation, criticized government indifference to the exposure of Fukushima children to radiation. (Source)
The Mainichi also reports protests from various corners.
Indeed, coverage has spread to corners of the mass media hardly known for political critique. Journalist Hirokawa Ryuichi, known for his coverage of the plight of Palestinian children, Unit 731, and Chernobyl, takes on the 20mSv issue in the May 26 issue of Josei Seven (Women’s Seven), a weekly known mostly for paparazzi-style star stalking, but now including more political criticism as mothers nationwide consider the implications of the government’s 20mSv for children decision. (Source)
Hirokawa argues that while the Soviet government may have been irresponsible in its initial approach to the Chernobyl radiation release, it undertook a massive effort to evacuate children from Kiev, 120 kilometers away from the crisis zone, between May and September 1986. Fukushima City is just over 50 kilometers away from Fukushima Daiichi. At the currently approved 20mSv, Hirokawa points out, Japanese children could be exposed to four times the radiation of children in Ukraine in 1986. He writes, “… an hourly rate of 3.8 microsieverts is a number not all that different from readings at the dead ruins of Pripyat. I don’t want to imagine Japanese children running and playing in this ruined shell of a city.” Pripyat, built originally to house Chernobyl workers, is the abandoned city at the heart of Ukraine’s “Zone of Alienation”.
While comparisons between Chernobyl and Fukushima abound, there are many who point to the contrasts. In the latest issue of the Journal of Radiological Protection, radiation, Professor Richard Wakeford of the University of Manchester’s Dalton Nuclear Institute points out flaws in the International Nuclear Event Scale, “Since Level 7 is the highest rating on INES there can be no distinction between the Fukushima and Chernobyl accidents, leading many to proclaim the Fukushima accident as ‘another Chernobyl’, which it is not….” He asserts that as of early April, Fukushima had released but one tenth of the amount of radiation expelled in the Chernobyl disaster and praises Japan’s official response,
“Given the difficult background circumstances pertaining in Fukushima Prefecture as problems mounted at the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS, the organisational abilities of the Japanese authorities in dealing with the evacuation, monitoring and protection of the public has to be admired. In particular, the heroic efforts of the emergency workers, battling under conditions that were often atrocious, should not pass without respect and praise. I for one bow to their courage.” (Source)
We have, likewise, noted important differences in the handling of the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Yet it is important to note that Wakeford’s praise ignores the most important revelations of TEPCO’s and the Japanese governments cover-ups and recklessness, as in its decisions to expose Fukushima children to 20 mSv of radiation on a long-term basis.
As the nature of the Fukushima crisis relative to Chernobyl continues to be contested, the important issue of radiation exposure of Fukushima school children remains at the center of public debate. To date, the Japanese government has failed to respond effectively to critics of policies that pose long-term risks to the nation’s children.
Matthew Penney is an Assistant Professor at Concordia University in Montreal and a Japan Focus associate. He is currently conducting research on popular representations of war in Japan. He can be contacted at penneym@hotmail.com .
Mark Selden is a coordinator of the Asia-Pacific Journal and Senior Research Associate in the East Asia Program at Cornell University. His recent books include Chinese Society: Change, Conflict and Resistance; China, East Asia and the Global Economy: Regional and historical perspectives, The Resurgence of East Asia: 500, 150 and 50 Year Perspectives, and War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century. His homepage is www.markselden.info.
Global Research Related Articles
After Fukushima: Enough Is EnoughThe nuclear power industry has been resurrected over the past decade by a lobbying campaign that has left many people believing it to be a clean, green, emission-free alternative to fossil fuels. These beliefs pose an extraordinary threat to ...
Scandal: Japan Forces Top Official To Retract Prime Minister’s Revelation Fukushima Permanently UninhabitableDoublespeak, newspeak and more. A top government official forced to retract his report that the Prime minister said Fukushima will be permanently uninhabitable. Milk from Fukushima allowed back on store
Study: Fukushima Radiation Has Already Killed 14,000 AmericansAlready 14,000 U.S. Deaths From Fukushima ? A new study published in the peer-reviewed journal International Journal of Health Services alleges that 14,000 people have already died in the United States
Fukushima Crisis Continues, Worse Than First Reported - Effects More Lingering than Hiroshima or Nagasaki?Nobody in the world knows how to dispose of radioactive waste safely and permanently. That’s a given. The Japanese central government is presumably aware that anything it does with still the unmeasured but vast amount of radioactive waste from ...
Fukushima Meltdowns: A Global Conspiracy of Denial
Fukushima: A Nuclear War without a War: The Unspoken Crisis of Worldwide Nuclear Radiation
Fukushima Meltdowns: A Global Conspiracy of Denial
Does anyone in authority anywhere tell the truth about Fukushima?
If there is any government or non-government authority in the world that is addressing the disaster at Fukushima openly, directly, honestly, and effectively, it’s not apparent to the outside observer what entity that might be.
The Dangers of Radiation: Deconstructing Nuclear Experts
Fukushima: Japan's Second Nuclear Disaster
The Dangers of Radiation: Deconstructing Nuclear ExpertsSince the Fukushima accident we have seen a stream of experts on radiation telling us not to worry, that the doses are too low, that the accident is nothing like Chernobyl and so forth. They appear on television and ...
Fukushima: Japan's Second Nuclear DisasterTerming Fukushima Japan's "second massive nuclear disaster," novelist Haruki Murakami said "this time no one dropped a bomb on us" but instead "we set the stage, we committed the crime with our own hands, we are destroying our own ...
Nobody in the world knows how dispose of radioactive waste safely and permanently. That’s a given. The Japanese central government is presumably aware that anything it does with still the unmeasured, but vast amount of radioactive waste from Fukushima’s ...
Fukushima: A Nuclear War without a War: The Unspoken Crisis of Worldwide Nuclear RadiationNote to Readers: Remember to bookmark this page for future reference.
Please Forward the GR I-Book far and wide. Post it on Facebook.
[scroll down for I-BOOK Table of Contents]
Originally published in January 2012 * * *
Please Forward the GR I-Book far and wide. Post it on Facebook.
[scroll down for I-BOOK Table of Contents]
Originally published in January 2012 * * *
Government told to “implement measures now” and be prepared for surge to increase further
“Surge in cancers among young in Fukushima, but experts divided on cause [...] experts are divided about whether their illness is caused by nuclear radiation [from Fukushima Daiichi]. [...] At a meeting hosted by Japan’s Environmental Ministry and the prefectural government on Saturday, most experts were not convinced [...] Among those who voiced alarm was Toshihide Tsuda, a professor of epidemiology [...] In the Chernobyl disaster of 1986, it was not until four or five years after the accident that thyroid cancer cases surged.” (South China Morning Post, Dec. 23, 2013 emphasis added:
Articles by:Prof. Matthew Penney and Prof. Mark Selden
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Center of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: publications@globalresearch.ca
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: publications@globalresearch.ca
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: publications@globalresearch.ca
=====================================================
http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-japan-s-second-nuclear-disaster/27587
Fukushima: Japan’s Second Nuclear Disaster
Global Research, November 10, 2011
10 November 2011
Terming Fukushima Japan’s “second massive nuclear disaster,” novelist Haruki Murakami said “this time no one dropped a bomb on us” but instead “we set the stage, we committed the crime with our own hands, we are destroying our own lands, and we are destroying our own lives.”
“While we are the victims, we are also the perpetrators. We must fix our eyes on this fact,” he continued. “If we fail to do so, we will inevitably repeat the same mistake again, somewhere else.”
Murakami, whose novels “Norwegian Wood” and “The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle,” among others, have given him a global following, made his comments in an interview with Evan Osnos which appears in the Oct. 17th issue of “The New Yorker” magazine.
Osnos writes about the Japanese response to the March 11th earthquake and the subsequent tidal waves that rocked the Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Power Station on Japan’s Pacific coast.
He quotes then Prime Minister Naoto Kan as saying that he felt “Japan was facing the possibility of a collapse.” Kan, 64, resigned last August amid widespread criticism that he had mishandled the Fukushima crisis.
As journalist Walter Brasch summarized in OpEdNews November 9th: “an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale and the ensuing 50-foot high tsunami wave led to a meltdown of three of Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors. Japan’s nuclear regulatory agency reported that 31 radioactive isotopes were released. In contrast, 16 radioactive isotopes were released from the A-bomb that hit Hiroshima Aug. 6, 1945. The agency also reported that radioactive cesium released was almost 170 times the amount of the A-bomb, and that the release of radioactive Iodine-131 and Strontium-90 was about two to three times the level of the A-bomb.”
The Fukushima tragedy caused the operators of most of the world’s 432 nuclear power plants to reassess their safety systems, or to suspend nuclear power generation entirely. Some countries, Osnos says, earlier had suspended nuclear ops as too dangerous following the April, 1986, meltdown at the Chernobyl power plant in the Ukraine.
Soviet officials attempted to conceal the meltdown but disclosure came when its wind-borne radioactive plume tripped a monitoring device in a nuclear plant north of Stockholm. Fukushima officials were far more candid last March but the areas they said needed to be evacuated were smaller than those U.S. officials told their nationals in Japan to quit.
One casualty of the Fukushima meltdown was candor: Prime Minister Kan’s spokesman Yukio Edano said, “Let me repeat that there is no radiation leak, nor will there be a leak.” Osnos writes, “After the tsunami, Tokyo Electric barred rank-and-file employees from speaking publicly, and the ban is still in effect.” He adds that a poll late in May showed that more than 80 per cent of the population “did not believe the government’s information about the nuclear crisis.”
“The Fukushima meltdowns scattered nuclear fallout over an area the size of Chicago,” Osnos continued, and government scientists estimated total radiation released on land was about a sixth as much as at Chernobyl. In a preliminary estimate, Frank von Hippel, a Princeton University physicist, said that roughly a thousand deadly cancers may result from the Fukushima meltdowns. Luckily, significant radioactive fallout allegedly did not reach Tokyo, the world’s largest metropolitan area with 35-million inhabitants. Some 80,000 Japanese living near the plant site were forced to evacuate their homes, though, converting some lovely villages into ghost towns.
Despite all this, Japanese politicians are not about to put an end to generating nuclear power in there country. Osnos writes, “The country would possibly close some of its oldest plants, but the rest—by one estimate, 36 of the 54 reactors—would endure.”
He quotes Economics Minister Kaoru Yosano as saying, “We thought that human beings—the Japanese—can control nuclear by our intelligence, by our reason. With this one accident, will that philosophy be discarded? I don’t think so.” He added that he expects China to build “a hundred or two hundred” nuclear power stations, concluding, “I hope our experience will be a good lesson for them.”
Maybe Fukushima will cause Japan’s nuclear owners to take warnings more seriously. Tokyo Electric in 2009 disregarded warnings by two seismologists that Fukushima Daiichi was acutely vulnerable to tsunamis. In addition, Tokyo Electric endangered the public by concealing more than half a dozen emergencies from government regulators. It had also “faked hundreds of repair records,” Osnos noted.
This pattern of deception on safety issues raises the question of how many “accidents” it will take before Japan reverses course on nuclear power. Also, aren’t those who suffer from radiation and who are driven from their homes entitled to compensation from Tokyo Electric? When a private firm with such an awesome responsibility for public health covers up emergencies and is unprepared for a disaster, isn’t it guilty of crimes against humanity?
Even absent earthquakes and tidal waves, nuclear plants pose an existential threat to humanity. Not only are vast amounts of fossil fuels burned to mine and refine the uranium for nuclear reactors, polluting the atmosphere, but nuclear plants are allowed “to emit hundreds of curies of radioactive gases and other radioactive elements into the environment every year,” Dr. Helen Caldicott, the antinuclear authority, points out in her book “Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer” (The New Press).
The thousands of tons of solid radioactive waste accumulating in the cooling pools next to those plants contain “extremely toxic elements that will inevitably pollute the environment and human food chains, a legacy that will lead to epidemics of cancer, leukemia, and genetic disease in populations living near nuclear power plants or radioactive waste facilities for many generations to come,” she writes. Countless Americans are already dead or dying as a result of our nuclear plants, a story not being effectively told.
Americans have been told there were no casualties as a result of the Three Mile Island (TMI) plant meltdown on March 28, 1979. Yet some 2,000 Harrisburg area residents settled sickness claims with operators’ General Public Utilities Corp. and Metropolitan Edison Co., the owners of TMI.
Their symptoms included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, bleeding from the nose, a metallic taste in the mouth, hair loss, and red skin rash, typical of acute radiation sickness when people are exposed to whole-body doses of radiation around 100 rads, Caldicott said.
David Lochbaum, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, believes nuclear plant safety standards are lacking and before Fukushima predicted another nuclear catastrophe, stating, “It’s not if, but when.”
“The magnitude of the radiation generated in a nuclear power plant is almost beyond belief,” Caldicott writes. “The original uranium fuel that is subject to the fission process becomes 1 billion times more radioactive in the reactor core. A thousand-megawatt nuclear power plant contains as much long-lived radiation as that produced by the explosion of 1,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs.”
Each year, operators must remove a third of the radioactive fuel rods from their reactors because they have become contaminated with fission products. The rods are so hot they must be stored for 30 to 60 years in a heavily shielded building continuously cooled by air or water lest they burst into flame, and must afterwards be packed into a container. ”Construction of these highly specialized containers uses as much energy as construction of the original reactor itself, which is 80 gigajoules per metric ton,” Caldicott says.
What’s a big construction project, though, when you don’t have to pay for it? In the 2005 Energy Bill, Congress allocated $13 billion in subsidies to the nuclear power industry. Between 1948 and 1998, the US government showered the industry with $70 billion of taxpayer dollars for research and development —–corporate Socialism if ever there was any.
Caldicott points out there are truly green and clean alternative energy sources to nuclear power. She refers to the American plains as “the Saudi Arabia of wind,” where readily available rural land in just several Dakota counties “could produce twice the amount of electricity that the United States currently consumes.”
If we do not grab hold of such green alternatives, we, like Japan, as Murakami warned, will “repeat the same mistake again.”
Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based public relations consultant who also writes on political, social, and military topics. Reach him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com
=====================================================
=====================================================
Fukushima Nuclear Explosion
=====================================================
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant Explosion (Raw Footage) & winds directions [HD] - by Newoaknl
2011/03/13 に公開
=====================================================Earthquake Japan - source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4-Lof...
[update 13.03.2011] Radiation 1,000 times above normal was detected in the control room of one plant in the early hours of the morning.[/update]
A huge cloud of smoke billows out and large bits of debris are flung far from the building.
FAVOURABLE winds will likely blow possible radioactive pollution from a blast at a Japanese nuclear power plant out over the Pacific Ocean, the French Nuclear Safety Authority said today.
"The wind direction for the time being seems to point the (nuclear) pollution towards the Pacific," Andre-Claude Lacoste said after the blast at the Fukushima No. 1 plant in the north of the country.
The Tokyo Electric Power Co, the plant's operator, said four workers had been injured.
A nuclear reactor meltdown or melting occurred in the Ukrainian Chernobyl (1986). In the U.S. Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 there was a partial meltdown.
Also from other parts of the world rush rescue teams on Sunday to Japan. The American aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan arrived at the coast to the Japanese army to help. Helicopters of the Japanese army arrive at the huge aircraft carrier refueling and transport people.
An American team of twelve people and 144 dogs coming Sunday in northern Japan. The dogs are trained to find victims beneath the rubble.
The British send 59 men and 11,000 pounds of rescue equipment, lifting equipment such as powerful. France sends two teams protection.
Field Hospitals
Australia has offered complete field hospitals, as well as teams that can identify victims. The country also wants to send nuclear scientists to the problems with the Japanese nuclear power plants.
The United Nations also reported that Japan has accepted aid from Germany, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea. Rescue teams from another 39 countries are standing, according to the organization.
The Japanese Red Cross has sent 62 emergency teams to help victims in the disaster area. Approximately four hundred doctors, nurses and other professionals have been deployed in mobile clinics, according to the organization.
The Chinese Red Cross has pledged 100,000 euros to the Japanese counterparts. Afghanistan's Kandahar province has about 35,000 euros promised. - Sub 4 more video-editing, mixes, good music: http://www.youtube.com/user/newoaknl?...
[update 13.03.2011] Radiation 1,000 times above normal was detected in the control room of one plant in the early hours of the morning.[/update]
A huge cloud of smoke billows out and large bits of debris are flung far from the building.
FAVOURABLE winds will likely blow possible radioactive pollution from a blast at a Japanese nuclear power plant out over the Pacific Ocean, the French Nuclear Safety Authority said today.
"The wind direction for the time being seems to point the (nuclear) pollution towards the Pacific," Andre-Claude Lacoste said after the blast at the Fukushima No. 1 plant in the north of the country.
The Tokyo Electric Power Co, the plant's operator, said four workers had been injured.
A nuclear reactor meltdown or melting occurred in the Ukrainian Chernobyl (1986). In the U.S. Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 there was a partial meltdown.
Also from other parts of the world rush rescue teams on Sunday to Japan. The American aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan arrived at the coast to the Japanese army to help. Helicopters of the Japanese army arrive at the huge aircraft carrier refueling and transport people.
An American team of twelve people and 144 dogs coming Sunday in northern Japan. The dogs are trained to find victims beneath the rubble.
The British send 59 men and 11,000 pounds of rescue equipment, lifting equipment such as powerful. France sends two teams protection.
Field Hospitals
Australia has offered complete field hospitals, as well as teams that can identify victims. The country also wants to send nuclear scientists to the problems with the Japanese nuclear power plants.
The United Nations also reported that Japan has accepted aid from Germany, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea. Rescue teams from another 39 countries are standing, according to the organization.
The Japanese Red Cross has sent 62 emergency teams to help victims in the disaster area. Approximately four hundred doctors, nurses and other professionals have been deployed in mobile clinics, according to the organization.
The Chinese Red Cross has pledged 100,000 euros to the Japanese counterparts. Afghanistan's Kandahar province has about 35,000 euros promised. - Sub 4 more video-editing, mixes, good music: http://www.youtube.com/user/newoaknl?...
News SECOND MASSIVE nuclear Reactor EXPLOSION JAPAN Fukushima
2012/08/25 に公開
current NOUN - JAPAN Fukushima 1 年3月14日 March 14th 2011 nucl. meltdown cesium x 1000 SUPER GAU core melt accident Nuclear Unfall aktuell news boracic acid borsäure 福島第一原子力発電所 daiichi genshiryoku hatsudensho The Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant (女川原子力発電所, Onagawa genshiryoku hatsudensho, Onagawa NPP
平成23年3月27日 福島第1原発状況
2011/03/27 にアップロード
平成23年3月27日 福島第1原発状況（空撮）
なお、東北地方太平洋沖地震に対する自衛隊の活動については、以下のアドレスからご覧
http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/defen...
防衛省・自衛隊ｔｗｉｔｔｅｒ災害情報
http://twitter.com/#!/bouei_saigai
=====================================================なお、東北地方太平洋沖地震に対する自衛隊の活動については、以下のアドレスからご覧
http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/defen...
防衛省・自衛隊ｔｗｉｔｔｅｒ災害情報
http://twitter.com/#!/bouei_saigai
福島第一 Fukushima Unit 3 Reactor Well
2011/05/17 にアップロード
Looking directly at the reactor well of Unit 3 before the explosion:
(1) http://images.scribblelive.com/2011/5...
(2) http://images.scribblelive.com/2011/5...
@ http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima...
Accurate floor plan of Units 3 and 4 (location of containment lid reflects its location in Unit 4 since the reactor in Unit 4 is empty and opened), in the video we're looking through the open Tool Pit into (or onto) the Reactor Well (exactly as in the photos above)):
http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima...
Images that show Unit 3 was bellowing steam heavily, centered from the reactor well
March 17
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/oshada...
On or before March 21
http://media.syracuse.com/news/photo/...
Infrared images on Unit 3 show the hot spots around the primary containment:
The hottest spot is the largest point of emission seen in this video.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ig...
3号機の赤外画像は原子炉格納容器の周りのホットスポットを表示
ホットスポットはこのビデオで見られる最大の蒸気排出量のポイントです。
(1) http://images.scribblelive.com/2011/5...
(2) http://images.scribblelive.com/2011/5...
@ http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima...
Accurate floor plan of Units 3 and 4 (location of containment lid reflects its location in Unit 4 since the reactor in Unit 4 is empty and opened), in the video we're looking through the open Tool Pit into (or onto) the Reactor Well (exactly as in the photos above)):
http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima...
Images that show Unit 3 was bellowing steam heavily, centered from the reactor well
March 17
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/oshada...
On or before March 21
http://media.syracuse.com/news/photo/...
Infrared images on Unit 3 show the hot spots around the primary containment:
The hottest spot is the largest point of emission seen in this video.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ig...
3号機の赤外画像は原子炉格納容器の周りのホットスポットを表示
ホットスポットはこのビデオで見られる最大の蒸気排出量のポイントです。
=====================================================
FUKUSHIMA: IT MAY HAVE BEEN A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION, PURPLE CLOUD
http://youtu.be/CvZ5-BacQGg
リクエストによる埋め込み無
2014/10/31 に公開
10-31-14 M2U05524 http://www.gofundme.com/gnx9fg Help me save my home?
Video: “Purple cloud” seen by engineer after Fukushima explosion… “I took a photo” — Former Prime Minister: Smoke from reactor a different color than officials claimed… Steel appears to have melted on top of Unit 3… Suggests possible nuclear explosion
http://enenews.com/hitachi-engineer-p...
2 Thyroid Cancer Fukushima Kids had metastasis in their lungs!
http://savekidsjapan.blogspot.jp/2014...
http://savekidsjapan.blogspot.jp/2014...
http://savekidsjapan.blogspot.jp/2014...
Also below are the recent news on Fukushima thyroid cancer kids on Save Kids Japan...
http://savekidsjapan.blogspot.jp/2014...
FBI -- WARNING -- Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute or exhibit portions of copyright motion pictures, video tapes, or video disks under certain circumstances without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called fair use and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news reporting, teaching and parody.
USE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically No copyright infringement is ever intended.
FAIR authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in a effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc...
I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If any individual wishes to go beyond the fair use law, they should contact the copyright owner for permission.
LANL, TOSHIBA, TEPCO, HELEN CALDICOTT,, CHRIS BUSBY, FLANAGAN, CHERNOBYL, GAMMA RAYS, ISOTOPES, CESIUM 134, CESIUM 137, IODINE 131, URANIUM, DEPLETED URANIUM, AMERICIUM, TRITIUM, STRONTIUM 90, PLUTONIUM, DOE, FISSION, USA, JAPAN, DAIICHI, FDA, EPA, muons, subatomic particles, X-RAY, DECISION SCIENCES, KURION, TOMOGRAPHY, Stanton D. Sloane, Lake H. Barrett, NRC, NRA, HARRISBURG PA, Three Mile Island, synergy, nonproliferation technologies, CARLSBAD NM, KEVIN BLANCH
Robert Jacobs, Robert Alvarez, Senator Ron Wyden, Oregon, Thom Hartman, Kevin Kamps, The journal of Environmental Science and Technology, Pacific Coast, U.S., EU, DOE, EPA, Dr. Karl Morgan, Allen L Roland, CDC, Pacific, California,
Video: “Purple cloud” seen by engineer after Fukushima explosion… “I took a photo” — Former Prime Minister: Smoke from reactor a different color than officials claimed… Steel appears to have melted on top of Unit 3… Suggests possible nuclear explosion
http://enenews.com/hitachi-engineer-p...
2 Thyroid Cancer Fukushima Kids had metastasis in their lungs!
http://savekidsjapan.blogspot.jp/2014...
http://savekidsjapan.blogspot.jp/2014...
http://savekidsjapan.blogspot.jp/2014...
Also below are the recent news on Fukushima thyroid cancer kids on Save Kids Japan...
http://savekidsjapan.blogspot.jp/2014...
FBI -- WARNING -- Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute or exhibit portions of copyright motion pictures, video tapes, or video disks under certain circumstances without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called fair use and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news reporting, teaching and parody.
USE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically No copyright infringement is ever intended.
FAIR authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in a effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc...
I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If any individual wishes to go beyond the fair use law, they should contact the copyright owner for permission.
LANL, TOSHIBA, TEPCO, HELEN CALDICOTT,, CHRIS BUSBY, FLANAGAN, CHERNOBYL, GAMMA RAYS, ISOTOPES, CESIUM 134, CESIUM 137, IODINE 131, URANIUM, DEPLETED URANIUM, AMERICIUM, TRITIUM, STRONTIUM 90, PLUTONIUM, DOE, FISSION, USA, JAPAN, DAIICHI, FDA, EPA, muons, subatomic particles, X-RAY, DECISION SCIENCES, KURION, TOMOGRAPHY, Stanton D. Sloane, Lake H. Barrett, NRC, NRA, HARRISBURG PA, Three Mile Island, synergy, nonproliferation technologies, CARLSBAD NM, KEVIN BLANCH
Robert Jacobs, Robert Alvarez, Senator Ron Wyden, Oregon, Thom Hartman, Kevin Kamps, The journal of Environmental Science and Technology, Pacific Coast, U.S., EU, DOE, EPA, Dr. Karl Morgan, Allen L Roland, CDC, Pacific, California,
=====================================================
Teruyuki Nakajima
Teruyuki Nakajima : The Accidents at Fukushima Dai-Ichi
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=108196&cl=87413&article=141569&tid=5122=====================================================
http://www.ied.tsukuba.ac.jp/hydrogeo/isetr/ISETRen/paper/geochem46-2.pdf
以下抜粋：
福島第一原子力発電所の事故により放出された放射性物質の大気中での動態
鶴田治雄＊・中島映至＊
（2012年6月1日受付，2012年6月11日受理）
Radioactive materials in the atmosphere released by the accident of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
Haruo TSURUTA＊ and Teruyuki NAKAJIMA＊
＊ Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, The University of Tokyo
5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8568, Japan
=====================================================
Nuclear Watch: Fukushima high Iodine 131 lvls fission reactions for weeks or months 10/27/2014
2014/10/27 に公開
Watch: Nuclear experts confront Japanese scientists — IAEA says Fukushima reactors “might still be active” long after meltdowns — “Changes completely” our idea of what happened — “Very surprised… extremely high” Iodine-131 levels — Means fission reactions lasted for weeks or months
Teruyuki Nakajima,University of Tokyo and Science Council of Japan (emphasis added): International Expert #1 (at 38:10): My name is [inaudible] from the International Atomic Energy Agency’s marine laboratory in Monaco. I have a question regarding the Iodine-131. We were very surprised that the Iodine-131 was still discharged at very high levels in July [2011]. We had a lot of discussion about what would be the reason… You’d expect that, according to the shorter half life for Iodine-131, this would decrease much, much stronger — much faster… My briefings to member states of the IAEA was that we would expect within a few weeks there would be no more Iodine-131, but this was not true. This was still measured at high, extremely high levels in July and August of 2011. I wrote in my statement given out by the IAEA, that the reactors might still be active. There was a big discussion about this… Nakajima: Yeah, I think the reactors still emitted the materials in… not sure about July… we have soil measurement in June, I think that still we observed Iodine-131 from the soil measurement. If that is terminated in April, we wouldn’t measure that at this point, but we still had that measurement. And still, the data are not totally thoroughly investigated. We have several remaining data we need to look at. Some people have those data, so we need to dig this kind of data set. Also, monitoring post, we had [problems?] as I told, we couldn’t use, but some are surviving and not rescued. Recently that kind of data is coming in, so we will see that data for Iodine-131… International Expert #2 (at 43:45): I’m sorry, but I’d like to go back to the question of my colleague from the IAEA. If I understand correctly, the question is not whether… in July or August, there still were releases of Iodine. If that is the case, it would change completely the picture about the accident. That was the question that was never clarified, either by TEPCO or by [inaudible]. Nakajima: There’s some evidence [of the reactors] releasing radiogenic gas… International Expert #2: The basic question is the following — several weeks after Chernobyl it was crystal clear there were no more releases of Iodine. If that’s not crystal clear at Fukushima, this means several weeks or months after the accident there were fission reactions. That’s the question. This question was presented, as my colleague said, at several meetings of the IAEA and that was never made clear?… That is an important question because it would change the composition of the releases… International Expert #3 (at 46:45): I also want to [inaudible] the data. I agree with him about the calculation… Iodine had been measured in such amounts in July… Iodine from those same samples — that would allow you [Nakajima] to actually check whether this is satisfied by resuspension, as you claim…. Observations make clear, [Iodine-131 is too high by] orders of magnitude, even in the best cases — and that’s a lot… Nakajima: We have all the data but I haven’t checked Iodine-131… But, still, we are making the data set… Maybe I could check with my file data… (Lights go on) Further questions? OK, well, thank you very much. Sorry.
Teruyuki Nakajima,University of Tokyo and Science Council of Japan (emphasis added): International Expert #1 (at 38:10): My name is [inaudible] from the International Atomic Energy Agency’s marine laboratory in Monaco. I have a question regarding the Iodine-131. We were very surprised that the Iodine-131 was still discharged at very high levels in July [2011]. We had a lot of discussion about what would be the reason… You’d expect that, according to the shorter half life for Iodine-131, this would decrease much, much stronger — much faster… My briefings to member states of the IAEA was that we would expect within a few weeks there would be no more Iodine-131, but this was not true. This was still measured at high, extremely high levels in July and August of 2011. I wrote in my statement given out by the IAEA, that the reactors might still be active. There was a big discussion about this… Nakajima: Yeah, I think the reactors still emitted the materials in… not sure about July… we have soil measurement in June, I think that still we observed Iodine-131 from the soil measurement. If that is terminated in April, we wouldn’t measure that at this point, but we still had that measurement. And still, the data are not totally thoroughly investigated. We have several remaining data we need to look at. Some people have those data, so we need to dig this kind of data set. Also, monitoring post, we had [problems?] as I told, we couldn’t use, but some are surviving and not rescued. Recently that kind of data is coming in, so we will see that data for Iodine-131… International Expert #2 (at 43:45): I’m sorry, but I’d like to go back to the question of my colleague from the IAEA. If I understand correctly, the question is not whether… in July or August, there still were releases of Iodine. If that is the case, it would change completely the picture about the accident. That was the question that was never clarified, either by TEPCO or by [inaudible]. Nakajima: There’s some evidence [of the reactors] releasing radiogenic gas… International Expert #2: The basic question is the following — several weeks after Chernobyl it was crystal clear there were no more releases of Iodine. If that’s not crystal clear at Fukushima, this means several weeks or months after the accident there were fission reactions. That’s the question. This question was presented, as my colleague said, at several meetings of the IAEA and that was never made clear?… That is an important question because it would change the composition of the releases… International Expert #3 (at 46:45): I also want to [inaudible] the data. I agree with him about the calculation… Iodine had been measured in such amounts in July… Iodine from those same samples — that would allow you [Nakajima] to actually check whether this is satisfied by resuspension, as you claim…. Observations make clear, [Iodine-131 is too high by] orders of magnitude, even in the best cases — and that’s a lot… Nakajima: We have all the data but I haven’t checked Iodine-131… But, still, we are making the data set… Maybe I could check with my file data… (Lights go on) Further questions? OK, well, thank you very much. Sorry.
=====================================================
Fukushima High Levels of Iodine-131 WEEKS - MONTHS after Nuclear Accidents
2014/10/28 に公開
Mirrored from MsMilkytheclown1 on Oct 27, 2014
* Note from M: I edited out the Q and A section to give you what ENENews considers to be the highlights of the talk at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution by Teruyuki Nakajima. The IAEA and the speaker are Still unsure about the duration of releases of Iodine 131. The implications are pretty big, too. The audio was crummy, so I increased the volume on the people in the audience and added captions to make it easier to follow along.
Watch: Nuclear experts confront Japanese scientists — IAEA says Fukushima reactors “might still be active” long after meltdowns — “Changes completely” our idea of what happened — “Very surprised… extremely high” Iodine-131 levels — Means fission reactions lasted for weeks or months (VIDEO)
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=10819...
Teruyuki Nakajima,University of Tokyo and Science Council of Japan (emphasis added): International Expert #1 (at 38:10): My name is [inaudible] from the International Atomic Energy Agency’s marine laboratory in Monaco. I have a question regarding the Iodine-131. We were very surprised that the Iodine-131 was still discharged at very high levels in July [2011]. We had a lot of discussion about what would be the reason… You’d expect that, according to the shorter half life for Iodine-131, this would decrease much, much stronger — much faster… My briefings to member states of the IAEA was that we would expect within a few weeks there would be no more Iodine-131, but this was not true. This was still measured at high, extremely high levels in July and August of 2011. I wrote in my statement given out by the IAEA, that the reactors might still be active. There was a big discussion about this… Nakajima: Yeah, I think the reactors still emitted the materials in… not sure about July… we have soil measurement in June, I think that still we observed Iodine-131 from the soil measurement. If that is terminated in April, we wouldn’t measure that at this point, but we still had that measurement. And still, the data are not totally thoroughly investigated. We have several remaining data we need to look at. Some people have those data, so we need to dig this kind of data set. Also, monitoring post, we had [problems?] as I told, we couldn’t use, but some are surviving and not rescued. Recently that kind of data is coming in, so we will see that data for Iodine-131… International Expert #2 (at 43:45): I’m sorry, but I’d like to go back to the question of my colleague from the IAEA. If I understand correctly, the question is not whether… in July or August, there still were releases of Iodine. If that is the case, it would change completely the picture about the accident. That was the question that was never clarified, either by TEPCO or by [inaudible]. Nakajima: There’s some evidence [of the reactors] releasing radiogenic gas… International Expert #2: The basic question is the following — several weeks after Chernobyl it was crystal clear there were no more releases of Iodine. If that’s not crystal clear at Fukushima, this means several weeks or months after the accident there were fission reactions. That’s the question. This question was presented, as my colleague said, at several meetings of the IAEA and that was never made clear?… That is an important question because it would change the composition of the releases… International Expert #3 (at 46:45): I also want to [inaudible] the data. I agree with him about the calculation… Iodine had been measured in such amounts in July… Iodine from those same samples — that would allow you [Nakajima] to actually check whether this is satisfied by resuspension, as you claim…. Observations make clear, [Iodine-131 is too high by] orders of magnitude, even in the best cases — and that’s a lot… Nakajima: We have all the data but I haven’t checked Iodine-131… But, still, we are making the data set… Maybe I could check with my file data… (Lights go on) Further questions? OK, well, thank you very much. Sorry.
http://enenews.com/watch-internationa...
and an excellent companion video that Deep13th Nuclear Waste Info compiled called Nuclear Watch: Fukushima high Iodine 131 lvls fission reactions for weeks or months 10/27/2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHsl2... here.
They are picking up most of the daily Fukushima updates, so please give them a subscribe if you want to keep up with daily happenings at Fukushima Daiichi.
Iodine 131 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine-131
Radiation Protection from Iodine 131 http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuc...
* Note from M: I edited out the Q and A section to give you what ENENews considers to be the highlights of the talk at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution by Teruyuki Nakajima. The IAEA and the speaker are Still unsure about the duration of releases of Iodine 131. The implications are pretty big, too. The audio was crummy, so I increased the volume on the people in the audience and added captions to make it easier to follow along.
Watch: Nuclear experts confront Japanese scientists — IAEA says Fukushima reactors “might still be active” long after meltdowns — “Changes completely” our idea of what happened — “Very surprised… extremely high” Iodine-131 levels — Means fission reactions lasted for weeks or months (VIDEO)
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=10819...
Teruyuki Nakajima,University of Tokyo and Science Council of Japan (emphasis added): International Expert #1 (at 38:10): My name is [inaudible] from the International Atomic Energy Agency’s marine laboratory in Monaco. I have a question regarding the Iodine-131. We were very surprised that the Iodine-131 was still discharged at very high levels in July [2011]. We had a lot of discussion about what would be the reason… You’d expect that, according to the shorter half life for Iodine-131, this would decrease much, much stronger — much faster… My briefings to member states of the IAEA was that we would expect within a few weeks there would be no more Iodine-131, but this was not true. This was still measured at high, extremely high levels in July and August of 2011. I wrote in my statement given out by the IAEA, that the reactors might still be active. There was a big discussion about this… Nakajima: Yeah, I think the reactors still emitted the materials in… not sure about July… we have soil measurement in June, I think that still we observed Iodine-131 from the soil measurement. If that is terminated in April, we wouldn’t measure that at this point, but we still had that measurement. And still, the data are not totally thoroughly investigated. We have several remaining data we need to look at. Some people have those data, so we need to dig this kind of data set. Also, monitoring post, we had [problems?] as I told, we couldn’t use, but some are surviving and not rescued. Recently that kind of data is coming in, so we will see that data for Iodine-131… International Expert #2 (at 43:45): I’m sorry, but I’d like to go back to the question of my colleague from the IAEA. If I understand correctly, the question is not whether… in July or August, there still were releases of Iodine. If that is the case, it would change completely the picture about the accident. That was the question that was never clarified, either by TEPCO or by [inaudible]. Nakajima: There’s some evidence [of the reactors] releasing radiogenic gas… International Expert #2: The basic question is the following — several weeks after Chernobyl it was crystal clear there were no more releases of Iodine. If that’s not crystal clear at Fukushima, this means several weeks or months after the accident there were fission reactions. That’s the question. This question was presented, as my colleague said, at several meetings of the IAEA and that was never made clear?… That is an important question because it would change the composition of the releases… International Expert #3 (at 46:45): I also want to [inaudible] the data. I agree with him about the calculation… Iodine had been measured in such amounts in July… Iodine from those same samples — that would allow you [Nakajima] to actually check whether this is satisfied by resuspension, as you claim…. Observations make clear, [Iodine-131 is too high by] orders of magnitude, even in the best cases — and that’s a lot… Nakajima: We have all the data but I haven’t checked Iodine-131… But, still, we are making the data set… Maybe I could check with my file data… (Lights go on) Further questions? OK, well, thank you very much. Sorry.
http://enenews.com/watch-internationa...
and an excellent companion video that Deep13th Nuclear Waste Info compiled called Nuclear Watch: Fukushima high Iodine 131 lvls fission reactions for weeks or months 10/27/2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHsl2... here.
They are picking up most of the daily Fukushima updates, so please give them a subscribe if you want to keep up with daily happenings at Fukushima Daiichi.
Iodine 131 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine-131
Radiation Protection from Iodine 131 http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuc...
=====================================================
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿