*** Fukushima *** and other nuclear-----updates and links

Former head doctor of National Cancer Center,”Thyroids of Fukushima children look like honeycomb from too much cysts”
[link to fukushima-diary.com]

Former head doctor of National Cancer Center,”Thyroids of Fukushima children look like honeycomb from too much cysts”
[link to fukushima-diary.com]

Awesome book put out by there military about radiation and safety.. puts a dent in the current logic...

[snip]

Radiation doses that exceed a minimum (threshold) level can cause undesirable effects such as depression of the blood cell-forming process (threshold dose = 500 mSv, 50 rem) or cataracts (threshold dose = 5,000 mSv, 500 rem). The scope and severity of these effects increases as the dose increases above the corresponding threshold. Radiation also can cause an increase in the incidence, but not the severity, of malignant disease (e.g., cancer). For this type of effect, it is the probability of occurrence that increases with dose rather than the severity. For radiation protection purposes it is assumed that any dose above zero can increase the risk of radiation-induced cancer (i.e., that there is no threshold). Epidemiologic studies have found that the estimated lifetime risk of dying from cancer is greater by about 0.004% per mSv (0.04% per rem) of radiation dose to the whole body (NRC, 1990).

Radioactive sources can expose the body from outside (external doses, e.g., when a diagnostic x ray is taken), or from inside (internal doses, e.g., when radioactive materials are inhaled, ingested, or enter through wounds). Gamma and x-ray radiations (and, to a lesser extent, beta radiation) are the primary contributors to external doses. Alpha and beta radiations are much more important contributors to internal doses.

Control measures to reduce or limit exposure to radiation must consider the circumstances and environment of the exposure. In discussing the influence of scenario on radiation controls, we use the ICRP (1991a, 1993) nomenclature—''intervention'' and "practice." A practice is an intentional activity in which the practitioner is routinely at risk of radiation exposure (e.g., the duties of x-ray technicians in hospitals and nuclear power plant workers). An intervention, by contrast, is an action taken to reduce radiation exposure, often by responding to an accident (e.g., the actions of firefighters who responded to the Chernobyl accident). A practice is characterized by well-defined radiation sources and work procedures; an intervention, by great uncertainty in both.

The Army has previously published guidance for control of doses from routine occupational exposures to radiation and from those associated with nuclear war. The ACE Directive is an encouraging step in developing control measures for other situations. We realize that the Directive was meant for a specific mission (Bosnia) and that the Army recognizes its limitations. The improvements recommended by the committee should be viewed as constructive and in no way diminish the significant progress that the Army has made toward the control of the complete spectrum of radiation hazards on the battlefield and in nonwartime situations. While the ACE Directive is useful as a basis for establishing guidelines to protect soldiers from the adverse effects of radiation, the committee recommends that it be revised to assure completeness and clarity.
[end sip]

[in Civilian control situations]

The first of these, the practice, is an intentional activity in which the practitioner is routinely at risk of exposure. Workers who are exposed to radiation during the course of their duties include, for example, x-ray technicians in hospitals, nuclear power plant workers, and researchers who use radioactive materials. The practices in which they engage include taking x rays of patients, running a nuclear reactor, or making measurements using radioactive sources. These occupationally exposed individuals are trained to appreciate the hazards of radiation, acknowledge those risks as a condition of employment, and follow safety precautions in order to minimize their exposure.
Any practice may have exposures that do not routinely occur (such as accidents). If these have not yet happened, they are called potential exposures. Both the probability of such events happening and the magnitude of expected radiation doses can be calculated in planning responses. These also should be considered in the introduction and management of new practices. If an accident actually happens, interventions are taken to reduce exposure.
An intervention is an action that one takes to reduce a radiation exposure (often to other individuals or groups) from specific radiation sources by (ICRP, 1993):
reducing or removing the existing sources,
improving the reliability of the existing sources,
modifying pathways,7 or
reducing the number of exposed individuals.
An example of an intervention would be the response of the firefighters who fought to control the fire in the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident. Often an intervention is associated with an emergency action.

[end snip]


[link to www.nap.edu]

And our glorious and hard-working Friends of Tepco
are starting with the Fundament
for the big Garbage burning Facility .

[link to photo.tepco.co.jp]

i'm really hoping the 'friends' part is sarcasm.....


and BAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAH... all the stuff is 'simulated'...

so are their radiological releases.......
:hentaidoom:

You are a Simulation too, a unnecessary one.

The Plant is real and F'Shima is real too:
[link to www.tepco.co.jp]

@Cploerp,
i don't mind what you think because you are absolute clueless about F'Shima!

show me your chronology, rather than rants on a page at me?....

Cploerp,

People have Eyes and just need to watch this page to see the Reality!

Now go on and cry for help, you childish Dumba..
you have not even the Balls to fight like a Human
because you are a Wimp!

Cblubberploerp,

than don't play the Housemaid.

if you stopped offering to bend over with your shaved brown apple, in a school skirt, i wouldn't want to...


wait!?.. does that glow in the dark?????.....

Funds from disaster relief budget given to nuclear operators

TOKYO — Funds set aside to help earthquake, tsunami and nuclear victims have been allocated to power companies, officials in Japan said Friday, a move that could fuel fury among people who lost their homes.

About 10 billion yen of the 25 trillion yen pledged for disaster recovery over several years has been reserved to offset costs for utility companies that were ordered to shut nuclear power plants in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster.

The news comes after it was revealed public cash had been used in areas seemingly unaffected by the natural catastrophe, including on beefing up security for Japan’s controversial whale hunt and on paying people to count turtles.

Officials said Friday that around 2 billion yen had already been given to Chubu Electric Power to help it make interest payments on bank loans taken out to fund the spiraling cost of fossil fuels.
[link to www.japantoday.com]
.

that is just super friendly news.....

Japan made secret promise with U.S. to restart pluthermal nuclear program
A Japanese prime ministerial envoy secretly promised to the United States that Japan would resume its controversial "pluthermal" program, using light-water reactors to burn plutonium, according to documents obtained by the Mainichi.

The secret promise was made by Hiroshi Ogushi, then parliamentary secretary of the Cabinet Office, to Daniel Poneman, deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, during Ogushi's visit to the United States on behalf of then Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda in September last year.

The revelation comes as Japan's pluthermal project remains suspended in the wake of the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant disaster due to safety concerns. The fact that a Japanese official promised to the U.S. to implement such a controversial project without a prior explanation to the Japanese public is expected to stir up controversy.

According to the official documents obtained by the Mainichi, upon being pressed to reduce the amount of plutonium in Japan that could be diverted to military use, Ogushi told Poneman that Japan would burn plutonium in plutonium-thermal (pluthermal) reactors. The then ruling Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) was in the final stages of formulating its nuclear energy policy at the time.

Source and more: [link to mainichi.jp]

Fugggin Governmental Americanos!

The Japanese parliamentary secretary made the promise without informing the people first.
Business as usual. Why are you surprised..?

because your not paid for disinformation, and being apologetic about the worlds worst nuclear disaster bug.....