Saturday, February 23, 2013

Knowledge Remains Sketchy in Japan After Nearly 2 Years from the Start of #Fukushima Nuclear Accident

Is Fukushima twice as bad, or four times as bad, as Chernobyl?

I've found two sure-fire ways to lose my Japanese Twitter followers. First is to tweet something critical of the current US president whatever the topic is, and second is to tweet something that doubts the orthodoxy commonly held almost as a sacred truth by people who are extremely afraid of radiation exposure (or so they say, while many continue to live and eat as before).

This one is the latter. And the particular orthodoxy is: "The amount of radioactive materials released by the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant accident is several times larger than the amount released by the Chernobyl nuclear accident." I've seen tweets saying "four times", and a more modest "twice as much".

From the tweet that was retweeted today by one of people I follow:


Japan will be visited by a far worse disaster [than Chernobyl]. Because the amount of radioactive materials released is twice as much as in Chernobyl, plus Eat and Support campaign, and disaster debris

I was at a loss for a moment as to where this person got this idea, so I googled the part of her tweet about the amount of radioactive materials. Up came a number of links that tried to figure out what this grave-sounding news was about, that radioactive materials released from Fukushima were several times greater than those released from Chernobyl. The date of these links were mostly May 2012. I followed one link, and the linked page mentioned a Yomiuri English article.

Then I suddenly remembered. Of course. Number in iodine equivalence, cesium-137 times 40, to compare in the INES event scale.

It was the English article by Yomiuri Shinbun on May 24, 2012, in which the writer or the editor edited out the word "iodine equivalent", out of carelessness and/or ignorance. As it stands, after the correction, the article does say "iodine equivalence":

TEPCO estimate sees more radiation than NISA's

Tokyo Electric Power Co. has estimated the total amount of radioactive substances discharged from its Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant measured 760,000 terabecquerels in iodine equivalence [this was missing in the original version], 1.6 times the estimate released by the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency in February.


The amount of radioactive substances discharged in the Chernobyl accident in 1986 was 5.2 million terabecquerels. ...

The version that did not have "iodine equivalence" was then quoted by ENENEWS on May 24, 2012, and RT put out an article the same day with the headline "Cesium-137 contamination: Fukushima amounts to four Chernobyls".

Some Japanese people then translated these two articles and a host of other English articles based on these two back into Japanese, and wrote in blogs, tweets "See, Fukushima is 4 times worse than Chernobyl! English language news says so! TEPCO is lying, the Japanese government is lying!"

Yomiuri English corrected the mistake after I wrote to them a few days after the original article was published, but the damage was done by then. (Unlike Mainichi English, Yomiuri English actually responded to my email and corrected the article.) But many people in Japan, like the person who tweeted above, continue to believe in the "Japanse translation" of the English articles based on a faulty Yomiuri English article based on Yomiuri's Japanese article based on TEPCO's press release.

After nearly two years, this, "Fukushima is 4 times as bad as Chernobyl", remains a basis of people's knowledge of the accident.

(And sure enough, after I tweet about iodine equivalence, my twitter followers decrease.)


Here's what I wrote on May 26, 2012:

and on May 24, 2012, with TEPCO's press release in English:

Yomiuri English incorrectly says Fukushima released 760,000 terabecquerels in iodine equivalence, TEPCO says 900,000 terabecquerels in iodine equivalence. Without converting cesium-137 to iodine equivalent, Fukushima released 10,000 terabequerels of cesium-137, Chernobyl released 85,000 terabecquerels.


Anonymous said...

You have to remember too that there is uncertainty about the total Chernobyl release. No one has got inside the ruins to accurately measure what was left unreleased.

arevamirpal::laprimavera said...

Yes, that too.

John Bernhart said...

And as a non-Japanese permanent resident of Japan who believes the scientific research that the dangers of radiation are linear so even the most minimal exposure has at least a minimal risk and who has watched Japanese government officials (1) lie about risk, (2) refuse to compensate victims, and (3) do their utmost to spread (or more kindly, not limit) the radioactive pollution throughout Japan, it does not really matter how many Chernobyl equivalents. I don't want 2 or 4. I don't want 1/2 or 1/4. I want ZERO equivalents. In a way, I feel pity for Japanese officials because scientifically there is simply no way to clean up Japan and no way to contain the ongoing problem sort of creating a dead zone that covers much of Japan. I can assure you, I worry every time I take a bite of rice that my Kyushu rice was not misleadingly labeled. And the production codes on dairy products, etc. are unfathomable to me. In Kyushu, most of the food products in the supermarket have a Tokyo or Chiba address and no indication where the food stuff was actually sourced. So I am eating more Chinese, American, and European food. But is that safer considering Hanford? Rocky Mountain Flats? Chernobyl? Three-Mile Island? The only true scientific fact is that the global food chain is contaminated, so what am I to do? I think that is why most Japanese I know have their heads in the sand. My eyes are wide open and I have no solutions, only constant fears and stresses.

Anonymous said...

Conversely destroyed reactor at the Chernobyl people visited.
in Fukushima still do not know where the fuel and in what condition it is.
But really more cesium in Fukushima, not at Chernobyl.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, so what is the actual comparision of Chernobyl vs Fukushima releases? I'm still confused after reading this article.

Anonymous said...

Well that writing really cleared things up, about as clear as mud. If you were trying to add to the obfuscation just like TEPCO or the NRC or the nuclear industry as a whole then you really confused everybody to the point of disinterest. What were those final numbers?

To this day I read disputes of how much of the core burned at Chernobyl and that means vaporized. How much of the core remains behind, 10%? 50? 75%? Usually adults will say when the lid blew and then fuel burned for 10 days straight that at least 25% of the core left the building which means 75% remains left in the flows. That is a minimum. Some argue 100% of the core burned.

The really smart nuke engineers in the industry who know exactly how many heat units a fuel rod contains, new or used, and volts are available in a fuel rod or what percentage of all daughter byproducts are produce (including amounts of plutonium) from the original fuel source (usually uranium) at any stage of a fuel rods lifetime, suddenly go mum producing only silence when it comes to fallout from a NPP, like they don't know.

Spent fuel rods have more crap (nuclear waste poisons) in them than working core fuel rods and (4) SFPs were boiling away at Daiichi besides (3) cores melting down which are still adding to the total of fallout by the minute. Cold shutdown is an excuse for a cutoff point. Without containment radionuclide releases continue.

Doesn't help that a larger Fukushima population is affected by fallout compared the the sparsely populated areas around Chernobyl. You could have less fallout but more affected due to the people concentrations.

Chernobyl doesn't have the advantage bio-accumulation of radionuclides in the ocean food chain either.

Either in death and/or suffering, Fukushima will end up dwarfing Chernobyl.

Anonymous said...

That is the first thing I think of when I wake up in the morning, how many twits are going to follow me today?

kintaman said...

@John Bernhart.

Thank you for your post. So sorry to hear of your stresses in daily life. This is exactly why I immediately made plans for us to leave Tokyo and then Japan entirely after 3.11.

We had originally considered moving southward but the food supply was a major concern for me for Japan. Given Japan's history of mislabeling and deceptions to do with food (expiration dates, origins)it was one of the major reasons we chose to leave.

Have you considered picking up and leaving Japan entirely?

Also, do you find you are one of the few that feels this way in your area? Do you get the eye roll from others (Japanese/foreigner) when you talk about your concerns and what is still going on at Fukushima Daiichi?

Anonymous said...

If you are living in Japan then you have no choice but buy a scintillator testing system and learn about how to test for radiation in food for example... check out Bee research scintillators ...amazing deal at 900 Aus dollars which used to cost 5 times that much before.

Anonymous said...

heres the link for that bee research thing


Atomfritz said...

The actual releases can only be guesstimated even by the most advanced computing models, and the uncertainty margin is very, very large.

There can be said only a few things with some certainty:

It's often overlooked that at Fukushima three medium-sized reactors released their whole noble gas inventories.
At Chernobyl it was only one large reactor's noble gas inventory. So, in regards of noble gas releases, which don't precipitate locally, but distribute worldwide, Fukushima was certainly about as twice as catastrophic as Chernobyl.

This could be similiarly valid for a part of the low-boiling-point radioactive substances inventory, which could escape through the vents, and permanently changed the radiation background level when it fell out over America, for example. (Btw, this is the reason why the US government does a new complete survey of the radiation background nationwide)

On the other hand, Chernobyl reactor's graphite fire blazed for days, creating a heavy five-kilometer-high updraft plume.
This resulted in a massive particle release including large quantities of heavy elements and probably much more evaporation of low-melting stuff, which was rained down or condensed as fallout over large distances, heavily contaminating numerous distant large spots of Europe and Asia, some of them thousands of kilometers apart.
Compared with Chernobyl, the particle releases at Fukushima were quite limited, mostly through the explosions, venting and steaming, substantially limiting the radiation damage in its vicinity in comparison to Chernobyl.
This is the reason why the many people consider Fukushima a minor accident compared to Chernobyl.

I'd just prefer to say that both Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents cannot easily be compared because of their differences, except that they were catastrophes with a worldwide impact.
Comparing them would probably be like to quarrel about whether getting shot by a shotgun or by a pistol is more inconvenient.

Anonymous said...

Agree..the end result is the same-you and your families are ill with no good outcomes. Its just the radiation disease is so insidious..and difficult to diagnose. All one has to do is see some of the recorded last moments of some of the "liquidators" to see how terrible it becomes...its not just "one day of the flu" it is a slow and painful downward health spiral. Heaven help us..people should look at the pre-history geoglyphs in Peru, one shows a man kneeling, hands out, crying to the gods. Those people just disappeared; we are going down the same path.

Anonymous said...

>You have to remember too that there is uncertainty about the total Chernobyl release. No one has got inside the ruins to accurately measure what was left unreleased.

There have been quite a lot of studies since the 90s. Check this documentary called "Inside Chernobyl's Sarcophagus":

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

It is simply not true that cesium from Fukushima was greater than from Chernobyl. Cores didn't blow up like in Chernobyl, and SFP inventory is known.

Anonymous said...

This paper goes into quite a few of the estimates on amounts of radiation released by the accident. I agree with you ExSKF, people throw a lot of numbers around without knowing what they are talking about!

Powerful Lies: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster And The Radioactive Effects On Human Health

Atomfritz said...

anon 11:29, I agree... most of the Fuku cesium probably is in the drywell walls and dissolved in water, while much the Chernobyl cesium got vaporized and released in open air. Same for strontium and the like.

Indeed, this phenomenon of grotesquely increasing figures is interesting.

After WW II there were wild estimates about the number of Jews that died in Nazi camps.
Newspapers were racing for the most sensational news.
The published estimates rose and rose.
This continued until the highest numbers reported in the media exceeded more than 20 millions.
But then more and more people noticed that this number was already a multiple of the number of Jews who lived in whole Europe before WW II.

This was quite obvious and everybody understood this easily when pointed at.

Similiar phenomena exist with the Fukushima releases.
Indeed sad that the absurd exaggerations there are far less obvious.

IntelAgent said...

Fkn idiots... Fkn 3rd world know nothing piece of shtt.
P.fkng S, Stop The Fission in the fkng molten cores with neutron poisons ie; "lead & tin" A fkng Holes! I can see that they're fkng fissioning!!!!!
In addendum japan's dead, should've stopped the fission, day 1.
Is 5-10 times "5million to 10 million bq/m2«notice it's not bq's km2, yeah, oh shtt is right"chernoble evacuation zone contamination livable? Well... It's factually proven it isn't.
/also, that 5 to ten million bq's a m2, that's just cesium137, outputs of cesium 134 are nearly double that when reactors and fuel pools spew, not to mention that Americium which turns into plutonium, and plutonium are likely adding another million of 2 million bq's a m2 which everyone is too COWARDLY "yeah, it's the truth, wanna fight about it?" to test for, so do the math = roughly 20-22million bq's m2 200 km's of course not spread evenly, god. The reactors are still adding to that. Staying = DEATH proven/ factually backed up fukushima and surrounding areas»
Knowing this, if someone in Japan KNOWS THIS OK!!! and stays, well I can say they just don't give a profoundly offensive expletive. Ignorance in this will end in death, no if, and's or but's, you can bet your life on it, I'm factually right according to chernoble's fallout zones human statistics. Save life or kill it, there is no fkng middle ground here, what am I trying to do? What are you trying to do? Stay die, leave maybe live "'cause you have plutonium in you" PROOOOVEN!
No1listens, lalala I can't hear you... You've been effing warned/armed with Factually Valid information, wtf more do you want or need, change your own diaper, all I offer is life saving intelligence. Take it or die, your life is in YOUR HANDS NOT MINE. Your life has been stolen, I'm trying to give you a chance to cheat the cheaters and live it. Lies are not factual life saving/giving intelligence, facts and truth are ffs. But, but, but.... "no but's, it happened, to leave is to live and that is that when in comes to long term wide area dispersal of fissionable nuclear materials through fission and fire." PERIOD. Not your fault,theirs, leave! Stockholm syndrome, you have no allegiance nor owe anything, nor support those who ever try to harm or kill you, you fkng remember that. Fk
I just watched a supposedly democratic nation kill it's civilian population, think about that.

Anonymous said...

I wonder why so many crazy people are so fixated on the Fukushima accident. You can almost feel the foam at their mouths when they post. Shouldn't they be back talking about chemtrails or the illuminati at this point?

Anonymous said...

"IntelAgent" must be our old Finnish troll, arisen from a long hibernation.

Anonymous said...

My educated guess is that Fukushima has released approximately 100X the radiation that Chernobyl has and the danger is about 10,000x.

Chernobyl was a relatively new reactor, and no spent fuel was involved.

At Fukushima the reactors are 40 years old, and there's hundreds of tons of spent fuel involved. At Fukushima, they've lost control of more than 100X the amount of nuclear fuel that was lost control of in Chernobyl.

Furthermore, the Chernobyl fuel did not contain the deadly plutonium that the Fukushima fuel did and more importantly, did not contain any MOX fuel made from nano size powder. The MOX powder is the most dangerous element of the entire Fukushima meltdown - if it was released to the atmosphere, and I believe it was, then those in the area will suffer massive health problems .

Also compounding the problem are two other factors. First, Chernobyl is located in a relatively rural area, with a medium sized city of Kiev within contamination distance.

Fukushima is located on the coast of Japan, which is highly populated, and has one of the largest cities in the world within contamination distance. This alone has and will make the human and economic impact much, much greater.

Finally, the worst compounding factor at Fukushima is the poor response and coverup of the problem. The Soviets responded quickly and decisively to the problem - whether you agree or disagree with the politics, they immediately evacuated the area - entire towns of people were relocated, they committed massive resources to the containment and cleanup of the plant - the sarcophagus was designed built and installed in less than a year.

In contrast, the story at Japan has been to deny a problem exists, be slow to evacuate people, allow and encourage people to return, commit minimum resources to the containment and cleanup, and let the nuclear fuel burn openly for two years (while Chernobyl burned for two weeks), and to dump radiation into the ocean.

These last two I believe will cause Fukushima to eventually become about 1 million times as deadly as Chernobyl was - if not more. I believe it will eventually destroy Japan's economy - as it obviously already is - notice Japan has declining GDP for 3 quarters now - do you wonder why? I don't.


Anonymous said...

James, throwing the numbers like 100 times, 1 million times doesn't help you gain any credibility.

Chernobyl sarcophagus was possible because of the particular type of the reactor (coolant was graphite), and because of the fact that the core exploded and vaporized, and spread all over the place. In Fukushima, they are BWR, the cores mostly remain in RPV, CV or inside the building, which need constant cooling. Sarcophagus is not possible, even dangerous.

Nuclear fuel burn openly? Where? You mean SFPs? I guess if you think the photos provided by TEPCO and the media are all photoshopped and falsified, anything is possible.

Anonymous said...

Hey IntelAgent! How ya been dude? Hows the weather in Finland? You've been studying up on your English grammar, I see. What, no more texting lingo? Your only problem now is the erroneous spelling of expletives.

You are such a drama QUEEN.

SouthJerseyJoey said...

I missed the Finnish Troll, especially his parting words which were so endearing---"DIE DIE DIE".

Happy belated Birthday, Areva.

I don't think Chernobyl and Fuku can ever be properly compared because there are too many variables and to little disclosure, or too many lies also.

Anonymous said...

"I can see that they're fkng fissioning!!!!!"

Yeah, you and that other brainiac Karen Sherry Brackett.

Anonymous said...

anon 11:23 am.

Do you think I care about credibility? This isn't about me - it's about the truth.

The truth: Fukushima had more than 200X the nuclear material onsite than the single melted reactor at Chernobyl, and they've lost control of at least half of it.

Do you not know that the nuclear fuel has left the containment? #3 and #4 blew nuke fuel skyward. The other 2 let it burn into the ground in China Syndrome.

And yes, anyone with knowledge of the situation knows that there have been nearly continuous fission reactions for two years now - spewing more and more radiation.

They can't get close to #1 or #3. They can't clean up the rubble between #3 and #4 or between #4 and the turbine building. Nuclear fuel has been found physically blown kilometers away from the plant. The USS Ronald Reagan drove through a nuclear cloud 100 miles away from the plant.

Do you dispute my statement that Fukushima was in a populated area?

Do you dispute my statement that they delayed evacuations compared to Chernobyl?

Do you dispute the fact that the one of the largest cities in the world is 140Km away and has received wave after wave of radiation fallout?

How could it not be 100X as bad?

Yes, my estimate that it could get 1 million times as bad could be off - it could be twice that...


Anonymous said...

James, you are hallucinating.

They are getting close to Reactors 1 and 3. In fact, there are workers every day, wearing tungsten vests, to observe work on Reactor 3.

Yes I dispute the one of largest cities in the world is 140 kilometers away. Tokyo is 200 kilometers away.

Fukushima is sparsely populated, compared to other parts of Japan particularly to the south and west.

Reactors 3 and 4 blew nuclear fuel skyward? What nuclear fuel? From what? Other than wacky sites in the US, where's the proof? The so-called mushroom cloud?

Anonymous said...

Nuke fuel got blown kilometres away from the plant? There should be major hot spots where are they?

Anonymous said...


after 2 years they are "getting close" to the reactors that are in "cold shutdown" and not spewing radiation? and never lost containment? and didn't blow nuke fuel out the top?

- but only if they wear tungsten vests right?????

Got it...

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought they had to wear tungsten vest because the radiation was so bad it would kill them if they got close.

I'm sure according to you and Tepco it's a piece of exercise equipment. You know; gotta keep those workers in good physical condition, so let's build some tungsten suits for them to wear, then they can spend more time working on the reactors and less time at the gym working out...


Anonymous said...

James, I don't know where you got your information. Clearly not anywhere near this blog. If it was ex-vessel explosion, workers wouldn't be able to be on Reactor 3 operating floor even with tungsten vest.

No one said anything about the bogus "cold shutdown".

Pistoffius said...

I second that If it had been a core excursion in #3 the building would not be approachable let alone have guys with tungsten vests running around on the operating floor.

I hate the nuke industry for their never ending lies and willful ambiguity but am also starting to get very annoyed at certain insistent ill-informed anti-nuke fabulists that make dumbasses out of themselves. You, sir, damage our(anti-nuke) credibility. More so the Finnish troll.

Anonymous said...

I kind of like Finnish troll. He's funny. I saw on the other post some "grammar/translation" vigilante with nothing better to do. Back to good ol' days....

Anonymous said...

I admit to secretly liking the Finnish troll too. He's so over the top you have to stop yourself from busting a gut laughing and he's got a short fuse which makes him so much fun to poke at. I miss the fruitcake rants about Jesuits.

There are circumstances where grammar nazi-ism is warranted and deserved but not usually towards a highly regarded blog owner's articles.

Anonymous said...

Meh, he's funny but a feeble ineffective troll. There seems to be a lack of good trolls floating around the net lately and the more intelligent ones at the very least know how to form coherent sentences and spell common vulgarities properly. The whole point of trolling is to inflame readers until they lose it and make a spectacle of themselves but our sporadic resident troll seems to be doing that to himself. Funny indeed.

Majia's Blog said...

I find it amazing that some commentators here haven't read about the hot spots and plutonium found miles from the plant

I also find it interesting that some regard TEPCO as a reliable source for info

Radioisotopes bioaccumulate and bio magnify in the food chain

One alpha particle can sever DNA

Anonymous said...


What do you suggest, they all move to the Japanese Mizhuo Plateau or Showa Station in Antarctica where they can get fresh fish for sushi and kill off the rest of the whales for delicious traditional snack food, er, I mean scientific research. Firewood is nonexistent, but hey, the ancient Inuit lived without fire for quite some time. I hear penguin makes for good eating too.

Anonymous said...


< Knowing this, if someone in Japan KNOWS THIS OK!!! and stays, well I can say they just don't give a profoundly offensive expletive. >

What do you suggest, they all move to the Japanese Mizhuo Plateau or Showa Station in Antarctica where they can get fresh fish for sushi and kill off the rest of the whales for delicious traditional snack food, er, I mean scientific research. Firewood is nonexistent, but hey, the ancient Inuit lived without fire for quite some time. I hear penguin makes for good eating too.

Anonymous said...

Majia, could you please cite the articles you are referring to. Thanx.

arevamirpal::laprimavera said...

Plutonium measured after the accident is no greater than background from the atmospheric testing in most locations.

Of course many people simply do not believe any data coming out of the government or TEPCO.

Anonymous said...

In the mean time, at Fukushima the reaktor cores are venting radioactive isotopes in Open Air all over the planet since march 12 2011. I would say Fukushima is at an "8" at the INES scale regardless what others are saying, it's that bad. The French were right, they should adjust the ines scale so Fukushima outclasses Chernobyl accident

Majia's Blog said...

On 7 April 2011, The New York Times reported that broken fuel rods were found outside of containment at the Daiichi site: ‘Broken pieces of fuel rods have been found outside of Reactor No. 2, and are now being covered with bulldozers... The pieces may be from rods in the spent-fuel pools that were flung out by hydrogen explosions.’ Fragments of rods were found up to one mile from the plant. In June 2011, The Japan Times reported a finding by Kanazawa University that plutonium from Fukushima was found in the town of Okuma about 1.7 km away from the plant's front gate. Subsequently it was reported that plutonium from Fukushima was detected in ten locations in Fukushima Prefecture.

H. Tabuchi and A. Pollack (7 April 2011) ‘Japan is Struck by Powerful Aftershock’, The New York Times,, date accessed 8 April 2011.
J. Glanz and W. Broad (5 April 2011) ‘U.S. Sees Array of New Threats at Japan’s Nuclear Plant’, The New York Times,, date accessed 6 April 2011.
‘Plutonium Found in Soil at Okuma’ (7 June 2011), The Japan Times,, date accessed 7 June 2011.
‘Plutonium Traces Detected at 10 Locations in Fukushima’ (23 August 2012), The Japan Times,, date accessed 23 August 2012

Majia's Blog said...

A study released in Scientific Reports published by Nature titled ‘Isotopic evidence of plutonium release into the environment from the Fukushima DNPP accident’ by Zheng et al found that a wide array of highly volatile fission products were released, including 129mTe, 131I, 134Cs, 136Cs and 137Cs, which were all found to be ‘widely distributed in Fukushima and its adjacent prefectures in eastern Japan.’ The study also found evidence of actinides, particularly Pu isotopes, on the ground northwest and south of the Fukushima DNPP in the 20–30 km zones. The study called for long-term investigation of Pu and 241Am dose estimates because of findings of ‘high activity ratio of 241Pu/239+240Pu (> 100) from the Fukushima DNPP accident.’ The study concluded that in comparison to Chernobyl, the Fukushima accident ‘had a slightly higher 241Pu/239Pu atom ratio, but lower ratio of 240Pu/239Pu.’ Unit 3 was seen as the likely source for the high Pu detections.

Majia's Blog said...

My book, Fukushima and the Privatization of Risk, will be published this year by an academic publisher.

It includes a review of all the scientific research I have found about Fukushima, as well as the health effects of radiation.

Dr. Majia Holmer Nadesan

Anonymous said...

Are you serious? Since when is an article in the New York Times proof of nuclear fuel rods strewn about? That they melted in situ is much more logical. On and off fissioning is improbable after all this time but not impossible. Pu detection is slightly higher than background but then it is possibly contamination from before the Fukushima incident since it is close to the plant.

"The pieces MAY BE from rods in the spent-fuel pools that were flung out by hydrogen explosions.’ " NYT

"MAY BE" is far from "IS". Read it properly.

Majia's Blog said...

Look at the Scientific Reports article I cited.

Moreover, plutonium has been found in some of that radioactive 'black dirt' in Japan.

Plutonium was also found in Lithuania, which was fingered as from Fukushima in relation to radiocesium ratios.

Anonymous said...

Majia, NY Times article quotes an unnamed western nuclear executive. Sorry that's no authority.

Scientific Reports is like PLOS ONE, not the same as more rigorous peer-reviewed magazines.

Anonymous said...


Thanks for providing the references. I was merely hallucinating, but your facts are going to be much more difficult to ignore.

Plutonium is one of the most highly controlled substances on earth - that's because it's very deadly in even nanoscopic amounts, and extremely destructive in somewhat small amounts.

There was less than 7 kilograms of plutonium in the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki in WWII and it is estimated that only 1 KG of it fissioned.

It is possible that the explosion of Fukushima #3 alone might have released 300-500 Kg of plutonium - in nano powder form on March 14th, 2011. No telling what was released when #4 exploded the next day.

It's a highly controlled substance, except if you are in Fukushima - it's readily available in the soil - oh and apparently Lithuania too, and everywhere in between.

Yes I know, this includes me on the Eastern Edge of the US and Majia in the Southwest US.

It also includes where my grandchildren reside - which makes me very angry, and unwilling to let the shills spin the truth away and continue to poison the planet with radiation.


Anonymous said...

Now you are hallucinating about nuclear shills being here(the Finnish troll is real, though). Different anons writing and replying in these comments for sure but I would bet all are anti-nuke, including me.

You don't want to acknowledge that the references provided are not accurate verified references at all. The New York Times? Oh come on...

Pistoffius said...

Google "New York Times Bad Journalism"

I hope you didn't quote them on anything in your book. :-(( Articles are written by regular reporters so it's best to take what they scribble with a generous grain of salt. That goes for all news articles.

Anonymous said...

James, your time will be better spent worrying about spent fuel pools in the UNITED STATES.

Anonymous said...

The concentrations of plutonium mentioned in the article by Scientific Reports are, like laprimavera said, similar to those which were already there before the accident (there are traces of plutonium all over the planet because of the atmospheric tests era and Chernobyl.) The only exception is Pu-241, which has a shorter half-life and has be a contribution from March 11.

For total releases, they estimate up to 2.4 billions bq of Pu-239 + Pu-240 and 260 billions bq of Pu-241, which is around 1 gram and 0.1 grams respectively distributed around the area closer to the plant (this compares to several kilos of each isotope released after Chernobyl).

Anonymous said...

I see, you are the same Majia that is not sure Arto Lauri is nuts and you have published a book. Does it include betatorches?

Anonymous said...

Nuclear shill tactics 101:

Tactic #1: Demand a source -" Where did you get your information Majia?" This tactic is used for 2 purposes; first, if a source is given, then the shills can immediately discredit the source - "don't you know the NY times is not credible". ; and second, they can profile the person with the type of information they are gathering and keep a list of sources that must be discredited.

Because of this I never provide a source, although my data is quite accurate. First off, I tend to ignore those who try to argue without knowing the basic facts of the situation - or want to hide them. Many times my source is personal observation. They hate this, because they have to resort to an ad hominem (see tactic #3) to discredit a personal observation, and then it sounds like a "he said she said" kind of thing with the shill highly exposed.

Tactic #2 - Ignore the information. Majia provided at least three sources, with multiple levels of information supporting her position. The shills attacked here entire argument by attackiing one of her sources - the NY Times. They totally ignore the amount of nuclear fuel lost at Fukushima, because it doesn't support their rhetoric. They totally ignore a Nature source that supports Fukushima plutonium coming from Reactor #3 - because it blows their argument up like a mushroom cloud.

Tactic #3 Ad hominem - attack the person, if you have no ability to discredit their idea. Verbally attach them to conspiracy theories, known crazy people, call them "hallicinatory", wacko, whatever it takes. Attack some previous idea and try to link it to this one: see the post just above this one for a classic case of this.

If this doesn't seem to be working, act condescending; tell the person what they should be thinking - "James, your time will be better spent worrying about spent fuel pools in the UNITED STATES" (as in; "you are causing me to have to work to cover up your tracks, please go somewhere else")

Tactic #4 Bury the thread - If someone posts an idea that you cannot refute and you don't want folks to see - bury it. For example if your nemesis posts something at 1:32 pm, then log in under multiple names and comment at 1:53, 2:44, 2:54, 3:06 and 3:32 pm - 5 posts in 1 hour 45 minutes on a week old thread that averages a post every few hours.

Tip for all you truth seekers: This is the surest sign of shills at work - and it means something really juicy lies just above the barrage - look for idea "burying" and you will find the truth just above it...

You see, this isn't a game. This is reality. We shouldn't spend time sparring about what the truth is - we should spend time fixing the problems - whatever they are. The perpetrators of this misinformation are simply fooling themselves. In the end the reality will emerge, unscathed from verbal gymnastics.


arevamirpal::laprimavera said...

James, please, no "shill" talk.

Anonymous said...

To call anyone who doesn't agree with you as "shill" is not productive for further discussion.

Anonymous said...

I will henceforth refrain from using the "s" word.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. Factual and constructive disagreement leads to improved understanding and is welcomed.

The tactics described above are not factual and not disagreeing. They internet gymnastics intended to confuse the facts and understanding, not enhance them.

I've said from the start, I welcome folks to prove me wrong. I will admit my mistakes and miscalculations readily - I'm happy to, because it will bring me closer to reality, and that's where I want to be.

However you'd better have facts and figures that are true and accurate and make sense in the context of what has occurred, because I don't forget what I've observed easily, and I won't accept something that is created from thin air.

I can smell garbage data coming in pretty quickly.


Anonymous said...

James, garbage data comes from so-called anti-nuclear faction, too. In fact, often there is NO data whatsoever coming from that faction. They just say it, and we're supposed to take their words.

Anonymous said...

Those, more than anti-nuclear seem to be anti-data.

Majia's Blog said...

Detections of plutonium in Lithuania available here G. Lujanienė , S. Byčenkienė, P.P. Povinec, M. Gera M. (27 December 2011) ‘Radionuclides from the Fukushima Accident in the Air Over Lithuania: Measurement and Modeling Approaches’, Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 114, 71-80.

Anonymous said...

Good grief, 5 posts in an hour is not unusual when people are in heated "answer mode" towards comments, especially if there are multiple people answering. Get over yourself and your genius deduction methods, dude. I guess all the birthday wishes Areva got one after the other is all the same person too.

Nobody is disputing the detection of plutonium, just the quantity, provenance and source of distribution. The Fuku incident isn't the only possible source. I know you will ignore these realities. Has your back yard in the US been tested?

AnotherAnonymous said...

I resent being called a shill when all I do is frequently refresh ATOM (right hand column, click subscribe, click comments) to keep up with all replies to all articles at all times and hop in whenever I see action or interest.

Whatever happened to the rest of the plutonium in the Nagasaki bomb? What about the plutonium in other bombs around the planet? The world is a small place when we're talking about nuke fallout or contamination. It's not so easy to pinpoint source. You'd have to use a type of technique similar to carbon dating but on radionuclides, their daughter products, ratios.... If it has been done then nobody's saying anything.

Anonymous said...

I don't know why James' own elaborate shill detecting pointers don't apply to himself; specifically, he does not want to admit the New York Times is not the most credible source of news. I smell hypocrisy.

Post a Comment