Tuesday, December 20, 2011

#Radiation in Japan: Map of "Black Rain" Finally Made 66 Years After Hiroshima Bombing

Speaking of RERF - Radiation Effect Research Foundation - which succeeded the notorious ABCC - Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission - in 1975, RERF just came up with the area map of so-called "black rain" after the Hiroshima bombing. They had the survey data of 13,000 people all along, but sat on it for 66 years.

And surprise, surprise. The map shows the area where the "black rain" - radioactive fallout that fell with the rain - fell to be much, much bigger than what the government has admitted so far.

And not at all surprisingly, Toshiteru Okubo, chairman of RERF, says "Personally I do not think this data is important. It's hard to believe the black rain caused an acute radiation sickness anyway."

The chairman is right. People who have said they suffer the effect of radioactive fallout that they received by the black rain are not suffering an acute radiation sickness that would have caused them to die in a short period of time after the exposure.

From Yomiuri Shinbun, local Hiroshima version (12/21/2011):


On December 20, Radiation Effect Research Foundation, a cooperative Japan-US research organization (RERF, Minami-ku in Hiroshima City and in Nagasaki City) disclosed the distribution map of "black rain" that fell after the nuclear bomb exploded over Hiroshima. The map was created from the survey data of about 13,000 people who were exposed to the black rain. Citizens' groups calling for more assistance for the bomb victims are hopeful that this may result in more areas becoming eligible for assistance. On the other hand, RERF says "There is no new discovery", insisting [the map] would not help in understanding health damages. But it is likely that the data will be submitted to a study group of the national government, and discussions may ensue as to whether the support areas should be revised.


Masaaki Takano, chairman of the Council of "Black Rain" Atomic Bomb Victims, praised the disclosure of the data as significant. He is hopeful that it will be used to expand the support areas, as the data shows the black rain fell outside the current support areas.


In July 2010, Hiroshima Prefecture and Hiroshima City submitted a request to the Ministry of Health and Labor to expand the support areas based on the survey of 27,147 people including atomic bomb victims, as the rain fell in much wider areas than the designated support area. Commenting on today's disclosure of the distribution map, a Hiroshima City official said, "The map clearly shows the areas [where the rain fell] that are different from the existing support areas. It's valuable data, but we will wait to see how the national government will decide to use it."


RERF has already submitted the data to the Ministry of Health and Labor. The head of the section in the Ministry to support atomic bomb victims said, "We would like to consult with the chairman of the study group to decide whether the data (disclosed today) should be discussed in the stidy group."


On the other hand, Toshiteru Okubo, chairman of RERF, held a press conference at RERF [in Hiroshima City]. He pointed out that the timing of the precipitation and the amount could not be confirmed, and said "The survey was done on people who had a direct exposure to the atomic bomb near the hypocenter. To call this the data for black rain, the data is too simplistic and biased." He added, "Personally I don't think the data is that important. It's hard to believe the black rain caused an acute radiation illness anyway."

I couldn't find the map posted anywhere at the RERF site, which Chairman Okubo is holding in the picture below (from Yomiuri):


STeVe the JeW said...

-- "Personally I do not think this data is important. It's hard to believe the black rain caused an acute radiation sickness anyway."

a nation of geniuses.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I frequently when observing that the rain is black today, hurriedly throw on my shoes to walk as Hooyah Retarded Hormesis Man, chanting 'Hooyah' or 'Booyah' or w/e ..


Anonymous said...

if there were a hell - he would have reserved seating

Atomfritz said...

The scheme is the same as the current one.
Keep the data secret, save support money.
Leave the victims alone and let them help themselves.

I find it ashaming that the Japanese govt. and its institutions is still obedient to the occupation power and don't have the balls to just release this data classified as top secret by the US 66 years ago.

Anonymous said...

Hey laprimavera, are you sleeping or what: the new road-map! You will be writing your blog for the next 40 years:


Anonymous said...

Another video about the black rain data. It seems to be just the number of residents that got affected, no measurements of activity or isotopes detected?


Anonymous said...

Black rain had terrible mid and long term effects on people's health when it rained after only a few nuclear bomb explosions. French Nuclear Research Institute, affiliated and linked to the governement, estimated that Fukushima is equivalent to at least 1000 nuclear bombs (as those that exploded during tests in the pacific islands). Fukushima is much worst and because the black rain in the Pacific impacted people's heath in a very significant way, Fukushima's black rains will likely impair a lot of people's health.

Anonymous said...

Anon, any link for that study from the French Nuclear Research Institute? Because what you said sounds like serious bullshit.

Anonymous said...

"Playbook" limits liability/care to victims..sounds just like the BP Oil Spill scenario:
"Atomfritz said...

The scheme is the same as the current one.
Keep the data secret, save support money.
Leave the victims alone and let them help themselves."

Anonymous said...

There are plenty of links explaning this, with little efforts you can find many sources of information that explain this (it's been in the news since this summer). And you can't even deny or argue against it because that is what 154 trillion bequerels is equivalent to.


Fukushima seems to be worst then you have realised so far. I am surprise readers of these very good blogs about Fukushima still underestimate the level of contamination that is taking place. You can find plenty of experts assessing the real amounts of radionuclides output by Fukushima. There is a reason why they ranked it a 7 and are considering raising it even further. It is a very serious accident. Looking at all data (the real ones, not the one from UN or Japan officials) if you make the efforts.

Anonymous said...

The oceans may dish up the best surprises yet.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 9:00 AM:

I see no reference to the French Nuclear Research Institute. I do appreciate, however, the quality of the links you posted to prove your point.

One has a dog that apparently ate the page you were trying to link to.

The other one talks about Chris Busby, who said that air contamination from Fukushima in Tokyo was 1000 times higher than during the peak of the nuclear atmospheric testing era. This sounds about right, if only because he is comparing the measurements from a single air filter with what seems to be the monthly average during, probably, June of 1963. The problem is that fallout from the nuclear atmospheric testing era was not single event that peaked and faded, but rather continued for decades from 1945 to 1963 in case of Russian and American tests, and then until the 80s with Chinese and French tests and later on with India and Pakistan. Thus, the proper comparison would have to be based on total accumulated fallout, not "peaks." Talking about peaks in this case is, well, meaningless.

And the third links mentions the total fuel contained in the three cores plus all the fuel in the spent fuel pools? Certainly if all the fuel present in reactors 1 to 4 were to be released in the atmosphere or the Pacific it would not be pretty, but luckily that doesn't seem to be the case.

By the way, I see no reference to the French Nuclear Research Institute anywhere, did you see it in the page the dog ate?

Anonymous said...

Dude, you are getting tiresome. You need to go away to another blog's comment section, or maybe the physics forum.

Atomfritz said...

OT (skip if you like)

Sorry, I have the desire to rant a bit:

I also find this almost mockery when people always ask for links for things that can be found easily with search engines and then complain that the links provided are not sufficiently "scientific" and "neutral", i.e. without any criticism about nuclear energy.

This is the physicsforums style of driving out people that are critical in any way by behaving like helpless babies crying to be fed instead to use a search engine like an educated mature adult.

Everybody with a little nuclear knowledge knows that with "French Nuclear Research Institute" the IRSN is meant. (Additional spoiler: try irsn.fr !)

I know that the IRSN is not being loved by ardent pro-nuclearists like the physicsforums people because they don't like their assessments that are more competent, more realistic, honest and trustable than NISA, METI and NRC ones.

You can be assured that their assessment that more than 1000 times more radioactivity was released at Fukushima than at Hiroshima is very well-founded and not at all alarmistic.

But these physicsforums people (like that anonymous whose dog apparently accidentally ate the brain) anyway probably know better than the state experts of the most nuclear country of the world (80% of French electricity is from nuclear)...

Anonymous said...


If the links are so easy to find I wonder why the links provided happen to be completely unrelated to what anon was saying.

Instead of whining when people ask you to back up what you say, feel free to engage in any form of rational debate, instead of retorting to childish personal insults ("a dog ate you brain") or references to the authority of the sources. By the way, the IRSN studies have been well received in Physics Forums, so I don't know what you are talking about. Just check the OP of the thread about consequences outside of Fukushima: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=501637

Anonymous said...

So, you are someone from the Physics Forums. How could we tell?

Why not stay over there with like minded geniuses and leave the comment section of this blog alone.

Anonymous said...

I am not "someone from the Physics Forums," I just read the threads there.

I find it slightly amusing that some posters here are afraid of someone having a different opinion and wanting to exchange information.

Still waiting for the link to the IRSN study, apparently which proves either:

1) "that Fukushima is equivalent to at least 1000 nuclear bombs (as those that exploded during tests in the pacific islands)" ANONYMOUS

2) "that more than 1000 times more radioactivity was released at Fukushima than at Hiroshima" ATOMFRITZ

I see the total releases are going down by the minute. Eventually we will get to around 50 Hiroshima bombs, I think.

Anonymous said...

You're not wanting to exchange information, you're just calling bullshit left and right. Whatever did us misinformed people understand before your enlightening corrections?

hormesisthesis said...

--->I am not "someone from the Physics Forums,"

you should be.

Anonymous said...

I'm not calling bullshit left and right, I'm explaining the reasoning behind my opinion when a source is provided that doesn't back up what is being claimed.

Post a Comment