Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,181 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,870,025
Pageviews Today: 2,590,084Threads Today: 633Posts Today: 12,033
07:54 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 16693947
Canada
05/25/2012 11:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
That doesn't sound good:

[link to www.nytimes.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 16396510
Australia
05/25/2012 11:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
Oh noes.... TEPCO lied. I feel sooo betrayed.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 15146129
United States
05/25/2012 11:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
Just found out?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1295673
United States
05/25/2012 11:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
Just found out?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 15146129


Well, cut him a break. Canadians are not getting the truth from their agencies, either. HealthCanada stopped monitoring the radiation accurately early on in the crisis.

~
Blqathena

User ID: 16687174
United States
05/25/2012 11:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
bump
sample

User ID: 9913818
Canada
05/25/2012 11:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
absolutely everything about Fukushima was underestimated
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1295673
United States
05/25/2012 11:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
absolutely everything about Fukushima was underestimated
 Quoting: sample


Including the tsunami risk..

~
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 15264537
Canada
05/25/2012 11:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
loldamned
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11500811
Portugal
05/25/2012 11:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
loldamned
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 15264537


"Underestimated" is an understatement...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 15053320
United States
05/26/2012 12:03 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
blow off NYT. they're a YEAR late and the news has been scooped all over the internet for months.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1145382
United States
05/26/2012 12:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
oh my, what a surprise.
LaniJane

User ID: 16707705
United States
05/26/2012 06:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
“If this information had been available at the time, we could have used it in planning evacuations,” a spokesman for Tokyo Electric, Junichi Matsumoto, said at a news conference.

^^^Now, this is the biggest line of crap we've ever been fed regarding Fuku.
"There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls." ~
George Carlin
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12521290
Canada
05/26/2012 07:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
"More than 99 percent of the radiation released by the accident came in the first three weeks, the utility company added."

And they are still lying. This statement is designed to convey the impression that after the first three weeks it was all over with. When in fact there are several completely liquified reactor cores emitting massive amounts of radiation. In addition there is all the highly radioactive coolant water that has been dumped into the ocean.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 16534693
United States
05/26/2012 07:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
oh my, what a surprise.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1145382


gasp
Mr. Toppit

User ID: 4452166
United States
05/26/2012 07:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
"More than 99 percent of the radiation released by the accident came in the first three weeks, the utility company added."

And they are still lying. This statement is designed to convey the impression that after the first three weeks it was all over with. When in fact there are several completely liquified reactor cores emitting massive amounts of radiation. In addition there is all the highly radioactive coolant water that has been dumped into the ocean.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12521290


backpedaling while dying-off
the legendary Atom-Boy

User ID: 16118007
Japan
05/26/2012 07:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
TEPCO first mentioned that the released Radiation was afir. 750,000 Tera-Becquerel
but some months later decreased/ Down-Sized that to 350,000 Tera-Becquerel.

Now TEPCO has again updated the radiation level to 900,000 terabecquerels!

Last Edited by The real and almighty Atom-Boy on 05/26/2012 07:47 AM
G.Y.!B.E.
Vlad Tepes

User ID: 4409012
Romania
05/26/2012 08:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
Heads must roll....
Sol Dominvs Imperi Romani
Imperium Romanum Sacrum
In Varietate Concordia
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11859877
New Zealand
05/26/2012 08:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
Heads must roll....
 Quoting: Vlad Tepes


1rof1 Sorry not laughing at this thread which is very serious. I am laughing at Vlad the impaler saying heads must roll. peace
Mr. Toppit

User ID: 4452166
United States
05/26/2012 08:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
TEPCO first mentioned that the released Radiation was afir. 750,000 Tera-Becquerel
but some months later decreased/ Down-Sized that to 350,000 Tera-Becquerel.

Now TEPCO has again updated the radiation level to 900,000 terabecquerels!
 Quoting: the legendary Atom-Boy


So now we are sure its in the millions.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 16710010
Malaysia
05/26/2012 08:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
I used to respect the Japanese, but not any-more! bunch of retards built a nuclear plant in a highly active seismic place. then after it get damaged they do nothing about it! the fuckyoushima is polluting the air and sea around us all...

Fuck you Japan! hopefully US man up and just bomb the shit out of you for the good of this planet!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 16710010
Malaysia
05/26/2012 08:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
I want to add that many Asian countries including Malaysia treat sea water to make it potable. No one buys bottles of water that are sea treated any-more here! (my friends at least who know about fuckyoushima)

they refuse to evacuate japan and entomb the plant because they are a bunch of selfish retards! sooner or later the plant will cause too much damage to the entire world just because the Japanese are a bunch of losers... fuck you Japan, US should have nuked all of you in WW2!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4528419
United States
05/26/2012 08:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
TEPCO first mentioned that the released Radiation was afir. 750,000 Tera-Becquerel
but some months later decreased/ Down-Sized that to 350,000 Tera-Becquerel.

Now TEPCO has again updated the radiation level to 900,000 terabecquerels!
 Quoting: the legendary Atom-Boy


So now we are sure its in the millions.
 Quoting: Mr. Toppit


Millions of trillions of becquerels!
UtahApoc

User ID: 5453008
United States
05/26/2012 08:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
Underreported by TEPCO and the Media. Never Underestimated by people on the Phys Geeks forums or here.
the legendary Atom-Boy

User ID: 16118007
Japan
05/26/2012 08:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
TEPCO first mentioned that the released Radiation was afir. 750,000 Tera-Becquerel
but some months later decreased/ Down-Sized that to 350,000 Tera-Becquerel.

Now TEPCO has again updated the radiation level to 900,000 terabecquerels!
 Quoting: the legendary Atom-Boy


So now we are sure its in the millions.
 Quoting: Mr. Toppit


Millions of trillions of becquerels!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4528419


So, we have 900.000 Trillion Bq.
when we have a limit of 100Bq a Kg for Food
how many Kg are this?

9 Trillion Kg.?

9.000.000.000.000.000.000 Kg. Food?

Edit lol lmao

I really do not know, which Trillion are they, "Tepco", talking about,
please have a read:

The long and short scales are two of several different large-number naming systems used throughout the world for integer powers of ten. Many countries, including most in continental Europe, use the long scale whereas most English-speaking countries and Arabic-speaking countries use the short scale. In all such countries, the number names are translated into the local language, but retain a name similarity due to shared etymology. Some languages, particularly in East Asia and South Asia, have large number naming systems that are different from the long and short scales.[1][2]

Long scale is the English translation of the French term échelle longue. It refers to a system of large-number names in which every new term greater than million is 1,000,000 times the previous term: billion means a million millions (1012), trillion means a million billions (1018), and so on.[1][2]

Short scale is the English translation of the French term échelle courte. It refers to a system of large-number names in which every new term greater than million is 1,000 times the previous term: billion means a thousand millions (109), trillion means a thousand billions (1012), and so on.[1][2]

For integers less than a thousand million (< 109), the two scales are identical. At and above a thousand million (&#8805; 109), the two scales diverge by using the same words for different number values. These "false friends" can be a source of misunderstanding.

For most of the 19th and 20th centuries, the United Kingdom uniformly used the long scale,[3] while the United States of America used the short scale,[3] so that the two systems were often referred to as British and American in the English language. In 1974, the government of the UK switched to the short scale, a change that is reflected in its mass media and official usage.[4][5][6][7][8][9] Although some residual usage of the long scale continues in the UK,[10][11] the phrases British usage and American usage are no longer accurate characterisations. Usage of the two systems can be a subject of controversy. Differences in opinion as to which system should be used can evoke resentment between adherents, while national differences of any kind can acquire jingoistic overtones.[11]

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Last Edited by The real and almighty Atom-Boy on 05/26/2012 08:37 AM
G.Y.!B.E.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 16605533
Australia
05/26/2012 08:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
More like over hyped for leftist agendas bsflag
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 16605533
Australia
05/26/2012 08:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
TEPCO first mentioned that the released Radiation was afir. 750,000 Tera-Becquerel
but some months later decreased/ Down-Sized that to 350,000 Tera-Becquerel.

Now TEPCO has again updated the radiation level to 900,000 terabecquerels!
 Quoting: the legendary Atom-Boy


Its not how much, its the FORM its in that matters and WHERE its released.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1471236
Canada
05/26/2012 09:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
Just found out?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 15146129


Well, cut him a break. Canadians are not getting the truth from their agencies, either. HealthCanada stopped monitoring the radiation accurately early on in the crisis.

~
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1295673


The REASON why they stopped monitoring and reporting after the fukushima incident is that they know there is no issue, and that everything is AOK, so no need to do the extra work and monitoring, just to prove it's fine.
Onthehook
User ID: 7670361
United States
05/26/2012 09:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
Isn't it wonderful how we are spending fifty million a day to surround a country that Might want to develop nuclear weapons while we sit and let the people of one of our ally nations die from massive radiation poisoning? Even better, we let the same company who can't even afford to clean up the mess that may kill the world continue to run nuclear reactors in the US. (With spent fuel pools on the fifth floor no less) Ha haha ha, what a bunch of low fucking achievers
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1471236
Canada
05/26/2012 09:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
From the article:

Although people who lived closest to the plant were evacuated, many people remain in areas with significantly higher radiation levels than normal.

Tokyo Electric said it had initially been unable to accurately judge the amount of radioactive materials released soon after the accident because radiation sensors closest to the plant were disabled in the disaster.

“If this information had been available at the time, we could have used it in planning evacuations,” a spokesman for Tokyo Electric, Junichi Matsumoto, said at a news conference.


Translation: We knew the shit was bad, but didn't want to admit it, so rather than being cautious we let the fuckers closer than they should have been stay just so it didn't make us look too bad and now it's too late cause they're all dying and poisoned.
Burt Gummer

User ID: 7702124
United States
05/26/2012 09:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
That doesn't sound good:

[link to www.nytimes.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 16693947


AND the NY Slimes prints this drivel.........grnrolleyes


"More than 99 percent of the radiation released by the accident came in the first three weeks, the utility company added."

[link to www.nytimes.com]


bsmetar

Last Edited by Useless Cookie Eater on 05/26/2012 09:56 AM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 16642843
United States
05/26/2012 10:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Radioactive release at Fukushima was underestimated - NY Times article
ANOTHER PROOF THAT TPTB ARE PRIMING US FOR THE WORST POSSIBLE NEWS, THEIR LAPDOG IS STARTING TO BARK OUT THE TRUTH





GLP