Japan crisis - the worlds economic outlook?

vivatifosi

Crikey that is a big area. The suggestion is that the exclusion zone is a temporary thing while the plant is being brought under control. This is less of an issue than a permanent one, but that is still a lot of displacement in a country that is already dealing with mass displacement due to the tsunami. Given the population and size of Japan, is there perhaps a point where you run out of space to send people to?

ninky_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

Crikey that is a big area. The suggestion is that the exclusion zone is a temporary thing while the plant is being brought under control. This is less of an issue than a permanent one, but that is still a lot of displacement in a country that is already dealing with mass displacement due to the tsunami. Given the population and size of Japan, is there perhaps a point where you run out of space to send people to?

well how 'temporary' is temporary? the suggestion is they won't be able to bring the plant under control for a long time yet and no one knows if the sitaton is going to get worse in the meantime. i guess they are thinking that having established a zone there will have to be credible criteria for reducing it.

it's not just places to put people but the loss of businesses, agricultural land etc. plus presumably increased stigma over produce that may have come from that zone in the future even if it is removed.

vivatifosi

ninky wrote: »

it's not just places to put people but the loss of businesses, agricultural land etc. plus presumably increased stigma over produce that may have come from that zone in the future even if it is removed.

ninky one of the things that I've told a few people here but not posted widely is that one of my relatives worked on the UK response to Chernobyl. He took readings in the UK from a safety standpoint. What was really strange at the time is how the fallout could jump over one area due to the way it was carried by the wind and then fall with the rain in another further away. He would also go back to an area that he had taken previous readings from and told us they did drop off quite substantially, though clearly there are areas immediately around the plant that may be sealed off for many years to come.

Unfortunately my relative, who knew loads about nuclear safety has since died and I don't have his knowledge to hand now. This is so frustrating. I honestly believe that he would have reassured me that this event does not come close to Chernobyl in terms of damage, but the longer it continues the harder it is to know. I really miss his knowledge though. And him.

ninky_2

yes the chernobyl exclusion zone shows the patchiness here. it must be very hard (almost impossible) to predict all the areas that will get most radiation. even harder than weather forecasting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg

ninky_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

I honestly believe that he would have reassured me that this event does not come close to Chernobyl in terms of damage, but the longer it continues the harder it is to know. I really miss his knowledge though. And him.

i have seen analysis that says it is worse than chernobyl because the accident is happening in the opposite way. whilst the chernobyl explosion was massive it also served to stop the nuclear reaction. it was also just one reactor.

what we are seeing in fukushima is drawn out meltdown of several reactors sending radioactivity into the water table - a potentially far more damaging spread than airborne particles as this gets the radio active isotopes deeper into the food chain / chain of life.

http://www.realnewsreporter.com/?p=1856

ninky_2

very sad story about the fukushima 50 (actually 500-600 workers on shifts). basically one of the mothers of one of the men talking anonymously and saying that the levels of radiation exposure mean they all know they are destined to die.

there seems to be a real cover up over releasing the names of the workers - i wonder so that deaths / numbers can be hidden or released at a time less likely to cause panic?

http://www.pamil-visions.net/fukushima-50/226045/

ninky_2

and this sounds suspiciously like an attempt to prevent those working at the plant from monitoring the actual radiation levels they are being exposed to. surely they could get these 'badges' from nuclear facilities from around the world? it all smacks of trying to wriggle out of the facts and responsiblity.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-japan-reactor-damage-20110331,0,5950026.story

And even while radiation levels are rising at the plant, public broadcaster NHK said Thursday that many workers at the facility do not have radiation monitoring badges. Tepco, which owns the facility, confirmed the report, noting that much of its supplies had been destroyed in the magnitude 9 Tohoku earthquake and the tsunami that followed it.

But company officials said that the leaders of each team of workers have a badge and that workers without badges are assigned to areas with low radiation risk.

ninky_2

above safe levels of cesium 137 found in a cow slaughtered 70km from the plant. japan now advising farmers not to graze cattle outside and give them grass harvested from before the disaster. how practical that is i can't imagine. and what are they to give them to drink? bottled water?

they are saying a cow "near" the plant....but 70km isn't near!

this is level 7 now surely?

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/966333--radioactivity-in-cow-near-nuclear-plant-slightly-higher-than-legal-limit?bn=1

and this is a cow that has only been grazing for 3 weeks. the concentrations are only going to get higher.

michaels

Hmm Caesium, not good - I was wondering if they were only monitoring for Iodine in the seawater where they have had the high readings - does anyone know if where you find iodine you are likely to also find Caesium if you look for it?

Iodine half life is 8 days so risk does diminish fairly quickly but for Caesium it is over 100 years (although obviously this means for the same number of caesium atoms the initial amount of radiation is much lower).

ninky_2

michaels wrote: »

Hmm Caesium, not good - I was wondering if they were only monitoring for Iodine in the seawater where they have had the high readings - does anyone know if where you find iodine you are likely to also find Caesium if you look for it?

.

on wednesday a measure was given of 527 times standard levels of cesium 137 in seawater.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/31/japan.nuclear.reactors/index.html