OT – Nuclear Fallout Map

[SD Transplant]

Per this site, I believe the situation is much more serious than described by the Japanese Govt & MSM.

“Sometimes it is much more important to watch what people are doing rather than what they are saying.
For example, a significant number of foreign governments are now evacuating personnel from Tokyo.
Why would they be evacuating if there was no threat?
Posted below are 27 signs that the nuclear crisis in Japan is much worse than either the mainstream media or the Japanese government have been telling us. When you take all of these clues and you put them together it really does paint a frightening picture….
#1 Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan is urging all people living within 30 kilometers of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear facility to stay indoors.
#2 Andre-Claude Lacoste, the head of France’s Nuclear Safety Authority, says that the containment vessel surrounding the No. 2 reactor at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex is “no longer sealed”.
#3 Radiation levels in Tokyo are already 10 times above normal levels.
#4 Reuters is reporting that some residents of Tokyo are already starting to flee the city.
#5 Radiation levels in one city north of Tokyo, Utsunomiya, were recently reported to be 33 times above normal levels.
#6 Radiation levels in the city of Saitama have been reported to be 40 times above normal levels.
#7 According to Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, the “possibility of further radioactive leakage is heightening.”
#8 The Japanese government is admitting that radiation levels near the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex are very harmful to human health.
#9 According to the World Nuclear Association, exposure to over 100 millisieverts of radiation a year can lead to cancer. At this point the level of radiation being measured right outside the number 4 reactor at the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex is 400 millisieverts per hour.
#10 A U.S. Navy crew that was assisting in relief efforts was exposed to a month’s worth of nuclear radiation in just a single hour.
#11 According to the U.S. Navy, low levels of radiation have been detected at their bases in Yokosuka and Atsugi.
#12 The USS Ronald Reagan recently detected significant levels of radiation 100 miles off the Japanese coast.
#13 The operator of the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex has pulled out 750 of the 800 workers that were working at the facility.
#14 The French embassy in Tokyo is advising French citizens to leave the city.
#15 The German embassy in Tokyo is advising all German citizens to leave the country entirely.
#16 German technology company SAP is evacuating their offices in Tokyo.
#17 Austria has announced that it is moving its embassy from Tokyo to Osaka due to fears about the radiation.
#18 Finland is urging all of their citizens to leave Tokyo.
#19 The Czech military is sending planes to Japan specifically to evacuate the Czech Philharmonic Orchestra.
#20 Air China is canceling many flights to Tokyo.
#21 The Chinese Embassy has announced that it will be evacuating all Chinese citizens from the Miyagi, Fukushima, Ibaraki and Iwate prefectures.
#22 Russia is making preparations to evacuate civilians and military units from the Kuril Islands.
#23 Physicist Frank von Hippel recently told the New York Times the following about this disaster: “It’s way past Three Mile Island already”.
#24 The president of France’s nuclear safety authority says that this crisis is now almost as bad as Chernobyl was….

“It’s clear we are at Level 6, that’s to say we’re at a level in between what happened at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.”
#25 There have been reports of extremely high radiation at another nuclear facility in Japan. It has been reported that at the Onagawa nuclear plant radiation that is 700 times the normal level was detected at one point.
#26 One anonymous senior nuclear industry executive told The Times Of India that Japanese power industry managers are “basically in a full-scale panic” and that “they don’t know what to do”.
#27 It is also being reported that there were over 600,000 spent fuel rods stored at the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex. Most of these rods were apparently stored near the top of the 6 reactor buildings. There have already been major explosions at three of those buildings. It is now feared that there is now nothing to prevent many of these spent fuel rods from releasing radiation into the atmosphere. That is really, really bad news.
So is there a threat that nuclear radiation from Japan could reach the United States?
Well, actually everyone agrees that radiation could reach the United States. The controversy is whether or not it will be enough to be harmful to human health.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is admitting that it is “quite possible” that nuclear fallout from this disaster could reach the United States. In fact, Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman David McIntyre says that there could already be radiation from Japan over America….

Right now it’s quite possible that there could be some radiation floating over the United States.
But most government officials in the U.S. are insisting that there is “no threat” to the health of American citizens from this crisis at this point.
So how would nuclear radiation from Japan get transported to the United States?
Well, if radiation released by a damaged nuclear reactor got up into the jet stream, the first major land mass that it would encounter would be North America. In fact, the jet stream commonly takes air from over Japan directly over the west coast of the United States. The following video demonstrates this fact beautifully….

Source & video here:

http://seenoevilspeaknoevilhearnoevil.blogspot.com/2011/03/27-signs-that-nuclear-crisis-in-japan.html

[Arraya]

From what I have read due to the reactor design an international radioactive release is very very low probability. From what some engineers and seismologists said this accident is not and TEPCO was warned. Ignored warnings can almost always be decoded to a cost-cutting decision.

For Japan, large-scale contamination is a different story. But, yeah, it’s not that it is worse then they are telling people, it’s that they are bargaining and in denial themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias

The normalcy bias refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects. This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure of the government to include the populace in its disaster preparations. The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred that it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.[1]

[Arraya]

From what I have read due to the reactor design an international radioactive release is very very low probability. From what some engineers and seismologists said this accident is not and TEPCO was warned. Ignored warnings can almost always be decoded to a cost-cutting decision.

For Japan, large-scale contamination is a different story. But, yeah, it’s not that it is worse then they are telling people, it’s that they are bargaining and in denial themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias

The normalcy bias refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects. This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure of the government to include the populace in its disaster preparations. The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred that it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.[1]

[Arraya]

From what I have read due to the reactor design an international radioactive release is very very low probability. From what some engineers and seismologists said this accident is not and TEPCO was warned. Ignored warnings can almost always be decoded to a cost-cutting decision.

For Japan, large-scale contamination is a different story. But, yeah, it’s not that it is worse then they are telling people, it’s that they are bargaining and in denial themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias

The normalcy bias refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects. This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure of the government to include the populace in its disaster preparations. The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred that it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.[1]

[Arraya]

From what I have read due to the reactor design an international radioactive release is very very low probability. From what some engineers and seismologists said this accident is not and TEPCO was warned. Ignored warnings can almost always be decoded to a cost-cutting decision.

For Japan, large-scale contamination is a different story. But, yeah, it’s not that it is worse then they are telling people, it’s that they are bargaining and in denial themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias

The normalcy bias refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects. This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure of the government to include the populace in its disaster preparations. The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred that it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.[1]

[Arraya]

From what I have read due to the reactor design an international radioactive release is very very low probability. From what some engineers and seismologists said this accident is not and TEPCO was warned. Ignored warnings can almost always be decoded to a cost-cutting decision.

For Japan, large-scale contamination is a different story. But, yeah, it’s not that it is worse then they are telling people, it’s that they are bargaining and in denial themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias

The normalcy bias refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects. This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure of the government to include the populace in its disaster preparations. The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred that it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.[1]

[ILoveRegulation]

[quote=Arraya]From what I have read due to the reactor design an international radioactive release is very very low probability. [/quote]

I’m not so sure about that. There is a lot of spent fuel on site that needs a continuous supply of water to keep cool. Radiation around the site is getting so high that all the workers were forced to evacuate. If they can’t figure out a way to keep the spent fuel cool, then there probably won’t be an explosion, but it could all melt over the course of many months with the radiation contaminating an ever wider area.

From what I’ve read, I get the sense that this has the potential to be worse than Chernobyl due to the large amount of spent fuel.

[ILoveRegulation]

[quote=Arraya]From what I have read due to the reactor design an international radioactive release is very very low probability. [/quote]

I’m not so sure about that. There is a lot of spent fuel on site that needs a continuous supply of water to keep cool. Radiation around the site is getting so high that all the workers were forced to evacuate. If they can’t figure out a way to keep the spent fuel cool, then there probably won’t be an explosion, but it could all melt over the course of many months with the radiation contaminating an ever wider area.

From what I’ve read, I get the sense that this has the potential to be worse than Chernobyl due to the large amount of spent fuel.

[ILoveRegulation]

[quote=Arraya]From what I have read due to the reactor design an international radioactive release is very very low probability. [/quote]

I’m not so sure about that. There is a lot of spent fuel on site that needs a continuous supply of water to keep cool. Radiation around the site is getting so high that all the workers were forced to evacuate. If they can’t figure out a way to keep the spent fuel cool, then there probably won’t be an explosion, but it could all melt over the course of many months with the radiation contaminating an ever wider area.

From what I’ve read, I get the sense that this has the potential to be worse than Chernobyl due to the large amount of spent fuel.

[ILoveRegulation]

[quote=Arraya]From what I have read due to the reactor design an international radioactive release is very very low probability. [/quote]

I’m not so sure about that. There is a lot of spent fuel on site that needs a continuous supply of water to keep cool. Radiation around the site is getting so high that all the workers were forced to evacuate. If they can’t figure out a way to keep the spent fuel cool, then there probably won’t be an explosion, but it could all melt over the course of many months with the radiation contaminating an ever wider area.

From what I’ve read, I get the sense that this has the potential to be worse than Chernobyl due to the large amount of spent fuel.

[ILoveRegulation]

[quote=Arraya]From what I have read due to the reactor design an international radioactive release is very very low probability. [/quote]

I’m not so sure about that. There is a lot of spent fuel on site that needs a continuous supply of water to keep cool. Radiation around the site is getting so high that all the workers were forced to evacuate. If they can’t figure out a way to keep the spent fuel cool, then there probably won’t be an explosion, but it could all melt over the course of many months with the radiation contaminating an ever wider area.

From what I’ve read, I get the sense that this has the potential to be worse than Chernobyl due to the large amount of spent fuel.

[Arraya]

[quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=Arraya]From what I have read due to the reactor design an international radioactive release is very very low probability. [/quote]

I’m not so sure about that. There is a lot of spent fuel on site that needs a continuous supply of water to keep cool. Radiation around the site is getting so high that all the workers were forced to evacuate. If they can’t figure out a way to keep the spent fuel cool, then there probably won’t be an explosion, but it could all melt over the course of many months with the radiation contaminating an ever wider area.

From what I’ve read, I get the sense that this has the potential to be worse than Chernobyl due to the large amount of spent fuel.[/quote]

Sure lots of spent fuel but it needs a dissipation mechanism. Chernobyl had a large nuclear explosion. Which is not likely due to design. A complete meltdown at these reactors would not cause the kind of explosion. This is not to say the local contamination can’t be severe. But you need a mechanism to eject it. I suppose a combination of the proper wind flows and a monster fire could do some damage but we are getting into the less and less probable.

Heck, when Chernobyl blew radiation alarms in Sweden were going off, almost immediately

[Arraya]

[quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=Arraya]From what I have read due to the reactor design an international radioactive release is very very low probability. [/quote]

I’m not so sure about that. There is a lot of spent fuel on site that needs a continuous supply of water to keep cool. Radiation around the site is getting so high that all the workers were forced to evacuate. If they can’t figure out a way to keep the spent fuel cool, then there probably won’t be an explosion, but it could all melt over the course of many months with the radiation contaminating an ever wider area.

From what I’ve read, I get the sense that this has the potential to be worse than Chernobyl due to the large amount of spent fuel.[/quote]

Sure lots of spent fuel but it needs a dissipation mechanism. Chernobyl had a large nuclear explosion. Which is not likely due to design. A complete meltdown at these reactors would not cause the kind of explosion. This is not to say the local contamination can’t be severe. But you need a mechanism to eject it. I suppose a combination of the proper wind flows and a monster fire could do some damage but we are getting into the less and less probable.

Heck, when Chernobyl blew radiation alarms in Sweden were going off, almost immediately

[Arraya]

[quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=Arraya]From what I have read due to the reactor design an international radioactive release is very very low probability. [/quote]

I’m not so sure about that. There is a lot of spent fuel on site that needs a continuous supply of water to keep cool. Radiation around the site is getting so high that all the workers were forced to evacuate. If they can’t figure out a way to keep the spent fuel cool, then there probably won’t be an explosion, but it could all melt over the course of many months with the radiation contaminating an ever wider area.

From what I’ve read, I get the sense that this has the potential to be worse than Chernobyl due to the large amount of spent fuel.[/quote]

Sure lots of spent fuel but it needs a dissipation mechanism. Chernobyl had a large nuclear explosion. Which is not likely due to design. A complete meltdown at these reactors would not cause the kind of explosion. This is not to say the local contamination can’t be severe. But you need a mechanism to eject it. I suppose a combination of the proper wind flows and a monster fire could do some damage but we are getting into the less and less probable.

Heck, when Chernobyl blew radiation alarms in Sweden were going off, almost immediately

[Arraya]

[quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=Arraya]From what I have read due to the reactor design an international radioactive release is very very low probability. [/quote]

I’m not so sure about that. There is a lot of spent fuel on site that needs a continuous supply of water to keep cool. Radiation around the site is getting so high that all the workers were forced to evacuate. If they can’t figure out a way to keep the spent fuel cool, then there probably won’t be an explosion, but it could all melt over the course of many months with the radiation contaminating an ever wider area.

From what I’ve read, I get the sense that this has the potential to be worse than Chernobyl due to the large amount of spent fuel.[/quote]

Sure lots of spent fuel but it needs a dissipation mechanism. Chernobyl had a large nuclear explosion. Which is not likely due to design. A complete meltdown at these reactors would not cause the kind of explosion. This is not to say the local contamination can’t be severe. But you need a mechanism to eject it. I suppose a combination of the proper wind flows and a monster fire could do some damage but we are getting into the less and less probable.

Heck, when Chernobyl blew radiation alarms in Sweden were going off, almost immediately

[Author]

Posts