The radiation rate from Chernobyl is still higher than Fukushima ever was.

I have no experience in the field, but the article didn't strike me as very persuasive. I would want more details, such as how much radiation is showing up on the U.S. west coast, and what does the actual science say about safe levels (as opposed to government regulations). If the danger level were as high as the article suggests, I suspect the environmental movement would be up in arms screaming for government action to "combat this menace", much as they are doing about "climate change". Instead, the issue is mostly dormant and Tokyo is still set to host the 2020 Olympics. I'll become more concerned about Fukushima when Japan does.

So, here is one just in, somewhat a rehash of everything, but it clearly defines (if you do the math) why they call it at 520 Sieverts/hour. The cleaning robot was designed to withstand 10 hours in the containment, but lost one of it's eyes to radiation induced fogging, so in 2 hours hit the symptom of what they call 1000 Sieverts. So, that gives about 500 Sieverts an hour inside. Not too surprising, given they basically melted everything into an unstable goo inside. But, the real concern is of course, what happens to all that crap, and I have watched several reports over the last few years, and there is some measurable radiation, especially in the heavier isotopes, crawling along, towards the Left Coast. However, it gets diluted a lot going across, as well as reaching a half life of some of it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wire...

This is just a good example of what Trump rails against, Don't spike the headlines with "Worse than expected" (worse than what WHO expected?). Just report the damn facts, like "Robot detects 500 Sieverts per hour in Containment vessel of Reactor Number 2" If they would do facts, and quiet coloring things their way, then it would be a lot better.

There is a lot of good information on 3 Mile Island, where basically the same thing happened for just as dumb a reason. It is worth looking into, but it was eventually cleaned up, even when they had no idea how they would do it. There are some pretty good videos as well on YT.

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...

This is probably the best written description and analysis of the 3 Mile Island debacle, which was eerily like what they had in Fukushima (although x4) and was the result of a normal casualty (loss of power) that cascaded through a stuck valve, and then a couple hours of Laurel and Hardy science, before anyone actually figured out the real problem. But it has great analysis and easy to read explanations of everything, including how they actually got into it, and cleaned the mess up, despite many of the "can't be done" crowd.


http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/ind...

I had completely forgotten about this Japanese nuclear plant that a tsunami wrecked.
I have a can of salmon I just contemplated with suspicion. The can does not say where the fish was caught.
Too bad past scare tactic antics of the control freak left has created trust issues with articles about the environment.

Thanks for the story OUC.

The article is fear mongering and click bait. Is the radiation in the hot zone dangerous? Yes. Of course it is. Are the Japanese preparing to establish guided walking tours of the hot zone? I seriously doubt it!

Perspective: The meltdown isn't any hotter (radiologically) than a spent fuel rod ready for reprocessing. It's in a far less desirable physical condition; meaning it's in irregularly shaped mess of metal and slag.

But for comparison, if a human took a swim in a expended fuel holding pool and was silly enough to dive down to take a look at the rods 40 ft below, the 530Sv/Hr of radiation that's making news would seem like a used-up tanning bulb by comparison!

Sounds like hysterics. Not one person has died from Fukushima. Of course that message doesn’t sell so this is what we get. Fake news on steroids.