If the radiation at Onagawa nuclear plant is from Fukushima - it would have to travel 120 km

[jpak]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/13/japan-quake-onagawa-idUSTKG00708020110313

(Reuters) - Japan's nuclear safety agency said on Sunday there was no problem with the cooling process at Tohoku Electric Power Co's (9506.T) Onagawa nuclear power plant and that a rise in radiation levels there was due to radiation leakage at another plant in a neighbouring prefecture.

The agency said a report from Tohoku Electric shows that cooling systems at all three reactors at the Onagawa complex, which were automatically shut after a massive earthquake and tsunami on Friday, are functioning properly.

<more>


http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2011/03/update_japans_nuclear_crisis.html

<snip>

NHK is reporting that a second plant, at Onagawa is now reporting elevated levels of radiation. The plant has reported 21 ?Sv (again, presumably per hour), well above the 5 ?Sv reporting limit. Many refugees from the quake have taken shelter at the Onagawa reactor complex, but TEPCO says the health risk is minimal.

<more>

[godai]

1. 60 miles...not something that they can lie their way out of.

For now, I buy the explanation. Radiation detected outside, information passed along, results in Level 1 emergency. I presume they checked inside the reactors and found no problems. If untrue, the truth will soon come out.

[jpak]

2. The distance is supposedly 120 km

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/farmerlady/japan-nuclear-plant-explosion_n_834867_80552382.html

Someone on the Reuters' blog posed the following query...

"I checked the distance between Fukushima Daiichi and Onagawa power plants and it is approximat­ely 120 km. That is very disturbing­, if radiation could have traveled that far to reach a level that would provoke authoritie­s to declare an (emergency situation" at Onagawa. Is there another, more credible, explanatio­n? If the evacuation around Fukushima was limited to 20 km, yet emergency levels of radiation are detectable 120 km away? What is really happening?­"

[FBaggins]

3. Different definition of "emergency"

The equipment they're using is incredibly sensitive and the detection levels that require reporting are intentionally set incredibly low.

Think about our experiences here in the U.S. with those plants that are leaking tritium. All sorts of everyday objects/events put off more radiation than that tritium, but because nuclear regulations are phenomenally tight, it still has to be reported (and therefore blown out of proportion).

Think of it as if there were an oil tanker that was required to report even .0001 drops of oil spilling from the hold... and someone had equipment in the next ship to pass that point that could detect that amount. The first ship accidentally spills a cup of crude oil. The second ship is going to detect that when it passes later in the day and it would have to be reported as a "spill" detected (even though it was the first ship's fault).

Do we like a cup of oil in the water? Of course not (that's why we set the regulations so tightly), but it isn't a big deal.

[jpak]

4. If this is true - it means that there is widespread radiological contamination in northern Japan

not good

[FBaggins]

5. "Widespread", but very low level.

Assuming, of course, that things don't continue to get worse. Which, you know, was wrong the first five times I said it.

[SpoonFed]

8. Worse?

Would No.3 having an explosion qualify as getting worse and
perhaps finally change your blind optimism for the best outcome to
turn into something constructive and analytical?

[FBaggins]

10. Of course that's "getting worse"

But it doesn't significantly change the overall picture.

If you imagine a spectrum from 1 BSRU ("Big Scary Radioactive Unit") of radiation to 10,000. We've been arguing over whether this incident represents, say 5 on my side and 7,000 on the other. We keep getting news that the 5 BSRU has become a 9 BSRU... and then perhaps a 12 BSRU.

It's like you're asking me "when will you finally agree that 7,000 BSRU was correct?

[drm604]

6. I see that I'm not the only one who found this explanation troubling.

Let's hope that FBaggins' is correct.

[SpoonFed]

7. NYT reports carrier went through radiation cloud

The NY Times is reporting the USS Reagan went through a cloud on its way over there
out in the ocean... which seems like the cat is out of the bag on the issue of
whether or not there are actually big clouds of shit floating around.

[SpoonFed]

9. regarding distances...

this RT report that I'm listening to at the moment on the possibility of a third
explosion at No 2 at Daiichi says that the carrier was 160km offshore when it
encountered some fallout.

[FBaggins]

11. Yes... and how much fallout was reported?

If you were on deck and unprotected, you received a month's worth of radiation in (variously reported) half an hour to an hour.

That's about what they would have gotten if they had flown to Japan rather than taken an aircraft carrier.

It isn't as if these guys have to call home tonight and say goodbye to their loved ones.

[drm604]

12. But isn't that missing the point?

Why is there a cloud of radioactive material 160km out, and is the dose higher nearer to the plant?

[FBaggins]

13. Not really.

Why is there a cloud of radioactive material 160km out

Because there HAS been a realease of radioactivity.

and is the dose higher nearer to the plant?

Without question. It has been reportedly MUCH higher.

The point is that there's a Loooooong scale from "the exposure you get in your own home every day" to "the level that will kill you where you stand". It can get much MUCH worse than what the carrier saw and still not be a concern. It WOULD be a concern to hand around unprotected at the levels that were reported on-site after one of the explosions, but nobody is doing that.