Current Fukishima headlines #2:

[dixiegrrrrl]

Fukushima meltdowns' March 2011 fallout higher than estimated, near 900,000 terabecquerels: Tepco
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120525b6.html

the news always seems to want to use Chernobyl as a comparison, but here, they contradict themselves:
first:

"The figure is higher than projections previously released by the government's nuclear bodies,
but less than a fifth of the 5.2 million terabecquerels thought to have been emitted by the 1986 Chernobyl disaster."

further in same story:

The government last year acknowledged that the severity level of the Fukushima nuclear crisis registers a maximum 7 on the International Atomic Energy Agency's scale based on the amount of radioactive materials released — a ranking equivalent to Chernobyl.

[kristopher]

1. There's no contradiction.

It's a log scale going up to 7, so using Chernobyl to define the upper limit of a 7 means that 1/10th or more of Chernobly is also a 7.

[PamW]

5. WRONG AS ALWAYS!!

Kris,

Although the scale is meant to approximate a logarithmic scale, in fact, it's not really mathematically based.
Basically, you just have to have a major release of radioactive material offsite in order to be classified a 7.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/ines.pdf

Look at the last page which gives the criteria for the various levels.

The criteria merely states for a level 7:Major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring of planned and extended countermeasures

Chernobyl is a much worse 7 than the Fukushima event 7. However, the scale tops out at 7.

Therefore, there is no way to show how much worse Chernobyl is than Fukushima in that scale.

PamW

[kristopher]

8. Wrong way Pam strikes again...

Your quote does not address the point you suppose it to, PG. You need to work harder than that if you want to change everyone's perception that INES is, in fact, a logarithmic scale.

The generally accepted description of the INES scale from a physics blog:

IAEA: INES Scale for Nuclear Accidents and Nuclear Disasters

...
The INES Scale
The INES Scale is a seven point scale, with levels 1 to 3 being classified as incidents and levels 4 to 7 being classified as accidents. The INES is a logarithmic scale, which means that the severity of an event at one level is ten times greater than that of the level below it on the scale.
Events that do not have a safety significance are called deviations, and are classified as level 0.
...

http://marktibbits.suite101.com/iaea-ines-scale-for-nuclear-accidents-and-nuclear-disasters-a360085

No, a blog isn't the final word on this but it is an indicator that just your untrustworthy word is not enough.

I like this analysis of the impact designed into visual symbolism designed into the IAEA's messaging on nuclear accidents.

...There are two ways to draw a graphic scale such as this. This image emphasizes the relative rarity of a Level 7 “Major Accident,” compared with the more commonplace Level 1 “Anomaly.” This is the “don’t worry, these things almost never happen” visualization.

However, according to the IAEA:

“INES is a tool for promptly communicating to the public in consistent terms the safety significance of reported nuclear and radiological incidents and accidents.”

In that case, it would more properly be drawn as an inverted pyramid, with the smallest area for the “Anomaly” at the bottom, and the largest for “Major Accident” at the top. While we normally associate things at the “top” as being more significant than things at the “bottom,” this image competes with that perception in two more ways. The shape of the pyramid creates a vanishing point sense of perspective that gives a feeling that Level 7 is something far, far away. Wide and stable Level 1 gives a feeling that it is something close and familiar, something solid, balanced and secure.

To communicate the concept of “safety significance,” the IAEA graphic relies entirely on cultural associations of the “cool” color green to communicate relative safety, and the “hot” color magenta to communicate relative danger. The colors certainly carry some meaning, but we usually perceive smaller areas to be less important than larger areas in most images. So this visualization presents the information in a way that does not fully communicate its impact.

What’s more, this visualization would not carry the full message even if the pyramid was inverted and the areas were reversed...

http://www.visualturn.com/post/3805444314/ines-the-international-nuclear-events-scale-via

[dixiegrrrrl]

6. thank you, Kristopher.

[dixiegrrrrl]

7. dupe: delete

[FBaggins]

10. Flat wrong.

If Fukushima released 100 times as much as Chernobyl it would still be a seven. Chernobyl in no way "defines the upper limit of a 7". It also implies (in error) that 1/10th of Chernobyl would be the bottom limit of a 7... which is also untrue.

[kristopher]

11. Chernobyl, does, in fact represent the present peak of the conceptual pyramid

And your speculation directly contradicts how humans parse language and respond to new frames of conceptual reference.

Chernobyl, does, in fact represent the present peak of the conceptual pyramid.

If/when Chernobyl is dwarfed by a release, then we have no choice but to rebuild our pyramid. It is implicit in the design chosen to conceptualize the issue and the foundational use of a logarithmic approach.

You can argue all you want but your "wrong" is little more than a poorly substantiated opinion.

[caraher]

13. I don't see why the "pyramid" would ever be "rebuilt"

The INES manual is pretty clear that every release above a certain point is by definition level 7:

2.2.2. Definition of levels based on activity released2
Level 7
“An event resulting in an environmental release corresponding to a quantity of radioactivity radiologically equivalent to a release to the atmosphere of more than several tens of thousands of terabecquerels of 131I.”
This corresponds to a large fraction of the core inventory of a power reactor, typically involving a mixture of short and long lived radionuclides. With such a release, stochastic health effects over a wide area, perhaps involving more than one country, are expected, and there is a possibility of deterministic health effects. Long-term environmental consequences are also likely, and it is very likely that protective action such as sheltering and evacuation will be judged necessary to prevent or limit health effects on members of the public.

Remember that the whole purpose of the INES rating system is to manage communications with the general public about the significance of an incident. As pointed out in post 8, the whole "pyramid" is a rather peculiar way of expressing this, since its visual representation emphasizes frequency over consequences. Given the rhetorical purposes of the INES scale, I see no particular reason why those who set it up would feel remotely compelled to revamp the scale in the face of a "worse than as bad as it can get" accident.

The notion of a logarithmic scale is meant to condition media reporting rather than be taken too literally as a quantitative scale. The Richter scale needs no recalibration in the face of an unusually large earthquake, because it has a very specific physics basis; the INES rating scale does not.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. These go to eleven

Although it may seem illogical, I have to agree with Kristopher, if an accident occurred, which dwarfed Chernobyl (hard to believe) I think the scale would be revamped.

The whole idea here is to give people some idea of the scale of an accident.

[font face=Serif][font size=3]…

The need for easily communicating the significance of any event related to the operation of nuclear facilities or the conduct of activities that give rise to radiation risks arose in the 1980s following some accidents in nuclear facilities that attracted international media attention. In response, and based on previous national experience in some countries, proposals were made for the development of an international event rating scale similar to scales already in use in other areas (such as those comparing the severity of earthquakes), so that communication on the radiation risks associated with a particular event could be made consistent from one country to another.

…[/font][/font]

So, for example, “On the INES scale of 1 to 7, Chernobyl was a 7. This, on the other hand, is only a 4.”


OK, so, let’s say that something absolutely horrifying happens, which makes Chernobyl pale by comparison. How do you put this new accident into perspective? “On a scale of 1 to 7, Chernobyl was a 7, and so is this.” No, I think it would be more like “On a scale of 1 to 7, where Chernobyl was a 7, this is an 8.”

[kristopher]

15. It is refreshing to have a well reasoned position presented

I don't agree with your conclusions but it is now possible to see why our thought on the matter diverges. You are placing primacy on the role of a bureaucracy in shaping this hypothetical future response. I can't prove it, of course, but I'm personally certain that would not be the case.

As you noted the "notion of a logarithmic scale is meant to condition media reporting" - and in fact it has done just that; the pyramid imagery and the log scale of emissions are irrevocably linked. Consequently for good or ill the conceptual basis has been laid in the public and media's mind and will (IMO) be a determining factor in the way a 'megameltdown' shall we say, is eventually placed into the existing mental models of those interested.

I believe we can agree that the "rhetorical purposes" of the designers are well demonstrated by the article in post 8 - they were attempting to downplay the risk and reassure the public. They were convinced that Chernobyl was a one off event and did not take into consideration the unintended consequences of the choices made to achieve their "rhetorical purposes". Sure, they controlled the design of the tool, but they will not control the way the other 99.999999999999% of the world instinctively uses that tool to do the new task of talking about a 'megameltdown'.


Let's hope we never have to find out who is correct.

[caraher]

27. Amen to that last part

Chernobyl and Fukushima have been quite nasty enough.

One thing that really struck me about the use of the INES scale last year was how long it took for an official declaration that the incident really merited a "7" - well into April.

[FBaggins]

21. Nope. An active imagination doesn't mean you have a clue.

There isn't any "speculation" here. Just the facts. You're the one making entirely unsubstantiated claims. Seven is the top of the scale... not just coincidentally as high as we've yet to see.

I'd love to give you more rope to hang yourself with, but let's just jump straight to the facts. The IAEA gives guidance for converting the activity level (in Iodine equivalence) of any release into an INES level.

Level 5 = "An event resulting in an environmental release corresponding to a quantity of radioactivity radiologically equivalent to a release to the atmosphere of the order of hundreds to thousands of terabecquerels of 131I.”

Level 6 = "An event resulting in an environmental release corresponding to a quantity of radioactivity radiologically equivalent to a release to the atmosphere of the order of thousands to tens of thousands of terabecquerels of 131I"

Level 7 = "An event resulting in an environmental release corresponding to a quantity of radioactivity radiologically equivalent to a release to the atmosphere of more than several tens of thousands of terabecquerels of 131I"

That's right... anything "more than" that falls into the INES 7 category, with no ceiling. "Several" isn't as clear as some might prefer, so they give rough guidance on dividing lines:

"However, in order to help ensure consistent interpretation of these criteria internationally, it is suggested that the boundaries between the levels are about 500, 5,000 and 50,000 TBq 131I"

So if you were correct that the INES scale is logarithmic without a top end... INES 8 would start where?

Roughly 500,000 TBq 131I. INES 9 would start at roughly 5,000,000 TBq 131I.

Since Chernobyl is scored at above even that line... it would be an INES 9 if you were right.

You weren't.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/INES-2009_web.pdf (Page 17)

Interestingly, it's important to note that there are three areas to be analyzed and the overall score is not a balance of the three... they take whichever one is highest. If they were judging Fukushima by the dose to individuals, the guidance would put it at INES 4 or less... since even four expects "The likely occurrence of a lethal deterministic effect as a result of whole body exposure, leading to an absorbed dose5 of the order of a few Gy”."... and how many people have there been with an absorbed dose "of the order of a few Gy"

[FBaggins]

22. Further evidence is found on page 29

They give a hypothetical example of an INES 7.

The total release of radioactive material was about 14 million TBq, which included 1.8 million TBq of 131I, 85 000 TBq of 137Cs and other caesium radioisotopes, 10 000 TBq of 90Sr and a number of other significant isotopes.

Criteria - 2.2. Activity released
Explanation- The factors for the radiological equivalence of 90Sr and 137Cs from Table 2 are 20 and 40 respectively, so the total release was radiologically equivalent to 5.4 million TBq 131I. This is rated at the highest level on the scale, Level 7 “equivalent to more than several tens of thousands of TBq 131I”. Although other isotopes would have been present, there is no need to include them in the calculation, as the isotopes listed are already equivalent to a Level 7 release.

Criteria 2.3 Doses to individuals
Explanation - Not necessary to consider, as event is already rated at Level 7.

Rating for impact on people and the environment - Level 7.

The conclusion here is clear. Once you get to a Level 7, numbers above that are irrelevant... because 7 is the top of the scale.

[kristopher]

23. You're a hoot, Baggins.

There is no such thing as a black swan...

I remember how hard you flogged the idea that it was a log scale when they upgraded Fukushima to a 7 in order to promote the idea that Fukushima wasn't really consequential at all. Now here you are turning everything you said then on its head. You make the current Republican party seem like paragons of consistency.

As I said, it doesn't matter what the toolmaker says about how they think this is going to apply to an event that dwarfs Chernobyl, they aren't going to control the message. They, like you, are trying to have it both ways and I don't believe you would get away with the kind of word games you are trying to play. OK described it well in his post earlier.

And I still like this:

...The safety significance of Level 7 is actually 10^6 times greater than Level 1, that is, one million times greater. That is approximately the equivalent of one pixel on my 1280 x 800 pixel laptop screen, or 20,000 times greater than the difference shown in this image.

That would be the “holy sh*t!” visualization.

http://www.visualturn.com/post/3805444314/ines-the-international-nuclear-events-scale-via

[FBaggins]

24. Were you going to adress any of the evidence AT ALL?

I gave you the cutoff for Level 7... and I showed you that they clearly deal with a scenario hundreds of times larger than that threshhold... but left it at a 7 because that's the top of the scale. They even explicitly stopped calculating much larger releases because once you get to a 7, there's nowhere else to go.

Don't you think you should contemplate this total inability to recognize when you're wrong? The evidence here couldn't be clearer yet you keep up the spin? Don't you think that damages any credibility you might have with others when you make other pronouncements?


As I said, it doesn't matter what the toolmaker says about how they think this is going to apply to an event that dwarfs Chernobyl, they aren't going to control the message.

That's an interesting attempt at spin. We've cleverly shifted from the claim that this is how the scale is designed, to a claim that the design is irrelevant and some imagined public outcry would force them to change the standard if a real "Chernobyl on steroids" were to occur one day.

I remember how hard you flogged the idea that it was a log scale when they upgraded Fukushima to a 7 in order to promote the idea that Fukushima wasn't really consequential at all.

Then you remember incorrectly (is anyone shocked?). What I did say was that the scale didn't make sense if Three Mile Island was really a 5. That Fukushima (at that time not thought to have released anything close to the current estimates) was many MANY times worse than TMI but nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl (clarification - Esentially that there wasn't enough room between 5-7 to fit Fukushima and the only 6 on the scale.) The mistake I was making was the same one that you're making here... the assumption that Chernobyl was anywhere near the bottom end of the seven range.

In reality, Fukushima could easily be 100 times as bad as TMI and still be nowhere near Chernobyl... because Chernobyl is roughly 100 times as bad as the bottom end of Level 7.

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. Major problems’ with radiation testing for children

"Radiation tests on Fukushima nuclear disaster evacuees and others are showing a significant reduction in exposure to radioactive cesium, but a shortage of machines to carry out the checks means that thousands of people are still waiting for reassurance."
Snip....
“Cesium has decreased for most of the people because it has passed out of the body in the form of urine or other substances. As for those whose radiation levels rose, there could be influences from food taken by them. It is necessary to continue to have checkups, including tests on food,” said Masaharu Tsubokura, a doctor at Minami-Soma City General Hospital, who was in charge of the WBC checkups for Minami-Soma residents."

Snip...

Although children, who are believed to be more vulnerable to radiation than adults, are being prioritized, the equipment is not designed for them.

lots more info in the article:
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201205240060

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. TEPCO's post-mortem shows No. 2 reactor main source of radiation

( some good pics at the link)

Tokyo Electric Power Co. has come up with a new mind-boggling figure to explain the amount of radiation that spewed in the three weeks following the Fukushima nuclear disaster last year.

It is 900 quadrillion becquerels: That's 17 zeros (a quadrillion is one thousand trillion).

t is also about 1.2 times the estimate of 770 quadrillion becquerels made last June by the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency and represents about 17 percent of the volume released in the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

The radiation was primarily released by the stricken No. 2 reactor of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. This would explain the high levels of contamination found in an area to the northwest of the Fukushima No. 1 plant on March 15, 2011, four days after the Great East Japan Earthquake that triggered the disaster.

TEPCO also said a large volume of radioactive materials was released in the direction of the Pacific Ocean the following day. Although it is unable to pinpoint the source, it said the No. 3 reactor was the most likely culprit.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201205250053

[Frosty1]

4. Yesterday the WHO said radiation levels were low in Japan WTF?

WHO : Post-Fukushima radiation levels in Japan 'low' The meltdown at Fukushima plant led to thousands being evacuated Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
Japan closes last nuclear reactor
Timeline: Nuclear plant accidents
Q&A: Health effects of radiation

Radiation levels in most of Japan are below cancer-causing levels a year after the Fukushima plant accident, a World Health Organisation (WHO) report published on Wednesday says.

Two areas near the plant have relatively higher levels of radiation, but radiation levels in surrounding countries are close to normal.

The preliminary report is part of a wider ongoing health assessment by WHO.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18181224

[NickB79]

9. Probably a lot of the radiation has gone due to half-life decay

A lot of the radiation in the initial days was from short-lived isotopes that would have broken down relatively quickly to their non-radioactive constituents. Therefore, the radiation release could have been high overall, but the radiation levels drop significantly over the course of a year because most of the radiation was from early venting and dumping of water.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. Preliminary Dose Estimation from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake…

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/fukushima_dose_assessment/en/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Preliminary Dose Estimation from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami[/font]

Authors:
WHO

Publication details

Number of pages: 120
Publication date: 2012
Languages: English
ISBN: 9789241593662
Downloads

English
pdf, 1.85Mb

[font size=3]Overview

The earthquake and tsunami in Japan on 11 March 2011 led to releases of radioactive material into the environment from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear site. This report describes a preliminary estimate of radiation doses to the public resulting from this accident. These doses are assessed for different age groups in locations around the world, using assumptions described in the report.

The dose assessment forms one part of the overall health risk assessment being carried out by WHO of the global impact of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The health risk assessment is the subject of a separate WHO report which will be published in Summer 2012.[/font][/font]

http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2012/unisous144.html

[font face=Serif]UNIS/OUS/144
23 May 2012

[font size=5]Interim Findings of Fukushima-Daiichi Assessment presented at the Annual Meeting of UNSCEAR[/font]

[font size=3]VIENNA, 23 May (UN Information Service) - Some of the interim findings of a major assessment into the 11 March 2011 Fukushima-Daiichi accident will be made public today after review by international experts attending the annual meeting of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) in Vienna, 21 - 25 May 2012.

UNSCEAR now has a good understanding of the nature and composition of the releases to the atmosphere from the four damaged reactors, Wolfgang Weiss, Chair of UNSCEAR, said. Together with measurements of radioactive elements in the air, soil, water and food, the study will be able to assess doses to adults and children in different areas of Japan, considering important organs such as the thyroid.

"We have been given information about measurements made on the thyroids of over 1,000 children in Iitate village, Kawamata town and Iwaki city," said Weiss. "Also, a survey in Fukushima prefecture is aiming to evaluate irradiation levels for some 2 million people living in the prefecture at the time of the accident. The results of the UNSCEAR assessment for these areas will be compared with the Japanese measurements and analysis, and any differences will be highlighted and addressed," said Weiss.

As of 31 January 2012 a total of 20,115 TEPCO related workers, more than 80 per cent of them contractors, had been involved in operations following the accident at Fukushima-Daiichi. A key point among the interim findings is that although several workers were irradiated after contamination of their skin, no clinically observable effects have been reported. Six workers have died since the accident but none of the deaths were linked to irradiation, the findings say.

…[/font][/font]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/24/fukushima-gets-mixed-radiation-report

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Fukushima gets mixed radiation report from WHO[/font]
[font size=4]Agency says radiation exposure from nuclear power plant's meltdown was below levels thought to increase risk of cancer, but one town's infants could be at greater risk[/font]

Justin McCurry in Tokyo and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 24 May 2012 07.20 EDT

[font size=3]Radiation exposure caused by last year's accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was below levels thought to increase the risk of cancer in almost all parts of Japan, according to a World Health Organisation report.

But in its preliminary estimate [pdf] released on Wednesday, the WHO said infants in one town near the plant could be at a greater risk of developing thyroid cancer after exposure to radioactive iodine-131.

…

The independent experts who compiled the report said that people in the towns of Namie, located inside the 12-mile nuclear evacuation zone, and Iitate, which lies 25 miles north-west of Fukushima Daiichi, may have received the highest doses, of between 10 millisieverts a year and 50mSv in the wake of the accident.

…

In a separate interim report, the UN's scientific committee on the effects of radiation (Unscear) said that none of the deaths of six plant workers since last March was related to radiation. It added that several workers had been "irradiated after contamination of their skin", but that no clinically observable health effects had been reported.

…[/font][/font]

[dixiegrrrrl]

16. What do you think about that report? Reliable?

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. Yeah… I'm going to trust the UN

They have the integrity to say that it is a preliminary report.

[kristopher]

18. Accepting this statement by the WHO...

Accepting this statement by the WHO as an accurate representation of the circumstances, to what degree do you think the IAEA can shape the design of the research protocol the WHO uses to investigate accidents with potentially profound impacts to interests under the authority of the IAEA?

INTERPRETATION OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION'S AGREEMENT WITH THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) has been questioned by several journalists and others on its relationship with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). There was concern that WHO cannot act independently on matters related to exposure to radioactive substances and human health because it is bound by the 1959 Agreement between the two agencies. Such concern is unfounded.

The 1959 Agreement between WHO and IAEA does not affect the impartial and independent exercise by WHO of its statutory responsibilities, nor does it place WHO in a situation of subordination to IAEA. This has been amply demonstrated in the past, with one such example being the WHO recommendations on iodine prophylaxis in the case of nuclear accidents, which were published recently in hard copy and which may be consulted on the WHO web site.

The Agreement between WHO and IAEA follows the model of agreements concluded between WHO and the United Nations or other international organizations. Such agreements establish a general framework to enable the organizations concerned to shape and develop their cooperation according to their programmes and priorities, and do not contain detailed obligations. It is customary, for example, for organizations to agree to consult on matters of joint interest or on which either party may have a substantial interest. However, as Article 1 of the WHO-IAEA Agreement makes clear, such commitment does not in any way imply a submission of one organization to the authority of the other so as to affect their independence and responsibilities under their respective constitutional mandates.

The confidentiality clause appearing in Article III is contained in agreements concluded by WHO with other international organizations. It represents a normal safeguard against disclosure of information that the organizations concerned, WHO included, are legally obliged to protect in the course of their operations. In the case of information held by WHO, such a clause is relevant, for example, for the protection of clinical and other similar data on individuals.

WHO is in the process of developing a comprehensive Global Programme on Radiation with a clear strategy and priorities to safeguard public health concerns in the use of nuclear techniques. As in the past, WHO environmental health experts will continue the scientific collaboration with radiation and health experts at IAEA. This entails not only nuclear safety issues and assistance in radiation emergencies, but also the application of radiological techniques in medical practice.

As regards depleted uranium, WHO is currently finalizing a generic assessment of any possible health risks posed by exposure to depleted uranium. As requested by the January 2001 session of the WHO Executive Board, the WHO Secretariat will report its findings and recommendations related to depleted uranium to all its Member States at the next World Health Assembly which takes place in mid-May. In addition, WHO has undertaken field missions to Kosovo and Iraq to investigate the health situation and to provide the needed professional advice to the respective health authorities. These activities of the Organization are in no way hampered by the WHO/IAEA agreement.

[font size="1.5"]For further information, journalists can contact Melinda Henry, Public Information Officer, WHO, Geneva. Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; E-mail: [e-mail]. All WHO Press Releases, Fact Sheets and Features, as well as other information on this subject, can be obtained on Internet on the WHO web site: http://www.who.int The full text of the 1959 Agreement between WHO and IAEA can be found on the WHO web site by clicking on: Information Sources, Basic Documents, Search Infobases, Basic Texts and finally Agreements with Other Intergovernmental Organizations.[/font]

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. I don't think the WHO is colluding with the nuclear power industry

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/24/fukushima-gets-mixed-radiation-report

[font face=Serif][font size=3]…

The independent experts who compiled the report said that people in the towns of Namie, located inside the 12-mile nuclear evacuation zone, and Iitate, which lies 25 miles north-west of Fukushima Daiichi, may have received the highest doses, of between 10 millisieverts a year and 50mSv in the wake of the accident.

…[/font][/font]

[kristopher]

20. It isn't a matter of collusion.

It isn't a trick question.

A defined relationship between these bureaucratic entities exists.
The document I posted is the WHO statement on the nature of that relationship.
It is naive to the point of irresponsibility to expect the conclusions of their public representatives to do anything except support the relationship and characterize it as positive.
However we know that all policy structures have unintended consequences.
A central element of the IAEA's mission is to promote the expanded use of nuclear power.

So I would really enjoy hearing an opinion of the *potential* problems associated with the relationship. The material I've asked you to work with is not tainted in any way by critics so it seems like a fair question.

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. Your implication is that the WHO cannot be trusted

(That their relationship with the IAEA would cause them to mislead the public.)

That (by definition) would be collusion.

[kristopher]

26. I didn't imply anything.

The question and the evidence is straightforward, why are you so reluctant to address it?

Do you assert that all policies can only ever deliver the intended results of the policy makers with no possibility of unintended consequences? I'm sure that isn't the case. Therefore isn't it prudent to examine the terms of the relationship between these two organizations for potential problems with unintended consequences?

It is a perfectly obvious and reasonable line of discussion, so again, why are you so reluctant to address it?

[bananas]

28. Garwin called them "deliberately misleading"

http://thedoomsdayclock.blogspot.com/2006/04/chernobyl-hardly-last-word.html