100x Background Radiation in Fukushima City

[SanfranciscoUB]

Japanese government is so evil trying to kill own children with radioactive environment meanwhile I am sure that most of japanese rich people and big politicians sent their families outside of japan as far as possible.

[clintonlies]

is this a NWO HARRP inflicted disaster ? The Globalist like to play with words

notice FUK US hima

[Walfangmeister]

whale meat is safe　and healthy!

[Marcinowpce]

destroy the planet sucks!

[gandja669]

ok,but i don't understand why you don't have to protect your counter?

[stevensensei]

@gandja669 I don't quite understand your question...Are you asking me why I didn't cover my geiger counter in a plastic bag like Bruno ar CRIIRAD suggests? If so, the answer is that a wanted the full Alpha and Beta and Gamma radiation measure. The plastic would block the A and B...but I'm still figuring this out.

[stevensensei]

@gandja669 It was a risk...but with the bag I cannot accurately read the A and B rads...after the video, I wrapped them again. My geiger counter did go back to regular back ground radiation in Osaka 0.16 (or so) when I left so I think I don't need to get it cleaned...do you disagree?

[gandja669]

@stevensensei ,No I don't think so, you're lucky it's still valid given the conditions where you are.

[stevensensei]

@gandja669 In the video you mention, Bruno Chareyron at CRIIRAD is explaining. Bruno works with CRMS-jpn, the same group I support.

[stevensensei]

Presentation of the Radex, a doserate monitor -- µSv/h (version n° 1503)

[jayber008]

NO one in the western hemisphere even knows that there are 3 meltdowns in Japan the medias has been gagged here. so that people do not start protesting and getting the governments of the nations to help we are deliberately being murdered here

[Tekknorg]

Diamonddavej YOU are ignoring all irradiated and ill Chernobyl and Fukushima children. It seems this is your job. There is only one safe limit for radiation from Atomic Energy and reactors: ZERO. Diamonddavej You do not agree. This is the only point of some means in this discussion and You ignore it.

[Tekknorg]

Routine radioactive emissions are dangerous because they are the main source of low-level radiation. Petkau discovered that the response is logarithmic to radiation, that means, concave downward. Risk is higher at low doses of radiation. If the harmed cells are monocytes this will cause: Anemia, because the monocytes recycle 37 – 40 % of the iron of dying red blood cells. Weakened immune system in cells, the monocytes generate the substance which activates the immune system of the lymphocytes

[Diamonddavej]

@Tekknorg About 40% of studies find a hormetic (protective) effect at low doses of radiation.

"Hormesis has been reported in 40% of the animal experiments [79], moreover, the biological bases of hormesis now seems to be understood [87], and its existence is beyond question"

Page 35 in "Dose-effect relationships and estimation of the carcinogenic effects

of low doses of ionizing radiation"

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej Nope again. You are dissolving man made radiation in background radiation. With all uborn, dead, disabled children. This is criminal. Deadly Cesium, Strontium, Plutonium and Iodine are part of the man made radiation. ALL did not exist before atomic age. As long as you deny this (with knowing it better), your point is unethic, unscientific and criminal

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej Body can not distinguish between Tritium and Hydrogen. Human body is mostly of water. Body can not distinguish between Cesium 134 / 137 and potassium - so, Cesium is deadly for the heart, many strokes under 40 y. by Chernobyl. Body can not distinguish between Strontoum and Calcium - bones and teeth. NRC does not measure Strontium. Increased Strontium in milk was a reason for atomic bomb test stop in 1963. Then we have Kyrpton 85: weather phenomenon, more lightning (acc. IAEA 1976).

[Diamonddavej]

@Tekknorg "Routine radioactive emissions are dangerous because they are the main source of low-level radiation."

No, most low-level radiation is natural radiation, 40% of which is from Radon gas (2.4 mSv/year). Whereas radiation from nuclear fuel cycle is 0.2 μSv, accounting for 0.006% of human radiation exposure.

UNSCEAR 2008 "Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation", page 339 - Table 12. Public exposure to natural radiation and Section 744 on page 322.

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej Nope again. You are dissolving man made radiation in background radiation. With all uborn, dead, disabled children. This is criminal. Deadly Cesium, Strontium, Plutonium and Iodine are part of the man made radiation. ALL did not exist before atomic age. As long as you deny this (with knowing it better), your point is unethic, unscientific and criminal. UNSCEAR is the speaker of the IAEA to the UN. Get your facts right or play something else.

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej very draconian. everthing above ZERO kills the human emrbyo, mister. Search for Reference Man and Reference Embryo and ICRP and IPPNW.

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej UNSCEAR, in 1955 and IAEA, in 1957, were set up by the United Nations (UN) in response to the U.S. President Eisenhower's Peaceful Energy talk at the UN, in 1953. IAEA subsequently took its radiation protection recommendations directly from ICRP (rather than WHO), therefore persons from the Commission who also sit on UNSCEAR both make the rules and judge their adequacy. They are not speaking in the name of humanity, but in the name of atomic industry, which was founded by military.

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej Whistleblower and former chairman of the ICRP K.Z. Morgan admitted that there is NO safe level of radiation: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Sept. 1978 page 30.

[Diamonddavej]

@Tekknorg The internationally accepted Linear No Threshold accepts there is no safe level of radiation, so I don't understand why you think there is a cover-up, it is the official position.

"... the Committee believes that an increase in the risk of tumour induction proportionate to the radiation dose is consistent with developing knowledge and that it remains, accordingly, the most scientifically defensible approximation of low-dose response." - UNSCEAR

[Diamonddavej]

@Diamonddavej All I am saying is, there is a growing body of research that find that the Cell is not a passive accumulator of radiation damage, but it activity combats and repairs radiation damage. Some consensus reports claim there might be a non-linear dose-response at low (<20 mSv) levels i.e. a threshold or even hormetic response e.g. Dose-effect relationships and estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionizing radiation by National Academy of Medicine.

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej Sternglass showed that there are 4 dose-response curves. E.B. BURLAKOVA proved relation between effects at low-intensive dosage and dose rate and the presence of linear or linear-quadratic dependency IS NOT obligatory for the cases of diseases and deaths from malignant neoplasm at low doses. I'm sorry for you, you don't want to understand, which is worse. Not knowing is o.k. But not wanting to admit is criminal. You are directly denying human suffering and I _think_ you are fake

[Diamonddavej]

@Tekknorg Regarding Burlacova...

"Committee considered that the data presented in the tables in Dr Burlakova’s studies were inconclusive as they could be read to indicate linear, biphasic or other [hormetic] responses. The data and their presentation also suffered from substantial shortcomings." - Cerrie 2003 page 53.

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej 10 to 2 consensus the the biphasic (bimodal) curve of Burlakova et al. Bramhall and Busby dissented. What do you think is your thing, apparently manipulation

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej Some consequences reports.... The other day you said the biggest Chernobyl study by Jablokov and Nesterenko is criticized as trash. You are directly undermining free speech and free thinking by that.

[Diamonddavej]

@Tekknorg Regarding Jablokov and Nesterenko ...

"I found this a very difficult read. Numerous facts and figures are given with a range of references but with little explanation and little critical evaluation. Apparently related tables, figures and statements, which refer to particular publications often disagree with one another." .. "One is left unsure about the

meaning of many of these numbers and which is preferred." review by Monty Charles, page 104.

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej You can find that type of "meaning" on basicially everything. This is not scientific. You are pro nuclear and so is BEIR and UNSCEAR.

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej to ignore and denigrate an entire body of literature, collectively hundreds of studies that provide evidence of large and significant impacts on human health and the environment -- is arrogant and irresponsible quote Helen Caldicott guardian 11 April 2011

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej The growing body you pointed out is the Chernobyl Consequences Study of Jablokov which you call trash. You have lost from day one.

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej Points you ignore: You are dissolving man made radiation in background radiation. Body can not distinguish between man made radiation and natural elements. Only one safe limit for man made radiation: ZERO.

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej No excuses. Mr. You don't want to discuss the REAL thing. There is NO safe limit for man made radiation. But ICRP, WHO, IAEA, UNSCEAR and BEIR tell otherwise, directly killing people by that. In what light you stand now?

[Diamonddavej]

@Tekknorg I don't how many way to say it, ICRP, WHO, IAEA, UNSCEAR and BEIR all agree and officially promote the idea that there is no safe limit for radiation. They agree with you!!!

You are attacking false enemies of your own construction.

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej You don't admit that there is only one true dose limit: ZERO. 1000,000 Chernobyl deaths. As long as you don't - you are pro nuclear and ignoring radiation victims.

[Diamonddavej]

@Tekknorg Zero cannot be attained, perhaps surrounded by six meters of Battle Ship steel?

Battle Ship steel, used to make ultra-sensitive instruments, it is 100 year old WW1 steel from ships sunk at Scapa Flow. Because it was manufactured before the Atomic era, it is free of radiation.

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej Stil ignoring. Sorry Diamonddavej. The day will come when you regret your words, when your health is affected and you are confused. ZERO man made radiation by atomic reactor Can be attained. By shutting down all reactors on this wonderful planet. We have the ability to learn, bu you can not be paid for it. And you can not fight always, however. I still wish you a healthy life. Goodbye.

[Diamonddavej]

@Tekknorg "The committee selected a linear-nonthreshold relationship relating exposure

to risk for the relatively low exposures at issue for indoor radon." - BEIR VI

No Threshold means, they believe there is no save level of radiation, like you do. Please stop claiming the say otherwise.

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej Ew! BEIR VII Committee Members are heavily weighted toward the nuclear industry and those who claim "low-dose" radiation is either not harmful or much less harmful than currently presumed. The panel is not balanced by inclusion of any of the credible scientists that have shown low-dose radiation to be even more harmful than current official estimates presume. The industry hopes that this packed BEIR VII panel will recommend relaxed radiation standards.

[Diamonddavej]

@Tekknorg "BEIR VII Committee Members are heavily weighted toward the nuclear industry and those who claim "low-dose" radiation is either not harmful or much less harmful than currently presumed."

This is getting more and more Bizarre by the moment. Not long ago, I had a heated debate with a guy (like yourself) who used the BEIR VII report to prove to me that there is no safe level of radiation, as you're saying. BEIR VII explicitly rejected radiation hormesis & threshold.

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej Of course, of course. What ever Diamonddavej. 

[stevensensei]

Thank you for commenting...My main work in Japan is internal body contamination and chelation. Our base group is the Three Mile Island Radiation Health Physics experts. We support with CRMS-jpn.com and welcome collaboration.

I suspect @Diamonddavej is a nuclear shill.

[lilnicky47]

@stevensensei how do we get involved with your organization?

[stevensensei]

@lilnicky47 I'll message you. There are several groups, all supporting CRMS-jpn

[LendMeYourHand]

Dont think i can afford one of these, but i would be very interested to try it on FLUORIDE. Figuring how fluoride is an electronegative ionic bond thats highly unstable. only balanced by a single electron & fluoresces under ultra violet light. Most fluoride in our food & water have a decay rate of 6 or worse. But all the stupid people cant draw the relation to radiation even know it is an atom. while even a hydrogen atom can be split & release radiation. You know atomic bomb right?

[Tekknorg]

…To provide an adequate safety standard the dose limit of 1 mSv/ PER YEAR have to be REDUCED (!) to 0.02 mSv/ PER YEAR or 20 µSv/ PER YEAR. quote Dr. Kuni University Marburg, Germany - Nuclear Medicine, University Professor.

[hamaarapoms]

Thanks for posting this, we are being lied to from all the governments that have huge finances invested. And to be honest, it would end in total panic, if people would stop and start to realize the actual impact. I lived in Germany during Chernobyl and 5km from a nuclear power plant for several years as well. We have been lied to by officials there also and have proof. I rather keep focusing on the blessings around us, but stay informed. I continue to pray for Japan, not sure how else to help...

[stevensensei]

@hamaarapoms I think that we can best help by focusing on the children in the area..getting them out of harms way. I'm working with crms-jpn.com/cat/org.html Good group in Fukushima! Good people helping people.

[stevensensei]

I got back from a summer camp leading a fun bunch of Osaka area kids. At the camp were 40 escapees all under age 10 from Fukushima eating clean food and playing in safe grass and dirt. The kids bring back safe veggies and water as a souvenir gift for their families. It makes me cry.

[Diamonddavej]

That's 87.6 millisieverts a year.

100 millisieverts is the lowest dose at which evidence of increased cancer (a 0.7% increase) is detected in population studies. But you also have to take into account that people don't live in the grass, they live inside apartments and drive in cars, so their dose should (hopefully) be allot smaller.

[Pralinenliebe]

@Diamonddavej

You mean the IPCR-Modell that has proven to be wrong about the effect of exposure to radiation! It´s from 1952 when humans didn´t know DNA.

There´s a report about the consequences of Chernobyl just been published, shown that 1,400,000 died cause of accident.

Btw geiger counters just show external radiation. What about the beta + alphy rays getting into peoples body by breathing, eating, drinking.

Let´s face reality! They discovered a man with 250,000 Bq cesium inside contamination!

[Diamonddavej]

@Pralinenliebe "You mean the IPCR-Modell that has proven to be wrong about the effect of exposure to radiation! It´s from 1952 when humans didn´t know DNA.

No, never heard of the "IPCR-Modell".

The nuclear industry goes by the 1999 United States National Research Council's BEIR VI report & the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation's UNSCEAR 2008 REPORT Vol. II. There is also Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters (CERRIE), published in 2003.

[Pralinenliebe]

@Diamonddavej

There are two physical models explaining effects of radiation: The ICPR-model is from 1952 which states long-term low radiation has no effect. Their equation is based on the heating effect of radiation. Humans are seen as a bag of water, can be heated up by radtiation. Radiation has an effect, if it produces more heat than we can absorb.

The ECRR-model sees the effect on DNA and states that long-term low radiation has an effect cause it destroys DNA. The ECRR-model has wholes, too.

[Diamonddavej]

@Pralinenliebe "Btw geiger counters just show external radiation. What about the beta + alphy rays getting into peoples body by breathing, eating, drinking."

See the Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters (CERRIE) report, published in 2003.

"Consequently, there is little consensus amongst members on the epidemiological evidence as a whole."

They said there's no convincing evidence if internal exposure (hot particles) is more, same or less dangerous that external exposure.

[Pralinenliebe]

@Diamonddavej

This was in 2003.

2011 there was a report published in English. It proofes that 1.4 million people died cause of Chernobyl. Scientists PROOF it with figures, statistics, etc. You can read it!

The ICPR-model favoures the nuclear industry. So they sticked to it even though it was a little bit odd. But now they can´t do it anymore.

If you state low radiation has no effect, you should at least know the thesis on which you ground your assumption. And in your case it´s ICPR.

[Diamonddavej]

@Pralinenliebe The Yablokov et al. 2007 book was not peer reviewed, it was a direct Russian translation of a Russian book, was widely criticized as trash, the New York Academy of Sciences released an official statement distancing its self from the book.

They took all increases in deaths in the former Soviet Union, even deaths that could not possibly be due to radiation, and claimed erroneously that Chernobyl did it. Allot of the numbers have no source and seem to be made up.

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej Nice try. It was not criticized as trash. It's the biggest Chernobyl study worldwide. IAEA, UNSCEAR, WHO (IAEA gag contract WHA 12-40 from 1959) and BEIR, and ICRP ignore Jablokov's study and the 1000,000 deaths by Chernobyl - because they are all profiteers and servants of the atomic industry. I would critisize your comment as pro nuclear trash, because you ignore the dangers of low radiation, the suffering of all Fukushima and Chernobyl children, ethic, science and logic.

[Diamonddavej]

@Pralinenliebe "Btw geiger counters just show external radiation. What about the beta + alphy rays getting into peoples body by breathing, eating, drinking."

The only consolation is all this, is, this disaster occurred in a first world country, with the ability to monitor food air & water. Unlike Chernobyl where the evacuation was delayed, Iodine pills were not given out & milk was not tested. Close monitoring by officials, and indeed citizens as seen here, can prevent ingestion of radiation.

[Diamonddavej]

@Pralinenliebe "There´s a report about the consequences of Chernobyl just been published, shown that 1,400,000 died cause of accident."

Whereas UNSCEAR's assessments of Chernobyl put the death toll at 62. Indeed, it is widely accepted, even in Russia, that the number of deaths from thyroid cancer was just 15 by 2005.

Google: UNSCEAR 2008 VOLUME II Annex D. (See section VII. General conclusions, on Page 20).

[Pralinenliebe]

@Diamonddavej

That was 2008! There are "new" facts.

They tried everything to hide it.

But Prof. Lengfelder, the chriirad and many other scientists working in Chernobyl found other figures and proofs!

I saw reports of people living there stating all of their friends died of cancer.

You just didn´t see and read all this things (I studied physics). Otherwise you would know.

It was just (sorry to say it) a big cover up (I don´t believe in conspiracy theories like Iluminati or other nonsense stuff)

[Tekknorg]

@Pralinenliebe The guy is obviously pro nuclear. In fact Geologists are needed for atomic industry because usually they give the o.k. for new construction sites for atomic power plants. Also happened in Fukushima. Geologists are directly responsible. I visited the Geological Institute in Minsk 06/11, where they showed us the "safe" place for the new belarusian atomic power plant. Then they admitted, it is in fact a quake area. This was also admitted by lithunian geological institute this month.

[Diamonddavej]

@Tekknorg I'm not a guy who works in the nuclear industry, by remarkable coincidence, I have Asperger syndrome, I founded in 2002 and run a social group for adults with Asperger's and autism (check out my video). I see you are involved in helping people with ASDs too, that's cool! As you know folks with ASDs are very factual, blunt & truthful, I'm not an industry shill. I got into radiation safety as a special interest a few years back, it's now photography more so.

[Diamonddavej]

@Pralinenliebe "You mean the IPCR-Modell"

Oh you mean the ICRP Model, sorry, you misspelled it. I found the website now.

[Pralinenliebe]

@Diamonddavej

O, I see!

It´s just because I am not from an English speaking country. I´m from Germany. So sometimes you can see wrong vocabulary or wrong spellings in my statements.

To me English spelling is horrible! I can speak English fluently without German accent but writing gives me headache! I don´t know how you people manage it!

When I was typing, thinking about every single spelling, I wrote ICRP model wrongly. After writing it down wrongly once, it sticked in my brains. Thank you!

[Diamonddavej]

@Pralinenliebe German is a very hard language for English speakers to learn, I am sure it's hard for you guy to learn English too. I know no German at all, I know a mixed up version of French-Spanish, that no one else can understand.

Please be skeptical of the high figures, allot of people who come out with high figures have a political reasons, same goes for the low figures, the truth will be in between. Think for yourself and read all the sources.

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej Logic is a language pro nuclear advocats shoud learn. High death numbers are a result of low radiation and latency of cancer - caused by low radiation and "normal" Tiritum emissions by cooling towers of atomic power plants. K.Z. Morgan, former ICRP president admited in Sept. 1978 in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, that "“there is no dose of radiatoon so low that the risk of malignancy is zero”. Get your facts right buddy.

[Diamonddavej]

@Tekknorg More radiation is released into the environment by coal fired power stations than normally operating nuclear power stations, because coal is naturally mildly radioactive e.g.

Papastefanou, C., 2010, Escaping radioactivity from coal-fired power plants (CPPs) due to coal burning and the associated hazards: a review: Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, v. 101, no. 3, p. 191-200.

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste. Mara Hvistendahl | December 13, 2007

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej Nope. The UN Commission UNSCEAR** has determined that in consideration of the entire fuel cycle, the global collective dose of population per megawatt of electrical energy from nuclear power is 375 times higher than for electricity from coal. 1985 Japanese researchers* reported in Health Physics that whole-body dose lying at Japanese coal-fired power plants on the highest point of radioactive pollution in the area of 0.01 mrem per year.

[Diamonddavej]

@Tekknorg Could you give me the full references so I can read what was said, thanks.

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej No problem: Nakaoka A. et al.: "Evaluation of Radiation Dose from a Coal-Fired Power Plant" Health Physics, Vol. 48, Feb. 1985 and UNCEAR 1977 report, page 27

[Diamonddavej]

Also Energy Source - Death Rate (deaths per 10 Billion kWh)

Coal - 32.7

Hydroelectric - 54.7 (including 230,000 killed in Banqiao Dam collapse)

Natural Gas - 1.6

Nuclear - 1.2 (including 9000 deaths from Chernobyl)

In: Environmental and Health Impacts of electricity Generation by the IEA (2002, 239 pages) - A Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of Hydropower with those of Other Generation Technologies

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej If you ignore the latest facts and independent scientists, of course. Your numbers are the ones of the IAEA which gags the WHO with contract WHA 12-40 from 1959, UNSCEAR and BEIR. Both deny any links between low radiation, deaths, mutations and diseases. And you too. 1000,000 deaths by Chernobyl and 1,400,000 deaths according to Dr. Rosalie Bertell. You got your numbers and I know many people killed or disabled by Chernobyl. IEA / IAEA and radiation - like Mafia and crimes.

[Diamonddavej]

However, this is the important point. I believe the dose-risk relationship at low doses is uncertain (because the effects are too small, thus there is no direct evidence to know) - the dose-risk relationship might be linear, threshold or even hormetic.

I totally reject the idea (Chris Busby) that radiation is 100s times more dangerous at low doses then predicted i.e. lower doses are more dangerous then higher doses. And there is a massive cover-up of millions of radiation induced deaths.

[stevensensei]

@Diamonddavej You are the only non-shill I know who is so FOR radiation or against the scientific data showing the harm of low-dose radiation, especially to children. Usually people have to get paid to spout your nonsense. If you really are a regular guy, I think you are missing your calling. You are so attentive to post on my video. REALLY, people usually get paid to search out obscure youtube videos and try to make radiation palatable.

[Diamonddavej]

@stevensensei All I am saying is, medical studies are no longer able to detect the adverse effects of low level radiation, near where radiation levels merge with natural radiation levels and the background cancer rate. In this gray area, between natural background levels and high level radiation where adverse effects are definitely seen, the low dose-risk relationship is unknown. Currently, radiation dose-risk is assumed to be linear at all doses. I'll leave it at that.

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej The dangers of low radiation and direct effect are known since 1927: Herman Mueller: Artificial transmutation of the gene. The indirect chemical damage to cell membranes in the low dose range is much more important than the direct effect of radiation on the nucleus with its genetic material. In the nucleus there appears to be much stronger repair mechanisms than in the cell membranes. Discovered by Abraham Petkau, 1970: Petkau Effect.

[Diamonddavej]

@Tekknorg Here's the original paper, 1972 not 1970:

Petkau, A., 1972, Effect of 22 Na+ on a phospholipid membrane: Health Physics.

If the cell membrane is destroyed, the cell is killed, so it appears the Petkau Effect is a radio-adaptive response, a of form cell suicide that prevents carcinogenesis.

The scientific consensus report "Dose-effect relationships and estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionizing radiation" lists many radio-adaptive cellular responses.

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej Nope, you're doing it wrong. Search for: "Radiation Effects with a Model Lipid Membrane1

A. PETKAU

Medical Biophysics Section, Whiteshell N~lclear Research Establishment,

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Pinawa, Manitoba

Received November 16, 1970"

[Tekknorg]

@Diamonddavej 1927 Herman J Mueller discovered in 1927 (!) the following: ARTIFICIAL TRANSMUTATION OF THE GENE by radiation – he got the The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1946: PDF on ESP dot ORG.

[redbuttonstudio]

OMG

[raticida123456]

too much! that is like 100,000 mcsv/year "maximum permitted for staff and workers IN EMERGENCY CASES"

but in fukushima there are 102mcsv/hour like 1000,000 per year !!

[antiprotons]

Interesting. I am very skepticle of high readings in the USA, but at such close range, it is hard to dispute. I would prefer to see CPM or CPS if you please. uSv/hr is not useful, other than showing the severity of the reading, due to the unknown energy levels being detected.

The whole thing is very sad. Poor Japanese.

Thanks for posting!

[iamgoddard]

Thanks for sharing! Frightfully high, no way is that safe!

That camera only focuses on very-close objects.

[antiprotons]

@iamgoddard I would not want children to live in such a place.

[MsMilkytheclown]

@iamgoddard Ugh!

[MRBRIGGSY1980]

WHY EVEN GO THERE TO GET A READING WITH NO PROTECTION FROM THE RADIATION F**CKING INSANE

[antiprotons]

@MRBRIGGSY1980  It is perfectly safe for short term.

[stevensensei]

Fukushima City has not been evacuated. There are still more than 280,000 people estimated to be there. Other areas in Fukushima Prefecture and other prefectures are more contaminated The entire prefecture contaminated at these levels or higher is estimated to be the population of the prefecture--more than two million people.

We are working to at least get the children and mothers out. For those who remain, they will need information to get the cesium our of their bodies.

[freedomfighterone]

@stevensensei Why do the Japanese stay there with all that radiation? Where is the common sense? They are all going to die unless they get the hell out of there, right now!

[sampleforyou]

are people living there? omg. cant believe Japan Goverment is doing nothing to help all the citizens from Fukushima City. In 2 weeks people where evacuated at the Chernobyl accident!