Radiation dose triples at Tokyo monitoring post early Sunday — Doubles at another

Published: March 24th, 2012 at 8:33 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
48 comments


h/t Fukushima Diary

Geiger Counter Readings
Security Tokyo
March 25, 2012

Radiation dose tripled at Adachi-ku in Tokyo (See chart here)

  • 3/25/12 at 00:00 @ 0.09 microSv/h
  • 3/25/12 at 00:30 @ 0.28 microSv/h

Radiation dose doubled at Shinagawa-ku in Tokyo around the same time (See chart here)

Published: March 24th, 2012 at 8:33 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
48 comments

Related Posts

  1. Radiation triples at Tokyo monitoring station — Levels spike at multiple locations in last two hours May 2, 2012
  2. Radiation dose quadruples at one Tokyo monitoring station, triples at another April 12, 2012
  3. PHOTOS: Tokyo police preparing early for protesters — Large buses with no windows, accordion gates to seal off streets July 13, 2012
  4. Radiation spikes in Tokyo at Shinjuku detector — Up to triple normal levels March 27, 2012
  5. Japan Scientists: Radiation dose has been “significantly increased” around Tokyo metropolitan area after Fukushima September 19, 2012

48 comments to Radiation dose triples at Tokyo monitoring post early Sunday — Doubles at another

  • Grampybone Grampybone

    Oh hai there rads we never saw you coming! Well actually we did. Once again the government in Tokyo has done a fantastic job serving up radiation assurances with no real scientific claim that what they say is correct. Here is a prime example of how wrong they are. Looks like Tokyo is going to be a hotbed of rads.


    Report comment

  • americancommntr

    Something doesn't seem right with the levels here.

    My Monitor 4, circa early 80's probably, shows .2 to .4 microsieverts per hour from a paper towel wiped on car hood during a rain. Did that last night, I think it was.

    It actually shows .02 to .04 mrems, which if I remember right, are multiplied by 10 to arrive at microsieverts.

    Either it's off, or this Tokyo monitor is underestimating.


    Report comment

    • americancommntr

      These figures are 'per hour'.

      Maybe I'll go to a fire department and ask to check it against one of theirs. That would be interesting. Probably blow their gourd.

      I actually asked a fire department last summer if they had counters and had checked the rain. They said no, and one of them said they had no training in using them.

      Sounded like canned answers to me. A 12 year old child, or younger, wouldn't need training to use one. You just turn the thing on and go hunting.

      That guy who said that, if he was being honest, will probably go straight from his retirement party to a nursing home, or at least within a couple years.


      Report comment

  • dear jones

    We the government want to cover up something, they can generate any data they want.


    Report comment

  • ITSNOTABANANA

    The real nasty stuff here, that has the serious killing power, is an ALPHA emitter!

    WHERE IS THE ALPHA DATA?!
    IT CANNOT BE EQUALLY COMPARED IN DOSE UNITS!!!

    It's alarming how Pluto was recently removed from planet status.
    Even more alarming is the absence of Plutonium in the test data


    Report comment

  • CB CB

    ALERT! PLEASE DISREGARD ANYTHING FROM CB! I HAVE NOT POSTED SEVERAL CLAIMS HERE! I DON'T KNOW WHATS HAPPENING!


    Report comment

    • CB you have been hacked.

      Try to change your password.

      Maybe that will help.


      Report comment

      • Misitu

        If that is the case best re-register with something that looks like CB – so we can recognise you – and trash the old CB – ask Admin to do this.

        If they have been posting as you they have your password. They can change it (but probably wouldn't as that would alert you). If they have your password they can own your login on other sites if you recycle it. SO best get out and come back clean.

        cb
        c-b
        CB
        CB_
        C_B

        stuff like that would be recognisable. Best talk to admin.

        Hope this helps
        m


        Report comment

  • markww markww

    When the wall fell in Russia the civil defense stopped the radiological monitoring system and picked up the Geiger counters and the firer depts have not been trained in 20 yrs Mark


    Report comment

  • Plutonium admission by the EPA
    A lot of the paid shrills for the nuke industry have been very vocal about stating how there was No Plutonium released from Fukushima.

    Well, lets see, 3 reactors blew up, the one that blow up the most was a MOX reactor which is like 5% to 10% plutonium, and all reactors produce plutonium as a natural part of the process. And of course all of the "fuel transfer pools" had used fuel which of course had plutonium.

    I made a spreadsheet direct download from US EPA Radnet computers. It shows in the weeks after the accident, plutonium detecting in the US at levels 2900% to 3500% over background.

    So there is the proof. We been inhaling Plutonium, that's not good.

    http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2012/03/plutonium-admission-by-epa.html


    Report comment

  • bleep_hits_blades

    Inhaling plutonium = a death sentence (?)

    Re inhaling plutonium, somewhere in my reading a few months back, I came across a statement, by some person in the 'industry' – can't recall the exact quotation but its essence was this – "If you inhale plutonium, that's it. You're going to die. "

    Actually I believe it was in a book about Karen Silkwood – a bio. of Silkwood, as I recall. But it was testimony from an expert in the field.


    Report comment

    • aigeezer aigeezer

      That is often quoted, bleep.

      Unfortunately, if you search for the topic online you`ll find a ton of pushback from the industry to cloud the issue:

      http://www.nuenergy.org/alt/inhale.htm

      http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2011/11/09/rockybarker/two_idaho_lab_workers_inhale_plutonium_oxide_weaponsgrade_pluton

      My take is that the more credible sites agree that it is indeed serious:

      http://www.ccnr.org/plute_tox.html

      Even the EPA (credible or not) says it is serious:

      Once in the bloodstream, plutonium moves throughout the body and into the bones, liver, or other body organs. Plutonium that reaches body organs generally stays in the body for decades and continues to expose the surrounding tissue to radiation.

      http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/plutonium.html


      Report comment

    • MaidenHeaven MaidenHeaven

      @bleep_hits_blades…"In principle, using the Atomic Energy Control Board's (AECB) regulatory limits, we can calculate that 0.1 micrograms of plutonium can overdose one person while noting that maximum safe exposure limits is placed at 0.56 micrograms maximum full body exposure and 0.25 micrograms for lung exposure."

      "According to the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) 0.1 grams would overdose one million people, one gram, ten million people, 100 grams, one billion people and 600 grams, six billion people."

      …"Because of the decay heat, the irradiated fuel that is removed from the core of the reactor after it is "used up" or "spent" has to be stored in a deep pool of circulating water which is used to cool the fuel for at least 7 to 10 years. If the fuel is uncovered during the first few years it will slowly overheat and eventually damage its metallic container at hundreds of degrees
      celsius and release a lot of radioactive gasses and vapours into the air."

      AECL has produced graphs showing how the decay heat from buried spent fuel will heat up the underground rock formations, which will finally return to their "ambient level" of temperature after about 50,000 years.

      http://www.ccnr.org/Radwaste_Heat.html


      Report comment

      • MaidenHeaven MaidenHeaven

        ‎"1 millionth of a gram of Plutonium will give you cancer, 1 pound evenly distributed around the earth will give everyone cancer." Dr Helen Caldicott


        Report comment

        • aigeezer aigeezer

          Hi MaidenHeaven. I`m glad you found that from Caldicott, a physician. Your reference is at Rense here:

          http://rense.com/general93/plut.htm

          All I was finding pointed to Ralph Nader as the source, and the industry was pounding him without mercy because he doesn`t have medical or nuclear credentials.

          For example:

          "Half a kilogram of plutonium, spread evenly around the world, is enough to induce lung cancer in every person on Earth." A widely publicised version of Ralph Nader's 1975 claim, at a speech at LaFayette College, that a pound of plutonium could kill 8 billion people.“

          … from an article that bashes the claim in what appears to be a very biased way:

          http://www.als.net/forum/?g=posts&t=48289

          I found tons of nuke industry pushback like that in link after link after link.

          Along the way, I found plenty of apparently unbiased material that says inhaled plutonium is indeed very serious, but nothing as stark as the quotation you found from Caldicott.

          The nice thing about Caldicott`s way of putting it, is that it can easily be checked with simple arithmetic – no need to squabble about formal results.

          Her example is for effect, for proof of concept. She isn`t making any claims about how plutonium is actually distributed. Some get a little, some get a lot, and hopefully many get none at all from Fukushima. We will find out soon enough.

          Needless to say, I also found plenty of links to those ghastly beagle experiments with plutonium.

          Don`t inhale!

          Oh yes, Caldicott gets pushback too, for example:

          http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/helen-caldicott-and-the-fine-art-of-making-up-nonsense/

          The industry seems to enjoy this kind of he-said-she-said game, as though the stakes were points in a debating contest rather than our very lives.


          Report comment

      • Well they launched at least 400 pounds, maybe 2000 pounds, that sucks. But I don't think the toxicity is that bad, that's too extreme.


        Report comment

    • vital1 vital1

      bleep_hits_blades

      The problem with Plutonium getting into the lungs is that it is harvested by the immune system and collected in the lymph nodes. This concentrates it in one place. So the lymph nodes associated with lung cleaning system may develop cancer not necessarily the lungs.

      The lungs themselves can also develop cancer if the Plutonium hasn't been removed by lungs natural cleaning system.

      Everyone is different some people are naturally resistant to flues and colds than others. Some people are going to be naturally more resistant to the affects of radiation.

      Having diversity in a species can help it survive when the environment changes.

      My theory is that if there is a significant radiation increase in the environment DNA gets scrambled. This creates lots of random mutations in the off spring with the hope that one or more of those mutations will have the ability to survive the changed environment. This will happen across all species. DNA has been around for a long time.

      Limiting your exposure is the best solution at present.

      ————————————————————

      Geiger Counter use guide.

      http://technologypals.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Using-a-Geiger-Counter-to-test-food-for-Radioactive-Contamination.pdf


      Report comment

      • Fall out man!

        Sadly, most mutations cannot be selected out by natural selection and simply build up in the genome. Greater background radiation moves all species closer to extinction. Natural selection will slow that down, but it cannot stop it.

        Good brief free summary article about it here…
        http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end

        Book on the topic by the man who invented the Gene Gun which established the genetic modification industry…
        http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Sanford/dp/0981631606

        Eventually all life will die out due to accumulated genetic decay. Given even nuke plants operating normally release radiation damaging the genome of those downwind and causing all kinds of disease, it is actually a matter of survival to shut these things down.


        Report comment

      • Fall out man!

        For those really serious about food testing, there is now a way to get a very effective scintillator / gamma spectroscopy unit for a fraction of what such devices used to cost. This info has been posted here before by ??? who recommended this. It looks impressive.

        You get one of these units from Australia (the site tells you about it) which lets your PC act as a "multi-channel analyzer" (usually 2,500 USD minimum for one of those, but with this device it can be replaced by free software)

        Then get yourself a scintillation detector. Ludlums are the market leader and this model will measure the tiny amounts of radiation that are dangerous in food very quickly…
        http://ludlums.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage_ludlum.tpl&product_id=164&category_id=71&keyword=44-10&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=116

        When using sensitive equipment like this that can detect what is in food in just a few minutes and tell you what isotopes are there, not just do a count it is helpful to get the shielding right. Vital1's link gives some good advice above for when dealing with a Geiger counter, but this scintillator based equipment is 1000 times more sensitive. Lead shielding has traces of radioactive lead in it which ironically throws out a small amount of X-rays from any lead object. To block that, wrap any lead bricks you use in multiple layers of tin foil or use aluminum or copper between your test equipment and the lead.

        The Ludlums detector listed above is about 1,100 USD and the Aussie built usb powered power supply and shaping amplifier is about 250 USD. The software that makes this work is freeware from an Aussie university. Normally this sort of kit will set you back 5,000 USD plus and for low level radiation like that found in food, according to a uni academic who tested it, this set up actually gives better results.

        If you look up the PRD software and gamma spectrometry on youtube you can find a few videos demonstrating it.


        Report comment

  • bleep_hits_blades

    Plutonium inhaled, is, I believe, a virtual death sentence, even in minute quantities. However, taken in other ways, in food, for instance it is not always so bad. Remember the "PSAs" of the 'three plutonium brothers' on Japanese TV, reassuring the Japanese public of the harmlessness of plutonium… well, the kernel of (quasi) truth in their 'not-to-worry' dis-info was that…

    I got a book from the library, THE PLUTONIUM FILES was its name, I believe, and it discussed this early (very sloppy) experiment (in the USA) on unwitting human subjects, about 10-12 of them, who were given plutonium. Some of them who ate it lived for a long time – even a couple of decades. Don't recall those who were injected – that is worse, I believe – but the worst, the most deadly, is inhalation.

    Which is how most of us have gotten our plutonium…

    Another thing I recall reading is – the US Army deliberately marching troops back and forth in the areas in which test bombs were exploded. Just to see what it did to them. More expendable human guinea pigs…

    The more things change, the more they stay the same, as the French say – this is no different from the 18th Century practice of sending troops out into a battle area in order to discover where the enemy cannon are placed, and how many of them there are.

    And yet 'some people' are outraged at the very suggestion that 'our' govt. could be engaged in 'covert joint planned actions' that are directly, knowingly, deliberately harmful to American citizens, like, soldiers … such as, for instance, unnecessary wars in the Mid-East, in the eternal quest for profit and empire.


    Report comment

    • VanneV anne

      When plutonium is in powdered form (as in MOX, as when pulverized into the jet stream from an explosion), it is also extremely lethal when ingested. There is information on the forum on effects of low dose radiation.


      Report comment

      • VanneV anne

        It must also be very lethal when ingested as it bioaccumulates from powdered form up the food chain. Powdered plutonium is 2,000,000 times more lethal than enriched uranium.


        Report comment

  • bleep_hits_blades

    Thanks to all of you for your information. And for helping me feel not quite so alone with this 'we been had and we are screwed' knowledge/awareness. I have found so much good info posted here on enenews, and amazingly good links, and I don't always remember to thank people for them. Just being around so much intelligence is refreshing, energizing.


    Report comment