Video Of Tsunami Smashing Into Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant; Reactor 1 Radiation Counter "Breaks" After Reporting 100 Sieverts/Hour

Tyler Durden's picture

Your rating: None

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 04/09/2011 - 13:01 | 1153363 AN0NYM0US
AN0NYM0US's picture

if it took a 45' wave to do in FUKU that actually speaks well of the industry, though not so well of those who were involved in site selection

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 13:25 | 1153422 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

From yesterday, links by PhattyBuoy, on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:32, #1152179

The radiation level of the dry well of the Reactor 1 Container Vessel has been rather high, and fluctuating, indicating that the reactor is far from stable.

#1 Drywell readings between 30 Sv & 50 Sv for the last 3 weeks !

#2 Sv readings DryWell & SupressionChamber

#3 Sv readings DW & SC

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

by Ident 7777 economy, on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 21:31, #1152348

Geez ... Drywell (D/W) #1 showing 100 (one hundred) Sv/h (not milli, not micro) at the moment!

Reactor #1 D/W Sv/Hr [Friday's chart]:

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 13:43 | 1153457 Slartebartfast
Slartebartfast's picture

I believe that at 100Sv/h you would receive a borderline lethal dose in 5 to 6 minutes.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:28 | 1153554 mt paul
mt paul's picture

about as long 

as it would take you to

 smoke a lucky strike ....

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 22:53 | 1154314 mick_richfield
mick_richfield's picture


Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit smoking.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 18:00 | 1153907 SilverRhino
SilverRhino's picture

10,000 Rems/Hour:  166 Rems / Minute : 3 minutes to LD 50 lethal dose (498).  

Quote: Typically, the LD 50/30 is in the range from 400 to 450 rem (4 to 5 sieverts) received over a very short period.


By comparison the worse dosage rates for Chernobyl were the "bio-robots" at 7,000 Rems/Hr on the roof of the reactor.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:32 | 1153560 tallen
tallen's picture

Radiation is good for you:

100Sv = 100 happyness per second.

Turn the MSM on, everything is GREAT!

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 20:03 | 1154041 privet
privet's picture

Looks like she might be right.


Go to

and type in "radiation hormesis".  Lots of papers on the subject.


I tried to read an Ann Coulter book once.  It was awful.  I didn't finish it.  But I'm impressed that she's got 'balls' enough to come out and discuss this stuff in public, given the ridicule she must be taking.  Good for her.


Obviously there's a level of radiation that's bad, the question is, what is the effect of much lower levels.  It looks like that's not really known.




Sat, 04/09/2011 - 20:36 | 1154086 pods
pods's picture

Oh she's got the balls all right.

And the Adam's apple, and.......................


Sat, 04/09/2011 - 21:59 | 1154236 gall batter
gall batter's picture

coulter's 'radiation is good for you' is yesterday's news.  truth is that this is the catastrophe of our times.  worse than Chernobyl.  this submerges all other stories--renders the question of who won, Boner or Obambi, and the budget to a level of haha distraction.  same as O's birth certificate.  who gives a shit where he was born?  there's radiation pouring into the Pacific, entering our atmosphere, our food chain, our mouths, our lungs, our pores, our armpits, our CHILDREN.   

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 20:43 | 1154103 macholatte
macholatte's picture

It's the sound of her voice that does it for me. That finger-nails-on-the-blackboard kind of sexy that so few women have.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 21:01 | 1154135 Stormdancer
Stormdancer's picture

Your link is glaringly generic.  How about you be the guinea pig, eh?

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 21:19 | 1154169 privet
privet's picture

The link is generic because that way it's a link to all the papers on the subject rather than being cherry picked.

I'm going to read some of those papers in detail.  My next stop.  I'm constantly looking for ways to improve my health.  If it turns out there's convincing evidence that low level radiation exposure does that, then I may well look into ways to get some.  Maybe park some granite slabs under my bed or something :)

It's ironic.  I had a double pelvic-abdominal CT scan some years back, which wasn't really necessary, and have been silently fuming at the physician who ordered it ever since over the 1 in 400 risk of death from cancer that the linear-no-threshold model of radiation exposure says I have as a result.  Now I'm starting to wonder if she actually may have reduced my future cancer risk.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 22:07 | 1154251 Stormdancer
Stormdancer's picture

So, you're advocating an assumption based on "numerous" scientific papers you haven't read yet.  Otay :)

Sun, 04/10/2011 - 00:57 | 1154466 privet
privet's picture

I "advocated" nothing.


Sun, 04/10/2011 - 01:28 | 1154491 Stormdancer
Stormdancer's picture

Looks like she might be right....


You're welcome to your opinion, and I really didn't mean to make a mountain out of a molehill.  It just seems awfully suspicious that these kinds of dubious claims come out at a time when huge numbers of people are confronting the possibility of being dosed with truly health threatening levels of radiation over the next few years.


The fact that there *might* be some negligible level of radiation that's somehow "good" for you (and I don't buy that at all yet) doesn't have any relevance to the situation at hand.


It might be an intellectual curiousity at this point, but if there is any truth to it... just how could that be related to widespread, wildly varying levels of exposure likely to be encountered as a result of this accident?


If there were a "healthful" level of radiation exposure you'd find it administered in a controlled medical setting.....not by doing timed walks through specified "hot zones" :)


So, satisfy your curiousity if you will....I love to do that myself.  But this whole "radiation hormesis" hypothesis is nothing but a bullshit distraction from the horror of uncontrolled releases of radiation purveyed by a bought and paid for globalist mouthpiece.


Sun, 04/10/2011 - 01:36 | 1154502 privet
privet's picture

You might be right too :)


Sun, 04/10/2011 - 06:23 | 1154622 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

"radiation hormesis"

Fuck you.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 16:19 | 1153449 A Man without Q...
A Man without Qualities's picture

It's a shame you can only junk once....

edit:  fortunately enough agreed with me for the post to be consigned to history..

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 17:57 | 1153900 Rula Lenska
Rula Lenska's picture

It's been consigned to oblivion.  If it were still here it'd be consigned to history.  I arrived too late to share in the delight....perhaps I'm lucky?

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:20 | 1153540 hognutz
hognutz's picture

I feel sorrry for the japanese folks......:-(

covert you sir.........never mind, words ain't enough

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:34 | 1153565 BigJim
BigJim's picture

I know, I don't understand it either, the Japanese aren't muslims plotting our downfall.

(/sarc, as if I need it)

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 15:26 | 1153661 stewie
stewie's picture

My god I'm so sick of this spammer. Tyler please revoke his account.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 21:14 | 1154164 moneymutt
moneymutt's picture

this was a 1000 year tsunami, sea walls made of back to bake retaining walls, mostly of earth/rock with some horizontal layers of geosynthetic reinforcement could have been affordably built to 50 feet high, its basically the way great wall of china was made reinforcesoil with hardened/block face. They've built many similar earth filled back to back retaining walls for elevated bullet train tracks that have survived earth quakes like near Kobe even when they weren't designed for Kobe level. Affordable and tsunami of this sixe was in their historical record and was 200 years overdue according to geologists

Sun, 04/10/2011 - 06:25 | 1154623 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

"this was a 1000 year tsunami"


Sat, 04/09/2011 - 22:00 | 1154245 BlackholeDivestment
BlackholeDivestment's picture

My friend, I was in Japan when I first learned about earthquakes. I lived through a few of them while I was there. When I first learned about Tsunamis I was at this Temple (read the note about the 9.0 quake and tsunami in this video some one put on YouTube when I first found out about what a Tsunami can do, I recall being told that this buddha had a roof over it. My point being, they certainly had more than enough forsight of the potential for a ''combined disaster''. This is no game card number 7 accident, right? ...they just knew it was a good idea to put a nuke plant on sand by the sea shore near a fault line on an island prone to serious earth quakes because they are not even smart enough to run a power plant safely? They must at least be smart enough to have insurance for such disaster, like they had for WTC 7 right?

P.S. Japanese people are some of the smartest people. I can't explain any of this as being normal, more like paranormal and plain freaky stuff that just fits well with all the weird things upon this generation.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 13:00 | 1153368 malikai
malikai's picture

I saw a better shot on the 14th or so, from a stationary camera at a similar location. It showed the seawall getting hit. I think the video has been taken down though since I can't find it again.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:04 | 1153504 Azannoth
Azannoth's picture

Putting nuclear power plants on the shoreline knows to have relatively frequent tsunamis is the most riddiculous thing ever, why not put them at the top of a volcano next ?

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:13 | 1153520 banksterhater
banksterhater's picture


Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:14 | 1153521 banksterhater
banksterhater's picture

They need COOLING WATER, that's why. Why do you think the US ones are on rivers? Duh...

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:28 | 1153553 patb
patb's picture

Given Global Warming, are any of these endangered?

Climate Change has dramatically increased flooding in some areas, like when Nashville took a 18 inch rainstorm in a day and flooded most of the city.  Iowa City went underwater a fw years back.  Are any nuclear plants now vulnerable to extreme rain events?

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 16:30 | 1153780 Transformer
Transformer's picture

What is this Climate Change crap?  The climate is always changing.  What happened to Global Warming?

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 17:00 | 1153837 OrestesPenthilu...
OrestesPenthilusQuintard's picture

It's now "global climate disruption".  See how easy this is?

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 17:24 | 1153863 Thorny Xi
Thorny Xi's picture

The WEATHER changes. The climate has been stable for 10,000 years. That's why we've been able to, as a species, develop agriculture and progress beyond a long stasis point of a small collection of nomadic hunters and gatherers.  Tyler, perhaps you need a harder CAPCHA to screen for something besides ability to use the Windows calculator.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 17:40 | 1153880 Zardinuk
Zardinuk's picture

you use a calculator for those?

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 19:19 | 1153996 skeptik
skeptik's picture

ROFLMAO!  +1 internets

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 21:24 | 1154179 Dental Floss Tycoon
Dental Floss Tycoon's picture

Given the wild climatic swings of the past, you would be hard pressed to prove that the earth has a climate.  

Ten thousand years is only about 1 percent of the time that man like creatures have inhabited the earth.  Seems irrational to assume that it will last forever.  Just a blink in time.

Sun, 04/10/2011 - 00:30 | 1154431 Bent Nail
Bent Nail's picture

"Tyler, perhaps you need a harder CAPCHA to screen for something besides ability to use the Windows calculator."


Ok, how about one like this?

Please enter the next number in the sequence: 61, 52, 63, 94,  . . .



Sun, 04/10/2011 - 04:00 | 1154578 RichardP
RichardP's picture


Something 5.  65?

Sun, 04/10/2011 - 07:17 | 1154645 tarpuranus
tarpuranus's picture


Sun, 04/10/2011 - 09:18 | 1154743 Crumbles
Crumbles's picture

4² = 16 = 61 5² = 25 = 52 6² = 36 = 63 7² = 49 = 94 8² = 64 = 46 9 ² = 81 ...


Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:43 | 1153580 DoctoRx
DoctoRx's picture

San Onofre, Diablo Canyon:  On Pacific Ocean, both knowingly built on fault lines.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 15:07 | 1153627 Pchelar
Sat, 04/09/2011 - 13:10 | 1153380 cossack55
cossack55's picture

How do you say "Go back, wave, or we'll nuke ya." in Japanese. On second thought, forget it.


And, you know, a 5 meter sea wall next to the freakin Pacific Ocean.  Was Katrina and NO not covered on NHK?

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 13:07 | 1153381 PulauHantu29
PulauHantu29's picture

Yes, but "it's only a tiny leak" the Japanese officials said.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 13:08 | 1153382 Careless Whisper
Careless Whisper's picture

Each plant will now have two backup diesel generators so this will never happen again.

LoLz. problem solved. nukes are safe. move along.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 13:19 | 1153400 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

O ye of little faith:

Obama Administration Picks Tokyo Electric To Build U.S. Nuke Plant

 Obama & his bigwig sponsors will keep us safe.  ;-)

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 13:40 | 1153434 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

I thnk they (Greg Palast) are conflating Toshiba with TEPCO or more to the point, conflating investing with building and operating:


Doing due diligence, we find more:

"Tepco said last May that it would pay $125 million for a 10% share of the NINA joint venture once DOE has issued a conditional commitment to the project's developers for a federal loan guarantee."


MORE - from reputable websites:

Tepco, which is battling a major accident at its earthquake-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, said in May 2010 it would spend up to $250 million Y(20 billion) to acquire a stake in the project to build units 3 and 4 at the South Texas Project nuclear plant if the U.S. government provides loan guarantees. The Japanese utility already has a technological tie-up with NRG Energy.


Sat, 04/09/2011 - 21:01 | 1154139 TerraHertz
TerraHertz's picture

Each plant will now have two backup diesel generators so this will never happen again.

They seem to still be forgetting to add "and everything related to the backup generators must be 30 meters above sea level."

Even if they do that, it just means the next disaster will be from a meteorite strike near a cluster of nuke plants. No, I'm serious. It really does. You absolutely can't defeat Murphy's Law. By eliminating potential for 'small' disasters, you just ask for even bigger ones.

In the long run, the only way to avoid calamitous nuclear power plant disasters, is to not have any nuclear power plants.

Sun, 04/10/2011 - 07:34 | 1154661 malikai
malikai's picture

Or we can outlaw meteors.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!