Channel WORM Hg-197 now off the air.

Thank you for joining us on this, the last day of March of the year 2011. It will never come again.

Comments are always welcome, in any thread. Those needing approval will receive our blessing as soon as their existence is known.

Any major changes in the Fukushima narrative went unnoticed by our staff today. The exhausted workers appear increasingly fatalistic; we hope and pray their fears are unfounded.

We end this broadcast day about 30 miles from our nuclear birthplace, in Huntsville AL. All the best to all of you.

About wormme

I've accepted that all of you are socially superior to me. But no pretending that any of you are rational.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Channel WORM Hg-197 now off the air.

  1. oldHP says:

    World’s largest concrete pump going to Japan

    70 meter boom, remote control. Currently being used to build the site in the US where weapons fuel will be reprocessed into MOX reactor fuel. Yeah, like that facility is actually ever going to go into production…

  2. jrman says:

    another error on contamination levels in water (ground water this time) by TEPCO: Maybe this is all a setup so we won’t believe them when they deliver the really bad news.

    Anybody heard anything about #2? As crosspatch noted yesterday they lost the vessel bottom temp indicator, and fw nozzle temp is going up according to this morning’s (japan time) report. They did stop injecting water for a while due to some pump and hose failures, so maybe it is expected.

  3. jrman says:

    Rainwater analyzed in San Fran:

    They found a bunch of stuff. Looks like a decent non-hyped analysis. I haven’t read the full paper.

  4. oldHP says:

    CBS still saying that milk with iodine levels “not above background” is the first evidence of Japanese fallout reaching us…

  5. Saul says:


    Been reading your blog a bit and trying to learn how to filter the rubbish coming from the press. I dug this out of the Japan Times and it looks like something to worry about. Is it?

    • wormme says:

      Sue’s been keeping the closest eye on it, and linked the latest data. Those numbers have been steadily trending down, though the hot spots are well about natural background.

      The problem, of course, is lack of info. Ideally you take data like this and tailor further surveys around what you’ve found. These groups are responsible for those locations. If anyone’s backtracking the hot stuff back to the source, we’re not hearing about it.

      Nothing about it is immediately life-threatening, but “2,000,000 Bq/sq. meter” is plenty of contamination.

  6. Xpat says:

    To promote cross-cultural appreciation:

  7. Ronny says:

    Another long post by Barry Brook with analysis and some technical updates about Fukushima is up at Brave New Climate.

    It looks like he’s not buying Richard Lahey’s “#2 melted through” claim, either.

    • Engineer Bob says:

      There is an interesting comment in the thread that you gave us.

      The argument is about contamination around the plant. The quote that interested me:

      For instance, in its March 27 update the IAEA reports that the highest level of daily deposition of iodine-131 was measured on March 26 at 7,500 becquerels per square meter (Bq/sq. m) in Yamagata prefecture; for cesium-137, it was reported as 1,200 Bq/sq. m. (Actually, the statement does not make clear if these are daily rates or total cumulative deposition levels, although from the context it appears to be the former.)

      OK. You guys have been going on about counts per second (Bq) vs CPM, and mrem/hr vs mrem. So, now we have unstated units of */day, as in “daily rates”??? What secret handshake do you have to use in order to get the real units in a PR release from the responsible company?

      • wormme says:

        I would suspect the context to be misleading. When measure surface contamination we want to know the total, not how much of it arrived within the past X time period. Air sampling can cover “how much and when”in a way that surface surveying can’t.

        Oh, hate to seem too nit-picky, but Bq is “disintegrations” per second, not “counts”. For field counting instruments a common assumed is efficiency of 10%. If you see “Bq” or “dpm”, the efficiency has been corrected for. If you see “cpm”, the actual activity will be somewhere between “greater” and “much greater”.

        • Engineer Bob says:

          Thanks. Nit-picky is good. I’m a quant; I want to know what numbers mean. There is a difference between P and p (peta and pico), even though my brother complains about having to get the capitalization right.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s