Oh, Canada.

Haven’t really checked on the Fukushima event through the eyes of Canada’s journalists.  Went here.

They have pretty much what everyone else has. Hadn’t mentioned the “hot beef” report here yet. This is that report. First line:

Japan has found radiation above the legal limit in beef…

I’m willing to bet the radiation was detected outside the beef. From which we can infer that there’s something new inside the beef.  That being the C-word, “That Which Must Not Be Named By Media”.

Because that would involve getting the story straight.

The health ministry said 510 becquerels of radioactive cesium had been detected in beef… about 70 kilometres from the plant — exceeding the 500-becquerel limit

510 bequerels, or 610 Bq, is 510 disintegrations per second.  That’s not a limit, that’s half a limit.  We need the rest.  The “per unit mass” part.  Is it “per kilogram” or “per gram”?

“Per cow”? I’m perfectly willing to eat a 510 Bq cow.

Also remember the possibility of false alarms.  There was one at Brookhaven once, when unexpectedly high levels of Cs-137 in a deer turned out to be a lab error.   If one cow 70km away is eating cesium grass, so are others.

Here’s two things you’d see, often, in this rapidly-changing situation.  That is, if we had a rational and competent media:

“That initial report was confirmed by further testing.”


“Further investigation sshowed that the initial finding was in error.”  

Seen much of that?  Seen any of that?  Wow.  Journalists make no mistakes, it seems.

They have an article about high radiation 40km from the site.  Actual readings would be nice.  That 40km distance is familiar, I think.  Elevated cesium found five centimeters deep? 

 Greenpeace this week said it had confirmed radiation levels in this village northwest of the plant high enough to evacuate.

Those radiation levels being…?  Hmph.  High enough for you to tell us to evacuate, but not important enough to tell us what they are.

We’re perfectly willing to consider your analysis, Greenpeace.  When you share your data.

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.

4 Responses to Oh, Canada.

  1. John says:

    WSJ had a front page article with “sieverts per house”. That one was new for me.

  2. Sue says:

    About that 40km distance –
    Check the map here:
    It should be familiar – remember your discussion “I swear that looks like a gradually broadening beam” at:
    It’s the same area…

    • wormme says:

      Oh, good catch! And I believe in the first report, with MEXT’s waaaay higher numbers than anyone else, it looked more like a localized “hot spot” out there to the north-northwest.

      If time permits, will try to find all these “40km” reports and sort for clues.

      • Sue says:

        “Curiouser and Curiouser…”
        Check out this MEXT report and map:
        The cluster we had looked at previously is fading…
        I wonder when the soil samples were pulled for that region? The IAEA update log says “sampled from 18 to 26 March” but doesn’t give any breakout for individual time of collection.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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