Tohoku Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Disaster!!!

[omae mona]

I think the point that Coligny and some of us are making is that Aeon didn't know if it was dangerous or not when they sold it. That's the fear: that potentially dangerous food enters the market, and there are no real systems in place to prevent its sale.

I understand. But Aeon also doesn't know if food that is supposed to be refrigerated was left sitting in a warm room for several hours somewhere in the supply chain. There are no systems in place to prevent that either. (I'll refrain from making a list of 20 other things that can go wrong and are unmonitored).

Look, I think we know that the amount of food that is contaminated to levels where you are at risk from eating it once or a few times (especially if you wash it) is virtually nil. And probably limited to products grown almost right next to the nuclear reactor. Is that not correct?

What I think we have is a situation where the government has been very conservative, set safety levels incredibly low, and imposed bans on selling where there is virtually no risk anyway. Part of the reason is that they certainly know that the system does not work perfectly, some mistakes will be made in distribution, banned products might make it into the marketplace in tiny quantities, and some crazy people might try to eat 840 kg of lettuce in a week.

Then when glitches happen, we get in a panic anyway. This is despite the fact that, as Damn Name pointed out, in most countries this lettuce would not have been banned to begin with.

The government set these extremely conservative levels and ban apparently safe food because they know there is going to be slippage and want to make sure nobody gets sick, even when Aeon fucks up.

Compared with England's handling of hoof-and-mouth disease, where they destroy the lifestock...

FYI, I believe they do that mainly because of the concern of spread to other animals and the huge economic damage. It is very hard for humans to get sick from hoof-and-mouth disease. I know this because Wikipedia says so

[Coligny]

True. Dioxin comes to mind.



I think the point that Coligny and some of us are making is that Aeon didn't know if it was dangerous or not when they sold it. That's the fear: that potentially dangerous food enters the market, and there are no real systems in place to prevent its sale. Compared with England's handling of hoof-and-mouth disease, where they destroy the lifestock...

Exactly, that's the perfect example of "when in doubt, kill everything to be safe". As opposed to the japanese "when in doubt, try no to be caugth"

[Coligny]

I understand. But Aeon also doesn't know if food that is supposed to be refrigerated was left sitting in a warm room for several hours somewhere in the supply chain. There are no systems in place to prevent that either. (I'll refrain from making a list of 20 other things that can go wrong and are unmonitored).

You really assume a lot of things...

Thaw indicator (here medical grade):
http://www.americanthermal.com/products/lta-thaw-indicator/thaw-indicators

Usually for supermarket there is small electronic thermometers on the transport cart with a visible warning showing if unsafe storage temperature were reached for too long.

On of the many shipping indicators available (tipping, shock, humidity or even UV, usually, if there is a transport condition to be avoided, there is a device to tell aboot it).

[Yokohammer]

The rule is that "God" is spelt with a capital "G" ... WATCH OUT FOR THAT THUNDERBOLT!!!!

[SIZE="1"]Just kidding.[/SIZE]

[cstaylor]

FYI, I believe they do that mainly because of the concern of spread to other animals and the huge economic damage. It is very hard for humans to get sick from hoof-and-mouth disease.

I think they would still destroy it if it was incommunicable to other animals but potentially dangerous to people (for example, BSE).

The end result though is the potentially dangerous food doesn't enter the marketplace. Compared to the U.S., Japan is way ahead in food safety, so I'm not worried too much...

[omae mona]

Usually for supermarket there is small electronic thermometers on the transport cart with a visible warning showing if unsafe storage temperature were reached for too long.

On of the many shipping indicators available (tipping, shock, humidity or even UV, usually, if there is a transport condition to be avoided, there is a device to tell aboot it).

Do supermarkets actually use those?

Here, let's stop assuming and use some real numbers.

I don't have figures for Japan. But in the U.S., where I guess you are insinuating food safety is higher than Japan with their "F.U." attitude, we can see how safe food is.

each year roughly 1 out of 6 Americans (or 48 million people) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases.

If you want to back up your claim that Japan is unsafe and doesn't care about consumers, I think it should be quite easy for you to find similar numbers for Japan. They are certainly calculated, and certainly public information. The numbers should be high (higher than the U.S.) to confirm your theory, right?

Otherwise I would assume your opinion about Japan's anti-consumer "F.U" attitude about food safety is based a perception coming from reading of big news stories.

[omae mona]

Wow, condescend much?

Your posts are very informative and obviously a lot of work goes into them. I think you looked into my post way too much.
..
Sorry if my wording wasn't up to your standards.

AML, I know you're responding to Damn Name, but I have to say I read your sentence the same way he did. You wrote what you wrote, and I think you very likely meant what you wrote at the time. It's not a very complicated sentence:

eventually people who live closer to the plant will develop symptoms like cancer

Maybe I am misunderstanding too. But this sounds like the same fear-mongering I am seeing all over the internet. Anyway, if you are taking it back now and not claiming that people are going to get cancer, let's move on.

I think most people get what im talking about, which is: will tepco take responsibility if people develop symptoms?

This is a loaded question, I think. But actually a very interesting and important one.

I forget the exact figures now, but remember a very large percentage of the population develops cancer in their lifetime. So let me use some made-up numbers just as an example. If the scientific research says estimates that a particular person's exposure to radiation increased their lifetime cancer risk by 0.01%, and their cancer risk from other causes was 25%, bringing their total lifetime cancer risk to 25.01%, and then the person develops cancer, how do you know if it's Tepco's fault? Remember these disputes will be 20 years down the road, not in 2011. The answer is that there's barely a chance in hell that it's Tepco's fault, and there's no way to prove what caused cellular damage 20 years earlier anyway. Disputes will have to be settled based on probability. If the radiation was so tiny that there's only a 1 in 2500 chance your cancer was due to Tepco, it's going to be tricky to win a lawsuit.

However, that's not going to stop people from suing.

It's possibly a different story for the occupational workers doing the cleanup in Fukushima. I believe they are being exposed to radiation that might actually increase their lifetime cancer risk by levels above 1%, if I recall. On the other hand, I suspect they signed legal disclaimers that say they will not make claims for damages.

So before asking if Tepco will take responsibility if people develop symptoms, we have to ask which symptoms you are talking about. If you're talking about cancer, I think it's going to be very surprising if anybody would be able to make a strong case their cancer was due to Tepco. If somehow they can make that case, though, I am sure Tepco will be on the hook legally. If they can't make that case, then Tepco will need to decide what to do from a public relations point of view. Either way, I think this will play out not in 2011, but maybe closer to 2031.

[Coligny]

Do supermarkets actually use those?

Playfull are ya ?

Here, let's stop assuming and use some real numbers.

I don't have figures for Japan. But in the U.S., where I guess you are insinuating food safety is higher than Japan with their "F.U." attitude, we can see how safe food is.

If you want to back up your claim that Japan is unsafe and doesn't care about consumers, I think it should be quite easy for you to find similar numbers for Japan. They are certainly calculated, and certainly public information. The numbers should be high (higher than the U.S.) to confirm your theory, right?

No, and i'm tired of your little game I don't know anything aboot US food safety track record and don't care, ONCE AGAIN i'm not playing the podium game of shittiest hygiene and safety rulebook in the world. There is enough precedent in Japan to back my claims (rice, potato chips made using tainted potatoes 5-6 years ago, fish mercury level and on and on and on, I'm not going to write an encyclopedia of all japanese screwups just because you are micro-argumenting like a 5 year old)

Otherwise I would assume your opinion about Japan's anti-consumer "F.U" attitude about food safety is based a perception coming from reading of big news stories.

Yes I actually DO BASE MY OPINION ON THINGS THAT ALREADY HAPPENED... no shit sherlock...

[Taro Toporific]

from American Embassy Tokyo <tokyoacs@state.gov>
date Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:32 AM
subject [SIZE="3"]Travel Alert - Japan April 14, 2011[/SIZE]

United States Department of State
Bureau of Consular Affairs
Washington, DC 20520

JAPAN

April 14, 2011

This Travel Alert replaces the Travel Warning for Japan dated March 31, 2011. This Travel Alert expires on June 15, 2011.

The assessment of technical and subject matter experts across United States Government agencies is that while the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi plant remains serious and dynamic, the health and safety risks to areas beyond the 50 mile evacuation zone, and particularly to Tokyo, Nagoya (Aichi Prefecture), Yokohama (Kanagawa Prefecture) nearby U.S. military facilities and the prefectures of Akita, Aomori, Chiba, Gunma, Iwate, Nagano, Niigata, Saitama, Shizuoka, Tochigi, and Yamanashi, and those portions of Fukushima, Ibaraki, Miyagi and Yamagata prefectures which are outside a 50 mile radius of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant are low and do not pose significant risks to U.S. citizens.

This analysis takes into consideration both various age groups and the classification of the severity of the situation at Fukushima Daiichi as a Level 7 event by the Government of Japan, which reflects what has transpired since the initial incident and the potential long-term effects in the area surrounding the plant.

This assessment reflects inputs from our national laboratories as well as the unanimous opinion of the U.S. scientific experts on the ground in Japan. Furthermore, they are consistent with practices that would be taken in the United States in such a situation. Based on the much reduced rate of heat generation in the reactor fuel after one month of cooling and the corresponding decay of short-lived radioactive isotopes, even in the event of an unexpected disruption at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, harmful exposures to people beyond the 50 mile evacuation zone are highly unlikely, and there would be a significant amount of time to best assess any steps that might have to be taken.

The situation at the plant is dramatically different today than it was on March 16, when we saw significant ongoing releases of radioactivity, the loss of effective means to cool the reactor cores and spent fuel, the absence of outside power or fresh water supply for emergency management, and considerable uncertainty about the condition of the site. Today, while the situation remains serious, and there is still a possibility of unanticipated developments, cooling efforts are ongoing and successful, power, water supply, and back-up services have been partially or fully restored, and planning has begun to control radioactive contamination and mitigate future dangers. Our coordination with the Japanese is regular and productive, and we have a greatly increased capacity to measure and analyze risks.

The Department of State has lifted Voluntary Authorized Departure, allowing dependents of the U.S. government employees to return to Japan.

We continue to recommend that U.S. citizens avoid travel within the 50-mile radius of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant. U.S. citizens who are still within this radius should evacuate or shelter in place.

Japan is one of the most seismically active places in the world. Tokyo and areas to the Northeast continue to experience strong aftershocks related to the March 11 earthquake. Aftershocks following an earthquake of this magnitude can be expected to continue for more than a year. Identifying potential hazards ahead of time and advance planning can reduce the dangers of serious injury or loss of life from an earthquake. See the Embassy Website for detailed information on earthquake safety:
http://japan.usembassy.gov .

[AML]

AML, I know you're responding to Damn Name, but I have to say I read your sentence the same way he did. You wrote what you wrote, and I think you very likely meant what you wrote at the time. It's not a very complicated sentence:



Maybe I am misunderstanding too. But this sounds like the same fear-mongering I am seeing all over the internet. Anyway, if you are taking it back now and not claiming that people are going to get cancer, let's move on.



This is a loaded question, I think. But actually a very interesting and important one.

I forget the exact figures now, but remember a very large percentage of the population develops cancer in their lifetime. So let me use some made-up numbers just as an example. If the scientific research says estimates that a particular person's exposure to radiation increased their lifetime cancer risk by 0.01%, and their cancer risk from other causes was 25%, bringing their total lifetime cancer risk to 25.01%, and then the person develops cancer, how do you know if it's Tepco's fault? Remember these disputes will be 20 years down the road, not in 2011. The answer is that there's barely a chance in hell that it's Tepco's fault, and there's no way to prove what caused cellular damage 20 years earlier anyway. Disputes will have to be settled based on probability. If the radiation was so tiny that there's only a 1 in 2500 chance your cancer was due to Tepco, it's going to be tricky to win a lawsuit.

However, that's not going to stop people from suing.

It's possibly a different story for the occupational workers doing the cleanup in Fukushima. I believe they are being exposed to radiation that might actually increase their lifetime cancer risk by levels above 1%, if I recall. On the other hand, I suspect they signed legal disclaimers that say they will not make claims for damages.

So before asking if Tepco will take responsibility if people develop symptoms, we have to ask which symptoms you are talking about. If you're talking about cancer, I think it's going to be very surprising if anybody would be able to make a strong case their cancer was due to Tepco. If somehow they can make that case, though, I am sure Tepco will be on the hook legally. If they can't make that case, then Tepco will need to decide what to do from a public relations point of view. Either way, I think this will play out not in 2011, but maybe closer to 2031.

Well, both you and damn name sound like bloody experts.
But at the end of the day no one knows exactly what the final outcome will be.
And unless you work in fukushima and deal with tepco and the reactors directly, you dont know exactly whats happening. We all just have tepcos word. (and maybe the word of a few Geiger counters)

You accuse me of fear mongering, but i think i have a valid point. Im no medical expert, and i don't know exactly how radiation affects the human body. But i do remember that things weren't all that great for the people of Chernobyl.

Anyway, your both going to have massive amounts of egg on your face in a few years, if i happen to be right

[omae mona]

And unless you work in fukushima and deal with tepco and the reactors directly, you dont know exactly whats happening.

I'd actually take it a step further]
We all just have tepcos word. (and maybe the word of a few Geiger counters)
[/quote]
Now that is nonsense. Let me list other things we have to go on:

• Knowledge of physics. TEPCO can't change the laws of physics as far as I know.
• Knowledge of the design of the power plant, including the type of reactors and the type of fuel. TEPCO can't make this up. It's been public for decades.
• Decades of research (theoretical and empirical) on health effects of radiation.
• The word of a LOT of geiger counters (what's wrong with just a few anyway?)

Nobody in their right mind is basing their risk assessment on what TEPCO says. There's no need to. We have plenty of independent information and knowledge.

You accuse me of fear mongering, but i think i have a valid point. Im no medical expert, and i don't know exactly how radiation affects the human body. But i do remember that things weren't all that great for the people of Chernobyl.

What on earth makes you think the health effects of Fukushima are going to be like the health effects of Chernobyl? Haven't you read any of the myriad articles that explain how the two situations aren't even remotely similar? Do you know why people got sick around Chernobyl? Do you think that reason applies to Fukushima?

Anyway, your both going to have massive amounts of egg on your face in a few years, if i happen to be right

Yes, perhaps. Incidentally, despite your initial denial, it sounds like you have gone back to claiming that people are going to get cancer, after all, right?

[omae mona]

Playfull are ya ?

Sorry, Colginy, that was not meant to be a snarky or rhetorical question. I actually was curious if supermarkets used those devices or not. You seemed to know something about this, so I was just asking.

There is enough precedent in Japan to back my claims (rice, potato chips made using tainted potatoes 5-6 years ago, fish mercury level and on and on and on, I'm not going to write an encyclopedia of all japanese screwups just because you are micro-argumenting like a 5 year old)

Coligny, your claim might be right. One would have to look at numbers. But shame on you for not realizing that your intake of news coverage is not the same as safety statistics. For example, if country A was better than country B at monitoring and publicizing safety problems, you'd think country A was more dangerous. If country A's media was much more agressive than country B's media at covering news stories about food safety, you'd think that country A was more dangerous. And if culturally, people in country A get angrier than people in country B about safety problems, creating an uproar, you'd think that country A was more dangerous. And you might be wrong in all these cases.

This is not micro-argumenting. I am saying you're missing the boat completely.

Yes I actually DO BASE MY OPINION ON THINGS THAT ALREADY HAPPENED... no shit sherlock...

You're basing your opinion on things that happened which turned into big news stories. Not the things that happened which you did not hear about.

[Coligny]

[Coligny]

You're basing your opinion on things that happened which turned into big news stories. Not the things that happened which you did not hear about.

The fact that they turned into big news story is irrelevant. The problem reported were... problematic enough by themselves whatever the news coverage was and all were showing common trends. My main focus is not "quantity" of events I'm dealing with "quality" of events.

Also... remember... there's 3 kind of lies: Lies, big lies and statistics... that why proportions of things from country A related to things from country B is irrelevant to me in this context. I'm not estimating the recall cost for the Ford Pinto bumper-gas-tank fiasco here.

Sidenote... Do you deal with trading ?

[Coligny]

What on earth makes you think the health effects of Fukushima are going to be like the health effects of Chernobyl? Haven't you read any of the myriad articles that explain how the two situations aren't even remotely similar? Do you know why people got sick around Chernobyl? Do you think that reason applies to Fukushima?

Yes, the article that were saying that it's nowhere near the level of Chernobyl, then same level as Chernobyl but nowhere near as dangerous... And now says that anyway the safety limit are way too low and eating radioactive food is less dangerous than taking a chest X-Ray... at breakfast, lunch and diner... While Chernobyl level were for a stable and assessed situation while Fukushima is still giving daily surprises.

And yes, people got sick from Chernobyl mainly by eating contamined food grown from contamined soil by the rejects of the plant following the explosion. While for now reject from Fukushina seems much lower, contamination was reported, sales were restricted and potentially contamined food was sold anyway (*). Maybe if it's -for now- just a mini Chernobyl the pattern is the same. Even with the known precedent and increased public awarness (even if it is dismissed a panic).

(*) and as you say, the fact that it's the only reported case don't mean that others didn't happen and were not caught/reported.

[AML]

Haven't you read any of the myriad articles that explain how the two situations aren't even remotely similar? Do you know why people got sick around Chernobyl? Do you think that reason applies to Fukushima?

Yes, perhaps. Incidentally, despite your initial denial, it sounds like you have gone back to claiming that people are going to get cancer, after all, right?

Well, i think i may suffer from ADD......

Oh look a goat!




But in all seriousness. I do believe that there is now a risk where none existed two months ago. And it may have a negative effect on the people who live there.

If you think its so damn safe, why dont you go live up there. Buy a house, have some kids with a local. Im sure they would welcome you with open tentacles!

[omae mona]

According to data collected from the 18 march, published on 22. Leafy vegetabuls from Iwaki were at 690 000bq/kg (45km from the plant), Iitate 2 540 000 Bq/kg (40 km from the plant). Meaning that 3 g of those represent max admissible intake for young child over 12 month. Those level would classify them as radioactive waste. http://www.criirad.org/

I think cstaylor or somebody reported this earlier. Those numbers are very troubling, and anybody would be extremely upset if those products got into stores (especially without being washed).

I just don't think that what happened at Aeon means those nasty vegetables from Iwaki and Iitate are likely to get onto supermarket shelves. They're very different situations. Please let us know if you know of any risk that this stuff is being sold.

The fact that they turned into big news story is irrelevant. The problem reported were... problematic enough by themselves whatever the news coverage was and all were showing common trends. My main focus is not "quantity" of events I'm dealing with "quality" of events.

Also... remember... there's 3 kind of lies: Lies, big lies and statistics... that why proportions of things from country A related to things from country B is irrelevant to me in this context. I'm not estimating the recall cost for the Ford Pinto bumper-gas-tank fiasco here.

I'm not saying the food safety problems you quoted are not disturbing. They are disturbing and they should not have happened. What I am saying is that most food safety issues don't make the news. You can't measure your risk of foodborne illness, or the quality of the government's response, or the evilness of your average company, based on how much disturbing news you see. Guess how much news about foodborne illness is on Chinese TV.

I am mentioning other countries because your message implied that Japan, in particular, had a problem with food safety. Sorry if this was not your point.

By the way (and again this is not a rhetorical question), do you know how many people got ill from the food safety incidents you mentioned as examples?

[Greji]

Oh look a goat!

Hmmmmm, a local......

[damn name]

I just want to go on record with these two points:

1. I don't come here to fight, or debate, or be condescending to anyone. I prefer to get along, discuss and respect the opinions of others. I explicitly said that I do not consider myself an expert, and you should not either.

2. My only agenda is to understand the facts and seek the truth.

[Coligny]

Hmmmmm, a local......

Nope, notice the Box, it's written "Pastis de Marseille" Ricard... It's a local alcohol transparent who turn white when you add water, taste like crap... and... anis... made in the slums around Marseille which is half shithole, half... shithole...

Since not a single surviving bottle is in sight we might have found a picture of my biological mom... Still able to stand up so maybe the shot was taken between 8 and 9 O'Clock in the morning.

[AML]

No need to fight over that goat! Theres plenty more here:

http://www.ultimategoatfansite.com/

Damn name, nice post.

I just feel like we go from one extreme to the other sometimes.

The masses in the west think Japan is a radioactive waste land, and people in Japan (especially you and mona) think everything is hunky dory.

But I dont see either of you volunteering to move up there!

(I believe interac is offering a 50.000 yen bonus to anyone willing to take an ALT position in Fukushima! )

[Coligny]

Seems that somewhere on this intarweb, somebody share my approximative english and fracked up humour...





Image shack album:
http://img823.imageshack.us/g/tworry.jpg/

The motto make me think of someone I know... but who have the opposite position on the matter... mysterious... mysterious...

[vitellus]

[dimwit]

Geller is hardly a idiot or a charlatan, he is a respect geoscientist and reading what he has said about earthquake predictions, I wholeheartedly agree with him. Earthquake predict has be a great wisp o'will the Japanese have been chasing rather than actually doing basic geological mapping to find where hazard areas are.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/news/20110414p2g00m0dm001000c.html

Tokyo Univ. professor calls on Japan to stop predicting quakes
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- Robert Geller, a University of Tokyo professor specializing in seismology, has urged the Japanese government to give up efforts at earthquake prediction in an article issued Thursday on the online edition of the renowned British science magazine Nature.

"All of Japan is at risk from earthquakes, and the present state of seismological science does not allow us to reliably differentiate the risk level in particular geographic areas," Geller wrote in the article, contributed to the "Comment" section.

The U.S. national called on the government to "prepare for the unexpected" and "tell the public frankly that earthquakes cannot be predicted."

Geller also said that since 1979, earthquakes that killed 10 or more people in Japan have actually occurred in places assigned a relatively low probability on the government's seismic hazard map published on a yearly basis.

The map assesses that magnitude-8 level earthquakes would hit the Tokai, Tonankai and Nankai regions, but Geller said that "the hazard map and the methods used to produce it are flawed and should be discarded."

"Future basic research in seismology must be soundly based on physics, impartially reviewed, and be led by Japan's top scientists rather than by faceless bureaucrats," he said.

[canman]

Does anyone else think that all of these Earthquake warnings that appear on TV, and then turn out to be nothing events are causing even more stress and emotional problems for people. If they were accurate and really did predict a big earthquake coming, I guess it would be be effective, but it is so hit and miss, that all it does is keep everyone in a heightened state, which is not bad, but plays havoc with your nerves.

[damn name]

Every alert I've seen on NHK that has had my prefecture listed has been a something event for me within 3-6 seconds.

[omae mona]

Every alert I've seen on NHK that has had my prefecture listed has been a something event for me within 3-6 seconds.

I think all the discussion above is about the longer-term predictions (e.g. "there is a 70% chance of a major earthquake in Tokyo in the next 10 days").

The new emergency alert system that predicts quakes several seconds in advance is a different story. I don't think Prof. Geller was knocking that.

[damn name]

Ah... my mistake. Thanks. But, did you have to be so condescending?

[AML]

Oh! That was a dig at me wasn't it? Hahaha!

So long term predictions arent possible but short term (as in a few seconds) are?

What are the different methods used between the two?

[Yokohammer]

Oh! That was a dig at me wasn't it? Hahaha!

So long term predictions arent possible but short term (as in a few seconds) are?

What are the different methods used between the two?

The short term warnings aren't really predictions. They are broadcast automatically when a P-wave (primary wave) from a seismic event is detected. That's why you only have a few seconds until the actual shaking begins. Sometimes they miss or are issued for what turns out to be a tiny quake, but they're pretty accurate overall.

Long term predictions are just that: long term predictions, and they are for the most part unreliable.