Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Great confusion about Fukushima

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Great confusion about Fukushima

    I hate TEPCO. They have cut corners. They have not been capable of handling the crisis with the reactors. I think the disaster should have been brought under government control immediately after it happened. The failure to disclose radiation readings immediately in the areas around the Fukushima plant of course resulted in everyone thinking that everything is a lie. I initially fully supported ZeroHedge's gadfly prompting to disclose information which was clearly not being disclosed quickly enough.

    However, this following at ZeroHedge is really not helpful and just doesn't have anything to do with what is actually happening here.

    The latest in the tragic story that just gets weirder by the minute.

    TEPCO's mishandling of info on nuclear crisis 'unacceptable': Edano
    Partial meltdown of fuel rods believed to be temporary: Edano
    Radioactive water from No. 2 reactor due to partial meltdown: Edano
    Contaminated water due to condensed steam, not reactor crack: Edano

    And our personal favorite:

    Locals within 20-km evacuation zone asked not to return for now


    This gives the impression that there are only brief statements being made. But every evening on NHK there are hours of documentaries explaining in detail what is happening at the plant using very detailed scale models and diagrams.

    Worse, these statements are being taken out of context and the translations are slightly off, so the nuance might seem laughable.

    I have been teaching Japanese translators for more than 20 years. Even the most veteran NHK native English speaking translators are struggling to translate what is happening in real time. The lack of correspondence between Japanese and English is enormous. So any brief translation you may see almost always sounds odd, especially if translated directly on the fly.

    In the above statement by Edano:

    Locals within 20-km evacuation zone asked not to return for now

    ZeroHedge seems to imply that the entire area is permanently contaminated and will be uninhabitable for decades and that the authorities are just trying to hide this.

    But this is not what happened. People have been returning to their homes in the evacuation zones. Edano is trying to tell them not to go there now and to wait until they can determine when it is safe to return for brief periods to get their possessions LATER.

    There are no doubt specific areas that are contaminated and will have to be abandoned, but the contamination is not following the circular evacuation zone drawn on a map.

    So, cynical smirking can certainly have its uses and be perfectly called for sometimes. However, when that way of thinking hijacks your understanding of what is happening, and then you broadcast your misunderstanding, however much it may seem correct to you, that is really not helpful.

    If ZeroHedge is going to make statements like this, they really should get a native Japanese speaker on their staff and watch all of the NHK cable coverage in the US so that they do not misunderstand what is happening. Please continue to say what is true, but please do not inflame a situation with really simple misunderstandings.



    Potential causes of misunderstandings of Fukushima reactor problems

    The panic in the media outside Japan, well, I can certainly understand that. Totally aside of understanding the technical matters involved, I think a lot of the panic is honest misunderstandings due to translation problems.

    I cannot tell you how complicated translating from Japanese to English, and vice versa, is. Nearly every single thing is out of order. "eastnorth" instead of "northeast". They count in 10,000s, not 1,000s, so that conversion can lead to errors. The subject is often omitted so must be supplied. If directly translated, nuance can be completely off. There is almost never any kind of correspondence between words in English and Japanese. For example, I was at the supermarket and there was a sign "We do not exchange money", which should be "No change without purchase". I think that will give you a sense of how nearly every single direct translation is likely to be wrong or misleading in some way. Translating directly from English into Japanese is even more hilarious.

    Reading short news articles increases the confusion because of the lack of context. After watching two hours of NHK documentaries with really detailed models and graphics explaining what was found and where, seeing pictures of the control room damaged like the bridge on Star Trek, and listening to other full explanations, when I see people abroad pick up a word or sentence and misunderstand what it means, panicking everyone, well, that is just not helpful in any way.

    When this first started, it seemed that even CNN had not one person who understood Japanese because the newscasters were looking at live feed but didnt know what they were looking at. Japan was the second, now third, largest economy in the world, with a population of 130,000,000, and I thought that was a little strange that they had no one who understands Japanese. At that point, even a Japanese college student in their studio would have been a big help. Unfortunately, that was just the beginning of the language barrier confusion. Most of the translators are not scientists or engineers and have no technical background. They are very good translators and can listen to Japanese live broadcast with headphones and speak in English in real time, but these reactor problems are straining their vocabularies and knowledge. And on top of that, Japanese is often like a conversation between friends where many things are omitted, so the translators are having to guess and insert many things necessary to make a complete sentence in English. It is maddening when working on paper, and it is just hell trying to do it in real time.

    So, we have multiple layers of potential misunderstanding here:
    What TEPCO knows or does not know.
    What TEPCO will publicly say in view of not causing panic and misunderstandings and rumor.
    What is in the actual statements being made on video, including tone of voice and body language and context of everything that has been said previously.
    The context in which each statement is being made.
    How the translator understands, in technical terms and in everyday terms, what is being said.
    What the translator is compelled to convert.
    What the translator translates directly and awkwardly because there is only a split second to do it.
    What the translator must insert because it doesn't exist in the original sentence (the, a, plurals, and many other things do not generally exist in Japanese).
    Which parts of the full translation are then picked up by a newspaper or quoted on TV because of what an editor thinks it means.
    How that fragment sounds and what it means to the audience at face value.
    What that seems to imply.
    Confabulation is the normal mode of human thought.
    Etc.
    And you can see how far we are from the actual data at the beginning that TEPCO has.

    Normally, this kind of problem is just odd and annoying or funny, but in this case, people who are unaware of all the problems in the translations can really, and in full honesty, misconstrue what they read and hear.

    What has actually happened so far is of course extremely serious, and something more serious could happen from now, but anyone reporting needs to have good Japanese translators with them reading original text and viewing video in order to have any chance at all of having a reasonable understanding of what is actually happening. This is going to go on for a long time, so the faster we can improve understanding, the better off everyone will be.
    Last edited by mooncliff; March 28, 2011, 09:40 PM.

  • #2
    Re: Great confusion about Fukushima

    How much plutonium was found, and where, and where wasn't plutonium found around the Fukushima site?

    Here is what little I know about plutonium: The Earth has trace amounts of plutonium in pitchblend and other ores because plutonium is a result of natural atomic activity within the Earth itself. This atomic activity produces heat within the Earth itself and may be responsible for most of the Earth's geothermal heat. In large quantities, plutonium can only be produced in breeder reactors, synthetically. Plutonium can be used as part of the fuel mix in the fuel rods of fission reactors, but I don't know how much. (I am just a lay person, not a nuclear engineer.)

    Plutonium is #94 on the periodic table which means that plutonium has 94 protons. It is a silvery white-metallic susbstance. Plutonium is very toxic, also radioactive with a half-life of 24,000 years. It is part of the Actinide Series on the periodic table; one of its several sister elements is neptunium with 93 protons. Uranium is #92 with 92 protons, and uranium is more common on Earth, especially in granite.
    Last edited by Starving Steve; March 28, 2011, 04:33 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Great confusion about Fukushima

      Originally posted by mooncliff
      If ZeroHedge is going to make statements like this, they really should get a native Japanese speaker on their staff and watch all of the NHK cable coverage in the US so that they do not misunderstand what is happening. Please continue to say what is true, but please do not inflame a situation with really simple misunderstandings.
      It isn't just ZeroHedge - it is the entire MSM almost to a fault.

      This latest is another example of alarmist crap: plutonium found.

      I'm listening to NHK now - and what actually is happening is that there was plutonium found, but it would have been found even before the earthquake/tsunami as it was released due to atmospheric atomic tests decades ago.

      What was said specifically is that it is possible that Fukushima contributed but there is no confirmation either way.

      Or in other words, any possible changes in level are so close to noise that it would literally require proving a negative (impossible) in order to ascertain.

      The Japanese government and TEPco really need to hire some professional media managers.

      Again, TEPco is hardly a model company, but it is quite disingenuous to assume they are lying here.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Great confusion about Fukushima

        If atomic bombs were tested near the Fukushima site in Japan's history, then the Fukushima site would have a high background radiation from contamination with plutonium fall-out from the bombs.

        Whenever the press has a headline that plutonium has been found at a nuclear reactor site, you can almost count on the eco-bunch, Greenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists, W.A.R.N, Friends of the Earth, etc. The discovery of plutonium is one of their well-known tricks. The last time they tried the plutonium alarm was in Denver, Colorado. The media is always told the lie that plutonium does not occur naturally on Earth ....... Another of their tricks is dropping a two-headed fish into a river and having someone fish it out or discover it on a beach. That person is then guided to local authorities, and the story then is given to the press...... Get ready for that in Japan when things calm down, in the months ahead. And ofcourse, the twisted line the press is given is that radiation caused the two-headed fish mutation. Any mutation would work fine, but the two-headed fish mutation is one of their specialties. They did that one in the 1970s when Jane Fonda was around, also about ten years ago against the tar sands of Alberta.

        BBC World Television is one of the prime outlets for propaganda feeds from the anti-nuclear power lobby. CBC in Canada is another outlet for their propaganda.
        Last edited by Starving Steve; March 28, 2011, 09:00 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Great confusion about Fukushima

          [The following is a copy of an email I sent to some bloggers.]


          Potential causes of misunderstandings of Fukushima reactor problems

          The panic in the media outside Japan, well, I can certainly understand that. Totally aside of understanding the technical matters involved, I think a lot of the panic is honest misunderstandings due to translation problems.

          I cannot tell you how complicated translating from Japanese to English, and vice versa, is. Nearly every single thing is out of order. "eastnorth" instead of "northeast". They count in 10,000s, not 1,000s, so that conversion can lead to errors. The subject is often omitted so must be supplied. If directly translated, nuance can be completely off. There is almost never any kind of correspondence between words in English and Japanese. For example, I was at the supermarket and there was a sign "We do not exchange money", which should be "No change without purchase". I think that will give you a sense of how nearly every single direct translation is likely to be wrong or misleading in some way. Translating directly from English into Japanese is even more hilarious.

          Reading short news articles increases the confusion because of the lack of context. After watching two hours of NHK documentaries with really detailed models and graphics explaining what was found and where, seeing pictures of the control room damaged like the bridge on Star Trek, and listening to other full explanations, when I see people abroad pick up a word or sentence and misunderstand what it means, panicking everyone, well, that is just not helpful in any way.

          When this first started, it seemed that even CNN had not one person who understood Japanese because the newscasters were looking at live feed but didnt know what they were looking at. Japan was the second, now third, largest economy in the world, with a population of 130,000,000, and I thought that was a little strange that they had no one who understands Japanese. At that point, even a Japanese college student in their studio would have been a big help. Unfortunately, that was just the beginning of the language barrier confusion. Most of the translators are not scientists or engineers and have no technical background. They are very good translators and can listen to Japanese live broadcast with headphones and speak in English in real time, but these reactor problems are straining their vocabularies and knowledge. And on top of that, Japanese is often like a conversation between friends where many things are omitted, so the translators are having to guess and insert many things necessary to make a complete sentence in English. It is maddening when working on paper, and it is just hell trying to do it in real time.

          So, we have multiple layers of potential misunderstanding here:
          What TEPCO knows or does not know.
          What TEPCO will publicly say in view of not causing panic and misunderstandings and rumor.
          What is in the actual statements being made on video, including tone of voice and body language and context of everything that has been said previously.
          The context in which each statement is being made.
          How the translator understands, in technical terms and in everyday terms, what is being said.
          What the translator is compelled to convert.
          What the translator translates directly and awkwardly because there is only a split second to do it.
          What the translator must insert because it doesn't exist in the original sentence (the, a, plurals, and many other things do not generally exist in Japanese).
          Which parts of the full translation are then picked up by a newspaper or quoted on TV because of what an editor thinks it means.
          How that fragment sounds and what it means to the audience at face value.
          What that seems to imply.
          Confabulation is the normal mode of human thought.
          Etc.
          And you can see how far we are from the actual data at the beginning that TEPCO has.

          Normally, this kind of problem is just odd and annoying or funny, but in this case, people who are unaware of all the problems in the translations can really, and in full honesty, misconstrue what they read and hear.

          What has actually happened so far is of course extremely serious, and something more serious could happen from now, but anyone reporting needs to have good Japanese translators with them reading original text and viewing video in order to have any chance at all of having a reasonable understanding of what is actually happening. This is going to go on for a long time, so the faster we can improve understanding, the better off everyone will be.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Great confusion about Fukushima

            Mooncliff and I have no doubt Don would find much understanding of the current confusion that is obvious in the West by reading this -
            Required reading is this and other articles by Masao Miyamoto M.D. It is certain to cause you pause as to the future of Japan post Fukushima
            The Annals of Anthroculture -
            The artful science of raising humans for terminal incorporation
            "CASTRATION"
            THE MAJOR GOAL OF JAPANESE EDUCATION, AND
            ITS RELATIONSHIP TO GOVERNMENT DEREGULATION

            Link - http://www.nancho.net/anthcult/castreg.html

            It can be seen in the carving of the three Monkeys "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_wise_monkeys"
            Last edited by thunderdownunder; March 28, 2011, 11:34 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Great confusion about Fukushima

              Yes, most people here will not speak up when they should. However, I think this primarily applies to Tokyo. Because it is the capital, pretense is highly refined. The more serious something is, the more quietly and indirectly it is said. Good luck trying to translate that.

              Elsewhere in Japan, people will scream and yell and you and tell you to f**k off.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Great confusion about Fukushima

                While trying to verify some "facts" I stumbled on a very detailed engineering analysis on the Fukushima accident by Professor M. Ragheb from the Nuclear Eng. Dept. of the College of Engineering | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

                https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/ww...20Accident.pdf

                Cooling requirements are the most interesting part as well as the discussion of the age of the Japanese reactors.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Great confusion about Fukushima

                  Originally posted by Shakespear
                  While trying to verify some "facts" I stumbled on a very detailed engineering analysis on the Fukushima accident by Professor M. Ragheb from the Nuclear Eng. Dept. of the College of Engineering | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
                  Thanks for the link.

                  It is pretty good - covering a lot of the information I had noted previously.

                  1) Loss of almost all cooling systems in Fukushima #1 meant serious temperature problems despite the immediate shutdown. The heat number provided by Professor Ragheb are consistent with what was posted by MITNSE.com - i.e. despite a very low activity level, the very high capacity of the reactors meant a lot of heat still needed (and needs) to be dissipated

                  2) Release of some radioactive byproducts like Cesium 137 and Iodine 131 is very likely with any type of fuel rod damage

                  3) The actual release of radioactive byproducts, while serious, is nowhere in the Chernobyl category

                  4) Fukushima #1 is a very old nuclear power plant - as I noted before it is 40 years old and was within 5 years of being decommissioned

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Great confusion about Fukushima

                    2) Release of some radioactive byproducts like Cesium 137 and Iodine 131 is very likely with any type of fuel rod damage

                    3) The actual release of radioactive byproducts, while serious, is nowhere in the Chernobyl category
                    On those points I am not with the professor as that is yet to be know.

                    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...v058p01011.pdf
                    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15092431
                    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16421911
                    http://www.nber.org/papers/w13347

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Great confusion about Fukushima

                      Originally posted by Shakespear
                      On those points I am not with the professor as that is yet to be know.

                      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...v058p01011.pdf
                      Ah, the impossible to find Tondel paper!

                      Interestingly, this paper directly contradicts what Professor Busby said.

                      He said in his Counterpunch article:

                      After Chernobyl, infant leukaemia was reported in 6 countries by 6 different groups, from Scotland, Greece, Wales, Germany, Belarus and the USA.
                      Yet the Tondel paper noted above says:

                      Several studies have been performed outside the former Soviet Union, but none has shown any clear relation with the fallout from the Chernobyl accident.1–5
                      The paper also contrasts 1986-1987 numbers as a base vs. 1988-1996

                      This might be perfectly fine, but the problem with choosing a 1 year baseline is that there are variations possible - especially given the small number of cancer cases (there were only 53 thyroid cases in the baseline)

                      Why was only 1 year chosen when the Swedish Cancer Registry has been operating since 1958?

                      EDIT: not only has the Swedish Cancer registry been operating since 1958 - with a legal requirement for all health care providers to report, but the registry itself has analysis starting in 1978:



                      Looking at the Tondel paper some more, there are additional very interesting numerical differences:

                      Tondel thyroid.png

                      Thyroid cancers actually went down from 1986-1987 to the 1988-1996 period.

                      But this isn't the point.

                      The point is, the actual number of cases involved is comparing 53 cases in 1986-1987 vs. 211 cases in the 1988-1996 period.

                      For leukemia, the rate went up but again the difference was 40 cases in 1986-1987 vs. 250 cases from 1988-1996. The reported incidence itself is a little interesting given 40 cases in 1 year of the 'control' year vs. 250 cases for the 8 'test' years (=31.25 cases/year).

                      I'm sorry, but in a population of 9 million people (give or take), this is very much at the noise level. (53/9000000 = 0.00059%)

                      Total cancer case numbers are equally interesting:

                      1986-1987: 2233
                      1988-1996: 13823 (=1727.9/year)

                      In every category, the absolute numbers of cancer cases went down despite the 1988-1996 mini-baby boom in Sweden at the time.
                      Last edited by c1ue; April 04, 2011, 03:10 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Great confusion about Fukushima

                        : The "Tondel" Method is based on a conservative study by Martin Tondel in northern Sweden. This examined cancer incidence during 10 years after Chernobyl. It differentiated the varying levels of land contamination and found that the disease increased by 11% for each 100 kiloBecquerels of fallout per square metre of land surface. Professor Busby has applied this factor to the zone up to 100 km from the reactors, where IAEA has reported, on average, 600kBq per sq.m radioactivity. In the 3.3 million population of this 100 km zone a 66% increase over and above the pre-accident rate is predicted in 10 years. This implies 103,329 extra cancers due to the Fukushima exposures between 2012 and 2021. Similarly applying the "Tondel" method to the ring between 100 km and 200 km from Fukushima (population 7.8 million but lower concentrations of fallout) 120,894 extra cancers are to be expected by 2021. Assuming permanent residence and no evacuation the total predicted yield according to the "Tondel" method is thus 224,223 in ten years.
                        Looks to me that if the Tondel data is so conservative, its data apparently does not bode well for the future of that area. Unless the math above is incorrect.

                        http://www.llrc.org/

                        http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/acc...mfukushima.pdf

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Great confusion about Fukushima

                          Originally posted by Shakespear
                          Looks to me that if the Tondel data is so conservative, its data apparently does not bode well for the future of that area. Unless the math above is incorrect.
                          You should actually read the Tondel paper.

                          The actual number of cases from 1988 to 1996 for cancer in Sweden - irregardless of cause - was 22409 out of a population of 8.5 - 9 million people. An 11% increase would translate to 2500 people - but of course there weren't actually 8.5 million to 9 million people exposed to 100kBq/msquared.

                          The number exposed to 100kBq is very much lower - 8,722 were exposed to 80 to 120 kBq of Cesium 137.

                          The paper doesn't clearly indicate the number of cancer cases in said 8,722 - but overall incidence rates of 0.26% overall indicate an 11% increase in incidence would translate this 0.26% to 0.29%. Multiplied vs. the subject population, the delta is 23 unadjusted vs. 25.5 - yielding an extra 2.5 cases out of 8722 people exposed.

                          2.5 extra cases out of 8,722 sample size is very much at the noise level - the half also indicates the presence of 'adjustments'.

                          If the Swedish overall cancer incidence rates are applied to all of Japan, and also all of Japan were exposed to 100KBq of cesium 137 - which demonstrably no one has - the extra cases of cancer would be 34,800.

                          How does this translate to 440,000 extra cases of cancer caused by Fukushima? Even ignoring that the actual radiation measured outside a 48 km radius around Fukushima is less than 1000 becquerels (or 100 times less than the levels purportedly showing increased incidence rates according to Tondel)?

                          Secondly, as I noted above, the actual overall incidence (i.e. number of actual cases) of cancer fell in the 1988-1996 period as compared to 1986-1987, doubly so given the significant population increase in Sweden in that period. The reference period itself is rather odd given the much longer historical record available.

                          All of the incidence increases were therefore entirely due to 'adjustment' factors which were not well documented in the paper - given that the population size significantly increased and there was a probably significant demographic shift as well.

                          Busby's numbers just don't hold up - either on the exposure end or on the extrapolation from Tondel data end.

                          The Tondel data itself has some very curious inconsistencies.

                          Overall, I'd say both Busby and Tondel don't have any idea on how statistics are meaningless in small sample sizes.
                          Last edited by c1ue; April 05, 2011, 11:20 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Great confusion about Fukushima

                            Originally posted by thunderdownunder View Post
                            Mooncliff and I have no doubt Don would find much understanding of the current confusion that is obvious in the West by reading this -
                            Required reading is this and other articles by Masao Miyamoto M.D. It is certain to cause you pause as to the future of Japan post Fukushima
                            The Annals of Anthroculture -
                            The artful science of raising humans for terminal incorporation
                            "CASTRATION"
                            THE MAJOR GOAL OF JAPANESE EDUCATION, AND
                            ITS RELATIONSHIP TO GOVERNMENT DEREGULATION

                            Link - http://www.nancho.net/anthcult/castreg.html

                            It can be seen in the carving of the three Monkeys "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_wise_monkeys"
                            After reading that, I fully understand why David Hasselhoff was a huge musical hit in Japan. Thank you, one of the great questions of life answered.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Great confusion about Fukushima

                              Originally posted by thunderdownunder View Post
                              Mooncliff and I have no doubt Don would find much understanding of the current confusion that is obvious in the West by reading this -
                              Required reading is this and other articles by Masao Miyamoto M.D. It is certain to cause you pause as to the future of Japan post Fukushima
                              The Annals of Anthroculture -
                              The artful science of raising humans for terminal incorporation
                              "CASTRATION"
                              THE MAJOR GOAL OF JAPANESE EDUCATION, AND
                              ITS RELATIONSHIP TO GOVERNMENT DEREGULATION

                              Link - http://www.nancho.net/anthcult/castreg.html

                              It can be seen in the carving of the three Monkeys "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_wise_monkeys"
                              The 'tulip needs a bowing icon

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X