Tepco releases corrected readings from July '13 they were only off by 38 million bq per liter

In July 2013, Tepco revealed that the total amount of beta emitters in a sample from well 1-2 was 900,000 bq per liter.

On June 20th, 2014 Tepco quietly slid out the corrected numbers, only releasing the data in japanese.

The correct amount? 39,000,000 bq per liter instead of 900,000 bq per liter. AFTER FILTRATION


Ya know its really hard to get a grip on Fukushima when you just can't trust anything Tepco puts out. They have a nasty habit of low balling figures it would seem.

enenews.com... ched-39-million-bqliter-after-going-through-filtration-process-vi

Only two kinds of news come out of Fukushima.... Bad news and worse news

If it wasn't so tragically sad.... it would make a great comedy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5,000,000 bq of Strontium 90 per liter when they originally claimed 900,000 total beta emitters:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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

What does this mean exactly.

I imagine it's not good and may indicate a dangerous situation ?

They don't call it Fuku-Shima for nothing.

originally posted by: xuenchen
What does this mean exactly.

I imagine it's not good and may indicate a dangerous situation ?

They don't call it Fuku-Shima for nothing.

All I know is that it means you can't trust anything Tepco puts out. Period.

Well the fact that their number was 39 times lower than the real number.....I consider that pretty damn scary.

Its kind of strange.....

The readings on July 8th 2013 (9,900,000) and July 11th 2013 (7,600,000) are 30 million lower than the reading on July 9th.


What could possibly cause a spike in between the 8th and the 11th that would result in a 400% increase of beta emitters on the 9th?

Something doesn't smell quite right.

a reply to: xuenchen

They're talking about Strontium-90. The safe limit is 5Bq/L.

I'm not a mad scientist, but it'd be a safe bet that if you drank a liter of that stuff, you'll develop symptoms of anemia ... chronic fatigue and lowered immune system response. Might straight up kill ya too.

a reply to: Snarl

Holly crap !!!

It's definitely a problem.

It looks like they have a problem fixing it too.

Not good.

a reply to: Snarl


No they are talking all beta emitters in the sample, including Strontium 90. The actual figure for Strontium 90 is 5,000,000 bg per liter..... 39,000,000 is the total of all the beta emitters combined.

But 5 million bq per liter of Stontium 90 is nothing to sneeze at,,, that's a significant amount of a nasty thing.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah. Cesium-137 contamination is the real scary stuff though. Hard to find clear, concise, reliable info about it on the Internet. That oughta make you wonder.

Tepco's representation is always only a slice of what they could be reporting. Probably safe to say that what they don't report is the worst of it.

That typhoon is still creeping along a path towards Fuku. Playing havoc on my Internet connectivity too.

originally posted by: xuenchen
What does this mean exactly.

I imagine it's not good and may indicate a dangerous situation ?

They don't call it Fuku-Shima for nothing.

Well, if you go check the WHO LINK you'll see that a dangerous situation is 3000 becquerels/litre, so the initial lie out of Tepco of 900,000 bq/litre is scary enough at 300 times the dangerous level.

With this new information of 39,000,000 bq/litre, you're looking at about 13,000 times the dangerous level. As defined on the above mentioned link, 3000 bq/litre requires;

IAEA Operational Intervention Level for nuclear emergencies (4) 3000 (bq/litre)

Not applicable. The advised maximum level should be used only to trigger action in the early stages of the emergency

Like someone said in the thread, they don't call it Fuku-Shima for nothin'. Knowing Tepco and their track record of misinformation on the low side by orders of magnitude, I expect that the true numbers are much higher. Right now however they are talking about 1/1000th of a Currie per litre, so about 250 gallons of water is 1 Currie, that's pretty damn high.

To give you a relative idea, the World Nuclear Organization has a nice little chart on this WNO Page that provides the levels of some products including 1kg of Uranium Ore (Yellowcake) at around 25,000,000 bq. Hmmm, doesn't sound very nice that water in Fukushima.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah. Cesium-137 contamination is the real scary stuff though. Hard to find clear, concise, reliable info about it on the Internet. That oughta make you wonder.

Tepco's representation is always only a slice of what they could be reporting. Probably safe to say that what they don't report is the worst of it.

That typhoon is still creeping along a path towards Fuku. Playing havoc on my Internet connectivity too.

This webpage has the natural levels of radioactivity of Seawater

www.umich.edu...

At most, you normally have 44 Becquerels per liter, having 900,000 isn't good, and 39,000,000 certainly isn't. Not that there is going to be much difference between the two if drunk at that level.

But the dilution levels due to diffusion in seawater are going to be less, but a factor of 30.

The International Olympic Committee has awarded Fukushima* the 2020 Olympics.

Athletes have dedicated their entire lives to competing there 6 years from NOW.

When will it dawn on the 200+ nations involved that this simply CANNOT happen?

Thousands of athletes around the world are training TODAY with Fukushima as their GOAL!

How can they be inspired to sacrifice their lives by exposing themselves to this HELL on Earth?

* Distance from Tokyo to Fukushima: 148 miles.

that figures but in some defense id imagine its pretty hard to measure that stuff accurately.

originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
that figures but in some defense id imagine its pretty hard to measure that stuff accurately.

You "imagine" wrong.

Nuclear engineering relies on precise measurements.

a reply to: Psynic

Well I don't doubt they are lying...we have no clue what it is like there...none...You think in that unstable environment everything is working just peachy? Hell most equipment doesn't even work in the normal environment so I can only imagine there it is less accurate. I can't even find two weather sites to give me the same temperature for my local weather.