-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Just thought I'd let you guys know that the UK Leaf Owners Club administrator is holding a "ReLEAF" appeal to raise money for Shelterbox. This is a charity that sends out food and survival equipment to quake hit areas.
You can donate here: Sally Buswell is fundraising for ShelterBox
You don't need to be UK based to help.
You can donate here: Sally Buswell is fundraising for ShelterBox
You don't need to be UK based to help.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I expect nothing less from that moron, but free speech allows him to make as much of an ass of himself as he wants.
In case you read this somewhere
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/15/josef_oehmen_nuclear_not_worried_viral
Tuesday, Mar 15, 2011 17:37 ET
Debunking a viral blog post on the nuke threat
An MIT researcher's claim that there was no threat of radiation in Japan was picked up widely, then it fell apart
By Justin Elliott
AP Photo/Tokyo Power Electric Co./MIT
The Fukushima Daiichi power plant's Unit 1 is seen before (left) and after (right) an explosion in Okumamachi, Fukushima prefecture, Japan, Saturday, March 12, 2011. Inset: Josef Oehmen
A viral blog post claimed that there was no chance "significant radiation" would be released from damaged reactors in Japan, but despite having been republished widely around the Web, the post has not held up to scrutiny.
Identified as an "MIT research scientist," Dr. Josef Oehmen wrote the post over the weekend with the title, "Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors." It was a modified version of an e-mail he sent to family and friends in Japan on Saturday evening, according to the blog where it was originally posted.
Oehmen, it turns out, does work at MIT but has no special expertise in nuclear power. And his key claim -- that "there was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity from the damaged Japanese reactors" -- appears to have already been proven false. While clearly the situation is still developing and all the facts are not yet known, the New York Times reported today that an explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi plant released "a surge of radiation 800 times more intense than the recommended hourly exposure limit in Japan," leading to the evacuation of 750 workers. Meanwhile, the government has ordered 140,000 within 20 miles of the plant to stay indoors.
But Oehmen's blog post, which also took shots at the media for what he claimed was bad reporting, has gotten lots of pickup. The essay has been reposted on literally hundreds of websites and message boards around the Web. It originally came to my attention when a few Salon readers e-mailed it in. Several well-read publications, including Business Insider, Discover Magazine and the UK Telegraph have either republished or linked to Oehmen's blog post; it was even touted by CNBC personality Jim Cramer. Business Insider ran the piece with the headline "You Can Stop Worrying About A Radiation Disaster In Japan -- Here's Why."
Oehmen's essay has also been seized on by pro-nuclear partisans. A website called TheEnergyCollective.com -- which is run by* Siemens AG, a major supplier for the nuclear industry -- republished Oehmen's blog post, and that version of the post alone was subsequently shared on social media sites 35,000 times. It was also posted on a pro-nuclear site called bravenewclimate.com.
Oehmen's post contained a detailed description of how the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi work, as well as of the various containment vessels that, according to Oehmen, would protect people from radiation in any and all circumstances. He also railed against the media for alleged reporting inaccuracies:
I have been reading every news release on the incident since the earthquake. There has not been one single report that was accurate and free of errors (and part of that problem is also a weakness in the Japanese crisis communication). ... I have read a 3 page report on CNN where every single paragraph contained an error.
Part of the weight of the blog post comes from the fact that Oehmen was identified as an "MIT research scientist."
So does Oehmen actually work at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology? Yes. But not in the nuclear engineering department. He works at an entity called the Lean Advancement Initiative, which focuses on business management issues. Is he a "research scientist"? Yes. But, again, not in any nuclear field. Oehmen's research focuses on "risk management" with an eye to helping companies "take entrepreneurial risks." He writes papers on things like "Human Resource Management in China."
I e-mailed Oehmen to ask if he stands by the claims in the post. He referred me to the MIT press office, which in turn told me that Oehmen is not doing interviews.
An updated version of Oehmen's blog post is now being hosted at a website set up by students in MIT's Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering. Oehmen's crucial claim -- that there was no chance radiation would be released -- has been cut. The title, which was originally "Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors," has been changed. An introduction pointedly says, "Note that the title of the original blog does not reflect the views of the authors of the site."
(Special thanks to reader PN for the tip.)
* UPDATE: TheEnergyCollective.com is not run directly by Siemens, but rather by a new media PR firm that works for Siemens called Social Media Today.
Justin Elliott is a Salon reporter. Reach him by email at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin More: Justin Elliott
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/15/josef_oehmen_nuclear_not_worried_viral
Tuesday, Mar 15, 2011 17:37 ET
Debunking a viral blog post on the nuke threat
An MIT researcher's claim that there was no threat of radiation in Japan was picked up widely, then it fell apart
By Justin Elliott
AP Photo/Tokyo Power Electric Co./MIT
The Fukushima Daiichi power plant's Unit 1 is seen before (left) and after (right) an explosion in Okumamachi, Fukushima prefecture, Japan, Saturday, March 12, 2011. Inset: Josef Oehmen
A viral blog post claimed that there was no chance "significant radiation" would be released from damaged reactors in Japan, but despite having been republished widely around the Web, the post has not held up to scrutiny.
Identified as an "MIT research scientist," Dr. Josef Oehmen wrote the post over the weekend with the title, "Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors." It was a modified version of an e-mail he sent to family and friends in Japan on Saturday evening, according to the blog where it was originally posted.
Oehmen, it turns out, does work at MIT but has no special expertise in nuclear power. And his key claim -- that "there was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity from the damaged Japanese reactors" -- appears to have already been proven false. While clearly the situation is still developing and all the facts are not yet known, the New York Times reported today that an explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi plant released "a surge of radiation 800 times more intense than the recommended hourly exposure limit in Japan," leading to the evacuation of 750 workers. Meanwhile, the government has ordered 140,000 within 20 miles of the plant to stay indoors.
But Oehmen's blog post, which also took shots at the media for what he claimed was bad reporting, has gotten lots of pickup. The essay has been reposted on literally hundreds of websites and message boards around the Web. It originally came to my attention when a few Salon readers e-mailed it in. Several well-read publications, including Business Insider, Discover Magazine and the UK Telegraph have either republished or linked to Oehmen's blog post; it was even touted by CNBC personality Jim Cramer. Business Insider ran the piece with the headline "You Can Stop Worrying About A Radiation Disaster In Japan -- Here's Why."
Oehmen's essay has also been seized on by pro-nuclear partisans. A website called TheEnergyCollective.com -- which is run by* Siemens AG, a major supplier for the nuclear industry -- republished Oehmen's blog post, and that version of the post alone was subsequently shared on social media sites 35,000 times. It was also posted on a pro-nuclear site called bravenewclimate.com.
Oehmen's post contained a detailed description of how the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi work, as well as of the various containment vessels that, according to Oehmen, would protect people from radiation in any and all circumstances. He also railed against the media for alleged reporting inaccuracies:
I have been reading every news release on the incident since the earthquake. There has not been one single report that was accurate and free of errors (and part of that problem is also a weakness in the Japanese crisis communication). ... I have read a 3 page report on CNN where every single paragraph contained an error.
Part of the weight of the blog post comes from the fact that Oehmen was identified as an "MIT research scientist."
So does Oehmen actually work at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology? Yes. But not in the nuclear engineering department. He works at an entity called the Lean Advancement Initiative, which focuses on business management issues. Is he a "research scientist"? Yes. But, again, not in any nuclear field. Oehmen's research focuses on "risk management" with an eye to helping companies "take entrepreneurial risks." He writes papers on things like "Human Resource Management in China."
I e-mailed Oehmen to ask if he stands by the claims in the post. He referred me to the MIT press office, which in turn told me that Oehmen is not doing interviews.
An updated version of Oehmen's blog post is now being hosted at a website set up by students in MIT's Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering. Oehmen's crucial claim -- that there was no chance radiation would be released -- has been cut. The title, which was originally "Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors," has been changed. An introduction pointedly says, "Note that the title of the original blog does not reflect the views of the authors of the site."
(Special thanks to reader PN for the tip.)
* UPDATE: TheEnergyCollective.com is not run directly by Siemens, but rather by a new media PR firm that works for Siemens called Social Media Today.
Justin Elliott is a Salon reporter. Reach him by email at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin More: Justin Elliott
I stopped posting links in this topic because there have been so many conflicting reports about what specifically has been happening and the magnitude of the dangers.
Clearly the situation is terrible, and an evolving story, but it is hard to tell from all the reports just how much danger exists and for whom.
Clearly the situation is terrible, and an evolving story, but it is hard to tell from all the reports just how much danger exists and for whom.
benji4
Roadster 2.5 #0476
Level of Fukushima Dai-ichi accident raised from 5 to 7
Japan raises nuclear crisis alert level - World news - Asia-Pacific - msnbc.com
Japan raises nuclear crisis alert level - World news - Asia-Pacific - msnbc.com
These are provisional ratings based on certain criteria that have in this case nothing to do with changes on site. As no one seems to bother in the press to read what was done specifically, there are all sorts of hysteric messages floating around. Here a quote and a reference closer to the source:
"The new provisional rating considers the accidents that occurred at Units 1, 2 and 3 as a single event on INES. Previously, separate INES Level 5 ratings had been applied for Units 1, 2 and 3. The provisional INES Level 3 rating assigned for Unit 4 still applies.
The re-evaluation of the Fukushima Daiichi provisional INES rating resulted from an estimate of the total amount of radioactivity released to the environment from the nuclear plant. NISA estimates that the amount of radioactive material released to the atmosphere is approximately 10% of the 1986 Chernobyl accident, which is the only other nuclear accident to have been rated a Level 7 event."
So indeed, after adding up, the previous separate ratings add up to a new rating - without any changes in threats. More is here:
Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log
"The new provisional rating considers the accidents that occurred at Units 1, 2 and 3 as a single event on INES. Previously, separate INES Level 5 ratings had been applied for Units 1, 2 and 3. The provisional INES Level 3 rating assigned for Unit 4 still applies.
The re-evaluation of the Fukushima Daiichi provisional INES rating resulted from an estimate of the total amount of radioactivity released to the environment from the nuclear plant. NISA estimates that the amount of radioactive material released to the atmosphere is approximately 10% of the 1986 Chernobyl accident, which is the only other nuclear accident to have been rated a Level 7 event."
So indeed, after adding up, the previous separate ratings add up to a new rating - without any changes in threats. More is here:
Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log
I live in Hong Kong and ordered an HPC from Tesla here late on the 16th March, expecting it to ship from the US.
It arrived on 19th March, with paperwork stating origin was Tesla Japan. Impressed that just days after the earthquake and at the peak of uncertainty about the nuclear situation, commerce and air cargo were still operational.
Glad to hear that things finally seem to be stabilizing in Japan.
It arrived on 19th March, with paperwork stating origin was Tesla Japan. Impressed that just days after the earthquake and at the peak of uncertainty about the nuclear situation, commerce and air cargo were still operational.
Glad to hear that things finally seem to be stabilizing in Japan.
Similar threads
