lo_pak

回復 2# fy789

You should learn more about nuclear crisis... 100km, not bad ka la... That's aleady factor of safety on top of factor of safety... Normal practice is 50km for nuclear bomb...

lo_pak

回復 4# fy789

As per my last week comment, Tokyo is not so bad to stay...

And, don't rely too much on the media articles even they are from some professionals (you are a professional and I know you can judge the technical issue within), I would rather stay with IAEA announcements because they are more neutral.

lo_pak

回復 6# fy789

If you are referring to Reuters, then you better stick with EPA. I still feel like IAEA is better than EPA in interpreting the result on this matter...

lo_pak

回復 10# fy789

zzzz .... Have they provided any conclusions?

Let me know what possible outputs you are proposing...

Even they are bad results, there should be a bounded boundary for the solution, otherwise the question cannot be analysed.

And, #4 is my post, what do you really looking for?

lo_pak

回復 14# fy789

Oops, sorry I have misread the thread number,...

Back to your #4 post,

Radioactive pollution is not a new topic, it has been discussed years after years after years when nuclear powers are utilized as a source of energy.

Have I undermined the situation? I will say the sooner the nuclear reactors can bury, the less the influence it will generate. At the meatwhile, the worst has already passed. In pollution control, Fukushima can still be classified as a point source pollution. The widespread of the nuclear dust is somehow the most annoying factor "at the moment", but still, the problem will be ceased off in couple years. The most influencing problem lies underground...

If I am a local resident in Japan, it depends on what distance I am away from Fukushima. In Tokyo, I really can't see too much of a problem. Water in Tokyo, fairly safe. Food source, don't pick anything from North East Japan won't be a problem "at the moment". Air, is still fine.

BTW, "What a shame" in British English means "it's a pity", I learnt that when I was grade 7....

Are you really a professional, I trully doubt...

lo_pak

回復 17# fy789

I'm doing no harm. If I have, I apologize...

BTW, for some disasters of this scale (hopefully not seeing those again in my life...), people are always free to discuss, but certainly should be more scientific and fact based.

Back to your question, will I immigrate to Tokyo right now, I will say no. However, if my girl friend is there, if my work requires me to travel, or if I am hired by a company with a position I'm desired, etc. I definitely will... Not because Tokyo is unsafe, but I just can't find a reason I have to go now.

Or, changing the question this way, if the same situation happens in area surrouding Lower Mainland, I will still stay. I know there is risk, but that risk is certainly at the level that I can handle.

Does it sound any better?

lo_pak

回復 18# daimo

The level appears to be too much for infant since their immune systems are delicate. Having precaution in advance is just a responsible step to carry by the government.

But for adults, the level is safe to drink.

lo_pak

回復 21# mcjohnjohn

No panic, the government will be releasing distilled water to family with infants for the period...

lo_pak

回復 23# mcjohnjohn

The press said they will...

BTW, according to health specialists, 2 suggestions have been given to the local residents if you have to use the tap water for infants.

1) Using high grade charcoal filter (i.e. 備長炭) to distill the water (some proclaiming the effect is 50%-100%, very well depends on the quality of the filter) (I know charcoal has been used in military for filtering in nuclear warfare but I don't have enough details);
2) Let the water sit still for 8 days (this is not possible if you need it now).

lo_pak

回復 25# mcjohnjohn

The 100bq/kg is the potable water standard for infants, for bathing there should be no concerns. Rinse off carefully after bath will not pose any problem.