# Rantings about stupid nuclear reporting, and I want to bitchslap somebody, also other crap **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 26, 2011, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077 "2011-03-26T19:11:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/481 "2011-04-01T04:11:53Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Oh fuck. > > [Xoilac TV | Xôi Lạc TTBD Hôm Nay - Trực Tiếp Bóng đá 90Phut HD](http://enenews.com/radioactive-iodine-131-in-rainwater-sample-near-san-francisco-is-18100-above-federal-drinking-water-standard) > > Oh fucking hell, you see that? Now that is fear mongering. Taking readings, and publishing the results, and pointing out that radioactive shit is the rain. And now the water. > > The only way to stop that shit is to make the safe level \*\*18,100% higher. > \*\* “Taking readings, and publishing the results, and pointing out that radioactive shit is the rain” is what the University of California did. Calculating that the measured level of iodine 131 was 18.1 times higher than the allowed level in the federal drinking water standard, and then expressing it as a percentage so it looks really big and scary, is what [enenews.com](http://enenews.com) did. Pointing out that the 20 Bq/litre of rainwater that [enenews.com](http://enenews.com) is getting excited about compares fairly favourably with the 4000 Bq of potassium 40 already in the body of the average person, is what I’m doing. > **[Health Effects of Low Radiation 2003](https://books.google.com.au/books?id=elsKILUyBOEC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=potassium%2Bin%2Bbody%2Bbecquerels&source=bl&ots=KNux1gjUGR&sig=n99gtUkpQVKyrx0mv9VELRiklGA&hl=en&ei=Yk-VTeOAItL4ce3pmYwH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q&f=false)** > > This CD rom contains 28 papers presented to the BNES international conference on the health effects of low level ratiation. This conference is the fourth in the highly successful series and its aim is to present the fundamental radiobiological and... ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/482 "2011-04-01T04:35:32Z")
So, you just going to pretend like the EPA story wasn’t posted first? And try to ignore it? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/483 "2011-04-01T04:45:19Z")
> [@matt](#): > > “Taking readings, and publishing the results, and pointing out that radioactive shit is the rain” is what the University of California did. > > Calculating that the measured level of iodine 131 was 18.1 times higher than the allowed level in the federal drinking water standard, and then expressing it as a percentage so it looks really big and scary, is what [enenews.com](http://enenews.com) did. > > Pointing out that the 20 Bq/litre of rainwater that [enenews.com](http://enenews.com) is getting excited about compares fairly favourably with the 4000 Bq of potassium 40 already in the body of the average person, is what I’m doing. > > [Health Effects of Low Radiation 2003: Proceedings of the 4th International ... - Google Books](http://books.google.com.au/books?id=elsKILUyBOEC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=potassium+in+body+becquerels&source=bl&ots=KNux1gjUGR&sig=n99gtUkpQVKyrx0mv9VELRiklGA&hl=en&ei=Yk-VTeOAItL4ce3pmYwH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q&f=false) **Matt** , I’m also seeing BS in that 18,100% higher bit. Re-posting from a note I left in GQ: Nowhere in the Berkeley report one sees the scary “18,100% above federal drinking standards” line, but it seems that is coming from enenews. They do claim that they are using a converter and the federal standard for the limit allowed, unfortunately the limit they are talking about is not very clear, other forums that I looked at that are acting like chicken littles report that they got it from this EPA PDF: [http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/contaminants/radiation/pdfs/iodine.pdf](http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/contaminants/radiation/pdfs/iodine.pdf) > [@](#): > > EPA has established a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 millirem per year for beta particle and photon radioactivity from man-made radionuclides in drinking water. The average concentration of iodine-131, which is assumed to yield 4 millirem per year, is 3 picocuries per liter (pCi/l). If other radionuclides which emit beta particles and photon radioactivity are present in addition to iodine- 131, the sum of the annual dose from all the radionuclides shall not exceed 4 millirem/year. IIUC the key words are “continuous exposure”, and 4 mrem/yr equivalent to 3 pCi/L (0.1 Bq/L) **continuous exposure** is the **Recommended Maximum Concentration**. [http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/iodine/standards\_regulations.html](http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/iodine/standards_regulations.html) Now, IIUC the \*\*dangerous \*\*levels then are \*\*higher \*\*as per the UC Berkeley article, and on top of all this, the 20.1 Bc/Litre reading was an outie, the average looks more like 5 to 4 Bc/Litre, dropping, and hardly continuous. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/484 "2011-04-01T04:48:43Z")
There is a nuclear plant in Japan that is spewing out radiation that is turning up in New Jersey. The argument that it may not be enough to hurt you is to some degree beside the point. The radiation is not being contained and is spreading around the globe. Excuse me if I think that is not good. There is however water terribly radioactive flooding into the ocean. There are 17 foot pipes beneath the plants with water within 3 feet of the top. That is a lot of hot radioactive water. What do you do with it? I read today that the rods wont cool off enough to move for 50 to 100 years. Do you feel the need to discuss whether it is closer to 50? That is a similar argument. It is a terrible disaster and radioactivity is escaping the plant and poisoning the land. Plutonium is appearing in the dirt around the plant. How bad does it have to be before a nuke lover admits that a terrible tragedy is occurring and the land is being poisoned . The food grown on the land has radioactivity in it. The fish ,which is the big part of the Japanese diet, is getting polluted with radioactive iodine. How bad does it have to get?" ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/485 "2011-04-01T04:52:11Z")
That is some of the worst alarmist rants about reporting I have ever read. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/486 "2011-04-01T04:54:10Z")
I understand that some people have a need to drag all those things they consider ‘facts’ around with them, and would never ever get upset about anything, but hey, if you fucking WANT to have a rational scientific discussion full of numbers and figures and science, why not MAKE YOUR OWN FUCKING TOPIC about it? Instead of trying to bore everyone here to death? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/487 "2011-04-01T05:06:57Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > So, you just going to pretend like the EPA story wasn’t posted first? And try to ignore it? Nope, for what I have read, (and in the serious literature and press, not your truly BS sources that I suspected as much they were) there has been much controversy on what are the actual dangerous levels of radiation. > **[Latest news & breaking headlines](https://www.thetimes.com/)** > > The latest breaking UK, US, world, business and sport news from The Times and The Sunday Times. Go beyond today's headlines with in-depth analysis and comment. > [@](#): > > Research into the aftermath of the meltdown at the Soviet nuclear reactor has suggested that low levels of radioactivity are not as harmful as believed — and may even be beneficial. > > Evidence from people and animals exposed to fallout has convinced experts that the risks of radiation follow a much more complex pattern than predicted. > > Generally, the hazards are thought to rise directly with increasing doses of radiation. But the new theory suggests that there is a threshold, below which any amount of exposure is probably safe. The theory will be outlined on Thursday during a BBC Two Horizon documentary. It will intensify controversy over the safety of nuclear power in the week in which the Government’s energy review is expected to back a new generation of atomic plants. > > Scientists on the programme said that there was mounting evidence that the dangerous reputation of radiation and nuclear energy was unjustified. > > Mike Repacholi, of the World Health Organisation radiation programme, said: “People hear radiation, they think of the atomic bomb and they think of thousands of deaths. They think that the Chernobyl reactor accident was equivalent to the atomic bombing in Japan, which is absolutely untrue.” > > The Chernobyl disaster was initially predicted to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths. Two decades later the death toll stands at 56. The United Nations Chernobyl Forum estimates that no more than 4,000 people will die as a direct result of fallout, while radiation may be a contributory factor in another 5,000 deaths. > > Dr Repacholi said that even these estimates could be too high. While 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer have been detected in the Chernobyl region, with 15 deaths, many can be attributed to better detection because of the screening conducted after the disaster. I would like to see with what the reporter in Tennessee is comparing the levels to say that the EPA will “dramatically increase the permissible releases” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/488 "2011-04-01T05:10:00Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > There is a nuclear plant in Japan that is spewing out radiation that is turning up in New Jersey. The argument that it may not be enough to hurt you is to some degree beside the point. The radiation is not being contained and is spreading around the globe. Excuse me if I think that is not good. > There is however water terribly radioactive flooding into the ocean. There are 17 foot pipes beneath the plants with water within 3 feet of the top. That is a lot of hot radioactive water. What do you do with it? > I read today that the rods wont cool off enough to move for 50 to 100 years. Do you feel the need to discuss whether it is closer to 50? That is a similar argument. > It is a terrible disaster and radioactivity is escaping the plant and poisoning the land. Plutonium is appearing in the dirt around the plant. > How bad does it have to be before a nuke lover admits that a terrible tragedy is occurring and the land is being poisoned . The food grown on the land has radioactivity in it. The fish ,which is the big part of the Japanese diet, is getting polluted with radioactive iodine. How bad does it have to get?" As mentioned a long time ago (yes, you are still pushing a straw man still), this is a shitty situation and horrible news, but pushing alarmist only leads for the alarmist to be discredited. So it is a terrible tragedy, but it does not mean the end of the world nor the end of nuclear power. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/489 "2011-04-01T05:10:19Z")
I would like to see some actual science done at some point. Waiting until after worldwide blanket of radiactive fall out coats the planet, then trying to figure out what it does, that is beyond fucking retarded. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/490 "2011-04-01T05:11:58Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I understand that some people have a need to drag all those things they consider ‘facts’ around with them, and would never ever get upset about anything, but hey, if you fucking WANT to have a rational scientific discussion full of numbers and figures and science, why not MAKE YOUR OWN FUCKING TOPIC about it? > > Instead of trying to bore everyone here to death? Nah, that was needed to be posted to show all what a certifiable gullible idiot you are. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/491 "2011-04-01T05:59:14Z")
> [@](#): > > Radiation levels increased sharply inside and outside the [Fukushima Daiichi](http://www.latimes.com/topic/economy-business-finance/energy-resource-industries/nuclear-power/tokyo-electric-power-co.-ORCRP0000175859.topic) nuclear power plant Thursday, slowing work on the devastated facility again and once more throwing into doubt the integrity of the containment vessels that hold the fuel rods. > **[Radioactivity surges again at Japan nuclear plant](https://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-japan-reactor-damage-20110331-story.html)** > > Work on containing the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi complex is hampered because the level of radioactive iodine found in water inside exceeds 10,000 times the safety standard, officials say. The sudden spikes, the huge heat fluctuations, it’s not a total mystery of course. > [@](#): > > Engineers speculated that the radiation surges may be coming from a partial meltdown of the fuel core of reactor No. 1. It appears that small segments of the melted fuel rods in that reactor are undergoing what is known as “localized criticality,” emitting brief flashes of heat and radiation. What is exceedingly obvious, is the point I’ve made numerous times. You know, the one that drives nuclear deniers crazy. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/492 "2011-04-01T06:16:26Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > So, you just going to pretend like the EPA story wasn’t posted first? And try to ignore it? Why not? You ignore everything you don’t like. But what do you expect to hear, anyway? The evil powers that be are killing us all and not telling us, oh woe, let’s riot on the streets? The iodine is in the rainwater (NOT the drinking water so far, note), so they have to make a decision about what to do if it turns up in the drinking water. The 3 picoCurie/litre limit is based on limiting annual dosage to 4 millirem, or 40 microsievert. (For comparison, the allowed exposure limit for a radiation worker in the USA is 50 MILLIsievert per year: over 1000 times greater.) The EPA have to decide whether to quarantine drinking water if it goes above the 3 picocurie limit or temporarily raise the limit based on the fact that its currently a REAL overkill safety-wise and that the iodine will 1000 times less in 80 days, 1000,000 times less in 160 days, so exposure will be temporary. It looks like they’re going to temporarily raise the limits. But rant away about it if you wish. And now, for your pleasure, I fucked up. Enjoy: > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Matt, I’m also seeing BS in that 18,100% higher bit. > > Re-posting from a note I left in GQ: > > Nowhere in the Berkeley report one sees the scary “18,100% above federal drinking standards” line, but it seems that is coming from enenews. > > They do claim that they are using a converter and the federal standard for the limit allowed, unfortunately the limit they are talking about is not very clear, other forums that I looked at that are acting like chicken littles report that they got it from this EPA PDF I messed up. The claim of 18,100% is 181 times the 3-picoCurie/litre limit, not 18.1. I checked the [enenews.com](http://enenews.com) calculation and it’s right. My point above about whether 4 millirem per year is a reasonable safety limit still stands. (The EPA has its own radiation chart, in the middle of this document: [http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/402-k-07-006.pdf](http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/402-k-07-006.pdf) You get 4 millirem from a single chest x-ray. You get 24 from cosmic radiation at sea level every year. You get 40 from your own internal radioisotope content.) My guess is some people in the USA may die from overdosing with precautionary potassium iodide but there will be no harm at all from iodine 131 in drinking water. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/493 "2011-04-01T06:35:09Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > [Radioactivity surges again at Japan nuclear plant](http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-japan-reactor-damage-20110331,0,5950026.story) > > The sudden spikes, the huge heat fluctuations, it’s not a total mystery of course. Your cite says NOTHING about huge heat fluctuations, but your ability to communicate details correctly (or possibly truthfully?) has been demonstrated to be limited. The reported spike is in the iodine 131 content of the water they’re pumping around. They’re stirring shit up as they move the water. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > What is exceedingly obvious, is the point I’ve made numerous times. You know, the one that drives nuclear deniers crazy. “Localised criticality”? It’s massively unlikely, and the newspaper’s use of that particular phrase strongly suggests they’re just rehashing the Veress paper rather than having received any new information. Whatever floats your boat though. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/494 "2011-04-01T06:38:55Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I understand that some people have a need to drag all those things they consider ‘facts’ around with them, and would never ever get upset about anything, but hey, if you fucking WANT to have a rational scientific discussion full of numbers and figures and science, why not MAKE YOUR OWN FUCKING TOPIC about it? Yes, heaven forbid anyone try to bring facts and rational discussion into one of your threads. I could see why that might upset you. Alas, that is rather the nature of a discussion board. Perhaps your unique insight and perspective may be best suited to a different format, such as a blog. There you can post whatever you like, without having to worry about pesky types turning up to correct you. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/495 "2011-04-01T07:15:07Z")
> [@matt](#): > > Why not? You ignore everything you don’t like. What are you? Like, six years old? ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/496 "2011-04-01T07:19:01Z")
> [@](#): > > TOKYO • Radiation levels spiked inside and outside the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant Thursday, slowing work on the facility once again and once more throwing into doubt the integrity of the containment vessels that hold the fuel rods. > **[Radiation spike slows work](https://www.stltoday.com/news/nation-world/article_30867e55-d386-57f7-8c32-2fde1c70d63a.html)** > > TOKYO • Radiation levels spiked inside and outside the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant Thursday, slowing work on the facility once again and once more throwing into doubt the integrity If there is no fire, no leaking fuel pools, no leaking reactor, no nuclear reaction going on, what is causing the spikes? These are of the magnitude where it stops workers from getting anything done. (this assumes they are reporting the truth of course) Where is the huge amount of NEW radioactive material coming from? ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/497 "2011-04-01T08:34:55Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > [Radiation spike slows work](http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/article_30867e55-d386-57f7-8c32-2fde1c70d63a.html) > > If there is no fire, no leaking fuel pools, no leaking reactor, no nuclear reaction going on, what is causing the spikes? These are of the magnitude where it stops workers from getting anything done. > > (this assumes they are reporting the truth of course) > > Where is the huge amount of NEW radioactive material coming from? Probably from the torus of reactor 2, which is very likely leaking. As I said, they are pumping water around and stirring stuff up. The toruses on the reactors (a.k.a. the wetwells, a.k.a the supression chambers) are normally half-full of water during reactor operation. After the station blackout when they lost all coolant circulation, the reactors started to boil their coolant water off, the steam passing into the containment. The water levels dropped in the pressure vessels and exposed the fuel rods, which overheated and ruptured their claddings. All the iodine 131 fission product that had been trapped behing the cladding started to boil out of the fuel rods. The steam and iodine (and caesium and hydrogen too, unfortunately) was periodically vented from the PV into the containment, where it bubbled through the water in the torus condensing the steam, controlling the pressure and stripping out much of the iodine and caesium. As the containment pressure rose, the containment itself was periodically vented to the outside world. The iodine level in the torus water would have gone up and up as PV steam was repeatedly vented through it. Some time back during all the hydrogen explosions, reactor 2 suffered a loud noise and a sudden drop in its torus pressure. A good bet that its torus isn’t sealed anymore and has been seeping into the pipe trenches, already part-filled from the tsunami. Now they are pumping water from the trenches into the condenser surge tanks and probably the make-up water tanks. As they do that, more torus water can pass into the trench and the iodine level spikes. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/498 "2011-04-01T14:42:25Z")
Despite how you try to describe it, and as much as I would love to believe your version, which sounds quite innocuous btw, it simply doesn’t match up with reality. Which is a problem. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/499 "2011-04-01T14:52:52Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Despite how you try to describe it, and as much as I would love to believe your version, which sounds quite innocuous btw, it simply doesn’t match up with reality. > > Which is a problem. You wouldn’t know reality if it came up and punched you in the junk and gave you its business card. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/500 "2011-04-01T15:02:58Z")
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12931413](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12931413) Video of inside of what’s left of building 4 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077.md?page=26)