It appears that my sister in Portland, Oregon can relax a bit; but friends in Japan, not so much.
Fairewinds Associates have an intriguing new video uploaded on their site, in which Arnie and Maggie Gundersen discuss the nature of “hot particles” and radiation with Marco Kaltofen, founder of Boston Chemical Data Corporation.
Boston Chemical Data has been analyzing automobile filters and childrens shoes collected from Japan in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster.
In the new video, Mr. Kaltofen explains the nature of “hot particles” and radiation, and the manner in which they have been distributed to human beings following the accident. He tells us that the size and nature of the radioactive particles affect their potential for damage, and describes a complex topography of radioactivity that was produced at Fukushima.
Mr. Kaltofen also debunks the tired old truism that dismisses concerns over the effects of radiation on human health by suggesting that so-called “background radiation” is harmless. Take the time to watch the video and you will understand finally why YesVY’s tiresome banana analogy is an absurd proxy for arguing that the potential hazards to human health from nuclear radiation are insignificant.
It appears that automobile filters collected in Fukushima City, Tokyo, and Seattle in April 2011, have revealed that radioactive “hot particles” were heavily distributed to Fukushima City, just 65-kl from the accident site; much less heavily distributed over Tokyo; and almost not at all to Seattle.
The distribution in Japan of these potentially destructive particles was widespread. Mr. Kaltofen speculates that it was the smallest, and potentially most invasive, particles that travelled the furthest.
His findings corroborate those of the test samples Arnie Gundersen collected at locations in Tokyo, including a previously decontaminated playground. “Decontamination” has been demonstrated to be an imperfect solution that must be repeated in order to remain effective, as dirt and dust becomes disturbed over time, redistributing new contamination to the surface where children play and adults labor.
What’s up with the bad sound and worse camera work?
Why didn’t they use a pair of lavaliere mics and a tripod?