Comments on: Joseph Oehmen, MIT Research Scientist: “there was and will not be any significant release of radioactivity from the damaged Japanese reactors”

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 21:08:34 +0000

When posting about a developing situation, you should be aware that things might be strikingly different tomorrow.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 21:06:32 +0000

When posting about a developing situation, you should be aware that things might be strikingly different tomorrow.

By: MJ

MJ — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:42:59 +0000

Unfortunately the salon article does not debunk a lot. Neither does he address the various ways actual events have already proven Oehmen’s assessment of the crisis to be a piece of crap, nor does it even mention the myriads of factual mistakes – like the core catchers Oehmen describes that are not present in Fukushima, or the wrong depiction of how hydrogen develops when the reactor overheats (by bond disruption rather then by chemical reduction). The only issue the salon article addresses is the radiation emitted – if that would be all, Oehmen would have made a mistake, but his article would still be pretty good. After all, it would have been easy to debunk Oehmen’s article for somebody who knows something about the issue (surely not for me, back then), but the salon “debunking” is, by and large, nothing else than an ad hominem attack. If you point out in a matter-of-fact way that somebody is completely clueless and then state that he lacks qualification, it’s OK, that’s just blunt. But writing along the lines of “This guy has no idea and we really don’t like him, because he’s arrogant!” without a proper assessment of what exactly he got wrong is not the way.

I have to admit that I took Oehmen seriously, too. During the weekend all I could find about the then beginning crisis were random and contradictory descriptions about ongoing events. Oehmen’s piece was the very first I could find to address the whole thing in a coherent – but at least misleading, as I know now – way. It was not until Monday, that news agencies began to provide expert opinions and a real description of what a power plant is and what is actually going on there. I think the lack of suitable information during the weekend plus the help of some shill sites was the main reason why Oehmen’s piece spread like a virus – of disinformation: last time I checked (two days ago) translations into German, Spanish, and Japanese were available! I may be wrong here, and perhaps I just try to justify my own naÃ¯vetÃ© to accept Oehmen’s article at face value, but a discussion of the rapid diffusion of his article should include a discussion of the failure of almostthe whole media landscape to cover the events in a comprehensible and coherent way.

Sorry for my English, I am French.

By: Sascha

Sascha — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:53:37 +0000

This is my answer to that fluff piece
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/why_you_should_be_worried_about_japan%E2%80%99s_nuclear_reactors-77216

By: Jon H

Jon H — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:12:47 +0000

Stephanie wrote: “The modified post, which does not include the claim that there won’t be a significant release of radiation, is here:”

Note that is “modified” beyond recognition, by *other* people at MIT from a different department, who actually know about nuclear engineering. They kept Oehmen’s structure, and fixed the content, without noting their changes. Which really doesn’t say much for Oehmen.

Note also that the mitnse people even state that they don’t even agree with Oehmen’s piece’s title.

The best that can be said for Oehmen’s original piece is that he wrote it to reassure family members who are in Japan.

By: Adela

Adela — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:21:49 +0000

The MIT blog as been updating as events change and things that were not an issue before become one and previous issues drop in severity.
I see a lot of misuse of the numbers all over the net as people get units wrong(world of difference between milli and micro), move the decimal place wrong during conversion or just don’t include the context. 400mSv without the per hour, location or the duration doesn’t lead to accurate risk assessment. Also switching back and forth between rems and sieverts can cause even more math errors.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:15:37 +0000

Everyonoe does understand, yes, that if you are a worker in a nuclear plant and there is enough radiation to make you and your colleagues have to run away for the time being, that’s significant.

The NYT article is a bit misleading, in that it compares doses of routine irradiation from devices to ambient radiation hundreds of meters from the source. This is not impressively safe. Inverse square and all that. Plus, there is a difference between irradiation (energy) and release of stuff (as discussed in some of the comments above). These simplistic comparisons are not helpful.

By: Lazy

Lazy — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:57:40 +0000

I should follow up by acknowledging that the property line trend certainly doesnâ??t look good. If you want my prediction, here it is: Offsite power will be restored within 36 hours, and within 72 hours radiation levels will be back to where they were over the weekend.

By: Lazy

Lazy — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:39:47 +0000

While it would appear that Oehmenâ??s comments need to be modified given the events subsequent to when he wrote his article I hardly think Salonâ??s Justin Elliot is in any position to offer an educated response which he large did not. The meat of Elliotâ??s reply was that because the NY Times reported â??a surge of radiation 800 times more intense than the recommended hourly exposure limit in Japanâ? Oehmenâ??s original article was full of it.

I would disagree.

The times actually has a wonderful chart on the measured radioactivity at the plants perimeter that they keep updated.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/16/world/asia/20110316-japan-quake-radiation.html?ref=asia

There really were no significant releases before late Monday. Oehmenâ??s article was an accurate snapshot of events up until late Monday.

By: Markita Lynda: Anti-Abortion = Pro-Death

Markita Lynda: Anti-Abortion = Pro-Death — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:38:26 +0000

The radiation might not spread far but I think it’s unhealthy around the plants right now–someone was muttering about 400 mSv where the background radiation is in microSv. For detailed articles, see http://allthingsnuclear.org/ and maybe the information there will help you to decide what’s credible.

Comments on: Joseph Oehmen, MIT Research Scientist: “there was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity from the damaged Japanese reactors”

By: John Emerson

By: John Emerson

By: MJ

By: Sascha

By: Jon H

By: Adela

By: Greg Laden

By: Lazy

By: Lazy

By: Markita Lynda: Anti-Abortion = Pro-Death

Comments on: Joseph Oehmen, MIT Research Scientist: “there was and will not be any significant release of radioactivity from the damaged Japanese reactors”