Google Policy musings

Revive the blog?
Keep the blog active?

European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used and data collected on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent.

As a courtesy, we have added a notice on your blog to explain Google's use of certain Blogger and Google cookies, including use of Google Analytics and AdSense cookies, and other data collected by Google.

You are responsible for confirming this notice actually works for your blog, and that it displays. If you employ other cookies, for example by adding third party features, this notice may not work for you. If you include functionality from other providers there may be extra information collected from your users.  

Learn more about this notice and your responsibilities.

This announcement may be relevant to possible blog deletion as well:

Dear Google User,
We are writing to let you know that we recently announced new storage policies for Google Accounts using Gmail, Google Drive (including Google Docs, Sheets, Slides, Drawings, Forms, and Jamboard files) and/or Google Photos that bring us in line with industry practices. Since you have previously used one or more of these products in your Google Account storage, we wanted to tell you about the new policies well before they go into effect on June 1, 2021. Below is a summary of the new policies. Please reference our Help Center article for a complete list of what's changing.
Summary of the new policies (effective June 1, 2021):
•     If you're inactive for 2 years (24 months) in Gmail, Drive or Photos, we may delete the content in the product(s) in which you're inactive. Google One members who are within their storage quota and in good-standing will not be impacted by this new inactive policy.
•     If you exceed your storage limit for 2 years, we may delete your content across Gmail, Drive and Photos.
What this means for you:
•     You won't be impacted by these changes unless you've been inactive or over your storage limit for 2 years. As this policy goes into effect June 1, 2021, the earliest it would be enforced is June 1, 2023.
•     After June 1, 2021, if you are either inactive or over your storage limit, we will send you email reminders and notifications in advance and prior to deleting any content.
•     Even if you are either inactive or over your storage limit for one or more of these services and content is deleted, you will still be able to sign in.
•     Note: The inactivity and over quota storage policies will apply only to consumer users of Google services. Google Workspace, G Suite for Education and G Suite for Nonprofits policies are not changing at this time, and admins should look to the Admin Help center for storage policies related to their subscriptions.
Learn more about how to keep your account active
•     To learn more about how to remain active with these products, visit this Help Center page.
•     The Inactive Account Manager can help you manage specific content and notify a trusted contact if you stop using your Google Account for a certain period of time (between 3-18 months). Note: the new 2 year inactive policy will apply regardless of your Inactive Account Manager settings. You can learn more about these changes and ways to manage your or a loved one's account in our Help Center.
Learn how to manage your storage
•     Learn more about the over quota policy and what counts against storage quota.
•     You can use the free storage manager in the Google One app and on the web to see how you're using your Google Account storage, and free up space across Gmail, Google Drive, and Google Photos.
Thank you for using our services.
Your Google Team
© 2020 Google LLC 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043
You have received this mandatory email announcement to update you about important information related to your Google Account.

Teaching English in my sleep -- to the Korean occupation forces

I dreamed that Korea invaded. They just sort of massed in the hills and mountains overlooking the city (the dream place looked a little like Kyoto) and then filed in. The young soldiers were polite and seemed a little sheepish, so you almost felt a little sorry for them. Since the occupation was non-violent, there was no violent resistance, either, but there were some arguments along the lines of "Hey! Whaddaya think you're doing? This is stupid!" Young women were deployed too as soldier/spokespersons for the occupiers. For some reason they had decided to use English rather than Korean or Japanese as the occupation language. I became busy talking with the Korean spokeswomen over how the meaning of various edicts changed when there was no article as opposed to the definite or indefinite article.

May Day in the Life

I played a tape today, oh boy
a VHS from MCMXCIII
and tho the sound was rather bad
we had to listen as
Sachiko, Ricardo and Maria took a business class
I'd love to turn it off

Human Radiometer Birdhairjp

Birdhairjp visits the three cities of Koriyama, Nihonmatsu, and Fukushima to conduct radiation measurements at elementary schools and public parks 55 to 60 km from Fukushima Dai-Ichi as the cherry blossom front moves through. Past measurements have been made in many places, including Namie (65μSv/h), Kashiwa (9μSv/h) and Tokyo (2.35μSv/h at Minami-Katsushika H.S.).

The results at ground level are horrible. Although these may be hot spots, they are in public areas. The results at chest height (1.4, 0.81, 0.56μSv/h) are not terribly good either.

Breaking down the environmental radioactivity monitoring data from MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and whatnot)

As reported in the Asahi:

The science ministry has begun posting real-time radiation levels on its website at 2,700 locations across Fukushima Prefecture, including schools and parks.
To access radiation levels measured at 10-minute intervals, go to http://radiomap.mext.go.jp/ja/.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201202220028

A picture of the equipment:
https://dwqovw6qi0vie.cloudfront.net/article-imgs/en/2012/02/22/AJ201202220028/AJ201202220029M.jpg

Checking out today's data at
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/map/ja/area.html

Let's do some math...

Consider the maximum acceptable radiation dose for the public from any man-made facility: 1 mSv/year.
1 mSv/year is 1000 μSv/year.
1000 μSv/year is 0.114 μSv/h.
(Based on 8766 hours in a year (24×365.25) and 1000 microsieverts(μSv) in a millisievert (mSv).
Therefore any place with over 0.114 μSv/h is questionable.

Japan set a limit 20 times higher, 20mSv/year, for Fukushima residents.

Residents exposed at that level would reach the 350 mSv/lifetime limit which was used to determine evacuation areas after the Chernobyl disaster within 18 years.
Using the Chernobyl lifetime standard, calculating for a 10-year old child with an additional 70 years life expectancy, 350mSv/70years = 5mSv/year.

Recapping, the 1 mSv/year international standard is exceeded by the Chernobyl evacuation standard, which (if judged to be tolerable) could conceivably justify 5 mSv/year for kids (twice that for 35-year-olds, etc.), and that was exceeded by the 20 mSv/year Japanese Fukushima-only standard, which I believe was set at that level for political reasons only, to set a standard that would avoid the need to evacuate several large cities and partially sever northern Japan from the south and middle.

Some selected ranges of readings for locations today, Sunday, April 29, 2012:

Fukushima-ken locations:
MinamiSoma     0.080 - 5.036 μSv/h = 0.701 - 44.14 mSv/year
Fukushima City     0.092 - 1.764 μSv/h = 0.806 - 15.46 mSv/year
NihonMatsu     0.113 - 1.324 μSv/h = 0.990 - 11.60 mSv/year
Koriyama     0.067 - 1.379 μSv/h = 0.587 - 12.08 mSv/year
Sukagawa City     0.098 - 0.727 μSv/h = 0.859 - 6.372 mSv/year
Soma City     0.093 - 1.125 μSv/h = 0.815 - 9.862 mSv/year
Iwaki City     0.054 - 0.819 μSv/h = 0.473 - 7.179 mSv/year
Aizu-Wakamatsu     0.054 - 0.290 μSv/h = 0.473 - 2.542 mSv/year

Outside Fukushima-ken:
Tochigi-ken     0.036 - 0.593 μSv/h = 0.315 - 5.198 mSv/year
Miyagi-ken     0.033 - 0.367 μSv/h = 0.289 - 3.217 mSv/year
Ibaraki-ken     0.048 - 0.178 μSv/h = 0.420 - 1.560 mSv/year
Chiba-ken     0.037 - 0.172 μSv/h = 0.324 - 1.507 mSv/year
Gunma-ken     0.026 - 0.154 μSv/h = 0.228 - 1.349 mSv/year
Saitama-ken     0.027 - 0.154 μSv/h = 0.236 - 1.349 mSv/year
Tokyo-to     0.037 - 0.064 μSv/h = 0.324 - 0.561 mSv/year

If you use the lifetime-exposure evacuation standard for Chernobyl applied to children, all children should be evacuated from all of the cities measured in eastern Fukushima prefecture, with the exception of Aizu-Wakamatsu, which is more central, but which still exceeds the 1 mSv/year international standard for the nuclear power industry. Some sites in Tochigi prefecture also exceed the Chernobyl standard and should evacuate children.

All of these prefectures in the Kanto region have at least a few MEXT radiation measurement stations (which are very limited in number outside Fukushima, by the way, 5 stations in Tokyo, 7 in Chiba, etc) which record levels above the 1 mSv/year international standard. By that standard, Kanto is barely tolerable.

Numbers here in Chiba:
html at http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/html/12/12000.html
2012年04月29日 20時00分時点

市原市　県環境研究センター  0.037μSv/h

柏市　市立田中小学校  0.116μSv/h

印西市　市立船穂中学校  0.170μSv/h

香取市　香取市役所小見川区事務所  0.082μSv/h

市川市　市立大柏小学校  0.104μSv/h

館山市　県安房農業普及センター跡地  0.059μSv/h

茂原市　県大気汚染常時監視測定局  0.051μSv/h

In Chiba, Kashiwa (柏市) and Inzai (印西市) both exceed the 1 milliSievert/year limit for added radiation from nuclear power.

Fresh Lubuntu for your iLamp

I am happy to see that the Lubuntu (lubuntu-12.04-desktop-powerpc.iso) live CD works even better on my old last-generation iLamp (circa 2003) than Lubuntu 11.10 does.

-:priiskuul flaeshbaek:-

hey riidur! ai'm rifreshing mai blog with sam poustdeitd pousts ai'v pousted tu dhaet adhr bitc, dha maes surveilans mashiin nounx aez feisbuk. apaalajiiz for dha slounes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQFI7IMtRj8
i fiil lakii tu haev groun ap with myuusik fram
the beatles, the stones, motown, hendrix, dylan
--haef  a sentcury agou.
wii thot it wud olweiz get betr.

Citizen Radiation Monitor

http://www.youtube.com/user/Birdhairjp

Welcome back after over a month of silence. It looks like he is in Fukushima.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGUG7cIyx30

I should embed the English version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4NjlEgGzgM

Down here in Kashiwa, Chiba, before his recent Fukushima videos.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di-_AaEBx2M

What's up with the jet stream?

Explains alot.

Trouble in the Gulf of Mexico

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/guest-post-the-gulf-ecosystem-is-being-decimated.html

Nuclear Titanics

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/16/nuclear-titanics/

▶ April 16, 2012
The Perils of Technological Hubris
Nuclear Titanics
by KARL GROSSMAN

On the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic, The Japan Times yesterday ran an editorial titled “The Titanic and the Nuclear Fiasco” which stated: “Presenting technology as completely safe, trustworthy or miraculous may seem to be a thing of the past, but the parallels between the Titanic and Japan’s nuclear power industry could not be clearer.”

“Japan’s nuclear power plants were, like the Titanic, advertised as marvels of modern science that were completely safe. Certain technologies, whether they promise to float a luxury liner or provide clean energy, can never be made entirely safe,” it said.

It quoted from a piece by Joseph Conrad written after the Titanic sank in which he noted the “chastening influence it should have on the self-confidence of mankind.” The Japan Times urged: “That lesson should be applied to all ‘unsinkable’ undertakings that might profit a few by imperiling the majority of others.”

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/ed20120415a1.html

Read the whole article. 

11,000 fuel rods, 85×Chernobyl at Fukushima Dai-Ichi site

Sometimes i worry.
A potential 85 × Chernobyls worth of radioactivity on-site in 11,000 spent fuel rods, parts of the site already too radioactive for humans or robots to approach, spent fuel pools suspended 30 meters in the air requiring constant cooling, structurally unsound. Only one spent fuel pool or reactor needs to go kablooey to make the site uninhabitable, at which point we can only retreat and try to deal with it from afar, perhaps with fly-overs like in Chernobyl. Even their best-case scenarios call for developing technology to try to clean up the site in 40 years or so, more likely not in centuries.

http://akiomatsumura.com/2012/04/682.html ⇒
☢

Japan’s former Ambassador to Switzerland, Mr. Mitsuhei Murata, was invited to speak at the Public Hearing of the Budgetary Committee of the House of Councilors on March 22, 2012, on the Fukushima nuclear power plants accident. Before the Committee, Ambassador Murata strongly stated that if the crippled building of reactor unit 4—with 1,535 fuel rods in the spent fuel pool 100 feet (30 meters) above the ground—collapses, not only will it cause a shutdown of all six reactors but will also affect the common spent fuel pool containing 6,375 fuel rods, located some 50 meters from reactor 4. In both cases the radioactive rods are not protected by a containment vessel; dangerously, they are open to the air. This would certainly cause a global catastrophe like we have never before experienced. He stressed that the responsibility of Japan to the rest of the world is immeasurable. Such a catastrophe would affect us all for centuries. Ambassador Murata informed us that the total numbers of the spent fuel rods at the Fukushima Daiichi site excluding the rods in the pressure vessel is 11,421 (396+615+566+1,535+994+940+6375).

I asked top spent-fuel pools expert Mr. Robert Alvarez, former Senior Policy Adviser to the Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for National Security and the Environment at the U.S. Department of Energy, for an explanation of the potential impact of the 11,421 rods.

I received an astounding response from Mr. Alvarez [updated 4/5/12]:
"In recent times, more information about the spent fuel situation at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site has become known. It is my understanding that of the 1,532 spent fuel assemblies in reactor No. 304 assemblies are fresh and unirradiated. This then leaves 1,231 irradiated spent fuel rods in pool No. 4, which contain roughly 37 million curies (~1.4E+18 Becquerel) of long-lived radioactivity. The No. 4 pool is about 100 feet above ground, is structurally damaged and is exposed to the open elements. If an earthquake or other event were to cause this pool to drain this could result in a catastrophic radiological fire involving nearly 10 times the amount of Cs-137 released by the Chernobyl accident.
The infrastructure to safely remove this material was destroyed as it was at the other three reactors. Spent reactor fuel cannot be simply lifted into the air by a crane as if it were routine cargo. In order to prevent severe radiation exposures, fires and possible explosions, it must be transferred at all times in water and heavily shielded structures into dry casks.. As this has never been done before, the removal of the spent fuel from the pools at the damaged Fukushima-Dai-Ichi reactors will require a major and time-consuming re-construction effort and will be charting in unknown waters. Despite the enormous destruction cased at the Da–Ichi site, dry casks holding a smaller amount of spent fuel appear to be unscathed."

Based on U.S. Energy Department data, assuming a total of 11,138 spent fuel assemblies are being stored at the Dai-Ichi site, nearly all, which is in pools. They contain roughly 336 million curies (~1.2 E+19 Bq) of long-lived radioactivity. About 134 million curies is Cesium-137 — roughly 85 times the amount of Cs-137 released at the Chernobyl accident as estimated by the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP). The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi site contains nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel).

It is important for the public to understand that reactors that have been operating for decades, such as those at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site have generated some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet. "

Many of our readers might find it difficult to appreciate the actual meaning of the figure, yet we can grasp what 85 times more Cesium-137 than the Chernobyl would mean. It would destroy the world environment and our civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of human survival.

Career Opportunities

 自分にしか
出来ない仕事
ここにある

You want something done right 

you gotta do it yourself.

-or-

Here's a job 

that nobody but yourself 

can do. 

 http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201204110005

Arnie Gundersen in Tokyo

Tokyo Soil Samples Would Be Considered Nuclear Waste In The US from Fairewinds Energy Education on Vimeo.
I have no real complaints but I think the sample sites he chose were exactly where we expect fallout to concentrate (cracks in the sidewalk, roofs, etc).

I'm not lichen it so rad

http://kiikochan.blog136.fc2.com/blog-entry-1556.html
A blogger's summary of a TV report (Feb 24, 2012): Black lichens of 1,000,000 becqerel/kg. They have these at Chernobyl, too. It seems to get energy from radiation.
If you google the term 黒い物質 (black substance) it tends to come up. 

Down at San Onofre

The Naoto Matsumura Experience (Take a walk on the wild side)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOvLIf39xO0

I respect his decision to live free, but i think his call to decontaminate such a large area is hopeless and wasted effort. Time will deal with it. People should leave. Farmers should be compensated with new farms elsewhere, as the population is falling and the countryside is being abandoned. Then they can farm without compromised produce or stigma. (As it is now, the government buys contaminated rice grown anywhere outside the prohibited zone and charges TEPCO, so all consumers pay the cost of continued attempts to farm in Fukushima prefecture.) Contaminated soil should be covered with less contaminated soil brought in from elsewhere. Cover 120μSv/hr soil with 37μSv/hr soil brought in from less contaminated areas, and so on. 

Hamaoka, the world's most dangerous nuclear power plant

https://ssl.panoramio.com/photo/45405527 I cycled near it once on this Pacific Tokai Cycling Road (but that's not my picture).

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/0310/Japan-s-Hamaoka-nuclear-plant-sees-tsunami-defense-in-very-big-wall This article from a few weeks ago has been superceded by new estimates of a magnitude 9 quake and a 30-meter wave. Hopefully it will never reopen.

Japan's controversial Hamaoka nuclear plant, shut down after Fukushima, wants to reopen once a 54-ft.-high, mile-long wall is finished. But the plant also sits on a seismic fault line, raising more than a few doubts.

 WSJ, 2011 http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/05/06/hamaoka-japans-most-infamous-nuclear-plant/

Since a tsunami wrecked the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant a year ago, leading to meltdown in three of its reactors, all eyes in Japan have been on the Hamaoka plant, 300 miles down the coast and similarly located right on the seashore. It has been branded the most dangerous nuclear power station in the world by some seismologists.

Its operator, Chubu Electric, is determined to reopen the plant as soon as its workers have finished building a six-ft.-thick anti-tsunami wall that will stand 54 feet above sea level and stretch a mile; the manmade hills now being constructed are a first step in the yearlong project.

But many local residents are not so sure.

“I was always a little worried before last March,” says Fumio Takahashi, a real estate agent who lives in the town of Omaezaki, hard by the Hamaoka plant. “Now I realize that it is dangerous to have a nuclear plant near your home. I absolutely do not want it to reopen.”

Hamaoka is particularly dangerous, explains Yoshika Shiratori, because it is built on a seismic fault line where Japanese government experts have estimated that there is an 87 percent chance of a magnitude 8 earthquake within the next 30 years.

Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station Exhibition Center video

Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station Exhibition Center has a scale model of an actual nuclear reactor, the walls, fuel rods, assemblies, containments, etc so you can get a feel for it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgMaAFdkm5Q

Video #1
saves you going all the way to Shizuoka
2011-05-02-13:40 status: monitoring radioactive iodine.
Units 4 and 5 (boiling water reactors) were still in operation on that day!

 Video #2. My compliments to the videographer! Thanks, dude! Good job!

‎#3 gets opinionated at 8:30 and includes the PM's order to close the plant on May 6.

Wind maep

http://hint.fm/wind/