Timeline for Is Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster "on par" with Chernobyl?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 5, 2014 at 13:18 | history | edited | Brian M. Hunt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Numerous updates and inclusion of TODOs
|
| Jan 5, 2014 at 13:17 | comment | added | Brian M. Hunt | TODO: Add dates next to article names (e.g. "How does Fukushima differ from Chernobyl? 16 Dec 2011") | |
| Jan 5, 2014 at 13:13 | history | edited | Brian M. Hunt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Numerous updates and inclusion of TODOs
|
| Jan 5, 2014 at 13:07 | history | edited | Brian M. Hunt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Numerous updates and inclusion of TODOs
|
| Sep 6, 2013 at 22:23 | comment | added | Damon | With this back in the news is there a good source of thoughtful analysis of the real situation sans scaremongering? This answer is amazing, but a little out of date | |
| Mar 15, 2012 at 11:57 | comment | added | Golden Cuy | It seems iodine was initially distributed, but not used by civilians on the grounds there was insufficient exposure for it to be required: skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/7389/… | |
| Oct 27, 2011 at 15:03 | comment | added | Chad | nbclosangeles.com/news/weird/… | |
| Oct 26, 2011 at 18:07 | comment | added | Chad | I would agree that the immediate impact of Chernobyl was far greater. However Fukishima is still leaking radiation into the sea of japan where the currents take it into the pacific. I am truely skeptical of what the government says is "Safe" when ingested. I am unconvinced that we are done seeing the effects of this disaster. | |
| Oct 26, 2011 at 17:15 | history | edited | Sklivvz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 252 characters in body
|
| Oct 26, 2011 at 13:45 | history | edited | Brian M. Hunt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
updated for Stohl paper and Xenon-133/Caesium references
|
| Jun 7, 2011 at 22:14 | history | edited | Brian M. Hunt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
updated with June 7 article from the Guardian
|
| Apr 29, 2011 at 7:40 | comment | added | jwenting | yes. Those "estimates" are original figures produced by the WHO based on no real data whatsoever, and later perpetuated by pressure groups after the WHO changed their estimate to several dozen to hundreds. | |
| Apr 27, 2011 at 21:44 | history | edited | Sklivvz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 160 characters in body
|
| Apr 24, 2011 at 6:42 | comment | added | Golden Cuy | Isn't the study claiming 200,000 to 900,000 deaths from a study that wasn't peer-reviewed? | |
| Apr 18, 2011 at 0:16 | history | edited | Brian M. Hunt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
better summary, some clarifications and better language
|
| Apr 17, 2011 at 23:18 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | I can report that Japan sets pretty stringent contained activity limits for those building radioactive sources for scientific use (previously 1 microCurie, now 10,000 Bq). It that is part of a unified policy, one would expect the regulatory limits on acceptable releases to be pretty tight as well. | |
| Apr 17, 2011 at 22:01 | vote | accept | Brian M. Hunt | ||
| Apr 17, 2011 at 21:58 | vote | accept | Brian M. Hunt | ||
| Apr 17, 2011 at 22:01 | |||||
| Apr 17, 2011 at 21:10 | comment | added | Sklivvz | That's the way to do it! | |
| S Apr 17, 2011 at 20:49 | history | answered | Brian M. Hunt | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Apr 17, 2011 at 20:49 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki |