# Complete list of cars in race with time differences and additional # available info (car, stops, penaty). ShowField=yes FieldOverviewX=183 FieldOverviewY=180
Is there any way to get this panel starting at about 2800 pixels or so in the X direction (for multi-monitor users)?
The FieldOverviewX value seems to be limited to a maximum somewhere around 200 (or ~1920 pixels).
Yes. The Japanese government's task force to tackle nuclear accidents instructed municipal governments to ease conditions under which they require people to undergo decontamination. A radiation level of 100,000 counts per minute was introduced as the new standard for decontamination, up from 6,000 counts per minute.
According to a 2006 First Responders Handbook published by the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, people contaminated to levels greater than 100,000 counts per minute are likely to have internal contamination and should be identified as a priority for follow-up for internal decontamination. This requires treatment by a nuclear medicine physician at a hospital, yet in Japan people with say 95,000 counts per minute didn't even meet the threshold for external decontamination. Greenpeace had confirmed radiation levels of up to 2,000,000 bequerels per square meter in a non-evacuated village 40 kilometers northwest of the Fukushima plant. (At Chernobyl the exclusion zone was 500,000 bequerels/square meter.)
New Scientist magazine obtained data showing caesium levels of 6.4 million bequerels per square meter at a particular site 35 km from the plant (outside of exclusion zone). After Chernobyl the most highly contaminated areas were defined as those with caesium levels greater than 1.49 million bequerels per square meter.
Still long enough to come out of drinking water taps at 181 times higher than acceptable levels.
It is impossible to achieve an exact death toll, therefore we look at all available credible data from a range of research (including from the WHO) and from there we have a reasonably likely ballpark. I agree that the study with the largest estimate is probably significantly on the high side, but I also believe the tiny estimate the WHO released (with the permission of the IAEA) is likely significantly underestimating the actual death toll.
IMO that there is such large variance between different studies shows that there is so much with regards to radiation and cancer that we still don't know. Radiation from Fukushima was/is in US drinking water and milk at levels hundreds of times above acceptable limits. If people develop cancer in 20 years as a result of this and die, it is unlikely these deaths will be added to most Fukushima death toll estimates (especially any made by the IAEA/WHO partnership!).
Speaking of acceptable radiation limits. Isn't it a bit lolz that Fukushima happened, then authorities significantly raised acceptable limits as a result of new political considerations rather than new scientific findings?
Nuclear power in its current form is terrible. IF they can get thorium going it might be the answer, till then wind is a viable sustainable solution for many counties. It's not like there's even enough uranium to last that much longer than oil anyway...
As for Chernobyl and the corrupt IAEA, a report called TORCH gives an estimate of 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths resulting from Chernobyl.(1)
About 15,000 people were killed and 50,000 left handicapped in the emergency clean-up alone, according to a group representing those who worked in the relief operations, as reported by the BBC.(2)
The book, Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, gives an estimate of 985,000 excess cancer deaths resulting from Chernobyl. The authors reviewed around 5000 scientific papers which the IAEA overlooked. Of these deaths they estimate nearly 170,000 of them occurred in North America.(3)
The main objective of the IAEA as stated in its statue, is that: The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy throughout the world. They are biased and as Racer X NZ pointed out, have an agreement with the WHO to ensure official statistics allow for public acceptance of nuclear energy.
That is only just scratching the surface of Chernobyl. The true extent of Three Mile Island and Fukushima are also downplayed by officials and mainstream media, but I would be harping on for far too long.
Sources: (1). Fairlie, Ian and Sumner, David. 2006. The Other Report on Chernobyl (TORCH). (2). BBC News. Saturday, 22 April, 2000. Deadly toll of Chernobyl. (3). Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko. 2007. Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment.