Writing about the Fukushima global disaster – From Plumegate.com:
Tactics used to downplay modeling/sampling:
1) To reduce the size and intensity of plume and fallout models, simply reduce the length of duration of the source term(s), ie: reduce the length of time that radiation will be emitted from the damaged reactor(s). Throughout the NRC FOIA documents pertaining to Fukushima a 4-5 day emission period was considered for most of the modeling of the radioactive plume and fallout. What’s wrong with that? Over 2 years after the catastrophe there are still emissions by air and sea and no end in sight. If, as many experts suspect, we are facing a quadruple ‘China syndrome’ the radioactive effluents will continue to be released for many years.
2) To reduce the size and intensity of plume and fallout models, reduce the number of source terms. Of course with Fukushima, they knew right away that all power had been lost to Units 1-4 and that those units, without power or proper cooling for weeks on end, would all be source terms of a very high magnitude. The evidence shows that there were plenty of models circulating that downplayed the number of source terms, just like they did with the duration of emissions.
3) To reduce the intensity of plume and fallout models, simply delay taking measurements and samples until 24 hours after the initial criticality. A 24 hour delay will allow time for the plume (and higher concentrations found in the initial release) to blow away. Subsequent measurements in the same location will not be as high. . . (more)