But this does not mean Fukushima is now on a par with Chernobyl. Indeed, as Bloomberg notes, the data so far suggests that Fukushima has released only one-tenth as much radioactive material as Chernobyl did.

It's also important to note that the upgrading does not mean that the situation is getting worse. Rather, it is a reassessment of what has already happened. The largest releases of radioactive material occurred in the first days after the earthquake, and the amount released every day has generally been decreasing as various leaks have been plugged.

One way of looking at the drama that has unfolded around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors is as a narrative with one central plot, and a number of sub-plots distracting the attention.

Japan has been asking foreign media to objectively report on the evolving crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the Foreign Ministry said Thursday, as reports deemed sensationalist or based on incorrect information have fanned concern and led to import restrictions on Japanese products.

State Foreign Secretary Chiaki Takahashi told a press conference that Tokyo believes some reports by foreign media on the Fukushima crisis were ''excessive'' and has urged the organizations responsible for the stories through Japanese diplomatic missions abroad to correctly and objectively disseminate information.

Ministry officials said some foreign media, including tabloids, emphasized the danger of radioactive materials leaking from the Fukushima nuclear plant by focusing on extreme projections, while erroneously reporting that the plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. has hired homeless people to tackle the ongoing crisis.

Another similarity between Japan's current crisis and the recent financial crisis is that the false risk assessment was largely due to the asymmetric distribution of social welfare and individual cost implied by more effective risk mitigation. Both Lehman Brothers and Tokyo Electric Power Company were able to increase their profits as long as the risk they were willing to accept did not materialize. Their management certainly benefited as long as everything went well. When crisis hit, however, the cost of the meltdown exceeded the companies' equity and thus had to be socialized.

...

As in finance, ensuring that the originator of a risk pays the cost seems to be the most sensible approach. If each nuclear-power plant was obliged to insure against the risk that it imposes on society (within and outside the country of its location), it would face the true economic cost of its activities.

A virtual mobile operator in Japan that sells data-only subscriptions.

Our family members have now been allowed to leave the sports stadium in Tamura and check in to a hotel in Aizuwakamatsu. Mamasan sent us a couple of pictures:

Looks nice, but it would of course have been nicer to know how long they are going to stay there, and if and when they will be able to return to their house, and if and when they will be able to find jobs to support themselves. I happened to read an article in the Washington Post this morning about a man, also currently in a shelter in Tamura, who was allowed to make a brief visit to his house very near our family’s house. He brought back soil samples which were determined to be contaminated by radiation, although the article (of course) failed to mention any specifics.

Our family members have now been allowed to leave the sports stadium in Tamura and check in to a hotel in Aizuwakamatsu. Mamasan sent us a couple of pictures:

Looks nice, but it would of course have been nicer to know how long they are going to stay there, and if and when they will be able to return to their house, and if and when they will be able to find jobs to support themselves. I happened to read an article in the Washington Post this morning about a man, also currently in a shelter in Tamura, who was allowed to make a brief visit to his house very near our family’s house. He brought back soil samples which were determined to be contaminated by radiation, although the article (of course) failed to mention any specifics.

One of the common problems I see in the media is the failure to distinguish between dose and dose rate. That's like mixing up miles and miles per hour. It makes a lot of what is reported confusing and hard to interpret.

Moreover, risk of harm is a function of both dose and dose rate. The same total dose spread relatively evenly over weeks, months, or years (chronic exposure) carries much lower risk of harm than the same total dose received over minutes, hours or days (acute exposure). This has to do with the body's ability to repair damage at the cellular level. So you can't really estimate risk accurately without knowing something about both dose and dose rate.

In this article, that for some reason mostly focuses on the bleeding obvious -- that Tepco are not going to be able to use reactors 1 through 4 at Fukushima Daiichi -- there is also this:

There has been some public mistrust regarding the official data, with fears exacerbated by occasionally contradictory announcements. But Jan van de Putte, a Greenpeace official, said Wednesday that its scientists’ findings largely correlated with the official Japanese data.

“There is no contradiction between Greenpeace data and local data,” he said. “The contradiction is between the data, and action to help people” in the affected areas.

Information about the incident at the Fukushima Nuclear Plants in Japan hosted by http://web.mit.edu/nse/ :: Maintained by the students of the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT.