The developing situation in Japan does not sound very good, but there is one thing that really got on my nerves (CNN of course, so no big surprise)

Radioactive leak reported at nuke plant
OMG run around in circles and panic.

Anyway, I'm sure there are major problems with the earthquake, and there are probably some aspects of the nuke plant issues that are cause for concern. But the presentation of this leak is way over the top... Or, at least, not presented well enough to know what the heck they are talking about.

A billionth of the guideline of what? Getting an x-ray? General exposure at the plant? A distance from the plant? Amount of leakage? Over what time period?

I think they can pick on some other aspects of this whole story.

In fact, when I saw the developing story banner about the second quake, I didn't hear about the first one, and couldn't find the story about it. So, I gave up, and read the nuke story, and found the earthquake.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

My guess would be they mean physical material that is radioactive. As in some flakes of metal or other particulates that was suspended in the water.

We'll have to wait for the details, but the presentation is enormously irritating - paragraphs about the leaking nuclear plant!, emitting some tiny amount of radioactivity, before the coverage of seven people being killed by the earthquake, an unspecified larger number injured, and who knows how many homeless.

Of course, they did find someone to carp about the plant - since there was no damage to the reactor itself, they had to gripe about how long it took to put out a transformer fire.

Idiots.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

I know what really happened.

While idling about in the plant's press room, one of the reporters (while waiving hands) bumped against a smoke detector, causing it to fall to the floor, thus releasing <35 kBq of Americium 241, enough to be worthy of a panicky news story.

Radiation released!

One wonders about the impact of this story on those reading it while flying at 40,000 feet...

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

And now, it is suddenly 315 gallons (but the same amount of radioactivity)

Hey; since it's now in the Sea of Japan...we can say billions of gallons of contaminated water.

Gee, no wonder "Prime Minister Shinzo Abe -- whose ruling party is trailing in the polls -- interrupted a campaign stop in southern Japan for upcoming parliamentary elections"

Yep; it's not like the emergency crews had anything else to be concerned about. [he says sardonically]

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Oh gods!!! Head for the hills!! Its the end of civilization as we know it!!

The CNN article is saying 315 gallons, though that is the only place I've seen that number. 1.5L seems to be the real number.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

Homeopathic radioactives.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

It appears to me that 315 gallons were spilled, but 1.5L made it out of the system while the rest was contained.

But; maybe they're not the same since it was a U.S. system spill, but a metric leak.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

It's actually an AP story and looks to be slightly edited to tone down the nuclear plant aspect, if anything. There's a link to the original at http://www.ap.org/.

Using my trusty unit convertor, which I made myself, 1.5L equates to 0.4 US gal, 5% of a cubic foot and less than 1% of a barrel.

I shall note this on my blog.

__________________
2 good 2 need 4 engines

At this point I'm speculating wildly, but I think it was probably a leak between the condenser and the cooling water. I can't think of any other way that feedwater could have gotten out into the ocean in an ABWR. The 1.5L is probably the slightly radioactive feedwater that leaked into the cooling water, and 315 gallons is probably the volume of cooling water affected.

Alternately, it could have nothing to do with the actual reactor and instead be part of a Balance of Plant system or be a side effect of partial disassembly--the unit was down for maintenance at the time of the quake.

Neither number is really relevant when discussing the danger of the leak, but I'm not surprised CNN latched onto the bigger one. I'm sure the anti-nuclear lobby with milk this for all it is worth.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

Do we yet know where the water originated? Spent fuel storage pools? RCS loop?

__________________
2 good 2 need 4 engines

One article says a tank, mayhaps a Refueling Water Storage Tank.

The media's reaction to the radiation story is so typical. It is why I hold journalists in such low regard, as I do for actors and Hollywood people.

When journalists get stories wrong on a topic that you know a lot about, it makes you question the stories they write on topics that you are not familiar with. As a result, I view all journalists as suspect, especially the ones on Local TV news. I have been personally misrepresented and misquoted by the print media, too.

As for actors and actresses, why the general public holds them in such high regard is a real mystery to me. They are just talented at faking emotions, and are grossly overpaid for doing it.

Scientists and educators are much more respectable.

Matthew Ota

Yes; I'm losing my respect for them also.
But; Although the story was mostly the nuke stuff, there was other information about the quake. The headline could have included the word "quake" even if they were concentrating on the radioctive spill. That's CNNs responsibility.
If you noticed in my OP, my original goal was to find quake information, and I couldn't find any reference to it until I read the article. That's what started my beef... CNN bad headline.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Reuters headline: Japan quake stirs nuclear fears, displaces thousands
AFP headline: Fears rise over nuclear plant after Japan quake

I'm guessing those three pretty much account for all the original reporting. Everybody else I looked at was just carrying one of their feeds.

I believe the "breaking news" aspect of the article was the nuclear plant spill, because the utility company delayed reporting the leak for some time after the quake. The other general information about the quake was probably included from an earlier article, which you missed.

Bad, why? Is there something unfactual in there? Did they do something to sensationalize things? It looks like they ran AP's headline to me, and the article wasn't even prominently featured at their site.

TBH, this entire thread seems like a big deal made out of nothing to me.

Note the word quake and Japan in those...
Yes; I agree, but...
I searched for the article, it's possible I missed it, but I doubt it because the quake happened after most of the stories that were showing at the time.
No; but you can use facts in ways that are very misleading by changing the emphasis of a story.
Yes; from the article, it seemed like a minor incident compared with the entire story that was presented in the article.
So, the cherry picking and organization of CNN are off the hook because thier source had it better organized or featured or whatever?
Sorry; But I don't care what AP did with the story, they were not the ones presenting it to me.
Not in itself, but the cumulative effects of the trend is.

Anyway; I was hoping to shed some light on what happened... Did you notice all the questions in the OP? I probably would not have posted if I didn't have these questions. Although; I do admit it did come out rather strongly opinionated.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)