[Column] Fukushima Diary’s new attempt to post articles for EU time and US time

I’m not a man of pride, but sometimes I’m hurt as a blogger when a reader tell me the news that I posted yesterday. I have even been given a link of Fukushima Diary before.

That was an extreme example but I received this link several times a few days ago.
Fish with radiation over 2,500 times safe levels found near Fukushima plant (http://rt.com/news/japan-fish-radiation-fukushima-321/)

This is about
254,000 Bq/Kg from rockfish in Fukushima plant port (http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/01/254000-bqkg-from-rockfish-in-fukushima-plant-port/)

I appreciate people to inform me of Fukushima related news, I actually have written articles from those posts.
but these cases simply mean my article is not read well.

Specifically about this case, maybe I should have mentioned how many times much as the safety limit the cesium was contained like RT did but the safety limit doesn’t have any basis actually. It was decided to protect producers, not consumers so I thought mentioning the “safety limit” would be misleading.
Also, explaining the definition of Bq/Kg, Sv or the difference between cesium and potassium in every article makes the posts long and the focus becomes unclear.

I’m looking for the best balance.

As a resolution for now, I’m thinking of posting articles twice on SNS, such as twitter of facebook so it may not be missed in EU time and US time. SNS is always the flood of information. Sometimes important posts are just simply missed.
It won’t be posted twice on Fukushima Diary for sure. I want to see how it goes.



Français :

[Édito] Les nouvelles tentatives du Fukushima Diary de poster des articles pour les fuseaux horaires des USA ou de l’Europe

Je ne suis pas quelqu’un d’umbu de moi-même mais je suis parfois choqué comme un blogueur quand un lecteur me rapporte une nouvelle que j’ai postée la veille. J’avais même donné un lien avant sur le Fukushima Diary.

C’est un exemple extrême mais j’ai reçu ce lien plusieurs fois ces derniers jours : Fish with radiation over 2,500 times safe levels found near Fukushima plant (http://rt.com/news/japan-fish-radiation-fukushima-321/)

Ça parle de 254 000 Bq/kg dans une rascasse du port de la centrale de Fukushima (http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/01/254000-bqkg-from-rockfish-in-fukushima-plant-port/)

J’apprécie les gens qu m’informent de nouvelles liées à Fukushima, j’en ai même fait des articles de certaines mais ces cas-là montrent simplement que mon article n’est pas lu.

Dans celui-ci en particulier, peut-être aurais-je du mentionner combien de fois la limite de sécurité en césium était dépassée  comme dans ce RT mais la limite de sécurité n’a aucune base réelle. Elle a été établie pour protéger les producteurs, pas les consommateurs, alors j’ai pensé que mentionner la “limite de sécurité” aurait pu induire en erreur.
En outre, rappeler la définition des Bq/Kg, Sv ou la différence entre le césium et le potassium dans chaque article allongerait le texte et rendrait les choses confuses.

Je cherche le meilleur équilibre.

Je pense maintenant que je vais prendre la résolution de poster deux fois les articles sur les réseaux sociaux comme twitter ou facebook comme ça ils ne seront pas manqués par ceux des fuseaux USA ou Européen. Les réseaux sociaux sont toujours des avalanches d’information. Parfois les sujets importants sont simplement manqués.
Je ne les posterai pas deux fois sur le Fukushima Diary, évidemment. Je veux voir ce que ça donne.

  1. The answer is in your posts : check the subject of your post versus the rest of the world … it will became obvious that your articles and subjects are unique , no others analyse the data as you do . QED for your peace of mind , so keep showing what others don’t , no changes needed to your methode , don’t let fools and shills bother you .
    Keep digging and keep analysing ! Thank you !

    I would like to hear your analysis on the construction details of reactor 4 new structure they just finish ground floor , the one with oversized beams , thank you .

  2. Yes, exactly. Thank you very much for all the informations you bring to us. Your method appears quite clear for me. I’m a follower since you have started the page and I’m still impressed by your efforts to reveal the effects of a major world crisis.

  3. Usually I see most of the news on the website of FD first, when checking at end of the day (from Europe) and reading the posted articles.

    But I can understand that you try to reach more people with other patterns of posting news items.

    Keep up the good effort!

    Kind regards.

  4. What about creating a page with short glossary for people that would like to understand the specific vocabulary about radiation, cesium… Etc
    I know it’s quite some work, but then you could refer to it in your next posts if someone is asking what is this and that.
    A kind of glossary or FAQ.
    Thx anyway for all the work you’ve done until now ! Courage !

  5. It may not be that they aren’t reading it, but that they are forgetting where they saw it, LOL! These days, I can say my own memory is horrible – yes, even forgetting what I read the day before! So don’t take it personally; I’ll bet people are just moving too fast and forgetting what they read… it does sink in eventually, and all the wonderful things you post are doing good! Thanks!

  6. It would be great if you could post the “how many times legal level” with each data. Even as a frequent reader it is hard to understand the numbers. For readers who hasn’t followed Fukushima or the disasters, it is almost impossible. Maybe you could have a constant column on the top of the page, which show the “equal to”. It would help international journalists understand better.

Comments are closed.

About this site

This website updates the latest news about the Fukushima nuclear plant and also archives the past news from 2011. Because it's always updated and added live, articles, categories and the tags are not necessarily fitted in the latest format.
I am the writer of this website. About page remains in 2014. This is because my memory about 311 was clearer than now, 2023, and I think it can have a historical value. Now I'm living in Romania with 3 cats as an independent data scientist.
Actually, nothing has progressed in the plant since 2011. We still don't even know what is going on inside. They must keep cooling the crippled reactors by water, but additionally groundwater keeps flowing into the reactor buildings from the broken parts. This is why highly contaminated water is always produced more than it can circulate. Tepco is planning to officially discharge this water to the Pacific but Tritium is still remaining in it. They dilute this with seawater so that it is legally safe, but scientifically the same amount of radioactive tritium is contained. They say it is safe to discharge, but none of them have drunk it.


January 2013