# Hawaii and radiation concern



## dima (Mar 15, 2011)

We have week that starts March 20th at Waiohai. 
Now with all this situation I am not sure if it is a good idea to go there.
Are there any options to exchage it to something like Florida?
Or should we just give up this week?
All options to be considered. Thank you!:zzz:


----------



## SueDonJ (Mar 15, 2011)

It's very frightening, isn't it?  I don't blame you one bit for thinking twice.  The only suggestion that I have is to watch news.marriott.com to see if they're responding in any way to the radiation fears.  There's a recent blurb about the Japanese hotels and they kept up with the situation in Libya (advising those who were holding reservations to contact such-and-such for refunds) so I would expect similar blurbs for any areas affected by this crisis.  Good luck with your decision.

On second thought, you could today call a Marriott rep and ask if they've given any thought to all this and/or if you have options to re-schedule.  That's probably a more logical suggestion.  Duh.


----------



## larryallen (Mar 15, 2011)

I would go to Hawaii and enjoy yourself. Odds of damage from radiation in Hawaii are probably substantially lower than dying in car accident between airport and hotel.


----------



## Fredm (Mar 15, 2011)

Thus far, radiation threat is local.

US Navy moved ships that were anchored 65 miles from the power plants because of very minor radiation detected in 17 helicopter crew members.  Antidote was to wash with soap and water.


----------



## gblotter (Mar 15, 2011)

Go to Hawaii and enjoy your vacation.  Radiation from normal sunlight will be substantially more than any radiation risk originating 6000 miles away in Japan.


----------



## myoakley (Mar 15, 2011)

gblotter said:


> Go to Hawaii and enjoy your vacation.  Radiation from normal sunlight will be substantially more than any radiation risk originating 6000 miles away in Japan.


I agree 100%.  We are headed to Hawaii (Oahu on 3/23rd and Kauai on 3/27) and are not at all concerned.  Go and enjoy!


----------



## Passepartout (Mar 15, 2011)

Probably more risk (and not nuclear) from the throngs of Japanese tourists visiting Hawaii at the same time. And who can blame them! Go. Have a great time.

Jim


----------



## gblotter (Mar 15, 2011)

gblotter said:


> Go to Hawaii and enjoy your vacation.  Radiation from normal sunlight will be substantially more than any radiation risk originating 6000 miles away in Japan.


And I practice what I preach.  Our family is headed to Ko'Olina in two weeks.


----------



## SueDonJ (Mar 15, 2011)

I'll admit I know nothing about radiation or nuclear fallout or anything more than what CNN and others are telling me about what's happening in Japan.  Is there really not any reason to be concerned about what transpires over there in the next couple of weeks and how it may affect the rest of the world?  My first thought for the OP was that I'd be thinking the exact same way, trying to figure out what the options are just in case ...


----------



## ocdb8r (Mar 15, 2011)

gblotter said:


> Go to Hawaii and enjoy your vacation.  Radiation from normal sunlight will be substantially more than any radiation risk originating 6000 miles away in Japan.



It's actually 3800 miles, but in either case it's a LONG way away.  Considering even the local threat is currently minimal, I would have no hesitation going to HI right now....


----------



## CatLovers (Mar 15, 2011)

gblotter said:


> Go to Hawaii and enjoy your vacation.  Radiation from normal sunlight will be substantially more than any radiation risk originating 6000 miles away in Japan.



Yup, *gblotter* has it right!  Sitting out in the sun for 4-6 hours will have more radiation than an issue thousands of miles away.  Even it were to drift over open seas towards Hawaii, the intensity will fall to normal levels by the time it gets to Hawaii.


----------



## siesta (Mar 15, 2011)

all this "you are more likely to have this happen to you" is like deja vu from the mexico board.  but now the real question is, are you more likely to be victimized by drug cartel violence in mexico or be exposed to harmful radiation in Hawaii, or sit on an oily beach in florida.

I just hope this story doesn't become what swine flu was for mexico tourism, a legitimate threat blown way out of proportion thus adding to the lists of reason not to visit there in the first place (for mexico: cartel violence and corruption, and for hawaii: expensive and long flights with constant increase in taxes and fees while your there, not to mention a big meth problem on the islands).


----------



## dioxide45 (Mar 15, 2011)

IMO we can all talk about what is happening now, sure now it doesn't seem like it will be bad. However, if the worst that can happen happens, that is a three core meltdown with radio active fallout across the pacific, I sure wouldn't want to be in Hawaii. There is doubt about how open they are being with the problems that they are experiencing. We aren't only talking about three reactors that are potentially melting but also spent fuel boiling their storage pools and releasing radio active material in to the atmosphere.

Sure this is worst case scenario and not likely to happen, but would I want to be on a tiny island in the middle of the pacific in the direct path if id did, definitely not. We have no idea how this will play out.

Don't get me wrong. We love Hawaii, our honeymoon was there and we went back for our 10th.
We hope for the best for the country and people of Japan.


----------



## eal (Mar 15, 2011)

Here is a quote from ABC News:
Winds can carry radiation. But according to scientists, the explosions and leaks in Japan have stayed in the lower levels of the atmosphere. Radiation has not reached the jet stream, a fast moving river of air that usually runs between 20,000 and 40,000 feet in the atmosphere. Over the next week, National Weather Service meteorologists in Honolulu forecast the jet stream will remain away from Hawaii.

"It's going to stay north of the islands. The jet stream will run from Asia across the pacific, from west to east, about 35 to 45 north latitude," said Ian Morrison, with the NWS Honolulu office.

I think we are at more risk in the Pacific Northwest and California.


----------



## TJCNewYork (Mar 15, 2011)

*Fallout may reach U.S. tonight*

America on radiation alert as experts warn fallout may reach U.S. tonight.  Postscript 3/16/2011:  Thanks to all who have identified this graphic as a hoax and apologies to anyone who may have become more alarmed.  Rest easy and stay well.


----------



## ricki999 (Mar 15, 2011)

TJCNewYork said:


> America on radiation alert as experts warn fallout may reach U.S. tonight.



As always, consider the source.


----------



## siesta (Mar 15, 2011)

*that fallout map is a hoax*

The map provided is meant to dupe people. It is going viral on the internet. FYI 750 RADS is more than the equivelent of an Atomic Bomb radiation status. You will in fact not all be dead in 10 days, at least not from this event. Have a good rest of the week.

"Hiroshima received 220 rads, more than two times the estimated fatal amount under wartime conditions.  One can conclude, therefore, that apart from the initial impact, most fatalities were from radiation sickness due to such high exposure.  Yet, exact fatality figures for Nagasaki and Hiroshima are not 100% accurate, for it is difficult to ascertain whether one died from radiation, or from the blast itself (Marston 235).  Regardless, the atomic bombs resulted in a tremendous loss of life within a few weeks following the explosions, both due to radiation and secondary burns."

http://artsci.wustl.edu/~copeland/atomicbomb.html


----------



## Karen G (Mar 15, 2011)

TJCNewYork said:


> America on radiation alert as experts warn fallout may reach U.S. tonight.





ricki999 said:


> As always, consider the source.



Who are these experts and who is the source?


----------



## SueDonJ (Mar 15, 2011)

The source is thepeoplesvoice.org, a politically charged opinion-based website.   It doesn't seem to have any nuclear/radiation expert contributors.  Despite the fact that I seem to be more worried about things than most of the folks in this thread, and none of us can say with any certainty what the immediate future holds for Japan, IMO it's the definition of irresponsibility to suggest that map can answer this OP's concerns.


----------



## mauialoha (Mar 16, 2011)

We are on Maui now and have not heard any reports of danger from radiation exposure. The article below was in today's paper.

http://www.mauinews.com/page/conten...-elevated-levels-of-radiation-in-islands.html

Enjoy your time at Waiohai!


----------



## HatTrick (Mar 16, 2011)

CatLovers said:


> Sitting out in the sun for 4-6 hours will have more radiation than an issue thousands of miles away.



And don't forget the amount of radiation exposure you get just by _flying_ to Hawaii.  

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40362683/ns/health-health_care/


----------



## mstoyanov (Mar 16, 2011)

That map is  created by some yahoo to scare people. There is a real danger for the locals that live near the reactor in the event of full core meltdown but as someone pointed out these rad levels are posted by someone who has absolutely no idea what RAD is let alone be expert.
Such RAD levels will require atomic blast (as in atomic bomb) in the near area and will be fatal for all. 200 RAD for radiation mostly coming from neutron radiation will be above 1000 rems and that is lethal. Even people living close to the plant will never get such such radiation levels even in the event of full core meltdown. 
On another note danger from the frequent flying is real - even though most of sun and cosmic radiation is deflected by the earth magnetic field and ozone layer a big part of the ionizing radiation is also absorbed by the atmosphere and most of the atmosphere by mass is below 30,000 feet. 
So people spending a lot of time in the air should have more cell damage and may have higher cancer incidence. I think I read some paper that 30 flights per year doubles what non-flying person gets as ionizing radiation exposure for the whole year.



TJCNewYork said:


> America on radiation alert as experts warn fallout may reach U.S. tonight.  Postscript 3/16/2011:  Thanks to all who have identified this graphic as a hoax and apologies to anyone who may have become more alarmed.  Rest easy and stay well.


----------



## Old Hickory (Mar 16, 2011)

That map image reminds me of the maps made for the Gulf of Mexico/BP oil spill last spring; showing how it was going to end up in New England.  

Not downplaying the tragedy in Japan... not at all.  But the truth is typically somewhere in the middle/logical area of news reporting.


----------



## CatLovers (Mar 16, 2011)

mstoyanov said:


> I think I read some paper that 30 flights per year doubles what non-flying person gets as ionizing radiation exposure for the whole year.



Aaargh, tell me it isn't so!  I fly about 100-120 flights a year -- who knew that I would have to worry about ionizing radiation exposure!!


----------



## mstoyanov (Mar 16, 2011)

Everybody needs to worry about ionizing radiation exposure - ionizing radiation is any radiation that carry enough energy to destroy molecules - in general any electromagnetic wave with wavelength shorter than visible spectrum - UV, X-rays, Gamma and cosmic rays. For most people the major part of such radiation will be collected in the form of UV rays lying on the beach or skiing in high mountains and from X-rays at the medical and dental pictures.   
And not only ionizing radiation is destroying molecules forming our DNA but also sometimes producing carcinogenic radicals. For example a lot of plastics are inert and have no negative consequences to our health but when exposed to UV they release radicals that are proven carcinogens.
I still think that even twice the normal exposure should lead to very small increase in cancer incidences but when you multiply even fraction of percent risk increase to the hundreds of thousands people that spend a lot of time in the air (pilots, flight attendants, frequent fliers) there will be a good amount of people that will develop such tumors that otherwise will not.
Here is one study that I found about such incidence in flight attendants:
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PDF/58000flightattendants.pdf 


CatLovers said:


> Aaargh, tell me it isn't so!  I fly about 100-120 flights a year -- who knew that I would have to worry about ionizing radiation exposure!!


----------



## mclyne (Mar 16, 2011)

I think the best person to ask about this would be your physician. Although no one can predict what will happen in the next few days, I  would definitely listen to my doctor's medical opinion.


----------



## TJCNewYork (Mar 17, 2011)

Here's a projected path of the radiation plume as posted yesterday at The New York Times.  What about air travel that crosses the path of the plume?


----------



## gblotter (Mar 17, 2011)

Hawaii will suffer, but not because of radiation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/us/18hawaii.html?partner=rss&emc=rss


----------

