User talk:Tititotone

Hi, the idea that the stricken reactors at Fukushima have gone critical again based on the observation of I-131 is an interesting one. But soil collected 500 meters from the damaged reactors did not show any fresh I-131. How do you know if the iodine was not just a small trace of activity from long ago, or even a release of I-131 from a hospital site ? You might want to see http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11121612-e.html Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Tititotone (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC) The fact that Tepco doesn't find any Iodine-131 in its own samples doesn't say that there is no Iodine-131 around the plant. Iodine-131 was detected in soil sampled by official bodies, independant from Tepco. And, of course, it is impossible to prove the origin of Iodine-131. But you've got 3 possibilities : > a small trace of activity from long ago : but Iodine-131 had disappeared from the older samples. And then, it came back... > a release of Iodine-131 from a hospital site : but many sewage-treatment plants found Iodine-131. I don't think that 10 or 12 hospitals would release Iodine-131 at the same time. And I must say also that a release of Iodine-131 by an hospital is so small that I'm quite sure that it would not have been detected... > criticality in Fukushima Daiichi. Tititotone (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Iori Mochizuki for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iori Mochizuki is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Iori Mochizuki until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --DAJF (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)