#Login Register


  • 242 Vote(s) - 3.76 Average
Home 


The Fukushima Disaster
11-15-2012, 06:11 PM #1,111
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,624 Threads:399 Joined:Jun 2012
(11-14-2012, 03:01 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-13-2012, 05:41 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-13-2012, 04:00 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 08:08 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 05:33 AM)Octo Wrote:  Well he did take a university course in nuclei calculation 13.gif

lol.gif


Pics or it didn't happen. 13.gif


I do have my Michigan Technological University (Michigan Tech) diploma. I took nucleonics as part of the EE power option (all 60 of my free elective credits were taken in heavy engineering - humanities are a waste for an Engineer).


Nevermind.


Huh? If you have a nuclear engineer in your pocket I'd be happy to discourse with him. I have some questions about soil concentration gradients and absorption coefficients.

The best quote I ever got from a nuclear engineer was that more civilians died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car than were killed by radiation from US commercial power plant accidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_D...ower_Plant

You previously made some comments on the generator situation. It seems the story is a little involved (not all the comments address the generators).
1. The nuclear power plant is actually in Futaba/Okuma (Fukushima is the province and Fukushima the city is 35 miles away)
2. The bluff the plant is built on was 10 meters (33 ft) higher and was LOWERED so the power plant would sit on bedrock and to reduce the water pumping cost. It would have been safe at the original elevation.
3. The generators were supposed to be in located inside the power plant in the GE reference design. The TEPCO engineers thought there was a flooding danger so they moved them outside where they were swept away.
4. It appears the TEPCO engineers were very worried about earthquake proofing to the point that Tsunamis were a secondary consideration.
5. The Japanese government is paying for cleanup of soil contamination over 2 mS/y (.23 μS/h) or about 2/3rds the normal background radiation or about 5 S/y total exposure. If the US applied this standard we would have to clean up Denver (background radiation is over 6 mS/y).
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/conte...7_1113.pdf
6. The latest pine needle sampling report shows 25 μS/h at Akougi Kunugidaira (hill country 15 miles NW of the power plant), and 5 μS/h in Iitate village 26 miles NW. There is a plume shaped area to the NW of the facility that is fairly toasty.
7. The comparison of Chernobyl and Fukushima is problematic for several reasons. Not only did over 1/2 of the radiation from Fukushima go into the ocean but the Cesium release was only 1/7 as much (11 PBq vs 87 to 121 PBq) so there is only about 1/20th as much Cesium to worry about. Chernobyl also released 8 PBq of Strontium 90. Even worse, 6 tons of the Chernobyl reactor core went into the atmosphere. Little if any of the Fukushima core vaporized/burned.

Found this:
http://atomicinsights.com/2012/08/fissio...share.html
This is a piece of boosterism for unlimited clean nuclear energy that I generally agree with. Fossil fuel producers and users are accused of being greedy, selfish, dirty, etc. etc. Nuclear is a realistic option. Solar and Wind are unsuitable for base band power generation.


Fun video of a Russian wandering around the Chernobyl exclusion zone with a geiger counter unprotected.


It seems these nuclear engineers defend this technology very strongly. My nephew likes to say "It's only background radiation". 13.gif

So nevermind.

4. It appears the TEPCO engineers were very worried about earthquake proofing to the point that Tsunamis were a secondary consideration.

It appears tsunamis were not a consideration at all or at the very least they didn't even err on the side of safety.

From link:

"High dwellings are the peace and harmony of our descendants, remember the calamity of the great tsunamis. Do not build any homes below this point."

http://historyofgeology.fieldofscience.c...japan.html
11-16-2012, 03:04 AM #1,112
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,366 Threads:33 Joined:Nov 2012
(11-15-2012, 06:11 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-14-2012, 03:01 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-13-2012, 05:41 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-13-2012, 04:00 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 08:08 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Pics or it didn't happen. 13.gif


I do have my Michigan Technological University (Michigan Tech) diploma. I took nucleonics as part of the EE power option (all 60 of my free elective credits were taken in heavy engineering - humanities are a waste for an Engineer).


Nevermind.


Huh? If you have a nuclear engineer in your pocket I'd be happy to discourse with him. I have some questions about soil concentration gradients and absorption coefficients.

The best quote I ever got from a nuclear engineer was that more civilians died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car than were killed by radiation from US commercial power plant accidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_D...ower_Plant

You previously made some comments on the generator situation. It seems the story is a little involved (not all the comments address the generators).
1. The nuclear power plant is actually in Futaba/Okuma (Fukushima is the province and Fukushima the city is 35 miles away)
2. The bluff the plant is built on was 10 meters (33 ft) higher and was LOWERED so the power plant would sit on bedrock and to reduce the water pumping cost. It would have been safe at the original elevation.
3. The generators were supposed to be in located inside the power plant in the GE reference design. The TEPCO engineers thought there was a flooding danger so they moved them outside where they were swept away.
4. It appears the TEPCO engineers were very worried about earthquake proofing to the point that Tsunamis were a secondary consideration.
5. The Japanese government is paying for cleanup of soil contamination over 2 mS/y (.23 μS/h) or about 2/3rds the normal background radiation or about 5 S/y total exposure. If the US applied this standard we would have to clean up Denver (background radiation is over 6 mS/y).
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/conte...7_1113.pdf
6. The latest pine needle sampling report shows 25 μS/h at Akougi Kunugidaira (hill country 15 miles NW of the power plant), and 5 μS/h in Iitate village 26 miles NW. There is a plume shaped area to the NW of the facility that is fairly toasty.
7. The comparison of Chernobyl and Fukushima is problematic for several reasons. Not only did over 1/2 of the radiation from Fukushima go into the ocean but the Cesium release was only 1/7 as much (11 PBq vs 87 to 121 PBq) so there is only about 1/20th as much Cesium to worry about. Chernobyl also released 8 PBq of Strontium 90. Even worse, 6 tons of the Chernobyl reactor core went into the atmosphere. Little if any of the Fukushima core vaporized/burned.

Found this:
http://atomicinsights.com/2012/08/fissio...share.html
This is a piece of boosterism for unlimited clean nuclear energy that I generally agree with. Fossil fuel producers and users are accused of being greedy, selfish, dirty, etc. etc. Nuclear is a realistic option. Solar and Wind are unsuitable for base band power generation.


Fun video of a Russian wandering around the Chernobyl exclusion zone with a geiger counter unprotected.


It seems these nuclear engineers defend this technology very strongly. My nephew likes to say "It's only background radiation". 13.gif

So nevermind.

4. It appears the TEPCO engineers were very worried about earthquake proofing to the point that Tsunamis were a secondary consideration.

It appears tsunamis were not a consideration at all or at the very least they didn't even err on the side of safety.

From link:

"High dwellings are the peace and harmony of our descendants, remember the calamity of the great tsunamis. Do not build any homes below this point."

http://historyofgeology.fieldofscience.c...japan.html


Engineers don't attack or defend anything.

Engineers analyze.

The total mass of radioactive elements released from Fukushima was less than a gallon. The anti-nuclear forces are saying that a gallon spread over millions of square miles or 10s of millions of cubic kilometers of water is dangerous.

If you tell this to an engineer, after he stops laughing he will ask you if you are serious and why.

The TEPCO engineers were weighing a number of factors. Earthquakes were judged to be the greater threat and up until a year and a half ago they were right.
11-17-2012, 05:44 PM #1,113
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,624 Threads:399 Joined:Jun 2012
The facts don't lie...

Quote: (Fuk fish 100 times above norm)

Japan's environment ministry carried out the tests in June−July this year in the Niida river to the north of the Fukushima plant, and also in the village of Iitate.

http://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/fukushi...34039.html

More...

Quote:

Sample fish caught in waters near the stricken reactors suggest there is still a source of caesium either on the seafloor or still being discharged into the sea, ...

damned.gif

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...ioactivity
11-17-2012, 07:15 PM #1,114
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,366 Threads:33 Joined:Nov 2012
(11-17-2012, 05:44 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  The facts don't lie...

Quote: (Fuk fish 100 times above norm)

Japan's environment ministry carried out the tests in June−July this year in the Niida river to the north of the Fukushima plant, and also in the village of Iitate.


They caught their hottest fish in the Niida river. The mouth of the river empties into the ocean less than a mile from the plant and the fish would have been caught a mile or two away from the plant.

The Istate fish is from the hottest spot up in the hills about 15 miles away.
(11-17-2012, 05:44 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  More...


Quote:


Sample fish caught in waters near the stricken reactors suggest there is still a source of caesium either on the seafloor or still being discharged into the sea, ...


damned.gif


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...ioactivity

Saw that a while back - the cesium level in the ocean off Fukushima isn't changing. It should be dispersing and the concentration should decline. That isn't what is happening. Since they aren't dumping water deliberately, that means the radiation is getting there undeliberately. There are 4 reactors that will be decommissioned. It isn't clear which if any are the source. But the sooner the reactors are decommissioned the sooner we will know for sure. There was a crack around the #2 reactor that was sealed and a crack in the #3 containment vessel. Even after the cracks are sealed that doesn't fix radioactive water already in the crack.

It is doubtful that there would be a natural source of Cesium on the ocean floor.

The fish around California have about 5 Bq/kg of activity. The fish off Fukushima (worst case) are between 300 and 1000 Bq/kg. The Japanese limit used to be 500 Bq/kg, now it is 100 Bq/kg. Some of the Fukushima fish are eatable under the older Japanese guidelines.

The plan is to clean up the fuel soaking pools in two years and the reactor cores in 10. Those fish could be hot for a while.
11-19-2012, 12:57 PM #1,115
smart-ass Member
Posts:289 Threads:27 Joined:Jul 2012
(11-16-2012, 03:04 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-15-2012, 06:11 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-14-2012, 03:01 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-13-2012, 05:41 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-13-2012, 04:00 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  I do have my Michigan Technological University (Michigan Tech) diploma. I took nucleonics as part of the EE power option (all 60 of my free elective credits were taken in heavy engineering - humanities are a waste for an Engineer).

Nevermind.


Huh? If you have a nuclear engineer in your pocket I'd be happy to discourse with him. I have some questions about soil concentration gradients and absorption coefficients.

The best quote I ever got from a nuclear engineer was that more civilians died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car than were killed by radiation from US commercial power plant accidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_D...ower_Plant

You previously made some comments on the generator situation. It seems the story is a little involved (not all the comments address the generators).
1. The nuclear power plant is actually in Futaba/Okuma (Fukushima is the province and Fukushima the city is 35 miles away)
2. The bluff the plant is built on was 10 meters (33 ft) higher and was LOWERED so the power plant would sit on bedrock and to reduce the water pumping cost. It would have been safe at the original elevation.
3. The generators were supposed to be in located inside the power plant in the GE reference design. The TEPCO engineers thought there was a flooding danger so they moved them outside where they were swept away.
4. It appears the TEPCO engineers were very worried about earthquake proofing to the point that Tsunamis were a secondary consideration.
5. The Japanese government is paying for cleanup of soil contamination over 2 mS/y (.23 μS/h) or about 2/3rds the normal background radiation or about 5 S/y total exposure. If the US applied this standard we would have to clean up Denver (background radiation is over 6 mS/y).
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/conte...7_1113.pdf
6. The latest pine needle sampling report shows 25 μS/h at Akougi Kunugidaira (hill country 15 miles NW of the power plant), and 5 μS/h in Iitate village 26 miles NW. There is a plume shaped area to the NW of the facility that is fairly toasty.
7. The comparison of Chernobyl and Fukushima is problematic for several reasons. Not only did over 1/2 of the radiation from Fukushima go into the ocean but the Cesium release was only 1/7 as much (11 PBq vs 87 to 121 PBq) so there is only about 1/20th as much Cesium to worry about. Chernobyl also released 8 PBq of Strontium 90. Even worse, 6 tons of the Chernobyl reactor core went into the atmosphere. Little if any of the Fukushima core vaporized/burned.

Found this:
http://atomicinsights.com/2012/08/fissio...share.html
This is a piece of boosterism for unlimited clean nuclear energy that I generally agree with. Fossil fuel producers and users are accused of being greedy, selfish, dirty, etc. etc. Nuclear is a realistic option. Solar and Wind are unsuitable for base band power generation.


Fun video of a Russian wandering around the Chernobyl exclusion zone with a geiger counter unprotected.


It seems these nuclear engineers defend this technology very strongly. My nephew likes to say "It's only background radiation". 13.gif

So nevermind.

4. It appears the TEPCO engineers were very worried about earthquake proofing to the point that Tsunamis were a secondary consideration.

It appears tsunamis were not a consideration at all or at the very least they didn't even err on the side of safety.

From link:

"High dwellings are the peace and harmony of our descendants, remember the calamity of the great tsunamis. Do not build any homes below this point."

http://historyofgeology.fieldofscience.c...japan.html


Engineers don't attack or defend anything.

Engineers analyze.

The total mass of radioactive elements released from Fukushima was less than a gallon. The anti-nuclear forces are saying that a gallon spread over millions of square miles or 10s of millions of cubic kilometers of water is dangerous.

If you tell this to an engineer, after he stops laughing he will ask you if you are serious and why.

The TEPCO engineers were weighing a number of factors. Earthquakes were judged to be the greater threat and up until a year and a half ago they were right.
ave to ask, what is your name here, or when replying to your post do we call you frog as your av shows?
cheers.gif

Beware of the booger eater he'snot full uhoh.gif
11-19-2012, 09:41 PM #1,116
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,624 Threads:399 Joined:Jun 2012
I think JR already translated it to be tadpole and I verified it using Google translate.

http://translate.google.com/?hl=en#auto/...F%E3%82%B7

cheers.gif
11-19-2012, 10:31 PM #1,117
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,624 Threads:399 Joined:Jun 2012
Quote:

Experts warn that Japan's second largest lake with a surface area of 220 sq. km is quietly but steadfastly accumulating radioactive cesium released from the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

and

More disturbing than this, however, is that 20 months after the nuclear crisis, government agencies have shown no signs that they are trying to prevent the accumulation of cesium in the lake

... one obvious thing: it hasn't gone away.

and

Government regulations state that soil containing more than 8,000 Bq/kg of cesium is considered to emit levels of radiation that pose a danger to human health and therefore must be sealed away.

----

I wonder if they are altering the levels of radiation numbers.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20121118x3.html

11-20-2012, 07:23 AM #1,118
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,624 Threads:399 Joined:Jun 2012
(11-13-2012, 04:00 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 08:08 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 05:33 AM)Octo Wrote:  Well he did take a university course in nuclei calculation 13.gif

lol.gif


Pics or it didn't happen. 13.gif


I do have my Michigan Technological University (Michigan Tech) diploma. I took nucleonics as part of the EE power option (all 60 of my free elective credits were taken in heavy engineering - humanities are a waste for an Engineer).


Not a waste for a well rounded engineer.
11-24-2012, 01:23 AM #1,119
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,366 Threads:33 Joined:Nov 2012
(11-20-2012, 07:23 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-13-2012, 04:00 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 08:08 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 05:33 AM)Octo Wrote:  Well he did take a university course in nuclei calculation 13.gif

lol.gif


Pics or it didn't happen. 13.gif


I do have my Michigan Technological University (Michigan Tech) diploma. I took nucleonics as part of the EE power option (all 60 of my free elective credits were taken in heavy engineering - humanities are a waste for an Engineer).


Not a waste for a well rounded engineer.


I didn't see any purpose in being overweight. There are very few "well rounded" marathon runners.
11-24-2012, 05:14 AM #1,120
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,624 Threads:399 Joined:Jun 2012
(11-24-2012, 01:23 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-20-2012, 07:23 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-13-2012, 04:00 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 08:08 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 05:33 AM)Octo Wrote:  Well he did take a university course in nuclei calculation 13.gif

lol.gif


Pics or it didn't happen. 13.gif


I do have my Michigan Technological University (Michigan Tech) diploma. I took nucleonics as part of the EE power option (all 60 of my free elective credits were taken in heavy engineering - humanities are a waste for an Engineer).


Not a waste for a well rounded engineer.


I didn't see any purpose in being overweight. There are very few "well rounded" marathon runners.


Nevermind. I took marathon running in a well rounded manner.
11-24-2012, 05:53 PM #1,121
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,624 Threads:399 Joined:Jun 2012
damned.gif

Fukushima: thyroid growths in children spark concern...

http://www.ww4report.com/node/11715

It was only a matter of time.
11-24-2012, 08:07 PM #1,122
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,366 Threads:33 Joined:Nov 2012
(11-24-2012, 05:53 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  damned.gif

Fukushima: thyroid growths in children spark concern...

http://www.ww4report.com/node/11715

It was only a matter of time.


"Sigh". The two worst radionucleotides are Iodine 131 and Strontium 90. They replace important nutrients.

Iodine 131 replaces natural iodine. 40% of the world population is iodine deficient. It is the greatest single cause of mental retardation. In the absence of Iodine pills - a surplus of Iodine is immediately incorporated the thyroid. Exposure is only an issue for about a month after the release of the Iodine (because of the half life). But once Iodine is in the thyroid it tends to stay in the thyroid. However high Iodine 131 treatments for Graves disease haven't shown an increase in thyroid cancer so there is some tolerance for Iodine 131. Thyroid nodules occur in about 50% of the young normally (from wiki).

Strontium 90 is a replacement for Calcium. 75% of Americans are calcium deficient. Any Strontium 90 absorbed will be incorporated in the skeleton (leading to leukemia). Strontium 90 has about a 30 year half life. Fortunately little or no Strontium 90 was released by Fukushima (unlike Chernobyl).

Don't know how bad the Fukushima exposure was. Given the short half life it is hard to get Iodine 131 through the food chain. Thyroid nodules are very common - the actual cancer rate is the only measure of whether the population received a dangerous dose of radiation. Fukushima has 1 cancer case. Since there was a 1/3 chance of a cancer case anyway it is too soon to say there is a problem. Treating the population with large doses of Iodine 131 isn't a good idea. Epidemiologists will study Fukushima closely to improve their understanding of how sensitive to Iodine 131 at moderate levels people are.
11-26-2012, 09:40 PM #1,123
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,624 Threads:399 Joined:Jun 2012
'The government has to err on the side of caution and be inclusive.'
—Anand Grover, UN special rapporteur on the right to health

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/...shima.html
11-27-2012, 04:11 PM #1,124
Upāsaka Member
Posts:1,448 Threads:260 Joined:Feb 2011
This was posted by the creator at enenews

Free online PDF Why DNA and ionizing radiation are a dangerous mix, an expose of the Nuke Industry, by Ace Hoffman. > http://www.acehoffman.org/

http://www.acehoffman.org/books/TheCodeKillers.pdf
11-27-2012, 09:03 PM #1,125
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,624 Threads:399 Joined:Jun 2012
Fuk children thyroid cancer...still waiting for more data - from which source? dunno.gif

http://www.examiner.com/video/radioactiv...-formula-1

http://www.examiner.com/article/43-of-fu...ys-it-s-ok

The question I am grappling with is which of the two sources should one believe? The Japanese Gov't or the independent doctor's second opinions?
11-30-2012, 01:08 AM #1,126
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,366 Threads:33 Joined:Nov 2012
(11-27-2012, 09:03 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Fuk children thyroid cancer...still waiting for more data - from which source? dunno.gif

http://www.examiner.com/video/radioactiv...-formula-1

http://www.examiner.com/article/43-of-fu...ys-it-s-ok

The question I am grappling with is which of the two sources should one believe? The Japanese Gov't or the independent doctor's second opinions?


Its a little complicated. The Japanese government is trying to calm frightened consumers who have been excited by the independent press. The government has lowered radiation limit to mollify consumers which bans some relatively safe food - which frightens the consumers more.

1. Linear no-threshold model of radiation tolerance is a lie. The author of the model John Gofman knew it was wrong but was to some extent an anti-nuclear activist. The model has no validity below 100 mS/y.
.
2. The cancer rate is minimum at around 200 mS/y. The normal background radiation is around 3.6 mS/y (US average). The cancer rate at 2 S/y is about the same as the rate at 3.6 mS/y. Keeping the radiation level below 100 mS/y is provably killing people. Admitting this would allow the anti-nuclear activists to be sued just like the tobacco companies were and would make nuclear power much cheaper.

3. Children particularly embryos are at least twice as sensitive as adults. http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/1012/mo...iging.html. This ESRI article suggests they may be 3 to 5 times more sensitive. Adults have a self repair function for radiation damage that works better if it is kept busy.

4. The US allows some foods have radiation levels up to 2000 Bq/kg (enenews says the limit is 1200). The Japanese limits were 500 Bq/kg before Fukushima and they were lowered to 100 Bq/kg and 50 Bq/kg for baby products.

5. The mercury problem with apex predators like tuna is greater than the radiation threat.

6. 70%-80 of the 3.6 mS/y average yearly dose is due to inhaled compounds (radon and so forth).

7. Only about 10% i(0.4 mS/y) s from consumables. One site equated 56000 Bq to 1.2 mS. So that would mean the US diet includes 17000+ Bq of radioactivity compounds. The average us adult consumes 1700 pounds of food a year so the average is 10 Bq/kg (I had another estimate from other sources was around 15 Bq/kg so average radioactivity in US food is around 10-15 Bq/kg).

8. http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1946.html
On the other hand in some places in Brazil the oranges are over 6000 Bq/kg, and tapioca in some spots in India is over 1200 Bq/kg.

9. Typical soil is 400-500 Bq/kg

10. The US is importing Japanese food that is considered unfit under the new Japanese standard (which is less that 10% of the US limit).

What to think about this...
The new Japanese food radioactivity limits (100 Bq/kg) should keep the Japanese exposure down to that of Denver (6 mS/y). The child exposure should be about 4.5 mS/y worst case. Anything below 100 mS/y should be considered safe so this should be ok assuming the municipal water is clean.

The doctors are talking about thyroid nodules - in the US about 50% of kids have them. The doctors are reporting 43% in Japan. This is really a different issue - since the thyroid problem is due to the long departed Iodine 131 and the food issues are Cesium which doesn't concentrate in the body. The thyroid cancer rate is an indicator, the thyroid abnormalities are so common they really aren't abnormal and really don't indicate anything.

Thyroid = Iodine, the Iodine is long gone and we don't accurately know the exposure so this is a wait and see exercise.

The total Iodine 131 released was 150 to 900 PB (government to alarmist figures). That would be between 1.2 ounces and a cup of Iodine 131. It's all gone.

The total Cesium 134 released was 0.83 kg (about a quart). It is about 1/2 gone.

The total Cesium 137 release was 9.2 kg or about 2 1/2 gallons.

11-30-2012, 03:23 AM #1,127
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,624 Threads:399 Joined:Jun 2012
Yes, interesting take on the thyroid nodule growth among children. It could also be related to pesticide use.
11-30-2012, 08:41 AM #1,128
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,366 Threads:33 Joined:Nov 2012
(11-30-2012, 03:23 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Yes, interesting take on the thyroid nodule growth among children. It could also be related to pesticide use.


I look at those thyroid numbers and don't know what to think.

The 43% number doesn't look to be accurate. ENENEWS was touting it in September and it didn't get traction until November.

The "Fukushima Prefecture Health Management Survey" in July showed 36% had growths. The prefecture study was in Business Insider and other neutral publications so it looks solid.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2003/0201/p559.html
"Palpable thyroid nodules occur in 4 to 7 percent of the population, but nodules found incidentally on ultrasonography suggest a prevalence of 19 to 67 percent. ...

Thyroid nodules are four times more common in women than in men and occur more often in people who live in geographic areas with iodine deficiency. After exposure to ionizing radiation, thyroid nodules develop at a rate of 2 percent annually."


From what I can tell a year and a half out there should be less than a 2% change and all the current studies are doing is establishing a baseline. The real damage will occur in the future. The rate of thyroid nodules in Fukushima children should have been at least 34% prior to the accident.

Don't know about the pesticides. All the pesticides mentioned in the articles (aldrin, DDT and lindane) are banned pesticides. The argument in these articles that banned pesticides cause disease displays a basic ignorance of what the word "banned" means. But that doesn't mean that environment chemicals aren't having an effect.

What is a little depressing is the high percentage of the population even in affluent countries that have nutritional issues (like low iodine).
12-01-2012, 05:29 PM #1,129
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,624 Threads:399 Joined:Jun 2012
(11-30-2012, 08:41 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-30-2012, 03:23 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Yes, interesting take on the thyroid nodule growth among children. It could also be related to pesticide use.


I look at those thyroid numbers and don't know what to think.

The 43% number doesn't look to be accurate. ENENEWS was touting it in September and it didn't get traction until November.

The "Fukushima Prefecture Health Management Survey" in July showed 36% had growths. The prefecture study was in Business Insider and other neutral publications so it looks solid.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2003/0201/p559.html
"Palpable thyroid nodules occur in 4 to 7 percent of the population, but nodules found incidentally on ultrasonography suggest a prevalence of 19 to 67 percent. ...

Thyroid nodules are four times more common in women than in men and occur more often in people who live in geographic areas with iodine deficiency. After exposure to ionizing radiation, thyroid nodules develop at a rate of 2 percent annually."


From what I can tell a year and a half out there should be less than a 2% change and all the current studies are doing is establishing a baseline. The real damage will occur in the future. The rate of thyroid nodules in Fukushima children should have been at least 34% prior to the accident.

Don't know about the pesticides. All the pesticides mentioned in the articles (aldrin, DDT and lindane) are banned pesticides. The argument in these articles that banned pesticides cause disease displays a basic ignorance of what the word "banned" means. But that doesn't mean that environment chemicals aren't having an effect.

What is a little depressing is the high percentage of the population even in affluent countries that have nutritional issues (like low iodine).


It's obviously not an exact science.

http://thyroid.about.com/od/symptomsrisk...isease.htm

Today's Fuk news:

Quote: "Now, more than one and a half years after the nuclear accident, 260,000 Japanese children are still living in the catastrophe’s radioactive contamination," Beyond Nuclear says.

One petition is directs Japanese authorities to evacuate children to non-contaminated areas of Japan. The other calls for justice and accountability following the widely recognized “man-made” nuclear disaster for which to date not one single person has been held accountable.

http://www.examiner.com/article/fukushim...evacuation

http://www.nbc.com/news-sports/today-sho...ima-plant/
12-01-2012, 06:47 PM #1,130
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,366 Threads:33 Joined:Nov 2012
(12-01-2012, 05:29 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  It's obviously not an exact science.

http://thyroid.about.com/od/symptomsrisk...isease.htm


Not an easy disease to study. Diet, gender, environmental chemicals, genetics and radiation all affect the incidence of the disease. Separating all these factors in a uncontrolled study isn't easy.

Did find this:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radia...on/121.pdf
Main points are the incidence is linearly related to exposure and the latency for Chernobyl was three years. So it is a little early to tell how good or bad the situation is.

It is surprising that to some extent it is a female disease like breast cancer (which is 100:1), in the US the ratio is 4:1, in Japan it is 3:1, in the UK it is 2:1.

12-01-2012, 06:56 PM #1,131
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,366 Threads:33 Joined:Nov 2012
(11-19-2012, 12:57 PM)smart-ass Wrote:  ave to ask, what is your name here, or when replying to your post do we call you frog as your av shows?
cheers.gif


It's pronounced "otamajixyakushi", but you can just call me Pollywog.
cheers.gif
12-01-2012, 06:57 PM #1,132
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,624 Threads:399 Joined:Jun 2012
(12-01-2012, 06:47 PM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(12-01-2012, 05:29 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  It's obviously not an exact science.

http://thyroid.about.com/od/symptomsrisk...isease.htm


Not an easy disease to study. Diet, gender, environmental chemicals, genetics and radiation all affect the incidence of the disease. Separating all these factors in a uncontrolled study isn't easy.

Did find this:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radia...on/121.pdf
Main points are the incidence is linearly related to exposure and the latency for Chernobyl was three years. So it is a little early to tell how good or bad the situation is.

It is surprising that to some extent it is a female disease like breast cancer (which is 100:1), in the US the ratio is 4:1, in Japan it is 3:1, in the UK it is 2:1.


Well, then, perhaps they should be looking more on the interactions of hormones and chemicals, radiation, lack/too much iodine levels, etc.
12-07-2012, 05:47 PM #1,133
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,366 Threads:33 Joined:Nov 2012
Video of recent Japanese 7.3 earthquake:






There was a 6.2 aftershock.
12-07-2012, 06:34 PM #1,134
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,624 Threads:399 Joined:Jun 2012
Updated news on the quake that hit Japan.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Five+in...story.html
12-07-2012, 09:56 PM #1,135
Accidental Stoner Member
Posts:8,248 Threads:64 Joined:Feb 2011

hiding.gif

Devilish bombs, dangerous mines, thousands of years of toxic waste.

I don't know...I'd be fine with simply using less electricity.

cheers.gif


12-08-2012, 03:29 AM #1,136
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,366 Threads:33 Joined:Nov 2012
(12-07-2012, 09:56 PM)Accidental Stoner Wrote:  hiding.gif

Devilish bombs, dangerous mines, thousands of years of toxic waste.

I don't know...I'd be fine with simply using less electricity.

cheers.gif



Well, more people die from Natural Gas drilling or Coal production, or burning natural gas, or burning coal - than wiill ever be affected by nuclear power.

This is the problem the anti-nuke people have - it is really the cleanest and safest and most available form of power.

You may be fine with using less electricity. I am not.

Making a scarce resource out of something that can be produced abundantly is simply crazy.

The federal government has a monopsony on global warming research. The Federal government has spent more than 100 Billion dollars on a problem that is less that 0.15 to 0.30 °C (ie it is insignificant). This is insane. The stimulus gave 26 billion for global warming research to GISS alone.

The US is a distance second in energy consumption to China. The US consumes only 3,741,000,000 MWH each year. About 1/2 of that is non nuclear baseband power.

For the 100 Billion + that has been flushed on global warming, the US could have designed a LFTR nuclear reactor and deployed at least 90 2000 MW reactors and given them away to private industry.

Electric power would be under 5 cents per kWh everywhere in the US and been virtually pollution free.

For 100 billion dollars all of our baseband power could have been cheap non-polluting nuclear power.

Time has come to defund Climate Change research and put the money into something useful. We should invest in LFTR. We have wasted enough money on Michael Mann.
12-08-2012, 07:07 AM #1,137
Shadow Mrs. Buckwheat
Posts:13,525 Threads:1,259 Joined:Feb 2011
(12-08-2012, 03:29 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  it is really the cleanest and safest and most available form of power.


Not really. Google thorium.
12-09-2012, 05:02 AM #1,138
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,366 Threads:33 Joined:Nov 2012
Some reality:

Fukushima released radiation
1. About a cup of Iodine 131.
2. About a quart of Cesium 134.
3. About 2 1/2 gallons of Cesium 137

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm
16 metric tons of nuclides in an average 1 square mile by 1 ft chunk of dirt. 12 metric tons of that is thorium.

20 Japanese die from poisonous spiders and plants each year. In 30 years there will be about 600 deaths.

In the next 30 years there will be about 100 deaths from Fukushima radiation.
12-09-2012, 07:42 AM #1,139
Shadow Mrs. Buckwheat
Posts:13,525 Threads:1,259 Joined:Feb 2011
(12-09-2012, 05:02 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  In the next 30 years there will be about 100 deaths from Fukushima radiation.


I'll suspend disbelief.
12-18-2012, 07:05 PM #1,140
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,624 Threads:399 Joined:Jun 2012
Well, it's about time!

Quote:

“The IAEA has expertise in the areas of remediation and decontamination, as well as environmental monitoring and human heath,” Mr. Amano said. “It is our hope that we will support Fukushima and at the same time serve as a bridge connecting the Prefecture and the world.”

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?Ne...86&Cr=&Cr1=



Home 




DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS)
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com