The Fukushima Disaster
Guest avatarLoginRegisterLost password


New reply
Home
 
  • 242 Votes - 3.76 Average
The Fukushima Disaster
Author Message
01-31-2017 08:53 PM#1591
dclementsMember
Posts: 60Joined: Jan 2017
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Ok, I find a chart that kind of explains some of the sources and relationship between different amounts of radiation here is a link the the orginal:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e..._chart.png

..and hopefully other forum members will be able to see the attachment here:
İmage

Anyways, it uses Sieverts instead of RAD/REM (which I used in a previous post) so if anyone is interested about 100 RAD/REM equals one Sieverts. Or at least I think that is the conversion rate. Sieverts I believe is the more widely accepted measurement, but sometimes using RAD or REM is easier when dealing with lower doses. Plus RAD is easier to remember (ie for radiation) for some people.
02-01-2017 01:02 PM#1592
DaJavooIf looks could kilt
Posts: 1,790Joined: Mar 2011
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
I don't give a rat's ass about what is 'survivable' ~ I'd rather the planet be 'thrive-able'.
02-01-2017 05:24 PM#1593
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
We had all better accept the reality, the future is nuclear power - hopefully, new generation nuclear power which utilizes nuclear waste and emergency shutdowns are quick and safe.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information...dwide.aspx
02-01-2017 06:05 PM#1594
dclementsMember
Posts: 60Joined: Jan 2017
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(02-01-2017 01:02 PM)DaJavoo Wrote:  I don't give a rat's ass about what is 'survivable' ~ I'd rather the planet be 'thrive-able'.
I can kind of respect such a position, but unfortunately 'survivable' and 'thrive-able' are vague terms that don't mean anything if you are unwilling to crunch some numbers.

Whether you like it or not, RADIATION IS EVERYWHERE. It is in the bananas you eat, to the people you meet and live with, to the life giving rays from the sun, to the stone foundations in your house, and the blood coursing in your veins, etc., etc, etc.

Here is a fun fact for you, while researching what are some of the highest sources of radiation known I came across some articles about how the food we eat is exposed to a source (ie radioactive cobalt in pencil like small rods) that is about 100,000 RAD/REM (over a hundred times higher than lethal dose to humans) for a brief period in order to reduce spoilage and keep it fresher longer. So the next time your eating a healthy salad for lunch just take comfort in the fact that if got the same amount of radiation as those leafs of lettuce, you would likely die a very horrible , and very painful death. Also it wouldn't hurt to double check for very small glowing blue flakes which could be some left over radioactive cobalt that fell off from the rods it was exposed to.
02-02-2017 02:02 PM#1595
DaJavooIf looks could kilt
Posts: 1,790Joined: Mar 2011
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(02-01-2017 05:24 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  We had all better accept the reality, the future is nuclear power - hopefully, new generation nuclear power which utilizes nuclear waste and emergency shutdowns are quick and safe.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information...dwide.aspx

It may well be that a means to safely generate and store waste will arise.

Until then we are stuck with the old.

The youngest nuke plant in the U.S. is 20 years old. The technology that built/designed it is 30 to 40 years old. It takes forever to get these things through regulatory hurdles and construct. Most all of the operating nuke power plants have reached or surpassed their designed life expectancy. Most have had 'extensions' granted.

What I'm basically saying it's going to take TIME to develop, construct and put online any replacements, safe or otherwise. Power utilities work on a 20 year out time frame, it's even longer for nuclear.

We cannot sit in the dark until the perfect nuke solution arrives and is deployed. We can do fossil fuels cleanly and aggressively search for improved alt-energy sources while avoiding the pitfalls of nuclear.
02-02-2017 06:59 PM#1596
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(02-02-2017 02:02 PM)DaJavoo Wrote:  
(02-01-2017 05:24 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  We had all better accept the reality, the future is nuclear power - hopefully, new generation nuclear power which utilizes nuclear waste and emergency shutdowns are quick and safe.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information...dwide.aspx

It may well be that a means to safely generate and store waste will arise.

Until then we are stuck with the old.

The youngest nuke plant in the U.S. is 20 years old. The technology that built/designed it is 30 to 40 years old. It takes forever to get these things through regulatory hurdles and construct. Most all of the operating nuke power plants have reached or surpassed their designed life expectancy. Most have had 'extensions' granted.

What I'm basically saying it's going to take TIME to develop, construct and put online any replacements, safe or otherwise. Power utilities work on a 20 year out time frame, it's even longer for nuclear.

We cannot sit in the dark until the perfect nuke solution arrives and is deployed. We can do fossil fuels cleanly and aggressively search for improved alt-energy sources while avoiding the pitfalls of nuclear.

From reading the report hyperlinked below, specifically the 'stress test' section, I would say nobody is sitting in the dark. Can we really do fossil fuels cleanly, not many would agree with you when one googles oil leaks - as no energy producing options are without risk.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information...ctors.aspx
02-02-2017 09:27 PM#1597
Anonymous KritterIncognitoAnonymous
 
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(02-02-2017 02:02 PM)DaJavoo Wrote:  
(02-01-2017 05:24 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  We had all better accept the reality, the future is nuclear power - hopefully, new generation nuclear power which utilizes nuclear waste and emergency shutdowns are quick and safe.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information...dwide.aspx

It may well be that a means to safely generate and store waste will arise.

Until then we are stuck with the old.

The youngest nuke plant in the U.S. is 20 years old. The technology that built/designed it is 30 to 40 years old. It takes forever to get these things through regulatory hurdles and construct. Most all of the operating nuke power plants have reached or surpassed their designed life expectancy. Most have had 'extensions' granted.

What I'm basically saying it's going to take TIME to develop, construct and put online any replacements, safe or otherwise. Power utilities work on a 20 year out time frame, it's even longer for nuclear.

We cannot sit in the dark until the perfect nuke solution arrives and is deployed. We can do fossil fuels cleanly and aggressively search for improved alt-energy sources while avoiding the pitfalls of nuclear.
The reason it takes so long for new nuclear plants to come online or old nuclear plants to be replaced with new ones is because the regulations required are so insane that once a plant starts being used it keeps on being used until it is no longer feasible to operate.

Put it to you this way, imagine if instead of paying $20,000 to $35,000 for a car that you needed to get to work you had to pay $100,000 to $200,000 for a new car. How long would you wait to place it if you only made somewhere between $35,000 to $50,000 a year. Would it be something like the time it takes people in Cuba to replace their cars, who haven't had any car imports over the last several decades?

If you make it impossible for nuclear power plants to operate (and even harder for new ones to come online) through endless red tape of course it is going to create addition problems. If you really want to see what happens whether a country goes nuclear or goes 'Green' all you got to do is compare Germany and France, with France choosing nuclear and Germany going 'Green'.

To be honest it has been several years since I read up on it so it is possible for France to be having problems I'm not aware of and Germany doing ok, but the last I checked Germany's Green Tech had to be heavily subsidized by the government.

Also I suggest reading the book "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future" by Robert Bryce who says that there are several problems that need to be addressed before Green energy can be feasibly used as a alternative to fossil fuel and that eventually nuclear will replace fossil fuel when they start to run out. In a nutshell, Green energy is way to often way to expensive to be used as an alternative to fossil and nuclear and if they are used on as a large scale as nuclear and fossil fuel they start creating resistance/NIMBY groups against them as well.

Par to the problem is people like complaining when there is any kind of power plant (or actually any kind of industry whether it be casino amusement park, etc) and they will offer alternatives until those alternatives are used near where they live or placed in someones else's back yard where they start complaining about it as well.
02-02-2017 09:33 PM#1598
dclementsMember
Posts: 60Joined: Jan 2017
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Sorry post #1597 was mine. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in when I submitted it, although I'm sure the wording of the past would give it away. tinfoil.gif
02-02-2017 09:42 PM#1599
dclementsMember
Posts: 60Joined: Jan 2017
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(02-02-2017 06:59 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 02:02 PM)DaJavoo Wrote:  
(02-01-2017 05:24 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  We had all better accept the reality, the future is nuclear power - hopefully, new generation nuclear power which utilizes nuclear waste and emergency shutdowns are quick and safe.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information...dwide.aspx

It may well be that a means to safely generate and store waste will arise.

Until then we are stuck with the old.

The youngest nuke plant in the U.S. is 20 years old. The technology that built/designed it is 30 to 40 years old. It takes forever to get these things through regulatory hurdles and construct. Most all of the operating nuke power plants have reached or surpassed their designed life expectancy. Most have had 'extensions' granted.

What I'm basically saying it's going to take TIME to develop, construct and put online any replacements, safe or otherwise. Power utilities work on a 20 year out time frame, it's even longer for nuclear.

We cannot sit in the dark until the perfect nuke solution arrives and is deployed. We can do fossil fuels cleanly and aggressively search for improved alt-energy sources while avoiding the pitfalls of nuclear.

From reading the report hyperlinked below, specifically the 'stress test' section, I would say nobody is sitting in the dark. Can we really do fossil fuels cleanly, not many would agree with you when one googles oil leaks - as no energy producing options are without risk.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information...ctors.aspx
I think a effort on considering non-OPEC oil sources, oil from oil sands, Green energy, as well as nuclear is likely the best way to do it. If you add the cost of the wars in the middle east and having to prop up petty dictators into the cost of the equation, the cost of the oil you put into your car would go up.

There are even ways of getting electricity out of the ground (and possibly out of thin air) but I don't think it is feasible to do it for commercial use since it is about as usable as many other Green energy sources I believe. I know that considering and researching ALL sources is an expensive option but it is likely less expensive then being at the mercy of OPEC.
02-02-2017 10:01 PM#1600
dclementsMember
Posts: 60Joined: Jan 2017
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
I may have not mentioned it in past post but one thing most people do not realize is that there are many sources for fuel to be used in nuclear reactors and the cost of fuel isn't a factor in running a nuclear power plant (ie. the cost of the material to make the rods used in the reactor is near to 0.0% of the cost of operating the reactor itself).

On top of that about 99.9% of the potential energy in the rods is NEVER USED and is thrown away when the rods are replaced with new ones. The reasoning is since the cost of the rods is negligible, they are throw away once they are used enough to change the reactivity properly enough that is just becomes easier to replace them. However even if the rods have been they can be reused still in something called breeder reactors which oddly enough both produces energy and changes the rods back to a state before they where used (to be honest I barely understand it myself but I know the process was used in early research reactors and some reactors in France where they are concern with the cost of using up nuclear reactor rods).

The bottom line is that ALL energy we ever need and could ever need could come from nuclear if we really ,really need a source of energy other than fossil fuels and/or any other source. We just need the tech, logistical resources, and of course the political/social will power to bravely implement such a solution.
02-02-2017 10:33 PM#1601
dclementsMember
Posts: 60Joined: Jan 2017
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
In addition to knowing that nuclear energy could be used for a source for ALL our power needs it might be useful for people not familiar to nuclear power technology to know of something called radiation hormesis.

The theory can be a little complicated but it is basically the idea IN LOW DOSAGES RADIATION MAY ACTUALLY BE GOOD FOR YOU. I know that it sounds really crazy but data collected by people that are exposed to low dosages suggests instead of it being always being harmful statistically speaking it seems to make people less vulnerable to other things.

Again I don't have the medical background to make any determination as to whether it is real or just some crackpot theory (although it is partially believed by the people in nuclear power industry itself) there is some evidence that very small dosages have a completely negligible effect or at times might even help certain people.

If it all sounds crazy stop and consider all the various other potentially life threatening toxins you are exposed to day in and day out (such as caffeine, germs,etc) and realize how much more dangerous it would be to live in a bubble never exposed to ANY of them. Without anything to fight our immune systems weaken and if (or I should say when) they are exposed to toxins and germs again there is a good chance they won't have enough resistance to deal with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

Here is a small passage from the wiki page

"Radiation hormesis (also called radiation homeostasis) is the hypothesis that low doses of ionizing radiation (within the region of and just above natural background levels) are beneficial, stimulating the activation of repair mechanisms that protect against disease, that are not activated in absence of ionizing radiation. The reserve repair mechanisms are hypothesized to be sufficiently effective when stimulated as to not only cancel the detrimental effects of ionizing radiation but also inhibit disease not related to radiation exposure (see hormesis).This counter-intuitive hypothesis has captured the attention of scientists and public alike in recent years"

..and some other links:

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/videos/7...ns-be-good

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/...56cd2c6fb9

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2...JOG2RsrKF4

https://bravenewclimate.com/2011/07/21/r...-hormesis/


Also a small problem radiation hormesis could create if it did exist is that it could screw up statistical data when considering what level of radiation is bad for you. If radiation helped some people and hurt (at certain dosages ) it might create the perception that there is an overall 'zero' or 'near zero' threat for people at the smaller dosage: such as 1 RAD/REM to 20 RAD/REM. At any rate it creates (if it exist) a problem for the people that think there is a linear relationship between radiation and the health hazards from it.
02-03-2017 08:47 AM#1602
JayRodneyⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts: 30,601Joined: Feb 2011
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Record high fatal radiation levels, hole in reactor detected at crippled Fukushima nuclear facility

Record high radiation levels that’s lethal even after brief exposure have been detected at a damaged reactor at the Fukushima power plant in Japan. Specialists also found a hole, likely caused by melted nuclear fuel.

Radiation levels of up to 530 Sieverts per hour were detected inside an inactive Reactor 2 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex damaged during the 2011 earthquake and tsunami catastrophe, Japanese media reported on Thursday citing the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).

A dose of about 8 Sieverts is considered incurable and fatal.

Read more: https://www.rt.com/news/376107-fukushima...ion-level/

Perhaps those that see this as beneficial can go there for radiation therapy.

wonder.gif
02-03-2017 02:28 PM#1603
DaJavooIf looks could kilt
Posts: 1,790Joined: Mar 2011
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
dc,

You are missing the crux of my rationale:

It will take TIME to phase out the ugly fossil fuel powered generation and implement a nuclear replacement. And it's not months, it's a generation if the solution were ready today. However, the solution is NOT ready.

Radiation? Sure there's natural radiation everywhere which we can tolerate reasonably well. What we cannot tolerate is the gratuitous man-made radiation that is deadly and has the potential to affect millions. The radiation from Fukushima is STILL pouring into the Pacific and living things that make the food chain cannot out-endure the half-life of the shït.

Comments: Yes, France is a nuke power success story ~ an item in their favour is that all the units are made by the SAME manufacturer and that eliminates much error as all units are operated and respond identically.

Yes, there are problems with fossil fuels. Oil leaks eventually fade and do not pollute the planet or people forever. Coal can be burned cleanly and the by-products are recycled. Natural gas is about as perfect a fuel as one can burn. It's clean and the firing temperatures are stable which make power generation a dream.

Reasonability is part of the discussion. Speaking theory is fine, but the actions to address the issue will require TIME, and a good deal of it.
02-03-2017 03:06 PM#1604
dclementsMember
Posts: 60Joined: Jan 2017
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(02-03-2017 08:47 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  Record high fatal radiation levels, hole in reactor detected at crippled Fukushima nuclear facility

Record high radiation levels that’s lethal even after brief exposure have been detected at a damaged reactor at the Fukushima power plant in Japan. Specialists also found a hole, likely caused by melted nuclear fuel.

Radiation levels of up to 530 Sieverts per hour were detected inside an inactive Reactor 2 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex damaged during the 2011 earthquake and tsunami catastrophe, Japanese media reported on Thursday citing the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).

A dose of about 8 Sieverts is considered incurable and fatal.

Read more: https://www.rt.com/news/376107-fukushima...ion-level/

Perhaps those that see this as beneficial can go there for radiation therapy.
Well, if you go into any nuclear power plant and either dive into the spent fuel pile and get near the rods there or somehow manage to get close to the actual fuel rods in the reactor which are used when it is operation (which isn't easy to do but could possibly happen by either accident or perhaps deliberate sabotage), it is highly likely you will get a lethal dose of radiation. However it is even more probable you'll die from the bullets long before that from whatever security forces they have at the plant when they see you trying to force your way into such highly restricted areas.

Although I will admit that sounds a bit high since the the elephant’s foot at Chernobyl was about 300 Sieverts or 30,000 RAD/REM at the time it was first discovered, but has cooled off some since then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corium_(nu...l_accident
http://nautil.us/blog/chernobyls-hot-mes...ill-lethal

However both of them are still less radioactive then the radioactive cobalt rods used to sterilize the food you eat or used for testing how much radiation a cockroach can take, which is approximately 1000 Sieverts. However it is highly unlikely you will get anywhere close to these either without first getting a lead sandwich.
02-03-2017 03:30 PM#1605
dclementsMember
Posts: 60Joined: Jan 2017
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(02-03-2017 02:28 PM)DaJavoo Wrote:  dc,

You are missing the crux of my rationale:

It will take TIME to phase out the ugly fossil fuel powered generation and implement a nuclear replacement. And it's not months, it's a generation if the solution were ready today. However, the solution is NOT ready.

Radiation? Sure there's natural radiation everywhere which we can tolerate reasonably well. What we cannot tolerate is the gratuitous man-made radiation that is deadly and has the potential to affect millions. The radiation from Fukushima is STILL pouring into the Pacific and living things that make the food chain cannot out-endure the half-life of the shït.

Comments: Yes, France is a nuke power success story ~ an item in their favour is that all the units are made by the SAME manufacturer and that eliminates much error as all units are operated and respond identically.

Yes, there are problems with fossil fuels. Oil leaks eventually fade and do not pollute the planet or people forever. Coal can be burned cleanly and the by-products are recycled. Natural gas is about as perfect a fuel as one can burn. It's clean and the firing temperatures are stable which make power generation a dream.

Reasonability is part of the discussion. Speaking theory is fine, but the actions to address the issue will require TIME, and a good deal of it.
Well, if you have actual proof behind what you say I would like to see it since you are saying that although France isn't having any problems yet there is still a massive problem with all nuclear plants here is the US which to me sounds more like a knee jerk reaction than one based on anything else.

Also if you shut down ALL nuclear plants and stop ALL nuclear research it won't take one or two or three generations for a safe nuclear plant to come in operation it will simply be that you will NEVER get one without any effort or any resources going into such technology. As it stands, the current level of support and resources is barely enough to keep the industry going and for it to keep trying to improve on what they have. If you shut down ALL nuclear power plants (including the one's used for research), what would be the point of trying to start them up again other than we just happen to use up EVERY other potential resource of fuel and the cost of the wars to secure the last remaining sources are too much to handle?
02-03-2017 04:38 PM#1606
DaJavooIf looks could kilt
Posts: 1,790Joined: Mar 2011
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
İmage

I have not said we need to shut them all down. They need to be retired when they reached end-of-life and/or if they have problems.

The NEED to be replaced with fossil/alt/new nuke tech.

We need electricity. It's generation needs to be done safely and cost effectively.

We can do better than imperil the planet and its occupants.
02-03-2017 07:51 PM#1607
dclementsMember
Posts: 60Joined: Jan 2017
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(02-03-2017 04:38 PM)DaJavoo Wrote:  İmage

I have not said we need to shut them all down. They need to be retired when they reached end-of-life and/or if they have problems.

The NEED to be replaced with fossil/alt/new nuke tech.

We need electricity. It's generation needs to be done safely and cost effectively.

We can do better than imperil the planet and its occupants.
Well then you are all ready getting what you want since nuclear plants can only be used for so long before they get replaced with more reliable plants that have more safety features than the ones before. This is almost always done at the same site as the ones that had old plants (since it is close to impossible to get a new site approved in the US) so many people could get confused that are using the same plant year in and year out when it is actually a cluster of power plants with some being used and some out of commission because they are too old.

While it might be feasible to improve the technology even a little bit faster, the problem is that there is so much red tape in getting anything approved that the life cycle of anything used has to take into account the extra cost of getting things approved along with the problem of so of the newer better equipment never making it because of some of the excess regulation stop it from ever getting used.

Or in other words, the over abundance of caution that the nuclear power industry faces all but guarantees that some of the older tech will have to be used longer than it should because much of the new tech that could replace it will never make it pass the bureaucracy that it needs to go through before it is ever used. But that is the real world for you so you can't have nuclear power in the US without a near insane amount of regulation nor can you always have the best and safest tech because of said regulations.
02-04-2017 12:48 PM#1608
Anonymous KritterIncognitoAnonymous
 
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Radiation unique to Fukushima meltdown has been detected in southern B.C. salmon.

http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/184...hima-found

Consuming any Cesium-134 is unacceptable. All the words and opinions in the world will not stop cancer.
02-04-2017 05:46 PM#1609
dclementsMember
Posts: 60Joined: Jan 2017
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(02-04-2017 12:48 PM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  Radiation unique to Fukushima meltdown has been detected in southern B.C. salmon.

http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/184...hima-found

Consuming any Cesium-134 is unacceptable. All the words and opinions in the world will not stop cancer.
You forgot to include in your post:

"He (Jay Cullen, the guy that did the report) says the levels of the element detected were incredibly low, “10,000 times lower than the maximum allowable level in food set by Health Canada.”

There are trace amount of radioactive substances EVERYWHERE, which includes even the bananas you eat and blood coursing in your veins. If the amount is "10,000 times lower than the maximum allowable level in food" then it probable would take these trace amounts to be 10,000 to 100,000 times higher than they are before they effect you.

I'm pretty sure that Cesium-134 was one of the sample radioactive sources that me and the other students handled in the labs while taking a radiation safety class and the dose of radiation we got from it was likely higher than the radiation from the trace amounts of Cesium-134 you would get from eating the fish.
02-04-2017 07:53 PM#1610
dclementsMember
Posts: 60Joined: Jan 2017
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
I just found self-luminous tritium vials for sale on Amazon:

Amazon: 1 pcs 3x22.5mm Trit Vials Tritium Self-luminous 15-Years
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00TN04FZ4/ref...PBPYPQ5S9K

Now, if I'm willing to pay for the $35 bucks for the vial, I too can always be wearing my very own glowing radioactive tritium vial (yes, the glow is for the radiation it is giving off) which can be used to spook off any anti-nuke or NIMBYs that I encounter. I can just imagine the fun I'll have. yay.gif

I just wish I could get one in a much bigger size (sort of so it looks like one of the vials Homer Simpson uses) which would make it even more scary looking.
02-05-2017 05:56 PM#1611
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(02-02-2017 10:33 PM)dclements Wrote:  In addition to knowing that nuclear energy could be used for a source for ALL our power needs it might be useful for people not familiar to nuclear power technology to know of something called radiation hormesis.

The theory can be a little complicated but it is basically the idea IN LOW DOSAGES RADIATION MAY ACTUALLY BE GOOD FOR YOU. I know that it sounds really crazy but data collected by people that are exposed to low dosages suggests instead of it being always being harmful statistically speaking it seems to make people less vulnerable to other things.

Again I don't have the medical background to make any determination as to whether it is real or just some crackpot theory (although it is partially believed by the people in nuclear power industry itself) there is some evidence that very small dosages have a completely negligible effect or at times might even help certain people.

If it all sounds crazy stop and consider all the various other potentially life threatening toxins you are exposed to day in and day out (such as caffeine, germs,etc) and realize how much more dangerous it would be to live in a bubble never exposed to ANY of them. Without anything to fight our immune systems weaken and if (or I should say when) they are exposed to toxins and germs again there is a good chance they won't have enough resistance to deal with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

Here is a small passage from the wiki page

"Radiation hormesis (also called radiation homeostasis) is the hypothesis that low doses of ionizing radiation (within the region of and just above natural background levels) are beneficial, stimulating the activation of repair mechanisms that protect against disease, that are not activated in absence of ionizing radiation. The reserve repair mechanisms are hypothesized to be sufficiently effective when stimulated as to not only cancel the detrimental effects of ionizing radiation but also inhibit disease not related to radiation exposure (see hormesis).This counter-intuitive hypothesis has captured the attention of scientists and public alike in recent years"

..and some other links:

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/videos/7...ns-be-good

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/...56cd2c6fb9

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2...JOG2RsrKF4

https://bravenewclimate.com/2011/07/21/r...-hormesis/


Also a small problem radiation hormesis could create if it did exist is that it could screw up statistical data when considering what level of radiation is bad for you. If radiation helped some people and hurt (at certain dosages ) it might create the perception that there is an overall 'zero' or 'near zero' threat for people at the smaller dosage: such as 1 RAD/REM to 20 RAD/REM. At any rate it creates (if it exist) a problem for the people that think there is a linear relationship between radiation and the health hazards from it.

There is very little research (studies) done to date, specifically if low dose 'cumulative' radiation doses trigger certain types of cancers and, as per the article below, there is presently no way to determine which people are more radio-sensitive than others.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...-leukemia/
02-05-2017 06:22 PM#1612
Anonymous KritterIncognitoAnonymous
 
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(02-04-2017 07:53 PM)dclements Wrote:  I just found self-luminous tritium vials for sale on Amazon:

Amazon: 1 pcs 3x22.5mm Trit Vials Tritium Self-luminous 15-Years
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00TN04FZ4/ref...PBPYPQ5S9K

Now, if I'm willing to pay for the $35 bucks for the vial, I too can always be wearing my very own glowing radioactive tritium vial (yes, the glow is for the radiation it is giving off) which can be used to spook off any anti-nuke or NIMBYs that I encounter. I can just imagine the fun I'll have. yay.gif

I just wish I could get one in a much bigger size (sort of so it looks like one of the vials Homer Simpson uses) which would make it even more scary looking.

Nice to have you here to make an ass of yourself publicly you ğkking moron.
02-05-2017 07:36 PM#1613
dclementsMember
Posts: 60Joined: Jan 2017
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(02-05-2017 06:22 PM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  
(02-04-2017 07:53 PM)dclements Wrote:  I just found self-luminous tritium vials for sale on Amazon:

Amazon: 1 pcs 3x22.5mm Trit Vials Tritium Self-luminous 15-Years
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00TN04FZ4/ref...PBPYPQ5S9K

Now, if I'm willing to pay for the $35 bucks for the vial, I too can always be wearing my very own glowing radioactive tritium vial (yes, the glow is for the radiation it is giving off) which can be used to spook off any anti-nuke or NIMBYs that I encounter. I can just imagine the fun I'll have. yay.gif

I just wish I could get one in a much bigger size (sort of so it looks like one of the vials Homer Simpson uses) which would make it even more scary looking.

Nice to have you here to make an ass of yourself publicly you ğkking moron.
I hope you realize A) I'm just joking B) that such vials would be prohibited from sale in the US if they presented any kind of danger C) those of who find it funny how people that don't know anything about radiation can have a irrational fear of it can't be that much of a moron since we know enough about the science to know what is and isn't safe when we either work around it or have a source near us for other reasons.
02-05-2017 08:24 PM#1614
dclementsMember
Posts: 60Joined: Jan 2017
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(02-05-2017 05:56 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 10:33 PM)dclements Wrote:  In addition to knowing that nuclear energy could be used for a source for ALL our power needs it might be useful for people not familiar to nuclear power technology to know of something called radiation hormesis.

The theory can be a little complicated but it is basically the idea IN LOW DOSAGES RADIATION MAY ACTUALLY BE GOOD FOR YOU. I know that it sounds really crazy but data collected by people that are exposed to low dosages suggests instead of it being always being harmful statistically speaking it seems to make people less vulnerable to other things.

Again I don't have the medical background to make any determination as to whether it is real or just some crackpot theory (although it is partially believed by the people in nuclear power industry itself) there is some evidence that very small dosages have a completely negligible effect or at times might even help certain people.

If it all sounds crazy stop and consider all the various other potentially life threatening toxins you are exposed to day in and day out (such as caffeine, germs,etc) and realize how much more dangerous it would be to live in a bubble never exposed to ANY of them. Without anything to fight our immune systems weaken and if (or I should say when) they are exposed to toxins and germs again there is a good chance they won't have enough resistance to deal with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

Here is a small passage from the wiki page

"Radiation hormesis (also called radiation homeostasis) is the hypothesis that low doses of ionizing radiation (within the region of and just above natural background levels) are beneficial, stimulating the activation of repair mechanisms that protect against disease, that are not activated in absence of ionizing radiation. The reserve repair mechanisms are hypothesized to be sufficiently effective when stimulated as to not only cancel the detrimental effects of ionizing radiation but also inhibit disease not related to radiation exposure (see hormesis).This counter-intuitive hypothesis has captured the attention of scientists and public alike in recent years"

..and some other links:

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/videos/7...ns-be-good

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/...56cd2c6fb9

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2...JOG2RsrKF4

https://bravenewclimate.com/2011/07/21/r...-hormesis/


Also a small problem radiation hormesis could create if it did exist is that it could screw up statistical data when considering what level of radiation is bad for you. If radiation helped some people and hurt (at certain dosages ) it might create the perception that there is an overall 'zero' or 'near zero' threat for people at the smaller dosage: such as 1 RAD/REM to 20 RAD/REM. At any rate it creates (if it exist) a problem for the people that think there is a linear relationship between radiation and the health hazards from it.

There is very little research (studies) done to date, specifically if low dose 'cumulative' radiation doses trigger certain types of cancers and, as per the article below, there is presently no way to determine which people are more radio-sensitive than others.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...-leukemia/
I may be wrong, but I think doses that are in the 2-10 RAD/REM range have had some studies/statistical research that suggest they could increase the cancer rate or other risks for children but even if that is true it wouldn't be all that new as it is know that young and old are often less resistant then the rest of the population.

One thing that could be an issue that hasn't been addressed is that exposed to a variety of toxins and other health hazards could be even more susceptible than normal healthy people. I forgot where I read it but because cancer rates in the developed world is much higher than in the rest of the world then it is almost all but a given that something we are exposed to on a day to day basis (or perhaps something not in our environment) that causes us to get cancer more often than we would if we didn't have the modern lifestyle that we have.

Since neither the household cleaners, electrical/electronic, radiation from our TV and cigarettes (yes, most people get more radiation from either cigarettes or TVs than nuclear power plants,even if they live near or work in one) or other things have been found to present much of risk when studies have been done on them however there has been some speculation that the CUMULATIVE EFFECT can be much worse than we realize. After all it is common knowledge that if you drink several types of liquors the overall effect is quite a lot more than just one of them alone. The closest thing to such a study I believe was done with Gulf War syndrome where the soldiers where exposed to a lot of various thing that shouldn't have hurt them (according to studies that tested each one separately) but when COMBINED there was obviously something going wrong with too many of them to be ignored.

Usually the radiation people get from nuclear power plants in the US is not enough to be a factor since most of us get about a hundred to a thousand (maybe even a hundred thousand for some people) more times radiation for elsewhere in our environment but I think it is something one should look into if they have any concern about ANY radiation or toxins that get exposed to on a daily basis and not just that from nuclear power plants.
02-06-2017 01:23 PM#1615
DaJavooIf looks could kilt
Posts: 1,790Joined: Mar 2011
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
dc,

So, it's acceptable to just write off 50% of the population (give or take) because they are young or old?

Yanno? They used to have X-ray machines in shoe stores. Everyone thought that was a great idea, too.
02-06-2017 06:05 PM#1616
dclementsMember
Posts: 60Joined: Jan 2017
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(02-06-2017 01:23 PM)DaJavoo Wrote:  dc,

So, it's acceptable to just write off 50% of the population (give or take) because they are young or old?

Yanno? They used to have X-ray machines in shoe stores. Everyone thought that was a great idea, too.
Not at all, I was just saying that extra precautions needed to be taken into account when dealing with either the young, old, or perhaps those with weakened immune systems when considering the dangers of radiation. I hope my last post didn't indicate that I thought they should be written off for some reason.

I didn't hear about X-rays in stores, but I know that a famous golfer died by horrific health issues (such as holes in his skull, jaw fell off, etc.) after consuming medicine made of radioactive sources (I think the source was radium) each day for several years. Also some workers who would use glow in the dark paint got cancer of the mouth and throat because they had a habit of licking their brushes while using their radioactive paint.

While there is no real good excuses for what happened to many of these people, you should take into account that before the modern era there was next to nothing know about radiation and that in human history we usually learn through a process of trial and error before we can really understand how something works and/or how something effects our health. After we know precautious should be taken, but before we know it is hard to have proper precautious in place.
02-08-2017 06:13 PM#1617
Screaming Yellow ZonkersMember
Posts: 2,822Joined: Apr 2013
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-02-06-un...floor.html

Media blackout over “unimaginable” radiation levels detected at Fukushima… MOX fuel melts through reactor floor… half life of 24,000 years

aaah2.gif
02-08-2017 09:38 PM#1618
dclementsMember
Posts: 60Joined: Jan 2017
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(02-08-2017 06:13 PM)Screaming Yellow Zonkers Wrote:  http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-02-06-un...floor.html

Media blackout over “unimaginable” radiation levels detected at Fukushima… MOX fuel melts through reactor floor… half life of 24,000 years
Just something to consider when reading stuff about nuclear fuel, radiation and what not, if something has a very long half life (such as hydrogen which is believed to have a half-life of at least around 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years) it is relatively stable and gives off considerably LESS radiation then something that has a much shorter half life. This basically means that if your dealing with radioactive waste your either dealing with something very hot but decays so rapidly that it will be gone before you have to worry about having to store it somewhere for any length of time or something that doesn't decay so fast you have store it someplace but doesn't give of as much REMs as some of the hotter isotopes.

If you ever heard of salted and/or dirty bombs (which involves knowing the trade off between long half-life and radiation dosages) you might have come across some of the information below:

Wiki :Salted_bombs:

"Salted versions of both fission and fusion weapons can be made by surrounding the core of the explosive device with a material containing an element that can be converted to a highly radioactive isotope by neutron bombardment.[1] When the bomb explodes, the element absorbs neutrons released by the nuclear reaction, converting it to its radioactive form. The explosion scatters the resulting radioactive material over a wide area, leaving it uninhabitable far longer than an area affected by typical nuclear weapons. In a salted hydrogen bomb, the radiation case around the fusion fuel, which normally is made of some fissionable element, is replaced with a metallic salting element. Salted fission bombs can be made by replacing the neutron reflector between the fissionable core and the explosive layer with a metallic element. The energy yield from a salted weapon is usually lower than from an ordinary weapon of similar size as a consequence of these changes.

The radioactive isotope used for the fallout material would be a high intensity gamma ray emitter, with a half-life long enough that it remains lethal for an extended period. It would also have to have a chemistry that causes it to return to earth as fallout, rather than stay in the atmosphere after being vaporized in the explosion. Another consideration is biological: radioactive isotopes of elements normally taken up by animals as nutrition would pose a special threat to organisms that absorbed them, as their radiation would be delivered from within the body of the organism.

One example of a possible salted bomb would be a cobalt bomb, which would produce the radioactive isotope cobalt-60 (60Co). Other radioactive isotopes that have been suggested for salted bombs include gold-198 (198Au), tantalum-182 (182Ta) and zinc-65 (65Zn).[2] Sodium-24 has also been proposed as a salting agent."


I don't know exactly what is happening at Fukushima but I'm pretty sure that it is no where near as the effects if someone set off a salted nuclear weapon or even a dirty bomb ; although since there has been much testing of such weapons it is hard to know for sure what there effects might be.
02-08-2017 10:23 PM#1619
dclementsMember
Posts: 60Joined: Jan 2017
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Not all the instances of people getting acute radiation sickness are all the bad, since in a few instances it could turn out to be a good thing such as in the following article:

Mexican Cobalt-60 robbers are DEAD MEN, say authorities
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/06/...ft_mexico/

..it kind of reminds me a a video labeled 'instant karma' where a guy on a motorcycle is wearing a cam and a guy points a guy at hem in order to try and steal it. However what the guy robbing him didn't notice was a cop nearby who drew a gun on shot the guy dead before he even realized the cop was there.
02-11-2017 11:11 AM#1620
Radiation is Good for youIncognitoAnonymous
 
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Off the Charts Radiation Inside Fukushima Cooks a 'Cleanup' Bot

"A remotely-controlled robot sent to inspect and clean a damaged reactor at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant had to be pulled early when its onboard camera went dark, the result of excess radiation," reports Gizmodo. "The abbreviated mission suggests that radiation levels inside the reactor are even higher than was reported last week -- and that robots are going to have a hell of a time cleaning this mess up." From the report:
Last week, Gizmodo reported that radiation levels inside the containment vessel of reactor No. 2 at Fukushima reached a jaw-dropping 530 sieverts per hour, a level high enough to kill a human within seconds.
(Except for dclements who should go there, clean it up and become more powerful!)
Some Japanese government officials questioned the reading because Tokyo Electric Power Company Holding (TEPCO) calculated it by looking at camera interference on the robot sent in to investigate, rather than measuring it directly with a geiger counter or dosimeter. It now appears that this initial estimate may have been too low. Either that, or TEPCO's robot is getting closer to the melted fuel -- which is very likely. High radiation readings near any of the used fuel are to be expected. Yesterday, that same remotely operated robot had to be pulled when its camera began to fail after just two hours of exposure to the radiation inside the damaged reactor. Accordingly, TEPCO has revised its estimate to about 650 sieverts per hour, which is 120 more sieverts than what was calculated late last month (although the new estimate comes with a 30 percent margin of error). The robot is designed to withstand about 1,000 accumulated sieverts, which given the failure after two hours, jibes well with the camera interference. This likely means that the melted fuel burned through its pressure vessel during the meltdown in March of 2011, and is sitting somewhere nearby.

The whole nuclear power industry is built on the assumption that such accidents do not happen and hence it is not at all prepared for them. That makes it exceptionally unprofessional from an engineering point of view.
We were all sold a lie that it's perfectly safe.
New reply
Home





Free TopSite


DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS)

Kritterbox.com - Current events, paranormal, UFO, conspiracy, politics, ancient lost treasure, ancient technology, tech, 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 © 20011 - 2016 kritterbox.com