#Login Register


  • 17 Vote(s) - 2.65 Average
Home 


Good News About Fukushima.
09-01-2013, 06:48 PM #16
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,098 Threads:31 Joined:Nov 2012
(09-01-2013, 06:26 PM)Octo Wrote:  I'll consider good news about Fukushima to be when it doesn't leak anything anymore and it's under a thick layer of concrete.

Quote:Radiation levels 18 times higher than previously reported have been found near a water storage tank at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, prompting fresh concern over safety at the wrecked facility.

The plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), said radiation near the bottom of the tank measured 1,800 millisieverts an hour – high enough to kill an exposed person in four hours.

Tepco said water levels inside the tank had not changed, indicating there had not been a leak. But the firm said it had yet to discover the cause of the radiation spike.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...gher-japan

I'm going to look at that ... oooooh.

The answer isn't complementary to TEPCO.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23918882
The Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) had originally said the radiation emitted by the leaking water was around 100 millisieverts an hour.

However, the company said the equipment used to make that recording could only read measurements of up to 100 millisieverts.

The new recording, using a more sensitive device, showed a level of 1,800 millisieverts an hour.


The good news is nothing has changed. The bad news is they don't know how bad past worker exposures really were.

The old meters only went up to 100 mS/h (probably the maximum dose the workers were permitted). So any place where the meters pegged - was listed as 100 mS/h.

The new meters can make higher readings - and the readings are higher...
09-01-2013, 07:02 PM #17
Ruby Wolf Member
Posts:10,078 Threads:719 Joined:Oct 2012
Heres some really good news...

There are now over 440 commercial nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries while 56 countries operate a total of about 250 research reactors and a further 180 nuclear reactors power some 140 ships and submarines...

All awaiting the day they sooner or later malfunction and disrupt and leak and poison and mutate and kill innocent people...

The deadly dangerous cons of nuclear power far out weigh the beneficial pros and only in the name of greed driven megabucks were those nuclear power plants given green lights to be built and activated by the wealthy industrialists who paid off the elite politicians who gave them the ability to do so...
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
09-01-2013, 09:01 PM #18
Anonymous Kritter Incognito
 
325 million dollars to decommission a nuclear power plant!
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
09-01-2013, 09:25 PM #19
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,098 Threads:31 Joined:Nov 2012
(09-01-2013, 07:02 PM)Beyond Smolensk Wrote:  Heres some really good news...

There are now over 440 commercial nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries while 56 countries operate a total of about 250 research reactors and a further 180 nuclear reactors power some 140 ships and submarines...

All awaiting the day they sooner or later malfunction and disrupt and leak and poison and mutate and kill innocent people...

The deadly dangerous cons of nuclear power far out weigh the beneficial pros and only in the name of greed driven megabucks were those nuclear power plants given green lights to be built and activated by the wealthy industrialists who paid off the elite politicians who gave them the ability to do so...

Huh? The planet used to have so much radioactive material that a natural reactor went critical.

The Good News:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/natural.htm
There are 16.2 metric tons and 660 GBq of radioactivity in each 1 square mile by 1 foot piece of dirt. Assuming that about 1/4 of the 27 TBq of released cesium (using Wiki's numbers) is still on Japanese soil spread over 100 square mile area, 27*1000/(4*100) = 67 GBq/sq mile. Less than 1/10 the natural radiation.

There are tens of megatonnes of Cesium and over 8.4 ZBq (10**21) of radioactivity in the Pacific Ocean, compared to 2.9 kg and 27 TBq of released Cesium. The amount of radioactivity in the Pacific Ocean is almost the square (Fukushima * Fukushima) of the released radiation. Saying it is going to make a dent is a joke. Using the Wiki release estimates the radioactivity in the Pacific Ocean will increase 1.0000000031 times. That is about 1 million times less than the less significant digit reported for food measurements. Further - by the time the radioactivity reaches the US in 5 years there will only be about 1/2 as much.

As to your points about reactor safety. I'm a big fan of LFTR (the liquid salt thorium reactor). It produces less than 1/10 the waste (we have already shown that the waste isn't that bad) and the worst case disaster can be fixed with a shovel and bucket.


The Bad News:
If I was a TEPCO worker at site I would be pissed. The meters they had been using were inadequate. Hopefully they all had radiation badges (they go black when you hit your limit).

TEPCO should have put in Air cooling systems (air conditioners) that exhaust the reactor heat into the air years ago.
09-02-2013, 01:40 AM #20
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,098 Threads:31 Joined:Nov 2012
(09-01-2013, 09:01 PM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  325 million dollars to decommission a nuclear power plant!
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning

The major reason for the cost of nuclear plant decommissioning is due to the number of people that have needless been scared witless about the dangers of a relatively safe technology.

1. The "Zero No-Threshold" rule implemented in current legislation is a damned lie.
From a Royal Society paper on exposure to depleted uranium.
http://www.llrc.org/du/subtopic/durs.htm
[Image: dufig7.jpg]

Optimum health is around 75 mS/year. We are provably killing people by giving them less radiation than they need. 2/3rd of the people dying from radiation related cancers at 3.6 mS/y are dying needlessly, if we gave them 70 mS/y of radiation we could save lives.

2. Rules for Nuke Plant scrap are beyond ridiculous. Gas pipe can be sold that is 100,000 times more radioactive than the limit set for nuclear power plant scrap.
09-02-2013, 02:48 AM #21
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:30,289 Threads:1,495 Joined:Feb 2011
rofl.gif I didn't really read that last post. Pinch me I am surely fucking dreaming. lmao2.gif

wonder.gif

09-02-2013, 03:00 AM #22
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:41,550 Threads:1,589 Joined:Feb 2011
Yeah I heard that radiation-is-good-for-you theory before. Certainly are we capable of handling naturally occurring radiation, but there are no graphs or numbers you can post that will convince me the Fukushima disaster is a blessing in disguise?!
09-02-2013, 03:07 AM #23
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:30,289 Threads:1,495 Joined:Feb 2011
The office of credibility just phoned me, oddly enough they'd like to schedule an appointment with you froggieh. You can call toll free 1 800 DUMBASS. coffeetime.gif

wonder.gif

09-03-2013, 04:23 AM #24
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,098 Threads:31 Joined:Nov 2012
(09-02-2013, 03:07 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  The office of credibility just phoned me, oddly enough they'd like to schedule an appointment with you froggieh. You can call toll free 1 800 DUMBASS. coffeetime.gif

http://bjr.birjournals.org/content/78/925/3.abstract
Thus, the linear-no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis for cancer risk is scientifically unfounded and appears to be invalid in favour of a threshold or hormesis. This is consistent with data both from animal studies and human epidemiological observations on low-dose induced cancer. The LNT hypothesis should be abandoned and be replaced by a hypothesis that is scientifically justified and causes less unreasonable fear and unnecessary expenditure.

http://www.marklynas.org/2011/08/how-dan...sion-zone/
In other words, as the Chernobyl Forum states, the mental health impact of Chernobyl was “the largest public health problem created by the accident” – a conclusion of great significance for Fukushima[ii]. In particular, this suggests that ideologically-motivated anti-nuclear campaign groups – some of which continue to stir up scientifically unwarranted fear of radiation in the affected Japanese population[iii] – may increase the trauma of the displaced people, and worsen their mental and physical health as a result. So far as I can tell, none of the campaign groups currently operating in the area, or those issuing wildly-inflated estimates of the likely eventual death toll, realise that their activities are likely to worsen the overall suffering of the Japanese people.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2564764/
Evidence for Radiation Hormesis After In Vitro Exposure of Human Lymphocytes to Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation

http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/inthorm.html
Despite the fact that high doses of ionizing radiation are detrimental, substantial data from both humans and experimental animals show that biologic functions are stimulated by low dose radiation (Luckey 1980). The word "hormesis" is derived from the Greek word "hormaein" which means "to excite". It has long been known that many popular substances such as alcohol and caffeine have mild stimulating effects in low doses but are detrimental or even lethal in high doses. In the early 1940s C. Southam and his coworker J. Erlish found that despite the fact that high concentrations of Oak bark extract inhibited fungi growth, low doses of this agent stimulated fungi growth. They modified starling's word "hormone to "hormesis" to describe stimulation induced by low doses of agents which are harmful or even lethal at high doses. They published their findings regarding the new term "hormesis" in 1943 (Bruce M. 1987). Generally, hormesis is any stimulatory or beneficial effect, induced by low doses of an agent, that can not be predicted by the extrapolation of detrimental or lethal effects induced by high doses of the same agent.
02-05-2014, 03:03 AM #25
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,098 Threads:31 Joined:Nov 2012
(01-23-2014, 03:51 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-22-2014, 10:17 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  So, my nuclear engineer nephew, whose favorite words are "It's only background radiation!", posted this for everyone, which he also says "...is based on science" ... not doom (my words).

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Fukushim...story.html

I'm in a foul mood right now based on unrelated issues, so let me apologize for my bluntness.

Your nephew is full of the same crap every nuclear apologist is full of. For instance let me quote from the linked article:

"OSU’s Delvan Neville, a co-investigator on the project said: “To increase their normal annual dosage of radiation by just one per cent, a person would have to eat more than 4,000 pounds of the highest (radiation) level albacore we’ve seen.”

This is pure deadly bullsh!t. Neville is basing his statement on the utterly false idea that natural background radiation and highly refined Cesium-137 or highly refined strontium are the same.

They are even 1,000,000 shades of gray the same. As I wrote before in Post: #1293:

"But the SAME amount of cesium-137 is well over 10 million times MORE toxic than the banana's radioactivity.

"The radioactivity of a banana is: .0000071 Curies per gram.
The radioactivity of Cesium-137: 88.0000000 Curies per gram.

"Divide 88 by .0000071 and you get 12,400,000 times more toxic!

"One gram of cesium-137 has the same amount of radioactivity as 10 tons of Potassium-40!"


So when these idiots claim the Fukushima radiation in the food is safe, they are either LYING or they are IGNORANT. Natural background radiation has been with us since the beginning of time.

But Cesium-137 is a manmade isotope that is 12.7 MILLION times more potent gram for gram. Trying to compare the two is like saying a grain of sand is like a large boulder. A boulder can crush a car whereas a grain of sand is not even noticed.

Saw this post:and it needs a response:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/Urchin/mineral.html
1. Cs133 is about 3 ppm of the earth's crust. It is not a new element. It is not an element the human body is unfamiliar with. The decay products are similar to Potassium 40. There are over 200 million metric tons of natural cesium (mostly Cs133) in the Pacific Ocean (2.3 nmol/kg).
.
2. 4 kilograms (0.004 tonnes) of cesium were released by Fukushima.

3. The Fukushima Cesium will ultimately be diluted until only 1 cesium atom in 500 Billion cesium atoms will be from Fukushima.

4. The NIH analysis of Bluefin Tuna caught off California that migrated from Japan.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/26/10670.full.pdf+html
   

5. The NIH study has all kinds of useful information:
a. The biological effect of Cesium 137 and 134 is about 3 times that of Potassium 40.
b. A fish chowing down around Japan at the height of the disaster, caught off California was only 3% more radioactive and would provide less than a 2% higher dose when eaten.
c. The vast majority of the human dose from fish is from natural polonium.
02-05-2014, 03:54 AM #26
Shadow Incognito
 
(02-05-2014, 03:03 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  1. Cs133 is about 3 ppm of the earth's crust.

Not according to the link you provided. It says cesium is 0.002 ppm.

You also imply caesium 133 (naturally occuring) is the product of spent nuclear fuel which just isn't true. Caesium 137 is. Which:

Quote:constitutes most of the radioactivity still left from the Chernobyl accident and is major health concern for decontaminating land near the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_caesium
02-05-2014, 05:08 AM #27
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,098 Threads:31 Joined:Nov 2012
(02-05-2014, 03:54 AM)Shadow Wrote:  
(02-05-2014, 03:03 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  1. Cs133 is about 3 ppm of the earth's crust.

Not according to the link you provided. It says cesium is 0.002 ppm.

You also imply caesium 133 (naturally occuring) is the product of spent nuclear fuel which just isn't true. Caesium 137 is. Which:

Quote:constitutes most of the radioactivity still left from the Chernobyl accident and is major health concern for decontaminating land near the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_caesium

Tadpole, you're shilling for TEPCO. Why?

https://www.webelements.com/caesium/geology.html
http://periodictable.com/Properties/A/Cr...n.log.html

The numbers vary depending on the source. The correct way to compute it is by mass (and Cesium is heavy).

http://mistupid.com/chemistry/seawatercomp.htm
Estimates of ocean abundance are 0.002-0.003 ppm.

http://www.mbari.org/chemsensor/cs/cesium.html
2.3 nmol/kg cesium

nmol/kg is easy to compute.

Anyway there is something over 200 million metric tonnes in the ocean. It should be obvious that the nuclear tests didn't put 200 million metric tonnes in the ocean. That more than 100 WTC towers worth.. The ocean concentration of Cs 137 was about 1 Bq/m3 before Fukushima,- higher on the US side of the Pacific (from the NIH report). The Bluefin Tuna had 1 Bq/kg of cesium 137 from preexisting radioactivity (presumably measured at dry weight).

Of the combined CS134 and CS137 released (27.1 PBq), there is less than 18 PBq.of the released Cesium still around. The half-life of Cesium in the ocean is around 13 years - hence the low concentration, because of this and that much of Cesium from Fukushima is parked on land the ocean concentration of Cesium from Fukushima is much less than 18 PBq.

Something in the range of 270 PBq of Cesium 137 was in the Pacific preFukushima (the straight up calculation of 660+ PBq from 1 Bq/m3 isn't correct because there is a concentration gradient).

Less than 1/20 of the Cs 137 in the Pacific is from Fukushima. Scientists are delighted about the Cs 134 since it will allow them to improve their understanding of ocean chemistry.

The dose from Cesium is about the same as Potassium 40 and the delivered dose is about 3 times as high because of the longer biological half life.

That is all just factual.


A TEPCO defender? I read Fukushima Diary. TEPCO has issues.


Until I see a good peer reviewed study that says Fukushima presents problem for Americans I;m not going worry.
02-05-2014, 05:52 AM #28
Softy Incognito
 
Hi Tadpole,

Good read,,,hard to follow it all,,,

but always like to hear both sides,,,

still,,,probably not going to be eating the fish...

(:X
02-05-2014, 05:56 AM #29
Shadow Incognito
 
Quote:2. 4 kilograms (0.004 tonnes) of cesium were released by Fukushima.

Cesium what? 133? Fukushima's spent rods have 85x more cesium 137 than Chernobyl's. So if you're dealing with 1230 spent fuel rods in #4 reactor alone, it's an easy matter to say the cesium only weighs so much of it, make 'light' of it lol.. And then imply it's cesium 133 or forget to say it isn't. Sorry I called you a shill, I deleted that right away but you caught it, so be it. But peer reviewed means nothing anymore, I follow the money.
02-05-2014, 06:12 AM #30
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,098 Threads:31 Joined:Nov 2012
(02-05-2014, 05:56 AM)Shadow Wrote:  
Quote:2. 4 kilograms (0.004 tonnes) of cesium were released by Fukushima.

Cesium what? 133? Fukushima's spent rods have 85x more cesium 137 than Chernobyl's. So if you're dealing with 1230 spent fuel rods in #4 reactor alone, it's an easy matter to say the cesium only weighs so much of it, make 'light' of it lol.. And then imply it's cesium 133 or forget to say it isn't. Sorry I called you a shill, I deleted that right away but you caught it, so be it. But peer reviewed means nothing anymore, I follow the money.
http://www.rbhk.org.hk/eng/news-20131101a.html
Huh? The 1970s era glowing exit signs (many still in use) have hundreds of gigabecquerels of radioactivity - per sign.

The fuel pellets are a hard ceramic. The Fukushima radioactivity was from high temperature diffusion of the volatile elements.

If TEPCO was planning on warming the fuel rods up to 1000°C for a couple days (diffusion speeds are on the order of nanometers per second) or grinding them to nano-sized particles and blowing them into the air - Fukushima fuel could potentially be a hazard.

There has been no statement from TEPCO that they are planning either activity.



Home 





Copyright © 2011 - 2020 kritterbox.com