#Login Register


  • 239 Vote(s) - 3.74 Average
Home 


The Fukushima Disaster
01-31-2017, 06:08 PM #1,576
dclements Member
Posts:293 Threads:28 Joined:Jan 2017
(01-31-2017, 02:18 PM)DaJavoo Wrote:  Your argument for coal is outdated. Clean coal technology has been around for two generations and gets better all the time. Fly ash is precipitated out of the smokestacks and collected 24 hours a day at coal burning facilities. It costs a fortune, which is why U.S. electricity rates are sky high.
I try and look over the numbers again, but you might be right (or that I at least believe you are right that coal is a little cleaner than before) since the statistical data I believe I based it upon was from a study done in the UK sometime in the 80s or 90s. Still at least the coal industry doesn't have to capture 99.9999% of the waste involved in the generation of power.


(01-31-2017, 02:18 PM)DaJavoo Wrote:  Of course, China doesn't employ that...
Of course they don't because none of their industries could survive if they had to live up to US safety standards which is why they start a trade war with us (like Japan did in the 70s-80s) and can pump cheap junk into our market ruin our economy. But that is really neither here nor there.

(01-31-2017, 02:18 PM)DaJavoo Wrote:  As for nuclear:

I, too, used to think it was a good deal. (30 yrs in military & power utility industry) Safe to say Chernobyl and Fukushima, which continues to shït in our collective messkit in the Pacific, pretty much argue against it. Waste can be dealt with ~ but major fukups without the possibility of a do-over are forever.
I don't know where you get your information from but I was at a conference (or more like a conference/diner meeting) with the head of the US agency in charge of the effort to help Japan and clean up Fukushima after the incident at their reactor. The reactor itself was based off an old 50s or 60s design that was built in the early 70s and was at the end of it's maintenance cycle and about to be replaced. It only fail because over a half a dozen things went wrong (such as the flooding knocking out back up generators and the earth quack damaging destroying other systems) causing the equivalent of something like an overall total system failure.

And the head of agency said the was 'zero' risk (as in zero fatalities due to the accident and overall zero anticipated long term fatalities due to radiation) to the local population. Where there was any risk to people helping in the cleanup I don't remember anything specific about that but I'm pretty sure that it is unlikely to be any worse than Chernobyl.


(01-31-2017, 02:18 PM)DaJavoo Wrote:  Your argument that radiation poison can be survived is also a bit on the freakin' bogus side.
I hate to tell you, but you are wrong and the fact that you said that means you probably know next to nothing about the radiation safety or the dangers of radiation; which in all honesty can be a bit complicated. Do us a little bit of a favor and do a little due diligence on this topic. For example , Albert Stevens has been given the title of "surviving the highest known radiation dose in any human" after getting injected with radioactive plutonium. According to Wiki:

"Stevens died of heart disease some 20 years later, having accumulated an effective radiation dose of 64 Sv (6400 rem) over that period. The current annual permitted dose for a radiation worker in the United States is 0.05 Sv (or 5 rem)."

To put it this way, Steven's was able to survive an overall dose that was FIFTY times higher than the dose that people at Chernobyl got, passed out, and died when they came too because their flesh started rotting off of their bodies. The main difference is Steven's is an overall dose, and that he likely got better medical help than some of those at Chernobyl did. While there are circumstance where someone gets a immediate one time dose that can be lethal, it is probably at lot rarer than you think.

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

(01-31-2017, 02:18 PM)DaJavoo Wrote:  I mean, really? Why the hell should innocent peeps have no say whatsoever in a fatal or non-fatal dose of that shït? I think it should be a fundamental human right that life be pursued without the fear of glowing in the dark.

Your argument is akin to giving a child a box of rattlesnakes to play with because they are entertaining and very pretty (the benefit) and if the child gets bitten, yeah there may be a horrendous amount of swelling, limb-loss or death but it will probably be survivable if the kid's only bitten by one of the snakes and the antivenin is close at hand. (the cleanup)
Actually it is not because there are no kids being killed by radiation poisoning, or at least known that is known by the data collected by the WHO organization, where as kids die nearly every day from things like snake and spider bites as well as lightening strikes.

Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day and about 30,000 of those deaths are in the US alone. You want to know how many people die from radiation poisoning due to the nuclear power industry? The number according to every respectable source I know is near zero.

(01-31-2017, 02:18 PM)DaJavoo Wrote:  The earth has enough fossil fuels to keep life as we know it going until advancements in alt-energy catch up with demand ~ and, we have the technology to keep it clean ~ it's done every day at coal fired power plants in Europe & the U.S..

imo, it's beyond time to phase out nukes.
Well, if you have anything to back up your arguments then show it, every study by the WHO or any other organization shows that it is as safe or safe than other other industries.
01-31-2017, 07:03 PM #1,577
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,015 Threads:441 Joined:Jun 2012
Recent study claims that radiation levels lower that first thought due to way radiation levels are measured. This is new territory.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/24/fukushima...finds.html

Quote:Meanwhile, six airborne radiation surveys of Fukushima Prefecture were conducted by the national government. Sensors attached to helicopters measured radioactive cesium on the ground, and researchers used scaling laws to convert that data to expected doses at ground level. Because many people spend most of their time indoors, protected by radiation-absorbing buildings, government scientists further assumed that just 60% of that radiation actually reached most subjects. That estimate was based on the standard assumption that people spend 8 hours outdoors and 16 hours indoors each day.

Now, Makoto Miyazaki, a radiologist at Fukushima Medical University, and Ryugo Hayano, a University of Tokyo physicist, have taken the thousands of data points from the Date dosimeters and compared them with the ground-level estimates from the helicopter data. The scientists concluded that actual radiation doses were roughly 15% of what the helicopters were measuring, scaled to ground level, they reported last month in the Journal of Radiological Protection. That’s four times less radiation than what the Japanese government was previously assuming.

The researchers give several reasons for the large difference. Chief among them: “Residents [are] not staying outdoors for 8 hours each day,” Miyazaki says. He hopes these results will help other researchers better predict actual radiation doses—and therefore potential health effects—based on rapid airborne surveys. A better estimate of individual radiation doses might also allow displaced people to return to their homes sooner, Higley notes.

For Date residents, it’s good news that radiation levels are lower than expected. But the result comes with a less-than-silver lining: Some of the region’s expensive, time-consuming decontamination efforts—such as the removal of topsoil and tree bark—might not have been necessary.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/f...on-thought
01-31-2017, 07:12 PM #1,578
dclements Member
Posts:293 Threads:28 Joined:Jan 2017
DaJavoo, since you mentioned that you worked in the power industry (nuclear or otherwise) and you base your opinion on personal experiences I will give you some benefit of the doubt and try to collect any material that may help your case and give them to you as well.

Part of the edjimication nuclear power students went through was we were instructed to find any legit sources that show the dangers of nuclear power. Obviously there are certain dangers in any industrial/manufacturing process so most of the focus is in the area of the dangers of radiation itself. While I couldn't find anything that exactly hair raising (or I should say hair raising to people make a living working in a nuclear power plant, who have to work and deal with the dangers of radiation every day), it might be interesting to outsiders who are not as aware of some of the dangers and/or history It might take me some time to rediscover them but I promise I will give them to you if I can find them again.
01-31-2017, 07:59 PM #1,579
dclements Member
Posts:293 Threads:28 Joined:Jan 2017
(01-31-2017, 07:03 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Recent study claims that radiation levels lower that first thought due to way radiation levels are measured. This is new territory.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/24/fukushima...finds.html

Quote:Meanwhile, six airborne radiation surveys of Fukushima Prefecture were conducted by the national government. Sensors attached to helicopters measured radioactive cesium on the ground, and researchers used scaling laws to convert that data to expected doses at ground level. Because many people spend most of their time indoors, protected by radiation-absorbing buildings, government scientists further assumed that just 60% of that radiation actually reached most subjects. That estimate was based on the standard assumption that people spend 8 hours outdoors and 16 hours indoors each day.

Now, Makoto Miyazaki, a radiologist at Fukushima Medical University, and Ryugo Hayano, a University of Tokyo physicist, have taken the thousands of data points from the Date dosimeters and compared them with the ground-level estimates from the helicopter data. The scientists concluded that actual radiation doses were roughly 15% of what the helicopters were measuring, scaled to ground level, they reported last month in the Journal of Radiological Protection. That’s four times less radiation than what the Japanese government was previously assuming.

The researchers give several reasons for the large difference. Chief among them: “Residents [are] not staying outdoors for 8 hours each day,” Miyazaki says. He hopes these results will help other researchers better predict actual radiation doses—and therefore potential health effects—based on rapid airborne surveys. A better estimate of individual radiation doses might also allow displaced people to return to their homes sooner, Higley notes.

For Date residents, it’s good news that radiation levels are lower than expected. But the result comes with a less-than-silver lining: Some of the region’s expensive, time-consuming decontamination efforts—such as the removal of topsoil and tree bark—might not have been necessary.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/f...on-thought
Thanks for the info. reading.gif

From what I can remember from my nuclear safety classes, supposedly the people in Japan receive less radiation than most of us in the US (due our environment and some of the the after effects of all our own nuclear tests...oops) and the people living near Fukushima receive roughly the same as a majority of the people in the US; which happens to be considered higher than normal for Japan but still sort of safe.

It is kind of hard to put radiation exposure in exactly layman terms but on average most people get around 0.2-1.0 RAD/REM a year, people that use to work in some of the older nuclear plants or live in areas with higher radiation could get 2-5 RAD/REM a year, very young or old and/or people with compromised immune systems can start having higher rates of cancer and other health effects at about 5-10 RAD/REM, the average adult starts showing the effects of radiation poisoning at about 20 RAD/REM. As the rate of radiation goes from 20 to 100 RAD/REM the chances of death increase with 100 RAD/REM carrying over 50% of death unless receiving the best possible medical attention (ie. the worst cases at Chernobyl where firefighters and liquidators died were often in the 100-200 RAD/REM I believe). Between 100-400 RAD/REM main body exposure death starts becoming unavoidable even with some of the best medical attention and 400 RAD/REM and beyond is more or less considered "the point of no return" or at least around that area the point of no return begins.

To put this in some perspective with Fukushima, as far as I know the workers there have not received a higher dose than 2 RAD/REM and local residence have not ever received more than 0.2-1 RAD/REM that I'm aware of.

While these rule of thumb numbers don't tell the whole story they are a good place to start for some people that don't know much about the topic.
01-31-2017, 08:24 PM #1,580
dclements Member
Posts:293 Threads:28 Joined:Jan 2017
While I haven't been able to find a free pdf of it yet (which I happened across several years ago), the book that could be a good source of things that have gone wrong in researching, developing weapons, mining, or just about anything else dealing with nuclear technology or technology that exposes the public to any kind of radiation is the Plutonium Files. It sort of deals with pre-WW III incidents, the Manhattan project and related research, and Cold War black projects to one up the USSR. As far as I know of it is the best source of any problems that the US has had in dealing people being exposed to radiation, as well as the best source at documenting classified/secret projects that the government may have wanted to keep hidden.

Also you might want to know about SL-1 which was an early experimental reactor built and operated by the military that happen to actually go critical (similar to how Chernobyl went critical) and killed the three people at the site. It is the kind of story that US nuclear power students are told in order for them to understand some of the dangers involved in operating a nuclear power plant and respect what kind of power (no pun intended) they are dealing with.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plutonium_Files
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1
01-31-2017, 08:27 PM #1,581
DaJavoo If looks could kilt
Posts:1,781 Threads:45 Joined:Mar 2011
dc, I appreciate your efforts.

The utility I worked for had three nuke plants. Trust me, I am familiar with the arguments.

Catastrophic failures do occur.

My points are simple and really need no 'stats'.

1. Tsunamis are unpredictable, but basically occur near the coast. Mother nature will always hold the trump cards on man's plans. Murphy's Law.

2. Meltdowns & containment failures pretty much fuk things up for the conceivable future.

3. There ARE NO "allowable" man-caused, "acceptable" radiation levels. Survivable or not, radiation is harmful to living beings and their genetic code.

4. We cannot effectively contain potential damage and should move to retire nuclear facilities and replace them with better solutions.
01-31-2017, 08:53 PM #1,582
dclements Member
Posts:293 Threads:28 Joined:Jan 2017
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 #1,583
DaJavoo If looks could kilt
Posts:1,781 Threads:45 Joined:Mar 2011
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 #1,584
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,015 Threads:441 Joined:Jun 2012
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 #1,585
dclements Member
Posts:293 Threads:28 Joined:Jan 2017
(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 #1,586
DaJavoo If looks could kilt
Posts:1,781 Threads:45 Joined:Mar 2011
(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 #1,587
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,015 Threads:441 Joined:Jun 2012
(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
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
02-02-2017, 09:27 PM #1,588
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
(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 #1,589
dclements Member
Posts:293 Threads:28 Joined:Jan 2017
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 #1,590
dclements Member
Posts:293 Threads:28 Joined:Jan 2017
(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.



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