#Login Register


  • 241 Vote(s) - 3.75 Average
Home 


The Fukushima Disaster
01-31-2017, 08:53 PM #1,591
dclements Member
Posts:182 Threads:16 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 #1,592
DaJavoo If looks could kilt
Posts:1,832 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 #1,593
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,717 Threads:412 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 #1,594
dclements Member
Posts:182 Threads:16 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 #1,595
DaJavoo If looks could kilt
Posts:1,832 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 #1,596
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,717 Threads:412 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 #1,597
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 #1,598
dclements Member
Posts:182 Threads:16 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 #1,599
dclements Member
Posts:182 Threads:16 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.
02-02-2017, 10:01 PM #1,600
dclements Member
Posts:182 Threads:16 Joined:Jan 2017
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 #1,601
dclements Member
Posts:182 Threads:16 Joined:Jan 2017
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 #1,602
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:30,809 Threads:1,430 Joined:Feb 2011
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 #1,603
DaJavoo If looks could kilt
Posts:1,832 Threads:45 Joined:Mar 2011
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 #1,604
dclements Member
Posts:182 Threads:16 Joined:Jan 2017
(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 #1,605
dclements Member
Posts:182 Threads:16 Joined:Jan 2017
(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?



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