#Login Register


  • 239 Vote(s) - 3.74 Average
Home 


The Fukushima Disaster
02-06-2017, 01:23 PM #1,606
DaJavoo If looks could kilt
Posts:1,780 Threads:45 Joined:Mar 2011
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 #1,607
dclements Member
Posts:293 Threads:28 Joined:Jan 2017
(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, 09:38 PM #1,608
dclements Member
Posts:293 Threads:28 Joined:Jan 2017
(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 #1,609
dclements Member
Posts:293 Threads:28 Joined:Jan 2017
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.
Radiation is Good for you Show this Post
02-11-2017, 11:11 AM #1,610
Radiation is Good for you Incognito Anonymous
 
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.
02-11-2017, 11:28 AM #1,611
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:40,955 Threads:1,526 Joined:Feb 2011
Ask the uranium miners how clean nuclear power is
02-13-2017, 09:49 PM #1,612
dclements Member
Posts:293 Threads:28 Joined:Jan 2017
(02-11-2017, 11:28 AM)Octo Wrote:  Ask the uranium miners how clean nuclear power is
Well how bad is uranium mining in the context of mining any kind of material? I don't know exactly bad coal mining is but the fatality rate is much higher than a lot of other jobs out there but people still do it because they need the money even if they know that the people running such operations don't really give a rat's backside about their lives or safety.
02-13-2017, 10:26 PM #1,613
dclements Member
Posts:293 Threads:28 Joined:Jan 2017
(02-12-2017, 06:55 PM)Screaming Yellow Zonkers Wrote:  
(02-08-2017, 10:23 PM)dclements Wrote:  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.

Not all instances are "that bad".
Really... Then why don't you go volunteer to work in place of the robots at fukushima. Then get back to us. Your bullshit, no matter how thoughtfully worded, is still, BULLSHIT
I don't work in nuclear power (although I wish I was qualified enough to get a job there) however my dad was in nuclear power and I know people that work in the industry. And in case you are wondering he was exposed to a dose a radiation that had the potential to kill him while cleaning up after the TMI incident, but since the dose was mostly not adsorbed (due to the source being Beta instead of Gamma) it was mostly non-life threatening; although it is plausible that if my family pursed litigation we could potentiality win a case over it. Not that we would. To be honest I wish I could ask him more questions about the industry but he passed away in the early 90's so that is no longer possible.

I may have not made a remark recently but I have mentioned in earlier posts that I'm pro-nuclear power. Although you may not believe it, I'm more than willing to listen to any real proof about the dangers of nuclear power and have even remarked that one of the best sources of the incidents and dangers of nuclear power can be found in book called the plutonium files, which can be bought on Amazon for under $20 as well as one of the best cases of what can go wrong in a nuclear plant can be found by looking up and reading about the SL-1 test reactor in which 3-4 people died from the reactor actually going super critical; which is the about absolute worst thing that can happen to a nuclear power plant.

To be honest I would be willing to share additional things I know but I believe it might not be used in any meaningful way or it would be taken out of context by those who don't really understand how a nuclear power plant work.

I have already discussed the matter with DaJavoo to enough of a degree where we both believe that nuclear technology and power is necessary for the future (since completely abandoning existing technology could or would create worse problems) but extreme regulations and safety measures may be needed in order take every precaution until technology advances enough to make it even safer than it is today.

Today people are often so scared about the dangers of everything that in doing so they have the potential of exposing themselves to even greater risks if they try to protect themselves from something that isn't even dangerous. As a kid I was aware that there was something called 'acceptable risk' in dealing with anything and everything, but I guess such a mind set no longer applies. While worrying about radiation and what some people are saying about it, have you also considered the dangers of drinking milk, water, or anything else you consume? I'm sure you try you can find enough information about it that you either no longer feel safe about eating anything or you just get tired of the subject and not think too much about it.

Why Milk is Bad for You


Also if you look into some of these situation the is the possibility that some people may be doing this more in an effort in order to make money than out of concern for people's health; such as in some of the incidents in which Greenpeace has been accused of trying to blackmail the company's they go against.
03-04-2017, 07:46 PM #1,614
dclements Member
Posts:293 Threads:28 Joined:Jan 2017
It looks like this thread has kind of died out but in cause anyone else wants to research the negative side effects of radiation and some of the mishaps of nuclear/radiation health research I suggest finding and read a book called the 'The Plutonium Files' which can be found on Amazon and sometimes on the net as a pdf.

As I mentioned before I'm pro-nuclear and have argued on the side of nuclear technology in most of this thread so I don't think it is really necessary to have to repeat what I have said. If anyone is interested in pro-nuclear arguments they can look up some of my previous posts.

The Plutonium Files
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plutonium_Files
03-04-2017, 07:51 PM #1,615
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:40,955 Threads:1,526 Joined:Feb 2011
This thread has not died. It's been pinned since the disaster as we want to not forget this ongoing disaster
03-04-2017, 09:19 PM #1,616
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:40,955 Threads:1,526 Joined:Feb 2011
I'm totally against nuclear power in its present form and I had to start a new thread voicing one of my concerns.

http://kritterbox.com/Topic-What-happens...nt-happens
03-06-2017, 07:30 AM #1,617
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,820 Threads:441 Joined:Jun 2012
Let's look to Germany in their attempts to eliminate nuclear power and use 'safe' alternative power generation.
03-06-2017, 08:58 PM #1,618
dclements Member
Posts:293 Threads:28 Joined:Jan 2017
(03-04-2017, 09:19 PM)Octo Wrote:  I'm totally against nuclear power in its present form and I had to start a new thread voicing one of my concerns.

http://kritterbox.com/Topic-What-happens...nt-happens
If you don't mind can you specify what it is that makes you really dislike them. I can sort of agree with DaJavoo position where nuclear power plants need to be as safe as possible, that perhaps no new plants should be built until the technology makes they safer than they already are, that plants shouldn't have be built near populated areas, and things sort of along those lines, but I believe the pros outweigh the cons (or are at least equal to them) when you factor in all the the things that nuclear technology and/or nuclear medicine provide.

Or at least they do when you consider what the world would like like if we were to afraid to use nuclear technology and some countries less friendly to us where not so scared to use it themselves.
03-07-2017, 12:06 AM #1,619
dclements Member
Posts:293 Threads:28 Joined:Jan 2017
I just something that is slightly unsettling about radiation. When people are exposed to it, the exposure amount is measured in the theoretical amount of energy the body absorbs and based on that information it is estimated how they will be effected. However since there are several different types of radiation (gamma, alpha, beta, etc) it is also plausible that each different type of energy could effect us different. As far as I can tell this isn't done because there is little to no information available to compare the different effects of the different types of radiation so it is regarded as all the same.

I suppose if someone is suffering from acute radiation poisoning, it is likely that they almost all have the same effects but because each energy type is different I think there could be some difference in certain situations.
03-07-2017, 12:17 PM #1,620
DaJavoo If looks could kilt
Posts:1,780 Threads:45 Joined:Mar 2011
>>>I think there could be some difference in certain situations.<<<

DC, the difference is moot ~ radiation is f'in LETHAL to living things.

And also, please don't misrepresent me on the nuke issue. My position is this: Nuclear power needs to be replaced with viable alternatives, which are basically fossil fuel units at the present time.

Octo's recent thread on the subject (Carrington Event affect on nuclear plants) brings up the very REAL issue: WTF are we going to do with the radiated 'leftovers' we already have? Can we afford another Fukushima? That mess will be polluting the planet for a half-life of God Knows When and the rebound capacity of the planet is in doubt already, with even ONE disaster.

We're prolly already toast walking.



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