#Login Register


  • 241 Vote(s) - 3.75 Average
Home 


The Fukushima Disaster
02-03-2017, 04:38 PM #1,606
DaJavoo If looks could kilt
Posts:1,863 Threads:45 Joined:Mar 2011
İmage

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

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

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

We can do better than imperil the planet and its occupants.
02-03-2017, 07:51 PM #1,607
dclements Member
Posts:244 Threads:25 Joined:Jan 2017
(02-03-2017, 04:38 PM)DaJavoo Wrote:  İmage

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

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

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

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

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

Or in other words, the over abundance of caution that the nuclear power industry faces all but guarantees that some of the older tech will have to be used longer than it should because much of the new tech that could replace it will never make it pass the bureaucracy that it needs to go through before it is ever used. But that is the real world for you so you can't have nuclear power in the US without a near insane amount of regulation nor can you always have the best and safest tech because of said regulations.
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
02-04-2017, 12:48 PM #1,608
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
Radiation unique to Fukushima meltdown has been detected in southern B.C. salmon.

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

Consuming any Cesium-134 is unacceptable. All the words and opinions in the world will not stop cancer.
02-04-2017, 05:46 PM #1,609
dclements Member
Posts:244 Threads:25 Joined:Jan 2017
(02-04-2017, 12:48 PM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  Radiation unique to Fukushima meltdown has been detected in southern B.C. salmon.

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

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

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

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

I'm pretty sure that Cesium-134 was one of the sample radioactive sources that me and the other students handled in the labs while taking a radiation safety class and the dose of radiation we got from it was likely higher than the radiation from the trace amounts of Cesium-134 you would get from eating the fish.
02-04-2017, 07:53 PM #1,610
dclements Member
Posts:244 Threads:25 Joined:Jan 2017
I just found self-luminous tritium vials for sale on Amazon:

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

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

I just wish I could get one in a much bigger size (sort of so it looks like one of the vials Homer Simpson uses) which would make it even more scary looking.
02-05-2017, 05:56 PM #1,611
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,136 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
(02-02-2017, 10:33 PM)dclements Wrote:  In addition to knowing that nuclear energy could be used for a source for ALL our power needs it might be useful for people not familiar to nuclear power technology to know of something called radiation hormesis.

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

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

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

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

Here is a small passage from the wiki page

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

..and some other links:

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

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

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

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


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

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

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...-leukemia/
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
02-05-2017, 06:22 PM #1,612
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
(02-04-2017, 07:53 PM)dclements Wrote:  I just found self-luminous tritium vials for sale on Amazon:

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

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

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

Nice to have you here to make an ass of yourself publicly you ğkking moron.
02-05-2017, 07:36 PM #1,613
dclements Member
Posts:244 Threads:25 Joined:Jan 2017
(02-05-2017, 06:22 PM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  
(02-04-2017, 07:53 PM)dclements Wrote:  I just found self-luminous tritium vials for sale on Amazon:

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

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

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

Nice to have you here to make an ass of yourself publicly you ğkking moron.
I hope you realize A) I'm just joking B) that such vials would be prohibited from sale in the US if they presented any kind of danger C) those of who find it funny how people that don't know anything about radiation can have a irrational fear of it can't be that much of a moron since we know enough about the science to know what is and isn't safe when we either work around it or have a source near us for other reasons.
02-05-2017, 08:24 PM #1,614
dclements Member
Posts:244 Threads:25 Joined:Jan 2017
(02-05-2017, 05:56 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(02-02-2017, 10:33 PM)dclements Wrote:  In addition to knowing that nuclear energy could be used for a source for ALL our power needs it might be useful for people not familiar to nuclear power technology to know of something called radiation hormesis.

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

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

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

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

Here is a small passage from the wiki page

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

..and some other links:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Usually the radiation people get from nuclear power plants in the US is not enough to be a factor since most of us get about a hundred to a thousand (maybe even a hundred thousand for some people) more times radiation for elsewhere in our environment but I think it is something one should look into if they have any concern about ANY radiation or toxins that get exposed to on a daily basis and not just that from nuclear power plants.
02-06-2017, 01:23 PM #1,615
DaJavoo If looks could kilt
Posts:1,863 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 #1,616
dclements Member
Posts:244 Threads:25 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, 06:13 PM #1,617
Screaming Yellow Zonkers Member
Posts:2,706 Threads:265 Joined:Apr 2013
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-02-06-un...floor.html

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

aaah2.gif
02-08-2017, 09:38 PM #1,618
dclements Member
Posts:244 Threads:25 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 #1,619
dclements Member
Posts:244 Threads:25 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 #1,620
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.



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