#Login Register


  • 241 Vote(s) - 3.75 Average
Home 


The Fukushima Disaster
11-15-2012, 06:11 PM #1,111
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,843 Threads:419 Joined:Jun 2012
(11-14-2012, 03:01 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-13-2012, 05:41 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-13-2012, 04:00 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 08:08 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 05:33 AM)Octo Wrote:  Well he did take a university course in nuclei calculation 13.gif

lol.gif


Pics or it didn't happen. 13.gif


I do have my Michigan Technological University (Michigan Tech) diploma. I took nucleonics as part of the EE power option (all 60 of my free elective credits were taken in heavy engineering - humanities are a waste for an Engineer).


Nevermind.


Huh? If you have a nuclear engineer in your pocket I'd be happy to discourse with him. I have some questions about soil concentration gradients and absorption coefficients.

The best quote I ever got from a nuclear engineer was that more civilians died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car than were killed by radiation from US commercial power plant accidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_D...ower_Plant

You previously made some comments on the generator situation. It seems the story is a little involved (not all the comments address the generators).
1. The nuclear power plant is actually in Futaba/Okuma (Fukushima is the province and Fukushima the city is 35 miles away)
2. The bluff the plant is built on was 10 meters (33 ft) higher and was LOWERED so the power plant would sit on bedrock and to reduce the water pumping cost. It would have been safe at the original elevation.
3. The generators were supposed to be in located inside the power plant in the GE reference design. The TEPCO engineers thought there was a flooding danger so they moved them outside where they were swept away.
4. It appears the TEPCO engineers were very worried about earthquake proofing to the point that Tsunamis were a secondary consideration.
5. The Japanese government is paying for cleanup of soil contamination over 2 mS/y (.23 μS/h) or about 2/3rds the normal background radiation or about 5 S/y total exposure. If the US applied this standard we would have to clean up Denver (background radiation is over 6 mS/y).
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/conte...7_1113.pdf
6. The latest pine needle sampling report shows 25 μS/h at Akougi Kunugidaira (hill country 15 miles NW of the power plant), and 5 μS/h in Iitate village 26 miles NW. There is a plume shaped area to the NW of the facility that is fairly toasty.
7. The comparison of Chernobyl and Fukushima is problematic for several reasons. Not only did over 1/2 of the radiation from Fukushima go into the ocean but the Cesium release was only 1/7 as much (11 PBq vs 87 to 121 PBq) so there is only about 1/20th as much Cesium to worry about. Chernobyl also released 8 PBq of Strontium 90. Even worse, 6 tons of the Chernobyl reactor core went into the atmosphere. Little if any of the Fukushima core vaporized/burned.

Found this:
http://atomicinsights.com/2012/08/fissio...share.html
This is a piece of boosterism for unlimited clean nuclear energy that I generally agree with. Fossil fuel producers and users are accused of being greedy, selfish, dirty, etc. etc. Nuclear is a realistic option. Solar and Wind are unsuitable for base band power generation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-d5j3VFNRI
Fun video of a Russian wandering around the Chernobyl exclusion zone with a geiger counter unprotected.


It seems these nuclear engineers defend this technology very strongly. My nephew likes to say "It's only background radiation". 13.gif

So nevermind.

4. It appears the TEPCO engineers were very worried about earthquake proofing to the point that Tsunamis were a secondary consideration.

It appears tsunamis were not a consideration at all or at the very least they didn't even err on the side of safety.

From link:

"High dwellings are the peace and harmony of our descendants, remember the calamity of the great tsunamis. Do not build any homes below this point."

http://historyofgeology.fieldofscience.c...japan.html
11-16-2012, 03:04 AM #1,112
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(11-15-2012, 06:11 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-14-2012, 03:01 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-13-2012, 05:41 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-13-2012, 04:00 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 08:08 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Pics or it didn't happen. 13.gif


I do have my Michigan Technological University (Michigan Tech) diploma. I took nucleonics as part of the EE power option (all 60 of my free elective credits were taken in heavy engineering - humanities are a waste for an Engineer).


Nevermind.


Huh? If you have a nuclear engineer in your pocket I'd be happy to discourse with him. I have some questions about soil concentration gradients and absorption coefficients.

The best quote I ever got from a nuclear engineer was that more civilians died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car than were killed by radiation from US commercial power plant accidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_D...ower_Plant

You previously made some comments on the generator situation. It seems the story is a little involved (not all the comments address the generators).
1. The nuclear power plant is actually in Futaba/Okuma (Fukushima is the province and Fukushima the city is 35 miles away)
2. The bluff the plant is built on was 10 meters (33 ft) higher and was LOWERED so the power plant would sit on bedrock and to reduce the water pumping cost. It would have been safe at the original elevation.
3. The generators were supposed to be in located inside the power plant in the GE reference design. The TEPCO engineers thought there was a flooding danger so they moved them outside where they were swept away.
4. It appears the TEPCO engineers were very worried about earthquake proofing to the point that Tsunamis were a secondary consideration.
5. The Japanese government is paying for cleanup of soil contamination over 2 mS/y (.23 μS/h) or about 2/3rds the normal background radiation or about 5 S/y total exposure. If the US applied this standard we would have to clean up Denver (background radiation is over 6 mS/y).
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/conte...7_1113.pdf
6. The latest pine needle sampling report shows 25 μS/h at Akougi Kunugidaira (hill country 15 miles NW of the power plant), and 5 μS/h in Iitate village 26 miles NW. There is a plume shaped area to the NW of the facility that is fairly toasty.
7. The comparison of Chernobyl and Fukushima is problematic for several reasons. Not only did over 1/2 of the radiation from Fukushima go into the ocean but the Cesium release was only 1/7 as much (11 PBq vs 87 to 121 PBq) so there is only about 1/20th as much Cesium to worry about. Chernobyl also released 8 PBq of Strontium 90. Even worse, 6 tons of the Chernobyl reactor core went into the atmosphere. Little if any of the Fukushima core vaporized/burned.

Found this:
http://atomicinsights.com/2012/08/fissio...share.html
This is a piece of boosterism for unlimited clean nuclear energy that I generally agree with. Fossil fuel producers and users are accused of being greedy, selfish, dirty, etc. etc. Nuclear is a realistic option. Solar and Wind are unsuitable for base band power generation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-d5j3VFNRI
Fun video of a Russian wandering around the Chernobyl exclusion zone with a geiger counter unprotected.


It seems these nuclear engineers defend this technology very strongly. My nephew likes to say "It's only background radiation". 13.gif

So nevermind.

4. It appears the TEPCO engineers were very worried about earthquake proofing to the point that Tsunamis were a secondary consideration.

It appears tsunamis were not a consideration at all or at the very least they didn't even err on the side of safety.

From link:

"High dwellings are the peace and harmony of our descendants, remember the calamity of the great tsunamis. Do not build any homes below this point."

http://historyofgeology.fieldofscience.c...japan.html


Engineers don't attack or defend anything.

Engineers analyze.

The total mass of radioactive elements released from Fukushima was less than a gallon. The anti-nuclear forces are saying that a gallon spread over millions of square miles or 10s of millions of cubic kilometers of water is dangerous.

If you tell this to an engineer, after he stops laughing he will ask you if you are serious and why.

The TEPCO engineers were weighing a number of factors. Earthquakes were judged to be the greater threat and up until a year and a half ago they were right.
11-17-2012, 05:44 PM #1,113
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,843 Threads:419 Joined:Jun 2012
The facts don't lie...

Quote: (Fuk fish 100 times above norm)

Japan's environment ministry carried out the tests in June−July this year in the Niida river to the north of the Fukushima plant, and also in the village of Iitate.

http://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/fukushi...34039.html

More...

Quote:

Sample fish caught in waters near the stricken reactors suggest there is still a source of caesium either on the seafloor or still being discharged into the sea, ...

damned.gif

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...ioactivity
11-17-2012, 07:15 PM #1,114
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(11-17-2012, 05:44 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  The facts don't lie...

Quote: (Fuk fish 100 times above norm)

Japan's environment ministry carried out the tests in June−July this year in the Niida river to the north of the Fukushima plant, and also in the village of Iitate.


They caught their hottest fish in the Niida river. The mouth of the river empties into the ocean less than a mile from the plant and the fish would have been caught a mile or two away from the plant.

The Istate fish is from the hottest spot up in the hills about 15 miles away.
(11-17-2012, 05:44 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  More...


Quote:


Sample fish caught in waters near the stricken reactors suggest there is still a source of caesium either on the seafloor or still being discharged into the sea, ...


damned.gif


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...ioactivity

Saw that a while back - the cesium level in the ocean off Fukushima isn't changing. It should be dispersing and the concentration should decline. That isn't what is happening. Since they aren't dumping water deliberately, that means the radiation is getting there undeliberately. There are 4 reactors that will be decommissioned. It isn't clear which if any are the source. But the sooner the reactors are decommissioned the sooner we will know for sure. There was a crack around the #2 reactor that was sealed and a crack in the #3 containment vessel. Even after the cracks are sealed that doesn't fix radioactive water already in the crack.

It is doubtful that there would be a natural source of Cesium on the ocean floor.

The fish around California have about 5 Bq/kg of activity. The fish off Fukushima (worst case) are between 300 and 1000 Bq/kg. The Japanese limit used to be 500 Bq/kg, now it is 100 Bq/kg. Some of the Fukushima fish are eatable under the older Japanese guidelines.

The plan is to clean up the fuel soaking pools in two years and the reactor cores in 10. Those fish could be hot for a while.
11-19-2012, 12:57 PM #1,115
smart-ass Member
Posts:282 Threads:26 Joined:Jul 2012
(11-16-2012, 03:04 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-15-2012, 06:11 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-14-2012, 03:01 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-13-2012, 05:41 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-13-2012, 04:00 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  I do have my Michigan Technological University (Michigan Tech) diploma. I took nucleonics as part of the EE power option (all 60 of my free elective credits were taken in heavy engineering - humanities are a waste for an Engineer).

Nevermind.


Huh? If you have a nuclear engineer in your pocket I'd be happy to discourse with him. I have some questions about soil concentration gradients and absorption coefficients.

The best quote I ever got from a nuclear engineer was that more civilians died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car than were killed by radiation from US commercial power plant accidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_D...ower_Plant

You previously made some comments on the generator situation. It seems the story is a little involved (not all the comments address the generators).
1. The nuclear power plant is actually in Futaba/Okuma (Fukushima is the province and Fukushima the city is 35 miles away)
2. The bluff the plant is built on was 10 meters (33 ft) higher and was LOWERED so the power plant would sit on bedrock and to reduce the water pumping cost. It would have been safe at the original elevation.
3. The generators were supposed to be in located inside the power plant in the GE reference design. The TEPCO engineers thought there was a flooding danger so they moved them outside where they were swept away.
4. It appears the TEPCO engineers were very worried about earthquake proofing to the point that Tsunamis were a secondary consideration.
5. The Japanese government is paying for cleanup of soil contamination over 2 mS/y (.23 μS/h) or about 2/3rds the normal background radiation or about 5 S/y total exposure. If the US applied this standard we would have to clean up Denver (background radiation is over 6 mS/y).
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/conte...7_1113.pdf
6. The latest pine needle sampling report shows 25 μS/h at Akougi Kunugidaira (hill country 15 miles NW of the power plant), and 5 μS/h in Iitate village 26 miles NW. There is a plume shaped area to the NW of the facility that is fairly toasty.
7. The comparison of Chernobyl and Fukushima is problematic for several reasons. Not only did over 1/2 of the radiation from Fukushima go into the ocean but the Cesium release was only 1/7 as much (11 PBq vs 87 to 121 PBq) so there is only about 1/20th as much Cesium to worry about. Chernobyl also released 8 PBq of Strontium 90. Even worse, 6 tons of the Chernobyl reactor core went into the atmosphere. Little if any of the Fukushima core vaporized/burned.

Found this:
http://atomicinsights.com/2012/08/fissio...share.html
This is a piece of boosterism for unlimited clean nuclear energy that I generally agree with. Fossil fuel producers and users are accused of being greedy, selfish, dirty, etc. etc. Nuclear is a realistic option. Solar and Wind are unsuitable for base band power generation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-d5j3VFNRI
Fun video of a Russian wandering around the Chernobyl exclusion zone with a geiger counter unprotected.


It seems these nuclear engineers defend this technology very strongly. My nephew likes to say "It's only background radiation". 13.gif

So nevermind.

4. It appears the TEPCO engineers were very worried about earthquake proofing to the point that Tsunamis were a secondary consideration.

It appears tsunamis were not a consideration at all or at the very least they didn't even err on the side of safety.

From link:

"High dwellings are the peace and harmony of our descendants, remember the calamity of the great tsunamis. Do not build any homes below this point."

http://historyofgeology.fieldofscience.c...japan.html


Engineers don't attack or defend anything.

Engineers analyze.

The total mass of radioactive elements released from Fukushima was less than a gallon. The anti-nuclear forces are saying that a gallon spread over millions of square miles or 10s of millions of cubic kilometers of water is dangerous.

If you tell this to an engineer, after he stops laughing he will ask you if you are serious and why.

The TEPCO engineers were weighing a number of factors. Earthquakes were judged to be the greater threat and up until a year and a half ago they were right.
ave to ask, what is your name here, or when replying to your post do we call you frog as your av shows?
cheers.gif

Beware of the booger eater he'snot full uhoh.gif
11-19-2012, 09:41 PM #1,116
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,843 Threads:419 Joined:Jun 2012
I think JR already translated it to be tadpole and I verified it using Google translate.

http://translate.google.com/?hl=en#auto/...F%E3%82%B7

cheers.gif
11-19-2012, 10:31 PM #1,117
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,843 Threads:419 Joined:Jun 2012
Quote:

Experts warn that Japan's second largest lake with a surface area of 220 sq. km is quietly but steadfastly accumulating radioactive cesium released from the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

and

More disturbing than this, however, is that 20 months after the nuclear crisis, government agencies have shown no signs that they are trying to prevent the accumulation of cesium in the lake

... one obvious thing: it hasn't gone away.

and

Government regulations state that soil containing more than 8,000 Bq/kg of cesium is considered to emit levels of radiation that pose a danger to human health and therefore must be sealed away.

----

I wonder if they are altering the levels of radiation numbers.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20121118x3.html

11-20-2012, 07:23 AM #1,118
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,843 Threads:419 Joined:Jun 2012
(11-13-2012, 04:00 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 08:08 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 05:33 AM)Octo Wrote:  Well he did take a university course in nuclei calculation 13.gif

lol.gif


Pics or it didn't happen. 13.gif


I do have my Michigan Technological University (Michigan Tech) diploma. I took nucleonics as part of the EE power option (all 60 of my free elective credits were taken in heavy engineering - humanities are a waste for an Engineer).


Not a waste for a well rounded engineer.
11-24-2012, 01:23 AM #1,119
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(11-20-2012, 07:23 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-13-2012, 04:00 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 08:08 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 05:33 AM)Octo Wrote:  Well he did take a university course in nuclei calculation 13.gif

lol.gif


Pics or it didn't happen. 13.gif


I do have my Michigan Technological University (Michigan Tech) diploma. I took nucleonics as part of the EE power option (all 60 of my free elective credits were taken in heavy engineering - humanities are a waste for an Engineer).


Not a waste for a well rounded engineer.


I didn't see any purpose in being overweight. There are very few "well rounded" marathon runners.
11-24-2012, 05:14 AM #1,120
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,843 Threads:419 Joined:Jun 2012
(11-24-2012, 01:23 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-20-2012, 07:23 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-13-2012, 04:00 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 08:08 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 05:33 AM)Octo Wrote:  Well he did take a university course in nuclei calculation 13.gif

lol.gif


Pics or it didn't happen. 13.gif


I do have my Michigan Technological University (Michigan Tech) diploma. I took nucleonics as part of the EE power option (all 60 of my free elective credits were taken in heavy engineering - humanities are a waste for an Engineer).


Not a waste for a well rounded engineer.


I didn't see any purpose in being overweight. There are very few "well rounded" marathon runners.


Nevermind. I took marathon running in a well rounded manner.
11-24-2012, 05:53 PM #1,121
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,843 Threads:419 Joined:Jun 2012
damned.gif

Fukushima: thyroid growths in children spark concern...

http://www.ww4report.com/node/11715

It was only a matter of time.
11-24-2012, 08:07 PM #1,122
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(11-24-2012, 05:53 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  damned.gif

Fukushima: thyroid growths in children spark concern...

http://www.ww4report.com/node/11715

It was only a matter of time.


"Sigh". The two worst radionucleotides are Iodine 131 and Strontium 90. They replace important nutrients.

Iodine 131 replaces natural iodine. 40% of the world population is iodine deficient. It is the greatest single cause of mental retardation. In the absence of Iodine pills - a surplus of Iodine is immediately incorporated the thyroid. Exposure is only an issue for about a month after the release of the Iodine (because of the half life). But once Iodine is in the thyroid it tends to stay in the thyroid. However high Iodine 131 treatments for Graves disease haven't shown an increase in thyroid cancer so there is some tolerance for Iodine 131. Thyroid nodules occur in about 50% of the young normally (from wiki).

Strontium 90 is a replacement for Calcium. 75% of Americans are calcium deficient. Any Strontium 90 absorbed will be incorporated in the skeleton (leading to leukemia). Strontium 90 has about a 30 year half life. Fortunately little or no Strontium 90 was released by Fukushima (unlike Chernobyl).

Don't know how bad the Fukushima exposure was. Given the short half life it is hard to get Iodine 131 through the food chain. Thyroid nodules are very common - the actual cancer rate is the only measure of whether the population received a dangerous dose of radiation. Fukushima has 1 cancer case. Since there was a 1/3 chance of a cancer case anyway it is too soon to say there is a problem. Treating the population with large doses of Iodine 131 isn't a good idea. Epidemiologists will study Fukushima closely to improve their understanding of how sensitive to Iodine 131 at moderate levels people are.
11-26-2012, 09:40 PM #1,123
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,843 Threads:419 Joined:Jun 2012
'The government has to err on the side of caution and be inclusive.'
—Anand Grover, UN special rapporteur on the right to health

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/...shima.html
11-27-2012, 04:11 PM #1,124
Upāsaka Member
Posts:1,383 Threads:252 Joined:Feb 2011
This was posted by the creator at enenews

Free online PDF Why DNA and ionizing radiation are a dangerous mix, an expose of the Nuke Industry, by Ace Hoffman. > http://www.acehoffman.org/

http://www.acehoffman.org/books/TheCodeKillers.pdf
11-27-2012, 09:03 PM #1,125
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,843 Threads:419 Joined:Jun 2012
Fuk children thyroid cancer...still waiting for more data - from which source? dunno.gif

http://www.examiner.com/video/radioactiv...-formula-1

http://www.examiner.com/article/43-of-fu...ys-it-s-ok

The question I am grappling with is which of the two sources should one believe? The Japanese Gov't or the independent doctor's second opinions?



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