Japan Fukushima nuclear thread
Discussion
Globs said:
So why don't you try a post on topic now? (hint, about the Fukushima nuclear disaster, that subject you have studiously avoided).
Okay what do you think we should do Abandon nuclear power for "safer" methods like oil and coal which only kill a few hundred people a year
As to Fukushima
s
t happens, and when st happens we learn from it
Globs said:
I think we should discuss the Fukushima nuclear plant. That's what the thread is for.
bad stuff happened and the japs will do anything to save faceWe will learn from it
Also the media loves to paint nuclear as hyper dangerous but pays very little attention to other industries
Have you any idea how many folk died in farming in the UK?
Globs said:
The midst of discussion of over 8000 km contaminated with the radioactive contents of three reactors
since you've mentioned it again - and have commenting on risk perception - perhaps you could share your perception of the level of risk assocated with that level of surface contamination? say: for someone staying there for a year?thinfourth2 said:
Globs said:
I think we should discuss the Fukushima nuclear plant. That's what the thread is for.
bad stuff happened and the japs will do anything to save faceWe will learn from it
Also the media loves to paint nuclear as hyper dangerous but pays very little attention to other industries
Have you any idea how many folk died in farming in the UK?
If you have a particular agenda, why not start your own thread about it, there's a good chap.
llewop said:
Globs said:
The midst of discussion of over 8000 km contaminated with the radioactive contents of three reactors
since you've mentioned it again - and have commenting on risk perception - perhaps you could share your perception of the level of risk assocated with that level of surface contamination? say: for someone staying there for a year?If you disagree I'm sure land prices there are sufficiently low for you to now swoop in and buy up some prime farming land that you will be very happy with. I expect the Japanese landowners would welcome you with open arms too, and hold you up as an example to us all.
Good luck and let us know how you get on.
Globs said:
thinfourth2 said:
Globs said:
I think we should discuss the Fukushima nuclear plant. That's what the thread is for.
bad stuff happened and the japs will do anything to save faceWe will learn from it
Also the media loves to paint nuclear as hyper dangerous but pays very little attention to other industries
Have you any idea how many folk died in farming in the UK?
If you have a particular agenda, why not start your own thread about it, there's a good chap.
Globs said:
This thread is for people pontificating about the performance of the various agencies involved, and who want to discuss the nuclear aspect.
Would you prefer to run around screaming that we are all going to end up with 2 heads while being chased by nuclear glow in the dark zombie cows?Globs said:
llewop said:
Globs said:
The midst of discussion of over 8000 km contaminated with the radioactive contents of three reactors
since you've mentioned it again - and have commenting on risk perception - perhaps you could share your perception of the level of risk assocated with that level of surface contamination? say: for someone staying there for a year?Globs said:
llewop said:
Globs said:
The midst of discussion of over 8000 km contaminated with the radioactive contents of three reactors
since you've mentioned it again - and have commenting on risk perception - perhaps you could share your perception of the level of risk assocated with that level of surface contamination? say: for someone staying there for a year?If you disagree I'm sure land prices there are sufficiently low for you to now swoop in and buy up some prime farming land that you will be very happy with. I expect the Japanese landowners would welcome you with open arms too, and hold you up as an example to us all.
Good luck and let us know how you get on.
I certainly bow to those that are better educated and informed than myself...my perception of the risks and consequences of the accident are based on the collective opinion of some exceedingly well educated and well informed people - whats yours based on? knee-jerk outrage?
btw in terms of me vs other people: this is where I work:
so I'm quite fine thank you.
but if this thread is only for emotive objection and outrage that what happened happened rather than informed debate - that is a pity.
llewop said:
the level of contamination for that 8000km2 that you mention was 30,000 Bq/m2. - pick a number or even an abstract concept of what you consider safe/dangerous/risky how ever you care to define it: are you suggesting someone staying there would be in danger of their life? now? soon? sometime? ever?
I certainly bow to those that are better educated and informed than myself...my perception of the risks and consequences of the accident are based on the collective opinion of some exceedingly well educated and well informed people - whats yours based on? knee-jerk outrage?
The classification of Fukushima as an INES Level 7 disaster states:I certainly bow to those that are better educated and informed than myself...my perception of the risks and consequences of the accident are based on the collective opinion of some exceedingly well educated and well informed people - whats yours based on? knee-jerk outrage?
"Major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures."
so effectively it's people like you, and your colleagues that have decided there is a risk, not me.
As for the level, 30,000 Bq/m2 is way too hot for me. That's 30,000 events per second, if you were to eat vegetables grown on that ground you'd be ingesting over time tens of thousands of particles that when they decay are capable of causing cancers.
We should remember the damage radiation does to people before we write it off as harmless. I'm glad to see you are involved in the Chernobyl cleanup, please do not get too blasé about the risks - I know it's easy to do so when you work in a particular field and just because you are prepared to take that risk doesn't mean other people should be forced to.
Globs said:
We should remember the damage radiation does to people before we write it off as harmless. I'm glad to see you are involved in the Chernobyl cleanup, please do not get too blasé about the risks - I know it's easy to do so when you work in a particular field and just because you are prepared to take that risk doesn't mean other people should be forced to.
No body has said it is harmless but you have refused to acknowledge any risks from oil and coalAccording to greenpeace who are well known for their level headed reporting say that 97,000 people were killed by Chernobyl
The same level headed news organisation report 650,000 die each year from air pollution most of which comes from oil and coal
so 97,000 people over 20 years or 650,000 people a year
Which is more dangerous?
thinfourth2 said:
The same level headed news organisation report 650,000 die each year from air pollution most of which comes from oil and coal
Man gets hit by truck. The autopsy detects traces of environmental pollutants in his body. Greenpeace declares another pollution-related death.Globs said:
As for the level, 30,000 Bq/m2 is way too hot for me. That's 30,000 events per second, if you were to eat vegetables grown on that ground you'd be ingesting over time tens of thousands of particles that when they decay are capable of causing cancers.
As with all nuclear measures that seems a scarily high number. Natural potassium decay in your body averages >4000Bq. 30kBq is about 2000 bananas. I'm not saying that it's a good thing but the whole point was that you need to have a sense of perspective. In others words, how likely it is to cause the cancers.The doses in the exclusion zone even in the hot-ish bits, over a year, will be in the 10's of mSv range. That's in the area where it's impossible to demonstrate significantly increased risks. All of the dose standards (10mSv for rad workers etc) are extrapolated back from high dose acute exposures in the bomb survivors assuming a linear model.
hairykrishna said:
As with all nuclear measures that seems a scarily high number. Natural potassium decay in your body averages >4000Bq. 30kBq is about 2000 bananas.
<daily mail mode = ON>And think how ill you would be if you were force feed 2000 bananas in a one sitting
So you have proven that radiation makes you ill
<daily mail mode = OFF>
hairykrishna said:
As with all nuclear measures that seems a scarily high number. Natural potassium decay in your body averages >4000Bq. 30kBq is about 2000 bananas. I'm not saying that it's a good thing but the whole point was that you need to have a sense of perspective. In others words, how likely it is to cause the cancers.
That was just the additional Cesium137 count, the other naturally deposited + weapons testing/usage sources are still there. People get cancer/leukemia etc without the help of additional radiation, some will happen from cosmic rays for instance. It's a statistics game: More activity = more people die, even if the percentage is small.
Radioactive pollution is not an exclusive problem for reactors, the use of depleted uranium in shells is deliberate contamination of areas for temporary battlefield gains - do we count that as background radiation/contamination too now?
Back to the plant:
Does anyone have any ideas what we would expect to see if the meltdown goes down some of the torus tubes, melts through the thinner concrete there and into the groundwater?
Also what compound related to reactors is yellow? Could it be a uranium compound that was seen by the Japanese?
hairykrishna said:
As with all nuclear measures that seems a scarily high number. Natural potassium decay in your body averages >4000Bq. 30kBq is about 2000 bananas. I'm not saying that it's a good thing but the whole point was that you need to have a sense of perspective. In others words, how likely it is to cause the cancers.
The doses in the exclusion zone even in the hot-ish bits, over a year, will be in the 10's of mSv range. That's in the area where it's impossible to demonstrate significantly increased risks. All of the dose standards (10mSv for rad workers etc) are extrapolated back from high dose acute exposures in the bomb survivors assuming a linear model.
You're right about the dose standards. The 'safety' levels are laughably low really. A lifetime ago I worked as a scientist at a military nuclear facility and just after I joined was packed off to a Health Physics course at Imperial College, London to get some background information. It was a bit of an eye opener, very interesting, and made me realise the scale of public misconception about what is dangerous and what isn't. A little anecdote for you. When we returned from the course one of the guys wanted to check out some of the information we had been given, that coal ash shows quite a high relative level of radioactivity. So he brought in a sample from his grate at home, toddled off down the lab and had a look. It did indeed show some activity and because it was now in controlled nuclear lab, he had to dispose of it as low level waste. Which gives you an idea of the level of activity of much of the low level stuff that is currently buried.The doses in the exclusion zone even in the hot-ish bits, over a year, will be in the 10's of mSv range. That's in the area where it's impossible to demonstrate significantly increased risks. All of the dose standards (10mSv for rad workers etc) are extrapolated back from high dose acute exposures in the bomb survivors assuming a linear model.
The dose you get from living in Aberdeen or Cornwall is more than most people would appreciate and you can get a fair old dose from an Atlantic flight. One of my jobs was to help calibrate the in-flight radiation warning monitor on Concorde. This aircraft flew so high that at times of high solar activity (flares etc) the dose received by those on board could be unacceptably high, particularly for the crew who were exposed for longer due to multiple trips. The monitor would alert the crew and they would have to fly lower.
The safe dose levels, as mentioned, are mainly derived from the effects of acute exposure from the atomic bomb survivors as it's obviously impossible to do meaningful experiments with humans. Animal experiments have limited usefulness. When you see 'facts' saying such-and-such incident caused x thousand cancers or birth defects it is usually as the result of a statistical analysis not the result of real attributable data.
Contamination leading to ingestion is of more concern as the isotope is in very close contact with the body and can also be toxic as well as radioactive.
hairykrishna said:
As with all nuclear measures that seems a scarily high number. Natural potassium decay in your body averages >4000Bq. 30kBq is about 2000 bananas.
Is potassium an alpha emitter?There's a difference between eating bananas and getting particles of used nuclear fuel stuck in your lungs. Even if the apparent dose might be similar.
hairykrishna said:
What proportion of the 30k Bq/m^2 is alpha emitters?
I don't know, you're the expert!As far as I know most of it is caesium 137. But, there has been release of transuranic elements as well. Saying that the earth is full of naturally occurring uranium and people contain potassium40 doesn't make everything ok.
Globs said:
That was just the additional Cesium137 count, the other naturally deposited + weapons testing/usage sources are still there.
People get cancer/leukemia etc without the help of additional radiation, some will happen from cosmic rays for instance. It's a statistics game: More activity = more people die, even if the percentage is small.
Radioactive pollution is not an exclusive problem for reactors, the use of depleted uranium in shells is deliberate contamination of areas for temporary battlefield gains - do we count that as background radiation/contamination too now?
Your first point is debatable. The truth is that nobody knows for sure how accurate the linear no threshold model is for low doses - below ~100 mSv. We use it because it's not inconsistent with the limited data and it likely represents 'worst case' which is what you want for health and safety type calculations. Again, I'm not saying that the exclusion zone shouldn't be emptied or that it's a good thing. It's just important not to lose sight of relative risks. People get cancer/leukemia etc without the help of additional radiation, some will happen from cosmic rays for instance. It's a statistics game: More activity = more people die, even if the percentage is small.
Radioactive pollution is not an exclusive problem for reactors, the use of depleted uranium in shells is deliberate contamination of areas for temporary battlefield gains - do we count that as background radiation/contamination too now?
The radioactive contamination from DU tends to be extremely localised. Unless you're climbing around in burnt out tanks it's unlikely to contribute any background dose. As I understand it the toxicity is more of a concern than the radiological hazard anyway.
Edited by hairykrishna on Sunday 11th December 13:42
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff