Fukushima beyond point of no return, area irradiated for generations to come

[GoldenRivet]

http://www.naturalnews.com/031894_Fukushima_meltdown.html

what is your opinion of this article?

:cry:

[Rilder]

That article seemed to come off as an overreaction and an excuse to bash Obama.

[GoldenRivet]

That article seemed to come off as an overreaction and an excuse to bash Obama.

I sensed the writer was writing with a fair degree of frustration... albeit i dont think his frustration is entirely misplaced.


focusing more on the issue at hand... i think the situation in Japan is lost. I think things are going to get worse for the Japanese before they get better.

its a sad situation, even if they manage to cover the thing with sand and concrete, they are looking at a massive area of already scarce land which will be uninhabitable for many many years to come.

[Torplexed]

http://www.naturalnews.com/031894_Fukushima_meltdown.html

what is your opinion of this article?

:cry:


The advertisements on the right of the page do give me the impression that any journalistic impartiality was shoved aside long ago in favor of mixing profit with panic. Their top sellers appear to be potassium iodide pills, and "How to cure almost any cancer at home." :-?

[Penguin]

The advertisements on the right of the page do give me the impression that any journalistic impartiality was shoved aside long ago in favor of mixing profit with panic. Their top sellers appear to be potassium iodide pills, and "How to cure almost any cancer at home." :-?

:agree:
As much as I am against atomic energy, I have to admit that the article and the site is bs. Seems that hey take part in fear-mongering to sell their stuff!

cure almost any cancer at home for only 5 bucks a day, buy our iodine pills...:nope:


A former General Electric nuclear expert told The Guardian that Japan (http://www.naturalnews.com/Japan.html) appears to have "lost the race" to save the reactor.

The only feasible interpretation from this analysis is that radiation emissions from Fukushima (http://www.naturalnews.com/Fukushima.html) could suddenly become much greater. It is also now obvious that the radioactive fallout from Fukushima will last for decades, if not centuries.
Also this is no scientific argumentation, to draw an interpreting conclusion from a vague statement. I stopped reading there.

It bothers me more that real news sources report a rise of radiation in the ocean near Fukushima, not good.

[Tribesman]

The advertisements on the right of the page do give me the impression that any journalistic impartiality was shoved aside long ago in favor of mixing profit with panic. Their top sellers appear to be potassium iodide pills, and "How to cure almost any cancer at home."
Did you notice the buy iodine now at a silly price before we raise the price to even sillier levels?

[TLAM Strike]

Total load of bull... :roll:

The problem is that there's not even enough concrete in Japan to handle the job. To accomplish such a task, Japan would have to import not only thousands of pieces of industrial concrete-handling trucks and machinery; it would also have to import concrete materials by the ship-load. We're talking about millions of tons of concrete materials, shipped in by ocean, from all over the world.

Has anybody done the math on how long that will take to coordinate? Just getting the materials shipped to Japan within 30 days would be a miracle. Japan imports everything! Luckily there is one of the biggest industrial powers in the world about 1000 miles off Japans southern coast (China), not to mention South Korea and Taiwan could help supply concrete and vehicles very quickly.

And you can't just plop down concrete and hope it sticks: You have to engineer the concrete effort so that it can resist future tsunamis and earthquakes. Normally, this would be at least a five-year project. No you don't! Just stop the reactor... then take the five years to build something around the mess of concrete that can withstand earthquakes and tsunamis.

[Torplexed]

"How do you bury Fukushima for good?...The problem is that there's not even enough concrete in Japan to handle the job."
A huge concrete dome was built over a nuclear bomb crater on Eniwetok Atoll to enclose radioactive waste from years of H-bomb testing. Despite being in the middle of the Pacific, with no industries or concrete for thousands of miles it did get built somehow. I'm not saying this would be ideal for Japan's situation but it does give one the impression that the journalist behind the article is making little or no effort at researching any past history on this problem.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Runit_Dome_001.jpg

[Herr-Berbunch]

And Eniwetok Atoll took over forty seperate nuclear tests, and they think one concrete dome on just one site makes it all better! :nope:

It may sound callous, or just plain wrong - and that's not my intention, but I'm guessing that at least the Japanese are the best placed to deal with any future health issues arising from Fukushima?

[Bakkels]

Berbunch, yes it might be a sensitive issue you're referring to, but you're nevertheless right. If any country has experience with long term effects of radiation, it would be Japan.

But this article is one big load of you know what. You can't compare this to Tsjernobyl or the two bombs in any way. Those were much bigger explosions, blowing radioactive dust miles high in the atmosphere. The explosions at Fukushima were relatively small, plus it has been raining a lot during those explosions, making the fall out area relatively small.

That is not to say that an area of about 50 miles around the reactors will be uninhabitable for years to come (however, this period can range from thousands of years to only something like twenty years, depending on the isotopes that leaked) but telling Americans to buy iodine pills is ridiculous.
You wouldn't even know when to take those pills, they only have an effect if you swallow them right before coming into contact with radioactive material. Actually, I'm wondering if what this site is doing isn't even illegal. And if not, it should be imo. They're trying to make a profit over the backs of people who REALLY suffered from this tragedy. Sickening.

[Takeda Shingen]

So, it's Obama's fault.

Seriously, I did read the article. It does seem to be written by one of those alarmist types.

[Catfish]

Worse than Tchernobyl, may be.

Let us compare .. In Tchernobyl 50 kilograms of plutonium vaporated into the air, you know the stuff with which - theoretically - a spoonful would be enough to kill all England if dispersed properly - not only because of radiation but being the most toxic element - but 50 kilograms.

Plutonium is heavy, so thankfully this stuff came all down around Tchernobyl and along the predominant winds, but the bad news is it will remain there and radiate for the next some 10,000s of years.

How much plutonium is in reactor block 3, in Fukushima ?
225 kilograms or so i heard, in the now molten MOX rods.
And they find plutonium all over the place around the reactor, and in the water. The containment at least from this reactor #3 is breeched, so this certainly affects the ground water, and also deeper strata.

There have already been new explosions with radiation spikes, and i do not believe one word of what TEPCO officially says, or the japanese government.

Remember, all rods were in, the reactors scrammed soon after the quake, but the cores melted nevertheless when the cooling system failed. They cannot get the reactors "back", the only option is sealing them, forever :shifty:

Greetings,
Catfish

[tater]

Actually, Chernobyl =, due to being a coal burning nuclear plant (graphite moderators ;) . Never, as they say, burn coal in your nuclear power plant) sent the fallout very high aloft. The situation in Japan may well release more contamination, but it should also be more localized on the land side. At sea, it gets distributed in 3D, and over a vast area of dilution. The radioisotopes released are different for this situation, though. I don't think this is a rosy situation by any means, but the reporting to date has been almost universally abysmal. The article posted was not even news, it was a barely literate rant.

This is all alarmist crap. Nuclear power is the best option we have right now for large-scale power production. Cutting use quite simply will not happen, so anyone in favor of any other source needs to demonstrate it is better, and safer. Replacing these quite old reactors with more modern, safer designs will improve things even more.

[Gerald]

So easy is it not, to protect against mother earth forces, possibly on paper, and you can not at this time and probably a long time to come, to be 100% safe from these disasters for several reasons, as evidenced by its magnitude.

[AVGWarhawk]

This paragraph indicates without a doubt this is an alarmist diatribe:



How many times were we told over the last two weeks that the Fukushima situation was solved? How many times were we assured there was "no danger" to the world? President Obama (http://www.naturalnews.com/Obama.html) even went out of his way to tell Americans they should not prepare for anything, since there was nothing to worry about.



Don't acquire any potassium iodide, people were told. The situation is completely under control and nuclear power (http://www.naturalnews.com/nuclear_power.html) is safe, clean and green!






I have not read or heard anything stating there is nothing to worry about.

[tater]

How much oil was spilled during the quake/tsunami into delicate ecosystems? TI read that all the oil tanks in ports in the affected area were broken apart, and many burned. Minus the rest of the tragedy in Japan, this would likely be covered as an eco-disaster.

Context.

28,000 people are dead, many injured (no idea how many), hundreds of thousands to millions (?) homeless. Deaths (or morbidity) related to secondary causes needs to be put into that context.

"Area irradiated for generations to come."

Guess what, so is Hiroshima... there seems to be a small city on that spot, even now. Ditto Nagasaki. Yeah, I know there was less fissionable material in Fat Man than the 50kg at Chernobyl (and slightly more in Little Boy).

There were a large number of holes poked in the ground here in the States in Nevada, too. Bottom line is that while not ideal, the amount of radiation aloft is lower than some of us experienced as kids in the days of testing (the heyday was a bit before my time, I'll admit).

Concern? Yes.

Work on improving designs going forward? You betcha.

Abandon nuclear power in favor of hippie irrationality? Um, nope.

[Catfish]

Maybe it's just me, but i hear the General Electric spin machine talking :-?

[tater]

Maybe it's just me, but i hear the General Electric spin machine talking :-?

I don't work for GE, nor do I work in any way, shape or form for any power industry. I'm not even a conehead at LA (Los Alamos) or Sandia (though I know more than a few).

I'm a physics geek. If you claim something is unsafe, I require proof. In this case, a comparison of body counts for different methods of power production would be a good starting point.

More radiation has been released over the years by coal than nuclear (due to a tiny fraction of radioisotopes in all fossil fuels—but vast quantities of smoke emitted), including all the worst disasters (probably including all nuclear testing, as well).

The WHO attributes nearly 1 MILLION deaths a year to coal (this includes all use as an energy source, and it is used extensively in China even in stoves (they have over 6000 steam locos, too).

If they had electric heat instead...

If you remove China, and just use coal power plants in the US with good laws regarding pollution, coal is still 375 times more deadly than nuclear.

The total deaths to nuclear plant accidents is tiny. You can have a reporter (likely before he got his journalism degree he got at least a masters in nuclear engineering, right?) rant about theoretical risks (he likely doesn't even understand the mechanism of), but the proof is in the pudding. Total death count is astonishingly low, even for terrible disasters like Chenobyl. It's noise compared to coal. It's noise compared to oil and natural gas, too.

Even solar kills more actual people. You could theoretically have the Japanese plants kill as many as the tsunami, and nuclear still beats solar.

Concern is fine. Alternatives are fine, too, but "do the math," don't react emotionally.

[CCIP]

I hear panic-mongering media talking in the article, myself.

One wants to build reactors. The other wants to sell news stories. I think the truth is somewhere in between. And at the end of the day, it's like 9/11 - yes, you can blame the design and construction (or, if you want, the government) to some extent to making the towers fall. Yes, you can blame technology for Fukushima leaking. But you can no more prepare for a 9.0 earthquake than you can prepare for a 767 flying into your building. You could be better at damage control, but the fact is, people will die and long-term damage will be done no matter what. Given how bad things looked for a while, I would say the damage has been a small price to pay at Fukushima compared to what it could be. And yes, we are a little too quick to forget BP, aren't we. The Gulf of Mexico is still pretty damaged by that... so where else do we get the energy?

[Gargamel]

tater +1


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_JAPAN_EARTHQUAKE?SITE=OHCIN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

That article describes in better detail what is happening. Radioactive Iodine has been released, but with only a half life of 8 days, there will be no lasting environmental impact. An Oil spill in comparison would be far worse with longer lasting affects on the ecosystem. That is ignoring immediate health affects though.

[tater]

The Fukushima plant is 40 years old.

It's ancient technologically.

Over that 40 year period, they would have been burning, what? Coal? Even at US death rates of 15 deaths per terawatt hour, what does that mean?

The plant makes 29.8 GWh per year of power.

over 40 years, that is a little over a terawatt. Likely the plant made less, and had reactors added over time increasing output. Call the lifetime total 0.5 TWh for argument instead of 29.8x40=~1.2TWh.

That's 7.5 deaths based on current US coal deaths per TWH. Using the world average of 161, that's 80 deaths. Those are expected deaths to pollution, etc.

Not a huge amount, but none the less somewhere between 7 and 80 deaths over the life of the reactors to this point. The current death toll for the plant? 0 for the accident, and the theoretical 0.02 people over the lifetime. So far they are matching the expectation nicely, even assuming an accident.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Abandon nuclear power in favor of hippie irrationality? Um, nope.

I'm with you here, the devastation at Fukushima took an almost unprecedented earthquake and tsunami for it to f:88)k up the way it did, and now in future I believe cooling systems may include some redundancy factor for a complete power failure (but probably not due to costs!). Here in Blighty the kneejerk bandwagon of Nuclear is Bad has well and truly been jumped on, despite us having the very occasional minor tremor (the largest I've known about occurred about 15 miles away, it woke up many but not all, shook a few chimneys and that was it), and as for a tsunami - well, if it wasn't for media we'd think she was a nice little asian girl!

People don't want a couple of reactors in their area - but the only other longstanding alternative is wind farm, and guess what -people don't want that in their area either. Give them the choice - one or the other.

And ironically, people will go (and pay) to great lengths to keep a 200 year old windmill working... maybe we just need to redesign the newer stuff!

[Growler]

Oh, will you guys kindly just STFU with all your reason and rational and deliberate thought, and let the sheeple panic already? God, you logical, careful, deliberate people are just too much sometimes.

[tater]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_JAPAN_EARTHQUAKE?SITE=OHCIN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Decent article overall.

As a reality check, though, look at stuff said, and how it shows a lack of careful understanding.

At the crippled plant, leaking radiation has seeped into the soil and seawater nearby and made its way into produce, raw milk and even tap water as far as Tokyo, 140 miles (220 kilometers) to the south.

Radiation seeps? Radiation (ionizing) is either particles (alpha, beta, neutrons), or light (x-ray, gamma). the particles don't "seep" they are fast moving though the air (they are easily stopped when they hit anything), the light obviously doesn't seep.

Clearly she means contamination with radioisotopes. Elements that can land as particles, then be transported by water, etc. These elements then release radiation later. People reading the article, think radiation seeps, now.

The contaminated water has been emitting many times the amount of radiation that the government considers safe for workers, making it a priority to pump the water out before electricity can be restored.


This shows the authors fundamental misunderstanding. She is at least saying the water is emitting radiation which is true (suspended radioisotopes). The statement about it being more than is safe for workers is nonsense, however. The dose RATE emitted has been said to be 1000 mSv/hr. The max DOSE allowed for Japanese workers has been set to a cumulative 250 mSv (which is way down since early reporting had the Japanese saying they were gonna let the guys take 150 mSv PER SHIFT). That means that 1000 mSv/hr allows a cumulative total of 15 minutes under that level. In and of itself , the rate is meaningless. Workers at particle accelerators get vastly higher dose rate. Many thousands of times that rate—but only for a nanosecond. Rates don't matter alone.

The spread of radiation has raised concerns about the safety of Japan's seafood, even though experts say the low levels suggest radiation won't accumulate in fish at unsafe levels. Trace amounts of radioactive cesium-137 have been found in anchovies as far afield as Chiba, near Tokyo, but at less than 1 percent of acceptable levels.

Again, using radiation when she(?) means contamination. Not huge, but virtually a constant in reporting. It's like using light years as a unit of time, lol. Makes you look dumb.

[Growler]

Again, using radiation when she(?) means contamination. Not huge, but virtually a constant in reporting. It's like using light years as a unit of time, lol. Makes you look dumb.

You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon? It's the ship that made the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs.

It's too easy for people to just blindly listen to what they're told than to do the brain work necessary to find out whether what they're told is even accurate, let alone honest.

[Takeda Shingen]

You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon? It's the ship that made the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs.

12 parsecs? No way. I could see 17 or maybe even 15, but 12 is impossible. Impossible, I say!

[tater]

Heheh, I was thinking about that (of course) as I typed.

(still, that movie is way better (the original, not the redone POS) than any of the new SW movies (yuck!))

[tater]

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/plecture/bmonreal11/

Click on the first slide, then read and there is a "NEXT" link.

Excellent overview.

Or read what journalists write; 'cause what does a physicist know about radiation compared to a specialized english major?

[Catfish]

First all was secure and under control, all reactors scrammed, nothing to see here.
Then there were hydrogen explosions, but no problem all under control.
Then all officials denied that the core/s went too hot.
Then they said the control rods were still working (at that time!)
Next they said no there is no melting of cores.
Then they said at least the containments are tight.
When they found plutonium in the water puddles and ground water they said ah no problem it only affects the immediate area around the reactor.
Now where it has become clear that the containments are breeched it all boils down to statistics and how safe nuclear energy theoretically is. Yes i agree there is a chance of 1: idontknowhowmanymillions that it happens, however it took 25 years, and then another 25 for two major fukkups, let alone all those "minor" problems recorded.



This must be the reason why all is secure, if it its statistically impossible, two major meltdowns in only 50 years means there will not happen anything in the next 250,000 million years, since it already happened now.

I think it is a bet against nature, and even when more people die due to coal-burning plants (where are those statistic from, let me guess - GE?) such plants are very clean in comparison, and they do not contaminate wide areas for some 10,000s of years to come.

Go on nothing to see here has always been the policy of those nukeheads. I say send them to Fukushima, maybe they can pi$$ on the plutonium and make it cool down; and make them settle around their wellbeloved nuclear plants, as a promise for their own children and generations to come. :D



Fact is there have been explosions and core meltdowns, statistically impossible, killing people. Nuclear energy is never secure, whatever they tell you.

Greetings,
catfish

[tater]

Body count, please.

Nice of you to denote /rant in place of, you know, data. That's more than the press does. Still, your statements are irrational, and no better than truther, or other conspiracy theories. It is very much like conspiracy theory, actually. I have gotten into many arguments with both, and they share a "change the subject" to the next (imagined) concern when faced with data that clearly demonstrates they are delusional.

Nothing matters but data.

This accident has killed no one. It might kill a few by the time it is over, almost certainly entirely due to cancers they will get later in life. The excess deaths will none the less be small (small numbers period, and small compared to other sources of power generation).

There are people afraid of flying because airline crashes are spectacular, and kills hundreds at a time. Regardless, airline travel is in fact one of the safest things you can do. Being afraid of nuclear power, and being against nuclear power is only possible if you are ignorant (willfully, or not).

That is not to say there are NO concerns with nuclear power. There should be concerns for safety with ALL methods of power generation (particularly since every single type is in fact more dangerous than nuclear). You determine areas of concern, and address them with engineering. Some problems are more political than technical. Look at Yucca Mountain. People against places to store waste safely apparently think the extant waste is safe in holding pools (funny given the problems in Japan right now), or literally in parking lots (low level waste like stuff for the WIPP facility here in NM).

That's what this kind of irrational idiocy gets you. Waste stored on site instead of properly disposed of out of irrationality converted to politics (politics is a common "daughter particle" of irrationality, I think).

[Gargamel]

Nuclear power is the safest, because it has to be. If the nuc industry were to follow the same standard of 'care' (medical term, sorry) that the other power industries followed, the whole planet would be uninhabitable right now.

I cannot recall any occurrence of a nuc fuel spill while in transport, yet we annually have major oil spills. We frequently read of coal mining disasters, but I don't recall any from nuclear fuel mines. Now maybe that's because I didn't hear of them, so show me some sources If I'm wrong. And I'm not totally sure if nuclear materials are mined directly, or happen to be refined byproducts of other mines. But my point still stands.

The worst nuclear accident was from pure negligence. This one is from a huge force majeur that was way beyond the design of the facility. This was their 1,000 year event. And it was an old design.

Until we have a usable Fusion power, there will be not much of an alternative to nuclear. Coal and oil will not last. Hydro? Look how much environmental and social damage building a hydro plant does! Look at how many people were displaced when they built the three gorges dam. And if a dam fails? At least you have time to evacuate from a nuc disaster as those tend to be slower. Wind and solar just don't have the output to compensate for the loss of coal, oil, and nuclear. Maybe if the world went to self sufficient (solar or wind on each building) buildings, then the green energies would work, but that costs too much, nobodies going to pay for each building to be retrofitted.

As I said, until we get fusion power, Nuclear will be the only way to provide power for those areas with great demand.

And yes, I truly believe I will see fusion generated power within my lifetime. The fusion reactors they have now are on the cusp of creating sustainable positive output reactions.

[Catfish]

I kind of admire your cool behaviour, however i also understand a bit of this stuff, and although liking physics (studying a few years) i don't see it the way you do. Im not against nuclear energy, but against how it is presently used. Build a Tokamak and we'll talk.
Currently we use an inherently bad-controllable nuclear reaction only to heat water, and then drive turbines with it ? How idiotic and archaic is this idea ?


"Body count" ?

How much died when they "fixed" Tchernobyl, a molten mass in a concrete sarcophague we may have to maintain and fix again and again for the next some 10,000s of years, because this concrete coffin already breaks down, after 25 years ?

Official statistic Tchernobyl (1990): 4000 dead after 5 years.
Statistic from (2009-11), several sources mean value processed with SAS, a US statistical program i know well: Belarus, indicating 270,000 cases of cancer attributable to the Chernobyl meltdown and explosion in the hardest hit areas, 93,000 of those cases likely to be fatal, according to the reports. It will radiate on for the next millenia to come, with the scattered plutonium getting into the food chain. Certainly there will not be so much information coming from someone like Mr. Lukashenko.

No people died due to the reactor meltdown in Fukushima, yet.
There are already a lot of people injured, of the first teams who went in two weeks ago. How many or none (?) will die or get cancer due to exposure to radiation ? Hell there are still japanese babies born with genome defects after 65 years due to not so peaceful use of nuclear energy. No one can say at this point how much people have and will be really affected by this accident. Adress them with engineering ?

Where do you want to bury (?) the rests of spent nuclear material for the next millenia ? Produce tons of depleted uranium shell cores and spread them in the middle east, via A-10 ?
(I think your body count is a bit cynical as well, there may be people dying because of Tchernobly in some milleniums from now - can anyone guarantee the proper maintenance for such a long time ? And Fukushima - there are not so much options left, apart fom sealing this as well.)

Greetings,
Catfish

edit: just heard the reactor 3 former core seems to have become a "blob of magma" (as one of the "Hyper rescue team" says - what a name b.t.w.) indicated by the measured temperature, they are reluctant to cool it too much (steam explosion sending this stuff all over the area).

[Growler]

I think it is a bet against nature, and even when more people die due to coal-burning plants (where are those statistic from, let me guess - GE?) such plants are very clean in comparison, and they do not contaminate wide areas for some 10,000s of years to come.


No, they just decapitate entire mountains mining the stuff, destroying entire ecosystems and killing or driving out everything living there, and poisoning the groundwater with waste products from runoff for everyone in the watershed. But hey, at least they're clean.

Nuke accidents are just that - accidents, and not normal circumstances. As in any other industry, accidents have the potential to be bad. And as in any other industry, accidents have the potential to affect the community outside the industry.

Nuclear power is still, dollar for dollar, the best and most efficient form of power generation, bar none, and until a better, more efficient, and cleaner method is found, it's the best option we have that involves the LEAST disruption or outright destruction of ecosystems in everyday use.

[GoldenRivet]

first, let me say i appreciate all the opinions, its exactly what i was lookign for.

second, i did not put this out there to be an alarmist or an anti obama opinion piece... in fact i had never paid a visit or even heard of this site before i posted it here. I was linked there from another forum.

out of the whole article here is what struck me

1. the core has melted through the containment vessel which i believe is about as bad as a melt down gets in terms of being irreversible

2. the whole area is likely irradiated at lethal levels for decades to come.

3. the overall sadness and desperation of the situation over there

it is a sad situation, and yes, i do think there is a good chance that this is beyond the point of no return and that there will be a massive "no mans land" where once stood a city.:nope:

it is a disaster on so many levels... and lord knows in the past few years we have had our share of disasters both natural and man made.

EDIT:

on the subject of being advised against buying iodine pills... yes, every major news network and radio talk show has had at least one expert saying that the cons of taking those pills out weight the pros and nobody should be buying them.

[Oberon]

I'd wager that the young children in Aberfan primary school in 1966 would argue differently about coal being safer...

EDIT: I don't think the no mans land will be as big as that of Chernobyl because the explosion took place outside of the core as opposed to inside it which is what happened in Chernobyl IIRC, therefore the containment was breached and the debris flung upwards and outwards. Although...having said that...the voluntary evacuation zone is the same size as the Zone of Alienation...so there could be a rather large vacant hole in the Japanese habitat for some time...which is not always a bad thing. It will be a fantastic nature reserve, just look at the Zone.

[Gargamel]

I'd wager that the young children in Aberfan primary school in 1966 would argue differently about coal being safer...

Vs the the hundreds of thousands of families affected by health problems and the generally poor treatment by the Appalachian coal companies over the last 150 years?

[Rilder]

We just need to move into Thorium. (http://i.imgur.com/zZpVP.jpg)

[Oberon]

Vs the the hundreds of thousands of families affected by health problems and the generally poor treatment by the Appalachian coal companies over the last 150 years?

Indeed, and when you factor in the short life expectancies of the miners themselves. Tis little wonder that coal has killed so many. Admittedly it's been around longer than nuclear energy, but even so...

Thorium would be good. Fusion would be even better...but probably not in our lifetimes.

[Bakkels]

Interesting Rilder. and it kind of acknowledges the suspicions I have about current energy production. I do agree with Tater and Gargamel in general; nuclear energy is a good alternative.
It is way safer than coal. Especially when you take in to account the environmental damage coal causes. However, Gargamel says there is no better alternative for nuclear power yet. I tend to disagree. None of us are CEO's in the energy business, so my guess is as good as one of yours, but I got the strong feeling it's just financially more attractive to go on drilling for oil and burning coal until it's almost all gone. And only then will energy companies really invest in better solutions.
However if I'm not able to change that, than I'll rather have a nuclear plant near my home than a coal plant. (Ironically, this is exactly what my local government has to choose between in a couple of months, so you can't accuse me of a 'NIMBYism' :DL)

But thorium looks interesting, and so does fusion. I'm very curious how this will play out in the future.
Although Rilder that thorium link you pointed out doesn't really look scientific and unbiased to me. Look at the sources; energyfromthorium.com doesn't look like a site that objectively weighs the pro's and con's of thorium. And only an estimated $10.000 fuel cost a year compared to $50 million in a uranium plant also looks a bit on the optimistic side to me. Heck, if only I was the CEO of an energy company and had studied Physics. Than at least I'd know what the hell I was talking about :D

[tater]

The Fukushima 50 are really like 180 that are rotating through.

As even with Chernobyl, nuclear is grossly safer than coal (even US coal which is 10X safer than the world average). IF all the Fukushima 50 people died, it would not change the nuclear safety stats inside rounding errors.

If it were to magically kill more than Chernobyl (virtually impossible), it would still be safer than solar.

Being afraid of nuclear to the point of not wanting it as a power source is irrational.

[Bakkels]

I think that the fear of nuclear energy is also culturally embedded. We all are influenced by the Cold War and it's continuous threat of nuclear war. Add to that the size of A-bombs exploding, the fact that you can't see radiation and that it even has it's own icon (funy isn't it, anything that has it's own danger icon becomes really scary; biohazard, nuclear material, corrosive fluids) and peoples instinctive reaction to nuclear energy is fear. We should have the same some sort of danger symbol for fossil fuels I guess.

[gimpy117]

You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon? It's the ship that made the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs.

It's too easy for people to just blindly listen to what they're told than to do the brain work necessary to find out whether what they're told is even accurate, let alone honest.

*Ahem*It made the run n 12 parsecs because theres a black hole near kessel, the faster you can go, the closer you can get to the black hole without being sucked in. :up:

But being mad at Obama, Japan, or dunno the workers is crazy. Its not like Obama Took a hammer to the control systems and said "take that japan!". That article Is just pure fear mongering, to get people to buy useless junk, kind of a Y2K for nuclear disasters.

Besides, Little does the public know we still have fallout shelters if im not mistaken. Heck theres one not 400 feet form where i stand in Bigelow hall at Western.

[Raptor1]

*Ahem*It made the run n 12 parsecs because theres a black hole near kessel, the faster you can go, the closer you can get to the black hole without being sucked in. :up:

Cluster of black holes, known as The Maw, in fact. Traversing the area using the shortest detour without running into a mass shadow obviously leads to a shorter trip.

Though all this stuff was explained afterwards so the line will make sense.

[Catfish]

...
...the voluntary evacuation zone is the same size as the Zone of Alienation...so there could be a rather large vacant hole in the Japanese habitat for some time...which is not always a bad thing. It will be a fantastic nature reserve, just look at the Zone.


Oh yeah, il love it :dead:
http://www.nuclearflower.com/pripyat/pripyat.html


Some tidbits from the news channels:

They just said they think about extending the evacuation zone to 40 kilometers. There is smoke above another reactor some 50 kilometers away from Fukushima. Officials say it is a "... only a burning electric power station" at that site.

"The official limit of the dangerous radiation dosis has just been doubled."

When asked why the japanese government withholds information:
"The new japanes government is only in charge for two years, so they do not have the necessary contacts to the energy corporations yet."

The pictures recorded by US predator drones over the Fukushima two weeks ago have neither been published, nor made available to the japanese.

I don't think we can go back to business as usual after that. We will see.

Greetings,
Catfish

[tater]

The 250 mSv is the doubled dose, and it is below an amount that causes problems.

But by all means, continue the hysteria. :)

[Oberon]

This is the pic that always got me.

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/367img/image14.2.jpg

The whole 'motorcycle through Pripyat' thing may have been a hoax but the pictures were real, from a tour...and nature takes back what originally belonged to it...

[Takeda Shingen]

This is the pic that always got me.

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/367img/image14.2.jpg



^This. That photo is creepy as all hell.

[tater]

Cool image. My daughter was talking about some Earth Day crap they learned at school, and I corrected it by telling her the Earth would be just fine, thank you, it's the people that were the concern in her example :)

Images like that show how nature wins out in the end :)

[Gargamel]

Cool image. My daughter was talking about some Earth Day crap they learned at school, and I corrected it by telling her the Earth would be just fine, thank you, it's the people that were the concern in her example :)

Images like that show how nature wins out in the end :)

Yeah.... but you notice how the tree is growing inside? It's a mutant. Yup. :D

[Molon Labe]

/rant mode

This whole "core melted through containment and is on the bottom of the drywell" stuff is speculation by people who aren't there. I can't find any official status reports saying that's what happened, and I'd be surprised to learn that's what happened after the reactors have been in cold shutdown and receiving cooling for quite a few days now.

Aside from that, the lack of perspective is really annoying. This isn't a nuclear accident, it's a natural disaster. A disaster that has probably killed over 20,000 people and wiped several towns out of existence. Fukushima became casualty of the disaster, but it's reactors have killed no one. Yet Fukushima, apparently, is the most terrible aspect of the Tsunami.

OK, yes, nuclear power can be dangerous. But what form of energy is safe? How many people die every year in coal mines? How often do natural gas lines explode under a quiet neighborhood? Fuel tanks in cars sometimes ignite. Workers are injured or killed at refineries and drill sites. Oil spills devastate environments. All this happens, while Western-designed nuclear power plants have now had a total of two accidents in their history, neither of which killed anyone. But no, we need to end the use of nuclear power so we can use more of the kinds of energy that actually do get people killed on a regular basis.

For F---'s sake, in any single major hurricane that hits a populated area, there are probably more people electrocuted to death by downed power lines (regardless of what kind of plant is providing the juice) than there are people that will ever be killed in nuclear power plant accidents. (Western designed, obviously. Chernobyl was a crap design)

Perspective, please!

/rant off

[Bilge_Rat]

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/plecture/bmonreal11/



interesting power point, although I will admit I am a complete physics dummy, social sciences is more my bag.

I had read somewhere that every human being on earth since 1945 has detectable traces of radiation in his bones due to all the nuclear testing and that all metals on earth also had traces of radiation which made them unsuitable for certain scientific instruments.

Was'nt there a plan sometimes ago to mine metals from ships sunk pre-1945 since they would have been protected from radiation by the Oceans?

[Bakkels]

/rant mode

This whole "core melted through containment and is on the bottom of the drywell" stuff is speculation by people who aren't there. I can't find any official status reports saying that's what happened, and I'd be surprised to learn that's what happened after the reactors have been in cold shutdown and receiving cooling for quite a few days now.

Aside from that, the lack of perspective is really annoying. This isn't a nuclear accident, it's a natural disaster. A disaster that has probably killed over 20,000 people and wiped several towns out of existence. Fukushima became casualty of the disaster, but it's reactors have killed no one. Yet Fukushima, apparently, is the most terrible aspect of the Tsunami.

OK, yes, nuclear power can be dangerous. But what form of energy is safe? How many people die every year in coal mines? How often do natural gas lines explode under a quiet neighborhood? Fuel tanks in cars sometimes ignite. Workers are injured or killed at refineries and drill sites. Oil spills devastate environments. All this happens, while Western-designed nuclear power plants have now had a total of two accidents in their history, neither of which killed anyone. But no, we need to end the use of nuclear power so we can use more of the kinds of energy that actually do get people killed on a regular basis.

For F---'s sake, in any single major hurricane that hits a populated area, there are probably more people electrocuted to death by downed power lines (regardless of what kind of plant is providing the juice) than there are people that will ever be killed in nuclear power plant accidents. (Western designed, obviously. Chernobyl was a crap design)

Perspective, please!

/rant off

Well, you might have been in rant mode, but IMO you're spot on. :up:

[Torplexed]

The pictures recorded by US predator drones over the Fukushima two weeks ago have neither been published, nor made available to the japanese.

I don't think we can go back to business as usual after that. We will see.

Greetings,
Catfish

I don't know about the Predator, or why a Predator would even be necessary in a non-combat situation but there doesn't seem to be any lack of unmanned drone pictures of the plant on the internet.

Yuck...whatta mess. :dead:

http://topics.oregonlive.com/tag/air%20photo%20service/photos.html

In this March 24, 2011 aerial photo taken by a small unmanned drone and released by AIR PHOTO SERVICE, damaged Unit 3 of the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant is seen in Okumamachi, Fukushima prefecture, northern Japan. (AP Photo/AIR PHOTO SERVICE) MANDATORY CREDIT

http://media.oregonlive.com/oregonian/photo/2011/03/9434905-standard.jpg

[TorpX]

The advertisements on the right of the page do give me the impression that any journalistic impartiality was shoved aside long ago in favor of mixing profit with panic. Their top sellers appear to be potassium iodide pills, and "How to cure almost any cancer at home." :-?
Ditto.

[Torplexed]

Ditto.


I was thinking that maybe the ads on that page were just context based ads. But they are from their own site, which makes it feel like one big ad. The article is nothing but questions. That's not reporting, that's just putting your worst fears in other peoples heads. Not to say the situation in Japan isn't dire, but this isn't somebody I'd expect straight accurate information from.

[TLAM Strike]

This is the pic that always got me.

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/367img/image14.2.jpg

The whole 'motorcycle through Pripyat' thing may have been a hoax but the pictures were real, from a tour...and nature takes back what originally belonged to it...

Anyone else having flashbacks to Call of Duty 4? :shifty:

[Gargamel]

Rain in U.S. Carrying Traces of Japan Radioactivity (http://news.discovery.com/earth/rain-radioactivity-japan-united-states-110329.html)


But here's the kicker:

The levels detected are about one-tenth that of natural background radiation.

[GoldenRivet]

Well, I guess it's a good thing that stuff like this only happens in other countries.

Shwew! Dodged a bullet there.

[yubba]

Well, I guess it's a good thing that stuff like this only happens in other countries.

Shwew! Dodged a bullet there.
I guess you never heard of Love Canal , New York.

[GoldenRivet]

I guess you never heard of Love Canal , New York.

I guess you've never heard of sarcasm.:haha:

[Gargamel]

I guess you never heard of Love Canal , New York.


That's a good bar......


Oh oh oh..... Love canal... not THE love canal.... yeah yeah nasty place.

[Bakkels]

Oh okay, for a moment there I thought you guys were talking about my girlfriend.
:haha: :rotfl2:

[ASWnut101]

I had read somewhere that every human being on earth since 1945 has detectable traces of radiation in his bones due to all the nuclear testing and that all metals on earth also had traces of radiation which made them unsuitable for certain scientific instruments.

Every human that has ever lived has had detectable amounts of radioactivity inside them. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-40


And I also haven't been able to find any official reports of the core melting completely through the vessel. The originally posted article is a page full of nonsense and marketing, and is best ignored.

[GoldenRivet]

Every human that has ever lived has had detectable amounts of radioactivity inside them. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-40


And I also haven't been able to find any official reports of the core melting completely through the vessel. The originally posted article is a page full of nonsense and marketing, and is best ignored.

correct :up:

I am curious how much radiation can be located in the upper atmosphere in the jet stream as a result of japan. I have heard nothing of this in the media.

the jet stream cam blow west to east in excess of 150 mph, and 300 mph winds aloft are not unheard of.

assuming the radioactivity decreases over a span of time... lower atmospheric winds could take several days or even weeks to traverse the Pacific ocean, however Jet stream winds can make the same trip from Japan to say... Seattle Washington in a matter of about 24-48 hours.

I would be interested in measuring the radiation levels in the aluminum skin of an aircraft that had just made a Seattle to L.A. run at 30,000 ft or higher cruise altitude.

my hypothesis is that - while likely not high enough to be lethal - the levels may be several times higher than what the experts are detecting on the ground.

[Torplexed]

I would be interested in measuring the radiation levels in the aluminum skin of an aircraft that had just made a Seattle to L.A. run at 30,000 ft or higher cruise altitude.

my hypothesis is that - while likely not high enough to be lethal - the levels may be several times higher than what the experts are detecting on the ground.

It's already been detected locally in Washington State milk.

http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=454638

Results from a March 25 milk sample taken from Spokane showed levels of radioactive Iodine-131 that were still 5,000 times below levels of concern set by the FDA, including levels set for infants and children.
It's pouring down rain from off the North Pacific Ocean tonight. I'm gonna step outside and see how long it takes until I start to glow in the dark. :D

[GoldenRivet]

It's pouring down rain from off the North Pacific Ocean tonight. I'm gonna step outside and see how long it takes until I start to glow in the dark. :D

dont worry, you wont :D

my statement was simply one of "if the milk is 5,000 times below the minimum limit... then aircraft aluminum on an airplane that had just landed might be only 4100 times below the minimum safe limit"

thats what i mean by "elevated"

[Herr-Berbunch]

There are a large group of people still living in the restricted Chernobyl zone, they moved back a short while after being evacuated and are alive and kicking with very few effects some 25 years later. My understanding is that their younger families are forbidden to live there but are regularly allowed to visit.

[Growler]

Report in yesterday's news out here that traces of radioactive iodide were found in the rain that passed through here (MD, PA, NY) - at approximately 1/5000 of background levels. I duct taped everyone in the house, put plastic over every opening, killed the cats for the fresh meat, and run the water through 11 stages of filtration down to monomolecular levels. That hard part is getting the oxygen and hydrogen atoms to play together after separating them.

[AVGWarhawk]

Report in yesterday's news out here that traces of radioactive iodide were found in the rain that passed through here (MD, PA, NY) - at approximately 1/5000 of background levels. I duct taped everyone in the house, put plastic over every opening, killed the cats for the fresh meat, and run the water through 11 stages of filtration down to monomolecular levels. That hard part is getting the oxygen and hydrogen atoms to play together after separating them.


Why as I not invited to the party? :hmmm: I worry more about the frigging coal dust around Baltimore than radiation from the other side of the world passing through.

[Eightbit]

Here's the blog I have been following on the matter. If you read it from the beginning of the event it's mostly speculation and gradually releases more facts and information on the "what if's".

http://mitnse.com/

[Oberon]

Report in yesterday's news out here that traces of radioactive iodide were found in the rain that passed through here (MD, PA, NY) - at approximately 1/5000 of background levels. I duct taped everyone in the house, put plastic over every opening, killed the cats for the fresh meat, and run the water through 11 stages of filtration down to monomolecular levels. That hard part is getting the oxygen and hydrogen atoms to play together after separating them.

Get out of here Stalker!

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/367img/image3.3.jpg
Life inside 'The Zone'

[The Third Man]

My understanding, and the least reported part of this crisis, is the greatest radiation hazard is coming from the spent fuel stored onsite. The tsunami water removed the electricity required to maintain the cooling/submerging water in the on site spent fuel containment ponds.

I'm sure there will be many subtle and vital lessons to be learned, I cannot hope to address them all here.

There are one or two major lessons to be learned in order to make nuclear power a viable alternative to natural gas or coal.

One, dont build reactors close to bodies of water which are or can be influenced by tides and currents. By and because of its nature sea/ocean and tidal basins, although water rich, are not within the power of any human egineering to control economically.

Two, do not store spent fuel on site. By its nature electricity cannot be stored for long periods, and because of this nuclear reactors must be located relatively close to population centers to be of value. Storing spent fuel places these population centers at risk. A geologically stable repository must be allocated and built to hold the waste material. Some may get the NIMBY mentality. That is understandable. However, many easements/abatements/medical monitoring/medical payments could and should be made available for this. If a population of 5000 could be offset by their contribution to 350,000,000 it is certainly of value.

My two cents.

[tater]

Building near and infinite heat reservoir of water is a good idea, but in tsunami prone areas (the entire pacific, lol), or even in general, simply make sure that the system is designed to deal with that.

[Growler]

Why as I not invited to the party? :hmmm: I worry more about the frigging coal dust around Baltimore than radiation from the other side of the world passing through.

I just found out that the invites were duct-taped inside the duct-taped mailbox. Sorry bout that.

Coal dust, and automobile exhaust, and oh, yeah, Inner Harbor water - now THAT's something to worry about.

[AVGWarhawk]

Inner Harbor water - now THAT's something to worry about


Can we conclusivley say that the liquid in the Inner Harbor is water? :hmmm:

[Molon Labe]

Anyone else having flashbacks to Call of Duty 4? :shifty:

"50,000 people used to live here. Now it's a ghost town." was my FB status on the day of the evacuation. :D

[Freiwillige]

Report in yesterday's news out here that traces of radioactive iodide were found in the rain that passed through here (MD, PA, NY) - at approximately 1/5000 of background levels. I duct taped everyone in the house, put plastic over every opening, killed the cats for the fresh meat, and run the water through 11 stages of filtration down to monomolecular levels. That hard part is getting the oxygen and hydrogen atoms to play together after separating them.

Sounds sensible to me. I'm just glad to hear you didn't panic and over react like the rest of the loons. Yup your always one step ahead.:up: