PDA

View Full Version : Japan will NOT have a nuclear disaster says MIT scientist


55CrushEm
03-15-2011, 02:14 PM
Interesting article and VERY good read......a lot of detail, and he explains the design very well and yes, in an easy to read and (what I find to be) interesting way.

http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-reactors-pose-no-risk-2011-3

boltaneer
03-15-2011, 02:19 PM
I actually saw this article yesterday and yes, it's a good read.

If you start checking out articles/information outside of the major media outlets, they're all kind of saying this.

I think the media is once again guilty of sensationalizing a story for their own personal gain.

55CrushEm
03-15-2011, 02:22 PM
I actually saw this article yesterday and yes, it's a good read.

If you start checking out articles/information outside of the major media outlets, they're all kind of saying this.

I think the media is once again guilty of sensationalizing a story for their own personal gain.

Yeah.....he's basically saying a complete meltdown, or core leak into the environment just CAN'T happen in this case....that the "3rd containment" would prevent it.

He also explains how the "moderator rods" killed the nuclear chain reaction instantaneously when the earthquake occurred.

So I guess mhgaffney can blow it out his arse.

Archer81
03-15-2011, 02:29 PM
You just sparked a war with Gaff...

May heaven help us.

Ps. Use mininukes.

:Broncos:

55CrushEm
03-15-2011, 02:30 PM
You just sparked a war with Gaff...

May heaven help us.

Ps. Use mininukes.

:Broncos:

LOL

Gutless Drunk
03-15-2011, 02:36 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/remember-mit-all-safe-paper


http://geniusnow.com/2011/03/15/the-strange-case-of-josef-oehmen/

elsid13
03-15-2011, 02:39 PM
It is interesting article but the guy isn't a nuclear or structural engineer.


"Dr. Josef Oehmen is risk management in the value chain, with a special focus on lean product development."

http://lean.mit.edu/about/lai-structure/faculty-researchers-and-staff/oehmen-josef

Lean Manufacturing is about optimization of the process flow.

55CrushEm
03-15-2011, 02:44 PM
It is interesting article but the guy isn't a nuclear or structural engineer.


"Dr. Josef Oehmen is risk management in the value chain, with a special focus on lean product development."

http://lean.mit.edu/about/lai-structure/faculty-researchers-and-staff/oehmen-josef

Lean Manufacturing is about optimization of the process flow.

Yeah, I know what lean manufacturing is. I have an MBA. I never looked into who Josef Oehmen is or specifically what his background is.....and while the links that you and Gutless posted are slightly interesting.....I see nowhere anything within those links disputing any of the specifics in the article that I posted.......

I know alot about astronomy.....but I'm not an astronomer.....just sayin'.....

elsid13
03-15-2011, 02:52 PM
Yeah, I know what lean manufacturing is. I have an MBA. I never looked into who Josef Oehmen is or specifically what his background is.....and while the links that you and Gutless posted are slightly interesting.....I see nowhere anything within those links disputing any of the specifics in the article that I posted.......

I know alot about astronomy.....but I'm not an astronomer.....just sayin'.....

I posted the lean manufacturing definition for those in the community that didn't know what it was. It wasn't directed at anyone.

As the piece itself, I will tell that I work with some pretty smart nuclear engineers and they are still unsure what the outcome will be because they don't have all the data. So I take Dr. Oehmen appraisal with more of grain of salt and believe that situation is very fluid and deadly at the given time.

boltaneer
03-15-2011, 02:57 PM
Oehmen's father is involved in the nuclear industry:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/***ushima-simple-explanation/

a summary on the situation prepared by Dr Josef Oehmen, a research scientist at MIT, in Boston. He is a PhD Scientist, whose father has extensive experience in Germany’s nuclear industry.

Quoydogs
03-15-2011, 05:44 PM
Interesting article and VERY good read......a lot of detail, and he explains the design very well and yes, in an easy to read and (what I find to be) interesting way.

http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-reactors-pose-no-risk-2011-3

They are saying best case 3 mile island. LOL

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
03-15-2011, 06:27 PM
You know whats really funny. Wind and Solar power has killed more people in the last 30 years. LOL.

ghwk
03-15-2011, 09:48 PM
You know whats really funny. Wind and Solar power has killed more people in the last 30 years. LOL.

Yeah but it hasn't left square miles of the planet uninhabitable for 100 years while soil and groundwater becomes contaminated. But what the f**k the planet will heal itself.:wave:

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
03-15-2011, 09:51 PM
Yeah but it hasn't left square miles of the planet uninhabitable for 100 years while soil and groundwater becomes contaminated. But what the **** the planet will heal itself.:wave:

Wrong again. Check the the two cities that got bombed in japan.

RaiderH8r
03-15-2011, 10:25 PM
They are saying best case 3 mile island. LOL

And 3 Mile Island released about as much radiation as a chest x-ray.

Que
03-15-2011, 10:30 PM
Wrong again. Check the the two cities that got bombed in japan.

See Chernobyl, Russia. Best case is 300 years until it can support humans in the region. Worst case 900.

Que
03-15-2011, 10:38 PM
You know whats really funny. Wind and Solar power has killed more people in the last 30 years. LOL.

You sure about that? UN says 4,000 people died from Chernobyl while Belarus claims 93,000. Real answer is probably somewhere in between.

All that being said, I am a big fan of nuclear power. Far better solution that gas, coal, or oil.

baja
03-15-2011, 10:48 PM
The evacuated the plant due to high radiation. There is nobody tending the store.

Taco John
03-15-2011, 10:59 PM
I think nuclear power is probably dead for the next 20-30 years. I can't imagine being a politician that has to face your voters and telling them that you favor putting a nuclear plant in their back yard. I think we'll hear a lot of bravado and chest puffing about the things that went right here, but at the end of the day this is going to be between politicians and voters.

Cosmo
03-15-2011, 11:07 PM
You sure about that? UN says 4,000 people died from Chernobyl while Belarus claims 93,000. Real answer is probably somewhere in between.

All that being said, I am a big fan of nuclear power. Far better solution that gas, coal, or oil.


Only 50 actually died from the accident. Those that died from exposure is mostly conjecture. While people like to attribute many deaths to the exposure, the fact remains that its possible that no one really died and it was mostly the media that made up the huge numbers.

mhgaffney
03-15-2011, 11:57 PM
Only 50 actually died from the accident. Those that died from exposure is mostly conjecture. While people like to attribute many deaths to the exposure, the fact remains that its possible that no one really died and it was mostly the media that made up the huge numbers.

Where'd you see this -- on FOX? The number is garbage.

No one knows the total number of dead - -but it's very large. I saw one estimate of 900,000+.

Chernobyl was (is) much worse than the Soviet authorities admitted -- and much worse than most experts in the US want to publicly acknowledge.

The radiation has negatively affected just about every quantifiable measure of health in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. Even the average level of IQ has dropped measurably.

I say "is" because Chernobyl is not over. It will continue to wreak destruction fore many centuries.

Que
03-16-2011, 12:10 AM
Only 50 actually died from the accident. Those that died from exposure is mostly conjecture. While people like to attribute many deaths to the exposure, the fact remains that its possible that no one really died and it was mostly the media that made up the huge numbers.

Wasn't media who came up with those numbers. One was the UN's Atomic Energy Commission and the other was Belarus's commission.

ZONA
03-16-2011, 01:32 AM
The evacuated the plant due to high radiation. There is nobody tending the store.

I heard that also. CNN expert ripping on the Japanese for having 6 reactors at the same site. When you think about it, that does sound kinda stupid.

mhgaffney
03-16-2011, 05:27 AM
Apparently the 50 figure was in reference to Japan. I thought the post was regarding Chernobyl.

Wednesday AM -- things look worse than ever for Japan.

BreesLightning
03-16-2011, 05:28 AM
I just got back from the Ukraine, there are actually tours to chernobyl now. I didn't do it of course but it's possible. There are people that still actually live there in fact. Check out this chick that rides her motorcycle through chernobyl: http://www.kiddofspeed.com/ .

Another little known fact, up until 2000, chernobyl was still providing power and people worked there.

mhgaffney
03-16-2011, 05:30 AM
BTW the article at the top of the thread fails to even mention the potential radiation danger from burning spent fuel rods.

Which is at least as great as the dangers posed by a core melt down.

TDmvp
03-16-2011, 05:35 AM
BTW the article at the top of the thread fails to even mention the potential radiation danger from burning spent fuel rods.

Which is at least as great as the dangers posed by a core melt down.


verstanden
:thumbsup:

55CrushEm
03-16-2011, 06:20 AM
BTW the article at the top of the thread fails to even mention the potential radiation danger from burning spent fuel rods.

Which is at least as great as the dangers posed by a core melt down.

The TOP of the thread?? Did you read the ENTIRE article? He repeatedly mentions the fuel rods.....

Sorry that this doesn't fit nicely into your agenda.....

Natedogg
03-17-2011, 09:46 AM
So is this guy still sticking to his assertion???

mhgaffney
03-17-2011, 10:18 AM
The TOP of the thread?? Did you read the ENTIRE article? He repeatedly mentions the fuel rods.....

Sorry that this doesn't fit nicely into your agenda.....

Yes, but his main theme is that you can stop worrying. Total BS. He's putting you to sleep. Indeed -- he is succeeding.

Also notice -- the fad factor is visible on the OM.

You can see that interest has waned regarding the Japanese nuclear disaster. It's like: "Oh, we don't want to watch that show anymore. Flip channel..."

It's the two-second attention span syndrome. Unfortunately, it's a long way from over. Check out the latest.

Experts are saying the Japanese now have 24 hours to avoid another Chernobyl.

The photos below confirm this. Notice, how the helicopter pilots are dropping water from high above - in stead of just above -- the plants. Why? The reason is the high radiation levels near the plant. They don't dare get closer.
MHG

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-reactors.html

lostknight
03-17-2011, 10:29 AM
Experts are saying the Japanese now have 24 hours to avoid another Chernobyl.


There is no chance of Chernobyl. People have pointed that out to you over and over, and you ignore it.

Chernobyl was a full runaway reactor meltdown - while the reactor was running. Within two hours of the quake, the reactors were at 5% of their normal energy load. Within two days, that five percent was reduced by another 95% percent. The reactors are well under their 1% operating threashold.

Chernobly was fanned by a uncontainable nuclear excursion critical accident (big explosion for people not familiar with the lingo), which spread highly-radioactive graphite in the explosion. That explosion is not possible here, and the system uses water rather then graphite for cooling.


The photos below confirm this. Notice, how the helicopter pilots are dropping water from high above - in stead of just above -- the plants. Why? The reason is the high radiation levels near the plant. They don't dare get closer.
MHG


Incorrect. They are dropping water because the primary and secondary pump systems to the spent fuel pools have been damaged. Radiation goes up just as easily as it goes out. They are not as worried about the reactors at this point, they are trying to keep the pools from lighting on fire.

At this point, the reactors, even if they go into a full melt-down (which is becoming less likely with every second that passes) will be contained. This is a big reason why they are now focusing on the fuel rods - in particular the nasty MOX mix which contains plutonium.

There are plenty of things to be concerned about here, but the media isn't doing anyone any favors they way they are reporting this. It's all scare, no facts. I highly recommend people read bravenewclimate.com on this.

Will people die due to the Tsunami and Quakes? Yes. Do you need to be really need to be spreading fear-mongering on the OM?

Michael Crichton was exactly right. In crisis situations, the best thing to do is not to feel, but to think.

55CrushEm
03-17-2011, 10:36 AM
There is no chance of Chernobyl. People have pointed that out to you over and over, and you ignore it.

Chernobyl was a full runaway reactor meltdown - while the reactor was running. Within two hours of the quake, the reactors were at 5% of their normal energy load. Within two days, that five percent was reduced by another 95% percent. The reactors are well under their 1% operating threashold.

Chernobly was fanned by a uncontainable nuclear excursion critical accident (big explosion for people not familiar with the lingo), which spread highly-radioactive graphite in the explosion. That explosion is not possible here, and the system uses water rather then graphite for cooling.



Incorrect. They are dropping water because the primary and secondary pump systems to the spent fuel pools have been damaged. Radiation goes up just as easily as it goes out. They are not as worried about the reactors at this point, they are trying to keep the pools from lighting on fire.

At this point, the reactors, even if they go into a full melt-down (which is becoming less likely with every second that passes) will be contained. This is a big reason why they are now focusing on the fuel rods - in particular the nasty MOX mix which contains plutonium.

There are plenty of things to be concerned about here, but the media isn't doing anyone any favors they way they are reporting this. It's all scare, no facts. I highly recommend people read bravenewclimate.com on this.

Will people die due to the Tsunami and Quakes? Yes. Do you need to be really need to be spreading fear-mongering on the OM?

Michael Crichton was exactly right. In crisis situations, the best thing to do is not to feel, but to think.

Thank you. Oh, and here's the most recent update from the Nuclear Energy Institute.....pretty much contradicts all the doom & gloom we're hearing from the media outlets.......we won't hear this on CNN or CBS, cause it doesn't fit their agenda.

UPDATE AS OF 11:35 A.M. EDT, THURSDAY, MARCH 17:***ushima Daiichi
The reactors at the ***ushima Daiichi plant are in stable condition and are being cooled with seawater, but workers at the plant continue efforts to add cooling water to fuel pools at reactors 3 and 4.

The status of the reactors at the site is as follows:

Reactor 1's primary containment is believed to be intact and the reactor is in a stable condition. Seawater injection into the reactor is continuing.

Reactor 2 is in stable condition with seawater injection continuing. The reactor's primary containment may not have been breached, Tokyo Electric Power Co. and World Association of Nuclear Operators officials said on Thursday.

Access problems at the site have delayed connection of a temporary cable to restore off-site electricity. The connection will provide power to the control rod drive pump, instrumentation, batteries and the control room. Power has not been available at the site since the earthquake on March 11.

Reactor 3 is in stable condition with seawater injection continuing. The primary containment is believed to be intact. Pressure in the containment has fluctuated due to venting of the reactor containment structure.

TEPCO officials say that although one side of the concrete wall of the fuel pool structure has collapsed, the steel liner of the pool remains intact, based on aerial photos of the reactor taken on March 17. The pool still has water providing some cooling for the fuel; however, helicopters dropped water on the reactor four times during the morning (Japan time) on March 17. Water also was sprayed at reactor 4 using high-pressure water cannons.

Reactors 5 and 6 were both shut down before the quake occurred. Primary and secondary containments are intact at both reactors. Temperature instruments in the spent fuel pools at reactors 5 and 6 are operational, and temperatures are being maintained at about 62 degrees Celsius. TEPCO is continuing efforts to restore power at reactor 5.

***ushima Daini
All four reactors at the ***ushima Daini plant have reached cold shutdown conditions with normal cooling being maintained using residual heat removal systems.


http://nei.cachefly.net/newsandevents/information-on-the-japanese-earthquake-and-reactors-in-that-region/

As you can see this was posted about 2 hours ago.

Pony Boy
03-17-2011, 10:37 AM
Tokyo Passengers Trigger U.S. Airport Detectors, N.Y. Post Says

Radiation detectors at Dallas-Fort Worth and Chicago O’Hare airports were triggered when passengers from flights that started in Tokyo passed through customs, the New York Post reported.

Tests at Dallas-Fort Worth indicated low radiation levels in travelers’ luggage and in the aircraft’s cabin filtration system; no passengers were quarantined, the newspaper said

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/tokyo-passengers-trigger-u-s-airport-detectors-n-y-post-says.html

McDman
03-17-2011, 10:40 AM
I just got an email from the NPG at work saying reactors 1-4 have been cooled successfully with sea water. I've looked on the news and haven't seen anything but I guess we'd know the news before anyone else.

55CrushEm
03-17-2011, 10:41 AM
I just got an email from the NPG at work saying reactors 1-4 have been cooled successfully with sea water. I've looked on the news and haven't seen anything but I guess we'd know the news before anyone else.

See my post, 2 up from yours.....apparently that is the case.

lostknight
03-17-2011, 10:42 AM
I wouldn't take everything that TEPCO says at face value. There is a real question here why TEPCO is continuing to be in charge of this effort. That being said, the physics simply don't support (right now) the kind of rhetoric being thrown around. Outside of a prompt criticality accident, all of the reactors are in cold shutdown, and they have good salt-water going through the system (sooner or later this will cause a problem).

We are not out of the woods, but there are reasons to be optimistic.

Rohirrim
03-17-2011, 10:42 AM
The reactors are not the problem. The cooling ponds are the problem.

lostknight
03-17-2011, 10:43 AM
All of the reactors are in "cold shutdown" at this point, which doesn't mean they don't need cooling, but that they would be in a state where they could move the fuel rods (in a normal operating environment).

55CrushEm
03-17-2011, 10:44 AM
I wouldn't take everything that TEPCO says at face value. There is a real question here why TEPCO is continuing to be in charge of this effort. That being said, the physics simply don't support (right now) the kind of rhetoric being thrown around. Outside of a prompt criticality accident, all of the reactors are in cold shutdown, and they have good salt-water going through the system (sooner or later this will cause a problem).

We are not out of the woods, but there are reasons to be optimistic.

Yes......unless you are gaff.

lostknight
03-17-2011, 10:45 AM
The reactors are not the problem. The cooling ponds are the problem.

Yes, and another reason that we really do need safe nuclear storage. Keeping the spent fuel bay outside of containment structures is a real weakness in the design.

bronco militia
03-17-2011, 10:51 AM
this article sort of confirms that update but raises some other questions

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12773350

baja
03-17-2011, 10:52 AM
There is no chance of Chernobyl. People have pointed that out to you over and over, and you ignore it.

Chernobyl was a full runaway reactor meltdown - while the reactor was running. Within two hours of the quake, the reactors were at 5% of their normal energy load. Within two days, that five percent was reduced by another 95% percent. The reactors are well under their 1% operating threshold.

Chernobly was fanned by a uncontainable nuclear excursion critical accident (big explosion for people not familiar with the lingo), which spread highly-radioactive graphite in the explosion. That explosion is not possible here, and the system uses water rather then graphite for cooling.



Incorrect. They are dropping water because the primary and secondary pump systems to the spent fuel pools have been damaged. Radiation goes up just as easily as it goes out. They are not as worried about the reactors at this point, they are trying to keep the pools from lighting on fire.

At this point, the reactors, even if they go into a full melt-down (which is becoming less likely with every second that passes) will be contained. This is a big reason why they are now focusing on the fuel rods - in particular the nasty MOX mix which contains plutonium.

There are plenty of things to be concerned about here, but the media isn't doing anyone any favors they way they are reporting this. It's all scare, no facts. I highly recommend people read bravenewclimate.com on this.

Will people die due to the Tsunami and Quakes? Yes. Do you need to be really need to be spreading fear-mongering on the OM?

Michael Crichton was exactly right. In crisis situations, the best thing to do is not to feel, but to think.

The spent fuel is the problem, as in +80 metric tons, they are dry and they will "melt down' if not submersed in water soon. They are dropping the water from much higher an elevation than physically could because of the high radiation count there is no other reason to drop from this altitude. Gafney's post is basically correct.

Gutless Drunk
03-17-2011, 11:14 AM
the Nuclear Energy Institute.....pretty much contradicts all the doom & gloom we're hearing from the media outlets.......we won't hear this on CNN or CBS, cause it doesn't fit their agenda.


http://www.nei.org/aboutnei/
"NEI's Mission: The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry and participates in both the national and global policy-making process.

NEI’s objective is to ensure the formation of policies that promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energy and technologies in the United States and around the world."




http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-nuclear-advocates-try-to-limit-political-impact-of-japan-reactor-crisis/2011/03/17/AB6sr0k_story.html

"Nuclear power advocates are waging an intense lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill this week in an attempt to limit the political fallout from the reactor crisis in Japan, which threatens to undermine already shaky plans for expanded nuclear capacity in the United States.

Lobbyists with the Nuclear Energy Institute and some of the United States’ largest energy firms, including Exelon Corp. of Chicago, are holding meetings with key lawmakers and standing-room-only briefings for staffers in an attempt to tamp down talk of restrictions in response to the Japanese disaster.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, for example, has spent more than $6 million on lobbying since 2008, employing more than 20 internal and external lobbyists including former Rep. Bob Walker (R-Pa.), according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The institute’s political-action committee also spent more than $470,000 during the 2010 cycle, primarily favoring Democrats then in control of Congress, the records show.

Although focused on the United States, the nuclear institute also has foreign members including Tokyo Electric Power Co., the firm that owns the ***ushima plant."

Lol...everyone has an agenda. Doesn't necessarily discount their assertions.

lostknight
03-17-2011, 11:19 AM
The spent fuel is the problem, as in +80 metric tons, they are dry and they will "melt down' if not submersed in water soon. They are dropping the water from much higher an elevation than physically could because of the high radiation count there is no other reason to drop from this altitude. Gafney's post is basically correct.

I mis-read Gafney's post. I assumed that he was talking about having to do air drops instead of accessing it via land. Yes, there are radiation issues inside of the complex. Is it as dire as he paints it? Nope. Given that they are about to roll up some new machines custom built for just cooling the pools, and they just recalled 150 people to the plant, to bring it up to ~210 people on site.

Outside of that, Gafney's (and the media's take for that matter) is grossly inaccurate and hyperbolic at best and irresponsible at worst. What happened at Chernobyl can not happen here. Other things can, but it's pure fear-mongering.

For example, and I think you know this because of your wrapping "melt down", the rods can not "melt down" (which is a chain reaction issue). They can burn, but that's the covering of the rods that would be burning. There is a small outside chance of a condition called prompt criticalality, but my understanding is that they have already "posioned" the rods with Boron to ensure that it can't happen.That's one of two elements that are needed - the other would be a big-ass explosion - on the scale of orders and orders of magnitude greater then what we have seen - to disperse the material.

As far as the material at risk, my understanding that 80 tons is the total material on site. ~ 55 tons of that is in a seperated shared pool, which is not at risk. At maximum, no more then 4 tons of material is in uranium reactor, and my understanding is also (but never seen this explicitly documented) that the MOX reactor has less, since they changed the fuel type a few years ago, and won't mix uranium and MOX. 5 tons is in dry storage (ie, no longer needs any cooling).

All signs at this point indicate that any one of the four Japanese trains that have gone off the rails having more off a loss of life then this incident will result in. Will it be remembered that way? No.

Is that to excuse shoody oversight by Tepco, and the sheer stupidity of keeping reactors with a Mark II containment system around? No. but let's put things in proper context. Stopping new plants so we continue to depend on half-century old reactors for nuclear power is even stupider.

footstepsfrom#27
03-17-2011, 11:30 AM
The US State Department has issued a warning to US Milirary to stay at least 50 miles from the reactor accident's, and strongly suggested Americans in Japan leave if they are able to. I'm of the opinion that whatever we're told about this, it will probably be considerably less than the full story in terms of its danger. Governments always want to avoid public panic.

lostknight
03-17-2011, 11:31 AM
Lol...everyone has an agenda. Doesn't necessarily discount their assertions .

Everyone does, which means the only responsible action is to learn about it from yourself. I highly recommend www.bravenewclimate.com. They are just collecting information, and have enough highly informed members to have a decent discussion.

lostknight
03-17-2011, 11:34 AM
The US State Department has issued a warning to US Milirary to stay at least 50 miles from the reactor accident's, and strongly suggested Americans in Japan leave if they are able to. I'm of the opinion that whatever we're told about this, it will probably be considerably less than the full story in terms of its danger. Governments always want to avoid public panic.


The US government tells people to leave whenever a foreign leader has a cold. In this case, it's probably wise. There is still the chance that really bad things can happen - aftershock destroying containment, prompt criticalality, etc. Risk assessment is a funny thing. Everything is here simply because Toshiba and Hitachi decided that a 7.2 is the largest earth quake that they would have to deal with.

It seems like the Japanese government is kind of dazed (who can blame them) right now. For example yesterday, TEPCO was reporting the low coolent situations in the spent-fuel room, the same time as the prime minister was debunking it. Then the US government comes on and reports the same thing, and the media jumped all the hell over the Japanese.

lostknight
03-17-2011, 11:41 AM
Great article from the cs monitor:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2011/0317/Fear-of-Japan-s-nuclear-crisis-far-exceeds-actual-risks-say-scientists

Fear of Japan's nuclear crisis far exceeds actual risks, say scientists

Pop culture has long helped fuel an irrational fear of radiation, and dire warnings about Japan's embattled Fushima Daiichi nuclear power plant are likely overblown, scientists say.


By Stephen Kurczy (http://www.csmonitor.com/About/Contact/Section-Editors/Stephen-Kurczy), Staff writer / March 17, 2011 ***ushima is not Chernobyl, scientists repeat, and even Chernobyl was not as deadly as popularly believed.

Dire warnings of radiation spreading from Japan's embattled ***ushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to deadly effect across Japan (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Topics/Japan), or even to California, are likely overblown, they say.
Radiation is all around us, varying with the number of miles we fly, the elevation of our towns, and the minerals in our environments, scientists point out. We live with it, and most of the time it is harmless.
Japan's nuclear crisis: A timeline of key events (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2011/0315/Japan-s-nuclear-crisis-DAY-6-A-timeline-of-key-events)


“There is an increased level of anxiety disproportionate to the actual risk,” says Jerrold Bushberg, who directs programs in health physics at the University of California at Davis. “It’s the dose that makes the poison. It’s not a binary thing.”
Fear and hype surround radiation, which has become something of a bogeyman in part because of popular culture. A radioactive spider bit Peter Parker and turned him into Spiderman. Bruce Banner absorbed radiation in a bomb explosion and became The Incredible Hulk. Radiation from nuclear detonations morphed a small lizard into Godzilla.
“It gives you subliminal messages about the capacity of radiation to do harm,” Professor Bushberg says in a telephone interview.
'Crazy' for Americans to be worried

To be sure, the 1986 nuclear meltdown north of Ukraine’s capital was tragic. Dozens of first-responders died within months from what doctors said was a combination of high radiation, trauma, and burns. It also led to cancer in hundreds of children, says Bushberg, who did environmental studies around Chernobyl in the late 1980s.
But the extent of devastation from Chernobyl is hotly debated.


“After more than 20 years of extensive study, there is no consistent evidence of increased birth defects, leukemia, or most other radiation-related diseases,” journalist Peter Hessler wrote in a 2010 article for The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/09/13/100913fa_fact_hessler). He said the only public epidemic consists of high rates of cancer in children, who tend to be more sensitive to radiation.


Even those incidences of cancer could have been prevented, scientists say, if the Soviet government had warned locals against feeding contaminated milk to their children.


Despite the scale of Chernobyl, none of that radioactivity spread to the United States, according to Bushberg, and it is very unlikely that any significant amount will spread to the US from the unfolding nuclear crisis at the ***ushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (also known as ***ushima I).


A buy-up of potassium iodide tablets (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0315/Radiation-exposure-Why-US-is-confident-West-Coast-isn-t-in-danger), which some say guard against some effects of radiation exposure, is “premature” in America, he says, and concerns over contaminated Japanese exports are also alarmist.

footstepsfrom#27
03-17-2011, 12:02 PM
How bizarre...a supply chain management guy sends an email to a family member that there's no need to worry and it goes viral that he's an MIT scientist this. Truth in the internet age is much stranger than fiction.

Kaylore
03-17-2011, 12:16 PM
As Cutthemdown said earlier, the nuclear reactor issue is contained. Now we need to focus on the many people who were actually hurt or killed by the typhoon.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
03-17-2011, 12:20 PM
As Cutthemdown said earlier, the nuclear reactor issue is contained. Now we need to focus on the many people who were actually hurt or killed by the typhoon.

Typhoon?

Meck77
03-17-2011, 12:24 PM
Sounds like progress. The doomsdayers will not like this.

55CrushEm
03-17-2011, 12:51 PM
http://www.nei.org/aboutnei/
"NEI's Mission: The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry and participates in both the national and global policy-making process.

NEI’s objective is to ensure the formation of policies that promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energy and technologies in the United States and around the world."




http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-nuclear-advocates-try-to-limit-political-impact-of-japan-reactor-crisis/2011/03/17/AB6sr0k_story.html

"Nuclear power advocates are waging an intense lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill this week in an attempt to limit the political fallout from the reactor crisis in Japan, which threatens to undermine already shaky plans for expanded nuclear capacity in the United States.

Lobbyists with the Nuclear Energy Institute and some of the United States’ largest energy firms, including Exelon Corp. of Chicago, are holding meetings with key lawmakers and standing-room-only briefings for staffers in an attempt to tamp down talk of restrictions in response to the Japanese disaster.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, for example, has spent more than $6 million on lobbying since 2008, employing more than 20 internal and external lobbyists including former Rep. Bob Walker (R-Pa.), according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The institute’s political-action committee also spent more than $470,000 during the 2010 cycle, primarily favoring Democrats then in control of Congress, the records show.

Although focused on the United States, the nuclear institute also has foreign members including Tokyo Electric Power Co., the firm that owns the ***ushima plant."

Lol...everyone has an agenda. Doesn't necessarily discount their assertions.

L O L ..... you criticize every source I sight, while in the same breath, you use the Washington Post to make your "point".

How amusingly ironic this is of you..........

Again, as I asked you before, please point out to me any errors or factual misrepresentations in what the link provided. I don't recall reading them say that everything was "A-OK"....just a status of the reactors.

Yet, you seem to be UPSET by this status?!?! You're starting to sound like Gaff......seemingly hoping for a disaster just to be able to say "I'm right....hooray! Nuclear power is the bad stuff. Anyone who supports it has the dum! (thanks Kaylore)"

Gutless Drunk
03-17-2011, 01:28 PM
Actually I just found it amusing that you use an agenda driven source who spent 6 million to advance their agenda to try and rebut an "agenda driven media"
The Washington Post said nothing different than what NEI said on their website. That they lobby for the Nuclear Industry. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Energy_Institute

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/15/nuclear_energy_institute_tepco

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nuclear_Energy_Institute

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/media_alerts/nuclear-industry-spent-millions-to-sell-congress-on-new-reactors-0343.html

And no I am not upset at the status. And FYI I support new nuclear power solutions. I just don't support your poor sourcing

55CrushEm
03-17-2011, 01:37 PM
Actually I just found it amusing that you use an agenda driven source who spent 6 million to advance their agenda to try and rebut an "agenda driven media"
The Washington Post said nothing different than what NEI said on their website. That they lobby for the Nuclear Industry. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Energy_Institute

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/15/nuclear_energy_institute_tepco

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nuclear_Energy_Institute

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/media_alerts/nuclear-industry-spent-millions-to-sell-congress-on-new-reactors-0343.html

And no I am not upset at the status. And FYI I support new nuclear power solutions. I just don't support your poor sourcing

Excellent. I'll continue to source NEI....you continue to source the Washington Post. I'll take NEI's expertise on nuclear energy over the Post's anyday of the week.

And, I find the bolded comment very hard to believe.....but I'll take your word at face value.

And, lastly, hate the source all you want......what did they say about the reactors that was wrong? Do you have conflicting information on the status of the reactors?

Gutless Drunk
03-17-2011, 01:45 PM
I sourced the NEI , which is your source, the corroborate what the Washington Post said. That they lobby for the Nuclear Industry and have an agenda. It's really not hard to find a source that you will believe to support that assertion, as that is what they do, knock yourself out.
And yes, I do support New Nuclear. I believe that via process of elimination, void of some new technology heretofore unknown, it is probably the only answer.

55CrushEm
03-17-2011, 01:54 PM
I sourced the NEI , which is your source, the corroborate what the Washington Post said. That they lobby for the Nuclear Industry and have an agenda. It's really not hard to find a source that you will believe to support that assertion, as that is what they do, knock yourself out.
And yes, I do support New Nuclear. I believe that via process of elimination, void of some new technology heretofore unknown, it is probably the only answer.

Well then....we agree. :thumbsup:

The mass "fear" over nuclear power is, in fact, largely media driven.....everything we see and hear plays on those fears, whether it be in movies like The Day After, or in comedy/satire like The Simpsons.

Bottom line is this (to me anyway)......if people die developing something, should we just abandon it? No! If that were the case, we'd stop building tall buildings cause people died building the Empire State Building.....we'd stop building ships because people die when they sink. The examples are endless.

So, no, we should not put a moratorium on building nuke plants either. We also need to keep in mind that this plant is pretty f-ing old.....nothing like the Gen 3 reactors that have passive safety systems.

lostknight
03-17-2011, 02:12 PM
Its looking positive that they are about to turn power back on to the freshwater pumps.

baja
03-17-2011, 03:50 PM
The single good thing to come out of this disaster is nuclear power plants will be shelved for another 30 years.

El Minion
03-17-2011, 04:33 PM
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5sakN2hSVxA?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5sakN2hSVxA?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

mhgaffney
03-17-2011, 05:19 PM
As Cutthemdown said earlier, the nuclear reactor issue is contained. Now we need to focus on the many people who were actually hurt or killed by the typhoon.

You should know better than to listen to Cut.

No the nuclear fuel is not contained. The explosions blew the roofs off several of the reactors. This has exposed the pools holding the spent fuel rods.

The water in several of these pools has boiled off -- and is not being replenished.

The authorities in Japan also believe that explosions have breached containment of at least one -- maybe two -- reactor core.

If the Japanese do not get control over the plant soon -- things will get much worse.

This is the reality.

mhgaffney
03-17-2011, 05:24 PM
Well then....we agree. :thumbsup:

The mass "fear" over nuclear power is, in fact, largely media driven.....everything we see and hear plays on those fears, whether it be in movies like The Day After, or in comedy/satire like The Simpsons.

Bottom line is this (to me anyway)......if people die developing something, should we just abandon it? No! If that were the case, we'd stop building tall buildings cause people died building the Empire State Building.....we'd stop building ships because people die when they sink. The examples are endless.

So, no, we should not put a moratorium on building nuke plants either. We also need to keep in mind that this plant is pretty f-ing old.....nothing like the Gen 3 reactors that have passive safety systems.

Bull shyte. For years the media has trumpeted the lies of the nuclear industry about how nuclear is the way of the future -- total crap.

Only on the threshold of disaster do we get a glimmer via the press about the actual dangers.

The reality is that the cancer rates are higher in the vicinity of and downwind of every nuclear reactor on the planet. Without exception.

These US designed reactors should never have been placed on a tectonic fault line. But the US corporations that sold these plants only cared about making $ -- not the welfare of the people in Japan.

mhgaffney
03-17-2011, 05:34 PM
The history of nuclear is a litany of ignorance, lies, hubris and stupidity...

Rock Chalk
03-17-2011, 05:42 PM
I thought I would share this with you guys. Below is an email update I received from a very close friend of mine in Tokyo. When teh quake hit I immediately emailed him to see if him and his mom were OK and I did not hear back from him until today.


Hows it going dude?
As you know, we as Japanese people are in the middle of the crisis.
Especially those who live in the northern parts of Japan ...but I wanted to let you know Im alright.

Honestly, Im kinda scared cause you may have heard one of nuke plants in that area is about to melt down...plus small amounts of radiation have already been detected in Tokyo but still harmless though.

good night man

Yuichiro

It's short, but he's got bigger things to worry about. Just thought I would put some human perspective to this thread.

TailgateNut
03-17-2011, 07:39 PM
As Cutthemdown said earlier, the nuclear reactor issue is contained. Now we need to focus on the many people who were actually hurt or killed by the typhoon.

HUH?

baja
03-17-2011, 08:00 PM
As Cutthemdown said earlier, the nuclear reactor issue is contained. Now we need to focus on the many people who were actually hurt or killed by the typhoon.



http://thesportsunion.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/bush-mission-accomplished.jpg

Tombstone RJ
03-17-2011, 08:07 PM
http://thesportsunion.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/bush-mission-accomplished.jpg

:rofl:

oh my!

lostknight
03-17-2011, 08:35 PM
The single good thing to come out of this disaster is nuclear power plants will be shelved for another 30 years.

This would be a horrible outcome (which I don't think will happen). Simply because we have to replace old reactors. Put it another way, these reactors (and more importantly the containment systems) have performed a hell of a lot better then much newer engineering in Katrina, which less loss of life.

And we need to go carbon-neutral. Renewable energy is simply not reliable enough right now.

baja
03-17-2011, 09:06 PM
This would be a horrible outcome (which I don't think will happen). Simply because we have to replace old reactors. Put it another way, these reactors (and more importantly the containment systems) have performed a hell of a lot better then much newer engineering in Katrina, which less loss of life.

And we need to go carbon-neutral. Renewable energy is simply not reliable enough right now.

I hope we are forced to develop clean renewable energy sources and phase out nuclear power plants. It's the right thing to do for our decedents.

lostknight
03-17-2011, 09:16 PM
I hope we are forced to develop clean renewable energy sources and phase out nuclear power plants. It's the right thing to do for our decedents.

I agree with developing new technologies, but we can't substitute wish list and the Easter bunny for actual energy independence. Nuclear technology is a part of the solution, as is the new shale oil fields, But there should also be renewable energies where and when it makes sense.

baja
03-17-2011, 09:42 PM
I agree with developing new technologies, but we can't substitute wish list and the Easter bunny for actual energy independence. Nuclear technology is a part of the solution, as is the new shale oil fields, But there should also be renewable energies where and when it makes sense.

We would already have that clean renewable source/s that you say is impossible if it were not for special interests.

lostknight
03-17-2011, 10:01 PM
We would already have that clean renewable source/s that you say is impossible if it were not for special interests.

No. There simply is not any renewable form of energy that is constant and sustainable enough despite weather patterns to be viable to replace all the different forms of energy. Wind is not constant enough, Solar has no shortage of issues in cold climate. Geothermal is nice - where it can be used. All of them have huge impact issues just for using them. None of them fix the distribution issue. Just the power issue, and even that is a minimal fix.

The first step in fixing the energy issue is to admit that there isn't any magical fix for it.

baja
03-17-2011, 10:16 PM
No. There simply is not any renewable form of energy that is constant and sustainable enough despite weather patterns to be viable to replace all the different forms of energy. Wind is not constant enough, Solar has no shortage of issues in cold climate. Geothermal is nice - where it can be used. All of them have huge impact issues just for using them. None of them fix the distribution issue. Just the power issue, and even that is a minimal fix.

The first step in fixing the energy issue is to admit that there isn't any magical fix for it.

Don't underestimate the ability to have great technological leaps when full human will is applied. I offer for example, ironically enough, the atomic bomb.Putting men on the moon also qualifies.

If mankind put that level of effort into clean energy you would see unimagined breakthroughs but alas many pocketbooks would be wounded in the process and those folks will not sit idly by and watch their cash cow go the way of the steam locomotive.

baja
03-17-2011, 10:19 PM
My point is I would like to see a bigger commitment to research.

TailgateNut
03-17-2011, 11:11 PM
No. There simply is not any renewable form of energy that is constant and sustainable enough despite weather patterns to be viable to replace all the different forms of energy. Wind is not constant enough, Solar has no shortage of issues in cold climate. Geothermal is nice - where it can be used. All of them have huge impact issues just for using them. None of them fix the distribution issue. Just the power issue, and even that is a minimal fix.

The first step in fixing the energy issue is to admit that there isn't any magical fix for it.

The tidal movement is constant. Just saying.

elsid13
03-18-2011, 02:26 AM
The tidal movement is constant. Just saying.

So is geothermal.

The problem isn't the technology it is the distribution of the where the best place to get power from the source and our piss poor electrical grid.

cutthemdown
03-18-2011, 03:06 AM
I never really said I thought it was contained. Some reports made it sound like it was. Hell it sounds like now they will have to cement it. Lot's of workers going to die doing that. Epic fail by the Japanese.

I did go wishy washy on it because the reports were so conflicting.

Can we trust Obama when he says no radiation to worry about here? Is that a foregone scientific fact that no matter what a plume cant go that far.

Killericon
03-18-2011, 02:15 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5sakN2hSVxA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

lostknight
03-18-2011, 05:15 PM
The tidal movement is constant. Just saying.

It is. Now what good does that do us here in Colorado? There's not enough tidal power across every meter of US shoreline to power Washington state by itself, to say nothing of California, and the rest of the US.

Geothermal's attractive - if you are Finland. Otherwise, unless you pave Yellowstone with plants, there is not enough thermal power to make a dent in the gigawatts of power we need.

Solar and Wind are great buffer technologies. Solar in particular is nice because it scales with heat, and that's nice for summer days. But that also means that it is useless at night, and with cloudy weather. And wind power is even less predictable.

I agree that you need a good technology mix. I think the last five years have changed how we think about energy, and all the stuff going on in North Dakota (Shale) as well as in California, and Boulder (which is shaping up quite nicely as a wind powered epicenter) is a reflection of that.

Again, none of thoose things actually solve the other issue - simply energy distribution.

At least the Ethanol people have quit beating on that drum, and the hydrogen people are telling us 20 more years.

In the end, I think we have more then enough resources for the next fifty years, but I really want to see some sexy technologies - such as microorganism generated fuels and true carbon sequestration.

Old Dude
03-19-2011, 10:13 AM
It already is a nuclear disaster. Just a question of containment now. They need to get on the ball to prepare sandbagging operations. Boric acid, sand, concrete. Bury the whole thing. Same thing that finally stopped Chernobyl. The reactors are all now just junk anyway.

lostknight
03-19-2011, 10:21 AM
It already is a nuclear disaster. Just a question of containment now. They need to get on the ball to prepare sandbagging operations. Boric acid, sand, concrete. Bury the whole thing. Same thing that finally stopped Chernobyl. The reactors are all now just junk anyway.

It actually sounds like the situation is stabilized. Just read on Kyodo that the spent fuel rods are now under 100 degrees Celsius, and they've re-established power to reactors one and two. The reactors are junk, no question about it, and they should take this opportunity (as should we for that matter) to replace all of the Mark I containment systems with new passive safety systems and newer reactors. Keeping old reactors around, especially with nuclear waste outside of containment is moronic.

Letting the reactor deliberatly melt down so you could bury is a bit pointless, and a bit more dangerous at this time.

Cito Pelon
03-19-2011, 12:14 PM
Whoo boy, I was sweating there a little bit. I thought from the start they could handle it, but it was a little iffy there. They scrambled pretty good, did some good problem solving.

lostknight
03-19-2011, 07:21 PM
Whoo boy, I was sweating there a little bit. I thought from the start they could handle it, but it was a little iffy there. They scrambled pretty good, did some good problem solving.

They did, and as much as others may mock it, the original engineering was solid for a fifty year old design. It took a hell of a lot of a bigger shock then it was designed for, and the Tsunami to built, experienced a partial melt-down, hasn't had it's primary coolant in a week, and still managed to not have a total melt down.

Thank god it wasn't designed by the Army Corp of Engineers.

cutthemdown
03-19-2011, 07:41 PM
Well putting the emergency generator tanks in a non water tight room is stupid. Also putting the diesel tanks on the outside of the seawall is also moronic.

They made some poor decisions when it came to housing the emergency generators.

I have read in the USA we have higher standards for our emergency power.

Really it sounds like if you can keep water on the rods, you can be ok. Also we have passive pumps now that run even when power is out somehow.

lostknight
03-19-2011, 07:45 PM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/radiation.png


This, from XKCD is brilliant. Read it.

lostknight
03-19-2011, 07:55 PM
Well putting the emergency generator tanks in a non water tight room is stupid. Also putting the diesel tanks on the outside of the seawall is also moronic.


Agreed on both of these.


I have read in the USA we have higher standards for our emergency power.


Yes and no. Some areas are tighter - we have much better oversight then they do - TEPCO has been criminal negligent in the past, and if this doesn't convince the Japanese to do something about it, nothing will. On the other hand, there are some structural things that they have far tighter rules then we do - they are after all, a island of volcano more or less.


Really it sounds like if you can keep water on the rods, you can be ok. Also we have passive pumps now that run even when power is out somehow.

The containment system is supposed to guarantee that even if you don't keep water on the rods, you have a meltdown in a constrained environment, with minimal radiation exposure.

The new passive safety systems take advantage of natural forces - gravity, convection, etc - to provide the water loop through the system. That way if the pumps can't work, the loop doesn't die. The materials are far more complex, but the systems themselves are similar.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-20-2011, 05:42 AM
A trip to Chernobyl, I can't imagine why you didn't go. Why is everyone in love with Nuclear power?

We don't have a way to properly get rid of the by product. Haven't we learned yet that if you don't have a way to deal with the by product its not functional yet!

Most under utilized resource and energy form on the planet = solar! The rest of the planet outside of humans swears by it maybe we could actually give it a shot.

Oh except it doesn’t cost enough money and we can’t claim a shortage to gouge prices because it’s renewable.

baja
03-20-2011, 07:46 AM
A trip to Chernobyl, I can't imagine why you didn't go. Why is everyone in love with Nuclear power?

We don't have a way to properly get rid of the by product. Haven't we learned yet that if you don't have a way to deal with the by product its not functional yet!

Most under utilized resource and energy form on the planet = solar! The rest of the planet outside of humans swears by it maybe we could actually give it a shot.

Oh except it doesn’t cost enough money and we can’t claim a shortage to gouge prices because it’s renewable.

and there are no monthly bills once the inicial costs are paid for many consumers.

The best place to start is to recover the 65% of energy we now waste. That's right we waste 65% of all the energy we use.

Cito Pelon
03-20-2011, 08:33 AM
Well putting the emergency generator tanks in a non water tight room is stupid. Also putting the diesel tanks on the outside of the seawall is also moronic.

They made some poor decisions when it came to housing the emergency generators.

I have read in the USA we have higher standards for our emergency power.

Really it sounds like if you can keep water on the rods, you can be ok. Also we have passive pumps now that run even when power is out somehow.

Yeah, they obviously f'd up with the backup power systems.

I see the latest news is they're still scrambling to contain overheating and there has been some releases of radiation.

However (and correct me if I'm wrong), IIRC, the radiation that is being released is barely above safe levels. And, importantly, the half-life of the radiation released so far is very, very, very short.

Maybe I'm looking too much for the rosy side of this thing, but I'm thinking it won't be a huge disaster in terms of pervasive radiation like Chernobyl.

Atwater His Ass
03-20-2011, 03:47 PM
A trip to Chernobyl, I can't imagine why you didn't go. Why is everyone in love with Nuclear power?

We don't have a way to properly get rid of the by product. Haven't we learned yet that if you don't have a way to deal with the by product its not functional yet!

Most under utilized resource and energy form on the planet = solar! The rest of the planet outside of humans swears by it maybe we could actually give it a shot.

Oh except it doesn’t cost enough money and we can’t claim a shortage to gouge prices because it’s renewable.

Hippie.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
03-20-2011, 04:05 PM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/radiation.png


This, from XKCD is brilliant. Read it.

Thank You! Someone that actually paid attention in HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASS!

Atwater His Ass
03-20-2011, 05:23 PM
Everyone should read this blog: http://mitnse.com/

It's maintained by personnel at MIT and is very informative for those of you that don't have any education about nuclear power, how it works, and actual scientific intrepration of the data from ***ushima that is presented in such a way anyone can understand it.

lostknight
03-20-2011, 05:45 PM
Everyone should read this blog: http://mitnse.com/

It's maintained by personnel at MIT and is very informative for those of you that don't have any education about nuclear power, how it works, and actual scientific intrepration of the data from ***ushima that is presented in such a way anyone can understand it.

thanks for the post.

Old Dude
03-21-2011, 09:22 AM
Whoo boy, I was sweating there a little bit. I thought from the start they could handle it, but it was a little iffy there. They scrambled pretty good, did some good problem solving.

I'm not convinced it's under control yet. That's what they've been saying all along, but every couple days, something worse happens.

Two reactors smoking today, radiation in food higher than thought. And there still seems to be a big concern about reactor 4.

Tombstone RJ
03-21-2011, 10:43 AM
A trip to Chernobyl, I can't imagine why you didn't go. Why is everyone in love with Nuclear power?

We don't have a way to properly get rid of the by product. Haven't we learned yet that if you don't have a way to deal with the by product its not functional yet!

Most under utilized resource and energy form on the planet = solar! The rest of the planet outside of humans swears by it maybe we could actually give it a shot.

Oh except it doesn’t cost enough money and we can’t claim a shortage to gouge prices because it’s renewable.

There is a plan to store the waste by-product, but it's in limbo right now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-21-2011, 11:58 AM
There is a plan to store the waste by-product, but it's in limbo right now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

Storing waste for 100,000 years is not a plan. That is burying our heads like an ostrich and hoping the lion doesn't eat us. I'd like a little better plan.

55CrushEm
03-21-2011, 12:14 PM
Storing waste for 100,000 years is not a plan. That is burying our heads like an ostrich and hoping the lion doesn't eat us. I'd like a little better plan.

Yes it is. And since you're apparently against burying the waste....what would you have told the people dealing with Chernobyl?

"Nope! Can't bury it! THAT'S NOT AN OPTION! Think of something else! And while you're at it, why don't you morons have solar powered cars?!?!"

:peace:

Tombstone RJ
03-21-2011, 12:32 PM
Storing waste for 100,000 years is not a plan. That is burying our heads like an ostrich and hoping the lion doesn't eat us. I'd like a little better plan.

Even if it's a temporary plan, it's still a plan. Even if the waste is stored their for let's say, 300 years, and then science comes up with a better solution for the waste, it's still a plan.

There's nuclear waste stored around the country right now. The Yucca Mountain site was made to store this waste and any future waste. I think one of the hold ups is how to transport the waste to the site.

Cito Pelon
03-21-2011, 12:52 PM
I'm not convinced it's under control yet. That's what they've been saying all along, but every couple days, something worse happens.

Two reactors smoking today, radiation in food higher than thought. And there still seems to be a big concern about reactor 4.

Well, I'm lookng at the rosy side. I don't know wtf. I've been trying to look at the rosy side, but like you said every couple days it seems to escalate. I may be an idiot, but I still think it can be brought under control.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-21-2011, 01:40 PM
Yes it is. And since you're apparently against burying the waste....what would you have told the people dealing with Chernobyl?

"Nope! Can't bury it! THAT'S NOT AN OPTION! Think of something else! And while you're at it, why don't you morons have solar powered cars?!?!"

:peace:

There s not legitimate plan for nuclear waste only the idea we will bury it for later. We should've learned from Chernobyl. I'm against any product that produces by products that are deadly. Radioactive is just a giant glowing warning no one wants to admit.

We live in a world where we have so many energy sources and yet we love to use the same unhealthy or deadly ones. Burying waste prolongs the problem it doesn't fix it. That is not a solution simply a delay.

We could have solar panel cars, the technology was around in the eighties. We have had hydrogen powered engines since the sixties. The truth is the silent masses haven't demanded it yet.

Plato: Silence equals consent.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-21-2011, 01:41 PM
The Japan thing is not even close to under control. The media is down playing it as are the governments. Rarely do people get the truth of their day until generations later.

Killericon
03-21-2011, 01:57 PM
The Japan thing is not even close to under control. The media is down playing it as are the governments. Rarely do people get the truth of their day until generations later.

http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/lol_wut1.jpg

Atwater His Ass
03-21-2011, 02:16 PM
If anything, the media has been doing nothing up sensationalising everything about this event, from mis-information, to flat out lies designed to hype up the public.

You need to take the time to educate yourself about how these plants are built, how radiation works, what the real risks are, etc. The blog I posted would be an excellent start.

55CrushEm
03-22-2011, 11:16 AM
March 22, 2011 4:00 A.M.

Another Three Mile Island
***ushima will probably be mostly harmless, misunderstood by the media, and a rallying point for anti-nuclear activists.


‘Nobody at Three Mile Island was actually hurt or killed, or anything of that nature,” remembers John McGaha, formerly a senior executive of Entergy, a Mississippi company that runs and operates nuclear utilities. “Versus if you look at some of the oil and chemical explosions we’ve had over the years . . . ”

McGaha and other experts state that Americans are unduly afraid of nuclear energy — in part because of the media’s disproportionate, distorted reporting on rare nuclear accidents like Three Mile Island and the recent problems in Japan. McGaha says the most deadly consequence of Three Mile Island might have been how it delayed the advancement of nuclear technology in the U.S.

Yes, officially, one or two incidents of cancer have been attributed to Three Mile Island. But even with those, there’s no way to know for sure. All of us have “a 16 percent lifetime chance of contracting cancer,” says Robert Henkin, professor emeritus of radiology at Loyola University in Chicago. So, he asks, “If that goes to 16.1 percent, how do you ever pick that out?” We can’t be certain there was any harm at all.

And yet the panic at the time outdid the current panic over the ***ushima reactors. “Governor Thornburg was debating whether he would evacuate 20 miles out,” Prof. Michael Corradini, chairman of engineering physics at the University of Wisconsin, remembers. And the newspaper headlines during the Three Mile Island crisis suggested much worse. “Strangely enough,” Professor Henkin says, Three Mile Island “was actually one of the great successes of the industry.”

It’s not remembered that way, of course. One reason seems to be that the terminology related to nuclear power has taken on sinister connotations. Consider radiation. Think of the panic that the headline “Radiation levels increase by 100 percent” could induce. But in reality, such radiation would be medically beneficial; it would promote “radiation hormesis” — the exercise of the immune system. “We get one unit of radiation per day. When we double that — they’ve done tests with animals — they show better health. It’s like doing pushups,” says Gilbert Brown, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Massachusetts–Lowell. That doesn’t prove we shouldn’t worry about much higher levels of radiation — but it indicates how our emotional response does not correspond to reality.

And how high are radiation levels in Japan right now? The International Atomic Energy Agency on Sunday said that radiation levels of 5.7 microsivierts per hour were detected at a 35-mile radius from ***ushima. This, Steve Kerekes of the Nuclear Energy Institue says, is “under what a nuclear-plant worker could be exposed to every day for his job” under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s guidelines. And even that measure may overrate the risk. “They intentionally set the limits very, very low — at much smaller levels than are actually dangerous, to encourage people to be very safe with radiation,” Professor Henkin says. Comparing Japan’s current levels with the data derived from the decades-long Atomic Bomb Project, which followed people exposed at various distances to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions, Henkin concludes the following: “The dosage that people had to attain to achieve above-average incidence of cancer in a population is orders of magnitude above anything basically anybody [outside of the plants] in Japan is experiencing right now.”

Here’s another example: meltdown. The nuclear experts like to call it “the M-word.” “We use the term ‘meltdown,’ and it conjures up this disaster,” Brown says. But a meltdown is not always a catastrophe. “When you say ‘car accident,’ people know it could be a fender-bender, or it could be fatal. Nobody just assumes it was fatal. It should be the same with a meltdown. There are many scenarios in which a meltdown happens and nobody gets hurt,” Brown says.

Here’s what a typical meltdown really is, and how it may have happened in ***ushima. At the first sign of danger (to which nuclear reactors are very sensitive — the ***ushima reactors knew about and responded to the earthquake before people felt it), a nuclear reactor automatically shuts down the uranium-fission process by which it produces the vast majority of its heat. But that doesn’t stop all energy production. Uranium fission results in several radioactive byproducts, which produce roughly 6 percent of the heat of the normal, functioning reactor — and continue to do so after the fission itself stops. So at this point, nuclear engineers can avoid a meltdown by bleeding away 6 percent of the heat that a normal reactor gives off.

So why didn’t this work at ***ushima? It’s simple: Diesel generators — the power source for the reactors’ cooling systems — got wet. Amazingly enough, the reactors survived the Richter scale 9 earthquake when almost everything in the surrounding area was destroyed. But the tsunami, which came afterward, knocked out the generators. If the diesel generators had been properly equipped to deal with the wave, the ***ushima reactors would be fine. For now, keeping the reactors cool will be a pain, but a devastating meltdown doesn’t seem likely.

If the reactor is not sufficiently cooled, two things could go wrong. First, the metal in the containment vessel of the reactor might get so hot that it oxidizes any water that comes near it, producing a hydrogen bubble that could explode, as happened in two ***ushima reactors. The other hazard is that the reactor gets so hot that it partially melts (that is, a meltdown occurs, as it has in ***ushima), and if the melting is substantial, that might allow radioactive gases to escape and get mixed in with steam that’s on its way out of the plant. Even then, there are more lines of defense: charcoal filters that capture the radioactive particles while allowing the steam and noble gases through, and a double containment system that puts another wall (outside of the reactor) between the fuel and the public. If those don’t work, the radioactivity in the surrounding area will rise in proportion to the amount of radioactive byproducts released.

Professor Miller states that “the public has the notion that we’ll see this molten blob of material escaping into the environment. And that doesn’t happen.”

Here’s a final example: nuclear contamination. It’s a scary phrase, but what does it mean? Formally, Professor Henkin states, when a person is contaminated, “that means that person really ought to take a shower.” And this, Henkin says, is the highest level of exposure civilians have received from ***ushima.

Even so, many things went wrong in Japan last week. But they’re very unlikely to happen in the United States. As Prof. Dennis Beller, a nuclear-engineering researcher at UNLV, states, “U.S. nuclear plants are generally designed to a higher safety level than those in Japan.” To start with, we have more redundant and safer energy sources for our coolers. Also, we now have the technological capability to build reactors with automatic-convection cooling systems. That means no external power source will be required, so meltdowns would be prevented even when all power is shut off.

That’s the science. But the more important question going forward is one of policy. All the nuclear-energy experts emphasize that good policy means thinking about tradeoffs — choosing among feasible alternatives, rather than striving for perfection. So consider our options, and the consequences of several alternatives:

First, shutting down the production of new nuclear facilities would mean more reliance on old nuclear facilities, which are less safe. Second, shutting down or phasing out all nuclear facilities would necessitate greater reliance on other energy technologies that have their own dangers. As Professor Brown says, in a refrain common to all the nuclear experts, “Think of the BP explosion. Or Exxon Valdez. Those were pretty hellacious. And every month there’s a coal-mine disaster, and you read about pipelines exploding.” He recommends acknowledging that we are in “a pragmatic space. That doesn’t mean you don’t think every life is valuable. But you’re balancing risks, and acknowledging their reality in the real world we live in.”

The total death toll from Three Mile Island may have been zero, and Chernobyl claimed, by the estimates of the International Atomic Energy Agency, just 50 lives, despite what nuclear experts describe as the Soviet Union’s extreme incompetence. Each lost life is a tragedy. But in the 20th century, hydroelectric dams’ bursting, coal-mining disasters, and oil explosions have killed tens of thousands. And that includes just direct deaths from accidents, not indirect deaths from displacement, health problems caused by particulate matter, etc. Statistically speaking, nuclear experts claim, uranium fission is the safest major energy source in the world.

It’s possible that media overreaction and misunderstanding of the ***ushima incident will hold back the advance of nuclear energy. Chancellor Angela Merkel has ordered a complete shutdown of Germany’s seven oldest nuclear plants. Even if those plants did need to be updated, “You can make additions and updates without shutting down the plants,” Professor Beller says. Merkel’s restriction of the energy supply, he points out, will exacerbate an energy crisis and hurt “low-income people in particular in Germany.”

John McGaha fears the worst for the United States. “Every time there’s an event of any kind, even if, when it’s all said and done, nobody was hurt — anything that can be symbolic of the risk of nuclear energy provides fodder for the anti-nuclear groups to get on their horse and campaign against the industry.” And that will have international repercussions: “We’re still seen as the go-to country for any other country that wants to build its own program. The United States’ policies and designs set the standard for the rest of the world.”

There’s some reason for optimism, however. As Bill Miller, professor of nuclear science and engineering at the University of Missouri, says, “I noticed that the president and Secretary Chu have already stated that it’s tragic and we need to learn from it, but that doesn’t change the U.S. position on the need for nuclear power.”

MagicHef
03-22-2011, 12:11 PM
There s not legitimate plan for nuclear waste only the idea we will bury it for later. We should've learned from Chernobyl. I'm against any product that produces by products that are deadly. Radioactive is just a giant glowing warning no one wants to admit.

We live in a world where we have so many energy sources and yet we love to use the same unhealthy or deadly ones. Burying waste prolongs the problem it doesn't fix it. That is not a solution simply a delay.

We could have solar panel cars, the technology was around in the eighties. We have had hydrogen powered engines since the sixties. The truth is the silent masses haven't demanded it yet.

Plato: Silence equals consent.

The surface area of the top of a car is nowhere close to what it would need to be to power a car through solar. I think you're maybe referring to the ultralight one-person racing cars such as Solar One, but something like that would be completely impractical for anyone to drive. As far as hydrogen engines, the hydrogen has to be produced, typically with electricity, so you aren't really gaining anything. Personally, I'm in favor of the cheapest and safest source of electricity we have, and that is nuclear.

enjolras
03-22-2011, 12:27 PM
There s not legitimate plan for nuclear waste only the idea we will bury it for later. We should've learned from Chernobyl. I'm against any product that produces by products that are deadly. Radioactive is just a giant glowing warning no one wants to admit.

We live in a world where we have so many energy sources and yet we love to use the same unhealthy or deadly ones. Burying waste prolongs the problem it doesn't fix it. That is not a solution simply a delay.

We could have solar panel cars, the technology was around in the eighties. We have had hydrogen powered engines since the sixties. The truth is the silent masses haven't demanded it yet.

Plato: Silence equals consent.

Were does the hydrodgen come from? There isn't a solar panel on earth that can power a car over it's surface area. Not to mention a battery on earth that can reliably store enough energy in low sunlight conditions.

These technologies simply don't exist today.

What does exist are reliable and safe nuclear power plants.

BroncoLifer
03-22-2011, 02:14 PM
There's nuclear waste stored around the country right now. The Yucca Mountain site was made to store this waste and any future waste. I think one of the hold ups is how to transport the waste to the site.

I think the bigger hold ups have been ignorance and demagoguery.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-22-2011, 02:43 PM
Were does the hydrodgen come from? There isn't a solar panel on earth that can power a car over it's surface area. Not to mention a battery on earth that can reliably store enough energy in low sunlight conditions.

These technologies simply don't exist today.

What does exist are reliable and safe nuclear power plants.

My point was there was an outline for a solar car. Yes the practicality is not there but tha's because it's not important or valuable enough yet to investigate further.

Hydrogen engines run on water but the power required for batteries again hasn't been mastered. We have a lot of choices on this plant but we push the one with the deadliest by product.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
03-22-2011, 02:55 PM
My point was there was an outline for a solar car. Yes the practicality is not there but tha's because it's not important or valuable enough yet to investigate further.

Hydrogen engines run on water but the power required for batteries again hasn't been mastered. We have a lot of choices on this plant but we push the one with the deadliest by product.

I don't like the idea of a car with a solar panel, for obvious reasons.

However, I do like the idea of an electric car that recharges at an outlet in your house which is run off of solar power.

I'm hopeful hydrogen power makes leaps and bounds as well. It would benefit us as consumers if there was more than one viable option ten years down the road.

baja
03-22-2011, 03:22 PM
We need a car that runs off the endless power of road rage

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-22-2011, 03:58 PM
We need a car that runs off the endless power of road rage

JUst stand in front of mine baja I'd be glad to keep the pedal down. I might even back over and try again if the engine still turns over

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-22-2011, 04:00 PM
I don't like the idea of a car with a solar panel, for obvious reasons.

However, I do like the idea of an electric car that recharges at an outlet in your house which is run off of solar power.

I'm hopeful hydrogen power makes leaps and bounds as well. It would benefit us as consumers if there was more than one viable option ten years down the road.

The entire western UNited States is ideal for solar power. Not a big fan of large windmills but the small home version could be modified for mass usage. Geo-thermal, and water are also options I just have fears over the viability.

baja
03-22-2011, 04:00 PM
JUst stand in front of mine baja I'd be glad to keep the pedal down. I might even back over and try again if the engine still turns over

We don't need people like you here punk

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-22-2011, 04:06 PM
HAHAHA. You leave me rude messages, talk crap to me in every thread I go and I say one thing and now you are the victim. Spare me drama.

I'm sorry I messed with your super witty road rage comment. I'm sure the whole thread was offended.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-22-2011, 04:07 PM
Why don't you go drive around the Middle East with your wedding dress on an bash more soldiers like before.

Oh wait you don't talk to soldiers directly because that isn't cowardly

baja
03-22-2011, 04:11 PM
Why don't you go drive around the Middle East with your wedding dress on an bash more soldiers like before.

Oh wait you don't talk to soldiers directly because that isn't cowardly

You won't last here punk

Love to see you say those things to my face

baja
03-22-2011, 04:13 PM
Why don't you go drive around the Middle East with your wedding dress on an bash more soldiers like before.

Oh wait you don't talk to soldiers directly because that isn't cowardly


I'll pray for you

baja
03-22-2011, 04:14 PM
HAHAHA. You leave me rude messages, talk crap to me in every thread I go and I say one thing and now you are the victim. Spare me drama.

I'm sorry I messed with your super witty road rage comment. I'm sure the whole thread was offended.

You are a lier punk

You will get figured out soon enough one month wonder

Killericon
03-22-2011, 04:21 PM
The Japan thing is not even close to under control. The media is down playing it as are the governments. Rarely do people get the truth of their day until generations later.

I feel like this needed a follow-up.

WHAT IN HELL IS WRONG WITH THIS WOMAN. (http://ca.gawker.com/5784509/nancy-grace-just-knows-that-everyone-in-california-will-die-from-radiation)

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-22-2011, 04:22 PM
You are a lier punk

You will get figured out soon enough one month wonder

Show me one lie and I will leave just for you.

I posted:
"Why don't you go drive around the Middle East with your wedding dress on an bash more soldiers like before.

Oh wait you don't talk to soldiers directly because that isn't cowardly"


You won't last here punk

Love to see you say those things to my face

So you don't deny you said those things. I'd gladly say it to your face. In fact I'd gladly pound it into your empty head. I'm right here. Call me whatever you want.

I stand behind what I say you un-American spineless two faced coward!

Atwater His Ass
03-22-2011, 04:22 PM
Hydrogen engines run on water but the power required for batteries again hasn't been mastered. We have a lot of choices on this plant but we push the one with the deadliest by product.

Hydrogen engines do not run on water. They run on, wait for it....hydrogen. You still need to generate hydrogen from water via electrolysis, which can then either be used to create fuel cells, or directly injected into a hydrogen combustion engine.

One of the main issues has always been the amount of energy requried to produce the hydrogen, along with the high cost materials required to create the fuel cells (plantinum). That energy has to come from somewhere. You can't claim to have a perpetual motion type of machine. There are these little laws, called the laws of thermodynamics which don't allow it.

Water cannot be classified as a "fuel" because it doesn't burn in oxygen, which is the standard definition of energy content of different fuels. Chemical energy cannot be extracted from water alone.

This doesn't even take into account the billions of dollars required to create the infastructure to support hydrogen cars, how to store it, etc.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-22-2011, 04:24 PM
I think as a person who lives in CA that this is a bigger deal then people make it out to be. IMO. I just feel radiation is no small thing.

Killericon
03-22-2011, 04:26 PM
I think as a person who lives in CA that this is a bigger deal then people make it out to be. IMO. I just feel radiation is no small thing.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/radiation.png

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-22-2011, 04:27 PM
Hydrogen engines do not run on water. They run on, wait for it....hydrogen. You still need to generate hydrogen from water via electrolysis, which can then either be used to create fuel cells, or directly injected into a hydrogen combustion engine.

One of the main issues has always been the amount of energy requried to produce the hydrogen. That energy has to come from somewhere. You can't claim to have a perpetual motion type of machine. There are these little laws, called the laws of thermodynamics which don't allow it.

Water cannot be classified as a "fuel" because it doesn't burn in oxygen, which is the standard definition of energy content of different fuels. Chemical energy cannot be extracted from water alone.

Agreed. It was a large over simplification. The point I was simply trying to make was that many sources of energy are available but we are obsessed with the one that is worst for us.

Nuclear creates tremendous power for the effort and by product but that by product has a half life longer then anything man made has ever lasted.

Atwater His Ass
03-22-2011, 04:27 PM
I think as a person who lives in CA that this is a bigger deal then people make it out to be. IMO. I just feel radiation is no small thing.

Your "feelings" are nice. But try to educate yourself about radiation first, instead of making snap judgements based on your un-founded fears.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-22-2011, 04:29 PM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/radiation.png

I think the chart is fascinating. I spent a lot of time with it. I actually really appreciate the posting of it. It doesn't change the fact that even nuclear physicists remark at the danger level of the by products.

They feel the threat is minimal, I disagree. Show me the people from Chernobyl, or those who were born in China right after we dropped the bomb in WWII. Radiation has very powerful effects. I wonder why we limit exposure if it's so nominal as everyone suggests.

baja
03-22-2011, 04:31 PM
Show me one lie and I will leave just for you.

I posted:
"Why don't you go drive around the Middle East with your wedding dress on an bash more soldiers like before.

Oh wait you don't talk to soldiers directly because that isn't cowardly"




So you don't deny you said those things. I'd gladly say it to your face. In fact I'd gladly pound it into your empty head. I'm right here. Call me whatever you want.

I stand behind what I say you un-American spineless two faced coward!

OK we are going to take this to PMs the rest of this board doesn't need this crap

You've been here one month I've been here 10 years

I'm an a proud American & I'm a vet so there are two slanderous lies in one post

You are likely some snot nosed kid that has minimal life experience

Do everyone a favor if you have decided in under 30 days that I'm a coward and un american that good for you put me on ignore that's what we do with people we don't like here.

Killericon
03-22-2011, 04:33 PM
I think the chart is fascinating. I spent a lot of time with it. I actually really appreciate the posting of it. It doesn't change the fact that even nuclear physicists remark at the danger level of the by products.

They feel the threat is minimal, I disagree.

Are you talking about Japan still, or are you talking about Nuclear power in general? I cannot, for the life of me, understand how someone can look at that chart and worry for Californians. Even if this went Chernobyl, which by all informed accounts it won't, there is no threat to the health of Californians. Whatsoever. MAYBE there would be a threat to Hawaiians, but probably not.

If you want to argue that the Japanese people will suffer as a result, then that at least makes some sense.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-22-2011, 04:35 PM
Excellent then stop talking to me. That would be the mature thing to do.

I love that you try to make yourself out to be the mature one when you make endless slanderous remarks.

Take it where ever and when ever you like. We tried to discuss if you were a vet, and if you were patriotic in another thread. You ran. My experience with you remains unchanged.

You asked me to say it to your face. I always have, always will.

Atwater His Ass
03-22-2011, 04:35 PM
Exposure is limited intentionally at very low values for safety.

There has been ample information posted in this thread with resources that would allow you to answer all those questions, but you continue to just stick your head in the sand.

It's comical you are trying to compare the people that were in the immediate area of a nuclear bomb, with what is happening in Japan. Ignorance knows no bounds.

Do you even know how many people died as a direct result of radiation from Chernobyl? 50. And most of those were rescue workers that were on the scene soon after the disaster.

Atwater His Ass
03-22-2011, 04:36 PM
Even if this went Chernobyl, which by all informed accounts it can't.

fixed

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-22-2011, 04:39 PM
Are you talking about Japan still, or are you talking about Nuclear power in general? I cannot, for the life of me, understand how someone can look at that chart and worry for Californians. Even if this went Chernobyl, which by all informed accounts it won't, there is no threat to the health of Californians. Whatsoever. MAYBE there would be a threat to Hawaiians, but probably not.

If you want to argue that the Japanese people will suffer as a result, then that at least makes some sense.

I meant it as a general for nuclear power. I said as much before. I've been saying I'd like alternatives to nuclear because "I feel" the dangers out weigh the gains.

Hawaii is a worry to me. I understand the wind is more likely to carry it North of Hawaii though and toward CA. Is the threat minimal, maybe. I just don't like taking the Japanese word for it because they are notorious throughout history for not exactly sharing the exact details with their citizens or the rest of the world.

If they asked for help that should be a huge red flag IMO

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-22-2011, 04:43 PM
I'm looking at Japan and saying why go nuclear with power. Not that this one time it will kill the world Atwater.

I agree we may dodge a bullet here but look at Europe with over 160 reactors all now being rechecked with new safety standards. It calls into question what many people are saying is the rightful future of power production in the world.

I'm saying it's not the best choice. (nuclear)

Only 50 people died at Chernobyl. I guess it would've been better if they had built it in a more populated area like some of the plans in the US. I see Chernobyl as a warning sign that we have't mastered this technology and it may not be worth the risk to do so.

baja
03-22-2011, 04:48 PM
Excellent then stop talking to me. That would be the mature thing to do.

I love that you try to make yourself out to be the mature one when you make endless slanderous remarks.

Take it where ever and when ever you like. We tried to discuss if you were a vet, and if you were patriotic in another thread. You ran. My experience with you remains unchanged.

You asked me to say it to your face. I always have, always will.

it was you meattacking me personally for a post not directed to you. You call un american and a coward and question my service and you say I should stop talking to you, right you are attacking me. I don't stand by and take that shiit.

put me on ignore and you will never have to read another post of mine

BTW saying it to my face in is not typing your crap behind the safety of moms computer

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-22-2011, 04:53 PM
Anytime you want me to say it to your face let me know when and where. I live far north of you but the roads run your direction.

You're really tough talking crap over the internet. If you want to ignore me. I'm not nearly as sensitive as you apparently are.

I hope with age you will gain the confidence within yourself not to have to attack others for your low self esteem.

Blueflame
03-22-2011, 04:55 PM
"Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac", please place Baja on ignore and stop bringing crap from a closed thread into the active threads, particularly on the main forum.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-22-2011, 05:01 PM
Blueflame why can't he ignore me? Why did he have to run to you. He wants a free right to talk crap but take none.

I call that keyboard cowardice. I respect what you are saying and if I'm going to be kicked off the site on your behalf I would pick him too. He has far more time to post then I do, look at his totals.

The idea that I have to change my settings because he wants to run his mouth though is very hypocritical. I have more faith in you and this site.

I'm trying have conversation and disussions. His attacks have been far more personal in nature. His claims unsupported. I respect authority but it should be considered how both parties behave.

baja
03-22-2011, 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baja
We need a car that runs off the endless power of road rage

JUst stand in front of mine baja I'd be glad to keep the pedal down. I might even back over and try again if the engine still turns over

You attacked me, this post of mine had nothing to do with you. and continued to slander me with lies

You stop attacking me and I will never need to respond to you hows that.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-22-2011, 05:10 PM
Okay we can agree to hate each other equally just stop talking to me then. If you don't want to talk then don't

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-22-2011, 05:11 PM
Stop sending me private messages then hahaha. Who is obsessed with who? I'm trying to talk about ideas and views. If you are not proud of your view and don't want to discuss it don't.

baja
03-22-2011, 05:12 PM
Like I said never slander me again and you will never be quoted by me again.

Blueflame
03-22-2011, 05:13 PM
Blueflame why can't he ignore me? Why did he have to run to you. He wants a free right to talk crap but take none.

I call that keyboard cowardice. I respect what you are saying and if I'm going to be kicked off the site on your behalf I would pick him too. He has far more time to post then I do, look at his totals.

The idea that I have to change my settings because he wants to run his mouth though is very hypocritical. I have more faith in you and this site.

I'm trying have conversation and disussions. His attacks have been far more personal in nature. His claims unsupported. I respect authority but it should be considered how both parties behave.

I "get it" that there are going to be disagreements and personality clashes between posters on any public message board in cyberspace. However, we simply can't have an ongoing, uncontrolled flamefest spilling over into every thread on every forum of the Mane. Disagreements that originate on the WRP forum should probably stay in WRP.

If the two of you can't keep the debate impersonal, then again, I strongly endorse mutual use of the "ignore" feature at least for a time.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-22-2011, 05:13 PM
I repeated your position. If you are not proud of it then say you may have miss spoke. It happens that's okay.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-22-2011, 05:16 PM
I "get it" that there are going to be disagreements and personality clashes between posters on any public message board in cyberspace. However, we simply can't have an ongoing, uncontrolled flamefest spilling over into every thread on every forum of the Mane. Disagreements that originate on the WRP forum should probably stay in WRP.

If the two of you can't keep the debate impersonal, then again, I strongly endorse mutual use of the "ignore" feature at least for a time.

I gladly have indifference toward him. It is shocking how he complained after he picked the fight. I have no problem moving past him by this only is personal from the stand point of his endless quotation and my disagreement with his beliefs

baja
03-22-2011, 05:16 PM
I repeated your position. If you are not proud of it then say you may have miss spoke. It happens that's okay.

No, this is was what started this out of the blue;

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
JUst stand in front of mine baja I'd be glad to keep the pedal down. I might even back over and try again if the engine still turns over

Like I said stop the attacks and I will never quote you again unless in actual discussion.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-22-2011, 05:19 PM
Your comment came as I was being chastised for my solar car comment. Lets not play stupid in self defense.

As I have made very clear on multiple threads wehere you come in to talk right behind me and make snide comments. Stop talking to me and I wont need to respond. You love to initiate and stir the pot then ask why is the water spinning.

It is a very juvenile game.

Blueflame
03-22-2011, 05:21 PM
Once more, I'm going to re-iterate that the main forum is not the proper venue for this particular "continuation of a previous conversation".

baja
03-22-2011, 05:22 PM
I gladly have indifference toward him. It is shocking how he complained after he picked the fight. I have no problem moving past him by this only is personal from the stand point of his endless quotation and my disagreement with his beliefs

two more lies

you must think the mods are here are stupid.

OK of the sake of the rest of the folks on this thread I'm out

Sorry to the rest of the board for the distraction from the discussion.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-22-2011, 05:27 PM
two more lies

you must think the mods are here are stupid.

OK of the sake of the rest of the folks on this thread I'm out

Sorry to the rest of the board for the distraction from the discussion.

This may be the one place he and I agree. I apologize for the distraction of the discussion as well.

Killericon
03-22-2011, 06:07 PM
I meant it as a general for nuclear power. I said as much before. I've been saying I'd like alternatives to nuclear because "I feel" the dangers out weigh the gains.

Hawaii is a worry to me. I understand the wind is more likely to carry it North of Hawaii though and toward CA. Is the threat minimal, maybe. I just don't like taking the Japanese word for it because they are notorious throughout history for not exactly sharing the exact details with their citizens or the rest of the world.

If they asked for help that should be a huge red flag IMO

Well, the racism of that aside, I think we'd all like the alternatives to Nuclear if they were cheap enough. Granting that society will function as society does function, wind isn't efficient enough, solar isn't cheap enough, and Fusion isn't possible. Unless you prefer Coal or Gas, Nuclear's the best we got.

I'm looking at Japan and saying why go nuclear with power.

Because Japan is a tiny island with little to no natural resources. They don't have the land mass for wind(Or even Solar, really), they don't have coal, and they've decided that Nuclear's risks outweigh Fossil Fuels'.

mhgaffney
03-22-2011, 06:12 PM
This thread is seriously off topic.

Judging by the title -- whoever started it has his head a zillion miles up his butt.

No problems. This vid - below -- will fix everything.

Get ready. Hold onto your G- string.

Sit back - and watch the amazing Kaku cut thru the crappola about ***ushima:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PREzwzXPd0A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-23-2011, 12:40 AM
* The NRC hold off on renewing operating licenses for nuclear reactors, given our newfound certainty that many sites in earthquake zones could experience greater destruction than previously assumed.
* The NRC promptly require reactor owners to end the dense compaction of spent fuel, and ensure that at least 75 percent of the spent fuel in pools operating above their capacity be removed and placed into dry, hardened storage containers on site, which are more likely to withstand earthquakes.
In our 2003 study, we estimated that it would take about 10 years to do this with existing technology, at an expense of $3.5 to $7 billion.
Robert Alvarez, an Institute for Policy Studies senior scholar, served as senior policy adviser to the Energy Department's secretary from 1993 to 1999. www.ips-dc.org[/QUOTE]

55CrushEm
03-23-2011, 07:13 AM
This thread is seriously off topic.

Judging by the title -- whoever started it has his head a zillion miles up his butt.

No problems. This vid - below -- will fix everything.

Get ready. Hold onto your G- string.

Sit back - and watch the amazing Kaku cut thru the crappola about ***ushima:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PREzwzXPd0A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I started it. And from the looks of it....you continue to ignore the wealth of information that has been posted on here....because it doensn't fit your agenda.

"Run for da hills.....nu-cleer poower is teh devils!!"

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-23-2011, 05:07 PM
[QUOTE=Killericon;3142910]Well, the racism of that asideQUOTE]

Saying the Japanese government has been anything but upfront with past information is not Racist. I wish people understood the words they use

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-23-2011, 05:08 PM
Actually todat the Japanese released a report saying that the drinking water contains high levels of radiation and is not safe to drink. They encouraged all children and infants not to drink the water but said the amount was not fatal for adults.

Yep things are going fine!

mhgaffney
03-23-2011, 09:16 PM
I started it. And from the looks of it....you continue to ignore the wealth of information that has been posted on here....because it doensn't fit your agenda.

"Run for da hills.....nu-cleer poower is teh devils!!"

My agenda?

Your thread is based on a false premise. Your MIT expert was way wrong.

It's not about being afraid. It's about being awake.

You seriously underestimated the disaster. Kaku sets the record straight.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-23-2011, 11:22 PM
They've wasted a whole week pointlessly spraying water on it - all the while it continues to steam, burn and melt unabated, sending radioactive material across their country. I'm hoping they finally get a clue and cap it instead of trying to kill their workers and poison citizens as far away as Tokyo with contaminated water, air and food.
The land and sea already show radioactive contamination and the longer they piss into the wind, the worse it gets and the more cleanup will be required before rebuilding. I also hope, for the love of God, that any infants and pregnant woman evacuated to far south of Tokyo before last weekend, despite their government saying everything was peachy.

I agree

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-24-2011, 09:54 AM
This op ed by Robert Alvarez -- supports what I've been saying about the radiation danger from spent fuel rods.
MHG

March 21, 2011

Extreme Exposure

The Danger of Spent Nuclear Fuel

By ROBERT ALVAREZ

The spent fuel pools at Units 3 and 4 at the crippled ***ushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex are exposed to the open sky and might be draining. The radioactive dose rates coming off the pools appear to be life-threatening. Lead-shielded helicopters trying to dump water over the pools/reactors could not get close enough to make much difference because of the dangerous levels of radiation.

If the spent fuel is exposed, the zirconium cladding encasi ng the spent fuel can catch fire releasing potentially catastrophic amounts of radiation, particularly cesium-137 (Here's an article I wrote in January 2002 in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists about spent fuel pool dangers.)

go here for the link
http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/atreact...rticle2002.pdf (http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/atreactorstorage/alvarezarticle2002.pdf)

In October 2002, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, serving at that time as her state's attorney general, organized a group letter to Congress signed by her and 26 of her counterparts across the nation. In it, they requested greater safeguards for reactor spent-fuel pools. The letter urged "enhanced protections for one of the most vulnerable components of a nuclear power plant its spent fuel pools." It was met with silence.

In January 2003, my colleagues and I warned that a drained spent fuel pool in the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> could lead to a catastrophic fire that would result in long-term land contamination substantially worse than what the <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Chernobyl</st1:place></st1:City> accident unleashed. An area around the <st1:City w:st="on">Chernobyl</st1:City> site roughly half the size of <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">New Jersey</st1:place></st1:State> continues to be considered uninhabitable.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the nuclear energy industry strongly disagreed. Congress then asked the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">National</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Academy</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> of Sciences (NAS) to referee this dispute.

In 2004, after the NRC tried unsuccessfully to suppress its report, the NAS panel agreed with our findings. The Academy panel stated that a "partially or completely drained pool could lead to a propagating zirconium cladding fire and release large quantities of radioactive materials to the environment."

Over the past 15 years, NRC has become too co-dependent on the industry it regulates. This has a lot to do with Congress, the nuclear industry lobby and its large amounts of money, which successfully rolled back the post Three <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Mile</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Island</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> regulatory reforms of the early 19080s.. NRC is now much more dependent on industry self-reporting, much like what happened with the SEC and the banking industry before the economic collapse.

U.S. reactors are each holding at least four times as much spent fuel as the individual pools at the wrecked Daiichi nuclear complex in ***ushima. According to the Energy Department, about 63,000 metric tons of spent fuel has been generated as of this year, containing approximately 12.4 billion curies. These pools contain some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet. Merely 14 percent of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> spent fuel is in dry storage.

At this stage it's critical that:

* The NRC hold off on renewing operating licenses for nuclear reactors, given our newfound certainty that many sites in earthquake zones could experience greater destruction than previously assumed.

* The NRC promptly require reactor owners to end the dense compaction of spent fuel, and ensure that at least 75 percent of the spent fuel in pools operating above their capacity be removed and placed into dry, hardened storage containers on site, which are more likely to withstand earthquakes.

In our 2003 study, we estimated that it would take about 10 years to do this with existing technology, at an expense of $3.5 to $7 billion.

Robert Alvarez, an Institute for Policy Studies senior scholar, served as senior policy adviser to the Energy Department's secretary from 1993 to 1999.

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-24-2011, 09:54 AM
Here's an excellent interview with author Hirose Takashi, a long time critic of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region>'s nuclear industry. Takashi agrees with Michio Kaku --

This piece was posted today at
http://www.counterpunch.org/takashi03222011.html (http://www.counterpunch.org/takashi03222011.html)

MHG

March 22, 2011

"You Get 3,500,000 the <st1:place w:st="on">Normal</st1:place> Dose. You Call That Safe? And What Media Have Reported This? None!"

What They're Covering Up at ***ushima

By HIROSE TAKASHI

Introduced by Douglas Lummis

Okinawa

Hirose Takashi has written a whole shelf full of books, mostly on the nuclear power industry and the military-industrial complex. Probably his best known book is Nuclear Power Plants for <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Tokyo</st1:place></st1:City> in which he took the logic of the nuke promoters to its logical conclusion: if you are so sure that they're safe, why not build them in the center of the city, instead of hundreds of miles away where you lose half the electricity in the wires?

He did the TV interview that is partly translated below somewhat against his present impulses. I talked to him on the telephone today (March 22 , 2011) and he told me that while it made sense to oppose nuclear power back then, now that the disaster has begun he would just as soon remain silent, but the lies they are telling on the radio and TV are so gross that he cannot remain silent.

I have translated only about the first third of the interview (you can see the whole thing in Japanese on you-tube), the part that pertains particularly to what is happening at the ***ushima plants. In the latter part he talked about how dangerous radiation is in general, and also about the continuing danger of earthquakes.

After reading his account, you will wonder, why do they keep on sprinkling water on the reactors, rather than accept the sarcophagus solution [ie., entombing the reactors in concrete. Editors.] I think there are a couple of answers. One, those reactors were expensive, and they just can't bear the idea of that huge a financial loss. But more importantly, accepting the sarcophagus solution means admitting that they were wrong, and that they couldn't fix the things. On the one hand that's too much guilt for a human being to bear. On the other, it means the defeat of the nuclear energy idea, an idea they hold to with almost religious devotion. And it means not just the loss of those six (or ten) reactors, it means shutting down all the others as well, a financial catastrophe. If they can only get them cooled down and running again they can say, See, nuclear power isn't so dangerous after all. ***ushima is a drama with the whole world watching, that can end in the defeat or (in their frail, I think groundless, hope) victory for the nuclear industry. Hirose's account can help us to understand what the drama is about. Douglas Lummis

Hirose Takashi: The ***ushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident and the State of the Media

Broadcast by Asahi NewStar, 17 March, 20:00

Interviewers: Yo and Maeda Mari

Yo: Today many people saw water being sprayed on the reactors from the air and from the ground, but is this effective?

Hirose: . . . If you want to cool a reactor down with water, you have to circulate the water inside and carry the heat away, otherwise it has no meaning. So the only solution is to reconnect the electricity. Otherwise it’s like pouring water on lava.

Yo: Reconnect the electricity – that’s to restart the cooling system?

Hirose: Yes. The accident was caused by the fact that the tsunami flooded the emergency generators and carried away their fuel tanks. If that isn’t fixed, there’s no way to recover from this accident.

Yo: Tepco [Tokyo Electric Power Company, owner/operator of the nuclear plants] says they expect to bring in a high voltage line this evening.

Hirose: Yes, there’s a little bit of hope there. But what’s worrisome is that a nuclear reactor is not like what the schematic pictures show (shows a graphic picture of a reactor, like those used on TV). This is just a cartoon. Here’s what it looks like underneath a reactor container (shows a photograph). This is the butt end of the reactor. Take a look. It’s a forest of switch levers and wires and pipes. On television these pseudo-scholars come on and give us simple explanations, but they know nothing, those college professors. Only the engineers know. This is where water has been poured in. This maze of pipes is enough to make you dizzy. Its structure is too wildly complex for us to understand. For a week now they have been pouring water through there. And it’s salt water, right? You pour salt water on a hot kiln and what do you think happens? You get salt. The salt will get into all these valves and cause them to freeze. They won’t move. This will be happening everywhere. So I can’t believe that it’s just a simple matter of you reconnecting the electricity and the water will begin to circulate. I think any engineer with a little imagination can understand this. You take a system as unbelievably complex as this and then actually dump water on it from a helicopter – maybe they have some idea of how this could work, but I can’t understand it.

Yo: It will take 1300 tons of water to fill the pools that contain the spent fuel rods in reactors 3 and 4. This morning 30 tons. Then the Self Defense Forces are to hose in another 30 tons from five trucks. That’s nowhere near enough, they have to keep it up. Is this squirting of water from hoses going to change the situation?

Hirose: In principle, it can’t. Because even when a reactor is in good shape, it requires constant control to keep the temperature down to where it is barely safe. Now it’s a complete mess inside, and when I think of the 50 remaining operators, it brings tears to my eyes. I assume they have been exposed to very large amounts of radiation, and that they have accepted that they face death by staying there. And how long can they last? I mean, physically. That’s what the situation has come to now. When I see these accounts on television, I want to tell them, “If that’s what you say, then go there and do it yourself!” Really, they talk this nonsense, trying to reassure everyone, trying to avoid panic. What we need now is a proper panic. Because the situation has come to the point where the danger is real.

If I were <st1:City w:st="on">Prime Minister</st1:City> <st1:State w:st="on">Kan</st1:State>, I would order them to do what the Soviet Union did when the <st1:City w:st="on">Chernobyl</st1:City> reactor blew up, the sarcophagus solution, bury the whole thing under cement, put every cement company in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region> to work, and dump cement over it from the sky. Because you have to assume the worst case. Why? Because in ***ushima there is the Daiichi Plant with six reactors and the Daini Plant with four for a total of ten reactors. If even one of them develops the worst case, then the workers there must either evacuate the site or stay on and collapse. So if, for example, one of the reactors at Daiichi goes down, the other five are only a matter of time. We can’t know in what order they will go, but certainly all of them will go. And if that happens, Daini isn’t so far away, so probably the reactors there will also go down. Because I assume that workers will not be able to stay there.

I’m speaking of the worst case, but the probability is not low. This is the danger that the world is watching. Only in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region> is it being hidden. As you know, of the six reactors at Daiichi, four are in a crisis state. So even if at one everything goes well and water circulation is restored, the other three could still go down. Four are in crisis, and for all four to be 100 per cent repaired, I hate to say it, but I am pessimistic. If so, then to save the people, we have to think about some way to reduce the radiation leakage to the lowest level possible. Not by spraying water from hoses, like sprinkling water on a desert. We have to think of all six going down, and the possibility of that happening is not low. Everyone knows how long it takes a typhoon to pass over <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region>; it generally takes about a week. That is, with a wind speed of two meters per second, it could take about five days for all of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region> to be covered with radiation. We’re not talking about distances of 20 kilometers or 30 kilometers or 100 kilometers. It means of course <st1:City w:st="on">Tokyo</st1:City>, <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Osaka</st1:place></st1:City>. That’s how fast a radioactive cloud could spread. Of course it would depend on the weather; we can’t know in advance how the radiation would be distributed. It would be nice if the wind would blow toward the sea, but it doesn’t always do that. Two days ago, on the 15th, it was blowing toward <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Tokyo</st1:place></st1:City>. That’s how it is. . . .

Yo: Every day the local government is measuring the radioactivity. All the television stations are saying that while radiation is rising, it is still not high enough to be a danger to health. They compare it to a stomach x-ray, or if it goes up, to a CT scan. What is the truth of the matter?

Hirose: For example, yesterday. Around ***ushima Daiichi Station they measured 400 millisieverts – that’s per hour. With this measurement (Chief Cabinet Secretary) Edano admitted for the first time that there was a danger to health, but he didn’t explain what this means. All of the information media are at fault here I think. They are saying stupid things like, why, we are exposed to radiation all the time in our daily life, we get radiation from outer space. But that’s one millisievert per year. A year has 365 days, a day has 24 hours; multiply 365 by 24, you get 8760. Multiply the 400 millisieverts by that, you get 3,500,000 the normal dose. You call that safe? And what media have reported this? None. They compare it to a CT scan, which is over in an instant; that has nothing to do with it. The reason radioactivity can be measured is that radioactive material is escaping. What is dangerous is when that material enters your body and irradiates it from inside. These industry-mouthpiece scholars come on TV and what to they say? They say as you move away the radiation is reduced in inverse ratio to the square of the distance. I want to say the reverse. Internal irradiation happens when radioactive material is ingested into the body. What happens? Say there is a nuclear particle one meter away from you. You breathe it in, it sticks inside your body; the distance between you and it is now at the micron level. One meter is 1000 millimeters, one micron is one thousandth of a millimeter. That’s a thousand times a thousand squared. That’s the real meaning of “inverse ratio of the square of the distance.” Radiation exposure is increased by a factor of a trillion. Inhaling even the tiniest particle, that’s the danger.

Yo: So making comparisons with X-rays and CT scans has no meaning. Because you can breathe in radioactive material.

Hirose: That’s right. When it enters your body, there’s no telling where it will go. The biggest danger is women, especially pregnant women, and little children. Now they’re talking about iodine and cesium, but that’s only part of it, they’re not using the proper detection instruments. What they call monitoring means only measuring the amount of radiation in the air. Their instruments don’t eat. What they measure has no connection with the amount of radioactive material. . . .

Yo: So damage from radioactive rays and damage from radioactive material are not the same.

Hirose: If you ask, are any radioactive rays from the ***ushima Nuclear Station here in this studio, the answer will be no. But radioactive particles are carried here by the air. When the core begins to melt down, elements inside like iodine turn to gas. It rises to the top, so if there is any crevice it escapes outside.

Yo: Is there any way to detect this?

Hirose: I was told by a newspaper reporter that now Tepco is not in shape even to do regular monitoring. They just take an occasional measurement, and that becomes the basis of Edano’s statements. You have to take constant measurements, but they are not able to do that. And you need to investigate just what is escaping, and how much. That requires very sophisticated measuring instruments. You can’t do it just by keeping a monitoring post. It’s no good just to measure the level of radiation in the air. Whiz in by car, take a measurement, it’s high, it’s low – that’s not the point. We need to know what kind of radioactive materials are escaping, and where they are going – they don’t have a system in place for doing that now.

Douglas Lummis is a political scientist living in <st1:place w:st="on">Okinawa</st1:place> and the author of Radical Democracy. Lummis can be reached at ideaspeddler@gmail.com (ideaspeddler@gmail.com)

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-24-2011, 09:55 AM
Bloomberg
Asian Stocks Retreat on Iodine in Tokyo Tap Water, Reactor Woes

March 23, 2011, 6:36 AM EDT


By Shani Raja

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- Asian stocks fell, with the regional benchmark index set for its first loss in four days, after levels of iodine unsafe for infants were reported in Tokyo tap water as workers struggled to reconnect power to a damaged nuclear reactor.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. slumped 4.5 percent after rising as much as 7 percent before a <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Tokyo</st1:place></st1:City> official warned against giving infants tap water to drink. Toyota Motor Corp., the world’s biggest carmaker, declined 1.2 percent after extending production halts. Virgin Blue Holdings Ltd. plunged 6.1 percent in <st1:City w:st="on">Sydney</st1:City> after <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Australia</st1:place></st1:country-region>’s second-largest airline forecast an annual loss. China Coal Energy Co. slumped 9.1 percent in <st1:place w:st="on">Hong Kong</st1:place> after earnings missed estimates.

for the rest
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...ctor-woes.html (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-23/asian-stocks-retreat-on-iodine-in-tokyo-tap-water-reactor-woes.html)<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
***ushima: Mark 1 Nuclear Reactor Design Caused GE Scientist To Quit In Protest
Damaged Japanese Nuclear Plant Has Five Mark 1 Reactors

127 COMMENTS BY MATTHEW MOSK
March 15, 2011

hirty-five years ago, Dale G. Bridenbaugh and two of his colleagues at General Electric resigned from their jobs after becoming increasingly convinced that the nuclear reactor design they were reviewing -- the Mark 1 -- was so flawed it could lead to a devastating accident.


Questions persisted for decades about the ability of the Mark 1 to handle the immense pressures that would result if the reactor lost cooling power, and today that design is being put to the ultimate test in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region>. Five of the six reactors at the ***ushima Daiichi plant, which has been wracked since Friday's earthquake with explosions and radiation leaks, are Mark 1s.

"The problems we identified in 1975 were that, in doing the design of the containment, they did not take into account the dynamic loads that could be experienced with a loss of coolant," Bridenbaugh told ABC News in an interview. "The impact loads the containment would receive by this very rapid release of energy could tear the containment apart and create an uncontrolled release."

For the rest

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/***ush...3141287&page=1

Inquisitive Encyclopedic Insomniac
03-24-2011, 09:55 AM
These last few come from mhgaffney

Killericon
03-24-2011, 12:35 PM
Give the guy credit if he can kill freedom of speech in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>!

Privately owned site, not protected by freedom of speech.

mhgaffney
03-25-2011, 04:17 AM
Dr Helen Caldicott explains the radiation dangers from ***ushima

Don't miss this interview!

http://209.217.209.33/~esnet/downloads/ES_110325_Show_LoFi.mp3