Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

vibe666

i'm aware that this is probably going to be a touchy subject at the moment given everything that is going on, but i know several other posters have previously mentioned death rates for various different forms of power generation and i just stumbled across an interesting article about exactly that and the statistics are a real eye opener.

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-triumph-of-coal-marketing.html

the big thing there is obviously the simplified image showing comparative deaths per watts produced.

obviously, knowing that for every one person killed during nuclear powered energy production there are 4000 deaths in coal powered production isn't going to make anyone in japan feel any better about it right now, but that wasn't the point of posting it at all, but from a purely statistical point of view its very interesting to see it laid out like that.

he's got a link to all his data sources and descriptions on how everything was put together too for anyone geeky enough to want a look at it here: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

there's also plenty of other links off of that as well showing other studies and related info.

Overheal

As I expected, It only took a week for Netflix to put The China Syndrome on it's streaming service.

Turtwig

Overheal wrote: »

As I expected, It only took a week for Netflix to put The China Syndrome on it's streaming service.

That's a great documentary.

Overheal

Malty_T wrote: »

That's a great documentary.

It's still a movie, and deals with a fictional scenario and characters, but it's done very well.

amacachi

vibe666 wrote: »

i'm aware that this is probably going to be a touchy subject at the moment given everything that is going on, but i know several other posters have previously mentioned death rates for various different forms of power generation and i just stumbled across an interesting article about exactly that and the statistics are a real eye opener.

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-triumph-of-coal-marketing.html

the big thing there is obviously the simplified image showing comparative deaths per watts produced.

obviously, knowing that for every one person killed during nuclear powered energy production there are 4000 deaths in coal powered production isn't going to make anyone in japan feel any better about it right now, but that wasn't the point of posting it at all, but from a purely statistical point of view its very interesting to see it laid out like that.

Does that include the deaths from smog, sulphur etc. back in the day? :pac:

geetar

amacachi wrote: »

Does that include the deaths from smog, sulphur etc. back in the day? :pac:

its not back in the day statistics, its present day.

ScumLord

Came across this on stumble, shows a comparative scale for radiation.

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Run_to_da_hills

Steam rising from reactors 1.2.3 and 4 at the moment.

NHK

amacachi

geetar wrote: »

its not back in the day statistics, its present day.

That was my point.

Run_to_da_hills

New Problems at Japanese Plant Subdue Optimism.

Nuclear engineers have become increasingly concerned about a separate problem that may be putting pressure on the Japanese technicians to work faster: salt buildup inside the reactors, which could cause them to heat up more and, in the worst case, cause the uranium to melt, releasing a range of radioactive material.

“A meltdown is looking less likely, but a lot of radiation has been released in the reactor buildings and may continue to seep out,” said a Western nuclear power executive who asked not to be quoted by name because he did not want to risk his broad contacts in Japan. “What we might have is a slow-moving contamination problem rather than a fast-moving contamination problem.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/world/asia/24nuclear.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

take everything

ScumLord wrote: »

Came across this on stumble, shows a comparative scale for radiation.

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

What gets me about that is:
EPA yearly limit for member of the public is 1mS.
Plus dose clearly related to cancer risk is 100mS.

Yet dose limit for emergency workers is 100mS (in protecting property) (presumably at one time and not over a year).
And 250mS (in life-saving operations).

What gives?

Run_to_da_hills

Japan reactor leaks at faster rate than Chernobyl

And this not the Daily Mail..

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0324/1224292956578.html

AlmightyCushion

take everything wrote: »

What gets me about that is:
EPA yearly limit for member of the public is 1mS.
Plus dose clearly related to cancer risk is 100mS.

Yet dose limit for emergency workers is 100mS (in protecting property) (presumably at one time and not over a year).
And 250mS (in life-saving operations).

What gives?

It doesn't say what sort of increase it is. It could be a 0.000001% increase in the risk of cancer. Also the dose related to cancer is over 1 year, it doesn't give a time frame for the doses for emergency workers but I imagine it is over a much shorter time frame than 1 year.

take everything

Also the dose related to cancer is over 1 year, it doesn't give a time frame for the doses for emergency workers but I imagine it is over a much shorter time frame than 1 year.

But this is what i mean in my post.
The amount a worker can be exposed to (100-250 mS) (even over a short time period) massively exceeds the EPA 1mS annual value anyway.
Or even the other 100mS annual dose associated with a cancer increase.
Those poor workers.

Run_to_da_hills

Good News: The radiation levels in Tokyo city tapwater has dropped back below the safety limit for infants.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/24/idUSDYE7EA00G20110324

AlmightyCushion

take everything wrote: »

But this is what i mean in my post.
The amount a worker can be exposed to (100-250 mS) (even over a short time period) massively exceeds the EPA 1mS annual value anyway.
Or even the other 100mS annual dose associated with a cancer increase.
Those poor workers.

The maximum yearly does for a radiation worker is still only as high as 50mSv which is half what would be needed to give an increase risk of cancer. The 100mSv and 250mSv are only in emergency situations which I imagine is normally relatively short periods of time. For a worker to exceed the 100mSv annual dose they would have to spend the whole year being exposed at 100mSv (this means every minute of every day for the whole year) or about 5 months at the 250mSv level. What sort of emergency situation do you expect a single person to be needed for 5 months of exposure at 250mSv?

Canis Lupus

take everything wrote: »

But this is what i mean in my post.
The amount a worker can be exposed to (100-250 mS) (even over a short time period) massively exceeds the EPA 1mS annual value anyway.
Or even the other 100mS annual dose associated with a cancer increase.
Those poor workers.

The most recent International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) report, ICRP 103, suggests that this dose of radiation (250msv the MAX that workers are being permitted) would constitute an increase in cancer risk over a lifetime of approximately 1%. The Register has said that only one worker at this time has gone up to 100msv.

vibe666

Canis Lupus wrote: »

The Register has said that only one worker at this time has gone up to 100msv.

there's some bad news on that unfortunately.

2 nuclear plant workers sent to hospital: Japan's nuclear safety agency says 2 workers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant were taken to hospital on Thursday after being exposed to high-level radiation at the plant.

The agency says the workers' feet were accidentally exposed to 170 to 180 millisieverts of radiation while they were working in the turbine building of the Number 3 reactor.

A third worker was also exposed to radiation but apparently did not require treatment.
Thursday, March 24, 2011 15:43 +0900 (JST)

fingers crossed they are okay, but its actually surprising that in all of this these are the first guys to get a really high dose in one go.

you'd also have to imagine (and indeed very much hope) that once all is said and done, all of these guys will be very well cared for and won't have to go back to working i a plant for a very long time, if at all. for the sacrifice they are making, you'd hope that the company would be pensioning them off with a big fat bonus and top of the range medical care etc.

in related news, some good news regarding the water situation in Tokyo.

Radiation level drops at Tokyo water plant: The Tokyo Metropolitan Government says the measurement of a radioactive substance at a water purification plant dropped below the safety limit for infants on Thursday.

It said on Thursday that a test at the Kanamachi water purification plant on Thursday morning found 79 becquerels of radioactive iodine-131 per liter of water -- below the recommended limit of 100 becquerels for infants.

But it warns of the possibility that water containing higher levels of radioactive iodine could remain in pipes and water tanks for the next couple of days.

Radioactive iodine 2 times above the limit for infants was detected at the water purification plant on Tuesday and Wednesday.

The Tokyo Metropolitan Government has been advising against using tap water for infants' consumption in Tokyo's 23 wards and 5 adjacent cities that use the water from the purification plant.

It said it will continue testing the radioactive level at the water treatment plant from Friday on, pointing out it will withdraw the advisory if the level stays below the safety limit.
Thursday, March 24, 2011 15:34 +0900 (JST)

Rob A. Bank

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DVrQCRRN8A

The US Aircraft Carrier Ronald Regan sailed into the plume of radioactivity from the Fukushema nuclear plant on the 13th and then promptly changed course to avoid it.Though they were 100km downwind from the plant when they met the plume, they had to decontaminated the carrier by washing every exposed surface, suggesting that the radioactive pollution from the damaged reactors is far worse than has been admitted to date !

Japan cant move out of the way of the radioactive fallout which continues practically unchecked. Too bad the Japanese cant wash their country like this too.

Ignore what they say... watch what they do !

vibe666

dear oh dear oh dear, that is genuinely pathetic on the part of the US Navy.

LISTEN to what the reporter says. "there was some limited exposure to the crew, the aircraft and possibly the ship" so they don't actually know if the ship has any residual radioactivity on its exposed surfaces or not, so they are going to scrub it down anyway and THEN check it with Geiger counters rather than checking it first and saving themselves a big scrubdown.

or maybe they're just using their spare time sitting there doing nothing to give the ship it's scheduled wash and decided to use it for a bit of PR spin being as they had a TV crew onboard? :rolleyes:

Rob A. Bank

http://www.zamg.ac.at/pict/aktuell/20110323_fuku_I-131.gif

Where the radioactive fallout is forecast to go over the next few days.

They really have to get a grip on the situation and choke off the pollution at source.

vibe666

and again, for some perspective on an otherwise ambiguous gif that may have scared some people unnecessarily:

The color scale is currently showing a total of 5 colors. With "Area E" areas are identified, with the effective dose of about 10 milli-Sievert per hour charged to a current, which, given the data in a 25x25 km 2 is a maximum estimate box. The "Area A" (purple color) defines a region with a maximum load of 0.3 micro Sievert per hour. This value corresponds to the dose rate of global average background exposure.

again, a google translation of the original german text from here: http://www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/index.php?seite=1&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-23GMT10:57

Canis Lupus

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DVrQCRRN8A

The US Aircraft Carrier Ronald Regan sailed into the plume of radioactivity from the Fukushema nuclear plant on the 13th and then promptly changed course to avoid it.Though they were 100km downwind from the plant when they met the plume, they had to decontaminated the carrier by washing every exposed surface, suggesting that the radioactive pollution from the damaged reactors is far worse than has been admitted to date !

Japan cant move out of the way of the radioactive fallout which continues practically unchecked. Too bad the Japanese cant wash their country like this too.

Ignore what they say... watch what they do !

I repeat again, despite being given fact after fact after fact about the radiation and how, at this point the effects will be neglible why are you so intent on scaremongering?

Rob A. Bank

"TOKYO — Many foreign embassies in Tokyo have temporarily closed or relocated their functions to elsewhere in Japan following the recent earthquake and amid the ongoing crisis at the nuclear power station in Fukushima Prefecture.

By Wednesday, about 15 African and other countries have shuttered their offices in Tokyo while another 10 or so nations including those from Europe moved their embassies outside the capital, according to the Japanese Foreign Ministry."

http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/many-foreign-embassies-in-tokyo-close-or-move-elsewhere-after-quake

Ignore what they say... watch what they do !

Rob A. Bank

Ionizing radiation and cancer…

Background radiation will cause 1 out of 100 people to die of cancer in their lifetimes, said Dr. Donald Bucklin, who spent 10 years as medical director for the Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona, the largest nuclear plant in the United States.

Additional exposure increases this risk.

Because more than 70 million CT scans are carried out each year, the US National Cancer Institute has estimated that 29,000 Americans will get cancer as a result of the CT scans they received in 2007 alone. The physician must weigh up the risk/benefit of doing the test. ie. does the information gained from the scan outweigh the risk from the radiation and is it therefore an acceptable risk.

Those who suggest that it is harmless to expose a whole population to what amounts to an unplanned, unwanted x-ray or CT scan are being very economical with the truth.

Turtwig

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Ignore what they say... watch what they do !

That's because people are scared sh1tless of radiation. It's depressing tbh. Of course the media can't be bothered with critical thinking they just parrot what they feel. :mad:

gbee

Human tragedy stories continue, a weeping couple are watching the recording of the tsunami arriving and the sirens going off and the public address system warning people of the wave coming and it just washes everything away.

It was their daughter who was making the announcement and she stayed at her post to the end.

Canis Lupus

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Ionizing radiation and cancer…

Background radiation will cause 1 out of 100 people to die of cancer in their lifetimes, said Dr. Donald Bucklin, who spent 10 years as medical director for the Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona, the largest nuclear plant in the United States.

Additional exposure increases this risk.

Because more than 70 million CT scans are carried out each year, the US National Cancer Institute has estimated that 29,000 Americans will get cancer as a result of the CT scans they received in 2007 alone. The physician must weigh up the risk/benefit of doing the test. ie. does the information gained from the scan outweigh the risk from the radiation and is it therefore an acceptable risk.

Those who suggest that it is harmless to expose a whole population to what amounts to an unplanned, unwanted x-ray or CT scan are being very economical with the truth.

Would you just gtfo of this thread?

gbee

Two men suffered Beta Ray burns laying electricity cables in the Fukushima Dai-ichi after they received 180mSv from irradiated water and their feet got wet. Symptoms usually take a few weeks to emerge but this become apparent after a few hours.

Beta radiation: high-speed electrons or positrons emitted by certain types of radioactive nuclei. The beta particles emitted are a form of ionizing radiation also known as beta rays. The production of beta particles is termed beta decay.

17 workers already exposed to more than 100mSv

Turtwig

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Ionizing radiation and cancer…

Background radiation will cause 1 out of 100 people to die of cancer in their lifetimes, said Dr. Donald Bucklin, who spent 10 years as medical director for the Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona, the largest nuclear plant in the United States.

Additional exposure increases this risk.

Because more than 70 million CT scans are carried out each year, the US National Cancer Institute has estimated that 29,000 Americans will get cancer as a result of the CT scans they received in 2007 alone. The physician must weigh up the risk/benefit of doing the test. ie. does the information gained from the scan outweigh the risk from the radiation and is it therefore an acceptable risk.

Those who suggest that it is harmless to expose a whole population to what amounts to an unplanned, unwanted x-ray or CT scan are being very economical with the truth.

Funny how you always put a scaremongering slant on this stuff.

Background radiation will cause 1 out of 100 people to die of cancer in their lifetimes, said Dr. Donald Bucklin, who spent 10 years as medical director for the Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona, the largest nuclear plant in the United States. Additional exposure increases this risk.
."

:pac: