Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

rockswell

While I think that many in this thread were right to downplay the size of the nuclear problem in the face of baseless scaremongering, I now think it may have gone too far the other way. I do hope I'm wrong and you guys are right but I certainly wouldn't be as confident as some here about how relatively safe radiation is.

There seems to be lots of contradictory evidence with regards Chernobyl and the W.H.O report that came out about deaths/injuries is said by many to be grossly underestimating the consequence of that disaster. I think if your skewing figures in a report for such a large areas over the possibility of cancers and illness coming from other sources the you may as well f*ck the report away altogether.

I'm going to leave this link here not because I'm anti nuclear but because if your going to be pro nuke(and I haven't made up my mind yet) you have to face what can happen.

http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/chernobyl

I know the newer plants have supposedly much safer passive cooling systems than Fukushima had but will high standards be kept in China and India who are pushing ahead with huge nuclear power developments?

And what about places like this.....

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/californias-fukushima-in-waiting-20110314

Is it really over reacting to put a place like this on the fast track to shutting down?

Great thread by the way, better than most news coverage I've come across.

Canis Lupus

rockswell wrote: »

There seems to be lots of contradictory evidence with regards Chernobyl and the W.H.O report that came out about deaths/injuries is said by many to be grossly underestimating the consequence of that disaster. I think if your skewing figures in a report for such a large areas over the possibility of cancers and illness coming from other sources the you may as well f*ck the report away altogether.

That report attempting to discredit the original UN report was funded by Greenpeace and apart from some news headlines in 2006 I couldn't find anything that seemed to suggest it was accurate (although I'll admit I CBA to look too hard).

I just don't know.. it was all destroyed. I hope there was nobody in those cars or those two buildings that got demolished. They would never have stood a chance.

Rob A. Bank

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Unless you can show dangerous levels of plutonium 'dust' is floating about then that's mostly irrelevant.

Why dont you volunteer to go into the Fukushema Plant in your underpants and sort it out, if you actually believe that Plutonium and radiation are practically harmless.


:-/

Canis Lupus

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Why dont you volunteer to go into the Fukushema Plant in your underpants and sort it out, if you actually believe that Plutonium and radiation are practically harmless.


:-/

Why would I just wear my underpants?

Jimmy Garlic

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Why would I just wear my underpants?

Better still, wear a thong. Tell us how you get on.

Canis Lupus

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Better still, wear a thong. Tell us how you get on.

I probably run more of a risk of getting locked up by the police than suffering the effects of radiation.

take everything

LOL at "plutonium doesn't sound too bad".

Turtwig

take everything wrote: »

LOL at "plutonium doesn't sound too bad".

Relatively speaking plutonium isn't actually that bad. It's not really a toxic substance, just purely a radioactive one. If you ingest or inhale it that's when you should start worrying. Of course, the thing is where you have plutonium you normally have more volatile fission products. Radon gas is more radioactive and health damaging than plutonium. But yeah, Canis is kinda right.

Certainly shouldn't go near Fukushima naked though that'd be downright stupid.

My name is URL

Nice article about the sensationalism in the media by The Register - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/29/tv_news_goes_hollywood/

shadowninty

has anyone here tried inhaling fossil fuel fumes?
or drinking oil?

Run_to_da_hills

take everything wrote: »

LOL at "plutonium doesn't sound too bad".

Its like telling people that it is safe to swim off Dollymount Strand when there is a white shark lurking about.

Rob A. Bank

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I probably run more of a risk of getting locked up by the police than suffering the effects of radiation.

Radiation cause cognitive impairment at a dose of 2 Sv.

The nuclear choirboys appear to have suffered a blast of radiation, judging by some of their contributions here.

:cool:

Dempsey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Its like telling people that it is safe to swim off Dollymount Strand when there is a white shark lurking about.

Its actually alot worse as great whites dont like eating humans :P

Turtwig

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Radiation cause cognitive impairment at a dose of 2 Sv.

The nuclear choirboys appear to have suffered a blast of radiation, judging by some of their contributions here.

:cool:

The highest single dosage recorded at the Fukushima plant has been 170mSv. Isn't it a bit much to point out the obvious about extremely high doses of radiation when your argument is essentially that low level radiations are deadly?

PeakOutput

as pointed out int he other thread

you could collect every ounce of radioactive material at the fukishima plant and vapourise it and disperse into the atmosphere over the us and there would be ZERO adverse health effects

indeed you would not be able to measure the increase in radiation the population would get compared to what they get over the course of a normal year

that is fact

what is being detected is irradiated steam which has escaped from the plant, even less dangerous.

taking potassium iodide tablets poses more of a risk to your health(particularly childrens health) then the above two scenarios

Owwmykneecap

Malty_T wrote: »

The highest single dosage recorded at the Fukushima plant has been 170mSv. Isn't it a bit much to point out the obvious about extremely high doses of radiation when your argument is essentially that low level radiations are deadly?

You're wrong and Sv always needs to be qualified by a time period.

Levels of 1Sv/Hr have been recorded there.

Rob A. Bank

"The indications we have, from the reactor to radiation readings and the materials they are seeing, suggest that the core has melted through the bottom of the pressure vessel in unit two, and at least some of it is down on the floor of the drywell," Lahey said. "I hope I am wrong, but that is certainly what the evidence is pointing towards."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/japan-lost-race-save-nuclear-reactor

But what does the head of safety research for boiling-water reactors at General Electric know...

The nuclear choirboys here say 'everything is fine and dandy'

yeaaaaaa riiiiight

Turtwig

Apparently according to a GE expert the reactor Unit II's fuel could have melted through the pressure vessel.

This is still unconfirmed, but the Guardian is a decent source in terms of reliability.

Run_to_da_hills

One of the reactors has already melted right through the containment vessel and on to the concrete floor.

If this is not already a full scale melt down I don't know what is.

Japan may have lost race to save nuclear reactor | World news | guardian.co.uk

Jimmy Garlic

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

One of the reactors has already melted right through the containment vessel and on to the concrete floor.

If this is not already a full scale melt down I don't know what is.

Japan may have lost race to save nuclear reactor | World news | guardian.co.uk

I am starting to wish the Russians were in charge of managing this mess.

Turtwig

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

You're wrong and Sv always needs to be qualified by a time period.

Levels of 1Sv/Hr have been recorded there.

Sievert per time quantity is used to estimate how many sieverts a human being would receive in that time quantity. The highest documented exposure to a worker that I can find is 170mSv. If you've found higher please link to it.

Regarding the apparent breaching of the pressure vessel. This is still unconfirmed and is still the opinion of a single expert who it must be said really does know these reactor designs but that doesn't mean he is right. Do not treat speculations as fact even if they are made by an expert.

Canis Lupus

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

You're wrong and Sv always needs to be qualified by a time period.

Levels of 1Sv/Hr have been recorded there.

He said absorbed by someone not what the highest recorded levels have been.

EDIT: He beat me too it.

Jimmy Garlic

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

One of the reactors has already melted right through the containment vessel and on to the concrete floor.

If this is not already a full scale melt down I don't know what is.

Japan may have lost race to save nuclear reactor | World news | guardian.co.uk

The major concern when molten fuel breaches a containment vessel is that it reacts with the concrete floor of the drywell underneath, releasing radioactive gases into the surrounding area. At Fukushima, the drywell has been flooded with seawater, which will cool any molten fuel that escapes from the reactor and reduce the amount of radioactive gas released.

At Chernobyl they drained water from under the reactor to prevent a massive explosion.

Canis Lupus

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Radiation cause cognitive impairment at a dose of 2 Sv.

The nuclear choirboys appear to have suffered a blast of radiation, judging by some of their contributions here.

:cool:

Says the man who suggested I walk about in public in my underwear....

Rob A. Bank

Malty_T wrote: »

Regarding the apparent breaching of the pressure vessel. This is still unconfirmed and is still the opinion of a single expert who it must be said really does know these reactor designs but that doesn't mean he is right. Do not treat speculations as fact even if they are made by an expert.

Ohh yeaa....Richard Lahey, who was head of safety research for boiling-water reactors at General Electric when the company installed the units at Fukushima.

lolol

Nuclear choirboys grasping at straws now...

:rolleyes:

Canis Lupus

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Ohh yeaa....Richard Lahey, who was head of safety research for boiling-water reactors at General Electric when the company installed the units at Fukushima.

lolol

Nuclear choirboys grasping at straws now...

:rolleyes:

I'd almost swear you WANT a nuclear meltdown the way you keep going on and until someone AT THE SCENE confirms what he says Mr Lahay can guess all he likes to help papers with their headlines.

Turtwig

If you click on the guardian homepage. You get a hyperlink with following headline.
Japan 'has lost race' to halt meltdown

Yet when you click the link to read the article you get a new headline.
Japan may have lost race to save nuclear reactor.

Leaving aside that no one actually knows what a meltdown actually is, if there is such a thing.
How pathetic is this scaremongering attempt to get someone to just read their paper?:mad:

Run_to_da_hills

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

At Chernobyl they drained water from under the reactor to prevent a massive explosion.

Reason for this was because of hydrogen gas build up from the molten rods contacting water pools.

This has already happened several times at Fukushima and will happen again if the place is not adequately ventilated.

shadowninty

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I'd almost swear you WANT a nuclear meltdown

unfortunately, I think he does he too