Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

Turtwig

shedweller wrote: »

The decades of increased cancer rates in Japan AND worldwide (at least in the northern hemisphere) may be testimony to how serious this is.

I'm not pro/anti nuclear but I'd definitely be willing to bet €1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0,00. that there will be no decades of increased cancer rates worldwide causally linked to Fukushima.

I'd also be willing to bet* that there will be little, if any, increased rate of cancers caused by the Fukushima incident. At worst I would expect a tiny spike in Thyroid cancers, nothing more.

*I'll quantify this bet, once I know the full quantity and types of isotopes released.

Canis Lupus

Latest Register article LINKY

Rob A. Bank

andrew wrote: »

Says here that the Release of radiation is 10% that of Chernobyl

The important caveat which should go with that estimate is 'so far'.

"But at a separate news conference, an official from the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric and Power, said, “The radiation leak has not stopped completely and our concern is that it could eventually exceed Chernobyl.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/world/asia/12japan.html?_r=1&hp

My name is URL

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm not pro/anti nuclear but I'd definitely be willing to bet €1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0,00. that there will be no decades of increased cancer rates worldwide causally linked to Fukushima.

I'd also be willing to bet* that there will be little, if any, increased rate of cancers caused by the Fukushima incident. At worst I would expect a tiny spike in Thyroid cancers, nothing more.

*I'll quantify this bet, once I know the full quantity and types of isotopes released.

A brave bet! What makes you think that? The Chernobyl disaster is still to this day responsible for a number of ailments and birth defects.

In Belarus alone, over 10,000 people developed thyroid cancer since the catastrophe. According to a WHO prognosis, in the Belarussian region of Gomel alone more than 50,000 children will develop thyroid cancer during their lives. If one adds together all age groups then about 100,000 cases of thyroid cancer have to be reckoned with in the Gomel region.

A study in the Czech Republic found over 400 additional thyroid cancers. Altogether, the number of Chernobyl related cases of thyroid cancer to be expected in Europe (outside the borders of the former Soviet Union) is between 10,000 and 20,000.

Other forms of cancer have also risen since Chernobyl. The liquidators and the inhabitants of highly contaminated areas are particularly affected. More women in Belarus suffer at an early age from breast cancer. The number of children in the Ukraine with malignant and benign tumours of the central nervous system has risen disconcertingly. This increase in tumours is
particularly great amongst young children. In Ukraine and Belarus there has been a distinct rise in new cases of leukaemia in different sections of the population.

In more contaminated areas of Germany a significant cluster of very rare tumours has been found amongst children, the so-called neuroblastomy. In Germany, Greece, Scotland and Romania, there has been a significant increase in cases of leukaemia. In the fallout regions of Northern Sweden, there were 849 additional cases of cancer up until 1996. It is to be feared
that other kinds of cancer and leukaemia since Chernobyl could amount to several tens of thousands. The steep increase in various somatic and psychological illnesses in the most severely contaminated regions has been almost entirely disregarded by the official authorities in the West.

http://www.ippnw-students.org/chernobyl/IPPNWStudy.pdf

PeakOutput

shedweller wrote: »

"Zero waste designs" you say. Explain where ALL the waste goes.

see my post a few posts under the one you quoted? see how I explained how to find a particular video? Watch that video and you will see the entire issue explained far better then I can but basically as the design suggests, there is no waste to go anywhere

Canis Lupus

My name is URL wrote: »

A brave bet! What makes you think that? The Chernobyl disaster is still to this day responsible for a number of ailments and birth defects.



http://www.ippnw-students.org/chernobyl/IPPNWStudy.pdf

Whilst I know it's the same from the other view point but I'd personally trust the official reports from the UN etc over a report created by guys going under the name German Affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

Rob A. Bank

The French nuclear safety agency IRSN and Meteo-France have updated their model of the global CS-137 pollution from Fukushema. It is extending well below the equator now.

http://www.irsn.fr/FR/popup/Pages/irsn-meteo-france_Film-Global_8avril.aspx

Turtwig

My name is URL wrote: »

A brave bet! What makes you think that? The Chernobyl disaster is still to this day responsible for a number of ailments and birth defects.

Chernobyl was a continuously "exploding" incident releasing tonnes of radioactive material into air and crucially was able to launch the heavy isotopes into the atmosphere. Because of fukushima's design this is not possible and simply can't happen as easily. The biggest danger is the transport of contaminants from one location to the next. For example plutonium dust can easily stick to your shoes if you walk on top of it.

Also, for a so called scientific organisation the lack of quantities give in that source is appalling.

So a quick edit.

In Belarus alone, over 10,000 people developed thyroid cancer since the catastrophe [Is 10,000 causally linked to Chernobyl? What were the numbers like for people getting tyhroid cancer before hand. Has the screening process improved since?]. According to a WHO prognosis, in the Belarussian region of Gomel alone more than 50,000 children will develop thyroid cancer during their lives [Are these cases caused by radiation from Chernobyl? Or are other background factors influential here.]. If one adds together all age groups then about 100,000 cases of thyroid cancer have to be reckoned with in the Gomel region.[This appears to be predicting one quarter of the population will get thyroid cancer! Under current radiation models a 1 Sv dose increases an individuals risk of cancer by 5%...something is clearly amiss with this claim.]

Rob A. Bank

Malty_T wrote: »

Chernobyl was a continuously "exploding" incident releasing tonnes of radioactive material into air and crucially was able to launch the heavy isotopes into the atmosphere. Because of fukushima's design this is not possible and simply can't happen as easily. The biggest danger is the transport of contaminants from one location to the next. For example plutonium dust can easily stick to your shoes if you walk on top of it.

So the Strontium-90 (a heavy isotope) detected more than 30km from the Fukushema plant was walked there ?

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/85002.html

:rolleyes:

Coles

Clearly not taking into account the explosion and fires at the fully loaded fuel pool at Reactor 4.

Strange that the IAEA raised the level from 5 to 7 without taking into account Reactor 4 either. The claim that the radiation released is only 10% of Chernobyl is also only based on Reactors 1, 2 and 3.

Are we to forget about Reactor 4?

Watch the Fairewinds videos and you'll get a clearer picture of what is happening at Fukushima. Of particular interest are the 31st of March video about Reactor 4 and the 29th of March video about Plutonium being found outside the power plant.

shedweller

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

So the Strontium-90 (a heavy isotope) detected more than 30km from the Fukushema plant was walked there ?

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/85002.html

:rolleyes:

With a half life of 28.9 years. Look at the table on the right hand side, half way down the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium

peasant

PeakOutput wrote: »

it took one of the largest earthquakes in history to damage a 50/60 year old reactor to an extent that it eventually caused a major accident. To me that speaks volumes about how safe nuclear energy has been made.

Nuclear energy is extremely safe, nuclear reactors are extremely safe ...

...as long as everything stays within the known or assumed parameters that were used to calculate and engineer that level of safety.

The problem starts when things go wrong. Then nuclear energy turns into this untameable, uncontrollable monster that can pollute, maim and kill for generations to come.

And as the relatively short history of nuclear energy shows ...things DO go wrong. Be it stupid human errror, corruption and low grade materials or the forces of nature that were simply stronger than allowed for.

Despite all the propaganda by vested interests to the contrary, despite all the statistics and despite all the inconclusive reports into the amount of direct and indirect vicitms of nuclear power gone wrong ...one fact remains:

Once nuclear power goes out of control it is virtually unstoppable and untold damage will be done ...and it will go out of control somehow and somewhere again. It is quite pointless arguing about how safe nuclear power is statistically ...how this has been taken into calculation or that has been provided for ...it will never be 100% safe as it simply can't be brought back under control once it goes out of control for whatever miniscule or massive cause.

The logical conclusion is that nuclear energy is 100% unsafe.
No matter what.

el diablo

peasant wrote: »

Nuclear energy is extremely safe, nuclear reactors are extremely safe ...



The logical conclusion is that nuclear energy is 100% unsafe.
No matter what.

geetar

peasant wrote: »

The problem starts when things go wrong.

:eek: really?..:rolleyes:

peasant wrote: »

it will never be 100% safe as it simply can't be brought back under control once it goes out of control for whatever miniscule or massive cause.

for the record when anything goes "out of control" it cant be brought back into control, that what the expression means...

the fukishima incident is not out of control. nuclear energy is not 100% safe, but no energy source is. im not going ot restate the statistics that have already been said countless times on this thread. but nuclear energy is responsible for far less deaths then any other. there was a graph on another thread that had deaths per kilowatt hour of energy, and nuclear energy was last on the list, below wind turbines... i dont even understand how people die from wind turbines ....

peasant

geetar wrote: »

the fukishima incident is not out of control.

Oh really?

You want to go down there with your bucket and spade and shovel all the escaped radiation back into the fuel rods ?

Or maybe run the the pacific ocean through your Brita filter jug ?

Not out of control ...:D

jwt

PeakOutput wrote: »

................if you havnt already go onto ted.com and search for bill gates: innovating to zero.............

And just when this thread was descending to a new level of "oh no it's not....oh yes it is...." this little gem pops up. excellent resource.

Thank you.

edit direct link

Run_to_da_hills

geetar wrote: »

The fukishima incident is not out of control.

That's that Tepco have been telling us since day one.

Do you honestly believe them?

I will only believe this when we get the OK from a reputable international source and not some nuke apologist club.

Bat Fasterd

KamiKazi wrote: »

*Scrolls back to the start of this thread where all the bedroom nuclear experts insisted this would never reach level 7*

Ain't that the truth.

andrew

A table comparing Fukushima and Chernobyl (from BBC)

Hotblack Desiato

peasant wrote: »

Nuclear energy is extremely safe, nuclear reactors are extremely safe ...

...as long as everything stays within the known or assumed parameters that were used to calculate and engineer that level of safety.

The problem starts when things go wrong.

Which is why we shouldn't build 45-year-old reactor designs in major earthquake zones :rolleyes:

Technology has moved on greatly in that time.

Hotblack Desiato

gbee wrote: »

Back in an early post, the china syndrome was mentioned, as events are unfolding, those very early reports were in fact correct. We do have a reactor breech and uncontrolled reaction taking place in the Torus.

The almost certain possibility of this happened had been known from the beginning.

I doubt I've ever read worse BS on boards :mad:

vibe666

in an effort to try and avoid getting sucked back into the never ending nuke debate, i thought i'd post this video (shot for a mobile phone advert) which was filmed in japan the day before the earthquake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_CDLBTJD4M

This remarkably beautiful video, uploaded to YouTube one day before the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, turns out to be an ad for Sharp’s SH-08C handset. It is, nonetheless, something you shouldn’t miss: in a tranquil forest, a single wooden ball rolls down a stepped wooden ramp, continuously, for two minutes. At each step, it falls and strikes a wooden bar tuned to play a single note of the 10th movement of Bach’s Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben, BWV 147, commonly known by its English title, Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring. Wait ’till you see how they handle the sustained notes.

i think that if ever there was a moment that was the "calm before the storm", this would be it.

for the people filming the video, creating and listening to classical music in a quiet picturesque forest, it's pretty much the exact polar opposite of the what was going to happen the next day.

Overheal

KamiKazi wrote: »

*Scrolls back to the start of this thread where all the bedroom nuclear experts insisted this would never reach level 7*

Let me know when you find out if anyone actually said it never would.

amacachi

peasant wrote: »

Nuclear energy is extremely safe, nuclear reactors are extremely safe ...

...as long as everything stays within the known or assumed parameters that were used to calculate and engineer that level of safety.

The problem starts when things go wrong. Then nuclear energy turns into this untameable, uncontrollable monster that can pollute, maim and kill for generations to come.

If it wasn't so serious I would laugh at that. Apart from anything else this has extended the known parameters so they'll be even safer from here on.

peasant wrote: »

Oh really?

You want to go down there with your bucket and spade and shovel all the escaped radiation back into the fuel rods ?

Or maybe run the the pacific ocean through your Brita filter jug ?

Not out of control ...:D

I also wouldn't volunteer to shore up a collapsed coalmine with a bucket and spade.

amacachi

Overheal wrote: »

Let me know when you find out if anyone actually said it never would.

I may well have. Although I'm fairly sure I also said something about the weaknesses of qualitative things, which that scale pretty much is.

gbee

ninja900 wrote: »

I doubt I've ever read worse BS on boards :mad:

The reports of isotopes and other phenomena since the beginning of the disaster indicated a live reaction having taken place in the previous few hours or days. These reports came from TEPCO itself.

TEPCO then proceeded to deny that these reports were accurate but they were repeated a few times over the last month and denied each time.

It is a very important fact to consider, as the actions that the TEPCO took were in fact the wrong procedures and have lead to an escalation of the situation to the current level.

The procedures followed were fine for a shut down reactor but as it now appears the No1 reactor [at least] had not shut down, then these procedures and the constant lost of coolant has facilitated an uncontrolled reaction to take place, intermittently, and the control procedures actually restarted the reactor each time, which was completely the wrong procedure if you have a reactor in this state.

Rob A. Bank

An article reporting TEPCO's dithering and incompetence during the first days... when the situation could have been retrieved. The government had to step in and order them to do the obvious.

"Once at the site, the lack of preparation became apparent. Cables needed to connect the vehicles' high-voltage electricity to plant facilities were not long enough. TEPCO immediately ordered additional cables, but precious time had been wasted"

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110411004567.htm

Cathaoirleach

"Cattle in Fukushima starving to death. The ones that are still alive cannot be released as they have been exposed to radiation."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kNVWIdWpG0

Worztron

Cathaoirleach wrote: »

"Cattle in Fukushima starving to death. The ones that are still alive cannot be released as they have been exposed to radiation."

Very sad. Those poor cows.

Damn nuclear power! Nuclear power seems fine until it goes horribly wrong. If all of these were used to the max, the world would be far better off: solar, thermal energy, tidal, wave and wind.

Rob A. Bank

shedweller wrote: »

With a half life of 28.9 years. Look at the table on the right hand side, half way down the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium

Yes Strontium-90 is a really nasty pollutant. It behaves like calcium in the body and is bound into the bones practically for life.

Following the atmospheric nuclear tests 50 years ago it was noted that young children take up radioactive strontium and caesium from the fallout more intensely than adolescents and adults. In a rather elegant study the ‘St. Louis Tooth Study’ became the tooth fairy and collected deciduous teeth from many thousands of children. It is still providing iteresting results on the effects of low level radiation.

"In December 2010, the International Journal of Health Services published findings of the study, i.e. that “Boomers” born 1959-1961 who died of cancer had Strontium-90 levels in their teeth more than twice (+122%) greater than those the same age who are alive and healthy."

Risks to health from large-scale atmospheric nuclear weapons testing are
still relatively unknown. A sample of 85,000 deciduous teeth collected from
Americans born during the bomb-testing years assessed risk by in vivo
measurement of residual strontium-90 (Sr-90) concentrations, using liquid
scintillation spectrometry. The authors’ analysis included 97 deciduous teeth
from persons born between 1959 and 1961 who were diagnosed with cancer,
and 194 teeth of matched controls. Average Sr-90 in teeth of persons who
died of cancer was significantly greater than for controls (OR = 2.22; p < 0.04).

This discovery suggests that many thousands have died or will die of cancer due to exposure to fallout, far more than previously believed.

http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/101201_IJHS_ManganoSherman.pdf