Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
I'm not just dismissing these concerns out of hand. I am genuinely frustrated by the lack of useful information regarding actual levels of radiation both in and around Fukushima itself and as it has spread.
Background radiation is very simple and inexpensive to measure. But we can't even get a decent map of that. Certainly the more expensive data of isotope concentrations has been collected also but again no maps and levels being reported at least not in an easy to find format.
MY hunch is that levels are pretty safe more than a mile or so from Fukushima. I wouldn't be surprised if they are not too bad for anything but residential or daily working exposure within a few hundred yards possibly closer.
But it's just a hunch and I'm just talking out my ass without any data.. just like all these wordsmiths wasting hours on useless articles. Well useless unless you just like to scare people and not actually say anything.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
There could be little green men living in the tree behind my house.
My point stands regardless of terrain involved, Land, Marine, airborne. We need data. The fact that fukushima isotopes have been measured nearly everywhere in the world is not surprising or alarming in itself. The quantities are what is important and we just are not getting that info. (well I havn't seen it loudly reported anyway it may be available)
If you could track the molecules of CO2 exhaled by your body you would find that in time some reach every part of the globe. A few molecules of radiaoctive isotopes are easy to detect but completely harmless.
High concentrations or acculation is a whole nuther issue. Speculation that this is occurring is not by any means alarming if not backed up by data showing that it IS happening.
I remember the first day I heard that radiation from Fukushima had been detected in Nevada. Nevada obviously has some good radiation monitoring equipment due to the fact that more than 300 nukes have been detonated here and many of those were above ground.
That day was a good powder day and I really wanted to find a radiation sticker to put on my ski's. Seemed funny to me how much people were actually worried, since the amounts detected were a few molecules a day.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
every notice folks how the naysayers calling for more data NEVER say boo about the fact that the states packed up and closed most of their data collecting regiments the day after it blew?
On it's face that is an extraordinary claim and not one to be believed without highly credible references at the very least. And in fact is patently false based on my recollection of the Nevada radiation detection statements issued days after fukushima went critical. I certainly do not fear inhaling few molecules of fukushima radiation that most certainly I will encounter in my life. I would fear if the concentration was high enough. Again no data not worth worrying about.
The previous statement is also misleading.
Radioactive isotopes are only hot when they fission. If you accumulate enough of the material it can be hazardous to your health if you do not it is not. Dosage matters. You are encountering radiation right now. Every human on earth has and will every second of their life. Not enough to waste effort to avoid however.
Once again The amounts matter. Without that information I suspect the story of baseless fearmongering by at best paranoid ignoramuses or at worst conmen trying to make a buck.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
What bothers me most about this incident is that it is VERY SERIOUS and yet we get so little useful information about it. Information that clearly exists. I cannot tell if it is becuase the story doesnt sell , because so few writers are capable of understanding and communicating it or if it is suppressed because it is so bad.
I lean towards the first two reasons but I cannot be certain.
Very annoying.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Thanks rSin.
The real concern I have are reactors 1 2 and 3 that actually melted down.
The idea that removing unmelted rods from 4 could cause something worse than what happened at those seems a bit unlikely.
1 2 and 3 are problems for which we seem to have no solution. I would like a lot more information about them. Those are problems that may or may not get worse.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 12:03am PT
|
Yeah mebbe but that didnt happen at Chernobly, three mile island or reactors 1 2 and 3
And those things went about as bad as possible.
I'm thinking the worst they do is a repeat of 1 2 and 3. Not nearly as bad as Chernobyl.
Now what the f*#k do we do with 1 2 and 3 for a vey long time.. what's the worst that can happen.
For that matter how much are they leaking right now? Cause those things are really contaminated. No one can even go in those buildings with a lead suit.
1 2 and 3 are the real story and we cant get sh#t for data about them hardly.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 12:19am PT
|
cmon now.. more like changing your spark plugs using the best tools in the world with a months long deadline and you can hire the best mechanics in the world to do it. If you fail.. the damn thing melts down just like the other 3 did.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 12:29am PT
|
they swap em out just as the gas gauge falls below FULL
Now there is an interesting point about current nuke design.
These f*#kers are greedy. it is possible to make much safer reactors than the current ones.
You have to be willing to accept lower yeild/unit of fuel.
Instead of running the damn thing as close to full throttle as possible.
Consider the reactor design used by the Mars Rover. There are a full range of possibilities in between. Plus we havn't even talked about how much cleaner and low waste product producing breeder styles can be.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 01:29am PT
|
And if we don't build them many thousands absolutely die from coal pollution. If we don't build them more stuff like what is happening in the philipines.
Something called opportunity cost. If you don't build them the alternatives that will be built are worse.
The energy needs of the billions and the technology they demand will not go down. Well they will eventually.. one way or another. Probably by eliminating a few billions. Avoidable if folks used their brains a little better than they do.
But that's like saying if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
The next species much like us will be smarter on average and more socially adept. Their aunts will perhaps have balls (figuratively)
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 05:08am PT
|
" If you fail.. the damn thing melts down just like the other 3 did."
This isn't true. The #4 spent fuel pool has NO CONTAINMENT! If it falls to earth, there will be a huge radioactive fire and the plant will be have to be abandoned. IF that happens, the other spent fuel pools will also evaporate and catch fire and all other cooling operations will cease and fail. The whole place goes wild and a Far far far far far worse disaster than the original meltdown will happen
Pretty serious stuff. We, and they, may be screwed.
Kinda ironic that after decades, Japan may nuke us
Peace
karl
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2013 - 09:02am PT
|
Containment? oops forgot the hydrogen explosion blew the roof off.
So a bunch of (relatively cold?) material and structure that survived that is now all of a sudden gonna fail and go critical or at least catch fire by removing it? The folks working on this haven't considered how to keep that from occurring?
Dunno.. mebbe I suppose. But I'm not buying it. I've seen some pretty sensational stories about the possible armageddon but they don't seem very credible. Strong on scary speculation but weak on supporting information. Without that supporting information I tend to default to the general info that is available regarding things that have actually happened. What has happened is bad but not exactly armageddon nor even as bad as coal production.
I still think the real problem is 1 2 and 3 with a big incredibly radioactive slag heaps sitting down there.
Hey I finally found some numbers for total radiation leakage by Fukushima in an article. They are not very scary numbers compared to coal plant radiactive output. About 1/4the the annual radioactive output of a single coal plant.
"The radiation that fossil fuel plants spew into the environment each year is around 0.1 EBq. That’s ExaBecquerel, or 10 to the power of 18. Fukushima is pumping out 10 trillion becquerels a year at present. Or 10 TBq, or 10 of 10 to the power of 12. Or, if you prefer, one ten thousandth of the amount that the world’s coal plants are doing. Or even, given that there are only about 2,500 coal plants in the world, Fukushima is, in this disaster, pumping out around one quarter of the radiation that a coal plant does in normal operation."
|
|
command error
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2013 - 01:25am PT
|
A nuke friend advised never learn how reactors operate if
I enjoyed getting a good nights sleep without nightmares.
|
|
Kalimon
Social climber
Ridgway, CO
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2013 - 01:33am PT
|
Thanks rSin for keeping us all informed . . . don't hear too much about the F-shima in the mainstream media. Sweet dreams y'all!
|
|
cliffhanger
Trad climber
California
|
|
They’re Going to Dump the Fukushima Radiation Into the Ocean
http://foodfreedomgroup.com/2013/12/05/theyre-going-to-dump-the-fukushima-radiation-into-the-ocean/
"By Washington’s Blog
Yup … They’re Going to Dump It
Tepco is planning on dumping all of the radioactive water stored at Fukushima into the ocean.
The industry-controlled nuclear regulators are pushing for dumping the radiation, as well.
As EneNews reports:
Juan Carlos Lentijo, head of IAEA’s mission to Fukushima Daiichi, Dec. 4, 2013: “Controlled discharge is a regular practice in all the nuclear facilities in the world. And what we are trying to say here is to consider this as one of the options to contribute to a good balance of risks and to stabilize the facility for the long term.”
Shunichi Tanaka, chairman of Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority, Dec. 4, 2013: “You cannot keep storing the water forever. We have to make choice comparing all risks involved.”
Xinhua, Dec. 4, 2013: Lentijo said that TEPCO should weigh the possible damaging effects of discharging toxic water against the total risks involved in the overall decommissioning work process. [...] Tanaka highlighted the fact that while highly radioactive water could be decontaminated in around seven years, the amount of water containing tritium will keep rising, topping 700,000 tons in two years. [...] nuclear experts have repeatedly pointed out that [tritium] is still a significant radiation hazard when inhaled, ingested via food or water, or absorbed through the skin. [...] fisherman, industries and fisheries bodies in the Fukushima area and beyond in Japan’s northeast, have collectively baulked at the idea of releasing toxic water into the sea [...] TEPCO will be duty-bound to submit assessments of the safety and environmental impact [...]
NHK, Dec. 4, 2013: IAEA team leader Juan Carlos Lentijo [...] said it is necessary and indispensable to assess the impact the tritium discharge might have on human health and the environment, and to get government approval as well as consent from concerned people.
Japan Times, Dec. 4, 2013: “Of course . . . public acceptance for this purpose is necessary,” said Lentijo, adding strict monitoring of the impact of the discharge would also be essential.
AFP, Dec. 4, 2013: [L]ocal fishermen, neighbouring countries and environmental groups all oppose the idea.
See also: Gundersen: They want to dump all Fukushima’s radioactive water in Pacific — Tepco: It will be diluted, then released — Professor suggests pumping it out in deep ocean (VIDEOS)
In the real world, there is no safe level of radiation.
And there are alternatives.
Dr. Arjun Makhijani – a recognized expert on nuclear power, who has testified before Congress, served as an expert witness in Nuclear Regulatory Commission proceedings, and been interviewed by many of the largest news organizations – told PBS in March:
We actually sent a proposal to Japan two years ago, some colleagues of mine and I, saying you should park a supertanker or a large tanker offshore, and put the water in it, and send it off someplace else so that the water treatment and the water management is not such a huge, constant issue. But [the Japanese declined].
Tepco – with no financial incentive to actually fix things – has been insanely irresponsible and has only been pretending to contain Fukushima. And see this.
Unfortunately, Japan has devolved into crony capitalism … and even tyranny.
So instead of doing something to contain the radiation, they’re going to dump it.
Postscript: In related news, the Japanese government has embarked on a massive program of burning radioactive waste throughout Japan … instead of encapsulating it in glass or otherwise containing it."
http://www.30bananasaday.com/forum/topics/they-re-going-to-dump-the-fukushima-radiation-into-the-ocean
|
|
Kalimon
Social climber
Ridgway, CO
|
|
A beautiful death plume . . . what is the half life on this material?
Heaven help the fool.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
so, do you have a link to the NOAA website for that map?
Cesium 137 has a half life of 30 years. It follows potassium pathways in the biosphere. In humans it has a biological half-life of 110 days. In experiments with dogs, 4.1 μg per kilogram of body mass was a lethal dose.
While seemingly contradictory, materials that are highly radioactive have short half-lives...
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
rSin, you seem to be attributing that quote to me.
Why are you so sloppy and deceptive?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!