"Nuclear Emergency"

[Scouse]

Just in case nobody has noticed, the Tsunami's over. It was horrid, yes. It killed loads of people. Damage done. I agree with all your assessments about the Tsunami being a bigger killer. I'm not arguing about or against this.

However, to put this tsunami into "perspective" I don't see any of you lot shouting "the indian ocean tsunami killed 230,000 people in 14 different countries so why do you give a shit about this tiny nuclear problem?". None of you have said "World War II was a bigger killer" or "the catholic church has killed more." You'd be right, they've all killed a lot more than the current japanese issues put together.

Why? Because they're separate problems. In Japan's case triggered by the same event, yes. But separate.


This is a thread about the nuclear problem.


If those figures are to be believed (and there's no reason to doubt them) then there's a good chance that a large swathe of Japan, where 200,000 people live, is to become uninhabitable for at least the next 30 years, probably a lot longer.

Does the fact that there are other (maybe bigger) problems in the world mean this nuclear issue is a nonentity, or something not to give a shit about?


Since this is supposed to be a thread about the nuclear disaster, and specifically aiming this at rynnor, you said:

Your going to look pretty silly when they sort it out without any major problems.

The problems created by the disaster at the nuclear plant, regardless of the wider issues, are massive on their own. Huge. And ongoing with no predicted end in sight.

I'll post it one last time, just so it can be ignored again:

MEXT has repeatedly found caesium levels above 550 kBq/m2 in an area some 45 kilometres wide lying 30 to 50 kilometres north-west of the plant. The highest was 6400 kBq/m2, about 35 kilometres away, while caesium reached 1816 kBq/m2 in Nihonmatsu City and 1752 kBq/m2 in the town of Kawamata, where iodine-131 levels of up to 12,560 kBq/m2 have also been measured

How big does the worldwide-acknowledged nuclear disaster have to get before it's a "major problem" in your eyes?



Edit: I acknowledge the above is a bit of a rant, but jeesus christ people!

 

[old.Tohtori]

Just in case nobody has noticed, the Tsunami's over.

Alright Japanese people, the wave came and went, time to go back home as it's all over now.

 

[MYstIC G]

You're a fucking trolling twat.

cookie?

 

[Ctuchik]

Fusion reactors will be the next major stop

*IF* we can find a material that won't MELT in 5 seconds.

And that's a really REALLY big IF

 

[Raven]

*IF* we can find a material that won't MELT in 5 seconds.

And that's a really REALLY big IF

Magnetic confinement fusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[old.Tohtori]

cookie?

Awwwww...."We can't help you ignore yourself."

 

[Scouse]

cookie?

Thanks, but what doesn't kill ya makes ya stronger! I'll leave him to make the same point ad-infinitum despite him already having the answer

 

[old.Tohtori]

Thanks, but what doesn't kill ya makes ya stronger! I'll leave him to make the same point ad-infinitum despite him already having the answer

That would be novel, you actually giving the answer.

Saying "I'm discussing things!" when asked how it feels to promote your anti-nuclear bullcrap on the lives of others, isn't an answer.

Especially with your previous comment of "Just in case nobody has noticed, the Tsunami's over. It was horrid, yes. It killed loads of people. Damage done.", like the disaster was somehow over after a week and ew should concentrate on how evul nuclear is.

 

[Scouse]

Another story from Reuters:

"We are not in a situation where we can say we will have this under control by a certain period," Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told a briefing...

Jesper Koll, director of equity research at JPMorgan Securities in Tokyo, said..."The worst-case scenario is that this drags on not one month or two months or six months, but for two years, or indefinitely. Japan will be bypassed. That is the real nightmare scenario."

The Beeb is spinning the line that radioactive iodine in seawater is 3,355 times the legal limit 300m offshore and that lower, but still elevated, levels are being detected in seawater 16km further south. However they're reporting it probably won't be a problem by the time anything affected reaches our gobs.

Of course, there's no mention of the caesium or other longer lived radionucleides that continue to pour into the sea alongside the iodine. Nor is there any speculative assessment of what could happen if this thing drags on for, say, 6 more months. But that would probably be seen as irresponsible.

I've not seen hardly any comment on groundwater contamination so I'm presuming they've not managed to do the science yet.

They're in a proper fix, and if it carries on at this pace who knows how bad it will get...

 

[Raven]

I didn't think they were "pouring into the sea" but going into trenches around the reactor? I would expect that these trenches are sealed (But have no idea tbh)

 

[Scouse]

Nah, they're continuously pouring water into the cores/pools. It's got to go somewhere.

So it either has to evaporate off as radioactive steam and dissipate into the atmosphere or spill over and do what water does naturally - make its way to a low point over the surface of something or sink through the material it's sitting on (generally both)...

 

[Wij]

Blogs well out of date m8. And it's quoting TEPCO press releases. Not saying it's shite tho.

I've been attempting to use New Scientist as they do tend to have a bent towards accuracy. New Scientist is also a pro-nuclear publication by declaration (though I still get roasted for using it).

Here's the latest: Caesium fallout from Fukushima rivals Chernobyl

The report is on data from the Japanese Science Ministry. Here's the quote (which should please you as they're using the IAEA as a reference too).



There is some really nasty shit going on there.

Your (NS's) figures don't match those from other sites. e.g from today:

IAEA: Japan puts restrictions on drinking water in 4 Fukushima areas - World - GMA News Online - Latest Philippine News


Wait and see.

 

[Scouse]

The figures from the New Scientist article were from the Japanese Science Ministry (MEXT) itself.

Have a look at the hourly reading from monitoring station 32 - over 30Km away to the north west (outside the exclusion zone). Average dose rate of 37.1 microsieverts/hour.

Have a look at the integrated dose. Have a look at the hourly dose. Do some maths about how big a dose you'd get in, say, a month.

Then have a look at the very happy graph that they handily include in the .pdf.
A chest x-ray is 50 microsieverts. A CT scan is 6900 / pop. The normal amount of exposure is 2,400 /year.


Then bear in mind they're Japanese government figures and are bound to be 100% reliable. But I'd definitely take 'em over your philipino news outlet

 

[Wij]

The figures from the New Scientist article were from the Japanese Science Ministry (MEXT) itself.

Have a look at the hourly reading from monitoring station 32 - over 30Km away to the north west (outside the exclusion zone). Average dose rate of 37.1 microsieverts/hour.

Have a look at the integrated dose. Have a look at the hourly dose. Do some maths about how big a dose you'd get in, say, a month.

Then have a look at the very happy graph that they handily include in the .pdf.
A chest x-ray is 50 microsieverts. A CT scan is 6900 / pop. The normal amount of exposure is 2,400 /year.


Then bear in mind they're Japanese government figures and are bound to be 100% reliable. But I'd definitely take 'em over your philipino news outlet

Shifting the argument back to sieverts ? I thought it was the caesium 137 levels you were worried about. 37.1 microsieverts is still less than you'd get on a flight. A mammogram is 100 times that. If those levels are going to stay like that for a year or more then yes it's a problem (like having a mammogram every 12 days) but they aren't.

Why can't you just wait and see ?

 

[Ch3tan]

Because of the DOOM. The DOOOM!!1111

 

[Scouse]

Shifting the argument back to sieverts ? I thought it was the caesium 137 levels you were worried about. 37.1 microsieverts is still less than you'd get on a flight.

I'm not "shifting the argument" - the different types of exposure are all problems in their own right. Am I supposed to "pick one" and only talk about that?

That's 37.1 microsieverts/hour. The integrated dose for that area, outside the exclusion zone, is 6836 so far.

Why can't you just wait and see ?

I've waited. I've seen. I'm showing you the figures. They're bad.

Because of the DOOM. The DOOOM!!1111

How can I be going "teh d00mz" when I'm posting the scientific data that has been published by the Japanese science ministry?


It turns out that this nuclear problem is serious but none of you lot actually give a fuck. Or rather, have Toht-style belief issues when rafa-style "facts" are put in front of you, in black and white, for all to see

 

[Ch3tan]

You call it ignoring the problem, I call it not jumping the gun. Wij is correct; wait and see. All we have is conflicting information and badly written news reports.

 

[Scouse]

You call it ignoring the problem, I call it not jumping the gun. Wij is correct; wait and see. All we have is conflicting information and badly written news reports.

I'm not gun-jumping or quoting a news agency. I'm posting actual reading data taken by the japanese science ministry.

Look at the link. Look at the map of the monitoring station locations. Look at the dose figures.

Look.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Or rather, have Toht-style belief issues when rafa-style "facts" are put in front of you, in black and white, for all to see

And you wonder why i have to pop in every now and then to take the piss.

Interesting that black&white and "facts"(not facts, "facts") can occupy the same post

Nice argument defences though; you're like toht!...or...i'm just discussing it!

Man, i wish i got to be so superintelligent some day.

 

[Ormorof]

its still not THAT much radiation though...

Originally Posted by Figures from the Japanese Science Institute
MEXT has repeatedly found caesium levels above 550 kBq/m2 in an area some 45 kilometres wide lying 30 to 50 kilometres north-west of the plant. The highest was 6400 kBq/m2, about 35 kilometres away, while caesium reached 1816 kBq/m2 in Nihonmatsu City and 1752 kBq/m2 in the town of Kawamata, where iodine-131 levels of up to 12,560 kBq/m2 have also been measured

the irish sea has radiation levels of about 8.1TBq (http://www.britishnucleargroup.com/pdf/BNGSL 2004 Monitoring report final.pdf - Table 2)

and yet we happily eat fish from there without a care...

37.1 microSv/hour is 0.0371 mSv/hour, it takes 400mSv (ish) to start worrying about cancer or serious health risks (thats without treatment or protective equipment, straight out doses) thats about 449 days of 24/7 exposure with no treatment or protective equipment...

 

[Wij]

I'm not "shifting the argument" - the different types of exposure are all problems in their own right. Am I supposed to "pick one" and only talk about that?

Yes, because I sent you data which disagreed with your data (levels of Caesium) and you answered it with data about sieverts. Therefore you didn't answer.

Also I knew it was 37.1 microsieverts per hour. My reply addressed that. Yes, it's much higher than normal, but no, it's not a big risk.

Even if you accept the "%age of Chernobyl" headlines it's still true that very few people died of radiation who were not on or very nearby the site at Chernobyl. If Iodine had been issued there would have been even fewer.

 

[Scouse]

Longish one. Doesn't actually say much tho:

Ormorof, I have to laugh, sorry

its still not THAT much radiation though...

<The whole of the most radioactive sea in the world has fuckloads of radiation in it - well duh! Hitler killed LOADS more too...>

37.1 microSv/hour is 0.0371 mSv/hour, it takes 400mSv (ish) to start worrying about cancer or serious health risks (thats without treatment or protective equipment, straight out doses) thats about 449 days of 24/7 exposure with no treatment or protective equipment...

Measurable effects in increases in cancer occur at 100mSv, not 400. So, a little over 3 months at current levels (by which time they *may* have figured out how to stop the emissions, which are still continuing).

And I find that, if you live outside a quarantine zone, you do spend 24/7 there and you don't usually need protective equipment at your place of residence, let alone treatment.

Or do you sit around in radiative protective clothing in your house, making sure you don't actually live there, or something?

Yes, because I sent you data which disagreed with your data (levels of Caesium) and you answered it with data about sieverts. Therefore you didn't answer.

Gimme a break Wij - I'm the only one in this thread with an opposing voice (the first fucker who says maybe I should double-check my facts then can fuck off - I already do). I figured the thread had moved on and unless I take replying to this thread up as a full time job I can't answer everything!

Either way, I'd still go with the readings of the Jap science ministry rather than a philipino news organisation

Also I knew it was 37.1 microsieverts per hour. My reply addressed that. Yes, it's much higher than normal, but no, it's not a big risk.

I disagree. IMO (ye gads! an opinion!) levels are likely to increase as the emissions continue.

Cleanup hasn't started or even been contemplated yet - no point cleaning an area only to have more radioative material land there. The iodine levels will reduce quite quickly but the caesium is there to stay, at least for human-timespans.

Even if you accept the "%age of Chernobyl" headlines it's still true that very few people died of radiation who were not on or very nearby the site at Chernobyl. If Iodine had been issued there would have been even fewer.

It's still an unsettled argument, nearly 30 years later. There are studies (using the proper science n' everything) which claim 60,000+ deaths from cancer because of Chernobyl. The scientists don't yet agree. No consensus has been formed.

We simply don't know.

You're right though, if iodine, which in it's non-radioactive state only has the effect of stopping proper thyroid function, had been issued there probably would have been fewer deaths...


To add a little "perspective" - this thread has been a fight since the get-go (and I knew it would be). Most people have shifted their positions as they go along - as long as they disagree with mine. Look how it started out when I suggested there was venting of gas and the "possibility" of fuel rod meltdown:

What a load of fucking bollocks. The assumption that the Japanese would build a power station in a very geographically active location without the required safeguards is just stupid.

Your going to look pretty silly when they sort it out without any major problems.

Safest buildings in the world really

The Beeb in whipping up a storm over nothing shocker.

What "leaks"?

Seems to be a catastrophe averted by good procedures and design...kind of what you would expect at a modern nuclear power station.

You need to get a grip Scouse. Nuclear power stations are perfectly safe.

I particularly like Tom's "what leaks" one.

By the Japanese's own admission - this is now a bona-fide nuclear disaster. A proper one with radioactive material at unsafe levels scattered over a wide area, radionucleides pouring into the ocean and a global effect (not dangerous but global).

This is bad. It should never have happened.

The Japanese who protested against the building of these reactors in their areas, who've lived there for generations, who were ridiculed for suggesting that there could be a problem like this, that their government could have gotten it wrong were both right and have had their worst fears realised.

Yet I bet that gives them no comfort at all

 

[ford prefect]

What with the conflicting data between the Japanese government, foreign investigating teams and the nonsense from the power company the other day, I think it is difficult to say exactly what is happening in those cores with any certainty. Although the cores are exposed, they have obviously been kept relatively cool, with only a very small partial meltdown.

Because of that you can't really compare it to Chernobyl which was a level 7 disaster on the international nuclear event scale - whereas this is a cautionary level 5 due to the uncertainty mentioned above.

I certainly don't envy the workers who have to deal with the plant, but having said that safety protocols are much better now and the dangers are far better understood than they were in 1986, so workers are spending much less time being exposed. Those poor workers at Chernobyl were heroes, but sadly they were poorly supported and largely unaware or the dangers.

As for the fallout further afield, it is of such low concentrations that it isn't really a huge issue.

To be honest the big concern for the reactor situation now should be any large aftershocks or indeed another earthquake which probably would spell more trouble.

I do feel quite sorry for the locals around the reactor though, they have lost everything, it must be a quite desperate situation for them.

And as for the pro/anti nuclear argument, I agree it is an awful but necessary solution to the current problem of energy production. I am all for renewable energy, but equally I don’t hold any illusions about how effective they are. Gas is hugely expensive and sources are increasingly unreliable, Coal is almost as expensive now, in the UK thanks to Maggie, and pollutes far more than lead lined barrels of depleted uranium dumped into the depths of the ocean. Until a reasonable alternative like fusion can be perfected, we have little choice but nuclear supplemented with renewables.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well for one, i haven't shifted my position at all. Still the safest buildings around.

Second, i think the japanese have a bit bigger issues to deal with, like oh say...whole town flushed away in minutes?

 

[Scouse]

Second, i think the japanese have a bit bigger issues to deal with, like oh say...whole town flushed away in minutes?

Start a thread about it then cvnt.

 

[Ormorof]

but there hasnt been a meltdown... the core temperatures have been below 200C (and below 100C in most of the reactors) since a few days after the earthquake

im not saying all is wonderful and we should all be out frollicking in the fields around the reactors, but using a case of a very old reactor, being hit by one of the biggest earthquakes for hundreds of years, followed by a massive tsunami as an example of why building nuclear powerplants anywhere is a mistake is just silly (which is what the thread was originally about) as this is clearly an extreme case

we still dont know exactly how bad things actually are, as i said, i would wait and see what happens and what comes to light once its done, as i have pointed out again and again, there is no nuclear reaction going on in ANY of the cores, this will not go boom.

my point with the 24/7 exposure was that anyone within an affected (effected? i dunno) area would be treated or the evacuation zone extended if it became so bad they were actually worried about it (that is assuming it is scientists making the calls about the evacuation zones not alarmist politicians out to score points)

 

[old.Tohtori]

Start a thread about it then cvnt.

Really? That kind of language? Oh i'm so glad you represent the intellectual people.

Nice to see you still know how to answer stuff, then again, you don't luckily avoid facts and seem to adjust your perspective accordingly.

 

[ford prefect]

Well for one, i haven't shifted my position at all. Still the safest buildings around.

Second, i think the japanese have a bit bigger issues to deal with, like oh say...whole town flushed away in minutes?

Actually I think I would disagree with that if you look at older reactors - don't misunderstand reactors are fairly safe and all in all have an impressive safety record, but many of the older reactors still by design require human intervention in emergencies and the cooling systems rely heavily on mechanical parts and power to activate them, in other words they are a little too complex for there own good, whereas the new designs being built all use passive systems to cool the core in an emergency, using nothing more than physics. Basically they have a large water reservoir above them held back by valves that degrade at a specific temperature, then gravity takes over. Simple but affective.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Actually I think I would disagree with that if you look at older reactors - don't misunderstand reactors are fairly safe and all in all have an impressive safety record, but many of the older reactors still by design require human intervention in emergencies and the cooling systems rely heavily on mechanical parts and power to activate them, in other words they are a little too complex for there own good, whereas the new designs being built all use passive systems to cool the core in an emergency, using nothing more than physics. Basically they have a large water reservoir above them held back by valves that degrade at a specific temperature, then gravity takes over. Simple but affective.

Aye, older buildings coiuld use some upteching, nicely pointed out. But even as such, on a safety scale they still rank up. Just by looking at what this plant alone took is impressive.

 

[Scouse]

Ormorof:

There has been meltdown. Go back and check. They call it "fuel rod" meltdown - in some cases up to 70% (although I'm not sure how they come up with a 70% figure or how 70% defines the melting). It's probably why reactor cores have cracked.

As for it being an "extreme case" - well, all nuclear disasters are extreme cases. It's what you learn in nuclear risk management 101 - when they fail, they tend to fail badly. Yes, the safety record overall is good - but looks what happens when it goes wrong.

You could point out again and again that there's no nuclear reaction going on - but you'd be wrong - the nuclear reaction is where the heat comes from and why they have to continue cooling. Nobody has said it's going to go "boom" because nuclear reactors don't go boom.

And, if you go back and read both posts I've engaged you on, the "24/7" exposure levels we're talking about are outside the exclusion zone. I've no idea what's going on inside the exclusion zone any more because what's outside is more interesting to me right now.

Click on the link to MEXT data. Look at the levels and the map. Look.