"Nuclear Emergency"

[Wij]

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.

This.

...and a lot of the comments you quoted Scouse hold up. The Beeb has essentially recanted (whilst still carrying on with the scare-stories at the same time) There are no radiation-linked deaths. The safety protocols in place stopped the problem being much worse. New reactors would be much better. etc...

 

[Scouse]

So there's not been a meltdown and there's no nuclear reaction ongoing in any of the cores.

What the hell are they cooling water into the damn thing like their lives depended on it for then?

Yes, the safety protocols stopped a meltdown on a massive scale. It doesn't mean that it isn't still a gargantuan fuckup.

And as for radiation-linked deaths. Cancer takes a while.

 

[ford prefect]

So there's not been a meltdown and there's no nuclear reaction ongoing in any of the cores.

What the hell are they cooling water into the damn thing like their lives depended on it for then?

Yes, the safety protocols stopped a meltdown on a massive scale. It doesn't mean that it isn't still a gargantuan fuckup.

And as for radiation-linked deaths. Cancer takes a while.

Nobdy said there wasn't a reaction, indeed you can't stop a nuclear reaction, you can merely dampen it and they are cooling the reactors partly because all reactors require cooling by design (that is exactly how they generate power) and partly to keep the exposed fuel from getting to hot. If you didn't cool them, that is when things would get truly unpleasant.

 

[Scouse]

Nobdy said there wasn't a reaction

there hasnt been a meltdown...there is no nuclear reaction going on in ANY of the cores

/shrugs

 

[Wij]

Who's denying any of it ?

Fukushima I nuclear accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We're just arguing about how serious the consequences will be.

/edit: OK, there's debates about what exactly constitutes a meltdown as that's not an official term.

 

[Scouse]

Interesting Wiki.

Obviously it's good enough for wiki to quote New Scientist but not me.

New Scientist reported that measurements taken by the Japanese science ministry and MEXT in areas of northern Japan "far from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant" showed the radioactive caesium fallout levels rival those from the Chernobyl disaster.

But I have learned something I didn't know from it:

The IAEA announced on 27 March that workers hospitalized as a precaution on 25 March had been exposed to between 2 and 6 Sv of radiation at their ankles when standing in water in unit 3

That's not good. I'd say chop their legs off but their blood'll have been pumping...

And it's just occured to me. "No deaths"? Given the way people are reporting deaths from other power sources (which I accept) - can we count the guy that hung himself as a direct consequence of this?

 

[rynnor]

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.

Nah - they just strip off the topsoil and its back to safe levels.

 

[rynnor]

Here's an interesting paper to throw into the mix - it seems exposure to low level radioactivity actually lowers your risk of dieing of cancer :

Cancer Risk from Low-Level Radiation -- Cohen 179 (5): 1137 -- American Journal of Roentgenology

Shows how complex it really is and that assumptions can be wrong.

 

[Scouse]

That would be the B.L. Cohen who wrote "Before It's Too Late — A Scientist's Case for Nuclear Energy" and who has been having a pop at the Linear No-Threshold model since the 1980's.

I could post papers that show different results. In 1993 the acceptable maximum permissable dose for non-nuclear workers (that's us) was reduced by a factor of 5 because evidence suggested that low doses of radiation had negative effects.

But all this is guff. rynnor - for the first time we agree - it's very complex. Assumptions can be wrong. The science isn't in yet...

I'd prefer to err on the side of caution, myself.

 

[rynnor]

I'd prefer to err on the side of caution, myself.

I'm not completely averse to that idea but the realities of the situation are that we need the energy nuclear power supplies the same as we need petroleum, coal etc.

It would be nice if we didnt - I'd happily not have a world with all the headaches that our power generation causes but our civilization would effectively end without it.

 

[Wij]

Can't run hospitals that save thousands of lives a year in the UK alone without leccy etc etc...

This is getting dull. Yes, everyone agrees radiaoctive material has been leaked. It's still at levels where health effects for more than a few people are very unlikely though. All power generation has risks. Can we drop this now?

 

[Ormorof]

there is no nuclear reaction, the cores shutdown the moment the earthquake hit, the heat (i believe i posted this in my first thread way back) is from radioactive decay, which is not the same thing, its bad, but not as bad as a runaway nuclear reaction

 

[Scouse]

It's still at levels where health effects for more than a few people are very unlikely though.

I agree with the rest of your sentiment, but I disagree with this. (Edit: I did a quick check of news stories whilst writing this post and now also have a quote about this from the government of Japan below).

And;

there is no nuclear reaction, the cores shutdown the moment the earthquake hit, the heat (i believe i posted this in my first thread way back) is from radioactive decay, which is not the same thing, its bad, but not as bad as a runaway nuclear reaction

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Apart from the doubts about whether control rods properly decended in the active reactors TEPCO itself has said "the chance of re-criticality is not zero".

The "runaway nuclear reaction" scenario is still a possibility. And has already been covered in this thread.


Anyway. I'll continue posting updates. Arguing seems to be getting us nowhere.

From Auntie

The UN's nuclear watchdog (International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA) found safe radiation limits had been exceeded at the village of Iitate, 40km north-west of the nuclear plant...

...Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano, said [that] that the IAEA had advised the government to "carefully assess the situation on the basis of this report"...I don't think that this is something of a nature which immediately requires such action"

"But the fact that the level of radiation is high in the soil is inevitably pointing to the possibility that the accumulation over the long term may affect human health"

40km out...

 

[Wij]

"But the fact that the level of radiation is high in the soil is inevitably pointing to the possibility that the accumulation over the long term may affect human health"

Exactly. It's a possibility if nothing gets done about it and people just live there for years.

It's a good job you're not a trolley dolly. You'd be shitting yourself

 

[cHodAX]

Not a chance, bottled water for mine if I lived anywhere within 2k downwind of that place.

 

[Scouse]

Exactly. It's a possibility if nothing gets done about it and people just live there for years.

It's a good job you're not a trolley dolly. You'd be shitting yourself

Lol.

I disagree about the years thing Wij. It's months, at current levels. And it's going to take years to do something about it - if, indeed, anything can be done.

Personally, if I was Japanese I'd have moved to the far south by now. Why risk it?

 

[Wij]

Lol.

I disagree about the years thing Wij. It's months, at current levels. And it's going to take years to do something about it - if, indeed, anything can be done.

Personally, if I was Japanese I'd have moved to the far south by now. Why risk it?

Well it wouldn't bother me being around there for a holiday. Let's wait and see on the long-term prospects.

 

[Wij]

Fukushima fearmongers are stealing our Jetsons future ? The Register

 

[Scouse]

Well, given the register's previous stance - that there's nothing to worry about and anyone who suggests that there are risks associated with nuclear power is a total fuckhead to be ignored - I think I'll not even bother opening it. (But probably will, they are good value for comedy after all)

I'll stick with the IAEA and governmental assessments that's it's pretty fucking terrible.

Yep. Opened it. First line:

As the situation at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear powerplant slowly winds down, the salient facts remain the same as they have been throughout: nobody has suffered or will suffer any radiological health consequences

It's not "winding down" and I'm guessing that the guys hopitalised for exposure to between 2 and 6Sv don't matter. They've pulled a Toht and changed their line from no problem to "no radiological consequences".

Seriously Wij. I got panned for using New Scientist...

 

[Wij]

Well, given the register's previous stance - that there's nothing to worry about and anyone who suggests that there are risks associated with nuclear power is a total fuckhead to be ignored - I think I'll not even bother opening it. (But probably will, they are good value for comedy after all)

I'll stick with the IAEA and governmental assessments that's it's pretty fucking terrible.

Yep. Opened it. First line:



It's not "winding down" and I'm guessing that the guys hopitalised for exposure to between 2 and 6Sv don't matter. They've pulled a Toht and changed their line from no problem to "no radiological consequences".

Seriously Wij. I got panned for using New Scientist...

Read the third page (and second tbh). There's no smoking gun but it nicely sums up that the chances are that noone will be killed by this.

 

[Wij]

Just as noone was killed by 3 mile island:

Three Mile Island accident, by the numbers - Yahoo! News

 

[Scouse]

Read the third page (and second tbh). There's no smoking gun but it nicely sums up that the chances are that noone will be killed by this.

As I said, if coal's bad then someone's already died from this. The three guys who received up to 6 sieverts to their legs are gonna pop it sooner or later because of this. The amount of radiation 40k away in areas is very high. The amounts of caesium in the soil is very high.

That guy wouldn't get a job reporting for the Sun. (I have read it, it's awful).

As for your Yahoo article (written by a librarian, mind), did you read it all?:

34: The amount of millirems per hour measured at the gate of the Fukushima-Daiichi plant in Japan after the earthquake and tsunami.

100: The maximum limit of millirems per year the public can be exposed to radiation beyond natural sources. The Nuclear Energy Institute states Japanese citizens have had much more exposure near their quake-stricken plant.

And all this is over and above what the people of fukushima wanted, asked for or agreed to. It was forced upon them by a government who said there would be no problems. A government who could and can never make that sort of promise.

Humans are well known to have huge problems quantifying risks like those posed by nuclear power.

The potential for catastrophe on a global scale exists and is real. Do we need to have a bigger accident before we realise this? I think we do.

Yet we still gamble on the lottery?

 

[Scouse]

Horrid

Emails and descriptions of the conditions that the workers are experiencing

and;

IAEA says expand the exclusion zone, get 'em out of there...

Yet the numbers the IAEA is averaging show local hotspots that are far higher, and it is these, rather than averages, that people might encounter. The accumulated readings published today by MEXT show levels as high as 18 MBq/m2 in Iitate village, 40 kilometres from the plant, and 17.6 MBq/m2 just outside the 30-kilometre zone.

Even the averages are worrying, however. In Iitate, the IAEA says the average level of caesium-137 is double its "operational criteria for evacuation" – 1 MBq/m2 of caesium-137. After the 1986 Chernobyl accident, the level of caesium contamination at which evacuation was mandatory was 1.48 MBq/m2

 

[Scouse]

The Jap government has finally admitted that the people moved out of the 20km exclusion zone will be out of there "long-term".

The people living in the 30km exclusion zone will be next. That would be two thousand eight hundred odd square kilometers around the reactor...

If they did what the United Nation's watchdog, the IAEA suggested and expanded the exclusion zone to, say, 40km (although they're finding dangerous levels of contaminants up to 58km away) that would be 5000 square kilometers in area.


In other news, radiactive particles have been detected in the groundwater, so they'll be circulating nicely.

Also, Sarkozy wants to reform global nuclear rules. Considering France gets 75% of it's energy from nuclear this sounds like a pretence to get rid of ALARA to me - it's been a thorn in the side of the nuclear industry and is hugley politically inconvenient. It's the only thing that's made sure we've not been exposed to drastically elevated levels of radiation from background.

Personally, considering the scientists have no idea what slightly elevated levels of radiation do to us and that life has evolved in an environment containing a certain level of background radiation, I think ALARA is a good principle to adhere to.

 

[Wij]

The Jap government has finally admitted that the people moved out of the 20km exclusion zone will be out of there "long-term".

The people living in the 30km exclusion zone will be next. That would be two thousand eight hundred odd square kilometers around the reactor...

If they did what the United Nation's watchdog, the IAEA suggested and expanded the exclusion zone to, say, 40km (although they're finding dangerous levels of contaminants up to 58km away) that would be 5000 square kilometers in area.


In other news, radiactive particles have been detected in the groundwater, so they'll be circulating nicely.

Also, Sarkozy wants to reform global nuclear rules. Considering France gets 75% of it's energy from nuclear this sounds like a pretence to get rid of ALARA to me - it's been a thorn in the side of the nuclear industry and is hugley politically inconvenient. It's the only thing that's made sure we've not been exposed to drastically elevated levels of radiation from background.

Personally, considering the scientists have no idea what slightly elevated levels of radiation do to us and that life has evolved in an environment containing a certain level of background radiation, I think ALARA is a good principle to adhere to.

However, the government insists that no water or food contamination has reached levels that would be harmful to people's health.

And so on. We can all selectively quote

 

[rynnor]

I fully endorse Scouse's view in every way!











(phew was nearly too late

 

[Scouse]

And so on. We can all selectively quote

Well, for a start I didn't "quote" anything in my last post, but I presume that you're talking about the groundwater contamination thing?

They say they've got the first readings of radioactive materials in the groundwater. That's all I was saying.

Of course if it's only just reached groundwater then it's not going to be in the food chain yet. (And certainly not that way anyway - it's the levels in soil that's the worry at the moment - have a look at the two links I posted in the last-but-one...).

But it isn't a "good thing" whichever way it's painted...

Anyway - I'm liking the Jap government less since they've started playing fast-and-loose with their people's health. IAEA says "get 'em out of there" then they should probably do just that.

 

[Wij]

To be fair about 30,000 already have.
























(that's bad isn't it )

 

[rynnor]

More opportunist nonsense from the beeb:

BBC News - Viewpoint: Fukushima makes case for renewable energy

 

[old.Tohtori]

Anyway - I'm liking the Jap government less since they've started playing fast-and-loose with their people's health. IAEA says "get 'em out of there" then they should probably do just that.

It's good that you have experience in running a country. Not only that, but a country in crisis!

Did you have sims or simcity training for that AWESOME knowledge?