Nuclear meltdown in Japan reactor?

[Old Rocks]

Westwall;

That's because you aren't smart enough to ask the simple question what is the definition of LD50, any college student would know how to ask that question so there goes your claim of three years of college...

"LD50 is a measurement used in toxicology studies to determine the potential impact of toxic substances on different types of organisms. It provides an objective measure to compare and rank the toxicity of substances. The LD50 measurement is usually expressed as the amount of toxin per kilogram or pound of body weight. When comparing LD50 values, a lower value is regarded as more toxic, as it means a smaller amount of the toxin is required to cause death."

...............................................................................................................................

Where did you come up with that idea that this was an LD50? That is a chemical toxicisty measurement, not one concerning radioactive materials.

The article I posted stated unequivocely that the extrapolated number for a human being was 27 micro-grams. Not per kilogram, but 27 micro-grams, period.

IEER:Health Effects of Plutonium

Experiments on beagles have shown that a very small amount of plutonium in insoluble form will produce lung cancer with near-one-hundred-percent probability. When this data is extrapolated to humans, the figure for lethal lung burden of plutonium comes out to about 27 micrograms. Such an extrapolation from animals, of course, has some uncertainties. However, it is safe to assume that several tens of micrograms of plutonium-239 in the lung would greatly increase the risk of lung cancer. Larger quantities of plutonium will produce health problems in the short-term as well.

Once again, you fail to show the reading ability expected of a high school student, Walleyes.

You pulled it out of your ass, and have been caught once again.

 

[westwall]

Westwall;

That's because you aren't smart enough to ask the simple question what is the definition of LD50, any college student would know how to ask that question so there goes your claim of three years of college...

"LD50 is a measurement used in toxicology studies to determine the potential impact of toxic substances on different types of organisms. It provides an objective measure to compare and rank the toxicity of substances. The LD50 measurement is usually expressed as the amount of toxin per kilogram or pound of body weight. When comparing LD50 values, a lower value is regarded as more toxic, as it means a smaller amount of the toxin is required to cause death."

...............................................................................................................................

Where did you come up with that idea that this was an LD50? That is a chemical toxicisty measurement, not one concerning radioactive materials.

The article I posted stated unequivocely that the extrapolated number for a human being was 27 micro-grams. Not per kilogram, but 27 micro-grams, period.

IEER:Health Effects of Plutonium

Experiments on beagles have shown that a very small amount of plutonium in insoluble form will produce lung cancer with near-one-hundred-percent probability. When this data is extrapolated to humans, the figure for lethal lung burden of plutonium comes out to about 27 micrograms. Such an extrapolation from animals, of course, has some uncertainties. However, it is safe to assume that several tens of micrograms of plutonium-239 in the lung would greatly increase the risk of lung cancer. Larger quantities of plutonium will produce health problems in the short-term as well.

Once again, you fail to show the reading ability expected of a high school student, Walleyes.

You pulled it out of your ass, and have been caught once again.

Because, NIMROD, Plutonium is both exceptionally poisonous as a heavy metal (number one on the heavy metal hit parade) and radioactive. If you would ever pull your head out of your sphincter you could actually learn something but you are so ridiculously arrogant and ignorant, you don't even know the damn questions to ask much less have the ability to understand the answers when you get them.

Nice job showing yet again what a complete and total scientific illiterate you are!

 

[editec]

I think I heard yesterday that the operator put the danger level at 7.

7 being, apparently, what they consider the highest danger level before meltdown (or whatever the hell happens..I'm not really sure what an 8 means)

 

[Liability]

I think I heard yesterday that the operator put the danger level at 7.

7 being, apparently, what they consider the highest danger level before meltdown (or whatever the hell happens..I'm not really sure what an 8 means)

I believe there is no 8. It only goes up to 7.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, 7 is the highest. And, while at present the total release of radiation is only 1/10 that of Chernobyl, that could change in the future. In fact, has already changed with a new release from one of the ponds with the spent rods.

 

[Old Rocks]

Westwall;

That's because you aren't smart enough to ask the simple question what is the definition of LD50, any college student would know how to ask that question so there goes your claim of three years of college...

"LD50 is a measurement used in toxicology studies to determine the potential impact of toxic substances on different types of organisms. It provides an objective measure to compare and rank the toxicity of substances. The LD50 measurement is usually expressed as the amount of toxin per kilogram or pound of body weight. When comparing LD50 values, a lower value is regarded as more toxic, as it means a smaller amount of the toxin is required to cause death."

...............................................................................................................................

Where did you come up with that idea that this was an LD50? That is a chemical toxicisty measurement, not one concerning radioactive materials.

The article I posted stated unequivocely that the extrapolated number for a human being was 27 micro-grams. Not per kilogram, but 27 micro-grams, period.

IEER:Health Effects of Plutonium

Experiments on beagles have shown that a very small amount of plutonium in insoluble form will produce lung cancer with near-one-hundred-percent probability. When this data is extrapolated to humans, the figure for lethal lung burden of plutonium comes out to about 27 micrograms. Such an extrapolation from animals, of course, has some uncertainties. However, it is safe to assume that several tens of micrograms of plutonium-239 in the lung would greatly increase the risk of lung cancer. Larger quantities of plutonium will produce health problems in the short-term as well.

Once again, you fail to show the reading ability expected of a high school student, Walleyes.

You pulled it out of your ass, and have been caught once again.

Because, NIMROD, Plutonium is both exceptionally poisonous as a heavy metal (number one on the heavy metal hit parade) and radioactive. If you would ever pull your head out of your sphincter you could actually learn something but you are so ridiculously arrogant and ignorant, you don't even know the damn questions to ask much less have the ability to understand the answers when you get them.

Nice job showing yet again what a complete and total scientific illiterate you are!

LOL. You have been caught pulling numbers out of your ass again, Walleyes. The radiation danger of Plutonium is not rated in the LD50 system, only the chemical toxicisity. The figure is 27 micro-grams for a human being.

Once again, if you expect respect, earn it. This kind of stubborn insistance that you are correct when you are obviously wrong only demonstrates what a fool you are.

 

[westwall]

Westwall;

That's because you aren't smart enough to ask the simple question what is the definition of LD50, any college student would know how to ask that question so there goes your claim of three years of college...

"LD50 is a measurement used in toxicology studies to determine the potential impact of toxic substances on different types of organisms. It provides an objective measure to compare and rank the toxicity of substances. The LD50 measurement is usually expressed as the amount of toxin per kilogram or pound of body weight. When comparing LD50 values, a lower value is regarded as more toxic, as it means a smaller amount of the toxin is required to cause death."

...............................................................................................................................

Where did you come up with that idea that this was an LD50? That is a chemical toxicisty measurement, not one concerning radioactive materials.

The article I posted stated unequivocely that the extrapolated number for a human being was 27 micro-grams. Not per kilogram, but 27 micro-grams, period.

IEER:Health Effects of Plutonium

Experiments on beagles have shown that a very small amount of plutonium in insoluble form will produce lung cancer with near-one-hundred-percent probability. When this data is extrapolated to humans, the figure for lethal lung burden of plutonium comes out to about 27 micrograms. Such an extrapolation from animals, of course, has some uncertainties. However, it is safe to assume that several tens of micrograms of plutonium-239 in the lung would greatly increase the risk of lung cancer. Larger quantities of plutonium will produce health problems in the short-term as well.

Once again, you fail to show the reading ability expected of a high school student, Walleyes.

You pulled it out of your ass, and have been caught once again.

Because, NIMROD, Plutonium is both exceptionally poisonous as a heavy metal (number one on the heavy metal hit parade) and radioactive. If you would ever pull your head out of your sphincter you could actually learn something but you are so ridiculously arrogant and ignorant, you don't even know the damn questions to ask much less have the ability to understand the answers when you get them.

Nice job showing yet again what a complete and total scientific illiterate you are!

LOL. You have been caught pulling numbers out of your ass again, Walleyes. The radiation danger of Plutonium is not rated in the LD50 system, only the chemical toxicisity. The figure is 27 micro-grams for a human being.

Once again, if you expect respect, earn it. This kind of stubborn insistance that you are correct when you are obviously wrong only demonstrates what a fool you are.

Really? I suggest you pull your head from your sphincter and try again. Just putting your fingers in your ears and going "la la la" won't work here. People can see what was written poor child. ALL LD50 calculations are figured as a relationship to body weight. Whether it be from a neurotoxin, a hemotoxin, a heavy metal or whatever toxin you are dealing with.

It's so nice to see you hold so completely to form. And as far as your truly pathetic attempt at an insult about trying to earn respect I will let our respective rep levels speak for me. You've been here for 3 years with nearly 15,000 posts and a rep of 126, I've been here less then a year with nearly 5100 posts and a rep of 192 or so. So it looks like, in this venue, my opinions are more respected then yours.

What was that about being a fool?

 

[Old Rocks]

A very Conservative message board. I am surprised that my numbers are not negative.

As for your numbers, lying fools agree with lying fools.

And, once again, the article made absolutely no referance to the LD50 standards, it made a flat statement of an extrapolation, 27 micro-grams for the human lungs.

Your continued referance to that standard is simply cover for the fact that you made a stupid remark that because of it's 24,000 year half-life, plutonium was essentially harmless. When, in fact, it is one of the most dangerous of the products of a meltdown in a MOX reactor.

IEER:Health Effects of Plutonium

Experiments on beagles have shown that a very small amount of plutonium in insoluble form will produce lung cancer with near-one-hundred-percent probability. When this data is extrapolated to humans, the figure for lethal lung burden of plutonium comes out to about 27 micrograms. Such an extrapolation from animals, of course, has some uncertainties. However, it is safe to assume that several tens of micrograms of plutonium-239 in the lung would greatly increase the risk of lung cancer. Larger quantities of plutonium will produce health problems in the short-term as well.

 

[westwall]

A very Conservative message board. I am surprised that my numbers are not negative.

As for your numbers, lying fools agree with lying fools.

And, once again, the article made absolutely no referance to the LD50 standards, it made a flat statement of an extrapolation, 27 micro-grams for the human lungs.

Your continued referance to that standard is simply cover for the fact that you made a stupid remark that because of it's 24,000 year half-life, plutonium was essentially harmless. When, in fact, it is one of the most dangerous of the products of a meltdown in a MOX reactor.

IEER:Health Effects of Plutonium

Experiments on beagles have shown that a very small amount of plutonium in insoluble form will produce lung cancer with near-one-hundred-percent probability. When this data is extrapolated to humans, the figure for lethal lung burden of plutonium comes out to about 27 micrograms. Such an extrapolation from animals, of course, has some uncertainties. However, it is safe to assume that several tens of micrograms of plutonium-239 in the lung would greatly increase the risk of lung cancer. Larger quantities of plutonium will produce health problems in the short-term as well.

Sure bucko sure, Jillian is not one I would consider conservative but she doesn't lie, cheat steal, or call people names (well at least normal folks) she has a rep near 1200 so no, your rep is representative of you and your viewpoint which is far outside the norm, plus you're fundamentally dishonest. People don't like that. There are LOTS of libs here with high reps, they are just nice people unlike you.

Next!

 

[Liability]

I shall now simplify, but do so accurately and fairly.

The stuff getting released into our ecosystem (some of which is indeed going outside the local area of the meltdown) is injurious to our health. Not "might be" dangerous. This isn't a 1970's cigarette box warning label we're talking about. "It IS injurious."

The risk from each of the various radioactive elements being emitted varies over time and by amount. SOME of it will effectively present little long term risk and will, thankfully, only be found within a few dozen kilometers of the site. Other stuff is so potent that it will present a larger risk for a long time. And SOME of the stuff is being spread far outside of the local area of the meltdown.

I'm not sure what the argument is. It is a bad situation and the end of this major problem is not yet clearly foreseeable. Things have a distinct prospect of getting worse, in fact, before they get better.

 

[Old Rocks]

I shall now simplify, but do so accurately and fairly.

The stuff getting released into our ecosystem (some of which is indeed going outside the local area of the meltdown) is injurious to our health. Not "might be" dangerous. This isn't a 1970's cigarette box warning label we're talking about. "It IS injurious."

The risk from each of the various radioactive elements being emitted varies over time and by amount. SOME of it will effectively present little long term risk and will, thankfully, only be found within a few dozen kilometers of the site. Other stuff is so potent that it will present a larger risk for a long time. And SOME of the stuff is being spread far outside of the local area of the meltdown.

I'm not sure what the argument is. It is a bad situation and the end of this major problem is not yet clearly foreseeable. Things have a distinct prospect of getting worse, in fact, before they get better.

The problem here is that some people got caught flat out lying concerning the health effects of the meltdown, let alone the possible effects. Were #3 reactor to go into full meltdown, there would be people dying of the effects of that all over the world for hundreds of years.

 

[westwall]

I shall now simplify, but do so accurately and fairly.

The stuff getting released into our ecosystem (some of which is indeed going outside the local area of the meltdown) is injurious to our health. Not "might be" dangerous. This isn't a 1970's cigarette box warning label we're talking about. "It IS injurious."

The risk from each of the various radioactive elements being emitted varies over time and by amount. SOME of it will effectively present little long term risk and will, thankfully, only be found within a few dozen kilometers of the site. Other stuff is so potent that it will present a larger risk for a long time. And SOME of the stuff is being spread far outside of the local area of the meltdown.

I'm not sure what the argument is. It is a bad situation and the end of this major problem is not yet clearly foreseeable. Things have a distinct prospect of getting worse, in fact, before they get better.

The stuff being released into our ecosystem CAME from the ecosystem. It has been refined yes, but it is a naturally occuring substance.....yes even Plutonium is found in nature.

I have a couple of radiation detectors on my property and they are not picking up anything more than background radiation. Nor will they. The amounts being detected here are so small that my detectors are completely incapable of reading them...the amount is that small. The DRI is so far the only research lab that has been able to detect them here in this area.

Yes it is a bad situation for the Japanese but that's all. It will not effect you.

 

[Liability]

I shall now simplify, but do so accurately and fairly.

The stuff getting released into our ecosystem (some of which is indeed going outside the local area of the meltdown) is injurious to our health. Not "might be" dangerous. This isn't a 1970's cigarette box warning label we're talking about. "It IS injurious."

The risk from each of the various radioactive elements being emitted varies over time and by amount. SOME of it will effectively present little long term risk and will, thankfully, only be found within a few dozen kilometers of the site. Other stuff is so potent that it will present a larger risk for a long time. And SOME of the stuff is being spread far outside of the local area of the meltdown.

I'm not sure what the argument is. It is a bad situation and the end of this major problem is not yet clearly foreseeable. Things have a distinct prospect of getting worse, in fact, before they get better.

The stuff being released into our ecosystem CAME from the ecosystem. It has been refined yes, but it is a naturally occuring substance.....yes even Plutonium is found in nature.

I have a couple of radiation detectors on my property and they are not picking up anything more than background radiation. Nor will they. The amounts being detected here are so small that my detectors are completely incapable of reading them...the amount is that small. The DRI is so far the only research lab that has been able to detect them here in this area.

Yes it is a bad situation for the Japanese but that's all. It will not effect you.

Come on. Of course it came from nature. Nobody is suggesting that nuclear science is magic and makes dangerous radioactive material out of nothing. That's irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is there are no places on Earth where you could walk by an natural outcropping of rock -- even rock emitting some radioactivity above the relative background radiation -- and get a dose that could cause cell damage or radiation poisoning or illness of other kinds or death.

It is the "refining" that makes this stuff so very dangerous.

Again: when I get an xray (and I have had my share), the lab tech goes behind a lead shielded wall for a damn good reason.

And spies in Russia have gotten killed by other spies and evil-fuckers by getting minuscule amounts of Plutonium into the victims.

And while you say that the bad situation for the Japanese will not affect me, I disagree. A: the stuff that affects the Japanese does affect me. Small world and very inter-dependent in big ways and small. B: you are expressing an article of faith. But the reality does not agree with you. The stuff is polluting the ocean. The stuff has gotten into the air. AND it's still happening. And there is no real end yet even in sight. That means a LOT more of the radioactive "pollution" is getting into the World's habitat. It is not a closed container. The stuff obviously is subject to dilution, but it can still spread very far and even in diluted amounts some of it is potentially lethal.

I doubt you can even begin to quantify how bad this could end up being. So while I generally respect you and your desire to use the facts at hand, I have to tell you, you are not taking the larger and very long term picture into account.

There is an amazing amount of information we know these days about radiation. But there is still a great deal we do not yet know. And this is a hell of a way to find out -- long term.

 

[Ravi]

There is a huge difference between spray rising over the buildings and a wave sweety. A huge difference, yes we do know.

And we know that salt water can easily ruin a generator even if only a "spray".

Not when they're in enclosures which these were, and would have had to have been on top of the buildings. Even if they weren't protected spray would only knock a generator out for a few hours till the electrical wiring and connectors were dried out. The generators on site however were destroyed because the wave was able to dismount them from their mountings and being underwater for the better part of a day did massive damage to them.

Salt spray (heck just being near the ocean) does indeed play havoc on equipment, but it takes months to accomplish any real damage, and that is for stuff that is ignored.

I'm not a genius like you but I do think salt water can fuck up a generator in short order.

You can go on looking for your pie in the sky excuse for the problem but the fact is that the reactors were built in the wrong place.

 

[Valerie]

They're everywhere in Japan.

Since 1973, nuclear energy has been a national strategic priority in Japan, as the nation is heavily dependent on imported fuel, with fuel imports accounting for 61% of energy production. There has been concern about the ability of Japan's nuclear plants to withstand seismic activity. The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant was completely shut down for 21 months following an earthquake in 2007.

Following an earthquake, tsunami, and the failure of cooling systems at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant on March 11, 2011, a nuclear emergency was declared. This was the first time a nuclear emergency had been declared in Japan, and 140,000 residents within 20 km of the plant were evacuated. The amount of radiation released is unclear, as the crisis is ongoing.[1]

Nuclear power in Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

I shall now simplify, but do so accurately and fairly.

The stuff getting released into our ecosystem (some of which is indeed going outside the local area of the meltdown) is injurious to our health. Not "might be" dangerous. This isn't a 1970's cigarette box warning label we're talking about. "It IS injurious."

The risk from each of the various radioactive elements being emitted varies over time and by amount. SOME of it will effectively present little long term risk and will, thankfully, only be found within a few dozen kilometers of the site. Other stuff is so potent that it will present a larger risk for a long time. And SOME of the stuff is being spread far outside of the local area of the meltdown.

I'm not sure what the argument is. It is a bad situation and the end of this major problem is not yet clearly foreseeable. Things have a distinct prospect of getting worse, in fact, before they get better.

The stuff being released into our ecosystem CAME from the ecosystem. It has been refined yes, but it is a naturally occuring substance.....yes even Plutonium is found in nature.

I have a couple of radiation detectors on my property and they are not picking up anything more than background radiation. Nor will they. The amounts being detected here are so small that my detectors are completely incapable of reading them...the amount is that small. The DRI is so far the only research lab that has been able to detect them here in this area.

Yes it is a bad situation for the Japanese but that's all. It will not effect you.

Come on. Of course it came from nature. Nobody is suggesting that nuclear science is magic and makes dangerous radioactive material out of nothing. That's irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is there are no places on Earth where you could walk by an natural outcropping of rock -- even rock emitting some radioactivity above the relative background radiation -- and get a dose that could cause cell damage or radiation poisoning or illness of other kinds or death.

It is the "refining" that makes this stuff so very dangerous.

Again: when I get an xray (and I have had my share), the lab tech goes behind a lead shielded wall for a damn good reason.

And spies in Russia have gotten killed by other spies and evil-fuckers by getting minuscule amounts of Plutonium into the victims.

And while you say that the bad situation for the Japanese will not affect me, I disagree. A: the stuff that affects the Japanese does affect me. Small world and very inter-dependent in big ways and small. B: you are expressing an article of faith. But the reality does not agree with you. The stuff is polluting the ocean. The stuff has gotten into the air. AND it's still happening. And there is no real end yet even in sight. That means a LOT more of the radioactive "pollution" is getting into the World's habitat. It is not a closed container. The stuff obviously is subject to dilution, but it can still spread very far and even in diluted amounts some of it is potentially lethal.

I doubt you can even begin to quantify how bad this could end up being. So while I generally respect you and your desire to use the facts at hand, I have to tell you, you are not taking the larger and very long term picture into account.

There is an amazing amount of information we know these days about radiation. But there is still a great deal we do not yet know. And this is a hell of a way to find out -- long term.

I'll tell you what Liability, take a look at Cernobyl some day. That was a disaster of epic proportions that killed at least 40 people immediately and radiated thousands. I think the "official" count of radiation deaths is now up to 65 or so but the reality is that at least 1000 were killed because of the radiation. And now you can take a tour of the facility and Pripyat (the town nearby). Hundreds do every week. It's been 25 years and yes there are areas that you don't want to go into but the area is recovering.

This is what Woods Hole has to say about the radioactivity that is allready in the oceans...


"What is the normal background level of radiation?
The normal background level of radiation is different for different places on the planet. Radiation in some places is higher because these receive less of the natural protection offered by Earth’s atmosphere or because they are in places where the surrounding rocks contain more radioactive substances, such as radon. In the ocean, the largest source of radiation comes from naturally occurring substances such as potassium-40 and uranium-238, which are found at levels 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than any human sources of radiation (see illustration). The largest human release of radionuclides was the result of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests carried out by the U.S., French and British during the 1950s and 60s. Despite even the high concentration of nuclear fallout in the Pacific caused by U.S. tests on the Marshall Islands, there is no known adverse health effect associated with eating seafood from the Pacific."

As you can see the natural radiation is far greater then what man adds.

You are correct to be concerned, but don't let it get the better of you.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=56076&tid=282&cid=94989

 

[westwall]

And we know that salt water can easily ruin a generator even if only a "spray".

Not when they're in enclosures which these were, and would have had to have been on top of the buildings. Even if they weren't protected spray would only knock a generator out for a few hours till the electrical wiring and connectors were dried out. The generators on site however were destroyed because the wave was able to dismount them from their mountings and being underwater for the better part of a day did massive damage to them.

Salt spray (heck just being near the ocean) does indeed play havoc on equipment, but it takes months to accomplish any real damage, and that is for stuff that is ignored.

I'm not a genius like you but I do think salt water can fuck up a generator in short order.

You can go on looking for your pie in the sky excuse for the problem but the fact is that the reactors were built in the wrong place.

Thanks for the elevation but I am far from being a genius Ravi. I am however well versed in radiation and its cleanup. As far as your contention they were built in the wrong place, maybe, I don't know the area well enough to make a judgment. But, the earthquake didn't harm the reactors, that is a fact. The tsunami knocked out the generators, that's a fact. The Japanese had NO EMERGENCY BACKUP PLAN, and that too is a fact. And that alone is unconsionable.

 

[Valerie]

 

[westwall]

The entire globe looks like that.

 

[Ravi]

No, it doesn't. They weren't in over their heads. They allowed their innate arrogance to get the better of them and not follow a very simple safety protocol. It's unbelievable that it happened and even more ridiculous is how inept they were immediately following the disaster. And all of it broken down to arrogance and not having a plan worked out before hand.

Speaking of arrogance, you seem to suffer from it quite badly. We don't KNOW if putting the generators higher would have solved the problem.

The Japan crisis, which began with an electricity outage, has also drawn attention to backup power. Experts say that the tsunami either waterlogged backup diesel generators, destroyed fuel tanks or flooded switch gears needed to hook up the generators — or all three.

Japan crisis spawns new look at U.S. reactors’ design and preparedness - The Washington Post

Nope again, we know quite well that had the generators been on the roof (and of course been operable and full of fuel, kind of a requirement for a emergency system) non of this would have happened. We KNOW this to be true.

FYI

Nuclear fuel at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi power plant began melting just five hours after Japan’s March 11 earthquake, a Japanese nuclear engineer told a panel of U.S. scientists Thursday.

Japanese scientist: Fukushima meltdown occurred within hours of quake - The Washington Post

That sounds to me as if the earthquake itself did some damage.