Nuclear meltdown in Japan reactor?

[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 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.

Damn, how did I miss this bit of idiocy? Lordy, lordy, since botulism is natural, and only found in small amounts it cannot hurt you. That is essentially what you are stating, ol' Walleyes. Lordy, lordy.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Once again, Walleyes, you are going to get called on this kind of idiocy. Three of the reactors melted down. And it looks like they did so before the backup batteries died. If that is the case, it was the earthquake that damaged them.

You and BiPolar were insisting that they couldn't really meltdown, and now we know that most of the rods are in a puddle at the bottom of the reactor containment. One or more of the containments has major leaks, and one of them is the one with the Plutonium mix. You know, that stuff than cannot hurt you because it is found in nature?

As far as your expertise is concerned, you have already proved your lack thereof when you insisted that Plutonium was essentially harmless.

 

[Old Rocks]

The entire globe looks like that.

LOL. Perhaps I missed it. What active volcanoes do we have in the Mid-West? And the nearest active subduction zone is how far from Nebraska? From New York?

Walleyes, why don't you just put "I regularly make idiotic statements" in your avatar.

 

[westwall]

The entire globe looks like that.

LOL. Perhaps I missed it. What active volcanoes do we have in the Mid-West? And the nearest active subduction zone is how far from Nebraska? From New York?

Walleyes, why don't you just put "I regularly make idiotic statements" in your avatar.

It's hard to keep up with your idiotic statements but I try! As far as subduction zones in Nebraska, no there are none but there are certainly faults all over the place or don't you know how to read a geologic map? Also Nebraska enjoys felsic volcanic formations and pillow basalts. As far as great quakes go the New Madrid quakes of 1811 and 1812 were every bit as powerful as the japanese quake if not more so. It takes a hell of a lot of energy to make the Mississippi go backwards for three days.

 

[Ravi]

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.

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.

...

 

[skookerasbil]

I remember this thread................

I also remember every radical environmental nut on here with the kneejerk reaction: "The End of the World!!!"

By the fourth day, I told everybody "the threat from here forward" is nothing more than hysterics from people with issues. Of course, chalk up another check-mate for sk00ks.

The k00k environmentalists were predicting a real Godzilla as well as blaming the tsunami on global warming!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

We know you are an idiot. You don't have to prove it daily, Kooky.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Radiation & the Oceans : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Casualties of Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster:

Casualties of Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster: “Official” and Other Versions
by admin on 22. Mar, 2011 in Cancer, Chernobyl, Environmental Health, Nuclear Radiation

I. How many people died and how many more are likely to die in the future?

The total number of deaths already attributable to Chernobyl or expected in the future over the lifetime of emergency workers and local residents in the most contaminated areas is estimated to be about 4000. This includes some 50 emergency workers who died of acute radiation syndrome and nine children who died of thyroid cancer, and an estimated total of 3940 deaths from radiation-induced cancer and leukemia among the 200 000 emergency workers from 1986-1987, 116 000 evacuees and 270 000 residents of the most contaminated areas (total about 600 000). These three major cohorts were subjected to higher doses of radiation amongst all the people exposed to Chernobyl radiation.

The estimated 4000 casualties may occur during the lifetime of about 600 000 people under consideration. As about quarter of them will eventually die from spontaneous cancer not caused by Chernobyl radiation, the radiation-induced increase of about 3% will be difficult to observe. However, in the most highly exposed cohorts of emergency and recovery operation workers, some increase in particular cancers (e.g., leukemia) has already been observed.

 

[KissMy]

Casualties of Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster:

Casualties of Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster: “Official” and Other Versions
by admin on 22. Mar, 2011 in Cancer, Chernobyl, Environmental Health, Nuclear Radiation

I. How many people died and how many more are likely to die in the future?

The total number of deaths already attributable to Chernobyl or expected in the future over the lifetime of emergency workers and local residents in the most contaminated areas is estimated to be about 4000. This includes some 50 emergency workers who died of acute radiation syndrome and nine children who died of thyroid cancer, and an estimated total of 3940 deaths from radiation-induced cancer and leukemia among the 200 000 emergency workers from 1986-1987, 116 000 evacuees and 270 000 residents of the most contaminated areas (total about 600 000). These three major cohorts were subjected to higher doses of radiation amongst all the people exposed to Chernobyl radiation.

The estimated 4000 casualties may occur during the lifetime of about 600 000 people under consideration. As about quarter of them will eventually die from spontaneous cancer not caused by Chernobyl radiation, the radiation-induced increase of about 3% will be difficult to observe. However, in the most highly exposed cohorts of emergency and recovery operation workers, some increase in particular cancers (e.g., leukemia) has already been observed.

If we build all the Nuclear Power Plants in the Desert there will be no people around for it to kill & no environment for it to damage. There should be less risk of a natural disaster causing a containment issue. Less risk of transporting Nuclear waste to its permanent storage site.

 

[Old Rocks]

Kiss, one major problem. Cooling. Those towers are not for the reactor, they are giant cooling towers which require huge amounts of water. In fact, some nuclear plants in France are presently being redied for shutdown because the drougth there has reduced the water supply below the level that the can cool the reactor.

 

[KissMy]

Kiss, one major problem. Cooling. Those towers are not for the reactor, they are giant cooling towers which require huge amounts of water. In fact, some nuclear plants in France are presently being redied for shutdown because the drougth there has reduced the water supply below the level that the can cool the reactor.

There is a project under way to pump a large amount of Missouri River water west through the desert to supply the West Coast with irrigation & drinking water. That same water could very easily cool power plants.

Desert Solar Thermal Power Plants also use a ton of water. I thought I read somewhere that one of those plants were shut down due to lack of water.

 

[Intense]

Going Nuke, you might want to reprocess on site, rather than transport and store. Reasoning it would be safer in the long run. I personally do not want to see Reactors anywhere near Major Population centers. Zero Fallout during start up, operation, and shut down should be the goal, zero tolerance. Containment? Triple back up minimum. Cooling? Non-contaminated water only. CO2 is a refrigerant and abundant, I wonder how that would incorporate into Safety, fail-safe. Remember the Blob??? 1957 was it?

After seeing what is currently playing out in Japan my confidence in the Technology is close to totally shaken. Not that it has really changed much over the years. I have been strongly anti nuke, most of my life. I vote Dams and gas powered plants.

 

[KissMy]

NPR & Democrats are now advocating placing Nuclear Power Plants inside neighborhoods.

Mini nuclear plants in your garden

The miniature reactors will be factory-sealed, contain no weapons-grade material, have no moving parts and will be nearly impossible to steal because they will be encased in concrete and buried underground.

The US government has licensed the technology to Hyperion, a New Mexico-based company which said last week that it has taken its first firm orders and plans to start mass production within five years. 'Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a kilowatt hour anywhere in the world,' said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion.