Nuclear meltdown in Japan reactor?

[Valerie]

You said the video shows the wave going over the reactor building I have just shown you that not to be true. What's your problem?



"Wrong. A video of it happening was released a couple of days ago. The tsunami went over the top of the buildings."
Ravi

It engulfed the buildings and one wave went over...or plume as you wish. Regardless, there is no way to know if the generators would have been out of harm's way on the roof.

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

However, there's still no doubt the wave went higher than a third of the height, though...

The wave reached no higher than a third of the height of the buildings.

 

[westwall]

Ok. I don't think we disagree all that much. I didn't suggest, for example, that because of these Fukishima meltdown(s), the world was fucked. But I was taken a bit back when I saw people suggesting that what happened there in Japan is really nothing all that dire.

It is DAMN ******* dire to the People of Japan especially those within 30 or so miles of the plant in Norther Japan. IT IS a problem for at least the local aquatic ecosystem, too. And although the degree of the problem for the rest of the world isn't directly related to the radioactivity getting emitted, it is STILL a potentially massive problem for the rest of the world because these things don't happen in an isolated closed system.

Japan might bounce back, but it is likely to take a long time. That ability to absorb the problems of the quake and the tsunami got massively complicated by the reactor problems. And if the Japanese economy starts to tank, badly, as I think it might, there is another kind of fallout to worry about. Their problems will not be easily contained.

I think you may have misinterpreted what has been said. The local situation is very dire indeed. However, after the short half life isotopes have burned themselves out the cleanup will begin and it will be safe to do so with reasonable precautions. They do need to get the leaking under control, there is no argument there, however the damage is going to be very localised in the long run. After the initial release a clear zone of around 50 miles was neccessary. However in about a year (provided they can control the leaking) people will be able to move back into a zone much closer to the reactor.

Eventually, 5 years or so, life will return to normal in the area and within a few years after that most people will not even know it ever occured.

The phrase "the short half life isotopes" is misleading. OF the radiactive particles that are getting emitted, and which are clearly polluting the immediate area, what is your understanding of the "half life?"

As I grasp this stuff, the half life of Strontium (meaning Strontium 90) is 30 years. Well, 28.7 to 28.9 years. That doesn't mean the problem goes away in 30 years. It means only that there is essentially half the original amount 30 years later. 60 years later, there's a quarter of the original amount. 90 years later there's still an eight of that original amount.

Why does that matter?

Because we know that the Fukishima reactors have released enough Sr90 to be affecting areas 30 Km away from the reactors. The half life of Cesium may be only about 2+ years, but it's still a problem, certainly, for the locals and the fauna (I'm thinking of livestock) and so forth, NOW. And for the next who knows how many years?

The stricken reactors ARE also releasing Plutonium into the atmosphere. There is no good way to interpret that. My understanding is that Plutonium has a 24 THOUSAND+ year half life.

I'm not sure what you are arguing. Chicken Littles may be making more of this big problem than it merits, but to denigrate the nature of the problem so dismissively also strikes me as fallacy.

It is a problem. It is primarily "local." But widespread and long term consequences do exist. And those consequences (nuclear-related injury, sickness, death, etc) are not necessarily all that minor. And they can grow worse over time since the broken reactors and storage areas have not come close to being contained and there is no clear end in sight.

Iodine 131 has a half life of 8 days and that is the isotope you should be concerned about. Isotopes with short half lives emit as their primary radiation Gamma Rays that penetrate everything and destroy cells on contact. It is that ionising radiation that kills people.

The other isotpes, Cesium, Strontium etc. that measure their half lives in years primarily emit Alpha and Beta particles that are blocked by a sheet of paper. It would be extremely bad to ingest the particles but, so long as you wear proper clothing and are properly decontaminated, there is nothing to worry about from those isotopes.

In short the longer the half life the less you care about the isotopes. Any material that has a half life of 24,000 years is not going to bother you.

 

[westwall]

It engulfed the buildings and one wave went over...or plume as you wish. Regardless, there is no way to know if the generators would have been out of harm's way on the roof.

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

However, there's still no doubt the wave went higher than a third of the height, though...

The wave reached no higher than a third of the height of the buildings.

That is true, but by the time it got to the reactor buildings the intervening space and seawall had collapsed the wave so that it did not rise higher than a third of the way up the reactor buildings. The spray most certainly topped the buildings but spray won't hurt you. Go to any sea wall during a storm and the sea spray will certainly make you cold but it won't blow you off your feet like getting hit by a wave will.

I will certainly grant you that the entire area was engulfed by water, the whole area was under water, but the reactor buildings themselves were never underwater as Ravi claimed.

 

[Old Rocks]

I think you may have misinterpreted what has been said. The local situation is very dire indeed. However, after the short half life isotopes have burned themselves out the cleanup will begin and it will be safe to do so with reasonable precautions. They do need to get the leaking under control, there is no argument there, however the damage is going to be very localised in the long run. After the initial release a clear zone of around 50 miles was neccessary. However in about a year (provided they can control the leaking) people will be able to move back into a zone much closer to the reactor.

Eventually, 5 years or so, life will return to normal in the area and within a few years after that most people will not even know it ever occured.

The phrase "the short half life isotopes" is misleading. OF the radiactive particles that are getting emitted, and which are clearly polluting the immediate area, what is your understanding of the "half life?"

As I grasp this stuff, the half life of Strontium (meaning Strontium 90) is 30 years. Well, 28.7 to 28.9 years. That doesn't mean the problem goes away in 30 years. It means only that there is essentially half the original amount 30 years later. 60 years later, there's a quarter of the original amount. 90 years later there's still an eight of that original amount.

Why does that matter?

Because we know that the Fukishima reactors have released enough Sr90 to be affecting areas 30 Km away from the reactors. The half life of Cesium may be only about 2+ years, but it's still a problem, certainly, for the locals and the fauna (I'm thinking of livestock) and so forth, NOW. And for the next who knows how many years?

The stricken reactors ARE also releasing Plutonium into the atmosphere. There is no good way to interpret that. My understanding is that Plutonium has a 24 THOUSAND+ year half life.

I'm not sure what you are arguing. Chicken Littles may be making more of this big problem than it merits, but to denigrate the nature of the problem so dismissively also strikes me as fallacy.

It is a problem. It is primarily "local." But widespread and long term consequences do exist. And those consequences (nuclear-related injury, sickness, death, etc) are not necessarily all that minor. And they can grow worse over time since the broken reactors and storage areas have not come close to being contained and there is no clear end in sight.

Iodine 131 has a half life of 8 days and that is the isotope you should be concerned about. Isotopes with short half lives emit as their primary radiation Gamma Rays that penetrate everything and destroy cells on contact. It is that ionising radiation that kills people.

The other isotpes, Cesium, Strontium etc. that measure their half lives in years primarily emit Alpha and Beta particles that are blocked by a sheet of paper. It would be extremely bad to ingest the particles but, so long as you wear proper clothing and are properly decontaminated, there is nothing to worry about from those isotopes.

In short the longer the half life the less you care about the isotopes. Any material that has a half life of 24,000 years is not going to bother you.

Well, you have made some exceptionly dumb statements in the past, Walleyes, but this takes the cake. You are either dumber than a post, or so totally wrapped in your own version of reality that you will not see the truth.

IEER:Health Effects of Plutonium

Plutonium-239 is a very hazardous carcinogen which can also be used to make nuclear weapons. This combination of properties makes it one of the most dangerous substances. Plutonium-239, while present in only trace quantities in nature, has been made in large quantities in both military and commercial programs in the last 50 years. Other more radioactive carcinogens do exist, like radium-226, but unlike plutonium-239 cannot be used to make nuclear weapons, or are not available in quantity. Highly enriched uranium (HEU) can also be used to make nuclear weapons, but it is roughly one thousand times less radioactive than plutonium-239. The danger is aggravated by the fact that plutonium-239 is relatively difficult to detect once it is outside of secure, well-instrumented facilities, or once it has been incorporated into the body. This is because its gamma ray emissions, which provide the easiest method of detection of radionuclides, are relatively weak.

The main carcinogenic property of plutonium-239 arises from the energetic alpha radiation it emits. Alpha particles, being heavy, transfer their energy to other atoms and molecules within fewer collisions than the far lighter electrons which are the primary means of radiation damage for both gamma and beta radiation.1 Alpha particles travel only a short distance within living tissue, repeatedly bombarding the cells and tissue nearby. This results in far more biological damage for the same amount of energy deposited in living tissue. The relative effectiveness of various kinds of radiation in causing biological damage is known as "relative biological effectiveness" (RBE). This varies according to the type of radiation, its energy, and the organ of the body being irradiated. A simple factor, called quality factor, is used to indicate the relative danger of alpha, beta, gamma and neutron radiation for regulatory purposes. The International Commission on Radiation Protection currently recommends the use of a quality factor of 20 for alpha radiation relative to gamma radiation.2

Once in the body, plutonium-239 is preferentially deposited in soft tissues, notably the liver, on bone surfaces, in bone marrow and other non-calcified areas of the bone, as well as those areas of the bone that do not contain cartilage. Deposition in bone marrow can have an especially harmful effect on the blood formation which takes place there. By contrast, radium-226, another alpha emitter, is chemically akin to calcium and so becomes deposited in the calcified areas of bones

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, now that nuclear catastrophe in Japan has been rated as just that. And the effects will be felt globally as the economy of Japan takes several body blows from the ongoing consequences of the disaster started by a devestating natural disaster.

And here in the US, we have many pools for spent nuclear rods that have four times the more rods in them than they were designed for. What happens to them in a massive natural disaster? Are our own nukes really that safe? Walleyes states that they are. But he also stated at the start that this would not ever amount to a really serious disaster. Like that nuclear engineer with his vastly premature and ignorant statements concerning what the scope of the disaster could be, which he made only three days after the quake, Walleyes has made the very best arguement against his own statements.

Nuclear power is essentially dead here in the US. There will be no new plants for a long, long time. People like that engineer, Walleyes, and fruitcakes like Kookybill, have made that a given. It is not the environmentalists that have killed nuclear power, but the people that assured all that it was failsafe, and then cost engineered the plants in such a manner that they failed. Three Mile Island barely avoided what we are seeing in Japan right now, and there was not a major disaster to initiate that disaster.

The catastrophe in Japan is far from over, and the plutonium in reactor #3 could create an enormous disaster if that reactor goes into full meltdown. Time for a very serious review of how safe our own reactors are, and what natural or manmade disasters would create a danger from them.

 

[westwall]

The phrase "the short half life isotopes" is misleading. OF the radiactive particles that are getting emitted, and which are clearly polluting the immediate area, what is your understanding of the "half life?"

As I grasp this stuff, the half life of Strontium (meaning Strontium 90) is 30 years. Well, 28.7 to 28.9 years. That doesn't mean the problem goes away in 30 years. It means only that there is essentially half the original amount 30 years later. 60 years later, there's a quarter of the original amount. 90 years later there's still an eight of that original amount.

Why does that matter?

Because we know that the Fukishima reactors have released enough Sr90 to be affecting areas 30 Km away from the reactors. The half life of Cesium may be only about 2+ years, but it's still a problem, certainly, for the locals and the fauna (I'm thinking of livestock) and so forth, NOW. And for the next who knows how many years?

The stricken reactors ARE also releasing Plutonium into the atmosphere. There is no good way to interpret that. My understanding is that Plutonium has a 24 THOUSAND+ year half life.

I'm not sure what you are arguing. Chicken Littles may be making more of this big problem than it merits, but to denigrate the nature of the problem so dismissively also strikes me as fallacy.

It is a problem. It is primarily "local." But widespread and long term consequences do exist. And those consequences (nuclear-related injury, sickness, death, etc) are not necessarily all that minor. And they can grow worse over time since the broken reactors and storage areas have not come close to being contained and there is no clear end in sight.

Iodine 131 has a half life of 8 days and that is the isotope you should be concerned about. Isotopes with short half lives emit as their primary radiation Gamma Rays that penetrate everything and destroy cells on contact. It is that ionising radiation that kills people.

The other isotpes, Cesium, Strontium etc. that measure their half lives in years primarily emit Alpha and Beta particles that are blocked by a sheet of paper. It would be extremely bad to ingest the particles but, so long as you wear proper clothing and are properly decontaminated, there is nothing to worry about from those isotopes.

In short the longer the half life the less you care about the isotopes. Any material that has a half life of 24,000 years is not going to bother you.

Well, you have made some exceptionly dumb statements in the past, Walleyes, but this takes the cake. You are either dumber than a post, or so totally wrapped in your own version of reality that you will not see the truth.

IEER:Health Effects of Plutonium

Plutonium-239 is a very hazardous carcinogen which can also be used to make nuclear weapons. This combination of properties makes it one of the most dangerous substances. Plutonium-239, while present in only trace quantities in nature, has been made in large quantities in both military and commercial programs in the last 50 years. Other more radioactive carcinogens do exist, like radium-226, but unlike plutonium-239 cannot be used to make nuclear weapons, or are not available in quantity. Highly enriched uranium (HEU) can also be used to make nuclear weapons, but it is roughly one thousand times less radioactive than plutonium-239. The danger is aggravated by the fact that plutonium-239 is relatively difficult to detect once it is outside of secure, well-instrumented facilities, or once it has been incorporated into the body. This is because its gamma ray emissions, which provide the easiest method of detection of radionuclides, are relatively weak.

The main carcinogenic property of plutonium-239 arises from the energetic alpha radiation it emits. Alpha particles, being heavy, transfer their energy to other atoms and molecules within fewer collisions than the far lighter electrons which are the primary means of radiation damage for both gamma and beta radiation.1 Alpha particles travel only a short distance within living tissue, repeatedly bombarding the cells and tissue nearby. This results in far more biological damage for the same amount of energy deposited in living tissue. The relative effectiveness of various kinds of radiation in causing biological damage is known as "relative biological effectiveness" (RBE). This varies according to the type of radiation, its energy, and the organ of the body being irradiated. A simple factor, called quality factor, is used to indicate the relative danger of alpha, beta, gamma and neutron radiation for regulatory purposes. The International Commission on Radiation Protection currently recommends the use of a quality factor of 20 for alpha radiation relative to gamma radiation.2

Once in the body, plutonium-239 is preferentially deposited in soft tissues, notably the liver, on bone surfaces, in bone marrow and other non-calcified areas of the bone, as well as those areas of the bone that do not contain cartilage. Deposition in bone marrow can have an especially harmful effect on the blood formation which takes place there. By contrast, radium-226, another alpha emitter, is chemically akin to calcium and so becomes deposited in the calcified areas of bones

Please note the original comment where ingesting is very bad for you. Please learn to read properly. And for the record you would die of heavy metal poisoning LONG before you ever died of the effects of the radiation.

 

[Old Rocks]

Westwall;

Please note the original comment where ingesting is very bad for you. Please learn to read properly. And for the record you would die of heavy metal poisoning LONG before you ever died of the effects of the radiation

..........................................................................................................................................
So, you are going to get heavy metal poisoning from a particle weighing 27 millionths of a gram?

Once again, where the hell did you get the degree you claim? Outer Slobovia?

IEER:Health Effects of Plutonium

Experimental data

The health effects of plutonium have been studied primarily by experiments done on laboratory animals. Some analyses have also been done on workers and non-worker populations exposed to plutonium contamination. Measurements of burdens of plutonium using lung counters or whole-body counters, together with follow-up of exposed individuals, have provided information which is complementary to experimental data and analysis. Experiments injecting human beings with plutonium were also done in the United States. Between 1945 and 1947, 18 people were injected with plutonium in experiments used to get data on plutonium metabolism. They were done without informed consent and have been the object of considerable criticism since information about them became widely known in 1993.

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.

The precise quantitative effects of considerably lower quantities of plutonium are as yet not well known. This is due to several factors such as: the difficulty of measuring plutonium in the body; uncertainties regarding excretion rates and functions due to the large variation in such rates from one human being to the next (so that the same body burden of plutonium would produce considerably different doses); complicating factors such as smoking; uncertainties in the data (as, for instance, about the time of ingestion or inhalation); differing and largely unknown exposure to other sources of carcinogens (both radioactive and non-radioactive) over the long periods over which studies are conducted; failure to study and follow-up on the health of workers who worked with plutonium in the nuclear weapons industry to the extent possible.

 

[westwall]

Westwall;

Please note the original comment where ingesting is very bad for you. Please learn to read properly. And for the record you would die of heavy metal poisoning LONG before you ever died of the effects of the radiation

..........................................................................................................................................
So, you are going to get heavy metal poisoning from a particle weighing 27 millionths of a gram?

Once again, where the hell did you get the degree you claim? Outer Slobovia?

IEER:Health Effects of Plutonium

Experimental data

The health effects of plutonium have been studied primarily by experiments done on laboratory animals. Some analyses have also been done on workers and non-worker populations exposed to plutonium contamination. Measurements of burdens of plutonium using lung counters or whole-body counters, together with follow-up of exposed individuals, have provided information which is complementary to experimental data and analysis. Experiments injecting human beings with plutonium were also done in the United States. Between 1945 and 1947, 18 people were injected with plutonium in experiments used to get data on plutonium metabolism. They were done without informed consent and have been the object of considerable criticism since information about them became widely known in 1993.

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.

The precise quantitative effects of considerably lower quantities of plutonium are as yet not well known. This is due to several factors such as: the difficulty of measuring plutonium in the body; uncertainties regarding excretion rates and functions due to the large variation in such rates from one human being to the next (so that the same body burden of plutonium would produce considerably different doses); complicating factors such as smoking; uncertainties in the data (as, for instance, about the time of ingestion or inhalation); differing and largely unknown exposure to other sources of carcinogens (both radioactive and non-radioactive) over the long periods over which studies are conducted; failure to study and follow-up on the health of workers who worked with plutonium in the nuclear weapons industry to the extent possible.

Try again bozo, the LD50 for plutonium is around 20-50 (exact figures are VERY hard to obtain) micrograms per KG of body weight, so figure .005 grams will kill your average 100 KG person.

 

[Ravi]

You said the video shows the wave going over the reactor building I have just shown you that not to be true. What's your problem?



"Wrong. A video of it happening was released a couple of days ago. The tsunami went over the top of the buildings."
Ravi

It engulfed the buildings and one wave went over...or plume as you wish. Regardless, there is no way to know if the generators would have been out of harm's way on the roof.

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".

 

[westwall]

It engulfed the buildings and one wave went over...or plume as you wish. Regardless, there is no way to know if the generators would have been out of harm's way on the roof.

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

Westwall;

Please note the original comment where ingesting is very bad for you. Please learn to read properly. And for the record you would die of heavy metal poisoning LONG before you ever died of the effects of the radiation

..........................................................................................................................................
So, you are going to get heavy metal poisoning from a particle weighing 27 millionths of a gram?

Once again, where the hell did you get the degree you claim? Outer Slobovia?

IEER:Health Effects of Plutonium

Experimental data

The health effects of plutonium have been studied primarily by experiments done on laboratory animals. Some analyses have also been done on workers and non-worker populations exposed to plutonium contamination. Measurements of burdens of plutonium using lung counters or whole-body counters, together with follow-up of exposed individuals, have provided information which is complementary to experimental data and analysis. Experiments injecting human beings with plutonium were also done in the United States. Between 1945 and 1947, 18 people were injected with plutonium in experiments used to get data on plutonium metabolism. They were done without informed consent and have been the object of considerable criticism since information about them became widely known in 1993.

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.

The precise quantitative effects of considerably lower quantities of plutonium are as yet not well known. This is due to several factors such as: the difficulty of measuring plutonium in the body; uncertainties regarding excretion rates and functions due to the large variation in such rates from one human being to the next (so that the same body burden of plutonium would produce considerably different doses); complicating factors such as smoking; uncertainties in the data (as, for instance, about the time of ingestion or inhalation); differing and largely unknown exposure to other sources of carcinogens (both radioactive and non-radioactive) over the long periods over which studies are conducted; failure to study and follow-up on the health of workers who worked with plutonium in the nuclear weapons industry to the extent possible.

Try again bozo, the LD50 for plutonium is around 20-50 (exact figures are VERY hard to obtain) micrograms per KG of body weight, so figure .005 grams will kill your average 100 KG person.

Every figure I have found states an extrapolated figure of 27 micro-grams, period. None state that it is per kilogram. You are pulling that out of your ass.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Bottom line is Japan lied and more people died. At first they told everyone it was 'No big Deal' and now it's a terrible calamity as bad if not worse than Chernobyl. And shame on our U.S. Government as well for repeating those lies. I'm still so surprised that so few have learned anything from Wikileaks. Governments always lie to their people. This happens on a daily basis. Now our own U.S. Government tells us that there is absolutely no threat from radiation in Hawaii or the West Coast of the U.S. So should we believe them on that one? I wouldn't if i were you. Brace yourselves Hawaii and the West Coast.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bottom line is Japan lied and more people died. At first they told everyone it was 'No big Deal' and now it's a terrible calamity as bad if not worse than Chernobyl. And shame on our U.S. Government as well for repeating those lies. I'm still so surprised that so few have learned anything from Wikileaks. Governments always lie to their people. This happens on a daily basis. Now our own U.S. Government tells us that there is absolutely no threat from radiation in Hawaii or the West Coast of the U.S. So should we believe them on that one? I wouldn't if i were you. Brace yourselves Hawaii and the West Coast.

In either the winter of 1956, or 57, we had a 'hot' snow in the Blue Mountains of Eastern Oregon. It pegged my grandfathers geiger counter. Never saw a mention of that 'hot' snow. They had to know it occured, just swept it under the rug, like the leaks from Hanford.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Bottom line is Japan lied and more people died. At first they told everyone it was 'No big Deal' and now it's a terrible calamity as bad if not worse than Chernobyl. And shame on our U.S. Government as well for repeating those lies. I'm still so surprised that so few have learned anything from Wikileaks. Governments always lie to their people. This happens on a daily basis. Now our own U.S. Government tells us that there is absolutely no threat from radiation in Hawaii or the West Coast of the U.S. So should we believe them on that one? I wouldn't if i were you. Brace yourselves Hawaii and the West Coast.

In either the winter of 1956, or 57, we had a 'hot' snow in the Blue Mountains of Eastern Oregon. It pegged my grandfathers geiger counter. Never saw a mention of that 'hot' snow. They had to know it occured, just swept it under the rug, like the leaks from Hanford.

Yea too many just didn't learn anything from Wikileaks. They just continue to buy everything their Government tells them. Now our U.S. Government is telling us the radiation from Japan is no big deal for us in the U.S. But why do so many believe them on that? They lie on a daily basis. I think this radiation is going to be very bad in Hawaii and possibly the U.S. Chernobyl was far from "No big Deal." The affects of this radiation will be felt in the U.S. And shame on our Government for lying to the people. They lied and people died. That's the real story.

 

[westwall]

Westwall;

Please note the original comment where ingesting is very bad for you. Please learn to read properly. And for the record you would die of heavy metal poisoning LONG before you ever died of the effects of the radiation

..........................................................................................................................................
So, you are going to get heavy metal poisoning from a particle weighing 27 millionths of a gram?

Once again, where the hell did you get the degree you claim? Outer Slobovia?

IEER:Health Effects of Plutonium

Experimental data

The health effects of plutonium have been studied primarily by experiments done on laboratory animals. Some analyses have also been done on workers and non-worker populations exposed to plutonium contamination. Measurements of burdens of plutonium using lung counters or whole-body counters, together with follow-up of exposed individuals, have provided information which is complementary to experimental data and analysis. Experiments injecting human beings with plutonium were also done in the United States. Between 1945 and 1947, 18 people were injected with plutonium in experiments used to get data on plutonium metabolism. They were done without informed consent and have been the object of considerable criticism since information about them became widely known in 1993.

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.

The precise quantitative effects of considerably lower quantities of plutonium are as yet not well known. This is due to several factors such as: the difficulty of measuring plutonium in the body; uncertainties regarding excretion rates and functions due to the large variation in such rates from one human being to the next (so that the same body burden of plutonium would produce considerably different doses); complicating factors such as smoking; uncertainties in the data (as, for instance, about the time of ingestion or inhalation); differing and largely unknown exposure to other sources of carcinogens (both radioactive and non-radioactive) over the long periods over which studies are conducted; failure to study and follow-up on the health of workers who worked with plutonium in the nuclear weapons industry to the extent possible.

Try again bozo, the LD50 for plutonium is around 20-50 (exact figures are VERY hard to obtain) micrograms per KG of body weight, so figure .005 grams will kill your average 100 KG person.

Every figure I have found states an extrapolated figure of 27 micro-grams, period. None state that it is per kilogram. You are pulling that out of your ass.

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."


LD50 – Definition of the Term LD50

 

[westwall]

Bottom line is Japan lied and more people died. At first they told everyone it was 'No big Deal' and now it's a terrible calamity as bad if not worse than Chernobyl. And shame on our U.S. Government as well for repeating those lies. I'm still so surprised that so few have learned anything from Wikileaks. Governments always lie to their people. This happens on a daily basis. Now our own U.S. Government tells us that there is absolutely no threat from radiation in Hawaii or the West Coast of the U.S. So should we believe them on that one? I wouldn't if i were you. Brace yourselves Hawaii and the West Coast.

No one has died due to radiation. And yes, of course governments lie. They have people in them and people are congenital liars.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Bottom line is Japan lied and more people died. At first they told everyone it was 'No big Deal' and now it's a terrible calamity as bad if not worse than Chernobyl. And shame on our U.S. Government as well for repeating those lies. I'm still so surprised that so few have learned anything from Wikileaks. Governments always lie to their people. This happens on a daily basis. Now our own U.S. Government tells us that there is absolutely no threat from radiation in Hawaii or the West Coast of the U.S. So should we believe them on that one? I wouldn't if i were you. Brace yourselves Hawaii and the West Coast.

No one has died due to radiation. And yes, of course governments lie. They have people in them and people are congenital liars.

Doesn't mean lying is right or justifiable. Do you believe the U.S. Government when it says Japan radiation is no threat at all to the U.S.? I do not believe them.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

And what about all the contaminated sea life Millions & Millions of people will be eating in the coming years? I bet they're saying that's 'No big Deal" too huh? All that radioactive material dumped into the Ocean yet there will be no adverse affects? It actually boggles my mind that so many still believe anything their Governments tell them. What has our own U.S. Government said about contaminated sea life? I haven't heard a word from them on that. It's like it's not even happening. And when they do finally speak about it,it will be all lies.

It's just like all that Oil and chemicals haven't contaminated any sea life in the Gulf either. People just go on eating all that seafood from the Gulf huh? All because the Government told them it was 100% safe. The same lies will be told about this contamination too. The radioactive material is still being dumped into the Ocean as we speak. But everything's just fine according to the Japanese & U.S. Governments. This is just very sad stuff. I guess that's why most just choose to stick their heads in the sand and believe everything their Governments tell them. They just don't want to face reality. That's actually very understandable though. But it's also very sad.

 

[westwall]

Bottom line is Japan lied and more people died. At first they told everyone it was 'No big Deal' and now it's a terrible calamity as bad if not worse than Chernobyl. And shame on our U.S. Government as well for repeating those lies. I'm still so surprised that so few have learned anything from Wikileaks. Governments always lie to their people. This happens on a daily basis. Now our own U.S. Government tells us that there is absolutely no threat from radiation in Hawaii or the West Coast of the U.S. So should we believe them on that one? I wouldn't if i were you. Brace yourselves Hawaii and the West Coast.

No one has died due to radiation. And yes, of course governments lie. They have people in them and people are congenital liars.

Doesn't mean lying is right or justifiable. Do you believe the U.S. Government when it says Japan radiation is no threat at all to the U.S.? I do not believe them.

No, the Japanese radiation is no threat to the US. I agree lying is never justifiable, however, one must recognise that it invariably happens so educate yourself so that when they do lie you know it.

 

[westwall]

And what about all the contaminated sea life Millions & Millions of people will be eating in the coming years? I bet they're saying that's 'No big Deal" too huh? All that radioactive material dumped into the Ocean yet there will be no adverse affects? It actually boggles my mind that so many still believe anything their Governments tell them. What has our own U.S. Government said about contaminated sea life? I haven't heard a word from them on that. It's like it's not even happening. And when they do finally speak about it,it will be all lies.

It's just like all that Oil and chemicals haven't contaminated any sea life in the Gulf either. People just go on eating all that seafood from the Gulf huh? All because the Government told them it was 100% safe. The same lies will be told about this contamination too. The radioactive material is still being dumped into the Ocean as we speak. But everything's just fine according to the Japanese & U.S. Governments. This is just very sad stuff. I guess that's why most just choose to stick their heads in the sand and believe everything their Governments tell them. They just don't want to face reality. That's actually very understandable though. But it's also very sad.

Sea life from the immediate area will of course be unedible, but truly, in a few years the whole area will be pretty much back to normal. The area immediately around the reactors will be unpleasant but do yourself a favor and look up Three Mile Island. That too was a partial meltdown and no one died there either. In fact the second reactor is still operational and the paeople living in the area have suffered no deleterious effects from the radiation leak back then.