Fukushima melting down?

Be gone, troll.
What, does that hurt your mind or feelings or something? My apologies for whatever transgression you perceive. . .

clown.jpg

The type of 'jab' :p above seems more trollish to me, in all actuality. Kindergarteners call names and throw tantrums, and adults use their words to discuss actions and behaviour.


bend.jpg
 
Punx0r said:
Arlo1 said:
The numbers work once you include all the area around the nuclear power plant the needs to stay vacant. As well look at how spread out those solar panels are.

Assuming this statement is true, it still seems logically flawed. You want to ignore the wasted space at a solar plant but count the wasted space at a nuclear one?

You're trying to argue against the energy density of nuclear fission here...

No I am not.

What I am saying is you can have a house 5 feet from a solar plant but you can not have a house 5 feet from a fission reactor!
The energy density of the fission reactor is great but when you take account all the land it needs to be away from other things its not so great. Then you account for the waste....

Also look at the cost of the reactor....
When looking at any study you have to be careful because most are funded by people who lobby to skew the study in their direction. Not many are making big money from solar its a energy solution for the end user and will be the end of big companies making silly amounts of money providing energy. Its a big FU to oil and electric companies. So those companies want to make it look as though its not appealing!

If you pack solar panels tight together which you can do there is no need for wasted space between them you will have grater density.
 
http://zidbits.com/2010/11/who-was-the-worlds-luckiest-person/

nutspecial said:
When they supposedly used nuclear on nagasaki and hiroshima, it appears the cities were rebuilt almost immediately and there were no associated negative mass health effects. . . . Meanwhile of course there are people that claim the soviet disaster was much worse than reported for the people, while others claim to the contrary. And some illnesses are treated with super doses of the radation that is speculated to have caused them.
=)

I don't think I want to hear the conspiracy theory behind that word "Supposedly" being in there. But when they DID use them, there were actually safer versions of nuclear weapons than what we have now. The problems afterward were real, but temporary. There was all sorts of extended term effects, but not with the range of what we now see as long term with nuclear radiation.

Residual Radiation

When most people think about nuclear explosions and radiation, they’re most likely thinking about the secondary residual radiation. There are two ways residual radiation can occur. The first type is caused by the high-energy neutrons which were emitted during the initial blast. Neutrons are known for their ability to make other elements radioactive. During the prompt radiation phase, those high-energy neutrons can slam into the nucleus of other atoms and make them radioactive for a short while. Fortunately, this type of radioactivity is extremely brief and only poses a risk near the epicenter of the blast.

Fallout

When a nuclear bomb explodes, a fireball is created which contains most of the radioactive fission products and unreacted nuclear fuel. This fireball is what forms the head of the iconic mushroom cloud. Where this fireball forms is the determining factor for fallout risk.

A bomb which detonates near or on the ground has a greater chance of producing radioactive fallout than one which is detonated high in the air.

If a bomb was detonated in the air, like the two which were detonated in Japan, the hot, radioactive ball of fire travels up high into the stratosphere. It does this quickly, usually within minutes. The cloud then cools down and begins to look like a regular (albeit irregular shaped) cloud. But don’t let this fool you, it is still hot and radioactive. Prevailing winds will blow this cloud over a huge area. The residual heat and lightness of the particles will keep it in the atmosphere for a few weeks, after which, the particles begin to “fall out” and come back down to earth. By this time, the radioactive particles have been dispersed and diluted over a thousands of square miles with the most dangerous radioactive elements already rendered inert by decay.

Health risks posed by this type of fallout are negligible and are generally indistinguishable from the standard low-level background radiation everyone receives simply by living.

A nuclear bomb detonating on or near the ground creates a vastly different scenario. The fireball created by the explosion will ‘consume’ a large amount of debris and soil into its mushroom cloud. The dirt will mix with the radioactive elements making it radioactive in the process. Instead of being dispersed in the air, the particles stick to the dirt and remain quite large — you could see them with a microscope or even with the naked eye. Because these radioactive elements are heavy, they can ‘fall out’ of the cloud within hours.

The Bikini Island tests were significant because it proved things that some had scoffed at . The Admiral in charge ignored warnings that only detonating the bombs in the air was safe and set one off in the water. The giant water spout shows a little black splotch on the side in the photograph. This is believed to be one of the 700-800 foot long ships sitting out in the blast. The fallout wasn't just just ash, the water rained down on Bikini Island and made it uninhabitable probably for as long as mankind shall live on Earth. None of the test explosions prior to that one in the water is believed to have had an effect that would have prevented the locals from returning.

What I like to say about nuclear power is that it may be safe right this moment, but someday some tone deaf goof will be in charge and decide to do things HIS way. . . .

Nutspecial said:
My apologies for whatever transgression you perceive. . .

What we keep trying to tell you (And you keep IGNORING) is that you casually throw out comments that are in conflict with reality. You need to think harder on saying things you're thinking out loud about but don't really know about as though you're stating a fact. I have the feeling he might tell that's why he called you a troll in this case. (Most cases here, even.) Some of us actually grew up reading the articles on the health problems from those nuclear bombs. One thing I never read it being proved linked but everyone accepted it must be was the increase in Japan in general and those communities in particular of a calcium/bone loss condition where bones could eventually just shatter. I understand the name became synonymous with "Ouch" in Japan.

This will will come up "Page not found," but google has it cached for who knows how long.

https://k1project.columbia.edu/explore-health/hiroshima-and-nagasaki-the-long-term-health-effects

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long Term Health Effects

Updated 7/3/2014

Following the atomic explosion over Hiroshima, many survivors feared that nothing would grow on the decimated earth. By the time spring of 1946 arrived, the citizens of Hiroshima were surprised to find the landscape dotted with the blooming red petals of the oleander. The oleander flower, called the kyochikuto in Japanese, dispelled worries that the destroyed city had lost all its fertility and inspired the population with hope that Hiroshima would soon recover from the tragic bombing.

Now the official flower of Hiroshima, the oleander offers a beautiful symbol for the city as a whole; while some feared that the city and its population were irreparably destroyed—permanently cut off from normality by the effects of radiation—many would be surprised to learn of the limited long term health effects the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 have had.

Within the first few months after the bombing, it is estimated by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (a cooperative Japan-U.S. organization) that between 90,000 and 166,000 people died in Hiroshima, while another 60,000 to 80,000 died in Nagasaki. These deaths include those who died due to the force and excruciating heat of the explosions as well as deaths caused by acute radiation exposure.

While these numbers represent imprecise estimates—due to the fact that it is unknown how many forced laborers and military personnel were present in the city and that in many cases entire families were killed, leaving no one to report the deaths—statistics regarding the long term effects have been even more difficult to determine.

Though exposure to radiation can cause acute, near-immediate effect by killing cells and directly damaging tissue, radiation can also have effects that happen on longer scale, such as cancer, by causing mutations in the DNA of living cells. Mutations can occur spontaneously, but a mutagen like radiation increases the likelihood of a mutation taking place. In theory, ionizing radiation can deposit molecular-bond-breaking energy, which can damage DNA, thus altering genes. In response, a cell will either repair the gene, die, or retain the mutation. In order for a mutation to cause cancer, it is believed that a series of mutations must accumulate in a given cell and its progeny. For this reason, it may be many years after exposure before an increase in the incident rate of cancer due to radiation becomes evident.

Among the long-term effects suffered by atomic bomb survivors, the most deadly was leukemia. An increase in leukemia appeared about two years after the attacks and peaked around four to six years later. Children represent the population that was affected most severely. Attributable risk—the percent difference in the incidence rate of a condition between an exposed population and a comparable unexposed one — reveals how great of an effect radiation had on leukemia incidence. The Radiation Effects Research Foundation estimates the attributable risk of leukemia to be 46% for bomb victims.

For all other cancers, incidence increase did not appear until around ten years after the attacks. The increase was first noted in 1956 and soon after tumor registries were started in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki to collect data on the excess cancer risks caused by the radiation exposure. The most thorough study regarding the incidence of solid cancer (meaning cancer that is not leukemia) was conducted by a team led by Dale L. Preston of Hirosoft International Corporation and published in 2003. The study estimated the attributable rate of radiation exposure to solid cancer to be significantly lower than that for leukemia—10.7%. According to the RERF, the data corroborates the general rule that even if someone is exposed to a barely survivable whole-body radiation dose, the solid cancer risk will not be more than five times greater than the risk of an unexposed individual.

Nearly seventy years after the bombings occurred, most of the generation that was alive during the attack has passed away. Now much more attention has turned to the children born to the survivors. Regarding individuals who had been exposed to radiation before birth (in utero), studies, such as one led by E. Nakashima in 1994, have shown that exposure led to increases in small head size and mental disability, as well as impairment in physical growth. Persons exposed in utero were also found to have a lower increase in cancer rate than survivors who were children at the time of the attack.

One of the most immediate concerns after the attacks regarding the future of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was what health effects the radiation would have on the children of survivors conceived after the bombings. So far, no radiation-related excess of disease has been seen in the children of survivors, though more time is needed to be able to know for certain. In general, though, the healthfulness of the new generations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki provide confidence that, like the oleander flower, the cities will continue to rise from their past destruction.

Perhaps most reassuring of this is the view of the cityscapes themselves. Among some there is the unfounded fear that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still radioactive; in reality, this is not true. Following a nuclear explosion, there are two forms of residual radioactivity. The first is the fallout of the nuclear material and fission products. Most of this was dispersed in the atmosphere or blown away by the wind. Though some did fall onto the city as black rain, the level of radioactivity today is so low it can be barely distinguished from the trace amounts presents throughout the world as a result of atmospheric tests in the 1950s and 1960s. The other form of radiation is neutron activation. Neutrons can cause non-radioactive materials to become radioactive when caught by atomic nuclei. However, since the bombs were detonated so far above the ground, there was very little contamination—especially in contrast to nuclear test sites such as those in Nevada. In fact, nearly all the induced radioactivity decayed within a few days of the explosions.

Today, the liveliness of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki serves as a reminder not only of the human ability to regenerate, but also of the extent to which fear and misinformation can lead to incorrect expectations. After the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many thought that any city targeted by an atomic weapon would become a nuclear wasteland. While the immediate aftermath of the atomic bombings was horrendous and nightmarish, with innumerable casualties, the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not allow their cities to become the sort of wasteland that some thought was inevitable. This experience of can serve as lesson in the present when much of the public and even some governments have reacted radically to the accident in Fukushima--in the midst of tragedy, there remains hope for the future.

Further Reading:

The Radiation Effects Research Foundation site outlines the results of numerous studies regarding the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum site discusses the recovery efforts of the city of Hiroshima after the atomic bombing.
A study by Hirosoft International analyzes the incidence of solid cancer in atomic bomb survivors.
In The Children of Atomic Bomb Survivors: A Genetic Study, the authors overview a number of studies on children of parents exposed to atomic bombs.

Bibliography:

D. L. Preston, E. Ron, S. Tokuoka, S. Funamoto, N. Nishi, M. Soda, K. Mabuchi, and K. Kodama Radiation Research 2007 168:1, 1-64

E. J. Grant, K Ozasa, D. L. Preston, A Suyama, Y Shimizu, R Sakata, H Sugiyama, T-M Pham, J Cologne, M Yamada, A. J. De Roos, K. J. Kopecky, M. P. Porter, N Seixas and S Davis. (2012) Effects of Radiation and Lifestyle Factors on Risks of Urothelial Carcinoma in the Life Span Study of Atomic Bomb Survivors. Radiation Research178:1, 86-98

"Radiation Health Effects." - Radiation Effects Research Foundation. Radiation Effects Research Foundation, 2007. Web. 29 July 2012. <http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/index_e.html>.

W. F. Heidenreich, H. M. Cullings, S. Funamoto and H. G. Paretzke. (2007) Promoting Action of Radiation in the Atomic Bomb Survivor Carcinogenesis Data?. Radiation Research168:6, 750-756
 
in conflict with reality

Thankyou sir, I'll add the above good info to MY reality :mrgreen: . . . . we all have one :D, don't we?

If nothing else, nuclear weapons have been used to bombard the generation before me with fear- quite a useful control device . . . At most, it has been a HOAX all along and interesting tied to einstein and to his involvement with . . . 'special' relativity and other incomplete/flawed ideas.

*Smiles. It wouldn't be so bad. Star trek is a fantasy.

Although atomic weapons have a relation to atomic energy, they are theoretically DRASTICALLY different than making steam . . . So my apologies for comparing the topic and possibly steering away from the OP :D
 
as I remember it the loss of three cores at Fukushima and the materials released in the early moments into the air is a tiny fraction of what could have occurred and if the container that housed the huge amount of hot fuel rods that needed to be kept underwater for up to a year had collapsed, which was a real danger as the ground was sinking, that would've been a real disaster and we got lucky again. Hot rods were close to falling, becoming exposed and released huge amounts of radiation making them impossible to clean up and also gasses which would've filled the hemisphere within 2weeks

There are about 300 power plants around the world I think with many on fault lines or near the ocean.

The initial explosion at fuku was hydrogen gas that had been produced by the fuel rods being exposed. The now underground lost cores are also producing pockets of hydrogen likely under the plant.
 
We got lucky

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/burning-reactor-fuel-could-have-worsened-fukushima-disaster


He explains towards the end how in a disaster 3.5million people would have to move from an area the size of New Jersey, but as he earlier said, the zirconium coating will catch fire if not covered by water and then the materials are airborn. Stuff from Fukushima gets here in like a week.

This is my fear for the next big quake and tsunami forcast in Cali is going to go. I think the price on gas masks has gone back down now and I'll have to get one.
 
I have to agree, the design of these things is easily another major disaster waiting to happen. It's well known so many are so antiquated too.

I wonder why in the world their primary cooling backup power isn't provided by the nuclear energy itself? Transform enough of the power on site to power the plant self sufficiently, relying on diesel, batteries, and mainline power as the backups.

Still a risk of course. Poor design requires tonnes of 'spent' rods to be stored on site while still quite active. Seems silly there is no way to tap the remainder of the energy (or at least sequester it back into the earth), rather than leaving them lay around.
The biggest multinational corps are involved with atomic energy.
 
Yes, because if you can't see a reason then there can't be one besides a big, malign conspiracy :faceplam:
 
I guess there could be one, but why? And also, who cares? It's the end results and risk/reward of getting there the people should be interested and involved in.

Do what you can. So I learn, think, question, think, and learn; and try not to tend towards one line comments @ people in the wrong spirit. Do what you can.
 
Yes, do what you can, but don't spend a few minutes reading about the basic design of nuclear power plants, or even the concept of "black start" as it applies to all types of power station.
 
http://www.cbrneportal.com/the-disposal-of-nuclear-waste-into-the-worlds-oceans/

Fukushima is a drop in the bucket.
 
The Farlon islands, which I can see from the GG bridge on a clear day, are promoted as a tourist attraction and wildlife refuge, you won't read about it being a nuclear waste dump on the pamphlet.
 
nutspecial said:
Excuse me, but when did I say anything about 'starting'? You must misunderstand.

nutspecial said:
I wonder why in the world their primary cooling backup power isn't provided by the nuclear energy itself? Transform enough of the power on site to power the plant self sufficiently, relying on diesel, batteries, and mainline power as the backups.

A plant that can somehow power all its ancillary systems while in a shutdown state would be uniquely self-starting.
 
liveforphysics said:
http://www.cbrneportal.com/the-disposal-of-nuclear-waste-into-the-worlds-oceans/

Fukushima is a drop in the bucket.
Yeah thats a good one.. I like the bit about all those Russian nuclear subs that have been ditched in the sea.
There is Wikipedia article of similar stuff but a bit less hyperbole in my opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste
Hummina Shadeeba said:
The Farlon islands, which I can see from the GG bridge on a clear day, are promoted as a tourist attraction and wildlife refuge, you won't read about it being a nuclear waste dump on the pamphlet.
Sounds like your pretty concerned about it all.. I think I am a bit the opposite.
I think if someone offered to inject into my veins a choice of either Mercury, Lead or the current Chernobyl microsieverts level radioactive material I would go for the radioactive material any day as long as its half-life wasn't too long.
This guy, like a strong pot of coffee really gives that getup and go energy to start the day.
[youtube]3ItOIz5gJiQ[/youtube]

So much worry about nuclear has been from the 1960s designs. I think Bill Gates speeches on his nuclear reactor technology summed it up nicely in his talks saying that until recently nuclear was advancement was forgotten about due to cheap coal. But now we know how bad coal is.

This isn't Bill Gates nuclear reactor but it does go over what most next gen nuclear will do and that is its powered by the nuclear waste you fear so much..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAFWeIp8JT0

If you want to learn more about the nuclear reactors Bill Gates is excited about check out the youtube videos on the first post of this thread.
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=83416

Dauntless said:
The Bikini Island tests were significant because it proved things that some had scoffed at . The Admiral in charge ignored warnings that only detonating the bombs in the air was safe and set one off in the water. The giant water spout shows a little black splotch on the side in the photograph. This is believed to be one of the 700-800 foot long ships sitting out in the blast. The fallout wasn't just just ash, the water rained down on Bikini Island and made it uninhabitable probably for as long as mankind shall live on Earth. None of the test explosions prior to that one in the water is believed to have had an effect that would have prevented the locals from returning.
When I think of Bikini Atoll I think of this 60minutes story where it shows it as one of the most animal-rich wildlife sea parks on the planet.
I think if you could ask all those sea creatures if they would rather live in safety like they do now or be eaten by humans I am pretty sure I know the answer.
To me this is a great test for those who are more serious about nature or are just more interested in what animals they believe they can safely stick in their mouths to eat and where they can hump and breed.
http://www.9jumpin.com.au/show/60minutes/stories/2015/march/bikini-atoll/
 
I'm not so worried about what's happened as what could happen with a hot spent fuel fire. That's the big danger in my mind. possibly huge amount of material airborne.
 
^^ Ha Ha... Like an advert. for my choice currently for ingesting nicotine trans-dermally. ;)
https://www.mcchrystals.co.uk/

[wink wink... snort snort... chuckle]

(The Surgeon Generally warns around the dangers of 2nd hand snot.) You have been warned.
 
TheBeastie said:
Came across this video on ionizing radiation today.. has a pretty cool twist at the end.

[youtube]TRL7o2kPqw0[/youtube]

Too bad his "pretty cool twist" is false. Scientific American says a pack of cigarettes a day for a year nets 360 microsieverts, not 120,000. So his big reveal is erroneous by a factor of 300. At least if you trust Scientific American's data more than that of some clown on YouTube.

It does make more sense that the tobacco in one pack of smokes would have about the same amount of natural radioisotopes as one banana.
 
Another example of the extreme misunderstanding about what radiation is and what's dangerous.

What if there were a hot spent fuel pool on the coast of Florida. We don't always see natural disasters coming and they don't have to happen where we'd like them to
 
Chalo said:
TheBeastie said:
Came across this video on ionizing radiation today.. has a pretty cool twist at the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRL7o2kPqw0

Too bad his "pretty cool twist" is false. Scientific American says a pack of cigarettes a day for a year nets 360 microsieverts, not 120,000. So his big reveal is erroneous by a factor of 300. At least if you trust Scientific American's data more than that of some clown on YouTube.
I usually don't respond to you because you obviously and constantly display lack basic scientific principles and even knowledge of common metrics and terminology to be worthwhile. Your confusing millisieverts with microsieverts.
160,000uSv is 160mSv (millisieverts) as shown in Wolframalpha..
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=160,000uSv

Which is what most websites say including Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#Radioactive_carcinogens
Quote from Wikipedia "Smoking an average of 1.5 packs per day gives a radiation dose of 60-160 mSv/year "

Other websites that go into it considerably deeper suggest it would be higher as they come up with that number only if they exclude lead-210 isotope so it could be argued its even higher.
http://mathscinotes.com/2014/01/radiation-exposure-from-cigarette-smoking/

As for the person Derek Muller you refer to as a clown on youtube has made scientific documentaries for all sorts of scientific works.. And he has been featured on the very source of information you are arguing with at "Scientific American"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Muller
Quote from Wikipedia "Muller's works have been featured at Scientific American, Wired.."

If you think my words on the first line in this response is over the top well all I can say is that it is very consistent with your responses to me in this thread..

I know you enjoy these videos so I have found some more to post later.. :D
 

Attachments

  • Smokers_radiation2.jpg
    Smokers_radiation2.jpg
    34.5 KB · Views: 2,317
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fukushima-radiation-has-reached-us-shores/ar-AAlkXUr?li=BBnb7Kz :twisted:
SALEM, Ore. -- For the first time, seaborne radiation from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster has been detected on the West Coast of the United States.
Cesium-134, the so-called fingerprint of Fukushima, was measured in seawater samples taken from Tillamook Bay and Gold Beach in Oregon, according to researchers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Because of its short half-life, cesium-134 can only have come from Fukushima.
For the first time, cesium-134 has also been detected in a Canadian salmon, according to the Fukushima InFORM project, led by University of Victoria chemical oceanographer Jay Cullen.
In both cases, levels are extremely low, the researchers said, and don’t pose a danger to humans or the environment.
Massive amounts of contaminated water were released from the crippled nuclear plant following a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami in March 2011. More radiation was released to the air, then fell to the sea.
Woods Hole chemical oceanographer Ken Buesseler runs a crowd-funded, citizen science seawater sampling project that has tracked the radiation plume as it slowly makes its way across the Pacific Ocean.
The Oregon samples, marking the first time cesium-134 has been detected on U.S. shores, were taken in January and February of 2016 and later analyzed. They each measured 0.3 becquerels per cubic meter of cesium-134.
Buesseler’s team previously had found the isotope in a sample of seawater taken from a dock on Vancouver Island, B.C., marking its landfall in North America.
In Canada, Cullen leads the InFORM project to assess radiological risks to that country’s oceans following the nuclear disaster. It is a partnership of a dozen academic, government and non-profit organizations.
Last month, the group reported that a single sockeye salmon, sampled from Okanagan Lake in the summer of 2015, had tested positive for cesium-134.
The level was more than 1,000 times lower than the action level set by Health Canada, and is no significant risk to consumers, Cullen said.
Buesseler’s most recent samples off the West Coast also are showing higher-than background levels of cesium-137, another Fukushima isotope that already is present in the world's oceans because of nuclear testing in the 1950s and 1960s.
Those results will become more important in tracking the radiation plume, Buesseler said, because the short half-life of cesium-134 makes it harder to detect as time goes on.
Cesium-134 has a half-life of two years, meaning it’s down to a fraction of what it was five years ago, he said. Cesium-137 has a 30-year half-life.
A recent InFORM analysis of Buesseler’s data concluded that concentrations of cesium-137 have increased considerably in the central northeast Pacific, although they still are at levels that pose no concern.
“It appears that the plume has spread throughout this vast area from Alaska to California,” the scientists wrote.
They estimated that the plume is moving toward the coast at roughly twice the speed of a garden snail. Radiation levels have not yet peaked.
“As the contamination plume progresses towards our coast we expect levels closer to shore to increase over the coming year,” Cullen said.
Even that peak won’t be a health concern, Buesseler said. But the models will help scientists model ocean currents in the future.
That could prove important if there is another disaster or accident at the Fukushima plant, which houses more than a thousand huge steel tanks of contaminated water and where hundreds of tons of molten fuel remain inside the reactors.
In a worst-case scenario, the fuel would melt through steel-reinforced concrete containment vessels into the ground, uncontrollably spreading radiation into the surrounding soil and groundwater and eventually into the sea.
“That’s the type of thing where people are still concerned, as am I, about what could happen,” Buesseler said.
Scientists now know it would take four to five years for any further contamination from the plant to reach the West Coast.
Scientists are beginning to use an increase in cesium-137 instead of the presence of cesium-134 to track the plume of radioactive contamination from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster. These figures show the increase in cesium-137 near the West Coast between 2014 and 2015.
 
Back
Top