nutnspecial
10 MW
What, does that hurt your mind or feelings or something? My apologies for whatever transgression you perceive. . .Be gone, troll.
![clown.jpg clown.jpg](https://endless-sphere.com/sphere/data/attachments/106/106954-846565c7a9b8985002517a1e06de4615.jpg)
The type of 'jab'
![bend.jpg bend.jpg](https://endless-sphere.com/sphere/data/attachments/106/106953-104dcfc2293f011e3d4cc4b29241cc6c.jpg)
What, does that hurt your mind or feelings or something? My apologies for whatever transgression you perceive. . .Be gone, troll.
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...
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.
=)
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.
Nutspecial said:My apologies for whatever transgression you perceive. . .
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
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.
Yeah thats a good one.. I like the bit about all those Russian nuclear subs that have been ditched in the sea.liveforphysics said:http://www.cbrneportal.com/the-disposal-of-nuclear-waste-into-the-worlds-oceans/
Fukushima is a drop in the bucket.
Sounds like your pretty concerned about it all.. I think I am a bit the opposite.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.
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.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.
TheBeastie said:Came across this video on ionizing radiation today.. has a pretty cool twist at the end.
[youtube]TRL7o2kPqw0[/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.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.