Japan earthquake + tsunami + nuclear problems
- Thread starter Kuko 4000
- Start date
jayh
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2010
- Messages
- 525
I have to agree that there is probably some overstatement. IIRC (memory only, no cites.) there was a demonstrable increase in certain things, e.g. thyroid cancer, which could be attributed directly to Chernobyl, but in most cases of longer term disease that could have been caused by the additional radiation exposure any increase was lost in the noise of statistical error, and was thus fairly insignificant in a larger context.
Certainly there are deaths that are due to the radiation, and I would think of this as in the same indirect, not provable category as the deaths caused by the byproducts of coal plants.
they're both real, but the figures can only be guessed.
macdoc
Philosopher
and coal is magnitudes upon magnitudes higher - - tens of thousands of deaths a year directly attributable to coal burning -
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Health_effects_of_coal
Ontario even sued Ohio over it.
Fuel rods cannot burn....period.
Remedial reading.
http://bravenewclimate.com/
snip
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Health_effects_of_coal
Ontario even sued Ohio over it.
Fuel rods cannot burn....period.
Remedial reading.
http://bravenewclimate.com/
snip
Last edited:
Not a viable one for those of us who enjoy having our teeth past the age of thirty or walking down streets not slathered in horse poop.
It's always funny though to see people like JihadJane, Bikerdruid and TFian say these things over the internet.
Apologies for the quick derail, but I will be starting a thread re: the above topic. I am sick and tired of seeing this strawman and the knee jerk reaction to it. Don't worry SOT, you will be able to add my name to that list as well.
/sent from my phone built out of sticks and mud
macdoc
Philosopher
Do recall it's the science forum ...not fantasy land. 
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Treated to 99+% and so far only a few children die. A tragedy, but not a catastrophe.
The point is what is killing more people at the moment ? Oil ? Coal ? Nuclear ? It is definitievly coal followed by oil,
nuclear only last, *even* with chernobyl counted.
I agree with you on that one, if only because the US is getting a minority of oil from middle east. it was something like 10% or 15% ? I am too lazy to fact check but it wasn't that great a number.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
I would like to see the source of the clim of 1 Sv per hour ...
Me too. That would be an insane amount of radiation.
Today radiation levels at the Fukushima plant have been:
West gate - about 310-350 microSv/h
Near reactors - about 3740-3790 microSv/h
Source:
TEPCO's press releases: http://translate.google.fi/translat...=http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/index-j.html
Measured radiation levels march 17 11:30 am: http://translate.google.fi/translat...=http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/index-j.html
There's a graph with older measurement data in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fukushima_I_accident_radiation_monitoring.PNG
The highest peak is around 10000 microSv/h. Prefix micro (μ) means one millionth, ie 10^-6. So no frikking 1 Sv/h there either.
Therefore I call bullexpletive on 1 Sv/h claims.
Today's good news is that the water spraying effort on number three reactor seems to be working. Japan SDF firetrucks have pumped at least 30 tons of water already and AFAIK water has been succesfully deposited into the cooling water pool there. That could be helpful for bringing local radiation leves down and eventually start planned electric power works.
I wish these guys best of luck in their heroic efforts!
Bluespaceoddity
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
- Messages
- 440
They pumped for an hour and may return tomorrow to continue should that still be beneficial at that point.Me too. That would be an insane amount of radiation.
Today radiation levels at the Fukushima plant have been:
West gate - about 310-350 microSv/h
Near reactors - about 3740-3790 microSv/h
Source:
TEPCO's press releases: http://translate.google.fi/translat...=http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/index-j.html
Measured radiation levels march 17 11:30 am: http://translate.google.fi/translat...=http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/index-j.html
There's a graph with older measurement data in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fukushima_I_accident_radiation_monitoring.PNG
The highest peak is around 10000 microSv/h. Prefix micro (μ) means one millionth, ie 10^-6. So no frikking 1 Sv/h there either.
Therefore I call bullexpletive on 1 Sv/h claims.
Today's good news is that the water spraying effort on number three reactor seems to be working. Japan SDF firetrucks have pumped at least 30 tons of water already and AFAIK water has been succesfully deposited into the cooling water pool there. That could be helpful for bringing local radiation leves down and eventually start planned electric power works.
I wish these guys best of luck in their heroic efforts!
I think the helicopters dropped water scooped from the ocean but did anyone catch if the JDF firetrucks used fresh water or salt water when they sprayed reactor building 3?
I think we can add that earlier suggestions about Fukushima Daini appear to have been unwarranted to the good news.
One of the local channels was just now showing aerial footage taken today btw. Don't know if that footage has appeared online already but it may give knowledgeable people beyond the workers on the ground something to asses damage to elements of these buildings...
angrysoba
Philosophile
I don't know what nGy/h is and my computer's playing up.
But here's a chart which gives some idea, I suppose, of what the radiation levels are like around nuclear power plants in Japan.
http://www.bousai.ne.jp/eng/index.html
Fukushima and Miyagi are "under review"
But for comparison (not that the figures mean anything to me):
Fukui (which I think is my closest nuclear reactor) is 77nGy/h
Ibaraki (which is fairly close to the epicentre of the earthquake and has its own reactor) is 867 nGy/h
But here's a chart which gives some idea, I suppose, of what the radiation levels are like around nuclear power plants in Japan.
http://www.bousai.ne.jp/eng/index.html
Fukushima and Miyagi are "under review"
But for comparison (not that the figures mean anything to me):
Fukui (which I think is my closest nuclear reactor) is 77nGy/h
Ibaraki (which is fairly close to the epicentre of the earthquake and has its own reactor) is 867 nGy/h
Skwinty
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 5,593
The gray (symbol: Gy) is the SI unit of absorbed radiation dose of ionizing radiation (for example, X-rays), and is defined as the absorption of one joule of ionizing radiation by one kilogram of matter (usually human tissue).
angrysoba
Philosophile
Oh thanks. I'll try to put my mind to working that out shortly.
In the meantime is the Ibaraki figure a cause for concern?
I'm completely ignorant about these things...
Bluespaceoddity
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
- Messages
- 440
Not sure if you noticed but when you click on the town with the reading at the link: http://www.bousai.ne.jp/vis/index.phpI don't know what nGy/h is and my computer's playing up.
But here's a chart which gives some idea, I suppose, of what the radiation levels are like around nuclear power plants in Japan.
http://www.bousai.ne.jp/eng/index.html
Fukushima and Miyagi are "under review"
But for comparison (not that the figures mean anything to me):
Fukui (which I think is my closest nuclear reactor) is 77nGy/h
Ibaraki (which is fairly close to the epicentre of the earthquake and has its own reactor) is 867 nGy/h
it takes you to a close up map of that area. Readings immediately adjacent were lower than that 867 nGy/h so it may be the instrumentation ... ? if you click on a town name while on the close up map it gives a graph with options to scan last 24 hours or previous days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_(unit)
Last edited:
elgarak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2003
- Messages
- 4,472
"Gray" measures the energy dumped into material by the ionizing radiation. This is called the "dose".
"Sievert" measures the "dose equivalent" and tries to give an estimate how dangerous a certain dose (measured in Gray) is when it is absorbed in living beings. The 'dangerousness' is taken into account by multiplying the dose with a Q-factor (for the type of radiation) and an N-factor (for the type of organism and body part). These factors are derived empirically by observing exposed organisms and looking how much damage they took. For instance, for photons (gamma radiation and x-rays) is Q=1, while for alpha particles Q=20 (alpha radiation is more dangerous, but this value may be too low, as it was based on early data). For humans, N=1.
Strictly speaking, what I suspect is measured in Fukushima, is the dose (in Gray) from gamma radiation. This is then simply taken as "sievert", essentially assuming Q=N=1. This is fairly correct for humans being clothed in suitable protective clothing and breathing equipment, as this protection would shield against the high-Q radiation, and the breathing equipment prevents getting isotopes into the body, where the radiation would do lots of damage assessed with different N-factors for different body parts.
I would also assume that they measure other types of radiation as well, as well as gathering information about the kind of isotopes present, but I do not know if those numbers are published anywhere.
Last edited:
angrysoba
Philosophile
Thanks for the help there and I hope that the link is of some use to anyone here who knows more about these things than me.
OT: Anyone ever watched the China Syndrome? I thought I might watch it for a bit of entertainment and not because I think it is a serious commentary on what's going on now.
OT: Anyone ever watched the China Syndrome? I thought I might watch it for a bit of entertainment and not because I think it is a serious commentary on what's going on now.
Fukushima radiation measurements from tonight: http://translate.google.fi/translat...=http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/index-j.html
There was as temporary rise in the radiation near the reactors as it was over 4100 microSv/h in the afternoon. Later towards the evening radiation lowered down to 3626 microSv/h which is a little bit lower than in the morning before the spraying operation. Optimist in me would like to note a trend here, but we'll see.
(and it could be the changin wind conditions)
At the west gate radiation leves were around 310 microSv/h in the afternoon.
There was as temporary rise in the radiation near the reactors as it was over 4100 microSv/h in the afternoon. Later towards the evening radiation lowered down to 3626 microSv/h which is a little bit lower than in the morning before the spraying operation. Optimist in me would like to note a trend here, but we'll see.
(and it could be the changin wind conditions)
At the west gate radiation leves were around 310 microSv/h in the afternoon.
Kuko 4000
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,586
For perspective, this video is doing the rounds in the anti-nuclear circles:
He describes the situation as "Chernobyl on steroids".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Gundersen
He describes the situation as "Chernobyl on steroids".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Gundersen
r-j
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 2,689
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/quake-question-7-what-prevents-a.html?ref=ra
I leaning towards believing Science magazine rather than unscientific claims.
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494