Merged nuclear power safe?

[jnelso99]

I have a Nuclear Power plant <30 miles due upwind of my house. (Prevailing winds from the South in these here parts)
I am not now, nor have I ever been, concerned about it.

When I was growing up I thought I was 40 miles or so from a nuke plant. I just looked it up on Google Earth. Turns out it was 15 miles as the crow flies.

Except for the antlers, seems I turned out just fine.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The article said around 1800000000000000000 becquerels of radioactive iodine has been released so far from FDNPP. How much is that in curies? Or in Sievert? Or even rems? And how much will there be in a year?

Or even better, if the current rate of release continues, ( 1.2 to 1.3 × 10¹⁷ becquerels per day) how much will there be in a year?



Well, why don't you answer the question then? Please don't try to avoid just doing the conversion. After all, you also said.



Show us all how easy it is. Then also convert the other figure, 5 × 10¹⁵ becquerels of caesium-137 per day to standard units.

I seriously doubt these figures, at that rate those in the plant would be showing sevre signs of of poisioning.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I was still waiting for your excuse to have called me liar, but I think you are just here to rill up people. That is so obvious by now that one has to wonder why people bother answering you...

Don't answer him (r-j) any longer, folks. Just place him on ignore and us adults can continue our conversation in peace.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I have a Nuclear Power plant <30 miles due upwind of my house. (Prevailing winds from the South in these here parts)
I am not now, nor have I ever been, concerned about it.

Here in Illinois we have the highest concentration of nuclear power plants in the entire United States. In fact, where I live & work about 90% of the energy which runs the grid originates from nuclear power plants. I feel quite safe...

... and I love breathing the clean air

 

[Ziggurat]

The article said around 1800000000000000000 becquerels of radioactive iodine has been released so far from FDNPP. How much is that in curies? Or in Sievert? Or even rems?

1) For Bq to Ci conversion, go here.

2) How many gallons are in a yard?
Can you spot the problem with this question? That's right: the units are for different quantities, so conversion makes no sense.
Bq's and Ci's are different units for the same thing: radioactivity of a source. Sv and rem are different units for the same thing: absorbed dose. Radioactivity of a source and absorbed dose are different quantities. You cannot convert between them, because they measure different things.

And how much will there be in a year?

Do it yourself. It's easy. Just look up the half life on webelements or wikipedia, and then enter it into an online calculator like this:
http://www.1728.com/halflife.htm

Well, why don't you answer the question then? Please don't try to avoid just doing the conversion. After all, you also said.

What, you can't divide (rem to Sv) or multiply (Sv to rem) by 100 yourself? Are you really that bad at math? You know, most computers include a calculator program.

Show us all how easy it is. Then also convert the other figure, 5 × 10¹⁵ becquerels of caesium-137 per day to standard units.

Becquerels ARE the SI standard unit. it you want it in Curies, then follow my first link.

All of this stuff is easy to find online. It's like you never even heard of the internet.

 

[Ziggurat]

So there is no way to convert the amount released into any meaningful figure to evaluate the risk factors?

Not if you don't quantify how it's dispersed. And even if you did, you'd still end up having to calculate radiation dose (which is different than activity). And since measuring dose rates is how we figure out dispersal anyways, there's no point in calculating it that way rather than directly from measured dose rates.

 

[Ziggurat]

Now that the western world is analyzing the radioactive particles with modern equipment and methods

What an ignorant and bigoted statement. You seem unaware of how technologically advanced Japan is. I guarantee you that they can do just as sophisticated an analysis of the released radiation as we can.

We actually know more from labs analyzing the air in Berkeley than we do from Japan.

No, we don't.

It would seem that "how many died" is the only thing considered when discussing nuclear power plants and safety. That is ridiculous.

That is also not true.

That figure is contested, but it wasn't just deaths. The people that lost everything, the loss of cropland, the river polluted, the whole disaster there was very expensive.

Chernobyl taught us not to build nuclear reactors with positive void coefficients, slow SCRAM systems, and no containment structure, then run them in an unstable configuration far outside of design parameters and with massive positive feedback mechanisms. Of course, we avoided that from the start through not being total friggin idiots about our reactor designs.

 

[pipelineaudio]

http://www.newscientist.com/article...dioactive-fallout-nears-chernobyl-levels.html

Can someone please debunk this one? It has the natives in an uproar

 

[Aepervius]

I guess you really want to try and cause trouble. I responded to your false claim

let me explain something one last time for you. There is almost no milk without Cs137 because of the fallout from Chernobyl. That does not mean *every* glass of milk will have a measurable quantity of Cs137 which is dangerous to health. Actually that means that per liter you will have a probability of having Cs137 which is non zero, and that quantity is actually non dangerous. I have linked article to it. heck the same can probably be said to all long life element which adhere pretty well to top soil.

You are just now trying to AVOID admitting you did not know that and you over reacted.

because I knew you had no study, no source, nothing you could show us to explain why you said it.

You knew no such a thing. I did not bother give any study true, but once you went into "explosion" mode it was more fun seeing you spit "liar liar pant on fire" than point out to a few fact.

Heck EVEN YOU agreed later that cs137 was released from air nuclear fallout and chernobyl. But all along you avoided to draw the obvious conclusion.

You still haven't answered the simple question. Where did you see that?

Go back a few page and you will see I provided 3 study from 1960 and 1991.

Of course you searched and searched for something to be able to say something. But you never found anything.

Except that a few page back I linked such study. Now you look like a clown.

An intelligent person mentioned that he had experience with this, and said if they do find Cesium it is a really big deal.

Knowledgeable, not intelligent (not insult meant) that is different. And yes Cs137 is a bad deal , when it is in quantity ABOVE a theshold. But we are speaking ehre of quantity way below that theshold, NON zero quantity.

In any case, you haven't provided a single source that backs up your statement. Then you dare to say I am a liar?

I cited 3 study here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7007864#post7007864

More can be found by anybody TRYING to search. ETA Which you don't ever seem to do.

Disgusting.

Yeah. really. Disgusting.

 

[Aepervius]

http://www.newscientist.com/article...dioactive-fallout-nears-chernobyl-levels.html

Can someone please debunk this one? It has the natives in an uproar

I would like to see proper measurement from around the plant, rather than indirect air sampling somewhere else.

 

[Aepervius]

By the way in case you missed there is this :

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/monitoring/index-e.html

You can see what they measured as radioactivity and where.

ETA: interestingly when the head go east , the measurement spike to 500-600 micro Sv per hour.

 

[Puppycow]

Damn.
News is not getting any better:
Japanese nuclear officials fear crack in reactor core

On Thursday, three workers were exposed to radiation after stepping in contaminated water in the turbine building of the No 3 reactor. They were trying to cool the crippled reactor when the accident occurred.

"The contaminated water had 10,000 times the amount of radiation as would be found in water circulating from a normally operating reactor," said Hidehiko Nishiyama, a spokesman for Japan's nuclear safety agency. "It is possible that there is damage to the reactor."

Two of the men received possible beta ray burns to their legs. All three have been transferred to a special radiation treatment facility.

Edano said the source of the leak remained unknown.

 

[Belz...]

What's their current rating?

I asked you a question. The current rating is irrelevant.

 

[Belz...]

It would seem that "how many died" is the only thing considered when discussing nuclear power plants and safety. That is ridiculous.

Yes, because the anti-nuclear lobby is clearly interested in something else than people's safety, right ?

 

[Belz...]

Damn.
News is not getting any better:
Japanese nuclear officials fear crack in reactor core

Dammit, when can we expect the reactors to finally shut down ?

 

[r-j]

I cited 3 study here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7007864#post7007864

You are still evading the question, and the issue of you making it up. I asked you where you read it. You still haven't answered that simple question.

Nobody would dispute that a lot of milk has traces of nuclear fall out in it. But that's not what you claimed. You said almost all milk has Cesium137 in it.

I said you made that up (which you obviously did), and asked you for evidence. Where did you read that? You are still avoiding answering that question.

Posting links to a bunch of studies of milk in certain geographic areas, which were done due to the concern about cancer and health, from nuclear fall out, and then saying that is proof that every last cow on earth is always eating Cesium -137, you don't see the problem?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Damn.
News is not getting any better:
Japanese nuclear officials fear crack in reactor core

If this is true, it's going to make the cleanup effort & cost WAY tougher and more expensive. However, I wonder whether or not this is true, because if there were a big crack in the containment unit (which is different from the reactor core, is the article mixing things up?) you would expect to read a major, sustained increase in radiation readings. To my knowledge, no such increase has occurred... did I miss something?

 

[JihadJane]

Define safe.

Depending on how you define "safe" nothing is safe. you can kill yourself with a 9V battery and a multimeter or a vending machine

Thanks for the sophistry.

"Free from danger or the risk of harm"

Whats the alternative?

If you want to sustain the hyper-destructive civilisation that has blossomed as a result of temporary fossil abundance, maybe there's isn't one (others argue otherwise --> http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/ )but that doesn't magically make nuclear power safe!

Given the choice I wouldn't use nuclear anything, anywhere. When you sit down and look at the numbers though out of all the power generation technologies we have available today the only one that makes sense to use for the bulk of energy production is nuclear fission.

Western civilisation is not going to use less power, how do you keep the lights on?

What gives Western Civilization plundering rights?

I don't believe the lights will stay on, nuclear power or otherwise, particularly if the rest of the world catches up with Western Civilization's resource consumption rates. We have already begun the process of global systemic collapse.

1000 years from now I'm confident nuclear fission will be a distant memory. In the meantime though it looks like it's the best option available until some brightspark somewhere rewrites a law of physics.

Your confidence in a "Thousand Year Reich" for industrial civilization is irrational.

If you disagree with that, please explain what historical precedent your confidence is based on.

Meanwhile in the real world, the nuclear leak might be contained and essentially neutralised, if they keep on with the efforts.

Radiation doesn't last forever, and if dealt with well can be cleared up without an issue.

You posts become ever more fantastical!

 

[PhantomWolf]

I would like to see proper measurement from around the plant, rather than indirect air sampling somewhere else.

Agreed, having the amount estimated by a guy that looks at smoke from fires in the atmosphere isn't exactly what I'd consider convincing.

Especially considering that at the levels quoted the workers would be receiving between 0.6 and 1 sv per hour depending how close to the leak they were, well and truely enough to make radiation poisoning show up.

 

[Aepervius]

You are still evading the question, and the issue of you making it up. I asked you where you read it. You still haven't answered that simple question.

Nobody would dispute that a lot of milk has traces of nuclear fall out in it. But that's not what you claimed. You said almost all milk has Cesium137 in it.

I said you made that up (which you obviously did), and asked you for evidence. Where did you read that? You are still avoiding answering that question.

Posting links to a bunch of studies of milk in certain geographic areas, which were done due to the concern about cancer and health, from nuclear fall out, and then saying that is proof that every last cow on earth is always eating Cesium -137, you don't see the problem?

Yep I see that you are moving the goal post.

Come back when you learnt the concept of statistic, and what is meant by "trace" of Cs.

From now on I will ignore you until you demonstrated that you understood the concept.