• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged nuclear power safe?

r-j said:
That isn't true. Just like you can't explain the answers in a couple of seconds. It's not possible to become an expert in this in a matter of hours either.

But I'm realizing why nobody is simply answering the questions about safety.
Click to expand...

What you're doing is not skepticism. What you're doing is simply being pig-headed for no reason. You decide in advance what the answer is, and whomever gives you a different answer is a liar, apparently. You haven't got this "critical thinking" down yet.
 
r-j said:
How does 40 mrem/year convert to becquerels?
Click to expand...

It seems it is easy enough. Especially when you run the equation the other way, and use K-40.

http://enochthered.wordpress.com/category/meet-the-millirem/

a banana contains about 10.92 Bq of radioactive K-40. Run the numbers, and you find that the CEDE (Committed Effective Dose Equivalent) from eating one single banana is about 0.005 millirem.
Click to expand...

HA! I knew somebody had done this already.


Of course Cesium and Iodine and the other radioactive particles aren't as benign as K-40, but at least it's a starting point. Or maybe they are less harmful than banana?



the CEDE for 10.92 Bq = .005 millirem (Potassium only)



So if the 40 mrem/year was just from food, (in this case bananas it seems), how many bananas does it take to get 40 mrem?


Or, how many Bq equals 40 mrem?




No wait. You can't do that! I guess nobody told the banana man.



I thought his commentary on coal plants was hilarious.


Annual dose from living within 50 miles of a coal fired power plant: 0.03 millirem, or 5.45 Banana Units.
Click to expand...


So eating 6 bananas is more dangerous than living close to a coal plant. I feel a lot better, except now I can't eat a banana with out thinking about the damage it is doing.
 
They put the meters in the water? Then ignored the readings?

Is it possible the level was so high it fooled the meters? 10,000 times higher than the normal level of reactor water, that sounds like the meters may not be calibrated for that level of radiation.
 
r-j said:
No wait. You can't do that! I guess nobody told the banana man.
Click to expand...

As you have already been told, you can't just go from x bq to y mrem. Activity is only one factor in the equation. The Isotope, how far away it is, what shielding you have, it is internal or external, all of these factors play a part in determining the dosage.

What you are doing is like being given a distance and wanting to know the velocity from it.

However, there are calculators that will help, and just so you can ignore it again, I'll post the link to one again...

http://www.radprocalculator.com/Gamma.aspx
 
Last edited:
We know that. But that doesn't stop banana man from calculating a banana unit!

Since drinking or eating the fall out is what most people are going to freak out over, calculating the mrem for EATING cesium and DRINKING iodine and what ever ungodly fall out is coming down from the skies, then you can show them how it compares to a banana unit.

It's educational and fun!
 
r-j said:
We know that. But that doesn't stop banana man from calculating a banana unit!

Since drinking or eating the fall out is what most people are going to freak out over, calculating the mrem for EATING cesium and DRINKING iodine and what ever ungodly fall out is coming down from the skies, then you can show them how it compares to a banana unit.
Click to expand...

Have I missed something? Fallout is raining down from the skies now?
 
Japan’s nuclear regulators and the operator of the crippled Fukushima reactors were warned that a tsunami could overwhelm the plant’s defenses and failed to recognize the threat.

The Trade Ministry dismissed evidence two years ago from geologists that the power station’s stretch of coast was overdue for a giant wave, minutes from a government committee show. Tokyo Electric Power Co. engineers also didn’t heed lessons from the 2004 tsunami off Indonesia that swamped a reactor 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) away in India, even as they advised the nuclear industry on coping with the dangers.

Tokyo Electric’s Dai-Ichi plant withstood the impact of Japan’s record earthquake March 11, only for a wall of water to knock out generators needed to keep its reactors cool. The cost of the miscalculation mounted as explosions and fires at the plant caused radiation leaks that forced the evacuation of more than 200,000 people and contaminated drinking water.

“The Japanese system underestimated the natural threat from the earthquake and tsunami,” said Pierre Zaleski of University Paris Dauphine and a former French Atomic Energy Commission member. “They really haven’t taken these threats seriously enough, and they haven’t moved fast enough.”
Click to expand...

They can't say they weren't warned.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/world-business/tsunami-warnings-ignored-20110326-1camg.html
 
As More Nuclear Plant Damage Is Found, Japan Presses Repair Efforts

About those workers exposed to radiation:

The National Institute of Radiological Sciences said that the radioactivity of the water that the three injured workers had stepped into was 10,000 times the level normally seen in coolant water at the plant. It said that the amount of radiation the workers were thought to have been exposed to in the water was two to six sieverts.
Click to expand...

ETA: Remember the helpful xckd chart

2 sieverts is "severe radiation poisoning, in some cases fatal", 4 is "extremely severe radiation poisoning. survival sometimes possible with prompt treatment" while 8 means death.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
As More Nuclear Plant Damage Is Found, Japan Presses Repair Efforts

About those workers exposed to radiation:



ETA: Remember the helpful xckd chart

2 sieverts is "severe radiation poisoning, in some cases fatal", 4 is "extremely severe radiation poisoning. survival sometimes possible with prompt treatment" while 8 means death.
Click to expand...

Tepco says 170 mSv.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11032602-e.html

NIRS (JP/ENG) shows no news after 21 March. And the japanese page has only basic fact on radiation exposure.

So I am sorry but I don't trust the NYtime until confirmed by an independent primary source (Tepco , NIRS) or a good secondary source (World nuclear news or even IAEA)
 
Aepervius said:
Tepco says 170 mSv.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11032602-e.html

NIRS (JP/ENG) shows no news after 21 March. And the japanese page has only basic fact on radiation exposure.

So I am sorry but I don't trust the NYtime until confirmed by an independent primary source (Tepco , NIRS) or a good secondary source (World nuclear news or even IAEA)
Click to expand...

That NYT article claims to quote NIRS. If that's true then the situation is very, very very bad.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
That NYT article claims to quote NIRS. If that's true then the situation is very, very very bad.
Click to expand...

That would be. But OTOH the release tepco put 170 mSv, and there has alreay been once a "misplaced comma" syndom earlier in this story, so I would rather wait and see confirmation by a primary source, than trust *any* journalist to have become suddenly better at reporting in the last 48h.
 
The worst-case scenario at reactor three would be that the fuel inside the reactor core - a volatile uranium-plutonium mix - has already started to burn its way through its steel pressure vessel.
Worried about the salt buildup in the crippled plant, engineers have started pumping in fresh water instead. More is being shipped in, including on two US military water barges headed for the plant from a naval base near Tokyo.
Click to expand...


There are military water barges available? Why are they only being used now? Just like the venting holes in the reactors exterior building shells, the impression is a response that has been insular and not taking advantage of all the options available.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/rad...ar-nuclear-plant/story-fn84naht-1226028685349
 
a_unique_person said:
There are military water barges available? Why are they only being used now? Just like the venting holes in the reactors exterior building shells, the impression is a response that has been insular and not taking advantage of all the options available.
Click to expand...

I guess you need to make allowances for the fact that much of the infrastructure in the area is, presumably, non-existent after the quake/tsunami, but even allowing for that, I am becoming increasingly frustrated at how long it is taking to resolve this situation.

Has the response really been this badly mishandled? I would have thought any kind of nuclear problem would be given priority #1. It's increasingly looking like they have been a bit casual in their handling of the emergency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom