Fukushima - It's Not Over

[thaiboxerken]

It's pretty bad. However you look at it, it's bad. The "pro nuclear power" people are trying to poo poo the idea that this incident was bad, while ignoring the facts that this is a huge environmental disaster. While the radioactivity of the waste could have short half-lives, that radioactivity changes the actual chemistry of what it interacts with in ways that may be hard to predict. This could be bad, or insignificant, but it is unknown. I'd rather not have the ocean impacted in unknown ways if we can help it.

Fukushima just confirms that nuclear power regulations need to be tightly controlled, especially since nuclear power plants are insured by the public.

 

[Slowvehicle]

it gets more effective, the more you dilute it?
and it will cure all illnes that have the same symtoms like radiation has on your body?

Homeopithic! Totally nommed...

 

[Diogenes]

... This could be bad, or insignificant, but it is unknown....

It is a lot better known than you apparently think.

 

[This is The End]

And "incident" still fails to reach the level of "accident" on that international scale you're referencing.

Who is the highlighted "you"? Reuters? Kiyoshi Takenaka and James Topham? The NRA spokesman?

Also, I note that you only typed "incident", while what we are discussing, a Level 3, is a "serious incident". "incident" is a Level 2. Did you know that? Did you do that on purpose? That would be quite disingenuous if you did...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale


"accident" begins at Level 4. They raised it from a 1 to a 3, which as close as you can get to a 4.

 

[This is The End]

It is a lot better known than you apparently think.

Well, as I just pointed out in my previous post, it is a lot better known than you apparently think as well!!

Also, the statement released today claims that they are raising it from a Level 1 "anomaly" to a Level 3 "serious incident". That begs the question, should it have already been a Level 3 sooner than now? IOW, are they only now "admitting" it is a Level 3.

Tepco has been accused, by various high profile sources, of covering up the extent of the damage.

From the article:

Tepco, has... since been accused of covering up the extent of the problems at the plant. After months of denial, Tepco recently admitted the plant was leaking contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean from trenches between the reactor buildings and the shoreline.

Is the highlighted true? Did they indeed knowingly deny for months that the plant was leaking contaminated water into the Pacific?

 

[Diogenes]

Have you actually looked at what level 3 entails? Have you actually looked at the numbers coming out of Fukushima? Can you tell me how many workers have died from radiation exposure?

 

[Solitaire]

What happens when you dilute 300 tonnes of "highly radioactive" water in the Pacific Ocean?

More fun news articles in the popular media.

 

[This is The End]

Have you actually looked at what level 3 entails? Have you actually looked at the numbers coming out of Fukushima? Can you tell me how many workers have died from radiation exposure?

Hello Diogenes.

I'm quite sure that everyone sees that I asked you direct questions in post #24 and #25. They also see that you completely ignored them.

First I strongly suggest that you answer the first question. In post #4 did you purposefully say the word for Level 2, or did you do that on accident? And then apologize accordingly (if it was just a mistake, no big deal, but you could at least give us a "my bad").

You avoiding that question is very troubling.

Then answer the first question from that post. Who were you referring to as "you" in post #4?

Then I suggest you answer the question from post #25. Is the highlighted true, as far as you know?

The answer to that question goes to the heart of what the topic of this thread is.

From your 4 very odd posts in this thread (I'm not counting your 1 serious response, #10) I have a feeling you are continuing a discussion and a topic from another thread. You might want to double check and see if you are doing that.

Of course, you can choose to again not answer these 3 fairly easy questions, asked directly to you. We will read from that what we may.

Also, did you even notice that the first of your dodge questions in post #26 is answered, in detail, in a link I provided in post #24?

 

[macdoc]

It's pretty bad. However you look at it, it's bad. The "pro nuclear power" people are trying to poo poo the idea that this incident was bad, while ignoring the facts that this is a huge environmental disaster. While the radioactivity of the waste could have short half-lives, that radioactivity changes the actual chemistry of what it interacts with in ways that may be hard to predict. This could be bad, or insignificant, but it is unknown. I'd rather not have the ocean impacted in unknown ways if we can help it.

more unadorned fearmongering from the anti-nuke faction.

Perhaps you should revisit this....

public domain chart

and look up the term radiation hormesis.

There a people living in cities with very high background radiation levels ( hilariously high against the silly levels considered "safe" )

You live in a sea of radiation, there are billions of particles sleeting through you every moment and your species were evolved in it and by it.
This knee jerk fear mongering is flat out from ignorance of the topic.....not from any reality.

 

[This is The End]

Please discuss the article in the OP.

What is with all of these "this is nothing compared to X!!" posts? Unless you are seriously claiming they should not be raising this from a Level 1 to a Level 3 because "this is nothing compared to X!!".

The topic of this thread is about that announcement. And the circumstances surrounding it.

Also, read the words after your highlight. Read the full sentence.

Also, you seem to be claiming some amount of knowledge on this topic. Would you care to tackle the question at the end of post #25?

Is the highlighted true, as far as you know?

Also read the first sentence of the 2nd of the quotes in the OP, from the article in the OP. Then read your graph.

Again, it seems that several of you seem to be continuing some argument from previous threads. I am unfamiliar with those threads, but if we could keep all the posts on the topic of this thread (which is the article in the OP, about the announcement made on Wednesday) that would be awesome.

 

[Diogenes]

Hello Diogenes.

I'm quite sure that everyone sees that I asked you direct questions in post #24 and #25. They also see that you completely ignored them....

Only because this isn't my first rodeo. I've been through the willful ignorance spiel with many people. macdoc posted the same relative radiation chart I've posted for people on other forums. Be "troubled" all you like, you're even welcome to accuse me of working for...what's the nuclear equivalent of "big pharma" or Monsanto when discussion other social issues that intersect with technology or science?

If you are genuinely interested in finding out why this is an incident rather than being rated an accident I am more than happy to walk through the numbers, though your tone already suggests that this might be a lost cause.

Sorry, I'm just being honest and have plowed through many different versions of the Gish gallop on a number of different subjects.

 

[Diogenes]

...Did they indeed knowingly deny for months that the plant was leaking contaminated water into the Pacific?

So...Fukushima contamination in water is coming in with impressive and scarey sounding large numbers...900,000 Bq/L or thereabouts...that's the equivalent of 24 *micro*curies. The ocean is big. Yes contamination need to be contained, but don't be panicked by large numbers.

1 Curie is roughly the activity of 1 gram of the radium isotope 226Ra...and...The typical human body contains roughly 0.1 μCi of naturally occurring potassium-40.

 

[Cuddles]

A fairly good article (aside from getting alpha and beta radiation mixed up) about what has actually happened here.

Just how long does it take to cool down one of these reactors? Forever?

Quite a while. The problem is that radioactive decay generates heat, so you have to wait until the level of radioactivity decreases enough for active cooling to no longer be necessary. That doesn't take too long, because the heat produced is more or less proportional to the rate of decay - highly radioactive material produces more heat, but only because it's decaying faster than therefore doesn't last as long. Exactly how much heat is produced and how much cooling it will need for how long will depend on the mix of isotopes present and how they're structured (a lot of material spread over a large area will need less cooling than a smaller amount all in one lump). I don't know the details of all this for Fukishima, but since the plan is to keep pumping water around it until it's cooled enough to start working on it properly, it can't be more than a few years and certainly a lot less than forever.

Can't they keep reusing the water once it's cooled.

Yes, they do. The problem is that, as noted in the article above, you can't just keep the same water recirculating, you want to use non-radioactive water which means storing and processing it before it's reused. So they're not just constantly taking clean water and building up more and more waste, but they still need a fair bit of storage for used water that can't yet be re-used.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

it gets more effective, the more you dilute it?
and it will cure all illnes that have the same symtoms like radiation has on your body?

I laughed.

 

[tsig]

Who is the highlighted "you"? Reuters? Kiyoshi Takenaka and James Topham? The NRA spokesman?

Also, I note that you only typed "incident", while what we are discussing, a Level 3, is a "serious incident". "incident" is a Level 2. Did you know that? Did you do that on purpose? That would be quite disingenuous if you did...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale


"accident" begins at Level 4. They raised it from a 1 to a 3, which as close as you can get to a 4.

Nukes, nukes

They fall from the sky

They come from the ground

We're all gonna die!

 

[Wolrab]

We're all gonna die!

So true.

 

[This is The End]

<snip>

I note that you posted 2 more posts and you did not answer 3 easy questions.

These are very direct questions, they require 1 word answers.

---------------
Who were you referring to as "you" in post #4?

In post #4 did you purposefully say the word for Level 2, or did you do that on accident?

In post #24 is the highlighted claim true as far as you know? Yes or no.
---------------

The amazing amount of spin in your posts instead of answering 3 easy, direct, questions is very telling. It tells us you are interested in some agenda as opposed to facts.

We will see if you post again without answering those 3 very easy questions.

 

[This is The End]

Nukes, nukes

They fall from the sky

They come from the ground

We're all gonna die!

Perhaps you missed this:

Please discuss the article in the OP.

What is with all of these "this is nothing compared to X!!" posts?

The article in the OP is not as bad as a full on nuclear winter. Does that mean we should not discuss it?

The article in the OP is talking about exactly where on a scale this incident currently is. The very article is discussing how this incident is "nowhere near as bad as X". But yet several of you are making posts that solely say "oh yeah, well this is nowhere near as bad as X". That leads me to believe you have literally no idea what the article is discussing, because you are posting redundant information, and that you are continuing some arguments from previous threads.

Several of you seriously need to check your agendas at the door and discuss the actual topic: the announcement that was made on Wednesday.

If it is not important to you because "it is not as bad as X", then just don't post in the thread.

 

[This is The End]

If you are genuinely interested in finding out why this is an incident rather than being rated an accident I am more than happy to walk through the numbers,

I wonder if you actually realize how completely fabricated that sentence is. Read the thread for comprehension.

The OP is about the situation being raised from an anomaly to a serious incident. Your claim is of me being interested in why it is not an accident is completely fabricated.

You are the person that brought up it not being close to an accident, not anyone else. This thread was not even about your "it is not as bad as X" agenda but you are apparently so consumed with some other thread on this topic that you couldn't see past that.

This complete fabrication of yours (quoted in this post), on top of your refusal to answer 3 very easy questions, leads me seriously to believe that you are not interested in discussing actual facts, but only of pushing some agenda.

 

[Diogenes]

...only of pushing some agenda.

Conspiracy.

That's what you've come up with.

Sure, I'm a lobbyist for Monsanto, big pharma and the nuclear industry. Please let them know, though, because I expect I'm owed back pay.