• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Fukushima - It's Not Over

The Asahi newspaper, citing data from a Friday meeting of a task force working on the Fukushima clean-up at Japan's nuclear regulator, estimated that the contaminated water could swell to the ground surface within three weeks.
Click to expand...

http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/2013/08/03/radioactive-fukushima-groundwater-rises-above-barrier

That was Aug 3

Seems like once again, the workers who actually are on site seem to know something about conditions at the site.

Obviously they don't want to be fired, and no media outlet will interview them. The truth might be considered "fear mongering", and we all know how much damage this could do to the poor innocent nuclear reactors. They are the important thing, not the ocean, or fish, or people.
 
But at least a few of them have been feeding real information to bloggers. Everything they have reported has ended up being officially reported, always much later.
 
The good news is they probably have an infinate grace period by now, but they obviously still have issues with keeping tabs on the special nuclear material and its byproducts.

Still a seriously challenging cleanup and a long way from completion.

And I agree with some others here that I don't want to hear radiation levels in terms of annual limits, just give it to me in Sieverts, I'll convert to units I'm comfortable with.

I would not be too concerned with dumping in the middle of the pacific, but I am still concerned with keeping it out of the local food chain. There is a lot of monitoring that will need to be done.

There seems to be no middle ground between the we are all going to die camp and the radiation is perfectly safe because no one has died camp.

But real information from TEPCO, I don't think so.
 
The production of electricity by nukes is exceptionally safe.
Radiation above certain levels, like any dangerous phenomena needs caution and rigor in dealing with.

The knee jerk fear evinced by the popular press et al is the most dangerous phenom of all.
And that is what was concluded about Chernobyl as well.
 
I believe that all nuclear reactors should operate under the same safety standards and the Naval Nuclear Power program.
 
macdoc said:
The production of electricity by nukes is exceptionally safe.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. They move stuff around by road.

The knee jerk fear evinced by the popular press et al is the most dangerous phenom of all.
Click to expand...

No that award probably goes either to high explosives manufacturer or certian processes involving Phosgene or HF.

Of course the press kept pretty quiet about the Windscale fire. Looking back err yeah that was a close one.
 
bobdroege7 said:
The good news is they probably have an infinate grace period by now,
Click to expand...

Questionable. In particular an eathquake hitting the spent fuel storage tanks would make life interesting.

And I agree with some others here that I don't want to hear radiation levels in terms of annual limits, just give it to me in Sieverts, I'll convert to units I'm comfortable with.
Click to expand...

One hundred millisieverts per hour at a distance of 50 cm. However you can get that by converting from annual limits.

I would not be too concerned with dumping in the middle of the pacific, but I am still concerned with keeping it out of the local food chain. There is a lot of monitoring that will need to be done.
Click to expand...

Aparently part of the problem is that the whole area has enough low level contamination that it is difficult to track what is going on.
 
geni said:
...

Aparently part of the problem is that the whole area has enough low level contamination that it is difficult to track what is going on.
Click to expand...

Which means what with regard to the "highly radioactive" claims being made?

geni said:
Again this is an utterly foolish standard to work to.
Click to expand...

The proof is in the puddin', punkin'!
 
I was talking this over today with a friend and he asked me why people would bring up "how many people died?" in regards to discussing nuclear leaks at Fukushima. I realized it would be like somebody saying the current wildfire in Yosemite is very dangerous and threatening the water supply of ... and somebody interrupts and asks "How many people has it killed?", in order to say it isn't really a dangerous fire. What an incredibly stupid way to converse over a serious danger. And a huge problem.
 
Diogenes said:
Which means what with regard to the "highly radioactive" claims being made?
Click to expand...

Reduces the distance from which you can spot and triangulate. Given the area that the tank farm now covers and the finite resources available this is a problem.

The proof is in the puddin', punkin'!
Click to expand...

The most dirrect counter example is probably the Oppau explosion. They didn't kill or even injure anyone until well ~500 died. You don't work on the basis that no one has been killed/injured yet. You work on the basis of what the hazard is and what control measures you have in place. Have you missed about 80 years worth of health and safety?
 
geni said:
...Have you missed about 80 years worth of health and safety?
Click to expand...

We're not talking specifically about Fukushima anymore? While old those plants weren't 80 years-old. The goalpost is shifting where now?

r-j said:
....What an incredibly stupid way to converse over a serious danger. And a huge problem.
Click to expand...

Or you're managing an incredibly stupid way to comprehend what you read, though inline with what I've seen from you in other threads.

The point of the deaths is with respect to the usage of terms like "highly radioactive" and claims there are going to be effects on the US population from all that "dangerous radiation levels". Considering those at the point source have managed to be able to not be individually contaminated with fission products nor have they been exposed to radiation at sufficient levels to kill them any conclusion that we're seeing or will see any real effect after that point source has been diluted over the volume of the flippin' ocean is obviously spurious to the most casual observer.

That's the point of asking about worker deaths and has been the whole time.
 
geni said:
You don't work on the basis that no one has been killed/injured yet. You work on the basis of what the hazard is and what control measures you have in place. Have you missed about 80 years worth of health and safety?
Click to expand...

I notice he just ignored my fire example. The attitude that something isn't really a problem because nobody has died yet, it's beyond stupid.
 
Why does this remind me of conversations with anti-vaxxers, the anti-gmo crowd, creationists and climate change deniers?

oh, yeah, the marked lack of basic scientific understanding which in this case is radiation health and physics.

how about we go through those numbers?
 
r-j said:
I was talking this over today with a friend and he asked me why people would bring up "how many people died?" in regards to discussing nuclear leaks at Fukushima. I realized it would be like somebody saying the current wildfire in Yosemite is very dangerous and threatening the water supply of ... and somebody interrupts and asks "How many people has it killed?", in order to say it isn't really a dangerous fire. What an incredibly stupid way to converse over a serious danger. And a huge problem.
Click to expand...

ROFL. Sure, let's just wait and see how many firefighters and civilians die from that. As I guess we're supposed to wait (how long btw until judgement is passed?) on Fukishima. (which decade from now would you be here to post: "oh, okay, no one died").

Or maybe we could look at the thousands actually dead every year from coal-mining. And maybe we could attenuate our scaredy-scares at actual deaths rather than theoretical/just-wait-you-see deaths.

Just scientifically/skeptically...how many years would have to go by until zero people dying of Fukishama radiation would make you admit it was about 1000 less of a threat to life than coal-mining? Is your claim falsifiable? What would falsify it?

Hell, I could claim solar power actually irradiates people due to sun radiation prisms. And I'll just say no has died yet, but 100,000 will in twenty years due to it. Or if twenty years zero have died, I'll alter it to thirty. Science is not on your side. Logic is not on your side. Caring for actual human death via energy mining is not on your side.

Absolutely pathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom