• 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?

Java Man said:
Huh? Iodine 131 is highly carcinogenic. It is a very serious thing to have high concentrations of that in the water because it can be absorbed by fish which later get eaten by humans. In humans it will accumulate in the thyroid and irradiate it from the inside.

Iodine 131 was one of the most devastating elements from Chernobyl and highly linked to the consumption of radioactive milk. In a strong fish consuming country like Japan such high concentrations of iodine in the water is not something to be taken lightly nor compared to the background radiation of one liter of water. Beta radiation from iodine can barely penetrate the skin, but once inside you it can wreak havoc.
Click to expand...

131-I also has a rather short half life of 8 days.

Thus after 2 months, you will have approximately 0.4% of your original concentration left. After 5 months, you have about 0.0002% of the original dose left.
 
ceptimus said:
For some meaning of the word, 'survived'.

In this case it means that:

  • affected reactors can never be used again
  • will cost a huge sum to clean up
  • has caused a wide area to be evacuated
  • has caused food to become radiation contaminated
And all this when (fortunately) the prevailing wind was blowing the radiation off-shore, away from populated areas.
Click to expand...
Nope.

The earthquake didn't affect the reactors at all to the best of my knowledge.
 
So you don't include the tsunami as part of the earthquake?

Brilliant! The water shaking isn't caused by the earthquake. Now if you only define the rock shaking to not be caused by the earthquake too, then no one will ever be affected by earthquakes ever again.
 
I understand about alpha radiation. I was asking about gamma rays, and used the light bulb as an example to see if my calculations were wrong. Of course we don't know what the source of the deadly radiation they are measuring is, but if they are worried because the radiation is 3 mSv/Hr at 500 meters, I wondered why that was such a worry.

http://orise.orau.gov/reacts/guide/hazard.htm
says
Higher radiation levels--200mrem/hr (2 mSv/hr)
10 mrem/hr (0.1 mSv/hr) maximum at 1 meter
Click to expand...

Which might seem like 2 mSv/hr, or .1 mSv/hr is a dangerous amount of radiation.

But reading the instructions, even that level isn't like it will hurt you right away. I'm mostly wanting to know more about levels as an intellectual exercise, I am not worried about this effecting me personally.

But the thing about it not being a point source I didn't think about. If the amount 500 meters away is high, but the source is large, getting closer would mean the amount would go up a lot more than the inverse square law would say, for a small source.
 
ceptimus said:
So you don't include the tsunami as part of the earthquake?
Click to expand...
No, I don't. See, tsunamis and earthquakes are different things, that's why there's that different name you notice? Good, now we're all up to speed.

ETA: My mistake which I own up to, the tsunami did damage the reactors.
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/23/fukushima-10-days-crisis-22-march/#more-4236
6:30 pm 1,932 μSv/hr

If the radiation is 1,932 μSv/hr at the gate, what would it be 450 meters closer? Like where the firetrucks are spraying water? I'm trying to understand why they have to evacuate at times.
Click to expand...
I think, although I might be wrong, that the release of radioactive elements are not constant, so there is the occasional spike that reaches potentially dangerous levels.

The readings for further away from the site will obviously be less due to decay and diffusion, but I think the degree of the decrease would change based on what the source of radiation is?
 
Bill Thompson said:
Never trust science from someone with a political agenda.
As for radiation being healthy at small dose, as far as i know it is as of now "inconclusive" with at least one study showing potentially health benefit.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I know one of the scientists promoting the radiation hormesis theory. Politically, he is quite liberal and he would enjoy making sport of how Coulter managed to mangle her description of the science involved.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
No, I don't. See, tsunamis and earthquakes are different things, that's why there's that different name you notice? Good, now we're all up to speed.

ETA: My mistake which I own up to, the tsunami did damage the reactors.
Click to expand...

Actually per see the tsunami did not damage the reactor, it damaged the backup power. A fine but subtle difference.
 
Aepervius said:
Actually per see the tsunami did not damage the reactor, it damaged the backup power. A fine but subtle difference.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of that, and in fact pre-edit I asked for tsunami damage to the reactors and not just the back-up cooling power systems. However, it's my understanding there is some seawater damage to the reactors caused by the tsunami (just not the concussive force of it, more like a residue) no?
 
Just using a point source for calcualtion shows the radiation near the source would be enough to kill you in minutes, but you would go blind right away. If the source is larger than a point, the effects would be far worse.
 
r-j said:
Just using a point source for calcualtion shows the radiation near the source would be enough to kill you in minutes, but you would go blind right away. If the source is larger than a point, the effects would be far worse.
Click to expand...

Wait, what?

Are you saying that the radiation leak from Fukushima will blind you right away and kill you in minutes, or am I completely failing to understand what you're on about?
 
ceptimus said:
So you don't include the tsunami as part of the earthquake?

Brilliant! The water shaking isn't caused by the earthquake. Now if you only define the rock shaking to not be caused by the earthquake too, then no one will ever be affected by earthquakes ever again.
Click to expand...

As said by Mark Corrigan, tsunamis are an after effect of some earthquakes. The Wiki page on historic tsunamis states Japan has been hit by 195 over 1300 years. They've surely been hit by earthquakes/tremors a damn sight more often than that. And I would think that, whether or not a tsunami develops, is down to a many more factors than simply the earth shaking in some non specific location in Japan.
 
Last edited:
Any earthquake that causes the seabed to move will create a tsunami (though, as with earthquakes, it may be so small that it causes no damage or may not even be detectable).

You could also get a tsunami not caused by an earthquake - for example by a meteorite plunging into the ocean.
 
ceptimus said:
Any earthquake that causes the seabed to move will create a tsunami (though, as with earthquakes, it may be so small that it causes no damage or may not even be detectable).

You could also get a tsunami not caused by an earthquake - for example by a meteorite plunging into the ocean.
Click to expand...

Right.


So?
 
ceptimus said:
Any earthquake that causes the seabed to move will create a tsunami (though, as with earthquakes, it may be so small that it causes no damage or may not even be detectable).

You could also get a tsunami not caused by an earthquake - for example by a meteorite plunging into the ocean.
Click to expand...

Aren't you kinda proving his point, just now ?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Are you saying that the radiation leak from Fukushima will blind you right away and kill you in minutes, or am I completely failing to understand what you're on about?
Click to expand...

Well, I did ask for somebody to check my math, using an easy light source, with distances and all that.

If you know the amount of gamma radiation at 500 meters from the source, (which isn't clear at all, but it doesn't matter), which they have published several times, then you can use math to figure out what the radiation will be closer to the source, using the laws of physics.

That the source of the gamma rays might be a large source, that doesn't change the point source calculations, which anyone can do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom