Merged nuclear power safe?

[Belz...]

Indeed. I mean, just look at the continuing devastation in Hiroshima:
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/AtomicEffects-Hiroshima.jpg/220px-AtomicEffects-Hiroshima.jpg[/qimg]
That's what it looked like right after they got hit by a nuclear bomb. So let's see this never-ending nuclear horror. This is what it looks like today:
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/HiroshimaNight.jpg/220px-HiroshimaNight.jpg[/qimg]
Oh.... I guess they rebuilt and went back to living.

You shouldn't feed the troll, Zig.

 

[Ziggurat]

The word 'this' refers to a current or visible object or situation. You may have confused the word 'this', meaning the current disaster at the plant, with 'all' nuclear horrors.

The phrase "doesn't end" in regards to the current nuclear disaster is based on optimistic speculations that it may be possible to clean it up and make it safe in twenty years. And that land around the plant will not be useful ever again in human history.

That is all with the most optimistic outlook.

And your wrongness continues.

Hiroshima got hit by a nuclear bomb. If you think that the radiological contamination from Fukushima will come close to the fallout from a nuclear bomb, then you're so ignorant about radiation that you have no business even writing the word "nuclear". Was Hiroshima uninhabitable for twenty years? No, it wasn't. Will Fukushima be dangerous for the next 20+ years? Hell no.

This is going to be very expensive to clean up. And it's going to be expensive because the regulatory standards are very high. But it will happen. And it will be safe long before they finish cleaning it up.

 

[BenBurch]

Nevada got hit by around 100 nuclear bombs. That's why Las Vegas is a ghost town.

 

[r-j]

Japan's damaged nuclear plant in Fukushima has been emitting radioactive iodine and caesium at levels approaching those seen in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident in 1986.

The difference between this accident and Chernobyl, they say, is that at Chernobyl a huge fire released large amounts of many radioactive materials, including fuel particles, in smoke. At Fukushima Daiichi, only the volatile elements, such as iodine and caesium, are bubbling off the damaged fuel. But these substances could nevertheless pose a significant health risk outside the plant.

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

 

[Alferd_Packer]

r-j

Suppose that 100 curies of I-131 are released today. How much of that will still be around 1 year from now?

2 years?

 

[r-j]

So far I watched the media, the authorities, and people online use at least 6 different ways to describe "radiation", and compare radiation from air travel to Cesium137 ingestion, say that radioactive iodine naturally exists in drinking water, and a host of other ridiculous claims.

I'm sure the people mean well, and are trying to calm everyone down. They just don't realize that generating a fog of confusion isn't helping.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

So far I watched the media, the authorities, and people online use at least 6 different ways to describe "radiation", and compare radiation from air travel to Cesium137 ingestion, say that radioactive iodine naturally exists in drinking water, and a host of other ridiculous claims.

I'm sure the people mean well, and are trying to calm everyone down. They just don't realize that generating a fog of confusion isn't helping.

Bananas are horribly radioactive.

Do you want to address my question?

 

[portlandatheist]

r-j

Suppose that 100 curies of I-131 are released today. How much of that will still be around 1 year from now?

2 years?

Lets see....it has a half life of 8 days so the number of half lives in a year would be 365/8 or 45.625 half lives.
1/(2^45.625) = 1.84 e-14 * 100 curies = 1.84e-12 curries. Does that sound about right? Another good short hand is that at 5 half lives it is 3% of its original so 8 *5 weeks would be in just 40 days.

 

[r-j]

I still find it amusing when rather than have an honest discussion, some people want to play teacher, lecturer, preacher or what ever you call it when they refuse to talk to anyone, but want to question them. Or talk down to them.

And the multitude of ways to describe radiation, rather than have an international standard, that is ridiculous.

 

[Corsair 115]

I still find it amusing when rather than have an honest discussion, some people want to play teacher, lecturer, preacher or what ever you call it when they refuse to talk to anyone, but want to question them. Or talk down to them.

I think my irony meter just exploded...

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I think my irony meter just exploded...

Eat a banana. K-40 is good for you.

 

[Belz...]

So far I watched the media, the authorities, and people online use at least 6 different ways to describe "radiation", and compare radiation from air travel to Cesium137 ingestion, say that radioactive iodine naturally exists in drinking water, and a host of other ridiculous claims.

Yeah, damn that complex universe, eh ?

 

[Aepervius]

I still find it amusing when rather than have an honest discussion, some people want to play teacher, lecturer, preacher or what ever you call it when they refuse to talk to anyone, but want to question them. Or talk down to them.

And the multitude of ways to describe radiation, rather than have an international standard, that is ridiculous.

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...

 

[r-j]

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

here is almost certainly no milk with "no cesium at all" in it.

with

You just made that up.

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

Then

Nope, he's right. Just as I said in my previous post, it is probably impossible to get any kind of food that has absolutely no radioactive material in it.

he tried to move the goal posts, but I still asked you for your source of information, where you read that. And said it wasn't true. You replied

Hum. No. You should check up before making such a statement.

and avoided ever simply stating where you read the information. You still haven't answered the simple question. Where did you see that?

No amount of links to sources that do not say that will do. I called you on your claim, and you can't say where you read it.

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

And you won't of course.

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

Which it is of course.

Now certainly highly polluted areas still have traces of Cesium, and they are constantly monitored. But that wasn't what you claimed.

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

Disgusting.

 

[r-j]

And no standards for describing radiation exposure? Much less for risk? That sounds unbelievable really. Why would people constantly use different terms to describe both amounts, levels and risks? When they are trying to calm people down?

 

[r-j]

Yeah, damn that complex universe, eh ?

Does this mean you can't answer the questions? I like that. It makes you sound wise and sage like.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm sure the people mean well, and are trying to calm everyone down. They just don't realize that generating a fog of confusion isn't helping.

I'm sure you mean well, and are just trying to warn everyone. You just don't realize that generating a fog of confusion isn't helping.

 

[Ziggurat]

And the multitude of ways to describe radiation, rather than have an international standard, that is ridiculous.

It's also not true. There is an international standard unit, it's called the Sievert (Sv). There's another unit, the rem, just like there are feet and meters. Except conversion is even easier: 1 Sv = 100 rem.

It's really not that difficult, I don't know why you're having a problem with this.

And no standards for describing radiation exposure?

False, as described above.

Much less for risk?

How exactly do you think such risk assessment should be established? Shall we irradiate large groups of people and count the numbers who get cancer? Good luck getting subjects.

We can't really directly measure low-dose radiation risks, because there are too many other factors which affect cancer rates. So most of what we know comes from moderate to high doses for people who were accidentally exposed. But 1) that's a relatively small sample, as these things go, and 2) to extrapolate from high dose risks to low dose risks requires making some assumptions. The most commonly used assumption is the linear risk model, which almost certainly overestimates low-dose risks. But even using such a model, one would need to know your dose precisely to estimate the risk, and for low doses of people not being directly monitored, that's often difficult to determine.

Why would people constantly use different terms to describe both amounts, levels and risks? When they are trying to calm people down?

Why do people use both feet and meters to describe the height of the tsunami?

Oh noes!!! I can't handle the concept of unit conversion!!!!

 

[Java Man]

1) You do know the difference between a 9.1 and a 9.5, right ?

2.51 times stronger

There can be no reasonable discussion with you, then.

Yes there can be. Just as long as you don't come with nonsense about Chile and Japan. As they are both on fault lines. I'd argue that Santiago has more in common with Tokyo than with Buenos Aires which is less than 5000km away and truly next door.

So if you see a 9.5 in Chile you can expect a 9.5 in Japan because they're both on similar ground.

 

[Pardalis]

Oh noes!!! I can't handle the concept of unit conversion!!!!

I must admit I am guilty of this.

Since primary school I was taught the metric system. For the life of me I can't understand why people still use the old system.

It's all your fault Americans!