• 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?

CNN is reporting a fire a different nuclear plant. The other one south of the 6.
 
Cuddles said:
Oh no, solar cells use all kinds of nasty elements that have to be dug up and processed, can't have any of that. They probably kick kittens in their spare time as well.

That's the basic problem with environmentalists, or at least the more vocal ones - they don't suggest anything, just complain about everything. Fossil fuels are dirty and evil. Nuclear has the word "nuclear" in it. Wind kills birds. Hydro involves dams. Wave power kills sea kittens. Tidal is like hydro only worse. Geothermal involves holes, mines are also holes, therefore bad. Solar has nasty chemicals.

The trouble is that there are plenty of valid points in there, but it's almost impossible to have a sensible discussion about any of it because of all the people shouting about how a geothermal borehole ate their baby. See this thread for some perfect examples.



Of course, some of us were actually capable of reading the article and saw this part:

Also, it wasn't 200 mSv per hour, it was 200 mSv. Another perfect example of how it's impossible to have a sensible discussion due to all the people throwing around accusations without bothering to read or understand the issues first.
Click to expand...


I guess you missed the point where I sourced the fact that 2 to 6 sieverts is not enough to cause beta burns.

I still have not heard of any beta radiation reading taken in the area.

I suggest also that you reread the article, because it indeed says 200 mSv per hour.

Any one here know how to survey for beta, gamma, neutron or alpha radiation and the different types of instruments used for such?

Although I think it is funny that no one picked up (commented on) on the error that is in my previous post.

It wasn't TEPCO's fault that the workers ignored their alarming dosimeters, it can happen to anyone, I do it every time I go through airport security, unless I'm on vacation.
 
bobdroege7 said:
I guess you missed the point where I sourced the fact that 2 to 6 sieverts is not enough to cause beta burns.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you may want to take another try at that reading comprehension thing. Here's what you actually said:
bobdroege7 said:
200 millisieverts per hour is not enough to give beta radiation burns, that takes more.
Click to expand...

Not 2 to 6 sieverts, 200 millisieverts. And here's what you followed that with:
It takes more than 6 Gray to get beta burns.
Click to expand...
Not 6 sieverts, 6 Gray.

bobdroege7 said:
I suggest also that you reread the article, because it indeed says 200 mSv per hour.
Click to expand...

And here's what the article says the men were exposed to:
article said:
the two received 170 to 180 millisieverts of radiation, within the maximum allowable dose of 250 millisieverts, their feet were exposed to between 2 and 6 sieverts
Click to expand...
The bit about 200 mSv/hr is talking about a measurement in a different place on a different day, and Tepco deny it even happened at all.

Although I think it is funny that no one picked up (commented on) on the error that is in my previous post.

It wasn't TEPCO's fault that the workers ignored their alarming dosimeters, it can happen to anyone, I do it every time I go through airport security, unless I'm on vacation.
Click to expand...

So where did you get this from, exactly? There's certainly nothing about them ignoring anything in the only article I've seen you refer to. Why have you suddenly decided it must be the workers fault they ignored all their safety equipment, despite not knowing what safety equipment they actually had or what they did with it?
 
DISASTER plans at Japan's stricken Fukushima nuclear plant appear woefully inadequate, including only one satellite phone and a single stretcher in case of an accident, a report said today. Tokyo Electric Power Company's (TEPCO) disaster-readiness plans for Fukushima, which was hit by Japan's March 11 twin earthquake and tsunami disasters, were obtained by The Wall Street Journal.

The documents, said the financial daily, focused on smaller-scale accidents but no information on how to confront extensive damage.
According to the Journal, the plans had no detail on outside firefighters from Tokyo, the national military force, or using US equipment to battle leaks and contain radiation, which all have been part of the response to the crisis.
"The disaster plan didn't function," said a former TEPCO official, quoted by the Journal. "It didn't envision something this big."
Click to expand...
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...-plan-inadequate/story-e6frf7jx-1226031654953


Inadequate is exactly how I would describe it. They have not planned for something this big, even though it is a distinct possibility. If they had, things would probably not have got as bad. After the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant problems in 2002, a more serious scenario should have been catered for.
 
Cuddles said:
Yeah, you may want to take another try at that reading comprehension thing. Here's what you actually said:


Not 2 to 6 sieverts, 200 millisieverts. And here's what you followed that with:

Not 6 sieverts, 6 Gray.



And here's what the article says the men were exposed to:

The bit about 200 mSv/hr is talking about a measurement in a different place on a different day, and Tepco deny it even happened at all.



So where did you get this from, exactly? There's certainly nothing about them ignoring anything in the only article I've seen you refer to. Why have you suddenly decided it must be the workers fault they ignored all their safety equipment, despite not knowing what safety equipment they actually had or what they did with it?
Click to expand...

For beta-gamma radiation, Sievert==Gray. Gray is the unit that is actually measured, Sievert is calculated from the Gray-measuremeant using some assumptions. For beta-gamma radiation, a human adult and the radiation source outside of the human adult, these assumptions lead to Sv==Gy.

Regarding the workers that stepped into the puddle: They got a full body dose equivalent of ~200 mSv. Their feet got a dose equivalent of 2..6 Sv!
 
Last edited:
I've read that 6 Sv would not produce immediate damage. Or maybe it was 10 Sv.

What is the dose that causes immediate damage to the skin?
 
Rolfe said:
Well, it's the Daily Fail. Do you have a source in a reputable newspaper?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

No, but that's not going to be good enough for this group. We have to show the claims are either in error or why the claims dont mean what they think they mean. These same people regularly quote huffpo and democracy now, so calling their sources into question will not work as a tactic
 
pipelineaudio said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...a-plant-entombed-concrete-radiation-leak.html

Some specific claims here:

"Bodies of 1,000 victims of Japan earthquake left uncollected because of fears of high levels of radiation"

"Radioactivity levels in the ocean 4,385 times above regulatory limit"

"Ground water levels are 10,000 times the Government health standard"

Can someone please speak to these?
Click to expand...

The radiation levels in the ocean are only a few hundred meters from the plant and the groundwater is directly below the reactor. I believe these are I-131 levels, which has an 8-day half life.
 
JihadJane said:
Radioactive Iodine-131 in rainwater sample near San Francisco was 18,100% above federal drinking water standard
Click to expand...

Left unsaid is that this is still really small.

Actually, it wasn't left unsaid, it's just that your link doesn't say it. But the actual source for that data does:
"the increase in radiation levels in the rain water due to the events in Japan remain extremely small."

Is the level dangerous? No. Not even if you're drinking rain water. Which... very few people are. Especially not hundreds of liters at a time. And if you were, the danger wouldn't be from radiation, but from the water.

So... thanks for proving that the radiation in San Francisco is less dangerous than pure water. I can sleep better at night now.
 
Cuddles said:
Yeah, you may want to take another try at that reading comprehension thing. Here's what you actually said:


Not 2 to 6 sieverts, 200 millisieverts. And here's what you followed that with:

Not 6 sieverts, 6 Gray.



And here's what the article says the men were exposed to:

The bit about 200 mSv/hr is talking about a measurement in a different place on a different day, and Tepco deny it even happened at all.



So where did you get this from, exactly? There's certainly nothing about them ignoring anything in the only article I've seen you refer to. Why have you suddenly decided it must be the workers fault they ignored all their safety equipment, despite not knowing what safety equipment they actually had or what they did with it?
Click to expand...

So the workers recieved beta burns, which occur at exposures of beta radiation above 6 sievert, but the workers only recieved 170 millisieverts, therefore something doesn't add up.

They could have avoided the beta burns by wearing the proper clothing, ie "plastics" or by taking the proper beta surveys in the area so they knew what the hazards were.

That supports my accusation that they weren't provided the proper safety equipment and the proper radiation surveys were not taken.

Unless you have evidence that they took both gamma and beta radiation surveys in the area they were working in.

The 200 millisievert per hour reading may indeed be a phantom, but that level is entirely consistant with the events as they have occured, and I have seen 90 millisieverts per hour radiation levels at a plant with no suspected fuel element defects, let alone totally drained reactor cores.
 
Ziggurat said:
Left unsaid is that this is still really small.

Actually, it wasn't left unsaid, it's just that your link doesn't say it. But the actual source for that data does:
"the increase in radiation levels in the rain water due to the events in Japan remain extremely small."

Is the level dangerous? No. Not even if you're drinking rain water. Which... very few people are. Especially not hundreds of liters at a time. And if you were, the danger wouldn't be from radiation, but from the water.

So... thanks for proving that the radiation in San Francisco is less dangerous than pure water. I can sleep better at night now.
Click to expand...

If these levels are perfectly safe, and I believe they are, I'm going to question the claim that "The federal drinking water standard for Iodine-131 is three pCi/L." (the "p" stands for pico)

They give the source for that as another article here, but this other article does not give its source.

ETA:
Maybe they really were set too low.
EPA ready to increase radioactive release guidelines

Of course, people are freaking out about this.

Probably weren't scientific grounds for setting the standard so low in the first place.
 
Last edited:
bobdroege7 said:
So the workers recieved beta burns, which occur at exposures of beta radiation above 6 sievert, but the workers only recieved 170 millisieverts, therefore something doesn't add up.
Click to expand...

Do we know for a fact that they did receive beta burns? I have heard conflicting reports on this, some sites say that they were only being checked for possible beta burns, some saying that they actually had beta burns, and some saying that they only had edema from beta exposure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom