Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post

    So, is anyone else less then convinced that Chernobyl was a bigger disaster??
    Chernobyl was the biggest disaster.

    How many people has Fukushima killed so far? How many is it likely to kill? While the ocean isn't an ideal dump for rad waste, the ocean has one hell of an ability to dilute poisons.

    But they should be making every effort to trap and filter as much effluent as possible from those reactors, just on general principles.

  2. #12
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    yes. you can. because those safety regulations are deliberately kept way low of the actual level of damage in order to mandate compliance at extreme safety levels.


    the water that in that ocean? enjoy.


    or, from the IAEA:

    ...On 7 April, low levels of deposition of both iodine-131 and cesium-137 were detected in 5 and 4 prefectures respectively. The values reported for iodine-131 ranged from 3.8 to 20 becquerel per square metre, for cesium-137 from 9.7 to 25 becquerel per square metre.

    Gamma dose rates continue to decrease. For Fukushima, on 7 April a dose rate of 2.3 ÁSv/h, for the Ibaraki prefecture a gamma dose rate of 0.16 ÁSv/h was reported. Dose rates reported for the Eastern part of the Fukushima prefecture, for distances of more than 30 km to Fukushima-Daiichi, range from 0.2 to 28 ÁSv/h.

    As part of a new measurement program carried out by MEXT in cooperation with universities, gamma dose rates have also been measured in 26 cities in 13 prefectures for the period 5 to 7 April. In 19 cities, all measurements are below 0.1ÁSv/h. In a further five cities, some measurements are up to 0.21ÁSv/h. In the city of Tsukuba in the prefecture of Ibaraki, dose rates are in the range 0.17 to 0.2 0 ÁSv/h. In Fukushima City, the range is 0.42 to 0.5 ÁSv/h. typical normal background levels are in the range 0.05 to 0.1 ÁSv/h.

    As of 6 April, iodine-131 and cesium-137 was detectable in drinking water in a few prefectures at levels far below those that would initiate recommendations for restrictions of drinking water. As of 7 April, one restriction for infants related to I-131 (100 Bq/l) remains in place as a precautionary measure in only one village of the Fukushima prefecture...
    Last edited by cpwill; 04-09-11 at 05:32 AM.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    Chernobyl was the biggest disaster.

    How many people has Fukushima killed so far?
    I think it was reported that 1 person died in one of the explosions...

    How many is it likely to kill? While the ocean isn't an ideal dump for rad waste, the ocean has one hell of an ability to dilute poisons.
    Well, there's the cloud of I-131 and C-137 and a whole laundry list of other toxins that are spreading around the world... that's one level of exposure. Also, much of the fallout lands in the ocean, so in about 6 months it will have the chance to spread through the oceans and will be necessary to test ALL fish for radioactivity (mind you on the gulf of Mexico precedent with 'corexit' http://lmrk.org/corexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf it will just be declared safe anyway)

    Furthermore, since the overall additional exposure for anyone outside of Japan will be relatively small, it will still be potentially decades before the increase in cancers are noted,

    Now, I suppose it should also be asked of what numbers are you using for the casualty list from Chernobyl?? There's 4000, 250000 or 958000... so, I think we should find a way to determine which numbers to use in comparison. Though, in terms of deaths, having the oceans being the largest fallout area because the most toxic elements are too heavy to stay in the jetstream, I think the immediate death toll will remain lower.

    However, as the radiation bioaccumulates in the fish in the ocean, if there's not a massive fish die-off (Fish have faster cellular reproduction / shorter lives so it will have a greater effect on fish) then we will find outselves in a situation where we will be eating contaminated fish, and THAT could lead to more casualties IF the EPA does not continue raising the safe level guidelines for radiation...

    And that was done to compensate so that California didn't have excessive I-131 in their waters... detected after a rainfall at 180 times legal limits for drinking water, now under new regulations that is safe.

    So I guess I should finish that so much is still up in the air, but there's no way that one can simply make the assertion that what happened 25 years ago is a clear cut more devastating event.

    But they should be making every effort to trap and filter as much effluent as possible from those reactors, just on general principles.
    Ya... I agree with you here...

  4. #14
    Verifier
    Gladiator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Your Back Yard
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,878

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Some Progress:

    "The exact cause of the radiation was not immediately clear, though Tepco has said that highly contaminated water has been leaking from a pit near the No. 2 reactor. The utility had suspected that the leak was coming from a crack, but several attempts to seal the crack failed to stop the flow.

    On Tuesday the company said the leak might instead be coming from a faulty joint where the pit meets a duct, allowing radioactive water to seep into a layer of gravel underneath. The utility injected "liquid glass" into the gravel, and on Wednesday officials were reporting that the leak had been contained."

    Japan nuclear crisis: Nuclear plant operator reports some success on plugging leak - latimes.com


    //
    _______________________________
    How did Our Oil get under Their Sand?

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    I think it was reported that 1 person died in one of the explosions...
    One.

    And so this is worse than Chernobyl?

    Well, there's the cloud of I-131 and C-137 and a whole laundry list of other toxins that are spreading around the world... that's one level of exposure.
    You mean the cloud that can only be detected with incredibly sensitive detectors and which pose no sensible threat to anyone?

    Also, much of the fallout lands in the ocean, so in about 6 months it will have the chance to spread through the oceans and will be necessary to test ALL fish for radioactivity (mind you on the gulf of Mexico precedent with 'corexit' http://lmrk.org/corexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf it will just be declared safe anyway)
    You MUST be aware that TWO US nuclear powered submarines, the Thresher and the Scorpion, sank and took their reactors with them, right? And that the Russians have lost several boats as well?

    Is anyone testing the fish using the Glow-In-The-Dark test kit because half a dozen broken reactors litter the bottoms of the seas?

    No.


    Furthermore, since the overall additional exposure for anyone outside of Japan will be relatively small, it will still be potentially decades before the increase in cancers are noted,
    Your use of the word "the" indicates your irrational belief that cancers will be caused, when in fact it is extremely unlikely that any statistical increase in cancer incidence outside of Japan will be noted as a result.

    This cannot be said about Chernobyl, in part because the socialists running the Soviet Union LIED about the problems and prevented neighboring countries from taking precautions.

    Now, I suppose it should also be asked of what numbers are you using for the casualty list from Chernobyl?? There's 4000, 250000 or 958000...
    Not any.

    It wasn't necessary. You provided the number (1). That's all that was necessary to know that the Fukushima incident is less catastophic than Chernobyl.

    so, I think we should find a way to determine which numbers to use in comparison.
    Really? You think somehow Fukushima, with it's single direct casualty, will compare unfavorably with Chernobyl, with it's hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of deaths? You choose the metric, the outcome is plain to the rest of us.

  6. #16
    Professor
    ElCid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-11 @ 04:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,784
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Does Japan have bad karma?

  7. #17
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    One.

    And so this is worse than Chernobyl?
    well, to be fair, it was actually two workers that died. and a third fell off of reactor #1 later, though i'm not sure if he died or not.

    You mean the cloud that can only be detected with incredibly sensitive detectors and which pose no sensible threat to anyone?
    yup.

    that link i gave? it gives the hour-by-hour radiation readings outside the plant. strange how he never seems interested in looking at, you know, the actual physical data.



    1. Chernobyl had no containment dome. Impossible to fully describe how critical that was.
    2. Chernobyl didn't have the triplicate safety redundancies that Fukushima did
    3. Chernobyl did not have a nearby source of water (like the ocean) to dump water in from
    4. Chernobyls' reactor buildings were flammable; and flame they did; throwing radioactive ash up and out much more consistently and powerfully than anything that has come out of Fukushima
    5. The Japanese are probably among the best at this business. They run the largest nuclear plant in the world, and they run it well. The Fukushima plants withstood an earthquake a full order of magnitude higher than it was designed for, a tsunami larger than it was designed for, and a full day loss of power. It wasn't until the third power system ran out as workers fought their way back through the wreckage that things went south.

    Look, I won't lie; I'm a pessimist and I think the final solution to this is going to involve concrete or some similar bonding substance. But that doesn't justify hysteria.

  8. #18
    Mildly Hostile
    505's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    11-20-17 @ 03:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,363

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    strange how he never seems interested in looking at, you know, the actual physical data.
    What?... mcfly not looking at the actual physical data? I am shocked.
    Disclaimer: If you are offended by the above post, and you aren't a SJW or truther, grow a pair.

  9. #19
    Verifier
    Gladiator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Your Back Yard
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,878

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    The implication of the thread titrle is that Fukushima 5 and 6 are leaking radio active water. Water that has collected in the bottom tunnels of 5 and 6 have apparently resulted from over-spill for cooling the Spent Fuel Rods.

    "Engineers have been struggling to stop leaks since the plant was damaged by the earthquake and tsunami on 11 March.

    They are currently discharging less contaminated water into the sea so more radioactive water can be stored.

    Since the earthquake knocked out cooling systems, workers have been pumping water into reactors to cool fuel rods, but must now deal with waste water pooling in and below damaged reactor buildings."

    BBC News - Japan earthquake: Radioactive leak 'plugged' at reactor

    The water in the lower tunnels of 5 and 6 are slightly readiactive, and are being drained to make room to store more highly radiactive water. The tunnels lead to water storage pools for 5 and 6, to be stored for porcessing


    Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log


    //
    Last edited by Gladiator; 04-10-11 at 02:22 PM.
    _______________________________
    How did Our Oil get under Their Sand?

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Quote Originally Posted by 505 View Post
    What?... mcfly not looking at the actual physical data? I am shocked.
    Yours first because of the antagonism...
    1 - You never addressed my question, you simply called it an assertion and ignored it. So you have yet to make a single ACTUAL point here yet grandstand like you know what you're talking about. Which you clearly don't since you haven't even been able to answer a simple question.

    2 - I only had time to address a single post this morning, so, don't take that as not looking at physical data, for me to ADDRESS the physical data I have to look at that and other sources to see how well it is corroborated.

    3 - You're only shocked cause you speak out of this arrogant ignorance where you ignore facts that you choose and pretend like that causes you a win...

    anyway, back to the thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    yes. you can. because those safety regulations are deliberately kept way low of the actual level of damage in order to mandate compliance at extreme safety levels.
    It is ALSO based on EXTERIOR EXPOSURE. It's one thing to have radiation hitting your skin... things like an x-ray, exposure while in a plane, etc etc... it's another thing when you ingest that radiation either through the dust or in drinking water, because then you are being radiated from the inside for the duration it takes your body to process.

    Yes, the radioactive iodine is MOSTLY a concern in Japan proper, that cloud of iodine, cesium, and other toxic debris will be circling the earth for years in the jetstream. JUST LIKE Chernobyl.


    the water that in that ocean? enjoy.
    So, this shows that what is being dumped is above the legal limit... and while the tests show the radiation emitted in the water by half a liter of water, what's being dumped is closer to 115000 liters so far... which will be contaminating the fish that swim through that water, which will disperse throughout the oceans.

    What is NOT what's being considered is how much dosing these fish that swim through will be getting... and then it also does NOT account for bioaccumulation where fish eat other radiated fish + their own dose, etc... and sure the I-131 has only an 8 day half-life, the cesium has 20 or 30 year half-life...

    So, the specifics are beyond my understanding of the subject, not being any sort of expert,

    or, from the IAEA:

    ...On 7 April, low levels of deposition of both iodine-131 and cesium-137 were detected in 5 and 4 prefectures respectively. The values reported for iodine-131 ranged from 3.8 to 20 becquerel per square metre, for cesium-137 from 9.7 to 25 becquerel per square metre.

    Gamma dose rates continue to decrease. For Fukushima, on 7 April a dose rate of 2.3 ÁSv/h, for the Ibaraki prefecture a gamma dose rate of 0.16 ÁSv/h was reported. Dose rates reported for the Eastern part of the Fukushima prefecture, for distances of more than 30 km to Fukushima-Daiichi, range from 0.2 to 28 ÁSv/h.

    As part of a new measurement program carried out by MEXT in cooperation with universities, gamma dose rates have also been measured in 26 cities in 13 prefectures for the period 5 to 7 April. In 19 cities, all measurements are below 0.1ÁSv/h. In a further five cities, some measurements are up to 0.21ÁSv/h. In the city of Tsukuba in the prefecture of Ibaraki, dose rates are in the range 0.17 to 0.2 0 ÁSv/h. In Fukushima City, the range is 0.42 to 0.5 ÁSv/h. typical normal background levels are in the range 0.05 to 0.1 ÁSv/h.

    As of 6 April, iodine-131 and cesium-137 was detectable in drinking water in a few prefectures at levels far below those that would initiate recommendations for restrictions of drinking water. As of 7 April, one restriction for infants related to I-131 (100 Bq/l) remains in place as a precautionary measure in only one village of the Fukushima prefecture...
    NHK WORLD English
    YouTube - Greenpeace says Japan radiation levels 'significant'
    Japan map of Japan Radiation Maximum by Prefecture by Do,Ken,To,Fu - TargetMap

    All I can say is I'm not sure what the reality of the situation is, but the IAEA DOES have a motivation to low-ball the actual risks, where these other people are directly reporting levels that are above and beyond what is being reported by them.

    Oh, and well... UCB Rain Water Sampling Results | The Nuclear Engineering Department At UC Berkeley
    Which found the rainwater (for a time) to have 18000 TIMES the limit for drinking water (which also dispersed into drinking water in such a way that the tap water never actually exceeded those limits)

    The point is that this is readings from rainwater in CALIFORNIA, after it's crossed the oceans.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    One.

    And so this is worse than Chernobyl?
    This is such a black and white way of looking at things...

    You mean the cloud that can only be detected with incredibly sensitive detectors and which pose no sensible threat to anyone?
    Actually, it's incredibly sensitive detectors required to detect, but that's not necessarily meaning that the radiation detected is harmless.

    You MUST be aware that TWO US nuclear powered submarines, the Thresher and the Scorpion, sank and took their reactors with them, right? And that the Russians have lost several boats as well?
    Ya... but a reactor sinking is not necessarily the same situation... it could be, but I don't know the details.

    Is anyone testing the fish using the Glow-In-The-Dark test kit because half a dozen broken reactors litter the bottoms of the seas?

    No.
    This is also an overly simplistic way of looking at this...

    Your use of the word "the" indicates your irrational belief that cancers will be caused, when in fact it is extremely unlikely that any statistical increase in cancer incidence outside of Japan will be noted as a result.

    This cannot be said about Chernobyl, in part because the socialists running the Soviet Union LIED about the problems and prevented neighboring countries from taking precautions.
    Oh ya... I forgot how people evolved in the late 80's beyond the capacity of lying for their own self-interest.

    Not any.

    It wasn't necessary. You provided the number (1). That's all that was necessary to know that the Fukushima incident is less catastophic than Chernobyl.
    At least you concede to be arguing from a position of ignorance... no point in asking the other questions like How many people died directly in the explosion at chernobyl versus how many people have died from the resulting radiation?

    Really? You think somehow Fukushima, with it's single direct casualty, will compare unfavorably with Chernobyl, with it's hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of deaths? You choose the metric, the outcome is plain to the rest of us.
    Ya.. well, Chernobyl also happened over 25 years ago... so there's been that time to measure the human impact of that disaster. The reactor workers at this point are probably already dead-men walking, bless their courage, and even they are not dying yet.

    But we could also consider the technological improvements in areas like cancer research which will offer better chances of survival for those that will develop cancer over the coming decades.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •