Dunkman Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 NEWS ADVISORY: Kan cancels planned visit to quake-hit area due to bad weather I think he means radiation cloud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 1945-85 Atmospheric testing released radiation equivalent to 1 Hiroshima bomb every 11 hours for forty years and life went on. I think we will be OK. Yes, I think we'll be okay. But then, we don't have an out-of-control nuclear plant erupting 12 miles from our house. May it ever be thus. I just get a little tired of the automobile comparison, and the others. "Planes crash. Should we get rid of planes?" It's stupid. They have plane crashes in Japan, too, but none that ever threatened to deprive that heavily populated island of half its living space. "Every year dozens of Americans die falling off their roofs. Should we outlaw roofs?" Where did people learn to "think" this way? BTW, I know about the atmospheric testing, and life did go on, but not for everyone. And we were able to stop that testing exactly when we wanted to, which is a luxury I'm sure the TEPCO site managers wish they had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dino Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 1945-85 Atmospheric testing released radiation equivalent to 1 Hiroshima bomb every 11 hours for forty years and life went on. I think we will be OK. Apples and Oranges. Think about it like this. The radioactive product in a nuke is about the size of your fist. About 2,000 of these fist-size plutonium/uranium balls were detonated in our lifetime. The radiation they produced was phenomenal, yes, but still NOTHING compared to a nuclear meltdown. Think, they have HUNDREDS of radioactive rods (1 to 2" diameter and 15 feet long) just sitting around in nuclear power plants. Sure, you'd have to refine it further for nuclear detonation, but you could create 100,000 cores with just what's in Fukushima right now. Not for detonation, but for just spreading radiation. So, the POTENTIAL of one nuclear meltdown COULD be equal to the radiation created by every single nuke detonated since 1945. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburns Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Yes, I think we'll be okay. But then, we don't have an out-of-control nuclear plant erupting 12 miles from our house. May it ever be thus. I just get a little tired of the automobile comparison, and the others. "Planes crash. Should we get rid of planes?" It's stupid. They have plane crashes in Japan, too, but none that ever threatened to deprive that heavily populated island of half its living space. "Every year dozens of Americans die falling off their roofs. Should we outlaw roofs?" Where did people learn to "think" this way? BTW, I know about the atmospheric testing, and life did go on, but not for everyone. And we were able to stop that testing exactly when we wanted to, which is a luxury I'm sure the TEPCO site managers wish they had. We're even then. I get tired of things to. You measure benefit and need against risk and make a decision. There is currently no risk free source of power that can come anywhere close to meeting even our basic needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburns Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Apples and Oranges. Think about it like this. The radioactive product in a nuke is about the size of your fist. About 2,000 of these fist-size plutonium/uranium balls were detonated in our lifetime. The radiation they produced was phenomenal, yes, but still NOTHING compared to a nuclear meltdown. Think, they have HUNDREDS of radioactive rods (1 to 2" diameter and 15 feet long) just sitting around in nuclear power plants. Sure, you'd have to refine it further for nuclear detonation, but you could create 100,000 cores with just what's in Fukushima right now. Not for detonation, but for just spreading radiation. So, the POTENTIAL of one nuclear meltdown COULD be equal to the radiation created by every single nuke detonated since 1945. Apples and planets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 We're even then. I get tired of things to. You measure benefit and need against risk and make a decision. There is currently no risk free source of power that can come anywhere close to meeting even our basic needs. I don't ask for "risk-free." But I am not impressed with nuclear power's safety record, and I don't like the distinctively hideous consequences of one screw-up in a nuke plant. It's true, we haven't created any "zones of alienation" here in the U.S. yet. But still... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I don't ask for "risk-free." But I am not impressed with nuclear power's safety record, and I don't like the distinctively hideous consequences of one screw-up in a nuke plant. It's true, we haven't created any "zones of alienation" here in the U.S. yet. But still... Or in Japan, yet. Certainly not on the scales you're throwing out (1000 sq miles? Half of Japan's inhabitable area? What have you been reading?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovintheWhiteFluff Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Or in Japan, yet. Certainly not on the scales you're throwing out (1000 sq miles? Half of Japan's inhabitable area? What have you been reading?) Well water, food and soil can be harmed up to 50 miles as it stands now. Half the country is not going to be (un)inhabitable. What may happen is Japan having transportation issues as the train network connecting north and south runs along the east coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Or in Japan, yet. Certainly not on the scales you're throwing out (1000 sq miles? Half of Japan's inhabitable area? What have you been reading?) What's 1,000 square miles? 32 x 32? I bet you ain't booking any trips to within 32 miles of Fukushima this week, are you? (If you do, don't eat the spinach.) You're right, half the island isn't poisoned. As you and I both said, not yet. We don't know how it'll end. No one does. All I'm trying to emphasize is the difference between the quantity of risk, which may be very small, and the quality of that risk. I'm fixin' to head out to dinner, which means car travel -- a risky proposition compared to many things. But if I am killed in a car accident, I am still very confident that the incident will not lead to the forced, permanent evacuation of the whole damn county. That's a distinction that seems too often to get over-looked, as if the consequences of car accidents and nuclear accidents were the same. I'm thinking that people who gloss over that distinction have some agenda they don't want to state up-front. It's frustrating. A lot of people still scoff at the movie China Syndrome. It must piss them off no end that that movie came out 12 days before the TMI accident. Dang, such rotten luck. What were the odds of that timing? Impossibly low, right? Impossibly low. Seems to me the nuke industry is peculiarly susceptible to "impossibly" low-odds events. Keep it away from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterymix Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Half the country is not going to be inhabitable. What the hell is going on in this forum? Moderators!!!!! Someone here just posted that they know half of Japan will be uninhabitable. Moderators!!!! Please. Is there no quality control here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovintheWhiteFluff Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 What the hell is going on in this forum? Moderators!!!!! Someone here just posted that they know half of Japan will be uninhabitable. Moderators!!!! Please. Is there no quality control here? What's going on in this forum? oh I forgot the "un" big deal....grow up By the way....I said "no, half the country is not going to be inhabitable." In other words, most will be inhabitable. But hey, jump to conclusions inspector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Cove Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Maybe Gravestone Doji can make sense of the statements below. I thought the radiation levels were still too high for people to enter the buildings. Combining that with the loss of power, how are they getting these temperature readings? Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa said that the temperatures of the pools at all six reactor units were below 100 C. he commented that the temperatures of the upper parts of the spent-fuel pools are figures that ''would reassure people.'' That of the upper part of the No. 3 reactor's containment vessel stood at 128 C, which Kitazawa said is ''within the range of expectations.'' Under the operation that started Thursday, more than 2,600 tons of water is believed to have been poured toward the No. 3 building, exceeding the pool's capacity of 1,400 tons. But it is unknown how much water is in the pool, which is important to cool the fuel and shield the radioactivity. The statements seem contradictory to me. Did I miss something in the last 24 hours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sickman Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 What's going on in this forum? oh I forgot the "un" big deal....grow up By the way....I said "no, half the country is not going to be inhabitable." In other words, most will be inhabitable. But hey, jump to conclusions inspector. Um, okay? BTW, I understood the gist of what you meant in the earlier post, and figured you forgot to put the "un-" on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterymix Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 What's going on in this forum? oh I forgot the "un" big deal....grow up By the way....I said "no, half the country is not going to be inhabitable." In other words, most will be inhabitable. But hey, jump to conclusions inspector. Mommy needs to take your computer away. Hurry on to bed. School bus comes early in the morning. If you can avoid posting as an imbecile, I plan to recommend that Starfleet promote you to admiral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amped Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Slightly off topic, I found this movie/ artical about the events at Mayak in the 50s-60s. Gotta love the Soviet Union. http://www.logtv.com/films/chelyabinsk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clinch Leatherwood Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Maybe Gravestone Doji can make sense of the statements below. I thought the radiation levels were still too high for people to enter the buildings. Combining that with the loss of power, how are they getting these temperature readings? Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa said that the temperatures of the pools at all six reactor units were below 100 C. he commented that the temperatures of the upper parts of the spent-fuel pools are figures that ''would reassure people.'' That of the upper part of the No. 3 reactor's containment vessel stood at 128 C, which Kitazawa said is ''within the range of expectations.'' Under the operation that started Thursday, more than 2,600 tons of water is believed to have been poured toward the No. 3 building, exceeding the pool's capacity of 1,400 tons. But it is unknown how much water is in the pool, which is important to cool the fuel and shield the radioactivity. The statements seem contradictory to me. Did I miss something in the last 24 hours? Pools are where they keep the spent rods...so I'm presuming that's what the 100c figure is Top of the reactor containment vessel would refer I think to the main containment of the actual reactor....that's high but expected given the loss of coolant. Really I think they don't know....going to be honest...until they get robots in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 There seems to be a lack of news today. The reactor status page on Brave New Climate that has been updating everyday has not updated today. I haven't heard about any radiation levels today at the west gate...curious when we had east winds for awhile last night and earlier today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovintheWhiteFluff Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Mommy needs to take your computer away. Hurry on to bed. School bus comes early in the morning. If you can avoid posting as an imbecile, I plan to recommend that Starfleet promote you to admiral. Just stop. Now you are calling me an imbecile and for what? A typo? Seriously? The only immature person in this thread is one who acted like a 1st grader screaming for a moderator after someone else made an obvious typo and then had the nerve to go on a personal attack. Do us both a favor and avoid replying to my posts. Anyway....I'd like to get back on subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovintheWhiteFluff Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 There seems to be a lack of news today. The reactor status page on Brave New Climate that has been updating everyday has not updated today. I haven't heard about any radiation levels today at the west gate...curious when we had east winds for awhile last night and earlier today. There has been a lack of news all weekend. Do you know if they are still holding press conferences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Cove Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 There seems to be a lack of news today. The reactor status page on Brave New Climate that has been updating everyday has not updated today. I haven't heard about any radiation levels today at the west gate...curious when we had east winds for awhile last night and earlier today. Maybe this will help (if you haven't seen it already today.) http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110321-1.pdf'>http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110321-1.pdf From: http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Cove Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Pools are where they keep the spent rods...so I'm presuming that's what the 100c figure is Top of the reactor containment vessel would refer I think to the main containment of the actual reactor....that's high but expected given the loss of coolant. Really I think they don't know....going to be honest...until they get robots in there. Precisely.. I don't understand how they can toss temperature measurements out there, considering the challenges they're facing. Below is the entire news brief. Electricity returns to some Fukushima reactors, but tension remains TOKYO, March 21, Kyodo Japan's quake-hit Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant saw a stable source of electricity finally reach two of its crippled nuclear reactor buildings Sunday, a key step to move ahead in restoring the reactors' cooling functions to avoid the disaster from worsening further. In a sign that the ongoing operation to cool down the spent-fuel tanks is working, Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa said that the temperatures of the pools at all six reactor units were below 100 C. But a temporary rise in pressure in the No. 3 reactor's containment vessel highlighted that authorities are still walking on thin ice in dealing with the disaster. The No. 5 and 6 units, which have been relatively less problematic than the others, achieved what is called ''cold shutdown,'' meaning that the reactors have stopped safely with the temperature of the water inside the reactors falling below 100 C. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano, who held a press conference in the afternoon, was cautious about the outlook, saying, ''There will be twists and turns even if the process to maintain the status quo and to improve the situation goes smoothly.'' He also indicated that the battered nuclear plant, which has suffered a series of explosions and fires since the March 11 killer earthquake, is doomed to be scrapped. But Kitazawa's announcement later in the day about the results of the temperature measurement added to brighter signs, as he commented that the temperatures of the upper parts of the spent-fuel pools are figures that ''would reassure people.'' That of the upper part of the No. 3 reactor's containment vessel stood at 128 C, which Kitazawa said is ''within the range of expectations.'' According to the plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co., external power reached the power-receiving facilities of the No. 2 and No. 5 units in the afternoon. The company now plans to restore systems such as those to monitor radiation and other data, light the control room and cool down the reactor and the reactor's spent-fuel storage pool. Along with the work on electricity, the Self-Defense Forces and firefighters continued the imminent task of cooling spent-fuel pools, feared to have possibly been boiling, by pouring thousands of tons of water into the No. 3 and No. 4 reactor buildings. The operation is possible because apparent hydrogen explosions blasted the roofs and walls of the buildings. The Ground Self-Defense Force shot water at the No. 4 unit's spent-fuel pool for the first time on Sunday, both in the morning and in the afternoon, with the amount of water totaling about 160 tons, according to the Defense Ministry. The ministry also plans to mobilize the GSDF's two Type 74 tanks to remove the rubble at the plant, which is hampering the water-spraying efforts. It is extremely rare to use such tanks in actual missions. A ministry official said that the decision was made because the vehicles are ''more airtight and have high protective capability against radiation,'' suggesting the tough conditions in which the SDF and firefighters are placed. The Tokyo Fire Department also shot water into a spent-fuel storage pool at the No. 3 unit for hours. Under the operation that started Thursday, more than 2,600 tons of water is believed to have been poured toward the No. 3 building, exceeding the pool's capacity of 1,400 tons. But it is unknown how much water is in the pool, which is important to cool the fuel and shield the radioactivity. Fuel rods used at the reactor were plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel, known as MOX, which could release highly toxic plutonium in the case of a meltdown. Normal fuel rods are made from uranium. Tension grew at one point over the situation of the No. 3 reactor, after the government's nuclear safety agency said that the pressure in its containment vessel was found to be rising and there is a need to take steps to address the issue. But Tokyo Electric later said it would not immediately take the measure, which could result in a release of radioactive steam outside, because the pressure has stabilized. Meanwhile, a total of 40 tons of seawater was pumped into the spent-fuel tank of the No. 2 unit, using a makeshift power source. The radiation level inside the plant is on a declining trend. At about 0.5 kilometer northwest from the No. 2 reactor, the level dropped to 2,623 microsievert per hour as of 7 p.m., compared to 3,443 microsievert per hour at 2 p.m. Saturday. The Nuclear Industrial and Safety Agency said it has confirmed the presence of radioactive iodine and cesium from the air inside the plant, extracted for the first time since the quake. The iodine-131 concentration was about 6 times higher than the regulated limit set for radiation-related workers. If a worker inhales such air, there may be a risk of internal exposure, according to the agency official. But the official said that workers are wearing protective clothing and that internal exposure has not been reported so far. The power plant which was hit hard by the magnitude 9.0 earthquake is on the Pacific coast of Fukushima Prefecture about 220 kilometers northeast of Tokyo. The No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 reactors, which were operating at the time of the quake, automatically halted but lost their key reactor cooling functions because the quake and the ensuing massive tsunami cut off electricity to the plant. Their reactor cores are believed to have partially melted and seawater has been pumped into them to prevent the fuel from being exposed. The remaining No. 4, No. 5, and No. 6 units were under maintenance at the time of the earthquake, but No. 4 is different in that all the fuel was not in the reactor core but was in the spent-fuel pool. The No. 4 unit's spent-fuel pool also lost its cooling function and fire broke out twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterymix Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Just stop. Now you are calling me an imbecile and for what? A typo? Seriously? The only immature person in this thread is one who acted like a 1st grader screaming for a moderator after someone else made an obvious typo and then had the nerve to go on a personal attack. Do us both a favor and avoid replying to my posts. Anyway....I'd like to get back on subject. Sorry, I'd like to apologize. There is too much extrapolation away from unbiased evidence in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovintheWhiteFluff Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Sorry, I'd like to apologize. There is too much extrapolation away from unbiased evidence in this thread. No problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mt.Zoniac Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 WhAT'S WRONG WITH THIS...?? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/world/asia/21japan.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&src=me "Mr. Fukuyama, the deputy chief cabinet secretary, stressed that although the readings were above levels deemed normal, they posed no immediate health risks. “At current levels, I would let my children eat the spinach and drink the water” from Fukushima, he said. His children did not drink much milk, he added. None of the produce found to be contaminated has been shipped to market, he said, while acknowledging that contaminated produce that had not been tested could have slipped through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Then you guys scuttle your butts over to Japan and trade our smog for their radiation if you think you're making a clever comparison. Have you ever been to Tokyo? If not, let me just say that their smog is just as bad as ours. It's just a matter of how you want to get your Cancer-through radiation or an environment poisoned in some other manner. Let's just say that 1000 sq km poisoned by radiation is far smaller than what we have managed to do to our home Planet. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherdude Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/21/japan.radiation.food.risk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ge0 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Have you ever been to Tokyo? If not, let me just say that their smog is just as bad as ours. It's just a matter of how you want to get your Cancer-through radiation or an environment poisoned in some other manner. Let's just say that 1000 sq km poisoned by radiation is far smaller than what we have managed to do to our home Planet. Steve So what are you trying to say? Losing 1000sq km to radiation is no big deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hailstorm Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 NEWS ADVISORY: 1 worker found to be exposed to radiation of 150 millisievert per hour 13:08 21 March Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovintheWhiteFluff Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Looks like black smoke coming out of one of the reactors. This was taken Sunday at 4:01pm Japan time. This image updates here: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tepco.co.jp%2Fnu%2Ff1-np%2Fcamera%2Findex-j.html&act=url Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovintheWhiteFluff Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Wind report for Japan. . http://www.weather-r...ku/japan_l.html Here is 4pm Monday. (Japan Time) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.