You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Having just watched the nuclear expert on France 3 I don't think I'll accuse the BBC of scaremongering this time. The helicopters are failing miserably to hit the target as the gamma radiation is too high to fly low enough without killing the pilots.
I thought of opening a Premières Cotes de Blaye to toast the suicide volunteers working at the Fukushima plant but settled for an Haut Médoc from vines with a fine view of the nuclear station. Tis delicious.
Unlike pundits, politicos and activists, they have the singular advantage of knowing what they talking about. But don't let that stop you discrediting them.
But of course the BBC isn't relying on "pundits, politicos, and activists" to provide information and analyses of the the situation in Fukushima.
Still, don't let that stop you from discrediting the BBC's coverage of the story.
A more Japanese perspective....(TV channel in English)
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/r/movie/tp:/
I have come to the conclusion that something very serious has happened at Fukushima, but that there is no need panic as possible casualties are likely to be minimal
That's pretty much exactly how I'd describe it. Does that make you a nuclear energy cheerleader, because I thought that's what you had me pinned down as?
So it's not doom at all then? I'm sure those people who are worried about friends/colleagues/loved ones in Japan will be mightily relieved.
I also know that a lot of your information on nuclear comes from organisations who for whatever reason tacitly seem to think that nuclear power is much worse than global warming.
You bleat on about the other side but you are just as happy to be hysterical and misrepresent those that oppose your point of view whilst getting upset when your percieve people [BBC for example]to being doing this about nuclear views.
Who tacitly claims nuclear is worse than global warming - i expect you to use your caveat of[b] seems to think[/b] as an escape route without accepting that your perception of their view may be wrong.
There have been enough stats banded about on the three threads on here by now to demonstrate that peoples' paranoid perceptions of nuclear power are just that - paranoid perceptions.
It is odd to call people paranoid when reactors are on fire and no one can go near them because they will die. I would call that a healthy fear.
You generally argue your case well but dont call the other lot for paranoid nuclear hyesteria then engange in your own version as to why they oppose it.
That's pretty much exactly how I'd describe it.
No it isn't. Whilst I describe it as a very serious accident, in fact have I mentioned that it's the second worst nuclear accident in history ? you call it, quote : [i]"the techies having a bit of trouble sorting out their nuclear reactor"[/i]
It's not [i]"the techies having a bit of trouble sorting out their nuclear reactor"[/i] it's far more serious than that - it's a reactor out of control. We are not describing it the same at all.
And btw, why have I come to the conclusion that untold amounts of people are not going to die ? Because the BBC and the rest of the media which I rely on isn't suggesting that scenario at all. Despite your claims.
What gets me is this - the best case from here is the entire plant is scrap - it will never produce any more electricity, it will be an expensive liability for decades with clean up and monitoring costs. A few people will die immediately and an increase in cancer rates will occur of unknown size.
And thats the best case.
I know what you mean Qurrel - i seem obsessed with watching it too.
I do wonder though if they will keep the visitors centre at Sellafield open now?
By the way friend of mine got thrown out of Sellafield -as part of his job he carried a radiation detector. When it started going off and explained to the tour leader - was promptly escorted off the premises. In fairness though he did get a written apology back.
Strangely enough he also came into contact with medium level radioactive waste that hadn't been disposed of correctly - as a result he was quarantined for two weeks - and to this day still has to go for an annual screen, and yes he does have helath problem too.
A few people will die immediately
The 50 workers at the plant have some nickname name The "something" 50.
I read part of a translated blog from one of them.
A few people will die immediately and an increase in cancer rates will occur of unknown size.
Yeah maybe I should qualify what I meant by "untold amounts of people are not going to die". I of course mean immediately, eg there won't be 10,000 dead people this time next week because of Fukushima. I have no idea what the long term consequences will be in terms of increased cancers. I know it won't be as bad as Chernobyl, but I don't know what cancer specialist are forecasting, and they won't either, until all is done and dusted. BTW I hear they are still cleaning up after the Windscale fire of 1957. IIRC the latest clean-up operation for the old Windscale site was to be 2008 - 2013.
I read an interesting article today that talked about how Japan has changed over the last 60 years and in the last 15 years particularly.
15 years ago they had the Kobe earthquake and many nations said they would help but the ruling Liberal Democrat Party declined and even when other countries sent in their rescue squads the Japanese authorities put the search dogs in quarantine and people died as a result.
The current Liberal party that is now in charge is actively seeking help because there is a lack of leadership within Japan. They have had 4 prime ministers in the last 4 years which shows that something is not quite right.
I have read some quite scary stories about Tokyo Electric and their lack of respect for their country's regulators when it comes to safety in their nuclear plants as well.
Let's see what happens in the short term and hope that it is good news.
Even given the headless chicken performance by some of the media, it amazes me that people use the casualty numbers from the tsunami to downplay the nuclear situation.
Even given the headless chicken performance by some of the media, it amazes me that people use the casualty numbers from the tsunami to downplay the nuclear situation.
Explain how this isn't just a part of the tsunami?
gamma radiation is too high to fly low enough without killing the pilots
They'll have to be in orbit around another planet: Gamma rays are very energetic.
Explain how this isn't just a part of the tsunami?
You have a broader definition of tsunami than me.
You have a broader definition of tsunami than me.
So you think refineries catching fire and power stations blowing up were just coincidence?
So you think refineries catching fire and power stations blowing up were just coincidence?
Nope... not the slightest. But I'm bored of the reverse-moralising from people who are posting very far from the exclusion zone.
Even given the headless chicken performance by some of the media, it amazes me that people use the casualty numbers from the tsunami to downplay the nuclear situation.
Why? 15,000 plus dead and the world's obsessed with an incident that has killed but a couple of people so far. I accept that rates of cancer *may* increase, but that's quite a big *may* based on scientific studies of previous incidents. It CANNOT become anything like chernobyl, which in itself seems to have had far less of an effect than you'd imagine, if you go off peer-reviewd research, as opposed to anti-pnuclear hearsay.
It is indeed very serious locally, but it's not a reasonable reason not to build more of them. Unless you're suggesting that the risks the world faces from climate change are lower than nuclear too?
Nope... not the slightest. But I'm bored of the reverse-moralising from people who are posting very far from the exclusion zone.
As opposed to getting fixated on one minor [in context] aspect of a huge disaster (far from the exclusion zone)?
As opposed to getting fixated
Oh, it's one thing in manifold horrors, granted - not least the plight of the elderly & infirm, who are now dying for want of basic meds, food and warmth.
But risk can never be entirely separated from the perception of risk, and there's a [i]big[/i] difference between arguing (in comfort) about the merits of nukes - and re-assuring an exhausted & frightened populace.
you call it, quote : "the techies having a bit of trouble sorting out their nuclear reactor"
Context my dear boy, context. Though I understand that's something you're not particularly keen on.
Journalism is about stories not numbers of casualties. And currency (time) is key. The earthquake and tsunami are disasters that have already happened.
But the irradiation of Japan is a disaster waiting to happen and, unlike the others, partially a folly of our own design. It's extra poignant because of what happened to Japan in WWII. Historically, it could also mark the beginning-of-the-end of mankind's use of Uranium-fission nuclear power technology.
I read an article suggesting the story resonates with the Garden of Eden mythos deep in our cultural psyche: the consequences of learning forbidden knowledge and wielding divine forces beyond our complete control. Sounds a bit hifalutin, but I thought it was interesting.
hifalutin
New word for me.
Engineers at Japan's stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant have successfully connected a power line to reactor 2, the UN's nuclear watchdog reports.Restoring power should enable engineers to restart the pumps which send coolant over the reactor.
Well that's good news. Restoring the cooling system should mean that the risks of further escalation of this situation is lessened. Oh and TJ, that's not the best cast scenario, that's actually close to the worst cast scenario (although the plant [i]is[/i] now effectively scrap). All you are doing is displaying your own anti nuclear prejudice. So far as I'm aware, this incident ranks as one of the worst nuclear disasters in history and so far it has claimed exactly no lives whatsoever and the incidents that have caused the biggest injuries were hydrogen explosions. Aren't you a proponent of hydrogen as a means of power storage? It doesn't look to safe does it?
it's a reactor out of control. We are not describing it the same at all
Oh and the reactors are [i]not[/i] out of control, they have all been successfully shut down. The current issue is in dealing with the residual heat and short lived radioactive isotopes. It's not like there is is some "out of control nuclear reactions" going on.
Why? 15,000 plus dead and the world's obsessed with an incident that has killed but a couple of people
i think it is because one an act of god /nature the other is the efect of ths act on a man made structure we choose to build that may or may not be safe. The current state makes you think they are safe others are less convinced.
Oh and the reactors are not out of control, they have all been successfully shut down
Oh thank god I thought something bad was happening there 🙄
It's not like there is is some "out of control nuclear reactions" going on.
i think it is safe to describe the current state of the reactor as being some way short of being under control.
the incidents that have caused the biggest injuries were hydrogen explosions.
that is rather economical with the truth. What caused the hydrogen build up was it the heat in the big nuclear reactor ? or do we get random exploding hydrogen pockets now?
i think it is because one an act of god /nature the othe is th eefect of ths act on a man made structure we choose to build that may or may not be safe.
Building houses close to the coast proved far more dangerous. 10s of thousands of times more dangerous.
What happens if you wear radioactive underpants?
Chernobyl fallout
you call it, quote : "the techies having a bit of trouble sorting out their nuclear reactor"[b]Context my dear boy, context. Though I understand that's something you're not particularly keen on.[/b]
I am very keen on "context". You said, quote : [i]"the techies having a bit of trouble sorting out their nuclear reactor"[/i] in the context of a situation where a nuclear reactor is out of control.
IMO a nuclear reactor out of control is not the same as the techies having a bit of trouble sorting out their nuclear reactor.
I describe it as you would a serious problem, you describe it as you would a minor problem. We do not describe the situation "pretty much exactly" the same - which is what you claimed.
Of course if you now regret trivialising the situation by describing it simply as "the techies having a bit of trouble sorting out their nuclear reactor" then fair enough. But until you've told me otherwise, I'll take that is your view on the matter.
I didn't say it was under control, I said there wasn't an uncontrolled nuclear reaction.
You know it really is this sort of binary thinking that pisses me off (this isn't just a dig at you Junkyard). Thing are not either safe or dangerous. Not everyone is either a rabidly pro or anti nuclear. Some of us actually have some understanding of the subtlety of risk and know that it is a sliding scale between two extremes despite what the media might be saying. I know that things aren't perfect and you know what I'd much rather that there wasn't a nuclear incident happening in Japan right now, but there is and the people there are doing pretty much everything they can to stop it getting worse, and despite with the media keep saying, they seem to be doing a pretty damn good job of it in exceptionally difficult circumstances. It's been a week now and as far as I'm aware there hasn't been a massive release of radiation and the general public have not been put at risk.
that is rather economical with the truth. What caused the hydrogen build up was it the heat in the big nuclear reactor ? or do we get random exploding hydrogen pockets now?
Given the context of people not wishing to blame the earthquake for this, I think it is in keeping with the general tone. In any case, yes the hydrogen was generated by the reactor, however it was contained within a building to try and prevent the release of some radiation. Had it simply been vented then the explosion wouldn't have occurred. This does however rather miss the point that I was trying to make which is that the very people on this thread who support the use of hydrogen as a method of storing energy are the very ones criticising nuclear as being unsafe, which seems odd given that hydrogen explosions have caused more injuries in this situation than the radiation!
Yes other things have killed more people than nuclear but that does not make nuclear safe per se. I may as well argue that a car is more dangerous than nuclear bombs as they have killed more people.
The only issue is whether this risk is ok. As a burning nuclear power station wont convince you it it is clear to me that nothing will.
as far as I'm aware
Do you have any access to other information outside of the usual news realms that we do?
IF you watch CHannel 4 news and see the timeline of admission of faults, there was something happening everyday that was being admitted to by the Japanese Nuclear lot escalating the panic everytime/
Oh and the reactors are not out of control
They are overheating and they cannot, at the moment, cool them down sufficiently. Instead of the reactors getting cooler, which is what they want them to do, the reactors are getting hotter. They are not in control of the situation. The reactors are "out of control".
I didn't say it was under control,
Oh and the reactors are not out of control,
You know it really is this sort of binary thinking that pisses me off (this isn't just a dig at you Junkyard). (
I much prefer your tertiary system of saying something , not saying something and denying saying something...this is a dig at just you 😉
the ones they moved away those ones.the general public have not been put at risk.
i think everyone here can do a risk assesmment. I can accept the risk of anything occuring is very [ so it wont happen very often]however the consequnces are very high hence I would prefer not to have them.
They are not in control of the situation. The reactors are "out of control".
Not being fully in control of a situation is not necessarily the same as thing being "out of control". Out of control in this context implies an out of control nuclear reaction which isn't happening. There is that binary thinking again.
is there any chance it could melt through the floor, and come out the other side .or is that just not possible.
gonefishin: binary thinking - a very well observed post. I agree with you 100%
Someone working there had the idea of using the fire suppression system to irrigate the hot reactors with seawater - not in the manual that. That worker deserves much of the credit for recovering the situation. Well done that Jap!
so I can both be not in control of my bike but not actually out of control either. i call this a contradiction in my binary syatem of true or false] what is this third way you speak off 😆
What have I denied saying? Perhaps I should probably have said "not fully under control" but then I thought that was clear enough for anyone not hard of thinking, see I can do digs too.
what is this third way you speak off
It's the realisation that the world is not black and white. To use your biking analogy, if you slide the back end of you bike round a corner {whisper]skid[/whisper] you are not fully in control of your bike. Bouncing down the hill end over end would be fully out of control, however there is a difference between the two.
i know you can as you started it with your not just aimed at you Junkyard comment.
You can also do them to lots of folk at once. However I can just do them to you as I am limited by my binary system of thinking 😳
[flounce] Suggesting I am a dullard is one thing saying I cannot control a skid is way out of order ...them's fighting words[/flounce]
😆
Not being fully in control of a situation is not necessarily the same as thing being "out of control". Out of control in this context implies an out of control nuclear reaction which isn't happening.
So if my car is skidding as long as I switch off the engine it won't be out of control ?
Out of control in this context implies that the situation in Fukushima is not under control.
Scraprider: it's called China Syndrome. It's a theoretical worst case. The primary reaction ~500 MegaWatts is suppressed because the damping rods were dropped when the quake happened. The fuel still generates heat from intermediate product "decay" ~12 MegaWatts. This must be actively cooled and takes more than a year to reduce sufficiently to remove the fuel rods. If this cooling fails as in this case, the heat builds up in the primary containment. Above 2000 degrees, the fuel rods melt. About 3000 degrees the fuel itself melts. It pours and collect at the bottom of the containment in a critical mass. Free of the damping rods, the primary reaction kicks off again, probably exceeding 2-3 GigaWatts. Pressure explodes the primary containment exposing fuel to atmosphere. Fires break out spreading the fuel particles around the world. It melts through the floor of the primary containment, into the Earth, passing though and polluting the water table. Continuing until either the fuel is spent or it hits mantle and a possible radioactive volcano spews.
It aint pretty.
I am very keen on "context". You said, quote : "the techies having a bit of trouble sorting out their nuclear reactor" in the context of a situation where a nuclear reactor is out of control
If you're so keen on context, maybe you'd...
actually I cba - either you're a lot thicker than I thought, or you're (as usual) selectively quoting and being pedantic to score points, and I'm bored. You win. Well done.
it's called China Syndrome. It's theoretical worst case
Actually it's a film.
Not a very good film either!
I read that these reactors have a catch and disperse tray to prevent China Syndrome. Who knows if that works, how do you test it!?
Chernobyl had diddly squat containment and a pretty unsafe reactor control system. After it went super-crit and blew of the reactor cover, it melted and started its way down. They were worried enough to drill under the molten core and freeze the ground with liquid nitrogen.
I read that these reactors have a catch and disperse tray to prevent China Syndrome. Who knows if that works, how do you test it!?
Errr.... I think that's what's happening.
It's not complicated though is it. Spreading molten stuff out isn't the most complicated problem they needed to overcome.
The only issue is whether this risk is ok.
This is a stupid argument.
We have to define the level of risk we're happy with for continued supply of energy. If the consensus is to stop driving and turn the lights off, then great, by all means scrap nuclear power. [u]BUT[/u] if the global consensus isn't to do that (and I suspect that this might just be the case), then we as a species whill have to continue taking some risks to generate that power. May I ask how you propose to do this without:
a) Potential for a few thousand deaths related to a nuclear incident?
b) Potential for millions of deaths and untold damage to countless fragile ecosystems due to continued burning of fossil fuels?
Context - something that as usual, you appear to be struggling with...
being pedantic
Me being pedantic ? 😀 It's the nuclear cheerleaders who are excelling at that. Some geezer on the previous page wants to argue the toss about the exact meaning of the term 'out of control' citing some bollox about control skids on mountain bikes or something.
BTW : [i]"either you're a lot thicker than I thought"[/i] well tell me, how thick did you think I was ? ....that might be a clue. But anyway, if you think I'm thick, why do you put so much effort arguing against me ? .......basing that on the assumption that you are very clever indeed.
cheers buzz now i understand.
"Spreading molten stuff out isn't the most complicated problem they needed to overcome."
Possibly. But containing a quarter-tonne super-critical mass of liquified metal at around 3000+ degrees, belching out 2-3 gigaWatts might tax a lump of concrete.
I think TMI was a partial melt that pooled in the bottom of the containment - not a critical mass. These might be similar. Here we go...
[img] 
[/img]
ernie - you don't have to be thick to be a lot thicker than I thought - quite the opposite in fact (though I don't know why I bother).
Well the reactors are still not under control, still leaking radiation, containment is admitted to have breached. There is now radioactivity in the local water supply as well as the sea and air
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12825342
Sensible article by the BBC:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12785274 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12785274[/url]
I had an x-ray on friday and a CT scan yesterday - sweet 🙂
So rio the fact we still don't know the extent of the radioactive release nor how much longer it is going to go on releasing radioactivity and that the situation is far from under control is OK then?
🙄
Well the reactors are still not under control, still leaking radiation, containment is admitted to have breached. There is now radioactivity in the local water supply as well as the sea and air
Good to see you've done some research before jumping on the paranoia bandwagon. As it says...
[b]"there is no suggestion that these levels of radiation pose any immediate threat to human health."[/b]
So rio the fact we still don't know the extent of the radioactive release nor how much longer it is going to go on releasing radioactivity and that the situation is far from under control is OK then?
From the governments chief advisor [url= http://ukinjapan.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=News&id=566811882 ]here[/url]
[b]So the other point here is that in fact you know I want to sort of give some reassurance that you know even if you had a completely paranoid view that somehow the radiation was being concealed, you can’t do it, it’s monitored throughout the world. We know we can actually monitor exactly what the radiation levels are around there externally so it’s just not happening.[/b]
As for the 'China Syndrome' that is what happened at Three Mile Island although the molton core didn't quite melt through to the centre of the earth, it managed a mere 16mm into the 5" thick concrete before solidifying!
"it managed a mere 16mm into the 5" thick concrete"
Not enough melted for it to reform into a critical mass. Same situation here. In China Syndrome, it goes critical again. It puts out whopping energy levels and there is nothing that can stop it.
The constant output of some low/med radiation is a concern. One assumes some part of a pressure vessel has a small crack from which steam is escaping. They need to locate and plug it. Nasty work.
I noticed in the recent TEPCO site incident reports that a quake last summer caused pond coolant to be displaced over the floor, and drip into a sump which ultimately lead to a small radioactive discharge into sea. This "leak" roughly corresponds with since they been spraying the ponds to refill them. So I wonder if displaced pond water is again the reason for a discharge to the sea.
Same situation here
Does anybody actually know for sure that the fuel rods have actually melted in this way or could it just be that they have overheated and damaged their casings?
The constant output of some low/med radiation is a concern. One assumes some part of a pressure vessel has a small crack from which steam is escaping. They need to locate and plug it. Nasty work.
I believe that this has been decreasing for the last couple of days now that they have been able to power up a lot of the onsite cooling pumps. They also suggested that the breach was in the torus at the base of the reactor which should be a lot easier to fix than if it is part of the main pressure vessel. I guess, until they can get in there they won't know for sure.
Buzz and mjb obviously aren't watching the same news channels as me because both report high levels of radiation in the air, a breached containment vessel for reactor 2 and continued releases of radioactive today from reactor 3 resulting in another evacuation of workers. Whilst the Japanesse PM reported contamination in a wide area. The good news was limited to the lights working again in the control room.
I find it fascinating how the pro nuclear folk deny that this is serious - potentially very serious.
No one actually knows how bad the damage is but it is clear that the situation is not under control in any meaningful way. We might get away without major release of radioactivity but we might not. There were far more fuel rods on site than there should have been, there is no proper cooling of the fuel rods and cores, containment has been breached. The cores are in an unknown state
I find it fascinating how the pro nuclear folk deny that this is serious
I'm not sure who the "pro nuclear folk" are - maybe linking to an article that's not all "doom and gloom we're all going to die" makes me one. I haven't seen anyone deny that it's serious, but to quote the BBC article -
[i]"Even under this worst case, though, the direct health consequences of the nuclear accident would be very small compared with the thousands already killed by the earthquake and tsunami, let alone the continued suffering of the survivors"[/i]
The Japanese first commenter on the BBC article puts it well:
...the media craze about the Fukushima plant in the US and European countries has nothing but amazed me. People thousands of miles away are more hysteric than we here in Japan. It is hard to remain objective in the middle of the disaster and I am very grateful for this so far one and only voice that I have found in the media that is calm and tries to put things into perspective
Personally I've always thought that it's a really bad idea to build nuclear reactors in areas prone to earthquakes such as Diablo Canyon and these Japanese ones. However, it appears from this incident that I may have been wrong; if minimising loss of life is your main criterion then preventing people from living in an earthquake zone should be your priority and the nuclear plant is almost an irrelevance.
Edit: I see that none of this is important any more, Elizabeth Taylor's death has pushed it off the BBC front page.
Depends what you think "control" means. There appears to be a modicum of control over the reactor temperatures, and the outcome looks somewhat better than it did, but still very uncertain. So I agree - not in control at this time.
high levels of radiation in the air
What is "high"? Enough to make the staff leave the site for a period to avoid breaking their dose limits. But without them on site, the situation is even less controlled. A nasty situation for the staff.
Whether it constitutes a health hazard beyond the site is unclear. There are already precautionary measures to avoid consumption of food from in the area; good. But I also read that there elevated levels in Tokyo's tap water - "twice the recommended safe level". If true or false, that could cause panic amongst a large population.
Whether it constitutes a health hazard beyond the site is unclear. There are already precautionary measures to avoid consumption of food from in the area; good. But I also read that there elevated levels in Tokyo's tap water - "twice the recommended safe level". If true or false, that could cause panic amongst a large population.
Lower than in cornwall I'd imagine.
The good news was limited to the lights working again in the control room.
The bad news was they were all flashing red.
Any way what ever the long term outcome is there is a skeleton staff of about 150 in there dealing with trying to mitigate a potential disaster. Hats off to them.
You might find radon gas dissolved in cornish water but a I doubt there's much thyroid cancer causing [url= http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/world/asia/24japan.html ]radioactive iodine[/url]
That was the first Google result so you don't have to look far when you know what to look for.
Quite likely this has been posted already (it was on another thread a few days ago) but if not, this chart translates the levels of radiation being quoted into laymans terms.
Program just started on Radio 4 about what's the future in the UK of nuclear for those interested.
Buzz and mjb obviously aren't watching the same news channels as me because both report high levels of radiation in the air, a breached containment vessel for reactor 2 and continued releases of radioactive today from reactor 3 resulting in another evacuation of workers.
I am, i just choose to read further than the attention grabbing headlines. Did you see the expert calmly explaining to the BBC reporter deparately trying to get a story that the high radiation levels reported (400mSv/hour) were a short term spike recorded by a sensor on top of the reactor building and that by moving to the next building they dropped markedly, by the time you reached the plant perimeter it had dropped to the equivalent of 3 years background dose (8.5mSv/hour) and by the time you got to the edge of the evacuated zone it was negligible.
I find it fascinating how the pro nuclear folk deny that this is serious - potentially very serious.
Where did i say it wasn't serious? Of course it's serious, it just hasn't turned into the appoclyptical event that the media wanted it to.
it is clear that the situation is not under control in any meaningful way.
The fact that 3 of the reactors are now back on mains power, have their sensors and cooling pumps back on line and have reached a state of cold shutdown suggests that at least some of this situation is under control does it not?
You might find radon gas dissolved in cornish water but a I doubt there's much thyroid cancer causing radioactive iodine
Of course you realise that it is very easy to prevent radiation poisoning from iodine 131 by simply taking iodide tablets (which the the Japanese government have given out to everyone in the area). You must also know that it has a half life of only 8 days so there are no real long term issues with it .
(which the the Japanese government have given out to everyone in the area)
Which the Japanese government admitted they didn't give out to the surrounding are quickly enough (3 days delay I think) as well.
no real long term issues with it .
Unless of course you have managed to consume some in the those 8 days or the output from the plant has been continous for the last 10 days or so which could potentially mean 3 weeks of radioactive iodine in populous.
Which the Japanese government admitted they didn't give out to the surrounding are quickly enough (3 days delay I think) as well.
My understanding (and i may be wrong here) is that they have only handed them out to save time in the future should things get worse. The radiation levels outside of the cleared zones have never been high enough to require the pills to be taken. Interestingly several countries around the world are now havng to make announcements to tell people to stop taking anything they can find with iodine in it (wound cleaner, salt etc.) as they panic over the news reports!
Unless of course you have managed to consume some in the those 8 days or the output from the plant has been continous for the last 10 days or so which could potentially mean 3 weeks of radioactive iodine in populous.
This highlights the point i'm trying to make, you haven't looked at this any deeper than the sensationalist headlines. If you had have done you would know that the output from the plant hasn't been continous and levels of radiation received by the public outside of the exclusion zone so far seems to have been neligible.
This highlights the point i'm trying to make, you haven't looked at this any deeper than the sensationalist headlines. If you had have done you would know that the output from the plant hasn't been continous and levels of radiation received by the public outside of the exclusion zone so far seems to have been neligible.
Again, you have what the nuclear authorities want you to read.
I'm pronuclear, but I'm suspect of any government when it comes to something that has this potential a scale to cause widespread contamination.
Who says that Liz Taylor wasn't killed off by the Japanese government to take their story of page 1.
Again, you have what the nuclear authorities want you to read.
I think i'd probably trust the Journal [i]Science[/i] to give a balanced overview:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6024/1502.full?rss=1
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6024/1504.full?rss=1
Oh dear, #3 has done what the STW pro-nuclear brigade said it couldn't.
Edukate me - what exactly has it done (which the BBC doesn't appear to be reporting)?
Oh dear, #3 has done what the STW pro-nuclear brigade said it couldn't.
What? Kill thousands of people?
It looks like some workers have received radiation burns from water in the vicinity of the containment. Surely this radiation would be reported by their portable Geiger counters before they entered? I hope they are going to be OK. They need to find where the pressure vessel is leaking and stop it pronto or it will be increasingly difficult to work the problem.
Did you also read an account from one of the original designers who, at the time, complained that the design of the pressure vessel was too small? Not widely reported.
I have already read a TEPCO report that a previous earthquake revealed a route by which water displaced from cooling pools could escape to the sea. It would not surprise me if another route exists given the chaos surrounding re-filling the pools by hosing and helicopters (pretty desperate measure). I would also like to know where all the seawater they put into the reactor ends up.
And I read another report that neutron bursts had been detected near the site which, given that pressure vessels are structurally intact, suggests that cooling fuel rods in the cooling pools may have starting reacting when the water evaporated away! Surely storing spent fuel in a way that could start a chain reaction is dangerously against the rules? Pure speculation mind you.
The truth will out eventually and it will be vital lessons learned for the uranium reactor industry.
Sites evacuated again today due to 1000 times the level.