In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
hugh wrote:
In message , Mark
writes
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:19:05 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Mar 17, 5:18 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 17/03/2011 16:59, harry wrote:
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami...United_Kingdom

You still haven't answered my question from the last time you posted
that. So what?

Colin Bignell

There was a tsunami in the Severn estuary near where I live in 1607.

Wow! You lived near the Severn estuary in 1607. You must be old.

Read more carefully
"Live" not "lived"

So you are firmly stuck in the Renaissance?

Or just illiterate enough not to recognise what a lack of a comma, means?
Lack of commas don't mean anything - which is why lawyers never use
them.
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

Gordon Freeman wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

When they are shut down the residual heat from the fission
products continues to be liberated and has to be dispersed for years
afterwards.
Which is usually achieved by dumping them in large ponds of water.
Again, they do not necessarily require power.


Fine until the water boils away as happened at fukushima. In fact the main
radiation problem there seems to have been from the spent fuel pools.


Well, it didn't boil away. That' the odd thing. I THINK it just sloshed
out ..

On 23/03/2011 00:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Gordon Freeman wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

When they are shut down the residual heat from the fission
products continues to be liberated and has to be dispersed for years
afterwards.
Which is usually achieved by dumping them in large ponds of water.
Again, they do not necessarily require power.


Fine until the water boils away as happened at fukushima. In fact the
main radiation problem there seems to have been from the spent fuel
pools.


Well, it didn't boil away. That' the odd thing. I THINK it just sloshed
out ..

We will probably have to wait until the full report to find out,
although the failure of the pumps that circulate the water through a
heat exchanger will have increased the rate of evaporation. This
document gives more detailed information on the spent fuel ponds.

http://resources.nei.org/documents/j..._Key_Facts.pdf

BTW, the latest estimate is that the tsunami was around 14m high,
compared to the 5.7m it was designed to resist. Apparently, some of the
backup equipment it knocked out was 13m above sea level, while the
lowest was 10m asl.

Colin Bignell

On Mar 24, 7:24*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 23/03/2011 00:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:







Gordon Freeman wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

When they are shut down the residual heat from the fission
products continues to be liberated and has to be dispersed for years
afterwards.
Which is usually achieved by dumping them in large ponds of water.
Again, they do not necessarily require power.

Fine until the water boils away as happened at fukushima. In fact the
main radiation problem there seems to have been from the spent fuel
pools.

Well, it didn't boil away. That' the odd thing. I THINK it just sloshed
out ..

We will probably have to wait until the full report to find out,
although the failure of the pumps that circulate the water through a
heat exchanger will have increased the rate of evaporation. This
document gives more detailed information on the spent fuel ponds.

http://resources.nei.org/documents/j..._Key_Facts.pdf


Sssh don't post that one, NEI's clearly trying to let that one die in
the long grass.

Funny how it hasn't been updated since 15/03 isn't it.

On 21/03/2011 18:33, hugh wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
hugh wrote:
In message , Mark
writes
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:19:05 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Mar 17, 5:18 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 17/03/2011 16:59, harry wrote:
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami...United_Kingdom

You still haven't answered my question from the last time you posted
that. So what?

Colin Bignell

There was a tsunami in the Severn estuary near where I live in 1607.

Wow! You lived near the Severn estuary in 1607. You must be old.

Read more carefully
"Live" not "lived"

So you are firmly stuck in the Renaissance?

Or just illiterate enough not to recognise what a lack of a comma, means?
Lack of commas don't mean anything - which is why lawyers never use them.

Lawyers don't use them because that means they can spend time arguing
the meaning of their documents and so make even more money!

SteveW

In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" writes
On 23/03/2011 00:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Gordon Freeman wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

When they are shut down the residual heat from the fission
products continues to be liberated and has to be dispersed for years
afterwards.
Which is usually achieved by dumping them in large ponds of water.
Again, they do not necessarily require power.


Fine until the water boils away as happened at fukushima. In fact the
main radiation problem there seems to have been from the spent fuel
pools.


Well, it didn't boil away. That' the odd thing. I THINK it just sloshed
out ..

We will probably have to wait until the full report to find out,
although the failure of the pumps that circulate the water through a
heat exchanger will have increased the rate of evaporation. This
document gives more detailed information on the spent fuel ponds.

http://resources.nei.org/documents/j..._Key_Facts.pdf

BTW, the latest estimate is that the tsunami was around 14m high,
compared to the 5.7m it was designed to resist. Apparently, some of the
backup equipment it knocked out was 13m above sea level, while the
lowest was 10m asl.

Colin Bignell

Interesting technical program on this last night. Apparently one of the
problems was that the coast line actually dropped 1 metre before the
wave hit so effectively the defences were 1 metre less.
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

In message , hugh
] wrote

Interesting technical program on this last night. Apparently one of the
problems was that the coast line actually dropped 1 metre before the
wave hit so effectively the defences were 1 metre less.

The nuclear safety experts didn't realise that if you place an
obstruction in the way (such as a nuclear power station) the water will
reach a much higher.

Everything the "industry" said about the world wide safety of nuclear
installations is now starting to look like a pack of lies.

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Alan wrote:
In message , hugh
] wrote

Interesting technical program on this last night. Apparently one of
the problems was that the coast line actually dropped 1 metre before
the wave hit so effectively the defences were 1 metre less.

The nuclear safety experts didn't realise that if you place an
obstruction in the way (such as a nuclear power station) the water will
reach a much higher.

Is that why the waves break over Mt Everest?

Everything the "industry" said about the world wide safety of nuclear
installations is now starting to look like a pack of lies.


Well you are in good company then.

Huge wrote:

On 2011-03-25, Alan wrote:

Everything the "industry" said about the world wide safety of nuclear
installations is now starting to look like a pack of lies.

Number of people killed by tsunami; 10,000+
Number of people killed by Fukushima reactor; 0



Number of people killed by a Nuclear power station going tits up in a big
way is as you say almost irrelevant compared with, say the number of people
killed on the roads every year
But.
There is still a 20+mile exclusion zone around Chernobyl so if the same
thing was to happen at Dungeness an area from Brighton to Folkstone and
reaching as far as SE London if the wind was in the wrong direction would be
made uninhabitable, can you imagine the consequences of that on UK plc.
worth the risk, cant happen here, ?
That's what they thought in Fukushima, two weeks now and it's still a long
way from being safe, it could still go badly tits up.

But having said all that i cant see any alternative to Nuclear power for
elec generation in the foreseeable future.

-

Mark wrote:
Huge wrote:

On 2011-03-25, Alan wrote:

Everything the "industry" said about the world wide safety of nuclear
installations is now starting to look like a pack of lies.
Number of people killed by tsunami; 10,000+
Number of people killed by Fukushima reactor; 0



Number of people killed by a Nuclear power station going tits up in a big
way is as you say almost irrelevant compared with, say the number of people
killed on the roads every year
But.
There is still a 20+mile exclusion zone around Chernobyl so if the same
thing was to happen at Dungeness an area from Brighton to Folkstone and
reaching as far as SE London if the wind was in the wrong direction would be
made uninhabitable,


Er No.

First of all, a patch of Suffolk and North Essex only.
Secondly TEMPORARILY evacuated in case. Not made uninhabitable.

A chernobyl event in the UK is a million times less likely than a
terrorist bomb killing thousands in London...In fact its almost
impossible to imagine how a PWR could go up in that way short of
deliberate sabotage, and even then it would be virtually impossible.

FAR easier to build a dirtyy bob if you could get access to teh
materials, but even that is amost ipossible

can you imagine the consequences of that on UK plc.

Don't be silly, besides the effect of NOT having nuclear on UK PLC is
basically poverty for everyone.

Seems a risk well worth taking


worth the risk, cant happen here, ?

Bsically, No.

That's what they thought in Fukushima, two weeks now and it's still a long
way from being safe, it could still go badly tits up.


No. it couldn't. And it hasn't happened in Fukushima either.
Some shut down rods overheated and a bit of material escaped. That's
all. Short half-life stuff. will be goine in 6 weeks at most.


But having said all that i cant see any alternative to Nuclear power for
elec generation in the foreseeable future.

Well thats a start. Now educate yourself about radioactivity and
reactors, so you don't get any more nightmares.


-

In message , Huge
wrote
On 2011-03-25, Alan wrote:

Everything the "industry" said about the world wide safety of nuclear
installations is now starting to look like a pack of lies.

Number of people killed by tsunami; 10,000+
Number of people killed by Fukushima reactor; 0



Therefore no need for an exclusion zone of 20km/30km?
No need for warnings about not eating local farm products?
No need for warnings about not drinking the water?

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Mar 26, 1:18*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

No. it couldn't. And it hasn't happened in Fukushima either.
Some shut down *rods overheated and a bit of material escaped. That's
all. Short half-life stuff. will be goine in 6 weeks at most.

The Caesium 137 is going to be around for a while.

On 26/03/2011 09:00, Alan wrote:
In message , Huge
wrote
On 2011-03-25, Alan wrote:

Everything the "industry" said about the world wide safety of nuclear
installations is now starting to look like a pack of lies.

Number of people killed by tsunami; 10,000+
Number of people killed by Fukushima reactor; 0



Therefore no need for an exclusion zone of 20km/30km?

Probably not. The radiation levels at the boundary of the plant have
never been hazardous to life but the nuclear industry is obsessive about
safety and, in imposing the zone when the outcome was unclear, they were
taking precautions for the worst case. As time progresses it is becoming
clear that a plant designed to survive a Richter 8 earthquake came
through a Richter 9 - ten times as powerful - virtually unscathed.
Without a tsunami that overwhelmed backup systems 13m above sea level,
it wouldn't even be a news item.

No need for warnings about not eating local farm products?
No need for warnings about not drinking the water?

Temporary measures, similar to those imposed at Three Mile Island,
needed only because of a planned release of short half-life radioactive
materials.

Colin Bignell

On 25/03/2011 18:18, Alan wrote:
In message , hugh
] wrote

Interesting technical program on this last night. Apparently one of
the problems was that the coast line actually dropped 1 metre before
the wave hit so effectively the defences were 1 metre less.

The nuclear safety experts didn't realise that if you place an
obstruction in the way (such as a nuclear power station) the water will
reach a much higher.

Rubbish. Japan has the best tsunami experts in the world and they know
exactly how they react. Nobody can be held responsible for not planning
for an earthquake that moved the entire country several feet and shifted
the earth on its axis.


Everything the "industry" said about the world wide safety of nuclear
installations is now starting to look like a pack of lies.

If anything, this event demonstrates just how much safer nuclear plants
are than anyone claimed.

Colin Bignell

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 03:35:36 -0700 (PDT), Bolted wrote:

No. it couldn't. And it hasn't happened in Fukushima either. Some
shut
down *rods overheated and a bit of material escaped. That's all.
Short
half-life stuff. will be goine in 6 weeks at most.

The Caesium 137 is going to be around for a while.

Half life of 30 odd years. note that is half life, so 50% of it will
still be about in 30 odd years...

Bad reporting in the BBC web site story about the levels of
iodine-131 in the sea. It said it would all be gone in 8 days, iodine
131 has a half life of about that, so only half of it will be gone.

The other thing to note is that even the "high levels" being measured
around Fukushima are many orders of magnitude smaller than those
measured around Chenobyl. I do wish they would report real figures
rather than "above normal" or "high". If only to bring things into
perspective, say normal levels are 1uSv and the exposure limit 100mSv
that is a 1:100,000 ratio.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:

I do wish they would report real figures
rather than "above normal" or "high". If only to bring things into
perspective, say normal levels are 1uSv and the exposure limit 100mSv
that is a 1:100,000 ratio.

I wish people would stop using Sieverts as though they measured
radiation levels. They don't. They measure cumulative exposure.

Radiation levels should be measured in terms of Sieverts per unit
of time. Unfortunately most journalists (and most of the general
public) don't know this, and when the news reports omit the unit
of time in question, then we lose any useful information.

The microsieverts tend to be per hour, don't they? Or is it per
day? And isn't the 100 millisieverts a human lifetime limit?


People get similarly confused with kilowatts and kilowatt-hours,
and amps and amp-hours, and think they look clever when they
use nonsense terms like amps per hour.

On 26/03/2011 00:20, Mark wrote:
....
There is still a 20+mile exclusion zone around Chernobyl so if the same
thing was to happen at Dungeness an area from Brighton to Folkstone and
reaching as far as SE London if the wind was in the wrong direction would be
made uninhabitable, can you imagine the consequences of that on UK plc.
worth the risk, cant happen here, ?

If you understood what happened at Chernobyl and why, you would know that
not only can that not happen here, it cannot happen anywhere ever again.
It was a deeply flawed design and the rmeining reactors of the same type
have been modified as a result of the accident.

That's what they thought in Fukushima, two weeks now and it's still a long
way from being safe,

It is getting safer every hour, as the fuel rods cool

it could still go badly tits up.

Short of another major catastrophe adding to their problems, no it can't.
However, telling people that wouldn't make a very good news story.

If you want to know what an expert thinks about the events, try this article

http://theenergycollective.com/barry...other_posts_by

BTW this article includes an answer to why they could not jury rig the
generators damaged by the tsunami - the fuel tanks were washed out
to sea.

Colin Bignell

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 11:43:37 +0000, "Nightjar wrote:

If anything, this event demonstrates just how much safer nuclear plants
are than anyone claimed.

I wonder what would have happened to a coal fired station going full
chat that was hit by such and earth quake and tsunami? All that
water into hot furnaces boilers and high pressure steam boilers...

--
Cheers
Dave.

In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" wrote

Rubbish. Japan has the best tsunami experts in the world and they know
exactly how they react.

And that is why a wave of 10m managed to get cars on roofs twice as
high.

Nobody can be held responsible for not planning for an earthquake that
moved the entire country several feet and shifted the earth on its axis.

And this hasn't happened before?

Those responsible for the safety of nuclear installations should have
considered this in a region noted for having major earthquakes on a
regular basis.

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice wrote
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 11:43:37 +0000, "Nightjar wrote:

If anything, this event demonstrates just how much safer nuclear plants
are than anyone claimed.

I wonder what would have happened to a coal fired station going full
chat that was hit by such and earth quake and tsunami? All that
water into hot furnaces boilers and high pressure steam boilers...



The release of radiation would kill half the population.
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 11:55:26 +0000, Ronald Raygun wrote:

Radiation levels should be measured in terms of Sieverts per unit
of time. Unfortunately most journalists (and most of the general
public) don't know this, and when the news reports omit the unit
of time in question, then we lose any useful information.

Very true and I apologise for omitting the time element.

The microsieverts tend to be per hour, don't they? Or is it per
day? And isn't the 100 millisieverts a human lifetime limit?

Not as I understand it from the times that the reports get it right
with a unit of time. I think natural background is around a few
uSv/year, exposure limits are around a few hundred mSv/hr.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 26/03/2011 00:20, Mark wrote:

There is still a 20+mile exclusion zone around Chernobyl so if the same
thing was to happen at Dungeness an area from Brighton to Folkstone and
reaching as far as SE London if the wind was in the wrong direction would be
made uninhabitable, can you imagine the consequences of that on UK plc.
worth the risk, cant happen here, ?

20km gives you Folkestone, half of Ashford, but not Hastings.

Brighton and London are 50 miles (80km) away. (nearest edge).

What's your source for 20 miles? And what map are you using?

Andy

On 26/03/2011 12:25, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 11:43:37 +0000, "Nightjar wrote:

If anything, this event demonstrates just how much safer nuclear plants
are than anyone claimed.

I wonder what would have happened to a coal fired station going full
chat that was hit by such and earth quake and tsunami? All that
water into hot furnaces boilers and high pressure steam boilers...


There's not enough damage to notice, compared with the rest of the
Tsunami. It's cost a lot of money, but done no real harm. There was
one in Sendai. I say was...

Now Fukushima Daichi, on the other hand: It's worried a lot of people,
but really there's not enough damage to notice, compared with the rest
of the Tsunami. It's cost a lot of money, but done no real harm.

Andy

On 26/03/2011 12:48, Alan wrote:
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" wrote

Rubbish. Japan has the best tsunami experts in the world and they know
exactly how they react.

And that is why a wave of 10m managed to get cars on roofs twice as high.

The estimate of wave size has been revised to at least 14m, possibly more.

Nobody can be held responsible for not planning for an earthquake that
moved the entire country several feet and shifted the earth on its axis.

And this hasn't happened before?

Not often enough to be considered a significant risk. This was the fifth
largest earthquake ever recorded anywhere in the world.

Those responsible for the safety of nuclear installations should have
considered this in a region noted for having major earthquakes on a
regular basis.

Given how well the structure withstood an earthquake 10 times as
powerful as any expected, I would say they did.

Colin Bignell

On 26/03/2011 13:47, Bolted wrote:
On Mar 26, 1:10 pm, wrote:

Of course, people will die as a result of worrying about it, or of accidents
when fleeing from exposures lower than eating a banana a day.

I agree with some of the sentiment, but the exposures in some places
around Fukashima are a lot higher than eating a banana. Correcting
the hyperbole is one thing. Making up false analagies because it
suits your agenda is another.


The Banana Equivalent Dose is a recognised unit, created to allow people
to compare radiation risks to an everyday activity. While some areas
neaar the plant have definitely had a lot more than 1 BED, the hysteria
covers a much wider area. A lot of Australians were alarmed at a report
that a barrel of nuclear waste had fallen in the earthquake and released
90,000 becquerels of radiation into the Sea of Japan. That is twice the
amount of natural radiation in the human body. So, it may well be that
some people have fled areas with no more than one BED increased risk.

Colin Bignell

On Mar 26, 4:45*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 26/03/2011 13:47, Bolted wrote:

On Mar 26, 1:10 pm, *wrote:

Of course, people will die as a result of worrying about it, or of accidents
when fleeing from exposures lower than eating a banana a day.

I agree with some of the sentiment, but the exposures in some places
around Fukashima are a lot higher than eating a banana. *Correcting
the hyperbole is one thing. *Making up false analagies because it
suits your agenda is another.

The Banana Equivalent Dose is a recognised unit, created to allow people
to compare radiation risks to an everyday activity.

The analogy I was criticising was the fleeing of 1 BED, not the BED
itself

some areas neaar the plant have definitely had a lot more than 1 BED

You bet, here's the latest data from around the outside of the
perimeter of the exclusion zone
http://eq.wide.ad.jp/files_en/110326...a3_1000_en.pdf

That's up to 1450 bananas a day, which is a little different.

the hysteria covers a much wider area.... so, it may well be that
some people have fled areas with no more than one BED increased risk.

That's a bit weaselly. (I'm a lawyer, I should know).

Ronald Raygun wrote:

I wish people would stop using Sieverts as though they measured
radiation levels. They don't. They measure cumulative exposure.

I don't know if this has been posted here ...

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

On Mar 26, 4:13*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

Given how well the structure withstood an earthquake 10 times as
powerful as any expected, I would say they did.

The design parameter (as I understand it) relates to an earthquake
pretty much right under/next to the plant. This was a 9 at its
epicentre 150km away and 25km down, not at Fukashima itself.

I've not seen anything authoritative on what it was equivalent to, but
have seen several people saying in seismologist-a-like language that a
plant designed to withstand a 7.9 should easily have survived this.

But it was the tsunami that did it anyway.

On 26/03/2011 17:15, Bolted wrote:
On Mar 26, 4:45 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:

The Banana Equivalent Dose is a recognised unit, created to allow people
to compare radiation risks to an everyday activity.

The analogy I was criticising was the fleeing of 1 BED, not the BED
itself

some areas neaar the plant have definitely had a lot more than 1 BED

You bet, here's the latest data from around the outside of the
perimeter of the exclusion zone
http://eq.wide.ad.jp/files_en/110326...a3_1000_en.pdf

That's up to 1450 bananas a day, which is a little different.

the hysteria covers a much wider area.... so, it may well be that
some people have fled areas with no more than one BED increased risk.

That's a bit weaselly. (I'm a lawyer, I should know).

This is so far off topic for a d-i-y forum... however as we all seem to
be interested, this is worth a read.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

"a responsible danger level based on current science would be 100 mSv
per month" - which BTW is higher than any of the readings on your chart...

Andy

--
I just found out BTW dai-ichi is number 1; dai-ni, just down the coast
is the number 2 plant. All Judoka will now be laughing at me

On 26/03/11 09:51, Huge wrote:
On 2011-03-26, wrote:
Huge wrote:

On 2011-03-25, wrote:

Everything the "industry" said about the world wide safety of nuclear
installations is now starting to look like a pack of lies.

Number of people killed by tsunami; 10,000+
Number of people killed by Fukushima reactor; 0



Number of people killed by a Nuclear power station going tits up in a big
way is as you say almost irrelevant compared with, say the number of people
killed on the roads every year
But.
There is still a 20+mile exclusion zone around Chernobyl so if the same
thing was to happen at Dungeness

And if an asteroid fell on London ...

Almost totally unavoidable, many things which we have no control over
could make the whole planet uninhabitable.
We are very unlikely to suffer a similar accident as in Japan,
But we are a prime terrorist target, no need to try and make a dirty
bomb just crash a fully fueled 747 into Dungeness B while its online.
Will this happen, probably not, but i cant subscribe to the totally safe
cant happen here view, it's always the unexpected that gets you.


Stop worrying about things that might happen.

Actually that is the attitude of some parts of the nuclear industry that
does worry me.
and just for the record i will say again nuclear is the only option if
we still want to have electricity by the end of the decade.

-

Bolted wrote:
On Mar 26, 1:18 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

No. it couldn't. And it hasn't happened in Fukushima either.
Some shut down rods overheated and a bit of material escaped. That's
all. Short half-life stuff. will be goine in 6 weeks at most.

The Caesium 137 is going to be around for a while.

yes, but mostly it will wash out to sea.

it wasn't very much.

Alan wrote:
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" wrote

Rubbish. Japan has the best tsunami experts in the world and they know
exactly how they react.

And that is why a wave of 10m managed to get cars on roofs twice as high.

Nobody can be held responsible for not planning for an earthquake that
moved the entire country several feet and shifted the earth on its axis.

And this hasn't happened before?

Those responsible for the safety of nuclear installations should have
considered this in a region noted for having major earthquakes on a
regular basis.

They did. dear.

In article , Huge wrote:
On 2011-03-26, Nightjar "cpb"@ "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 26/03/2011 13:47, Bolted wrote:
On Mar 26, 1:10 pm, wrote:

Of course, people will die as a result of worrying about it, or of accidents
when fleeing from exposures lower than eating a banana a day.

I agree with some of the sentiment, but the exposures in some places
around Fukashima are a lot higher than eating a banana.

~3.5uSv. That's about 35 bananas.

Correcting
the hyperbole is one thing. Making up false analagies because it
suits your agenda is another.

I don't have an agenda, other than correcting all the ****wits who
think the sky is falling.

It seems that unit 3's reactor and unit 4's fuel pond have been emitting
smoke of various colours most days since the explosions and given
what we know of their publicly confessed state, my uninformed guess is
this is probably contaminated smoke from what London Underground might
refer to as a "smouldering". The detection outside the site of Cs and I
contamination suggests AIUI they are probably airborne secondary products
from overheated and breached fuel rods.

Also given that Unit 2's primary containment is suspected to be breached
(confirmed by the fact it is now known to be at atmospheric pressure),
that's probably already leaked a few radionucleides too (I hope nobody
goes into that building in leaky wellies).

And there'll be more emissions to come I'm sure as they have to keep
releasing water to pump new in, until the remaining couple of damaged
units have active cooling restored.

So it's important to be realistic that there is more bad news to come.
But no, the sky is not falling in and, though there've been dodgy moments,
it probably never was going to.

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

On Mar 26, 9:09*pm, Huge wrote:

I agree with some of the sentiment, but the exposures in some places
around Fukashima are a lot higher than eating a banana. *

~3.5uSv. That's about 35 bananas.

The highest reading on the (official Jap gov thing) thing I posted was
2829ìSv over a two day period.

It's an outlier, but there are several over 1300ìSv.

Not that seems like a problem, all I'm saying is that you ought to
adjust your analogy to X mammograms per week or something rather than
one banana.

I don't have an agenda, other than correcting all the ****wits who
think the sky is falling.

I have no problem with that, but you appear to correcting them by
denying there is a sky at all.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 19:24:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And isn't the 100 millisieverts a human lifetime limit?

No,. its a recommended maximum yearly safe dose or people who are
exposed at work..

One sievert is where people start to die.

In what timescales for both exposure and death?

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mar 26, 10:36*pm, Bolted wrote:

denying there is a sky at all.

Analysis of water in the reactor:

http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20110327...10327001-4.pdf

Why is I-134 still there (and in those quantities) if everything is
hunky-dory and nicely on the way to cold-shutdown?

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 19:24:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And isn't the 100 millisieverts a human lifetime limit?
No,. its a recommended maximum yearly safe dose or people who are
exposed at work..

One sievert is where people start to die.

In what timescales for both exposure and death?

Very short. Exposure within say a few hours, death within a few days.

There is as you may conclude, almost no real data on prolonged exposure
to medium level radiation..because who would ever put people in that
regime to test it?

Chernobyl to an extent did, and there is still a huge argument about
what the actual results were, are, and will be.

The industry standards are hugely conservative to reflect that uncertainty.

Which gives massive ammunition to the anti-nuclear lobby to say that
because something exceeds safety limits, it ipso facto means people are
going to die.

In short there are a lot of known unknowns about short term exposure to
medium doses, and long term exposure to slightly raised levels from
background, and more than one way in which radiation can do irreparable
damage.

Limits are set so we never have to find out, hopefully. And the fact is
that by and large (force majeure excepted) the nuclear industry is well
able to keep within limits and stay cost competitive.

It's certainly worth doing some 'what if' scenarios to simulate mutual
systems failures on new reactors though. Passive SCRAM and passive
cooling and indeed passive monitoring of temperature, would seem to be a
lesson to learn here. The simpler the backup systems are, the less
likely they are to fail.

Also a means to safely vent contaminated hydrogen without such risk of
an explosion might be another good idea.

I expect all this will be the subject of reports in a year or two.

On 26/03/11 21:45, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 19:24:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And isn't the 100 millisieverts a human lifetime limit?

No,. its a recommended maximum yearly safe dose or people who are
exposed at work..

One sievert is where people start to die.

In what timescales for both exposure and death?


One Sievert is the point where there is a significant risk of
radiation-poisoning rather than cancer. It's not necessary a death
sentence. A dose of about 8 Sieverts probably will be though.

--
Bernard Peek

On Mar 27, 12:06*pm, Bolted wrote:
On Mar 26, 10:36*pm, Bolted wrote:

denying there is a sky at all.

Analysis of water in the reactor:

http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20110327...10327001-4.pdf

Why is I-134 still there (and in those quantities) if everything is
hunky-dory and nicely on the way to cold-shutdown?

They are retesting, saying it might be an error.

On 27/03/11 15:49, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 14:06:43 +0100, Bernard Peek wrote:

One sievert is where people start to die.

In what timescales for both exposure and death?

One Sievert is the point where there is a significant risk of
radiation-poisoning rather than cancer. It's not necessary a death
sentence.

One Sievert over what time period? 1hr, a day, a year?

0.114 mSv/hr for a year is the same dose as 1 Sv/hr for one hour. The
latter may well have nasty consequencies, former probably not...

As far as I am aware the Sievert is intended to be a measure of the
damage caused by radiation, but the way dosage in Sieverts is calculated
does not distinguish between short and long-term exposures. It's quite
possible that a radiation dose received over an extended period may be
less harmful. Or not. Apparently nobody knows.

This might be a good place to start looking for some real answers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning

--
Bernard Peek