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...

--
Cheers
Dave.

Huge wrote:
On 2011-03-26, Alan wrote:

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. No-one has died. It is most unlikely anyone will die as a result
of the incident at Fukushima. That's an astonishing endorsement of the
design and operation of the plant.

Apart from a couple of workers who reportedly died as a result of an
accident while working on making the plant safe. The accident had
*nothing* to do with radiation, and similar accidents could have
happened in any power station under fault conditions.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , Andy
Burns writes
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/

Not for at least 8 minutes, no


--
geoff

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes


http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Careful ...

we're getting too high an exposure to that link


--
geoff

geoff wrote:

Andy Burns writes

I don't know if this has been posted here ...
http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Not for at least 8 minutes, no

Yeah well, if people insist on posting links to a re-hosting of it on
Flickr ...

On 28/03/2011 10:36, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Bolted" wrote in message
...
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.


Which are common in those parts.


But not at 14m high at that point of the coast.

Colin Bignell

On 28/03/2011 10:35, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...
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.

Dickhead, they never. It leaks radiation and the plant was wrecked.

The emergency systems worked exactly as they should have and shut the
plant down safely. If the earthquake had been the only catastrophe, it
would not even have been a news item. All the problems are a result of
all but one part of the backup in depth being knocked out by the tsunami
and it now appears that, had it been about a metre lower, even some of
that would have survived. If you had been following this thread, you
would also have realised that the amounts of radiation released are not
really significant. Of course the plant is wrecked, but the point is
there was no nuclear accident.

Colin Bignell

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 11:46:25 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

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.

I'd hazard a guess that if you complained they would broadcast a
grovelling apology saying that the other half would be gone in another
8 days.


--

The Other Mike wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 11:46:25 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

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.

I'd hazard a guess that if you complained they would broadcast a
grovelling apology saying that the other half would be gone in another
8 days.


:-)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:14:50 +0100, The Other Mike wrote:

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.

I'd hazard a guess that if you complained they would broadcast a
grovelling apology saying that the other half would be gone in another
8 days.

It's very sad but I suspect you are right.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 27/03/2011 15:39, Bernard Peek wrote:
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

A recent article that I read (I can't remember where) suggested that we
have used stright line graphs to assess the dangers of radiation doses,
but that our bodies have proved very able to self repair (probably as a
consequence of evolution dealing with natural background radiation) and
therefore the straight line has grossly overestimated the dangers of low
level exposure.

SteveW

On 29/03/11 20:51, Steve Walker wrote:

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

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

A recent article that I read (I can't remember where) suggested that we
have used stright line graphs to assess the dangers of radiation doses,
but that our bodies have proved very able to self repair (probably as a
consequence of evolution dealing with natural background radiation) and
therefore the straight line has grossly overestimated the dangers of low
level exposure.

I've been doing some more reading on the subject. The suggestion is that
the cells can repair a certain amount of radiation damage but the repair
mechanism has a limited capacity. If the damage builds up faster than it
can be repaired the cell will self-destruct. This is still an over
simplification but its a lot closer to reality than the straight-line
model is.


--
Bernard Peek

In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" writes
On 28/03/2011 10:35, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...
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.

Dickhead, they never. It leaks radiation and the plant was wrecked.

The emergency systems worked exactly as they should have and shut the
plant down safely. If the earthquake had been the only catastrophe, it
would not even have been a news item. All the problems are a result of
all but one part of the backup in depth being knocked out by the
tsunami and it now appears that, had it been about a metre lower, even
some of that would have survived. If you had been following this
thread, you would also have realised that the amounts of radiation
released are not really significant. Of course the plant is wrecked,
but the point is there was no nuclear accident.

Colin Bignell


As I think I've said earlier, the defences dropped by one metre as a
result of the earthquake
--
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

On Mar 26, 11:51*am, Huge wrote:
....

And if an asteroid fell on London ...

.... there'd be a sudden surplus of Manchester United season tickets?

On Mar 28, 12:45*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
Of course the plant is wrecked, but the point is there was no nuclear accident.

Out of interest is that still your view? No nuclear accident at all,
not even a little one?

Bolted wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:45 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
Of course the plant is wrecked, but the point is there was no nuclear accident.

Out of interest is that still your view? No nuclear accident at all,
not even a little one?

It all depends on what a 'nuclear accident' is.

If a nuclear accident means 'an accident where radioactive material
beyond regulatory limits was released'' then sure there was an 'nuclear
accident' So if a train is wrecked when carrying low level waste, its a
'nuclear accident' or someone in a hospital drops a barium meal and
spills it , is a 'nuclear accident' or a cat scan machine goes on for 5
times the time it should, its a 'nuclear accident' or baby swallows the
guts of a smoke detector its a 'nuclear accident'



If OTOH a 'nuclear accident' is an accident where a reactor fails due to
a design fault or operational cockup and CAUSES that release, then no it
wasn't.

There was nothing wrong with those reactors nor their normal operational
procedures, nor indeed their safety systems per se.

Its all very easy with 100% hindsight to say they should have predicted
the total loss of all quadruply redundant power and backup systems, the
physical damage to containment tanks and so on..when they designed and
built the thing. But that is hardy realistic. And in a sense not TEPCOS
fault. They built it to the standard the were required to, and indeed
they nearly got away with an event massively larger than it was designed
for, and they have succeeded in keeping releases well below the calamity
level. Its now a risk/benefit assessment process to minimise further
releases and get the thing back to regulatory containment as fast as
possible. Which they are doing, and doing well.

Frankly e.g. Macondo was a far far greater dereliction of duty by ..well
we don't yet know where the responsibility really lies, and may never.
Far higher loss of life directly attributable to mis management and no
bloody excuse for botching a routine operation. Not a hurricane,
earthquake or tsunami in sight, there.

And far more direct environmental damage though, as we have seen, there
also there was a hysterical overreaction.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
Bolted wrote:

On Mar 28, 12:45�pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
Of course the plant is wrecked, but the point is there was no nuclear
accident.

Out of interest is that still your view? No nuclear accident at all,
not even a little one?

What counts is whether there were any killed or injured, and whether
there is any long term damage to the environment. And that is true for
any industrial accident.

What counts is whether the renewables lobby can keep the hysteria up
long enough for the glaring shortcomings in their agenda to be hidden
long enough to bang in a few thousand more useless white elephants on
cast iron subsidy contracts.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
Bolted wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:45?pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
Of course the plant is wrecked, but the point is there was no
nuclear accident.

Out of interest is that still your view? No nuclear accident at all,
not even a little one?
What counts is whether there were any killed or injured, and
whether there is any long term damage to the environment. And that
is true for any industrial accident.
What counts is whether the renewables lobby can keep the hysteria up
long enough for the glaring shortcomings in their agenda to be hidden
long enough to bang in a few thousand more useless white elephants on
cast iron subsidy contracts.

Apropos of this, anything happening with the Wadlow Farm development or
Linton?

Linton is binned.

Appeal refused.

Not sure about Wadlow.
Oh, that one slipped past the net due to no effective local opposition.


That goes ahead

Current fihgt is on at Clare

www.clarewind.org.uk

On Apr 5, 1:40*pm, Bolted wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:45*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere
wrote:

Of course the plant is wrecked, but the point is there was no nuclear accident.

Out of interest is that still your view? *No nuclear accident at all,
not even a little one?

It's like saying there are no electrical faults, only mechanical.

On Apr 5, 2:16*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bolted wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:45 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
Of course the plant is wrecked, but the point is there was no nuclear accident.

Out of interest is that still your view? *No nuclear accident at all,
not even a little one?

It all depends on what a 'nuclear accident' is.

If a nuclear accident means 'an accident where radioactive material
beyond regulatory limits was released'' then sure there was an 'nuclear
accident' So if a train is wrecked when carrying low level waste, its a
'nuclear accident' or someone in a hospital drops a barium meal *and
spills it , is a 'nuclear accident' or a cat scan machine goes on for 5
times the time it should, its a 'nuclear accident' or baby swallows the
guts of a smoke detector its a 'nuclear accident'

If OTOH a 'nuclear accident' is an accident where a reactor fails due to
a design fault or operational cockup and CAUSES that release, then no it
wasn't.

There was nothing wrong with those reactors nor their normal operational
procedures, nor indeed their safety systems per se.

Its all very easy with 100% hindsight to say they should have predicted
the total loss of all quadruply redundant power and backup systems, the
physical damage to containment tanks and so on..when they designed and
built the thing. But that is hardy realistic. And in a sense not TEPCOS
fault. They built it to the standard the were required to, and indeed
they nearly got away with an event massively larger than it was designed
for, and they have succeeded in keeping releases well below the calamity
level. Its now a risk/benefit assessment process to minimise further
releases and get the thing back to regulatory containment as fast as
possible. Which they are doing, and doing well.

Frankly e.g. Macondo was a far far greater dereliction of duty by ..well
we don't yet know where the responsibility really lies, and may never.
Far higher loss of life directly attributable to mis management and no
bloody excuse for botching a routine operation. Not a hurricane,
earthquake or tsunami in sight, there.

And far more direct environmental damage though, as we have seen, there
also there was a hysterical overreaction.

It's not over yet.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

Apropos of this, anything happening with the Wadlow Farm development
or Linton?

Linton is binned.

Appeal refused.

That'll make my mate Roger happy.

Not sure about Wadlow.
Oh, that one slipped past the net due to no effective local opposition.

Wouldn't say that. South Cambs turned it down but it went through on
appeal. I wondered if anything was visible there yet.

That goes ahead

Current fihgt is on at Clare

www.clarewind.org.uk

Useful site - this for example:

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Glad you like em ;-)

I wrote both :-)

harry wrote:
On Apr 5, 2:16 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bolted wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:45 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
Of course the plant is wrecked, but the point is there was no nuclear accident.
Out of interest is that still your view? No nuclear accident at all,
not even a little one?
It all depends on what a 'nuclear accident' is.

If a nuclear accident means 'an accident where radioactive material
beyond regulatory limits was released'' then sure there was an 'nuclear
accident' So if a train is wrecked when carrying low level waste, its a
'nuclear accident' or someone in a hospital drops a barium meal and
spills it , is a 'nuclear accident' or a cat scan machine goes on for 5
times the time it should, its a 'nuclear accident' or baby swallows the
guts of a smoke detector its a 'nuclear accident'

If OTOH a 'nuclear accident' is an accident where a reactor fails due to
a design fault or operational cockup and CAUSES that release, then no it
wasn't.

There was nothing wrong with those reactors nor their normal operational
procedures, nor indeed their safety systems per se.

Its all very easy with 100% hindsight to say they should have predicted
the total loss of all quadruply redundant power and backup systems, the
physical damage to containment tanks and so on..when they designed and
built the thing. But that is hardy realistic. And in a sense not TEPCOS
fault. They built it to the standard the were required to, and indeed
they nearly got away with an event massively larger than it was designed
for, and they have succeeded in keeping releases well below the calamity
level. Its now a risk/benefit assessment process to minimise further
releases and get the thing back to regulatory containment as fast as
possible. Which they are doing, and doing well.

Frankly e.g. Macondo was a far far greater dereliction of duty by ..well
we don't yet know where the responsibility really lies, and may never.
Far higher loss of life directly attributable to mis management and no
bloody excuse for botching a routine operation. Not a hurricane,
earthquake or tsunami in sight, there.

And far more direct environmental damage though, as we have seen, there
also there was a hysterical overreaction.

It's not over yet.

In your brain it never will be.


Who is resposnible for decommisioning the sun when it turns into a
stinking pile of radioactive crud, by the way?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...lf-earth-maybe

Now taht is global warming..

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Apropos of this, anything happening with the Wadlow Farm
development or Linton?
Linton is binned.

Appeal refused.
That'll make my mate Roger happy.
Not sure about Wadlow.
Oh, that one slipped past the net due to no effective local
opposition.
Wouldn't say that. South Cambs turned it down but it went through
on appeal. I wondered if anything was visible there yet.
That goes ahead

Current fihgt is on at Clare

www.clarewind.org.uk
Useful site - this for example:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Glad you like em ;-)

I wrote both :-)

Ah, I did wonder whether you were involved - the Why Wind page looks
awfully familiar!. So you're the webmaster for the Clare site then? It's
very good. Shame that there was (AFAIK) no similar site for Wadlow.

feel free to rip em all off for any other site.

No, Brinkley seem to have rolled over and let their tummies get tickled.

On 05/04/2011 13:40, Bolted wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:45 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
Of course the plant is wrecked, but the point is there was no nuclear accident.

Out of interest is that still your view? No nuclear accident at all,
not even a little one?

As I would define a nuclear accident as necessarily involving a critical
failure of the reactor, that is still my view. The reactors shut down
properly immediately the primary shockwaves from the earthquake was
detected.

There were failures is the containment of radioactive materials, but, as
I pointed out, the amounts of radiation released are not particularly
significant. They exceed the safety levels, but then we can't build
nuclear reactors in Cornwall because the natural radiation there is
already higher than the safe levels for operating a nuclear reactor.

Colin Bignell

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 05/04/2011 13:40, Bolted wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:45 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
Of course the plant is wrecked, but the point is there was no nuclear
accident.

Out of interest is that still your view? No nuclear accident at all,
not even a little one?

As I would define a nuclear accident as necessarily involving a critical
failure of the reactor, that is still my view. The reactors shut down
properly immediately the primary shockwaves from the earthquake was
detected.

There were failures is the containment of radioactive materials, but, as
I pointed out, the amounts of radiation released are not particularly
significant. They exceed the safety levels, but then we can't build
nuclear reactors in Cornwall because the natural radiation there is
already higher than the safe levels for operating a nuclear reactor.


Is that actually true?


Colin Bignell

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Apropos of this, anything happening with the Wadlow Farm
development or Linton?
Linton is binned.

Appeal refused.
That'll make my mate Roger happy.
Not sure about Wadlow.
Oh, that one slipped past the net due to no effective local
opposition.
Wouldn't say that. South Cambs turned it down but it went through
on appeal. I wondered if anything was visible there yet.
That goes ahead

Current fihgt is on at Clare

www.clarewind.org.uk
Useful site - this for example:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Glad you like em ;-)

I wrote both :-)

Ah, I did wonder whether you were involved - the Why Wind page looks
awfully familiar!. So you're the webmaster for the Clare site then? It's
very good. Shame that there was (AFAIK) no similar site for Wadlow.

feel free to rip em all off for any other site.

No, Brinkley seem to have rolled over and let their tummies get tickled.

They've allowed a solar farm somewhere over near Haslingfield something
like 3 or 5 MW so they say....
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Apropos of this, anything happening with the Wadlow Farm
development or Linton?
Linton is binned.
Appeal refused.
That'll make my mate Roger happy.
Not sure about Wadlow.
Oh, that one slipped past the net due to no effective local
opposition.
Wouldn't say that. South Cambs turned it down but it went through
on appeal. I wondered if anything was visible there yet.
That goes ahead
Current fihgt is on at Clare

www.clarewind.org.uk
Useful site - this for example:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Glad you like em ;-)
I wrote both :-)
Ah, I did wonder whether you were involved - the Why Wind page looks
awfully familiar!. So you're the webmaster for the Clare site then? It's
very good. Shame that there was (AFAIK) no similar site for Wadlow.

feel free to rip em all off for any other site.

No, Brinkley seem to have rolled over and let their tummies get tickled.

They've allowed a solar farm somewhere over near Haslingfield something
like 3 or 5 MW so they say....

i can guess whose land that is on.

well apart from the cost of it at least its hidden.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Who is resposnible for decommisioning the sun when it turns into a
stinking pile of radioactive crud, by the way?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...lf-earth-maybe

Longer term, it'll turn into a ball of stable iron, though, so the
problem will go away in the end.

Patience......

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Who is resposnible for decommisioning the sun when it turns into a
stinking pile of radioactive crud, by the way?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...lf-earth-maybe

Longer term, it'll turn into a ball of stable iron, though, so the
problem will go away in the end.




I am not so sure about that..


Might end up as a supernova..

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 05/04/2011 13:40, Bolted wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:45 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
Of course the plant is wrecked, but the point is there was no
nuclear accident.

Out of interest is that still your view? No nuclear accident at all,
not even a little one?

As I would define a nuclear accident as necessarily involving a
critical failure of the reactor, that is still my view. The reactors
shut down properly immediately the primary shockwaves from the
earthquake was detected.

There were failures is the containment of radioactive materials, but,
as I pointed out, the amounts of radiation released are not
particularly significant. They exceed the safety levels, but then we
can't build nuclear reactors in Cornwall because the natural radiation
there is already higher than the safe levels for operating a nuclear
reactor.


Is that actually true?


Along with other stories about Aberdeen city centre and if Edinburgh
Waverley railway station was a nuclear plant, it would be shut down
immediately, due to the radioactivity.

If you build a house in Cornwall, you *need* underfloor ventilation or a
gasproof membrane to stop the Radon gas getting into the house. It's
even in the local building rules, I believe.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 05/04/2011 13:40, Bolted wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:45 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
Of course the plant is wrecked, but the point is there was no
nuclear accident.

Out of interest is that still your view? No nuclear accident at all,
not even a little one?

As I would define a nuclear accident as necessarily involving a
critical failure of the reactor, that is still my view. The reactors
shut down properly immediately the primary shockwaves from the
earthquake was detected.

There were failures is the containment of radioactive materials, but,
as I pointed out, the amounts of radiation released are not
particularly significant. They exceed the safety levels, but then we
can't build nuclear reactors in Cornwall because the natural
radiation there is already higher than the safe levels for operating
a nuclear reactor.


Is that actually true?


Along with other stories about Aberdeen city centre and if Edinburgh
Waverley railway station was a nuclear plant, it would be shut down
immediately, due to the radioactivity.


Tsk Tsk. The answer of course, is to nuke cornwall AND edinburgh, on the
grounds that no one would ever notice..


If you build a house in Cornwall, you *need* underfloor ventilation or a
gasproof membrane to stop the Radon gas getting into the house. It's
even in the local building rules, I believe.


That I do know yes...


The one I liked the best, was the fact that cinder blocks, from coal
ash, that are used legally to build houses from, would be stored as low
level nuclear waste if the came from a nuclear power station.

So here we go
'nuclear accident: builder drops a brick!'
'Edinburgh more radioactive than Fukushima'
'Do Corsishmen have tow heads and glow in the dark?'

Shame the Sunday sport has gone bust.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Who is resposnible for decommisioning the sun when it turns into a
stinking pile of radioactive crud, by the way?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...lf-earth-maybe

Longer term, it'll turn into a ball of stable iron, though, so the
problem will go away in the end.




I am not so sure about that..


Might end up as a supernova..

Very unlikely indeed, in the absence of a companion star to ours.
There isn't enough mass in the solar system even if the sun engulfed
all the planets.

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

Nick Leverton wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Who is resposnible for decommisioning the sun when it turns into a
stinking pile of radioactive crud, by the way?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...lf-earth-maybe

Longer term, it'll turn into a ball of stable iron, though, so the
problem will go away in the end.



I am not so sure about that..


Might end up as a supernova..

Very unlikely indeed, in the absence of a companion star to ours.
There isn't enough mass in the solar system even if the sun engulfed
all the planets.


Ah but when the universe does the heat death thingy, wont it all
collapse back, or does it expand infinitely into a sort of never ending
cosmic rubbish tip?

I should have listened to Patrick Moore...

Nick

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nick Leverton wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Who is resposnible for decommisioning the sun when it turns into a
stinking pile of radioactive crud, by the way?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...lf-earth-maybe

Longer term, it'll turn into a ball of stable iron, though, so the
problem will go away in the end.



I am not so sure about that..


Might end up as a supernova..

Very unlikely indeed, in the absence of a companion star to ours.
There isn't enough mass in the solar system even if the sun engulfed
all the planets.


Ah but when the universe does the heat death thingy, wont it all
collapse back, or does it expand infinitely into a sort of never ending
cosmic rubbish tip?

"They" don't know, and opinions differ.

Theories abound, depending on the assumptions the theorist makes about
the Cosmological Constant, whether it is, in fact a constant over time,
and the amount of Dark Matter.

I should have listened to Patrick Moore...

He says he doesn't know, either. HTH.

In a few more years, it'll be a an S.E.P. anyway. Unless the Buddhists
et al. are right, and we all keep coming back for another session.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 05/04/2011 20:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Ah but when the universe does the heat death thingy, wont it all
collapse back, or does it expand infinitely into a sort of never ending
cosmic rubbish tip?

I should have listened to Patrick Moore...

IIRC it was professor Cox the box who suggested recently that the
ultimate end of the universe was continuing expansion and a cold death.

--
Roger Chapman

On Apr 5, 6:06*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 05/04/2011 13:40, Bolted wrote:

On Mar 28, 12:45 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
Of course the plant is wrecked, but the point is there was no nuclear accident.

Out of interest is that still your view? *No nuclear accident at all,
not even a little one?

As I would define a nuclear accident as necessarily involving a critical
failure of the reactor, that is still my view.

Aah. It's definitional. The IAEA (not known for being anti-nuke, and
rightly so) call it one, I don't think they require criticality.
Which makes sense, after all, if (hypothetically) some reprocessing
plant suffered some non-nuclear explosion and belched loads of used
fuel dust into the atmosphere it would be fair to call that a nuclear
accident.

After all it is well established on this NG that a wind turbine being
dropped on someones head while being off-loaded at a harbour is a wind-
energy death rather than a dock-working death. Can't fairly take
liberty on both sides of the equation.

The reactors shut down properly immediately the primary shockwaves from the earthquake was
detected.

Properly? Doesn't seem to be working that properly now, unless you
really shut your eyes and ears and mind at tsunami +x hours (where x
varies by reactor).

There were failures is the containment of radioactive materials, but, as
I pointed out, the amounts of radiation released are not particularly
significant.

Past tense? It's feed and bleed. With water that is 5.4 billion Bq/
kg at the outlet.

They exceed the safety levels, but then we can't build
nuclear reactors in Cornwall because the natural radiation there is
already higher than the safe levels for operating a nuclear reactor.

How do they compare? Very cursory search says 7mSv/year for
Cornwall. The released levels are levels way beyond 7mSv per hour in
places outside the evac zone.

I don't think it's clear how many people will be affected and in what
way or for how long. But pretending there isn't a nuclear accident in
progress just seems bizarre to me. I'm quite pro-nuke and I don't
think it helps the cause. I think it would be better to be honest and
upfront, and deal with it. It's a very old plant, built to superceded
standards many decades ago, with no real containment over the SFPs
unlike even the later BWRs. And near to a very active fault line
where (perhaps with the benefit of hindsight) they underestimated both
the quake and tsunami risks. That's something which can be dealt with
for future plants by being less complacent rather than more
complacent. It's pretty clear that slack regulation allowed them not
to harden the vent stacks despite that being a required update in the
US. It's clear they were very slack about inventory in the SFPs.

There will be all sorts of lessons learned from this accident which
will progress the cause and the safety of nuclear power. Pretending
it isn't even an accident is an industry trope which will only
increase rather than decrease trust.

On Apr 5, 11:10*pm, Bolted wrote:

Past tense? *It's feed and bleed. *With water that is 5.4 billion Bq/
kg at the outlet.

Forgot to cite source (rather than just blowing out of my hole):

http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2011/04/...10405007-4.pdf

That was I-131, Cs is 1.8. Obviously it's going into a big ocean,
thankfully.

On 05/04/2011 18:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 05/04/2011 13:40, Bolted wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:45 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
Of course the plant is wrecked, but the point is there was no
nuclear accident.

Out of interest is that still your view? No nuclear accident at all,
not even a little one?

As I would define a nuclear accident as necessarily involving a
critical failure of the reactor, that is still my view. The reactors
shut down properly immediately the primary shockwaves from the
earthquake was detected.

There were failures is the containment of radioactive materials, but,
as I pointed out, the amounts of radiation released are not
particularly significant. They exceed the safety levels, but then we
can't build nuclear reactors in Cornwall because the natural radiation
there is already higher than the safe levels for operating a nuclear
reactor.


Is that actually true?

SFAIK, yes. Unfortunately, I cannot now find where I read it.

The average background radiation in Britain is around 0.25 microsiverets
per hour - compared to the 0.109 that has been causing concern in Tokyo.
Around half that is due to radon gas, but granite produces a lot more
radon gas than most soils and in Cornwall the background radiation is
about three times the national average.

Colin Bignell

On Apr 5, 11:26*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

*Bolted wrote:
On Apr 5, 11:10 pm, Bolted wrote:

Past tense? It's feed and bleed. With water that is 5.4 billion Bq/
kg at the outlet.

Forgot to cite source (rather than just blowing out of my hole):

http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2011/04/...10405007-4.pdf

That was I-131, Cs is 1.8. *Obviously it's going into a big ocean,
thankfully.

The I-131 decays quite quickly to Xenon (stable), fortunately.


Yes, I'm aware. Unlike the Cs which is not a small figure, would you
agree?

In article ,
Bolted wrote:
On Apr 5, 11:10*pm, Bolted wrote:

Past tense? *It's feed and bleed. *With water that is 5.4 billion Bq/
kg at the outlet.

Forgot to cite source (rather than just blowing out of my hole):

http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2011/04/...10405007-4.pdf

That was I-131, Cs is 1.8. Obviously it's going into a big ocean,
thankfully.

I can't read the Japanese document you posted, but AIUI the point
of wanting to dump the low level waste water is to give them space
to store the highly I and Cs contaminated water which I think you're
referring to and which is currently leaking out through pipes and crack(s)
(chiefly from the basement and containment of unit 2, which it's long been
admitted is probably breached and we now know is leaking like a sieve).
These are the radionucleides being detected in the sea, I believe.
I'd welcome a translation of your doc if it suggests otherwise to you.

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