On 05/04/2011 23:10, Bolted wrote:
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.

I disagree. To me, that is a radiation 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 Japanese worker who was killed by a crane falling on him at the
nuclear power station counts as a nuclear power related death, but there
is no way it could be classed as a nuclear accident.

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).

Shut down properly means the chain reactions stopped. If they had not,
there really would have been a nuclear accident. Well before the tsunami
hit, the heat in the reactor corse had dropped to around 7% of full
power levels.

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.

Nobody will know exactly what has happened until the radiation levels
drop enough for it to be safe to go in and look. However, the balance of
probability is that all the damage happened within the first few days
after the earthquake and that anything happening now is a result of of
those failures. That includes a suspected crack or pinhole leak in the
No 2 Reactor wetwell torus, which is thought to be the source of high
levels of radiation in the flooded service trenches.

With water that is 5.4 billion Bq/
kg at the outlet.

Mostly with products that will have decayed by the time you can spell
radionuclide.

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.

In parts of India, the background radiation levels are around 30 micro
Sv/hr, compared to the 58.3, which was the highest reading recorded
outside the exclusion zone on 5th April, at 20km NW from the plant. At
30km NW the reading was 26.0 and at 40km NW it was 4.6. Around 35km
South of the plant the readings were nearer the UK average rate of
0.25 micro sV/hr.

I don't think it's clear how many people will be affected and in what
way or for how long.

However, from the experiences of previous radiation accidents, it seems
likely that the number will be fairly small.

....
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.

I've not said there is no accident, only that it is not an accident that
I would class as a nuclear accident.

Colin Bignell

"Bolted" wrote in message
...

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).

They shut down, they would have gone critical a few minutes after the
tsunami if they had not.
The loss of cooling is the problem, it boils all the water out because the
decay side of things will be generating a couple of megawatts of heat for
weeks after shutdown.
Without cooling, the core melts, becomes compact enough to become critical
and the whole thing goes Chernobyl.
What they need to do now is hang onto the short half life stuff for as long
as possible to keep it away from people.
This is proving difficult as they are just pumping water through the
reactors and have run out of room to store it.
Normally they reuse the stuff so don't have storage problems.

"Bolted" wrote in message
...
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.




Doesn't that say Bq per cubic metre?

On Apr 6, 10:14*am, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bolted" wrote in message

...

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.

Doesn't that say Bq per cubic metre?

No, it says Bq per cm2

On Apr 6, 10:10*am, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bolted" wrote in message

...

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).

They shut down, they would have gone critical a few minutes after the
tsunami if they had not.

I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.

Call me obtuse if you like.

On Apr 5, 11:58*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,





*Bolted wrote:
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?

That has a rather longer half life, true. What I don't know is how
quickly that will mix and disperse, and how radioactive seawater is
naturally anyway.

Yes, that's basically the 'thankfully it's a big ocean' point.

They are now only releasing figures for I and Cs (they were citing
stats for lots of other isotopes but have stopped that since saying
they had made several mistakes).

On 06/04/2011 10:10, dennis@home wrote:


"Bolted" wrote in message
...

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).

They shut down, they would have gone critical a few minutes after the
tsunami if they had not.
The loss of cooling is the problem, it boils all the water out because
the decay side of things will be generating a couple of megawatts of
heat for weeks after shutdown.
Without cooling, the core melts, becomes compact enough to become
critical and the whole thing goes Chernobyl...

Three Mile Island would be a more accurate analogy. There the core
melted 5/8 inch into the 5 inch thick steel pressure vessel before heat
loss into the steel cooled it enough to freeze. The steel pressure
vessel in Japan is 8 inches thick.

Colin Bignell

"Bolted" wrote in message
...
On Apr 6, 10:14 am, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bolted" wrote in message

...

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.

Doesn't that say Bq per cubic metre?

No, it says Bq per cm2

cm2 of what? cm2 isn't a useful measure AFAICS.

Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 10:10 am, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bolted" wrote in message

...

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).
They shut down, they would have gone critical a few minutes after the
tsunami if they had not.

I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.


Thats good, because they are not putting out extremely radioactive water
into the environment.

Its mildly radioactive.


Call me obtuse if you like.

You are obtuse. There you go!

On 06/04/2011 11:52, Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 10:10 am, wrote:
wrote in message

...

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).

They shut down, they would have gone critical a few minutes after the
tsunami if they had not.

I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.

The control rods were inserted and the nuclear reaction stopped. That
means that the reactor was shut down properly.

Everything else is due to the residual heat of decay in the fuel rods,
exactly as in the spent fuel storage ponds.

Colin Bignell

On Apr 6, 12:03*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,





*Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 10:14 am, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bolted" wrote in message

....

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.

Doesn't that say Bq per cubic metre?

No, it says Bq per cm2

Actually Bq per cm3.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" *-- *Bill of Rights 1689- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, thank you for correcting the typo.

On Apr 6, 12:30*pm, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bolted" wrote in message

...





On Apr 6, 10:14 am, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bolted" wrote in message

....

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.

Doesn't that say Bq per cubic metre?

No, it says Bq per cm2

cm2 of what? cm2 isn't a useful measure AFAICS.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

cm2 is a perfectly useful measure of area, but as Tim has pointed out
that was a typo for cm3, which is a useful, if odd, measure of
volume. They had been reporting values per litre but obviously wanted
to take the numbers down an order of magnitude so used cm3 instead.

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 03:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Bolted
wrote:

On Apr 6, 10:10*am, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bolted" wrote in message

...

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).

They shut down, they would have gone critical a few minutes after the
tsunami if they had not.

I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.

Call me obtuse if you like.

I suspect there is still a lot we don't yet know about this. If
things are OK why is the IAEA trying to pursuade Japan to widen the
exclusion zone?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 03:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Bolted
wrote:

On Apr 6, 10:10 am, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bolted" wrote in message

...

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).
They shut down, they would have gone critical a few minutes after the
tsunami if they had not.
I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.

Call me obtuse if you like.

I suspect there is still a lot we don't yet know about this. If
things are OK why is the IAEA trying to pursuade Japan to widen the
exclusion zone?

pressure from the renewables lobby of course.


On the faint excuse that things might theoretically get worse.

Which is the basic excuse used by every single anti-nuclear campaigner
when faced with the facts that, in every case, they in fact, don't.

On Apr 6, 12:36*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 06/04/2011 11:52, Bolted wrote:
I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.

The control rods were inserted and the nuclear reaction stopped. That
means that the reactor was shut down properly.

Everything else is due to the residual heat of decay in the fuel rods,
exactly as in the spent fuel storage ponds.

If someone drives a car straight at a wall at 100mph, is the result is
a car which has been stopped properly?

Does it affect your answer if they turned the engine off before
impact?

On Apr 6, 12:34*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 10:10 am, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bolted" wrote in message

....

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).
They shut down, they would have gone critical a few minutes after the
tsunami if they had not.

I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.

Thats good, because they are not putting out extremely radioactive water
into the environment.

Its mildly radioactive.

From what Tepco are saying, the stuff which has been gushing out of
that pipe trench is the same stuff that maxes out their meters at
"1Sv/hr".

Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:36 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 06/04/2011 11:52, Bolted wrote:
I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.
The control rods were inserted and the nuclear reaction stopped. That
means that the reactor was shut down properly.

Everything else is due to the residual heat of decay in the fuel rods,
exactly as in the spent fuel storage ponds.

If someone drives a car straight at a wall at 100mph, is the result is
a car which has been stopped properly?

Does it affect your answer if they turned the engine off before
impact?

It does if the car as a result doesn't catch fire and explode.

Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:34 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 10:10 am, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bolted" wrote in message
...
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).
They shut down, they would have gone critical a few minutes after the
tsunami if they had not.
I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.
Thats good, because they are not putting out extremely radioactive water
into the environment.

Its mildly radioactive.

From what Tepco are saying, the stuff which has been gushing out of
that pipe trench is the same stuff that maxes out their meters at
"1Sv/hr".

So what do YOU call 'highly radioactive'

So stand there naked for an hour in that undiluted water completely
immersed and you have a 12% chance of getting a cancer?

I suspect you would drown first, or freeze..
Yep, I wouldn't want to do more than 15 minute shifts in a suit, in that
particular trench, but chucked into the sea and diluted a million ties,
with all the heavy stuff gong straight down and the rest gone in 4
weeks? what is the problem?

On Apr 6, 6:11*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:34 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 10:10 am, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bolted" wrote in message
....
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).
They shut down, they would have gone critical a few minutes after the
tsunami if they had not.
I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.
Thats good, because they are not putting out extremely radioactive water
into the environment.

Its mildly radioactive.

From what Tepco are saying, the stuff which has been gushing out of
that pipe trench is the same stuff that maxes out their meters at
"1Sv/hr".

So what do YOU call 'highly radioactive'

So stand there naked *for an hour in that undiluted *water completely
immersed and you have a 12% chance of getting a cancer?

Sounds like a more reasonable definition of "highly radioactive" than
it does of "mildly radioactive". I'll compromise on highly rather
than extremely if you think that is better.

And actually you are basing that on 1Sv. They don't know what the
reading is (or if they do, they aren't saying). They are saying that
they only know that it is off the scale of their instruments - which
stops at 1Sv.

On Apr 6, 6:22*pm, Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 6:11*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:





Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:34 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 10:10 am, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bolted" wrote in message
...
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).
They shut down, they would have gone critical a few minutes after the
tsunami if they had not.
I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.
Thats good, because they are not putting out extremely radioactive water
into the environment.

Its mildly radioactive.

From what Tepco are saying, the stuff which has been gushing out of
that pipe trench is the same stuff that maxes out their meters at
"1Sv/hr".

So what do YOU call 'highly radioactive'

So stand there naked *for an hour in that undiluted *water completely
immersed and you have a 12% chance of getting a cancer?

Sounds like a more reasonable definition of "highly radioactive" than
it does of "mildly radioactive". *I'll compromise on highly rather
than extremely if you think that is better.

And actually you are basing that on 1Sv. *They don't know what the
reading is (or if they do, they aren't saying). *They are saying that
they only know that it is off the scale of their instruments - which
stops at 1Sv.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1Sv/hr before someone corrects my lazy abbreviation.

On Apr 5, 11:52*pm, Nick Leverton wrote:

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).

The stuff that has been leaking over the past first days was the
highly - or mildly as the TNP would have it - radioactive water direct
from the core cooling process.

Dumping the stuff in the condensate tanks is a separate issue, and yes
that is in current circumstances ignorably innocuous.

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.

Turn to the second page, no japanese required. The two massive I and
Cs readings towards the left are from where the core cooling water was
gushing out (they've succeeding in stopping it now, good for them).

Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 6:22 pm, Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 6:11 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:





Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:34 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 10:10 am, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bolted" wrote in message
...
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).
They shut down, they would have gone critical a few minutes after the
tsunami if they had not.
I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.
Thats good, because they are not putting out extremely radioactive water
into the environment.
Its mildly radioactive.
From what Tepco are saying, the stuff which has been gushing out of
that pipe trench is the same stuff that maxes out their meters at
"1Sv/hr".
So what do YOU call 'highly radioactive'
So stand there naked for an hour in that undiluted water completely
immersed and you have a 12% chance of getting a cancer?
Sounds like a more reasonable definition of "highly radioactive" than
it does of "mildly radioactive". I'll compromise on highly rather
than extremely if you think that is better.

And actually you are basing that on 1Sv. They don't know what the
reading is (or if they do, they aren't saying). They are saying that
they only know that it is off the scale of their instruments - which
stops at 1Sv.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1Sv/hr before someone corrects my lazy abbreviation.

Indeed. Now think of all the places where you are dead in 6 hours
without protective clothing..


Like the bottom of the sea: BAN THE SEA.
Like inside a blast Furnace: BAN STEELMAKING
Like inside a petrol storage tank: BAN PETROL
Like standing in the fast lane of the M1: BAN MOTORWAYS.
Like in front of a radar dish: BAN RADAR.

sigh...

On 06/04/2011 17:39, Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:36 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 06/04/2011 11:52, Bolted wrote:
I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.

The control rods were inserted and the nuclear reaction stopped. That
means that the reactor was shut down properly.

Everything else is due to the residual heat of decay in the fuel rods,
exactly as in the spent fuel storage ponds.

If someone drives a car straight at a wall at 100mph, is the result is
a car which has been stopped properly?

Does it affect your answer if they turned the engine off before
impact?


I'm not sure whether you actually don't understand what happened or
simply want to believe the worst.

To use your analogy, the car drove towards the wall, braked to a halt
before it reached it, then a big wave knocked some bricks out of the
wall and onto the car.

Colin Bignell

On Apr 6, 12:18*am, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 05/04/2011 23:10, Bolted wrote:
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.

In parts of India, the background radiation levels are around 30 micro
Sv/hr, compared to the 58.3, which was the highest reading recorded
outside the exclusion zone on 5th April, at 20km NW from the plant. At
30km NW the reading was 26.0 and at 40km NW it was 4.6. Around 35km
South of the plant the readings were nearer the UK average rate of
0.25 micro sV/hr.

I must improve my geography - I really didn't know that India was in
Cornwall.

On 06/04/2011 16:43, Mark wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 03:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Bolted
wrote:

On Apr 6, 10:10 am, wrote:
wrote in message

...

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).

They shut down, they would have gone critical a few minutes after the
tsunami if they had not.

I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.

Call me obtuse if you like.

I suspect there is still a lot we don't yet know about this. If
things are OK why is the IAEA trying to pursuade Japan to widen the
exclusion zone?

Because the nuclear industry is, understandably, quite paranoid and,
downwind from the plant, they are getting radiation readings that are
nearly twice what some Indians live with on a daily basis from natural
radiation.

Colin Bignell

Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:18 am, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 05/04/2011 23:10, Bolted wrote:
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.
In parts of India, the background radiation levels are around 30 micro
Sv/hr, compared to the 58.3, which was the highest reading recorded
outside the exclusion zone on 5th April, at 20km NW from the plant. At
30km NW the reading was 26.0 and at 40km NW it was 4.6. Around 35km
South of the plant the readings were nearer the UK average rate of
0.25 micro sV/hr.

I must improve my geography - I really didn't know that India was in
Cornwall.

Don't worry your pretty little head about it dear. Cameron has just
given it to them as part of 'being sorry' about the British empire..

On Apr 6, 6:34*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 6:22 pm, Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 6:11 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:34 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 10:10 am, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bolted" wrote in message
...
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).
They shut down, they would have gone critical a few minutes after the
tsunami if they had not.
I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.
Thats good, because they are not putting out extremely radioactive water
into the environment.
Its mildly radioactive.
From what Tepco are saying, the stuff which has been gushing out of
that pipe trench is the same stuff that maxes out their meters at
"1Sv/hr".
So what do YOU call 'highly radioactive'
So stand there naked *for an hour in that undiluted *water completely
immersed and you have a 12% chance of getting a cancer?
Sounds like a more reasonable definition of "highly radioactive" than
it does of "mildly radioactive". *I'll compromise on highly rather
than extremely if you think that is better.

And actually you are basing that on 1Sv. *They don't know what the
reading is (or if they do, they aren't saying). *They are saying that
they only know that it is off the scale of their instruments - which
stops at 1Sv.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1Sv/hr before someone corrects my lazy abbreviation.

Indeed. Now think of all the places where you are dead in 6 hours
without protective clothing..

Like the bottom of the sea: BAN THE SEA.
Like inside a blast Furnace: BAN STEELMAKING
Like inside a petrol storage tank: BAN PETROL
Like standing in the fast lane of the M1: BAN MOTORWAYS.
Like in front of a radar dish: BAN RADAR.

Who wants to ban anything? I'm pro-nuke. Pretending that this isn't
quite a serious nuclear accident, with local consequences, doesn't
make you more pronuke. it just makes you a bit of an ostrich. Most
reasonable people seem to acknowledge that this is a serious accident,
including the pro-nuke IAEA

You are saying that nothing has happened at all - la la la la la.

It's more like saying
DON'T BAN TEH SEA NO1 EVER DIED AT SEA
DON'T BAN TEH BLAST FURNACE NO1 EVA GOT HURT BY 1
DON'T BAN TEH MOTORWAY THERE'S NEVER BEEN A CAR ACCIDENT EVA

All just a bit daft.

On Apr 6, 6:37*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 06/04/2011 17:39, Bolted wrote:





On Apr 6, 12:36 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere *wrote:
On 06/04/2011 11:52, Bolted wrote:
I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.

The control rods were inserted and the nuclear reaction stopped. That
means that the reactor was shut down properly.

Everything else is due to the residual heat of decay in the fuel rods,
exactly as in the spent fuel storage ponds.

If someone drives a car straight at a wall at 100mph, is the result is
a car which has been stopped properly?

Does it affect your answer if they turned the engine off before
impact?

I'm not sure whether you actually don't understand what happened or
simply want to believe the worst.

My definition of a nuclear reactor accident (and that of the nuclear
establishment) does not require continuing criticality, anymore than
the reasonable person's definition of a car accident requires
continuing combustion.

On 06/04/2011 18:52, Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 6:37 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 06/04/2011 17:39, Bolted wrote:





On Apr 6, 12:36 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 06/04/2011 11:52, Bolted wrote:
I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.

The control rods were inserted and the nuclear reaction stopped. That
means that the reactor was shut down properly.

Everything else is due to the residual heat of decay in the fuel rods,
exactly as in the spent fuel storage ponds.

If someone drives a car straight at a wall at 100mph, is the result is
a car which has been stopped properly?

Does it affect your answer if they turned the engine off before
impact?

I'm not sure whether you actually don't understand what happened or
simply want to believe the worst.

My definition of a nuclear reactor accident (and that of the nuclear
establishment) does not require continuing criticality, anymore than
the reasonable person's definition of a car accident requires
continuing combustion.

If my choice of words offends you so much, I am quite happy to amend my
statement to there was no accident involving a functioning nuclear reactor.

However, you still don't seem to understand what is happening there, or
you wouldn't be making such a big song and dance about it.

Colin Bignell

On 06/04/2011 18:40, Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:18 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 05/04/2011 23:10, Bolted wrote:
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.

In parts of India, the background radiation levels are around 30 micro
Sv/hr, compared to the 58.3, which was the highest reading recorded
outside the exclusion zone on 5th April, at 20km NW from the plant. At
30km NW the reading was 26.0 and at 40km NW it was 4.6. Around 35km
South of the plant the readings were nearer the UK average rate of
0.25 micro sV/hr.

I must improve my geography - I really didn't know that India was in
Cornwall.

I didn't realise you needed your own figures to be repeated to help you
understand just how they compare.

Colin Bignell

On Apr 6, 6:58*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 06/04/2011 18:52, Bolted wrote:





On Apr 6, 6:37 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere *wrote:
On 06/04/2011 17:39, Bolted wrote:

On Apr 6, 12:36 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere * *wrote:
On 06/04/2011 11:52, Bolted wrote:
I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.

The control rods were inserted and the nuclear reaction stopped. That
means that the reactor was shut down properly.

Everything else is due to the residual heat of decay in the fuel rods,
exactly as in the spent fuel storage ponds.

If someone drives a car straight at a wall at 100mph, is the result is
a car which has been stopped properly?

Does it affect your answer if they turned the engine off before
impact?

I'm not sure whether you actually don't understand what happened or
simply want to believe the worst.

My definition of a nuclear reactor accident (and that of the nuclear
establishment) does not require continuing criticality, anymore than
the reasonable person's definition of a car accident requires
continuing combustion.

If my choice of words offends you so much, I am quite happy to amend my
statement to there was no accident involving a functioning nuclear reactor.

On Apr 6, 6:40*pm, Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:18*am, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

On 05/04/2011 23:10, Bolted wrote:
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.

In parts of India, the background radiation levels are around 30 micro
Sv/hr, compared to the 58.3, which was the highest reading recorded
outside the exclusion zone on 5th April, at 20km NW from the plant. At
30km NW the reading was 26.0 and at 40km NW it was 4.6. Around 35km
South of the plant the readings were nearer the UK average rate of
0.25 micro sV/hr.

I must improve my geography - I really didn't know that India was in
Cornwall.

Going back to this, can you cite a source for that Indian background
radiation?

Are you talking about Kerala (it's near Truro I believe) - if so the
stats I found suggest 30mSv per year, which would obviously be a very
basic error in your comparison.

30x1000/365/24 = 3.42uSv per hour.

Note I'm not saying that there is a worrying risk, just that you might
have amalgamate Iran into Cornwall to try to find a position based in
fact rather than assertion.

I'll do it for you in advance: 260/365/24*1000= 29uSv/hr.

There you go.

On Apr 6, 7:18*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 06/04/2011 18:40, Bolted wrote:

On Apr 6, 12:18 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere *wrote:
On 05/04/2011 23:10, Bolted wrote:
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.

In parts of India, the background radiation levels are around 30 micro
Sv/hr, compared to the 58.3, which was the highest reading recorded
outside the exclusion zone on 5th April, at 20km NW from the plant. At
30km NW the reading was 26.0 and at 40km NW it was 4.6. Around 35km
South of the plant the readings were nearer the UK average rate of
0.25 micro sV/hr.

I must improve my geography - I really didn't know that India was in
Cornwall.

I didn't realise you needed your own figures to be repeated to help you
understand just how they compare.

Ramsar, Ramsar. Repeat after me, you are on the move. Keep up.

On Apr 6, 7:45*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,





*Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 6:37*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 06/04/2011 17:39, Bolted wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:36 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere *wrote:
On 06/04/2011 11:52, Bolted wrote:
I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.

The control rods were inserted and the nuclear reaction stopped. That
means that the reactor was shut down properly.

Everything else is due to the residual heat of decay in the fuel rods,
exactly as in the spent fuel storage ponds.

If someone drives a car straight at a wall at 100mph, is the result is
a car which has been stopped properly?

Does it affect your answer if they turned the engine off before
impact?

I'm not sure whether you actually don't understand what happened or
simply want to believe the worst.

My definition of a nuclear reactor accident (and that of the nuclear
establishment) does not require continuing criticality, anymore than
the reasonable person's definition of a car accident requires
continuing combustion.

As I've said before, the precise definition of accident in this context
is a bit irrelevant. What counts is what I said befo

1) Number of people killed
2) number injured
3) long term damage if any to the environment

just as in any industrial accident. Of course, there is a lobby that
would love to call this a major disaster when it isn't. Chernobyl was.
TMI wasn't.

I'd agree with all of that.

On Apr 6, 8:40*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
However, you still don't seem to understand what is happening there, or
you wouldn't be making such a big song and dance about it.

Typical bit of kickback there

A simple statement of fact and the reason why I will no longer respond
to your posts on this matter, no matter how badly wrong they are.

Oh dear, feeling a bit sore about the exposure of your little years/
hours blunder are we?

On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 17:26:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 03:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Bolted
wrote:

On Apr 6, 10:10 am, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bolted" wrote in message

...

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).
They shut down, they would have gone critical a few minutes after the
tsunami if they had not.
I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.

Call me obtuse if you like.

I suspect there is still a lot we don't yet know about this. If
things are OK why is the IAEA trying to pursuade Japan to widen the
exclusion zone?

pressure from the renewables lobby of course.

If that's the case then they are fools to bow to political pressure.
Any unnecessary "measures" taken will help strengthen any claims that
Nuclear power is "too" dangerous.

OTOH maybe there is more to this incident than we have been told and
it is a wise precaution.

On the faint excuse that things might theoretically get worse.

Which is the basic excuse used by every single anti-nuclear campaigner
when faced with the facts that, in every case, they in fact, don't.

I am waiting until all the facts emerge (if they ever do) before
drawing conclusions.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 17:26:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 03:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Bolted
wrote:

On Apr 6, 10:10 am, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bolted" wrote in message

...

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).
They shut down, they would have gone critical a few minutes after the
tsunami if they had not.
I don't call reactors which have melted part of their cores and which
are being cooled on an open circuit putting out extremely radioactive
water into the plant and the wider environment, reactors which have
been shut down properly.

Call me obtuse if you like.
I suspect there is still a lot we don't yet know about this. If
things are OK why is the IAEA trying to pursuade Japan to widen the
exclusion zone?
pressure from the renewables lobby of course.

If that's the case then they are fools to bow to political pressure.
Any unnecessary "measures" taken will help strengthen any claims that
Nuclear power is "too" dangerous.

OTOH maybe there is more to this incident than we have been told and
it is a wise precaution.

On the faint excuse that things might theoretically get worse.

Which is the basic excuse used by every single anti-nuclear campaigner
when faced with the facts that, in every case, they in fact, don't.

I am waiting until all the facts emerge (if they ever do) before
drawing conclusions.

Most of the facts have emerged.

That's why media coverage is stopping. Facts are boring. What-ifs,
especially scary nuclear what-ifs, are far more exciting.

The facts are that loss of coolant flow to four reactors means they
have cracked and or damaged rods inside, but thats OK because they are
staying cool enough and contained enough to finally be OK to dispose of

one torus has probably blown, and thats NOT so good, because fuel rod
material has leaked out.

some tanks cracked and all tanks lost water, which is a bit of an
issue, but now they ore or less have the water back in, those are stable.

The pull back zone is consistent with what has happened, and a lot
extra for safety. Further pull back is really a question of whether
something else could in theory still happen that was a bit worse. The
japs dont think it can, the IAEA think it's possible.


The Japs are on the ground.


What happens now is pretty straightforward. They will build new tanks,
and move spent fuel to them so they can drain the broken ones. In the
meantime there are leaks, and some pretty hot water around. They have a
bad choice there. Try and fix leaks standing in it, or drain it into the
sea, fix the leak, then let it build again. Before pumping into better
places.

That's all that's happening. Leak fixing really. The final facts on the
damage wont be known for years till the reactor containment vessels are
opened up.


Worst case radioactivity in the sea is about now, as they drain the
tanks into it. Worst case airborne has been and gone. The light stuff is
around and about, but its short lived. 6 weeks and people probably can
go home, taking iodine as a precaution.

On Apr 7, 2:15*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

What ****es me off, is that the yank press seem to be taking the data,
and seeing how much it can be spun into a scare story. Not taking a
balanced view.

Markey didn't help, talking about NRC having told him they suspected
the RPV was breached.

Incidentally, though, that wasn't quite as firmly "debunked" by NRC as
WNN claim. The NRC response was "That's not clear to us, nor is it
clear to us that the reactor has penetrated the vessel,". The truth
might be somewhere in the middle, someone loosely talking about it as
an outside possibility or something like that.

I wouldn't treat WNN as a neutral face value source, any more than
anyone else. They are an industry body and have skin in the game, and
will perfectly naturally want to spin things in their interests. On
their Like the overstatement above, and like citing the 1uSv as a firm
number, when Tepco have said that 1uSv means that's the limits of
their measuring equipment.

On Apr 7, 3:50*pm, Bolted wrote:
On Apr 7, 2:15*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

What ****es me off, is that the yank press seem to be taking the data,
and seeing how much it can be spun into a scare story. Not taking a
balanced view.

Markey didn't help, talking about NRC having told him they suspected
the RPV was breached.

Incidentally, though, that wasn't quite as firmly "debunked" by NRC as
WNN claim. *The NRC response was "That's not clear to us, nor is it
clear to us that the reactor has penetrated the vessel,". *The truth
might be somewhere in the middle, someone loosely talking about it as
an outside possibility or something like that.

I wouldn't treat WNN as a neutral face value source, any more than
anyone else. *They are an industry body and have skin in the game, and
will perfectly naturally want to spin things in their interests. *On
their Like the overstatement above, and like citing the 1uSv as a firm
number, when Tepco have said that 1uSv means that's the limits of
their measuring equipment.

1Sv/hr not 1uSv

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Bolted" wrote in message
...

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).

They shut down, they would have gone critical a few minutes after the
tsunami if they had not.
The loss of cooling is the problem, it boils all the water out because
the decay side of things will be generating a couple of megawatts of
heat for weeks after shutdown.
Without cooling, the core melts, becomes compact enough to become
critical and the whole thing goes Chernobyl.
What they need to do now is hang onto the short half life stuff for as
long as possible to keep it away from people.
This is proving difficult as they are just pumping water through the
reactors and have run out of room to store it.
Normally they reuse the stuff so don't have storage problems.


Cooling is indeed the problem. One of the reactors (#4 I believe) had
had all its fuel removed for maintenance. All these fuel rods were in
the cooling ponds which seem to be right next to the containment vessel
and have boiled dry, due to the additional cooling required. In fact if
they are open-topped, the tsunami may have allowed salt water in which,
AFAIK reacts with the zirconium shields around the uranium and generates
hydrogen. The hydrogen explosions may also have cracked the cooling
ponds - they're keeping quiet about this.

One of the reactors was burning mixed Plutonium/Uranium. I should think
the cooling pond full of that stuff is of most concern to them.


--
AD