"It is important to understand that the risk to health from radiation
from Fukushima is negligible, and that undue concern over any possible
health effects could be much worse than the radiation itself"

Gerry Thomas
Imperial College, London

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...a_0309131.html

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 04/09/2013 09:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
"It is important to understand that the risk to health from radiation
from Fukushima is negligible, and that undue concern over any possible
health effects could be much worse than the radiation itself"

Gerry Thomas
Imperial College, London

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...a_0309131.html

I think negligible is over egging it a bit. The threat to nuclear
workers in the plant is real enough if they are unlucky or careless.

Most of the surroundings will have cooled down by now, but the presently
uncontrolled leaks to groundwater are not good news. Tepco management
has basically lost the plot and everybodys' trust.

The surrounding contamination is now pretty well under control but like
in the UK moorlands some parts have vegetation that concentrates certain
radioisotopes. It is also true that in Japan fear of nuclear
contamination has considerably more public resonance than elsewhere.

They are the only nation to have been attacked with nuclear weapons.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 04/09/13 10:50, Martin Brown wrote:
On 04/09/2013 09:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
"It is important to understand that the risk to health from radiation
from Fukushima is negligible, and that undue concern over any possible
health effects could be much worse than the radiation itself"

Gerry Thomas
Imperial College, London

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...a_0309131.html

I think negligible is over egging it a bit. The threat to nuclear
workers in the plant is real enough if they are unlucky or careless.


they carry dose meters and alarms.

Most of the surroundings will have cooled down by now, but the
presently uncontrolled leaks to groundwater are not good news. Tepco
management has basically lost the plot and everybodys' trust.


there are no uncontrolled leaks to groundwater.

There was one leak, which didn't get far, and is now contained.


The surrounding contamination is now pretty well under control but
like in the UK moorlands some parts have vegetation that concentrates
certain radioisotopes. It is also true that in Japan fear of nuclear
contamination has considerably more public resonance than elsewhere.

They are the only nation to have been attacked with nuclear weapons.

They are the only nation that cannot realistically do without nuclear
power, too.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 10:54:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

there are no uncontrolled leaks to groundwater.

There was one leak, which didn't get far, and is now contained.

Well I suppose you are hanging that statement on the "to groundwater"
hook.

The news that I have read is that several of the storage tanks have
leaked over the years and that some of the pipework has also leaked
and they aren't sure what is getting out of the containment
vessel(s).

TEPCO do seem to have lost the plot, latest cock appears to be using
a meter with FSD of 100 mSv and saying that the puddle was at that
level, then going backa few days later with a meter witha higher FSD
and finding 800 odd mSv... Combine that basic plumbing failures(*)
and the Japanese cultural inabilty to admit to failure it's hardly
surprising there is some distrust of TEPCO and their abilty to manage
the situation.

(*) It's only water they are storing moving about FFS. Yes it has a
minute trace of some radioactive isotopes but it's still only water.
Hardly difficult to store or have leak proof pipework.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 04/09/2013 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

they carry dose meters and alarms.


Apparently, the meters were set with a maximum range of 100 mSv, so the
leak was logged at that level. Unfortunately, it was actually vastly
higher, but nobody noticed until much later.

I imagine one of the issues they have is that they have to discharge
experienced staff, as they have been subject to lifetime radiation
limits, if not beyond. Consequently, they have all sorts of new people
on-site who have no clue about what they are doing.

Quite frankly, if you did have an idea about what you are doing, would
you work there?

On 04/09/2013 11:48, GB wrote:
On 04/09/2013 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

they carry dose meters and alarms.


Apparently, the meters were set with a maximum range of 100 mSv, so the
leak was logged at that level. Unfortunately, it was actually vastly
higher, but nobody noticed until much later.

I imagine one of the issues they have is that they have to discharge
experienced staff, as they have been subject to lifetime radiation
limits, if not beyond. Consequently, they have all sorts of new people
on-site who have no clue about what they are doing.

Quite frankly, if you did have an idea about what you are doing, would
you work there?

As it happens, yes. They did an appalling job of handling release of
information to the media at the outset; since TMI we are *much* better
organised in the UK. But they also did a relatively good technical job
in the immediate recovery period as, for that matter, did the Russians
after Chernobyl.

I have to agree, though, that they are not doing well now.

An interesting juxtaposition of figures, at the time the Japanese talked
about allocating another third of a billion euros/dollars to Fukushima,
a BBC radio program was talking about how the Norwegians are tucking
away a billion euros/dollars into their wealth fund *every week*.

On 04/09/13 11:36, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 10:54:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

there are no uncontrolled leaks to groundwater.

There was one leak, which didn't get far, and is now contained.
Well I suppose you are hanging that statement on the "to groundwater"
hook.

The news that I have read is that several of the storage tanks have
leaked over the years and that some of the pipework has also leaked
and they aren't sure what is getting out of the containment
vessel(s).
that's not the news that I read.

TEPCO do seem to have lost the plot, latest cock appears to be using
a meter with FSD of 100 mSv and saying that the puddle was at that
level, then going backa few days later with a meter witha higher FSD
and finding 800 odd mSv... Combine that basic plumbing failures(*)
and the Japanese cultural inabilty to admit to failure it's hardly
surprising there is some distrust of TEPCO and their abilty to manage
the situation.

that is deliberate misinterpretation of the facts.

the puddles were relatively low but as the water evaporated a very small
hotspot was left at the centre of the puddle.

100mSv/h is not a huge issue anyway. 100msV is the radiation dose given
toi cuyre cancers and is the threshold for ANY detectable increases in
cancer risks or a as my oncologist said 'a 5% extra chance of secondary
cancer in 15 years time'



(*) It's only water they are storing moving about FFS. Yes it has a
minute trace of some radioactive isotopes but it's still only water.
Hardly difficult to store or have leak proof pipework.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 04/09/13 11:48, GB wrote:
On 04/09/2013 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

they carry dose meters and alarms.


Apparently, the meters were set with a maximum range of 100 mSv, so
the leak was logged at that level. Unfortunately, it was actually
vastly higher, but nobody noticed until much later.

I imagine one of the issues they have is that they have to discharge
experienced staff, as they have been subject to lifetime radiation
limits, if not beyond. Consequently, they have all sorts of new
people on-site who have no clue about what they are doing.

imagination doesn't beat facts. Only tow workers reached annual dosage
levels at the time of the spill.

Quite frankly, if you did have an idea about what you are doing, would
you work there?

Money?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Well as has been said more than once. Natural processes can generate more
radiation than diluting the pacific with the whole reactor load of
contaminated stuff and water from that accident. Unfortunately, it is just
that people do not trust the scientists, the company or the government on
any of this so they have not done it.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
"It is important to understand that the risk to health from radiation from
Fukushima is negligible, and that undue concern over any possible health
effects could be much worse than the radiation itself"

Gerry Thomas
Imperial College, London

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...a_0309131.html

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members
of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded
with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 10:54:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

there are no uncontrolled leaks to groundwater.
There was one leak, which didn't get far, and is now contained.

More pro-nuclear lies from TNP ...

Not only is the leak is not yet contained, it is getting worse:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23945612

This is how they are PLANNING to contain it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23940214

They are the only nation that cannot realistically do without nuclear
power, too.

Another lie - they are currently surviving with hardly any
contribution from nuclear power:

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

"Problems in stabilizing the Fukushima I nuclear plant had hardened
attitudes to nuclear power. As of June 2011, "more than 80 percent of
Japanese now say they are anti-nuclear and distrust government
information on radiation".[11][12][13] As of October 2011, there have
been electricity shortages, but Japan survived the summer without the
extensive blackouts that had been predicted.[14][15][16] An energy
white paper, approved by the Japanese Cabinet in October 2011, says
"public confidence in safety of nuclear power was greatly damaged" by
the Fukushima disaster, and calls for a reduction in the nation’s
reliance on nuclear power.[17]

Many of Japan's nuclear plants have been closed, or their operation
has been suspended for safety inspections. The last of Japan's 50
reactors (Tomari-3) went offline for maintenance on May 5, 2012.,[18]
leaving Japan completely without nuclear-produced electrical power for
the first time since 1970. Despite protests, on 1 July 2012 unit 3 of
the O-i Nuclear Power Plant was restarted.[19] As of September 2012,
O-i units 3 and 4 are Japan's only operating nuclear power plants,
although the city and prefecture of Osaka have requested they be shut
down.[20]"
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 04/09/2013 11:48, GB wrote:
On 04/09/2013 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

they carry dose meters and alarms.


Apparently, the meters were set with a maximum range of 100 mSv, so the
leak was logged at that level. Unfortunately, it was actually vastly
higher, but nobody noticed until much later.

I imagine one of the issues they have is that they have to discharge
experienced staff, as they have been subject to lifetime radiation
limits, if not beyond. Consequently, they have all sorts of new people
on-site who have no clue about what they are doing.

Quite frankly, if you did have an idea about what you are doing, would
you work there?


You might do it for health reasons, it appears nuclear workers have less
cancers than the general population.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 13:12:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 04/09/13 11:36, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 10:54:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

TEPCO do seem to have lost the plot, latest cock appears to be using
a meter with FSD of 100 mSv and saying that the puddle was at that
level, then going backa few days later with a meter witha higher FSD
and finding 800 odd mSv... Combine that basic plumbing failures(*)
and the Japanese cultural inabilty to admit to failure it's hardly
surprising there is some distrust of TEPCO and their abilty to manage
the situation.

Yes, as per the link I gave in another reply:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23779560

"Having initially reported high levels of radiation - of about 100
milliSieverts per hour near the leaked water within the moat -
officials had to concede later that the equipment used to take the
readings had an inadequate scale. When newer equipment was brought in,
it was established that the levels of beta radiation had actually been
18 times higher. Subsequent readings have been up to as much as
2,200mSv per hour. While still extremely high, experts say that,
properly protected, workers can still operate in such an environment."

that is deliberate misinterpretation of the facts.

No, you're the only person doing that.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
"It is important to understand that the risk to health from radiation from
Fukushima is negligible, and that undue concern over any possible health
effects could be much worse than the radiation itself"

Gerry Thomas
Imperial College, London

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...a_0309131.html


Full of sh*t as usual.
Three hundred tons a day (atleast)of radioactive water is leaking from the
site.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23779561

The true cost of nuclear power.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...69d_story.html

Taxpayer picks up the bill as usual with nuclear power.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 04/09/13 11:36, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 10:54:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

there are no uncontrolled leaks to groundwater.

There was one leak, which didn't get far, and is now contained.
Well I suppose you are hanging that statement on the "to groundwater"
hook.

The news that I have read is that several of the storage tanks have
leaked over the years and that some of the pipework has also leaked
and they aren't sure what is getting out of the containment
vessel(s).
that's not the news that I read.

TEPCO do seem to have lost the plot, latest cock appears to be using
a meter with FSD of 100 mSv and saying that the puddle was at that
level, then going backa few days later with a meter witha higher FSD
and finding 800 odd mSv... Combine that basic plumbing failures(*)
and the Japanese cultural inabilty to admit to failure it's hardly
surprising there is some distrust of TEPCO and their abilty to manage
the situation.

that is deliberate misinterpretation of the facts.

the puddles were relatively low but as the water evaporated a very small
hotspot was left at the centre of the puddle.

100mSv/h is not a huge issue anyway. 100msV is the radiation dose given
toi cuyre cancers and is the threshold for ANY detectable increases in
cancer risks or a as my oncologist said 'a 5% extra chance of secondary
cancer in 15 years time'



(*) It's only water they are storing moving about FFS. Yes it has a
minute trace of some radioactive isotopes but it's still only water.
Hardly difficult to store or have leak proof pipework.


Usual crap fromTurNiP.
http://www.hazardexonthenet.net/arti...mergency-.aspx

On 04/09/13 20:00, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
"It is important to understand that the risk to health from radiation from
Fukushima is negligible, and that undue concern over any possible health
effects could be much worse than the radiation itself"

Gerry Thomas
Imperial College, London

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...a_0309131.html

Full of sh*t as usual.
Three hundred tons a day (atleast)of radioactive water is leaking from the
site.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23779561


lie. at most 300 tins IN ALL has leaked.

The true cost of nuclear power.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...69d_story.html

washingtn post is like the new ytorsk times, hardly unbiased.

Taxpayer picks up the bill as usual with nuclear power.

because governbment insists on making it stupidly expensive.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 04/09/13 20:03, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 04/09/13 11:36, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 10:54:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

there are no uncontrolled leaks to groundwater.

There was one leak, which didn't get far, and is now contained.
Well I suppose you are hanging that statement on the "to groundwater"
hook.

The news that I have read is that several of the storage tanks have
leaked over the years and that some of the pipework has also leaked
and they aren't sure what is getting out of the containment
vessel(s).
that's not the news that I read.

TEPCO do seem to have lost the plot, latest cock appears to be using
a meter with FSD of 100 mSv and saying that the puddle was at that
level, then going backa few days later with a meter witha higher FSD
and finding 800 odd mSv... Combine that basic plumbing failures(*)
and the Japanese cultural inabilty to admit to failure it's hardly
surprising there is some distrust of TEPCO and their abilty to manage
the situation.
that is deliberate misinterpretation of the facts.

the puddles were relatively low but as the water evaporated a very small
hotspot was left at the centre of the puddle.

100mSv/h is not a huge issue anyway. 100msV is the radiation dose given
toi cuyre cancers and is the threshold for ANY detectable increases in
cancer risks or a as my oncologist said 'a 5% extra chance of secondary
cancer in 15 years time'


(*) It's only water they are storing moving about FFS. Yes it has a
minute trace of some radioactive isotopes but it's still only water.
Hardly difficult to store or have leak proof pipework.

Usual crap fromTurNiP.
http://www.hazardexonthenet.net/arti...mergency-.aspx


usual crap from harry.

calling something an emergency doesnt mean a damned thing. people's
toiliets that don't flush are 'emergencies'


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Governments don't throw $470m on something that isn't an emergency.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:13:57 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

calling something an emergency doesnt mean a damned thing. people's
toiliets that don't flush are 'emergencies'
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 04/09/2013 19:55, dennis@home wrote:

You might do it for health reasons, it appears nuclear workers have less
cancers than the general population.

The general population includes people at home with cancer, who can't work.

On 04/09/2013 13:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I imagine one of the issues they have is that they have to discharge
experienced staff, as they have been subject to lifetime radiation
limits, if not beyond. Consequently, they have all sorts of new
people on-site who have no clue about what they are doing.

imagination doesn't beat facts. Only tow workers reached annual dosage
levels at the time of the spill.

You mean from this particular spill? Do you have figures for how many of
their experienced staff have had to stop work because of radiation
limits? Or are you saying it's just 2 since the original problems
started? If so, I must express my surprise.






Quite frankly, if you did have an idea about what you are doing, would
you work there?

Money?

On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:12:40 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 04/09/13 20:00, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Full of sh*t as usual.
Three hundred tons a day (atleast)of radioactive water is leaking from the
site.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23779561

at most 300 tins IN ALL has leaked.

That's actually correct, for once, but it's quite bad enough.

The true cost of nuclear power.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...ly-500-million
-as-tepco-deals-with-water-crisis/2013/09/03/581876c6-147c-11e3-880b-7503237cc69d_story.html

washingtn post is like the new ytorsk times, hardly unbiased.

Whereas you are UNBIASED????? Everyone in this ng KNOWS that you have
a pro-nuclear bias, but perhaps not everyone quite realised just how
badly it affects your judgement until you were stupid enough to start
a pro-nuclear thread in the middle of the leak crisis at Fukushima.
Talk about moronically bad timing - no wonder all the **** is flying
in your direction!

Taxpayer picks up the bill as usual with nuclear power.

Exactly.

because governbment insists on making it stupidly expensive.

Noone has MAKE it expensive, when you work out the true cost of it, it
just is.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 10:54:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

there are no uncontrolled leaks to groundwater.
There was one leak, which didn't get far, and is now contained.

More pro-nuclear lies from TNP ...

Not only is the leak is not yet contained, it is getting worse:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23945612

This is how they are PLANNING to contain it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23940214

They are the only nation that cannot realistically do without nuclear
power, too.

Another lie - they are currently surviving with hardly any
contribution from nuclear power:

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

"Problems in stabilizing the Fukushima I nuclear plant had hardened
attitudes to nuclear power. As of June 2011, "more than 80 percent of
Japanese now say they are anti-nuclear and distrust government
information on radiation".[11][12][13] As of October 2011, there have
been electricity shortages, but Japan survived the summer without the
extensive blackouts that had been predicted.[14][15][16] An energy
white paper, approved by the Japanese Cabinet in October 2011, says
"public confidence in safety of nuclear power was greatly damaged" by
the Fukushima disaster, and calls for a reduction in the nations
reliance on nuclear power.[17]

Many of Japan's nuclear plants have been closed, or their operation
has been suspended for safety inspections. The last of Japan's 50
reactors (Tomari-3) went offline for maintenance on May 5, 2012.,[18]
leaving Japan completely without nuclear-produced electrical power for
the first time since 1970. Despite protests, on 1 July 2012 unit 3 of
the O-i Nuclear Power Plant was restarted.[19] As of September 2012,
O-i units 3 and 4 are Japan's only operating nuclear power plants,
although the city and prefecture of Osaka have requested they be shut
down.[20]"

Let them --- erect Windymills)....


All done 'n dusted!.....
--
Tony Sayer

On 04/09/13 20:29, GB wrote:
On 04/09/2013 13:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I imagine one of the issues they have is that they have to discharge
experienced staff, as they have been subject to lifetime radiation
limits, if not beyond. Consequently, they have all sorts of new
people on-site who have no clue about what they are doing.

imagination doesn't beat facts. Only tow workers reached annual dosage
levels at the time of the spill.

You mean from this particular spill? Do you have figures for how many
of their experienced staff have had to stop work because of radiation
limits? Or are you saying it's just 2 since the original problems
started? If so, I must express my surprise.



As far as I know only two workers have been laid off because they had
reached teh 100mSV limit.

Since the actual accident they wear suits when in higher level radiation
zones. Why would they not? They have also used robots.

Once the situation was under reasonable control - and that was really
inside of a cuople of weeks - there was no reason to use humans to mess
with the more radioactive stuff.

All they have to do on site is remove fuel from what reactors are still
relatively undamaged, and repair the holding tanks for the spent fuel.

Then start treating all the water they had used to flood the reactors
down to cold shutdown

I think that is the water under question.

You seem to think the site is lethal It isnt. Mostly its safe. There
are few copntaminated places where plutonium and uranium flecs landed,
and there is a lot of moderately contaminated water, but water is an
effective shleld. That water had already been treated to remove most of
the contaminants, and it could and should have been dumped in the sea.
However rules said it had to be stored and treated, thereby adding
massively to the cost, and creating wonderful opportunities for more
headlines

The MSM is a total disgrace: no opportunity is missed to blow any minor
issue out of all proportion, but the milestones in bringing the reactors
and fuel ponds under control, and decontaminating it and treating the
water have all been missed.





Quite frankly, if you did have an idea about what you are doing, would
you work there?

Money?





--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 04/09/13 20:52, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 10:54:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
there are no uncontrolled leaks to groundwater.
There was one leak, which didn't get far, and is now contained.
More pro-nuclear lies from TNP ...

Not only is the leak is not yet contained, it is getting worse:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23945612

This is how they are PLANNING to contain it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23940214

They are the only nation that cannot realistically do without nuclear
power, too.
Another lie - they are currently surviving with hardly any
contribution from nuclear power:

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

"Problems in stabilizing the Fukushima I nuclear plant had hardened
attitudes to nuclear power. As of June 2011, "more than 80 percent of
Japanese now say they are anti-nuclear and distrust government
information on radiation".[11][12][13] As of October 2011, there have
been electricity shortages, but Japan survived the summer without the
extensive blackouts that had been predicted.[14][15][16] An energy
white paper, approved by the Japanese Cabinet in October 2011, says
"public confidence in safety of nuclear power was greatly damaged" by
the Fukushima disaster, and calls for a reduction in the nations
reliance on nuclear power.[17]

Many of Japan's nuclear plants have been closed, or their operation
has been suspended for safety inspections. The last of Japan's 50
reactors (Tomari-3) went offline for maintenance on May 5, 2012.,[18]
leaving Japan completely without nuclear-produced electrical power for
the first time since 1970. Despite protests, on 1 July 2012 unit 3 of
the O-i Nuclear Power Plant was restarted.[19] As of September 2012,
O-i units 3 and 4 are Japan's only operating nuclear power plants,
although the city and prefecture of Osaka have requested they be shut
down.[20]"
Let them --- erect Windymills)....


All done 'n dusted!.....
Any article on climate change, nuclear power or renewable energy in
wikipedia is written by the green/renewable lobby.

And essentially is totally untrustworthy. In fact the lies that are in
there - demonstrable lies - are one of the reasons it becomes obvious
that where these matters are concerned we are not dealing wioth science
or facts, but with well orchestrated propaganda.


Japan is suffering a massive balance of payments problem, spiralling
import bills and regular power cuts.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 04/09/2013 21:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Japan is suffering a massive balance of payments problem, spiralling
import bills and regular power cuts.



It'll be fine once winter starts.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 21:12:44 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

In fact the lies that are in
there - demonstrable lies - are one of the reasons it becomes obvious
that where these matters are concerned we are not dealing wioth science
or facts, but with well orchestrated propaganda.

However, I note, as doubtless will others, that despite claiming that
there are "demonstrable lies", you do NOT demonstrate any of the
article to be lies. If it contains "demonstrable lies", why have you
chickened out of a perfect chance to refute them with more relevant,
substantiated information, and instead drivelled out just another sad
dose of paranoid conspiracy theory?

Japan is suffering a massive balance of payments problem, spiralling
import bills and regular power cuts.

You may or may not be correct, but proof, as always, is required but
is not forthcoming from you. Until it is, you have proved yourself so
unreliable a source in the past that without such proof there is no
reason why anyone here should believe anything you say on any subject
whatsoever, let alone this particular one where your bias is very well
known.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

I haven't bothered to check this, so ICBW, but reading between the
lines of the Wiki article, I rather gathered that the bigger problem
might be summer - air con, I suppose. Might be interesting actually
to find out.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 22:10:49 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

It'll be fine once winter starts.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 10:54:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

there are no uncontrolled leaks to groundwater.
There was one leak, which didn't get far, and is now contained.

More pro-nuclear lies from TNP ...

Not only is the leak is not yet contained, it is getting worse:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23945612

This is how they are PLANNING to contain it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23940214

They are the only nation that cannot realistically do without nuclear
power, too.

Another lie - they are currently surviving with hardly any
contribution from nuclear power:

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

"Problems in stabilizing the Fukushima I nuclear plant had hardened
attitudes to nuclear power. As of June 2011, "more than 80 percent of
Japanese now say they are anti-nuclear and distrust government
information on radiation".[11][12][13] As of October 2011, there have
been electricity shortages, but Japan survived the summer without the
extensive blackouts that had been predicted.[14][15][16] An energy
white paper, approved by the Japanese Cabinet in October 2011, says
"public confidence in safety of nuclear power was greatly damaged" by
the Fukushima disaster, and calls for a reduction in the nation's
reliance on nuclear power.[17]

Many of Japan's nuclear plants have been closed, or their operation
has been suspended for safety inspections. The last of Japan's 50
reactors (Tomari-3) went offline for maintenance on May 5, 2012.,[18]
leaving Japan completely without nuclear-produced electrical power for
the first time since 1970. Despite protests, on 1 July 2012 unit 3 of
the O-i Nuclear Power Plant was restarted.[19] As of September 2012,
O-i units 3 and 4 are Japan's only operating nuclear power plants,
although the city and prefecture of Osaka have requested they be shut
down.[20]"

Let them --- erect Windymills)....


All done 'n dusted!.....


They already are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Japan

On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 12:18:11 +0100, newshound
wrote:

An interesting juxtaposition of figures, at the time the Japanese talked
about allocating another third of a billion euros/dollars to Fukushima,
a BBC radio program was talking about how the Norwegians are tucking
away a billion euros/dollars into their wealth fund *every week*.

You'd have thought that with that much wealth they would cut income tax and the
price of fuel, beer and electricity.


--

On 04/09/2013 20:48, Java Jive wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:12:40 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
....
because governbment insists on making it stupidly expensive.

Noone has MAKE it expensive, when you work out the true cost of it, it
just is.

When you work out the true cost, including all fuel mining and transport
costs and everything from breaking ground to final decommissioning,
nuclear costs about the same as coal, half to one third the cost of wind
power and one fifth the cost of solar PV. It is also, by a long way, the
safest way to make electricity.

Colin Bignell

On 04/09/2013 21:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You mean from this particular spill? Do you have figures for how many
of their experienced staff have had to stop work because of radiation
limits? Or are you saying it's just 2 since the original problems
started? If so, I must express my surprise.



As far as I know only two workers have been laid off because they had
reached teh 100mSV limit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_50

"Over 30 workers are radiated beyond 100 mSv by 23 April 2011."



Since the actual accident they wear suits when in higher level radiation
zones. Why would they not? They have also used robots.

I think they are only wearing paper overalls and particulate masks. The
idea is to protect against ingesting/breathing in radioactive particle.

Pretty much anything protects against beta radiation when it is outside
the body. The beta radiation risk is from radioactive particles inside.
That's why plutonium is so serious, IIRC.

The suits won't protect against gamma radiation and they provide no
effective defence against alpha radiation. (This is all me dredging this
info up from my school/university days, 40 years ago, so please excuse
any hopefully minor inaccuracies.)


The main reason for not wanting to work on the site is that they don't
seem to be managing the place terribly well.

This is the perpetual claim of the pro-nuclear lobby here, but yet
again, just as with TNP, It's just so much hot air - you give no
FIGURES in support of your argument.

Meanwhile, here are some actual, real figures, which already you seem
to have forgotten, even though they were only posted in the fracking
thread on 22nd August :-(

"""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...United_Kingdom
"However The Times reported the cost of building each EPR reactor had
increased to £7 billion, which Citigroup analysts did not regard as
commercially viable, projecting a generation cost of 16.6p/kWh for
private-sector financed reactors."

.... in a little more detail ...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/0...8470XC20120508
"A report from the Times newspaper on Monday said French nuclear
developer EDF had raised the cost of building a nuclear power plant to
7 billion pounds from 4.5 billion pounds last year.

"If the latest cost figures are true, new nuclear power plants in the
UK are not commercially viable," Citi analyst Peter Atherton told
Reuters. Based on the new figures, nuclear would be the most
expensive form of electricity generation, exceeding even offshore
wind, he said. "The only way they could be built is if the
construction risk was transferred to the taxpayer," Atherton said,
equating to a multi-billion pound government insurance policy.

EDF's Flamanville reactor, which is under construction in France, is
running four years late and at least double its original budget."

Note: The figure of £7bn does not include the costs of
decommissioning at end-of-life and handling waste; it is unclear
whether or not the 16.6p/kWh unit cost of electricity does so.
"""

On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 09:49:07 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

When you work out the true cost, including all fuel mining and transport
costs and everything from breaking ground to final decommissioning,
nuclear costs about the same as coal, half to one third the cost of wind
power and one fifth the cost of solar PV.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 05/09/2013 11:33, Java Jive wrote:
This is the perpetual claim of the pro-nuclear lobby here, but yet
again, just as with TNP, It's just so much hot air - you give no
FIGURES in support of your argument...

Given so often in the past, it shouldn't be necessary to repeat them.

http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publica...commentary.pdf
http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/ElecCostSUM.pdf
http://www.oecd-nea.org/pub/egc/docs...ummary-ENG.pdf

This compares conventional plant:

http://www.pbworld.com/pdfs/regional...model-2011.pdf

Colin Bignell

On 05/09/2013 11:28, GB wrote:
On 04/09/2013 21:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You mean from this particular spill? Do you have figures for how many
of their experienced staff have had to stop work because of radiation
limits? Or are you saying it's just 2 since the original problems
started? If so, I must express my surprise.



As far as I know only two workers have been laid off because they had
reached teh 100mSV limit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_50

"Over 30 workers are radiated beyond 100 mSv by 23 April 2011."



Since the actual accident they wear suits when in higher level radiation
zones. Why would they not? They have also used robots.

I think they are only wearing paper overalls and particulate masks. The
idea is to protect against ingesting/breathing in radioactive particle.

Pretty much anything protects against beta radiation when it is outside
the body. The beta radiation risk is from radioactive particles inside.
That's why plutonium is so serious, IIRC.

Beta radiation is high energy electrons and can penetrate a few mm of
metal, paper overalls offers no protect from them.

Alpha particles are high energy helium nuclei and are stopped by much
thinner things.

Both may have associated gamma radiation which needs lead or a lot of
mass to stop.

The most dangerous, because its hard to stop, is probably neutrons but
they are a fission product and stop when the control rods are inserted.


The suits won't protect against gamma radiation and they provide no
effective defence against alpha radiation. (This is all me dredging this
info up from my school/university days, 40 years ago, so please excuse
any hopefully minor inaccuracies.)

No minor ones. ;-)



The main reason for not wanting to work on the site is that they don't
seem to be managing the place terribly well.

On 05/09/2013 08:30, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 12:18:11 +0100, newshound
wrote:

An interesting juxtaposition of figures, at the time the Japanese talked
about allocating another third of a billion euros/dollars to Fukushima,
a BBC radio program was talking about how the Norwegians are tucking
away a billion euros/dollars into their wealth fund *every week*.

You'd have thought that with that much wealth they would cut income tax and the
price of fuel, beer and electricity.

I know, taking a long term view is just _so_ wrong!

On 05/09/13 11:28, GB wrote:
On 04/09/2013 21:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You mean from this particular spill? Do you have figures for how many
of their experienced staff have had to stop work because of radiation
limits? Or are you saying it's just 2 since the original problems
started? If so, I must express my surprise.



As far as I know only two workers have been laid off because they had
reached teh 100mSV limit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_50

"Over 30 workers are radiated beyond 100 mSv by 23 April 2011."



Since the actual accident they wear suits when in higher level radiation
zones. Why would they not? They have also used robots.

I think they are only wearing paper overalls and particulate masks.
The idea is to protect against ingesting/breathing in radioactive
particle.

Pretty much anything protects against beta radiation when it is
outside the body. The beta radiation risk is from radioactive
particles inside. That's why pluton
Plutonium is not serious at all. I am not sure anyone ever died of
plutonium.
Polonium..is a different matter.


The suits won't protect against gamma radiation and they provide no
effective defence against alpha radiation. (This is all me dredging
this info up from my school/university days, 40 years ago, so please
excuse any hopefully minor inaccuracies.)


The main reason for not wanting to work on the site is that they don't
seem to be managing the place terribly well.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 05/09/2013 09:49, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/09/2013 20:48, Java Jive wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:12:40 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
...
because governbment insists on making it stupidly expensive.

Noone has MAKE it expensive, when you work out the true cost of it, it
just is.

When you work out the true cost, including all fuel mining and transport
costs and everything from breaking ground to final decommissioning,
nuclear costs about the same as coal, half to one third the cost of wind
power and one fifth the cost of solar PV. It is also, by a long way, the
safest way to make electricity.


In these days of privatisation, near-monopolies or cartels, and general
fraud, I'd also make a distinction between price and cost.

Cheers, Rob

On 05/09/13 22:28, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 05/09/13 11:28, GB wrote:
On 04/09/2013 21:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You mean from this particular spill? Do you have figures for how
many
of their experienced staff have had to stop work because of
radiation
limits? Or are you saying it's just 2 since the original problems
started? If so, I must express my surprise.

As far as I know only two workers have been laid off because they had
reached teh 100mSV limit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_50

"Over 30 workers are radiated beyond 100 mSv by 23 April 2011."

Since the actual accident they wear suits when in higher level
radiation
zones. Why would they not? They have also used robots.

I think they are only wearing paper overalls and particulate masks.
The idea is to protect against ingesting/breathing in radioactive
particle.

Pretty much anything protects against beta radiation when it is
outside the body. The beta radiation risk is from radioactive
particles inside. That's why pluton
Plutonium is not serious at all. I am not sure anyone ever died of
plutonium.
Polonium..is a different matter.

AIUI, plutonium is a *chemical* poison if ingested via one of its
salts, but then so are many heavy metals.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter13.html



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 13:30:08 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

On 05/09/2013 11:33, Java Jive wrote:
This is the perpetual claim of the pro-nuclear lobby here, but yet
again, just as with TNP, It's just so much hot air - you give no
FIGURES in support of your argument...

Given so often in the past, it shouldn't be necessary to repeat them.

That's the first time I can recall seeing any of these links.

Specific analysis follows, but some general points come out of all of
them, either stated openly, or by implication ...

- The relative costs are HIGHLY dependent on the discount rate
chosen for Discounted Cash Flow (DCF). The documents all work between
5% and 10%, while the standard Treasury rate is 3.5%, however in the
liberated energy market what really matters is what rate a commercial
company would use, or rather what the people lending the money to the
commercial company for the project would use.

- Nuclear power is also HIGHLY sensitive to the capital cost of
building the plant, and all these reports pre-date the latest
announcements by EDF concerning the projected increase in cost of
Hinkley C, to wit: "The Times reported the cost of building each EPR
reactor had increased to £7 billion, which Citigroup analysts did not
regard as commercially viable, projecting a generation cost of
16.6p/kWh for private-sector financed reactors." Incidentally, note
something that even I had previously missed - that's each reactor,
and there are two, so that's £14bn total.

If we don't wish to accept the Citigroup analysis, or wish at least
get some sort of independent figure, how can we adjust these reports
to account for this massive increase in capital expenditure? Well we
can take the increase from 4.5 to 7, a ratio of 1.56, and multiply up
the nuclear capital inputs by this ratio and put them back into the
figures given. Yes, it's crude, but it should at least give us an
idea what the very minimum cost of nuclear can possibly be. I shall
only bother to do this for the two most recent documents you linked,
as the others are too far out of date to be at all useful.

So specific analyses of the two most recent documents linked by you
follow, with the above calculation included ...

http://www.oecd-nea.org/pub/egc/docs...ummary-ENG.pdf
(this PDF is locked, so can not easily quote from it)

+ At least it's tolerably up to date, 2010.

+ p 10 (printed), 11 (viewed)
It apparently includes some cost of nuclear waste management:
"Again, these figures include costs for refurbishment, waste
treatment, and decommissioning after a 60-year lifetime."

The data we require for the above calculation is here ...

- p 5 (printed), 6 (viewed)

From the graph for 10% discount rate, the median figure for European
nuclear seems to be 105 $/MWh, of which the text says 75% reflects
capital costs. So that's:
105 - 0.75*105 + 1.56*0.75*105 = 149.1 $/MWh = £95.57/MWh

Or 9.6p/unit

http://www.pbworld.com/pdfs/regional...model-2011.pdf

+ Again, reasonably up to date, 2011.

- p 4 (printed), 8 (viewed)

"The model also contains input assumptions for the cost of CO2
disposal, waste disposal, decommissioning, fuel price projections,
exchange rates and CO2 price projections; however these parameters
were outside the scope of the work undertaken by PB and have values as
set by DECC."

The implication of this would appear to be that the costs of handling
nuclear waste are included but out of date, as is the cost of all
types of fuel, nuclear and non-nuclear.

The data we require for the above calculation is here ...

- p 16 (printed), 20 (viewed)

Unit cost for nuclear is 7.41p, capital cost is 5.55 of that, so we
have:
7.41 - 5.55 + 1.56 * 5.55 = 10.52p/unit.

So, to the nearest penny or so, the absolute MINIMUM that new build
nuclear powered electricity is likely to cost is 10p/unit.

Incidentally, compare that with a recent posting by TNP:

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 11:47:35 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

nuclear need never be more than at most 10p.

I don't think anyone needs say any more about this constant source of
disinformation.

So, is this 10p/unit a reasonable guesstimate? It seems so ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-21774652

"Today, electricity sells on the wholesale market for about £45 per
megawatt-hour (MwH). But anything under £90 a MwH would see Hinkley
lose money." So, according to the BBC, Hinkley needs at least
9p/unit, which is in reasonable agreement to the calculations above.

Why the extra 6.6p/unit from Citigroup? Well, ultimately we'd have to
ask them, but things that spring to mind a

- As it's not supposed to come in any way from HMG, EDF have to find
£14bn high risk long term capital on the open market, and that's not
cheap. I suspect they are going to want to pay highish dividends to
investors asap - rather like when you have a mortgage, the early
payments mostly repay interest, capital repayments only begin to
increase significantly when you've paid off most of the interest. This
would mean that, to make the investment worthwhile, they might have to
offer a higher return than allowed for in these documents.

- They may have included more stringent or realistic waste handling
costs.

- They may have included more stringent or realistic fuel costs, given
the shortfall projected by WNA.

But, as I say, ultimately we'd have to ask them.

At any rate, the above calculations effectively demolish any "nuclear
is cheapest" claim. At 10p/unit it will be at least as expensive as
onshore wind, and if the 16.6p/unit is in fact correct, then every
other technology is cheaper. Even the projected cost of carbon
capture at 3.5p / unit when added onto the projected cost of new
carbon build is still likely to be cheaper than nuclear.

And the WNA are projecting a world-wide shortage of nuclear fuel, and
we have no worthwhile indigenous supplies of it.

Specific comments about the two older documents follow ...

http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publica...commentary.pdf

- 2004, so seriously out of date.

- There is no evidence at all that any costs of nuclear waste handling
has been included. If, as I believe, it hasn't, then that omission
alone makes the comparison utterly meaningless.

- p 1 (printed), 2 (viewed)

"The scope required a certain amount of simplification and
approximation of issues that would be of utmost importance to a
commercial organisation making an investment decision in the
electricity generation market. These include treatment of risk and
uncertainty, security of supply of fuel ..."

And we know already that the firms tendering for nuclear power are
asking for guarantees and subsidies. Beside the BBC link above, there
is also this older report:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...isters-reactor
"Nuclear power: ministers offer reactor deal until 2050. Energy firms
may get 40-year backing after government U-turn on subsidies"

"Industry sources believe the likely agreed price for the first
project in the pipeline to be contracted on this timescale – two 1.6
GW reactors to be built at Hinkley Point in Somerset by the energy
company EDF – will be below £100 (per MWhr = 10p/unit), though not by
a large margin. That price, however, is more than double the market
price for electricity, and higher than all but the most expensive
government forecasts for the future."

Which, as with other more recent reports, is more than 4 times the
figures given in this 2004 document.

- p 2 (printed), 3 (viewed) footnote to chart.

"With the exception of nuclear, the analysis assumes that
decommissioning is cost neutral. The capital cost estimate for nuclear
plant includes an allowance for the costs of decommissioning."

But again, apparently not of the cost of waste handling.

- p 5 (printed), 6 (viewed)

"The cost of nuclear and other renewables (deemed to be carbon
neutral) remain unchanged and, therefore, become more competitive as
the specific cost of CO2 emissions increases."

But nuclear is not carbon neutral, because of the ancillary processes
of mining the raw material, refining it to get the fuel,
(re)processing waste, etc, all of which consume various forms of
energy. As fuel gets scarcer, as projected by the WNA, more ancillary
energy input will be required to extract the 'active ingredient'.

- p 7 (printed), 8 (viewed)

"The issues to be addressed when considering an energy policy include:
security of supply, ..."

Of which, with nuclear, we have in the form of waste, which would
itself require expensive reprocessing, at very best about 1/3 of the
scheduled operating lifetime of the government's proposed new nuclear
build.

"Critical Issues
....
3 Further scrutiny of the commercial claims for nuclear power would be
useful because of the lack of data from existing new-build projects"

As evinced by the articles linked above and up thread, we have been
getting some of that data since, and it's not exactly encouraging.

http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/ElecCostSUM.pdf

- Dated 2005, so again, seriously out of date.

- Again, there is no evidence at all that any of cost of nuclear waste
processing has been included, so again, a meaningless comparison.

- p 11 (printed), 1 (viewed)

"In view of the risks they are facing in competitive markets,
investors tend to favour less capital intensive and more flexible
technologies."

.... which nuclear is not ... continues on this theme ...

"Investors now have to internalise these risks into their investment
decision making. This adds to the required rates of return and
shortens the time frame that investors require to recover the capital.
Private investors’ required real rates of return may be higher than
the 5% and 10% discount rates used in this study and the time required
to recover the invested capital may be shorter than the 30 to 40 years
generally used in this study."

Also, the document is too general and vague to be of much use.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 05/09/13 22:28, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 05/09/13 11:28, GB wrote:
On 04/09/2013 21:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You mean from this particular spill? Do you have figures for how
many
of their experienced staff have had to stop work because of
radiation
limits? Or are you saying it's just 2 since the original problems
started? If so, I must express my surprise.

As far as I know only two workers have been laid off because they had
reached teh 100mSV limit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_50

"Over 30 workers are radiated beyond 100 mSv by 23 April 2011."

Since the actual accident they wear suits when in higher level
radiation
zones. Why would they not? They have also used robots.

I think they are only wearing paper overalls and particulate masks.
The idea is to protect against ingesting/breathing in radioactive
particle.

Pretty much anything protects against beta radiation when it is
outside the body. The beta radiation risk is from radioactive
particles inside. That's why pluton
Plutonium is not serious at all. I am not sure anyone ever died of
plutonium.
Polonium..is a different matter.

AIUI, plutonium is a *chemical* poison if ingested via one of its salts,
but then so are many heavy metals.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter13.html
So ytou get your "facts" from religious texts?


Full of your usual crap I see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity
Quote
During the decay of plutonium, three types of radiation are released-alpha,
beta, and gamma. Alpha radiation can travel only a short distance and cannot
travel through the outer, dead layer of human skin. Beta radiation can
penetrate human skin, but cannot go all the way through the body. Gamma
radiation can go all the way through the body.[89] Alpha, beta, and gamma
radiation are all forms of ionizing radiation. Either acute or longer-term
exposure carries a danger of serious health outcomes includingradiation
sickness, genetic damage, cancer, and death. The danger increases with the
amount of exposure.
Unquote

On 04/09/2013 22:10, dennis@home wrote:
On 04/09/2013 21:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Japan is suffering a massive balance of payments problem, spiralling
import bills and regular power cuts.

Understandable given that Tepco made such a pigs ear of managing the
crisis at Fukushima. It isn't their first MFU either they had a serious
passive criticality incident at Tokaimura a decade or so before. That
was by procedural cock-up with highly enriched research grade fuel.

It'll be fine once winter starts.

Yes. It will be. The most heavily populated parts have dry winter
weather that apart from a few days of snow is shirt sleeve weather for
us most of the time. The west coast and Hokkaido get lots of snow and
the latter gets very cold but it isn't heavily populated.

The places that do get cold they have high tech paraffin powered space
heaters or just run their aircon in reverse but it isn't really forced
to work very hard by comparison with summers at 35C and 90+% humidity.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown