Australian Politics Forum - Fukushima

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #240 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 9:58am

A positive development:

Quote:

Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update (3 April 2011, 17:15 UTC)

Japanese authorities today informed the IAEA of the following developments at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant:

In Units 1, 2 and 3, external power supply is now being used to power the pumps that are injecting fresh water into the reactors, thus replacing temporary electrical pumps.

The switch to external power supply occurred on 3 April at:

03:02 UTC (12:02 Japan time) for Unit 1.
03:12 UTC (12:12 Japan time) for Unit 2.
03:18 UTC (12:18 Japan time) for Unit 3.

Some lighting has been reactivated in the turbine buildings of Units 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #241 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 9:59am

muso wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 9:57am:

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 9:54am:

muso wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 9:12am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 8:19am:

Have read of this link....it's a more indepth critique of the report...
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-chernobyl-consequences-of.html

Good link. Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending the Chernobyl disaster in any way. It was a travesty of mismanagement. I'm just exposing some of the inaccurate hype.

The amount of radioactive material spread as a result of Chernobyl makes Fukushima look like a minor accident.

a little bit premature in making that claim

I don't think so - the results of the monitoring are freely available.

What TEPCO monitoring? LOL

When do you think the Fuel rods will be removed?
When do you think the background radiation in and around the Fukushima region will return to normal?

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #242 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:05am

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 9:59am:

What TEPCO monitoring? LOL

When do you think the Fuel rods will be removed?
When do you think the background radiation in and around the Fukushima region will return to normal?

TEPCO is not the only body conducting monitoring by any means. Did you check that link of monitoring results I provided previously?

For your conspiracy theory to have any basis in reality, something like 8 different agencies, including the police and fire services would have to be in on it.

Drinking water has returned to acceptable levels in all monitoring locations. Restrictions apply in one location as a precaution.

Quote:

Most of the previously imposed recommendations for restrictions on drinking water have been lifted. As of 2 April, one recommendation for the restriction based on iodine-131 concentration was in place in one village in the Fukushima prefecture, which applied for infants only. Meanwhile, also in this village, the iodine-131 level in drinking water has dropped below 100 becquerel per litre, which is the recommended restriction level for intake by infants. The restriction is still in place as a precautionary measure of the local authority.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #243 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:06am

muso wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 9:58am:

A positive development:

Quote:

Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update (3 April 2011, 17:15 UTC)

Japanese authorities today informed the IAEA of the following developments at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant:

In Units 1, 2 and 3, external power supply is now being used to power the pumps that are injecting fresh water into the reactors, thus replacing temporary electrical pumps.

The switch to external power supply occurred on 3 April at:

03:02 UTC (12:02 Japan time) for Unit 1.
03:12 UTC (12:12 Japan time) for Unit 2.
03:18 UTC (12:18 Japan time) for Unit 3.

Some lighting has been reactivated in the turbine buildings of Units 1, 2, 3 and 4.

WOW the lights are on! LOL

Did TEPCO and the corporate Japanese puppet government say WHEN the radiation leaks will cease? WHen will the radiation levels return to normal? When the fuel rods will be removed?

Have they released the life expectancy predictions for the TEPCO guinea pigs?

Have they informed anyone as to how much PLUTONIUM has been released into the environment?

But its good to know that the lights are back on in the control room - I wonder what the radiation level is in the control room itself?

Back to top

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #244 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:10am

muso wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:05am:

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 9:59am:

What TEPCO monitoring? LOL

When do you think the Fuel rods will be removed?
When do you think the background radiation in and around the Fukushima region will return to normal?

TEPCO is not the only body conducting monitoring by any means. Did you check that link of monitoring results I provided previously?

For your conspiracy theory to have any basis in reality, something like 8 different agencies, including the police and fire services would have to be in on it.

Drinking water has returned to acceptable levels in all monitoring locations. Restrictions apply in one location as a precaution.

Quote:

Most of the previously imposed recommendations for restrictions on drinking water have been lifted. As of 2 April, one recommendation for the restriction based on iodine-131 concentration was in place in one village in the Fukushima prefecture, which applied for infants only. Meanwhile, also in this village, the iodine-131 level in drinking water has dropped below 100 becquerel per litre, which is the recommended restriction level for intake by infants. The restriction is still in place as a precautionary measure of the local authority.

What is the half life of Iodine-129?

True that TEPCO arent the only ones monitoring radiation. I hear that Greenpeace have been driving towards the Fukushima plant and have recorded radiation levels that are over 100 times normal background level - And thats 40 kms from the plant.

I am sure that two Geiger Counters cant be wrong at the same time

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #245 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:12am

muso wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 9:12am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 8:19am:

Have read of this link....it's a more indepth critique of the report...
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-chernobyl-consequences-of.html

1) Good link. Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending the Chernobyl disaster in any way. It was a travesty of mismanagement. I'm just exposing some of the inaccurate hype.

2) The amount of radioactive material spread as a result of Chernobyl makes Fukushima look like a minor accident.

1) I would have to say that the link is an obvious pro -Nuclear site!

2) I wouldn't categorise either Fukushima or Chernobyl, as minor accidents!

As the saying goes, we should call a spade, a spade!

If something is not right, then we should say so.

In other words, the fact that Nuclear Energy will be required to play a part, in the transition away from Oil, should not and must not prevent anyone from raising issues where the Nuclear industry makes mistakes and those mistakes are compounded by government actions or inactions!

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #246 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:19am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 8:19am:

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2011 at 5:02pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 2:43pm:

muso wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 2:38pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 2:29pm:

That's strange......I went through all 349 pages of that report, and didn't find any reference to 985,000 deaths up to 2006....

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1300795269/161

Reply 161

Read my comments and add up the columns on the table. Hopefully the penny will drop.

I find it quite bizarre that Foolosophy hasn't realised it yet.

Yes, I already did that....and got it Wink

Incidently, if you don't want to join the site (at Foolosophy's link) to read the report, it's also available here:

http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf

==================

I haven't yet had the time to read this lengthy report in depth, however what I have read does not look good, from the perspective of the current event.

Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe
for People and the Environment

7. Mortality after the Chernobyl Catastrophe
The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout.

Yes PN, but the 'several hundred thousand' includes EVERY cancer related death in the old USSR that has taken place since Chernobyl......regardless of WHEN the cancer was first diagnosed, or what the actual cause was...

So how is it possible for people (for example) who were diagnosed with cancer in 1980 and died in 1990 to have been killed by Chernobyl???

And what about unrelated cancers??......The people who smoked 50 cigarettes a day since 1950....Did Chernobyl kill them too???

Have read of this link....it's a more indepth critique of the report...
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-chernobyl-consequences-of.html

Didn't you raise the other report?
http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf

The Nuclear Green site is obviously Nuclear friendly!

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #247 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:22am

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:10am:

What is the half life of Iodine-129?

True that TEPCO arent the only ones monitoring radiation. I hear that Greenpeace have been driving towards the Fukushima plant and have recorded radiation levels that are over 100 times normal background level - And thats 40 kms from the plant.

I am sure that two Geiger Counters cant be wrong at the same time

100 times normal background is high, but if we consider that many places in the world have natural background levels 200-250 times background, with no adverse effects, it puts it in perspective. The only region with elevated readings now is Fukushima. I'll calculate the annual dose.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #248 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:23am

https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimgkey=0AjZPiDLZP5k5dDNoWG9mSlFTZWZvdTQ5dGlCUmxueXc&oid=10&zx=9ks2facb5ys1

Current levels of 3uSv/ hr in the immediate Fukushima area would give a total annual dose of 26mSv, about half the prescribed maximum annual dose for a radiation worker in Australia. It's still a bit high for the general population though.

From the monitoring results, I recall a hotspot about 40km from Fukushima towards the North West.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:35am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Fukushima - Consequences? Reply #249 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:34am perceptions_now wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:19am: The Nuclear Green site is obviously Nuclear friendly! That's a problem. A lot of these sites are either promoting nuclear energy or biasing the facts to support the anti-nuclear lobby. A cursory look at the original paper shows a considerable anti-nuclear bias.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #250 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:41am

muso wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:23am:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AjZPiDLZP5k5dDNoWG9mSlFTZWZvdTQ5dGlCUm...

Current levels of 3uSv/ hr in the immediate Fukushima area would give a total annual dose of 26mSv, about half the prescribed maximum annual dose for a radiation worker in Australia. It's still a bit high for the general population though.

From the monitoring results, I recall a hotspot about 40km from Fukushima towards the North West.

muso,

I am sure that you will gladly eat the fish from the waters off the Fukushima coastline.

I am sure that you will swim gladly in its radaint waters

I am sure that you will take big breaths of the fresh BLUE air

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #251 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:41am

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:10am:

TEPCO is not the only body conducting monitoring by any means. Did you check that link of monitoring results I provided previously?

True that TEPCO arent the only ones monitoring radiation. I hear that Greenpeace have been driving towards the Fukushima plant and have recorded radiation levels that are over 100 times normal background level - And thats 40 kms from the plant.

[/quote]

100 times normal is meaningless. If we take 0.1uSv/hr, then 100 times that would correspond to 10uSv/hr. There are some regional locations peaking at that value. By the way (I could be wrong) but as far as I recall, none of the regional monitoring is being conducted by TEPCO itself. I think it's mostly IAEA, NIRS (Japan), Police and Fire Service. You can check for yourself. I linked the data previously. It's all there.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #252 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:44am

muso wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:41am:

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:10am:

TEPCO is not the only body conducting monitoring by any means. Did you check that link of monitoring results I provided previously?

True that TEPCO arent the only ones monitoring radiation. I hear that Greenpeace have been driving towards the Fukushima plant and have recorded radiation levels that are over 100 times normal background level - And thats 40 kms from the plant.

100 times normal is meaningless. If we take 0.1uSv/hr, then 100 times that would correspond to 10uSv/hr. There are some regional locations peaking at that value. By the way (I could be wrong) but as far as I recall, none of the regional monitoring is being conducted by TEPCO itself. I think it's mostly IAEA, NIRS (Japan), Police and Fire Service. You can check for yourself. I linked the data previously. It's all there. [/quote]

How many Plutonium atoms do you need to breath in order to get cancer?

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #253 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:46am

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:41am:

muso wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:23am:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AjZPiDLZP5k5dDNoWG9mSlFTZWZvdTQ5dGlCUm...

Current levels of 3uSv/ hr in the immediate Fukushima area would give a total annual dose of 26mSv, about half the prescribed maximum annual dose for a radiation worker in Australia. It's still a bit high for the general population though.

From the monitoring results, I recall a hotspot about 40km from Fukushima towards the North West.

muso,

I am sure that you will gladly eat the fish from the waters off the Fukushima coastline.

I am sure that you will swim gladly in its radaint waters

I am sure that you will take big breaths of the fresh BLUE air

I'd breath the air within the Exclusion zone with minor protection as a precaution (P1 dust mask, Tyvek (basically plastic impregnated paper) chem suit and gloves), but I wouldn't eat anything out of the sea in that area right now. I'd expect that levels in the sea to reduce dramatically when they can fix the crack in the trench that was caused by the earthquake and Tsunami.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #254 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:53am

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 10:44am:

How many Plutonium atoms do you need to breath in order to get cancer?

How many cosmic rays need to hit you to get cancer? Plutonium has low mobility. Even with salt water there is no conceivable way of producing a volatile plutonium salt or a soluble Plutonium salt that can be entrained in steam. The results from the immediate vicinity of the reactor are barely above detection, and that's what I'd expect.

OK, the nearest thing we can get to a mobile Plutonium salt would be one of the fluorides. There are minute quantities of fluoride in seawater, but it doesn't react with Plutonium oxide.

We need either free fluorine or pure plutonium for reaction to occur. We have neither.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged