Australian Politics Forum - Fukushima

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Fukushima - Consequences? Reply #45 - Mar 26^th, 2011 at 4:29pm I wouldn't argue with a 6.
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 #46 - Mar 26^th, 2011 at 5:20pm

It is said that the Fukushima incident was a level 6 the moment of the first explosion (In fact the French Authorities classed it as a 6 very early on even without the information the Japanese Government had)

In those early stages the Japanese didnt even recognise a level 4 incident.

They have been purposefully sluggish in rating this incident which isnt under control as yet.

Level 7 is a possibility if enough pressure builds up in any of the stricken reactors and a major inner containment explosion occurs with radioactive material ejected into the atimsphere and environment.

The only thing we cant get is a nulcear explosion (not possible with low grade nuclear material - ie 3 or 4% Uranium)

Some psuedo-comfort for the Japanese people who have been sprayed before with radioactive material in that famous terrorist act of 1945

Back to top

IP Logged

Equitist Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9632 NSW	Re: Fukushima - Consequences? Reply #47 - Mar 26^th, 2011 at 5:29pm It has to be a level 6 with the developments over the past 24 hours - and it could yet become a 7+ Yikes!!!
Back to top	Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer! IP Logged

Foolosophy Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1171 Australia Gender:	Re: Fukushima - Consequences? Reply #48 - Mar 26^th, 2011 at 7:20pm Equitist wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 5:29pm: It has to be a level 6 with the developments over the past 24 hours - and it could yet become a 7+ Yikes!!! It has been a level 6 from early on in this incident. I agree with the French assessment
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #49 - Mar 27^th, 2011 at 9:45am

Compared to Chernobyl, it's minor.

Quote:

Monitoring of drinking water is on-going: iodine-131 in drinking water was detected on 24 March in 12 prefectures, whereas caesium-137 was detected in 6 of the 47 prefectures. In Tochigi, a value of 110 becquerel per litre was observed, which is above the recommended value for drinking water to be consumed by infants (i.e. 100 becquerel per litre). All other measurements were far below 100 becquerel per litre. All caesium-137 concentrations measured were lower than 10 becquerel per litre, which is significantly below the limit set by Japan of 200 becquerel per litre.

Given the fact that Cesium-137 is within limits for infants, Iodine-131 is just above in one sample, given the short half-life of Iodine-131, the drinking water is likely to be back on spec in that one location within a week or so.

Emissions from Fukushima Daichi have dropped considerably in the last week, but there are still occasional reports of white smoke from two of the reactors

Quote:

We understand that a total of 17 TEPCO workers and contractors have received doses between 100 and 180 millisievert. TEPCO measured the dose rate of 400 millisievert per hour above the surface of the water in the Unit 3 turbine building where 2 workers had been contaminated.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html

That's high, but not an immediate cause for concern. Light radiation sickness begins at about 500mSv. The above dose will marginally increase the risk of developing cancer for these individuals if they are non smokers. If they took potassium iodide tablets (unlikely because of their age) that would have decreased their risk of cancer (but increased the risk of a heart attack).

They now have fresh water in all Reactor Pressure vessels of concern and it looks as if the instrumentation is currently being tested with external power now connected. That's an improvement. My concern with using seawater is the increased risk of corrosion and the increased volatility of radioactive corrosion products.

With the damage to the fuel rods, it may take some time for the cooling water temperatures to return to nominal.

To put the dose in perspective, flights crews build up about 5 mSv for each 1000 hours flown. A full body CT scan produces a dose of about 10mSv. In the 90's when part of my job involved the role of radiation safety officer, My dosimeter was quite frequently higher than background due to frequent long haul flights, and I used to regularly get "please explain" letters from Radiation Health.

Let's compare with Chernobyl:

Quote:

All of the dosimeters worn by the workers were over-exposed and did not allow an estimate of the doses received. However, information is available on the doses received by the 237 persons who were placed in hospitals and diagnosed as suffering from acute radiation syndrome. Using biological dosimetry, it was estimated that 41 of these patients received whole-body doses from external irradiation in the range 1-2 Sv, that 50 received doses between 2 and 4 Sv, that 22 received between 4 and 6 Sv, and that the remaining 21 received doses between 6 and 16 Sv. In addition, it was estimated from thyroid measurements that the thyroid dose from inhalation would range up to about 20 Gy, with 173 individuals in the 0-1.2 Gy range and seven workers with thyroid doses greater than 11 Gy (UN88). Internal exposure of those workers was mainly due to 131I and shorter-lived radioiodines, the median value of the ratio of the internal thyroid dose to the external effective dose was estimated to be 0.3 Gy per Sv. The doses resulting from intakes of other radionuclides was estimated to about 30 mSv for the early months following the accident and 85 mSv for committed dose (UN00).

Source - http://www.oecd-nea.org/rp/chernobyl/c04.html

You can see that the dose rates were pretty horrendous at Chernobyl in comparison to Fukushima. 1Sv = 1000 mSv for those who are not sure.

It's hard to imagine how this incident could possibly approach the severity of Chernobyl, and yet a single atmospheric atomic bomb detonation (there were quite a few prior to 1963) resulted in 6 times the fallout of Chernobyl.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 27^th, 2011 at 10:13am by muso »

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 #50 - Mar 27^th, 2011 at 2:36pm

...I doubt the accuracy of the radiation levels that the Japenese government and the Japanese corporation are releasing to the public.

THe fukushima nuclear power facility is now a nuclear waste dump.

And what's worse is that this waste dump doesnt meet any regulatory standards - it can still go from its current critical situation to a catastrophic one without warming.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #51 - Mar 27^th, 2011 at 4:01pm

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 2:36pm:

...I doubt the accuracy of the radiation levels that the Japenese government and the Japanese corporation are releasing to the public.

THe fukushima nuclear power facility is now a nuclear waste dump.

And what's worse is that this waste dump doesnt meet any regulatory standards - it can still go from its current critical situation to a catastrophic one without warming.

The levels are consistent with what has happened. In contrast, at Chernobyl, the roof of the reactor pressure vessel was blown apart and the contents including the graphite rods caught fire and spread throughout Northern Europe. At this stage, there is a suspicion of a partial breach at Unit 3 of Fukushima Daichi, but it's more likely to be somewhere in the interconnecting pipework.

It's quite easy to check if anybody has had radiation sickness. The workers in the basement of Unit 3 would have suffered the worst exposure. 400uSv per minute is pretty high, but that was just above the water.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 27^th, 2011 at 4:08pm by muso »

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

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #52 - Mar 27^th, 2011 at 4:56pm

Workers evacuated as radiation levels climb

Updated 45 minutes ago

The operator of Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear plant says the radioactivity in water that has accumulated at the No. 2 reactor is 10 million times the usual level.

Radiation levels in the sea off the the plant are also on the rise.

The offshore radiation levels have now risen to 1,850 times normal from 1,250 on Saturday, Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said.

Senior agency official Hidehiko Nishiyama says the radiation particles will be dispersed and diluted, posing no threat to marine life or food safety.

Mr Amano, a former Japanese diplomat who visited Japan after the quake, says authorities are still unsure about whether the plant's reactor cores and spent fuel are covered with the water needed to cool them.

On Thursday, three workers were taken to hospital from reactor No. 3 after stepping in water with radiation levels 10,000 times higher than usually found in a reactor.

That raised fears the core's container could be damaged.

Two of the plant's reactors are now seen as safe but the other four are volatile, occasionally emitting steam and smoke.

However, the nuclear safety agency said on Saturday that temperature and pressure in all reactors had stabilised.

The government has said the situation was nowhere near to being resolved, although it was not deteriorating.

"We are preventing the situation from worsening," chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano said.

So far, no significant levels of radiation have been detected beyond the vicinity of the plant in Fukushima.

The crisis at the plant, 240 kilometres north of Tokyo, has overshadowed a relief and recovery effort from the magnitude 9.0 quake and the huge tsunami it triggered on March 11 that left more than 27,100 people dead or missing in north-east Japan.

Link -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/27/3174927.htm
=========================

A few observations -
It seems some "officials" may have spent some time on the rack, as they don't appear to have too many problems, "lying straight"?

1) The event on Thursday was 10,000 times higher than usually found in a reactor.
The event today was 10 million times higher than usually found in a reactor.
The offshore radiation levels have now risen to 1,850 times normal from 1,250 on Saturday.
Authorities are still unsure about whether the plant's reactor cores and spent fuel are covered with the water needed to cool them.
There are raised fears that the core's container could be damaged.

However -
2) Radiation particles will be dispersed and diluted, posing no threat to marine life or food safety.
Temperature and pressure in all reactors had stabilised.
The situation was nowhere near to being resolved, although it was not deteriorating.
No significant levels of radiation have been detected beyond the vicinity of the plant in Fukushima.
And, the government is preventing the situation from worsening.

In the Australian vernacular,
that is a pile of sh!T!

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #53 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:25am

What hasn't been stated in that report was the downside of switching from seawater to fresh water.

Seawater boils at a slightly higher temperature than freshwater, and as it concentrates up, the boiling point increases. Introduce fresh water, and at a given temperature where seawater is liquid, fresh water turns to steam.

The more steam that is emitted, the higher the radiation dose.

Quote:

1) The event on Thursday was 10,000 times higher than usually found in a reactor.
The event today was 10 million times higher than usually found in a reactor.

Probably best to access the IAEA website direct. Journos have a habit of screwing up the technical facts.

Quote:

Senior agency official Hidehiko Nishiyama says the radiation particles will be dispersed and diluted, posing no threat to marine life or food safety.

It might not be a popular thing to say, but it's true. The detonations at Hiroshima and Nagasaki each contributed 6 times the fallout of Chernobyl. The total Fukushima incident is minor in terms of total release of radioactive substances compared to Chernobyl.

The major impact of this incident is the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people.
Quote:

1. Current Situation

The situation at the Fukushima Daiichi plant remains very serious.

The restoration of off-site power continues and lighting is now available in the central control rooms of Units 1, 2 and 3. Also, fresh water is now being injected into the Reactor Pressure Vessels (RPVs) of all three Units.

Radiation measurements in the containment vessels and suppression chambers of Units 1, 2 and 3 continued to decrease. White “smoke” continued to be emitted from Units 1 to 4.

Pressure in the RPV showed a slight increase at Unit 1 and was stable at Units 2 and 3, possibly indicating that there has been no major breach in the pressure vessels.

At Unit 1, the temperature measured at the bottom of the RPV fell slightly to 142 °C. At Unit 2, the temperature at the bottom of the RPV fell to 97 °C from 100 °C reported in the Update provided yesterday. Pumping of water from the turbine hall basement to the condenser is in progress with a view to allowing power restoration activities to continue.

At Unit 3, plans are being made to pump water from the turbine building to the main condenser but the method has not yet been decided. This should reduce the radiation levels in the turbine building and reduce the risk of contamination of workers in the turbine building restoring equipment.

No notable change has been reported in the condition of Unit 4.

Water is still being added to the spent fuel pools of Units 1 to 4 and efforts continue to restore normal cooling functions.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #54 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:30am

muso wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:13am:

What hasn't been stated in that report was the downside of switching from seawater to fresh water.

Seawater boils at a slightly higher temperature than freshwater, and as it concentrates up, the boiling point increases. Introduce fresh water, and at a given temperature where seawater is liquid, fresh water turns to steam.

The more steam that is emitted, the higher the radiation dose.

Quote:

1) The event on Thursday was 10,000 times higher than usually found in a reactor.
The event today was 10 million times higher than usually found in a reactor.

Probably best to access the IAEA website direct. Journos have a habit of screwing up the technical facts.

I'm not sure that your assessment is correct, Muso - since there is already a large volume of residual concentrated sea water (and/or crystallised salt) in each of the reactor buildings, the addition of fresh water will cause the salt concentration of the resulting mixture to 'resemble' that of sea water...

Moreover, as I understand it, the continual addition of salty sea water will increase the salt concentration to dangerously-corrosive and potentially-system-clogging levels...

At this stage, therefore, the emergency solutions really boil down to choosing betwixt the lesser of theoretical evils (please excuse the obvious puns)...

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #55 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:33am

Quote:

Two IAEA teams are currently monitoring in Japan. One team made gamma dose-rate measurements in the Tokyo region at 8 locations. Gamma-dose rates measured ranged from 0.08 to 0.15 microsievert per hour, which is within or slightly above the normal background. The second team made additional measurements at distances of 30 to 41 km from the Fukushima nuclear power plant. At these locations, the dose rates ranged from 0.9 to 17 microsievert per hour. At the same locations, results of beta-gamma contamination measurements ranged from 0.03 to 3.1 Megabecquerel per square metre.

The 17uSv/hr reading is a slight cause of concern. One year's exposure to that provides a total dose of 148mSv, three times the occupational exposure limit in Australia. Much of that will be due to I-131, so most of it will decay in a short period.

It's a pity they didn't supply both gamma and gamma-beta combined. We could have calculated the relative abundances of the two primary radioisotopes.

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 #56 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:37am

Equitist wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:30am:

muso wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:13am:

What hasn't been stated in that report was the downside of switching from seawater to fresh water.

Seawater boils at a slightly higher temperature than freshwater, and as it concentrates up, the boiling point increases. Introduce fresh water, and at a given temperature where seawater is liquid, fresh water turns to steam.

The more steam that is emitted, the higher the radiation dose.

Quote:

1) The event on Thursday was 10,000 times higher than usually found in a reactor.
The event today was 10 million times higher than usually found in a reactor.

Probably best to access the IAEA website direct. Journos have a habit of screwing up the technical facts.

I'm not sure that your assessment is correct, Muso - since there is already a large volume of residual concentrated sea water (and/or crystallised salt) in each of the reactor buildings, the addition of fresh water will cause the salt concentration of the resulting mixture to 'resemble' that of sea water...

Moreover, as I understand it, the continual addition of salty sea water will increase the salt concentration to dangerously-corrosive and potentially-system-clogging levels...

At this stage, therefore, the emergency solutions really boil down to choosing betwixt the lesser of theoretical evils (please excuse the obvious puns)...

Yes - If they substitute fresh water, the salt content in the reactor will decrease and the boiling point will also decrease. That's what I tried to say anyway.

I know there are obvious upsides, I was just pointing out the downside (temporary increase in steam emissions as the salt is dissolved away from the surface of the reactor rods) It produces pockets of heat.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #57 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:42am

muso wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:37am:

Equitist wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:30am:

muso wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:13am:

What hasn't been stated in that report was the downside of switching from seawater to fresh water.

Seawater boils at a slightly higher temperature than freshwater, and as it concentrates up, the boiling point increases. Introduce fresh water, and at a given temperature where seawater is liquid, fresh water turns to steam.

The more steam that is emitted, the higher the radiation dose.

Quote:

1) The event on Thursday was 10,000 times higher than usually found in a reactor.
The event today was 10 million times higher than usually found in a reactor.

Probably best to access the IAEA website direct. Journos have a habit of screwing up the technical facts.

I'm not sure that your assessment is correct, Muso - since there is already a large volume of residual concentrated sea water (and/or crystallised salt) in each of the reactor buildings, the addition of fresh water will cause the salt concentration of the resulting mixture to 'resemble' that of sea water...

Moreover, as I understand it, the continual addition of salty sea water will increase the salt concentration to dangerously-corrosive and potentially-system-clogging levels...

At this stage, therefore, the emergency solutions really boil down to choosing betwixt the lesser of theoretical evils (please excuse the obvious puns)...

Yes - If they substitute fresh water, the salt content in the reactor will decrease and the boiling point will also decrease. That's what I tried to say anyway.

Don't you mean increase, since the addition of salt to water has a cooling effect (at least that is true for icy water, i.e. the temperature of the salty mixture is lowered)!?

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #58 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:43am

muso wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:33am:

Quote:

Two IAEA teams are currently monitoring in Japan. One team made gamma dose-rate measurements in the Tokyo region at 8 locations. Gamma-dose rates measured ranged from 0.08 to 0.15 microsievert per hour, which is within or slightly above the normal background. The second team made additional measurements at distances of 30 to 41 km from the Fukushima nuclear power plant. At these locations, the dose rates ranged from 0.9 to 17 microsievert per hour. At the same locations, results of beta-gamma contamination measurements ranged from 0.03 to 3.1 Megabecquerel per square metre.

The 17uSv/hr reading is a slight cause of concern. One year's exposure to that provides a total dose of 148mSv, three times the occupational exposure limit in Australia. Much of that will be due to I-131, so most of it will decay in a short period.

It's a pity they didn't supply both gamma and gamma-beta combined. We could have calculated the relative abundances of the two primary radioisotopes.

So Health becomes a stochastic game that is acceprtable in order to facilitate corporate power and profits

Interesting how it only takes one cell to be mutated by radiation - One DNA bond on the double Helix to be broken, shifted and there is the cancerous cell that will ruin ones life or even kill you.

You hear things like "Oh its just like having a CT scan).

Well some of these CT scans are equivalient in radiation exposure to 140 standard chest X-rays.

And at what point in Human History has the CT scan been classified as just part of a natural Health plan for individuals?

Then you hear about increased radiation exposure when flying in a plane at high altitude.

Being exposed to elevated levels of cosmic rays is not equivalent to having radioactive isotopes line your lungs or absorb into your skin - left there to decay and do their thing - which I understand is cellular destruction and DNA alteration.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #59 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:59am

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:43am:

So Health becomes a stochastic game that is acceprtable in order to facilitate corporate power and profits

Interesting how it only takes one cell to be mutated by radiation - One DNA bond on the double Helix to be broken, shifted and there is the cancerous cell that will ruin ones life or even kill you.

You hear things like "Oh its just like having a CT scan).

Well some of these CT scans are equivalient in radiation exposure to 140 standard chest X-rays.

And at what point in Human History has the CT scan been classified as just part of a natural Health plan for individuals?

Then you hear about increased radiation exposure when flying in a plane at high altitude.

Being exposed to elevated levels of cosmic rays is not equivalent to having radioactive isotopes line your lungs or absorb into your skin - left there to decay and do their thing - which I understand is cellular destruction and DNA alteration.

If you get to the stage where radioactive isotopes line your lungs, then you're a goner.

Cosmic rays are mainly high energy hydrogen nuclei or protons (similar to beta particles).

Quote:

Interesting how it only takes one cell to be mutated by radiation - One DNA bond on the double Helix to be broken, shifted and there is the cancerous cell that will ruin ones life or even kill you.

The same applies to all forms of radiation. The longer we live, the higher the risk of cancer from all substances. Human beings are also radioactive. We contain carbon 14 for one thing. It's another beta emitter.

The same applies to certain building materials such as granite. Granites contain radioactive minerals naturally.

Like everything else, it depends on the dose, and it depends on chance. We hear of people smoking a packet of cigarettes a day and living to be 90, and we hear of survivors from Chernobyl whose total body does was measured in Sieverts (as opposed to milliSieverts, and who are still alive today (with after effects of course)

I'm just attempting to put everything in perspective.

Three questions -
Do you smoke?
Do you eat peanut butter?
Would you eat slightly charred meat from a barbecue?

Each of these activities have (different) cancer risks associated with them.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 28^th, 2011 at 9:05am by muso »

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

IP Logged