Australian Politics Forum - Fukushima

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #60 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 9:44am

muso wrote on 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.

Once you cook anything at temperatures above 140 degC you are at elevated risk of contracting cancer - a set of reactions take place above this temperature that produce all sorts of carcinogens (even below this temperature)

To aritificially concentrate rare earth elements such as Uranium into what will essentially become a radioactive waste dump that needs to be dealt in the unimaginably distant future is not only irresponsible but collectively insane.

The evolutionary process of "Life" has finally produced a species so idiot and self destructive that it will take everything down with it.

The Human species itself is basically a malignant tumour - a cancerous growth on this planet's vast and complex eco-system

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #61 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 11:05am

First of all, Uranium is not a rare earth element.

What you describe is the process of mining or extraction. We do very similar things with Crude Oil. When you fill your car with petrol, there is also a cancer risk associated with inhalation (or even worse) skin absorption of the benzene.

If you are a pedestrian in any large city, breathing in the aromatic hydrocarbon fumes, including such substances as dioxins that are derived from the Internal Combustion engine will also increase your cancer risk to some extent. If you smoke, you don't have to worry about any other significant cancer risks, because smoking swamps all others.

On the whole, it makes sense to pursue renewable options. You don't have an argument from me there.

However, if you're proposing that we drop anything that's likely to be a cancer risk, then you'll have to give up bodily contact with other human beings among other things.

Barbecues are totally out:
http://www.worldhealth.net/news/barbecue_meat_chemicalsgrilling_and_canc/

I have long taken the view that the biggest cancer risk of all is the act of living.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 28^th, 2011 at 11:30am 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 #62 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 11:47am

Equitist wrote on 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)!?

Equitist,
I think you will find that the boiling point of salty water is higher, than the boiling point of fresh water and therefore if you replace salty water with fresh water, the boiling point will become lower or decrease.

Fresh water will therefore boil at lower temperatures than does salty water & steam will also be created at lower temperatures.

So, whilst taking away the salty water, may lessen the corrosion angle, replacing it with fresh water heightens the risk of spreading radioactivity via more steam.

That said, there does seem to be a balancing act going on, but I'm thinking of the balancing act of what information is being feed to the Public, with both the government & the company providing quite large amounts of BS, for the Public to feed on, in amongst some snippets of valid information!

Back to top

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #63 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 12:01pm

I still don't follow your logic, Muso - but I share your concern about the ongoing release of radioactive steam...

Another significant concern, is the balancing act that they must consider - between pumping out (and storing) smaller amounts of highly-radioactive water ASAP and pumping in large amounts of fresh (or salt) water in order to cool the reactors and spent fuel rods down ASAP...

Simply diluting the existing highly-radioactive water will make it far more difficult to dispose of the higher volume of water later - and make it more difficult for workers to work in an around the plant to conduct repairs because a 500% increase in water volume will do SFA towards bringing radiation levels down (even if it will soon boil or evaporate off)...

They don't have many options and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they resorted to pumping the highly radioactive water straight out to sea - especially since it is likely to end up there anyway, if the plant goes into an uncontrolled meltdown and needs to be abandoned altogether...

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

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #64 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 12:20pm

muso wrote on 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

Which is what I'm saying about the reporting, it is selective and not necessarily accurate, but not all the errors are caused by the media, quite a bit can be put down to the company & the government of Japan.

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.

Whilst I agree that the media can often report incorrect information, the same can also be said for governments & their agencies & private companies.
In this instance, the incorrect info, if it was incorrect, seems to have emmanated from the company (TEPCO).
You may find the following report & embedded video of interest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12877198

Btw, the IAEA site can run a little behind realtime developments, so whilst the media may present some inaccuracy, it is generally quicker.

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.

Again, I agree that given time & distance, some of the effects will dissipate!
However, to "overlook" that this incident does pose a threat to marine & other life &/or food safety, in the affected areas, NOW, is a calculated statement, by the government &/or the company!

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

Again, I agree that the displacement of people, in the sort of numbers being affected, is a significant problem!

However, before this is all faded from our memories, there are certain to be other possibly greater issues, starting with the immediate deaths of over 30,000 people, arising from the earthquake & tsunami.

But, the Nuclear ramifications & the ongoing Global Economic dislocations, will play out for a long time to come and some of those ramifications may prove to be devastating, for many 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

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #65 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 1:49pm

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 12:20pm:

Whilst I agree that the media can often report incorrect information, the same can also be said for governments & their agencies & private companies.
In this instance, the incorrect info, if it was incorrect, seems to have emmanated from the company (TEPCO).
You may find the following report & embedded video of interest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12877198

Btw, the IAEA site can run a little behind realtime developments, so whilst the media may present some inaccuracy, it is generally quicker.

Quicker and accurate are not necessarily compatible. I agree that TEPCO made a blooper with the "One million times normal " comment. They must be under a lot of stress.

IAEA at least has the ability to run a reality check on the information. If they are not getting information, they generally don't speculate why this is the case - eg cover-ups. They state that there seems to be a lack of information eg about the Unit 4 spent fuel rod pool.

- So I'm happy to wait for the daily update, because I know it will be as accurate as possible and has been technically vetted.

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 #66 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 2:00pm

Equitist wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 12:01pm:

I still don't follow your logic, Muso - but I share your concern about the ongoing release of radioactive steam...

Another significant concern, is the balancing act that they must consider - between pumping out (and storing) smaller amounts of highly-radioactive water ASAP and pumping in large amounts of fresh (or salt) water in order to cool the reactors and spent fuel rods down ASAP...

Simply diluting the existing highly-radioactive water will make it far more difficult to dispose of the higher volume of water later - and make it more difficult for workers to work in an around the plant to conduct repairs because a 500% increase in water volume will do SFA towards bringing radiation levels down (even if it will soon boil or evaporate off)...

They don't have many options and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they resorted to pumping the highly radioactive water straight out to sea - especially since it is likely to end up there anyway, if the plant goes into an uncontrolled meltdown and needs to be abandoned altogether...

They could bring in a reverse osmosis unit if they don't have one already and clean up the water in that manner, concentrating the radioactive substances in the rejects and thereby reducing the total volume. If there are cracks in the Unit 2 RPV then it's not going to be easy.

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 #67 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 5:54pm

muso wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 2:00pm:

Equitist wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 12:01pm:

I still don't follow your logic, Muso - but I share your concern about the ongoing release of radioactive steam...

Another significant concern, is the balancing act that they must consider - between pumping out (and storing) smaller amounts of highly-radioactive water ASAP and pumping in large amounts of fresh (or salt) water in order to cool the reactors and spent fuel rods down ASAP...

Simply diluting the existing highly-radioactive water will make it far more difficult to dispose of the higher volume of water later - and make it more difficult for workers to work in an around the plant to conduct repairs because a 500% increase in water volume will do SFA towards bringing radiation levels down (even if it will soon boil or evaporate off)...

They don't have many options and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they resorted to pumping the highly radioactive water straight out to sea - especially since it is likely to end up there anyway, if the plant goes into an uncontrolled meltdown and needs to be abandoned altogether...

They could bring in a reverse osmosis unit if they don't have one already and clean up the water in that manner, concentrating the radioactive substances in the rejects and thereby reducing the total volume. If there are cracks in the Unit 2 RPV then it's not going to be easy.

There is a very good reason why Nuclear power reactors use ultra clean water

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #68 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 6:33pm

Status report: Reactor-by-reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi plant

From CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/28/japan.nuclear.status/
==========================
Also included are video reports -
1) IAEA Director General
2) US "expert" discussing "scenario's".

Obviously these two are coming from different directions, but of the two, I must say the IAEA guy lacked believability, the most.

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #69 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 6:43pm

Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log

IAEA Updates of 27 March 2011

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/fukushima260311.html
=====================
Whilst this site provides some useful information, it is also a multi government organization and as such, it may be subject to some
Politicalisation of reporting.

Which means, it lacks in speed, but also a certain overall perspective is missing!

Back to top

IP Logged

Grey Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5341 Gender:	Re: Fukushima - Consequences? Reply #70 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 6:57pm
Back to top	"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #71 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 9:27pm

Hazardous Radiation Detected Outside Damaged Japanese Reactor

March 28 (Bloomberg) -- Radiation levels that can prove fatal were detected outside reactor buildings at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant for the first time, complicating efforts to contain the worst disaster since Chernobyl in 1986.

Water in an underground trench outside the No. 2 reactor had levels exceeding 1 sievert an hour, a spokesman for plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. told reporters in the capital today. Thirty minutes of exposure to that dose would trigger nausea and four hours might lead to death within two months, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

A partial meltdown of fuel rods in the No. 2 reactor probably caused a jump in the readings, Japan’s chief government spokesman said today.

Elevated radiation levels have been detected in crops grown near the stricken plant as well as the water supply in Tokyo, 220 kilometers (138 miles) to the south, and other regions.

Soil near the Fukushima plant will be tested for plutonium contamination, the government said. The radioactive metal was part of the fuel mix in reactor No. 3 and its presence outside the plant would suggest those fuel rods were also exposed.

Link -
http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ayZ.QUEqaRxg&pos=8
==========================
This is a trench "outside the reactor buildings"!

Is the trench also outside the Plant compound?

What "underground trench"?

Is this trench contained?

Where did the trench come from?

And, where does the trench go to?

What material has passed thru this trench?

And, where has that material now gone?

Back to top

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #72 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 9:40pm

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 9:27pm:

Hazardous Radiation Detected Outside Damaged Japanese Reactor

March 28 (Bloomberg) -- Radiation levels that can prove fatal were detected outside reactor buildings at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant for the first time, complicating efforts to contain the worst disaster since Chernobyl in 1986.

Water in an underground trench outside the No. 2 reactor had levels exceeding 1 sievert an hour, a spokesman for plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. told reporters in the capital today. Thirty minutes of exposure to that dose would trigger nausea and four hours might lead to death within two months, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

A partial meltdown of fuel rods in the No. 2 reactor probably caused a jump in the readings, Japan’s chief government spokesman said today.

Elevated radiation levels have been detected in crops grown near the stricken plant as well as the water supply in Tokyo, 220 kilometers (138 miles) to the south, and other regions.

Soil near the Fukushima plant will be tested for plutonium contamination, the government said. The radioactive metal was part of the fuel mix in reactor No. 3 and its presence outside the plant would suggest those fuel rods were also exposed.

Link -
http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ayZ.QUEqaRxg&pos=8
==========================
This is a trench "outside the reactor buildings"!

Is the trench also outside the Plant compound?

What "underground trench"?

Is this trench contained?

Where did the trench come from?

And, where does the trench go to?

What material has passed thru this trench?

And, where has that material now gone?

All good questions - and all of serious concern!

Imagine if another post-quake Tsunami had washed over that trench today...

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

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #73 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 10:32pm

Quote:

The evolutionary process of "Life" has finally produced a species so idiot and self destructive that it will take everything down with it.

The Human species itself is basically a malignant tumour - a cancerous growth on this planet's vast and complex eco-system

Well if you really DO believe that, isn't the very best thing YOU can for the planet is to 'remove' yourself from it...so there's one less human to 'pollute' the eco-system?????

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #74 - Mar 28^th, 2011 at 10:34pm

Japan Fears Nuclear Reactor Is Leaking Contaminated Water

TOKYO — Highly contaminated water is escaping a damaged reactor at a crippled nuclear power plant in Japan and could soon leak into the ocean, the country’s nuclear regulator warned on Monday.

Radiation measuring 1,000 millisieverts per hour was detected in water in an overflow tunnel outside the plant’s Reactor No. 2, Japan’s nuclear regulator said at a news conference. The tunnel leads from the reactor’s turbine building, where contaminated water was discovered on Saturday, to an opening just 180 feet from the sea, said Hidehiko Nishiyama, deputy director-general for the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.

The contaminated water level is now about three feet from the exit of the vertical, U-shaped tunnel and rising, Mr. Nishiyama said.

Contaminated water also was found at tunnels leading from the No. 1 and No. 3 reactors, though at much lower levels of radiation.

“We are unsure whether there is already an overflow” of the contaminated water out of the tunnel, Mr. Nishiyama said.

He said workers were redoubling efforts to first remove the water from the turbine building. Government officials have said that the water is likely leaking either from broken pipes inside the reactor, or from a breach in the reactor’s pressure vessel, which houses the nuclear fuel.

Link -
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/world/asia/29japan.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
================================
So, has someting new happened that has created these broken pipes or breach/s to the reactors pressure vessel/s or has this radioactive material just been sitting around, undetected?

Back to top

IP Logged