Prepare for a slow and agonizing death

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
MARIS61

MARIS61

Real American
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
28,007
Likes
5,012
Points
113
The general clinical symptoms of radiation sickness depend chiefly on the total dose of radiation. Observations have shown that a single wholebody exposure of up to 100 rads produces comparatively mild, transitory changes, regarded as premorbid. Doses of more than 100 rads cause various forms of radiation sickness (of the bone marrow or intestines, for example) of varying severity, in which both the main symptoms and the outcome depend chiefly on the extent to which the hematopoietic organs are involved. Single wholebody doses of more than 600 rads are considered absolutely lethal; victims die within a month or two after exposure.

In the most typical form of acute radiation sickness, with doses of more than 200 rads, primary reactions (nausea, vomiting, and general weakness) begin to appear within minutes or hours. Symptoms subside after three or four days, and an apparently healthy stage ensues. However, careful clinical examination reveals that the sickness has progressed. This stage lasts from 14-15 days to four or five weeks, after which the general condition deteriorates, the feeling of weakness increases, hemorrhages occur, and the body temperature rises. As a result of the involvement of the hematopoietic organs, the leukocyte count in the peripheral blood decreases steadily (after a temporary increase) and reaches extremely low levels (a condition called radiation leukopenia), predisposing the patient to sepsis and hemorrhage. This stage lasts two or three weeks.

There are other forms of radiation sickness. For example, whole-body irradiation at doses ranging from 1,000 to 5,000 rads gives rise to the intestinal form of the condition, which is characterized primarily by involvement of the intestine. Eventually, the water-salt balance is disturbed, owing to severe diarrhea, and the blood circulation is impaired. A patient suffering from this form of radiation sickness usually dies within days, bypassing the ordinary stages of the condition. After whole-body doses of more than 5,000 rads, death occurs within one to three days, or even during the exposure itself, from injury to brain tissues (as in cerebral radiation sickness). Other forms of radiation sickness are a function mainly of the site of irradiation.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Radiation+Sickness
 
Last edited:
LOL. Do you know how much 100 rads is? Even those 3 guys (THREE! Out of a "melting down reactor", THREE guys get "sick", not dead. Hell, let's shut down the industry and go to coal power. No one ever gets hurt there)

More people died installing solar panels last year than got exposed to any radiation whatsoever in this "worst accident ever in Japan".

Normally I let your ridiculous opinions slide, but you're utterly and completely full of shit here and deserve to be called out for it. Again, if you have questions I'd be happy to help answer them. But you're not doing that. Here, you're trolling.
 
while talking about Chernobyl, which was a) old, b) a poor design, c) in effect, sabotaged and d) not contained properly...it's important to realize that of the 140 or so workers that were initally hit with the doses that you're talking about in the OP, "only" 47 of them died from it. 28 immediately, and 19 over the next 20 years. That's from people who were actively dropping sandbags right on top of the hot (temperature and radiologically) uncovered nuclear sludge pile, not people around the globe receiving "massive doses of fallout". 47 deaths from immediate responders.

All told, less than 4000 people got cancer b/c of the Chernobyl accident. Note: not "died", "got cancer". Worldwide. Now factor that 20% of people worldwide get cancer, and you realize that your fears about nuclear power are completely baseless and unfounded scientifically.

Anything I can do to allay more of your fears, just ask.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/health_impacts.html
Don't believe me though, ask the UN.
 
From your link above:
I would think that ANY explosion at a nuke plant isn’t a good thing.
Click to expand...
True, but an explosion at a Toys R Us isn't good, either.
Even worse, there are several nuclear reactors side-by-side there. I would think if one goes, they all go. But I’m not a nuclear scientist and that’s just a guess.
Click to expand...
The author isn't explaining where she gets the numbers for the "3000 rads" initiating at the site. That level is completely inconsistent with anything even potentially capable in even the worst loss of coolant scenario. Then again, what do you expect from these credentials:
Beth Shaw holds a Masters Degree in Social Work from the University of Georgia. She has worked as a psychiatric social worker, as a psychotherapist as well as administrative positions.
Click to expand...

Perhaps there are some nuclear specialists around who can let us know if one of those reactors can withstand a nuclear explosion right next to it.
Click to expand...
Happy to. There wouldn't be a "nuclear explosion". There could be an explosion of built-up hydrogen, which again is bad. But even in the previous explosion, NO DAMAGE WAS FOUND AT THE REACTOR where the hydrogen exploded, much less the adjacent reactors in adjacent buildings. So I think it's safe to say, as a nuclear specialist, that all of this is misinformed grandstanding and leaps of imagination. Good find, Maris.
 
Last edited:
BrianFromWA said:
LOL. Do you know how much 100 rads is? Even those 3 guys (THREE! Out of a "melting down reactor", THREE guys get "sick", not dead. Hell, let's shut down the industry and go to coal power. No one ever gets hurt there)

More people died installing solar panels last year than got exposed to any radiation whatsoever in this "worst accident ever in Japan".

Normally I let your ridiculous opinions slide, but you're utterly and completely full of shit here and deserve to be called out for it. Again, if you have questions I'd be happy to help answer them. But you're not doing that. Here, you're trolling.
Click to expand...

I guess you're still hiding under a ticket counter at the airport, where apparently there is no news broadcast, but even the Japanese government has admitted to 160 cases of radiation poisoning already, and news sources have it higher.

3 of the 4 reactors are now on red alert due to failing cooling systems.
 
Ah, Ms. Keeton. Haven't thought about her for awhile. Apparently, neither has anyone else - there is no new news on the web about her.

barfo
 
So, Brian, if the di-lithium crystals can't take the heat, what happens? Explosion, or will we be sucked through a rip in the spacetime continuum?

barfo
 
BrianFromWA said:
while talking about Chernobyl, which was a) old, b) a poor design, c) in effect, sabotaged and d) not contained properly...it's important to realize that of the 140 or so workers that were initally hit with the doses that you're talking about in the OP, "only" 47 of them died from it. 28 immediately, and 19 over the next 20 years. That's from people who were actively dropping sandbags right on top of the hot (temperature and radiologically) uncovered nuclear sludge pile, not people around the globe receiving "massive doses of fallout". 47 deaths from immediate responders.

All told, less than 4000 people got cancer b/c of the Chernobyl accident. Note: not "died", "got cancer".
Click to expand...

As usual, you're incorrect.

4056 people DIED, SO FAR.

Also dead: Health of plant workers and local peopleIn the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness, of whom 31 died within the first three months.

Four hundred times more radioactive material was released than had been by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.

The Japan reactor currently melting down is the largest in the world, about 100 times more powerful than Chernobyl was.

40,000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. Sounds like serious stuff to me.

People will continue to die from the radiation fallout for decades to come, but as in most cases of cancer it will remain unknown what the source was. Several countries cannot avoid consuming contaminated water, milk, meat... Half of northern Eurpope is probably contaminated in some way from it. Sweden and Finland were hit the hardest, with Sweden actually being the country who discovered and reported the disaster 36 hours after it happened with Russia still concealing it from the world.

from wiki
Contamination from the Chernobyl accident was scattered irregularly depending on weather conditions. Reports from Soviet and Western scientists indicate that Belarus received about 60% of the contamination that fell on the former Soviet Union. However, the 2006 TORCH report stated that half of the volatile particles had landed outside Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. A large area in Russia south of Bryansk was also contaminated, as were parts of northwestern Ukraine. Studies in surrounding countries indicate that over one million people could have been affected by radiation.
 
Last edited:
Why are you quoting wikipedia, while I quote the World Health Organization and the UN?

And yes, more than 160 have died installing solar panels, which is more than got ANY RADIATION WHATSOEVER in Japan. Not "poisoning", b/c that total was a whopping 3. ANY RADIATION WHATSOEVER.

In doing maintenance on the reactor, I frequently received doses of radiation. Fortunately for me, they're less than you get from living in the the atmosphere of Beautiful Central Oregon. Every year, the difference of radiation that you and I get from the sun is larger than the dose 157 of these people received.

The joke is your grasping at straws written by social workers, while discounting experts.
 
Last edited:
MARIS61 said:
As usual, you're incorrect.

4056 people DIED, SO FAR.
Click to expand...
Please defend this number. Below, your quote calls you a liar.
Also dead: Health of plant workers and local peopleIn the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness, of whom 31 died within the first three months.

Four hundred times more radioactive material was released than had been by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.

The Japan reactor currently melting down is the largest in the world, about 100 times more powerful than Chernobyl was.

40,000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. Sounds like serious stuff to me.
Click to expand...
Yes, because you're ignorant of nuclear engineering and have an axe to grind. First, you're mixing numbers. Chernobyl released 400x Hiroshima. There has been very little release of containment at the reactor in Japan. Second, a reactor can't blow up like a bomb. Third, the reactor "melting down" has not lost containment. Fourth, it's incapable of criticality, because of the boron and seawater injections. That fuel is ruined. It may have had a "potential" of 100x Chernobyl (I didn't see a link for that), but that fuel cannot go critical.
People will continue to die from the radiation fallout for decades to come, but as in most cases of cancer it will remain unknown what the source was. Several countries cannot avoid consuming contaminated water, milk, meat... Half of northern Eurpope is probably contaminated in some way from it. Sweden and Finland were hit the hardest, with Sweden actually being the country who discovered and reported the disaster 36 hours after it happened with Russia still concealing it from the world.

from wiki
Contamination from the Chernobyl accident was scattered irregularly depending on weather conditions. Reports from Soviet and Western scientists indicate that Belarus received about 60% of the contamination that fell on the former Soviet Union. However, the 2006 TORCH report stated that half of the volatile particles had landed outside Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. A large area in Russia south of Bryansk was also contaminated, as were parts of northwestern Ukraine. Studies in surrounding countries indicate that over one million people could have been affected by radiation.
Click to expand...

Again, that's made up. Instead of reading wiki, read some source material and ask questions about things you don't understand. I really want to help eradicate public stupidity about the "invisible dangers." More people die in Ukraine of cancer than the rest of the world b/c of unfiltered cigarettes and heavy vodka drinking. 20% of the world dies from cancer as it is, because of that big radiation-maker known as The Sun and other issues.
 
Are you going to tell me why you think you're going to be dosed with 100 rads in one shot and get radiation poisoning? Or just not acknowledge that you're talking out of your hat, you needed some education and now you're a bit smarter about the world outside of your front porch?
 
BrianFromWA said:
What's really going to blow your mind, though?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7132017.stm

So while you may have a point with the title of the thread, it's the ignorance of people like you to science and the zealous faith in an anti-nuclear campaign that is causing death by coal.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be a choice between hemlock or cyanide.

Solar and wind, and hydroelectric are all far safer and less polluting than the incredibly destructive coal and nuclear plants. Woodburning is even safer and less polluting.

Nuclear and coal are both old archaic "technologies" that have already been demonstrated to be dangerous, impractical, and extremely expensive when including the cost of environmental and health damage they have wrought upon the Earth.
 
BrianFromWA said:
Why are you quoting wikipedia, while I quote the World Health Organization and the UN?

Because it's not a decidedly pro-nuclear organization with an agenda to push, while WHO and the UN definitely are.

And yes, more than 160 have died installing solar panels, which is more than got ANY RADIATION WHATSOEVER in Japan. Not "poisoning", b/c that total was a whopping 3. ANY RADIATION WHATSOEVER.

Your own link claiming that gives no real number but makes an assumption that 1/2 of all construction falling deaths in the US (about 365 a year) are from solar panel installers. He admits this is his "personal" estimate, and gives the reader no clue how he makes that astounding leap of absurdity. My brother makes his living in the construction industry as a crane operator building skyscrapers, and I know he'd get a laugh out of your silly link.

As for the Japan casualties so far, again you childishly refuse to face the reported facts, which will certainly balloon in numbers as soon as reporters find ways to get around the roadblocks.

In doing maintenance on the reactor, I frequently received doses of radiation. Fortunately for me, they're less than you get from living in the the atmosphere of Beautiful Central Oregon. Every year, the difference of radiation that you and I get from the sun is larger than the dose 157 of these people received.

My condolences to your family. It's a different kind of radiation and a different type of exposure. It's like comparing the Sun, a tanning bed, and a pizza oven.

The joke is your grasping at straws written by social workers, while discounting experts.

The joke is you thinking you're an expert.
Click to expand...

...
 
Nuclear is old technology, compared to wind and solar? I disagree. Nuclear was invented b/c of its efficiency and engineered for its safety. It's the best we have. And ignorance is hurting our environment and health.

And you're advocating that cutting down enough trees to feed the energy needs of 6B people is not damaging to the environment?
 
BrianFromWA said:
Please defend this number. Below, your quote calls you a liar.Yes, because you're ignorant of nuclear engineering and have an axe to grind. First, you're mixing numbers. Chernobyl released 400x Hiroshima. There has been very little release of containment at the reactor in Japan. Second, a reactor can't blow up like a bomb. Third, the reactor "melting down" has not lost containment. Fourth, it's incapable of criticality, because of the boron and seawater injections. That fuel is ruined. It may have had a "potential" of 100x Chernobyl (I didn't see a link for that), but that fuel cannot go critical.


Again, that's made up. Instead of reading wiki, read some source material and ask questions about things you don't understand. I really want to help eradicate public stupidity about the "invisible dangers." More people die in Ukraine of cancer than the rest of the world b/c of unfiltered cigarettes and heavy vodka drinking. 20% of the world dies from cancer as it is, because of that big radiation-maker known as The Sun and other issues.
Click to expand...

One more time. You are ignoring what has already been admitted by Japan and reported by many news outlets.
Your UN and WHO "reports" continually dismiss their own estimates as unreliable and uneducated guesses at best. Did you even read them?

wiki cites it's sources, which when checked for this article appear beyond repute. They also always present and weigh both sides.

You are welcome to systematically dispute each article they cite if you think you're more expert than they.

Have at 'em!

References1.^ ICRIN Project (2011). International Chernobyl Portal chernobyl.info. http://chernobyl.info. Retrieved 2011.
2.^ International Atomic Energy Agency (2006). Environmental consequences of the Chernobyl accident and their remediation: Twenty years of experience. Report of the Chernobyl Forum Expert Group ‘Environment’. Vienna: IAEA. pp. 180. ISBN 92–0–114705–8. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1239_web.pdf.
3.^ "Fuel Unloaded from Chernobyl Reactor". Chernobyl.info. http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?userhash=&navID=534&lID=2. Retrieved 11 September 2010.
4.^ Kagarlitsky, Boris (1989). "Perestroika: The Dialectic of Change". In Mary Kaldor, Gerald Holden, Richard A. Falk. The New Detente: Rethinking East-West Relations. United Nations University Press. ISBN 0860919625.
5.^ Elisabeth Rosenthal (International Herald Tribune) (6 September 2005). "Experts Find Reduced Effects of Chernobyl". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/i...rnobyl.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin. Retrieved 11 September 2010.
6.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Medvedev, Zhores A. (1990). The Legacy of Chernobyl (paperback ed.). W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0393308143.
7.^ "DOE Fundamentals Handbook — Nuclear physics and reactor theory" (DOE-HDBK-1019/1-93 / Available to the public from the National Technical Information Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal., Springfield, VA 22161.). volume 1 of 2, module 1, page 61. United States Department of Energy. January 1996. http://www.hss.doe.gov/nuclearsafety/ns/techstds/standard/hdbk1019/h1019v1.pdf#page=85.5. Retrieved 3 June 2010.
8.^ "Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition (NUREG-0800)". United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. May 2010. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0800/. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
9.^ N.V.Karpan : 312-313
10.^ a b c d e f g h "IAEA Report INSAG-7 Chernobyl Accident: Updating of INSAG-1 Safety Series, No.75-INSAG-7". Vienna: IAEA. 1991. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub913e_web.pdf.
11.^ A.S.Djatlov:30
12.^ "The official program of the test" (in Russian). http://rrc2.narod.ru/book/app7.html.
13.^ A.S.Djatlov:31
14.^ The accumulation of Xenon-135 in the core is burned out by neutrons: higher power settings burn the Xenon out more quickly. This results in shifting neutron flux/power within a graphite-moderated reactor such as the RBMK.
15.^ The information on accident at the Chernobyl NPP and its consequences, prepared for IAEA, Atomic Energy, v. 61, 1986, p. 308-320.
16.^ The RBMK is a boiling water reactor, so in-core boiling is normal at higher power levels. The RBMK design has a negative void coefficient above 700 MW.
17.^ N.V.Karpan:349
18.^ E. O. Adamov; Yu. M. Cherkashov, et al. (2006) (in Russian). Channel Nuclear Power Reactor RBMK (Hardcover ed.). Moscow: GUP NIKIET. ISBN 5-98706-018-4. http://accidont.ru/book.html.
19.^ Dyatlov, Anatoly (in Russian). Chernobyl. How did it happen?. http://rrc2.narod.ru/book/gl4.html.
20.^ "Chernobyl as it was - 2" (in Russian). http://www.reactors.narod.ru/pub/chern_2/chern_2.htm.
21.^ Davletbaev, R. I. (1995) (in Russian). Last shift Chernobyl. Ten years later. Inevitability or chance?. Moscow: Energoatomizdat. ISBN 5-283-03618-9. http://accidont.ru/Davlet.html.
22.^ a b Pakhomov, Sergey A.; Yuri V. Dubasov (16 December 2009). "Estimation of Explosion Energy Yield at Chernobyl NPP Accident". Pure and Applied Geophysics (open access on Springerlink.com - © retained by authors) 167: 575. doi:10.1007/s00024-009-0029-9.
23.^ Chernobyl: Assessment of Radiological and Health Impact (Chapter 1). Nuclear Energy Agency. 2002
24.^ Checherov, K.P. (25–27 November 1998) (in Russian). Development of ideas about reasons and processes of emergency on the 4-th unit of Chernobyl NPP 26.04.1986. Slavutich, Ukraine: International conference "Shelter-98".
25.^ B. Medvedev (June 1989). "JPRS Report: Soviet Union Economic Affairs Chernobyl Notebook" (in English). Novy Mir. http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA335076. Retrieved 11 September 2010.
26.^ "Cross-sectional view of the RBMK-1000 main building". http://www.neimagazine.com/journals/Power/NEI/March_2006/attachments/RBMK1000Key.jpg. Retrieved 11 September 2010.
27.^ Medvedev, Grigori (1989). The Truth About Chernobyl (Hardcover ed.). VAAP. ISBN 2-226-04031-5.
28.^ National Geographic. (2004). Meltdown in Chernobyl. [Video].
29.^ Shcherbak, Y. (1987). Chernobyl. 6. Yunost. (Quoted in Medvedev, Z. p. 44)
30.^ Adam Higginbotham (2006-03-26). "Adam Higginbotham: Chernobyl 20 years on | World news | The Observer". London: Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/26/nuclear.russia. Retrieved 2010-03-22.
31.^ Mil Mi-8 crash near Chernobyl. [Video]. 2006. .
32.^ Zeilig, Martin (August/September 1995). "Louis Slotin And 'The Invisible Killer'". The Beaver 75 (4): 20–27. http://www.mphpa.org/classic/FH/LA/Louis_Slotin_1.htm. Retrieved 2008-04-28.
33.^ "Веб публикация статей газеты". Swrailway.gov.ua. http://www.swrailway.gov.ua/rabslovo/?aid=62. Retrieved 2010-03-22.
34.^ "Методическая копилка" (in russian). Surkino.edurm.ru. http://surkino.edurm.ru/p4aa1.html. Retrieved 2010-03-22.
35.^ "Chernobyl haunts engineer who alerted world". CNN Interactive World News (Cable News Network, Inc.). 1996-04-26. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/26/chernobyl/230pm/index2.html. Retrieved 2008-04-28.
36.^ a b Bogatov, S.; A. Borovoi, A. Lagunenko, E. Pazukhin, V. Strizhov, V. Khvoshchinskii (2008-12-01). "Formation and spread of Chernobyl lavas". Radiochemistry 50 (6): 650–654. doi:10.1134/S1066362208050131.
37.^ Petrov, Yu.; Yu. Udalov, J. Subrt, S. Bakardjieva, P. Sazavsky, M. Kiselova, P. Selucky, P. Bezdicka, C. Jorneau, P. Piluso (2009-04-01). "Behavior of melts in the UO2-SiO2 system in the liquid-liquid phase separation region". Glass Physics and Chemistry 35 (2): 199–204. doi:10.1134/S1087659609020126.
38.^ Journeau, C.; E. Boccaccio, C. Jégou, P. Piluso, G. Cognet (2001). Flow and Solidification of Corium in the VULCANO facility. http://www.plinius.eu/home/liblocal/docs/Flow_Solidification_VULCANO.pdf.
39.^ Mevedev Z. (1990):58-59
40.^ Chernobyl: The End of the Nuclear Dream, 1986, p.178, by Nigel Hawkes et al., ISBN 0-330-29743-0
41.^ Sattonnay, G.; C. Ardois, C. Corbel, J. F. Lucchini, M. -F. Barthe, F. Garrido, D. Gosset (2001-01). "Alpha-radiolysis effects on UO2 alteration in water". Journal of Nuclear Materials 288 (1): 11–19. doi:10.1016/S0022-3115(00)00714-5. http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=176c731b3153a03f1c27bc6f948bd647. Retrieved 2009-08-21.
42.^ Clarens, F.; J. de Pablo, I. Diez-Perez, I. Casas, J. Gimenez, M. Rovira (2004-12-01). "Formation of Studtite during the Oxidative Dissolution of UO2 by Hydrogen Peroxide: A SFM Study". Environmental Science & Technology 38 (24): 6656–6661. doi:10.1021/es0492891.
43.^ Burakov, B. E.; E. E. Strykanova, E. B. Anderson (1997). "Secondary Uranium Minerals on the Surface of Chernobyl" Lava"". Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings. 465. pp. 1309–1312.
44.^ Burns, P. C; K. A Hughes (2003). "Studtite, (UO2)(O2)(H2O)2(H2O)2: The first structure of a peroxide mineral". American Mineralogist 88: 1165–1168. http://www.kubatko.com/studtitestructure.pdf.
45.^ The Social Impact of the Chernobyl Disaster, 1988, p166, by David R. Marples ISBN 0-333-48198-4
46.^ "Chernobyl's silent graveyards". BBC News Online. 2006-04-20. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/...res_chernobyl0s_silent_graveyards_/html/1.stm.
47.^ IAEA Report INSAG-1 (International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group). Summary Report on the Post-Accident Review on the Chernobyl Accident. Safety Series No. 75-INSAG-1.IAEA, Vienna, 1986.
48.^ a b c "Expert report to the IAEA on the Chernobyl accident" (in Belarusian). Atomic Energy. 1986. http://accidont.ru/expert.html.
49.^ "NEI Source Book: Fourth Edition (NEISB_3.3.A1)". Insc.anl.gov. http://www.insc.anl.gov/neisb/neisb4/NEISB_3.3.A1.html. Retrieved 2010-07-31.
50.^ "Ten years after Chernobyl : What do we really know?" IEAE, April 1996
51.^ "Tchernobyl, 20 ans après" (in French). RFI. 2006-04-24. http://www.rfi.fr/actufr/articles/076/article_43250.asp. Retrieved 2006-04-24.
52.^ "TORCH report executive summary" (PDF). European Greens and UK scientists Ian Fairlie PhD and David Sumner. April 2006. http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/118/118559.torch_executive_summary@en.pdf. Retrieved 2006-04-21. (page 3)
53.^ "Path and extension of the radioactive cloudl" (in French). IRSN. http://www.irsn.fr/FR/popup/Pages/tchernobyl_animation_nuage.aspx. Retrieved 2006-12-16.
54.^ IAEA Bulletin Autumn 1986PDF (0.38 MB)
55.^ Mould, Richard Francis (2000). Chernobyl Record: The Definitive History of the Chernobyl Catastrophe. CRC Press. p. 48. ISBN 0-750-306-70X.
56.^ Ympäristön Radioaktiivisuus Suomessa — 20 Vuotta TshernobylistaPDF (7.99 MB)
57.^ "Chernobyl Accident". World Nuclear Association. May 2008. http://world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html. Retrieved 18 June 2008.
58.^ Dederichs, H.; Pillath, J.; Heuel-Fabianek, B.; Hill, P.; Lennartz, R. (2009): Langzeitbeobachtung der Dosisbelastung der Bevölkerung in radioaktiv kontaminierten Gebieten Weißrusslands - Korma-Studie. Vol. 31, series "Energy & Environment" by Forschungszentrum Jülich
59.^ "'Radioactive boars' on loose in Germany". Agence France Presse. August 2010. http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20100807/tts-germany-hunting-food-chernobyl-509a08e.html. Retrieved 9 August 2010.
60.^ Chernobyl source term, atmospheric dispersion, and dose estimation, EnergyCitationsDatabase, 1 November 1989
61.^ a b OECD Papers Volume 3 Issue 1, OECD, 2003
62.^ Hallenbeck, William H (1994). Radiation Protection. CRC Press. p. 15. ISBN 0-873-719-964. "Reported thus far are 237 cases of acute radiation sickness and 31 deaths."
63.^ Mould 2000, p. 29. "The number of deaths in the first three months were 31[.]"
64.^ a b c d Chernobyl: Catastrophe and Consequences, Springer, Berlin ISBN 3-540-23866-2
65.^ a b Kryshev, I.I., Radioactive contamination of aquatic ecosystems following the Chernobyl accident. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 1995. 27: p. 207-219
66.^ EURATOM Council Regulations No. 3958/87, No. 994/89, No. 2218/89, No. 770/90
67.^ Fleishman, D.G., et al., Cs-137 in fish of some lakes and rivers of the Bryansk region and North-West Russia in 1990–1992. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 1994. 24: p. 145-158
68.^ a b "Environmental consequences of the Chernobyl accident and their remediation"PDF IAEA, Vienna
69.^ Wildlife defies Chernobyl radiation, by Stefen Mulvey, BBC News
70.^ a b The International Chernobyl Project Technical Report, IAEA, Vienna, 1991
71.^ "Black Fungus Found in Chernobyl Eats Harmful Radiation".
72.^ "CRDP: Chernobyl Recovery and Development Programme (United Nations Development Programme)". Undp.org.ua. http://www.undp.org.ua/?page=projects&projects=14. Retrieved 2010-07-31.
73.^ "UNSCEAR assessment of the Chernobyl accident". Unscear.org. http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html. Retrieved 2010-07-31.
74.^ "IAEA Report". In Focus: Chernobyl. Archived from the original on 2007-12-17. http://web.archive.org/web/20071217112720/http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/index.shtml. Retrieved 2006-03-29.
75.^ a b "UNSCEAR — Chernobyl health effects". Unscear.org. http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html#Health. Retrieved 2010-07-31.
76.^ a b "Chernobyl's Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socia-Economic Impacts and Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine" (PDF). http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf. Retrieved 2010-07-31.
77.^ Rosenthal, Elisabeth. (6 September 2005) Experts find reduced effects of Chernobyl. nytimes.com. Retrieved 14-02-08.
78.^ "Thyroid Cancer". Genzyme.ca. http://www.genzyme.ca/thera/ty/ca_en_p_tp_thera-ty.asp. Retrieved 2010-07-31.
79.^ "Chernobyl Forum summaries". Ns.iaea.org. http://www-ns.iaea.org/meetings/rw-summaries/chernobyl_forum.htm. Retrieved 2010-07-31.
80.^ International Atomic Energy Agency. What's the situation at Chernobyl? iaea.org Retrieved 2008-02-14.
81.^ International Atomic Energy Agency.Chernobyl's living legacy iaee.org Retrieved 14-02-08.
82.^ "Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts and Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine". The Chernobyl Forum: 2003–2005. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf. Retrieved 11 September 2010.
83.^ "Chernobyl death toll grossly underestimated". Greenpeace. 18 April 2006. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406. Retrieved 15 December 2008.
84.^ "20 years after Chernobyl — The ongoing health effects". IPPNW. April 2006. http://www.ippnw-students.org/chernobyl/research.html. Retrieved 24 April 2006.
85.^ Kasperson, Roger E.; Stallen, Pieter Jan M. (1991). Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives. Berlin: Springer Science and Media. pp. 160–162. ISBN 0792306015.
86.^ "Interview: Miyazaki on On Your Mark // Hayao Miyazaki Web". Nausicaa.net. http://nausicaa.net/miyazaki/interviews/m_on_oym.html. Retrieved 2010-07-31.
87.^ "Processing the Dark: Heavy Water – A Film for Chernobyl | Movie Mail UK". Moviemail-online.co.uk. http://www.moviemail-online.co.uk/scripts/article.pl?articleID=308. Retrieved 2010-07-31.
88.^ "Blog". http://www.heavy-water.co.uk/. Retrieved 11 September 2010.
89.^ "Heavy Water: a film for Chernobyl". Atomictv.com. 1986-04-26. http://www.atomictv.com/Hwater.html. Retrieved 2010-07-31.

We'd be better off if it could blow up like a bomb, because then it would be Japan's problem. Instead it just spews radiation, which spreads around the world via land and sea. It's a bomb that cannot be contained to any specific area, nor prevented from spreading. Insidious.
 
BrianFromWA said:
Nuclear is old technology, compared to wind and solar? I disagree. Nuclear was invented b/c of its efficiency and engineered for its safety. It's the best we have. And ignorance is hurting our environment and health.

And you're advocating that cutting down enough trees to feed the energy needs of 6B people is not damaging to the environment?
Click to expand...

I'm basically a tree hugger, and the dearth of trees in once heavily-wooded China shows they can't heat the world, although with good stewardship they could have once. I'm just saying there is no man controlled energy source as polluting nor as dangerous as nuclear energy. Even coal can't come close to it.

It is absolute insanity and no one knows it better than the private companies which all refuse to build a reactor in the US because our government will not agree to accept 100% liability for accidents/incidents. Not one company in the world will currently build a reactor anywhere in the world without an unconditional liability waiver. Kind of makes you feel all safe and warm and cuddly about nuclear energy doesn't it?
 
You can continue thinking you know more about this than I do, but you're wrong. And I humbly submit that i know more than your social working blogger about the effects of nuclear radiation. At least I'm qualified to teach on the subject (not just operate or supervise, though I have those tickets as well) by the Dept. of Energy. Your tax dollars at work, Maris! Too bad you're choosing to ignore the expertise.

The "facts" are that 3 people had radiation poisoning and 160 were exposed. Childish or not, those are the reported facts. At least, from the LA Times as of 13 minutes ago.
Have civilians been exposed to radiation?

Yes, though not many, officials say. Japanese officials have scanned thousands of evacuees for radiation exposure, and at least nine of them have tested positive, although they do not appear to have any immediate health problems. Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency estimated that as many as 160 people may have been exposed.

What about the safety of the workers at the plant?

The risk is certainly greater for them...
So far, however, there is no evidence that has happened at Fukushima. Four workers at the plant were hospitalized for injuries suffered in the explosion, but not for radiation burns. Random tests on three other reactor workers showed they had received some exposure, but Tokyo Electric Power did not release any data on the extent of exposure.

Medical physicist Jerrold Bushberg of UC Davis has received reports that radiation exposure in the site was 1,000 microsieverts per hour. "That's a high level, but not extraordinarily high," he said. "Even if someone had to work in that environment for 48 hours, that is below what radiation workers would be allowed in a year."
Click to expand...
And that yearly limit is a conservative one, set at 1/10 of the federal requirements.

They aren't "different types of radiation and exposure". Both the sun and a tanning bed (and a shutdown reactor, for that matter) are both producers of ionizing radiation, due to their high-energy UV components (in reactors it primarily comes from gamma ray) . Pizza ovens use convection (movement of hot air, not ionizing radiation) to cook.

For your information:
radsources[1].gif
 
I took your challenge.
In your expert analysis of the wiki article and its sources, how do you explain the following?
Assessing the disaster's effects on human health
Down syndrome (trisomy 21). In West Berlin, Germany, prevalence of Down syndrome (trisomy 21) peaked 9 months following the main fallout.[ 11, 12] Between 1980 and 1986, the birth prevalence of Down syndrome was quite stable (i.e., 1.35–1.59 per 1,000 live births [27–31 cases]). In 1987, 46 cases were diagnosed (prevalence = 2.11 per 1,000 live births). Most of the excess resulted from a cluster of 12 cases among children born in January 1987. The prevalence of Down syndrome in 1988 was 1.77, and in 1989, it reached pre-Chernobyl values. The authors noted that the isolated geographical position of West Berlin prior to reunification, the free genetic counseling, and complete coverage of the population through one central cytogenetic laboratory support completeness of case ascertainment; in addition, constant culture preparation and analysis protocols ensure a high quality of data.
Click to expand...
No deaths here.
Chromosomal aberrations. Reports of structural chromosome aberrations in people exposed to fallout in Belarus and other parts of the former Soviet Union, Austria, and Germany argue against a simple dose-response relationship between degree of exposure and incidence of aberrations. These findings are relevant because a close relationship exists between chromosome changes and congenital malformations. Inasmuch as some types of aberrations are almost specific for ionizing radiation, researchers use aberrations to assess exposure dose. On the basis of current coefficients, however, one cannot assume that calculation of individual exposure doses resulting from fallout would not induce measurable rates of chromosome aberrations.
Neural tube defects (NTDs) in Turkey. During the embryonic phase of fetal development, the neural tube differentiates into the brain and spinal cord (i.e., collectively forming the central nervous system). Chemical or physical interactions with this process can cause NTDs. Common features of this class of malformations are more or less extended fissures, often accompanied by consecutive dislocation of central nervous system (CNS) tissue. NTDs include spina bifida occulta and aperta, encephalocele, and—in the extreme case—anencephaly. The first evidence in support of a possible association between CNS malformations and fallout from Chernobyl was published by Akar et al.. in 1988. The Mustafakemalpasa State Hospital, Bursa region, covers a population of approximately 90,000. Investigators have documented the prevalence of malformations since 1983. The prevalence of NTDs was 1.7 to 9.2 per 1,000 births, but during the first 6 months of 1987 increased to 20 per 1,000 (12 cases). The excess was most pronounced for the subgroup of anencephalics, in which prevalence increased 5-fold (i.e., 10 per 1,000 [6 cases]). In the consecutive months that followed (i.e., July–December 1987), the prevalence decreased again (1.3 per 1,000 for all NTDs, 0.6 per 1,000 for anencephaly), and it reached pre-Chernobyl levels during the first half of 1988 (all NTDs: 0.6 per 1,000; anencephaly: 0.2 per 1,000). This initial report was supported by several similar findings in observational studies from different regions of Turkey.[citation needed]
Click to expand...
No citation, but it seems that there were 12 cases of additional chromosomal aberrations related to Chernobyl.
Demonstration on Chernobyl day near WHO in Geneva
An international assessment of the health effects of the Chernobyl accident is contained in a series of reports by the United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).[73] UNSCEAR was set up as a collaboration between various UN bodies, including the World Health Organisation, after the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to assess the long-term effects of radiation on human health.
UNSCEAR has conducted 20 years of detailed scientific and epidemiological research on the effects of the Chernobyl accident. Apart from the 57 direct deaths in the accident itself, UNSCEAR originally predicted up to 4,000 additional cancer cases due to the accident.[74] However, the latest UNSCEAR reports suggest that these estimates were overstated.[75] In addition, the IAEA states that there has been no increase in the rate of birth defects or abnormalities, or solid cancers (such as lung cancer) corroborating UNSCEAR's assessments.[76]
Click to expand...
So 57 deaths, and less than 4000 cancers (92-98% rate of survival in 30yrs in thyroid cancer cases). Assuming worst case on both (4000 was correct--which they say is overstated--and 8% mortality rate in 30 yrs = 320 extra deaths.) 320+59 = 379.
Precisely, UNSCEAR states:
Among the residents of Belaruss 09, the Russian Federation and Ukraine there had been, up to 2002, about 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children and adolescents who were exposed at the time of the accident, and more cases are to be expected during the next decades. Notwithstanding problems associated with screening, many of those cancers were most likely caused by radiation exposures shortly after the accident. Apart from this increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The risk of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to its short latency time, does not appear to be elevated. Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.[75]
Thyroid cancer is generally treatable.[77] With proper treatment, the five-year survival rate of thyroid cancer is 96%, and 92% after 30 years.[78]
The Chernobyl Forum is a regular meeting of IAEA, other United Nations organizations (FAO, UN-OCHA, UNDP, UNEP, UNSCEAR, WHO, and the World Bank), and the governments of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine that issues regular scientific assessments of the evidence for health effects of the Chernobyl accident.[79] The Chernobyl Forum concluded that twenty-eight emergency workers died from acute radiation syndrome including beta burns and 15 patients died from thyroid cancer, and it roughly estimated that cancer deaths caused by Chernobyl may reach a total of about 4,000 among the 600,000 people having received the greatest exposures. It also concluded that a greater risk than the long-term effects of radiation exposure is the risk to mental health of exaggerated fears about the effects of radiation:[76]
Click to expand...
Watch yourself, Maris. Looks like you might be falling into this group.
The designation of the affected population as “victims” rather than “survivors” has led them to perceive themselves as helpless, weak and lacking control over their future. This, in turn, has led either to over cautious behavior and exaggerated health concerns, or to reckless conduct, such as consumption of mushrooms, berries and game from areas still designated as highly contaminated, overuse of alcohol and tobacco, and unprotected promiscuous sexual activity.[80]
Fred Mettler commented that 20 years later:[81]
The population remains largely unsure of what the effects of radiation actually are and retain a sense of foreboding. A number of adolescents and young adults who have been exposed to modest or small amounts of radiation feel that they are somehow fatally flawed and there is no downside to using illicit drugs or having unprotected sex. To reverse such attitudes and behaviors will likely take years although some youth groups have begun programs that have promise.
In addition, disadvantaged children around Chernobyl suffer from health problems that are attributable not only to the Chernobyl accident, but also to the poor state of post-Soviet health systems.[82]
Another study critical of the Chernobyl Forum report was commissioned by Greenpeace, which asserts that "the most recently published figures indicate that in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine alone the accident could have resulted in an estimated 200,000 additional deaths in the period between 1990 and 2004."[83]
The German affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) argued that more than 10,000 people are today affected by thyroid cancer and 50,000 cases are expected in the future.[84]
Click to expand...
So everyone except Greenpeace says that less that 10000 people got cancer (and the "experts" researching this over the last 25 years leave it as <4000), and that the cancer had a 92% survival rate over 30 years. Less than 1000 people dead from the initial blast or cancer over the last 25 years.

Which part was I supposed to dispute, again?
 
BrianFromWA said:
You can continue thinking you know more about this than I do, but you're wrong. And I humbly submit that i know more than your social working blogger about the effects of nuclear radiation. At least I'm qualified to teach on the subject (not just operate or supervise, though I have those tickets as well) by the Dept. of Energy. Your tax dollars at work, Maris! Too bad you're choosing to ignore the expertise.

The "facts" are that 3 people had radiation poisoning and 160 were exposed. Childish or not, those are the reported facts. At least, from the LA Times as of 13 minutes ago.
And that yearly limit is a conservative one, set at 1/10 of the federal requirements.

They aren't "different types of radiation and exposure". Both the sun and a tanning bed (and a shutdown reactor, for that matter) are both producers of ionizing radiation, due to their high-energy UV components (in reactors it primarily comes from gamma ray) . Pizza ovens use convection (movement of hot air, not ionizing radiation) to cook.

For your information:
radsources[1].gif
Click to expand...

If you are educated about nuclear energy as you claim, and I have no reason to doubt it since you serve the military industrial complex that thrives on it, then you should be honest with us and acknowledge that getting the same dose all at once cannot be compared with a straight face to the same amount accumulated gradually over a year's time.

I smoke a couple cigars a day, drink nearly a pot of coffee, and eat at least a 1/4 pound of chocolate. Pretty much every day of my life.

So by your logic it's the safest thing in the world, highly recommended by experts even, that I can safely smoke 730 cigars, drink 350 pots of coffee and eat about 100 lbs of chocolate all in one hour with no ill effects?

Teach me more O Brilliant One!

And try to find a more credible source than the nuclear industry for your sources.

Also, tanning beds do not duplicate natural solar rays. They weakly imitate them. Mankind has yet to be able to exactly duplicate anything in nature. There is always something missing that throws everything out of whack, usually with adverse consequences of varying degree.

As a photographer with quite a bit of knowledge about lighting, both manmade and natural, I know for example man has never come even in the ballpark when attempting to duplicate the natural light we get from the sun and reflected from the stars and planets. Every kind of lighting made by man is incomplete in it's spectrum and many are annoying/unhealthy to humans because of their incompleteness. For example, continued exposure to Xenon lighting often triggers psoriasis in people who have not previously had it.
 
BrianFromWA said:
So everyone except Greenpeace says that less that 10000 people got cancer (and the "experts" researching this over the last 25 years leave it as <4000), and that the cancer had a 92% survival rate over 30 years. Less than 1000 people dead from the initial blast or cancer over the last 25 years.

Which part was I supposed to dispute, again?
Click to expand...

Go back and reread what you just quoted. Your numbers are wrong.

But this is a military ploy that I'm tired of.

There is no acceptable number of innocent citizens to be sacrificed for greed and the thirst for power, which is all this is about.

Is 200,000 deaths too many? Is 10,000 too many? Apparently you feel 1,000 deaths would be acceptable and just a part of doing business. I don't.

But since you work for the industry maybe you can direct me to one of their websites which can provide me with an estimate of just how much radiation I can expect to be exposed to when it gets here. If they are at all responsible and professional I am sure you can provide me a link to where I can get the facts.

DHS and their waterboy FEMA have not been made aware that there is an emergency and so have no information at all.

Internet searches for this particular info brings only hoaxes: http://www.google.com/search?q=rads...=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=a50d8bbb4089c98a

Seriously, got a link that acknowledges the concern and presents the facts for a worst-case scenario?
 
According to CNN, Japan nuclear experts acknowledge there is a second meltdown now in another reactor. They claim they are both contained so far but have already been proven liars by The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA):

http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20110312D12JFF03.htm

The Japanese Premier is still claiming there has been no meltdown at all.
 
MARIS61 said:
Go back and reread what you just quoted. Your numbers are wrong.
Click to expand...
I did, and they aren't. Tell me which ones you're confused by and I'll be happy to help you understand.
But this is a military ploy that I'm tired of.
Click to expand...
Educating ignorant civilians who get their information from social working bloggers? Sorry, that's just something I do on the side that the military doesn't reimburse me for. No cost to the taxpayer!

There is no acceptable number of innocent citizens to be sacrificed for greed and the thirst for power, which is all this is about.
Is 200,000 deaths too many? Is 10,000 too many? Apparently you feel 1,000 deaths would be acceptable and just a part of doing business. I don't.
Click to expand...
I'm interested in your hypocrisy here. How are you powering that computer you're typing on? Solar power, where it's much more dangerous to install a panel than run a nuclear reactor? Hydro, which kills entire fishing runs and floods ecosystems? Coal? Oil? Wood-burning? Energy has a price. And if you think that 1000 deaths in 60 years is too much for a clean power source, then I don't know how you reconcile your hypocrisy, since those 1000 deaths are less than any other power source.
But since you work for the industry maybe you can direct me to one of their websites which can provide me with an estimate of just how much radiation I can expect to be exposed to when it gets here. If they are at all responsible and professional I am sure you can provide me a link to where I can get the facts.
Click to expand...
See below.
Seriously, got a link that acknowledges the concern and presents the facts for a worst-case scenario?
Click to expand...
Here are the facts, and why this isn't an emergency (or even a concern on the radar of DHS):
The plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co., said the blast did not breach the thick concrete of the primary containment shell around the reactor core below.
At Three Mile Island, human and technical errors caused a confused response, leading to overheating, a meltdown of the nuclear core and a write-off of the reactor. But unlike the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986, there was no breach of a pressure vessel, the shell that insulates the heart of a reactor, nor any major radiation leak.

Japanese authorities classified the event as Level 4 on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale. Three Mile Island rose to Level 5, and Chernobyl, which poisoned central Ukraine and sent a radioactive cloud over Europe, was a Level 7, which is as bad as it gets.
Read more: Japan nuclear threat 'far worse' than Three Mile Island - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_727194.html#ixzz1GSTY9tFf

In the aftermath of the accident, investigations focused on the amount of radiation released by the accident. According to the American Nuclear Society, using the official radiation emission figures, "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year.
Disease rates in areas further than 10 miles from the plant were never examined.[38] Local activism in the 1980s, based on anecdotal reports of negative health effects, led to scientific studies being commissioned. A variety of studies have been unable to conclude that the accident had substantial health effects
Click to expand...

To reiterate, in the worst nuclear accident in US history (and a bigger one than the one in Japan right now), people living within 10 miles got a dose equivalent to a chest x-ray. The worst-case got a dose equal to 1/3 what he will get from the "natural" background radiation each year in the chart in Post 22. Even when people got scared and started inventing ghost diseases they thought came from radiation, multiple studies concluded no health effects came from the incident to the people within 10 miles, and people outside weren't even deemed worth studying.
However, a class action lawsuit alleging that the accident caused detrimental health effects was rejected by Harrisburg U.S. District Court Judge Sylvia Rambo. The appeal of the decision in front of U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals also failed
Click to expand...

Yet you're claiming (based on a social working blogger) that massive radiation poisoning will occur to people 5000-8000 miles away, in a smaller incident, with no containment breach found.

You should think that, with Greenpeace and a social work blogger telling you one thing, and (among others) a DoE nuclear engineer, the UN, the WHO, multiple studies of Chernobyl and 3MI, DHS/FEMA and global media telling you another, that maybe your conclusion wasn't the right one to take immediately. And there's nothing wrong with that. No one expects everyone to know all the ins and outs of nuclear physics, and I understand why you'd be scared. But when experts try to tell you it'll be ok, you should listen.
 
Last edited:
MARIS61 said:
According to CNN, Japan nuclear experts acknowledge there is a second meltdown now in another reactor. They claim they are both contained so far but have already been proven liars by The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA):

http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20110312D12JFF03.htm

The Japanese Premier is still claiming there has been no meltdown at all.
Click to expand...

Please give me the quote where NISA (or anyone else) found primary containment breached.
Of course there is a meltdown. I've never said otherwise. The difference is that a "meltdown" involves decomposition of the fuel lattice cells because of high temperature (in this case, decay heat). Using saltwater and boron means that the "melted-down" core is incapable of criticality. It's a "disaster" because the fuel is unrecoverable--they need to install all new cells into those reactors.

The boron and seawater aren't primarily going to "rust" the reactor out--that's miseducation. "Rust" in this case means transition of the magnetite layer of the piping into flakes of maghemite (the gamma phase, more resistant to flake off in fluid corrosion), and thus putting more contamination into the primary coolant. But the chlorides in the seawater and the boron have already rendered the reactor useless for future operation.

Each of these meltdowns doesn't mean there's green sludge flowing through Tokyo, on its way to contaminating the entire ocean.

Here's what happened at the 3MI "meltdown". See if it sounds familiar.
Because adequate cooling was not available, the nuclear fuel overheated to the point at which the zirconium cladding (the long metal tubes which hold the nuclear fuel pellets) ruptured and the fuel pellets began to melt. It was later found that about one-half of the core melted during the early stages of the accident. Although the TMI-2 plant suffered a severe core meltdown, the most dangerous kind of nuclear power accident, it did not produce the worst-case consequences that reactor experts had long feared."

TMI was a severe meltdown, without a doubt. But, the fuel had not magically coagulated into a super-hot, glowing mass, burning its way through the reactor's 6 inches of solid steel and 8-10 feet of steel reinforced concrete beneath, burrowing itself down into the Earth's crust, spewing invisible radioactive fallout everywhere, causing thousands and thousands of radiation-related casualties predicted in the movie China Syndrome. No nuclear detonation, either. Unexpectedly, TMI had proved that China Syndrome was a fiction. Unfortunately, it took the American government nearly three decades to actually say it.
Click to expand...
 
BrianFromWA said:
I'm interested in your hypocrisy here. How are you powering that computer you're typing on? Solar power, where it's much more dangerous to install a panel than run a nuclear reactor?
Click to expand...

Quit beating that nonsensical horse.

Ask any construction worker how many people he knew that died from a fall installing solar panels, then ask him how many he knew that died from a fall building a reactor cooling tower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top