It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Japan declares 'nuclear emergency' after quake

page: 368.htm
513
<< 365  366  367    369  370  371 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by brocktoon

I agree with the convection cooling effect. That is probably where the radiation in the water we are seeing is coming from. But if they turn on those pumps to energize the cooling loop (the only cooling loop... sorry, I cannot stop thinking about that), then the water will quickly become much more radioactive.

There has to be a shunt around the turbine to keep the pressure on the blades steady, but it would probably be close to the turbine itself. The farther the shunt is from the turbine, the less effective it would be for controlling the pressure on the blades during operation. It would also have to go through the condenser as well, or it would be of little to no use, and that condenser is apparently leaking too (judging from the radiation levels in released seawater).

TheRedneck




posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by buskey
 
Regarding the apparent quiet preparations for response to radioactive releases from natural disasters on the West Coast, I don't think this is any indication of likelihood of radioactive fallout from Japan. The urgency is that local officials anticipate being asked in the near future by the press or in town meetings if they are prepared. They want to say yes. And they'd prefer not to highlight that their preparations weren't necessarily first rate beforehand.

A good, natural response. Not an indicator of inside knowledge of imminent danger.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ethancoop
 



Yes...taking a second sample or re-testing the same sample..that could have already happened for the readings at n.1..they didn't detect any more CL 38 twenty-four hours later... with an half life of 37 minutes that would be no surprise... right



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Just saw this...


@martyn_williams:
TEPCO revises Iodine 134 level in reactor 2 turbine bldg water from "10 million times normal" to "100,000 times normal"


Take it for what it is worth......



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by JustMike

Where the WP report talks of 'radioactive atoms', I assume they mean 'radioactive isotopes'

Just for clarification, isotopes are atoms. the term isotope is used in nuclear physics to denote the fact that an element can have a range of atomic weights (or number of neutrons in its nucleus). Typically an element has only a few stable isotopes.

Chemically speaking, one isotope is equivalent to another except for small variations in molar weights (which are typically included in the average atomic mass figures), so the concept of isotopes can be ignored and the word 'atom' used instead.

The number of neutrons becomes of large interest in nuclear physics because the decay rates, energetic releases, decay products, and stability change dramatically between isotopes. This is why neutron radiation can be carried so easily by water; the hydrogen atoms in the water can accept neutrons to become the H-2 isotope (deuterium) or H-3 isotope (tritium), but chemically they are still part of the water molecule.

It's just a language difference between the disciplines. Atom = isotope = atom.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by OneisOne
Just saw this...


@martyn_williams:
TEPCO revises Iodine 134 level in reactor 2 turbine bldg water from "10 million times normal" to "100,000 times normal"


Take it for what it is worth......


From the forked tongues of TEPCO? Not worth much.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by JustMike
I think most would agree that Plutonium-239 is one of the most dangerous radoiactive isotopes that result from nuclear fission. Also, I think we're all concerned that TEPCO appears to have said little or nothing about it in terms of whether its release into the environment has been confirmed.

However, in the very last section of the very last page of that Washington Post report (meaning on page seven), there is this statement followed by the final graphic in the report:

What's in the plume?

Of the hundreds of types of radioactive atoms that may have escaped the reactors, scientists are generally concerned about four:



(Image credit: Washington Post report at the above link. Bolding in the quoted text is reproduced as shown in the original report.)

Note that in the graphic it states:
"It appears likely that only small quantities of Plutonium were released."

It doesn't say "might have been released", or "could have been released", or any other conditional form. To me, this statement means that it's very probable that some Plutonium-239 was released, but not a large amount if it.

But in whose opinion? Was this statement directly from TEPCO? No, apparently not.

I don't expect you're surprised by that.

Anyway I did a search and found the same graphic (larger scale) in a .PDF document HERE, and the sources for the statements used in that particular image are cited. They are:
Thomas McKone, senior staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory;
the NRC;
the EPA;
Rod McCullum, Nuclear Energy Institute;
General Electric;
and...
the IAEA.

I take this as an acknowledgement within the scientific community that this highly toxic material has entered the wider environment.

I have not seen or heard of any statement from TEPCO that either denies the WP report's statement in regards to Plutonium-239 release, or that refutes the assessment made by the above-cited authorities and experts. Also, I don't see the lack of such a statement direct from TEPCO as any reason to deny the opinions of these experts. After all, our own experts here on the thread said the same several days ago!

Truly, anyone who is at risk of inhaling this stuff really needs to be moved out of the danger area now. As I understand it, there is no real "safe" level for Plutonium-239 if it's inhaled. Only "less dangerous".

The problem is that the danger area seems to include Tokyo and perhaps even regions well beyond that perimeter.

EDIT: Where the WP report talks of 'radioactive atoms', I assume they mean 'radioactive isotopes' (which okay, are made of atoms, but sheeeesh!!
)

Mike
edit on 27/3/11 by JustMike because: added an ETA


I'm so glad Mike has highlighted the air borne Pu-239 issue again. I think this is the most catastrophic part of the event that has already taken place which has been side lined by the media.

Everywhere the other isotopes are detected in higher but not unsafe background levels of radiation there could be Pu-239 particles....

Some say because they are heavy they cannot travel very far but because they are in a dust format I'm sure the particles could be light enough to be carried by weather patterns.

Some good info here from the guy who bet he would eat the same weight in plutonium as a colleague could eat in caffeine and have no ill effects. his colleague didn't tek the bet on.

However in this instance we are talking about inhaling > www.fortfreedom.org...


"1. ESTIMATE OF PLUTONIUM TOXICITY FROM STANDARD PROCEDURES
The first step is to calculate the radiation dose in rem (the
unit of dose) to each organ of the human body per gram of Pu
intake. According to ICRP (International Commission on Radiation
Protection) Publication No. 19, about 25% of inhaled particles of
the size of interest (0.5-5 [micro]m in diameter) deposit in the
lung, and 60% of this is eliminated only with a 500-day
half-life. From this information and the known rate and energy
of [alpha]-particle emission, we can calculate the radiation
energy deposited in the lung, which is directly convertible to
dose in rem.
According to ICRP Publication 19, 5% of inhaled Pu gets into
the bloodstream from which 45% gets into the bone and an equal
amount collects in the liver; the times required for elimination
from these are 70 and 35 years, respectively. This is all the
information needed to calculate doses to bone and liver in rem
per gram of Pu inhaled."

I think anyone in the immediate area with a cold should have their mucus analysed for isotopes.!!!!



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by OneisOne

What it's worth is that huge levels of I-134 were created wherever this water was mere hours ago at latest.

I-134 has a half life of a few minutes.

Does anyone know if there was a receding tide between this report and the one that showed 10,000,000 times normal level?

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
nisa.meti.go.jp






edit on 3/27/11 by makeitso because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



Red, Maybe this will tell you?


Fukushima Japan Tide Forecast



edit on 3/27/11 by makeitso because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by OneisOne

What it's worth is that huge levels of I-134 were created wherever this water was mere hours ago at latest.

I-134 has a half life of a few minutes.

Does anyone know if there was a receding tide between this report and the one that showed 10,000,000 times normal level?

TheRedneck


Well I said 'for what it's worth' because the info came from TEPCO. And some here will rip posters to shreds for posting info from Tepco.

As for the tides, I found a website that shows histories. Japan Fishing Tides And Currents

Hope that helps!



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by makeitso

Thanks! I found this plot at tbone.biol.sc.edu...


This is the last 24 hours in the Fukushima perfecture. If memory serves, the 10,000,000 times normal report came out about 12-14 hours ago, and the 100,000 times normal 'correction' came out a few hours ago.

During that time, the tide was going out. A leak in the condenser would have created a vacuum in the main lines, pulling any contamination away from the turbine building and out to sea.

I see this as damning evidence that TEPCO is not ignorant of what is going on, but that they are well aware of the problems being experienced, to the point of being able to predict when radiation levels in particular areas will increase or decrease.

Now I'm just angry...


TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

Thanks for clarifying that. I appreciate it.
A few weeks ago I never dreamed I'd be brushing up on the nuclear physics I learned in school back in the ... errrmm... back before Lynyrd Skynyrd's Sweet Home Alabama hit the top ten...

There another point I'd be glad for you to clear up, in case I'm wrong on this one as well. In the bottom left of that graphic in my previous post it says:
"Half-life: The time it takes a substance to lose half its radioactivity."

According to that definition, Plutonium-239, for example, is only half as radioactive as it originally was after its half-life period.

This confuses me because I thought that "half-life" was the time it took for half of any given quantity of a radioactive substance to reach the "end of its life" as that substance and become something else by the process of radioactive decay. In other words, the half that remains as the original substance is still just as radioactive as it was before.

Maybe I'm being very picky but I feel this is important. What I mean is, in the case of a highly toxic substance like Plutonium-239, as its half-life is about 24,000 years I thought it meant that after that time, roughly half of the original Pu-239 would remain but still be just as toxic as it was. (The other half has decayed and is no longer Pu-239.) After 48,000 years from day 1 of its creation, one-quarter of the original Pu-239 would remain (as Pu-239), but it would still be just as toxic as it was at the start.

I'm concerned about this because even in the case of substances with much shorter half-lives -- say only a matter of days or weeks -- I understood that whatever has not decayed after one half-life period is still the same in terms of radioactivity and possible toxicity. Their definition says different.

Am I right, or is the WP definition correct and I've got it wrong (again
)?

Many thanks,

Mike



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by JustMike

Far be it from me to refuse a request from a fellow Skynyrd fan.


You're the one right this time. The concept of losing half its radioactivity is that the quantity of radioactive particles will be about half of what it was, not that the individual particles are half as radioactive. A sample of a radioactive substance will show only half as much radioactivity, but only because there are only half as many individual radioactive particles as there was before.

In the case of Pu-239, that means that an individual particle can retain its radioactivity for literally millions of years... an active particle found today could have been created when dinosaurs roamed the planet.


TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
How easily we acclimate to the new revised number... whew. Well 100,000 times over normal is WAY better than 10,000,000 times over normal. Guess we dodged a bullet there! Drip drip drip.... Ever heard of the frog in boiling water? Put a frog in hot water he jumps out. Put a frog in cold water and slowly increase the heat... he will stay in until he boils to death. Same principle. Ribbet!!!


Honestly folks, time to get rid of these bozzos. It's gone beyond a national issue... Someone needs to go in a take over the situation.
edit on 27-3-2011 by Wertwog because: another idea added



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I posted this in this thread:

It gets worse in Japan: H5N1 pandemic now in Chiba City chickens

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It seems appropriate to include it here:


Recombinomics Commentary 13:13 March 17, 2011

Information received on 16/03/2011 from Dr Toshiro Kawashima, CVO, Animal Health Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Tokyo , Japan

Summary

Report type Follow-up report No. 8
Start date 15/12/2010
Date of first confirmation of the event 19/12/2010
Report date 16/03/2011
Date submitted to OIE 16/03/2011
Reason for notification Reoccurrence of a listed disease
Date of previous occurrence 01/04/2009
Manifestation of disease Clinical disease
Causal agent Highly pathogenic avian influenza virus
Serotype H5N1
Nature of diagnosis Clinical, Laboratory (basic), Laboratory (advanced), Necropsy
This event pertains to the whole country
Related reports Immediate notification (20/12/2010)
Follow-up report No. 1 (22/12/2010)
Follow-up report No. 2 (19/01/2011)
Follow-up report No. 3 (23/01/2011)
Follow-up report No. 4 (04/02/2011)
Follow-up report No. 5 (14/02/2011)
Follow-up report No. 6 (24/02/2011)
Follow-up report No. 7 (03/03/2011)
Follow-up report No. 8 (16/03/2011)

The above comments summarize OIE reports on confirmed H5N1 in wild birds identified throughout Japan, including northern Japan. Sequences from three isolates from these outbreaks have been made public at Genbank. Two of the three (in Hokkaido and Fukushima) have S227R. All three sequences are the Fujian strain (clade 2.3.2) which have been circulating in wild birds for several years, including the large outbreaks in Japan, South Korea, and Russia in the spring of 2008. The clade 2.3.2 sequences have two additional receptor binding domain changes (V223I and M230I), which were present in the clade 2.2 sequences from the Gharbiya cluster in Egypt in late 2006. The Gharbiya cluster is the largest H5N1 cluster in Egypt reported to date. All three patients died and the RBD changes raised concerns of increase transmission in human.

The recent acquisition of S227R increased concerns because of the known changes in receptor binding specificity due to S227N, which was predicted and confirmed in 2 of the 4 sequences from Turkey in 2006. The recent reports of two confirmed cases in Kamalpur, a Bangladesh slum have increased concerns that clade 2.3.2 has migrated to Bangladesh and is involved in the two recent cases (as well as symptomatic contacts).

The worsening situation at the Daiichi nuclear power facility in Fukushima, Japan increases concerns that the H5N1 circulating in wild birds and poultry in the region will be impacted by the release of ionizing radiation. This radiation can lead to rapid evolution of clade 2.3.2 H5N1, which may lead to selection of changes that increase transmission in humans in the region. These changes could quickly spread through displaced persons living in crowded conditions that are far from ideal.

Close monitoring of these persons as well as H5N1 sequences from wild birds and poultry, a timely release of such sequences would be useful.

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

4) UPDATE: March 20, 2011

There is also a concern that organisms in the sea water being used to cool the reactors and fuel rods may mutate and return to the sea (which they presumably may if the ponds are allowed to overflow) with unforeseeable consequences...asks a concerned Smart Economy Blog reader.

A retired nuclear scientist in Europe responds:

"The H5N1 Flu pandemic is not over, despite media ignoring it. For instance, there has been a renewed wave of H5N1 Flu pandemic here in Switzerland that started BEFORE the Fukushima event, and it is clear to all and any epidemiologist this flu strain is continuously mutating and WILL keep MUTATING with or without the Fukushima event, the human body itself being the site where it mutates. Outside the human body, influenza viruses typically do not remain infectious for long, become inactive via sessication, decay, sterilizing by solar radiation etc. So there should be no worries of H5N1 Flu viruses that may have landed in seawater and then be sucked into the reactor.

Seawater contains naturally radioactive elements such as Uranium, the whole Uranium decay series, but also low concentrations of Fissogenic products (i.e. the same "waste products" you find in nucl. reactors, that includes of course radioactive Plutonium, Iodine, Cesium, Strontium etc.) but all that stuff naturally derived from cosmic-ray bombardment of Uranium in seawater. Furthermore, there is radioactive activated and spallation products from other, more stable elements, and pristine radioactive isotopes such as Potassium 40 (and many many more).

That means the natural marine environnment is per se radioactive and fertile/prone to continuosly trigger mutations of any lifeform swimming on it. This has always been the case, AB INITIO, and will stay so (with or without human activities), until to the dead of times.

My first guess is that viable mutations are arguably created at sea, more than in a nuclear reactor where I expect radiation is intense enough to kill off most life (but radiudurans type bacteria).


www.zimbio.co... m/Pandemic+Flu+or+H5N1+influenza/articles/pVIvcfU33JE/New+H5N1+Flu+pandemic+concerns+Fukushima+Radiation

Bolding added for emphasis.

As I suspected, the nuclear disaster makes it more likely the H5N1 will mutate towards human infectiousness. What I hadn't counted on was the ionizing effects of the massive radiation leakages from the plant, which will accelerate the process signficantly.

It's gonna be a tough year.

Wash your hands many times a day, and STOP shaking hands as a greeting: we have moved to a "knuckle-bump" closed-hand greeting here amongst my circle of friends and acquaintances.


edit on 27-3-2011 by apacheman because: add link

edit on 27-3-2011 by apacheman because: add bolding



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
If one has the time to read the IAEA reports of a previous 6.8 quake in Japan 2007, and how it impacted the closest nuclear plant, one may get a bit aggrevated.

The findings cover the same issues we see here.

Fire suppression failures.
Late reports from TEPCO about radiation leaks.
Known problems with spent fuel pool leaks and water sloshing out.
Reactor and Turbine water pipe breaks.
Impassable roads.
Lack of emergency crews.
Loss of power to the plant from outside.
Etc. Etc.

And that was without a tsunami.

These are KNOWN issues with boiling water reactors.

Still, here we are...

Who was it that spoke about doing the same experiment over and over, but expecting different results?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
What boggles my mind is...so many people haven't a clue, the dire consequences, the REALITY of what is happening in Japan. The ripple effect of this crisis is totally out of control. There is NO playbook to handle what is happening at Fukushima.....they are "winging" it at this point. This is not going to go away in a couple of weeks, or months....We haven't a clue what to do, because it has never happened before, on this scale.

God/Goddess, Bless us all....



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
In now typical TEPCO fashion...saving the best for last....

Here is the last paragraph of the current story from Kyodo


Meanwhile, Tokyo Electric, known as TEPCO, is studying whether highly toxic plutonium is contained in the soil of the plant. The No. 3 reactor was using plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel for so-called ''pluthermal'' power generation.


And the reporters just keep reporting the out and out lying and omissions. Is this industry regulated or not and what does it take for the regulators to step in? How can TEPCO still be calling the shots here?


Officials say they still don't know where the radioactive water is coming from, though government spokesman Yukio Edano earlier said some is "almost certainly" seeping from a damaged reactor core in one of the units.


They are refusing independent testing as well. At what point is a company not allowed to refuse?


A few hours later, TEPCO Vice President Sakae Muto said a new test had found radiation levels 100,000 times above normal — far better than the first results, though still very high. But he ruled out having an independent monitor oversee the various checks despite the errors.

Source



new topics

top topics



 
513
<< 365  366  367    369  370  371 >>

log in

join