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: 400.htm
513
<< 397  398  399    401  402  403 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silverlok
reply to post by okiecowboy
 


The German site ZAMG has been running some computer simulations and then comparing them to actual wind and radio-active fall-out. They have some numbers listed for Sacremento (Stockton or Bakersfield would be better as that's where a lot of the wind comes in and goes out of the central valley)

The


and here is today's cloud




Radiation is like a blind man shooting at you from across a field. If the back ground radiation is six shots thats a bit frightening but probably survival-able, if the back ground doubles (still harmless right ) then the blind guy gets twelve shots at you , a bit scarier. Move the scale up to ten times back-ground ( maybe something to be concerned about ) and now the blind man gets 60 shots , That's f'n scary.

if it's cesium and iodine you will see more cancers, it's a fact but on the west coast at this point 5% more cancers than normal over the next twenty years, but the longer she blows the higher the numbers , but if plutonium and Uranyl chloride start being detected all bets are off.



Great! I just happen to Live in Sacramento, CA.


Why do I suddenly feel like that wanted crimminal who, having just stepped onto his front porch, sees himself covered in dozens of tiny red laser points from the surrounding SWAT Team?


Danke, mein Deutsche freunds!
edit on 28-3-2011 by Bhadhidar because: Radiation ate my Grammar!




posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


They just showed a Dry weather advisory map on NHK and advised people who are lighting fires to stay warm to be carefull. Is there any reaction that could take place if someone is having a fire with high radiation in the air?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bhadhidar

Originally posted by Silverlok
reply to post by okiecowboy



Great! I just happen to Live in Sacramento, CA.


Why do I suddenly feel like that wanted crimminal who, having just stepped onto his front porch, sees himself covered in dozens of tiny red laser points from the surrounding SWAT Team?


Danke, mein Deutsche freunds!
edit on 28-3-2011 by Bhadhidar because: Radiation ate my Grammar!


Well those are Fates hitmen, they try to keep up with the times



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MissTiger
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


They just showed a Dry weather advisory map on NHK and advised people who are lighting fires to stay warm to be carefull. Is there any reaction that could take place if someone is having a fire with high radiation in the air?


Yes. Radiation deposited or absorbed by vegetation may be released back into the environment. (Cesium 137 smoke, don't breath this.)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


If you dont mind me saying I dont know a thing about what your graphs say...I tune into Radiationnetwork.com and not seeing anything to worry about....



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by okiecowboy

so just what is the "Natural occurring" levels of of caesium-137 or Iodine-131???
you and I both know the answer to that..

Yeah, 0 and almost 0. Cs-137 doesn't exist outside of a nuclear reaction, and I-131 is extremely rare in nature.


what about Strontium-90 or krypton-85

Arrrrrgggghhhhh...

I'm trying to not scare people here...

Yeah, those two isotopes are pretty bad as well... Strontium-90 mimics calcium and gets concentrated in the bones, not good. Krypton is a noble gas and therefore at least has only sporadic exposure rates when present. It still radiates the lungs when breathed in, though.

Both have pretty long half-lives.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Ok, if you are talking about tritium contamination. One person here got the impression that free neutrons were roaming around in the environment waiting to take a swipe at them.

Tritium is hard to detect since it is an alpha only emitter. Great for gun sites, great for reactor moderator or bomb fuel, lousy for actually detecting it without a scaler and oscilloscope.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by windwaker
Just a heads up: I live in Manhattan and I just went out to add to my bottled water supply. I found to my surprise that there are no more 2.5 gallon tanks of Poland Spring at the Rite Aid near me. There were plenty there just three days ago.

They still have one gallon bottles of water so I bought some of those, but I think you all should start stocking up on water because I think many are doing so quietly now.


If you are really desperate for 'pre clean' water, cannot you just buy a few bags of those BIG bags of ICE at liquer stores / gas stations ? They should contain like 4-6 gallons of water for like $2 dont they? (after melting and bottling yourself)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


No the neutrons themselves after they've been emitted, usually not, but the particles emitted that are generally inside of the reactor, can migrate around. A particulate cloud of pu-235 will emit neutrons, and it'll become a floating death cloud of instadeath dust and neutron radiation. This isn't limited to just the reactor if that's what you are gettng at, some of those heavier radio-isotopes will do that.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Arrrrrgggghhhhh...

I'm trying to not scare people here...

Yeah, those two isotopes are pretty bad as well... Strontium-90 mimics calcium and gets concentrated in the



I'm not scared I've a lifetime of math analysis to do after just a few weeks of this.

Hell, I'll die of old age before I process all this data.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


In addition, the uralyl chloride was almost certainly formed when sea water was introduced to the core or containment rods as it is now apparent that by the time for the desperation of seawater the uranium in the rods had already started separating from there cladding (outer casing) which being very hot quickly stripped the water down to hydrogen (by the uranium grabbing the two O's from h2o) and then the uranium dioxide reacting with the liberated (remember water is being sublimated by hot uranium) chlorine from the salt in the sea water ( salt being sodium chloride NaCland sea water being about 3%salty) ,

I also think that the question asked by Sharma Sk on the GE "Setting the Record Straight on Mark I Containment History"web page forum becomes VERY important in regard to this:


Dear Mr. Ed Dykes, Can you please explain what is this hardened vent system is? you mentioned it in your comment. How is it different from the normal ventilation exhaust duct from suppression pool? What is the material of the hardened vent system? Is this vent header is designed to withstand Hydrogen explosion? Normally venting is done to outside of the building then why hydrogen got accumulated in reactor building? Does Fukushima plant has any passive core cooling system like Emergency condenser/Isolation condenser or not? From your comments it appears that you have fair idea of what happened in Fukushima. Pl. share it with us


as it implies that the hydrogen was exploded by the 'waste' rods putting off heat , AND that the vent they used to vent the hydrogen got stuck open or disintegrated (meaning that thing has been spewing the whole time)

I am also VERY concerned about the absolute lack of testing for Am and stronium -90
edit on 28-3-2011 by Silverlok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomjones69
Watch this.



Wow, that expert sounds almost hysterical.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLastStand
 


Yeah, Redneck pretty much cleared that up. I wasn't really getting at anything----- the poster I was replying to was insisting that my questions to Redneck about neutron radiation issues was a silly conversation because "neutrons last about ten minutes" according to that poster. So I was just wanting to clear it up----and unfortunately, it's just as scary as Redneck made it sound! (He has a tendency to try to make scary stuff sound as not-scary as possible without leaving out the truth, so it was something I definitely wanted more info about if he was worried about it!)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tomjones69
 


wowo that guy is not pulling any punches...three ranging meltdowns barely held in check , one spent fuel pool open to the atmosphere, and if they have to abandon the plant PERMANENT DEAD ZONES IN AREAS OF JAPAN. calls the rating (ines5) " a joke in the scientific world...wow



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SDoradus

Oh, OK, now I see your point. Sorry about giving the wrong impression.

When I talk about neutron radiation, I am referring not to loose neutrons. I am referring to the energy stored in those neutrons while they are absorbed into other nuclei. Chlorine-36 ia a good example, since we have been talking a bit about it. Chlorine-36 is nothing more than an atom of chlorine that absorbed an extra neutron from the fission process in a nuclear plant. The radiation given off by chlorine-36 is beta radiation from the extra neutron converting to a proton to produce sulfur-36, and gamma radiation from the energy of that neutron gained form the original fission process.

The same mechanism occurs when hydrogen takes in an energetic neutron to become deuterium.... the hydrogen starts to emit gamma radiation as that neutron loses energy. Since most of the hydrogen around is in water, the water itself is emitting the radiation.

If floating around loose, a neutron does undergo beta decay after 10 minutes or so, emitting a beta particle. If the neutron is energetic, it will release gamma rays as well. So there will be no loose neutrons floating around waiting to attack any hapless human underneath them... but there could be neutrons in the water shooting out gamma radiation.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertwog
 


I have a deep respect for mr. kaku, he knows his stuff, and I think he's trying to remain positive when this situation almost certainly will result in permanent dead zones in japan. I think he's trying not to go as far as saying it could be worse than this (because it could be), I don't think he can without his peers scorn. He is trying so hard to come across as optimistic.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Spin spin spin

Plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) said the plutonium - a by-product of atomic reactions and also used in nuclear bombs - had been found at low-risk levels in five places at the plant, hit by a March 11 quake and tsunami.


Low-risk levels? Let me see what I can find about plutonium exposure.



Human exposure occurs mainly by breathing contaminated air or ingesting contaminated food or drink. Breathing is generally the route of most concern. When plutonium particles are inhaled and lodge in lung tissue, they continue to give off radiation internally. They can remain in the lungs or enter the gastrointestinal tract and the bloodstream. About 80 percent of the plutonium that enters the bloodstream goes either to the liver, bone or bone marrow, where it is retained for years, damaging tissue nearby. That damage may later develop into cancer. Common forms of plutonium do not dissolve significantly in water or body fluids, so little ingested material is actually absorbed into the blood from the gastrointestinal tract.


Now, I'm not a medical professional, but if a particle is small enough to be inhaled or ingested and absorbed by the body, it stands to reason that it would only have to be a minuscule particle.

And here we go:

Experts believe that at least some of the plutonium may have come from spent fuel rods at Fukushima or damage to reactor No. 3, the only one to use plutonium in its fuel mix.


There's that "may have" crap again.

More:

"While it's not the level harmful to human health, I am not optimistic. This means the containment mechanism is being breached so I think the situation is worrisome," agency official Hidehiko Nishiyama was quoted as saying by Jiji news agency.


More non-optimism for your face-saving pleasure.

Source for Tepco article quotes.

Source for exposure information on plutonium.

Am I missing something?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLastStand
reply to post by Wertwog
 


I have a deep respect for mr. kaku, he knows his stuff, and I think he's trying to remain positive when this situation almost certainly will result in permanent dead zones in japan. I think he's trying not to go as far as saying it could be worse than this (because it could be), I don't think he can without his peers scorn. He is trying so hard to come across as optimistic.


No offense intended, I'm actually grateful for some scientists who are finally standing up and telling the public the truth. His fear is justified and what an awful position for him to be in, knowing what he knows and having to watch this unfold, not wanting to cause panic but not wanting to lie either. It's the first time I've heard outright 'panic' in an experts voice over this and it's fully reasonable given the horrific situation.

I wanted to add this image. It is the "beauty" of Fukushima .... the "dead zones" of the future....



I'm beyond sad for what we are doing to this beautiful home of ours.
edit on 28-3-2011 by Wertwog because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


So what would be the sources of neutron radiation issues from fallout? They're carried by other nuclei, if I'm reading you correctly, so that means they will be carried by certain types of detectable molecules or whatnot, right? To go back to the water distillation issue: if the water has all of the foreign materials distilled out of it, are you saying the energetic neutrons that were in those contaminants will bind with (or do something to) the hydrogen in the H2O to where they cannot be separated? How long does the radiation from that last-----is there any reasonable amount of time one could set the water aside and expect most of the radiation to be gone (or done or whatever)?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLastStand
 


hell I agree with him , that's about as optimistic an any one with half a brain can be...

here is an interesting fact , those mark 1 reactors were filled with nitrogen when functional and sealed , one of the biggest concerns among some of the nuke techs was that nitrogen being radioactive and getting near the turbine end of things ( this implies hard radiation sources in the coolant because nitrogen dos not stay radioactive long ) for some reason they thought this would destroy any possibly of getting the cooling systems working again . I guess from a burst of hard radiation , which fits an earlier guess of mine about the control and electronics for the motors...and rednecks fears over a single cooling loop...

ge claims that the mark 1 has never had a breach ...I guess they never saw the crack at fukushima , but now they can't stand on the "never had a breach" podium for this too small of a core


" The memo was written on September 20, 1972 by Dr Stephen Hanauer, then working at the US Atomic Energy Commission. He was concerned that weaknesses in the design of the container vessel around the reactor core – the main shield against the escape of radioactivity – could cause it to fail in an accident, leading to dangerous releases. He pointed out that the vessel was smaller than was “conventional” and lent itself to the build-up of hydrogen – which seems to have played a part in the events at Fukushima – becoming “a more serious problem”. He recommended that the commission “adopt a policy of discouraging further use” of that kind of containment and “that such designs not be accepted for construction permits filed after a date to be decided (say two years after the policy is adopted)”


single loop reactor, and that was 3 decades before MOX
edit on 28-3-2011 by Silverlok because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
513
<< 397  398  399    401  402  403 >>

log in

join