Aircraft Carrier Ronald Reagan, passes through Radioactive Cloud in Pacific.

How could the Radioactive Levels at the nuclear plants be acceptable, if "by chance" an Aircraft Carrier passes through a "Cloud" in the Pacific?

www.nytimes.com...

The Pentagon was expected to announce that the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan, which is sailing in the Pacific, passed through a radioactive cloud from stricken nuclear reactors in Japan, causing crew members on deck to receive a month’s worth of radiation in about an hour, government officials said Sunday.

How can this be? Yes, I know the winds did this, but how far is this going to go, and what would the levels be closer to the nuclear plants?

Now if more leaks out, what does this mean for the rest of the Planet? What are we dealing with here?

you need to add a D to your ronal in your title op

reply to post by talisman


A month's worth ....huh. A month for who exactly?

strange wording. you would have thought they would change course

reply to post by BadBoYeed


no need to change course when everyone downplays the radiation
they said they were fine .. well they found out otherwise

and more?

the 2nd paragraph:

The officials added that American helicopters flying missions about 60 miles north of the damaged reactors became coated with particulate radiation that had to be washed off.

that means the radiation is all around NE Japan ????

Originally posted by GullibleUnderlord
you need to add a D to your ronal in your title op

star for spelling police

reply to post by BadBoYeed


They mean a month's worth of normal background radiation...the radiation that everyone is subject to daily. But you are right, they do use horrible wording with that phrase.

Keep in mind though, there have been 100's of nuclear bomb tests over the past 60years or so.

There is already significant radiological issues that we have had to live with for a very long time and the effects were difficult if not impossible to gauge.

Yes having one or more nuclear meltdowns in Japan is a dangerous issue, but at the same time, it is not the end of the world. There isn't really much you can do, short of carrying a Geiger counter with you everywhere you go and handing out information booklets.

I don't know if you saw this or not, but it just popped up when at the bottom of your article.

WASHINGTON — American Navy officials in Japan said early Monday that 17 military personnel who had been aboard three helicopters assisting in the earthquake relief effort had been exposed to low levels of contamination.

www.nytimes.com...

same source

they don't seem to say HOW FAR from the Japanese coast

the USS Reagan was ???

reply to post by talisman


If out at sea with dissipated radiation can cause a months worth in one hour... then I think it's safe to confirm the Japanese govt is lying to the World and that 2 meltdowns have occurred, the reactors completely crippled.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Keep in mind though, there have been 100's of nuclear bomb tests over the past 60years or so.

There is already significant radiological issues that we have had to live with for a very long time and the effects were difficult if not impossible to gauge.

Yes having one or more nuclear meltdowns in Japan is a dangerous issue, but at the same time, it is not the end of the world. There isn't really much you can do, short of carrying a Geiger counter with you everywhere you go and handing out information booklets.

Not the end of the world? I bet you would have a hard time, convincing the people in Japan of that.

www.nytimes.com...

Navy Says 17 Americans Were Treated for Contamination

WASHINGTON — American Navy officials in Japan said early Monday that 17 military personnel who had been aboard three helicopters assisting in the earthquake relief effort had been exposed to low levels of contamination.

Originally posted by xuenchen
they don't seem to say HOW FAR from the Japanese coast

the USS Reagan was ???

60 miles

Meltdowns are different than Nuclear (or hydrogen) explosions.

Most nuclear testing was done in isolated areas, and once the effects were determined, in controlled environments (buried in the desert, under water)

But to compare the two:

In a nuclear explosion, typified by a bomb, the major burden of fission products is produced essentially immediately within the very short duration of the nuclear event. When a nuclear explosion occurs in the air atmosphere, the entire inventory of fission products that is produced is, in theory, available to produce external radiation dose from the radiations, especially the gamma radiation, and potential internal dose, following inhalation and ingestion of the material. Naturally, many of the fission products become quickly unavailable because of their very short half-lives; such nuclides disappear by radioactive decay

Basically from a nuclear explosion the radiation is released instantly and is short lived, until the element dissolves.. those who within the first few days inhale or ingest the radiation will suffer the high doses and become ill and or die. This is why so many people in the Japanese explosions became sick, their children deformed, but yet they are fully functional cities today.

Whereas a Meltdown, which we can look at Chernobyl as an example, become inhospitable wastelands, that site and surrounding area was abandoned, and is still a ghost-land where Humans cannot live.

In the case of an accident at a nuclear power plant, a nuclear-bomb-type event is not possible, and the kinds of accidents that might occur are generally incapable of dispersing the entire contents of the core, which contains the radioactivity, into the general environment. Usually, the most volatile radionuclides are the ones most likely to be released when the barriers against dispersal are compromised.

www.hps.org...

So a nuclear meltdown can (note can) have a much smaller affected area depending upon the type of meltdown, whether or not an explosion is involved, and whether the particles are ejected into the atmosphere. The radiation of a Nuclear plant has a half life of 60 years, meaning an effected area will be inhospitable for decades to hundreds of years (Chernobyl). Chernobyl's explosion ripped the core and blew the building apart, ejecting huge quantities of radiation into the atmosphere, which coated the Earth for miles around the site in a fine radioactive dust that seeps into the soil. The Japanese have lost two reactor housing complexes through hydrogen explosions, but the reactors (they claim) are intact and still housing the fuel .. this means the only radiation ejected will come from water/steam from cooling and air pressure being released from the reactor. But if the core heats to the point where the reactor is compromised, the fuel could be ejected into the atmosphere because the Reactor's housing shell was destroyed in both cases (Reactor 1 and 3).

So in short a Nuclear Meltdown is far worse than a Nuclear Explosion in terms of long lasting effects.

All reminds me of 1986 in Germany, which I experienced first hand.

The Chernobyl meltdown contaminated vast parts of Europe, I was still a child back then and I remember how I had to shower every time I came home to get rid of the dust, and I wasn't allowed to play in the forest or my sand box lol. There's still high levels of Cesium in mushrooms and some soil nowadays.

However I think the leaked radiation in Japan right now is nothing compared to 1986, and the month-worth of radiation that the crew has been exposed to is not an indicator of a full scale meltdown, but rather an indication of contaminated cooling liquid that has evaporated.

Let's hope it stays that way, they said there has been a second explosion in a different block. Not really comforting.

Originally posted by onyx718

Originally posted by xuenchen
they don't seem to say HOW FAR from the Japanese coast

the USS Reagan was ???

60 miles

the article says the Helicopters were 60 miles from the reactors......

the ship was 60 miles from Japan also ?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by talisman

 

If out at sea with dissipated radiation can cause a months worth in one hour... then I think it's safe to confirm the Japanese govt is lying to the World and that 2 meltdowns have occurred, the reactors completely crippled.

Agreed. Just the fact that the 'sea' has a wide area, and the carrier happened to be in the right place.

Kinda makes you wonder if they intercepted the cloud on purpose?

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by onyx718

Originally posted by xuenchen
they don't seem to say HOW FAR from the Japanese coast

the USS Reagan was ???

60 miles

the article says the Helicopters were 60 miles from the reactors......

the ship was 60 miles from Japan also ?

I think so, i think it was in a different post and i believe it said helicopters and the ship were picking up radiation levels 60 miles out...i'm not sure which thread it was now though. Maybe the breaking news thread about the 2nd explosion if you want to read for yourself?

Originally posted by talisman

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by talisman

 

If out at sea with dissipated radiation can cause a months worth in one hour... then I think it's safe to confirm the Japanese govt is lying to the World and that 2 meltdowns have occurred, the reactors completely crippled.

Agreed. Just the fact that the 'sea' has a wide area, and the carrier happened to be in the right place.

Kinda makes you wonder if they intercepted the cloud on purpose?

But if in fact they were 60 miles off shore? i really remember reading that the ship was jsut as close as the helicopter