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.
The earthquake brought Units 1, 2, and 3 to an automatic shutdown because of the high seismic acceleration. The off-site power supply was also lost because of damage to the transmission towers from the earthquake. For this reason, the EDGs for each unit were automatically started up to maintain the function of cooling the reactors and the SFPs. Normal reactor cooldown and decay heat removal functions were under way.
donlashway
reply to post by dragonridr
“Trust me ive worked with nuclear materials in a lab for medical research if i was screaming about dangers then be worried.”
Is this your claim of authority? Are you a degreed professional? Licensed? Do you feel responsible and liable for what you write here?
I could almost agree if we add the qualifier that we are only considering emitted radiation and the intensity of the energies released. The radioactive nucleotides produced, released and still being produced and released are the main concern of those informed about this disaster.
“…what's important is the intensity of the exposure.”
Health professionals working with radiation as a tool might disagree; Alpha and Gamma are fast and powerful going right through the tissue, Beta however, are absorbed by the tissue causing damage.
“The only danger was the initial exposure because those were not beta particles.”
Just don’t know what to say about your belief other than all of us here writing daily have failed to enlighten you, sorry, do you read any of it?
“However by this point the reactor is shut down no new radiation is being created”
Dangerous statement; anyone eating a gram of Cesium 55 would likely die from the resulting hydrogen explosion. Do I need to explain ?
“You know so little about radiation now you've gone to just making silly statements. Its not recommended for anyone to eat a couple of ounces of cesium though you could and live.”
Please, consider what you write, believe it or not bad information can hurt people.
edit on 21-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)
Human0815
reply to post by dragonridr
All Reactor was automatically Shut Down:
The earthquake brought Units 1, 2, and 3 to an automatic shutdown because of the high seismic acceleration. The off-site power supply was also lost because of damage to the transmission towers from the earthquake. For this reason, the EDGs for each unit were automatically started up to maintain the function of cooling the reactors and the SFPs. Normal reactor cooldown and decay heat removal functions were under way.
Source
Many People do not know this.
recognises the fact that there is no safe level of exposure to ionising radiation
R. M. Sievert, the famous radiologist, who had supervised radiation therapy since 1926 at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, pointed out at an international meeting in 1950 that `there is no known tolerance level for radiation'.[14] A tolerance level is a level below which there is no damage (sometimes called a threshold). A safety level is ordinarily a fraction (one-tenth) of the tolerance level.[14] R. M. Sievert, `Tolerance Levels and Swedish Radiation-protection Work', Proceedings of the Health Physics Society, June 1956, p. 181.
Wow you are wrong on almost everything lets start with xray and gamma particles cant believe you think beta is more lethal.
Tissue absorption is involved in the exposure however cesium 137 is easily removed from our system for two reasons. One our body removes them through encapsulation and second the water in our system helps protect us because it cuts down on the exposure. After radioactive cesium is ingested, it is distributed fairly uniformly throughout the body's soft tissues. This helps cut down on the damage keeping the radiation to a lower level then if it was all in one location. The body quickly removes it in about a 1 month to four months depending on activity. In fact its even faster in children and infants.
From previous post useful info posted... For review from previous post, if interested in learning more search Dr. Yuri Bandazhevsky.
One of the key discoveries made by Bandazhevsky was that Cesium-137 bioconcentrates in the endocrine and heart tissues, as well as the pancreas, kidneys and intestines. This goes completely against one of the primary assumptions used by the ICRP to calculate “effective dose” as measured by milliseiverts: that Cesium-137 is uniformly distributed in human tissues. Let me restate that. The current ICRP methodology is to assume that the absorbed dose is uniformly distributed in human tissues. This is, in fact, not the case…
If you would research this on you own this time, you will find that the Cesium 137 will react even more violently...
And yes you can ingest cesium 137 and live no one was discussing cesium 55 its an unstable akali in fact you would never get a chance to eat it it would ignite on contact with air. So dont try to undermine something with a statement that makes exactly 0 sense.
Tepco says it's shut down and the temperature under 100 c would lead you to believe that if we only knew where those cores went to ? Have you seen the pics of the I-beam falling into reactor 3 spent fuel pool? Makes me wonder if anything there could be wrong. I have to trust Tepco when they say there's no MOX fuel in there, how about you ?
And as far as the reactor please show us its still active and hasnt been shut down the only danger is if the fuel rods in storage overheat. this would lead to another release of radioactive iodine this is dangerous and of course more cesium 137.
Dont make a statement show me where im wrong how many curies of cesium 137 is lethal?
Effects Of Cesium-137 On Human Health However: ”Research done by Dr. Yuri Bandazhevsky, and his colleagues and students, in Belarus during the period 1991 through 1999, correlated whole body radiation levels of 10 to 30 Becquerels per kilogram of whole body weight with abnormal heart rhythms and levels of 50 Becquerels per kilogram of body weight with irreversible damage to the tissues of the heart and other vital organs.
1 Ci = 3.7×1010 Bq = 37 GBq you can do the math if you like
Whoa, I got three pages of quotes from you. Should we number them or something to keep track of those we have resolved; not just posted a reply to and moved on ? I don't mean we need to agree but let's get real.
But lets start has there been any mention of radiation burns or bronchial tubes being damaged do to this incident? How about damage to small intestines anything for that matter the exposure was to small to hurt people. Now this doesnt mean there will not be increased risks for cancer but no more than someone smoking.
dragonridr
reply to post by donlashway
Radiation will always increase risks we are bombarded by radiation every day of our lives. Theres cosmic infrared and of course beta radiation from the earth itself. The water you drink guess what radioactive try it use a gieger counter. We cant avoid radiation your body will repair damage done at low levels. For example do you know when the apollo astronauts went to the moon they reported seeing flashes. This was gamma rays slamming into the retina causing a flash. The damage will repair itself as long as the exposure is decreased. Are bodies couldnt adapt to prevent radiation from hurting us so it did the next best thing made sure the damage done can be repaired. This is why we can irradiate someone to the point there hair falls out to kill cancer. The object is to kill the cancer cells before doing to much damage to the others. Once the cancer is gone and exposure is stopped the cells repair the damage done by chemo.
In a perfect world there would be no radiation exposure however thats impossible. Your whole argument is based on if radiation hurts you of course it does but in low levels the damage will be repaired. Even exposure to large amounts of cesium 137 as long as you're removed from the exposure area. In this case about 20 miles from the plant the concentrations are too high. Outside of that area your body will handle the radiation. So unless you live in that 20 miles youll be fine as i said earlier long run increased risk of cancer but alot of things we do increases are risk of cancer. Outside of a hundred miles there is no way to even measure the effect because it will fall within statistical margin of error.
Does anyone in any other country need to worry about radiation from the plant of course not. Id be more worried about waering sunscreen youll receive more radiation taking a walk.
when no safe level of the substance exists.
wishes
reply to post by dragonridr
There's a major difference between sun/natural radiation and man-made particles coming at us in the water and air. Breathing in the stuff or eating it is deadly and it's been running freely 24/7 since 3/11. Even the Canadian government PR salesman told me just after it happened that there's nothing to worry about, there's more radiation in a banana than Fukushima... And people believe that.... so sad.... and then they took down all the radiation monitors... yeah, it's all safe for sure ;-)
Everybody agrees that high levels of ionizing radiation are harmful. The debate is about very low exposure levels which some people feel poses a risk, and others don't, but the data is inconclusive to support either view, so you won't get a scientific resolution to that anytime soon. The numbers are just too small to accurately measure and there are too many confounding factors at such low levels, like differing amounts of background radiation. This shows a graphical comparison of the linear (no-threshold) model with the threshold model where a threshold level of radiation needs to be exceeded for the radiation to become harmful to humans. Neither model has been ruled out by available data (nor has either model been confirmed):
donlashway
reply to post by Human0815
Try as I might I just can not get people to agree, "no ionizing radiation is safe".
If that is understood than this problem can be understood.
That last dose of 1 rem/yr is close to what you'd get at the disaster site now, which is actually about 0.8 rem/yr (meaning reduced life expectancy of 41 days) according to this:
One way often used is to look at the number of "days lost" out of a population due to early death from separate causes, then dividing those days lost between the population to get an "Average Life expectancy lost" due to those causes. The following is a table of life expectancy lost for several causes:
Health Risk Est. life expectancy lost
Smoking 20 cigs a day-----6 years
Overweight (15%)------2 years
Alcohol (US Ave)-------1 year
All Accidents-----------207 days
All Natural Hazards---------7 days
Occupational dose (300 mrem/yr)-----15 days
Occupational dose (1 rem/yr)-------51 days
`Basic Radiation Protection Criteria', US National Council on Radiation Protection Report no. 39, pp. 58-60. In short, this elaborate philosophy recognises the fact that there is no safe level of exposure to ionising radiation, and the search for quantifying such a safe level is in vain.
R. M. Sievert, the famous radiologist, who had supervised radiation therapy since 1926 at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, pointed out at an international meeting in 1950 that `there is no known tolerance level for radiation'.[14] A tolerance level is a level below which there is no damage (sometimes called a threshold).