Fukushima radiation… what you need to know and why

reply to post by poet1b


You didn't read the links then. And when I quoted them for you you claimed the quotes weren't from the article...so yeah...

donlashway
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Yea, that's where I want to start one ionizing radiation particle; alpha, gama or beta causing damage.
To this we can both agree?
Would others also agree?
If so maybe this could be that foundation I was looking to build on.

That one ionizing radiation particle; alpha, gama or beta an indication of the presents of one Bq; becquerel (One Bq is defined as the activity of a quantity of radioactive material in which one nucleus decays per second)

Can we all agree ?

edit on 22-1-2014 by donlashway because: (no reason given)

I agree. Let's start with a single radionuclide of plutonium.

I submit the following picture and will let it speak for itself:



But this is going to lead back to "there is a safe level" vs "there isn't a safe level" and then like that dog chasing his tail, here we go again.

I think the 2 sides are just too far apart to ever see anywhere near eye to eye on Fukushima or radiation.....

reply to post by RickinVa


A safe level exists.

Can your body handle an "x" amount of exposure and survive without immediate or lasting affects? If yes, safe.

reply to post by RickinVa


When you use this Pic it is well advised
to provide a Explanation of the Size (Multiplication) of this Sample!

Because it is very, very (Very!) small!

reply to post by Human0815


The picture is a microscopic image of the tissue of the lung in a rat. Also it is not a single atom of a radio nuclide it is more likely millions to trillions of them but that is still a very small speck of Pu dust. But size dosent matter it only take one alpha or beta particle to hit the right part of your DNA to cause replication errors with can lead to cancer.

BGTM90
reply to post by Human0815

 

The picture is a microscopic image of the tissue of the lung in a rat. Also it is not a single atom of a radio nuclide it is more likely millions to trillions of them but that is still a very small speck of Pu dust. But size dosent matter it only take one alpha or beta particle to hit the right part of your DNA to cause replication errors with can lead to cancer.

Thanks for correcting my error.. I never intentionally put out false info,,, but then again I am no scientist, just a concerned person. I was thinking that it was one radionuclide... doesn't really matter... the point is still the same.

raymundoko
reply to post by RickinVa

 

A safe level exists.

Can your body handle an "x" amount of exposure and survive without immediate or lasting affects? If yes, safe.

Already been covered. Scroll back up please!


Does anybody want to talk about the only new thing recent... like the new record radiation level recorded at 3,100,000 bq per liter?

I am really struggling with the concept of containment and new high readings almost 3 years later.... but then again, maybe it's just only me. And I am as neutral as I can be, but it's just not logically adding up at this point.

reply to post by RickinVa


You need to make differences, there are different Groups of "Waste-Water"!

To think that the 300 Tones of Groundwater daily are polluted
like your mentioned Amount is not right!

To understand this you need the Pics of the Tepcofiles,
you see that they have different Points where they collect
their Data,
one Group is relative fresh for the Collection of Groundwater,
another Group is old and collected in Pipes,
this are the basic Differences!

By the Way the 300 Tones are just a thought,
they "think" that Groundwater is floating
(? maybe not the right word) in between
100 and 600 Tones!

But even 600 Tones a Day is nothing,
the Kuroshio Current in front of the Plant
pushing 50.000.000 (50 Mio) Tons of Water a Second!

reply to post by Human0815


Its not really the volume of water that is coming out of the plant that should be the topic of discussion its the amount of radio nuclides in the water that should be of concern. Sure if the water has 100 becquerel per gallon than the 300 tons or 720 gallons probably is not a big deal but if but if its millions of becquerels thats a different story. Im not saying either of those numbers are the correct numbers in the case of FNP but the point is its the level of contamination of the water needs to be taken into account.

reply to post by BGTM90


Exactly!

And this is the Reason why we need to know "where" they
done this Measurement because there are a lot of
differences, the Amount of Radiation, the Type of
Radiation (Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma- or mixed)
and the Location!

BGTM90
reply to post by Human0815

 

Its not really the volume of water that is coming out of the plant that should be the topic of discussion its the amount of radio nuclides in the water that should be of concern. Sure if the water has 100 becquerel per gallon than the 300 tons or 720 gallons probably is not a big deal but if but if its millions of becquerels thats a different story. Im not saying either of those numbers are the correct numbers in the case of FNP but the point is its the level of contamination of the water needs to be taken into account.

I agree, there are just too many unknowns to make sound decisions one way or the other,,,, but evidence is starting turn towards the other way the longer this goes on.

Human0815
reply to post by BGTM90

 

Exactly!

And this is the Reason why we need to know "where" they
done this Measurement because there are a lot of
differences, the Amount of Radiation, the Type of
Radiation (Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma- or mixed)
and the Location!

That'll be the day Tepco shows transparency and actually films where they're taking the readings and the equipment they're taking it with to prove accuracy in their reporting. It wouldn't surprise me if they do it like the mob bookkeeping system - one set of readings (books) for the public and another set of readings (books) for themselves. Is easy for them to pick and choose 'where' and 'when' to get readings that will best reflect what they want out there. And then we still have to 'believe' that the reading they're giving us is accurate and not scaled way down to make everything look better than it really is.

There is way too much being hidden from the public. We're supposed to be satisfied with their updates on their terms - they're not letting anyone else in to do independent readings, are they? So we have to rely on 'their' word.... yeah, I'm sure it's all under control just fine....

reply to post by wishes


Sure, it smells like a Conspiracy
(like the whole World History)
[and according to this we assume that the Mossad is responsible]
[just Satire-Mode]

I wish you would be as Radical in your real Life
as you are here at ATS

Tepco do not need to provide any Numbers, any Info,
Pics or Videos, they do not need to keep the Cam online
and they do not need to care you, but they do!

Human0815
reply to post by wishes

 

Sure, it smells like a Conspiracy

(like the whole World History)
[and according to this we assume that the Mossad is responsible]
[just Satire-Mode]

I wish you would be as Radical in your real Life
as you are here at ATS

Tepco do not need to provide any Numbers, any Info,
Pics or Videos, they do not need to keep the Cam online
and they do not need to care you, but they do!

It's a sad day in the universe when being critical of a company in charge of the biggest mess in history doesn't have to be accountable gets called "radical" as if it is something derogatory... FYI - here's some definitions of 'radical'
www.thefreedictionary.com...

rad·i·cal (rd-kl) adj. 1. Arising from or going to a root or source; basic: proposed a radical solution to the problem. 2. Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education. 3. Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions:

I prefer the first definition - going to a root or source. Tepco is the root or source of this problem so let's get the right information from them. Oh wait, they don't have to - secrecy laws - select readings and equipment ad nauseum.

You have no knowledge of my personal life and is (again) you going after the player and not the ball.

So where's some bona fide readings from bona fide equipment from around Fukushima that is independent of Tepco's filtered releases?

reply to post by RickinVa


No, we are very much on the same page about the potential impact of Fukushima. I think the only area we differ in is how much we need to worry at this very moment.

Right now I am worried little to none concerning the planet, but very much concerning Japan and the immediate area. If there isn't more progress and faster to deal with the ongoing issues, my level of concern will start to rise.

Also, whoever talked about San Onofre here in Cali, it was decommissioned in 2012. Older plants are going to be commissioned over the next decade and new plants built:

www.nrc.gov...

As far as safer nuclear options go:

www.extremetech.com...

And this site shows that nuclear energy is indeed the lowest cost to generate:

www.world-nuclear.org...

reply to post by wishes


When you are small you think it is Tepco who is responsible
and when you are bigger you will see that Tepco is just the
Name of a Company but not the Root of all Evil!

The Humankind decided (without you and me) that it is Okay
to sacrifice Earthlings and Nature for the greater Benefit
of the Hive!

We kill each other in Wars and do not even care when Kids
die in our Neighborhood because of Thirst, we "harvest" Animals
and poison the Water and our Air and for the Society this is Okay!

reply to post by Human0815


Think it is Tepco who is responsible,
will you see that Tepco is just the
Name of a Company but not the Root of all Evil!

The Humankind decided (without you and me) that it is Okay
to sacrifice Earthlings and Nature for the greater Benefit
of the Hive!

We kill each other in Wars and do not even care when Kids
die in our Neighborhood because of Thirst, we "harvest" Animals
and poison the Water and our Air and for the Society this is Okay!
edit on 23-1-2014 by Human0815 because: spell

Would it be ok to paraphrase your reply ?

reply to post by raymundoko

And this site shows that nuclear energy is indeed the lowest cost to generate:

Until you consider the cost of a mistake ?

Could we agree ?

reply to post by donlashway


You do know that Dam disasters are more common and cost more money right?

The Shimantan/Banqiao Dam cost 9 Billionish and 200,000 people died.

The Morvi Dam cost 2 Billionish and 2,000 people died.

In Comparison for example Chernobyl cost 6 billion and 4,000 people died.

Water and Coal disasters are far more common than Nuclear and have cost quite a bit more money in total.

Fukushima is estimated to cost around 80 billion with no deaths yet, but they estimate about 3200 people world wide will get cancer, 2500 of them in Japan.

So no, we don't agree. There have now been TWO major nuclear disasters. 2. Dos. 1989 and 2011.

There have been DOZENS of dam failures resulting in over a trillion dollars of repair.

There have also been dozens of coal plant disasters, which usually cost between 500 Million and 1 Billion to cleanup.

reply to post by raymundoko


Wow,
i totally forgot this Dam Disaster!

Domo for a short reminder of Banqiao!

The Banqiao Reservoir Dam, located on the River Ru in the Zhumadian Prefecture of the Chinese Henan province, failed in 1975, killing an estimated 171,000 people (although some reports estimate that number to be as high as 230,000) and destroying the homes of 11 million people. It is considered to be the biggest dam failure in history, with more casualties than any other dam failure.

Built between April, 1951 and June, 1952, the Banqiao Reservoir Dam was designed in such a way that would allow it to withstand a large flood. This type of flood, where 300 mm of rain falls per day, is known as a “once-in-1,000-years flood.” The August 1975 flood, however, was what is known as a once-in-2,000-years flood, more massive than the construction of the dam had accounted for, meaning that more than an annual amount of rain fell in only 24 hours. Records indicate that 189.5 mm of water fell every hour, which translates to 1,060 mm per day. That far exceeds the province`s average annual rainfall, which is only around 800 mm. - See more at: engineeringfailures.org...