The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: does a picture say more than a thousand words?  (Read 86246 times)

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #225 on: 15/10/2013 22:27:35 »
By the way, you can put the web address of a KML file into the search bar of Google Maps, and it will display the information.

In the above case, you can download the file, then select "copy download link" to recover the actual link location.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #226 on: 15/10/2013 22:29:06 »
Well, don't know what to say about someone just building a house for himself at some bad spot Clifford. It should be the insurance company using some common sense I hope. But if he was building a nuclear power plant there instead I think I would have a lot to say, especially after Fukushima :) Tried to see the levels of radioactivity here in Sweden (air born particles) from Fukushima, but it seemed we only did a partial analysis in 2011, reporting the air born radioactivity as negligible for our part. Then again, with three reactors 'shielded' and possibly underground it should become a slower process, although I doubt it will be easier to handle, there's a lot of unknowns though.

"Abstract: This report presents a short summary of detections within the international monitoring system (IMS) operated by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) after the nuclear accident at the nuclear power plant in Fukushima Daiichi, Japan on 11 March, 2011. The analysis presented in this report mainly covers measurements outside of Japan. Detections within the Swedish national network for particulate radioactivity in ground level air are also presented. The measurements indicate an initial eastbound spread of radioactivity from Fukushima, over the Pacific Ocean to North America and then passing the Atlantic Ocean to Europe and Asia. Later releases passed on a more southward route over the Pacific Ocean.

About three weeks after the accident radioactive xenon was homogeneously spread over the northern hemisphere, and the activity concentration decreased with the rate of the physical half-life. The particulate radioactivity in the atmosphere decreased faster than the physical half-life of the radionuclides due to deposition. The particulate radioactivity from the accident was dominated by radioactive iodine. The results of the gaseous iodine measurements in Sweden indicate that the particulate fraction of the total iodine was only about 25 %. Apart from iodine, cesium and tellurium were also detected, however at lower activity concentrations. The activity reached Sweden about 10 days after the accident and measured radioactivity was dominated by 131I. Maximum concentration levels in Sweden were measured during 28 March - 2 April and the concentrations of 131I were below detection limits in the middle of May. In Sweden, measured radioactivity concentrations in air and deposition were only a fraction of measured activity levels after the Chernobyl accident in 1986.

The accident at Fukushima will therefore not give any long term consequences in Sweden."

Kind of like the finishing comment there, in a slightly sour way. :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #227 on: 15/10/2013 22:30:52 »
If you have a Google account :) I think? At least it refused to let me to the correct download address, instead linking me to set up a account?
=
Don't have Google earth on this one, so I can't test copy and paste the link into it, if that is how you mean?
« Last Edit: 15/10/2013 22:39:15 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #228 on: 15/10/2013 23:28:06 »
Ah well. Keep on using saltwater to cool may not be the smartest thing, although probably the easiest short time solution.

"    Per Peterson, chair of the department of nuclear engineering at UC Berkeley:The primary containment vessel, it’s being left submerged in salty water and is corroding. So by not making prudent decisions today about what water must be discharged and what water can be safely discharged and instead just storing it all, the risk is it will make it in the longer term much less likely that it will be possible to get the damaged fuel out. And so by misdirecting a lot of the effort to do things that don’t reduce risk significantly, they’re creating in Japan a much larger probability that in the end it will not be possible to get the damaged fuel out, and they will have to manage those plants at that site for millennia going into the future.

    Tom Ashbrook, Host: Millennia, that means thousands of years.  […]

    Peterson: You want to be trying to flush out all of that salt that was injected into these reactors, which right now is contributing to the corrosion of these primary containment vessels, that if they don’t survive it will become challenging or impossible to get the damaged fuel out."

And then we have Wipha.

It must be nerve racking living close to Fukushima today. Isn't the typhoon season said to end in September? Checking it seems as it can continue into October too.
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #229 on: 16/10/2013 00:29:00 »
The primary containment vessel, it’s being left submerged in salty water and is corroding.

I'd think they could start flushing out the salt water by now.  But, perhaps it is all in the details.

How thick is the vessel?
How much is it corroding?

Cast Iron was often used for drain pipes in the past.  A good cast iron pipe will last a century or so before it will go bad.

Lots of ships hulls are also made of solid steel.

The Arizona has 13" steel armor plating that has been submerged since 1941.  Undoubtedly it is corroding a bit, but it will take a few more years for the ocean to eat through it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #230 on: 16/10/2013 22:48:05 »
You can listen to it here Clifford. It's a podcast. As for Wipha, she? Seems to have stayed outside Fukushima, Tokyo, and the mainland.  Typhoon Wipha kills several, but misses Tokyo and Fukushima. which is good news.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #231 on: 16/10/2013 23:20:47 »
Some of the facts, hopefully.

"There are 5,040 assemblies in the 6 overhead pools at Fukushima I NPP, plus 6,375 in the common pool. They only have capacity for 4,954, so already, the Fukushima NPP was over capacity during normal operations (102%). There are just 408 assemblies in the dry cask storage, which currently is full, and needs re-constructing. Due to it being close to the ocean, it was also flooded, and its integrity has not been confirmed, cranes were damaged and monitoring instruments broken. They'll also need to build a new facility for the new assemblies. The Spent Fuel Pool at reactor 4 has fuel assemblies going back to 1980, with the hottest from 2010.

Fukushima II NPP has 6,746 fuel assemblies in their overhead pools, around 85% of the capacity."

Fukushima II being Fukushimas 'sister', 11.5 km away, with slightly different, and hopefully better, precautions introduced into its design. Seen some refer to Fukushima as an 'American' prototype that since that been modified in later nuclear plants for the Japanese situation. On the other hand, it's the same guys wanting to sell their improved designs to other Countries.

Now some want us to think that there is no way you can compare the radiation from a 'slow' burn with the one seen in a atomic explosion. I think they are right, but I also think that this slow burn are worse.

"I asked top spent-fuel pools expert Mr. Robert Alvarez, former Senior Policy Adviser to the Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for National Security and the Environment at the U.S. Department of Energy, for an explanation of the potential impact of the 11,421 rods.

I received an astounding response from Mr. Alvarez [updated 4/5/12]:

In recent times, more information about the spent fuel situation at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site has become known. It is my understanding that of the 1,532 spent fuel assemblies in reactor No. 304 assemblies are fresh and unirradiated. This then leaves 1,231 irradiated spent fuel rods in pool No. 4, which contain roughly 37 million curies (~1.4E+18 Becquerel) of long-lived radioactivity. The No. 4 pool is about 100 feet above ground, is structurally damaged and is exposed to the open elements. If an earthquake or other event were to cause this pool to drain this could result in a catastrophic radiological fire involving nearly 10 times the amount of Cs-137 released by the Chernobyl accident.

The infrastructure to safely remove this material was destroyed as it was at the other three reactors. Spent reactor fuel cannot be simply lifted into the air by a crane as if it were routine cargo. In order to prevent severe radiation exposures, fires and possible explosions, it must be transferred at all times in water and heavily shielded structures into dry casks.. As this has never been done before, the removal of the spent fuel from the pools at the damaged Fukushima-Dai-Ichi reactors will require a major and time-consuming re-construction effort and will be charting in unknown waters. Despite the enormous destruction cased at the Da–Ichi site, dry casks holding a smaller amount of spent fuel appear to be unscathed.

Based on U.S. Energy Department data, assuming a total of 11,138 spent fuel assemblies are being stored at the Dai-Ichi site, nearly all, which is in pools. They contain roughly 336 million curies (~1.2 E+19 Bq) of long-lived radioactivity. About 134 million curies is Cesium-137 — roughly 85 times the amount of Cs-137 released at the Chernobyl accident as estimated by the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP). The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi site contains nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel).

It is important for the public to understand that reactors that have been operating for decades, such as those at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site have generated some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet.

Many of our readers might find it difficult to appreciate the actual meaning of the figure, yet we can grasp what 85 times more Cesium-137 than the Chernobyl would mean. It would destroy the world environment and our civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of human survival. "

Don't know if it has to be this bad, but consider the way radiation keeps raising, and combine it with global warming, species already migrating, in different ways depending on environment. In the rain-forest they've started to migrate downwards :) actually. Down to the ground, just to keep the precise 'climate' they can live in. Believe it or not, but they seem very climate sensitive, more so than the European animals. But after meeting the ground, there will be no new miracle for them.

Just extrapolate a little, add some more greed, and people not giving a f*, as long as they can make a buck. Add Methane extraction and leaking underwater pipelines, as that is the new give. And place yourself fifty years from now.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #232 on: 16/10/2013 23:41:04 »
There are a few time tested ways I think people react on disaster, one is hopeful, believing that we all will learn to do better, from whatever situation we get ourselves into. The other comes when people realize that those that refuse to learn from it, keeping the same attitude as before but now even more cynical and blatant, also becomes those taking advantage of the situation, getting rich from it. That's when people starts to ask themselves what the use is of trying. We had it in the 1400 when the black pest hit Europe, that was a time when people thought that heaven was just one step aside, and hell. The apocalypse as they thought of it. We're not that different from them, better technology, and possibly better rules for what warfare should be, but also gruesome technological, chemical and biological advances, as in Syria recently. I think we are much the same animals, then as now, and as far as I've read, this was the way they reacted on what came under and after the black pest hit Europe.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #233 on: 16/10/2013 23:59:12 »
Talking about activities is a bit futile. Can you translate any of your figures into population committed dose? That is the measure of risk. 
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #234 on: 17/10/2013 00:20:01 »
Nah, we're much the same animals :)
On good and bad..

Hope you enjoy slightly black humor. After all, it's our ability to laugh at ourselves that make us so precious :)
Radiation won't affect happy people.

And before you get all uppity, how much do you remember being reported at home, about the situation in Fukushima this last year? By our papers? And what about our concerned Politicians? The laugh is a much on us as on them.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #235 on: 17/10/2013 00:23:23 »
Ah, no Alan. Don't think anyone can say? you can extrapolate depending on winds streams etc, but it would still be a guess. And we don't know what kind of burn it could become either.

"Recriticality & Autocatalytic oxidation leading to a runaway reaction are concerns at the FDNPP facility. The Fukushima Spent Fuel has already been reconfigured.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11263

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TPYl5bvaz-kJ:www.na...

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11263&page=38
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11263&page=39

SAFETY AND SECURITY OF COMMERCIAL SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL STORAGE

Public Report

The committee could probably design configurations in which fuel might be deformed or relocated to enable its re-criticality, but the committee judges such an event to be unlikely. Also, the committee notes that while re-criticality would certainly be an undesirable outcome, criticality accidents have happened several times at locations around the world and have not been catastrophic offsite. An accompanying breach of the fuel cladding would still be the chief concern.

That is, the reaction heat will increase temperatures in adjacent areas of the fuel rod, which in turn will accelerate oxidation and release even more heat. Autocatalytic oxidation leading to a “runaway” reaction requires a complex balance of heat and mass transfer, so assigning a specific ignition temperature is not possible. Empirical equations have been developed to predict the reaction rate as a function of temperature when steam and oxygen supply are not limited (see, e.g., Tong and Weisman, 1996, p. 223). Numerous scaled experiments have found that the oxidation reaction proceeds very slowly below approximately 900°C (1700°F)."

Nobody knows exactly what is going on there now either.
Not even those on site it seems.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #236 on: 17/10/2013 00:27:26 »
The point with such a burn though, should be that it will be impossible to handle it 'close up' as thought. You won't be able to control anything once it started, you shouldn't be able to be anywhere near it as I understands it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #237 on: 17/10/2013 02:32:21 »
Criticality accidents. from Operational Accidents and Radiation Exposure Experience Within the United States Atomic Energy Commission, 1943-1970, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., 1971.

Then you have the Database of Radiological Incidents and Related Events. which is compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston.

"There was speculation although not confirmed within criticality accident experts, that Fukushima 3 suffered a criticality accident. Based on incomplete information about the 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents, Dr. Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress speculates that transient criticalities may have occurred there.[27] Noting that limited, uncontrolled chain reactions might occur at Fukushima I, a spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) “emphasized that the nuclear reactors won’t explode.”[28] By March 23, 2011, neutron beams had already been observed 13 times at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant. While a criticality accident was not believed to account for these beams, the beams could indicate nuclear fission is occurring.[29] On April 15, TEPCO reported that nuclear fuel had melted and fallen to the lower containment sections of three of the Fukushima I reactors, including reactor three. The melted material was not expected to breach one of the lower containers, which could cause a massive radiation release. Instead, the melted fuel is thought to have dispersed uniformly across the lower portions of the containers of reactors No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3, making the resumption of the fission process, known as a "recriticality", most unlikely.[30]" Criticality accident. Wikipedia

Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents. Although the exclusion zones seems questionable, in Chernobyl's case now being set to 70 km "The exclusion zone, known as “Death Valley,” has been increased from 30 to 70 square kilometers". No humans will ever be able to live in it again." When it comes to the Japanese exclusion I set my trust to the American recommendations for its citizens there, think it was seventy, up to a hundred kilometers away. The Japanese government and Tepco. seems more worried about its citizens reactions on being given the truth, than on protecting peoples health and lives. Not so strange maybe as they seem to sit in each other pockets Tepco and the government, goes one, goes both.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #238 on: 17/10/2013 03:54:59 »
About mice and men.

As for discussing the impact on people, of radiation, be it a high intermittent dosage or a low constant over a accumulation in, and of, years, or any combination, I would look to statistics first. And we have such, from Chernobyl, and Chelyabinsk. A sort of darkly funny part of this discussion is whether to trust any statistics, not made in a western laboratory, by mice :)

Because as the argument goes, we are so alike, mice and humans. Well, it depends, and it actually does. there are research done in western countries questioning this old adage, I know because I have read about it, although it is some time ago. I'll see if I can find it later. Another funny thing is how slow western science adapt to statistics that refuses to be explained away as a result of bad diets, financial situation, etc etc. Even when it can't be explained away, a great deal of doubt stays, in any western report. After all, where was the mice, or was it rats?


"There are many claims concerning the health of children in the contaminated territories around Chernobyl, which seem to suffer from multiple diseases and co-morbidities with repeated manifestations (compilation in Yablokov 2009). The reports from international organizations did not give until now much interest in the multiple publications by Ukrainian, Russian and Byelorussian researchers on children’s morbidity. This is partly due to the fact that many of these studies were not available in English but also to the fact that they often did not meet the scientific and editorial criteria generally required in the currently peer reviewed literature. The tone of Yablokov’s book also produced an uneasy feeling in readers (Jackson 2011).

More or less recent studies brought again this issue into light, including the controversial publications of Bandazhevsky (Bandazhevsky 2001), linking 137Cs body loads with ECG alterations and cardiovascular symptoms in children such as arterial hypertension, and the studies on neurobehavioral and cognitive performances in children of the contaminated areas (for example Loganovsky 2008). To verify these observations, IRSN conducted series of animal studies. Rats were exposed to  137Cs contamination during several months (generally 3 months, sometimes 9) through drinking water containing 6500 Bq/L. Intake of 137Cs was estimated to be 150 Bq/day/animal (500 Bq/kg of body weight), a figure that is considered by the authors to be comparable with a typical intake in the contaminated territories (based on Handl’s evaluation in Ukraine: 100 Bq/day with variations, according to geographical location and diet, from 20 up to 2000 Bq/day as in the case of special dietary habits like excess consumption of mushrooms) (Handl 2003).

Although the animals tested in these studies did not show induced clinical diseases, biological effects were observed on various systems: impairments in the cardiovascular system such as an increase of CK and CK-MG, markers of possible heart muscle damage; decrease of mean blood pressure and disappearance of its circadian rhythm (Guéguen 2008); in the Central Nervous System: EEG modifications, perturbations of the sleep-wake cycle, regional 137Cs accumulation in the brain stem (Lestaevel 2006); molecular modifications of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines and NO-ergic pathway in the brain, indicators of a neuro-inflammatory response, particularly in the hippocampus (Lestaevel 2008); and in various metabolic systems: alteration of vitamine D metabolism, associated with a dysregulation of mineral homeostasis (Tissandie 2008); alteration of testicular and adrenal steroidogenesis (Grignard 2007). These somewhat scattered and sometimes contradictory results are difficult to interpret and the link between all these modifications is far from being obvious.

It must be underlined that these somewhat unexpected results are obtained after relatively modest intakes of 137Cs and that a fraction of the population in the contaminated territories has been shown to incorporate ten times more 137Cs with their food. This justifies further investigation in this field. IRSN is currently performing a clinical research (EPICE) on children in the area of Bryansk, particularly on cardiac rhythm and ECG perturbations. First results would be available in 2013. "

It seems easy to joke about radiation those days :) Take a look at what comes up searching for what a dangerous dose is over ten years. You won't get a answer, but you will learn it just can't be dangerous, whatever dosage is discussed, well, any dosage not killing you right of that is, as at Hiroshima. Although you will on the other hand see practical reactions telling you that you need to take care, when the sh* hits the fan. As the American response to Fukushima, warning Americans of, at a 100 km basis. Or your dentists new x-ray machine, developed for a lot of money to minimize any radiation.

I would use statistics, even if faulty compared to a Western clinical standard of laboratory conditions, first, then conduct experiments checking if I could corroborate those statistics by animal experiments.. I would not draw the conclusion 'as in mice so in a man' and from there question the statistics as my mice, or rats, doesn't react the same.
« Last Edit: 17/10/2013 04:10:35 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #239 on: 17/10/2013 04:49:39 »
The real point of a radioactive situation is that there is no real thing your government can do for you, more than advise you on what may be best for avoiding getting too contaminated. They can't protect you, and although a insurance may pay your hospital bill, it won't restore your health, well, you will have a better chance naturally to get it back, at some time. So the question is not really whether you, or I, can stand an increase of Earths 'Back ground' radiation, but rather if we really want to? And even more so, if we want our kids to?

If you read Helen Caldicott's article she writes.

"Children are 10 to 20 times more sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults, fetuses are thousands of times more so. One x-ray to the pregnant abdomen doubles the likelihood of leukemia in the baby. Females are also more sensitive than men at all ages.

Radiation is cumulative, there is no safe dose and each dose received by a person adds to the risk of developing cancer"

So, I would say that this is what it really is about, not Fukushima, not 'now', neither Chernobyl.
And that is also what I think you have to ask yourself :)

Is it worth it?

"Over 350,000 children still live and go to school in highly radioactive areas, and as juvenile thyroid cancers are arising, so the number of leukemia cases will start to increase about two years from now, with solid cancers of various organs diagnosed about 11 years later.

These will increase in frequency for the next 70 -80 years."

And yes, there actually exist statistics, even if uncomfortable to us, and possibly seen as downright 'faulty', compared to one meeting clinically perfect conditions.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #240 on: 17/10/2013 07:44:36 »
Unfortunately my deathless prose was timed out in the small hours of the morning, but to answer your question of where do I get my figures, I tend to rely on the International Commission on Radiological Protection, which has been collecting and collating actual incident and outcome data since 1926.     

Statements such as

Quote
Children are 10 to 20 times more sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults, fetuses are thousands of times more so.

are not supported by evidence and

Quote
One x-ray to the pregnant abdomen doubles the likelihood of leukemia in the baby.

is meaningless (even if it were true) unless you know the natural likelihood. Fact is that irradiation from the mother's essential potassium amounts to about 1 milligray fetal exposure over 9 months, and an abdominal x-ray might add another 0.1 to 1 mGy. There are no reports of fetal abnormality or detectable increase in childhood leukemia below 50 mGy.

It's an interesting subject, and indeed it has been a satisfying career. As a professional radiation protection adviser with friends in Kiev and business interests in Belarus, I don't think I can be accused of ignoring the problem (as you suggested we all do, in an earlier posting), but it's a lot easier to handle in perspective with real , meaningful numbers.

Yesterday, 20 people were killed by a hurricane in Japan. Two years ago, 20,000 were killed by a tsunami. What makes the headlines today? A nonevent at a power station.

More anon, when I get back from a field trip! I'll talk about preferred diagnoses and latency periods.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #241 on: 17/10/2013 16:04:00 »
Interesting Allan. So you doubt her numbers, if I understands you right?

Then I think you should turn to her, and question them publicly. She's available, and I'm sure she will explain how she got to those conclusions. As for ignoring the problem?  Don't remember me writing that we ignore it, just that it been quiet from the papers and our Politicians, as far as I've seen. Fukushima was very big news 2011, not as much 2012, with it now turning again, as they are preparing to lift out those rods manually.
=

If you on the other hand mean that I expected a much livelier public discussion, and that I think that both papers and politicians have preferred to ignore it I agree. Because that is what I think.
« Last Edit: 17/10/2013 16:08:30 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #242 on: 17/10/2013 17:23:34 »
I can agree on some of her conclusions being questionable, you should really contact her, and ask for references. Like the one with one x-ray doubling the cancer-risk for a infant. But I still expect the real question to be if we really want more back ground radiation, not if we will leap a risk of extinction just because of Fukushima. I don't think we do it myself, humans have survived a lot of things through history, as the black pest is a excellent example of. 

And then we have those molten salt reactors. They are one solution, if working as expected, on the problem of breaking down fuel rods, spent or unspent, as well as MOX. But they are short term solutions to me. It's not a thing I would like to see in all country's, constantly producing 300 years of radioactive waste, on a yearly basis. As I said before, 300 years may sound very quick geologically, but for us humans it's the time between using horse and cart, and our present.

Although we have to be practical, and I don't think our present arrangements of power can be satisfied with just natural resources. And if faced with a choice between destabilizing frozen methane under water, to get to that 'natural gas', or trying for some least dangerous type of molten salt reactor I expect I would go for molten salt myself, and thorium. But I would not want to see it implicated world wide, as some 'final energy solution', only if absolutely necessary, other more 'green solutions' as wind, sun water etc, already utilized and found lacking. And I also think we should combine it with a population limit of maybe half the one we find today on Earth. That would simplify a lot of things for us, naturally, just by limiting it to one kid per person for some future.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #243 on: 17/10/2013 17:57:27 »
but all of that would be 'long time planning', and as we seem notoriously bad on implementing and fulfilling such? But they are both simple and practical solutions, and would give us rather fast responses in form of more resources per person, and a cleaner environment as we break down our plutonium. But a molten salt reactor will produce radioactive substances too, even if of a shorter life span. This is a interesting read about it, and also points out that while we have little experience of it, we do have a lot of, sometimes questionable, theory. The Molten Salt Reactor concept 

So I don't know. I hope it will work out, as I think it's a da**d step better than what we use today, as our beloved Fukushima. But what I really expect to make a direct impact would be us restricting our population. We should be able to notice that in one generation, with each generation after whipping this Earth into a better shape. All without a war.

But it's about planning, isn't it?
No profit in it :) It's the masses that consume, isn't it?

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #244 on: 17/10/2013 19:00:11 »
From a purely geeky physics notion.

"Fissioning 1000 kg of uranium produces 988 kg of fission products, 11 kg of neutrons, and only 1 kg is actually converted to energy via E=MC2.

A nuclear reactor really is a fission product production plant. The 0.1% that gets converted to heat is a mere minor byproduct. That’s how powerful E=MC2 is."

On the other hand, now, what are fission products?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #245 on: 17/10/2013 19:12:55 »
Interesting Allan. So you doubt her numbers, if I understands you right?

Not just me, but the entire worldwide profession of radiological protection advisers and the law itself. And with good reason. As I stated, fetal irradiation from maternal potassium is about 1 mGy over 9 months. Now some people live in East Anglia, where the additional natural external doserate is about 2 mSv/yr, possibly adding another 0.5 mGy to the fetal dose, and some live in Colorado where the background gamma doserate can approach 20 mSv/yr, adding at least 5 mSv to the fetal dose. So if the incidence of childhood leukemia traceable to external radiation in utero is significant, we should find 5 times as much in Boulder as in Norwich. I haven't the time to look right now, but you may care to search the literature a bit.     

Something that turned up very quickly, however, is
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Sites-Types/childhood

Quote
Long-term trends in incidence for leukemias and brain tumors, the most common childhood cancers, show patterns that are somewhat different from the others. Incidence of childhood leukemias appeared to rise in the early 1980s, with rates increasing from 3.3 cases per 100,000 in 1975 to 4.6 cases per 100,000 in 1985. Rates in the succeeding years have shown no consistent upward or downward trend and have ranged from 3.7 to 4.9 cases per 100,000 (2).
These were the years during which we reduced all x-ray doses by a factor of 2 - 4 by introducing rare-earth intensifying screens - starting in the USA.

And

Quote
For childhood brain tumors, the overall incidence rose from 1975 through 2004, from 2.3 to 3.2 cases per 100,000 (2), with the greatest increase occurring from 1983 through l986. An article in the September 2, 1998, issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute suggests that the rise in incidence from 1983 through 1986 may not have represented a true increase in the number of cases, but may have reflected new forms of imaging equipment (magnetic resonance imaging or MRI) that enabled visualization of brain tumors that could not be easily visualized with older equipment (3). Other important developments during this time period included the changing classification of brain tumors, which resulted in tumors previously designated as “benign” being reclassified as “malignant,” and improvements in neurosurgical techniques for biopsying brain tumors. Regardless of the explanation for the increase in incidence that occurred from 1983 to 1986, childhood brain tumor incidence has been essentially stable since the mid-1980s.

which bears consideration when looking at reported increases in various cancers in the Chernobyl region. As I said earlier, in medicine you tend only to find what you are looking for, and I doubt that many family doctors were looking for early signs of thyroid cancer before the explosion. My suspicions were raised when people started reporting increases within a year or two of the incident - radiogenic tumors generally take a decade or more to express, so if you find a tumor in a 3 year old, or 6 months after the trigger event that made you look,  it probably ain't radiogenic.   
« Last Edit: 17/10/2013 19:22:02 by alancalverd »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #246 on: 17/10/2013 19:19:14 »

On the other hand, now, what are fission products?

All sorts of nasty crap, mostly with atomic numbers around 120 - iodine, cesium, strontium...some of it potentially useful but all requiring a lot of care and attention. U235 and Pu210 are actually not very radioactive: they have long halflives and emit mostly alpha radiation, so are easy to handle, but fission products tend to have short lives and emit gamma radiation, making the spent fuel a lot more awkward.


Quote
But what I really expect to make a direct impact would be us restricting our population. We should be able to notice that in one generation, with each generation after whipping this Earth into a better shape. All without a war.

Hear, hear!
It's the solution to everything except economic expansion.
« Last Edit: 17/10/2013 19:25:58 by alancalverd »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #247 on: 17/10/2013 19:37:43 »
Heh :)

I agree Alan, and that's finally becomes a question of how much one needs? To feel good about oneself I think.

As a by-point, and I think this is interesting. Purely from the way we are set up, sort of :) Seen the statement that coal works produce more 'radioactivity' than a nuclear power plant? You don't need to be a physics major to find this statement confusing.

how can that be?

Coal, as that black stuff you mine from the ground? And the stuff I get from burning a tree too?
More radioactive than a nuclear power plant?

Now, I thought those trees seemed somewhat shady, and at last I know why :)
They're 'atomic'!! ..

Well... ok I might exaggerate this, slightly.. Possibly?

But you see it on the net, and it has such a goood cool sound to it. Coal, that radiative dangerous coal, not only polluting my atmosphere, and clothes, now also making me glow in the dark? Why do we survive all those trees, and coal? Is it my clean living? See, there are things in your immediate environment, better worth watching, as trees, and those fossil materials? What about oil?

As someone said..

"War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics, by different means." Actually considering getting myself that axe, merely as a precaution:) Sorry. Anyway, if anyone ever wondered about it, why not read this.

"The answer to your first question is already in the article you linked. It contains the following referenced quote:

    In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

The paper referenced in the article is here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045.short

    Radiation doses from airborne effluents of model coal-fired and nuclear power plants (1000 megawatts electric) are compared. Assuming a 1 percent ash release to the atmosphere (Environmental Protection Agency regulation) and 1 part per million of uranium and 2 parts per million of thorium in the coal (approximately the U.S. average), population doses from the coal plant are typically higher than those from pressurized-water or boiling-water reactors that meet government regulations. Higher radionuclide contents and ash releases are common and would result in increased doses from the coal plant.

The paper itself states that this result is only valid not considering nuclear accidents and nuclear waste, nor it considers non-radiological effects:

    The study does not assess the impact of non-radiological pollutants or the total radiological impacts of a coal versus a nuclear economy.

Regarding your second question, it can be answered easily:

    The paper itself speaks about Uranium and Thorium being released by normal operation in less than 10 parts per million - very very low doses
    A bad nuclear accident leaves kilograms or tons of radioactive elements exposed or emitted
    Typically nuclear waste is composed of tons of material

So it is clear that a single nuclear accident widely offsets any "gains" obtained by using a nuclear plant instead of a coal plant.

For example:

    Living within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor 1 day: 0.09 µS;
    Living within 50 miles of a coal plant 1 day: 0.3 µS;
    Living in within 30 km of Chernobyl before evacuation: 3-150 mS (1,000×–50,000× a day of coal plant vicinity)

The first two are data from the image below, the third comes from from Wikipedia."

From Do coal plants release more radiation than nuclear power plants?
=

my spelling sux
« Last Edit: 17/10/2013 20:29:15 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #248 on: 17/10/2013 20:02:50 »
As for the suspicion you express about what a increase might mean, considering how more alert people becomes after a nuclear accident, sure. I see what you mean, but I also see what those guys living there writes about. In the end it seems to come down to from where you look at it. A little like that Japanese movie in where you have three witnesses to a same happening, presenting three different stories. That's also why i prefer it to be a discussion about what sort of natural back ground levels we are comfortable with, for this. The rest, what I try to avoid getting 'clogged down' into :) should become statistics, in some decades, or century. But the cancer rate has raised since 1945. Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Tests and Cancer Risks.

and that becomes our new environment, natural back ground radiation. So how far are prepared to go, in the name of cheap centralized power? I make a kid, around 20-35 I study 7- 25 as some generalisation, I 'produce' say from 18- ?? In terms of producing :) making a profit for myself and hopefully for a society, maybe 18- 45 is enough? Then my kid will be ?? 10-25, as a average let's say 17, almost ready to start to 'produce'..

To me it becomes a question of how old do we need to become to have a working developing society. If we now ignore all emotionalism, instead concentrating on what we need, to see a society making intellectual progress?

==

"Now some people live in East Anglia, where the additional natural external doserate is about 2 mSv/yr, possibly adding another 0.5 mGy to the fetal dose, and some live in Colorado where the background gamma doserate can approach 20 mSv/yr, adding at least 5 mSv to the fetal dose. So if the incidence of childhood leukemia traceable to external radiation in utero is significant, we should find 5 times as much in Boulder as in Norwich. I haven't the time to look right now, but you may care to search the literature a bit.  "

Yeah, that's using statistics, similar environmental situations, but with a difference in whatever you want to measure the implication of. When i wrote about 'understanding those guys living there' I was more thinking of Chernobyl, as it becomes a rather unique environment, hard to find anything similar. So yes, if correct I think your point is made Alan.
« Last Edit: 17/10/2013 22:52:07 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #249 on: 17/10/2013 20:22:18 »
Alternatively, what percentage would need to reach what age, to have a society developing further, in the way we've been developing the last three hundred years?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #249 on: 17/10/2013 20:22:18 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length