does a picture say more than a thousand words?

  • 284 Replies
  • 87815 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #200 on: 30/10/2012 18:47:03 »
What is a word made up of four letters yet also made up of three. Although written with eight letters and then with four? Rarely consisting of six but never written with five.

Solve that one :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline bizerl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 279
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #201 on: 31/10/2012 21:47:18 »
W H A T = 4
Y E T = 3
A L T H O U G H = 8
T H E N = 4
R A R E L Y = 6
N E V E R = 5

All those cryptic crosswords finally paid off!  [;D]

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #202 on: 10/10/2013 16:18:52 »
Heh, better later late than never :)
Good on you Bizerl.

Just wanted to post a update on Fukushima

Seems we've forgotten that one doesn't it :) It's not about cuddly animals, and it has no 'human interest' for the papers, and so our politicians can look up in the sky and whistle as they go to work, making a better world for us all.

But the sh* seems ready to hit the fan here.

"A Yale Professor is compelling the world to wake up from its nuclear slumber and face some cold-hard facts, “All of humanity will be threatened for thousands of years” if the Fukushima Unit 4 pool can’t be kept cool. Your worries about eating cesium-contaminated fish from the Pacific Ocean are grounded in fact, but this is a world-wide disaster of the most epic proportions just waiting to happen. If nothing else, it points to the necessity of nuclear-free power to fuel the planet, but in the meantime, more than 1,535 fuel rods must be meticulously removed from Unit 4, which in all likelihood is crumbling. Charles Perrow, Professor Emeritus of Sociology from Yale University cautions: “Conditions in the unit 4 pool, 100 feet from the ground, are perilous, and if any two of the rods touch it could cause a nuclear reaction that would be uncontrollable. The radiation emitted from all these rods, if they are not continually cool and kept separate, would require the evacuation of surrounding areas including Tokyo. Because of the radiation at the site the 6,375 rods in the common storage pool could not be continuously cooled; they would fission and all of humanity will be threatened, for thousands of years.” In early stages of the Fukushima disaster Tepco, under influence of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), tried to keep the full ramifications of Fukushima under wraps, and now the entire country faces a possible trillion dollar price tag and multiple decades of active clean up to make this go away, but that will all be a moot point if the fuel rods aren’t removed properly.

All the boron between spent fuel rods has disintegrated.

(Arnie Gundersen, Chief Engineer at Fairewinds Energy Education:

    Tokyo Electric has admitted that the boron between these fuel cells — there’s a boron wafer in between the fuel to prevent something called an inadvertent criticality, you can have a nuclear chain reaction in the fuel pool, and that’s not a good thing — but they’ve admitted that all the boron has disintegrated.  So the only thing preventing a chain reaction from occurring […] in the fuel racks themselves, is the fact they put all sorts of boron in the water. But if the rods get too close to each other, they can still fire up again and create a chain reaction in the nuclear fuel pool.)

This means a nuclear chain reaction could ensue if the rods get too close together in the pools, causing nuclear mayhem like we’ve never endured. In less than two months, Tepco plans to try to remove these rods, admitting that they haven’t the expertise or resources to do it perfectly – and that is what it would take – absolute perfection. According to globalreasearch.ca, “Some 400 tons of fuel in that pool could spew out more than 15,000 times as much radiation as was released at Hiroshima. More than 6,000 fuel assemblies now sit in a common pool just 50 meters from Unit Four. Some contain plutonium. The pool has no containment over it. It’s vulnerable to loss of coolant, the collapse of a nearby building, another earthquake, another tsunami and more.” Overall, more than 11,000 fuel assemblies are scattered around the Fukushima site. According to long-time expert and former Department of Energy official Robert Alvarez, there is more than 85 times as much lethal cesium on site as was released at Chernobyl.” This is no time for Tepco or the Japanese government to try to save face, or the world to turn the other cheek. If we don’t treat this as a global disaster it would be like waiting for the Russians to start nuclear war back in the 1980s – or worse. Harvey Wasserman has created a petition at NukeFree.org to alert our own president and other politicians about the extreme seriousness of this incident. All while they were planning to go to war with Syria, the nuclear disaster right under our noses was escalating to unfathomable proportions. Not to sound doom and gloom, but it’s important to recognize the ramifications if this issue isn’t taken care of – properly."

As well as.

"Jiji Press, Oct. 10, 2013: Radioactive cesium levels have surged 13 times in the bay of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power station in northeastern Japan [...] Seawater sampled near a water intake of the No. 2 reactor on Wednesday contained 1,200 becquerels per liter of radioactive cesium, up from 90 becquerels the previous day, TEPCO said. [...]

Reuters, Oct. 10, 2013: Radiation levels in seawater just outside one of the damaged Fukushima reactors spiked this week to the highest level in two years, the operator of the crippled Japanese nuclear plant said on Thursday. [...] In the latest incident, a worker on Wednesday mistakenly detached a pipe connected to a treatment system, releasing seven tonnes of highly radioactive water. [...] The pressure from pumping chemicals into the ground pushed some contaminated soil out into the port area, the spokesman said.

Fukushima Daiichi NPS Prompt Report, Oct. 10, 2013: [...] On October 9, we found a significant increase in the measurement results of cesium 134 and 137 sampled inside the silt fence of the water intake for Unit 2 [...] Cesium 134: 370Bq/L; Cesium 137: 830Bq/L [...]Measurement results on October 8: Cesium 134: 26Bq/L; Cesium 137: 64Bq/L [...]It is assumed that the ground improvement work administrated near the water intake for Unit 2 (where high concentration contaminated water leaked two years ago) has some influence on the increase in the measurement results this time. We continue to watch the situation."


Meaning that they can not contain the situation. They need to cool the fuel cells, spent and unspent. They use water to do so, the water gets contaminated with radioactivity and must be stored. And now they are running out of storage, with radioactive water leaking from the tanks already placed there. And some of it must have constantly moved down into groundwater, it being the natural cycle.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #203 on: 10/10/2013 16:26:14 »
Let me guess. Politicians all over the world will blame such a disaster on the Japanese Tepco, and the Japanese government, and then whistle some more as they go home, another days work done.
=

Yeah, I know, we will try, as us ordinary voters puts pressure on those 'state man' like politicos of vision and flair, eh, when the papers finally reports on it I mean. But by then it will be too late, and it won't be enough.

Also " After the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, the four reactors at Fukushima II automatically shut down. Japan's worst nuclear incident occurred at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, a 11.5 km (7.1 mi) boundary to boundary road journey to the north, after the same March 11 earthquake."

What will happen to that one, if now Tokyo needs to be evacuated?
People working in 'space suits'?
For how long?
« Last Edit: 10/10/2013 16:48:59 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #204 on: 10/10/2013 17:03:32 »
Seem we're letting this world go to sh1t, in so many ways, from Global Warming to our nuclear provisions. and all in the name of profits. Who said we can plan long term?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #205 on: 10/10/2013 20:45:14 »
Guess I'm getting a little tired on all the empty words coming from politicians, and power brokers. the problem with them is that they 'fought' their way up. or 'earned it' some way or another. they become a club for insidious admiration, solving the worlds problem not in assembly's but in small corners. It's a very unhealthy attitude to democracy, with lobbying acting as a added pressure from big business and other profit gathering interests. I said it before and I'll say it again. People likes, and seem to think they can relate to 'politics', but in my view most sorely miss what a democracy should mean. One voice, one vote.  With representatives of the peoples will, elected through such practice.

You might say it's a human failing, everyone wants a bite of the cake, and some want more than just one bite. And being a politician becomes a job in the end, not a calling. Doesn't mean that politicians can't be honest, but looking at what action has been taken on problems that definitely will change my life, and even more so, my kids lives, i can't state that I'm impressed.

So what would it cost to dismantle a nuclear power plant?

"Sooner or later, all 500 reactors now operating or under construction around the world will have to be retired.

Reactors are not only costing more than they were expected to when the nuclear power era began but are also wearing out quicker than expected, with radiation making metal piping in the plants brittler than engineers foresaw. The Department of Energy estimates that 16 reactors now operating in the United States will reach the end of their useful lives by the end of the century. That number could grow to 53 by 2005 and 70 by the year 2010. A Knowledge Vacuum

Although nuclear power generated 13 percent of the world's electricity in 1984, until now only small, research reactors have been disassembled. ''Nuclear engineers have been attracted to the exciting challenge of developing and improving new technology, not to figuring out how to manage its rubbish,'' Ms. Pollock wrote in a booklet published this year about decommissioning.

That knowledge vacuum has led to a bitter, and many say belated, debate about what should happen to these hulks of contaminated steel and concrete and how much it will cost to dismantle them.

Estimates have varied widely. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, an independent nonprofit laboratory that frequently does research for the Federal Government, estimated in 1984 that it would cost $104 million to take apart a 1,155-megawatt reactor that uses pressurized water and $133 million for a similar-sized reactor using boiling water, the two most common types in use.

But Ms. Pollock says the experience from decommissioning smaller reactors indicates much higher costs. She said a three-year study in Switzerland concluded that retiring a nuclear plant would cost, adjusted for inflation, 20 percent of the price of building it, while an analysis conducted for New York State concluded it would cost 24 percent, or more than $500 million for recently completed plants. Other estimates are higher.

Ms. Pollock said Bechtel International, the construction company, recently bid $104 million to disassemble a new, never used and therefore uncontaminated plant in Zwentendorf, Austria. Both critics and proponents of nuclear power acknowledge it will be much more expensive to take apart contaminated plants.

Many states have started pressing utilities to set aside millions of dollars to finance the dismantling of their plants. But how much the utilities should set aside and who should provide the money are hotly debated. " http://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/25/science/nuclear-power-plant-dismantled.html

Well, no surprise there, is it? Private interests are going for the profit, and thats the way we've all learnt to live too. Being egoistical is a healthy sign, isn't it? A person being totally altruistic is at best naive, otherwise a fool, wouldn't you say :) So, who do you expect to pay for the dismantling :) One way or another it will end up at the state I would say, financing it. that means your and my wallet paying for it. Would be interesting to see the real price for our power consumptions, if the dismantling is counted in.

And the price is in no way set. Not until we have a way to make radioactive materials safe. And we still don't have that.

Here's another take on it.

"According to a new report from GlobalData, Europe is on track to decommission nearly 150 nuclear power plants in the next two decades. Some, like those in Germany, are being mothballed for political reasons. Others, in France and Britain, are simply getting old. Yet dismantling a nuclear reactor is an arduous, time-consuming task — typically costing between $400 million and $1 billion per plant. And it’s not clear that Europe is fully prepared for the onslaught of retirements.

In a recent issue of New Scientist, Fred Pearce offered a handy step-by-step guide on how to take apart a nuclear reactor. There are thousands of tons of radioactive material to deal with — not just the spent fuel rods, but also various materials that have picked up lower levels of radioactivity. That includes, potentially, the reactor vessel, the fuel-rod casings, various bits of scrap metal and even old clothing. That waste can’t just be carted off to regular landfills; it needs to be disposed of properly. (Here’s a graphic breaking down the various types of waste.)

Very broadly speaking, there are three main ways (pdf) to decommission a nuclear reactor. The first option is to remove the fuel, disassemble the surrounding structure and find a safe place to store all the different radioactive bits. One problem with this option? Not every country in Europe currently has proper waste facilities set up, Pearce reports.

Alternatively, workers could simply take out the fuel, drain the plumbing and then lock up the reactor, letting the isotopes decay until the plant itself is less radioactive. After 10 to 80 years, the whole structure will be easier to dismantle. The third option, meanwhile, is to bury the reactor in a “tomb” of concrete and hope that no one cracks the structure open for the next 1,400 years. The U.S. Department of Energy took this approach for two old reactors at Savannah River in South Carolina." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/how-hard-is-it-to-dismantle-150-nuclear-reactors-europes-about-to-find-out/2012/06/09/gJQA2EH0PV_blog.html

Makes you feel all cozy doesn't it :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #206 on: 10/10/2013 21:20:02 »
So what is the cost of Fukushima so far? You can split in two parts, one part is the cost for TEPCO, losing face and trust. The other is the cost, so far, for handling the disaster.


Tepco: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/06/us-japan-fukushima-tepco-finances-idUSBRE9950H220131006

Fukushima: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-fukushima-nuclear-clean-up-bn.html

And we don't know what the real costs will be, I do know that USA gave up on cleaning one field they had placed a nuclear plant on, due to the costs involved, but I doubt Tepco can do the same. Japan is a relatively small island chain, holding 125 694 708 citizens, as of today. They value their land, and use it to its fullest extent.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #207 on: 10/10/2013 21:32:55 »
I'm in fact very tired of taking care not to hurt profit interests feelings :) It's time those jerks woke up to the fact that they are nothing more than ordinary citizens of whatever Country they belong. They need to become aware of that fact, and so do politicians.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #208 on: 12/10/2013 03:45:17 »

There are quite a few nuclear plants that have been decommissioned, had their cores removed, and are in various stages of dismantling.  One of the problems in the USA is that there has never been a good place to store the spent rods.  Nor are they being recycled, thus many plants have the rods in long-term storage on-site.

A problem that no doubt will impact Fukishima is that if waste is transferred from one location to another for "disposal", it will no doubt become  more.  Does Japan have any low value land for waste relocation and disposal?

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #209 on: 13/10/2013 00:30:16 »
Don't know Clifford. They are fiercely protective over their history, and land, as I've understood it. As well as they live on the Ring of Fire? They will also find it hard to send them somewhere else, as Africa, to bury 'out of sight out of mind'. And to be honest I think the best solution so far, is the one in where one can oversee those rods on a daily basis. Not burying them and forget.

The reason i mention Afrika is that there are some bad rumors about decontaminated materials getting disposed around there, as in the waters outside Somalia, coming from several Country's apparently. A little like Russians sinking their old armada of nuclear submarines. On the bright side one could expect us finding a better solution for our energy in three hundred years, but that is only guess work naturally, with a assumption that we still will have a technology, and planet, working for us at that time.

(as for saying that those sunken power plants will stay intact underwater for millenniums, I leave for you to decide)
=

An alternative are molten sand reactors as I understand they can be used to break down the rods, into components decaying over a few hundred years, instead of over scores of millenniums. But they will bring with them other problems as they get popular. And three hundred years is actually the time we went from horse and cart to smart phone. It's not that short time at all for us humans, only geologically.
« Last Edit: 13/10/2013 01:24:35 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #210 on: 13/10/2013 04:06:47 »
I was thinking of the option of paying for waste disposal in Africa, but thought better of it.  The money may be tempting, but it is a bad idea.

Perhaps rather than just burying the waste, one could actually refine it for reuse, but it is still a big operation.

An alternative are molten sand reactors as I understand they can be used to break down the rods, into components decaying over a few hundred years, instead of over scores of millenniums. But they will bring with them other problems as they get popular. And three hundred years is actually the time we went from horse and cart to smart phone. It's not that short time at all for us humans, only geologically.

If these systems come to production, we'll see if everything works out as well as is speculated.  They may find that low grade fuels don't give the desired energy production.

As far as 300 years.  If one considers say 30 year generations, that is 10 generations.  It is hard to think of one's great grandparents...  and it takes 7 more "greats" added to that.

However, say with a 90 year lifespan, it is merely 3 to 4 lifespans.  Hmmm  [:-/]  What are they estimating?  Five - 60 year halflives?  The radiation would have dropped off significantly within the first 2 or 3 halflives.

Anyway, hopefully our government will still be more or less stable in 300 years (assuming it makes it through the next few weeks).  It is better than making plans for the entire time since the beginning of the Holocene, and prior to the copper, bronze, and iron ages.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #211 on: 13/10/2013 14:53:13 »
Yes it is :)

So don't sell the horse before the cart here :)
We're good at jumping from one man made disaster to another, and we seem to be able to keep us one step ahead. Maybe it will work out. But we need to find some other idea of how to share, at the same time fulfill our egos cravings. Because I see profit as the common nominator behind it all.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #212 on: 13/10/2013 21:58:45 »
The government, of course, can work at a loss for the "greater good".

It can be pretty extraordinary the amount of money the government here in the USA is willing to pay on a cleanup project.  Often in excess of $1 Million per acre when the value of the land is likely closer to $10K per acre.

Then again, our government is now half shutdown because they can't figure out how to pay their bills.  Unfortunately, they seem to spend more money to not work than to actually work.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #213 on: 14/10/2013 13:00:58 »
Here are some facts and figures on the Chernobyl meltdown. From Chernobyl international. One can argue that you should find greater health issues in a poor, than in a rich, country but the statistics still are scary.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #214 on: 14/10/2013 13:09:38 »
A nuclear plant may be a profit making design under its productive time, assuming no bigger mishaps, but the total cost for it, including dismantling, makes me wonder. And now we've had two serious well known incidents with a lot of the nuclear plants closing in on the time limit they were supposed to run, also in Sweden. And the nuclear industry worldwide want to drive them further in time, and I would say they have two good reasons. One is the profit they can make, the other is the fear of costs for dismantling. And there the governments knows who will end up with the costs, and so it becomes 'reasonable' to let them continue over their planned life length..
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #215 on: 15/10/2013 14:50:39 »
The worst point to me, with all of this kind of shady bussiness, is that those that pay will not be those reaping the profit. Meaning that people without money will be those paying in health, and deaths. Those reaping the benefits making sure to be at a good distance from the problems. From some ideal of justice I think it should be the opposite. You make sh* happens? People die from it? Well, join them. Those people dying is paying for your dinner.
=

You could see it as a question of accountability, and where it should end. I say, the worse the problems you make, the harder the punishments. Or we can do as we do now :) profit-lovers without accountability, in principle free to do whatever they set their little hearts too, only questioned through extremely expensive lawsuits, for those individuals willing to pay and try for it, unless a state goes in, and that is mostly if the profit interests happens to be outside its own country.

No accountability is a very bad concept.
« Last Edit: 15/10/2013 15:06:34 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #216 on: 15/10/2013 16:20:21 »
There are some, presumably well meaning lies out there on the net, telling me that I can't compare this  to Chernobyl, as that was worse.

Lets take some statistics, and please stop the bs about it being questionable.

"    Today in Ukraine, 6,000 children are born every year with genetic heart defects. More than 3,000 will die for lack of medical attention.

Children born since 1986 are affected by a 200 percent increase in birth defects and a 250 percent increase in congenital birth deformities.
   
85 percent of Belarusian children are deemed to be Chernobyl victims: they carry “genetic markers” that could affect their health at any time and can be passed on to the next generation. 
 
UNICEF found increases in children’s disease rates, including 38 percent increase in malignant tumours, 43 percent in blood circulatory illnesses and 63 percent in disorders of the bone, muscle and connective tissue system.

Belarusian doctors have identified increases in a number of cancers, including: a 200 percent increase in breast cancer, a 100 percent increase in the incidence of cancer and leukemia, and a 2,400 percent increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer.

More than one million children continue to live in contaminated zones. The mortality rates among the population already outstrip their birth rates. "

Short and sweet, isn't it? And this is nothing, compared to what Fukushima may end in. It may end in northern Japan being inhabitable for any life, unless you enjoy a early death and mutations. As for the rest of the globe? Well, with several half lives before anything being 'humanely safe', we should be able to presume some medium scenario of maybe? 50 000 years, how's that for the slowest decaying radioactive substances?

So, how much time do you expect those substances to need? To cover a Earth, following the natural circle, killing living things that breaths it in through dust or ingest it through food and water, Finally returning to the ground, lifted out with groundwater, rain, winds, streams etc etc. to start it all over again. Fifty millenniums, as a guess.

those laboring with this as acceptable risks have no accountability, and if worst come to worst, will still escape responsibility. Most often the defense used have been that they, or 'nobody' could imagine it happening. Do you believe this? I don't, I do believe profit will make you 'one-eyed' though. and that one is a general truth, for all profit making interests.

Why not read through this one.

Fukushima apocalypse.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #217 on: 15/10/2013 16:55:34 »
Kill one, that's a murder. Kill a hundred, you're a serial killer. Kill a million? It's a 'unfortunate disaster'.

No accountability.
Democracy turned into a game of lobbying by profit and other interests.
Democratic states behaving as if they govern people, one-sidedly deciding what is best for you.

It's a bad mistake assuming that politics is democracy. Democracy is you and me voting, then finding servants of the state applying what we voted about. It goes from the people to the state, not the other way around. Whatever the state 'gives back' is earned by us all, paying for it naturally. Some can't, or just won't. Either due to no money, or too much money. The funny thing being that the last category of people are the ones we gives the most attention to too :) And it is funny, if you think a little. Personally, I wouldn't give those the time of the day.

what does that tell us, about ourselves?
« Last Edit: 15/10/2013 17:08:29 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #218 on: 15/10/2013 18:48:19 »
It's worth looking carefully at the reported statistics of childhood tumors, in particular. we know from carefully controlled epidemiology that radiogenic hard tumors take about 10 - 20 years to express as clinically significant, and childhood cancer is very rare. So (a) any tumor occuring under the age of say 10 is most unlikely to be caused by gamma radiation and (b) if you only found one tumor per 10,000 per year before an event, and four in 3 years after the event, you have prima facie a 33% increase in incidence, but more probably just the result of the incident making you look more closely at the population. I know that medical services in Belarus have improved significantly since Chernobyl, so even if the true incidence of a particular disease had decreased, the likelihood is that the reported incidence will have increased. In a less emotive area, it turns out that the difference in rates of death from heart disease between Britain and France is almost entirely due to a French disdain for writing it on a death certificate when "natural causes" would cause less upset to the relatives. Be very wary of statistics that don't make biological sense!       

And apropos emotive matters. I wonder why Clifford has decorated his posting with a clip of a non-nuclear cooling tower being demolished by conventional explosives?
« Last Edit: 15/10/2013 18:51:22 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #219 on: 15/10/2013 19:14:49 »
Seems so. But Alan, where do you get your views from? What do you see as being "carefully controlled epidemiology"? Laboratory experiments? And this is statistics cited, are you telling me that their handling of statistics changed as between the 'before the Chernobyl accident'. to after it? Have you a proof for that? If you really want something to bite in I linked Free Ebook; Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment .

It's somewhat weird that the Country, now countries, that in fact have the best practical experience of what nuclear pollution means, from their own risky behavior earlier, are getting ignored by our part of the world, having the least practical experience. And Russians do both statistics, medical science and mathematics, quite well.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #220 on: 15/10/2013 19:39:57 »
What worries me, if we move the question of how they will handle the removal of fuel rods aside for a second is also this.

"We have three 100-ton melted fuel blobs underground, but where exactly they are located, no one knows. Whatever ‘barriers’ TEPCO has put in place so far have failed. Efforts to decontaminate radioactive water have failed. Robots have failed. Camera equipment and temperature gauges…failed. Decontamination of surrounding cities has failed.

We have endless releases into the Pacific Ocean that will be ongoing for not only our lifetimes, but our children’s’ lifetimes. We have 40 million people living in the Tokyo area nearby"

Why would that be?

" At the time of the Fukushima accident an unprecedented quantity of highly radioactive water was also released into the Pacific Ocean. But it hasn’t stopped. TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) now admits that 300 tons of this water has been leaking into the Pacific every day since the accident 30 months ago and so far 270,000 tons of water has been released.

It is becoming apparent that the three molten cores, each weighing 120 to 130 tons have not only melted their way through 6 inches of steel in the reactor vessels, but they now either sit on concrete floors of the severely cracked containment buildings or they have melted their way into the earth itself – this, in nuclear parlance, is called ‘A Melt Through to China Syndrome’.

Because the reactor complex was built upon an ancient river bed located at the base of a mountain range, huge quantities of water flowing down from the mountains (1,000 tons daily) are circulating around these highly radioactive cores absorbing large concentrations of radioactive elements.

TEPCO constructed a type of concrete dam near the sea front to prevent this radioactive water from entering the sea. But the continuous flow of water built up behind the dam and overflowed into the Pacific Ocean. Each reactor core contains as much radiation as that released by 1,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs and contains more than 200 different radioactive elements, which variously last seconds to millions of years." From Many generations’ health at stake. A very well written piece by Helen Caldicott

Worth reading.

there was an study on global warming recently, querying people on their thoughts. In it a overwhelming majority thought main stream science being correct in that we had a global warming. But when it came to if they thought themselves, and their locality, involved in the coming climate changes, a majority expected it to happen 'somewhere else', not where they themselves lived :)

reminds me of this, we don't want it to happen, and if we keep quiet about it, maybe it will go away?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #221 on: 15/10/2013 20:13:19 »
This one might also be interesting.

"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.

Of great concern is the fact that 18 cases of childhood thyroid cancer in children under the age of 18 have already been diagnosed and 25 more are suspected in Fukushima. This is a remarkably short incubation time for cancer, indicating that these children almost certainly received a very high dose of iodine 131 plus other carcinogenic radioactive elements that were and are still being inhaled and ingested. Thyroid cancer in Chernobyl victims did not appear for four years. Thyroid cancer is rarely found in young children. Iodine 131 is radioactive for 100 days, and is a potent carcinogen. Iodine 129 on the other hand lasts millions of years. 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.

Food in the contaminated zone will remain radioactive for hundreds of years because it will continue to bio-accumulate radioactive elements from the soil, thus ensuring that an increased incidence of cancer will devastate many future Japanese generations.

Medical doctors in Japan are reporting that they have been ordered by their superiors not to tell the patients that their problems are radiation related. " Also from Helen Caldicott.

A very ugly response to truth that been tried before, in the Soviet Union.

"A report on the health of the people living on the banks of the Techa River was published in 1991, which showed that the incidence of leukemia increased by 41% since 1950. From 1980 to 1990, all cancers in this population rose by 21% and all diseases of the circulatory system rose by 31%. These figures are probably gross under-estimations, because local physicians were instructed to limit the number of death certificates they issued with diagnosis of cancer and other radiation-related illnesses. According to Gulfarida Galimova, a local doctor who has been keeping records in lieu of official statistics, the average life span for women in Muslyumovo in 1993 was 47, compared to the country average of 72. The average life span of Muslyumovo men was 45 compared to 69 for the entire country.

Chelyabinsk regional hospitals were not allowed to treat the villagers and they were sent to the Ural Centre for Radiation Medicine. The medical data of the UCRM was classified until 1990. Records of the UCRM chart the decline in health of 28,000 people along the Techa and all of them are classed as seriously irradiated. Since the 1960s, these people have been examined regularly by public health officials.

According to the head of the UCRM clinical department the rate of leukemia has doubled in the last two decades. Skin cancers have quadrupled over the last 33 years. The total number of people suffering from cancer has risen by 21%. The number of people suffering from vascular diseases has risen 31%. Birth defects have increased by 25%. Kosenko carried out a small epidemiological study of 100 people selected at random. From this group 96% had at least five chronic diseases (heart diseases, high blood pressure, arthritis and asthma), 30% had as many as ten chronic conditions.

Local doctors estimate that half the men and women at child bearing age are sterile." From Chelyabinsk: The Most Contaminated Spot on the Planet.

Although, maybe it will have to share that infamy, considering Fukushima, and also the question of what will happen with those nuclear power plants being closest to it, as Fukushima II, residing just some eleven kilometers from our now infamous Fukushima. It's worse than I thought, Fukushima.

Or would anyone know where else we have spent fuel rods burning, " three 100-ton melted fuel blobs underground' formerly three reactors. Doesn't really matter to me that they are underground, if now that is correct. It will move out following ground water anyway.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #222 on: 15/10/2013 20:25:42 »
So should profit be held accountable for their mistakes?

Y e s.

Why?

Because if you are accountable, you will find reason to think it through twice, before promising too much. And if you gamble on it 'working out' you will go to court. As it is, the only ones going to court are the victims of your folly. furthermore, having ones 'peers' judging one, is not satisfying to me. Can you see what I aim at? What is a crime against humanity?  And if there would be one, who would you want to judge those committing it?
=

Also, what is a fitting punishment?
I don't know there.

Either I have to presume that it was ignorance leading to this, or incompetence. Japan? Ignorant of atomic power :) Give me a break. They if anybody should know about atomic power. So, how about lying then? Just telling the good stuff, keeping quiet about the bad? A trait shared by fanatics, con men, and those wanting profit, by any price. And how about egoism, arrogance, a firm belief in ones own understanding of consequences, although as we can see here, not getting it at all? Well, yeah, as long as we admit that those traits are here too, in both Europe and USA.
« Last Edit: 15/10/2013 21:05:52 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #223 on: 15/10/2013 21:56:39 »
Profit?  Liability?

I suppose that is one of the things that I dislike about the insurance industry. 

Mistakes happen, and certainly our collective knowledge about radiation has increased significantly since 1940 or so.  And, over time, we've also learned a lot about metal fatigue and such.

At the same time, many organizations will choose the absolute minimum they can get by with.  Spend less, more profit in the sort run.  But, society should not be liable for one person's greed. 

Designing a system so that a 3rd party pays for someone's ill thought actions is a disservice to everyone.

Why build a house inside the 100 year (or 1000 year) flood plain?  Should those individuals that build on a hillside be held liable for those building in the flood plain?

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #224 on: 15/10/2013 22:17:15 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • 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!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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. :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • 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!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • 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. 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.

"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • 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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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?

"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • 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 »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • 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 »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."