Anyone have an new theories on what to do about the nuclear situation in Japan?

  • 51 Replies
  • 12501 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
I was thinking that lead paint might be a way to supress radition on site and might even be a good form of protection if workers paint themselves, lead is toxic but I mean they paint themsleves with body paint undercoat.

So any ideas?
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline grizelda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 740
    • View Profile
Abandon ship?

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
Abandon ship?

What is that? We cannot let Japan go. We need to fix this.
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8848
    • View Profile
I was thinking that lead paint might be a way to supress radition on site and might even be a good form of protection if workers paint themselves, lead is toxic but I mean they paint themsleves with body paint undercoat.

So any ideas?

I have an idea.
Don't paint yourself with lead paint.
It takes inches of lead to stop gamma rays but it doesn't take much to poison you.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
I was thinking that lead paint might be a way to supress radition on site and might even be a good form of protection if workers paint themselves, lead is toxic but I mean they paint themsleves with body paint undercoat.

So any ideas?

I have an idea.
Don't paint yourself with lead paint.
It takes inches of lead to stop gamma rays but it doesn't take much to poison you.

My point being that if used in conjunction with a suit, it could provided added protection. It might not take much to poision you, people are working in that, any extra protection is something!

What are you saying Bored Chemist? Just let them go die? Why even bother thinking about finding a safer way for workers to fix plants having problems.
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline grizelda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 740
    • View Profile
The emergency back-up generators should have been in a building as safe as a bank vault. Were they in a shed? If lead paint is the best we can offer as a solution, then they are doomed.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
You'll find a lot of discussion about lead in this thread.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38011.0
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8848
    • View Profile
"What are you saying Bored Chemist? Just let them go die? Why even bother thinking about finding a safer way for workers to fix plants having problems."
Don't be silly, I didn't say anything like that.
What I was saying was don't waste time pissing about with things that will never work and may lull people into a false sense of security causing even more harm than the lead.

I'm happy to think of ways to improve the safety of the workers there.
The way to do it doesn't start with gibberish like a coat of lead paint.
Incidentally, it might include a use of ordinary paint.
A layer of fresh paint will trap dust and therefore ensure that radiation isn't dispersed into the air.
It's a strategy that works well with asbestos and it's worth thinking about in this case.
In general, it's better to control hazards at source, rather than to try to wrap up individuals in PPE.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
The emergency back-up generators should have been in a building as safe as a bank vault. Were they in a shed? If lead paint is the best we can offer as a solution, then they are doomed.

No they were in the basements apparently, as the water from the tsuami came in they all got flooded. If they had been in a shed outside they might not have survived either.
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
"What are you saying Bored Chemist? Just let them go die? Why even bother thinking about finding a safer way for workers to fix plants having problems."
Don't be silly, I didn't say anything like that.
What I was saying was don't waste time pissing about with things that will never work and may lull people into a false sense of security causing even more harm than the lead.

I'm happy to think of ways to improve the safety of the workers there.
The way to do it doesn't start with gibberish like a coat of lead paint.
Incidentally, it might include a use of ordinary paint.
A layer of fresh paint will trap dust and therefore ensure that radiation isn't dispersed into the air.
It's a strategy that works well with asbestos and it's worth thinking about in this case.
In general, it's better to control hazards at source, rather than to try to wrap up individuals in PPE.

My point about using lead is that it might do something, as you say stopping the dust would achieve something, I was looking to see if you had a lead based material paint would it not reduce some of the radioactivity of the dust.

Might be tiny but tiny isn't nothing.
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline grizelda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 740
    • View Profile
No doubt some of the workers pointed out that the back-up electrical supply was vulnerable. They were probably dissed for not being a "team player" and not contributing to the "consensus" and suspected of "politically incorrect" opinions. No science involved in these decisions.

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
No doubt some of the workers pointed out that the back-up electrical supply was vulnerable. They were probably dissed for not being a "team player" and not contributing to the "consensus" and suspected of "politically incorrect" opinions. No science involved in these decisions.

There were reports of generators being sent/flown in over the monday-tuesday, but nothing seems to have come from it, they have carried on trying to connect grid power.

35 years ago engineers that helped design the mark one resigned because of flaws in the design, 25 years ago a report showed that with power failure the mark one had 90% probability to fail, industry did nothing, so people complaining about the location of the back-up generators are not really going to be listened to; That's clear.
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline Heikki Rinnemaa

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 92
  • MoHei. :)
    • View Profile
    • My website.
Hi.

Short time,,no solution,,, i think that must done same than Tsernobyl,,fukushima is losed,,i afraid.

Long time future,,,only way is to get out nuclear-power,,how,,that is the question,,need many things,

- less consumption
- ground heat
- sun-electric
- flow-generator water-station
- etc

Earth-ball dont have resources to give life-properties todays consumption all it's peopple.

Live, Love and do Peace.

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
Hi.

Short time,,no solution,,, i think that must done same than Tsernobyl,,fukushima is losed,,i afraid.

Long time future,,,only way is to get out nuclear-power,,how,,that is the question,,need many things,

- less consumption
- ground heat
- sun-electric
- flow-generator water-station
- etc

Earth-ball dont have resources to give life-properties todays consumption all it's peopple.



Thankyou for the reply, I hope fukushmia isn't lost. That this could spell the end for nuclear power is possible yet, even if we did today decide to stop using nuclear power all of the waste we will have to take care of for 1,000s of years to come.

But there are better options.
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8848
    • View Profile
"What are you saying Bored Chemist? Just let them go die? Why even bother thinking about finding a safer way for workers to fix plants having problems."
Don't be silly, I didn't say anything like that.
What I was saying was don't waste time pissing about with things that will never work and may lull people into a false sense of security causing even more harm than the lead.

I'm happy to think of ways to improve the safety of the workers there.
The way to do it doesn't start with gibberish like a coat of lead paint.
Incidentally, it might include a use of ordinary paint.
A layer of fresh paint will trap dust and therefore ensure that radiation isn't dispersed into the air.
It's a strategy that works well with asbestos and it's worth thinking about in this case.
In general, it's better to control hazards at source, rather than to try to wrap up individuals in PPE.

My point about using lead is that it might do something, as you say stopping the dust would achieve something, I was looking to see if you had a lead based material paint would it not reduce some of the radioactivity of the dust.

Might be tiny but tiny isn't nothing.
Are you in some way constitutionally unable to understand that spending a lot of money (or other resources) on lead paint is a bad idea (because it simply won't work)and spending less money on something else is a better idea?

Perhaps I can put in a different context for you.
For a given thickness, gold is a rather better gamma ray shield than lead- and it's non toxic.
Would you advocate coating the workers with gold leaf?
« Last Edit: 24/03/2011 20:20:37 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
"What are you saying Bored Chemist? Just let them go die? Why even bother thinking about finding a safer way for workers to fix plants having problems."
Don't be silly, I didn't say anything like that.
What I was saying was don't waste time pissing about with things that will never work and may lull people into a false sense of security causing even more harm than the lead.

I'm happy to think of ways to improve the safety of the workers there.
The way to do it doesn't start with gibberish like a coat of lead paint.
Incidentally, it might include a use of ordinary paint.
A layer of fresh paint will trap dust and therefore ensure that radiation isn't dispersed into the air.
It's a strategy that works well with asbestos and it's worth thinking about in this case.
In general, it's better to control hazards at source, rather than to try to wrap up individuals in PPE.

My point about using lead is that it might do something, as you say stopping the dust would achieve something, I was looking to see if you had a lead based material paint would it not reduce some of the radioactivity of the dust.

Might be tiny but tiny isn't nothing.
Are you in some way constitutionally unable to understand that spending a lot of money (or other resources) on lead paint is a bad idea (because it simply won't work)and spending less money on something else is a better idea?

Perhaps I can put in a different context for you.
For a given thickness, gold is a rather better gamma ray shield than lead- and it's non toxic.
Would you advocate coating the workers with gold leaf?

If it could help them stay more protected yes.

Gold Paint, thankyou.
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8848
    • View Profile
So, you don't realise it would be better to spend the money on, for example, a robot to do the work instead of people?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
So, you don't realise it would be better to spend the money on, for example, a robot to do the work instead of people?

A robot that works would be great, first we have to build them, and this situation is a presnt issue. Manufacuturing gold or lead paint, rather less time consuming and probably already exists as does Gold leaf. And time is an issue here.

If they already have robots that can access these types of areas and weld pipes back together fix electronical conponents that are broken, and rebuild walls and stuff, that would be fantastic but they don't, people have to.

I posted this thread to look at quick easy answers to these issues using things we already have or would be quick to make.

Any assistence is better than none, and time is an issue.

If nothing else maybe we could have some ideas for any future problems, if nothing is useful for today.
« Last Edit: 24/03/2011 21:36:47 by Wiybit »
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Wybit:

Using lead paint could not, would not, work. Nor would gold leaf. That is all BC is saying here, and that is why it is being rubbished as an idea. It would not provide signficant protection against gamma rays (a thick enough coat to serve a useful purpose would be so heavy that the workers could not stand up, let alone achieve anything), and moreover lead is poisonous, so as well as providing no worthwhile protection it would actively cause harm to the workers. Time, and then some, to drop this one!

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
Wybit:

Using lead paint could not, would not, work. Nor would gold leaf. That is all BC is saying here, and that is why it is being rubbished as an idea. It would not provide signficant protection against gamma rays (a thick enough coat to serve a useful purpose would be so heavy that the workers could not stand up, let alone achieve anything), and moreover lead is poisonous, so as well as providing no worthwhile protection it would actively cause harm to the workers. Time, and then some, to drop this one!

Thankyou Rosy, But i was actually thinking in terms of wearing a body paint under the radiation suit to offer a form of extra protection. In theory you could add a gold or lead coating to the suit itself couldnt you? Or gold and lead to the suit it would be heavy but, protect them more surely
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
Just as another question if you wrapped the reactor building, in huge sheets of gold leaf and lead leaf how many leafs would you need to stop any radioactivity comming out?

Could using the two together, not add to there abilities?
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
Euronews, Workers taken to hospital beacuse water entered there boats,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkoMESBLJcM&feature=channel_video_title

I question again why they are not water-proff?

Any one here know how good this suit could be?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_TBys8vUic&feature
« Last Edit: 25/03/2011 00:30:55 by Wiybit »
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8848
    • View Profile
Just as another question if you wrapped the reactor building, in huge sheets of gold leaf and lead leaf how many leafs would you need to stop any radioactivity comming out?

Could using the two together, not add to there abilities?
Your increasingly silly ideas suggest that you are trolling.
But, in case you are serious, roughly how many layers of gold leaf are there to an inch thick shield?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Just as another question if you wrapped the reactor building, in huge sheets of gold leaf and lead leaf how many leafs would you need to stop any radioactivity comming out?

Could using the two together, not add to there abilities?
Your increasingly silly ideas suggest that you are trolling.
But, in case you are serious, roughly how many layers of gold leaf are there to an inch thick shield?

Sir Sir - I know this one - about 200,000 layers of gold leaf per inch.  I think there may be better ways of preventing contamination/radiation than covering a large area with one of the most expensive metals. 
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
Just as another question if you wrapped the reactor building, in huge sheets of gold leaf and lead leaf how many leafs would you need to stop any radioactivity comming out?

Could using the two together, not add to there abilities?
Your increasingly silly ideas suggest that you are trolling.
But, in case you are serious, roughly how many layers of gold leaf are there to an inch thick shield?

Sir Sir - I know this one - about 200,000 layers of gold leaf per inch.  I think there may be better ways of preventing contamination/radiation than covering a large area with one of the most expensive metals. 

And if you mixed it a few inner layers of gold then lead on top?

Go for it, How else could we prevent the reactor buildings from leaking?
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
*facepalm*

Wiybit you seem to have missed or ignored the posts where both Bored Chemist and rosy said that it would take inches of lead to be anywhere near effective against gamma radiation, and would therefore be impossible to put in a suit. A thin layer won't do anything. And no, combining lead and gold won't have some magical effect. The only factor is mass. Lead and gold are efficient space-wise because they are dense.

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
Just as another question if you wrapped the reactor building, in huge sheets of gold leaf and lead leaf how many leafs would you need to stop any radioactivity comming out?

Could using the two together, not add to there abilities?
Your increasingly silly ideas suggest that you are trolling.
But, in case you are serious, roughly how many layers of gold leaf are there to an inch thick shield?

No I'm not Trolling at all, and your inability to take this issue seriously, Says what about you?

Movement of particles causes a radiation release on it's own, could we not use a Tyvek sheets, they would prevent particles leaving the reactor areas(which are as we type open and steaming and releasing radiation). I suggested the paint to prevent any radiation release at all and achieve a total containment.

If you used lots of sheets painted then on both sides? it's a lot easier than rebuilding a wall, you might not be able to prevent all radiation being released but something is better then nothing.
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
*facepalm*

Wiybit you seem to have missed or ignored the posts where both Bored Chemist and rosy said that it would take inches of lead to be anywhere near effective against gamma radiation, and would therefore be impossible to put in a suit.

Does it matter? Bored Chemist thinks he is a comedian or something.



A thin layer won't do anything. And no, combining lead and gold won't have some magical effect. The only factor is mass. Lead and gold are efficient space-wise because they are dense.

Yes and Lead is actually more dense then Gold. The more you use the less passes.

The doctor in the video I posted claims his suit stops gamma and it's not a thick suit, so he is either lying or found some way to do so.
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Argh! You may not be trolling, but you don't appear to be reading for content.. which can make you come across as such. You've made a number of suggestions which may, as a non-scientist (I know you said somewhere that you're not a scientist) seem quite sensible to you, but to someone who knows anything about the behaviour of different types of radiation, or of radioactive materials, are quite clearly non-sensical.

That you persist with these ideas, when you have been told in no uncertain terms that they will not work as well as other, easier-to-implement schemes (the cost is a red herring, although to suggest it's wholly irrelevant is naive in the extreme), results in a certain amount of understandable frustration.

The issue is clearly a serious one, it's still not entirely clear how serious in the long term.. because it's not clear how much of the radioactive substances released are the sort that lose all their radioactivity in a matter of hours/days, the bulk of the steam emissions will, at least in the best case scenario, fall into this class, and in any case the alternative to releasing the pressure of the steam might well be a catastrophic explosion which would almost certainly result in the release of quantities of much longer-lasting radioactive materials.

However, your complaints that the issue is not being taken seriously are, I think, the result of your conflating "the issue" with "your suggested solutions". All the posters I've seen on this issue take the natural catastrophe in Japan and the dangerous and worrying situation it has caused at Fukushima extremely seriously. They are not, however, all taking your posts entirely seriously, because you appear not to be reading the explanations of why various of your proposals could serve no useful purpose, and thus your rather grandiloquent declaration that you want to contribute something to help the situation at Fukushima seems faintly ludicrous, given that there are thousands of experts in the field who will be acting on just the same impulse and will have suggestions worth (in a time critical situation) attending to. Moreover your accusations that other posters are suggesting the workers should just be left to die, when they have said nothing of the sort, are deeply offensive and certainly won't win you either friends or respect here.

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
Argh! You may not be trolling, but you don't appear to be reading for content.. which can make you come across as such. You've made a number of suggestions which may, as a non-scientist (I know you said somewhere that you're not a scientist) seem quite sensible to you, but to someone who knows anything about the behaviour of different types of radiation, or of radioactive materials, are quite clearly non-sensical.

That's fine. I posted this thread so that people with ideas could put then up have them challenged, and have better suggestions develop.

Bourd Chemist did actually say that while gold or lend paint would'nt prevent radiation, it would suppress the radioactive dust.

And no I completely read every thing posted, yet don't not give up on an idea just because someone says "no it won't work".



That you persist with these ideas, when you have been told in no uncertain terms that they will not work as well as other,"

What others? No one has suggested another idea.



 easier-to-implement schemes (the cost is a red herring, although to suggest it's wholly irrelevant is naive in the extreme), results in a certain amount of understandable frustration.

The issue is clearly a serious one, it's still not entirely clear how serious in the long term..

Agree completely



 because it's not clear how much of the radioactive substances released are the sort that lose all their radioactivity in a matter of hours/days, the bulk of the steam emissions will, at least in the best case scenario, fall into this class, and in any case the alternative to releasing the pressure of the steam might well be a catastrophic explosion which would almost certainly result in the release of quantities of much longer-lasting radioactive materials.

However, your complaints that the issue is not being taken seriously are, I think, the result of your conflating "the issue" with "your suggested solutions".


Not at all, again going back to cost and time, if preventing particals moving provides an added amount of safety for people, then covering the reactor building and painting could cheepy hopefully achieve something.



 All the posters I've seen on this issue take the natural catastrophe in Japan and the dangerous and worrying situation it has caused at Fukushima extremely seriously. They are not, however, all taking your posts entirely seriously, because you appear not to be reading the explanations of why various of your proposals could serve no useful purpose, and thus your rather grandiloquent declaration that you want to contribute something to help the situation at Fukushima seems faintly ludicrous,

Well maybe that's more an expression of scientific arrogance, while my scientific knowledge might be limited, I am certainly serious about trying to help, it appears that actually many scientists seem to say "If you do not just except my opinion(and it is) then your ludicrous"
 


 given that there are thousands of experts in the field who will be acting on just the same impulse and will have suggestions worth (in a time critical situation) attending to. Moreover your accusations that other posters are suggesting the workers should just be left to die, when they have said nothing of the sort, are deeply offensive and certainly won't win you either friends or respect here.

No offence, but the first reply I got was along those lines.

Abandon ship?
« Last Edit: 25/03/2011 14:19:34 by Wiybit »
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Quote

Bourd Chemist did actually say that while gold or lend paint would'nt prevent radiation, it would suppress the radioactive dust.


Quote

Quote

That you persist with these ideas, when you have been told in no uncertain terms that they will not work as well as other,"

What others? No one has suggested another idea.

Nonsense. What BC said was that whilst lead/gold would not serve a useful purpose in stopping gamma radiation at the kinds of thickness it could be applied to people, and would moreover poison them, using ordinary (wet/tacky) paint might have a helpful effect in collecting any (radioactive) dust so that the amount present as particulates in the atmosphere being breathed in by the workers onsite might be reduced (in the same way sticky floor mats are used to collect shoe dust on entry to clean rooms, or indeed analogously to fly-papers.

Quote

Quote

 because it's not clear how much of the radioactive substances released are the sort that lose all their radioactivity in a matter of hours/days, the bulk of the steam emissions will, at least in the best case scenario, fall into this class, and in any case the alternative to releasing the pressure of the steam might well be a catastrophic explosion which would almost certainly result in the release of quantities of much longer-lasting radioactive materials.

However, your complaints that the issue is not being taken seriously are, I think, the result of your conflating "the issue" with "your suggested solutions".


Not at all, again going back to cost and time, if preventing particals moving provides an added amount of safety for people, then covering the reactor building and painting could cheepy hopefully achieve something.

Yes. Except that the amount of time that people would have to spend near the reactor building applying the paint, especially given that it would have to be tacky to work, would result in a far higher dose of radioactivity than if they just went in, did the job, and came out again.

Quote
Quote

 All the posters I've seen on this issue take the natural catastrophe in Japan and the dangerous and worrying situation it has caused at Fukushima extremely seriously. They are not, however, all taking your posts entirely seriously, because you appear not to be reading the explanations of why various of your proposals could serve no useful purpose, and thus your rather grandiloquent declaration that you want to contribute something to help the situation at Fukushima seems faintly ludicrous,

Well maybe that's more an expression of scientific arrogance, while my scientific knowledge might be limited, I am certainly serious about trying to help, it appears that actually many scientists seem to say "If you do not just except my opinion(and it is) then your ludicrous"
 

Maybe, maybe not. But I really don't think that what people are saying is "just accept my opinion". They've explained why they think it wouldn't work, and your responses to date haven't shown any evidence of having taken those explanations on board. They've said that to wear lead shielding would require too much lead to carry to even halve the gamma ray exposure, and you've continued to harp on about layering gold with lead rather than either (1) asking for an explanation or (2) going away and looking up the thicknesses of lead and gold needed to significantly attenuate gamma radiation.
If people had just said "haha! your idea is nonsense!" I would be entirely sympathetic, but that's not what's happened. You're not obliged to agree with anyone else posting here, but this is a discussion forum, the whole point is that someone suggests an idea or asks a question and other people try to answer the question or to critically appraise the idea. Unfortunately, in this instance, the critical appraisal is fairly critical. The correct response, in that case, is to either embark on a discussion of why it won't work, or to suggest an alternative approach. Or, if you think that people in this thread are arrogant and incorrect and are standing in the way of your splendid suggestion for saving the workers of Fukushima, you could try going somewhere else to find a more receptive audience.

Quote
Quote

 given that there are thousands of experts in the field who will be acting on just the same impulse and will have suggestions worth (in a time critical situation) attending to. Moreover your accusations that other posters are suggesting the workers should just be left to die, when they have said nothing of the sort, are deeply offensive and certainly won't win you either friends or respect here.

No offence, but the first reply I got was along those lines.

Abandon ship?

Good heavens. You took that as a joke? Well, maybe it could, at a stretch, be described as black humour, but I took it as an acknowledgement that the poster felt she had nothing particularly useful to contribute in terms of suggestions but was acknowledgeing that it was a difficult problem. On the other hand, before I leapt to conclusions I took the trouble to look at a few of that poster's previous posts. May I suggest that before leaping to the most un-charitable conclusion available to you, you do the same?
« Last Edit: 25/03/2011 15:19:54 by rosy »

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
Quote

Bourd Chemist did actually say that while gold or lend paint would'nt prevent radiation, it would suppress the radioactive dust.


Quote

Quote

That you persist with these ideas, when you have been told in no uncertain terms that they will not work as well as other,"

What others? No one has suggested another idea.

Nonsense. What BC said was that whilst lead/gold would not serve a useful purpose in stopping gamma radiation at the kinds of thickness it could be applied to people, and would moreover poison them, using ordinary (wet/tacky) paint might have a helpful effect in collecting any (radioactive) dust so that the amount present as particulates in the atmosphere being breathed in by the workers on site might be reduced (in the same way sticky floor mats are used to collect shoe dust on entry to clean rooms, or indeed analogously to fly-papers.


My intiail post was about that, suppression of the radioactive material using lead based paint, I hoped that it could also reduce the radioactivity, Bored Chemists simply said it would a good way to stop material spreading, that's was already there with in the idea although I was concentrating on actually making the site safer to work in by not only suppressing the material on to the floor but also by using a paint that could reduce the radioactivity of that materail .
once suppressed.

The only person that has suggested anything after that was bored chemist again, who said "build robots!"


Please see my point you say I "ignore suggestions" but there aren't any!


 

Quote
Quote

 because it's not clear how much of the radioactive substances released are the sort that lose all their radioactivity in a matter of hours/days, the bulk of the steam emissions will, at least in the best case scenario, fall into this class, and in any case the alternative to releasing the pressure of the steam might well be a catastrophic explosion which would almost certainly result in the release of quantities of much longer-lasting radioactive materials.

However, your complaints that the issue is not being taken seriously are, I think, the result of your conflating "the issue" with "your suggested solutions".


Not at all, again going back to cost and time, if preventing particals moving provides an added amount of safety for people, then covering the reactor building and painting could cheepy hopefully achieve something.

Yes. Except that the amount of time that people would have to spend near the reactor building applying the paint, especially given that it would have to be tacky to work, would result in a far higher dose of radioactivity than if they just went in, did the job, and came out again.


You could use planes and spray, you could use spray machines on the ground time in and out rather quick, leaving it far safer for the workers to get on with the job. Personally I think it would be better to be done when the majority of the systems were up and running.





Quote
Quote

 All the posters I've seen on this issue take the natural catastrophe in Japan and the dangerous and worrying situation it has caused at Fukushima extremely seriously. They are not, however, all taking your posts entirely seriously, because you appear not to be reading the explanations of why various of your proposals could serve no useful purpose, and thus your rather grandiloquent declaration that you want to contribute something to help the situation at Fukushima seems faintly ludicrous,

Well maybe that's more an expression of scientific arrogance, while my scientific knowledge might be limited, I am certainly serious about trying to help, it appears that actually many scientists seem to say "If you do not just except my opinion(and it is) then your ludicrous"
 

Maybe, maybe not. But I really don't think that what people are saying is "just accept my opinion". They've explained why they think it wouldn't work, and your responses to date haven't shown any evidence of having taken those explanations on board. They've said that to wear lead shielding would require too much lead to carry to even halve the gamma ray exposure, and you've continued to harp on about layering gold with lead rather than either (1) asking for an explanation or (2) going away and looking up the thicknesses of lead and gold needed to significantly attenuate gamma radiation.

Not the case, I have been looking into it, proton cont is what causes a materail to be a good protector and Lead is better than Gold, Bored Chemist suggested the opposite earlier.

Quote
For a given thickness, gold is a rather better gamma ray shield than lead- and it's non toxic.

Not sure that could be the case, when Lead has a higher density of protons.




If people had just said "haha! your idea is nonsense!" I would be entirely sympathetic, but that's not what's happened. You're not obliged to agree with anyone else posting here, but this is a discussion forum, the whole point is that someone suggests an idea or asks a question and other people try to answer the question or to critically appraise the idea. Unfortunately, in this instance, the critical appraisal is fairly critical. The correct response, in that case, is to either embark on a discussion of why it won't work, or to suggest an alternative approach.

Which I have been, asking if a combination of Lead or Gold could work better was a part of that, I am not trying to stop all the radiation, rather I was looking to find ways to limit it.


 Or, if you think that people in this thread are arrogant and incorrect and are standing in the way of your splendid suggestion for saving the workers of Fukushima, you could try going somewhere else to find a more receptive audience.

Are you asking me leave?


Quote

Quote

 given that there are thousands of experts in the field who will be acting on just the same impulse and will have suggestions worth (in a time critical situation) attending to. Moreover your accusations that other posters are suggesting the workers should just be left to die, when they have said nothing of the sort, are deeply offensive and certainly won't win you either friends or respect here.

No offence, but the first reply I got was along those lines.

Abandon ship?

Good heavens. You took that as a joke?

No I didn't take it as a joke, I don't think this issue, is one to Joke about!



Well, maybe it could, at a stretch, be described as black humour, but I took it as an acknowledgement that the poster felt she had nothing particularly useful to contribute in terms of suggestions but was acknowledging that it was a difficult problem. On the other hand, before I leapt to conclusions I took the trouble to look at a few of that poster's previous posts. May I suggest that before leaping to the most un-charitable conclusion available to you, you do the same?

Always prepared to give people the benefit of the doubt, but just walking away is neither funny or helpful as a suggestion.
« Last Edit: 25/03/2011 16:54:08 by Wiybit »
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Quote
You could use planes and spray, you could use spray machines on the ground time in and out rather quick, leaving it far safer for the workers to get on with the job. Personally I think it would be better to be done when the majority of the systems were up and running.

Not really, if you were spraying paint you'd leave a whole lot of sprayed paint in the atmosphere, and would have to consider, quantitatively, its toxicity. If it were lead paint, the toxicity would be very high. The workers would have to wear breathing apparatus to exclude particulate paint... which would also exclude particulate radioactive material. Back, more or less, to square one, I would think.

Quote
Not the case, I have been looking into it, proton cont is what causes a materail to be a good protector and Lead is better than Gold, Bored Chemist suggested the opposite earlier.

I think, although I may be wrong, that although lead is a better shield weight-for-weight, gold has a much higher density (more atoms, and therefore more atomic mass per unit volume) and therefore works better thickness-for-thickness. So it depends what you're interested in. I would agree that in the hypothetical situation of wearable shields weight-for-weight is probably more important.

Then again, I'm not sure how much beta radiation there is at Fukushima.. lead is good against gamma rays, but I have an idea it sometimes just slows down beta particles so they can do more damage (that's going back to A-level, and I forget what the effect was called, so haven't managed to google it).

Quote
Are you asking me leave?


Not at all, just pointing out that you are behaving as if you think you're going to achieve something here, beyond an intellectual discussion of the science (and engineering), and that this is unrealistic. There may be places elsewhere on the internet where that's at least hypothetically possible, but we do not have enough access to enough information about what is going on at Fukushima, how much of what radioactive isotopes have been released how far, what technology is already in use, what has been or is soon going to be attempted, etc etc, to make any meaningful suggestions as to what ought to happen next on a timetable that could conceivably serve a practical purpose and, that being so, berating individuals for suggesting not only idea that could be put into practice within hours to help in Japan but also ideas that they think might be useful to deal with (please no!) an equivalent event in the future is only going to lead to bad feeling.

Quote
No I didn't take it as a joke, I don't think this issue, is one to Joke about!

Always prepared to give people the benefit of the doubt, but just walking away is neither funny or helpful as a suggestion.

Oh good grief!

The world is a pretty bloody place. Nature doesn't care about people. The physical world around us is completely oblivious to what goes on on the tiny shell of this tiny planet, to our lives, loves, joys, tragedies, and to how and why and when we die. The only available alternative to despair are goodwill, love, practical action, and, yes, laughter. There are jokes in good taste, jokes in poor taste, and jokes which (in a particular social setting) are unacceptable. The boundaries move, and from what I hear there are very few taboo subjects in foxholes. Sometimes something is so wretched that a bitter laugh (and where appropriate a bank transfer to medecins sans frontieres) is the only non-disabling option (hysterical weeping is a serious bar to practical action). But the idea that anything is "not a subject for jokes" is just smug.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8848
    • View Profile
*facepalm*

Wiybit you seem to have missed or ignored the posts where both Bored Chemist and rosy said that it would take inches of lead to be anywhere near effective against gamma radiation, and would therefore be impossible to put in a suit.

Does it matter? Bored Chemist thinks he is a comedian or something.



A thin layer won't do anything. And no, combining lead and gold won't have some magical effect. The only factor is mass. Lead and gold are efficient space-wise because they are dense.

Yes and Lead is actually more dense then Gold. The more you use the less passes.

The doctor in the video I posted claims his suit stops gamma and it's not a thick suit, so he is either lying or found some way to do so.

I don't think I'm the one  how is being laughed at here.
Gold is nearly twice as dense as lead (so, unsurprisingly, you are just plain wrong)

The idea that " a video on the web says..." is evidence is, at best, rather naive.

By far the most important suggestion I made was don't waste time on things that will never work because they would breach the laws of physics.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
Quote
You could use planes and spray, you could use spray machines on the ground time in and out rather quick, leaving it far safer for the workers to get on with the job. Personally I think it would be better to be done when the majority of the systems were up and running.

Not really, if you were spraying paint you'd leave a whole lot of sprayed paint in the atmosphere, and would have to consider, quantitatively, its toxicity. If it were lead paint, the toxicity would be very high. The workers would have to wear breathing apparatus to exclude particulate paint... which would also exclude particulate radioactive material. Back, more or less, to square one, I would think.

I was suggesting that after the systems were up and running, with workers only being present with the buildings on site. (To cover the working reactors with some form of tent to stop more particales being released) Then to spray a paint(hopefully with a metal base) to suppress the dust, workers would not come back into the area until after the paint had dried. Hopefully they could even use a quick drying lycra, so afterwards the paint could be easily removed with all radioactive dust particals with it.
So there would be no need for workers to breath in paint.

Are you just not even prepared to think about any idea?




Quote
Not the case, I have been looking into it, proton cont is what causes a materail to be a good protector and Lead is better than Gold, Bored Chemist suggested the opposite earlier.

I think, although I may be wrong, that although lead is a better shield weight-for-weight, gold has a much higher density (more atoms, and therefore more atomic mass per unit volume) and therefore works better thickness-for-thickness. So it depends what you're interested in. I would agree that in the hypothetical situation of wearable shields weight-for-weight is probably more important.

Then again, I'm not sure how much beta radiation there is at Fukushima.. lead is good against gamma rays, but I have an idea it sometimes just slows down beta particles so they can do more damage (that's going back to A-level, and I forget what the effect was called, so haven't managed to google it).

Quote
Are you asking me leave?


Not at all, just pointing out that you are behaving as if you think you're going to achieve something here,

I hope to acheive some answers for these types of problems if not for today at least for tomorrow, sounds like your saying dont bother trying.



beyond an intellectual discussion of the science (and engineering), and that this is unrealistic. There may be places elsewhere on the internet where that's at least hypothetically possible, but we do not have enough access to enough information about what is going on at Fukushima, how much of what radioactive isotopes have been released how far, what technology is already in use, what has been or is soon going to be attempted, etc etc,

Fine but we do have an understanding of radioactivity, and good ideas can come from anywhere, we might not know the situation on the ground, but a general understanding of radiation leaks and ways to prevent radiation spreading is on it's own something we can consider being aware of all the realities at fukushima or not.




 to make any meaningful suggestions as to what ought to happen next on a timetable that could conceivably serve a practical purpose and, that being so, berating individuals for suggesting not only idea that could be put into practice within hours to help in Japan but also ideas that they think might be useful to deal with (please no!) an equivalent event in the future is only going to lead to bad feeling.

Quote
No I didn't take it as a joke, I don't think this issue, is one to Joke about!

Always prepared to give people the benefit of the doubt, but just walking away is neither funny or helpful as a suggestion.

Oh good grief!

The world is a pretty bloody place. Nature doesn't care about people.

The mistakes here are comming from the clean up, nature may have caused the earthquake and tsunami, but how we handle the situation is down to us!




 The physical world around us is completely oblivious to what goes on on the tiny shell of this tiny planet, to our lives, loves, joys, tragedies, and to how and why and when we die. The only available alternative to despair are goodwill, love, practical action, and, yes, laughter. There are jokes in good taste, jokes in poor taste, and jokes which (in a particular social setting) are unacceptable. The boundaries move, and from what I hear there are very few taboo subjects in foxholes. Sometimes something is so wretched that a bitter laugh (and where appropriate a bank transfer to medecins sans frontieres) is the only non-disabling option (hysterical weeping is a serious bar to practical action). But the idea that anything is "not a subject for jokes" is just smug.

Look I as much as anyone like joking I do it a lot, but when men and women are out risking their lives to fix the plant, people joking that we should just walk away, are saying what to the workers out there risking their necks to fix the situation? Not much, no apreciation at all, potencially we could all be effected by this depends how bad it gets, to joke about their scarifice, to belittle what they are doing, is just not funny.
« Last Edit: 25/03/2011 18:42:40 by Wiybit »
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
*facepalm*

Wiybit you seem to have missed or ignored the posts where both Bored Chemist and rosy said that it would take inches of lead to be anywhere near effective against gamma radiation, and would therefore be impossible to put in a suit.

Does it matter? Bored Chemist thinks he is a comedian or something.



A thin layer won't do anything. And no, combining lead and gold won't have some magical effect. The only factor is mass. Lead and gold are efficient space-wise because they are dense.

Yes and Lead is actually more dense then Gold. The more you use the less passes.

The doctor in the video I posted claims his suit stops gamma and it's not a thick suit, so he is either lying or found some way to do so.

I don't think I'm the one  how is being laughed at here.
Gold is nearly twice as dense as lead (so, unsurprisingly, you are just plain wrong)

The idea that " a video on the web says..." is evidence is, at best, rather naive.

By far the most important suggestion I made was don't waste time on things that will never work because they would breach the laws of physics.


How is gold morer dense than lead when lead has a higher atomic number. It's the density of the protons in the atomic structure, that prevents radiation passing through.

A reason why they use depleated uranium in industry:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

"Civilian applications

Depleted uranium has a very high density and is primarily used as shielding material for other radioactive material, and as ballast. Examples include sailboat keels, as counterweights and as shielding in industrial radiography cameras.

[edit] Shielding in industrial radiography camerasIndustrial radiography cameras include a very high activity gamma radiation source (typically Ir-192 (Activity >10 TBq)). Depleted uranium is often used in the cameras as a shield to protect individuals from the gamma source. Typically the uranium shield is supported and enclosed in polyurethane foam for thermal, mechanical and oxidation protection"
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Quote
How is gold morer dense than lead when lead has a higher atomic number. It's the density of the protons in the atomic structure, that prevents radiation passing through.

Fewer protons per nucleus, sure, but more nuclei per unit volume. Gold weighs around 19300 kg per cubic metre, lead only about 11300. That means, to a reasonable approximation, that gold must have about 50 % more nucleons than lead per unit volume. Simple. What, if any, are the effects of the individual nuclei being smaller and more numerous I don't know. I imagine someone's done the research, however.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Quote
How is gold morer dense than lead when lead has a higher atomic number. It's the density of the protons in the atomic structure, that prevents radiation passing through.

Fewer protons per nucleus, sure, but more nuclei per unit volume. Gold weighs around 19300 kg per cubic metre, lead only about 11300. That means, to a reasonable approximation, that gold must have about 50 % more nucleons than lead per unit volume. Simple. What, if any, are the effects of the individual nuclei being smaller and more numerous I don't know. I imagine someone's done the research, however.

Right. It's a question of how densely packed the atoms are. The atomic weight of gold is less than lead, but gold atoms assemble into a smaller volume, so the density is greater.

However, ignoring density and only worrying about weight (which would likely be the most important aspect of protective clothing) a certain weight of lead does a better job than the same weight of gold.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
Quote
How is gold morer dense than lead when lead has a higher atomic number. It's the density of the protons in the atomic structure, that prevents radiation passing through.

Fewer protons per nucleus, sure, but more nuclei per unit volume. Gold weighs around 19300 kg per cubic metre, lead only about 11300. That means, to a reasonable approximation, that gold must have about 50 % more nucleons than lead per unit volume. Simple. What, if any, are the effects of the individual nuclei being smaller and more numerous I don't know. I imagine someone's done the research, however.

Right. It's a question of how densely packed the atoms are. The atomic weight of gold is less than lead, but gold atoms assemble into a smaller volume, so the density is greater.

However, ignoring density and only worrying about weight (which would likely be the most important aspect of protective clothing) a certain weight of lead does a better job than the same weight of gold.

Then pound for pound lend is a better protector then Gold, thankyou.

If it is simply down to atomic number and weight, other than depleted uranium, could there be a safer highier atomic number metal or compound, for protecting against radiation?

I am not just thinking about protective clothing by the way, stopping the particals spreding is another issue, putting some form of tent over the reactor builds would stop some particals escaping(a definate plus). The other thing I was also looking at and enquiring about, was trying to find a material to combine with a tent fabric that could also prevent some radiation escaping through it, if only x-rays and minimal gama surely better than nothing, any ideas?. 

What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Sure, there are elements with higher atomic numbers. Just look up the periodic table. But it's a question of availability, practicality, and what the ultimate objective is.

For example, if you just want to make it safe and not put it back into operation, one option might be just to cover everything with a lot of sand and concrete. It's not as effective as lead by weight, but it's still effective, and it's a lot more available.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
Sure, there are elements with higher atomic numbers. Just look up the periodic table. But it's a question of availability, practicality, and what the ultimate objective is.

For example, if you just want to make it safe and not put it back into operation, one option might be just to cover everything with a lot of sand and concrete. It's not as effective as lead by weight, but it's still effective, and it's a lot more available.


No I don't think that's a good idea(for reasons stated on the other thread) they are not going to put the sites back to work they have already stated that.

What I was thinking about was a way to make the site as stable as possible(that involves getting all the cooling systems working) then working to prevent any more radiation releases(that's what I am looking at here, I'm thinking tents to stop particles once systems are working) around the tents you could then build new buildings.

But ultimately moving all the material to a storage facility somewhere safer. shutting the plant, taking down all the buildings, and probably removing two three meters of top soil leaving the area as unpolluted as possible. You could use that place to build a storage facility but it isn't in a safe area really.

Once the reactors are cool enough hopefully a tent would not catch fire although you could use a fire resistant material, and then no more dust or particles would be released into the atmosphere.
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
I'm sure we can imagine all kinds of things, but as we have no idea what the conditions are really like there, it's highly speculative to propose solutions. What we do know is some good science about how to shield gamma radiation, but I'm sure the folks who are working there are already fully armed with that knowledge.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
I'm sure we can imagine all kinds of things, but as we have no idea what the conditions are really like there, it's highly speculative to propose solutions. What we do know is some good science about how to shield gamma radiation, but I'm sure the folks who are working there are already fully armed with that knowledge.

Again this is a science forum, I posted this thread to get people to think up ideas, maybe nothing will come of them but at the same time maybe something will, two heads are better than one and potentially lots of people could place ideas here. It's not just ideas for today and the current problems, that is an immediate concern but maybe someone could get an idea for a future problem.

As for the people currently running the operation in Fukushima the company TEPCO is, and sadly looking at the past history of corporations, they do all they can to avoid cleaning up messes they created, so an assumption that it should just be left to TEPCO, is just not ok I my opinion, not forgetting that just recently a few managers from TEPCO two, three years back had to resign because they were found lying about safety problems.
Just look at the workers currently taken to hospital, simply because their equipment wasn't water proff.

So while you could argue that it's best left to the company I have issues with the idea. Besides some good ideas could emerge from this adventure, it's possible.
 
« Last Edit: 25/03/2011 22:10:34 by Wiybit »
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
As another idea for rods that have started to melt, could you recoat them with ziconium?

What are the options for repairing a melted rod? getting up close would be a problem for people if we have robots could they be used to recoat the rods some how?
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
Sky News report about the worker and the current situation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar-_n85x_gM

Radiation level inside the plant reactor building three, are 10,000(ten thousand) times normal.
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8848
    • View Profile
Can I do something dull and remind you what I actually said?
"For a given thickness, gold is a rather better gamma ray shield than lead"
Pound for pound, (for a given area) lead is a bit better, but since gold is nearly twice as dense, for a given thickness, gold is actually better. Stop trying to pretend that I got that wrong.
So, in answer to your question "How is gold morer dense than lead when lead has a higher atomic number." the simple answer is because 19.3 is bigger than 11.3 .
Why this is true is a complex matter and of no importance here, it's simply a fact that you should have accepted or checked.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
If it is "too hot to handle".

You use either robotics.  If they had only supplied Robonaut with legs, they could have sent him to the rescue!!!

Or...  if one absolutely must have human intervention, setup a relay team with people entering the "hot zone" for a few minutes...  then leaving and having another worker follow performing more of the task.

As far as preventing the catastrophe.
Good Diesel Pumps would have been easier to protect from water damage than the diesel generators.  However, the generators and electrical distribution system should have been placed in a protected area, and sealed against water inundation.  Tsunamis and Earthquakes are not uncommon in Japan.  They typically get a couple of earthquakes a year.  And, while Category 9 earthquakes are rare in Japan, they regularly have had 8+ earthquakes (14 since 1898, including THREE magnitude 8.7 earthquakes).

It is unclear if they could have predicted the quake when they started getting multiple very strong foreshocks on March 9, two days before the main quake.  A policy to shut down all neighboring nuclear plants after category 6 or 7 earthquakes for a week or so, would force numerous blackouts and brownouts for false alarms, but might have limited the extent of the damage to the nuclear plant.

In the next decade, Japan needs to plan on upgrading every nuclear plant they have with better backup systems and failsafe wiring.

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
If it is "too hot to handle".

You use either robotics.  If they had only supplied Robonaut with legs, they could have sent him to the rescue!!!

Or...  if one absolutely must have human intervention, setup a relay team with people entering the "hot zone" for a few minutes...  then leaving and having another worker follow performing more of the task.

As far as preventing the catastrophe.
Good Diesel Pumps would have been easier to protect from water damage than the diesel generators.  However, the generators and electrical distribution system should have been placed in a protected area, and sealed against water inundation.  Tsunamis and Earthquakes are not uncommon in Japan.  They typically get a couple of earthquakes a year.  And, while Category 9 earthquakes are rare in Japan, they regularly have had 8+ earthquakes (14 since 1898, including THREE magnitude 8.7 earthquakes).

It is unclear if they could have predicted the quake when they started getting multiple very strong foreshocks on March 9, two days before the main quake.  A policy to shut down all neighboring nuclear plants after category 6 or 7 earthquakes for a week or so, would force numerous blackouts and brownouts for false alarms, but might have limited the extent of the damage to the nuclear plant.

In the next decade, Japan needs to plan on upgrading every nuclear plant they have with better backup systems and failsafe wiring.

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
Can I do something dull and remind you what I actually said?
"For a given thickness, gold is a rather better gamma ray shield than lead"
Pound for pound, (for a given area) lead is a bit better, but since gold is nearly twice as dense, for a given thickness, gold is actually better. Stop trying to pretend that I got that wrong.
So, in answer to your question "How is gold morer dense than lead when lead has a higher atomic number." the simple answer is because 19.3 is bigger than 11.3 .
Why this is true is a complex matter and of no importance here, it's simply a fact that you should have accepted or checked.


What you actually said was
Quote
Perhaps I can put in a different context for you.
For a given thickness, gold is a rather better gamma ray shield than lead- and it's non toxic.
Would you advocate coating the workers with gold leaf?

To me that denotes equal amounts of both and gold being better than lead, but anyway I am not interested in arguing it. it's done, time to move on and I did check.
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY

*

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
If it is "too hot to handle".

You use either robotics.  If they had only supplied Robonaut with legs, they could have sent him to the rescue!!!

Or...  if one absolutely must have human intervention, setup a relay team with people entering the "hot zone" for a few minutes...  then leaving and having another worker follow performing more of the task.

As far as preventing the catastrophe.
Good Diesel Pumps would have been easier to protect from water damage than the diesel generators.  However, the generators and electrical distribution system should have been placed in a protected area, and sealed against water inundation.  Tsunamis and Earthquakes are not uncommon in Japan.  They typically get a couple of earthquakes a year.  And, while Category 9 earthquakes are rare in Japan, they regularly have had 8+ earthquakes (14 since 1898, including THREE magnitude 8.7 earthquakes).

It is unclear if they could have predicted the quake when they started getting multiple very strong foreshocks on March 9, two days before the main quake.  A policy to shut down all neighboring nuclear plants after category 6 or 7 earthquakes for a week or so, would force numerous blackouts and brownouts for false alarms, but might have limited the extent of the damage to the nuclear plant.

In the next decade, Japan needs to plan on upgrading every nuclear plant they have with better backup systems and failsafe wiring.

Yeah sadly building legs is gonna take a bit too much time I think.

Any ideas about ways to cover rods that have slightly melted with new metal to protect them?

Sucks I had another question and I have forgotten it.
What am I doing thinking about science?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Wiybit

Where do you go? Yours with love JOLLY