patrick.net

Looks like we've reached the point where this thread is ready to deteriorate into tangential mess, so I'd like to briefly summarize the original thesis and what we've learned so far from research and discussion:

Thesis: There is an escalating nuclear disaster happening in a fission plant on the coast of Japan. Although it seems unlikely, what is the potential for fallout (via atmospheric deposition or ocean currents) reaching the Pacific Coast?

What we've learned:
1. Evidence from contemporary reactor design and past meltdowns INDICATES that radioactive releases will be largely contained and MOSTLY localized.

2. Long range atmospheric distribution of radioactive materials (particulates) is much more of an issue from a bomb blast, where large quantities of radioactives are injected into the upper atmosphere, thereby made available to long-ranging air currents (like the jet stream).

3. Particulate pollution from clouds originating from (ground level) Chinese coal plants HAS BEEN detected in substantial quantities on the West Coast in recent history.

4. While the Pacific ocean does provide a potentially huge pool for particulate dilution, ocean currents DO NOT mix it evenly. Further, we currently DO NOT know for certain how a slug of radioactively contaminated water will circulate and disperse in the Pacific.

5. Radioactive contamination from the Daiichi plant could include uranium, plutonium, cesium, idodine, strontium, among other long-lived and dangerous isotopes. It is these toxic and long-lived particulates that pose the GREATEST danger for long-term and long-range contamination: they persist in the environment for long periods of time, many are readily absorbed in trace amounts, and then can be accumulated to dangerous levels in the human body. IT IS NOT CLEAR to what degree these contaminants HAVE BEEN released at this point in time. IT IS NOT CLEAR to what degree these contaminants WILL BE released in the future.

6. Although the emergency crews have put in a heroic effort to avert a complete meltdown at all of the Daiichi reactors (there are 6), partial meltdowns have likely occured at #1,#2,#3 and the spent fuel in the cooling pool on #4 caught fire (and was later extinguished).

7. Radioactive releases have been reported, and radiation readings downwind have elevated, but not yet to a level that immediately threatens human health. 180,000 people have been moved from the evacuation zone.

8. There is still a risk of full meltdown at the #1,#2,#3 reactors, and risk of the spent fuel cooling pools, which are stored throughout the facility, catching fire. Arguably, the latter scenario carries more danger than the former since the spent rods are not protected by a containment vessel. The #2 reactor seems to be in the worst shape, and potentially has a compromised containment vessel.

9. 50 brave emergency workers remain to keep the affected reactors and cooling pools from overheating further, likely at the risk of their own lives.

10. No one, including the emergency workers, TEPCO, the Japanese government, and the varied voices here, can be sure whether the situation will get worse or better in the short term.

and finally,

11. SINCE this exact event has never played out before in history, we do not know what the outcome will be. THIS is why discussion of the possibilities, however remote, is useful and not an exercise in paranoia. I believe most of us hope for the best, and fear for the safety of the Japanese people.

American in Japan says

I am in Tokyo (not panicking but I will be checking the news, weather and limiting my time outside for now). At least I can spend the time catching up on Patrick.net!

Good luck to you!

tatupu70 says

There is a lot of misinformation on this thread. I don’t have time nor am I probably qualified to give Radiation 101, but suffice it to say that you are getting background radiation all the time. Watching TV, eating a banana, getting an X-Ray all expose you to ionizing radiation. The element producing the radiation does not matter–you need to worry about the type of radiation (alpha, beta, gamma, X-Ray, or neutron), the activity of the source, the absorbed dose, or most important the dose equivilent. This is typically measured in REMs in the US or Sieverts as the SI unit (1 Sv = 100 REM)
As a guide, the occupational dose limit is 5 REM/year to the whole body (or 50 mSv)
Hope that helps some.

Where are you guys getting this stuff from? Grade school science books? 1960's era civil defense manuals? Cereal boxes?

In all seriousness, much of this type of reasoning seems to be focused on the acute dosage one would receive from a nuclear detonation. While this is relevant to a nuclear bomb blast, it is not really relevant to a discussion of the effects of fission plant nuclear meltdown and subsequent pollution over long distances.

Do you understand that if you ingest trace amounts of radioactive cesium or strontium it will accumulate over time in your body, replacing normal elements like potassium and calcium? Imagine the blood cancer risk resultant from having a radioactive skeleton. And the problem is compounded by bioaccumulation through the food chain. This means that low levels of radioactive dust over grass gets concentrated by cows eating the grass, and further concentrated in humans eating the cows.

And don't just take my word for it:

From the handbook on the toxicology of metals

http://books.google.com/books?id=nKulgztuzL8C&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=bioaccumulation+radioactive+cesium&source=bl&ots=QRRO9esdYw&sig=8S8ppPu32s-bNlk1UqPEV4oep38&hl=en&ei=GaZ_TbnsO4KGuQPvwMjQBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

@TerriDeaner

"Thesis: There is an escalating nuclear disaster happening in a fusion plant on the coast of Japan."

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't you mean *fission* plant?

Anyway thanks... I am remaining calm, just trying to learn the latest.

Nomograph says

That’s correct. A nuclear bomb detonation is much worse. A single nuclear bomb can flatten an entire city.

I agree. The stuff I see written by people is so stupid and illogical that it isn't funny. At least I used to work at a nuclear plant, and don't expect this situation to amount to much, as long as the can pump in seawater until they get the regular systems working, they'll be fine.

You don't see Cherynobyl style nuclear reactors in palce like the US or Japan.

Besides that, the Japanese are accustomed to earthquakes, tsunami's, and getting nuked; they'll be fine.

terriDeaner says

Do you understand that if you ingest trace amounts of radioactive cesium or strontium it will accumulate over time in your body

You are already ingesting trace elements of all kinds of things that you would probably rather not have. It's unavoidable in a modern society, and there is really nothing you can do about it.

Vicente says

The premise of this thread, worrying about US fallout, is a sign of the USA total preoccupation with itself and it’s poor grasp of basic science. This is far more of a blow to the JAPANESE people, their economy, and by extension I suppose global economies. Ecological disaster or cancer hazard for US is WAY down the list. I am not Japanese, never been there, but obviously they have tragically more close up experience with fallout and they do not seem from afar to be in full panic.

Actually, the premise of this thread is a consequence of my preoccupation with global events and assessment of the probability of 'black swan' events. The events befalling the Japanese are tragic. Sadly, the possible negative outcomes for people and places NEAR the fallout are well understood from past events.

American in Japan says

@TerriDeaner
“Thesis: There is an escalating nuclear disaster happening in a fusion plant on the coast of Japan.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but don’t you mean *fission* plant?
Anyway thanks I am remaining calm, but trying to learn the latest.

Oops, you're right - I'll fix that.

@Troy

"Tokyo Governor Ishihara may be an asshole but he recently said the tsunami disaster might wake up Japan from its greed."

I hope so (the first part is true, but I mean for the second part).

Winds are shifting away from Tokyo from tomorrow, but I am checking updates.

zzyzzx says

Nomograph says

That’s correct. A nuclear bomb detonation is much worse. A single nuclear bomb can flatten an entire city.

I agree. The stuff I see written by people is so stupid and illogical that it isn’t funny. At least I used to work at a nuclear plant, and don’t expect this situation to amount to much, as long as the can pump in seawater until they get the regular systems working, they’ll be fine.
You don’t see Cherynobyl style nuclear reactors in palce like the US or Japan.
Besides that, the Japanese are accustomed to earthquakes, tsunami’s, and getting nuked; they’ll be fine.

Ah,so flippant. What did you do at the plant... build scaffolding and drink coffee?

@zzyzzx

"Besides that, the Japanese are accustomed to earthquakes, tsunami’s, and getting nuked; they’ll be fine."

I agree with the first two but not the third...

Did you really work at a nuclear power plant?

Do you know about the pebble bed cooling system? It is a much better cooling sytem, but has unfortunately not been used in Japan (or the US).

Terri--

It's not grade school, but it's not rocket science either. And my point seems to have been lost on you--radiation is radiation, whether it comes from a nuclear bomb, a meltdown, or fiestaware dishes. It doesn't matter. That's why scientists developed a system of measuring dose equivilents.

Now, if you want to talk about the biological effects of eating cesium or strontium, that's a different matter entirely. Radioactive or not, that's a bad idea.

zzyzzx says

Probably for the first and last time ever. I think the point here is that you have more important things to worry about than trace amounts of stuff that you can’t do anything about.

You two are most certainly entitled to blissful ignorance if you like. I'd rather be prepared.

Things are quiet here...not many people going out. Not dead, but about 20% of the usual number of people. Many stores have closed early, some have closed for days...

tatupu70 says

Terri–

It’s not grade school, but it’s not rocket science either. And my point seems to have been lost on you–radiation is radiation, whether it comes from a nuclear bomb, a meltdown, or fiestaware dishes. It doesn’t matter. That’s why scientists developed a system of measuring dose equivilents.

No, it wasn't lost. Try to imagine how many dose equivalents you would receive from the following series of events: taking a nap in an enclosed room, walking clothed on a cloudy day across a parking lot, sunbathing at the beach for an afternoon, visiting a uranium mine while wearing a filter mask, being exposed to a single gamma radiation burst from an accident at a nuclear power plant, OR carrying a lump of radioactive uranium in your pants pocket for 25 years.

My point is that if your body accumulates and holds onto biologically active radioisotopes, you will receive a CUMULATIVE DOSE that will put you at far greater risk of health problems. Sure, the type of radiation will affect the cumulative dose to some degree, but since it is coming from INSIDE your body, no amount of foil hat therapy or soapy washes will fix the problem.

No, radiation is not radiation.

#5 and #6 spent fuel storage tanks failing and causing some VERY nasty shit to burn itself up in an uncontrolled conflagration would emit literally tons of radioactive particulates into the atmosphere.

While in any one given area this might not be a higher background radiation than the 40 uSv of a planeride, it would utterly destroy the farms and be highly disruptive to human activity until it was cleaned up.

The background hotspots of the Chernobyl area run at 300 microsieverts/hr now. TEPCO is not too far away from that now, depending on which way the wind is blowing.

zzyzzx says

as long as the can pump in seawater until they get the regular systems working, they’ll be fine.

Actually, no. Since they've allowed 2 or 3 cores to partially melt down, the reactor water is now polluted and venting the steam from these units will introduce more radioactive crap outside the plant.

Complicating matters is that unit 2 partially melted down on Monday AND has a blown secondary pressure containment (the suppression pool), so steam vented from the reactor vessel will quickly end up in the container building (which is apparently now holed thanks to its neighboring units blowing up).

And it's also still possible that further uncontrolled heating will result in full meltdowns in any of the active units, allowing the fuel to go critical again.

I’m 95% sure the situation won’t get any worse than it is now, but this event is not over yet.

Uranium isn't the problem, Cesium and Plutonium (in unit #3 and the spent fuel rods) are.

It's an interesting question, but I see bioaccumulation as more of a problem if you are eating fish from Japan. We have lost atomic bombs in the sea before. However it looks Japan's neighbors are already planning to screen foodstuffs:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-15/radiation-scare-prompts-asian-countries-to-screen-imports-of-japanese-food.html

Vicente says

It’s an interesting question, but I see bioaccumulation as more of a problem if you are eating fish from Japan. We have lost atomic bombs in the sea before. However it looks Japan’s neighbors are already planning to screen seafood:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-15/radiation-scare-prompts-asian-countries-to-screen-imports-of-japanese-food.html

It is an unfortunate step in the right direction.

And I am unaware that any of the lost bombs ruptured and spilled material.

And And, it really depends on how far the particulates, pre-eaten or not, travel.

Cesium and Plutonium are the biggest danger as Troy said.

Another link:

http://www.alternet.org/story/150254/brink_of_nuclear_catastrophe:_elevated_radiation_recorded_in_tokyo;_3rd_explosion_rocks_reactor;_some_good_news_from_neighboring_plant/?page=entire

Troy says

No, radiation is not radiation.
#5 and #6 spent fuel storage tanks failing and causing some VERY nasty shit to burn itself up in an uncontrolled conflagration would emit literally tons of radioactive particulates into the atmosphere.

Actually it is. It doesn't matter if it's Cs-137, Am-241, or U-238. What matters is the activity, and dose equivilent.

terriDeaner says

My point is that if your body accumulates and holds onto biologically active radioisotopes, you will receive a CUMULATIVE DOSE that will put you at far greater risk of health problems. Sure, the type of radiation will affect the cumulative dose to some degree, but since it is coming from INSIDE your body, no amount of foil hat therapy or soapy washes will fix the problem.

Yes, if you ingest radioactive Cs-137 that will cause some serious problems. Although the biological half-life of Cs is 140 days. Its effect will deteriorate over time.

But my point is that ingesting Cs-137 is more of a poisoning problem than a radiation problem.

tatupu70 says

Actually it is. It doesn’t matter if it’s Cs-137, Am-241, or U-238. What matters is the activity, and dose equivilent.

Still wrong. Please just go back and read some of the reference material I provided...

tatupu70 says

terriDeaner says

My point is that if your body accumulates and holds onto biologically active radioisotopes, you will receive a CUMULATIVE DOSE that will put you at far greater risk of health problems. Sure, the type of radiation will affect the cumulative dose to some degree, but since it is coming from INSIDE your body, no amount of foil hat therapy or soapy washes will fix the problem.

Yes, if you ingest radioactive Cs-137 that will cause some serious problems. Although the biological half-life of Cs is 140 days. Its effect will deteriorate over time.
But my point is that ingesting Cs-137 is more of a poisoning problem than a radiation problem.

Please pay particular attention to the manner in which the dose is administered. Yes, the toxicity may be a competing issue with an ACUTE (read large) dose of cesium. However, even with very poisonous stuff, LOW DOSES OVER TIME may allow the accumulation of levels in excess of ACUTELY lethal toxic doses. It is this EXCESSIVE ACCUMULATION over time that is the concern with trace radioisotopes with LONG HALF-LIVES.

terriDeaner says

It is this EXCESSIVE ACCUMULATION over time that is the concern with trace radioisotopes with LONG HALF-LIVES.

You have to consider both the source half life and the biological half life of a radioisotope. For Cs-137, the biological half life is only 140 days. But I agree that if you are continuously eating small doses of Cs-137, you are in for some trouble.

terriDeaner says

tatupu70 says

Actually it is. It doesn’t matter if it’s Cs-137, Am-241, or U-238. What matters is the activity, and dose equivilent.

Still wrong. Please just go back and read some of the reference material I provided…

How about you just give me the quick explanation for why you think I'm wrong?

terriDeaner says

And I am unaware that any of the lost bombs ruptured and spilled material.

Well I don't know what scale we are hypothesizing here. However there's an extensive list of nuclear accidents, some of them more scary for the fact they were covered up at the time. Example Hanford site along the Columbia River had incidents between 1946 and 1986 and terrible as that is that they did so without TELLING ANYONE..... where Japan incident is clearly quite public. I expect if something gets contaminated we'll know about it and be able to avoid it. And I'm pretty sure the Japanese will be making stern public efforts to clean it up, not cover it up.

American in Japan says

@zzyzzx
“Besides that, the Japanese are accustomed to earthquakes, tsunami’s, and getting nuked; they’ll be fine.”
I agree with the first two but not the third…
Did you really work at a nuclear power plant?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browns_Ferry_Nuclear_Power_Plant

tatupu70 says

terriDeaner says

It is this EXCESSIVE ACCUMULATION over time that is the concern with trace radioisotopes with LONG HALF-LIVES.

You have to consider both the source half life and the biological half life of a radioisotope. For Cs-137, the biological half life is only 140 days. But I agree that if you are continuously eating small doses of Cs-137, you are in for some trouble.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Now try to calculate the estimated TOTAL EXPOSURE from each different isotope given the biological half-life (reference?) for a range of exposures (amount consumed). Assume a fixed period of time (say 1 year) and a fixed rate of consumption over that time (less than toxically lethal dose, assume the contaminants are not being cleaned from the environment, and assume negligible decay in the environment due to the long half-lives of the radioisotopes (e.g. ~30 years)).

tatupu70 says

terriDeaner says

tatupu70 says

Actually it is. It doesn’t matter if it’s Cs-137, Am-241, or U-238. What matters is the activity, and dose equivilent.

There's no substitute for real research, but see the suggested calculation above.

Still wrong. Please just go back and read some of the reference material I provided…

How about you just give me the quick explanation for why you think I’m wrong?

There's no substitute for real research, but see the suggested calculation above.

Vicente says

Well I don’t know what scale we are hypothesizing here. However there’s an extensive list of nuclear accidents, some of them more scary for the fact they were covered up at the time. Example Hanford site along the Columbia River had incidents between 1946 and 1986 and terrible as that is that they did so without TELLING ANYONE….. where Japan incident is clearly quite public. I expect if something gets contaminated we’ll know about it and be able to avoid it. And I’m pretty sure the Japanese will be making stern public efforts to clean it up, not cover it up.

I agree, I don't think they will have much choice in the matter. However, I would guess that the information will be rather after-the-fact if they can possibly swing it.

Troy says

zzyzzx says
as long as the can pump in seawater until they get the regular systems working, they’ll be fine.
Actually, no. Since they’ve allowed 2 or 3 cores to partially melt down, the reactor water is now polluted and venting the steam from these units will introduce more radioactive crap outside the plant.

That's not my point. Some radiation has already leaked out and wll continute to do so. The object is preventing a Chernobyl style disaster. Melt downs that get contained are merely an expensive mess to clean up and aren't anything we need to be concerned about.

terriDeaner says

tatupu70 says

terriDeaner says

tatupu70 says

Actually it is. It doesn’t matter if it’s Cs-137, Am-241, or U-238. What matters is the activity, and dose equivilent.

There’s no substitute for real research, but see the suggested calculation above.
Still wrong. Please just go back and read some of the reference material I provided…

How about you just give me the quick explanation for why you think I’m wrong?

There’s no substitute for real research, but see the suggested calculation above.

So, you can't tell me then?

tatupu70 says

terriDeaner says

tatupu70 says

terriDeaner says

tatupu70 says

Actually it is. It doesn’t matter if it’s Cs-137, Am-241, or U-238. What matters is the activity, and dose equivilent.

There’s no substitute for real research, but see the suggested calculation above.

Still wrong. Please just go back and read some of the reference material I provided…

How about you just give me the quick explanation for why you think I’m wrong?

There’s no substitute for real research, but see the suggested calculation above.

So, you can’t tell me then?

I have tried to explain this several times, and spent a bit of my time doing it. If you are not willing to read and use the information provided you will not understand my point. YOU will have to invest some of your own effort. I have no more time for further spoon-feeding on this material.

And how did that misquote get nested into the middle?

terriDeaner says

I have tried to explain this several times, and spent a bit of my time doing it. If you are not willing to read and use the information provided you will not understand my point. YOU will have to invest some of your own effort. I have no more time for further spoon-feeding on this material.

I'm sorry--you haven't really explained anything. From what I can gather you are worried about radioactive particles, not radiation. Those are two different things. I don't really know how the particles will disperse or how far they will travel once they are in the air. It depends on the wind I guess.

tatupu70 says

From what I can gather you are worried about radioactive particles, not radiation. Those are two different things.

???

You do realize that radioactive particles EMIT radiation, right?

@terriDeaner

Actually you've give nothing. Everyone else has provided clear examples and explanations.

You used fusion instead of fission, showing you clearly don't have an in depth understanding of this information, because anyone with anything beyond Fox or CNN news as their sole source of information wouldn't make that mistake. It's akin to all of us talking about flying and you start talking about lift in water, and us needing to correct you that water and air are not the same thing. It's not a small slip up in this industry, it's as embarrassing as getting confused between air and water while discussing planes.

terriDeaner,
Are there certain steps you plan on taking based on what you learn here? This is a very interesting theoretical discussion, although I think it seems selfish to worry about the US over Japan at this point, but even if the ultimate conclusion was some radiation or whatever could come to the US, what are you going to do? All I can figure is avoiding fish from Japan. What else is there to do?

@zzyzzx

Thanks for the link.

Btw, here is probably the best explanation, although some are saying this might be debunked elsewhere. MIT has a bunch of explanations for each of the events that took place.

http://mitnse.com/2011/03/15/explanation-of-hydrogen-explosions-at-units-1-and-3/