patrick.net

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/

pkennedy says

@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.

Sorry pal, everyone makes mistakes, even me. And I don't think typo's are that big of a deal, particularly when they are corrected quickly.

You seem to be implying that my mistake was conceptual. I assure you, it was not. Please note that "fission" and "fusion" look and are spelled very similarly, and when you're typing quickly one may be mistakenly substituted for the other.

I'm sure you'll understand, given your eloquent writing sample above. With such amazing flow, it exhibits an exceptional level of grammar usage, and impeccable spelling througout!

ch_tah says

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?

I'm not sure - avoid the beaches in the spring and summer until some testing has been done, probably. Not eat fish from the western Pacific, or migratory ones that swim through there. Keep the earthquake emergency kit up to date. Keep looking for results from local monitoring stations (haven't found any web-based results yet).

Another precaution is stocking up on potassium iodine. I picked up this link from another thread in this forum:

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Surgeon-General-Buying-Iodine-Appropriate-118031559.html

For now there is nothing much else to do but wait for more news. Even if there was a worst case, serious particulate discharge high into the atmosphere (AN UNLIKELY SCENARIO) it would probably take a while (days-weeks) for any of it to get here anyhow.

pkennedy says

here is probably the best explanation, although some are saying this might be debunked elsewhere

That guy was talking out of his ass which should be clear by now, maximizing and fabricating the good things and trying to minimize the bad things. But as Feynman said, Mother Nature cannot be fooled.

The guy was so clueless he was talking about refurbishing the plant and returning it to operation.

I found his original remarks that people exposed to the venting should quit smoking to compensate to be pretty fucking offensive, though the MIT students have removed that particular idiocy from the original.

Whether the nuclear engineering students have anything intelligent to add to this discussion remain to be seen.

They have yet to explore the implications of having the secondary pressure vessel in unit 2 breached. This is bad news if they have to vent more steam from unit 2 -- its core is partially melted down so any steam coming from the reactor pressure vessel is going to be highly radioactive.

Troy says

That guy was talking out of his ass which should be clear by now, maximizing and fabricating the good things and trying to minimize the bad things. But as Feynman said, Mother Nature cannot be fooled.

This is why it is always best to read critically (previously typed sarcasm removed...).

And now bad news:

New fire hits Japan nuclear plant

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12754883

#4 reactor is on fire again.

The situation with #4 is not clear now. Smoke was noted at 5:45AM but NHK said it was gone later.

Still no clear info on this.

terriDeaner says

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.

Trace amounts of cs will not accumulate in your body. It passes out through the urine and feces. You ingest and pass out non radioactive cs all the time. It's naturally occurring and is all around us. Radioactive cs does exactly the same thing. Much larger amounts than trace are needed to accumulate. It's just not possible for those levels of concentrations of cs to drift 6000 miles short of a nuclear war.

You keep comparing Chernobyl with the Japanese plants. Chernobyl didn't have a containment building. The explosan simply tossed the roof of the reactor. Over 200 tons of material thrown high into the air. Most of it landed on the nearby scandenavian countries where is was absorbed by the environment and passed up the food chain to some degree. There is a world of difference between several hundred miles and over 6000 miles.

None of this matters since you keep coming back to the same tired argument that all radiation is the same and any trace amount is harmful. Pure hokum.

bob2356 says

Chernobyl didn’t have a containment building.

Maybe you haven't been keeping up with current events, but neither do 2 out of the 3 Fukushima 1 scrammed reactors.

One other problem is that there are thousands of nuclear rods sitting in cooling pools at the upper levels of all 6 power plants.

One reactor is currently emitting steam or white smoke at this time. If this is reactor 2 this is steam directly from the core, which has been 30% damaged due to loosing all coolant for several hours.

Turns out the "smoking" reactor is Unit 3.

The one fueled with 5% plutonium.

Not good.