Well there were plenty of buffoons on the state, local, and national levels, but none as big a buffoon as W praising the job his hapless coordinator did, and he was rightly taken to task for it by the national press. When you look what the feds pour into emergency management and civil defense, there is no excuse for the job done. But at least we know what to expect now.
But I do think many average citizens rose to the challenge and looked out for each other as well, and these remained unsung heroes.
Meltdown! in Japan
-
Sue U
- Posts: 8905
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: Meltdown! in Japan
Ahem ...dgs49 wrote:The evacuation of people around the Japanese reactors was more to deal with people's irrational fears than a reaction to the real dangers. Politics is politics. Most will recall that NOBODY who was exposed at TMI - employees, government inspectors, the public, etc) - ever experienced any radiation-related illnesses or injuries.
Any comparisons with Chernobyl are fatuous. The Japanese reactors are much better protected.
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/j ... byl-level/April 12, 2011
Japan's nuke threat level rises to Chernobyl level
Posted: 08:26 AM ET
Japanese authorities provisionally declared the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident a level 7 event on the international scale for nuclear disasters, putting the current crisis on par with the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl.
GAH!
Re: Meltdown! in Japan
Sue, one must actually read the articles to discern the truth of the matter.
To say that the threat level rises to Chernobyl level is more of a statement about the categorization than about the threat. If you define "power hitter" as anyone who hits more than 5 home runs a year, then Wade Boggs is in the same category as Babe Ruth. The point being, the category is so broadly-defined as to fail to make a meaningful distinction.
The Chernobyl incident resulted in NUCLEAR FUEL being exploded and vented to the atmosphere, creating a literally deadly situation for people both close to and far from the plant. Nothing even remotely like this has happened in Japan, even with the small breach of the containment vessel. Leaking water versus an explosion. Big difference.
As of this writing, not a single person has died or even gotten sick from exposure to radiation at any of the Japanese plants that were compromised. Indeed the workers who were in the headlines for a few days for having stood in radioactive water for several hours were BACK AT WORK THE FOLLOWING DAY, with no apparent ill effects.
I will gladly stand by what I have written before. 50 years from now, there will be no more than a handful, if any, people who were sickened or had their lives shortened by the effects of radiation, and these would be workers at the plants. Nobody in any of the surrounding populated areas.
The actual exposures have simply been too slight. Not even comparable to what a cancer patient when undergoing radiation therapy.
To say that the threat level rises to Chernobyl level is more of a statement about the categorization than about the threat. If you define "power hitter" as anyone who hits more than 5 home runs a year, then Wade Boggs is in the same category as Babe Ruth. The point being, the category is so broadly-defined as to fail to make a meaningful distinction.
The Chernobyl incident resulted in NUCLEAR FUEL being exploded and vented to the atmosphere, creating a literally deadly situation for people both close to and far from the plant. Nothing even remotely like this has happened in Japan, even with the small breach of the containment vessel. Leaking water versus an explosion. Big difference.
As of this writing, not a single person has died or even gotten sick from exposure to radiation at any of the Japanese plants that were compromised. Indeed the workers who were in the headlines for a few days for having stood in radioactive water for several hours were BACK AT WORK THE FOLLOWING DAY, with no apparent ill effects.
I will gladly stand by what I have written before. 50 years from now, there will be no more than a handful, if any, people who were sickened or had their lives shortened by the effects of radiation, and these would be workers at the plants. Nobody in any of the surrounding populated areas.
The actual exposures have simply been too slight. Not even comparable to what a cancer patient when undergoing radiation therapy.
Re: Meltdown! in Japan
The did suffer radiatuion burns DGS you're not following the news
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Meltdown! in Japan
That could be. I haven't been diligent about keeping up with each story. I even saw one item quoting one of the plant workers as being reconciled to a slow death from radiation sickness. With the protective gear they wear, the monitors, and whatnot, I think the guy was being melodramatic. Understandable, under the circumstances.
The last day or so, however, when I saw the comparisons with Chernobyl, it caught my attention. It is pure outrageous bullshit.
The last day or so, however, when I saw the comparisons with Chernobyl, it caught my attention. It is pure outrageous bullshit.
Re: Meltdown! in Japan
It is a valid (though very limited) comparison.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Meltdown! in Japan
Here is an excerpt from an article that actually tries to provide some coherent information:
So, is Fukushima really as bad as Chernobyl?
Fukushima and Chernobyl are the only two nuclear accidents to be rated at level 7. “Fukushima is a very, very serious incident but Chernobyl was a catastrophe,” said Professor Francis Livens, Research Director of the Dalton Nuclear Institute.
However, the Japanese and many experts are keen to point out key differences between the two incidents.
According to the IAEA, at Chernobyl in the Ukraine (then part of the Soviet Union) a combination of operator error, reactor design error and a lack of safety culture caused the reactor core to explode, releasing a huge amount of radioactive material into the atmosphere in a very short space of time.
This resulted in the permanent evacuation of a 30-km radius around the plant. There were 32 deaths among plant workers and firefighters, mostly due to radiation exposure, and the IAEA estimates another 4,000 will or have died of related cancers.
Although Fukushima experienced a relatively small hydrogen explosion at reactor No. 1, the reactors are largely intact and overall there has been a smaller leak of radiation over a longer period of time.
NISA on Tuesday said they now estimate that the Fukushima plant's reactors released up to 10,000 terabecquerels of radioactive iodine-131 per hour into the air for several hours after they were seriously damaged on March 11. And they estimate that up to 630,000 terabequerels has been estimated at the stricken plant which would classify the crisis at level 7. In comparison the Japanese government said the release from Chernobyl was 5.2 million terabecquerels.
Hidehiko Nishiyama, the chief spokesman for NISA said the amount of radiation released is a tenth of what was released at Chernobyl. Livens said: "Less radiation has been released and as a vague calculation it is 5 or 10% of that released at Chernobyl."
The level of radiation released is reflected in the health impact
Another difference between Fukushima and Chernobyl is that the Ukrainian plant had a higher density of people living near it. According to Malcolm Grimston, Associate Fellow for Energy, Environment and Development at London's Chatham House, the single biggest issue following the Chernobyl disaster was radioactive iodine getting into the thyroid gland and causing cancer. "At Chernobyl they had trouble getting hold of these tablets because it was such a poor area," he said.
Edano said: "What's different here from the Chernobyl accident is that WE HAVE NOT YET SEEN A DIRECT IMPACT ON THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE AS A RESULT OF THE NUCLEAR ACCIDENT. The accident itself is big, but we will make, as our first priority, our utmost effort to avoid any health impact on the people."
Let's see. I'm not actually keeping score here, but we are comparing ZERO deaths against FOUR THOUSAND PLUS DEATHS, and concluding that since both incidents were "Level 7" they were about the same. This reportage, without further clarification is rather fatuous and inflammatory. And as for the long-term effects, the history of Hiroshima and Nagasaki teaches that the projections of future cancer deaths were grossly overestimated, and undoubtedly will be so again in this case. The Anti-nukes have a lot more sway in the Media than people who actually know what the fuck they are talking about.
So, is Fukushima really as bad as Chernobyl?
Fukushima and Chernobyl are the only two nuclear accidents to be rated at level 7. “Fukushima is a very, very serious incident but Chernobyl was a catastrophe,” said Professor Francis Livens, Research Director of the Dalton Nuclear Institute.
However, the Japanese and many experts are keen to point out key differences between the two incidents.
According to the IAEA, at Chernobyl in the Ukraine (then part of the Soviet Union) a combination of operator error, reactor design error and a lack of safety culture caused the reactor core to explode, releasing a huge amount of radioactive material into the atmosphere in a very short space of time.
This resulted in the permanent evacuation of a 30-km radius around the plant. There were 32 deaths among plant workers and firefighters, mostly due to radiation exposure, and the IAEA estimates another 4,000 will or have died of related cancers.
Although Fukushima experienced a relatively small hydrogen explosion at reactor No. 1, the reactors are largely intact and overall there has been a smaller leak of radiation over a longer period of time.
NISA on Tuesday said they now estimate that the Fukushima plant's reactors released up to 10,000 terabecquerels of radioactive iodine-131 per hour into the air for several hours after they were seriously damaged on March 11. And they estimate that up to 630,000 terabequerels has been estimated at the stricken plant which would classify the crisis at level 7. In comparison the Japanese government said the release from Chernobyl was 5.2 million terabecquerels.
Hidehiko Nishiyama, the chief spokesman for NISA said the amount of radiation released is a tenth of what was released at Chernobyl. Livens said: "Less radiation has been released and as a vague calculation it is 5 or 10% of that released at Chernobyl."
The level of radiation released is reflected in the health impact
Another difference between Fukushima and Chernobyl is that the Ukrainian plant had a higher density of people living near it. According to Malcolm Grimston, Associate Fellow for Energy, Environment and Development at London's Chatham House, the single biggest issue following the Chernobyl disaster was radioactive iodine getting into the thyroid gland and causing cancer. "At Chernobyl they had trouble getting hold of these tablets because it was such a poor area," he said.
Edano said: "What's different here from the Chernobyl accident is that WE HAVE NOT YET SEEN A DIRECT IMPACT ON THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE AS A RESULT OF THE NUCLEAR ACCIDENT. The accident itself is big, but we will make, as our first priority, our utmost effort to avoid any health impact on the people."
Let's see. I'm not actually keeping score here, but we are comparing ZERO deaths against FOUR THOUSAND PLUS DEATHS, and concluding that since both incidents were "Level 7" they were about the same. This reportage, without further clarification is rather fatuous and inflammatory. And as for the long-term effects, the history of Hiroshima and Nagasaki teaches that the projections of future cancer deaths were grossly overestimated, and undoubtedly will be so again in this case. The Anti-nukes have a lot more sway in the Media than people who actually know what the fuck they are talking about.
Re: Meltdown! in Japan
What is fatuous is to compare death rates 1 month after Fukushima and many years after Chernobyl when the situation is weeks or months from being stabilized.
What Fukushima have proven is that nuclear power really is very dangerous even in a rich 1st world country whose population is more sensitized to the dangers of radioactivity than any other on earth. The costs of this disaster will at the very minimum be so large that any rational evaluation of the probable costs/benefits of nuclear power will be heavily shifted to the negative side.
A rational person living near San Onofre has reason not to sleep so well at night anymore.
yrs,
rubato
What Fukushima have proven is that nuclear power really is very dangerous even in a rich 1st world country whose population is more sensitized to the dangers of radioactivity than any other on earth. The costs of this disaster will at the very minimum be so large that any rational evaluation of the probable costs/benefits of nuclear power will be heavily shifted to the negative side.
A rational person living near San Onofre has reason not to sleep so well at night anymore.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Meltdown! in Japan
The difficulty in assessing the danger, both technically and emotionally, is that radiation is not "like" anything else. It is not like fire (which visibly burns,then burns out), a gas leak, an outbreak of disease or infection, a flood, or an earthquake. People don't know what to make of it, and journalists, on the whole, are more interested in writing a compelling story than dredging up real scientific information that might be - in the end - rather unremarkable.
We are constantly exposed to radiation from dozens of different sources, and it does no apparent harm. People at high altitudes experience much more than people at sea level. Is cancer more prevalent in Colorado? Among airline pilots and flight attendants? People in Tibet? These people are exposed to many times more radiation than people who spend their lives in the lowlands.
Scientists who study the effects of radiation have seen large populations that have had significant exposures (e.g., people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people downwind of Chernobyl), and the incidence of cancers related to radiation are much less than was originaly expected and/or feared. And in the Japanese cases, we have many thousands of people who lived into their 90's with no apparent long-term damage from what they experienced.
Regulatory agencies tend to be very conservative in setting limits on what plant workers and the public may be exposed to, and history indicates they are more stringent than necessary, as we now have nuclear workers who have worked daily in the plants for upwards of 40 years. But these regulations are NEVER scaled back in light of historical information. No regulator wants to be the one who will be blamed fifty years from now, when someone discovers that the "looser" standard actually resulted in a few early deaths. We have sailors in our "nuclear navy" who have spent decades sleeping within mere metres of nuclear reactors, and there has never been a single case of cancer traced to radiation exposure.
Most of the radioactive materials escaping from the plants in Japan have a very short half-life - a couple of days or weeks or months, after which the danger - such as it is - is gone. And if nobody was directly exposed, the effect is nothing at all. And that goes for contaminated fish, as well. It is not like a disease that one can catch from eating it.
A lot of nuclear paranoia is the result of ignorance that is fed by alarmists who themselves are experiencing and spreading irrational fears. The greatest example of American stupidity in this regard is the (hopefully temporary) abandonment of the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository in Nevada. We now have spent nuclear fuel stored at hundreds of different sites around the country, in various types of secure, but not permanent storage containers. Nobody believes that this is wise, although there is no imminent danger at any of the sites. The Yucca Mountain facility was prepared at a cost of billions of dollars, and from a technical standpoint, it GUARANTEES safe, underground storage of all the nuclear waste we will generate for decades for at least ten thousand years. It is only in the worst case scenarios that contaminated water could possibly reach any populated areas for thousands of years. And yet an army of fools and panderers have successfully demanded, in effect, that our spent fuel continue to be stored all over the country, in containment that is nowhere near as safe or secure as Yucca Mountain.
We have been successfully storing government and military nuclear waste in Hanford for decades, with the occasional hiccup, but again, not even a single human sickness ever reported. And Hanford is to Yucca Mountain what a Segway is to a Bullet Train.
Let's see...we don't want to burn fossil fuels, we don't want nukes, and any new Hydro we build will bring out the tree-huggers. Wind power will never be useful for baseload and will never be economically viable without massive government subsidies. Solar is an absurd waste of money, and is only useful in certain climates.
And yet, we want the lights to go on when we flip that switch.
Nuclear power could be a huge part of the solution, but for the irrational alarmists who insist on fighting it.
The combination of Acts of God that compromised the nuke plants in Japan will result in a financial cost that is almost incomprehensible. Almost as much as we waste on unconstitutional federal programs here in a typical year. But if this episode causes a major shift away from nuclear power in the U.S. and Western Europe, it will be an even bigger loss.
One may find it noteworthy that the Indians, the Chinese, the Russians, and the Brazilians have all reaffirmed their commitment to a nuclear future. The Germans...what can you say? Idiocy on steroids from people who are generally pretty smart.
We are constantly exposed to radiation from dozens of different sources, and it does no apparent harm. People at high altitudes experience much more than people at sea level. Is cancer more prevalent in Colorado? Among airline pilots and flight attendants? People in Tibet? These people are exposed to many times more radiation than people who spend their lives in the lowlands.
Scientists who study the effects of radiation have seen large populations that have had significant exposures (e.g., people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people downwind of Chernobyl), and the incidence of cancers related to radiation are much less than was originaly expected and/or feared. And in the Japanese cases, we have many thousands of people who lived into their 90's with no apparent long-term damage from what they experienced.
Regulatory agencies tend to be very conservative in setting limits on what plant workers and the public may be exposed to, and history indicates they are more stringent than necessary, as we now have nuclear workers who have worked daily in the plants for upwards of 40 years. But these regulations are NEVER scaled back in light of historical information. No regulator wants to be the one who will be blamed fifty years from now, when someone discovers that the "looser" standard actually resulted in a few early deaths. We have sailors in our "nuclear navy" who have spent decades sleeping within mere metres of nuclear reactors, and there has never been a single case of cancer traced to radiation exposure.
Most of the radioactive materials escaping from the plants in Japan have a very short half-life - a couple of days or weeks or months, after which the danger - such as it is - is gone. And if nobody was directly exposed, the effect is nothing at all. And that goes for contaminated fish, as well. It is not like a disease that one can catch from eating it.
A lot of nuclear paranoia is the result of ignorance that is fed by alarmists who themselves are experiencing and spreading irrational fears. The greatest example of American stupidity in this regard is the (hopefully temporary) abandonment of the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository in Nevada. We now have spent nuclear fuel stored at hundreds of different sites around the country, in various types of secure, but not permanent storage containers. Nobody believes that this is wise, although there is no imminent danger at any of the sites. The Yucca Mountain facility was prepared at a cost of billions of dollars, and from a technical standpoint, it GUARANTEES safe, underground storage of all the nuclear waste we will generate for decades for at least ten thousand years. It is only in the worst case scenarios that contaminated water could possibly reach any populated areas for thousands of years. And yet an army of fools and panderers have successfully demanded, in effect, that our spent fuel continue to be stored all over the country, in containment that is nowhere near as safe or secure as Yucca Mountain.
We have been successfully storing government and military nuclear waste in Hanford for decades, with the occasional hiccup, but again, not even a single human sickness ever reported. And Hanford is to Yucca Mountain what a Segway is to a Bullet Train.
Let's see...we don't want to burn fossil fuels, we don't want nukes, and any new Hydro we build will bring out the tree-huggers. Wind power will never be useful for baseload and will never be economically viable without massive government subsidies. Solar is an absurd waste of money, and is only useful in certain climates.
And yet, we want the lights to go on when we flip that switch.
Nuclear power could be a huge part of the solution, but for the irrational alarmists who insist on fighting it.
The combination of Acts of God that compromised the nuke plants in Japan will result in a financial cost that is almost incomprehensible. Almost as much as we waste on unconstitutional federal programs here in a typical year. But if this episode causes a major shift away from nuclear power in the U.S. and Western Europe, it will be an even bigger loss.
One may find it noteworthy that the Indians, the Chinese, the Russians, and the Brazilians have all reaffirmed their commitment to a nuclear future. The Germans...what can you say? Idiocy on steroids from people who are generally pretty smart.
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: Meltdown! in Japan
We're having a similar conforontation with cell towers here on Long Island. Everyone wants(DEMANDS) thier call go through but any time some town wants to allow a cell tower within it's jusrisdiction, the NIMBY's are out in force.And yet, we want the lights to go on when we flip that switch.
There was a country club around here and they were going to rent land on the course for one of the carriers to put up a tower. It would be far off the greens and barely noticed. A couple of the memebers lobbied against it and kept it from being built. The carrier ended up building it on private land about 50 feet from where the country club was going to allow it to be built.
Re: Meltdown! in Japan
BANANA
Build
Absolutely
Nothing
Anywhere
Near
Anybody
We have the same thing here now with armies of local piss-ants refusing to grant drilling permits to the companies who want to drill for shale gas. One would hardly know that people have been drilling for petroleum in Western PA for 150 years, and SOMEHOW, we are still able to drink water from our water wells.
Water table: 100ft
Shale deposits: 5,000ft plus.
Build
Absolutely
Nothing
Anywhere
Near
Anybody
We have the same thing here now with armies of local piss-ants refusing to grant drilling permits to the companies who want to drill for shale gas. One would hardly know that people have been drilling for petroleum in Western PA for 150 years, and SOMEHOW, we are still able to drink water from our water wells.
Water table: 100ft
Shale deposits: 5,000ft plus.
-
quaddriver
- Posts: 759
- Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 4:40 am
- Location: Wherever the man sends me
- Contact:
Re: Meltdown! in Japan
actually, the problem is fracking.dgs49 wrote:BANANA
Build
Absolutely
Nothing
Anywhere
Near
Anybody
We have the same thing here now with armies of local piss-ants refusing to grant drilling permits to the companies who want to drill for shale gas. One would hardly know that people have been drilling for petroleum in Western PA for 150 years, and SOMEHOW, we are still able to drink water from our water wells.
Water table: 100ft
Shale deposits: 5,000ft plus.
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: Meltdown! in Japan
Can we keep the obscenities to a minimum.quaddriver wrote:
actually, the problem is fracking.
Actually, I have been reading about the process. The real problem I have with it is the chemical mixture the companies use to "break up" the shale. Not one will give you the info as it's a company secret. So you don't know if what is being used will rise (lighter than water, thus possibly making it to the water table) or not.
I would want some kind of full (or at least fuller than they give out now) disclosure.
-
Grim Reaper
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm
Re: Meltdown! in Japan
Using a different method to extract a different material results in a different problem.One would hardly know that people have been drilling for petroleum in Western PA for 150 years, and SOMEHOW, we are still able to drink water from our water wells.
Re: Meltdown! in Japan
You're right, I've never heard of one dust explosion in the oil mines.
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: Meltdown! in Japan
Haven't there been flour explosions?
Re: Meltdown! in Japan
Yes.oldr_n_wsr wrote:Haven't there been flour explosions?
Wheat is a very dangerous cargo in shipping because of the danger of explosions/fires. There have also been devastating explosions/fires in grain elevators.
Fine particles in general are very hazardous because of the high surface area. Metallic dust can ignite as well. We have to use special precautions if someone is using Aluminum powder wheres aluminum solids are not hazardous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_elev ... explosions
Elevator explosions
Given a large enough suspension of combustible flour or grain dust in the air, a significant explosion can occur. A famous historical example of the destructive power of grain explosions is the 1878 explosion of the Washburn "A" Mill in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which killed eighteen, leveled two nearby mills, damaged many others and caused a destructive fire that gutted much of the nearby milling district. (The Washburn "A" mill was later rebuilt and continued to be used until it was shut down in 1965.) Another example occurred in 1998, when the DeBruce grain elevator in Wichita, Kansas exploded and killed seven people.[23]
Almost any finely-divided organic substance becomes an explosive material when dispersed as an air suspension; hence, a very fine flour is dangerously explosive in air suspension. This poses a significant risk when milling grain to produce flour, so mills go to great lengths to remove sources of sparks. These measures include carefully sifting the grain before it is milled or ground to remove stones which could strike sparks from the millstones, and the use of magnets to remove metallic debris able to strike sparks.
The earliest recorded flour explosion took place in an Italian mill in 1785, but there have been many since. The following two references give numbers of recorded flour and dust explosions in the USA in 1994[24] and 1997.[25] In the ten year period up to and including 1997, there were 129 explosions.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/ ... 7170.shtml
"Cleanliness is next to Godliness" In this case non-cleanliness will get you into the next life a lot quicker.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Meltdown! in Japan
that's how fireworks get their pretty colorsrubato wrote: Metallic dust can ignite as well.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.