Nuclear Meltdown?
Mar 16th 2011 | 12:39 pm
#331
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 41,517
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Mar 16th 2011 | 12:40 pm
#332
Greetings Traveller
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 278
From: Sydney
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Make all the world become Amish & then we won't need electricity from the grid! It does have a certain olde worlde charm
Mar 16th 2011 | 1:06 pm
#334
BE Site Lead
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 92,276
From: MA, USA
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Sure, it's shit when the shit happens, but there are still significantly less illnesses and deaths from a nuclear plant than compared to other sources of power generation.
Making power is risky business, but the ones no one care about kill far more people and do far more damage to health and the environment.
Mar 16th 2011 | 1:07 pm
#335
You sip .... I glug !!!
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,790
From: Over the hill!
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
That's just reminded me of an email I got sent the other day (attached as a text file)
Mar 16th 2011 | 1:31 pm
#336
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 308
From: Kent to Central coast
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
The text message, also circulating in China, Hong Kong and the Philippines, is billed as a "newsflash" from a major news organisation and urges Asian residents to "take precautions" including sheltering indoors and swabbing the thyroid region of the neck with iodine.
Malaysia's Health Minister Liow Tiong Lai dismissed the purported warning as "nonsense", saying there was "no need to apply such solutions to the neck and private parts."
Saw this in" The Australian".
First time I have laughed about anything to do with this whole situation
Malaysia's Health Minister Liow Tiong Lai dismissed the purported warning as "nonsense", saying there was "no need to apply such solutions to the neck and private parts."
Saw this in" The Australian".
First time I have laughed about anything to do with this whole situation
Mar 16th 2011 | 1:32 pm
#337
You sip .... I glug !!!
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,790
From: Over the hill!
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
AI have a question,I see that you, and a couple of others on here are pretty hot on all this (maybe not the best phrase to use right now ), but I was listening to one of the many experts that CNN have hiding in the woodwork. He was saying that as time goes on it is getting slightly easier to keep the reactors cool, as in it was slightly easier today than it was on Sat. Am I right in thinking this? So as time goes on it will be easier to keep them cool, so preventing a meltdown. Would like to go to bed tonight feeling a little more hopeful that an end is in sight,make that a good end, so all those poor people caught up in all this hell,can move forward......
I feel a Gillard moment coming on
), but I was listening to one of the many experts that CNN have hiding in the woodwork. He was saying that as time goes on it is getting slightly easier to keep the reactors cool, as in it was slightly easier today than it was on Sat. Am I right in thinking this? So as time goes on it will be easier to keep them cool, so preventing a meltdown. Would like to go to bed tonight feeling a little more hopeful that an end is in sight,make that a good end, so all those poor people caught up in all this hell,can move forward......I feel a Gillard moment coming onSorry - I missed this post last night. Must have been more tired than I thought.
To answer your question - its both yes and no.
Yes, as time goes by its generally easier to keep the reactors cool but thats assuming you have a stable power source for the cooling water systems.
Unfortunately at Fukushima they dont have stable power sources at the moment so they are bring the temps down but then power goes and the temps start creeping back up then they bring it down again and then lose power agina etc etc....
They still seem to be on top of it at the moment but it does appear to be getting harder for them as there are more and more areas that are needing "juggled".
If they can get the new power line in fast (and they seem to be close to completing it) then it will all be over in a day or so I reckon, but if they cant, then the situation could linger for a week or more.(just my opinion)
Mar 16th 2011 | 1:35 pm
#338
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 308
From: Kent to Central coast
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Sorry - I missed this post last night. Must have been more tired than I thought.
To answer your question - its both yes and no.
Yes, as time goes by its generally easier to keep the reactors cool but thats assuming you have a stable power source for the cooling water systems.
Unfortunately at Fukushima they dont have stable power sources at the moment so they are bring the temps down but then power goes and the temps start creeping back up then they bring it down again and then lose power agina etc etc....
They still seem to be on top of it at the moment but it does appear to be getting harder for them as there are more and more areas that are needing "juggled".
If they can get the new power line in fast (and they seem to be close to completing it) then it will all be over in a day or so I reckon, but if they cant, then the situation could linger for a week or more.(just my opinion)
To answer your question - its both yes and no.
Yes, as time goes by its generally easier to keep the reactors cool but thats assuming you have a stable power source for the cooling water systems.
Unfortunately at Fukushima they dont have stable power sources at the moment so they are bring the temps down but then power goes and the temps start creeping back up then they bring it down again and then lose power agina etc etc....
They still seem to be on top of it at the moment but it does appear to be getting harder for them as there are more and more areas that are needing "juggled".
If they can get the new power line in fast (and they seem to be close to completing it) then it will all be over in a day or so I reckon, but if they cant, then the situation could linger for a week or more.(just my opinion)
Thank you for the reply. Hope they do decide to get that new power line in
Mar 16th 2011 | 1:37 pm
#339
You sip .... I glug !!!
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,790
From: Over the hill!
Mar 16th 2011 | 2:27 pm
#341
Rhino with a big horn!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,117
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Yes, potassium Iodine (KI) tablets have a reasonable level of success at retarding the effects of radiation sickness, and if there is any possibility that somebody has been exposed to levels above those that start to reduce the white blood cell count, then it is a wise precaution to take them. It works by providing the body with a stable source of iodine, instead of using radioactive iodine from a potentially polluted environment, which can build up in the thyroid.
In the case of the US, people are taking them and there is no evidence that any radiation has, or is likely to make it as far as their mainland. It is possible that some may make it to the Hawaiian islands, but this will all depend on how much is released, wind direction etc etc, and will take many days to get there. Guzzling KI tablets down if you're in Utah, however, is just a ridiculous response.
S
In the case of the US, people are taking them and there is no evidence that any radiation has, or is likely to make it as far as their mainland. It is possible that some may make it to the Hawaiian islands, but this will all depend on how much is released, wind direction etc etc, and will take many days to get there. Guzzling KI tablets down if you're in Utah, however, is just a ridiculous response.
S
As for the US I agree that it would be silly to be guzzling tablets. Are there any reports of this actually happening? As for people who are a few miles away from the plant then it wouldn't have been so silly.
Mar 16th 2011 | 2:36 pm
#342
You sip .... I glug !!!
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,790
From: Over the hill!
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
I knew the first bit but thanks for reminding me. My brother had to take some once for that reason.
As for the US I agree that it would be silly to be guzzling tablets. Are there any reports of this actually happening? As for people who are a few miles away from the plant then it wouldn't have been so silly.
As for the US I agree that it would be silly to be guzzling tablets. Are there any reports of this actually happening? As for people who are a few miles away from the plant then it wouldn't have been so silly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12765401
I assume this was what Brissy-bee was refering to yesterday.
Mar 16th 2011 | 2:37 pm
#343
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Looks like operations within the plant have been abandoned as too dangerous. Now relying on air drops and water cannon to try and cool things.
Mar 16th 2011 | 2:39 pm
#344
Rhino with a big horn!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,117
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12765401
I assume this was what Brissy-bee was refering to yesterday.
I assume this was what Brissy-bee was refering to yesterday.
Last edited by Rambi; Mar 16th 2011 at 2:43 pm.
Mar 16th 2011 | 2:46 pm
#345
You sip .... I glug !!!
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,790
From: Over the hill!
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Some fun radiation statistics
(sources: www.epa.gov, www.nrc.gov, www.nejm.org & UI Health dept)
Eating one banana = Single dose of 0.0001 millisieverts (mSv)
Dental radiography = Single dose of 0.005 mSv
Mammogram = Single dose of 3 mSv
Living near (within 50 miles of) a nuclear power station = 0.00009 mSv/year
Living near a coal power station = 0.003 mSv/year
Air Travel = 0.01 mSv per 1000 miles
Porcelain teeth or crowns = 0.2 mSv/year (Note: This is because Uranium is often added to increase whiteness and florescence)
Cosmic radiation at sea level = 0.24 mSv/year
Terrestrial radiation = 0.28 mSv/year
Typical individual's natural background radiation = 2 mSv/year; (1.5 mSv/year for Australians, 2.5 mSv/year for British, 3 mSv/year for Amerians; Background radiation in parts of Iran, India and Europe = 50 mSv/year)
Smoking 1.5 packs/day = 13 mSv/year
And finally from HERE
Radiation levels in parts of the US Capitol building are about 55 times higher than levels standing at the fence line of a US nuclear plant.
Oh and did you know that Brazil nuts are the world’s most radioactive food? (Source)
(sources: www.epa.gov, www.nrc.gov, www.nejm.org & UI Health dept)
Eating one banana = Single dose of 0.0001 millisieverts (mSv)
Dental radiography = Single dose of 0.005 mSv
Mammogram = Single dose of 3 mSv
Living near (within 50 miles of) a nuclear power station = 0.00009 mSv/year
Living near a coal power station = 0.003 mSv/year
Air Travel = 0.01 mSv per 1000 miles
Porcelain teeth or crowns = 0.2 mSv/year (Note: This is because Uranium is often added to increase whiteness and florescence)
Cosmic radiation at sea level = 0.24 mSv/year
Terrestrial radiation = 0.28 mSv/year
Typical individual's natural background radiation = 2 mSv/year; (1.5 mSv/year for Australians, 2.5 mSv/year for British, 3 mSv/year for Amerians; Background radiation in parts of Iran, India and Europe = 50 mSv/year)
Smoking 1.5 packs/day = 13 mSv/year
And finally from HERE
Radiation levels in parts of the US Capitol building are about 55 times higher than levels standing at the fence line of a US nuclear plant.
Oh and did you know that Brazil nuts are the world’s most radioactive food? (Source)
