Nuclear Meltdown?
Mar 16th 2011 | 2:56 pm
#346
Thread Starter
Mostly Harmless
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,111
From: Semi-rural wonderworld, Brisbane
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)
I always thought the most radioactive food was that coloured popcorn you can buy.
Mar 16th 2011 | 6:18 pm
#348
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,400
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
It's not just domestic energy generation that is the problem. Though there is lots of it needed, you would be unlikely to be able to power an aluminium smelting works using batches of cyclists. For this sort of heavy industrial application, you need a reliable baseload supply.
S
S
Lots of them.
Mar 16th 2011 | 8:47 pm
#350
snÉןɔ ʎʇıuÉs
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,558
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Why not have eco friendly cycle farms or stations, we all get on at some stage throughout the day do 20 minutes each and add to the national grids power input, simple
The only explotion then would probably be from the pro nuclear camp about how much land would be taken up by such a venture
The only explotion then would probably be from the pro nuclear camp about how much land would be taken up by such a venture
It's not just domestic energy generation that is the problem. Though there is lots of it needed, you would be unlikely to be able to power an aluminium smelting works using batches of cyclists. For this sort of heavy industrial application, you need a reliable baseload supply.
Mar 16th 2011 | 9:18 pm
#351
Rhino with a big horn!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,117
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
You'll probably appreciate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C93cL_zDVIM
Mar 16th 2011 | 11:09 pm
#352
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,359
From: Gold Coast Hinterland
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
I haven't read the whole thread 
but here are some statistics
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
Source http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/low...t-hour-for.htm
And
But what about Chernobyl ?
The World Health Organization study in 2005 indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl. 4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous.
He explains that there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents."
Averaging about 2100 TWh from 1985-2005 or a total of 42,000 TWh. So those 50 deaths would be 0.0012 deaths/TWh. If those possible 4000 deaths occur over the next 25 years, then with 2800 TWh being assumed average for 2005 through 2030, then it would be 4000 deaths over 112,000 TWh generated over 45 years or 0.037 deaths/TWh. There are no reactors in existence that are as unsafe as the Chernobyl reactor was. Even the eight of that type that exist have containment domes and operate with lower void co-efficients.
Source http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/dea...gy-source.html
but here are some statisticsEnergy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
Source http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/low...t-hour-for.htm
And
But what about Chernobyl ?
The World Health Organization study in 2005 indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl. 4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous.
He explains that there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents."
Averaging about 2100 TWh from 1985-2005 or a total of 42,000 TWh. So those 50 deaths would be 0.0012 deaths/TWh. If those possible 4000 deaths occur over the next 25 years, then with 2800 TWh being assumed average for 2005 through 2030, then it would be 4000 deaths over 112,000 TWh generated over 45 years or 0.037 deaths/TWh. There are no reactors in existence that are as unsafe as the Chernobyl reactor was. Even the eight of that type that exist have containment domes and operate with lower void co-efficients.
Source http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/dea...gy-source.html
Mar 16th 2011 | 11:58 pm
#353
You sip .... I glug !!!
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,790
From: Over the hill!
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
I haven't read the whole thread but here are some statistics
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
Source http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/low...t-hour-for.htm
And
But what about Chernobyl ?
The World Health Organization study in 2005 indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl. 4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous.
He explains that there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents."
Averaging about 2100 TWh from 1985-2005 or a total of 42,000 TWh. So those 50 deaths would be 0.0012 deaths/TWh. If those possible 4000 deaths occur over the next 25 years, then with 2800 TWh being assumed average for 2005 through 2030, then it would be 4000 deaths over 112,000 TWh generated over 45 years or 0.037 deaths/TWh. There are no reactors in existence that are as unsafe as the Chernobyl reactor was. Even the eight of that type that exist have containment domes and operate with lower void co-efficients.
Source http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/dea...gy-source.html
but here are some statisticsEnergy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
Source http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/low...t-hour-for.htm
And
But what about Chernobyl ?
The World Health Organization study in 2005 indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl. 4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous.
He explains that there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents."
Averaging about 2100 TWh from 1985-2005 or a total of 42,000 TWh. So those 50 deaths would be 0.0012 deaths/TWh. If those possible 4000 deaths occur over the next 25 years, then with 2800 TWh being assumed average for 2005 through 2030, then it would be 4000 deaths over 112,000 TWh generated over 45 years or 0.037 deaths/TWh. There are no reactors in existence that are as unsafe as the Chernobyl reactor was. Even the eight of that type that exist have containment domes and operate with lower void co-efficients.
Source http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/dea...gy-source.html
Just to clarify for those that dont know:
TWh = terawatt hour. It corresponds to 1,000,000,000,000 Watts per hour. It is the amount of energy that would be produced by a 1,000,000 MW generator over a period of one hour, or a 114 MW generator over a period of approximately one year.
(If you knew this already then just ignore it please).
Mar 17th 2011 | 12:05 am
#354
Not actually a squirrel
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,446
From: England
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Did I mention just how stupid nuclear energy is?
Mar 17th 2011 | 12:22 am
#355
You sip .... I glug !!!
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,790
From: Over the hill!
Mar 17th 2011 | 12:29 am
#357
(It's not my real name)
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 12,469
From: Ilukapool. WA
Mar 17th 2011 | 12:49 am
#358
Banned
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 22,348
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Just thinking about the poor souls who are getting up close to the reacters to try and prevent a full scale meltdown. They are surely sacrificing their lives by doing this to help others 
Mar 17th 2011 | 1:27 am
#359
Thread Starter
Mostly Harmless
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,111
From: Semi-rural wonderworld, Brisbane
Mar 17th 2011 | 1:54 am
#360
You sip .... I glug !!!
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,790
From: Over the hill!
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
I wonder if the Japanese Govt will set up a fund to take care of them and their families after all this is over? I hope so.
