The end of the empire of Japan

[TimG]

We are dealing with uranium, plutonium, cesium. Specifically the types of radiation from 3 nuclear reactor meltdowns.

Which we have established is basically the same as the radiation from a banana. Why can't you accept that radiation is radiation and the only question is the dose? People who try to enter the Fukushima reactor buildings will suffer severe effects because the dose is high. The water spilling into the Pacific will be so diluted that the dose may not even be detectable which would make the banana much worse. Edited January 17, 2014 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

Your focus on the banana is great, but we are not dealing with K-40. We are dealing with uranium, plutonium, cesium. Specifically the types of radiation from 3 nuclear reactor meltdowns.

They all give off MeV gamma and beta radiation. Radiation is radiation, stop trying to pretend that radiation from K-40 is somehow special.

The radiation from Fukushima is more than just your background radiation.

Yeah, it's a 0.022% increase in radioactivity over background levels if you spread it over the surface of the pacific ocean. Though if you account for the fact that the majority of the Radioactive isotopes are at the bottom of the ocean then it is far less.

The banana analogy is a joke.

Your refusal to simply acknowledge that it's just a question of 'how much radiation' is a joke.

[GostHacked]

They all give off MeV gamma and beta radiation. Radiation is radiation, stop trying to pretend that radiation from K-40 is somehow special.

Have you been paying attention to what has been going on there? You realize this is uncharted territory.

Alpha particles can be stopped by skin and clothes. Beta much of the same. Gamma goes much deeper, and that is the difference between types of radiation. Anyone claiming that 'radiation is radiation' is simply misleading people.

Yeah, it's a 0.022% increase in radioactivity over background levels if you spread it over the surface of the pacific ocean. Though if you account for the fact that the majority of the Radioactive isotopes are at the bottom of the ocean then it is far less.

It's a little more than that dude.

Your refusal to simply acknowledge that it's just a question of 'how much radiation' is a joke.

The amount sure matters. And we have had radioactive waste in many forms from this plant in the last three years. Three core meltdowns, one melt through, containment vessels compromised. Fuel rods blow to bits all over Fukushima Prefecture when #3 went up in a big puff of radioactive smoke. Waste water leaking. The water treatment plant has had issues. Running out of places to build these metal containers that are bolted together. Over 1000 of these things apparently all holding radioactive water. They are trying to convince people that they are removing fuel rods from #4. Ain't happening. Nothing to remove. Fuel pools leaked, rods were exposed to the air instantly reacting. Another interesting thing about #4 is that there was no fuel in the core, but yet it melted down. Seems kind of odd. If they claim they took the core out of the reactor and stored it in the fuel pool, can a reactor meltdown with out fuel?

If you want to talk about the amount of radiation, I am there. Fukushima has it in spades.

[-1=e^ipi]

Alpha particles can be stopped by skin and clothes. Beta much of the same. Gamma goes much deeper, and that is the difference between types of radiation. Anyone claiming that 'radiation is radiation' is simply misleading people.

Lol, okay keep trying to tell the person with a physics degree your newly discovered knowledge. Cause clearly I had no idea there were different types of radiation. *sarcasm*

How is your non-sense claim that K-40 emits alpha particles going?

It's a little more than that dude.

So a video where a guy goes to the beach and finds that the radiation levels are slightly above background (though he also found many places with below background radiation levels) is supposed to convince me?

Background radiation varies from place to place. What were the radiation levels in 2010? You need something to compare what we have in 2013 to. Your approach as well as that guy in the video to fukushima isn't scientific it is dogmatic.

[GostHacked]

Lol, okay keep trying to tell the person with a physics degree your newly discovered knowledge. Cause clearly I had no idea there were different types of radiation. *sarcasm*

How is your non-sense claim that K-40 emits alpha particles going?

I corrected that and admitted I was wrong. Let's move on shall we?

So a video where a guy goes to the beach and finds that the radiation levels are slightly above background (though he also found many places with below background radiation levels) is supposed to convince me?

There are many vids like this on YT some I trust. You are working hard to try and debunk everything I have put forth. Workin very hard.

Background radiation varies from place to place. What were the radiation levels in 2010? You need something to compare what we have in 2013 to. Your approach as well as that guy in the video to fukushima isn't scientific it is dogmatic.

Bout as dogmatic as the bull coming from TECPO and Japan.

[TimG]

Bout as dogmatic as the bull coming from TECPO and Japan.

You are simply refusing to address the point. It is NOT enough to show that radiation is leaking from the site. You must show that the amount of radiation leaking is large enough to care about once it is diluted in the huge volume of the pacific ocean. None of your videos or links do that. They all try to claim that either 'radiation is worse when it comes from nuclear plants rather than natural sources' or that 'any detectable amount of radiation is dangerous'. Both claims have been repeatedly shown to be false yet you refuse to acknowledge that.

[GostHacked]

I could post you a lot of stuff, but you are going to be at your PC for a few days.

Enjoy your cancers.

[TimG]

I could post you a lot of stuff, but you are going to be at your PC for a few days.

That is not answer.

If you actually have arguments to support the claims that 'radiation is worse when it comes from nuclear plants rather than natural sources' or that 'any detectable amount of radiation is dangerous' then you should be able to express it succinctly.

Note that your posts about alpha/beta/gamma radiation don't address the issue because natural sources like bananas emit beta and gamma rays. They also miss the point that the differences don't matter much if you ingest the material because the ability to shield your body from the radiation becomes irrelevant.

Edited January 18, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

A good debunking of the latest fear mongering about radiation:

Local scientific testing of seafood is being done. A team of scientists from Oregon State University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association tested 70 pounds of tuna caught off the U.S. west coast and found trace amounts of Fukushima radiation, but “nowhere near enough to be concerned about food safety.”

OSU’s Delvan Neville, a co-investigator on the project said: “To increase their normal annual dosage of radiation by just one per cent, a person would have to eat more than 4,000 pounds of the highest (radiation) level albacore we’ve seen.”

http://www.theprovince.com/news/safe+sushi+answers+your+questions+about+fukushima+radiation/9401912/story.html Edited January 21, 2014 by TimG

[GostHacked]

So it seems that the amount of K-40 in a banana compared to overall potassium is negligible. So much so it renders this banana analogy as useless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-40

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

The validity of the banana equivalent dose concept has been challenged. Critics, including the EPA,[9] pointed out that the amount of potassium (and therefore of 40K) in the human body is fairly constant because of homeostasis,[10] so that any excess absorbed from food is quickly compensated by the elimination of an equal amount.[1][11]

And the more important thing to note is 'homeostasis'.

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

This means your body does what it can naturally to balance out the effects of potassium and essentially negating the effects of K-40. The potassium is also distributed through the body evenly. It's also misleading people into possibly thinking all potassium is k-40 when only a very small percentage of potassium is k-40.

The BED is bunk.

[-1=e^ipi]

I corrected that and admitted I was wrong. Let's move on shall we?

Alright. Whether you admit it or not, I think that I've informed you about radioactivity, so my job here is done.

There are many vids like this on YT some I trust. You are working hard to try and debunk everything I have put forth. Workin very hard.

Some guy wondering around on the beach and finding some locations of slightly above average background radiation (as well as areas of slightly below average background radiation) isn't exactly convincing...

Bout as dogmatic as the bull coming from TECPO and Japan.

Yeah TECPO lied. That is really, really unfortunate and it makes the entire nuclear industry look bad. Though I wonder how much this lying has to do with the japanese culture (like I'm doubtful a nuclear plant in say Canada or France would lie like TECPO did).

[TimG]

Though I wonder how much this lying has to do with the Japanese culture

Nothing. Japanese expect leaders to take responsibility for failures:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/opinion/08iht-edazimi.html

The Japanese propensity for taking personal responsibility for failure, frequently misunderstood by Westerners as contrived or insincere, is in fact deeply embedded in their psyche. Fosco Maraini, the intrepid Italian anthropologist, wrote in his memoir “Meeting with Japan” that even if the term Bushido — translated as “the Way of the Samurai” — is no longer practiced in daily life, the nucleus of traditional ideas such as honor and self-sacrifice continue to influence Japanese politics, business and family life.

(like I'm doubtful a nuclear plant in say Canada or France would lie like TECPO did).

Can you be specific? There is a difference between lying and choosing the report the most optimistic (even if unlikely) scenarios given the uncertainties involved at any point in time. Edited January 22, 2014 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

So it seems that the amount of K-40 in a banana compared to overall potassium is negligible. So much so it renders this banana analogy as useless.

120 ppm isn't negligible.

And the more important thing to note is 'homeostasis'.

I'm unconvinced by the homeostasis arguement with respect to gamma ray radiation. If you want to convince me otherwise then you will need to provide more justification, preferably referencing some physiological processes that would either counteract or take advantage of this natural radiation.

K-40 radiation is damaging to cells and to life, but given that life on this planet has to use potassium, it has no choice. If you were to raise a human in a 0 ppm K-40 environment it would be healthier and age slower than a human that is raised in a 120 ppm K-40 environment.

[-1=e^ipi]

No.

Can you be specific. There is a difference between lying and choosing the report the most optimistic (even if unlikely) scenarios given the uncertainties involved.

Idk, they sort of lied about the severity of the situation right before and during the partial meltdowns of the reactor cores.

http://rt.com/news/tepco-address-lying-governor-879/

It wasn't that they simply reported a scenario that they thought was accurate, but turned out false/inaccurate. The people at TEPCO intentionally lied to the public in order to keep 'social order'.

With respect to the Japanese culture, I was refering to the fact in Japanese culture it is not uncommon to lie in order to not hurt someone's feelings and/or offend them and there is a strong emphasis on social order and conformity. It is not unreasonable in Japanese culture to not tell the truth about the reactors in order to maintain social order and not alarm anyone. However, in the context of Western culture, or even Korean culture such a scenario of lying to the public is less likely.

[TimG]

It wasn't that they simply reported a scenario that they thought was accurate, but turned out false/inaccurate. The people at TEPCO intentionally lied to the public in order to keep 'social order'.

I don't see this as necessarily wrong given the amount of gross misinformation spread by nuclear-phobes. i.e. a meltdown is not necessarily a serious problem if the reactor has been shut down, yet saying there was a meltdown could cause panic because people think it means a total catastrophe. It comes down to question of whether the misinformation put people in danger. That said, the misinformation ended up damaging the credibility of the nuclear power in general so it would have been better if they were up front.

With respect to the Japanese culture, I was refering to the fact in Japanese culture it is not uncommon to lie in order to not hurt someone's feelings and/or offend them and there is a strong emphasis on social order and conformity.

At personal level people will avoid staying things that create conflict but I have not seen any evidence that Japanese business leaders/politicians are more likely to lie/cover up problems than those here. This comes from living there and speaking the language. Edited January 22, 2014 by TimG

[Bonam]

K-40 radiation is damaging to cells and to life, but given that life on this planet has to use potassium, it has no choice. If you were to raise a human in a 0 ppm K-40 environment it would be healthier and age slower than a human that is raised in a 120 ppm K-40 environment.

The evolution of life on Earth is enabled by the presence of natural background radiation, including both solar radiation as well as radiation from the decay of radioisotopes found on Earth. DNA mutation rates without any background radiation would be significantly lower, slowing evolution. Over the long term, life benefits from some level of radiation.

The DNA of all organisms on Earth evolved in a radiation environment comparable to the one we have now, and the systems our cell nuclei have in place (redundancy, error checking, etc) to protect against mutation are adapted accordingly. If radiation over the last few hundred million years was much higher than it is now, then it is likely our DNA would have more robust protections against errors and mutations.

[-1=e^ipi]

That said, the misinformation ended up damaging the credibility of the nuclear power in general so it would have been better if they were up front.

This is why it would be better if they were truthful from the beginning.

At personal level people will avoid staying things that create conflict but I have not seen any evidence that Japanese business leaders/politicians are more likely to lie/cover up problems than those here. This comes from living there and speaking the language.

Discussing this would probably require a seperate thread and would ultimately contain many generalizations. Also, there is a difference between lying / covering up problems for personal gain / corrupt reasons rather than reasons for society as a whole as well as a huge difference between individuals in positions of power and those that are subordinate.

[-1=e^ipi]

The evolution of life on Earth is enabled by the presence of natural background radiation, including both solar radiation as well as radiation from the decay of radioisotopes found on Earth. DNA mutation rates without any background radiation would be significantly lower, slowing evolution. Over the long term, life benefits from some level of radiation.

The rate of evolution argument I agree with, but it doesn't mean that an organism would perform better in a 120 ppm K-40 environment over a 0 ppm K-40 environment.

The DNA of all organisms on Earth evolved in a radiation environment comparable to the one we have now, and the systems our cell nuclei have in place (redundancy, error checking, etc) to protect against mutation are adapted accordingly. If radiation over the last few hundred million years was much higher than it is now, then it is likely our DNA would have more robust protections against errors and mutations.

Indeed life has evolved adaptations to deal with radiation levels, but that doesn't mean natural radation levels are beneficial. Similarly, life has evolved adaptations to deal with deadly viruses, but that doesn't mean deadly viruses are beneficial.

[Bonam]

The rate of evolution argument I agree with, but it doesn't mean that an organism would perform better in a 120 ppm K-40 environment over a 0 ppm K-40 environment.

Not beneficial to an individual organism, I agree, but beneficial to life as a whole. That being said, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some species on Earth somewhere whose individual members actually benefited from/required the existing radiation levels. Life has evolved to exploit pretty much all existing ambient phenomena on Earth and I suspect that radiation is no exception.

One example is the organisms that survive off of the heat of undersea thermal vents. The heat of these vents originates from the radioactive decay of heavy elements in the Earth's interior... that is, results from an environment with a non-zero ppm concentration of radioactive materials. These species would die out if not for the presence of radioisotopes. That of course is an indirect example... using the heat resulting from radioactive decay. But I'm sure with some research one may well be able to find a species that directly utilizes the effects of ionizing radiation (if not on Earth, then somewhere else).

[-1=e^ipi]

Not beneficial to an individual organism, I agree, but beneficial to life as a whole. That being said, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some species on Earth somewhere whose individual members actually benefited from/required the existing radiation levels. Life has evolved to exploit pretty much all existing ambient phenomena on Earth and I suspect that radiation is no exception.

One example is the organisms that survive off of the heat of undersea thermal vents. The heat of these vents originates from the radioactive decay of heavy elements in the Earth's interior... that is, results from an environment with a non-zero ppm concentration of radioactive materials. These species would die out if not for the presence of radioisotopes. That of course is an indirect example... using the heat resulting from radioactive decay. But I'm sure with some research one may well be able to find a species that directly utilizes the effects of ionizing radiation (if not on Earth, then somewhere else).

Maybe, but my intention was to refer more specifically to its effects on humans (or other vertebrates) in the short run. In the case of a human, I think that humans would be better off in a K-40 free environment (less damage to cells so slower aging and longer life expectancy).

[Bonam]

Maybe, but my intention was to refer more specifically to its effects on humans (or other vertebrates) in the short run. In the case of a human, I think that humans would be better off in a K-40 free environment (less damage to cells so slower aging and longer life expectancy).

That is likely correct.

[GostHacked]

120 ppm isn't negligible.

I'm unconvinced by the homeostasis arguement with respect to gamma ray radiation. If you want to convince me otherwise then you will need to provide more justification, preferably referencing some physiological processes that would either counteract or take advantage of this natural radiation.

That's just it, this is natural radiation. And really cannot be avoided.

K-40 radiation is damaging to cells and to life, but given that life on this planet has to use potassium, it has no choice. If you were to raise a human in a 0 ppm K-40 environment it would be healthier and age slower than a human that is raised in a 120 ppm K-40 environment.

Right. We have no choice. We do have a choice and really an obligation not to add to the background radiation. It will take TEPCO half my life expectancy to try and resolve this issue. And still the place will be more contaminated and for much longer than Chernobyl ever will.

It's a scary ratio if we look at 400 -500 nuclear power sites worldwide, and 3 sites have had meltdowns. Looks like a one percent chance of it happening again. Can't say I like those odds. Means we are going to see this again and another area off limits.

Then we have the other issue of nuclear powered ships in our seas. I do have faith in the military to protect it's assets, so keeping all nuclear powered ships in top shape is a must. Power companies are private and want a profit and will snake their way out of paying anything as much as they can. Perfect example with PB and the law suit against them. BP wants it dropped because it might bankrupt them, with no regard for the lives that the disaster destroyed.

We have Pickering not to far from here. And I understand it has 8 reactors. Now simply place Fukushima over that and draw the same exclusion zones. A 50 KM radius affects Carlington to Oakville. Toronto is completely within that radius.

San Onofre would make a good portion of Los Angeles uninhabitable.

[GostHacked]

I don't see this as necessarily wrong given the amount of gross misinformation spread by nuclear-phobes. i.e. a meltdown is not necessarily a serious problem if the reactor has been shut down, yet saying there was a meltdown could cause panic because people think it means a total catastrophe.

A meltdown is catastrophic. We saw this at Chernobyl. This time three of them. Now I kept thinking that #4 had melted down when it did not. There was no core in the reactor, it was in the cooling pool. So we had 1,2 and 3 meltdown. And all 4 pools containment compromised. Exposing the rods to the air. TEPCO took over 6 months to come clean with this. And with their recent secrecy laws passed, we are going to get an even more filtered view.

It was covered up from day one. We'd be able to at least understand the real situation in order to devise a plan to clean it up and minimize the radioactive releases from the site.

It comes down to question of whether the misinformation put people in danger. That said, the misinformation ended up damaging the credibility of the nuclear power in general so it would have been better if they were up front.

I'd say they did just that. They put lives in danger with delaying the correct information for months. Putting more lives at risk by clamping down on what gets reported.

At personal level people will avoid staying things that create conflict but I have not seen any evidence that Japanese business leaders/politicians are more likely to lie/cover up problems than those here. This comes from living there and speaking the language.

They are trying to expose it, but there is a crackdown on the information. That is just as concerning as the issue at the plant.

[-1=e^ipi]

That's just it, this is natural radiation. And really cannot be avoided.

Sure it can. Live in a lead box.

Right. We have no choice. We do have a choice and really an obligation not to add to the background radiation. It will take TEPCO half my life expectancy to try and resolve this issue. And still the place will be more contaminated and for much longer than Chernobyl ever will.

So we have a 0.022% increase in the radioactivity of the pacific ocean (actually far less than this since most of the radioactive isotopes have sunk to the bottom of the ocean; and most of these isotopes have a short half-life) that occurred because of a magnitude 9 earthquake and a tsunami occurred near an outdated reactor and took out the backup generators, so we must now stop nuclear power generation? Seems unreasonable. Not to mention that when you mine uranium or other radioactive isotopes, aren't you reducing the natural background radiation in the locations where you have mines?

It's a scary ratio if we look at 400 -500 nuclear power sites worldwide, and 3 sites have had meltdowns. Looks like a one percent chance of it happening again. Can't say I like those odds. Means we are going to see this again and another area off limits.

Stop treating all types of nuclear power as the same thing.

We have Pickering not to far from here. And I understand it has 8 reactors. Now simply place Fukushima over that and draw the same exclusion zones. A 50 KM radius affects Carlington to Oakville. Toronto is completely within that radius.

You seriously think some CANDU reactors in a location that' isn't very geologically active and is far from the ocean is comparable to some outdated light water reactors near the ocean along the ring of fire? This is silly. CANDU reactors are completely safe, even safer if they are in Pickering rather than Sendai. Furthermore, if the Japanese simply decided to go with CANDU reactors rather than the american designed light water reactors in the 70's, the Fukushima Daiichi issue might have been avoided. http://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2011/09/no-candu/

[TimG]

A meltdown is catastrophic.

Not necessarily. The meltdowns at Fukushima occurred with reactors that had been stopped. The main risk is the meltdown could restart the reactors but that did not happen. All the meltdown means in the case of Fukushima is that the cleanup would be much harder. It does not mean that the accident is suddenly worse.

I'd say they did just that. They put lives in danger with delaying the correct information for months. Putting more lives at risk by clamping down on what gets reported.

Ah no - because radiation is not a serious health concern outside of the immediate evacuation area. There are US sailors complaining that they were misled when they entered the zone for rescue work but I don't understand why the US navy did not have radiation detectors that would have reported any issues notwithstanding claims by TEPCO.