?Impact Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: I've heard that radiation is not harmful, below the deterministic threshold of 250 mSv Remind me not to have you read my dosimeter. Typically we receive around 2-3mSv per year. If a nuclear industry worker gets more than about 20 mSv/year then they start to get worried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Just now, ?Impact said: Remind me not to have you read my dosimeter. Typically we receive around 2-3mSv per year. If a nuclear industry worker gets more than about 20 mSv/year then they start to get worried. So they are quite safe then, since they're well below the 250. All those very low numbers you're concerned about, they are limits to keep your dose as low as reasonably achievable. They are the result of years of leftist obsession with increasingly harsher safety regulations. In a way Fukushima has been helpful in showing how comparatively safe nuclear power is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 19 hours ago, ?Impact said: Remind me not to have you read my dosimeter. Typically we receive around 2-3mSv per year. If a nuclear industry worker gets more than about 20 mSv/year then they start to get worried. The ratings I am seeing are in Sv not mSv. About 500 Sv / hour Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 8 minutes ago, GostHacked said: The ratings I am seeing are in Sv not mSv. About 500 Sv / hour 500 Sv//hour? Make sure you write out your will quickly. A 5 Sv dose over about 5 hours would be lethal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 7 minutes ago, ?Impact said: 500 Sv//hour? Make sure you write out your will quickly. A 5 Sv dose over about 5 hours would be lethal. Yes indeed, and that is what was reported inside unit #2 a couple weeks ago. The real impact is that 6 years later they are now able to measure the radioactivity there, but yet said that the levels were low and not life threatening. The robots they were sending in were frying in minutes. Now they at least last a couple hours before they die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, GostHacked said: The real impact is that 6 years later they are now able to measure the radioactivity there, but yet said that the levels were low and not life threatening. I don't recall anyone saying that levels inside the reactor building were low and not life threatening. It doesn't take much to stop alpha particles, and a little bit of metal like a few sheets of aluminum will top beta particles. Gamma ray emissions need much more, but the reactor building has thick enough walls to stop them. Of course there are other issues like the inverse square law, the further you get away from the source the strength decreases by the square of its distance. Edited February 21, 2017 by ?Impact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 22 minutes ago, ?Impact said: I don't recall anyone saying that levels inside the reactor building were low and not life threatening. It doesn't take much to stop alpha particles, and a little bit of metal like a few sheets of aluminum will top beta particles. Gamma ray emissions need much more, but the reactor building has thick enough walls to stop them. Of course there are other issues like the inverse square law, the further you get away from the source the strength decreases by the square of its distance. Yes, you nailed it. There are numerous dose rate "maps" of the region around the reactor and the numbers I see are higher than what we call normal, but far from life threatening. Authorities are now primarily concerned with stabilizing the reactor site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 2 hours ago, GostHacked said: Yes indeed, and that is what was reported inside unit #2 a couple weeks ago. The real impact is that 6 years later they are now able to measure the radioactivity there, but yet said that the levels were low and not life threatening. The robots they were sending in were frying in minutes. Now they at least last a couple hours before they die. I get the World Nuclear News Weekly. Today it said the latest robot which had a geiger counter on it got stuck when the treads were caught on a section of pipe. The device was disconnected and left inside the pipe. This was a mechanical problem. However it had not yet reached the area they wanted it to go, where the dose rate is very high. These devices are made with radiation hardened circuitry and electromechanical parts, like relays etc. as much as possible. They are designed to resist ionizing radiation. There's a whole squad of nuclear physicists and engineers working day and night at the facility. They also don't intend to die from being there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 19 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: Today it said the latest robot which had a geiger counter on it got stuck when the treads were caught on a section of pipe. The device was disconnected and left inside the pipe. This was a mechanical problem. I had heard something about a camera failing on a robot. Perhaps to a complete failure, but degraded capability. Not sure if it was the same robot, or happened at a different time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 13 hours ago, ?Impact said: I don't recall anyone saying that levels inside the reactor building were low and not life threatening. It doesn't take much to stop alpha particles, and a little bit of metal like a few sheets of aluminum will top beta particles. Gamma ray emissions need much more, but the reactor building has thick enough walls to stop them. Of course there are other issues like the inverse square law, the further you get away from the source the strength decreases by the square of its distance. They at the start said there were : no meltdowns. Turns out we had 4 (originally I thought there were three). : No melt-through , turns out there were TWO Tepco and other officials denied what many knew/suspected all along. They said the levels were safe, but yet they were unable to accurately measure the radiation because the robots kept frying because of the intense radiation. Now with two melt throughs they have not be able to determine where the motlen fuel went. Meanwhile hundreds of gallons, possibly thousands of gallons of radioactive water has been leaking into the ocean DAILY for 6 years now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 1 hour ago, GostHacked said: No melt-through , turns out there were TWO Yes, cracks in containment are always the biggest problems for nuclear power stations. We hear about the airborne leaks because they are closely monitored, but the groundwater leaks are the silent ones that are hard to find. In the case of Fukushima, we know there are significant groundwater leaks and over time it may turn out to be an even larger disaster than Chernobyl because of them. While the relative volumes of the atmosphere or ocean will dilute he radioactive isotopes to very low emission levels, the serious problem is the concentration of them in tissues up through the food chain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xul Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 11 hours ago, ?Impact said: Yes, cracks in containment are always the biggest problems for nuclear power stations. We hear about the airborne leaks because they are closely monitored, but the groundwater leaks are the silent ones that are hard to find. In the case of Fukushima, we know there are significant groundwater leaks and over time it may turn out to be an even larger disaster than Chernobyl because of them. While the relative volumes of the atmosphere or ocean will dilute he radioactive isotopes to very low emission levels, the serious problem is the concentration of them in tissues up through the food chain. Maybe this is why they built the reactors so close to the sea level... Water always goes down not up. So if there is a breach, the contaminant will easily go down to the public sea, not up to the residential area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 45 minutes ago, xul said: Maybe this is why they built the reactors so close to the sea level... ...and the need for a lot of water for cooling. Thermal power generation uses huge volumes of water for cooling, that obviously includes nuclear but also coal. It is interesting to note that water does not become radioactive. The problem is not the water, but sediment in the water. If you can filter out all the sediment then there would be no problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) Aside from the inconvenience of not eating sushi for a few days, Japanese are fine. No one died from radiation exposure. Predictions for future deaths caused by cancer induction are in the range of a few hundred. This number would be arrived at by considering the population, radiation dose and corresponding increase in risk of cancer. Even then, not all cancers are fatal. A number as low as this shows how safe nuclear power is. Even in a serious accident, immediate deaths are low and the long term impact is smaller than the number at risk of death from living near coal fired thermal generators. In some cases, not even that near. It demonstrates that nuclear power is safe as well as clean. It is the only viable option to provide reliable, high levels of power with low environmental impact. Edited February 23, 2017 by OftenWrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.