Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Global Perspectives, Chemtrails vs Contrails, Geoengineering, Etc _ Nuclear Disaster Unfolding In Fukushima

Posted by: bill Mar 15 2011, 11:22 AM

This getting worse every day


http://allthingsnuclear.org/tagged/Japan_nuclear








Posted by: bill Mar 15 2011, 11:31 AM

from George Ure at Urbansurvival today

http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm

We have a source, who we can only identify as an expat highly placed editor in Japanese media who has informed us of the (criminal) charade going on.



On Tuesday, his key Japanese media outlet, while reporting on the "situation being in hand" was quickly evacuating its staff to either Hong Kong, or Sydney, Australia. He was given a timeframe in which to gather critical data for the media's product and was to be helicoptered to an island in southern Japan where a corporate plane would move him - and other members of this key media outlet - to foreign shores.



All the while his publication was reporting "normal" conditions for the populace. So first point: Japanese media are complicit in the cover-up of the data.

Posted by: bill Mar 15 2011, 11:42 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16nuclear.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp


The sharp deterioration came after a frantic day and night of rescue efforts focused largely on the No. 2 reactor. There, a malfunctioning valve prevented workers from manually venting the containment vessel to release pressure and allow fresh seawater to be injected into it. That meant that the extraordinary remedy emergency workers had jury-rigged to keep the nuclear fuel from overheating no longer worked.

As a result, the nuclear fuel in that reactor was exposed for many hours, increasing the risk of a breach of the container vessel and more dangerous emissions of radioactive particles.

By Tuesday morning, Tokyo Electric Power said that it had fixed the valve and resumed seawater injections, but that it had detected possible leaks in the containment vessel that prevented water from fully covering the fuel rods.

Then an explosion hit that reactor. After a series of conflicting reports about what level of damage was inflicted on the reactor after that blast, Mr. Edano, the chief cabinet secretary, said, “there is a very high probability that a portion of the containment vessel was damaged.”

Posted by: lunk Mar 15 2011, 12:14 PM



http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsanim/world/

The bigger the square, the greater the shake.

Posted by: bill Mar 15 2011, 12:15 PM

eta link


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366341/Japan-tsumani-earthquake-America-nuclear-accident-radiation-alert.html

Disaster: A satellite picture shows the remains of four reactors. By last night three of them had been hit by explosions while one had caught fire



Posted by: Johnny Angel Mar 15 2011, 01:38 PM

Beyond Nuclear.Org.

The danger of the Nuclear waste pools losing thier cooling water containment
building is more of a problem than the reactors itself.The Japanese have this
spent Fuel waste inside these plants, and they cant get it from under controll.

1000 of tons of spent fuel waste, just waiting to overheat & explode.

I remember hearing about the danger of the Nuclear waste storage back when
Reagan Bombed Libya, and there were rumors that a Terrrorist Suicide swat team
would Hijack a passenger jet and crash into a Nuclear Power plant.

I didnt understant it at the time, but a USAF Officer said it would be a much
biiger disaster if the HiJacked Jet struck the tons of waste in cold waterstorage,
than actually hitting the Massive containment bldg wiith only a few hundred
pounds of fuel.

I first suspected 911 was an inside job when the HiJacked Jets didnt target Nuke Waste,
which would of affected the USA 1000 times worse than WTC collapse.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Mar 15 2011, 02:49 PM

QUOTE


Heavy fallout from Japan nuclear scandal

September 2, 2002


TOKYO, Japan (CNN) -- The president, vice president and chairman of Japan's largest utility are quitting following a nuclear safety scandal, along with two advisers.

The Monday announcements came after Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) admitted last week that it may have failed to accurately report cracks at its nuclear reactors in the late 1980s and 1990s.

The company and the Japanese government are probing whether workers covered up reports of the cracks.

TEPCO is suspected of falsifying 29 cases of safety repair records.

The company's nuclear reactor is the world's largest, and will be shut down temporarily along with four others for urgent safety checks.

Japan's nuclear power industry provides a third of the country's electrical power, and has been criticized for other accidents in recent years.

'No room for excuses'

TEPCO shares skidded again on Monday after two weeks of declines, ending down more than 2 percent at the close.

"There is no room for excuses," TEPCO President Nobuya Minami said on Monday, as he announced he would leave his post in mid-October.

"I deeply regret the incident and cannot apologize enough for it."

Minami said he would reveal in mid-September the results of TEPCO's probe.

Chairman Hiroshi Araki, Vice President Toshiaki Enomoto and advisers Shoh Nasu and Gaishi Hiraiwa will step down at the end of September.

"What I thought was impossible has actually occurred," Minami said this weekend, according to the Asahi Shimbun.

"As I failed to perceive it, I think managerial responsibility lies with me."
'Unacceptable'

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) vice minister Seiji Murata said that Trade Minister Takeo Hiranuma branded the company's actions as "unacceptable."

"It betrayed the public's trust over nuclear energy," Hiranuma told Murata.

METI says it has evidence of false inspection records, with the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency saying that up to eight reactors may still be running with unfixed cracks, though the cracks don't pose an immediate threat.

The company is conducting an inquiry of its own, and has submitted a list of 29 cases of possible cover-ups of cracks on the core of 13 nuclear reactors, at three plants.
GE tests

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency inspects nuclear plants in Japan every 13 months, checking the cooling system and other essential parts.

But it leaves the inspection of the shrouds and pumps around the core to the company, which is required to report flaws.

TEPCO contracted its testing to General Electric International Inc., GE's Japan subsidiary. Local media report that cracks were found on the reactor shrouds.

Defective shrouds, important nonfuel parts of a reactor, are normally replaced in Japan but may be repaired in the United States or Europe, or even left alone if the cracks aren't serious.

A GE insider reportedly informed the Ministry of International Trade and Industry as far back as July 2000.

GE officials then approached Minami in March about launching an investigation into possible false reporting.
Misconduct

GE workers inspected the shrouds while TEPCO workers were present. TEPCO workers then may have failed to report cracks to senior officials, the Nikkei Weekly reports, because they determined they were not significant.

TEPCO stock was down 2.04 percent at 2,395 yen at the close Monday, underperforming the broad Topix, which was off 1.2 percent. Though the possible cover-up has been long running, TEPCO has dropped about 10 percent in the last two weeks.

The scandal comes amid a lengthening list of corporate misconduct in Japan.

The Nikkei reported on Monday that Mitsui & Co. President Shinjiro Shimizu and Chairman Shigeji Ueshima are under pressure to resign.

They are likely to step down to take responsibility over alleged bribes by Mitsui workers to a Mongolian official, to win an order on a diesel-power facility there.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/BUSINESS/asia/09/02/japan.tepco/index.html

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 15 2011, 03:21 PM

When I read http://translate.google.cz/translate?hl=cs&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tepco.co.jp%2Fcc%2Fpress then it looks to me be more a bit like a disinfo scandal than a "disaster".

Posted by: Omega892R09 Mar 16 2011, 07:33 AM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 13 2011, 05:21 PM) *
When I read http://translate.google.cz/translate?hl=cs&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tepco.co.jp%2Fcc%2Fpress then it looks to me be more a bit like a disinfo scandal than a "disaster".

And let's face it, corporate misconduct is not unique to Japan.

Slightly OT but nuclear science related I wonder how the Super-Kamiokande neutrino detection facility faired, see in http://discovermagazine.com/2001/aug/cover. The location of this facility is some distance from the worst affected zones but I wonder how delicate the photomultiplier tubes are.

Posted by: lunk Mar 16 2011, 10:49 AM

QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Mar 16 2011, 03:33 AM) *
And let's face it, corporate misconduct is not unique to Japan.

Slightly OT but nuclear science related I wonder how the Super-Kamiokande neutrino detection facility faired, see in http://discovermagazine.com/2001/aug/cover. The location of this facility is some distance from the worst affected zones but I wonder how delicate the photomultiplier tubes are.


Good point.
The neutrino detectors world wide should be more active.

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 16 2011, 12:39 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 14 2011, 01:49 PM) *
The neutrino detectors world wide should be more active.


unless they are designed for solar as opposed to terrestrial origin. just a thought.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Mar 16 2011, 06:40 PM

I don't know if any have seen these yet but worth a look, also check out the News Update and Current Status of Facilities link upper right:

http://mitnse.com/2011/03/13/modified-version-of-original-post/

Posted by: lunk Mar 16 2011, 10:53 PM

QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Mar 16 2011, 02:40 PM) *
I don't know if any have seen these yet but worth a look, also check out the News Update and Current Srtatus of Facilities link upper right:

http://mitnse.com/2011/03/13/modified-version-of-original-post/


Hmmm, that reads like everything is under control.

...why do i feel like i need my own Geiger counter.


From George Ure at

http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm

QUOTE
At least, insofar as the magnetometer readings about the government/University of Alaska High Altitude Atmospheric Project, a/k/a HAARP which, as you may recall from our earlier discussions, uses a huge steerable HF radio transmitter system which is powered with a roughly 2-megawatt powerplant which, given the size of their antenna array, pumps many megawatts (if not gigawatts) of effective radiated power (ERP) into the ionosphere for "research".

So powerful is the radiation off the HARP site, that they even have their own local radar to augment other radar coverage so that aircraft in the area aren't inadvertently damaged. In other words, lotsa, lotsa power.

Over the years, a lot of crackpot theories have developed around HAARP, but it's always been conjecture based on the magnetometers since I've been unable to locate the critical data needed to interpret whether HAARP was causative to some of the odd phenomena afoot in the world today, like bird kills, out-of-place earthquakes, and the like, or whether it was coincident to anomalous events.


(there is an interesting chart there too, comparing times of Earthquakes in Japan to pulses from HAARP.)

Posted by: albertchampion Mar 17 2011, 02:31 AM

what can you tell me about radiation? how is it measured? and what gadgets measure it?

the geiger counter?

here is why i ask. recently, there was an article in the nyt concerning the effluent of hydrofracking in the marcellus shale formation. one of the features of that effluent was a high level of radioactivity.

which interested me. as i have always wondered what level of radioactivity occured in crude oil, natural gas.

some pooh-pooh the existence of radioactivity in crude, nat gas, but, if there is radioactivity in the effluent of fracking in nat gas/crude shall payzones, wouldn't there be radioactivity in all hydrocarbons extracted?

and if that is the case, how is that radioactivity zeroed out? and if it is there and not zeroed out in the refining process, does it then enter into the refining products[i.e., gasoline]?

if you were to stand by your gas tank inlet with a geiger counter while pumping gasoline would you hear any indication of radioactivity?

Posted by: Omega892R09 Mar 17 2011, 08:33 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 15 2011, 12:53 AM) *
Hmmm, that reads like everything is under control.

Well maybe.

It seems that the http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/16/956962/-TEPCO:-The-possibility-of-re-criticality-is-not-zero has more to say.

The danger in the fuel storage pools was something not appreciated when this started to unfold where the reactor core melting, core on the floor in the parlance, was an eventuality catered for in the design of the reactors where the core is a quite a small part in the centre and low down.

The magnitude of the quake and the hight of the tsunami had unfortunately not been anticipated back when the site was designed. We know much more about plate tectonics now than we did then. Generation II reactors are nothing like the later generations now running let alone those under development.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 17 2011, 12:29 PM

New video from Fukushima taken from TEPCO copter:

what a mess... rolleyes.gif
new radiation measurements http://translate.google.cz/translate?hl=cs&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tepco.co.jp%2Fcc%2Fpress

Posted by: Omega892R09 Mar 17 2011, 01:58 PM

QUOTE (albertchampion @ Mar 15 2011, 04:31 AM) *
what can you tell me about radiation? how is it measured? and what gadgets measure it?

Seemingly such a simple question but measuring radiation has varied approaches depending on what you are doing, want to do and what is happening.

Workers in areas where there is a significant radiological hazard wear dosimeters of which I was once familiar with the film badge type also various detection powders that would be spread in a suspect area. Also others for chemhaz.

We used to practice NBCD (nuclear, biological and chemical decontamination) on a regular basis and I was for awhile on the decontam squad at a major FAA (Fleet Air Arm) airfield. We also practiced at sea on carriers. It is most interesting trying to carry on aircraft operations, down below in the hangar or on the flight deck, whilst togged up in NBCD suits, in fact it is bloody dificult. Even then we practiced at rotating squads into and out of work areas (from the citadel) so as to keep everyone's dose to safe(ish) levels. But we knew for sure that in a real hot war we would be expendable as a matter of course.

Here is some useful info:

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/measuring-radiation.html

Posted by: Ricochet Mar 17 2011, 03:34 PM

QUOTE (albertchampion @ Mar 16 2011, 10:31 PM) *
what can you tell me about radiation? how is it measured? and what gadgets measure it?

the geiger counter?



One major problem is that a geiger counter is useless in detecting something far more sinister than radioactivity. That is plutonium. They loaded MOX fuel into reactor # 3.
QUOTE
MOX fuel loaded into Tokyo Electric's old Fukushima reactor
Sunday 22nd August, 05:36 AM JST

http://www.berthold.com/downloadfiles/rp/en_ieee_tns99_lb6414.pdf

FUKUSHIMA —
Tokyo Electric Power Co loaded plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel Saturday into a reactor at its nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture in preparation for the largest Japanese utility’s first plutonium-thermal power generation.

The No. 3 reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 plant would be the third in Japan to be used for the so-called pluthermal generation, but the only one among the three to have been subjected to antiaging treatment with 34 years since its launch. Pluthermal output has already begun at the No. 3 reactor of Kyushu Electric Power Co’s Genkai plant in Saga Prefecture and the No. 3 reactor of Shikoku Electric Power Co’s Ikata plant in Ehime Prefecture.


source Kyodo

MOX fuel is a plutonium / uranium mixed oxide. Potassium iodide pills will help block the radioactive fallout but does zip against plutonium. # 3 reactor ain't doing so good these days.
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300350525P.pdf


QUOTE
Plutonium
Plutonium was discovered in 1941 by Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg and Edwin McMillan, Kennedy, and Wahl by deuteron bombardment of uranium in the 60-inch cyclotron of the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, but the discovery was kept secret. It was named after the planet Pluto, having been discovered directly after Neptunium. (Pluto is the next planet out after Neptune).

The metal has a silvery appearance and takes on a yellow tarnish when slightly oxidized. It is chemically reactive. A relatively large piece of plutonium is warm to the touch because of the energy given off in alpha decay. Larger pieces will produce enough heat to boil water. The metal readily dissolves in concentrated hydrochloric acid, hydroiodic acid, or perchloric acid. The metal exhibits six allotropic modifications having various crystalline structures. The densities of these vary from 16.00 to 19.86 g/cm3.

The most important isotope of plutonium is 239Pu, with a half-life of 24,200 years. Because of its short half-life, there are only extremely tiny trace amounts of plutonium naturally in uranium ores.
It is produced in extensive quantities in nuclear reactors from natural uranium: 238U(n, gamma) --> 239U--(beta) --> 239Np--(beta) --> 239Pu. Fifteen isotopes of plutonium are known.

Applications

Plutonium is a key fissile component in modern nuclear weapons; care must be taken to avoid accumulation of amounts of plutonium which approach critical mass, the amount of plutonium which will self-generate a nuclear reaction. Despite not being confined by external pressure as is required for a nuclear weapon, it will nevertheless heat itself and break whatever confining environment it is in. Shape is relevant; compact shapes such as spheres are to be avoided.

Plutonium could also be used to manufacture radiological weapons. The plutonium isotope 238Pu is an alpha emitter with a half life of 87 years. These characteristics make it well suited for electrical power generation for devices which must function without direct maintenance for timescales approximating a human life time. It is therefore used in RTGs such as those powering the Galileo and Cassini space probes. Plutonium-238 was used on the Apollo-14 lunar flight in 1971 to power seismic devices and other equipment left on the Moon, and it was also the power supply of the two Voyager supercraft launched in 1977.

Plutonium-239 can also be used as a fuel in a new generation of fast-breeder nuclear weapons, which burn a mixed oxide (MOX) fuel consisting of uranium and plutonium.



Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/pu.htm#ixzz1Gt27b5BW

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 17 2011, 05:37 PM

QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Mar 17 2011, 06:58 AM) *
Here is some useful info:

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/measuring-radiation.html

this is also useful:

and here in perspective of Fukushima:

EDIT: I think only dangerous "fallout" is that Germany chancellor Merkel now announced http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14912184,00.html - which would put out of grid ~7000 MW netto - this can blackout the EU grid, which now is working already at the edge of its long range transfer cappacity. I wonder how the politicians could be so corrupted and play into the cards of the ekoterrorists and fossil lobby so openly. Her predecessor Gerhard Schroeder now sitts in the Gazprom and takes big sallaries, because he pushed through the German nuclear phase-out.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 18 2011, 12:20 AM

according to last http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/betu11_j/images/110318b.pdf -if we would believe them, the radioactivity starts to go consistently down, which would suggest the contamination further from the dammaged reactor buildings is largely just by shortlived isotopes - which would be good news, because the solid long half-life isotopes persist much longer in the environment. Current values measured at the west gate -in direction to inland- are ~270 microSieverts which is a value comparable to radioactivity values of a smoke from a coal powerplant and pose no immediate risk even relatively close to the plant. So if the TEPCO measurements are real, then we probably can see soon the burst of this carefuly maintained "disaster" global media bubble so welcomed by the professional activists, their quillible followers and to political servants of the fossil lobby - as for example in the Germany, where now the prime minister A. Merkel wants to close the 7 nuclear plants and where the last prime minister G. Schroeder ended on the well paid post in the pipeline company Nordstream (nominated by Gazprom to which he negotiated the German state guarantees and at the same time the phase-out of the german nuclear plants - the competitor to the dirty fossil bussiness revenues and power), instead of ending in the jail for corruption and conflict of interest.

EDIT: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Posted by: Omega892R09 Mar 18 2011, 08:06 AM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 15 2011, 07:37 PM) *
EDIT: I think only dangerous "fallout" is that Germany chancellor Merkel now announced http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14912184,00.html - which would put out of grid ~7000 MW netto - this can blackout the EU grid, which now is working already at the edge of its long range transfer cappacity. I wonder how the politicians could be so corrupted and play into the cards of the ekoterrorists and fossil lobby so openly. Her predecessor Gerhard Schroeder now sitts in the Gazprom and takes big sallaries, because he pushed through the German nuclear phase-out.

Yeah! This is a message that should be promoted loud and clear. What is unfolding in politics and the media is the usual travesty of any truth.

I am pleased I have now got a copy of http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Renaissance-Technologies-Policies-Future/dp/0750309369/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300448138&sr=1-1

Nuttall covers the whole gamut of issues WRT generating electricity including policy, technology, design, waste classification and disposal, storage of part spent fuel - short and longer term (a complex topic on its own but one which has inherent safety built in) with pathways to re-use in different reactor types. Nuttall also provides a clear background to power grid issues to do with other forms hydro, coal fired, gas fired and how they relate. Not so much on renewables but this book was published in 2005 so an updated edition should be in the pipeline.

Nuttall also describes the disastrous decisions made because of regulatory shenanigans involving all parties including the baleful NIMBY (not in my back yard) effect of the well heeled who purchased property in The Hamptons, Long Island, which caused the long delayed Shoreham plant to peremptorily shut down having been given the go ahead to power up the reactor which impacted on the cost of decommissioning. What madness. thumbdown.gif

One factor that impacted prominently on the delay to Shoreham was the decision, to save a few dollars, to chose back up diesel generators from a source other than the one known to deliver reliable products. So after the first set repeatedly failed with broken crankshafts, fixes for which also failed, the reputable supplier was engaged after all at the cost of much wasted time, allowing often ill founded, regulatory pressures to kick in and an increase in capital costs. This one is certainly a lesson in 'how not to do it'!

Nuttall is well worth looking up for those who are unaware of the power generation scenario.

I recall back in the early 1990s whilst I was engaged in software development a colleague had produced a nicely modeled simulation of a UK power grid complete with a full variety of power generation plant types and the aim was to balance the grid over time with changing conditions in demand and also supply with water having to be pumped uphill at off peak times and nuclear reactors being powered up and down. It was aimed at school children and ran on computers then prevalent in UK schools. It was a quite brilliant piece of works and commissioned by the Electricity Generating Board (of the UK). I remember demonstrating this software (for about 4 days) at a large annual educational trade fair.

As it is much of the general public don't know that different forms of radiation exist, alpha, beta, and gamma let alone why the difference is important! What is more I cannot see any evidence of any attempt by the powers that be to enlighten people.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Mar 18 2011, 08:19 AM

And then we have this cretin creature poking fun at the Japanese for being hit by a quake and tsunami, I knew he was low but this just goes way below any sense of propriety:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201103150020

my dog has more compassion than that jerk. Why does he still get paid for this shit? angry.gif America is sicker than I thought. lame.gif

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 18 2011, 09:06 AM

ok what am i missing here. the chart from:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2011/0316-japan-quake-radiation/0317-web-RADIATION.jpg

shows that '11.9 millisieverts/hour was the highest recorded value at the plants perimeter'

normal background radiation for a whole year is ~300 millirem (depending on where you are)

thats 3 millisieverts/yr

so at the perimeter it is : ((11.9/3) x 24 x 365) = 34748 times normal. anybody want to check my math?


as far as omegas comment goes, is the sickness of some of america new to you?

edit:

limbaugh is a hypocrite from way back. he was advocating jail for drug abusers while he was popping oxycontin like candy.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Mar 18 2011, 09:36 AM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 16 2011, 11:06 AM) *
as far as omegas comment goes, is the sickness of some of america new to you?

Nope!

Posted by: bobcat46 Mar 18 2011, 09:50 AM

QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Mar 16 2011, 10:19 AM) *
And then we have this cretin creature poking fun at the Japanese for being hit by a quake and tsunami, I knew he was low but this just goes way below any sense of propriety:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201103150020

my dog has more compassion than that jerk. Why does he still get paid for this shit? angry.gif America is sicker than I thought. lame.gif



And getting sicker every day. What is sickining is that people actually listen to that Slimeball and think that he is some kind of expert with supreme knowledge. He is nothing but an entertainer, a very sick one at that, that is doing great harm to America spreading his hate. And then there is Glen Beck that has totally driven off into a garbage ditch. Only the most stupid of the stupid listen to Beck and Slimeball. Hard to believe that Faux News still keeps Beck on the channel. His viewership is decreasing from month to month (a very good thing).

Posted by: bill Mar 18 2011, 10:27 AM

US Military evacuating Japan

U.S. Navy Capt. Eric Gardner, commander of the U.S. Naval Air Facility in Atsugi, Japan, explains how it's going to work.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/17/134617124/live-blog-disaster-in-japan-thursdays-latest



Posted by: IslandPilot Mar 18 2011, 10:39 AM

tume:
Thanks for this useful chart.

It helps to put these things into perspective. Eventually some of this "truth" will leak out.

As Americans, we are not very familiar with "metric system" terms ie, "millli" vs. "micro". It is easy to Baffle most citizens with these terms. And then "rems" and "sieverts" only adds to the confusion.

Of course this collective "ignorance" is cleverly used to fuel the fire of dis-information. In time, the Truth may be able to extinguish the fire... probably not though.

Only through EDUCATION and proper "reasoning" thought processes, can the TRUTH become known. And that's is why we are all here today, to EDUCATE ourselves about 9/11, and then spread the Truth.

Thanks again to "tume" a TRUTH Educator and Warrior! thumbsup.gif

Posted by: Ricochet Mar 18 2011, 02:07 PM

http://www.radiationnetwork.com/

Reactor status
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300433768P.pdf

Posted by: bill Mar 18 2011, 03:47 PM

Obama said yesterday :“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and public health experts do not recommend people in the U.S. take precautionary measures beyond staying informed.”

meanwhile he ordered the Atsugi Navy base just south of Tokyo to be immediately evacuated "Women and children first"



But I'm sure that is just precautionay Tume

The US military does these emergency evacuations all the time for no particular good reason

They think that they will start out evacuating 10,000 per day but will try ot get it up to 18,000

not that there is any urgency ....

Posted by: bill Mar 18 2011, 04:13 PM

"So if the TEPCO measurements are real"


a very big if

and apparently the US Navy isn't buying it

"The Navy said Thursday afternoon it would start evacuating families from Naval Air Facility Atsugi and Yokosuka Naval Base, near Tokyo. A few hours later, officials at Misawa Air Base, in northern Japan, did the same. Camp Zama, a U.S. Army facility near Tokyo, said it was allowing families and non-essential workers to voluntarily leave.
In a radio address Thursday afternoon, Col. Otto Feather, 374th Airlift Wing commander, said he expects Yokota Air Base to join the list soon."

http://santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.blogspot.com/2011/03/naval-air-facility-atsugi-begins.html

Atsugi is a critical Navy support base for the carrier groups in the Pacific

evacuating the base is a dead serious action

Posted by: bill Mar 18 2011, 04:30 PM

I have been monitoring CNN for the last hour

no mention of the base evauations in Japan

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 18 2011, 04:33 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 18 2011, 02:06 AM) *
ok what am i missing here. the chart from:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2011/0316-japan-quake-radiation/0317-web-RADIATION.jpg

shows that '11.9 millisieverts/hour was the highest recorded value at the plants perimeter'

normal background radiation for a whole year is ~300 millirem (depending on where you are)

thats 3 millisieverts/yr

so at the perimeter it is : ((11.9/3) x 24 x 365) = 34748 times normal. anybody want to check my math?

Yeah the number really looks scary, as looked scary the peak 400 miliSieverts/h measured in one moment at the plant when the No4 was on fire. At that moment it really scared everybody, including me and I was fervently communicating with my friend at BNL to assess what could it mean. The point is that this looks to be just momentary peak values, which I suspect being a result of the momentarily dispersed debris in the measured zone, because the measurement is quite inconsistent with the rest of the measurements and the last values I've seen at the perimeter are not ~12 miliSieverts, but like 263.5 microSieverts/h which is 45 times less and it looks like it is consistently going down for more than one day after they started with the external cooling - so the dangerous things no more are massively dispersed in the air by heat. So if now we take your figure we come to 770 times normal, which if the trend of ~2 microSievert/hour (from the last data) decline continues and will be straightened by active removal and containing of the contaminated debris then it would get to values relatively close to normal background in just days-weeks. It is also good to consider that the contamination theoretically diminishes exponentially with the distance from the source and there is fortunately still the west wind, so most probably even more steeply.

On the other hand in fact there are still reported measurements of ~20 miliSieverts from inside the plant's perimeter, which still pose almost immediate danger for the people coping with the plant and can seriously complicate their effort, because nobody should be exposed to more than 50 miliSieverts at a time and 100 mSv cummulatively.

This is serious situation, nobody says it isn't, but it's not an end of world.

Impotant is the immediate risk of further explosions diminishes in the time as the short-lived radionuclides decay, so I think now the situation is definitely much better than several days ago and if there will nothing really unpredictable happen as another major quake over 7R I think the dangerous situation could be contained in matter of weeks and from my brief calcullations based on current measurements with negligible effects for the environment over ~3km from the plant, where I think no active decontamination would be needed and the people could return there immediately after the plant restores cooling cappacity and the run-out risk will be diminished to virtually zero.

I very much think the whole overkill with the 20 km evacuation zone +10km recommended curfew, which even in the overregulated west would most probably be not ordered, made more problems then it solved, especially when we consider in what a humanitary situation after the real disaster of the quakes and tsunamis the evacuation was ordered, and I'm almost sure, that this decision costed not just vainly wasted resources which were needed elsewhere, but I'm afraid even some lives of the overstressed people. Here we see the panic reasoning is very bad if one wants to cope with the serious situations and the scaremongering media push can seriously hamper the rational rescue efforts.
But I don't judge nobody from the japanese government, I think the situation is overwhelmingly complex to cope with and I think they do relatively bravely - if you just say compare it for example to the US govt. response to Katrina... Whom I even more don't like after this event are most of the mainstream media with their catastrophic fearmongering coverages with the obligate queer pundits disseminating their scary whatifs, which as we see were joined in their panic-making by many of the alternative medias. I think the journalism ethics again showed to be declining considerably.

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 18 2011, 06:11 PM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 16 2011, 07:33 PM) *
... but it's not an end of world.


i'm not sure i used those words...

nevertheless, there are lots of isotopes that are not short lived and will pose a problem for some time to come, cs-137 (which they detected and gets taken up by vegetation and eaten by animals) , sr-90, co-60 and all the rest. i read somewhere that the germans(?, poles maybe) had to kill wild boars because they had eaten truffles polluted by cs-137 from the chernobyl disaster.

i watched an rt video where a correspondent was traveling up a coast rode 120km away from fukushima and his geiger counter was going off. sensationalism, maybe...

Posted by: Ricochet Mar 18 2011, 06:36 PM

The (US) EPA radiation map website, RadNet has been disabled all inquireies come up blank. They don't want you to know.
https://cdxnode64.epa.gov/radnet-public/showMap.do

Remember, 9/11 "the air is safe to breathe"

Posted by: bill Mar 18 2011, 09:45 PM

https://cdxnode64.epa.gov/radnet-public/showMap.do



:Please be patient while we get back with the data you requested."






Well I have been patient for about 20 minutes

Posted by: bill Mar 18 2011, 10:54 PM

Still patient here

but no data

they must be really busy

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 18 2011, 11:48 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 18 2011, 11:11 AM) *
i'm not sure i used those words...

nevertheless, there are lots of isotopes that are not short lived and will pose a problem for some time to come, cs-137 (which they detected and gets taken up by vegetation and eaten by animals) , sr-90, co-60 and all the rest. i read somewhere that the germans(?, poles maybe) had to kill wild boars because they had eaten truffles polluted by cs-137 from the chernobyl disaster.

i watched an rt video where a correspondent was traveling up a coast rode 120km away from fukushima and his geiger counter was going off. sensationalism, maybe...

Co-60 is absolutely negligible in nuclear plants and is meticulously avoided if not produced for commercial applications by neutron irradiation of Co-59, because it is very high hazzard material even in trace quantities.
The most dangerous medium half-life products are Sr-90 and Cs-137 (in this order - although Sr-90 is relatively less likely to be released from the plant at the given circumstances in large significant quantities). The rest of the medium half-life radionuclides is relatively negligible in comparison of the potential risk of this two, because they have orders of magnitude lower yield and decay energy.

Regarding the measurements 120 km from the plant if they're real, I don't know, do you have a link?, would be very likely gaseous short half-life isotopes which would get out the plant through steam venting. For significant amount's of the solids which would be cappable to craze the geiger the distance is quite far there would be a significant portion of them there if we consider the wind speeds recorded.

I think the situation with Fukushima is serious, and I would think it will maybe end like level 6 accident, not 4 as the japanese nuclear agency was initially assessing, because there will be the longlasting planned countermeasures needed to contain the consequences of the mess to not have adverse effect on the health of the people and the environment.
But I also think that the Chernobyl scenario never was a threat there, because all the reactors were properly stopped immediately after the quake so the chain reaction was stopped and so:
-there was no partial not speaking total destruction of the reactor due to superhigh pressure, which for example lifted the 2000 ton heavy upper floor and lid and shot it through the roof caused by sudden power excursion of ~100 times the reactor was projected for
-there was no subsequent criticality excursion (in other words nuclear explosion) and immediate even more extreme heat power release [Usually they say it was a hydrogen explosion after the reactor went wide open by the first steam explosion and Zirconium and water and blahblah1.gif, which the scaremogering activists now use to "compare" the Fukushima to the Chernobyl, however the now known radiation signature (Xe133-Xe133m ratio and seismic magnitude) shows quite very probably it was a supercriticality event of like ~10t TNT equivalent, which consumed 0.001-0.01% of the fuel in the supercritical nuclear reaction, at the moment, when the reactor was already wide open - if it wouldn't be, the whole plant would be most probably instantly completely destroyed sidewards - but in our case the substantial part of the core was fortunately just shot up and the rest down, melted, burning through the vessel and maybe even partially boiled out instantly, partially melting through the concrete floor below]
-the primary containments are intact
-no white glowing solids or molten fuel and burning graphite discharged out of the reactor at high speeds
-no extensive fires (which to extinguish costed the firefighters their lives due to very high doses - which somewhere were like in orders you stay there just minutes and you get lethal dose.)
-no secondary activated isotopes and toxins formed due to doubtful dumping of the lead and sand into the wide open remains of the reactor building...
...all that was present in Chernobyl and more...
Also even the PEAK radiation value of 400 mSv measured at Fukushima is in order of 25-500! times lower than what was present quite steadily at Chernobyl for many days.
So the pundits, who scare the public in national TV's with their "Chernobyl on steroids" and like are absolutely ridiculous - this is not sensationism, it is just making complete fools from themselves and the qullible people too.

I hope this helps to show the Fukushima more in the Chernobyl disaster extent context

Posted by: Ricochet Mar 19 2011, 02:18 AM

Chernobyl did not have PLUTONIUM for fuel.

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 19 2011, 06:54 AM

i would agree tume, that under normal conditions co-60 and a slew of others would not be created in significant quantities (if at all), but i'm sure you are willing to concede that the fukushima situation is anything but normal.

and like ricochet pointed out, plutonium. changes the game a bit.

any luck w/ the data, bill?

Posted by: lunk Mar 19 2011, 07:12 AM

We got the data from Chernobyl, after it was finally confirmed to have happened.
Why not for Fukushima?

And this, is being used as a distraction for the slaughter about to commence in Libya.

At least they can still make things that are not as radioactive, in China...

Competition in manufacturing, is so last century...

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 19 2011, 08:41 AM

just listening to alan watt from last night and he mentions the GE boss' name...wait for it ...

Jeffrey Immelt

Posted by: bill Mar 19 2011, 09:57 AM

Still waiting for the EPA site for data this morning




they must be really busy and stuff

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 19 2011, 10:58 AM

QUOTE (Ricochet @ Mar 18 2011, 07:18 PM) *
Chernobyl did not have PLUTONIUM for fuel.

ehhh rolleyes.gif
It doesn't much matter.

To explain: Every unspent uranium fuel consist of mostly pure Uranium oxides - which means a mix of ~95-99% of Uranium isotope U-238 and ~1,5-5% of U-235 oxides. -The fuel must be in oxidated, not a pure metal state, because Uranium is highly reactive and combustible in pyroforic reactions (as we see with the DU ammunition) , not speaking that the oxides have considerably higher melting and boiling point, so if there is an accident, not much of the Uranium is effectively released into the environment. (BTW, when you will swimm next time in the sea mind there is 3-7 miligrams of Uranium in every cubic meter of sea water, don't drink it, the salt is not very healthy in large quantities rolleyes.gif )

The fisile isotope in this nuclear fuel isotope mix which primarily produces then the energy output is U-235.

Whenever the fuel in the reactor reaches criticality which means the fission of U-235 produces more neutrons than it consumes for the fission reaction - making possible a chain reaction - then the neutron flux starts to stepwise transmutate the other bulk U-238 isotope (into the U-239 and Neptunium Np-238 isotopes) which then further change to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium mainly isotopes Pu-238 (makes then 0.01%), Pu-239 (makes then ~0.5% of weight of the spent fuel), Pu-240 (makes ~0.2% of weight), Pu-241 (makes ~0.08% of weight), Pu-242 (0.04%) (+15 other Plutonium isotopes).

(You can learn more with http://www.energyfromthorium.com/javaws/SpentFuelExplorer.jnlp of decay reactions in the various nuclear materials)

This is the principle of producing Plutonium element, which otherwise is found only in traces in nature. So there is Plutonium present in all systems of active nuclear reactors, whether they use enriched uranium or MOX (mix of enriched Uranium and Plutonium) and every system has it present in relatively very substantial quantities which rise after a time of the reactor operation.

The Plutonium is present in relatively large quantities in all the Fukushima reactors, as it was present in Chernobyl reactor. But Plutonium is not a significant fallout pollutant from the powerplant nuclear accidents, because its oxides have relatively very high melting and boiling point, so it is not volatile, and even in Chernobyl the Plutonium was measured only in traces in the environment after the accident.

Main Plutonium environmental pollutant remains the nuclear bomb tests involving Plutonium as the fissile material (in most of the cases) or as a nuclear reaction product (in all cases), because there the Plutonium is exposed to very high temperatures, boils out and is dispersed then to wide areas. Nothing like that can possibly happen at Fukushima.

So the argument with using the Plutonium as a fuel in one of the reactors is ridiculous, and only shows, how uninformed and desperately pathetic are the scaremonger pundits argumenting with it.

I hope this helps for discerning between the facts and fearmongering propaganda.

---------------------------------------------
Just to note: I'm almost completely sure, that if there wouldn't be such scaremongers who use such disinfo quasi-arguments or at least not the gullible public which en-masse mostly buyes into their BS - most probably because it is patheticaly uneducated by the (dis)education system, this forum wouldn't even exist.

Why?

Because the USA would have now most of its energetics running on nuclear technologies (as was seriously planned in 60-70ties and as do French and Japanese and now the Chinese try it - most of the presently built nuclear plants are there and the west is already almost unable to spot the train, because it confusedly listens to the antinuclear fearmongers). It would have technologies even much more advanced in safety and security than Fukushima (a technology developed in 50-60ties), not having most of its aging nuclear plants built in 70ties -and so they wouldn't have any need to wage illegal wars for the last fossil resources with making the most repugniant pretenses to it like 9/11.
... not speaking that the power and profits of the "NWO" proponents, based on "fossil-energy-pushing+green-propaganda-financing+diseminating-disinfo-about-nuclear-power" racket would be already out of the behind-scenes of the global politics, the USA would be leading economically and politically independent free nation, with no large ecomical crisis in prospect and the rest of the world would be also better off...

You know, some say, that when the man found the fire it was the beginning of the human civilization. To this days the fire despite the safety measures can sometimes kill - as it for example paradoxicly happened after the tsunami water flood in the refinery and hundreds of people died there in the huge explosions. Would we abandon the fire? Mostly we do, we now have developed other sources of heat and light which are much more safe than fire - including apparently the nuclear energy, which although it isn't absolutely safe as nothing is, is the cheapest, one of the most safe and environmentaly friendly only large scale energy source the humankind developed. Will we abandon it just because the stupids buy into false arguments?

Posted by: Johnny Angel Mar 19 2011, 01:31 PM

No offense.. but your last sentence.. False arguments..

You state that Nuclear is the cheapest.. Actually its the most expensive..
One of the most safe.. Unless you live within 50 mles of a plant.
Enviromentally Friendly.. Building a Nuke plant is not green.
No Insurance companys will Insure Nukes, Wall Street wont touch investing in Nukes.,
and if they are so safe, clean, cheap why does the Govt & congress guarentee
the loans.

I dont doubt that todays Nukes are more safe. I hope we can use Nuclear, but please dont
complain when you get the Bill.

All the aging Nuke plants on earth. especially built on faut lines..
Who is going to pay to clean them up..??

Not to mention that a Nuke plant is the perfect Terror target.
One more reason why I think 911 was a inside job.
Real terrorists with 4 jumbo jets would of attacked NYC`s Indian Point Nuke,..

Posted by: Ricochet Mar 19 2011, 01:46 PM

Update March 19 22:00H
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300544332P.pdf

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 19 2011, 04:38 PM

QUOTE (Johnny Angel @ Mar 19 2011, 06:31 AM) *
No offense.. but your last sentence.. False arguments..
You state that Nuclear is the cheapest.. Actually its the most expensive..

No offense, but false

(based on todays costs, not envisioning 4th generation, which will be even considerably cheaper and more efficient and I bet no so called "Renewables" will be able to compete it if not supported by large subsidies - taxpayers money)
QUOTE
One of the most safe.. Unless you live within 50 mles of a plant.

false
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
QUOTE
No Insurance companys will Insure Nukes, Wall Street wont touch investing in Nukes., and if they are so safe, clean, cheap why does the Govt & congress guarentee the loans.

Ask them, I'm not an insurance agent, nor US govt. speaker.
QUOTE
I dont doubt that todays Nukes are more safe. I hope we can use Nuclear, but please dont
complain when you get the Bill.

a bill for what?
QUOTE
All the aging Nuke plants on earth. especially built on faut lines..

Especially in US - if the activists payed by fossil lobby and their gullible followers would not politically block building of new plants, the old would be already decommissioned.
QUOTE
Who is going to pay to clean them up..??

The obligatory reserve funds made for decommision and fuel handling - only nuclear energy producers are obligated to pay this externalities. Better if you ask who will pay the recyclation or liquidation of the forests of windmills, solar plants which if we look at the technology used are all surely nonfunctional after 20 years etc.... Taxpayers!
QUOTE
Not to mention that a Nuke plant is the perfect Terror target.

Your argument intimately reminds me the kind of G. Bush rhetoric after 9/11... rolleyes.gif
No it isn't, because it hasn't a cappacity to kill many people - whenever the reactor scrams (in matter of seconds in case of any emergency) the probability of fatalities is very low (military knows it and largely uses nuclear power at their ships even the're intended for war operations, where large callibers and rockets often could strike) - as we see also in Fukushima, which was hit by something, a real terrorist (not a US military...) is not able to put together - a 9M quake and 10+ m tsunami. Yet there still are no large fatalities in Fukushima the terrorists want to inflict and the dangerous contamination I would bet (in fact I've calculated it for myself from the multiple sets of available measurements -in, around and dozens of kilometers from there) will not last more than several weeks at an area larger than ~3km around the plant, because it is by decay trend signature mostly short half-life isotops, with no dangerous levels of Cs-137 and Sr-90, not speaking about a Plutonium all the activistic pundits now look like crazing about, because no real catastrophe as in Chernobyl unfolded -as they apparently, quiverly, were fervently "predicting" and maybe even wishing - and I found their rants not just pathetic, but being a real hyenism, because they in fact don't much care about japanese people who were affected, just their petty agendas.
QUOTE
One more reason why I think 911 was a inside job.

I don't think, I now know it and I know who did it..but at the moment it is against the policies of P4T to write it here and directly blame for 9/11.
QUOTE
Real terrorists with 4 jumbo jets would of attacked NYC`s Indian Point Nuke,..

A nonsense. Why? It would not have a cappacity to kill 3000 people in 2 hours, not being a spectacular attack on nation's symbols (nuke plants are largely unpopular in US) for the media campaign -even if you would hit a reactor building with multiple jetliners, the primary containment is projected to withstand it. ...As were the Twin towers...

Posted by: Ricochet Mar 19 2011, 05:02 PM

Natural News has this to say on MOX fuel.

QUOTE
(NaturalNews) Largely absent from most mainstream media reports on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster is the fact that a highly-dangerous "mixed-oxide" (MOX) fuel in present in six percent of the fuel rods at the plant's Unit 3 reactor. Why is MOX a big deal? According to the Nuclear Information Resource Center (NIRS), this plutonium-uranium fuel mixture is far more dangerous than typical enriched uranium -- a single milligram (mg) of MOX is as deadly as 2,000,000 mg of normal enriched uranium.

On March 14, Unit 3 of the Fukushima reactor exploded, sending a huge smoke plume into the air. This particular reactor, of course, contains the rods fueled with MOX. You can watch a clip of that explosion here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_N-...

If even a couple milligrams of MOX were released during this explosion -- or if other explosions at the plant inflict any damage on the MOX-filled rods -- then the consequences could be exponentially more devastating than the mere leakage of enriched uranium. And since nobody knows for sure exactly which rods have been damaged, and whether or not the situation can actually be contained, it is only a matter of time before the world finds out for sure.

An exact quote from the report reads:

"In the event of such accidents (involving the accidental release of MOX), if the ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) recommendations for general public exposure were adhered to, only about one mg of plutonium may be released from a MOX facility to the environment. As a comparison, in [sic] uranium fabrication facility, 2kg (2,000,000 mg) of uranium could be released in the same radiation exposure."

A simple calculation reveals that one mg of MOX is basically two million times more powerful than one mg of uranium. This is clearly not a good thing when the plutonium-containing fuel rods in Fukushima may be damaged from the recent explosions and leaking into the environment.

A recent National Public Radio (NPR) piece explains that the half-life of plutonium-239, a component of MOX, is an astounding 24,000 years. The same piece explains that if even a small amount of this potent substance escapes from the plant in a smoke plume, the particles will travel with the wind and contaminate soil for tens of thousands of years (http://www.npr.org/2011/03/16/13460...).

Amazingly, most mainstream reports that mention MOX discount it as a non-threat. But the truth of the matter is that the threat posed by MOX is very serious. The NIRS report explains that inhalation of MOX radioactive material is significantly more dangerous than inhalation of normal uranium radioactive particles. You can read the entire MOX report for yourself here:
http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/469-47...

Sources for this story include:

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/469-47...

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/16/13460...



Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031736_plutonium_enriched_uranium.html#ixzz1H56jfuJ7




Kind of gives you that warm fuzzy feeling. Real safe this nuclear energy.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 19 2011, 06:09 PM

QUOTE (Ricochet @ Mar 19 2011, 10:02 AM) *
Natural News has this to say on MOX fuel.
(blahblah1.gif)
Kind of gives you that warm fuzzy feeling. Real safe this nuclear energy.

Maybe you've missed it but above I explained in detail, why the Plutonium argument is more than less a nonsense. There is Plutonium in all the Fukushima reactors but a potential of it's release in the air in significant amounts is much lower than is technically conceivable -even in the circumstances we see in the Fukushima. Many orders of magnitude more Plutonium -that can ever leak from the plant- was released by nuclear tests, yet we're still alive and somehow the ecomical crisis stirring pundits, which bring you the warm fuzzy feeling, don't protest. -it would not help them, because one of the rare almost true information in the article is that the Pu-239 has the stated halflife (in fact it is 24,110 years, and btw the most dangerous is not the Pu-239, but Pu-241 with halflife of 14 years -which makes overwhelming bulk of radioactivity of Plutonium in the exposed MOX -go buy a rope... rolleyes.gif ).

Posted by: lunk Mar 19 2011, 06:10 PM

radiation sickness

n.
Illness induced by exposure to ionizing radiation, ranging in severity from nausea, vomiting, headache, and diarrhea to loss of hair and teeth, reduction in red and white blood cell counts, extensive hemorrhaging, sterility, and death.

http://www.answers.com/topic/radiation-poisoning#ixzz1H5J3O2OY

i don't think that there is, a safe limit.

This will be more catastrophic than Chernobyl, at least locally.

i think i heard the phrase "radioactive volcano", fitting in with Clif Highs' web bot predictions, with the "ill winds", that are supposed to travel around the planet 9 times?

halfpasthuman.com

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 19 2011, 06:24 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 19 2011, 11:10 AM) *
This will be more catastrophic than Chernobyl, at least locally.

This is nonsense. It will not and can't happen. The radioactivity at Chernobyl was steadily 25-750 times higher than the peak values at Fukushima immediately after venting and explosions at No3, where unlike Chernobyl no nuclear explosion occured.

Posted by: dMz Mar 19 2011, 06:34 PM

QUOTE (bill @ Mar 18 2011, 08:54 PM) *
Still patient here

but no data

they must be really busy

I think maybe your browser must be blocking that EPA page, bill. The map worked fine for me under Firefox (after I unblocked the epa.gov and google.com scripts on that EPA page). Dunno what to tell you for Internet "Exploder" or other browsers though. After clicking on one of the blue or white "balloon" icons, you should see some details for that monitor location pop up. The "show detail" link below the "Gamma Energy Range" readings will give you an option to download an Excel spreadsheet file of that data.

I took this earlier today for Portland, OR:



https://cdxnode64.epa.gov/radnet-public/showMap.do

Posted by: lunk Mar 19 2011, 06:50 PM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 19 2011, 02:24 PM) *
This is nonsense. It will not and can't happen. The radioactivity at Chernobyl was steadily 25-750 times higher than the peak values at Fukushima immediately after venting and explosions at No3, where unlike Chernobyl no nuclear explosion occured.

is it "out" yet?

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 19 2011, 08:03 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 17 2011, 09:50 PM) *
is it "out" yet?


maybe next week. if not then, definitely by april..june at the latest, but don't hold me to that.

Posted by: lunk Mar 19 2011, 08:17 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 19 2011, 04:03 PM) *
maybe next week. if not then, definitely by april..june at the latest, but don't hold me to that.

What if there is another tsunami, there, again, even after that?

How does one leave a sign to warn people about the radioactivity of an area, 1000 years into the future?

The entire nuclear industry was a byproduct of the development of the nuclear bomb. nuclear power generations usefulness is very short term compared to how long into the geological timescale that these elements remain dangerous.

It would probably be best to subduct them into the Earth,
but even the future of that science is questionable.

Posted by: Johnny Angel Mar 19 2011, 10:12 PM

Tume.. I am not going to argue your facts and charts with mine. Nukes are much more expensive to build and finance. I work Construction, it costs the same to build the generator, the Electrical output faciliys and transmission systems. The part about boiling the water/steam to spin the generators is where the cost of the Nuke is at least 10 times the cost, compared to Coal. Advanced cooling systems, Waste, emergency power capability to ensure cooling in case of emergency.

About the terror attacks. You dont attack the containment building, you attack the Nuclear waste storage facilitys, a light steel building with spent fuel under cold circulating water. Tons of waste waiting years to cool before it is safe to transfer to a dump which has to be safe for a few thousand years.
The damage to the Spent fuel waste facility would cause high radiation release, which would effect the humans entering the power plant, and a large Radiation release would kill thousand downwind..

Double check that insurance.. No companys will ensure Nukes, Wall street wont invest in them.
Its Govt guanentees that invest in Nukes.. a spin=-0ff from the MIlitary Industrial Complex..

Posted by: BarryWilliamsmb Mar 19 2011, 10:37 PM

In my naivety of the Japanese culture I get the feeling that one of their officials crying in public is akin to falling beside one's sword.

So when I see one of the top dogs of TEPCO breaking down over this horrific, yet predictable disaster, I am concerned.

Found this comment and a photo of the upset, soon to be litigation saturated fellow at: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/tepco-director-weeps-after-disclosing-truth-about-fukushima-disaster

From the comments of that story:

"Haywood Jablowme
on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 14:31
#1072472

From someone who has had the experience of working with Japanese Executives and Upper Management, for a Director (or someone in a high position as his) to start crying in shame is a big fucking deal.

This incident alone is enough to tell me that this is one mega cRuster-FRUCK."

Posted by: BarryWilliamsmb Mar 20 2011, 12:07 AM

I've been following this event from the beginning and I live in a Canadian province (Saskatchewan) which depends on nuclear reactors for much of its revenue.

However, I had no idea how secret and nefarious the nuclear energy industry was.

From the Manhattan Project to present - this is one of the more screwed up enterprises of mankind!

When I was two years old, the same shite was happening then as is occurring today.

Only the culprits / victims names have changed...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAHmaEs5cYU

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 20 2011, 07:21 AM

QUOTE (BarryWilliamsmb @ Mar 18 2011, 01:37 AM) *
In my naivety of the Japanese culture I get the feeling that one of their officials crying in public is akin to falling beside one's sword.


it used to be that 'losing face' was what you describe. i'm in the ignorant boat on this one.

Posted by: lunk Mar 20 2011, 07:29 AM

How radioactive?
there seems to be only 3 levels of radiation in the news,
high-levels, traceable-levels, and dropping-levels.


QUOTE
BBC Philharmonic Orchestra instruments were so radioactive following a tour of Japan that they triggered off an airport alarm when they arrived back in Britain.

The cargo was stopped for inspection by radiation protection officers at Manchester airport.

When the earthquake struck the orchestra was on a coach crossing a suspension bridge 200 miles from the stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant.

Radiation contaminated the instruments which were seized on Thursday and have been held for inspection at a secure underground location at the airport.

But the 90 members of the orchestra passed through the airport without incident.

It was initially feared that their instruments were so contaminated they would have to be destroyed. But a Home Office spokesman said last night that the radiation is now believed to be harmless.

The alarm system, called Cyclamen, is used at British airports to detect nuclear ‘dirty bombs’ or materials that terrorists may try to smuggle in.

A source at the airport said it
is ‘rare’ for the alarm to activate there, even though it handles millions of tons of cargo each year.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368052/Japan-earthquake-tsunami-Tea-sandwiches-English-evacuation.html#ixzz1H8b5eTkY

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 20 2011, 12:15 PM

QUOTE (Johnny Angel @ Mar 19 2011, 03:12 PM) *
About the terror attacks. You dont attack the containment building, you attack the Nuclear waste storage facilitys, a light steel building with spent fuel under cold circulating water. Tons of waste waiting years to cool before it is safe to transfer to a dump which has to be safe for a few thousand years.
The damage to the Spent fuel waste facility would cause high radiation release, which would effect the humans entering the power plant, and a large Radiation release would kill thousand downwind..

Sorry, but this argument of "thousands killed downwind" reminds me about the disinfo argument about the threat of a "dirty bomb", which is another nonsense the disinfo pundits terrorized the public with before was soberly assessed the threat is minimal even if it would explode in the center of Washington DC.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 20 2011, 01:16 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 20 2011, 12:29 AM) *
How radioactive?

Maybe you've missed it but I was repeatedly posting the measurements from the Fukushima plant, so in the linked files are the values from around the plant.
http://www.jaea.go.jp/english/misc/online-info.shtml are measurements from four sites in Japan, which help to put the measurements at the plant into a perspective of wider areas. This measurements clearly show the expected spikes (look at the 7 days graphs), from the quite steep down slopes - which are clearly mostly the result of short half-life isotops (like the infamous I-131) fast decay - I've assessed (it is not trivial task - but if you're really interested how it is done feel free to ask questions) the values would come close to normal in orders of weeks so the cummulative dose for the population will not be harmful or dangerous. The relatively steep slope shows the decay speed signature which to me absolutely clearly rules-out a significant contamination with Sr-90, Cs-137 or Pu-241. And yes, the measurements clearly make possible the baggage and instruments of the musicians could be contaminated to measurable values (by very sensitive airport detectors), but quite certainly the level could not be harmful or even dangerous, because as such is not measured even in the Japan, and will quickly decay to practically unmeasurable values.

Posted by: maturin42 Mar 20 2011, 01:49 PM

Just imagine if, instead of nuclear power, the power generation in that area had been by rooftop solar and wind power. The survivors of the tsunami would still be dealing with a disaster, but complicated only by a massive sun and wind-spill. Distributed local generation using the most appropriate and efficient renewable sources should be the first choice. Even when everything goes right, nuclear produces waste products that remain dangerous for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. Point to any examples you can think of in which any human endeavor, such as protecting and safeguarding a repositary lasts for even hundreds of years.

The sun and wind will be around as long as we are. A large-scale commitment to it will result in increases in efficiency and lowering prices. Continuing the folly of nuclear generation will result in the enrichment of the few and risks borne by many.

In the case of the U. S., the fact that no underwriter has agreed to insure against the risks of developing new nuclear power plants should tell us something. Only with the federal government - meaning the taxpayer - standing behind them, will new nuclear plants go forward. I am willing to take the risk of sun and wind spills - not trusting everything to go right in the entire nuclear life-cycle.

Posted by: bill Mar 20 2011, 02:09 PM

Now, this is what I call safe

Notice how safe reactor #4 that was not running at the time of the quake

Notice how safe the 2 foot thick concrete building walls are

notice how safe the spent fuel rod pools are

yep SAFE


Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 20 2011, 02:12 PM

QUOTE (maturin42 @ Mar 18 2011, 04:49 PM) *
Just imagine if, instead of nuclear power, the power generation in that area had been by rooftop solar and wind power. The survivors of the tsunami would still be dealing with a disaster, but complicated only by a massive sun and wind-spill. Distributed local generation using the most appropriate and efficient renewable sources should be the first choice. Even when everything goes right, nuclear produces waste products that remain dangerous for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. Point to any examples you can think of in which any human endeavor, such as protecting and safeguarding a repositary lasts for even hundreds of years.

The sun and wind will be around as long as we are. A large-scale commitment to it will result in increases in efficiency and lowering prices. Continuing the folly of nuclear generation will result in the enrichment of the few and risks borne by many.

In the case of the U. S., the fact that no underwriter has agreed to insure against the risks of developing new nuclear power plants should tell us something. Only with the federal government - meaning the taxpayer - standing behind them, will new nuclear plants go forward. I am willing to take the risk of sun and wind spills - not trusting everything to go right in the entire nuclear life-cycle.


well stated sir!

Posted by: bill Mar 20 2011, 02:19 PM

(Emphasis added is mine)

more well engineered safety




http://allthingsnuclear.org/tagged/Japan_nuclear

A current focus of concern in Japan now is the pools at the reactors where spent fuel is stored. Some of this spent fuel is still very radioactive since it was only removed from the reactors a few months ago, and it must be covered by water and cooled to keep from overheating. If the spent fuel rods get too hot, they can suffer damage and release significant amounts of radioactive gases into the atmosphere, and could eventually catch fire.

Since several of the reactor buildings that surround these pools have been damaged by explosions, the radioactivity released from the pools in those buildings would get directly into the atmosphere. Similar fuel damage within the reactor cores would be surrounded by the reactor’s primary containment so that a much smaller fraction would get out, unless there was a significant breech of the containment.

Water needs to be added to the spent fuel pools at Fukushima since heating by the spent fuel causes the water to evaporate and boil off.

In addition, reports from Japan say that the spent fuel pool at reactor Unit 4 is leaking, which further increases the need for additional water.

A possible source of the leak in the Unit 4 pool may be the seals around the doors (or “gates”) on one side of the spent fuel pool. These gates are shown in the diagram below. They are located between the pool and the area above the reactor vessel. They are concrete with metal liners, and are roughly 20’x 3’.

When fuel is moved between the pool and vessel, this whole region is filled with water, the gates are opened, and the fuel can be moved to or from the reactor core while remaining under water. The water not only keeps the fuel rods cool but acts as a radiation shield.





Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Spent Fuel Cooling System

When the gates are closed, they are made watertight by an inflatable seal, similar to a bicycle innertube, that runs around the sides and bottom of the gates. Electric air pumps are used to inflate these seals and keep them inflated as air leaks out of them over time.

These pumps are powered by electricity from the power grid, and not by backup diesel power or batteries. So once the power grid in Japan was knocked out, these seals could not be inflated if they lost air over time. If these seals lost air they could lead to significant water loss from the pool, even if there were no direct physical damage to the pool from the earthquake or tsunami. This may be what happened at pool 4, and could affect the other pools as well.

We saw an example of this in the US at the Hatch nuclear plant in Georgia in December 1986. This reactor is very similar to the reactors at Fukushima. In the Hatch case, the line supplying air to the inflatable seal was accidentally closed, the seal lost pressure and created a leak, and by the time the problem was identified several hours later some 141,000 gallons of water leaked from the pool—about half the water in the pool Fortunately, the source of the problem was discovered and fixed before the water level uncovered the fuel.

An NRC document on the leak gave this description of the event:

A valve in the single air supply line to the seals was mistakenly closed. Although water level dropped about 5 feet and low-level alarms in the spent fuel pool worked, the leak was not specifically identified for several hours because a leak detection device was valved out and none of the seals were instrumented to alarm on loss of air pressure.

The NRC document goes on to note that if the water level had gotten low enough to expose the fuel the high radiation level around the pool would have made it difficult for workers to fix the problem.

The closed air line in the Hatch case had the same result that lack of electric power the air pump inflating the seals in Japan could have.

_________________________________________________________________

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 20 2011, 02:46 PM

QUOTE (maturin42 @ Mar 20 2011, 06:49 AM) *
Just imagine if, instead of nuclear power, the power generation in that area had been by rooftop solar and wind power. The survivors of the tsunami would still be dealing with a disaster, but complicated only by a massive sun and wind-spill. Distributed local generation using the most appropriate and efficient renewable sources should be the first choice. Even when everything goes right, nuclear produces waste products that remain dangerous for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. Point to any examples you can think of in which any human endeavor, such as protecting and safeguarding a repositary lasts for even hundreds of years.

With all the respect I think this misinterpretation of reality for several reasons.

First, globally the solar and wind not even remotely have the cappacity to substitute for coal and gas used for electricity generating given the human population and the energy needs projected, yet we must substitute coal and gas already in first half of this century, before fossil peak, otherwise a global economical and subsequent malthusian catastrophe would quicky occur.

Second, there is nothing like "nuclear waste" if we proceed to 4th generation nuclear technologies.


Third, frankly, whether you want or not the nuclear energy, at least the China and possibly other developing countries too, will build the nuclear plants like hundreds of them next decades, to achieve their national energetic security and independence, so only what the countries with enough activistic pundits to persuade gullible public to politically interfere with markets and stop the nuclear energy development argumenting with irrational fears would achieve is to stay behind and that this "green" countries - in the wake of everrising fossil resources prices - will become relatively very quickly a dependent "third world" - as is already happening at the large scale in the USA, making it most dangerous nation in the world, waging illegal wars to steal the last fossil resouces in Middle East (to meet everrising energy demand there which is the highest per capita in the world) and desperately staging so repugniant pretenses to it as 9/11 - just ~20 years after they decided there to stop nuclear energy development under the pressure of the professional activists. The promoted "renewables" besides not having needed potential also cannot economically compete even with the nuclear power of the present 3rd generation, not speaking about the 4th generation nuclear power (burning btw the so called "waste"). So it's your choice, don't wonder when "the bill" will arrive to you and especially to your children and grandchildren if you join proceeding this way - paradoxicly it would end that USA will have the old gradually more and more unstable plants posing considerable risk, which USA then couldn't shut down, because not having an alternative, while the others will have new, relatively very cheap and very safe energy resources which are essential to maintain a stable economics...

Posted by: bill Mar 20 2011, 03:05 PM

How about Germany with nearly 30 Giga watts of solar electric capacity

the US could surpass this easily since we have much more sunlight

the complete paradigm of more and more power is unsustainable

nuclear power has proved itself to be too expensive and too dangerous

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 20 2011, 03:10 PM

QUOTE (bill @ Mar 20 2011, 07:19 AM) *

funny the picture somehow doesn't show at all the outline of the Fukushima plant design and the spent fuel storage position.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Mar 20 2011, 03:26 PM

QUOTE (maturin42 @ Mar 20 2011, 12:49 PM) *
Just imagine if, instead of nuclear power, the power generation in that area had been by rooftop solar and wind power. The survivors of the tsunami would still be dealing with a disaster, but complicated only by a massive sun and wind-spill. Distributed local generation using the most appropriate and efficient renewable sources should be the first choice. Even when everything goes right, nuclear produces waste products that remain dangerous for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. Point to any examples you can think of in which any human endeavor, such as protecting and safeguarding a repositary lasts for even hundreds of years.

The sun and wind will be around as long as we are. A large-scale commitment to it will result in increases in efficiency and lowering prices. Continuing the folly of nuclear generation will result in the enrichment of the few and risks borne by many.

In the case of the U. S., the fact that no underwriter has agreed to insure against the risks of developing new nuclear power plants should tell us something. Only with the federal government - meaning the taxpayer - standing behind them, will new nuclear plants go forward. I am willing to take the risk of sun and wind spills - not trusting everything to go right in the entire nuclear life-cycle.

We need to bust the myth that solar is too expensive.

What they don't take into consideration is that solar systems need very little maintenance and rarely break down. And even when they do, big deal. The owner of the system will have plenty of motivation to get the system up and running and in the meantime, no one else will even notice. Right now over 200,000 people are displaced because a nuke plant went down.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 20 2011, 03:34 PM

QUOTE (bill @ Mar 20 2011, 08:05 AM) *
How about Germany with nearly 30 Giga watts of solar electric capacity

the US could surpass this easily since we have much more sunlight

yeah, especially at night I expect it will surpass to terawatt range rolleyes.gif

Posted by: bill Mar 20 2011, 03:35 PM

Clearly the diagram is meant for illustration only

and did you miss this from the report

"We saw an example of this in the US at the Hatch nuclear plant in Georgia in December 1986. This reactor is very similar to the reactors at Fukushima."


beyond that take it up with Dave Lochbaum he is the nuclear engineer that wrote the article

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 20 2011, 03:38 PM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Mar 20 2011, 08:26 AM) *
We need to bust the myth that solar is too expensive.

We already busted the myth it isn't expensive here in CZ, because the calculations showed the solar in CZ hugely subsidized by the previous govts. if this continue to grow would surpass the cost to repay the Czech national debt. So now the parliament started to heavily tax solar to stop this thief industry.

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 20 2011, 03:39 PM

the problems with all of this banter is that the premises are stated as fact when they may be conjecture, speculation or wishful thinking. always examine the premise, you know, have a stable foundation for your argument.

certain types of radiation kill people (whether slowly or quickly). that's a fairly well accepted premise. generally radiation in the 4-7k angstrom range will not kill people unless of course it is coherent (think laser). nuclear reactions produce radiation of much shorter wavelengths and/or charged particles which are detrimental to living things. i have yet to hear anyone explain to my satisfaction how to completely mitigate that risk. of course, some bright people may want to turn it into a numbers game, 'what's one or two lives in the grand scheme of things'. i'm not smart enough to play God.

Posted by: bill Mar 20 2011, 03:39 PM

"yeah, especially at night I expect it will surpass to terawatt range"




that why God invented wind for 'where the sun doesn't shine'


which is where you seem to have your head

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 20 2011, 03:53 PM

QUOTE (bill @ Mar 20 2011, 08:35 AM) *
Clearly the diagram is meant for illustration only
and did you miss this from the report
"We saw an example of this in the US at the Hatch nuclear plant in Georgia in December 1986. This reactor is very similar to the reactors at Fukushima."
beyond that take it up with Dave Lochbaum he is the nuclear engineer that wrote the article

I wonder why he didn't used the actual outline, the internet is full of it.

Posted by: bill Mar 20 2011, 03:58 PM

tume

you seem to be full of 'it' too

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 20 2011, 03:59 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 20 2011, 08:39 AM) *
the problems with all of this banter is that the premises are stated as fact when they may be conjecture, speculation or wishful thinking. always examine the premise, you know, have a stable foundation for your argument.

certain types of radiation kill people (whether slowly or quickly). that's a fairly well accepted premise. generally radiation in the 4-7k angstrom range will not kill people unless of course it is coherent (think laser). nuclear reactions produce radiation of much shorter wavelengths and/or charged particles which are detrimental to living things. i have yet to hear anyone explain to my satisfaction how to completely mitigate that risk. of course, some bright people may want to turn it into a numbers game, 'what's one or two lives in the grand scheme of things'. i'm not smart enough to play God.

I think there's no risk for USA from Fukushima given the readings in Japan. There is much larger source of radiactivity, especially long half-time radionuclides - for the US - at the Nevada and New Mexico test sites - yet somehow people fear a plant in Japan where no nuclear explosion occured.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 20 2011, 04:01 PM

QUOTE (bill @ Mar 20 2011, 08:58 AM) *
tume

you seem to be full of 'it' too

I think what is need to mitigate (I borrow this from Ground Pounder) now are the irrational fears - it is not very healthy as a psychologist I must say.

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 20 2011, 04:28 PM

what's a few extra cancers among friends? we all gotta go sometime:

http://rense.com/general93/chris.htm

edit:

you may want to look at ibaraki province where it looks to me like the folks are getting a years worth of background radiation in one hour (after a bit of wine,my math may be off):

http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=4870

Edit2:

i think my math is off. if the chart is to be believed, ibaraki is getting 160 micro Rem/hr. that's only ~4 milli Rem/day.
who knows.

edit3:

if the data is accurate, then it depends on where the sensor is. the nearest point in ibaraki is ~ 31 miles away from the plant, the most distant is 113 miles. slice it any way you like.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 20 2011, 06:52 PM

Here just a teaser how the "Renewables" are "perfectly safe":
hydro, just one accident of many:


death toll: 75
windmills:
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf
death toll: 67
(after the fatal accidents they now imposed 500m exclusion zones in France around the operating windturbines, which one could expect would make this bussines effectively out of market at mainland and push it out to the sea)

compare the death tolls with Fukushima or even the overal death toll in the world's nuclear industry and don't forget to relate it to the generated kilowathours... rolleyes.gif

I'm not against the renewables where it is suitable, even not against minor subsidies to it (not like in EU where the taxpayers effectively pay substantial part of the whole thing and profits to the renewables company) but I'm after studying facts extremely skeptical it can ever cover the power needs of the future mankind (not speaking it is beyond the available resources including financial to make it possible and sustainable) - if a massive depopulation will not be inflicted as some circles around the Club of Rome apparently want... frankly, I think the people who actively cry for the nuclear phase-out sh*t in their own nest.

For some this radiation dose chart can be useful:



from a japanese forum:

Posted by: bill Mar 20 2011, 07:20 PM

http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=4870



Ibaraki 2040

Posted by: p.w.rapp Mar 21 2011, 06:36 AM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 20 2011, 07:46 PM) *
With all the respect I think this misinterpretation of reality for several reasons.

First, globally the solar and wind not even remotely have the cappacity to substitute for coal and gas used for electricity generating given the human population and the energy needs projected, yet we must substitute coal and gas already in first half of this century, before fossil peak, otherwise a global economical and subsequent malthusian catastrophe would quicky occur.

Second, there is nothing like "nuclear waste" if we proceed to 4th generation nuclear technologies.

Third, frankly, whether you want or not the nuclear energy, at least the China and possibly other developing countries too, will build the nuclear plants like hundreds of them next decades, to achieve their national energetic security and independence, so only what the countries with enough activistic pundits to persuade gullible public to politically interfere with markets and stop the nuclear energy development argumenting with irrational fears would achieve is to stay behind and that this "green" countries - in the wake of everrising fossil resources prices - will become relatively very quickly a dependent "third world" - as is already happening at the large scale in the USA, making it most dangerous nation in the world, waging illegal wars to steal the last fossil resouces in Middle East (to meet everrising energy demand there which is the highest per capita in the world) and desperately staging so repugniant pretenses to it as 9/11 - just ~20 years after they decided there to stop nuclear energy development under the pressure of the professional activists. The promoted "renewables" besides not having needed potential also cannot economically compete even with the nuclear power of the present 3rd generation, not speaking about the 4th generation nuclear power (burning btw the so called "waste"). So it's your choice, don't wonder when "the bill" will arrive to you and especially to your children and grandchildren if you join proceeding this way - paradoxicly it would end that USA will have the old gradually more and more unstable plants posing considerable risk, which USA then couldn't shut down, because not having an alternative, while the others will have new, relatively very cheap and very safe energy resources which are essential to maintain a stable economics...

thumbsup.gif handsdown.gif

I agree with most of what you say, Tume, and I wonder why some P4T members, who (although they have proved to be able to see the big picture and see through most of the facets of the 9/11 scam) can't wrap their heads around other strategies of the global oligarchy i.e. their grab for the control of the global energy-supply.

They™ have been crude oil mongers for decades, controlling nearly 100% of the world's business with energy based on mineral oil (fuel etc.)

Nuclear power has always been a thorn in their flesh, which is the main reason why developement of the 4th generation nuclear technology was not funded and blocked, why dangers and threats of nuclear power and radiation have been widely exagerated if not invented, why Iran must not have their own nuclear plants... etc...

So why are they™ not changing their strategy and 'globalize' (=control) nuclear power, especially if they will allegedly run out of 'fossil' energy in a few years???

Because mineral-oil is not 'fossil' !!!

And it is not 'peaking' because there is plenty of it in the earth's shell and it is being generated by a geological process like natural gas.
Also the Russians know that, but they would be crazy to uncover the scam as long as they profit from an everrising oil price too.

So it is easyer to defend their (nearly) perfect global oil-monopoly on the commercial side and continue their efforts (and wars) to get a 100% grip on all the sources and the mining side of the business (see Irak...Libya...)


I perfectly agree with Tume on renewable energies.

QUOTE
I'm not against the renewables where it is suitable, even not against minor subsidies to it (not like in EU where the taxpayers effectively pay substantial part of the whole thing and profits to the renewables company) but I'm after studying facts extremely skeptical it can ever cover the power needs of the future mankind (not speaking it is beyond the available resources including financial to make it possible and sustainable)


In Europe many countries are now paddling back for the simple reason, that wind- and solar based equipment on a large scale is unable to supply power, when power is needed, which should have been obvious from the beginning, looking at the statistics (hours of sunshine or wind per week).
Electric power is needed on a constant level, which can only be assured by hydraulic and nuclear power-stations.
Gas and coal stations are being used for peak-hours and are known for their adverse effects on ecology!


Seems as if it is getting more and more difficult to fight against their 'reality' in the corporate media.
Earthquake, tsunami AND "nuclear desaster"
- what a perfect combination for the fear mongers.
Far better than "Chernobyl".

Hard times for factual arguments pro nuclear power. wink.gif

Posted by: lunk Mar 21 2011, 08:16 AM

The timing of this disaster in Japan was a perfect distraction from the re-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommelization of North Africa.

One thing that i wondered about, was the way the water was dumped from helicopters on the reactors...

If the object was to "top up" the water in the cooling ponds, why did so much of that dumped water miss the building?
Poor piloting?
No.
Was it to cool the rods blasted from the building from the giant explosion?

(they sprayed wtc for a long time after 9/11, too)
Water cools nuclear reactions.

Why did Japan change the names of the reactors after the accident?

cpm, rems, radioactivity...

Not only is it invisible but the different methods of measuring it, make it difficult to understand something that one does not want to stand under.
They are now putting up new radiation detectors all along the west coast of N.A. Both Canada and US.

All the potassium iodide pills are withheld from the public, and have been stockpiled by government here in BC, and there was a run on health-food stores, for kelp concentrates.

Posted by: bill Mar 21 2011, 09:05 AM

http://www.kirotv.com/news/27248974/detail.html


The USO said about 200,000 U.S. personnel are being evacuated from Japan to U.S. West Coast cities including San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle/JBLM.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 21 2011, 09:41 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 21 2011, 01:16 AM) *
Was it to cool the rods blasted from the building from the giant explosion?

To be honest, yeah this is a possibility at the No3. We cannot exclude it given how the building in detail looks like after the explosion from the photographs.

But the whole thing would become really dangerous not just locally only in a case the rods would start to burn, which can't happen even if they would not be cooled by water from above -if they're dispersed around - because the cooling by air would be then sufficient to prevent this to happen by wide margin - Oxide fuels can't start to burn (I mean only the Zirconium clading-Water reaction, which in larger assemblies would be maybe able to melt the fuel if it occurs, but not in a case of isolated fragments - and solid Zirconium alone can't catch fire itself under its boiling point of 4409! °C, Uranium and Plutonium oxides can't burn at all !) - if they wouldn't have a temperature of 900+ °C - nothing like that we see even remotely at the thermal images from the plant, where the maximum temperature seen was 128 °C at the top of the No 3 reactor primary containment -which is very expectable temperature at PWR given the inside pressures. The risk which this could pose - if the rods were ejected from the pool, which to be honest I think could be the case - is more like it could considerably hamper the efforts of the rescuers there, because making the suroundings having considerably higher dosage readings close to such fuel fragments, which I think - if it is the case - should first be meticulously gathered and put into shielded secure containers to considerably lower the overal possible dose (of gama and also because they could further release the gaseous radionuclides, posing internal contamination risk) at the compound and make the rescue efforts considerably less dangerous for the brave workers at the site.

I think the hysteria of utter nonsenses about the MOX fuel -the activists started with after they realized no new Chernobyl would happen at Fukushima- just show the pathetical desperateness of this fearmongering disinfo efforts. The Plutonium oxide has the boiling point way above 2000 °C so the possibility the Pu-239 and especially the even more immediately dangerous Pu-241 and Pu-238 would be released into the environment in significant amounts is extremely low and in fact it didn't much happened even in the Chernobyl, where the core experienced nuclear explosion, containing at the moment very considerable portion of Plutonium isotopes from the U-238 transmutation - however also in the oxidated form with very high melting (2400 °C) and boiling (2800 °C) points. -just to avoid confusion a metal Plutonium has the boiling point even higher (3228 °C - which hardly can occur even in the melting reactor core - without boiling it the volatility of Plutonium is close to zero and without melting it IS zero).

I hope this helps to cool down the fears.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 21 2011, 10:33 AM

QUOTE (p.w.rapp @ Mar 20 2011, 11:36 PM) *
So why are they™ not changing their strategy and 'globalize' (=control) nuclear power, especially if they will allegedly run out of 'fossil' energy in a few years???

Because mineral-oil is not 'fossil' !!!

Yeah, this is very much the possibility.

But the problem is the electroenergetics is not based on the oil (there almost aren't any powerplants burning oil) but coal, which is the largest used source of energy and is clearly limited and will at the present trends of consumption inevitably globally peak around half of this century -and the natural gas by wide margin has NOT the cappacity to substite coal even if we would frack'n'destoy everything not having enough water to do it anyway and which is barely enough for the relatively clean heating applications, neither the oil, which is needed for other applications than generating electricity, especially transportation and wide variety of chemical industry applications.
QUOTE
So it is easyer to defend their (nearly) perfect global oil-monopoly on the commercial side and continue their efforts (and wars) to get a 100% grip on all the sources and the mining side of the business (see Irak...Libya...)

I absolutely agree, now they very much look they also want the Libyan oil and gas...
QUOTE
In Europe many countries are now paddling back for the simple reason, that wind- and solar based equipment on a large scale is unable to supply power, when power is needed, which should have been obvious from the beginning, looking at the statistics (hours of sunshine or wind per week).

Yeah, for example in the Czech Republic the parliament recently have passed the unprecedented scheme to tax solar plants to mitigate the nonsensful decisions of previous adminstrations to subsidize the solar energy - which as was calculated would effectively end by state bankruptcy if continued -already at the end of this decade - while generating less electricity than are just the losses in the grid due to the crazy unstability of this source output which also threatens that if there would be more of this wonderful plants it would effectively take the grid down resulting in blackouts. (and the wind is even worse! - and I think it should be never used for other than local, uncentralized energy source applications, without a connection to the grid)
QUOTE
Seems as if it is getting more and more difficult to fight against their 'reality' in the corporate media.
Earthquake, tsunami AND "nuclear desaster"
- what a perfect combination for the fear mongers.
Far better than "Chernobyl".
Hard times for factual arguments pro nuclear power. wink.gif

Yeah, especially now. But I think the Fukushima cleanout would last just several months - as even the much much worse Chernobyl cleanout lasted - and the media bubble will gradually burst - when the sober and responsible among us will realize that even the 9 Richter quake, 10+ m tsunami, killing thousands instantly including paradoxicly hundreds in the fires and explosions of hydrocarbons at the oil refinery - and the subsequent horribly looking accidents at Fukushima didn't resulted in significant radioactive contamination -as the coal burning plants do 24/7 all over the world emiting considerably more radioactivity than Chernobyl -every year! and definitely several orders of magnitude more than all the normally working nuclear powerplants. So we must humbly continue with argumenting, because the future of mankind literally vitally depends on whether we tranform the energetics to nuclear, preferably 4th generation which is unlike the 3rd fully sustanable, or we would face a violent civilization and population decline -some circles around Club of Rome are openly wishing, because they gradually prove to be more and more unable to control multibillion humankind which strives for freedom.

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 21 2011, 11:41 AM

greg palast has an interesting article on the nuclear power industry in the april edition of the rock creek free press available for free:

http://rockcreekfreepress.com/

paints a rather unflattering picture. more of a reality based one sans rose colored glasses.

Posted by: bill Mar 21 2011, 11:57 AM

http://www.kirotv.com/news/27248974/detail.html


The USO said about 200,000 U.S. personnel are being evacuated from Japan to U.S. West Coast cities including San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle/JBLM.





200,000


is this sinking in yet ?

Posted by: bill Mar 21 2011, 12:27 PM

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14926992,00.html





Workers at the quake-stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan were evacuated on Monday after gray smoke was seen rising from reactor 3, which is among the most badly damaged at the six-reactor complex, a plant spokesman said.

The workers had only been pulled out of the immediate area around the reactor and not from the whole plant.

At 3:55 p.m. local time (6:55 p.m. GMT), a "light gray plume of smoke" rose from the fuel storage pool of reactor number 3, a Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) spokesman told reporters.

"Due to this problem, the operator temporarily pulled out the workers, while checking on the condition of the site," the spokesman said.

The smoke ceased shortly afterwards, but smoke was then observed rising from reactor 2.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 21 2011, 03:11 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 21 2011, 04:41 AM) *
greg palast has an interesting article on the nuclear power industry in the april edition of the rock creek free press available for free:
http://rockcreekfreepress.com/
paints a rather unflattering picture. more of a reality based one sans rose colored glasses.

Many statements in the article are more than overstaments. Just for example:
"However, it’s kind of hard to mail back a reactor with the warranty slip inside the box if the fuel rods are melted and sinking halfway to the earth’s core."

However the question of safety must be discussed further, not with rose, nor with black glasses.

I personaly find even the 3rd generation not completely inherently safe, although much safer than 2nd generation BWR's in Fukushima - for various reasons Mr. Palast names just few of, and because it is still not fool and corruption proof. That's why I think we should quickly proceed to 4th generation, especially the Liquid Fuel Technologies, where no meltdown can occur, because the fuel is already melted, which have also much bigger inherent safety, because they work at atmospheric pressure and have always negative void coeficient (the positive void coeficient - higher reactivity of the fuel in a case of coolant loss accident - was the primary reason for the disaster in Chernobyl, but fortunately not in Fukushima with much other design without any graphite moderator, which apparently survived without disatrous radioactivity release even the whole coolant usually covering the reactor core was lost and the dammage of the fuel most probably occured).

Just a personal note: I think the whole situation was considerably aggravated paradoxicly because of the safety system at the plant.
-If at least one of the 6 reactors which clearly survived even the 4th largest quake and tsunami in measured history intact, would be restarted while the emergency cooling was running on batteries, then there a source of energy would be maintained for cooling and it is very likely the situation would be very quickly managed better and no venting - which caused the explosions and which for example was the reason the TMI accident was then assessed as level 5, even nobody was even injured there - would be needed. An alternative would be for TEPCO to bring a large Megawatt scale emergency generators - which I'm sure the military has -including the means how to get it into Fukushima plant -to maintain the same. Apparently there was no such possibility envisioned and being part of the safety protocol, which in a seismically very active country is extremely weird (and it almost looks like the TEPCO LIHOP and leaved the plant to get into the state to be completely written off and paid by insurance - especially when one considers the plant happen to be planned for decommission in this very year).
I hope the future standards would include this high emergency possibilities and the review of the safety protocols in all nuclear plants in the world would ensue to make the plants safe even in the cases all the power system for after scram cooling will fail.

EDIT: I'm just adding http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/betu11_j/images/110322a.pdf of the sea water 100 meters from the plant's water outlet, where it shows I-131 127 times over normal (so it will decay to normal level in ~7 weeks), Cs-134 25 times over normal and Cs-137 16,5 times over normal, other isotopes OK, although quite fishy looks to me the ommission of the Sr-90 from the measurements.

EDIT2: Just another example how the "renewables" are safe - here in the case of a very same quake:
"When the magnitude-9 earthquake hit Japan last Friday week, a dam used for hydroelectric power in the Fukushima district collapsed, obliterating, according to some reports, 1800 homes. It is not known how many people were killed in the torrent, but it is likely to be hundreds at least."
http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dont-fall-victim-to-nuclear-phobia-20110320-1c24t.html?from=age_ft

Posted by: lunk Mar 21 2011, 03:14 PM

QUOTE (bill @ Mar 21 2011, 08:27 AM) *
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14926992,00.html





Workers at the quake-stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan were evacuated on Monday after gray smoke was seen rising from reactor 3, which is among the most badly damaged at the six-reactor complex, a plant spokesman said.

The workers had only been pulled out of the immediate area around the reactor and not from the whole plant.

At 3:55 p.m. local time (6:55 p.m. GMT), a "light gray plume of smoke" rose from the fuel storage pool of reactor number 3, a Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) spokesman told reporters.

"Due to this problem, the operator temporarily pulled out the workers, while checking on the condition of the site," the spokesman said.

The smoke ceased shortly afterwards, but smoke was then observed rising from reactor 2.


White smoke, gray smoke, black smoke, steam,
hmmm what does it mean, other than something is very hot?

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 21 2011, 03:44 PM

tume, you are missing the forest from the trees.

how for example will any generation reactor deal w/:

"The failure of emergency systems at Japan’s
nuclear plants comes as no surprise to those of us
who have worked in the field."

that's a pretty damning statement, not of the technology, but the implementation.

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 21 2011, 03:46 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 19 2011, 06:14 PM) *
White smoke, gray smoke, black smoke, steam,
hmmm what does it mean, other than something is very hot?


what's that line again....where there is smoke there is fire?

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 21 2011, 04:20 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 21 2011, 08:44 AM) *
tume, you are missing the forest from the trees.

how for example will any generation reactor deal w/:

"The failure of emergency systems at Japan’s
nuclear plants comes as no surprise to those of us
who have worked in the field."

that's a pretty damning statement, not of the technology, but the implementation.

I would sign it, because it is generally true and - need to say - considerably caused not by technogy imaturity - but by the lack of political support for this indispensable industry.
But still, the danger from the nuclear plants to the people is much lower, I would say incomparably lower, than from the coal plants - which as estimated kill 20000+ people yearly just in USA.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 21 2011, 04:22 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 21 2011, 08:46 AM) *
what's that line again....where there is smoke there is fire?

Maybe there's a fire, who knows, but as I explained above, it is not possible it comes from a fire caused by burning spent fuel rods.

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 21 2011, 04:46 PM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 19 2011, 07:20 PM) *
I would sign it, because it is generally true and - need to say - considerably caused not by technogy imaturity - but by the lack of political support for this indispensable industry.
But still, the danger from the nuclear plants to the people is much lower, I would say incomparably lower, than from the coal plants - which as estimated kill 20000+ people yearly just in USA.


nobody asked you to sign anything. if english is not your strong language, then ok, but the point was that palast stated:

"The failure of emergency systems at Japan’s
nuclear plants comes as no surprise to those of us
who have worked in the field."

there is the rub, the failure of the emergency systems should have shocked/surprised everyone. clearly some people know something about the inner workings..

why not mitigate the risks of coal fired power plants? impossible? not cost effective? what? please share.
and to further broaden the subject, why put all of humanities eggs in one basket? why not use any and every technology as long as it is safe?

in retrospect, i suppose the impediments to peace and harmony on this planet wouldn't make any money that way. how much energy do you think it takes to run all the governments/bureacracies and war machines around the world? i would bet it's quite a lot.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 21 2011, 05:15 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 21 2011, 09:46 AM) *
nobody asked you to sign anything. if english is not your strong language, then ok, but the point was that palast stated:

"The failure of emergency systems at Japan’s
nuclear plants comes as no surprise to those of us
who have worked in the field."

there is the rub, the failure of the emergency systems should have shocked/surprised everyone. clearly some people know something about the inner workings..

why not mitigate the risks of coal fired power plants? impossible? not cost effective? what? please share.
and to further broaden the subject, why put all of humanities eggs in one basket? why not use any and every technology as long as it is safe?

in retrospect, i suppose the impediments to peace and harmony on this planet wouldn't make any money that way. how much energy do you think it takes to run all the governments/bureacracies and war machines around the world? i would bet it's quite a lot.

I think I understand english enough to understand what Palast have written and my reply that I would sign it meant just that I completely agree with his cited statement, because I happen to also know something about how the superbig companies work - it is not just corruption and criminal negligence, but unfortunately often also stupidity of the feeling that nothing can happen to them and that security measures are often decided there not by people who know the job, but by bureaucrats which are there just because they're politically fit - Murphy's laws are amplified the more the company grows. And the basic one is that shit happens. An there's also the other law of bureaucracy that the least fit one to do a job becomes the director. I think Japan is not an exception.

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 21 2011, 05:24 PM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 19 2011, 08:15 PM) *
I think I understand english enough to understand what Palast have written and my reply that I would sign it meant just that I completely agree with his cited statement, because I happen to also know something about how the superbig companies work - it is not just corruption and criminal negligence, but unfortunately often also stupidity of the feeling that nothing can happen to them and that security measures are often decided there not by people who know the job, but by bureaucrats which are there just because they're politically fit - Murphy's laws are amplified the more the company grows. And the basic one is that shit happens.


ok , so having said 'that shit happens', you're of the opinion then, that 'shit' happening at a nuke plant is less of an issue than 'shit' happening at a conventional power plant? that's what you are on the record as attesting to?

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 21 2011, 05:34 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 21 2011, 10:24 AM) *
ok , so having said 'that shit happens', you're of the opinion then, that 'shit' happening at a nuke plant is less of an issue than 'shit' happening at a conventional power plant? that's what you are on the record as attesting to?

Yeah looks like the by quake breached hydro plant in Fukushima killed hundreds of people adding another tsunami this time going from inland. At the Fukushima nuclear plant nobody died so far. With the coal plants you even don't need an accident, it is apparently considered perfectly normal that the pollution from the coal plants in USA kill 20000+ people yearly and just the J. Hansen is protesting against it and when he does so, than all cry, he misuses his position in NASA. (I strongly don't agree with Hansen's crazy "Venus run-out" AGW scaremongering, but I think he's right when protesting against the coal plants, because they daily kill the people - moreover paradoxically by radiation pollution which is 100 times bigger than from a nuke plant producing the same amount of electricity - because the burned coal and subsequently the dust in the smoke is relatively highly radioactive and toxic, because coal is one of the best binders of heavy metals including the radioactive ones - that's like you would take the nukeplant fuel rods, grind them and time to time put the powder in the fire there)

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 21 2011, 06:31 PM

QUOTE (bill @ Mar 21 2011, 04:57 AM) *
200,000

I always thought the US military are little cowardly bastards, they attack just the weak, going in Libya to make another illegal war for oil, but they fear little bit of uranium they so liked to shoot all over the Iraq, Japanese sift through the rubble to find something to eat, but the famos US military what they deliver? Again just bombs...

Posted by: elreb Mar 21 2011, 06:48 PM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 21 2011, 12:31 PM) *
I always thought the US military are little cowardly bastards, they attack just the weak, going in Libya to make another illegal war for oil, but they fear little bit of uranium they so liked to shoot all over the Iraq, Japanese sift through the rubble to find something to eat, but the famos US military what they deliver? Again just bombs...

I do not personally; have a problem with this statement as long as we all understand that the US Federal Gestapo is “Not” the same as the United States of America…

Americans are "also" getting milked dry…by the “Federales”…

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 21 2011, 07:29 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Mar 19 2011, 09:48 PM) *
I do not personally; have a problem with this statement as long as we all understand that the US Federal Gestapo is “Not” the same as the United States of America…

Americans are "also" getting milked dry…by the “Federales”…


america/americans are not the fedgov. the us military follows orders(unfortunately) like every other nations' military does..and that is the problem.

Posted by: elreb Mar 21 2011, 07:45 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 21 2011, 01:29 PM) *
america/americans are not the fedgov. the us military follows orders (unfortunately) like every other nations' military does..and that is the problem.

Exactly, and Colonel Gaddafi had ordered his military to put down a rebellion.

Imagine if Americans got fed-up with unemployment, constant war and sky-rocketing prices and finally put their foot down…only to be met by the US military…bang…bang…

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 21 2011, 07:52 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 21 2011, 12:29 PM) *
america/americans are not the fedgov. the us military follows orders(unfortunately) like every other nations' military does..and that is the problem.

My rant was not intended against Americans, that's why I carefully didn't wrote "Americans", but the "US military". In this particular case I'm absolutely not sure if it is the military which follows the orders of the Nation which it should defend, or it is the Nation which follows the orders of the military and serves to it as a milking cow. Especially not after I studied the data and learned more about who's behind the 9/11...
...And don't tell me you weren't warned. Already Ike did on January 17th 1961; his successor the resistance to it™ paid the highest price for.

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 21 2011, 08:13 PM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 19 2011, 10:52 PM) *
...And don't tell me you weren't warned.


we were warned, 2000 years ago more or less....

Posted by: lunk Mar 21 2011, 08:30 PM

The best scenario, is that the radioactivity goes down and is contained, perhaps as early as next week.
...perhaps entomb it all forever, shielded in a giant limestone pyramid with no entrance.

The worst scenario is being kept uninformed by authorities.

Fighting wars on more than one continent, at the same time, is a world war, by definition.

But this pales in comparison to the potential radioactivity that could be released at Fukushima.

...and there are other reactors in Japan that could be problems too, that we are not being told about?

Posted by: elreb Mar 21 2011, 09:18 PM




Humanitarian relief supplies arrive via C-17 at Sendai Airport

3/20/2011 - A C-17 Globemaster III crew from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, lands here March 20, with 10 pallets of food, water and blankets.

This marked the first C-17 landing at the airport since the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

Members of the 320th Special Tactics Squadron from Kadena Air Base, Japan, reopened the runway to fixed-wing aircraft March 16 and cleared the rest of the runway to accommodate larger aircraft such as the C-17, enabling larger shipments of humanitarian aid. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Samuel Morse)

Posted by: lunk Mar 22 2011, 06:52 AM

It's not just us, wondering about the reliability of radiation levels reported from Japan.

QUOTE
BEIJING, March 22 (Xinhua) -- China said on Tuesday that it hoped Japan could provide "timely, accurate and comprehensive" information about radioactive leaks from a quake-hit nuclear power plant.

At a regular press briefing in Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said this information would be important for relevant countries in assessing the situation.

"China views the radioactive leaks from Japan's nuclear power plant in Fukushima as a global issue, and attaches great importance to the accident," Jiang said.


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-03/22/c_13792545.htm

Posted by: lunk Mar 22 2011, 08:19 AM

from Oct. 5, 2010 !?

QUOTE
As computers that harbor Stuxnet do not operate strangely, the virus can be transferred to a memory stick inadvertently.

According to the security company, the virus is designed to target a German-made program often used in systems managing water, gas and oil pipelines. The program is used at public utilities around the world, including in Japan.

The virus could cause such systems to act erratically, and it could take months to restore them to normal.

The 63 infected computers found in Japan were likely infected sometime after June.


http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T101004003493.htm

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 22 2011, 10:46 AM

QUOTE
All six reactors at the quake-stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant have been reconnected to external power, plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Tuesday

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/80273.html

EDIT: new seawater http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/betu11_j/images/110322c.pdf

Posted by: lunk Mar 22 2011, 01:14 PM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 22 2011, 06:46 AM) *
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/80273.html

EDIT: new seawater http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/betu11_j/images/110322c.pdf


QUOTE
Self-Defense Forces helicopters will begin measuring ''drastically changing'' temperatures at the plant every day except for rainy days to ''relieve people's concerns,'' instead of the earlier planned twice a week, he added.


Perhaps it's lost in translation but why wouldn't they measure (edit)temperatures on rainy days?
QUOTE
The No. 5 and No. 6 reactors have been less problematic than the others and achieved what is called ''cold shutdown'' on Sunday, meaning that the reactors have stopped safely with the temperature of the water inside the reactors falling below 100 C.


When does water go over 100 C?
That's the hottest water can exist under normal pressure.
it means the water was possibly boiling,
because there is something hotter than that, in the water.

And there is the temperature of the reactors and the temperature of the cooling ponds.

With a little luck they can quickly do a virus scan,
on their utility software.

(edit)added i seem to be answering my own questions.
It seems to me that they are looking for infrared hot-spots,
possibly used rods blasted outside the station,
that will get hotter if they are not wet.

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 22 2011, 01:29 PM

i found this to be an interesting blurb:

"Japan's science ministry says radiation exceeding 400 times the normal level was detected in soil about 40 kilometers from the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The ministry surveyed radioactive substances in soil about 5 centimeters below the surface at roadsides on Monday. The ministry found 43,000 becquerels of radioactive iodine-131 per kilogram of soil, and 4,700 becquerels of radioactive cesium-137 per kilogram about 40 kilometers west-northwest of the plant."

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Mar 22 2011, 02:27 PM

QUOTE
Perhaps it's lost in translation but why wouldn't they measure (edit)temperatures on rainy days?


Because the rain is radioactive. Not a good thing for helicopters or the crews. That's why they tell everyone to stay indoors if it rains in the hot zones.

Posted by: Ricochet Mar 22 2011, 06:16 PM

Salt water and computer components, wiring, valves, switches etc. don't mix well. What is going to happen when power is re-stored? The salt magically evaporates with the water? No of course not. Re-build the entire system? No one has come up with ANY answers. The thought of encasing the whole plant in concrete is not working out so well for Chernobyl 25 some odd years on.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 22 2011, 09:53 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 22 2011, 06:14 AM) *
When does water go over 100 C?
That's the hottest water can exist under normal pressure.
it means the water was possibly boiling,
because there is something hotter than that, in the water.

There is relatively high pressure inside the containment, and the boiling point of water is dependent on the pressure.

I hope this helps.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 22 2011, 11:17 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 22 2011, 06:29 AM) *
i found this to be an interesting blurb:
"Japan's science ministry says radiation exceeding 400 times the normal level was detected in soil about 40 kilometers from the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The ministry surveyed radioactive substances in soil about 5 centimeters below the surface at roadsides on Monday. The ministry found 43,000 becquerels of radioactive iodine-131 per kilogram of soil, and 4,700 becquerels of radioactive cesium-137 per kilogram about 40 kilometers west-northwest of the plant."

Source?
Legal limits for Cs-137 vary country to country but in Czech Republic it is 100 Bq/kg in water, and 1250 Bq/kg in solid food. Normal should be say at least 5-10 times lower. I don't know the limits for soil, if there are any, but the value you write looks to me be relatively very high.
To put it into perspective: in Chernobyl 30-40km from the plant zone 2, the soil radioactivity is in order of hundreds of thousands-milions Bq/kg, mostly due to Cs-137 which is the most major contamination there (no traces of short half-time isotopes left there after 25 years) - which would take hundreds of years to decay to normal levels and so although the zone is not evacuated only like 200 thousand people rested to live there and it is forbidden to eat the wild fruits which grow there, drink the local water and children must not play outside on undecontataminated places.
Forget I-131, it decays to normal values after like 10 weeks from any value and can be easily countered by Iodine intake, but Cs-137 is important because it stays long in the environment and the organisms tend to confuse it with Potasium.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 22 2011, 11:45 PM

QUOTE (Ricochet @ Mar 22 2011, 11:16 AM) *
Salt water and computer components, wiring, valves, switches etc. don't mix well. What is going to happen when power is re-stored? The salt magically evaporates with the water? No of course not. Re-build the entire system? No one has come up with ANY answers. The thought of encasing the whole plant in concrete is not working out so well for Chernobyl 25 some odd years on.

I think an encasing is not very good solution - as we see in Chernobyl, where important to note was no other option at the time, but after the years the "sarcophage" must be reconstructed which will be not cheap. I think the Fukushima plant should be completely dismantled the udecontaminable parts burried and all the remains of the fuel stored and gradually reprocessed. (I think the 5,6 most probably will be decommissioned too and also should be dismantled). It will be pretty expensive for TEPCO, but I think the plant insurance and govt. definitely should do it. On the site they can then build a new plant of contemporary design.

Posted by: maturin42 Mar 23 2011, 12:25 AM

QUOTE
...On the site they can then build a new plant of contemporary design.
Where this time, nothing really, really, cross my heart, ..NOTHING... can possibly EVER, EVER, go wrong...ever. Absolutely.

I promise. doh1.gif

Posted by: BarryWilliamsmb Mar 23 2011, 03:59 AM

US spent-fuel storage sites are packed (Associated Press)

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_JAPAN_QUAKE_US_SPENT_FUEL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-22-20-17-37

I'm certain that future generations will thank us for giving them this huge anchor to drag.

Posted by: lunk Mar 23 2011, 07:09 AM

plume flow:
(it's in German but i can read the pictures)

http://www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/index.php?seite=1&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-21GMT10:22

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 23 2011, 07:37 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 21 2011, 10:09 AM) *
plume flow:
(it's in German but i can read the pictures)

http://www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/index.php?seite=1&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-21GMT10:22


thanks lunk, the pictures are telling.

Posted by: Ricochet Mar 23 2011, 11:37 AM

Reactor #1 heating up.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/fukushima-update-reactor-1-core-now-380-celsius-80-more-normal-running-temporature


From JAIF;

QUOTE
Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency announced in its news briefing held around 10:00 AM on March 23 that the core temperature exceed design value of 302℃ and reached almost 400℃ at Unit-1. Core cooling function was enhanced through increasing number of injection lines, given this situation. (10:55, March 23)

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 23 2011, 01:00 PM

so let's say the fukushima Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition program comes back online ( i am skeptical, 500 milliSieverts will do that to a man), but let's say it comes up and the tech's have their rad suits on. do they reboot the system and the techs see a screen saying 'welcome to stuxnet, all circuits are busy, please try your request later.' does the sarcophagus become the option then?

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 23 2011, 02:03 PM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 21 2011, 02:17 AM) *
Source?


lost the original somewhere :

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/23_28.html

Posted by: lunk Mar 23 2011, 05:02 PM

QUOTE
Situation Update No. 57
On 23.03.2011 at 15:04 GMT+2

WORK at the No. 2 reactor at Japan's stricken Fukushima nuclear plant was halted today after radiation levels of 500 millisieverts were detected.


http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/woalert_read.php?edis=NC-20110311-29877-JPN

Posted by: Ricochet Mar 23 2011, 06:38 PM

QUOTE
In Tokyo, the metropolitan government said radioactive iodine exceeding the limit for infants was detected in water at a purification plant

source Kyodo news.

I found this article in Science Digest.
QUOTE
Sediment cores pulled from the Hudson River near the World Trade Center site just a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks contain a thin layer of metal-rich ash and pulverized debris. That's not surprising. What did surprise researchers was the discovery of radioactive iodine--a substance unrelated to the attacks--in the top few centimeters of river silt.


I like how they don't know where it came from but know it was unrelated to the attacks.

Posted by: lunk Mar 23 2011, 07:03 PM

QUOTE (Ricochet @ Mar 23 2011, 02:38 PM) *
source Kyodo news.

I found this article in Science Digest.
QUOTE
Sediment cores pulled from the Hudson River near the World Trade Center site just a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks contain a thin layer of metal-rich ash and pulverized debris. That's not surprising. What did surprise researchers was the discovery of radioactive iodine--a substance unrelated to the attacks--in the top few centimeters of river silt.


I like how they don't know where it came from but know it was unrelated to the attacks.


How many people were told to take iodine pills after 9/11?

The truth lingers forever.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 23 2011, 09:20 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 23 2011, 12:09 AM) *
plume flow:
(it's in German but i can read the pictures)

http://www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/index.php?seite=1&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-21GMT10:22

http://www.zamg.ac.at/docs/aktuell/Japan2011-03-21_1500_E.pdf although not animated.
So the simulations - is good news for USA - it clearly shows no overbackground surface levels of Cs-137 reaches USA.
The Xe-133, which is highly inert and doesn't accumulate in living tissues (so that's why it is used in radiomedicine to be inhaled-in for imaging of lungs and brain functions) has half-life of 5.2 days. So from any conceivable value it comes to values close to backround in max. 8 weeks and doesn't stay in environment.
Here NILU Xe-133 Potential releases simulation:

Mind this is whole atmosphere column concentrations, for surface concentrations go:http://transport.nilu.no/products/fukushima are all the simulations including surface.

Posted by: IslandPilot Mar 23 2011, 09:42 PM

QUOTE (Ricochet @ Mar 23 2011, 05:38 PM) *
source Kyodo news.

I found this article in Science Digest.
QUOTE
Sediment cores pulled from the Hudson River near the World Trade Center site just a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks contain a thin layer of metal-rich ash and pulverized debris. That's not surprising. What did surprise researchers was the discovery of radioactive iodine--a substance unrelated to the attacks--in the top few centimeters of river silt.


I like how they don't know where it came from but know it was unrelated to the attacks.

EXACTLY! thumbsup.gif
I have often wondered about the make up of that dust, that was washed down the drains, or otherwise ended up in the water. And I'll bet that stuff is still settled on the bottom, downstream of the WTC today. Does that silt contain dangerous chemicals; if so what kind, and how much; and is it radioactive or not?

This "research" needs to be accomplished ASAP, to maintain a healthy environment and food chain, if for no other reason. If it provides forensic evidence for "unsual" substances related to 9/11, the matter should be documented and persued further.

Posted by: lunk Mar 23 2011, 09:54 PM



little puffy clouds

Posted by: Johnny Angel Mar 23 2011, 10:06 PM

Did you say FOOD CHAIN.. think about all the Innocent fish & SeaCreatures breathing in all that water that is being used to cool the Fukushima NUKE facility. How long will it take to prep Mars for Human occupation..??

Tume.. Would you eat the spinach or broccilli that grows withn 30 miles of Fukushima..??

About all those Statisitcs and temperatures at Fukushima.. Since when did anyone who is a member here take anything serious that the Govt or Scientific Establishment says. Jet Fuel can bring down a WTC. Jumbo jets can fly 500 mph at sea level.. Diesel Fuel can bring down WTC-7.

Please dont post data supplied by the________________. They cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

Posted by: Ricochet Mar 23 2011, 10:12 PM

QUOTE (IslandPilot @ Mar 23 2011, 05:42 PM) *
I like how they don't know where it came from but know it was unrelated to the attacks.

EXACTLY! thumbsup.gif
I have often wondered about the make up of that dust, that was washed down the drains, or otherwise ended up in the water. And I'll bet that stuff is still settled on the bottom, downstream of the WTC today. Does that silt contain dangerous chemicals; if so what kind, and how much; and is it radioactive or not?

This "research" needs to be accomplished ASAP, to maintain a healthy environment and food chain, if for no other reason. If it provides forensic evidence for "unsual" substances related to 9/11, the matter should be documented and persued further.

I've also pointed out that according to the USGS the Strontium level was excedingly high as well. First responders also have a high incidence of artieal and aeortal calcification. This was also noted in 4 other incidents, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. I'm sure that the US soldiers used for nuclear testing. Also rare blood cancers, asbestos does not cause blood cancer.

Posted by: lunk Mar 23 2011, 10:23 PM

The cooling tanks normally have boron in them to suppress neutrons emissions from the used rods held in the pools, from what i have read. Salt water may not have the same properties.

There was a report 'bout an increase in neutrons coming from the reactors, indicating that a fission reaction is beginning, but i haven't found that report, yet.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

This is not good.
you can't stop a million degrees of heat.

Posted by: lunk Mar 23 2011, 11:02 PM

i wonder if a fission reaction in one reactor will cause the other rods in the nearby reactors to fiz, too, because of their close proximity?

Posted by: albertchampion Mar 24 2011, 12:47 AM

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/fukushima-fifty

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 24 2011, 04:13 AM

QUOTE (Johnny Angel @ Mar 23 2011, 03:06 PM) *
Tume.. Would you eat the spinach or broccilli that grows withn 30 miles of Fukushima..??

Not two months after the leak is stopped -until I-131 and Xe-133 aren't gone.
QUOTE
About all those Statisitcs and temperatures at Fukushima.. Since when did anyone who is a member here take anything serious that the Govt or Scientific Establishment says. Jet Fuel can bring down a WTC. Jumbo jets can fly 500 mph at sea level.. Diesel Fuel can bring down WTC-7.
Please dont post data supplied by the________________. They cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

What if I write: Johny, don't post here, because you show lack of understanding of the topic? rolleyes.gif

Yesterday lunk posted here a link to the simulations of the I-131, Cs-137 and Xe-133 spread made by Austrian Met Office. I've then added link to the Norwegian government NILU simulations.

Both this simulations from this two antinuclear governments of Austria and Norway are now very much suspect to not include decay simulation -which in case of I-131 and especially Xe-133 would be absolutely scandalous and would change the result the direction of desired alarmist bias beyond recognition -being so a result of scientific misconduct BEHIND the edge of the criminal misconduct as is perceived in Europe - all produced by govt. agencies of antinuclear governments. Should I now tell Lunk to not post here anymore?

No, it is not my, neither Lunk's fault the simulations are now very much suspect to be fraudulent, showing in poisonous colors something completely else, than the measurements (- not comparable to what I see measured at http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-data-map.html - where still nothing special is measured) Whom to believe? dunno.gif I don't much believe EPA either...

I of course wrote to the Austrian and Norwegian Met Offices already yesterday to ask the tough question whether their simulations include Xe-133 and I-131 decay simulation or not, because I have strong reasons to believe they don't and it would very substantially change the result (similarly as the simulation published at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/16/science/plume-graphic.html?ref=science I discovered meanwhile). No reply so far - as expected. (If I ever get any, I'll post it here)

I still have not much reason not to believe the japanese measurements (although as everything I take it with grain of salt) because I've multiple sources from there, not just TEPCO, which seem to more or less corroborate each other and show relatively high, although still not immediately dangerous values outside Fukushima plant, in all cases values several orders of magnitude lower than the contamination NOW, after 25 years, in the Chernobyl zones 1,2,3,4.

Yet I've now substantial reason to believe the poisonous colors simulations of the radioactive plume spread to USA -from the antinuclear governments- are fraudulent.

Why? Who would have a reason to do something like that to scare people on the US west coast? Follow the money as in the cases of fraudulent "black box" simulations used for promoting the AGW scam - done by same people from Met Offices...

Just for comparison with the Austrian and NYT simulation -this was simulated by Belgians:


By posting the links to data I just provide link to informations, whether you believe it or not is purely up to you. Nobody forces you to even read it.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 24 2011, 04:43 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 23 2011, 03:23 PM) *
The cooling tanks normally have boron in them to suppress neutrons emissions from the used rods held in the pools, from what i have read. Salt water may not have the same properties.

There was a report 'bout an increase in neutrons coming from the reactors, indicating that a fission reaction is beginning, but i haven't found that report, yet.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

This is not good.
you can't stop a million degrees of heat.

I haven't found anything about rising neutron radiation from the Fukushima plant. Do they simply make it up at "whatreallyhappened"?
The water is there for cooling decay heat not to stop fission, the neutron poisoning (capture neutrons) by boron is good to keep the fuel not undergo too much residual fission and it's good to be infused with boron, but the geometry of the used fuel storages rules-out a criticality even if it is not infused with boron. It is not easy to get the fuel to criticality, scientist spent decades to find out how to do it, it is not easy, especially not with used fuel...it would be like you put the broken sprockets in the bag, shake it and you take out a functioning alarm clock. Likelyhood zero. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 24 2011, 05:04 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 23 2011, 04:02 PM) *
i wonder if a fission reaction in one reactor will cause the other rods in the nearby reactors to fiz, too, because of their close proximity?

No, it can't happen, you need hundreds of tons of the fuel carefully arranged in the reactor's core in non neutron poisonous moderator (for example very pure water) to reach criticality. Moreover after the fuel is spent - the amount of fissile material in the rods considerably diminishes - it is even more difficult to reach criticality with the spent fuel. It is possible, but you need large assembly with certain geometry + moderator -it would not happen if you just pile the fuel rods. And even if it would happen in the reactor core and do what is called fizzle - a smal nuclear explosion - which displaces the fuel and stops the chain reaction immediately - as it most probably happened in Chernobyl, resulting in fizzle of ~10t TNT equivalent, because they drawed out the control rods and when they've scrammed them back, their grafite tips (a crazy design fault) initiated run-out supercritical event, which destroyed the reactor and subsequently the upper part of the core fizzled. Nothing like that can happen in Fukushima, because the reactors were scrammed immediately after the quake, so there is no chain reaction going on since then.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 24 2011, 05:48 AM

QUOTE (albertchampion @ Mar 23 2011, 05:47 PM) *
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/fukushima-fifty

thumbsup.gif

I think it is important to mind there are the people risking their lives at Fukushima. I don't know if some died, I didn't see any official reports like that, but there were three workers injured yesterday when laying the cables by high radiation and suffered beta-radiation burns on their feets:
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/80757.html

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 24 2011, 06:32 AM

I just got a reply from the NILU:
to cite:

QUOTE
Hello,

First, let us acknowledge the people of Japan for their strength and courage in the wake of the devastation caused by the tsunami. Our thoughts go out to them first and foremost. In an effort to provide some assistance, we created the simulations of *potential* releases and dispersal of pollutants caused by the failure of the cooling stations at the Fuksushima Daiichi plant. This email is being sent to those who have expressed interest or asked for further information about the model simulation.

Information regarding our products is available online at the link:
http://transport.nilu.no/products/fukushima (in case you only saw our plots on a blog or elsewhere).

Some key points:

* Our 'emissions' or source terms are highly uncertain at this point, and may overestimate true emissions. We have little data available to us regarding the actual release quantities.

* We release 'tracers' that are representative of I-131, Xe-133, and Cs-137. These tracers do include parameterization for decay and deposition.

* We provide both total column output of the model simulation and a product that shows the concentration as the bottom level of the model (0-100 m.). Total column means the sum of measurements from the top of the atmosphere to the surface in a grid (0.5 degree by latitude / longitude).

* The model is a global transport model (please refer again to the link for more information on the actual model) using 0.5 degree gridded meteorological information. Thus it may not be suitable for complex topography and regional analysis.

* We do show concentrations reaching large portions of the Northern Hemisphere, but in low concentrations that are not of concern to human health presently.



So, they've now 'tracers' released, which means the spread model itself doesn't involve not just the decay but also the deposition simulation? For the vast ocean between, where most of the cloud would dissipate into, especially for just above surface cluster...Niice... blink.gif
How they assess the true emissions if their values are arbitrary, not in any real radiation units? How they assess dangerousness if they have "little data available regarding the actual release quantities" remains a mystery to me...
All the simulations I've seen until now have the same problem - the values are arbitrary, not in real radiation units. Some poisonous colors engulfing world map, without any real units behind them.
Junk science, designed to scare public in my opinion and at the same time to cover their back with the statements about "high uncertainity", "maybe overestimated" and "concentrations that are not of concern to human health presently"...

Posted by: lunk Mar 24 2011, 07:50 AM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 24 2011, 02:32 AM) *
I just got a reply from the NILU:
to cite:



So, they've now 'tracers' released, which means the spread model itself doesn't involve not just the decay but also the deposition simulation? For the vast ocean between, where most of the cloud would dissipate into, especially for just above surface cluster...Niice... blink.gif
How they assess the true emissions if their values are arbitrary, not in any real radiation units? How they assess dangerousness if they have "little data available regarding the actual release quantities" remains a mystery to me...
All the simulations I've seen until now have the same problem - the values are arbitrary, not in real radiation units. Some poisonous colors engulfing world map, without any real units behind them.
Junk science, designed to scare public in my opinion and at the same time to cover their back with the statements about "high uncertainity", "maybe overestimated" and "concentrations that are not of concern to human health presently"...


There has been a raise in background radiation on the west coast of north America, outside any model, and the winds blow the same direction, and smoke and steam are still raising into the atmosphere, from the nuclear energy stations.

That is a heart wrenching story about the 50 workers/heros at the reactors...

How many de-commissioned reactors are there in the world?

Posted by: bill Mar 24 2011, 09:35 AM

Interview with Hirosh Takashi, author of many books on the nuclear industry

Yoh: Tepco [Tokyo Electric Power Company, owner/operator of the nuclear plants] says they expect to bring in a high voltage line this evening.

Hirose: Yes, there’s a little bit of hope there. But what’s worrisome is that a nuclear reactor is not like what the schematic pictures show (shows a graphic picture of a reactor, like those used on TV). This is just a cartoon. Here’s what it looks like underneath a reactor container (shows a photograph). This is the butt end of the reactor. Take a look. It’s a forest of switch levers and wires and pipes. On television these pseudo-scholars come on and give us simple explanations, but they know nothing, those college professors. Only the engineers know. This is where water has been poured in. This maze of pipes is enough to make you dizzy. Its structure is too wildly complex for us to understand. For a week now they have been pouring water through there. And it’s salt water, right? You pour salt water on a hot kiln and what do you think happens? You get salt. The salt will get into all these valves and cause them to freeze. They won’t move. This will be happening everywhere. So I can’t believe that it’s just a simple matter of you reconnecting the electricity and the water will begin to circulate. I think any engineer with a little imagination can understand this. You take a system as unbelievably complex as this and then actually dump water on it from a helicopter – maybe they have some idea of how this could work, but I can’t understand it.

Yoh: It will take 1300 tons of water to fill the pools that contain the spent fuel rods in reactors 3 and 4. This morning 30 tons. Then the Self Defense Forces are to hose in another 30 tons from five trucks. That’s nowhere near enough, they have to keep it up. Is this squirting of water from hoses going to change the situation?

Hirose: In principle, it can’t. Because even when a reactor is in good shape, it requires constant control to keep the temperature down to where it is barely safe. Now it’s a complete mess inside, and when I think of the 50 remaining operators, it brings tears to my eyes. I assume they have been exposed to very large amounts of radiation, and that they have accepted that they face death by staying there. And how long can they last? I mean, physically. That’s what the situation has come to now. When I see these accounts on television, I want to tell them, “If that’s what you say, then go there and do it yourself!” Really, they talk this nonsense, trying to reassure everyone, trying to avoid panic. What we need now is a proper panic. Because the situation has come to the point where the danger is real.

If I were Prime Minister Kan, I would order them to do what the Soviet Union did when the Chernobyl reactor blew up, the sarcophagus solution, bury the whole thing under cement, put every cement company in Japan to work, and dump cement over it from the sky. Because you have to assume the worst case. Why? Because in Fukushima there is the Daiichi Plant with six reactors and the Daini Plant with four for a total of ten reactors. If even one of them develops the worst case, then the workers there must either evacuate the site or stay on and collapse. So if, for example, one of the reactors at Daiichi goes down, the other five are only a matter of time. We can’t know in what order they will go, but certainly all of them will go. And if that happens, Daini isn’t so far away, so probably the reactors there will also go down. Because I assume that workers will not be able to stay there.

I’m speaking of the worst case, but the probability is not low. This is the danger that the world is watching. Only in Japan is it being hidden. As you know, of the six reactors at Daiichi, four are in a crisis state. So even if at one everything goes well and water circulation is restored, the other three could still go down. Four are in crisis, and for all four to be 100 per cent repaired, I hate to say it, but I am pessimistic. If so, then to save the people, we have to think about some way to reduce the radiation leakage to the lowest level possible. Not by spraying water from hoses, like sprinkling water on a desert. We have to think of all six going down, and the possibility of that happening is not low. Everyone knows how long it takes a typhoon to pass over Japan; it generally takes about a week. That is, with a wind speed of two meters per second, it could take about five days for all of Japan to be covered with radiation. We’re not talking about distances of 20 kilometers or 30 kilometers or 100 kilometers. It means of course Tokyo, Osaka. That’s how fast a radioactive cloud could spread. Of course it would depend on the weather; we can’t know in advance how the radiation would be distributed. It would be nice if the wind would blow toward the sea, but it doesn’t always do that. Two days ago, on the 15th, it was blowing toward Tokyo. That’s how it is. . . .

Yoh: Every day the local government is measuring the radioactivity. All the television stations are saying that while radiation is rising, it is still not high enough to be a danger to health. They compare it to a stomach x-ray, or if it goes up, to a CT scan. What is the truth of the matter?

Hirose: For example, yesterday. Around Fukushima Daiichi Station they measured 400 millisieverts – that’s per hour. With this measurement (Chief Cabinet Secretary) Edano admitted for the first time that there was a danger to health, but he didn’t explain what this means. All of the information media are at fault here I think. They are saying stupid things like, why, we are exposed to radiation all the time in our daily life, we get radiation from outer space. But that’s one millisievert per year. A year has 365 days, a day has 24 hours; multiply 365 by 24, you get 8760. Multiply the 400 millisieverts by that, you get 3,500,000 the normal dose. You call that safe? And what media have reported this? None. They compare it to a CT scan, which is over in an instant; that has nothing to do with it. The reason radioactivity can be measured is that radioactive material is escaping. What is dangerous is when that material enters your body and irradiates it from inside. These industry-mouthpiece scholars come on TV and what to they say? They say as you move away the radiation is reduced in inverse ratio to the square of the distance. I want to say the reverse. Internal irradiation happens when radioactive material is ingested into the body. What happens? Say there is a nuclear particle one meter away from you. You breathe it in, it sticks inside your body; the distance between you and it is now at the micron level. One meter is 1000 millimeters, one micron is one thousandth of a millimeter. That’s a thousand times a thousand: a thousand squared. That’s the real meaning of “inverse ratio of the square of the distance.” Radiation exposure is increased by a factor of a trillion. Inhaling even the tiniest particle, that’s the danger.

Yoh: So making comparisons with X-rays and CT scans has no meaning. Because you can breathe in radioactive material.

Hirose: That’s right. When it enters your body, there’s no telling where it will go. The biggest danger is women, especially pregnant women, and little children. Now they’re talking about iodine and cesium, but that’s only part of it, they’re not using the proper detection instruments. What they call monitoring means only measuring the amount of radiation in the air. Their instruments don’t eat. What they measure has no connection with the amount of radioactive material. . . .


more here


http://counterpunch.org/takashi03222011.html

Posted by: Ricochet Mar 24 2011, 11:28 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 23 2011, 06:23 PM) *
The cooling tanks normally have boron in them to suppress neutrons emissions from the used rods held in the pools, from what i have read. Salt water may not have the same properties.

There was a report 'bout an increase in neutrons coming from the reactors, indicating that a fission reaction is beginning, but i haven't found that report, yet.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

This is not good.
you can't stop a million degrees of heat.


Here you go Lunk.
http://www.japantoday.com/category/technology/view/neutron-beam-observed-13-times-at-crippled-fukushima-nuke-plant

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 24 2011, 02:18 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 24 2011, 12:50 AM) *
There has been a raise in background radiation on the west coast of north America, outside any model, and the winds blow the same direction, and smoke and steam are still raising into the atmosphere, from the nuclear energy stations.
That is a heart wrenching story about the 50 workers/heros at the reactors...

yeah, it is very possible the Xe-133 will reach USA, but in concentrations barely above background, and anyway Xe-133 has a half-life of 5.2 days, so it will decay quickly. It poses no risk to anybody in USA.
QUOTE
How many de-commissioned reactors are there in the world?

I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning. I think the most dangerous is Windscale Pile 1 (which still theoretically can catch fire and nobody knows when the site will be decontaminated although the accident there happened already in 1957), followed by Chernobyl 4

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 24 2011, 06:48 PM

Just to note because I promised to inform about it:
I, unlike from Norway, still didn't get any answer from the Austrians regarding their simulations (why I don't wonder... rolleyes.gif ), but weirdly (not so much) the ZAMG after my and most probably also other peoples emails "updated the site" and completely took down the Xe-133 and Cs-137 spread simulations leaving only substantially changed I-131:
http://www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/index.php?seite=1&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-23GMT10:57 you can compare it with the previous version http://www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/index.php?seite=1&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-21GMT10:22 if it would be still up.

Yet they now (in german - and already with no english translation...do they want to keep the "information" for their antinuclear activists?) added the "information" the Cesium release from Fukushima is "20-60%" of that from Chernobyl - while the measurements in Japan show something completely else and the measured values would suggest there the Cesium release like 3-5! orders of magnitude lower.
So whom to believe? dunno.gif -The japanese measuring at the site or the Austrians doing in Vienna their black box "simulations" they then must take down (without notice) -for their very little to zero correspondence to actual reality?

A rhetoric question: You still don't smell a rat? whistle.gif

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 24 2011, 08:34 PM

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20285-fukushima-radioactive-fallout-nears-chernobyl-levels.html

Posted by: lunk Mar 25 2011, 12:33 AM

(source: japan tv news)

http://delicast.com/tv/Japan/news/NHK_World

Radiation levels found in water were 10,000 times the level of the water in a working reactor. The water was found in the turbine building, where usually no radiation would be found. 3 workers were standing in the water and received sever radiation burns and are being hospitalized.
This probably means that the sheathing on the outside of some fuel rods have been compromised and water is mixing directly with the hot radioactive elements, and leaking from the reactor building.



And spring must be early with yellow rain seen in Tokyo,
from, er, officially, pollen.

Posted by: bill Mar 25 2011, 06:18 AM

Concrete pumping truck on its way to Japan from China courtesy of Saudi Arabia

(meanwhile the US continues to evacuate bases in Japan)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-03/22/c_13791992.htm



SHANGHAI, March 22 (Xinhua) -- A Chinese-made pump truck with a long boom will leave Shanghai for Japan Tuesday after the owner of the troubled Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant requested it, according the vehicle's manufacturer.

The vehicle with a 62-meter boom is scheduled to be shipped Tuesday morning. It is expected to arrive at the port of Osaka, Japan on Wednesday or Thursday.

Posted by: bill Mar 25 2011, 06:25 AM

not good, lunk

is this as in 'yellow cake' unranium oxide maybe ?

I hope the concrete pump gets there soon (maybe too late)

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 25 2011, 06:33 AM

level 6:

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201103250204.html

Posted by: lunk Mar 25 2011, 07:55 AM

QUOTE (bill @ Mar 25 2011, 02:25 AM) *
not good, lunk

is this as in 'yellow cake' unranium oxide maybe ?

I hope the concrete pump gets there soon (maybe too late)


Before nuclear energy was discovered, uranium oxide was used as a glaze in pottery, i think it was yellow.

Interesting term, "yellow cake"
like the yellow was "caked" on to surfaces,
after a nuclear rain?

Posted by: mrodway Mar 25 2011, 08:15 AM

Or perhaps the yellow rain could be Silver Iodide from cloud seeding?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_iodide

Still not a good sign however!

How we made the Chernobyl rain
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549366/How-we-made-the-Chernobyl-rain.html

Posted by: lunk Mar 25 2011, 08:37 AM

QUOTE (mrodway @ Mar 25 2011, 04:15 AM) *
Or perhaps the yellow rain could be Silver Iodide from cloud seeding?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_iodide

Still not a good sign however!

How we made the Chernobyl rain
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549366/How-we-made-the-Chernobyl-rain.html


Metals can be distinguished sometimes, by the colour of their sulfates, carbonates or oxides.
rust is red. copper is blue, cadmium, bright yellow.
Uranium was also used in glass making,
causing the glass to be a ghoulish green.
(gold makes red stained glass and the very popular "cranberry glass")

i don't know if there would be enough AgI in cloud seeding to be visible on the ground. There only needs to be 1 nano particle per raindrop.


Posted by: IslandPilot Mar 25 2011, 10:14 AM

"Yellowcake" is enriched uranium ore. The "existance" of "yellowcake" in Iraq, was part of the controversy, that "kindled" the war against Saddam Hussein.

QUOTE
Yellowcake is used in the preparation of uranium fuel for nuclear reactors, for which it is smelted into purified UO2 for use in fuel rods for pressurized heavy-water reactors and other systems that use natural unenriched uranium.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake[/url]


Posted by: Ricochet Mar 25 2011, 12:24 PM

Credit Cryptome "Eyeball" series. Spent Nuclear fuel pools and dry storage in the U.S.
http://cryptome.org/eyeball/isfsi/isfsi-eyeball.htm

Posted by: maturin42 Mar 25 2011, 02:43 PM

It might be pertinent to the discussion to mention Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. Rachel Maddow outlined the almost unbelievable history of missteps, human errors, miscalculations, and just plain neglect of simple safety checks that characterize that ill-conceived and badly executed venture. The fact that the smoking hulks are generating radiation plumes over Japan and the Pacific instead of the midwest and Northeastern USA is sheer luck, apparently.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/42222780#42222780 catalogs the comedy of errors (comedy because it has not yet blown up in our faces) that is the aptly named Diablo Canyon nuke with its 7.1 million people living in a 50 mile radius. Turns out the emergency generators that were the downfall of Fukushima, were incapable of functioning in Diablo Canyon for 18 months, with nobody the wiser. The valves were stuck open - those generators had no chance of starting. This is for a plant that resides in the near vicinity of two fault lines in the highly unstable California coast.

Check the link and listen to the record of costs piling up, the risks being run, and the record of incompetence of those driving this particular train and tell me that we want them to resume their sorcerer's apprentice activities with taxpayer guarantees that what they do will not someday greatly endanger a large number of people.

Too cheap to meter - that was the promise.

The energy density of an operating nuke is great, but in normal operation the damn thing is constantly walking the line between doing its thing- boiling water - and overheating and melting down.

Energy Return on investment for nuclear is not great. It is exceeded by almost all the "green" generation sources, according to his analysis:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_(EROI)_for_wind_energy

I used an example projecting that if Fukushima had been generating using wind and solar there would not have been the horrendous complicator of radiation adding to the misery of the tsunami. Tume pointed out that those technologies do not have the energy density of nuclear, and that is very true. That's why those technologies work better in a decentralized mode, with power being consumed as close as possible to the generation point. Nuclear is favored by the generation industry because it is centralized, calls for multi-billion dollar projects on which profits are huge, and it tethers the customer to the generation company indefinitely, paying the rate into which all kinds of costs are figured. With Solar/Wind, excess capacity feeds back into the grid and shortages draw from the grid or from local storage batteries. If it fails, things get dark. Ohhhhhhhhhhhh. Scary. What's scary for the generation company is that theoretically, at least, the customer could achieve independence from the generation company. That frightens the diablo out of the power company Board.

If nukes were as risk-free and cost-effective as the nuclear industry would have us believe, the underwriters would be clamoring for a chance to get some money into that risk pool. They are not, and the reason they have a tough time is without taxpayers assuming the risk, the industry won't build.

In the US, we are profligate with electricity. We leave lights burning all night, our computers on, we send power all over, losing about 10% or more in the transmission, and we use it whenever it is convenient, without much thought to leveling the load. We could do a lot better, but our model says that they build to peak load +.

LED lighting, high-efficiency motors, micro-generation, and co-generation are great ways to help level the load. Our cars are shortly going to be running on electric, with batteries that could be used to level the usage in return for allowing surplus power to be stored and drawn as demand required. The old battery packs could be used to set up accumulator farms to store the excess wind energy against future need. Capacitors and auto battery research are improving very quickly under the pressure of a need for improved storage technology. If they started today, by the time a new nuclear plant goes on line, it may not be needed. Let's hope so, anyway.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 25 2011, 03:07 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 24 2011, 01:34 PM) *
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20285-fukushima-radioactive-fallout-nears-chernobyl-levels.html


Much more important information than the Mr. Wotawa's hallucinations (it is really a nonsense what he claims and if somebody is really interested I can post here why -including the calculations which anybody with a colege education can understand...) at New Scientist was today at NHK that TEPCO detected 3.9x10^6/cm3 Bq in the water leaking into the turbine building basement. Which is quite very radioactive and this water must be kept cool and possibly pumped out and contained in airtight containers before it would be decontaminated, because the radiation level in the water is like ~10 thousand times higher than it is the radioactivity of a water inside normal reactor. -Which would suggest either the leaking of the containment(s) or corrossion of the spent fuel, which one would not wonder if they sprinkle it with sea water. This poses an intermediate risk, but I think it still can be tackled down if the reactors will be soon cooled with fresh water, the leaks sealed and the used fuel contained. I think this can considerably complicate the rescue effort - already two people according to the NHK news were seriously injured by this radioactive water and according to NHK got 180 mSv (which is quite alot but one can possibly survive it, athough this is already almost four times over the level at which is already statistically probable it can result in cancer) - but I think it is not usurpassable problem.

Good news is that USA announced they'll bring ships of fresh water to Fukushima for cooling - which is only -except the health and lives of the workers there- really major concern I have in this Fukushima problem - because the sea water is very corrosive agent and can heavily compromise the containment in this circumstances after a time -if the japanese would continue to cool the reactors with it and not with a clean water.
Finally somebody came to the senses?
Hopefully.

Posted by: lunk Mar 25 2011, 03:29 PM

i just noticed something very curious about the timing of the Earthquakes in Japan.

Why do they almost always happen precisely within seconds of the top of the hour?!



...Carls' earthquake machine?

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 25 2011, 03:34 PM

QUOTE (maturin42 @ Mar 23 2011, 05:43 PM) *
What's scary for the generation company is that theoretically, at least, the customer could achieve independence from the generation company. That frightens the diablo out of the power company Board.


i agree w/ what you wrote. these two lines were particularly compelling, because dependence seems to be the goal for some. the idea that someone would not have an electric bill w/ the attendant taxes tacked on must be anathema to the control freaks.

and tume, what can i say.. stick to your numbers until proven one way or the other, since you take issue with those provided by others. you can post numbers all day long, but speculation it will remain on your part. and the reason is simple. you do not know for a fact pretty much anything. it really is that simple. that's the boat we are all in.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 25 2011, 04:03 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 24 2011, 11:33 PM) *
level 6:

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201103250204.html

I think that the figure 30,000-110,000 TBq (3-11x10^16 Bq) would be a much more realistic -if it is for all short, medium and long lived isotopes - at least much more realistic than the simmilar figure Mr. Wotawa from Austrian ZAMG http://www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/index.php?seite=1&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-23GMT10:57 claims just for Cs-137, allegedly just released in one day (according to him! - me I think he smokes too much weed rolleyes.gif).
Just for comparison the total release from Chernobyl according to IAEA international report about the Environmental consequences of Chernobyl was http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1239_web.pdf - so if the number from the Asahi is realistic, the Fukushima released ~127 times less radioactive isotopes than Chernobyl, moreover most probably with much lower relative portion of the most dangerous Cs-137 - because its volatility is significant from temperatures above ~500°C, which according to measurements and termocamera pictures aren't present in reactors at Fukushima even remotely.

Btw: I assessed the level six at the international scale from the very beginning for Fukushima, and that the level 4, which they then rised to 5, is nonsense -some were laughing at me - so now it comes to my words... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 25 2011, 04:09 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 25 2011, 08:29 AM) *
i just noticed something very curious about the timing of the Earthquakes in Japan.

Why do they almost always happen precisely within seconds of the top of the hour?!
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-N2uyxPPE1c?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


...Carls' earthquake machine?

http://www.japanquakemap.com/ is nice updated interactive map of Japanese quakes - there you can find out how many of them happened within seconds of the top of the hour.

Posted by: lunk Mar 25 2011, 05:04 PM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 25 2011, 12:09 PM) *
http://www.japanquakemap.com/ is nice updated interactive map of Japanese quakes - there you can find out how many of them happened within seconds of the top of the hour.

thanks, that's a lot of shaking.
still seems to me that there's a curious preponderance, for them to fall on the (within 3 minutes of) the top of the hour than the other after shocks.

The usg world animation have world wide quakes
happening even more often, on the hour.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsanim/world/

i imagine an Earthquake machine would have to work globally, not just in japan, people work by the clock. Orders are given for ":00 hundred" hours.

If there was an order for an earthquake to be delivered, location and time would be part of that order. Someone likes to order earthquakes to happen at a certain place, at a certain time?

Of course, Earthquakes are natural, but if there was a way to place and time them, who would think to offset them from the top of the hour, so we wouldn't notice?

just a thought...

Posted by: bill Mar 26 2011, 01:07 PM

Why the blue tarp -- was it to conceal how ill the workers were to prevent a general panic

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/81122.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+kyodonews%2Fnuke+%28Kyodo+News+Nuke%29



The National Institute of Radiological Sciences, where the three arrived earlier in the day for highly specialized treatment, said the two were exposed to 2 to 6 sieverts of radiation below their ankles, whereas exposure to 250 millisieverts is the limit set for workers dealing with the ongoing crisis, the worst in Japan's history.


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


Symptoms of acute radiation (within one day):[16]

0 – 0.25 Sv (0 – 250 mSv): None
0.25 – 1 Sv (250 – 1000 mSv): Some people feel nausea and loss of appetite; bone marrow, lymph nodes, spleen damaged.
1 – 3 Sv (1000 – 3000 mSv): Mild to severe nausea, loss of appetite, infection; more severe bone marrow, lymph node, spleen damage; recovery probable, not assured.
3 – 6 Sv (3000 – 6000 mSv): Severe nausea, loss of appetite; hemorrhaging, infection, diarrhea, peeling of skin, sterility; death if untreated.
6 – 10 Sv (6000 – 10000 mSv): Above symptoms plus central nervous system impairment; death expected.
Above 10 Sv (10000 mSv): Incapacitation and death.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 26 2011, 04:34 PM

QUOTE (bill @ Mar 26 2011, 06:07 AM) *
The National Institute of Radiological Sciences, where the three arrived earlier in the day for highly specialized treatment, said the two were exposed to 2 to 6 sieverts of radiation below their ankles, whereas exposure to 250 millisieverts is the limit set for workers dealing with the ongoing crisis, the worst in Japan's history.

Yeah this is unbelievable that they http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Second_week.
"Electrical engineering firm Kandenko Co., which employs the two, said its workers were not required to wear rubber boots as its safety manuals did not assume a scenario in which its employees would carry out work standing in water at a nuclear power plant."
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/81122.html

blink.gif

Posted by: panthercat Mar 26 2011, 06:15 PM

I seem to recall from history that after we nuked them till they glowed, there was a decision by the newly formed Japanese government there would NOT be nuclear power in Japan. Now this happened. This just goes to show how long an institutional memory lasts.

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 27 2011, 06:46 AM

according to:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/27_12.html


"The plant operator, known as TEPCO, says it measured 2.9-billion becquerels of radiation per one cubic centimeter of water from the basement of the turbine building attached to the Number 2 reactor."


no problem, a tenth of a Curie/ milliliter isn't much...and besides, it's a tiny basement. ok, well maybe the basement isn't tiny, but maybe there isn't much water in the basement because it boiled off and the techs were hard pressed to find the only milliliter of water remaining there for analysis.

then again:

http://cryptogon.com/?p=21439

"Radioactivity in the air in Unit 2 measured at 1,000 millisieverts per hour — four times higher than the occupational limit of 250 millisieverts set by the government, he said."

ah, what's a sievert among friends? just remember, 'don't drink the water and don't breathe the air.'

Posted by: lunk Mar 27 2011, 07:41 AM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 27 2011, 02:46 AM) *
according to:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/27_12.html


"The plant operator, known as TEPCO, says it measured 2.9-billion becquerels of radiation per one cubic centimeter of water from the basement of the turbine building attached to the Number 2 reactor."


no problem, a tenth of a Curie/ milliliter isn't much...and besides, it's a tiny basement. ok, well maybe the basement isn't tiny, but maybe there isn't much water in the basement because it boiled off and the techs were hard pressed to find the only milliliter of water remaining there for analysis.

then again:

http://cryptogon.com/?p=21439

"Radioactivity in the air in Unit 2 measured at 1,000 millisieverts per hour — four times higher than the occupational limit of 250 millisieverts set by the government, he said."

ah, what's a sievert among friends? just remember, 'don't drink the water and don't breathe the air.'


It was first reported by the Japanese, that there was 15 cm of water in the separate turbine room, with a radioactivity 10,000 times that of the cooling water in an operating reactor.
It was then suspected that the coatings of the fuel rods must have been compromised, so that the water was in direct contact with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX(?) (super radioactive forever) fuel.
This could have happened inside the reactor chamber, or the cooling ponds.
But, the high level of radioactive iodine indicates the radiation is from nuclear fission, so it is thought (hoped?) that this water leaked out of the reactor chamber directly, and not from a fission reaction starting in the cooling ponds.

i noticed most of the later reports about this, have been incredibly toned down.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 27 2011, 08:23 PM

"The day began with company officials reporting that radiation in leaking water in the Unit 2 reactor was 10 million times above normal, a spike that forced employees to flee the unit. The day ended with officials saying the huge figure had been miscalculated and offering apologies."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110327/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake;_ylt=AtXNekol9zKsPrlOXZeP6SOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNqb3RlaXNpBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwMzI3L2FzX2phcGFuX2VhcnRocXVha2UEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMxBHBvcwMyBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqYXBhbmh1Z2VyYWQ-
rolleyes.gif

Posted by: lunk Mar 28 2011, 12:11 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMru82sUbWw

Like a growing forest fire,
but radioactive.

Posted by: albertchampion Mar 28 2011, 01:13 AM

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/latest-fukushima-headlines

Posted by: bill Mar 28 2011, 01:06 PM

Does not look like it is getting better


Posted by: bill Mar 29 2011, 12:17 PM

Fukushima is going to dwarf Chenobyl. The Japanese government has had a level 7 nuclear disaster going for almost a week but won’t admit it.

The disaster is occurring the opposite way than Chernobyl, which exploded and stopped the reaction. At Fukushima, the reactions are getting worse. I suspect three nuclear piles are in meltdown and we will probably get some of it.

If reactor 3 is in meltdown, the concrete under the containment looks like lava. But Fukushima is not far off the water table. When that molten mass of self-sustaining nuclear material gets to the water table it won’t simply cool down. It will explode – not a nuclear explosion, but probably enough to involve the rest of the reactors and fuel rods at the facility.

more here

http://hawaiinewsdaily.com/2011/03/when-the-fukushima-meltdown-hits-groundwater/



Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 29 2011, 03:42 PM

thanks bill!

been a fan of andre rieu for awhile. not an australian, but 'waltzing matilda' does tug at the heart strings...

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 29 2011, 03:54 PM

http://tumetuestumefaisdubien.sweb.cz/Does%20Fukushima%20radioactive%20fallout%20near%20Chernobyl%20levels.pdf I've written a rebuttal of the Fukushima-Chernobyl comparison made by Austrian Met-Office, published by New Scientist and parroted by many, claiming the Fukushima Cs-137 fallout is "20-60%" when compared to Chernobyl, allegedly based on CTBTO measurements.
Nothing like that is true, even remotely.
The Austrian Met-Office never answered my inquiries nor the New Scientist. Why I don't wonder...
Just to note - to publish scandalously untrue claims to scare the public is a felony, at least in Europe.

Posted by: GroundPounder Mar 29 2011, 04:07 PM

i have to ask tume, how do you see fukushima resolving itself?

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 29 2011, 08:47 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 29 2011, 09:07 AM) *
i have to ask tume, how do you see fukushima resolving itself?

I'm not sure if I understand the question.
According to last measurements there is relatively not safe level of the Cs-137 ground contamination (they don't publish the measurements of the soil contamination, but I can estimate it from the air measurements - some dozens-hundreds of kBq/m2) at the plant premises, so it will need the decontamination there, otherwise it would be gradually splashed into the sea by rain and this the fish would not like, nor those eating them. Also there was measured quite very high contamination of the water in the concrete trench below the plant, so it would need to be pumped out stored until the short-half-lifes decay and then decontaminate the rest. If we look at the radioactivity measured in the water (20 TBq/m3 - which would suggest leaking containment - see my paper I've linked above) and quite high contamination with Cs-137 (3 Tbq/m3 - which means over a gram of Cs-137 in cubic meter! of the water) it would need to be done carefully (as such amounts are able to kill or injure really many people...as we've seen with the workers who waded there in the water without proper protection gear). But good news is that it didn't get out of the plant as a fallout. The leaks must be sealed, the radioactive debris around gathered and contained in shielded containers. The cooling of reactors will need to continue at least several months before they'll be cool enough that they can be opened, the cores removed and sent for reprocessing (best way how to dispose them). It anyway would be reasonable to wait at least 8 months with the buildings dismantlement -to leave the I-131 and other short-half-life isotopes decay -like especially Te-129m, Te132 and Te-129 (they make most of the radioactivity there now, especially the Te-129) - to make the work there much less dangerous. Then the whole plant should be dismantled the premises decontaminated (and a newer design nuclear powerplant built there preferably a bit westwards at least 20 meters above the sea level tongue.gif ). ...Loads of work I think.

Posted by: albertchampion Mar 29 2011, 09:00 PM

THNX. that's about my read. what i cannot figure out is what japan is going to do about that reduction in power generation.which will last for much longer than a few months.

what do you see happening in japan with that power deficit for the foreseeable future?

Posted by: bill Mar 30 2011, 12:09 AM

On the Beach


ON the beach, at night,
Stands a child, with her father,
Watching the east, the autumn sky.

Up through the darkness,
While ravening clouds, the burial clouds, in black masses spreading, 5
Lower, sullen and fast, athwart and down the sky,
Amid a transparent clear belt of ether yet left in the east,
Ascends, large and calm, the lord-star Jupiter;
And nigh at hand, only a very little above,
Swim the delicate brothers, the Pleiades.


From the beach, the child, holding the hand of her father,
Those burial-clouds that lower, victorious, soon to devour all,
Watching, silently weeps.

Posted by: BarryWilliamsmb Mar 30 2011, 04:11 AM

I'm confused. More than normal...

Potential outcomes for Fukushima are all over the map and tonight I read that http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/30_25.html?

Posted by: Ricochet Mar 30 2011, 12:36 PM

http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1301489625P.pdf

QUOTE
On Mar. 30th, NISA said air may be leaking from the Reactor Pressure Vessel of Unit 2 and 3 because some of their data show the pressure in the vessels is
low, but there is no indication of large cracks or holes in the vessels


http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/index.html

Who knows if it's upfront but it's the best info I can find.

I found some more
QUOTE
●Air may be leaking from reactors No. 2 and 3
Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency says air may be leaking from the No 2 and No 3 reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. The agency was responding at a news conference on Wednesday to speculation that low pressure inside the 2 reactors was due to possible damage to the reactors' pressure vessels. It said some of their data show pressure is low, but there is no indication of large cracks or holes in the reactor vessels. The agency said fluctuations in temperature and pressure are highly likely to have weakened valves, pipes and openings under the reactors where the control rods are inserted.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011 15:15 +0900 (JST)


http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1301486904P.pdf

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 30 2011, 10:50 PM

I think the water is really problem. 20TBq/m3 is really alot - some grams of highly active radionuclides/m3!. It is sure it leaks from containments, most probably dammaged by the sea water, it is not like "maybe" it is sure. They must contain this water at any price. I like the idea to pump it out and store it in old tanker and wait until the short-half-life radionuclides decay (like 2 months). This sea water nuclear reactor cooling will be pretty expensive experiment... whistle.gif

Posted by: Johnny Angel Mar 31 2011, 02:39 PM

""This SeaWater Cooling Experiment will be a very Expensive Experiment""

I wonder who is going to end up paying for all this.. The total damage of the EarthQuake, Tsumami and Nuclear Mess happened in Japan, a Country that is already more Bankrupt than the USA..

Tume, You make this Nuke Accident seem like a 2nd rate Disaster.. ??

After viewing the Video`s on Page 9, (The close up view of the damage) I spent a few hours watching all the YouTube videoes that pop up. I had trouble trying to get to sleep last night. I hope many of these Scientists, Experts and Opinions are being grossly exaggerated.

As I was watching the numerous Videoes, I had ABC Nightline on TV. Geologist Scientists are saying the USA is overdue for the BIG ONE. The Big Earthquake. They didnt go into many details, but after watching some of the Nuke Videos, some of our own Nuke WhistleBlowers say that many of the USA Nuke plants are in worse shape that Japan. Many of our Back-up cooling systems are faulty or will Fail.

Back on Page One when I posted about the Discovery Channels program, END of ManKind, the documentary stated that the worlds Nuke Plants have back-Up Diesel Generators which are required to have a 30 day supply of fuel to keep the cooling ponds cool and shut down the Reactor.
That information was an Ovious BIG LIE, Many of the backup systms are only good for a few days.

END of ManKind. The program stated that the Emergency Diesel Generators would run out to fuel in 30 days. The Auto systems would shut down the reactors, but Without cooling cirulation, the Nion-containment spent fuel pools would boil away, in a few days the fuel would blow up, sending all the dangerous radiiation into the Air. In 3 weeks all the remaining animals on earth would be dead. Only a few insects would survive.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Mar 31 2011, 03:02 PM

Yet the nuke lovers keep telling us, solar and other renewables are too expensive.

Can we kill that meme once and for all?

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Mar 31 2011, 11:49 PM

QUOTE (Johnny Angel @ Mar 31 2011, 07:39 AM) *
Tume, You make this Nuke Accident seem like a 2nd rate Disaster.. ??

Yeah, although not exactly. In comparison with the repeating quakes and tsunamies, including the first one which killed several dozens of thousands the Fukushima is 3rd rate, because it is not likely to be so destructive even remotely.
QUOTE
The program stated that the Emergency Diesel Generators would run out to fuel in 30 days. The Auto systems would shut down the reactors, but Without cooling cirulation, the Nion-containment spent fuel pools would boil away, in a few days the fuel would blow up, sending all the dangerous radiiation into the Air. In 3 weeks all the remaining animals on earth would be dead. Only a few insects would survive.

And here we are. What failed at Fukushima was not the nuclear technology, but the hydrocarbon based diesel generators, for your information to which the fuel tanks splashed down the tsunami. If there would be a small ready to use nuclear emergency power source at the plant (which military has for decades), this "disaster" would never happen. But tell this to the commissions which don't like to even think to see this operated in civil sector.
Without non circulation what happens with the properly scramed reactor is that it gets written-off because of solid meltdown. To pump a seawater in the reactors is against the http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/24/072/24072657.pdf, so it was most probably a political decision - to show something is being done.
There never was a likelihood of the Chernobyl scenario at the Fukushima. Also the likelihood the spent fuel storages water will boil there out now is like zero, not speaking that even if not, the potential you describe is not there. The spent fuel is unable to melt down (the oxide fuel liquid meltdown temperature is ~2800°C) by it's own heat after weeks or months it was out the criticality-chain reaction - although there is a potential of a considerable amount of radioactivity release if it heats above like 1000°C , the effects would be more or less local - if nobody would do anything about to get the water there, which I think is not very likely to happen now anyway. The main problem there is now the water leaking from the compromised containment, which I think will complicate the rescue efforts and will be potentially expensive issue, but not even remotely so expensive as the rebuilding after the quake and tsunamies. From the very beginning I was wondering when I learned they pump sea water in the reactors, because I know about potential risk of doing so, much higher than to leave the reactor to dry solid meltdown and follow the Mark I guidelines to get the water in the containment vessel, to cool the reactor from outside and prevent the RPV breach, but not put the sea water in the reactor. I'm sure that after this experience nobody would ever repeat this - so the outcome is positive for the future. Better to keep the optimistic wiew. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Apr 1 2011, 12:47 AM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Mar 31 2011, 08:02 AM) *
Yet the nuke lovers keep telling us, solar and other renewables are too expensive.

Can we kill that meme once and for all?

No, you can't kill the meme, because it is not meme but true.
But I'm not principially against the so called "renewables" (even the dam which ruptured in Minamisoma and splashed the 1800 homes even before the tsunami came is renewable in the sense they can build it again and fu*k more to replace the numerous killed people by it...sorry for the sarcasm rolleyes.gif ), if used where suitable, but an idea that it can substitute for hydrocarbons at large scale would be the most expensive meme ever.
For example recently our parliament introduced the high taxation scheme aimed to stop the ominous solar power development (e.g. we now have the largest solar plant in EU, hugely subsidized by taxpayers money and many smaller -the soc-dem party - which pushed through the subsidizing schemetogether with greens - mafian allies now make huge profits on it for taxpayers money...) which the experts calculated that if supported further under the auspices of the EU it would until just end of this decade cost on subsidies and energy costs more, than is the national debt of our country (0.37 GDP), yet it would produce less energy than are just the losses in the grid due to huge unstabilities of this power source. Fortunately we have not much wind in the continental climate, so nobody tryies the huge wind farms projects here (at least not now), because this source is ewen worse in this sense than solar and you need to build the same power cappacity coal plants or gas plants dependent on russian gas (like in Germany) to serve as emergency sources in case the wind does not blow...
I dont think I'm so naive to see the reality a an product of just a "meme".
I don't have anything against if somebody puts a solar thermal panels at his roof, or installs the heat pump or uses local waterflow to generate his own electricity, but I'm not likely to like to pay to much for it for them.
Because I study it I know that the nuclear energy is by wide margin cheaper in our country than anything else.
Just for idea: We have here two nuclear plants and they produce the electricity for like 0.62-0.65 CZK kWh (including externalities for spent fuel storage and plant decommissioning - mandated by atomic law), hydro is 0.93 (not including externalities -as the catastrophic floods in 2002 partly caused by the unwise dam cascade management - the flood e.g. effectively put out of service parts of all underground lines in Prague for more than half a year after it was flooded, with covered-up fatalities in one train which didn't make it... the direct costs in 2002 were 0.2! GDP), coal is 1.14 (not including externalities as recultivation on the places of huge surface mines, the dangerous radioactive ash handling and huge pollution - nobody is even able to estimate it, just the medical costs are estimated to be 0.006-0.01 GDP, there were times when whole mountain forests at the nord of our country died standing just because of the acid rains - nothin of this is in the price), gas is 3.15 (including externalities as the emergency storage facilities, generally better than coal, but on cost of political dependence on Russia), wind is 7.3 (not including externalities for windmills decommission and dismantlement and losses in the grid due to even higher unstability than solar) and solar 13.02 (not including externalities for solar panel recyclation and grid losses due to unstability).
I think the choice is quite easy...
You know how many windmills would be needed to substitute for our two nuclear powerplants?
Infinite. Especially when the wind doesn't blow... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 2 2011, 06:07 AM

http://cryptome.org/eyeball/daiichi-npp/daiichi-photos.htm

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Apr 2 2011, 07:01 AM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 31 2011, 11:47 PM) *
I don't have anything against if somebody puts a solar thermal panels at his roof, or installs the heat pump or uses local waterflow to generate his own electricity, but I'm not likely to like to pay to much for it for them.
Because I study it I know that the nuclear energy is by wide margin cheaper in our country than anything else.

How much does the government subsidize nuke plants? How about coal? Oil? But if they subsidize solar it's a big no-no.

Nuke plants are cheaper? Give me a break. They cost billions to build and require government subsidies. The ones that are in planning now will take at least a decade to come on line. Then once you build the thing, how much does it cost to run? Not to mention the cost and dangers of storing the spent fuel. Of course, that doesn't even take into account how much it costs when things go horribly wrong like in Japan right now. How much does it cost to permanently relocated 200,000+ people. How about the estimated billions it's going to cost to clean up the mess and get this plant shut down? When you add up the real costs, it's apparent that nuclear energy is not cheap and not worth it.

So let's compare this with solar, wind and other renewables. How much does it cost to run a solar system after it's installed? How much does it cost to maintain after it's installed. How many people have to be evacuated when a solar plant breaks down?

There is no one solution to meeting humanities need for energy but there's a lot we can do without dangerous and expensive nuclear power plants.

QUOTE
Report: A Solar Transition is Possible

March 25, 2011

Arguably no challenge is more serious for the world’s future than bringing about a rapid decarbonation of the energy infrastructure with the possibility of preventing the onset of catastrophic climate change. With a mathematical model we demonstrate that this transition is technically plausible using modest inputs of existing fossil fuel reserves in the creation of a global solar power infrastructure even with existing solar technologies such as wind turbines. In addition, this global power capacity can likewise provide energy consumption per person levels for all of humanity consistent with high human development requirements.

An energy infrastructure that depends largely on renewables appears inevitable as easily mined fossil fuels will be exhausted. Given the potential for catastrophic climate change and the inherently negative environmental externalities of non-renewable forms of energy production, we must find ways to transition to renewables as soon as possible. Studies of this potential transition have pointed to the possibility of a swift shift from fossil fuels to renewables, using existing technologies, while providing sufficient long-term energy needs for all humanity. Smil’s, Kramer and Haigh’s pessimism with respect to the timing of this change stems from a preoccupation in the history of major energy shifts but in our view fails to consider the power of exponential growth in R&D investments to usher in more rapid change. We submit that the massive economic investments to propel this switch are available if spending priorities are changed.

We model the conversion of our present global energy infrastructure to a fully renewable alternative, inputting properties of current state-of-the-art renewable technology, notably its EROI (energy return on energy invested) and lifetime. Energy investments come from the depletable (i.e., non-renewable) energy sources dominated by fossil fuels as well as the growing renewable infrastructure. We find that we can replace the entire existing energy infrastructure with renewables in 25 years or less, so long as EROI of the mixed renewable power infrastructure is maintained at 20 or higher, by using merely 1% of the present fossil fuel capacity and a reinvestment of 10% of the renewable capacity per year. Furthermore, in this time frame, for an annual contribution equal to 2% of the present energy fossil fuel capacity, the global power capacity can grow relative to the present level so as to provide energy consumption per person levels sufficient for every one on the planet to live at high human development requirements, while radically reducing carbon emissions. Even faster replacement times result from higher dedicated commitments of depletable energy and energy invested from the growing renewable capacity.

http://iprd.org.uk/?p=6877

Posted by: lunk Apr 2 2011, 07:30 AM

i don't know if anything could go more wrong with nuclear power plants, than they are in Fukushima.

But the problem was the generators?!
How hard is it to ship a generator, or a bunch of generators to Fukushima?
From what i see, the cooling ponds must have cool water replenishing them, to keep the stored used fuel rods below boiling.
The reactors were above the tsunamis, but the back up generators were not.

The first thing that should have been done was to bring in new generators.
Or even run a power cable from a ship, just offshore.
This could have prevented the initial explosions of the plants.
It was not done. Now it is to late.

The only thing that i heard was that a nuclear power back-up generator is so big that it could not have been brought into the plants in time.
This excuse stinks.

And the whole event smells like it was intentionally made worse.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/02/japan.nuclear.status/


And on a side note, remember the Illuminati playing card game from 1995?

http://api.ning.com/files/xAbn9gu7gK9bW-MyflJJkUCfKlaghFw5C3sRElenjivjiS6cPuLsq-QB9SjwOlGg*EDh9LsSkCssx5xNm0jtbOdSQ5b4wppq/IlluminatiCardJapanearthquakeCombinedDisaster2011.png


3/11?!

Posted by: bill Apr 2 2011, 07:57 AM

lunk

I saw that card on ATS

Note the time on the clock tower

the Japan quake hit at 2:46 PM

the tsunami minutes later

coincidence no doubt

Posted by: lunk Apr 2 2011, 08:13 AM

QUOTE (bill @ Apr 2 2011, 03:57 AM) *
lunk

I saw that card on ATS

Note the time on the clock tower

the Japan quake hit at 2:46 PM

the tsunami minutes later

coincidence no doubt


The little hand is on the 3 and the big hand is on the 11.
It's the date not a time.

C.D. could stand for, controlled demolition, or combined disasters?
Earthquake and tsunami on 3/11/2011.

It is a little too much coinkydink?

Posted by: bill Apr 2 2011, 08:26 AM

GP

I saw those pics on Cryptome




in the picture there are many rod shaped things on the roof of the building at the bottom --I wonder, are these fuel rods blown out from the storage pool ?

It is much easier to see in th cryptome hi res version


There have been reports of "flashing blue lights" coming from the reactors -- Cherenkov radiation from stuff going critical ?



3 weeks after the initial problems and things continue to deteriorate

They keep reporting that 1000 milisieverts per hour figure for the water (which now is admitted leaking from an 8" crack in the building) -- I read that that was from a dosimeter that was 'pegged' at 1000 ms per hour

3 hours of exposure to that and you will have severe radiation sickness or death

Posted by: bill Apr 2 2011, 08:41 AM


Posted by: bill Apr 2 2011, 08:45 AM

http://vimeo.com/21789121 from http://vimeo.com/user6415562 on http://vimeo.com.


Posted by: lunk Apr 2 2011, 08:51 AM

perhaps someone does want to wipe out all life on Earth, aren't humans the most susceptible to radiation of all the species?

i have never seen anything played down so much in main stream media.

I heard some "official" the other day, blaming the public for hoarding all the iodine from the Japanese, when it was the government, here in BC, that bought up all the supply to pharmacies and then told pharmacies not to let people prepare for a nuclear emergency, and not sell them potassium iodide pills for the events in Japan were not a problem.

Ever heard of a government telling it's population NOT to prepare?!

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Apr 2 2011, 09:00 AM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Apr 2 2011, 12:01 AM) *
How much does the government subsidize nuke plants?

Both nuke plants in CZ are owned by CEZ which is by half owned by state and exports about 30% to Austria, where they don't have any nuke plants, because the referendum decided them closed - so it actually generates considerable income into the budget in order of 20% yearly of how much the plants were build for.
QUOTE
But if they subsidize solar it's a big no-no.

Yeah, the soc-dem govt solar subsidies scheme pays more than 90% of the costs and profit for the solar plants owners from the taxpayers money, otherwise noone would build them, because they aren't competitive without subsidies.
QUOTE
Nuke plants are cheaper? Give me a break. They cost billions to build and require government subsidies. The ones that are in planning now will take at least a decade to come on line. Then once you build the thing, how much does it cost to run? Not to mention the cost and dangers of storing the spent fuel.

In CZ it is mandated by atomic law the plants must pay deposits for the full cost of spent fuel handling and plant decommissioning from the price of the sold electricity.

Of course, that doesn't even take into account how much it costs when things go horribly wrong like in Japan right now. How much does it cost to permanently relocated 200,000+ people.
QUOTE
Nothing like that will happen, the dangerously high readings are very likely just in the Litate willage, where the cloud turned back and rain discharged part of it.
For idea of the area where is measurable fallout look http://energy.gov/news/documents/AMS_Data_March29_FINAL.pptx and even that will after short-half-lifes decay mostly end at values lower than in whole states in Europe after Chernobyl, where apparently nobody was relocated.

QUOTE

How about the estimated billions it's going to cost to clean up the mess and get this plant shut down? When you add up the real costs, it's apparent that nuclear energy is not cheap and not worth it.

The cleanup costs will pay the insurance. The costs just in USA for the externalities of the mostly coal based electroenergetics is orders of magnitude higher than the Fukushima cleanout will ever cost and is estimated that more than 20 000 people die in direct result of the coal energetics in USA after the USA scrapped the nuclear plans to build 1200 nuke plants there under the auspices of all administratiions since G. Ford. Now USA wages illegal wars for the hydrocarbon resources on multiple places in the world killing millions jus for you to have a fuel for your car.
QUOTE
So let's compare this with solar, wind and other renewables. How much does it cost to run a solar system after it's installed?

Besides the solar can't never possibly substitute for hydrocarbons, then about 90% of the cost of the produced electricity -if one wants to make it competitive to other power sources on the market
QUOTE
How much does it cost to maintain after it's installed.

Almost nothing more than just to pay the loan -if the output is not connected to the grid. If it is, then actually more than is the produced electricity worth at the market, beause of the losses in the grid due to instability and need of building backup sources for the times when sun is not shining (i.e. more than half of a day + when there are clouds)
There is a telling joke: You know how much solar plants you need to substitute for one nuke plant? Infinite amount, especially at night. rolleyes.gif
QUOTE
How many people have to be evacuated when a solar plant breaks down?

Why this absurd question? That's like if I would ask: how many people have to be evacuated if a hydro powerplant dam burts? (As it happened in Minamisoma near Fukushima due to the quake) None. Just buried if anyone ever finds their corpses.
QUOTE
There is no one solution to meeting humanities need for energy but there's a lot we can do without dangerous and expensive nuclear power plants.

yeah - to make them cheaper and more safe, which from the times when the Fukushima was projected (in 60ties) and Chernobyl exploded (in 80ties) actually already happened.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Apr 2 2011, 09:05 AM

QUOTE (bill @ Apr 2 2011, 01:26 AM) *
There have been reports of "flashing blue lights" coming from the reactors -- Cherenkov radiation from stuff going critical ?

The reactors are closed in the containments so it is impossible to see any cherenkov going from them, even if there would be any. Which isnt, because the cores are scrammed since 3 weeks and do not pose any risk of recriticality since then and then flodded after some water was found for doing so in the sea. The cores are partially dammaged as would the izotope signatures suggest, but that is usual outcome of the LOCA.

Posted by: lunk Apr 2 2011, 09:09 AM

i wonder how long it will be before they decide the safest thing to do is to nuke all 6 reactors?

Ugh.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Apr 2 2011, 09:11 AM

QUOTE (bill @ Apr 2 2011, 01:26 AM) *
in the picture there are many rod shaped things on the roof of the building at the bottom --I wonder, are these fuel rods blown out from the storage pool ?

The rods are still in the pool, otherwise there would not be the steam coming from there. And actually the fuel rods are much smaller both in the length and diameter than the most probably construction parts from the buildings you see at the photographs.
This hysteria becomes really funny. tongue.gif

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Apr 2 2011, 09:21 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 2 2011, 02:09 AM) *
i wonder how long it will be before they decide the safest thing to do is to nuke all 6 reactors?

Ugh.

It will not take long, because they pumped the fish and crab and the seaflower into the reactor it now comes out it forms there the Seafoodium-244 which threatens to leak and cause global holocaust. But maybe the big whale displaced using HAARP and the Hutchinson time machines will eventually fall down and solve the problem, because Whalenium-239 neutralizes the adverse effects of the Seafoodium, it even exceeds it so to the idiots then a second better brained head springs from the right shoulder.

Huh

Posted by: lunk Apr 2 2011, 09:29 AM

QUOTE
'Minuscule Amount' Of Radiation Found In Spokane Milk

QUOTE
SPOKANE, Wash. -- During a screening of milk in Spokane a few days ago, the EPA found a 'minuscule amount' of iodine-131 in the sample, and officials say there is no public health concern.

The EPA has been monitoring milk for signs of radiation as part of its RADNET program and found, on March 25, a sample that contained 0.8 pCi/L of iodine-131, which is more than 5,000 times lower than the derived intervention level set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
.

http://www.kxly.com/news/27376425/detail.html?source=spo

What other radioactive isotopes would this imply from a melt down?
Pu?

Posted by: maturin42 Apr 2 2011, 09:33 AM

Is it ridiculous to suggest that soothing words of reassurance that everything will be just fine should await some evidence showing some prospects that the situation can be brought under control in the foreseeable future? At least we could place the plans for the new reactors on the site on hold until we are sure Tokyo will remain inhabitable, radiation being a cumulative type of concern.

In other news, Germany shut down 9 older reactors and announced that their installed solar panels had topped 12.1 gigawatts, exceeding the capacity of the Fukashima complex. It is a peak figure, of course but perhaps it indicates that renewable strategies only need some combinations of infrastructure measures to address how to meet our sustainable power needs without blowing ourselves up or causing a few centuries of radiation-induced genetic mutations.

We should be using nuclear power. There is a great source located 186 million miles away, which seems about right to me.

Posted by: lunk Apr 2 2011, 09:55 AM

QUOTE (maturin42 @ Apr 2 2011, 05:33 AM) *
We should be using nuclear power. There is a great source located 186 million miles away, which seems about right to me.


i think that's the diameter not the radius.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Apr 2 2011, 10:02 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 2 2011, 02:29 AM) *
http://www.kxly.com/news/27376425/detail.html?source=spo
What other radioactive isotopes would this imply from a melt down?
Pu?

Plutonium wasn't much released even in Chernobyl although still thousands times more than in Fukushima according to the measurements at the Fukushima site.

I-131 has short-half life and decays to unmeasurable values in approx. 2 months, not speaking from 0.8 pCi/L - and btw you know how much it is?
it is:
((16x86400x0.0296)/6.0221×10^23)x130.906 = 0.00000000000000000008894 grams of the I-131 in the liter.
Yeah, like some atoms in a liter of the milk... I wonder how much of the milk they needed to find it ...who writes such a funny stuff...
rolleyes.gif

Posted by: lunk Apr 2 2011, 10:20 AM

If there are minuscule amounts of I131,
then there are minuscule amounts of other fallout.
And every larger thing is an accumulation of minuscule things, over time.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Apr 2 2011, 10:35 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 2 2011, 03:20 AM) *
If there are minuscule amounts of I131,
then there are minuscule amounts of other fallout.
And every larger thing is an accumulation of minuscule things, over time.

No. I-131 has a half-life of 8 days and decays to inert, nonpoisonous stable noble gas Xe-131. Every 8 days half of that - that's why the radiation levels drop.

Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 2 2011, 10:41 AM

QUOTE (maturin42 @ Mar 31 2011, 12:33 PM) *
In other news, Germany shut down 9 older reactors and announced that their installed solar panels had topped 12.1 gigawatts, exceeding the capacity of the Fukashima complex.


that number ain't small potatoes!

the physics of uranium:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/phys.htm

it shows lots of fission products and lists some of the activation products ( radioactive isotopes formed by 'regular' materials bombarded by neutrons) as well.

as far as cerenkov radiation, it's usually associated (and visible) w/ charged particles moving through the reactor water faster than the phase velocity of light in the water. i'm not altogether sure it's possible in fog or fuming (non-aqueous) environments to witness that...

one of the pictures showed some structural members that appeared green. that was kind of odd. thought occurred to me that maybe the iron in beams had absorbed neutrons and turned into copper and oxidized.


bottom line, fukushima is beyond repair.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Apr 2 2011, 10:54 AM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Apr 2 2011, 03:41 AM) *
that number ain't small potatoes!

It is actually zero at night and <10% every time when the cloudy weather comes. Yet it costed much more than the nuclear powerplants of the same power which can produce power 24/7, most of that payed by people.
QUOTE
one of the pictures showed some structural members that appeared green. that was kind of odd. thought occurred to me that maybe the iron in beams had absorbed neutrons and turned into copper and oxidized.

Have you ever heard about the liquid thing which usually comes in cans and is called paint?
QUOTE
bottom line, fukushima is beyond repair.

If you mean the four reactors I agree. It would be forbiddingly expensive try to repair the reactors. Anyway the plant was schedulled to be decommissioned anyway. It is better to decontaminate and scrap it and build there something more up-to-date in booth effectiveness and safety.

Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 2 2011, 11:55 AM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 31 2011, 01:54 PM) *
It is actually zero at night and <10% every time when the cloudy weather comes. Yet it costed much more than the nuclear powerplants of the same power which can produce power 24/7, most of that payed by people.


wow, you are so negative AND figured out the zero at night thing too!. do you work for the gov't or some pro-nuclear group? maybe that's why you believe all the bs numbers that the authorities throw at you. some sort of ex commie bureaucrat?

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 31 2011, 01:54 PM) *
Have you ever heard about the liquid thing which usually comes in cans and is called paint?


well, yeah, it probably was painted. you're just stinging from i don't know what... you are so stuck on your 8 day I-131 half-life that you are blind to the rest of it. that would be referred to as cherry picking, ever heard of the term?

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 31 2011, 01:54 PM) *
If you mean the four reactors I agree. It would be forbiddingly expensive try to repair the reactors. Anyway the plant was schedulled to be decommissioned anyway. It is better to decontaminate and scrap it and build there something more up-to-date in booth effectiveness and safety.


tell me how that decommissioning plan worked out for everybody.

and as far as the decom and scrapping go, yeah, they'll get right on it, i'm sure. still waiting...how many days has it been now? maybe they are having meetings to figure out what the recommended daily allowance of radio-isotopes should be.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Apr 2 2011, 12:28 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Apr 2 2011, 04:55 AM) *
wow, you are so negative AND figured out the zero at night thing too!. do you work for the gov't or some pro-nuclear group? maybe that's why you believe all the bs numbers that the authorities throw at you. some sort of ex commie bureaucrat?

Does this mean you believe the solar panels produce the "12.1 gigawatts" at night?
And no, I'm independent. http://tumetuestumefaisdubien.sweb.cz/Does%20Fukushima%20radioactive%20fallout%20near%20Chernobyl%20levels.pdf you can find how I do the assessment. When I worked for the Senate and president it was about something else than energetics.
QUOTE
well, yeah, it probably was painted. you're just stinging from i don't know what... you are so stuck on your 8 day I-131 half-life that you are blind to the rest of it. that would be referred to as cherry picking, ever heard of the term?

it was just a joke. rolleyes.gif
QUOTE
tell me how that decommissioning plan worked out for everybody.

Remeber Larry Silverstein? What if this is LIHOP? not 9/11, just 3/11. Again, like with the military, oh sorry the NWO, of course, which did 9/11, an operation with minimalized casualties...

Posted by: Johnny Angel Apr 2 2011, 12:46 PM

A few months ago, A energy Scientist was on the local radio talk show (KDKA Pittsburgh).

He had invented Solar Glasss which he claims can be used to pave all our Highways and streets.

His Glasss is stronger than concrete and will last at least 3 time longer

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Apr 2 2011, 01:19 PM

QUOTE (Johnny Angel @ Apr 2 2011, 05:46 AM) *
A few months ago, A energy Scientist was on the local radio talk show (KDKA Pittsburgh).

He had invented Solar Glasss which he claims can be used to pave all our Highways and streets.

His Glasss is stronger than concrete and will last at least 3 time longer

"There would be no need for power plants, transformers, power lines, etc. The energy would flow where it was needed, straight from street to home. Furthermore, heating elements would keep the roadways clear of snow and ice, eliminating the need for plowing services and pothole fixes"

Perfect! How much it will cost? 100 000 USD 12x12m? For the highways in our our country it will cost just, wait a moment... just something over one year GDP. For getting the brave new power to all houses and get rid of the evil powerplants and powerlines and transformers etc....? Let me count... just about less than 100 GDP's
Niiice and cheap.
Send me for the beginning 2000 kilometers.

...And it is also finally http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Johnny Angel Apr 2 2011, 01:58 PM

Solar Glass roads.. Double the cost of Concrete, but it will last 3 times longer.
The Roads need paved anyways. A few large shopping center parking lots are being built now as an experiment. It is expensive, but the sand to make the Glass is easier than mining for concrete.

""Were not doing it because its easy, were doing it because its hard""

In 1940. Who would ever of guessed that in less than 30 years we paved the modern world.
"Smash Paradise and put up a parking lot"

What will it cost.. What do we spend on WARs.?? Just Say Yes..

What ever happened to the Hydrogen cells shown on CBS 60 minutes last year..??

Posted by: bill Apr 2 2011, 02:03 PM

QUOTE (bill @ Apr 2 2011, 07:45 AM) *

http://vimeo.com/21789121 from http://vimeo.com/user6415562 on http://vimeo.com.



Tume did you watch this ?

skip the man's qualifications as a nuclear engineer if you want -- go to near the end and view the pictures of the spent pool with the fuel rods exposed

no water visible in the pool and the huge crane collapsed into the pool liyng on the fuel rod racks

for a smart man you are really doing a good job of acting like an idiot

Here's a clue, no one gives a red rat's ass what the government is doing with solar subsidies in Chickenshit CZ
-- it is irrelevent

Talk about what the Germans are doing with solar and wind energy -- 30 Giga watts

they are still kicking your pathetic butts

Start your own thread if you want to spout your asinine assertions about how safe and necesssary nuclear energy is

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Apr 2 2011, 03:04 PM

QUOTE (Johnny Angel @ Apr 2 2011, 06:58 AM) *
""Were not doing it because its easy, were doing it because its hard""

Yeah, already JFK was saying something like that, if I remember it well about the mission to the moon, yeah...and then, just in 10 years, as he predicted, it happened. We just don't know exactly what. Since then, even though there were several automatic missions to map the moon sent by multiple nations, somehow the photographs of the brave lunar modules landing sections there are still missing...

Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 2 2011, 03:32 PM

well, if the inventor can get the cost to $1/sq ft through economies of scale, the using the annual actual defense budget of the us (~1 Trillion), should buy a lot of road.

simple. stop the war machine for a year, fix some infrastructure. good for humanity.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Apr 2 2011, 04:06 PM

QUOTE (bill @ Apr 2 2011, 07:03 AM) *
Tume did you watch this ?

yeah, I've seen the video. The man, again, as I've stated elsewhere, is talking BS.
The water in the pool is not there to shield gamma, water is almost unable to shield gamma. It is there to shield neutrons. That's the first thing.
A water in a BWR reactor besides to transport the heat to the turbines is also there to assure something which is called moderating - it slows the neutrons and makes it for them much easier to fission the Uranium-235 in a process called chain reaction. Without the moderator - the water - the chain reaction in the reactor and with this enrichment rate of the fuel is impossible. This is second.
to recap: no water=no chain reaction.
The guy also talks about the temperature allegedly there 2200C. Nothing like that is there - any material at the 2200C shines as the lightbulb - actually 2200C is a typical temperature of the lightbulb filament. If you want to imagine what would be there than imagine a lightbulb filament heavy as much as many dozens of tons shining -then it would be real "skyshine". Nothing like that we see at the photograph. This is third.
And finally the man is talking about the "volatility of Plutonium". Plutonium is not at all volatile and until it reaches the boiling point it cannot diffuse into the air. In this particular case the Plutonium is there in form of oxide (transmutated by the neutrons from the Uranium-238 oxide which typically is at least 95% of the nuclear fuel), which has the boiling point of 2800C. So add 600C on top of that imagination of the big lightbulb filament - and it would be the point when the Plutonium will become "volatile". -The crane will not be there if something like that happened, not speaking so nicely painted in green, because the steel typically melts at 1350-1500C - as we know well from the WTC research - so at the temperature some 1300C lower than would be the temperature needed for the Plutonium oxide to become "volatile", the crane wil be already at the bottom of the pool at the top of the melted fuel (Iron is lighter than Uranium and most of the radionuclides) in form of an white glowing puddle boiling out as if you light the thermite - because 2800C needed to boil Plutonium oxide also happens to be the boiling point of steel. In fact the photograph the guy is showing in itself shows the fuel never melted, as some disinfo guys claim - at least not significantly - and which it couldn't anyway, because it is in the boron (usually boron-carbide) racks, the guy is talking about that he was having something to do with - and the reason why he doesn't anymore is likely he doesn't understand at all what he is talking about. The boron is one of the most powerfull neutron poisons - which means it absorbs the neutrons - and so shields the fuel not to become critical or to undergo residual fission and get too hot to compromise cladding and form nev dose of the really volatile radionuclides.
QUOTE
for a smart man you are really doing a good job of acting like an idiot

The same apparently for you - only fools believe to an antinuclear lobbyist asserting most probably false credentials when it comes to the nuclear energy issues.
QUOTE
Talk about what the Germans are doing with solar and wind energy -- 30 Giga watts
they are still kicking your pathetic butts

Germans and Austrians actually buy 30% of the electricity produced by our nuclear powerplants in the Czech Republic. If we would switch them off from their grid it would be what you call kicking pathetic butt - just the butt would be not ours...
QUOTE
Start your own thread if you want to spout your asinine assertions about how safe and necesssary nuclear energy is

Why you just don't go and don't start your own thread? - there you can disseminate the assinine disinfo - made by the guys who are clearly in conflict of interest and clearly don't at all understand what they're talking about - as you want - until the mods stop you...
Here if you allow or not I will always try to debunk the nonsenses - either you like it or not. Even it looks so vain to try get the fanatics to their senses.
This is the truth site, not a mouthpiece of lunatics.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Apr 2 2011, 04:14 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Apr 2 2011, 08:32 AM) *
well, if the inventor can get the cost to $1/sq ft through economies of scale, the using the annual actual defense budget of the us (~1 Trillion), should buy a lot of road.

simple. stop the war machine for a year, fix some infrastructure. good for humanity.

would be good, if he would be able to press the price down to this range, then it would be of course interesting. But it is really feasible?

Yeah I would cut the budget to the war machine immediately, better to use it even for such things like solar pavements than to kill people for pursuing the enslavement of the rest -unfortunately in US the military already doesn't even need any authorization of the Congress to invade where they want - apparently - if someone would object it, he would most probably in the better case end be ostrakized as an un-american un-patriot or whatewer or he would end with the anthrax letter at his desk or in a garrage in a car with the exhaust connected with the vacuum cleaner hose into the cabin...

Posted by: lunk Apr 2 2011, 04:27 PM

There would be a huge industry created decommissioning all the nuclear power plants, world wide.

Energy is naturally free.
But unnaturally controlled for a fee.

The internal combustion engine hasn't been improved much in 100 years.
There are ramjets that are fueled by just air, and can power rockets!
Deep well geothermal energy steam direct to turbine.
fuel cells, hydrogen generation cells, Edison cells...

Why don't we harvest, and store the energy from lightning, or the Northern lights? Is this technology still over our heads?

And then there is the woo-woo, over-unity devices, that claim to make more energy than they use.

Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 2 2011, 04:27 PM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 31 2011, 07:06 PM) *
water is almost unable to shield gamma.



wrong answer.

edit:

you know what a half value thickness is? guess not.

Examples of some half value layers, related to a gamma energy of 2 MeV:

* Air: 12000 cm
* Water: 14 cm
* Concrete: 9 cm
* Lead: 1.4 cm

Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 2 2011, 04:32 PM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 31 2011, 07:14 PM) *
Yeah I would cut the budget to the war machine immediately, better to use it even for such things like solar pavements than to kill people for pursuing the enslavement of the rest -unfortunately in US the military already doesn't even need any authorization of the Congress to invade where they want - apparently - if someone would object it, he would most probably in the better case end be ostrakized as an un-american un-patriot or whatewer or he would end with the anthrax letter at his desk or in a garrage in a car with the exhaust connected with the vacuum cleaner hose into the cabin...


agreed.

Posted by: lunk Apr 2 2011, 06:38 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Apr 2 2011, 12:27 PM) *
Examples of some half value layers, related to a gamma energy of 2 MeV:

* Air: 12000 cm
* Water: 14 cm
* Concrete: 9 cm
* Lead: 1.4 cm


perhaps the plates from used lead acid batteries could be used as roofing tile, if the rainwater is radioactive anyway...

Posted by: bill Apr 2 2011, 07:09 PM

"Without the moderator - the water - the chain reaction in the reactor and with this enrichment rate of the fuel is impossible. This is second.
to recap: no water=no chain reaction. "


BRILLIANT

so in a LOCA when the water boils away from the fuel rods the reaction just stops

Great I knew this was just an illusion

Fantastic we have nothing to worry about

dick head




2100 degress Fahrenheit (I aggree he should have specified ) but leave it to you to automatically assume it is BS

Look it up Like I did, the Zircaloy water reraction starts going well at 1325 Degrees K (or about 2100 degrees F)


"Why you just don't go and don't start your own thread? "


I did, dumb ass, go to the top of this thread and look


and 'this guy' is Arnold Gundersen with his own real company and he is using his real name, not hiding behind some tume-is-the-what-ever avatar
Here is his CV --- so what have you done in the nuclear industry 'Tume-is-the-new-dickhead'


personally I think a certified nuclear engineer with an MS in Nuclear engineering and 39 years of experience has alot more credibility that some annonomous person posting as Tume whatever


http://www.fairewinds.com/content/who-we-are

"Arnie is an energy advisor with 39-years of nuclear power engineering experience. A former nuclear industry senior vice president, he earned his Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in nuclear engineering, holds a nuclear safety patent, and was a licensed reactor operator. During his nuclear industry career, Arnie managed and coordinated projects at 70-nuclear power plants around the country. He currently speaks on television, radio, and at public meetings on the need for a new paradigm in energy production. An independent nuclear engineering and safety expert, Arnie provides testimony on nuclear operations, reliability, safety, and radiation issues to the NRC, Congressional and State Legislatures, and Government Agencies and Officials throughout the US, Canada, and internationally. In 2008, he was appointed by the Vermont Senate President to be the first Chair of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Oversight Panel. He has testified in numerous cases and before many different legislative bodies including the Czech Republic Senate. Using knowledge from his Masters Thesis on Cooling Towers, Arnie analyzed and predicted problems with Vermont Yankee’s cooling towers three years prior to their 2007 collapse. His Environmental Court testimony concerned available and economically viable alternatives to cooling towers in order to reduce consumptive water use and the ecological damage caused by cooling tower drift and heated effluents. As the former vice president in an engineering organization, Arnie led the team of engineers who developed the plans for decommissioning Shippingport, the first major nuclear power plant in the US to be fully dismantled. He was also an invited author on the first DOE Decommissioning Handbook. Source term reconstruction is a method of forensic engineering used to calculate radiation releases from various nuclear facilities after nuclear incidents or accidents. Arnie is frequently called upon by public officials, attorneys, and intervenors, to perform source term reconstructions. His source term reconstruction efforts vary. Arnie has calculated exposures to oil workers, who received radiation exposure while working on wells. He has also calculated radiation releases to children with health concerns, who live near a nuclear facility, like the one that carted radioactive sewage off-site and spread it on farmers' fields. Finally, he has performed an accurate source term construction of the radiation releases from the Three Mile Island nuclear accident. Also involved in his local community, Arnie has been a part-time math professor at Community College of Vermont (CCV) since 2007. He also taught high school physics and mathematics for 13 years and was an instructor at RPI's college reactor lab.

Posted by: lunk Apr 2 2011, 08:00 PM

Take it easy Bill,
anger blinds.

Posted by: lunk Apr 2 2011, 08:14 PM

http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/f1-np/camera/index-j.html

live web-cam of Fukushima reactors from Tepco.

Posted by: elreb Apr 2 2011, 08:39 PM

Cherry blossoms, cherry blossoms, On Meadow-hills and mountains As far as you can see. Is it a mist, or clouds? Fragrant in the morning Sun

Cherry blossoms, cherry blossoms, Flowers in full bloom

Cherry blossoms, cherry blossoms, Across the Spring sky, As far as you can see. Is it a mist, or clouds?

Fragrant in the air…Come now, come…

Let’s look, at last!



Posted by: lunk Apr 2 2011, 10:16 PM

thanks Elreb.

Fukushima nuclear plant - Two Flyovers shot in high definition


Posted by: bill Apr 2 2011, 10:33 PM

"Take it easy Bill,"


I backed way off from my original inclination ...

eta

anger is not a bad or inappropriate reaction to the arrogance (as expressed by tume) that created this disaster

there are people that need to be put in prison and the POS that shill for them are not far behind in culpability

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Apr 2 2011, 10:47 PM

QUOTE (bill @ Apr 2 2011, 12:09 PM) *
BRILLIANT

so in a LOCA when the water boils away from the fuel rods the reaction just stops

Great I knew this was just an illusion

Fantastic we have nothing to worry about

dick head

I've heard here something about cherry picking This is a splendid example of it. (+strawman) I haven't written anything like that the reaction stops when the water boils out. What I've written is no water=no chain reaction. This means when there is no chain reaction in the pool (or in reactor) and no water there, a chain reaction can't start there - which is what is here the point. You don't need to stop chain reaction in SPS because there isn't any. What would be good for you is to finally find out the difference between chain reaction and decay heat. That's what is the important for the storage pools. That's why the water is there for - to get it out, it is true that it serves also as a gamma shield - Ground Pounder is partially right and I appologize for not very well formulating it (although lead is much better, especially against some vitally important parts of spectrum) but mostly it is there to shield fast neutrons which Lead is not very good shield against.
QUOTE
I did, dumb ass, go to the top of this thread and look

Then I'm leaving, sorry, I after the 12 pages of fearmongering didn't noticed this is your thread. Mea culpa. I hope you will get better portion of horror with the others. Sorry that I've disturbed your disaster thriller.
QUOTE
and 'this guy' is Arnold Gundersen with his own real company and he is using his real name, not hiding behind some tume-is-the-what-ever avatar

I've signed my analysis I've lnked here already. You just need to follow links - http://tumetuestumefaisdubien.sweb.cz/Does%20Fukushima%20radioactive%20fallout%20near%20Chernobyl%20levels.pdf. And What is your real name bill, I haven't found anything about you in your profile...
Just btw you know why I chosed the nick tumetuestumefaisdubien? (and not Bill or Dick...or whatever)
QUOTE
Here is his CV --- so what have you done in the nuclear industry 'Tume-is-the-new-dickhead'

This is third serious breach of rules of this forum by you just in one post. Will the moderators do their job here? Doesn't seem so...
QUOTE
personally I think a certified nuclear engineer with an MS in Nuclear engineering and 39 years of experience has alot more credibility that some annonomous person posting as Tume whatever

If he would not talk BS then he would be credible. The credibility comes with telling a truth not with a CV. Who says with a poker face the Plutonium is "volatile" either fakes his credentials, or worse, he didn't learned much through his carreer...

Posted by: bill Apr 2 2011, 11:04 PM

personally I think a certified nuclear engineer with an MS in Nuclear engineering and 39 years of experience has alot more credibility that some annonomous person posting as Tume whatever



????
again
so what are your qualifications tume ....

Posted by: lunk Apr 2 2011, 11:17 PM

QUOTE (bill @ Apr 2 2011, 07:04 PM) *
personally I think a certified nuclear engineer with an MS in Nuclear engineering and 39 years of experience has alot more credibility that some annonomous person posting as Tume whatever



????
again
so what are your qualifications tume ....


Bill, personal attacks are not welcome here.
please tone it down.

Posted by: BarryWilliamsmb Apr 2 2011, 11:59 PM

What drives me around the bend is that we've been through this all before with Chernobyl.

A lot could have been learned from that disaster but as is usual for management, even the smallest lessons did not make it to the top of our current nuclear awareness.

Cripes I hate how hard it is for us to learn from our mistakes.

Now we're ALL in the game...

2006 The Battle of Chernobyl (HQ) 1hr 32min 1 clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiCXb1Nhd1o

Posted by: BarryWilliamsmb Apr 3 2011, 12:11 AM

I fucking love you Elreb.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Apr 3 2011, 02:13 AM

QUOTE (bill @ Apr 2 2011, 04:04 PM) *
????
again
so what are your qualifications tume ....

And who is the one who is asking??
I think there is something about me in my profile unlike in your.
I'll add that except I'm expert on terrorism - that's why I'm at P4T and now especially here in this thread to mitigate irrational terrors some people so like to be manipulated into - I've studied elite technical college where we had nuclear technology and energetics for 4 years. Besides it I'm extensively discussing the issues around it for decades with my friend who is nuclear physicist specialized in the 4th generation nuclear technologies research&development and occassionaly I write about the energy policies with regard to the nuclear energy. I'm not professional in the nuclear engineering, but I think I'm quite well able to do discern between truth and public opinion manipulation in pursuing an agenda regarding this nuclear energy issue, because I'm observing it for years. I know more than basics about nuclear processes, several times I've visited CERN and I think I can soberly assess the advantages and disadvantages of the nuclear energy in global scope as well as the real dangers the Fukushima chain of events resulted into.
-There's in my opinion now no more likelihood of further explosions or fire from the storage pools as well as it isn't from the reactors -if the established procedures to mitigate the decay heat will continue. As well as there is no real danger of a significant leak of Plutonium (anyway there are much worse things there than Plutonium - as e.g. the Cs-137, which is highly volatile + dozen of other things more dangerous than the Plutonium in this type of accident).
What I'm worried about - and I was saying it from the very beginning - is the sea water reactor cooling - which is the serious breach of the GE Mark-1 severe accident mitigation guidelines - resulting in corrossion of the materials they're not designed to withstand it, also what I'm concerned about is the very likely-to-sure breach of the No2 pressure supression chamber which results in leak of highly radioactive water in the basement of the plant which will be relatively very expensive to contain and decontaminate (and I'm afraid the TEPCO is corrupted enough they'll leave it to leak into the ocean - which the consequences of couldn't be too large, but I very much don't like poisoning oceans on any level) not speaking the PSC breach is seriously hampering the efforts to cool the No2 reactor by standard procedures for the case of the meltdown.
My opinion is that TEPCO allocated their accident mitigation resources to other plants and leaved Fukushima on the low priority level, because it anyway was scheduled for decommission, so now the expenses and the plant will most probably pay the insurance and japanese government - taxpayers - which I find being quite extremely dirty bussiness somebody should be put into the jail for a long time.
But who knows how much of the resources they've had in first place for immediate need (I suspect not poor -when they were able to mitigate the other newer powerplants power loss) after the quake and tsunamies and I also really wonder that there was no immediate assistance of the GE resources - it is their technology.
I think there were several mistakes done during the mitigation of the power loss and the accident management was activated too late. For the emergency maintaining the water level to prevent the meltdown would be needed just several dozens of tons of fresh water which I really wonder the japanese were not able to get there together with the mobile backup generators and that the whole thing progressed to partial meltdown (which btw means not literally melting of the fuel, but compromising its structure), hydrogen generation and subsequent explosions, which further crippled the systems - and even so why they didn't flodded the containments with the sea water when they didn't have anything else (not the reactors) as the Mark I severe accident guidelines suggest it is beyond my understanding. It almost looks like LIHOP, because one hardly imagines the country with so many reactors hasn't an emergency plan for getting couple of trucks of water and mobile generators on the site in not just hours, not dozens of hours, but in three cases almost a week later and also that it hasn't a special unit for such cases which would take over for accident management when the TEPCO was unable to do it alone or even maybe didn't much wanted and leaved the 50 poor people to mitigate it there alone with firefighters, police and SDF -which are not much equiped with special material and knowledge to do so effectively.
In case of the TEPCO director I would think to "fall ill" - as he did during the progress of the things at least two times - is not the right thing to do, I think a seppuku would be better -to leave the post to somebody more competent. Which shows not even the Japan is what it was...
The radiation poisoning consquences will be likely not serious as I look at the measurements, with the exception of the poor Litate willage, where the readings are quite high because presumably the relatively narrow cloud turned there back crashing into cold air and falled down with rain. This place will need decontamination if they want to make it habitable without risk. I wonder where the Tepco will get the money for it.

The contamination of the rest of the Japan and elsewhere except immediately around the Fukushima plant is according to multiple sets of readings relatively low and not dangerous in longer perspective after the short-half-lifes decay enough (like a month and something from now - when the people could come back to most of the evacuation zone) - levels something like almost whole Austria, Slovenia Greece, parts of Croatia, Finland, Sweden, Norway after the Chernobyl even now after 25 years - the countries, which are thousands of kilometers far from Chernobyl. That's why I think the severity of Fukushima disaster is incomparable with Chernobyl.

But it is not a result of a luck in Fukushima, but a result of immediate full scram of the reactors after the quake and despite the ill development then also a result of the reactors being in the containments with large pressure suppression chambers, which clearly contained most of the radioactivity release by melting cores in the water there, and which would otherwise leak out into the air with severe consequences comparable then to Chernobyl very easily.

So to recap: it were the containments and the scram (fully inserting all control rods to immediately and fully stop the chain reaction which produces large amounts of highly radioactive mix of mostly high gamma emiters of which especially the Cs-137 is way much more dangerous one in longer perspective then the rest put together) after the almost unprecedented quake.

So the safety measures preventing the worst worked relatively very well at Fukushima despite poor accident management and limited mitigation resources after the quakes and tsunamies - that's why I write in my analysis of the nonsensful Chernobyl-Fukushima comparison from the CTBTO employee/environmentalist-with-agenda that the nuclear technology paradoxicly proved relatively safe at Fukushima, despite it was projected in 60-ties and despite the unprecedented disaster in the Japan history.

The nuclear technologies of the 60ties are not optimal, but surelly better than the technology used in Chernobyl by the too selfconfident soviets, which resulted due to multiple design flaws in combination with multiple security protocol braches in the extremely severe accident involving as we know now from the signature a nuclear explosion of approx. 10t TNT equivalent. (so no "hydrogen explosion" some feed the public with since 25 years to not instigate fears which would be the rational ones)
Yet the number of the deaths and ilnesses there and resulting from the contamination later is still much less than the number of deaths and illnesses resulting just yearly from the coal based electroenergetics in USA or which resulted globally from the atmospheric and submarine nuclear tests conducted by USA and soviets in 50ties.
That's why I prefer peaceful nuclear energy use although I think that the fleet of the old nuclear powerplants should be renewed by up-to date technologies - which is seriously hampered by the antinuclear activists - for example there was no new nuclear plant in USA projected&built after the Three Mile Island - since 30 years! - because it is politically impossible - which results in aging plants of obsolete design (although still much better than Chernobyl RBMK reactor without containment) nobody really wants to close because it would result in blackouts - as there is no viable substitution for them other than again the nuclear - nothing from the renewables is much economically feasible to substitute for it. Moreover there's not the potential (of steadily available power) in this resources and to say for example that solar has the 12 Gw is just absolutely misleading, because it has zero potential at night - when one needs light - and many dozens of percents less if there just a cloudy weather comes, which happens often especially in winter for long periods of time, when the energy is even more needed. If it would be able to substitute for the steadiness of the nuclear power availability I'll not say a thing, the problem is that it clearly isn't. The same works for the wind energy which is even more unstable than the solar. So you anyway need backup sources - so in fact you invest twice to get the same power outcome -if we omit you need much more complicated grid management and stronger powerlines for large power redirections which is almost another same capital investment. So thrice.
I'm not completely against this technologies where it is suitable, and I think for local powersources outside grid they are ideal, but I'm sure it is not suitable for large scale power generation which is needed for densely populated areas where is no place for them nor the potential and you'll need long powerlines to bring it from elsewhere with the considerable losses attached.

There is large unequality in the energy consumption in the world, what we see as matter of fact in the west that we have electricity in the wall if we pay the bills it is not so sure in most of the world. Most of the energy resources are bound to west, especially USA where is the highest energy consumption per capita in the world. I don't say a think the high consumption is bad, because it brings with the high living standard, education, services... available, nobody in third world even dreams about I just think it should be availeable also for others without the west sucking all for themselves using wars and imperial politics. It is not just. And I think only what can feasibly change this state of global unjustice is wise energy (which everything depends on) policies, which I think the nuclear energy research&development&application (including highest safety standards of course) can play crucial role to achieve.

I find it being a hypocrisy when the people in the west protest nuclear energy using long ago stereotypized demagogies - especially in USA, which has almost quarter of the nuclear powerplants in the world - while having their computers working on it or even on much much worse powersources for the environment (the pollution from coal is much higher INCLUDING the radiation pollution) as the coal plants clearly are, yet they pretend they fight against the environment pollution.

I find it being a hyenism when more coverage gets the Fukushima plant (clearly for pursuing the hydrocarbon lobby agenda in manipulating the public into irrational fears) where so far nobody died and it is unlikely any masses ever will, yet the coverage of the real disaster after the quake and tsunamies which severely dammaged 600+ km of the coast and killed dozens of thousands gets just minor time. One would surelly think it is on purpose the apparently very angry people like you, wittingly or unwittingly, serve to achieve.

Posted by: BarryWilliamsmb Apr 3 2011, 03:59 AM

I uh, can't consume that many characters at once.

However, I do find this vid to be prophetic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI

Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 3 2011, 05:48 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 31 2011, 09:38 PM) *
perhaps the plates from used lead acid batteries could be used as roofing tile, if the rainwater is radioactive anyway...


should work. line the gutters and contain the runoff in a shielded barrel. still leaves the ground around the house as a problem. walls, shutters for the windows..lot of considerations.

Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 3 2011, 05:54 AM

QUOTE (BarryWilliamsmb @ Apr 1 2011, 06:59 AM) *
I uh, can't consume that many characters at once.

However, I do find this vid to be prophetic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI


chickens w/ choppers!!!

Posted by: lunk Apr 3 2011, 07:11 AM



http://www.japc.co.jp/english/decommi/world-e.html

"the future's so bright..."

Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 3 2011, 07:59 AM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Apr 1 2011, 01:47 AM) *
Ground Pounder is partially right ..

The credibility comes with telling a truth not with a CV.


ah truth. my catching your 'error' or whatever name you wish to attach to it, earns me a 'partially right'. unfortunately it happens to be more accurate or 'truthful' if you will, than your 'water is almost unable to shield gamma' statement.

that line of yours was the first piece of data that you used to back up your assertion that the guy on the video was talking bs. so, now you have committed sins of 'lying' and 'bearing false witness', because in that regard the guy in the video was being 'truthful'.

i hope you can grasp the distinction and not try to obfuscate using 14 paragraphs of rhetoric. not expecting 'mea culpa' or an acknowledgement for that matter, because you do bring another perspective to all matters at this forum, that we (me anyway) are thankful for. as they say even a stopped clock is right twice a day - point being, CV sometimes gets it right.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Apr 3 2011, 02:03 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Apr 3 2011, 12:59 AM) *
i hope you can grasp the distinction and not try to obfuscate using 14 paragraphs of rhetoric. not expecting 'mea culpa' or an acknowledgement for that matter, because you do bring another perspective to all matters at this forum, that we (me anyway) are thankful for. as they say even a stopped clock is right twice a day - point being, CV sometimes gets it right.

I didn't want to obfuscate anything. But mea culpa. I was too rush and made an error. I should think twice. At least something the guy has right. I shouldn't write anything just that. It anyway has not a sense to write my opinions somewhere nobody wants to read it, because I don't play the black'n'black game. I must say I never expected at this forum such furious insults like yesterday from the bill. Maybe I was writing the whole long post just to try get over it. But it somehow didn't work for me anyway. I'll not write here anything anymore.

Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 3 2011, 02:11 PM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Apr 1 2011, 05:03 PM) *
I'll not write here anything anymore.


fwiw, i don't believe anybody here wants that, bill included. i think emotions run high because it's a big thing to a lot of people, myself included. there just never seems to a be a break on the world stage to catch your breath and do some living w/o a disaster or war or some other piece of bad news showing up.

Posted by: albertchampion Apr 3 2011, 03:42 PM

let's put it all in perspective. properly........

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/neutron-jacks-circus-back

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Apr 3 2011, 05:04 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Apr 3 2011, 01:11 PM) *
fwiw, i don't believe anybody here wants that, bill included. i think emotions run high because it's a big thing to a lot of people, myself included. there just never seems to a be a break on the world stage to catch your breath and do some living w/o a disaster or war or some other piece of bad news showing up.

It's not that people don't want you to post here, but we want you to open your mind and to be honest. Lengthy posts, with lot's of technical jargon, that don't really prove anything get boring after awhile. Your POV is apparent. Yes, we know you think the only solution to our energy problems are nukes. Obviously, that is the industry you've spent most of your adult life in and I'm sure faith in nuclear power is a requirement in order to succeed in that environment.

In the meantime, the world is passing you by and people are changing the way they live. In many places, the utilities are hurting, not because we are using so much power and they can't keep up. They're hurting because we're all starting to use less and alternatives are becoming a reality.

Instead of saying no we can't, we have to starting believing in ourselves again because we don't have a choice if we want to survive.



Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 3 2011, 05:45 PM

dyew, where is that facility in the picture located?

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Apr 3 2011, 05:56 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Apr 3 2011, 04:45 PM) *
dyew, where is that facility in the picture located?

The Orange County Convention Center in Orlando, FL.

Roof top systems that feed directly into the grid are becoming the way to go and we've got a lot of big flat roofs in FL.

Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 3 2011, 08:17 PM

thank you dyew! i've been advocating for solar since the mid 70's..some things take time i guess smile.gif

effing cool, i must say!

Posted by: lunk Apr 4 2011, 01:51 AM

Alex Jones is saying that the iodine 131 was reported in the rainfall in Berkley California has been measured at 181 times above safe level.

If this is true, then other radioactive elements will be in that rainfall, too.

-stay out of the rain, and don't drink milk.

You'll probably be OK for about 3 more months,
if you live in the southern hemisphere.


This fits with the elite-minded plan to greatly increase their depopulation program.

Posted by: bill Apr 4 2011, 08:30 AM

I have to agree lunk

The abject incompetence of the handling of the crisis is becoming more obvious

incompetense or just letting it happen


latest from Arnold Gundersen

http://vimeo.com/21881702 from http://vimeo.com/user6415562 on http://vimeo.com.


Posted by: lunk Apr 4 2011, 09:02 AM

What are the first noticeable health effects of radiation poisoning?
Sterility, respiratory problems, head aches, stomach problems, hair loss...

We should keep an eye on other people for these symptoms.

Tincture of iodine used to be used topically for cuts, and small injuries.

i remember years ago, when they said that iodine did as much damage as it prevented, after that, its uses were replaced with hydrogen peroxide or anti-biotic ointments.

Also, i wonder if the real reason iodine was added to salt was because of all the atmospheric nuclear tests world wide, at that time?

Posted by: bill Apr 4 2011, 09:15 AM

iodine is essential to good health

americans are chronically under nourished in iodine

a typical Japanese person has 1500 times as much iodine in their body(from sea food and sea weed in their diet)

US table salt has about the minimum amount of iodine to keep serious illness at bay

Posted by: lunk Apr 4 2011, 09:27 AM

What is the toxicity of Plutonium?
i remember hearing that half a pound, could poison everyone on Earth.
Now, all i seem to find is that, "it's not that bad," Pu for you, everywhere.

i heard one estimate of 1/4 ton of Pu is in all the nuclear fuel in Fukushima.

Posted by: bill Apr 4 2011, 09:40 AM

The problem with Plutonium is if it gets ingested or breathed into your lungs

then it is incredibly dangerous --something on the order of a few micrograms in your lungs gives you a very high probability of lung cancer


if it remains outside your body it is not so bad -- it is an alpha emmiter and your skin pretty much blocks the alpha

Posted by: lunk Apr 4 2011, 09:41 AM

QUOTE (bill @ Apr 4 2011, 05:40 AM) *
The problem with Plutonium is if it gets ingested or breathed into your lungs

then it is incredibly dangerous --something on the order of a few micrograms in your lungs gives you a very high probability of lung cancer


if it remains outside your body it is not so bad -- it is an alpha emmiter and your skin pretty much blocks the alpha

So now we are all turning into reflective alpha beings?

Posted by: elreb Apr 4 2011, 05:06 PM

QUOTE (BarryWilliamsmb @ Apr 2 2011, 06:11 PM) *
I fucking love you Elreb.

Happy Easter Bunny Barry,

I know you get around the forum and there is…for sure…something in the air…and it sure as hell...is not Plutonium…

What happen to moderation, common respect and ethics?

Posted by: bill Apr 4 2011, 07:01 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8425719/Japan-nuclear-crisis-workers-using-newspaper-and-sawdust-to-block-pipes.html#



"From the afternoon, the workers began pouring polymeric powder, sawdust, newspaper - things we could think of to clog up the holes," said Hidehiko Nishiyama, a spokesman for the nuclear safety agency.

"So far, there has not been any clear indication that the volume of leaking water has been reduced."


What the hell do they think it is a toilet ?

Posted by: lunk Apr 4 2011, 09:05 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 3 2011, 09:51 PM) *
Alex Jones is saying that the iodine 131 was reported in the rainfall in Berkley California has been measured at 181 times above safe level.

If this is true, then other radioactive elements will be in that rainfall, too.

-stay out of the rain, and don't drink milk.

You'll probably be OK for about 3 more months,
if you live in the southern hemisphere.


This fits with the elite-minded plan to greatly increase their depopulation program.


Follow up:

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/04/04/government-sponsored-manipulation-ca-drinking-water-14002/

Posted by: p.w.rapp Apr 5 2011, 12:06 AM

Phantastic, bill and others. rolleyes.gif

Your denial and your refusal to deal with complex matters that don't fit your mindset, mixed with severe ad homs is a perfect mirror of the govt loyalist site.

I know Tume since he uncovered the Swine Flue scam and the involvement of the Austrian ‘Baxter’-subsidiary months before the virus was disseminated in Mexico.
He knows more about nuclear power and how it stands against the interests of those who fight war after war to complete their global monopoly on oil than most of you can imagine, or are willing to accept.
@Jan
thanks again for your efforts. I’ll be able to use many of your arguments in discussions with people, who will hopefully wake up before they switch off the power especially in Germany (i.e. when the French will reduce their supply of nuclear power in summer).

Posted by: BarryWilliamsmb Apr 5 2011, 04:20 AM

If this wasn't happening for real, I would go to the movie.

TEPCO tries to pull the old "millions of times more than bad for you" routine:

7.5 mil. times legal limit of iodine in sea NHKWorld English

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/05_27.html

Posted by: lunk Apr 5 2011, 08:19 AM

It's a public persuasion technique "they" use.
If something is bad in the news, they makeup some way worse story, and the opponents parrot it, then it is shown to be a gross overestimated mistake, making all rightly opposed, look like id10ts.

...and the contamination continues.

It looks like it takes 30 years to decommission an old nuclear reactor,
even if they start today.

What we are seeing in Japan, i think,
is the plutoniumization of life on Earth.

The IAEA found plutonium in the soil 40 km's from the plants,
at levels above evacuation limits.

i can only hope that this is not as bad as it could be.



"Don't drink the water and don't breathe the air!"

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Apr 5 2011, 08:40 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 4 2011, 08:41 AM) *
So now we are all turning into reflective alpha beings?

Fortunately, plutonium is a heavy metal and usually doesn't stay up in the atmosphere for long, but under the current circumstances, with a continual release of contaminated steam and water for who knows how long, all bets are off.

Now that they're dumping the contaminated water into the sea, well the shrimp ate the poison, and the fish ate the shrimp, and the turtle ate the fish, and the man ate the turtle....

Between the oily shrimp from the gulf and the radiated sushi from Japan, don't be surprised to see in big spike in cancers.

Posted by: Johnny Angel Apr 5 2011, 10:50 PM

QUOTE (bill @ Apr 2 2011, 11:15 AM) *
iodine is essential to good health

US table salt has about the minimum amount of iodine to keep serious illness at bay


What about Sea Salt.. ITs a lot more expensive than regualar salt.. No Iodine, althougth I found a cheap Sea Salt with Iodine at the local market.

Posted by: elreb Apr 5 2011, 11:30 PM

QUOTE (Johnny Angel @ Apr 5 2011, 04:50 PM) *
What about Sea Salt.. ITs a lot more expensive than regualar salt.. No Iodine, althougth I found a cheap Sea Salt with Iodine at the local market.

Hawaiian Sea Salt…Red [Iron oxide] and White…sells for less than $5.00 per pound and is very common in almost every “Locals” home.

#2 Hawaii healthiestState

Hawaii is tops in air pollution, has a low smoking rate and is tied for second for the lowest rate of obesity.
On the other hand, Hawaiians have one of the highest rates of binge drinking.

Posted by: lunk Apr 6 2011, 08:43 AM

Nitrogen.

The experts on Fukushima, have become concerned about the possibility of another Hydrogen explosion from the reactor cores. This problem is caused, by a chemical reaction between the water and the nuclear fuel rods, breaking down the water into hydrogen and oxygen which can explode if they build up in the core to about 5%, each.

An expert solution has been started, which involves pumping nitrogen gas, under pressure, into the very hot cores to "dilute" the possible Hydrogen and oxygen gasses being built up, into the reactor cores.

We are told that this may mitigate another possible explosion.

QUOTE
Despite the fact that 78.1% of the air we breathe is nitrogen, the gas is relatively nonreactive because nitrogen molecules are held together by strong triple bonds. It was not until the early 20th century that the Haber process was developed to harness the atmospheric abundance of nitrogen to create ammonia, which can then be oxidized to make the nitrates and nitrites essential for the production of nitrate fertilizer and explosives.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
QUOTE
The Haber process requires high pressures (around 200 atm) and high temperatures (at least 400 °C), routine conditions for industrial catalysis. This highly efficient process uses natural gas as a hydrogen source and air as a nitrogen source.


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

i remember the chemistry department at a university had an open house.
they were blowing up hydrogen and oxygen soap bubbles, and acetylene and oxygen bubbles, and other explosive gas mixtures.
The H+O bubbles were only the smallest explosions, of all.

The Haber process of fixating nitrogen requires a rare earth element, that hopefully, is not found in the reactor core.

...lunk don't like this idea,

it could cause a much bigger boom,
than they are trying(?!) to prevent.

Posted by: bill Apr 6 2011, 10:21 AM

5 and 6 in jeoprdy now

this tepco guy looks distraught

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W7uGvW8xvY&feature=player_embedded




Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 6 2011, 10:28 AM

QUOTE (bill @ Apr 4 2011, 01:21 PM) *
this tepco guy looks distraught


he sure does...

Posted by: BarryWilliamsmb Apr 6 2011, 07:05 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Apr 4 2011, 02:30 AM) *
On the other hand, Hawaiians have one of the highest rates of binge drinking.


Yeah, that's what I like about you islanders...

Posted by: elreb Apr 6 2011, 07:28 PM

QUOTE (BarryWilliamsmb @ Apr 6 2011, 01:05 PM) *
Yeah, that's what I like about you islanders...

Barry,

I must be getting old!

Two of my kids run the Ironman & Lava man events & can still drink me under the table…40 to 70 miles

How can they do both?

Posted by: BarryWilliamsmb Apr 6 2011, 08:22 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Apr 4 2011, 10:28 PM) *
How can they do both?

Obviously, sir, spirits know how to handle them.

And you, too I bet. thumbsup.gif

Posted by: elreb Apr 6 2011, 08:49 PM

Bring the Rum...Brother Barry

Posted by: bill Apr 7 2011, 08:48 AM

Areva executive: "Clearly we are witnessing one of the greatest disasters in modern time"


http://vimeo.com/22062314 from http://vimeo.com/user6415562 on http://vimeo.com.



link to Areva report that was not made public

http://www.fairewinds.com/content/3-2011-areva-fukushima-report

Posted by: lunk Apr 7 2011, 09:21 AM

They say nitrogen gas, but could they be pumping in liquid nitrogen, to try and directly cool the core, using the excuse that it is for diluting the hydrogen and oxygen?

Posted by: lunk Apr 7 2011, 10:06 AM

Something bothers me about the simple chemistry.

If the insulating cladding oxidizes, releasing hydrogen gas under pressure from water, into the inner, 30 cm thick steel core containment vessel, that is breached...(those glowing blue reactor cores are often shown, looking down, through water, so the top of the containment vessels could likely be the "breached" part.
Easy to pour liquid nitrogen into, directly on the core?)

Where is the oxygen coming from? The air?
How does air get into a bottle that hydrogen gas is being generated and pressured out of?

And another thing(s), doesn't the rate of nuclear fission increase with temperature? Wouldn't cooling the core directly with liquid nitrogen be a possible way to "turn off" the fission quicker than water?

And how is nitrogen collected and transported, anyway?
Wouldn't it be in a liquid form, even if they are actually, just turning it into as a gas first, before using it, to push out the generated hydrogen and oxygen, as they say.

Posted by: bill Apr 7 2011, 11:43 AM

7.1 aftershock an hour ago


http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usc0002ksa.php

Posted by: lunk Apr 7 2011, 05:17 PM

oh oh.
George Ure pointed out that earthquakes, world wide have started into a parabolic increase, while their depths have gotten closer to the surface.
back on Monday April 4, 2011:

QUOTE
Not clear enough? Well, until 2006, the world was bumping along with a 7.0 quake in the range of 3˝ to 4˝ times per month. If the 5th order polynomial extension is anywhere near right, it suggests that by December of 2012 that we'll be in the 7 major quakes per month range and heading for 9 major quakes per month.

Around 30-months out, the world would be having a 6.0 or larger on a daily basis, too...


http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm



(may be an idea to invest in a tent, and sleeping bags, now)

Posted by: elreb Apr 7 2011, 07:16 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 7 2011, 11:17 AM) *
(may be an idea to invest in a tent, and sleeping bags, now)

Hawaiian Airlines began ticket sales for its new Osaka Flight to Japan yesterday. The inaugural flight with nonstop service between Honolulu and Kansai begins July 12, 2011.

The flight is the second Japan route to be introduced by Hawaiian Airlines, which inaugurated daily service to Haneda on November 17, 2010.

Hawaiian Airlines Senior Vice President of Marketing and Sales, Glenn Taniguchi said, “We continue to receive very positive feedback from our Japan travel partners about bringing Hawaiian’s brand of service to the Kansai region this July and are pleased to now have tickets on sale.”

The flight will initially use a wide-body, twin-aisle Boeing 767-300ER aircraft seating up to 264 passengers. Hawaiian Airlines plans to introduce a larger 294-seat Airbus A330-200 craft to the route at a later date.

The flight launch comes after approval were granted from Japan’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.

Flight #449 will depart Honolulu International Airport daily at 2:10 p.m. and arrive at Kansai International Airport at 6 p.m. the next day. Return Flight #450 will depart Kansai daily at 9:30 p.m. and arrive in Honolulu at 10:50 a.m. the same day.

Posted by: lunk Apr 8 2011, 01:31 AM

See if this works...

There is a live video camera of Fukushima.
You can watch the clouds pass, through the day but at night, it is black.
...until i "auto colour" adjusted the picture.
it was all pixilated and green, except for one light blue part of the night picture. Exactly where the little puffy clouds are coming from.

Remember all the posts about inferred laser guidance systems that turned out to be just a piece of paper, blowing in the wind at the WTC?

Normal video cameras can pick up infrared at night, that which the eye can't see.

Basically, if you compare the night pictures to the day pictures of the Fukushima reactors, one building is glowing hot throughout the night.

see attachment:


Posted by: Sanders Apr 8 2011, 04:00 AM

I just moved back from Japan, I have not logged in here much lately, you can imagine, I am in transition and have a lot on my plate.

I spent the last 10 years living in Tokyo, 3 of those in Hokkaido. I have been to Sendai many times, I worked with a band from there .. Have not talked to those people, don't know their contact data anymore. I hope they are ok.

I suspect senjima (or was is, matshushima? .... "thousand islands" or "pine islands" ... - beautiful, offshore of Sendai) are more or less gone - as are 20,000 people.

My friends in Tokyo are freaking out, though they don't say it openly. I mean, they eat a lot of fish ... that's the traditional diet ... and the fish are, uhm, already radioactive, and they think it will be months before they get the reactors under control.

Pretty scary.

Posted by: BarryWilliamsmb Apr 8 2011, 03:12 PM

Areva executive: "Clearly we are witnessing one of the greatest disasters in modern time"


Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws)


The majority of folks are not concerned how the trick called nuclear is performed and before Fukushima I was among them.

Now I see nuclear power for what it is: Too Expensive To Meter.

And just like we (not our children) accept the unimaginable theft called inflation, this very same principle of subterfuge has been employed with nuclear power generation.

I am truly concerned how The Fission Magic Show will wind up...

(edit to remove inadvertent link)

Posted by: bill Apr 8 2011, 04:35 PM

The China syndrome begins



On April 6, Reuters reported that "the core at Japan's Fukushima nuclear reactor has melted through the reactor pressure vessel," Rep. Edward Markey told a House hearing on the disaster, saying:

"I have been informed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that the core has gotten so hot that part of it has probably melted through the reactor pressure vessel."

http://rense.com/general93/fukmelt.htm

Posted by: maturin42 Apr 9 2011, 01:10 AM

QUOTE (bill @ Apr 6 2011, 06:35 PM) *
The China syndrome begins



On April 6, Reuters reported that "the core at Japan's Fukushima nuclear reactor has melted through the reactor pressure vessel," Rep. Edward Markey told a House hearing on the disaster, saying:

"I have been informed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that the core has gotten so hot that part of it has probably melted through the reactor pressure vessel."

http://rense.com/general93/fukmelt.htm


So... starting from Fukushima, it would be called, what? ... the Detroit syndrome?...

Posted by: lunk Apr 9 2011, 10:07 AM

If the nuclear material keeps melting down into the Earth, eventually it will hit the water table, the steam formed underneath, will probably then erupt like a geyser, causing a radioactive volcano.

It must be a tough business decision to decommission an old reactor, when it can be kept operating beyond its redundancy date.
Revenues from power generation stop, and all that is left is at least, 30 years of expenses.

Posted by: Ricochet Apr 9 2011, 08:01 PM

Worth reading.
http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/files/2011/03/Cause_of_the_high_Cl38_Radioactivity.pdf

Posted by: lunk Apr 9 2011, 11:31 PM

QUOTE (Ricochet @ Apr 9 2011, 04:01 PM) *
Worth reading.
http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/files/2011/03/Cause_of_the_high_Cl38_Radioactivity.pdf


Excellent pdf. Brings back memories of learning about atomic weights.
Chlorine, has two stable isotopes found in nature, that are averaged.

http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Handbook/Tables/chlorinetable1.htm

Sea water has sodium chloride in it.

i think the theory is the chlorine atoms were absorbing neutrons making them radioactive Cl-38.

Simply, an increase of radioactivity means a decrease in the lifespans of materials.

Posted by: maturin42 Apr 9 2011, 11:53 PM

Good point, Lunk. I apologize for the flippancy of my last remark. It's too early to make stupid jokes about this tragedy.

Perhaps Jan could give us a few words on life cycle costs of nukes that have been thoroughly decommissioned and put to rest where they present absolutely no threat to their environment or the people therein, and their waste products stored in a manner in which they are not capable of presenting a threat to human or animal life in their surroundings, which would include security to keep malefactors from walking away with dangerous material that could be used to harm or threaten large numbers of people.

Has it ever been done?

Tens of Billions of dollars of subsidies have been committed to try to restart the moribund Nuclear industry. One can only hope that the tragedy in Fukushima leads to burying the notion of another round of subsidized construction of nuclear powerplants in the U. S. Imagine that money being used to build out an energy infrastructure with a real commitment to safe and renewable sources that don't involve production of huge amounts of toxins that have to be guarded for hundreds or thousands of years.

Wall Street believe in nuclear, except to the extent that they would have to put up the money for the loan guarantees. Too risky. That's for suckers like, say, American taxpayers and they want their "bailout" up front, when it comes to the nuclear industry. Socialize the risk and privatize the profits. Isn't that how it goes in the corporate "free market"?

Posted by: albertchampion Apr 10 2011, 02:15 AM

i think you still don't get it. you have to notice the population numbers and their increase. energy will be required to support that level of population.

solar won't do it. wind won't do it. hydrocarbons may or may not do it.

nuclear can do it[so far, the french seem to have proven that]. but it requires a more sophisticated level on design and construction standards. an imposition that the lobbyists prevent.

short of nuclear's addition to the energy matrix, then immediately, the state must impose limits on energy consumption. and in a malthusian scheme, there will have to be limits imposed upon population increase.

it occurs to me that those are the boundaries for a future with no significant increase in utilizable energy.

if you see it differently, tell me why you do. and how you see energy utilization for the future. short of global energy rationing.

i have been involved in the energy industry my entire adult life and i cannot see how energy consumption can be curtailed without totalitarian levels of consumption controls. or an energy pricing scheme that bankrupts all households, all industry in north america[and elswhere i care to add].

i really look forward to hearing your thoughts on this topic.

if you have ever read me, you know i think that the aviation mode of transportation must be terminated[there never was a more energy wasteful method of transport]. and you would know that i think that vehicles with engines larger than 2 liters of displacement make no sense. and that if speed limits are a valid mechanism of energy consumption curtailment, then all vehicular engines need to be governed so as not to exceed speed limits.

until those very easy to impose strictures are enabled, then it is clear that no one gives a rat's ass about the levels of hydrocarbon consumption.

Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 10 2011, 06:59 AM

totalitarian this, contol that...rubbish. who is the biggest user of energy in the world? the DoD. who limits americans from owning cars that get 63 mpg (morris diesel for example)? the DoT. do you see a pattern here. big business and big government have colluded to screw everybody.

spare me the it can't be done, individuals do it everyday unless somebody is telling them 'no'.

and why exactly should i trust gov't/big oil 'facts' exactly? they lie about everything.

start w/ a premise that is believable next time.


free market, now that is something i'd like to see!
we will never see a complete breakdown of the nuclear costs, because it would paint an unflattering picture.
some may rail against coal powered plants(and i am not a proponent per se), but i recall once upon a time high sulfur coal being an issue. apparently that problem was overcome by installing scrubbers on the stacks. so i ask, why not scrub whatever else may be offensive? it certainly can not be as complicated as dealing w/ radioactive waste on the scale of the nuclear power industry.

Posted by: bill Apr 10 2011, 08:03 AM

Germany has about 30 GIGA watts of solar power already (and this is a climate that is vastly unfavorable to SE because of cloudy weather and high latitude as compared to the US)

how -- they made it economically attractive for people to adopt it

this is from wiki but I have read this from other sources

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

"Sunlight is by far the world's most used energy resource. A 1993 report by the DOE found that available domestic resources from solar, that would be theoretically accessible regardless of cost, represented 586,687 Quadrillion BTUs (Quads). Coal represented the second largest resource, a distant 38,147 Quads. The report stipulated that 95% of this potentially recoverable energy was from burning biomass. Predictions of how much solar power was economically feasible to collect amounted to 352 quads, compared with 5,266 quads from coal. The assumptions used in the report were based on a predicted 2010 price of a barrel of oil being $38.[3] The total annual energy consumption of the United States in 2007 was approximately 100 Quads,[4] less than 0.5% of that theoretically available from sunlight."

There you have it, 352 quads that are "economically feasible" to collect (and this was based on $38 per barrel not $110) --total annual energy consuption in the US 100 quads

based on this, the US has 3.5 times as much solar energy that is "economically feasible" than it needs (arguably, based on $110 oil this could as high as 10 times as much that is economically feasible)

we just simply have to collectively decide to do it.

and it will be alot easier to do it now as opposed to when we are in really serious crisis from fossil fuels

and don't even get me started on zero point energy and the many inventors that have been murdered of silenced

take the crash course here

http://www.chrismartenson.com/

"solar won't do it. wind won't do it" is simply not an option.

Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 10 2011, 08:10 AM

QUOTE (bill @ Apr 8 2011, 11:03 AM) *
we just simply have to collectively decide to do it.


i get what you are saying, but the collective 'we' just ain't gonna happen. getting stuck in the whole 'central planning' paradigm is a dead end. remember when carter installed solar panels on the whitehouse? i'm not a fan of carter but he led by example. waiting for the bureaucratic machinery to come to the aid of people is hopeless. 'we' gotta make it happen on our own, the bureaucracy be damned.

Posted by: bill Apr 10 2011, 08:19 AM

right on GP

One of the field engineers from the UK has a company car -- comparable to a Ford Taurus

he gets 52 mpg (and it does 160 K's on the autobahn too)

the diesels get even better

http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars

Available on: Studio, Edge, Zetec, Titanium
CO2 emissions: 110 g/km
Annual vehicle excise duty: Ł0 (first year rate 2010-11)
Fuel efficiency (combined cycle): 67.3 mpg


It is all about the "American consumer" buying enough oil from Saudi Arabia to finance our debt, thats why our cars get crappy mileage, it is a political problem not a technical problem -- (but this game is rapidly ending I think)

between the Gulf of Mexico disaster last year the Japan disaster this year hhmm maybe they are they are trying to reduce us "useless eaters" to a more Georgia Guidestones level.

Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 10 2011, 08:25 AM

QUOTE (Ricochet @ Apr 7 2011, 11:01 PM) *
Worth reading.
http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/files/2011/03/Cause_of_the_high_Cl38_Radioactivity.pdf


that was a good read for the most part. neutron emission would explain cl-38 for sure. my problem is with the 'neutron beams'. fission neutrons are expelled omnidirectionally. it's not as simple as up or down. think rapidly expanding surface of a balloon. if it's a simple terminology thing, meaning they detected neutrons through their relatively tiny 'scintillation detector' window, then ok. get what i mean?

Posted by: GroundPounder Apr 10 2011, 08:31 AM

QUOTE (bill @ Apr 8 2011, 11:19 AM) *
right on GP

One of the field engineers from the UK has a company car -- comparable to a Ford Taurus

he gets 52 mpg (and it does 160 K's on the autobahn too)

the diesels get even better

http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars

Available on: Studio, Edge, Zetec, Titanium
CO2 emissions: 110 g/km
Annual vehicle excise duty: Ł0 (first year rate 2010-11)
Fuel efficiency (combined cycle): 67.3 mpg


It is all about the "American consumer" buying enough oil from Saudi Arabia to finance our debt, thats why our cars get crappy mileage, it is a political problem not a technical problem -- (but this game is rapidly ending I think)

between the Gulf of Mexico disaster last year the Japan disaster this year hhmm maybe they are they are trying to reduce us "useless eaters" to a more Georgia Guidestones level.


i hope you're right about the game ending, bill. we have been suckered for too long. maybe we'll get those high mpg vehicles after they jack the price up to $5/gal, you know, so the rubes won't grumble so much.

wonder if the georgia guidestones are some predictive programming thing or some kind of elite laugh at the rest of us...

Posted by: lunk Apr 10 2011, 09:37 AM

QUOTE (albertchampion @ Apr 9 2011, 10:15 PM) *
i think you still don't get it. you have to notice the population numbers and their increase. energy will be required to support that level of population.

solar won't do it. wind won't do it. hydrocarbons may or may not do it.

nuclear can do it[so far, the french seem to have proven that]. but it requires a more sophisticated level on design and construction standards. an imposition that the lobbyists prevent.

short of nuclear's addition to the energy matrix, then immediately, the state must impose limits on energy consumption. and in a malthusian scheme, there will have to be limits imposed upon population increase.

it occurs to me that those are the boundaries for a future with no significant increase in utilizable energy.

if you see it differently, tell me why you do. and how you see energy utilization for the future. short of global energy rationing.

i have been involved in the energy industry my entire adult life and i cannot see how energy consumption can be curtailed without totalitarian levels of consumption controls. or an energy pricing scheme that bankrupts all households, all industry in north america[and elswhere i care to add].

i really look forward to hearing your thoughts on this topic.

if you have ever read me, you know i think that the aviation mode of transportation must be terminated[there never was a more energy wasteful method of transport]. and you would know that i think that vehicles with engines larger than 2 liters of displacement make no sense. and that if speed limits are a valid mechanism of energy consumption curtailment, then all vehicular engines need to be governed so as not to exceed speed limits.

until those very easy to impose strictures are enabled, then it is clear that no one gives a rat's ass about the levels of hydrocarbon consumption.


i would almost completely agree with you, if it wasn't for the deliberate suppression of alternate, efficient, means of generating energy.

For instance, the excess electricity from an alternator of a car motor can be used to generate hydrogen and oxygen from condensation of water from the exhaust to reduce fuel consumption. This is a simple, known technology, that could be, but is not done, or used, and deliberately withheld by industry.

Electronic, instead of copper ballasts could be used in the street lighting of every city in the world, reducing electricity uses by 1/3, there alone!

LED's are finally replacing inefficient lighting, and these can be run from solar cells!

There are so many ways that government/industry wastes energy, that that could easily make up for the "necessity" of nuclear power generation.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Apr 10 2011, 10:15 AM

QUOTE
There are so many ways that government/industry wastes energy, that that could easily make up for the "necessity" of nuclear power generation.


Well we can't have that now, can we? Because you know what's going to happen when we decentralize power production and wean ourselves off of fossil fuels? The government and power companies won't be able to collect all those fees, subsidies and extra taxes they like to add to our gas and electric bills.

Posted by: lunk Apr 10 2011, 05:37 PM

There are thousands of directions that people can develop a stable system of continued existence into the future.

But "they" have a single plan, and "they" are following it.
And, it appears to be to eliminate all life on the surface of the Earth through radiation and start again with seed vaults and genetic cloning.

The recent big Earthquake in Japan caused problems at other reactors, now too.

It won't be long before TPTB start to hunker-down in their bunkers, i think.

Apparently 75% of the damage done by ionizing radiation is caused by the radiation ionizing a water molecule near a cells' DNA.
So "they" probably have a preventative for this somewhere...



QUOTE
Workers wearing protective suits inspect the second basement floor of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Fukushima prefecture, northern Japan in this handout photo taken April 8, 2011, and released by Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.


http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Japan+atomic+plant+worker+hospital/4591057/story.html

Posted by: BarryWilliamsmb Apr 10 2011, 09:54 PM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Apr 8 2011, 01:15 PM) *
Well we can't have that now, can we? Because you know what's going to happen when we decentralize power production and wean ourselves off of fossil fuels? The government and power companies won't be able to collect all those fees, subsidies and extra taxes they like to add to our gas and electric bills.


But they WILL charge us for 24 hr sunlight as soon as they figure out how...

http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Ecarlkop/znamya.html

Posted by: elreb Apr 10 2011, 10:23 PM

QUOTE (BarryWilliamsmb @ Apr 10 2011, 03:54 PM) *
But they WILL charge us for 24 hr sunlight as soon as they figure out how...

Barry,

Tume fried my toast…

I will limit myself to “History”…

Elreb

Posted by: lunk Apr 11 2011, 07:37 AM

Another Earthquake in Japan, 7.1 with a tsunami warning.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/11/japan-earthquake-prompts-tsunami-warnings

Posted by: bill Apr 11 2011, 08:27 AM

Gundersen does a little science experiment with Zircaloy


http://vimeo.com/22209827 from http://vimeo.com/user6415562 on http://vimeo.com.


Posted by: bill Apr 11 2011, 09:02 AM

lunk
The aftershocks were fairly close to Fukushima and only 10 Km deep

they lost power to the reactors again --- they said they were going to try firehoses


Posted by: lunk Apr 11 2011, 06:20 PM

They can't entomb them, and may have to cool them with pumped water for years. What a mess. And the Earthquakes haven't stopped. And no workers at the plants, anyway at the moment, because of radiation...

And there are metric tones of fuel rods that must be kept cool in leaky tanks, with pumped water...

Good thing we got robots...

Posted by: albertchampion Apr 11 2011, 07:45 PM

you might want to check out george washington's thread on zero hedge. japan has no robots capable.

in the meanwhile, tyler durden's.....

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/fukushima-accident-assessment-officially-raised-maximum-level-7

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)