Fukushima

A place for regulars and new visitors to talk about whatever comes to mind. An opportunity to share your 'non-surf' wisdom with the rest of us.

Re: Fukushima

Postby Stan » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:20 am

Dont believe everything you read Roy its a goverment plot to take the focus off of global warming
Stan
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 7:55 pm

Re: Fukushima

Postby malpractice » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:17 pm

Not like the daily mail to sensationalise anything is it?

Forget the media reports, read the IAEA updates if you want to make your own conclusions based on available facts http://iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html
User avatar
malpractice
 
Posts: 2034
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:45 am

Re: Fukushima

Postby purpleandy » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:26 pm

for those of us who live down the arse end of the world it's worrying. it's not bollocks and it's not some shithouse government ploy. i remember chernobyl going bang in the mid eighties and parts of the uk are still suffering 25 years down the line....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/12/farmers-restricted-chernobyl-disaster
chernobyl was about the same proximity to the uk as fukushima is to NZ (which is where home is now and has been for a while) and farming down here accounts for 15% of the gdp. so, i'm with roy on this one. p.s - mal p, nice to see you sticking your head in :wink: i understand that it may only be 10%, but 10% of still fucked up twenty five years down the line isn't exactly a positive outcome.....
User avatar
purpleandy
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Location: Northland, NZ

Re: Fukushima

Postby munkee » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:52 pm

User avatar
munkee
 
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:35 pm

Re: Fukushima

Postby malpractice » Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:18 pm

Hopefully the type and amount of radiation wont be anywhere as serious as chernobyl. Thankfully there are key differences ie no uncontained peices of exploded uranium and graphite core burning uncontrolled in the open air for 10 days!! That and everyone knows about this, unlike the first we knew about chernobyl, when Sweden thought they had a leak in one of their plants two days later, then worked out it was coming from the Ukraine.

Understand why you are worried though, I just hate the way some of the media blows it out of all proportion. Radiation is so easy to detect, and in such small amounts so there is evidence there if you look. Whether that will affect human health is a another matter.

Just to put it into perspective, it's hard to get reliable figures, but mining for coal alone in the USA kills 100s a year and air pollution from coal plants its in the thousands if not more. I have a mixed view on nuclear. Plant safety can be improved a lot with new passive reactor design. But at the same time we are creating waste that will probably outlast the human race.
User avatar
malpractice
 
Posts: 2034
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:45 am

Re: Fukushima

Postby Roy Stuart » Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:19 am

fiddling while Rome burns...
User avatar
Roy Stuart
 
Posts: 2605
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:56 am

Re: Fukushima

Postby Crystal Voyager » Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:26 am

If anything it seems the media have gone a bit quiet, it took some time for information regarding fuel rods found up to a mile away from the Fukushima reactor and some of the elements that were found contaminating the area can only be attributed to the reactor core to be still in fusion (half life of 2 days therefore reactor core still not shut down).

What Chernobyl showed us is that when we are told there is nothing to worry about, most of the time that is downplayed. Data now shows the original official line was wrong.

I am not saying news from sources such as Alex Jones is right, but then neither is the official news agencies. Somewhere in between lies the truth and we should be told the truth so we have a choice. It seems that the French government has issued a warning about eating vegetables, milk and dairy products as "Risky behaviour" but at the same time say there is no need to protect yourself with taking iodine tablets. Still knowing that the official line is always less than the real risk and the fact that they have already identified a risk there is something to be concerned about.

Andy you are reasonably safe in NZ as the air stream currents rotate mainly round the globe horizontally so most of the problem will be in the northern hemisphere. Not so sure about the pacific ocean though as there has already been millions of tones of radioactive water being pumped out.

There will be some gagging of media anyway not just from the Japanese government to save being embarrassed but also from US sources as General Electric were the builders and designers of the plant and there might well be people not wanting to much negative news for the Nuclear Industry.

There has been a fair amount of accidents, some I found on the BBC archives and these are labelled the most serious!

It is worth questioning the facts we are presented after all not all these incidents below you know, some you may but not all. I am sure the heightened Libya coverage also helps divert attention from a situation that not only effects us all but could effect generations to come.

There have been a number of serious nuclear incidents since the 1950s. Below are details of the most serious.
Mayak or Kyshtym nuclear complex (Soviet Union): 29 September 1957
A fault in the cooling system at the nuclear complex, near Chelyabinsk, results in a chemical explosion and the release of an estimated 70 to 80 tonnes of radioactive materials into the air. Thousands of people are exposed to radiation and thousands more are evacuated from their homes. It is categorised as Level 6 on the seven-point International Nuclear Events Scale (INES).

Windscale nuclear reactor (UK): 7 October 1957
A fire in the graphite-cooled reactor, in Cumbria, results in a limited release of radioactivity (INES Level 5). The sale of milk from nearby farms is banned for a month. The reactor cannot be salvaged and is buried in concrete. A second reactor on the site is also shut down and the site decontaminated. Subsequently part of the site is renamed Sellafield and new nuclear reactors are built.

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (USA): 3 January 1961
A steam explosion in reactor SL-1 during preparation for start-up destroys the small US Army experimental reactor and kills three operators.

Three Mile Island power plant, Pennsylvania (US): 29 March 1979
A cooling malfunction causes a partial meltdown in one reactor, resulting in a limited release of radioactivity (INES Level 5).
The site's first reactor (TMI One) on the Susquehanna river was closed for refuelling. The second was at full capacity when two malfunctions occurred: first there was a release of radioactive water, then radioactive gas was detected on the perimeter. No deaths or injuries were reported.
It is considered the United States' worst nuclear accident and led to major safety changes in the industry.

Chernobyl power plant (Soviet Union): 26 April 1986
One of four reactors explodes after an experiment at the power plant (INES Level 7). The resulting fire burns for nine days and at least 100 times more radiation than the atom bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima is released into the air. Radioactive deposits are found in nearly every country in the northern hemisphere.
Two people die in the explosion and another 28 from acute radiation sickness in the immediate aftermath. Some experts predict thousands of extra cancer deaths as a result of the disaster.
A huge cover, known as the New Safe Confinement, is being built over the existing sarcophagus. It is expected to cover the site by 2013.

Severesk, formerly Tomsk-7 (Russia): 6 April 1993
A tank at a uranium and plutonium factory inside the plant explodes, resulting in radioactivity being dispersed into the atmosphere contaminating an area of over 120 sq km (INES Level 4). A number of villages are evacuated and left permanently uninhabitable.

Tokaimura nuclear fuel processing facility (Japan): 30 September 1999
Workers break safety regulations by mixing dangerously large amounts of treated uranium in metal buckets, setting off a nuclear reaction (INES Level 4).
Two of the workers later die from their injuries, and more than 40 others are treated for exposure to high levels of radiation.
Hundreds of residents living nearby were evacuated from their homes while the nuclear reaction continued, but were allowed home two days later.

Mihama power plant (Japan): 9 August 2004
Five people die in an accident at the plant in the Fukui province (INES Level 1). Seven people are also injured when hot water and steam leaks from a broken pipe.
Officials insist that no radiation leaked from the plant, and there is no danger to the surrounding area.

Fukushima Daiichi power plant (Japan): 11 March 2011
A powerful tsunami generated by a magnitude-9.0 earthquake out at sea slams into the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, damaging four of six reactors at the site.
A series of fires are set off, after cooling systems fail. Venting hydrogen gas from the reactors causes explosions, forcing engineers to use seawater in an effort to cool overheating reactor cores.
Originally classified as INES Level 5, the severity was raised to INES Level 7 on 12 April 2011 when a new estimate suggested higher levels of radiation than previously thought had leaked from the plant.
Despite the classification, the incident is said to be much less severe than Chernobyl, and officials insist there is only a minimal risk to public health.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-13047267
User avatar
Crystal Voyager
 
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:01 am

Re: Fukushima

Postby Roy Stuart » Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:36 am

I agree except with the idea that the truth is necessarily 'in between' .

There's really no good reason to suppose that the average or median represents the truth, it could easily be that the truth is at one end or another of any spectrum you are perceiving.

Also I think it's misleading to pigeon hole all information presented on the alex Jones show as being incorrect, there are many people participating in the show and what they say should be taken objectively not just dismissed because of some stigma that supposedly ( and in my opinion for poor reasons ) belongs to Mr Jones. Furthermore an objective viewer will soon see that he is far more thorough and clear minded in his research that the mainstream media who are all hired propaganda merchants.

/

.
User avatar
Roy Stuart
 
Posts: 2605
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:56 am

Re: Fukushima

Postby Crystal Voyager » Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:49 am

I agree, when I say in between, it could be any point between the two views, not necessarily the median. I am also not discrediting what experts Alex Jones consults but when someone relays a story (even experts) there can be an agenda biasing fact. I am not an expert so chose to have a bit of caution as to believe whole heartedly without knowledge another persons view that things are as bad as infowars suggests is just as blind as believing the government line. Like you say research into it and come to your own conclusions and also learn something along the way.

What we do know is that governments do lie to us and has been proven in the past, extremist journalism can exaggerate the facts for publicity. So with that logic it has to be worse than the official line (like with Chernobyl) but may not be as bad as suggested by the people that Alex Jones has interviewed. Only one fact comes clear though, it is bad and worse than the official line originally suggested.

Keep up the good work Roy, information flow and discussion at least makes people start to ask questions instead of just believing the wholesale media.
User avatar
Crystal Voyager
 
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:01 am

Re: Fukushima

Postby Roy Stuart » Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:02 am

Cheers CV, it's a relief to read well reasoned posts, and I take your points .

.
User avatar
Roy Stuart
 
Posts: 2605
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:56 am

Re: Fukushima

Postby Crystal Voyager » Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:32 am

Likewise, it is always a pleasure to see that you are looking into things in greater depth and promoting discussion. You have posted some interesting links on FB too. I can't find the video footage of the guys driving around the area around the plant with the Geiger counters on the dash board. That was quite interesting to show what problem they are facing over there (and still are as more after shocks of 6.0 have been reported today). WIll you be able to post the link on here?

It was the legacy of the designer of the internet to allow this type of discussion to take place. Imagine what it would have been like 40 years ago with only mass media to rely on. The internet is a truly powerful tool used as it was intended (although also useful for surf reports and porn too!) :-D
User avatar
Crystal Voyager
 
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:01 am

Re: Fukushima

Postby Roy Stuart » Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:07 pm

That video link on my facebook profile has vanished, I have no idea why.

It's still on youtube though http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhS3POUalNI

By the way I know what it was like 40 years ago with only the mainstream media and hopeless international phone conections for communication: the dark ages we were like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed on BS.

We had to write exam papers and essays longhand as well :-| :-| :-|
User avatar
Roy Stuart
 
Posts: 2605
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:56 am

Re: Fukushima

Postby Chai Wallah » Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:10 pm

malpractice wrote:Not like the daily mail to sensationalise anything is it?

Forget the media reports, read the IAEA updates if you want to make your own conclusions based on available facts http://iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html


Great link Mal - thanks for that, going over in 8 days time and this is reassuring info but probably not understood by many. From reading your second post I suspect that you are not a humanties graduate :wink:

Most of the poeple that are shouting the loudest both in the media and I suspect on here have not studied science since school (often giving up at just 14) and thus do not really undertsand nuclear science, radiation and its risks. How many know the differnce between a becquerel and sievert? without googling it,but are quite happy to quote the figures if they beleive it supports there opinions.

The same journalists sprouting this alarmist trip also promoted the MMR scare, support homeopathic cures, antioxidants and publish stories that cancer can be cured / is caused by drinking / not drinking a glass/ bottle of white/red/rose wine a day/week/month (delete as required)

We just need to take a balanced and pragmatic evidence based view.
Chai Wallah
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:26 pm
Location: UK

Re: Fukushima

Postby mal-nourished » Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:27 pm

your welcome chai.. :oops: :oops: sorry wrong mal... :lol: i agree with crystal that its good to have discussion i certainly know more about nuclear power and reactors wether we agree or not with the differing views it has giving a oppurtunity to hear how opposing parties address the situation... 8)
mal-nourished
 
Posts: 5282
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:21 am

Re: Fukushima

Postby Roy Stuart » Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:51 am

The iaea are full of sh*t.
User avatar
Roy Stuart
 
Posts: 2605
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:56 am

Re: Fukushima

Postby Kamikaze » Fri Apr 15, 2011 11:30 am

so a bunch of scientists experts in their field are full of shit, and the media which consists of a bunch of pissed up journalists on expenses, (only after a sensational story to sell papers/air time) should be believed as gospel?
User avatar
Kamikaze
 
Posts: 2139
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:51 pm
Location: Sunny, yet normally flat Bournemouth

Re: Fukushima

Postby purpleandy » Fri Apr 15, 2011 11:59 am

Chai Wallah wrote:The same journalists sprouting this alarmist trip also promoted the MMR scare, support homeopathic cures, antioxidants and publish stories that cancer can be cured / is caused by drinking / not drinking a glass/ bottle of white/red/rose wine a day/week/month (delete as required)

and the difference is...... drinking red wine (or not) is a choice you get to make. homeopathic cures i can choose to avoid. i can choose to be immunised against MMR. i'm pretty sure i didn't choose to munter a nuclear reactor..... how the fuck is a stack of isotopes, plus all the heavy water, neutron rich concrete etc being dispersed into the world we live in a good outcome?? it's going to cost an estimated 2.6 billion quid to decomission dounreay properly. there's a reason it's that expensive you know.........................
User avatar
purpleandy
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Location: Northland, NZ

Re: Fukushima

Postby waxer00 » Fri Apr 15, 2011 4:19 pm

^^^i share your concerns.the problem is the scientific community seem to not want to stand up and spell out in laymans terms the cost of dealing with the waste.
the whole nuclear industry as sprouted with assumption that somebody will invent something in the future that will render this waste harmless.
i think this was a very arrogant and and damn right dangerous thing to unleash into the world ,particularly when you realise that people who claim to be at the cutting edge appear not to know enough about it themselves!it makes my blood boil!,which ironically could be one of the side effects of radiation poisoning.but don`t quote me on that one because i`m not a fucking `expert`!
User avatar
waxer00
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:32 pm
Location: little donkwhey

Re: Fukushima

Postby watourmann » Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:24 pm

The current "scientific community": we don't know what we don't know. Sums it up. :wink:
User avatar
watourmann
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:52 am

Re: Fukushima

Postby shackattack2 » Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:39 am

shackattack2
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:10 pm
Location: Sunny Coast

Re: Fukushima

Postby Kamikaze » Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:35 pm

watourmann wrote:The current "scientific community": we don't know what we don't know. Sums it up. :wink:


As opposed to the non scientific community "we know what we just made up" or "we know what the mate of a bloke i know told him was really going on"
User avatar
Kamikaze
 
Posts: 2139
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:51 pm
Location: Sunny, yet normally flat Bournemouth

Re: Fukushima

Postby Chai Wallah » Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:09 pm

These same ppl who believe that they are intelligent because they went to university, studied humanities, joined the media, dont understand science (proudly gave it up at 14) but must propogate the most alarming stories possible to please their editors ( who has the same background as them)
Chai Wallah
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:26 pm
Location: UK

Re: Fukushima

Postby Crystal Voyager » Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:27 pm

Chai Wallah wrote:These same ppl who believe that they are intelligent because they went to university, studied humanities, joined the media, dont understand science (proudly gave it up at 14) but must propogate the most alarming stories possible to please their editors ( who has the same background as them)


Twice you have said that people don't understand science. I take it you have expertise in that field?

If so why not enlighten us with your views. So far you have only poured scorn on people for not understanding. Is it not better to educate those so that are not as aware as yourself?

If you don't then how do we know you have any expertise and are not just trying to get a rise from others.

To say to people "you are wrong" is pointless where as saying "you are wrong because XYZ" means we all gain from the interaction.

For example

Chai Wallah wrote:How many know the differnce between a becquerel and sievert? without googling it, but are quite happy to quote the figures if they beleive it supports there opinions.


It would be quite helpful if that was explained to those people to support your point of view. That way we are less likely to be misinformed from the sources where these opinions were formed.

Good to see the discussion has not faded unlike the mainstream media which has gone quiet on this subject.
User avatar
Crystal Voyager
 
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:01 am

Re: Fukushima

Postby Chai Wallah » Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:29 pm

Crystal - the point I have been trying to make (probably not that eloquently) is that the people reporting these stories in the media do not understand science and thus should not be tasked with influencing public opinion on issues that they do not necassary undertstand or have the skills to communicate effectively in a non alarmist manner based on hard evidence based facts.

Many of the loudest 'expert' critics and highest profile pundits are discredited scientists (if they have any scientific training at all) and do not quote peer reviewed fully accredited evidence based research but paint a picture of worst case scenarios which do not necassarily reflect what is happening on the ground and the probable risks within the Fukushima. When true experts try and prevent a balanced view their opinions are discredited and only the worst case extremes are focussed on.

Wiki has some quite clear definitions of Becquerels and Sieverts as below

One Bq is defined as the activity of a quantity of radioactive material in which one nucleus decays per second, more dangerous sources of radiation have higher Bq or activitity levels

The sievert (symbol: Sv) is the SI derived unit of dose equivalent radiation. It attempts to quantitatively evaluate the biological effects of ionizing radiation as opposed to the physical aspects, which are characterised by the absorbed dose, measured in gray.


These units of measure have both been quoted regularly in the media with no real explanation as to what they mean.

Part of my educational background is Applied Physics with specialistaion in applied nuclear physics and quantum physics. I almost became a health physicists but contary to what many ppl suppose am pretty anti nuclear power however that does not mean that we should not discuss it rationally.
Chai Wallah
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:26 pm
Location: UK

Re: Fukushima

Postby Crystal Voyager » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:34 pm

Thanks Chai and certainly a very eloquent post which will help us all understand a bit more.

It's good to see you have relevant background too.

I am interested in your views with your expertise on the official stories that were originally sent out to the mainstream media and what is now reported which shows that the problem is indeed much worse than originally suggested.

Do you think that there was an attempt to hide the problem or was it just a case of not understanding the true problems they were facing?

Despite reassurances from official sources, do you think there is a substantial risk to health both locally and on a larger scale considering now it is suggested that it will be some months before the situation is contained to a manageable level?

With recent news of a leaked document suggesting Sellafield had discharged plutonium contaminated water into the environment and the reactor in Edinburgh also showing radioactive discharge into the soil and water table gives cause for concern that maybe there is a systematic cover up of accidents?

Do these leaks present any tangible risk to the population or are these leaks so small as to be negligible in effect?

Thanks once again for discussing this as hopefully we will all learn more and better able to judge what we do hear.
User avatar
Crystal Voyager
 
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:01 am

Re: Fukushima

Postby tjah1087 » Thu Apr 21, 2011 12:11 am

Crystal Voyager wrote:Thanks Chai and certainly a very eloquent post which will help us all understand a bit more.

It's good to see you have relevant background too.

I am interested in your views with your expertise on the official stories that were originally sent out to the mainstream media and what is now reported which shows that the problem is indeed much worse than originally suggested.

Do you think that there was an attempt to hide the problem or was it just a case of not understanding the true problems they were facing?

Despite reassurances from official sources, do you think there is a substantial risk to health both locally and on a larger scale considering now it is suggested that it will be some months before the situation is contained to a manageable level?

With recent news of a leaked document suggesting Sellafield had discharged plutonium contaminated water into the environment and the reactor in Edinburgh also showing radioactive discharge into the soil and water table gives cause for concern that maybe there is a systematic cover up of accidents?

Do these leaks present any tangible risk to the population or are these leaks so small as to be negligible in effect?

Thanks once again for discussing this as hopefully we will all learn more and better able to judge what we do hear.



The UK based leaks are minimal. Whilst above the legal limit by a small factor, the legal limit is very very low. I'm fairly sure that the natural background radiation levels in edinburgh due to the high amount of underlying granite are of the same order or greater than the legal limit of radiation levels inside a power plant.

Due to its past failings, all safety levels in radiation industry are "as low as feasibly achievable" rather than being related to some actual safety level. A useful analogy would be that if similar safety levels were applied to driving, we would be speed restricted to 5mph, and have to stop if a person walks within 30m of the car. There is actually some evidence that higher levels of background radiation actually help the human body.

I am all for nuclear power. Renewables dont scale, and oil and coal are limited. Until we develop fusion it's by far the best we have got.

If you are worried about nuclear power killing us all, don't be. I'd be FAR FAR more concerned about Co2 emissions changing global weather patterns, destroying agricultural productivity on a global scale, leading to mass famine, and sea level changes displacing billions of people from low lying cities.
tjah1087
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 10:50 am

Re: Fukushima

Postby Black » Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:33 pm

If you are worried about nuclear power killing us all, don't be.
Ahhhhh now I'm totally reassured, what would I have done without you?
User avatar
Black
 
Posts: 4475
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:33 pm
Location: Same place as God

Re: Fukushima

Postby Roy Stuart » Thu Apr 21, 2011 9:06 pm

User avatar
Roy Stuart
 
Posts: 2605
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:56 am

Re: Fukushima

Postby flacky » Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:15 pm

tjah1087 wrote: I am all for nuclear power. Renewables dont scale, and oil and coal are limited. Until we develop fusion it's by far the best we have got.

If you are worried about nuclear power killing us all, don't be. I'd be FAR FAR more concerned about Co2 emissions changing global weather patterns, destroying agricultural productivity on a global scale, leading to mass famine, and sea level changes displacing billions of people from low lying cities.



Where do you live? Would you be "all for" one of the 8 suggested locations for future UK Nuclear Power plants to be built in your neighbourhood?

Just watched a programme on Discovery on the disaster from the earthquake to the nuclear plant going tits up. Nothing less that horrific. I'm terrified of even the word "Nuclear". The biggest problem in the world isn't so much production of energy, it's consumption. We can't do a thing on a personal level about the former, but we can about the latter.
flacky
 
Posts: 3460
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:43 pm

Next

Return to Chat (Non-Surf Related)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

cron