Crisis? What crisis?

[ssneade]

in the wake of the devestating earthquake and tsunami in japan, all eyes are on the damaged nuclear reactors. while this is definitely a problem, the comparison to three mile island should be a good thing. no one died or suffered adverse effects from the partial meltdown there as i recall......

but the bigger picture that is being overshadowed by the nuclear sensationalism by the media are the japanese people who were affected by the quake itself. hundreds of people possibly alive are still buried in rubble are going unnoticed by the world. loved ones lost. survivors trying to keep sanity intact. and what does the media have to report? "in refugee camps they are recycling". how nice. how sympathetic. the American news media hits an all time low in my book. why are they not reporting on relief efforts and rescue and recovery? because they feed on fear. its what pays the bills. who cares about those who have lost or are missing loved ones? that is true pain, friends. not a little bit of radiation that has a half life of not more than a few minutes.......

if you like to have the sheot scared out of you daily, keep yer tv's and radios tuned. you'll never have to worry about constipation.......

somehow it will be said this is all gwb's fault......

[MarkofSeaLife]

Sacre tactics too late! Problem fix is underway. No dead penguins! No toxic clouds over Kansas!

The crisis at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant stabilised on Sunday as engineers reconnected power to two of the reactor buildings at the earthquake-stricken facility.

FT.com / Asia-Pacific - Power restored to Japan reactor building




Mark

[SlowButSteady]

Oh, no problem... just multiple reactor meltdowns, leaking containment vessels, destroyed buildings, a spent fuel pool with little or no cooling water (a little reported, but EXTREMELY dangerous situation), and radioisotopes showing up in the japanese food supply.

Whether or not anyone dies from the direct effects of radiation sickness in this disaster, there will almost certainly be hundreds, perhaps thousands, of cancers cause by these radiation releases. And it's far from over. The Three Mile Island accident was almost trivial compared to the current situation in Japan.

[ssneade]

Originally Posted by SlowButSteady

Oh, no problem... just multiple reactor meltdowns, leaking containment vessels, destroyed buildings, a spent fuel pool with little or no cooling water (a little reported, but EXTREMELY dangerous situation), and radioisotopes showing up in the japanese food supply.

Whether or not anyone dies from the direct effects of radiation sickness in this disaster, there will almost certainly be hundreds, perhaps thousands, of cancers cause by these radiation releases. And it's far from over. The Three Mile Island accident was almost trivial compared to the current situation in Japan.

part of the problem? no, slow. of course it is a grave situation, but there was a lot more devastation in northern japan than haiti. but for haiti, all you saw on the news was the plight of the hatian people as they struggled to get a grasp on the relief efforts and rescue and recovery. counties from across the globe rushed to their aid. where are the relief effort reporters and money solicitors for the japanese? are they any less important than haiti? just because the haitians live in an impoverished nation does that mean their sick and dying were more important?......

c'mon......

[pdqaltair]

Originally Posted by SlowButSteady

Oh, no problem... just multiple reactor meltdowns, leaking containment vessels, destroyed buildings, a spent fuel pool with little or no cooling water (a little reported, but EXTREMELY dangerous situation), and radioisotopes showing up in the japanese food supply.

Whether or not anyone dies from the direct effects of radiation sickness in this disaster, there will almost certainly be hundreds, perhaps thousands, of cancers cause by these radiation releases. And it's far from over. The Three Mile Island accident was almost trivial compared to the current situation in Japan.

On the other hand, this was a worst case event in the eyes of reasonable people, and beyond anything reasonably foreseen. Remember, in the country with arguably the best civil defense and building standards, 3,000 are dead, even more injured by water. Though the reactors are big press and important, in the scheme of things they are only a part.

Regarding radiation, there are parts of the world with higher background radiation than that now seen in Tokyo (Google background and geography). Given our lifestyles are based upon consumption, many people die and the environment is effected, every day, providing energy and material so that we can live as we chose to. Not judging, just sayin'.

A part of life we will learn from.

And everything is NOT GWB's fault; GB was President first.

[SlowButSteady]

The damage from the quake a tsunami will have been long since repaired before the radioisotopes already released into the environment have decayed to the point that they are no longer dangerous. In the end, the death toll from the additional cancers caused by these isotopes may well be far greater than that from the natural disaster.

[ssneade]

swat they said about tmi......

[pdqaltair]

Originally Posted by SlowButSteady

The damage from the quake a tsunami will have been long since repaired before the radioisotopes already released into the environment have decayed to the point that they are no longer dangerous. In the end, the death toll from the additional cancers caused by these isotopes may well be far greater than that from the natural disaster.

That is an example of waving the bloody shirt, making a statement that we are expected to accept without reasoned backup.

Yes, I value The Lorax, but the argument is vulnerable to overuse. I work as a chemical engineer for one of the largest recycling and industrial waste treatment companies. Some of my work includes lobbying, and I've learned two sad themes:
1. 3rd party results, even if they represent poor science, are accepted all too often (this is true for both sides of most arguments) because politicians and EPA folks don't like to risk displaying their ignorance of chemistry.
2. Never confuse the facts with the issues; for a politician to have an environmental position is vital to election, but the basis can be utter nonsense (and this is true for both red and blue).

Please, do better.

For those who are interested in background radiation:
Background radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Up to 200 msv is normal in some places. 2.4 msv is a typical US average, though high altitude and airplanes are much higher.

My understanding is that levels in Tokyo are in the range of 0.15 mrem/hr, or about 1.3 msv per year if things remain steady (this will peak and then decline, so meaningful calculations are impossible). Much depends on whether isotopes settle or remain airborne and disperse over the ocean; the latter is far more likely from what I have read, but that depends on whether this remains a 3-mile Island scenario or a Chernobal scenario, involving sustained fire. We don't know. We are seeing a real test of safeguards.

If my numbers are wrong, please correct them.

[SlowButSteady]

Tokyo is over a 100 km from the Okuma (where the Fukushima I plant is located). Fukushima Prefecture has over 2 million people in it. What happens to those folks is more of a concern right now. The US NRC has recommended an evacuation radius of at least 80 km (50 miles). Given the track record of nuclear agencies when it comes to warning folks during emergent situations, I would at least double that. That would essentially encompass all of Fukushima Prefecture, and would make the evacuation zone over-lap much of metro Tokyo. But given the consequences for underestimating the danger I think that such an evacuation radius would be prudent. The number of cancer cases resulting from the Chernobyl meltdown and fire has been estimated to be between 100,000 and 500,000. This will almost certainly not get that bad, as there is no huge pile of radioactive graphite to fuel a meltdown resultant fire. However, if one of the reactor containment vessels is completely breached, or (more worrisome in many respects) if the waste fuel in storage is allowed to heat up enough to allow the Cesium alloy modulator to melt and/or oxidize things are going to get very, very bad.

[pdqaltair]

Originally Posted by SlowButSteady

Tokyo is over a 100 km from the Okuma (where the Fukushima I plant is located). Fukushima Prefecture has over 2 million people in it. What happens to those folks is more of a concern right now. The US NRC has recommended an evacuation radius of at least 80 km (50 miles). Given the track record of nuclear agencies when it comes to warning folks during emergent situations, I would at least double that. That would essentially encompass all of Fukushima Prefecture, and would make the evacuation zone over-lap much of metro Tokyo. But given the consequences for underestimating the danger I think that such an evacuation radius would be prudent. The number of cancer cases resulting from the Chernobyl meltdown and fire has been estimated to be between 100,000 and 500,000. This will almost certainly not get that bad, as there is no huge pile of radioactive graphite to fuel a meltdown resultant fire. However, if one of the reactor containment vessels is completely breached, or (more worrisome in many respects) if the waste fuel in storage is allowed to heat up enough to allow the Cesium alloy modulator to melt and/or oxidize things are going to get very, very bad.

Yes, much more to the point.

You are very correct regarding the problem of poor information. If I lived in the area I would like to understand more about the risk of a sudden spike, something that would deliver serious exposure before I could leave in an orderly way. There is also the mater of long-term exposure, but I wouldn't need that information yet.

One of the dangerous truths is that big power plants must be near big cities; electricity does not ship easily.