I guess we could put heaps of nuclear power plants in WA,
and if there is a ****ashima or Chinoballs type disaster ???
, its all dry, empty, desert anyways, already looks post apocalyptic, so no other country's would ever know of the big mistakes made.
edit..... wait, has this already happened???? would explain a lot. lol
Select to expand quotelotofwind said..
I guess we could put heaps of nuclear power plants in WA,
and if there is a ****ashima or Chinoballs type disaster ???
, its all dry, empty, desert anyways, already looks post apocalyptic, so no other country's would ever know of the big mistakes made.
This is thing that gets me. The view people have on the scale of the impacts. I'm not downplaying the seriousness, but the scale of the impacts is nothing like what people think it is. One iron ore mine has a bigger impact in the environment than any nuclear reactor incident.
Even Chernobyl, which was seriously ****ed up hasn't created a wasteland. It looks post apocalyptic because nature has reclaimed the area.
I watched gogglebox last night and there was an episode on a Chernobyl tour. Every one of the families were horrified that people actually toured the place. Comments about how people will have genetic defects for generations. The level of understanding of the general populous is appalling. Touring Chernobyl gives no more exposure to radiation than you receive on the flight there.
You can actually go into the reactor at Chernobyl and walk up to a section of molten core, take a photo and walk out again and not have any serious issues. You don't want to hang around, but it can and has been done.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..
You can actually go into the reactor at Chernobyl and walk up to a section of molten core, take a photo and walk out again and not have any serious issues. You don't want to hang around, but it can and has been done.
Don't downplay this too much. I have seen where people have visited and in certain sections their sensors go crazy. Just because they can visit for a very short time does not imply that its any less dangerous.
I think these visits are with protective clothing to make sure nothing radioactive is stuck to you as well.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Don't downplay this too much. I have seen where people have visited and in certain sections their sensors go crazy. Just because they can visit for a very short time does not imply that its any less dangerous.
I think these visits are with protective clothing to make sure nothing radioactive is stuck to you as well.
Yeah I hear you, but I don't think i'm downplaying anything, just highlighting that the actual consequences or danger related to being exposed to that radioactivity is minor, provided you are aware of it and are acting appropriately.
In fact I would call you out on your comment above as being alarmist by implying exposure to errant (sensor crazy) particles is high on the dangerous scale. People read that and see the sensors going wild on videos and immediately assume its a death ray...
So lets look at that.
Give people a Geiger counter and they go looking for **** that sets it off right?
So the most active particles are found on things like the firefighters clothing in the basement of the hospital and machinery used to clean up the reactor area. One of the highest readings found is on a small section of a metal claw that has been abandoned, gives off a reading of 300uSv/hr. That's about 2700mSv/yr or 7mSv/day.
So I fully agree. That particle is dangerous. But how dangerous is the most dangerous particle that people can find in the area??
Increases in cancer rates can be detected (slightly elevated) from around 100mSv/yr. A CT scan is up to 16mSv.
So to get a CT scan dose from that particle you would need it close to your skin (clothes) for 2 days. But provided you check yourself and if found deal with it within a day or so, then you are really no worse off than when you came in.
And that's the worst found, and on a piece of machinery that worked directly in contact with core fragments.
Around Pipyat where town is, hot particles can be found up to about 20uSv/hr or 180mSv/yr. So in the township, even if you went actually rolling naked in all the hotspots you could find, unless you starting licking stuff, or didn't change your clothes or wash for months on end, you would not be able to keep enough particles on you to exceed the 100mSv/yr to have any adverse effects.
So I would say there are risks and indeed even dangers. But they are at a low end and easily managed.
I would take my kids there. I'd have a counter, and I would check everyone on a regular basis just to be sure, but frankly i'd be more worried about the bus ride in than the radioactivity.
OK, so I have a cheap Geiger counter. I take it to Japan to keep a diary of readings in certain spots that I can access on my visits. Readings have all reduced in the 8 years since the event, but I didn't have the counter prior to the need, so don't have a baseline number for comparison.
Getting readings from the ocean is a difficult task, certainly beyond the means of this gringo, so I can't comment on past/future releases of stockpiled, tainted water.
I do know that post event, no-one was going in the ocean on that coast (150km either side of the reactor), until rumours started to be heard of keen surfers, then after 12 months it was like it had never happened. Nothing to be seen.
Yet, I wonder how many of the regular surfers to the area (including moi) will experience thyroid issues in coming years, like kids under the fallout zone are.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..FormulaNova said..
Don't downplay this too much. I have seen where people have visited and in certain sections their sensors go crazy. Just because they can visit for a very short time does not imply that its any less dangerous.
I think these visits are with protective clothing to make sure nothing radioactive is stuck to you as well.
Yeah I hear you, but I don't think i'm downplaying anything, just highlighting that the actual consequences or danger related to being exposed to that radioactivity is minor, provided you are aware of it and are acting appropriately.
In fact I would call you out on your comment above as being alarmist by implying exposure to errant (sensor crazy) particles is high on the dangerous scale. People read that and see the sensors going wild on videos and immediately assume its a death ray...
So lets look at that.
Give people a Geiger counter and they go looking for **** that sets it off right?
So the most active particles are found on things like the firefighters clothing in the basement of the hospital and machinery used to clean up the reactor area. One of the highest readings found is on a small section of a metal claw that has been abandoned, gives off a reading of 300uSv/hr. That's about 2700mSv/yr or 7mSv/day.
So I fully agree. That particle is dangerous. But how dangerous is the most dangerous particle that people can find in the area??
Increases in cancer rates can be detected (slightly elevated) from around 100mSv/yr. A CT scan is up to 16mSv.
So to get a CT scan dose from that particle you would need it close to your skin (clothes) for 2 days. But provided you check yourself and if found deal with it within a day or so, then you are really no worse off than when you came in.
And that's the worst found, and on a piece of machinery that worked directly in contact with core fragments.
Around Pipyat where town is, hot particles can be found up to about 20uSv/hr or 180mSv/yr. So in the township, even if you went actually rolling naked in all the hotspots you could find, unless you starting licking stuff, or didn't change your clothes or wash for months on end, you would not be able to keep enough particles on you to exceed the 100mSv/yr to have any adverse effects.
So I would say there are risks and indeed even dangers. But they are at a low end and easily managed.
I would take my kids there. I'd have a counter, and I would check everyone on a regular basis just to be sure, but frankly i'd be more worried about the bus ride in than the radioactivity.
Interesting stuff.
I have to admit, I think the program I saw was talking about where the stash of clothes from the firefighters were, and I assumed that it was essentially lethal after a short period of time. From your info, it seems its bad, but not something you would get unless you camped next to it for a day or two.
Is radiation exposure as simple as total exposure over a year, or can the level you're exposed to at an instant have a more serious effect than the same level but averaged over a year?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Is radiation exposure as simple as total exposure over a year, or can the level you're exposed to at an instant have a more serious effect than the same level but averaged over a year?
Generally exposure is looked at from a non lethal dosage and cumulative exposure over time. Damage is low enough that cells repair without you knowing, but then you have the risks of cellular damage resulting in cancer likelihood increasing (smaller than you think).
Large dosages in a short period are about massive cell damage and the direct results from that. Not a pleasant way to die.
Here are some figures on short duration exposure:
10,000 mSv is a fatal dose. Irreparable cellular destruction and death within weeks.
6,000 mSv is what most of the workers who died at Chernobyl within a month were hit with
5,000 mSv is fatal to half of those exposed.
1,000 mSv is non fatal but you will get radiation sickness. (vomiting blood, white cells down so immune system failure)
1,000 mSv will increase your risk of cancer etc later in life by 5%
400 mSv/hr was the maximum recorded at ****ishima reactor
The radiation levels in the worst-hit areas of the Chernobyl reactor building, including the control room, have been estimated at 300Sv/hr, (300,000mSv/hr) providing a fatal dose in just over a minute.
The people of Pipyat were exposed to about 100mSv after Chernobyl (3 days exposure before evac)
The fuel fragments and graphite rods the firefighters were kicking around, picking up and standing in and the ones on the roof soldiers had to pick up and throw back into the core were at about 100,000 to 200,000mSv/hr.
This is why the firefighters all died and some just never came back from the roof at all. Probably looked into the core and fried their brains. It's also the science behind why the soldiers had 90secs to work and that's all. Probably calculated at 1,000mSv maximum exposure in that time.
Select to expand quoteBuster fin said..
Yet, I wonder how many of the regular surfers to the area (including moi) will experience thyroid issues in coming years, like kids under the fallout zone are.
Japan was a pretty low level occurrence. It was very contained compared to the Chernobyl explosion. I do not believe the radiation anywhere outside the reactor building itself (including the ocean) ever reached levels that would be concerning for longer term increases to cancer.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..
This is why the firefighters all died and some just never came back from the roof at all. Probably looked into the core and fried their brains. It's also the science behind why the soldiers had 90secs to work and that's all. Probably calculated at 1,000mSv maximum exposure in that time.
Its very hard to imagine what it would have been like for these guys that knew that they were going to die, but had to do something to try and limit the danger. I can't possibly imagine how I would get my head around that if I were in the same situation. Its probably one of those things where you just can't think about it and have to do it anyway.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Buster fin said..
Yet, I wonder how many of the regular surfers to the area (including moi) will experience thyroid issues in coming years, like kids under the fallout zone are.
Japan was a pretty low level occurrence. It was very contained compared to the Chernobyl explosion. I do not believe the radiation anywhere outside the reactor building itself (including the ocean) ever reached levels that would be concerning for longer term increases to cancer.
Interestingly, Greenpeace turned up in their ship to measure radiation and were turned around by the Jap navy. I don't think they've been back. There were also reports that a sizeable chunk of plutonium was sent flying into the sea from reactor 4. They also said there was no plutonium in the facility. And therein lies one of the reasons that I got the hell out of there.
Select to expand quoteBuster fin said..Paradox said..Buster fin said..
Yet, I wonder how many of the regular surfers to the area (including moi) will experience thyroid issues in coming years, like kids under the fallout zone are.
Japan was a pretty low level occurrence. It was very contained compared to the Chernobyl explosion. I do not believe the radiation anywhere outside the reactor building itself (including the ocean) ever reached levels that would be concerning for longer term increases to cancer.
Interestingly, Greenpeace turned up in their ship to measure radiation and were turned around by the Jap navy. I don't think they've been back. There were also reports that a sizeable chunk of plutonium was sent flying into the sea from reactor 4. They also said there was no plutonium in the facility. And therein lies one of the reasons that I got the hell out of there.
A piece of Plutonium, oh really?
Didnt knew ****ushima had a separation canyon TBF circuit within their reactors...
Should have said " a piece of fuel flew to the ocean that might contained traces of Pu (239 or 240)."
But in saying so I wouldnt worry much myself, its Ceasium 137, Strontium and Iodine active isotopes fission profucts that are the issue in nuclear waste. Pu is not really a big issue until you have collected enough for a critical mass (around 11 kilos).
I would believe the japs not you in this subject proven your knowledge is incorrect from your own post.
Select to expand quotequikdrawMcgraw said..
Most people know the basics that nuclear is better for the environment when humans don't fuq it up problem is we all know that humans always fuq it up one way or another
Ex-akkery!
Has anyone seen this yet?
Looks very promising.
www.goodnewsnetwork.org/azelio-system-uses-recycled-aluminum-instead-of-batteries/
"Our system can give you decentralized power based on solar and wind so you can build a local micro-grid that provides you with almost everything you need 24 hours a day," said Jonas.
And one of the really exceptional things about Azelio's system is that, in theory, it's as scalable as necessary; from 100 kilowatts per-hour, up to 100 megawatts per-hour, and more. Though it is maximized for solar power, it can easily work the same way for tidal or hydropower, biofuels, and wind.
"...Azelio's thermal storage can fit into the baseload power of a modern established grid as much or as little as is required-whether that's 10% of total power needs or 90%."
Select to expand quoteParadox said..One iron ore mine has a bigger impact in the environment than any nuclear reactor incident.
LOL for christ's sake lay off the sauce mate.
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..By our calculations, even if levels increase to 10 Bq/m3, swimming eight hours every day for an entire year, would only increase one's annual dose by an amount, 1000 times less than a single dental X-ray.
Is this correct?
If it is, then eating a banana is about 200 times more dangerous than swimming in the ocean. I get that there is a precedent, but people have to realise how prevalent radiation is. Just sleeping next to someone is 100 times more dangerous than swimming in the ocean.
As far I can tell the values are so low as to be less than negligible.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Exposure_chart-XKCD.svg
Only if they take your precious bodily juices. My dad used to sleep with my mum and one night i heard him yell "Oh God I'm coming". He didn't die though.
Why am I against nuclear energy?
Well everyone talks about how great it is and I get that but no one talks about decommissioning a nuclear power plant and ever remediating the land it was on.
The reason for this is because there are very few success stories of this actually ever occurring
Aside from China who has I think 40-50 nuclear power plants most of the ones in the world are twenty years or more old with some up to 40-50...
China has also built a dozen on the coast so a good sized tidal wave on the south coast of China could quite easily cause 5 ****ushima's in one scenario.
But let's still keep an open mind , when we look at the way ( west oz) our power is managed at current by a privatised group of companies who cannot look after a network of existing infrastructure successfully how would they build maintain commission operate and than decommission a nuclear power plant??
They couldn't , This would mean all the IP and skill set required to be procured and imported for the build and operation of the nuclear power plant.
Pretty certain if we put that time and effort into renewables we would be twenty years in front of where we are now and renewable efficiency would be a far better return than nuclear solution.
Yes most of Frances should have been shut down years ago. They can't afford too and havnt invested in any other solutions either.
Has a nuclear reactor ever been shut down successfully?
It's an easy and relatively inexpensive short term solution but there are the long term problems.
How many people have died in coal mines?
Is shipping gas,coal and oil all over the world better?
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Paradox said..One iron ore mine has a bigger impact in the environment than any nuclear reactor incident.
LOL for christ's sake lay off the sauce mate.
100% fact oh Avocado Holyness, so keep your biases to yourself and stick with the facts. Nuclear energy including the worst disaster we have had has practically no significant impact on the environment.
Chernobyl blasted a quick dose of highish radiation out a few sq km, elevated low level radiation went further but has minimal impact. Humans at the very center (closest 100m) died. Probably a few animals in that zone died too. Might have been some elevated animal deaths in the immediate area over a few years but we are talking maybe a 5% increase.
Nature has since thrived in the area and was better off within 12 months than it would have been if humans remained.
Compare that to a large iron ore or coal mine. Tens of square kilometers of a permanent death zone for any living thing for the decades its operational. Tailings dumps that fail and cause untold environmental destruction. The effects are a magnitude worse.
I will point out that Uranium has to be mined too, but the point was about even the worst reactor incident we have seen having less impact than the mining side.
LOL interesting you think humans are not part of the environmental devastation......
Dream on nuke boy. Dream on...
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
LOL interesting you think humans are not part of the environmental devastation......
Actually I would say it is interesting that you see humans as part of the environment,
When talking about damage to the environment, generally people view humans seperately. ie humans impact and effect on the environment rather than human activity and presence being an integral part of it. In the end both are just perspectives. But no one is arguing that the area around Chernobyl is now a thriving wilderness without us there to impact on it.
Thing is, humans and mammals are by far the most sensitive to excess radiation of all life due to our tissue structure. So when most people talk about the effect of radiation, they talk about human impacts rather than the rest of the environment, as we take small impacts on our heath seriously compared to small impacts on say a colony of squiirels. No one really cares too much about the possibility of a squirrel or fox living close to a plant having a small impact in its lifespan, especially if the rest of the environment is healthy.
Very few consider non mamals and plants to be overly effected, because they arent....at least compared to us.
Hence my point about low environmental impact from radiation compared to huge mine.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..holy guacamole said..Paradox said..One iron ore mine has a bigger impact in the environment than any nuclear reactor incident.
LOL for christ's sake lay off the sauce mate.
100% fact oh Avocado Holyness, so keep your biases to yourself and stick with the facts. Nuclear energy including the worst disaster we have had has practically no significant impact on the environment.
Chernobyl blasted a quick dose of highish radiation out a few sq km, elevated low level radiation went further but has minimal impact. Humans at the very center (closest 100m) died. Probably a few animals in that zone died too. Might have been some elevated animal deaths in the immediate area over a few years but we are talking maybe a 5% increase.
Nature has since thrived in the area and was better off within 12 months than it would have been if humans remained.
Compare that to a large iron ore or coal mine. Tens of square kilometers of a permanent death zone for any living thing for the decades its operational. Tailings dumps that fail and cause untold environmental destruction. The effects are a magnitude worse.
I will point out that Uranium has to be mined too, but the point was about even the worst reactor incident we have seen having less impact than the mining side.
It's difficult to know the numbers of deaths and problems caused by Chernobyl. Yes there were very few deaths initially. More died over the years. The thing is lots of people died of cancer and were not counted. Lots of miscarriages in the area after as well,not counted.
The radiation spread over a lot of Europe. Ukraine,Russia the neighbouring countries. France was affected and Thyroid cancer went through the roof after.
Select to expand quotetarquin1 said..Paradox said..holy guacamole said..Paradox said..One iron ore mine has a bigger impact in the environment than any nuclear reactor incident.
LOL for christ's sake lay off the sauce mate.
100% fact oh Avocado Holyness, so keep your biases to yourself and stick with the facts. Nuclear energy including the worst disaster we have had has practically no significant impact on the environment.
Chernobyl blasted a quick dose of highish radiation out a few sq km, elevated low level radiation went further but has minimal impact. Humans at the very center (closest 100m) died. Probably a few animals in that zone died too. Might have been some elevated animal deaths in the immediate area over a few years but we are talking maybe a 5% increase.
Nature has since thrived in the area and was better off within 12 months than it would have been if humans remained.
Compare that to a large iron ore or coal mine. Tens of square kilometers of a permanent death zone for any living thing for the decades its operational. Tailings dumps that fail and cause untold environmental destruction. The effects are a magnitude worse.
I will point out that Uranium has to be mined too, but the point was about even the worst reactor incident we have seen having less impact than the mining side.
It's difficult to know the numbers of deaths and problems caused by Chernobyl. Yes there were very few deaths initially. More died over the years. The thing is lots of people died of cancer and were not counted. Lots of miscarriages in the area after as well,not counted.
The radiation spread over a lot of Europe. Ukraine,Russia the neighbouring countries. France was affected and Thyroid cancer went through the roof after.
Look at the number of deaths in the crews who went in and cleaned the mess up... They went in in the worst conditions and were the closest followed group.
Thyroid cancer went through the roof because they went looking for it ... and found it. More testing = more positive results.
The radiation spread oit but as always, the damage is in the dose.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Actually I would say it is interesting that you see humans as part of the environment, holy guacamole said..
LOL interesting you think humans are not part of the environmental devastation......
Oh FFS no wonder you hold those bizarre views. That's the problem with mindless industrialists - you think humans are external to the environment, whereas I see everything on Planet Earth is linked intrinsically.
Nothing exists without the environment. Claiming humans are not part of the environment is ludicrous. You must be trolling.
If we degrade the soil, no food.
If we fill up the atmosphere with pollutants, we stuff the climate and our lungs.
If we build expensive nuclear power plants everywhere, we shift the cost and responsibility for the clean up and decommissioning to our grandchildren.
It's a mindless, selfish and dated approach to responsible management of resources and ecosystems.
Your mentality is circa, 1955.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Paradox said..Actually I would say it is interesting that you see humans as part of the environment, holy guacamole said..
LOL interesting you think humans are not part of the environmental devastation......
Oh FFS no wonder you hold those bizarre views. That's the problem with mindless industrialists - you think humans are external to the environment, whereas I see everything on Planet Earth is linked intrinsically.
Nothing exists without the environment. Claiming humans are not part of the environment is ludicrous. You must be trolling.
If we degrade the soil, no food.
If we fill up the atmosphere with pollutants, we stuff the climate and our lungs.
If we build expensive nuclear power plants everywhere, we shift the cost and responsibility for the clean up and decommissioning to our grandchildren.
It's a mindless, selfish and dated approach to responsible management of resources and ecosystems.
Your mentality is circa, 1955.
Well thats a load of self indulgent swill isn't it. No regard for what I actually said at all, just twist it around and use it as an emotional soap box from which to spread the word.
Only you could twist the concept of seperating the natural environment from anthropologic influence as the work of mindless industrialists.... it is in fact the basis of environmental conservation, of which you really seem to have no concept at all.
Feel free to just railroad over facts and truth to try to make your point.
All large scale power plants have a decommissioning component. Coal, Gas, Hydro, Wind and Solar especially all have decommissioning and site rehab and clean up costs. Why do you think that somehow nuclear is any better or worse??? It's no different, not expensive as a component of generation cost and no more of an environmental issue than an equivilant PV solar farm (massive cost). Nuclear power plants are not hard to decommission and hundreds have already been done. Check your facts.
Radioactive material is not the boogeyman. It can be easily and safely dealth with.
Neclear power remains the safest form of power we have and that is an easy fact to check.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..holy guacamole said..Paradox said..Actually I would say it is interesting that you see humans as part of the environment, holy guacamole said..
LOL interesting you think humans are not part of the environmental devastation......
Oh FFS no wonder you hold those bizarre views. That's the problem with mindless industrialists - you think humans are external to the environment, whereas I see everything on Planet Earth is linked intrinsically.
Nothing exists without the environment. Claiming humans are not part of the environment is ludicrous. You must be trolling.
If we degrade the soil, no food.
If we fill up the atmosphere with pollutants, we stuff the climate and our lungs.
If we build expensive nuclear power plants everywhere, we shift the cost and responsibility for the clean up and decommissioning to our grandchildren.
It's a mindless, selfish and dated approach to responsible management of resources and ecosystems.
Your mentality is circa, 1955.
Well thats a load of self indulgent swill isn't it. No regard for what I actually said at all, just twist it around and use it as an emotional soap box from which to spread the word.
Only you could twist the concept of seperating the natural environment from anthropologic influence as the work of mindless industrialists.... it is in fact the basis of environmental conservation, of which you really seem to have no concept at all.
Feel free to just railroad over facts and truth to try to make your point.
All large scale power plants have a decommissioning component. Coal, Gas, Hydro, Wind and Solar especially all have decommissioning and site rehab and clean up costs. Why do you think that somehow nuclear is any better or worse??? It's no different, not expensive as a component of generation cost and no more of an environmental issue than an equivilant PV solar farm (massive cost). Nuclear power plants are not hard to decommission and hundreds have already been done. Check your facts.
Radioactive material is not the boogeyman. It can be easily and safely dealth with.
Neclear power remains the safest form of power we have and that is an easy fact to check.
Nuclear power plants are not hard to decomission and hundreds have been done?
Please show me the facts for that.
There are 2 ways. One is hugely expensive and takes about 10 years. The other is hugely expensive and takes longer to give you longer to pay for it. I think the land cant be used for 50 years. Maybe more.
Select to expand quotetarquin1 said..
hugely expensive
They factor that into the cost of power generation and stash the cash to deal with decommissioning.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
^^ You mean the taxpayer stumps up the costs....
Well if you mean the taxpayer is paying his power bill then yes.
No that's not how it happens. The clean up ends up costing far more than anyone allowed for 40 years earlier and the taxpayer picks up the slack.
