Japanese N-Plant Explosion

[Captain Kremmen]

Statisticians said that there was little chance of an earthquake near the Fukishima plants because of the local layout of the tectonic plates.
On the coast above Fukushima, high, and below Fukushima high, but at Fukushima, where the Nuclear Power Stations were, very low indeed.
Only panic mongers would suggest an earthquake would happen near Fukushima.

He who pays the statistician calls the tune.

 

[Trippy]

What evidence do you have that the New Madrid quake was the largest possible in the general area? Seems unlikely, offhand - to presume an outlier.

Strawman hypothesis - I didn't state that it was the largest possible, I suggested that I believe the area was unlikely to generate a 9. To completely different statements. Stating that I don't believe that the area will generate a 9 does not exclude the possibility of a M8-8.3
Because faults are generally pretty boring.
Because magnitude is dependant upon the length of the rupture and the amount of displacement.
Because magnitude isn't neccessarily the best guide for the effects an earthquake will have on a building, and is far from being the only thing that should be (or is) considered.

You do use that word a lot.

You come out with a lot of it.
This, for example:

Lessee: Japan has experienced at least three quakes about 8.5 or so in the past three hundred years - about every hundred and fifty years, a big quake set hits. The last set or flurry with a really big one was about 150 years ago. The plate margin involved generates large quakes with some frequency, and has since WWII - in Alaska, 9.2 about fifty years ago. So one would expect the design of any nuclear reactor to be able to handle the already experienced locally - 8.6 or so - with a safety margin for the possible as demonstrated abroad.

Bullshit. I've already told you that Japan has a very different geological setting than Alaska.
There are 5 distinct plate boundaries accounting for the seismicity of Japan, and each one has different seismic characteristics because each plate is moving differently. So the model that applies in Alaska does not neccessarily apply in Japan. The Seismic model that applies in Sendai doesn't even neccessarily apply in Kobe - the two cities are moving in different directions. And the profile of the continental lithosphere is different in Japan than it is in Alaska (in the northern part of Japan at least anyway).

So 9 or so would have been perfectly reasonable and moderate - maybe even a little light.

Even if you're right, it's irrelevant anyway, because the emergency systems operated correctly, it was the Tsunami which exceeded model predictions that caused the problems.

 

[Trippy]

What evidence do you have that the New Madrid quake was the largest possible in the general area? Seems unlikely, offhand - to presume an outlier.

Actually, now that I think about it, there is (at least) one good reason to presume that the M8.1-8.3 is the biggest we can expect to see out of the New Madrid seimic zone.

The Geology.

Every M9+ earthquake that has occured, without exception, has occured at a convergent plate boundary. They're related to the mechanics and geomorphology of subduction zones.

The New Madrid seismic zone is a divergent margin (an area of rifting, to be precise, or at least it's trying to be) with normal and strike-slip seismicity, as opposed to reverse/thrust seismicity.

 

[iceaura]

Strawman hypothesis - I didn't state that it was the largest possible, I suggested that I believe the area was unlikely to generate a 9. To completely different statements.

So we agree that any nuclear plants in the upper Mississippi area should be ready to handle an 8.5? All of the known possible consequences, including major changes of channel and temporary reverses of flow in large rivers nearby? For safety, that is.

And by that same reasoning, any Japanese plants should be able to handle all the consequences of a 9 - an 8.6 being part of their recent regional history.

And we have thereby covered the sort of risk we can easily see from the last 500 years or so of actual experience - we are up to about thousand to one odds, on secure provision against the obvious risk of earthquake.

Bullshit. I've already told you that Japan has a very different geological setting than Alaska

From the point of view of earthquake risk, not so much. As we see: "
Every M9+ earthquake that has occured, without exception, has occured at a convergent plate boundary." So places on the ocean near active, moving convergent plate boundaries (Anchorage, Fukushima) are especially dangerous places for earthquakes.

Which direction the faults are moving, for example, is not pertinent. The fact that you even bring it up shows that we are still not on the same page here.

Even if you're right, it's irrelevant anyway, because the emergency systems operated correctly, it was the Tsunami which exceeded model predictions that caused the problems.

The recent history of big quakes in Japan has included, universally and throughout, very destructive tsunamis. The recent history of the big quakes around the rim of that plate has included, almost universally, destructive tsunamis. If their earthquake modeling left out the part about the risk of really big tsunamis, a risk visible in the past few dozen years let alone the one in millions that meltdown safety requires and brags about, that is not a reassurance about the building of nuclear power plants in Japan or anywhere else.

 

[Trippy]

So we agree that any nuclear plants in the upper Mississippi area should be ready to handle an 8.5? All of the known possible consequences, including major changes of channel and temporary reverses of flow in large rivers nearby? For safety, that is.

Not neccessarily, because not all parts of the upper mississippi are going to be susceptable to the effects of an M8.1-8.3 earthquake, or are likely to to experience an earthquake of that magnitude.

And by that same reasoning, any Japanese plants should be able to handle all the consequences of a 9 - an 8.6 being part of their recent regional history.

No, because the saftey margin of a plant designed to survive an 8.5 in a region peppered by 8.3's would not be capable of protecting a 9 in a region peppered by 8.5's (because a 9 is 4 times as strong as an 8.5, but an 8.5 is only twice as strong as an 8.3).

And we have thereby covered the sort of risk we can easily see from the last 500 years or so of actual experience - we are up to about thousand to one odds, on secure provision against the obvious risk of earthquake.

Nope - see above.

From the point of view of earthquake risk, not so much. As we see: "Every M9+ earthquake that has occured, without exception, has occured at a convergent plate boundary."
So places on the ocean near active, moving convergent plate boundaries (Anchorage, Fukushima) are especially dangerous places for earthquakes.

There's a logical fallacy in here, just because A follows from B (All Magnitude 9 earthquakes occur on convergent plate boundaries) does not imply that B follows from A (All convergent plate boundaries are capable of generating a magnitude 9 earthquake).

Which direction the faults are moving, for example, is not pertinent. The fact that you even bring it up shows that we are still not on the same page here.

And once again you prove you don't actually know what you're talking about. It's entirely pertinent.

The recent history of big quakes in Japan has included, universally and throughout, very destructive tsunamis. The recent history of the big quakes around the rim of that plate has included, almost universally, destructive tsunamis. If their earthquake modeling left out the part about the risk of really big tsunamis, a risk visible in the past few dozen years let alone the one in millions that meltdown safety requires and brags about, that is not a reassurance about the building of nuclear power plants in Japan or anywhere else.

More bullshit.
Yes, it's true that big earthquakes happen in Japan.
Yes it's true that destructive tsunamis happen in Japan.
But it's not true that destructive tsunamis happen everywhere in Japan.
It's also not true that a 10m Tsunami in one location is going to be 10m everywhere in Japan - last week alone is proof of that, some parts of Japan, exposed to the Pacific coast saw less ocean movement than was seen in some parts of California.

The simple fact of the matter is that if there's no evidence to suggest that a thing is possible in one part of Japan, then there's no reason to assume that it can happen there, otherwise everywhere in Japan should be planning for 100m high walls of water, even though it's only happened once in one location (and it was even associated with a landslide, although it's a little chicken and egg as to whether the movement caused the earthquake, or the quake caused the movement).

 

[chimpkin]

Here's the latest from Reuter's...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/japan-quake-idUSL3E7EF3OE20110315

Not good.

I find the fact that they've pulled all but 50 workers out of the plant quite ominous.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Here's the latest from Reuter's...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/japan-quake-idUSL3E7EF3OE20110315

Not good.

I find the fact that they've pulled all but 50 workers out of the plant quite ominous.

If you want to keep up to date on this issue, this works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_nuclear_accidents

and no, only some of the 50 workers were removed. Radiation levels at the plant were last reported at 489.8 µSv/hour or about 3-5 chest X-rays an hour. Mild radiation sickness starts at 1,000,000 uSv (1 Sv)

 

[chimpkin]

If you want to keep up to date on this issue, this works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...lear_accidents

\

*bows* Gracias.

Although I did find it interesting that the IAEA is scrambling for info ATM...

3-5 chest x-rays an hour, or one gratuitous cat scan...

 

[DwayneD.L.Rabon]

Well as far as saftey is concerned in managing Nuclear Reactor sites, it is appearnt that supplies of aerogel, or chemicals that can gel in atmosphere are a nesscity, in order to trap and elminate radioactive gases from traveling abroad and locally.

Here are some general ranges for uranium travel, and intreaction of uranium.the below scale is in Feet.
32
102
322
1,018
3,219
10,175
101,603
321,068

 

[ElectricFetus]

\

*bows* Gracias.

Although I did find it interesting that the IAEA is scrambling for info ATM...

3-5 chest x-rays an hour, or one gratuitous cat scan...

... but a CT scan can get up to 30,000 uSv.

 

[keith1]

1)The largest water-pumping tugboats that the Navy can import asap.

2)Bring a large pump unit in on a big truck and helicopter the hose ends into location. (more daredevil of the two scenarios).

 

[chimpkin]

... but a CT scan can get up to 30,000 uSv.

Greaaat...now he tells me...

They made me have a fourth one before sinus surgery... fourth CT headshot in two years. Why they needed one right after the other? like within six weeks? They never said.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Greaaat...now he tells me...

They made me have a fourth one before sinus surgery... fourth CT headshot in two years. Why they needed one right after the other? like within six weeks? They never said.

A Head CT scan is just 2000 uSv

http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/index.cfm?pg=sfty_xray

It should also be noted that the projected cancer risks there are based on the LNT model, which is probably fair as a CT scan is complete in minutes and there is little chance of theoretical radiation resistance would develop. 8,000 uSv according to LNT model will increase your chance of getting cancer by 1/10,000-1/1000 or say your chance of dying of cancer is ~20% after getting hit by 4 CT scans it is now 20.001%-20.0001%.

Now again there is significant evidence that low levels of radiation over long periods of time do not increase cancer rates like the LNT model would predict. This is because the body upscales genetic repair and cancer prevention mechanism when radiation levels are elevated, it developed radiation resistance. How effective this resistance is is still not know, but examples like Ramsar certainly make the LNT model questionable at low dosages.

 

[chimpkin]

*wipes forehead* hokay...so no genuine increase in cancer risk...
... From what I already have from sucking down six times the EPA-permissible level of airborne BENZENE at my old job outdoors downwind of the plants.

Anyway, back to those melting Japanese power plants, sorry for interruption...

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Psst!

Want some good iodine.
Here's some on Ebay for the bargain price of $229


http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/POTASSIUM-IOD...aultDomain_0&hash=item35b0aefb61#ht_655wt_906

If the plant was releasing appreciable amounts of radioactive iodine, which I haven't heard, what proportion of it would reach the US?
Remember that the half life of the stuff is 8 days.

Are these adverts just targetting the "worried well", or is there potentially some danger for Americans?
(note for Americans. When I say bargain price, I mean non-bargain price. It's irony)

 

[Cifo]

I find myself highly irritated by the "soft" or "polite" or "oblique" or "inscrutable" (even after all these years) information they're peddling about so serious a situation.

The situation at No. 4 reactor, where the fire broke out, was "not so good," the plant operator added

reuters.com"

"The power for cooling [Fukushima 1's Units 5 and 6] is not working well and the temperature is gradually rising, so it is necessary to control it," Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told reporters.

msnbc.com

The same holds true for cities and towns wiped out by the tsunamis.

“In the town of Minamisanrikucho, 10,000 people — nearly two-thirds of the population — have not been heard from since the tsunami wiped it out, a government spokesman said. NHK showed only a couple concrete structures still standing, and the bottom three floors of those buildings gutted.”

Are 10,000 people enjoying a spur-of-the-moment getaway in Aruba or are they playing hide-and-seek?? No, they're WIPED OUT.

I'm pretty sure this is cultural differences in communicating, but the take away is: they're not telling us anything here!

 

[ElectricFetus]

Psst!

Want some good iodine.
Here's some on Ebay for the bargain price of $229

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/POTASSIUM-IOD...aultDomain_0&hash=item35b0aefb61#ht_655wt_906

If the plant was releasing appreciable amounts of radioactive iodine, which I haven't heard, what proportion of it would reach the US?
Remember that the half life of the stuff is 8 days.

Are these adverts just targetting the "worried well", or is there potentially some danger for Americans?
(note for Americans. When I say bargain price, I mean non-bargain price. It's irony)

It all depends on how much was released, Chernobyl caused ~4000 thyroid cancer in the Ukraine, this nuclear accident will likely release a tiny amount of the radioactive iodine Chernobyl did, certianly less then 1/1000. And the USA is much further then Ukraine is from Chernobyl. So in short no worries.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

More on eBay.
A tiny bottle of seaweed extract has been bid up to £80
Very foolish.

The amount of Radioactive iodine likely to reach America is tiny, (zero?)
but there are plenty of foods with good Iodine content.
Anyone worried can just change their diet slightly, or possibly not at all, and be fully protected.
Dairy foods have lots of it, especially milk.

If you drink a pint of milk a day like me (mostly in tea), you are tip top full of iodine, and any extra will be excreted. That's news to me too.
I'm going to abandon the idea of buying a bottle of multiminerals, and instead spend my £2.50 on an extra pint of Guinness on St Pat's.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Check this out, Radiation dosage units in relation to bananas, or the "Banana equivalent dose"

The average radioactivity is 130 Bq/kg (3 520 pCi/kg), or roughly 19.2 Bq (520 pCi) per 150 g banana. The equivalent dose for 365 bananas is 36 μSv (3.6 mrems).

After the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, the NRC detected radioactive iodine in local milk at levels of 0.74 Bq/l (20 pCi/l), much less than an equivalent quantity of normal banana.

Following the Chernobyl disaster, levels of caesium-137 increased by more than 10 fold throughout Europe and wild mushrooms contained radiation with up to an effective dose of 20 μSv/kg. Thus eating 1 kg of mushrooms would have given the same dose as about 200 bananas [30 kg of bananas]

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

 

[Captain Kremmen]

I've just had another look on eBay, and the seller of the tincture has numerous other auction items, many with ridiculous bids.
I bet if I looked up Potassium iodide on the US site I would find a huge amount of this nonsense.
I don't know if there is panic in Japan, but in America there certainly is.

Shouldn't the News Channels be informing people about how easy it is to get sufficient iodine from natural foods?

Might benefit the dairy farmers for once.