Japanese N-Plant Explosion

Any discussion of radiation exposure that begins by assuming approximately even distribution of plant emissions, thorough mixing into large volumes of air or water, widely distributed dispersions, etc, is fundamentally flawed and misleading in its indications of safety, guarantee of low exposure, minimal risk, etc.

It's a fairly safe assumption when dealing with dispersion into the ocean,

As for the air, it's a fairly safe assumption once you get far enough away from the plant.

http://www.meti.go.jp/english/electricity_supply/pdf/110324_radioactivity.pdf

Closer in though, no one is making that assumption.

http://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/03/25/1303997_2516.pdf
 
electric said:
It's a fairly safe assumption when dealing with dispersion into the ocean,
We aren't. We're dealing with human exposure on land.

electric said:
As for the air, it's a fairly safe assumption once you get far enough away from the plant.
No, it isn't. That's the problem.
 
We aren't. We're dealing with human exposure on land.

You didn't make that distinction.

No, it isn't. That's the problem.

Yes it is.

Generally speaking the further you get from the plant the more mixing there is the less "hot spots" you will have.

http://www.slideshare.net/energy/ra...om-fukushima-area-march-22-2011?from=ss_embed (see slide 5)

That's not to say that all locations 50 km from the plant will be the same though, there will likely be patterns related to wind direction when larger amounts of radiation were released. The extensive number of monitoring sites makes these patterns clear.

In this particular case there is a higher level of radiation running on a line NW from the plants, extending out about 50 km or so and maybe 10 km wide.

Arthur
 
Last edited:
Further to my guess in post 576 that there was some nuclear fuel exposed and leaking fom the core of reactor 3 has unfortunately been correct, or so it would seem according to NISA who said, "3.9 million becquerels of radiation was detected from 1 cubic centimeter of water sampled from the floor of the building. The radiation level was about 10,000 times higher than the water inside a normally operating nuclear reactor."

The agency said, "The water sample indicated it is highly likely the leak comes from the reactor itself, not from the pool storing spent nuclear fuel."

Meanwhile, preperations are underway to begin pumping fresh purified water into the reactors once again. This will not aid cooling, which seems to be relatively stable at the present time, but it will help prevent corrosion inside the reactor. Sea-water is doing the job, but officials are concerned that corrosion will fur up the water channels making cooling harder.
The corrosive effects of hot salty water could also accelerate the dissolution of nuclear fuel rods, pellets and casings. The casings are zirconium which is strong, but reactive. It is used as it is virtually transparent to neutrons and thus does not slow the reactor down.

Every day that passes, the decay heat in the reactors grows less and less. Normally, irradiated rods are left to cool in water for a couple of months before being transferred to the common pool where most of the spent rods are kept. The longer they can cool down without any further melting, the higher the chances that no more melting will take place.
It will likely be some time before we find out where the breach is, if ever, but the good news is that some of the instrumentation will be recovered due to the access to mains power.
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/25_29.html
 
Blah blah blah.
Me me me.
I told you so.
8 year olds with pins and maps.
Blah blah blah.
The sky is falling.
And here we go, once more around the block, just to demonstrate some more that you don't actually know what you're talking about. Ignoring simple facts like "Maximum tsunami height observed in area is maximum tsunami height observed in area", and ignorin the fact that under that part of Northen Japan, the pacific plate is divided into several segments, each of which behaves differently, I might even point out that (again) that the plate motions are different in Japan and laugh as you proclaim that it's irrelevant, and complain about the science, and bag the scientests.

Frankly? I don't really have the time or inclination at this point to rehash this drivel with you.

If I wanted to have a mind numbing conversation that simply re-hashes the same three points without any basis in science, I'll go find Mr Roam and talk to him about climate change.
 
Any discussion of radiation exposure that begins by assuming approximately even distribution of plant emissions, thorough mixing into large volumes of air or water, widely distributed dispersions, etc, is fundamentally flawed and misleading in its indications of safety, guarantee of low exposure, minimal risk, etc.

A more reasonable, fact based presumption would be of short to moderate lived pockets or plumes of significant density, sufficient to produce in their penumbras the averages and post - mixing measurements actually made.

There's an irony in amongst all of this, that I'm fairly sure you'll never see.
It's to do with siting a Nuclear reactor at a low altitude, close to the water, in an area where the prevailing winds seem to be out to sea.
 
There's an irony in amongst all of this, that I'm fairly sure you'll never see.
It's to do with siting a Nuclear reactor at a low altitude, close to the water, in an area where the prevailing winds seem to be out to sea.

Then when the thing starts melting down, the wind changes to the south.
Yes, ironic.
 
Now don't come here into my thread and start posting your drivel here. Nobody is interested in your imbecelic idiocy. Piss off and post your guff somewhere else. We scientists are studying serious developments. You really should stop reading that bullshit before you start believing it. :mad:

Are you afraid of truth? If you think you are right, or not a pseudoscientist, then join discussion instead of sealing different opinion. You don't represent everyone.

By the way, do you think US had had an idiot Secretary of Defense? Or rather, you are?

DoD News Briefing: Secretary of Defense William S. CohenApril 28, 1997

Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.
 
Congratulations on missing the point.

Not only missing it but completely misrepresenting it.

Go on then, Why did they build it there? On the fault line, next to where a Tsunami might hit.
I hope you aren't going to say it was so radiation would blow away to sea.

That would be like permanently wearing a plaster cast on your leg in case you broke it.l

@katsung
What happened to your other thread?
You had a thread where you could say what you wanted.
Did they close it down or something?

No I've just checked.
You just haven't been posting on it.
It's here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104180
You have freedom of speech. Exercise it. There.
 
Last edited:
Go on then, Why did they build it there? On the fault line, next to where a Tsunami might hit.
I hope you aren't going to say it was so radiation would blow away to sea.

That would be like permanently wearing a plaster cast on your leg in case you broke it.
Strawman hypothesis.

The most I have done is suggest that the siting might have been advantageous because it reduces the contamination of the land.

I made no suggestions of deliberatness or motivation.
 
Go on then, Why did they build it there? On the fault line, next to where a Tsunami might hit.

You might as well ask why the Japanese live in those areas, near fault lines, where Tsunamis might hit?

So far over 10,000 known dead, and likely nearly 20,000 when all are accounted for. Total direct losses nearing $300 Billion making it about 3 times that of Katrina and the single costliest natural disaster ever, and yet in comparison no one has died from the Nuclear Reactors.

NONE.

Indeed, the worst radiation injury has been a relatively minor burn because workers ignored their radiation meters.

In contrast three TEPCO employees at the Nuclear plant died from the physical impact of the Earthquake and Tsunami.

Arthur
 
You might as well ask why the Japanese live in those areas, near fault lines, where Tsunamis might hit?

Yeah, and there's a good point right there, show me somewhere in Japan that isn't within 200km of a faultline (the radius the US NRC uses IIRC).
 
Incredibly high radiation levels have been found in water leaking from reactor 2 at the stricken Fukujima nuclear plant. Levels exceeding 10,000,000 (10 million) times normal levels have been found. TEPCO says "the radioactive materials include 2.9-billion becquerels of iodine-134, 13-million becquerels of iodine-131, and 2.3-million becquerels each for cesium 134 and 137" per 1 cubic centimeter of water.
Needless to say, this is a very serious level, a potentially lethal level of contamination. It is the cesium that will cause the main worry, iodine has a half-life of about 8 days.
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/27_12.html
 
Reports on Japanese tv channel NHK also say there is a similar situation in reactor 1 where severe radiation was found in the generator plant of the facility.
Levels in the sea remain high, whilst radiation levels on land appear to have fallen slightly.
It is very lucky that the majority of the Iodine and Cesium has remained in the water and not in the air.
 
Back
Top