Japanese N-Plant Explosion

For FUCKS SAKE!
adoucette said:
Not exactly.

They tested 5 samples.
Three of them were the same isotope ratios as what remains from atmospheric testing.
Two were not and thus may have come from this incident.
The levels of the unexpected isotopes was approximately the same magnitude as the Nuclear testing, which is why they said the levels they found weren't associated with Major health impacts.

AFAIK they still haven't decided where this Pu came from, the reactors, the spent fuel pools or some other source of contamination.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110328e14.pdf

Arthur
Click to expand...
Here is what I originally said on the fucking matter:
Trippy said:
On the Pu in the soil:
Tokyo Electric Power Co. has detected isolated, low concentrations of plutonium in the soil at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station. The density of plutonium is equivalent to the fallout that reached Japan from nuclear weapons testing during the Cold War, the company said.

TEPCO conducted analysis of plutonium contained in the soil collected on March 21 and 22 at five locations at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Plutonium 238, 239 and 240 were detected, however just two of the samples may be the direct result of the recent incident, considering the ratio of the plutonium isotopes.

"The density detected in the plutonium is equivalent to the density in the soil under normal environmental conditions and therefore poses no major impact on human health," TEPCO said. The company said it plans to strengthen environmental monitoring inside the station and surrounding areas
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'm fully fucking aware that the claim regarding atmospheric testing was originally only made for three of the five samples.
It's right there in black and fucking white - after all, it was me that originally posted that information in this god dammed thread in the first place.

The statement you quoted contained an implicit fucking caveat obtained from the fucking context of the god dammed conversation I was having with Bells in the first time.

what make it even more fucking ridiculous is that iceauras objection is to the language used to describe the three fucking samples you and Bells are bitching at me about - and so that entire conversation is about those thre fucking samples, and those trhee samples ONLY!

Now, can you all quit being so fucking ridiculous and just grow the fuck up!!!
 
Trippy said:
For FUCKS SAKE!
.... can you all quit being so fucking ridiculous and just grow the fuck up!!!
Click to expand...

Damn Skippy....

Lighten up.

I can't remember what you put in all of your posts, but the one I responded to WAS in error, even if it was unintentional.

You said:

Trippy said:
They have stated that the isotopic ratios imply that it is as a result of historical atmospheric testing - IE the only link it's presence has with what's going on is the fact that they were looking for it, and found it.
Click to expand...

And that statement is, as you know, not correct.

Soon after I posted that I saw in your reply to Bells that you knew that it was normal in only 3 out of 5 samples, but still, the post I commented on was incorrect and I couldn't not point that out.

Arthur
 
adoucette said:
And that statement is, as you know, not correct.

Soon after I posted that I saw in your reply to Bells that you knew that it was normal in only 3 out of 5 samples, but still, the post I commented was incorrect.

Arthur
Click to expand...
In the context of the discussion the statement IS correct because the discussion - unless Iceaura has shifted the goal posts - is SPECIFICALLY the three samples that TEPCO claimed were in the normal range.

The statement is correctly read:
They have stated that the isotopic ratios [of the three samples] imply that it is as a result of historical atmospheric testing - IE the only link it's presence has with what's going on is the fact that they were looking for it, and found it.
Click to expand...
Where the bracketed caveat is (or at least I thought it was) granted by the context of the discussion with Iceaura.

But hey, if it bugs you that fucking much, I'll go back and change it, just for you, to make explicitly clear what, up until I woke up this morning, I had thought we all knew.

Unles, of course, you want to argue that at some point since the construction of the plant, contamination of the soil has occured as a result of the operation of the plant (which, I suppose, is at least a possibility, but I can't recall seeing anything that suggests that this is the case), and the use of the world 'normal' would suggest otherwise, and the plant has been using MOX for <10 years, IIRC.
 
At the end of the day, what this amounts to is that only a tiny amount of plutonium was released, most likely from a fire in the used rods, though no-one can be precisely certain just yet. It is highly probable nobody will suffer unduly because of it. It's only relavent insofar as a) it shouldn't have escaped, and b) it might have come from the partial meltdown of a core.
In any event, no more seems to be escaping.

I thought you guys might like access to the site I use for technical data on elements etc, I find it quite useful at times. http://www.wolframalpha.com/
 
Trippy said:
In the context of the discussion the statement IS correct because the discussion - unless Iceaura has shifted the goal posts - is SPECIFICALLY the three samples that TEPCO claimed were in the normal range.

The statement is correctly read:

Where the bracketed caveat is (or at least I thought it was) granted by the context of the discussion with Iceaura.

But hey, if it bugs you that fucking much, I'll go back and change it, just for you, to make explicitly clear what, up until I woke up this morning, I had thought we all knew.

Unles, of course, you want to argue that at some point since the construction of the plant, contamination of the soil has occured as a result of the operation of the plant (which, I suppose, is at least a possibility, but I can't recall seeing anything that suggests that this is the case), and the use of the world 'normal' would suggest otherwise, and the plant has been using MOX for <10 years, IIRC.
Click to expand...

Trippy, I could be wrong but I don't think that's what TEPCO meant by that statement. (I'm sorry but I've not read much that Ice posts to you, it's just a monumental waste of time)

Still, I don't think TEPCO was just talking about the samples that were normal, but that the radiation levels in all of the samples were within the intensity range left over from background testing and thus the radiation levels, even with the additional site contamination in two of them, weren't going to be a major health problem. (Or maybe consider that the statement makes no sense for TEPCO to even make if it was just about the three normal samples)

All fuel, MOX or not, ends up with Pu in it (and apparently those isotopes) so that's one of the reasons the source is not clear, but it didn't have to have come from Reactor 3 (and probably didn't). My bet is that it is from the spent fuel ponds though, the pathway from the reactors to the grounds is just too convoluted and you would think if it came from the reactors they would have then found some in the reactor buildings.

Arthur
 
"Japanese officials say the evacuation of residents near the earthquake-hit Fukushima nuclear plant will be long-term. The announcement came as high levels of radiation were detected for the first time in groundwater near one of the facility's reactors."

http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/index_news.htm

I read todays press release from NISA, but there has been little change. There have been a few technical failiures, but nothing serious.
The water storage is still being a problem, and the contaminated water outside the buildings is possibly going to be pumped aboard the barges that brought in the fresh water. Talks are going on with the US government. Presumably they will want to sell the barges rather than lend them in case the contamination in them persists. There is the possibility of using a massive deep-sea steel constructed "float" currently being used for deep sea fishing.
 
adoucette said:
My bet is that it is from the spent fuel ponds though, the pathway from the reactors to the grounds is just too convoluted and you would think if it came from the reactors they would have then found some in the reactor buildings.
Arthur
Click to expand...

Careful Arthur, that sounds awfully close to agreement..You don't want to be setting a precedent now!
 
adoucette said:
Trippy, I could be wrong but I don't think that's what TEPCO meant by that statement. (I'm sorry but I've not read much that Ice posts to you, it's just a monumental waste of time)

Still, I don't think TEPCO was just talking about the samples that were normal, but that the radiation levels in all of the samples were within the intensity range left over from background testing and thus the radiation levels, even with the additional site contamination in two of them, weren't going to be a major health problem. (Or maybe consider that the statement makes no sense for TEPCO to even make if it was just about the three normal samples)
Click to expand...
Yeah, I realized that that might be a source of difference - I infered from what was said there (and elsewhere) that TEPCO was saying that it was three of the five samples that were in 'normal' ranges, where you might have been infering that it was all five.

adoucette said:
All fuel, MOX or not, ends up with Pu in it (and apparently those isotopes) so that's one of the reasons the source is not clear, but it didn't have to have come from Reactor 3 (and probably didn't). My bet is that it is from the spent fuel ponds though, the pathway from the reactors to the grounds is just too convoluted and you would think if it came from the reactors they would have then found some in the reactor buildings.

Arthur
Click to expand...
I know - it's derived by Neutron bombardment of Uranium-238, a point that I have raised with iceaura several times - that because of this, and because it happens naturally, where you have (naturally) enriched concentrations of Uranium in the soil (which according to UNSCEAR can reach 5ppm) then you can expect there to be some small proportion of Plutonium in the soil naturally.

My bet, and I've said this elsewhere this that if it's not from on of the spent fuel ponds (I by no means intentionally meant to restrict it to the use of MOX fuels by mentioning the short time that MOX had been being used, and I'm fairly sure I said this in my response to Bells as well) that it's probably from (IIRC) Reactor 2 - I say this because Reactor 2 (last time I looked at the numbers anyway) has been running at only slightly above atmospheric pressure, where the other two have been running at 3-5 times atmospheric pressure.
 
On the casualties so far:
Casualties
- Presence of 2 TEPCO employees at the site is not confirmed on March
11th.
- On March 24th, it was confirmed that 3 workers from cooperative
companies who were in charge of cable laying work in the 1st floor and
the underground floor of turbine building were exposed to the radiation
dose of more than 170 mSv. 2 of them were confirmed that their skins on
legs were contaminated. After they were decontaminated, since there was
a possibility of beta ray burn injury, they were transferred to
Fukushima Medical University Hospital. The third worker was also
transferred to Fukushima Medical University Hospital on March 25th.
Later, the 3 workers were transferred to National Institute of
Radiological Sciences in Chiba Prefecture. They all left the hospital
on March 28th. Regarding this event, TEPCO has reported to the related
government ministries and agencies on measures to be taken to assure
appropriate radiation dose control and radiation exposure related
operations.
We will inform the related parties of countermeasures and continue to
take all possible measures to future management.
Click to expand...
 
I have to ask:
- At 12:21 pm, March 31st, campaigner's sound truck (1 driver) tried to
enter the site form the site's main gate, however it left after it was
blocked to enter. We reported this incident to Fukushima Prefectural
Police Department.
Click to expand...
Are they nuts?
 
Trippy said:
Yeah, I realized that that might be a source of difference - I infered from what was said there (and elsewhere) that TEPCO was saying that it was three of the five samples that were in 'normal' ranges, where you might have been infering that it was all five.
.
Click to expand...

Well that's because there are other statements made that infer they are talking about all five samples:

From the daily Reactor Status Report:

Plutonium was detected from the soil of the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS site on Mar. 28th. The concentration of plutonium measured is as little as in normal environment, almost the same as measured in Japan when the nuclear bomb tests were conducted in the atmosphere in the past
Click to expand...

And

‹Results of the analysis›
-Plutonium was detected in the soil of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power
Station.
-The density of detected plutonium is equivalent to the fallout observed
in Japan when the atmospheric nuclear test was conducted in the past.
-The detected plutonium from two samples out of five may be the direct
result of the recent incident, considering their activity ratio of the
plutonium isotopes
Click to expand...

The last one is TEPCO's actual statement that was paraphrased in the one you quoted, but I think this one makes the fact that they were referring to the detected Pu in all five samples a bit clearer.

I suspect there would be no confusion at all if we could read Japanese.

Arthur
 
Last edited:
adoucette said:
Well that's because there are other statements made that infer they are talking about all five samples...
Click to expand...
And in some contexts, it probably is correct to infer that they are talking abotu all five samples.

adoucette said:
The last one is TEPCO's actual statement that was paraphrased in the one you quoted, but I think this one makes the fact that they were referring to the detected Pu in all five samples a bit clearer.

I suspect there would be no confusion at all if we could read Japanese.

Arthur
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't recall now whether the bit that I quoted came straight from the TEPCO webpage or if it came instead from the NEI webpage. But certainly it wa sone or the other.
 
trippy said:
The point which you keep dancing around in this regard is this: They can tell from the ratios of the various Isotopes whether the contamination occured as a result of what's happened in the last three weeks, or if it predates this. They have stated that the isotopic ratios imply (in three of the five samples- the three samples we've been discussing) that it is as a result of historical atmospheric testing -
Click to expand...
My point was that they specifically and significantly failed to say that, in the quoted media handout from TEPCO that I was objecting to.

They instead used language implying that the levels were "normal environmental conditions" and they explicitly deduced safety from that.

Far from dancing around the fact that they knew better, I emphasized it. It's one of my major points. Yes, they know better than what they say - so do we - that's where the observation of deception and media manipulation of the framing here comes from. It's not like this is the first nuclear mess we've seen handled like that, in the media, eh?
 
iceaura said:
My point was that they specifically and significantly failed to say that, in the quoted media handout from TEPCO that I was objecting to.
Click to expand...
Only it wasn't the TEPCO media release that you quoted, it was my citation of the NEI commentary on the TEPCO release.

The same commentary that had this to say:
"The density of plutonium is equivalent to the fallout that reached Japan from nuclear weapons testing during the Cold War"

And this to say:
"however just two of the samples may be the direct result of the recent incident, considering the ratio of the plutonium isotopes"

So they specifically stated that considering the isotopic ratios, three of the samples are probably from historic contamination, and two of them might be due to the events of the last three weeks.

iceaura said:
They instead used language implying that the levels were "normal environmental conditions" and they explicitly deduced safety from that.
Click to expand...
Normal in the context of a post cold war world that experienced over 500 atmospheric nuclear tests, including atmospheric testing as recently as 1980 (China). A context explicitly established in the first paragraph of the press release.

iceaura said:
Far from dancing around the fact that they knew better, I emphasized it. It's one of my major points. Yes, they know better than what they say - so do we - that's where the observation of deception and media manipulation of the framing here comes from. It's not like this is the first nuclear mess we've seen handled like that, in the media, eh?
Click to expand...
You cherry picked it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top