Japanese N-Plant Explosion

[Trippy]

And yet we have, in the same post, this:
and this: and this:

and this:
So apparently "bullshit" once again means "I'm not bothering to follow your argument or deal with your contentions, this time either".

I've precisely addressed your statement "...and "no major impact on human health" is an explicit claim of safety..." by demonstrating that it represents a false dichotomy.

 

[Trippy]

A circumstance from which safety cannot be inferred, concealed by the phrase "normal environmental conditions".

Do you have some proof that a level of 0.92 pg/kg of Plutonium-244, and 1.75ng/kg of Plutonium-239 in soil poses any sort of toxicity risk to humans?

 

[iceaura]

I've precisely addressed your statement "...and "no major impact on human health" is an explicit claim of safety..." by demonstrating that it represents a false dichotomy.

You have mistaken the entire argument, and invented a dichotomy not involved in it. You have projected a presumption of 'safety' meaning 'no possible harm at all' into an argument in which it is irrelevant as well as false.

A circumstance from which safety cannot be inferred, concealed by the phrase "normal environmental conditions".
”
Do you have some proof that a level of 0.92 pg/kg of Plutonium-244, and 1.75ng/kg of Plutonium-239 in soil poses any sort of toxicity risk to humans?

Do have some kind of point to make, with this (yet again!) attempted inversion of logical implication, that is relevant to the quote you used or anything else I'm talking about?

 

[Trippy]

You have mistaken the entire argument, and invented a dichotomy not involved in it. You have projected a presumption of 'safety' meaning 'no possible harm at all' into an argument in which it is irrelevant as well as false.

You said exactly this:

I claim that the word "therefore" is an explicit indicator of the undertaking of inference, and "no major impact on human health" is an explicit claim of safety.

However, the only way the statement "no major impact on human health" can be infered as an explicit statement of saftey is by excluding the possibility of a minor impact on human health.

The only reasonable inference that you take from that is that any health effects are minor, or non existent, however, something that has minor health effects can not neccessarily have saftey infered from it.

Do have some kind of point to make, with this (yet again!) attempted inversion of logical implication, that is relevant to the quote you used or anything else I'm talking about?

LOL
I'm inverting nothing.
I'm asking you to substantiate your claim that it's unsafe.

 

[adoucette]

Levels of radiation continue downward trend.

http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1301966088P.pdf

134 samples of various foods from twelve prefectures around Japan have been taken in the last three days. They included a range of fruit, vegetables and milk as well as beef and pork. All but one showed either no detection of iodine-131 or caesium-137 or levels within limits. The single affected food was shiitake mushrooms from Fukushima prefecture.

They have started dumping 10,000 tons of water with low levels of radiation into the sea so they can pump water with much higher levels of radiation out of the turbine buildings into the central radioactive waste treatment facility.

Arthur

 

[ULTRA]

Jiji press agency japan report finding Iodine131 in a fish. I'd be more surprised if they hadn't found it. It contained radioactive iodine at levels of 4,080 becquerels per kilogram. To put it into context, 2000 bq/kg is the legal limit set for vegetables.

 

[adoucette]

Yeah, they have to get this leak stopped because it's leaking the most highly radioactive water at the site (from Building 2) into the ocean, alternatively they have to get the water pumped out of building 2 and the trenches, but from what I've seen the pumps they have will make that take awhile and of course that means dumping 10,000 tons of less radioactive water into the Ocean to make room for this water (which they have started doing).

The failure to find and contain this leak has certainly upped the severity of this accident and considering the amount of Cesium they are now letting into the ocean is likely to have much wider/longer impacts. (On Monday they detected Cesium 137 (30 year HL) at over 1 million times the legal limit in sea water near this leak) and further away 526 becquerels of radioactive cesium was detected in one kilogram of sand lances, which right now is just over the legal limit, but then the leak hasn't stopped either.

Arthur

 

[ElectricFetus]

And hydrogen bomb tests in the pacific "leaked" far more! The oceans will dilute the cesium and iodine to inconsequential levels rather quickly.

 

[adoucette]

And hydrogen bomb tests in the pacific "leaked" far more! The oceans will dilute the cesium and iodine to inconsequential levels rather quickly.

Well of course you are right about the dilution factor making the water not an issue, but the problem is Cesium 137 is being taken up into the local food chain and as such it can persist for a long time and even though after a while the levels in locally caught fish and seaweed (the Japanese eat a lot of seaweed) are likely to be below regulatory limits, Radiophobia is so strong for a lot of people that's expecting them to drink up because the turd in the punchbowl isn't that big.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

This is the best diagram yet of where they think the problem is (a cracked pipe) and what they plan on doing to try to step the leak.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110405e36.pdf

and what they intend on doing to prevent the radioactive water in the channel from getting into the open ocean.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110405e37.pdf

And a chart showing that the amount being released by the pit near Unit 2 is quite high (this done on April 4th, but the 3rd and 2nd are also high).

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110405e34.pdf

Arthur

 

[cosmictraveler]

Engineers tried to seal the crack with concrete Saturday, but that effort failed.

So on Sunday they went farther up the system and injected sawdust, three garbage bags of shredded newspaper and a polymer — similar to one used to absorb liquid in diapers — that can expand to 50 times its normal size when combined with water.

The polymer mix in the passageway leading to the pit had not stopped the leak by Sunday night, but it also had not leaked out of the crack along with the water, so engineers were stirring it in an attempt to get it to expand. They expected to know by Monday morning if it would work.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...tive-leak-at-japan-nuclear-plant-2261056.html


They never stated that they used HYDRAULIC CEMENT which was what I suggested from the start. Regular concrete won't set up underwater and that is why it never did what they thought it would.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Well of course you are right about the dilution factor making the water not an issue, but the problem is Cesium 137 is being taken up into the local food chain and as such it can persist for a long time.

Certainly this would be a problem if this was Iodine or Strontium but Cesium does not bio-accumulate nearly as well: its similar to potassium and moves in and out of the body as readily as potassium because it is a biological electrolyte. As such Cesiums biological half-life in humans is only 30-120 days, compared to Strontium which has a biological half-life of many years and accumulates in the bones as it mimic calcium which is actually stored in the body in concentrated minerals unlike potassium.

Considering the cesium dumped has to compete with potassium in sea water its not likely to accumulate well in fish and sea plants, and thus to humans consuming those sea products.

And again its a matter of concentration, 4,080 Bq per kilogram is roughly 3 uSv/hr per kilogram, an airline flight is on average 5 uSv/hr.

and even though after a while the levels in locally caught fish and seaweed (the Japanese eat a lot of seaweed) are likely to be below regulatory limits, Radiophobia is so strong for a lot of people that's expecting them to drink up because the turd in the punchbowl isn't that big.

Well then someone should warn people about Bananas (130 Bq/kg, 0.1 uSv/hr/kg) and Brazil nuts (444 Bq/kg, ~0.4 uSv/hr/kg) and Airline travel (5 uSv/hr) and Brick housing (70 uSv/yr) and ... you know a certain amount of rat shit is allowed in meat for example?

I'm just saying if radiophobia is the problem than the best answers is to educate the people.

 

[iceaura]

However, the only way the statement "no major impact on human health" can be infered as an explicit statement of saftey is by excluding the possibility of a minor impact on human health.

That's not true. In the real world, claims of protection from major harms are often claims of safety - nothing is without its minor hazards.

Depending on what is meant by "major" and "minor" - hence the carefully calculated wording, in the nuclear industry's media efforts.

I'm asking you to substantiate your claim that it's unsafe

What claim, exactly? Quote, please.

 

[Trippy]

That's not true. In the real world, claims of protection from major harms are often claims of safety - nothing is without its minor hazards.

Depending on what is meant by "major" and "minor" - hence the carefully calculated wording, in the nuclear industry's media efforts.

I've emphasized the most relavent point in the above statement.

In terms of Toxicology, 'major' and 'minor' have well defined meanings, I've given you examples of the definitions in eastern medicine, I've even given you relevant examples to the discussion of radiation.

What claim, exactly? Quote, please.

It falls out of your assertions about an inability to infer saftey from the available data. Not a point I can particularly be bothered going through with you given how mind numbing discussions with you seem to become as the discussion becomes bogged down in an infinitude of minutae and precision.

Suffice to say, I think I understand how you manage to win arguments without ever presenting evidence - you bog the person you percieve as your adversary down in layers of increasing precision and minutae until they simply no longer have the stamina to continue the argument, at which point you win by default as they back out of the discussion. As opposed to simply interpreting what is said in the best faith and context of the discussion taking place. There's a name for it when it gets used in a parlimentary context, but it escapes me for the time being.

 

[ULTRA]

Harsh words from one of Japans' mayors.."We have borne the risks, co-existed and flourished with TEPCO for more than 40 years, and all these years, we have fully trusted the myth that nuclear plants are absolutely safe," said Katsuya Endo, the mayor of Tomioka town."
TEPCO say radioactive water is 5Million x normal.. "Samples of the water used to cool the damaged reactor No. 2 were 5 million times the legal limit of radioactivity, adding to fears that contaminants had spread far beyond the disaster zone" ~ Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/05/japan-idUSL3E7F526520110405

According to the article, the outflow into the sea has reduced though they can't measure by how much, presumably due to access difficulty in the tunnel system.
I was a bit surprised they'd tried to use newspaper and sawdust to bung the leak, although a common way to stop leaks in warships is to hammer wooden stops into a breach, so maybe hi-tech is not necessarily the best option given that the polymer injection didn't seem to help much.

 

[ULTRA]

Actually, a flash on the wire service said the leak into the sea has been stopped, though I don't know how. No details as yet, but bloody good news if it's true - and not before time. http://t.co/0gzMxyg

 

[Trippy]

Actually, a flash on the wire service said the leak into the sea has been stopped, though I don't know how. No details as yet, but bloody good news if it's true - and not before time. http://t.co/0gzMxyg

My understanding is that they've been infusing glass into gravel below Reactor 2.

Courtosey of another forum I frequent where rational apolitical discussion is actually possible.

The firm says the leakage seems to be decreasing, following the infusion of the hardening agent.

The utility showed reporters a photo of the leak on Tuesday evening, saying it indicates such a decrease.

TEPCO said it will infuse another 1,500 liters of liquid glass.

Tokyo Electric Power Company started infusing liquid glass into gravel below the pit near the Number 2 reactor at 3 PM on Tuesday.

A test using a dye agent showed the possibility that the radioactive water is leaking from a cracked pipe, and then seeping through gravel into the concrete pit.

I'm a bit shy on original sources though.

Also the photos taken by the drone flyover the other day:
http://cryptome.org/eyeball/daiichi-npp/daiichi-photos.htm
Available at original resolution here:
http://cryptome.org/eyeball/daiichi-npp/daiichi-photos.zip

 

[ULTRA]

Wire report Via twitter:-

DailyYomiuri The Daily Yomiuri
by melissarfleming
TEPCO estimates 70% of fuel rods in the No. 1 reactor at the #Fukushima N-plant have been damaged, 20-30% in Nos. 2 and 3 reactors. #japan

 

[adoucette]

Since 23 March Gamma dose rates have tended to decrease. Gamma dose rates were reported for 45 prefectures (April 6th) to be between 0.02 to 0.1 microsievert per hour. In one prefecture the gamma dose rate was 0.16 microsievert per hour. These values are within or slightly above the natural background of 0.1 microsievert per hour.

Arthur

 

[iceaura]

I've emphasized the most relavent point in the above statement.

Which points to the kind of thing you would have been addressing, had you been addressing my actual arguments and observations in this thread.

It's certainly possible to argue that TEPCO was not releasing a typically worded, false framed, standard false reassurance of the kind we have seen so many times in these nuclear industry disasters. But that would require addressing the issue of how such press releases are arrived at and who their intended audience is. It would require some attention to what was actually meant and understood, by the authors and audience, by the phrase "normal environmental conditions" and its role in such press releases (not some total bullshit about placer deposits somewhere). And it would pivot on the word "therefore", as I have throughout here.

Notice that the TEPCO press release could have simply delivered the information: that the bad stuff levels measured were still within bomb residue levels and not hugely augmented by reactor effluent. No conclusions about harm were necessary or even indicated: they had good news to report.

Not silly ass faux pedantry like this:

In terms of Toxicology, 'major' and 'minor' have well defined meanings,

. In terms of toxicology communication is by published scientific paper, not press release and media statement.

Suffice to say, I think I understand how you manage to win arguments without ever presenting evidence

So far, you have presented not a single piece of evidence relevant to my arguments here. Nothing.

Gamma dose rates were reported for 45 prefectures (April 6th) to be between 0.02 to 0.1 microsievert per hour. In one prefecture the gamma dose rate was 0.16 microsievert per hour. These values are within or slightly above the natural background of 0.1 microsievert per hour.

There is no such thing as "the" natural background rate, as the wide fluctuations in the readings demonstrates. The question is the change in rate in the given locations.

Conclusions that rest on assumed even dispersion from the reactor - that do not explicitly allow for plumes and hot spots and temporary fluctuations - are not trustworthy.