Japanese N-Plant Explosion

[ElectricFetus]

When Pentagon had hundreds of nuke tests in 1950s, each test would have released much more radiation material into the air, why the media kept silence then? It seems they are creating a nuke panic now. Beware of a false flag nuke attack that used to justify Iran war.

I said this same point, but I don't see any conspiracy theory beyond the media's need to hype fear for revenue.

 

[Trippy]

This is kind of funny, well, almost but not quite.

Here's your first response to my posting on this thread, an interjection into an exchange with soemone else, which began our little digressive and essentially worthless exchange, quoted in it's entirety:

The misinformation and general misleading stuff around here is on the other side - false reassurances, irrelevancies about coal power, deflections into non-issues (at least we don't have to wade through a hundred detailed explanations about how it can't blow up like an atomic bomb - or is that still the case elsewhere?).

So when we see this: why can't we treat it with the same disdain now routine for "panic mongering"?
”
Pure nonsense.

Actually, no. What you've presented is revisionism.

Originally, I made this comment:
2709155/81

Ugh.
I'm marginally anti nuclear (I see it as a temporary neccessary evil), and live in a country known globally for its anti nuclear stance.

And even I'm sick of the panic mongering.
Here's some real info:
Information on the Japanese Earthquake and Reactors in That Region

Which you partially quoted in a subsequent post:
2709303/95

And even I'm sick of the panic mongering.
Here's some real info:

The misinformation and general misleading stuff around here is on the other side - false reassurances, irrelevancies about coal power, deflections into non-issues (at least we don't have to wade through a hundred detailed explanations about how it can't blow up like an atomic bomb - or is that still the case elsewhere?).

So when we see this:

No, if they can't keep the fuel cool (and no reason at this time to think they can't) then yes, it will melt down, and then it will be much like 3 Mile Island where the Reactor is turned into a pile of junk. An economic disaster.
- - -
and the death is so nasty that people really fear it. Plutonium found in reactor cores is one of the most toxic substances on earth.
”
It isn't that toxic, and then pretty much only if you inhale it, and being that Plutonium is nearly twice as dense as lead, the likelihood of that is very low.
- - -
Even if that happens it would be an economic event, like 3-Mile Island, not a significant radiation event.
- - -
They may be teetering on the edge of economic disaster but so far there is no indication that any of the containment vessels are at risk.
- - -
Yes, if it has survived a tsunami, a major earthquake, failure of backup cooling and an explosion, then the design was a good one.
- - -

why can't we treat it with the same disdain now routine for "panic mongering"?

edit in: Just saw it happen again - Bill Nye on CNN was asked to use up his time explaining how the reactor could not blow up like a bomb, because (according to the questioner) that was a common fear people have when they hear about "meltdown". To his credit, he didn't bite - spent the whole time talking about what a meltdown was, etc, no time on "bomb".

This has been going on for a generation now. When the money guys were talking Red Wing residents into hosting a nuke at Prairie Island, the town meetings were almost completely used up in reassuring people that the thing could not blow up like a bomb. It's a tactic.

To which my post #98 was a response to - in other words, far from "an interjection into an exchange with soemone else" my post was in direct response to a post that quoted one that I had made earlier in the thread.

So once again, what do we see? You, cherry picking, and presenting partial quotations, out of context, and I would even go so far as to suggest lying. Are you a liar? Or are you just generally confused?

Since you don't bother expalining your typically (in a non-technical matter) useless and irrelevant response, the particular misfire in your brain that generated the assessment (a first response which was nothing but insult) is not visible. The post where you started running everything I've posted through your private fantasy rhetoric muncher in public, where we could see it in action, was 106.

If you're referring (again) to my stating that you had mischaracterized my statements that's LOL and fail.

You mischaracterzied them, end of story. But I have come to accept that you will never actually be able to see why I might say that, even though all you've got to go on is tone of voice (really, tone of voice, in a written medium[sup]*[/sup]). You simply didn't like the language I used when I described the bare bones of the situation at the time.

Your failure to deal with the question remains, of course: why can't we treat false reassurances with the same disdain we treat panic mongering - especially since they are very possible the primary source of panic, themselves?

Perhaps you should ask Bill Nye why he spent so much time focused on trying to explain why the Fukushima nuclear plants can't explode like a nuclear bomb.

Did you ever stop to think that the reason why the experts spend so much time trying to reassure people that it "Won't blow up like a bomb" is because the main question they get asked is "Can it blow up like a bomb"? Because, thanks to groups such as greenpeace, (and hollywood), that is the image that is etched into their minds?

Sure. All you have to do is 1) assume I represent an organized political force with serious power and obscured agenda, as a large scale media operation with visible influence over the public rhetoric of thousands of publically quoted media figures.

Then 2) you have to figure out what I'm saying and why.

Step one should be easy. Step two will be quite a bit more difficult for you - for example, the paraphrase "you keep saying that you can tell what 'they' are doing by looking at what 'they' accuse the other side of doing" is wrongheaded, originating out of context and going south from there, and misleading to the point of dishonesty: and you are not capable of correcting it on your own. There's no way for you to figure out what I'm doing by analyzing your own private little world there - I'm not in it.

And yet, you're the only one that's having to resort to cherry picking and misrepresentation.

Here's what you originally said:
2714454/423

started while we were still looking down the barrel of potential meltdown and containment breach at Fukushima. Now there's a general principle in dealing with rightwing corporate and authoritarian types ( the primary supporters of nuclear power in the US) (no, Trippy, not you) that says one of the best ways of telling what they are up to is noticing what they are accusing other people of doing. In this case, panicking.

So let's examine my paraphrase again:
"...you can tell what 'they' are doing by looking at what 'they' accuse the other side of doing..."
And compare it to what you said:

...one of the best ways of telling what they are up to is noticing what they are accusing other people of doing. In this case, panicking...

How is it inaccurate, misleading, or dishonest again? The ONLY part I have excluded is the part where you explicitly apply it to 'Right wing corporate types'.

Seriously - do you have anything to offer other than lying and cheating?

Addendum:
[sup]*[/sup]Just before this point gets misrepresented, and presented out of context - allow me to make one thing explicitly clear, I'm well aware of the use of 'voice' in the written media, much of what I write for work has a very perscribed format (third person, past tense, and so on) however that's beside the point that I was making. In written media, in the context of a list of events in roughly choronological order it is impossible to determine the difference between 'There was an explosion' and 'There was an explosion' irrespective of the fact that I may have been laughing when I typed it the first time, or crying the second time. Short of the writer going out of their way to specifically convey emotion by typing something like "OMG! There's been an explosion!" However, because Sciforums is allegedly a science forum, I generally try and avoid using emotive adjectives and stick to the facts - a habit born of habit, history, and work place ethic.

 

[iceaura]

To which my post #98 was a response to - in other words, far from "an interjection into an exchange with soemone else" my post was in direct response to a post that quoted one that I had made earlier in the thread.

So once again, what do we see? You, cherry picking, and presenting partial quotations, out of context, and I would even go so far as to suggest lying. Are you a liar? Or are you just generally confused?

Your "response" there was the initial insult, since expanded upon.

My post was not part of an exchange with you, as you can see by my omission of your handle and careful framing of generality, but with the people here who were attempting to focus on some minor irrationality of anti-nuclear "panic mongering" rather than the more important or at least relevant issues of the event, and the OP.

And my post there contained no insult - not even the response to your initial, insult launching piece of cryptic irrelevance.

To whit: you started it. When you said I started it, you were wrong. There's the starting post, #98, quoted in full. There's the fall offf the wagon of reason, in 106. It's all yours. Own it.

So once again, what do we see?

You, making stupid mistakes like this one, and backing them with insult and dishonesty:

Your failure to deal with the question remains, of course: why can't we treat false reassurances with the same disdain we treat panic mongering - especially since they are very possible the primary source of panic, themselves?
”
Perhaps you should ask Bill Nye why he spent so much time focused on trying to explain why the Fukushima nuclear plants can't explode like a nuclear bomb

You apparently just can't read, which is no excuse for your resort to personal insult and personal attack.

I've given up on attempting to correct you: Go on back to the post in which I mentioned Nye, copy it off, and ask someone you know who is 1) literate in English and 2) has a basic honesty in their approach ( if you know anyone like that) what I said in it - what I was talking about, what I claimed, what the whole point was there. Then believe what they tell you.

Did you ever stop to think that the reason why the experts spend so much time trying to reassure people that it "Won't blow up like a bomb" is because the main question they get asked is "Can it blow up like a bomb"?

Have you bothered to look into whether that is so, considered the evidence for the truth of that claim? I have. The first thing I noticed is who was making it, to defend their own behavior - industry reps, corporate stooges, "official" experts. Other experts (and there are many) don't seem to have the problem of being harassed by questions so often answered at such great and repetitive length.

The second thing to notice is when the question comes up - quite often, as with the Nye interview I referenced, when actual threats and issues of concern have appeared on the table.

The third thing to notice is how much time is spent answering and explaining the bogus question (it's always anonymous, that question, or simply dragged into the answer to another question): often, the majority of the interview. It's never just answered "No, these things aren't bombs - it's a bit tricky to make a bomb".

..one of the best ways of telling what they are up to is noticing what they are accusing other people of doing. In this case, panicking...
”
How is it inaccurate, misleading, or dishonest again? The ONLY part I have excluded is the part where you explicitly apply it to 'Right wing corporate types'.

(And the "authoritarian" part, and the part where I specifically excluded you, and by inference your "type", and the context of the entire discussion of course.)

Uh, because the part where I explicitly applied it to the rightwing corporate and authoritarian types, and them specifically, was central to the point? The entire discussion being about the media manipulations of that specific group or kind, in particular their defense by chaff of nuclear industry?

So that your paraphrase - this thing: ""...you can tell what 'they' are doing by looking at what 'they' accuse the other side of doing..." [/quote] could put cute little quote marks around the "they", among other attempts at false innuendo, for example. So that you could imply a symmetry in situation of accusation and misdeed - a he said she said situation - that does not exist even in potential. And so forth.

Which is why you glossed over my two points - labeled 1 and 2 above - without dealing with them. You can't acknowledge them or their accuracy and continue your spewing in this manner, and your beloved spew of personal animosity is all you've got left with me. You can't even find my original arguments.

This is beyond excusable, whether you yet allow yourself to be aware of the fact or not. This is a seriously bad behavior trap for anyone with intellectual aspirations in this world.

 

[Trippy]

Your "response" there was the initial insult, since expanded upon.

No. The initial insult was yours, and I've previously explained to you why. The key point here is that you are incapable of seeing through your own hubris to understand why it was insulting, inspite of my efforts to explain to you why.

My post was not part of an exchange with you, as you can see by my omission of your handle and careful framing of generality, but with the people here who were attempting to focus on some minor irrationality of anti-nuclear "panic mongering" rather than the more important or at least relevant issues of the event, and the OP.

Utterly irrelevant.
You cited my post, and I responded, as is my right, protected by law, in both of our countries.

And my post there contained no insult - not even the response to your initial, insult launching piece of cryptic irrelevance.

To whit: you started it. When you said I started it, you were wrong. There's the starting post, #98, quoted in full. There's the fall offf the wagon of reason, in 106. It's all yours. Own it.

Bzzzt.
Wrong again. I accept that I have insulted you, more than once, out of sheer frustration at your apparent stupidity and dishonesty, however, make no mistake, the first insult was yours.

You, making stupid mistakes like this one, and backing them with insult and dishonesty: You apparently just can't read, which is no excuse for your resort to personal insult and personal attack.

I'm over here - that's a mirror. To use a metaphore.

I've given up on attempting to correct you: Go on back to the post in which I mentioned Nye, copy it off, and ask someone you know who is 1) literate in English and 2) has a basic honesty in their approach ( if you know anyone like that) what I said in it - what I was talking about, what I claimed, what the whole point was there. Then believe what they tell you.

Have you bothered to look into whether that is so, considered the evidence for the truth of that claim? I have. The first thing I noticed is who was making it, to defend their own behavior - industry reps, corporate stooges, "official" experts. Other experts (and there are many) don't seem to have the problem of being harassed by questions so often answered at such great and repetitive length.

Here's what you said, originally said.

edit in: Just saw it happen again - Bill Nye on CNN was asked to use up his time explaining how the reactor could not blow up like a bomb, because (according to the questioner) that was a common fear people have when they hear about "meltdown". To his credit, he didn't bite - spent the whole time talking about what a meltdown was, etc, no time on "bomb".

This has been going on for a generation now. When the money guys were talking Red Wing residents into hosting a nuke at Prairie Island, the town meetings were almost completely used up in reassuring people that the thing could not blow up like a bomb. It's a tactic.

So that's nice, the ansewer to the question:
"Perhaps you should ask Bill Nye why he spent so much time focused on trying to explain why the Fukushima nuclear plants can't explode like a nuclear bomb."
Is.
"Because the network reporters/execs kept asking him."
No bile required.

The second thing to notice is when the question comes up - quite often, as with the Nye interview I referenced, when actual threats and issues of concern have appeared on the table.

Yes, I've noticed that, it's quite a wide spread phenomenom - my observation is that it seems to be most common in situations where you have a reporter with no technical expertise, dealing with an expert with technical expertise that's trying to stay away from using a bunch of jargon which could pretty trivially answer the question, but the Reporter doesn't feel the question has been answered sufficiently.

The other situation i've seen it happen is when the reporter hasn't understood the answer.

Although it seems to me it does sound familiar. it sound slike what's been happening in my discussion with you.

The third thing to notice is how much time is spent answering and explaining the bogus question (it's always anonymous, that question, or simply dragged into the answer to another question): often, the majority of the interview. It's never just answered "No, these things aren't bombs - it's a bit tricky to make a bomb".

Now your being silly - how many people ever accept the explanation "Because it can't".

(And the "authoritarian" part, and the part where I specifically excluded you, and by inference your "type", and the context of the entire discussion of course.)

Uh, because the part where I explicitly applied it to the rightwing corporate and authoritarian types, and them specifically, was central to the point? The entire discussion being about the media manipulations of that specific group or kind, in particular their defense by chaff of nuclear industry?

Irrelevant, and misses the point that I was making by using your own quip to describe your behaviour.

So that your paraphrase - this thing: ""...you can tell what 'they' are doing by looking at what 'they' accuse the other side of doing..." could put cute little quote marks around the "they", among other attempts at false innuendo, for example. So that you could imply a symmetry in situation of accusation and misdeed - a he said she said situation - that does not exist even in potential. And so forth.

This is nonsense - I used "scare quotes" to indicate irony, by suggesting that you were in the position of the "they" (here nothing more than quotation marks) in your original statement - a position that I find Ironic, even if you neither see nor appreciate it. Also, to some extent I am using it to distance myself for your specific usage of the word "they" (again, just quotation marks), because for a number of reasons I disagree with it on a number of levels (even if it is grammatically perfectly correct).

Oh right, I forgot - I shouldn't be having this conversation with you because my english comprehension isn't up to it.

Which is why you glossed over my two points - labeled 1 and 2 above - without dealing with them. You can't acknowledge them or their accuracy and continue your spewing in this manner, and your beloved spew of personal animosity is all you've got left with me. You can't even find my original arguments.

This is pure nonesense.

This is beyond excusable, whether you yet allow yourself to be aware of the fact or not. This is a seriously bad behavior trap for anyone with intellectual aspirations in this world.

As is this - all you have been able to do is misrepresent, and cherry pick in order to push what comes across as a politcally motivated agenda, rather than any actual concern for the environment.

 

[adoucette]

Japan has upped the severity level to 7 based on the amount of radiation released and the wide area of dispersal.

The total amount of discharged iodine-131 is estimated at 1.3x10^17 becquerels, and cesium-137 is estimated at 6.1x10^15 becquerels.

NISA estimates that the amount is approximately 10% of Chernobyl (the ratios of I-131 to Ce-137 seem to be the same).

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110412-4.pdf

Cesium-137 with a HL of 30 years makes up 4% of the release and it's ultimate deposition is important because when you read about radiation from Chernobyl that others outside the immediate vicinity are still dealing with 25 years later it's from Cesium-137, the Iodine 131 on the other hand will be gone shortly since it has a HL of 8 days (which also means that since the last major radiation releases were around the 15th of March, whatever radiation levels they are seeing at the 20 km and beyond level are not going to fall very much further for at least a couple of decades).

http://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/04/12/1304852_041119_1.pdf

Don't yet have a breakdown as to how much went in the air vs the sea.

They are also likely to move people out of that hot area just beyond the 30 km line (Iaite Village)

 

[ULTRA]

Yes, I'm not altogether sure why they uprated the INES level to the same as chernobyl with no additional hazards being apparent of late. The output of radiation from the site has not worsened to my knowledge.

 

[adoucette]

Yes, I'm not altogether sure why they uprated the INES level to the same as chernobyl with no additional hazards being apparent of late. The output of radiation from the site has not worsened to my knowledge.

Well being the same level as Chernobyl isn't the same as being as bad as Chernobyl.

But this event does meet most of the criteria of Level 7 in that while it is still only 10% of the Radiation from Chernobyl that is enough to qualify as a major release and it is widespread enough (areas for ~30+ km will likely be affected for a half century or longer) which will require planned and extended counter measures.

While there aren't likely to be widespread health effects that's because they have moved the people out of the most effected areas, not that the amount of radiation released weren't sufficient to cause them.

Major Accident - Level 7
• Major release of radioactive material with widespread health and
environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and
extended countermeasures.

Vs

Serious Accident - Level 6
• Significant release of radioactive material likely to require implementation
of planned countermeasures.


Arthur

 

[iceaura]

The total amount of discharged iodine-131 is estimated at 1.3x10^17 becquerels, and cesium-137 is estimated at 6.1x10^15 becquerels.

NISA estimates that the amount is approximately 10% of Chernobyl (the ratios of I-131 to Ce-137 seem to be the same).

Recall that according to your recent summary link above (Ariva) the major radiation release was via noble gasses.

My post was not part of an exchange with you, as you can see by my omission of your handle and careful framing of generality, - -
”
Utterly irrelevant.
You cited my post, and I responded, as is my right, protected by law, in both of our countries.

Completely relevant to the point that no insult appears there, and the first insult (as well as the profligate population of them subsequent) was yours - you apparently took insult, somehow, unless you are backfilling again, but your psychological problems are not part of my reality. The personal exchange started with #98, and the typical value of your responses to me in this thread is visible there, in easily read and compact form.

So that's nice, the ansewer to the question:
"Perhaps you should ask Bill Nye why he spent so much time focused on trying to explain why the Fukushima nuclear plants can't explode like a nuclear bomb."
Is.
"Because the network reporters/execs kept asking him."
No bile required.

And the most recent, fourth or fifth answer to why I keep asking you to read before spewing, is that I specifically stated that Nye did not spend any time focused on that. I complimented him for that refusal. I noticed that he was being pressured by the corporate media figure to digress in that fashion (which pressure I had predicted earlier in the thread, btw, based on years of experience watching the manipulation of the public discourse in this exact arena - and been insulted for as conspiracy mongering, paranoid, etc), and praised his refusal.

Meanwhile, your proffered explanation for Nye's alternate reality interview is not, as you seem to assume, any sort of contradiction of my case. The corporate media pressure on the experts, and the corporate media selection of experts (the big boys don't bring in uncooperative people like Nye very often), and the forced deflection of public discussion into blind alleys and well-framed irrelevancies by nuclear industry influence on the media, remains the central and significant part of my argument it has been throughout.

You are asking me rhetorical and insultingly phrased questions based on a simple misreading of my post - once again. You have failed to pick up on the central and significant points, once again. Failed to follow an argument, once again. You are name-calling and spewing insults while your head is firmly planted in your ass, once again. This doesn't belong here. Take it to "About the Members"? Somewhere else.

The real discussion on this thread, about the reality vs the media handling of Fukushima and its effects on the lessons learned, the future of nuclear power, the twin observations of false panic and false reassurances, etc., awaits attention.

 

[Trippy]

Completely relevant to the point that no insult appears there, and the first insult (as well as the profligate population of them subsequent) was yours - you apparently took insult, somehow, unless you are backfilling again, but your psychological problems are not part of my reality.

Ho hum. The first insult was still yours, and no amount of 'No U' is going to change that. You're attempt at painting the statement that a post is 'pure nonsense' is insulting, is amusing on a number of levels. So far, the conversation with you has been more or less predictable.

The personal exchange started with #98, and the typical value of your responses to me in this thread is visible there, in easily read and compact form.

No, the insults began with the post I was responding to in that, and the 'typical value of your responses to me in this thread' is visible in the post that I was replying to.

And the most recent, fourth or fifth answer to why I keep asking you to read before spewing, is that I specifically stated that Nye did not spend any time focused on that. I complimented him for that refusal. I noticed that he was being pressured by the corporate media figure to digress in that fashion (which pressure I had predicted earlier in the thread, btw, based on years of experience watching the manipulation of the public discourse in this exact arena - and been insulted for as conspiracy mongering, paranoid, etc), and praised his refusal.

Most of your assertions here are bullshit.

Meanwhile, your proffered explanation for Nye's alternate reality interview is not, as you seem to assume, any sort of contradiction of my case. The corporate media pressure on the experts, and the corporate media selection of experts (the big boys don't bring in uncooperative people like Nye very often), and the forced deflection of public discussion into blind alleys and well-framed irrelevancies by nuclear industry influence on the media, remains the central and significant part of my argument it has been throughout.

Did I claim that it was a contradiction? No. Seeing as how you obviously haven't figured it out yet. My question wasn't really about Bill Nye, my point was about the forces that direct interviews and public meetings other than NP Execs and Media Execs - then again, maybe it's an American problem.

You are asking me rhetorical and insultingly phrased questions based on a simple misreading of my post - once again. You have failed to pick up on the central and significant points, once again. Failed to follow an argument, once again. You are name-calling and spewing insults while your head is firmly planted in your ass, once again. This doesn't belong here. Take it to "About the Members"? Somewhere else.

More bile.

The real discussion on this thread, about the reality vs the media handling of Fukushima and its effects on the lessons learned, the future of nuclear power, the twin observations of false panic and false reassurances, etc., awaits attention.

{No, actually that is your attempt to divert this thread.

This thread is titled 'Japanese N-Plant Explosion'.
This thread originally started off as a discussion of the current events.
Similar threads I have participated in elsewhere began the same way, and evolved into discussions around interpretations of the results and possible solutions, some of which have been subsequently adopted by the Japanese government.

Perhaps you should consider taking the discussion of media culpability and Nuclear industry influence to a different thread (perhaps EM&J might be more appropriate).} I could probably word this bit a little better, but Meh.

 

[Trippy]

Fukushima Daiichi during the Tsunami.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

If only there were a way to assemble cleaner elements for the process...

 

[ElectricFetus]

If only there were a way to assemble cleaner elements for the process...

what do you mean?

 

[adoucette]

Recall that according to your recent summary link above (Ariva) the major radiation release was via noble gasses.

That's not what the Ariva presentation said.
It said that around the plant that Noble gases were the main source of radioactivity (particularly Xenon 133 with a HL of 5 days making it pretty hot).

The same situation would not be true further away though since the noble gases don't fall out like Iodine and Cesium.

Because noble radioactive gases released from fuel
elements in a small amount are mainly short-lived,
delaying their release will allow radioactive decay
processes to greatly reduce the quantities finally released
to the environment. Two delay techniques are used for
this purpose: storage in special tanks or passage through
charcoal delay beds.
For decay storage, the noble gases and their carrier
gas are first pumped into gas tanks which are then
sealed. After a storage time between 30 and 60 days, the
content of the tanks is ventilated to the atmosphere
through a ventilation system.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull314/31404683742.pdf

Arthur

 

[Trippy]

Surely I can't be the only one that sees the Irony (and contradiction) here?

My post was not part of an exchange with you, as you can see by my omission of your handle and careful framing of generality, but with the people here who were attempting to focus on some minor irrationality of anti-nuclear "panic mongering" rather than the more important or at least relevant issues of the event, and the OP.

The real discussion on this thread, about the reality vs the media handling of Fukushima and its effects on the lessons learned, the future of nuclear power, the twin observations of false panic and false reassurances, etc., awaits attention.

So what you're telling me is that you're upset because I didn't answer a question that you claim was part of a post that wasn't directed at me?

 

[NietzscheHimself]

what do you mean?

Well we are clearly not at top capabilities for this whole fission process, using only one main element. It would clearly be beneficial to select one of each element and combine them into a whole the make a truly radiant object. Replace the uranium core with the object. Poof clean energy that won't explode or leave toxic waste all over the place.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Well we are clearly not at top capabilities for this whole fission process, using only one main element. It would clearly be beneficial to select one of each element and combine them into a whole the make a truly radiant object. Replace the uranium core with the object. Poof clean energy that won't explode or leave toxic waste all over the place.

yyeeeeaaaaah, that not really going to work, only a few elements are capable of self-sustaining fission. But we could use U233 instead of U235 or Pu239, it would produce far less Transuranium nuclear waste. we could breed U233 for Th232.

The problem though is not the fuel but the design of the reactors themselves, they are archaic and down right retarded compared to much more advance designs. Almost all nuclear reactors for power generation are Boiling water or pressurized water designs, so much can go wrong with a coolant that constantly on the verge of boiling away. Other designs like molten lead cooled, molten salt cooled/fueled, Helium cooled pebble bed, would have physical safety advantages that the conventional and archaic water cooled design could never have. The molten lead cooled for example would not need a pump for the primary stage (passive convection cooled) it would also not need cooling after shut down (the opposite in fact it needs to be kept molten!) the coolant is not under pressure and certainly not going to boil away, and if anything did somehow go horrible wrong the reactor could be allowed to freeze up, entrapping the reactor core under many meters of lead. None of the problems or radiation leaks at Fukushima now could have happened had it used molten lead cooled reactors, the worse that could have happened would be that the reactors were shut down and froze up and would take a lot of power to re-melt.

 

[iceaura]

My question wasn't really about Bill Nye, my point was about the forces that direct interviews and public meetings other than NP Execs and Media Execs - - - - -

Yes, we know. I've given up, as stated above.

This thread is titled 'Japanese N-Plant Explosion'.
This thread originally started off as a discussion of the current events.

Among the current events being discussed early on in the thread (before my appearance) - a topic encouraged by the OP author and several others - was the prevalence of panic mongering.

My observation was that false reassurance seemed to be playing its usual significant role in the creation of panic, as a side effect of the attempts to preemptively defend the nuclear power industry from the threat of a calm, sane, and rational account of the facts. (The problem being that among those facts are the extreme hazards posed by the uninformed and technologically immature deployment of hundreds of nuclear power plants world wide, and the large risk premium a sane accounting would assign them on top of their already very high costs.)

The examples of false reassurance (commission and omission) were several, among them the phrasing of media handouts from TEPCO, the appearance of comparisons with bananas etc, and the apparent pressure on media informants to present carefully scripted and irrelevant diversions,

bringing us to an otherwise puzzling waste of the time allotted for public discussion

of the actual possibilities and real fears, the large and regrettable diversion of resources amid disaster, and the overall price paid and to be paid by Japan for relying on these things for power.

Recall that according to your recent summary link above (Ariva) the major radiation release was via noble gasses.
”
That's not what the Ariva presentation said.

It said this:

Main contribution to the radioactive dose outside plant are the radioactive noble gasses

The conclusion that no harm came from them depends on the assumption - never measured - of dissipation and dispersion.

The problem though is not the fuel but the design of the reactors themselves, they are archaic and down right retarded compared to much more advance designs.

And they are sited on earthquake hazards, at the headwaters of major river systems, in tsunami zones, amid the world's most fertile farmland, next to big cities, in the military zones of our enemies with bad uses for radioactive stuff, etc.

And like the designs before them as well as those to come, they lacked provision for safe fuel acquisition and reasonable waste fuel disposal.

But the central problem in that is the complete lack credibility in the industry. They might have a safe design, with no fuel problems or waste problems or weapons problems or cost problems or the like even - but they don't know that for sure, and they can't be relied upon for any such assessment. We have to assume the visible risks are there, including the risks inherent in pollyanna expertise oblivious to their own lack of comprehension or prudence.

 

[Trippy]

Yes, we know. I've given up, as stated above.

And that was the sound of my point wooshing over your head.

Well done.

Among the current events being discussed early on in the thread (before my appearance) - a topic encouraged by the OP author and several others - was the prevalence of panic mongering.

This is pathetic at best, IIRC most of the posts you cited were on the 4th page of the discussion.

The OP said this:

An explosion at a nuclear power plant is thought to have exposed the core: http://goo.gl/fb/TpHUW The pressure at Fukushima plant has been rising in reactors 1 and 2. Tests around the site reveal high levels of radiation. The build up of steam in the cooling system thought responsible after power failiure. Further evacuations underway...

It was Electric Fetus on the second page that first questioned the role of radiophoobia in the media, but that discussion wasn't really picked up until the third or the fourth page.

I've skipped the rest of what you said, because it comes accross as paranoid bollocks.

 

[adoucette]

Main contribution to the radioactive dose outside plant are the radioactive noble gasses ”

The conclusion that no harm came from them depends on the assumption - never measured - of dissipation and dispersion.

That's not what that means though. In this case, "outside plant" means to the workers at the plant site, not that most of the radiation being released is in the form of Noble gases. The issue at the plant site is not the same as other locations because of the very short half lives of some of the gases released which is what makes the radiation hazard in the IMMEDIATE vicinity different than just a few miles away.

If you have actual data to suggest that most of the radiation being released is from noble gases (with half lives long enough to get past the evacuation zone) then post it but according to everything I've read the majority of the radiation people are being exposed to is in the form of I-131 and Ce-137 (estimates put the total radiation release at Fukushima so far at a total 370,000 terrabecquerels, compared with 5.2 million terrabecquerels at Chernobyl).

According to IRSN estimates, the main radioactive elements released during various radioactive release periods between the 12 and 23 March would be:
• The noble gases are radioactive elements with a very low chemical reactivity, and they remain in the air without ground deposits. In particular xenon 133 which has a radioactive half-life of 5,3 days;
• Volatile elements, mainly of the radioactive isotopes of iodine, radioactive caesium, radioactive tellurium. These elements form fine suspended particles in the air (aerosols), which due to their weight will gradually end up falling on the ground when released in the air.

The available measurement results in the environment, coming from Japan, confirm the presence of mainly:
• Iodine 131 (8 days of radioactive half-life), iodine 132 (2,3 hours of radioactive half-life)
and of iodine 133 (20,8 hours of radioactive half-life);
• Tellurium 132 (3,2 days of radioactive half-life) the radioactive decrease produces iodine 132, as well as tellurium 129m (33,6 days of radioactive half-life) combined with tellurium 129 of a shorter period (1,16 hours);
• Caesium 137 (30 years of radioactive half-life) and of caesium 134 (2,1 years period).

http://www.irsn.fr/EN/news/Document...tric-consequences-radioactive-releases-EN.pdf

Note, no mention at all of radiation exposure from the Noble gases when they list the measurements from the environment (i.e. outside the 20 km area where they are measuring)

Arthur

 

[ElectricFetus]

And they are sited on earthquake hazards, at the headwaters of major river systems, in tsunami zones, amid the world's most fertile farmland, next to big cities, in the military zones of our enemies with bad uses for radioactive stuff, etc.

Again not a problem for a molten lead cooled reactor, being unpressurized it can withstand a far greater beating then a water cooled reactor and its would be very radiation leak proof: to have a radiation leak you would somehow need to remove all the lead!

And like the designs before them as well as those to come, they lacked provision for safe fuel acquisition and reasonable waste fuel disposal.

You really should read into these design: they aren't fueled like traditional reactors. They are fueled in factory, moved to a site, operate for a decade or so then are shut down and removed, sent back to the factory for refueling. Because the reactors are in the 25-100 MWe range and are molten lead cooled they are small enough to be carried on the back of a flat bed semi-truck! With centralized fueling this greatly reduces the chance of a fueling related accident as well as makes nefarious breeding of nuclear weapons grade material impossible.

But the central problem in that is the complete lack credibility in the industry. They might have a safe design, with no fuel problems or waste problems or weapons problems or cost problems or the like even - but they don't know that for sure,

There is decades of experience with the molten leads, they were used in soviet submarines, their only problem was freezing up.

And again the dangers of nuclear power a grossly exaggerated or at least view at with hypocritical hysteria. You don't give a shit about the hundreds of thousand that die a year from conventional pollution, if we had nuclear power instead the death-toll would be far lower even with the occasional meltdown.