- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I've seen that kind of religious fervour first-hand. It's absolutely terrifying, and virtually impossible to get through to them.
Major Earthquake & Tsunami in Japan
- Thread starter a6m5
- 1,128 comments
- 108,511 views
- 2,185
- Indianapolis
- GTP_ranhammerR34
- RadCoronet5651
Hey great blog SpeedySamurai!
Glad to see that you and the family are okay over there! 
--- Randy
- 21,190
- United States
- nk4e
rediation levels 23 times normal I was reading this from shoruyken.com
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
With an expolsion in a 3rd reactor, proper core beach and now radiation reaching serious levels and spreading to nearby villages there is no way this will stay rated as a number 4 on the nuclear accident event scale.
The longer this goes on the more it sounds like the power company is massively playing this down or all out lying, as I said before everytime they have said something is OK its ended up not true. China has now stopped flights going over the area for fear of spreading radioactive material.
Robin.
The longer this goes on the more it sounds like the power company is massively playing this down or all out lying, as I said before everytime they have said something is OK its ended up not true. China has now stopped flights going over the area for fear of spreading radioactive material.
Robin.
- 10,373
- Manchester
- Ardius_
I don't see how they lied. The radiation leak only happened after reactor 2's explosion yesterday. And they didn't deny the possibility. Before that, there was no leak.
Where is the lies and cover up?
And, more importantly, there is a very good reason to "play it down". To prevent panic.
Where is the lies and cover up?
And, more importantly, there is a very good reason to "play it down". To prevent panic.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Apparently radiation is dropping:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/japanquake/8224394/Radiation-level-falls-at-quake-hit-plant
It seems the initial spike was a result of the hydrogen explosion, and apparently the IAEA has said Fukushima won't be a "new Chernobyl". Though they do call it a six when the Japanese call it a four:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...a-crisis-rates-on-nuclear-disaster-scale.html
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/japanquake/8224394/Radiation-level-falls-at-quake-hit-plant
It seems the initial spike was a result of the hydrogen explosion, and apparently the IAEA has said Fukushima won't be a "new Chernobyl". Though they do call it a six when the Japanese call it a four:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...a-crisis-rates-on-nuclear-disaster-scale.html
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
The news is reporting that the radiation is coming from the third reactor explosion where there has been a slight core breach.
They first said they could reasonably cool them, then one blew its top, then the other was managable, that one blew up... they then said no radio active material was released, then we found out it had, no core breach, now theres a core breach! Just a string of misleading information.
The nuclear power companies in Japan have a record of cover ups, just have a look around the net and there have been many events where there was a cover up even at this very plant. Most pro nuclear countries also act like this.
Robin.
- 10,373
- Manchester
- Ardius_
Yes, the third explosion is at reactor #2, which was yesterday.
The only lie I see there is about "no radiation being released", which I would like to see a quote for. The rest isn't really lies or played down, the explosions, while worrying, were not immediately dangerous as long as they didn't damage the containment. Which is what we were told, this is not "playing down" but telling the truth - why make everyone worry when there might not be cause for worry?
Whether or not they were lying about being able to cool down the reactors I somewhat doubt they were.
I didn't hear them saying no core breach with regards to the third explosion, only them saying "there is a possibility which is being investigated".
Most of the confusion I've read is from the media reporting varying stories, from the dramatic Fox News to "played down" Japanese news.
The only lie I see there is about "no radiation being released", which I would like to see a quote for. The rest isn't really lies or played down, the explosions, while worrying, were not immediately dangerous as long as they didn't damage the containment. Which is what we were told, this is not "playing down" but telling the truth - why make everyone worry when there might not be cause for worry?
Whether or not they were lying about being able to cool down the reactors I somewhat doubt they were.
I didn't hear them saying no core breach with regards to the third explosion, only them saying "there is a possibility which is being investigated".
Most of the confusion I've read is from the media reporting varying stories, from the dramatic Fox News to "played down" Japanese news.
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
A few days back when the first reactor blew the government said it was only the containment shell and that no radioactive material had been released. This turned out to be a lie because the radiation levels rose in the area right after the incident. Thats the example I'm trying to explain.
I would rather be worried then be confused about whats going on. Sure you want to keep people calm but you also don't want them to die of posioning years down the line. In the link interludes posted its already considered the second worst nuclear accident in history and could rise as high as 6 on the scale. I would say people should be panicking.
Robin.
I would rather be worried then be confused about whats going on. Sure you want to keep people calm but you also don't want them to die of posioning years down the line. In the link interludes posted its already considered the second worst nuclear accident in history and could rise as high as 6 on the scale. I would say people should be panicking.
Robin.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Some of the news programs I've been watching have noted that this particular company has had transparency issues before.
I do hope, however, that this is as mild as they claim it to be... though it's a pretty sure thing that this plant is never going to reopen, again.
I do hope, however, that this is as mild as they claim it to be... though it's a pretty sure thing that this plant is never going to reopen, again.
- 525
- alexlmx6 & GTP_AlexL
- alexlmx6
- 10,269
- Bonn
- GTAce
Regarding the Geiger Counter I posted.
Yes, it's higher than normal, but still below the natural level my own hometown has, which means you don't have to worry about Tokyo, at least for now.
Yes, it's higher than normal, but still below the natural level my own hometown has, which means you don't have to worry about Tokyo, at least for now.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,384
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Speedy Samurai
Wow, first hand accounts always bring the story to life. We just get videos over here so we really have no clue what it was like. I've been in earthquakes before but they've been very minor. I think the last one to hit the Midwest was a 4.0...I can't even imagine a 9.0.
I am glad you are safe Syd, I was wondering were you were.
- 31,583
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
It's really going the wrong way with the nuclear powerplants, People have even started an exodus from Tokyo, I really hope the Japanese can tame this disaster, but the nuclear experts who where on tv for the last couple of days have their doubts about it.
- 8,718
No offence intended, but this is wrong.
It was clear from the footage that the explosions at number 1 and 3 were in the roof of the "cube" - I haven't seen footage of the explosion at number 2, or if I have, there's nothing to visually suggest an explosion. This might mean it was within some of the inner structure or was simply much smaller. At any rate, the reactor is supposed to still be intact.
The containment vessel of number 1 and 3 are fine, otherwise the radiation levels would be much higher and would have been sustained.
As already stated, the "radiation levels" went up because of the scattering of small amounts of fission products (notably N-16, Cs-137 and I-129) entrained in the vapour that was vented first from the core and then from the containment vessel in order to control their internal pressure.
Also, people should never panic - that's when mistakes are made.
Yes, this could potentially end badly, but that's why all the precautions have already been taken - the fact that these organisations have been less than forthcoming in the past has no bearing on their (sense of) obligation to do everything they can to prevent a disaster here. Please read the post from Dr. Oehmen for more in-depth information. It's been linked to three times already.
What is interesting is that "the water inside the waste fuel storage pool for the number 4 Fukushima reactor may be boiling." Not quite sure what any of that means. It's supposedly another "cooling failure" - again, it's unclear what that means.
- 10,269
- Bonn
- GTAce
Just heard that they measured a slightly higher radiation in Vladivostok (800 km away from the plant), nothing dangerous, but some particles were spread pretty far.
Oh and one good thing, they are shutting down the older plants here in Germany for now, let's hope they won't change that again.
EDIT: Looks like the fire in the fuel containment at #4 is out.
Oh and one good thing, they are shutting down the older plants here in Germany for now, let's hope they won't change that again.
EDIT: Looks like the fire in the fuel containment at #4 is out.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
BBC radio have reported what may be a 2nd containment breach at reactor #4, and fires among fuel rods stored in pools outside the reactor vessels. Apparently, there are several hundred thousand spent fuel rods laying about the plant in various pools of water, not protected by the reactor containment structure.
The Achilles heel of the whole nuclear industry has always been what to do with the waste. And now the problem has come home to roost. 40 years of collected and improperly stored fuel may catch fire at this one plant.
A more gruesome problem can scarcely be imagined, as it has little to do with the reactors themselves and the various mechanisms designed to prevent core meltdowns.
The Achilles heel of the whole nuclear industry has always been what to do with the waste. And now the problem has come home to roost. 40 years of collected and improperly stored fuel may catch fire at this one plant.
A more gruesome problem can scarcely be imagined, as it has little to do with the reactors themselves and the various mechanisms designed to prevent core meltdowns.
- 10,269
- Bonn
- GTAce
One of the resons why I hate nuclear energy.
Latest news I caught so far: US soldiers helped fighting the fire at Fukushima, the fire at #4 seems to be out, the radiation levels are falling and water is getting pumped in to #2, which should mean there was no full meltdown, but most likely a partial.
EDIT: France is rating the accident as INES-6.
Latest news I caught so far: US soldiers helped fighting the fire at Fukushima, the fire at #4 seems to be out, the radiation levels are falling and water is getting pumped in to #2, which should mean there was no full meltdown, but most likely a partial.
EDIT: France is rating the accident as INES-6.
Last edited:
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
No, radiation was released other than that which was released on purpose through the venting procedure. Just because there wasn't a hole in the containment vessel doesn't mean radiation didn't seep through its shell which was 1000 times above normal levels at that time.
Dotini
Yeah its quite dangerous that nearly all plants have giant cooling tanks full of spent fuel just housed in buildings no stronger than your local swimming complex! If one cracks and floods out you have a major nuclear leak.
- 7,837
- Leiria
- jpfctf
- jpfctf
Thanks for sharing that write-up. Definitely an interesting and different perspective.
The best of luck with everything and please keep us posted.
Brett
Premium
- 8,632
- Oklahoma
I have an issue with how information with regards to the nuclear power plants is being reported. Before I get panicky or distressed, I want to see some actual radiation level readings, instead of anecdotal evidence that the radiation levels are rising. The radiation levels could very well be rising, but the amount the levels are rising could still be well within commonly measured and accepted levels within the area or within the acceptable measured limits in an area that has a nuclear reactor experiencing serious issues. Reports about levels rising without any actual numbers behind them are useless, as there is absolutely no reference with which to compare "levels are rising".
Maybe it is the engineer in me, but I do not want dumbed down reporting of "the levels are rising". I want actual information with regards to measured amounts, what units of measure are being used, and maybe even some comparisons to other areas to frame what the radiation levels mean; I am more than intelligent enough to do the research into what is being presented or understanding the presentation of technical information. I find it insulting that actual information cannot be reported because many people are not willing to take a bit of time and do a bit of reading into the material presented. I would actually watch more news if it was informative with regards to technical information and a bit more in depth into the subject, instead of just a big headline that forgets to mention some very pertinent information about the story.
I am a big boy now and I can handle the scary, big meanie, technical information.
Maybe it is the engineer in me, but I do not want dumbed down reporting of "the levels are rising". I want actual information with regards to measured amounts, what units of measure are being used, and maybe even some comparisons to other areas to frame what the radiation levels mean; I am more than intelligent enough to do the research into what is being presented or understanding the presentation of technical information. I find it insulting that actual information cannot be reported because many people are not willing to take a bit of time and do a bit of reading into the material presented. I would actually watch more news if it was informative with regards to technical information and a bit more in depth into the subject, instead of just a big headline that forgets to mention some very pertinent information about the story.
I am a big boy now and I can handle the scary, big meanie, technical information.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Kyodo English language news service are reporting breaking news that crews at reactor #4 are unable to pour water on the fuel storage pool.
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/78123.html
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/78123.html
- 8,718
What "radiation"? They detected Caesium and Iodine which can only come from the core, indicating a vent from the core itself, which was inferred to mean that it was over-pressure - i.e. it was experiencing at least a partial melt-down (the first level of containment had partially failed, and the other two / three were intentionally, temporarily breached.) Don't forget they're using [WIKIPEDIA]sieverts[/WIKIPEDIA], which is an "equivalent" dosing scheme.
By the way, did you know that "normal levels" are approximately 20 - 100 times below the "natural" level every one of us experiences? And that, at the gates, it only occasionally broke legal limits? Doesn't that tell you that you don't really have anything to base these numbers on? Don't forget that those spikes occurred after venting and after the explosions, at all other times the levels were not much higher than normal. At least so far as has been reported.
Remember:
A hazard is a function of risk times exposure. In this case, risk is near certainty (venting), so it's the exposure that needs controlling. Hence the evacuation perimeter and irradiation screening and "treatment" (removal of clothes and scrubbing of skin etc.). The quantities involved mean that the dose is likely very small and dispersal only serves to diminish that dose.
How exactly are you privvy to such details of the construction of these storage pools? Who told you they are "no stronger than your local swimming pool"? The concrete structure is only there to keep the weather out, everything else is self-contained within that "cube".
Stop fabricating things, you're worse than the media.
@VashTheStampede: I totally agree with you. It is hard work at the moment, but the problem is radiation measurement (as it pertains to humans) is not absolute. These readings can easily be manipulated, too...
- 17,115
- United Kingdom
Hmm, looks like maybe we should start trying to find viable alternatives to nuclear power? (or at least start a thread so we an all argue about it!)
- 3,323
- GTP_Mark
- Mark T33
The only thing that needs to be re-considered is the construction of the nuclear plants themselves. Nuclear power is still a relatively safe and efficent way to produce electricity especially for a country like Japan which relies heavily on imported fossil fuels.
Brett
Premium
- 8,632
- Oklahoma
Your experiences with "ignoring" earthquakes are very similar to how I treat tornadoes in Oklahoma. Tornadoes are commonplace in Oklahoma and unless one of the nearest major street crossings is mentioned, I tend to continue on with whatever I was previously doing.
This earthquake was similar in scale to the enormity that was the May 3, 1999 tornado. By that I mean one of the most powerful recorded events of that disaster type. The May 3rd tornado has absolutely nothing in comparison to the destruction that the earthquake and resulting tsunami has caused and continue to cause, but the events and the reaction of both myself and the people in the area are somewhat similar.
Lastly, it is absolutely wonderful to hear that you are safe and are managing to somewhat cope in what I imagine is a very chaotic situation.
The biggest thing is, I need at least a bit of information to reference, not "the levels are rising". The levels are rising means absolutely nothing.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
I don't think nuclear power needs to be totally abandoned. However, we can learn some lessons.
#1 - Admiral Rickover pointed out long ago that reactors such as those found at Fukushima were originally designed for use in submarines, and are nowhere near heavy-duty enough to serve as stationary powerplants.
#2 - Clustered reactors are a mistake, as cascading problems can occur, leading to problems with plant personnel having too much to do under too dangerous conditions.
With regard to alternative energy, I think it should be illegal to burn liquid petroleum oil for heating and transportation purposes. The stuff is simply too precious for more important uses in pharmaceuticals, lubricants and plastics. Future generations will need petroleum for thousands of years to come. We're simply burning it up in a few short decades or at most centuries.
Greater use should be made of industrial hemp for a wide variety of purposes.
When the situation has become serious enough - and then some - people will act.
#1 - Admiral Rickover pointed out long ago that reactors such as those found at Fukushima were originally designed for use in submarines, and are nowhere near heavy-duty enough to serve as stationary powerplants.
#2 - Clustered reactors are a mistake, as cascading problems can occur, leading to problems with plant personnel having too much to do under too dangerous conditions.
With regard to alternative energy, I think it should be illegal to burn liquid petroleum oil for heating and transportation purposes. The stuff is simply too precious for more important uses in pharmaceuticals, lubricants and plastics. Future generations will need petroleum for thousands of years to come. We're simply burning it up in a few short decades or at most centuries.
Greater use should be made of industrial hemp for a wide variety of purposes.
When the situation has become serious enough - and then some - people will act.
- 86,906
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
There's several ways of measuring radiation - which compounds the problem.
There's the becquerel (Bq) which measures radioactive decay. How radioactive something is can be measured in becquerels. 1Bq = 1 nucleus decay per second.
There's the curie (Ci) which does the same thing but normalised to the radioactivity of 1 gram of Radium-226. 1 gram of Ra-226 undergoes 3.7 x 10^10 nucleus decays per second - so 1Ci = 37 GBq (Gigabecquerel).
Neither of these things tell you how much danger you're actually in - just how active a source is. More important is the gray (Gy) which measures the amount of radiation required to deposit 1 Joule of energy into 1kg of matter - the "absorbed dose". The gray doesn't account for types of radiation though - a 1Gy dose of alphas is far more damaging to you than 1Gy dose of X-Rays.
For that we have the sievert. The sievert measures the biological effect of radiation, though it uses the same dimensions - J/kg. The sievert is effectively the gray modified by a "relative biological effectiveness" factor depending on the type of radiation (and another depending on what bit of you is exposed).
A dose of 250 millisieverts in one hit is the start of radiation sickness - nausea and varying temporary soft-tissue damage (spleen, lymph nodes, bone marrow). Above 1 sievert is dangerous territory - you may not recover. Above 10 sieverts and you're dead.
For approximation:
1 chest X-Ray = 0.05 millisieverts
1 long-haul flight = 0.1 millisieverts
Cosmic radiation dose = 0.25 millisieverts per year
Average annual dose = 2 millisieverts per year
20-a-day cigarette habit = 10 millisieverts per year
Nuclear industry worker maximum permitted dose = 20 millisieverts per year (that's ten times normal)
Lowest detectable carcinogenic level = 100 millisieverts per year
Now, if they're talking about radiation levels being "ten times higher than normal", they could be counting anything. If they're talking counts per minute, it's largely an irrelevance (counts per minute is simply a detection rate of decays per minute - curie and becquerel). If they're talking in gray, that means there's more stuff around that heats stuff up but it's no help without saying what type it is - ten times as many betas is an irrelevance. If they're talking in sieverts - assuming the background locally to be the average 2mSv/year - then there's ten times as much damaging stuff around, but it's gone up from average background dose to the maximum a nuclear industry worker is permitted to receive (and it's worth a note that they are measured and we are not), or to a 40-a-day cigarette habit. It'd need to be another five times higher than that to be a detectable health risk.
That's just background, of course. The actual site has higher readings than that - I've seen 400mSv/hour quoted, which is pretty ropey. That could, however, be a number arrived at by multiplying "background" by "factor" - without understanding, as Griffith points out, that background on a nuclear power station site is many, many times lower than normal background levels. If you scoop up a handful of dirt outside a nuclear power station, walk onto the power station site and then try to leave, you will be stopped as you are now carrying low-level radioactive waste.
- 8,718
Pardon my asking, but I'm curious as to what you'd do with the information.
If you're hoping to be able to infer the level of damage at the site, I wouldn't bother. Several international expert institutions are now involved, so "secrecy" is almost assured.
A man on the telly just said that the readings coming from Tokyo at the moment (e.g. ~30 CPM), whilst elevated slightly, are still less than those normal, background readings typical in Cornwall, (in the South-West of England) by a factor of 5 - and considerably less than those typical of Tehran or parts of Afghanistan, as examples.
EDIT: Good post Famine. 👍
I still remember playing with a Geiger counter at school, damn thing wouldn't shut up...
Similar threads
