16streets Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

16streets.com bringing you the report now for over a decade!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Is it really that big of deal?  (Read 7913 times)

brandonroland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3135
    • sevendaysoff.com
Re: Is it really that big of deal?
« Reply #15 on: March 30, 2011, 09:32:32 AM »

JT, exactly. they can shut down fission but the problem is the heat from the fuel. its not something they can just pour water on and the fuel stops burning. the HEAT is the entire issue. heat causes fire, fire causes explosion. you get a big enough explosion and expose all that fuel... bye bye japan.
Logged

jt

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11698
  • :-)
Re: Is it really that big of deal?
« Reply #16 on: March 30, 2011, 09:36:02 AM »

It makes me think about all the navy vessels powered by uranium and how vulnerable they potentially are.

Logged

brandonroland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3135
    • sevendaysoff.com
Re: Is it really that big of deal?
« Reply #17 on: March 30, 2011, 09:42:15 AM »

i agree. scary shit. the sad thing is they look at the ocean as a big toilet. just like they are saying now... "the ocean will dilute it", yeah it will. it will dillute it into itself..

and btw those iodine readings that were 100x larger than normal in the ocean outside the plant have been upgraded to 3000x above normal as of yesterday...

Quote
Monitoring data collected Tuesday afternoon detected the I-131 isotope at 3,355 times the normal level, according to Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. The sample was taken 330 meters (1,080 feet) away from one of the plant's discharge points, the agency said.

a lot of people dont understand that the water at the plant isnt suppose to be radioactive. it's a closed system that cools, then discharges into the ocean. this is really bad with the potential for global implications.
Logged

big rick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9761
  • I can surf, see?? like a kook www.rmdstudios.org
    • RM design studios coming to a recycle bin on your PC or Mac. I can't wait :D
Re: Is it really that big of deal?
« Reply #18 on: March 30, 2011, 10:56:45 AM »

you don't think japan is being irresponsible at all?
Dude are you serious???  Do you have any idea what that country is facing at the moment??

look, i completely understand that this is a VERY serious situation and it isn't a "cover that fire
with some dirt and pour water on it" type of thing. and i commend the people that are throwing
their lives into harms way by staying inside and making sure that this thing doesn't explode

what i think is that the country of japan shouldn't try to save this thing to be put back into production
IF thats what they are really trying to do.... which i hope they aren't
at least i don't think they are

i do understand that this thing will take a good amount of time to cool down and shut everything down
and basically "turn off" everything. THIS is what i am hoping that they do.

if their intentions are different than that, then yes, japan is being irresponsible.

i understand that there isn't anything that any of these people can do about earthquakes and tsunamis
that ruin their city... its devastating

you know what they can control? their impact on the environment.

japan and some of the surrounding asian countries have very little respect for the environment and the
negative impact that they have had on it in the past.

i only hope for the best when it comes to these people or anyone else that has to go through anything like this
Logged

9AMdp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5189
Re: Is it really that big of deal?
« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2011, 11:11:59 AM »

Sorry. Disagree.  
Chernobyl blew the roof off it's containment in 1986.
Radiation and isotopes of all types spewed everywhere across the globe and you lived through it.  
Death toll from Chernobyl:  64 so far and still monitoring.

Fukushima is an entirely different type of reactor.  Much more like 3 Mile Island;
meltdown rather than explosion.
Yep, it's leaking more than 131I but so did Chernobyl.  
Now those isotopes, and the ones from the 1950's nuc testing
are used as temporal geologic markers because, guess why,
they're there at thousands of times the background.  Worldwide.  

We intentionally detonated two fission bombs over Japan
and it wasn't "bye bye Japan".
This won't be either.  
Good grief.

I'm not trying to say there's anything good about a meltdown
but put it in perspective.  

And about using the ocean as a toilet, we'd do exactly the same thing
if Crystal River or Turkey Point were in the same shape.

Remember Deepwater Horizon?  Right.  
Logged

jt

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11698
  • :-)
Re: Is it really that big of deal?
« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2011, 11:46:46 AM »

Ironically.. My brother in law works at turkey point (and some of the other plants in the South east), he disposes reactor waste. He said stowing it is a relatively safe process. Its too bad hes not a member on here. I should call him.
Logged

jt

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11698
  • :-)
Re: Is it really that big of deal?
« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2011, 11:50:42 AM »

My original question was guided at US media outlets claiming there is a threat here already. It just sounded suspect to me. I am still concerned though no matter what. It sucks. I feel bad for those farmers and the people there that live off of the land.

Logged

brandonroland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3135
    • sevendaysoff.com
Re: Is it really that big of deal?
« Reply #22 on: March 30, 2011, 12:43:57 PM »

Sorry. Disagree.  
Chernobyl blew the roof off it's containment in 1986.
Radiation and isotopes of all types spewed everywhere across the globe and you lived through it.  
Death toll from Chernobyl:  64 so far and still monitoring.

Fukushima is an entirely different type of reactor.  Much more like 3 Mile Island;
meltdown rather than explosion.
Yep, it's leaking more than 131I but so did Chernobyl.  
Now those isotopes, and the ones from the 1950's nuc testing
are used as temporal geologic markers because, guess why,
they're there at thousands of times the background.  Worldwide.  

We intentionally detonated two fission bombs over Japan
and it wasn't "bye bye Japan".
This won't be either.  
Good grief.

I'm not trying to say there's anything good about a meltdown
but put it in perspective.  

And about using the ocean as a toilet, we'd do exactly the same thing
if Crystal River or Turkey Point were in the same shape.

Remember Deepwater Horizon?  Right.  


i disagree completely.

Death toll from Chernobyl:  64 so far and still monitoring. . absolutely, unequivocally wrong. thats direct deaths. what about thyroid cancer? what about genetic mutations? Do some research, as I have been forced to for school. The death toll as a result of the disaster is easily in the hundreds if not thousands. it doesnt matter what type of reactor it is if there's and nuclear fuel is exposed to the environment. The explosion only opens the gate. that is all. If the TEPCO situation gets so bad the site is abandoned and efforts are haulted there could easily be an explosion as big as that of Chernobyl. but once again, it doesnt matter how big the explosion is if it exposes the nuclear fuel.

I dont quite understand about what you're saying 'we'd do the exact same thing' in regards to the ocean. The system is CLOSED, its not suppose to dump iodine or anything else in the water, the core is leaking which is why isotopes are going into the ocean. They arent proposing dumping the hazardous water in the ocean at all. they're trying to find out how to store and purify it.

im not trying to pick a fight here but your assessment of going to the beach being as dangerous as the situation is japan is horribly misleading. but what do i know about nuclear radiation? I've only spent the last 3 years of my life completing pre-med for nuclear pharmacy.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2011, 12:51:05 PM by brandonroland »
Logged

brandonroland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3135
    • sevendaysoff.com
Re: Is it really that big of deal?
« Reply #23 on: March 30, 2011, 12:44:56 PM »

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/chernobyl-deaths-180406/

Quote
Our report involved 52 respected scientists and includesinformation never before published in English. It challenges the UN International Atomic Energy Agency Chernobyl Forum report, which predicted 4,000 additional deaths attributable to the accident as a gross simplification of the real breadth of human suffering.

The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000.

64 eh?
Logged

brandonroland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3135
    • sevendaysoff.com
Re: Is it really that big of deal?
« Reply #24 on: March 30, 2011, 01:37:52 PM »

here's some more data from a more credible and less bias source (WHO). when i researched this for a medical isotopes class I remember about 400 - 500 deaths as a result of chernobyl (not directly hit with radiation in the face). The greenpeace report is somewhat exaggerated but really who knows, the effects are long lasting.

Quote
Dozens of important findings are included in the massive report:

    * Approximately 1000 on-site reactor staff and emergency workers were heavily exposed to high-level radiation on the first day of the accident; among the more than 200 000 emergency and recovery operation workers exposed during the period from 1986-1987, an estimated 2200 radiation-caused deaths can be expected during their lifetime.
    * An estimated five million people currently live in areas of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine that are contaminated with radionuclides due to the accident; about 100 000 of them live in areas classified in the past by government authorities as areas of “strict control”. The existing “zoning” definitions need to be revisited and relaxed in light of the new findings.
    * About 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children and adolescents at the time of the accident, have resulted from the accident’s contamination and at least nine children died of thyroid cancer; however the survival rate among such cancer victims, judging from experience in Belarus, has been almost 99%.
Logged

9AMdp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5189
Re: Is it really that big of deal?
« Reply #25 on: March 30, 2011, 02:06:01 PM »

Again, not trying to minimize or start a fight.
Just doing some risk assessment.

You're right, 64 are direct radiation deaths.  Certainly more are "attributed" but as are
the 160,000 death annually in the US from lung cancer that are attributed to smoking.

OK - comparison to going to the beach:

Deaths in the US annually from skin cancer 1000 in 600 million population (rounding for easy math)  ;)
Deaths in Russia from Chernobyl ~2000 (from your figures) over 15 years (133 annually)  in 142 million.

Chances of dying of Skin cancer in the US: 1 in 600,000.
Chances of dying of Chernobyl cancer in Russia: 1 in a 1,000,000. 

Risk assessment.  They're in the same ballpark.
Logged

brandonroland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3135
    • sevendaysoff.com
Re: Is it really that big of deal?
« Reply #26 on: March 30, 2011, 02:14:34 PM »

i agree but smoking is a personal choice, as is going to the beach and not wearing sunscreen.

:) I've enjoyed our lively debate 9AM. Again, all in good nature.  :)
Logged

9AMdp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5189
Re: Is it really that big of deal?
« Reply #27 on: March 30, 2011, 02:21:16 PM »

Approaching a problem from two perspectives
allows each an opportunity to learn if they're willing.

We deserve a beer!

 grouphug
Logged

RoosterJaws

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9337
Re: Is it really that big of deal?
« Reply #28 on: March 30, 2011, 05:18:52 PM »

Who's buying  ;D
Logged

jt

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11698
  • :-)
Re: Is it really that big of deal?
« Reply #29 on: March 30, 2011, 09:02:13 PM »

Weeeeeee... lets all book a trip to Pripyat and ride around on bikes... everybody is doing it!  :ya-ok:
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up