![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Exactly. You won't see this much on the mainstream media.Stofsk wrote:Not really, there was an article in scientific american about this subject.Dalton wrote:I suspect that information is carefully concealed by the coal industry.General Zod wrote:I'm just not sure how much radiation people realistically expect to reach us. I mean you're probably soaking in tons of radiation if you live in the vicinity of a coal plant as it is and you don't hear about those people buying up iodide tablets by the dozens.
But on the other hand, who reads scientific american?
Towards the end of the video in your link, you can see someone struggling up and away from the deluge, but the NHK/CNN lower third graphic on the screen obscures what happened to him or her. It looks like it would have been possible for that person to escape, but I can't see if that was the case. Perhaps some of the people screaming are shouting at the person to run. I don't know Japanese, but it's obvious they see that individual. I hope that person made it.cosmicalstorm wrote:Another view of Minmisamriku, pretty sobering to look at. And at the beginning I think even a few sea birds were taken out by the wave as it rolled into the bay![]()
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=027_1300214407
*smack*CaptainChewbacca wrote:IodiDe and IodiNe are two different things. The tablets people are buying are the former, table salt contains the latter. Some people think eating kelp is a natural alternative because it contains iodine. I'm okay with them being too stupid to know its the wrong kind and possibly dying.
You still have the cool the spent fuel. An engineer over on ArsTechnica estimates some 6-8MW of heat input still.Simon_Jester wrote:So, what would be ways to quake-proof a spent fuel pond? Could you just keep a huge pile of neutron absorbent materials on hand to dump into the thing?
Just don't put it four stories in the air so its hard as hell to dump water into it. If this was ground level like the vast majority of spent fuel pools it'd be pretty to have a robot haul a hose to the edge and then dump in water constantly. Other then that it's a concrete tank, mounting on springs ect... would help but just building it damn strong with welded rebar is going to do a lot on its own. As it is we don't really know if anything was ever wrong with these fuel ponds except the loss of power to cooling pumps.Simon_Jester wrote:So, what would be ways to quake-proof a spent fuel pond? Could you just keep a huge pile of neutron absorbent materials on hand to dump into the thing?
That is indeed what they're shouting - "faster! Faster!" - "Just a bit farther!" - &c; though it's not clear to either myself or my mother whether he got away.FSTargetDrone wrote:Towards the end of the video in your link, you can see someone struggling up and away from the deluge, but the NHK/CNN lower third graphic on the screen obscures what happened to him or her. It looks like it would have been possible for that person to escape, but I can't see if that was the case. Perhaps some of the people screaming are shouting at the person to run. I don't know Japanese, but it's obvious they see that individual. I hope that person made it.cosmicalstorm wrote:Another view of Minmisamriku, pretty sobering to look at. And at the beginning I think even a few sea birds were taken out by the wave as it rolled into the bay![]()
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=027_1300214407
Yeah, the irrational fear and disinformation about the hazards of nuclear power is irritating: I'm in an area of Britain where we're building a load of nuclear reactors and lots of people in the public/media are suddenly getting jittery about that, even though the nuclear power stations in my area are very, very unlikely to be subjected to the same sort of once in a century natural disaster and not going to have the same structural/system faults that those very old reactors had, exacerbated by being operated by a corner cutting company.Gil Hamilton wrote:In general:
What's stupid about all of this is that people are treating "radiation" like it's magic voodoo that will getcha if there is a large concentration anywhere in the world. Iodide tablets aren't going to save a single person outside of Japan, because they'll never get an exposure to it, but they are rushing out to buy the stuff because they want a security blanket and to feel like they are being cautious. It's a clear case of uninformed people panicking.
Point. I'm just trying to think of something you could do as insurance against criticality incidents.phongn wrote:You still have the cool the spent fuel. An engineer over on ArsTechnica estimates some 6-8MW of heat input still.Simon_Jester wrote:So, what would be ways to quake-proof a spent fuel pond? Could you just keep a huge pile of neutron absorbent materials on hand to dump into the thing?
No. Chernobyl, which is still a far worse accident than Fukushima is and is likely to become, had little effect outside the USSR, and even then the radioactive exposure was mostly localized to the areas of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia closest to the reactor. I would not be surprised if detectable levels of radiation reached the West Coast, but "detectable" and "dangerous" levels are separated by many orders of magnitude. As others have said, there is no need to radiation proof your house, there is no need to go get KI tablets, there is no need to do anything as even the tiniest of precautions on the West Coast.AndroAsc wrote:So is the radiation fallout going to hit the US west coast with any level that poses a danger to us?
Are there any calculations to back up your claim? Normally, I would agree, but the Japanese have like tens of tons of spent fuel rods at the site of the nuclear reactor from the 20+ years that the reactor was in operation. How does this quantity compare to Chernobyl, they were operational for only 2 years right?starslayer wrote:No. Chernobyl, which is still a far worse accident than Fukushima is and is likely to become, had little effect outside the USSR, and even then the radioactive exposure was mostly localized to the areas of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia closest to the reactor. I would not be surprised if detectable levels of radiation reached the West Coast, but "detectable" and "dangerous" levels are separated by many orders of magnitude. As others have said, there is no need to radiation proof your house, there is no need to go get KI tablets, there is no need to do anything as even the tiniest of precautions on the West Coast.AndroAsc wrote:So is the radiation fallout going to hit the US west coast with any level that poses a danger to us?
Is there any evidence linking these two together, or for the figures? I must ask because so often do I hear things like this without any evidence.Thanas wrote:b) coal waste will not stay around for tens of thousands of years. Especially the german public is very concerned about the later fact, especially as it turned out that the energy industry colluded with the government to hide facts about the safety and security of the depots. Cancer rates in villages around them are three times higher than in other villages in Germany, but nobody warned the inhabitants of that risk.
Chernobyl had a giant steam explosion forcing huge amounts of shit into the jetstream, plus the graphite fire.AndroAsc wrote:Are there any calculations to back up your claim? Normally, I would agree, but the Japanese have like tens of tons of spent fuel rods at the site of the nuclear reactor from the 20+ years that the reactor was in operation. How does this quantity compare to Chernobyl, they were operational for only 2 years right?
I'm not sure anyone, anywhere has a really solid calculation on that. The real world is messy and complex, and there are a multitude of variables.AndroAsc wrote:Are there any calculations to back up your claim? Normally, I would agree, but the Japanese have like tens of tons of spent fuel rods at the site of the nuclear reactor from the 20+ years that the reactor was in operation. How does this quantity compare to Chernobyl, they were operational for only 2 years right?
Britain has already had two nuclear disasters, Chernobyl, which did irradiate parts of Wales that live stock raised there are not safe for human consumption, and in 1957, the Windscale fire, which was hushed up to a large degree when it occoured.Big Orange wrote: Yeah, the irrational fear and disinformation about the hazards of nuclear power is irritating: I'm in an area of Britain where we're building a load of nuclear reactors and lots of people in the public/media are suddenly getting jittery about that, even though the nuclear power stations in my area are very, very unlikely to be subjected to the same sort of once in a century natural disaster and not going to have the same structural/system faults that those very old reactors had, exacerbated by being operated by a corner cutting company.
Before I start, I'd just like to attach a disclaimer that I'm just a speculating layman.phongn wrote: You still have the cool the spent fuel. An engineer over on ArsTechnica estimates some 6-8MW of heat input still.