View Full Version : State of nuclear reactors in Japan
I know some of you think that the U.S. media is making this a bigger problem than it is, but I don't think so.
I was listening to the head of the U.S. nuclear commission and a few scientists and they feel its getting close to Chernobyl. It was brought up that they wonder if the company that operates it has cut some corners and now is trying to minimize the problem. But seriously........dropping water from helicopters to cool the hot rods down???
One U.S. scientist said that he thought it was more of a problem of standards than not being able to believe what the Japanese government is saying. But why would their standards be lower than ours, when they are so prepared and careful with so many other things?
Another thing I heard is that yes, the surface air direction is important in determining drift, but there's the jet stream which can be going in a different direction.
I really feel for the citizens of that country. With earthquake and tsunami devastation, what you see is what you get. But with radiation.............
I also think it is likely to be a tremendous disaster. It sounds like scientists in both Europe and the U.S. are more concerned than those in Japan (or, at least, they are voicing more concern than those in Japan are, which may be the real difference, and may be due to cultural differences).
I just fired up one of my radiation counters, and I'm seeing 300 R/hour right here at my dining room table from the plume drifting over the Pacific. I'll probably be dead by dinner time.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_8bdYFKk3OW4/TYUvRKwhISI/AAAAAAAACZY/4borEi8P3bA/s800/%5BUNSET%5D.jpg
Oh, perhaps I *might* have bumped the "zero" knob.
In seriousness, this 1962-vintage CDV-715 won't detect anything that low level, it was meant for bombs going off nearby. More sensitive low-level instruments here are reading no deviation from the standard background levels, even though we have folks panicing about the danger here.
For those of us in the US, I don't think it's a big deal.
For people in Japan, it's a huge deal. Not only the radiation, but also the loss of power from losing those reactors.
flowerseverywhere
3-20-11, 10:48pm
For those of us in the US, I don't think it's a big deal.
For people in Japan, it's a huge deal. Not only the radiation, but also the loss of power from losing those reactors.
this has a potential to be a big deal here in North America for the following reasons.
1. a lot of our reactors are old. Old things (people, mechanical things) tend to break down. I believe the NRC will scrutinize our reactors closely and there is the potential to close some old ones down.
2. I believe it will be more difficult to build new reactors, due to safety concerns and public opinion.
3. We are not pushing conservation. Between the gulf oil spill and the current nuclear accident you would think every public official would be screaming from the rooftops "CONSERVE OUR VALUABLE RESOURCES"
I also think it is a really big deal, and it's not over yet. Hopefully it won't get worse, but it could be a potential problem for weeks or even months more. If it weren't for what's going on in Libya, it might still be the current major news story. As someone who lives on the west coast, I'm not especially worried however. We are too far away.
At Chernobyl there was an explosion in one of the reactors (no containment dome if I remember correctly) that launched plume(s) of radiation into the air that drifted great distances. The Japanese accident did not have the same kind of explosion, and released much less radiation. And the radiation that was released has apparently stayed closer to the earth compared to Chernobyl, hence less drift.
I do think what's happened in Japan should open further conversation about expanding nuclear power here. The rest of the world is in the process of building many more facilities (china is in the process of building 23), and there are more reactors in our US plans too.
3. We are not pushing conservation. Between the gulf oil spill and the current nuclear accident you would think every public official would be screaming from the rooftops "CONSERVE OUR VALUABLE RESOURCES"
That of course would be the logical thing to do, but the last time politicians urged us to conserve.... we did. And the economy really slowed down. We likely won't be encouraged to do that again, though many individuals conserve because it's the right thing to do.
I expect more nuclear reactors will be in our future. Our population increases every year, and our energy requirements do too. Sadly there are too many who don't have a clue what 'conserving' even means, or are unwilling to give up anything and think the solution should be more along the lines of 'drill baby drill'.
I expect as energy gets even more dear we will not only have more 'green' energy (solar, wind, geothermal), but also more coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy generation. And we also will end up drilling in more and more sensitive areas. I hope I am wrong.
ApatheticNoMore
3-21-11, 1:24am
Someone somewhere suggested that Japan would rebuild as an economy entirely powered by green energy. Oh that's such a beautiful dream. Japan has twice been screwed over by nuclear technology afterall, once in war and once in peace.
But I'm not sure if Japan has the resources (land for solar power, favorable places for windmills etc. etc.). I do think many places here DO.
I really don't just want no new nuclear plants here. I want the existing ones disabled. NOT IN MY BACK YARD ... because .... my backyard is a fricken fault line in case you haven't noticed!!! But that isn't realistically going to happen anytime soon, I know. I do hope they at least, look further into making the nuclear power plants more earthquake safe now! I hope they take all the info they got from Japan and use it on the nuclear plants here. Float a bond to pay for that if you want, state of CA, I'll vote for it.
Yes I understand the given trends of society point towards further use of nuclear power. Nuclear should be a last resort! Before or ahead of fossil fuels? Ugh ..... what a choice! The point is we aren't using the first resorts (maximizing green power plus conservation). The forces that push for more nuclear are powerful and generally get their way (like I said: large parts of the earth a fallout zone in 200 years because of nuclear plants in earthquake zones?), but they don't hold all the power. Some power still rests with the people collectively.
Anyone know of a good online source for radiation meters?
B
flowerseverywhere
3-21-11, 7:21am
Some power still rests with the people collectively.
We have the power to use less gas, to turn off our TV's etc but I don't see that happening, all we do is make and obtain more gadgets and drive more and waste more.
here is a map of current nuclear reactors in the US and their age
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/map-power-reactors.html
and the list of proposed reactors
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/new-reactor-map.html
and how much energy we use and where it comes from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States
"The vast majority of this energy is derived from fossil fuels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel): in 2005, it was estimated that 40% of the nation's energy came from petroleum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum), 23% from coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal), and 23% from natural gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas). Nuclear power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power) supplied 8.4% and renewable energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy) supplied 7.3%, which was mainly from hydroelectric dams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectric_dam) although other renewables are included such as wind power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power), geothermal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal) and solar energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#cite_note-3) Energy consumption has increased at a faster rate than energy production over the last fifty years in the U.S.(when they were roughly equal). This difference is now largely met through imports"
So it appears we have a problem here. We don't have the energy we need so we have to get it somehow. Our energy use has steadily increased in my lifetime. We have way more stuff plugged in, we drive much more, we use much more cooling in our homes and offices. No one wants nuclear reactors in their backyards. Many don't want hydrofracking with the danger of water contamination. Many people fight windmills (eyesore, noise, shadow flicker). coal is dangerous to extract and dirty to burn. Damming rivers for hydropower upsets the balance of nature and diverts needed water.
solutions anyone?
Anyone know of a good online source for radiation meters?
B
There are several reputable folks selling serviced, tested, and calibrated surplus US Civil Defense instruments. I do not recommend going this route - the instruments, like the one I pictured above, are great pieces of Cold War history, but are well past their service life - components in them are at the point where capacitors are drying out and failing, and so on.
I'd get a new production or lightly-used instrument from Ludlums (www.Ludlums.com) instead. They may at this point be backordered a bit, but you can usually find newish ones on EBay, and they can be easily serviced and calibrated by the factory.
Make sure you select the right sort of instrument for your concerns. The one I pictured above actually works fine and is calibrated, but it is useless for detecting the type of contamination that would land here on the US West Coast from the current Japanese troubles, though it would be pretty handy on the reactor site.
Here is a perhaps-helpful chart:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/radiation.png
solutions anyone?
I'm sorry to say, on a societal level, I don't see long-term acceptable solutions. Years ago reducing population growth would have helped, but like energy conservation, too many either did not acknowledge any problem or would have had their objections. They still do.
What I do see is individuals learning to survive happily on less themselves. That includes producing more of their own food and learning to enjoy a life where the pleasures are simple - like what many of us are attemping to do here. Eventually the energy s*** will hit the fan (initially with ever increasing high costs), and those who only know a life of energy extravagance will... well, I'm not sure, but it may not be pretty. As an example, can you imagine the superficial Kardasians of the world being happy living with less? They would have no clue waht just happened, or what to do about it.
So be ready for more dangerous, environmentally unfriendly energy solutions with more and more people willing to accept them instead of giving up their blow driers, extra beer fridge, garage door openers, 30 minute showers, and so on.
flowerseverywhere
3-21-11, 3:22pm
Bae, your chart is excellent as long as you heed the disclaimer on the bottom "I'm sure I've added in a lot of mistakes; it's for general education only. If you're basing radiation safety procedures on and internet PNG image and things go wrong, you have no one to blame but yourself"
Overall, though it helps to put things in perspective. However, I still would not want to live downwind of a reactor.
flowerseverywhere
3-21-11, 4:25pm
I was thinking of something else. They have been pouring water and dropping water on these fuel pools and reactors. Obviously the water can be contaminated and it has to go somewhere. My guess is it is running back into the water. So you get a little exposure from the food, the milk, and the Japanese depend on the ocean for a lot of their food. Overall not good.
Gina, I am also sorry to say it but I think you are right. I wish you weren't and people would change.
I'd get a new production or lightly-used instrument from Ludlums (www.Ludlums.com) instead. They may at this point be backordered a bit, but you can usually find newish ones on EBay, and they can be easily serviced and calibrated by the factory.
Make sure you select the right sort of instrument for your concerns. The one I pictured above actually works fine and is calibrated, but it is useless for detecting the type of contamination that would land here on the US West Coast from the current Japanese troubles, though it would be pretty handy on the reactor site.
Thanks for this Bae. I live in Japan and would like to check my spinach etc. Any idea if the Ludlum 2401-EC Pocket Survey Meter or 2401-EW would be suitable for that?
You'd be well served with the 2401-EW, it will work better than the EC for detecting low-level contamination, as it has a more versatile detector arrangement. If I were in the market for a compact, low-cost-ish unit, that's definitely the one I'd grab.
My super-cool Ludlum 3 and detectors were cleverly away for calibration when the earthquake struck, in preparation for some prospecting this summer. Who knew?
flowerseverywhere
3-28-11, 12:34am
so, is this a big deal or what? Every day I read the news reports and it doesn't look good. How do you think this will affect Japan and the rest of the world?
Some of the Republicans in congress want to eliminate the law that requires a reduction in the amount of electricity that lights use. They think the law required the use of CFLs. The law only required a certain percentage reduction in the amount of electricity lights use. I guess the first thing they should do is read the law they want to eliminate.
Conservation is the only way we can eliminate nuclear power. I have used CFLs for over 5 years I like them. Our living room is very dark day and night. Before CFLs I used 5 60 watt bulbs day and night in the living room. That is 300 watts. I now use 5 15 watt CFLs for a total of 75 watts so I am saving 225 watts. Why people don't want to save money while they save energy I do not understand.
Edited to add: The nuclear problem in Japan affected the recent elections in Germany. In a state that had elections this week the Green Party won the most votes. They did not get a majority but will form a coalition with the social Democrats and the head of the Green Part will probably be the head of the state. Angela Merkel has extended the time period for when nuclear plants were to be closed and the people did not like that. The Germans are very ant-nuclear. Merkel and her conservative party may have trouble staying in power because of their position on nuclear power.
Why people don't want to save money while they save energy I do not understand.
I've switched out almost all my incandecents for CFL's as well. It's really saved on electricity. As to why others don't/won't do the same, the reasons vary from legitimate to sheer stupidity. There are concerns about flourescents - some people can not tolerate the light they produce... some sort of epileptic reaction or something. And there is the disposal problem since they contain a minute amount of mercury. But places like Homedepot have places where you can dispose of them. Also CFL's do not burn as brightly in cold weather. If any of these reasons are a concern to you, there are more expensive LED lights that use very little energy and last an extremely long time.
As to the stupid reasons - some are politically motivated and simply will not do anything suggested or mandated by democrats (and vica-versa). Something like 70% of the energy used by incandecent bulbs is lost in heat. Someone said he liked how they helped heat his bathroom in winter. Egads. Another gal said she objected to the fraction of a second wait for them to turn on.
As to how long the nuclear disaster in Japan will be going on, there is no way to know - it could last for weeks more. If the action in Libya were not going on right now, it would be in the forefront of the news.
I'm curious where in the Constitution the Federal government is given the power to tell me what kind of light bulbs I use in my home, or how much power my lighting solutions use.
I'm curious where in the Constitution the Federal government is given the power to tell me what kind of light bulbs I use in my home, or how much power my lighting solutions use.
Like I just said: "As to the stupid reasons - some are politically motivated and simply will not do anything suggested or mandated by democrats (and vica-versa)."
:laff:
I hardly consider the Constitution, and the idea of the rule of law, "stupid".
By that logic, we should all be permitted to run leaded gas in our cars, use DDT in our gardens, and pour our used motor oil and other toxic fluids into our waterways. After all, it's our constitutional right, hm?
If not for wise government policy taken for the greater good on things like pollution and public health, most would be more than willing to poison neighbors near and far in order to have their conveniences. I applaud that there are a few who are not afraid to extend "greater good" policies to energy conservation now, before the tragedy of the commons utterly ruins the country that I love. Individually, in the U.S., many are so rabid about their "rights" that they no longer care what's good for the country as a whole, and I find that more than a bit sad.
That said, I have far more concern about fossil fuels than I do about nuclear power.
By that logic, we should all be permitted to run leaded gas in our cars, use DDT in our gardens, and pour our used motor oil and other toxic fluids into our waterways. After all, it's our constitutional right, hm?
Your analogies are flawed. They all involve actions by an individual that impose externalities upon others.
My choice of interior lighting does not necessarily do so. You could legitimately regulate the externalities from the production and disposal of the light bulbs, and those from the production of the power required, but specifying the type of bulb, and the number of bulbs you are allowed to use, is beyond the legitimate powers our Constitution grants to the Federal government.
My neighbor generates his power with microhydro and wind. What moral right do you claim that permits you to offer to use force against him to control his use of interior light bulbs? You have none. It is simple thuggery.
It may be a very good idea to use certain lighting, and to conserve power. But just because something is a good idea doesn't necessarily mean you get to force people to do it.
I hardly consider the Constitution, and the idea of the rule of law, "stupid".
Oh please.
You know, I'm really tired of selfish people. There are a great many things that we do that are not in the constitution because things have simply changed over the centuries since it was written. We have had to adjust as we go. We don't speed or drive drunk. We don't urinate in public, we don't pour oil down the gutters, we no longer use certain pesticides, and so forth. Most of us are willing to cooperate because we want to live in a safe, civilized society.
This very thread is about a serious nuclear accident that is on-going. And more nuclear reactors being built is still on the table here in the US. Why? To produce more electricity because too many people are unwilling to do their part and conserve. It's not only about what's in the constitution, it's also about co-operating with our fellow citizens for the well-fare of our country during trying times. You know, 'America First' and all.
I find it odd that many of the same people (certainly not all) who are in a huff about not being able to continue using wasteful incandescent bulbs 'on principle' are the same people who had no problem with warrantless wiretaps, nor waterboarding other human beings. What a strange incongruity that is.
Continue to set up and attack your straw men, Gina. It only shows you have nothing but emotion on your side.
Advocating rule of law, and recognizing and agreeing with many of the intellectual and philosophical principles that led to the founding of our country, do not constitute selfishness.
I do not advocate for the use of force against others except in self-defense. As a logical result, I do not advocate for using force to tell my neighbor what kind of lightbulb he uses, or how many children he has, or what religion he follows, or how many square feet his house is, or how many cylinders his auto engine has, or if he eats meat, or a thousand other things, so long as he does not in his practices harm me or others.
I am not "in a huff about not being able to continue using wasteful incandescent bulbs". I'm in a huff because you and your kind wish to use force where there is no moral right or obligation to do so.
Your analogies are flawed. They all involve actions by an individual that impose externalities upon others.
I am stating that the misuse of the commons IS, in fact, imposing externalities on others. The burning of a billion tons of coal to power homes & businesses, the toxins generated by millions of automobiles without emissions standards or minimum mileage standards, the forced dependence on oppressive foreign regimes for our main energy source --- these are the new externalities. It's not as simple as it used to be.
I love living in a nation whose government sets basic standards for being a good citizen: Don't use these dangerous chemicals. Don't produce products that harm others or pollute the environment too much. Don't use incredibly wasteful and outdated technologies.
As for a "moral right" - I can't seem to stop smiling about that. No one's talking about taking your neighbor's lightbulbs away, only about controlling the efficiency of lightbulbs being manufactured and offered for sale. So my neighbor who wastes energy like it's a bottomless well has the "moral right" (along with his hundred million kindred) to force the nation into dependency and toxicity? So I can spend my tax dollars cleaning up superfund sites, risking radiation, and sending troops to the Middle East?
Externalities. Long tentacles on those externalities.
If I wanted absolute personal freedom, I'd buy an AK-47 and move to Somalia. But I love America with all my heart, and don't do well in the heat.
I am stating that the misuse of the commons IS, in fact, imposing externalities on others. The burning of a billion tons of coal to power homes & businesses, the toxins generated by millions of automobiles without emissions standards or minimum mileage standards, the forced dependence on oppressive foreign regimes for our main energy source --- these are the new externalities. It's not as simple as it used to be.
Then regulate those externalities.
If I wanted absolute personal freedom, I'd buy an AK-47 and move to Somalia. But I love America, and don't do well in the heat.
You "love America". But you clearly don't like the law our country is founded upon. Our Federal government has specific, limited powers granted to it by the people, and the states. The government must operate inside those powers. If you want the government to have more powers, you can modify the Constitution, the process is laid out quite simply in the document itself, and has been used many times.
Alas, there's the rub. Regulating these externalities would require incontrovertible proof that would satisfy both libertarian and liberal interests. Living in a world where climate change is still debated despite very clear evidence all around us, I'm sure you see the impossibility of this kind of consensus. Even if consensus were one day reached, it would be far too late to change course.
I respect your opinion, on this and on other matters, but disagree with you on what serves us best as a country. I favor a government that makes wise decisions, based in fact and approved by a majority vote in Congress, for a greater good. You favor a government that stays small and adheres absolutely to the tenets of a 200-year-old document regardless of the changes we see all around, for a DIFFERENT greater good.
She shrugs, and goes back to repotting her Black Krim tomato seedlings.
(p.s. sorry for the hijack)
The Declaration of Independence enshrines "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as unalienable rights. It's hard for me to reconcile this with totalitarian rule, and now that politicians--with the help of uber-rich contributors (see Citizens United)--can easily buy their way into office, the chance of us having a "wise government" dwindles by the day. Like Bae, I don't want the government micromanaging my life. Let it lead by example and re-earn some respect, and maybe its citizens will follow along.
ApatheticNoMore
3-30-11, 1:54pm
Not a fan if CFLs myself, though it's a guilty thing to admit.
Btw, I buy green power (so all the electricity I use goes to buy that much green power), live in a one bedroom apartment, I've compared my electricity use to others by asking others (renters mostly) about their bills (average joe's not greenies), my electricity use is much lower than the average joe's. I usually shut off things when not in use (when I fail to shut off the computer, I at least put it into sleep mode). Own the most basic cell phone because it needs less recharging. Buy energy star when I can (unfortunately smaller refrigerators don't come energy star, and I was NOT going to buy some giant refrigerator I couldn't transport just because it was energy star). Don't turn on the AC at the first sign of heat. Don't own any big screen t.v.s or anything. But it's never about the total energy use is it? It's all about the light bulb.
The government is not telling you what kind of lightbulb to buy ---it is setting minimum efficiency standards for manufactured light bulbs, just as it sets minimum mileage requirements for companies manufacturing automobiles, and mandates how much pollution they can belch out. There are many incandescent lightbulbs on the market today that meet the 2007 EISA standards already - you don't have to buy CFLs. The whole "light bulb police" thing is bullsh*t, a manufactured controversy, a scare tactic meant to get people's backs up who won't take time to verify the story being told to them. Do your research, read the bill, and decide for yourself before you let the screechers and chest beaters convince you of something that is patently untrue.
For me, it's enough to note that the "new" (albeit approved four years ago) efficiency standards are backed by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association themselves, who are stating that they will not only save the average American $100 to $200 per year and save the burning of a metric a**load of coal, but also CREATE jobs, contrary to what the senators from the great state of South Carolina would like you to believe.
Because it's more important for them to get you up in arms than it is to adhere to something as boring as the truth.
I see nothing at all wrong with a government that sets standards for minimum efficiency in manufactured products. Not a thing. To me, it means they have my back, and that's important to me (heaven knows it's rare)
"Not a fan if CFLs myself, though it's a guilty thing to admit.
Btw, I buy green power (so all the electricity I use goes to buy that much green power), live in a one bedroom apartment, I've compared my electricity use to others by asking others (renters mostly) about their bills (average joe's not greenies), my electricity use is much lower than the average joe's. I usually shut off things when not in use (when I fail to shut off the computer, I at least put it into sleep mode). Own the most basic cell phone because it needs less recharging. Buy energy star when I can (unfortunately smaller refrigerators don't come energy star, and I was NOT going to buy some giant refrigerator I couldn't transport just because it was energy star). Don't turn on the AC at the first sign of heat. Don't own any big screen t.v.s or anything. But it's never about the total energy use is it? It's all about the light bulb. "
Well put. The trick is getting people to think about the issue and conserve in ways that work best for them. And not "at the point of a gun."!pow!;)
You're not alone in disliking CFLs. I have a friend who's stocking up on incandescents. Maybe I'll buy her a case for Christmas. ;) Those pink ones put out a lovely, soft, flattering light. CFLs, not so much. (insert sickly green smiley here)
My super-cool Ludlum 3 and detectors were cleverly away for calibration when the earthquake struck, in preparation for some prospecting this summer. Who knew?
Radiation detected last night at my home!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJuLIJkoSJY
The goats milk this morning seemed fine though.
.
As to the stupid reasons - some are politically motivated and simply will not do anything suggested or mandated by democrats (and vica-versa).
It probably has much more to do with people not being willing to allow others to dictate their personal choices and Democrats just seem to have a penchant for that sort of thing.
It's interesting to me that so many people have forgotten what made America unique just a few hundred years ago. Our constitution was created for the express purpose of keeping government intervention out of our lives and homes, and yet so many of us seem completely willing to reverse that. Some even going so far to consider the constitution as a blueprint for what government can do rather than it's intended use of outlining what the government can't.
Sure, it makes sense for people to conserve resources and save money. I would think that most would gladly do so of their own accord. But what type of society will we live in when we allow an over-reaching government to dictate every aspect of our lives under the premise of "doing good"?
I would like to think that preserving individual liberties was a priority across the board rather than a partisan political issue, but a part of me honestly believes that there will always be a segment of our society that just doesn't get it. When we should be engaged in a united front to remind government of their limited powers, we all too often simply roll over and allow it to exercise more control over us. I'm afraid that once we get to the point of living in a totalitarian state it will be too late to reverse the tide.
For those who believe they know what's right for everyone else and feel the need to impose their will on them, I'm reminded of a C. S. Lewis quote (which applies to governments as well):
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Like the forced birth crowd, or Don Haase (R Alaska) who wants to criminalize extramarital sex. :sick: Busybodies abound.
That said, I'm often willing to be convinced. I don't mind using CFLs, and have pretty well completely switched over.
Bae, are you seeing meaningful amounts of radiation? (I know, define "meaningful...")
Like the forced birth crowd, or Don Haase (R Alaska) who wants to criminalize extramarital sex. :sick: Busybodies abound.
Forced birth? Since birth is the natural result of a pregnancy, are you implying that someone is forcing others to become pregnant?
I only ask because I'm always fascinated with the way people look at things.
Bae, are you seeing meaningful amounts of radiation? (I know, define "meaningful...")
Nope, just normal background levels. Rain, seawater, and goat milk samples show nothing on my gear, which is sensitive enough to detect anything of remote concern.
I could build you a spiffy reactor, though, if you sent me a few billion of those lantern mantles :-)
Nope, just normal background levels. Rain, seawater, and goat milk samples show nothing on my gear, which is sensitive enough to detect anything of remote concern.
I could build you a spiffy reactor, though, if you sent me a few billion of those lantern mantles :-)
I could probably run my house on solar, but it would require cutting a few trees and covering my garage with panels. Thanks for offering, though!
I could probably run my house on solar, but it would require cutting a few trees and covering my garage with panels. Thanks for offering, though!
Oh man, now my lunch is radioactive!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj-l7BAY1SY
For reference, that item is putting out, if my maths are close, ~3000x more radiation than the "contaminated" milk the local Washington state news is yammering on about.
So I made a smoothie. With milk.
Yum.
Many have been positing lately that low-dose radiation is good for you. So rejoice!:idea:
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/dec/featradiation
flowerseverywhere
3-31-11, 11:50pm
I can't believe that this tragedy is funny to some. Many people will not be able to farm their lands, or return to their homes. If you had an infant within 50 miles how would you feel?
shame on you
I don't think the levels of radiation we're getting here--or are likely to get--are threatening. As always, I'm happy to be proven wrong.
Obviously, what happened in Japan is a staggering tragedy. Anyway, I thought the article was interesting. Pardon my irony.
Bananas are radioactive. They contain potassium.
People in my state, and my community, are in a tizzy because of fallout from the Japanese reactor troubles. addition has been detected in milk here, among other things. Members of my village's water system have been ringing my phone off the hook asking about the danger to the water system.
So, I'm sorry if the humorous comparison of the radiation emitted by a simple banana offends you, but it is meant to place the levels in context of what we are experiencing here, for those who panic at the word "radiation".
That is a properly-calibrated Ludlum Model 3 with a Ludlum 44-9 pancake probe that can detect very low levels of gamma, beta, and alpha radiation. The levels we are seeing here in the milk would be almost indistinguishable, unless you had a whole lot of milk and some serious spare time on your hands. And the radiation levels from the potassium in the milk itself would dwarf it.
If I had an infant within 50 miles, I'd make sure I had a meter like that and the knowledge to use it, or I'd move.
flowerseverywhere
4-1-11, 8:30am
Thank you for your explanation. Radiation is a very scary unknown, and sometimes a little knowledge is dangerous. While I don't see the need for someone to panic about the Japan radiation blowing all the way across the Pacific and making an impact on the US, there is indeed a huge impact. I read about one farmer whose family had been farming the same land for hundreds of years and now has no livelihood.
I think what has really bothered me is the lack of information by the government. Once they started pouring water on reactors did they really think the water wasn't going to leak back out into the ocean? And they just announced four of the reactors would be out of service. No kidding. I could have told you that the first day. Once you have cracks and explosions and are pumping seawater through the system basically they will never be used again.
We do need to have similar reactors reviewed in our country - can the containment buildings explode if they are vented? Can they withstand the natural disasters of their locations? Maybe worse case scenarios do happen.
One thing I do know is that if there is a problem with the reactors I live 20 miles from my plan has always been to get out if there was any significant problem. for that reason I don't let my gas tank get below one half, always have some cash and have water and a few things I need in my car. I won't sit around wondering if the government is going to tell me it's time. I don't trust any government that much.
Flowers - if I were in your situation, for me it wouldn't be so much that I distrusted the government to be honest. I would
be more concerned over my belief that, honest or not, they simply wouldn't know enough, soon enough, and be able to get the information out in a timely fashion. By the time they had things sorted out, it might be a bit late for those who live near.
I fear the Japanese folks running the show are still in reactive mode, and don't really have the whole picture yet.
I heard on the news this morning there's some kind of extra heavy-duty concrete pump heading to Japan from the SE United States. It sounds like there's a plan to entomb at least one of the reactors.
Some nuclear so called expert said 2 or 3 weeks ago entombing the reactor and pond was the only thing to do. It looks like he was wright and it has taken the Japanese leaders 3 weeks or more to come to the same conclusion.
flowerseverywhere
4-1-11, 1:08pm
Flowers - if I were in your situation, for me it wouldn't be so much that I distrusted the government to be honest. I would
be more concerned over my belief that, honest or not, they simply wouldn't know enough, soon enough, and be able to get the information out in a timely fashion. By the time they had things sorted out, it might be a bit late for those who live near.
I fear the Japanese folks running the show are still in reactive mode, and don't really have the whole picture yet.
When we made the decision to move here it was an educated risk. I fly in airplanes and drive cars too. I think that there are certain clues that would make me leave the area, though. Words like explosion, radioactive release, fire, white smoke, black smoke etc. all are phrases you do not want to hear when you are in an airplane, nuclear power plant, or submarine to name a few.
People here within 10 miles have iodide tablets, and when the school kids close to the plant go on a field trip they have a bag with a pill for each kid and a sharpie to put an x on their hand when they take the pill to keep track.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/oswego_county_has_a_plan_in_ca.html
Unfortunately there are many reactors in the US that are built on major faults or in major population centers with difficult evacuation. Not exactly good planning.
On the news this evening it was just announced that the nuclear crisis level is going to be increased from 5 to a 7 tomorrow - the same as Chernobyl.
ApatheticNoMore
4-12-11, 4:05am
Yep 7 is as high as it goes is my understanding and it's up there now.
By the way I find the whole iodide thing incredibly annoying, mostly because whenever I hear people talk about it, I can't help but think "everyone wants some magic pill to just make everything (including radioactive leaks) be ok, but IT IS DELUSIONAL!" Iodide really only protects the thyroid from thyroid cancer due to radiation, it doesn't protect the whole rest of the body from radiation induced cancers.
My position is akin to the slogan "peace is our only shelter", yes and not having nuclear power plants in earthquake prone areas is our only protection against this type of radioactive disaster! But since that is probably politically impossible, we must at least insist on seismic safety being studied and enforced for existing plants (this is not being done adequately now) and to try to prevent the construction of new ones, at least in earthquake prone areas. I mean, yea fine keep iodine in your first aid kit, it's probably wise, SOME of the deaths from a radiation leak will be prevented that way, but the real preventatives aren't on an individual level when so many of us are being exposed to collective danger. (Ironically there are all kinds of protests to harvesting wave power at San Onofre - but there's already a @%^# nuclear power plant there in fault country!!!! Which poses more danger, gee I wonder ...).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.