Making mountains out of meltdowns (in Japan)

tfdesign

If you want electricity, make it with your legs!

Has it ever occurred to you how you would mass-produce the dynamos and stand required to manufacture your leg-powered device? And what about a kidney dialysis machine? Do you expect patients to cycle for their lives?

You regressive middle-class 'environmentalists' do nothing but present the same old reactionary reasons without thinking of the huge implications lowering mass electricity consumption will mean to society.

How do you expect old people to stay warm during the winter without help? Give them an axe and a pile of wood? That's fine, but then we get back to the same old argument of CO2 emissions. So what, you're saying get on yer bike and pedal hard? Nope, I don't think so.

BTW, something worth a thought, and a bit OT, while we're on the subject of 'saving the planet', the recent outbreak of e-coli bacteria in Germany this week, the source of the infection came from organic cucumbers. 10 people have died already. If mass-production is such a bad idea, how come we've managed to feed the world with it, and safely for the past x amount of years without killing millions? And that count of 10, is still more than the amount of people killed so far from a nuclear power station in northern Japan!

watkins

The Japanese people are quite remarkable

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13597670

and this should not be forgotten.

The sums are quite simple. You just add up the number of kW-h needed to power the world's economy and the 'current' need for nuclear power becomes obvious. This could change with political will and a huge amount of investment, but not over night. It is my opinion that we are stuck with nuclear power for the next 30 to 40 years, but I hope I'm wrong.

So, where is all this money going to come from for new technologies? Not from Bahrain I fear. How wacko can you get!

http://www.skibahrain.com/

Regards,
Bob

tfdesign

@watkins said:

The Japanese people are quite remarkable

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13597670

and this should not be forgotten.

Utterly selfless .

.........While the selfish and bourgeois western 'elite' continue to look on, observe and pass judgement.......

tfdesign

I think the ski slope in Bahrain, although being totally self-indulgent (and why not?) is a great idea! Just because it's in the desert, does this mean it's bad? I think not. Anyway it would be hypocritical of the bourgeois west to criticise this complex when the UK. And other non-snowy countries also have their own indoor skiing facilities. There's a snowdome only 10 miles from here in Tamworth. We also passed another just outside Leeds yesterday.

I want MORE electricity!!

honoluludesktop

With the currently reported levels of radiation in the Nuclear Plant's water, how could they consider dumping it into the Ocean.

@unknownuser said:

TEPCO mulls release of decontaminated water

The Tokyo Electric Power Company is studying a plan to decontaminate seawater pooled at the Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant and discharge it into the sea.

TEPCO says about 3,000 cubic meters of radioactive seawater has been stagnant in the basement of the plant's reactor and turbine buildings since being hit by a tsunami following the March 11th earthquake.

The utility says the temperature in all 4 of the plant's reactors has fallen below 100 degrees Celsius, but cites the risk that stagnant seawater will corrode equipment.

TEPCO is considering a plan to decontaminate the water so that it meets national safety standards and then release it into the Pacific Ocean.

The utility says the concentration of radioactive cesium in the water is 30 times the permissible limit, but that it contains no other radioactive materials exceeding the safety limits.

In April, TEPCO drew strong criticism for discharging contaminated water with levels of radioactive iodine-131 about 100 times the limit from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

The utility will decide whether to discharge water from the Daini plant after consulting with local municipalities, people in the fishing industry, and the Fisheries Agency.

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency says that a full examination of the plan is necessary even if radioactivity is below the safety limit.

It added that the concerns of local municipalities and people in the fishing industry must be taken into account.

The Fisheries Agency says it cannot now authorize a discharge of seawater even if the level of contamination is under the limit.

The chief of a fishing cooperatives' association in Fukushima Prefecture expressed shock and bewilderment at the utility's plan.

Wednesday, June 08, 2011 19:55 +0900 (JST)

tfdesign

@honoluludesktop said:

With the currently reported levels of radiation in the Nuclear Plant's water, how could they consider dumping it into the Ocean.

Erm....because the level of danger from radiation is below safety levels? Come on Hono, stop playing up to the sensationalist game!

"The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency says that a full examination of the plan is necessary even if radioactivity is below the safety limit."

"The chief of a fishing cooperatives' association in Fukushima Prefecture expressed shock and bewilderment at the utility's plan."

Well they would say that wouldn't they? After all they are only fishermen and not nuclear scientists and are being being fed this sensationalist rubbish by NHK!

honoluludesktop

These are not my reports or measurements. Aren't the reported levels of radiation (per cubic centimeters) sufficient to cause illness, and death? Perhaps not in the case of Superman, and yourself.:) Where are you getting your measurements from? Besides NHK, here is another source. As I posted before, the NHK is Japan's Voice of America, unlikely to to make light of the problem. If anything, I expect them to down play the situation.

The reason I continue to post, is because it is no longer "front page news", but a serious issue that should not be swept under the carpet.

@unknownuser said:

High radioactivity levels at No.1 reactor

The operator of the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has reported high levels of radioactive substances in water that has accumulated in the basement of its Number 1 reactor.

Tokyo Electric Power Company says a water sample taken from the reactor building's basement on Friday contained 2.5 million becquerels of radioactive cesium-134 per cubic centimeter. It also detected 2.9 million becquerels of cesium-137 and 30,000 becquerels of iodine-131.

The levels are almost the same as those already measured in contaminated water in the basement of the Number 2 reactor's turbine building.

Water contaminated with highly radioactive substances has flooded the reactor building's basement, apparently after leaking from holes created in the reactor's pressure and containment vessels in the fuel meltdown.

Under the utility's plan to bring the plant under control, a circulatory cooling system is to be installed to decontaminate radioactive water and use it as a coolant.

TEPCO says it will examine ways to decontaminate the water, as its radiation levels are too high for workers to approach.

Monday, May 30, 2011 22:25 +0900 (JST)

tfdesign

@honoluludesktop said:

These are not my reports or measurements. Aren't the reported levels of radiation (per cubic centimeters) sufficient to cause illness, and death? Perhaps not in the case of Superman, and yourself.

Hooray! You've finally started to talk! There is life in this architect!

Well let's start by you telling me. I mean;

@unknownuser said:

High radioactivity levels at No.1 reactor

The operator of the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has reported high levels of radioactive substances in water that has accumulated in the basement of its Number 1 reactor.

Tokyo Electric Power Company says a water sample taken from the reactor building's basement on Friday contained 2.5 million becquerels of radioactive cesium-134 per cubic centimeter. It also detected 2.9 million becquerels of cesium-137 and 30,000 becquerels of iodine-131.

Let's start, by you giving us a detailed explanation with what exactly a becquerel is? And if we are counting millions of these things, why is no one worried? And why are older members of the community willing to get stuck in and help? Death? Death comes to us all. My very lovely friend Hannah has cancer. My brother has Alzheimer's. My sister in law recently died of multiple sclerosis. Fortunately my other parents in law's parents lived to 100 years and over!). Bottom line is, we all die. And if we do nothing about feeding ourselves, a lot more people will die, if we don't go forward and discover, and invest, and experiment.

@honoluludesktop said:

The reason I continue to post, is because it is no longer "front page news", but a serious issue that should not be swept under the carpet.

Serious issue? Really? And you don't think that finding and providing power to the whole world over the next 60 years or so is not a serious issue? Or perhaps you do? So explain to me how you intend to do that? We're all living a lot longer (isn't it great?!) We all need more food and more power. Wind? Solar?? Ever heard of "Entropy"? I don't think so. Fusion perhaps? But that technology is a long way off. So what are we to do in the meantime? Renewables? What renewables? Hydrogen producing algae? Sounds interesting? What about batteries that can grow themselves? Sounds great- but we're not going to get any of that technology if we simply worry then walk away from what we have now, will we?

honoluludesktop

Here and here are your conversion factors. 350 msv is considered serious. You are the engineer, prove to us that the radiation is insignificant. I just post the news. "2.5 million becquerels of radioactive cesium-134 per cubic centimeter."

honoluludesktop

Just do the math.

tfdesign

I'm an engineer, not a nuclear scientist.

But looking at the maths, a becquerel is a measurement of a minuscule amount (like pico or micro- in electronics)- probably completely invisible to the naked eye. Your "millions" is probably only the size of a grain of sand. Sure that grain would be highly toxic, but diluted over such a vast volume of liquid, the result would be insignificant.

Unless you know any different?

tfdesign

@honoluludesktop said:

Just do the math.

I was asking you what a becquerel was

tfdesign

And while you're at it, explain to me what a rem is?

Oh nevermind....

@unknownuser said:

An acute whole-body dose of under 50 rem is typically subclinical and will produce nothing other than blood changes. 50 to 200 rem may cause illness but will rarely be fatal. Doses of 200 to 1,000 rem will probably cause serious illness with poor outlook at the upper end of the range. Doses of more than 1,000 rems are almost invariably fatal.[2] See radiation poisoning for a more complete analysis of effects of various dosage levels.

A rem is a large dose of radiation, so the millirem (mrem), which is one thousandth of a rem, is often used for the dosages commonly encountered, such as the amount of radiation received from medical x-rays and background sources.

We've talking "millirems". Peanuts.

Now it's your turn (since you are so keen)...

@unknownuser said:

First, to calculate the Dose Conversion Factor (DCF) for I-131 in water, we take the definition of the 50 millirem limit in 730 liters (L) of water consumed by the reference man in one year to calculate the dose per liter:
  (50 millirem) / (730 L) = 0.06849 millirem/L
Next, we use the ALI-derived concentration limit for I-131 in water of 1E-6 uCi/milliliter given in table 2 to calculate the total DCF for I-131 in water:
  (0.06849 millirem/L)/(1E-6 uCi/mL * (1000 mL/1 L)) = 68.49 millirem/uCi.
The activity we report for water is in Becquerel/liter (Bq/L). The conversion between Bq and uCi is 1 uCi = 37,000 Bq. So the DCF in units of millirem/Bq is:
  (68.49 millirem/uCi) * (1 uCi/3.7E4 Bq) = 1.851E-3 millirem/Bq
If you are used to using Sieverts (Sv) instead of millirems, by using the conversion of 1 millirem = 10 microSieverts (uSv), we get the DCF in yet another set of units:
  (68.49 millirem/uCi) * (10 uSv/1 millirem) = 684.9 uSv/uCi

  (1.851E-3 millirem/Bq) * (10 uSv/1 millirem) = 1.851E-2 uSv/Bq
So depending on the dose units (uSv or millirems) and activity units (uCi or Becquerels) that you prefer, there are four ways of expressing the Dose Conversion Factor for I-131 in water:

...refer to the table which I can't copy in safari....

So there you go. A millirem is miniscule- just like I said. And when you do the maths, you get the same, but without knowing a huge amount about nuclear physics that's about as far as I can go (for now).

honoluludesktop

I posted the report (along with the info to do the math), and expressed my dismay. What are you doing?

tfdesign

@honoluludesktop said:

I posted the report (along with the info to do the math), and expressed my dismay. What are you doing?

Anyone can post a 'report'. Newspapers do it everyday, to sell papers and pay their staff.

Welcome to the real world.

honoluludesktop

As in the case of your absurd offer to swim in the ocean off the damaged nuclear reactors, your discussion rambles, skirts the discussion, and fails to address the factual issues.

Here, I'll help you, and give you a start, 2.5 million becquerels of radioactive cesium-134 per cubic centimeter is 2.5 billion becquerels per liter.

honoluludesktop

You have simply copied select portions of the links I've provided, but haven't done the math. Of course the indivual units of measurement are small. As far as I know 350 msv is enough to be taken seriously. The contamination by a single measure is " 2.5 million becquerels of radioactive cesium-134 per cubic centimeter." Enough to far exceed 350 msv.

honoluludesktop

@unknownuser said:

Plant decontamination not working

The Tokyo Electric Power Company is looking into why a system for decontaminating radioactive water at the Fukushima Daiichi plant is not working as expected, delaying resumption of the system's full-scale operation.

The firm on Wednesday published data showing the amount of radioactive materials that had been removed from contaminated water during a test run of the US-made system.

The data show that density of Cesium-13 and Cesium-137 dropped to only one-100th of initial levels.

An earlier test run using water with a lower density of radioactivity showed a drop to about one-1000th.

The utility had said the system would begin full-scale operation in a couple of days.

TEPCO on Tuesday began reducing the amount of cooling water injected into the plant's No. 1 to 3 reactors and is carefully monitoring changes in their temperatures.

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 21:13 +0900 (JST)

tfdesign

Well I got to give it to you lulu, you win first prize for being the single one man out of thousands on the SketchUcation forum who has truly made....

...A mountain out of a Meltdown!

meanwhile.......

@unknownuser said:

In the first major announcement on the future of nuclear in the UK since the Fukushima disaster in Japan, the Government outlined the locations deemed suitable for new power stations by 2025, all of which are adjacent to existing nuclear sites.
The eight sites are: Bradwell, Essex; Hartlepool; Heysham, Lancashire; Hinkley Point, Somerset; Oldbury, South Gloucestershire; Sellafield, Cumbria; Sizewell, Suffolk; and Wylfa, Anglesey.

The plans for new nuclear power plants are part of a series of national policy statements on energy which were published today, following a public consultation. They will be debated and voted on in Parliament, but ministers are hopeful that, with a pro-nuclear majority in the Commons, they will win the argument.

Wonderful news indeed. With the Italians and the Germans hoping to end their nuclear policies (while still remaining highly hypocritical because they intend to import power from nuclear powered France), this will give both Britain and France a clear lead in the European race for a safer, more efficient energy alternative to the dead end which are renewables.