Making mountains out of meltdowns (in Japan)
-
-
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/LNext, 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/BqIf 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/BqSo 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).
-
I posted the report (along with the info to do the math), and expressed my dismay. What are you doing?
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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 becquerelsof radioactive cesium-134 percubic centimeter." Enough to far exceed 350 msv. -
@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)
-
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.
Read more here;
-
Why exactly are renewables a dead end?
-
PS, there are still people here in Birmingham who think that perpetual motion is possible, if not fact.
It's very sad when you try to convince them that its never been done, and it defies all the laws of physics.
-
@unknownuser said:
but the UK
Seems UK and France has some oceans tide around and that is completely safe
All is just politic and profits ! -
There's nothing wrong with politics and profit, it's just our current capitalist system that is wrong.
We try to sell our democracy to the arabs- but what makes our democracy any better than theirs? What have we to offer that is so great? But that's another thread.
-
Wind needs particular areas to work, and wind also takes up masses of space, which is going to be needed if we are going to be feeding a generation of people who are living a lot longer.
Solar is highly inefficient. Between 10 to 20% efficient. The problem with solar is that you need light, an awful lot of it. The second problem you are faced with is that when the conductor heats up it becomes more inefficient.
Tidal and wave power? You must deal with the sea and the constant threat of salt in the water that takes a toll with the mechanisms used to create power.
All of the above 3 all need vast amounts of oil and coal to be burnt- economies of scale and all that. Each wind turbine is about the size of a car or even a coach. It's packed with copper wire that needs extruding. Miles and miles and miles of it. And then the wind will stop. Other obvious drawbacks include keeping the power high enough to travel over a long distance- its why power stations are so big- to provide the omph needed to keep the momentum up. Then there is entropy.
The best renewable is probably hydro-electric, which is fine in countries where there is a land mass big enough to cope with containing the amount of water needed (Africa, USA and Canada spring to mind), but the UK? Forget it. Even if you build a huge dam. Perhaps the Germans could dam the danube?
I reckon thorium is the best bet, at least until we master fusion. It's impossible to build a bomb out of thorium too, most people's biggest angst- well it was for me as a long life (edit; life long!) supporter of CND, until CND decided to wage war against nuclear power, which is ludicrous.
-
With that UK can make the 3/4 of its energy
-
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
but the UK
Seems UK and France has some oceans tide around and that is completely safe
Nothing is "completely safe". To even have that assumption demonstrates a certain high level of naivety. In the time it takes to produce all the materials used for the production of your 'renewables', many will die as a consequence of accidents in the workplace. I really don't get why you are making such a fuss about one (that so far has claimed so few lives when used for peaceful means), against another- which you almost insist to choose to be totally ignorant of.
I just don't get you Pilou.
-
@unknownuser said:
With that UK can make the 3/4 of its energy
Do you have any concept of how the sea works? Sea water and its corrosive power? Did you study physics at school?
How do you clean all the crustaceans off those immaculate looking turbines? The sea currents as well. Both of the propellors would have to stand immense pressures. The water there looks relatively calm, but what happens when the sea gets rough? It's a nice image, but you would constantly have to battle against the toll of the elements- including the salt!!!
-
@tfdesign said:
We try to sell our democracy to the arabs- but what makes our democracy any better than theirs? What have we to offer that is so great? But that's another thread.
Give me a real actual example of an Arab democratic state in the Middle East except Iraq? The only democracies in the Middle East are Israel and Iraq. I don't like this kind of relativistic talk, because you seem to equate military, theocratic dictatorships and monarchies with western democracy.
We offer freedom. Which should not be equated with happiness....but if people who now live in a society based on Sharia law, where women are sentenced to death or prison for the crime of being raped etc, won't be happier when they would be free then I think I may be part of another species.
I don't agree with imposing democracy by force. It undermines the idea the people have the power and seems very similar to what the communists were doing. Democracy should be encouraged in the people living in authoritarian countries through more or less peaceful means but not by conquest.
-
Ps Seems central Plant of Fort Calhoun have some problem with Missouri river
-
@tfdesign said:
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....
Thanks, it's not just another pretty face. If you did the calculations, you would find the contaminated water in the building is up to 43,000 mSv.
-
@honoluludesktop said:
Thanks, it's not just another a pretty face. If you did the calculations, you would find the contalinated water in the building is up to 43,000 MSV.
Ah nice to see that the architectural assistant turned nuclear scientist, is once again explaing through a series of pretty pictures and his vast experience of nuclear physics calculations the horror that is unfolding in Japan.
"MSV"? "Motor Sport Vehicle"? It may as well be! After all these posts you have continued the attempt to belittle me with your fancy numbers, without, anywhere even trying to explain, and without pointing to some external link, just exactly what these measurements are supposed to reveal or show! And you have the nerve to call me 'absurd'.
It's also quite enlightening as well as refreshing to see that you have completely forgotten about the other side to this story, the thousands of misplaced men, women and children who have either lost their lives or their homes through no fault of their own. Yet here you are again, boring the pants off me with your expert calculations, with not yet a single explanation!
Advertisement