Arthur, two of the electricians were admitted to hospital with radiation burns. I don't believe you could reasonably ask more of them personally. That TEPCO execs didn't extend the line to the plant for best part of a week is short-sighted at best. Wiring up a powerstation, let alone a severely damaged one, is no simple job, and TEPCO should have anticipated that electrical power would be needed. I mean, what were they thinking? Did they honestly think things were under control? This is where the Japanese inability to "Think outside the box", to do things by the book, fall down. Tight structural heirachies exist in the workforce that seem to be a bit of a hinderance under the circumstances. I agree with you that the lack of forsight is hard to understand, but I can see why it happened. Perhaps the IAEA could have insisted on this plan some time ago.
Japanese N-Plant Explosion
- Thread starter ULTRA
- Start date
Also Arthur, re-reading posts from yesterday I notice I was a little harsh. In retrospect, you were right. Anybody still following this thread would be expected to have a working knowledge of radiological measurement by now. I'm not saying we shouldn't explain scientific data to laymen, but it is true that they could ask if they don't understand. I believe I owe you an apology for that.
Yeah, people were jumping on me thinking I meant the workers at the site weren't doing enough. My guess is they were working around the clock doing everything they could possibly do under harsh conditions.
(As to the workers, yeah apparently they stepped in contaminated water pooling in the basement of the Reactor 3 building that was over their boots and got Beta Burns. They'll be ok, but since they got a 170 mSev dose, neither will probably be back either)
My issue was with the Government and TEPCO not bringing in outside resources to help these people solve the issues. Like getting better intel via robots, like procurring an accurate water delivery system like that Concrete pumper truck (so as not to create dangerous puddles that got those workers), like stringing that line in to the site a few days faster, like getting replacement generators of the correct frequency, like ordering replacement pumps on day 1 and not waiting to find out if the ones on site might be damaged first, etc etc
I don't think Japan pays much attention to the IAEA, but more importantly I think that in Japan TEPCO has as much if not more clout than NISA (and the actual Government appears nearly useless). Not sure about the rest of the world, but in the US, that's not the same, the NRC has real clout compared to the many distributed power companies.
Thanks. No biggy.
Arthur
Last edited:
There is no science of evaluating the reliability - estimating the risk - of a particular science's conclusions in a particular situation.trippy said:
You'll have to find something else to guide your bets.
The overall goals of saving lives, etc, probably require that some priorities be set.adoucette said:
And there isn't much evidence that throwing more electricians a the problem would have helped much - if there's a bottleneck, that's just more people standing around. LIke digging a posthole.
Yes, there is. You just don't understand it.
You still think that if we design to a 1 in 10[sup]8[/sup] standard that a 1 in 10[sup]9[/sup] failure should not be considered inevitable.
No thanks - when was the last time you saw the headline 'Psychic wins lottery'?
A psychic would probably have less chance of a lottery win if thier choises aren't properly random! it's a con anyway, I got 4 numbers right and guessed the bonus-number, and won only £47. I don't play anymore!
A small fact which I'll throw in the air.
There are very few nuclear plants in the world.
Nuclear power plants are an important source of electrical energy. At the moment there are more than 400 nuclear power plants (NPP) all over the world, which produce about 17% of the world's electricity. The share can range from just few percent in some countries up and to 75 % as in France. The Krško Nuclear Power Plant produces almost 40% of the electrical energy in Slovenia.
from http://www.icjt.org/an/tech/jesvet/jesvet.htm
Personally, I didn't realise that there were so few of them.
Any ideas arise from this?
There are very few nuclear plants in the world.
Nuclear power plants are an important source of electrical energy. At the moment there are more than 400 nuclear power plants (NPP) all over the world, which produce about 17% of the world's electricity. The share can range from just few percent in some countries up and to 75 % as in France. The Krško Nuclear Power Plant produces almost 40% of the electrical energy in Slovenia.
from http://www.icjt.org/an/tech/jesvet/jesvet.htm
Personally, I didn't realise that there were so few of them.
Any ideas arise from this?
This is what I posted in another thread "The true face of US politics".
Earthquake of Japan (3/14/2011)
The March 11, 2011 earthquake in Japan was created by the Pentagon, I believe.
Artificial earthquake is a matured technique and had been used in my case several times. (see “503. Earthquake in Peru (8/18/07)”, “518. Earthquake after wildfire (11/3/07)”, “552. Setting off an earthquake is a mature technique (6/14/08)” )
This big earthquake damaged several nuclear power stations in Japan. Officials presumed that partial meltdowns had occurred at two crippled reactors and that they were facing serious cooling problems at three more.
I allege it is the continuation of the series “nuclear terror attack” plot started later last year. The purpose is to push up a panic in public to justify the war on Iran. Iran is accused of developing nuclear weapons by the US though Iran denies it.
There were at least three times later last year that the Feds intended to activate a “nuclear terror attack” in US.
1. Later October 2010, days before 11/2 mid-term election. The plot was signaled with “Yemen UPS parcel bombing” case.
2. Christmas holiday 2010. The plot was signaled by Wikileaks case. (Which was planned to control the Internet communication, to wipe out my year long revelation) Military conflict between North and South Korea and two big snow storms in London and New York. The cities were selected because people there mostly anti-war and demand 911 truth.
3. February 26, 2011. The plot was signaled with two unusual snow storms in San Francisco Bay area and New York on 2/25. (see all these plots from posts starting from #651)
A recent case exposed where the “nuclear bomb” or “dirty bomb” material of the coming “terror attack” comes from. That topic told you why US almost have a warfare with its ally – Pakistan.
Earthquake of Japan (3/14/2011)
The March 11, 2011 earthquake in Japan was created by the Pentagon, I believe.
Artificial earthquake is a matured technique and had been used in my case several times. (see “503. Earthquake in Peru (8/18/07)”, “518. Earthquake after wildfire (11/3/07)”, “552. Setting off an earthquake is a mature technique (6/14/08)” )
This big earthquake damaged several nuclear power stations in Japan. Officials presumed that partial meltdowns had occurred at two crippled reactors and that they were facing serious cooling problems at three more.
I allege it is the continuation of the series “nuclear terror attack” plot started later last year. The purpose is to push up a panic in public to justify the war on Iran. Iran is accused of developing nuclear weapons by the US though Iran denies it.
There were at least three times later last year that the Feds intended to activate a “nuclear terror attack” in US.
1. Later October 2010, days before 11/2 mid-term election. The plot was signaled with “Yemen UPS parcel bombing” case.
2. Christmas holiday 2010. The plot was signaled by Wikileaks case. (Which was planned to control the Internet communication, to wipe out my year long revelation) Military conflict between North and South Korea and two big snow storms in London and New York. The cities were selected because people there mostly anti-war and demand 911 truth.
3. February 26, 2011. The plot was signaled with two unusual snow storms in San Francisco Bay area and New York on 2/25. (see all these plots from posts starting from #651)
A recent case exposed where the “nuclear bomb” or “dirty bomb” material of the coming “terror attack” comes from. That topic told you why US almost have a warfare with its ally – Pakistan.
What a pile of Shite.
Radiation
Air samples collected at on-site monitors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant March 19-23 show that only iodine-131 was found to be in excess of Japanese government limits. Radiation dose rates measured on site March 21-23 have decreased from 193 millirem to 21 millirem per hour. Radiation dose rates at the plant's site boundary ranged from 1 millirem to 3 millirem per hour on Thursday.
http://nei.cachefly.net/newsandeven...anese-earthquake-and-reactors-in-that-region/
Air samples collected at on-site monitors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant March 19-23 show that only iodine-131 was found to be in excess of Japanese government limits. Radiation dose rates measured on site March 21-23 have decreased from 193 millirem to 21 millirem per hour. Radiation dose rates at the plant's site boundary ranged from 1 millirem to 3 millirem per hour on Thursday.
http://nei.cachefly.net/newsandeven...anese-earthquake-and-reactors-in-that-region/
No, there isn't. You don't even know what I'm talking about.trippy said:
This kind of obliviousness in the technocrats is what worries me. It's a common and central flaw of nuclear power - internet bushwa is one thing, but we can't let people who think like this design and site nuclear power plants without adult supervision. Including veto power.
What kind of foolishness does it take to site even one nuke over an active convergent plate boundary, on a low coastline, a couple of hundred miles from a whole string of recent mid-8 quakes, and not design it to handle a 9+ earthquake?
It takes expertise, is what. No one but an expert or someone hypnotized by expertise would overlook the current raw, immature state of that expertise, misuse the expert models, and mistake the conclusions drawn from those models for sufficiently reliable information about reality to set up six nuclear reactors in such a vulnerable and threatening situation.
Almost anyone else would know better.
And that same problem permeates the industry. The expert's best available evaluation is good enough to justify any risk necessary to anyone in the vicinity, regardless of the state and record of the expertise involved - it's not really possible to parody that kind of logic, but we see it in everything from waste pool density increases to cooling system backups to transport protocols. (The train moving dirty-bomb level waste through my town a few years ago did not tie the casks down on the flatbeds, because the max speed was too slow for even derailment to budge them and the theft risk was 0. Why the 0 theft risk, of these unsecured concrete casks from open flatbeds moving at a slow jog? Because they weighed 500 pounds and therefore could be moved only by heavy equipment, which was impossible because the train never stopped: thus spake the expert).
Meanwhile, as the radiation problem seems to be getting a bit more serious than anticipated by the earlier posters on this thread (the risk was serious all along, of course), and we see the Japanese government warning against letting very young children drink tap water in Tokyo, we might recall the sudden patchy spikes in infant mortality here and there down wind of Three Mile Island, spring of '79: IIRC something like a doubling of the rate, in Harrisburg, for that quarter of the year, and a net baby kill about 250 over baseline for the region/quarter. But it went back to normal by the same time next year.
Now don't come here into my thread and start posting your drivel here. Nobody is interested in your imbecelic idiocy. Piss off and post your guff somewhere else. We scientists are studying serious developments. You really should stop reading that bullshit before you start believing it.
ReutersBreakingNews
China says on Wednesday two Japanese travellers entering china found with radiation levels "seriously exceeding limits" China customs authority says the two Japanese travellers were on flight from Toyko to Wuxi in east China.
China says on Wednesday two Japanese travellers entering china found with radiation levels "seriously exceeding limits" China customs authority says the two Japanese travellers were on flight from Toyko to Wuxi in east China.
Yes, there is.
This is internet bushwa, along with much of what you've had to say.
There (was) no reason to believe it was neccessary - end of story. No amount of moaning or complaining will ever prove otherwise.
More bullshit.
I've worked out one of the things that's pissing me off most about this conversation. Your position is unscientific. It's unscientific because it's un refutable.
It doesn't matter what standard the reactors are designed to, you can simply point at any incident and say 'See, I told you so', no matter how improbable the incident may have been.
At this point, there is no reason to believe that the reactors were of unreasonable design and failed facing reaosnable circumstances versus being of reasonable design and facing unreasonable circumstances.
There is also nothing you have provided to suggest that (for example) if they had been designed to withstand a M9 earthquake with a 10m Tsunami that it would have made any difference to the outcome.
In short, you're full of hotair and bullshit, and I have seen no reason to accept anything you have to say on the matter, over that which, say, L. Ron Hubbard might have to say.
There was every reason to believe it was prudent - starting with the location and neighborhood history, continuing with the immaturity of the science available, then the obvious inadvisability of relying too much on that science's specific predictions or forecasts or any other inevitably and significantly uncertain output from it.trippy said:
The question of how much is too much being, as always, a matter of uncertain judgment involving many human as well as technical factors - including any history of arrogance and overconfidence in the field involved, and the size of the risk being run in human fact.
But these facts, of situation and history and circumstance and human foible and economic or political constraint and all the messy rest,
these huge piles of evidence and reasoning that dozens of competent and scientifically trained people have used for decades now to support their warnings and objections to things like the design and location of the Fukushima power complex
are apparently invisible to the immersed in technological specialty. This fact, undeniable evidence of which litters this thread, reduces the amount of confidence we can place in them and their assessments. What are we supposed to think, for example, when we are informed that tsunamis of great size can be produced by fairly moderate quakes - as an objection to our observation that 9-proofing the Fukushima plant was a good idea and well-indicated by obvious circumstances? (see above).
Actually, we only say "see, I told you so" if we did in fact tell you so, while pointing at directly relevant incidents, based on reasoning from evidence. That is because we are fact based and evidence based reasoners - you are the one speculating here, and rather wildly, about the "improbability" of this event (including as always the presumption of silliness and irrationality in people you disagree with - the ad hominem is never far from the techie's hand).trippy said:
Keep chanting that - works better with your fingers in your ears.trippy said:
(It's a false dichotomy, btw - if you actually care about such things. There are two other combinations, even accepting the frame)
The unreasonableness of the Fukushima design and location is a matter of common knowledge, an assessment based on perfectly solid evidence and sound reasoning, and has been for decades. We did, in fact, tell you so.
Last edited:
There has been more detailed investigation of radioactive releases to sea, after elevated readings were taken on 22 March. Levels of iodine-131 well beyond normal regulatory limits were found about 330 metres south of the discharge channel of Fukushima Daiichi units 1 to 4. Levels of Caesium-137 were also beyond limits.
North of the Daiichi plant the levels of iodine-131 were lower, but still far above limits. This was joined by caesium-137, caesium-134, tellurium-129 and tellurium-129m.
~ World nuclear news http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Exposures_and_progress_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_240311.html
This is the first I've heard of Te being emitted. It is a highly radioactive metaloid that is a beta emitter. It has a very short half-life of just 69.5 minutes and decays into Iodine129 which subsequently decays into Xenon129. Te forms many isotopes, some with amazingly long half-lives (128Te 8.6x10^8 years and 130Te 3x10^23 years!) This can only mean there is exposed nuclear fuel somewhere, whether it comes from the core(s) or damaged fuel-rods is not clear. Further clouds of steam and/or smoke have been seen eminating from the plant.
North of the Daiichi plant the levels of iodine-131 were lower, but still far above limits. This was joined by caesium-137, caesium-134, tellurium-129 and tellurium-129m.
~ World nuclear news http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Exposures_and_progress_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_240311.html
This is the first I've heard of Te being emitted. It is a highly radioactive metaloid that is a beta emitter. It has a very short half-life of just 69.5 minutes and decays into Iodine129 which subsequently decays into Xenon129. Te forms many isotopes, some with amazingly long half-lives (128Te 8.6x10^8 years and 130Te 3x10^23 years!) This can only mean there is exposed nuclear fuel somewhere, whether it comes from the core(s) or damaged fuel-rods is not clear. Further clouds of steam and/or smoke have been seen eminating from the plant.
Well well only I131, Cs134 and Cs137 were beyond limits. Also for good comparison the human body has ~0.12 Bq per ml of flesh (assuming 1 g/ml), and a Banana has ~1 bq/gram, using these figures the water around the plant are only 7 times more radioactive then a banana per mass.
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm
Any discussion of radiation exposure that begins by assuming approximately even distribution of plant emissions, thorough mixing into large volumes of air or water, widely distributed dispersions, etc, is fundamentally flawed and misleading in its indications of safety, guarantee of low exposure, minimal risk, etc.
A more reasonable, fact based presumption would be of short to moderate lived pockets or plumes of significant density, sufficient to produce in their penumbras the averages and post - mixing measurements actually made.
A more reasonable, fact based presumption would be of short to moderate lived pockets or plumes of significant density, sufficient to produce in their penumbras the averages and post - mixing measurements actually made.