Yes, I see that. You trolls want me to find a cite to backup your claims. Very…interesting. Makes sense, since in general when you provide a cite it’s just ammunition against you and your position, so I can see why you’d be reluctant.
-XT
The same information appears in print and internet news sources. It’s almost like they got it from TEPCO.
There is a certain irony in the readings and measurements being released by TEPCO.
It doesn’t really mean anything if they can then change it to something else, then change it once more.
Outside agencies would both relieve the burden on the people trying to save the plant, and assure accurate information.
But of course those fuckers won’t allow anyone to take any measurements or samples.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/12/us-japan-fukushima-idUSTRE73B1RH20110412?pageNumber=2
previously i related the content of a tv report saying
i found something on the net which had the same subject matter.
which said
you say what i said (relating a tv report) and what i cited turned out to be something very different, i don’t see it that way, maybe that’s just me.
Thank you for the cite, johnpost. Appreciate it.
-XT
If ignorance were radiation, and you were the source, we’d have all violently bled out and puked ourselves to death by now.
20 mSv/yr is the current limit (averaged) for nuclear industry employees. That’s 20 mSv/yr, for five years. Go over 100mSv in five years, you’re out of job.
100 mSv per year is the threshold for definite increased cancer risk.
The Japanese plant workers are going into areas that are receiving 1,000 mSv per hour. Workers have been doing this for over a month now.
They rush these guys in, they work for 30, 40, 50 minutes or so, then rush out. They rest a bit, then go back in. 24 ours/day, 7 days/week, for over a month now.
The workers who received over 100 mSv? That was a one-time dose. They took they’re monitoring badges off. You think those workers are the only ones taking off their monitors? If your monitor receives 100 mSv - now 250 mSv - you’re out. No job for you. These workers make sure their monitors don’t get over 250 mSv in one dose. The workers themselves are plowing forward, fuck the dose.
In some areas they don’t have measurements because the monitors max out at 1,000 mSv. The plant frequently experiences radiation spikes that can easily go over 1,000 mSv/hr. In 15 minutes of that you get exposed to 250 mSv. At a “safe” industry approved level of 100 mSv per five years, you just got 12.5 years’ worth of cancer-causing radiation in 15 minutes.
1,000 mSv single dose gets you radiation sickness.
5,000 mSv single dose kills half those exposed within a month.
A 350 mSv lifetime dose around Chernobyl has rendered the evacuation zone uninhabitable. Still is, 25 years later.
If you’re working in areas that have radiation levels ranging from 400 mSv/hr, up to 1,000 mSv/hr, and areas that are off the scale, and by Tepco’s own admission they don’t even have the ability to know what the levels are in some areas, how long do you think it’s taking for individual workers to receive cumulative doses over 1,000 mSv? 5,000 mSv?
So far there have been 21 cases of “minor” radiation sickness among workers.
If their exposure has been 250 mSv or less per year, there could be no radiation sickness. None. But now we’re seeing radiation sickness.
These guys are getting cumulative doses that are ranging into the tens of thousands of mSv. At least.
Get your nuke-nut radiation denying head out your ass.
Nuclear deniers. It’s like arguing with religious nutjobs.
It never occurred to me until now that you might not know how to calculate risk. A one in 1200 year event when you have 440 nuclear power plants operating around the world, you will have an such an event, on average once every three years. http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm
That is utterly unacceptable. Even if we are extra careful and have only one a decade, which counting Idaho, Windscale, TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima, it is still unacceptable. I would think one Chernobyl size catastrophe every 250 years would be more than enough. But considering the number of power plants operating, we have been very fortunate so far that we have not had much worse disasters more frequently. Reviewing TMI post mortem, the only major disaster to happen in an open democracy before Fukushima we learned that it took decades for the truth to be reported not only because nobody knew, but because the operators had every motive to cover it up.
How much risk does an operator have the right to impose on the general populations? An interesting question that has historically been answered with: how much damage can they pay for? If I am a mine blaster and some kids make off with my charges, I should expect liability for this incident to be wrongful death suits and personal injury suits, potentially in the millions each. And as an ultra dangerous activity, my blasting doesn’t have a defense, I am liable for it regardless of whether I was negligent.
Moreover, my design for generating electricity will be measured on the basis of how dangerous it is compared to other forms of generating electricity. Not mining, mind you, as that is a separate activity. Coal and nuclear are going to cause the majority of pollution and cancers. This actually isn’t quite as bad in Japan where treatment for cancer is provided by the public. In this country the private causes the cancer and the individual has to pay for it. Since it is prohibitively expensive to prove the cause of virtually all cancers except asbestos cancers, this is just rich people taking the lives of the poor for profit.
And if you only look at the positives of nuclear power and ignore the negatives, then you must be selling investments in nuclear power. You know, if you only look at the negatives of wiping out the American Indians and stealing all their land, you miss the positives: we get the land and the mineral rights without having to share it with the Indians.
The positives of nuclear power are bonuses and profits for the operators and owners. The negatives are storing the waste for 10 25,000 year half lives, the radiation leaks and destruction of land destroyed during leaks and the meaningless lives of peasants. But those aren’t really negatives from the point of view of the operators and owners: operators get their bonuses and are long gone, owners get their dividends and are all gone and the fucking taxpayers are left with the storage and clean up costs. Sure, a really bad accident will wipe out all owner equity at the time it happens, but because of the corporate form, they can and will just walk away from clean up costs if the company is legitimately bankrupt.
Greater than nothing. And I have to ask you, you do understand that just because not everybody gets a deadly cancer immediately from non-ionizing radiation, that an average number will for any level of exposure. Some are more vulnerable than others. What I find disgustingly propagandistic about your posts is that you wave it away as if it didn’t matter that some people will with certainty get cancers from this, but a la Russian roulette, we don’t know which ones. And that hundreds of thousands have lost their homes forever. This GE plant disaster is losing homes on a Chernobyl scale.
Of course I know exactly how cancer forms! All 400 forms of it. I’ve been withholding from the human race this knowledge because humans are unworthy. On a more serious note, nobody knows exactly how cancer forms. It is thought to start when cells dividing don’t know when to stop dividing because of a error in the replication process. A process that has as one of it’s known causes ionizing radiation.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
20 mSv/yr is the current limit (averaged) for nuclear industry employees. That’s 20 mSv/yr, for five years. Go over 100mSv in five years, you’re out of job.
[/QUOTE]
Where do you get this stuff? The level for workers in emergency situations is 250 mSv/year, not 100 over 5 years. Last time I checked, this is an emergency situation.
Do you have a cite showing workers receiving 1000 mSv/hour? For how long were they exposed? How much of a radiation dose did they get? One would expect that if the workers are being regularly exposed on a daily basis to 1000 mSv/hour for a month that they would be dropping like flies…do you have any of that evidence stuff that this has happened?
Radiation exposure is cumulative. So…if they work for 30, 40 or 50 minutes taking 1000 mSv/hr on a regular basis they should be dying by now. Again…your evidence that this is happening?
Evidence?
That’s complete bs. According to this:
I think that this is technically wrong, but I’m not going to bother with a cite. My recollection is that 1000 mSv will cause minor radiation poisoning in some percentage of people exposed to it, and increases the probability of a fatal cancer within the lifetime of those so exposed. IOW, it’s not a sure thing…as most things having to do with radiation aren’t sure things, merely probabilities. Your statement about the 5000 mSv looks accurate, however…and add to that the probability of a fatal cancer in those who survive is much greater.
That was the exposure of civilians who were evacuated…few of who died. The typical exposure of workers at Chernobyl was 6000 mSv, according to this.
Evidence? I’ve only seen a few vague articles like this stating (with no details) similar things. Not that I’d be surprised, depending on your veiled ‘minor’ reference. The 3 workers who stepped in the radiated water probably had ‘minor’ cases of radiation sickness, but they were out of the hospital in days.
It’s cumulative.
They would be dead or dying if they received 10’s of thousands of mSv over such a short period. Do you have evidence of either major radiation sickness or mass die offs of workers at the plant?
You might want to back up your claims before making statements such as this. Or, since this is the Pit, you might not want to, and instead just yammer away. It’s entirely up to you.
-XT
Quit lying and making stuff up. The level for workers in Japan was just raised to 250 mSv/year. If you ever actually read anything about the Japan crisis instead of just gazing at disaster pictures you wouldn’t be making yourself look so ignorant right now.
typical of you. Ask for information you know neither the Japanese government nor Tepco will provide, and then claim “see, nothing happened! Go nukes y’all!”
If they’re working 30 minutes per hour then they’re not getting 1000 mSv/hr, dumbass. It’ll be 25 years before they admit to cumulative doses.
Of course you’re not.
Duh, you evacuate instead of staying, you don’t die. Neat how that works, huh? I wonder if Japan has tried evacuating anyone. They should probably think about it since,
Hey, you’re learning. Don’t worry, I don’t expect it to take.
Stay tuned. If two people had received a one time dose of 5,000 mSv on the first day, we might be seeing a death around now. So far as we know, that didn’t happen. Working for short periods in 1,000 mSv/hr conditions is going to eventually get you a whopping dose, but we aren’t going to see the results of that right away. When we do, I’m sure you’ll be nowhere to be seen.
Actually I would expect some new sort of reasoning to be invented. No matter what happens, nuclear power is safe.
And coal is dangerous. That’s the important thing.
From: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE72A0SS20110412?i=21
So yeah, 21 cases of radiation sickness, according to Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano.
How can people be coming down with radiation sickness when no one is being exposed to levels high enough to cause it? Must have been a bad banana, yo.
If you kiddies don’t learn anything else from the BP and TEPCO disasters ,you should know the companies will lie and cover up. The government will lie and cover up. Everything they say should be greeted with suspicion. When day one, you repeat what they say as if it is real, you lose credibility.
It happens every fucking time. Someday you may figure it out.
Once more, and with feeling: How about reading your own fucking cite:
Ah good, back to the same old strawman is it?
Try to get this concept. No-one is arguing that nuclear is safe. They are arguing that every form of huge scale power generation has a fair degree of risk, and nuclear seems to be safer so far than the alternatives, and that equation still holds even allowing for a huge rise in levels of fatalities in Japan.
You can keep repeating the same old crap in the hope that people will fall for it, and other people will keep pointing out that you’re lying.
Congratulations for that fucking insightful contribution. By this logic, just what form of power generation do you reckon we can use that is not run by either governments or companies?
Oh, and still waiting for you to square your “no radiation is ok. it disrupts your DNA” argument with the consideration that your own body is radioactive.
So far you’re arguing that companies, governments and your own body are all out to get us. I’m on the edge of the seat to find out just what it is you’re proposing as alternatives to this list.
Before you go lecturing someone on how to calculate risk, you might want to be sure of your own understanding. I know how to calculate risk. You, apparently, don’t.
If there is a 1 in 1200 chance per year of an earthquake and tsunami big enough to cause problems in a nuclear plant, then it doesn’t matter if there is one plant or one thousand plants - there’s still only one chance in 1200 per year that there will be an earthquake/Tsunami of the magnitude that did this damage.
Nuclear plants don’t attract earthquakes, you know. Whether you’ve got one or a thousand, that earthquake is either coming or it isn’t.
At no point did I say that every nuclear plant on the planet has a one in twelve hundred chance of melting down every year from random causes uncorrelated with other nuclear plants. Because that’s what would be required for your silly statistical analysis to hold.
The fault with your reasoning is that you think that the risk is of one major earthquake and nothing else to one nuclear plant. That is as mistaken. Of the nuclear disasters on record, only one of the dozens of disasters, the current one, was caused by an earthquake. The risk is of an unforeseen event or series of events causing the core to overheat and partially or fully melt down. In this case the unforeseen event was an earthquake and tsunami in Japan causing a nuclear reactor to meltdown. Or in this case, four reactors. Of course earthquakes in Japan followed by tsunamis are not really unforeseen and unplanned for. They are, but the budget only allows for preparedness up to a certain level, which was far below the level of the earthquake actually experienced and the tsunami actually experienced. Earthquakes along the rim of fire have been known since before this plant was planned to be up to 9.5 and tsunamis up to 125 feet. Nevertheless, emergency pumps and generators were not sufficiently fueled, being limited to 8 hours, etc. etc.
The risk is as it was at Chernobyl, TMI, Idaho, Windscale and now Fukushima of any series of events (not just earthquakes) leading to full or partial meltdown. Accordingly, the risk of one event per 1200 years must be multiplied by the number of reactors which is currently 440. 1200 years being taken from an earlier post by a pro nukie (I think it was you Sam) and 440 being the number of reactors. We can expect an event like these five once every 10 years with the current number of reactors. Double the reactors and it becomes every five years. Halve them, it becomes every 20.
So yes,
I never said that. Of course there are other risks. But the 1 in 1200 number specifically refers to the probability of an earthquake exceeding the design limits of the Japanese nuclear plants. Your attempt to use that number to show a ridiculously high failure rate for nuclear plants was simply wrong. If you want to evaluate the risk of any given plant, you have to look at the risk factors for that plant.
And no, we haven’t seen a ‘disaster’ every five years. Only two nuclear accidents so far qualify as ‘disasters’ - Chernobyl and now Japan. Japan’s nuclear disaster has to be taken in the context of the much bigger disaster that triggered it, and the scale of its damage has to be considered in comparison to the damage caused by the earthquake and tsnami.
You state there have been ‘dozens’ of disasters. Yet only one nuclear accident to date has resulted in actual fatalities due to radiation - Chernobyl. And that was a reactor that was stupidly built without a containment dome around the core. So your definition of ‘disaster’ is pretty weak.
In any event, you need to compare these ‘disasters’ to the accidents that befall other energy sources. Hydro has killed hundreds of thousands of people. So has coal. Oil spills have caused great environmental damage. This all sucks, but big energy sources carry big risk. That’s just the way it is.
OK Ann Colter, I see you are not posting with you real name. Yes, I saw you on TV explaining radiation is good for you. Can you imagine some silly people think radiation is bad.
Why are they having an evacuation zone? Apparently the radiation from the plant is nothing compared to the radioactive dynamo that your body is.
This might be contrary to your thinking, but i believe that governments should tell their citizens the truth so they can properly prepare themselves and make intelligent decisions about a crisis. I don’t think they should lie. What a concept.
I don’t think corporations should be allowed to lie to the public.
Coal companies lie and use political power to escape cleaning up their power generation plants. can you imagine I don’t think that should be allowed.
Corporate charters, early in America’s history, were easy to revoke. Corporations were judged by their impact on the country. The corporation could be killed when they went rogue. Lets go back to that. Corporations are driven by a prime directive now to increase profits at all cost. That is wrong. They should have a public responsibility and face judgment on how well or poorly they act in that regard.
Our system has gone wrong. The government does not answer to the people, it lies to them.