Yep. And remember, you are exposed to much more iodine-131 when you fly on an airplane than you get from leaking nuclear power reactors.
See? Don’t you feel better now?
Do you not understand the idea that ionizing radiation is all the same whatever its source, and that ionizing radiation from iodine-131 is no different than ionizing radiation from increased high-altitude exposure to cosmic rays?
About what? A semi-accurate news article that doesn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know?
Look, the Daiichi reactors were a 50s design that was overwhelmed by a century disaster. Hell, other nearby 60s reactors like Onagawa are in safe shutdown and had no issues whatsoever. So what’s the message here–we need to update old technology to slightly less old technology? Or is it something more retarded, like “the word ‘nuclear’ is SCARY. ‘isotope’ is another BIG SCARY WORD.”
If you can’t talk in terms of Sieverts and Becquerels then you are not imparting any useful information whatsoever, and that goes for any news article you link as well.
If you read the update I linked earlier: Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log
You’ll see that independent IAEA teams have found that there is very little public health issue except as noted in the immediate vicinity of the plants, where there is a moderate public health issue (hence the evacuations)–and when I say moderate, I mean the 30-40km band around the plants was measured at 17μSv/hr. (For reference, you accumulate 40μSv total flying from NYC to LA). There are three prefectures with small problems with green leafy vegetables, and no prefectures where milk has tested as above safe limits. The
… and then he woke up from his dream.
Well, you’d better start digging that lead-lined bunker then. Hope I don’t find it and put a single gram of plutonium near it.
Also for the record (And for the lurkers): The Sievert (the SI unit of radiation dosage) is normalized based on type of radiation–that is, it already accounts for gamma rays being relatively more harmful and weights them more heavily, AND it is specific to human dosages (And has factors for differential exposure to different body parts in terms of how sensitive to radiation poisoning they are). So when someone compares μSv from radioactive leaks to μSv to cosmic ray exposure on a long flight, those units are deliberately weighted to attempt to account for differences in the character of the radiation.
I seriously have trouble understanding what you are all about. Are you here to debate? Discuss? Rant? Share information? “Win” an argument?
Your posts in Great Debates before you were aware of the rules actually weren’t all that bad, as far as forum rules were concerned. Annoying as hell but you only got told to tone it down a bit, not an official mod warning. Just about everyone gets overheated and is told to cool it at some some point. It’s not a big deal - don’t worry about it. (Although I’d lay off that “calm down, nothing to see” crap outside the Pit if I were you.)
Occasionally you make a good point. You post 85 in this thread was spot-on, with a source, and could be the basis for several lines of discussion. Other times (often, unfortunately) you reveal an imperfect understanding of your own material. You might want to research plutonium toxicity, including the guy who offered to as much plutonium as Ralph Nader would eat caffeine after Ralph Nader claimed it was the deadliest substance on Earth. A claim that is sadly still repeated today. Please note that I am NOT saying plutonium contamination is trivial or nothing to worry about, just that OMG PLUTONIUM!!! isn’t exactly informative. http://atomicinsights.com/1995/05/how-deadly-plutonium.html
The post quoted above is another case in point. Three fission reactors were running a couple of weeks ago and water has been injected into cores containing damaged fuel rods, boiled to steam and vented. Of course there will be fission products in the water. All the isotopes undergoing radioactive decay are also undergoing nuclear reactions - that’s what alpha and beta decay are. Are you suggesting there’s still a fission chain reaction going on somewhere? Because that’s a huge claim and you’ll really need to substantiate it if you want anyone to give it any credibility. I’m not saying you’re wrong, only that you need a strong cite.
Oh - and a handy hint. Preview lets you see what’s been posted while you were writing your post. It’s a good idea to preview in any case, not that I follow my own advice that well…
Well, I will tell you that for some reason, some terrible software glitch, sometimes I hit preview and everything I wrote vanished. It also happens when I hit post. So many things I just say fuck it and never bother to try again.
No, there shouldn’t be fission by products in reactor water, nor should there be short lived isotopes from a reactor core that is shut down. Short lived isotopes is clear evidence of a nuclear reaction happening, and damaged fuel rods.
Shit, the whole point of sealing the fuel in zirconium cladding is to prevent nuclear material from getting into the fucking water. And to be able to control the fuel. You get fuel leaking it means serious problems.
You get short lived isotopes from either fuel rods in a pool, or from a reactor core that is supposed to be shut down, with boron control rods inserted, it means there is a nuclear reaction taking place somewhere, with fuel that is not sealed inside metal.
That means meltdown, the rods melted somewhere, and nuclear fuel is doing it’s neutron thing with out any control. It’s a very bad sign.
I mean they found isotopes in the leaking water that has a half life of minutes. That’s a big red flag.
It’s so fucking serious, I don’t even give a fuck what stupid shit somebody says on the news right now.
What a huge clusterfuck.
Free translation: “My shit is getting wrecked HARDCORE in this debate.”
Are you in a time warp? The fact the reactor cores were partially melted down has been known since Day Two. No one’s disputing that it’s bad. Just that it’s not some kind of amazingly deadly catastrophe. It’s much, much closer to Three Mile Island than it is to Chernobyl.
No its not.
Or at least its not a given.
If you knew as much about nuclear science as you think you did you would know that.
That’s simply not true.
Short pithy remarks don’t really count as rantings. Please try to be more emotional and outraged.
You’d be better off figuring out why what you said was WRONG rather than worrying about us.
I think it’s pretty clear that the zirconium cladding is ruptured or gone on most of the rods in reactors 1-3. Otherwise the iodine 131 showing up all over the place would have been contained.
You need to Google “decay chain”. Radioactive elements decay to form other radioactive elements, including short-lived ones. You also need to recognise that short-half life elements still take a while to disappear completely - decay is exponential.
Sure.
No it doesn’t, and that is massively unlikely.
Not if they were the decay products of something else. Iodine 134 for example is a decay product of tellurium 134, which is itself a decay product of antimony 135 or 136…
You clearly haven’t seen the breakdown of what they found in the water.
I have seen what was reported in your link to IB Times. I doubt it’s exhaustive since I see strontium 90 for example wasn’t reported as present, and that should also have been there if leaked from fuel rods.
I’m about 95% sure at this point that the OP is just having some fun trolling all of us with this stuff. He’s making bullshit up faster than people can even respond to it.
Dnfft
You don’t have a worse than. You have both. The impact is huge
. No a nuke plant core melt is not like a paint spill.
Your small potatoes will be radioactive.