“Radioactive chlorine has a half-life of 37 minutes”, which is why when it turns up in water leaking from a reactor (or fuel ponds), smart people get concerned.
Spent fuel rods or a reactor core that is shut down, neither should be producing short lived isotopes. This is science.
Now that the rabid moonbats will try to come up with ANYTHING to deny this is happening, that is a little scary.
Because they might be the ones in charge of the reactors right now. Insane people, who are refusing to use neutron detectors, or to publish real data, or let third parties analyze the radioactivity.
Because they don’t want it to be happening or something.
But yeah, the REAL danger here is the words on your screen. That’s certainly far more dangerous that the situation at the plant. That’s the thing that gets some people all riled up.
“HE POSTED SOME WORDS MAN! SOMEBODY HAS TO DO SOMETHING!”
Cause we all know, that unlike radioactive shit from a nuclear reactor, words can spread around the world and cause all kinds of damage to people, property and livestock.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
I guess radiation in the ocean doesn’t count. Yeah, that’s it. Let’s just ignore the radioactive material dumping into the ocean, then everything looks great.
[/QUOTE]
They aren’t dumping it into the ocean, it’s leaking into the ocean. And from what I’ve read, that’s probably the best place it could go, if it had to leak out anywhere. The ocean, in case you hadn’t noticed, is vast. Locally, stuff like shellfish might not be edible, as they will pick up concentrations far beyond the legal limits, but overall I don’t see it as a major issue right now.
From your own cite:
So…no health threat (unless you were to go fishing there and eat your catch).
Of course, if you drank one liter of the sea water they are actually talking about then getting double the annual dose of radiation for a typical person would be the least of your worries.
Actually, maybe smart people can tell me why here. I mean, sure, it’s a concern that this stuff is leaking from somewhere…but 37 minute half-life particles will rapidly decay, right? Yeah, it will be a very energetic…but only for a short while, right? Correct me if I’m wrong here, but doesn’t 37 minute half-life mean that after 37 minutes there are half the radioactive nuclei present? And after 37 more minutes half of that? And so on?
(Full disclosure: I did really poorly at chemistry in college. It was a required series of classes, but I barely squeaked by, and that by basically cramming for tests and then dumping everything I learned strictly for the test in an alcohol induced blow out shortly after)
Oh, I know he’s trolling, and fully appreciate he will ignore or deny anything presented to him. My only concern is that some passerby to this thread might see him make uncontested statetments and not realise that FXM is just making it up as he goes along.
The concern over isotopes with short half lives is not due to their health effects. It is that you shouldn’t be seeing short lived isotopes from a shut down reactor. It means there is a nuclear reaction still going on. Somewhere.
They don’t know where. This is bad news, because you don’t want nuclear reactions to be going on right now. We want all the fuel rods, be they in a reactor or in a cooling pond, we want them all nice and contained inside zirconium, with boron in between them. This is how you keep them from doing that reaction thing.
A nuclear reaction doesn’t just created radioactivity, it also creates more heat. Heat is bad at this point in time.
Heat can causes metal to melt, things to end up somewhere they should not be. It’s all very bad.
Especially since nobody can either look at it, or get a camera in to see what is going on.
They can get heat measurements, though…do you have any indications that the heat in any of the reactors is rising? According to what I read yesterday on the IAEA website the heat was stable and they were circulating fresh water into the reactors. And aren’t them mixing boron with the water they are pumping in?
That simply isn’t true. It’s possible that a nuclear fission reaction could be producing these, but the existence of these products it is not prima facie evidence that one is still taking place. As has been pointed out to you previously, the random fission products that were already produced by the reactor undergo their own decay, to produce these radioactive byproducts. Yes, it’s nuclear waste leaking out which is not good at all. But it is a different and less serious problem than the one that you are shrieking about.
If your words convince anyone that you’re even 1% right with your retarded misconceptions about nuclear power, you’ll have done more aggregate damage than the radioactive material release from the plants in Japan.
So that was the “extremely bad news” you alluded to 12 hours before this post? An unproven speculation about a lack of neutron detectors?
Or maybe it was the radiation in the ocean. What a surprise after waterbombing open fuel pools from helicopters and spraying tons of water onto them from truck-mounted firehoses too. Not great, but pop quiz: How many half-lives does it take to make the iodine 131 level 4096 times smaller? How about 16.7 million times smaller? With a half-life of 8 days, what are the corresponding time periods?
Nice cite, although a slightly biased source. Did you read it?
Right of the start of the Veress paper is the statement that TEPCO reported the observation of a “neutron beam” over “three days from March 13th”, presumably with those non-existent neutron detectors they are refusing to use. The paper concludes that transient criticalities have been occurring. Maybe that’s right, but I have a couple of problems with it:
If the transients occurred 13th-17th as reported by the evil information-concealing TEPCO, any chlorine 38 produced back then should ALSO have decayed to very low levels by now and so wouldn’t be detected
If transient criticalities were still occurring or had occurred more recently, they should have been detected by the non-existent neutron detectors TEPCO used before.
Veress seems to believe that fuel at a temperature of over 3120K can be in contact with liquid seawater in the reactor containments, which is physical nonsense at the pressures this would result in (page 8 of the paper.) This doesn’t affect the rest of his analysis, which I haven’t checked into yet, but it does make me raise an eyebrow.
The reports of chlorine 38 are interesting and I’ll definitely be watching that space, but so far I’m reserving judgement.
Note that the water level in the reactor core is listed as 1.5m below the top of the fuel rods. Don’t see how this can be if the pressure vessel has a hole in the bottom.
Now of course the ‘standards’ may be ‘too low’, and raising them is just prudent and good, because really, why would anyone care if they are drinking and eating radioactive shit from a nuclear reactor half way around the world?
And they raised them last time too, when Chernobyl was dumping pollution all over the fucking place, but, what else could they do?
You can’t just have people thinking that they are being poisoned by fall out. They might get angry.
Oh fucking hell, you see that? Now that is fear mongering. Taking readings, and publishing the results, and pointing out that radioactive shit is the rain. And now the water.
The only way to stop that shit is to make the safe level **18,100% higher.
**
Nobody is stopping you from saying anything. Of course you are trolling, but it was good enough to get a response. I usually just ignore obvious trolls, it bores them so bad they often leave in a huff.
But hey, the shit I just saw on TV, this shit is just starting to get rant worthy.