It was very interesting to read the wikipedia page for INES. Turns out we never heard about the most serious incidents except Cernobyl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sca...
Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors
11–20 of 190 posts
Re: Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors
#12In theory we should be more worried about the ash radiation from our coal plants (which releases a lot more, in an unregulated manner, and makes me wonder sometimes if it's a trigger for the increase in cancer in industrialized nations).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radio...
it is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident
Re: Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors
#13i like it when scientists say "the situation is under control" after the roof was bombed off.
You should have read the article which explains why this explosion wasn't nearly as dangerous as it seemed to be.
Re: Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors
#14This is a very well-written article. In the end, the author provides a nice collection of links to usable resources.
If you want to stay informed, please forget the usual media outlets and consult the following websites:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_ear...
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/12/japan-nuclear-earthqua...
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/03/11/media-updates-on-nuclea...
Re: Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors
#15The writer is not an expert on earth quakes. Making such a bold claim that nothing can go wrong is plainly false. Just because they are an expert in one area, does not mean they are an expert in all areas.
There are already a number of people being treated for radiation poisoning. They have already admitted that there have been radiation releases above safe levels.
I feel sorry for the engineers working so hard to fix this, as they face the largest dangers. They are sacrificing a lot to save other people. As history tells us, in other nuclear disasters these are the first people to die from the affects. Some have already died.
A previous earthquake a few years ago caused an explosion in one of the reactors in Japan. I guess the costs and risks were weighed up - and the risks ignored. Previously the company CEO resigned because of falsified safety reports.
The costs of nuclear reactors - even if you don't factor in the costs of these disasters are higher now than other forms of cleaner energy generation. Let's use the smarter, more innovative, and safer energy solutions available today. Let's leave these 50's and 60's era shitty technology behind.
Re: Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors
#16It was very interesting to read the wikipedia page for INES. Turns out we never heard about the most serious incidents except Cernobyl http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sca...
Interesting also that in the INES pdf on that site, the requirement for INES4 is at least one death from radiation. Perhaps the declaration of INES level four was in error, or the requirement is not strict.
Another interesting link just found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accide...
Re: Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors
#17He says that even in the case of a total meltdown (which hopefully will not happen in Fukushima) we will be save because everything will be contained in the third containment. What I don't get is how cooling is supposed to happen in this case. I think they still would have to pump sea water into the containment which would then get contaminated not only by neutron activation but also with Uranium, Cesium, Iodine etc.…
You filter out the other elements, and release the water.
Water pretty much can't get radioactive. (For more than a few minutes.)
The longest radioactive oxygen you can make in a reactor has a half life of 26 seconds.
For hydrogen, deuterium is not radioactive, and tritium can't be made in a light water reactor.
So water effectively can't get radioactive.
Re: Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors
#18good comment from there: I wonder how the news that two reactors are in partial meltdown, six out of ten are without any cooling and in the japanese prefecture of Miyagi Sunday radiation levels 400 times above normal have been measured fit in your “analysis” that the situation is now under control. do people really need to jump to conclusions as the situation is still in development?
Logarithmic scales tho', innit. Is 400x actually significant? Remember at Three Mile Island everyone got a dose of radiation that you'd get going to the dentist, and that's considered to be a "disaster".
my guess:
400 times the daily dose is what you would get from natural radiation in a year. This amounts to about 2 milli Sievert depending on where you live. Articifial radiation of which 95% comes from medical scans is also about 2 mSv.
So the dose recieved is the same as the average person gets a year in medical scans. So those people in the area shouldn't have a scan next year.
The negative effects on health from these levels of radiation are in increased risk of cancer.
To suffer from direct radiation poisoning, the those would have to be many orders stronger. In Chernobyl, this happened to the firefighters on site without protective clothing and an exposed and active core.
All in all, the risks for the population so far a very minimal apart from the increased risk of cancer.
Re: Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors
#19At this point there are many things we don't know. We don't know for sure that the core is contained. Just because a sensor says it is, does not mean its correct. These plants sustained heavy damage. We cannot assume all sensors are working properly. Time will tell.
Re: Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors
#20Great article. This seems to be a great story in the media because "normal people" are not as pessimistic as engineers, and see an explosion at a nuclear reactor to be something that is extremely bad and that could be ending the world soon. After all, atomic bombs are nuclear, and those are bad, right? But in reality, while not great, failures are accounted for in the design of the reactor, and can be managed.
It's sort of like driving your car into a concrete wall on the freeway. There are buckets of sand there that dissipate the energy; they get destroyed, but you and the freeway survive. This is the purpose of those sand buckets, to blow up to prevent other things from blowing up. The outer containment building is similar; it blows up, but the environment and the reactor core are still both fine. It would be better if it didn't blow up, but it is manageable because the engineers designed for that contingency.
Good for selling newspapers, but won't be ending the world just yet.