Japan Nuclear Crisis Danger to America?

[SuperKungFu]

First I would like to say that I don't really buy into the media hype about the nuclear radiation from the fukushima plant traveling all the way from Japan to America via wind currents and still be a great danger. Especially this chart:

 

0-50 rads - No obvious short-term effects

80-120 rads - You have a 10% chance of vomiting and experiencing nausia for a few days

130 -170 rads - You have a 25% chance of vomiting and contracting other symptoms

180-220 rads - You have a 50% chance of vomiting and having other severe physical effects

270-330 rads - 20% chance of death in 6 weeks, or you will recover in a few months.

400-500 rads - 50% chance of death

550-750 rads - Nausia within a few hours ; no survivors

> 1000 rads - immediate incapacitation and death within a week or less.

 

Because this would mean I'll have a 75% chance of death by next week :huh:

 

But I do know a lot of people are freakin out over the situation and running off to the local store to buy potassium iodide and I know a lot of crooks out there are selling fakes just to feed off of people's hysteria. I try to explain to them to stay calm but I don't really have a lot of knowledge over this situation to get my point across. So if anyone who actually knows a bit about nuclear power plants/fallout...etc, could you please chime in so I can tell others the same.

 

CNN isn't exactly helping people stay "calm" especially when they reported the USS Ronald Reagan got hit by a bunch of radiation, the Japanese embassy told US personals to stay 50 miles radius away from the plant, and radiation levels has been spiking up and down.

[GGTharos]

BS. I have no idea what sort of catasrophe would have to occur for that much radiation to spread around. Pure FUD.

 

The levels of radiation that are 'spiking up and down' are actually very low.

[egorter]

I concur CNN= Fear Mongering

[SuperKungFu]

BS. I have no idea what sort of catasrophe would have to occur for that much radiation to spread around. Pure FUD.

 

The levels of radiation that are 'spiking up and down' are actually very low.

 

Exactly, this would mean a HUGE catastrophe. 100x Chernobyl or something. Either that or they assume all 6 reactors blows up.

[Mugenjin]

That chart is just BS. It was for a 'what if' scenario which didn't happen. Besides the numbers were also vastly exaggerated.

[bumfire]

I think that image has been made just to scare americans into thinking that they are at risk of huge doses of radiation when its likely that if anything, the radiation will be very minimal if it reaches them at all.

[zakobi]

Afaik there haven't been any core leaks. Iirc it's only the outer building that have blown up due to gas ekspansion due to entered seawater heating up.

[winz]

Try to think about how Chernobyl affected your life in America.

 

And then a little comparation between Chernobyl and Fukushima.

 

The highest dose measured near the Fukushima plant was 400mSv/hour. The estaminate dose near the chernobyl plant after disaster was 300sv/hour (300 000mSv/hour).

 

Also, the cloud from Fukushima consist mostly of gases and not solid particles (that you can inhale, and they will stay in your system) lifted to the atmosphere by graphite fire as it was in chernobyl.

[Case]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/03/14/the-japanese-nuclear-reactor-overreaction/

[Pilotasso]

That cloud looks like to be 10 times greater than the Chernobyl one. Seriously, why would Fukushima be any bigger because of the absence of borders at sea?

 

Also there is not a tragedy without a lesson learned. Where others see apocalypse I see the chance for a nexus despite the sacrifices suffered now and in the near future.

[X-man]

I reckon you'll need quite sensitive detectors to pick up the fall-out on the US mainland ;)

[EtherealN]

One further thing to remember: people tend to get freaked out when they hear that instrument X found increased levels of radiation.

 

The newscast or paper article they saw didn't, as a rule, mention that the same instrument is sensitive enough to spike if you carry a banana in front of it. :D

 

A fine example of stuff like this was actually the Chernobyl disaster: some of the first hints of it in the west was when the radiation alarms went off at a swedish NPP. Thing was - the alarms went off for a worker heading IN to the plant, not heading out, and the levels were extremely small. That didn't stop even the police force from freaking out though, and to this day there's still people in sweden swearing that there were people who were caused to glow in the dark... It's just so rediculous I don't know whether to laugh or cry. :P

 

But on KungFu's question of how to explain it to people that are freaking out... Don't try. Really. In most cases those people don't have the faintest clue about what radiation actually is, so to calm them down you basically have to drag them through both high-school and a few courses of college physics before you can even hope that they'll get it. This isn't simple stuff, and unless you are a college professor you probably have better things to do with your time. (For family members it might be different, ofc, but I've given up there too. The R-word just carries so much fear that trying to use this weird thing called "facts" is just pointless.)

[SuperKungFu]

Yea I agree people are freaking out due to the news BS, and this in turns hurts our economy because I know some people who are stocking up on dry food because they fear the radiation would make grown crops uneatable over the next 6 months....jeez people need to chill out and the news is just adding fuel to fire.

[Case]

The R-word just carries so much fear that trying to use this weird thing called "facts" is just pointless.

 

Which is a pity, because nuclear power is as good as the only way to solve our energy problems.

[asparagin]

Which is a pity, because nuclear power is as good as the only way to solve our energy problems.

 

..until uranium runs out.

[Napa]

I don't know what's going on in US but in Europe people are actually pissed off about this nuclear event. In Germany there are a lot of protests that have resumed their actions following the events in Japan and Turkey wants to built a new Nuclear reactor south near the Med sea and some countries are already opposing this idea requesting a veto. Its all political though...

[bumfire]

Germany is taking this too far, they have shutdown 7 nuke plants, what for ?

 

Absolutely no need for it, its a knee jerk reaction which doesnt help anyone, well maybe help the Gov and Power companies get more money from the public due to higher power bills, and it gives the media more ammunition to start airing scare stories of how bad Nuclear Power is for the world and how germany has temporarily closed their stations because of it etc, when infact it is a highly safe industry with the few obvious exceptions.

 

What is happening in Japan is likely confined to the immediate area surrounding the plant and will probably remain like that, ok that's bad enough, but its not going to turn America or Europe into a irradiated wasteland and all this TV reports of people on the west coast of america buying up stocks of iodine is absolutely retarded.

 

I was reading on another website how some company boss in california tried to buy iodine tablets for his workers, when he couldnt get any because they had all been bought already, he went out and purchased bloody seaweed for everyone instead.

 

OMG its the end of the world, lets eat seaweed!!!

[sobek]

Germany is taking this too far, they have shutdown 7 nuke plants, what for ?

 

You may be missing that Germany recently prolonged the projected lifetime of some of its old NPPs, that, according to original plans, should have already been decomissioned. Given that some of the older plants have shown serious weaknesses, i can't object to the german government doing reinspections and possible upgrades. If this is the real deal or whether they are just trying to calm the public with this prostration remains to be seen.

[Kuky]

Guys, don't diss it just like that thinking everyone is now overreacting... just think how would you feel/act if nuclear plant in Germany had this sort of problem and keep in mind... everything is possible given circumstance. I like the idea that they want to at least temporary shut down older reactors and assess their safety and if needed they can make decision... thinking nothing will happen is really pretty naive as well as that's what most people think (all accidents etc happen to others, that can't happen to me) until/if that happens to them.

 

I am not saying nuclear power is not good at all... but there are consequences and downsides and shit does happen.

 

About the radiation reaching the US.. well that's possible too depending on the weather... naturally part of all the particles released will end up in air, then with rain wil go into water... it will reach the ground... but will spread... some particles going over the sea will be taken by the sea life and some will end up in human food chain... such is nature of things. But we can't forget that radiation is a natural thing anyway... why people think people get cancers when biologists and nuclear medicine knows radioactive materials attack human tissue and DNA and destroy it... and modify it... so if you have one particle it will do it's thing and nothing you can do about it... people do get sick and people HAVE TO die anyway so really every one's chance of dying one way or another is always 100%.

 

The thing I am shaking my head about is when I hear they designed the nuclear plant to withstand 8.2 or 8.3 strong earthquake... just why don't people design them to take the most extreme earthquake and have some buffer because let's face it... the moment when management thing start thinking cost it's about to get ugly sooner or later... again it's human nature.

 

Let me add also... about the Chernobyl... who's to say that some people who dies from cancer did not get it from this radiation? The thing is you can't prove it but I can believe that particles that came from that plant must have eventually ended up in humans and animals... even if radiation gets carried in the clouds and lands somewhere plants grow on that land... animals eat them and so on... get the drift?

Edited March 17, 2011 by Kuky

[topol-m]

The thing I am shaking my head about is when I hear they designed the nuclear plant to withstand 8.2 or 8.3 strong earthquake... just why don't people design them to take the most extreme earthquake and have some buffer because let's face it... the moment when management thing start thinking cost it's about to get ugly sooner or later... again it's human nature.

 

 

The Fukushima plant actually was damaged significantly not by the earthquake but by the tsunami. 10 m high tsunami? That enormous force! I can`t imagine how much money would a protection against such cost. Actually the safety systems form a big percent of the cost of the nuclear plant. And while they are numerous and against various threats there are some limits of how much money you should invest in safety systems in order to get cheaper energy. The budget when building one is not unlimited.

[X-man]

About the radiation reaching the US.. well that's possible too depending on the weather... naturally part of all the particles released will end up in air, then with rain wil go into water... it will reach the ground... but will spread... some particles going over the sea will be taken by the sea life and some will end up in human food chain... such is nature of things. But we can't forget that radiation is a natural thing anyway... why people think people get cancers when biologists and nuclear medicine knows radioactive materials attack human tissue and DNA and destroy it... and modify it... so if you have one particle it will do it's thing and nothing you can do about it... people do get sick and people HAVE TO die anyway so really every one's chance of dying one way or another is always 100%.

The thing is that the particles will have dispersed so much before they reach the US (mainland, not Hawaii and Alaska which are a bit closer) that you'll need a very sensitive detector to pick any of it up. The same goes for the fish, the amount of particles in a single fish will be very low (if any at all) and even if you get a few particles ingested, the dose will be very low. Add to this that the short-lived isotopes will be virtually gone in something like 50-80 days and your left isotopes with longer half-life. If you ingest these in a small amount, they will not do that much damage, as their activity is not that high. They will pass through your body with little effect.

 

Let me add also... about the Chernobyl... who's to say that some people who dies from cancer did not get it from this radiation? The thing is you can't prove it but I can believe that particles that came from that plant must have eventually ended up in humans and animals... even if radiation gets carried in the clouds and lands somewhere plants grow on that land... animals eat them and so on... get the drift?

There is no threshold dose for developing cancer from radiation, but the probability is considered to have a linear dependence of the dose. Therefore, depending on the radiation exposure, you can calculate how many cancers should have been created by the released radiation. Still, there's always a (very) small chance that you'll develope a cancer from any radiation exposure. The problem lies in all the other factors which humans are exposed to. Smoking, chemicals, background radiation, particles etc. Once the dose is under 100 mSv, it's virtually impossible to draw any conclusions.

 

To sum it up, the risk of cancer is a lot higher from other sources than from radiation exposure from nuclear fall-out or background radiation.

Edited March 17, 2011 by X-man

[X-man]

The R-word just carries so much fear that trying to use this weird thing called "facts" is just pointless.)

Indeed, radiation has a bad reputation :) Part of it, I think, lies in that it's invisible and the damage gets done before the symptoms arrives. Also, once exposed, there is little to be done in terms of treatment. More then 5 Sv and you're chances are low at surviving and for lower doses you have no idea whether you'll develop cancer or not. Also, like you mentioned, the physics behind it is largely unknown for most people.

[Irregular programming]

..until uranium runs out.

 

Well we have enormous resources of unbroken uranium, and when that is all used up we can shift to thorium.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium

 

Fuel for nuclear power plants are hardly a concern as of yet.

 

You can also reuse the plutonium in the spent fuel rods to further extend the life of the plant.

[asparagin]

Well we have enormous resources of unbroken uranium, and when that is all used up we can shift to thorium.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium

 

Fuel for nuclear power plants are hardly a concern as of yet.

 

You can also reuse the plutonium in the spent fuel rods to further extend the life of the plant.

 

I can assure you that if switching total energy production to nuclear, with todays technology, the depletion of fissionable material is a matter of decades, maybe 100 years. That`s all I'm saying.

[jpm1]

I can assure you that if switching total energy production to nuclear, with todays technology, the depletion of fissionable material is a matter of decades, maybe 100 years. That`s all I'm saying.

 

you have links . cause i'm asking for only one thing i want to believe into nuclear energy . 1g of uranium equals 1t of oil i mean ok , wonderful . but in all others industries when you get an incident you're sure to recover back the situation again , which is not the case with nuclear industry . how many times did i heard these recent days the word "out/loss of control" (and that word has already been used by a some Gorbatchev) . i just want to ask few questions , so if there are nuclear experts out there maybe they can take 5 minutes and answer to me :

 

- how can you be sure a 200 000 years life waste will keep secure during such tremendous period

- when you have used fuel rods then you need to cold them during two years , i ask is that really reasonable , it's supposed to serve us and that put us into slavery

-how can you say a technology is good for humanity when lot of high level experts approve the fact that with nuclear , there are reasonable chances that in case of an incident the situation can go out of control

 

 

concerning Germany reaction i personnally think it was a clever decision , decision of coming out from nuclear energy can't be done because of economical considerations , because yes nuclear energy is by far the more powerful and the most profitable energy right now but it's also because of economical decisions that some countries pay their workers 10 cents per hour and make them work 16h per day and get richer than others who respect human being . on an economical level nuclear is by far the best solution right now but just answer my questions , and i'll say yes i approve . i don't say we must end nuclear tomorrow , i say we should adopt a clear behaviour to end with that energy . to be short we should plan the shut down of all plants over the shorter period possible , and put Man before economy . i heard some talking of a coming back to rurality , lol , old hebrews which some of them made the bible and 1789 men who made the human rights where farmers/shepherds so i think it wouldn't be the worst thing that can happen to us . if in 1789 they had started considerating the economical consequences of what they were doing they weren't out of the woods

 

@Ethereal : you say one needs university explanations to admit he was wrong , that's maybe the problem with nuclear , things are a bit too complicated , a bit like economy these later times too , but well it's another story

Edited March 17, 2011 by jpm1