Japan Earthquake And Tsunami

[gazza]

I still think nuclear power stations are safer for the environment (and us) than coal powered stations.

 

we see if that stays the same when this is all over.

 

In half a century of nuclear energy, we have had 4 major incidents. Only one of which was big and very bad.

 

I would say that is a good track record compared to coal fueled energy generation. Especially if we consider how many coal miners die worldwide each year just getting the black stuff out of the ground.

 

 

Link explaining figures.

 

but what are them figures based on china, because we all know russia said that only 3000 odd people died from the exposea from the plant blowing. which we all know is not right. but thats the offica line from them and the atomic industry

good graph to show how they all look.

[ScotsAlan]

I still think nuclear power stations are safer for the environment (and us) than coal powered stations.

 

we see if that stays the same when this is all over.

 

In half a century of nuclear energy, we have had 4 major incidents. Only one of which was big and very bad.

 

I would say that is a good track record compared to coal fueled energy generation. Especially if we consider how many coal miners die worldwide each year just getting the black stuff out of the ground.

 

 

Link explaining figures.

 

Thanks China :-)

 

Edit to add: The peat figures are surprising.

[gazza]

well worth a watch.

 

 

 

 

now you tell me that only 50 people died from that from being there,

800,000 men worked to seal that plant,

 

and watch the last film and see that the who report must have missed all these people.

if you look hard anuf you can find plenty of real everdince that can disprove the who reports vary easy.

 

what coal plant has killed of 30km of land what coal plant made manx meat on the hills radioactive for years, as little as 10 years ago i may add

 

 

Im nor for or againsted nucks or coal, as long as i have power to be honest,

but to say nuck power is the safest cleanest power about by deaths is wrong when the figures have been fudged for so long, and when there is still parts of the world that cant be lived in.

[gazza]

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fCCVU4y7oE

[Ringwraith]

 

now you tell me that only 50 people died from that from being there,

800,000 men worked to seal that plant,

 

what coal plant has killed of 30km of land what coal plant made manx meat on the hills radioactive for years, as little as 10 years ago i may add

 

 

Im nor for or againsted nucks or coal, as long as i have power to be honest,

but to say nuck power is the safest cleanest power about by deaths is wrong when the figures have been fudged for so long, and when there is still parts of the world that cant be lived in.

 

The nuke industry has always downplayed or covered up accidents, there are other massive incidents that few ever talk about RUSSIAN MAYAK DISASTER

 

Nuke is not safe, and the waste is an unsolved problem, it's like little children playing with matches!

[Alias]

now you tell me that only 50 people died from that from being there,

800,000 men worked to seal that plant,

 

and watch the last film and see that the who report must have missed all these people.

if you look hard anuf you can find plenty of real everdince that can disprove the who reports vary easy.

 

what coal plant has killed of 30km of land what coal plant made manx meat on the hills radioactive for years, as little as 10 years ago i may add

Whilst bad, Chernobyl was a 'one off', and was caused by a stupid experiment. Coal mining is terrible for the environment, destroying a lot of land (no doubt more than Chernobyl). Whilst uranium must also be mined, it requires about a million times less weight for the same energy output - and there isn't the danger of explosion as in coal mining.

 

Coal burning causes acid rain and air pollution - destroying land, creating respiratory problems, increasing child mortality and reducing life expectancy for a whole population (WHO info).

 

Humans typically experience more radiation living near a coal plant than they do a nuclear plant.

[Drivel]

Seems a bit off topic now with the whole Nuclear debate but I think this story is great:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369307/Japan-tsunami-earthquake-Road-repaired-SIX-days-destroyed.html

 

The IOM Government could learn a thing or two from the Japanese!

[When Skies Are Grey]

Ah but they werent required to also build a car park for an "attraction" that's never opened....that takes forever dontcha know.

[gazza]

now you tell me that only 50 people died from that from being there,

800,000 men worked to seal that plant,

 

and watch the last film and see that the who report must have missed all these people.

if you look hard anuf you can find plenty of real everdince that can disprove the who reports vary easy.

 

what coal plant has killed of 30km of land what coal plant made manx meat on the hills radioactive for years, as little as 10 years ago i may add

Whilst bad, Chernobyl was a 'one off', and was caused by a stupid experiment. Coal mining is terrible for the environment, destroying a lot of land (no doubt more than Chernobyl). Whilst uranium must also be mined, it requires about a million times less weight for the same energy output - and there isn't the danger of explosion as in coal mining.

 

i think you find its ot a one off now with japan having the same sort of deal, massive radation release

[gazza]

Japan's health ministry says radiation above the legal limit has been detected in a vegetable grown in Tokyo. This is the first time that radioactive cesium exceeding the legal limit has been found in a Tokyo vegetable. The vegetable is called Komatsuna, or Japanese mustard spinach. The radioactive level was 890 becquerels per kilogram, exceeding the legal limit of 500. (NHK World)

[manshimajin]

just to break from the nuclear doom and gloom there are some stories coming out of Japan that just inspire and amaze...

 

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/akaiwa.html

 

Hideaki Akaiwa shows that there is nothing stronger than the human spirit! Good on ya fella

Thanks for this post. The Sendai earthquake/tsunami were about a lot more than nuclear power - in fact the global deaths from natural disasters outscale problems/deaths caused by nuclear energy many times over. Perhaps the more relevant discussion should be on natural disaster prediction, safe building practices and early warning systems. But I guess to some people whether coal, nuclear or hydro power are safer is more relevant to what happened in Japan and Christchurch...

[Alias]

i think you find its ot a one off now with japan having the same sort of deal, massive radation release

So the release of iodine and caesium may be comparable to Chernobyl, but this is misleading. They are only dangerous if ingested in quantities (hence the government warnings). It was mostly caesium and iodine radionuclides that affected this far away from Chernobyl, and unless ingested in high amounts (iodine builds-up in the thyroid and has a 30 year half life, caesium can build up in the lungs) don't pose a risk.

 

The catastrophe from Chernobyl was more to do with the fact it wasn't just the volatile radionuclides escaping, pretty much everything was dispersed in the fire (Chernobyl released about 3.5% of its fuel into the atmosphere).

[Bobbie Bobster]

i think you find its ot a one off now with japan having the same sort of deal, massive radation release

...iodine builds-up in the thyroid and has a 30 year half life, caesium can build up in the lungs...

Or actually 8 days for iodine-131, the one that's mostly produced from nuclear fission (yes gazza, that's fission, not fusion) contamination, and the one that concentrates in the thyroid.

 

So any risk from uptake of iodine-131 in the quantities already measured will be indistinguishable from zero by the end of next week, and at its peak was virtually indistinguishable from zero anyway.

[gazza]

i think you find its ot a one off now with japan having the same sort of deal, massive radation release

...iodine builds-up in the thyroid and has a 30 year half life, caesium can build up in the lungs...

Or actually 8 days for iodine-131, the one that's mostly produced from nuclear fission (yes gazza, that's fission, not fusion) contamination, and the one that concentrates in the thyroid.

 

So any risk from uptake of iodine-131 in the quantities already measured will be indistinguishable from zero by the end of next week, and at its peak was virtually indistinguishable from zero anyway.

 

thats if you take that no more was released into the air, after them first days, or are you saying no more have been released

 

its peak was virtually indistinguishable from zero, right so 126 times the normal was confussed with zero.

 

12 miles from the Fukushima plant. Levels 1,600 times higher than what's considered normal were discovered yesterday

 

And i like this one best found today.

 

Two Japanese travellers have been hospitalised in China with "severe" radiation levels after they arrived on a commercial airliner from Tokyo, China's safety watchdog said.

The two Japanese lived in areas within 200 to 350 kilometres (125 to 220 miles) of the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant, the government statement said, adding that the pair posed no harm to other people.

 

so well over 100 miles and they were found with radation on them,

would you not be worried

 

and while that isotpe has a half life of only 8 days, there is a hell of a lot more that have 100s of years half lifes

not to mention the PLUTONIUM that is there.

 

but its all harmless

[Bobbie Bobster]

You, sir, are almost certainly a troll.

 

But in the unlikely event that you're not, here's some key phrases for you:

 

Regarding fission vs. fusion

• Binding energy per nucleon
• Exothermic vs. endothermic processes
• The Coulomb barrier

Regarding fusion products in power reactors

• Spontaneous vs. neutron-induced decay
• Natural (spontaneous) decay series of uranium-235 (hint, it doesn't contain any iodine isotopes)

Finally, consider the difference between the risk associated with a hazardous substance and a measurement of the substance's incidence. Levels of I-131 may have been 126 (or whatever) times higher, but the increased cancer risk from consuming water with the peak level of I-131 was an extra 0.004%. As I say, almost indistinguishable from zero.