Level 7 and beyond

[jamiestem]

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2011/04/13/2003500609

 

 

Video of wave:

 

So now that we are at Level 7, What does that mean exactly? what will put this at level 8?

 

Should we be scared to eat things from the ocean at this point?

 

Will this have a larger effect on the environment than Cherynobyl because of it's proximity to water?

 

Or was Cherynobyl worse because of the initial explosion?

 

How much danger is Hawaii, Alaska, and the West coast in?

 

How bout the east coast?

[lemur]

I think this is a little like in the war on terror where we got lots of levels of security threat to ponder. At first it caused a lot of tension and unrest whenever the level went from green to yellow, but slowly people's reaction to the fear dissipated and now few people are "in the grips of terror." I think maybe something similar happened during the cold-war period where people were gradually desensitized to the nuclear threat.

[Phi for All]

Actually, for this rating system, level 7 is as high as it gets.

[Hal.]

Looking from the future back to now seems quite the thing to do . When children are born with deformities in 25 years time , people will wonder why it's happening , because they will not be old enough to remember the earthquakes of 2011 , while also not being educated enough to know that radiation stays around for a long time .

[jamiestem]

Looking from the future back to now seems quite the thing to do . When children are born with deformities in 25 years time , people will wonder why it's happening , because they will not be old enough to remember the earthquakes of 2011 , while also not being educated enough to know that radiation stays around for a long time .

 

I agree 100%. Are the powers that be trying to churn out dumber generations or is it just a byproduct of falsified test scores here in America?

[lemur]

Looking from the future back to now seems quite the thing to do . When children are born with deformities in 25 years time , people will wonder why it's happening , because they will not be old enough to remember the earthquakes of 2011 , while also not being educated enough to know that radiation stays around for a long time .

How will they know it wasn't caused by genetically modified foods, BSE, acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, or global climate change?

 

BTW, "radiation" doesn't stay around for a long time, radioactivity does. I'm not sure it stays concentrated enough to remain dangerous though. There was another thread where this issue was addressed thoroughly, though.

 

 

edit: sorry for being cynical. What exactly do you think should be done about the problem?

Edited April 12, 2011 by lemur

[Hal.]

lemur ,

 

In answer to your first question ,

 

Maybe , when a lot of sick people are near the Japanese plant , people who are educated will know it wasn't B.S.E. , G.M. Foods , etc .

 

Radiation as I see it is what has been radiated and radioactivity is one of its properties .

 

In answer to what I think should be done about the problem . What is the problem ?

 

 

[jamiestem]

The lack of information on this topic is staggering. For a 2nd Cherynobyl to be happening as we speak with the potential to get worse........to have this lack of info is weird, I'll check out all the pages of the other topic. I just skimmed, but I thought also with the level being raised a new thread was appropriate.

[lemur]

lemur ,

 

In answer to your first question ,

 

Maybe , when a lot of sick people are near the Japanese plant , people who are educated will know it wasn't B.S.E. , G.M. Foods , etc .

 

Radiation as I see it is what has been radiated and radioactivity is one of its properties .

 

In answer to what I think should be done about the problem . What is the problem ?

 

 

I was just being cynical that every time there is a scientific crisis in the news, people expect it to result in horrifying sickness. I think you should read up on threads about radioactive materials and radiation before you make the usual assumptions about radioactivity. People tend to panic when confronted with powerful problems that they have little understanding and therefore control over.

 

I'm not sure what the problem is other than the level of alert being raised to "7." That's why I asked you what specifically the problem is that you would like to do more to resolve.

Edited April 13, 2011 by lemur

[Hal.]

Lemur , I have perfectly good information about radiation and the radioactivity that goes with it . What exactly would you like to know ?

 

Forget about danger levels lemur . I'll tell you how many nuclear power stations have had explosions in my life , so far , 2 ! There are so many earthquakes in Japan that they are not even making the news now . News networks are already losing interest .

 

The problem is the Nuclear industry . We would be better off making electricity from sunlight and wind .

 

 

[swansont]

The problem is the Nuclear industry . We would be better off making electricity from sunlight and wind .

 

I'd say the problem was the tsunami. I agree we should be making more electricity from sunlight and wind, but not for that reason.

 

How much danger is Hawaii, Alaska, and the West coast in?

 

How bout the east coast?

 

Negligible, at this point. Things are being monitored. The epa has made the data available online, so you can look for yourself

 

 

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/8250

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/8296

 

The detectors can see some signature fission products, but only because they are really, really sensitive — they sample a huge volume of air and measure a few decays.

 

Looking from the future back to now seems quite the thing to do . When children are born with deformities in 25 years time …

 

Why would you expect this, when it didn't happen after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and after Chernobyl?

[imatfaal]

I'd say the problem was the tsunami. I agree we should be making more electricity from sunlight and wind, but not for that reason.

 

Negligible, at this point. Things are being monitored. The epa has made the data available online, so you can look for yourself

 

http://blogs.science...t/archives/8250

http://blogs.science...t/archives/8296

 

The detectors can see some signature fission products, but only because they are really, really sensitive — they sample a huge volume of air and measure a few decays.

 

Why would you expect this, when it didn't happen after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and after Chernobyl?

 

Negative rep for the above post!? (I have added +ve to cancel it out). I know the rep points are just a bit of fun, but showing your displeasure with a factual post because it casts doubts on one's presuppositions is very poor form for a science forum. Argue the point; sure, that's what the forum is for. But 'negative repping' should be retained for the wrong, the illogical or the plain stupid.

Edited April 13, 2011 by imatfaal

[Hal.]

Swansont , I will probably die indirectly from cancer , maybe the final thing to get me will be the flu for 2 weeks . The doctors ask , " Do you have a family history of ............... etc ? " because cancer has hereditary risks . So , I base my thinking on what the doctor says .

 

Little Boy and Fat Man went to Japan 65 years ago . Cancer is still killing people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the hereditary effects will kill some of their children . Again , my logic extends from what the doctor says .

 

Radioactive meat is being found in European countries because of the Soviet accident of Chernobyl . These animals were not even alive then .

 

Finally , http://nuclear-news.info/2010/01/02/low-level-radiation-and-birth-deformities/

[swansont]

Swansont , I will probably die indirectly from cancer , maybe the final thing to get me will be the flu for 2 weeks . The doctors ask , " Do you have a family history of ............... etc ? " because cancer has hereditary risks . So , I base my thinking on what the doctor says .

 

Little Boy and Fat Man went to Japan 65 years ago . Cancer is still killing people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the hereditary effects will kill some of their children . Again , my logic extends from what the doctor says .

 

Radioactive meat is being found in European countries because of the Soviet accident of Chernobyl . These animals were not even alive then .

 

FYI- Your base probability of getting cancer is more than 40%, and dying from it around 20-25% (slightly lower for females); doing everything the doctors tell you does not drop this to zero.

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerBasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer

 

Anyway,

Cancer ≠ born with deformities 25 years down the road

 

Finally , http://nuclear-news.info/2010/01/02/low-level-radiation-and-birth-deformities/

 

The author unfortunately uses several false dichotomies to draw his conclusions, but this misses the point I was attempting to make. Initial exposure is not the same as continued exposure to a contaminated region. Assuming there will be problems down the road implies the assumption that contamination won't be cleaned up and that there will be continued exposure.

[Mr Skeptic]

The problem is the Nuclear industry . We would be better off making electricity from sunlight and wind .

 

Or wave power!

 

Little Boy and Fat Man went to Japan 65 years ago . Cancer is still killing people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the hereditary effects will kill some of their children . Again , my logic extends from what the doctor says .

 

I don't think getting exposed to radiation and therefore getting cancer is quite the same thing as the hereditary risk from cancer. (Especially not if the children were already born, but the induced cancer would still be in their family record).

[Hal.]

Swansont , You say ,

 

Cancer ≠ born with deformities 25 years down the road .

 

We're going to have to differ on that . For example , I think a lump on a persons brain is a deformity . The probability is that you can find a source that tells you it isn't and I'll find a source that says it is .

 

I live far from Japan and traces of radioactive material are being found in the sea . We already have a nuclear plant near to us dumping things on purpose and accidentally and the sum of the parts equals the total . They've been doing it since the 1950's . Naturally occuring radioactive gases and a little uranium can also be sensed and then there is Chernobyl's (1986) after effects . There are rumours that little people in big steel tubes are also floating around with nuclear engines . The odd fishing trawler disappears now and again and it's not fish they are catching .

 

On the issue of a cleanup I will say this . Where is the material going to go ? Will it go into thousands of steel drums for 1000 years before it can be opened ? That's low level radioactive waste . Tell me any different and I won't agree . Who is going to pay for it ? Nobody is likely to clean the environment for free . What is cleaned up will be put in a big hole in the ground and forgotten about ....... 2037 ....... 2071 ........ 2120 ....... 2166 ....... 2190 ....... 2240 ......... 2310 ......... 2326 ......... 2350 ........... 2400 ........ 2435 .............. 2478 .............. 2511 ...............

[jamiestem]

I mean everything everyone says is wrong to Swanson, so no surprise here, you tell him radioactivity causes birth defects and cancer and he'll tell you why they don't and make a smart ass comment about it too. The moderators do nothing. They WILL tell me I can't personally attack someone, just watch, the problem isn't the tsunami or nuclear power. The problem is Swanson and his relationship with the moderators on here.

 

I asked questions about a major problem. One was answered in 15 posts.

[Shadow]

jamiestem, your accusations are not fair, you may just as well accuse hal, since he was the first person to post an answer that had no direct connection to your questions. But that would be as unfair as accusing swansont; this is a discussion, and discussions tend to develop beyond the original topic. The moderators are not going to do anything about a discussion that's civil and constructive. If it really ticks you off that much, PM any moderator with a request to split this discussion from your topic, and I'm sure they'll oblige.

 

Answers to some of your questions can be found in the Wikipedia article, one of them being: "NISA estimates that the amount of radioactive material released to the atmosphere is approximately 10% of the 1986 Chernobyl accident, which is the only other nuclear accident to have been rated a Level 7 event.". This gives you a general answer to your questions; it's not another Chenobyl, at least not yet.

 

Have a look at the following for more detail:

 

So now that we are at Level 7, What does that mean exactly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale#Level_7:_Major_accident

 

Should we be scared to eat things from the ocean at this point?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Discharge_to_seawater_and_contaminated_sealife

 

Will this have a larger effect on the environment than Cherynobyl because of it's proximity to water?

Or was Chernobyl worse because of the initial explosion?

As stated previously, Fukushima is not another Chenobyl. I confess I can only draw conclusions based on common sense, since I have next to no knowledge about these matters, but I wouldn't expect it to have as big an impact. But that's just my guess, I'd rather defer to experts in this matter.

 

How much danger is Hawaii, Alaska, and the West coast in?

How bout the east coast?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Radiation_in_other_countries

Hawaii: http://www.khon2.com/news/local/story/Fukushima-nuclear-plant-crisis-not-a-current/siBFlOZ-pEuxjzesWIVt8g.cspx

Alaska: http://tobefree.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/radiation-from-fukushima-would-take-7-days-to-reach-alaska/

West coast: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/14/956447/-Fukushima-is-bad,-but-the-West-Coast-is-Safe

East coast: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/22/958882/-Radiation-from-Fukushima-detected-on-US-East-Coast

 

All of the above were found either using Wikipedia or with a simple Google search consisting of "Fukushima [city/area name]"

 

Some other links that might help you:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/12/japan-fukushima-chernobyl-crisis-comparison

http://www.theworld.org/2011/04/fukushima-chernobyl-comparison/

http://rt.com/news/fukushima-impact-global-chernobyl/

http://communities.canada.com/vannet/blogs/editorsnotes/archive/2011/03/23/editorial-fukushima-s-global-impact.aspx

 

Also found using simple Google searches. Maybe you should try that first next time, especially if you're so sensitive about discussions going off topic and/or are not interested in discussions, but in facts. Do note however that I have no way of verifying the credibility of the above links; I couldn't tell a blatant lie from truth in this matter even if the former slapped me in the face.

 

Hope this helps you out.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Shadow

[Hal.]

I watch with interest and shouldn't branch off to god knows where . I always make relevant posts and if a person does not understand why I think they are relevant I can explain my point of view further .

Edited April 16, 2011 by hal_2011

[swansont]

Swansont , You say ,

 

Cancer ≠ born with deformities 25 years down the road .

 

We're going to have to differ on that . For example , I think a lump on a persons brain is a deformity . The probability is that you can find a source that tells you it isn't and I'll find a source that says it is .

 

If you develop cancer you were not born with it. It's really not any more complicated than that.

[Hal.]

The issue , Swansont , is whether a person can be born with a cancer deformity , they can !

Edited April 17, 2011 by hal_2011

[mooeypoo]

I mean everything everyone says is wrong to Swanson, so no surprise here, you tell him radioactivity causes birth defects and cancer and he'll tell you why they don't and make a smart ass comment about it too. The moderators do nothing. They WILL tell me I can't personally attack someone, just watch, the problem isn't the tsunami or nuclear power. The problem is Swanson and his relationship with the moderators on here.

 

I asked questions about a major problem. One was answered in 15 posts.

 

!

Moderator Note

If it wasn't clear, we do NOT accept personal attacks in this forum. Please make sure to conduct a civil debate and don't get into personal tones.

 

If you think something needs moderator's attention, use the report button. We examine and deal with every report we get. Taking the "law" of the forum into your own hands is not a solution, and is against the rules.

[Hal.]

Hi Mooeypoo , Keep well !

[louis wu]

There seems to be some unwarranted hysteria on this thread about radiation releases in Japan.

 

Chernobyl was by far the worst Civil Nuclear Power incident so far.

The WHO estimated 4000-9000 deaths would be caused by Chernobyl. This is a low side estimate by the UN-led Chernobyl Forum back in 2006.

 

The Greenpeace sponsored TORCH report estimated 30000-60000 deaths would be caused by Chernobyl. This would be a high end figure.

http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/118/118559.torch_executive_summary@en.pdf

 

In contrast the fossil fuel industry kills 300000 every year from particulate pollution, as outlined in an OECD 2008 report.

http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/500113001.pdf

http://m.economist.com/democracy-in-america-21016879.php

So if you accept the Greenpeace figures of Chernobyl eventually killing between 30000 to 60000 people: we would need at least 5 Chernobyls a year to match the fatalities currently being caused by fossil fuels.

 

Most of the radiation debates do not seem to include any rational consideration of the actual risks involved.

[michel123456]

There seems to be some unwarranted hysteria on this thread about radiation releases in Japan.

 

Chernobyl was by far the worst Civil Nuclear Power incident so far.

The WHO estimated 4000-9000 deaths would be caused by Chernobyl. This is a low side estimate by the UN-led Chernobyl Forum back in 2006.

 

The Greenpeace sponsored TORCH report estimated 30000-60000 deaths would be caused by Chernobyl. This would be a high end figure.

http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/118/118559.torch_executive_summary@en.pdf

 

In contrast the fossil fuel industry kills 300000 every year from particulate pollution, as outlined in an OECD 2008 report.

http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/500113001.pdf

http://m.economist.com/democracy-in-america-21016879.php

So if you accept the Greenpeace figures of Chernobyl eventually killing between 30000 to 60000 people: we would need at least 5 Chernobyls a year to match the fatalities currently being caused by fossil fuels.

 

Most of the radiation debates do not seem to include any rational consideration of the actual risks involved.

 

Playing with numbers: these are human lives.

 

Earth population is about 6,917,375,600, roughly 7 billions.

With a life expectancy of 80 years for all (that is unlikely), we can estimate that 7 billions people will die in the next 80 years, that makes an average of 87,500,000 deaths/year for mathematical reasons. Mathematics are killing more people than Chernobyl, about 3000 times more.

 

The question is that 30000 deaths is not to be allowed for an accident.

I am tired of being reassured by technocrats who got it wrong, I understand plently Jamies concerns, and IMHO the price to pay being warned by moderators here is very small in regard with deaths of innocent people.

I don't understand the point of vue of defending TEPCO and the Japanese policy. To build a nuclear power plant in a seismic region is criminal. The power plant did NOT stand, the accident happened, people will die, there are responsibilties, responsables exist, they have names and address. I don't want to be their advocate.

 

There are plans for building a nuclear power plant in Turkey, in another well known seismic region. It is criminal too.

Edited April 17, 2011 by michel123456